Talk:Armenian Genocide/Archive 16

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

The main page for Dayr az-Zawr has been changed to Deir ez-Zor. If someone with editing access to this page could change the link in the "deportation" section that'd be great. Thanks. --Optimussven 16:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks for the notification. Aecis^Bravado 18:24, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Lie of Omission (Dhimmi)

"However, unlike Muslim citizens, Armenians, Greeks, other Christians, Jews, and other minorities were subject to laws which gave them fewer legal rights and they were subject to numerous limitations in legal rights in the empire."

This ignores dhimmi status which included poll taxes and a prohibition against giving testimony in court (both of which the article implies are exclusive onuses on Armenians).

~~ Abra

Citations

I'd really like to add some citations to this article. (I purchased a subscription to the NYT archives without realizing that I was prohibited from editing the article.) Any chance I could add some citation and a little clarification, all of it wholly sourced to NYT? It's terribly unfortunate that the citations seem to rely more on Peter Balakian than the New York Times; the Times' documentation is readily available online for a modest fee, even back beyond the Bitlis massacre of 1894.

It's quite tragic to see this "controversial" issue so poorly sourced! As long as the page relies more on Armenian-authored texts than formal documentation of the outside objective world, it truly serves to grant Turkish revisionism that benefit of a doubt for which it is so desperate.DBaba 05:31, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi, DBada, thanks for your feedback, I also thank you for your contribution to the Adana massacre article. This article is in a very bad shape, but I don't think sourcing is the main problem. It is OK to quote Armenian scholars, more particularly when they use other sources, when the writter is in the west and that the work is criticised in peer reviewed publications. Anyway, I don't think relying mainly on newspaper articles is the right thing to do. Because newspapers mostly report an event in the instant it happens, while historic works uses sources to connect and present the overal picture of the event, something which we need here. Regards. Fad (ix) 19:47, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Very good point on the newspapers, as I've learned in struggling to assemble a timeline for the Adana massacre from contemporary New York Times reports.

I'm sorry to upset you Serouj, I didn't mean to sound provocative, only to note that the full force of historical documentation is conspicuously absent in this entry. I tend to suspect that it's not Dink, Pamuk, or your passion that best evidences the events of the past, but rather the incredibly vast body of documentation readily available to us all.DBaba 20:11, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Dbaba, I completely misinterpreted your comment and have retracted my statement. Sorry about that, and I agree that we do have a vast sea of documentation in support of the Armenian Genocide, and we need to include more first hand sources. We need a mechanism to add this information. Serouj 20:23, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Serouj, I was going to make the same critization about citations, then I saw these posts and your name in it, and hesisated to do so, since I was afraid to be misunderstood. Not to recall you bad memories, but I guess you had some losses that suffered in 1915, and therefore you're being very sensitive about the subject.

After Dink's assassination, I was discussing with a Turkish guy on the slogan saying "We are all Armenians". The guy said that he'd never ever say such thing, since it was him himself who were listening stories from his great-grandfather about every women in his town being raped by Armenians, regardless of age. I tried to explain the guy about how Armenians suffered, but apart from not being very willing to listen, the guy accused me of being a traitor. (He even called me Kirkor :), which you know is an Armenian name, and sounds a bit like my name). So please you do not act like he did, and try to keep your cool when discussing. there I begin :) (It's also interesting that taking a look at your user page, I have to tell you that we have a lot in common)

I personally am not in favor of having citations from www.armenica.org (Armenian POV) as well as www.ermenisorunu.gen.tr (Turkish POV). For example this concentration camp map. It shows it as Armenians are gathered in government established arbeit camps to be sent to "Deir ez-Zor", the main extermination center. Well, of course none of us today are to know the absolute truth about it, but even the most genocide supportive western academics (or the pro-genocide Turkish academics such as Taner Akçam and Halil Berktay) state that it was officially an order of deportation which secretly supported the perishing of Armenians en-route or not protecting them against the gangs attacked them.(or sometimes even encouriging the gangs to attack the Armenians) I know you're sensitive on this issue but I read quite a lot about this event past couple of months (since september I believe), and still reading on it, but it is nowhere else that I've seen any other sources that are mentioning about such arbeitcamps or extermination centers (This is why some of those academics call 1915 a massacre rather than genocide)

And if you are really willing to improve the article, but not to use it as AG propaganda, I believe that statements beging with "it is believed", "it is said" or such should be removed from the article.

