Talk:Armenian Genocide/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Contents 1 Coolcat STOP IT 2 Headline text 3 Armenians in Anatolia 4 First Armenian Massacres 5 The Armenian Genocide 6 Statistics of the Second Massacre 7 Later assessments 8 Justifying edits. 9 Message to Mediator 10 PLEASE DO NOT EDIT THIS PAGE, BOTH PARTIES WILL BE ASKING FOR MEDIATION. BE ADVISED THAT IF YOU DO EDIT, IT WILL BE REVERTED BACK. 11 RE. Comparing the propagandistic factor of Raffi vs. Fadix 12 RE. Is it irrelevant to consider what took place before "1915"? 13 FYI 13.1 My case 14 Here is the deal 15 4 suggestions, 2 comment for now. 16 United States 17 ... 18 On Coolcat's use of the term "moderator" 19 Current dispute/disagreement 20 Coolcat, stop contradicting yourself 21 What I learnt so far: 22 Relocation, deportation 23 The concentration camp term 24 References 25 Coolcat 26 About the references 27 Lead section 28 LOLENLAR 29 It is the original article that was to go under mediation; why has this article changed? 30 Arguing About History is Impossible in the presence of dogmatism 31 Well well, see what kind of opinions we have here afterall :) 32 Fresh Start 33 Discussion Starts 34 Scholars to be moved away from lead 35 Camps, death toll info be moved. 36 Death Toll Category 37 Relocation Camps vs. Concentration Camps 38 Article should confirm the Armenian Genocide thesis 39 There is no discussion starting with Coolcat 40 Colours 41 Lets try this 42 Apologies for not understanding the format and such - but here are my comments and suggestions 43 Guideline 44 Cool Colours 45 It is clear to me that Mr Coolcat rquires an education in Genocide/Holocaust denial 46 I see... 47 Protected 48 Do you? I think not.... 49 Interesting – and very telling concerning our dear friend 50 Oberiko's conclusion of the page 51 Cezveci's Conclusions on the Discussion 52 Samples of free speech in Turkey about the Armenian issue 53 Is the current shape NPOV? Does Fadix prevent vandalism or censor facts? 54 Working towards consensus 55 Mass murder? 56 nothing new under the sun 57 twoversions template 58 picture 59 Fresh Start #3 60 Run #1 61 New related entry 62 Coolcat, what will you answer? 63 Do not... 64 I have reviewed the two articles and the talk of this last weekend - and I repeat - there is no hope in this approach 65 murdered 65.1 Response 66 In hope of finalising 67 Concerning the legitimacy of using the term "genocide" in this case - and related issues 68 Working Version 69 Working version moved 70 To follow the progress 71 Unprotecting 72 My views 72.1 ... 73 a real article on the Armenian Genocide 74 Childish Wars of Words

Coolcat STOP IT

I JUSTIFIED EVERY CHANGES WITH OVER 100 PAGES OF ANSWERS AT FADIX ANALYSIS SECTION ALONE, EXCLUDING THOSE IN THE ARCHIVES AND THE TALK PAGE. THERE IS NO PROPAGANDA OR POV IN WHAT I WROTE, IF THERE IS ANY POV SHOW ME WHERE. YOU CAN NOT JUST REVERT AN ARTICLE WITHOUT EVEN JUSTIFYING ANYTHING. MY ARTICLE IS SUPPORTED WITH WIKIPEDIA FRENCH ENTRY WHICH HAS BEEN MODERATED BY AN ADMINISTRATOR. I CAME HERE TO POST THE HOLOCAUST MUSEUM ARMENIAN GENOCIDE BOOK LIST LINK, AND I REALISE THAT COOLCAT HAS EDITED AND REVERTED BACK THE GENOCIDE ENTRY, THE SAME THAT WANTED TO MODERATE THIS ENTRY. NOW I UNDERSTAND WHY HE WANT TO DO SO.

IT IS SAID THAT THERE SHOULD BE DISCUSSION BEFORE MAKING CHANGES, I ANSWERED AND JUSTIFIED WITH ABOUT 160 PAGES, I CAN CONFIRM EVERY CHANGES WITH REFERENCES AND LISTS OF OVER A HUNDRED WORK AND HUNDREDS OF ESSAYS... I HAVE READ WIKIEPDIA "NEUTRAL" INTERPRETATION, I HAVE USED UNIVERSALIS, THE LARGEST FRENCH ENCYCLOPEDIA "TONE" TO COVER THE GENOCIDE, AND HAVE VIEWED THE OTHER WIKIPEDIA ENTRIES.

GO MODERATE OTHER TURKISH BOARDS AND LEAVE US BREATH HERE, IF YOU ARE A GENOCIDE APPOLOGIST I DON'T GIVE A S.T, IF YOU'RE HERE TO DISCUSS THE ISSUE GO AHEAD. BBUUUUTTT STOP REVERTING BACK, WHEN MY EDITION WAS THE RESULT OF 160 PAGES LONG OF ANSWER. THIS IS DISRESPECTABLE.

I WILL REVERT IT BACK... AND DO IT UNTIL YOU STOP IT. WHAT IS THE FARCE WITH WIKIPEDIA, THERE IS ONE AZERIS FANATIC AT THE KARABAGH PAGE, JUMPING ON ME RIGHT AFTER THE FIRST ANSWER. IS THERE NO ONE MODERATING WIKIPEDIA????? -- Fadix

• I JUSTIFIED EVERY CHANGES WITH OVER 100 PAGES OF ANSWERS AT FADIX ANALYSIS The Fanadix is confusing quality with quantity; inundating with reams of "weasel facts" does not prove his case; it only serves to detract and confuse, which is his dishonorable purpose.

Mr.,. Torque with you answers you have demonstrated not knowing what was in those 100 pages of answers so you are in no position to know if it was about quality of quantity. I submit both were present, and since you did not read, you are in no position to comment.

• THERE IS NO PROPAGANDA OR POV IN WHAT I WROTE, IF THERE IS ANY POV SHOW ME WHERE. For God's sake! Is he for real? As one of the trillions of examples, look at how he responded to the real Swedish eyewitness to his phony genocide. Did Fadix stop and consider why this Swede was REALLY saying what he was saying? No. His first instinct was to discredit and try to find holes in the wall. Let's keep that Fanadix claim in mind, as I'll refer to it later as I keep "SHOWING" you "WHERE."

Mr. Torque, this person record has been find in a letter submitted to a newspaper, no one can rely on a letter written in a newspaper, because nearly everyone can claim what he wants. You have this man, against even Turkish officials, and German reports... what this man say can only be supported with what he says, while there are German, American and Turkish sources saying the opposite. Do you think that in court of law, any lawyer will be using a letter submitted in a newspaper as evidences?

• I ANSWERED AND JUSTIFIED WITH ABOUT 160 PAGES, What he means by "justified" relates only to his own obsessed mind. He comes up with these weasel facts and outright manipulations, of which there is an "avalanche" gathered through the many years of one-sided propaganda, and his bombardment of this nonsense is supposed to constitute evidence.

Mr. Torque, you have times and again, admitted that you do not read what I write yet judge, the same thing you have done when you have assassinated the character of academicians whos book you have not read.

• GO MODERATE OTHER TURKISH BOARDS AND LEAVE US BREATH HERE, IF YOU ARE A GENOCIDE APPOLOGIST I DON'T GIVE A S.T, IF YOU'RE HERE" Anyone who comes up with anything contrary to his mythomaniacal views is an "enemy." And he has the audacity to claim he represents "NO PROPAGANDA OR POV." Absolutely unbelievable.--Torque March 22, 2005

Mr. Torque, it has been clearly established that Coolcat is after introducing POV in his articles...

I dont quite care. There is moderating, your edits are propoganda and POV oriented. Don't write in caps either. It is disrespectible to acuse people and claim its not a POV. This is not a forum. You made changes without properly discussing it. YOU WILL FOLOW WIKIPEDIA POLICY. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 20:18, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

1) You deny this being a contriversial topic by removing the warning.

2) You removed everything regarding the material oposing your views.

3) You will not use wikipedia as a propoganda tool. I do not care about the french moderator, being an admin does not necesarily make you more respectible or credible. Its your work that gets you those. You are welcome to revert back and dont you dare threaten me.

4) You can present your case in a neutral format. This is not your online forum.

5) Your views are definately and remotely not close to neutral.

--Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 20:27, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I DID NOT remove the warning, the Armenia view and Turkish view point to both countries, it has NOTHING to do with the subject at hand. And no, this cases in not contriversial, not in the Accademic world.

I did not delete my opposing views because I did not like them, I have discussed about this and explained it, 3 of the materials presented were dubious, others had nothing to do with the Armenian genocide. I took away the "first massacre" because it was unrelated to the Armenian genocide.

The Special organization is part of the Armenian genocide, the concentration camps as well. I have discussed about all the changes, I have viewed many other entries, and there are hardly anyone having posted 160 pages to justify changes, I DID.

The Wikipedia policy clearly stat that the article should be presented as to give as much place to views as its representation, and that is what I did. The German version as well as the French one, and probably the rest support my position. It is only in the English entry that this thing becomes contriversial.

You claim there is POV and propaganda. Show me where... Go ahead, justify your edition.

I will revert it back. What I present is NOT propaganda neither POV. So STOP IT!!! Fadix 20:44, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC) So you mean everybody agrees there had been an armenian genocide and the Turkish Goverment and scholars agreed on the issue. Hence this is no longer a dispute? You mean that a considerable amount of scholars do not disagree with the claim? You present the Armenian POV I believe the Turkish claims were different judjing by the history. You cannot expect to toss away 160 pages worth of data and we mods to read it. you are obligated to explain wht you removed every paragraph ONE BY ONE. All changes one by one. I am getting assistance for this matter with fellow admins. Like it or not this article is full of POV. The sources you provide are still the Armanian POV and Armanian statistics. The documents, as far as anyone is concerned could have been forged. You are not following the NPOV article att all. You are making claims while deleting the oposing views completely as if no one oposes the dispute. You even removed the warning. This is at best Armanian propoganda. I dont like revert wars, as those mods act like infants. Since you will not even listen to my arguments, I have nothing to say to you for now. This article is based on either your or somebodyelses POV. Definately not NPOV. You can fool yourself as much as you like. I can toss you lots of juice I dont know 500 pages if I feel like rambling on and on... This article itself is a POV --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 22:16, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

By the way thank you for your report regarding the NPOV policy violations on diferent languages of wikipedia, I'll see into it when I have time. I am more concerned with my calculus exam at the moment. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 22:49, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It is not because few disagree about something that it means there is a dispute. Again, the majority in Islamic countries deny the Shoah did happen, still I don't see any note about disputes on its entry. And no, there are no considerable amount of scholars who deny the Armenian genocide. Take off Turkish diplomatic works(Gurun, Ataov etc...) and those working in Ottoman departments founded and funded by Turkey(its like using the words of an Armenologist), there is not much any scholars that deny it did happen. There is a clear disproportion between those recognizing it and those denying it. Even though the Ottoman Empire was an Islamic regime, outside of Turkey, there is more Muslim denying the Shoah than the Armenian genocide.

Beside that, I do see here that you have a star, I don't know how people are nominated, but I think that by using such terms as “Armenian propaganda” is very disrespect able from your part. I don't see how going after all of the entries remotely implicating Turkey and throwing your biases in them you are really contributing here. And the 160 pages were not just toss away, they were answers to Torque posts, they are part of the discussion and not only a load of data.

Another note, there is no such warning in the other language entries, the German and French take my position, and from what I understood of Spanish, as well....

There are changes I may do in the article I posted(like providing the sources for the statistics), and I am ready that people contribute in it, but I expect people to support their changes as I have done here... and as well, it is logical that as much place it should be given as there are specialists supporting the claims.

Here is why I removed them.--Fadix

• "Take off Turkish diplomatic works(Gurun, Ataov etc...) and those working in Ottoman departments founded and funded by Turkey(its like using the words of an Armenologist)" Does that mean Vahakn Dadrian cannot be used as a source, because he is clearly an "Armenologist," like the vast variety of funny sources Fanadix uses? Can he come across as any more contrary to his claim of exhibiting "NO PROPAGANDA OR POV"? We shouldn't judge by labels, but by the quality of the research. Gurun's level of honesty can be seen with his online work; so can Ataov's. If Turkey had a hand in founding Turkish studies departments in universities, that's because nobody else could or cared to, and the playing field -- hardly equalled -- had to be levelled somewhat. That does not mean people who teach Turkish history have sold their souls and have conspired to lie. What an ugly, ugly, insinuation so typical of Armenian propagandists with serious shortage of ethics.

• "There is a clear disproportion between those recognizing it and those denying it." Very true; but just like Fadix's worthless "160 PAGES," quantity does not equal quality. If people have been brainwashed and were prejudiced to begin with, as most Westerners, naturally they're going to go with the common consensus. This is called "not using your brain," in the case of those non-bigots who think lazily. So if someone comes up and says the earth is round, when everyone else knows otherwise, it takes the rare person of intelligence and integrity to anaylze the truth. What makes that process more difficult in the case of this genocide hoax is that the Fanadixes will eagerly jump down the throats of anyone who tries. Who wants to be at the end of vicious rumors ranging from being a Turkish tool to a child molester?

• 'using such terms as "Armenian propaganda" is very disrespect able from your part' As if Fanadix has proven himself worthy of any respect. What else do we call what has been a solid fact for so many years? Prof. John Dewey's 1928 warning of "It is... time that Americans ceased to be deceived by (Armenian) propaganda" has so far tragically fallen on deaf ears —- Armenian propaganda is stronger than ever. Even the missionary and great Armenian friend Dr. James Barton became the victim of this vicious propaganda the Armenians have relied upon for so many years; so did Woodrow Wilson. Do the crime and then deny it... unsurprisingly, Fanadix is such a denier. --Torque March 19, 2005

Headline text

The term Armenian Genocide (also known as the Armenian Holocaust or Armenian Massacre) refers to the deportation and murder of Armenians by the Young Turks government in 1915-1916.

The Armenian Genocide is not agreed to by everyone; the term "genocide" generally defines a state-sponsored extermination plan but it is the position of Turkey and some academics that the majority of losses were a result of clashes between the two-sides, and causes such as famine and disease claiming the lives of all Ottomans. Armenians and other academics state at least 1.5 million Armenians perished in Turkey. France is among the countries which have officially recognized the Armenian Genocide..

It is a fact that the majority of Western Academics recognize the Armenian genocide, a work just recently published list the treatment of the issue among the Arab academia. This passage suggest that both positions are equally defended, this is not so. The “at least” for the figure of 1.5 million is erroneous, and completely wrong... most Academics claims a million or over... placing figures like 1.5 million is just misrepresenting those specialists.--Fadix

Even though Fadix has written he goes with over 1 million in some of his statements, he himself claimed 1.5 million as the number who lost their lives. It's buried in his "160 pages." Besides, 1.5 million is the generally agreed upon number from Armenians and their supporters. Look anywhere, and you'll see this number cropping up. And Armenians are notorious for changing their figures when it suits them; Peter Balakian hovers from 1 million+ (his Tigris book) to 1.5 million (the Chronicle of Higher Education, May 4, 2004). [Just like when the Patriarch changed his pre-war figures from 3 million to under 1.8 million, because it suited him.) But despite Fadix's inconsistency, I have no trouble with the change to over a million. He probably self-servingly added afterwards, "Death toll claims ranges from 200,000 to 1.8 million." (The poor English makes me believe it was he.) Actually, if he wants to serve his agenda, he can increase the latter figure to 4 million or even 35 million, as some pro-Armenians have put forth; what's the difference? And here we have an example of Fadix's zero credibility. Why would he even want to savage the page with that ridiculous latter figure, clearly out of the norm of possibility, when the pre-war population was less, and Armenians concede one million survived? It's because he wants the readers to believe the higher numbers. Fortunately, he displays "NO PROPAGANDA OR POV."--Torque

One of the prime sources of information regarding the Armenian Genocide was Henry Morgenthau, U.S. Ambassador to Turkey from 1913-1916. Ambassador Morgenthau published a book in 1919 entitled Ambassador Morgenthau's Story which details the atrocities committed against the Armenians by the Turks. Others state that Morgenthau was not a neutral observer, anxious to get the United States into war, and primed by Armenian assistants; frequently cited as an "eyewitness", having "never left Istanbul", and revealing his bias with statements describing the Turks as "inarticulate, ignorant, and poverty-ridden slaves", "barbarous", "brutal", "ragged and unkempt", (within his book) and as having "inferior blood".

That's purely discriminative, there is no Armenian view more than what the majority of the academia recognizes as historical reality. As for the Turkish view, it is the Turkish government view. Besides that, this is a historical question, what Mr. Bob say about something has not much credibility... using terms to suggest the view of an ethnic group is discriminative.--Fadix

But practically ALL of Fanadix's evidence boils down to "what Mr. Bob say," save for the outright canards..! And what's really "discriminative" is to make the horrible claim that everyone in the world who negates this genocide myth must be directed by "the Turkish government." Fortunately, he displays "NO PROPAGANDA OR POV." --Torque

Armenians in Anatolia

In 1890 there were possibly around 1.3 to 1.7 million Armenians in the Ottoman Empire, of whom the vast majority were of the Armenian Orthodox or Roman Catholic Christian faith. Until late 19th century, the Armenians were called "millet-i sadika" (fidel nation) by the Ottomans, as they were living in harmony with the Muslim Kurds and Turks in Eastern Anatolia, without any major conflict with the central authority despite religious and ethnic differences, and despite second class citizen status on the law books and in practice as "infidels". While the Armenian population in Eastern Anatolia was large and clustered, there was also a considerably large community of Armenians on the west, mostly living in the capital city of Istanbul, of which a substantial community remains to this day, as it was the communities in Anatolia proper that were subjected to the deportation orders and massacres .

1890 has not much relevancy, the date of 1914-1915 is what is important. And there was at least 1.7 million Armenian in the Ottoman Empire in that dates, and estimates like those of Nogales goes as far as 2.5 million. The at least 1.7 million comes from McCarthy figures which are based on Ottoman records. So I have used the same median used by Rummel.--Fadix

As the article was written, 1890 is not irrelevant, because what followed was the "First Armenian Massacres" section which has now had the honor of its own page. It gives the idea of the pre-war Armenian population, but for our purposes, it's certainly more appropriate to single out the population as close to the war years as possible.

It's a good thing Fanadix displays "NO PROPAGANDA OR POV," because the McCarthy estimate represents the HIGH END of the TRUE statistics. The Venezuelan military adventurer and cattle thief Nogales is irrelevant as far as wrongful Patriarch statistics he probably heard about and repeated; why is Fanadix even expecting us to consider Nogales' unlearned opinion seriously? (Answer: truthfulness does not matter with his agenda.)

The latest Ottoman census was 1.3 million, and Arnold Toynbee figured around a million in 1915, before he became a propagandist. As a propagandist, he settled on a median figure of 1.6 million. Vahan Vardapet figured 1,263900 in 1886, which (when the rest of the population was added), Lynch figured on "upwards of 1.5 million." (Lynch's figure for the six provinces, rest of Asia and European Turkey: 1,325,246. Even the lying Armenian Patriarch "revised" his ridiculous Berlin Conference figure of 3 million to the still exaggerated but more reasonable 1,780,000. What's also relevant about pre-1914 figures is that once Armenians were given the right to emigrate freely with the Young Turks' rule changes in 1908, and especially after the Balkan Wars, there was a exodus of maybe a few hundred thousand. Even some Armenian historians acknowledge there was no major difference in population figures from the 1890s.

Rummel is an Armenian-apologizing "genocide scholar" who relied on Armenian figures primarily, and is not credible. (In his web site, he presents a photo with a caption saying over two million Armenians were "murdered.") It's a good thing Fanadix displays "NO PROPAGANDA OR POV," as he claimed.

The above paragraph is also relevant because we must look back at the reasons why what occurred took place; we can see the Armenians were loyal; thus, the only reason why they became agitated was because of the fanatical terrorist organizations that stirred them up. Not attention-averting smokescreen reasons like "double taxation" and the "Kurds." Also we learn not all the Armenians were subjected to relocation, which is an insane way to run a genocide. It's a good thing Fanadix displays "NO PROPAGANDA OR POV." --Torque

First Armenian Massacres

On August 26, 1896, a group of Armenian revolutionaries raided the headquarters of the Ottoman Bank in Istanbul after having shot the guards and seized more than 140 staff members, in an attempt to gain international attention to the plight of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire. Mobs of Muslim Turks then massacred tens or hundreds of thousands of Armenians. It is alleged by some that 50,000 Armenians were killed, and that there was a level of Ottoman government involvement with the mobs.

Armenian-sympathizing estimates of the total killed run from 100,000 to 300,000; one of the greatest pro-Armenians, Johannes Lepsius, estimated less than 89,000. Turkish estimates run from 20,000 to 30,000. These events are recalled by the Armenians as the "Great Massacres" and believe the Hamidian measures verified the capacity of the Turkish state to carry out a systematic policy of murder and plunder against a minority population. The formation of Armenian revolutionary groups began roughly around the end of the Russo-Turkish War of 1878. As some diplomats observed, the aim of these groups were to commit massacres so as to incite counter-measures, and to invite "foreign powers to intervene," as Istanbul's British Ambassador Sir Philip Currie observed in March 1894.

This part is not the Armenian genocide and should have its own entry.

The Armenian Genocide

Before World War I the Ottoman Empire came under the Young Turks government. At first some Armenian political organizations supported the Young Turks in hopes that there would be a real change from Abdul Hamid's policies towards the Armenian population. There were Armenians elected to the Ottoman Parliament, where some remained throughout the ensuing world war. However they were later to be disappointed. The Young Turks feared the Armenian community, which they had believed was more sympathetic to allied powers (specifically Russia) than to the Ottoman Empire.

In 1914 Ottomans passed a new law that required all adult males up to age 45, to either be recruited in the Ottoman army or pay special fees in order to be excluded from service. Most of the Armenian recruits were later turned into road laborers and some were executed.

On April 24, 1915, the Young Turk government executed 300 Armenian intellectuals, although a partisan source as Peter Balakian's "The Burning Tigris" tells us most were imprisoned and there were even survivors.

The figure of 300 is a clear underestimation, the Ottoman records themselves gives even to over a thousand arrested there. So the more exact claim would be hundreds were arrested and killed.-Fadix

On that date, it was the 235 in Istanbul who were arrested. Ringleaders from other cities were arrested as well, but not all on the same date. So 300 is actually an overstatement, and they certainly were not executed on the same date. I left that alone, in fairness to the original article, and added the disclaimer with a Turk-unfriendly source. Of course the arrested were not all executed on the same date! We don't know how many were killed, but if Balakian gave two examples, you can count there were more. This is the Armenian propaganda that Fanadix slyly -- and sometimes overtly -- supports. --Torque

The fact that most Armenian men were also butchered in the army and many influential figures arrested and killed, places a question mark over certain arguments that Armenians organized revolts and that there was a civil war, given that Armenians were outnumbered, outmanned and outgunned. On the other hand, there were articles in the New York Times as early as November 7, 1914, days after Russia had declared war, attesting to Armenian uprisings ("ARMENIANS FIGHTING TURKS -- Besieging Van—Others operating in Turkish Army's Rear"), and accounts from Armenians themselves,

This New York Times article originated from a Russian newspaper that took the information from German media who took it from Ottoman authorities, I have developed about this.-Fadix

Here is a source that the Armenians love to point at to support their phony genocide. The NY Times blindly reproduced propaganda reports from Wellington House and elsewhere, the more sensational sounding, the better. Here is the rare report from the propagandistic newspaper that turns the genocide on it ear, clearly pointing to the Armenian rebellion, treacherously striking out against their own nation at the dark hour. Fanadix makes claims that he hasn't "developed" at all; he just wants us to take his worthless word. Good thing Fanadix displays "NO PROPAGANDA OR POV," as he claimed. --Torque

such as Boghos Nubar's 1919 letter in the Times of London stressing Armenian belligerence. In addition, there is evidence of Russian financial support (242,900 rubles, according to the Dashnak Party Military Minister, Armenian National Congress meeting in Tbilisi, Feb. 1915),

This has nothing to do with this entry, The Dashnaks were active in the Russian Empire, and this is in Tiblisi, it has nothing to do with the Ottoman Armenians. And 242,900 rubles is an insignificant amount... it is like claiming that someone helped me to buy a new car, because he gave me 500$.-Fadix

Fanadix is approaching inspiring levels of misrepresentation. Boghos Nubar's letter gives evidence to a "de facto (Armenian) belligerence," stressing a combined rampaging force of 200,000, all of whom originated from the Ottoman Empire at one point or the other. It was these Armenians who went out of control, as Russian (and later, French) officers have documented, and slaughtered hundreds of thousands of innocent lives that Fanadix would have us believe amounted to around eighteen. "The Dashnaks... (have) nothing to do with the Ottoman Armenians"? UNBELIEVABLE! Good thing Fanadix displays "NO PROPAGANDA OR POV," as he claimed. (Actually, his late statement goes beyond propaganda or POV, and enters the territory of "OUTRIGHT LIE.") As far as the worth of 242,900 rubles, we're not talking about current rubles. I don't know what the worth of that money was in 1914, but you can bet it was nowhere near $500. Just like the over $100 million that the Near East Relief charities collected from unwary Americans amounts to somewhere over a billion dollars in today's currency, as Peter Balakian reported. Besides, just like Armenians love to tell us, what does it matter if 1 person or 400 million died, it was still a genocide? What matters is not the amount, but the PROOF that the Armenians colluded with the enemy. For all practical purposes, there was no difference between Russian Armenians and Ottoman Armenians. --Torque

testimony from even those such as Ambassador Henry Morgenthau to the effect of "...In the early part of 1915... every Turkish city contained thousands of Armenians who had been trained as soldiers and who were supplied with rifles, pistols, and other weapons of defense,"

This account can not be confirmed by any of Morgenthau neutral correspondences(like Consul Davis etc.), it was Heroic claims from Armenians, Ussher himself discuss about this in his memoir.--Fadix

Morgenthau henchman Consul Davis and Missionary Ussher are now to be considered "neutral"? Good thing Fanadix displays "NO PROPAGANDA OR POV," as he told us. There is a wealth of Western evidence pointing to Armenian preparedness for war; the reason why it's fun to point to Morgenthau is because he is the ultimate Armenian propagandist, and even he admitted to this! --Torque

and even accounts from Armenian newspapers hailing the rebellion.

This is completely untrue, the Goshnak “newspaper” quote Torque referred to does not exist. The Press Organ of the Dashnaktutiun letter say the complete opposite.-Fadix

How do we know it doesn't exist? Because Fanadix gives us his "word." And he's becoming a laughing stock by pointing to "Press Organ of the Dashnaktutiun" as a reliable source; that's the Armenian terrorist organization steeped in lies and deceit. Now why would Fanadix present their word as one we should trust? If he really believes that the fanatical Dashnaks are an honest party, we have become even more confirmed in how useless it is to believe in anything Fanadix throws our way, and expects us to accept his "word."--Torque

Taking advantage of the wide-spread war, which left Eastern Anatolia defenseless, these armed Armenian "comita"s, organized and supported by Russia and Russian-Armenians, have massacred Turkish and Kurdish villagers throughout Eastern Anatolia.

That's POV, there is no way to confirm this, even the Germans(Ottoman ally) have no internal correspondences about that, the only German sources about it was from the German Ottoman Chief of Staff, and it was based on a list presented by the Ottoman government. I have shown how the list is impossible, a same document has been used to present three different figures by adding zeros to the number eight. --Fadix

Yes, according to the Fanadix, only 18 Turks were killed by his poor, innocent Armenians. Certainly the Armenians did not punish any of their criminals, contrary to the Turks who definitely went after some of theirs even during the war. What's particularly sad about these falsehoods is that nobody in the West cares about these 518,000 victims of real ethnic cleansing now, and nobody cared about them then — even in our era of "genocide awareness." This is what we call true racism. And Fanadix's lack of ethics permits him to detract from the truth to preserve his people's mythological innocence. This is what we call concentrating on only one side of the story and closing our eyes to all else, the strategy of Vahakn Dadrian and so many other unscrupulous Armenian "historians" that Fadix relies on to present his weasel facts. And note: earlier, Fadix had indicated internal government reports not meant to be publicized cannot be considered as "propaganda." Yet, when he talks about "a list presented by the Ottoman government," it is to be now dismissed. Who else is going to categorize their nation's own dead, as the deaths are taking place? Would the Germans have cared to investigate these Muslim numbers? Good thing Fanadix displays "NO PROPAGANDA OR POV," as he claimed. --Torque

Chronology here is important and not incontestably established. Regardless of the chronology above, when the deportation orders were issued to Armenian villagers across Anatolia, the vast majority obediently followed orders, even when near certain death was obvious.

Edip in her memoirs report that the decision to “relocate” the Armenians was to replace the Armenian economical predominance by Germans and Turks. The proposition was given as soon as Feb. 1914 during a Germeno-Turk conference... soon during the war it was again proposed by the Germans, and the “preventive” measures were taken before an incidence justifying the decision. So the chronology should only record what can be documented. One can not claim if the Ottoman did not do this, this would have happened, “would have” is not what history records.--Fadix

Of course Fanadix's English is faulty, but he cannot be excused for putting the word "relocated" in quotation marks, because "deportation" means banishment outside a country's borders. But we already know he's not dealing from a base of honesty. And what did Edip (what's the source?) say, exactly? If she theorized on the reasons for the relocation, how does "opinion" become "historical evidence"? (Because Fanadix theorizes and expects us to accept his opinions as fact all the time?) And what's this about a "Feb. 1914 ... Germeno-Turk conference"? Is that like the "Wannsee Conference"? Taking place at a time before the Germans and the Ottomans seriously hooked up as allies? What exactly was this "proposition" and what's the source? (Vahakn Dadrian?) We already see from Enver Pasha's May 2 1915 telegram responding to Armenian rebels the initial reasons for the relocation decision. This decision was made in difficulty, after the Armenian straws kept breaking the Ottoman back. Enver Pasha wanted to really "deport" the untrustworthy Armenians, just like the Russians were doing with their innocent Muslims. Would that have been a better option? Remember, most Armenians died from famine, disease and combat. Would they have fared better as refugees, forced out with the clothes on their back? That no one can answer, but we do know Armenian refugees died by the truckload when they finally wound up in the Caucasus. Even if things went wrong, the Turks' hearts were in the right place when they decided on the vastly more humanitarian course. --Torque

After the recruitment of most men and the arrests of certain intellectuals, widespread massacres were taking place throughout Ottoman Empire. This should not be taken as the victims of these massacres were only the christian minorities, though. Starting with the spread of nationalism in early 1800's, for the sake of building purified nations, many turks (non-arabic muslims of Ottoman Empire) were exiled, deported and massacred by newly-independent Balkan nations such as Greece, Bulgaria and imperial Russia throughout the century. In desperate attempts at survival, upon hearing of massacres of nearby villages, Armenians in Musa Dagh and Van organized their self defense. In Van, they handed over control of the city to advancing Russians. The Ottoman government ordered the deportation of over 1 million Armenians living in Anatolia to Syria and Mesopotamia though this figure has not been conclusively established. Indeed, there is another consensus this number did not exceed 700,000,

This 700,000 figures is the one used by Kamuran Gurun(702,900), cited once in the Military archive, this figure is questioned, because it ended up that it was a figure representing Muslim refugees from the Russian Empire, and not Armenians.--Fadix

And it was the Armenian propagandist, Ara Sarafian, who told us that. Sarafian also tried to legitimize the 1916 "Treatment" Blue Book which even author Arnold Toynbee moved away from as legitimate. (In his "Western Question" work, a few years later.) Fanadix can take Sarafian's word, because Armenian propagandists operate together; but that's not enough for truth-seekers. So while this figure may be "questioned," it's not "proven to be wrong." Besides, how many more Armenians could have possibly been relocated, out of an original population of around 1.5 million? When a lot of them had bolted elsewhere, and 625,000 remained inside 1921's Ottoman borders, according to the Armenian Patriarch himself? [F.O. Hc. 1/8008, XC/A-018055, P. 651] (As for the ones who bolted, add to this figure Hovanissian's post-war Armenian refugee number of 500,000 in the Caucasus — not far from Dr. Nansen's League of Nations report — and Boghos Nubar's 1918 figures of 140,000 in Iran and Syria/Mesopotamia, coming up with over 1,200,000 survivors. These are all Armenian sources.) It's not like 700,000 would be a gross under-exaggeration. (Espeically when the Armenians who lobbied Gen. Harbord in 1919 claimed only around half a million had been relocated? (66th Congress, 2nd session.) And what about the rest of the points made in the above portion of the article? What gave Fanadix the right to do away with these truths? (Except for the propagandistic line, "Armenians in Musa Dagh and Van organized their self defense." That was rebellion, in both cases.) --Torque

and Arnold Toynbee reported in his Wellington House (British propaganda division) report of "The Treatment of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire" that 500,000 were alive in 1916.

One can not use partial figures to conclude, in 1916, well beyond what Toynbee covers, many Armenian convoys were redirected back in the desert, the “relocation” of the 21 convoys from the city of Zor example etc. are entirely excluded..--Fadix

If anything, that 500,000 figure could well have increased by 1916's end. I don't know, and certainly the great know-it-all Weasel "Armenian Beast" does not know. He just wants us to swallow his Dadrian-inspired propaganda... irresponsible statements the likes of "many Armenian convoys were redirected back in the desert," offered without any evidence or sources. --Torque

Although the word deportation seems pretty innocent (some would prefer the word "relocation," as the former means banishment outside a country's borders; Japanese-Americans, for example, were not "deported" during WWII), things were not, because the deportations themselves were a silent method of mass execution that led to the death of many of the Armenian population, by forcing them to march endlessly through desert, without food or water or enough protection from local Kurdish or Turkish bandits.

In the process several hundred thousand died in the resulting death marches from starvation, dehydration, disease or exhaustion. Several hundred thousands more were massacred by Kurdish militia and Ottoman gendarmes, giving an estimated total under certain counts of 1,500,000 Armenians dead. Then again, the Armenians contend one million survived, and even the Patriarch Ormanian provided a pre-war population figure of 1,579,000.

1.5 million is not agreed, but the large majority of the academia do recognize a million and over. Ormanian figure was an incomplete list which does not represent all the Armenians in the Ottoman Empire, revisionists try to give other senses to figures, when they are not supposed to represent what they claim they represent..--Fadix

Yes, protection for the Armenians was faulty; but it's only conjecture the reason why Armenians who died from starvation and disease was because of a purposefully evil genocide plan. That would stick if everyone else was healthy, but that was far from the case; everyone was dying in large numbers. So the fact that Fanadix got rid of the propaganda line above was one good thing. (Even though he replaced it with far worse.)

"Several hundred thousands more were massacred by Kurdish militia and Ottoman gendarmes" is ridiculous. That's the part of the original article that was untouched, out of "fairness." Le Figaro in 1977 estimated only 15,000 Armenian dead as a result of massacres and deprivations of the marches. That is not far from the truth, as the VAST MAJORITY died from famine, disease and combat. And the Ormanian figure might have been incomplete (that's what Fanadix says, anyway; we just have his "word"), but it gives us a fairly good idea. Keep in mind the patriarchs did not operate from a standpoint of honesty; so if the bulk of the Armenians was shy of 1.6 million, that confirms the median 1.5 million figure is a reliable one.--Torque

Mr. Hovhannes Katchaznouni, first Prime Minister of the Independent Armenian Republic, describes this part of history as follows in his 1923 Manifesto: "At the beginning of the Fall of 1914 when Turkey had not yet entered the war but already been making preparations, Armenian revolutionary bands began to be formed in Transcaucasia with great enthusiasm and especially with much uproar... The Armenian Revolutionary Federation had active participation in the formation of the bands and their future military action against Turkey... In the Fall of 1914 Armenian volunteer band organized themselves and fought against the Turks because they could not refrain themselves from fighting. This was an inevitable result of psychology on which the Armenian people had nourished itself during an entire generation; that mentality should have found its expression and did so....The Winter of 1914 and Spring of 1915 were the periods of greatest enthusiasm and hope for all Armenians in the Caucasus including of course the Dashnaktsutiun. We had no doubt the war would end with the complete victory of the Allies; Turkey would be defeated and dismembered and its Armenian population would be liberated. We had embraced Russia wholeheartedly without any compunction. Without any positive basis of fact we believed that the Tzarist government would grant us a more-or-less broad self-government in the Caucasus and in the Armenian vilayets liberated from Turkey as a reward for our loyalty, our efforts and assistance. "

The first 7-8 pages of the Manifesto are questionable, and contain Darounian POV and not the “Verbatim” as is claimed by Darounian... it can not be, because the Erzerum congress had not to do with what is reported, TransCaucasia has nothing to do with the Ottoman Armenians. Katchadouni himself was one of the figures responsible of the Alexendriopole investigation. The entry regarding the genocide can only contain things that can be confirmed, in this cases, not only it is difficult to confirm it, but the said Verbatim is wrongly attributed..--Fadix

Our Zero Credibility Fanadix is out of control in this segment. Imagine: this comes from an ARMENIAN source. ("Armenian Information Services," 1955) Fanadix doesn't like the damning statements, so he shamelessly claims the patriotic Armenian who prepared it (from the translation by another party) engaged in manipulation.

Katchaznouni writes, "In the Fall of 1914 Armenian volunteer band organized themselves and fought against the Turks" (confirming Morgenthau's assertion of rebellion, above) and Fanadix tries to pull the wool over our eyes by saying, "TransCaucasia has nothing to do with the Ottoman Armenians." There can be no arguing with the religiously obsessed Fanadix.

The 50,000 volunteers that Boghos Nubar admitted to mostly came from the Ottoman Empire. The Armenians, stirred up by their revolutionists, freely joined the enemy in the thousands; many Armenian soldiers in the Ottoman army treacherously deserted. The Russian border was freely crossed, in areas where Ottoman control was weak. Many of the 150,000 Armenians from the Russian force also originated from the Ottoman Empire at one point or another.

I excerpted a December 15, 1915 article from the famously anti-Turkish New York Times called "The Black Company" attesting to these facts: "By the 15th of last October 26,000 Turkish Armenians had taken the field against their ancient overloads, and 15,000 more were drilling at Tiflis, these groups being entirely distinct from the 75,000 Russian Armenians that had already been welded into the Czar's army. Fully 2,800 of these Turkish Armenians had been contributed by the Armenian colony in the United States."

Not that evidence is needed, because where else were these Armenians coming from? Almost all of the Russian Armenians were Ottoman Armenians, many from not that long ago, when Ottoman lands were conquered.

Besides, the loyalty of Armenians to the countries in which they resided (or, more accurately, have formed "colonies" in as Hovannisian described, as did the NYTimes writer above) have been markedly absent since Roman times, as I've offered evidence of — they were Armenians first, and Ottoman, Russian, French and whathaveyou second.

This is why the Russian and French commanders could barely control the rampaging and bloodthristy Armenians under their command, as documented by these commanders themselves. (The Armenian tyranny was so grave, the Russian Command sometimes dispatched them to the back lines, away from the fronts. For example "Journal de Guerre du deuxieme Regiment d'Artillerie de Forteresse Russe d'Erzoroum,1919".)

Note the other sinister ways Fanadix attempts to cast doubt on the words of Armenia's first prime minister. Good thing Fanadix displays "NO PROPAGANDA OR POV," as he claimed. --Torque

Statistics of the Second Massacre

Statistics regarding the number of Armenians living in Ottoman Anatolia and the number killed are disputed. The lowest numbers are given by Turkish sources and the highest by Armenian sources.

In 1896 the Ottoman government recorded 1,144,000 Armenians living in Anatolia. Professor Justin McCarthy, U.S. historian and expert in Ottoman history, whose books are published by a Turkish organization as well as prestigious university presses such as the Oxford University Press, estimated that there were 1,500,000 Armenians in Anatolia in 1912. According to the Armenian Patriarchate of Constantinople, there were between 1,845,000 and 2,100,000 Armenians in Anatolia in 1914. Estimates range from 1,000,000 given by some Turkish sources to more than 3,500,000 given by some Armenian sources. Arnold J. Toynbee, who served as an intelligence officer during World War I, estimates there were 1,800,000 Armenians living in Anatolia in 1914. Encyclopædia Britannica took 1,750,000 Armenians living in Anatolia as their estimate, in certain later editions. In 1911, the encyclopedia had figured 1.1 million, and Toynbee estimated less than one million in his 1915 book, "Nationalism and the War," before his services were enlisted in Wellington House.

I have discussed about this, pages and pages... Toynbee is manipulated, all figures do not represent the same region, etc. etc. and etc.--Fadix

Yes, some of those figures may not be on the button. I don't know who came up with the 1.8 million Toynbee figure, or whether that was derived from his Wellington House propaganda period; in his 1916 "Treatment" report, Toynbee was comfortable with a 1.6 million figure) but Toynbee's estimate of "less than one million in his 1915 book, "Nationalism and the War"' is a fact. It conforms with the English Yearbook figure of 1,056,000, from 1912. (Which counters the article's assertion that "Estimates range from 1,000,000 given by some Turkish sources"; the British Blue Book is not a "Turkish source.") Even if this one million figure was an undercount, it is significantly less than the Ottoman census of 1.3 million, which shows the Ottoman census had accuracy in mind; and it certainly demonstrates Fanadix's "pages and pages" of nonsense such as 2 million being "the median" as another example of his astonishing Zero Credibility level. (Of course it will be the median, if he uses wildly astronomical estimates by sources that rival his own for lack of credibility.) --Torque

Estimates for the numbers of Armenians who died during the Second Massacre vary even more. Some Turkish sources claim that 200,000 Armenians died, whereas some Armenian sources number the dead at well over 2,000,000. Talat Pasha, a prominent Young Turk and Grand Vizier from 1917-1918, claimed that the total was 300,000. Toynbee put the number at 600,000 in his 1916 "Treatment" propaganda report. McCarthy independently arrived at the same figure.

I covered this as well, Toynbee numbers end with the end of 1915 and the beginning of 1916, it doesn't cover the hundreds of thousands of victims after that the book has been published. So using Toynbee is misleading. As for McCarthy, his figures could be used, but in the revisionist section, because of the review by another specialist, professor Daniel Panzac, and Frederic Paulinfor for his PhD study.--Fadix

Because Fanadix "covered" this doesn't mean he "proved" it. The "hundreds of thousands of victims" who died after Toynbee's book appeared in April (if I'm not mistaken) of 1916 is a scandalous claim, as most of the ones who died from the relocation years of 1915-1916 had already died; the ones who died after the relocation period ended in 1916 mostly died for reasons everyone else died from. Let's not forget Toynbee's 600,000 claim appeared in a propaganda work that Toynbee distanced himself from in later years; it was Toynbee's job to sensationalize, and luckily he didn't get as carried away as his boss Bryce, whose absurd 800,000 Armenian dead figure was blurted in the New York Times in 1915. Let's not forget the Armenians themselves claimed 600,000 dead in 1919, so if McCarthy's immaculately arrived at figure is to be considered "revisionist," so would the figure provided by Armenians that exceed 600,000. (Does this egomaniacal Fanadix really believe he's going to dictate what is "revisionist" and what is not? All of Armenian propaganda has been freely revised fron the true historical facts.) Daniel Panzac and Frederic Paulin may well be specialists, but specialists in the hypocritical and dishonest "genocide" cause. It is the job of these untrue scholars to discredit anything and anyone in pursuit of their agenda. It is easy to cast doubt on any claim; we see Fanadix masterfully applying his deceptive craft time and again. The fact that some of these weasels have Ph.Ds is meaningless; Dadrian also earned a Ph.D, as did the bulk of deceitful Armenian professors. Once again, this is Fadix's unethical attempt to smear those whose findings don't serve his cause, and go against what he wants you to believe: that 1.5 million Armenians died from an original population of around 1.5 million, and that 18 Turks were killed by the Armenians among the 2.5 million, whose lives were lost no less tragically. --Torque

Later assessments

Armenians and others around the world recognize April 24 as marking the start of genocide at the hands of the Young Turks.

Some Turkish historians and foreign Ottoman history scholars deny that an event classifiable as state-organised genocide occurred, claiming a lack of evidence pointing Ottoman state involvement. Their claim is that the Armenian deaths resulted from armed conflict, civil war, disease and famine during the turmoil of World War I, when Armenian citizens of Ottoman Empire joined Russian armies to invade eastern provinces of Ottoman Empire. In the same period, 2.5 million other Ottoman citizens have perished as a result of civil-war and disease.

That's misleading, and I said above why... beside that, other population losses are not related with the Armenian genocide.--Fadix

Of course it's not related, because Armenians must present their suffering as an exclusive one, pretending it occurred in a vacuum. There was an Armenian rebellion and war. The Armenians murdered 518,000 Turks/Muslims and other non-Armenians with some Russian help. We can't look at this picture honestly without examining how the cycle of blood feuds all fed one upon the other; it's high past time to get away from the abominable and inhuman idea of "exclusive victimhood." Fanadix should understand, because not to do so would be racist; and we all know his soul is pure and clean. --Torque

Justifying edits.

This is a controversial topic and both the Turkish and the Armenian claims are posted below. If you want to add something please be neutral

That's purely discriminative and has absolutely no places in Wikipedia entry. As I have told you countless numbers of times, this is not about Turkish and Armenian view. --Fadix

Thanks to Fanadix who has been with Wikipedia for all of a few days, and already the egomaniac is attempting to educate us on Wikipedia policy. He also has the audacity to tell us "this is not about Turkish and Armenian view," and then he plasters these pages with 100% of the Armenian propagandistic perspective. --Torque

The term Armenian Genocide (also known as the Armenian Holocaust or Armenian Massacre) refers to the claim of the Armenian government and some scholars as deportation and murder of Armenians by the Young Turks government in 1915-1916. The claim is currently a dispute between Turkey and Armenia.

This is not an Armenian government claim, it is not because a government recognize the genocide that it becomes its claims. The current republic of Armenia does not get involve in those discussions, doesn't extensively publish regarding the issue. Current republic of Armenia is parts of Russian Armenia and is unrelated to what was known as Ottoman Armenia. The majority of the Armenians lives outsides of the republic. So this can not be the Armenian government claim. And “some” scholars is plain wrong, Neutral point of view apply in giving different informations and not wrong informations about informations. The fact of the matter is the most in the academic worlds outside of the Turkish and Armenian sphere recognize that has happened. And claiming “some” is like claiming in a Wikipedia entry that 2+2 = 5.--Fadix

Yes, for the longest time the government of Armenia wasn't involved in this tomfoolery. It was only after the Diaspora Armenians spread their hate and poison (and diasporans like Richard Hovannisian's son got directly involved) did the landlocked and troubled nation realize this genocide hocus-pocus was a good way to gather attention and the sympathy Armenians have thrived on for so long, hoping it would lead to more money. (Already their lobbyists have extracted over 1.5 billion dollars from American taxpayers since their independence, without offering anything in return. They still owe the USA $50 million plus interest, a loan that was made in good faith, back in 1919.) So the Armenian government is now fully involved; but mostly Armenian colonists like Fanadix are the driving force. The Armenian people are just hoping to survive; that's why some 45,000 have escaped into Turkey to live better lives, in addition to the 60 or 70,000 who had been living in Turkey for many years. 5,000 of those Armenians are poor women who have turned to prostitution in order to make ends meet. It would be a much better world if we all humanistically concentrated on real-life issues instead of sneakily pulling the wool over people's eyes as Armenians have been doing for way too many years. Furthermore, this Fanadix is clearly living on a different plane of existence with such comments as "Neutral point of view apply in giving different informations and not wrong informations about informations." I think he really might believe he is "neutral." --Torque

Scholars are divided between two general views, one general view is that there was a state-sponsored extermination plan, while the other general view losses were a result of clashes between the two-sides, and causes such as famine and disease claiming the lives of all Ottomans. The statistics regarding how many Armaniens perished varies and there are no official numbers.

That's misrepresentation, scholars outside of the Turkish Armenian sphere are not divided, it is like claiming that scholars are divided regarding the Shoah. Most scholars accept the theses of genocide. And no, it is not POV to give ratio, if the ratio is true. Go get any books regarding World War I and search “Armenians” in the index, and see by yourself. You may start with Gilbert's volume regarding World War I. Take away Ottomanists and Armenologists and you can hardly find any historian claiming there was no genocide. Holocaust and Genocide specialists recognize it as genocide, the UN as well. And there are as well some Turkish scholars who recognize it. There are “some” Turkish scholars, but not “some” sholars but most.--Fadix

Here Fanadix is milking the fact that (A) Armenian propaganda arrived in torrents during WWI, coupled with the same in the previous quarter-century, cementing with the anti-Turkish prejudice in the West for centuries since the Crusades (B) Nobody wants to go against "genocide"; everyone knows "genocide" is bad, and it's easy to accept the "avalanche" of Armenian propaganda "evidence" that has had the advantage of gaining such a clear foothold (C) Those who have tried to speak the truth got deeply hurt, in ways ranging from horrendous smear campaigns to bombings of their homes. Who would want to enter this fray and be subjected to the madness of fanatics like Fanadix, whose existence depends on maligning and discrediting those whose views are contrary? Holocaust and Genocide specialists, whose institutes are financed in no small part by wealthy and obsessed Armenians, are the equivalent of today's missionaries in integrity, and the U.N. has NOT recognized this hoax ["(The) United Nations has not approved or endorsed a report labeling the Armenian experience as Genocide," Farhan Haq, U.N. spokesman, October 5th, 2000]; not that it really matters if it did, because the ones who pass resolutions are basing their decisions not on historical truth but the old reasons of prejudice and hunger for Armenian wealth, in the case of many politicians. [This is the reason why if you "Take away Ottomanists and Armenologists... you can hardly find any historian claiming there was no genocide." It's the rare intellectual who refuses to scratch below the surface and has the courage to buck the tide when everyone else has accepted the propaganda as the common wisdom.] It's a disgusting situation, and Fanadix is a commando of these disgraceful forces.--Torque

The exact number of Armenians killed by the Ittihadist regime is still subject to further research. German and Austrian documents record the the total may be over a million. The official Ottoman records of 800,000 killed suggest as well that the total death toll reach in the million and over.

It is not wrong to say most historians agree with those figures, when they do agree with those figures, Gilbert that is very conservative provide a million, most Western works do support a million or over, I don't see why that adding should be deleted, when it is true. It is not POV.

"The exact number of Armenians killed by the Ittihadist regime" has nothing to do with the total Armenians killed, since many died for the same reasons everyone else was dying from, including famine and disease and combat. This is why the number of Turks killed, over 2.5 million, is very relevant; we get a sense of perspective. Probably the number of Armenians who died as a result of massacres and deprivations on the march amounts to no more than 50,000; remember, Le Figaro stated 15,000 in 1977, and Le Figaro would have had no reason to lie, catering to the French obsequiously, as the French are known to do. "The official Ottoman records of 800,000" don't count if that's the puppet Ottoman government during enemy occupation; they were anxious to find culpability, interested in retributions for the previous government and fearful of British threats to find villains or else it would be curtains for the country. This is yet another example of "NO PROPAGANDA-NO POV" Fanadix's using selective facts that suit his purpose: the "official" figure of the real Ottoman Armenian mortality was Talat's 300,000, presented at the last CUP meeting. --Torque

Sources for one point of view

Thats purposely pointed here as to fool the reader that would believe that there are two equal opposing view, when that is not true. The first version is the official point of view, and is supported by most Western academics, it is like to provide links in an article regarding natural selection, one bring the pro natural selection links and claim one point of view, and for the creationist point of view “other point of view.”--Fadix

The position analagous to Creationism is clearly that of the Armenians. Little does Fanadix realize he is serving as a perfect example with his ridiculous and hysterical writings. There's no arguing with him, he has to be right on all counts; he has zero tolerance to add to his zero credibility, and he has 100% dogma. These are the characteristics of a religious fanatic. Perhaps Fanadix, in his mysterious identity, has a secret yen for the Taliban.--Torque

“On April 24, 1915, the Young Turk government executed hundreds Armenian intellectuals”

That's not a POV, even the Turkish government publications don't deny it. Look Coolcat, either read a book about it or don't comment. --Fadix

We already are aware, thanks to the highly partisan source of Peter Balakian, that this propagandistic claim is a false one, that they were all executed on the same day. They were arrested; Armenian propaganda can tell us how many were eventually executed, but I'd rather rely on the forces of truth. Balakian's own relative, for example, was a survivor. He was a priest who supposedly escaped from a Turkish prison, just like in "Midnight Express." "Even the Turkish government publications don't deny it"? What, that all who were arrested (235, which is misrepresented by the more ominous word, "hundreds") were executed on the same day? Does Fanadix actually expect to get away with his outright falsehoods?--Torque

Several hundred thousands more had perrised. One point of view suggests Kurdish militia and Ottoman gendarmes were responsible while the other point of view siggests war, famine and other factors were responsible. The exact number of Armenians killed by the Ittihadist regime is still subject to further research. German and Austrian documents record the the total may be over a million. The official Ottoman records of fatlities stand at 800,000. Both parties dispute the statistics so the acatual number of fatalities could be much less or could be in the the million or more.

That's again giving equal places to two points of views, when in the Academic world outside of the Turkish and Armenian circles most support the first theses, as well as the figure of a million and over.--Fadix

The Academic world also supported the fact that the world was flat once. If the Academic world is swayed by the omnipresent Armenian propaganda and not actual historical truth, and some in the Academic world are afraid of bucking the tide and fearful of fanatical Armenian repercussions, then "the Academic world" cannot be presented as evidence to support the Armenians' phony genocide; we emphasize quality, not quantity. (And if the pre-war population was 1.5 million, there is no way over a million Armenians could have died, with a million survivors. The official Ottoman figure for Armenian fatalities was 300,000, before the puppet regime under enemy occupation; 300,000 was cited at the last CUP meeting by Talat Pasha.)--Torque

Another thing, books and links can NOT be mixed together, and there was a reason why I deleted the last link you have placed back. Torque is its author, and as I have pointed out, that link contain many racist materials and racist comments, it slanders the entire Academic community who recognize the genocide. It slanders Turks who recognizes the genocide, it contains materials copypasted from the newsgroups that do not exist. Until Torque correct the situation, I will be deleting it, there is no place for racist views in Wikipedia.Fadix 14:53, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Once again Fadix is making claims he offers no proof for aside from his "word." If sites are referred to, is that to be considered evidence one must be the owner? If so, I must also own Yahoo and Google without being aware of it. This man will never learn, I fear, the difference between "speculation/opinion" and "fact." That is why he has placed so much of his faith upon his unscrupulous genocide theorists, and his argumentation is faith based. If there is no place for racist views in Wikipedia, then Fadix, who clearly doesn't care for the value of Turkish/Muslim lives suffering in much greater proportions than the Armenians, and who is going out of his way to deceptively downgrade this suffering (only 18 died!), should resign from Wikipedia. That's assuming he has any honor.--Torque

Message to Mediator

Now the mediator, like the ICTJ, no doubt has been exposed primarily to this propaganda, an "avalanche" of which is available in the West. I urge the mediator to read Gurun's book, and to look at this topic with an open mind. And I want to remind the mediator that Fadix has exposed himself to have Zero Credibility time and again. When one only presents an exclusive side, overlooking the rest, one's credibility dissipates.

One need look strictly at the Ottoman records to see how Armenians suffered immensely. There were many innocent Armenians among the 700,000 uprooted, and how awful it must have been to give up one's home and go to places unknown, under the command of those who didn't always have their best interest at heart. It's time the Armenians acknowledge the ones who put them in this harmful position were their fanatical leaders, when "Prudence was thrown to the winds," as K. S. Papazian wrote.

The whole idea behind genocide, notwithstanding silly definitions by the ICTJ where only one person needs to be killed, involves a systematic extermination plan, with the idea of killing off everyone. Were there Ottomans intending to exterminate the Armenians? The answer is: if the idea was to exterminate, a million couldn't have survived. But there were definitely those with murder on their minds.

But who were these Ottomans? They were NOT Talat, Enver, and Jemal. The real Ottoman orders safeguarded Armenian lives and property. In other words, there is no single shred of evidence tying in the central government to this great alleged crime.

This is why we must look at the BIG PICTURE. The Armenians rebelled. Posing too great a threat to the desperate nation engaged in a life or death struggle, they got relocated. Unfortunately, things went awry. There was a deep shortage of manpower and resources, and the huge task of transporting and relocating hundreds of thousands was compounded by locals who were corrupt, opportunistic and revengeful. (But what's forgotten are those who did their job properly; some gendarmes died defending Armenians from attack, and Morgenthau got direct word from an Armenian representative that 500,000 were carrying on well with their lives in September of 1915. Since he was another weasel, he didn't report this diary entry in his book.)

Let's compare with a recent operation conducted by the world's superpower, the USA. The USA didn't have any "time pressure" to war in Iraq, since Iraq wasn't threatening to invade America. The USA had all the time in the world to make sure everything went right. We are all aware how wrong things went. While there's a news block-out (a lesson learned from the Vietnam War), the public had a chance to see the agony inflicted upon Iraqi civilians through, for example, FAHRENHEIT 9/11. We are aware video game-playing or nervous American soldiers can be trigger-happy. We know, because of poor planning, cultural rape occurred when the Iraqi museum got looted. How do you think American soldiers would behave, let alone American civilians, if Ameria were on her knees with powers threatening every front, and a traitorous minority begins massacring fellow Americans, in exchange for promises of a new homeland? Don't you think at least some of them would avenge their massacred children and spouses?

The idea was to make sure the Armenians in each town composed no greater a number than 10%. This is why the fact that we are told the Armenians were marched off into the desert to die is another myth. The fact is, Armenians were dispersed within the Anatolian heartland, as well.... from Ankara to Konya, let's say. These are all in the Ottoman archives. Downright stupid decisions were made when villages Armenians were dispersed to were Kurdish villages. That was the end of these Armenians. Were they purposely sent to these villages because of "extermination" goals? That's a matter of speculation. Perhaps the official thought "we were all Ottomans," and nothing would happen to those Armenians.

There are even genuine telegrams indicating Talat Pasha was aware soldiers killed Armenians. The question: did these soldiers get orders from the top?

Let's go back to Iraq. Not long ago, an American soldier was sentenced to 12 or 15 years for tortures committed at the Abu Gharib prison. (Let's bear in mind Ottomans were tried and punished DURING the war for crimes against Armenians, some to the extent of execution.) The American said he was following orders. Of course; some local commander gave this soldier the thumbs up. But did these orders extend up to President Bush, the counterpart of "Talat Pasha"? (We don't know, because there's no proof. We can't blame Bush for deliberately giving such orders. Unless the evidence surfaces, or unless an Andonian comes up with forgeries.)

We know there were many more soldiers involved in Iraqi war crimes than the handful charged/tried, but only these few were scapegoated. Why? Because if there's a full-scale effort to find and punish every guilty party, morale on the home front would plunge. Compound that in a situation where a nation is battling for her very life. The fact that any Ottomans were punished at all, given their desperate situation, says a lot.

An important document bearing witness to "no genocide" is one written by Enver to Talat on May 2, 1915. This was after the last of the Van rebellions (until that time) and rebellions in other cities, followed by the April 24 order to arrest Armenian ringleaders. (All murdered on the same day, according to most Armenian propagandistic sources.) Enver notes the Armenian insurrection in Van, and the Russians' traditional method of expulsion of Muslims from lands they had conquered. (He writes, "Muslims within their borders," actually. So perhaps these were their own Muslims kicked out, to further strain the limited resources of the Ottomans who had to take care of them, and to use the war opportunity to get rid of an unreliable Muslim population. This expulsion took place on April 20.)

"In order to respond to this, as well as to reach the goal (of destroying the rebellion's nest)..., it is necessary to either send these Armenians and their families to Russia, or to disperse them within Anatolia. I request that the most suitable of these two alternatives be chosen and carried out. If there is no inconvenience I would prefer that the families of the rebels and the population of the region in rebellion are sent outside our borders and that the Muslim community brought into our borders from abroad are relocated to their place."

Enver opted for expulsing his country's traitorous Christians, just like Russia had been doing with her innocent Muslims. Sounds fair, doesn't it?

Note there is no thought of extermination, because of pan-Turanism, or because Muslims hate Christians, or the other phony reasons Armenian propaganda tells us served as the motive for genocide. Just boot them into the hands of their precious Russians! Why spend the milliions of dollars to relocate, and why divert precious resources and manpower on a relocating attempt within their own country?

Ironically (given the "genocide" charge), the Ottoman government chose the more HUMANITARIAN route. Yes, things went wrong. But the intentions were good.

I would like to request, regardless of how the article is finally presented, to remove the word "genocide" from the title. Another partisan had started a page at Wikipedia, pointing to the equally phony Pontus Greek "genocide" as the "Greek Holocausf" at Wikipedia. This name was justly changed. Similarly, we should only hold truth as our parameter, within this page.

And please keep the BIG PICTURE in mind. Not the dizzying array of confusing weasel facts Fadix is sure to present from his propaganda "avalanche," all amounting to "Joe said..." Honorable people don't resort to hearsay in the charge of a crime, particularly this great crime. When the British turned honorable, they ignored all the "avalanche" of hearsay and forgeries, and freed all the Turks at Malta because there was simply no reliable evidence to be found.

Raffi may be excused somewhat for perpetuating his propaganda, because he has only studied one side of his story, and has a "religious" bent. I don't know how Fadix can live with himself, as he has scrutinized this historic episode inside out. He is determined to support his agenda, regardless of the genuine facts. This is why Fadix, the Super Armenian Weasel Beast, has ZERO CREDIBILITY.--Torque March 1, 2005

PLEASE DO NOT EDIT THIS PAGE, BOTH PARTIES WILL BE ASKING FOR MEDIATION. BE ADVISED THAT IF YOU DO EDIT, IT WILL BE REVERTED BACK.

What the heck is this? What gives any editor the right to pre-judge what other editors do on a page? RickK 06:35, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

This place is abused by some, and used as a propaganda, it is reasonable to think that epople should refrain changing it again and again.

No, that will get you blocked from editing. Discuss it here, have an admin protect it, but don't warn others off from editing. That is unacceptable in Wikipedia. RickK 05:42, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)

RE. Comparing the propagandistic factor of Raffi vs. Fadix

Let answer Mr. Torque yet again.

Raffi proudly exclaimed that he knows this subject "VERY well," yet it has become apparent he doesn't know that much at all... especially if he makes comments not steeped in reality, such as there was no Armenian rebellion.

Germany Ottoman ally, The commander of the Ottoman IIIrd army, on the spot, the Ottoman Intelligent department II at the front, all of them haven't reported the rebellion you claim has happened. This place is an open source encyclopedia, it is not your website, none of the official documents support your claim of Ottoman propaganda, including the files collected by the father of denialism Mr. Uras, including the archives released by Turkeys ministry of foreign affairs.

Like 99% of Armenians, he is only content in studying what his deceptive Armenian professors and the hypocritical genocide scholars tell him... of which there is an "avalanche" of propagandistic information out there, since the Turks are not a "speak up" kind of people traditionally, and current ones don't have the motivation to bone up on this topic. (Even if they do, this one-sided "avalanche" is so firmly entrenched in the West, they would not be playing on an equal playing field.)

This place is an open source encyclopedia, it is not your site where you can post racist generalizations. If you want to spew your hateful venom and tell us what 99% of Armenians are, go find somewhere else.

Raffi has admitted he hasn't read Sam Weems' "Armenia," even though he has felt free to knock it down, and I have no doubt he has also not come near Gurun's "The Armenian File - The Myth of Innocence Exposed," even though he knocked that one down as well. This is the job of Armenians: to knock down anything that debunks their big genocidal con job, regardless of the source, and of the truth.

I have read both works and have already reviewed them, and beside commenting about books which people have not read and yet they comment, what a hypocrite you are, you did this same thing with countless numbers of people, on the other forum, and in your official website, don't accuse others of things which you do in daily basis.

Raffi has demonstrated he has an aversion to truth. One example was his referring to me as a "pro-Turkish govt positionee," even though he has no idea of who I am. But a perfect example of how the Armenian strategy works is to overlook the forest, and single out the sole tree that supports their genocide. Raffi did this with our ICTJ exchange. Once again, the ICTJ is a body of lawyers (not historians) who decreed the Armenians' experience was a genocide... and the Armenians must latch on to this, as they have no other judicial proof.

Again hypocrisy at best, when an historian claim it was a genocide, you brag a so-called Malta tribunal that never was, and ask the thing to be “proven”in a court, when bunch of jurists do conclude it as genocide, you claim they are not historians. Do make a choice and stick to it, but I know that's to much asking to you.

In typical Armenian style,

That's the last time I will ask you to refrain making racist generalization, the next time I will complaining to Wikipedia, as I told you, this place is not your website where you can spew your racistic venoms.

we are asked to examine the surface; but if we dig deeper, we learn the ICTJ primarily used the "avalanche" of Armenian propaganda to make their determination, and that their definition of genocide is that only one person needs to be killed... so that the murder of Talat Pasha by Soghoman Tehlirian can be called a genocide, rendering the word meaningless.

That's bullcrap, but I do expect from your part to assassinate the character of people supporting my theses, I do expect for you to twist what they say... you are so good at it.

As rebuttal, I attached Justin McCarthy's views, where at one point he wrote the 1948 Convention is watered down enough to have the Armenians' experience called a genocide.

