Talk:Armenian genocide/Archive 5

message: Stating that the "Parliament of Kurdistan in Exile" is a legitimate source of recognition undermines this articles credibility. Firstly, there is no Kurdistan from which this "parliament" is exiled, secondly, the 'recognition' was delivered by the head of the PKK (a terrorist organisation recognised by EU and US), Abdullah Ocalan. By using this your supporting the Kurdish POV and making this article naturally anti-Turkish by supporting PKK activities to split Turkey. --E.A 18:44, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I posted the official name of that body, which was translated by I don't know whom. That body exist, and it recognize it. What do you suggest? Fadix 21:06, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless you can find a legitimate body, i suggest it be completely removed. Its a mickey mouse title and it doesn't help this article one bit. --E.A 22:32, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a registered organization founded in Hague, it now has a registered address in Belgium. The organization claim to represent not only the Kurds of Turkey, but also those of Iraq, Iran and elsewhere. I don't see why it should be removed. If you think the words are misleading, you can place a parantheses to clarify that it is not a parlement in the proper sense of the term. Fadix 00:05, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Parliament of Kurdistan in Exile 

message: That section is all upside down, informations not important enough are included, others more important, not. By important I mean, the recognitions by states, and organizations etc. By not important, I mean, statments given by the Turkish government or such. Beside, a timeline is too long, and a recent one not really related with the genocide itself, I propose to creat another page for it. Any suggestions? Fadix 16:59, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent history — timeline 

message: There was a reason why first when I added that section, I named Constantinople, this was changed by Coolcat. It is a question of name conventions. In historical works, places are called according to what they were called during the period treated. In 1919, English language publications mostly used Constantinople, and in accordance to name convention, this is the term that should be used. The same is done also for the Istanbul entry, I don't see the word Constantinople deleted there. Also the French entry of the Armenian genocide, for the trial, use also Constantinople and not Istanbul. Fadix 18:30, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changing Istanbul for Constantinople 

message: There are websites with duplicate informations, as well as in the media, articles taken from the websites. There are hundreds of websites, and many articles in those websites. I believe there should be a process of selection of each websites. Supposes that we find a website that contains everything there is in two other websites, I don't see the need to include those other websites. Also, if those websites contains the texts in question referenced in the media section, why shousing those texts and not others in the same websites? Any proposition Fadix 16:33, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Websites refered on the bottom of the article. 

message: I have been reading up on Wikipedia NPOV policy, and it states that:
"If we're going to characterize disputes fairly, we should present competing views with a consistently positive, sympathetic tone. Many articles end up as partisan commentary even while presenting both points of view. Even when a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinion, an article can still radiate an implied stance through either selection of which facts to present, or more subtly their organization — for instance, refuting opposing views as one goes along makes them look a lot worse than collecting them in an opinions-of-opponents section.
We should, instead, write articles with the tone that all positions presented are at least plausible, bearing in mind the important qualification about extreme minority views. Let's present all significant, competing views sympathetically. We can write with the attitude that such-and-such is a good idea, except that, in the view of some detractors, the supporters of said view overlooked such-and-such a detail."
I feel the article at present does not show a sympathetic tone to the Turkish governments view. The initial edits i created gave one small paragraph to the Turkish gov POV. The edits that were added to this however dissmissed the Turkish gov POV as it went along and is so doing abandoned a smypathetic tone. I think the Turkish gov POV should only be refuted in one or two lines such "the statistics the government presents are disputed in certain academic circles", it should not be dismissed with a section larger than the Turkish gov POV itself, which as it stands, is one paragraph in an entire article. Let me know what you think. --A.Garnet 16:00, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I have added Halacoglu, who is leading the Turkish history foundation, and the leading figure the Turkish government has now. I don't see how presenting his position is not sympatic to the Turkish governments position. That's what most of the edit to your section was about. Fadix 17:10, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Tone is too vague a construct for our immediate purposes, perhaps. Our aim is provide an account which cites authoritative, representatively selected sources. More concretely and specifically, what changes or additions do you suggest we adopt, A.Garnet? El_C 00:33, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, rather than dismiss the governments figures, perhaps we should highlight that its view does have some backing from academics such as Justin Mcarthy who highglighted that hundreds of thousands  of Muslism also perished. If he is the only academic who supports this, then we can say that "These views are outnumbered by those who support the genocide theses such as the Association of genocide shcolars" etc. I will continue this tommorow, thanks for your help. --A.Garnet 01:30, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As I told to Coolcat, I will be adding McCarthy(he is included in both of my created articles), I have no problem with adding relevant things, but I oppose unjustified deletion. Another note, do also consider that this entry is not about Muslim losses, and therefor, it can not be really developped much here, I agree adding McCarthy there though(I already planned to do that). Fadix 04:31, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

text: I understand this page is not about Muslim losses but it can be said "McCarthy also highlights that a large numbers of Muslims were also killed" etc, doesn't need to be expanded. --A.Garnet 20:18, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Turkish government position - lack of sympathetic tone? 

