Talk:Armenian genocide/Archive 4

message: I may have few problems in some points,(because of the possible wrong interpretation of them) but all in all I think it might be a good start. I do believe though, that the points regarding neutrality I have selected and included in my user page User:Fadix is an essencial add-in to Gvorl proposition, more particularly those in bold.
To Thoth and the other user that answered, I think reading few pages on how Wikipedia works, and trying to really understand the concept, will make you guys realise that what Gvorl proposes will NOT LEAD to a reletivzation or neither the denial of the genocide. Just to compare, the actual article, which is near NPOV, adhere more or less to Gvorl "rules," can you call it a revisionist entry?
Thoth, I told you, work and make propositions, the only thing I ask you, is to merge the informations of the present article in the new work, because those are essential points which should not be ignored. Yce, you are open for propositions too. Fadix 23:18, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I specially haven't entered things about viewpoints presentation because it is thing which can not be formalised directly. But I hope that balanced presentation of views can be assesed by some audit of sources which would classify them as direct and indirect ones. Also, I already see that few points I had entered (e.g. politcorrectness) were bit misunderstood, so I will bit clarify them. --Gvorl 05:36, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: It depends on you, what will be written, but as many extra things you add as more complex article will become and discussions will grow by progression, keep in mind that. Simply sometimes less is more: maybe without minor things we will avoid major discussions? Also, I suggest you to get some response from your opponents: it is necessary to aggre that _both_ sides will keep the same rules. --Gvorl 05:21, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gvorl proposition for conflict resolution. 

message: Could an admin please change Category:Armenian history to Category:History of Armenia?  The former is being renamed.  Thanks, Beland 20:15, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category 

message: I wanted to get something out here before I went on vacation. I have a great deal more detail and such though not all tpewritten and not in this final format that I settled on and I feel that much more is required to really have a complete presentation. However I wanted to offer this up for something to chew on and I will be tweaking and adding to it while on my vacation and hopefully will be ready to post up something more complete in a few weeks. In the mean time think over this a bit - and I know it is really only complete through the Hamidiye massacres (which I see as being mentioned here but really needing to be a seperate section and the one that is there requires serious upgrading). I apologize for my lack of being able to format things in Wiki at this time. I really just haven't looked into how it is doen yet - and will likely require some assistance....
Outline for AG Wikipedia presentation
1) Introduction
-	What was/is the Armenian Genocide 
o	a brief overview of the essential facts concerning the elimination of the Armenian people and culture from Anatolia (1914-1922)
-	Issues and controversy surrounding the Armenian Genocide
o	What is “genocide” – origin and applicability of the term (links to other genocide articles in Wikipedia)
o	Official Turkish denial of the Genocide – origin and issues
o	Armenian attempts at Genocide recognition 
2) Relevant History of Armenians in Anatolia and the Ottoman Empire prior to the Genocide
-	(Highlights of) Armenian history (in Anatolia) prior to arrival of the Ottomans (perhaps briefly presented then referenced to articles elsewhere in Wikipedia)
-	Armenians in the Ottoman Empire
o	Ottoman arrival and conquest in brief (perhaps briefly presented then referenced to articles elsewhere in Wikipedia)
o	Millyet system (Armenian Millyet and Armenians as loyal Millyet)
§	Establishment of Armenian Patriarch
§	Major centers of Armenian culture and population
o	Treatment of Armenians by Ottomans and Armenian migration
§	Armenian integration into Ottoman Society
§	Sultan, theocracy and law in the Ottoman Empire
•	Dhimmi laws
•	Limits of Ottoman control in the remote provinces and countryside
§	Sultanate attempts to weaken Armenian national base
•	Repressive laws and policies
•	Settlement of Kurds into Armenian lands
•	Armenian migration and forced conversion
o	Armenian Contributions to Ottoman Society (art, architecture, etc)
3) The disintegration of the Ottoman Empire, attempts to forestall its decline and the rise of nationalism among Ottoman ethnic populations
-	Ottoman Empire in decline – 17th – 19th centuries (perhaps briefly presented then referenced to article elsewhere in Wikipedia)
-	Empire in contraction – lost wars and territories (detail and describe impacts – [perhaps briefly presented then referenced to article elsewhere in Wikipedia])
-	Attempts to modernize and forestall decline
o	Tanzimat period and Muslim reactions to change of order
-	Nationalism and revolt of occupied Ottoman peoples
o	Wars of Greek and Balkan independence and Ottoman response (perhaps briefly presented then referenced to article elsewhere in Wikipedia)
§	Balkan insurrection and massacres of 1876
§	Muslim refugees from territories of Ottoman withdraw
o	Rise of Armenian discontent and Ottoman response
§	Armenian protestations for reform
§	Birth of Armenian political parties
•	Orientation and aims
•	Membership and representation
•	Attempts to rouse peasantry
•	Resort to Violence
-	Foreign Intrigue surrounding disintegrating Ottoman Empire
o	Russian geo-strategic and ethno-religious interests
o	British attempts to counter Russian Interests
o	German interests in Ottoman Empire 
o	Rising European colonial interests in Ottoman territories 
o	Ottoman reforms imposed by European Powers
-	Armenian Massacres of the Abdul Hamid Era (perhaps briefly presented then referenced to article elsewhere in Wikipedia)
o	Instigation and rational
§	Threat perceived by Islam of Christian ascendancy 
§	Reaction to European initiated reforms and Armenian attempts at intercession and implementation
§	Kurdish extortion and harassment of Armenian towns and villages
§	Abdul Hamid’s belief in maintaining the old order
§	Ottoman Bank incident
o	Chronology and Methodology of massacres
§	Establishment of Kurdish Hamidiye regiments
§	Sassoun uprising and subsequent Massacre (Oct/08-Sept/10 1894)
§	Constantinople Demonstration and Massacre (Oct 1 1895) 
§	Turkish mob violence against Armenians
§	Locations of primary massacres, estimates of deaths and overall assessment
§	Zeitoun Rebellion of 1895-96
§	Van Resistance of 1896
o	European reaction to Massacres
§	Eyewitnesses and observers
§	European and Ottoman Inquiry
•	Anatolian Investigation Commission
•	British Vice Consul Hallward’s report
§	Impotency and humanitarian concern subjugated by commercial interests
§	Statements from foreign leaders
§	Actions to provide humanitarian relief
o	Lessons learned and post massacre circumstances
§	Sultanate denial of complicity and attempts to shift blame
§	Armenian post massacre migration
4) The ascendancy and evolution of the CUP and the Rise of Turkish Nationalism
5) The Decision to commit Genocide and the Rational and Pretexts used to cover it
6) Implementation of the Armenian Genocide – methods, key actors, events
-	Key Architects and perpetrators of Genocide
-	Genocide Timeline
7) The Witness and Documentation of the Armenian Genocide
8) The aftermath of Genocide – acknowledgement and denial
9) The perpetuation of Genocide by the Republic of Turkey
10) References and external links to related sites and information
-	Websites presenting Armenian Genocide Information
o	Sites confirming, documenting or commemorating the Genocide
o	Sites presenting opposing or contrary views regarding the Genocide
o	Forums for presenting issues regarding and discussing the Genocide
-	Relevant Media links
--THOTH 04:20, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed Armenian Genocide Article Outline (partial and incomplete) 

