Talk:Armenian genocide/Archive 12

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Archive 5 ← Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15

goodwin

"Who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?" - Adolf Hitler

Apprently, You guys...

Denial = Historical revisionism?

Further information: Denial of Armenian genocide points to Historical revisionism, I think this is only true if you believe that the armenian genecide occured (POV). I think the link should be removed.

Mdozturk 23:46, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

That's where the issue is covered in context. Its presence there appears to be uncontroversial, given that the section was added to the Negationism article almost six months ago. If you want to remove it, edit the
Historical revisionism (negationism) article. Angus McLellan (Talk)
22:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Need to discuss it?

I think, the so called Armanien Genocide advertisement and cartoon photos should be removed.Also how do you know that the photos which people are starving are related to those days and events? also, they should be removed. Hipatian


I wasn't going to participate in this discussion, but it clearly spun out of control. The remarks made on this talk page or extremely racist and both Armenians and Turks have shown a bad side of them here. It is a fact, howvere, that there WAS an Armenian genocide so I think we should leave this article intact and not vandalise it. A few Turks mentioned a Turkish genocide by Armenians. I haven't found any proof of that, but if it does exist I think we should have an article about it in the same way we have this article here. I suggest that people would leave that article alone and unvandalised like I would hope they would leave this one alone. Every culture and every race has done things they should be ashamed of. I'm of Hungarian extraction and the things we did in the past are nothing to be proud of either. I'm also Flemish and the things the Flemish did in the past are just as bad as all tese genocides. Weren't the crusades a Christian genocide of muslims? Didn't many Flemish people help the Germans in their cleansing during WW II? Didn't the Hungarians commit atrocities in the balkans during their reign there? I live in Ireland and during Ireland's struggle for independance a lot of bad things have happened on both sides, but the Irish seem to be open about that. Even the loyalists and nationalsists in the North of the country admit they have done terrible things to justify their cause. Let's settle this dispute and agree there was a genocide and, indeed, put a banner on top stating The neutrality of this article is to be disputed. If there is proof of the Turkish genocide please add this article. Please, Armenians leave that article alone. Please, Turks leave this article alone. Fight your wars on the talk pages, not by vandalising the articles. Jorgenpfhartogs 13:40, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

    • Look buddy....for Armenians and yourself to make harsh accusations against Turks stating that there was genocide is complete nonsense!!! It seems to me you are another gullible person who believes their lies! Why would Turkey deny that they committed genocide? Look how well Germany is doing, look how well Serbs are doing after their genocide of Bosnian Muslims, and not to forget all other civilizations across the world! All these countries are doing wonderfully with genocides and all!! Turkey has no reason to deny a "genocide". They would be like "yeah, we did it" and life goes on. However, the ARMENIAN GENOCIDE NEVER HAPPENED!! That is the only reason why Turkey denies it!! It’s a simple as that! Turks will never accept anything that never happened! Armenians that died or were deported to other countries was because of their decision to attack Turkey in the first place, and when Turkey acted in retaliation of Armenian attacks, they can't get mad and declare "genocide". The world doesn't work that way.....There are wars, where there are the victors and losers. Armenians initiated a battle and lost! They must learn to accept that. They can't change history and hope that they'll get some Turkish land out of their genocide lies. If you support Armenians so much it would also seem to me that you would also say that any country protecting itself is committing genocide! So I guess the United States is committing genocide against Arabic people when it’s cracking down on Al-Qaeda members! Or better yet Bosnian Muslims and Croatians initiated genocide on Serbs, when Serbs were killing them! Yeah right buddy! You must be on crack! However, I do pity you or anyone else that believes there was a "genocide". Note: From now on any country defending itself will now be classified as genocide committers - ha ha! I will soon provide articles where Turks and Azerbaijanis were slaughtered by Armenians before Turkey finally retaliated! There one can read for themselves that defense it not classified as "genocide". Thank-you!
First of all, I think it's common practice to sign your accusations!!!
Second, I'm indeed one of the people that thinks there was a sort of ethnic cleansing during World War I in the Ottoman Empire and we have proof of that.
Third, of you will provide articles where Turks and Azerbaijanis were slaughtered by Armenians before Turkey finally retaliated I think they SHOULD be on Wikipedia, but I must say that I never heard of it, so I really, really would be interested in reading the. I'm not, I repeat NOT, against you and if there were instances where Turks and Azerbaijanis were slaughtered by Armenians before Turkey finally retaliated, I would be the first to read it.
Third, I know for a fact that during the Balkan wars, the Bosnian Muslims initiated a genocide on Serbs, just like the Serbs did on them, the Croats did on the Serbs, the Serbs on the Croats, the Croats on theBosnian Muslims, etc, etc. I was there and I know for a fact that everyone wanted their part of the country cleansed. I admire all people in Bosnia for living together in relative peace now after such atrocities were committed. Last year, I went backpacking through Hungary, Serbia, Bosnia and Croatia with a group consisting of me, Hungarians, Bosnian Muslims, Serbs and Croats and we are still the closest group of friends you'll ever meet! We did face some hostility and were stripped naked at almost every checkpost we encountered, but the general consencus was that people found us very brave for travelling together.

Turks and Aremnians always throughout their history (dating back to Pre-Alexander eras) and I think this will never change. Azerbeidjans also don't have a good history with Ottomans although they are considered a Turk people.

Fourth, I also do believe that the United States and Israel are cleansing the middle East. They want the middle east organised in a way that fits their policies. An oil-dependant economy like the US needs the Middle East. However, does not do what they want will be attacked and I wouldn't be surprised if the US will attack Turley in the future. They attacked Iraq claiming they would like to protect the Kurdish minority there, so why not use the same reason for Turkey. I'm not aware of the current situation of the Kurds in Turkey but I believe the region is a lot quieter after the conviction of Öcalan. It don't want to go into a discussion about the Kurds, I simply don't know enough about it.
Fifth, the Ottoman empire did commit atrocities all over the empire, but so did all empires of that time. The French, Dutch, Brits, etc. were the same. Look at what the Brits did in Ireland and the Turks will be excused for what happened in the Ottoman empire. Being of Transylvanian ancestry I should have a mixed feeling about Turks and Slavs but I don't. My grandfather fled for his live after Romania annexed Transylvania, but I have no grudge against Romanians. My forfathers foughts against the Turks, but I have no grudge against the. We, Hungarians, treated Serbs very badly, but I've never met one that hates Hungarians.
Conclusion: Let's stick to the facts and rely on proof and let readers of the article decide whether they believe events in Armenia should be called a genocide. If Armenians committed atrocities please write this down with the proper proof and we'll be happy to read about it.

Jorgenpfhartogs 17:38, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

    • Jorgenpfhartogs: You totally went off topic! Your comments made me laugh however - thanks! I liked the one about Bosnians and Croatians intiating genocide on Serbs. Thats hilarious! You really show your "intellectual" level. Anyway back to the topic. Firstly I will define genocide because Armenians and their supporters seem not to know what it means. According to the dictionary genocide is systematic killing of a racial or cultural group. Now, that being pointed out I will do a brief overview of the Ottoman Empire. Anyone who studied the empire knows that is was a very culturally and religiously diverse one consisting of Arabs, Greeks, Italians, Spaniards, Armenians, etc. etc. Armenians, however, were among the most important getting appointed to high positions within the empire. Did these ethnicites get killed because of their cultural or religious beliefs??? OF COURSE NOT! In fact the empire tolerated and respected them!! Proof: all these ethnicities are practicing their religion and speaking their language!! Are they all speaking Turkish and practicing Islam - NO! This is an example of the empire's respect!! Don't get me wrong I'm not saying the empire was perfect but a few important questions remain: Why would such a culturally/religiously diverse empire that lasted between 500-600 years commit "genocide" on Armenians??? Why did Turks wait so long to commit this "genocide" near the empire's fall, fighting with Brits and others so it would't lose all its land??? Would it not make sense that if Turks were such racists they would have committed genocide when they were at the height of their power?? The answer is clear: TURKS DID NOT COMMIT GENOCIDE ON ARMENIANS! Armenian propaganda distorts from the real truth and people like you "buy it". Again of course, you are most likely Christian and you support the Armenian side of things. Turks are Muslims so it is obvious that you and other Armenian supporters will not support Turks even with evidence that prove their was no genocide! Turks did not wake up one day and say "hey let's kill some Armenians"! Again I will state that TURKEY RETALIATED FROM ARMENIAN ATTACKS!!! Do you not get it!!! The Turkish Empire was falling apart and Armenians (with Russian support) thought they could get Eastern Turkey!! So they massacred many Turks that lived in the east, that is where the Turkish genocide began by Armenians. I am preparing an article that will give further details about the Turkish genocide and Armenian lies covering it up! The Turks who died in the Armenian genocide campaign deserve justice! Tamimi111 04:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
I totally (absolutely!) agree that the Ottoman was for 500 years a very diverse empire with many different ethnic races, different religions and different languages. Most of these lived in peace (Albanians for example didn't always). I love going to Bosnia and Romania and the Ottoman influences are eminent there in every aspect of live. I have a huge respect for other cultures and would never go black and white and see the world as Christians against muslims.

