Talk:Armenian Genocide/Archive 18

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 18
| Archive 19 →

Contents

JUST ONE THING!

According to United Nations, a genocide can only be regocnized if the country who made it and a group of countries come together and search the history. If it is found to be really done, then they can regocnize it. It is not possible to understand those countries who recognized a so-called genocide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.108.171.54 (talk) 21:53, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

  • The 'country who made it', IE the Ottoman Empire, no longer exists. Besides, the UN might have a definition of genocide that it operates under, but others might define it slightly differently. 155.188.247.6 23:07, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

so UN cant find any 'country who made it' to search the history but can find a 'country to judge and pay the penalty' according to only one sides allegations.. am i right?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.98.205.79 (talk) 21:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Sözde

An anonymous user has added the word "Sözde" to the Turkish name for the Armenian Genocide. I have removed it. Sözde means "supposedly" or "so-called", and adding it to the name violates WP:NPOV. AecisBrievenbus 19:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

In Turkey, we say so-called genocide, It think that is why he put it. Because we heard the real stories from our grandfathers. As you know these events happened 90 years ago. And we have 110 years old mans.. and they live and they tell us what happened.. This so-called genocide is not like the history that happened 1000 year ago.. It is a near past.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.233.97.30 (talk • contribs).
Whether or not Turks use this idiom (and it makes sense that they would), it remains POV. It is not surprising even to an Armenian like me that Turks have grandparents who support their own side of the debate. Likewise, it should not surprise anyone that I have cassette tape recordings from my own great-grandfather with first-person evidence that support the opposite side. If his testimony is correct, it would explain why there are far fewer first-person accounts on the Armenian side. The quantity of first-person accounts cannot be used as evidence for or against genocide because the very event (if it actually occurred) would have altered this statistic. By the way, would these recordings be useful to the article or would it just be considered more POV? I have given some thought to digitizing them so they don't get destroyed. They are nearly 20 years old now, and the speaker has since passed away. --75.31.162.157 23:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Digitize them and share. Not for the article, but for posterity in general. And, I like the way you think ("If his testimony is correct, it would explain why there are far fewer first-person accounts on the Armenian side. The quantity of first-person accounts cannot be used as evidence for or against genocide because the very event (if it actually occurred) would have altered this statistic.") -- very logical, sincerely.
Regards --24.5.70.65 15:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Check this out !

BBC, The World's most prestigous and reputable news channel does not call these events "a genocide" http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6505927.stm, so can anybody explain to me why we have such article on Wikipedia? Furthermore, to my opinion Turkish people are not so mean with their words as Armenians when you read through the discussions on this page. Don't you agree? 88.235.97.58 16:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Right, because one article calling it "mass killings" instead of genocide means the whole page should be deleted. Not quite --AW 16:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Actually, did you read the article? It says this "Armenians say 1.5 million of their people were killed in a genocide by Ottoman Turks during World War I, either through systematic massacres or through starvation. More than a dozen countries, various international bodies and many Western historians agree that it was genocide. Turkey says there was no genocide. It acknowledges that many Armenians died, but says the figure was below one million." --AW 16:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I recommend that we change the article itself. My POV is What would Armenians think if some other people have created an article named "So Called Armenian Genocide"? My suggestion is to name this article as "Mass Killings of Armenians" and when "Armenian Genocide" searched, it should direct to the first one. Furthermore, I suggest to remove the article named "Denial of the Armenain Genocide". 88.235.97.58 16:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, there are so many failings in logic (and Enlish) in the argument that you are making, I honestly don't know where to start. A genocide is a systematic mass killing, and even if that is what the article said, you can't call the BBC the most prestigous news channel (POV) and delete an article purely on what is said in one source. That's biased. You're biased. The reason you're here is very apparant: you want to try to aid in a massive cover up of a genocide on the grounds that you don't want Turkey to look bad. Admit and ask forgiveness. I mean you're wrong. The whole world, even the BBC, says it happened. You're wrong. 24.107.66.62 20:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC) (My account is stopmenow100, I just didn't want to bother logging in).

Armenian Genocide is not a historical fact, casualties on both sides is the fact. Considering it was during world "WAR" 1, you could not expect anything else. So I believe the title should be changed until Armenia agrees to a comittee of historians from all opinions form and discuss the matter on evidence. Most of the article, including the title, is subjective and may raise hostile feelings towards Turkey through incorrect and rather emotional comments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.174.194.5 (talk) 13:07, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Preach it brother. This page is full of it, and so is the guy above. "You're wrong. You're wrong" -- great argument. And the guy you were criticizing? His English was fine. By the way, if a systematic mass killing is the same as a genocide, were all of the Turkish deaths that resulted when the Armenians expelled Turks and Kurds from their homes -- just a small part of the number of nasty deeds the Armenians committed as part of their betrayal their country when they decided to revolt -- DO THOSE DEATHS COUNT? DO MUSLIM DEATHS COUNT?

How can you compare the deaths of Jews who never ever revolted against their country in violence to the deaths of Armenians who had been revolting against their own country, including joining the Russians!!!!!!

THIS PAGE NEEDS TO GO INTO DETAIL ABOUT THE ARMENIAN KILLINGS OF MULSIMS THAT WERE PART OF THEIR REVOLTS, AS WELL AS THE FACT THAT ARMENIANS FROM ANATOLIA WERE JOINING THE RUSSIAN FORCES. How is that not extraordinarily relevant? If you're going compare what happened to the Holocaust, you might want to point out the fact that the Armenians, in large numbers, were taking violent action against their own country!!!!! It's absurd to talk about the deaths of a people in the middle of the war WITHOUT POINTING OUT THAT THEY WERE FIGHTING IN THAT WAR.

And if women and children died, which they did, guess what? It's called a WAR. Welcome to Vietnam, WW2 (remember the A-bomb). And, oh yeah, welcome to the Armenian marauders of the late 19th and early 20th century that killed a bunch of Turks and Kurds, including their women and children.

It was a sad thing for Armenians and Turks, but if it was a genocide, we need to start re-labeling every war a genocide, as well as calling what happened to Muslims in the same areas genocide.

Get it through your thick heads. MUSLIMS AND CHRISTIANS DIED. If there was a genocide, THERE WERE GENOCIDES. --24.5.70.65 17:33, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Protection Policy

'Armenian Genocide' is a controversial topic on which there is no scientific consensus.

"Wikipedia:Protection policy" (and "Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines") in a way restrict a democratic discussion.

I do not mean that I favor any side of the debate but as far as I am concerned, this article is similar to an article which would claim that God absolutely existed and some certain group or society was rejecting this fact. Presenting a controversial subject as a fact and saying that one of the sides of this two-sided event rejects this fact, do not contribute to the discussion.

Armenians claiming that this is such a fact that it is not debatable or Turks claiming that this is such unreal that it is not debatable are both wrong.

It should be stated in the article that this is not a fact but a claim, one side of the story. And people who are on the other side should be allowed to tell their point of view, rather than just being mentioned in the article as the "rejecting" side or the minority that accepts this.

I believe that many people like myself would prefer to hear different points on a subject rather than being presented with selective information.

Forgive me if I made any mistakes.

Thank you for your consideration.

Memox 17:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Memox, I have been arguing for this for a long time, and I even quite Wiki for a couple of months. It is very good to have a second opinion. I have never tried to change the article itself, but wanted to add some translation from Turkish wiki, which was the Turkish POV. I want to ask again, whether it would be suitable to insert some parts of Turkish POV, with Turkish claims? Caglarkoca 11:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Notable and relevant Turkish views can be added to Armenian Genocide#The positions of Turkish people, provided they are referenced. Other relevant views can be added to Armenian Genocide#Academic views on the issue outside Turkey and Armenian Genocide#The position of the international community. AecisBrievenbus 11:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

When the powers that be in Wikipedia agree to amend the Holocaust article to state that in fact "it is not a fact but a claim, one side of the story". And when - in your words - they agree to let people who are on the other side to tell their point of view, rather than just being mentioned in the article as the "rejecting" side or the minority that accepts this - then I would say that precedent has been established and that the Armenian Genocide article should follow suit. In the meantine - yes you are mistaken. However, we forgive you. In fact there is no real debate. There is the truth. There is real and accurate depiction of history. And then there is a shameful political agenda that is being pursued by one nation and by brainwashed people of that nation to continue to perpetuate lies and half-truths for the purpose of denying clulpability in the enactment of known, acknowledged and highly witnessed and well documented crimes commited against humanity - in this case against the Armenians of the Ottoman Empire and against its other Christian inhabitants by the majority population of Muslim Turks. Tese essential facts are unassailable even though the deniers use every tact and every approach imaginable to do so. But of course part of this effort is to disrupt processes such as this article - giving the aprearance of "debate" on these basic issues when in fact there is no legitimate debate at all. They think that this helps to cover up the crimes of the past and recognition of them and of discussion and presentation of the details and relevant facts and issues. And it is apparent that these tactics suceed on at least a certain level because here we are discussing this bullsh*t when we would be better served working toward a more accurate true presentation of the history and related issues as opposed to endless debate over whether it is or is not a genocide and debating whether or not we have properly considered and included the "Turkish" position. I think we havfe given more then enough time and attention to this "Turkish" position and it is well past the time to move on to real issues.--THOTH 16:00, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

THOTH: You are a real piece of work. AGAIN, THE HOLOCAUST IS SETTLED BUSINESS. IT HAPPENED TO PEACEFUL, INNOCENT PEOPLE. THE ARMENIANS WERE REVOLTING, AND KILLING MUSLIMS. JUST AS MANY MUSLIMS DIED THEN, AND THERE IS NOT A SINGLE GOVERNMENT ORDER THAT INDICATES INTENTIONAL MASS MURDER. LOGIC, ON THE OTHER HAND, DICTATES THAT IF BOTH SIDES WERE DYING IN SUCH NUMBERS IN ONE REGION, IT MUST HAVE BEEN SOME KIND OF WAR GOING ON RATHER THAN A HOLOCAUST, RIGHT? I can't believe what biased idiots there are in this world.

Do me one favor, just one: at the head of the article, where it says something like "The Turkish Government rejects this characterization," I would like to see "Several eminent historians, and the Turkish government, reject this characterization." That's indisputably accurate, and pretty much says what needs to be said, as a bare minimum, in favor of the other side in the intro.

When something is established as fact, the talk page doesn't look like this. When something is established as fact, major historians don't disagree. Fact is fact, dispute is dispute, and this is dispute. The article should document the dispute and the evidence, then, not what one side calls fact.

Is TOOTH the person who is setting what is "real" and "true" and what is not, here?

Those skills can be used for solution of other subjects with conflicts then. Is there a mentioning of Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan's "we are ready to open our archives and start a study together with Armenian scientists to make it clear what happened in 1915 and if the committee agrees there has been a genocide, we are ready to admit it" offer's response from Armenian side? ( The offer is rejected by Oskanyan, 10th March 2005. That looks like quite an objective approach to the issue, I think. To my knowledge, to call killing of messes as a "genocide", there has to be an order by the government. As it is mentioned at several places in the articles, it is "Ottoman Government's attempt to exile the Armenian Population" which is a right of them in case of a War; for Armenian population started to attack Ottoman villages and force together with Russian forces. I did not see any paper signed by any Ottoman Authority ordering officers or governors in the articles area to kill Armenian children or women, only letters of Allies to Each Other. To call this as a "genocide", I believe there has to be more proofs other then some articles some newspapers or remarks of missionaires helping the "Christian" population in the area. Emphasizing Academists who are supporting that the Genocide has happened (Pamuk recieved a Nober Prize at the end) and ignoring those Academists who support that this was a "Tall Armenian Lie" does not appear to be very objective. I do not know how to add reference to this article but all the articles provided are by Armenian or "supportive" sources. Here are some of my references. (Ludovic Contenson : 1914 : Total Number of Armenians living in Ottoman Lands is 1.400.000) (Justin Mc Carthy : 1914 : Total Number of Armenians living in Ottoman Lands is 1.698.301) (Stanford J.Shaw : 1914 : Total Number of Armenians living in Ottoman Lands is 1.294.000) And going back to counts in 1919 (Sir George Walter Prothero Total Number is 1.602.000) (David Magie at Paris Conference Member of the US Delegate in 1919 : Total Number is 1.479.000). So the question comes out, where did the Ottoman Empire found out this 1.5 Millian Armenian people who were supposed to be killed by a systematic massacre. Would appriciate it too much if you could forgive me too TOOTH because I am far from believing that this has happened and I know it is accepted by many countries just in order to get some Armenian Votes. User: Okan Arcan


It is absurd to put what Turkish sides think to "Turkish views" but Armenian side's opinion right on the title and all over the article. This article definitely damages the image of Wiki and it is not just controversial it is just one-sided. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.174.194.5 (talk) 13:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

All information you place here should be objective and based on precise historical evidences. Placing photos from ordinary internet sites, telling about grandfathers' memories and adding your own comments just turn the whole article to a story rather than scientific history. Listening to people from both sides, observing national & international documents and finally concluding them is the job of historians but not story tellers'. It should be remembered by whom editing the article that any sentimental influence on an article by feelings like revenge and anger should be absolutely avoided. This page is not an internet blog and considered as a serious source of information by millions of people. Unfortunately, when I follow the article, even though I do my best to keep myself objective, I get a strong feeling of reading a one sided, subjective, consciously manipulated information. You cannot name something as Genocide just because you "believe / think" so. It's a big irresponsibility to history and to future. Personally, I do consider this article seriously conflicting with NPOV and it still needs editing by editors.--Ocagdas 13:13, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

To Whom It May Concern

In this article, How come there is no information about Armenian bandits -dead squads- who massaccred innocent Turks? Celaloglan 03:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't see anyting concerning Van cats here either...or any discussion of Turkish coffee or Lukum...I imagine we could just make this a thoroughly comprhensive article concerning anything and everything about the Ottoman Empire from the 15th century onwards - but for now this is an article about the Armenian Genocide and as such we should restrict its content to inrormation directly pertaining to the subject --THOTH 16:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
I respectfully disagree. In order to understand the forced deportations of Armenians (Armenian massacre-genocide or whatever you wanna call it), one should look at the underlying reasons and logic behind it (let us be honest, the reasons that have been described in this article are somehow biased-). Only then, we will have a clear picture of what really happened, why it happened and who are the responsible parties. Celaloglan 18:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
What is the bias in the reasons for the massacre/genocide, and how do you think it should be dealt with? What information is missing and needs to be added, and can you attribute it to reliable sources, without original research? AecisBrievenbus 18:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
True, the underlying reasons and logic behind it are important. The Turkish scholar Ayla Göl wrote a paper about it titled: "Imaginning the Turkish nation through 'othering' Armenians." (Nations and Nationalism 11 (1), 2005, 121-139), there is also another Turkish scholar, Bora işyar(notr, Bora prefer using the term "elimination" rather than genocide), who wrote a paper which is a good complement (The origins of Turkish Republican citizenship: the birth of race, Nations and Nationalism 11 (3), 2005, 343-360). There is also of course the theories on the nationalisation of economy, which is covered in Avioglu work. There are a couple of other Turkish scholars who wrote on the rational behind the decision. If you mean to say the Turkish government justifications and those scholars who adhere to it, then probably Kamuran Gurun book, which has become a classic, could go in its respectif section(Turkish government), developping the rationals, it contains Enver telegram behind, on the law on the measures taken by the military against those opposing the government implementations during wartime. Fad (ix) 21:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
First of all IT is called the Armenian Genocide. Genocide researcher Hilmer Kaiser essentially states that if one is not willing to adopt the proper terminaology one should not even be discussing the subject at all. And if I were you before suggesting that other contributors have been dishonest I would examine oneself and your own beliefs. As for your contention that "Armenian bandits -dead squads- who massaccred innocent Turks" should be considered an underlying reason for (lets let you fill in the blank properly now) I suggest that you read Holocaust survovor and genocide scholar Robert Melson. In his Revolution and Genocide he directly addresses this very issue - what he calls the "provocation thesis" and he thoroughly rejects it as a cause for the Armenian Genocide. Likewise researchers such as Dadrian, Kaiser, and Akcam (and others) independently examine this issue and conclude that the rational given by certain CUP and CUP apologists that claim military necessity or such (which I assume you are claiming here) was false. And after the war the head of the Ottoman Parliment (Rheza? may have the name wrong but I can provide the exact quote of needed) declared essentially that if in fact the Ottoman Government was concerned with Armenian bandits or such it was incumbant upon them to deal with these criminals - but this is clearly not what occured. The CUP targeted the entire Armenian people (for elimination from Anatolia) - and not because of any military necessity or because these populations were revolting out of control (as secret German dispatches clearly prove that this was not the case) but due to a policy decided upon by the CUP Central Commitee - where they then waited for the right circumstances - war - to carry it out. The facts and the scholarly record bares these facts out. I am all for examination and presnetation of the environment in which the Genocide took place and the factors that influenced the decision by the CUP leadership to purseu such things and the willingness of many of the Turkish people to participate in such thigs - but come now - get your facts straight before you make wild (and entirely politically motivated and unproven) accusations.--THOTH 19:03, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

How is the fact that Armenian's were killing Turks not relevant to the fact that Turks killed Armenians WHEN YOU ARE GOING TO CHARACTERIZE IT AS A GENOCIDE? As far as I know, losing a war isn't genocide, is it? Nor is catastrophic mutual attempts at clearing people of other ethnicities out an area that result in death. Or, if that is genocide, THEN THERE WERE GENOCIDES COMMITTED ON BOTH SIDES! Idiots.

Dear Fad(ix)

Thank you for your comments. I would check the Ayla Göl and Bora işyar’s references. About the Avioglu’s work, theories on the nationalisation of the economy during that time period doesnt sound that plausable. While fighting in many frontiers, nationalisation of the economy, is like shooting yourself from the leg. As you mentioned in your reply, Kamuran Gürün’s has the book called ‘The Myth of Innocence Exposed’. Here is a link incase you or anybody else is interested some more related books. http://www.armenianreality.com/armenianbooks/books.htm


Dear User:Aecis,

When I read this article it’s implied that

during the Ottoman times, Armenians were counted as second class citizens, and Turkish people were violent in nature(William Ramsay quote),

For NO given reason, CUP Central Committee passed the Temporary Law of Deportation, giving the Ottoman government and military authorization to deport anyone it "sensed" as a threat to national security.