message: I think you have to be careful with the terminology you use. When you use "the genocide" in a sentence, you portray it as a undisputed fact, which it is not. For example:
*Official Turkish denial of the Genocide
*Relevant History of Armenians in Anatolia and the Ottoman Empire prior to the Genocide
*The Decision to commit Genocide and the Rational and Pretexts used to cover it
*Implementation of the Armenian Genocide – methods, key actors, events
*Key Architects and perpetrators of Genocide - Genocide Timeline
*The Witness and Documentation of the Armenian Genocide
*The aftermath of Genocide – acknowledgement and denial
*The perpetuation of Genocide by the Republic of Turkey
With these titles you have already forfeited any chance of a neutral article, because you are forcing one point of view. A neutral article should follow wording like that of BBC articles seen here: 
* Turkey edges towards Armenia ties - You will note from this article the deaths are quoted as massacres and any mention of genocide is shown as "genocide"
* Armenians remember mass killings - The title of this article refers to mass killings, not genocide. You will again note that the articles does not portray the genocide as undisputed fact.
* Armenia remembers 1915 killings - Again look at the title, it refers to the events as '1915 killings', not genocide. The article also explains how Armenia wants Turkey to recognise genocide and Turkeys reason for not recognising it as such, it doesnt use inflammatory words such as 'denial'.
An encylopedia article should portray the events like in these BBC articles. When you say 'the genocide', you make it irrefutable to the point no other views are valid. This has to be addressed to give this article credibility. --E.A 16:04, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, with one exception, there are encyclopedias that do use the term genocide directly as if it was an established fact, one example is the very huge French language encyclopedia, Universalis. The article can use the term genocide when using the UN convention and other such instances by still being non-POV, but I believe that since there is a very vocal Turkish opposition there, it would be better to stick as you said to not cause a revert war or spammings of the talk page. I proposed to edit Thoth texts, so don't take his propositions as final. Fadix 19:39, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm guessing thats because France recognises the deaths officially as genocide, amongst 14 other countries, but their view does not represent everyone. I think it is important to remember that this articles job isn't to prove or disprove genocide occuring, i believe many people are becoming passionately  involved in this article to prove what they deem to be the truth (whether for or against genocide occuring). The only real fact of the argument is that there is conflict of opinion, the article should explain this conflict and why it exists. --E.A 22:14, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: All encyclopedias I have read present it as fact, except for Britanica, so I don't think it is a question of countries recognising it as genocide. But regardless, this conversation is worthless, because I don't disagree with you here. But when we refer to sections title, they can in some cases be words that in the articles presenting them as fact would make them POV. A section called Armenian genocide could be permitted, the explaination on the other hand, should say something such: "What is often called" etc. This is only because those are word "conventions." Fadix 01:44, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion to THOTH and those concerned 