I am, indeed, a Romn Catholic and if I may say so a practising one. Many of my friends have other religions and I live near the mosque in Dublin. I often visit the mosque with friends and find there are many similarities between Christianity and Islam. I also agree that the comparison with former Yugoslavia was rater poor, but I was there and I saw Muslims killing Serbs with my own eyes. (I saw everyone killing everyone in fact) But...these things always happen and the history of the war will be written by the victorious ones. I also agree that Russia and Armenia were very eager to get parts of Turkey at the end of the World War. Relations between Russia and Turkey have always been bad. Relations between Russia and Armenia have also been very, very bad at times and I don't think that Russia would have worked closely with the Armenians. If they did, they must have looked the other way when Armenians were killed. I know that Aremnians invaded Eastern Turkey in the later stages of the war and that Turkish people were killed while defending their country. May I add that many of these were Kurds that are now fighting Turkey as well? I am concerned about the killins inside Armenia and the hundreds of thousands of Armenian civilians killed. I don't care about how many soldiers were killed. It was a war and you shouldn't complain if you loose a war with big losses you shouldn't have gone to war then. Can anyone explain why so many cilians were killed? Whether we call it a genocide or not it is a fact that many Armenian civilians were killed by armed personnel. This is not a Christian view but a view of a religious person that thinks killing is wrong. You and I know that Judism, Christianity and Islam are very alike and that's it against these religions to kill innocent beings. Too much killing has been done in the name of religion, non more so than here in Ireland. I'm lloking forward to reading yor article about Armenians invading Turkey. It will be interesting to hear another point of view on the complicated story that is Turkish-Armenian relations. Jorgenpfhartogs 05:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


    • Jorgenpfhartogs: You state that you are a "fair" person and that you never see the world as black or white, however I cannot sense any evidence of that. You are quick to point fingers at Turkey, stating there was a "genocide" and thats it. A fair and logical person would not take sides and accuse a nation of such harsh accusations. You basically "ignore" the facts leading to Turkey's retaliation against Armenia but also at the same time you agree that the Ottoman Empire was a multi-ethnic one. So why would a multi-ethnic empire commit genocide? I'm sure you will not answer this question as well as the other questions I wrote earlier. Armenians killed many Turkish civilians before Turks finally retaliated. Now, if you are such a caring person about civilians dying why don't you care about the Turkish civilians? The fact is you don't care to even acknowledge them because you are only taking the Armenian side which is fine, thats your business.......but don't give me that I'm a fair person bull sh*t. The difference between me and you, is that I'm an objective person looking at all facts from all sides and you're a biased person just looking at the Armenian perspective. I looked at all sides when it comes to this "genocide" matter. And I know that the only reason why Armenian civilians were killed is because they killed Turkish people first, not because Turks had nothing better to do. It's called "eye for an eye". Armenians targeted and killed Turkish civilians and when they get a taste of their own medicine, they claim "genocide". By the way many of these Armenian civilians weren't sitting around peacefully, they were helping their soldiers killing Turkish civilians. In defense, Turkey killed Armenian soldiers and civilians, however they deported most civilians. They wanted the "Armenian terror" to stop. I think the Turkish government did a miraculous job! They were so weak, but gave all they got to save their county - what bravery! They could have easily killed the Armenians being deported, but they didn't. Thats a clear sign that in some way they did care enough not to kill them. Too bad Turkish civilians didn't have that option - they were all just mercilessly killed by Armenians. Tamimi111 04:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Edit war

Is it possible to at least put a banner stating that "The neutrality of this article is disputed"? --84.65.117.159 17:19, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


    • If Armenians want their "genocide" to be recognized they should also recognize the TURKISH GENOCIDE COMMITTED BY ARMENIANS. What I've discovered of Armenians is that they are wonderful manipulators and masters at the art of lying. They are leaving a pretty important fact out: ARMENIANS INITIATED THE ETHNIC CLEANSING OF TURKS, WHERE HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of TURKS WERE MASSACRED AND THROWN INTO MASS GRAVES. Why did Armenians do such a thing?? Answer: because they wanted to take Turkish land for themselves and instead fighting man to man, they went into villages targeting helpless Turkish civilians while the Ottoman Empire was preoccupied in other battles in Western Turkey. Afterall, the Ottoman Empire was extremely weak and lacking resources, the idea of starting an ethnic cleansing program of Armenians is F****N hilarious!!!!!!! (If the Ottoman Empire despised Armenians so much, why did they not "get rid" of them between the 500 years they were in power?? The Empire would have been a lot stronger and could have killed even more Armenians. They did not because Turks respected Armenians so much, that is why Armenians were very wealthy and successful during the Empire time). *During Armenians slaughtering and rampaging of Turkey and its civilians, Turks were finally able to defend their country. Of course, then Armenians were killed by Turks because its called DEFENSE - perhaps ARMENIANS ARE CONFUSING DEFENSE AS GENOCIDE. ARMENIANS ATTACKED TURKEY FIRST AND THEY HAVE TO DEAL WITH THE CONSEQUENCES, it's called being an adult, look into it.........Every country in the world defends itself when any enemy invades their land, in this case Armenians were the enemy. Armenians "made up" a sob story about the "genocide" to get world sympathy. They want to follow in Israel's footsteps - remember how Israel was created after their genocide, the only difference here is theirs was real and ARMENIANS ARE FALSE! Anyone who is confused about this whole situation should not take my word or any other persons word, they should read an unbiased history book, there one can see for themselves what Turks endured by Armenians before Turkey finally defended itself. And the pictures Armenians use as evidence of the "so called genocide" are mostly fabricated or pictures of people dying from disease or starvation-not of what Turks did. Please don't fall for Armenian lies and educate yourself!!!!! ARMENIANS STOP CHANGING HISTORY AND SPREADING HATE PROPAGANDA OF TURKS. WHAT YOU'RE DOING IS UNJUST AND DOWN RIGHT PATHETIC!!!
  • Note: Why are Armenians always deleting my comment? I think its perhaps they don't want anyone to know the horrible atrocities they committed against Turks before the Turkish government finally defended its country - how clever! I guess thats how Armenians handle the truth - they delete it!