A special organization – consist of common criminals !- was then founded to carry out the mass murder and deportations of Armenian population.

I have read this article again and again. And I still don’t see any given LOGICAL or TWISTED reason WHY CUP leadership decide to pursue such a thing?

I am scientist. First thing I have learned in my education is being skeptical, asking questions and trying to understand the underlying reasons & logic behind any event.

I think it would be best for now to start with including a paragraph in this article about What would be the underlying reasons of this deportation law. or WHY CUP decided to pursue such a thing.

We can start using the references that Fad(ix) provided in his message as a begining point.

Maybe in the aftermath section we should also mention what happened the CUP leadership committe afterwards.

Celaloglan 04:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Why? Why, the same reasons that all genocides have been carried out through modern history. Because they saw the group as an internal enemy. The emerging nationalists in the late Ottoman goverment wanted to solidify Anatolia as the last stronghold of a dissolving empire and secure it as a Turkic homeland. The empire was being invaded from all sides, and the Ottoman leadership was willing to do anything to defend against occupation, even exterminate an ethnic population it thought might side with invaders. Talat's experience with Russian-Armenian soldiers on the eastern front probably had something to do with it, too. Yes, it probably would be ideal to put in a little more about the CUP's motivation, but let us not confuse motivation with justification.
I think this is already mostly covered in the planning paragraph of the Implementaion section. The Myotis 05:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Myotis - I (meaning my knowledge obtained from reading a wide variety of source material on this subject) don't entirely agree with you on the reasons/rational for the Armenian Genocide - your explanation could be considered true in part - but the reality is a bit more complex. (And I'm not sure I'm up to providing a full discourse at this point in time but I will at least attempt to introduce some points). And before I do I want to first suggest to Celaloglan to do a bit of research on the CUP program of the "National Economy" which was enacted in 1913 (prior to the war) in an attempt to create (force the creation) of a Muslim Turk merchant class (at the expense of Christians who had come to basically control the majority of commerce in the Empire). To do this they enacted policies where Christian (primarily Greek) businesses were boycotted (and terrorized and worse - up to 500,000 killed!! 1913/14 - oh yes - and more driven out) while contracts and business were steered to Muslim/Turkish owned firms (many of which sprung up upoI am sorry that this legacy of the Turkish people upsets you and many other Turks so - but I cannot go back and change history and believe me I wish that I could. Anyway these are not my ideas but a compolation of scholarly thought/writings on this issue. I don't appreciate the name calling and ad hominum attacks. If you can't take the truth I suggest that you go and think happy thoughts somewhere else. And one last point - regarding the entirely legitimate comparison between the Armenian Genocide and the Holocaust - the fact of only tens of thousands of Armenians left in Anatolia after a few brief years of (heavily eyewitnessed and thus proven) massacre and genocide where there once were 2 million or more is well proof of the genocidal impact of these actions upon the Armenian community in Anatolia at the very equivilent nature to that decimation which occured to the European Jews during WWII. You may not like the reality of this or the shame that it brings to your people - but it is fact and you crying about it and denying it changes it not in the least.--THOTH 12:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)n eviction and take over from former Christian owners). OK - reasons for the Armenian Genocide (in 25 words or less sort of thing). The crumbling/disfunctional Ottoman Empire created an environment where minority groups at the fringes were shaking off Ottoman control and oppression and ousting Turkish overlords and colaborators (Turks and locals who converted to Islam) creating influx of refugees (stressing an already broke system), corruption and failure (to change/adapt) of Ottoman system exacerbated these problems along with loss of foriegn wars/territories, rising nationalism among (all) ethnic groups - and rise of Turkish identity that was based upon Muslim/Turkish tradtional social/power superiority vis a vis other elements (primarily Christian) of the Empire with great resentment for failing fortunes - blame/scapegoating of Christians - whose rising economic & social status was highly resented (& opposed by most Muslims/Turks) and for Empires failures (increasingly expressed along religious/racial lines) and desire to enact "revenge" for losses and humiliations (note - great majority of Turkish nationalists including CUP came from fringe areas of Empire where territory losses occured [Balkans, Caucasia, Southern Russia]). Sultan massacres and repression vs Armenians in late 19th century were crude attempt to forestall rising Armenian economic and social "independence" within Ottoman Empire and to enforce traditional socio-political (Muslim superiority) norms (keep uppity Gavurs in their place!). CUP revolution was culmination of Turkish disatisfaction with failure of Sultanate and of deteriorating conditions in Empire. While initially containing all manner of reform (and even liberal) minded political activists (even Armenian Dashnaks in coalition) - the revolutionary ascendency of the xenophobic exlusionary Pan-Turkic elements (very much like the German Nazis in so many ways...) who concieved of a primarily violent political and economic solution to the nations problems led to both Ottoman involvement in WWI - with the intention of reclaiming "lost" territories (and Empiric granduer) vis a vis Russia - and to the Armenian Genocide. Armenians - first and foremost - but other Christians of the Empire as well - had come to be seen by the CUP as "other" - as non-Turkic non-Muslim elements that conflicted with the Muslim and then increasingly Pan-Turkic identity and aspirations of the CUP (who had become highly radicallized and xenophobic for a variety of reasons). The CUP (and Muslim Turks in general - particularly those former refugees who suffered at the hands of Orthodox Christians) had come to resent Christians in their midsts - come to see them as essentially "foreign" - scapegoated them for the problems of the Empire (CUP was looking for blame for failure to fix problems etc) - they resented the prosperity and social uppityness that the Christains had obtained (partially through capitulations process) and in particular had grown tired of Armenians petitioning for outside help for reforms and such. So the CUP began to concieve of a program to solve the "Armenian Question" and that of the Christian minorities through violence (with an eye as well - very much so - to appropriating the Christian properties and wealth for themselves). Another significant factor in the attitude of desperation of the CUP was the recognized greed of the European powers to carve up the Ottoman Empire which had been in decline for centuries. Through the war - and the abrogation of the capitulations - the CUP hoped to reverse the downward course of the Empire, free it from debt and "solve" the minority problem once and for all (that in their view - and perhaps rightly so - potentially threatened the integrity of the Empire itself). Thus WWI involvement on the side of the Germans and the Genocide. And while the primary/overiding intent of the CUP was to eliminate the Armenians as a political presence in the East where they both posed a block to connection with Turks to the East and where they might ultimatly be able to establish a "nation" state of their own (thus "deportation" and breaking up of tradtional population concentrations - and certainly with death and violence being a major vehical for this -documented through CUP central commitee deliberations even as early as 1910/11) - the ease at which the "problem" could be dealt with through mass slaughter quickly lent itself to become an end in itself. The CUP was composed of very hardened and ultimatly evil men - in the very same ways of the Nazis in Germany in WWII - who likewise were able to de-humanize their conception of their victims and rationalize that what they were doing was for the greater good for the state and the "race". These factors - and the environment leading up to such that allows for ush "otherness" and de-humanization are vital factors to allow for genocidal campaigns. Certainly this glosses over a great deal of specifics and detail - but in effect I think provides a basic explanation that is more or less fully supported by the mainstream scholarly community.--THOTH 06:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
To Celaloglan - Well, you could start an article for "Turkish & Kurdish Genocide by Armenians" or "Mass Killing of Turks and Kurds by Armenians"; and describe the events you have mentioned there. This wouldn't be a fork as you are describing events separate from those mentioned on this page. Takhisis 07:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes in Madeupfictionepedia. Unfortunatly for you no real scholars advocate what you claim - that there was any "genocide" of Turks or Kurds or "Mass killing" of Turks on the part of Armenians. Not even McCarthy claims this. His claim is that there was "civil war" and "rebellion and revolt" and he and others talk of the presence of Armenians with Russian troops and as 5th column elements behind the Ottoman lines. Problem is boys - well the factual evidence just does not support these claims - and even McCarthy has been forced to admit this. There is quite a bit of difference between the presence of armed Armenian gangs (who were a few among many during the decades prior to WWI) who commited sporadic violence, robberies and massacres of villagers and some effort on the part of "Armenians" to commit genocide against Turks or such. No such proof exists for the latter - it is entirely a false construct. Not even the Nationalist government tried to claim such things at Lusuanne and certainly the Ottomans did not claim such at the paris conference in 1919 nor at any other time - nor do Ottoman military correspondences show such and so on and so forth. And while admitedly Armenians deserted from the ranks of the ottoman Army (as did Kurds in arguably much greater numbers) and they certainly did tend to join up with the russians when able and these Russian troops (with Armenians - mostly Russian Armenians) did commit some wartime atrocities very little of this violence in fact occured prior to the period of the Armenian Genocide where it could have legitimatly been used as justification for it. Even McCarthy has been forced to admit that most of the Armenian violence he is talking about occured 1917 and after and by irregular forces - no Armenian army per se. Likewise very little of substance can be presented that details Armenina 5th column activity behind Turkish lines as it really was a non-factor - it was something made up to justify actions the CUP already planned to take and even the supposed killings of Muslim/Turks by Armenians during this period can often be shown (through Ottoman Army as well as german and other reports) to have been CUP "Special Organization" bands out of control and not Armenians at all (even though CUP officials such as Shakir used instances of such to spread propoganda against Armenians). The claim of mass Armenian revolt can as well be shown to be spurious - consisting instead of a few very isolated instances - most of which (such as Van) were seriously misrepresented by the CUP for anti-Armenian propoganda purposes and in fact many can be shown (by way of eyewitness accounts) to have been the result of direct Turkish provocations and as a result of resistance to massacre/slaughter itself. So in fact what are we left with? Turkish historian hlil Berketay estimates that over this entire period - to include until 1923 - "Armenians" probably killed no more then 10,000 to perhaps 20,000 Muslims/Turks. OK - not an inconsequential figure - but neither can this be called a civil war or a mass killing of Turks such as the 1 million plus Armenians who were deliberatly killed in a systematic manner by direction of the CUP/Ottoman government. These deaths were the result of war and the typical (though still abhorrent) wartime atrocities that did occur - particularly with irregular troops - and much of this was revenge killing on the part of Armenians who had lost everything. The key point is that neither the historical record of corraborated eyewitness accounts nor the greater (non-Turkish) scholarly community supports such charges as genocide by Armenians or mass killings by Armenians against Turks or such. What did occur needs to be properly understood and not just bandied about for what it is not. And the only real contrroversy about these events among the scholarly community proper is when the CUP made its decision to commit genocide - not that it did so - and the degree to which it was decided upon at the get go versus how the policy may have evolved over time. And these Turkish counter claims are universally dismissed as unhistorical propaganda as they run counter to observations and the facts of the day.--THOTH 12:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your opinion above Thoth. I think it would be perfectly good article as long as it is properly sourced. I don't think this should be an issue; though needs work and time. Any takers guys? I'm bit too busy in my real life; we are expecting a baby and it is quite hectic now. Takhisis 15:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
I could only read the start and end of your opinion first. Suggest you break your argument to a few paragraphs - it makes it difficult to read. I read the middle now; good arguments. I believe there is a case for a separate article; we know at the very least some (many?) villages were burnt with their entire population. This would be enough to classify the events as mass killings. Title doesn't matter too much anyway; it could be named Armenians Revolts & Atrocities to Muslim Population even. Takhisis 15:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Did you really read (and understand) what I wrote? I really don't think that a seperate article for either Armenian "revolts" or "mass killings" or "Atrocities" can be supported. The "revolts" per se were really quite limited and were directly tied to attempts on the part of Ottoman authorities/officials to masacre and otherwise disenfranchise communities (direct action in commiting genoicde against these communitees). As for "mass killings" and "atrocities" commited by "Armenians" I don't think that 10-20,000 killed (if that) over a period from 1914-1923 could necissarily be considered "mass killings" seen in the context of war of the time and place and considering the inability to clearly attribute these deaths/killings (many/most of which were done in the context of Russian military activity and others by Armenian irregulars) - each of these more appropriatly covered within articles concerning WWI and military actions occuring in the Caucuses in the post WWI period related to the Turkish War of Independence and military actions surrounding the attempts by the fledgling Armenian State (post 1918) to defend itself from Turkish aggression. Thus in no way could I see legitimacy in independent articles called "Armenian revolts" or "Armenian mass killings or atrocities against Turks" each of which can only be correctly dealt with in their proper context. And of course this talk page and article that we are discussing is concerned with the Armenian Genocide and there is much more of relevance to do here to better describe the planning (rational - to include political environment etc in the Empire during/prior to this period), process, enactment (specific documented actions against the Armenians and by who) as well as better description of how it is we know these events to be factual (through documentation of eyewitness testimony). It is these areas where I think more effort needs to be made to make this article more exacting and informative.--THOTH 19:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

THOTH, <Personal attack removed> from your insane remarks above it is clear to me that anything that is even remotely moslem past or present in your mind is analogous with evil, that no massacres of moslems by your angelic orthodox christian brotheren ever took place at any time in history and that the massacres of armenians (repeat after me, MASSACRES, NOT GENOCIDE) were worse than what the Nazis did to the Jews (not only is that suggestion of yours totally absurd but more importantly insulting and degrading to the memory of the 6 million Jews that perished). The moronic suggestion that the Armenian massacres are even remotely comparable to the GENOCIDE of the JEWS is absurdity at its extreme, its a classic example of the pure and simple provocation and hatred that you and your kind fester towards Turks and moslems. I know that its hard for you to digest the truth but just pop a blue pill and relax because nothing and I mean nothing that you (especially you) say will ever change the realities regarding this subject. Just because there are a zillion Turk haters out there that claim a genocide occurred does not make it the truth unless you live in North Korea, Iran, Cuba or Venezuela where what ever the guineas feed you is taken at face value. And please, don't bother to respond because I don't have the luxury of wasting time reading your novellas lutherian 12:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I have removed a personal attack from the above post. Please comment on the content, not on the contributor. Comment on what THOTH has to say, don't insult THOTH himself. Cows fly kites (Aecis) Rule/Contributions 12:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
I am sorry that this legacy of the Turkish people upsets you and many other Turks so - but I cannot go back and change history and believe me I wish that I could. Anyway these are not my ideas but a compolation of scholarly thought/writings on this issue. I don't appreciate the name calling and ad hominum attacks. If you can't take the truth I suggest that you go and think happy thoughts somewhere else. And one last point - regarding the entirely legitimate comparison between the Armenian Genocide and the Holocaust - the fact of only tens of thousands of Armenians left in Anatolia after a few brief years of (heavily eyewitnessed and thus proven) massacre and genocide where there once were 2 million or more is well proof of the genocidal impact of these actions upon the Armenian community in Anatolia at the very equivilent nature to that decimation which occured to the European Jews during WWII. You may not like the reality of this or the shame that it brings to your people - but it is fact and you crying about it and denying it changes it not in the least.--THOTH 12:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
THOTH: You really are a capitals kind of guy, huh? In big letters. Have you ever noticed that there are eyewitnesses to equivalent atrocities against Muslims (in Anatolia, at that time...)? No? Perhaps you've kept your reading a little too small, a little too biased?
You need to give a real reading to the historians that dissent, a fair reading. No, our legacy is not tarnished, not one bit. Like any other people, we've fought in war, and war is ugly, and civilians die. Where are the government orders?!?!?! (I mean the ones that aren't proven fake! Doesn't it tell you something that there were fakes? Nobody needed to fake a thing to prove the Holocaust!)
If these aren't your ideas, and just a simple compilation of scholarly ideas, WHY IS THERE NOT EVEN A MINIMAL SURVEY OF THE EVIDENCE AGAINST THIS CHARACTERIZATION OF THE DEATHS OF ARMENIANS? WHY IS THERE NO MENTION OF THE CRIMES ARMENIANS COMMITTED, THE VIOLENCE THEY ENGAGED IN? When two sides are fighting, that's not a genocide -- or if it is, EVERY WAR IN HISTORY HAS BEEN A GENOCIDE.