I have posted in the other forum over 40 pages of analysis regarding McCarthy and his works, but of course you prefer taking the words of someone that receives grants directly from Ankara, but on the other hand you assassinate the character of people that are independent. Mr. Torque would probably be the first one to yapp, if it was to happen that a historian was to receive grants from the republic of Armenia or was to participate in a ministry publication regarding the Turks, or yet better was to participate in an institute of Turkish studies of the Republic of Armenia destinated at supporting the “Armenian” theses. But what can we expect, since McCarthy is the best Mr. Torque can get.

Forget the fact that even with the 1948 Convention's broad definition, the Armenians' story still doesn't fit, as "intent" has yet to be proven, and the convention exempts political alliances; Raffi completely disregarded McCarthy's main point, which is what happened to the Muslims at the hands of the Armenians would then also be termed a genocide. All Raffi was interested in was the one statement that was helpful, and pretended the rest did not exist. An honest person seeking the truth does not operate in this fashion.

McCarthy is an academic fraud, he has manipulated the theory of stable population, has not respected any of the 4 points of the founders of that theory, and to get his work published he had to add on the first pages that the numbers presented there are too imperfect to be considered as correct. McCarthy is a fraud, he has manipulated works when including in a footnote to support theses, when the works were telling the complete opposite of what he affirms. e.g, when he claimed Armenians started in Van, he provided to references, Ussher and Nogales, when both books say that this was not the cases. For Erzerun, he has used a propaganda material even more suspcious than the Andonians, prepared by Mehmed Sadik and the head of the Ottoman propaganda bureau, when another in that department has admitted that propaganda materials were build regarding the Armenians. But of course, again, McCarthy is probably the best Mr. Torque could get. As for 1948 genocide convention, it is recognized that not only the Armenian cases fir it, but even the restrictive term includes the Armenian cases as a part of its definition.

Fadix has done what few Armenians have done; he has throughly studied this topic, making use of the limitless knowledge base of propaganda organizations like Vahakn Dadrian's Zoryan Institute. He follows in the footsteps of the slimy Dadrian, whose job it has been to try and discredit the real historical picture with the "avalanche" of selective "facts" the Armenian propaganda industry has had the luxury having produced for over a century.

The material I use are known authentic, compared to what you use. I am not the one that uses forgeries and falsifications, I am not the one using quotations that do not exist, you are, I have given bunch of examples of falsified materials you have used, but this didn't stopped you to use them again. Stop defaming a professional, you don't come to Dadrians foot fingers in what regards integrity and professionalism, your knowledge of the event won't give a digit on a calculator that can display 10 digits when compared it with Dadrians knowledge. While I have analysed what McCarthy has actually writen, while I have commented his works, reviewed them and actually have read them all, you have slandered people and professional who's the works you have not read, you have tried assassinating their characters under the cover of anonymousness. You are both a coward and a racist.

There have been a host of influential Western people who have been taken in by this hogwash, aided by the fact that the "Terrible Turk" has been looked upon as outcasts of humanity ever since the Crusades. It's not difficult to find seemingly legitimate people who have been suckered in to the Armenian madness. As latter-day examples, we have Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan adding their voices to the genocide bandwagon on Raffi's quotes page. But there certainly is no shortage of duped/prejudiced Westerners from the "genocide days" that Fadix makes extensive use of.... not excluding the (WWI allies) Germans and Austrians who were the enemies of the Ottoman Turks for centuries, and not all would be able to shake their feelings of animosity. How easy it was for them to accept the sob stories of the Armenians and the missionaries, as well.

What an hypocrite you are, but of course you ignored the fact that in Western history books of the time, in anthropological research, Armenians were either considered as Persians or Christian Turks, they were considered by the Germans as Christian Jews, either the Jews of Orient. There are bunch of documents supporting what I advance. The King Crane report even affirmed that the Turks were more liked than the Armenians, and this is confirmed in many literatures. So here again, talking of revisionism, you shout Western biases in every given occasion by thinking that it will undo the reports, that is not how it works, you can not undo peoples reports only by claiming their were Westerns. Beside that, the Austrian and German reports supporting the theses I advance were secret reports and not for public consumption. While the documentations early in the war for public consumption were supporting your theses, the secret reports were telling the quite opposite, letter those for public consumption change, but that was due to the fact that Germany was unable to hide what was happening anymore. Beside that, not only Western sources points to the Genocide, there are more clearer documents in the Armenians cases that display a clear inetion from the government to exterminate the Armenian than the Holocaust. Hilberg an authority of the Shoah has himself claimed that there was no documents ordering the extermination of the European Jewry. In fact, you will never find any memoirs from German officials anything near to what Halil wrote in his memoirs, when he claimed that he has tried to exterminate the Armenians to the last individual, there are many such examples. But since you don't care of the truth, I do not expect you to change your mind, you are not here to know the truth contrary to what you affirm, you already have made your mind, because you hate the Armenians, and that is clear and becomes clearer in each of your posts. While the first book I have read about the subject was not supporting my cases(McCarthy), what you did is take trash and copypast them, without researching about the matter. What Yapp has claimed regarding Dadrian, that's exactly what you've been doing.

This is why I say Fadix has zero credibility. He knows the other side of the story. When he comes across evidence from sources with no conflict-of-interest (indeed, Western sources are primarily anti-Turkish, and those who would refute his genocide would have no reason to lie), does he stop and say, Wait a minute... maybe there is something to this. No. His first instinct, in typical Armenian fashion, is to think, How can I discredit this?

Stop accusing me of what you see in your reflection in the mirror. While I comment and analysis works which I actually read, you on the other hand assassinate characters who's work you have even not read in the first place. I am not the one claiming Armenians=Truth, on the other hand, you are the one claiming Turks=Truth, you have claimed that being a formula in your own web site, and told you readers to remember it. You must be a hell of a hypocrite to claimwhat you claim here regarding me, after you have displayed to be exactly that. As for zero credibility, again, as I said countless numbers of times. A credibility is lost for a reason, not because someone said it. You have lost your credibility, because you have used distortions, non-existing quotes, forgeries, fabrications, non-existing materials to support your claims, and I have demonstrated that in countless numbers of occasions.

One of Fadix's many methods of putting up smokescreens (and to try and discredit me) is to claim I am "racist." This is ironic, because it has been documented (and hopefully it's not as true for current generations, but reading Armenian forums, I wonder) that Armenians have been bred to hate Turks. By contrast, the Turks deliberately didn't dwell on the past ills and shoved the 518,000 Muslims (the Armenians murdered) under the rug, stressing love and brotherhood.

You are a racist, you generalize and characterize people based on their ethnicity, this is a form of racism. On the other hand, be glad to show me where I did that with the Turks? While I refer to your side as denialists, you characterize Armenians and attach to them behaviors, which is racistic and is against Wikipedias terms of uses. Regarding the 518,000 Muslim being killed, you know well that I have shown this number to be forgeries, I have demonstrated that 3 numbers, for the same location, the same date and the same files, in which the “8” was taken and zeros added in each of them, I have demonstrated how this news was used by the intermediary of the German Chief of Staff for German public consumption soon during the war to ally the public opinion to a German-Turkish causes. But I don't expect you to stop shouting something I have shown you more than one occasion to be a forgery.

Armenians are lovely people; we are all of the human family. But since Armenian sites like Raffi's love to put up testimony of what a "human cancer" the Turkish people are (usually from those who have never met Turks; those who have met them who say such things... like the one who wrote "The [Turkish] Blight of Asia" were zealous religious fanatics, such as U.S. Consul George Horton), should we close our eyes to how non-agenda-laden Westerners who have met Armenians typically think of them? In anti-Turkish history books documenting the Crusades, we often read how the Crusaders came out with a respect for the honor of the Turks/Muslims, and with a distaste for the Armenians/Greeks who have tried to cheat them.

What is said in those testimonies is not different than what was said regarding the Germans in World War II, after witnessing the German horrors of the war. Raffi is simply presenting the words of people being horrified. But of course you have no problem posting materials describing Armenians as worst in your own web-site. As for the Armenians being lovely people, comments like this won't undo your racist views.

June 16, 1880, Lt.-Col. C.W. Wilson, British Consul General for Anatolia described the Armenians as "immoral, fanatic, bigoted," and that "truth and honesty are sadly deficient."

Exactly what I told above, as I said, the Armenians were not viewed anywhere better than the Turks. So your claims regarding racism against the Turks and not Armenians is not valid.

Harold Armstrong, 1925: "argumentative, quarrelsome, and great know-it-alls." The Armenians are "crafty, grasping, secretive, acquisitive and dishonest, making a great pretence of religion, but using it as a cloak for treachery and greed."

Again, this support my position, Westerners didn't had any better view regarding the Armenians, I fail to see how this can be an argument to support your theses. But of course your goal is not this, since you are a racist, you use such materials to support your claim regarding the Armenians being inferior as a “race.”

Sept. 30, 1908, British vice-counsel Capt. Dickson: "unsympathetic, mean, cringing, unscrupulous, lying, thieving... endowed with a sneak thief sharpness."

Again, the same thing apply here.

WOW! What better way to describe "Zero Credibility" Fadix? Especially with that "sneak thief sharpness"! The above described qualities are unfortunately not absent from Armenians who dishonestly try to justify their huge genocidal con job... at the head of which is that master manipulator, Vahakn Dadrian, who actually tried to legitimize Andonian's forged telegrams, the ones Andonian himself indicated were fake.

First of all, Andonian never claimed the documents as being fakes, he claimed that they were used as propagandas, so stop lying, you can lie in your website, but this is not the place. Second of all, Dadrian never claimed that the Andonians were authentic, his essay was a review of Orel and his colleagues review regarding the Andonians, he analyzed their arguments, he concluded that the arguments used can not support the claim that the documents were forgeries.

I'll make use of Weems' "Armenia" and Gurun's "The Armenian File" to counter Fadix's smokescreen assertions. I urge you all to read these books... especially the mediator, who will also suffer from a bias (like the ICTJ lawyers), because of the prevalent Armenian propaganda that has brainwashed so many. Note Armenian attempts to discredit both authors have nothing to do with the immaculate sources that have been researched, particularly Armenian sources... sources that would have had no reason to be untruthful. Gurun's book is available online,

What a cheap trick, the decisions from the mediators should be taken based on what arguments are brought here. Kamuran Gurun was a Turkish diplomat at the Turkish foreign ministry and had as charge with peoples such as Ataov to deny the Armenian genocide. Gurun has used manipulations such as the figure of 702,900, the figures representing Muslim immigrants and passed them as Armenians, he brought as one argument, that since the Armenians did not exist, an Armenian genocide could not have occurred... he manipulated numbers from other sources, an example is provided in my answer regarding the Armenian losses from 1894 to 1897.

As for Weems, I had a complete review of Weems that has been shut down by the Turkish site tetedeturc and Turkishforum, I may be wrong, but the fact of the matter is that one turk whom was discussing with me has emailed Turkishforum, and soon after my site was shut down. Such cheap tricks to silence the truth about Weems work tell it all. Weems has manipulated other figures of population statistics, and I have provided many examples, he claims having done research in Russian archives, yet as a picture of the building he present the Basilica which he mistake as the archives building. His translations of those archives were word by word identical to the official translations of the Turkish governments historiographies. There are hundreds of works regarding the genocide, the Holocaust Museum has 200 books, which represent a fraction, the Armenian genocide is considered as the second most studied genocide, There are works regarding the concentration camps, the special organization, German complicity, etc. etc. etc. And yet, you have nothing to present than a work written by a Turkish diplomat at the Turkish foreign ministry.

RE. Is it irrelevant to consider what took place before "1915"?

Let's say there is a news story about how a teen-aged girl shot her uncle. Should we automatically conclude she was a cold-blooded murderer?

To determine if it was a cold blooded, traces of premeditation are researched, the history is only used to undo predetermination by claiming that since what happened in the past, the person that committed the act didn't had all his/her mind when he/she committed the crime. The prosecution, tries to demonstrate on the other hand that because of the premeditated way the crime was committed, the accused had all his/her mind. This is why history is researched, it is to undo premeditation. There is a distinction between understanding and accepting in court of law.

No, ladies and gentlemen, when there is a crime committed, or what we are told is a crime committed in case there's no proof, we don't simply look at the final act. We look into the history of what took place in order to determine whether punishment is to be meted, and how much.

(It's funny how the Armenians love to have their cake and eat it too. For example, in the trial of Tehlirian, the assassin of Talat Pasha, the murderer walked scot-free. Why? Because the events in question -- and not the murder itself -- were examined in the fixed two-day trial, where only witnesses for the defense were permitted and whose outcome was pre-determined. Tehlirian had committed a "genocide," using the ICTJ's defintion. Tehlirian was unpunished. Maybe it's true what the genocide industry tells us, that if genocides remain unpunished, genocides will be committed again. This is why countless Armenian terrorists in future years committed genocides against innocent Turks, and some of the few who were caught usually got slaps on the wrists from biased Western courts.)

What a full of crap, Tehlirian was examined by various doctors, he had epileptic seizures as a consequences of the troma, not only because of what he has witnessed, but as well because he had brain damage from the hit he received on his head during the massacres that left him unconscious for a long time. The even itself made him an epileptic with psychosis. He ended up being a psychiatric cases with heavy medications. The only reason his history was brought was because it showed that he didn't had his mind when he killed Talaat, he thought that his actions were dictated by some divine interactions, and that his mother that was butchered was telling him to avenge her. This was why no witnesses from the other side were present, because the cases was not about what did not happen, but what Tehlirian possibly witnessed that made him insane.

And no, the ICTJ definition can not be applied here, while some such definitions may consider the murder of one person as a genocide, there should be intend to harm a group, which led the death of that person, in other cases such murder is called homicide.

This is how Armenian propagandists hope you will swallow their big con job. Look at the surface. Never scratch underneath.

In the discussions we had, everytime I was discussing by going deeper in the discussion you were displaying a clear ignorance of the subject, and here again your website clearly picture that. But of course given the way you put that, your words should not be taken seriously as usual.

On p. 162 of Hovannisian's "The Republic of Armenia," the Armenian professor explains: In 1800, Armenians were scattered (around) Armenia, Georgia, Azerbaijan and Eastern Turkey. In all but small districts, Armenians were a minority, which had been under Muslim, primarily Turkish, rule for 700 years. The Russian empire had begun the imperial conquests of the Muslim lands south of the Caucasus Mountains. One of their main weapons was the transfer of populations - deportation. They ruthlessly expelled whole Muslim populations, replacing them with Christians whom they felt would be loyal to a Christian government. Armenians were major instruments of this policy. Like others in the Middle East, the primary loyalty of Armenians was religious. Many Armenians resented being under Muslim rule, and they were drawn to a Christian State and to offers of free land (land which had been seized from Turks and other Muslims). A major population exchange began. In Erivan Province (today the Armenian Republic), a Turkish majority was replaced by Armenians. In other regions such as coastal Georgia, Circassia, and the Crimea, other Christian groups were brought in to replace expelled Muslims. There was massive Muslim mortality in some cases up to one third of the Muslims died. The Russians expelled 1.3 million Muslims from 1827 to 1878. One result of this migration, serving the purpose of the Russians, was the development of ethnic hatred and...conflict between Armenians and Muslims. Evicted Muslims who had seen their families die in the Russian Wars felt animosity toward the Armenians. Armenians who hated Muslim rule looked to the Russians as liberators. Armenians cooperated with Russian invaders of eastern Anatolia in wars in 1828, 1854, and 1877. When the Russians retreated, Armenians feared Muslim retaliation and fled. Hatred grew on both sides.

STOP FABRICATING!!! STOP IT!!! I have exposed you manipulating and fabricating, and yet you do it again. Those are not Hovannians words, those are the words of McCarthy, they were uttered during a speech he gave in front of the House International Committee. It contains falsifications and manipulations like the fact that the Erevan province is not present republic of Armenia , all the lands with a considerable Muslim population ended up in the hands of Azerbaijan and Turkey as well as Georgia. His numbers are bullcrap from Turkish foreign ministry historiography. Again, you got busted your pents down trying to fabricate and pass the words of an academic fraud like Faurisson or Rassinier, as the ones of Hovannessian.

There you have it. The roots of the "genocide" have nothing to do with false theories like pan-Turanism, Muslims hating Christians, and the coveting of Armenian wealth. the roots of the "genocide" lie in Armenian treachery.

Racist, as I have shown you, the quote above is not from Hovannessian, it is from McCarthy the academic fraud, the information not being accurate, the interpretation of an inaccurate qwuote can't be accurate either.

We can now understand how important it was for the Ottomans to take the Armenian threat seriously. If the Russians crashed through the gates, there would no longer be a refuge for Turks and Muslims to escape to. The Ottoman Empire was the last stop. The struggle was truly a matter of life or death.

Bullcrap, your regurgitations are the sames as those from German apologists regarding a so-called international Zionist conspiration to get by the help of the Russians the Bolshevization of Germany. The Armenian concentration camps of Deir-Zor, Ras Ul-Ain, Bonzanti, Mamoura, Intili, Islahiye, Radjo, Katma, Karlik, Azaz, Akhterim, Mounboudji, Bab, Tefridje, Lale, Meskene, Sebil, Dipsi, Abouharar, Hamam, Sebka, Marat, Souvar, Hama, Homs, Kahdem. Transit camps of Kangal, Malatia, Diyarbekir, Ourfa, Alepo. Those are enough to show a clear premeditation of the extermination. Such a premeditation makes of your claim fall short. the second organization that participated in the eradication of the Ottoman Armenians was founded by the lttihad ve Terraki technically appeared in July 1914 and was supposed to be different than the already existing organization in one important point, it was meant to be a government in a government(without needing any orders to act). Later in 1914, the Ottoman government decided to draw the direction the special organization was supposed to take by releasing criminals from central prisons to be the central elements of this newly formed special organization. For example, in Sivas, as soon as November 1914, 124 criminals were released from Pimian prison, in Ankara following few months later, 49 criminals were released from its central prison. Little by little from the end of 1914 to the beginning of 1915, hundreds of prisoners were freed to form the members of this organization that later were charged to destroy the convoys of Armenian deportees, the number then grew to thousands. The commander of the Ottoman third army, Vehib called those members of the special organization, the “butchers of the human specy.” This organization was led by the Central Committee Members Doctor Nazim, Behaeddin Sakir, Atif Riza, and former Director of Public Security Aziz Bey. The headquarters of Behaeddin Sakir were in Erzurum, from where he directed the forces of the Eastern vilayets. Aziz, Atif and Nazim Beys operated in Istanbul, and their decisions were approved and implemented by Cevat Bey, the Military Governor of Istanbul.

The criminals were chosen by a process of selection, they had to be ruthless butchers to be selected as a member of the special organization. The Mazhar commission has provided some lists of those criminals, in one instance for example, from the 65 criminals released 50 were in prison for murder, the lists all gave such a disproportionate ratio between those condemned for murder and others for minor crimes which constituted a clear minority. This process of selection of the criminal was a clear indicative of the government intention to commit mass murder of its Armenian population. It must be noted as well, that physicians participated in the process of selection, where health professionals were appointed by the war ministry to determine whether the selected convicts would be fit to apply a degree of savagery of killing that was required. So, no one give a crap of your insinuations and regurgitations. The Ottoman has build concentration camps and formed a special organization by using murderers that were sent to escort the Armenian refugees. Those murderers acted exactly as the Einsatzgruppen.

Not only is it relevant to examine the past (and things really heated up with Armenian treachery after 1877, with the formation of Armenian terror groups), but the events of post-1916 as well.

As I repeated, there can not be treachery in an Empire, where the concept of citizenship and allegiance did not exist. Populations were dumped in an empire by force and not by choice, the same could be said with the Russian Empire and what it did to its Circassian population that BTW actively participated in the side of the Ottoman Empire during the 1877-1878 like many other Muslim subjects, yet it is not the Russians that yapp years after years of Muslim treachery. It is racist to generalize and claim that a population committed treachery, it is racist to claim that women, children and elderly, and the majority of men committed treachery, just because some have joined. And no, what happened after 1916 is irrelevant to determine if whatever or not there was a genocide. What happened after most of the Armenians were killed, doesn't change anything. It is not because the allies have bombed civilian targets in World War II, or because of the crimes perpetrated by the Soviet Union against the Germans, that it means there was no Shoah. Your twisting and playing with dates and numbers and your so-called chronology can only fool ignorants.

Hovannisian admits to Armenian atrocities ("Public opinion in Azerbaijan was incensed, and the government, revolted by the atrocities, demanded strong measures to ensure the safety of the Muslims," p. 181), 

I don't remember those words uttered by him, be glad to tell me which Volume is it... sorry for the skepticism, but given your tendency to fabricate quotes, I have to do what i usually do, going at the source and see if it exist.

well confirmed in the memoirs of an Armenian officer, "Men Are Like That." This is the Armenian M.O., following the Orthodox (including Russians, Serbs, Greeks and Bulgars) method of ethnic cleansing: massacre Turks and chase the rest away.

I already discussed about this work in the other forum, and explained countless numbers of time that Ohanus was referring to the 1905-1906 conflict in his village that was populated by both Tartars and Armenians, his village was part of the Russian Empire NOT Ottoman, and he claimed that both groups tried to exterminate eachothers. Now his village is part of Azerbaijan, and there is not a single Armenian recorded. Nice try, but one could expect such methods from your part.

These would be "Death and Exile"s 5 million expulsed Turks/Muslims and 5.5 million killed from the Greek War of Independence until the end of WWI...

First of all, those figures were fabricated by McCarthy, he himself admitted them being ultimate numbers, simple estimations he has taken from his hat... without supports one can not use those figures when McCarthy himself hasn't presented any supports. And beside that, what the hell does it change regarding whatever or not there was an Armenian genocide? Millions of Germans were expulsed from Europe and the Soviet Union, would that mean there was no Shoah?

the ones pro-Armenian "genocide scholars" like Israel Charny, Tessa Hoffmann and Robert Melson never talk about.

That's because as independent researchers, they don't give a thing of McCarthys claims, and consider that Muslim expulsions have nothing to do with the Armenian genocide. BTW, talking of hiding things, where McCarthy has ever said anything about the minority that has opened its door to the Balkan Muslims?

This policy was followed by modern Armenia in 1992, massacring Karabagh Azeris and expelling nearly a million. (Fadix will give you weasel facts to try and dispute this, even though these events are in modern memory; note the West is largely silent about this episode, and American policy has gone as far as to punish victimized Azerbaijan, thanks to the strong power of the Armenian lobby.)

What a hypocrite you are. While there was no Armenian state or Empire in 1915, you claim it was two sided, and Armenians were not the victims they affirm they were. Yet you shout genocide for what happened in Xojali, when there was two existing nations on war. How some hundreds of victims amount to a genocide, and not over a million? But of course, no one expect you to make any sense. What about Turkeys invasion of Cyprus and the 2000 people missing? Does that amount to genocide as well? In the conflict between Azerbaijan and Armenia, 30,000 people died from both sides, it was the Karabagh Armenians that have used legal Soviet means which was answered by Azerbaijan by pogroms, in Sumgait, Baku etc... there was many Xojalis in the Armenian sides, but it it isn't the Armenian side that is yapping genocide there.

However, our topic is Armenian behavior in the Ottoman Empire;

Again a racist generalization, generalizing again an entire population. Do you think that a mediator will be as blind as to not see

Schreiner does not deny what was done to the Armenians. His problem was about such things as Morgenthau simplification of peoples character, but that Morgenthau liked to simplify peoples characters is nothing new, that he colored his reports is nothing new either. But I don't use Morgenthau, it isn’t the material that is lacking for me to need to use those being easy targets for denialists like you. Morgenthaus unfair treatment of Wangenheim wasn’t only reported by Schreiner. But beside that, what was as well known(from my study after that Wanderer(ehm you) referred to him), was Schreiners sympathy for the fatherland Germany, and the fact that Moregenthau, in his point of view was bringing his family’s nation into the mud. But as well, Schreiner was not a witnesses of anything from where he corresponded, and was as well completely wrong about Enver, as he refused to recognize. The esteem the Germans had for Enver had no bounds, as someone having studied in Germany, and made Germany his second nation, as far as modifying for himself the Pan-Germanist mentality that became with Hitler we know what.

Almost all were missionaries and racists or propagandists. After the war, we received better clues as to what really transpired, from pro-Armenians like Niles and Sutherland in 1919, and Admiral Bristol, whom the Armenians love to vilify.

Niles and Sutherland were not pro Armenians, Niles and Sutherland report was ignored by the Senate at that time for abvious reasons. The table he present, even McCarthy when he published them was trying to slowly pull them under the carpet because he knew it would defeat the purposes of a “report.”(adding that they reported what they “thought”/”believed”) When they claim that in Van for instance, there was nearly no Muslim villages left in 1919, and adding that the large majority of Armenian villages were left intact. Cevded himself in his dispatches at the war ministry, later followed by Halil himself reported quite the opposite, what to say about Nogales that claimed no Armenians were left. The tables anomalies clearly shows how Armenian villages in Van were repopulated by Muslims, and what was left was only devastated zones. Niles and Sutherland were under the custody of Ottoman authorities that were merely showing them what “they” wanted them to see. This can hardly be called an investigation. In 1919, there was no Armenian left in Anatolia.

In short, Niles and Sutherland were not there when the Anatolian Armenian population was destroyed, they were sent there when there was no Armenian left, yet the Turkish authorities have presented the villages and claimed them that Armenians were still living there and nothing happened to them, while the Muslim villages were destroyed, the claim is even not supported by revisionist literature that show clearly that there was praticaly no Armenian left there at that date, and even Gurun admit that.

Admiral Bristol recognize what was done to the Armenians a deliberate premeditated government plan. So stop using sources which show the contrary of what you affirm, stop acting like McCarthy.

It is very relevant to see how the Armenians acted murderously, in order to incite violence against them...

Another generalization from Mr. Racist that can't do better than falsifying, forging and manipulating, and on top of that he's a racist that generalize in every given occasion.

and how the Armenians spread their false propaganda, which present day Armenians like Fadix and Raffi are still patriotically carrying out...

Propaganda is made for general public consumption, secret reports can not be propaganda, and the German secret reports that reported that the Ottoman was conducting premeditated plan of eradication of its Armenian population can therefore not be a propaganda. Refik admission that the Ottoman has build a so-called Armenian revolution show us that it was the Ottoman that was conducting propaganda. Vehib the commander of the IIIrd army, at the spot with his army during the time and admitted the Ottoman conducted a deliberate act of eradication. The number of Turkish officials that recognized, German officials., soldiers, Austrians etc... are in the hundreds... General Halil, that became the Suprem general of the East, Uncle of Enver, the minister of war, admitted in his memoirs that he tried to eradicate the Armenians to the last individual. That you twist and twist and twist and try to change the subject, won't change anything here.

thus inviting the European powers to intervene and give them "free land." The culmination of this treachery took place when the war broke out, and Armenians engaged in war against their country.

The Ottoman Empire was not a country, there was no citizenship, the Armenians were a subject, and the Turks were the ruling subjects. But of course Mr. Racist Torque find it normal that war of liberation brought by the Kemalist and does not call this treachery against the Ottoman elements of the Empire. Torque double standard is purely racistic, since he characterize and has a racist hierarchy of people, Turks on top, Armenians on the bottom.

The ingratitude and greed is mind-boggling. British parliamentarian Sir Ellis Bartlett, 1895 pamphlet: "The tall tales were the wicked inventions of Armenian Revolutionary Committees" and had been "wantonly spread over Europe in the interests of these mad agitators and their paymasters, the Russian Panslavic societies."

Again, Torque double standards, while I refer to witnesses of the events, Mr. Torque to support his cases refers to people that were not there during the 1894-1897 massacres. When the other side does the same, he yap and claim that those people were not on the spot when it happened. While hundreds of people on the spot reports the massacres as being full scale and generalized, including the secretary of Hamid, Mr. Torque refers to the few exceptions and try to draw the norm... this is not how history is written, this is not how it works in science too... if we were to use Mr. Torque standard, no any medications should be approved by the FDA, because few studied have demonstrated no efficiencies while most have.

Bartlett's notions are well confirmed in Capt. Norman's "The Armenians Unmasked." (http://www.ataa.org/ataa/ref/armenian/report1895.html)

What a report of 1895 from a man representing the British public relations to secure the Ottoman loans, instored back in 1856 with the Western banks, has anything to do with 1915? Quote, quote, quote, selectively quote and extend the little materials you have. The less we have the more we expend. Again, I wasn’t expecting much from you here.

The Armenian claim "that the Christian subjects of the sultan were denied all liberty, and atrociously presented was a thoroughly false one... no other government had for the past four centuries shown as much toleration, or given so much religious freedom as that of the Ottoman Empire. Every form of religion-- Greek, Jewish, Nestorian, Roman Catholic and all others-- were allowed perfect liberty of practice and doctrine. Had the turks been less generous in the past, they would have escaped many of their present troubles. When heretics were burnt to death in France and Germany, and even in England, the Ottoman Government allowed its subjects entire religious freedom."

Ottoman tolerance is a myth, here an example of a work that exposes those myths: “The Dhimmi: Jews & Christians Under Islam” by Bat Ye'or, David Maisel

Armenians were the moxt taxed people in the Empire, they had under the Islamic law no right to defend themselves on court, while Muslim false witnesses were accepted, Armenians were not. Armenian witnesses to defend their cases had to find a Muslim witness or their cases was dismissed. The Muslim on the easy were exempt from the Penal Code 166 controlling the manufacturing of gun powder and arms, while this same law was applicated point by point against the Armenians. An example was when the Ottoman army raided the Erzerum cathedral in 1890, killed countless numbers in it, destroyed the inside and have found no arms at all. What Torque call treachery and Armenian rebellion, was legal for the Muslim and even supported by the government.

But of course Mr. Call that tolerance.

We can see the truth level of Fadix's attempt to make us believe how oppressed Armenians were ("second class citizen status on the law books and in practice ...'infidels'") by looking at Armenian sources. Oscanyan was so oppressed, he was allowed to go to America to study, where he wrote "The Sultan and his People" in 1857. Cymbal-maker Zilidjian was allowed to travel to Europe on a yacht he built, in the 19th century.

That Armenians were allowed to go study elsewhere is irrelevant, what is the relevancy?

This doesn't mean all Armenians were living in a utopia. Indeed there are countless hearsay accounts Fadix can no doubt unearth attesting to how Armenians were treated dismally. (I recall a story about how a Turk went to an Armenian's store, and lopped off his head. I think it was provided by a missionary.) And the Armenians of the east were subjected to injustices by lawless bands. What's never stated is Armenians suffered where Ottoman control was weak, and the ones who suffered were all Ottoman citizens, Muslims included. Moreover, among these lawless bands, not all were Kurds and Turks... there were also Armenian and Greek lawless bands, primarily targeting Muslims. Consequently, Muslims were being attacked from two sides, by Muslim and non-Muslim brigands.

Armenians were not nomads, the bands of criminals were nomads, that is why they formed bands, your claim here doesn't hold water. Just the fact that the Muslim of the East not only didn't needed to respect the Penal Code and Armenians were show us your hypocrisy. The crimes against the Armenians was not only a question of Ottoman weak control of the East, the Ottoman were not weak when targeting Armenians groups and finding caches of arms, when from the other side arming Kurdish brigands and forming an irregular police that was imposing upon the Armenians a Kurdish tax.

Migirdich B. Dadian, another Armenian living outside the Ottoman Empire, opined about the situation of Armenians in 1867, in a newspaper in France. What we understand is that the privileges granted the Armenians in the Ottoman Empire were nothing less than a landless autonomy.

How an authonomy can exist with a double taxation system? And besides what the hell thise thing having happened 50 years before the event has anything to do with the genocide?

These opportunities were officially given to the Armenian community, at a time when no state was interested in them (and it was these very privileges that opened the way to the troubles we are now haggling over). It can be said that of all the countries the Diasporan communities are currently living, not one of these communities has freedom to the extent granted to Armenians living in the Ottoman Empire.

What a bullcrap, you are a pathological liar. What you claim can make no sense at all, simply because the concept of citizenship did not exist for an Empire. In any countries where the Diaspora live, everyone is equal in the eye of the law, something that wasn't true under the Ottoman Empires rules. An Armenian, a Turk, a Chinese all will pay the same amount of tax if they have the same revenues, no double taxation system, it wasn't true under the Ottoman Empires rules. In short, everyone were equal, and their ethnicity and religion have no take in that. So your Ottomanist propagandas you can shove them you know where.

The Armenians were the wealthy ones, and they made the wheels turn. ("This community constitutes the very life of Turkey, for the Turks...have relinquished to them all branches of industry. Hence the Armenians are the bankers, merchants, mechanics, and traders of all sorts in Turkey." Oscanyan, 1857)

The reason why Armenians have flourished has nothing to do with Ottoman tolerances, that Armenians were the minorities that were most frequenting the schools has nothing to do with Ottoman tolerances, that later they wanted to start their private business and leaving for some time in the West to help themselves has nothing to do with Ottoman tolerances. The Armenians were more open to the European way of life, and this again has little to do with an Ottoman tolerances. It isn't because the pyramids were an archaeological achievement rarely seen, that it means that the aliens have build them.

Why would the Ottomans further weaken themselves during desperate wartime by ridding themselves of this valuable national resource... the ones who were so indispensible, Oscanyan stated, "without them the Osmanlis could not survive a single day"?

The subject has been already studied, and if you were to read the material that is available you will understand. You have no knowledge of what you are talking about, you have no knowledge regarding why the Young-Turks took power and their nationalization plan. You would rather prefer reading quotes and choosing selectively and twisting them, pass that, you have no clue of what you are talking about. If you were truly open minded and were to ask me about the Young-Turks nationalization of the Economy, and the obstacles, I would have provided you books, even Turkish ones, but you are not here to learn, you are here to spew your hateful venom.

Would it be fair to assume Clair Price made perfect sense in 1923: "...the military situation had turned sharply against the Enver Government. The Russian victory at Sarykamish was developing and streams of Turkish refugees were pouring westward into central Asia Minor. The British had launched their Dardanelles campaign at the very gates of Constantinople, and Bulgaria had not yet come in. It does not seem reasonable to assume that this moment, of all moments, would have been chosen by the Enver Government to take widespread measures against its Armenians unless it was believed that such measures were immediately necessary. Measures were taken."

Clair Price wasn't there, again you use a reference that has been published after... everyone can write a book, like Clair has written, more particularly when it is about the rebirth of Turkey and the American investment to the newly formed republic. In the entire book Clair claim, but doesn't support the claims brought. I can bring hundreds of such books from the other side, but since I do not consider those books valid, even when they support my theses, I do not quote them.

FYI

Definition of NPOV is that both views have equal grounds, thats the wikipedia way. See how Ranks and insignia of Starfleet was developed. I knew a lot regarding the matter so was my co-aurthor. We edited, and rechecked eachothers work, now the article was not contriverisal so its easy, you chose a very difficult and conriversial article to start your wiki career. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 15:00, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

FYI: 2+2 can equal 5 in complex math.

I have commented out several sections of the article which in my opinion are not neutral, they will not be visible to regular people viewing th article untill the comment tags <!-- --> are removed. Please make them neutral and remove the tags. I have made several sections neutral for you. Again neutral means the article does not favor neither side while taking into account the views of all parties regarding the matter. Words like "most of scholars" are not neutral, there is no widely accepted concensus from a scientific(history) convention that you can put here. Even if that would be the case you would add that to the recent history category while keeping the article neutral. You may not like it, I may not like it, but thats how wikipedia runs. Do not remove my entries, instead try rewriting them in a neutral tone. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 16:16, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The book links belong to external link category as they are one sided view I believe. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 22:06, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Onlu by placing Justin McCarthys book at the section supporting the genocide theses, you just have shown that you have absolutly no clue of what you are talking about. McCarthy is the only major Western Historian claiming there was no genocide. Anyone ignoring this should even not debate.Fadix 18:13, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

McCarthy is certainly far from the only historian arguing there is no genocide. There was a list of 69 Western historians who protested the Armenian con job back in 1985, such as Avigdor Levy, Pierre Oberling, Alan Fisher, Tom Goodrich, and Alan Gould. What happened? The Armenians resorted to their time-old terror tactics of intimidation and violence to smear campaigns; they actually bombed the home of Stanford Shaw. Revered historian Bernard Lewis was sued in a French court, and the Armenians effectively made a "Nazi" out of him (even though he won the three cases, but with one he had to pay token "damages" of about twenty-five cents). "Genocide scholar" stooges of the Armenians, like Israel Charny, a psychologist with no background in scholarship, joined in the smear campaign by targeting the professors on this list, trying to make them out to be neo-Nazi "deniers." This is because REAL HISTORY is the last thing the Armenians want, and we can see that with Fanadix's emphasis on the "weasel facts" that have been amassed through the years, from the huge genocide industry. The result: no historian wishes to enter this fray, because they know their reputations will come under vicious attack from the Armenians and their genocide scholar allies. What is more correct to say is that McCarthy is one the very few BRAVE historians left who refuse to get intimidated by these unscrupulous characters. --Torque, Mar 22 2005

Well, my bad. I'll recategorise it and tone down your language when you are talking to me. You cannot tell me to shut up. I am not telling you to shut up. I am telling you to "TALK" neutral. If I made an error in categorising things you put it to the "another view" actegory instead of hissing me. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 22:06, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It wasn't just a mistake, you did that mistake more than once because you obviously ignore who McCarthy is. Can you be kind to present the books you have read about the topic please? Fadix 22:19, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

In other words, McCarthy is not to be trusted, when in fact he is a REAL historian who examines all sides of the story. But this is Fanadix's purpose: to force his dishonest views upon everyone , and in order to do that, he must cast doubt on every other voice questioning his mythological genocide. --Torque, Mar 21 2005

Dear sir. I am not knowlegable in the Armenian Genocide article enough to comment. I am merely folowing wikipedia NPOV article. I lack a hidden agenda. I dont purposly make mistakes. Now when you have someone who insist on reverting your edits without reading them its hard to focus. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 22:32, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You are not following Wikipedia policy, and if you have no knowledge of the subject, you can not introduce claims which are erronous, you are not neutralising the article, you are injecting in it claims you make yourself... Wikipedia present positions recognised and NOT your position, and that is what you are doing right now. And a last thing, you obviously do have an agenda, you live in Turkey(which libraries only contain one biased version of history), and do inject your biases in every Wikipedia articles which involve Turkey. And above all, you can't hide behind the claim that you are not Turk and that you only live in Turkey, unlike you, I do not hide my ethnicity because I believe that this is irrelevent and I support the position that one is credible for what he says and not based on the social construct called ethnicity he belongs to. The next time you would want to pass as a neutral individual, don't use the word "Armanian" repeatadly exposing that it is not only a mistake, but rather the Semitic(Arab/Hebrew) or Turkish pronounciation as in "Ermen" or "Arman." Now I commited a mistake, I should not have writen this I admit, but you provoked me by claiming you have no agenda which is obvious wrong.Fadix 22:44, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Fanadix has proven time and again of making claims that he has no evidence for, such as Coolcat's effectively being a Turk, or of my being the owner of a web site. This is the caliber of Fanadix's non-existent credibility; one cannot make claims and present them as 100% truth, if one has no evidence. If Fanadix suspects these things, he would need to add words like "I suspect," not present these views as absolute fact. Note he flat out accuses Coolcat of living in Turkey, when Coolcat refutes this, and note how he writes "you can't hide behind the claim that you are not Turk," when all Fanadix knows about Coolcat is his name. Fanadix cannot believe there are non-Turks who don't buy his mythological con job, and anyone who does, like Prof. McCarthy, must be because they have sold their souls to the government of Turkey (in McCarthy's case, as if he doesn't already have a job in an American university!). What difference does it make, anyway? We need to focus on the facts here, and only raise character issues when newcomers like Fanadix come into Wikipedia and unscrupulously make their religious views into a crusade, bullying their way into accepting their dogma. Conclusion: If Fanadix demonstrates time and again that he can't be trusted by presenting claims he has no evidence for, that shows the value of his respect for real historical fact. All of his wild claims are suspect. --Torque, Mar 22 2005

You are constantly accusing me of a hidden agenda, accusing Turkey of a massacre and acusing a lot of people with things and claiming you are staying neutral. I dont hide my ethnicity. I have no reason to advertise it either. In english Armenian refers to the people living in Armenia proper spelling requires that and I am not a spelling genius. The word has 2 a's and one e. I am not Turkish. I lived in Turkey for quite some time due to my asignment. I am not making claims, I am rewording your claims. You cant quite see it as you arent reading, merely pasting/typing... Armenian Genocide did not happen as far as most of the world nations are concerned, since they have not recognised it. The Turks claim it wasn't a massacre. No mather HOW much stuff you throw at me that will not change the fact that Tuks claim otherwise. Not only that but you remove lots of productive edits (like spelling fixes) by other people. You declare that majority thinks this. While I am trying to keep this at EQUAL ground. Please GRAB a dictionary and READ WTF "Neutral" means ALSO read Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 22:56, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[It's not just the "Turks" who claim otherwise but any logical person who truly studies this episode and discovers the level of deception and dishonesty involved, perpetuated by foot soldiers like the agenda-ridden Fanadix who will say anything irrespective of the facts. All that matters is to cloud real history.] --Torque, Mar 22 2005

So you don't have any hidden agenda right? So, maybe you can all tell us why you only play this hijacking game in entries involving Turkey? And you are lying here, the Armenian genocide is not denied by most countries... not recognizing something by a government is not denying a genocide. Most US states have passed bills recognizing it, Canada did the same, France as well, Germany is thinking doing the same etc. and this even after the Turkish republic continual threats. It is as well a fact that most states have not passed bills recognizing the Shoah, according to you it would mean it did not happen. And only your above claims show that you are lying when you say you are neutral. You have admitted not knowing the subject, yet you claim it did not happen. How can one admit not knowing the subject at the same time having a position? This is called a preconceived belief. You can not participate in this article, because you have no knowledge of the event, and that you have a preconceived belief.

As for the spelling, you did that continuously, not only with the word Armenia but as well with the word Armenians... I won't call this a mistake at all, a mistake is something that is done once, twice etc. and not repeated after it is shown to you...

Again, NEUTRAL... presenting every sides.

International Community(UN etc.) answer. Genocide

Western Academia and even many Arabic and Iranian. Genocide

Turkish human right organization. Genocide

Some Turkish Academics. Genocide

Armenians position. Genocide

Even in Iran a bill was to be passed, prevented by Turkeys pressure, when did Iran ever considered passing such bill to recognize the Shoah?

There is this, against the Turkish government official version, there is no way that you will take those sides and present them with the Turkish government official version as equal, if you do that, you automatically give each opposing side to your claim less place than the official Turkish government version, and this is not neutral.

But this is not all, you make up things such as “Relocation camps,” that's completely ridiculous, you just made it up, you can not just invent expressions like this. A relocation camp does not make any sense... maybe it is time for you to check what a concentration camp mean. You have done many mistakes like this. And besides, you can not just shoot the 200,000-1,5 million, without indicating the sources... there are many such things that you have purposely deleted, and even some that are not denied by the official Turkish government diplomat publications, which mean that you just have made up things.Fadix 23:17, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Is Fanadix now so much a mind reader, he can predict what an entire nation is going to do? Note his character smear attempt: "you are lying here, the Armenian genocide is not denied by most countries." How many countries are in the world, and how many have been hoodwinked by Armenian propaganda and their own prejudices into recognizing this con job? Subtract, and you will see the majority have not recognized Fanadix's myth. What Coolcat wrote was, "Armenian Genocide did not happen as far as most of the world nations are concerned, since they have not recognised it." That is a far cry from Fanadix's twists and turns, as he pathetically attempts to convert Coolcat's meaning into "not recognizing something by a government is not denying a genocide." BUT COOLCAT NEVER SAID THE REST OF THE COUNTRIES "DENIED" THE GENOCIDE. He wrote the other countries have not recognized it. Fanadix's character smearing response: "You are lying."

• It is laughable that Fanadix attempts to present as proof of his genocide's validity by pointing to different organizations and nations having given support. Of course; if there has been a century-long propaganda campaign to present this hoax unilaterally in a world where anti-Turkish prejudice has been imbedded since the Crusades and the Turks are a proud people who don't want to stoop to hysterics, basically keeping quiet... NATURALLY if a lie is repeated often enough, people are going to believe it. That's what Nazi Propaganda Minister Goebbels built his career on. Add to this the double whammy of obsessed Diasporan Armenians buying the politicians in these countries and their notorious smear campaigns to eliminate opposition, and lazy-minded people are not going to bother to scratch beneath the surface. Many of the opportunist Turkish academicians who bought into this genocide recognized career-advancement values as soon as Taner Akcam broke the mold, mysteriously getting a job in a major Armenia-supporting American university, after having had no academic career to speak of. Quantity, like Fanadix's "160 pages" that he points to (as if the bombardment of weasel facts makes his case more legitimate), does not equal quality; the world once believed the earth was flat — because that was the commonly accepted wisdom. Fanadix is once again making wrong claims; in this case the U.N.: "(The) United Nations has not approved or endorsed a report labeling the Armenian experience as Genocide," Farhan Haq, U.N. spokesman, October 5th, 2000. Finally, when did "Ayatollah" Iran ever consider not doing any anything based on an outside country's "pressure"?

• We all know what a concentration camp is, and it is dishonest to describe what happened to the Armenians as the Nazi image that comes to mind. Of course, when the Armenians were resettled because of their rebellion, there were measures to make sure the Armenians were kept to where they were sent, which ranged from the equivalent of open-air "tent cities" to already existing houses in villages. The Armenians were transported to cities all across the empire so as not to constitute more than 10% of the population, in an attempt to minimize the possibility of the treacherous rebellion the Armenians were famous for. They moved to areas where they were free to earn their livings, as an Armenian vekil told Amb. Morgenthau himself! What the temporary law called for was to "transfer and settle in other quarters," but it is Fanadix's job to Nazify what had taken place. When the Near East Relief established camps to take care of the Armenian refugees, who in their right mind would refer to them as "concentration camps"?--Torque, Mar 22 2005

Relocation camp is the neutral word for "concentration" which assumes a genocide has happened. Its a more neutral word. If you have a better word edit accordingly.

I dispute the way you say it not what you say. I am not in the position to dispute what you say, not my major. You refuse to comprihend this. I am knowlegable to know that the issue is disputed. "hijacking game". Sorces for 1.5 million is your sorces. sorces for 200,000 is official Turkish data according to you. I did not delete them, I commented them out so you and other mods can review them and make them neutral. AS I explained before thats how we do things in wikipedia. You are claiming by making this article pro genocide you are being neutral. I think you should cut back on crack. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 00:36, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Concentration camp mean a camp where people are concentrated, I haven't seen any works even those not supporting my position which claim such a concentration did not happen. That was the official name given by officials, including German officials. It is neutral, while you introduce an expression that does not make sense at all. As for “Turkish data,” they vary a lot, ATAA, the largest Turkish American organization, has even an article claiming 700,000 Armenians died... the official Ottoman statistics are of 800,000 killed(not casualties, but KILLED)... you can not present this as if from 200,000 to 1.5 million died, without including those facts, because you are are doing is misleading people. Even Turkish historians like Fikret Adanir who do not entirely support the official Western version, recognize that possibly over a million may have perished. All major German official records vary from 1.2-1.5 million, this is from where the Armenian figures of 1.5 million comes from. You can NOT just claim that from 200,000 to 1.5 million perished without noting the sources. The reader has the right to know those informations, but you are purposely deleting them. If you want to edit the article as I repeated, I am ready to make compromises, but I am not ready to delete important informations,or misleading with erronous clames that you just make up, when the edition will mislead the reader... and that is what you are after. Oh and, are you suggesting that I am on drug? Cut the crap please.Fadix 00:46, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• If "Concentration camp mean a camp where people are concentrated," then I suppose any normal prison could be a concentration camp; also when kids go away to camp in the summer, that could also be a concentration camp. Luckily, he displays "NO PROPAGANDA OR POV" as he claimed in Archives 10.
• If ATAA has an article claiming 700,000 Armenians died, that doesn't mean ATAA endorses the article; it only shows the Turks are approaching this topic from a position of honesty, a concept foreign to the Armenian Weasel Beast with Zero Credibility.
• This explains why a lot of Turks like Fikret Adanir have their own opinions. The Turks are not a monolithic people, like the Armenians, who don't dare to publicly stray from their religious genocide view. You see, honest people don't selectively point to sources they happen to be comfortable with.
• I don't know what sources Fanadix refers to (since he doesn't provide them) when he writes "All major German official records vary from 1.2-1.5 million," but why should we believe them? Who were these German researchers, and whose research did they use to base these conclusions upon? The missionary Johannes Lepsius? "Genocide Scholar" Hilmar Kaiser?
• And if the "official Ottoman statistics ... of 800,000 killed(not casualties, but KILLED)" are of the enemy occupied, puppet Ottoman government's, who were trying to save their necks and the neck of their country from the foreboding terms of the Peace Conference by finding massacre culprits under every rock, why should we believe them? Naturally, Fanadix expects us to take his "word" with the claim that 800,000 were "not casualties, but KILLED," but if so, then we can see how even more unreliable information taken from the occupied period can be.
• So if most Armenians died from famine, disease and combat like the bulk of how the 2.5 million+ Turks/Muslims died, and if 800,000 represents the number that were exclusively murdered, then shouldn't the total Armenian mortality be more like 5 million? (Keep this to yourselves; if Fanadix should hear of it, he might pass out from ecstasy. The higher the number of Armenian dead, the more fulfilled become the sympathy-craving Armenians.)
• What we do know is that the median figure of pre-war Armenians is less than 1.5 million. What we also know is that the Armenians claim one million survived. The subtraction gives us a very good idea of the Armenian mortality; not over 600,000. So we can see how worthless "German official records" amount to, if they seriously claim 1.2-1.5 million died. And I won't say Fanadix is really on drugs, but his baseless claim that it is these records "where the Armenian figures of 1.5 million comes from" is absolutely not based on reality. The fact is, the Armenians claimed 600,000 dead at the end of the war. (When they lobbied General Harbord in 1919.) Utilizing their customary disrespect for the truth, the Armenians mushroomed these figures in later years for maximum political gain, in steps of a million to two million, until finally they settled on around 1.5 million, the figure Fanadix supported in the backlog of these pages. So it is not that the Armenians got these figures from the Germans; most likely, whatever sympathetic co-religionist Germans came up with the figures, they got it from the omnipresent sources of Armenian propaganda.--Torque, Mar 22 2005

My case

I presented the lowest claim and the higest claim.If 800,000 died thats between the range page gave. The current verison is more biased and makes little sense as it has been vandalised by both saides. Your version made more sense but was biased. So I had taken the time to make it neutral. I am not denying the massacre on my version nor am I supporting it. I dont care which version of the story is widely accepted. All I care is what will make it neutral. I was not done making it neutral. I comented out parts I though was biased. Its difficult to purge your views, thats quite normal. This is a contriversial topic. Its not right and impolite to acuse the other side. All I did was reword what you said and move items around in a logival order, merge/seperate categories etc... You cannot refer the camps as concentration camps, thats where people go to stay permenantly as prisoners. Your original version of the article disputes that. That would mean a genocide has happened, hence would be biased. I used the word relocation camp as that was the other word to refer to the camps in the original version of your article. If you know a better word you are welcome to change it. I can review it and comment on it. Would be much more productive than a revert. What ottoman records say is disputed so are German, UK, Russian records. When numbers are disputed you put lowest and higest numbers. The current version of the article has 200,000 as the lowest value, the higest value I have seen so far is 1.5 mil so 200K-1500K. We can be productive if you see my motives as I claim them instead of assuming/hyotosizing hidden agendas and other paranoid stuff... --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 03:46, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Coolcat, that is the point, you did not make it more neutral, you introduced your POV in them. There is a distinction between specialists POV and an individual POV. If you want the “other side” to be included more, you have to ask me... I will include what is said from the other side, which would be different than what you do say. Another thing, as I said, you seem to intentionally introduce the other version as equal in the same text, that would work if there was a critic of a scholar made by another scholar, but not when there is a general view, and an alternative one... if you do that you go against the Neutral Point of view, because you mislead the reader. If you present the range 200,000-1.5 million, you mislead the reader. And I will explain again why, many Turks generally accept 600,000, the 200,000-300,000 is the official Turkish government version and not the “Turkish view” which mean that those figures are shared by very few people. So, don't you see why now, you can not present such a range? The thing is that official denialists use the 600,000 figure, and there are even denialists who uses the partial Ottoman statistics of 800,000... but in your edition this does not appear at all. Readers will come here, and read, they will give as much credence to the official Turkish government version as for instance, German official records range of the time(1.5 million). And as for the highest value, 1.5 million is not the highest value, specialists like Rummel, for the entire period between 1914 to 1922 give 1.8 million as figure(including Armenians outside of Ottoman borders which felt as well victim)... there are such higher figures... those are the minority, like 200,000-300,000 is a minority... so I decided to stick with the Turkish government version, present it, present what Western scholars say, and what Armenians say... this way, when people read, they will know what is what... if you delete that information, you mislead the reader.

Coming to the “controversial” point, every subject is controversial, generally when something is controversial, it is because there is two clear opposing sides fighting for a version. I mean, if we speak about Quantum mechanic, specialists in the field may disagree, and they will “fight” regarding what is the best interpretation, obviously they won't include in their discussion a Priest, an Imam, a Rabbi etc. This is about a genocide, and there are specialists in comparative genocide study, and for them, this topic is not controversial, it becomes controversial when you introduce in the discussion Ottoman historians that rely on Turkeys historiography, no one will include an Armenologist in the discussion, why would we include an Ottomanist... those two parties are biased, because their subject of study is based on the use of records, sources from biased parties. So, adding “Controversial” as message is to mislead the reader who will believe that the Armenian cases is debated among specialists in the field, which is obviously wrong,

Neutrality for Wikipedia means to present every considerable versions, and not to mislead the reader. For instance, I can not in a natural selection entry give as much place to the “creationist” theses. And here again, I stress out the point that the Armenian genocide is the second most studied genocide in the world, Lemkin the inventor of the term not only has he included this cases, but he used is as part of the genocide definition. Let me explain for you what it means, in international law it means that every events similar to the Armenian cases is a genocide, because the Armenian cases is included in the restrictive definition with the Shoah as an integral part of the word genocide. Now what you want to do, is the present both as equally, when the denialist theses revolve around the claim: “Armenians backstabbed us, so they were relocated because they were dangerous.” You have this position, against a a bunch of extensive studies like the concentration camps, the special organization, the Ottoman methodology etc. Not only do we have this, we have the international community, the UN cases should be presented, the Military tribunal, the Permanent Tribunal etc. Now you want me to all merge those things together, and equally present it with the Turkish government point of view? Let me clearly explain what you want to do. There are many versions supporting the theses of genocide, there is the Pan-Turkish version, there is the Pan-Turanist version, there is the Nationalization of the Economy version etc. all those versions supported by various sides... which leads to the same conclusion, and on the other side we have one version: “they backstabbed us, and were relocated.” If you want me to present every versions equally I will do, but let me tell you what happen if I do that... if I do that, the “other side” will be represented even less if we were to give each sides as much space. So, what I did was to merge the genocide “supportative” side, and then, present the revisionist version. And here again, you don't want the word revisionist to be used. “Revisionism” of history is a known phenomenon, it does not mean denial... it simply means a more recent interpretation of the events, and the denialist version is just that... there was the official version, that was accepted by the Ottoman government just when it happened, it was accepted by Ataturk the founder of the republic himself... revisionism is about going back in what is recognised by most, and reinterpret it, it does not necessarily mean denial, or is not necessarily bad. There are revisionist of the Armenian genocide who still recognise it, but reinterpret the event.

Now, coming to concentration camp, again, I don't see what your problem is, that was what it was called, a concentration camp doesn't necessarily mean there was a genocide, it just mean that people were sent to stay in an area, concentrated etc. There is no other word that one can use, and that was the term, what justification there is to not call it what it is? “Relocation camp” does not make sense... and is not a term used regardless.

Regarding the “hidden agenda” sorry Coolcat, I do believe you have a hidden agenda, your behavior is open for everyone to witness, you participate in Turkeys politic entries, the PKK, every such hot topics in Turkey... and always go in one side against the other, that is called hidden agenda. While I have decided to participate on this entry because I know about it... I do not participate in the Armenia entry, the Karabagh entry, I just submitted a link, which was reverted by Tabib that is using this site like Torque is using it. The Hamidian massacres, the Adana massacres are all subjects that interest me, as I will participate in a Cambodian genocide, the genocide in Rwanda, the massacres of Sierra Leone, Bosnia, if times permit me... and that is only because I am interested in war crimes studies, regardless of ethnicity. I am not the one going after every political subject involving Armenia, like you do with Turkey. Fadix 15:52, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• "If you want the 'other side' to be included more, you have to ask me" Indeed, let's put this fox in charge of the chicken coop.*"The thing is that official denialists use the 600,000 figure." I suppose that would include the "denialist" Armenians who settled on this figure at the end of the war. This is when they also led General Harbord to believe, in 1919, that only around 500,000 were relocated. (66th Congress 2nd session Doc. No. 281, pg. 14)

• "Specialists like Rummel": Rummel is a specialist in the field of genocide scholar distortion. he relies predominantly on Armenian propaganda for his information, following the golden rule of integrity-challenged genocide scholarship. He actually uses the word "murdered" to describe the fate of the over 2 million Armenians dead, on his web site. (Over twice as much as Fanadix's plea above for you to believe 800,000 were exclusively murdered.) That must include Armenians such as the 150,000 odd who lost their lives to famine while accompanying the Russian retreats, as Hovannisian reported in his 1967 book, when the Turks were not even in sight. So for false scholars like Rummel who rely on only one side of the story, of course the end result will be "specialists in comparative genocide study, and for them, this topic is not controversial."

• "I stress out the point that the Armenian genocide is the second most studied genocide in the world" Then I guess Fanadix has clinched for us that "The Forgotten Genocide" claim is yet another Armenian falsehood.

• "You have this position (Armenians backstabbed us, so they were relocated because they were dangerous), against a a bunch of extensive studies like the concentration camps, the special organization, the Ottoman methodology etc." The difference is, the former is based on real historical fact, regardless of how much unscrupulous fanatics attempt to cast doubt and discredit; and the latter is based on speculation by those with agendas who hold truth at the lowest premium. If the evidence was so obvious, the Turks held at the Malta Tribunal would have been tried and convicted during Malta's first year, 1919, just like the kangaroo Ottoman courts Fanadix and Dadrian cling to these false courts as their Bible. Instead, the British decided to go with incontrovertible evidence, and they kept digging until 1921 until they could find none. All the Turks were freed. No matter how much Zero Credibility will try to throw his weasel facts on us by insisting the Malta Tribunal never happened (of course it never happened, so he's being truthful in a sense. It didn't happen because it couldn't come to trial, BECAUSE NO REAL EVIDENCE COULD BE FOUND; this is based on the records of the British Archives themselves, which the reader can find in the back pages, along with Fanadix's unholy attempt to try and discredit this historical fact. The British had on hand the information Fanadix is trying to make credible; why didn't they use it? That's because the British realized almost all of it was garbage, attained through courts with almost no due process, where people were saying anything to save their necks and (they hoped) the eventual neck of their country.

• "(The Genocide) was accepted by the Ottoman government just when it happened, it was accepted by Ataturk the founder of the republic himself." What puppets say under enemy occupation is no more legitimate than what the Vichy French said under the Nazis. And Fanadix is spreading his venom when he makes yet another baseless claim; all Ataturk recognized was that there were Armenians who were massacred and that many suffered dreadfully. That is a fact no one denies. Ataturk pointed no less to the atrocious crimes of the Armenians, as well.

• And isn't Fanadix so innocent as he tries to defend the usage of "concentration camp," when he fully is aware of the kind of image that term brings?

• "I will participate in a Cambodian genocide, the genocide in Rwanda, the massacres of Sierra Leone, Bosnia, if times permit me... and that is only because I am interested in war crimes studies, regardless of ethnicity." My heart is warmed... Fanadix, the humanitarian. I suggest Fanadix begin his non-Armenian victim analysis with the 518,000 Turks/Muslims his forefathers ruthlessly slaughtered, with Russian help. Then he can move on to the 5 million expulsed and 5.5 million killed Turks/Muslims in the century preceding and including WWI. (The numbers Justin McCarthy pulled out of his hat, Fanadix said earlier; maybe he thought the number of victims didn't surpass 18, as he led us to believe earlier.) These examples of "Man's Inhumanity to Man" are ones no hypocritical genocide scholar goes near, because the victims are considered to be less than men and women, and because they would run contrary to the agenda of their Armenian financiers. But since Fanadix is not a racist, and is such a golden hearted humanist like Peter Balakian, perhaps he can break the trend.--Torque, Mar 22 2005

Regarding an earlier question, I do not need to explain to you why I edited articles related to Turkey. I am knowlegable with the people as I lived around the counbtry on various locations. They are generaly a nice and helpfull group of people with some social problems some groups are makeing a big deal of. Heck Belgians have much serious issue with their social problems and France is a bomb waiting to explode, you know what I mean if you had ever been to paris Metro. So many under-payed immigrants... They aren't as discriminated as what USA but their childeren will prove to be a serious problem as they will probably have better education than their parents and threaten "Frech" jobs. Lack of jobs due to the Newcomers often lead to Ethnic hatret (Affirmative Action caused this kind of reaction esspecialy on soulthern US). This is in no way related to this article but answers a previous question. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 03:58, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You see, it is messages like this that gives you away, it is not only your repeated uses of “Arman,” but also, things like, “attacking a nation,””they are good people.” Those are defensive answers, and are suggestive, you raise such issues when they were even not brought. Who told you that I questioned their niceness or their helpfulness... that's besides the point. And no, you can not claim that France or such countries have more problem in term of human rights etc. read a little from info-Turk, a Turkish human right organization, you can access to their publications from the web. If you want the Turkish society to evolve, you just raise the issues and not hide them, and hidding, that's exactly what you do, and that is called a hidden agenda. Fadix 15:52, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• "Defensive answers" are what those who wish to counter this myth are forced into when the other side fanatically, ruthlessly, dishonestly attack, smear and attack again. "Who told you that I questioned their niceness or their helpfulness" Nobody needs to be told. If "NO PROPAGANDA OR POV" Fanadix is solely relying on his unethical propaganda, and wants to present baseless Nazi-Turk operated concentration camp ideas, it is clear the last thing on his mind is to portray the Turks in anything but a negative light. But of course, Fanadix is not a racist; that's what he keeps telling us, while hysterically charging others with the same. And then he goes on to adopt human rights reports who love to target the Turks disproportionately more than other countries, because the people who populate these agencies are under the same bigoted anti-Turkish propagandistic influences as the rest of the Western world. There's Fanadix again, trying to make the Turks out to be the worst race, and only one breath later innocently implies he supports the idea of Turkish "niceness."--Torque, Mar 22 2005

Here is the deal

First I present the Western Academics version as it is, in its section. Then, I present the Turkish government point of view. Then, the cases of the Turkish human right organization and Turkish scholars who support the theses of genocide. Then, the various cases, Military tribunal, Permanent People tribunal. Then, the International community(recognition, UN etc.)

etc.

Every party well have its representation. So that when someone come and read, he will have a knowledge of the version of each sides.

Here is how we do it in wikipedia, we write in a neutral tone. Thats unnegotiable, you are dictating how this article should be and hissing, acusing other mods. If you cannot live with trhe wiki way you dont belong to wikipedia. I do not need to explain you why I made my edits. I am only amused by your accusations. The original version of your user talk page read: "I don't have much to say about me than maybe that I am allergic to the denial of the Armenian genocide and that I will fight it in Wikipedia until denialists give up.". I rest my case at this very point. I am an engineer not a Intelligence agnet. I do not have a hidden agenda, aside from talking over the world by using a stealth coffee cup.

PKK abducted foreign engineers every here an there. During my stay there PKK was never a HOT topic. They are hated by the general pblic and are declared public enemy #1. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 18:42, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Are you familiar with the folowing text?

---

Those who constantly attempt to advocate their views on politically charged topics, and who seem not to care about whether other points of view are represented fairly, are violating the non-bias policy ("write unbiasedly"). But the policy also entails that it is our job to speak for the other side, and not just avoid advocating our own views. If we don't commit ourselves to doing that, Wikipedia will be weaker for it. We should all be engaged in explaining each other's points of view as sympathetically as possible.
In saying this, we are spelling out what might have been obvious from an initial reading of the policy. If each of us is permitted to contribute biased stuff, then how is it possible that the policy is ever violated? The policy says, "Go thou and write unbiasedly". If that doesn't entail that each of us should fairly represent views with which we disagree, then what does it mean? Maybe you think it means, "Represent your own view fairly, and let others have a say." But consider, if we each take responsibility for the entire article when we hit "save", then when we make a change that represents our own views but not contrary views, or represents contrary views unfairly or incompletely, surely we are adding bias to Wikipedia. Does it make sense not to take responsibility for the entire article? Does it make sense to take sentences and say, "These are mine"? Perhaps, but in a project that is so strongly and explicitly committed to neutrality, that attitude seems out of place.
The other side might very well find your attempts to characterize their views substandard, but it's the thought that counts. In resolving disputes over neutrality issues, it's far better that we acknowledge that all sides must be presented fairly, and make at least a college try at presenting the other sides fairly. That will be appreciated much more than not trying at all.
"Writing for the enemy" might make it seem as if we were adding deliberately flawed arguments to Wikipedia, which would be a very strange thing to do. But it's better to view this (otherwise puzzling) behavior as adding the best (published) arguments of the opposition, citing some prominent person who has actually made the argument in the form in which you present it, and stating them as sympathetically as possible. Academics, e.g., philosophers, do this all the time. Always cite your sources, and make sure your sources are reputable, and you won't go far wrong.