One more time to mention, I respect the pain of everybody that has such a loss, including yours and the loss of my own people (regardless of numbers of casulties, condemning the people who gave statistical importance to the peoples pains) Regards, Ombudsee 15:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

We’ve been there already. If you check the footnotes, the work relating to the concentration camps is a French work on the concentration camps of the last century(but other works are also cited). Most work published relating to them are French or German, French because the Arabic deserts were on French mission, German because they were Ottoman ally. The term concentration camp was used back then. This is what the German consul Rossler's February 14, 1917 report wrote about them: "The entrance of these concentration camps could well bear the legend imprinted on the gates of Dante's hell 'Ye who enter here, abandon all hope.'" (A. A. Turkei 183/46, A8613, German consul Rossler's February 14, 1917 report). You relate to Akçam and Berktay, I don’t know if we have been reading the same stuff, but I propose you to read the most recent work written by Akçam, it basically say about the same thing, but concentrate more on the special organization, its structure and the way it accomplished what they were said to accomplish. So, I don’t see what AG propaganda you are talking about. I will also mind you, that Zurcher himself wrote a paper published in a work, which also included a paper on the concentration camps.

You tell Serouj that he is probably sensible about the topic because he lost a relative in 1915. Like I have been saying in the past, you will hardly find anyone in the Diaspora who hasn’t lost a relative, when I say this, I am not talking about: “My relative heard that all the people were raped etc.” But rather, that:”My relative was the only surviving, brothers and sisters lost, ending in a Syrian orphanage etc.”

So you don’t expect any Armenian to believe that guys story do you? How many Armenian properties were distributed among the local population or placed to sell for the fraction of the price? You don’t expect me or any Armenians to believe those who have ended up in those houses. Or, you don’t expect any such person saying: “The Armenians there were butchered, thrown out, and I am living in one of the property of one of those Armenians.” I have heard my share of history of those saying how Armenians have raped, and killed…, most of the time, a relative saying to his grandchild: “I have heard in my village Armenians have burned Muslims.” How often do you hear: “I was the only surviving,” or “My parents were killed, my sisters taken away.” Even in Turkey there were orphanages for those Armenians, Hilmar Kaiser had made his doctoral research on the forced assimilation or simply the destruction of the orphans. Fad (ix) 23:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Well I guess I was misunderstood. To clarify it, I have never ever underestimated how Armenians suffered. And the guy whom I argued with was not saying that he heard such a rumour. He said it was his grandfather who experienced it. You can check the previous discussions I've been into to see where I stand. See, I could have copy-pasted here stories of the Turkish population that suffered too. They are just a google-search away. Of course it's not that I'm claiming that they are all-true, but the way you're looking at the subject is as Turks are all born bloodthirsty, while all Armenians were turning-other-cheek victims.

As I stated before, the truth is somewhere in-between the scale. I know it's nowhere near the official Turkish thesis at all, but also I don't believe it's overlapping what armenica.org-type-of-sites shows it like.

About the Concentration camps; candidly it might be possible that I missed about them for all my last months of reading. But sincerely I didn't see or read anything about my understanding of concentration camps (Like the arbeitcamps of Nazi) And when it comes to Akçam; yes, we're reading the same stuff; no, he doesn't mention about the concentration camps. He says that Teşkilat-ı Mahsusa (that special organization you're talking about - Basically the Turkish CIA of the day) undertook the crimes of massacres en-route or provoked the Kurdish tribes to do so. And when it comes to the that German consel footnote, since armenica.org-type-of-sites are the only places to find these type of sources, I think the reliability is still disputed regardless who wrote it. For example in "Sarı Gelin" documentary (which is extremely Turkish POV by the way) it shows documents by a Russian comrade on how Armenians were not obeying the Russian orders in Kars by torturing the muslim population, a declaration printed in the Washington Post and the New York Times in 1985 by 70 American and Canadian academics on why the events were not Genocide or an Italian academics findings about mass Turkish graves in Bitlis. These documents can either be reliable or not - I'm not advocating those here and it's not the issue. But what I'm saying is just because somebody from Europe or US wrote that, it doesn't necesseraly make it a proof.

So back in the subject, can you provide some better and npov sources about those camps and their purposes for existance? If it's my ignorance then we can just add those to the article. See internet is the only source I can get to now, and I tried to look for them, but the only places I found the words "Armenian genocide" and "concentration camps" together are either the Armenian POV sites or open-contribution wiki-type structures, and even in those it doesn't go into any details about what was the purpose for these camps existance or how they were like. (Even in one of them it was briefly written that they were administered by Armenian officers)I need to do more research on it, but if you ask my opinion, they were the bogus gathering points created by the government to back-up the official deportation thesis, where Armenians perished because of terrible life conditions and Turkish official didn't care about it. Still as far as I see, it was nothing like forced labour or crematoriums of the Nazi Arbeitcamps (As you see I'm not defending anything, but I am against the distortion of the facts. If you can prove me wrong, please do so)

This applies for other stuff too that is written relying on the armenian-pov sites, and statements with beginnings "It is believed" and such.