message: At the risk of throwing myself into a highly controversial article, I thought I'd give some feedback from an outsider's POV. I suggest the extensive use of footnotes: see Template:Ref and Template:Note (a good example of its use is Windows 2000 and W. Mark Felt) Several important facts need to be sourced: 
;The Armenian Genocide
* On April 24, 1915, the Young Turk government arrested several hundred - or, according to Turkish records, over two thousand - Armenian intellectuals.
** Records are referred to here, and two conflicting figures are given. What are the sources for the several hundred arrests? What Turkish records are referred to that support the arrest of over 2,000 Armenian intellectuals?
* It is believed that most of these were soon executed.
** Who believes this?
* Most historians believe that the government did not provide any facilities to care for the Armenians during their evacuation, nor when they arrived.
** If many historians believe this, then we must provide their names. 
* Rather, records suggest that the Ottoman troops escorting the Armenians as a matter of course not only allowed others to rob, kill, and rape the Armenians, but often participated in this activity themselves.
** This is a bold claim. Evidence (in the form of sources) must be provided to show where this information is coming from. Note that I am not denying it happened (my knowledge of this event is almost non-existent), I am merely asking for sources. Records are mentioned here, therefore there must be a source that can be cited.
* Most Western sources maintain that a million or over Armenians lost their lives as a result.
** Which Western sources are being referred to here?
* After the recruitment of most men and the arrests of certain intellectuals, widespread massacres have been reported taking place throughout the Ottoman Empire
** If they were widely reported, may I request that the source of these reports be given?
* In Van, it is said that the governor Djevdet ordered irregulars to commit crimes and force the Armenians to rebel to justify the encircling of the town by the Ottoman army.
** Who said this? Again, a source should be cited.
*  It is believed that over a million were deported, though this figure has not been conclusively established.
** Who believes this? If the figure has not been conclusively established, why is this not speculation?
* Some historians believe that the deportations were, in practice, a method of mass execution which led to the deaths of many of the Armenian population by forcing them to march endlessly through desert, without food or water or enough protection from local Kurdish or Turkish bandits, and members of the special organization were charged to escort the convoys (which meant their destruction).
** Which historians are being referred to here? We need a source here. 
;The camps
* The Ottoman Empire set up a recorded twenty-five to twenty-six of what are often called major "concentration camps" (Deir-Zor, Ras Ul-Ain, Bonzanti, Mamoura, Intili, Islahiye, Radjo, Katma, Karlik, Azaz, Akhterim, Mounboudji, Bab, Tefridje, Lale, Meskene, Sebil, Dipsi, Abouharar, Hamam, Sebka, Marat, Souvar, Hama, Homs and Kahdem).
** Though this seems to be an obvious fact, could I ask where these are recorded?
* After reports of deaths, the camps Lale, Tefridje, Dipsi, Del-El, and Ras Ul-Ain were built specifically for those who had a life expectancy of a few days. The majority of the guards inside the camps were Armenians.
** Where did the reports come from? If there are reports then there must be a source of the report. The fact that the majority of the guards in the camps were Amerinians comes from somewhere: what is its source?
* Even though nearly all the camps, including all the major ones, were open air, according to records, some were not.
** Which records are being sourced here? 
* Other camps existed, according to the military court, that were irregular Red Crescent camps used to kill by morphine injection (two Saib (health inspector) colleagues, Dr. Ragib and Dr. Vehib, testified during the court) and from which bodies were thrown into the Black Sea. In other instances, according to records, there were some small-scale killing and burning camps where the Armenian population was told to present itself in a given area, and was subsequently burned en masse. Other records from the military tribunal suggest that gassing installations existed as well.
** Which military court? Which case is being references here? What records from which military tribunal?
* Both Saib and Nail were allegedly in charge of providing the list of children who were to be distributed among the Muslim populace; the rest of the children were to be sent to the mezzanine floor to be killed by a mass gassing installation.
** This states that they were allegedly in charge of providing the list of children: who made these allegations?
* While the total number of victims that perished in all such camps is hard to establish, it is estimated by some sources at close to a million.
** Which sources suggest this?
;The special organization (Teshkilati Mahsusa)
* ...according to the military court and other records, it was meant to be a "government in a government" (without needing any orders to act).
** Source?
* This selection process of criminals was, according to most Western researchers, clearly indicative of the government's intention to commit mass murder of its Armenian population.
** Can we have the main Western researchers who believe this? Again, we need a source.
*  It must also be noted that, according to records, physicians participated in the process of selection; health professionals were appointed by the war ministry to determine whether the selected convicts would be fit to apply the degree of savagery of killing that was required.
** Please note that "it must be noted" is what we call a peacock term. Suggest the removal of these words. Again however, no mention of which records are being sourced here. Please provide a source. 
* It is estimated that the members of the special organization have killed hundreds of thousands of Armenians.
** Who estimates this?
;Military trials, Istanbul, 1919
* The accused succeeded in destroying the majority of the documents, that could be used as evidence against them, before they escaped.
** Is this speculation, or was it determined by the authorities? Does the sentence "The martial court established the will of the Ittheadists to eliminate the Armenians physically, via its special organization." provide this source? 
* Though soon after the Armenian massacres, the world was well aware of the "extermination of the Armenians", which was openly discussed by Turkish government officials, and trials of Ottoman officials were held in regard to the events, after a period of quiet, a new policy of silencing and what is called as denial began.
** We have what looks like a quote here. What is it quoting? Also, what is the source of this? How do I know this is not just the POV of the author? Please note that I am not actually saying that it is, I am merely pointing out that this could be construed as POV pushing. Which leads me to...
* Eventually, a policy that is considered by many historians as official state denial emerged.
** Which historians believe this? We must have sources. 
* Mention of Armenian Genocide almost anywhere in the world was met with rebukes from Turkish Ambassadors, while mention of it in Turkey itself led to jail terms or worse on many occasions — often prosecuted under a law against inciting ethnic hatred.
** Which court cases and which convictions? Where are the rebukes from Turkish Ambassadors documented? 
*  Turkey began to spend large amounts of money on lobbying firms in Washington D.C. to counter genocide allegations, and improve its image. It also began to spend large amounts of money on endowed chairs of Turkish or Ottoman history in different U.S. universities which had conditions that the professors who were hired must be on "friendly" terms with Turkey.
** I find this passage to be deliberate speculation. There is clearly a motive being provided for Turkey's money spending on U.S. universities. What evidence is there that large amounts of Turkish money was spent on lobbying firms in Washington D.C. to counter genocide allegations and to improve Turkey's image? What evidence is there that "professors who were hired must be on "friendly" terms with Turkey"?
* Some of their efforts to establish such chairs were met with student and public resistance and not all were eventually successful in being beforehand armenian counterpart establishments.
** Source and evidence for this please. 
* The campaign of what is called as denial was met with mixed success. 
** Sorry, this is the POV of the author. This appears to me to be commentary and is unnecessary. 
* Some governments, notably Turkish allies the U.S. and Israel will not officially use the word genocide to describe these events, though some government officials have used it personally. Many newspapers for a long time would not use the word genocide without disclaimers such as "alleged".
** If this is an official policy of the U.S. and Turkey then a source should be easily found. If many newspapers would not use the word genocide without the word alleged, then those newspapers must be named. I notice that the NYTs has been named, however...
* A number of those policies have now been reversed so that even casting doubt on the term is against editorial policy, such as the case is with the New York Times.
** Which policy? Source please. 
;Recent history — timeline
* In the past, many prominent American politicians have made statements in support of formal recognition of the Armenian genocide.
** Only one politician is given: Ronald Reagan. The term used here is "many", in which case more than one politician must be provided. Also, what is meant by "prominent"? Prominent to whom?
* The Armenian side speculates that fear of retribution from Turkey, a US ally and NATO partner, is behind the lack of formal recognition, whereas the Turkish side speculates that the only reason for the possibility of such a recognition would be the strength of Armenian lobby efforts within the US rather than the genuineness of the claims.
** Sources for both sides needs to be given. Can we back up these claims of speculation with evidence of the speculation of both sides?
Ta bu shi da yu 03:37, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestions from an uninvolved party 