THOTH: One more thing. Calling the Turkish legacy tarnished because we were involved in war and violence is absurd. First of all, so were the Armenians. Second, every ethnic group on the planet, or the vast majority, has been involved in some terrible massacre at some point, which undoubtedly is what happened in Anatolia -- TO TURKS *AND* ARMENIANS, AT THE HANDS OF EACH OTHER. So, if you have a drop of Anglo blood, you should start weeping for the CENTURIES of atrocities your people committed against Muslims and Jews. And the Armenians should be really proud of the role they played in WW2, right? You know, the way they fought with the Nazis?
Your display of bias against Turkish people, and the view that somehow our legacy is worse than that of any other people, is absurd. You may be familiar with the ATOMIC BOMB the US dropped TWICE after the war was finished, totally unnecessarily! You may be familiar with the Crusades, the Inquisition? With the mass deaths of Turks at the hands of Christians in various corners of the crumbling Ottoman Empire, in which minorities had fared much better than Jews had in Europe during the preceding centuries? We are not a bad people, not an evil people, and, as a whole, we bear no ill will toward any Armenian. On the other hand, our people are still being killed by Armenians!!!! There was a war, Armenians joined the other side, and they got killed in large numbers for doing so, as well as for causing general chaos. Most of their deaths were an unintentional, although it cannot be said that extraordinary precautions were taken. Why weren't they taken? Because Turks were dying in huge numbers at the same time and there were no resources to guard the deportees.
Anyhow, our legacy is a long and splendid history. Like other people of the world, our history includes military actions. Military actions are, as a rule, bad. Let's keep hatred out of our history books, we've already had too much in our history. Tell of Muslim deaths, Turkish deaths, when you tell of the Armenian deaths. That's the only way to avoid bias. And don't ever think Turks are somehow more violent or suffer from any problem with our legacy. We are a proud people, with large numbers, a people which has no interest in buying a new history. You'd better get used to us, we have the second largest military in NATO, and we'll not be shamed by half-truths told by those who hate us or those who drink the Kool-Aid. We will, however, listen to fair minded people who think it's correct to call what happened a genocide. But this page isn't fair, that's the problem. The page obviously gives majority time to the majority view. Fine. That's the way of these things. But you still need to present the facts about our dissent: 1) Armenian killings of Turks in large numbers and 2) their history of violent revolt and how that differs from the history leading up to the Holocaust 3) The lack of any evidence that the government intended to kill the deported Armenians, and the fact that intention is part of the requirement for calling a thing a genocide 4) The fact that Turks were forced from their homes in the same fashion when Armenians and Russians took control of areas in Anatolia and that, just like the deported Armenians, they died in huge numbers! Do that much, give this article COMPLETENESS by addressing our arguments. THE PROBLEM IS, THE FACTUALITY OF THESE THINGS IS VERIFIED, AND THEY IMMEDIATELY MAKE THE HISTORY OF IGNORING THESE FACTS SEEM DISHONEST. Are you willing to be fair? Are you? Willing to face your own past, the violent past of the Armenian people as well as the history of covering up relevant facts in their blackwashing of Turkish history and the whitewashing of their own? I want somebody to address this. Either deny the Armenian military actions, or include them in the page. There's no other way! They're the most important fact. You were no Jews, Armenians. You were no lambs led to slaughter, you were fighting against your state, and your people died as a result, just as any group that rebels against their state has. And your people took a lot of Muslims with them, Turkish and Kurdish, women and children as well as men. That's the real history, tragic all around. And that's the history of war in general. Paint the truth, not a half-truth masquerading as a totally implausible complete truth.
Make this page fair by letting the contentions of the dissenters, and the quality of our evidence, known. Let the tragedy which befell the Armenian people be known, as well as the tragedy that befell all other people living in that nation. (The second half is the work of another page, but it also needs to be mentioned in this page as part of the dissenting position.) Please, someone who can edit this now, do so.
The real "denialists" (in a bad way) are those who refuse to even allow the relevant information to be presented! And, remember, the blood on every man's hands which he inherits from his history is the same. All of human history is marked in blood. Armenians and Turks are no different, but neither is any other person reading this. A cycle of reciprocal violence which occurred in the waning Empire is not a genocide at all, or it is a multiple genocide in which Turks are victims as much as the Armenians. I'm not concerned with labels, I'm concerned with complete truth, and you're telling a half-truth in this article when you don't mention the revolts of the Armenians and the murders of Kurds and Turks they caused, and in great numbers. (And, of course, there was murders of Turks in great numbers in the Western Empire.) This is nothing like the Holocaust, or any other genocide. But, call it what you will. Anyone who edits this page should paint the whole picture or get off their high horse and recognize they're creating *their own* legacy as a dishonest, closed-eyed, biased contributor.)
In summary, I'll just say I pray that you guys include the important information about the opposing position while in no way denigrating it. (You can denigrate it at home; leave the Encyclopedia neutral.) And, no, this wouldn't be like giving time to Holocaust denials because this wasn't the Holocaust. You simply state facts: who believes what, and what they believe. End of story. Do that properly and you'll be taking a big step forward towards fairness.

--24.5.70.65 19:59, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

No, it is exactly like the Holocaust, and it is very important to draw the line on the truth. Enough is Enough. The policy is correct, and it is time that people who deny the events learn to swallow the truth.--Jackkalpakian 16:10, 28 October 2007 (UTC)--Jackkalpakian 16:10, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Why don't they mention this?

They never mention this in schools. This is as bad as the Holocaust

A good question. One reason may have to do with the area where you live. Areas with very few ethnic Armenians will not have as many people to recognize and commemorate such events, as so they will slip out of the view of teachers and the people who write the textbooks, some who may simply believe it is "not important" enough to be worth teaching. It may also relate to the fact that the Holocaust was widely reported to the public immediately after WWII, whereas AG was largely cast aside by the press in favor of the new Turkish republic.
Another reason is, though I am sad to say it, is how many ethnic Turks live in an area. There is a widespread belief among Turkish nationals that this event either did not happen or was highly exaggerated in order to exploit Turkey. In order to avoid inciting arguments with such people, a school or similar institution may opt to completely avoid mentioning it. "Who today speaks of the Armenians" indeed.
I think the key reason this information is suppressed in the USA, for instance, is because Turkey is a vital ally of the United States. In the Armenian-Turkish relations section, there is a quote from Condoleeza Rice warning that formally recognizing the Armenian Genocide “could harm American troops in the field” by "antagonizing" Turkey. Here is a March 2007 New York Times article on the subject. The Republic of Turkey is a very useful ally for the USA, particularly for its bordering Iraq. If the Turkish government were to turn against the USA, Iraq (and the USA's hopes for it) could pay the price.DBaba 20:28, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
That's a joke! This is not suppressed in the USA at all... the Armenian Diaspora has youth groups, summer camps, publications, sponsored trips to Armenia, hundreds of lobbied politicans... Every year there's this speech by US President... Come on, let's be reasonable here! --Gokhan 22:09, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
I spent 13 years in American public schools, and I never heard the word "Armenian" once, let alone "Armenian Genocide". This may differ among different states of the union, but when one million non-combatants are marched into the desert to die for their religion and it's erased from history anywhere, that would seem to be precisely what suppression is... And while I'm not sure I see the connection to "Armenian youth groups and summer camps" (the mere conception of which seems offensive to you, oddly), I think it's fair to say that the systematic suppression of this information almost cries out for political activism in the name of justice. Certainly, I wouldn't expect the modern Republic of Turkey to tolerate Armenian youth groups, but perhaps suppression doesn't mean quite the same thing in the United States as it does in, say, Anatolian Kurdistan. Cheers, DBaba 15:05, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't think this is directed against Armenians. I too spent all my time in public schools and did not hear about most of the Potential/Actual Genocides in history. see Genocides_in_history More a statement about American historical education in general than anything specific to Armenians. Other than the Holocaust, we learn nothing about anything of this sort. In 11th grade we spend 5 weeks on the Holocaust, but only 3 days on WW2 in general.
My son (who is half-Armenian) had a friend in 5th grade who happened to be Turkish. Their teacher, a learned man, remarked on how wonderful it is that, with that passage of time, these two could now be fast friends. Well, the following day the young Turkish boy's mother came storming in to school, screaming at the teacher for spreading lies, that the encyclopedias contained fabrications, etc. The poor man was in shock. I teach my children about what their great-grandparents went through, surviving against all odds, lost their families, and who, through their incredible heroism (they were only children), are the only reason we are here today. Never have I disparaged or blamed a modern Turk for what happened 90 years ago, but it pains me that denial of the past continues, because in doing so we are doomed to repeat it BroMonque 20:39, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
In your story, you emphasis the problem itself.What is the need to feed these boys in 5th grade with this "Turkish hate which exists like a dirty poison in Armenian Blood - quote from Hrant Dink"? How would you feel if your son came to you and said "oh Father, our ancestors rebelled against Ottomans in early 20th century in the middle of a very brutal war of them and killed 10.000-20.000 villagers in the most wild way (as even the most Armentian commenters here admit, numbers are provided by them, this is the most optimistic approach to Ottoman casualties, as usual). Did you know that father in Turkey they still find graves where innocent villagers were killed and buried?" What is the need for that? Even if the "genocide" had happened and proven, I would not enjoy my son at 5th grade coming and complaining to me that his friend keeps mentioning this. Would you? Noone denies the past, once there will be an "international committee" or a "organization" (except some Californian vote hunters) come up with some proofs other than reports written by Christian Missionaires or Armenian Patriots or Ottoman Opposition at the War, the modern Turks are more than ready to accept the fact. As our Prime Minister declared in 2005, we are always ready to open our archives and support an objective study together with Armenian Scientist on the issue. Do you know the Armenian answer to that? As I emphasis, we do not "deny" the fact, we admit thousands of Armenians were killed and died to poor conditions Ottoman government provided at that time but all those Diaspora is not letting us present our apologies and offers because every single time we appear to calming down on the issue, we are forced to accept "1.5 million were killed systematically as a part of a brutal Genocide". User:Okan Arcan
Can you imagine that if every time a Jewish person tried to express their grief over loss of family and friends in the Holocaust a German would confront them and start bandying about claims of how the Jews acted to undermine Germany, how Jews rebelled in the Warsaw Ghetto, how Jews killed Germans in retribution or as part of the armies of the Allied forces etc and so on and so forth (and that in fact no Holocaust of any sort actually ever took place and how insulting to Germans to claim that they killed 6 million Jews). Think about it. In the meantime I should say I find the greater part of your post here quite disengenuous. --THOTH 17:20, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
I must say that there are several differences between the Holocaust and the “Armenian Genocide”. The point you raise is one that reaches out to the heart, not the brain. The reason this article is being disputed is because of emotions, and you attempt to make the victims martyrs. It is very important to bring up the fact that the Jewish people did not do anything to challenge the German government; they were simply used as a scapegoat. The Armenian people did join the enemy of the Ottoman Empire in combat situations, and retaliation against them was legal. But not to put too much emphasis on who did what, the truth is that things were done on both sides. Your example seeks to doubt this claim by highlighting Nazi attempts to spread propaganda, yet there is no FACT such a claim can stand ground. There are FACTS to support the Armenian-Ottoman conflicts existed, so the point you raised is invalid. Having the enemy shoot at you gives you full reason to engage them in combat situation if you are a soldier; being fired upon is all the reason needed. So while a Nazi can say the Jewish people brought the fall of the first great Germany or something of the sort, it is a simple retort. Simple retorts hold no ground, and mentioning how people on a separate issue may retort does not rebuke any single argument given by either side. ahmetrock
Let me just ask: do you guys have any idea how many Turks (non-soldiers) died by murder and forced deportation during the same period Armenians were wrongly killed and deported? I'd like to know. Hint: at least as many as the Armenians that died in the "genocide" and the Hamidian Massacres.
My great-great grandmother was a Circassian refugee from the Caucasus. As one eminent historian wrote, the "genocide" (if you'll use it) of those peoples is the closest match to what happened to the Armenians. (A genocide, if we'll use it for both.) As we know, the Russian Armenians (not those of Anatolia) were very involved with the Russians in massacring and deporting these people. If I adopt the language, I'm a descendant of a genocide survivor, and I'm part of the Circassian diaspora.
So, don't be surprised if you don't learn about the "Armenian Genocide" in a US high school -- cause you sure as h*ll won't learn about the Turks in the Caucasus, or anything else about the Ottoman Empire. And it's the campaigning for recognition of the pains of the Armenian people, while ignoring nearly identical (and often worse) fates suffered by other races in the same place at the same time, that engenders such hostility from intelligent people. They say recognize both, not just one. Or leave it in the history books.
In which case case, to respond to the OP, you won't ever learn about it in American HS, because there a multitude of more important history that's also left out. (Unless, as noted, there's a lot of Armenians locally, in which case politics will control history. Charming and appropriate. It's weird how it got a "sadly" if the Turks interfere, but not when Armenians do.)
--24.5.70.65 16:49, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Reckless American Political Grandstanding

On October 10, 2007 the United States House of Representatives will debate and vote on a measure categorizing as genocide and condemning the Ottoman Turk Empire despite the fact that this will certainly anger the Turks and could easily cost the lives of American military personnel. This move is nothing more than reckless politics. It is also a misguided and poorly timed attempt to occupy the moral high ground in American politics. That it may well overwhelm good sense is now very apparent. The timing simply couldn't be worse. Consider: 1) this measure could easily cost the Democratic Party congressional seats; 2) it might doom a democratic Presidential candidate should it succeed in disconnecting American military forces in Europe from those in Southwest Asia; 3) France lost comparable military cooperation in Turkey under very similar circumstances. This is a blip on the radar for most Americans, but it represents a slap in the face to the Turk on the street. If we seek to further deteriorate the present crisis in the Middle East, this measure will accomplish that. Sadly, nothing can bring back the 1-2 million Armenians murdered. As is also the case with many Japanese abuses, there is enough historical evidence and scholarship scattered all over the globe to prevent our world and posterity from ever forgetting this sad chapter in the history of mankind. see Rice: House 'genocide' resolution on Armenia 'very problematic' —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saseigel (talk • contribs) 16:28, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

americans dont care about a genocide that happend in ww1 we barely care about the genocides going on today nobody will lose any seats by declaring anything about this topic —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.105.61.81 (talk) 10:51, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
You mention that it may lose Democrats seats... I doubt that. As you pointed out, from a "practical" point of view, it's not a good idea for our *country*, with regard to the possibility of losing, for a while, at least, what is currently a useful ally, and potentially a very useful ally.
But, I wonder why you think that Democrats will lose seats because of it. I think there are so many Armenians who would vote on for a candidate solely because of supporting this measure that it could overwhelm the number of Americans who would be aware of the consequences, even if they were incurred.
Or, perhaps the Armenians are too clustered to affect a large number of congressional elections?
And, in response to the second guy: you're right, I don't think people really care. I think the Americans should worry about plucking the own log from their eyes by recognizing how wrong Hiroshima and Nagasaki were for the civilian lives lost, rather than troubling about the mote in their neighbor's eye by condemning a non-existent Empire for the civilians it killed. Death is part of history, anyhow, it's everywhere. Picking and choosing pieces of history to condemn in an arbitrary way like this is absurd and sounds like racism to the people condemned.
I'd like to hear about a single country, empire, or people of significance in history that hasn't been responsible for the deaths of many civilians during times of war and desperation. They don't exist.
Or, if they do, they're certainly not the Armenians or the Americans. Firing the first shot AND casting the first stone. Christians amaze me sometimes.

--24.5.70.65 04:18, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Recognition of the Armenian Genocide

The "Recognition of the Armenian Genocide" section reads more like someones arguments for why it would be a bad idea for the USA to recognise the genocide.

Phrases such as "This measure has a high probablility of resulting in immediate negative impacts on the lives and welfare of American troops stationed in the Middle East." are used without being backed p by any sources.

I suggest the section is stripped back to just the facts, which are currently rather overtaken by speculation. 82.36.106.9 17:57, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Added current tag

I've tagged this article the section on recognition as current due to the large amount of coverage generated by the recent US House committee vote and its potential impact on U.S./Turkish diplomatic relations. If there is consensus to remove it, I will do so. Ronnotel 12:45, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

No mention of "civil war" in article. Remains unbalanced.

I don't see how one can call this a genocide. If a large group of people arm themselves and try to take over a government or take land to "liberate" themselves from a government they disagree with, I think that would be better termed a civil war.

I noticed that this article is not balanced. Represents only one side.

Perhaps if it were broken into two short summaries - one the claim and the other the counter claim - both well sourced. Then go into depth over the arguments after the summaries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Weedmic (talk • contribs) 13:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

It's difficult to argue "civil war", when there were hundreds of thousands of Armenians serving in the Ottoman army, and no Armenian army per se. Still, there should be more background as to the Armenians of the Russian Empire serving Russia in the Caucasus campaigns.
This is perhaps one of the points that falls through partisan arguments: that there was not some united Armenian people, rather Ottoman Armenians often serving in Ottoman forces and Russian Empire Armenians often serving in Russian forces. The phrase "Armenian Genocide" refers to the robbing and killing of a million people for their being Armenian, regardless of political orientation. Even if one were to contend that the actions of revolution-minded Armenian political activists constituted "civil war", I don't think that would in any event justify the deliberate and systematic killing of hundreds of thousands of innocent people merely for their Armenian identity. DBaba 13:39, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I also agree with you. Nothing was justified. Including the Armenian massacres of Turks! But don't you think that "the actions of revolution-minded Armenian political activists" -- which consisted of massacres of Turks -- which is what a genocide is made of -- don't you think those should be noted in a page about the Armenian genocide? The Turks killed Armenians "for their being Armenian, regardless of political orientation". But guess what? The Armenians, also, killed Turks for their being Turkish, "regardless of political orientation". (During that period, and since, they've also killed numerous Armenians because of their political orientation.) The terrorist groups formed with the goal of killing enough people to gain an Armenian state in Anatolia. Period. Terror was explicitly mentioned, from the beginning. They killed Turks and Armenians -- the Turks were slaughtered wholesale (and not just by card-carrying Dashnaks and the rest, but by those sympathizing with the cause, and, in the end, mostly in response to the massacres against Armenians which followed the beginning of the Armenian terrorist organizations enacting their violent agenda. Still, no question remains that the violence between Turks and Armenians started with the Armenians terrorist organizations engaging in violent terrorism, beginning in the 1880's, before the first massacre against Armenians in the 1890's.) So, it doesn't matter that every single Armenian didn't join the Russians -- because this isn't about justifying anything. (And the murderous actions of the Armenians against women and children, and men -- non-combatant civilains -- which is documented by Russians, English, and Armenians [and others, I'm sure] -- were never justified either, just for the record. There were no heroes at Van, just murderers.)
I think this is the problem. People think that talking about the atrocities committed by Armenians is about justification. It's not. What happened to them remains horrible and unjustified. I'd also call it a genocide if I thought that furthered the cause of actually communicating what happened there -- I'd announce to the world that genocide occurred with the Armenians as victims, if I had the stage. But I'd also tell the world about the massive deaths of Turks at the hands of Armenians that occurred at the same time, in the same ways (massacre and displacement). And, if one is a genocide, the other is one, too -- or if it doesn't fit the technical definition because Armenia wasn't a country, then it was just as bad as a genocide, that's for sure.
Either deny the atrocities committed by Armenians against Turks or include them in the page. That's the moral of the story. So, which is it?