so my armenian friends what you are doing is unethical. if you want a change bring it here if not it means edit war.neurobio 12:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I was not following this discussion, just few points I would like to make. First, don't use qualifiers like Armenian friends here as if there are 'type' of editors. Second, Davison has no place here at all, he has a review of Hovannesian major work, he has written a work covering all three massacres, in his contribution regarding the Armenians in Lewis book published in 1983(in which Lewis estimates the losses of Armenians between a million and a million and a half), he doesn't cover the issue. Isral Charny writes about thos who signed it in his study:
several respondents indicated that
(a) they had no doubt about the essential truth of the Armenian genocide;
(b) they are fully aware of the Turkish government's intention to falsify the record through censorship, suppression and revision of the facts;
(c) and as to the advertisement itself, that they had not been aware that the Turks would use their call to open the archives to "prove" that there was no Armenian genocide, nor did they know that there would be repeated use of their statement beyond a single advertisement.
In short, we know that several of them do not question it, we know that in printed material Davison support the thesis most supported by the Accademia. Like I said, I am tired of revert wars, but definitly Davison doesn't go there, and if you are not a POV pusher you will stop with that. Fad (ix) 14:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

oh good to see you back with your fully speculative "Professor of Psychology & Family Therapy israel Charney" stuff. I thought we already passed that history profs were fooled by Turkish govement thing. again fadix and his no reference Fact sheets! neurobio 14:34, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Look dude, he could be a garbage man, those are the results of the written answers he recieved from several who signed it. We have Davison own writtings and we have here evidences that the signature was allegedly a request to open the archives. It could have been enought to refer to Davison's publications, we now have a confirmation that he might be one of those. This is enought to remove him from the list. Lists should be based on what one wrote rather than some publicity published in the press, from many who are said to have signed it claimed not questioning the Armenian genocide. Fad (ix) 14:41, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

i dont care about Davidson. I just say we are not supposed to belive anything that you write. You came up with that some time ago but never shoved a clue. just show us a page or some thing that we can see for our selves! I dont belive it because if had it been true it would give Armenians a great opportunutiy to ridicule and discredit Turkis claims. And why for gods sake none of these profs came out and said "ok guys we signed it but it was different at that time". this was not a regular puplic letter. And Profs were carelessly signing it risking their credibility? Now we are supposed to belive you or Charney. neurobio 15:12, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Well sorry, the only who between the two of us who has lied in the past is you. The evidences is here. http://www.jstor.org/search/ search for The Armenian Crisis, 1912-1914. You've claimed a PhD, neuroscience professional have access to Jstor through their institution (faculty, hospital etc.). You will find it in print, and it covers the three massacres. Davison doesn't support any arguments of the Turkish government. Have fun reading it. Fad (ix) 15:20, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

now again the samething. I want to see something where Charney shows us these letters he got from these scolars and in return you talk about Davidson. cool. FYI I will read it.85.178.20.73 15:34, 16 June 2006 neurobio 15:34, 16 June 2006 (UTC)(UTC)

Well sorry, this is not how it works, we have a published material from Davison, and regardless as far as I remember he reedited it in his Essays in Ottoman and Turkish history, 1774-1923 which was published in 1990, 5 years after 1985. This coupled with the doubt we have about whatever or not he does recognize it(when we must trust rather his works to begin with), any uses of his name beyond the reference to the advertisement is simply speculative and might hurt the scholar, in that that, if the information is wrong it makes it as if he is supporting something which he does not. You claim he does, it is up to you to show us this. Fad (ix) 15:50, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Ahh trying to change the subject like a denialist. as I said before I dont care about Davidson and I dont care so much if his name is here or not it is only a minor issue in this f*** up article. What I am saying is "you are coming up with huge claims like "charney demonstrated that many of these scolars were tricked into something that they did not mean to" and you cant show a reliable source". this is the second time you are saying this still nothing! I guess either you or charney making things up dude. And I really think that he is a garbage man indeed he has a very bad hair style.neurobio 22:57, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll ignore you, wash your mouth. Fad (ix) 23:59, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
arent you supposed to be on sick leave? lutherian 05:38, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
"What the Klingon has said is unimportant, and we do not hear his words." Leonard McCoy - stardate 3497.2. Planet Capella lV --THOTH 00:36, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Trying to be smart and funny at the same time are we? lutherian 05:38, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
File:Armenianwomencrucified.jpg

ha ha :). I would rather be a Borg. So I say "resistance is futile! you are just making things up." now energize us your document scotty.neurobio 01:20, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I just uploaded this image of Armenian women who were crucified during the Genocide. I really think we should add this photo to the article. I really think this picture disproves any notion that this was an ordinary "relocation" march. Also, can anyone here (namely the Turks) give a rational reason as to why this picture shouldn't be used besides the cliche platitudes of forgeries, biases, and embellishments? Thanks. --MarshallBagramyan 23:26, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I am surprised to see you arguing again about what you by the way always refer to as the genocide, or as you like to put it "the so-called genocide". I showed you the numbers including the ones by McCarthy, and the proportions as well, I did not see ANY comment of yours regarding those numbers. My friend coming here and posting general "philosophical" stuff is not enough, you have to be scientific, be able to work with the material and simple numbers. So far I see you failing to do that. You repeat that there is enough proof out there somewhere that what happened does not constitute an act of genocide. I called and encouraged you to a discussion based on facts and numbers from different sources.

You know what is the difference btw your approach and that of the author of this article? It is the difference btw the lawer working with whatever material available (role of the author of the article) and someone that likes criticizing sitting in the kitchen (the role of yours). If you want to be taken serious and discuss the issue I am afraid you have to make the effort to think and dig into the literature, otherwise your comments do look rediculous.