---

Yes, to the contrary, you ought to justify your edits...

I will quote here the rules, because you ARE NOT respecting them.

“Ideally, presenting all points of view also gives a great deal of background on who believes that p and q and why, and which view is more popular (being careful not to associate popularity with correctness). Detailed articles might also contain the mutual evaluations of the p-ists and the q-ists, allowing each side to give its "best shot" at the other, but studiously refraining from saying who won the exchange.”

Let me explain what this mean, you OUGHT to say who's view it is, and who's view it isn't. And this is what you are trying to hijack with your hidden agenda. My version of articles and attempts is to say who's view IT IS, and who's view it ISN'T, and my future editions will lead to that. Your critics of my article are not about Wikipedia, you clearly delete informations, if you were to neutralize my article, you would say who's position it is. And this is not what you are after, but to present the two sides 50-50, but without saying who's view it is.

Let quote again from the rules again.

“Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views. We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by only a small minority of people deserved as much attention as a majority view. That may be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. If we are to represent the dispute fairly, we should present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties. None of this, however, is to say that minority views cannot receive as much attention as we can possibly give them on pages specifically devoted to those views. There is no size limit to Wikipedia. But even on such pages, though a view is spelled out possibly in great detail, we still make sure that the view is not represented as the truth.”

“From Jimbo Wales, September 2003, on the mailing list:

• If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
• If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
• If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.”

Let me explain what this means. Ideally you should NOT present ranges of figures etc. without specifying who's view it is, and who's view it isn't. You can not present them equally, when they are NOT shared equally. And again, in the same rules: “The neutral point of view is not a "separate but equal" policy.” You CAN NOT invent terms which are not used, those are not point of views, but things which you make up, YOUR point of views, which is in the third category which says: “If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.” Do you know what this means? The word concentration camp is the name given, was given by the officials, including German officials, you change that by an expression used for the Japanese Americans and such instances, but IS NOT used to refer to the Armenian cases. If something was called a concentration camp, the words should be given as is, if you don't do that, you are introducing your interpretations regarding the topic. There is no opponent I know of having another point of view for that. Now I see that you have changed it for “camps.” But here again, there is two type of camps, the transit camps and the concentration camps, if you forbidden the uses of concentration camps, how will I even be able to write an article differentiating both?

Talking now about me, no one will accept your arrogant tone of “do this or get hell of of here...” continue like this and you will have many good possible participants not daring to come here. And I can again stress out to the fact that you ARE NOT neutral, the articles you have participated in, you have all introduced biases in them. PKK or the Kurdish issue is an example, I don't remember any explanations regarding the above 3000 Kurdish villages destroyed and over 2 million “relocated” by the government repressive answer. Had you been really for neutrality, you would have really presented both sides. You present the PKK as an exclusive armed organization, when it has and its notion was founded on a worker party with socialist ideologies. You claim that states recognize it as terrorist so it is a terrorist organization. It is good to see how you twist neutrality everytime it fits you. In one side, when states recognize and the majority recognize it it became a fact, but when the same thing is also true in the Armenian genocide cases, you want it to get it neutralized. And sorry to say that your claims of why you hate PKK makes no sense at all, you even participate with the ASALA article, an organization that doesn't even exist anymore and that for over decade. You cover every Turkish government political sphere and introduce your biases in them. You are using your “veteran” position to do just that, and I find it unfair that people judge members on their state of veteran vs newbie, had you been a newbie, people would have been more careful if the same charges I make here were made by a veteran and would have read and pied attention to your participation. Another thing, it is amazing that you had no problem at the beginning reverting my text with a version, who's most of the links supporting the Armenian genocide were deleted(leaving only two)... and when I deleted just one link from the other side(because it had materials that do not exist, and is racist), you introduced it. Talking of neutrality, yeh right.

Another thing I find amazing, you quote my personal pages to make your position, but sorry to deceive you, I don't see anything wrong in it, nowhere it is written that I am against the neutral position, and I can as well quote what you have yourself written which by its tone isn't more “neutral.” Do you want me to give a trial here? My personal page was as an answer to Torque who is the author of a racist site comparing Armenians as the lowest form of life, who participate in boards with multiple aliases by even using terms such “cockroaches” to qualify them. I think my answer was rather moderate considering the person with whom I was dealing with. You were the one starting this “accusation” game by writing to administrators and other members accusing me, contrary to you, my position I defend it by answering the person with whom I discuss with... and if the person in question has critics I will listen... you were the side that was closed to any negotiation, you refused to participate in the talk page, you haven't even written something on the mediation section, your attitude is against mediation, you close the door and entirely tell me the fk of in a more polite form. This is immature, I am not a donkey, I can understand, you didn't needed to start this campaign of trowing mud on me by alerting members when you knew that what I was asking you was to at least justify your edits, and until now, you haven't even done that... And I repeat again and again, there is a clear distinction between neutralizing an article, and deleting informations which are important... your war, and my critic is about just that.

As for your profession, your profession is of no consequences, I as well am in a scientific discipline, have as well studied for over 5 year war crimes... and I do expect to discuss with someone that know of what he is talking about, you obviously are not that person. I may sound biased, but this is a non-issue, at least I do not hide anything from me like you do... I do not claim to neutralize an article when I do not do it... and above all, I justify my edits... something you don't do. And if you want to know more about me. I never has set a foot in Armenia, I live in Canada, and have graduated my primary school, high school college(bust still studying) in French Canadian schools. I have many Turkish friends on the web, who will defend me before defending people like Torque... I don't think if I was the donkey you try to picture me to be, they would do that. Fadix 20:12, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Fanadix has run off the mouth so uncontrollably, he has no idea no one can stomach reading through his hysteria. But let's focus on a few of his rambling statements:

• "The word concentration camp is the name given, was given by the officials, including German officials" So 1915 Gemans used the English term "concentration camp"? On whose translation, Vahakn Dadrian's? Even if they used the corresponding German term, words' meanings change over time. What might have sounded innocent in WWI certainly has a far different meaning today.

• "And I can again stress out to the fact that you ARE NOT neutral." The reason: Anyone who strays one iota from Fanadix's propaganda and who displays any tone of respect for real historical truth is to be charged with NOT being neutral, and of being a pro-Turk... which is what Fanadix has been saying about Coolcat.

• Explaining further: Coolcat is not a Turk, he has had insight into the real Turkey rare among Westerners brainwashed by anti-Turkish propaganda. Remember when the Reagan administration stuffed the Supreme Court with conservatives? When Bush stacked the neck with comparatively more fanatical arch-conservatives like Thomas and Scalia, the more reasonable conservatives were forced to become moderates. In other words, when encountering dogma and ideology, and not common sense and real facts, responsible people then become forced to regard the other side more seriously. This comes from a sense of achieving fairness, balance, and honesty. Coolcat deserves to be congratulated for testing his nerves against this whirlwind, obsessed force we're dealing with.

• Then Fadix goes on to support the PKK, when the PKK's true stripes were demonstrated to the European community after Ocalan's arrest, and the same anti-Turkish attitude that permeates the lot of the aforementioned human rights organizations was in for a rude (albeit brief) awakening. At least Fanadix is loyal; he still supports this corrupt terror group that didn't care for ordinary Kurds, no less than how the Dashnaks/ARF didn't (and still don't) care for the ordinary Armenians. He supports them, because the enemy of his enemy is his friend.--Torque, Mar 22, 2005

4 suggestions, 2 comment for now.

• Learn to summerise your cases.
• Don't ask me to leave
• Stop accusing me of a hidden agenda.
• Learn to focus. This is Talk: Armenian Genocide not Talk: Kurdistan Workers Party. This is not a forum either. We are discussing Armenian Genocide not me.

• I asked people to tell me if I were biased. Those people have the identical capability as I do as far as wiki-power is concerned.
• You suggest Armenian Genocide happened and that its a fact. I suggest we dont know if it was a state organised extermination plan or just WW1 fatalities. NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW dictates thats the proper corse of action regarding this matter.

--Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 22:06, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Here we go again at square one.

I have to conclude you do it on purposes. Let me repeat for the 100nt time. My problem IS NOT about representing the other side, MY PROBLEM is about introducing misleading and erroneous informations. You have first edited and claimed this was about Armenia and Turkey opposing eachothers, when another member has obviously seen your clear biases, he reverted it to a conflict between the international community and Turkey. Wikipedia clearly stat that this is not about presenting both positions as equally valid, it is about presenting both positions. There are some informations that have nothing to do with positions, example... that this is an opposition between Turkey and the international community... and they should be presented. Your deletion is beyond neutralization.

You as well purposely manipulate the entry and clam: “Some Armenian and Western and some Turkish scholars believe that a state-sponsored extermination plan, while some Turkish and some Western scholars that a clashes between the two-sides, and causes such as famine and disease claiming the lives of all Ottomans.” This is entirely sabotaging the article. I will tell you why, the ratio of Western scholars recognizing the genocide vs not recognizing it is about something like hundreds or thousands to one... And this is waiting the: “If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.” And I still included it even if I didn't need to do so. Your version is misleading it has nothing to do with neutralizing, you try to fool the reader to believe that this is 50-50 debated among Western scholars, which IS NOT the cases at all, so your changes are beyond neutralizing.

Now the most obvious cases of of manipulation, is when you introduce the word “alleged” before “deportation and murder.” Are you supposing that the fact that Armenians were deported and that there were many that were murdered is debated? This clear example of misleading show that you are not neutralizing the article. The question is not about if Armenians were deported and murdered, because no one deny that, the question is about if the Ottoman government ordered the destruction of the Armenian population.

Coming to the four points. First of, I am summerising my cases as much as it is possible, you don't expect me to write few lines to cover your biases here?

Second, I did not ask you to leave, I asked you to mind about things you know about rather than getting involved in things you ignore. If you have interpreted this as me asking you to leave, it further justify my request, since that by interpreting this as if I ask you to leave, you admit your ignorance, and still request to edit by introducing erroneous informations.

I will not stop “accusing” you to have a hidden agenda because I am not accusing, I am just pointing to the fact that you do have a hidden agenda, I do not need to accuse you, your editions clearly show it.

Fourth, I am focusing, your “neutrality” is a very important issue, because you want to present yourself as a moderator. My complaints are really relevent.

And lastly, believe me, as time passes by in this discussion, it will become clear that you are biased.

“You suggest Armenian Genocide happened and that its a fact. I suggest we dont know if it was a state organised extermination plan or just WW1 fatalities. NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW dictates thats the proper corse of action regarding this matter.”

Again, I repeat, your editions have nothing to do with Neutral point of view, your editions delete accurate informations. If I claim most western scholars, that is a fact, a ratio which can not be debated, if I say that this is a problem between the International community and Turkey, this as well is a recorded fact which can not be debated... those have nothing to do with POV or NPOV.Fadix 00:39, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Fanadix is getting so repetitious in his hysteria, let's counter his claim of milking the fact that there is no "50-50 debate among Western scholars" with a repeat of what I had written above. Firstly, just because there is great volume put in your face, that doesn't make the volume correct; consider the "160 pages" Fadix points to in his desperate attempt to prove he's right; quantity does not equal quality. Furthermore, just like with his phony genocide, it's important to study the underlying reasons as far as what happened happened; not just to accept the end result, like this many Armenians died, or this many academicians support Fadix's genocide. Here are the reasons why there's a lopsided number of unthinking or uncourageous scholars automatically supporting Fadix's views: (A) Armenian propaganda arrived in torrents during WWI, coupled with the same in the previous quarter-century, cementing with the anti-Turkish prejudice in the West for centuries since the Crusades (B) Nobody wants to go against "genocide"; everyone knows "genocide" is bad, and it's easy to accept the "avalanche" of Armenian propaganda "evidence" that has had the advantage of gaining such a clear foothold (C) Those who have tried to speak the truth have been ruthlessly attacked, in ways ranging from horrendous smear campaigns to bombings of their homes. Who would want to enter this fray and be subjected to the madness of fanatics like Fanadix, whose existence depends on maligning and discrediting those whose views are contrary?

• Additionally, regarding "The question is not about if Armenians were deported and murdered, because no one deny that." If one holds the truth in stead, they had better deny that. The word "deported" means exile outside a country's borders: banishment. That's what the Russians did with their innocent Muslims that spurred Enver Pasha to write his May 2 1915 telegram to Talat, advocating the Ottoman Empire do the same with their treacherous Armenians. Instead, they spent vast amounts of money resettling them WITHIN the country's borders. That, and the countless secret orders documenting the safety and care of the Armenians indicate the Ottomans were approaching this problem from a humanitarian point of view. (What's better: resettlement, or expulsion? Ask the modern Armenians who expulsed nearly a million Karabagh Azeris in 1992, and they might opt for the latter; but most of us would go with the former.) Things went wrong, some Armenians were massacred mostly in the caravans, and many more died from famine, disease, harsh weather, combat -- like the bulk of the 2.5 million+ Turks who lost their lives. One million Armenians survived from an original population of around 1.5 million, and the Armenians themselves conceded in 1919 only 600,000 of their numbers had died — from all causes combined. So, YES, one needs to "deny" that all those "deported" Armenians were "murdered." And, YES, one needs to examine the motives of a Fanadix who unethically makes such wild claims as 800,000 Armenians were "not casualties, but KILLED." --Torque, Mar 22, 2005

United States

Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Idaho Illinois Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina Tennessee Utah Vermont Virgina Washington Wisconsin

Doesn't this constitute majority? --Fadix

• What that constitutes in real terms is that politicians are in the wealthy, obsessed Armenians' pockets. Those who refute this lie have better things to do with their lives than to attend the city council meetings taking place to decide on these resolutions, manned by people who have exclusively been exposed to Armenian propaganda. When these resolutions pass, and real history is not considered, the final result has nothing to do with the truth. (And the reason why Armenians spend so much time and energy asking for unsuitable bodies to decide on history is so they can — in typical underhanded fashion — point to these worthless results to the unwary and say, See? They all agree with us! --Torque

---

If you use word murder you are forcing the reader to accept genocide. If you use the words like most, majority you are still forcing the reader to asume the genocide. You are a moderator and so am I. You cannopt prove genocide on wikipedia. Thats against NPOV. Sweeden currently does not recognise the genocide according to this article hence the <s></s>. The ratio of the scholars is irrelevant ant this point, "Some Armenian and Western and some Turkish scholars believe that a state-sponsored extermination plan, while some Turkish and some Western scholars that a clashes between the two-sides, and causes such as famine and disease claiming the lives of all Ottomans." is a very confusing statement. If you realy want to talk about neutrality you have to accept a contaverisal topic as this one requires 50:50 ratio on all issues. When you use the statement. You cannot force this matter untill other mods give up. That is definatly not the way we do things here. I did not delete that statement. I commented out for someone to reword it. you have no idea what commenting out means you have no idea what the tag does, and you claim things. You are neutral and I am not, thats your suggestion. Yout Truth is based on facts only I got a bunch of lies. Is that what you suggest? I am not accusing you of things why are you constantly acusimg me. This can be considered a personal attack you know. --Cool Cat

^{My Talk} 20:14, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)::::::::That is because, Coolcat, it is a personal attack. But at least our friend did not call you a "RACIST NAZI" as he did with me. --Torque Mar 22, 2005

NPOV suggests that both sides have equal say regarding all items. When you use the words most, many, majority, you breat that balance. This article tells us currently that most western scholars think genocide did happen while a minority claims it didnt. The views of any non western scholars are irrelevant hence we dont mention them. You are not making a stronger case by insisting on keeping an extremely confusing sentence as "Some Armenian and Western and some Turkish scholars believe that a state-sponsored extermination plan, while some Turkish and some Western scholars that a clashes between the two-sides, and causes such as famine and disease claiming the lives of all Ottomans." . I merely want to simplify it to "Scholars". --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 20:14, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• You will stop acusing me. I am starting to get annoyed. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 20:13, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• In wikipedia when a mod edits something we give them about 30 - 60 minutes before working on our edits for them to clarify their case. Please folow this civilised attitude. If you continue to revert all my edits on this article. Ill handle YOU diferently. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 20:18, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If you use word murder you are forcing the reader to accept genocide. If you use the words like most, majority you are still forcing the reader to asume the genocide.

Those have nothing to do with POV or NPOV, no one deny that Armenians were murdered, what is denied by Turkey is if the Government ordered those murders. “Most” “Majority” are true informations, they are not POV, if you delete that you mislead the reader.

You are a moderator and so am I. You cannopt prove genocide on wikipedia. Thats against NPOV.

Wikipedia rules are clear, I have posted them for you... I present the cases without suggesting, it isn't my fault that most, or majority are true informations... and Wikipedia is clear about that, this is not about supporting both cases as equally valid, read, or perhaps do you need that I post them again for you?

Sweeden currently does not recognise the genocide according to this article hence the . The ratio of the scholars is irrelevant ant this point,

I disagree, the article is dated December 3, the news in December 17 reported the recognition, it was passed on vote after the article.

"Some Armenian and Western and some Turkish scholars believe that a state-sponsored extermination plan, while some Turkish and some Western scholars that a clashes between the two-sides, and causes such as famine and disease claiming the lives of all Ottomans." is a very confusing statement. If you realy want to talk about neutrality you have to accept a contaverisal topic as this one requires 50:50 ratio on all issues.

No, you are misleading, you have no right to mislead people, this is beyond neutrality... if it is most, it should be indicated that it is most. And beside that, Wikipedia doesn't even require that I specify some Western scholars support the Turkish government theses, because it is a couple, and the ones having actually published about it, you could count them on your hands. But I did include them regardless so that you don;t start a stupid war of revert, but you you want me to do is to actually takes the thousands of thousands of Western scholars having actually referred to the event, and place it as 50-50 with the little insignificant number that it does even not worth referring to. Sorry, I will not give up on that, you are introducing biases in the article and this is against Wikipedia neutral point of view.--Fadix

• "You are a moderator and so am I." In reality, the Fanadix is a moderatEE. But even the best attempts to rope him in won't succeed in curbing his extremist views, I fear.

• "it isn't my fault that most, or majority are true informations..." No, it's Fanadix's fault to obsessively and unscrupulously perpetuate this information that is obviously not true. Unless we accept hearsay, theories and outright fabrications at face value, as the truth. His "evidence" boils down to the findings of another genocide-obsessed super-Armenian, Vahakn Dadrian, whose "approach is not that of an historian trying to find out what happened and why but of a lawyer assembling the case for the prosecution in an adversarial system."

• "if it is most, it should be indicated that it is most." This is the kind of mentality the Armenians have perfected to a tee. It's like back in the old days, when they knew they could extract maximum Western sympathy by pointing to "Muslims hating Christians," in a land where tolerance was unmatched, at least as far as heterogeneous empires went. This Western Christian bias never disappeared, and Armenians are still milking it for all it's worth. Most who are affected by anti-Turkish propaganda imprinted in the West since the Crusades still mindlessly accept the Turks as the barbarians, and the Armenians as the poor, innocent Christians. The massively unilateral -- at least since before the 1970s-80s, although the situation is little improved today -- Armenian propaganda, especially since the Armenians have financed and supported the genocide scholar community and have gained valuable allies (who wants to argue with "genocide"?), has influenced minds in ways Josef Goebbels may never have dreamt of. As a result, since everyone is saying there is an Armenian genocide, it's easy to hop aboard the bandwagon; particularly since the genocide industry has become so lucrative, and even opportunistic Turkish scholars have discovered a quick way to enrich their lives. Those few who say otherwise have learned the terrible repercussions, from reputation to bodily destruction, at the hands of the Fanadix. As a result, "most" agree with the mythological genocide. What does that have to do with real truth, in this arena of flat earth disciples? Absolutely not a thing. --Torque, Mar 22, 2005

When you use the statement. You cannot force this matter untill other mods give up. That is definatly not the way we do things here. I did not delete that statement. I commented out for someone to reword it. you have no idea what commenting out means you have no idea what the tag does, and you claim things. You are neutral and I am not, thats your suggestion. Yout Truth is based on facts only I got a bunch of lies. Is that what you suggest? I am not accusing you of things why are you constantly acusimg me. This can be considered a personal attack you know. --Cool Cat My Talk 20:14, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Why don't you leave really neutral moderators to do their jobs, he was doing a good job at neutralizing the article until you came and decided to introduce your biases. I proposed mediation, and the last time I have read, you have even not defended your cases while I did, you are overusing your user privileges.

NPOV suggests that both sides have equal say regarding all items.

That is wrong, reread the rules please, that is not what it is said, it is said that the Neutral point of view is not to present both positions as equally valid, if you do that, it is a POV, if you pass two claims as 50-50 you suggest something, what you suggest is that it is 50-50, when it is not. This is introducing a biases.

When you use the words most, many, majority, you breat that balance. This article tells us currently that most western scholars think genocide did happen while a minority claims it didnt.

The reader ought to know who believe a position and who don't, you can not delete this, it is misleading the reader and is ill intend. If most believe something, it should be indicated that most believe it. If readers conclude that one position is more supported, the reader will judge. It isn't my fault that the genocide theses is the most supported.

The views of any non western scholars are irrelevant hence we dont mention them.

Arabic scholars accept the event... again, as I said, the Armenian genocide is more accepted among the Muslim than the Shoah... and here just to remind you that the Ottoman Empire was a Muslim empire. But I do not report those things, because most publications are in the west, so since most are in the west, it should be pointed out.

You are not making a stronger case by insisting on keeping an extremely confusing sentence as "Some Armenian and Western and some Turkish scholars believe that a state-sponsored extermination plan, while some Turkish and some Western scholars that a clashes between the two-sides, and causes such as famine and disease claiming the lives of all Ottomans." . I merely want to simplify it to "Scholars". --Cool Cat My Talk 20:14, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC) You will stop acusing me. I am starting to get annoyed. --Cool Cat My Talk 20:13, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC) In wikipedia when a mod edits something we give them about 30 - 60 minutes before working on our edits for them to clarify their case. Please folow this civilised attitude. If you continue to revert all my edits on this article. Ill handle YOU diferently.

...

You are not a moderator, a moderator can differentiate himself from his biases, you can't, I don't recognize your authority. Fadix 20:49, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

(As if Moderatee Fanadix is the embodiment of neutrality, and possesses even one ounce of the neutrality of Coolcat?) --Torque Mar 23, 2005

You are obligated to recognise my authority and the authority of all moderators and they recognise yours, you are welcome to ignore me but any more Personal Attacks from you will not be tollerated. Such attacks will result in your destruction, I do not WANT your destruction. I am warning you so that you dont get destroyed. This is neither a threat nor an attack - just a freindly warning. I am a moderator and so are you. Everyone on wikipedia is a moderator. Not everyone is an Admin. I know mods who turn down admin requests as it is a lot of hard work so dont underestimate/dismiss us mods.

• Learn to simlify your cases, your average response to 6 lines of text is a page which is excessive. I have about 4 archives solely you answering 1 line of text with a page you pasted from somewhere. Giving links may help.
• Do not "cut in" my argument like you have as then no one will know what I said. If you want to do a line by line response ident your own entry (like you did) and use bullets, also sign using --~~~~
• I am not sure if all those states actualy and officialy regocnised the genocide. I would prefer you add a link to all the acceptance in the discussion page. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 22:08, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

---

Since a scientific concensus have not been reached regarding the Armenian Genocide you cannot talk in the name of the scientific community, the international comunity is not as involved as the article suggests. International comunity often refrains from involment in disputes. This article is more than simple history discussion but is a diplomatic dispute between Turkey and Armenia. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 22:12, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I can also list 50 states who opose the genocide in the US, would not be credible. I would love to see sources. I dont want you to paste the web page I am quite capable of clicking the link you post. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 22:58, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

---

I recognize your authority as a member and not as a moderator. I don't see where it is stated that I should recognize your authority as a moderator. A moderator is supposed to moderate, and to moderate one should be able to differentiate himself from his biases, something you are not able to do. And again, it seems that you didn't get the point. I can not attack you without intention, you perceive it as attack. I am making you charges but not attacks. I report your clear biases, call that attack I don't care, and I am patiently waiting a mediator, because I am confident that he/she will realize what is so obvious, that you are attempting to sabotate the article.

My posts are long, and I am sorry for that, I come from forums where the average posts are in the hundreds of words, I participate in a history forum where generally people post essays and studies, and I thought that Wikiepdia was such a serious place where people had actually done researches regarding topics in which they participate in. I landed up here after I realized that the Armenian genocide entry not only was clearly biased, but as well contained dubious materials, which authenticity can even not be confirmed. And to my surprise, there was the author of tallarmeniantale, the racist known spammer that was hijacking it. But by then, you had no problem in trying to neutralize it, you had as well no problem leaving only two websites supporting the genocide theses against the other position which included a bunch of links. You only decided neutralizing when Mr. Torque position was defeated and he claimed leaving. Those are facts which display your clear biases.

As for the states, had you actually visited the links I provide, you would have found the answer. The fact of the matter is that not so long ago, the Armenian genocide was to be recognized by the Federal government, internal polls suggested that it would have been passed with a majority vote. After the president talked with the Turkish president by phone, the vote was pulled out. Of course, I do not refer to those things, I do not refer about as well, to the many other countries which Turkey pressurized to pull out the votes, including Syria, Iran and Lebanon.

As for the scientific community, read few books dude, you have no clue of what you are talking about, this cases is the second most studied genocide, there are thousands and thousands of books referring to it, and you claim that it has not been established by the scientific community, that is ridiculous.Fadix 23:19, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• "I am making you charges but not attacks." Is "You are lying" a charge, or an attack? That's a pretty thin line.

• Is hard-headed Iran, or even Syria for that matter, the type of countries that are going to buckle down to pressure short of military attack by a greater power? Iran and Syria, along with Syria-dominated Lebanon, are not friends of Turkey. Why would these countries listen to Turkey?

• "that the Armenian genocide entry not only was clearly biased, but as well contained dubious materials, which authenticity can even not be confirmed" Complete hogwash. The article before had no significant dubious materials, except in the pro-genocide claims, which needed to be left alone to strive for neutrality. Fanadix's idea of a lack of bias is to convert the article to his own personal Armenian genocide monument, comprised 100% of Armenian propaganda, making slanderous charges that are unproven with genuine evidence. --Torque Mar 23, 2005

---

This is NOT a fourm, this is not an essay either. Historic "facts" are always contraversial. You are trying to prove armenian genocide I am trying to neither deny nor acknowlege it. THIS IS NOT A GOD DAMN FORUM LIKE you suggested, views of both parties should be voiced EQUALY. I am not even trying to deny genocide but all I request is you dont try to prove it. As far as I and every one else is concerned Neither Turkish nor Armenian nor any other Propoganda is welcome here. You cannot chase us away and force us to acknowlege your facts. You are asking me to read books, whose views? Pro genocide, anti genocide. This page is not your research paper. Untill the diplomatic dispute is resolved there are two parties should be adressed 50/50 regarding this matter. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 23:28, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
There is no such thing as a member class, you are either a moderator or an admin. You are welcome to talk the admins in creating a 3rd category for you. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 23:29, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Does it sound that I am trying to “prove” anything right now? What I am saying is that your claim of equality is against the Neutral point of view, you can not suggest something is supported equally, because if you do that it is POV. You can not present something 50-50, as to suggest that two positions are equal, when they are not. I think you should reread the Neutral Point of view, what it is, and what it isn't. I tried explaining this to you, and the fact that you as a veteran don't want to abide by, is what made me suspicious about you at the beginning. Fadix 23:35, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Here's the weasel logic. The West is anti-Turkish since the Crusades. The proud Turks are not the type who speak up, while the Armenians are shrill and vocal, as Fanadix personifies. The obsessed and wealthy Armenians have worked hard to intimidate legitimate historians from exploring this terrain, recruited false "genocide scholars" and the already biased or brainwashed individuals present in many segments of the historic community, and have weaseled their way into the hearts of bigoted politicians in many countries to pass meaningless genodice resolutions. End result of this fanaticism that has nothing to do with the truth: the mythical genocide has become the accepted wisdom, and the preponderance of unthinking and brainwashed opinions are on the side of genocide. Because "160 Pages" Fanadix emphasizes quality over quantity, he uses his propagandistic side's advantage without bothering to analyze why the two positions are not equal. The reasons have nothing to do with historic fact. --Torque Mar 23, 2005

• I am sure if the Armenian part did not have territorial, and other demands, the issue would be much much different. There is no mention of the diplomatic sphere of this dispute, I am reading more into this matter and all I see is either sides propoganda. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 23:32, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• I also believe second degree evidence (ie documents) are highly diputed by historic communities as they are very easy to forge, even at the time.

• What I got so far from my reading: Armenians rebeled, and sided with Russians and that pissed of the centeral goverment. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 23:41, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• The goverment ordered some/most armenians to move from what today is armenia, not all which implies that goverment wanted to spare some. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 23:41, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• This kind of movement of people was not uncomon during both world wars. As Japaneese were forced to move, Everyone knows the story of Jews in germany. Or russian moveing it peoples. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 23:41, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Armenia recently declined Turkeys suggestion of exchanging notes. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 23:41, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Btw, please do not immidiately respond to my posts. I lost some of my work during an edit confilct. give me like 15 - 60 minutes --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 23:41, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Googling for Armenian Genocide. I dont have the time to graduate with a history major. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 23:41, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have no idea of what the hell you're refering to. Besides, can you genetly provide me the list of works you are actualy reading? Fadix 23:35, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• What's not to understand? The above is very straightforward. --Torque Mar 23, 2005

What is the basis of the view percentages in the scientific category? --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 23:43, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

---

BWAHAHA!!! (sorry could not retain myself). So Sir is neutral :)

The documents are forgeries, the Armenians were sent in russia or to pic-nick in the Syrian desert.

What is disputed among the historic community??? if you have access to online libraries or Historic publications, search for the word “Armenian genocide,” maybe http://www.questia.com/ could be a start, research the ratio if you could find any, you'll only find McCarthy, and Gunter who bases himself(as he admits) on McCarthy, the rest of the publications and discuss about the Armenian cases, the same goes with other libraries. That the majority of the scientific community recognize can even not be debated. This subject is even not controversial, there is Turkey, and there is the rest. And here you claim having read and the BS you present are the regurgitations from the Turkish government. Sorry to say you this, if the majority support the Arm”a”nian genocide theses, it should be presented as it is recognized and not as you would wish it to be presented.--Fadix 00:25, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Anyone who dares to go against Fanadix's dogma in the slightest degree must be branded as being biased. This is why the phony genocide scholars never invite those with dissenting views of history. You have to belong to their "club" first. This attitude has nothing to do with search for real truth.

• "The documents are forgeries" It's a good thing we have Fanadix's "word" on that.

• The reason for the lopsidedness of Armenian genocide materials is because no one cared to objectively investigate this matter until Armenian terrorism of the 1970s-80s reopened its doors. A spattering of Western academicians then realized the lies and propaganda from the past still dictating this myth. When a few opened their mouths, they quickly came face-to-face with the fanatical power of the genocide-obsessed Armenians and their hypocritical, Armenian-fed, "genocide scholar" cronies. Result: it's not worth having your reputation ruined with charges of "RACIST NAZI-LIKE FK" (one way Fanadix has described me), and possible bodily harm (as with a professor's house being bombed.) Today: no real scholar wishes to enter this fray. That is why there is a dearth of material representing the side not believing in the genocide. Unscrupulous characters can then point to their majority and proclaim, we must be right, because quantity beats quality. Just like our "160 Pages" Fanadix. --Torque Mar 22, 2005

I hope I am amusing you. :P --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 02:19, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I am not qualified to discuss if it happened or not. I do not have (or will ever have) phds in social studies. I do dispute your claim of historians agreeing on this matter. Normaly when someone claims entier world VS one thing thats biased. I just thing declaring a nation a bunch of "cold blooded" "Political Lying Unholy Cowardly Killers" is biased. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 02:33, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Besides, why does it bother you to make this article 50/50? It is not like you represent the entier scientific comunity. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 02:33, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• They were send from point A to B I dont see why one should call that genocide. It wasnt a genocide when the Japaneese were forced to move in the US... It wasnt pretty either. Then again if you think of one perspective the rebelious people pissed off the goverment big time. You dont expect a goverment to like you if you revolt against them. That alone does not imply a genocide, there were better ways to kill people back then. Why bother "walking" them? You might as well shoot them.
  

I just think you are making this article one sided. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 02:39, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I do not see a Turkish Genocide article. According to what I read so far a mass number of Turks were also killed during the Armenian rebellion. No mention of that anywhere on wikipedia. Perhaps you can assist? If there is one its not properly linked. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 02:47, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Do you have difficulty understand what people write? While English is my fourth language, it seems that I am still clear enough to be understood. I am not saying there are no debates among scientists regarding the genocide, what I am saying is that that most scientists in the field recognize it as genocide is not debated. This is different than saying the cases is not debated among scientists. It is debated, but the debates are not regarding if a genocide really happed, even the Turkish government interpretation of events would be classified as genocide according the Genocide convention. The Turkish government theses is not supported by any serious specialist that respect himself, this is why probably most serious Turkish historians don't even comment about the event, most of the Turkish historians involved in this war are attached to the Turkish diplomacy “departments.” Avaoglu, before the wave of Turkish government intensive denial, like some other Turkish historians studied the last years of the Ottoman Empire, and cover the Armenian cases, calling it genocide.

As for Armenian genocide, the Armenian cases is present in studies of comparative genocide and war crimes. It is part, and not as alone. But there are many universities that give specific Armenian genocide courses. A quick search returned many results, here few.

http://www.shc.ed.ac.uk/undergraduate/Onesemester/History/U01453.htm

http://www.teachgenocide.org/websites.htm

http://www.genocidestudies.org/Faculty/Faculty_2005.htm

Now coming to your second points. You now present your POV, which has nothing to do with the article, I have covered all those points in my exchange with Torque, Torque over the years has amassed all the relevant denialist views, and the exchanges clearly show how his arguments are weak. You have admitted not knowing much about the event and still comment about it, this clearly show that you are biased. Your theses doesn't explain why Armenians were sent in the desert, it doesn't explain why those having reached the transit of Aleppo and the city of Zor were redirected back in the desert. Your theses doesn't explain why criminals sentenced for murder were released from prisons to escort the Armenian convoys. Your theses doesn't explain why the Ottoman blocked access to relief. Why Armenians beyond the war zone were deported? Those are few examples among many I brought in my exchange with Torque. Torque has been defeated, and now he is cowardly trying to assassinate my character by doing like you, going after members and lying about me. If your position is not supported by most, it is not supported by most, and this is not my fault. The article should represent what is believed by most... space should be left for your side true, and T have no problem about that. The point here is that you want the article to present your biased view as equal as the one represented by most. You can not do that... because that would be POV, you can not suggest that two positions are equally valid. It is like suggesting that the theses of spherical earth and Flat Earth are equally valid positions. Suggestion is POV, Wikipedia should not be based on suggestion. You wanted a neutral article, so be it, I am participating in the redaction of a neutral article, so why are you now criticizing something you were responsible of. Are you telling that your goal afteral was to not have a neutral article but rather an article suggesting that two theses are equally valid. You don't want POV. Right? So why are you trying to introduce it?Fadix 03:24, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• "Do you have difficulty understand what people write?" I suppose Fanadix is hoping to find common ground here, because a few lines above he wrote, "I have no idea of what the hell you're refering to," in response to Coolcat's perfectly comprehensible English.

• "Even the Turkish government interpretation of events would be classified as genocide according the Genocide convention." Untrue. The 1948 Genocide Convention requires "intent" to be proven, and exempts groups who have politically allied themselves (with, in this case, the Russians and other Allies). Dadrian's slanted theories, compiling only the dirt, does not constitute intent. What must exist is a motive for genocide. There are many crazy theories concocted by unscrupulous parties, but theories do not equal facts. The only reason for the relocation, as determined by Enver Pasha's May 2, 1915 telegram where he brought up the possibility for the first time (after the Armenians' sacred April 24 "genocide date" had passed) was a safety measure to ward off against the rebellious Armenians.

• "most of the Turkish historians involved in this war are attached to the Turkish diplomacy 'departments'." A ridiculous assertion parroted by the genocide propaganda industry, unsupported by any facts. We are being asked to believe historians of integrity are asked to sacrifice their principles in order to lie for the evil Turkish government, in cases when diplomats do call for historians to verify information. This would be the product of a Nazi/Soviet style repressive regime; is it any wonder why propagandists like Peter Balakian like to term secular, democratic Turkey as "totalitarian"? It's a repulsive thought.

• All the links Fanadix provides us with bear the fruit of the relentless propaganda machinery. The Armenians' genocide is the accepted wisdom; with the obsessed Armenians' wealth and influence, naturally many infested school divisions will fall prey to belief in this mythology.

• "Torque over the years has amassed all the relevant denialist views, and the exchanges clearly show how his arguments are weak." That's for the reader to decide. The megalomaniacal Fanadix suffers from severe dogma, and cannot absorb anything remotely contrary to his views. No matter what is put forth will be "weak" for him. In cases that are powerful, the ungenuine "NO PROPAGANDA NO POV" Fanadix will not first try and question his own beliefs; no, those beliefs are so imbedded and/or he is so unscrupulous, his first instinct will be to find ways to try and discredit.

• "it doesn't explain why those having reached the transit of Aleppo and the city of Zor were redirected back in the desert." What is the proof of this? Fanadix keeps repeating this line; what is the source? If this is supposed to be evidence even if true via a renegade force, why weren't all the Armenians knocked off? Why were 625,000 still in Ottoman borders according to the 1921 Armenian Patriarch? Why were there 500,000 Ottoman-Armenian refugees in Transcaucasia after the war, according to Richard Hovannisian? Why were there 140,000 Armenians in Iran, and Syria/Mesopotamia, according to Boghos Nubar in 1918? How could there be so many survivors from an original population of around 1.5 million? Fanadix is pointing to one instance of wrongdoing that he provides no source for, and wants to believe that was the general policy, in his desperate attempt to prove his mythological genocide. This is not honorable.

• "You have admitted not knowing much about the event and still comment about it, this clearly show that you are biased." Coolcat knows enough to realize a snow job when he sees one, as would any reasonable person with a little dabbling beneath the surface. He is not motivated by bias, but by justice and fairness. The genocide-obsessed Armenian style is always to attack, smear, and attack again.

• "Why Armenians beyond the war zone were deported?" Armenians were rebelling throughout the entire empire; it was a deadly situation of life-or-death for the nation. Under such circumstances, relocation is a legal measure, implemented by many nations. In WWII, the French did it with their German-speaking population in the Alsace region. The real question to ask is, if there were a genocide policy, why were the 200,000 Armenians of the West mostly untouched? Armenians were busy with their treachery in these areas too, supplying the British with maps and poisoning the Ottoman Army's food sources.

• "Why criminals sentenced for murder were released from prisons to escort the Armenian convoys" Does Fanadix actually expect us to believe all the gendarmes who came from the prisons were convicted of murder? You see, according to Dadrian's foolish theories Fanadix must present as fact, doctors accompanied the Ottoman SS men to choose the most vicious; as if doctors could tell how vicious a person is by physical traits. (And as if enough doctors were available.) Not all the gendarmes came from the prison pool. Some gendarmes gave up their lives defending Armenians in caravan attacks. How many SS men died trying to protect Jews? Even prison people are not always animals, especially in a Muslim society trained to respect women and children. (We can see how the gendarmes behaved from a GENUINE impartial eyewitness, the Swedish officer whose testimony has been posted; that's the one Fanadix immediately sought to discredit.) Now, it's true, recruiting from prisons was an irresponsible decision. But here was the situation: every Turkish man was needed at the multiple fronts, fighting the superpowers England, France and particularly mortal enemy Russia, known to ethnically cleanse millions of Muslims in conquered lands. There were so few men, Morgenthau himself wrote thousands of Turks were dying daily, since few men were left to till the fields. With this serious shortage of manpower, what nation would have diverted their few resources to protect a rebellious minority in the country's darkest hour? The bankrupt Sick Man did, diverting millions of dollars to transport the Armenians, and to feed and house them. Things went wrong, there were criminal and opportunist Turks, and the marauding Kurds and Arabs didn't help matters. Things went wrong with the Iraq invasion as well, despite the fact there was plenty of time to plan things out and great wealth to implement the program. This is war. It's not pretty. Is it genocide? What's needed is genuine proof, not hearsay and theories and propaganda.

• "Your theses doesn't explain why the Ottoman blocked access to relief." What's the proof of this? Even if the Ottomans said "You can't come in" to the Red Cross, it's the military's right to block access, like the USA restricts press freedom in the Iraq invasion. Maybe once the Ottomans said that, Dadrian found "evidence" of it, and now tries to pass it off as a full-fledged policy. I know from Morgenthau's own writings that aid was permitted to reach the Armenians, which defeats the idea of genocide. The better question to ask is, why were the Turks magnanimous enough to allow the Near East Relief, an organization cruelly hostile to the Turks, to freely come in and help the Armenians?

• "Torque has been defeated" I'm sorry Fanadix is thinking of intellectual debate in terms of "war." That underlies his insincerity, as far as the truth, and exhibits his fanaticism.

• "I am participating in the redaction of a neutral article," And there is a blatant example of his insincerity. The 100% propagandistic piece based on hearsay, theories and outright fabrications is not in any way a "neutral" article. --Torque Mar 23, 2005

I do not see a Turkish Genocide article. According to what I read so far a mass number of Turks were also killed during the Armenian rebellion. No mention of that anywhere on wikipedia. Perhaps you can assist? If there is one its not properly linked. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 02:47, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

---

IN THE 19th CENTURY IN THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE: 29 Armenians achieved the highest governmental rank of pasha, 22 Armenians became ministers, including Ministers of Foreign Affairs, 33 Armenians were elected to the Parliament, 7 Armenians were appointed as Ambassadors, 11 as Consul Generals, 11 Armenians served in universities as professors.

There were 803 Armenian schools employing 2088 teachers with over 80,000 pupils within the Ottoman Empire in 1901-2.

BRITISH CONSUL IN ERZURUM, GRAVES replied to the question of New York Herald Reporter Sydney Whitman "If no Armenian revolutionary had come to this country, if they had not stirred Armenian revolution, would these clashes have occurred?" as follows; "Of course not. I doubt if a single Armenian would have been killed."

---

Toynbee estimates the number of the Armenian losses as 600.000. The same figure appears in the Encyclopedia Britannica's 1918 edition. Armenians had also claimed the same number before. Bogos Noubar, head of the Armenian delegation at the Paris Peace Conference, declared that after the war 280.000 Armenians were living in Turkey and 700.000 Armenians have emigrated to other countries. According to the estimation of Bogos Noubar, the total number of the Armenian population before the war was 1.300.000. Therefore, it can be concluded that the number of the Armenian losses was around 300.000. This figure reflects the same proportion, according to their total population, of the 3 million loss of Turkish lives during the same period. Once more, facts do not correspond with the Armenian claims.

---

I am pasting stuff I picked up from diferent web pages. Is that just propoganda or factual, you are the knowlegable one, I am not qualified to comment. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 02:50, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Haven't I said that more you will participate and more your biases will be clearer for others to witness? So now, every can see your copypast job from revisionist sites. If you pied a little attention to the discussion between me and Torque, you would see that all those points were covered.

It is nothing surprising that there was an Armenian foreign minister, and finance ministers, because Armenian was even somehow considered as the official Ottoman foreign relation language because the Armenians were the economical power in the empire, and without including Armenians there, it was impossible for the Ottoman to get the Ottoman run. Actually, this is my specialisation regarding the genocide, one of the major reasons why the Armenians were destroyed was because they were controlling the Ottoman economy, and it was the major barrier against the Young-Turk nationalization of the economy. Was this a favourable treatment of the Armenians? I think the question should rather be: “Could the Ottoman have excluded the Armenians from those key positions?”

I will present you an incomplete list representing Ottoman debts. And those only what they owned to France, Germany and England.

France: 3,285,272,377 Frs(Francs)

Germany: 1,443,486,506 Frs

England: 813,312,496 Frs

I don’t know if you can imagine what this money represent, for the time, it just mean that the Ottoman economy was crumbling, and the debts were only growing years by years, without Armenian ministers of finances or a foreign minister, or ambassadors, there was no way to get those loans, there was no way to make run the Ottoman economy. This is the whole point here, the Armenians were not really placed there because it was a favour the Ottoman were making to the Armenians, but rather the Ottoman needed Armenians in those key positions, it was mutual benefit.

As for the Armenian schools, what is the relevancy? The Ottoman Armenians were controlling the Eastern commerce with Persia etc. obviously the ottoman had to benefit education for its subjects, without it, it would have crumbled, how this has anything to do with 1915?

As for the British Consul, this comes from Uras File, the father of the Turkish government propaganda machine. The original of this was a record for the events of the 1890s, the actual quote has been translated by Uras by modifying it, the English version is probably a re translation of the Turkish translation of the English version. First, it has nothing to do with 1915, but 1890s... second of all, what happened in the 1890s resulted from the refusal of the Armenian subjects to pay the unfair double taxation... but this is unrelated with what happened in 1915. the revisionist like you, since they have no valid materials supporting their theses rely on such irrelevant references.Fadix 03:24, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Fanadix's logic is embarrassing! First he says the reason for the genocide is "because they were controlling the Ottoman economy, and it was the major barrier against the Young-Turk nationalization of the economy." He offers no proof, it's another theory like "Pan-Turanism," or "Muslims hate Christians." The first gigantic hole in this theory is that if the Young Turks wanted better economic control, what was to stop them from implementing measures short of outright murder?

• ESPECIALLY since the Armenians made the wheels turn. Who would be stupid enough to get rid of a major resource during a period where resources were so scarce?

• And then he tells us, "the debts were only growing years by years, without Armenian ministers of finances or a foreign minister, or ambassadors, there was no way to get those loans" So, on the other hand, Fanadix himself is telling us the Armenians were indispensable! Stunning! The way a mind can work...

• By the way, when I brought up a parallel with French treatment of Algerians in 1877 to counter Fanadix's now-totally-insincere claim of "Ottoman tolerance is a myth," one example I provided was Algerians were disallowed from governement posts. Fanadix's answer: "Not in 1877."

• According to Fanadix, then, of the 19th century statistics Coolcat provided, all Armenians were released from "slavery" after 1877. It is obvious he wrote that in his zeal to negate anything thrown his way. The 1839 Gulhane Constitutional reforms, reinforced in 1856, applied to all Ottomans without religious distinction.

• I never stoop to Fanadix's vicious level lightly but his "Not in 1877" claim, when we all know he knows better, is yet another example where I call him a "liar."

• As for "If you pied a little attention to the discussion between me and Torque, you would see that all those points were covered," probably no one is better qualified to know the vomit that has spilled from Fanadix's mouth better than I (who else has gone through the torture?), and he is slipping on the truth-meter again.

• "Toynbee estimates the number of the Armenian losses as 600.000. The same figure appears in the Encyclopedia Britannica's 1918 edition. Armenians had also claimed the same number before."---- And Armenians claimed the very same 600,000 number themselves, when they lobbied General Harbord in 1919. (66th Congress, 2nd session, Doc. No. 281, pg. 14.) You see, Fanadix may THINK he disproved the above... but how can he disprove sources that are all Turk-unfriendly?

• Yet, Fanadix tells us 800,000 is only the number that represents the MURDERED. The rest who died from all the other causes the Armenians mostly died from, famine, disease, weather, combat... were SEPARATE. That would mean the total Armenian mortality would approach perhaps five million, no doubt music to Fanadix's ears, from an original populaton of around 1.5 million.

• Bogos Noubar, head of the Armenian delegation at the Paris Peace Conference, declared that after the war 280.000 Armenians were living in Turkey and 700.000 Armenians have emigrated to other countries." That's another bit Fanadix didn't counter, despite his claim. It's from a troubling Armenian propagandistic source, that would have had no reason to be "Pro-Turk."

• (Of course, Nubar was another propagandizing weasel whose word couldn't be trusted. His numbers of Armenian-Turks conflict with the Armenian Patriarch's in 1921, who gave the figure as 625,000. I've provided the source elsewhere.)

• Fanadix did not counter any of the above (he is free to point to where he has), although I have perfect faith in his ability to discredit these pro-Armenian sources. Regardless, observe the contemptuous way in which he dismisses the above: "your copypast job from revisionist sites." In other words, the implication is, they are all lies. It's inspiring how "NO PROPAGANDA NO POV" Fanadix continues to serve as a beacon for truth.

• "As for the British Consul, this comes from Uras File, the father of the Turkish government propaganda machine. The original of this was a record for the events of the 1890s, the actual quote has been translated by Uras by modifying it, the English version is probably a re translation of the Turkish translation of the English version." Note the speculation, meaning to pass for fact. All in an attempt to try and discredit. Overall translation: It's a Lie. As if Uras would have significantly altered the translation, even if it were translated. The English sounds so professional, I doubt if any of it was translated. Since Fanadix has every work seemingly at his disposal, shouldn't he go to the original source first? No; that would defeat his dishonest agenda.

• "second of all, what happened in the 1890s resulted from the refusal of the Armenian subjects to pay the unfair double taxation" NO. The reason plainly was because there was an Armenian rebellion, instigated by terrorist groups like the Dashnaks. Just like in 1915.

• "but this is unrelated with what happened in 1915." NO. It demonstrates the follow-through reasons for 1915: Armenian rebellion.

• "the revisionist like you," Anyone who dares to go even slightly contrary to Fanadix becomes a "revisionist" or a "denialist" or a "liar." Anyone who goes very contrary, as myself, becomes a "RACIST NAZI-LIKE FK."

• "Since they have no valid materials supporting their theses rely on such irrelevant references." Like Boghos Nubar, Arnold Toynbee, and Hovhannes Khatcaznouni? All must be discredited when they run contrary to the "Cause." So must Peter Balakian, Richard Hovannisian, and even Vahakn Dadrian, when they vouch for the number of post war Armenian survivors as one million. Because Fanadix wants you to believe the numbers were a couple of hundred thousand less (the more "murdered," the greater the sympathy); he'll find a way to discredit even these genocide torch-bearers. --User:Torque|Torque]] Mar 23, 2005

I told you to stop acusing me of things. I am merely pasting what i found conflicts with what you are claiming, the oposong view. As you are the only person knowlegable regarding the issue and are neutral I was expecting a response. What you call bias is the other view, which you claim is complete bs. I am kinda confused. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 05:16, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

So armenians living in poverty were killed in mass quantities for money? I doubt the people marching were the richest. I believe in reviewing all facts. If that makes me a revisionist so be it, hate me. I still like to rethink things and make sure the data is acurate. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 05:22, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC) I am treating you in a civil manner, I expect the same kind of respose. You will stop acusing me of things or I will file a complaint regarding personal attacks which is more serious of an offense than vandalising. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 05:29, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Also please provide what source you relied on determining what US states recognosed the genocide?

It's interesting that figures used showing how many Armenians had reached respectable government positions in the early twentieth century somehow suggest the Genocide didn't occur. These people in Istanbul (Bolis) weren't moved away when the new policy started. They were shot. Dmn / Դմն 15:08, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Dmn neglects to add these 235 people (most of whom were genuine ringleaders of the Armenian rebellion) who were shot, were all shot on the same day. That's what Armenian propaganda tells us. Yet, a key propagandist, Peter Balakian, himself reveals a couple had survived, including Balakian's priestly relative who had somehow "escaped," like in "Midnight Express." These people were arrested for trial, and imprisoned. Some were executed, probably most, but IN ANY COUNTRY (especially in those days) that's the fate of any traitor who betrays his country, especially during a war that was a matter of life or death, like the one facing the Ottoman Empire.

• The POINT of going back and showing those statistics is to try and uncover the motive for genocide. If the Armenians prospered greatly for centuries, to the point of attaining high government posts and controlling the economy, there would have been no reason to murder them. In a society where there was such incredible tolerance, at a time when the French were treating their own Algerian subjects as slaves, why would the Ottomans have chosen to kill off hundreds of thousands of Armenians? If they wanted to get rid of the Armenians, why didn't the bankrupt Sick Man save himself the equivalent of millions of dollars, and simply expulse them, just like the Russians were doing with their innocent Muslims? (That's what Enver Pasha advocated on May 2, 1915, the first time relocation was seriously considered... unsupported Fanadix charges of a 1914 "Wannsee Conference" between Germans & Turks aside.) Theories like "Pan-Turanism," "Muslims hate Christians," and Fanadix's own ridiculous one about economics that he offered above are only theories. What is needed to prove a crime is real evidence.--Torque Mar 23, 2005

On Coolcat's use of the term "moderator"

Please don't make up quasi-authoritative terms like "moderator". We are all equal as editors--including the administrators. None of us has any authority on content and it is inappropriate to demand that anyone recognise such authority. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:36, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Current dispute/disagreement

At this point I am disputing the statistics regarding...

• Scholars, who is pro / who is against. Given the nature of this article it being a diplomatic dispute there is significant propaganda and bias from both sides. Information regarding the ratio between scholars in the lead section is in aproporate in any cases, as the article itself should prove the case for the reader without initial conclusions. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 15:11, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• The article has little regarding the oposing view. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 15:11, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Some categories in the article are in aproporate, they should be sub categories.
• Basis of some sections factuality is open for discussion and those chunks should be comented out and discussed by knowlegable people from both the pro and anti genocide spheres. One person alone cannot be the sole sorce of our information regarding this or any article. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 15:11, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Like I said earlier I am not knowlegable enough to comment or argue with material on the article, I only pasted information form web pages. What you interprete from them is a bit different from mine, People in High places implies there were no racial hostilities towards the group of people before an event. Article currently acuses the Turkish side of a genocide and suggets All Armenians were 100% innocent in the hole matter... The rebellion suggests that was not quite the case. You arguing with me is rather pointless all I am trying to prove is that tere is an oposing view that is not a part of the article. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 15:18, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

---

This article reveals more of the diplomatic and social aspect. Its mostly neutral still pro Genocide but has views of both parties.

"It's easy to understand why views like Akcam's aren't well-received in Turkey. Most Turks honestly believe their country is being asked to admit to crimes their ancestors did not commit. Turks also believe that any admission of genocide would lead to demands that Turkey pay restitution or give back land in eastern Anatolia -- ideas Armenians haven't dismissed. "

[[1]]

---

This aryicle is not pro-genocide, it just take a neutral point of view. And this is where the present Wikipedia entry is leading us. Fadix 16:29, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Amazing. Absolutely amazing that Fanadix can say such a thing with a straight face. -- User:Torque|Torque]] Mar 23, 2005

Excerpts:

"Just as a sense of enmity was building against Turks by Greeks, Armenians, Arabs, and other subjects, so too were Turks becoming less tolerant of these peoples who, in their view, were traitors and ingrates."

"By mid-1915, [Enver Pasha] decided to rule out any future use of the Armenians by Russia by moving over 1 million people out of the war zone. Deportation had begun."

"At the same time and in the same region [as the Armenians], Turkish and Kurdish deaths were also very high"

"Ottoman officials clearly failed in their responsibility to protect the deportees from attacks by Kurds, deserters, and others. While famine, disease, severe weather, and a general lack of supplies seemed to affect everyone along the eastern frontier, it was the Armenians who, once unarmed, faced added perils from marauders, bandits, and undisciplined Ottoman officials and constabularies."

"'where Armenians advanced and retired with the Russians [the Armenians] retaliatory cruelties unquestionably rivaled the Turks in their inhumanity.'"

"The massacre of the Armenians, Armenian collusion with Russian forces, the aggressive policies of Russia, and the plight of the Turks and Kurds in the eastern provinces are important, emotional, and far-reaching questions that should be further researched. It is to the Library of Congress rather than the halls of Congress that we should turn to find answers surrounding the great tragedy that befell the Armenians and others."

[[2]]

---

--Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 16:02, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Those are selective quotes regarding the turkish government position, you can not present this as neutral... now people can understand on what you are after. Fadix 16:31, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• NO, those are quotes representing the TRUTH, not the "turkish government position," and if Fanadix truly advocated NO PROPAGANDA NO POV as he falsely claimed about himself, he couldn't have the audacity to make the above statement. I discovered the above came from here.

• The Turks regarded the Greeks, Armenians, Arabs as traitors because all of them took WWI as the opportunity to rebel. The only group we can't argue about are the Arabs, because we've seen "Lawrence of Arabia," and the Arabs are not a group the West is sympathetic toward. But the others fall into the category of "poor innocent Christians," and to this day their myth of innocence must be preserved by those people who still claim with a straight face there was no Armenian (or Greek) rebellion.

• We know from Enver Pasha's May 2, 1915 telegram (see above) the decision to relocate was made in mid-1915, even though Enver Pasha was only one of the voices deciding on the final outcome; he really preferred to "deport" the rebellious Armenians to Russia, like Russia had been heartlessly doing with their Muslim population. The Ottomans decided on the more humanitarian course of resettlement.

• "Turkish and Kurdish deaths were also very high" The humanitarian Fanadix, so equally interested in other genocides as he falsely claimed, would have you believe the number of Muslims who died hovered around 18, and other non-Armenians, like the Jews, were not targeted by the Armenians' campaign of ethnic cleansing. In fact, more "Turks" were killed by Armenians than Armenians killed by Turks. 518,000 is the official figure, regardless of Fanadix's pitiful attempt to try and discredit this by pointing to the work of a Nobel Prize winning, but clearly pro-Armenian, "scholar." Le Figaro investigated in 1977, and came up with only 15,000 Armenians being killed by massacres and other deprivations of the march. Most of the up to 600,000 Armenians who lost their lives died for the same reasons the 2.5 million+ Turks who lost their lives: famine, disease, harsh weather and conflict.

• "Ottoman officials clearly failed in their responsibility to protect the deportees from attacks by Kurds, deserters, and others. While famine, disease, severe weather, and a general lack of supplies seemed to affect everyone along the eastern frontier, it was the Armenians who, once unarmed, faced added perils from marauders, bandits, and undisciplined Ottoman officials and constabularies." How much more neutral can one get? "NO PROPAGANDA NO POV" Fanadix is actually telling us this passage is not neutral. Can he sink any lower?

• "'where Armenians advanced and retired with the Russians [the Armenians] retaliatory cruelties unquestionably rivaled the Turks in their inhumanity.'" is a quote by a the very pro-Armenian General Harbord. Is Fanadix now trying to discredit General Harbord? Harbord also wrote, by the way, just to put these matters in perspective:

• "Things are little if any better with the peasant Turks in the same region. They are practically serfs, equally destitute and equally defenseless against the winter. No doctors or medicines are to be had. Villages are in ruins, some having been destroyed when the Armenians fled or were deported; some during the Russian advance; some on the retreat of the Armenian irregulars and Russians after the fall of the Empire. Not over 20 per cent of the Turkish peasants who went to war have returned. The absence of men between the ages of 20 and 35 is very noticeable. Six hundred thousand Turkish soldiers died of typhus alone. . ."

• "It is to the Library of Congress rather than the halls of Congress that we should turn to find answers surrounding the great tragedy that befell the Armenians and others." In which case, we'd really be in trouble. The Armenian colony has even infiltrated the U.S. Library of Congress. The one they have assigned to this area of history, and who has altered the LOC web site accordingly (which Armenians have pointed to as "evidence," just like Fanadix is trickily pointing to the preponderance of academicians who have accepted the mythical genocide as reality) happens to be... an Armenian.

Torque, March 23 2005

Coolcat, stop contradicting yourself

Were you not the one deleting from the article, the Turkish government point of view? I gave a section as support for the other side, but you deleted preferring hijacking the article by merging both point of views as one. You have chosen to do that and I have warned you that if you do that, it will obviously lead the reader to conclude there was a genocide. I accepted to make a huge concession, you deleted it yourself and now you “cry” that the article is not neutral.

The other side you copypast has nothing to do with 1915, if you read revisionist materials, a large part of them are unrelated with 1915-1917, what do you want me to do? Is the Armenian genocide entry not about 1915-1917? And I renew my offer to present both point of views independently, presenting the strong arguments and the critics made about them. But again, the article will still lead the reader to think that there was a genocide. What you want me to do about that, since even the Turkish government version of the event would still be a genocide under the UN convention, this is why any serious historians and specialists claim it to defy logic.

And now, you are interpreting the event, this is your POV, you admit not knowing much about it, yet you affirm. People that knew me past over 5 years ago, when I was posting in a Turkish board, I didn't knew much about the topic, the first work I have read was a denialist work, my position really reflect my study about the topic, and here I am more moderate than many specialists that claim that debating with the other side doesn't even worth losing your time.

You made an interesting point last, I ignored it, I was upset about myself for ignoring it. You claimed that Turkey proposed to exchange documents but Armenian refused, those are things that give you away, I don't buy you anymore sorry. Because if you weren't biased to begin with you would understand the refusal.

This is not about convincing Armenia, this is about Turkey showing that the question is debated. Because if Turkey was really sincere, it will invite the Holocaust and Genocide specialists around the world to discuss about the issue. And here is the point, they already have invited specialists, and not only Armenian specialists have refused over the years, but as well neutral ones... specialists are not interested to trap themselves in a political discussion, when their study is historical.

Coming to your points.

1- That most scholars recognize is not a dispute, if most believe it it should be written, and ideally, the reason for this should as well be said.

2- I proposed to divide the article with the different point of view, you ignored my proposition.

3- Make some propositions

4- I discussed with Torque, he lost his cases, the informations I provide regarding the camps and the special organization can not be rejected, other than claiming forgery and propaganda... but those are not valid explanations, since the sources are Ottoman records and German records.

And lastly, again expose your clear biases, the said rebellion you reported has nothing to do with 1915, the records are about 1890s, and the source is Uras collection of files, he was the master Ottoman propagandist at the time and known as the father of denialism.

The extend of “racial hostilities” still debated, and has nothing to do regarding whatever or not the government took the decision of destruction, this is what is important here, the subject is 1915-1917, and it is about what is called the Armenian genocide. Fadix 16:18, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You can ignore my cases, you are not the one who will be putting material to the article, we have a person doing that for us. You talked Torque to death, you are tallented in that, you dont want to make any comprimises, that genocide is a solid fact, this is rather fanatic if you ask me. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 16:35, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Coolcat, how dare you touch the hijacker's article? Don't you realize this page is the exclusive domain of Fanadix?

• "The other side you copypast has nothing to do with 1915, if you read revisionist materials" For those of you taking notes, anything approaching the remotest contradiction to Fanadix's mythology must be labeled as "revisionist," even when they include Armenian sources such as Boghos Nubar and Arnold Toynbee. There can be no consideration for truth in revisionism, even though Fanadix innocently explained, when it suited his purposes, that revisionism is the normal course of writing history.

• "even the Turkish government version of the event would still be a genocide under the UN convention" Wrong. See above. "Intent" must be proven. Political alliances are exempt.

• "here I am more moderate than many specialists" Fanadix is the most extreme Super Weasel "Armenian Beast" I have ever encountered; that's why he was given that nickname. Absolutely amazing that Fanadix can say such a thing with a straight face.

• "this is about Turkey showing that the question is debated. Because if Turkey was really sincere, it will invite the Holocaust and Genocide specialists around the world to discuss about the issue. And here is the point, they already have invited specialists, and not only Armenian specialists have refused over the years, but as well neutral ones... specialists are not interested to trap themselves in a political discussion, when their study is historical." Absolutely unbelievable. UNBELIEVABLE. The mythological genocide has yet to be proven, as you can all see with the best the Weasel "Armenian Beast" is throwing at you. This is state-of-the-art Armenian propaganda, folks. The reason why these "specialists" don't want to get involved (Levon Marashlian was brave enough in 1990) is because they don't want to get "trapped" in exposing their poor scholarship. The reason why the Turks are confident enough to invite the genocide charlatans is because they know they are coming from the position of truth. The fact that Armenia turned down Turkey's invitation only exposes the degree of deceit. If they have the truth on THEIR side, what would they have to be afraid of? This is why foot soldiers like Fanadix must rely on smear campaigns and distortions, making sure to scream the "revisionists" are guilty of the same things he is (and also "racism.")

• "I discussed with Torque, he lost his cases" Good of Fanadix to provide the results that would best be determined by each reader. With a mind like Fanadix's no matter what is said will be "revisionist." Truth does not matter with this character. It is useless to argue with him.

• "The informations I provide regarding the camps and the special organization can not be rejected, other than claiming forgery and propaganda." Yes, of course he would try to pre-empt questioning his material by off-handedly dismissing any challenge in the ways he described. A "forgery" is something that is counterfeit, like a document. Thus, the Andonian concocted telegrams of Talat Pasha would be a forgery. What Fanadix has presented cannot be called a forgery, because... WE HAVE NO IDEA OF THE MATERIALS HE GOT THAT INFORMATION FROM. (Actually, we have a very good idea that it's most likely Vahakn Dadrian.) What I should say is, there is nothing in those horrible claims alluding to murder that can be construed as genuine evidence. No real scholar would accept the 1919 kangaroo Ottoman court records as true evidence; let's not go down that path again. If there was any validity to the opinion that "Person A" said (which would be construed as "hearsay"), then the British would have closed shop in 1919, just like the puppet Ottomans, along the way to the Malta Tribunal. (Yes, the one Fanadix desperately wishes to discredit, in light of NON-SELECTIVE British archives evidence.)