--24.5.70.65 20:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC) My point was that since one side (the Turkish one) says that the Armenians were killed because they took up arms against the government and were killed in a civil war it ought to be mentioned in the article. The lack of mentioning it at all means it is quite one sided. Also, according to Turkey, only a small fraction of those claimed to be slaughtered were in fact killed by turks and that the large majority died of other causes such as hunger and disease caused after the fighting. I was not there and don't know what happened, but I have read both sites by Armenians (and the posters they keep posting on walls in Jerusalem) and stuff by the Turkish government. A well balanced article would include BOTH these arguments with supporting documentation so people could try to figure out what really happened. My best guess is both sides are exaggerating in their best interests. Once the article is balanced the participants can argue out the fine points such as "so and so" is not a good reference because of "such and such". After some debate on that, a clearer more truthful picture of what happened will emerge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Weedmic (talk • contribs) 19:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Really, the idea that somehow this is one side versus the other, Armenian versus Turkish views, that's part of the revisionist game itself. This article references the views and eyewitness accounts of nationals of Germany, Austria-Hungary, Denmark, Sweden, USA, Turkey, Israel, and probably more, all of whom see more or less the same thing. If there are more views, they should certainly be included. But the article should not be drawn up such that the entire world gets half a say, and Turkey the other half. That just doesn't make any sense. I certainly agree that Armenian scholars, who may be politically interested parties, should be kept out of the entry inasmuch as is possible.
This article includes many links to Turkish state documents and websites; the Republic of Turkey is constantly publishing new "research" on the subject, even going so far as to suggest that the Armenians committed genocide on the Turks.[1] Right there in the article, you have links to the Turkish Defense Department, the General Staff, embassies, and several independent revisionist websites. But to suggest that this is half the perspective available is problematic; the whole world witnessed these events. Turkey's perspective seems to be represented; I wonder if you understand how nationalist the bent of politics is in modern Turkey...[2]
But I agree that the article could use a lot of improvement! You can help! DBaba 20:36, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps Goebbles views should be included in the Holocaust article - you know - for balance...--THOTH 17:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
What about the eyewitness accounts of Armenians slaughtering Muslims, such as in Van? Tons of accounts, by Russians and British, during WW1 and following it -- are you claiming that the Russians and British were helping spread propaganda for Turkey? And you have to be honest about another thing: much of the pro-Armenian propaganda that circulated in the West was absolute rubbish. The Armenians of that time were -- and this is in their own words, and I can give you the references -- trying to attract Westerners to their cause BY 1) INCITING VIOLENCE AND 2) SIMPLY CLAIMING VIOLENCE OCCURRED THAT HAD NEVER HAPPENED. I'm speaking of the terrorists, Dashnaks and Hunchaks.
The idea that there is no unbiased documentation of Armenian massacres on unarmed Turks -- which is what the genocide against the Armenians consisted of, i.e. massacres (so, if one is a genocide, the other walks and talks like a genocide, too -- ethnically motivated killings -- you call 'em what you like, I just want the story told, I'm not interested in loaded vocabulary when we could talk facts).
So, there is two sides to this. And there is, again, tons and tons of non-Turkish, "unbiased", including Armenian, including primary, documentation of massacres against Turks. Absolute "crimes against humanity" committed by the Armenians. Just like the atrocities the Turks committed.
The two sides aren't contradictory, either. Look at the two sides, above. Instead of one occurring, they both occurred. They're two sides of a single coin, two ways of telling a single story. It's when you put them together that you get the actual truth, not when you disregard one of the sides.
The sides are as follows. Side 1: Armenians killed Turks Side 2: Turks killed Armenians.
This page is dedicated (meaning its purpose, not meanings it's a memorial, although it often seems that way) to the deaths of the Armenians. Fine. It uses the term genocide which I think is misleading because the term "genocide" makes people assume that Side 1 never occurred. If Side 1 is explicitly noted, I have no problem with the term genocide.
The problem with this page is that it doesn't *note* side 1. Side 1 deserves its own page. And the page shouldn't be called "denial of the genocide". It should be called "Ethnic Cleansing of Muslims in the Ottoman Empire", which I believe is also the title of a book.
You're right, the whole world did witness these events. You're wrong, however, when you state that the historians are wrong when they claim that the Armenians did the same things to the Turks which the Armenians call genocide. (Although, perhaps, since Armenia wasn't a real country you can't claim they had a government to plan a genocide, which is one of the requirements according to some definitions of genocide. I don't think that makes what the Armenians did any less wrong, however.)
The problem with this article is that it doesn't note the fact that there was horrible atrocities committed by Armenians -- outright massacres and population displacement which led to death -- and link to a page which speaks about this.
What happened to the Armenians, happened. And, for the most part, this page is good about telling what happened to them. However, it's just leaving out part of the relevant historical "background" (the massacres of Turks are actually in the foreground, if you ask me). And at every turn it makes the Turks look like villains and the Armenians look like heroes and/or victims. The problem is that the Armenians were engaging in the same exact tactics as the Turks. They didn't manage to kill quite as many -- perhaps only half as many -- but you're still talking about massive death.
Both deserve recognition. I'm going to work on a page that documents the deaths of civilain Turks during this period, from a variety of causes -- but much of those deaths were at the hands of the Armenians. And that, absolutely, without question, should be mentioned on this page.
I'm not a denier. I don't think the page needs to be removed. I don't even think it needs to be re-titled(!) -- as long as the deaths of the Turks at the hands of Armenians -- Armenians who committed terrible, atrocious, acts against Turks -- are also noted. Neither side had justification for the atrocities they committed, that's not what this is about. It's about telling the history, and giving relevant background information.
E.g., we tell how the Indians massacred Custer even as we speak of the deaths that the Indians suffered.
How can we not talk about the deaths the Turks suffered at the hands of the Armenians -- which are well within an order of magnitude of the deaths the Armenians suffered from intentional Turkish actions, unlike the deaths of Americans at the hands of Indians?
How?
I said it elsewhere, but I'll say it here: there's two answer to that question. Either you deny the Armenians did these things, or you claim they're not relevant. To me, saying they're not relevant is absurd. If you claim the first, I want to hear more. And don't just claim propaganda... You must have something more substantial, because, as I said above, there are numerous "unbiased" (mostly from Western powers who were eagerly awaiting the fall of the Turks or actively fighting the Turks, or occupying Turkey following WW1) sources. They sure as hell weren't biased in favor of the Turks -- we're talking about Russians and Englishmen and Armenians who wrote in depth about the massacres of Turks by Armenians. And I'll provide references if anyone will have this dialogue with me. I honestly want to know what the position of educated people who press for "genocide recognition" is -- do you admit the documented atrocities committed by Armenians against unarmed, non-combatant Turkish citizenry? We Turks admit the atrocities against the Armenians. I think if you scratch a little, even behind more ardent so-called "deniers", they deny little -- they just want it to be recognized that the Armenians committed acts just as atrocious as the Turks committed, although the Turks succeeded in killing perhaps two or three times more Armenians. Both groups had lots of blood on their hands.
So, read the question as I posed it above. How? How?!?!
I honestly want an answer to that. I want to know what the obviously studious, intelligent, and educated men and women who work on this page have to say about that. I'm looking for dialogue, not hateful rhetoric. Thanks for your time and excuse my style where it fails -- I'm in a rush.

Best regards to Armenians, Turks, and otherwise as we work on our encyclopedia. --24.5.70.65 20:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Reason for protection

Should be given, and appropriate template used on main article page. If this was done due to Office Action, {{Pp-office}} should be used.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  21:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Grammar error

{{edit protected}} The the section "Recognition of the Armenian Genocide" is the line "22 countries, the constituent UK country of Wales, and 40 of the US states, have adopted formal resolutions acknowledging the Armenian Genocide as a bona fide historical event." The oroblem here is the number "22"; a sentence should never start with a numerical quanitity, that quantity should always be spelt out. Given as how this is currently on the main page, I suggest this be changed forthwith. 70.135.170.16 23:08, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Done. Ronnotel 02:12, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Hrant Dink

Article states: "Turkish-Armenian intellectual Hrant Dink (who recognized the Genocide) was often critical of these recognition campaigns as being unhelpful.[114]", however this is NOT what the reference cites in any capacity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.73.110.171 (talk) 23:39, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


Wales

I've removed Wales from the section about recognition by country. It struck me as rather odd that the Welsh Assembly would bother recognizing this or any other event of this nature. The Welsh Assembly is devolved from the Parliament of the UK but it has very limited powers. It does not have the power to make any kind of legislation regarding foreign relations. Trying to Google up something on this turns up this page which appears to relate to Cardiff Council. This is hardly recognition by Wales, and appears too trivial to stay in the article listed under Cardiff. Jooler 00:24, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I take it back http://www.assemblywales.org/hom-pdfviewer?url=n0000000000000000000000000003432 Jooler 00:39, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Article

It goes out of the way to insult to flash the words Islam and Turk.We know the Ottoman Empire was Islamic and Turkish.Thats like The Holocaust article going Millions of Jews died in the Nordic German country called Germany killed by the German people.Its like the guy writing this wanted some sort of revenge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Razgriz311 (talk • contribs) 16:02, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


Wrong translation

The turkish translation for Armenian Genocide ist not that right. In Turkey they use to say Sözde Ermeni Soykirimi which means quasi armenian genocide . Now some ppl. will just freak out and say "there was a genocide" but that's not the point. I mean no one uses "ermeni soykirimi" they always say "sözde ermeni soykirimi" that's the "official" translation. That's just a suggestion. Greetings --Azec 01:13, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

This is reminiscent of the terminology used in the Federal Republic of Germany to refer to the Democratic Republic of Germany - Die sogenante DDR - the so-called democratic republic. It was definitely political and by Wikipedia standards it would have been considered POV if someone introduced "so-called" into the article about the DDR, even though that's what most people in the Federal Republic called it. I think the same applies in this case. Harry was a white dog with black spots 15:33, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Morgenthau

Dear Admins, please delete the following paragraph: "Some Germans openly supported the Ottoman policy against the Armenians, as the German naval attaché in Constantinople said to U.S. Ambassador Henry Morgenthau; "I have lived in Turkey the larger part of my life," he told me, "and I know the Armenians. I also know that both Armenians and Turks cannot live together in this country. One of these races has got to go. And I don't blame the Turks for what they are doing to the Armenians. I think that they are entirely justified. The weaker nation must succumb. The Armenians desire to dismember Turkey; they are against the Turks and the Germans in this war, and they therefore have no right to exist here."[65]"

Morgenthau's book "Ambassador Morgenthau's Story" - the quote is taken from it - is a crude piece of propaganda to drum up support for the American war effort. It is not only biased, but Morgenthau also made up crucial facts.

Please compare the article of Henry Morgenthau, Sr. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.59.133.60 (talk) 22:24, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

A current event?

Just curious, how can a genocide taken place some 90 years ago be a "current event"? Is it still going on? If not, I'm removing it. Feel free to restore it in case it stands for a purpose.

Wikinist 15:49, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Presumably, the current event tag was put there because of the current political and diplomatic argument concerning US congressional recognition of the genocide. Lurker (said · done) 16:33, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Lurker, thats not justify the tag you added! This article is not dedicated to the US congressional recognition, but the Genocide happened 90 years ago. And such a tag is already added to the "Recognition of Armenian Genocide" section. Last 30 years different countries parliaments continuosly are recognizing the Armenian Genocide, it never means we must keep this tag for decades...Andranikpasha 16:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Move request of denialist quote to Denial of Armenian Genocide article

I think the following line from the second section should be moved to the "Denial of the Armenian Genocide" article as it represents denialist propapagnda of the Ottoman state during the genocide:

The New York Times quoted a Turkish embassy gazette in 1896 that stated: "It wasn't the Porte that caused the massacres in Armenia, but the Christian propaganda in Asia Minor where their cry, "Down with Islam," initiated the war of the crescent against the cross." [13]

This type quote has NO place in the second section of an Armenian Genocide article. This propaganda was made by Ottoman officials to deny the Armenian genocide as it was occurring. 67.101.234.96 16:27, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Agree, but mostly because the quote concerned the 1896 massacres, not the Armenian Genocide. For the same reason I've removed the sentences that recounted a specific incident during the 1909 Adana massacres, they seemed out of place in an general entry about the Armenian genocide. Meowy 21:39, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't agree. The Adana massacre and the Armenian genocide are issues that are very much related. The quote above is from an official Ottoman Turkish source which is spreading false propaganda while the massacres were taking place, in order to justify them. Serouj 06:06, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

A CALL FOR FAIRNESS

Bull, not only the Turkish government denies that a genocide took place. Numerous intellectuals and the majority of that large Turkish population feel that calling what happened a genocide is ridiculous. HUGE NUMBERS OF MUSLIMS, ARMENIANS, AND OTHERS DIED AS AN EMPIRE CRUMBLED. THE ARMENIANS JOINED THE RUSSIANS, THEIR OWN COUNTRY'S ENEMY, EITHER AS REGULAR OR UNOFFICIAL FORCES. How is this exluded? Would we not mention if the Jews had taken arms against the Nazis inside of a Holocaust article?

People, I beg of you, GIVE EQUAL TIME and DO NOT PREFIX EVERY OPINION OR PIECE OF EVIDENCE THAT CONTRADICTS THE "ARMENIAN POSITION" WITH THE USE OF "DENIAL" AS AN EPITHET.

Again, tons of people of all groups died during that period. Armenians killed Muslims during that period. They took over the city of Van during that period and by the 20's, half the muslim population was dead. Is this getting through your heads?

If you don't dispute the killings of the Muslims, and you don't dispute the fact that in Istanbul and Western Anatolia-- where genocide would've been most easily organized because Ottoman control was still strong -- no large numbers of deaths occurred, how can you claim that it was an organized and intentional act on the part of the government?

Did the Jews kill any Germans during the Holocaust? No? Really? Huh... Sounds like a significant difference between what happened to Armenians in Anatolia and what happened to Jews in Germany.

So, if there were Armenians fighting against Ottomans as plain-clothes soldiers, organized into militias, and also joining in large numbers with the Russians fighting the Ottomans, AND comparable percentages of the total Muslim (and Turkish, in particular) and Armenian population lost during the period, how can you call it genocide??!?!?!

Both sides killed each other! THAT IS NOT A HOLOCAUST, AND IF YOU CALL IT A GENOCIDE, THEN A GENOCIDE TOOK PLACE AGAINST THE MUSLIMS, TOO. Simple argument: 1) The Armenians fought against the Ottomans militarily as part of their own militias and after joining with the Russians. 2) Equivalent percentages of the total populations of both Turks (and other Muslims) and Armenians died during the period.

If you don't disagree with these facts, how can you really go on like this, diminishing at every turn the suggestions that what happened in the crumbling empire was a complex tragedy which resulted in the loss of lives of people of all ethnic groups and that no ethnic group engineered, some terrible deed borne out of hatred, an act like the holocaust, but that instead steadily increasing mutual enmity and fear drove a series of brutal and desparate acts on both sides.

Please, guys, this is disgraceful. Tell of the Armenian tragedy and the Muslim tragedy. And if you can't tell the "Muslim side" yourself, then allow it to referenced in the article without disparaging it. That is not neutral!

Somebody asked above, they said something like, "We wouldn't give Holocaust denials that sort of treatment in the Holocaust entry. Why give it here?"

Well, the answer is that this is a different issue! The characterization of these events as a genocide is, believe it or not (and probably not after reading this ridiculously biased article), very much contested! It's not a lunatic fringe like Holocaust deniers, either, and it's not just Turks.

If you just gave a significant amount of space, a decent section, to a relatively complete look at the claims and evidence the "Muslim side" has to present, this article would be just fine, even though I would still find the majority of material biased. But, that's pretty much all you're going to find on a topic as touchy as this -- biased material. And that's OK -- AS LONG AS YOU LET BOTH SIDES BE HEARD without poisoning the neutrality with WEASEL WORDS.

For example, no criticism of the biases of the sources used to support the notion a genocide occurred are included. However, criticism of sources that support the notion a genocide did not occur is ever present! Do you see?

On the other hand, this article was very moving, and rightly so. It was a nasty time. But in this article a serious and fair telling of the "Muslim side" of the story must be told, the story of the deaths of the Muslims, and the military rebellion against their own state by the Armenians. (I'm not saying their rebellion wasn't understandable, but it remains a rebellion, and rebellions tend to invite squelching. Characterizing Armenian deaths that follow the deaths of Turks as genocide is ridiculous.)

And the funny thing is that Armenians often celebrate how they stood up to the Ottomans, about their rebellion. Yet, in the article about their supposed "genocide", no mention is made of the fact that they bore weapons against their own country. How can this be? It's absurd. If there was a Jewish militia that was fighting on the side of the US, would we consider their deaths to be part of the Holocaust? I think not. They'd be casualties of war, not of the Holocaust.

I've said it many different ways. Please don't be so one-sided and biased. This is how things like the non-genocidal loss of Armenian and Turkish and Kurdish life happen, in the first place: logic and fairness towards others go out the window, and humanity doesn't take long to follow once reason is lost ...

--24.5.70.65 15:05, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

There is considerable academic scholarship on the Armenian Genocide. If you feel that a genocide did not take place, then I suggest you become an academician and try to present your claims in an international peer-reviewed journal. FYI It is not true that Armenians of the Ottoman Empire joined the Russians; there were Armenians living in both the Russian and the Ottoman Empire at the time, and the Armenian Revolutionary Federation had a specific policy of having Armenians fight for the side they were living on. This effectively pitted Armenian against Armenian within the armies they were fighting for. However, on the Ottoman side, the Armenians in the Ottoman Army were not given arms and were forced into labor battalions and later killed. My great-grandfather and my grandfather's two brothers both were part of these battalions, and never returned. Serouj 22:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Sorry 24.5.70.65 - Historians and scholars disagree with your "so-called" "facts". If you are so interested in a fair treatment of this issue I suggest that you first educate yourself beyond the (untrue) Turkish Government propoganda level treatment of these issues. sad. I just want to add that there is one significant difference between your contentions concerning the differences between accusations concerning Jews an WWII and those you present against Armenians here that needs to be noted. And that is - the Germans of today no longer believe the racist propoganda, exaggerations and untruths that their genocidal regiem perpetuated against the Jews. Unfortunatly the same cannot be said regarding the Turks of today - such as yourself - who continue to believe - lock stock & barrel - in the lies and untruths purpetrated against their "hated minority" the Armenians from the time where Turks were incited against them and undertook a methodical genocidal campaign with the intention of eliminating them from the political & social landscape of the nation. Armenian Genocide denial is only not contained among the "lunitic fringe" - as you say - like Holocaust denial - because of the perpetuation of such by the Turkish Government. Factualy - there is no difference. Denial of the Armenian Genocide is just as factually incorrect and just as repulsive and wrong as denial of the Holocaust. Is this really who you want to be? --THOTH 17:04, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Hitler on Persians and Armenians...

