Talk:Armenian Genocide/Archive 11

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Archive 11

Contents

RfAr, I have this time decided to do it

I have decided to RfAr. This has gone much too far and my patience has limits. I will also finally use the evidences I have collected during the incidences involving Karabekir. I have tried to keep this silent with the issue of Sedat Laciner IP closely matching with one of the contributors of this talk page, but this has gone much too far. Here it will be the occasion to those that have attempted to assassinate my character for long to defend their positions and will be accepting whatever verdict. Fad (ix) 02:35, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

obviously that is the only way! I agree with you! This will absoulutely show the value of Wikipedia. but I also accouse you of personal attack. Stalking, smearing people, exposing names, going after personal data, searching for peoples name in the internet. I dont care if you are attacked by other people or disturbed by their pupets. your recent answers to me are absolutely personal directed to scare me off this page. and now I guess you are talking about lutherian or deepblue06 feel free to report me also. See if I am a pupet or not. from now on I hope you will stop flooding this place. I repeat this for Turkish participants also stop making personal comments. bring here only comments about the issiue. I believe that from now on fadix wont flood this page with off the question nonsense. FYI: my thesis is not about post stroke dep. it is only a part in it. stop hunting peoples name! and know that I warned sedat laciner via email that his name is exposed here.neurobio 08:16, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I have just read the upper comment. you getting death treaths from someone is a shame and I am just by your side on this issiue. that people are shame to wikipedia must be banned immediately. I dont know if i can be of help. dont worry it just nonsense but make sure that you have a firewall. i guess that is why you are so suspicious. unlike you i believe you and dont claim that you getting treaths is a lie. So if you are aware of such thinks happening when someone is too much in to the issiue why are you exposing names why are you asking me to declare my identity. stop declaring that i lied. That is some thing that you derived from your imagination. neurobio 08:27, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I have every right to be suspicious, assume good faith doesn’t mean to stop reasonating. I have my doubts about you and for a reason. Lutherian too like other users too have come here claiming to be neutral users. That you have recycled the 500,000 Muslim killed by Armenians disqualified you. As for your thesis, you should check how many defend their thesis in a neuroscience departement in German Universities per year and what is the subject of their dissertation. When you have a databases it isen’t much difficult to retrieve what is in the thesis itself, but this is an entirly another matter. Like I said, I really don’t care if you are a Turk or not, the issue here is about honesty, from day one when you landed on this thread you have’t assumed good faith and randered my participation in this article as useless and as vandalism, when even the fanatic nationalist Turk who submitted this article for deletion has claimed liking the way I handle this article. It is those sort of things from your part and the way you have accused me even before I even accused you of anything that gives me the right to be skeptic about you. Of course there are various other little things, like your uses of the word ‘proof’ for the term ‘evidence’ and so on.
I have never hunted peoples as you suggest, afteral you suggested to copy your passport not I, I just wanted a confirmation and could care less of your name, a confirmation after all the socks in this page and they way this article has been abused. -Fadix


a finall call to those to bee Turks. Stop attacking people personally. Dont harrass people! you are ignorant of your own history just go and read. there is enough resourse to disprove the issiue here. you are discrediting your self and beeing a shame for your people!!!!!! Aptal. neurobio 08:37, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean by "disprove the issue"? The relevance of the term genocide? That Armenians were mass murdered on a grand scale by Ottoman Turks? That the scholarly and historical community overwhelmingly accepts that the Armenians of Anatolia/Ottoman Empire experiienced genocide at the hands of the CUP/Ottoman Turks? That the many hundreds of eyewitnesses of the time were somehow delusional and/or conspiring together to create a huge fabrication? That Armenians of today are perpetuating some sort of hoax? Just what is it that you claim you can prove or disprove here? Somehow I don't at all see it? --THOTH 14:06, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Here we go again, round and round in circles, uuuuugggggghhhhhhh Lutherian 17:06, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

What is RfAr? --THOTH 14:06, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:RFARGeorgeslegloupier 15:11, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


OK - and what specifically is the issue - I mean besides constant vandalism and the fact that the current article is at least 1/2 unsupportable, poorly written, nearly incomprehensible and mostly not relevant or on point POV Turkish denialism? --THOTH 15:20, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
The answer to your question is self explanatory. Your tone is hostile, and incivil.
That is the Armenian version of the story, one I do not share for one. Certainly the Turkish government, Dr. McCarthy, as well as others disagree as well. I do not know where to start objections...
  • Firstly the article describes that any view questioning the validity of the armenian version as a "denial" ("Further information: Denial of Armenian genocide"). You are not required accept the pov questioning your beliefs, you are however required to respect other peoples beliefs.
  • Article displays a map of "Major concentration camps", I believe the Turkish side refers these as relocation camps. The map explains "the relative number of armenians massacred". Pardon my scepticism but that doesnt sound neutral to me given the body count is a very contraversial matter among historians investigating the incident.
  • Article gives more coverage to trivia such as "P.L.U.C.K. (Politically Lying, Unholy, Cowardly Killers)" and orhan pamuk (who is not a historian and instead a novelist at least according to this article) more than the opposing pov.
  • In a form of 'art', there is even an armenian propoganda poster on the article.
  • The way turks refer to the incident aka the official name (armenian relocation) is not even in the lead.
  • Among all this it is clear this article is perfectly neutral since it isnt tagged with {{POV}}...
Continiously "waging war" on the article is definately not the right way and I do not believe it will end unless an arbitration hearing takes place over this.
--Cat out 15:38, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
I absolutely agree with the POV tag. The article is not neutral as can be seen by comparing it with Holocaust and Porajmos. Deniers don't get a platform there, so why here ? Given undue weight to minority opinions represents POV. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:05, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
What minority? Are you referring to the 70million+ who reject this absurd and racially motivated accusation? And who are you to judge what neutral is? You have shown yourself to be a fervant supporter of the Armenian cause and their ridiculous genocide claims. Enough is enough, the plain truth is that this a one huge smear campaign directed against Turks and it has to stop because I can assure you that it will go NO WHERE, not in a zillion years! Lutherian 17:13, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
The minority, so small that we could name them all on a postage stamp, of Western scholars who accept the position you wish to see given prominence. I do not care what the supposed majority Turkish or Armenian beliefs are, and I have no interest in hearing your unsupported opinion. The only opinions which matter are offered in reliable sources, of which you can find many on Amazon and Google Books. Until you can find rather many more people who are willing to advance the argument you want included — the present total appears to be two, Lewy and McCarthy — it will be an insignificant minority opinion, on a par with the extreme edges of functionalism in the study of the Holocaust, and does not merit inclusion. Repeating your point of view won't magically produce academic support for it. Probably rather the opposite, just as Serdar Argic did more to publicise the Armenian Genocide than any Armenian. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:12, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
I hope you're not believing in what you're saying: Why don't you try to name a few distinguished historians supporting Armenian claims at the caliber of Bernard Lewis of Princeton, J.C. Hurewitz of Columbia University, Gilles Veinstein of College de France, Halil Inalcik of University of Chicago and alike? Halil Inalcik was also chosen to the American Academy of Arts and Sciences in History which none of your ‘scholars’ could ever achieve in their lifetime, even if we combine their output. Because propoganda does not get you anywhere in academia. This list is not exhaustive by any means, unlike some others I just don’t like writing pages long messages.
Seriously, why don't you try to list a couple of ‘scholars’ of Armenian thesis who are affiliated with prestigious universities such as above in relevant fields or who have publications in prestigious journals with high impact factor, or who have books published by prestigious publishers (not by Armenian lobby funded mickey-mouse publishers). Any of the scholars above has more scholarship than all of your scholars combined. I have nothing to say, if you’re saying this as a part of the propaganda, but if you’re believing in it, then I suggest doing some more research before forming an opinion. Deepblue06 18:43, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't think that's how things work. I may not be a historian, but I have read books on historiography. To show a genuine controversy is fairly easy. You look in a book by the likes of Jay Winter (CUP), Martin Gilbert (Weidenfeld), or Omer Bartov (OUP), and see what they have to say. If they says "X says one thing and Y says another", there is a controversy. If Bartov blames the Germans and nobody does, we chalk that up to axe-grinding. If, on the other hand, they all ignore Y, we can be pretty sure there's no controversy. Claiming Veinstein supports the deniers' position is, as anyone who cares to read what Vidal-Naquet had to say, a slur on a respectable historian. Veinstein's paper appeared in a collection which affirmed the genocide, as Veinstein knew it would. It was two pages long. To divorce material of its context is another trick from the holocaust denier arsenal. I again recommend WP:V and WP:RS. We don't do pick and mix citations. If Veinstein's work must be included, perhaps you can explain why his co-authors, who contributed much longer articles in the same issue called Génocide : du bon usage d'un mot and Il s'agit bien d'un génocide !, among others, should be ignored. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:31, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, I wasn't surprised. You could not dare to name anybody. I would not get into criticizing your circular logic and you're plain wrong on Gilles Veinstein's position. This is simple fact and I ask unbiased readers to make a simple google search to see the truth themselves. I believe that what I've above is sufficient for any unbiased reader, and there's no point discussing this issue with you any further. By the way, I suggest stop using denial verbiage: Denying lies is a virtue. Deepblue06 19:46, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
I mentioned Winter, Gilbert and Bartov, three prominent historians of the C20th who have written recently and characterised the subject as genocide. Listing all historians who have done so would be tedious in the extreme. Winter appeared particularly relevant as the editor of a work focussed on the Armenian genocide and as a noted specialist on the 1914-1918 war. Interested readers can click the link I supplied and see what Vidal-Naquet said. The context of Veinstein's work can be seen here. Histoire, as any editor familiar with the magazine can tell you, is written for a popular audience. Veinstein's thesis, which bears little resemblance to the material you and User:Lutherian push here, took up less than 10% of the coverage. The other 90% was the orthodox case. Strangely enough, returning to my original point, this is not the balance seen here. Unbalanced coverage is POV. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:50, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Isnt it strange that if there was indeed irrefutable proof that genocide was committed that 90 years after the events it is still not accepted by Turkey and there are still MANY countries (including the biggies Isreal and the US) that dont recognize it as such. And please dont give me the half baked excuses that they dont recognize it for strategic reasons (the cold war has been over for a while already). And let me make one thing clear here, as long as Armenians and their sympathizers including your so called scholars who support the genocide thesis continue to minimize the overwhelming evidence of massacres committed against moselms, this debate is as good as dead in the water! I dont care if most of the christian world including the pope supports the thesis, something tells me that they have a hidden agenda just like the chrisitian powers did during the downfall of the Ottoman empire. Lutherian 18:38, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
What can be termed “hostile and incivil [sic…uncivil]” in this case are the attempts of genocide denialists, historical revisionist and obviously insufficiently educated commentators and fiction writers such as yourself and others here to obscure and rewrite history in an attempt to shield historical criminals of some of the most serious crimes against humanity that have ever occurred in history. In doing so you perpetuate the genocide of an innocent population of Armenians whose survivors suffer through the mental anguish not only of the loss of their relatives and kin and the destruction of their nation – but by the insult and defamation caused by the continued active and ugly denial of the truth of what occurred. This is not – as you attempt to portray it – the “Armenian version of the story” – it is a depiction of the history as was documented and corroborated by numerous eyewitnesses and is accepted by the vast majority of scholars, historians, Encyclopedic and history book entries – and it in fact is the truth – as known at the time it occurred and as is known today. It is not the “Armenian version” – your contention that it is such is completely false. It is the denial of the true history that is a POV version. No one is required to “respect” or acknowledge the denial of the Holocaust except in acknowledging what it is – an ugly twisting of the truth to support a particular racist and hateful viewpoint – and there is absolutely no difference between Holocaust denial and denial of the Armenian Genocide accept for the fact that Armenian Genocide denial is a view that is actively officially held by and sponsored by a nation state. Otherwise each every and all aspects of these denials are the same! If eyewitnesses described camps as concentration camps – by exact word or by description of the activities held in and around them – or more appropriately “death camps” for some – then it matters not if the Turkish government has chosen to call them “way stations” or “beach front villas”. While we may never be able to know the exact number of Armenians killed or murdered – as we will never know the exact numbers of Jews (and this has been disputed in the very same manner and for the very same reasons as the Turkish deniers dispute the Armenian figures) etc – this does not invalidate the fact that certain figures are (and have always been) accepted as reasonable approximations and that the resulting disparity of Armenian population within Anatolia before and after this time is relatively unchanged in its relationship. Thus disputing the exact numbers in know way obviates the genocide claim and again there is no real controversy of any bearing as what the Turkish Government or their paid/sponsored/held hostage supporters might claim has no validity as the position itself (that genocide did not happen or that no significant numbers of Armenians beyond the norm for the time died and/or that there was no specific campaign against them…etc) is already discredited and obviously spurious and in fact there is no valid dispute of the relative loss of the Armenian population, how and why it occurred and that it was with certainly and absolutely a state sponsored genocide. As for genocide “art” or what-have-you…this might be the only place were we even remotely agree. I think it is relevant and should be referenced – however considering the article lacks all of the sufficient descriptive elements of the how, why, where, when and by who and to who information that I think is relevant and necessary – I would argue that there is undue emphasis on clearly secondary issues as “art” etc. However, Pamuk’s case IMO – needs to be expanded on…not his specific case – but the systematic campaign of genocide denial by the Turkish government – through laws and prosecutions, destruction of cultural monuments, changing of place names and even names of plants and animals, and of course active international sponsorship of genocide denial – through paid academic sponsorship and restrictions on independence of researchers positions, to pressures upon and threats against governments, corporations and individuals. --THOTH 17:40, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


it is so clear! i guess you mistake genocide with massacre. Genoicide is a term in international law. An event can only be called a genocide after it has been approved by an international court. There is no such case in this matter. Also many international expers of the event as well as many other historians and researchers object to the term. Some say it was a warfare among populations and some say yes many armenians were killed but the event is not a genocide. as you see Deiners have chairs in respected universities. So this article can only be named as Armenian Genocide Claim and there will of course be all sides of the story not only the armenian side. By the way there is a personal attact in the Call for ultimate solution section. maybe you want to look at that and Thoth that may be because you dont read. Please read or at least go to a Turkish web sites and see what they say. Or just take a look at the JPG that i have edited above. neurobio 16:31, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I am intimatly familiar with all of the various Turkish positions and perspectives concerning this issue - legitimate (factually or concerning the perspective itself - current and historical) or otherwise (most of the denialist garbage such as is posted in these talk pages and as it appears in the article). Your claim that use of "genocide" to describe this or any other historical event as requiring some international court to pass a verdict is unsupportable and faulty (as there is a difference between historical accepted realities and specific legal rulings regarding events that have occured in the past for whom prospective plantiffs and or perpetrators may no longer be either living or clearly discernable). However I should note (and it has been noted on these talk pages many times before) that in 2003 an independent and impartial legal body - the International Court of Transitional Justice (ICTJ) has specifically ruled on the legal applicability of the term "genocide" as applies to the Armenian Genocide. The study of this issue was done at the behest of the Turkish and Armenian members of the Turkish - Armenian Reconcillation Commmision (TARC) specifically for the purpose of putting to rest issues regarding the applicability of the term genocide regarding this subject. The ICTJ examined the accepted legal elements of the United Nations definition of genocide and applied them against the known/undisputed facts regarding the Armenian case. The ICTJ ruled that "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." So your strident objections and (rather laughable and pathetic) suggestions (that this be termed "genocide claim") in this case are of no bearing or validity on this issue. Furthermore, I suggest that you do your homework before reaching such spurious conclusions and attempting to pass them on to us as worthy of serious consideration.--THOTH 17:08, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Let's not pull things out of context. The ICJT report begins with the following statements [1]
This memorandum is a legal, not a factual or historical, analysis. In deriving the conclusions contained in this memorandum we have attempted to state explicitly whether our conclusion relies on any factual assumptions. Although we have reviewed various accounts of the relevant facts, we have not undertaken any independent factual investigation.
We emphasize further that this memorandum addresses solely the applicability of the Genocide Convention to the Events. It does not purport to address the applicability to the Events of, or the rights or responsibilities of concerned individuals or entities under, any other rubric of international law or the laws of any nation.
Implying ICTJ report (which has no legal binding) could replace an international court verdict at the very least is misleading. Deepblue06 18:25, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
The claim in the comment I was addressing was validity of use of the term genocide in the Armenian case in terms of International Law. I think the ICTJ report addresses this rather directly. ANd that fact that it was commissioned to do such by a Joint Armenian - Turkish commision adds further validity to its findings.--THOTH 18:34, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I agree with you partially. Here're my reservations: (i) TARC is not an official commission, I should remind that Turkish PM offered to form an official commision, but this offer was rejected by the Armenian President (ii) ICTJ is self-declared body, they aren’t given authority by any state or any International organization (iii) According to the UN convention, genocide has 4 elements, one of them being, “perpetrator intended to destroy, in whole or in part, that group” and the ICTJ report is not quite strong on this point to their admission, which is quite clear when the report is read in full. You partially quoted ICTJ's statement, full quotation includes “Because the other three elements identified above have been definitively established (except the intent, the fourth element), the Events, viewed collectively, can thus be said to include all of the elements of the crime of genocide”. Note: The italic part is added by me. Deepblue06 19:18, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Actual wording is as follows (my bolds): D. Conclusion
The crucial issue of genocidal intent is contested, and this legal
memorandum is not intended to definitively resolve particular factual
disputes. Nonetheless, we believe that the most reasonable conclusion
to draw from the various accounts referred to above of the Events is
that, notwithstanding the efforts of large numbers of "righteous
Turks" who intervened on behalf of the Armenians, at least some of the
perpetrators of the Events knew that the consequence of their actions
would be the destruction, in whole or in part, of the Armenians of
eastern Anatolia, as such, or acted purposively towards this goal, and,
therefore, possessed the requisite genocidal intent. 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.--THOTH 19:50, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, we're not saying different things. I qouted the last sentence, that's their conclusion. Your previous qoute was missing an important preface (I'm not suggesting that this was intentional) and I added it, which shows that their report was not quite strong on one crucial element of the genocide, the intent. However, I'll not dispute that they concluded that genocide term can be applied to the Armenian events (though using a somewhat weak language "can thus be said to include"). In any event, my reservations stated above stand: In summary the ICTJ report cannot replace an international court verdict, which is missing for this issue. Deepblue06 20:08, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
and I would suggest that you stop this horrible smear campaign directed against Turks. I mean look at the history: first you stab us in the back, then you send your criminals to assassinate all the Ottoman govt leaders of the time, then, as if the justice of your imagination had not been served, you form a terrorist organization and murder scores of totally innocent Turkish diplomats and family members. Now you come up with this totally absurd genocide smear campaign and you expect us to just smile and agree with you? Look at the state of Armenia today, its barely on surviving on life support and even that you blame on us. Just mind your own business and leave us alone already, man! Lutherian 17:20, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
I fail to see any relevance to the article or even the general issue of the Armenian genocide in your above diatribe Lutherian. However I am thinking that some Nazi might substitute German for Turk and be telling Jews that they too should quit it already...and my what a bad thing some Jews have done seeking out and killing or kidnapping "inoccent" German expats who were living peacably in Argentina and what not. Armenian Genocide is fact. I have no racial animosity toward Turks - nor do - or would Armenians if Turks would not be so aggressive in the shielding of the perpetrators of the murders of their kin - including making such spurious and unsupportable claims and justifications for murdering of innocents as "you stabbed us in the back"...please. Grow up. --THOTH 17:53, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Please remain civil and stop making personal attacks by telling me to grow up. And please dont try to mix the holocaust with the Armenian issue, the majority of Jews do NOT consider the events of 1915-16 as genocide and I know many who are highly irritated by militant Armenian fanatics that are trying to compare the two events to gain their sympathy! Lutherian 18:02, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
SOrry - but I know otherwise - most Jews who know of the Armenian Genocide understand it to be such and understand - at least superficially - its similarities to the Holocaust. You are saying stupid things such as "mind your own business" - of course I will tell you to grow up. Additionally you are here all but advertising your intention to continually vandalise this page if it is not written to your liking. IMO you have no place in Wikipedia (let alone being involved in this article) nor do you belong in any civil conversation concerning this issue considering the general nature of your comments to date. --THOTH 18:15, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
You are telling me to grow up and insinuating that I am stupid because my remarks are stupid and then you say that I dont belong in any civil conversation? Seems like you are contradicting yourself, ure a funny guy and certainly not someone to be taken seriously, LOL Lutherian 18:49, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

We’ve been there already. Wikipedia is not a law institute, what you propose and say has not happened or had happened are positions. It is called Armenian genocide by most, according to name conventions this is the word to be used. It also doesn’t present it as an ultimate truth. Comming to the scholars, here I disagree completly, most who deny the Armenian genocide are specialist of Ottoman or Turkish history, true many are from reputable universities, but Ottomanologist research Ottoman materials which are the property of the Turkish republic. Giving such a weight to a category of researcher isen’t at all NPOV, do you see me referring to Armenologists? Because the equivalent of Turkologists or Ottomanologists are Armenologists. And like it or not, many of the scholars who have denied the Armenian genocide are controversial, and this, I am not the one making it up. Lewy for instances denies three genocides and the American war crimes in Vietnam, and who has reffered to a report that no one beside him has seen or heard about and that the existance of such a report can not be confirmed by anyone else. He also slandered an American historian researching the war crimes against American Indians the way he did with Dadrian. Those controversies about him are known among those in the discipline. Contriversies ought to be written, but when I have pointed to those, you have accused me of accusing scholars to be pied. What is not POV, is the list of grants from the list which I have provided, what is POV is your insinuations against me of accusing scholars of being pied, and you did this even before I have accused you of anything.

Also, as I have referred, most in the list are affiliated to Turkish studies, which is financed by the Turkish government, how many petitions do you you see presented as evidence of the genocide which the signaturies are mostly from Armenian studies? Also, several on the list don’t deny the Armenian genocide. Even Lowry admitted once he left, under pressure, the Chair of Ottoman history founded and funded by Turkey. You know what he admitted? He admitted that he came accross a document from Ottoman archives that strongly suggest that Ottoman autorities were implied in the massacres.

I recommand you the book of Martin Gilbert about World War I, it is one of the best coverage of the war ever written in my opinion and a very reputable book, you should pay a look at the sections covering the Armenian massacres. That such reputable historians as Martin Gilbert who was knighted, sign petitions about the undeniable nature of the Armenian genocide, makes it clear indeed that there is a clear disproportion between those who recognize the Armenian genocide and those who deny it in the academia. That it is the second most studied genocide makes it clear that the term ‘Armenian Genocide’ is not only very notable but is appopriate. And don’t forget that the article isen’t presenting it as having happened, it simply present the positions.

The legat stuff, it has been largely debated here, the Nuremberg happened before the Genocide Convention of 1948. The Turkish martial Court is its equivalent and even though it has liberated many murderers who were later recruted by the Kemalist nationalist forces, the leaders of the Ittihadist party like Sakir who lead the special organization were condemned to death. The UN report that was dissolved by Turkey in the 80s, in its list (equivalent to Jurisprudence) indeed includes the Armenian genocide and the UN has no any other such report. There is as well the UN 1948 report about the Armenian massacres. And not to forget the differences instances of international bodies which concluded of the applicability of the term. -Fadix

It doesnt matter even if it was true (which its not) because Armenians have approached the whole issue with bad faith. You cannot use violence to force your perception of the truth to others. History shows us that this strategy is bound to fail. Its a question of credibility and trust and its soarly missing in the Armenian/sympethizer camp. Lutherian 17:33, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
In no way can you accuse Armenian of perpetuationg undue violence against Turks for genocide recognition. To generalize and blame all Armenian for ASALA and such violence against Turks would be like calling all Turks as assasins of catholics for Mehmet Acgas attempt on the life of the Pope....or for deciding to relocate from Anatolia (and murder as many as you could) Armenians from Anatolia just because a few Armenian revolutionaries were advocating an Armenain state...might have iniated some violence against some Turks at some point in the past, and might have certainly been appealing for outside powers to alleviate Armenian suffering and protect Armenians from state sponsored massacres - etc - yeah - in your mind would this be sufficient justification to generalize and consider all Armenians as traitors - worthy of death? --THOTH 17:53, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Please dont minimize the murder of Turks as an isolated case carried out by a few deranged fanatics because thats extremely denigrating. These cold blooded murders were orchestrated by and got the blessing of the highest ranks. It is even said that former ASALA members are part of today's Armenian government. Have you read Sam Weems book? Its very thought provoking! Lutherian 18:10, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
I wouldn't give credit for anything written by "Weems" as even worthy to wipe my ass with. Please. And once again - ASALA and anything concerning the current government of Armenia are post-genocide issues that should be mentioned only in their proper historical context. If an Armenian were to blow up Ankara tomorrow it would change nothing concerning the history and factuality of the Armenian genocide itself. As for Turks killed by Dashanks or such in the 19th century. Yes some of this occured - in a very isolated sense and certainly this was much less common then the various murders of innocent Armenians by marrauding Kurdish chieftans and bandits (Ottoman State sponsored or just independent) which occured prior to, during and after this time. The isolated killing of relatively small numbers of Turks by a few fringe Armenian revolutionaries or what have you - while certainly sad and unfortunate - and obviously must upsetting and sorrowfu for those affected and their families (and of course I sympathyse with the plight of all innocents in this regard) - but it can in no way be compared to the systematic state-sponsored genocidal campaign that killed 1.5 million innocent Armenians...nor can the existance of isolated Armenain revolutionaries or their activities in the 19th century (as the Dashnakls had essentially joined with/collaborated the CUP (against the Sultan) during the 1910s and had in fact (as a group) ceased revolutionary violence by the time of the Genocide (and since the CUP rvolution of 1912) - this is documented by German and other sources. So the claim that Armenians "stabbed Turkey in the back" or caused significant widespread violence against Turks prior to 1915 is an entirely spurious and unsupportable claim...unless of course you are of the opinion that Pamuk or similar has stabbed Turks in the back...thus similar reasoning and perhaps we need to better define the word and consider the mindset of those making such claims. --THOTH 18:29, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Please stop using foul language and have some respect for the memory of Weems. Again you are minimizing the suffering of many moselms in the hands of Armenian criminals (I almost fogot the despicable French Armenian Legion which was a prelude to the Nazi Armenian Legion). As for Pamuk, I dont at all believe he stabbed the Turks, he was making a point on freedom of speech in Turkey, he just used the Armenian massacres as an example! Lutherian 18:45, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
This argument summarised -
Armenian: No argument, all western scholars agree
Turk: No, they do not. There are several Western Ottoman Historians who do not. Some of them considered by their peers to be the preeminent historians in their field. (substantiated by a few example names and positions, all very distinguished)
Armenian: No, those people are all liars and holocaust deniers. The Armenian version is a fact and all Western scholars agree.
Repeat ad infinium.

Turkish intent to exterminate Armenians was well known at the time and is clearly established by direct and indirect evidence

For instance (my bold):

exerpt:

Telegram Received.

From Constantinople Dated July 16, 1915 Recd. July 20, 8:10 AM.

Secretary of State, Washington.

858, July 16, 1 p.m. Have you received my 841? Deportation of and excesses against peaceful Armenians is increasing and from harrowing reports of eye witnesses it appears that a campaign of race extermination is in progress under a pretext of reprisal against rebellion.

AMERICAN AMBASSADOR [Henry Morgenthau], Constantinople

--THOTH 20:36, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, it is also well documented that Ambassador Morgenthau had not left Istanbul and relied on his Armenian assistants and his intentions to pull the US into the war is also well documented and this was one example of his attempts.
Ambassador Henry Morgenthau's 1918 book, Ambassador's Morgenthau's Story is often used for supporting genocide claims. It brims with assertions that incriminate the Ottoman Turks in genocide. Professor Lowry of Princeton, however, convincingly demonstrates in his monograph, "The Story Behind Ambassador Morgenthau's Story," that his book is more propaganda, invention, exaggeration, and hyperbole than a reliable portrait of motivations and events. Now, I wait for character assasinations on Professor Lowry. Deepblue06 20:39, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Professor Lowy's assertions are quite the contrary, their unconvincing. To say that he relied on Armenian assistants, and to echo Turkish claims, that his book was ghost-written by Armenians is just another fabrication propagated by the Turkish government to discredit his claims. Morgenthau spoke numerous times with Ittihad leaders who boasted their treatment of the Armenians and had many missionaries come to his office and cry with tears on what they had seen. The fact that his ability to send telegraphs to the other consulates in Turkey and to the State Department was rendered useless itself is more proof of how the CUP attempted to censor the events. If this was a normal relocation procedure, why all the censorship? It doesn't make any sense and that Lowy abysmal attempt to discredit Morgenthau and attempt to discredit Robert Jay Lifton's book "The Nazi Doctors" clearly shows that Lowy is a disgraced stooge working for the Turkish government. His adulterated book demonstrates little nexts to nothing.
You speak about character assassination and practically every witness we offer, whether they be be Armenian, German, Swedish, Austro-Hungarian, French or American, you effortlessly shoot down as liars and individuals who had alterior motives. --MarshallBagramyan 21:20, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Morganthau based his views on both his direct interaction and conversations with Talat and other CUP officials (corraborated by the accounts of other ambassadors - such asthe German and Austrian ambassadors - in their reports - as well as based upon the numerous reports comming to him from American Consuls located directly where the events of the genocide were taking place. All of these observations are corraborated by other sources (again including German sources affiliated with the ottoman Army and railroad as well as from private german sources such as teachers, railroad workers and missionaries. That the Ottomans imposed very severe censorship of correspondences and that they were trying to hide the worst of these activities - yet we have hundreds upon hundreds of gruesome reports that all paint the same picture of government sponsored extreme brutality against the Armenians is quite telling. The resulting picture inarguably supports the contention of ethnic cleansin and genocide - in its worst possible forms. There can be no disputing these corraborated observations and the conclusions that result. --THOTH 23:54, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

exerpts from Bryce report (my bolds):

British Government Report on the Armenian Massacres of April-December 1915 by Lord Bryce

I am grieved to say that such information as has reached me from several quarters goes to show that the number of those who have perished in Armenia is very large. It has been estimated at the figure of 800,000.

Though hoping that figure to be beyond the mark, I cannot venture to pronounce it incredible, for there has been an unparalleled destruction of life all over the country from the frontiers of Persia to the Sea of Marmora, only a very few of the cities of the Aegean coast having escaped.

This is so, because the proceedings taken have been so carefully premeditated and systematically carried out, with a ruthless efficiency previously unknown among the Turks. The massacres are the result of a policy which, as far as can be ascertained, has been entertained for some considerable time by the gang of unscrupulous adventurers in possession of the Government of the Turkish Empire. They hesitated to put it in practice until they thought the favourable moment had come, and that moment seems to have arrived about the month of April, 1915. That was the time when these orders were issued, orders which came down in every case from Constantinople, and which the officials found themselves obliged to carry out on pain of dismissal.

There was no Moslem passion against the Armenian Christians. All was done by the will of the Government, and done not from any religious fanaticism, but simply be cause they wished, for reasons purely political, to get rid of a non-Moslem element which impaired the homogeneity of the Empire, and constituted an element that might not always submit to oppression.

There is nothing in the precepts of Islam which justifies the slaughter which has been perpetrated. I am told on good authority that high Moslem religious authorities condemned the massacres ordered by Abdul Hamid, and these are far more atrocious. In some cases the governors, being pious and humane men, refused to execute the orders that had reached them, and endeavoured to give what protection they could to the unfortunate Armenians. In two cases I have heard of the governors being immediately dismissed for refusing to obey the orders. Others more pliant were substituted, and the massacres were carried out.

As I have said, the procedure was exceedingly systematic. The whole Armenian population of each town or village was cleared out, by a house-to-house search. Every inmate was driven into the street. Some of the men were thrown into prison, where they were put to death, sometimes with torture; the rest of the men, with the women and children, were marched out of the town. When they had got some little distance they were separated, the men being taken to some place among the hills, where the soldiers, or the Kurdish tribes who were called in to help in the work of slaughter, dispatched them by shooting or bayoneting.

The women and children and old men were sent off under convoy of the lowest kinds of soldiers - many of them just drawn from gaols - to their distant destination, which was sometimes one of the unhealthy districts in the centre of Asia Minor, but more frequently the large desert in the province of Der el Zor, which lies east of Aleppo, in the direction of the Euphrates. They were driven along by the soldiers day after day, all on foot, beaten or left behind to perish if they could not keep up with the caravan; many fell by the way, and many died of hunger.

No provisions were given them by the Turkish Government, and they had already been robbed of everything they possessed. Not a few of the women were stripped naked and made to travel in that condition beneath a burning sun. Some of the mothers went mad and threw away their children, being unable to carry them further. The caravan route was marked by a line of corpses, and comparatively few seem to have arrived at the destinations which had been prescribed for them - chosen, no doubt, because return was impossible and because there was little prospect that any would survive their hardships. I have had circumstantial accounts of these deportations which bear internal evidence of being veracious, and I was told by an American friend who has lately returned from Constantinople that he had heard accounts at Constantinople confirming fully those which had come to me, and that what had struck him was the comparative calmness with which these atrocities were detailed by those who had first-hand knowledge of them.

Orders came from Constantinople that all the Armenian Christians in Trebizond were to be killed. Many of the Moslems tried to save their Christian neighbours, and offered them shelter in their houses, but the Turkish authorities were implacable.

It would seem that three-fourths or four-fifths of the whole nation has been wiped out, and there is no case in history, certainly not since the time of Tamerlane, in which any crime so hideous and upon so large a scale has been recorded.

...there is no ground for the suggestion that there had been any rising on the part of the Armenians.

Wherever the Armenians, almost wholly unarmed as they were, have fought, they have fought in self-defence to defend their families and themselves from the cruelty of the ruffians who constitute what is called the Government of the country. There is no excuse whatever upon any such ground as some German authorities and newspapers allege, for the conduct of the Turkish Government.

Their policy of slaughter and deportation has been wanton and unprovoked. It appears to be simply an application of the maxim once enunciated by Sultan Abdul Ilamid: "The way to get rid of the Armenian question is to get rid of the Armenians"; and the policy of extermination has been carried out with far more thoroughness and with far more bloodthirsty completeness by the present heads of the Turkish Administration-they describe themselves as the Committee of Union and Progress - than it was in the time of Abdul Hamid.

Of the Armenian people as a whole we may put an estimate that three-fourths are gone, and this three-fourths includes the leaders in every walk of life, merchants, professional men, preachers, bishops and government officials. I have said enough. Our hearts are sick with the sights and stories of abject terror and suffering. The extermination of the race seems to be the objective, and the means employed are more fiendish than could be concocted locally. The orders are from headquarters, and any reprieve must be from the same source.

--THOTH 20:36, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


exerpts from German Ambassador Von Wangenheim's April 15 1915 report back to Germany:

German archives # DE/PA-AA/R14085

"Pera, 15 April 1915

From the news from East Anatolia it is obvious that the relations between the Turkish Muslim population and the Armenians, which were already tense beforehand, have worsened even more in the course of the past few months. The mutual mistrust is growing and dominating the people and official circles, both in the interior as well as in the capital.

The complaints about the alleged and actual persecution which the Armenians are suffering as a result of the war are increasing in number and volume; on the other hand, they are being accused of sympathising with the Empire's enemies...

Each side is revoking the accusations of the other party as unfounded, or the blame for such events is being put on the others. There only seems to be agreement on one point: that the Armenians have given up their ideas of a revolution since the introduction of the Constitution and that there is no organisation for such a revolt.

Without doubt, excesses and acts of terror have taken place against the Armenians in eastern Anatolia and, in general, the events have probably been related correctly by the Armenian side, even if they were somewhat exaggerated.