• The camps and the special organization info must not only be rejected, but it must be ADAMANTLY rejected, unless the evidence is SPOTLESS. These are terrible accusations, and the accuser with honor must be 100% certain there can be no reason for doubt. The responsible way to do so is to gather ALL the evidence, not only the selective ones... and we know Dadrian ("The author's approach is not that of an historian trying to find out what happened and why but of a lawyer assembling the case for the prosecution in an adversarial system.") is incapable of such a function, because he is a propagandist. -- User:Torque|Torque]], Mar 23, 2005

I added and removed the "Turkish point of view" and "Armenian point of view" as it was leading to bias and was being a very difficult edit. Besides they can be merged. I was working on this article long before you showed up and claimed you were tha absolute authority regarding this matter. All you did was talk several people to death. I seriously discourage that. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 16:42, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I am by providing counter interpretations that you are not as neutral as you claim. I learnt a lot while studing the matter. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 16:43, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

---

Where is the hidden camera? That is really becoming surreal. What are you talking about? I discussed with Torque, because he was the only opponent that knew a little about it, while I know his racist nature and how it had no place in Wikipedia, I still talked with him, because I thought your side should have a representation.

Now you claim I am not neutral. Duh!!! Who told you I am? I am convinced a genocide happened, this is a surprise for no one, I have been reading regarding the subject for over 5 years, have read over a hundred book, references to over 500 others, countless numbers of essays. And Torque that consider me as a less than an animal won't deny that. It is obvious that after reading the bunch of materials I will have my opinion. But again, this is not relevant here, you asked a NPOV article and I will give you one, but the article should be accurate, if a claim is made, it should said by who and why... if something is supported by most, it should be indicated and the why as well, this is what should be ideal, what should as well be ideal is attaching to each point of view its critics... ideally, both side should be included independently with their strongest arguments. But the problem being that one side has a bunch of more arguments and is supported by much more people, still people that will read the article will think that the article support one position against the other. But this is to the reader to judge. You can not delete one sides argument to make the cases as 50-50, because if you do that you will mislead the reader, you will introduce a POV, which will be that two positions are equally valid.

So, Coolcat, that didn't knew much about it few days ago, has learned a lot now just by going after sites which support his position and reading few quotes. I changed my mind, it isn't surreal, it is humoristic. Fadix 17:03, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• "Now you claim I am not neutral. Duh!!! Who told you I am?" Could the answer be... Fanadix himself? Only a few lines above, the one who earlier claimed he was "NO PROPAGANDA NO POV" wrote: "This aryicle is not pro-genocide, it just take a neutral point of view." Now this would be the article he has written 100%, arrogantly doing away with the carefully cultivated page written over a long period of time that strove for real balance.

• "And Torque that consider me as a less than an animal" What a vicious thing to claim. (Besides, a "weasel" is not less than an animal.) Get out the handkerchiefs, folks. Poor, persecuted Fanadix.

• "So, Coolcat, that didn't knew much about it few days ago, has learned a lot now just by going after sites which support his position and reading few quotes. I changed my mind, it isn't surreal, it is humoristic." The fact that Coolcat was forced to further his education is funny? And the fact that a neutral party learning both sides is commendable; Coolcat is concentrating on the logic of the contrary view, because someone has to balance the haywire Fanadix. Coolcat deserves a medal for putting up with Fanadix. -- User:Torque|Torque]] Mar 23, 2005

What I learnt so far:

What can we put in as facts into this article:

• People on both sides died according to britsh archives which should be the most accurate as they were in the capital of the Ottoman empier for over 4 years. Ottoman Archives hold 700+ years worth of data so I strongly believe they made coppies.
• Terrorism by ASALA, to proove genocide (dont ask me the logic), how many diplomats died, etc... Could be placed in recent history timeline.
• Armenians are the "most loyal" hence not infadels as article suggests. They did revolt and sided with the enemy. There is a word for that, trechry. I think this is a fact as both sides agree on this one.
• The goverment ordered some/most armenians to move from what today is armenia, not all which implies that goverment wanted to spare some. This kind of movement of people was not uncomon during both world wars. As Japaneese were forced to move, Everyone knows the story of Jews in germany. Or russian moveing it peoples. Commenting on the motive should be done very carefully as the dispute dances around this.
• Armenia recently declined Turkeys suggestion of exchanging notes. Good timeline candidate.
• No international court rulings, hence this article diplomaticaly, and actualy is a dispute. Historic facts are only established through such courts.
• Both sides agree people died, clasifing it as genocide is the dispute, how many people died is uncertain as body count based on race is difficult, your average Armenian does not look too teribly different from any other race in the area.

The article is limited to explaing 2 years of the process of this event. What lead tho this event and anythging prior that affected this is not clearly stated. Article should be more of a bullet format than storry telling, that ends up with too many one sided comments which shifs the interpretation of the fact. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 16:31, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

1- British archives support the theses of genocide. If you claim that the British archive say else, it would be an inaccurate information.

2- ASALA did not exist to “prove” genocide, it was called a justice group, and was about forcing the Turkish government to recognize, and take over what they considered as occupied lands, this is unrelated to the Armenian genocide. You can not present something that brings no “informational” statement regarding the topic at hand.

3- No, Armenians did not revolt or committed treachery, even the Turkish foreign ministry official released archives don't report that Armenians were deported because they committed anything. If you claim that happened it is POV, you can not present the Turkish government version as NPOV.

4- Most Japanese did not die during the deportation, etc. it is not the same thing at all, this is an interior movement of people without destination... in which over half perished. The Ottoman barred access to relief, they released from central prisons butchers to escort the convoys, those are recorded by German and Ottoman documents. If you make the statement you propose it would be POV.

5- Armenia has no note to exchange with Turkey, Armenia is just a country like others that recognize the genocide. Armenia as it declared many times has no political aim with the question, the genocide is historical, Turkey want it to make it political... it wants to pressurize Armenia, because it lost when it claimed that historians should decide. Historians decided and now Turkey last chance is to exchange with a country that it closed its borders with.

6- There are international court rulings, the Permanent People Tribunal has ruled for years(1984), The Ottoman Martial Court in 1919 concluded it was an act of planned extermination. The UN recognize it, and many such bodies. So your claim is wrong, if you write that, it is a wrong information.

7- Coolcat, it is obvious you are not a native English American, you words are middle Eastern in Nature, because you would not have used the term race to differentiate peoples of different ethnic groups, you are mistaking ethnic groups with races. Beside that, everyone agree that in World War II, people died, everyone agree that Germans and Jews died, recent statistics shows that more German died, but the Holocaust entry is about the losses of Jews etc. not Germans. The Armenian genocide is about the Armenian losses and not other peoples losses, if you introduce other informations, they have no place here.

Lastly, what lead to the event is World War I, I would have no problem including 1914, but again, it won't support your cases, because there are nearly no records from your side for those years, while there exist German records regarding crimes against the Armenians. Since I am kind, I am trying to neutralize. Just try the mediation, you'll see that the article is more on your side than what a neutral article would be. Fadix 16:49, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• "1- British archives support the theses of genocide. If you claim that the British archive say else, it would be an inaccurate information." The British destroyed their Wellington House materials soon after the war. What remains of this glop is the Blue Book debacle that Toynbee distanced himself from after the war. Regardless, that didn't stop Ara Sarafian from attempting to legitimize it, in a recent Armenian-funded reprinting. Yes, this is the same man whose word we are expected to take over Gurun's, as far as Fanadix is concerned.

• If the British archives was so telling, the British could have justly found the Malta Turks guilty without having to wait nearly three years, desperatly searching everywhere. Furthermore, we wouldn't get statements like these:

• '...The British Government of the day and successive British Governments viewed the massacres of 1915-1916 as an appalling tragedy. We understand the strength of feeling on this issue given the loss of life on both sides. But we do not believe the evidence demonstrates that the events should be classified as 'genocide', which has a specific meaning under the 1948 UN Convention on Genocide…'. British Embassy in Ankara, Turkey, Jul 23, 2001

• '...The Government, in line with previous British Governments, have judged the evidence not to be sufficiently unequivocal to persuade us that these events should be categorised as genocide as defined by the 1948 UN Convention on Genocide, a convention which is in any event not retrospective in application. The interpretation of events in Eastern Anatolia in 1915-1916 is still the subject of genuine debate amongst historians...' Foreign and Commonwealth Office minister, Baroness Scotland of Asthal, responding on February 7, 2001 to a House of Lords parliamentary question.

• 2- ASALA did not exist to "prove" genocide, it was called a justice group." NO it was a "TERRORIST" group responsible for murders and destruction that Armenians prefer to regard as heroes, as they do with all of their terrorists. Their acts were intended to "reinforce" the Armenians' genocide obsession.

• 3- No, Armenians did not revolt or committed treachery, even the Turkish foreign ministry official released archives don't report that Armenians were deported because they committed anything." What's the source of those archives? Regardless, if Fanadix is still insisting "Armenians did not revolt" it is absolutely fruitless and even foolish to argue with him about anything.

• 4- Most Japanese did not die during the deportation, etc." If the Japanese were relocated during WWII after having rebelled and massacring fellow citizens, and the USA was down on its knees with superpowers at every front, where ALL the populace were dying like flies from famine and disease, you can be sure they wouldn't have come out unscathed. The point about the Japanese is that relocation is a right claimed by any nation, especially when the circumstances were dire (which was not so in the case of the Japanese). "Over half" of Armenians did NOT perish if one million survived out of an initial population of 1.5 million. "The Ottoman barred access to relief," has not been proven (Fanadix hasn't provided the source), at least not as a systematic measure; Morgenthau himself succeeded in getting relief to the Armenians. Not all those released from prisons were "butchers"; how many prisoners in Canadian prisons are murderers?

• 5- "... the genocide is historical, Turkey want it to make it political... it wants to pressurize Armenia, because it lost when it claimed that historians should decide. Historians decided and now Turkey last chance is to exchange with a country that it closed its borders with." Of course historians should decide. But we're talking about real historians who consider the entire truth. Not the Robert Melsons of the world, who rely on propagandists like Morgenthau and Vahakn Dadrian. If Armenia is unafraid, if Armenia thinks it has the truth on its side, and when obviously the genocide is not a done deal (witness Britain's stand, four passages above), why not get the matter over with honestly? Armenia doesn't want to lose its genocide card, on which so much has been built. This is not honorable.

• "6- There are international court rulings, the Permanent People Tribunal has ruled for years(1984), The Ottoman Martial Court in 1919 concluded it was an act of planned extermination. The UN recognize it, and many such bodies." Never heard of the first one; is it a body like the ICTJ, relying almost exclusively on the omnipresent Armenian propaganda? (Yes it is; their efforts may be noble, but what good are they if they look at only one side? Here's what they say in a July 9, 1993 declaration: "it should be appreciated that this people's Tribunal does not pretend to be a court of law in the normal governmental sense." What we're dealing with is another unfair opinion.) "The Ottoman Martial Court in 1919" is not an international court, and was as illegitimate as a Vichy court would be considered today, under Nazi occupation. The Malta Tribunal was the Nuremberg of this episode, and all the Turks were found innocent. "(The) United Nations has not approved or endorsed a report labeling the Armenian experience as Genocide," Farhan Haq, U.N. spokesman, October 5th, 2000.

• 7- Coolcat, it is obvious you are not a native English American, you words are middle Eastern in Nature," Isn't that a "RACIST" thing to say? Fanadix's explanation: Coolcat mistook ethnic groups with races. Why would a Middle Easterner only be prone to make such a remark?

• "everyone agree that in World War II, people died, everyone agree that Germans and Jews died, recent statistics shows that more German died, but the Holocaust entry is about the losses of Jews etc. not Germans." The difference is, the Jews died in a proven genocide. They did not die for rebelling against the Germans. The Armenians' myth has yet to be proven. The bulk of the Armenians died from famine and disease, exactly the same as for the Turks... the latter of whom were dying daily in the thousands, according to Morgenthau himself. (Harbord wrote, as provided above, 600,000 Turkish soldiers died from disease alone.) In the Armenian case, Muslim deaths are intermarried with what happened the Armenian ones. It is not honest to consider one without the other. Particularly when the Armenians were the real ones bent on ethnic cleansing, having killed more Turks via murder than the other way around. (518,000 of 2.5 million+ vs. up to 600,000 Armenians who died from all causes.) --Torque, Mar 23 2005

---

Ok so,

• 1. Mass number of non-Armenian Ottomans did not die during the the incident in the region.
  2. Asala is no way related to this discussion.
  3. Armenians were ordered to move for no reason. They were siting there and in no way aiding the Russians, nor did they revolt against the ottoman empier. Prior to the incident Armenians were perfect ottoman citizens.
  4. Ottoman economy was storng enough to ship people from Armenia to Syria, they had alternatives they did not use
  5. This news article on LA times is forged: [[3]]
  6. The UNs, Permanent People's Tribunals, and the Ottoman Martial Courts ruling has authority to settle disputes, and are recognised by both goverment as binding.
  7. I am not a British American, I do not like your constant interigation regarding me, this is not a discussion regarding me nor is it a forum, thats a personal attack, discuss material regarding Armenian Genocide not me. My information tells you how inacurate the statistics can be, I use race to define ethnic groups because I am too lazy to type ethnic groups over and over and over as I do not enjoy rambling with increadably boring and unbroken sentence moving from topic to topic quite hypnotic... @_@ It also tells you that we are not 100% sure of a Genocide did happen, we know people died. That does not necesarily imply a goverment-backed extermination plan.

And what I dont like (my pov)

• 1. Being constantly acused of things.
  2. Armenia, Armenians using/exerting presure on various politicions on various countries and to exert presure to another nation, toying with the dignity of the countriy they live on. Its almost imposible to win support of Armenians in the US without acknowleging the genocide, else you dont get the votes and the other party does for examle.

My side is neutrality. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 17:21, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

---

---

1- The ratio of Armenians having died, with Assyrians(this should be covered as well), is beyond any other groups. Besides, this is the Armenian genocide section, Ottoman losses should be included in the World War I section, and if you visit its talk page, I have raised the point regarding the low figures representing the Ottoman losses.

2- ASALA was active in the 80s, it was a terrorist organization, it has no place in the genocide article, if you claim there is, you are completely biased.

3- No government take decisions for no reason, genocides don't happen out of the “blue moon,” of course there are reasons, like there was reason to destroy European Jews, like there was reasons for the Outous to destroy the Toutis, like there was reason for the Kmer Rouge Class, to hierarchical Kmerian system, which lead to the destruction of over a million people. There was reasons behind the Ukrainian famine, there was reasons behind the German policy against the Herreros at the beginning of the last century. The thing here is, about a decision which led to the destruction of the Armenian community in Anatolia. Do you see any Armenians there now? No!!! That we take the Turkish government theses or that we take the theses most supported by specialists in the field, the result is the same. Zero Armenians, and it is enough to be applicable as genocide under the UN convention. And this is the main weakness of the Turkish government theses of “no-genocide,” because even their version is genocide according to the definition.

4- The Ottoman took hundreds of thousands of Muslim immigrants from the Russian Empire, they fed them, vaccinated them, recorded them and “relocated them” and “deblocked” an amount of money. They had enough capability to have such precise lists etc. but surprising as it seem, there are no such lists for the Armenians who were their own subjects. It was harder for the Ottoman to deport the elderly, women and children, then leaving them... they did it regardless even if they were no threat. The Ottoman “evacuated” Armenians outside of the war zone... when they did not need to do so.

5- I don't see how this news support your case.

6- You ask for court cases, and when I provide them you tell me they are not valid.

7- I did not claim “British” American, but native English American, I dough English is your first language, that is all, it is not the first time you alluded to race, you used the term racial as well... you use such terms that are pass dated in the American society, those terms suggest hatred or racial characterizations, your words such as “attacking a nation” etc. as well, those are not attacks, those are relevant here, they are about your biases... you are hiding under the banner of neutrality to go and hijack entries about Turkey, and now you have been exposed to be the totally biased person you are. You are in no position to claim anymore that I am biased, when you are obviously more biased than I.

1- I am not the one posting in other members pages and accuse others on their backs, you are, when I think something about someone, I tell him, and I don't see what is wrong here, I don't see how I am against the rules to claim that someone has a hidden agenda because he introduce his biases in every given occasions in every articles involving Turkey. Am I accusing you? Yes! I won't deny, I am happy though that you are not using the term “attacking” anymore.

2- Your second point is again another evidences of your non-Western mentality, this is generalization and has no place in Wikipedia, you think a world Armenian conspiration, similar than those theses of world Jewry conspiration support by people like Zundel. What you think of a “people” has no place here, what you think an entire nation does or does not has no relevency, it only confirm my suspicions about you. If you can't confront my position, fine, but stop accusing an entire nation... because this is an accusation, and not the genocide, the genocide is about leaders of a government having ordered something in this cases, while you accuse an entire people of doing things. I think we had enough of Torque racism, no need to pull fuel here.

And no, your side is not neutrality, your side is personal POV. Fadix 17:54, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Anything that deviates slightly from Fanadix's obsession must be "personal POV," while Fanadix has actually claimed about himself to be "NO PROPAGANDA NO POV."

• 3- No government take decisions for no reason" Of course. The problem is, none of the fake theories put forth by the genocide industry make sense. The only reason why relocation was considered, the first time being the telegram of Enver Pasha on May 2, 1915 well after the Armenians' sacred April 24 "genocide date," was to do something about the very dangerous Armenian rebellion, comprising a combined force of 200,000 according to Boghos Nubar, of Armenians almost all coming from the Ottoman Empire at one time or another. 50,000 operated behind the lines. How can any honorable party make a leap from this legal relocation move to the heinous crime of "genocide"? Especially without real evidence, other than hearsay and propaganda? It is beyond the pale.

• 4- The Ottoman took hundreds of thousands of Muslim immigrants from the Russian Empire" not out of choice; those were the refugees who were lucky to escape with their lives after Orthodox nations cruelly ethnically cleansed them from their homes. How humanitarian of the bankrupt Ottoman Empire to accept these refugees, when they could barely afford to feed themselves; and we can see how the acceptance of these refugees made the Sick Man sicker. As for "They had enough capability to have such precise lists etc. but surprising as it seem, there are no such lists for the Armenians who were their own subjects." In other words, not a penny was spent from the refugee fund for the Armenians. Hundreds of thousands were relocated as if that task would have cost nothing. As if there aren't enough Ottoman documents testifying to the care taken for the Armenians that were not written to fool future historians, and their validity cannot be questioned. It's futile to reason with Fanadix; he clearly does not operate from a base of honesty.

• 5- I don't see how this news support your case." I'm sure it supports good evidence, otherwise Coolcat would not provided it, because Coolcat is not stupid; unfortunately, the article is not readily accessible, requiring registration.

• 6- You ask for court cases, and when I provide them you tell me they are not valid." That's because they are not valid. (See my previous response above, under "6.") No court process could be more valid than The Malta Tribunal, conducted by the Ottoman enemy anxious to kill off the Turkish nation with the Sevres Treaty and to justify making off with Ottoman lands and loot. NO PROPAGANDA NO POV Fanadix goes crazy to discredit this relying on weasel select excerpts and by calling it "The Malta Tribunal that Never Was."

• 7- ...it is not the first time you alluded to race, you used the term racial as well... you use such terms that are pass dated in the American society, those terms suggest hatred or racial characterizations." So of all the non-American ethnic groups Fanadix decided to speculate constituted Coolcat's ethnic identity, he settled on "Middle Eastern." Like a Japanese or an Argentinian or a Swede could not have used "race" as shorthand for "ethnic group," which is not necessarily unacceptable even in American society. Conclusion: Only Middle Easterners are capable of having "hatred" in their hearts. Armenians, for example, are incapable of hatred or racial characterizations, as a visit to any Armenian love-filled forum will attest. Who is the real racist here?

• 1- I am not the one posting in other members pages and accuse others on their backs" When Fanadix demonstrates how absolutely obsessed and unreasonable one can be, with zero tolerance and credibility and endless tenacity and energy, who can deal with him? Coolcat deserves a medal for putting up with him as he has. Fanadix wants to bully everyone out of here by plastering his responses with "160 pages," so he can construct his personal Armenian Genocide monument at Wikipedia. Imagine! One more seemingly neutral source, like National Geographic Magazine or the U.S. Library of Congress or the French Parliament that the Armenian colony can infest and later point to with, "You see? They agree with us."

• 2- Your second point.." Note Fanadix's hysterical response to Coolcat's "Armenians using/exerting presure on various politicions on various countries and to exert presure to another nation, toying with the dignity of the countriy they live on. Its almost imposible to win support of Armenians in the US without acknowleging the genocide, else you dont get the votes and the other party does for examle." What's said is 100% truth. Fanadix doesn't like it, so he tries to blow smoke by coming up with his vicious charges of "racist." --Torque, Mar 23 2005

• 1. There are no official numbers hence your statement has absolutely no basis.
  2. All entries that did not happen in the era, for example the P.L.U.C.K. entry and bush not using the word genocide should be removed in that case.
  3. I am not sure if there is enough basis in your statement supporting it was a genocide. I am suggesting that the goverment ordered some armenians to move. That is not necesarily classified as Genocide.
  4. Ottoman empier did not have the cash to buy enough bullets.
  5. You are not reading the article then.
  6. A binding internattioal courd did not happen, hence none of them are relevant enough, hece you cannot accuse Turkey of a genocide in the article.
  7. I am sick of your personal attacks towards me the term persoanl attacks refer to a wikipedia policy which you have been abusing and ignoring.

...

• 1. I would like to let you know I now am filling a complaint in personal attack page.
  2. It is my Point of View, you were not expected to reply to it, you have no respect to what other people think. You are the one accusing me of things. I did not acuse you of anything. I can complain what you are doing here to anyone, I cant reason with you on the sole fact that your views are rather fanatic.

You suggest everyone that does not think like you do to completely hide their views and hide in a dark corner I guess, I am allowed to pu my POV as they are relevant to the articles NPOV status. If my views and your views clash, there needs to be a neutral tone at those parts. Meaning when we talk about Armenians lobying outside of Armenia we need to empfisise what both parties think about it. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 19:56, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

---

Coolcat, this is a question of probability and mathematic, and not because you oppose to my views. What is the probability to have a complete neutral stranger who not only participate in every possible entries regarding Turkey, not only do he introduce his biases, not only does he leave biases introduced in one direction and not other, not only that he uses the term “Arm”a”nian... but that he comes here and question the veracity of the second most studied genocide. What do you want me to say? At least, my position is supported by the specialists in the field. There are even a Turkish organization in Germany working in the prevention of genocides that not only do recognize the genocide but as well petitioned among the Turks and got 10,000 names(Turks) asking the recognition of the Armenian genocide. I have a Turkish friend that has gone in the East, and there are stories of colored reddish send, they believe the sand is red because it has been colored by Armenian blood, in the New York Times few years ago, there was an article of someone that interviewed Turks in the East about “stories” of Armenian massacres. You don't expect me to consider you as neutral after all those things are you? In fact, wait till the mediation start out, and you will clearly see that my position will be considered much more neutral than yours.

What is the point of the Armenian lobbying group, are you suggesting that they buy the academia? Don't you believe that the Turkish government pressures forcing countries to redraw resolutions more than counter balance any lobbies? Don't you believe that all those millions spent by the Turkish government more than counter balance it? Don't you believe that the founding and funding of Ottoman chair of histories by the Turkish government, and the introduction of grants such as the ITS and ARIT, more than compensate the Armenian lobby? The Armenian lobbies power is insignificant when comparing it to the power of a government that spent millions, that introduce itself in universities Middle Eastern Departments, and directly pay “specialists.” Or what to say about those hundreds of diplomats hidden under their diplomatic protections distribute in every given occasions diplomatic publications, which material will be called racist by Western standards? Of course the Neutral you has nothing to say about that, but you have a problem with Armenians fight against the denial. Don't you have any idea of how the ASALA was born, do you know why it was in the 70s and 80s? Wait till I cover and neutralize the ASALA entry.

And again, I am not against the presentation of the Turkish government theses, I did post it, you deleted it, what you are after is to present it as equal as the genocide theses by deleting who says what and why they say it, this is a clear attempt of hijacking an article and is against Wikipedia policy.

Now, let cover your 7 points.

1- There are the official Ottoman records of 800,000 killed, and there are the quota submitted during the Military tribunal, the German and Austrian records present as well over a million, that we take the Ottoman records or its allies records, we come to over a million deaths, and this clearly show that over half of the Armenians did perish.

2- P.L.U.C.K sing about the genocide and is in a “war” to get it recognized, Bush statement is about the event.

3- You want the article to present your POV here, it is your point of view, while I present the theses supported by people, what you think is irrelevant.

4- True, and that is why most Armenians were not shut, but killed by various other methods.

5- The article is about the Turkish government asking to research the matter, it is a political move, I have covered this in my discussion with Torque, you tell me to answer when I have already answered those points, but of course you're not interested reading what I write, but rather googling trying to find revisionist sites.

6- The Permanent People tribunal has an international mandate, and has covered over the years many other cases, the Ottoman Military court has concluded “extermination” planed and executed by the government... the leading figures were condemned to death. The UN recognize it as genocide, and any such bodies, what you claim here makes no sense at all.

7- Oh LALA, now you are using the term attacks, which attacks? I am accusing you and not attacking you. Oh and it is kind of ironic that you accuse me of what you are doing, from when did I write to other members lying about you like you did with me?

1- Go ahead, you are free to do what you want, if you expect to shout the other position with such cheap tricks without you can't confront with arguments, go ahead.

2- Shish, my views are fanatic? Well, go call the academic community as fanatics because they support my position then. Again, you are lying about me Mr. While me accusations have grounds, you accuse me with things which you yourself know are untrue. Where did I even prevented the other side to have its point of view? I even have gone as far as posting in a forum where Mr. Torque spam with his racist rhetoric to come and participate in the mediation. Does it sound that I am for the suppression of the other side? Mind you again that I even posted the Turkish government version but you deleted it because it was specifying whos position it is. You don't want people to know who says what, and here is where my problem is with you. Fadix 20:37, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• "...there are stories of colored reddish send, they believe the sand is red because it has been colored by Armenian blood" Here it is, ladies and gentlemen, in black and white: "belief" is expected to pass for "evidence." This notion of "faith" lies at the very foundation of genocidal proof. And let's not cite biased Stephen Kinzer New York Times articles, please. Instead of apologizing for their horrible propaganda from years past, the newspaper has changed its policy about adding disclaimers like "alleged" before "genocide," and lies completely in bed with powers like Samantha Power, a partisan "genocide scholar." (Actually, a lawyer who has become a "scholar," like Israel Charny is a psychiatrist who similarly pretends to be a "scholar." There's a lot of money to be made in the genocide industry.) I once wrote to the NYTimes ombudsman and received this reply: "We'll consult with Peter Balakian." In other words, to get to the bottom of genocide counter-claims, they wanted to rely on the word of the fox in charge of the chicken coop. This is precisely what "NO PROPAGANDA NO POV" Fanadix is offering us: take his word that he's writing a neutral article, because he has the luxury of pointing to all the many sources that are totally and unethically on his side.

• "What is the point of the Armenian lobbying group, are you suggesting that they buy the academia?" Oh, what an unusual possibility, these groups like ANCA and Armenian Assembly of America, operating under budgets of many millions of dollars, and they would be completely innocent of attempting to influence the academic world... when in fact that's their entire purpose, in addition to buying politicians so that Armenia can get money for nothing. Fandix is so innocent! The only reason why Turkey has put up money is to try and balance the horrible one-sidedness of Armenian wealth and influence. Here's what Princeton spokesperson Jacquelyn Savani said when the Armenians launced a vicious smear campaign against Prof. Heath Lowry: "(the $700,000 given by Turkey for a Turkish studies chair) is not the amount of money, given the $4 billion endowment of Princeton University, that should even raise suspicion." Turkey spent $750,000 on similar grants to Harvard, Georgetown, and the University of Chicago, and none of them established a full Turkish chair. Yet innocent Fanadix is trying to make us believe Turkey has all of this influence (just because one spends money, one doesn't always get what one wants. For example, if Dr. McCarthy got a grant from the Turkish government as has been charged without evidence, that doesn't mean Dr. McCarthy decided to sell his soul to the devil), and the Armenian lobbies are so poor and innocent. Just like the Armenians of the Ottoman Empire.

• "Wait till I cover and neutralize the ASALA entry." Indeed, Fanadix is spreading his poison all over Wikipedia. After he gets through with that page on Armenian terrorists, we'll think those poor and innocent Armenians are misunderstood Mother Teresas.

• "1-" This is getting repetitious. The "official" Ottoman statistics demonstrating Armenian fatalities is not the 800,000 of the puppet government under Allied influence, but the last CUP meeting where Talat Pasha offered 300,000. If we want to arrive at the number of deaths, we look at the pre-war population which hovers around 1.5 million, not the 2 million Fanadix is desperate for you to accept. (Offering the opinion of a Venezualan adventurer, among others.) We look at how many Armenians survived, which Balakian, Hovannisian and Dadrian say is one million. (Fanadix says some 800,000, discrediting his standard-bearers when it suits him, but that's Fanadix.) Actually if we add up the total of Armenian refugees based on other Armenain sources (1921 Patriarch, Ottoman Armenians: 625,000; Hovannisian, Transcaucasia: 500,000; 1918 Boghos Nubar, Iran and Syria/Mesopotamia: 140,000; Armenians who emigrated to France, and other countries right after the war, unaccounted; we see the number of survivors is over one million.) The number of Armenians who perished does not exceed 600,000. This is the number the Armenians themselves offered in 1919, to Harbord. Only little over one-third of the pre-war Armenians died, if we accept 600,000, and the number was less. Most of these Armenians died for reasons everyone else died from, not massacres. For example, Harbord tells us 600,000 Ottoman soldiers died from typhus alone.

• The Permanent People's tribunal is a worthy organization, but like Amnesty International, suffers from a liberal perspective (and I'm not a conservative), in the proud Gladstone tradition. Liberals don't like the Turks. (Neither do religious conservatives.) They are quick to condemn Turks, and are quick to accept anti-Turkish propaganda. (As true in the case of Turkish leftists like Taner Akcam and Halil Berktay, who believe the Turks can do no right.) The tribunal declared in 1993 that "this people's Tribunal does not pretend to be a court of law in the normal governmental sense." Therefore, their conclusion is meaningless; just another uninformed and biased opinion. When the Turks don't speak up, and when there are hardly any books on the topic explaining the counter-view when there are thousands of "Burning Tigris"es over the years, how could they have conducted any serious research? Particularly if they are pre-disposed with people's rights, and it's been drummed into peoples' heads that the Armenians are poor and innocent, and the Turks are barbarians? This is irresistible bait for the compassionate, unthinking liberal mentality.

• "I am accusing you and not attacking you" When the accusation is baseless, that becomes an attack. When Fanadix is accused, he calls that "racist."

• "2- Shish, my views are fanatic?" What, Fanadix a fanatic? Poor, innocent Fanadix? --Torque, Mar 23 2005

Relocation, deportation

In some cases the word relocation could be used, because of what was supposed to happen... example, the Ottoman at the beginning relocated, but in some other cases, when the result is important, the word relocation is not accurate... Because if we have in mind that there is no Armenian left, the result would be "deportation" instead of relocatiom. I will see how the change in some instances could be made.

• Relocation is better as it gives importance to the actual movement. Many weaker people died during forced relocations to Syria. Deportations usually have legal bases in international and/or domestic laws. Dmn / Դմն 19:14, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Maybe, but my main problem is that relocation in many instances suggest a success of this movement.

There are many other things I would like to cover in the section, like the Orphans etc. with pictures and stuff, but I wonder if I should include them here or have an entry as itself. Another thing is the 1917-1922 years which are called the second phases or third(because some devided the 1915-1916 and 1916-1917, which would make it third)... that should as well be covered, this I think should be done in this entry, because there is no proper title for it. The UN recognition and the word Genocide and the Armenians should as well be included. Is there a way to know how long the present article is so I can know how much more could be added? Oh and, about the capitals Armenians being shut, they were not only shut, according to German materials, about 30,000 were "relocated." Fadix 19:33, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You are of course right - I didn't mean all those living in Istanbul were shot, I meant a lot of those in high offices were shot.

• "Maybe, but my main problem is that relocation in many instances suggest a success of this movement." And had the Ottoman Empire won and retained the lands where the Armenians were mainly relocated to, then the policy would have been proved successful. Anyone who doesn't agree must prove the ones who died didn't die from reasons everyone else died from. Relatively few of the up to 600,000 Armenians who lost their lives died from reasons amounting to murder, and of those murdered, there is no evidence connecting them to the central government, other than hearsay accounts Fanadix has presented. The U.N. does NOT recognize the so-called genocide; where's the proof? Its spokesman declared in 2000 the very opposite. As far as those Armenians who were shot, since there was a rebellion and leaders were directing this treachery, of course quite a few of them were penalized by execution, the normal punishment in any country (especially in those days) for high treason. They were arrested, imprisoned, tried first -- not "shot" on the same day.

• The only reason why "NO PROPAGANDA NO POV" Fanadix doesn't care for the term accurately describing the Armenians' resettlement is because "deportation" sounds more evil. --Torque, Mar 23 2005

The concentration camp term

Without its uses the article is not accurate, there was no reported 25 to 26 camps, but concentration camps, there were transit camps, and "spot camps" etc. The article as it is can not be accurate, because the reader would think that this actualy present all the camps. I will modify it and will be trying to be neutral. - unsigned fadix

I recomend no one to touch article directly. Mediator(s) should be handling this matter. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 20:24, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Fadix is not being neutral in my opinion. Please vote if you agree or not, I am trying to determine if its just me or him... -_- : --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 20:31, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

   * Yes --Cool Cat  My Talk 20:31, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Please, this is just unacceptable... This "vote" is among other things in itself a violation of the wikipolicies Assume good faith and No personal attacks. Also, we are supposed to discuss the article here on the talk page, not individual editors. Stereotek 20:56, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• That implies you approve of Fanadix's approach. He came in and did away with a carefully cultivated article and replaced it with 100% propaganda, attacked all who dared to deviate with his obsession in the slightest (calling me a "RACIST NAZI-LIKE FK," for example), and proceeded to bombard with his avalanche of weasel facts, very little of which any real scholar would accept as actual truth. He is terrorizing the article; he has demonstrated himself to be well outside the bounds of "assume good faith." How come you haven't questioned him, when he comes up with his wild theories like children being poisoned? He just pointed above to all the Armenian orphans. (Of course, we never hear about all the many non-Armenian orphans, because those lives are not as valuable.) If the Ottoman policy was to exterminate, and it should have presented no difficulty to kill off defenseless children, how could so many orphans have survived? There are countless holes in Fanadix's presentation, and up to this point I haven't seen you questioning any of them. Why are you interested in defending him, when I've seen no evidence of your discussing the article that you are telling us we should be doing? Would one be wrong in concluding you are sold on all of this Fanadix propaganda? I hope that isn't the case. --Torque, Mar 23 2005

What load of crap is this attempt? Where did I ever claimed I was neutral? I do have my opinions about the event, but this does not mean that the articile is not neutral, there are hardly anyone neutral about a topic. So I will even say yes and agree with you on your own vote, because I have nothing to hide.

But the question here is not about if I am neutral or not, but rather if your intention is to make the article neutral or not. This is what should be passed on vote here. But we know that because of the nature of this subject, the votes will be biased to begin with. Fadix 20:40, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• When Fanadix wrote of himself that he represented "NO PROPAGANDA NO POV," that would mean he strived for an appearance of neutrality. When someone accepts 100% of Armenian propaganda, as with there being no Armenian rebellion, Ottoman tolerance is a myth, and anything that deviates is exclusively the Turkish government's view, we know what his agenda really is. And we can see the level of his honesty, when his first instinct is to try and discredit when faced with rock-solid evidence, even from Armenians. He has been conducting himself despicably, and sinks to new depths by insisting his article is "neutral." --Torque, Mar 23 2005

I am sorry I am failing to reason with you. You dispute any view that remotely prompts that the genocide was not really a genocide, you call al of that bias, you call me names you acuse me of various wierd things, I am sick of being polite. You scare away people from the conversation, you can never prove the genocide on wikipedia. Its against the norms of wikipedia, the oposing view is either not represented, or represented vaugiley. Any person reading that article would think that a genocide happened, after reading the article a person should be indiferent. Any acusation must have a counter. I type something you either call me biased as an answer or you dismiss it completely. Thats not how we do things on wikipedia. I have seen lots of complaints by various mods... I dont like it. THis is not being productive at all. Fadix is terrorising the article...

---

I just checked if there was a “fallen star,” I was away for hours and when I come back I realize that you have posted the message just one minute before I viewed it, I should make a wish.

What names do I call you, give me examples please, do you mean the word “biased,” you should check what you did yourself and compare them with how I answered you. You called me fanatic, you have waged a war to ruin my credibility by warning about me on countless numbers of members talk pages because you were unable to discuss the topic.

You are wrong Sir. you can not manipulate an article as to make it look 50-50, it would be POV, trying to modify articles to support two cases equally as to suggest equality is a suggestion and it is POV. I repeated and repeat this again, you can't do that.

True, one position should be countered... but the problem is that there is no counter for the special organization or the concentration camps covered by the other side. The other side answer to that is complete silence, I have read many revisionist materials(all major ones) over the years and haven't found anything. If there is no other side for those points it should be left as is until there is few peer reviewed works being published that provide the other side here, according to you all the points that have no other sides should be deleted. Fadix 04:57, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• The counter for "special organization or the concentration camps" is that there is no evidence except for Vahakn Dadrian theories, based on selective hearsay, generally from dubious 1919 courts that no real scholar would accept as valid testimony; certainly the British did not during the Malta Tribunal, when they were anxious to find the Turks guilty. What are the sources for these wild claims, that it was Ottoman policy to poison children? It's insidious and totally unethical to make such charges without genuine, judicial evidence. --Torque, Mar 23 2005

References

Fadix, you have been adding a lot of information to the article recently. As a suggestion, I think the quality of the article would be higher, if you mentioned all your sources in connection with all the pieces of information. You might want to read this: cite your sources Stereotek 20:56, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I thought about that, I was thinking of how doing that, any idea? Should I present the references as footnotes etc. ?

OK! I think I know how to do it... is there a kind of wiki language which will permit me to go at a specified zone in the page to get the footnotes? I thought as well adding a page Armenian Genocide References etc. EDIT: I'm dumb, it say how to do it in the link you provided.

Coolcat

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Genocide

According to Ericd, "They are clearly established cases of genocide the Holocaust, Armenian genocide (despite Turkish denial) and Rwanda. I don't think NPOV should go as far as leaving a loophole for Holocaust deniers."

And that was my position at the beggining, and I could have defended that position that would have had chances to succeed, but I was kind enough to present your point of view in the article more than it had place in.

---

Oh is that it, despite Turkish denial, the views of several million people is irrelevant. This article will either be neutral or either be neutral. you will not use wikipedia as a tool to spread your views. I deny the holocoust, so does a lot of scholars. You will NOT use wikipedia as a propoganda tool. The very concept of NPOV means NEUTRAL point of view, that aint neutral as long as there is an oposing view. I want an article thats not offensive to either side. Currently it has staemets like "the rest of the children were to be sent to the mezzanine floor to be killed by a mass gassing installation" or "Many of those responsible for the genocide where sentenced to death in absentia, after having escaped their trials in 1918. The accused succeded in destroying the majority of the documents, that could be used as evidence against them, before they escaped. The martial court established the will of the Ittihadists to eliminate the Armenians physically, via its " are not neutral. Since Fadix dictates recent history cannot be a part of the aticle recent history section shoukd either go or material oposing the genocide must be added.

---

Thanks for admitting your denial of the Holocaust, it becomes clearer now, Mr. Deny the Holocaust, why should he recognize the Armenian genocide, afteral the Holocaust [according to him] is a fake, the Armenian genocide as well, so as what happened in Cambodia, Rwanda... onces I finish working on this article, don't try tricking people with your NPOV by trying to manipulate its(Holocaust) entry, because I will oppose to it as I am opposing here. You still fail to comprehend Sir. Neutrality is not about presenting two theses as being equally valid, because that would be a paradox, if you do that to be neutral you kill neutrality. And I am sure that as an engineer you are intelligent enough to understand what a paradox is, right? Maybe you should meditate about that at night.

True, those points you raise should be toned down, but they are accurate data's, toning things down doesn't mean to delete them and delete their sources, this is what you want, but sorry I won't accept that, and am sure that no one would accept it, including moderators and arbitrators. I am ready to present opposing views here, but there is no opposing views here again, the other sides answer is SILENCE. Now I have to sleep, I hope tomorrow, if I view the page, I will read things that make more sense coming from you. Tomorrow will be a good day, I will present the references for the documents and start adding new stuff and footnoting. I am still ready to add a section regarding the Turkish government point of view you know... I'm really a kind person. Fadix 04:58, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Yes... kind of untruthful for, among many other examples, insisting the contrary view is solely the Turkish government's. --Torque, Mar 23 2005

This is a qoute from Wikipedias policy about the neutral point of view:

"Please be clear on one thing: the Wikipedia neutrality policy certainly does not state, or imply, that we must "give equal validity" to minority views..."

The minority point of view that the Turkish government promote should of course be mentioned, but according to Wikipedias policies it should NOT be given equal status to the point of view shared by the vast majority of experts. A section regarding the Turkish government POV would in my opinion be great, and nothing more is really needed. Coolcat, are you serious that you deny the Holocaust or is it some kind of joke? If not, you have in my opinion lost all your credibility. Stereotek 12:19, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• The Holocaust is a reality and cannot be denied. If Coolcat has reason to believe otherwise, that's his privilege. Sometimes Coolcat writes in shorthand, and it's possible this was his way of saying we can't accept anything at face value. How do we really know the things we are told are true? For example, take this mythical Armenian genocide. Most of the world has swallowed the story, but it's obvious there's a lot more to it if one goes even slightly beneath the surface. I've learned of the incredibly deceitful forces at work to preserve the truth of this myth, as Fanadix has desperately attempted to shove down our throats, saying anything (and tons of nothing) in his bullying manner.

• Unlike the Armenians' genocide, there are too many documents and testimony, including concentration camp guards, and the Holocaust was a striking example of Man's Inhumanity to Man in history. But even there, there's a lot where room is open to wonder. Washington's Holocaust Museum, for example, has revised the Jewish mortality figure to just over 5 million. Yet, we still hear "six million" everywhere. Is this done out or ignorance, or for political impact? Then there's some information out there that seems to have nothing to do with despicable neo-Nazi, white supremacist intentions. Here, for example is a web site that claims 3 million Polish Christians suffered a holocaust, along with 3 million Jews, yet we only hear about the Jews. (When we hear about the Hitler quote the Armenians have appropriated for their cause - even though a rare Armenian professor himself has told us of its fakery -- Hitler was referring to the Poles.) Of course, the Jews suffered abominably; but what gives any people the right to claim exclusive victimhood? Why does the genocide industry only care about Armenians and Jews, while paying lip service to Rwanda and Bosnia, and completely overlooking SO MANY examples where ethnic groups were targeted for slaughter? Like the 5 million Turks/Muslims who were expulsed by Orthodox nations, and the 5.5 million killed, numbers that rival the Jews' suffering? (Numbers Fanadix decried for being "pulled out of a hat," and therefore illegitimate, when its author honestly admitted the roughness of the figures; note Fanadix's humanitarian" response [he claimed he's interested in others' genocides, not only the one he alleges] is to deny the suffering of others. He also wants to make you believe the 518,000 Turks/Muslims killed by the Armenians was more like 18.)

• That's because the unethical genocide industry responds to those with the money, and those who crave the sympathy. Their motives have little to do with truth. Yet these are the very false scholars that Fanadix, and now Stereotek, want us to consider more seriously, simply because they are in the majority view. We all know the reasons why they are in the majority view, and the reasons have nothing to do with truth.

• Note above Stereotek referring to the contrary view as "the Turkish government POV," utilizing perfect pro-Armenian-speak. If he were truth-conscious, he wouldn't specify the irrelevant "Turkish government," because obviously it's not just the "Turkish government" that has the ability to recognize this genocidal snow job.

• He says above we should only be discussing the article, when he hasn't discussed any of it, and admonishes us against personal attacks. But I've done a little snooping and have discovered that he has complained about Coolcat to an administrator about Coolcat's being a Holocaust denier, and that Coolcat made a crack about crack, regarding Fanadix. Coolcat has been doing a phenomenal job staying on top of Fanadix, who truly has been terrorizing this page with his obsession. Meanwhile, everything about Fanadix is squeaky-clean, as far as Stereotek is concerned... when even an administrator couldn't handle Fanadix, and had to escape. These are not comforting clues regarding Stereotek's impartiality. --Torque, Mar 23 2005

About the references

I thought and thought about it and have read Stereotek provided link, I need people concensus about the way it will be presented.

I thought of presenting for each section, few bibliography that are concidered relevent, I thought of the footnote way, but the thing with that, is that the footnote way in other articles is always used(those I have viewed) to point to links, even thought there might be sites for some, I mostly(or nearly always) rely on works, and the footnote would direct to works rather than sites. If I present the Turkish government version, since denialists are obviously more vocal on the internet(the same goes with the Shoah), a large part of their books are accessible(not so long ago, McCarthys book was accessible from the Turkish foreign ministry website, but isn't available anymore), so maybe in the cases of the Turkish government version, citing sites would be relevent.

I am awaing peoples suggestion here, including yours Coolcat.

I also thought of starting an entry regarding the "Ottoman Armenian Population," because alone it requites an article and might be long. Fadix 19:01, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

In my opinion footnotes it the way to do it. Also, footnotes doesn't always point to internet links, and I guess there is no reason why they should... I think that you might want to look at the "Schizophrenia" article? In my opinion it's a really good example on how to manage the references. Stereotek 20:06, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

OK! Will do it like this, but first I need to start another entry regarding the Ottoman Armenian population and losses, which is important to be attached here and included in 3 of the presented footnotes of the reference section I am working on. I will as well work on the "other side," but obviously it won't still satisfy Coolcat, since the other side points have been all answered over the years with autoritative works, so neutralizing them would include their critics, while there is no other sides and critics presented for the Special organization or the concentration camps and such key points that are entirly ignored by the revisionist side, so if there is no reinterpretation or answer about those, those can not be answered by another side. I can certainly not delete important informations just because there is no "other side" offered for them. Another thing I realised, I just realised that the April 24 hundreds of intellectuals jailed and killed has been deleted, I wonder why, because both sides don't deny that point... and in fact it is one of the most agreed points, I wonder why Coolcat has deleted it, assuming it is him. Fadix 21:08, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I did not delete anything from the article, I commented out parts. There is a colosal diference. I was objecting the way it was written. Stop acusing me of things damnit! --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 16:55, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Vahakn Dadrian and his ilk are far from "authoritative" sources. Those horrendous "concentration camp" and "special organization" allegations are not based on genuine evidence. What Dadrian did is what Fanadix follows: Find a damning bit and put it forward while closing eyes to everything else. (Or in Dadrian and Fanadix's cases, to try and discredit everything else, regardless of the truth.) Here's the M.O., as Prof. Malcolm Yapp tells us: "The author's approach is not that of an historian trying to find out what happened and why but of a lawyer assembling the case for the prosecution in an adversarial system... What is missing is any adequate recognition of the circumstances in which these events took place; the surge of Armenian nationalism, the ambitions of Russia, the fears of the Ottomans and the panic and indiscipline of war. Dadrian is so obsessed by his theory of the long plan that he too often overlooks the elements of the contingent.")

• (I like the use of the word, "obsessed." Who does that remind you of? Yes, our innocent friend who likes to say about himself that he represents "NO PROPAGANDA OR POV.")

• So let's see what these sources are. Let's see how much of them came out of the false 1919 courts, where people were saying anything to save their necks (and the neck of their nation, under threat by the British that if villains are not presented for the massacres, the future would be dire for Turkey; afterwards, the British and other Allies pronounced a death sentence anyway, even though practically every one of the nearly 1,400 accused was found guilty). Let's see if Fanadix's "evidence" doesn't boil down to hearsay from the mouths of one or just a couple of people, where Dadrian has unethically transformed his theories into a full-blown state policy.

• As for the sacred day of April 24, "hundreds" does not honestly describe the number of just a couple of hundred, or 235. Some I'm sure were falsely arrested, but as they were fingered by Armenian insiders, most of these innocent "intellectuals" were ringleaders of the treacherous Armenian rebellion. We don't know how many were killed, when we know some survived. I'm sure quite a few were killed, because high treason carries the ultimate punishment of execution in most nations, particularly in those days. It is not honest to say they were all killed, and on the same day (as Armenian propaganda tells us), when they were arrested and imprisoned. first. And Coolcat, please don't expect Fanadix to stop attacking you. Remember the story of the scorpion on the frog's back. --Torque, Mar 23 2005

Lead section

This section should mention the most important facts, and one of the most important facts in this article is, that the vast majority of scholars support the genocide theses. Maybe you don't like some specific facts, but that is never a valid excuse to delete them. Doing so is POV vandalism. Stereotek 12:42, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

More so when there has been groundbracking discoveries the last few years which convinced much more scholars, the implication of Germany is one of them, Wolfgang Gust new research on German records annihilate any doubt left as whatever or not there was a plan of extermination. Hilmar Kaiser himself published another booklet on German implication, and this without including other researchs like Dadrians.

The new records suggest that a bunch of German records that were returned to the Ottoman as promissed have left some traces. Zoryan Institute on it side is translating to English the court martial from the Ottoman Turkish original language. Right now, I will work on the other entry which is very important for this one, I will post it on my personal page and ask you what you think of it. Fadix 14:56, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If you insist, I am not buying it. Also why did the death toll rise from 1,5 to 1,8 million in the dast 6 days?

The death toll did not rise, at first I was comparing most estimates and the Turkish government official positions... this was why the 1,5 million figure was presented. The problem is that the 1,5 million figure is more often used than the 200,000 figure, when you merged them to provide a range you were misleading the reader, so I presented the other side of the Bell Curve... to a figure presented from the opposit camp which was as equaly presented as the 200,000... Rummel himself present that figure(1,8 million).

I do not believe 1,8 million died, I believe over a million, I am right now working on two entries(it was meant to be one, but due to the fact that the work is pretty long, I have decided to present the different statistics of Armenian population alone, and the statistics of losses alone), this is why I said that I had to work on other entries before continuing this one, because many of the references will be directed at those other pages. Ideally, the ranges that should be presented would be 600,000-1,500,000, because the bell curve exterminities pass that range are nearly parallel to the x axes. Fadix 17:24, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Fanadix should not cut into others' comments. I presume the one who wrote the "If you insist" line was Coolcat?

• Why should "the most important fact" be "the vast majority of scholars support the genocide theses," Stereotek? This is a highly politicized matter, and if real scholars have been scared away from the debate by intimidation tactics ranging from smear campaigns to murder attempts, and if the genocide scholar community is not motivated by truth like the slimy Dadrain, and if others are too lazy to scratch beneath the surface, who cares what the majority thinks? What you should be caring about is the truth.

• I can already see we're getting in deep trouble with the "quality" of our sources. The Zoryan Institute? Is Dadrian's home supposed to be impartial? Wolfgang Gust, a non-scholarly journalist who is such an Armenophile, he emphasizes the "evidence" of mad missionary Joahnnes Lepsius? (No wonder Gust went with "Christian code" in the title of his book, "The Genocide of the Armenians; The Tragedy of the oldest Christian People of the Word.") Hilmar Kaiser, a full-fledged Armenian proponent, with no other academic credentials (that I'm aware of)? Rummel, who is such a one-sided "genocide scholar" he actually used the word "murdered" to describe the fate of all of not 1.5 million, but over 2 million Armenians? Does Fanadix actually expect these highly partisan sources to show us trustworthy light? Is this Fanadix's idea of "NO PROPAGANDA NO POV"? Of course, he didn't fool anyone with that ridiculous claim; pushing this poison down the throats of what is supposed to represent a neutral encyclopedic entry is a far cry from preaching to his emotionally committed Armenian forum audiences.

• I don't believe 200,000 died, but that's not out of the realm of possibility; I believe the number was around around half a million, and not over 600,000. However, 1.8 million is so ridiculous, we might as well put in 35 million to represent the upper range, as I read that claim and I don't think the Armenian who said it was kidding. The pre-war population was not 2 million. Citing unscholarly sources like Nogales' 2.5 million is absurd. The 1912 Blue Book, confirmed by Arnold Toynbee in a 1915 pre-propaganda book, was only around 1 million, comprising the vilayets, western and the rest of Asiatic "Turkey," as I believe at this point. Toynbee was comfortable with the 1.6 million figure as fair, in his 1916 work, when he became a propagandist. I don't agree with that number, but it's important to demonstrate why the median of 1.5 million is arrived at. The Ottoman census was 1.3 million. Genocide torch-bearers Walker and Hovannisian (the latter, before he revised later to 2 million), arrived at a median figure of 1.75 million.

• Even some Armenian historians acknowledge there was no major difference in population figures from the late 19th century to "1915." The reason is, once Armenians were given the right to emigrate freely with the Young Turks' rule changes in 1908, and especially after the Balkan Wars, there was a exodus wave of maybe a few hundred thousand Armenians to other lands. (Have money will travel.) With this in mind Vahan Vardapet figured 1,263,900 in 1886, which (when the rest of the population was added), Lynch figured on "upwards of 1.5 million." (Lynch's figure for the six provinces, rest of Asia and European Turkey: 1,325,246.)

• 1.5 million is the FAIR pre-war population figure; it's more than the median. (1 million-1.75 million.) Armenians said one million survived. We can see there can be no way over a million Armenians died. Fanadix is so anxious to have us believe that, he'll do anything to cling to his false 2 million, Armenian Patriarch figure. (2.1 million, according to Toynbee in 1916.)

• Let's not forget the Armenians themselves claimed only 600,000 died in 1919, lobbying Gen. Harbord. (66th Congress 2nd session Doc. No. 281, pg. 14.) Only when the "propaganda value" increased did we start hearing about the more impossible figures. And let's keep in mind the vast majority died from causes other than murder. For perspective, Harbord also tells us 600,000 Turkish soldiers died from disease alone. That means a lot of people were dying from famine and disease. "NO PROPAGANDA NO POV" inexcusably wrote 800,000 Armenians represented only the murdered variety, other causes remaining separate. Since the real number of "murdered" Armenians cannot be over 50,000 according to a professor Fanadix has told us works for the Turkish government and is nothing but a liar (this, when 1977's Le Figaro estimated 15,000 not only for the massacred, but all the causes from deprivations of the march), we can see one more example out of so many where Fanadix is coming from.

• Fanadix would have us believe around 800,000 Armenians survived, when even Dadrian and Hovannisian have settled on one million. (Yes, he's actually discrediting his own heroes. His role propagandist model, Vahan Cardashian, also had the ingratitude to discredit great Armenian friends James Barton and Woodrow Wilson.) I'd say one million is an undercount. Taking strictly Armenian sources here: 625,000 remained inside 1921's Ottoman borders, according to the Armenian Patriarch. [F.O. Hc. 1/8008, XC/A-018055, P. 651] Add to this figure Hovannisian's post-war Armenian refugee number of 500,000 in the Caucasus -- not far from Dr. Nansen's League of Nations report -- and Boghos Nubar's 1918 figures of 140,000 in Iran and Syria/Mesopotamia, coming up with over 1,200,000 survivors.

• How could there be over one million casualties if the real pre-war figure was 1.5 million, and there were over one million survivors? How could anyone truthfully present a range of 600,000-1,500,000, if a range must be presented? Of course, 1.5 million should be paid attention to, because that figure deceitfully crops up everywhere. But the lower range of 200,000 also pops up (300,000 is more prevalent), and these lower numbers are not completely out of the realm of possibility. (What we do know is that more people could not have been killed than existed.) Fanadix is actually trying to present the genuine maximum figure (600,000) as the minimum! Luckily, he's not influenced by Propaganda, or POV, as he told us. --Torque, Mar 23 2005

Not quite, I have seen people talking about 2.5 million people died. You cannot use the bell curve estimation due to the high level of propoganda and lack of evidence. the range is so large, I dont like it either but if you make it any diferent misguided people will definately chnage that. the +-5 and outlyers are not in the statistics. There are turkish propoganda sides dictating no one died, rather far fetched in my opinion so 200,000 1,800 is the official armenian claim? Also I edited Armenia, tell me what you think. It will be best of our interest not to include scholar data, I refuse to believe its factuality, I do not see what most is based on. Number of books are irrelevant, the authors may be quoting each other. Besides it is not lead section material, and is excesively complex as a sentence. I do not see why keeping the reader read material at a 50-50% factuality bothers you, dont you want the user to figure it out on their own? --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 17:33, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Lack of evidence is only in your imagination, if you present 200,000-1,5 million you mislead the reader.

The Official German figures all range over a million, mostly from 1,2-1,5 million. Austrian figures are over a million. The official Ottoman statistic suggest over a million, during the military tribunal, when the 1,2 million figure was presented, it was even not rejected. The Ottoman and its allies figures all suggest over a million, the League of Nations partial statistics were of 1 million, while they have mistaken many Caucasian Armenian refugees as Ottoman Armenians and added them as survivors. And now, you want to present a range of 200,000 to 1,5 million, but you can't do that, you can not select one minority figure for one range and present a majority figure at the other range, if you want to have a good range, you should present both sides of a bellcurve, and even after doing such, we don't even achieve the middle of the curve, but slightly on its left side. This means that the range as is is more supportative to your side than it is supposed to be.

As for your edit of the Armenia entry, the entry was pretty much neutral, you have hijacked it, hijack articles again like this, and I will officialy report you for vandalism. I propose you to revert what you did all by yourself. Fadix 17:43, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Lack of evidence is only in Fanadix's imagination. All of the sources he presents are suspect. The Germans and Austrians of that time were motivated by Christian sympathy (as today's Wolfgang Gust, whom Fanadix would have us accept as a legitimate source), or other considerations; they were just as susceptible for swallowing the relentless propaganda around them, presented by those mad partisans like Johannes Lepsius. I just spent much agonizing time going over Fanadix's past talk that I had missed in my absence, and EVERYWHERE he has written "The official Ottoman statistic" as 800,000. Now, suddenly, it has become "over a million." Genocide-obsessed Armenians love to throw out figures that happen to suit them for the moment; as when the lying Armenian Patriarch "revised" his ridiculous Berlin Conference figure of 3 million to the still exaggerated but more reasonable 1,780,000, and as when Peter Balakian "revised" his 1 million+ mortality figure to 1.5 million. They keep switching back and forth, with the wind. The military tribunal is not an acceptable source; no one would accept the findings of Vichy French courts under Nazi occupation as legitimate, either; even the British rejected these crooked findings for their own Malta Tribunal. And wasn't the Armenian-sympathizing Dr. Nansen in charge of the League of Nations reports? This is the problem for genocide advocates: PRACTICALLY ALL OF THEIR SOURCES HAVE CONFLICTS OF INTERESTS, while the sources I am using are primarily anti-Turkish. --Torque, Mar 23 2005

Fadix, be bold: [4] Stereotek 05:06, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• How could Fanadix be any more bold? That page also tells us: "...but don't be reckless."("...be bold in updating pages does not mean that you should make deletions to long articles on complex, controversial subjects with long histories, such as Israeli-Palestinian conflict or Abortion. In many such cases, the text as you find it has come into being after long and arduous negotiations between Wikipedians of diverse backgrounds and points of view. An incautious edit to such an article can be akin to stirring up a hornet's nest...") What Fanadix did was not an "incautious" edit, but a "propagandist" one, relying exclusively on propagandistic sources while dishonesly telling us he harbors NO PROPAGANDA OR POV. We'll see how long his propaganda will stand, because being bold goes across the board. And why is Stereotek encouraging the out-of-control Fanadix? Stereotek must feel Fanadix's excesses must not be enough. --Torque, Mar 23 2005

I have unfortunitly no time with the Armenian entry, I have to complete the statistics page before. Fadix 15:30, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ok so this is your article and whatever anyone else claim is ignorable? like it or not numbers range from 200,000 - whatever. Lack of evidence and acuracy in body count is the reason. The numbers provided are disputed. Why is there a diference in body counts by various diferent archives. There are different numbers and either neither view will be heard or both. I will not be satisfied with the absurd "scholar" statistic in the lead page. Armenian Genocide was not a genocide according to one view, you are dillusional to suggest of "mislead the reader", that is what you are doing by suggesting the genocide. Article should be factual not POV oriented, pro genocide, no matter how you paint it is a POV anti/counter genocide is another view. Your personal beliefs are none of my business. You can put anything you wish on your talk page, this page however where you will not rule. You may not like what some people are suggesting, but slamming all anti genocide material is untollerable. "Denailists" may be your enemy, but wikipedia is not you battle ground. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 06:55, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• I don't know about that. Wikipedia is obviously Fanadix's battleground. --Torque, Mar 23 2005

If the mediator will not follow any of my suggestions, there is no mediation. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 06:55, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Views of "Dr. Wolfgang Gust" are not less significant than "Dr. Justin McCarthy". Scholars have not decided on the matter, do not declare that. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 07:05, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

---

It is ridiculous. statistics of works are the only way to measures specialists position. If someone did a research, it is expected that to get it published it should be peer reviewed and then published... this is how it works, if someone has a position and did not publish any research, he can not defend his position by claiming his claim to be academically valid. This is how it works in the academic world, and if you have ever published anything in a scientific paper, you will see that this is true.

As I see, there has been many talk yesterday, when I was to a Genocide Symposium, where Taner Akçam gave a lecture, he even used the term “collective schizophrenia” to call his own society behavior regarding the Armenian genocide, and now you are here using the term “delusional”(again) in what regards what I say. This sort of claims can be considered as attacks.

And I repeat again, I offered you to present the other side, YOU DELETED IT, because you don't want people to know who believes what... you can NOT just claim some think that happened in a middle of an article, and then go as to say, others don't believe it. This would be misleading people. The Martial Court has no other side, the Special Organization has no other side, WHAT DO YOU WANT me to do about that? I can not delete informations just because there is no other side, that would be hijacking an article to mislead the reader. As for the mediation, you killed that up by ignoring it, because obviously you knew that if this thing was to be passed there, you will have everything to lose.

Coming to McCarthy, the man is a joke, he participated in the Turkish government founded Armenian Institute in Ankara as aim to deny the Armenian genocide, he participated in the publication of Turkish ministry work regarding the Armenians, during an ATAA conference he has declared that he will be trying to change Turkish history, during a conference in Turkey, he even used the words “we're trying to rewrite history.” The man, after possibly realizing that even Turkish sources admit that the Armenians have been intentionally under counted, when he realized that there is records in Armenian archives of a very precise Armenian figure population, as precise as to present the last digit, he claimed that if those numbers were true, it would just mean that 250,000 more Armenians felt victim. Is there any serious academia that will take 250,000 death people as just numbers that you can exclude? You know what this means? It means, that McCarthy is trying to save his face my indirectly admitting that he might have done a mistake, but this is not just a simple mistake, it is nearly his life work. Let me explain what this means, this guys under counting of Armenian losses would be about 850,000 deaths... the same guy that literally write in the Turkish press that the Armenians stole Turkish lands... and claimed that the genocide was a “lie” not a mistake but a lie. This man methodology was reported being completely flawed, and Frédéric Paulin in his Doctoral research has shown how none of the four points to apply the Population Stability theory were respected. And here without indicating that McCarthy both received Turkish ITS and ARIT grants, because it is not only enough that he participate in Turkish government diplomatic publications. Comparing Dr. Wolfgang Gust with McCarthy is to compare apples with oranges, while McCarthy interpret, Gust publish the official German records of the time, which are report for internal consumption, and secret reports, Germany reporting its allies plan of extermination etc. Fadix 15:30, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• "The Martial Court has no other side, the Special Organization has no other side." No, there is one other side to both of these presentations. That side would be called "truth."

• Taner Akcam, the lap dog of the Armenian genocide industry, is to be taken seriously? Is Fanadix kidding?

• McCarthy has more integrity in one finger than all of Fanadix's Dadrians, Akcams, Kaisers, Rummels, whose "approach is not that of an historian trying to find out what happened and why but of a lawyer assembling the case for the prosecution in an adversarial system." McCarthy does not need to be swayed by any of the influences Fanadix shamelessly alleges. He knows of the awful level of deceit employed by the ethics-challenged genocide club. He knows the view of the Turks in Western history is based on the racist dictionary definition of "Turk" as "cruel" and "tyrannical." He is doing the job of a real historian -- that's why he's "trying to rewrite Turkish history." If that history is wickedly misrepesented by a biased West, it is the duty of honorable historians to rewrite history... just like it is the duty of propagandists like Fanadix to warp pre-existing carefully cultivated Wikipedia entries so that he may try and construct his own personal Armenian Genocide monument.

• "there is records in Armenian archives of a very precise Armenian figure population" Would those be the archives Armenia, along with the ARF branch in Boston, keep sealed up? What are they hiding?