"Nations which did not get rid of the Jews perished. One of the most famous examples of this was the downfall of a people who were so proud — the Persians, who now lead a pitiful existence as Armenians." I do not find one single German source for this quote and doubt the authenticity. --KnightMove 12:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right. And the quote about Hitler referencing the Armenians was considered unverified and unverifiable by those who've looked into it after WW2. Presented like fact here, though, big surprise! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.5.70.65 (talk) 17:59, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

On latest rewrite of intro and background context

Before anyone jumps to click on the "History" tab revert my edit, hear me out. I have essentially copy + pasted several months worth of work that includes a much more detailed LEAD section, background, context, up until the Young Turk Revolution and the massacres in Adana. Much of the sources are based on respected scholars including Vahakn Dadrian and Taner Akcam; I really doubt most editors are going to have any problems with this, but, for the sake of running around in circles, please do not introduce the argument that they are biased, fraudulent, deceptive, traitorous historians by pointing us to some Turkish-run website. If there are some actual, concrete examples of errors and conflicting details, don't hesitate to post it. Regards to everyone, --Marshal Bagramyan 02:42, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't like the new version. This entry is supposed to be about the Armenian Genocide itself, not a series of events you believe relevant to the genocide. I find the intro to be too long; the first sentence in particular is of absurd length.
Those numbers in the intro are a problem as well. They are contested figures you've presented as facts. The Abdul Hamid picture does not belong. Young Turk Rev and Adana either don't belong or are too large. It introduces all kinds of problems, and reads more like a laundry list of Ottoman ills against Armenians than a focused presentation of the actual Armenian Genocide. I agree with the comment that "1453" is a bizarre thing to include; seems prejudiced, to pretend that that is somehow relevant. DBaba 14:26, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
I like the new intro - but has it already been edited? - I don't see much of what others here seem to think is objectionable. However when the postion of some editors here is that a balanced treatment of the Armenian Genocide is one that portrays Armenians as the instigators killing great numbers of Turks - one can understand how they are going to object to anything actualy factual in the article.--THOTH 14:59, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

One of the ridiculous canards the denialists base their position on is that Armenians and Turks were living happily together for 600 years before the genocide. The introduction is to show that is nothing but bullocks; there were countless grievances the Ottoman government and its Kurdish and Muslim acolytes committed against non-Muslims long before the genocide.

These sections are relevant to the Genocide. The reason some Armenians decided to desert in 1915 was they had gotten sick of the treatment imposed by the Turks, that Armenians had no good reason to remain loyal to the Ottomans during the war but but they still remained loyal. The genocide cannot be understood at all if you don't have these important sections. Pick up any book about it, whether it be Melson, or Dadrian, or Akcam, or Balakian -- they'll all include lengthy details of what conditions Armenians were living in before then. The 1453 figure is simply to state when the Ottoman Empire really began growing.

You cannot truly expect readers to be well-informed experts about all the details and just leave the context out. What happens if this is their first visit and they want to know what the Ottoman Empire was? who Sultan Hamid was, what the conditions were....This isn't a scholarly journal, you're writing this for people who have virtually little to some knowledge on the subject at hand.--Marshal Bagramyan 18:11, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Somebody deleted my posting re: the misattribution in the section on Turkey's standpoint???

To the anonymous flamer 24.5.70.65: you can take it up on the individual's talk page, if there's something you want to talk about. This page is clearly marked:

This is the talk page for discussing changes to the Armenian Genocide ARTICLE. Please place discussions on the underlying political issues on the Arguments page. Non-editorial comments on this talk page may be removed by other editors.

This means you've been violating policy a long time, and no one could be bothered to talk to you. You and Thoth can go on over to Arguments and fling as much feces at each other as you like, but here we talk only about the article. Thanks for playing. DBaba 21:41, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Please read my post in whole. This is a request for an edit, in case you're blind. (Just as the post that was already deleted was.) Also, I touch on the deletion of my article in the second para., i.e. the one directly below this one. Skip that if you didn't delete my post!
You guys are absolutely crazy for deleting my post. MY POST HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THOTH. IT WAS A REQUEST FOR AN EDIT -- THE MOST FUNDAMENTAL USE OF THE TALK PAGE WHEN AN ARTICLE IS LOCKED!-- IT WAS A SUBSTANTIVE POST REQUESTING AN EDIT TO A SENTENCE WHICH IS MISLEADING. (EVEN THOTH SEEMED TO THINK THE SENTENCE SHOULD BE DELETED -- IT MUST AT LEAST BE FIXED.)


Now the edit:
Here it is, one more time. This time, actually read and respond TO THE REQUEST FOR AN EDIT: The website of the Turkish General Staff also offers many of its own publications intended to bolster denial of the Armenian Genocide. One such example defines the Armenians as "an incapable, parasite and greedy nation that can live only at another nation's expense."[117]
Clearly, a reader of this is going to assume that if the "Turkish General staff offers many of its own publications", then the publications were not only published, but also written by the Turkish General Staff, a person they contracted -- or at the very least a modern day Turk.
The fact is that the manuscript which the Turks published, the manuscript from which that quote came, was written by a Russian General who fought in a mixed Russo-Armenian unit against the Turks in WW1!!!! And anyone can see this by following the link provided on the Wiki. That's how I found out. That is not what readers are going to assume -- and believe me, many will assume something.
So, please, at the very least, change it to: "One such example, a manuscript of a World War 1 Russian General who fought with Armenian troops against the Turks, defines the Armenians as "an incapable, parasite and greedy nation that can live only at another nation's expense."[117]

ICTJ

ICTJ view section is not exactly accurate and it should be fixed. I have also a suggestion, I think we should create a section titled something like 'legality' or 'legal situation' and make ICTJ view a subsection, recognition by the countries another one. We are lucky we have a jurist among us now. DenizTC 05:42, 3 November 2007 (UTC) Also in that image of Genocide monument, people are there for the Darfur victims, we might need to change the summary. DenizTC 06:00, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

There are way too many POV issues in this article, like the one mentioned higher. As it stands, there are many sub-sections and sections which are filled with tit-for-tat parts far away from encyclopedic information. The whole intl recognition part is quite weird and way too confusing. Like what Pelosi said. Some parts of the article look like a newscast, or a piece written not to give historical information, but rather written with a fixed frame of mind to convey some sort of a "message". It would be nice if they can be weeded out. Baristarim 06:05, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Why does the history section go back all the way to 1453?? For a "background", it is way too long and could be an article onto itself. Taner Akcam's ramblings about the treatment of Armenians or Jews in the 16th century have absolutely no relation to the subject matter, not to mention the fact that they seem way too POV since they selectively overlook the fact that non-Muslims lived much more comfortably than Muslims or non-Christians in Europe. Jews fled Europe to Ottoman Empire, mind you. This coupled with the fact that the information on the existence of many, many prominent Armenians in the Empire are lacking, that section is POV. Also no information has been added on how Western powers used the non-Muslims in the Empire with the express intention of destabilizing it, not because of some Good Samaritan purposes. I am adding a POV tag. Baristarim 06:15, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
I just would like to note that I am not pointing these out to be a pain in the ass, but because I sincerely believe that there are POV issues on some parts of the article. The whole history section seems to be copied from a book, and doesn't engage in synthesis of information. There are absolutely no mentions of the presence of Armenians in the life of the Empire and there are way too anachronisms. Baristarim 06:27, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Taner Akçam's book is way too biased, since it selectively overlooks and avoids other very relevant information. For example: Fiachra Gibbons: Nor must we forget that Churchill urged the Armenians to rebel, with vague promises of support to divert manpower from his sorry mess in the Dardanelles [3] That quote is taken from a newspaper editorial, but written by a historian. There needs to be a major work to address the POV issues, until then the tag has to stay. Baristarim 06:32, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Taner Akcam's book is magnificent on the subject, I'm in the midst of it right now. You seem to be lying about having read it, eh? Because he certainly treats British appeals to the Armenians in A Shameful Act. There's a lot of material on the subject. On page 146 for instance:

The British had asked the Armenians to "revolt to make things more difficult for the government, and support the British by hindering [the government's] efforts to mobilize."

Are you lying about having read it to slander Akcam, because you're here for political reasons? A Shameful Act should be required reading for everyone in Anatolia and the Caucasus; to suggest that it's biased is transparently insincere. DBaba 14:06, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Dbaba, I would not expect this attack from you, the part Baris is mistaken on that "British had asked" quote seems to be correct but no need for the rest. In any case, we don't have that quote on the main article, right? Why not insert it, when it is so easy to find? Anyway, Taner Akcam might be reliable now, at least he is a historian, not a poet or something like that, but according to some, he does have some shaky past (change of opinion seems to matter in Bernard Lewis' case). Also, if it matters how a historian or his department is funded, we have some issues there with Akcam, along with his fellow U Minnesota colleague, German history expert Weitz, the Arsham and Charlotte Ohanessian Chair in the College of Liberal Arts. In section "Academic views", the introduction to Justin McCarthy is 'nice' as well. I am not aware of "speaking of Armenian Genocide" being illegal in Turkey, you might face Kerincsiz though. The placement of info about Hrant Dink's murder in Academic views section raises questions as well. This was just about one section. Baris seems to be right in most of his points. He is a well-established editor who hadn't edited for some months. DenizTC 22:12, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
I was somewhat incited by THOTH as well, but I'll keep this message of mine for a while, there are some useful points regarding that section. My opinion is all these historians are reliable, but same standards should be applied everywhere (certainly more 'prominent' historian might get more of a coverage, but we see the opposite here). Another point about the section is it gives the impression that it is written to make connections to the Holocaust. DenizTC 22:22, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
I never said that Akçam was not a historian, or that he couldn't be mentioned. however some entire parts of the article seem to be copied from books - which is not the point of an encyclopedia. In any case, what you said about Akçam's book being good doesn't exactly address what I was trying to say earlier: The whole history section is bloated, and most parts of it seem to be copied from the book of one or two authors, and that it selectively overlooks many parts of what happened.
Deniz is right, if Akçam's book includes a part on British incitations of Armenians to rebel, why is it not included? I have also provided another quite above. That info is conspicously absent from a "background" section that stretches all the way back to 1453. That's what I mean by "selective" overlooking. I should have made clear that it wasn't only Akçam's book which did that, but the contents of this article also show such a tendency. I wasn't lying about reading about Akçam's book: I didn't fully read it - just chapters of it from scanned pdf files which a friend sent me via an internet group. But I know how it proceeds to analyze the issue from the structure of the book, and I think (obviously this is only my opinion) that it does selectively overlook and always sway into a position conforming to his pre-set ideas and suppositions when there is not decisive proof to confirm a proposition. I don't want to debate Akçam's views on the British involvement. Obviously Churchill incited Armenians to rebel, but what does Akçam know about his motivations?
But, that's irrelevant in any case: the point is the POV tag. Right off the bat the history section is of poor quality, with confused notions of causality and selective overlooking of important aspects. Why is it not mentioned that the British incited Armenians to rebel for example? Or the history of Western involvement in inciting ethnic rebellions in the Empire to destabilize it? Or other points I mentioned before? If we are going to go back to 1453, we should also include how Jews fleeing Spain were welcomed in 1492. That seems fair since the background section does mention how the Jews were treated in the 16th/17th century. That's POV, that's all I am saying. The whole "life under the Ottoman" sub-section is POV and unbalanced.Baristarim 02:05, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
What is interesting and should be noted - if indeed such a quote attributed to Churchill is included in the article - is that the Armenian community entirely rejected this call for rebellion - there was no rebellion - there were no actions taken to assit the British by undermining Ottoman authority (though there doies exist Turkish propoganda claiming such...of course with no particulars given - nor did Armenians of the Empire have any actual means to incite a rebellion if indeed they ever had wanted to.--THOTH 21:03, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, what is important is not the subjective analysis of empirical data, but the creation of a NPOV article for encyclopedic purposes. My points about the history section is not just about the British involvement. Since the history section goes back all the way to 1453 (which it shouldn't anyways), there needs to be a much more neutral and comprehensive approach for all that period (which is basically all of Ottoman rule). The wider context is completely overlooked: The British involvement in inciting ethnic rebellions in the Empire is a far cry away from the fantasy theories of a few fringe authors, in fact it is a proven fact. All the way from 1812-1922 in Greece to the other groups in the Balkans, the Arab tribes in the Middle East and some Kurdish tribes during WW1 and the 20s and 30s (for the Kurds) is very well documented. The article cannot overlook this, particularly when there are many claims of British attempts at inciting the Armenians to rebel. This selective overlooking forms the main POV problem for that particular history section, imo. Baristarim 03:53, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure if you understand or not but the history of this issue - of the Armenian experience within the Ottoman EMpire, of the various political movements against the Sultan (and of the abuses and negligence of the porte and its governing or lack thereof) and of various roles of Western power involvement in the politics (and economics) of the Ottoman Empire during its last century and 1/2 of decline - well proper presentation and discusion of these issues goes far beyond what is possible in this type of an article. And what you are proposing is in itself a skewed view that is designed to minimize the Armenian suffering and negate the truth of the Armenian Genocide which you see to wish to be supressed. I am all for a more balanced an indepth treatment of these issues - and have stated such numerous times in the past - but as long as we have outright Genocide deniers continually attempting to push their agenda I have come to the conclusion that such is not really going to be possible.--THOTH 04:02, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
BTW there was no actual British attempt to get Armenians to rebel - more just a pipe dream. I encourage you to provide us with any details of such a British effort to ferment Armenian rebellion (name of the plan, agents and their activities in carrying it out, examples of its effectiveness etc) aside from a brief mention that such a thing might be a good idea...an idea that was dropped out of utter non-startability. Armenians (where it counted in Wesern and South Western Anatolia) had neither the means nor desire to rebel or suceed from the Empire - in fact they were reletively prosperous and content and at least hopeful for progressive change. Aside from a very few student radicals no Armenians were talking rebellion and (prior to the end of the war - prio r to Turkey's defeat and the aftermath of the Genocide) no (significant numbers of) Armenians believed in any possiility of an Armenian state being carved out of the Anatolian heartland in the midst of overwhelming numbers of Turks.--THOTH 04:20, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I am aware that the article has constraints on length. My point was about selective overlooking. I don't see how the treatment of Jews in the 16th century is relevant. If it is relevant, then why not mention the refuge of Jews in 1492? There needs to be a more comprehensive, but concise, and balanced approach to the history section, for starters. And less elaborations on any assumptions on my pyshological state. I am not responsible for, or concerned by, the edits and motivations of any other editor. POV-issues are a regular occurence on Wiki, but I have personally made my points in this case and that's all I am concerned about. Baristarim 04:27, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

On Baristarim's POV tag

A suggestion to Baristarim in connection with having put in a POV tag for the current version of the intro: Here, on the talk page, why not provide a sample rewrite of the intro to show how you believe the intro could be rewritten such that you would feel that the POV issues that you perceive in the intro were addressed and taken care of? Xenophon777 16:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

It was not just about the intro. I started taking a closer look at the article and as soon as I came across the history section, I saw what I thought were POV issues, which I mentioned above. I also think that the international recognition section is confused, which I also mentioned above. For example Pelosi's quote has no relation to the subject matter of this article. I don't feel I have such a command of the subject to to rewrite the intro, but I feel that the mention about the Armenian diaspora is also POV since it gives the impression as if no Armenian ever immigrated for economic or other reasons. One million Armenians from Armenia immigrated after 1992 for purely economic reasons. Armenians of Iran immigrated because of the Islamic revolution, Armenians of Lebanon immigrated because of the Civil War (even though most of them were exiled there in the first place), many Armenians living in the former Soviet Union, such as Russia and Eastern Europe also immigrated for eco or political reasons. All these represent a huge part, if not most, of the Armenian diaspora. All I am saying is that all these should be discussed in greater detail. Baristarim 02:13, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Your trivial and unimportant concerns are noted. As they have no actual bearing on the article itself - concerning themselves with events of 1992 and other times and places well beyond the Armenian Genocide - I suggest that the POV tag you placed here be removed as you obviously have no real factual issues but are only a denier of the Genocide trying to use any tactic available to squelch the truth of this matter. And i would ask that Dbaba and others who are removing my posts quit doing so. I am directly addressing suggeestions and contentions regarding the article's content and if you continue to delete my input I will have to take action against you.--THOTH 03:33, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Read my posts above about the history section of the article, it is not just about the comment about the diaspora. Baristarim 03:43, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Why is it when deniers of the Armenian Genocide comment on brief overviews and such concerning the Armenian Genocide they always claim that it is being presented out of context and that more background is necessary (and on these talk pages years ago I have stated agreement with this position in fact) however now - when some background is elaborated on you are critiquing it as being out of scope? Do you see why I am skeptical of your position and your rational? Likewise I can see that by mentioning the emigration from Armenia and war torn nations in the Middle East that have occured in the 80s/90s etc - you are attempting to insinuate that the same/similar took place from 1915-1918 - thus - in a sense denying the Armenian Genocide by (falsely) claiming that therse Million+ people were not massacred and delibertly killed but left of their own accord. (and BTW I have seen your comments elsewhere on this issue that make it very plain you completely and aggressively deny and justify the Armenian Genocide so I understand what you are attempting here). Until Turks such as yourself come to terms with this history - with the certain massive horrible crimes commited by and/or on direct orders from the Turkish government political aparatus - that resulted in a Holocaust for the Armenian people - unless you come clean with this - you cannot expect anyone to seriously address your various counter-claims and whinings concerning Turks as victims. Capiche?--THOTH 03:55, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Soapboaxing. Anything else? I have made my points in a way anyone would be able to understand. Try elaborating on them rather than on your perceptions of my psychological state :) Baristarim 04:19, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
A full and proper discusion of the Armenian Diaspora goes well beyond the scope of this article. However if one wished to introduce and discuss this issue further I would suggest that we include the history of the Diaspora begining in the early 19th century where Armenians were forced throguh various direct and indirect means to leave their homes and lands due to pressure from the Ottoman Government which undertook a deliberate campaign to move Kurds and Turks into lands that had historically been overwhelmingly Armenian and where discriminatory laws, taxes and predation upon Armenians made it near impossible for them to survive. This created the Armenian Diaspora and the Genocide was the culmination of this effort to once and for all solve to "Armenian Problem" (ie Armenians living on lands in Anatolia). If you wish to discuss the diaspora I would suggest that this history is far more relevant than introduing emigration from Lebanon in the 1980s or such.--THOTH 04:29, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't quite agree with your definition of "diaspora". By the way, let me just point out that I also don't want a detailed background of the Armenian diaspora in the intro, but I think that the sentence about the diaspora as it stands in the intro is misleading and POV.
Even though I know I will be engaging in soapboxing, let me point out to you that your definition of "diaspora" is extremely large. One of my grandparent's family fled Salonica 90 years ago for whatever ethnic reasons, but they do NOT comprise a "diaspora". If you don't apply that definition, we can consider the Armenians in Iran who have been living there for centuries, as a "diaspora". They are Armenians, but not "diaspora Armenians". The main problem, imo, is that the word "diaspora" itself is problematic and inherently POV.
Plus, your theory that all Armenian immigration throughout the centuries was because of discrimination is also flawed. Nearly all Armenians of Istanbul, for example, are (descendants of) Armenians who immigrated there for purely economic reasons since Istanbul was the economic capital of the Balkans and the Middle East for 15 centuries. People immigrate for many reasons, and unless you can establish a direct causality with a physical, or near physical, threat forcing immigration, then it is not "diaspora". That's just my two cents. Baristarim 04:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Baristarim, your POV tags are not justified. what you're trying to discuss is just a common discussion if your own POV is not better than the sourced article. so the POV tag should be deleted! Also, its a fact that from the 19th century only Armenians, Assyrians and other Christians were forced to leave their lands. Until you hadnt facts of f.e. mass Turkish emmigration from the Western Armenia/Anatolia we can call it a national discrimination! Andranikpasha 10:04, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Diaspora means people living outside of homeland. The fact that Genocide survivors comprise the bulk of the Diaspora is a well known, undisputed fact. Whether Istanbul Armenians live there due to discrimination has nothing to do with it.--TigranTheGreat 10:38, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Andranikpasha and Tigran, the pov tag wasn't at all about the diaspora comment. Please see the sub-section above for that discussion. That's where I left my points. The discussion about the diaspora came out after I responded to a comment by THOTH. This section is not about the pov tag. Again, please see the section above. I re-added the tag. We can get into the discussion about the "diaspora" much later in a more convenient time since it is a discussion about one sentence only and I don't want to get into a full debate about the ethnic movements in the former provinces of the Ottoman Empire in the 19th century and onwards since this is not truly the place to discuss it. Baristarim 04:57, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Just to briefly reiterate what I pointed in the preceding section about the pov tag, I added the pov tag mainly because of problems in the history section (my full posts about it are not in this section), even though some other sections also have some problems, I think. The justification for a pov tag is the ability to methodically and scientifically represent what can be seen as pov issues in parts of an article, it really is not about my pov about the whole subject matter. Please try to read my posts in full again. Baristarim 05:03, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