Vahan Senekerimyan 23:56, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

It is not for us to be scientific here, thats the job of scholars as Fadix rightly pointed out somewhere. If you were a bit more attentive you would also notice here and in the archives that many valid arguments that reject the genocide thesis were submitted to the talk page and, sadly, the all too frequent response from the genocide camp was to accuse the scholars of being on the government payroll, of being nationalists or questioning their integrity etc. In other words the effort of discussing this issue has been nothing but a tremendous waste of time so please stop wasting everybody's time because we have better things to do. 83.78.49.129 19:07, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Funny - while I have seen certain folks claiming that there was no Armenian Genocide - I have yet to see any actual valid arguments that I would consider even remotely impuning such. Instead what we get is rather like the "argument clinic" from Monty Python...with the on-spot critique that contradiction alone does not make for a valid argument. Arguments are based upon evidence and supositions which are then proven by facts and data. All the counter genocide folks seem to be able to do is ad hominem attacks and saying "no it isn't" because some Turkish government pamplet says Turks are not capable of evil by definition and such...well thats not really an argument just then is it...--THOTH 23:14, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
(Personal attack removed) You may never agree with the rejection of the thesis but lets face it, the controversy has been raging on for 90 years (and dont give me the rubbish argument that most of those years dont count as Armenia was under Soviet control) And why has this issue not been settled? because the fact of the matter is that there are holes in the thesis the size of Alaska. Yeah I know its a bummer, but thats life ma boy! 85.1.89.67 05:45, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
I have never used this argument - however there is no doubt that lack of an Armenian state and an international voice for Armenians made it nearly impossible for Armenians to seek and recieve justice in the years imediatly following the Genocide and even up to the recent past. However the issue of the continued success of Turkish denial has more to do with the position of the Republic of Turkey and it geo-political and economic importance - initially due to its resources, commerical oppurtunities (and the competition for trade concessions) and debt situation (which the allies - particualrly France wished to recover. Turkey and the remains of the Ottoman Empire were the richest prize in modern history - an oppurtunity for the Western nations unlike any that had existed since the discovery of the Americas. Then after World War II of course Turkey's position as a bulwark against the Soviet Union and its close proximity as a base of operations against it furthered the perception of the west that it must do everything possible to not upset Turkey and to keep it within the western sphere (and Ataturk and the following [shadow] governments have used this fact to their great advantage. Now of course there is the issue of the Islamic threat and the idea that Turkey is nominally the only Islamic democracy and certainly is considered as a bulwark against radical Islam that cannot be allowed to fall/falter or sway from its Western leanings. SO all these factors have tempered any words or actions to upset Turkey and Turkey has made it most clear that (charges concerning) the Armenian Genocide is taboo subject #1 and has consistently applied threats and pressure to blackmail Western states and insitutions from recognition and any effort to force Turkey to come to terms with this issue. That is why it is "unresolved" not because there is any issue with the known facts that we have from all cooberated eyewitness testimony of the period and from serious unbiased scholarly analysis since. As to why (beyond the obvious of not wanting to admit and be known in history as a genocidal nation akin to Hitler's Germany) Turkey is in such fierce denial. I will let you ponder the quite insightful words of Turkish scholar Taner Akcam - (my preface)
Dr. Taner Akcam – an ethnically Turkish sociologist who has researched and written several books concerning the reasons for and the role of the Armenian Genocide and its denial within the Ottoman/Turkish socio-political landscape makes a great many salient observations concerning how the situation in the Ottoman Empire came to genocide for the Armenians and why the current Republic of Turkey has such difficulty coming to terms with it. His insights should be considered by Turks, Armenians and others alike as they contain the possibility of breeching the gap in competing nationalistic rhetoric among peoples who cannot seem to do so. The following are some very relevant quotes concerning this issue of national forgetfulness and failure to come to terms with one’s past from his introduction to his book From Empire to Republic – Turkish Nationalism and the Armenian Genocide – He begins by explaining that Turkey underwent a transition from a multi-nationalistic empire to becoming a nation-state based on nationalistic lines and that this process of nation building always entails a degree of distortion and forgetfulness of the past (in this case that which is forgotten is the process of “othering” other ethnicities of the empire – and the violent criminal actions that this ultimately led to – and the replacement with a national myth based on the idea of the victimhood of the Turkish people vis-a-vis outside Imperialistic powers where the minorities are only seen as pawns of these outside powers who are used and manipulated to bring about the empires destruction and ultimate dismemberment. Akcam also makes a strong case for the continuity of the Ottoman elites as the rulers of the new Republic and this as a major stumbling block for past admissions…So without further ado –
“The Turkish Republic was born out of the destruction of the Christian populations in Anatolia and the establishment of a homogeneous Muslim state. The Armenian Genocide was the epitome of the policy of destruction and was declared a taboo subject immediately after the creation of the Republic. One important reason for this declaration was the connection between the Genocide and the foundation of the Republic. The Republic was founded to a significant degree by the members of the Committee of Union and Progress (CUP), which was responsible for the implementation of the wholesale deportation and massacres against the Armenian population of Anatolia. The authority of the Ottoman civil-military elite continued, uninterrupted, into the period marking the establishment of the Turkish Republic. This elite perceived the Christian population of Anatolia, and especially the Armenians, as internal foes working for foreign imperialist interests and the destruction of the Ottoman Empire.”
“(Turkish) Individuals who call for an open debate are stigmatized as treasonous and enemies of the nation. Scholarly activity has been locked into a cycle of verification or denial of what happened in history, as opposed to analyzing the socio-political and historical factors that allowed that history to unfold. We are lagging in the task of addressing the real question of why the Armenian Genocide occurred. There existed in 1915 a confluence of general factors – social, political, historical, and cultural – that combined in such a way as to make implementation of genocide possible. These general factors must be viewed in conjunction with the specific factors, both political and psychological, that made the implementation of genocide seem desirable to those in power in 1915. Turkish nationalism in the years of the Empire’s decline played an important role.”
“If Turkey is to develop from an authoritarian, bureaucratic state into a standard Western democracy, it must come to terms with history and take a critical approach towards the problems surrounding national identity. For this to occur…the dominance of the denial syndrome must be overcome, and direct interaction between Turkish and Armenian societies must take place. The basic problem was and remains today the continuation of the ruling elite from the Ottoman Empire to the Turkish Republic. This continuity is one of the biggest impediments to democratization.” --THOTH 14:51, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Please I beg you, spare us your long winded replies because I assure you that NO ONE reads them especially when they come from persons with dubious backgrounds such as Aksam's who is known to have been associated with terrorist organizations in the past! It is even claimed that Aksam's Phd is a fake I'm not going to bother proving any of this to you, you can very well google it yourself! lutherian 17:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
I knew that this would be your (entirely worthless) response...perhaps I should have just added it myself...ie "Certain Turks claim that the (meticulously researched and highly respected...OK I added this part...) insights and positions of (Dr.)Akcam - by virtue of past arrest and imprisonment by Turkish authorities for association with an outlawed group pressing for expanded human rights in Turkey - automatically can be discounted and ignored...likewise we demand that Nelsom Mandella be recalled as President of South Africa due to his criminal past as a rabble rouser against a legitimate world government and we request that the State of Israel denounce Menacham Begin and that he be exhumed and stomped upon." (...of course Kemnal Ataturk was condemned to death by the Ottoman Government for actions against the Ottoman State...are his views likeiwse incapable of being considered? Should we judt consider that the government he founded is illegitimate due to his criminal past?) Again - no response or demonstrated ability to deal with actual relevent facts and issues....just ad homenim attack...this is called avoidance and denial. I again suggest that you are providing nothing whatsoever of value here and that your unsubstantiated comments confirm that your only purpose is to vandalise the article and the process of creating and discussing it and legitimate issues surounding it.--THOTH 18:22, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Please now the only vandal here is you with your constant bombardments of useless material that nobody bothers to read. And please dont compare a worthless thug like Aksam with great leaders of this world. In your mind anyone critical of Turkey or Turks must be good, for that reason alone you dont deserve to be replied to! lutherian 18:28, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
"What the Klingon has said is unimportant, and we do not hear his words." Leonard McCoy - stardate 3497.2. Planet Capella lV --THOTH 14:01, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Sadly the key issue is never addressed

Moved to
·
14:25, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Opinion

Moved to
·
14:16, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Facts to be underlined

  • factual accuracy of this article
  • solid non-NPOV of Armenians (I mean most of them especially USA-related)
  • parliements convinced by diaspora to take legal action people in denial of a genocide —The preceding
    WP:CS refers. Angus McLellan (Talk)
    19:42, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

    Armenian killed pregnant womans!

    Moved to
    · 14:22, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

    To all anon users

    your changes to the article without an explanation and a signature is generaly automaticly reverted by other users since this is regarded as vandalism and your acts proves basis for the protection of the article. Please stop that and use legit. means. neurobio

11:20, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

first picture

can someone describe me what they see in the first picture? where does it come from? who are these soldiers?neurobio 14:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)



Fogery an old Habit

File:Forgery.jpg

I agree with Inshanee "showing that one image has been forged does not mean that all images have been forged, nor does it mean that all of the claims about the events have been forged." But one has to admit that we are seeing a very spesific pattern here [[1]], [[2]]. Remember Andonian forgeries, Hitler quote, quotes attributed to Talat or Mustafa kemal which are still in armeniapedia or other web sites. Dear Marshall The famous painting above was enlarged and shown to the Canadian public in the 1970's, in the Yerevan Pavilion at the annual Metro International Carovan festivities in Toronto, as proof of "Armenian genocide". See the photo I uploaded. This is also a famous photo of Mustafa kemal but reckless Armenian propagandists are so sure that they wont get a reply still use it (or who will hear the reply? only Turks probably). There are a lot of pictures said to be genocide photo but only Armen wenger photos are surely known to be from that time and event. Others are all suspicious given many forgery cases. (especially the one where "ottoman soldiers" pose in front of heads. imagine! you take cut off heads go to a photo studio or call the photographer (in dar el zor "desert" or burned down Van province) set up a nice table put the heads and say cheese.)And ofcourse all photos are not photoshoped. just miss presentation of a photo from a different time or event is a forgery.

I also partly agree with Inshanee when he says ”It's POV and demonstrates nothing of relevance” about forged photos, but he or anyone else has to explain us what the Turkihs denial Advertisement in the article demonstrates? What is its relevance? For me it only shows that the Diaspora puts at least 400.000 dollars (a full page in The times!) for a hate advertisement instead of building a school or orphanage in Armenia.