• To my knowledge, McCarthy's conclusion of Armenian deaths is slightly less than 600,000, which is what the Armenians themselves claimed in 1919. If McCarthy came across "evidence" of 250,000 more deaths, if I could follow Fanadix's rambling, then McCarthy would need to "revise" his mortality figure to 850,000, correct? (600,000 + 250,000 = 850,000.) Yet Fanadix has written, "this guys under counting of Armenian losses would be about 850,000 deaths." In other words, McCarthy undercounted not by 250,000, but by the whole whopping 850,000. You can read Fanadix's words above, folks.

• I don't know if the above account is true, because all we have is the "word" of Fanadix. But if true, at least McCarthy is questioning, and he's not afraid of making his questions public. If anyone needs further example of McCarthy's being a genuine historian, no more proof is necessary. A historian revises as he comes across what seems to be more reliable information. (Does anyone see Dadrian doing that, if it goes against his agenda?) Yet Fanadix's pathetic conclusion of McCarthy: "the man is a joke."

• The unethical genocide industry is huge, and McCarthy has many enemies. We can see how easy it is to try and discredit anything if one tries, from Fanadix's masterful tactics. If a student like Frédéric Paulin sets out to cause doubt, of course he will succeed, and of course those like Fanadix will latch on to any reference to his "the man is a joke" smear campaign. Moreover, I don't know if McCarthy received grants from the Turkish government, but only a diabolical mind would try to steer us in the direction of that meaning that a person needs to sell his soul. McCarthy already was convinced the Turks had gotten a bum rap from Western history. A grant is not going to corrupt his soul. If that's an indication of corruption, let's discuss the grants of Hovannisian, and the nature of the Zoryan organization that has been employing Dadrian.

• On the end point, Fanadix is correct: "Comparing Dr. Wolfgang Gust with McCarthy is to compare apples with oranges." Gust is a partisan Armenophile who spent his career as a journalist who only seeks the bits to demostrate his agenda, Dadrian style; McCarthy is a real historian. --Torque, Mar 23 2005

LOLENLAR

I just realised that Mr. Torque who claimed not wanting to participate has just posted in the archive section, many answer, I propose everyone to read the exchanges. I will be answering every single posts he makes. I decided to not slander him anymore and maintain calm, everyone shall read the racist person he is and how he slanders his oponments. I appologize, since because of this answer, it might take longer for me to work on the pages. Fadix 16:17, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

---

He can edit his own arguments in archive, he can delete anything he posted, no conflict with wiki policy there. You cannot acuse him of being racist, thats a personal attack, refrain from persoal attacks. Even if one has Nazi propoganda on their user page tehy cant be decared racist. You cannot do that we dont allow that kind of attitide, you are new thats why people are leaving you alone. Know that tensions are rising. Several Admins are already aware how unproductive discussion is going on here. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 08:05, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Why are you so interested in the amount of time people has spend here? I can see that your first edit was made at: 10:07, 4 Feb 2005. Fadix first edit was made at: 03:46, 17 Feb 2005. So you haven't been around for much longer than Fadix, and you surely can't claim to be a really experienced user... Anyway, if anything here should end in an arbcom case, I can guarantee that both you and Torque will be punished. You have both violated many of Wikipedias policies several times. There is no lack of evidence. Stereotek 12:38, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It is the original article that was to go under mediation; why has this article changed?

I have been away from Wikipedia, and am appalled. The article now has completely been done away with and replaced by Fadix's propaganda. It should be retitled, "FADIX'S ARMENIAN GENOCIDE." How can this happen? Here, a clear propagandist with ZERO tolerance and credibility has come in here like gangbusters, and with his running mouth has chased away some of the people who have tried to counter him. Of course; who can deal with such a frantic force?

In his zeal to legitimize his genocide and place it on equal footing with the Holocaust, he has introduced theories about "concentration camps." He has made a lot of wild claims based on the weasel facts of Vahakn Dadrian. Can the reader believe these unholy claims, such as "Other records from the Military tribunal, suggest gassing installations existed as well." For one thing, the hearsay that constitutes "suggest" is out of order when all we're interested in is genuine evidence. Secondly, that "military tribunal" was conducted with almost no due process and the primary objective was to place blame on the previous government. Moreover, the puppet Ottoman government that was under enemy occupation was warned by the British to come up with culprits, otherwise the Turkish nation would be treated severely under the Peace Conference. (The Ottomans complied as much as they could, and the British/Allies rewarded them with a death sentence for their nation.) Under these circumstances, no fair person could accept their findings as just. Even the British rejected them when they took a turn for judicial credibility with the Malta Tribunal.

If the 1919 kangaroo courts were not good enough for the anxious-to-convict British, they certainly are not good enough for encyclopedia authors who are solely interested in the truth. They are not acceptable as evidence on this page.

"Children were sent there under the pretext to take baths, but were poisoned instead." How convenient! Just like the Holocaust. What's lacking is REAL EVIDENCE. People with lack of scruples can easily come up with these horrible lies, and try to pass them off as the truth. How could so many Armenian orphans have survived, if the idea was to purposefully murder Armenian children?

"While the total number of victims that perished in all camps is hard to establish, it is by some sources estimated that close to a million would be a reasonable figure. This figure excludes Armenians who died in other ways..." So here we have a pre-war population of around 1.5 million, one million survived according to Armenians, And close to a million died through outright murder? Even when that many people weren't even relocated in the first place??? (The Armenians who lobbied General Harbord in 1919 said only half a million were relocated.) And when we add the number of Armenians who died in other ways, the "famine and disease" ways in which the MAJORITY of the Armenians died (like the bulk of the 2.5 million+ Turks/Muslims who died), how many Armenians were killed in total? I guess that would run into five million or so.

And the section "The Special organization (Teshkilati Mahsusa)" is outrageous. All of this is pure DADRIAN SPECULATION. "It must be noted as well, that physicians participated in the process of selection, where health professionals were appointed by the war ministry to determine whether the selected convicts would be fit to apply a degree of savagery of killing that was required." Fanadix is actually trying to pass that nonsense off as a real fact?

TREAT THIS SHAM PAGE SERIOUSLY AT YOUR OWN RISK. IT WILL NOT LAST. It's the original article that will go under mediation. If the page was allowed to change, what is the purpose of mediation? Fanadix has already gotten everything he has hoped for and more. It is totally unacceptable.

Coolcat deserves special praise for possessing the fortitude of dealing with this unreasonable pharisee. Fanadix spills his beans on his original talk page: "I don't have much to say about me than maybe that I am allergic to the denial of the Armenian genocide and that I will fight it in Wikipedia until denialists give up." I have no doubt of his sincerity, because this is his life. No matter how much he tries to con us with his "humanitarian" claims that he is interested in other genocides and how many times he harbors no "NO PROPAGANDA OR POV" (Yes, he actually wrote that in Archives 10), his strategy is to pummel the readers with his "160 pages," utilizing all the weasel facts his Dadrians have accumulated through the years. He will lose no opportunity to discredit anything that comes his way. Nobody has the time or energy to deal with such a Fanadix. He could very well get what he's after; that's why the Armenians are far ahead in this debate, and why so many academicians mindlessly accept their propaganda as real fact. People on the other side of the fence, as myself, have much better things to do with life. What we're dealing with is pure, rabid obsession.

I have been away for over a week, and I didn't think the last Talk Page I remember would have been archived already, but Fanadix's incessant jawbone has turned this section into the "forum" he thrives on. Some of his nonsense needed to be countered, and I wondered how to handle that; adding the pages and pages of yore to the current talk page would have turned this page into the volume of seventy phone books, so I tacked on comments within the lines of the original discussions. (MGM requested we not go back into the archives, but that's presuming normal Wikipedia archives, not the forum this is turning into. In only a couple of days, there's a new archive!) It's already "old news," but the section we now need to concentrate on is the original, carefully cultivated page... the one that is supposed to be undergoing mediation.

Fanadix THINKS in his egomania that he has successfully countered the original article, but he has done no such thing. He has taken each section point by point in what is now Archives 10. (Which needs to be combined into Archives 11; the latter features repeat segments from other archive pages, and can be replaced by the second half of the overlong Archives 10. I tried to do it, but my computer kept freezing!) Here are some examples of how he has "succeeded":

• A New York Times article from 1914 attesting to Armenian rebellion faces attempted discrediting because the source originally came from the Turks. As if the NYTimes listened to what the Turks had to say! (Or the enemy Russians for that matter, who were supposed to have placed Turkish reports in their own newspapers.) How do we know this? Fanadix gives us his "word."

• An Armenian newspaper with a specific date informs us only 1,500 Turks remained at Van, after the Armenians, with the help of the Russians, got through with their murderous ways. Fanadix tells us this doesn't exist. How do we know this? Fanadix gives us his "word."

• Incriminating statements from Armenia's first prime minister are said to be fabricated by the patriotic Armenian service that presented them. How do we know this? Fanadix gives us his "word."

Here is the value of Fanadix's "word": when I asked him to prove his assertion that Kamuran Gurun stated the relocation was "final and terminal," he provided the page number. Luckily, the book is online, and I gave instructions to the reader to find that very page. There is nothing on that page indicating the decision was "final and terminal." What it says on that page is that the Armenians were to be relocated. That's because the whole idea was for the Armenians to be relocated. The word used several times to describe the process is the very opposite of "final," and that word is "temporary"; and "terminal" is Fanadix's own unscrupulous editorialization. Yet, even when countered, with the evidence under our very noses, Fanadix still kept insisting in his big-mouthed reply that the author stated the decision was "final and terminal." Such is the level of his reason!

There is absolutely no sense in arguing history with this "Armenian Weasel Beast." (A nickname he bragged about, and I only embellished it by adding the kind of beast.) As he himself indicated somewhere in his 160 (now 1,600) pages, his first instinct is to try and discredit; the truth means nothing. He possesses the dogma of the worst religious fanatic.

I am sure the framer of Wikipedia never dreamt there could be such an unreasonable and determined force to contend with.

Again, it is the original page that we must contend with; that is the one called upon for mediation. The current one of unsupported, slanderous propaganda, where we are asked to accept Fanadix's word, the opinions/theories of others, is a travesty. I commend the brave souls who have been dealing with this nonsense; you all deserve medals. --Torque March 24, 2005

Arguing About History is Impossible in the presence of dogmatism

This comment has been extensively edited to remove the very personal attacks while, I hope, preserving the sense of the words.

At the root of genocide allegations lies the assumption: it is only the Armenian dead who matter. Never mind the Armenians directly murdered, with Russian help, more Turks/Muslims than the latter did onto them. The Turks simply aren't human enough to matter.

Fadix has gone out of his way trying to prove the 518,000 dead was closer to a number like 18, in his earlier testimony. Never mind that this sense of victimhood is a credo the Turks don't live by, while Armenians thrive on it. How can any person with humanity deny the crimes of the Armenians? But the Armenians have always denied their crimes. Their mass murderers like Dro and Antranik, as well as their latter day killer terrorists, are treated as heroes by the Armenian community. Fadix has promised to work on the Wikipedia ASALA page, continuing the trend.

It's a mindset. As an Armenian writer quoted by Ara Baliozian put so well: "What kind of people are we?...Instead of reason, blind instinct. Instead of common sense, fanaticism."

Since the Armenians like to claim they are the first Christian nation (as well as their apologists, like "The Genocide of the Armenians; The Tragedy of the oldest Christian People of the Word" Wolfgang Gust, whom Fadix praised above as a legitimate source) where are the Christian qualities of these Armenians who are so genocide obsessed? Why would anyone devote so much of his life to this century-old topic?

If Armenians are under so much despair, how about turning to a Christian way to cope? How about filling one's heart with love and compassion and hopefulness and happiness? That's what the Turks did after the war. Is there one Turkish family who wasn't affected by the chaos and ugliness and inhumanity perpetrated upon them by their enemies? But they did not care to harp on these destructive thoughts. They chose to forgive and forget. It's only with the revival of this genocide obsession, and the continuous slander that goes with it, that the Turks have finally come to realize silence does not work. Otherwise the Turks had let go long ago. Thanks to the Armenians, the horrendous crimes of their forefathers are now open for new generations of Turks to learn.

Jesus taught to forgive unconditionally, yet the Armenians have chosen the path of hatred, terrorism, antagonism and aggression. Is this healthy?

There have been some attempts to establish parallels with the Holocaust. This, after Israel itself does not recognize the Armenians' genocide. Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon Peres is on record for saying, "... Armenian allegations of genocide are 'meaningless' and that there is no similarity between the Holocaust and fate of the Armenians during the first World War...' '... What occurred to the Armenians was NOT a Genocide'. 'We reject attempts to create a similarity between the Holocaust and the Armenian allegations. Nothing similar to the Holocaust occurred. It is a tragedy what the Armenian s went through but not a genocide'."

It is possible to respond by saying Israel is kowtowing to the Turks, as if Israel has been known to kowtow to any nation (not even the United States). But the above makes sense; in WWII Jews did not establish a combined force of 200,000 as Boghos Nubar tells us, almost all of whom came from the Ottoman Empire at one time or another; the Jews did not betray Germany; the Jews did not cooperate with the enemies of Germany, and the Jews certainly did not wage a campaign of ethnic cleansing against their fellow German citizens, hoping to establish a Jewish state on German soil.

This is why we must look at the BIG PICTURE and not be drowned in the statistics quoted by the Armenians, nearly all of which are based on speculation and are terribly unsubstantiated. One point to remember is the Armenians in the western portion of the Ottoman Empire were mostly unaffected by the relocation policy. Imagine conducting a genocide and ignoring the targeted people in the capital. How many German Jews in Berlin were exempt from Hitler's "Final Solution"? What about the ones from Munich or Frankfurt?

The Armenians who are very demanding and inflexible. For example, in Glendale, California, the Armenian "colony" (Hovannisian's word) have built up its numbers to 30%. With their influence and wealth has come the pocketing of the politicians. As a result, they got the city council to lower the flag to commemorate their genocide. This angered the community, because the American flag is not typically lowered for such occasions.

Then the Armenians used their influence to erect a genocide monument at public expense. A concerned reader from the local newspaper wrote:

"I do not feel that the decision to erect an Armenian Genocide monument on city property should be decided by the five men on City Council and a group of committee members. Between the flag-lowering fiasco and the current debate over the monument, this city is polarized as never before. The decision to erect a monument on city property should be left to the people of that city..."

Now doesn't that sound exactly like the genocide resolutions the Armenian Diaspora persuades governments to pass? A few bigoted and/or Armenian-catering politicians cast their votes on a historical episode they've only heard selective bits about from the "avalanche" of Armenian propaganda, and then suddenly it seems like the whole country or state has agreed upon the idea. This is so propagandists can point to these meaningless opinions and say to the unwary, You See? They Agree With Us!

A similar approach is used when this lie has been repeated so often that lazy or bigoted academicians have accepted it at face value. (It’s safer that way; who wants to be charged with being a "RACIST NAZI-LIKE FK," as Fadix called me?) So now the majority view has accepted this myth as the reality, and Stereotek can tell us this majority view is one of the "most important" facts.

More tellingly, from Glendale:

"...It's unfortunate that the leaders and spokespersons for (the Armenian) community feel the way HS (an Armenian) does. His views teach his community intolerance toward others. They teach his community to demean those that that don't agree with them. They teach his community to scream racism and hatred toward them just because they don't get their way. He teaches his community that there is only one way, the way he feels, and anyone that feels different is wrong. It teaches division rather than compromise. Compromise, (HS), is that so difficult to get? What a leader and spokesperson you are. Don't you see, the more you push this 'we won and the racists lost,' the sillier you look? Your colors are showing more and more. It's clear you have no interest in healing this community or finding a compromise. I find it amusing that you rally the Armenian community around an Armenian national issue, but debunk an American community when it rallies around something they may feel strongly about. I feel insulted being referred to as a 'ragtag group of self-described patriots' because I'm standing up for my beliefs. How dare you? ... It's clear that you don't care about the country you live in or its other residents, just your '30%.' I'm afraid, sir, that there are 70% here that are not Armenians, and maybe, just maybe, they don't all share your view and want to have it shoved down their throat..."

It's all there:

1. intolerance toward others
2. demean those that that don't agree with them
3. to scream racism and hatred toward them just because they don't get their way
4. there is only one way, the way they feel, and anyone that feels different is wrong
5. division rather than compromise
6. "we won and the racists lost"
7. It's clear that they don't care about the country they live in or its other residents, just their 30%.
8. they don't all share your view and want to have it shoved down their throat.

("You are neutral and I am not, thats your suggestion. Yout Truth is based on facts only I got a bunch of lies. Is that what you suggest? I am not accusing you of things why are you constantly acusimg me. This can be considered a personal attack you know." --Cool Cat My Talk 20:14, 19 Mar 2005)

When this genocide-obsessed pattern of the Armenians is pointed to, the best defense is to scream racist. But the ways of the Armenian colonies, whether in America or Canada and everywhere else the Diaspora has migrated to, follows a pattern that cannot be denied. We are simply up against a super-powered representative.

Epilogue: the genocide-obsessed Armenians got what they wanted by their typically underhanded manipulations, upsetting the majority of their fellow citizens by having their tax dollars spent on a genocide monument. There is a quality absent with such behavior, and that quality is: virtue. --Torque, Mar 24 2005 (substantially edited for personal attacks --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:22, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC) (and I don't claim to have gotten them all, sorry, just trying to strike a happy medium between arguable point and personal attack)

Well well, see what kind of opinions we have here afterall :)

I am patiently waiting the administration to come here and read Torque posts. I will of course answer any single points he made, it would take of course some time... but people could witness how he play with numbers he has no idea of... when I answer him, and then, probably he will claim having done it without knowing it, like he always do when he is exposed of manipuling data. As I see, the none-existing Goshnak was still brought out.

Anyway, if anyone want to report Torque, do it in your own discression, but I ask that person to not involve me, I am of course against his banning even if he has times and again abused Wikipedia rules. The reason for that is simple, he's the only supposed "other side" we officialy have, if it happens that he is banned, I know what will happen, the genocide entry will be spammed, the entry will be deleted etc. etc. I could perhaps ask something to the administration though, and that would be to edit Torque posts, by deleting racist and personnal statments, because of course if it happens that some Armenians start reading "Typical Armenian style" "So Armenian" etc. they might get offensed and start answering back, I am sure that no one is interested with that.

I apologize for the reast of the readers, since my contributation has been halted by Torque attempts and that I have to now return and expose him.

Thanks for your patience, and again, I apologize.

Regards

PS: I ask readers, should I answer first the most recent of his distortions? I have answered quite a few on the archive 10... but I was wondering if I should answer those first until I come here. Since I suppose there are reader, I guess they as well have interest on which points they want to be discussed first. Fadix 19:08, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Added Fadix response again, after editing out a couple of personal comments. The response is clearly as much on topic as Torque's rants about the Armenian people.

Fadix, I don't think you should waste your time responding to Torque's hateful attacks against Armenians in general. Such comments doesn't really need an answer, and they are clearly off-topic. If he should want to participate in a serious discussion about the article, then it is of course a new situation... Hate speech on the other hand, doesn't deserve an answer. Stereotek 07:49, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Torque is being very paient with you guys. And so am I. The article is biased, it isnt neutral (hence the tag), Torque, and as far as I can tell more than 3 experts are disputing the genocide. Creating an aurora of "world believes in genocide" is not going to happen. Torque is sick of insist of "prooving" genocide in the article which is not follwing NPOV policy. Fadix's idea of NPOV is far fetched "My ideas are right, what I read in the books are facts, anything is pure bias and propoganda" (paraphrasing). The level of insults I got from Fadix can insure his ip ban. He will stop insulting me either way. I prefer the no ban solution, ie willing. Stereotek do not pose as a mediator because I dont think you are qualified to be a mediator, you already have views regarding the article. I already asked for a mediator that has already been awarded the mediation barn-star, one of the rarest awards on wikipedia.

Torque was ranting about Armenian people as there is a "Diplomatic" sphere in the equation, The countries that have officialy recognised the Armenian genocide did not recognise on their own, they got significant pressure for various organisations. He is refering to that I believe. His attitude is not nice, but neither the attitude he argues with. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 09:11, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Fresh Start

I want to ignore what happened so far, for your sake. Lets start argueing again, and yes please summerise. I will be introducing this format (I copy pasted my default "mediation" template). I am not a mediator as Fadix will not accept it. If I refer to myself in the format I inserted below as a mediator know that it is part of the template. I am too lazy ro create a new one.

Discussion Starts

I suggest no one touch the article now on untill we reach concensiuses, while being bold sounds fun, we will end up with nothing productive if you guys and us start reverting. I already declared 2 cases, I commented out items that we will be discussing, nothing is gone just commented, You are welcome to comment out anything and discuss here as well. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 08:31, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Your suggestions are ignored. Fadix 00:15, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Scholars to be moved away from lead

Most Armenian and Western and some Turkish scholars believe that the Armenian deaths were the result of a state-sponsored extermination plan. Most Turkish and some Western scholars, on the other hand, claim that a clash between the two-sides, and causes such as famine and disease, was the reason why a number of Armenians perished. The statistics regarding how many Armenians perished varies and there are no official numbers, but most Western sources advance a million and over [...] What is refered as the Armenian Genocide is the second most studied cases of what is called genocide and is often compared with the Holocaust.

• Not lead material, article should not start with conclusions, there is no point in having this article if the lead statement establishes that "genocide is commonly believed as happened" --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 08:36, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• <blink>It is a fact that genocide is commonly believed to have occurred.</blink> The article should, and I'm sure will, state this clearly. Davenbelle 18:19, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

• Do not reformat my comments; I do not write in green. — Davenbelle 19:11, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
• You can't read either; the color format is discussed above--Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 01:23, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• I can read, and spell, just fine, thank you. Your color scheme is lurid. — Davenbelle 02:11, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

• Well, if you want to be a part of the discussion I hope you use this color sceme as described above. You are welcome to do what you want, I will be ignoring anything not in color after a point. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 02:31, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• The First Genocide in Europe in the 20th Century: The Armenian Genocide - Facts and Future Implications, May 18-19, 2005, Copenhagen

we want to stimulate a discussion of the relationship between Turkish membership of the EU and Turkish recognition of the Armenian genocide

— Davenbelle 10:23, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

• That is still not lead material. This is a disputed article, It can be mentioned later in the article. What you are suggesting is against NPOV. I am not sure how widely its accepted, not as widely as article suggests, lets simplify a bit, lets say that there are 20 scholars on the planet. 2 are against 4 are for genocide, there still is 14, more than 50% that does not care either way around, or dispute it personaly but does not have the need/time to make his case. Its very difficult to challenge a genocide thesis. For our case for this article we agree lots (over 200,000) people died. We agree they were forced to move, the dispute revolves around why. I repeat, the classification of Armenian Genocide as a fact is against NPOV. Please refrain from "I am right you are wrong" and use other more productive methods to communicate as mentioned above. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 18:40, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• For each Western scholar that deny the genocide, there probably are hundreds agreeing there was a genocide. Your comparaison is senseless. The 69 signature Torque has presented ended up being nothing more than full of air. Because several of them recognized the genocide was a historical fact, but signed it because they thought it was a petition to support the opening of the archives, like those starting the petition have claimed and not as a tool to deny the genocide. You have nothing NADA other than Justin McCarthy and few ARIT and ITS scholars. There is an Italian physicist that believe that at the center of the Sun, the temperature is absolute zero... why not talking about it in the Sun entry? Fadix 00:29, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Do you have a list of neutral scholars who acknowlege the genocide thesis, do you have a list of neutral scholars who deny the genocide thedis, do you have a list of neutral scholars who are indiferent. If so provide URL. THis discussion is about Armenian Genocide, not Sun. Physics as we know it may not be apllicable in the SUN as excited plasma reacts with surroundings. Readings from the SUN is very difficult as there is significant interference form our star regarding any core readings. We have lmited knowlege regarding the structure of stars, we are theorising how it can be as there is significant left overs from supernova but we have no idea what is inside a star. Likelyhood is heavier elements not heavier than Iron. The suggestion from the Italian Physicist would perhaps be based on observations. We cant observe the armenian genocide.

Again, that must be a joke, visit your university history department and ask them regarding the issue... it is like asking, "Do you have a list of scientists accepting natural selection vs those that do not, so that we can compare? " As for the Sun, it is pretty much now that the center of the Sun is very hot, because there is a conversion of matter,... that one Italian physicist believe this is not the cases or two physicists etc... doesn't justify to present two theses as equaly valid. Fadix 03:20, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Insultive aproach is bad. If I wanted to practice humor I would have joined a talk show or comedy central. The point is Italian Scientist was sugessting something based on facts. In science you dont ignore new material. The senter of the sun is asumed hot. However we really have no idea. Like I told you, the history depatment is not the issue, I dont have time to goose chase everytime someone suggests a one sided article. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 03:25, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

So according to you, one scientist theory is enough to present it as equaly valid, and given as much space as what the very large majority of phsysicists believe? Fadix 04:01, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No, what I am suggesting is he may be right so it would be foolish to simply ignore him. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 08:09, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yes Coolcat - I could just as legitimatly say that about any denier of the Holocaust. So one historian disputes that the Holocaust should be considered a genocide. This we cannot present the fact that all other serious historians and more accept that it was a genocide because of the existance of the views of this one person. How can you believe that your position is th valid one> I cannot comprehend your mentality on this - what can I say? --THOTH 18:09, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Camps, death toll info be moved.

While the total number of victims that perished in all camps is hard to establish, it is by some sources estimated that close to a million would be a reasonable figure. This figure excludes Armenians who died in other ways, but may include the Special organizations participation in the events; the majority of the excluded losses are recorded in Bitlis and Sivas.

• Like I said before, extra statistics while they are disputed is not a good idea. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 08:36, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Those are the statistics of a "type" of deaths in particular. This will be covered in the entry regarding Armenian losses which I will be working on. Fadix 04:23, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• I fail to see where this referance is from. I do not care about "so such and such" suggests in "this book". I'd like to see the actual document (link please). I cannot tell if its propoganda or not. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 03:09, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Death Toll Category

• Death toll is referanced multiple times, a and only 1 section should be devoted to this material, scholars statistics also falls under this category in my opinion. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 18:43, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• You were the one that deleted the death tole category, and you want it back now. I am preparing two entries, one regarding the Ottoman Armenian population, and another the death toll. Fadix 00:19, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Yes I want all death statistics in one category. Also I want you to stop the "I know best" tone. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 01:19, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• That I know best compared to you, is obvious, that you commit vandalism is as obvious.Fadix 01:37, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• I have told you countless time to stop accusimg me of things. Why are you ignoring this, are you not civil or something? Please stop accusing me of, vandalism, hidden agenda, bias and other things you came up with. Also please use the color codes I introduced.--Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 01:58, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Victimization doesn't fit you, sorry. What other things I came up with? Again, I ask you. Will you drop the: "presenting two positions as equaly valid" ? Yes or No?

• Please dont deny you havent been insulting me with your personal attacks for the past week or two, If I wanted I could have gottenr "rid" of you ages ago, I want to have a discussion in a civil and polite tone. If I drop what you suggest completely there is no need to discuss anything. Both sides should start equal and each sides voices should be equaly heard, IE if you claim that chillderen were deliberately murdered, there should be a counter mimidiately after, etc.

Here is a graph how article is:

Pro genocide|||-------------------------------------------------------------------------Against Genocide

How it should be:

Pro genocide||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||--------------------------------------Against Genocide

Mind that it isnt in the midle --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 03:33, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Oh sure, you didn't wanted to get rid of me, I guess that's why you have been posting others member pages about me time and again. Would you be asking my question please? Answer please, will you drop the: "Two sides should be presented as equaly valid." ??? Answer to that, stop skipping that question and answer it. Fadix 03:38, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Yes I am, if you cant folow wikipedia policy of neutrality and declare I am biased, keep on personal attacks, I have my window of asking your removal. I told them not to take drastic actions. Talk to me like you would to your father, with respect. Like I am talking to you. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 03:41, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Does the "I am" mean you drop your "Two sides should be presented as equaly valid." ? Yes or no? Fadix 03:45, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Discussed below. Take a breath, seriously... Chill. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 03:47, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yes or no?

Neither, I will not accept a one sided article no. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 03:45, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It can't be neither. Or you drop the "two equaly valid position" or you don't. Please answer to that question. You claimed being sincere, so I ask you a sincere question. Will you drop it? Yes or a no? I don't think it is a difficult question Coolcat.

Like it or not and I give you a sincere answer, I refuse to accept a ONE sided article. Its a simple english sentence. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 08:10, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Relocation Camps vs. Concentration Camps

The Ottoman Empire had set up a recorded twenty-five to twenty-six of what is often reffered as "relocation camps or "concentration camps": (Deir-Zor, Ras Ul-Ain, Bonzanti, Mamoura, Intili, Islahiye, Radjo, Katma, Karlik, Azaz, Akhterim, Mounboudji, Bab, Tefridje, Lale, Meskene, Sebil, Dipsi, Abouharar, Hamam, Sebka, Marat, Souvar, Hama, Homs and Kahdem), under the command of Çukru Kaya, one of the right hands of Talaat Pasha.

The majority of of the camps were situated mostly near the Iraqi and Syrian frontiers, and some was only temporary transit camps. After reports of deaths, the camps Lale, Tefridje, Dipsi, While Del-El, and Ras Ul-Ain were built specifically for those who had a life expectancy of a few days. Other camps were only used as temporary mass burial zones (Radjo, Katma, and Azaz) and were closed by Fall 1915.

The majority of the guards inside all the camps were Armenians.

Even though nearly all the camps (all major ones were) were open air, according to records, some were not. Other camps existed, accoding to the Military court, there where irregular Red Crescent camps that were used to kill by morphine injection, (two of Saib (Health inspector) colleagues, Drs. Ragib and Vehib testified during the court) and where the bodies were thrown into the Black sea. In other instances, according to records, there were some small-scale killing and burning camps, where the Armenian population was told to present itself in a given area, and burned en mass. Other records from the Military tribunal, suggest gassing installations existed as well. For instance, during the Military tribunal, testimonies in the effect that Dr. Saib and Nail, an Ittihadist deputy, were heading two school buildings used as child extermination camps. Both Saib and Nail were allegedly in charge of providing the list of children who were to be distributed among the Muslim populace; the rest of the children were to be sent to the mezzanine floor to be killed by a mass gassing installation. The Children were sent there under the pretext to take baths, but were poisoned instead.

• Diferent parties refer to the camps diferently. Section should be rewriten in such a way that it neither proves they are indeed concentration camps nor should it appear as relocation camps.--Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 18:44, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Different parties don't name it differently, you name it differently. It was called such, and should be called such, the word "relocation camp" has never been used once to call those camps, you can not just throw words that you like. Fadix 00:17, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• I already told you I will not be satisfied with that. The definition of the camps differ between people who support the Genocide Thesis and who are against. Do a google search if you like. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 01:56, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Those are not relocation camps, the only things that have been called such were the transit camps in the Syrian desert, and not the concentration camps. This is not about satisfying you, this is about calling this like they are called. And don't ask me to do a google search, there is no such expression like "relocation camp" used, we can not use terms that you try to apply. This is not how it work. Fadix 02:49, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Yes, but the word concentration implies genocide, the word reloaction implies other words, calling them just camps does not sound right. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 03:02, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Concentration camp does not imply genocide, it imply a place where people are concentrated there by force. A relocation camp is more a transit camp, it was later mistakfuly used for the Japanese Americans, but is not used for the Armenian camps, the term has been used few times for the transit camps though, but both were different. Fadix 03:09, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• I understand that but the word does not stay at a point between the two vies hence NOT neutral. You have to asume both parties views. in one word. That is the kind of neutrality we ar elooking for. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 03:35, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It can not be called relocation camp, it isn't even a word used. It can not be called simply a camp, because there were different camps, the term used was a concentration camp, and there is no way to call it else. Were people not concentrated there, and by force? There is no other way around... there can be no other term here. The term itself has nothing to do with whatever or not there was a genocide. It has everything to do regarding whaever or not people were concentrated there, they were, so what the hell is the problem to call something by its name? Fadix 03:40, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Like I told you we need a 3rd word. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 03:45, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"The entrance of these concentration camps could well bear the legend imprinted on the gates of Dante's hell 'Ye who enter here, abandon all hope.'" (A. A. Turkei 183/46, A8613, German consul Rossler's February 14, 1917 report). I can load this pages with refferences to what was called concentration camp. It was concentration camps, an there can be no 3rd words. The thing has a name, and should be called by its name. Fadix 03:58, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Like I told you we need a 3rd word. Please do not insist. There can always be a 3rd word to define things. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 03:45, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No! There can't, we can not invent an expression not used in the academia... It is called such, and should be called such. Fadix 04:06, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Can you find a third word anyways? Try working with me for once. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 03:06, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Article should confirm the Armenian Genocide thesis

That is not how we do things in wikipedia. The article should not convince the user that the Genocide did happen. Instead we need to find a way to rewrite this article in such a way that it should neither be declared as "Armenian Genocide propoganda" nor should it declare as "Turkish propoganda dismissal". --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 02:26, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No! This is not what neutrality is. As a veteran, you still did not understood what is neutral. Neutrality is about presenting positions and their critics. It is about presenting the best arguments for each sides and their critics, by giving as much space for an argument as it is given place in the Academia. I did that in the beggining by presenting an entry presenting the Turkish government point of view. But you refused it. What you want is to merge both side as one, as if there was two equal theses. You can not present two positions as equaly valid, because the suggestion would be POV. So again, we are at square one. Why am I surprised here? Fadix 02:42, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The views of the Turkish Goverment is not wikipedia material, neither are the views of the Armenian side. Are you trying to prove Armenian Genocide here? I am asking to talk. I URGE you to talk back at me in a politer tone. I am not your enemy. I am not remotely knowlegable in the matter, I found sites that conflicted with your views suggesting bias. I need your help to make this article in such a way that disputed tag becomes obsolite. Please refrain from "I know best" attitude, as compared to me you do. However you cannot dictate facts and fiction, you hold one side of this story, that is clear given that there are websites in google top 10 that are conflicting your views. I want to improve article quality. Article is currently one sided supporting the "most widely accepted" genocide thesis. That aint NPOV. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 02:55, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

There are no "Armenian side" view, there is not a single Westerner, including the McCarthys of this word that will call the Armenian genocide as the "Armenian side," you must be the first one here. So, again, you just demonstrate above that you are against neutrality. You don't want a section regarding the Turkish government point of view, because you want to merge views and delete who says what. You want to mislead the reader... and until your drop your "presenting both sides as equaly valid" I will be ignoring you... because this is POV, and until you don't see that, I will not waste my time with this tactic of yours to sabotage the article.

I am ready to present the Turkish government point of view, it is a take or leave. You decide, this is the only way around, because what you propose is against Wikipedia policy Fadix 03:06, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You need to tune down your attitude, I am not your pet. The article should be based on NPOV meaning neither views should be present. You are lecturing me on wikipedia policy, I recomend stoping that. You should not declare yourself a wikipedia policy expert. You are welcome to present it here, not in the article. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 03:38, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You don't understand Wikipedia policy, this has nothing to do with attacks. I ask you again the question. Will you drop your "presenting both sides as equaly valid" ? Kindly answer to that please.

I will not accept a one sided article no. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 03:45, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand your answer. Answer by a yes and a no! Will you drop your "presenting both sides as equaly valid" ?

There is no discussion starting with Coolcat

Coolcat, I will be reverting every edits you make, you are a vandalist of articles, you are ignored. - Unsigned fadix

You cannot kick me out of the discussion, you have no authority, right, power. You reverted spelling fixes, Continue abusing revert power, I dare ya. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 01:17, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You have introduced in the article much more than grammer correction, you have valdalised the article by introducing non-accurate informations, it was beyong NPOV or POV... you can not suggest this is questionned between parties. This is about the large majority from one side, and turkey on the other... and I will oppose to anything that would suggest that the Academia is disied, if you do that, you vandalise the article, and that is what you did. Fadix 01:39, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Do a history comparasion, you are not acting in good failth. I made edits and removed them on my own. If you arent doing history comparasion how can you declare me of a vandal? You had no idea what I changed. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 01:51, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I will gie you the benefit of the doubt this time for paking the paragraph. Fadix 02:37, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

When this user complains about lack of good faith, it is with a cynicism that disgraces all of us. --Wetman 02:01, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Colours

I introduced this color sceme for a reason. It makes it easier on how we are thinking. I changed several of you guys comments to illustrate the concept. If you are irritated I am sorry. Colors makes it easier. If you are for a spesific argument you should use color green, if you are against color red, if you are neither for or against use color brown. Also use this indenting unindented, for, 1 indend (ie :) against 2 indents (ie ::) neither for or against.

You will be discussiong this, there is no way out. I introduced something we can discuss easier, if You have a better sugestion let me know. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 02:41, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

We've been there, and discussed about it, you can try using multi-colors to make that official, ... what is important is the content. You have an intend to dissolve the article. I want a mediator. Fadix 02:45, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You think mediator will just declare your views as neutral and kick me away? We do not need a mediator, mediation service is over booked. The kind of a mediator you will get is a person who will hear my views and your views, make suggestions, he wont be able to dictate anyhting. I suggested we start analyzing article form scratch. You dont want to discuss. If you dont want to discuss, why are you here? --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 02:51, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You do not propose discussion, and it is clear now, of what do you want me to discuss about? You ignore the topic. You want to present your views, and some are even not found in any academic works, you can not present your point of views, or expressions... and you can not merge two sides and present two positions as equaly valid. Will you drop your claim of presenting two views as equaly valid? Just answer that out so we can know how sincere you are. Fadix 03:01, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Will you drop requesting that article be one sided? --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 03:46, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC) I already answered you. N-E-I-T-H-E-R! A one sided article is unacceptable. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 08:12, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Never heard og chronology? I asked you a simple question, please answer Fadix 03:53, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Neither, I will not accept a one sided article no. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 03:45, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Still, you did not clearly answer my question. Just by a yes and a no, only by a yes and a no. Will you drop your claim of presenting two views as equaly valid positions? YES or a NO, only a yes or a no.

Instead of article wide discussion why dont you refer to smaller point, if you cant back down on any point, I cant either. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 04:05, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I am waiting Coolcat, that you answer to my question, by a yes or a no. Fadix 04:07, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I will not. That is irrelevant. Time will tell, we are already discussing the article, I will not let it stay one sided. I cant give you a clearer answer.

--Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 20:42, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Lets try this

• Regardless of the article, lets try color format.
• Instead of article wide discussion, lets discuss smaller points.

--Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 03:05, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Apologies for not understanding the format and such - but here are my comments and suggestions

I have been reading this section - article and talk - for several weeks now and I really think that most here have lost their sanity on this issue. Really - I can't believe the poisoned environment and the fact that the discussion has gone so far off base. Specifically I can certainly understand Fadix's frustrations - while at the same time understanding that he can be difficult to deal with (not that his heart or knowledge is wrong - it isn't at all - he is mostly right on the money IMO - its just his approach is perhaps a bit caustic). But ultimately I have to blame Mr Cool Cat for failing to properly understand this issue and for creating an environment that is clearly unacceptable and is not conducive for presenting actual facts or the truth.

Before I continue I wish to state that I am somewhat new to posting here and don't quite understand the dynamics of it - where this will even end up and how it will look - so bear with me please. I also don't quite understand the proposed color scheme - and perhaps this is a place to start. From what I gather posts are to be made as either "pro" "against" or "Neither pro or against" - well I just don't see at all how this will work and I can't imagine the same approach being attempted in either the Holocaust section or in any other genocide section (where the perpetrators are given – as you will – “equal time” to deny and/or present justification for their actions.

Face it Cool cat - aside from a very small but vocal contingent (based entirely within or beholden to the current Turkish government) there really is no debate concerning the Armenian Genocide (as being a genocide and in acceptance of certain basic facts) - no serious debate certainly. It is not at all an "Armenian Position" any more then if someone where to term affirmation of the Holocaust a "Jewish Position" - so please - if you really feel the need to interject - get yourself properly educated first. I find it curious that you seem very quick to accept the various posts by Tourque as factual - when his sources and presentation are clearly quite questionable and where they are basically unsupported from any broad academic nor are they generally properly sourced or put into proper context - yet you discount the very broadly accepted, supported and well known accounts and analysis that Fadix as provided - again assigning each as a "perspective" when this clearly is not the case and does not apply. What you term the “Armenian perspective” is in fact the accepted academic and historical perspective/position – what you deem the “Turkish Perspective” is just that – and no more. During the years that these events occurred there were hundreds and hundreds of newspaper articles and eyewitness accounts and reports that tracked and corroborated the acts of genocide that occurred and were perpetrated by the Turks against the Armenian population of the Ottoman Empire and various (non-political) international aid groups mobilized to assist in providing for those who were dying and suffering. The evidence supporting the Genocide thesis is so overwhelming and supported among scholars that to deny such is akin to denying any other basically accepted and well supported set of historic events and is equivalent to questioning if the earth truly revolves around the sun. The same is true for these exaggerated charges that there was some sort of civil war occurring and that the victimized Armenian community had any real power to fight back as the Turkish propaganda (from the time and continually being developed) attempts to assert. There is no factual evidence to support this counter-contention.

I have no issue with presenting a "Turkish version" of events - as such - in an addendum - and the whole issue of the history of Armenian attempts at recognition and Turkish attempts of denial could and should be an addendum to any discussion of this Genocide - as the fact that this is occurring and that deniers such as Tourque and the Turkish Government have managed to deflect the issues. It is also important to note that the Turkish government’s continued well funded and unrelenting campaign of denial (combined with its strategic position and its political leverage) have made it difficult for many nations to officially recognize the Armenian Genocide as such – but this does not in any way mean that was not truly a genocide as it meets every possible definition for such. Additionally the official Turkish campaign to deny that it was genocide essentially continues the campaign of the Genocide itself against the Armenians as a people (and this point is widely accepted among genocide scholars) and this means that this is a living ongoing event and not something that is just purely historical. A presentation of the historical and ongoing attempts on the part of Turkey to officially downplay, deny and (internally) avoid discussion of even the historical Armenian presence in Anatolia should as well be a key factor in this discussion. Likewise readers should be aware that the current laws in Turkey prescribe a penalty of death to anyone within Turkey who affirms the Armenian Genocide (I seem to recall you making a comment that most Turks do not believe it to be a genocide - well - one needn't not just wonder or speculate why this is the case). Additionally they have maintained quite a narrow and self serving educational program for their people that ensures that they have no mention of nor certainly any debate concerning the allegations or issue of the Genocide – in fact they teach their people a clearly concocted version of history that absurdly claims genocide against the Turks on the part of the Armenians. And as unbelievable as this sounds they have built monuments within their nation to this effect. Can you imagine how disgusting such a thing is to the families of Armenian victims of the Genocide (and anyone concerned with social justice and/or with any kind of mind or heart?) and how truly absurd such contentions are to any real student of history who can at the very least see that there are tens of millions of Turks remaining in Anatolia and a few thousand Armenians living their now - at best.

Mr. Cool Cat you clearly have no clue concerning the actual history and facts concerning this Genocide, nor can you apparently separate fact from fiction in this matter - I respectfully suggest that you remove yourself from any kind of moderatorship concerning this issue. Please again consider that if this were a discussion of the Holocaust/Shoa - and you decided as moderator that a presentation of the Nazi propaganda against the Jews and subsequent revisionist history denying that a Holocaust took place should be presented on equal footing with the very well known and accepted history of such as we all know and accept it - think how well this would be received and think how the victims and their descendents might feel about your supposed call for “fairness”. This issue is no different. So I suggest that you let Mr Fadix - who clearly understands the events of the Genocide a great deal and who seemingly possesses an amazing collection of material and sources concerning the Genocide - write the article (the latest attempt seems pretty close in many regards). And really I think Wikipedia should be grateful for his interest and attention to this matter. He is clearly capable of writing an accurate and detailed account. I think he should better footnote and source his presentation however and that others should be given opportunity to input and revise (if there is some consensus that it requires such). Then an addendum coving any alternate takes can be added as well as additional discussion on these talk pages. But it is very clear that Fadix is accurately portraying the underlying facts/truths and history of the Armenian Genocide. He should be allowed to present such.

What may follow and provide value are additional discussions of the environment that led to the Genocide to include causation, rationale and other related issues (very much can be said for and presented concerning why Turks may have wanted to eliminate Armenians/the Armenian nation within their empire – on a great many levels). And there would be value in a discussion of various events that occurred prior to and following the conduct of the actual Genocide itself (including the very revealing military tribunals conducted by the Ottomans in 1919 and the subsequent efforts by Ataturk’s nationalists to avoid the repercussions of the Treaty of Sevres and ensure that Armenians and other minorities were no longer a factor in modern Turkey). Other items of interest might be providing a chronology of the deportations and massacres - a really good one seems to be lacking in many presentations – and it would go far in promoting a good understanding of the systemic, well planned and organized, and widespread nature of the deportations and massacres. Also useful would be some side discussions regarding the actual number who died/were killed (and why there is uncertainty/debate) and what happened to those who escaped or why some were untouched, and perhaps some presentation of the massacres (and genocide) of Assyrians and Pontic Greeks that occurred at this time as well. Another worthwhile sidebar would be a discussion of Turkish deaths from war and conditions of war and other related failings of the Young Turks movement and the rise of Ataturk and the Nationalists as relates to the position of the non-Turkish minorities in Anatolia. An accurate presentation of the role of Armenian revolutionary political groups – some of their initial ties to the Young Turk movement and the dynamics of their split and why the Young Turks would then want to make villains/scapegoats of them; as well as the extent of their insurgent activities in Eastern Anatolia may all prove enlightening and relevant side discussions. These various issues as well as a number of others might all be subjects for additional related sidebars for presentation and discussion. Just my suggestions.

The approach you (Cool Cat) suggest concerning an approach to properly present this issue is totally unworkable and unacceptable IMO. Again, the issue of whether this was genocide is not really a debatable one – there are not two legitimate “sides” to be presented. All serious unbiased scholars and academics that are aware of the determining events accept it as genocide. It is fundamentally acknowledged that the Young Turks planned genocide against the Armenian population within the Ottoman Empire. The evidence clearly documents that they successfully carried out such a genocide and that the great majority of victims were essentially an unarmed and overwhelmingly peaceful and innocent minority population within the Empire who happened to be in their way (in a number of respects) and who also had property and valuables for the taking (certainly a motivating factor that was well proven in Ottoman tribunals after world war I ended). An overwhelming body of documentary evidence supports these conclusions. And the lack of Armenians in Turkey/Anatolia today – where they had lived and flourished for thousands of years - is further evidence that a genocide indeed occurred --[THOTH] 21:26, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

There are many things to be added, and this is for what I have not started footnoting, as I said, I am working on two other entries, one regarding the Ottoman Armenian population, another regarding the losses. Those would have their entry. You can read the progression of one of them in a link provided from my user page. Another thing, I don't believe that discussion about Armenian revolutionaries etc. and Turkish deaths etc. is appopriate in the genocide entry, because what I am planning would reach 32Kb, and it is advised to not go over this, adding other elements that are not directly linked with the genocide entry might take space not leaving enough for the important points. Besides, there is the World War I entry to include other peoples losses.

Regarding the Pontus Greeks, I don't think this is really linked with the Armenian genocide, it happened a little after, while what happened to the Assyrians happened in the same time. I was thinking about that as well, more particularly the Assyrian genocide, that is pretty well documented, and there are some distinctions with the Armenian cases, different dates etc., . And maybe it should have its independent entry as well as the Pontian Greeks, we could add them in the "See also" section. Fadix 01:52, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Guideline

• Story has 3 sides actualy,
  • Turkish Propoganda (anti-genocide extreme with made up stories),
  • Armenian propoganda (pro genocide extreme with made up stories), and
  • the NPOV which is based on how to describe events on both sides perspective.
    • Why did the armenian elites got arrested has two answers. why did the armenians were prompted to migrate has also two or more answers.
    • I like to put factual information, however "motives" are always debatible.
    • I will not accept propoganda from either side. Just to let you know a turkish newspaper Hurriyet started a serries explainng the armenian genocide, while My turkish is Glitchy I think I can make sense of it. This will give me some insight they talk about the arrest of the Armenian Elites for example, they aslo talk about the organisation and about Teşkilát-ı Mahsusa and criminals like "Topal Osman" being a part of it, also talks about rumors of Armenians carrying gold promoting looting at the time, sounds factual and makes sense. The news paper is trying to cover this seriously I believe. It presents the Turkish version with limited to no propoganda. You have to realise they will probably dispute the Genocide but acknowlege the dead. While a newspaper is not your primary or secondary proof of things, it gives you the insight, doesnt look biased although the article did not started developing.

• Article can exeed 32 kilobytes. We can summerise some cases. Asserian genocide and the greek genocides have nothing to do with this topic, we can develope those later, one problem at a time.

• Establishing conclusions like "Armenian Genocide did happen" is no way to start a dicsussion. Lets discuss matters one at a time. I have good intentions however you think of me as an enemy of some sorth. I will request you the way you word certain things for example so they are not in the "Murderes Turks" format instead in a more politicaly acceptable tone with words not as strong as murder. I am telling you this advance so you can be prepared. Dont acuse me of things, "you clearly have no knowlege, I know best go away" is not propoer way to discuss in wikipedia. If you want to contribute please follow good Wikipedia:Wikiquette. If you cant be nice to me, I cant be nice to you. When I or you change things in the article, do not revert, instead comment out the part you dont like so I can put more effort to it. Commenting out basicaly tells me "Look, I dont like this chunk of text try a different aproach", while reverting is more vandal like. You are welcome not to follow this but I suggest you use the 3 revert rule. All parties involved should be primarily concerened with improving the quality of the article, no one should try to push their views to prove or disprove the genocide baselessly, nothing such as, "genocide did happen because my uncle said so" stuff. I am not mediating this article. I presented my mediation template as a way to discuss. I recomend you use it you are free to do what you want. In wikipedia conversations you dont ask the other party to leave who oposes your views or conflcits with them. You have to have a very positive aproach for the best result. Please lets evade what Fadix and Torque had between each other, presonal insults, asking people to leave, "I know best you suck" is not the proper way.
• Another thing is you should summerise when you present your cases. Present them in bullets when applicable. Have each argument in its own category and sign your posts.
• Please do not add material to the article withought us reaching a concensious, I havent and I expect same from you. When I talk you listen and reflect, Then I listen then reflect. This could be one of the best developed articles on the web. *Factuality of genocide is debatible. Factuality of physics concepts are also debatible. Wikipedia is based on concensious, you cannot declare what you say regarding a contraverisal article like this one to be accepted without questions asked. This is how we do things in wikipedia for articles of this nature.
• Wording is very important, how you say things should NOT be offensive by your average Turkish reader. If you want to achieve anything in this article is to win support I presume, you cant do that by establishing statistics forexample regarding scholars, wheather thats factual or not. I can understand that you want to push your case into the article, you should hear the views of the other side, we can make this article based on provable facts. The childeren massacred currrently is propoganda material (asuming it havent changed). At least the way its word. You should not present anything with absolute certainty unless the otherside accepts it. A reader is more than likely to pass this article without reading it due to the "disputed" tag, lets work in such a way that the disputed tag becomes obsolite.
• Do not make assumptions regarding me or anyone.
• If you want to be a part of the discusion as I stated above I urge you to follow good Wikipedia:Wikiquette, while I am not acusing you of not following, I urge you to take a look at the article. Also check out Wikipedia:Vandalism to see what vandalism is and is not.

--Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 08:19, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

---

I am responding to the points Coolcat raises above.

He says this "Story has 3 sides actualy,"

Actually, this is not a "story", this is history. Perhaps history can be told in different ways, but only one thing actually happened. This is what you seem to fail to accept. You seem to think that if two sides (or three) have different versions, they are all equal. What everyone is saying here is that this is obviously not so. Only one thing happened, and by and large, it is quite clear. POV does not mean that every imaginary tale can be given equal weight. Sharon cannot come here and write Israel is not occupying the West Bank and Gaza, nobody can come and write that Azerbaijan has no oil, Neo-Nazis cannot come and say there was no Holocaust. What needs to be understood is that only one party denies there was a genocide - the Turkish govt. The only reasons they deny it are 1) misplaced pride and 2) fear of reparations. What they should instead be thinking is to find their honor and admit to the wrongs of the past, and if they can make some amends, to do so.

Finally, nothing written here should offend Turks at all. Why should they be offended by anything that has happened in the past? The only thing they should be offended by (on this topic) is that their government is denying the truth in their good name. That is wrong and fortunately many Turks are beginning to speak out now that censorship is loosening up. Genocide recognition by Turkey is just a matter of time, but in the meantime a lot of minds there that have not been exposed to anything not approved by the Turkish Government to read or see or hear must be opened up.

Oh wait, no, one last thing. I just want to point out that even countries (like the US) which do not fully recognize the genocide on a nationwide level, when they debate the issue in their legislatures, NEVER debate whether or not there was a genocide. That is ALWAYS accepted by ALL parties. The debate is between those who want to recognize the truth officially, and those who do not want to offend the Turkish government. When Bush issues his April 24th statement, he uses the definition of Genocide, but not the word. When the Turkish Ambassador writes about the genocide in private, he does not call it an alleged genocide, he calls it a genocide...

Everyone knows. Everyone agrees. Things are moving progressively in one direction...

--RaffiKojian 15:52, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Response to “Guideline”

Good points Raffi. I agree with all that you have said. (with some caveat that I am not so optimistic as you are!) - I also think that the reasons for Genocide denial are not so simple and are multifaceted and that admission of such is admission of a lie that is much more far reaching as it pertains to the (ethnically clean as it were) foundations of the Turkish Republic itself and the view that Turks have concerning themselves as victorious victims from World War I - and more...the Turkish society has been intentionally kept in the dark and immature on these issues and for many reasons...reasons that IMO go far beyond just the Genocide (and admission of such) itself.

It is clear that by Coolcat's definition of how this article on the Genocide is to be presented that there is no real possibility for such (a truthful/accurate account). Most Turks (it seems - at least most vocal Turks) are offended by the insinuation that there was a Genocide - thus by definition Coolcat is telling us that we cannot make reference to what occurred as genocide. Secondly - most Turks - again it seems (and in my first post I discussed why) are offended and disbelieving of the facts of the Genocide and that the Young Turks killed so many innocents - they do not accept this and they go to great lengths to deny that this occurred. Anyway - I would love to contribute to this effort - it is (could be) perhaps a great place to present a nice (and I agree: unbiased and without rhetoric) summary of events - however it will be impossible with Coolcat's approach. As Raffi has said - all "sides" are not equal - it is impossible to present them as such. A presentation of the false (and at best highly exaggerated) claims from the Turkish side (as truth) will do nothing at getting to the real history and in fact will be a great disservice. I do not wish to be involved in such an effort. In fact I suggest that we let Mr. Tourque write the entire section and let him say whatever he wishes. (and just leave it as disputed or what have you) - anyone with any sense will understand what has occurred...

Some additional points - why would a present day Turkish newspaper be considered as some kind of a better or more accurate source of information then what scholars and the historical record present? And how are you Coolcat - qualified to judge? Of course they won't say it was genocide - its illegal to say so remember? Etc However I should add that I welcome the news that this issue is perhaps being presented (in Turkey) without the usual rhetoric. Still – one can understand the constraints and that even at best it will likely not present the “true” underlying rationales and events – as many of these concepts are difficult to present in such a format as well as in regards to the legal issues and such as mentioned earlier.

I highly dispute your "3 sides" argument having any validity. You call the Armenian views (a misnomer to begin with - it is essentially the world’s view etc) "propaganda" - and you claim that by serving equal parts of the Turkish and "Armenian" "propaganda" that you will arrive at the (NPOV) truth???? Am I the only one who sees the utter absurdity of this on a great many levels? (I address this more towards the end as well)

Pontian and particularly Assyrian Genocides do certainly warrant mention and linking with Armenian Genocide issue. Perhaps (Coolcat) you will moderate these sections as well and accept the "Turkish position" that these people were likewise traitorous (and deserving of elimination)…but perhaps it was the murderous Armenians with their grand army, concepts of racial/religious manifest destiny and history of massacre and such who killed them and drove them from their lands. Yeah – must be it…

Coolcat - pure and simple it is clear to me that it is likely that you are a (very slick) apologist for the Turks and that your mission is essentially to filibuster and outlast Fadix etc on this issue to ensure that essentially a great deal of doubt is cast on the truth and that the discredited "Turkish version" is elevated as essentially equal to the actual historical record (which it is not). You actions and position here lead me to no other conclusion.

I should add that I have long championed sympathy with the idea that to properly understand the context of the Armenian Genocide it is necessary to understand both the Turkish perspective (legitimate and otherwise) as well as all aspects of the (chaotic and highly stressed) environment (and related history) that led to this issue coming to a head as it did - with tragic consequences to the Armenian population of the Ottoman Empire/Anatolia. This does not mean one accepts the propaganda lines (as you are proposing) - one must deal with the facts and events as best they can be known and delve past the rhetoric (which does exist to some degree on both sides – however it is clear which presentation is more truthful and accepted by serious and knowing people as in line with the actual facts). Still - the fact is that these events meet every known definition of Genocide and that there is no valid contention of civil war nor can there be any question that what occurred was mass murder – planned and committed by the state (or more accurately a party apparatus that had control of the state) and that it was committed against a people who were overwhelmingly peaceful and innocent (and largely incapable of defending themselves) - etc - these are the essential historical facts and they cannot just be thrown aside and the revisionist and unsupported version accepted as history. Certainly there are many aspects and details that warrant presentation for a thorough understanding of the specifics, the causation and context – but essentially this is what occurred and what needs to be presented.

Again - your (Coolcat) willingness to do so (obscure the historical record by accepting obvious revisionist propaganda) is testament to your inappropriateness to moderate this effort – what can I say? And again - what you propose is the equivalent of neo-nazi views being held equal with - well everyone else’s! Would this in any way be acceptable in a presentation of the Holocaust? Is this approach even remotely being taken there or in any other Genocide section? And its like allowing Biblical creationists to present their version of biology as a legitimate scientific alternative to the Theory of Evolution....I mean what should they do over there - try to come up with a version that melds each "side" and present it as the compromise (non offense to anyone) version? Would this lead to an accurate portrayal of (the scientific facts of) evolutionary biology? No! Clearly not! And neither will your approach lead to a truthful presentation of the Armenian Genocide! --THOTH 16:56, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• I havent had a chance to aproach it properly. You fail to see that I am not trying to obscure histortical facts. i am merely trying to present definitons of things from both sides perspective. I am not Turkish hence my national pride can not do anything woth this. I am not saying Genocide didnt happen, I am saying you cant present it as if it were a solid historic fact, not untill you convinced me to the validity of the material. I sugest you stop accusing me of been a revisionist, I am not sure what that means either. I know the deffinition of Genocie, Armenia related articles appear to be abusively filled with it. There are diferent versions of the story, we should come up with a version all 3 sides agree, I have no reason to pleieve that the scientific comunity widely accepts the genocide, nor does the scientific comunity widely deny it. There is no concensius I know of. I suggest you use your energy on somethimg more productive. Something else than why i should not be a part of this conversation. If the armenian Genocide case is strong enopugh as it is claimed it does not leed introduction statements that starts with conclusions. When I refer to Turkish or Armenian side of the story I mean pro and anti genocide views, this is shared by scientists, the views of both pro genocide and anti genocide thesis should be investigated. I am not suggesting that we dispute everything, I am saying we should investigate matters carefully. You should follow NPOV on any article that is contraversial. Instead of acusing me of things or pointing out why I am such a horrible person, I recommend you present your case You claim you hold both views equaly. I, Fadix and others will be the judge of that. You apperantly follow the pro-genocide thesis, meaning if you remove me there will be no oposition, hence there will be absolutely no way to know if the other view is presented in a factual manner.
• Also you are recomended to follow good Wikipedia:Wikiquette, so far you havent.--Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 17:34, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Cool Colours

This talk page is in black & white. — Davenbelle 10:04, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

You cannot edit what I post. Please don't. -- Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 22:48, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Mr. "Cool Cat":

<blink>Do NOT use html in section headings; it pollutes the history with default edit summaries.</blink>

• Not quite, your blink tag is irritating as it does not work. I can use any method to post. If you have aproblem with that find wiki policy that does not allow html. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 01:35, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

<blink>Do NOT color-code user's comments.</blink>

• I can if I like, just because I am nice I wont, however do not remove what I already posted in colors.

<blink>Do NOT use level-one headings.</blink> See: Wikipedia:How to edit a page#Sections, paragraphs, lists and lines

• If you insis. Ok. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 01:35, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

<blink>Do NOT transclude anything from your user space into articles or talk pages. You have no right to do that.</blink>

• Sure I do, people do it all the time. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 01:35, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

<blink>Do NOT present yourself as a mediator; there is no acceptance of you in that role here.</blink>

• I never did, I clearly stated that when I inserted my mediation tag. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 01:35, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You should take User:Tony Sidaway's advice and "walk away from this one".

— Davenbelle 00:40, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

Your insistance on removing me from wikipedia instead of discussing is ... intresting ... good luck with that. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 01:00, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your assistance with the process! — Davenbelle 02:43, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

You are very welcome, anything else I can do for you? --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 22:10, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It is clear to me that Mr Coolcat rquires an education in Genocide/Holocaust denial

Let us assume that Mr Coolcat is just purely ignorant concerning this issue - and not actually malevolent. I believe that without a proper understanding of genocide denial one might fall into its trap as he apparently has. Some of us who have dealt with genocide and holocaust issues are familiar with the pitfalls but one who is not may unwittingly become their instrument. Giving him the benefit of the doubt – this is what I think is occurring here. Obviously the approach he advocates is completely unacceptable because it exactly falls into the denial trap – this is an exact case example. It is clear that there is no possibility of acceptable resolution as long as he holds firm to the approach that would be completely unacceptable in any other genocide subject area. If we have no ability to remove him then we must educate him and hope for the best. Otherwise I would advocate just boycotting the article and instead concentrate on making other genocide related contributors aware of what we are up against.