message: I've just come upon this article for the first time, and especially given the complete lack of attention this event was given in American school, hearing of the Armenian Genocide for the first time is shocking and haunting to me.
I've noticed there's a lot of controversy as to whether this event even took place (to put it mildly), but I'm not going to get into all that.  I simply noticed that while I was reading the article, there wasn't really any discussion of the motivation of the Ottoman government to commit such atrocities.  When discussing the Holocaust, there are any number of theories as to why the Nazi government felt motivated to kill so many Jews (from the "Hitler believed evidence that Jews were conspiring to take over the government" theory to the "Hitler got dumped by a Jewish girl in elementary school" theory, and many, many more ideas).
But in this article, I didn't see a discussion of a fundamental reason why the Turks suddenly began slaughtering the Armenians en masse.  It simply talks about how Ottoman law was changed to force all able-bodied males under 40 to serve in WW1, and then goes straight into talking about how Armenian recruits were later forced to work as laborers and many were executed.
Obviously, the question "why" can't even begin to justify such a momentous outrage, but... what event caused the Ottoman Empire to suddenly see the Armenians as, apparently, a scourge that must be destroyed?  And why is Turkey's official position on the Armenian Genocide (denial of its existence) so fundamentally different from Germany's official position on the Holocaust (prosecution of those who do deny its existence)? ekedolphin July 6, 2005 05:13 (UTC)
I agree - the current article is entirely deficient in terms of context and explanation. I can fully understand where someone who is not familiar with this history would be thoroughly confused and have no real understanding of the specific and surrounding events that consititute the Armenian Genocide from reading this article. It needs to be vastly improved. I have attempted to conceptualize a replacement article where causative events (and forces/ideologies etc) are clearly explained but there seems to be no interest in pursueing this line. The current article is pretty much beyond redemtion IMO. My proposed outline - (a draft of the background sections is provided above)- would clearly answer all of your questions. Their is incredible amounts of first hand documentation of these events as well as a large body of subsequant analysis. All of your questions are easily answered but unfortunatly few people (laymen) really know and understand the history. I also dispute the claim made by one commentator above that there is any real dispute or controversy sorrounding the factuality of the Armenian Genocide (as a Genocide and by serious historians) - the "dispute" is purely political and is entirely of Turkish making to deflect an accurate and  truthful examination and presentation of history. Any denial of the Armenian Genocide is just this!--THOTH 19:58, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, we've agreed on this over and over again but I think we're seeing a status quo effect. Nobody has the will or time to change the article into a more consistent one. Maybe everything should be removed first to make a clear start and we should put a banner on top to advertise that we need people in the know to participate. THOTH can provide an outline that I know he's been working on. --Muz 21:07, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Motivation 

message: :: Ok, we need to separate direct sources from indirect (analysis). On the one hand, let assume that nobody can show original paper documents to every (or any) Wikipedian, so any request for those papers should be ignored. On the other hand - Internet is not the place where all the documents (particularly historic) or scans of them can be found. So, we need to acknowledge that here we can assess direct sourcess only indirectly, by referencing to some authors. I would say that source can be treated as a direct one if it have some atributes like folloowing:
* Have attributes showing that it is direct:
** Dated by period of the subject, or
** Is witnessing of some participant
* Can be indirectly investigated by wikipedians:
** Referenced by indirect sources
** Assessed by historians
** Hadn't been widelly recognized (using other direct sources and expertises) as falsified
--Gvorl 8 July 2005 14:52 (UTC)
The so-called "armenian genocide" is nothing more than an attempt to mobilize minorities against Turks. It was not a politically taken decision of genocide. I recommend you to pay attention that armenia does not want to open its archives. Also the word "techir" choosen by Ottoman  government comes from the word "hicr" originally.please check the meanings of these words..
: The word "techir" (at the time, "tenkil") is a derivation of an arabic term, its true Ottoman meaning is to "kick out," force someone to exile(as forcing an intellectual to exile in another country), and it can even mean to annihilate an enemy through way of evacuation, check any Ottoman dictionary, or ask an Arab languist. The first one that manipulated the Ottoman term "tenkil" is professor Halacoglu there again. Never heard of "tenkil ve tehcir'den?" You may know Turkish a lot better than I, but I know Arabic, which even though I place "basic" in my user page, is between basic and intermedary, as well as Ottoman Turkish, which is not modern Turkish. My parents and grandparents still speak Ottoman Turkish and can write as well, when the Turkish population adhered to the modern Turkish language introduced by who you consider your father Ataturk. Besides, this adds to the fact that I do have Turkish friends whom live in Turkey and who master Turkish perfectly and would translate for me any modern complex texts. If you don't trust me, just give it a try. Fadix 21:18, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh and another thing, since the fall of the Soviet Union, important and critical KGB files were made public, it either take an ignorant or self-fooling parots to claim that Armenian still restrict its archives. Oh and again, another thing pooped by the Turkish government. Fadix 21:21, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