I am asking once again what is the source of the first photo in the article. who are these soldiers. who are the dead people? What is the date? if no one gives a satisfying answer it should be deleted.neurobio 00:36, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Using material from TAT is like a neo-nazi using material from stormfront on the Holocaust page.--Eupator 02:41, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thanks for your nice comment. no offence taken :). Still no one informs us about the picture thereneurobio 12:58, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
And what do you call Systems of a down? your band of beloved racist satanists, LOL lutherian 05:32, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
When are you going to learn that repeatedly making comparisons to Jewish holocaust does not make your story any easier to swallow, no matter how many times you repeat it.
" What happened to the Armenians is a matter for historians to decide. We reject attempts to create a similarity between the Holocaust and the Armenian allegations. Nothing similar to the Holocaust occurred. It is a tragedy what the Armenians went through but not a genocide. " Nobel Peace Laureate, Former Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon Peres
" The Armenians want to benefit from both worlds. On the one hand, they speak with pride of their struggle against the Ottoman despotism, while on the other hand, they compare their tragedy to the Jewish Holocaust. I do not accept this. I do not say that the Armenians did not suffer terribly. But I find enough cause for me to contain their attempts to use the Armenian massacres to diminish the worth of the Jewish Holocaust and to relate to it instead as an ethnic dispute. " Professor Bernard Lewis, published in the Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz, January 23, 1998
" If 1.5 million Armenian lost their lives during that war, they died as soldiers, fighting a war of their own choosing against the Ottoman Empire which had treated them decently and benignly. They were the duped victims of the Russians, of the Allies, and of their own Armenian leaders. A few thousand Armenians may have lost their lives during their relocation, caused by their own subversion " Rabbi Albert Amateau, Sephardic Jewish leader in the United States addressing the Congress in 1990
Cambodian Genocide, the Sudanese Genocide, and think the Holocaust is its own entity that no one else can share such a victim role. Yossi Beilin, Israel's former Deputy Foreign Minister and Education Minister however (along with many other Jewish leaders), acknowledged the Armenian Genocide and he had it implemented in Israel's education system, he castigated leaders like Shimon Peres who are so shamelessly insensitive to the victims.
"It was not war. It was most certainly massacre and genocide, something the world must remember... We will always reject any attempt to erase its record, even for some political advantage." Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister. April 27, 1994 on the floor of the Knesset in response to a TV interview of the Turkish Ambassador
Them saying so doesn't make it true, especially Bernard Lewis who once called the Genocide the "Armenian Holocaust" in his 1962 book.--MarshallBagramyan 05:04, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
With regard to Bernard Lewis, that's the difference between a researcher and an obsessive "genocide" zealot. Researchers don't treat the subject as religious dogma, they do go after the facts, collect more data, and might change their opinion, whenever they realize that the facts point to the other direction. I laugh at these users here who see themselves as authority asking not to believe Bernard Lewis, a distinguished Princeton professor, fellow of American Academy Arts and Sciences and British Royal Academy, but to believe them. Get real please!24.211.192.250 13:03, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Its not just some Jewish leaders, its the leaders that matter who reject those absurd claims and thats what counts! lutherian 05:27, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Theirs saying so doesn't make it true. Great example of a logical fallacy though.--MarshallBagramyan 05:29, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree with you partially, and disagree with some points. I disagree that the photos can possibly demonstrate anything. Find any major historical event since the invention of the camera, and I'll show you some rather silly faked photos. Just because faked photos exist does not say anything about the authenticity of the event itself, and trying to draw that connection is POV original research. On the other hand, you bring up a valid point about the image source. With no information whatsoever, it is definatly hard to make a case for its inclusion in this article (or any). --InShaneee
01:26, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
And uh, where's the proof that Armenians fabricated this? - or is this another Turkish attempt to portray Armenians as falsifiers of a picture of a man that almost had no relevance to the Armenian Genocide and thus the point of such a fabrication eludes one's mind. If you want fabricators, I'll show the more shameful examples by Turks who embellish historical evidence that corrborated the existence of an intentional widespread massacre:
Here is a quote by a supposed Turkish historian named Enver Zia Karal in a book or pamphlet called the “Armenian Question: (1878-1923) in p.22. He falsifies a quote by a Major General James G. Harbord who was sent by the United States to investigate the claims of the Genocide in 1919-1920.
“Meanwhile, the Armenian, unarmed at the time of the deportations, a brave soldier by thousands in the armies of Russia, France, and America, is still unarmed and safe in a land where every man but himself need to carry a rifle.”
Now, the real quote:
“Meanwhile, the Armenian, unarmed at the time of the deportations and massacres, a brave soldier by thousands in the armies of Russia, France, and America, is still unarmed in a land where every man but himself carries a rifle.”
Found at: U.S. Congress, 66th Congress, 2nd Session. Major General James G. Harbord, “Conditions in the Near East: Report of the American Military Mission to Armenia.” Washington D.C. 1920. p.11
Note the ommissions of the word "massacres" and the allusion that Armenians had an abundance of weaponry while others didn't. Just a very minor example of falsification, but I have many more by Turkish so-called historians which constantly distort the quotations to portray the events of 1915 as a nonevent.--
assume good faith and don't make preemptive accusations of other users. --InShaneee 23:30, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Oups, posted my reply to the wrong place. That reply was meant to be an answer to this message posted by the member you blocked[3]. But Thoth and Nerobio did spam this page, they have copypasted a huge amount of materials when they could have simply posted the links from where they come from. Fad (ix) 01:55, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Deconstructing revisionism and preserving the neutrality of this article

Well, the state of this article forced me to return. As the author of TAT was patiently waiting the occasion to hit once more. For the interested, here I evidence with my merging test that Deepblue06 and 24,211,192,250 are indeed the same users. [4] Obviously Holdwater(the author of TAT), who in the past was also known under his other Wikipedia login User:Torque

. Deepblue06 and 24,211,192,250 have been used one after the other to escape 3RR block.

Isen't it amazing that I quit and soon after the page is respammed by materials which have mostly been addressed?

Neuro, I like when you use the term forgery, since I shall now show you few example of forgeries you brought yourself in the very same page.

Lets first deal with the picture of Ataturk with the dead body, which is said to be an Armenian forgery. Is it so? The picture in question was exibited to announce a conference about Denial, 'The Face of Denial.' The picture is indeed photoshoped, but it never was claimed to be an original, the photoshoped version is symbolic. Ataturk staying there represent the modern republic of Turkey, which is totally indifferent regarding the body of the dead child there. The child which was photoshoped and merged to Ataturks famous picture with the little dog, is one of the most famous picture used in published media. One of the pictures taken by Wegner. It is widelly available on the web. [5]

The title actually say it well, 'The Face of Denial.' Forgery imply an intent to mislead. While this was a 'collage' a work of art, a marging which was symbolic. Turkaya Ataov was totally clueless, and I wonder how it could have been interpreted the way Ataov interpreted it, an interpretation which you recycled.

Comming to 'Hovhannes Katchaznouni' 'admissions,' this has been already addressed by me after it has been posted, follow my reply. [6]

Comming to your 'brand new' translation from Bolshevik Zakavkazya. You are quite fluent in Turkish I must say, since it does not concord with the original Russian version but rather the tainted Turkish version provided by Mehmet Perincek.

You claim that according to Boghos Nubar there was between 300,000 to 400,000 Armenians who have died and you claim having the document from French archive. Be glad to provide it to me, it'll be nice, since Boghos Nubar provides over a million. See for example, footnote number 21 in this article. [7]

You also claim that ASALA assassinate over 200, while unrelated to the article, feel free to provide the relevant materials to support such a claim.

Here, I won't even bother addressing 24.211.192.250 who knows I have addressed the many fabricated quotes which he present in his website, and thinking I have left has used the occasion to recycle them here once more.

But just for the sake of it, I shall maybe raise Bronsart cases, which is recycled again and over again, just to show what sort of materials revisionists rely on.

Let see his admission of the Armenian destruction in closed doors. “Namely, the Armenian is just like the Jew, a parasite outside the confines of his homeland, sucking off the marrow of the people of the host country. Year after year they abandon their native land—just like the Polish Jews who migrate to Germany—to engage in usurious activities. Hence the hatred which, in a medieval form, has unleashed itself against them as an unpleasant people, entailing their murder.” (A. A. Bonn. Goppert Papers (Nachlass), vol. VI, file 5 (files 1-8), p. 4, February 10,1919). I shall for now exclude the many other 'interesting' thing about the man.

But, let provide other examples of forgeries 24.211.192.250 provides, which he knows them to be forgeries, since I corrected him in the past and he still recycle them.

Cited from Mikael Varandean, "History of the Dashnaktsutiun." The quote presented does not exist, I have provided him the content of the pages from which it supposedly come from, the work is on two volume, and it is neither in one nor the other on the page mentioned(and I see now that he just removed the page), but neither is it anywhere in both of those volumes.