For the events in these areas, the following are being made responsible by the Armenian side:

1. The irregulars and bands of marauders organised in military fashion and bearing the title Militia; these are being blamed for numerous plunders, murders, for robbery and other acts committed against the Armenian population of the country.

2. The clubs affiliated with the Comité Union et Progrès, in which many dishonest elements are said to be present. It is said that these clubs, in particular the one in Erzerum, have set up formal proscription lists, and a series of political murders which were committed on various respected Armenians since December of last year are attributed to their activities. It is added that the Ministry of the Interior is said to have been warned some time ago by the Armenians about the activities of these clubs which have already played a disastrous role during the events at Adana in 1909.

3. Various civil servants, in particular the governor of Musch (Vilayet Bitlis) and the Vali of Van. It is stated amongst other things that some 2000 Muslim families from the Russian occupied district of Alaschgerd, who are hardly in a position to pay for their own keep, have been accommodated in the Armenian villages of Musch; the Armenian farmers were being used like draft animals to transport ammunition and provisions and many of them died from this inhumane treatment; the least of them, it is said hardly a quarter, returned to their villages. 'In two districts of Van formal butcheries took place under the connivance of the Kaymakams'.

it is emphasised that the Armenians – a fact which, one might note, is contested by the Turks - despite all the suffering they have been subjected to, are behaving loyally and correctly, but at least passively. However, under a continued, systematic persecution it can be feared that this peaceful attitude may take a turn to the contrary; the parties loyal to the government, such as the Daschnakzutiun, would no longer be able to hold back the masses and there would be a danger that, if the Russians advanced, not only the Armenians in the invaded area would go over to the side of the enemy, but also possible insurrections would be aroused behind the backs of the Turkish Army.


As far as the considerations otherwise presented by the Armenian side are concerned, they deserve serious attention.

...the present atmosphere in government circles...is most unfavourable for the Armenians...

....end

So from the above one can see that violent actions are already occuring against the Armenians (as we know by centrally directed Special Organization irregular units as part of a grand plan) with no mention of the reverse (Armenians are amazingly docile and quite considering - with individuals fleeing and deserting to the other side only) - which surely would have been mentioned by Turkey's ally it would seem. Additionally - we see no appreciable Armenian violence against Turks and certainly no armed rebellion of any kind. --THOTH 20:47, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

good sources. now lets see what is going on. bolds by me. "Significantly prominent in the movement were Seth Apcar, the London resident Armenian and Garegin Papazian from Izmir, who was also a close friend of one of the most noted pro-Armenian Englishmen Viscount Lord James Bryce. He supported and argued for the Armenian just(oh yea!) cause in the Lords, and more important introduced Gladstone and Lord Terpin to Garegin Papazian. To increase the momentum created in London by Seth Apcar, Lord Bryce and Garegin Papazian with the Armenian community against the Turkish regime, an Armenian committee was set up with Seth Apcar as Honorary President and Garegin Papazian as Chairman.

By this time the Turko-Russian war was over and the Berlin Congress of 1878 (old pal indeed) was coming to a close. This was a very important opportunity to display the strength of the Anglo-Armenian movement against the Turkish regime by demonstrations, publications and dialogue (which means propaganda), and to a certain extent this was carried out." Armenian site. So old Bryce, best Armenian friend writes that armenians are killed in an organised fasion what a surprise. the above paraghrap from an armenian page talks for me. please think twice or three times before citing English resources. "The Turkish race was... from the first black day they entered Europe, the one great anti-human specimen of humanity... as far as their dominion reached, civilisation vanished from view." this is not from a hate site! William Gladstone, British Prime Minister, "The Bulgarian Horrors and the Question of the East," 1876 It is a fact that english goverment that time consisted of dedicated fierce Turkish haters. Such as Lord byron who fought by the side of greeks personally. please indicate your resources so that I can take a look and tell you whats going on.neurobio 00:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

 : ? No idea what you are talking about dear chap. Propoganda in 1878? Anyway Bryce and Tonybee meticulously compiled and thoroughly sourced hundreds of eyewitness accounts from primarily non-Armenian observers in Anatolia during this period (1915) that independently described in considerable detail round up and mass extermination activites perpetuated against primarily Armenian women, children and elderly (by regional CUP and Ottoman officials, gendarmes and memebers of the special organization [irregulars - chettes & Kurds etc] on orders of regional Ottoman officials acting on orders from the CUP - who were at times indifferent to pleas for leniency - other times boastful of their deeds against the Armenians - etc) - as well as detailed accounts of many related barbarities against them and of the retched conditions they were forced to endure. These are corraborate factual eyewitness acounts. Their veracity has been proven and recently affirmed and the authors additionally verified their accuracy long after the war. So useful as propoganda against the Ottoman Turks perhaps - but truthful and accurate these observations were. You cannot impune them with your off topic ad homenim attacks. What was done (to the Armenians) was done and much of what was done was witnessed - despite all efforts by the CUP criminals to hide their acts and destroy evidence of what what done. In addition to these and other eyewitnesses to these crimes their exist numerous confessions (in autobiographies and such) as well as convictions by the post-war Ottoman Military Tribunals - the detailed reported proceedings of which confirm the plans for, organization and carrying out of the extermination campaign against the Armenians for the districts in which the trials applied and in general with detailed descriptions of and confessions regarding the organization, purpose and activites of the Special Organization that was deliberatly established and charged with secret widespread liquidation activities against the Armenians. All of this is more then sufficiently documented...yet you have the gaul to suggest that all of these accounts, all of this evidence is some from of elaborate anti-Turkish propaganda hoax. Shame on you. Blood is now on your hands too as far as I am concerned and in the worlds eyes as well - yet you are too aparently caught up in your delusional interpretation of history (as a vast conspiracy against the Turks) to see it. sad. --THOTH 01:52, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Oh boy, ,ay hell help me. Fad (ix) 01:57, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Oh boy, I just hope that after the RfAr this sort of useless worthless copypasting and worthless debates by those that still contribute when they can't get what is the purpouses of a talkpage stop. Just one point Neurobio, and here I won't comment Thoth copypasting job(which I have done but he refuse to stop), with such answers as this you are showing that you still have no clue what you are doing here. We are NOT HERE to decide if there was a genocide or not, we are here simply to present the positions maintained about a subject. I just BTW have seen that the lead has been tainted by POV edits which I am not responsable of. Just one point, if you want to dismiss the British records, go ahead do so, since American and German records are just worster than those pro-Armenian British who literaly looted the Armenians once they got Berlin and managed the central banks liquidity transfered by the Young-Turks from the properties looted from the Armenians, the pro-Armenian British have used this to pay the Ottoman war debts. And it was also the pro-Armenian British who decided to end their mendate on the East abrutly before the American mendate making the military replacement impossible, which BTW wasn't helped by the US administration attempt to secure the Chester concession by sending Bristol. But do throw simplistic analysis by shooting 'pro-Armenian' and thinking discrediting the massacres. But guess what, the Blue Book material mostly originate from American records which could still be found in American archives, and the British records description of the situation is nothing compared to those you will find in American and German archives. So much of the British pro-Armenian stance who had a British battleship close to the landing when Adana Armenian Quarter was burning with its population in 1909 and haven't done the least. The pro-Armenian British were also those that pressurised the Russian Empire on the verge of invading the rest of Eastern Anatolia after the defeat of the Ottoman Empire in 1878. Go ahead with your easytalk and do shoot 'pro-Armenian' my neutral friend by continuing this irrelevent discussion. Fad (ix) 01:57, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

This talk page is being vandalised with large numbers of entries being deleted

I demand that these very relevant discussions be re-instated and that the culprit cease his arbritary deletion of content. --THOTH 02:15, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

that is true this is not the place to decide what happened. No copy pasting then. So what will we disscuss? I say that if Armenian uprising before the deportations is quoted and discussed in another page (we dont have to give number since I believe this 500.000 is not true) and the section about western scolars objecting the issiue can be written in a propar format i have no other objections. I also am not very happy with the poster in the art section but not pushing too hard. I have no blood in my hands except for mice blood.neurobio 02:25, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

What Armenian uprising are you refering to? --THOTH 02:29, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
The one that seems to be mysteriously erased from your memory Lutherian 05:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
The same way that Ataturk critics have been erased from memory? They aren't any less notable than the Turkish government or revisionist positions regarding the Armenian genocide (to the contrary). But now let see how 'neutral' deepblue and neurobio are and if they indeed agree with the reintroduction of Ataturk critics back in his article, let see if they agree giving the space provided to their position in this article in the Ataturk article to add that man critics? Fad (ix) 16:26, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Well you have to understand that there are those that consider Ataturk a saint because honestly I shudder at the thought of what Turkey would have been without him! Lutherian 17:28, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't represent any position. My only contributions to the article were adding the Western scholars who have different views (though the current text falls very short of what I initially added) and removing the speculations about why some countries such as the US and Israel don't have Armenian genocide legislations. To my suprise both of these changes required overcoming some obsessed resistance from a group of users. Besides these changes, I responded to some unreasonable claims in the talk pages. I don't see myself as a perpetual contributor to this article, so it's better to seek the consensus of others for the changes you've in mind. But if you ask my opinion 'only', I don't see any problems adding critics of Ataturk if they are supported by credible sources. Deepblue06 17:03, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Well sorry, that is not quite right. Your removal of the US and Israel was POV, the majority of US states recognize it as genocide and each time the resolution is pulled out from the vote it is under the pretext that it is not good for US-Turkey relation and not that the genocide accurance is debatable. This isen't even a question of dispute, the resolution hasn't still been placed to be voted until now even thought it passed the first stage and that resolutions which obtains in proportion less votes are still placed to final vote, while in this cases they are always removed in the last minute. It happened here in Canada, it happened in France so many times, and it just happened another time in May 18 when the bill has been removed without being voted after that Douste-Blazy Foreign Minister Douste-Blazy said: "Turkey is a leading economic and trade partner... We cannot accept this bill," Internal poll in various occasions in the US have shown that if the bill was to be placed to vote it would have probably passed and the last minutes they were removed repeatdly. So removing such an information which can hardly be considered as speculative was indeed POV. You could have reworded it insteed of removing it, something I have done myself before it was tainted again. As for adding the scholars in question, I did propose that before Tommiks and his socks have rearanged the article and disturbed an earlier peace in the talk page where there was propositions on how to correct the issues of NPOV, something initiated by Francis. Also, you were responsable of a great amount of nonesensitical discussions which have no place in a talk page, like your fetish the internationa tribunal, after it has been explained countless numbers of times, my fingers being tired of explaining this that a talk page is related to the article and not somewhere where people discuss about the prolongation of the subject. Fad (ix) 17:25, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
You seriously have an attitude problem. I understand that this is a very emotional topic for you, but that’s no excuse for your aggressive offensive language. I’ve better things to do at this nice weekend then to torture myself dealing with a character like you. For others, who’re still reading Fadix’s long essays, my arguments for the lack of an International Court verdict [2] and for a neutral description (devoid of speculations) of the positions of countries [3]are well supported as you can follow through the links. Deepblue06 17:47, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Offensive language? Emotional? Do you need a refresh memory about whom between both of us was emotional when I simply corrected you about the 69 individuals? That I proposed you to contact an Internationa Law institute of a reputable University and that you ignored my proposition to provide you their email address I guess is what you call 'emotional.' I repeat, US not recognizing it is NOT speculation, even Turkey admit that it is because of their own pressure. I guess foreign ministers saying that bills should be removed, or phone calls from Ankara the day it is pulled out, or Turkish prime minister accusing the US government not having sufficient control on their representatives or the foreign minister threatning the US with sanctions [4]. Or Haster corruptions. [5] Of course all those for you are speculation and I am becoming emotional, even though even Turkey doesn't hide its pressures and that foreign ministers years after years each time the bill is put on table advice to reject it and that its rejection is on the bases of US-Turkey relation. Only speculations, remove it, sure, go ahead remove it. Your arguments about the International Court Verdict are as ungrounded as those of your removal of material which you don't like from the article Fad (ix) 18:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
For the record, you never corrected me on any subject including the 69 scholars [6]. You're hallucinating again just like when you falsely accused me being the user Torque [7] and then admitting your mistake with no apology but kept accusing me being the user Neurobio [8]. Deepblue06 18:28, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, I still think in some way or another two users registered in under two days interval bringing the same exact points are related. When someones IP address concord with Sedat Laciner IP address and with the same internet provider and that this wave again pick after two new users appear, I doubt all this could be called simply coincidences. And I made it clear why I will not apologize to you, and I apologized in various occasions for my mistakes, but given all the slanders you directed at my person, and that your intimidations(and with this username of yours) started even before I started accusing you of anything you are very badly placed to request any apology from me. As for Hallucination. Oh yeh, I won't start naming the phenomenon of mass delusion known in psychiatry when a groupe of people think alike, I will be again the one that will restrain. Anyway, the inquisition might start today when I submit the RfAr and live your chance to bring anything you want as evidences. Fad (ix) 18:42, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Frankly im worried about you Fadix, do you even enjoy life? Do you ever take a break? Reading your repetitive essays are becoming very tiresome Lutherian 17:35, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

who deleted all that stufff? what the hackneurobio 02:26, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

The idiot who deleted sections seems to have done so deliberatly - not having anything to do with copy-pasting - but IMO because he/she objected to content...we must be backstabbing and disrespecting Turks again...--THOTH 02:32, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
User:Zibitaur removed the content from the talk discussion. Your average vandal... No need to get hostile... If he vandalises again he will likely be blocked. --Cat out 12:08, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

There numerous attacks by armenian bands. I will provide info later. It is almost morning in europeneurobio 02:31, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

 ? --THOTH 02:32, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
I think another article about Armenian cannibals eating Turkish babies should be writen too. The next time you visit Bonn, check the Centralarchiv about your story. "The Armenian Crisis, 1912-1914" by Davison relate the prior war Armenian situation. Of course you can creat such an article about Armenian upraising, but you will have to expect that the majority position should also be included or else it will be a FORK. Fad (ix) 02:44, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


Just to let everyone know I have readded the deleted sections of this talk page and I have warned the user who has removed them not to do so again. Please remember to be civil and avoiding making personal attacks even against vandals. Thanks -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 02:51, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Recent article with relevance to discussions here concerning use of the word genocide, government arhives, eyewitnesses and recognition (copyvio redacted) --THOTH 13:03, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Robert Fisk wrote in The Independent. Since the article is pay-to-view or subscription, a cut and paste here is a clear copyvio. Removed accordingly. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:28, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Seems to me that Fisk has been misled by what he claims to be survivors. No doubt they were survivors that witnessed a massacre committed against them but arent we going around in circles again? Did he meet moslem survivors of the Armenian massacres? The sad thing in all this is that those so called survivors didnt teach their children to remember a tragic period in history, what they taught them was hatred and they seem to have succeeded. Bravo! Lutherian 17:21, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Again - just what Armenian massacres is it that youo are refering to? I find your comments on this issue somewhat amusing on one level...but certainly quite sad on anohter. I will post an exerpt from Elif Shafak in hopes that it may cause you and other Turks like you to reflect and think a bit...as she has...
In Istanbul, a Crack In the Wall of Denial - We're Trying to Debate the Armenian Issue
By Elif Shafak - Sunday, September 25, 2005; ISTANBUL
I am the daughter of a Turkish diplomat -- a rather unusual character in the male-dominated foreign service in that she was a single mother. ... throughout my childhood, the word "Armenian" meant only one thing to me: a terrorist who wanted to kill my mother. Faced with hatred, I hated back. But that was as far as my feelings went. It took me years to ask the simple question: Why did the Armenians hate us? My ignorance was not unusual. For me in those days, and for most Turkish citizens even today, my country's history began in 1923, with the founding of the modern Turkish state. The roots of the Armenians' rage -- in the massacres, atrocities and deportations that decimated Turkey's Armenian population in the last years of Ottoman rule, particularly 1915 -- were simply not part of our common historical memory. But for me today, and for a growing number of my fellow Turks, that has changed. Until my early twenties, like many Turks living abroad, I was less interested in history than in what we described as "improving Turkey's image in the eyes of Westerners." As I began reading extensively on political and social history, I was drawn to the stories of minorities, of the marginalized and the silenced Yet it was not until I came to the United States in 2002 and started getting involved in an Armenian-Turkish intellectuals' network that I seriously felt the need to face the charges that, beginning in 1915, Turks killed as many as 1.5 million Armenians and drove hundreds of thousands more from their homes. I focused on the literature of genocide, particularly the testimony of survivors; I watched filmed interviews at the Zoryan Institute's Armenian archives in Toronto; I talked to Armenian grandmothers, participated in workshops for reconciliation and collected stories from Armenian friends who were generous enough to entrust me with their family memories and secrets. With each step, I realized not only that atrocities had been committed in that terrible time but that their effect had been made far worse by the systematic denial that followed. I came to recognize a people's grief and to believe in the need to mourn our past together. I also got to know other Turks who were making a similar intellectual journey. Obviously there is still a powerful segment of Turkish society that completely rejects the charge that Armenians were purposely exterminated. Some even go so far as to claim that it was Armenians who killed Turks, and so there is nothing to apologize for. These nationalist hardliners include many of our government officials, bureaucrats, diplomats and newspaper columnists. They dominate Turkey's public image -- but theirs is only one position held by Turkish citizens, and it is not even the most common one. The prevailing attitude of ordinary people toward the "Armenian question" is not one of conscious denial; rather it is collective ignorance. These Turks feel little need to question the past as long as it does not affect their daily lives. There is a third attitude, prevalent among Turkish youth: Whatever happened, it was a long time ago, and we should concentrate on the future rather than the past. "Why am I being held responsible for a crime my grandfather committed -- that is, if he ever did it?" they ask. Meanwhile, the Armenian question has been prominently featured in Turkish media. Hurriyet, the nation's most popular newspaper, ran a series of pro and con interviews on this formerly taboo subject, called "The Armenian Dossier." The upcoming trial of acclaimed author Orhan Pamuk, charged with "denigrating" Turkish identity for talking about the killing of Kurds and Armenians, has been fervently debated. Various columnists have directly apologized to the Armenians for the sufferings caused to their people by the Turks. And stories have been reported of orphaned Armenian girls who saved their lives by changing their names, converting to Islam and marrying Turks -- and whose grandchildren are unaware today of their own mixed heritage. All this activity has triggered a nationalist backlash. That should be expected...Foreign Minister Gul,in New York, lamented what effect this would have on Turkey's quest to join the European Union: "There's no one better at hurting themselves than us," he said.Through the collective efforts of academics, journalists, writers and media correspondents, 1915 is being opened to discussion in my homeland as never before. The process is not an easy one and will disturb many vested interests. I know how hard it is -- most children from diplomatic families, confronting negative images of Turkey abroad, develop a sort of defensive nationalism, and it's especially true among those of us who lived through the years of Armenian terrorism. But I also know that the journey from denial to recognition is one that can be made.
--THOTH 02:30, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Oh yes, the classic Armenain grandmothers spewing their hate venom. Thanks THOTH, I see the light now Lutherian 05:41, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Obviously you are just incapable....wave that Turkish flag high now...--THOTH 14:09, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
And everyone should read and ponder this one...http://ermeni.org/english/vdadrian_harvard.htm
--THOTH 03:18, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Nobody here says that no armenians were killed. They were killed, tortured and raped, just like muslims but maybe at a larger scale. I just say that it was not systematic and intentional and thus not a genocide. Dear fadix it was I that you corrected about the numbers of historians. So you say that you think Deepblue is me. I am not buying any of your stories any more. you are using a accusing and blaming strategy. I say everybody ignore fadix when he comes up with his conspiracy theories.neurobio 19:04, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Read my words more carefuly, I said both of you aree linked somehow and not that both of you are the same person. This accusation of paranoia was levelled against me back with when I accused Lutherian to be a fake, which was right and confirmed by Checkusers. Also, yes, at the beggining I was mistaking you, but it is not for me to go on the history of the page and check who logged or what IP has been used to know who is the poster. Any accusations against me based on an assumption from my part to an unsigned post are groundless because people ought to sign their posts. That all the major 'professional' revisionist players on the net have at least once had something to do with this article, is enough for an Arbcom cases. That Laciner has a recorded one edit at least, (while IP's in the talk page suggest he engaged here too), that Holdwater AKA Torque did, and that there are sufficent evidences that he is still engaged. That our chap Lutherian has constantly attempted to add back TAT page and has recycled everyonbe of his crap from TAT site, even some of Holdwaters favoured words and expressions. That you and Deepblue06 register in under two days interval etc., those are plently of evidences of irregularity. If you think that anyone will ignore me because of what you consider as conspiracy theories is simply naive. Fad (ix) 19:37, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
one word ma boy, PARANOIA Lutherian 05:43, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

and you should read my lines more carefully. "I say ignore fadix when he comes up with conspiracy theories". for example I ignore you claim " I said both of you aree linked somehow and not that both of you are the same person." there is no point in talking who is who. and as you can see I register and sign almost every day. there was a problem in the first days just because I was using copy paste to sign. later on I learned the right way since then nothing can be said about me.neurobio 21:18, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

These — WP:SPA and WP:SOCK — may be of interest.
“ The Arbitration Committee has ruled that, for the purpose of dispute resolution, when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sock puppets or several users with similar editing habits they may be treated as one individual. ”
(From WP:SOCK). Not quite as simple as it might seem. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:37, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Communication

Taking into account that the personal attacks became a norm in this talk page, I suggest that everyone posts under his/her own name not the nickname or unanimously. It is a matter of civilized communication and mutual respect.

To the author of this article: It is sometimes wise to disregard and ignore those contributors who write under nicknames rather than their own names. Due to the offensive character of some contributors I urge you not to respond in any way to such people.

Thanks Vahan Senekerimyan 20:51, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


Those who deny the Holocaust use same rational and arguments as Turks who deny the Armenian Genocide

I'm posting this to illustrate the similarities to the genocide denial from the "Turkish position" as presented in the article currently - to that commonly espoused by Holocaust deniers. I should note that those who deny the Holocaust are not given equal space or such in the Holocaust article to espouse their hateful revisionist views...

http://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060513/NEWS02/605130365&SearchID=73244627604496

Excerpt:

BIRMINGHAM -- A Democratic candidate for attorney general denies the Holocaust occurred...

Speaking in an interview with The Associated Press, Darby said he believes no more than 140,000 Jewish people died in Europe during World War II, and most of them succumbed to typhus.

Historians say about 6 million Jews were slaughtered by the Nazis, but Darby said the figure is a false claim of the "Holocaust industry." "I am what the propagandists call a Holocaust denier, but I do not deny mass deaths that included some Jews," Darby said. "There was no systematic extermination of Jews. There's no evidence of that at all."

--THOTH 14:42, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

More:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/war/genocide/deniers_01.shtml

Holocaust deniers are people who contend that the Holocaust - the attempt by Nazi Germany to annihilate European Jewry during World War Two - never happened. According to the deniers, the Nazis did not murder six million Jews, the notion of homicidal gas chambers is a myth, and any deaths of Jews that did occur under the Nazis were the result of wartime privations, not of systematic persecution and state-organised mass murder. Deniers dismiss all assertions that the Holocaust took place as conscious fabrications, or as psychotic delusions.

http://www.adl.org/holocaust/response.asp

There is no single Nazi document that expressly enumerates a "master plan" for the annihilation of European Jewry

There Were No Gas Chambers Used for Mass Murder at Auschwitz and Other Camps

Another frequent claim of Holocaust "revisionists" concerns what they describe as the lack of objective documentation proving the facts of the Holocaust, and the reliance by scholars on biased and poorly recollected testimonies of survivors.

Another frequent "revisionist" assertion calls into question the generally accepted estimates of Jewish victims of the Holocaust.

The Nuremberg Trials Were a "Farce of Justice" Staged for the Benefit of the Jews

Is it just me - or do all these arguments sound very familiar...? --THOTH 14:50, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Considering the scope and intensity of Genocide denial - in general - on the part of the Turkish Government - and spcifically - by certain contributors to this talk page and article - I strongly urge the creation of an article similar to this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_denial concerning Holocaust denial - be created concerning Armenian Genocide denial. --THOTH 14:54, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

http://www.chgs.umn.edu/Histories__Narratives__Documen/The_Armenians/Denial/denial.html

This page covers a broad overview of Turkish denial which conforms to my view concerning how it should be presented (though with more detailed accounts and specific arguments). I like how it asigns the origins of Gencodide denial to 1915 itself with excuses and justifications used for the actions taken and the extent to which Armenians were being victimized. Of course this can be greatly expanded. More detail concerning both specific arguments and methods from the Turkish side is needed as well - including accounts of Official Turkish government efforts to quash genocide recognition and - something missing in the referenced article - the campaign within Turkey to destroy Armenian monuments and evidence of Armenian presence in Anatolia. A section concerning web vandalism and the presence of nationalistic Genocide denying Turks on the internet would also be appropriate. So any other suggestions? interest? I'm not sure how to srat up an article and if it is proceeded by a talk page for presntation and discussion of ideas - but I really think that this article is needed. Armenain Genocide denial is an ongoing and persistent problem whose effects are wideranging - affecting even the Wikipedia process concerning this and other historical article related to Turkish history and such. --THOTH 15:11, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

yawn another misguided attempt to discredit those that reject the genocide thesis, its amazing how creative the human mind can sometimes be! Who knows what you will come up with next? Lutherian 16:36, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

your good work to find those pages may have meant something if it wasn't American (as well as many other nations) historians with huge chairs in respected univercities who are denying the genocide. It is a fact that many scolars are denying this so called genocide(at least look at the jpg above). If you are trying to ban their view by saying that they are lunatics like Holocaus deniers (most famous now is Ahmedi Nedjat from İran) I say you are beeing funny. Also your claim "the campaign within Turkey to destroy Armenian monuments and evidence of Armenian presence in Anatolia." is completely a part of hate campaign by the diaspora and bullS****. I know you are not eager to research and re think. but please at least write Akdamar in wikipedia and see that Turkey is restorating a very important Armenian Church. İt has now been finished. And guess what! Armenian experts and stone craft masters did the restoration in order to be sure that it is done properly. you always talk about hate and racism but you are using all tools to smear any thing about Turkey. Behold the way of the diaspora!!! and I see that you have a problem with the democratic wikipedia process. You have no tolerance for the people who do not think like you. İt is normal to have hard discussions on a issiue which is disputed world wide. And I agree that the wikipedia process is slowed down. But it might have been faster if you dont try so hard do discredit and smear any other person who doesnt think like you. And when it comes to Web vandalism it is known that all turkish sites about the issiue are under constant hacker attack. Maybe this can be a good article too?neurobio 22:38, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

What do you say we call it a so-called restoration - eh? I've been there recently BTW.--THOTH 03:43, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

ah my jpg showing a page signed by American historians rejecting the genocide and telling why they reject it is not there anymore! it is now in the previous discussion history pages.neurobio 22:45, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

The most famous is Ahmedia Nedjat? I thought Irving, Rassinier, Faurisson, Rudolf etc. were much more famous. 'Reputability' of a University might be relevant to draw a notability you suggest here if it correspond to the majority position. Not here, nor anywhere else in your edits in this talkpage have you confirmed this. Also, when you use the Turkish 'İ' in a post, or refer to such things such as the restoration of Akhtamar, one thing remains, is why have you found yourself the need to forge an identity to defend your position. Akhtamar important church as you refer, its renovation means the destruction of its historic nature. The church is full of bullet wholes, serving in the past as target for shuts or so-called treasure hunters destroying an important section. Leaving it to its own destruction and then renovating it simply means doing what has been done to the church's at Ani. Fad (ix) 00:14, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

here we go again. if you read my previous (one of the first, talking about the phd and so on) post you may have a clue why I sometimes use 'İ'. good observation though i appreciate it. I hope you do the same in your history studies. Any way now read the post again "(most famous now is Ahmedi Nedjat from İran). Turkey restores an Armenian monument when they even have no money to support their own museums and look what happens. So if its restored "its renovation means the destruction of its historic nature." if it is not then "Leaving it to its own destruction". you can never make some people happy.neurobio 01:40, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

you are underestimating people assuming that only Turks can have access to such knowledge. and please take a look at http://www.landmarksfoundation.org/projects_akhtamar.shtml to see how "destruction of its historic nature" achieved by Landmarks foundation and unv. of pensilvania and Armenians.neurobio 02:00, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

No, not only Turks will have access to such knowledge, but only Turks will claim that Armenian monuments in Turkey are restorted by using Akhtamar as reference. Reread what I said, leaving a monument being destroyed and even participating on its destruction and then planing a renovation is actualy destroying it. It is like destroying an ancient wall and reconstructing it back and claiming it has the same historic value. www.virtualani.org/ provides various examples in particular on the supposed reconstructions at Ani. As for your claim that they restore Armenian monuments when they have no money to support their own museums, here is the sort of things that shows your clear biases. Reconstruction of monuments generate a lot of tourists, mostly in this cases Diasporan Armenians, besides UNESCO finance like various other international organizations such renovations, you are picturing this as if Turkey is doing Armenians a favior, when those monuments are protected under UNESCO and that Turkey must meet some requests. The destruction of monuments is considered as a cultural genocide, the Turkish representing party at Lausanne have threatned to bring Ani to the ground if they were not to obtain their requests, various irreplaceble Armenian monuments were destroyed, the army even used them as practice targets, Armenian letters were removed in carvings while Ottoman letters still remains to this day. I am talking about this, because I believe that this should definitly be included in the article, and that you are talking about how nice the Turkish government is here is the sort of things that makes me suspicious. You will see the Diasporan Armenians being very harsh with the Armenian government, you will see many supporting the Turks being very harsh with the Turkish government, but when someone start pretending how the Turkish government cares about Armenian monuments and bring back the rhetoric that it doesn't even have the money to restore its own... Fad (ix) 03:20, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Dear Fadix sometimes I have the feeling that even you dont believe in what you write. or you are too eager to accept any thing against Turkey. because a simple google search clearifies the issiue. first take a look at this site (http://www.international.icomos.org/risk/2002/turkey2002.htm) and see that it is not Armenian monuments that are endangered and or destroyed by time, disasters and teribble restorations. Also monuments of Turkish, muslim, Roman and greek origin are at sake. Second anyone who has been to istanbul can see that the city walls are half collapsed and half so so badly restorated, many monumets are just waiting to be restored and some just filled with cement to stop a collapse, many monumets were damaged by vandals. I asked our guide what it is all about he said the damn goverment goes for the cheapest and in many cases they give the job to their own people who are just construction firms. So that is also stated in your virtual ani site (i thought you never use armenian sources) "The truth is that the surviving monuments at Ani are being exploited rather like an open-cast mine for the extraction of money. As long as Ani can be used by Ankara politicians as a conduit to distribute State money into the pockets of their local political and business allies in Kars (Professor Karamağaralı has reportedly called them a "Mafia") then the "restorations" will continue until everything in Ani is destroyed." thanks god that it has been stopped and proper restoration is beeing done now (http://www.landmarksfoundation.org/projects_ani.shtml). But I have read far more interesting things in these sites "Armenian groups are uninterested in doing anything practical. Many of these groups actually continue to present the lame old reasoning that nothing should be done towards pressuring the Turks on the issue of preserving Armenian monuments because it would only hasten the destruction of the remaining monuments. What has this pathetic policy of inactivity led to during the last few decades - has it saved a single building or has it just provided them with an easy excuse for doing nothing?" (this is from virtual ani. and please note that it is actually an armenian site. it looks to be a nice site about an historical site yet it has whole lot of propaganda about the genocide). also this page (http://www.landmarksfoundation.org/projects_akhtamar.shtml) says "Surprisingly, no funds have been forthcoming from American-Armenian sources". well I guess they are putting all their money to hate campaigns. Or are they just waiting for these monuments to get worse and worse so they can have a better chance of promoting "cultural genocide" propaganda.

one last thing: Please note that an ancient mosque within the region is completely ruined and vanished too. (Why not protect the mosque and demolish others if you want to prove that no armenians lived in this land)

So saying that a genocide happened in the history is something but trying to smear todays Turkey is another thing. I will not go and read the Lausanne treaty. But i just answer your claim "Turkish representing party at Lausanne have threatned to bring Ani to the ground if they were not to obtain their requests" like this: "as if Greeks, English and others would care a single bit". please stop thinking that the world is rotating around you Armenians.

You say that I am biased. Yes I declare that I am biased just like you. I love Turkey and Turkish people. But unlike you I can be persuated when I see solid data.

It is visible that the scale of vandalism by Turkish villagers is immense but you can see the same thing in Cappadocia and Ephessus and probably many other places. names are written on a 10m high ceeling, stones are taken away to build houses. I still can't figure how they do that.neurobio 23:53, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

First of, as surprising as you might think, virtualani isen't an Armenian website, its author isen't an Armenian, which is by now widely known since he finally decided to become public starting with about last summer when he started to give lectures. The Turkish translation has been also done by a Turk, who BTW, I personaly know and is a friend of mine and who recognize the genocide. Surprising enought, all my Turkish friends online are from Turkey, none are from the West, who are more into fanatism and perverted patriotism. Here again, you assumed right away that just because a site cricised Turkey in anyway or that is contains references about the genocide, it must be an Armenian website. Again, as you see, by now, that your biases is not your love for Turkey or Turkish people (such words BTW are simply dumb, I love people on personal basis, it is actually dumb to claim hating or loving a people) but more to do with what is not, which from the beginning was the entire issue. I will quit talking about this now, but just to point that the threats about Ani from the Turkish delegation, was indeed real and taken serious by the Europeans that weren't caring because it was Armenian, but rather attempting to secure churchs. Fad (ix) 01:13, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Actually there is much truth in what you write here - (concerning the lack of official attention to historical treasures of Anatolia and the use of such primarily as a cash cow for certain well placed locals...oh and the destruction of individuals - be it for farm/home use or because of hunting for the legendary Armenian treasures eh) - however there can also be no denying that Turkey has undertaken a deliberate campaign at vandalism of Armenian structures as well as changing of (Armenian) place and other names and so on and so forth. Some of us understand why the Republic does so much to conceal the Armenian heritage much of its lands and obscure Armenian involvement in both Ottoman and pre-Ottoman history of the region. It is for some of the very same reasons Turks deny the Genocide - because their history - their national myth - of Turks as victims - and Turks as Turks - is all caught up and contradicted by the Genocide of the Armenians...the guilt is great...but the cost (of admission) is still obviously too high. I hope that Turks/Turkey can one day grow up - hopefully in my lifetime. I would think that more Turks would wish for this as well...--THOTH 03:26, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
hmmm funny how homogeneous Armenia is! Hardcore ethnic cleansing anyone? Lutherian 06:05, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

System of a Down

The metal group System of a Down wrote a lot of songs about the genocide, such as P.L.U.C.K., X, and Holy Mountains.

Its not really important, just a neat tid bit.


(personal attacks removed) —Khoikhoi 19:43, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I dont see how that was a personal attack. But, wouldn't that be freedom of speech? Their just angry that a lot of their people were killed by the Turks. They have a right to be angry. Besides, wouldn't the Turks be racist for killing the Armenians?El benderson 20:14, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


This link was provided in the arguments section: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman_Armenian_Population

and also see the links therein. An agreement regarding the numbers of the Armenian population within the Ottoman Empire would help proceeding with understanding of the nature of the events. Although rather uncertain, the population decrease btw the end of the 19th century and 1918 or so, points to massive killings of an ethnic minority which was not largely involved in the war.

Let's not ask the question at this point WHY this ethnic minority (Armenians) was massacred, instead let's make sure we come into agreement first just about the numbers. You can argue about anything and everything but you cannot argue with the simple laws of addition and subtraction of numbers.