What you're asking is not something related to the Wiki rules but rather your own POV:

  • "Some parts of the article look like a newscast, or a piece written not to give historical information"- Just cuz its not only an old historical article,- the debates, events related to the recognition and denial, official denial by the Turkish government are continuing, so surely we need to add the current info too!
  • "the existence of many, many prominent Armenians in the Empire are lacking","how Western powers used the non-Muslims in the Empire"- is it your POV or an OR? Where are the sources? Sorry until you didnt add any reliable sources proving your words how we can discuss them??
  • And Akcam is a reliable historian, have you academian sources criticizing him? It is so hard to believe if this Turkish historian is really ...pro-Armenian biased.

Sorry your NPOV tag is absolutely not justified! Andranikpasha 19:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed...but don't you know - Ackam is a terrorist! ha! --THOTH 00:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Cutting to the core of all of this

The ONLY people anywhere who continue to claim that there was no Armenian genocide, or to justify those actions by counter-claims that the Armenians were rising up against their government, are Turks. I don't particularly fault the people of Turkey, as they're deeply indoctrinated with the brand of truth and history that the nation of Turkey wants to try to write. Nevertheless, the ONLY people saying anything different than the Armenians are the very nation responsible for a genocide which most definitely and clearly did occur. Obviously, their motives are at least a little suspect. With so much overwhelming prima facia evidence, as well as the sheer volume of facts to demonstrate that Armenia was a sovereign nation that covered a full half of the landmass currently known as Turkey until that genocide (thus dismissing claims that the Armenians were an ethnic subject of Turkey or the Ottoman Empire,) this entire discussion should have been put to bed long ago. I can understand wanting to be sure to hear all voices, give every "side" the chance to be heard, but that has happened... ad nauseum. It's beyond heartless to allow the continued abuse of unwitting Turkish individuals to continue to throw salt on the wounds the Armenian people have already suffered. Will someone please seal this article and get it over with? --JT 06:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

That's not true, why not pick up a book by Bernard Lewis and see what the most eminent historian on the Middle East has to say about it? And many other very talented and knowledgeable historians also believe that "genocide", rather than "genocides" is disingenuous and symptomatic of bias. "Seal" this article from all Turks? (Except for when Turks agree with you, right?)
--24.5.70.65 01:40, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes and while your at it I suggest reading Nobel Prize winning physiscist William Shockly regarding race, genetics and DNA...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Shockley --THOTH 18:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes and also while your at it please give us a specific academic citation that references the Turkish "genocide" in relation to the Armenian Genocide.--THOTH 18:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Different Point of Views on This Issue

http://www.ermenisorunu.gen.tr/english/intro/index.html is the real documentary source in this issue.

Main headings are:

 INTRODUCTION 
» The Four "T" Plan
» A Short Review Of Armenian History
» How the armenian issue came about?
» Armenian Revolts And Massacres
» April 24, 1915
» Law On Relocation And Its Implementation
» What is genocide?
» The Armenian Terrorism
» Current Situation
» Conclusion 
  TURCO-ARMENIAN RELATIONS 
  HOW THE ARMENIAN ISSUE CAME ABOUT 
  MASSACRES OF THE TURKS BY THE ARMENIANS 
  APRIL 24, 1915 
  RELOCATION 
  ARMENIAN TERRORISM 
  TURKISH DIPLOMATS KILLED BY ARMENIAN TERRORISTS 
  IMPORTANT QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS 
  CHRONOLOGY 
  ALBUM 
  ARCHIVE DOCUMENTS 
  REFERENCES  
  SUPPORTERS  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.100.115.239 (talk) 15:37, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm afraid you have posted this in the wrong place. You are looking for fictionpedia.com Hope that helps.--THOTH 19:35, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi there 85.100. I'm sure you're trying to be helpful, but you need to realize what took me a few weeks to figure out -- there's another page that's meant to handle discussion about this subject (and article) that is not related to specific, substantive changes to be made to the article. Just saying the article is BS can go on the Arguments page. Saying a particular line is BS and offering a solution could go on this page. But just offering up a source without an actual concrete suggestion for changing the article is not material for the Discussion page; it is material for the Arguments page. Merely telling us that this page is the "real documentary source" is not very helpful. You'll have to come up with actual edits to be made to the page. A post like this should be put on the Arguments page. If you look at the top of this discussion page for the word Arguments (do a Ctrl-F and type Arguments), you'll find the link to the area where a post like this which does not have a specific suggestion for a change to the article can go. Hope that helps, honestly.
--24.5.70.65 18:22, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

GA Review

As much as I'd like to do a thorough review of this article, a quick glance at recent edit warring and an NPOV tag mean that I have had to quick-fail the article. Sort out hte POV issues to everyone's satisfaction, remove the POV tag, and ensure there is no edit warring for an extended period. Then you can renominate the article. Zeus1234 22:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely, this article isn't ready for Good Article status.
--24.5.70.65 18:23, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
You obviously have no clue. "Sort out the POV issues"???? Don't you understand - a huge protion of Turks outright deny the Armenian Genocide - and it is representatives of this group who are here forever challenging the view that indeed there was/is such a thing as the Armenian Genocide who are tagging this with POV. This will not change anytime soon - and neither will edit warring I imagine. I would suggest that the article should be judged on its merits and not based upon the views of genocide deniers and the otherwise ignorant.--THOTH 00:09, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree with THOTH: the mere fact that the somebody added a NPOV tag shouldn't quick-fail an article. There are some people who would never be satisfied, no matter what is done with the article.
However, this article actually does have POV issues, among other problems with the writing and the relevance of included material, so, despite the fact that a "quick-fail" on the basis of a tag isn't warranted, I can't imagine this article could ever pass for a Good Article without major changes. The facts and viewpoints presented aren't "incorrect" in many places, they're just presented in a totally -- you guess -- POV manner. Sometimes -- when academics disagree, and they do (heard of Bernard Lewis?) -- you need to settle for presenting what one side calls "facts" as their point of view and calling it a day. Identifying certain things as a point of view would end the NPOV tags -- because the tags aren't there because a non-npov exists, but because a non-npov is presented as academically undisputed -- it's presented (at the very least implied), repeatedly, that only Turkey and Turks, rather than some of the most eminent historians on earth, and some of the most intelligent (if not particularly well-known), also disagree with the characterization of the thing as a genocide.
If you were willing to present some of what is now presented as fact, as the viewpoint of the majority of academics rather than as fact, you'd be able to ditch the NPOV tag, become a good article, and satisfy many people who simply dislike dishonesty. (As in claiming that Turkey's government is the only entity on earth that rejects that characterization of genocide.)
You know what, I think that would solve the problem for both sides -- you could present your view as the majority view, present the "Turkish view" as the Turkish (but not exclusively Turkish) view and note who endorses it and that the majority of historians do not -- and then no one (informed on the debate) could claim that the whole story about the current academic status of the issue is not presented!
Just a thought on how to get this article to the point where it can be accepted as a Good Article.
--24.5.70.65 02:03, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
David Irving is likewise a respected academic - considered in fact to be a foremost authority on Adolf Hitler and aspects of the nazi regeim - far more intimatly involved and accepted as a historian with specific knowledge of the period of the Holocaust in Germany then Benard Lewis is considered to be an expert of this period of Ottoman history that corresponds to the Armenian Genocide - he is not and he has never researched or published anything academicly concerning anything from this period in history or concerning this matter. Lewis is known to be beholden to and highly enamored with Turkey which as we know maintains a very specific (denialist) position regarding the Armenian genocide and which enforces such views among academics it allows to do research in its country and in its archives. Furthermore Lewis has been convictedin France of hurtful and unsubstantiated genocide denial and he has neglected to justify his change in position from recognition of the Armenian genocide to denying it. For these reasons I contend that Lewis cannot be considered as any kind of authopritive source or representing any real academic view in support of Armenian genocide denial. Prof Irving is a far more credible figure as a notable historian of the period of the Holocaust though for some reason the non-inclusion of his views integral to the presntation of the facts of the Holocaust is not considered to be of suficient ommision to designate the Holocaust article POV. Thus likewise the existance of the discredited and unsubstantiated views of Armenian Genocide deniers - be they diplomats or academics - still are considered as minority views that are at odds with the accepted and known facts and evidence and are not considered as serious counters to the overwhelming accepted and known history of the Armenian Genocide thus in no way can be used to press POV claims. Your arguments and objections are entirely spurious and the fact that you and they hold this article hostage is an example of genocide denial in action which is in itself a perpetuation of the genocide - which is a very real and ongoing crime. Your (you and the greater "you" of denialist contributors/disruptors of this article)objections and disruptions need to be viewed and treated with the dismissiveness and revulsion that they deserve - in exactly the same way that those who deny the Holocaust are viewed and for the exact same reasons.--THOTH 18:23, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Excerpt from the Findings of the United Nations Permenent Peoples Tribunal 1984 - There is no doubt regarding the reality of the physical acts constituting the genocide. The fact of the murder of members of a group, of grave attacks on their physical or mental integrity, and of the subjection of this group to conditions leading necessarily to their deaths, are clearly proven by the full and unequivocal evidence submitted to the Tribunal. The specific intent to destroy the group as such, which is the special characteristic of the crime of genocide, is also established. The reports and documentary evidence supplied point clearly to a policy of methodical extermination of the Armenian people, revealing the specific intent referred to in Article II of the Convention of December 9, 1948. The policy took effect in actions which were attributable beyond dispute to the Turkish or Ottoman authorities, particularly during the massacres of 1915-1917. On the evidence submitted, the Tribunal considers that the various allegations (rebellion, treason, etc.) made by the Turkish government to justify the massacres are without foundation. It is stressed, in any event, that even were such allegations substantiated, they could in no way justify the massacres committed. Genocide is a crime which admits of no grounds for excuse or justification. For these reasons, the Tribunal finds that the charge of genocide of the Armenian people brought against the Turkish authorities is established as to its foundation in fact. --THOTH 19:07, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Can we please stop posting in CAPS and BOLD. I and many others generally don't read post that are in ALL CAPS or EXTREME BOLD. Its just rude and annoying. Its the equivalent to screaming in public, and I'm sure neither of you don't do. I am yet to read anything 24.5... posted, and this is the first THOTH posting that I will pass. Thank you for understanding. VartanM 05:23, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