Please believe in my good faith by the way. I am just trying to help this article to get better and be more balanced. Otherwise you know what's the difference it would make to me if there were no concentration camps map on the article. simply none. Actually in a way you can say that I'm even doing it due to my respect of Armenian victims in 1915. I believe that distorting the facts is being disrespectful to the death (which might be the case here or not). For example the other day I read a source that says Armenian casulties in 1915 were over 2 million. See, I hate to talk with numbers, since it doesn't matter if it was half a million Armenian perished or over 2 million (by which I mean it was a calamity anyways), but if people are pumping up the number of victims while even the official Armenian thesis is saying that it was around 1.5 million, there I sense a huge indignity.

As I always say, the truth is somewhere in between our official thesis (But definately closer to the Armenian side) Regards, Ombudsee 01:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Ombudsee - I do not question either your scincerity or your empathy with Armenian losses - however why is it that most all Turks - even yourself as example here - even when presented with direct citations from - in this instance - a German source - still attempt to claim that the information has Armenian bias...I just don't understand. Likewise, why, when presented with such overwhelming evidence do most Turks, such as yourself in this instance - still try to cling to this "Armenian viewpoint" or "Truth is in the middle" fiction when in fact it is the vast overwhelming majority of scholarship and the vast perponderance of corraborated eyewitness and documentary evidence that clearly supports the facts as you see them on most all serious Armenian websites and in articles such as this one. (I'm not discounting that there are websites and/or posters on Armenian webforums that present information and base opinions on less factual basis) but bottom line the history as presented in this article represents the historical facts. Isn't it about time that reasonably educated and aware Turks such as yourself stop questioning the fundemental truth of the Armenian Genocide and the fact that the evidence is more then sufficient to prove CUP/Ottoman Turkish genocidal intent - and that CUP cover stories and rational are what is fictional and unsupported by fact - and instead join with Armenians and non Armenian Western scholars in examining the historical record to better understand what occured - and not to attempt to dig up more strawman arguments which at best are tangental and evasive and do not address the most relevant and significant aspects of these events and of the motivations of those involved in perpetrating and carrying out the Genocide? Haven't Armenians and Turks spent far too much time arguing about something that is in fact already pretty much known and understood (by all but those who deny due to political/ethnic predetermination) - and couldn't this time and effort be better spent in learning and understanding the relevant facts, context and perspectives of those involved? IMO this article, and this issue in general, would be much more well served by honest effort towards discovery of the truth and not essentially dishonest denial of the obvious.--THOTH 06:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Ombudsee, I don’t think you have been misunderstood. The Armenian concentration camps were not in buildings, they were just places in desertic zones where Armenians were sent. (The 25 camps, relate to those places) And for the German consul, I brought that quote on the web, and you can use an interloan system to confirm it, I can tell you how to do it if you want. While the translation is not mine, it conforms with what Systran gave me. Many of the stuff used in some sites are actually things they have fished from my writings.

Regarding the Russians stuff, this too was covered here in the past. The one single most cited report from a Russian official, the official was an Azeri Tartar who was accused of cannonading Yerevan, the equivalents have never been found in Russian records. There was some pamphlet published prepared by the Turkish delegation, in French, and then published in English, which was containing the said Russian reports, the major translator of those stuff is an intelligence official of the Ottoman, who has already been found to distort Russian materials. The identification isn’t a Russian identification, but a collection now found in the Ottoman archive.

And no, I am not saying that Turks were all born bloodthirsty, while all Armenians are angels. In the same situation Armenians would have probably done the same. What I am saying is that Armenians were in no position to have done all what is reported they have done. And if you pay attention to the relevant materials, Armenians at that time, not only were not hiding their own crimes, but were proudly citing them and even exaggerating them, to show how small they were against the ‘’enemy’’ and were still able to have an upper hand. This is why they took the defence of Musa Dagh as main example. Anyway, if you want to discuss we can continue in your talkpage. Fad (ix) 16:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Well you know what, actually I am going to take a break from the virtual world for a while. I was spending way too much time here for the last week and plus there's so much going in my life now. Anyways, my point is (and was) that some parts in the article as I stated before seems a little... uhm... swaying? so maybe more work on them can be done (better citations, more detailed info or so...) It just happened that we were talking about that concentration camps in this case, but giving an example from the same section once more, more detailed information such as why those camps were there what was done there should also be added to article if they are going to be mentioned. I don't want to repeat the same stuff once more but as I said, in the present article it just blurrilly says that there were some concentration camps and the way it's shown in the map is like they were the main extermination centers. I don't say they weren't, maybe they were and I missed it for all of my past readings, but if that was the case please back it up with better and more solid citations. I'm trying to make constructive criticism, so you might even take it as I'm doing you a favor by showing that specific part of the article is not very-well propped up.