text: To anonymous 193.140.194.117: Your claim seems currently to be irrelevant because it is not substantiated by any sources. Please provide sources for any further discussion. Also, please do not delete other texts when entering comments. --Gvorl 07:15, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  About authenticity of the sources 

message: This discussion page is already very big. I would like to suggest archiving older part (e.g., older than 2 months) of it. Also, it would be good to make some generalisation of the things which will go to archive. --Gvorl 8 July 2005 14:52 (UTC)
oh i bet you know little about Ottoman language because it seems so.Its just limited to a few words that you heard from your parents, may be only the word "hatret" because it seems they only teach you this.What you call about the deaths during the "techir" does not suit with the definition of genocide at first place.I repeat again that it was not a politically decided genocide attempt.Many Turks passed away as well.Have you ever heard about how many people were dead during the war in Dardanels in World War 1.Also, what will you say about the genocide commited by armenians during the Turkish independence war i,e,. when armenians invaded Turkish lands in 1920s or do you have courage to confess the genocide still going on in azerbaican??
: No, it doesn't seem so, pay a visit to Lebanon or Syria and you'll witness yourself what language elderly people still speak, and even with their son and daughters. The Turkish those people knew/know is Ottoman Turkish, and there still are people of my generation that have learned from their parents and grandparents still speaking the language as a cipher code so that the younger ones don't understand. My knowledge doesn't limit to few words, and more so when Arabic words are concerned. The fact of the matter is that Tehcir, or more precisely Tenkil implyed a forced evacuation and not just simple immigration, and this is even recorded in widely available foreign ministry publications. Halacoglu claims that it was wrongly translated to deportation, when it actually meant immigration, this claim was again included in other sites as a result. This is completly wrong, and I suggested you to verify in an Ottoman dictionary yourself. It does not simply mean immigration, it means a forced transfer, evacuation, deportation, and even destruction(to do away).
: Comming to what you call "Turkish genocide;" it takes a brain not functioning like it should, to think that in 1920, when over half of the Ottoman Armenian population already perished, it was possible for the Armenians to commit genocide. To the contrary, during the so-called Turkish war of independence, the Kemalist troops have reached Alexandripole, without any resistance, as if they were cutting into butter, the result was the entire destruction of Russian Armenia, and the death of hundreds of thousands of people. The Germans reported from past 1918, the condition of Russian Armenia as a result. The Ottoman managed to take away three pieces of lands they sliced from there, and they even planed to go through Alexandripole to Baku. Karabkir in his own memoirs during his plans to Nachikevan and Karabagh, wrote: "Armenia destroy for eternity." As for the Turkish casulties of war, more German than Jews died in World War II, doesn't in anyway excuse the Germans for what they did to the Jews.
: Armenians invaded Turkish lands? The last time I have checked, it was the other way around, take a historic map, and compare the Armenia to the current republic of Armenia? Whom invaded whom? Where are the Armenians in Western Armenia? They vanished. As for Azerbaijan, don't drag me there for your own sake. Fadix 16:51, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archiving 

message: The item "European Parliament" should be linked to the "European Parliament resolution on the 2004 regular report and the recommendation of the European Commission on Turkey's progress towards accession" (see topic 39), which states:
"...the European Parliament...calls on Turkey to promote the process of reconciliation with the Armenian people by acknowledging the genocide perpetrated against the Armenians..."
It would be quite helpful to always link to sources.
--Marek Moehling 01:27, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Official recognition: Sources should be indicated 

message: VENEZUELA
http://www.panarmenian.net/news/eng/separate.php?id=14236&task=world&cat_id=2
:I don't doubt it, but a reliable source in this case would be the corresponding governmental body (here: the Venezuelan Parliaments' website). The Armenian Genocide is highly controversial, some contributors may not attribute much credibility to Pro-Armenian lobby group's websites, whether this attitude is justified or not. --Marek Moehling 07:01, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Venezuela recognized the Armenian Genocide 