You got it. It's always been my experience that bold and caps make it simpler to see what the main points are. Why can't we think of it as emphatic speech rather than yelling? It must be painful to experience large and dark letters as screams. It sounds like a symptom of a sort of twisted schizophrenic symptom, or a result of taking one of Shulgin's weirder creations. (Heard of the one that makes everything you hear sound like it's off by half an octave or so, one way or the other? So a beautiful piece of classical sounds like it's being played on out of tune instruments? Pretty amazing.) But I'll oblige. I've switched my bold to italics. I didn't use to many caps, so that should be fine.
Now, to respond to THOTH's post, I can't believe that he finds my suggestion of a fair presentation of the so-called "denialist" view to be "a perpetuation of the genocide", which he considers to be "ongoing". I'm trying to get the tag, the tag you don't like, off of this page, and at the same time simply make it the best it can be. On a topic like this, where there is an academic debate, an encyclopedia is obliged to print the best scholarship of both sides, while making it clear who holds the largest number of supporters, etc. "Your side" would still convince most people. If you can't bear to even give the other view any time at all, you're not fit to edit the article, because that's what's required. It's totally relevant, and it's absolutely important.
I disagree with you, as you know, about a lot of the things you just said. However, I suggest that you stop making ad hominem attacks -- remember, that's not what the talk page is for. Take it to the Arguments page, where DBaba stated that we could "fling feces" at each other. Thing is, I'm not going to go there and fling it at you because I'm not interested.
Simply presenting the views, and stating who holds them is standard encyclopedic fare and one way of resolving POV complaints. If you're waiting for a 'precedent for presenting two opposing academic views in an encyclopedia, you're not much of a reader. And, yes, there is a debate -- there are two opposing *legitimate academic* views. (I mean, Bernard Lewis alone, when he speaks on Turkey, that's enough to form a single side. And the fact that it was *his* freedom of speech being limited, doesn't make "your side" look good, by the way. Usually the guy whose freedom of speech is being stepped on -- especially when he's a world class intellectual -- is the one who has the correct understanding.) Have you read this page, and other forums that deal with this topic? And there are real scholars -- some of the more intellectually committed -- who dissent. So, there is a debate, whether or not you deny it, and it is important and relevant enough that it *must* be included on the page for the page to be considered a Good Article.
I'm sorry you are reluctant, for some reason, to merely state both academic positions (best done in the words of their proponents) and state who holds them. You'd still be able to claim the majority holds your view, etc.
You would not, however, be able to say what people say about the Holocaust and academic research -- namely, that no respected historian holds that the Holocaust is not best described as a genocide.
Also, the notion that Bernard Lewis -- a major expert on Turkey, considered the number one expert on Turkey by man, world renowned, etc. -- is not qualified to speak on *that* particular period of Turkish history is absurd. You mentioned the fact that he's "enamored" with the splendor of beautiful Mediterranean Turkey, and indicate that somehow devalues his view. Are not many historians of Armenia, and Armenians, "enamored" with Armenia? Is it possible for them to speak on the subject without bias, then? This sort of bias could compromise an encyclopedia, you know. Let's drop all the sources by those who are enamored with Armenia, too, right? I didn't think so. Also, the notion that the fact that he was brought up on charges of genocide denial doesn't speak poorly of him, instead it shows a man with the balls to espouse an academic viewpoint view (that what happened isn't or isn't best described as a genocide -- the statement of which he couples with the statement that what happened to the Armenians is inexcusable and horrible, and that about a million died) in the face of an absurd limitation on freedom of speech!
The fact that he was charged with "genocide denial" tells us nothing more (and certainly nothing accurate as he doesn't deny the million dead) than we knew before about Bernard Lewis; instead it just tells us that France has done a terrible thing.
In sum, Bernard Lewis is qualified to speak on the subject, and there's no reason his words could not, for example, be quoted on this page in a section on academics who dispute the characterization of what happened as a genocide. He's fully qualified to be in this encyclopedia -- there's almost no one more qualified to speak on the subject, yet because of his view you reject him -- do not pretend temporarily for rhetorical purposes that his "qualifications" are what disqualify him. It's his failure to hold a "(specific) view".
And, finally, I disagree with you that holding the view that: what happened to the 1,000,000 or so Armenians who died is terrible, inexcusable, and must be learned from -- yet disputing its characterization of what happened as a genocide, somehow extends the genocide.
The genocide is simply over. There is no current tag, because it's not current!
I think you have demonstrated feelings about the subject that compromise the ability to work on an encyclopedic work on the subject: "Your arguments and objections are entirely spurious and the fact that you and they hold this article hostage is an example of genocide denial in action which is in itself a perpetuation of the genocide - which is a very real and ongoing crime."
Sir, I would never harm a hair on an Armenian head. I am not involved in an ongoing Armenian genocide.
There's a passion in your writing that, if truly representative, demonstrates a lack of fitness for encyclopedic writing.
I for one would nominate this article for good article status if it just presented both academic views, in their most eloquent statements (instead of quoting a Russian General who wrote that Armenians were "parasites" or whatever, making it sound like the Turks wrote it, and making it sound like that's the most substantive thing those who claim it shouldn't be called a genocide have to say), with key contentions and important evidence clearly provided.
Or even just a reasonable overview of the opposing position. Unlike the Holocaust, it cannot be said that no serious academics hold the position that the term genocide doesn't properly apply.
Therefore, unlike the Holocaust, there should be a simple presentation of both academic views, with an emphasis on the view that affirms the genocide (both because it's the majority view and because the section that rejects the characterization of genocide can has its own page [which needs fixing]).
What is so wrong with that proposal, THOTH? I think you'd be surprised what a little space given to the best academic writing giving the so-called "denialist" point of view, without using weasel words, and respectfully -- respectfully and without weasel words despite your "revulsion" -- because revulsion is never displayed in an encyclopedia except in quotes. So quote your revolted responders to the "deniers", but also quote the best writing that rejects the characterization of the events as genocide.
Case closed: you've told the whole story. That's how you do an issue like this: you present the academic debate, and in the process you end up presenting the settled history and both versions of the unsettled history, along with noting where the largest consensus exists, etc.
Your history will be presented as the majority view -- but as the page stands, implying the state of the scholarship is anything like that of the Holocaust (in which no real academic disputes the fact that the Holocaust was a genocide) is the main problem of this article's fundamental structure. (There are numerous specific failures in which the article is simply biased, but those are mostly related to the characterization of the so-called "denialists", which my suggestion would fix.)
If your revulsion to so-called "deniers" is such that you cannot fairly survey their ideas in an article where their ideas are relevant and sufficiently important, then you are not qualified to work on that part of the article -- a part which must exist (because it's relevant and important) -- it's simple logic. I'm sorry -- and it happens when we are passionate about things.
But, seriously, how can you argue with the notion that the so-called "denialist" academics' views should be presented *at their best*, rather than purposefully either including none of the intelligent (wrongly titled) "denialist" work or, as it is now, including non-sensically included irrelevant and/or unimportant quotes and making misleading statements as to who rejects the characterization as genocide. You repeatedly talk about what the government of Turkey says (and imply that Turkey is the only government or entity that "denies" the genocide), and totally ignore the fact that "Turkey's government" isn't an expert on the subject (along with all other governments), AND totally ignore all the real experts who "deny" the genocide.
That's the POV problem: you never even properly present the so-called "denialist" scholarship. And there's no way you can claim that is not a substantive complaint, and one which deserves a POV tag. If you would just present the "denialist" case, without making you "revulsion" to an academic opinion manifest, the POV-tagless-ness would be well within reach. And all it would take, or at least the main change, would be simple, well-done section outlining the "denialist" academics' positions -- without spending more time on their potential sources of bias than you do for those who are "non-denialists".
And I cannot fathom your objection -- unless you are admitting that you want this encyclopedia article to draw all the conclusions for its reader, and not leave open even a possibility that reader might get the idea that perhaps the so-called "deniers" *might* be right. I know you want to convince the world to your opinion, but do you really want to turn Wiki into propaganda? (Propaganda can argue for the correct position, by the way. It's not necessarily untrue.) That would be badly compromising the Wiki.
And, by the way: even if you took my suggestion, most people would come away from the page "on the Armenian side".
But at least the page would present the people on the page with the whole story, which in a contested academic subject must include a neutrally presented representation of both points of view, as well as the facts about who holds the points of view, etc.
Doesn't everybody here think it's time for a section that quotes the best spoken and "best written" academics? Do you realize how far that'd get you from a resolving-the-NPOV-tag point of view? And without compromising "your" current presentation of "your version" and "your academics"? How could it hurt to tell a little more truth???? Nah, let's drag out the Andonian documents and cite a Turkish-published manuscript written by a commander of Russo-Armenian forces, make it looks like a Turk wrote it, and leave the words of the so-called "denialist" academics behind, lest anyone actually consider the matter after reading the page, rather than leaving with the impression the only one who rejects the characterization of what happened as genocide -- which is a lie. The genocide is over and nothing we can do perpetuates it. But this article is in danger of perpetuating lies by misleading people to think that no eminent scholar dissents from the majority view. *That* is the NPOV tag, not the title of the article -- if you just at least showed the dispute, which is substantive (you claim it doesn't exist in your post, THOTH, but that's not true).
You can't lose by telling a little more truth. That's what this article needs, and I hope one of you tackles a section which presents the views of the so-called "denialists". "Let them" make their best case, present their best arguments, in the amount of space which is warranted -- which is at least as large as anything about commemorating "it", since the scholarship is about "it". No "weasel words", no "however, he loves Turks", none of that. Present the rebuttal to their arguments in the words of the scholars who disagree.'
Your POV tag would be gone quickly, I believe, and you would lose *nothing* in the bargain. (Not that this is about your cause and what you lose, but I'm being practical about convincing you to do what's right for the encyclopedia.) You'd gain in fact: intelligent people, the kind you'd like to convert (I assume) to "your cause", whatever that is, exactly, will be impressed by the credibility that being able to state the views of those who dissent demonstrates. A man secure in the truth of his position has no problem presenting every bit of the case against him, unless he has some practical interest other than informing. And that's your problem -- I think you're afraid that presenting the good arguments of the so-called "denialists" might convince a few people to look deeper, and that a few of them might draw a conclusion different from yours. Well, that's a problem. You shouldn't have an agenda to convince to a position when writing an encyclopedia. Luckily for you, as I said, you'll only gain, despite your fears.
So, fix the article, and most importantly, the encyclopedia will gain, second, those who love truth and whole-stories win, and thirdly, you'll win, which I won't begrudge you since I just want to be able to say the truth is told on this page, and where there is disagreement, the truth is told about the disagreement. No encyclopedia editor should find that objectionable or repulsive, THOTH. I hope you and the others heed my call, to the benefit of all of us and this page: just present the so-called "deniers" scholarship. It's too relevant and too important for its absence not to be considered POV. And I feel that the spirit of a properly done section on that piece of the story would create enough positive momentum to affect a change in other problematic portions.
--24.5.70.65 06:36, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
LOL thanks for the free psychology diagnosis. I'v heard of that disorder, there are some that see different colors for each note. But I can assure you that I don't have any psychological disorders. I was actually refering to WP:TALK guideline which states:
"Avoid excessive markup: It undermines a reasoned argument with the appearance of force through Italic text, Bolded text, and especially CAPITAL LETTERS, which are considered SHOUTING, and RANTING!!!!! Italics, however, can be usefully employed for a key word, to distinguish quoted text from new text and, of course, book titles etc.
Speaking from past experiences, my opinion of people who use capital letters and bold text or differentiate their writing by pointing out the main points, as you put it, think highly of themselvs, and think that I, the regular reader is stupid and can't understand what the main points are. The end results is the post becomes and looks like an angry rant and no one wants to read it or respond to it.
Also I know this is a large topic and contains many different subjects and its easy to steer away from the main topic, but please try to remain in topic otherwise your post will look like WP:Soapbox. Regards --VartanM 22:37, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
I thank you in turn for the implied psychological analysis. I do think highly of my ideas, as every man who would argue their ideas on Wikipedia must. (By the way, you don't say, "think highly of themselfs", you say "themselves".) But my use of caps is not a response to my perceived idiocy of my readers; it really is, as I said, meant to make it easier. And regarding the soap, I've done my best to stick to supporting specific contentions which are related to needed changes to the page. However I've made posts here regarding needed edits to the page, which engendered passionate responses which veered into rather extended... writing. And then, without me going off any tangents, merely because the responses got into ad hominem and poo slinging, the comment was deleted -- twice. Now, I'm not saying I've never gotten away from specific changes, as my first post on this page is a general statement about how the page should be done. (But, it is regarding how the page should be done!) But I didn't veer off that time, and they still deleted it. I think I started using bold right about then! I like to use the bold to make it clear that I'm requesting an edit, and that when I veer into supporting arguments, I'm supporting a contention regarding a proposed change to the page, and fielding the responses of others. But your critique was valid, and I agree with you that I should lay off the bold to a significant extent. Also, I wasn't really proposing you had a problem with confused auditory-visual hallucinations! Regards --24.5.70.65 21:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
You see, this is what I'm talking about, this wikipedia space is not meant to argue or point out others grammatical errors. We are here to write an encyclopedia. This takes me to my other point. You say that you are arguing for your ideas, but writing about our own ideas is prohibited in Wikipedia. Please see the WP:OR policy for that. VartanM 05:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC) \
I'm arguing for changes to the article. That's the "my idea" I'm arguing for. There's no original research anywhere in my posts. My only recent contention has been that we *include* the ideas of the dissenting historians properly. That requires and involves no original research whatsoever, and that's the comment I've been arguing for here for a while now.
And that's the only reason this talk page is here, as far as I know, is to field posts about changes to the article. Despite the fact that others (and I don't mind this) throw out responses to my posts that bring me away from the specific change I initially proposed, I always, always keep my post as a whole on topic and after responding to whatever objections are raised, however irrelevant, I always bring it back to my proposed change to the page. There is nothing more appropriate for this page than posts like those. (My first few posts were the exception. I mistook the meaning of "talk page". I apologize for those, and if you deleted them I wouldn't complain.) And, by the way, pointing out grammatical errors was done in good faith! (Usually, at least. And it was in good faith in response to your post.) We're the writers and editors of an English-language encyclopedia -- is being a spelling and grammar stickler a bad thing?!?
--24.5.70.65 15:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
My critique of Lewis is entirely valid. David Irving is clearly a far more recognized expert - for the history of the particular times we are speaking of - then is Benard Lewis - whose academic credentials are not sufficient for him to pass as an expert on a subject for which he has done no recognized research. And when the views of Holocaust deniers are presented in detail in the main Holocaust article - as if they are in any way valid for understanding the truth of the Holocuast - then we can consider doing the same here for Armenian Genocide deniers in this article. In the meantime the proper way to deal with deniers of genocides is to point out the similarities in their red herring arguments and distortions and attempts to claim legitimacy and confuse the issue and place doubt opon the truth - etc - but they merit no more treatment then this. What genocide deniers do is entirely shameful and without merit - and indeed the act of genocide denial is perpetuation of the genocide itself. This should be clearly understood to any who are not wedded in to the denier camp.--THOTH 15:39, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Let me say this slowly for you (actually, let me request you read this slowly, thoughtfully): There are no real academics who deny the Holocaust, but there are real academics "deny" the characterization of the events as a genocide. (They do not, as the term "genocide denier" implies misleadingly, deny what you *refer to* as a genocide, except on counts which do not change the horribleness, unjustifiability, etc., of the event. We all know it's horrible, some educated people just think the term "genocide" misleads people as to what occurred in the Ottoman Empire during World War 1, mainly because people of all races were dying because of the same things: population movements and massacres. And they weren't all dying at the hands of the Ottomans... blah, blah, blah.)
The point is that unlike the academic debate on the characterization of the Holocaust (a debate which doesn't exist), the academic debate regarding the validity of characterizing the Armenian "Genocide" as a genocide EXISTS! And the debate is heated.
Therefore, it is both important and relevant and should be included in the page.
All that's necessary is for you to discuss the views of the dissenting academics while concealing your revulsion.
The academic debate on the validity of calling the Holocaust a genocide can't be included, because it doesn't exist!!! So, claiming that you'll wait until such a debate is outlined properly on the Holocaust page to included the same on this page, is absurd.
You can't derive all your knowledge about how best to construct the Armenian Genocide page by comparing it to the Holocaust, because they are different events, and with regard to the inclusion of an an outline of the academic debate on the very characterization of the acts as genocide, you can derive no knowledge about how to proceed from the Holocaust page because no debate exists.
Is that clear to you? You need to either dispute the importance or relevance of the debate, because your Holocaust analogy isn't substantive in this instance, since there is no academic debate about the nature of the Holocaust as a debate.
And obviously the creators of the page thought the debate was important and relevant enough to be included -- because it is not only mentioned but partially outlined. All that's left is for it to be done properly, and in a manner which conceals the revulsion of the writers: list the key contentions of the "deniers" (of the validity of the label of genocide, not of the events), the response of the "non-deniers", and the re-response of the "deniers".
I'm not suggesting something radical -- I'm suggesting something commonplace, fully reasonable, and, in fact, something which is eminently required of us, namely providing our readers with us an understanding of the academic debate. Properly. (We're already doing this, we're just not doing it right.) Your argument that this shouldn't be done because it's not done on the Holocaust page. This argument holds no water, because there is no academic debate regarding whether the Holocaust was a genocide or a tragedy best characterized and understood in different terms.
The one argument that you could put forward is that it's not important enough to warrant more space than it currently does. That's a subjective judgment, and all I can offer in response (just as all you can offer to support that contention), is rhetoric that holds no absolute weight. If you make that contention and won't budge, I would contend that it should still be re-written to include the basic contentions and principle arguments for those contentions in the space currently allotted. (I still think it deserves more space, though, in addition to a re-write according to the specifications of the previous sentence.)
But, come on, are you telling me that readers of this page wouldn't want to hear about both sides of the academic debate? That's what I was hoping to find on this page. It is by no means the centerpiece of what this article should be, but it's a very important part, and it's also the path to Good Article status.
If anyone who has edit permissions would seriously be willing to read a re-written version of the current parts on the so-called "deniers" position and responses to the "deniers" by "non-denier" academics, please let me know. (Don't send me on a goose hunt; I'll consider action being taken on the simple incomplete sentence edit and the misleading (i.e. most likely to be read in a manner which communicates a lie) and not-important-enough sentence. (Ctrl-F "misattribution" on this talk page as an indication of good faith and a willingness to accept my contributions.) At the very least, fix the incomplete sentence. (Ctrl-F incomplete.)
Any response to my suggestion, from anyone other than THOTH (and THOTH, too), that we re-write (and make a separate section) the parts on the so-called "denialist" academic views and academic responses to the "denialists", would be welcome. As I said, it is a simple way to reduce much of the POV complaints. (I.e., one of the worst POV problems, and one of the worst problems with implicit falsehoods in this article, is the suggestion (contradicted by the truth in places, but nevertheless) that Turkey's government is the only entity on the planet that "denies" the genocide.)
Also, your critique of Lewis is "valid", as far as I know -- valid doesn't mean correct, but it's "valid", in some sense, at least -- however, it doesn't follow that his words shouldn't be included in this article. (However, there's no reason criticisms of his qualifications can't be included also. You must remember that this also goes for any historians whose words bolster "your side". And if being "enamored" with Turkey is a criticism that you think is relevant, surely being Armenian or "enamored with" Armenia would be a valid criticism which should also be noted repeatedly in the article everywhere it applies. Remember, this is not the Holocaust and there is an academic debate -- that's the take-away for THOTH, at least. Therefore, one cannot claim that because no look at the academic debate on the Holocaust -- which doesn't exist [re: it's characterization as a genocide] -- is present in the Holocaust page, that there shouldn't be one on this page. Because including one on the other page would be impossible, while including one on this page is possible, and is relevant, and is important. So, because there is a real academic debate, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Both sides must be treated equally, by the same rules, that is. So, if Turkish-ness or "enamored-ness" with Turkey is a important thing to note about an academic, so must Armenian-ness or "enamored-ness" with Armenia be noted.)
--24.5.70.65 22:58, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
wrong. --THOTH 23:22, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Could you elaborate on "wrong"?
Do you think that the academic dispute is not important enough that the contentions of both sides should be given? It's certainly relevant. "wrong". How droll.
Would anybody else like to chime in on my suggested change to the article? (A re-written and somewhat expanded look at the so-called "denialist" scholarship in order to resolve POV complaints and fulfill the mission of including all sufficiently important and relevant material?
I'll make it easy for those who disagree: your choices are to deny its importance or its relevance, and to give reasons for your denial. "wrong" is not a response. And if you do disagree, you should be trying to remove all mention of the deniers claims from the article -- because they're already there in part, they're just not included in a proper way.
--24.5.70.65 03:46, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
What academic dispute (concerning the Armenian genocide) might you be refering to? Could you mean the issue of whether the CUP decided on taking action to eliminate the Armenians in 1911 or was it something that evolved and wasn't really decided upon until 1914/1915? If so then yes - I agree that more needs to be elaborated on concerning this point of contention within the academic community? Or might you be refering to the role of Germans/Germany in encouraging the Turks and in actually participating in giving orders to exterminate Armenians? These are the only two real academic disputes concerning the Armenian genocide that I am aware of - and perhaps you are right - more space in the article could be devoted to highlighting the postions of scholars on these issues and the reasons for their differences and conclusions.--THOTH 05:34, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
The academic dispute regarding whether the "Armenian Genocide" is best characterized as a genocide -- and the reasons for and against characterizing it as such. Bernard Lewis, for one, disputes this characterization. There's your academic debate. (Also: "referring" is spelled with three r's, not two. And it's "positions" not "postions".)
And no, there's much more than that under debate. For example, why fake documents like the Andonian photos? An interesting debate exists there. Also, why did the Armenians organize terrorist organizations, members of which have avowed another purpose of the groups to be attracting Western powers to their cause by purposefully initiating violence within the Empire and what should we make of the fact that these Armenian terrorist groups preceded all the violence in Anatolia between Turks and Armenians? What about the fact that some of the Westerners printing "pro-Armenia/anti-Turk" propaganda during WW1 renounced some of the material printed as patently, and purposefully, false? Why would the Ottomans choose to commit "genocide" against the "Armenians" only in the East, near the front? If the goal was to get rid of all Armenians, and "purify" nation racially, why were Armenians untouched in the capital of the Empire, and other Western cities, where Ottoman power was greatest? Why didn't the Ottomans kill Jews if this was about racial purity? Why did they execute many of those mistreated Armenians? Why did they send orders to protect the Armenian deportees? Why did they deport them, rather than just kill them, diverting troops to escort duty during a time when Ottoman soldiers were starving in huge numbers and were needed to fight World War 1!! All of these cases can be illustrated nicely using only the words of Armenian historians, these are not in-credible distortions or something. There is also a debate as to whether comparisons between the Holocaust and the "Armenian Genocide" are valid, for example, Hitler was dead set on executing all sorts of undesirables, and killed more non-Jews than Jews, and he did so without regard to geography, whereas the Ottomans never touched a hair on a Jewish head during this period in which some people claim that the Turks were aiming for racial purity through mass murder. Since many feel the facts don't support that accusation, related to the "Armenian Genocide", which is made against the Turks, there is a dispute between those who make the accusation and those who refute it. I am quite persuaded by the refutations and the contentions of those historians who propose that the Ottomans were not engaged in a Hitler-ian quest for racial purity but were rather reacting, and not using as a pretext, the Armenian violence and support of the Russians in the Anatolian theater of World War 1. The fact that Western Armenians were exempt from deportation, that a multitude of messages were sent commanding humane treatment of the Armenians, that Ottomans were executed for mistreating Armenians by the Ottoman government during WW1 (before occupation), and that other ethnic groups were not targeted all support this thesis. Basically, the thesis is that there is no one ethnic group that was solely villainous, and none that was the solely hero and victim, simultaneously, no less -- many Turks were killed on the basis of ethnicity, by Armenians and others, and many Armenians were killed by Turks. It's a sad history, whose terribleness, in my eyes, is not diminished by my holding of a few beliefs about it which differ from yours.
You don't need to protect readers from academic views -- it is your duty to present them. Bernard Lewis is not some redneck Holocaust denier -- he's an academic considered by many to be an absolute top-notch, if not number one, expert on Turkey and the Middle East. That's indisputable. And the fact that he and men of his caliber dissent regarding the understanding of the history, and the form of their dissent, should be noted on a page in which a political conflict, in which history takes center stage, is an important factor. We've just established an academic who holds a dissenting position, and the importance and relevance of his dissent and his dissent's form. Now, how can you still claim that those editors who included some material on the dissenting views were wrong? And how can you claim, when you know that the lack of -- bias manifest in -- the presentation of the academic dissent is a major cause of the lack of NPOV that has struck many readers of this page, that the section shouldn't be expanded and, at the very least, be re-written to at least make good use of the allotted space -- and to remove the bias inherent in presenting the dissenting views in a poor or outright editorializing manner?!
You did notice there was a debate? And that intelligent people disagree with you? That's why the academic dissent must be included -- because unlike dissent regarding the Holocaust as a genocide, dissent regarding the "Armenian Genocide" as genocide is extant!
Unlike the Holocaust an academic debate exists. As I showed you, the presence of a productive academic who disagrees constitutes an academic debate. And the existence of a multitude of them, along with a charged political debate, means that this encyclopedia has a duty to provide its readers with an unbiased look at the academic debate.
This is not required of the Holocaust article contributors, because to do so would be impossible because no real academic debate about the characterization of the Holocaust as genocide exists, i.e., no serious academic dissents. However, real academics do disagree with the characterization of the "Armenian Genocide" as genocide.
Can you either accept this or give a substantive response? I'll give you a hint as to what a substantive response would entail: 1) denying the scholars who disagree with the characterization of the "Armenian Genocide" as genocide are actually scholars OR 2) admit they're scholars, but claim that they are so obviously biased regarding this issue that they cannot possibly be consulted.
As you know, I disagree with those both. Number 1 is patently false, and number 2 is absurd and can only be supported if one considers holding the "denialist" opinion to be evidence of bias, which is circular logic, i.e. "you're biased if you think it, and if you think it you're biased". This is an unacceptable technique for suppressing scholarship.
Scholarship you disagree with, even if it is about an issue of great gravity, is not by necessity biased, and there exists unbiased scholarship done in good faith by intelligent men free of hate whom you disagree with. Such disagreement is not a legitimate reason for excluding their point of view in this article -- and their point of view must be included if this page is to be a success, as I've pointed out.
Shouldn't everyone be presented with both (or all) academic contentions before making a decision? Isn't it even more incumbent of us to make this possible for the Wiki reader, rather than just acknowledging the existence of a debate, to provide an overview of the debate, when it is the debate, political and academic, which is driving the current interest in the topic?
I.e., the dissenting academics' points of view are important and relevant, and should be included without bias, just as the majority academics' points of view should be included.
THOTH, I'm not a historian, and now that I see that it's not a matter of you (and others on the page) choosing to ignore events so-called "deniers" claim took place, I cannot merely argue that you are ignoring material which is important and relevant. Instead, I now know you just reject those events took place. Well, I haven't done enough research to contradict you on those things -- I just thought you were leaving them out, even though you accepted them. And I'm not interested in proving anything wrong right now -- because there's something more important than any one fact on the page, and that is the misleading treatment of the academic dissent. I am 100% positive about the wrongness of the current presentation, and the necessity and incumbency of including a proper treatment -- and 100% is more certain than any of us can be about any of the disputed facets of the history. So, what I'm trying to do is the most important thing which I know for certain needs done, and which doesn't require me to be a *historian* to improve the article: advocating for the unbiased presentation of what the *historians* have to say! I don't know enough of the specific history to "prove" anything on the page "wrong" (and I accept most of it, anyhow). The one thing that I do know, positively, is wrong, is that the views of the dissenting academics are not presented properly. They are surrounded with editorializing and what is presented was not selected with maximal understanding in mind, but rather maximal value as propaganda, that is, with a goal of creating a document intended to convince. (An encyclopedia article will often convince, but it should not be done with convincing in mind.)
The suggestion of this edit does not constitute a claim that a single one of "your side's" assertions is wrong (although I do disagree with some, especially with Holocaust comparisons, I don't feel I know enough to say I can "prove" you wrong.) Instead, it is based on the simplest interpretation of Wikipedia's mission, and a simple understanding of the fact that real academics dissent -- the latter of which is something you've explicitly recognized on this talk page. Therefore, unless you would claim that it isn't relevant or important, you should agree with me.
And can you really say that a visitor to the page shouldn't be able to see what the dissenting academics say? Do you really think a visitor to this page shouldn't be privy to that information? That's the test of relevance and importance, and an overview of the dissenting views surely passes.
I'm willing to lend my talent for writing to assisting with that endeavor. My goal is merely to understand the issue better and to improve Wikipedia. I don't seek to propagandize. I hope I'll get a chance to help bring this page out of the biased mediocrity sections of it languish in.
Regards, --24.5.70.65 21:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Basically nothing you have said here is true or valid in any serious way. What can I say? - besides of course "wrong" - I mean why should I bother wasting my time on what has already been discussed ad nasuem? - where your views (as expressed here by others) have already been shown to be of insuficient merit and of insuficient academic or historical backing to warrent any change in the article. And this fact has been discussed before and your position has not held up. Face it - you really haven't a clue.--THOTH 03:29, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
"What took place was genocide, not massacres. I use the word `genocide' because it adequately describes the phenomenon. It's the only term we have that describes it. If one day we have a better word, fine. The English, German, and Turkish languages have only one word to describe. That this has a negative consequence on the Turkish government is something I can't change; I can't change history. I'm not prepared to haggle over it. If a Turkish scholar says it too politicized and he or she doesn't want to use the word, then let him/her take a different subject. If you want to be part of this debate, apply proper terminology and if you don't want to do it, you aren't a scholar." Dr. Hilmar Kaiser, in interview with Khatchig Mouradian (24 September 2005) published in Aztag Daily Newspaper --THOTH 04:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
"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, Holocaust survivor and genocide scholar in Revolution and Genocide: On the Origins of the Armenian Genocide and the Holocaust (1992) University of Chicago Press --THOTH 04:15, 14 November 2007 (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 04:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
"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 (1 November 2005) --THOTH 04:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm not going to get *into* the academic debate with you (at least here and now, because it's my understanding that posts of the above kind are discouraged as they are not related to specific changes to the page). I will, however, note that there are quotes from very intelligent scholars that rebut some of the contentions made above. My contention was that we should *include* the academic debate (by including the dissenters' views properly) in the page. (And by including the majority views, such as those you've quoted, properly, also.) Can you or someone else respond to that?
--24.5.70.65 15:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Do I need to bold the pertinent sections of my posts for you to understand the relavent points? Again I disagree with your contention here - that there is any serious academic debate of these issues - in its entirety. And certainly your claims are insuficeint to meet Wikipedia criteria for inclusion as they are recognized for being such a minority view that has little evidentury backing that it would be akin to providing some alternative and not academically accepted view of the Theory of Evolution in that article (as some legitimate scientific alternative) when all the real science supports something else. What you are advocating and the method you push - attempting to confuse the real issues by essentially irrelevent and unsupported counter claims - is in fact a classic case of genocide denial. Can't you understand - you have no valid countervailing claim - nothing you put forth really disputes or calls into question the known facts of the Armenian Genocide as accepted by a near 100% of historians and scholars -outside a very few with Turkish backing - and that this is what the article reflects. Your claims of "civil war' or "Armenian gangs' being in any way legitimate or worthy of mention as a valid position countering the factuality of the Armenian Genocide as presented in this article is nill. If you don't understand this then you obviously are insuficeintly educated concerning this subject and i would suggest you attempt to edit some other Wikipedia articles in which you might be more qulaified to contribute.--THOTH 16:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)\
Well, I'm glad you could construct a clear response to my contention. I believe you are clearly wrong when you state that "they are recognized for being such a minority view that has little evidentury (sic) backing that it would be akin to providing some alternative and not academically accepted view of the Theory of Evolution in that article". Quite the opposite -- noteworthy and intelligent historians dissent. I contend that by virtue of their high credentials -- these are men whose views would be included in any other article they were relevant to without any questions being raised about their qualifications -- and the relevance and importance of their dissent, such should be included. Do you really claim that none of the dissenting historians' work on other topics meets the standards for Wikipedia?!? No. Therefore, given the relevance and importance of their views, and the credentials we've established with my rhetorical question-style thought problem, they must be included here.
And, as I've posted recently, I'm not a historian, and I'm not going to debate you on the history -- yet. I'm doing more research. But there is one change I know must be made to this page. And that is the properly executed inclusion of the dissenting side, *whether or not those dissenting historians are correct!* Note that I never said "include them because they're right". I said "include them because they're important and relevant".
I know you (and most other people who have an opinion on the matter) think they're wrong -- but that should have no bearing whatsoever on the decision to include their work. The reason their work should be included is because 1)it's sufficiently important 2)it's sufficiently relevant 3) they are legitimate academics whose work can be used in encyclopedic works. That's it. Not because they're right or wrong, but because their work is relevant, important, and appropriate. If you can't understand that, fine. But I have faith in my fellow Wikipedians and I believe that eventually, their views -- which are already included, just not in a proper manner -- will be properly presented, as we owe it to our readers.
Again, my argument for including the dissenting historians views in a proper manner is because their views are important and relevant, and because they are real scholars. (The fact that they're real scholars, and, in one case, at least, an extraordinarily eminent scholar, speaks to their relevance and importance, as well...) If I found out tomorrow they were all wrong, I'd still argue that their views should be included (as they already are, but improperly) and presented properly on Wikipedia. Their rightness or wrongness is not a factor.
The correctness of the minority viewpoint is not a criteria for its inclusion in an article on a contentious article. Clearly the other writers of this article agreed with me as they included the viewpoints -- they just didn't execute the inclusion correctly.
--24.5.70.65 21:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
wrong.--THOTH 22:39, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Bone photos