Grace H. Knapp, The Tragedy of Bitlis, Fleming H. Revell Co., New York (1919) , page 146. This is one of the most infamious distortion, this book from one cover to the other relate to the destruction of the Armenians in Bitlis. Shall I quote from the book about what was happenong the the Armenians?

Other forgeries? Well, Nikolayev supposed reports originating from the Ottoman archives, part of the supposed Russian records prepared by the Ottoman Empire, like General Mayewski 'report' presented by Major Mehmet Sadik who was an intelligence officier at the General Staff Department II engaged in literaly fabricating Russian reports to justify the decision taken against the Armenians. So, it isen't surprising that the said memoir of Tatiana Karameli which you present only exist in Turkish and found in Ottoman archive listed also in the series 'dismissing' the Armenian massacres.

Forgeries you say? I can load the talk page with example of forgeries, non existing quotes, not only comming from TAT site, but also academics of the Turkish republic. And believe me, this reply was rather short, considering the many worthyness of the copypasting job made by Holdwater under yet again, another pseudonym. Fad (ix) 20:15, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Who's this clown? From the post, I understand that this guy has a history of issues. 24.211.192.250 20:45, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Is there a reason you enjoy call people names while remaining under the shroud of an anonymous user?--MarshallBagramyan 21:01, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
You know who is this clown(me). I thought the evidences I have provided would be enough, but obviously it wasn't for you.
On 10 May, 16:59, Deepblue06 makes the edit on PKK being terrorist, he is reverted, the next contribution you make then, is to reinsert it and fight over it(the same day). The same day at 23:20 Deepblue06 again makes his edits over the Armenian genocide page, regarding the reasons why the US does not officially recognize it, this after, you the same day have fought over it and was reverted. 40 minutes after his edit, you revert back to the same version, switching reverts to not be blocked for 3RR. Everytime you were there for days, Deepblue06 was not, with few exceptions which are much telling. Here are the exceptions, 10 May, which was the day Deepblue06 registered. And 4 June, 4 June, you reported the arguments I and Thoth had, it would have been a suicide for Deepblue06 to do it, which explains why you did it. You also on that date reported it on Deepblue06 page at 18:06, and Deepblue06 reported it to another user at 18:27 claiming it was posted on his talkpage. Which is 20 minutes after it was reported to him and 7-8 hours after the last Deepblue06 contribution that day. You reported it also to CoolCat, who you knew is for months attempting to find any evidences to Arbcom me. You know CoolCat cases, my cases, Thoth etc., but now, you ignore this clown(me). June 4 was your last post until June 17, and what is June 17? It is one day (actually 4 hours and 40 minutes) after DeepBlue said he left Wikipedia. Your first contribution under this IP is on September 18, 2005. You could not have missed the clown. I guess I'll recieve a warning if I say that you are Holdwater. Fad (ix) 22:03, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
I have all along been right about Holdwater. Fad (ix) 22:03, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Hey, buddy, I understand you've some issues with me. I did not waste my time to read your pseduo-dedective story. If you've any evidence that proves something, report it to admins and get me banned. Otherwise, stop crying and don't fill this page with your nonsense. 24.211.192.250 22:55, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Report you? Who talked about reporting anyone? I'll leave that to you, both with your DeepBlue06 alias and this IP, you know I don't like reporting people, don't you? Who would have thought, I always thought that you were Lutherian socks, I guess my absence served for something, had it been not of your copypast job from TAT, I would have never guessed that Lutherian was not Holdwater, and my first suspicion was true. Lutherian was not alone adding TAT site in the article, you did that yourself as evidenced by your log, something which I would never have checked had you not posted your stuff over here. A merging test when effectivally including a correlative assessement is more accurate than Checkusers(Checkusers can be fooled by open proxies). This [8] indeed confirms both of you are the same users. Again, I propose you to read what is there carefully, evading 3RR is not good, also, while you reported another user for incivility (with both of your accounts) to InShaneee, I have been blocked for three days for less than your above slanders. But I will not be playing cheap here. Fad (ix) 01:36, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
wait im a bit confused here, who am I accused of being now? lutherian 06:41, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Don't worry, you aren't accused of anything... perhaps, for now. ;) Fad (ix) 16:40, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


Fadix's bold claims about evidence, proof and forgery are quite impressive. However, the first stunning image of soldiers standing by a pile of dead bodies still remains clueless. I wonder what he had to say about an image uploaded from Armeniapedia, which is definetely, looking the issue from a certain point of view. InShaneee calls these sites as propaganda sites. Without certain references and evidences, I urge the administration to remove that image, which constitutes a clear bias to a newcomer to the article.


PS: Newcomers to the discussion page, like Fadix, please do not try to change the direction of the discussion which have been formed for a certain time by spamming the page with lots of irrelevant information for the moment. I said : for the moment. Thanks

I already removed that picture in the past, it isen't a famous picture, most probably an Armenian contigent of the Tsar army in the Easter zone killed in a battle, and which the Turkish soldiers dressing of their uniform. It was costum during a defeat during those periods to do that. I already proposed its removal, I don't think it represent a genocide photo. Fad (ix) 22:19, 1 July 2006 (UTC)


Dear Fadix, please do not edit my comments by dividing them into half, and posting your comment in between. By saying that `I already proposed its removal` you sound like you are an authority. If you read my comment you will not see a direct proposition to you about the removal. Anyone who spends a mere half an hour in the archive pages (let alone your personal blocks) can understand your biased position to the subject. So please do not act like this. This is a common page, and I propose it to the community.

Thanks USer : Sokrateskerem


I am user : sokrateskerem, and I will sign my post as soon as I get unblocked.

I removed that picture myself, before it was reverted long time ago, I also agreed to its removal in the archive. I will not bring back things there. CoolCat placed a tag for deletion for my replacement picture while it was sourced, and while I was out of Wikipedia, it was deleted without my consent, if you read the archive, you will see that Cansin, the Turk with whom I discussed and I agreed that the picture which I requested to replace this one was indeed sourced. I do not own this article, it is very difficult to work on it, when from one side, there is Thoth who discuss about anything but the article and others like Neurobio. Also, about my biases, while I may be biased in the talkpage, you should judge my contributions according to the edits in the articles mainspace. Everyone here or anywhere else in Wikipedia are probably biased about a subject, but unlike some who will register an account to pretend to be an uninvolved party, I do not deny being Armenian, neither do I deny having a POV about the issue. What I deny though, is that my contribution in the articles mainspace is biased. This I deny. Fad (ix) 01:36, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

External links are not an excuse for linkspam

Even with the duplicate and irrelevant links I removed, there are a great many links of doubtful relevance. Why should readers care what a columnist in the Hindustan Times says in his blog ? What relevance does Time Magazine's fuckup have ? Why link to websites whose authors are anonymous cowards (as they say on /.) ? Why should anyone care what the city of Ryde, New South Wales does or doesn't do ? No doubt there are more links of minimal relevance. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:00, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree, but it's better to seek some consensus before unilaterally deleting the ones that you deem irrelevant. 24.211.192.250
This issue was discussed in the past, I for that reason created a page just for the resources. I am unconfortable with links, maybe only official organizations or something such? If it was of me, no Wikipedia articles will have links as references, encyclopedia articles should be written from research on the published materials available, not from some blog. Fad (ix) 16:43, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
are you still in the midst of departure or did you change your mind? ure a funny guy lutherian 18:22, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
I know. It would have been selfish of me to let this article be ruinated by Holdwater and his socks. BTW, out of subject, just to tell you that I really like your humour, the kind of guy I hang up with. :) Fad (ix) 18:34, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Did you mean to say hang out with? Kind of confused over here lutherian 20:03, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Yeh, yeh! sorry for my dyslexia. ;) Fad (ix) 20:25, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Its ok, also happens to me usually in the morning when I am still brain dead :-O lutherian 20:52, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the first picture

Plain and simple, it is not a famous picture, it is of questionable provenence as what it really is. I will find a replacement for it. Fad (ix) 18:34, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

thanks for removing that mispresented picture where Russian Soldiers were standing in front of killed people (maybe they killed these poor people). It is presented as a genocide picture and in some sites it was presented as "Turkish soldiers posing in front of dead armenians". It was so obvious that these were Russian soldiers. And you know what some of the poor dead guys seemed to have a circumcisition. Unlucky that we dont have a better resolution. Actually this picture seemed more like "armenian volunteers posing in front of their Muslim victims". Any way it is my speculation but more logical than saying that these are Turkish soldier who are wearing russian army clothes enmasse.