message: I've just archived 648kb from this talk page.  This is ridiculous.  Why not just edit a bit more?  If you want to go and discuss the issues, find a forum.  This talk page is intended solely for discussing the article. --Tony SidawayTalk 20:34, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm guilty also here, sorry. I think someone should monitor the talk page and delet things that have nothing to do with the article, including mine. :) Fadix 21:38, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Talk less, edit more 

message: Several facts in connection with the genocide are a matter of ongoing dispute between parts of the international community and Turkey. Although it is generally agreed that events said to comprise the Armenian Genocide did occur, the Turkish government rejects that it was genocide, on the alleged basis that the deaths among the Armenians, were not a result of a state-sponsored plan of mass extermination, but from the result of inter-ethnic strife, disease and famine during the turmoil of World War I. 
Despite this thesis, most Armenian, Western, and some Turkish scholars believe that the massacres were a case of what is termed genocide.
For example, most Western sources point to the sheer scale of the death toll. The events is also said to be the second-most studied case of genocide, and often draws comparison with the Holocaust. A growing list of countries, as discussed below, have officially recognized and accepted the authenticy of the Armenian Genocide.
----
 
Several facts in connection with the incident are a matter of ongoing dispute among scholars as well as beeng a diplomatic dispute between Armenia, and Turkey, as well as other parts of the international community) dispute. Although there is a level of agreement in the events leading to the incident, several scholars, as well as the Turkish government rejects the classification "genocide", and argue that the deaths among the Armenians, were not a result of a state-sponsored plan of mass extermination, but from the result of inter-ethnic strife, disease and famine during the turmoil of World War I as it is observed elsewhere in Europe as well. Despite this thesis, a significant portion of scholars follow the theisis referencing the incident as a genocide.
----
I realise you do not want such a change, what alternative do you suggest? I have coppied the actual suggestion from the degraded conversation, cleaner start. --Cool Cat Talk 11:51, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Ex suggestion revised

message: Armenian crimes conducted during the Russia occupation of Eastern Turkey and the mass extermination of the local Muslim and Turkish population is not mentioned with a single word. Strange that people claiming to have been victims of genocide have colonies of 8 million Armenians around the world where according to their theories there should not be a singe Armenian left after 1915.Hittit (talk) 22:49, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually an article from The Nation suggests that when you add all the incidents you have 35 million Armenians killed.  TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 05:16, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

text: Clearly you have no idea of Armenian history, so don't talk.  There were Armenians living in the RUSSIAN Empire, too -- part of historical Armenia at the time was under Russian rule.  The first republic of Armenia had 800,000 Armenians, about 300,000 of whom were from the other side of the border.  And yes, Armenian under the Soviet Union experienced a rapid population growth, as did the survivors in the rest of the Middle East.  Some psychologists think that the trauma of the Genocide prompted them to reproduce to make up for their lost ones. Serouj (talk) 08:28, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

text: I'll stop feeding the trolls now. Serouj (talk) 16:02, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This is all off-topic and should be removed. I will remove it unless I see valid objections. Meowy 16:57, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a discussion regarding the inaccuracy of this article thus in-topic. I will report you if you erase it as you're simply trying to censor this article according to your own beliefs. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 19:25, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No it is not. You and hittite are using this talk page as a platform for you to pursue your discredited agenda (an agenda that has been explored here and discredited here many times in the past) and to post OR and off-topic "Armenian crimes" comments. Talk pages are intended for discussion aimed at improving specific points in the article. They are not platforms for personal essays or personalised rants. This thread has no useful purpose in improving the article. Meowy 21:57, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  That is laughable. You claim that their claim is personal agenda and they try to push it here, yet they can prove that some documents used in this article are forgeries. Whats up with that? And stop feeding the trolls? What's that? Avoiding a discussion because it becomes to hard to handle? --90.29.127.95 (talk) 23:13, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