And THOTH, I really don't think I don't think I am questioning the fundemantel truth of the Armenian Genocide, do you? I think right now I'm pretty much in the encyclopedic details :) And since we are in a wikipedia, that's the place for that. Though I have to say I am sorry for the misconception of "truth is somewhere in the middle". It sounds like it's about equal distance from both of the official thesis. I meant to say the truth is somewhere in between them, definately way closer to Armenian thesis. Plus it sounds a little bit rebarbative (I got that word from the dictionary. don't know if it's the exact turkish equivalent. Just to clarify, it's not an offensive one :) ) to call me "a reasonably educated and aware Turk" just because I share similar beliefs to you rather than most Turkish.

About that Russian document stuff; see, that's exactly what I have been saying! -It doesn't mean that a foreign guy saying it makes it true- Well let's just assume that the German consel in the previous case was an anti-muslim German who wanted to prepare propaganda stuff against Turks using Armenians, like that Azeri-Tartar-Russian. It's not that I believe that it is so, but if you cite several different sources from severeal different background-people that will make the article more stable, and turn the claim-like structure of the existing one to the factual. Try to show the same doubts against the Armenian-thesis-supportive documents, as you do to the Turkish-thesis-supportive ones. I am trying so hard to chose my words while writing those. I hope once more that you will believe in my good faith (Hope I have not been speechifying you with all that sincerity thing :) )

Fad(ix), as you just said, and somebody else also mentioned it long before, I think that Armenian Genocide now became more of a political issue rather than an ethical one. I don't believe that even the ones in the government look at the issue like the official thesis does, but feel obligated to seem like it for various political reasons. (That's one of the reasons why politics disgust me)

Anyway, so to sum it up; I still think the article needs better citing. And farewell for a while. Happy editing :) Ombudsee 20:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Again Ombudsee - its not an "Armenian Thesis" - its what occured. Obviously more Armenians have researched, documented and presented these facts then others but this should be no surprise. I've met highly educated and aware Turks with which I have had some fundemental disagreements...but it would be rather difficult for me to lable any Turk "aware" or "educated" who outright denies the Armenian Genocide or attempts to claim it was something other then what it was - certainly not educated or aware when it comes to this issue. The evidence confirming the known facts of the Armenian Genocide are more then sufficiently corroborated for us (or anyone who bothers to honestly investigate a bit) to accept both the patterns and specific events and circumstances - including regarding this issue of concentration camps - whose existance is well known and documented in the literature. On a parting note (if indeed you are partin and actually I would hope that you are not) I would highly suggest that you read Akcam's latest book - A Shameful Act...and take the time to check his citations. I believe that you will find the read very enlightening. I suspect that you will apologize for the use of the term "truth is somewhere in the middle" as this is quite offensive - as it would be to say to a Jew in regards to the veracity of Holocaust denial arguments compared to the widely known and understood truth regarding the Holocaust. Akcam's book - as well as others - discuss and present in proper context and with due weight the various Armenian movements and actions of certain Armenians (political and violent) and such that are often used by Turks as a counter to Genocide "allegations" and these circumstances and events are not unkown to us nor do we or would we fail to acknowledge such things (good bad and ugly etc) in their proper context. Still it is impossible to legitimatly claim that Armenians "stabbed Turks in the back" or that the "deporation" was just that and that it was really justifyable in any way or that any of these positions and or actions held/commited by certain Armenians in any way can justify (or even necissarily can be said to have caused/directly spurred on) the brutal, utterly indefensible and unprecidented actions (deliberatly) taken by the CUP/Ottoman Turks against the Armenians who overwhelmingly were peaceful and loyal and innocent Ottoman citizens. And the results of the CUP/Ottoman Turkish actions are obvious and there can be no questioning their categorization as (deliberate and pre-planned) genocide. I urge you to read this book and other scholarly works on this issue and welcome your contributions to this article and to the further discussion of this issue/subject.--THOTH 23:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)