Now I put a picture which shows the deportations. It suits well with the first paragraph. ... you are wellcomeneurobio 21:14, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, getting the enemy naked and dressing its uniform was common practice. Or else, there is no reason to undress the enemy. As for circumcision, not a good indicator, Armenians were too. You could ask Syrian and Lebanese Armenians, you will find many who are circumcised, and they are not in the Ottoman Empire anymore. I already know which picture will replace it. This one, [9], and there is another picture which I will request its undeletion. This [10], a mass burning cite in Mus, we sourced it. [11], but Coolcat was effectivally able to get it deleted since he did not remove the tag while I was away. Fad (ix) 21:25, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

you are right. but in most cases just poor villagers were taking the dresses. you dont take your enemies underwear normally i guess. well the 2. picture is nice. something i have never seen before. I just find it interesting that clothes survived in a mass burning site. And I figured you said "we sourced it." I guess you finally confess that you are actually professionaly in this bussiness.neurobio 21:37, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

We sourced it, I was referring to the discussion I and Cansin had. Don't assume things. As for the dress, actually, clots and dress parts could survive during a human cumbustion, as amazing as it might appear. Actually the picture shows about what we might expect. If you really want to know how so, I'll refer you to forensic science. Fad (ix) 21:51, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Photo

What is the reason that this has been removed from the article? -- Karl Meier 16:31, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Because there's already another starving child picture. 24.211.192.250 02:33, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but there is no other photo of starving mothers in the article. So, do you have any valid objections against the inclusion of that photo? -- Karl Meier 18:06, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Please avoid uncivil comments such as "this's nonsense" written in you edit summary.
Photos are included for a purpose. If the point is that people were starving, this point is made by one photo (actually, this point does not need a photo anyway). There is a difference between an encyclopedic article is different than a photo gallery. 24.211.192.250 22:14, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Please avoid wiki-stalking and violation 3rr. Would you like me to report you regarding these issues? -- Karl Meier 05:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
With regard to your threat, please go ahead and report it. Otherwise, please stop unilaterally trying to label Academic Opposition as denial. There's a consensus dating back one year. In addition, all the facts tags that you're trying to insert are already referenced in the article. 24.211.192.250 10:20, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, maybe he want those pictures to be replaced by mass grave photos? Fad (ix) 18:08, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Wordings

Insteed of starting a revert war, what if people here start quoting every wordings they have problem with? Fad (ix) 17:41, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

the article contains many weasel words first they should be fixed. Such as

The event is also said to be the second-most studied case of genocide, and often draws comparison with the Holocaust.

It is said that the documents were burned in the basement's furnace.

Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words
neurobio 22:41, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

It is the second most studied genocide, this lack of footnote, which I will provide. And I have already provided statistics from relevant journals which have published about war crimes. As for the second, it is a quote, the quote is sourced. You aren't requesting the removal of a quote are you? Fad (ix) 23:02, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

first it is not universally accepted as genocide so saying "It is the second most studied genocide" is POV. I just gave these random lines just to draw attention to weasel words. I will change them according to wiki rules. ok? Second you can put your picture. it is sourced. ok. but this is an article not photo album of the massacred please try to put pictures where they help understanding the context of the topic. the main event is the deportations or relocations so the first pic is relevant.neurobio 23:55, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Neither is the Jewish holocaust "universally accepted", but that doesn't mean it didn't happen. Your two examples of weasel words were addressed by Fadix, who asked for a comprehensive list. Why don't you make a comprehensive list which can be posted here and addressed properly? --RaffiKojian 04:20, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
well I would counter by saying that the Jewish Holocaust will stand its ground in a court of law (im not referring to the bogus organizations out there so dont waste your breath with silly examples) unlike the so called Armenian genocide. The Armenians have rejected an offer to submit its case to the ICJ and that really makes one wonder whats really behind this industry! lutherian 16:12, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Lutherian, this quote: The event is also said to be the second-most studied case of genocide, and often draws comparison with the Holocaust. Does not present the genocide as a fact. It is said which is true, it is specifically because it would have been to present it as truth (which Wikipedia does not) that the wording 'it is' rather than 'it is said' was not used. Fad (ix) 17:04, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Getting into semantics won't get anyone anywhere here. What matters is if some large, significant body DOES recognize this. If they do, then it doesn't matter who discounts it (for the most part). --InShaneee 16:50, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

"Almost all Turkish intellectuals, scientists and historians accept that many Armenians died during the conflict." --> I have a problem with the last word. To call what happend or the relations between the victims and the perpetrators of the genocide a "conflict" is absurd, insulting to the victims, and entirely POV. Whats next? Was what happend at Auschwitz a "conflict" between the Nazis and the Jews? We should not allow Wikipedia to be turned into a soapbox for a biased Turkish Genocide denialist agenda. -- Karl Meier 18:31, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

It isen't much difficult to make that neutral, just replace it by 'during what they consider a conflict.'
In my opinion, various sections should probably be rewriten. One of the problem with Wikipedia articles, is when an editor work, he classify things based on the materials he add, and consider it as an end in itself. When an article grow, sometimes there is forced patching. It is much like an open source software like Blender, adding, adding codes, and then, we come to a situation in which the sotware should be totally reworked.
The example, is about those western scholars who oppose to the word genocide, as if opposing to the term makes them support the Turkish government and Turkish scholars position, which is not so. There is for instance a clear differences between Halacoglu belief that only 56,000 Armenians perished during the evacuation and that less than 10 thousand were killed and Lewis who maintained the range of 1-1.5 million Armenian victims while opposing the term genocide(even though in his earlier work used the term Holocaust, which was kept in its Turkish translation). This situation is a forced 'glueing' of new material. Only Stanford Shaw and Justin McCarthy among all named really qualify as supporting the Turkish government position. Other scholars should rather be included in another section. It think I will address this in the article I will creat on the term genocide and its applicability in the Armenian cases. Fad (ix) 18:51, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I came up with examples of weasel words so that we can make a easy start. that is just a simple wiki policy still there is much opposition even to that. Fadix says "This situation is a forced 'glueing' of new material" about opposing historians. he has a point yet he still misses we have come to this point because you want to present the issue as Turkey vs the World. if you say opposition should be adressed propery then you should let us to adress it properly. the first step may be to stop using Denial title.neurobio 19:41, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

What example you came up with? The second is a quote, quotations are positions in principle, they can contain 'weasel words.' The first one can not be changed, unless there is any other wording for that, the it is said, is not used to place the emphases on the 'it is' but for the 'genocide,' there is no other wordings which could effectivally replace it. And please don't place intentions on my contribution. Yes! This issue is mostly Turkey vs the world, at least vs the West, I am not making up anything, just pay attention to the published literature. Just as a side note, pay attention to the number of sites which deny the Armenian genocide, how many of them are not from Turks, Turkish government, Turkish associations. On the other hand, I could provide various sites which are not made by Armenians relating to the genocide. This is the exact representation you will find in the accademia. That revisionists uses scholars like Lewy further support this. The official Turkish government position is in clear contradiction with Lewy revisionist position, only does Shaw and McCarthy maintains the Turkish government position, the others that are said to not use the term genocide, covers the subject with elements which are opposit to the official revisionist thesis vehiculated by the Turkish government. that the article gives the impression that it is Turkey vs the World does not mean in any way that those who contributed to it have intentions to picture it as such. Fad (ix) 19:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Tukey vs World? not really... the issue is much more complex than that. Some other historians do not portray the issue as the Turkish position but they are strictly against Genocide term. just like many other Turkish and international scolars and intellectuals. So obviously this is not really present in the article. if this is a history article, and there are historians (it is not in our authority to judge on their academic value) opposing the orthadox thesis in one way or another, their position should be the one presented just after the "genraly accepted story", if not in the main article body. But there is only one paragraph for historian opposition which is under constant vandalism. yet novelist like Pamuk and other turkish pro-genocide activist (none of them being a real historian) have their 3-4 paragraphs.

according to wiki guidelines one has the right to remove uncited lines. Second one has the right to change weasel words and wiki strongly encourages it. So do I have to show you each and every uncited, weasel word. I just brought it up here with ramdom examples to avoid an edit war. But it is wiki who suggests us to do so. why is that reaction?