I encourage the Turkish contributors here to pay attention to the links above and express their opinions. Let's not hurry about putting a tag on the events, calling it a genocide or something else, just look at the numbers and the references if you wish. Don't you think that we have a dramatic loss of the Armenian population?

Vahan Senekerimyan 07:54, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

oh no, here we go again Lutherian 08:02, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand what this emotional response is supposed to mean. If you are having a problem adding numbers taking into account the uncertanties if there exist such, then I am afraid you cannot discuss and moreover understand the complexity of the problem.

If your response means somethnig like "We have already discussed this" then I have to say you haven't done it successfully, because you are still arguing on these pages about more complex things than just simple arithmetics that needs be done first.

Anyway, I had two guesses about your immediate response, let me not guess anymore, just do not bother responding.

Vahan Senekerimyan 08:14, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Please dont patronize us, if you want info on Ottoman period Armenain demographics, I suggest you have a look at Justin McCarthy's excellent piece on "the population of Ottoman Armenians" here. There is no need to go around in circles, the magical vanishing act is just malicious propoganda! Lutherian 08:35, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
A government site, and a work published by the National assembly. :) Fad (ix) 17:26, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
ok so anything that is funded by the Armenian disapora or the Armenian government from now on should be rejected Lutherian 18:12, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
And what is funded by the Armenian government? What university chair is funded by an Armenian Institute? Fad (ix) 01:34, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

please accept that user Vahan Senekerimyan is one of the individuals who talks in a sensible fassion. this article is locked. we must start from somewhere to negotiate. there is no need to go wild against him. I have made my proposal before if armenian uprising, and assasianations and assaination attempts agains the ottoman goverment is added and opposing view is writen in a proper length and language (the current article tries to show opposition as insignificant as possible). I have no other serious objections. if you want to start from the numbers then lets start from there. We are not here to decide if a genocide happened or not. Wikipedia is here to show what current historical literature says. and for this system of a down group. it is clearly a racist hate group and if we say they are doing art what is art anyway? neurobio 14:48, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Totally untrue, excludes the lead and the culture section, there are 2,629 words dedicated to the Turkish government position, and only 3,183 words for what is said by most historians in the West, the international community etc, and what is said to have happened. In terms of space, the Turkish government position is given much more spaces for the position about an accurence of an event than the majority position. So what you claim is totally groundless. As for System of a down, you should hear all the BS rap groups or rock groups scream about, personally system of a down is not my type, but the sort of music, if we can call that music, they sing, is the sort of antagonizing about every bit of daily life. Fad (ix) 17:26, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
well no matter which way you look at it the debate has been going on for 90 years so your logic that its the world vs TR and that this should be the basis of measure does not really hold! Lutherian 18:09, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Well sorry, it is, a couple of vocal scholars can not be presented as equaly relevant. I don't build interpretations on what neutrality is. Fad (ix) 01:34, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

you are really being funny this time. So you are talking about the former "the turkish Denial" part. Putting all opposition under a Turkish goverment propaganda title clearly makes sense. first of all, All these counter arguements are not only derived from Turkish Historians and authoroties but also from other sources. And still "tiny little" remarks are made in these section in order to discredit or just let me put the right word "to show how bulls*** it is".

here are some examples: "however the facts as reported by hundreds and perhaps thousands of eyewitnesses of the time - included detailed reports from American Consolur officials stationed in various parts of the Ottoman EMpire - entirely contradicts these fallacios and self serving claims made by Turkey." the very first paragraph. (Wow thanks for the other side of the story),

There is a lot of mixup and claims added as it was a discussion page in paragraph 2.

paragraph 3: former ambassador, has a different explanation regarding why it took so much time to publish the Ottoman records; he declared: The liabilities of not publishing the historical documents outweigh the advantages. this quote which smells forgery very badly is showing the Turkish claims very nicely.

Title: political arguments (which means Turkish nonsense) 1st paragraph: "Of course these cliams could not be proven even during the time as German's were looking for pro-Turkish propoganda that could be used to justify actions taken against the Armenain population but could find none that were at all supportable. Numerous German diplomatic correspondences indicate that all was quiet among the Armenians and that no revolutionary or appreciable seditious activity was taking place. Other German correspondences to Turkey pleaded with the Turks to stop the senseless massacres." (well said Turks!)

and it goes on like this in each paragraph. So this part is not written to show what Turks think but rather to state that Turkish claims are wrong, funny and pathetic.

the oppsition part does not show the real number of western academicians who are opposing the issue and tries hard to discredit the most by saying "A small number of Western academics, few of whom could be considered authorities on the matter". surprisingly in support section all names cited are either economists, publishers and left extremest with documented link to terorist organisations. but indeed they can be considered as authorities since they support the armenian thesis.

So here I thank the writer of this article for his extreme effords to reflect the other side of the story. I wish to award him with a barnstar of .... well you name it.neurobio 23:00, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, the opposit thesis is mostly supported by Turkey and Turkish diplomats, thosefor it is entry relevant to have that section. Besides, other than the former Turkish embassadors words, which no, isen't a forgery at all(the sources isen't even Armenian, those statments have created somehow some fury among academicians at that time so I doubt those involved there have forgotten it), I have nothing, absolutly nothing to do with those wordings, they have most probably been added after the conflict with Karabekir and Ottomanreference (same sock), since somehow I have stopped adding anything new or mostly stopped reverted POV pushing because I was really fed up with the way the article was modified by whomever without proper discussion. I will not take the blame for things which I have tried to prevent, when Francis has proposed to add back the NPOV tag and proposed changes made, we were to deal with that first, but then came full loads of newly registered POV pushers and voilà. And besides, you haven't ever used the talkpage to ever propose anything closely relevant for the improvement of the article, what you just brought above, except for one example which should stay and is not at all a forgery as you claim, the rest would have been reverted had I had the supports I was requesting from the beginning and haven't obtained. Those few days I had some things to do, but this week, certainly I will finally submit the RfAr. Fad (ix) 01:34, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Give your opinions factual support, please

Whoever DOES have authority to edit this article: the term "obviously false" with no textual support does not belong in Wikipedia. I highly recommend that a veteran Wikipedian clean this article up a bit, making the mode of communication a bit more intelligent and a bit less like a rant. I'm not debating how true it is, I'm just saying its presented in an ugly way, and you don't put personal opinions in an encyclopedia, do you?

I agree, no one has control over this sort of edit wars, and this is what I expect from the RfAr I will fill. Only then, could this article be finally improved. Fad (ix) 17:27, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


I am not sure why you call this work by McCarthy an excellent piece, but anyway it is what it is. The conclusion, at the first approximation, that can be drawn about the Armenian population and casualties, from the data presented by him and others for times around 1912 and later is the following (parts of the data from the Ottoman Armenian Population in Wiki and references therein):

               Population      Losses  Survivors

Turkish: 1.527E6, 647000, 880000 Armenian: 1.915E6, 1.5E6, 415000 Western: 1.9E6, 1.2E6, 700000

Gives the average population of about 1.78E6, losses of about 1.12E6, and survival rate of about 665000. Taking into account the small number of the Armenians left in the later Turkish Republic (and or in modern Turkey which is also an indicator), being no more than 60000, one can conclude that the vast majority of the survivors was deported and/or migrated all around (former Ottoman arabic countries, US, Russia, etc).

One does not need to show the standard deviation on such data, since the numbers vary dramatically. A factor of 2 is huge for population statistics.

It goes without saying that none of the sources is trustworthy because of the political reasons widely discussed in the available sources in literaure. However, about 100 years later there is not much we can do but to deal with what is available. I am not sure even how much the scholarly work will help in this case. But I am not a professional, so cannot really elaborate on this.

Vahan Senekerimyan 06:08, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry but two things stick out of the paper: that the Ottoman government population census is way more likely to be accurate and therefore trustworthy given that most of the information comes before the period of conflict. Secondly he successfully argues that the bulk of the loss comes from migration and NOT massacres! Lutherian 15:08, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Nice effort and I see what you are getting at - but McCarthy's population estimates (and they are that - at best) have been shown numerous times to be highly suspect and faulty - including his various assumptions and calculations of undercounts and such which are based solely on his suppositions without basis and which have been tailored to ensure concluding that there were less Armenians in Anatolia (as a whole and in the specific towns and vilyets he focuses on) then has been commonly accepted by both the contempoary scholarly community as well as estimates made by various national intelligence agencies and governments during the time of the Genocide itself. Obviously when one looks at population - no matter what gross total number of Armenians one assumes lived in Anatolia pior to 1915 - the insignificant number remaining and the range of mortality estimates based on eyewitness accounts and other compiled data leads one easily to the conclusion that a great and near total decimation of the Armenain people occured in Anatolai in an incredibly short period of time - the likes of which have never been seen before or after this period in time. It can be argued that the Armenian Genocide might be considered as the single greatest human disaster to affect a single ethnic group as any that occured in history - certainly in the top few of any such cases. What more really needs to be said about this really....except to present how and why such a thing occured...and perhaps discuss why the descendents of the perpetrators still deny that such a thing occured so vehemently - in the face of all evidence to the contrary... --THOTH 20:30, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Oh so let me get this straight, the estimates of the Armenian church and the missionaries of the time were more accurate and honest than those of the Ottoman government census? Do you seriously belive this? Single greatest human disaster? Are you competing with the Jewish holocaust? Maybe we should discuss why the descendants of the so called "survivors" have so much hate for anything thats even remotely Turkish? Enough to kill like they did in the 70's and 80's? Maybe we should discuss why its a duty for every "good" Armenian to teach their children that all Turks are evil because they reject the "genocide" thesis! If you are going to argue this, at least make an honest attempt! Lutherian 05:28, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Irrelevant and innacurate points. Are all Turks POpe haters and pope attempted murderers because Mehemet Ali Acga attempted to kill the pope? Get real --THOTH 13:40, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
BTW - the effect on the Armenain community/nation in Anatolia of the Armenian Genocide clearly exheeds in scope, brutality and ultimate wiping out of Armenian civilization in their native land as compared to what occured to the Jewish communities of Europe during WW2 in the Holocaust. I really wouldn't want to start an argument about which was worse - however you brought it up. It is clear that there still exist Jews and Jewish communities throughout Europe where the Holocaust occured - I know this as I know many European Jews. Outside of a very small enclave in Istanbul there are basically no Armenians left in Turkey - and none in the traditionally known "Armenian Vilyets" where Armenians lived and thrived for thousands of years. So yes an argument can certainly be made that the devistation of the Armenian Genocide to the Armenians was worse then that suffered by the Jews of Europe during the Holocaust of WW2 (even in terms of percentage of population lost...and clearly in terms of lands, property and communities stolen never to be returned and never to recieve any compensation for...). One reason for this I think is that the CUP/Turks were able to more or less complete their plan but in the case of the Nazis the Allies disrupted them from wiping out all they had intended (by decisively ending the war before the plans were complete). Additionally Anatolia (and ultimatly the Republic of Turkey) remained hostile to the Armenians after the war and limited, discouraged and prevented resetlement - in fact they actively murdered many hundreds of thousands more Armenians in the 1920s. Meanwhile Germany was subdued - the evil elements who sponsired the Holocaust were largely gathered up and many succesfully prosecuted and turned paraih as they should have been - while Turkey has acted to protect and sheild its criminals of the past for a variety of reasons. --THOTH 17:06, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Cannot suppress an entire pool of historical scholarship

There is an extremely qualified body of historical scholarship that simply disagrees with the Armenian thesis and this is being denied by those who wish to suppress this reality from being reflected on the article.

Having a historical debate on these pages as a solution is futile. None of us are more qualified than the historians in question, so the idea that i should discard the views of people of the standing of Bernard Lewis on the strengh of what some wikipedians pasted is frankly absurd. Nobody here is anywhere near qualified to argue away those positions into an insignificance which should not be represented on the article.

The position exists. That is indisputable fact. It is held by highly distinguished historians of the Middle East, including one most often described as the most distinguished. The article must include this, with no partisan qualifiers. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.145.233.67 (talk • contribs) .

Let me understand this correctly Deepblue, are you seriously calling suppression when there are not a single reputable scholars who recognize it named in the article when the opposit is true, there is not a single Armenologist used, and that what you are requesting is to give an half coverage of the entire article to Ottomanists/Turkologists. Indeed Lewis, but can you provide any work written by him which could be used in the article?(I can provide one in which he calls the event 'Armenian Holocaust') For each reputable scholars you can find supporting your thesis I can name at least 10 scholars who doesn't. And if you don't trust me, JUST TRY!!! I don't see the article maintaining this 10+/1 ratio, do you? It is like claiming the overal presence of electrons in an orbital in the 10% section, even though over 90% probability of presence is on the center of that orbital. You are suggesting that there are any historic event which there is no different positions, an encyclopedic article must cover things as they are covered in the Academia. If we take the quantum mechanic interpretation of things, there are probability's of my electrons in your backyard, and I can build a cases on that. Also, there isen't much more Western scholars who support the Turkish government thesis than Turkish intellectuals supporting the Armenian genocide thesis, should those intellectuals be given as much spaces then? Don't you see it? If we were to give its due presence for each positions according to the statistics, you would be lucky if you could get a 10/1 coverage and I was more than reasonably fair. There is no way in the world that you will obtain a 50/50, forget about that. Fad (ix) 20:07, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Better yet lets address the actual arguments being made and evidence to support such. (I mean is it sufficient to acknowledge that David Irving is among the most well regarded historical experts concerning Nazi Germany to just accept his rather dubious positions regarding the Holocaust at face value...clearly Irving's knowledge.expertise is eminatly more reconizble and directly appropriate to the period then that of any generic Ottoman scholar or Turkish historian is concerning the Armenian Genocide and the period of the history of WWI. Where in fact can a (non Turkish) historian of WWI be produced who denies the Armenian Genocide? Answer - it is basically impossible to find one...and again I remind you of the definition of genocide and how the Armenian Genocide is included implicitly in such definition...etc) Oh and BTW Lewis was sent a very pointed questionare by the Association of Genocide scholars asking for his evidence concerning why - in 1961 and prior - he published acknowledging the Armenian Genocide - then - after becomming the direct recipient of substansial Turkish "edicational" grant money - he then began to deny it. He has yet to answer this letter nor prodice any specific data that supports his 360 degree reversal....curious that. So yeah - let us see Benard Lewis's evidence. Just claiming that he denies the Armenian Genocide is not enough (except for a factual footnote that he and others do deny the Armenian Genocide - and that the vast majority of those who do are either Turkish or can be proven to have monetary ties to Turkish research funding and/or are not in fact qualified as any sort of experts on in this issue in the first place. Furthermore the quality of the "evidence" (or should we say lack therof) to support counter Genocide claims and the absolute failure of the arguments put forth by these "scholars" and by the various offical Turkish positions over the years is plain for all to see - as is their near total lack of corraborated evidence for their various calims (when they actually put foreward anything of relevance). These are the facts. The position denying the Armenian Genocide is a great fraud and it is an insult to humanity and to the victims of the Genocide and the descendents of the survivors in particular. --THOTH 20:15, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Firstly Fad, I am not DeepBlue or any of the other people you have claimed I am. My IP range is 82.145. It has always been this and will continue being this. I do not see the point of choosing a nickname that is just as anonymous as 82.145. Or perhaps I should just choose the nick '82.145' to play this petty game with you. Besides, you even accuse those people who do sign in of all being the same people too - this allows you to tarnish anyone as being those who have supposedly vandalised your work. You have collected everyone who disagrees with you on this discussion page into one persona and you accuse this persona of everything unpleasant that has ever been done to you. It is ridiculous and takes away from your credibility on other issues.
I do not believe I at any point mentioned 50/50 or any such ratio. My point was only that there exists a legitimate camp of disagrees and this should be reflected without qualifiers (i.e. 'see also holocaust denial'). I am not even going to give the Thor the benefit of engagement as to why I should dismiss the worlds most respected authority on Middle East history and listen to him instead. If anyone doubts this, they can go looking for Middle Eastern historians and see Lewis cover their screen accompanied by the most glowing terms of recognition. Lewis was just an example anyway.
Why is it that every Western scholar who disagrees with you must surely be in it for the money and yet those Armenian historians are surely objective historians?
Back to the ACTUAL issue - are you prepared to allow the article to reflect the disputed nature of the Armenian thesis or not? Are you prepared to do this without the extreme prejudice that currently exists (i.e. sub-headings that dismiss respected authorities on Middle Eastern history as holocaust deniers).


The article needs to mention that the Turkish goverment disputes that it was genocide and that certain academics (mostly Turkish or otherwise connected...) have supported this view. Specific counter arguments that have been surfaced (and examples perhaps by whom) should be referenced - however if there exist counters to these arguments or issues (that other academics and such have raised) that point to the weakness of these arguments - these need to also be included. The bottom line is that most all of the arguments supposedly countering the genocide designation - the factuality of the Armenian Genocide - have either been conclusively countered in legitimate academic circles or they do not otherwise hold. For the most part these supposed counter arguments are insuficient to counter genocide claims - even if true - in whole or part. What is more often the case is that the supposed arguments against the genocide are non academic in nature - but political or just plain deflection by bringing up supposed circumstance or what have you that have no real support - basically just contentions made that are evasive of the facts and done in an attempt to mislead. The denial of the Armenian Genocide is 99% political. --THOTH 03:17, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Additionally - any mention of Lewis - in regards to the Armenian Genocide - needs to document that he once acknoledged it - and that later when he changed his publically stated views he specifically stated (in 1993) that: "the reality of the Armenian genocide results from nothing more than the imagination of the Armenian people." For making this statement in a French News-magazing LeMond - he was tried and convicted for a faulty portryal of history - one which discounted the facts and brought hurt to the decsendents of the victims of this tragedy. The French Court specifically cited him with wilfully ignoring the overwhelming evidence and International (UN & European Parliment) acknowledgement of the factuality fo the genocide. In fact several scholars have highlighted the direct parallels of Lewis's stated reasoning for denying the Armenian Genocide (the claim of armed rebellion against the Ottoman State) with the claims of several notable Holocaust deniers concerning Jewish revolts and resistance to the German State and the parellel claim that no Ottoman document exists that calls for a genocide (extermination) of Armenians exactly as no document can be found where Hitler has called for the complete extermination of the Jews. Thus Lewis makes identicle arguments in denying the Armenian Genocide that are used in denying the Holocaust. And again - David Irving is recognized as the pre-iminent scholar of this period of German history - the Nazi era - where Lewis is more recognized for his studies of earlier Ottoman/Middle Eastern history (and has in fact recently come under some scrutiny for taking a racist approach to these studies.) And again lastly - Israel Charney has twice written Lewis for clarification of Lewis's remaks that he had changed his mind regarding the Armenian Genocide based on the evidence - but Lewis has been unable to produce this new evidence in any form whatsoever. http://www.ideajournal.com/articles.php?sup=9 ...so yeah - lets discuss these scholars and such who deny the Armenian Genocide - lets address their claims - I'm all for it...--THOTH 03:59, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


This settles I guess, now there is at least 3 different IP's. Also, where have I claimed all are the same people?

Without qualifiers? Are you suggesting that their critics should not be mentioned? Colin Imber who is an Ottomanist is at least as notable as McCarthy and possibly even more, and he calls one of his books as junk history in a review. I don't make up those critics they exist and you can not request their deletions. And as for Lewis, Lewis can not be included in a list of those who deny the Armenian genocide, the only relevant referance was the article in Le Monde, saying that there was no evidences that the massacres were an official policy of the Ottoman government. His only direct coverage of the Armenian massacres was in his History of Modern Turkey, he uses the term Holocaust and provide 1,5 million as the number of victims. His more recent works like 'What Went Wrong?: The Clash Between Islam and Modernity in the Middle East', or his 'The Crisis of Islam: Holy War and Unholy Terror' don't provide any coverages. You can not cook some support which is not there, even Yapp uses terms such as 'genocidal,' Davison provides no published work which can be considered as revisionist that I am aware of, his 'Armenian Crises 1912-1914' which Halacoglu fraudulently misinterpret in his work is far from supporting the Turkish government thesis, and is a must read. Also, you can not misleadingly overexpose Turkologists and Ottomanists because that will be POV. What is the relevency of adding names after names, when you can not relate to published records, in no other articles covering history will you find names in support of a position when they don't have a single work published about the event which could permit us to know what is exactly the position they are maintaining. Not even Lewy, can be included with the Turkish government position(at least not his book, but rather according to the interview he gave to a Turkish newspaper), and that he also reject the term genocide for two other cases is indeed relevent, call that qualifiers, but that they are controversial is not as if it was something made up by me. What you are expecting is to creat the illusion that there are various Western historians who maintains the Turkish government thesis when if we consider their publications only two, Stanford Shaw who has been accused of plagierism and Justin McCarthy do, the rests who are recycled and recycled and called revisionists maintains a middle range. Even Lowry hasn't much of a coverage of the event, only one relevant booklet covering Morgenthau.

What you expect me to do? The article should be about the positions maintained about this subject, and hust only because that doesn't satisfy you, you want to make of it a sort of databses in which you will load the article with names pretending to support the Turkish government version by cooking and original research much like what our dear chap the author of tallarmeniantale has done to build his site. But this is not how it works, they either are of published relevance either they are not. This is not to say that some relevant names should be added, but their exact position with references to their works should be made. Why is it that every Western scholar who disagrees with you must surely be in it for the money and yet those Armenian historians are surely objective historians? Many disagree with me, I disagree with many issues broughts by Dadrian, Taner Akçam and various other authors who are called 'pro-genocide' by those maintaining your position. On the other hand, those claiming that no genocide has happened, most of the time are specialist of Turkish studies with chairs funded by the Turkish republic, I don't make up things, grants and donations are public anyone can check about them. This is true and is relevant, it has nothing to do with me disagreeing. That 51 out of the 69 scholars have either recieved ARIT or ITS or both, isen't something made by Armenians, that the very large majority specialise in Turkish studies isen't my invention, that there are several of them who indeed recognize the genocide isen't something made by me, that most don't have any works covering the subject they signed about isen't my invention. As for Armenian historians objectivity, I guess another one judging ones work worth on his/her ethnicity. Good going. Fad (ix) 06:19, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Novel by Micheline Aharonian Marcom on Armenian Genocide

Hi I am new and not logged in, not Armenian or Turkish (ok I'm Lebanese-American). I see no mention of the novel published first in the USA by Micheline Aharonian Marcom: _Three Apples Fell From Heaven_ which deals with the Armenian Genocide. It won the Lannan prize in 2004 ($60,000) and was a New York Times notable book. It's searing and powerful. I just finished reading it. Told through multiple voices, including that of an infant who dies on the plain on the way to Der Al-Zur, this novel is a major literary contribution and needs to be noted in the pages. 68.122.238.238 00:19, 27 May 2006 (UTC)Leila

I heard about that book. I cant remember where though. Hmm...

El benderson 04:40, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Ottoman Armenian Population discussion continued

It is simple: I do not believe and rely on any of the three sources about the population but have to use either none of them or all of them. Using all of them I increse the probability of being closer to the truth compared to using just any single one of them. McCarthy, as one can see from his article, uses the numbers acquired during the Hamidian times. At those times, the issus of creation of the Armenian state in hand, data falsification would be a piece of cake by the Armenian Church as well as by the official Ottoman government. Under normal circumstances, with no politics involved, yes, I would put the official State statistics at the first place. As for the statistics done by the church, it may also be accurate the way it was conducted by the Christian churches in Europe at the time. But again, the Armenian church could have increased the numbers for the same reason that the official government would have decreased. One would think the neutral sources (Western) would reflect the real statistics, however, I do not give it a higer weight because first, the same political reasons, second, since they did not have a direct access to the population statistics as the government or the church did. Just the fact that the Western sources show statistics very close to that of the Armenian church, does not really give me a reason to count on it. So, averaging out the data from all the sources is in fact a reasonable thing to do given the circumstances, the lack of accurate information, and the contradictory scholarship.

As for McCarthy alone, you have to take into account the fact that he is not the only scholar in the field, and there is quite a few professionals arguing and disagreeing with his methodology. I don't try to give any one scholar a high weight and price in order not to bias the issue. Common sense is the best tool.

One has to face the facts first without referring to authorities. A very low population left in the newly-formed Republic of Turkey (or the modern Turkey), whereas most of the Armenian population of the Ottoman period resided in Anatolia (basically no Armenians left currently there), Istanbul, and a few other relatively big cities. What do we observe afterwards is a small population in Istanbul, and that's it. Even if I only take the data presented by McCarthy and forget about all other sources, I still get that about 42-43 % of the Armenian population perished after 1910-1912 and the vast majority of the survivors appeared outside the newly-formed Republic (deported/migrated). Now imagine that an ethnic minority lost 42-43 percent of its population during the war time, the rest being deported and migrated. Given the non-active involvement of the Armenians in the military at the time, these numbers are scary, think about it. Imagine that, for example, during the WWII Soviets lost over a 20mln people, and it happened such that one of their ethnic minorities (Chechens or Tartars, for instance) lost 42 % of their population. Wouldn't you be at least sceptical about it?

If I now take not just McCarthy's numbers but the averaged values, then what I see is that 62-63 % of the population perished, a well more than half the population! Vahan Senekerimyan 08:15, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

we are not arguing the dramatic drop in the population of Armenians, ethnic cleansing occured no doubt. What is being argued is whether this constitutes an act of genocide so I dont really see what you are trying to get at here Lutherian 09:37, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Robert Melson - Holocaust survivor and genocide scholar has addressed this issue quite well and in fact distinguishes the Armenian Genocide and the Jewish Holocaust from other genocides due to the severity of the destruction of the populaces. In his book Revolution and Genocide - On the Origins of the Armenian Genocide and the Holocaust - he states in the introduction (page xv): "As in the case of the Final Solution, a regime formulated a public policy whose intent was the physical destruction of the Armenian community and its elimination from the society, culture, and politics of the Ottoman Empire. Both the Holocaust and the Armenian Genocide were the quintessential examples of total domestic genocide, what the United Nations has called "genocide-in-whole" to distinguish such instances from "genocide-in-part"." In this excellent study of the causations of genocide (and these two major genocides in particular) Melson makes an excellent case for how similar social/political revolutions in Nazi Germany and the Ottoman Empire led to enviroments where specific ethnic minorities (Jews and Armenians) were seen as being resented for recent economic and political progress and had become to be seen as "others" who could not be reconcilled with the newly established political and social orders these revolutionary parties (Nazis and CUP) were attempting to achieve. In both cases the parties pursued war (and the corresponding domestic martial law environment) that allowed them to take wisespread extreme and violent actions against percieved internal enemies without foriegn intervention to stop them. The parellels are quite striking. And Melson makes it quite clear that in each case the evidence clearly establishes that a government plan was carried out to the effect that - OK lets use your term - a total ethnic cleansing of a particular religious-minority citenzenry was concieved and executed - the results of which - in both cases - Total Domestic Genocide of the targetted groups...an "ethnic cleansing in whole" as you will. So yes - it was an ethnic cleansing all right - one that more correctly could be termed - genocide. --THOTH 21:59, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I think you are not following the line of the discussion. As I mentioned from the very beginning, double check it if you wish, we should first agree on numbers before putting any tags on the events. You instead jump to putting names and tags and whether it contitutes a genocide or not, and make it look that you are being defensive. You do not have to be defensive, I do not accuse you in anything. If you agree with the numbers and the reasoning then we made a big step forward, at least we are not comparing apples and oranges. If you accept the fact of ethnic cleansing without any doubt then you have to acknowledge that no ethnic cleansing by definition can happen without organization. Masses do not and cannot commit such a crime without an organized back-up. Vahan Senekerimyan 11:08, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

your game plan is obvious, your objective is to prove that the so called genocide actually occured by facts and figures and whatever else there is out there. My point is, all this has been debated countless times not only by the likes of yourself and I but by true historians, scholars etc following the same principals of building a case and the outcome was failure. But that should be evident to you, you cite figures and you yourself admit that these figures cannot be accurate because the sources cannot be taken at face value, so then you go on to say well lets reach a compromise, something like an average between the various sources but, I am sorry, that doesnt work, what if one of the sources is so tainted that its figures are way elsewhere? Thats going to create a serious skew dont you think? Listen, all I am saying is that this approach of yours is bound to fail just like all the previous attempts because the indoctrination is complete and so there is no neutrality on either side, and thats a fact! And to answer your question about ethnic cleansing, yes, obviously you had organization to carry it out, the government had plans and gave instruction to deport Armenians from the sensitive areas, but dont think for a second that if ethnic cleansing occured this means that genocide was the next step. There is NO documented evidence that the central government gave explicit or implicit orders as such, now if you base your proof on foreign witnesses, im sorry but that just does not hold, most if not all of them held biased views on the matter for a multitude of reasons including religion and racism. Also, you mention above that 60% of the pop perished, so this is an implicit belief of yours that 60% were massacred whilst earlier you mention massacre and relocation, you are contradiciting yourself! My point is, lets not waste our breath because there is nothing here that our resident contributor Fadix has not already explored and therefore there is nothing to discuss. Lutherian 11:42, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Dear Vahan I agree with Lutherian that we can not come to an agreement on a number (given the fat that historians can not agree too) and I believe that it is not our bussiness. The history comunity has several numbers around. Only single truth that we see is no matter how hard you (i dont mean you in particular) try the 1.500.000 figure is wrong. And the numbers are not important. Every single human is valuable nothing changes if it is 300.000 or 1.000.000. the context of the loosses is what matters here. So I propose we present several numbers from several sources and close the deal. I see that you are coming to that body count to make way and persuate us so that at some point we will inevitably have to accept it as a genocide. I understand this. You believe in the genocide and think it is obvious. I find nothing wrong in this. I think the other way around. But I again want to say that we are not here to decide. We are here to show the current literature. Please tell me if you agree with that or not. then we can discuss how to present the literatureneurobio 12:19, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I do not play games, I would not in fact on such a subject, eventually it does not make my life better or nicer. I depart from the assumption that we are civilized people here that can shake hands before leaving the topic even if there is any disagreement left. Your reasoning and the logics of the discussion make me smile, no offense. I do not know which countless cases of failure you are referring to. 70 out of 90 years that you mention were years of Soviet era, when Armenia did not have any voice, no statehood. Diaspora alone could not achieve much without lobbying, it took a while to reach that point. The neutrality point of yours is clear, both sides are biased. I opened this discussion and I followed your reference to McCarthy regarding the demographics and sincerely expressed my opinion about his work and the subject, and yes I did offer a compromise so that we could proceed. The basis of the compromise makes absolute sense, if you look at it even scientifically. Taking McCarthy's numbers alone I showed you that the losses were over 40 %, a huge number for the population of the ethnic minority if you think about it. Ethnic cleansing by the orders of the government and deportations indeed do not constitute a genocide yet. What is the observable though? What we observe in fact is that over 40 % (at least) perished and the rest were deported. Losing 40 % of the population in the revolts or local ethnic conflicts sounds silly, do you believe in that honestly? What percentage of the Turkish population perished due to the local revolts and conflicts with the Armenians?

Let me also mention that you are the one hurrying to make the verdict calling it a genocide or not in this discussion. Along your defensive line, for the reasons not clear to me, you are jumping forward talking about the documented evidence of the genocide. How do you imagine this documented evidence of the genocide? Even if it existed, do you give all the credibility to the Young Turk government that they would not under any circumstances destroy the archives? Would you claim this? Facts do not need to be documented, documenting makes them stronger, that's all. What matters most is the observable.

As you saw from the discussion I did not claim the 1.5 mln to be a correct number. And yes I am not here to decide, the governments should. But when I entered the topic I faced lots of personal attacks and irrelevance going on, obviously not presenting literature alone. I am sure that the article written will be updated, changed, modified, criticized, etc. Vahan Senekerimyan 22:02, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Vahan - as Fadix often says - we need to present the various data as has been put foreward by various scholarls and analysts (you should also look at the section linked in the main article on Ottoman population that Fadix has produced). But yes I agree with what you are saying here. The bottom line - the one that the Turks - including Turks attempting to contribute here - don't want to face up to - is that such a decimating loss of population in such a short periiod of time - experienced by one community (actuly the Greeks and Assyrians experienced similar as well in places) can only be explained by accepting that there was a genocide. And considering the great deal of evidence - eyewitness - that of Turky's allies - confessions and convictions of various CUP and such - the facts and history of what occured is very clear. There is really very little of substance that is even really disputable. --THOTH 13:51, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
The indoctrination is complete, hence discussion on this matter with the hope of reaching agreement is futile, thanks for once again confirming this point THOTH.Lutherian 16:17, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Sorry to expose you to truth and reality - but yeah - your contributions here have been pretty worthless. There are certainly issues to discuss - but the outright denial that you bring here really has no place in a civil discussion or a realistic treatment of these issues. Sorry to burst your bubble. --THOTH 16:57, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Please dont worry, you certainly did not burst no bubble of mine but lets get one fact straight here, there are two POVs held on this issue, and yes, sorry to dissapoint you but the genocide thesis is just that, a simple POV and nothing else! Why else has this emotionally charged debate been going on for 90 years and, more importantly, why do you bother to answer me and countless others if you believe yourself to be of a higher order with your insidious remarks that what I am saying has no place in a civil discussion? Do you have a monopoly on knowledge? It seems that its your bubble that is being burst here! Lutherian 18:55, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Ha ha - and how is that. Just by claiming that the Armenian Genocide didn't happen is no better then claiming that the Holocaust didn't happen (and pretty much using the exact same rational) - the only difference being that the government of Turkey - the inheritor of the Ottoman Empire - the perpetrator of these crimes - refuses to accept/acknowledge the truth. Otherwise there is no argument. The evidence supporting the contention of genocide in this case is simply overwhelming. You have done nothing to counter such. Additionally - as has been amply demonstrated here numerous times - the word itself was coined by Lemkin in great part to describe the Armenian experience in Anatolia during 1915-16 at the hands of the Ottoman Turkish government - thus the Armenian Genocide being such is explicit in the use of the term. And one can just as easily compile a list of "scholars" who deny the Holocaust - does this mean it didn't occur? Do claims that (some/certain/several or what have you or just in general) Jews were a threat to the Third Reich and acted counter to state interests in any way invalidate what was done to them. By the way I'm waiting for your claims that the earth is flat and that the moon is made of cheese...--THOTH 21:29, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Im sorry, just because the pope or his messenger says that a genocide occured doesnt mean that it really did occur and please stop comparing the Jewish holocaust, a horrendous crime in the hands of murderous Nazis which really did happen and your alleged genocide which is nothing more than the collective bitterness from a failed attempt to carve out eastern Anatolia for Armenia. In the end, it doesnt matter much because although Turkey has only woken up now, afters years of a concerted hate campaign against them, they are in full throttle and the truth WILL be revealed in due course! Lutherian 05:02, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
You have it all backwards. Just because you - and some other hyper-nationalistic Turks - say that the Armenian Genocide didn't happen doesn't mean a thing because it did happen and there is more then sufficient proof that it did - far beyond anyone just claiming that it did for some nefarious political reason (in fact it is the denial that is both nefarious, untruthful and politically motivated). Your arguments are weak and without substance and your tired (nothing new or factual) schtick is getting quite old. yawn. --THOTH 05:44, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
LOL, because I reject the thesis im now accused of being a nationalist or on the payroll of the goverment, please you are going to have to come up with something more credible than that! Its a fact that the so called genocide is a figment of your imagination and a systematic Armenian policy of denigrating and tarnishing the Turkish image for religious/racial purposes! Please put an end to your hate campaign, its a waste of time and you will never succeed Lutherian 08:29, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
You must be joking...who would pay you for the crap that you come up with? Even the Turkish Government isn't so lame and naive. Pay you? Just to come here and say - "no its not true"? BTW - your position that Armenians (or anyone adherring to the factual history affirming the Armenian Genocide) is juts here to hate Turkey/Turks and tarnish the image of such and that the Armenain Genocide is just a figment of immagination...well I think these positions of yours entirely validate my claim that you are just a Turkish hyper-nationalist with nothing of substance to add to this issue. Otherwise in Wiki terms you are known as a TROLL. --THOTH 13:43, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Who is this geezer anyway? What a fake!