message: As it is at August 2005, "Armenian Genocide" article is a pure propaganda, not an encyclopaedia item. Turks and Armenians have lived in peace for more then 900 years in Anatolia until 1915. Half of the Ottoman "sadrazam" ( primeminister ) were ethnic Armenians. Why did Turks suddenly decided to kill Armenians ? Reading this article , one gets the impression that, one day, "Young Turks" decided to eliminate Armenian population in Ottoman Empire for the fun of it. 
To understand what really happened , you should get a good look at "Tashnak" article. Founded at 1890, financed by Imperial Russia, England, French and also by U.S. , never mind also by rubbing other Armenians in Ottoman Empire, Tashnak started as a terrorist gang and organised a bloody revolt. At spring of 1915, nearly a quarter million Turkish civilians were killed during the Armenian uprising in East Anatolia. With all young man at fronts, Turks were cached defenceless against their neighbours, who were well trained and armed and has been preparing for their day since 25 years. Fighting in Galliipoli for the very life of the empire, it took Ottoman army months  to gather troops to suppress the revolt. Suppressing a bloody revolt was also bloody. Ottoman troops killed every Armenian holding a gun. 
After the revolt, Ottoman government decided to exile Armenians at east Anatolia to Lebanon. The exile was poorly planned and executed. My estimate is that nearly half a million Armenian civilians died during the exile because of neglect and mistreatment of Ottoman authorities. Main dead causes were epidemics, lack of supplies and attacks of Kurdish tribes on convoys, which had no proper military escort. It is a common fact that the exile turned to a big fiasco for Ottoman government and a big disaster for the exiled Armenians. Yet this is not a holocaust , but a tragedy of war.
The following are all lies:
Armenians at west of empire and Armenian villages which declared their loyalty during the uprising (like Armenians in Malatya, in Amasya...) were not effected. This clearly shows that this is not an ethnic cleansing.
After 1915, the blood did not stop there. Armenian troops under Imperial Russian control invaded most of the eastern Turkey in 1917. Turkish civilians had to run or die. Then the cards turned again at 1918, when Soviets withdraw their support from Armenians. Then, when French troops invaded most of east Turkey at 1919, including Adana, Maras, Antep and Urfa, they armed Armenians as gendarme troops. Their misbehaviours against Turkish civilians ended up with this cities revolting against superior French forces and forcing them out of the region at 1920-1921, not without help of the revolution government in Ankara, formed by Mustafa Kemal. It is no small wonder that the Armenian population in the French occupation zone either has leaved with the French troops to Syria or forced to live. The same fate was waiting the Armenians who cooperated and joined the Greek invasion army in the Aegean region at 1919, when Turkish cavalier reached Smyrna at 1922.
On the other hand, I also personally know an Armenian who fighted AGAINST the Greek invasion in Turkish Liberation War ( Greco-Turkish War (1919-1922) ) and carried the Liberation Medal with honour and pride until his dead at 1976 at age of 75. At every Victory Day ( 30 August ) , I visited him and kissed his hand.
The adaptation of the Latin alphabet to Turkish and forming of the Turkish grammar has been done by another Armenian, who was the General Secretary of Turkish Linguistic Institution until his dead at 1960's.
Every 3 th man in Anatolia has some Armenian genes beside Turkish ones after living together for 900 years. Indeed a big majority of Anatolian Armenians are not true Armenians but grand sons and daughters of Hittites , who adopted Armenian language and culture in the 2.th century, Armenia being the only Christian state, supporting Anatolian Christians. 
I can trace 6 different ethnic origins in 4 generations in my family, like many other Turks. 
Why and how should we make genocide ?
By --Isarioglu 15:24, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why did Turks suddenly decided to kill Armenians ? 

message: I think we should link them to this article, seeing as how they are part of the same historical framework.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.234.121.233 (talk) 17:35, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: They already are, in the introduction section. Meowy 16:13, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assyrian, Hellenic, and Mount Lebanon genocides Diaspora... 

message: In the section below, "Reform Implementation, 1860s-1880s", the 2nd paragraph states that the Treaty of Paris (1856) was signed after violent suppression of Christians in 1875. Something is incorrect or needs more explanation: the treaty could not be dated 21 years prior to these suppressive acts. 
----
Reform implementation, 1860s–1880s
Main article: Armenian Question
In the mid-1860s to early 1870s, Armenians began to ask for better treatment from the Ottoman government. After amassing the signatures of peasants from eastern Anatolia, the Armenian Communal Council had petitioned to the Ottoman government to redress the issues that the peasants complained about: "the looting and murder in Armenian towns by [Muslim] Kurds and Circassians, improprieties during tax collection, criminal behavior by government officials and the refusal to accept Christians as witnesses in trial."[16] The Ottoman government considered these grievances and promised to punish those responsible.[17]
Following the violent suppression of Christians in the uprisings in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria and Serbia in 1875, the Great Powers invoked the 1856 Treaty of Paris by claiming that it gave them the right to intervene and protect the Ottoman Empire's Christian minorities.
Alliwalk (talk) 20:14, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date agreement needed in section on "Reform Implementation" 

message: I´ve noted that other articles have a searchfunction for archived discussions. I´d like to have one here, but don´t know how to add it.
--Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:24, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Much of the archived discussion here is completely pointless and repetitive - so to have some way of searching for the useful content would be useful. I wish other editors would do some regular pruning of the off-topic material this talk page attracts. Meowy 18:10, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Added a search box, and also set up an indexing function.—Chowbok ☠ 04:05, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Search function for archives 

message: I would suggest the removal of the reference to what Bat Ya'or thinks of the Armenian Genocide. She is not a serious scholar, and furthermore her opinion is irrelevant, and does a real disservice to the study of this important subject. 62.31.57.63 (talk) 23:18, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bat Ya'or is not a source to quote in any scholarly article 