So If by citing a name it is posible to come up with a huge and generally undocumented claim and present it in the "orthadox story"than we obviously and undoubtfully have the right to equaly refer to the opposition in the entire article. Or I can come up with "historian xxx cites that "a commander in erzurum withnessed that armenians wearing Turkish army uniforms or kurdish dressing were constantly attacking armenian villages in Turkey inorder to inflame riots among armenian comunity" (whic probably has better documentations than clean up story). Also is that cited historian or person spesificly talking about documents related to "genocide" or is it just other documents which include other secrets that should be kept away from the invading army. One should remember that armenian issue was not Ottoman Empires one and only trouble at that time. By citing it under this article and under Trials title you automaticly give the impression to the reader that Talat and budies cleaned their orders to exterminate armenians(as if it was possible to clean every thing without a trace). Is it what the histoian or the "eye withness" really mean? I doubt that. At least that citations need to have something like "however this claim is not fully supported and also it is not possible to know if these documents contain any evidence related to armenian events"neurobio 22:49, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Look, you have claimed not knowing much the subject and now you are lecturing and disagreeing with an element of knowledge, about a subject which you have already admitted not knowing much.
This entry is not only about the applicability of the term genocide, in fact, it also relates to what is called the Armenian massacre. You claim various historians, but this is not so, even various Western Turkish historians who deny the Armenian genocide have a position which contradicts the official position of the republic of Turkey. Do you want a comparaison? I will provide them if wanted. Even Lewy position is different. Shall we quote from 'The First Genocide of the 20th Century'? The paper he submitted to the Commentary Vol. 120, december 2005?
THE TERM "genocide," coined in 1944 by the Polish-Jewish emigre lawyer Raphael Lemkin, was meant to describe Hitler's then-on-going campaign to exterminate the Jews of Europe. But Lemkin's interest in this most heinous of crimes--what he and others would define as the planned effort to destroy an entire people or ethnic group--long predated the rise of the Nazis. The atrocities that first drew him to the issue emerged from a different world war and a different context. They were the vicious actions not of Germans against Jews in the early 1940's but of Ottoman Turks against Turkey's Armenian minority in 1915-16.
Also, mind you that beside the Holocaust, according to Lewy, there was no other genocide. I must have been sleeping when I have read that paper of his for the first time, for I haven't pied attention that he is calling what happened in Rwanda not more than an ethnic cleaning. He claims that the term genocide neither applies to the Armenians, nor Rwanda, nor the Gypsies in WWII, nor the American Indians and the list is growing.
Here, this should clearly be differenciated with the plain denial of the murders, applicability of the term genocide does not amount to be caracterised and dumped as someone supporting the official Turkish government position. I have already shown a passage Hurewitz review about a work which contains primnary records from German sources regarding the treatment of the Armenians, which he consider the treatment of the subject as being a mature judgement and [with] convincing argument. That you rely on such a thing as an advertisement with signatures to attach scholars name as if they have all covered the subject, is indicative that it is indeed mostly about the West and the World. You can not glue what you propose in the article, when you have few vocal scholars to suggest that the opposition is more than a minority. Justin McCarthy himself personally admit that his view is the view of a minority.
As for weasel words, I repeat again, you have shown two examples, one is a quote, a -quote-, you are suggesting that I modify a statment made by someone in a quote, because that statment contains 'weasel words.' The other wording which you caracterise as weasel word, is only weasel word if you suppose that the emphasis is on the it is, while it is on the word genocide. That term removed, it will be worded as follows: It is the second most studied genocide. This will be presenting it as if it being a genocide is the truth, while the term 'it is said' suggest that it might or might not be genocide.
Again, if you can propose any other wordings, do so, or else please stop throwing me stuff and giving me the option of deleting them.
As for the wiki guideline, please read the tags on the top of this talkpage, do you want me to quote them? I agreed to discuiss, which I do, your behavior will only bring members into a revert war, not me, because I don't engage in revert wars, I rarely if ever revert more than 2 times.
Your last paragraph, I have no clue about what it might be, I really fail to see your point. Are you trying to make a point or requesting something? Fad (ix)

and by the way we should also add 'during what they consider a genocide.' to make it neutral.neurobio 22:53, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Sure, as long as 'during what they consider' is added on every articles in Wikipedia, why not. :) {note, those that don't like sarcasm, I apologise} Fad (ix) 01:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
I am quoting you up there Fadix. [[12]] should I put a smiley and a link every time. for the last paragraph read it again after a coffe maybe. let me summerise what it says 1. quotations does not make putting unsported(i would dare to say made up) claims to a historical article right2. the quote is used in a distorted way.3. if you present the "generally accepted" viev but also add a radical wiev to that story via quoting or any other way. then the opposition by real historians should be quoted all along the article.

thanks for reminding me my ignorance. but i am trying to improve. reading you know. now do you suggest that all should bow in front of your expertise and worship you?neurobio 01:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand still what you mean. Maybe another editor understood, and could explain it to me, or else I request another clarification. Fad (ix) 05:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
No, no, and no. That's been discussed ad absurdum, and this IS to be referred to as The Armenian Genocide, not the Alleged Armenian Genocide or What Some Have Referred To As The Armenian Genocide. --InShaneee 01:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
I dare you, no double or triple dare you to remain here for one month and maintaining civility. You shall recieve a dozen of barnstars if you do. Fad (ix) 01:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Please stay on topic and do not make discussions difficult to read by placing new comments in the middle of existing threads. --InShaneee 22:43, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Deepblue recent deletions

I see that he still continue deleting without using the talk page. But the most ridiculous deletion of all is that the International League of Nations does not recognize it as genocide, which is simply and plainly wrong. The original Fédération internationale des ligues des Droits de l'Homme which covers the last time I have checked, over a hundred organizations, not only the French. And which actually recognize the Armenian genocide and has published various works covering it, mistaking it with the one based in New York. The original one which covers the French League of human rights has been founded in 1922, while the other one, which took that name, but in English has been founded in 1942(they claim prior, but it really got its international statu then). Both organizations originate from a French organization. The ILHR originate from the Défense de Droits de l'Homme et du Citoyen, while the FIDH the French League of human rights, and which from its original name is the Fédération internationale des ligues des droits de l'homme. [13] The one based on New-York, does not speak in the name of the organizations, but rather is an entity, while the other does. --Fad (ix) 15:30, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

You can check the 141 organizations it includes here. [14] It includes also 3 Turkish organizations. One of them, The Human Rights foundation of Turkey. --
International Federation of Human Rights recognize Armenian Genocide, it can be added with a proper reference. 24.211.192.250 22:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Most ridiculous deletion is about the act of deletion. And yes! You indeed are Deepblue and Holdwater, this has already been evidenced, if you pay attention to the administrator notice boards, you will see that there is indeed much less evidences required to assume socks than this, the evidences I have provided are much more exact than a checkusers.
I request you to stop your accusations on this page. Please take this as your second warning. 24.211.192.250 01:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
As for the reference to the league of Human right, you are simply saying about the same thing which I have said. There was a mistake, which I doubt I have added, in claiming ILHR, this was probably added by another user. ILHR is concerned with current issues and actions, it has become over the years even slightly political since the UN permitted itself access. You should have requested discussions, but it appears that nothing has changed since you came with your Torque alias, or Deepblue, you still repeatdly modify things you want, without even bothering discussing them in the talk page. Fad (ix) 00:07, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Once again, I request you to stop your accusations and personal attacks on this page. Please take this as another warning. If you continue in this manner, I'll be compelled to request admin help.
Returning to the subject, you did not say the same thing. You claimed above [16] that ILHR is an entity of FIDH, and FIDH can speak on its behalf which is not true per my response. 24.211.192.250