"Lutherian", hahaha! First of all, it's called "lutheran", and then you go check his profile: "calvinist at heart". What a laugh! Old Martin himself said, he'd rather go to Rome than Geneva were he forced to choose. It's like choosing the faulty nick of "sonnite" and then go lauding shi'ite imams on your page. Efriden 19:12, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Countries who have recognized the genocide

For the list of countries that have recognized the genocide, could we find some sources for that? I'm thinking of Canada in particular. Though Prime Minister Harper used the term 'genocide' in the House of Commons, I dont know if that constitutes an official recognition. Does anyone have any clear information on this case or any others?

Harper's comments are not what the article is referring to. See here [9] and here [10]--MarshallBagramyan 19:41, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


Robert Melson's analysis of the origins of the Armenian Genocide - needs to be included/referenced in the article

"The Armenian Genocide and the Holocaust were the quintessential instances of genocide in the modern era. Three reasons may be cited for this claim. First, there were instances of what we shall call "total genocide" or what the United Nations has called "genocide-in-whole" to distinguish such instances from massacre and "genocide-in-part." Both catastophes were the products of state-initiated policies whose intended and actual results were the elimination of the Armenian community from the Ottoman Empire and of the Jewish community from most of Europe, respectively. Second, both victimized groups were ethnoreligious communal minorities that had been partially integrated and assimilated into the larger society. Their destruction was not only a war against foreign strangers, it was a mass murder that commenced with an attack on an internal domestic segment of the state's own society. The genocide of the Armenians should be understood not as a response to "Armenian provocations" but as a stage in the Turkish revolution, which as a reaction to the continuing disintegration of the empire settled on a narrow nationalism and excluded Armenians from the moral universe of the state. It should be obvious from the overwhelming evidence that exists in the state archives of major powers (the above being but a small representative sample) that the 1915 genocide of the Armenians was premeditated and the isolated cases of armed resistance by the Armenians were deliberately provoked by the Turkish govenrment so as to exploit it as justification for a general campaign of race extermination. That being so, bringing up the much discredited myth of Armenian disloyalty in the context of the 1915 Armenian Genocide is as offensive to the victims as well as to well-informed non-Armenians as bringing up the Nazi rationalization of an alleged "international Jewish conspiracy" would be in the context of the Nazi Holocaust. Because both the Armenians under Ottoman rule and the Jews in Nazi-occupied Europe perished not for something they did or failed to do, but for who they were."

Professor Robert Melson Revolution and Genocide: On the Origins of the Armenian Genocide and the Holocaust University of Chicago Press - Chicago and London - 1992

--THOTH 22:53, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Robert Fisk's book The Great War for Civilization also contains an excellent analysis on the similarities between the Armenian and Jewish Holocausts. Whenever the article in unlocked, I'll be sure to include details from his book on to this article. --MarshallBagramyan 23:36, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Agreed - Fisk writes on these issues quite eloquently and factually. I feel that Melson's analysis particularly stands out however as it was conducted and presented in a scholarly setting where he put foreward some assumptions and clearly proved them - concerning the outgrowth of genocide from revolutionary situations - particularly ones in the context of crumbling society (and Empire) where the dominant group is seeking blame for the nations's problems and is re-inventing the society based upon racial make-up - thus setting the stage for villianization and ultimatly elimination of unwanted minorities (who had long been marginalized as second or underclass citizens - but had been experiencing economic, social and political renaissance at the very time the greater polity was suffering decline - thus making them subject to derision and jealousy from the majority population). Melson does a superb job making this case and tying the two genocides directly together (in terms of process and enactment - etc). Both Melson and Fisk should be mentioned of course - however the analysis of Melson is I think - in a sense - groundbreaking and extremely relevant. --THOTH 13:54, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
And once the article is unlocked, I will be sure to include detailed accounts of the differences between the Armenian massacres and the Holocaust. Except they will come from historians rather than journalists like Robert Fisk. The benefit of using actual qualified historical opinion is that they are forced to present data with their views - so they cannot make statements like the one by Melson, above, and conveniently forget that Armenian populations away from the Russian front, such as Istanbul and Izmir, were not subject to the relocation order. An odd inconsistency with 'total genocide' with a policy of 'race extermination' in mind. Are we writing an article based on a historical event using historians, or just putting together a patchwork of whatever suits your case? Why are we blowing off every historian that disagrees with you as 'holocaust deniers', despite the massive standing of some of these people in their field, while devoting entire sections to novelists and journalists and other layman opinion holders?
Yes let us put your supposition to the test - were only Armenians on the Russian front subject to genocide? And the others throughout Anatolia did what - emigrated on their own? There are a mirad of eyewitness accounts that witnessed and reported on what occured in a great many towns and villages throughout Anatolia - and not just on the Russian Front. I suggest we examine and include this first hand evidence to check the accuracy of your claims...--THOTH 06:47, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
It is not my supposition - that the incidents were geographical and not universal to the Armenian population of Ottoman Turkey is the assertion every historian I have read on the matter, Armenian or otherwise. Perhaps you would like to visit the Patriach in Istanbul and have him explain it to you too - he gives sermons to a flock of ghosts that were part of a total extermination policy who all lived right under the noses of the exterminators.
Hahaha - you think you are so smart with these know-nothing comments fo yours. The facts regardign why - during the Armenian Genocide - only two communitees with substansial Armenian populations were spared is well known. The German prohibited the full scale deportation and slaughter of Armenians from Istanbul and Smyrna - and this is documented (and an account {under oath] by German General Limon von Sanders exists which describes just how he and other German protected the Armenians from these places when orders to deport tham had already been drawn up. So I would not count on the exceptions to prove your view of no genocide because a few were sparred when in every other location where there were Armenians they were rounded up and deported or otherwise killed and there are no Armenian left today in Anatolia what-so-ever. Countrast this to Jews in Europe and account of Jews being allowed to not only live but to work on behelf of the Third Reich throghout the war - in many cases not as prisoners or such - but as free men - citizens of Germany. So how could it be possible that Germans commited a genocide on the Jews by your logic eh? --THOTH 17:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Lets see what a Turkish historian has said on this issue recently - "(What actually happened in 1915-16) was no accident, this was not a marginal or small thing, it was not a geographically or demographically limited thing, virtually the entirety of Ottoman Armenians has been ordered to be rounded up, socially deracinated, uprooted, dispossesses, and deported for no reason other than that they were Armenians and, secondly, that there was very strong evidence that the accompanied violence and massacres had not started spontaneously or despite the best intentions of the state to protect the convoys of the deportees. Rather, there was strong evidence to the effect that there were orders issued, disseminated, and executed through the Teşkilât-ı Mahsusa and that this in turn triggered secondary and tertiary rounds of violence and massacres once it became clear that the Armenians were fair game and that the shooting season was open on them. It fits the clauses of the 1948 UN convention (on genocide) comprehensively, and in that light, if we are permitted to take those categorizations and apply them to an event that occured 33 years earlier, then we have to say, “Yes, it was genocide” Halil Berktay - The Specter of the Armenian Genocide - An Interview with Halil Bektay - by Katchig Mouradian - November 1 2005 --THOTH 17:28, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
As long as this unqaulified inclusion is the case, it would be consistent with the tone of the rest of the article to dedicate a section to Shimon Peres "We reject attempts to create a similarity between the Holocaust and the Armenian allegations. Nothing similar to the Holocaust occurred. It is a tragedy what the Armenians went through but not a genocide." His view is at least as worthy as Pamuks, and more relevant given the Holocaust association debate. This too will be done when editing is reinstated.
Yes I think that a section concerning similarities and differences between the Holocaust and the Armenian Genocide would be most enlightening - from scholarly sources and using facts and such - with support - not just unqualified or political opinions.--THOTH 06:43, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
A 'Similarities' section already exists - given that holocaust comparisons have already been deemed relevant with the inclusoin of that section, a 'Differences' section will be added when the article is unlocked.
Similarities section is inadequate and lacking...but sure a differences section - why not? Of course these events were not identicle. Holocaust occured in Europe and was perpetuated by Nazi controlled Germany and Germans during WW2 in the periods of 1941-45...Armenian Genocide, by contrast, occured in Asia Minor in 1915-16 and was perpetuated by CUP controlled Ottoman Turkey and by Turks and Kurds....yes they were not the same event...but the similarities are most strikeing. The vast mirad of documention of each genocide proves such - and shows that nearly every measure and brutal tactic employed by the Nazis in its supression and extermination of the Jews had a precedent in the Armenian Genocide in tactics and actions employed by the CUP in its attempt to decimate the Armenain population. So yes - all of this needs to be presented in all its detail....similarities and differences - I agree...--THOTH 17:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
BTW - the only similarities section in the articel as it exists today is one which reflect unsubstantsiated/unsupported Turkish opion on this issue. A treu section outlining the earie and close similarities between the Holocaust and the Armenian Genocide does not exist in the articel - but thank you for voicing your support that such an entry needs to exists...by all means we need to make it happen. --THOTH 17:12, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
I can and am prepared to bring many examples from a great number of educated and recognized comparative genocide shcolars and historians to make the points concerning similarities between the Armenian genocide and the Holocaust (and of course of their denials). Here is but one example in addition to Melton - "Genocide often occurs during war, for example, the Armenian genocide during WWI, and the Holocaust of Jews and Gypsies during WWII, but should not be confused with the civilian war dead. This is a common trick of genocide deniers, to compare figures of one and the other, for example, the Muslim war dead during the First World War and Armenian victims of genocide. War does not cause genocide. It masks it, justifies the release of aggression and cruelty, provides a cover for the perpetrators, immunity from sanctions, and enables them to deny their responsibility by blaming the victims. Some preconditions of genocide can be illustrated by examining the Armenians in the Ottoman Empire...The first precondition is exclusion of the victim from the universe of obligation of the dominant group. This is reinforced by an ideology of exclusion, defining the victim as an alien or enemy, such as the Aryan myth and the Pan-Turanian myth. Such groups are viewed by the dominant group as people who do not belong, to whom nothing is owed, who do not have to be accounted for, and to whom one need not account. Most often in the twentieth century such ideologies are rationalizations of the aim of an elite to create a so-called pure or homogeneous ethnic state - one people, one state. Everyone who does not fit in must be eliminated, either by expulsion or genocide. Second, there is a problem attributed to the victim or an opportunity seemed to be impeded by the victims. The victims may be seen as a real or symbolic threat. Sometimes the victims rebel, have rebelled, or do not accept their place, and the perpetrators choose to eliminate them rather than share power with them. And theOttoman Empire, Bosnia, and Kosovo are certainly examples of this. Finally, there’s a calculus on the part of the perpetrators that they can get away with it. War generally provides immunity from oversight and intervention by hostile powers. Further, major powers have committed genocide or overlooked genocides and genocidal massacres by their clients in the past. The knowledge by the genocidaires that there have been no sanctions against previous uses of genocide reinforces their readiness to commit genocide. It is clear that the Ittihadist faction that took control of the Ottoman Empire in 1912 was the organizer of the Armenian genocide in 1915. The First World War presented the ruling triumvirate with an opportunity, as Djemal Pasha put it, to “free ourselves through the world war from all conventions which meant so many attacks on our independence.” He went on to say that “ We had determined on radical reform….” But he does not say that the “radical reform” was to eliminate the Armenian problem by eliminating the Armenians. That that was their plan was confirmed at the time by Lord Bryce and Arnold Toynbee, Ambassador Morgenthau, and German officials who were there as allies of the Ottoman government. Yet the Armenian genocide was more than a precedent for what could be done in World War II. It was a model of what could be done with impunity that resonated in the memories of German soldiers, officials and civilians who took part in the First World War...the success of any genocide depends not only on the power of the genocidaire and the response of the bystanders in the state in which it occurs but also on the response of other states. For several decades Turkey and Turkish state funded organizations in the U.S. and elsewhere have denied that there was an Armenian genocide. Not only were Armenians’ rights to restitution denied, their memories were publicly denied." Helen Fein - Director of the Institute for the Study of Genocide and an Associate of the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University - Looking Backward: The Armenian Genocide, the Holocaust, And Responses to Genocide Yesterday and Today - given at the Symposium on Genocide - 20th Century Genocide: Memory, Denial and Accountability, April 7, 2000 --THOTH 17:51, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Denial

I don't see how anyone could ever deny this happening. Look at the photos. Look at the starving woman, and her child. Pictures don't lie. El benderson 04:45, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Well in fact pictures do lie - or at least they are not sufficient to fully explain the circumstances and totality (scope) of the crimes. For instance if we have pictures of 100 people starving it does not directly tell us anything about the other 1 million+ or what have you that are not in the picture and neither does it directly account for the circumstances that led to that state for those people. Fortunatly there is a plethora of other evidence - such as corraborated eyewitness acounts from the period as well as confessions, convictions testimony and documentary evidence - in more then sufficient quantity to adequatly ascertain what occured in Anatolia to the Armenians (and Greeks and Assyrians) during this time and which sufficiently paint the story of CUP/Ottoman complicity in planning and carrying out these crimes. The available pictures - smuggled out of the Ottoman Empire under most severe censorship - add to this documentary evidence - but in and of themselves are not sufficient to reach conclusions regarding the larger scope of crimes commited by the Ottoman Turks (& Kurds & chettes etc) against the Armenian people of the Ottoman Empire - heart-wrenching as they are. --THOTH 05:39, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Proof that there was a famine. Thousands of people were dying daily during the famine that engulfed the entire country. However, certain Armenian quarters would rather pretend every death was the result of a slaughter, as if Armenians had some special immunity to dying from disease and famine.
Empty words that do not reflect reality. Go away. --THOTH 06:40, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Turkish historian Halil Bektay makes some salient points - "...by 1912-13, and especially after the traumatic Balkan wars, the unionist leadership had already acquired a comprehensive ethnic cleansing mentality. They had arrived at the crystallization of their own version of Social Darwinistic, violent, anxious, and, therefore, malicious and malevolent unionist nationalism. That is to say, it was their ideology that was telling them “we cannot have a patriotic self defense unless and until we have an Anatolia that has been comprehensively Turkified. That is to say, they had acquired a nationalist ideological perspective of regarding all non-Turks as suspect, hostile elements. It was this ideology that led to the tehcir and the accompanying orders. It was this ideology, in turn, which lead to the horrors of 1915...it was the Ottoman state versus all Armenians. It was state declaring war on its subjects." --THOTH 17:33, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, I guess that those people just disappeared then, right?El benderson 17:52, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
"I have the honor to further supplement my reports of June 30th and July 11th (File No. 840.1) in regard to the expulsion of the Armenians from this region, or to speak more clearly, the wholesale massacre of these Armenians, as follows - Any doubt that may have been expressed in previous reports as to the Government's intention in sending away the Armenians have been removed and any hope that may have been expressed as to the possibility of some of them surviving has been destroyed. It has been no secret that the plan was to destroy the Armenian race as a race, but the methods have been more cold-blooded and barbarous, if not more effective, than I had first supposed. It was apparent that very few would ever survive the journey from here to Urfa or to any other place at this season of the year. As a matter of fact, it has been quite unnecessary to consider the difficulties of such a journey. It seems to be fully established now that practically all who have been sent away from here have been deliberately shot or otherwise killed within one or two days after their departure. This work has not all been done by bands of Kurds but has for the most part been that of gendarmes who accompanied the people from here or the companies of armed "cetes" (convicts) who have been released from prison for the purpose of murdering the Armenian exiles. It has been repeatedly reported, and I think there is no doubt about the truth of these reports, that not a single man who has been sent away has been spared. Many of the women and children have been deliberately killed at the same time. A few of the more attractive women have been carried off to adorn the harems of some of the Kurdish chieftains and of some of the gendarmes. Some of the older women and children have been allowed to wander along, accompanied by gendarmes, with the certainty that all of them will soon perish from hunger, sickness and exhaustion. I do not believe there has ever been a massacre in the history of the world so general and thorough as that which is now being perpetrated in this region or that a more fiendish, diabolical scheme has ever been conceived by the mind of man. What the order is officially and nominally to exile the Armenians from these Vilayets may mislead the world for a while, but the measure is nothing but a massacre of the most atrocious nature. It would be that even if all the people had been allowed to perish on the road. As the greater part of them, however, have been actually murdered as as there is no doubt that this was done by the order of the Government, there can be no pretense that the measure is anything else but a general massacre. In all, probably a third of the population of this region is gone. The most remarkable feature of the situation is the helplessness of the Armenians and the total lack of resistance on their part. With two or three insignificant exceptions, there has not been a blow struck by any of them. I have been told that two or three gendarmes have been killed in the villages, but probably not a half a dozen in all. It did not seem possible that such an order could be carried out without more or less violence. One would think that some would have chosen death here, knowing that it awaited them a few hours after their departure, and many talked that way, but when the time has come all have started without making any resistance. This has been due, partially, of course, to the lack of sprit in the Armenian race, but it is due very largely also to the clever way in which the scheme has been carried out. Everything was apparently planned months ago. Then, when practically all the Armenian men had been gotten out of the way it was announced that all Armenians must be deported. Effective resistance to such an order was impossible. The whole scheme was planned so cleverly that the police and gendarmes are able to carry it out with no risk at all to themselves. A few thousand men have thus been able to dispose of 15,000 or 20,000 Armenians from this immediate locality. It appears that the same system has been followed in other parts of this Vilayet and in other Vilayets. It is impossible to say how many Armenians have been killed but it is estimated that the number as not far from a million. Greater misery could not be imagined. It was bad enough before when there were several thousand all in a most wretched condition. Now, when only the worst of them are left behind, the scene beggars all description. The dead and dying are everywhere. Each day there are many deaths and these will continue until all are gone. Dead bodies are to be seen there at any time. One sees dead bodies now in all directions and on every road...The whole country as one vast charnel house, or, more correctly speaking, slaughterhouse. When one sees men and women seventy or even eighty years old, lame, blind and sick, innocent women and children and helpless babies sent away to be killed or die and actually sees them dead or dying all around, it is impossible to conceive of any justification that can be urged for a measure so severe. Leslie A. Davis - American Vice Consul in Harput Turkey - In a report to US Ambassador to the Ottoman Empire Henry Morganthau dated July 24, 1915 - U.S. National Archives. D.S. Record Group 59, Dec. File No. 86.4016/269 --THOTH 22:31, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
No comment from the otherwise vociferous Turkish quarter? No...well there is quite a bit more..."No one knows whether the few who have escaped thus far will be spared in the end or whether those who are perpetrating this crime, the most awful, probably, that has ever been committed against any race of people, will continue until the last Armenian in the country has been killed. The predictions made and fears expressed in my early reports upon this subject have been for the most part all too fully realized. One of the most remarkable incidents in the terrible tragedy that is being enacted has been the sale by the Government at public auction of great quantities of second-hand clothing that had been taken from the backs of the deported Armenians who were killed. As most of the persons deported were thoroughly searched and robbed by the gendarmes the Kurds seldom obtained more than a few old cloths from the persons whom they killed. Thus the so-called "deportation" of the Armenians has been carried out! Another matter that should be mentioned in speaking of the present situation is the partial destruction of the Christian churches in the surrounding villages. All the churches in this region are, of course, in the possession of the Turks. The villages did not fare so well. From many of them the entire Armenian population had already been sent away and killed...Probably one or two thousand persons were away at this time and I have learned their fate from a few survivors who had succeeded in getting back here alive. It appears that soon after leaving the town they were separated into small groups and taken in different directions; that those in several of the groups, and undoubtedly those in other also, were led into secluded valleys and then bayoneted by the gendarmes; then after they were killed brush was heaped on their bodies and the gendarmes attempted to burn then. A few are said to have gotten as far as Diarbakir but no word has been received from any of them since that, as far as I have been able to learn, and there is little doubt that practically all were killed. It is to be noted that a few, if any, of the village people who were deported either at this time or before ever arrived safely at their alleged destination. The few who are known to have arrived anywhere are mostly people from the towns who had some means and were probably able to purchase their lives from the gendarmes who accompanied them but apparently all those from the villages were massacred. In the case of many of the large villages no word has been received from a single person who was deported from there. The term "Slaughterhouse Vilayet" which I applied to this Vilayet in my last report upon this subject (that of September 7th) has been fully justified by what I have learned and actually seen since that time. It appears that all those in the parties mentioned on page 15 of that report, men, women and children, were massacred about five hours distance from here. In fact, it is almost certain, that with the exception of a very small number of those who were deported during the first few days of July, all who have left here have been massacred before reaching the borders of the Vilayet. During the last two months quite a number of Armenian soldiers [from the Turkish army] have been brought back in groups of two or three hundred from Erzurum. They have arrived in a most pitiable state due to their exposure on the way at this season of the year and the privations they had suffered. After all they had endured and after having been brought this far it appears that nearly all of them were killed a few hours after leaving here. Many of the Armenian villages that were entirely depopulated during the summer are now filled with these Moslem immigrants. It is thought by some that one reason for destroying the Armenians was to make room for them. At any rate, there seems to be enough of them to fill the vacant places. (my note - funny how all of these resettled Moslems - up to 900,000 I understand - were able to recieve food and medical care from the Ottoman government and were never attacked by "Armenian gangs" or such) Of nearly a hundred thousand Armenians who were in this Vilayet a year ago, there are probably not more than four thousand left. It has been reported recently that not more than five per cent of the Armenians were to be left. It is doubtful if that many remain now. Leslie A. Davis - American Vice Consul Harpoot - in a letter to American Ambassador Morganthau dated December 30 1915.--THOTH 03:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
THOTH, we all know you guys already have the whole support you need from the western world. The wikipedia article is also strong and definitely here to stay. Its title and contents are exactly as you want. There are pictures. You have the whole admins' and power editors' support in wikipedia. From where I stand, your case is already as good as accepted. Except Turkish people, nobody ever dares to argue the issue. And who would believe the Turks anyway??! So why bother and keep posting long accounts of western sources here? --Gokhan 07:55, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
The Wikipedia article is not nearly strong or comprhensive enough - and this is obvious. The article needs to clearly lay out the societal buildup to Genocide - explain the rational for the rise and radicallization of the CUP - describe what shaped theur attitudes and why - and demonstrate the process of revolution as it occured in Ottoman Turkey where non-Moslems and particularly Armenians were considered "other" and unwanted - and why - when they had to that point been seen as the most loyal and contributing of the Ottoman subjects (see Melson, Astorian, Ackam, Kaiser and Dadrian for a comprhensive discussion/overview of these factors and this process - other Turkish authors have soberingly written regarding this rise of exclusionary racialism as well - such as A.A. Türkei and Bora Isyar). Additionally the presentation of the Armenian Genocide is entirely out of (chronological and procedural) sequence and lacks a proper explanation as to how events developed - such as we see in the Holocaust article. The various legal manueverings by the CUP to disband Parliment, declare martial law - then pass a serious of laws - first to forbid political association amoung non-Turks, then to boycott non Turkish businesses and ban hiring of non-Turks to jobs - to outlawing non-Turks from possessing weapons (when they had a few years ealier allowed such), to the decision to eliminate the Armenians, its tie in to the war, to orders for deportation (and secret orders for massacre - and the processes and methods of such - and how they varied by region - a presentation of the whole gamut of killing strategies and methods needs to be revealed IMO), to seizing of Armenian wealth and properties, to the fabrication of false rational for these actions and then denial...as well as the continuation of the campaign against the Armenians in the early Republic period and how the criminals were able to escape justice and become the underpinning of the Turkish State as it exists today - thus making the Genocide even more sensitive to Turkey today and explaining the vehemence of its denial. The denial itself - and how Turkey continually exploited its strategic position and inter-power rivalries to prevent recogntion efforts and for justice and componsation to be paid to the Armenians - as they are fully deserving - in every sense - just as Holocaust survivors have been compensated! All of these facts and much more need to be properly presented. All of this is fully documented, corraborated and available to reserchers from both primary and secondary sources. Getting it into Wiki form and having the available time etc to do such is another matter - but it needs to be done. The Armenain Genocide articel needs to be as comprhensive and detailed and clear about the facts and why (how is it that we know these fact to be true - etc - this needs to be a major portion of the articel IMO...) - equal to or even more importantly then the Holocaust articel due to the persistence state sponsored denial and the efforts by hyper-nationalisitc Turks to derail any effor to present or recognize these facts. This is what Wikipedia should be all about - the truth - and if it is not - then there is no point to having such a thing. --THOTH 22:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
You have to stop portraying the Armenians as innocent bystanders, you have to stop disregarding 700 years of peaceful coexistance within the empire and their recognition as a most favored community, you have to stop denying that there wasnt a single official Ottoman document ordering massacres, you have to stop denying that your fellow Armenians were the instigators and started the cycle of violence by murdering hundreds of thousands of moslems in eastern Anatolia, first as rebels siding with the russians and then as occupying forces in French uninform, you have to stop using eyewitnesses that were clearly biased as sources of "unquestionable" proof and, most importantly, you have to stop making direct comparisons with and minimizing the importance of the Jewish holocaust (like you did a couple of paragraphs above), it is disrespectful and insulting. Maybe then we can have a more objective discussion with you. The fact of the matter is that Armenains have a lot of blood on their hands, and this might explain why this debate (because thats exactly what is is) has been going on for 90 years. 83.77.132.16 06:18, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Sorry - it is you who is guilty of total and outright denial of the truth. Your "blame the victims" just doesn't cut it. It is you who is discounting all eyewitness proff and evidence. It is you who are being insulting and disrespectful. --THOTH 13:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
"At that time (1915) there were 1 million and 750 thousand Armenians living in Eastern Anatolia. The deportation order issued by the ruling military triumvirate was drawn up so as to include all the Armenians in the region, without exception. These things are documented in writing. There was no mention of massacres or slaughter. The provincial governors and garrison commanders were directed to deport the Armenians to the region south of Turkey's current borders. However, it's clear that, in addition to these official orders, separate, non-written orders were given to the most rapacious members of the `Teskilat-i Mahsusa' (`Special Organization'), who worshipped violence and were not bound by adherence to any normal moral code. Those who issued these orders had them carried out via a special organization, the Teskilat-i Mahsusa... It is clear that Bahaettin Sakir, who operated as the Teskilat-i Mahsusa's man for Enver, Cemal, and Talat, set up death squads in the region." Halil Berktay - an interview published October 9 2000 in the Turkish Newspaper - Radikal..."there was very strong evidence that the accompanied violence and massacres had not started spontaneously or despite the best intentions of the state to protect the convoys of the deportees. Rather, there was strong evidence to the effect that there were orders issued, disseminated, and executed through the Teşkilât-ı Mahsusa and that this in turn triggered secondary and tertiary rounds of violence and massacres once it became clear that the Armenians were fair game and that the shooting season was open on them. It fits the clauses of the 1948 UN convention (on genocide) comprehensively, and in that light, if we are permitted to take those categorizations and apply them to an event that occured 33 years earlier, then we have to say, “Yes, it was genocide” "...by 1912-13, and especially after the traumatic Balkan wars, the unionist leadership had already acquired a comprehensive ethnic cleansing mentality. It was this ideology that led to the tehcir and the accompanying orders. It was this ideology, in turn, which lead to the horrors of 1915...it was the Ottoman state versus all Armenians. It was state declaring war on its subjects." Halil Berktay - The Specter of the Armenian Genocide - An Interview with Halil Bektay - by Katchig Mouradian - November 1 2005 --THOTH 13:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


The rational for the Armenian genocide was not entirely racistic BTW - but it was clearly and demonstratably a major factors. Other factors included the formation of a seige mentallity ideology by the CUP leaders in response to the disinigrating empire (blamed on minorities and foreign powers), the failure of the CUP to implemtn economic and social reform (and again - blame the minorities as a scapegoat), the economic facotrs (while having a racial overtone certainly - the presence of vast numbers of Turkish societies and implementation of the "National Economy" by the CUP and all that it intailed - as well as the systematic apprriation of Armenian and Greek properties - attests to this. The there was also just meglomainia and paranoia - and the whole issue of revolutionary politics - how radical memebers often take hold and act to eliminate previous allies - etc. There are many studies which show how the CUP revolution epitomizes these type of pendulum processes and of course the resulting Genocide is further proof....etc --THOTH 22:56, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Ahem, wasnt it the CUP that the Armenians massively supported and sided with? You who loves to make comparisons with the Jewish holocaust, wouldnt this be the equivalent of Jews supporting the Nazis?83.77.132.16 06:27, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Look you have already proven that you have no real concepts of history - of facts and of what went on in the past...quit while you are ahead. In fact Jewish (Zionist) groups did cooperate with the Nazis prior to the war as they had had a mutual aim - emigration of Jews out of Germany (in this case to Palestein) and there are other incidents of cooperation as well. Just as in the Armenian case these were before the plans for and actions of genocide were apparent. The Armenians had great hopes in the "liberal" CUP revolutun that initially came to power with calls for inclusivness of minorities and advocated a full range of reforms. After the counter revolution of 1909 however the radical faction - led by Enver, Talat and Jemal took power and particularly beginning in 1913/14 when they suspended the Ottoman Parliment and declared martial law the CUP revolution took a definate turn for the worse - in regards to the Armenians (who were slow to understand their peril) and in regards to the Ottoman EMpire itself. You do agree that these CUP types were great destroyers of your nation and not some kind of heros I assume...? --THOTH 13:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi THOTH, your presentation seems fair to me, when you have time I think you should edit the article with this approach. Some points would be debated but that should be expected I think as it's controversial and it's a wiki. However please note that I just don't agree with your approach at 2 points: 1) Your claim Only hyper-nationalist Turks disagree with genocide 2) Minimization of revolts and massacres by Armenians (committees and armed groups) and minimization of cooperation with Russian and French armies. Also I think someone should add what Armenians expect after a possible recognition by Turkey, because that's still mistery: every Armenian says another thing. In Turkey we believe they will ask for land at the end, seen in Asala-PKK connection or Taşnak (sorry don't know the original name) agenda. However most Armenians just claim their motives are only humanitarian. Then off course a lot of new genocides appeared recently, like assyrian, pontus, greek, etc etc Then off course nobody asks how the muslim / turkish population in Europe decreased so rapidly in Crimea, Caucasus and in Balkans. These hypocrisies makes us more closed and defensive I think. Anyway - keep up the good work. Cheers --Gokhan 11:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
First of all - regarding what Armenians "expect" after recognition - well what can you expect - that Armenians will be of one mind? Anyway - it is an irrelevant point for the most part - as recignition of the truth of the history is what the issue is. Whether or not some Armenians have unrealistic expectations or emotional expectations or what not has no real bearing on this issue - what are their means to enforce such anyway? If it came to some kind of arbritration or hearing over such - then we will see. Some Armenians - such as myself - hope that Turks will feel proper remorse and perhaps will be generous and creative (within realistic means etc) to offer some sort of palitable solution to Armenians - such as perhaps resettlement rights with tax breaks and other economic incentives and a return of churches, buildings and other monuments - something along these lines - who knows - just an idea). As for my other two "claims" that you disagree with. Certainly many Turks are not aware of the facts in this issue and accept the Turkish position lock stock and barrel - they may not be hyper-nationalistic per se - but they just don't know better. Others - like yourself perhaps - feel that the "Armenian side" (or more appropriatly the internationally historically accepted version of events) is incomplete in its portryal and that Armenians - through nationalism and violence somehow share the blame for this tragedy as they killed Turks and revolted etc. Well - I understand these concerns - and they need to be addressed - but again with facts and understanding - not wild unsupportable claims. And these things need to be put into their proper context. The period of Armenian revolutionary activity coincided with revolutionary Turkish political activity against the Sultan - added to by the Armenians mistreatment within the Empire and the call for specific reforms - and then later when that failed by calls for greater autonomy and specific protections. Yes there were some groups who advocated and even practiced violence - but not near the scale that you or other Turks believe and attempt to portray - and certainly not to the degree to counterbalance or even justify the actions taken against the Armenian population at large. Additionally most all of these incidents of violence had ceased with the rise of the CUP - as the Armenian political groups initially had great hope - based on the CUP public political platform and the presence of a liberal wing which promoted inclusion and reform (that unfortunatly was quashed by the radical Pan-Turkic nationalistic faction of the CUP which rose to power and ultimatly planned and directed the genocide). Also - most all of the Armenian killings of Turks that most Turks are refering to - knowingly or not - occured after the Genocide - where Armenian men who had lost their families and lost everything joined with Russian units and such and commited some revenge attacks (and a great many of these attacks/massacres that Turks blame the Armenians for were actually conducted by Russian/Cossak units and not by Armenians at all - who were only a small fraction of Russian forces in the region during the war). Again - the scale of these attacks is dwarfed by the violence commited against the Armenians and the nature of them - wartime incidents by troops and irregulars along a bloody frontier - versus a wholesale massacre of ones own defensless population by government edict and forces makes them entirely incomparable. To characterize the Armenian Genocide as some sort of ethnic war where Armenians were equal partners in the violence or even that through direct action were responsible for bringing down the wrath of the Turks is just not supportable from a historical perspective or the facts. The eyewitnesses of the day report no appreciable Armenian revoltionary activity or such during this period - In confidential reports back to Berlin the Germans repeatedly report that the Armenians are quiet - docile even - and if one examines the ease at which the CUP carried out their plan - with lightly armed guards for huge convoys of people etc - and not one instance of Armenians being rescued by any armed bands supposedly roaming about the countryside - etc. You have to understand that a great deal of the charges that you have concerning Armenian anti-government activities during this period stem from deliberate inaccurate misinformation produced by CUP intelligence operatives for the purpose of stirring up the population and justifying their actions to foreign governments and such. The great many of these so called reports are complete fabrications and tremendous exaggerations and they just don't hold up as fact. I want to leave a quote from Melson to ponder - "The genocide of the Armenians should be understood not as a response to "Armenian provocations" but as a stage in the Turkish revolution, which as a reaction to the continuing disintegration of the empire settled on a narrow nationalism and excluded Armenians from the moral universe of the state. It should be obvious from the overwhelming evidence that exists in the state archives of major powers (the above being but a small representative sample) that the 1915 genocide of the Armenians was premeditated and the isolated cases of armed resistance by the Armenians were deliberately provoked by the Turkish govenrment so as to exploit it as justification for a general campaign of race extermination. That being so, bringing up the much discredited myth of Armenian disloyalty in the context of the 1915 Armenian Genocide is as offensive to the victims as well as to well-informed non-Armenians as bringing up the Nazi rationalization of an alleged "international Jewish conspiracy" would be in the context of the Nazi Holocaust. Because both the Armenians under Ottoman rule and the Jews in Nazi-occupied Europe perished not for something they did or failed to do, but for who they were." Professor Robert Melson - Holocaust survivor and genocide scholar in Revolution and Genocide: On the Origins of the Armenian Genocide and the Holocaust - University of Chicago Press 1992 --THOTH 13:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Listen THOTH, either you stop pasting propaganda stuff that no one here reads or I will do the same and this talk page will really turn into a circus 83.77.132.16 15:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Unlike you I am able to discuss this matter in some detail and with insight and relevance. You are the one who is attempting to - in your words - make this a circus...--THOTH 15:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Insight and relevance? I mean just to take a sample of your thinking "most all of the Armenian killings of Turks that most Turks are refering to - knowingly or not - occured after the Genocide - where Armenian men who had lost their families and lost everything joined with Russian units and such and commited some revenge attacks (and a great many of these attacks/massacres that Turks blame the Armenians for were actually conducted by Russian/Cossak units and not by Armenians at all - who were only a small fraction of Russian forces in the region during the war)" your extreme whitewash attempts are so absurd, one can just laugh and remain astonished! The Armenains were MAJOR participants in the massacre of moselms both before and after the fall of the empire, the evidence for this is overwhelming and your pitiful attempts to minimize it proves that your objective here is to convince others of what is arguably the biggest deception in history! 83.77.132.16 18:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Sorry but your wrong. Are you really so ignorant of actual events or are you just keeping up your lie for other reasons? --THOTH 20:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Why do you want to cover this up so bad? Did you kill them? Denying it happened makes you just as bad as they are.El benderson 20:04, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
You have obviously been spoon fed with propaganda trash so stop wasting our time with your three word sentences or try to be a bit more constructive by approaching the subject matter in a more neutral manner 83.77.131.179 17:35, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Sometimes all you need is three sentences to get a point accross, and for it to be constructive. But you have your head stuck too far up your ass trying to defend Thoth, you can't realize it. Why dont you let him answer the question. Besides, this is the talk page, you don't have to be neutral. Also, why don't you get off your lazy ass and create a user name? Also, look in any up to date history book, and it will confirm that it happened. El benderson 00:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Defending thoth? ahahahahahahahha what have you been smokin? 83.78.109.4 05:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Pott, and listening to Nirvana, but thats not the point.El benderson 18:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
It is an easy question... I won't accept such a made up "genocide". You say that the pictures don't lie but where do you know these pictures are real or connected to your imaginary genocide? Some say that one million Armenians were murdered... The problem here is, there wasn't one million Armenian to kill in Anatolia at that time. So this genocide thing is one of the biggest lies in the world, from beginning to the end. Chivalry is still alive in Turkey and no one can say anything about the noble Turkish people. With respect, the son of nomadic warriors, Deliogul 16:04, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

And for the record...