I want to start by posting some excepts and a link to a recent genocide denial conference that was held at UCLA in February.

http://www.international.ucla.edu/article.asp?parentid=21398

excerpts: The People Who Cover Up Genocide UCLA panel looks at people and governments who deny or explain away the Armenian genocide, the Holocaust, the killing of Tutsis in Rwanda in 1994, and the ongoing massacres in the Darfur provinces of Sudan. … Before looking at the motives of the Holocaust denial movement, Richard Eaton discussed their methods. While there are some outright lies, he said, they more commonly take isolated facts out of context and present them to mean something very different. This is usually done in a context that attempts to sound scholarly and avoids overt anti-Semitic declarations. "They pick very specific items out of the vast subject of the Holocaust and say this didn't happen that way and so forth." The deniers' strategy has been to pressure legitimate historians to debate them in public, as though their antifactual positions have equal validity with the body of established historical facts and accredited university scholars … The Institute for Historical Review and similar Holocaust denial groups write heavily footnoted essays with a scholarly tone. "All it takes to dispel this is to dig into their footnotes and see what the original sources actually say. But they know that the good majority of people are not going to do this." (my note concerning the above: it is difficult for us “amature” part timers to devote the proper time and effort to debunk this sort of thing. This is one reason why Coolcat’s approach is a “no-win” – it will not be possible to debunk everything (though Fadix has done an amazing and highly credible job – probably about as much effort as can be expected) more: http://yessem.blogspot.com/2005/03/patterns-of-genocide-denial-1.html http://www.unitedhumanrights.org/Turkish_distortions_denial.htm The following link is to a report on a Genocide denial conference from 2002 (selected excerpts to follow): (note these are not Armenians but genocide scholars who are fully accepting that it is a genocide and that it is denied much as Holocaust deniers do…): http://www.hairenik.com/armenianweekly/jan_2002/history001.html The conference moderator was Professor Roger Smith, Professor of Government at the College of William and Mary and a renowned expert on Genocide Studies. In addition to teaching and publishing widely on various aspects of genocide and its denial, Professor Smith is also the co-founder and former president of the International Association of Genocide Scholars. Formally opening the conference, Professor Smith began by briefly mentioning the impressive and diverse panel, comprised of a group of prominent experts including Samantha Power, the Executive Director Harvard University's Carr Center for Human Rights Policy; Professor Peter Ronayne of the University of Virginia and the Federal Executive Institute; Professor Christopher Simpson of American University's School of Communications; and Professor Henry Theriault, the Coordinator of Worcester State College's Center for the Study of Human Rights and visiting Professor at Clark University's Center for Holocaust and Genocide Studies. … Professor Christopher Simpson… presentation featured four main points: establishing that denial is functional, that genocide creates its own unique constituency, that denial is rooted in geopolitics, and that "standing up" for genocide recognition is crucial. Formulating three elements of genocide, Simpson explained that genocide comprises the targeting of a group, most often by race or ethnicity, the intent to destroy the targeted group, and finally, the acts carrying out the group destruction. Based on the foundation of these elements, the Armenian Genocide is "a genocide without doubt," declared Simpson. Simpson then turned to the historical record of the Armenian Genocide, establishing the factors that prevented the rehabilitation of the Turkish perpetrators and encouraged the bystanders in genocide denial. He specifically cited the fact that although the Treaty of Sevres of 1920 and the Treaty of Lausanne attempted to effectively remodel the region after World War I, the legacy created by allowing much of the Turkish political and military elite responsible for the Armenian Genocide to retain power in modern Turkey can be seen in genocide denial to this day. He went on to show that the failure to reform Turkey and the Allied policies allowing the institutions of Ottoman Turkey to maintain power in the new modern Turkey transformed by Attaturk forged the foundation for the denial of the Armenian Genocide. This failure also prevented any real justice for the Armenians and led to a strong, nationalist Turkish constituency for genocide denial. Concluding by stressing the need to "stand up" for recognition of the Armenian Genocide, Professor Simpson demonstrated the methods of denial propaganda and educated the audience on the best means to combat such revisionism. He explained that the modern approach of genocide denial is through exploiting doubt and fostering skepticism, citing the common refrain "let's leave the Armenian Genocide to the historians." This propaganda of denial, Simpson urged, must be met with truth and opposed with logic. He added that there should be no denial of issues of principled, established historical fact such as the Armenian Genocide. … Professor Henry Theriault, presenting the case of Japanese wartime atrocities in East Asia from 1931-1945, with a look at comparative dimensions of denial. Theriault, no stranger to the Armenian-American community, teaches at Worcester State College and Clark University and conducted research in Japan comparing the denials of the Japanese atrocities with the Holocaust and the Armenian and other genocides. He is the author of numerous scholarly articles, including "Universal Social Theory and the Denial of Genocide" in the June 2001 issue of the Journal of Genocide Research. The Japanese atrocities, according to Theriault, were no different than other genocides and he cited the ongoing Japanese denial as sharing commonalties with the Turkish effort to deny the Armenian Genocide. He established the pattern of omission and distortion practices by many Japanese governments and prevalent in much of the Japanese media. Theriault also pointed to the similarities between the lack of justice in the aftermath of the Turkish and Japanese cases, mainly due to the influence of geopolitics. Theriault detailed the informal "network of denial" and even the emergence of so-called "celebrity" deniers, such as the mayor of Tokyo, engaged in historical revisionism. He noted that the fight against genocide denial as seen in the Japanese case is an ongoing fight, with the Turkish denial being only one of many dangerous trends of state-sponsored denial. (note: I really must check the Rape of Nanking entry in Wikipedia to see how the Japanese “side” is being presented…) Official Turkish campaign of denial exposed: http://www.diaspora-net.org/Turkey/Princeton_Turkey.html And this piece concerning denials of the Holocaust (primarily questioning of existence of gas chambers for killing…) may prove illustrative: http://www.anti-rev.org/textes/VidalNaquet92b/ and same author as above on revisionism: http://www.anti-rev.org/textes/VidalNaquet85a/ And from the Free Dictionary (who seem to have no compunction whatsoever at labeling it a genocide): http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Genocides%20in%20history Turkey (1914–1923) genocides by the Young Turk government Approximately 0.6–1.5 million Armenians in the Ottoman Empire were killed (some sources cite much higher figures). The Turkish government officially denies that there was any genocide, claiming that most of the Armenian deaths resulted from armed conflict, disease and famine during the turmoil of World War. Approximately 300,000–600,000 Pontian Greeks in the Ottoman Empire were killed, and several hundred thousand others exiled. The Turkish government denies there was any genocide despite evidence to the contrary, instead blaming the wars with Greece which took place around the same time for the millions of deaths. See also: Armenian Genocide http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Genocide+denial BTW – here is a site that is for the prevention of all genocides. It is not an Armenian site. It has a very nice collection of scholarly and media sources that clearly present and accept that what occurred was genocide. There are sections on all other 20th century genocides besides the Armenian one as well. Note the link to Turkish sources on the Armenian Genocide page. http://www.preventgenocide.org/

http://preventgenocide.org/edu/pastgenocides/ottoman/resources/

Anyway – enough for now – I welcome others to add to this. Perhaps we’ll get this boy edumacated eh?

I see...

So you suggest that I leave the article in your capable hands and you will present it in a completely unbiased and Neutral way, and you have complete understanding of NPOV as soon as you joined wikipedia and complete knowlege on how contraversial articles are written? You suggest that anyone who thinks the Armenian Genocide's cassification as genocide be approached with suspicion be slienced. You mean you do not want any oposition while discussing the article. I am sorry but if noone is saying "No", noone is thinking. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 22:33, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Your "polite" and "civil" approach is very interesting.
• Do not refer to me as Mr.
• Do not edit what I placed in talk unless you are improving spelling or grammar.
• If you want to cut in my lines sign every single post you make
• Summerise your cases, provide links. You are on wikipedia an Online Encyclopedia, not a Forum, not your personal essay page, not your research paper.
• This is a controversial topic, the article should be presented in a way that will not insult or acuse either side of things. I am well aware what Turkey is doing, I am also aware of the Armenian presure on politicians for decades. Diplomacy has nothing to do with historic facts. What we must evade is propoganda from either side. Armenian Genocide should not be presented as a fact if there isnt enough evidence to supoort it, if there is we can discuss the evidence slowly, we dont throw each other hundereds of pages on wikipedia, we prefer slow progress through carefull negotiations on how an article should be constructed, line by line.
• I suggest you limit your acusations and insults so we can start discussing how the article is now and what should be added/subtracted. If you are not willing to discuss you are welcome to allow me to do all the edits on my own, I doubt you want that so lets start discussing the matter.
• Do NOT threaten me with reverts other stuff you may come up with. I want to have a polite, and civil discussion, like civilised people, I expect a similar response.
• I welcome you to wikipedia, I suggest you follow good Wikiquette

--Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 01:23, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

(other poor spelling and grammar ignored. — Davenbelle 02:15, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC))

Thank you for the corrections, Id prefer you corrected without giving wiki links, wikipedia is not a dictionary. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 20:53, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• One more thing, who determines what is a fact and what is fiction generated by propoganda? There is evidence suggestiong that the Armenian Genocide was indeed an genocide, there is evidence suggestiong Armenian genocide was not in fact a genocide. There are two ways to write this article:
  1. Biased(favoring the Genciode thesis/opposing the genocide thesis)
  2. Neutral(based on historic evidence)

To do this you cannot start asuming either thesis is a fact. I also suggest we provide archive numbers for any evidence for any party to go and get the archives at will. Web sites and books are not historic evidence, may be used to determine the language of the article. I want to know which archive suggests what. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 20:53, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Coolcat, after this persistance and your post above, I have no other option than concluding. Sorry. Fadix 00:21, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

SInce all 5+ of you are beyond reason Ill handle this matter on my own. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 01:04, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The only beyond reason is you here. And don't try to hijack the article. Fadix 01:07, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I will "carjack" the article instead. I am not trying to add anything to the article as 5+ of you just revert it without reading. You are jsut going to insist on your version "untill I give up". I am trying to disuss the article, I only want to put factual info. I can claim that the british had 432,147 Armenians executed millitary style in their archive, would be rather believeable, anything that supports the genocide is fact, anything anyone that suggest the other way around is definately bias by some "revisionist", "troll". --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 01:39, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You recognised as not knowing much of the subject, and regardless you want 50-50. Oghlum Ghonushma, when you don't know the subject. This is becoming quote boring. Fadix 01:53, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

What is "Oghlum Ghonushma"? I do not recognise it as an english phrase. I never said I wanted 50:50, I said I want the alnguage to be 50:50. I want views of neither side to be in the article but I want how they interprete archive material to be presented. If that ends up makeing the article neutral, well that would be excellent NPOV. Although I am certain that never is the case on conraverisal articles. I told you, I only want the article to be presented in neutral tones and that material introduced have basis, ie archive numbers. If you are talking about history and not have archive numbers I am not willing to put it in the article. This is becoming quite boring as I only get personal insults when I suggest things, you oppose anything and everything I said, Improving spelling involves reverting. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 02:04, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Google suggests: "Your search - Oghlum Ghonushma - did not match any documents" can you elaborate, no spelling suggestions either. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 02:06, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

My reverted psychology has just confirmed what I thought Coolcat. The next time you'de want to play the innocent, you should read psychology books. :) As for your above comment. 50:50 language is against NPOV... pass that, I have not read what else you had to say. Fadix 02:20, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I am an engineer, I dont like reading. I can build you something that can take you to mars however. So you suggest we determine a persentage on how much the article will support the Armenian Genocide even before we discuss. You are refusing to dicsuss the material, I have no porblem discussing it. I still have no idea what "Oghlum Ghonushma" means, whenever I come across a word I dont know or a foreign word, I google it. I do not understand what you are suggesting by "play the innocent" I am trying to be polite as hard as I can try. You still try to communicate people as if this was a forum, irc, im. This is wikipedia our language is different, please compensate as your general tone is very irritating. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 22:17, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Look Mr. Coolcat, you have exposed yourself as to misrepresent what an usual person would misrepresent. Let me explain you Mr. Coolcat, you knew what is "Oghlum" in fact, it is one of the first words that a foreigner learn in Turkey. As someone that knew as far as people in political parties in Turkey, even a foreigner would know that. Your questioning of the sentence "Oghlum Ghonushma" was rather a defense mechanism, as we'de call in psychology. You knew at least what the word "Oghlum" meant, but you thought that knowing it is not something you should display. Example, suppose that someone live in a foreign country and learn a word. If that word is writen, he'de know what it means, and he'll admit it, unless he thinks he is not supposed to know the word and knowing it and admitting knowing it, could "expose" him somehow. If you really ignored the word, you'de mistake it as a name rather than a sentence, because both letters were in capital(on purpouses). If you'de be locked for a crime, and we'de fail such a basic psychology test, this could have been used against your person. There was three options for you, two "negative" and another answer speaking in the "positive" and you just failed the test. Fadix 23:13, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Look Fadix, in wikipedia the ethnicity of a person does not make them more/less credible, such a suggestion has traditionaly been a ban reason. You may want to talk about the article isntead of me. Any time. You are telling me you have an offcial world wide statistics regarding what people think of the Armenian Genocide? "very few non-Turks deny". I could be a one of your "very-few non-Turks". Cut it out. I am a computer major I am not supposed to spell correctly. I personaly think I am doing a fine job spelling. I screw up here and there, thats neither your concern nor is it basis for you to determine my Ethnicity. This will not be allowed to cintinue, the more drastic you attack me, the more drastic mesures Ill take to remove your attack, if necesary you. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 00:12, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Protected

You can't make any progress in editing this article while certain parties continue to use reverting as a means of keeping their preferred version. Accordingly, and on long consideration of a request made some days ago, I have protected the article. Please discuss your differences on this article with civility and when they're resolved the protection can be removed. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:19, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You have made a major administraive mistake. If you read the edition on what it was locked on, you'll realise that our new aliases has made all the major changes Coolcat wanted to be made. In that articlke there is no only POV, but as well lies, something my other article did not have. That new alias is no one else than Coolcat. Fadix 23:17, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Please identify any lies in the article and I'll remove them. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:28, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The Armenian theses ignoring Turkish deaths, is one example, this is Coolcat lies. That person was Coolcat, all the changes were specifically what Coolcat wanted the article to be changed for. He reverted the "many Western scholars." There are no many Western scholars supproting the revisionbist theses this is another lie. In fact, all the changes made are only POV, and if they are not, they are simply untrue. Coolcat is lying Tony, he claimed to not be a Turk to make his national biases more credible, another member has ju8st exposed him admitting being a Turk, without including that he has in various occasion called Armenians, "Armanians" a common mistake a Turkish speaker will make. I have to say, that your locking of the article, while yesterday it was submitted to peer review was simply a big mistake. Coolcat just yesterday, accused all of us to be the same person. You can verify about Raffi, he has his own website and post with his real name, another member participate in other forums, on which I myself participate, the other members I just have met on this site. On the other hand, Coolcat yesterday said that if he had to want to use other aliases, he could do that without others knowing, and the first thing today we see, is that another aliases was created out of the blue moon, making all the edits Coolcat was fighting to make, which are simply untrue and false or POV. And you rather prefer to keep an article editted by a new aliases that just after logging, the only thing he post is to change a debated article, while the article has been placed to mediation and peer review. This time, you made a serious mistake. Fadix 23:37, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well I can see a lot of accusations of sock puppetry and lying, and frankly I wish both sides would stop these accusations because they'll not make the article any better.

So you've said that the following are in the current version of the article and are untrue:

1. That the Armenian thesis ignores Turkish deaths
2. That many western scholars support the Turkish revisionist viewpoint.

I've removed those references now. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:16, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Read at the bottom of the talk page, there are more, nearly all the edit you've kept are either POV or simply untrue. Fadix 01:20, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Do you? I think not....

OK – Ms Coolcat then? j/k…sorry…Have I offended? I’m sorry – not intentional. :) A couple of things…I don’t think I ever offered to write your article – though I do think I could do so and from a non POV and unbiased perspective – though – with your apparent biases – you might not indeed agree (considering that you believe use of the term genocide is unwarranted and I believe that anyone who believes such is either ignorant or is a genocide denier or both – but I am open to someone truly making the case – based on fact – that it was not genocide. However, I have never seen any legitimate contention of the use of this word to describe what occurred...and neither really can I – knowing the facts – imagine that this is possible – but Ok – show us…).

And while I would be honored to assist or to input into this article I cannot in good conscience perpetuate your flawed approach that gives platform to deniers. I can see that this will just go around and around with no resolution. And while I could write an appropriate summary article I have not the time to create such from scratch (anytime in the near term that is) and I think we are blessed with someone who clearly has the time, inclination, knowledge, sources and capability to put such a thing together – Fadix. Now perhaps his approach may seem to you to be biased or such – and I can concede that there may be areas he has not presented to the degree of depth and with the broadness of perspective that I would prefer and other areas he has emphasized/highlighted that I perhaps would not – but fundamentally I believe that what Fadix is presenting is based entirely in fact and is accepted by historians as accurate and I see no overt bias – only factual presentation consistent with events that are known (by scholars/historians) and accepted as legitimate historical information. So yes – my position would be to let the most qualified available person take the cut and then let others add/modify based on support/consensus and however it is done here. Clearly Mr Fadix is the most qualified person contributing to this process at this time and should be allowed to take the lead in developing the article. I am new to Wikipedia and am admittedly uncertain how this is done – so I wish to take the time to learn before interjecting in the article itself (so I have never edited there – it is unclear to me if you are accusing me of doing such).

As for your other assertions – and I admit it is not clear to me if you are referring to me or someone else – but it seems as if your comments are addressed to me so I shall attempt to answer.

Are your criticizing me for being polite and civil? I don’t understand. Am I violating Wikipedia etiquette or are you just disappointed that you have no legitimate reason to silence me?

I have never edited your “talk” comments to my knowledge unless I have inadvertently done so – again I am just trying to figure out how this works – so its possible I may have done something by mistake. Same with cut lines comment. Again, I have been signing everything I have posted to my knowledge.

I understand this is an online Encyclopedia. Thus I have refrained from injecting on the article page at this time. I feel that there are very serious issues in regards to the presentation that need to be addressed before a proper article can be presented. Thus I am posting my comments and links to information – for your benefit – in hopes of convincing you that your approach is invalid. As far as I am concerned that is what these talk pages are for – at least in part – I would think – am I wrong in thinking this?

Unfortunately it seems clear that you have not given one bit of consideration to the validity of my objections – nor does it seem that you have taken the time to review the links I posted the other day on denial and revisionism. Again it seems that you have staked out your position (from whatever motivation) and you refuse to modify it even when there is evidence that indicates it is flawed and unworkable. Again – genocide denial is a well-known phenomenon that is practiced by apologists for all genocides and their pattern is very similar. What is different here in this section is that you are providing a platform for such and are entirely taking the denialist friendly approach that facilitates seemingly legitimate non-scholarly attacks which do nothing to reach truth but in fact obscure it. What you’re doing essentially amounts to something bordering on the criminal – and I say this in all seriousness. It would not be tolerated in the Holocaust section or the Nanking Massacre section or the Cambodian genocide, Rwandan Genocide or any other similar section. I have provided links to websites where genocide scholars specifically address this issue. You obviously are completely ignoring the validity of this position that is accepted by pretty much all scholars who are knowledgeable of it and you apparently have no desire to even attempt to understand it. How then can you hold your position as valid and worthy of consideration as the accurate approach to presentation of the Armenian Genocide section of an encyclopedia?

You wrongly claim that in my/our(?) position that I/we are somehow suppressing the truth. It is you who are encouraging the inclusion of untruth in this section. Again - can you imagine that your approach and someone who holds your beliefs would be allowed to prevail in the Holocaust section? Likewise you cannot be allowed to control things here – it is just that simple. This is why you are being opposed with such vehemence. We are not (I certainly am not) attempting to suppress legitimate debate and certainly not the inclusion of relevant factual information – but consider this - would Nazi critiques concerning the Jews or sidebar accusations against the Jews be considered legitimate in a presentation of the Holocaust? Would anything that is presented as an attempt to justify (or even "just" deny) the Holocaust be acceptable? And look at the racial accusations/approach and horrible slandering language used by this torque in addition to the use of known denialist tactics. His comments are indeed offensive. And you make reference to Armenians and others exhibiting “hate the Turks” mentality? I have yet to see this in any of Fadix or anyone else’s posts here – only the opposite on the part of torque – whom you insist to get an equal voice here. So why do you make such claims – just because they object to your hijacking this section in support of a true hate monger and obfuscator of the truth? I can see no other reason for you to make this claim.

You say that this section should not “insult or accuse” - well these are entirely different things. First of all you insult all Armenians and all believers in human rights and the truth by giving platform to denilaists. All legitimate scholars accept the Armenian Genocide as such – can you not appreciate the truth of this fact? What more must we provide you to prove this that we haven’t already done? (and this is in part illustrates the difficulty of developing such a thing on the internet – deciding the legitimacy of presentations and how to include non-web based material etc). And secondly – yes – the Turks are justifiably accused. I really don’t know what else I can say about this….--THOTH 17:50, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hi, THOTH. FYI, our Mr. Coolcat has alleged that you, I, Stereotek, Fadix are all the same person, so he's nominally addressing us all as one. This is, of course, absurd.

see: User talk:Tim Starling#suspected sockpuppets (same person, using multiple usernames), (diff)

I have read all of your posts here and the links you've provided and recommend them to other readers of this talk page, and I thank you for the time you've put into preparing your posts. — Davenbelle 19:13, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

You are either a complete newbie to wikipedia or still dont understand how we do things. The whole sock puupet check is very normal, if you aren a sockpuppet you have nothing to worry. If you are a sock puppet, well... goodbye!. Even then the ban is often temporary unless you start deleting articles and stuff... --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 22:20, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Interesting – and very telling concerning our dear friend

Oh and thank you BTW for the compliment.

The Armenian Genocide issue - and specifically (slick) deniers of such - is something I am quite familiar with. I find it very telling that Coolcat is trying to peg us as all the same person. His paranoia reminds me of…oh I don’t know…many Turks I’ve come across – what can I say? I have never posted here as anyone else - though my first 2 posts on this subject I made prior to establishing a login and they are in archive 9? now - as far as I know. Coolcat utterly refuses to understand or acknowledge the legitimacy of my/our objections - be this due to ignorance or willful malevolence I know not. However he clearly is unable to accept that there is a severe problem with what he proposes and he is also clearly unwilling to make even the most mediocre attempt at educating himself regarding this issue. That’s fine – for someone who is uninvolved – but for someone who takes such an active roll in this subject I would expect a greater understanding. Who is this guy anyway? I fail to understand the hierarchy of contributors and who has what (differentiated) powers if any.

I am truly new to this place. It seems to have much potential but (obvious) pitfalls as well. And I came across this subject by accident. Wikipedia had popped up when I searched on another subject. I recalled that someone I had come across in a chat forum months ago had mentioned that the Armenian Genocide was being (more or less) debated on here but I had really thought nothing of it (as this type of thing occurs all over the internet in various - mainly less then apealing) - forms. I’m glad I finally checked it out though – hopefully a real tragedy can be avoided and this can be set right.

One thing as well I think I should add regarding my position - and as Coolcat seems to think - one sided biases. Several years ago I once had a very well (on the internet) known (Armenian Genocide) denier/general Turk Apologist (named Nick) characterize my views on the Armenian Genocide as bordering on blashphemous (as he saw it - looking at my stated views as if from the Armenian perspective) - additionally I have in the past been viciously attacked by (rabid) Armenians for being pro-Turk (much having to do with my stated admiration of Ataturk - but for other reasons [regarding expressions of sympathy/admiration for the Turks] as well) - so don't anyone think that I am on any particualr "side" here - I think the truth of this matter speaks well enough in and of itself. That being said I challenge anyone to prove in any way how what occured to the Armenians during this period can be construed in any manner other then being considered (absolutely) as being a genocide... --THOTH 20:41, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thoth, just refer me with my nick :)

Well, my view regarding the matter as I explained before is simply that both parties have significant propoganda involved (Pro - Anti genocide) I try to stand in the middle, for that I have been declared many things. I am an engineer who had an asignment in SE Turkey regarding the GAP project. I am not Turkish. I got to know multiple Ethnic minorities. Armenians being one of them, I jsut want facts to be presented, I need to know what something is based on. It does not matter if a country recognises it, I need basis to put it. Several users here declared ownership to the article and that caused significant problems.

Contraversial articles like this one are often very irrittating at times, depending on how other parties react, propting more simmilar reaction and circles between several paries like that. Curently the parties are refusing to discuss and expect me to asume their views or whatever they have in their heads. I suggest:

• We put only material as it is on archives (probably selections), provide interepretations of both sides in a 50:50 aproach.
• I'd apriciate if I am not been declared things
• Thoth, your general aproach is very welcome.
  • The sock check is a normal procedure, if you do not use the same computer as other parties mentioned you are probably ok. If you arent in the same city/region you are definately ok. Admins determine this on their own. I just told them what to check. I have no say in their desicions.
  • You must realise that there are two oposing views regarding the matter.
    • "Massacre" (State sponsored killings)
    • "Relocation" (State sponsored relocation)
  • You have to realise wikipedia is based on Neutrality, while you are welcome to argue points, you may often need to agree to disagree, as s will I. Meaning, you do not like what is been daid but you are willing to comprimise to put something that supports your views.
• Archive material is welcome, this is a history discussion not political. Politics however can be mentioned but the article cannot be based on politics.

--Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 22:41, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

(He has asserted that he is Turkish; in this post he refers to those being accused (Turks) as his ancestors. Davenbelle 22:52, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC))

What you are doing is abusing history, and user contributions, I am not Turkish, I consider my self semi Turkish, Semi-Greek, Semi Belgian, Semi Italian, as I lived in those countries over two years each. I do not need to expose my ethnicty, your efforts on exposing it is absurd. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 23:22, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

And I'm not Santa. Besides calling "my" encestors, and using the term "Armanian" insteed of "Armenian" a common mistake made by Turks, beside failing the test, beside denying the Armenian genocide(only by denying the reality of the Armenian genocide, there are over 99% chances for one ot be a Turk), beside getting a Turk registering and making the changes you wanted to make? I can present many other examples. Or besides in other genocide entries editing the Armenian references, beside getting involved in any entries involving Turkey? I'm not Santa, that that is for sure. Fadix 23:43, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Even if I were a Turk that would not made me any less credible, your level of personal attacks (ie acusinng me of things like being a troll) on almost any statement is why I alerted diferent members not because of your views regarding the article your disregard of the no personal attacks article is what that may get you in trobble. For countless timess I asked you to stop. The way you talk to me is insultive, and irritationg, that may be how you talk in a forum, that is not how you talk here. PLEASE STOP. I value my identity, you are not to expose it even though your staement regarding me is false, for all you know I could be a Black American with distant Turkish ties. The discussion is about Armenian Genocide, not be. Cease your personal issues. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 00:00, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Look dude, I don't give a thing, of whatever or not you're a Turk, French or whom else. What I do care though, is when someone came in, and make the claim of being non-Turk as a tool to make his position more credible and hide his national biases. I don't like users that use multiple aliases to get an article edited. You have used the term “accusation” “Armanian”(And you have used this term more than once, in fact many times) and even the term accusing my “ancestors.” But that is not enough, you deny what very, very few non-Turks deny, you use expressions that only Turks uses when treating the subject. You believe false informations that no one besides those blinding by nationalism believe. Such as “Armenian theses” which surprisingly was as well repeated by the new aliases. The only here being irritating is you. I should be the one saying STOP! Participate in an article you know about which is unrelated to Turkey, if you can't treat an article just don't touch it. Fadix 00:03, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

---

Coolcat - I have been to Turkey 3 times - two for several weeks/month stay and have traveled thorughout the country. I know Turks well and have Turkish friends. My views are likely not typical. However - I must insist that your approach and your position is mistaken. There were massacre and relocation. There are far to many eywitness testimonies - even from allies to Turkey (and Torque response is anti-Turk/Muslim bias - which is silly and a typical tactic - use everything - no matter how divorced from reality). These eyewitnesses recount the systemic and widespread massacre and killing of innocents (and we can also see the results). Relocation was convoys of people who were given no food - to suposedly travel for days and weeks - to some place in the desert (concentration camps and such) where there was no provision but to provide a place for them to die. The only ones who survived this were ones who escaped the relocation convoys and made it on their own. Additionally a great many people were murdered in their homes and villages. The counterclaims of civil war are exaggerated. While there was from specific and limited fighting it was not widespread and in no instance were even these lightly armed convoys disrupted or people rescued. And so on and so forth. Additionally the testimony of the 1919 military tribunals must be accepted as factual. The standards used by these courts became the evidenturary model for Nurenmburg trials (very strict). The Young Turk party had a clear plan to send out murderers and others to take all valuables from the Armenians and to eliminate them. There is a history to this (and reasons for this) that must be examined. There are many side issues and such of interest - but the fundemental truths concerning what occured must be accuratly presented. There are not two "sides" to the truth - though there may be two or more perspectives concerning certain events and why certain things may have occured. The variously stated Turkish assertions have degrees of truth - from totally untruthful and made up to presenting valid perpective. But even the latter does not obviate the truth of genocide against Armenians. And these issues are not what should be centrally presented in a discussion of the Genocide (as they have no place in the Holocaust or Nanking Massacre sections - and I have just reviewed these sections and find the discussions on revisionism and denial interesting and relevant to the discussion here). The Armenian Genocide must be clearly presented for what it was - with surounding issues presented and discused as determined to be relevant. Unfourtunatly - your approach gives equal weight (50-50 you say) to arguments which are untrue, exaggerated, hateful and rascist and so on and so forth. This cannot be a forum to make such things official. In some ways it already has become a sounding board for such views and this is unfortnate. There is a right way and a (many) wrong way(s) to proceed. Your proposed approach will not lead to truth and is inherently flawed. You must understand this. I will likely be unavailable for several days to respond or add further - but I hope that you might use the time to reflect on this. If you wish I may try to suggest an approach and possibly outline how I would present this issue (most important items to focus upon) - but it will not occur before next week. In the meantime give Fadix a chance. He really does have a very good grasp of most of the relevant issues. Take care and please consider my words. --THOTH 23:07, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

---

Well, I cant give fadix a chance as long as he insults and accuses me of things. He should stop that.

I understand your position. We can do that some of both if you will, but we have to carefully assest if these "masacres" (The factuality must be assesed). Was it goverment organised or isolated incidents by some inhumane people. I just want to make sure the testimonials are facts, not propoganda generated bs. Also the translation should be checked, perhaps a link to the transcript of these testimonials may be helpfull.

My 50:50 approach is regarding any interpretation. This aproach is the tipical aproach in wikipedia on contraversial articles where there is little mention of facts but lots of opinions. I never said we HAVE to do 50:50 precisely, we may end up that way who knows.

I tried to talk to fadix several times, he continiously insisted on the 50:50 thing, I came up with many ideas how to do this article, all had extreme opposition. Anything I suggested was oposed, spelling corrections were reverted and declared vandalism, meaning he was not reading what I was suggesting. I can not talk to a person who will not talk to me in a civilised manner. The articles header must be 50:50. If your case is strong you do not need the header to be anything else than 50:50 as claimed, your case is strong hence such information can be mentioned later.

I want to discuss the article in detail, making sure propoganda is filtered. If that proves genocide, so be it, however you have to realise there will be material proving it was a relocation, from what you suggest it was a bit of both. I am not knowlegable regarding the issue. Living in Turkey I noticed how the people refered to the incident. I believe they have their reasons, I also noticed the significant propoganda from both sides of the discussion. Lots of false claims were made, mostly by the pro-Genocide side as Turks tend to ignore the issue. I just want to make sure the material presented are facts. I can claim, like anyone else, material in a archive that isnt necesarily there. You have to understand the reasons of my skepticism.

Wikipedia is more than just this article. You are welcome to edit/create other articles I can guide you with the process. While this article was commencing I created this article (Ranks and Insignia of NATO) pretty much on my own. This should be the median where we present the facts presented, any interpretation of the facts must be done in a 50:50 aproach to evade bias.

Keep in mind that we have to be carefull using words like many/most. If you suggest most scholars thinks so such and such there has to be a basis, I personaly do not see why it is necesary to mention what scholars think, the material is how people should think, not what scholars think of the material. Scholars are also people. If they start their research by accepting denying the genocide their results may not be as acurate as we want them.

In sum all I want is for any material you want to add you must convince me its not fictional. If you tell me the archive material regarding it thats more than enough of course you are not limmited to that.

--Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 23:40, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Again, another broken records. Been there done that... you still lie about me, as you have been doing when you have alerted countless numbers of members. What accusations are you talking about? Shall I post ten or more members lists, that you have warned and lied about me to get me out of Wikipedia, while you were editing the article without even discussing about it?

The rest of your post is just repetition, of what I have been answering countless numbers of times, you've been ignoring it and repeating the same thing, again, again and again. Fadix 23:48, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If the only way for you to stop your insults and personal attacks directed at me is via you beeing banned, so be it. I never requested your removal, I asked the removal of your insults. "You have a hidden agenda", "you are biased", "you are a troll" are personal attacks and are very unaproporate. You cant seem to stop insulting me. I will make you stop if you wont stop. The admins perefer users resolve their hostilities among each other by themselves, the reason why they are taking their time is that, the reason I am trying to smoothen things is that. All I get is "you are a troll". --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 00:05, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

On the other hand, I do not make charges without support, like you did against my person. I have never lied about me. Unlike you, I have never registered another alias to make my cases. Fadix 00:08, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You accuse me of sock puppeting, I never acused you of it, I merely point it out to admins to check it. You now declare I am a lier. You again declared that I have a hidden agenda and that I am a troll, why are you insisting on these personal attacks? You cant do that. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 00:16, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If you think your position is so strong as to convince people, why are you still lying about yourself Coolcat? Why did you attacked me by warning countless numbers of members when we had nearly not exchanged at that time? Fadix 00:24, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You do not understand how we do things on wikipedia, I asked them on how I should deal with you, most of the people did not respond. Tony guided me on mesures I should take. At a point I wanted your removal bad because of the annoyance you caused by your revert thing, I did pull back all requests regarding you aside from asking users how should I deal with you if you do not stop. I never asked for your ban I asked for help. I ask people what I do to deal with people who refer to personal attacks. People will not block you just because I told them to. I was trying hard to treat you fair. I am also a human, I sometimes loose my grip at times. Talking to other members regarding you is not described as a personal attack in Wikipedia:No Personal Attacks, If you were offended I am sorry, you have been a bit to defensive. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 04:12, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oberiko's conclusion of the page

After reviewing the two pages, I'm going to have to side with the current version. I find that what Fadix labels "vandalism" is far from it and there is a tendancy by Fadix to remove anything which has a negative impact on the Armenian side of the discussion (The removal of references to ANSLA, official Turkish websites etc.).

I should state that I have not read the full discussion (I don't think anyone has time for that), I have simply compared the two versions of the pages as presented with the twoversions tag. Oberiko 08:25, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have plainly shown that what the new user has done could be called as vandalism, in my talk page. What I have against the current version has nothing to do with me wanting supressthe opposing view, since I was the one that added a section to present it before Coolcat deleted it, to get the entire website as it is presented by the Turkish government. As for the ASALA removing, let me tell you that I was at first against the entire post genocide timeline, and that the deleting of it was more about the wording and the way it was presented, including the ASALA entry and the way Coolcat has worked on it.(the ASALA entry since then has been neutralised, not by me but others) So, I ask you before making charges against me, to follow the discussion closer. Fadix 13:58, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You declare yourself as pro too easily and too fast. The way you own the article is not apriciated. POV, which is your claim btw, is never vandalism. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 03:42, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You are just repeating the old rhetoric of yours, you don't need to do that, I'm not the bone head you think I am. Fadix 04:24, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I do not like the way you treat everybody who disagrees with you. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 05:36, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Don't make this as if I treat “anyone” that disagree with me, this is me, and others, against your behavior at Wikipedia. Fadix 16:09, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oberiko and others are not a persons? --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 10:34, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

And how I "treat" him? Fadix 16:58, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Cezveci's Conclusions on the Discussion

original section name introduced by User:Cezveci here. — Davenbelle 00:33, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

My conclusions are the following. I believe they will be reviewed objectively and with Coolcat's constructive and responsible efforts, the article will be put in a more neutral shape. I would like to mention the general conclusions I draw from the discussion below. Extensive support for these conclusions can be found in the discussion below. I will also note what I believe needs to be done specifically for each item. I will try to be objective. (As I don't know the gender of anybody, I will use they even while mentioning one person)

• Fadix and many others who edit this page are pro-Armenian propogandists with extreme prejudice against Turkey.

What you claim and what “is” are two different things. The article was presenting positions, before you have edited it and present your POV as historical facts, never, including in my first version before its neutralization, I had presented anything the way you did, but I guess that administrators like Tony rather prefer giving equal weight to them like you, against researchers. Fadix 21:13, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Fadix discloses facts only partially to alter to truth. In other words, they make the reader derive the conclusions they want by stating irrelevant facts, while hiding the underlying relation.

The article before you edited it presented parties position, without presenting them as facts... each things were “according to” while your editions are “this is what...” and this is POV. But according to Tony, POV is good faith. Fadix 21:13, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Fadix deletes new contributions by accusing them with vandalism, without even reading them (They confess this below). Without question, this itself is vandalism.

Those are your words Coolcat, I did read, and even shown the ridiculous additions and modifications of the NPOV article. And where did I confess anything, care to show me? Fadix 21:13, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I confess I added Star Trek next to Star wars. I am a Federation Nationalist long live the Federation! Death to the Klingon Empier. I have to be sarcastic when I am this bluntly and falsely accused.

• Fadix does not discriminate between facts and their interpretations. They delete simple facts about actions of people based on their assumptions on the intentions of these people.

This is hypocrisy at best, that is exactly what you did in your editions, and while I reported them, you have nothing to defend why your POV should have been presented as facts. Give me just one example of POV in the original article before Tony has locked it on your vandalism. And you know well I have shown your POVs clearly, and you have even not dared denying them to be POV. Fadix 21:13, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You are not the only desicion making body in this article. Your attitude of ignoring the opposition and scaring them away is HIGHLY discouraged.

• Fadix and other pro-Armenians oftenly insult a nation.

Where did I ever insulted a nation? That the Armenian genocide happened, is hardly denied by any serious academic, according to you, the academic world is conspiring to insult Turkey. And you don't even see how ridiculous such a belief is. Fadix 21:13, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Although Coolcat displays an extremely sensible and constructive approach, they are attacked by pro-Armenians (especially Fadix) with insults and baseless accusations. --Cezveci ^{My Talk} 06:08, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It is obvious that you will support yourself Coolcat. Fadix 21:13, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It is obvious you have no idea. It is also obvious you have no idea what is not vandalism on wikipedia, POV is never vandalism. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 03:36, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I repeat, the changes were not only POV... but obvious lies, like claimed Torques site to be from Western and Turkish scholars, or regarding the so-called second meeting, or an attack in 1914 etc. Those are beyond POV. Fadix 13:52, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Fadix is apparently accusing Coolcat of using more than one alias. The additional one happens to be mine in this case. This is a serious accusation. Note that not only he (now I now he is a he) states this accusation, but also answers me as if I were Coolcat and answers Coolcat as if Coolcat was me. This clearly is an easy way of getting around the difficult situation he fell after it has been shown that he vandalizes the article and manipulates facts to alter the truth. Anyway, I am protesting Fadix's accusation of myself being Coolcat, and I will do anything to prove that this is not true (I guess the easiest way is for the moderators to check our IPs, I am asking the moderators let me know about any other way to prove that I am not Coolcat). I also urge Fadix to apologize for this ugly and baseless accusation. """.

I am not the only one that suspected you to be Coolcat. Coolcat claims he knows technology and he can post with different aliases without others knowing it, the next day, we get you editing the article the way he wanted it.

So, I have been shown to manipulate facts? That's amazing, I told you to give me examples, and you were even not able to do so, while I have shown many cases of not only manipulations of facts from your part, but actual fabrication. Do you think that I need to claim other peoples are the same to support my position? Readers are free to read my answers, and they will realize that I actually answer every points you make and do listen to you. You have fabricated claims in the article, like Torques site being Western and Turkish academics website, or that Armenians attacked Muslim villages in 1914. Fadix 17:36, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This is in consistence with the way you write and interpret history. You just guess something, and immediately claim that it is true. I am still waiting for you to either prove that I am Coolcat's second alias, or apologize from both of us. Cezveci 21:35, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Can I “prove” that you are Coolcat? No! I can't. Prove is rather a strong word, in court of law, it is called “beyond any reasonable doubt” and in theory, only in math can something be really proved... in other scientific disciplines, “prove” is used with the same definition as the term used in court of law. Can I bring evidences that support my position? Sure I can, I still believe you are suspicious, and for many reasons. But does that prevented me to answer your posts? Did I used this because I could not answer you? The answer is obviously no!

As I told before, it can be PROVEN that I am not Coolcat's alias by simply checking our IP's. Can a moderator or anybody who has access to IP's do that for me? What you call your evidence is speculation, and it is apparent that speculation that supports your POV counts as evidence for you. You are so hysterical about your position that you cannot simply apologize by the bullshit you have thrown at the middle of the discussion. As for editing the article, I think the current working version is totally based on Armenian diaspora's propaganda, and your (as a matter of fact, I believe Fadix is the least fanatic among all of you) attitude against us makes it impossible for me (or another neutral or Turkish POV person) to contribute to the article in a healthy way. Thus, I will not continue to try to invite you to an objective POV any more and I am requesting that a disclosure about our claims of the article being soleley based on Armenian propaganda and aiming at promoting hate against Turks be placed at the top of the article. You cannot construct and maintain peace with this attitude and you cannot make Turkey open the Armenian border with this aggression, which is very important for the people who live in Armenia today. But as everybody knows, you don't care about what is good for the Armenians of Armenia, you only care about what is bad for the Turks of the world. Cezveci 21:53, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The thing is that you have posted one day after Coolcat has announced that he know technology, and that he could pass incognito. IP can be changed, by using a proxy server. And this is an easy thing to do.

You have edited all the sections Coolcat did not wanted to have, and this one day after Coolcat claim about “clones” etc. In such a cases, it is apparent that anyone would be very suspicious about it.

If I did make a mistake about that, and that in fact you are not Coolcat, I apologize, I don't find anything wrong apologizing. I will give you the benefit of the doubt. When you came in, it was a very tense time. But I still do consider your edit as vandalism, at least for the changes of Armenian genocide, to Armenian relocation.

Regarding the working version, I do admit there is POV in it, and I will be working to neutralize it. I know that there will never be a consensus about this. And here is why I proposed to present every parties positions and their critics at first. If you read my “Ottoman Armenian population” entry, you'll see that I did just that. And right now, I am working on the Armenian casualties entry. But it is obvious that the genocide entry will never satisfy you, as long as you think it is an Armenian diaspora ploy to get Turkey destroyed. This is not what it is. I will strongly disagree with other Armenian's about any other matters, but I believe that the genocide issue by “accident” happens to be the only thing Armenian's are over 90% right. My research about this topic, is concentrated around one of Voltaire's maxim: “We owe respect to the living; to the dead only truth.” Fadix 21:19, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As for the way I interpret history, short of answering my arguments, it seems that you are using such cheap tricks to undo them. But this is not how it works. Fadix 21:30, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Special note to Fadix: I am not answering you anymore, since you showed that you don't care to read what I write in your latest replies. There is no reason to discuss with somebody if he doesn't listen to you. I have sent any source of information that you asked me, but you never cared to answer my inquiries about your so-called "proof"s. Don't even dare to compare me against grey-wolves again, I lost my family members to their cruelty. I think you here have proved several times that you are the Armenian counterpart of greywolves. You also stand as a live-proof of the hatefulness and influence of the Armenian diaspora. Thus, my position is the same against both of you. One last question, how are you so sure that I am a male and you can talk about me as "he" without any hesitation, Mr. Patriarchal Prejudice? Cezveci 18:02, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Do us all a favor, show me where I did not read before I replied, you again throw words and wish they will actually stick, this is not how it works. As for the Grey Wolf, were you not the one calling Turks fighting for the advancement of the Turkish society as racists against their owns, just because they happen to run a Turkish human right organization? Such statements actually are comparable to what Grey Wolves, and the political party equivalent say about those peoples. What I said was not a cheap shot as you seem to make it look like. BTW, could you be glad to show me where I actually did not answer to your inquiries, I don't see any “non-answers?” I might be wrong, and maybe I did forget a point, show it to me so that I answer it.

A last not, thanks for claiming that I am a Grey Wolf equivalent. But you shall ask Raffi, who was witness of Armenian fanatics calling me a “Turk” and how I have so much Turkish friends... one of the reasons why I was banned from a Turkish board, in which one of the moderators to justify it claimed that I was tricking people. Bad me. Fadix 17:36, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am tired of dicussing with you. YoGo find yourself you omitted answering me. Go find yourself, I asked you for the source of the turkish text, and you didn't care to provide it. Go find yourself, you asked me for my source of information, I provided the link and you didn't like it because it was showing that I am talking the truth. You are claiming you are a researcher. I am in the academy, and I know what an academic tries to. An academic tries to answer the question "why?", Fadix. An academic does not create "his" truth by generating falsified documents (the documents in ANI website for example, Talat's telegraphs...). If you are not a fanatic, if you really care about understanding the history, first answer the question "why did the turks kill armenians?" Why? If I will believe you, I have to understand that, right? But what you're doing is trying to remove all the history that will help answering that question by attacking any source you don't like. This is not an academic does. This is what a fanatic does. As Bertrand Russell states, "The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts." As you believe that you have been victimized so unfairly, you don't care about lying to prove your claims. Because you "believe" that you are right. I am sorry but you're not a scientist, only a fanatic. Taner Akcam is a scientist, and shame on you, you use his scientific approach to prove your fanatic claims. You have shown this by everything you made on this page. If you want to behave like a real academic, just try to answer this question first: "Why did the Turks kill the Armenians?" Cezveci 21:29, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hola, hola... what source for the Turkish text? Did I miss something? What Turkish text are you talking about? As for the link, what do you expect me to say? Thanks, you provided the link? OK thank you... I didn't thought that each time one provide a link about something I have to comment about it, or it will be considered as ignoring the “other side.” The only reason I commented about the Turkish media, is because you implied that the Turkish media was more neutral than Western media, which obviously is wrong, more particularly on this specific subject, when the Turkish media has in various occasion just fabricated informations. And I can give examples if you wish.

Coming to Talaat documents, sorry, I do not use the internet for my research, but it happaned that sometimes I did research ANI website just to see what they had(I must admit not being impressed with the material there), but I do not remember any such Talaat telegraphs, or telegrams, can you show me where please?

Why the Turks killed Armenians? Did the Turks killed Armenians for a reason? OF COURSE!!! I have never denied that, I am not insane, it is obvious Armenians were killed for a reason, actually many reasons. Just like the Kmer Rouge killed Cambodian in their hierarchy systems, for a reason, just like the Germans have mass slaughtered in the Ghettos, or the way countless numbers of people were sent in camps to be killed in mass(of course there are revisionists like Rassinier, Faurrisson, Irving, Zundel etc. that question that those things actually really happened, each genocide has its deniers, it is a known phenomenon). For reasons... just like what was behind the Ukrainian famine. Or why the Outis butchered the Toutis. People just don't get killed without reason.

The reasons for the Armenian genocide though, are not what you claim they are... you claim the decision was taken because Armenians started attacking.(even if it were to be true, it does not justify the decision) But this theses is not supported by using the official Turkish foreign ministry released archives. The first dates in the BOA series is March 2, 1915... about a deportation, and it is said that rebellions should be prevented during it, and not that those deportations happened because of rebellions. Incidences against Armenians were reported back at middle to end of 1914. The nationalization of economy, and the Armenian presence in the East were logical factors that are supported by Turkish historians like Avioglu... and even Edip in her memoirs write that the Armenian economical power was to be replaced by the Turks and the Germans. The proposition of evacuation was actually placed on table as soon as Feb. 1914 lecture organized by a German-Turkish organization.

You may have a ground for Armenian revolt, had you talked about 1894, but not for 1915. There has been over the years(90s) people that to try to favor both the Turks and Armenians, have mixed both theses, and claimed Armenians having attacked first and were answered by a repressive system. But this position over the last years is not supported anymore, recent serious studies do not support that theses, more particularly, when more findings are done from the German archives, and that we find out, that after all those years... the Turkish government was unable to support this theses, and has relied on 1894-1896 materials to support it, by a psychology of: “This happened in 1894, and is documented, so the same thing happened in 1914-1915.” Just to give you an example, Nogales for example in his memoirs, bring this charges against the Armenian, but when we pay a closer look, he learn it once in the city, from Ottoman soldiers... of what happened that have justified the decision, but those said reports must be somewhere... but they actually are nowhere. Djemal himself write in his memoir that he was even not aware of why Armenians were moved when the decision was taken(he as one of the leaders, did not know of Armenian revolts).

Another thing, is the fact that prisoners were released the months preceding 1915... those prisoners were chosen selectively, during that time, the Ottoman still has not lost on the Russian front to accuse Armenians of anything. So this releases of prisoners to form the special organization, which will later be charged at escorting the Armenians... has absolutely no reason to exist, other than to butcher people. And, I will go as far as telling you, that there were so much evidences, that by accident the Turkish government forgot one to suppress in their attempt to clean the archives. Read No. 71, of the official documents released from the foreign ministry, I know it is Ottoman Turkish, so there are words you might not understand, I have a translation with me. It is said, that there are butcheries of Christians, from the people that were specifically sent for the task(special organization), and they call this as the “measures,” it then say that those measures against the Armenians should not be extended to other Christians, and order that those measures should only be limited to the Armenians. And from who was this telegram? From Talaat.

Now coming to what I believe. Sorry Cezveci, I do not believe the genocide happened, but I know it happened, your claim does not make sense, the first work I have read about the subject was a revisionist book, and I have read all major revisionist books. So your accusations about an unscientific approach of mine is baseless. Perhaps, shall I ask you, what book have you read about the subject? Fadix 21:23, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Samples of free speech in Turkey about the Armenian issue

• An article by Taner Akçam in the popular liberal paper Radikal. This is only one sample, he writes occassionally there, but no legal action is taken against either the author or the paper. http://www.radikal.com.tr/ek_haber.phpek=r2&haberno=2251&tarih=29/05/2003&ek_tarihi=25/05/2003
• Taner Akçam is currently publishing a series named Ermeni Dosyası (The Armenian File) in left-wing newspaper Birgün, starting March 27, 2005. No attempt to stop publication. http://www.birgun.net/ (You have to be subscribed to be able to view the series, but there is a banner for the series on the top of the page currently)
• Hrant Dink, an Armenian who lives in İstanbul, publishes the paper named Agos in both Armenian and Turkish. Dink is definitely critical of the Turkish government's stance and ideology on the Armenian issue. http://www.agos.com.tr/
• Halil Berktay, a turkish historian who has recently told the press several times that he believes that the tragedy was a genocide. He is currently a professor in Sabancı University (not a prison) in Turkey.

Last word: I have heard the imprisonement of pro-Armenian intellectuals story from several Armenian sources. There is no agreement on the length of sentence, it ranges from 5 to 20 years. These are very easy and dirty propaganda to hide Turkey's recent friendly approach on the issue. They don't help for a solution, but I suspect the Armenian propagandists care about a solution. --Cezveci ^{My Talk} 16:01, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I almost forgot how Taner Akcam was jailed and had to escape from prison, or how Berktay is treated... or better the lawsuits waiting Pamuk, and how it was ordered to take his books out from the libraries. Or how Zarakollus wife and including him, were jailed countless numbers of times. I guess all this is Armenian propaganda, including this http://www.info-turk.be/ Fadix 17:06, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You are now busted Fadix! I knew that you're so ignorant about what's going on in Turkey. Thanks for helping me demostrate how ignorantly you use irrelevant things to make your own propaganda. Akcam's and Berktay's imprisonments have nothing to do with the Armenian issue. They have been left-wing activists during the 70's. And like many left-wing activists and intellectuals, they have been imprisoned and many of them had to leave the country after the American-supported military coup. Both Akcam and Berktay have started working on the Armenian issue years after the coup. And as I illustrated above, they freely express their ideas in Turkish press. You are trying to show Turkey as a single identity without any internal dynamics, because your only aim is to promote hate against Turks. If the government attempts to pass a penal code to prevent free speech, which is unlikely because of the currently hot EU bid, a large community will be against such actions, as they support Orhan Pamuk's freedom of speech nowadays. --Cezveci ^{My Talk} 17:39, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sure, I'm busted, and I'm Santa as well. I never claimed that Akçam was jailed because of anything regarding the Armenian genocide, it had more to do with freedom of speech, I participated in a Symposium, where Akcam was present, and even talked with him. He specifically said why he was jailed, and has read the article of law he did not respect, and no, it does not exactly have to do with what you claim. The 70s student movement was not only proper to Turkey, but was as well wild spread in other countries, more particularly in France. The thing with him being jailed had more to do with supression of freedom of speech, and that was why I refered to it. As for Berktay having been jailed, don't jump on conclusions that quickly, I didn't even refered to that, but rather how he was treated in Turkey. And now, a Mayor, and others are trying to get Pamuk books banned, they have already ordered “out” his books from libraries. And no, they are not freely expressing their ideas, you should start reading the cases on the link I have provided, and you'll see that it is beyond being “Armenian claims.” As for the Turkish penal code: “Keza, bu fıkraya göre, basın ve yayın yoluyla propaganda yapmak üzere para veya yarar veya vaat kabul edilmiş ise ceza artırılacaktır: Para, yarar veya vaat kabulü suretiyle bugün Türk askerinin Kıbrıs’tan çekilmesi veya bu konuda Türkiye aleyhine bir çözüm yolunun kabulü için veya sırf Türkiye’ye zarar vermek maksadıyla, tarihsel gerçeklere aykırı olarak, Birinci Dünya Savaşı sonrasında Ermenilerin soykırıma uğradıklarının basın ve yayın yoluyla propagandasının yapılması gibi.” Matbe you should translate to all of us, what this mean. Shall you? Fadix 17:59, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This proves your intentions Fadix. You knew why Akcam was jailed, but you didn't even need to mention that it was irrelevant to the Armenian issue. Akcam's or many other people's imprisonement was definitely not fair, and there are still serious freedom of thought issues. We've been in between US and USSR during the cold war. We still have secularity-islamism issues. And we are fighting against many opressive conditions. And these definitely have nothing to do with your genocide claims. You're just taking advantage of "our" suffering to promote hate against "us". And you again fail to mention that the "mayor" who tried to censor Pamuk was stopped by the governor, and there's ongoing investigation of the "mayor"'s behavior. I will be glad to translate that text into English if you can show me that it is taken from a reliable source. --Cezveci ^{My Talk} 18:59, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hell my intentions, are you some kind of psychi reading on peoples mind? When I discuss with someone, usually I suppose that he is at least as intelligent as I, and I expected you to know why he was jailed, You've raised the Freedom question, and that is beyond the Armenian genocide, which means freedom does not equal with the genocide issue. But you have supposed that I had such intentions, which shows how you'd interpret anything I could say probably the wrong way. As for the mayor, I haven't heard anything about what you report, can you be glad to present me the article? Don't worry you don't have to translate it to me, I do have many Turkish friends who could translate it for me. Yeh! “Turk hating” Fadix has Turkish friends that would support him before you. Fadix 01:24, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes, so after 90 years things have loosened up a little. Find me an example from 10 years ago if you are so proud of the opennes in Turkey. And how about the ones who to this day get into trouble for talking about the genocide - including that group of Turkish teachers last year... you obviously are following the issue, why do you leave these things out? "Caught" indeed. --RaffiKojian 03:11, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

My proof regarding the "free speech about Armenian issue" could not be invalidated. Fadix failed to prove that their quote dependes on a reliable source. More importantly, it is proven that Fadix tries to alter the truth by disclosing the part of truth they like (ok, let's assume you thought I knew the truth about Akcam, how do you expect the people who are reviewing this page to know all these?). Fadix apologized for their racist insults by remarking they have Turkish friends. Not accepted. (I think it should be natural for somebody mature enough to have friendships beyond any political conflict. If somebody needs to mention that, there's a problem there). Pathetic provocation attempt from RaffiKojian. Not taken seriously. My recommendation: There should be no mention about general freedom of speech in Turkey because it is irrelevant to the subject and people can freely express their opinions about the Armenian issue. Discussion of pro-genocide Turkish historians most welcome with appropriate neutralization of language (I think it is on the pride of Turkey that these people exist and publish. If you can find any Armenians living outside Turkey with a similar trying-to-understand-otherside approach, I encourage you to add discussion about them as well, it will strengthen your point.) Here's the link you need about the mayor: http://www.hurriyetim.com.tr/haber/0,,sid~1@w~2@tarih~2005-03-30-m@nvid~556518,00.asp (Your source of information is biased. European and American media only display negative developments in Turkey.) --Cezveci ^{My Talk} 06:27, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You haven't posted anything like “proof” you have modified the article with wrong informations, you even deleted the part regarding the new Turkish penal code, while you have denied it, I have posted the original Turkish part, while you have entirely ignored it.

And no, I have never apologized for any racist comments, because I did not make any racist insults to begin with. I have written two papers about the non-existence of races, and those that know my position regarding the entire concept of race, know that I consider "race" as a “social construct.” For those reasons, I can not “insult” racially anyone. If you want to “expose” my “racism,” I would be glad to read your theories, but let me prepare some popcorns, because I believe it would be kind of hard to show me this.

Turks can not freely express their opinions in Turkey, you've been editing the article with false informations of a subjective freedom, while the original article referred to the new Turkish penal code that was the result of the position taken by some Turkish intellectuals. There was no POV in that, in the original form, because it was only reporting the Turkish penal code, and the freedom in question was related with the Turks whom recognize the genocide.

As for the source of information, what you say is ridiculous, the Turkish media in one than one occasion has been accused of fabricating entire stories regarding the issue in question, I will take the Western media before Turkish media, because the standards of press are obviously higher, and they are higher than Armenia, I don't even accept as fact Armenia's media. Fadix 19:38, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

We are not discussing youir views or my views in Turkish internall affairs regarding the Freedom of Speech, I do not believe Turkey has an opressive policy. I havent seen an evidence of it unless people start talking about how horible Turkey is and why they should seperate from the country. Even countries like the US do not quite allow this, esspecialy not after the Patriot Act. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 21:27, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC) It is sensable to ask for you to stop discussing how well or how horrible free speech is promoted, but instead what the article in question. This is a discussion on History NOT politcs.

Is the current shape NPOV? Does Fadix prevent vandalism or censor facts?

My recent contributions were deleted by Fadix with accusation of vandalism. Here are my defense of my contribution. I request that the page be reverted to my final version with minor modifications to trim my possibly POV language.

• I added ASALA's foundation in the timeline. This is the only time blood was shed after the tragedy of 1915 and is directly related to the issue. While a rock band's song is regarded as a related or important development about the issue, note of ASALA's existence is named vandalism? Why? Are songs more important than lives? Oh sorry, Turkish lives don't count, I forgot for a second... Or maybe you are trying to hide some facts? Speaking of revisionism, the best revisionism of history is not noting the events that occured, actually.

ASALA has its own entry, was a recognized terrorist organization, and its sphere of influence was beyond the recognition of the genocide. Fadix 17:02, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• • • • • • Yes it has its own entry and it has a place in timeline. It is more valuable to the material then what a buch of politicians said.

So there should be no cross-links between relevant entries in wikipedia? A pro-Armenian band is more important than a pro-Armenian terrorist group? Why? Because Fadix doesn't want to destroy the innocent Armenian image he is drawing. ASALA is a fact Fadix, it is a FACT, you can't escape from that! Cezveci 17:44, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I was not the one including the stupid Armenian band, I hate their musics. But that band exist and is singing for the recognition of the genocide. ASALA doesn't even exist anymore, and was a known terrorist organization that has its own entry. I fail to see what that should be included, before other things that are even not included and are more relevant. Fadix 18:12, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"PLUCK" maybe offensive when expanded, maybe reword.

So you don't remove the bad musicians, but you remove ASALA? And you're still so shameless to claim that ASALA is irrelevant? Well Enver, Talat (not Talaaat), and Cemal (not Djemal) don't exist anymore, let's remove the whole article then. Cezveci 18:46, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What kind of comparison is this, the entry is about 1915, Talaat and his team have everything to do with the entry. As for the musician, you can delete it for all I care, the only reason ASALA was deleted, actually I don't remember having done it, so it must have been the way it was phrased.Fadix 01:03, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You should be reading what you are reverting before deleting, you are required to review other peoples work before disagreeing with it.

What kind of reasoning about history is this, "they don't exist any more, so let's not mention them"? Do you think everybody except yourself is fool? My recommendation: If there is a timeline, ASALA needs to have the best place there as the only blood-sheddinng development in the timeline. With appropriate neutralization, of course (it was already neutral, by the way. I did not call ASALA "Armenian" to avoid associating a whole nation with terrorists). The hateful song is welcome stay with appropriate neutralization. Please do not try to delete both, assuming that people are dumb, as you do usually. --Cezveci ^{My Talk} 06:32, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am not a fool, unless you think you're one and you project others on your perceived image? ASALA is not a major news more than other relevant informations not present in the entry. The entry is regarding the Armenian genocide, ASALA like other such informations are unrelated with the occurrence of the event in question.

Asala is related to this article more than how American Politicians reacted on 24th april, or music bands. Since this is a discussion on politics, countries that recognises the genocde today have no relevance in a history discussion. Abolish every modern event or none. No selective deleting please.

As for the reasoning of history, don't just throw words to show you have something to say. The reasoning of “history” here is the way history is studied.Fadix 19:39, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• • • • • • • • • Requires documents, you should agree. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 03:41, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• I added Turkey's recent disclosure on the issue and Armenia's answer in the timeline. This was regarded to be a very important development in both American and European media. Is American presidential candidate's statement more relevant than the accused side's milestone attempt on getting into a dialogue?

You mean, you've introduced your POVs as fact in the timeline. Fadix 17:02, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

So, you've now answered my point? Kerry's POV is more important than the accused side's milestone action? Oh, I forgot to note, Turkish politicians also declared that Turkey is ready to face any outcome of such colloborative research. This was important, because it was showing a change in the attitude of Turkey. Many EU and US bureocrats acknowledged the improtance of this development. It does not qualify as a fact in the timeline, because you don't like the fact that Turkey is trying to find a way for dialogue? And we are "revisionists"? Look at the mirror, Fadix. Cezveci 17:50, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Turkish politicians that claimed that, wants the position to be supported by Ottoman archives, that are still not widely opened, and that were “cleaned” in various occasion by the military. They want the world to accept the Ottoman “cleaned” documents over the rest of the world documents, over the Turkish military tribunal, over anything else. This is called “selling” and not being ready to accept anything at all. More so, when a major work relating to German archives will be published in few weeks. Fadix 18:12, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The thing important is what the Turkish politicians "say", not their intentions. It is a political war and all sides, including imperialists, play their game. This development is important because it shows a significant change in Turkey's policy. Kerry's intention was getting some more votes from the Armenians, why does Kerry's position stay there? Are we supposed to censor the main actors' actions just because of your speculations? You're trying to revise today, not only the history. Cezveci 18:51, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No, the way it is phrased is actually wrong, the meetings in question are about selling Halacoglus so-called studies and has nothing to do with discussion. Taner Akcam himself had an invitation, but he claimed that he would accept if there is a neutral mediator, Halacoglu lied and said that Akcam refused, like they've lied for Vienna. You can not use claims from dubious sources and present them as factual. Fadix 01:03, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This is about Turkey's disclosure, not the meetings. My final recommendation: Turkey's disclosure was an important milestone, and needs to stay in the timeline. Europe's and US's comments may be added as well. Good news won't hurt anybody. Fadix can write their interpretation of this development in a newspaper column, as normal people do. --Cezveci ^{My Talk} 06:36, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This so-called meeting was nothing important to be included with important dates, there has been many other much more important things which were true that are not included here. The info is erroneous, first of all, there never was any first meeting to begin with, second of all, such invitations of meetings happen very often, it just happen to be much more publicized this year, because of the symbolic 90 years. This information is not accurate and therefore has no place here. When I present an information, it must be accurate in the first place... and here I am speaking of the “accuracy” of the existence of the “claim.” And not the factuality. Both are different. For instance, I reject the claims made by the Turkish government, but those claims exist, the representation of the claim must be accurate. So, it should be presented. But if I claim that the Turkish government claim A, while they really claim it is B... the representation of the claim is not accurate. The meeting in question was to be a way for Halacoglu to present his “studies.” Such meetings happens each years in form of Symposiums, lectures, conferences, discussions etc. There are dozens and dozens each years. There is no way that just because this one happened to be Halacoglus studies and that he has publicized this beyond limits, that it means that it should be misrepresented by its representation. And if you read the materials regarding neutrality here in Wikipedia, you will see that this is part of what is not neutral. If you give space to something that has no reason to have this space before other more important and relevant things, you mislead the reader, and therefore it can not be accurate. Fadix 19:49, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• I added Armenian historian's withdrawal from the Turco-Armenian meetings. If wikipedia is about facts, and history is more factual than politics, why is historians' attitudes considered less relevant than politicians?

First of all, this has no place at all in Wikipedia, it is a POV from the Turkish press, the leading figure of the Turkish team is Halacoglu, a self-deceiving clown. Besides, only the reason why Armenia has refused, is self-destructive of your own claim. Mainly because Armenia has countless numbers of of times, claimed that it does not get involved in historical discussion as a country, unlike Turkey. And not only Armenian historians have refused those meetings, but international historians as well, because it was a political meeting to sell Halacoglu so-called findings, rather than a discussion panel. Fadix 17:02, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ok, we're removing this because Fadix doesn't like Halacoglu. Honestly, I don't like him either. And Turkey is side who censor everything they don't like. Cezveci 19:06, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No, it has nothing to do with me not liking him, but everything to do with the way it is represented, those so-called invitations are just pathetic attempts, by knowing that there is no one that would accept panels mediated by someone that is there to support a position. We all have seen the last time it was channeled in Turkish TV, about the so-called “debate.” Fadix 01:03, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have attended to several pro-genocide American historians' seminars and they were clearly supporting a position, displaying stupid things as "proof" (before seeing them, I was thinking that the genocide theses lied on a stronger ground and believing that the Armenian lobby's influence was just our government's propaganda. How silly I was!) My final recommendation: This can be deleted. --Cezveci ^{My Talk} 06:43, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Armenian “lobby's” influence is your government propaganda. To think that serious scholars will be influences by lobby's before actual studies, you must be brain washed. Fadix 19:53, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• I added two websites on the Turkish side's external link list. One was a propoganda site of turkish thesis, many of Armenian counterparts exist in the other list.

Torque website is a fraud, it has no place in Wikipedia, the others documents are already included in the other websites, it has no justification to be included. Fadix 17:02, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and the Armenian sites are full of truth. I think your racist source of information info-turk.be is more reliable. Cezveci 19:11, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Armenian sites are official web-sites, only Raffis site as far as I am aware of, is a personal website... and he just present publish things that are from press etc. If a Turkish website present documents that exist, that those documents are factual or not, I would have no problem including the site, but Torque site claim the existence of quotes which do not exist, this is the differences and that was why I deleted that entry. Wikipedia can not contain such site as reference. Fadix 01:03, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

A website that publishes all fundemental documents that exist and is official is removed by yourself, and you're continuing to defend that decision below. My final recommendation: The link to this website may be deleted, but I think it is against freedom of speech, you don't look for quality while allowing freedom and wikipedia is not responsible for the accuracy of the external links, relevance matters. Moreover, it would be good for you if people saw that site. --Cezveci ^{My Talk} 06:47, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That is untrue, Torque website did contain non-existing documents, I have shown that with my exchanges with the author in question. And you have even lied by presenting the site as being from Western and Turkish scholars. Such a site has no place as references in Wikipedia, the site is a fraud. And again, let me repeat, because it seems you don't understand. The reason I deleted the website was not because it had a different opinion than I do have, other websites like tetedeturc, who bring more documents, were left untouched. The reason why I deleted that website was because it was reporting quotes that do not exist in the said documents in which they were supposed to exist in. I have compared with the originals and have shown how. Besides, the site is racist in nature, and compare Armenians as less than animals. The site in question is in the limit of legality, and I repeat, such a site has no place in Wikipedia. Fadix 19:58, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• More importantly I added Turkish government's official site of Ottoman archives related to the issue. Can anything be more useful than the accused state's archives while doing research on claims? What scares you about these archives?