text: We are not using any kind of agenda and it haven't been discredited. I'm pointing out factual errors in this article. The article even uses documents that are proven to be forgeries. If that's your sense of credibility, accuracy and informing then it's actually you who is trying to push his agenda and I need to congratulate you as you and some other members who are clearly Armenian are trying to rewrite history here in success. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 03:01, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

text: Calouste Gulbenkian got his 5 per cent from the consortium of European Oil Companies and not from the Turkish government (and for good reason, he earned it). Claiming that he ripped-off the Ottoman government is wishful thinking. Nobody is "claiming" that there were mass killings. The mass killings happened and are well documented by far more scholars than claim or allege otherwise. Turkey's mass killings of Christians were not isolated to the First World War either. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 01:06, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

text: The cross-party U.S. House Committee on Foreign Affairs has just approved a resolution that calls the killings of Armenians by the Ottoman Turks during World War I a genocide, and has recommended that the resolution be passed by the entire House of Congress. Given that President Obama before his election called the Armenian Genocide a genocide, and given that he seems to be resorting to playing the do-the-right-thing moral-high-ground card for certain other legislation, it is politically difficult for him to oppose this resolution - so it has a better than normal chance of passing. That is the reason for the recent flood of propagandistic postings onto this talk page. Just as the propaganda has no place on this talk page, I think mention of the resolution has doubtful place in the article. This already overly-long and all-but-unusable article is about the Armenian Genocide, not about resolutions that commemorate it. It should have a mention in the Denial of the Armenian Genocide though - the only reason the resolution is notable (and the main reason it exists at all) is because of Turkish opposition to it and the word genocide. Meowy 13:47, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Meowy, please keep your own propaganda and lies to yourself. It's completely pathetic of you to call us propagandists. Just show how butt-hurt you get when confronted by your own lies. Please refrain yourself from acting so pathetic in the future. On the bill issue, Obama issued a statement for the House not to accept it. It's not the first time that it was accepted, I think. It simply has zero meaning as it doesn't mean a bit that the United States have accepted the genocide claims. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 22:40, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

text: What happened is that a US Congressional panel ruled that it was a genocide. In reaction, the Turkish government, "recalled its ambassador to Washington for consultations and says it is considering other responses." The White House, however, has vowed to prevent the issue being the subject of a full Congressional vote. Nick Cooper (talk) 13:57, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is a case of extreme falsification 

message: Another factual error in this article is that the article claims without citation that the Turkish state claims that the casualties were around 300 thousand which is once again wrong. The Turkish state claims that slightly less than 600 thousand Armenians have died.  TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 21:21, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Armenian Casulties 

message: I heard on the news that the United States recognized the Armenian Genocide as an actual genocide, causing Turkey to remove their ambassador. It was never repeated. Is it actually true that the United States recognized the genocide and is it worth mentioning on the article? 71.129.63.227 (talk) 16:13, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The cross-party U.S. House Committee on Foreign Affairs has just approved a resolution that calls the killings of Armenians by the Ottoman Turks during World War I a genocide, and has recommended that the resolution be passed by the entire House of Congress. Given that President Obama before his election called the Armenian Genocide a genocide, and given that he seems to be resorting to playing the do-the-right-thing moral-high-ground card for certain other legislation, it is politically difficult for him to oppose this resolution - so it has a better than normal chance of passing. That is the reason for the recent flood of propagandistic postings onto this talk page. Just as the propaganda has no place on this talk page, I think mention of the resolution has doubtful place in the article. This already overly-long and all-but-unusable article is about the Armenian Genocide, not about resolutions that commemorate it. It should have a mention in the Denial of the Armenian Genocide though - the only reason the resolution is notable (and the main reason it exists at all) is because of Turkish opposition to it and the word genocide. Meowy 13:47, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Meowy, please keep your own propaganda and lies to yourself. It's completely pathetic of you to call us propagandists. Just show how butt-hurt you get when confronted by your own lies. Please refrain yourself from acting so pathetic in the future. On the bill issue, Obama issued a statement for the House not to accept it. It's not the first time that it was accepted, I think. It simply has zero meaning as it doesn't mean a bit that the United States have accepted the genocide claims. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 22:40, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

text: What happened is that a US Congressional panel ruled that it was a genocide. In reaction, the Turkish government, "recalled its ambassador to Washington for consultations and says it is considering other responses." The White House, however, has vowed to prevent the issue being the subject of a full Congressional vote. Nick Cooper (talk) 13:57, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  American Recognition