...what I wrote above was a question meant to be taken seriously. Maybe "Lutherian" himself would care to comment if nobody else will? I'm not an internet troll, just someone (lutheran) completely baffled by the abovementioned discrepancies in the profile. Efriden 11:01, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the "ian" is a play on the "ian" of Armenian and Armenian names...meant as an insult etc. What I find more disturbing are his repeated blanket unsupportable and unfactual attempts at genocide denial - these disruptive postings are what I feel amount to trolling this page - don't you think? Regardless of what he or anyone choose to call themselves IMO it is the content of their contributions (or lack thereof) which is relevant - no? --THOTH 13:21, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry - obviously I am totally off topic here! - but the profile just didn't make sense to me. Also, from what he writes it seems he is a) turkish, and b) not christian, so the moniker "Lutherian" combined with a picture of Calvin is an insult to me as well. Sockpuppet, anyone? Efriden 16:49, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

yes your profile makes perfect sense! insult people and then say that you are insulted! go for it! Go personal! show us how much you hate em! 85.96.138.119 01:46, 29 May 2006 (UTC)neurobio 01:47, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I thought I made an analogy above that was easy to understand for a muslim: calling yourself lutheran and then say you are calvinist at heart is like saying (well, almost, at least) that you're a sunnite who's shi'ite at heart. It's obvious the moniker was chosen to give the impression that he is a Westerner/Christian supporting the Turkish side anyway, so since that does not seem to be the case (i.e. it's a case of deception), the term "sockpuppet" is most adequate I think, and not an insult. What would you think about me if I entered a heated discussion between muslims and christians on some topic pretending to be a muslim siding with christians? 85.226.170.97 07:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Could it be that you are a retard posing as a genius because using your definition of "sockpuppet" it would also qualify PlasmaGirl 16:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

plasmagirl please do not insult people!! as a junior wikipedian I did not delete this post thinking that I may do something wrong. Anyone please do it!

I however think that he uses the names of these people because he admires them. I think that he makes an analogy between his position here and Luthers position in the history. I see nothing wrong here. this person never claimed he is christian (unlike me)and many of his post shows clearly that he is a Turk. If you think that great figures of history belongs to a certain group you are wrong. And if you think wikipedia is a site where christians go against muslim and muslims go against christians to promote their view I can only say that the way you look at the world is sad at least. life is much complex than simple religious seperation and many wikipedians have much more good will than that. neurobio 22:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Obviously the great figures of history belong to mankind. I however would not choose a nick that might give the impression that I am someone I am not. Since Luther's and Calvin's contributions to mankind are mainly of a religious nature, choosing one of their names as nick gives the impression that you are confessing what they taught. If I were to choose the name of, say, "Averroës", one would naturally assume that I admire the philosopher Ibn Rushd. But religion is different from philosophy. I would never choose the nick "Abu Bakr" for instance. And - leaving religion out of it and choosing another example - I wouldn't enter a discussion concerning the kurdish people under the name of "Atatürk" calling for an independent Kurdistan. If I had wanted a nick that reflected that I am not generally anti-turkish, I might have chosen "Sinan", after one of the greatest architects that ever lived (OK - I don't think he was a Turk by birth, but still: oh, those glorious mosques!). Efriden 20:41, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes I certainly see your point...however I am not aware of any Wiki rules or guidance that applies...Sinn BTW is claimed by both the Greeks and Armenians...perhaps he was both! Don't know for sure. However like a great many Greeks and Armenians of Anatolia for a great many years they he/were fully integrated into Ottoman life. However - to the Pan-Turkic racist homocidal CUP this mattered not - it was all or nothing - Muslim/Turk or extermination...--THOTH 22:30, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Let's remove this

Under the position of Turkey we find the following:

(likewise this seems out of place to me here and perahaps should be included as some adendum to this article with more discussion and information)

Let's hide this text, shall we? Mithridates 13:18, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Understood - however the point is valid as stated. The information being refered - as stated - does not directly address the issue of the Armenian Genocide but more properly belongs within a section on recognition of Genocide or such. It is not a factual statement concerning the Genocide itself. Whether political representatives the nation of Armenia choose to accept an offer from the representatives of the nation of Turkey to form a commission to discuss the issues has no factual impact on the factuality of the Armenian Genocide itself. It does not give any credence - one way or another concerning it. To properly discuss the issues regarding such a commision - to know that the discussion would consist of unbiased or not pre-approved positions - how such a thing could be prevented from just being the political sound off platform of two opposing state positions - if composed of "scholars" appointed by each - is beyond me. Likewise I suspect that the state of Armenia sees the futility of such an effort. In any event as presented it fails to address these relevent contextual and subjective issues. Perhaps the articel should be filled with accounts of the great many instances where Turkey has just failed to own up to the great deal of scholarly evidence put foreward concerning the factuality of the Armenian Genocide and instead continues to spout discredited views that no special number of Armenians died for any special or outstanding reason or that Armenians somehow brought this tragedy upon themselves by revolting and aiding enemies during time of war or that somehow these massive deaths of Armenians were the result of local officials or populace having nothing to do with orders/direction from central authorities - all of these claims have already been proven entirely faulty and are not accepted by most all scholars and historians...yet the Government of Turkey and their paid and indoctrinated supporters continue to cling to such non-historically accurate dipictions of events - using nearly identicle arguments that Holocaust deniers use. This to me is more relvant and to the point - not weather some dubious commision is set up between two governments (particularly when Armenian President Kocharian has already publically stated that Armenia as a nation state has no substantive claims directly tied to the Genocide (beyond perhaps just recognition) --THOTH 13:36, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Turkish historian Halil Berktay on the Turkish proposal for setting up a joint commision with the nation of Armenia for studying the Armenian Genocide - "In the Turkish proposal, the Turkish government appoints so many historians, the Armenian government would be expected to appoint an equal number of Armenian historians and they will be supposed and expected to sit down and discuss the actual facts of what happened in 1915. I would have no hope for such a commission. If the Turkish government appoints the most die-hard official historians of the Turkish nationalist thesis, and if the same is done by the Armenian government, they would get absolutely nowhere. There won’t be any real scholarly dialogue. They will be just historian-lawyers for their respective states. And the worst of it is, they wouldn’t even have the self confidence of the actual politicians. Should the slightest hint of a compromise arise, they would immediately go back and ask the people who appointed them if they are allowed to agree on such a compromise. They wouldn’t have any initiative. They will be even more connected to their nation states than the politicians with political imperative. There has to be a way to get around this. If you create a commission like this, these people will be flinging figurative stories at each other. They will be throwing documents and each side will be arguing for his and only his victimhood." --THOTH 17:49, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


Martyred Armenia - a non-Western account of the Armenian Genocide and the reasons for it

In a number of instances in these talk pages it has be claimed by various Turkish contributors that the accounts of the Armenian Genocide are all from Western sources that are biased against the Turks. While I dispute that this is a legitimate counter to the reported observations concerning the Genocide - as a great many of the accounts come from German and Austrian sources - who were at the time allied with the Ottoman Empire and interested in promoting it and not disparaging it. There do exist some accounts from non-Western sources however - here is an excerpt from one of them - "we knew that the Armenians have committed no act justifying the Turks in inflicting on them this horrible retribution, un- precedented even in the dark ages. What, then, was the reason which impelled the Turkish Government to kill off a whole people of whom they used to say that they were their brothers in patriotism, the principal factor in bringing about the downfall of the despotic rule of Abdul-Hamid and the introduction of the constitution, loyal to the empire, and fighting side by side with the Turks in the Balkan War? The Turks sanctioned and approved the institution of Armenian political societies, which they did not do in the case of other nationalities. It is that, previous to the proclamation of the Constitution, the Unionists [Young Turks] hated despotic rule, they preached equality, and inspired the people with hatred of the despotism of Abdul-Hamid. But as soon as they had themselves seized the reins of authority, and tasted the sweets of power, they found that despotism was the best means to confirm themselves in ease and property, and to limit to the Turks alone the rule over the Ottoman peoples. On considering these peoples, they found that the Armenian race was the only one which would resent their despotism, and fight against it as they previously fought against Abdul-Hamid. Annihilation seemed to be the sole means of deliverance; they found their opportunity in a time of war, and they proceeded to this atrocious deed, which they carried out with every circumstance of brutality - a deed which is contrary to the law of Islam..." from - Fa'iz El-Ghusein - Martyred Armenia - translated from the original Arabic, C. Arthur Pearson, Ltd., England, 1917, pages 62-64.--THOTH 14:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

LOL, an Arab?, are you kiddin? Didnt they make the top 5 list of all time biggest traitors of the Ottomans? And look at them now, busy fighting one another! 83.77.132.16 15:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

"If the Turkish Government were asked the reasons for which the Armenian men, women, and children were killed, and their honor and property placed at any man's mercy, they would reply that this people have murdered Moslems in the Vilayet of Van, and that there have been found in their possession prohibited arms, explosive bombs, and indications of steps towards the formation of an Armenian state, such as flags and the like, all pointing to the fact that this race has not turned from its evil ways, but on the first opportunity will kill the Moslems, rise in revolt, and invoke the help of Russia, the enemy of Turkey, against its rulers. That is what the Turkish government would say. I have followed the matter from its source. I have inquired from inhabitants and officials of Van, who were in Diarbekir, whether any Moslem had been killed by Armenians in the town of Van, or in the district of the Vilayet. They answered in the negative, saying that the Government had ordered the population to quit the town before the arrival of the Russians and before anyone was killed but that the Armenians had been summoned to give up their arms and had done so, dreading an attack by the Kurds, and dreading the government also; the government had further demanded that the principal notables and leading men should be given up to them as hostages, but the Armenians had not complied. All this took place during the approach of the Russians towards the city of Van. As to the adjacent districts, the authorities collected the Armenians and drove them into the interior, where they were all slaughtered, no Government official or private man, Turk or Kurd, having been killed. As regards Diarbekir, you have read the whole story in this book, and no insignificant event took place there, let alone murders or breaches of the peace, which could lead the Turkish Government to deal with the Armenians in this atrocious manner. At Constantinople, we hear of no murder or other unlawful act committed by the Armenians, except the unauthenticated story about the twenty activists to which I have already referred. They have not done the least wrong in the Vilayets of Kharpout, Trebizond, Sivas, Adana, or Bitlis, nor in the province of Moush. I have related the episode at Zeitoun, which was unimportant, and that at Urfa, where they acted in self defense, seeing what had befallen their people, and preferring death to surrender. As to their preparations, the flags, bombs and the like, even assuming there to be some truth in the statement, it does not justify the annihilation of the whole people, men and women, old men and children, in a way which revolts all humanity and more especially Islam and the whole body of Moslems, as those unacquainted with the true facts might impute these deeds to Mohammedan fanaticism." - Fa'iz El-Ghusein - Martyred Armenia - translated from the original Arabic, C. Arthur Pearson, Ltd., England, 1917, pages 50-61. --THOTH 14:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Some examples given by Dadrian of Official Ottoman testomony:

On October 19, 1918, on the first day of the opening of the Ottoman senate, the president of the Ottoman senate, Ahmed Riza, a former Young Turk leader himself, made this declaration. He said, "We Turks savagely killed off the Armenians." He used the Turkish word vahsiyane. This is the president of the Ottoman senate, not only admitting the killing of the Armenians, but using the adjective "fiendish, savage."

Two days later, a veteran and retired general of the Ottoman army, challenged him, saying "How do you dare to mention only the Turkish atrocities but ignoring Armenian atrocities against the Turks?"

Ahmed Riza gave an answer, which is a clue to the character of the Armenian Genocide as a historical fact. He said, "Yes, we knew the Armenians out of vendetta killed some Turks. They were people who noticed their parents had vanished and they were vindictive and they killed. But the Armenians were not killed en masse by individual Turks; they were killed wholesale by the official policy of the central government of the Ottoman empire."

He used the Turkish word resmi, which means "official." In other words, the Armenians were obliterated by the decision of central authorities. This is a very significant fact.

On November 21, 1918, in the same senate, the most remarkable revelation was made by another senator, Resid Akif. This man was an Ottoman statesman, and on that day he made this declaration. He said, "I was a member of the first postwar Ottoman government, and one day in my office, I came across two types of documents. One was the official order of the interior ministry, Talaat, ordering the deportation of the Armenians, in which - and the Turks are using these secret telegrams now - in which Talaat is telling his subordinates, "Protect the Armenian deportee convoys. Give them olives and bread." Et cetera, et cetera.

But parallel to this, an informal order goes out from Constantinople, issued not by any government agency but what sociologists call "informal authority," namely the Central Committee of the Ittihad party, i.e. CUP. He says "The order was simple. As soon as the Armenian convoys leave their villages and towns and cities, proceed with the execution of the mission," and Akif Pasha says the mission was for these criminals to attack the convoys and massacre the population. This is the testimony of Akif Pasha, a high-ranking and distinguished Ottoman statesman.

And finally, let me give you one more example of official Turkish testimony in the parliament. On December 11, 1918, the deputy of the province of Trabzon, Hafiz Mehmed, a lawyer by profession, made this declaration. He said, "I, Hafiz Mehmed, I personally saw with my own eyes in the port city of Ordu on the Black Sea, how one night Armenian women and children were being brought and loaded into barges, taken off to the high seas, drowned there at night, and then the barges would come back empty."

“Genocide as a Problem of National and International Law: The World War I Armenian Case and Its Contemporary Legal Ramificications” by Vahakn N. Dadrian (Yale Journal of International Law, Volume 14, Number 2, 1989) --THOTH 14:55, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

LOL, Dadrian? The notorious racist who is trying to argue like Goldhagen did (rightfully) with the Germans that the common Turkish folk were willing executioners! This guy has been shown countless times to have been highly biased with his arguments!
man, this is really starting to give me a headache and I am sure that I am not the only one! 83.77.132.16 15:16, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Is Thoth just trying to get this discussion locked up as well as the article itself? These endless pastes are serving no other purpose than to kill any real discussion - we are here to decide how to present the available history, not to argue it among ourselves - THIS IS BEING DONE BY HISTORIANS, WE MERELY PRESENT THAT ARGUMENT. There is simply NO WAY I am going to discard universally accepted authorities of Middle East history like Bernard Lewis and Gilles Veinstein because Thoth thinks I should.
I am highlighting examples that directly contradict denialist claims. I am providing anlysis by historians as well as first hand evidence by eyewitnesses - in this latter case an Arab who directly witnessed these events and was appauled by what he saw - as well as statements from distinguished Ottoman Authorities on this matter. These comments and the facts that they reveal are irrefutable. This article cannot be hijacked by genocide deniers such as yourself who offer up unsubstantiated biased opinion - and nothing else - when the facts speak otherwise. And Lewis...wasn't he the one who was convicted for genocide denial and who admitted to making faulty assumptions and who has failed to respond to inquiries to substantiate his change in views? --THOTH 15:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
This article cannot be hijacked by those that reject the genocide thesis because its already been hijacked by genocide supporters. Congratulations THOTH, you are behaving like a true fanatic, you have made a mess of the talk page section with your endless copy pastes and your disturbing insistance on tivializing the Jewish holocaust! Whats your next step, do deny it ever happened maybe? 83.77.132.16 17:27, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
I have never denied nor trivialized the Holocuast - so up yours! --THOTH 18:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Well you have attempted to minimize it which is equivalent of trivializing it and may I remind you to remain civil? 83.77.132.16 18:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
I have done no such thing. You are here doing exactly that in regards to the Armenian Genocide however - shame on you - a great shame on you. You have no right to ask for civil treatment - not when you deny genocide. --THOTH 20:52, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
It's like ASALA talking - which is pathetic. This conversation is very fruitless. Armenians would never stop, because that's the basic core aspect which defines their identity today: genocide issue, enmity and hatred towards Turks. That's the single thing that drives their politics, art, social life, education, finances. How long Armenians will continue to raise their kids full of hatred? Meanwhile Turks would never accept. Who would want to be labelled as genocide doer? Especially for something that happened 90 years ago. --Gokhan 07:55, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Any acusation that I either deny or trivialize the Holocaust - or that I hate Turks (or advocate hatred of Turks) - I view as something of a joke - a quite pathetic attempt at personal slander that has no basis in fact. Genocide denial (including rationalization and-or trivialization) however has been termed the final stage of genocide - and this is in fact what you, Lutherian, and the various anonymous or otherwise contributiors here are doing. You deserve no more consideration then Holocaust deniers deserve. Would a Jew who has lost family in the Holocaust be properly accused of hatred (or of teaching their children hatred) if he or she was attempting to ensure that the true story of the Holocaust was told and known - in the face of attempts to deny and distort the truth of these events? Somehow I think not. Shame on you too. --THOTH 19:16, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Dadrian

Incidentally, the above poster is correct about Dadrian - every peer review I have read of him concludes he simply makes things up, leaves the reader with a false impression with inaccurate paraphrasing and carefully placed ellipsing, creating 'statements' that the actual text leaves no allowance for - Lewy provided countless specific examples of this that prove empirically that it was not a case of Dadrian being lazy or mistaken, but a case of him simply trying to mislead. Yapp elaborates on this by complaining that Dadrian approaches the issue like a prosecution lawyer rather than a historian. Others have accused him of using "selective sources" and "misleading quotations".
But you would rather believe him that Bernard Lewis, who was the victim of a private prosecution in France in which the court, in acknowledging they were not nearly qualified to disagree with his historical views, instead fined him to the tune of 1 franc for having hurt Armenians feelings by not having presented all the evidence in making his remarks. It was a newspaper interview, how much evidence was he expected to present in answering a question? This is more to the shame of France than to Bernard Lewis. As any internet search will show, the single most peer respected Middle Eastern historian today is Bernard Lewis. This you cannot change - you can set your pressure groups onto Google and Altavista and Yahoo to try to suppress this if you wish, but you cannot change it.
If the French verdict was taken seriously, would Dick Cheney had said of a 'genocide denier' - "You simply cannot find a greater authority on Middle Eastern history, classical Islamic civilization, the Ottoman Empire".
To the US's credit, they listen to the views of their historians when addressing matters of history - let us not forget that France employed Gilles Veinstein then completely ignored his historical advice when it was not politically expediant to adhere to it.
In denying the influence and respect that Bernard Lewis enjoys among his field, it becomes apparent you really are not interested in the history of this any more than Dadrian - just in believing what you want to believe.
I would say that you are making things up. Dadrian is the most widely respected and is acknowledged as the most thorough resercher regading the Armenian Genocide. Just because known (multiple) genocide denier Gunter Lewy claims otherwise does not make it so. Likewise we have already discussed Lewis and the source of his bias. BTW Lewis only takes 2 paragraphs to discuss the Armenian Genocide in his book The Emergence of Modern Turkey - this certainly gives a clear indication as to the amount of scholarship he has devoted to the issue (not much) and highlights his complete lack of understanding (or admission) he gives to the role of ethnic cleansing/genocide of the Christian minorities in Anatolia to the foundation/formation of the current Turksih Republic. There are a great many scholars and historians who completely affirm the Armenian Genocide - such as the 126 who signed a statement to this regard in a letter to the New York Times in 2000...and we don't need to rely on paid stooges for Turkey to tell us what is true and what is not. --THOTH 16:38, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, you're right that Dadrian is one of the most well-known 'scholars' of Armenian genocide, but he's not respected by anybody other than blind supporters of Armenian claims. It's plain ridiculous to compare his publication record with that of Bernard Lewis or other respected historians in the field. Dadrian is only good at one thing: Propoganda and Forgeries. Bernard Lewis, on the other hand, is a Fellow of the British Academy, a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and of the American Philosophical Society, and a corresponding member of the Institut de France, which no Armenian Genocide 'scholar' could dream of achieving in their lifetime even if we combine their outout.
Dadrian has been caught with using fabricated infamous Andonian telegrams. This is enough to dismiss whatever else he says. He's a proven deceiver. By the way, in case anybody here is wondering why such a 'respected' scholar is not employed at any university: he was FIRED from State University College at Geneseo where he was a sociology professor because of repeated sexual harrasment to the students. Deepblue06 17:08, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
LOL, pervert and most likely future convicted fellon, LOL 83.77.132.16 17:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Everyone historian who disagrees with you is a genocide denier and a paid stooge of Turkey whereas the likes of Dadrian who has been shown, empirically, to use selective evidence and to falsify evidence - by historians who are neither Turkish nor Armenian and have no horse in this race - is the ultimate source of truth. "Serious scholars should be cautioned against accepting all of Dadrian's statements at face value." That must be the level of respect you were referring to. It is clear that you are not to be dissuaded about the honesty of Dadrian's work and I am not going to dismiss everyone who disagrees with him as a genocide denier. We just have to agree to disagree.

Thoth for gods sake even your own fellow armenian friends urged you to stop copy pasting. first of all we already know these reports. second you are using the documents that have been discredited long time ago. third Belive me I have many more things that I can copy paste here.

I guess you feel great when you paste something here and get no answer. you think that after the perfect document that you put here others are speachles. The sad thing is it is not the case you are not taken seriously because what you are doing serves just to dead lock the debate that is all... if you want to paste something paste it to your talk page and give a link neurobio 17:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I find it funny that you nationalsitic Turks are so quick to throw about adhominem personal attacks - but when it comes to actual issues you have nothing really to say. I won't stoop to your level except to say that quality of Dadrian's analysis and the truth of and facts of the Armenian Genocide are known and accepted by all but those with an agenda. --THOTH 17:59, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
One of the expressions of Cetin Altan that I like the most is "the propaganda of Turks aiming at Turks." On all international issues, we very much like to propagandize to each other - a propaganda which is not based on realities. On the issue of the "so-called genocide," too, we like very much to propagandize to ourselves. First of all, we start by indicating that the allegation is about a "so-called" genocide. ...the Council of the Higher Education, YOK...sent a series of instructions to university rectors and deans and aimed to begin to train educators on this issue. YOK would determine in advance what and how scientists would think about the "Armenian Deportation," and the latter would work in the light of that. There you are - a scientific study in the Turkish style! ...it was decided by the Commission of the Instruction and Education that the subjects relating to the Armenian, Pontus Greek and Assyrian allegations...are groundless. ...every effort will be made so that, first, it is recognized that the "so-called Armenian Genocide" is a "so-called" one, then, by means of propaganda, those denials will be taught to children and youth and will be engraved in their minds. It is written in the editorial of the weekly "Agos" that the same is requested from Armenian schools; it is required that young Armenians also form sentences denying "the groundless Armenian allegations. In reality, this propaganda is more deceptive for Turkish children: the Armenian child will hear one way or another from his family, relatives and eyewitnesses still living why the number of Armenians living in this country dropped from 2 million to 60,000. He will also know that he needs to say at school the opposite of what he hears at home. What happened in history did happen. It is impossible to fight against realities. Should German people defend Hitler, who assassinated millions of Jews for the simple reason that he is German? 1915 is one of the painful pages of the Ottoman history: on this date, the Committee of Union and Progress committed a huge crime against humanity. Why should I take the responsibility for that crime, and oppose the historical truths by asserting that all of this did not take place? Why shall we mislead young brains with lies? What kind of damage does such a propaganda cause in the brains of the youth. What will this society gain, by educating the youth with legends that are unreal?" Oral Calislar - from the Turkish daily Cumhuriyet - 12 May 2003 --THOTH 18:03, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
It is entirely consistent with the article to counter historians with the views of a journalist/human rights activist - Orhan Parmuk the novelist, afterall, got an entire section devoted to him.


when it comes to ad hominem attacks we have seen that you and your friends are the ultimate masters. Up to now every historian who opposes has been blamed of beeing a Turkish propagandist or getting money or being a racist freak. Even in this page people who have pressed hard agains the issiue recived personal attacks by your friends. I dont care about Turks doing propaganda to them selves. I care about Armenians doing propaganda to the world. I just visited several Armenian sites they are still using Talat pasa Telegrams which have been shown to be fabrications, they are still using photoshopped pictures, or unrelated pictures (especially the one with ottoman solders posing in front of cut off heads. Which has been taken in bulgaria. also the one where people pose in front of bones. photoshop!!!). I wached a documentary in Arte which says Kurds helped Armenians on the way (whe know that it is vice versa. but we should not make Kurd upset or look bad these days right?) In all sites an documentaries it is said that all armenians were deported with no exceprion but we know that it is not true there were many exceptions at least there were cities where all population was left undisturbed. you always portray your ancestors as peacefull innocents while these foreign documents that you love so much says that they were rebeling aginst the goverment, pilaging, plundering, killing and 160.000 armenians were in Russian army attacking the Ottoman army. And what is more you are still erecting monuments to 1.5 milion deaths when the over all population is hardly 1.5. So stop that and get back to talking about the article in particular.

I want to warn other contributers that you should sign properly and have a ID or soon you will be blamed of beeing someone elses pupet maybe mine. neurobio 19:26, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

What have you said here that is of any relevance to the article or this issue whatsoever? You accuse Armenians of propoganda - and that is a laugh. You make claims that are untrue and even are countering statements that were never made. Distortion and denial - this is entirely what this post of yours is and what your so-called contributions have been to date. Just because you say things are so does not make them to be true - particularly when the evidence is clear - no matter how many times you claim otherwise. BTW - the Talat Pasha telagrams have not been proven to be fabrications - just because some so-called Turkish reserchers say they are. Thats not good enough. Regardless they are not necessary or central to the validity of the genocide claim - there is more then sufficient evidence otherwise - from primary sources. Just beacuse you refuse to accept such has no bearing on their truthfulness or factuality. The accounts are corraborated and far too numerous and from varying sources for you to dismiss them as just propoganda. Sorry - you have to do better...--THOTH 20:50, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Dadrian on Lewy's claims concerning the Talat Pasha telegrams - "According to professor Lewy, the Armenian claim of genocide is predicated upon the “the pillars,” namely, (1) the Turkish Courts- Martial of 1919-20, (2) the role of the Special Organization (Teshkilati Mahsusa), and (3) the memoirs of Naim Bey (p. 6). This highly inaccurate description again is reflective of his seemingly limited familiarity with the literature involved. Notwithstanding, they call for scrutiny to “set the record straight.” Of these, the one involving a lengthy discussion, based on his claim that they are “forgeries,” covers the Naim-Andonian documents. That claim is mainly, if not exclusively, based upon a book produced by two Turkish authors who, following an extensive examination, maintained that the documents are forgeries. Even though at the end of his discussion he finds it expedient to hedge somewhat by allowing that these documents are “at best unverifiable and problematic,” the bulk of Lewy’s arguments with emphasis focus, however, on the forgery angle. Yet, as far as it is known, the two non-Turkish scholars cited by him for support of his claim did not themselves conduct any comparable research, including Zürcher who was content to state that the documents “have been shown to be forgeries.” But on the other end of the spectrum, a German author having very recently uncovered a number of authentic Ottoman documents from the Interior Ministry Section of Turkish state archives, established that these documents confirm to some degree the contents of two other telegrams ascribed to Talaat in Andonian’s book. Thus the dating of telegrams nos. 840 and 860 as January 1916 appears to be correct…[The two Turkish authors] Sinasi Orel and Süreyya Yüce who have agued that Andonian forged his material, did not consider the source under scrutiny here. Thus their thesis is to be put into question and further research [on this matter] is necessary. Equally significant in this regard is the fact that Lewy is either unaware or he chose to ignore completely the existence of a very extensive analysis of the validity of these documents which I undertook and which in its entirety was published in the peer reviewed official journal of the Middle East Studies Association of North America. [6] In the light of all this, Lewy’s standards of research are cast in stark relief, especially with respect to his conclusion that “most historians and scholars dismiss ‘these documents’” --THOTH 21:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Lewy's response [11]: "... Dadrian again displays his skill in the use of selective evidence. For example, the alleged thirty-one telegrams of Talât Pasha contained in the Naim-Andonian volume, some of which order the killing of all Armenians, are rejected as crude forgeries not only by Turkish historians but also by almost all Western students of Ottoman history. Hilmar Kaiser (German author cited above), cited by Dadrian and the one exception to this rule, did say documents from the Ottoman Ministry of the Interior "confirm to some degree" two telegrams, but he concluded that "further research on the ‘Naim-Andonian' documents is necessary."
...
Hilmar Kaiser, on whom Dadrian relies for his defense, has drawn attention to "misleading quotations" and the "selective use of sources" in Dadrian's work, and he has concluded that "serious scholars should be cautioned against accepting all of Dadrian's statements at face value." I concur in this judgment." Deepblue06 22:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
That there are occasional disagreements - even serious ones - among scholars of history should come as no surprise to anyone with an understanding of these things (beyond the ability to cut and paste an article by Lewy - whose serious ommissions, selective views and outright misinterpretations dooms him for any serious consideration as an actual scholar on this issue). Kaiser's beef with Dadrian concerns the level of German complicity in enacting and carrying out the Armenian Genocide. Kiaser - a German - takes offense at Dadrian's insistence that not only were individual Germans taking part in or not preventing genocide - but that they had a role in suggesting and planning such a thing in the first place. There can be no doubt - as in all areas of Genocide research - that Dadrian has done an impressive job of gathering relevant information. The issue is what conclusions can strictly be reached and here - as in many aspects of history - there is some room for disagreement and debate among sholars who are otherwise capable and honest. Kaiser has felt that Dadrian pushes much too hard with accusations against Germans when the evidence is more mixed. He got emotional at one point and lashed out a bit at Dadrian. His comments should be interpreted as they were meant to be applied - in regards to this specific issue and this issue alone. There can be no impinging of the quality of Dadrian's research and contributions to knowledge on the Armenian Genocide issue. He is the premier - though certainly not the only - researcher in this field and his output and analysis speaks for itself. Kaiser as well has done some incredible anaysis - particularly in the economic field - where in fact he has shown how German economic interests and aspirations led them into a percieved adversarial role versus the Greeks and Armenians - as the Germans saw them as direct competitors in the are of commerce within the Ottoman Empire. What followed was a degree of racism and negative commentary in the German press and among official German circles concerning Armenians and Greeks and one could very well understand how this may have helped to shape the attitudes of many Germans against the Armenians. Kaiser does not see, however, that these attitudes became official German policy aimed at eliminating the Armenians. Dadrian and other scholars see it otherwise as there exists a great deal of documentary evidence that Germans not only condoned and did not prevent the Genocide - but that indivicual German soldier and operatives actually assited in it.Kaiser himself admits that "The role palyed by the German officers and officials during the Armenian Genocide...remains open to varying assessments and interpretations." (The Baghdad Railway and the Armenian Genocide, 1915-1916 - A Case Study in German Resistance and Complicity in Hovannisian's Rememberance and Denial - p67). Kaiser further goes on to detail the exploits of LtCol Bottrich who actually signed the orders (and pushed to do so) to deport Armenian railway workers in his role as head of the railway department of the Ottoman General Staff. Kaiser additionally details that "a system of official orders and secret orders was employed" to puclically placate the Germans and disguise the CUP actions while ensuring that the ailway workers were ultimatly mass murdered. Kaiser details that "The principle methods of extermination along the railway were massacre, death marches, forced starvation and dehydration, and systematic exposure to contagious diseases." However he concludes that "a uniform German position towards the Ottoman Armenians did not exist" and this is where he differs greatly from Dadrian who claims that it did and that the evidence of German actions proves such. It is a point that perhaps warrents more research. However fundementally Kaiser and Dadrian (and most all other scholars) agree concerning the overall and specific facts and undeniability of the Genocide. As an aside Kaiser mentions a note found in the German archives from the German Consul in Adana Dr Eugem Buge calling Talaat's telegrams concerning protecting and providing for "deported" Armenians as "brazen deceit". Furthermore in the notes to the article Kaiser specifically references the [so-called] Naim Bey - Andonian documents (and mentions that their authenticity has been disputed) - however he points out the accuracy of the information contained therin in terms of overall counts of Armenians being "transported" and held at camps with other Ottoman figures he was able to obtain from the Ottoman Archives...--THOTH 17:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Donald Bloxham in his intoduction to an article titled A Reassessment of the German Role in the Armenian Genocide illustrates the differences of opinion among scholars concerning this issue - "There is an underdeveloped and polarized historiographical debate about the exact extent and nature of German involvement. Ulrich Trumpener, Frank Weber and Wolfdieter Bihl have bequeathed a fairly straightforward impression of Realpolitik, where opposition to the murders from within German officialdom was simply outweighed by the interests of the wartime alliance. A case study by Hilmar Kaiser of the fate of the Armenian workers on the so-called Baghdad railway has shown that genuine disagreements over the treatment of the Armenians did occur, both within German ranks and between Germans and Turks, and that these did have ramifications, at least in the short term, for the life-chances of some of the workers. More recently, Kaiser has trenchantly re-affirmed what has perhaps long been apparent from the available documentary sources, namely that there was no uniform German official position on the genocide. Conversely, Vahakn Dadrian has stressed active German complicity in the massacres, and, like Christoph Dinkel and Artem Ohandjanian, has even invoked German ‘stimulation’ of killings and expulsions, with particular reference to the role of German military representatives in Turkey. Wolfgang Gust has concurred with these overridingly negative assessments. The final four scholars suggest that instances of German military and civilian officials objecting to the massacres were insignificant in the face of the general thrust of German policy which, they imply, somehow stood to gain from the murder of the Armenians." http://www.hist.net/kieser/aghet/Essays/EssayBloxham.html --THOTH 17:49, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


don´t get emotional. at this point I am not saying that this genocide is not true. I am saying something else. you say "What have you said here that is of any relevance to the article or this issue whatsoever?" please read your post. you came u pwith the topic of propaganda and i said It is not only Turks you are also doing it.