As I said, those same state archives can be found from one of the other sites already included. Fadix 17:02, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You removed that link so that below you can comfortably lie about Turkey's official archives not containing any document about the massacres by Armenians. Why shouldn't we include an "official" source of informatuion in wikipedia? Are you so afraid of the truth? Cezveci 19:13, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No, the link was removed because the documents from the Turkish archives were already in the other link that was still there, and for that reason that link had no reason to be there. Fadix 01:03, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What a ridiculuous excuse is that? It is an official site, it is a source of information and my final recommendation: It should stay there. If you don't let it stay there, just put a disclosure at the top stating "You are allowed to edit this webpage only if you are on Fadix's side" --Cezveci ^{My Talk} 06:51, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

True, it is an official website, but I repeat, the same exact material was present in the other websites, why posting two websites which have the same documents? It is like providing two links with the same book. It is a “double posting.” Fadix 20:01, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• I removed the claim about pro-Armenian-theses Turkish intellectuals being imprisoned in Turkey and acknowledged that such claims do not reflect the truth. I noted that these intellactuals are protested strongly by extreme nationalists. I corrected misspelling (which I think is disrespectful) of Orhan Pamuk's name and noted what he exactly said (which is against Turkish thesis). I also added one more Turkish historian, Halil Berktay's name to support your point. But apparently, Fadix does not find Halil Berktay pro-Armenian enough.

This was your POV, and do not reflect reality, http://www.info-turk.be/ this alone provide countless numbers of cases. What you claimed was just a pathetic lie. Without including the Turkish new penal code. Fadix 17:02, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Your source of information is a racist hate-promotion site and you're accusing me, who noted the unaccepteble behavior of Turkish nationalists, of lying? So we believe racists as long as they are anti-Turkish, but we don't believe a Turk even though he is against Turkish nationalism and does not try to hide the acts of Turkish nationalists (unlike some other nationals who try hard to hide ASALA). Freedom of speech and Fadix's intention to falsify situation are demonstrated above. Cezveci 19:23, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Before lying about the website, you should check before. The site is not anti-Turkish and racist, it is build and run by Turks, it is from a Turkish human right organization, and has bureaus and is registered officially. Fadix 01:03, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Luckily, I can recognize turkish names (not Talaat, Talat by the way, insisting on a wrong doesn't make it right, no need being allergic to Turkish language) and they are at the top of the page. And I am repeating, that is an anti-Turkist hate promotion site. My final recommendation regarding this issue is above. --Cezveci ^{My Talk} 07:01, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You can't just call Turks who disagree with your ultra nationalist point of view, as anti-Turks. The site is build and run by Turks that are fighting for the progression of the Turkish state, and you on the other hand, will, as an ultra national with a Grey Wolf mentality, dump them as “anti-Turks” and “racists” and slandering them. Nice job. Fadix 20:04, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think fadix you need to re evaluate where your standing as far as hatered goes. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 21:53, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• The current story does not acknowledge the fact that Ottomon Empire was in a war during the time and that Armenians were living on the Eastern Front. I noted that Armenian militia supported and armed by Russia did attack on muslim villages. This is a fact. Even the most pro-Armenian historians can't deny this and consider it as a mistake on the Armenian side. Why do you want to hide these facts? Is it more factual or neutral if you show the events to come out of nothing? Is it scientific? Even though there was an intention of extermination, aren't these worth note as the shown excuse? Why are you even so scared to note that the event took place during WWI?

This is your claims, you can not present your claims as facts, more so when the dates you propose, there was not a single German or Austrian reports testifying about it. You can not take the Turkish government theses and present it as a fact. You claim even pro-Armenian historians do not deny that, care to provide any examples please, of Armenians having attacked Muslim villages in 1914? Go ahead. Fadix 17:02, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"You can't present your claims as facts". That I agree and that I am trying to establish here. Facst are not your claims Fadix. No double-standards here. Follow what you have just stated. Armenians proudly state that there was a struggle of independence since the late 1800's. These were written here by pro-Armenians as a heroic epic (Turks are always the "others" in the language, "we" are the Armenians and imperialists). I guess you were the one who removed them. Pro-Armenian historians try never mentionining these while trying to rule out Bernard Lewis and others "provocation" theses, but when you ask them why the Greek's on the west were not relocated, they confess the "mistake" of Armenian nationalists who collaborated with Russians. You want proof of attacks on villages? But you don't believe Turkish archives. Then read the history of Dashnaks. Then go to Eastern Anatolia, go to Erzurum, Hasankala, Sarikamis, Van and listen to those people's memories. Observe the unwritten, but. Witness the tragedies of those people yourself. Not only the Turks, the Kurds also experienced the same tragedy. You accuse Turkey of denying the suffering of Armenians, but you're the real denier, you don't give a shit about the suffering of muslims in Eastern Anatolia, do you? Cezveci 22:39, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What I present is what is mostly recognized by Academics, what you do present is the Turkish government official version, you can not present that by claiming it is a historical fact. Nowhere in the article before you have edited it, there was any such tones of a theses as being indisputably a fact. Besides, I suggest you to find Assyrians and ask their “stories,” they were deported and killed as well, would you claim they have collaborated with the enemy? Why the Jewish Nili group in its reports feared that the interventions would later not be only limited to Armenians, Assyrians etc., and probably even include the Jews? As for the stories your side can come up with? Not so long ago, a New York Times reporter has been in Eastern Turkey and HAS interviewed Turks and Kurds, and they were saying about how the Armenians were taken and just wiped out... there are even stories of why in a region the soil is red, they believe that the Armenian blood colored it. It is pretty much easy for the Turkish government to search and introduce memories to peoples and then publish what they have to say. My grandpa was orphaned, and I know hardly any Armenians in all the communities, that had no similar stories, you can in no way compare the Armenian losses, while your sides stories are about “this person was dead, we heard this etc.” you will find Armenians saying: “My grandpa, grandma were orphaned, their sisters, brothers killed. Etc.” Besides, the 1914 attack in Muslim villages is even not reported by any memoirs I have read... this is NOT supported nowhere, so claiming something such is just a lie, more so, you even have the audacity to present it as historical fact. Fadix 01:03, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Which academics? Oh, we only listen to the ones supported by the Armenian diaspora, sorry. My mother knows folk songs that talk about Armenian cruelty (no offense), do you expect me to believe that Halacoglu implanted them into her head so that she would remember them as if they were traditional songs that she learned during her youthood, which happens to be 40's? Have you ever heard about muslims being murdered in and exiled from Balkans and Russia throughout 19th century? In todays Turkey, there is a province that hosts a particular ethnic group who were driven to Anatolia in those days (Circassians in Corum, Tatars in Eskisehir, Bosnians in everywhere, Balkanese Turks and Bosnians in Edirne, Kirklareli, Tekirdag). Those people did not happily run here. 2 million of them died. Western history doesn't record these. My final recommendation: WWI should be recorded. War against Russia should be recorded. Armenians mostly living on Eastern Front should be recorded. Armenians living on the west were not relocated, this should be recorded. These are very well-established facts. Russian-Armenian relations, Armenian independence movements (how shameless or illogical can a person be to name these two a claim, but anyway) and attacks on muslim villages should be recorded with the statement of being claimed. --Cezveci ^{My Talk} 07:56, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

So, your mother knows folk song talking about Armenian cruelties? My grandparents were singing such songs when they got their family members killed. You see what I mean? While you will report things as “She knew, he knew” you can pick any Diaspora Armenians, and this “I knew” would be about grandparents being orphaned and, brothers and sisters killed. One person can be killed in a village, and it could be enough to have a story of cruelty, but when the majority are killed, you'll get stories, from the nation that was murdered, of brothers, sisters, mothers, father etc. killed. As Nazim Hikmet the Turkish poet wrote: “Karabet loves you, Because he knows well, That you yourself have not forgiven, Those responsible for the shame brought on the Turkish people.” I don't think this Karabet will love you, because not only do you deny it, but you even try to attempt reverting the role of victims and aggressors. What's so amazing as well, is how you want compassion from my side for those Turks, and Muslim having lost their lives, when you disgustfully revert the role of victims and aggressors of a genocide. While people like you have no problem shouting “millions” of death Muslim, without any attempt to back it up, and consider is as a historical fact, you'll try to minimize the Armenian losses. Of course, had you read works and researched the matter, you will right away see what distinguished the Armenians cases. While the Balkan Muslim, and those in Russia, were kicked out, Armenians were not permitted to leave the Empire, they were sent in camps, and criminals released from prison were sent on them to butcher them. As for your claim that Armenians from the West were not moved, that is a revisionist claim that could even be rejected when using Ottoman or Turkish records. At first only Izmir and Istanbul Armenians were prevented to leave, and those far reaching ones in th West, were left there, when the Ottoman realized that it would lose those lands. In Istanbul, 30,000 Armenians were evacuated to be sent in the slaughter house. In Izmir, a circular order for their evacuation was stopped by the German threatening to intervene military, because those movement of population were seriously interrupting the war efforts. But we know what happened, when the Ottoman got a hand on Izmir at the end. Let see what Hamdullah Suphi has written about the Balkan war in Ikdam, 17 December 1912: “Presently when the other people murdered before our very eyes our fleeing wives and children, the Armenian soldiers who had enrolled in our army fought with a heroism that knows no higher degree. The officials whom the Armenians had put at the disposal of our government were the last ones leaving their posts when the cities that were threatened by the enemy were being evacuated. Their families were the ones which opened their doors to the fleeing citizens with the please. “Don't go away. Don't destroy your hearth. Let us live together until such time when the unhappy days are over.””

Coming to the attacks in Muslim villages, there was NO attack in Muslim villages in 1914, like you wrote, this is a complete fabrication that could even not be supported by the official Turkish foreign affair publication of the archives. You can not present your POV as historical facts. Besides, the Neutral Point of view, require that each events be given as much space as they are represented. Villages attacked in 1917 and later, can in any way not be compared with the destruction of over a million of people, by a centrally planned mass extermination policy. It is like taking the destruction of an entire city, and treating it in an article by giving a space for a quarter... when the rest of the quarters were in much worser shape. This is about the Armenian genocide, and should cover the Armenian genocide. The entry about the Holocaust, is about the Holocaust, and not about the German losses due to the allied bombing or the atomic bombs lunched at the end of World War II. As for your question of which academics... such statments don't even bother answering to. Fadix 20:42, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Not all science agree, majority doesnt necesarily make right in science either. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 21:53, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• I changed the introduction to establish NPOV. The current introduction shows the intention of extermination by the Ottoman government as an established fact, which is in dispute, hence a clear onse-sided POV. Second, it does not even mention the claims about the massacres of muslims by Armenian militia. Well, not an established fact, the other side's POV, but why censor it? I stated the conflict and both sides's views in a neutral way. How vandal I am!

The introduction was clearly NPOV before you touched it. Fadix 17:02, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Dont cut in other peoples conversation like this. Its difficult to tell what you said and what he said. I just noticed this.

Ay ay ay, I am expected to believe that. Not a mentioning of what is disputed, not a mentioning of major claims, and that's NPOV. I did not remove any claim of the Armenian side, just added the claims and position of the other side. And you show allergic reaction to that, because you don't what it to be discussed. You don't want the truth, you want your own claims to be propagated. Wikipedia is not your private website. Go do your propoganda in your own racists sites. Cezveci 20.07, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That's untrue, the positions were clearly made, and that point even Coolcat agreed on, besides wanting that most Western Academics believe one position against the other to be removed. Fadix 01:03, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Nobody is fool Fadix. Be respectful to yourself. Recommendation: Reviewers should read both versions and decide which one is NPOV, with possible modification. --Cezveci ^{My Talk} 07:20, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Both version were represented with NPOV before you have vandalized the article, I have even included a section to represent the Turkish government version, before your other alias has deleted it. Your edits are not NPOV, two versions should be present, but each of them should be presented as NPOV and not POV as you did it. And more, it is POV to misrepresent in an article like you have done. Fadix 20:45, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

POV is not Vandal. Pro-genocide is not NPOV either. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 21:53, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• I changed the section name from "Armenian Genocide" to "Relocation of Armenians". The title of the article is already "Armenian Genocide", which is definitely POV. The section, on the other hand, is supposed to talk about the events of 1915, which is indeed a relocation, which has caused extensive life loss. It is claimed to be considered as a genocide, but this is an interpretation, not the name of the event that took place.

No, “Armenian relocation” is not NPOV, it actually IS POV, the words Armenian Genocide, are generally accepted, while “Armenian relocation” is recognized by a minority of academics as expression, and even the Turkish government released archives use the term “deportation.” And besides the Armenian genocide is just more than the moving of population. Fadix 17:02, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Armenian genocide is" POV. We know that a relocation has happened. That is NPOV. The debate is on whether it was an intended genocide or not. The debate is on whether the main reason was the provocation or not. These are POV. NPOV on a disputed issue is displaying both POVs, not censoring the one that we don't like. Sorry, your point has to be taken as NPOV because you're "western" or "civilized"? Cezveci 19.59, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Armenian Genocide is NOT POV, this is how it is called, this is how the person who coined the term genocide has called it, this is how the UN and international such bodies call it. If the event is called the Armenian genocide, it is called such. It is like not agreeing that a Toyota Matrix is not a car. As for POV, there was nothing POV in the original article you have edited, if there is any, you can show it to me, on the other hand, I have clearly shown POV in your editions. This is not whatever or not you like something, this is presenting the different views, by clearly stating who says what, but what you did is to present your POVs and present them as facts... while your POV is supported by very few scholars, and this has nothing to do with Western or non-Western. Fadix 01:03, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Recommendation: The article is already named Armenian Genocide. The section should be named "The relocation of Armenians and Subsequent Massive Deaths" --Cezveci ^{My Talk} 07:21, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No! This is not how it works, only the Turks call it relocation, there is no way to misrepresent an entry, the entry is called the Armenian genocide, and is about the event that is called the Armenian genocide, it is called such by most, and should be called such, you can not present the version of a minority and call the section such. Fadix 20:49, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• The camps section is pure propaganda and POV. It needs to be supported with documents. You can't find a single document about camps in the Ottoman Archive's and no state is that primitive in writing or advanced in espionage to "sponsor" an "extermination plan" without written documents.

Maybe you should read the official Ottoman archives as you'd call them, on the link you yourself has provided. People sent in a place by force, and to be concentrated, is actually a concentration camp, the term at that time was not widely used by people, but the Germans did call it as such, and the genocide maps, and works do call it “concentration camps” including works covering last century concentration camps. Fadix 17:02, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oh, so let's try hard to make a case that has its own dynamics the same as the holocaust, so mightbe we can also come back and massacre some more turks and kurds in Eastern Anatolia, huh? Let every event be considered in its own dynamics, to be scientific, first of all. Cezveci 19.49, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Fact, the claims of Armenians mass killing Turks is only claimed by Turkish nationalist scholars, something that just erupted in the 70s, neither this claim is supported by credible and serious academics, neither does it explain how every places where you claim Armenians have killed Muslim, there is not a single Armenian reported living there now. And neither as well, doesn't explain how, not only Armenians from what was called Ottoman Armenia, just disappeared, but that the Ottoman even destroyed the Alexandriopole Armenian community and other places such as Kars that were part of Russian Armenia, neither does it explain General Halil excursions as far as Baku to destroy the Armenian presence. Wikipedia has no place for national biases, what a minority believe can not be presented as truth, even if a majority was to believe something, no one could present it as truth, now imagine the slight minority view that you have imposed in the article as truth. Fadix 01:03, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Any relevance of these with the camps? My recommendation: Camps section should be deleted or rewritten with statement of claims based on reliable documentation. --Cezveci ^{My Talk} 07:59, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What kind of BS is this? Are you denying the existence of the camps? I guess the Armenians were all sent in a spaceship and not camps. Those are based on reliable documents, German documents are reliable. Fadix 20:57, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• The current shape of the article is not scientific. There must be discussion on the background of the events, discussion of the sociology and psychology of the Armenian "millet" at the time, discussion of the political situation in Ottoman Empire (The wars, the crisis, rising movements, islamism, nationalism, pan-turkism, revolutions against the sultan) and motivation of the Ottoman government about the decision of the relocation decision. The current article is a worst-quality edition of the classical Armenian propaganda, contributing to he ignorant and racist Anti-turkism.

--Cezveci ^{My Talk} 05:48, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That's not right, this is about one event, that is called the Armenian genocide, we can try to relativize any entries at Wikipedia and claim the “bigger picture,” this is not how it works. As for racism, there is no worst form of racism, than one that deny a genocide and revert the role of victims and agressors, just because as a person of one ethnic group, he can't accept facts, because of his perverted nationalism. That is racism. Fadix 17:02, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You don't like big pictures I know, Fadix. You like mentioning Taner Akcam is pro-Armenian, you like mentioning Taner Akcam was imprisoned in Turkey, but you don't like completing the picture by stating that the imprisonment had nothing to do with the Armenian issue. Bigger (I'd rather use complete, but you won't like that word either) pictures don't provide the falsified conclusion you're trying to reach, don't they? Comparing it with the holocaust (which happened in western Europe in a very different context) is the right approach to take, right Fadix? That's how you look at history, that's how you try to understand social dynamics. Just draw a picture of "evil turks" and "poor armenians", and win the game. I indeed think the Armenians are victims, who were murdered and had to leave their country. But you'll never accept that a turk can be victim, because it doesn't fit the "evil turk model" your friends are construction in "info-turk.be". I am also sorry for today's Armenians, who have to construct their national identity on a big tragedy and whose suffering is being explotied by the imperialist states just to strengthen their position against Turkey. Do you really think the imperialists care about the Armenians? Greeks, Turks, Armenians are just toys for them, they don't care about what happened in history. They only care about what is useful for them today. Greeks and Armenians get the candies just because Turkey is more powerful, hence harder to handle. That's what we learned a single thing about the history written by our ("we" here stands for Turks, Greeks, Kurds, Armenians, Arabs, even Australians, Indians...) blood. Cooperating with the imperialists does no good for yourself. I am not blaming anybody for being traitors, it is a social fact that you will give your hand to them if you're in need of help. I am not blaming the Armenians because they had a nationalist awakening, because it was the trend at that time. But I blame those who deny this actually happened. I blame those who write history on only western standards and accuse the "others" of being revisionist. This is our history. This is our problem. First thing we have to do is to take their hands of this. But, the Armenian Diaspora plays the imperialists' game, and that does no good for the Armenian national identity. As Hrant Dink says, "Constructing your own identity against the existence of others is sickness. If you need an enemy to preserve your identity, your identity has a disease". No need to mention, he doesn't talk about only one side here. I don't hate Armenians Fadix. I never hated them. Most Armenians hate me, and I understand them. There are people in Turkey who hate Armenians, and I understand them as well. I try to clean the black mark of history in my own society, that's my responsibility. You're the one who provokes Armenians against Turks, you're the one who blames Turkey as a whole society for things that happened in the natural course of history. You're the one who refers to websites that is founded on the basis of hate against Turks. If you try to hide terrorist activities that happened just 30 years, I can't trust you, I am sorry. I can't believe that you won't take the terrorists' side when they come to murder me again.

This sort of retarded mentality has no place in a serious discussion, such sarcastic tones like “poor Armenians” and “Evil Turks” can hardly support anything. What you just wrote above has nothing to do with the points I raised, besides, that the Armenian genocide is often compared with the Holocaust has nothing to do with “me.” That the Armenian genocide is agreed by most academics has nothing to do with “me.” All your above regurgitation is worthless in what regards the article. The article should present the positions, and not suggest, I have accepted this, and have worked on it, you can not say “this happened” without presenting it as view, your editions were not that. This is unrelated to your retarded rhetorics that we often hear of a said Armenian Diaspora propaganda about poor poor Turks. I was ready to present the Turkish government version... positions should be presented, but it should be said who believes what, and not “this is that” something you did. The rest I won't bother answering. Fadix 01:03, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I am sorry, I emphathized with you for a while and made the mistake of discussing things that are irrelevant to how you want the page to be. Don't lie, you are deleting any single pro-relocation claim even though they are stated as claims. The article was much more neutral before you showed up. My recommendation: Both sides' claims should be in and stated as claims. Don't try to fool anybody and state your claims as facts while stating others as claims (I guess that's why coolcat opposed that action, you think you're too smart Fadix, but you're just the counterpart of Halacoglu) --Cezveci ^{My Talk} 07:27, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I seems that it is the other way around, you are lying... before you edited the article both side claims were presented as positions, while you came in and colored the entry with claims that were presented as facts, when there were some that could even not be supported from the other side. I had even added a section to present the Turkish government version. The entry is not about what an ultra nationalist blinded by patriotism think is true, but presenting positions as they are recognized, and right now, the entry is not this anymore. Fadix 21:01, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

you fail to acknowlege this as a dipute, you fail to welcome oposition either. "Genocide did happen and Turkey must accept this!" is a POV. "Armenians use other nations to promote their Genocide thesis". is another POV. NPOV is not either. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 21:53, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

We will work on how the article is shaped, you are welcome to stay. Please I ask neither parties to present insults, my personal request to some parties is to refrain from the "Mr." nick, its very irritating. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 06:00, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I suggest we proceed slowly. The article accoding to both sides is not neutral at the moment. Just tag along and take it slow. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 06:00, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

POV is clearly stated as NOT being vandalims in Wikipedia:Vandalism. It is classified as "WHAT IS NOT VANDALISM".

I am not sure if fadix bothered reading every single edit you made. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 11:36, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Working towards consensus

I agree with Tony Sidaway's protecting of this article. I don't know whether it's protected on the "correct" version and it doesn't really matter. The disagreements need to be resolved here on this talk page. What's not helpful are personal attack on this page and in edit summaries. I'd like to see the editors of this article list the points they believe are false or POV. Once the points of contention are identified, we can start moving towards consensus. Carbonite | Talk 00:17, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Agreed...--Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 00:20, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Tony uses of the article to be locked is not what was asked to be peer reviewed, neither what was asked to be mediated, it was all the edits Coolcat was asking for. Let post you the changes and show you how Tony has abused his powers.

“There is an agreement about the occurence of the tragedy. However, there is ongoing debate on two issues, "whether it was a state-sponsored extermination plan, hence genocide" and "whether the tragedy was one sided or the Turks were also massacred by Russian-supported Armenian militia". While Turkey officially denies the occurence of a "genocide", the Armenian theses consistently reject acknowledging the causalities on the Turkish side."

This is not what the debate is about. This was Coolcat claim, it is POV, and is innacurate in what regards the debate.

“Most Armenian, many Western and some Turkish scholars believe that the Armenian deaths were the result of a state-sponsored extermination plan. Most Turkish and many Western scholars, on the other hand, claim that a clash between the two sides, along with famine and disease, was the reason why a number of Armenians perished. Death toll claims range from 200,000 to 1.8 million, and while there is no official international consensus regarding exactly how many Armenians died, most Western sources maintain that at least one million deaths took place. What is referred to as the Armenian Genocide is the second most studied case of what is called genocide and often draws comparison with the Holocaust.”

This was what Coolcat wanted the changes to be made, and I have proposed him by presenting a link to an on line library. It is not a “many” Western vs “many” Western. This is just innacurate, most Western academia, against some Western Academia, I have told Coolcat to verify that on the list of an on line library, and have offered even more supports. He then claimed that it is not because from one side there are more works published that it means it is more supported. And anyone in scientific fields know that something should actually be published and be peer reviewed to BE considered.

The Armenian genocide has been changed for “Relocation of Armenians.” I guess for you Tony, this is more neutral right?

Or another change.

“Following Ottoman Empire's entry in WWI, the Imperial Russia has invaded Eastern Anatolia, where the Armenian and muslim communities were interleaved. Taking advantage of common religion and recent discomfort of the Armenian community in Ottoman Empire, Russia was promoting Armenian nationalism and there were many Russian-Armenians in the Russian army. Late in 1914, Russian supported and tranied Armenian militia started treachery and attacking on muslim villages.”

Or what about this change, is that neutral as well?

“There are a number of Turkish scholars who support the theses of genocide, including Taner Akçam and Halil Berktay. Despite being protested strongly by some Turkish nationalists, these scholars freely express and publish their opinions in Turkey. However, the Armenian propagandists falsely claim that confirming the so-called genocide is a crime subject to imprisonment in Turkey. Orhan Pamuk, a famous Turkish novelist, has also recently told the press that he believes that a million Armenians were killed in Turkey.”

And last, not the least, Torque website has been added back, when I have demonstrated that the site contain non existing quotes that were fabricated, as well as a Turkish government website, with documents that are already present in the other websites. Fadix 00:22, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't endorse any version of the article. Now in my earlier comment (in another section) I responded to Fadix identifying two disputed statements by editing the article to comment out those claims (they're still in the source but not visible in the article).

Now Fadix identifies more:

1. Armenian genocide section changed to "Armenian relocation"--a disputed/inaccurate characterization.
2. Claims about Russian promotion of Armenian nationalism are disputed/inaccurate.
3. Characterization of Armenian claims about alleged Turkish suppression of the Genocide thesis is disputed/inaccurate.
4. A website cited has disputed/inaccurate figures.

Is that it? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:25, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Tony, do you realise that this is about all of the edits made? You remove them and you've got about the article I had, while you have reverted my revertion, you will just come back nearly to what I have been posting, and that article I had was the result of neutralizing that even Coolcat has participated in. Fadix 01:29, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I cooperated by removing two disputed statements in the introduction. Now I want to see you and Coolcat, and others, doing what Carbonite suggested:

I think that the next step is for the editors of this article to list the points they believe are false or POV. The personal attacks and snide edit summaries should also cease.

Then I want you to discuss these matters courteously and without recriminations, and decide between yourselves what the most agreeable wording is. You both have strong opinions that represent opposing viewpoints, but there's nothing wrong with that. Given goodwill you can come up with a truthful version of the article that represents the facts in a way that neither of you objects to. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:36, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Tony, some things are about opposing views, and some are not. Wikipedia neutral point of view requires some important things which Coolcat refuse to accept. As much space should be left as the ratio in the Academic world between those supporting one theses, and the other.

The entry is called Armenian genocide, and the name in the article has been reverted to “Armenian relocation” are you really expecting us to discuss about that? It is called the Armenian genocide, and the absurdity of the other sides position, is that even if we take the other sides theses, it still qualify as genocide under the UN convention.

Point 2, is what the other side claim, it isn't only POV, but it is the Turkish government POV, while it is mixed with the bunch, without indicating who believes what... something Coolcat was against with from the beginning. I will object on that, and i do believe that it is against NPOV, to mix everything as equal, without indicating who believes what. I have included a “Turkish government” section, but Coolcat deleted it, in fact, Coolcat even deleted the fact that in April 24, Armenian intellectuals were jailed and killed, something that even the other side recognize. Do you really think in those circumstances that it is possible to discuss with someone, that does not only want POV to be introduced, but his OWN POV?

Point 3, The Turkish human right organization report abuses each months, another Turkish human right organization “Info-Turk” even publish each months, and its articles can be accessed on line. The “Armenian claims” and the claim of freedom is simply untrue, when considering the countless numbers of people having been jailed.

Point 4, two websites added, one of those relevant articles are contained in another website already included, the other site, which is claimed to be by Turkish and Western scholars is Torques website, and I have shown clearly fabrications, quotes supposedly coming from works, when the quotes were not in the pages and the works mentioned, other times, a work that do not exist, a fabricated quote etc... copypasted from the newsgroups, and when the originator was a legendary spammer of the 90s. Fadix 01:52, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Coolcat, without attacking Fadix, what's your response to this? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 02:24, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

We have to clarify one thing. Relevancy, you should not, none of you, in anyway try to degrade my or anyones credibility based on what they did on a linked article. What I did elsewhere is irrelevant while we are discussing.

1. Carectising it as Genocide will mean the article acknowleges that as a fact. Characterising it as Relocation apperantly acknowleges the deniel. My intention was not that, I just wanted to use a word that was more neutral. I suggests using both words, ie Armenian Genocide/Relocation on the sole fact that there are claims disputing the classification of the event as Genocide, it would be futile to claim that anyone suggesting it wasnt a genocide as "a bunch of biased and misguided people" dont take this as an attack but all I am saying is views of the other party classifiying the thing should be pointed out.

Characterizing as genocide only confirm the title of the article. Read the UN convention, and even revisionists like McCarthy admit that using the UN convention for genocides, it would still be classified as genocide when one uses your theses. Relocation suggest a success of resettlement, since most that were “relocated” perished, there is no way to call it “relocation.” Furthermore, using such term as relocation mislead the reader into believing that only that happened. While the Armenian genocide is a very vast subject. Another thing you fail to understand, wherever or not one event could be classified as genocide is not your job, but rather international bodies like the UN. This is why for instance Gilbert in his work of World War I, report the qualification among scholars, while he report how the Armenian community was destroyed. An academic try to show or not the intend of the Ittihadist party who dissolved the government to enter in the war. That is what the subject is all about... if the UN classify an event as genocide, end of the story, those in charge of qualifications have already qualified the event, and not you or anyone can change that fact. It is called genocide, and any symposiums and conferences about genocide in history refer to the Armenian cases. Fadix 16:01, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Aperantly you are convinced its a solid fact and views fo the other party in this discussion is unimportant. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 22:29, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

1. If russian involvement is documented, that may be presented.

No, that the Armenians soon in the war engaged in massacring Muslim by joining the Russians, is not documented, this is just a big lie, and even the official Turkish foreign ministry affair archives publication don't show such, neither Germany or Austria report something like that. You not only have used what has been build by Refik Department II bureau to justify the decision, but you have entirely ignored that Refik himself wrote a booklet admitting that those were lies build to justify the decision against the Armenians. Djemal himself was even not aware of anything such. You can not just post lies like that, that are not only POV, but that they are even not documented from the revisionist sides, and that the only collection of files used were admitted to be fabrication by one of the leading figures that participated in their fabrication. Fadix 16:01, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You want to assumue armenians were a hundered percent innocent, thats rather fanatic. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 22:29, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

       I did not object the "intellectuals were jailed and killed" material, I commented out for review, instead of rewriting you reverted it. That was a mistake. I commented out lots of sections that was worded improperly. You dont say "Armenians were murdered" you say "Armenians are killed" this is how we say things on wikipedia. You cannot declare anything that suggests Armenian genocide as "propoganda". It must have a basis. It would not be right for either party of the story, PRO-ANTI genocide, to assume pure innocence, however neither nation should be insulted. An example: "Tratious Armenians" is definately unacceptable. Instead you can say "Armenian Rebelion" or something even more neutral.

There is a clear distinction between killed and murdered, you are again playing the same game you've played with the “concentration camps.” While this is how it is called by the very large majority of people, you just want the words used by a minority, this is not how we do it here at Wikipedia, and as a veteran you should know it. When the special organization was sent to escort the Armenians, they were committing murder and NOT killing, when the Ittihadist was sending them, they were sending them to murder Armenians. Fadix 16:01, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You want to assumue armenians were a hundered percent innocent, thats rather fanatic. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 22:29, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

1. That is politics, article cannot be based around politics. It can be mentioned in the aproporate tone. Preferably at the VERY END of the article where POVs, Interpretations should be placed.

You are the one that want to include political views, you want the Turkish government version to be presented as equally truth as what is said by the Academic world, this is not how we do it in Wikipedia.Fadix 16:01, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Aperantly you are trying to ignore this as a disputed matter for you your views are solid facts you will not back down untill others give up. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 22:29, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

       Turkish Human Rights Organisation is not an institiution that in anyway is related to the "Armeinan Genocide". Turkey has their own internal problems and this article is not related to turkeys internal problems today. You cannot and should not try to create an aurora of "Evil Turks". Same could be said for the United States, if I recall the a "Black" been beaten to death by "White" cops. This does not mean the goverment supports the incident. As far as I know such "Abuses" is declared illegal in Turkey. Lots of people get jailed in every country, your point? I do not care what "organisation A" claims, I care about what their claims are based on, which evidence?

That the Turkish human right organization recognize the Armenian genocide, is related with the Armenian genocide, that many from whom were jailed for this recognition IS related with the Armenian genocide. That now under the Turkish penal code, someone recognizing the genocide could be sued and jailed for over 10 years, IS related with the Armenian genocide, and your other alias just hijacked that part. Fadix 16:01, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I dont see how this supports hisoric material. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 22:29, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

1. External websites should be reexamined, you cant declare it "POV, bad". Thats what we can do after we are done with the rest of the article. Propoganda links from either side is unacceptable no matter which version they support.

No way, that is stupid, the reason why I have deleted that website had nothing to do with POV, obviously each side might present POV, I deleted that website because it had quotes that were build in the newsgroups by Multu and his aliases, the website was assassinating academics characters, and was in the limit of legality, the website has racist characterizations, such as an email by racist professor Ozan, that was claiming Armenians to be the lowest form of life. That website is Torques website, and I have shown how he has used non-existing materials. This is beyond POV, if I claim that on page 22 of a book, this quote exist, but after checking, the quote in fact did not exist, neither on that page, or anywhere in the book, my claim is not only not credible, but it is a fraud. The other site from the Turkish government, all the relevant stuff there are present on the other sites, so it is just quoting another site with the same materials. Fadix 16:01, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

So anybody who does not share your views are racist? You are not willing to discuss. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 22:29, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

1. A considerable amount of people worldwide think The "Genocide" was a bad consecuence of a good intention. MOST people dont care. They have other things they are investigating, there is more in history than Armenian Genocide, most scientists do not investigate the armenian genocide. There isnt a concensius involving Turkey either, you may call that "denial" or "pov" (not in the article), which is fine, but you cannot declare anything said that supports against genocide as propoganda.

You were the one yapping “Armenian propaganda,” what I report and have against, is not propaganda, propaganda does not necessarily mean that something is a lie. But you can not edit the article and introduce personal POV, like you have done, you can not present things that are even not POV, but beyond, because they could even not be supported when using your sides own materials. Wikiepdia is not the place for that... you can ask me to support any points there was in the previous article, before Tony committed a major mistake, and I will load references from Turkish, German and Austrian sources. And mind you here that Germany and Austria were Ottoman allies. Fadix 16:01, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

So you are saying that there is 0 propoganda and now are lecturing me what is wikipedia material and what isnt, your views are fanatical, I want to discuss things that appear to be unacceptable. You cant sacrifice hence talking wth you is pointless. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 22:29, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

1. I am not here to proove/disproove the genocide. All I want is article contain less POV more factual evidence. I want to recheck the validity on each and every statement in the article. There is lots of Propoganda from Either side, Armenian propoganda is more wide spread as Turkish propoganda is confined to the country. On 24th april on campus we have the Armenian Genocide day posted on every wall window, toilet door, everywhere. While I never seen anything remotely regarding the Turkish claim. I attend such things. Attendance was... not much, we had about 20 people in a 100+ lecture hall. People talked pro genocide of course. I listened and left quietly. I even had taken notes.

Besides, the Armenian side might be more active in such spheres, but it has no weight, in where it matters, the Turkish government found and fund university departments, directly pay scholars(see chronicle of higher education, and a publication in the Holocaust and Genocide studies etc.)... the Turkish government directly pressurize countries to not recognize the genocide. E.g, the US was to recognize it, Turkey pressurized it with repercussions, such as closing the US bases in Turkey etc. Obviously your side has more weight here. Fadix 16:01, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, I do not know who has more weight, if that was the case noone in eu would have regognised genocide. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 22:29, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

1. I am willing to forget past hostilities and start from scratch, I propose my color scheme to talk. You are welcome to use it. If you do so will I. Information avalible at: User:Coolcat/mediat

--Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 04:00, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am not interested in your color scheme, neither interested in your mediation, you can not mediate this place, when your intention is to dissolve the article. Fadix 16:01, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes, you are not willing to doscuss and cant agree on anything that disagrees with you. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 22:29, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I expected you to answer my above answer, but you had nothing to say, but I expected that.

• Questioning the innocence of a group or an ethnic group is racistic in nature, anothger comment made by nationalist Turks. But of course, I hope you are not denying anymore being a nationalist Turk. Are you?

• Do you actually believe that by just writing things that have nothing to do with what I wrote, people will believe you've actually brought an argument?

• This is not about supporting or not, but rather presenting who believes what, and this is important.

• OK then, you wanted it, you will get it, just let post professor Ozan message regarding the Armenians: "You Armenians claim that you are the direct descendents of Prophet Noah. What a self-serving braggadocio! According to your 'fable' you were saved from the deluge by prophet Noah taking you the Armenians into his wooden barge. It is reported in the Bible that he took two of every kind of creature, at the height of those terrible floods, those who would otherwise be destined to drown. He must have taken at least two of your kind into his ship also."

"But let us not forget that he also took in among other creatures, Hyenas, snakes, leeches and scorpions too. I got a hunch that he was not very happy that he had given the Armenians a ride. He is heard afterwards saying the following: "What a mistake have I committed? What a wonderful place this GOD's earth could have been If I had not taken them in with us to be transported to dry lands."

"Those are pretty sad words, Mr. Gasparian, but not mine. Mine would be: "Let even the Armenians live among us. There is still hope that they may be transformed eventually into some acceptable creatures. There is still hope for them even, because look at history! It is replete with primitive mortals who were the most uncivilized, the most cruel, the most boodthirsty people of their times: the "Vikings." Since we can count all Scandinavians, the descendents of the Vikings nowadays amongst the most civilized, most humane, most peaceful members of wordly society of human beings, who knows, Mr. Gasparian, your kind also, one day, will see the light and emulate the Vikings. At least that is my fervent wish for you and for your people."" But you know what? I think I'll leave it to that, unless you want me to post the juicy comments in the site regarding the Armenians? Or the examples of non-existing works and character assassinations against academics? The site is on the limit of legality, if any of those slandered on Torques site were to know his name, Torque would find himself with serious lawsuits.

• Actually, it is the other way around, talking with you is pointless, you want the article to contain your POV, you can just not do that. And yes! I am lecturing you on what are Wikipedia materials and what are not, because you still fail to understand.

• Actually, the fact that they do recognize the genocide after all the pressure, is an evidences on how the facts are just too strong.

• You are lying here, don;t forget that I have added a section to present the Turkish government version, you preferred deleting it, because you want all the article to be the Turkish government version. I was ready to make many compromises, you have from the beginning made none. Fadix 01:26, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am a newbie so please go easy if I make any mistakes. I just want to say I disagree with CoolCats point two. In reference to wording with killing or murdered. The words kill or murder do not have the same meaning. Killin someone does not suggest intent (while it might be there). For example "John killed Tim in a car accident". Murder suggest by definition intent to kill. So murder does not happen by accident. This is why it is a harsher word. Not neccessarily because of the words connoctations but rather because it has a different meaning. It is saying something different. I believe if in fact the usage of murder is factual it should be used as it is a a more descriptive word. It is more desriptive, in the same way as rape is more descriptive than sex. It is basically telling the reader more, the simple act of using the word in a factual situation is not a POV. Also a thing to note is that other articles indeed do use the word murder. Perhaps you should either point out their mistakes or accept the usage of the word murder is ok. Meok 06:26, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes. But the nature of this article requires "politicaly correct terms". It is best to write contraversial articles this way. There is a wing disputing it and there is a wing that want the world to accept it. Kill works for both groups as you can kill by intending it, while it can also be accidental. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 09:31, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I disagree so do many other articles. To demonstrate that here is a link that shows all the pages that link to the murder article. This shows it is acceptable for use. It shows that it is "politically correct". And as long as it is correct (factually) it should be used. I assume that if you maintain the postion that murder is not "politically correct" you will complain about its use in other articles which also use the term. Meok 10:45, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Two thins

1. There are more important things to discuss in this artcile.
2. Murder will acknowlege genocide, hence in aproporate, unless the material as archived supports it murder cant be used. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 11:33, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I recomend we start Working towards consensus rtaher than petty argument of words. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 11:34, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What I've been saying is your 2nd point, Coolcat, that if factually correct ie there is material that supports it, the word murder should be used. If it isn't factual, if there isn't evidence then obviously the word murder shouldn't be use. "Political correctness" shouldn't come into it, due to reasons stated before. Correct? One step at a time. Meok 12:03, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree that faddish concepts like "political correctness" have no place in an encyclopedia. Mass murder is the correct term to use here if people were forced out of their homes and carried away in a way that could predictably cause them to die in great numbers. There may be some people who legitimately cast doubt on the question of whether it was planned, but the effect was clear and must have been clear both before and during the genocide. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:40, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You fail to see that the "mass murder" part is been disputed... --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 22:29, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Mass murder?

Can we all agree on these facts?

1. The Armenians were removed from their homes by force.
2. The Ottomans did not provide anything like adequate facilities to care for these people during transportation or when they arrived.
3. Hundreds of thousands of people died as a consequence.
4. This consequence was forseeable prior to, and during, the transportation.

--Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:02, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Can we all agree on THESE facts?

1. The Armenians were removed from their homes by force.
2. The Ottomans did not provide any facilities to care for these people during transportation or when they arrived. Rather, the Ottoman troops "escorting" the Armenians as a matter of course both allowed others to rob, kill, rape the Armenians, even preventing those who could have otherwise purchased their own food, and often participated in this activity themselves.
3. Hundreds of thousands of people, possibly surpassing a million died as a consequence.
4. This consequence was forseeable prior to, and during, the transportation.

--RaffiKojian 03:07, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

nothing new under the sun

Unfortunately, the denial of Holocaust by nationalists is nothing new under the sun. The Germans did it before 1945 and neo-nazi's still do it. The Japanese deny they the fact that they put my grandfather in a concentration camp in Birma, the Turkish government jails writers who describe the Armenian holocaust. In my view, "historical revisionism" is incompatible with the philosophy of Wikipedia!

Thanks to the anti-elitist and anti-academic policy here, of course... wait and see when physic entries will be edited by co-religionists. It is disgusting how national biases are considered as equal as decades of Academic research by thousands of specialists. I am losing trust on Wikipedia entire project. Fadix 19:48, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I do not understand what is so difficult about "proove your facts". What kind of a scientist investigating this genocide are you if you do not have the archive numbers of the documents you are dealing with? I want verifyable facts in the document. That is clearly my standing, any interpretation should be done 50:50 of such documents but sellections be presented raw. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 20:00, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Of course you HAVE NO PROBLEM with the edit, when the edit makes statments that are not neutral in their tones, less than any of my edits were. As for "proving," all my edits were justified with references in the talk page and such... with references to the Martial Court etc. The footnotes that I was going to provide were things that I have already discussed about, and the origin of the statments were clearly writen in MY VERSION, and you had a problem with it, while you don't seem to have any problem with the balatant lies in the actual article, when some of them can even not be supported from the other side. You see how no one should trust you? You lie about you, you lie about everything, and then you play the innocent being attacked, and when people go against you, you dump them all toegether and you claim they are clones. As for the 50:50, forget about it, you will never obtain it. I mad MANY concession, MANY, I EVEN ADDED A SECTION FOR THE TURKISH GOVERNMENT VERSION, BUT YOU DELETED IT, BECAUSE YOU WANTED THE ENTIRE ARTICLE TO BE THAT VERSION. Ad Adam said for the other entry you were hijacking, go get another entry, and stop it. Fadix 20:11, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

twoversions template

At the suggestion of another administrator, I have switched the protection template to "twoversions", which includes links to the other version and also the difference between the two. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:58, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As I see, you are even not admitting your OBVIOUS mistake. Fadix 19:46, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You are using too many lead :'s and you are over reacting, not being polite either. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 20:00, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

picture

Here is a picture for the right version:

That picture is nothing compared to others. I had planned to add pictures myself, but nationalist revisionists like Coolcat have interupted any advance in the articles progression. Fadix 19:49, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes thats a dead person. Thank you, thats all it is. Also stop it with your personal attacks. Declare me things more such as "nationalist revisionists". That is like declaring me as a Nazi and is not permitted on wikipedia. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 19:55, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That picture shows people died. That pictire does not show the guy, and probably more in the bg been murdered by Turkish troops. Your facts are not the only facts. This article will not be your version only. I cannot tell if that person is Armenian or African, personaly. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 19:55, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oh no, he's not a Turk... ignorant, most pictures of Armenian victims were taken by Germans, OTTOMAN ALLIES, there are pictures of hundreds of bodies, bones, in each of them. There are of calcified soil, if you know how much bone it takes for the calcification of the soil, do the math. Oh yeh!!! I guess, the Germans were just presenting fake pictures of Armenian victims to slander their OWN. ALLIES!!! Fadix 20:21, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Look, I am not claiming they are fake. I can understand how important it is for you to present this article a fact. However, this does not give you the right to acuse me of things, declare me of things. Naming the file as "Turkish-genocide-killed-more-than-one-and-a-half-million-Armenians" is just not fair. You wont push your views in this article the way you are doing. For every fact I need evidence. Lets start what we have in common as far as material is concerned. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 22:21, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I understand how it is important for you to wage a war in every articles involving Turkey. However, this does not give you the right to accuse me of things, declare me things. Where the file was named what you claim? The original article was just presenting what parties were saying, and there even was a section for the Turkish government view, but this did not satisfy you at all, since you deleted it, you wanted all the article to represent your views. You claim wanting evidences, but when I present them, you claim that this site is not there to “prove” anything but presenting views, when I do that, you claim wanting “proves.” The article was to present who says what, you always objected to that, while it had everything to do with what a NPOV article was about. Oh another thing, the only persons telling that pictures can not be used to identify people as being Armenians, are Turks. Fadix 22:31, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Coolcat, this has nothing to do with what I say as being facts, the article was supposed to present positions, each sides positions and their critics, as simple as that, you refused... I then, tried to work on your request, you again refused... you want the article to present innacurate informations and present them as facts... such as deleting that most recognize the genocide etc. and present two positions as equaly valid. Fadix 13:59, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You refused discussing, prooving evidence, It was a suggestion just like 10's you did not like. Present me a way to do this article that will get us a neutral article. How should we do it?

Fresh Start #3

Ok, lets take this slow. You are welcome to use my color scheme, if you do so will I.

• I suggest we establish what both pro-anti genocide spheres accept. Also what point of the issue is disputed by either party.
• I suggest no personal attacks no one should be discussing how horrible a person is. We had over a meg worth of this. Enough.

--Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 05:34, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Run #1

• Hundereds of thousands, possibly over a million Armenians died. Any opposition? --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 05:34, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No. --RaffiKojian 03:49, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

So Armenians did not die? --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 22:32, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You asked "Any opposition?". I answered "No." Clear now? --RaffiKojian 17:29, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Mass number of Armenians were requested to move, reasons are open to debate. Any opposition? --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 05:34, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Of course. Nobody was "requested" to move. They were either murdered outright or TOLD they were moving. Everything is open to debate, but they are quite clear to everyone familiar with the subject. As has been said before, the consequense of the deportation would obviously be death, and those ordering it would have to have intended that. Have you read "Survivors" by the Millers? You really should. --RaffiKojian 03:49, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You should realy read the NPOV article. We can work on the wording. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 22:32, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

First, sorry for suggesting you possibly read a primary source, but I strongly believe you should read that book. Second, I assume you mean the current article when you say "the NPOV article" - even though you must know I do not find it NPOV. In which case - yes I have read it. Do you want me to suggest an alternative text/wording for the article? I don't understand. --RaffiKojian 17:29, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• This consequence was forseeable prior to, and during, the transportation.

Not sure, sounds plausable, wording should be important. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 22:32, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Again - are you asking for my suggested wording?--RaffiKojian 17:29, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• The Ottomans did not provide any facilities to care for these people during transportation or when they arrived. Rather, the Ottoman troops "escorting" the Armenians as a matter of course both allowed others to rob, kill, rape the Armenians, even preventing those who could have otherwise purchased their own food, and often participated in this activity themselves.

Not sure, sounds plausable, wording should be important. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 22:32, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ditto - so based on that assumption, I have edited the genocide article on very basic fact. I am sure you'll find it POV, but I strongly believe it is not. That it is the most basic account of what happened, and every point can be backed up easily and substantially. I worked on those sections which seem to have been the source of disagreement and added some too. Please look at the Armenian Genocide - Working Version to see what you think of it. Let me know your thoughts. If you find it way off, tell me why. If your issues are relatively minor, please list them point by point. --RaffiKojian 17:29, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

---

Cool Cat, please drop the color scheme - clearly nobody is interested despite your having brought it up numerous times. I suggest that if you are so keen on "discovering" the facts, which are already well known, you do some serious reading. But short of that (which you do not appear terribly interested in - rather you want to make sure this is not clearly described as a genocide), let us go ahead, and hash out the facts for the gazillionth time, because lord knows, every time someone new hears that there was a genocide and isn't sure whether to believe it, we should all drop everything we are doing and defend the facts from scratch. Sorry about the sarcasm, but this has got to be at least the 20th time I am doing this online. That is why I created the website - so you can go and read materials online, judging the sources yourself, and come to you conclusion. Oh well, I guess that was a waste as well... so back to the basics.

As I asked above, can you agree to THESE facts?

1. The Armenians were removed from their homes by force.
2. The Ottomans did not provide any facilities to care for these people during transportation or when they arrived. Rather, the Ottoman troops "escorting" the Armenians as a matter of course both allowed others to rob, kill, rape the Armenians, even preventing those who could have otherwise purchased their own food, and often participated in this activity themselves.
3. Hundreds of thousands of people, possibly surpassing a million died as a consequence.
4. This consequence was forseeable prior to, and during, the transportation.

discussed above. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 22:32, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If not, please answer very convincingly why you could still have major doubts about any of these. In fact, if you disagree, then please provide some evidence that they are not true. --RaffiKojian 03:32, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

PLease discuss above. Establishing the comon ground is first step in resolving conflicts. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 22:34, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

New related entry

Ottoman_Armenian_Population More would be added in it, after I complete the entry regarding the Armenian losses. As one can see, every points are supported by footnotes and references, and even Turkish ones. -Unsigned, likely fadix

Even Torque has not gone as far as getting involved in everything that could relate to Turkey. You have even pl;aced in Musa Dagh book talk page, the banner of controversial, when it is about a damn book. Fadix 23:55, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Coolcat, what will you answer?

Who beside the Turks call the genocide theses as "Armenian propaganda." Don't escape it, answer me please. Fadix 23:52, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I do not know, I do know Armenians added facts that arent facts but merely propoganda material. While I am not suggesting everything you provide me as pure BS created by propoganda, I require archive material to make sure the material is factual. Often the documents dont say much. Then youll have to interprete the meaning. For all cases both sides views should be presented unbisased. I believe Turks argue with the clarification of the issue not the facts beind it. The motives are questionable as far as both parties are concerned. Pro-Anti genocdie parties agree with a good portion of the materal.

We will have our disagreements I am sure. We can work on those one at a time. Lets asses what both parties strongly agree on.

Please do not simply dismiss what people say just because they may not support the genocide. This is how wikipedia works, like it or not.

Its easy to add material that is not in conflict between us. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 03:23, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Coolcat, you have called the genocide theses as "Armenian propaganda." Again, answer me, who besides Turks call it that? As for the materials, I have posted bunch of documents and materials in the Fadix analysis... you claimed it was not about proving but presenting views, when I do that, you get them deleted to merge them and to get the entire article to represent the Turkish government point of view... and then you require proof, when I do that, you claim it is not about proving but to represent positions, when I do that, again you backtrack and ask for proves... this is the kind of contradictory sort of things I have to answer. Fadix 15:02, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If it is only your view that it is Armenian Propaganda then perhaps it shouldn't be stated in the article. Simply you saying you know it is isn't enough. Meok 06:38, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What the hell are you tlking about? I always had this tone, ... I repeat Coolcat, your answer does not satisfy me. Who besides Turks call the genocide theses as ": Armenian propaganda?" Fadix 13:55, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Nevermind, I though you finaly had a civilised tone. I was mistaken. Drop the caveman talk and be civil and polite, please. On 03:23, 4 Apr 2005 I answered the question "Who besides Turks call the genocide theses as Armenian propaganda?". I do not care if it satisfies you or not. I stated armenians have significant propoganda involved in their case. The armenian Genocide is promoted on universities worldwide, while no Turkish views are mentioned. There is room for propoganda there. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 22:09, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Coolcat, you did not answer my question. Who besides Turks claim the genocide theses to be "Armenian propaganda." A simple question that need a simple answer. Fadix 22:35, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I gave you a smple answer. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 00:09, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Your answer was "I do not know, I do know Armenians added facts that arent facts but merely propoganda material.". In other words you sidestepped the answer. Meok 01:40, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You mean not one "fact" regarding Armenian Genocide was a product of Armenian propoganda? --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 10:32, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Never claimed that rather I said you did not answer the question past saying that your opinion of what is propaganda is simply just your opinion.

Do not...

• ...cut IN my discussion unless you have to, copy my sic to every seperation of my discussion. Embeded messages are not welcome.--Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 22:09, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• ...refrain from bold tag. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 22:09, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• ...do not insult me, dont declare anyone not credible because they are nationalist/reservionist/a troll/satanist/anything else --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 22:09, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• ...do not claim POV is Vandal. It is not. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 22:09, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• ...do not discuss me, discuss the article. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 22:09, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Here comes again Coolcat arrogant tone, believing he owns this site. Fadix 22:11, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Insulting me, pointing out how horible I am declaring POV as Vandal is how we run wikipedia. We allow users credibility to be destroyed by personal insults. Cutting in embaded msgs are always welcome that way people will not know who said what. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 22:22, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That is arrogance, is it not?--Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 22:20, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Coolcat, why are you throwing words where they do not fit? You remind me a new alias in that regard. Peoples credibility are only destroyed based on what they say. You are a vandal and a troll, that Tony agree or not, this is what you are. Fadix 22:34, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have reviewed the two articles and the talk of this last weekend - and I repeat - there is no hope in this approach

Unless it is one's intention to promote advocacy of largely unsupported revisionism and muddy the truth. Frankly I don't much like either article. I have not much hope at all that there will ever be anything decent here as we can see from the charges and countercharges - there is really no "middle ground" on most of this and any "middle ground" is likely not the truth besides.

Obviously if we are stuck on use of the term "Genocide" - questioning if it is historically accurate/inaccurate - then yes - we have problems. It is only politically controversial - it is otherwise completely accepted. Why is the Armenian Genocide given recognition for/as such at Genocide conferences and when (cross disciplinary) Genocide scholars discuss genocide denial if it is not considered as genocide? And for Coolcat to state "why should we care what scholars think - because they are biased" etc - well - I thought it was Turkey's position to leave the issue to the historians. Well I think the historians have spoken. If we are to take a political position as equivalent to the historical position - well it makes me wonder how other articles in Wikipedia might look with this approach.

And again - what Coolcat is advocating is essentially to let the Holocaust denier have an equal voice to that of legitimate scholars, historians and in the face of accepted truth. I have scanned (read in its entirely actually) the talk pages since I last posted - and what I see is clear advocacy. Coolcat is not objective and this "approach" is a ruse. For one - to refuse to use the term "murder" when this is clearly what has occurred. Again - I find Coolcat's statement - repeated several times –

"You want to assume Armenians were a hundred percent innocent, thats rather fanatic. --Cool Cat My Talk 22:29, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)"

highly offensive. To suggest that the hundreds of thousands - and yes perhaps/likely million plus innocent human beings - who were brutally

murdered

that somehow they were not innocent - that they deserved it....and to accuse one of fanaticism for believing that these innocents were such - well I am offended (he clearly either is completely ignorant or is just hateful, callous and mean) - and I think Armenians are deserving of an apology. If I were to go over to the Holocaust page now - and state that anyone who believes that the Jews were innocent (with the implication that they were deserving of their slaughter) and I think I might do this - and put a link to this discussion page - just what do you think the reaction might be?

Fadix has issued a challenge to all who advocate that Armenians were somehow equal perpetrators against innocent Turks - to prove such - to prove massacres of Turks in 1914 or 1915 on any kind of scale. I even believe that there were isolated instances of such - as there have been sporadic massacres of Armenians by Turks and particularly Kurds, Circassians (Cherkes) and others over the proceeding 50-100 years - and clearly quite disproportionately so. So some misguided Armenian “gangs” did taken retribution upon innocent Turkish citizens – yes – it is clear that this did happen in some places – and my heart grieves for those whose families suffered this senseless violence – but likewise Armenians have regularly been slaughtered by Kurdish bandit chiefs and such - even so - does this justify the terrible crimes that were committed against the Armenian population – such to wipe it out completely? Why were no such steps taken to curb the Kurdish violence against the Armenians if the Ottomans had such a sense of peace and justice?

No – this was different. The Armenians were deliberately killed – and for a number of reasons (and we should examine the wartime conditions and the swing of revolutionary zeal and societal stress – these are all factors certainly to what occurred) – but do not deny what did happen! The article must focus on the plight of the Armenians who were slaughtered if the relevancy of such events is to be portrayed in its rightful truthful manner. This is the overwhelming truth – the reason for this issue – the why we care – and it is as factual and true – unfortunately so – as any known historical event that has occurred on the planet – so we must deal with this – and not hide our heads in the sand and cry that such a thing never occurred. First and foremost this must be acknowledged!

I am not opposed at all for discussing the circumstances and the whys and such – and in fact I have developed a rather comprehensive outline if the approach we finally settle on is one of a complete presentation in all contexts (but I warn this may need to go far beyond just some encyclopedia article to do it justice). However I must emphasize that it is entirely clear that no real body of evidence supports the jist of official Turkish Thesis (and much of what is offered was poor untrue and massively exaggerated propaganda from the time designed to incite violence against Armenians)– and we cannot give credence to unsupported claims that Armenians of this period did such violence against Turks on any truly noticeable or widespread scale (an argument might be able to be made that the Young Turks – knowing how easily they got into power and also seeing the success the other minorities had at breaking away – overreacted – pure and simple…still what was done was done…) – However it is clear that the Ottoman Turks – led by the (by then) xenophobic Young Turk party – planned and committed a deliberate policy of a state slaughter of one of its minority peoples (and actually more then one – as Assyrians and Greeks were killed too) – they employed the state apparatus for massive repression and brutality and they carried it out to its most inhumane and terrible ends.

There can be no rational claim that in any way were Armenians responsible for the kind of mass crimes against humanity as what the Ottoman Armenians experienced at the hand of the Turks – you have no case to present such – it is entirely untrue and it is a travesty of justice blame the victims and to suggest such and it is an affront to all of the innocent victims who were slaughtered and brutalized – lives forever ended – forever altered – survive or persih. To suggest such and then to claim to be an impartial moderator is just an out an out travesty and you sir have really gone too far here! --THOTH 20:49, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Response

Please try not to embed other users messages like that. Your views regard genocide as deliberate killing, ie murder. There is another view like it or not sugests that it wasnt intentional. Wikipedia Neutral Point of View article dictates that article be written in accordince to both views. If you do not want a 50:50 aproach, I need documentation and hard evidence for you to support your case, otherwise this is nothing more than a dispute, I need to have some offical goverment "deliberately kill" order, otherwise it can and will be disputed. I am sorry but I insist that you should keep your Point of View regarding the matter off of the topic like I am. You never saw me acusing Armenians of anything in the article, but judging from some web sites there was a revolt or revolt like movement among some Armenians. Please summerise your cases, this isnt a forum, you are rambling on the same words over and over. I cannot allow propoganda to be on this article. I need you to proove your cases. It is a two sided discussion. Dont ignore the othersides views, which I am not that otherside, some historians are. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 21:18, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Here square one. Coolcat, there are admissions in the Armenian cases that can not be found in any other instances of genocides. And I have presented many from Turkish records in Fadix analysis. But of course by then... you did not wanted proves. "I have endeavored to wipe out the Armenian nation to the last individual" (onferdine kadaryok etmeye gah$tigim Ermeni milleti) Halil Pasa, Ittihad ve Terakkiden Cumhuriyete: Bitmeyen Sava§ (From Ittihad ve Terakki to the Republic: The Unending Fight) (Istanbul, 1972), p. 241

This was General Halil memoirs, the Supreme General of the East and Enver(the minister of war) Uncle. General Ilham himself testified as well not trying to leave a single Armenian alive in the zone he controlled. Commander of the third army, General Vehib,(the zone where most of the butchery happened) wrote a 12 pages affidavit, by an admission nowhere found in any other instances of genocides. And I have quote from it it in “Fadix analysis.” He testify the way the Ittihadist party has planned and executed the extermination of the Armenians. Mr. Torque as a result, claimed that it is not because Generals plan such acts that it means that the government planned it. But he had yet to explain why not only those generals were placed there, and some very close in the party(Halil), but as well Governors. Not any serious historian deny that the Armenian genocide happened, no serious historian claims there is no evidences. Yves Ternon has even written that the evidences used the prove the Armenian genocide happened are evidences higher than those used to write any other historical events. Was there Armenian revolt in 1914? Well, I thought this in the beginning, but after an extensive research, I am forced to conclude there was NO revolt at that date, was the cases about 1894, you might have some ground to claim that, but not for 1914. In fact, even the official Turkeys foreign ministry released Ottoman archives, the first one by chronology is dated in March 2, and concerns the deportation of Armenians and asked that revolts be prevented, and not be the deportation because of a revolt. Which means that Armenians were not moved because they were revolting. In fact, records from the Germans back in late 1914 shows that crimes against Armenians have started before any single Armenian incidences reported. This is entirely different than other instances in which you could have used the “revolt” claim. Even Gurun works report of Enver official announces of the law of “resettlement” it is referred to the “danger” the Armenians have been in the past, but nearly nothing about the danger they have shown to be during the war. In Feb. 1915, after Enver got his @ss saved before by an Armenian brigade after his defeat in the Russian front, felicitated the Armenians for their loyalty, while the same months the order of destruction has been promulgated during a meeting. And those are as well documented. But of course, when faced with evidences Coolcat, will claim this is not about proving. There is nothing such as 50:50, serious historians don't deny the genocide, and this is a historical event, therefore should present the cases as it is recognized by most historians. And I have no problem leaving a place for the Turkish government version, but as you have refused at the beginning, I expect you to refuse again. Fadix 21:59, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thoth, I don't agree with my version either, but I made many concessions, and that is why it seems to give more weight to revisionists than they worth it. But this does not satisfy them, they wish the article to be the Turkish government political version. As for apology, don't expect any from Coolcat. Fadix 22:10, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You should be the one to apologise for the level of insults fadix. Seems like it is necesary for you to destroys peoples credibilty by making them revisionsist/Turkish/whatever. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 22:17, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC) Historians apperantly widely accept whatever fadix says. I dont want your analysis, I want the documents' archive numbers in question. Majority doesnt make right. A disputed aricle cannot be truley neutral if it starts neutral. Just because you think something isnt NPOV doesnt make it not NPOV. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 22:17, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC) You are taling about things you are claiming things you are not iclined to provide the documents. Is that it? I want to know which selection is from wich archive material. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 22:17, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Coolcat, I judge people on personal bases, I accuse someone and not a “nation.” While you were shouting “Armenian propaganda” here and there, I termed your behavior as denial and you as a denialist. I have no apology to make to you, because all what I said about you were what I believed and are grounded. And when I claimed you to be a Turk, it was not an insult, neither an attack, but rather a question of honesty. How do you expect me to believe that you will accept facts when they are presented, when you deny something that as we speak, no one will argue about, the fact that you are a “nationalist” Turk. As I have shown, there is more chances for me to win the lottery jackpot than you not being what I say. And no, I am not trying to destroy your credibility by claiming you to be a Turk, peoples words should be judged based on what they say, and not who they are, this is why I do not hide my ethnicity to anyone. True, Historians apparently widely accept what I say. But “WHY” do they accept it? You don't want them to be referred, you don't consider works published as evidences but you want archives. Coolcat, now follow my advice, read what is in “Fadix Analysis” while first you claimed that it was nothing to do with proving, now you want proves. But I just referred to Halils memoirs... and many other records are in Fadix analysis. Archives references are abound in works treating about the subject, instead of wasting our times with your rhetorics of “I want proves” read few works about the topic. I know, for you, historians are not people to trust in what concerns history, but I say, maybe, yes, maybe, you could change your mind. In two months Coolcat, the official translation(English translation) of the German archival records that are due for publication in a week or so in German original language... why don't you spent few dozens of dollars to buy it, and spare us with all this nonsense you spew here? Fadix 22:31, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sir Dr. Fadix, please drop the Mr. as I asked several times, thanks --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 22:39, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Reading fadix analysis is what I have done, Ill re read it. Why dont you rpovide the archive numbers, I believe you have the archives. If you havent seen the archives and dont know they are there, how certain are you they exist? --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 22:39, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am NOT Turkish. I do not care if you accept it or not. Stop talking about it though. Talk about the article not me. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 22:39, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

From the way I was educated, Mr. Is a mark of respect.

Second, are you talking about the German archives? I have a scan of an original, do you perhaps want the picture to be posted?

Third, you seem to not have a clue of what the word “archive” means, perhaps a dictionary may help you. I provided you a memoir from Envers Uncle, you wanted an admission, and I posted it to you. There are records from General Paraquin, a German General, and the “Fadix analysis” actually quote many documents, as well as the archives in this discussion. You lie when you say you have read Fadix analysis, if you did not lie, than you done have sincere intentions to claim there is no archival records there. Read for instance my covering of Malta, it contains records from Turkish and British sources, such records are called “archives” as for “archive numbers” it is not called “archive numbers” if you refer to the archival classification ID, more particularly the BOA etc. Turkish records.

Perhaps do you want me to quote from Mevlan Zade Rifat “Turkie inkilabinin ic uyzu, Halep,” published in 1929???... the Verbatim of the Feb. meeting of the decision for the destruction of the Armenians?