message: The use of the Brittannica article is a subject is scholarly dispute and should be removed or revised. 
Dolabjian, Vartkes S.(2003)'The Armenian Genocide as portrayed in the Encyclopaedia Brittanica',Journal of
Genocide Research,5:1,103 — 115
The use of the 600,000 number has been characterized as underestimating the Armenian death toll, and Brittanica in particular has been subject to a range of revisions throughout the 20th century. As argued by the author "Even calculations based on figures
published by the post-war Turkish government bring the total of Armenian deaths to over a million. Under the circumstances, using the figure of 600,000,even as the lower limit of a wide range, amounts to a surrender to revisionism, and appeasement to the apologists of genocide, as well as an act of disrespect to the memory of the hundreds of thousands whose deaths are being discounted and whose very existence is being dismissed."
I would support removing the reference to Brittannica entirely as it is the subject of academic dispute.
Dreddly (talk) 13:48, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: First learn to write properly in English before discrediting Encyclopædia Britannica (!) as a proper source. 151.57.189.97 (talk) 16:37, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Tertiary sources like non-specialist encyclopaedias should, in general, not be used as sources on Wikipedia. See Primary secondary and tertiary sources Meowy 00:22, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Can we get the reference removed? The page is still locked. Dreddly (talk) 13:48, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problem with use of Brittanica in the Armenian deaths, 1914 to 1918 section 

message: Practically every detail regarding the issue has been covered, except for one important detail: ASALA and its assassination of Turkish diplomats throughout the world, as well as its airport bombings (near the Turkish Airlines counters) in Paris, Ankara and elsewhere, which caused the deaths of many civilians from Turkey, the United States, Canada, France, the United Kingdom, Austria, and numerous other nations; whose only fault was just to "be there" at those particular unfortunate moments. Should we turn a blind eye to the ASALA issue, and the deaths of all these people, as if they never existed? 151.57.189.97 (talk) 16:33, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  ASALA 

message: Armenia#World War I and the Armenian Genocide section is marked as "This section does not cite any references or sources." can somebody from here supply those references? -Սահակ/Sahak (talk) 15:35, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  references for "Armenia" article 

message: A recent article in Armenian Weekly (February 4, 2010) by Eren Keskin, titled "From April 24, 1915 To January 19, 2007", contains two quotes by Ittihaddist politician Dr Mehmed Nazim made "in a secret meeting of the CUP in the beginning
of 1915" according to Eeskin. The quotes are:
"...Armenians are like a deadly wound. This wound is first
thought to be harmless. But if it is not treated by a doctor in time,
it definitely kills. We must act immediately. If we act as in 1909,
it will do more harm than good. It will awaken the other groups we
have decided to eliminate, the Arabs and the Kurds, and the danger
will become threefold..." "...If this cleaning out is not general and final, it will hurt more
than heal. We must wipe out the Armenian nation from our lands. Not
even a single person must survive and the Armenian name must be
forgotten... This time the operation will be a total wiping out. And
provided that not even a single Armenian survives, total elimination
is a must." Keskin give as her source Recep Marasli, Ermeni Ulusal Demokratik Hareketi ve 1915 Soykirimi
(2008). These quotes seem to me to be important enough to be included into the article, but page numbers are needed for the source, as well as some information about the background to the quotes, where the source got the quotes from, etc. Meowy 16:54, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nazim quotes 

message: I saw on the "Talk:Armenian Genocide/Proposed Refactor" shows that under "Later Assessments" that "The Armenian Genocide is the subject of a 2002 film, Ararat, by Armenian-Canadian director Atom Egoyan." is proposed. I would like to see this line above the Contents box, because it is the highest profile of art that help shed some light on this topic for the masses. For most of us we don't have the time to read deeply on all that we want to learn :-/ but by putting this reference high up in the article it can be a reference point for those of use who read in summary, but tend to watch TV & Film more often then read books etc.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by KSpittel (talk • contribs) 06:23, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ararat, The Film 

message: Justin A. McCarthy is an American demographer, professor of history at the University of Louisville, in Louisville, Kentucky. McCarthy does not deny that hundreds of thousands of Armenians died, but claims that millions of Muslims [1] in the region were also massacred in this period and many in the hands Armenian insurgents and milita.[2] He has contended that all of those deaths during World War One were the product of intercommunal warfare between Muslims and Armenians, famine and disease, and did not involve an intent or a policy to commit genocide by the Ottoman Empire. McCarthy has been active in disseminating the results of his work and analysis, that Ottomans never had a policy of genocide, through books, articles, conferences, and interviews.[3] This has made him a target of much criticism from mainly strong Armenian diaspora organizations and historians. He was one of four scholars who participated in a controversial debate hosted by PBS about the Armenian Genocide in 2006.[4]
^ McCarthy, Justin Let the Historians Decide, Ermeni Arastirmalari, volume 1, Ankara 2001. 
^ McCarthy, Justin Death and Exile: The Ethnic Cleansing of Ottoman Muslims, 1821-1922. Darwin Press, Incorporated, 1996,  
^ Jaschik, Scott (October 22 2007). "Genocide Deniers". http://hnn.us/articles/43861.html.  
^ "A PBS Documentary Makes Its Case for the Armenian Genocide, With or Without a Debate". New York Times. 2006-04-17. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/17/arts/television/17stan.html?ex=1302926400&en=42703f4960edef66&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss. Retrieved 2006-09-02.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.29.157.11 (talk) 05:22, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Bristol didn't really "discredit" anything. Although he held anti-Armenian views and pushed for a very pro-Turkish economic policy for the United States in the years immediately following the end of World War I and the creation of modern Turkey, he nevertheless is now considered an important figure for the study of US policy regarding the Armenian Genocide after it took place. According to one recent comment by historian Levon Marashlian, Bristol "fully accepted the fact that Turks massacred Armenians on a large scale." . That seems quite in keeping with what Morgenthau had been saying for years. Thanks for bringing it up.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 21:09, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: If you care to read the link I provided you'd see that you're wrong, though I'm sorry that the letter is very wrong. Bristol hated both Turks and Armenians. He was both anti-Armenian and anti-Turk. You can see this clearly in his letter. Also pardon me for doubting what you say completely because you just gave quote from a conference about 30 years ago a recent comment. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 01:36, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is the response of James L. Barton to Admiral's letter. You can simply skim through the letters and see that neither has any love towards Armenians or Turks.  TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 02:49, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