As you know not only telegrams but also the "ottoman Archive" documents that are said to show orders to eradicate armenians are also shown to be fake. it may or may not be of central importance. I am only saying that Armenians used forgeries several times and they are superior in propaganda (given the fact that there are only half a dozen of proper web sites by the turkish side how can you deny that?). And since the beginning of this talk historians opposing the genocide are smeared continuosly. how can you deny this? just read the history page.

I said "And what is more you are still erecting monuments to 1.5 milion deaths when the over all population is hardly 1.5" is this not true? and I said also your ancestors were actively figting. is this untrue? If you can not be persuated even at this there is no hope for us to come to an agreement in anything.

let me remind you my position again. I am not saying that Armenians were not massacred. I say that yes they are massacred but It can not be called a genocide due to several reasons. I want to make sure that current literature is in the article not one sided Armenian views.neurobio 21:48, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, Dadrian maintains that 5 of the telegrams were authenticated in a 1921 trial long after it has been shown by the record that these telegrams were never entered as evidence. The motion to introduce them was withdrawn by counsel Von Gordon. There does seem to be a pattern by the pro-armenian campaigners of just throwing claims out there and repeating it knowing that by the time it is refuted, people will have come to believe it through repetition - and that the media being sensitive to allegations of genocide denial will largely not convey the rebuttals anyway. One example of this would the mountain of skulls so closely associated in everyones mind with the massacres. How many people will ever know that its just a very, very old Russian painting that predates the massacres by decades - almost a century... The problem for this campaign is that however many governments recognise this and however many people today come to believe in these claims as told by the Armenian groups - eventually as time drags on the emotional attachment will subside and people will look more clinically - and they will investigate the greatest historians of the day and read their books. There are simply too many books out there by too many respected historians, and too many proven cases of campaigners using falsified documentation, for this to ever be looked at in the light you want. I suggest you stop trying to make this article a part of that campaign. There is a ground occupied by historians that is shared by neither the Turkish government nor the Armenian campaigners. That is the ground this article should be founded on. As Gwynne Dyer put it, Turkish Falsifiers and Armenian Deceivers.
Von Gordon proposed to read aloud 2 of the five telegrams in question for Tehlrians defense - but only if needed to proove Talaat's guilt in ordering and directing the murderous actions taken against the Armenians. Von Gorden did summarize the contents of the telegrams and he testified that these telegrams had been authenticated as originating from Talaat and that they had been thoroughly examined by Dr Lepsius. Prosecuting attorney Gollnick protested the telegrams being read - because the assumption of Talaats guilt in ordering the extermination of Armenians was not in question - only Tehlirian's belief that this was true. The judge agreed that the intent of the trial was not to proove Talaats guilt - but to judge Tehlirian and that enough evidence had already been submitted to already establish that Tehlirian both witnessed great personal horror - including witnessing the terrible deaths of members of his family and that he had sufficient reason to believe that Talaat was responsible. Thus Von Gordon withdrew the request to read the telegrams aloud as his condition for needing to read them had already been met so reading them verbetim was unecessary - however they were verified as both accurate and originating from Talaat and their contents were summarized in a statement made by Von Gordon before the court. Additionally - in response to Gollnick's closing remarks - which tried to maek the case for Talaat's innocence of the crimes against the Armenians - Von Gordon made reference to the authenticated telegrams (while holding them up before the court) and he emphatically stated that their authenticity (and Talaat's guilt) was proven based on testimony provided to the court by a recipient of the telegrams and from cooborating testimony that verified their accuracy! --THOTH 19:06, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Everything you have just written above is a roundabout way of confirming "Dadrian maintains that 5 of the telegrams were authenticated in a 1921 trial long after it has been shown by the record that these telegrams were never entered as evidence. The motion to introduce them was withdrawn by counsel Von Gordon"... All you have done is described the circumstances in which the motion to introduce them was withdrawn. And counsel waving documents in the air and declaring them authentic does not make them so - however 'empthatically' he does it. The point stands - the court did not authenticate them because they were never presented as evidence. I am not aware of any (non-Armenian) Western historian, since the accusations of forgery were detailed, who is prepared to underwrite the authenticity of the documents. I am aware of those who have stated explicitly that they are forgeries.

I have decided to not get involved for few days and watch the developpement, and what I have best witnessed is that neither of all of you who engaged here are there to contribute in writting an encyclopedic article. Do you even see in the article anything referring to the Andonians?

Also, Deepblue06 has made serious charges directed against Dadrian, talkpages are not there to slander scholars.

That's quite ironic! One should live up to his words. Anytime work of a respected scholar (Lewis, McCarthy, Lowry, Lewy, etc.) is brought here, the author of above words went on attacking the scholars (ad hominem), echoing the works of smear campaigns on these respected scholars just because they happen to hold different views. Deepblue06 06:08, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Please show where scholars have been attacked in the same manner as the ad hominem attacks you and others have made against Dadrian, Genocide eyewitnesses and others that you and other Turks here find disagreeable to your denialist contentions. Any mention of Lewis, (or McCarthy, Lowery, Lewy etc) directly addresses theic contentions - the issues they raise - as well as the fact of their association with a Turkish government lobbying creation - The Institute of Turkish Studies - which funds partisan research and sets conditions of adherence to official Turkish government policy in regards to the Armenian Genocide - thus entirely on-subject and legitimate. Speaking of Lewis again - did you know that during his trial for denying the Armenian Genocide he admitted that he was in error calling the view accepting the Genocide as such as "the Armenian view" because it in fact is the predominate view held by scholars who are not ethnically Armenian. --THOTH 19:58, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Either he provide those 'forgeries' from Dadrians part he is talking about or he stop shooting like that. Also, Deepblue06 claims that Dadrian was caught with using the 'fabricated' telegrams. The only thing Dadrian has done which is involved with the Andonians is an analysis in one single paper of Orel and Yuka work. Never, at least I have never seen that in his publications, Dadrian has ever said that the Andonians were authentic, but rather that Orel and Yuka analysis aren't convincing which is different. Up to now, no one here had ever touched the issue at hand, the issue being, is there sufficient scholars in the West who agree with the Turkish government thesis to claim that the other position should be viewed more controversial than it actually is. The answer is no, Lewis, who was cited once really cover the event, and call it Holocaust, other than that there is one single article which can not be considered as supportative of the Turkish government position which was published in Le Monde, I have tried to find anything in the papers he wrote or the reviews or his recent books about the event, but he skip it. We can not insinuate in an unpublished work or the claification he gave in Le Monde about his comparaison of Lebanon etc. Another one who was brought there is Davison, how so, this scholar in one of his reviews of a work critic the omission on the massacre of the Armenians and refers in papers the discriminations imposed against minorities, in his 'Armenian Crises, 1912-1914,' he present the harsh condition of the Armenians in the Empire, and place to rest the claim of Dashnak conspiration for revolution.

So let me try to make sense of what is said above: Dadrian does not claim the authenticity of these forged telegrams, but he does not see any problems of using them to support his arguments (see "The Naim-Andonian Documents on the World War I Destruction of the Ottoman Armenians: The Anatomy of a Genocide." International Journal for Middle East Studies 18: 311-360 (1986) by Dadrian). So as long as Dadrian does not explicitly say the telegrams are authentic, no problem, he can use them to support his arguments. What a ridiculous logic. My other assertion about Dadrian not being affiliated at any university and being fired from SUNY Geneseo due to repeated sexual harrasments to his students was also solid.
"Vahakn N. Dadrian, an internationally known expert on genocide, was fired after an arbitrator found him guilty of sexual harassment and supported the school's desire to dismiss him, said Carol Harter, SUNY Geneseo president. The action was announced yesterday." (Source: SUZETTE SEVANTE, Times Union, April 24, 1991)
The irony is that his sexual attack on his student occurred on April 24, the day when he should be most solemn.
Oh, by the way, Fadix should not expect any further responses from me, I know talking to him is fruitless, this post was for shoiwng unbiased users that my assertions were solid. Deepblue06 06:08, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Criticising a work which either you have not read, or are purpously starting false rumors about. I will be emailing it to anyone that request it, so that they see by themselves what was its content. As well, the work itself entirly destroy Yuka and Orel arguments and shows that using the same standards records considered as authentic will not pass their own test. This is the only thing about the work.

The second point, about the sexual harassment, why don't you tell us all what was the sexual harassment in question? A kiss, the girl claims on the lips, Dadrian claims the student kissed his cheek. I personally question Dadrian's conduct, but there was no criminal cases opened. What is the relevancy of this here? That you can't answer his work doesn't justify using such cheap tricks and accusing people of forgery. More you post, more it becomes clear that you have absolutly no intention to participate in the writting of an encyclopedic article.

I do expect not waiting any answer from you. Why should I expect anything, since you don't have Wikipedian intentions here. Fad (ix) 17:32, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Fadix, just out of curiosity and I am asking you to be honest here, what do you think of THOTH's contribution here? You mention above that deepblue has no intention to participate in the writing of an encyclopedic article, im just curious as to what your thoughts are regarding THOTH's intentions for a change? 81.62.128.110 18:41, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I also researched these days from early records following the genocide convention, and the Armenian cases is there (example: The Genocide Convention and State Rights, The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 43, No. 3 (Jul., 1949), p. 501). So, what all of you are talking about has little relevancy with the article. I thought that maybe without me there could be some propositions to improve this entry, but you guys convinced me that the RfAr was the only option. Fad (ix) 00:53, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

you have been threatening RfAr for a while so why dont you just get on with it instead of waving it in the air. And boy what an arrogant fellow you are posing as an "authority" on the subject when everyone know how biased you are! You have also shown yourself to be highly disruptive by making false accusations and attacking contributors that dont agree with you. 81.62.128.110 05:32, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh yeh! Threats, I was there during the arbitration cases involving Coolcat, it took months in which I have wasted my time. Giving it another chance isen't threats at all. Fad (ix) 17:32, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


it seems that we have a new expert here. please create a proper account and sign as described at the top of the page. Or soon you will be accoused of beeing a pupet and your comments will not be taken seriously. 85.178.45.116 23:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)upss!! neurobio 23:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


Deleted Attack! I dont know how to name this!neurobio 22:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Weasel Words

There are many weasel words and comments without citations in the article. Let me show you some examples, it says:

Furthermore, the majority of genocide scholars and the world community as a whole views the ongoing Turkish denial of this genocide as absurd and shameful.

Is there any citation? Who are these majority of scholars? the world community as a whole? No the world community does not recognize as a whole. For example Azerbaijan and Northern Cyprus does not recognize it as a genocide. Most of the countries do not use the word genocide at all.

most Armenian, Russian, Western, and an increasing number of Turkish scholars believe that the massacres were clearly and indisputably a case of genocide

Is there any citation? Who are these most?

The event is also said to be the second-most studied case of genocide

Who says that? Is there any list on earth which lists the rank of studied genocides? Is there any citation?

The first two paragraphs of the article stays like the word of an armenian citizen? This is a strict disruption of NPOV.

Thanks

P.S.I won't discuss anything further, please do not send me hostile messages (no messages at all) --Alperen 12:12, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

How dare you criticize the not so subtle propaganda techniques of the genocide pushers? Please behave yourself!!! 81.62.128.110 13:35, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
http://www.armenian-genocide.org/Affirmation.22/current_category.3/affirmation_detail.html
From above - "The Armenian Genocide was the most dramatic human rights issue of the time and was reported regularly in newspapers across the U.S.The Armenian Genocide is abundantly documentedby Ottoman court-martial records, by hundreds of thousands of documents in the archives of the United States and nations around the world, by eyewitness reports of missionaries and diplomats, by the testimony of survivors, and by eight decades of historical scholarship. After 83 yearsthe Turkish government continues to deny the genocideof the Armenians by blaming the victims and undermining historical fact with false rhetoric...Denial of genocide strives to reshape history in order to demonize the victims and rehabilitate the perpetrators.Denial of genocide is the final stage of genocide.It is what Ellie Weisel has called a "double killing."Denial murders the dignity of the survivors and seeks to destroy remembrance of the crime. In a century plagued by genocide,we affirm the moral necessity of remembering. We denounce as morally and intellectually corruptthe Turkish government's denial of the Armenian genocide.We condemn Turkey's manipulationof the American government and American institutions for the purpose of denying the Armenian genocide. This statement has been signed by more than 150 distinguished scholars and writers (names and affiliations follow). --THOTH 18:49, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
"The Armenian Genocide is proven in all its components - among them intent. The converging evidence is well in excess of that generally judged abundant in establishing other historical truths. The genocide was a horrendous crime. The evidence is there - province by province, city by city, village by village, hamlet by hanlet, with its countless variations according to time and place yet all the same in the vast process of extermination - genocide. A deliberate plan, carefully organized and brutally executed. The deniers and rationalizers offend the dignity of the historian and of all humanity." Yves Ternon - author of several volumes concerning human rights and genocide in - Freedom and Responsibility of the Historian - the "Lewis Affair" - 1999 --THOTH 18:58, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


"If they knew all the things that I know, all that I have had to see with my eyes and hear with my ears, all Christian powers that are still neutral would be impelled to rise up against Turkey and cry anathema against her inhuman Government and her ferocious "Committee of Union and Progress," and they would extend the responsibility to Turkey's Allies, who tolerate or even shield with their strong arm these execrable crimes, which have not their equal in history, either modern or ancient. Shame, horror and disgrace!" from an interview of G. Gorrini, former italian Consul-General at Trebizond, published in the journal Il Messaggero of Rome, on August 25 1915 --THOTH 19:29, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Your pal tried hard to discredit 69 people (several of them being real experts of the era) who are saying there is no genocide but we are asked to believe in writers, psychiatrist and some historians (i wonder if any of them is expert in the issiue. I doubt.) that the case is closed. And again you are posting propaganda material of the imperialistic powers of that time who were hardly waiting to get a piece of the ottoman empire. These talks and reports were serving the purpose of constructing the ideological, mental and emotional base for the warfare. It is so obvious for gods sake! just read it again! At that time there are endles books and newspaper articles which are written just to promote the idea "Turks are Evil Germans are even worse!" in ordinary European citizen! Dig in the history and you can find a very simmilar speach just before the crusades.neurobio 22:50, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

So you claim even Turkey's allies, Germany and Austro-Hungary, lied to each others' encoded telegrams....that were never released to the public? That every single government and its individual media sources fabricated thousands of documents, images, and videos simply to make Turkey look bad? Its quite obvious that you are providing little to this article so if you're going to assassinate their charcters and just advertise the Turkish government line, why bother?--MarshallBagramyan 00:58, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
uhhhh there are plenty of German documents of the time attesting to the fact that the Ottoman government handled the relocation in an appropriate manner, the fact that some of the informants, especially Lepsius the freak, were religious fanatics and harbored deep hatred against moslems explains very well the motivation behind the lies that they were concocting. And by the way who occupied Turkish territory and tried so hard to partition it as the Ottoman empire crumbled? Hmmm the same culprits that were spreading their hate campaign against the Turks! 83.79.98.206 05:22, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm not familiar at all with these documents 0 can you provide some references? BTW - just subjectively - what percentage dead/survive would you consider to be "appropriate"? --THOTH 05:44, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
I've never seen any United Nations resolution clearing Turkey of the crimes - so obvious - by your reasoning - they are guilty. Think...Ok - even if you can't/don't others can...your denilaist tactics are transparent and only confirm the guilt...sleep well...now we are waiting for you to vomit on this talk page again...in the meantime - no - you don't get to rewrite history to your liking just because the truth makes you upset...--THOTH 04:50, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Well there are those that are wondering when your verbal diarrhea will come to an end as its becoming a public nuisance! 83.79.98.206 05:22, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm sure...and you just might imagine the value I place on your sorry opinon. --THOTH 05:44, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I guess you dont read my posts properly. I am talking about that italian consul in general. it is obviously a propaganda work. When it comes to charcter assasination your pals do it in a regular basis against every person and source. I have never heard any objections from you at that time. Yes there are reports showing that atrocities happened and no one denies them. But Genocide is a highly specified definition and the event does not suit with that. I admire your will to accept international reports but why are you so hessitant when the same sources say that 150.000 armenians are in the russian army or say when 500.000 people arrived safely and beeing looked after? what should I provide to this article. You want me to do copy paste job. if you want these reports I can provide them. But what will change? in the past your champion fadix faced with his match and had to remain silent in many topics and still the article is your propaganda work. What will chance?neurobio 13:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

You seem to have a good knowledge of that past, you who claimed having read 4 mb of text materials from the talk page and its archive totalling hundreds of pages, more than an usual book. What character assassination? Do you mean my discriptions of peoples work which I actually have read? You should have a closer look at your body deepblue, he is good at it. At least when I criticise someone I do it from that persons work and don"t shout. Also, your body also who denies to be a sock has many issues to explain us like his constent slandering of Dadrian like our body Torque and the uses of an information that is in a blog site originating for tallarmeniantale and that that page from tallarmeniantale isen"t still on search engines the last time I have checked. But again, what I know about, that Sedat Laciner stop contributing with his registered account and someone who brings exactly the same things our Torque the author of tallarmeniantale bring? The same Torque which Laciner defended after publishing Torque answer to Maral in his journal under his most known Holdwater pseudonym? Oh, and I almost forgot our 83..., whatever, or the constent adding backs of the tallarmeniantale website to the article by the multiple IP guys. On what I have remained silent? You mean worthless discussions which had nothing to do with the content of the article? I can play cheap as well, which is evidenced on a page on the archive dedicated to debunking Torque and putting to pieces his website. But what is the relevency of all this? Do you really want to play the game of biases? Exclude Italians and allied records, now exclude Ottoman-Turkish records, we are left with German-Austrian records, and no, not Lepsius, who need him really now that the unsanitised German records have been published a year ago and contains desciptions worster than what the allies have ever reported. And? Would it be not relevent that those that had provided the highest number of victims were the Germans? 1.5 million are German figures, 1.2 million is also a figure used during the Military court. And why your belief about whatever or not this qualify as genocide should have any relevency, what is the relevency of this worthless debate in this talkpage which is a waste of Wikipedias servers space as well as the time of those who really want to contribute? While I had problem with Granet, at least he was discussing about this article. If you guys want really to debate, it will be my pleasure to build a forum so that Thoth, deepblue you and the multiple aliases the different socks come with to debate, and once you finally decide to contribute you guys can come back. But what was I thinking, of course I am not that naive, to expect any changes.
*personal attack removed* 81.62.133.27 18:07, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Fadix - I find it quite disengenuous on your part that you critisize and portray me negatively for debating/taking issue with denialist claims on this talk page...right on the heels of a long post where you debate/take issue with denilist claims - using much the same facts and arguments I have sometimes made. And its not like this is an isolated case either as the record in these talk pages shows. Why is it that your argueing against those who are making false claims here is OK - but if I do it I am subject to your critique? It makes me think that you might have some ulterior motive that just involve putting me down. And while I know that we have a problem with mutiple Turk personality disorder here and such - your continuous and sometimes quite wild accusations against nearly every Turkish perspective person contributing here claiming they are all some other prior Turkish person or all the same person or in collusion or in the pay of the Turkish government - and so on and so forth - then often retracting such claims and making complex explanations to cover/account for your seeming paranoia - well I find this getting quite a bit old - as well as somewhat embarrasing considering that many look to you as a champion of the (truthful) "Armenian" (or more appropriatly Internationally accepted non-minority) position in this article and just in general. I don't mean to impune your excellent contributions here and in the article itself - and I have always acknowledged the quite extensive documentation you have at your disposal - however all of this gamesmenship and artificially positioning yourself as the final arbritrator on this article I find both quite distracting as well as potentially indicative of some emotional/psychological problems that I think seriously detract from your ability to contribute here and seriously harm our ability at establishing some reasonable baselines for this article - as there is far too much personal gamesmenship going on here IMO and not enough attention being paid to actually improving the quality of the article (be it by discussion of real relevant issues here in the talk pages or through actual attempts to suggest improvements to the article itself). I'm also concerned that you might be driving potentially good contributors away - as we seem to lack such - certainly below my expectations considering what I percieve to be the importance of this article. Anyway - just my perspective. Since you feel so free to express yours and in doing so continuously put down and disparage my efforts I feel I should at least add some of my own thoughts as a counter - just for the record - even though I have in the past been reluctant to critique other (reasonable) contributors for doing things their way as I accept that folks sometimes have different approaches toward achieving the same goal.--THOTH 23:13, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
I have done that? Recently, where have you seen me copypast stuff which is not related to the article or not related to a proposal? What have you done? The only time you have proposed anything it was clearly tainted by POV and personal opinions. Also, where have I totally retracted from my accusations, all of them had AT LEAST some grounds and none have been shown to be totally unfounded. And the only time there was any question about the Turkish government, was in reference to Sedat Laciner who registered an account here in Wikipedia and later another to further push his POV, he only stopped contributing under those known accounts after he has seen me opposing him. And this with the fact that the famous newsgroup spammer Seldar register an account. That you ignore many things doesn't mean that my accusations are unfounded.
Also, where have I ever claimed to act as a final arbitrator, I have nothing to hide, I admit being an Armenian and having my POV, everyone here has POV, and I have faith that if this article was to be written under the guidelines and policies it will stend by itself, and far from supporting denialists. Writting it the NPOV way is the way to go, I DON'T MAKE THE RULES, I TRY RESPECTING THEM. IF YOU ENTER IN A COUNTRY AND REALLY WANT TO WORK THERE AND YOU DON'T WANT TO LEAVE IT, AND THERE ARE LAWS WHICH YOU DON'T AGREE WITH, WILL YOU STOP RESPECTING THEM? RULES ARE IMPOSED, THEY ARE CALLED GUIDELINES AND POLICIES, AND EITHER WE ACCEPT THEM OR PAY THE CONSEQUENCES. I personaly have problem with those regarding incivility and personal attack, because I believe they are given more importance than those about the content of the articles, the only thing I can do is to post propositions in the village pump or try getting the community support. I am ready to pay the price for not respecting them, while you refuse to respect them and refuse the consequences, this is NOT your site. If you have any amendment to propose there exist ways to try getting them approved, but this talk page is not the place. And where have you seen me ever analysing you and your psychological states here? I have always criticised you by the considerations regarding the rules and guidelines while you started threatning me and now your failed attempt at analyising my mental states and even making up supposed retractions when you know well that the only thing which could have been called retraction was Coolcat cases which I found no excuses at all but plainly apologised to him personally in his talk page. But I was indeed right, they WERE sock, and I have confirmed this with evidences that the odd that they may not be valid is the same as the chances that your plane crush. Fad (ix) 04:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I have posted referenced facts and information as part of specific responses to charges and assertions concerning what should be article content and what should not. I don't see anything wrong with what I have done and am doing whatsoever. And like I said - when I argue these points and the wild denialist slanders you critiscize me - however I see you doing much the same. We all have slightly different styles in doing so - why is it that you are right and I am wrong? I see it as a matter of you wanting to control the article and nothing more. Your elaborate attempts to pass yourself off as nuetral and make me look partisan are an indication of the depths you will go to to do this when you know that at best we have only very minor disagreements concerning the historical record and relevant scholarly positions - yet - as in the case of Ottoman/Turkish racism you have gone out of your way to attempt to silence the very valid and widely held positions I have introduced - again why? - because you hold a certain view and are pushing it to the extreme. I think your gamesmenship here has been dishonest and harmful to this article - in general - and in particular by attempts to slander me and my contributions.--THOTH 10:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I have never claimed to be right, and here an evidence that I am not, had I been, I would not have answered you because it is off topic, unrelated with the article. But the differences with you, is that I am ready to discuss about this article make propositions and work on it and respect the guidelines and policies which are conditions on how the article should be written (maybe to a lesser extend for the guidelines but still accurate). You right away downplay the policies and don't want to respect them, and when it is always about improving the article you claim not having the time at all. That's a huge difference I think. Fad (ix) 16:57, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Ha! Well I don't have the time (to devote to doing this the right way)...but I do intend to initiate a complete re-work of this article regardless. Nearly exactly one year ago I proposed the same thing. Then, like now, there was a paucity of serious contributors and a seeming lack of interest in changing anything in any major way. I knew what needed to be done at the time and I do now - but it is an enormous undertaking because I propose that this article be done right (and be essentially unassailable - and I think that this is possible...) and be of equal or better quality - in terms of contents, links and such as the Holocaust article. Some of my hesitation to begin such a thing is my unfamiliarity on how to do it using the Wiki tools and proceedures and such (and doing such things as linking to exsisting articles and yet to be produced [yet necessary] articles and so on). Anyway I intend to do what I can and devote some time (as I have) to it - and this is the wrong time because I will be away and without internet access for the better part of this summer (beginning soon) and other times (like now) I am a defacto single parent (for 2 weeks) and then we will be hosting a French foriegn exchange student beginning in July...etc...but I am determined this time to outline & draft this article and to begin to source materials and such and to put it somewhere on Wiki (new draft article page?) - however that is done - for input and contributions and for eventual vote/decision/whatever to replace the current seriously deficient article...your contributions are welcome (as are others). I have no doubt that I can vastly improve on the current article and with your and other's contributions we can do this topic justice. There is no such thing as NPOV BTW - but I think you just might be surprised at my ability to mimic such...and perhaps we will truly see how well you can play with others...--THOTH 17:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

somebody makes sense at last. I am not your or your peoples enemy. I have not a secret (or obvious. as you may say) agenda. I just look from a different perspective. we are not dishonoring losses in the history. I declared several times that I understand Armenians are attached to the issiue emotionally. But coming up with paranoid accusations seem very much like a tactic to chase people off this pageneurobio 23:52, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

well I have really read all the history believe it or not. And I know what I see there very well. And Just like me any one can read them and decide what has happened for them selves. I would love to see a forum where hardcore debate is going on but it is for them to decide (if they are really these persons that you say). Ofcourse my pesonal belief doesnt mean anything. just like you... however there is a good trick that is used every where is blaming people of being an apologist denialis or whatever. than comes that "you also have blood in your hands" and double killing accusations. I only have objection to the term used and the biased presentation in the article. From time to time tried to contribute to the article. I havent made any chances in the article because of my respect to everyone (accept adding the disputed tag). I have made my remarks showing the article is biased. I said Turkish views should be written without trying to make it look like bullshit (you may think so and even they may really be so to some point but this is an encylopedia). And I said there should be a link to another article where Armenian uprising and killings are documented. But this page is hijacked somehow. It has taken months to chance "turkish denial" to "turkish position" and after seeing what you have done to the Armenian Legion aricle I doupt that anyone here may be persuated to anything. (And I love the way you scare people off the page and then play innocent.) At the end of the day what you say may be true but the way you put it really stinks! there wont be any middle point with you guys! Never the less this aricle is a perfect place to see the mentality of both sides.85.178.52.40 22:21, 4 June 2006 (UTC)neurobio 22:22, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't believe you, I don't think there is anything surprising there. You are simply disturbing good intentioned people and I doubt that anyone takes you seriously. You request a FORK article and you request equating a minority position and creating the illusion of balance which is not what neutrality means. A man of your tenure should have had the intelligence by now to understand the simplist concepts here in Wikipedia. That a position is criticised by others, those others should be included, we can not just start removing existing critics just because the majority of readers will think that one position sound weaker than another. If the majority of the readers conclude this, well, what can I say? You are considering this page as a custum party, where you can come up and forge an alleged posture and start making propositions which are simply not in accordance to the guidelines or/and policies. Not only you expect the 'other position' to be presented as equaly valid and the supression of the arguments against the minority view which is against policy. [12], [13] But you even have the audacity to request FORK articles dedicated to your position, which is evading policies [14] and there is a guideline about this. [15]
Also, what I opposed was Deepblue's misleading additions. Davison from his publications is not a revisionist, Lewis since the 'Le Monde' article and his clarification about his comparaison with what happened in Lebanon has skipped the entire subject and the only published work of his depicting the subject specifically calls the event 'Holocaust' which is even translated in its Turkish version. Also, it is of no interest I guess that Deepblue the IBM computer second edition has beaten Gasparov the world chess champion the 'half Armenian,' and that he misteriously has the same way of choosing his pseudonyms as Torque, Holdwater... or that from all those years that I have faced revisionists Holdwater/Torque was the only other person who hated and attempted at Dadrian's credibility this way and even his belief about Dadrians work about the Andonians which is recycled at Torques website and to his premiere about Dadrian's being fired in 1991.
Oh and about you having read the 4 mb, you even repeat this, you are simply insulting peoples intelligence and you obviously are enough intelligent to know that I know you are lying. Yes, again I am incivil, but I guess this is noting compared to the harsher things I have said and I shall be punished for it by the Arbcom. But I would have expected you at least to build your lie so that it would have been plausible. You haven't even read any guidelines and policies, but have read 4 mb of informations from a single articles talk page. And you didn't knew how to sign, since you have read the entire archives one example among many that shows that you are lying. Lets see how many times in the archives people have adviced others how to sign, and don't forget you have claimed having read all before you even knew how to sign. Archive 1 [16]. Lets say you have missed it, Archive 2 [17]. Lets say you have missed it, Archive 7 [18]. Lets say you have missed it, here a more recent one on Archive 9 [19]. And of course, I don't need to refer to Archive 10, it was instructed to the other IP, and then a user had to remind you so that you finally learned how to sign your name. Now, you tell me how am I supposed to believe you, or respect you? There is also the Lutherian cases, you claimed to another user that Lutherian was not attempting to claim being a Lutherian, had you read the archive you would have seen he was, he even had gone to cry and victimize himself because he was called a fake because people were doubting he was indeed a Lutherian, he stopped pretending only after a checkuser revealed he was indeed a sock. Those are two examples of dishonesty about you and I won't reveal the rest of it, I keep it for the Arbcom.
This is the environment in which good intentioned people are supposed to contribute in, socks abounding, the various vandalisms to the article, the edit wars, and then, the irrelevencies in the talk page, discussing about everything beside the article. And yes! Thoth is right here, and I am also to blame there, but at least I HAVE TRIED. But as long as there are dishonest people like you landing here any progress is impossible. Fad (ix) 03:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I must urge you to calm down once again and think twice before talking. As you must have known I had problems with signing because I was new here. as far as i remember I never left totaly nameless post I was copy pasting signatures from other post so that was causing a problem. After a while it was solved since then there is no problem with my signing. Still I tell you that I have read the archive. You may go ahead and try to disprove it. and if you want to "believe me, or respect me" go ahead and send your Arbcom. we will see what will come out of it. You say "you are simply disturbing good intentioned people". you may think so but I ask these good intentioned people to go to Armenian legion article or Mt Ararat article or March massacre article and take a look at the article and discussion. or better than that lets take a look at [20]. There they will find all answers. you say I ask for a fork article. Well before and after the deportations there has been many incidents where Armenian attacked the Muslims, Army and Ottoman rulers. it has been proposed that these incident should be added to the article. But you claim it was of no relevance. So now lets think? What should we do now. Either we can skip these (just as you want us to) or we can put it into another article. And your claim that the other side is against the rules and regulations is funny because The other side is vocalised by historians and experts as well not some internet blogger! in the past I have shown my good intentions to you and everyone and inreturn I got irritating post. I again declare that you are hijacting this article, chasing people off, pursuing and smearing. Your strategy is clear to anyone who reads the history and this pages history. Put in loads of irrevelant data, make falsifications that only experts can spot, cite sources that are unavaliable to regular users. if all does not work start Sockpupeting, bad intention, lying accusations. good day to all good intentioned people. (if any left in this page)neurobio 15:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you are understanding any bit of what I am saying. You claimed having read all the archive and this before you learned how to sign, and in the archive it was adviced to various users that they should sign their name and it was said how to sign it. I provided examples of those advices, it wasn't one time, not two times, not three times, even more. But you having read allegedly the entirity of the archives didn't still know how to sign and that you should sign your texts. The Lutherian cases is one other example of dishonesty from your part. If you had read cases you would have seen that it is obvious in the archives that Lutherian was really trying to pass as a Lutherian and even started self victimizing himself accusing others to consider him a fake (see the archive you claim having read), he stopped pretending ONLY AFTER a checkusers has revealed that he is INDEED a fake. Had you really read the archives you would have known how to sign and that you should sign, since you could not have missed the various instructions in the archives neither Lutherian cases. This is not all about your dishonesty. You come here choose a login 'neurobio' allegedly in connection to your title, this simply defy logic. Fadix is an alias I have choosen in many forums, I kept it because I wanted to be honest and when I came first in Wikipedia I admit it was for one reason in connection to the Armenian genocide and because Torque had taken the article as a hostage. But later I got interested in other subjects, contributing in articles like phase contrast technique in microscopy, its inventor, drugs (I also started an article about one anti-psychotic drug, because of my interest on the DHA mollecul and its uses as a head missle in treatment) etc... minor contributions I admit, but contributions anyway, this came after, while I admit comming here first for one prime reason. The thing is that you choose a login which has absolutly no connection with the reason you are here, you only started contributing in post stroke depression after your defense that you were indeed saying the truth. You must know then, how a lie detector works and the variation on impulses and know that from your reaction had you passed a lie detector test there is over 90% chances that you will fail it.
You come here, choose a login 'neurobio' not to say under 48 hours interval with deepblue registration, claim having read 4 mb of archives, I doubt that the most obsessed people contributing to this article have done that, I did it, but this is because I have been here for a long time and that I would keep myself updated as time passes, but I admit that had I been a new user, I swear, I would never had gone to take that much time to read 4 mb of text, it is hundreds of pages of 8.5 -11 format of character size of about 12, which is equivalent to 2 or more books. Now, the question is, why would you even choose neurobio when it has absolutly no connection with your intentions here in Wikipedia? Of course people can sometimes choose weird names, but in your cases, we can't really talk of contribution other than an article you have created. There is then, the many things, like your uses of the word proof for studies about SSRI insteed of the word evidence, and many other things like this, or your question about whatever or not the article you have created was too technical and if need be that you simplfy it, when a PhD graduate with such a simplistic article will be far from thinking that it might be considered as technical.
Of course, there are then the craps you have brought which are known forgeries and that even the few Western scholars you support somehow the Turkish government thesis won't support. Example your reference to the 500,000 Turks allegedly killed by Armenians, from the supposed Belge documents, had you read the archive you would have never brought this at all, since it has been covered and more than once and the records being brought and compared as well as Turkish Kemalist authors of that time and their original figures. There are various such things which you claim which have been brought already in the archive and placed to rest and you bring them back and it really appears that you have made a discovery. Another example is when you brought the 69 scholars, while this was brought in the archive you didn't even know the number of scholars that have signed it and mistaked it with the resolution in place that had to be signed, as if again, you made a new discovery.
The thing is that I bring those and claim that you are lying, you know I know that you are lying but you still continue to pretend, I would have though that by now you should have known that it is obvious for everyone that you indeed are lying and you still pursue with this.
Well, let talk about the Armenian Legion stuff, yeh! What is wrong with that article? It covers the Armenian war prisoners dragged in the NAZI army, do you have any problem with that article? If yes! I will be glad to discuss those problems in its talk page. What you have about March massacre? Is there a debate? Yes! There is one, when the major source of its supported (Smith) doesn't say what is claimed in the article and doesn't even call it 'March massacre' than obviously the article is in trouble. Are you seriously comparing this article with the other? I will bring hundreds of sources for this one, while for the other few sources which doesn't really support what is claimed is the best being done. But of course, since the 'Armenians' are concerned, it becomes hypocrasy for you, here another example of why I think that you are lying about your intentions. And finally, more to do with this article. I have never opposed to include the claimed Armenian 'revolutions' in this article, what I have opposed is to exclude the critics from the academia of those claims. What I opposed was the exclusion of relevant encyclopedic information to creat an illusion of balance. And had you read the archive you would have known all this. But since you have not read it, and as it appears you were brough here as if you were said to support this, this and this point when you had no clue of what is happening, I don't expect you to have read even 1/10 of what is in those archives you say having read.
For now, I am done with you. Fad (ix) 16:51, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to you I am enjoying my time in the net more than ever. knowing who I am I can only feel joy after this post. Thanks for putting so much efford! All I say is just send your Arbcom quicly. And we will see who is who and who is a troll or Vandal after all!neurobio 20:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Troll and Vandal? Those are harsh words. :) I am not right now accusing you of those, what I have accused you is of lying, being dishonest and of course wanting things which are against guidelines and policies and for those reasons being one of the causes of why there is disturbance and no possible progress. Also, my answer to your thanking me would be. It has been my pleasure. :) 20:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

ha anytime :). I am honored and delighed by this indepth study on me by the former infamous now tamed "Armenian beast".neurobio 00:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Back to the article, and the claim of redrawing the Armenian bill because of threats

Deepblue(one might read his answer in neurobio talkpage, if there is still doubt that he is Holdwater :) ), claimed that there was no evidences that the bill was taken off because of pressures, I tried finding something which will place to rest his claim, I though that the American Journal of International Law is more than credible as a source and it does cover the dropping of the resolution, and as the president warning. Here is what it has to say.