Oh, well, perhaps, does Coolcat want me to quote Ottoman official archives guarded by the National assembly?

Coming to you not being a Turk. Coolcat, you called the Ottoman Turks as your ancestors, you called Armenians as 'Armanians” in various occasions, you have written the special organization name with Turkish characters. You have called the genocide theses as “Armenian propaganda.” You made claims only published in the Turkish press, nowhere else. You got involved in every entries directly or indirectly involving Turkey you can get a hand on. And Those are just a few. Again Coolcat, this is a question of trust, you are in the same situation as the Turkish government here. You know others know, but admitting it will show you've been lying. Fadix 22:57, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Please avoid personal attacks. I suggest it would be more helpful to discuss the article than to discuss the motives of other editors. Jonathunder 23:02, 2005 Apr 4 (UTC)

I spent over a hundred pages on discussing on the article, the pther party was declaring it was not about "proving" but presenting positions, and now, the other party claims that historians are not to be trusted, works are not to be trusted... and when I refer to documents he claims where they are. In such cases, I believe questioning ones intention is the only thing left. Fadix 23:18, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It's very hard in this format of conversation to find an appropriate place to insert my reply. This reply is to Cool Cat's original post under "Response". --RaffiKojian 17:54, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Cool Cat - again you are repeating the same fallacy. Because Neo-Nazis deny the jewish holocaust, does not mean the article should present their side as equal. Also regardless of any "deliberately kill" order, there was a genocide. You apparently have not read Survivors - since you didn't reply affirmatively above. In towns across Anatolia the same things happened. Able men were taken away and largely murdered. Women, children and elderly were told they were being moved, and were walked to the desert being pillaged and murdered and kidnapped and raped along the way. NO PROVISIONS were ever recorded for any of them to eat, be sheltered, or housed at any destination. They were by and large marched towards Der El Zor desert. They were escorted by soldiers who participated in their demise - and often prevented them even from taking care of themselves along the way. These are the simple facts. There IS no dispute that all the Armenians were moved, right? None? On any side? Now then - there is not a single document showing that these violations of the Armenians, by the Turkish soldiers and under their watch were punished. There is no record of any food or shelter actually being provided. No "destination" with any tents or shelters or anything. Not only this - the Armenians weren't even allowed to provide these things for themselves, which many could afford to. This is a death sentence. Since all agree that the Armenians were forcibly removed by the Ottoman government, and unless you can show any evidence that any assistance or protection was provided, and all eyewitness accounts confirm that these people were treated across the Empire in a way which could only be expected to lead to deeath, then it was clearly, undeniably a genocide. Very simple really. The ICTJ study confirms it and so do all the scholars who have not directly recieved financial assistance from the Turkish Govt. --RaffiKojian 17:54, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Are you genuinely interested in the truth? Are you ever going to answer these particular points? Can you show anything detailing any food or shelter ever provided to these hundreds of thousands of people being relocated? These are critical points and they show up in my edit of the genocide article. --RaffiKojian 17:54, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Raffi, I would like to specify what you brought, because it is necessary to do so. The official Ottoman records released by the General Directorate of the States Archives, do claim that food were supplied, but on the other hand, and here is the point Taner Akcam raised in his work, there is no list of such a provision, which means that those were just reports of "do this" without actualy any provision. For instance, there are lists in the cases of the Muslims that were moved from the Russian empire, lists going even as far as vaccination records. Imagine the Ottoman Empire had such lists for people that were not their subjects, but had none for the people that were their subjects(Armenians). This is why Akcam writes: “The fact that neither at the start of the deportations, nor en route, and nor at the locations, which were declared to be their initial halting places, were there any single arrangement, required for the organization of a people's migration, is sufficient proof of the existence of this plan of annihilation.”

There is a differences between arrangement, and reports saying "provide foods" that the official archives contain, without any single lists. And this is how, during the tribunal, it was testified, that they had two set of document, one for public consuption saying: "feed them, give them food"(but without any lists on the relief that had to be recieved, neither any regarding how much recieved, which clearly show the "fake" nature of the official public consuption material), and on the other hand, other orders: "As soon as the Armenian convoys leave the cities and town, sent the special organization and the irregulars." And there were even documents as how much were actualy killed, and this is the investigation to know how much were killed took time to collect and calculate. And only the fact that the figure was even later recorded in a Turkish Official Military Book, indicate the "official" nature of the figure, without ignoring that it was even included in Bayur book, and Bayur himself affirmed them to be accurate data. Fadix 00:14, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In hope of finalising

I hope the disputants can stop the bickering and personal insults for a bit. It's sad that these insults are being reproduced faster than I can remove them.

It seems to me that we've got the basics of general agreement on the facts. The Armenians were removed from their homes by force and transported in circumstances that predictably resulted in many deaths, perhaps a million or so. There is no question of this. I am minded to let disputants produce their final words--and don't waste time responding to personal attacks, stick to the subject. When that has been done I will unprotect the page. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:31, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I cannot at all agree that we are anywere close to agreement. This Coolcat character has hijaked this issue and has insured that it will go around and around for ever with no resolution. He disputes the view of historians and genocide scholars and claims that we must include denialist views. This is clearly unacceptable. Could you imagine such being presented on the Holocaust page? This meets every criteria of genocide. This is accepted fact. And there was no Armenian revolt in any sense that Coolcat claims - the evidence supports the opposite - overwhelmingly - that these were innocent populations/people who were killed. To attempt to make this case and insist that unsupported denilaist propoganda claims be given equal weight to commonly accepted acholarship and overwhelming evidence on this matter is clearly unacceptabel - in fact it is an outrage. Until we can get beyond this there is no possibility of resolution here - and this seemingly is what he wants. Fadix has presented more factual and supported information on this matter then I have seen in other genocide and related articles - yet his presentation is essentially shuffled to the side and very ugly racist attacks have been allowed against him and against Armenians. For presentations affirming Genocide Coolcat insists on levels of doscumentation/citation/verification that are in some cases very difficult to get - yet these points are widely known and accepted as the truth. Meanwhile he entertains any counter argument no matter how flimsy and disproven and calls for giving equal time. Again - it is the same as giving Holocaust deniers equal time. I for one will not participate in such an exercise but will continue my valid protests until some sanity can prevail here. I think that Coolcat has already clearly been exposed as biased on this issue. He cannot be allowed to determine the content of this article. And Fadix has provided more then enough effort and evidence to be allowed a free hand to make a proper presentation. --THOTH 14:48, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

THOTH, you seem to be determined to turn this discussion into a personal attack. I certainly don't expect Coolcat to have any influence in the content of the article, because his view is in the minority and is unsupported by the facts. I want to ask you to set aside your harping on personal grievances and instead concentrate on the article. It seems to me that we have the makings of a good, solid consensus on article content--notwithstanding Coolcat's demurrals. Thus I won't be holding this article under protection much longer if I can possibly help it.

All I'm looking for is some sign that there is substantial agreement that the displacement of the Armenians was foreseeably homicidal in its execution. I think we can nearly all agree with this. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:59, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

THOTH - I know you're not excited by the layout of my working version - but why don't you go ahead and make the changes you'd like to see on there for us to look at? For the record, I think that ASALA should be on the page somewhere - especially the timeline, but that it should be a lead in to a thorough seperate article. --RaffiKojian 16:39, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Raffi - my changes would be substansial. I'm not certain I would want to introduce such in their entirety without some basic agreements regarding what I might include and the approach I might take. I think it is important that we clearly establish some undisputed facts - such as the use of the term genocide and what we are primarily talking about - the actions taken by the Young Turk controlled government aparatus - against the Armenian population - before preceeding. But yes - I would love to take a cut at this. In fact I have an outline for such - in a sense - however it is 2 pages handwritten! yeah I know...but its intention is for a documentary film I am proposing to produce...(so I may not want to share it all...) --THOTH 17:27, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

THOTH - I think you should outline the sections you want to have, and a one line summary of what would go there. I also think it seems clear we have a basic agreement that the events were a genocide, as that is how I proceeded with my rewrite. I tried to include all the relevant facts in the lead up to. Then the actual genocide, and then the aftermath of what happened. It seemed rather logical - but anyway, let's see what you have come up with (and want to share). --RaffiKojian 02:17, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

OK - but have patience. I'm approaching the deadline for tax filing and have some other obligations. My outline is not necessarily 100% appropriate for this presentation - as it is much concerned with the (prior) history - still I'll look it over and see if I can mod it and think what might be appropriate. --THOTH 13:36, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Concerning the legitimacy of using the term "genocide" in this case - and related issues

(note - I just posted this and it was seemingly deleted in its entirety. if someone is playing games here I suggest that they stop!)

the deletion was by User:RaffiKojian; however, there were edits by both of you in very close succession and I believe it was an entirely inadvertent consequence of an edit conflict. thanks for reposting it. — Davenbelle 18:30, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

Before it is possible to proceed further to develop this article (that I think basically needs to be redone from scratch) it is clear that certain issues must be resolved and certain facts and definitions agreed upon. First and foremost - of course – we must establish the legitimacy of use of the term "genocide" to describe the primary events we are discussing in the article. (I think Fadix has already more then adequately done so – but as this is – in a sense – a restart – and considering the controversy – I think we need to take this step by step and establish a baseline to provide an agreed upon foundation for the article. So is use of the term “genocide” legitimate. Wikipedia itself has an entry concerning genocide that should be referenced (and in it there are links to source material for such a definition) - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide

I believe the evidence entirely and most clearly supports the contention that the Armenian people of Anatolia/the Ottoman Empire were subjected to a campaign of genocide and that what resulted from such was in fact genocide. For instance in 1985 the United Nations Economic and Social Council Commission on Human Rights Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities released this following findings: (this is an excerpt with my highlights)

“…the distinguishing characteristics of the twentieth century in evolving the development of genocide "are that it is committed in cold blood by the deliberate fiat of holders of despotic political power, and that the perpetrators of genocide employ all the resources of present-day technology and organization to make their planned massacres systematic and complete". The Nazi aberration has unfortunately not been the only case of genocide in the twentieth century. Among other examples which can be cited as qualifying are the German massacre of Hereros in 1904, the Ottoman massacre of Armenians in 1915-1916, the Ukrainian pogrom of Jews in 1919, the Tutsi massacre of Hutu in Burundi in 1965 and 1972, the Paraguayan massacre of Ache Indians prior to 1974,16 the Khmer Rouge massacre in Kampuchea between 1975 and 1978, and the contemporary Iranian killings of Baha'is.

Additionally (the footnote):

At least 1 million, and possibly well over half of the Armenian population, are reliably estimated to have been killed or death marched by independent authorities and eye-witnesses. This is corroborated by reports in United States, German and British archives and of contemporary diplomats in the Ottoman Empire, including those of its ally Germany. The German Ambassador, Wangenheim, for example, on 7 July 1915 wrote "the government is indeed pursuing its goal of exterminating the Armenian race in the Ottoman Empire" (Wilhelmstrasse archives).”

And:

“The Turks also in 1919-20 held trials: not of ‘war criminals’ but of some of the Ottomans guilty of the Armenian genocide”.

http://www.armenian-genocide.org/Affirmation.169/current_category.6/affirmation_detail.html

Based on this statement alone I believe we can justifiably use the term “genocide” to apply to the Armenian case. But of course there are reams of other affirmations of use of this term to apply to this case. One other statement I want to add to illustrate the proper use of the term is the 1995 Resolution by the State Duma of Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation:

Based on irrefutable historic facts which attest to the extermination of Armenians on the territory of Western Armenia from 1915 to 1922 and, in accordance with the following Conventions adopted by the United Nations:

Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, December 9, 1948;

Convention on the Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitations to War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity, November 26, 1968;

Aspiring to restore the humanitarian traditions of the Russian State and,

Emphasizing that through the initiative of Russia, the Great European Powers already in 1915 characterized the actions of the Turkish Empire against the Armenian people as a "Crime Against Humanity" and,

Noting that the physical extermination of the fraternal Armenian people in its historic homeland aimed at destroying Russia;

The State Duma of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation:

Condemns the perpetrators of the extermination of Armenians from 1915 to 1922;

Expresses its deep sympathy to the Armenian people and recognizes April 24 as a day of remembrance for the victims of the Genocide. http://www.armenian-genocide.org/Affirmation.151/current_category.7/affirmation_detail.html

I invite others to comment and to provide other links if it is thought necessary. I think we should come to agreement on use of this term and move on. Once we move beyond this point I think we should perhaps examine and agree upon a basic chronology of the Genocide and then discuss the issue of pre-meditation (proof for such) and perhaps motivation/justification/intent and then we should arrive at an agreement and develop a presentation illustrating the mechanics of how the Genocide was carried out (deportations [including by who/what means – with examples etc] and perhaps introduce the subject of the concentration camps and what they were etc, discuss instances of mass killings [again by who – role of Kurds and such should also be discussed] and methods of killings etc) . We should conclude with the results of the Genocide – depopulation Armenians from Anatolia and discuss numbers of total (and perhaps place specific) deaths. This I propose is the outline of a very basic presentation that I think we can establish as fact. Beyond this there are numerous other issues and events that could and do warrant further in-depth discussion. But I propose that we proceed with the basics - as just outlined – in a step-by-step fashion. Then at some point I think we need to address this whole issue of Turkish counter-charges (legitimate or not) and the issue and history of genocide denial.--THOTH 17:33, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Again - concerning use of the term "genocide" and why I think the entire article - and specifically the introductory paragraph needs to be completely re-written (there are word, sentence and paragraph structure issues as well). First – Tony Sidaway has presented an argument that he claims everyone agrees on – and I think I can agree that it is agreed to and well proven – that (at a very minimum) the Government of Turkey ordered the “deportation” of Armenians from their homes without any provision to ensure that they were cared for – ie – that the intention (or at least the clear understanding) was that these people were going to die – and for the most part they did – through the rigors of forced march without food or water or from deliberate murder en route. It is also clear that the Turkish authorities emptied all cities, towns, villages and the countryside of Eastern Anatolia – the traditional and acknowledged home of the Armenian people – leaving (resulting in) very few Armenians living/left in these areas. Additionally, with only a few exceptions, the Young Turk controlled Ottoman government “deported” significant portions of Armenians from all other inhabited areas of Anatolia leaving these areas likewise empty of Armenians. Thus – as the accepted definition of genocide clearly includes this concept of removing people from their homes and destroying them as a group – which is what was done. (and what occurred meets the mental element as well as at least 4 of the 5 physical elements – not sure about preventing births)…I think its clear that we can easily call this genocide without (serious) objection) – (here is the excerpt BTW):

The international legal definition of the crime of genocide is found in Articles II and III of the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide. Article II describes two elements of the crime of genocide: 1) the mental element, meaning the "intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such", and 2) the physical element which includes five acts described in sections a, b, c, d and e. A crime must include both elements to be called "genocide." "Article II: In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: (a) Killing members of the group;

(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Punishable Acts The following are genocidal acts when committed as part of a policy to destroy a group’s existence:

Killing members of the group includes direct killing and actions causing death.

Causing serious bodily or mental harm includes inflicting trauma on members of the group through widespread torture, rape, sexual violence, forced or coerced use of drugs, and mutilation.

Deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to destroy a group includes the deliberate deprivation of resources needed for the group’s physical survival, such as clean water, food, clothing, shelter or medical services. Deprivation of the means to sustain life can be imposed through confiscation of harvests, blockade of foodstuffs, detention in camps, forcible relocation or expulsion into deserts.

Prevention of births includes involuntary sterilization, forced abortion, prohibition of marriage, and long-term separation of men and women intended to prevent procreation.

Forcible transfer of children may be imposed by direct force or by fear of violence, duress, detention, psychological oppression or other methods of coercion. The Convention on the Rights of the Child defines children as persons under the age of 18 years.

Genocidal acts need not kill or cause the death of members of a group. Causing serious bodily or mental harm, prevention of births and transfer of children are acts of genocide when committed as part of a policy to destroy a group’s existence.

--THOTH 15:49, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Working Version

What do folks think of the Armenian Genocide - Working Version? --RaffiKojian 17:35, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't like it on a number of levels. I don't like the way it begins - talking about issues being disputed. (this discussion should be later). A clear presentation of what was done - by whom - affecting who and the aftermath need to be presented. I think more contextual information needs to be listed as well. I also think we need to seperate the actual event(s) with the other controversy surounding (Turkish denial and attempts to get recognition, commemeration etc). In general I find the overall approach and content to be disatisfying. (not that it is all bad - but this is my gut reaction). --THOTH 17:56, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• • • Are you making fun of people, or what? Your "working version"(!) is even worse than Fadix's last version. "Turkey disputes..." Yeah, yeah, have respect for yourselves. Not a mention of Turks attacked by Armenians. Language more fanatic than Fadix's "academic" language. THOTH even doesn't like this version: we need to separate "actual" events with "turkish denial". Actual events, meaning the "events" written by paid historians of Armenian lobby in 90 years of work? You don't have any willing to reach a consensus. The only thing you want is using wikipedia as Armenian diaspora's propaganda page. You are so fanatic, so racist that you even believe "turks are genetically dumb" so that you can fool them easily. Go put your "working version" in your propaganda sites, you have zillions of them. --Cezveci 21:03, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well well - a nice diatribe - but that is about all you are aparently good for. Tony Sidaway - a Wikipedia moderator/administrator of some sort has stated that Coolcat would likely not be contributing much to this article as his views are in the minority and are unsubstantiated. I suspect that your position - particularly if it is as aparently misinformed and in line with Turkish denilist propoganda as it seems will fall into a similar category. However I would like to extend the invitation for you to contribute - factually, with support and where appropriate where you deem it necessary to present additional information. Still I would warn you to not attempt to brand me racist or a fanatic - as I am neither - but yes - in fact - I do believe that there is a substansial difference between the truth of this matter and what commonly passes for the official Turkish perspective - which is essentially denial of the truth. I do think that both the common Armenian viewpoints and that of most Turks are missing key aspects of the truth as seen from the other side - however it is likewise clear to me that the common Armenian perspective has much more in common with that of serious scholars on this issue and that this version is far closer to the truth - or at least the most relevant facts that that which is commonly espoused form the Turkish side. And yes - the article - as it currently stands is far too compromised with wishy washy language. What occured should be made clear. The fact of genocide should be clear - the program for carrying such out and the methods - all extensively witnessed and documented - should be accuratly presented. I have yet to see any real (supportable) dispute to the basic contentions of genocide and of the Ottoman campaign of deportation (to death) and massacre as accepted by historians and by observers from the time. I do not dispute that there might be ancillary events that should be presented in a comprehensive manner taking into account the Turkish perspective - however I have yet to see anything that truly disputes the fundemental accepted assertions of genocide and the basic chronology of events and results. Issues of Turks attacked by Armenians and such - while they did occur and were an unfotunate sign of violence of the times - are neither in the same category of crimes (just based on numbers and for other reasons as well) and are not any type of viable justification or counterweight to the fact that over 1 million Armenians were mercilessly slaughtered by the Ottoman Turk state aparatus. I suggest that you attempt to educate yourself just a bit on this issue and not just accept what your government has been preaching to you. I know that it is difficult as you have been taught that a Turk can do no wrong and that everything done was justified or happend to Turks and not by Turks - but just calling us racsist because we are attempting to present the truth is not going to cut it. --THOTH 20:30, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Raffi, I have to disagree with you and Thoth here. I made those concessions while back, and there is no turn back, it is the only way to work on. The Turkish government denial, I have a problem with as term. I know this is what it is, but "denial" imply that the thing did happen, and might be a proposition of word. A better term would be: "What is often called as denial" and I have planned to make an entry about that. Those things should have their enteries, like the losses with relevent sources and quotes.

Now, comming to you Cezveci, just something, be easy calling Thoth as "fanatic" and "racist" the same Thoth that has been attacked by "fanatic" and "racist" Armenians. I am just saying this, because it might just turn against you, more so when you have called members of a Turkish human right organization as racist against their owns.

As for Armenians paying historians, please feel free to provide examples, on the other hand, the corruption of Western academicians by Turkey is well documented, and there has been articles published in the cronicle of higher education, and the Holocaust and Genocide studies, and I can provide here a list of such academics and the funds they have recieved.

Thoth, why I disagree with you, is because I think you don't understand Wikipedia NPOV, it is not about the truth, but presenting the versions about an event, you can not suggest something directly, but rather present the arguments from each sides and their critics(not your critics, but the critics of the "other side"). But Wikipedia was well requires more place to be left for the version most supported. This was first the way I was working on the version, before being interupted by Coolcat. I think for the time, since there is an arbitration cases between me and Coolcat, we should refrain making much changes of the article, but I do still believe that the version before the new aliases edition should be left. I, on my side, will be working on another entry, regarding the Armenian losses, and this according to each sides. I have decided to stick to Wikipedia neutral point of view way, because I am starting to like it, and is actualy the best way to discuss the matter. Fadix 20:45, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Fadix - I admit that i am still developing an understanding and appreciation of how Wikipedia approaches issues - but I have been reviewing many differnt and diverse entries and their associated talk pages - so I am catching on (and am not entirely ignorant). I have yet to edit any page - only comment here. I am reluctant to edit the current article both nbecause of allthe ongoing and past baggage associated with it and because it is reallylacking in a very many areas (not the only Wikipedia presentation to suffer from this and other shortfalls however). I am adamant about presenting the truth however and I will never be satisfied if this event is whitewashed such as many official genocide (not called such) resolutions often are. ANd you know me from our interaction on other sites in the past - I am one of the more accepting of aspects of the Turkish perspective. I am a known and admitted admirer of Ataturk and a lover of Turks! I have been to Turkey and enjoy its culture and people. I have (several) very good Turkish friends here in the states. I hold no animosity towards Turks whatsoever and I am fair and balanced in my beliefs and approach. Still - I will not ever accept a whitewashing of the truth. --THOTH 20:58, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• • • The tragedy does not confirm to the official definition of genocide by UN. If it was, the international law would confirm that, and either Armenia or the Armenian diaspora could invite Turkey to international court. But, they haven't done that for 90 years, because they know they will lose. Rather, they write a history on their own through fake documents and propagate their version of history throughout Europe and North America. We have also seen in this discussion how these fanatics try to hide facts and how they are willing to put John Kerry's statement as an important development while supressing facts about ASALA terror. Nobody is claiming that the Armenians deserved it, no nation "deserves" anything in the history and nothing happens without any reason, as you are trying to claim (please tell me "why" turks killed armenians, if you are so expertised about history). But I think you all believe that Turkish diplomats and civilians have deserved being killed by ASALA, that's why you're trying to hide the facts about ASALA. It is very clear here "who are trying to hide facts" and "who are trying to acknowledge all claims and doubts about history". However, as I see that you are so determined to promote hate against Turks, and that is your only motivation, I am proposing that the following disclosure be added at the top of the page and you can write whatever will make you happy and fulfill your uncontrolled hate: "This article discusses an internationally disputed issue and is allowed to be edited by the defenders of only one view of history. The defenders of the other view claim that the article is extremely biased, is based on fake documents and revision of history, aims for Armenian diaspora's propaganda and promotes hate against Turks. " (As you see, I can use a neutral language even when I am talking about "my" claims). """

Seems to me that you fail to understand how such cases are treated in international courts. But before making the point clearer, the UN recognize it as genocide, the Permanent People Tribunal recognize it as genocide, the International Center for Transitional Justice just recently as well concluded genocide. The Turkish military tribunal, concluded there was a programmed plan of destruction which was successfully executed(at that time, the word genocide was still not coined). An international court like Hague can only used to condemn and trial criminals, the criminals in this cases are already dead. Beside Armenia can not do anything as representing one party, because Armenia was a part of what was known as Russian Armenia, which was “outside” of most of the crimes. The lawyer who coined the word genocide included the Armenian cases as part of the definition of genocide. You know what this means? It means that in comparative studies, what is like what happened to the Armenians is classified as genocide. International courts like Hague which are charged to trial war criminals can only be used to charge and condemn criminals, when they are dead, other such international bodies are used to classify whatever or not what happened was in fact genocide.

As for fanatics, I will never call an Armenia human right organization as racist against their own, like you have done with those Turks you have called just that. Not only I will never call them what you have called those Turks, but I will even praise them, and support them. Don't call others what you have displayed yourself please, this is highly hypocritic.

Coming to fake documents. Do you actually believe that researchers are so easily fooled by a people that its world population is only about 8 million? Be serious please. Do you actually believe that Armenians at night, in some sort of way managed to enter in Bonn “centralarchiv” building, and such places, and have managed to forge German documents? Do you think they did the same for all those other countries archives? Or what about the Turkish military tribunal? Do you think Armenians managed to forge documents for them as well? What about all those witnesses? Maybe the Ottoman third army commander Vehib was an Armenian, and wrote a fake affidavit, maybe Halil memoirs published in Istanbul were forged and the words relating to his plan of not living a single Armenian alive, just fabricated. Maybe those Germans officials communicating with General Ilham were all Armenians passing as Germans. Maybe General Paraquin was Armenian. Maybe the German in charge of one of the special organization was as well Armenian, and in his report was just lied. Maybe all those hundreds of officials, generals, soldiers etc. were all Armenians comploting against the Turks. Armenians would even beat the “Jews” like they are considered by some wacko Holocaust revisionists, we afteral, a little group of people, 8 million, are successful of doing all that.

Coming to ASALA. Do you have any idea of why ASALA appeared in the 70s-80s ? Do you know that the first murder was actually from an elderly men having lost his entire family during the genocide? Do you know why those dates? It was in the 70s, years after the 50nt year of commemoration of the Armenian genocide, that the Turkish government has finally decided to once for all erase history, by sending diplomats around the world, founding chairs of history's to deny the genocide. Do you want a neutral work regarding ASALA? I propose you one written in Israel: “Asala--Irrational Terror or Political Tool” by Ariel Merari, Jerusalem Post, Jerusalem, 1985. Reading it, you just might maybe understand why the Jerusalem post, during those years of Palestinian terrorism, has classified ASALA as a terrorist organization very much different than any other such organizations. The introduction of the work, is a good start. Let me quote a little bit from it for you: “In 1973 two Turkish diplomats were shot in Los Angeles by an 80-year old Armenian named Kirkan Yanikian. Behind this act of revenge by a lone individual lay a national reawakening among the dispersed Armenians in the world, which had begun in the early 1970s. This incident might gradually have been forgotten, had it not in fact catalyzed a chain of events which turned it, and its perpetrator, into a symbol signifying the end of the conspiracy of silence which since 1915 had surrounded the holocaust of the Armenian people. Since 1975 some 30 Turkish diplomats or members of their families have been attacked in dozens of terrorist actions, with the result that Armenian revenge, as well as the background to the Armenian struggle, have become a near permanent feature in the world press. These terrorist acts were actually carried out by a small group of people, but due to their spectacular nature they were successful in bringing the Armenian tragedy to the forefront of international awareness.”

...

“The absence of a popular support base within its homeland constitutes a critical limitation for any organization with nationalist aspirations. In the present case this has dictated the central characteristics of ASALA, and in effect has determined the nature of the international framework within which the organization operates.”

...

“The ASALA phenomenon is of special interest to the Jewish people and to Israel for several reasons. Both Jews and Armenians have been the victims of genocide in the 20th century. The establishment of ASALA was a belated reaction to the holocaust which struck the Armenian people, and an indirect result of the conversion of Beirut into the terrorist capital of the world during the 1970s.”

Do I support this organization? No I don't... what I have against though, is your uses of what happened decades after the event, to try to picture Armenians as some sort of animals at the bottom of the food chain, who somehow merited what happened to them in 1915, regardless of your denial of doing just that. I don't support terrorism, but I understand it(understanding and supporting something is two different thing). Had it not been of ASALA, possibly the memory of the Armenian genocide would have been erased from history... had it not been of this terrorist organization acting after the Turkish government foundation and funding, and sending of diplomats around the world as tool of denial..., there are chances that in Wikipedia there would be no “Armenian genocide” entry. So, now perhaps you may understand why I have deleted the reference to ASALA, because the way it was cited, makes it no sense at all that it is in anyway related to the Armenian genocide, because it does not say anything about the true aim of the organization that had to do with the genocide, but rather its terrorist nature, that itself alone has little to do with the genocide... and at that period, the ASALA entry was POV(Coolcat POV), but since then, it has somehow been neutralized(not by me, but others). Now you can understand why ASALA was even by some Western country not really classified of terrorism at the beginning, people were easy about it. They were rather called a “terror” organization, I know, it might be a synonym.

Oh, and for the “why Turks have killed Armenians.” I have answered this in my other answer to you above. Fadix 22:23, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I would like to second Fadix's excellent response to this contention that such an absurd "disclosure" and the suggestion that mention of ASALA has any place in the core of a discussion concerning the Armenian Genocide. It is the fact of the Genocide itself as known and accepted by scholars and international bodies that must be presented not unproven and highly suspect contentions that only support one POV – that of the government of Turkey and certain of its citizens and supporters who have clear agenda/bias and misunderstanding of the truth.

This issue of "disclosure" is patently absurd. Again - if such were considered acceptable as a lead in to the discussion of the Holocaust on Wikipedia then perhaps it might be considered acceptable here - but that of course would be an admission that anyone might dispute known facts and history from whatever questionable and unproven basis - because that is exactly what you propose and its "not worth the ink it is written on".

I think ASALA perhaps merits its own entry or discussion in a section that deals with genocide denial and its response. But ASALA was a group and a phenomenon that existed independently, was not supported by the vast numbers of Armenians nor any other Armenian organizations and it has no direct relevance on the Genocide that was committed in and around 1915 - unless, in fact you acknowledge that the Genocide is perhaps ongoing as continued Turkish denial of such is perpetuation. Even then ASALA needs to be presented in proper context not POV which is what you propose.

As for why Turks killed Armenians that can be easily answered - but should be done in the article itself and IMO it cannot be viewed in isolation but is related to the earlier massacres of Armenians by Turks that occurred in the 1890s and in Adana in 1909 and in relation to the overall political and economic environment and the fall/dissolution of the Ottoman Empire. IMO to properly discuss and present this entire matter the rise of (and ascendancy of hyper Turkish nationalists within) the Committee of Union and Progress (Young Turks) needs to be presented (or at least linked to - with proper relation to the Armenians - and it is already there [in the Wikipedia presentation] in part) and a proper understanding of the entire "Armenian Question" in regards to the Ottoman Empire and its downfall (Fall of Empire, failure of government to adapt to the times, including the corruption, violence, lawlessness etc – as well as the history of break-away of other nationalities (and the influx of Muslim refugees), the dire economic and political straights of the nation [including impact of WWI and relations with the European powers] and the [Turkish] revolution against and fall from power/grace of the Sultan...and why the Sultan earlier chose to suppress and massacre Armenians…and how Turkish nationalism became a force to the detriment of other sects/nationalities within the empire) - all of this should be presented (or at least properly linked to). However the core of the presentation should clearly present the Genocide for what it was with the surrounding events and causative issues presented as they warrant. In the mean time I see little value in your contributions amounting to only calling Armenian's hateful fanatics with no proof of such. What we are trying to present is accurate history. I will give you the benefit of the doubt to not call you hateful - but only ignorant and consumed with nationalist fervor. --THOTH 15:16, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Working version moved

NOTE I have moved Armenian Genocide - Working Version to Armenian Genocide/Working version in accordance with site policy on working versions. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:03, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

To follow the progress

User:Fadix/Ottoman_Armenian_Casualties This is the article I am working on, it is at a very early stage of developpement. It will only concentrate on the casulties figures on this article. More info and the footnotes will be added later. Fadix 03:24, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Unprotecting

This period of protection has gone on much longer than I anticipated, and I'm releasing it for edits because I don't think anything more can be achieved by this process. I will only protect again if you all start being naughty and getting into an edit war again, so behave. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:00, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have moved the working version to the current article page. Since nobody else made any changes - I am going to assume it can at least be used as the basis for further changes... --RaffiKojian 03:34, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

My views

I believe in rewiewing facts. I do not care what you were told/taught. I am a scientist, my job is to examine the facts. I would have left this article alone LONG ago if I was not insulted on an edit basis. It had been my experience that if people are not willing to discuss the factuality of their "facts", they are not necesarily "facts". Not all mass number of deaths are defined as "Massacre". I never declared the entier artilce as propoganda, I never acused you of things. Some material looks one sided. I challenge their factuality. I challenge the factuality of all material. If you cant prove it I have no reason to believe in it. I do not care what Historians think, I care about why they think what they think based on what. Do you have a problem with that? It is imposible to discuss this as long as you keep insulting me and any party that joins the conversation. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 02:56, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Fadix analysis provides me no relevant info. It has to be cleaned. I do not care you disputing some other party, who apears to be Torque, views. I care about evidence and factual material. Or would you rather folow the: Must be true because my uncle/this scholar/I said so attitude? --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 03:01, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well Cool Cat - as I have said before, I think your approach was not fair to anyone. Coming into a discussion on an article like this, without first educating yourself on the subject better was a massive imposition on the discussion. Saying things like Armenians weren't 100% innocent is like saying a rape/murder victim "asked for it" because of the way they dressed. You cannot deserve such a thing. I draw the comparison to the Jewish experience again and again. Just because the Turkish Government has not done the honorable thing yet and admitted it, unlike the German Government, doesn't mean Armenians should be subjected to this kind of "why don't you prove it to me" attitude by one person after another. It has been proven thoroughly, and you have not yet taken the time to educate yourself on the subject. That is *exactly* what the Turkish Government counts on. People don't have time. If the Turkish Govt claims something outrageous, people will assume there might be (perhaps *must* be) some truth to it. The simple fact that nationalism had hit the area just like it had all over Europe meant that some Armenians began to dream of independence, or at least better treatment, and that some Turks began dreaming of a new Turkish Nation-State-Empire, from the Bosphorus to China (Tajikistan) - incidentally the traditional Western Armenians name of Turks is "Tajik" (Dajig) the place of the Turkish origin. The ones with the latter ambitions gained control of the Ottoman Turkish Empire and the destruction of a 3,000 year presence followed.. genocide. --RaffiKojian 03:34, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Historic discussion, we do not discuss politics, we do not discuss what politicians say, we discuss history. Current claim is that Turks killed Armenians for the money in the middle of a war, correct me if I am wrong. Logicaly speaking, you can forcefully take money and moving people requires some money, Turks had their hands full with russians. Logicaly there is a problem, if they desperately need cash, why do they spend it? --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 08:53, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Just because Turkish Goverment did not recognised Armenian Genocide does not mean everything regarding the Genocide can be accepted eyes closed. Most trekkie fans dream of a "United Earth". Russians have always wanted to reach the Mediterranian, still do. China want Taiwan, claim its theirs. Mexicans unofficialy want what they lost to the Americans (at least some do). --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 08:53, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I do not see money as a sufficent sole motive. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 08:53, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In order to discuss armenian genocide, one must not assume it as a fact. If it is a fact, there is nothing to discuss, then why is prooving it in the article so hard. I currently surrendered the article to fadix as he will revert everything, often without reading. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 08:53, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

My reply to all three of your points is: When did I ever say anything about money being a motive? When did anyone? What are you talking about? And frankly - motives are irrelevant. Your attempt to understand motives in order to believe there could have been a genocide at all is quite frankly, insulting. We all agree it was not logical to kill all the Armenians, ok? So please don't ask us to convince you it was!! --RaffiKojian 03:20, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No fadix said that, you are not the only party in the discussion. In a suspected murder motive is the first thing asked in court. Unless a person is insane there is a logical reason to kill. Now if we want to talk about the classification of "massacre". Any information that suggests this was infact not a genocide is as relevant as any information sugesting itwas infact a genocide. Why did Turks kill all armenians to begin with? Why did Turks walk them to death. While its a long walk, people are likely to survive it. If you want exterimination no one should survive it. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 10:41, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Again, I have never refused that the “other side” should be presented, but this “other side” should be specified by whom it is claimed, and this you refuse.

And what dumb thing it is to write something like: “While its a long walk, people are likely to survive it. If you want exterimination no one should survive it.”

Before writing such a BS, take a map and study where Armenians were sent. Perhaps, maybe you should visit Del-El-Zor in Summer and try to survive there for a week on direct Sun, without anything to protect yourself from. Oh and, of course, without water too. Maybe if you do survive, someone then release from prison criminals and send them on you, so that he “study” what is your chances of survival. And if it happens that you die, that person dare your family to sue him and claim that his intention was not to “kill” you, and that there was no premeditation in sending you in the desert for a week on the Sun, without water, and there was neither any premeditation to release from prison murderers and send them on you.

Le see, what “logical” reason that person might come with that will free him from charges of murder. Fadix 20:41, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

RaffiKojian, I am not trying to offend you, frankly I prefer putting verifiable information regarding the matter. Archive numbers should be a start, a good historian always mentions his resources. Why historians investigating the matter think what they think based on what? I expect to be overwhelmed with material as claimed this is a fact, lack of material implies uncertainty, uncertainty imlies lack of factual acuracy and room for propoganda to fill. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 08:58, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well as you can see from the population articles Fadix put together, if we waste weeks of our time, we can apparently please you. But if you were to just read some books yourself instead of demanding we quote every single word used to you, you'd see the whole picture, and that everything we have written is sound. If we used sources as poor as Torque and others, we could apparently have convinced you that the moon is made of cheese - it is about studying the entire subject, not just including quotes. It is nice for you that "you expect to be overwhelmed with material" from us. It is nice for you that you "prefer weblinks to books", but other people have lives, you know? I really find your "I'm an ignorant outsider, go ahead and educate me" attitude infuriating and intolerable. It is not our job (as I have said before) to hold every persons hand who has just heard something about the genocide and isn't sure whether to believe the Turkish Government denial or not, and to walk them through the whole thing. So if you take a step back, try to imagine a genocide victim being subjected to this day after day, year after year, perhaps you'd appreciate better some of the anger and impatience that has been displayed. Again, I tell you GO TO THE LIBRARY - read Survivors, read Hovanissian and Dadrian, I even encourage you to read books like Fiegl's Myth of Terror. After that, you can come back and edit the article like a pro. But before that, you really need to take it a bit easy... --RaffiKojian 03:20, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Read this book and you will have my POV and then youll edit this article my way is what you suggest? I am sure Armenians are not baselessly claiming it is genocide, I am also sure Turks arent baselessly claiming it wasnt genocide. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 10:43, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No! What he is saying, is that you should at least read about the subject you want to be involved in. Fadix 16:46, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Apperantly Fadix, aside from swearing and screaming came up with a brilliant article. User:Fadix/Ottoman Armenian Casualties. Congrats, we can work like that. Book links are great, web links may be more insightfull. ;) --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 09:05, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I propose fadixes article be moved as an actual wiki article. And numbers on this and all Armenian Genocide article be based on highest and lowest numbers represented in that article. That looks good. I am not moving it myself to evade conflict. The move button will do it. All the blaber about numbers on Armenian Genocide be linked to fadixes page. I say thats a barnstar candidate, any objections? --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 09:14, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As a scientist, you have a funny way to see what is the job of a scientist is. Please stop repeating this over and over again. I am as well a scientist, but I have never used this to improve my credibility.

Look Coolcat, I have to admit that you did nothing to change, you have edited the article and reintroduced what I believe even Tony has agreed to not be the best changes, when you have reintroduced the same thing over again.

As for the Fadix analysis, I am not here to educate you about a subject that you have even not bothered reading about, you ignored at first who was Justin McCarthy, the revisionists number one reference. You can't expect to claim there is no evidences, and wait others to answer you, when you were not able to cite a single book you have read about the topic.

I know a lot about math, I could have worked in Fourier entry etc. or such entries, it is one of my field of studies... but have not injected myself in such discussions, because there are possibly PhDs and people that know very much about such topics to work on them. I will not participate in a subject I don't know well about. It would be logical, and ideal for any Wikipedians to do the same. If someone is here to neutralize the tone, great, if someone is here to delete informations like you have been doing, or recopy and past things which its deletion has been explained in the talk page and the users own talk page... I would consider this as a cases of harming Wikipedia.

And more so, you again interpret, more particularly in your answer to Raffi. This is what I call biases, I do have my opinions about the topic, but I can give educated opinions, from what I have studied, I will cite from all major revisionist works, including Halacoglu recent studies that would be considered as jokes by any high standard in the field, but you on the other hand, will comment about it, when you know near to nothing. Will a true scientist do this, or would he rather study and than judge? Fadix 00:14, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

And another thing, please don't edit my posts in talk pages, more particularly in the archives as you have done with my "Fadix analysis" and more recently, entrie paragraphs were just deleted by someone. Fadix 00:17, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Give me one occasion I edited your posts that changed its meaning? I only remove personal insults. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 03:32, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You have played with my archived posts, and it happens that entire section was deleted few days after yours. I don't know who did it, but I really don't like that, please leave them to others, seems that Tony is here trying to moderate, as a party that is implicated, I don't like you to edit things that have no reason to be edited. Fadix 04:22, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Agree good article on numbers by Fadix - as usual. I've always regarding these type of arguments contesting how many were killed to be somewhat strawmen like - as they really have little bearing or relevance (IMO). The fact that under the cover of war the Young Turks undertook (a successful) campaign to rid Anatolia of Armenians (and other Christians...oh and not just for their wealth BTW - but it was certainly a factor...again many parallels t the Holocaust) - and the results of ethnic cleansing/genocide through deportation and massacre of innocent civilian populations is unchanged - regardless of the numbers. It is still a genocide and a terrible crime against humanity and against the Armenians - regardless.

Fadix and I have both sucessfully debunked the McCarthy figures/claims in the past. The extreme "wand waving" done by McCarthy concerning numbers of Armenians within the various Ottoman provinces via the various seriously flawed "census" counts (or to use the Turkish venacular - "so-called" census counts) is testament to his flawed and biased (again "so-called" scholarship). I do find more worthwhile information in "Death and Exile" - but it is clear he is pitching his agenda of complete Turkish apolegetics and is not interested in truth.

Anyway. I have transcribed about 1/3 of my outline as I would like to present it. While I ussually just write rapidly off the top of my head in these talk pages and on forums - for somethign of this magnitude I am deliberate and try to really think things through. Obviously I will miss much regardless - and I am hoping that my proposed outline will be well recieved and become a basis for a serious presentation of the Armenian Genocide. The current article is neither appropiatly encompassing nor does it empahsise all of what I believe are the key events and key points that should be raised. I also find the current article to somewhat lack context - so much so that I think it would be difficult for the casual reader to truly understand what occured (in part better linkages and references will help). I hope to have something to present sometime this week. I believe it will be worth waiting for to at least consider some of my points even if the group may not decide to abandon the current article and proceed on this new path in its entirety. Thanks for the consideration. --THOTH 23:04, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Actualy, Death and Exile Academically speaking I would consider as less worthy, because of the nature of “throwing” numbers and attempt to mislead people. I gave an example where McCarthy referred to Van, and footnoted Nogales and Ussher, when both were saying the complete opposite to what McCarthy was claiming. Or his footnote on Erzerum etc, or the way he throw absolute numbers. Well, apparently Dr. Frédéric Paulin the one who studied McCarthy, from the researches he has done in many advanced mathematic domains, will become a name to remember for mathematicians. (many of it, accessible from his personal web page) While McCarthy in the last few years has lost his credibility in the Academic world. Fadix 00:23, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

...

I am not trying to improve my credibility, on wikipedia everyone has equal level of credibility, however on many ocasions my credibility was disputed on this page which is at best unwiki. I want to hear more "Why historians investigating the matter think what they think based on what?", less "Coolcat is bad.", less "Tony sais so", less "Genocide is fact because I said so". --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 03:32, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I would like to remind you to be tolerant of others views, even if you disagree with them. You may well regard the other party's views as being on the fringe. This may even be true, but Wikipedia is aiming for a neutral point of view, not to exclude unconventional views. We are not trying to write a "single correct version of the truth."--Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 03:50, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Quit the official talk please, in Wikipedia there is no such thing as having equal credibility, it is like in real life, peoples credibility are hurt, or some become more credible due to behaviors. Besides, your arguments against historians is purely offending for the discipline called history. That you have not done any research about a topic, one can understand that, but that you question the entire field of history as to claim that what historians believe is not relevant in what regards history, I find that quite offending for the tens of thousands of historians that publish works and study history, and this in any subjects. Wikipedia is not about presenting subjects the way it is appealing for you, but rather is a place of resource that collect what is relevant regarding a subject. And this has nothing to do with, wherever or not a version satisfies me or not. I have no problem presenting any versions of history, what I have a problem with, is your anti-NPOV policy of wanting to present two positions as equally valid, you want to suggest in all the articles that relates to Turkey, directly or indirectly, two theses as equally valid, when they are against the Turkish government point of view.

If you want to present the Turkish government version regarding a subject, go build your website, this place is not your server. And as I said, take this as an offense, but if you can not neutralize this article, neither have no knowledge about the subject, you are not needed here, your presence is worthless in this entry because you can not contribute in any way. There are some here that probably don't know much about the subject, but still, they can neutralize the article and not POV push, you are not one of them. Fadix 04:22, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Please respect the right of others to hold their views. This does not mean that you have to agree with me, but just agree to disagree. Discuss the facts and how to express them, NOT the attributes of the other party, in this case me. Never suggest a view is invalid simply because of who its proponent is. Negative personal comments and "I'm better than you" attacks, such as "You have no life." are not welcome. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 05:32, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Finding “facts” is the task of researcher in the topic, Wikipedia doesn't permit for one to write his “research” or theses like, without being peer reviewed. The only way of writing such articles is to present views and positions defended, and by each parties by specifying who's position it is. You still refuse this, and you can go ask to any admins or veterans that are not in Wikipedia for POV pushing, and they will confirm what I just said. My critic of you has nothing to do with differences of opinion, personal opinion does not change the courses of a Wikipedian article. My critic of you is that you edit the article to “mean” things, when you were unable to cite any works you have read about the topic. This is the whole point here. Davenbelle or other editors have not done what you've did, neither Tony.

This is how I say, you have no place in the process of writing the article, neither do you have knowledge of the positions, but you are opinioned about the topic, when you lack the knowledge... and you try to color the article based on that opinion. And again , I repeat, this has nothing to do with views. That I have certain views or not about the article, what was my goal, was to present each positions, and specify from which party it comes from, and Wikipedia stat that this is what should ideally be done, and I believe that do to the conflict that Turks like you have with the article, it is the only way to do things. I am sure that not a single Admin will tell that this is not what should be done.

Therefore I pass to a vote. I ask people to vote, be it Tony, or anyone. Who agree that the Armenian genocide entry should present each major views, given as much spaces as it is accepted in the Academia, present the best arguments from each sides, their critics(when there is). I advance that it is the only way to do this. So I pass this to a vote. Fadix 16:07, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am sorry, I was quoting Wikipedia:No personal Attacks, you are obligated to folow these. There is no excuse for such attacks on other contributors. Do not make them. Please be civil. The article is disputed in its current state. We do not do votes on every disputed article. Creationism is there even though majority perhaps agrees its a complete load of crap. Wikipedia requires facts, this is not your research paper, you cannot and shouldnot try to prove the Armenian Genocide here, it is disputed, something you do not acknowlege. Admins do not interfere with articles, any admin will tell you constantly reverting the article is not the right way. I was reminded of this flaw by steriotek, rather harsh I think given he is not any better than I am as reverting goes. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 10:28, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

OK! Fine, show me where are those “personal attacks” in my post above, if you ain't able to do so, I will conclude that you are trying to change the subject.

Now coming to your text. First you write: “Wikipedia requires facts,” and then, “you cannot and shouldnot try to prove the Armenian Genocide here, ...” Let me understand well, Wikipedia requires facts, but I should NOT bring those facts here. Who are you trying to kid? You've been trying to maintain this type of “logic” which is just a paradox.

So the genocide is disputed, but Coolcat hasn't read any works about it. But of course if we only read the Turkish press like you do, we will conclude just that. This place is not a Turkish government founded encyclopedia. Sorry. Fadix 16:44, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

a real article on the Armenian Genocide

I think that this article needs to look a whole lot more like this article on the Armenian Genocide which, you'll note, is a fork of an earlier version of this article. — Davenbelle 09:40, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

I think I disagree. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 10:20, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Childish Wars of Words

I visited the discussion page to read some interesting views. All I see are childish comments between a few users more about THEIR credibility than the credibility of the information presented. All you do here is create a garbage of information. I have to lower myself to say this but I think it is the only way it will make sense to you: Get a life.

Each of you present your views and facts and let others make their own judgements. You have to assume that the individuals reading these are interested in the subject and will try to get the best of what they read. - (unsigned) Rotband

Sorry, I'll try to give my view of situation: after reading of article and discussions (for this and several related discussions it took several days), I tried to search truth by myself. I tried to find some information using Google, encyclopedias, etc., and I found that even most Turkian sources do not deny that there were mass killings of armenians, and their point of view mainly differs in definition of who was guilty: turkians try to blame mostly the war and partially both sides - turkish and armenian. But what we see in this _discussion_: it is maybe the worst possible case when wikipedia can not give you straight and clear article. (try to look from POV of commercial encyclopedies: "look at this - wikipedia ish bullsh..., instead of giving clear data they are fighting between themselves and profanating all the subject!"). Maybe my opinion is wrong, sorry, I simply trying to give you my POV to _this_ discussion: one person, only one single person, by trying to POV-ize topic in the wrong (profanic) way, and only because of he even hasn't tried to read at least something about topic, makes writing of article almost impossible. It is a shame. I think users who write articles should have better possibilities than teaching ignoramus. --213.197.137.20 18:49, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

An insight is always welcome, something I have been saying forever. The dispute revolves around (mostly the war and partially both sides vs Genocide). That part is disputed agree with it or not. This is Cool Cat signing off. - 10:14, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Cite from Cool Cat text - when RaffiKojian suggested him to read some literature about the subject, Cool Cat paraphrased: Read this book and you will have my POV and then youll edit this article my way is what you suggest?. I think, here is nothing more to say. --Gvorl 11:07, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

...So if you take a step back, try to imagine a genocide victim being subjected to this day after day, year after year, perhaps you'd appreciate 
better some of the anger and impatience that has been displayed. Again, I tell you GO TO THE LIBRARY - read Survivors, read Hovanissian and Dadrian,
I even encourage you to read books like Fiegl's Myth of Terror. After that, you can come back and edit the article like a pro. But before that,
you really need to take it a bit easy... --RaffiKojian 03:20,  12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am merely suggesting, If I share your views you will loose the only objective party. I know more about the topic than I appear, I was tring to hear what you have to say, so I can determine my bias. Was a failed strategy I admit. You declare that I must accept genocide, should you not want an objective view? Otherwise isnt this bias? --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 02:38, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What failed strategy? What you've did is a misrepresentation. And are you claiming here that you are objective? Fadix 01:26, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Like I said, armenians have their reasons for their beliefs so does the turks. A uniformal truth should satisfy both. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 02:39, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There is no such thing as "satifying" as rules in Wikipedia. An article should be neutral, that is all. To build new rules. Fadix 01:25, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

So far I haven't seen indications of your knowledge. When your oponents ask you for facts you say that you do not need those. You are asking for provements from others but your disagreements are not not based on any facts or findings. It seems that you want that Fadix and others argument that there was no genocide and similar things. But such behaviour is simply trolling of al the discussion. --Gvorl 05:32, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Agree (with Gvorl) - as anyone who truly understands what occured in 1915 - and before and after - in regards to this issue could never (honestly) say the things that Coolcat does. Obvioulsly most Turks and Armenians are not going to agree on the issue at this point in time. They do nto agree out in the real world - how can you expect that they will agree here? Obvioulsy - you will never convince any Armenian (nor any proper knowledgable historian) that there was no Genocide. (and we have proved that there was by a very clear margin - so I can see no real denbate on this issue) - but - I can neither see most Turks (or Coolcat) every admitting to Genocide. So where does this leave us by the seemingly/alleged unbiased Coolcat approach? With no solution - with no Armenian Genocide article - curious isnt't it? --THOTH 18:09, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree with everybody but Cool Cat that Cool Cat has contributed nothing to this article at all. Has not shown any knowledge of the subject. Has inserted opinion which he says he has not formed yet. Has stated he was lying that he has little real knowlege of the subject (without proving any such thing). Twisted my words when I say he should read up on the subject. So all he has done (assuming it is a he - but he prefers to remain completely anonymous) is create a MASSIVE obstacle to progress on the article, waste all of our time, and make a joke of wikipedia. Can we just ignore him? I mean, if someone wants to argue facts here, that is one thing, but this whole "You have to convince me the Turks had a logical, sane reason to wipe out the Armenians or I can't believe it was genocide" at this point in the conversation is so ridiculous, we can't actually be expected to respond. It is almost like someone is playing a joke on us all. So again I ask. Can we just ignore this thing called Cool Cat until he possibly has something meaningful to contribute? --RaffiKojian 04:32, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have already proposed this myself, there is no point one to waste his time with Coolcat. The guy has even loaded my talk page. I won't even read him anymore. Fadix 18:05, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, yeah, yeah! Everybody will be happy if you can get rid of coolcat. Coolcat is not knowledgable, I am vandal, every edit we make is immediately deleted by one of you. But look at the following, nobody dares to remove this edit: "The Ottoman government wanted to expand their empire and conquer Arabia. However, sitting between the Ottoman Empire and Arabia was Armenia. Ottoman officials surmised that the best way to reach Arabia was by removing the Armenian "problem." It is said that this genocide greatly inspired Hitler in his attempted extermination of the Jews, Gypsies, and other peoples." How knowledgeable! How true! But no, you don't remove this, because it doesn't destroy the picture you're trying to draw. It just adds to it, so you don't care how ignorant it is, you don't care how ill-intentioned that edit is. Please be honest, respect yourself, and put a disclaimer on the top of the page stating that this is the propaganda page of Armenian diaspora, which literally is true if you look at the current shape of the article (everything that might mean that there might be alternative explanations and/or facts were systematically deleted since I have last checked this article). Cezveci 16:05, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I was away these days and not had much time. I was surprised to learn this change as well, I don't remember this thing being there when I last edited the article. Who added it? I agree it is a mistake and should not be there. Delete it if you want.

I think that after the deletion, from there on, every adding of materials should be discussed in the talk page so we do not end up in such situations. I apologize. As for Coolcat, I will not comment, the guy left a message on my talk page that I stillam not able to know what it means. Just wondering. Fadix 00:09, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hm - I don't dispute that this "arabia" claim is in error - the exact quotes from the CUP leaders directly mention the Central Asian Turkick lands - even to include the Uigyurs who live in China. However this motivation was only one of many for "removing the Armenian problem" - and hard to prove if the average Turk who participated or took advantage of the slaughter of Armenians was truly motivated by such. As for the Armenian Genocide being an inspiration for Hitler - well there are several sources of his mentioning such as well as a great deal of circumstansial evidence considering the role of his advisor Count Max Erwin von Scheubner-Richter - German Vice-Consul at Erzerum (who by the way had this to say about the matter):

"I have conducted a series of conversations with competent and influential Turkish personalities, and these are my impressions: A large segment of the Ittihadist Young Turk party maintains the viewpoint that the Turkish empire should be based only on the principle of Islam and Pan-Turkism. Its non-Muslim and non-Turkish inhabitants should either be forcibly islamized, or otherwise they ought to be DESTROYED. These gentlemen believe that the time is propitious for the realization of this PLAN. The first item on this agenda concerns the LIQUIDATION OF THE ARMENIANS. Ittihad will dangle before the eyes of the allies the specter of an ALLEGED REVOLUTION prepared by the Armenian Dashnak party. Moreover. local incidents of social unrest and acts of Armenian self-defense will deliberately be provoked and inflated and will be used as pretexts to effect the deportations. Once en route however, the convoys will be attacked and EXTERMINATED by brigands, and in part by gendarmes, who will be instigated for that purpose by Ittihad."

curious isn't it - that he was so perceptive - that the CUP had such a plan...and that so much of what the Nazi's attempted some 30 years later bore so much similarilty....--THOTH 16:56, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Curious, isn't it? "that he was so perceptive"... good point! Thank you.

About the Arabia thing, yes yes, it was just a "small error". Apparently, that's what you teach your kids. And the knowledgeable, Turk-friend THOTH corrects the error with their wisdom: "Turks were willing to invade China". How elegant... Admirable. We are talking about the Turks by the way, who had "control" of Arabia at the time, that they were planning to "conquer". They weren't trying to "conquer" Arabia, they were trying to "defend" Arabia, and nobody who went to Yemen came back. We are talking about the Turks, by the way, who were fighting against an army of tens of nations brought in by British Empire in Dardanelles. They didn't have any technology to fight against the modern army of allies, and they were defending only with their lives (There were also Armenians among these heros, by the way). It was a miracle that the allies couldn't capture Dardanelles. These were the conditions. We are talking about Turks, whose thousands of soldiers - who were supposed to defend Eastern Anatolia against Russians and Armenian militia- were frozen to death in Sarikamis, because they had summer clothes. And these Turks were planning to "expand" to China? And these Turks are accused of not providing reliable escort for Armenians "intentionally"? "Errors" my friend, these are small "errors", just confusing Arabia with China. Continue, my friend, continue to fill in the article with your small "friendly" errors, and censor anything that might mean something that you don't want to be understood, and shamelessly label them "vandalism". That's all you need, because you know that you are not speaking the truth. Cezveci 04:13, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I will ignore the first part of your post, you can go and edit the article and correct that mistake, if someone revert it back, I will revert to your correction. What I will answer is your claim about Sarikamis. I don't know what they teach you in your text books, but you have the history of Sarikamis all wrong. The region is near Kars, and was situated about what was in Russian Caucasus, what happened is that early during the war the Ottoman tried to invade Russia, and from failures the amassed men on that region while the Russians as a counter measure were planning to take Erzerum from the same front. What happened at Sarikamis had absolutely nothing to do with any Armenian militia, those deaths were the result of Envers megalomanic Pan-Turanist attempt soon during the war that ended up to be a complete failure which gave the Russians the pretext to invade later. Enver has sent thousands and thousands of men to open the front, he didn't cared of their lives in Winter, to die frozen, unprepared, and without sufficient provision. The only Armenians serving at that time against the Ottoman were Russian Armenians that have decided to block the front that if broken would give access to Russian Armenia to the Ottoman army. In fact, Enver was so obsessed about his plan, as the minister of the war, he even has gone on the front to fight, and it is said that it was an Ottoman Armenian brigade that saved his life... he as an answer in February 1915 thanked the Armenians for their loyalty, when on the other hand he was preparing their destruction. Fadix 01:28, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Don't preach to me. I know the history - a good deal better then you I think. I have not written this article. It is much too soft IMO - among other shortfalls. My having many Turkish friends has no bearing on presenting the truth here. You have spent the better part of a paragraph saying nothing and putting words in my mouth. Your depiction of Turkey as the victim is very typical. Funny that it was the Turks who began the aggression. The British would have been most happy - and made many attempts to convince the Turks to not go with the Germans - yes it was the greed of Enver and the others that won out in the end - the idea that the Germans would win and thus The Ottoman Empire could once again be great and vast (but this time Turkish and not multi-cultural). Its only lucky that the Brits and French and even the Russians had their hands full elsewhere and with other things. Its no coincidence theat Lennin was bankrolled by the Germans. And as valiant as the Ottoman armies did fight at times - these were clearly just skirmishes in the grand scheme of things. There was no possibility that the Ottoman Empire would come out of this one much of anything like it came into it (the CUP were stupid fools - and it is they who are to blame for not only the terrible Armenian suffering but the Turkish suffering as well...and you are a [fooled] fool if you believe otherwise) - and Ataturk and the Turks are certainly deserving of much credit for salvaging and leveraging what they got - Anatolia - free of all capitulations....of course without the Armenians - and that was certainly by design (but your nation suffers still - much - from this shortsightedness). So squirm away - you cannot use your critique of a poorly written article to supress the truth. Yeah funny - the Turks being so weak - yet no caravan was ever intercepted - no rescue ever made - some Armenian resistance eh? --THOTH 07:57, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I contributed nothing because my contributions were immidiately reverted. One thing you so knowlegable people dont recognise is you have 0 tolerance to any view aside from your own. I am not sure you are as knowlegable as you think... I think you are quoting someone else. You talk about the truth, your truth. So its a lie if it disagrees with you? Fadix for instance declared Tony as "revisionist" he declared me Turkish, they post how horible I am on every article I go. They bother me in various ways. I do not understand why they are going to great lengths to remove my presence from wikipedia. In the end they win. They can celebrate and do what ever the hell they want with wikipedia, I have no reason to stay here if hard working people like me are allowed to be bullied like this. Discussion here is mostly how horible the other party is. People are very confortable in placing information without sources, "go read books dude" attitude is comendable. Your(plural) case is either extremely weak or you(plural) are very ignorant. I asked you to proove it. All I got is insults. All I still get is insults and personal attacks. Users do not even acknowlege what personal attacks are, or what good wikiquette is all about. It is the very foundation of wikipedia. I cant tolerate this constant bulliying I recieved just because I asked sources and neutrality on this article. Commendable, keep destroying wikipedia community for your petty genocide thesis. You(plural) live in the dilusional past I guess, or else instead of annoying me you would provide me evidence. There is no doubt people died, no one is denying that. I cannot get a straight answer to something as simple as: "what was the motive of turks when they requested Armenians to move"?, "why?". You talk about historical events, I see them as mere "stories" or "legends", I do not see a basis. Isolated events do not necesarily affect the big picture. Hand picking minor incidents, exagarating them and pasting it together is not how proper history is practiced. However it is fanatc. All you suggest is "go away". I never heard of a "stay". This brriliant strategy hopefully will last forever and you will save the world from retarded revisionists, whatever that means, like me. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 16:11, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't remember calling Tony a revisionist, please enlighten me. As for you being Turkish, this is not an attack, you have admitted it yourself, I don't see what is wrong saying what you have admitted. Now coming to your point, now I understand what the words “you win” meant. So finally this was really a game for you. Do you really believe that this was about winning and loosing for me? Why is everything a game for you? The ranking idea, and now this. I told you, I was ready to provide you references, now please go back in the history of this entry, and reread what went wrong, and why I answered you the way I have answered. You did not ask me to “prove” you anything at first... you edited the entry again and again without even justifying it on the talk page, while I had justified my edits. You did everything to get people against you... and when you then asked for “prove” you then retracted claiming it was not about proving, and then again it was about proving. Reread Wikipedia policy please another time. I have accepted that Wikipedia is not about the truth, but positions... that is all, of course you don't have the same problem at the Karabagh entry where Tabib kicked me out accusing me of hidden agenda after my FIRST post there quoting something? Of course you had nothing to say about those things when you wanted to moderate it right? Go read the entry and compare it with this one. While this one has a tone of “according to this”... the Karabagh entry is “this is what...” Or now, the Khojali genocide entry, which under the guise of neutrality Tabib has made of it “Khojali massacre” but claimed it was also called Khojali genocide. Tell me Coolcat(I wanted to place the Mr. Here, but apparently you don't like to be referred as Mr.), how would the Armenian cases, the second most studied cases doesn't worth the term genocide for over a million victim, the destruction of the Armenian community from a place they have lived for 3 millennium doesn't “worth” the term genocide, but an incident that cost the live of over a hundred civilian can be qualified as genocide and considered as “also referred as the Khojali Genocide,” when outside of the Turkish and Azeris circle, trying to turn the Armenian genocide to derision, there is not a SINGLE non-Turkish non-Azeris specialist, or any single international body that call it such. While I have accepted in the range of Armenian victim, to include the 300,000, when even many and many Turkish historians that deny the genocide provide a higher figure. But of course you have nothing to say about the “Khojali Genocide” entry 400-1000 range, when the first official Azeris government figures were from 100 to about 180.

Coolcat, as a nationalist Turk, you still think that this is a conspiration against Turkey. You can't be further from the truth. The most incriminating evidences against the Ittihadist leaders came from a Turkish tribunal, NOT Armenian or Western. A tribunal, who's decision was accepted by the man you consider as your father, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk. You can debate on everything with me, regarding any other topics and criticize Armenians “behaviors,” and I will condemn whomever did wrongdoing, that they are Armenians, Turkish, Chinese, Martian etc. As I said in the past, I judge people in daily and personal basis, and not based on their social construct(ethnicity etc.). But, sorry about the genocide, the Armenians won't give away the recognition. It destroyed the Armenian presence from their 3 millennium homeland, it dispersed the survivors in any corner of the world, alienated from a nation. I was born in Lebanon, and live in Canada, the typical story of a Diasporan Armenian, who's grandparents were orphaned, having witnessed the destruction of their entire family. So tell me Coolcat, which nation is mine? Canada? Lebanon? Anatolia? Armenia? ...

You have no clue, and believe me here, you have no clue of what the hell you are denying. Fadix 01:13, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Coolcat - I have no concern if you stay - but I am concerned - as I have well expressed and explained - that your approach is not at all condusive to reaching the truth in this case. I agree that the current article is severly lacking and is somewhat unfocused. I wish I had the time to write the whole thing but I really don't - at least not in quick order. I am hopng to have my proposed outline available today or tomorow however. I want to comment though that your characterizing the known historical and (mulitply independently coroborated and objective) eyewitness record as "stories" and "legends" only bespeaks your ignornace (or agenda). Anyway - I can and will very much so - adress this issue of why the Turks/CUP undertook genocide. --THOTH 16:36, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)