There is no verifiable source information for bone photos of supposedly killed Armenian people. They might well be of Ottoman civilians killed by armed Armenian forces during WW1. --88.244.62.15 22:45, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Here you go. http://net.lib.byu.edu/~rdh7/wwi/comment/morgenthau/Morgen27.htm --VartanM 23:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps they are Barsoomians? Or might you be able to offer us some other rather fanciful speculation as to their improbable origin?--THOTH 00:10, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Simple Grammar Error: Incomplete Sentence

It currently reads:

The Armenian defenders protecting 30,000 residents and 15,000 refugees in an area of roughly one square kilometer of the Armenian Quarter and suburb of Aigestan with 1,500 able bodied riflemen who were supplied with 300 rifles and 1,000 pistols and antique weapons.


With the error fixed::

The Armenian defenders were protecting 30,000 residents and 15,000 refugees in an area of roughly one square kilometer of the Armenian Quarter and the suburb.


Note: I assume I'm not altering the meaning with the second change, the addition of the word "the". But the first change, the addition of the word "were" must be made, because as it stands it's not a complete sentence.

Chilling Effects

Another quick suggestion: the article states in one part about Hrant Dink that the events that transpired (i.e. his prosecution and tragic death) tend to have a chilling effect on scholarship. (Although he was a journalist, not a scholar, but anyhow, it tends to have a chilling effect.). This is a fact, of course. But shouldn't it be noted that the fact that France prosecuted Bernard Lewis has a 100% chilling effect on any scholarship that tends to reject the characterization of the events as genocide? In France, not only can't you "deny" the "genocide", you can't even wonder in print whether it was a genocide!! Do you think this doesn't have a real effect on scholarship? If you do, think it has a chilling effect -- and that unambiguous illegality of scholarship has a chilling effect on scholarship is unquestionable -- then shouldn't that be mentioned right next to the mention of the Hrant Dink incidents "chilling" of scholarship and investigation??
I think it should be made clear that there are forces on both sides chilling scholarship -- specifically the Hrant Dink case and the Bernard Lewis case. This should be included (the Bernard Lewis case and its effect), at least as the article stands now, next to the part about Hrant Dink's death's and prosecution's chilling effect.
--24.5.70.65 23:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I assume you would also characterize the death of Joseph Stalin as having a chilling effect on good government.--THOTH 23:24, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh and BTW - Benard Lewis has never studied the Armenian genocide in any scholarly way. One could make a much more coherent argument concerning the prosecution of David Irving in regards to holocaust scholarship (as he is actually a recognized scholar of the period) then any argument can be made concerning the relevence of the prosecution (and conviction) of Lewis - for genocide denial. Also when one talks of "chilling" scholarship - One must understand and acknowledge the central role of a particular government directly involved in the Armenian Genocide issue - Turkey - and its known stance in vetting scholars of Ottoman studies and who do research in Turkey (having to accept the Turkish government party line in this regard) - as well as its laws - such as article 301 - which has been seen to sanction criminalizing recognition of the Armenian genocide in Turkey. And as well its funding of lobbyists to press its position that is otherwise not accepted in scholarly circles. The non-issues you bring up are just typical genocide denier obcurfication.--THOTH 23:35, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

As I said, when one notes the chilling effect of Turkish policies and Hrant Dink's fate, one should note that the prosecution of Bernard Lewis has a chilling effect. Whether or not you think there's a single individual (that academic you keep bringing up for no reason) who is more qualified to speak on the subject has no bearing on this. Are you claiming it doesn't have a chilling effect, or that it shouldn't be noted? It's important to make your contention clear, and it's important to make the implications of your contention clear. I've tried to make this easy for you, even listing the possible logically consistent and relevant responses you could give.
Are you disputing that? The reference to Stalin makes no sense, by the way, as it has no analogy to what I was saying -- the death of Stalin would have a chilling effect on the activities Stalin engaged in, none of which were good government.
I hope someone will note the fact that there is a chilling effect caused by the French legislation, if you are going to note the chilling effect that Hrant Dink's prosecution has on scholarship.
--24.5.70.65 03:40, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
exactly. (ref. Stalin) I'm glad you got my point.--THOTH 05:39, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Can you both please discuss elsewhere, on your talk pages, or somewhere off Wikipedia? I think we should have some community induced restrictions here on this talk page. DenizTC 06:27, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

If one is making suggestions concerning a major and ill-advised overhaul to the article in question does it not make sense that discussions of these changes - including rationalization and justification for and against - be discused on the Talk Pages of said article (ie. here). I agree however that 24.5.70.65 has been going on a bit about the same thing and has seemingly failed to pervue the archives of these talk page discussions where everything he is presenting has been discussed and rejected before. However, if he presents it all over again and no one objects I wouldn't want him to get the false impression that he is then free to edit the article as he wishes.--THOTH 13:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Are you claiming that suggestions for changes should not be made twice -- ever? That they should not be repeated, say, every two years? And Denizz -- are you claiming that my "suggestions concerning a major...overhaul" are somehow not pertinent to the page??? Thank you THOTH -- as you said, there's nowhere these discussions belong but the Talk Page of the article. If you're not reading my posts carefully, that's bad on you, not bad on me.
--24.5.70.65 15:38, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I find it amusing that you are accusing others of not reading something properly.--THOTH 16:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
"If one is making suggestions concerning a major and ill-advised overhaul...does it not make sense that discussions of these changes...be discused on the Talk Pages". If you didn't intend readers to understand that you think discussions about suggestions, and suggestions, belong on the talk page, then you mis-wrote.
--24.5.70.65 01:06, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm, I think we are in the presence of one of those Wikipedia editors who think they have personal ownership of a particular page. It may be news to THOTH, but anyone is free to make good-faith edits to any article in wikipedia. The "false impression" would be to suggest otherwise. Meowy 00:07, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Very little, if any, of the current article has been written by me. I've had numerous critisisms of the article in the past - though many, but certainly not all, of the deficiencies I have highlighted, have been addressed. I have accepted the fact that my views on the article may not be in the majority thus I don't push for the changes I would perhaps like to see. What I am doing here, and as I see my role, is to prevent outright falsehoods and misrepresentations entering the article. Positions such as you and our dear friend 24.5.70.65 advocate clearly fall into that category. I would hate to think that if you felt there was no objection to your rather questionable claims that this would mean you are free to edit and change the text without making a more credible and convincing case for such - which you have not.--THOTH 15:46, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
If I were to start to make extensive edits to this entry, I would probably end up re-editing and rewriting almost everything that is currently here! The whole entry would be an embarasssment if it were written by a 10-year old. So there is no excuse (even by wikipedia standards) that a bunch of adults have argued and squabled for years to produce such a dismal, disorganised, badly-written, and badly thought-out mess. Meowy 03:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I’ll re-state the above in a more constructive way. I think that the problem with this entry is that those who have written it seem to have almost entirely forgotten what its actual function should be – its function is to inform an uninformed reader. Instead it had been turned into a battleground against genocide denialists. The latter, always true to its nature, endlessly rewrites, creates new fabrications, and brings up points of distraction. These are then countered and neutralised (in most cases in an overly triumphal way) - but by then the latter has moved on to another location on the battlefield, and the process repeats. The end result is a bloated and confusing mess that bears no semblance to what an encyclopaedia entry should be like. Meowy 13:07, 11 December 2007 (UTC)