After the resolution was approved by the House International Relations Committe, the government of Turkey warned the United States that enactment would have repercussions. Turkey indicated that it might withdraw certain defense contracts with U.S. firms, reopen ties with the government of Iraq, and withdraw its content to U.S. use of Turkey's Incirlik air base for air patrols over northern Iraq. Then the Journal cites Clinton's warning, if need be I will cite it. And continue And then Minutes before the House was to vote on the resolution, Speaker J. Dennis Hastart withdrew the resolution, citing President Clinton's warning. Thereafter, Representative Rogan lost his bid for reelection. (The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 95, No. 2 (Apr., 2001), pp. 396-397)

There is no question about why the resolution was removed contrary to what Deepblue claims, there are not only plenty of evidences about that pieces, but the government of Turkey doesn't even deny making pressures. I admit the wording were not neutral, they were after my modification in the past before someone edited them, but Deepblue removal is clearly a removal of relevant information.

Also, Deepblue, if you want to discuss about the content of the article be my guest.

Once again, I ask you to stop your false accusations. Stop accusing me being another user. You have no right to falsely accuse me. You've proved over and over again that you cannot engage in a civil discussion, so I choose not to talk to you. If anyone else brings this point, I'd try to contribute to the discussion as much as possible given my schedule. Deepblue06 18:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Well sorry, if you want to make any progress you are forced to talk to me. As for the accusations, you recycle everything from tallarmeniantale website, you even think alike, you present primieres from it, exactly the same misconceptions (example the Andonians). If you want to convince anyone that you can contribute to this article and bring anything new, you should once bring a claim or a reference that is not in that site. As I see, you want to bring back that site in the article, unless you change it and correct what I have reported and stop slandering everyone and delete the racistic trash, that site won't be in the article, I am sorry. Everyone can start building sites to add them in Wikipedia, there are some standards and where to cut, and here is where we cut. Now I made my point, and clearly showed that the information about the threats should not have been deleted, at least for the US, also in light of the fact that most states officially recognize it. You can ignore me, you should still answer what more than a presidents warning it would take and the reason of its removal. Fad (ix) 19:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
There he goes again, accusing others because they dont follow the party line, just like someone else said earlier, Fadix is a control freak and wants the topic all to himself. This guy is seriously deranged and dangerous. 83.78.109.4 05:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Yeh, I'm on heavy medication with high doses of Haldol injections and atypical anti-psychotic. I eat babies for dinner. Fad (ix) 06:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
whatever man, the majority of contributors here (including those that side with you) agree that you are a megalomaniac and that you probably suffer from a severe case of OCD. The problem with you is that you are dishonest, lack integrity and have an ego big enough to eclipse the sun for the rest of this century. Your contributions amount to nothing except maybe alot of nuisance. 83.78.109.4 06:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Speak for yourselves; all your contributions have added little next to nothing and your presence here has only been detriment to the article. It'll be helpful if all of you unveil your masks and admit that you all have an agenda and a biased view towards the article (just as any Armenian does, the exception is that we do not pretend we don't); namely you want this want article named the Armenian "massacres" or "relocations". Drop the charade. We've been honest since the ball got rolling on this article, don't play these childish games.--MarshallBagramyan 06:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
You've been honest? you're only kiddin yourself, its plain to see that this topic is heading for the trash heap because of its subjective nature. You guys have succeeded in spreading your propaganda material around the world but your sorry attempts are bound to fail here where all voices have a chance to be heard. And your malicious intent is clearly evident in your pathetic attempts to whitewash a gang of vile murderers: the Armenian legion. 83.78.109.4 06:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Just where were the "Armenian Legion" stationed in WWI and what were their relevant actions? I don't see that you or your doubles have contributed anything here except for ad hominem attacks and baseless allegations. You are (a) genocide denier(s) and the (basic and relevant facts of the) Armenian Genocide is/are more then proven. Just because you don't like some resarcher's hair style is no basis for a proper critique. Likewise - just by saying that every eyewitness is biased against Turks and such - well that just doesn't cut it. Your contributions here have been less then zero...they are well into the negatives in every respect. It is quite laughable that you have the gaul to accuse Fadix of not substantially contributing here. Whatever are his flaws - your accusations are groundless - just as are your assertations regarding the content of this article. Additionally your tone and manner are offensive and your empty words are meaningless and irrelevant.--THOTH 13:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
My "empty" words are irrelevant? meaningless? If so why do you bother to answer? Your really making a fool out of yourself. 85.0.90.46 15:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I hope you are not assuming that this anon is me. A hint. I never use commas, I rarely put " ' " and always start my paragraph without putting (::::::) neurobio 14:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

The anon is the banned troll Lutherian.--Eupator 15:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
The turd is back, we missed you85.0.90.46 16:11, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Did you mean to say "turk"? ...anouncing yourself now? Wouldn't it be easier to just add a signature? ...easier still to not bother posting "empty, irrelevent, meaningless" and I shall add "undeniably base and utterly worthless" commentary at all...do yourself and us all a favor...learn some manners and wipe the spittle off your chin. --THOTH 17:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Actually in your case I think the right word is dork. 85.0.88.184 04:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


Interesting Developments

Welsh parliement members have recongnized the Armenian and Assyrian genocide [21] Chaldean 03:33, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

C'mon, are you serious about this is an interesting development? Who cares Welsh parliament members anyway? Do you think they are more important than Family Guy?
Nothing can be more important than Family Guy. —Khoikhoi 06:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Hey, how much for the fat guy in the circle? I don't see a price tag for that. Having advanced that point, is there a suggestion to add this National Assembly for Wales position to the article? If so, how? If not, there is not much left to discuss here. El_C 06:48, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
In the same direction, is it really necessary to name all the US states who recognize it? Why not give just the number of states? This is not an American encyclopedia, but an universal one, I don't see why every single US states which recognize it should be named. Fad (ix) 15:06, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Reverted Article is filled with many factual errors and false and unsupported statements

For instance this bit -

"The single event that started the chain is most likely the Russian victory over the Ottoman Empire in the War of 1877-78. At the end of this war the Russians took control over a large part of Armenian territory (including the city of Kars). The Russians claimed they were the supporters of Christians within the Ottoman Empire and now they were clearly militarily superior to the Ottomans. The weakening control of the Ottoman government over its empire in the following 15 years led many Armenians to believe that they could gain independence from them."

This statement includes many patently false and unsupported statements. Scholars who debate the factors that led to conditions in the Ottoman Empire and among the Ottoman leadership that led the Turks to contemplate and eventually carry out genocide against the Armenian population of the empire (and their animosity towards Armenians and exclusions of Armenians [and other Christians] from their concept of the Ottoman/Turkish nation) introduce a number of factors which precipitated the situation and Russian interest in Ottoman territory and its concern over the depredations being experienced by the Armenians at the hands of the Ottoman Sultan and Kurdish chieftains is only one of a number of factors that influenced the attitudes of Ottoman and Young Turks elites and Muslims of the Empire to turn on the Armenians. Scholars do acknowledge that the Ottoman/Turkish elites had grave concerns that Armenians - as another (Christian) self-aware minority might seek independence from the Empire as the Greeks, Bulgarians, Serbians and others had done (with foreign [primarily though not exclusively] Russian support) and they also [rightly] distrusted Russian [and other Western powers'] designs on territories and resources of the Empire. However, these factors alone cannot be said to be "The single event that started the chain" for a number of reasons. First of all the Young Turk/Committee of Union and Progress (CUP) party did not come to power until 1908 and the radical wing (led by Enver, Talaat and Jemal - the acknowledged architects of the Armenian Genocide - did not seize all the mechanisms of government (and the ability to fully impose their will on the affairs of state) until around 1911/12 (for instance the influential Pan-Turkist ideologue Zia Golkap joined the CUP central committee in 1911 and foreign intelligence reports of the central committee meetings of the CUP party congress of that year mention discussions of policies of “ethnic cleansing” [expulsion and killing of] of Christian minorities). They (the Pan-Turkic element of the CUP) were entirely non-factors before this time. While (it is understood by scholars that) the Sultan and the traditional Ottoman elite did employ large massacres, violence and terror against Armenian populations beginning in this period (latter half of the 19th century) it is generally agreed among scholars studying this period that the object of these measures was suppression of Armenian political aspirations (within the Ottoman Empire - for reform and greater rights and status) and not (what we would consider to be) genocide or elimination of the Armenian population. Scholars point out that nearly all of these massacres came directly on the heals of (foreign imposed) Armenian reforms and the thinking is that the object of the massacres were to essentially remind the Armenians of their place to discourage them from further efforts to attain greater rights and power within the Empire.

Scholars discuss a great variety of factors which led to the genocidal situation and all of these must be introduced into the article for a proper understanding of the situation within the Ottoman Empire at the time which influenced events and attitudes among (those who came to be) the rulers of the Empire and among the majority Muslim population. Scholars such as Robert Melson, Stephan Astourian, Tanar Ackam and others consider the Armenian Genocide to be a result of the radicalization of the CUP revolution which sought to re-align the Ottoman Empire from a multi-national/multi-cultural one to one of a single identity - that of the Muslim Turk. These (and other) Scholars point out how Turkish national identity (and ideological racist views based on such) formed in response to Ottoman losses of territory and (non-Turkish) population and that the response was development of a type of a religious-racial backlash where Turkism (and elimination of non-Turkish elements) was ultimately thought to be the solution to the problems of the (crumbling) Empire. These new thinking Turks saw nationalism as the underpinnings of the modern nation-state and this excluded the concept of a multi-ethnic polity. Combined with and influencing this was a backlash against the Armenians and other Christians who were experiencing a cultural, political and economic renaissance which came to be resented by both the Turkish and Ottoman elite and by much of the Muslim/Turkish population of the Empire who were determined to maintain political hegemony and looked with a jealous eye towards Christian economic successes. These factors, combined rising anti-Christian feeling that intensified with the influx of (Balkan and Caucasian) Muslim refugees from outlying provinces (particularly from late 1908 onward) who had either fled or were expelled from these areas by various Christian ethnicities (once they freed themselves from Ottoman domination/control) are all thought to have influenced the rising negativity and resentment towards Armenians and other Christians of the Empire. The CUP party - as it came to be transformed through phases of the (Young) Turkish revolution became increasingly radicalized and negative towards the remaining Christian minorities - and saw them as preventing their desired homogination of the Empire along Muslim/Turkish (and eventually Pan-Turkic) lines (as pan-Islamic concepts fell by the wayside after the Albanian succession of 1911 and Pan-Turkism became ascendant - where Muslim identify was only used to increase the "us versus them" perspective to enable the Turks to include Kurds and other (Balkan and Caucasian) Muslims within their framework where later they were essentially "Turkified" etc.

So in summary - the accepted factors which led to the Armenian Genocide include: ascendancy of Pan-Turkic racial (incl political and economic) identity which excluded the idea that the Empire's Christians could be absorbed/included in such (this included the rejection of power sharing and such), the perception that Christian non-ethnic minorities of the Empire posed a (at least potential) threat that needed to be dealt with for the nation to survive (under Turkish hegemony), and the concern that Western Government (incl Russia) might use the presence of the Armenians to force an eventual partitioning of what remained of the Empire. In fact scholars clearly show that the CUP was influenced not only by the concern of the Empire crumbling but by the Pan-Turkic concepts of eventual re-expansion. These ideas became factors for both Ottoman entry into WWI in the first place and is witnessed by Enver's immediate attempts to secure the Caucuses at the start of the war as well as by the intense efforts on the part of the para-military Special Organization to stir up Muslims and Turkic peoples under Russian control their and even further East even prior to the war and scholars generally agree that these pan-Turkic concepts were a major factor in "othering" the Armenians and other Christians from the Empire and seeking their elimination.

Likewise - the Turkish claim of provocation by Armenians - that there was any substantial resistance, collusion with enemies or uprising by Ottoman Armenians against the state has been completely disproven by contemporary scholars as well as by numerous statements of eyewitnesses - including most prominently those of Turkey's allies - the Germans and Austrians - in confidential dispatches and reports made at the time.

Lastly I want to address this claim of "The weakening control of the Ottoman government over its empire in the following 15 years led many Armenians to believe that they could gain independence from them." This is a patently false statement. At no time was there any majority Armenian political view during this period which sought or advocated independence from the Ottoman Empire. Clearly Armenians sought political reform. But even groups such as the Dashnaks were actively working with the CUP in the years prior to WWI and the Genocide to achieve a more modern inclusive political situation within the Empire. This is proven by the factual record. Sure there were some minority Armenian rabble rousers who dreamed of independence and even - for a time - acted - sometimes violently towards achieving these ends - but this was never a majority position - even among most of the active Armenian political parties of the time. After the war - of course - the Ottoman government had proven itself unable to govern (its ethnic minorities) - as witnessed by the mass slaughter of them. Thus Wilson's 14 points and the Treaty of Sevres (that was signed by the Ottoman government BTW) established an Armenian state in Anatolia (and rightly so). Of course the Turkish Nationalists resisted this fiercely and fought to ensure Turkish control of these areas and through military, political and economic means eventually caused the victorious Allies to abandon seeking justice for the victimized Armenians - but that is the topic for another article perhaps.

Note - I also believe that the introduction to the article must reference the fact that the Armenian Genocide meets all the criteria for genocide and that this is established by scholarly, UN and other findings and that the Turkish counter claims are substantially rejected and disproven among the vast majority of scholars and by the findings of the various UN and other commissions. Lemkin's motivation for devising and application of the word "genocide" in the Armenian case must also be referenced --THOTH 14:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

No such thing as false and true in here, only positions. I agree that the first sentence isen't neutral, "The weakening control of the Ottoman government over its empire in the following 15 years led many Armenians to believe that they could gain independence from them" too is not neutral, but that section could be neutralise at least with words such as 'according to' (citing the author), Davison here could be cited, as he covers the Armenian situation (irronically Davison has been placed in the list of 'denialist' by Deepblue06) and their aspiration in his work covering the Armenian crises (1912-1914) prior to the war. This work is really a must read. BTW, the rest of what you write is POV and at this point irrelevent. Fad (ix) 15:12, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
POV? Yes by a great deal - if not most - scholars of this subject. Just because you personally reject Pan-Turkism as a motivator does not make your views the official ones. And emphasis should be placed on prevailing views. The statement "The weakening control of the Ottoman government over its empire in the following 15 years led many Armenians to believe that they could gain independence from them" is neither a prevailing (or correct) view - and neither is it central to a presentation of the Armenian Genocide - particularly not in an introductory paragraph. How does this statement add to the understanding of the process and enactment of the Armenian Genocide? Abd BTW - I am more then tired of you disparaging my contributions each and every time - because they do not always agree with your own views. You are not the arbitrator of content in this articel even though you obviously think that you are. --THOTH 15:48, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
There are a great many scholars – I could practically say nearly every scholar – of this era – points to the goal and effort by the CUP during this period of “Turkifying” the Empire through elimination of Christian minorities –including the Armenians. Even Dadrian – who is normally more concerned with the process of the Genocide and accountability (and not the rational for such) references these motivations. Beginning on page 179 of his The History of the Armenian Genocide he references the 1908 “revolution” of the Young Turks and discusses their radicalization. Quoting J Marriott from The Eastern Question – a Historical Study in European Diplomacy he states – “The Young Turk revolution…was in fact a last effort of the Moslem minority (sic) to retain its ascendancy in the face of growing resistance on the part of subject races and impending European intervention. The revival of the constitution was little more then an ingenious device for appeasing Liberal sentiment abroad while furnishing a pretext for the abrogation of the historic rights of the Christian nationalities at home.” (This is a reference for CUP elimination of the millyet system where minorities had a degree of self government within the Ottoman system). Dadrian further states that “ the 1910 annual Ittihadist Congress at Saloniki, the secret discussions…revolved around the plan for the coercive homogenization of Turkey” He further expounds on this by quoting a number of foreign and Turkish sources – contemporary and more recent (including statements from Talaat and Golkap) that further outline the racial element of the CUP thinking and their plans to “employ force, violence…and massacres…for the resolution of nationality conflicts” and Talaat’s use of the word “liquidation” and Golkap’s statements in his publication “The Two Mistakes of the Tanzimat” equating nationality conflicts with “statuatory public laws equating Muslims with non-Muslims” claiming “Islam mandates domination” and then Dadrian quotes your man Davison that the Ittihad “soon turned from equality and Ottomanization to Turkification” So even Dadrian – not to mention a host of other prominent Genocide scholars and historians – explains the move to genocide – in great part – due to racist efforts to achieve Turkification. This view cannot be labeled and passed off strictly as POV just because you happen to hold to different (and also valid but not exclusively so) views of the motivation and impetus for the Armenian Genocide.--THOTH 16:24, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Further support for my comments above -

The Armenian Genocide: Context and Legacy - By Dr. Rouben Adalian - Bold text"The failure of the Ottoman system to prevent the further decline of the empire led to the overthrow of the government in 1908 by a group of reformists known as the Young Turks. Formally organized as the Committee of Union and Progress, the Young Turks decided to Turkify the multiethnic Ottoman society in order to preserve the Ottoman state from further disintegration and to obstruct the national aspirations of the various minorities. Resistance to this measure convinced them that the Christians, and especially the Armenians, could not be assimilated. When World War I broke out in 1914, the Young Turks saw it as an opportunity to rid the country of its Armenian population. They also envisioned the simultaneous conquest of an empire in the east, incorporating Turkish-speaking peoples in Iran, Russia, and Central Asia"

"The massacres (of the 19th Century) were meant to undermine the growth of Armenian nationalism by frightening the Armenians with the terrible consequences of dissent. ...The sultan was alarmed by the increasing activity of Armenian political groups and wanted to curb their growth before they gained any more influence by spreading ideas about civil rights and autonomy."

"After the war, ample documentation of the genocide was made available and became the source of debate during postwar negotiations by the Allied Powers (Harbord 1920; Blair 1989). It was during these negotiations for a peace treaty that the Western leaders had an opportunity to develop humanitarian policies and strategies that could have protected the Armenians from further persecution. Instead of creating conditions for the prevention of additional massacres, the Allies retreated to positions that only validated the success of ideological racialism."

"The Ottoman government, based on the principle of sectarian inequality, tapped into the forces of class antagonism and promoted the superiority of the dominant group over a disaffected minority...The Young Turks, based on protototalitarian principles and subscribing to expansionism and chauvinism, justified their policies on ideological grounds."


The Forgotten Genocide - Prof. Richard G. Hovannisian - "the government of the Ottoman Empire, dominated by the so-called Committee of Union and Progress, or Young Turk Party, turned against a segment of its own population.

The decay of the Ottoman Empire was paralleled by cultural and political revival among many of the subject peoples. The national liberation struggles, supported by one or another European power, resulted in the Turkish loss of Greece and most of the Balkan provinces in the nineteenth century and aggravated the Eastern Question

Of the various subject people, the Armenians perhaps sought the least. Unlike the Balkan Christians or the Arabs, they were dispersed throughout the empire and no longer constituted an absolute majority in much of their historic homelands. Hence, most Armenian leaders did not think in terms of independence. Expressing loyalty to the sultan and disavowing any separatist aspirations, they petitioned for the protection of their people and property from corrupt officials and marauding bands.

The Sultan's use of violent methods was a desperate attempt to maintain the status quo in the face of severe external and internal challenges. In this regard, a major difference between Abdul-Hamid and his Young Turk successors was that he unleashed massacres in an effort to preserve the status structure in which the Armenians would be kept submissive and unable to resist tyrannical rule, whereas the Young Turks were to employ the same tactics on much grander scale to bring about a fundamental and far-reaching changes in the status quo and create an entirely new frame reference that did not help the Armenians at all

From 1908-1914 the seemingly egalitarian Young Turk became xenophobic nationalist bent on creating a new order and eliminating the Armenian Question by eliminating the Armenian people.

It was during this period that the concept of "Turkism" and exclusive nationalism attracted several prominent Young Turks, who began to envisage a new, homogenous Turkish state in place of the enervated and exploited multinational Ottoman Empire. With the ideology of Turkism expounded by such writers as Zia Gokalp, the Young Turk extremists began to contemplate ways to abandon multinational "Ottomanism" for exclusive "Turkism" and so transform the Ottoman Empire into a homogenous Turkish domain.

In Accounting for Genocide, Helen Fein concluded: 'The victims of twentieth century premeditated genocide - the Jews, the Gypsies, the Armenians - were murdered in order to fulfil the state's design for a new order . . . War was used in both cases . . . to transform the nation to correspond to the ruling elite's formula by eliminating the groups conceived as alien, enemies by the definition.'

Although the genocide committed by the Ottoman Young Turks and the Holocaust perpetrated by Nazi Gennany each had particular and unique features, there were some striking parallels. The similarities include the perpetration of genocide under the cover of major international conflict, thus minimising the possibility of external intervention; conception of the plan by a monolithic and xenophobic clique; espousal of an ideology giving purpose and justification to racism, exclusivism, and intolerance towards elements resisting or deemed unworthy of assimilation; imposition of strict party discipline and secrecy during the period of preparation; formulation of extra-legal special armed forces to ensure the rigorous execution of the operation; provocation of public hostility towards the victim group and ascribing to it the very excesses to which it would be subjected.

The Paris Peace Conference declared that the lands of Armenia would never be returned to Turkish rule…

Unable to quell the Turkish nationalist movement, which rejected the award of any territory for an Armenian state or even unrestricted return for the Armenian refugees, the Allied Powers in 1923 made their peace with the new Republic of Turkey. No provision was made for the rehabilitation, restitution or compensation of the Armenian survivors. Western abandonment of the Armenians was so complete that the revised peace treaties included no mention of "Armenians" or "Armenia". It was as if no Armenians had ever existed in the Ottoman Empire. The 3,000 year presence of the Armenians in Asia Minor came to a violent end." --THOTH 17:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I would agree with Fadix on this one, you seem to hold a very POV position on this topic and there is a contradiction when you state that the CUP aimed for racial purity rather than diversity. They didnt need to hold this position considering that all minorities including Armenians were aiming towards nationalism/independance during that period. JorgChire 17:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Not my POV - but that of Genocide scholars and historians. While there was certainly growing nationalism among Armenians beginning in the late 19th century there was no major move to independence prior to the end of WWI - after the Genocide. Your contention is unsupportable and conflicts with scholarly thought/evidence. And your position concerning countering CUP racialism is unsupported as well - and is obviously your POV - you say "they didn't need" to hold this view...that is your opinion and unfortunatly it is not based on evidence. There is overwhelming evidence supporting the fact that they held these views...ever read any Tanar Ackam? --THOTH 18:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Further support (and I'll be as brief as I can - however I have been charged with promoting POV by a major contributor to this article and now by another as well and I feel that only by providing some documentation can I conclusively disprove these contentions - and additionally I believe that all of these points that I initially raised in this section must be included in the article itself in one form or another as they provided a necessary minimum backdrop for answering the questions of the reasons for genocide and to likewise provide supported rationalization that counter's various Turkish denialist charges of Armenian rebellion and provocation as rational for the genocidal actions taken by the CUP.

Revolution and Genocide - Robert Melson - (P 137) "Until the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries (Armenians and Jews respectively) ...were tolerated as long as they made no claims to equality...Jews and Armenians experienced rapid economic progress and social mobilization in the nineteenth century. Such changes were not welcomed by large segments of the larger societies. ...by 1912, the CUP...leaders abandoned liberal Ottomanism and turned to a narrow chauvinistic and xenophobic Turkish nationalism. (This) indicated a profound transformation of identity for the Turks. …the CUP made a decision to destroy Armenians as a viable national community in Turkey and the Pan-Turkic empire.” Melson completely rejects what he terms the “provocation thesis” that it was actions on the part of Armenians that precipitated the CUP actions against them, instead he argues that the CUP was motivated (in part) “by a wish to eliminate a barrier between Turkey and several Turkic groups in Russia…thus what led to the deportations and the genocide was not the alleged threat of the Armenians but the Pan-Turkism of CUP leaders like Enver…The genocide of the Armenians should be understood not as a reponse to ‘Armenian provocations’ but as a stage in the Turkish revolution.”

Taner Ackam writes at length about this in From Empire to Republic – Turkish Nationalism and the Armenian Genocide which he describes as an account of the Genocide from the perspective of the perpetrators that is culled almost exclusively from Ottoman-Turkish documents. Ackam details formation of a large number of Turkish nationalistic societies and details legal and para-legal actions taken by Turkish groups and elements of the government to ostracize and eventually kill the non-Moslem elements in Anatolia (Armenians, Greeks and Assyrians). He also documents the racist rhetoric and beliefs among those who came to control the CUP during this period and he also discusses the economic motives of some of the perpetrators and of how many of these people who perpetuated the Genocide came to be among the founders of modern Turkey. Anyway I won’t paste his specific claims here unless I must. I encourage interested in this issue to read this book and I am anxiously anticipating his most recent study - A Shameful Act : The Armenian Genocide and the Question of Turkish Responsibility.--THOTH 18:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Thoth, don't take this badly, but until you work on a proposition in your userspace, neutralise it, I will ignore those long posts. One thing that you still fail to understand. It doesn't matter if it is your POV or most scholars POV, a POV is a POV. When someone reads the article he/she should not feal that someone is giving his opinion. This is the NPOV way 'professor X alleges that blablabla..., but professeur Y claims that blablabla...' Fad (ix) 22:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
You are sounding like coolcat now...and you chose to ignore my long posts (the evidence/backing for relevent information pertinetn to the article when you first claimed that this was just my POV...) because you believe differently and this rational is an excuse - and not good enough. Again you don't contrl the article...and in fact I have great problems with the current state of the article that I largely blame you for. Certainly I believe in laying out all legitimate perspectives...in this case however I believe that the first hand evidence/documentation of the stated positions of these (and other) scholars speaks for itself. Are you claiming that the CUP leadership during this period was not Pan-Turkist? That they did not act against the Armenians for the reasons that have been given? That such events and ideology played no factor? I think that quite a few (most all) scholars of the Armenian Genocide as well as historians of this period would seriously disagree with you. I contend that you are pushing a minority POV in this case because it conforms to your particular a priori view. --THOTH 03:53, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
BTW Armenian MFA Vartan Oskanian declared that Armenian Genocide amounted to the most extreme form of racism in an address made at the World Conference Against Racism on 31 August 2001 - excerpt follows - "The ultimate culmination of such racist persecution, in the case of the Armenians, was genocide...Armenia and Armenians have become aware of the profound linkage that exists between the ultimate expression of racism, which is genocide, and the right of a people to self-determination. These two seemingly different phenomena are fundamentally connected.... It is this instinct of a people to secure its own physical, cultural and collective survival, that is often used as the justification for the ultimate form of repression: the active, concerted, planned action for the physical annihilation of that people: Genocide...Armenians were subjected to the genocide perpetrated by Ottoman Turkey in 1915, because they had wanted to be free from harassment, arbitrary rule, denial of rights and physical threats. They had, in fact, dared to declare themselves deserving of protection, security and freedom. They were, therefore, punished, persecuted and driven to annihilation as disloyal troublemakers. Still today, the Armenian genocide is being dismissed by some, as nothing more than the justifiable, understandable, larger scale massacre of rebels and renegades...Today we have reached a critical point in our attempts to free the world from all forms of racism and racial discrimination, and to ensure that the fate, which binds us, is hopeful and promising. This conference has the unique capacity to lay down a solid framework for new partnerships between States and civil societies stressing the growing importance of combatting traditional forms of racism as well as its contemporary manifestations."--THOTH 06:40, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
And here - a confirmation of the role of CUP racist nationalism with the goal of Turkification from a Turkish historian (other then Ackam) Halil Berktay - from a November 12, 2005 interview: "It was clear that the Armenians of the Ottoman Empire were rounded up, socially deracinated and deported, and, therefore, in the process, comprehensively uprooted and dispossessed, for no other reason than that they were Armenians. ...by 1912-13, and especially after the traumatic Balkan wars, the unionist leadership had already acquired a comprehensive ethnic cleansing mentality. They had arrived at the crystallization of their own version of Social Darwinistic, violent, anxious, and, therefore, malicious and malevolent unionist nationalism. That is to say, it was their ideology that was telling them “we cannot have a patriotic self defense unless and until we have an Anatolia that has been comprehensively Turkified. That is to say, they had acquired a nationalist ideological perspective of regarding all non-Turks as suspect, hostile elements. It was this ideology that led to the tehcir and the accompanying orders. That is why it is a mediated cause and effect relationship, and what one can say about nationalist revolutionary activity and the intervention of great powers is that they heavily and strongly contributed to the anxious and fearful defensive and therefore bristling kind of Turkish nationalist and ethnic cleansing mentality. It was this ideology, in turn, which lead to the horrors of 1915."--THOTH 07:02, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
After reading a sample of your contributions I get the impression you don't appreciate/like Turks (both present and past) very much and I find that very sad. Im not saying they were angels but to single them out like you and to isolate the sufferings of a single community seems disrespectful of the others. I think this was a period in which many people suffered tremendously. I also don't understand what you are trying to get at with your copypastes I think it would be more constructive and less cumbersome if you just provided the links JorgChire 10:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
What is the basis of this contention of yours? (It is false BTW). I am posting concering historicl facts. It has nothing to do with being disrespectful of anyone (though I could easily argue that denying genocide is extremely disrespectful). You claim that many people suffered tremendously during this period. OK - I suggest you work to edit articles on WWI and on the CUP/Young Turks revolution and/or the downfall of the Ottoman Empire where this information is perhaps more appropriate. What is appropriate in an article concerning the Armenian Genocide are facts and scholarly views concerning such. I find your contentions in this case - that I am merely concerning singling out communities which suffered to be quite disingenuous (again this article is about the Armenians Genocide - though I suppose you may have a point - becuase the massacres/genocides of Assyrians and Anatolian Greeks commited by the CUP/Ottoman Turks during this very same period are very directly related to the Armenains Genocide and stem from the very same attitudes, objectives and actions on the part of the very same perpetrators...perhaps a point to consider - eh?). Also I am not just copy pasting but forming positions which should be reflected in the article. When I did this entirely in my own words at the beginning of this section I was attacked by you and another for mearly providing an unsupported POV. So I provided support. Much of this material BTW I did not aquire from the internet but from books and papers that I have - thus these entries were fat fingered in and I don't have links. Furthermore - even for items that exist on the internet they are often much longer with a wider coverage of issues then the points I am addressing - thus I have extracted what I believe are the relevent sections to support my points of centention. So some thought went behind them (and I also present them with some commentary) - not just cut and paste. If you can't understand what I am trying to get at with these posts then I suggest you might not be capable of properly comprhending the facts and issues of the Armenian Genocide and perhaps you might do better contributing to an article about Brittney Spears or Fennerbache or some such.--THOTH 19:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Turkey's offer to set up a commission was outright rejected

According to a reuters article here so I dont understand Fadix's modification suggesting that the Armenians would agree to the offer on condition of improving relations. Could you please comment Fadix? JorgChire 17:32, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Look, this is documented both by the president's official letter to Turkey and the prior Turkish newspapers reporting about that letter(See Zaman Thursday 25, 2005) and Erdogan answer to that letter. As reported in Turkish newspapers(which at first reported correctly the incidence), and I have provided one example here, the president agreed that with good relations between both states commissions could be created about every issues and that the key is compromising. But Erdogan answered as reported in Zaman by claiming that their arguments are based on documents and they will prove it, clearly showing that the commission was supposed to set up not for discussion but to sell their thesis and this as an answer to Armenia's readiness to compromise but Turkey's refusal to do so. This followed Armenia's emited statment that it was already decided by historians. We do not rely on a newspapers allegations when we have official letters from the concerned parties about whatever or not they refuse something. And keep in mind that I think it was Bertkay that said that the commission wasn't sincere and was proposed to sell a position, and once Erdogan said it was about, Armenia replied in kind. As of now yet Israel hasn't accepted the supposed Iranian commission, I don't see this highlined in the Holocaust article. I hardly see what we will achieve by presenting any news incidences such as this. Do you see any encyclopedia that does that? To claim Armenia refused when its president wrote a letter to the contrary is totally misleading. Fad (ix) 19:27, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
well AFAIK Iran did not participate either directly or indirectly in the Jewish holocaust so you cant draw parallels here. You say that you dont see the point in including this information but I think the objective here is to show the hardline stance and the unwillingness of the Armenians to find a way out of this deadlock. JorgChire 04:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Orhan Pamuk

Orhan Pamuk section -if it's going to stay- needs to move to some other place. Currently it's under the academic view subsection. But Orhan Pamuk is not an academic, especially not a historian. He's a novelist or at best an intellectual. Deepblue06 18:38, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually it properly belongs in a section on Turkish denial as what is more important then what he said is that he was prosecuted in Turkey for saying it. He also deserves mention in a section that covers changing attitudes within Turkey/among Turks where there has been increasing awareness and acceptance among (many) Turks concerning the truth of the Genocide - particularly within intelectual circles... --THOTH 18:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Sorry but if you watched the BBC interview Mr. Pamuk clearly points out that his objective in the row was to highlight freedom of speech issues in Turkey and not the massacre of Armenians. In other words he just used the Armenian issue as bait to make a point. JorgChire 05:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Obviously you have chosen a very narrow view. Have you read Snow? etc --THOTH 06:14, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
yes I have, a fascinating read indeed. Still you cant ignore his own words in the interview he made clear the issue was freedom of speech in TR. JorgChire 06:33, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Your Point? Pamuk is concerned about (lack of) Freedom of speech in Turkey...AND that no one but he is talking about the massacres of a million Armenians and 30,000 Kurds - these are the word he said which are quoted...which i contend - makes them at least as relevent as secondary explanations for one - could be of several - possible reasons for him stating such a thing. Are you contending that he could have just as easily been talking about starving dogs in Adana and that he would have been prosocuted for being disrespectful of city officials? If you fail to understand the reasons why he made that statement and why it elicits such a backlash in Turkey - (Personal attack removed) --THOTH 20:14, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't understand why you have to insult me this way, there is absolutely nothing offensive in anything I said, I am just questioning certain things or maybe I should not be allowed to do so and we should just keep quiet and listen to your fiery rethoric? JorgChire 04:20, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
You have first accused me (in a section above) of hating Turks - with no basis for such a comment - I consider such a charge an insult and a personal attack against me. Furthermore it is quite clear where you are commming from with your attempts to deny and minimize the Armenian Genocide and your tactics are apparent as well. I also find this insulting. People who deny the obvious and the proven have no business being involved in discussions concerning factual issues related to such and would be better off spending their time on less serious issues. --THOTH 13:19, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't think your read my comment above carefully. I said that from reading the stuff you post on this talk page, I get the impression that you don't like Turks. An impression is not an accusation. I wish to appraoch this subject which I take very seriously with an open mind and discuss it with others that also approach it in the same way. In any case I did not mean to offend you so maybe its better we leave it at that. JorgChire 16:48, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Similarly Ragip Zarakolu is not an academic. He's a publisher. He does not fit the academic view section. One idea is to form a 'Turkish public view' subsection under Turkey's position, and include Orhan Pamuk, Ragip Zarakolu, recent conferences on Armenian Issue in Turkey, as well as court cases brough against Hrant Dink and other intellectuals under this subsection. Deepblue06 18:43, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps...would have to see it I guess (however if the "Turkey's public" position is not substansially different then the government view I'm not so sure that it adds anything. - beyond a statement that most Turks subscribe to the Government position (if this is true...have their been any polls? ...don't know...) What is really more important and interesting is that an increasing number of Turks (academic, public figures or therwise) are expressing themselves contrary to the official Turkish government line. I do aggree though - things like the mandates of the Turkish public educational system which advocates denial of the genocide and forces all students to write on this - with this one view - should be highlighted in the article...etc --THOTH 18:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course when one(I don't know who did it) change the intellectual section to academic, some should be excluded. It is to the one who made the changes to add another category to add those that don't fit in the academic section. Fad (ix) 22:13, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Declaration doesn't do

For a scholar to be included, we should be able to cite his works, there is no works written by Road,(paper or works) that I have found anything about it. We can not use some declaration as referrence, we must be able to expend it and highlight what is their position. Anyway, Israel Charny recieved the questionaires of many and severals do not deny it. Since we do not know who are those severals, we have to stick to what those scholars have written. Fad (ix) 22:07, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

These scholars signed a declaration published in NYT and Washington Post which says
As for the charge of "genocide" no signatory of this statement wishes to minimize the scope of Armenian suffering. We are likewise cognizant that it cannot be viewed as separate from the suffering experienced by the Muslim inhabitants of the region. The weight of evidence so far uncovered points in the direct of serious inter communal warfare (perpetrated by Muslim and Christian irregular forces), complicated by disease, famine, suffering and massacres in Anatolia and adjoining areas during the First World War. Indeed, throughout the years in question, the region was the scene of more or less continuous warfare, not unlike the tragedy which has gone on in Lebanon for the past decade. The resulting death toll among both Muslim and Christian communities of the region was immense. But much more remains to be discovered before historians will be able to sort out precisely responsibility between warring and innocent, and to identify the causes for the events which resulted in the death or removal of large numbers of the eastern Anatolian population, Christian and Muslim alike.
and the opposition section closely follows their declaration (notice that it does not say, these scholars 'deny' genocide). If you bring another public declaration (a news article, paper written by the scholar himself) showing that he changed his position, nobody will object to the removal of that scholar. Deepblue06 22:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
You've said before that you can find interviews and open letters, but books and papers, those you can't find. Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence and a two decade old open letter isn't even ordinary evidence. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
A scholar's declaration stands until another declaration expressing change in position is provided. Deepblue06 22:58, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
No, I repeat, Israel Charny confirms in his published study of those who signed it, that several of those who signed it do indeed recognize the Armenian genocide. Unless it is confirmed that he is not part of those several, you must indeed provide a work. I have researched his works, his papers and books, I have found absolutly nothing regarding his position. If a presidents statment requesting to drop because of fearing repercution and a translators working for the American Intelligence service testimonies on Haster being bribed to redraw the bill are not enought to be included as threats..., I don't see how including someone from whom you can not cite a single work is acceptable. This is an encyclopedia, names of authors are included for relevant reasons. Fad (ix) 00:30, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Article provides reference (a public declaration signed by Rhoads) confirming the views described in the article. If you can provide a reference showing that his position has changed, or he did not know what he was signing back then, nobody will object to removing his name. By the way, I've noticed that you keep misspelling his last name: It should be Rhoads not Road (twice in the talk page and also twice in the article history stub). Deepblue06 01:05, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Let me repeat this for the last time, and I will leave others doing the revert, I won't take part in a childish revert war. This is an encyclopedia, every bit of information placed here must be confirmed. Israel Charny has published a work in which he mention that those who answered his question from those several have no doubt that the Armenian genocide did happen. We have no idea who are those referred, which leaves us in doubt, and unless we can not confirm that he is one of those several, his name should be removed. I don't think any scholars, more particularly a scholar who has written absolutly nothing about the issue, would like to learn his name added somewhere as a supporter of a position, when he does not support it. We rely on published works, this is what I do, works written by the individual, not by some declaration, which later we have evidences that several of the signaturies were perturbed to learn that it has been published and that they had no doubt that the genocide happened. Do you have any works to cite? If not, then it has no place. If you can not say exactly what position he supports, since there is no publication by hime highlining his own position, then it must go. Ask this to any veterans, administrators or any experienced users, they will confirm it. Fad (ix) 01:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
If Israel Charney's survey shows that Rhoads Murphey in particular recognizes Armenian claims, then I would not object to removing his name. If Charney's study does not reveal the answers of its respondents then it has no use for this section of the article. Rhoads Murphey's signature in the declaration published in the New York Times stands until he, Rhoads Murphey, says that his views has changed. Deepblue06 01:33, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Gilles Veinstein's position

In case, there is any ambiguity about the position of Gilles Veinstein:

" ...

But the last point, crucial, of the debate, by the legal and political implications, is to know if massacres against the Armenians were committed on order of the government Young-Turks, if transfers were only a bait for a systematic campaign of extermination, implemented according to different, but decided, planned modalities, remote-controlled at government level, or if Young-Turks were only guilty of having carelessly started movements which ended in bloodbaths. The simple fact of asking this question can seem absurd and scandalous. It is true that state implication is a preliminary of the full application of the word genocide to the Armenian tragedy, such as it was forged in 1944 and defined by the lawsuit of Nuremberg and the 1948 United Nations convention.

It is necessary nevertheless to admit that we do not have, as yet, proof of this governmental implication. Documents produced by the Armenians, Talaat Pasha’s orders, Interior secretary, and other higher Ottoman officials ordering explicitly the massacre of the people, the women, and the Armenian children, referred to as ’Andonian documents’, derived from the name of the author were only fakes, as the historic criticism doubtlessly proved afterward. We find in the indictment of the court martial charged to judge the members of the government.

...

For lack of conclusive evidence, the historians defenders of Armenian theses advance several contemporary testimonies, emanating from survivors, from diplomats and from foreign missionaries of different previous origins. They are far from being unimportant and are even in the best irreplaceable cases. For all that, every rigorous historian knows the limits of a testimony - all the more susceptible to express a point of view ’engaged’ in a context of generalized conflict. ... "

From L'Histoire, n°187 of April, 1995 [22] (translation) Deepblue06 23:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, nothing resembling Veinstein's article appears when I open www.histoire.presse.fr/product_anciens.asp?Sku=187 . No clickable links either. How strange is that ? Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Angus, the man indeed wrote denying the Armenian genocide, there has been a chair of Turkish studies specifically build for him. He is the Justin McCarthy of Europe, there are works which he has published that I can cite and in which he says about the same things as McCarthy. He should stay, but Roads must go, unless he can cite any works published by him. I have found nothing. Fad (ix) 00:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Hurewitz must go too, I have not found anything directed on the subject, except a review of a work heavily covering the Armenian genocide and documenting it with German record. In his review of the authoritative work of Ulrich Trumpener 'Germany and the Ottoman Empire, 1914-1918' Hurewitz write "...German failure to moderate the brutal Ottoman policies on the Armenians...(the rest of this sentence is only citation of other events he qualify as being well worked by the author) are examined on the whole with mature judgement and convincing argument." He find fait the coverage of the book about the Armenians, while that coverage provides evidences of state sponsered dustruction of the Armenians and the Germans attempt to stop it. I fail to see how someone who call Trumpener judgement as mature and with convincing argument as someone who question the genocide. Here too, we need a work writen by the author to confirm he should be on the list. (for the quote about the Armenians see: The American Historical Review, Vol. 75, No. 3 (Feb., 1970) p. 822). Fad (ix) 01:14, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
See the discussion above [23] Deepblue06 01:18, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
I would think that a text written by his fingers is actually much more worthy of being included than a declaration which we are in doubt about on whom might be those severals whom retract. We must be clear about ones positions. I don't think there are any academics involved in writting any encyclopedias who would rather use a declaration signed and from which many have retracted later, they will rather rely on something the author wrote. Anyone who praises Trumpener coverage of the Armenian question can in no way be considered as someone who question the evidences. I propose you to read that work and you will see by yourself. When Hilmar Kaiser accused Dadrian in bringing nothing really new when writting his work about German complicity, it was one of the prime works(which was in the list of Dadrians bibliography and used to pick what archive to choose from Centralarchiv at Bonn) which was considered which Dadrian the material he recycled. Having yourself criticised Dadrian and cited Hilmar Kaiser, I don't see how you still would ask an evidences when the author in question which is in the list happens to praise one of the golden work of German referrences documenting the destruction of the Armenians. Now the question is. What would we choose, his written work, or a declaration from which you don't know who retracted and who are those several scholars who recognize it. So for you to confirm, you must have this confirmation from Israel Charny. It is up to you. Fad (ix) 01:31, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
If you can -indeed- provide a reference to a work by Hurewitz accepting the genocidial nature of Armenian claims then I would not object to removing his name. But I doubt that you can provide such a reference because Professor Lewy says that Professor Hurewitz rejects the appropriateness of the genocide label[24]. Deepblue06 02:10, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
It doesn't do it, I have provided -his own words- in which he discribes as mature judgement and convincing argument one of the most authoritative German archival research work containing a large section on the documentation of the Armenian genocide. Lewy recycle it from the list for all we know. I don't remember he cite Hurewitz in his book in connection of the appopriatness of the word genocide. I might have suffered of amnesia, here you can help me. Lewy after his interview given in a Turkish newspaper, which could be considered as prejudicial and even reach racism and maintain exactly the same language as Zundel in one of his speech which placed him in trouble here in Canada. I'd rather take the one who is concerned words as granted than an author who has been accused of fabrication by some in regards to the commission concerning the Marines or accused to rewrite the history of the Vietnam war by denying the crimes (see Marilyn Young, Vietnam Rewrite, Bulletin of Concerned Asian Scholars, Vol. 10, 1978, in which work Lewy is concerned), who also happens to dismiss the evidences on the destruction of American Indians and even goes as far as claiming it wasn't a crime(this same claim he maintains for what went in Vietnam), or that the Gypsies according to him were not victim of genocide under NAZI Germany. Lewy is a concerned party, you can not use someone on your list to confirm nor 'infirm' someone on your list, this sort of circular logic is far from being encyclopedic, either we are able to cite relevent works written by those concerned either we exclude them. I repeat, if the words of a president warning that a bill should be redrawn because of threats from Turkey are not enought, if the redrawel of this bill under the same arguments are not enought, and that the words from a translator from the central intelligence is not enought neither, so as what is in a list which we are in doubt as to whom retracted. Or either it should clearly be specified that this is according to a list which was prepared to redraw a bill and that according to a paper from Israel Charny, several of those who signed it retracted and were not aware that this will be made public. If you have an intention to improve the article, you will attempt to not add misleading informations. I am prepared to write this article according to mpublished data, not some newspaper coverages or from some obscure list which can not be confirmed by publication, no serious encyclopdia does that. Also, it would be relevent to note that up checking Armenian history entry in Britannica, it uses the same range of Armenian victims as the article I have prepared 600,000 to 1.5 million) and does cite that it has later been called the first genocide of the 20th century. So, now, we can't affirm that there is any reputable encyclopedia which support your position, so I don't see why Wikipedia should. Fad (ix) 03:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
You did not provide -as you claim- Hurewitz's words accepting genocidial nature of Armenian claims. You're overstretching his review of someone else's work. If you provide a reference to an article by Hurewitz (or an interview etc.) that accepts the genocide claims, nobody will object to removing his name. No offense to you, but I'll take Professor Lewy's words over any anonymous person lacking credentials. If other academics or intellectuals critic Lewy's statement on Hurewitz then they'll deserve consideration. But an anon user's critic of Lewy has no bearing. Professor Hurewitz's signature in the 69 scholar declaration stands until he says that he's changed his position (or his work shows otherwise). For other claims in your post, please start other threads. I don't want to divert the discussion to some other discussion. Deepblue06 04:14, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
So, what you are simply saying is that a newspaper publication not even written by him worths more than his own words? I will not tango with you here, and unless you provide a writen confirmation by him, and from any of his publications, you are simply pushing your POV by including him, given that the only material presented written by him that can be found, which comes near the description of the event, is his praises for the section regarding the Armenian question. True, an anon users critic of Lewy has no bearing, what has bearing though, is that Lewy is known to pump the number of scholars who support his position, since he also claims that many scholars too reject the charges that what happened to American Indians can not qualify as genocide, and those he cite, most don't even cover the appopriatness of the word. And no, the 69 signatures doesn't stand, find one encyclopedia where names are cited according to some advertisement, accademic names to be included, it should have some relevancy with the article. You can add the information that 69 have signed this, but you can not present his name and claim that he adheres to this vision, if you do that, you are simply POV pushing because there is no way to confirm that he does that. Fad (ix) 17:13, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Repeat of arguments. See above and [25]. Deepblue06 17:11, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I added Roderic Davison (Central European University)to the opposition.neurobio 14:31, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

No, he actually has a publication exposing the myth of the Armenian revolutionaries out to get Turkey and discribes pretty well the prejudices they faced. I already cited it. His own paper worths more than an advertisement. Fad (ix) 17:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

pro/con websites

I would like to know what the purpose of this is? Is it to list all websites on the internet that support or reject the genocide allegations? If so doesnt this result in a lot of repetitious material? Are there any standardized rules for inclusion here? JorgChire 06:44, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Kurds

Nothing is mentioned about the Kurds in this article and the gigantic role they played in the Armenian Genocide, most of the killing was carried out by Kurds and Kurds have acknowledge this and various Kurdish leaders have apologized. [26]--Eupator 14:42, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, maybe if some stop on attempting to make of this article as a sort of Courier relying on newspapers and wasting peoples time by doing so, we might maybe move. Fad (ix) 17:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Eh...It would also be nice in the future to mention the tremendous assistance and help received from Arabs as well as the Armenian survivors who ended up as slaves in the Bedouin trade network.--Eupator 17:42, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't think that the facts support that "most" of the killing was done by Kurds...though Kurdish irregulars and bandit types did have a central role and I agree it should be highlighted. However what is also clear is that they acted either directly as agents for or in the employ of the Ottoman Turkish government or that they were encouraged by such to act in the unbridled manner that they did towards the Armenians. The article requires full sections that elaborate on all principle extermination methods (much as the Holocaust article includes such), places of major massacre and deportation (where the camps section would be subsumed under), and just as importantly - IMO - the article requires a section that better explains who the perpetrators of the Armenian Genocide were - not just the top level CUP - but other important figures within the CUP heirarchy, among regional govenors and officials, within the military - and so on and so forth - a brief bio of each should be provided as well as an indication of the types and range of crimes they were responsible for. This is particularly important for this article as this genocide (its details) and its perpetrators are much less known then the Holocaust - where the names of the arch-criminals are common knowledge. Additionally I think that it is extremely important that the article contain a chronology and a major section that should cover eyewitnesses to the Genocide - who were they - what did they report - and from where - and why this information is crucial to our knowledge of the Armenian Genocide and the specific methods and activities employed by the CUP to exterminate and remove the Armenians from Anatolia. We need to as well distinguish from places where there were just outright massacres and where there was a deportation process and how these (and other) killing methodologies differed. Within this section and/or in the perpetrator section the role of Kurdish groups and key Kurdish actors should be detailed. The Arab role - pro and con - is worthy of at least a mention - as is the resistance by some Turkish regional officials to the extermination orders and the role of many Turks in safeguarding Armenians - under threat of death. Part of my family BTW was a major player in harboring and helping many important (and otherwise) Armenians to escape - though they were not Turkish and this is not a story for the article. Additionally, more attention needs to be paid to properly convey the manner of the CUP seizure of the mechanisms of the Ottooman State and their abrogation of Parlimentary government and how their "trusted agents" acted behind the scenes with their own internal lines of authority to implement the extermination plans and force sometimes unwilling local officials to comply with their requests to remove Armenians - etc - I could go on and on. All of this has been heavily documented BTW as you probably already know. --THOTH 20:33, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Davison should not be included in the list

Neurobio, stop adding him, his only relevant material written about the question support the majority view, he oppose nearly to every single propositions brought by Turkish officials. Example, the claim that Armenians were well armed, he claims that in the East most Armenians were not when the Kurds were armed, and that disarming the population was only effective for the Armenians because they were sedentary or that subordinated Turkish officials tended to favior the Kurds over the Armenians. Or when he writes that the Young Turk soon after it took power turned from Ottomanization to Turkification. Or how they have gone as even limiting the privilages of the Patriarchate. He also includes depredations against Armenians in the fall of 1912 and how the concil of minister left them down. And this is what he has to say about the Dashnaks: "Their program was essentially one of reform within the Ottoman Empire. They did not believe that Russian occupation of Armenia would bring them more freedom, though it would bring more order. Varandian, writting as a member of the Dashnakzouthiunm asked reform and autonomy for Turkish Armenia, saying that a complete separation of Armenia from Turkey was ethnographically and geographically impossible." He then discribes the evolution, from Ottoman radicalization and Dashnaks reaction to it. And through the Balkan war, requesting more freedom and justice and the acceptation of Berlin Treaty, met with refusal and radicalization which later led to the massacre and deportation. So, his only work about the issue contradict the signature in the press. Fad (ix) 18:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Davison rightfully belongs to the list. He signed the declaration. Unless you provide a reference showing that he's changed his position (which you cannot), he's in the list. Professor Davison has many works discussing the events and you cannot find a single example where he refers to the event as 'Armenian Genocide'. 'Armenian Crisis 1912-1914' does not do the job. It's not about the events of 1915 and it does not say anything that would imply that a genocide took place later. Deepblue06 17:28, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


Lists are just names - often meaningless to most people - what is more important - IMO - is what of relevance did he/they say and why...what is the point they are trying to make and what backing do they have for making contentions - be they pro or con. Just stating that they are saying "yeah" or "nay" really tells us very little.--THOTH 20:35, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


I did not revert anthing and I dont change anything without signing. Thoth I will save this perfect quotation of yours since it is also true for your letter of genocide scolars and the other letter which was signed by over hundert people. And it is also true for all these countries that you name to accept genocide. Fadix please send me the document so that I can take a look at it. thanks. neurobio 20:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes of course. It is the substance of what is being said that matters - not just a list of names per se. If x # of scholars are signing a statement - then what is the statement saying and why. Of course that particularl folks are ascribing to a view or advocating or demanding something is also relevent - relevant enough in fact to look into what the motivations and affiliations of these scholars are - if they have actually studied and published concerning the issue of whcih they speak or if they might be beholden to governments or institutions for one reason or another. However specifically I was referring to this Wikipedia article. There is too much making lists of names and other less then meaningful content when the relevant and more pertinant facts have not been properly or sufficiently presented. This was the specific intent of my comment. --THOTH 21:16, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I could not get any data showing that davidson previous signature is not validneurobio 22:43, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

THE USED WORDS OPENLY MAKE THIS ARTICLE A VERY BIASED ONE

I would like the person who wrote the line that "an increasing number(!) of Turkish intellectuals" support the genocide THAT HE SHOW SOME REFERENCE and PROOF. Also the SO-CALLED fact that over a million Armenians are killed IS A VERY DUBIOUS ONE AND REQUIRES SOME PROOF. WHAT MAKES WIKIPEDIA, WIKIPEDIA IS THE FACT THAT EVEN IN THE CASE OF A TRAGEDY AS IMMENSE AS 9/11, IT PRESERVES ITS NEUTRALITY. HOW CAN YOU CALL THIS ARTICLE NEUTRAL IF IT SMELLS HEAVILY BIASED? For example the VERY IMPORTANT START PARAPGRAPH SHOULD BE MODIFIED LIKE , SAY :

" It is also alleged that over a million Armenians were killed during the relocation etc...."

OTHERWISE; you have to show immediate references or supporting articles, proofs etc. I would like to receive those proofs, if this is really a documented proof, I very much would like to read them. PLEASE REFER TO SOME RESPECTED ENCYCLOPEDIA LIKE BRITTANICA ABOUT THE SO-CALLED ARMENIAN GENOCIDE, TO SEE WHAT NEUTRALITY REALLY MEANS !

No academic research , conducted in Turkish Republic, ever denies the fact that "MANY" Armenians were killed during the relocation but "A MILLION" IS REALLY A BAD EXAGGERATE.

Just because there are some PUNKS ( Do they call themselves System of Something? ) who make their homeland's propaganda, does not mean that you can falsify the history.

PLEASE REFER TO THE RESPECTED HISTORIANS( MANY OF THEM ARE NOT TURKISH) WHO DENY THE SO-CALLED GENOCIDE...

I WOULD LIKE THE PEOPLE WHO CONTROL THIS SITE, CHANGE THESE BIASED LINES IMMEDIATELY.

User:SokratesKerem

Not punks but more like satanists, the lead guy look like a goat Lutherian 04:40, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO TELL YOU THAT THE CAPS LOCK BUTTON IS USUALLY LOCATED ON THE LEFT SIDE OF THE KEYBOARD NEXT TO THE LETTER "A". BECAUSE WHEN YOU USE IT IN YOUR MESSAGE YOUR ARGUMENT LOOKS LIKE A CHILD THROWING A WILD TANTRUM. SO PLEASE STOP. Thanks.--MarshallBagramyan 20:51, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Please refer to some respected encyclopedia like Britannica about the so-called Armenian Genocide, to see what neutrality reall means. Well, that's exactly what I did, here's what it says under "Major Modern Genocides"
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 2 million. The Turkish government has consistently denied that this event ever occurred, but what happened had been carefully documented by outsiders.
Obviously BRITANNICA IS BIASED AND HATEFUL AGAINST TURKS!!!...there could be no other explanation.--THOTH 02:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Interesting how the description differs substantually between the student edition (as posted above) and the original edition of the britannica entry
In the original edition, it says Murder and expulsion of Turkish Armenians by the Ottoman Empire under Abdülhamid II in 1894–96 and by the Young Turk government in 1915–16. In 1894, when the Armenians began agitating for territorial autonomy and protesting against high taxes, Ottoman troops and Kurdish tribesmen killed thousands. In 1896, hoping to call attention to their plight, Armenian revolutionaries seized the Ottoman Bank in Istanbul. Mobs of Muslim Turks, abetted by elements of the government, killed more than 50,000 Armenians in response. Sporadic killings occurred over the next two decades. In response to Russia's use of Armenian troops against the Ottomans in World War I (1914–18), the government deported 1.75 million Armenians south to Syria and Mesopotamia, in the course of which some 600,000 Armenians were killed or died of starvation. but offcourse you would use the dubious student edition to make your point! Lutherian 06:22, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
If we're going to start from a clean slate, Lutherian, I would like it if you wouldn't be sarcastic. Now, as for your source, it says "some 600,000 Armenians were killed or died of starvation." Wouldn't it still be a genocide then? —Khoikhoi 21:27, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Well there are two interesting points here, unlike the student edition version, there is no mention of the word genocide whatsoever, and secondly there is a mismatch on the death toll between the two versions. Im not saying that there were no massacres, I think everyone agrees that killings took place, what im arguing here is that it does not constitute an act of genocide because there were no orders for this. A lot of Armenians perished during the relocation, no one is denying this, but you have to take it in context with the situation of the time, the Ottoman empire was crumbling, there was turmoil, nationlism was reaching boiling point and wars on various fronts. The relocation was an emergency provision which the rulers of the time believed had to be carried out at any cost to preserve the territorial integrity. The deaths were a tragic consequence of atteining the end objective which was to move these people to areas where they would cause less trouble. Khoikhoi its difficult to assume good faith on behalf of THOTH, why else would he only quote the student edition, which, unlike the other version, is very supportive of his claims! Lutherian 05:30, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
I think you should take a more careful look and see that the second one refers to the Hamidian massacres that took place in the late 1890s, not the one in 1915. The two articles are different. There's no justification to Turkish actions during 1915. The "relocation" excuse fails because of several reasons: 1)women, children, and even invalids were forced to march, 2)people from inside the interior were also deported, 3)the Ottoman government never designated and areas where the Armenian population could rest, the high death toll is blatant enough, and 4)Armenians were allowed to carry very little and promised that their belongings would be returned. Their pathetic excuses and not very good ones either, but then again its your government that hand feeds you this.--MarshallBagramyan 05:59, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, but you are mistaken, it says clearly "In response to Russia's use of Armenian troops against the Ottomans in World War I (1914–18), the government deported 1.75 million Armenians south to Syria and Mesopotamia, in the course of which some 600,000 Armenians were killed or died of starvation". To counter your arguments, 1. non combatants were clearly helping the enemy by providing them with refuge, storing their weapons etc, 2. the relocation orders were given with regards to sensitive areas, 3. the high death toll is a result of the harsh conditions, 4. It was an emergency directive, time was of essence. Also I would like to ask you to please remain civil, its not my government that feeds me this, I can assure you of that! Lutherian 06:42, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Note the different names for the articles. One specifically references it as "major Genocides" whereas the other is much more broad and references it as the "Armenian massacres", not just one main event. 1)That is unsubstantiated and holds no weight in the human mind, 2)Many Armenians were deported from the interior in Cilicia, Constantinople, etc. including women and children, there were no battles going over there unless you're implying Armenians were aiding ANZAC/British forces somehow, 3)harsh conditions are disproved whenever there were more suitable locations to send them, 4)I don't see any refutation in that, seeing as how the Armenian population dropped from 1.75 million to only 60,000 in less than ten years. And go check the meaning of the word civil, you're obviously repeating something that comes from the Turkish government. Kind of hypocrtical of you to tell me I'm being uncivil when that has been the crux of your arguments sents you arrived here.--MarshallBagramyan 06:51, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Listen, I know you would love to accuse me of being some kind of maniac nationalist bigot on the payroll of the Turkish govermnet, and I am sorry to deceive you on this. The fact of the matter is there is this systematic campaign of vilifying Turks at every possible occasion, and its been going on for way too long. Its time to set the record straight and I am very confident that the Turkish side will win this battle because we have the truth on our side! Lutherian 15:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Concerning your "charges" excuses or what have you...
1. non combatants were clearly helping the enemy by providing them with refuge, storing their weapons etc, - "...to cover the extermination of the Armenian nation with a political cloak, military reasons were being put forward...After I had informed myself about the facts and had made enquiries on all sides, I came to the conclusion that all these accusations against the Armenians were, in fact, based on trifling provocations, which were taken as an excuse for slaughtering 10,000 innocents for one guilty person, for the most savage outrages against women and children, and for a campaign of starvation against the exiles which was intended to exterminate the whole nation. Enver Pasha declared, in the presence of Monsignore Dolci, the Papal Envoy at Constantinople, that he would not rest so long as a single Armenian remained alive. The object of the deportations is the extermination of the whole Armenian nation." Dr. Martin Niepage, The Horrors of Aleppo; Engl. Trans. Doran Co., apeared in the New York Times publication Current History Vol. 5 Nov. 1916 pp 335-37. and "They (the Ittahadist leaders) have fabricated, for the benefit of Allied Powers, an alleged revolution stirred up by the Dashnak party. They have inflated the importance of isolated incidents and acts of self-defense by the Armenians and used it as an excuse to deport the bordering population. On the way. the Armenians have been murdered, on orders of the Committee, by gangs of Kurds and Turks and at times, even by gendarmes." Dr. Max Erwin Scheubner-Richter, in a secret dispatch to German Authorities - December 1916 - per Lepsius Johannes, Deutchland und Armenien 1914-1918. Document No. 309
2. the relocation orders were given with regards to sensitive areas, and 3. the high death toll is a result of the harsh conditions, - "Last week there were well founded rumors of a threatened massacre. I think there is very little doubt that one is planned. Another method was found, to destroy the Armenian race. This is no less than the deportation of the entire Armenian population… A massacre, however horrible the word may sound, would be humane in comparison with it. In a massacre many escape but a wholesale deportation of this kind in this country means a lingering and perhaps even more dreadful death for nearly every one. The method is perhaps a little more cultured than a massacre but it it will be far more effective and thorough. It is quite probable that many of them will be robbed and murdered en route as the roads are now filled with bands of pillaging Kurds. In any case, it is quite certain that almost all will die in one way or another before they ever reach their destination." Leslie A. Davis - American Vice Consul in Harput Turkey - In a report to US Ambassador to the Ottoman Empire Henry Morganthau dated June 30 1915 - U.S. National Archives. D.S. Record Group 59, Dec. File No. 867.4016/269
4. It was an emergency directive, time was of essence. "In fact most of the available evidence points to the conclusion that a systematic decimation of the Armenian population in the eastern provinces had already been decided on by the Ittihad ve Terakki regime, and that the troubles in Van and elsewhere merely served as a convenient excuse for getting a program of mass deportations and large-scale extermination." Ulrich Trumpener, (Historian) - Germany and the Ottoman Empire. Princeton, 1968, p.203. "The evidence...from German, Austrian and Turkish sources in my view leads inescapably to the conclusion that the extermination of the Armenians was actually planned by a clique within the Young Turk leadership and executed by the sinister Special Organization ("Teshkilati Mahsusa") of the army." Dominic Lieven - Empire - Yale University Press, 2001 --THOTH 12:02, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Im afraid that the sources you quote and re quote are widely known to have held very biased views on this subject. I am sorry but if this is your proof that a genocide was perpertrated, it doesnt hold! Lutherian 15:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
That's a cheap excuse. Calling someone biased doesn't disprove unless you can prove that they indeed were biased in some way. Saying that "They were Christians, they were Americans attempting to convince their government to go to war!" not only ignores the fact that German and Austro-Hungarian statesment reported the same thing but is tantamount to simple allegations. Using your logic, we can practically disprove any controversial event witnessed by others becaused they were biased. "Allied soldiers had just fought and killed many Nazis when they liberated the concentration camps, they only made this stuff up and controlled the media and photographs!". There's more than ample proof, just because someone says something you don't like and you call them biased doesn't really disprove anything. --MarshallBagramyan 16:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
No not just any christian, if you are a German protestant missionary witnessing the last days of the ottoman empire you are very likely going to turn a blind eye to the suffering of moslems and focus on the plight of fellow christian Armenians. So yes, I believe that such witnesses most certainly would hold a very biased view on this subject matter. And please dont use the usual tactic of drawing comparisons with the Jewish holocaust (a real genocide that did take place) with the massacres of the Ottomans which have been blown way out of proportion. lutherian 16:30, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
But of course...your entirely unsubstantiated and patently false and disproven assumptions should be taken over eyewitness reports and serious in-depth scholarship of this issue. And of course any eyewitness or historian who reports on Turkish atrocities againt Armenians or who rightly concludes based on the incredible amounts of corroborated eyewitness testimony, trial evidence, confessions and verdicts, and the compilation of incredible amounts of cooberating data etc etc must just be biased Turk haters right? Yeah - you and your comments cammand a great deal of credibility...perhaps you should write a book...I'm sure it could be a best selling Childrens book of fairy tales in Turkey...--THOTH 16:14, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Well its funny because your eyewitnesses tend to be Armenians, missionaries or arabs so it is only normal that I would question their truthfulness on the matter. With regards to scholars, you have several times denigrated Lewis, one of the most respected historians so I am not going to enter this debate with you. I would however ask you to remain polite, I know you have been reminded of this several times! lutherian 16:30, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Sorry Charlie - your accusations don't stick. (no Armenian quotes above for instance). Missionaries, diplomats businessmen, German civilians and military, Turks - yeah OK...these were all the people who were in the country and could observe what was going one....your argument is essentially that everyone hates the Turks...that is all - and it just doesn't cut it...and yeah we discussed Lewis - who WRITES of the Armenian holocuast where 1.5 million were killed...and who ADMITS to mistatements concerning his contentions in an interview that the Armenian Genocide was not factual and that it was only an Armenian positions...and he was founf GUILTY of sloppy scholarship (that he admitted to) and of being offensive to the decsendts of survivors of a great crime against humanity - the Armenian Genocide. Lewsi is not a historian of this particualr period BTW and in fact he has come under a great deal of critism of late on a variety of fronts...however what is mot important is that the vast preponderonce of evidence and the vast majority of scholarship confirms the authenticity of the Armenian Genocide and through such things as incredible numbers of independently cooroborated eyewitness reports and a great deal of other documentation we have a detailed understanding of what occured and why. Its unfortunate that instead of being able to write an article that reflects such and where all sorts of relevant issues can be introduced and discussed their exist Genocide deniers like you who have to be constantl dealt with and countered and vandalism reverted and so on and so forth...so I guess you are "winning" right now - I hope that you are happy...your not honest or truthful however...though I suppose that ignorance is bliss eh?--THOTH 16:57, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
with you, one can only go around in circles, and rest assured that i am no denier, there is ample proof out there that what happens does not constitute an act of genocide, punkt schluss! What you write above is full of weasel words, and there is a lot of exaggeration which you seem to have mastered very nicely. It is obvious and unfortunate that one just cannot have a serious conversation on a serious topic like this with you! I therefore suggest that we ingore each other unless you get a kick out of merry go rounds?lutherian 17:26, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Then by all means, lets see this "ample evidence" you tout so much about of. Please tell us that it is something besides the regurgitated heap from tallarmeniantale.com--MarshallBagramyan 17:45, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
No way hosé I aint going to waste a single minute of my time in lala land arguing with you or your buddy THOTH because I know that whatever evidence I provide, whatever argument I bring up, you are just going to dismiss it so I repeat: the point here is that it would be better for all of us to ignore each other instead of waste time. lutherian 18:10, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah you shouldn't be so quick to generalize us Lutherian. Who knows, perhaps they might come from some one credible. Even if you don't provide anything, that only hurts your argument and really renders the uselessness of your presence in this discussion. We provide the evidences and the testimonies while the opposition doesn't. Enlighten us and we'll see how credible it is.--MarshallBagramyan 18:26, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Please stop lying, your opposition also provides plenty of evidence that counters the genocide thesis and you just dismiss it for the most absurd reasons which makes the whole exercise of going through the process of fetching the evidence and bringing it to your attention a complete waste of time. lutherian 18:45, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
We agree on one thing here - anything you are likely to post will be a complete waste of time. In the meantime I suggest you don't post at all - because just screaming "baised against Turks" and "you are lying" and so on and so forth is of zero value - unless you just enjoy being a clown. --THOTH 00:48, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Well my opposition has done a good job in hiding it from me. I haven't seen a speck to counter the genocide thesis (no credible ones that is).--MarshallBagramyan 19:33, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

LOL, according to the above they refer to the "Turkish government", didn't know that there was a Turkish government back then, LOL Lutherian 04:40, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
The majority of the government of the Ottoman Empire was Turkish. It's similar to calling the Soviets Russians. —Khoikhoi 04:45, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
And yes, they're called System of a Down. —Khoikhoi 01:44, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes I read today about their latest video clip Holy Mountains. What's next, probably pointing targets... Very nice. --Gokhan 10:01, 16 June 2006 (UTC)