text: Did I say that I want the title changed? What's up with this Armenians habit of creating arguments that does not exist? The links I gave has the unedited versions of two letters that very clearly shows that Armenians have been creating false reports. You say that Bristol is biased because he chose Turks but disregard the fact that Morgenthau was trying to pull USA into the war and used Armenians to do so. Simply admit that you don't want any proof that contradicts the genocide claims. Some of those 200 citations that you say this article has uses documents that are proven to be forgery. What do you say to that? TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 06:40, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

text: 100,000; 300,000; 600,000...the numbers have always fluctuated up or down over the decades (they still do). What is important here is not that Turkey rejects that those killings were part of an organized attempt to systematically annihilate the Armenians. We can revise that figure for the sake of clarifying Turkey's current position, of course. That section, however, requires extensive editing and for anyone who has the time, I would advise they check out the essays from this book, Remembrance and Denial: The Case of the Armenian Genocide , to stand on a more firmer footing.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 21:09, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The discussion here is not about how many of them died but what the Turks claim. The claim is that slightly less than 600 thousand Armenians died. The position of Turkey didn't really ever change. The link I provided shows the claim by Turkish arguments. The number of dead Armenians fluctuated from 800 thousand to 2.5 million by genocide claimers. Turkey's position have never changed which is reflected in this section inaccurately. There is no reason to check a potentially biased Armenians source to find out what number the Turkish argument claims. I repeat right now I'm not arguing about how many died or not but the claim by Turkish argument. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 01:22, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

text: I am tolerating you calling them genocide so you can tolerate my cynicism. Armenian numbers fluctuating is not an argument here. I'm not discussing that. What I'm discussing is the Turkish argument. Yes you will find some nut job Turkish ignorant politicians who behaves like Armenians never existed but they're usually some low level politician begging for media attention to gather votes which they usually fail miserably. I have never seen any Turkish scholar or government official stance that the number of dead Armenian were no less than 500 thousand or more than 700 thousand. The 100 thousand number that the this section suggests is certainly a non existing argument. Every detail of this article matters. Otherwise you can just delete everything and write "Turks butchered Armenians". So, I urge anyone to find a source for the 100 thousand argument from reliable sources because I personally could not or I will edit this section in time. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 03:53, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

text: ASALA can be mentioned as one of the Armenian Diaspora's reactions to Turkey's strenuous denial of the Armenian Genocide. If it is inserted, it must be placed in full context on why Armenians resorted to violent measures (they did so because they saw demonstrations and peaceful measures were largely being ignored by the rest of the world). This article is not written to cater to any side DarkLordSeth. The Holocaust article is not going to give equal airtime to both the Nazis and its victims. Although you're not trying that hard, it's  obvious you're trying to obfuscate the facts - a genocide took place, and you must accept that whether your choose to or not. This is getting repetitive - the sources are overwhelmingly clear so please give this up charade of trying to "balance" out the article by giving equal weight to the voice of perpetrator.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 03:34, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Be careful there. You're indirectly implying that terrorist activities can be justified. I'm sure if Al Queda or Hamas was the terrorist organization here you would never approach them in such a manner. ASALA is a tool that Armenians used to get Turkey to accept the so-called Armenian Genocide through fear. It has everything to do with this article. I could only obfuscate facts if I saw any. This is an article that uses so called evidences that are proven to be forgeries and yet present it's contents as facts, i.e. The Memoirs of Naim Bey a.k.a. Talat Pasha Telegrams. I'm sorry but I can't take this claim that these evidences are overwhelming when so many of them are so far away from being facts. I give you some credit though as believing in this lie for so long that your only option is to simply ignore any kind of acts that would undermine such an important issue for you. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 04:05, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

text: Same goes for you and that's exactly what I said. Please don't be double-faced next time. Rules apply to both of us. I'm not saying we should use the phrase "so-called" in the article and I've never used it as an edit in this article and never would. It clearly suggests a disbelief in the matter. I have always heard this "dubious government propaganda and works written by fringe scholars" but yet to see any evidence showing it so. It's simply a pathetic argument. You have already labeled everything I present as government propaganda or fringe scholars yet I haven't presented any source that is tied to the Turkish government or any kind of scholar. I just put a link of a letter from American authorities and you labeled it as government propaganda and fringe scholar. This is why it's really pathetic. Your argument is not even consistent with your accusations. On the other hand you have absolutely no trouble with alleged evidences that are proven to be forgery existing in this article. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 04:52, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

text: Actually, Armenians living in the Ottoman Empire conscripted in the Ottoman Army (and swiftly disarmed, forced into labor battalions, and soon thereafter killed).  It shouldn't be a surprise that Armenians living in the Russian Empire similarly conscripted in the Russian Army.  So you shouldn't be confusing the two sides.  With regards to your "reasonable" question, it seems that it's cheaper to have 1.5 million people walk in circles in mountains and deserts than to expend 1.5 million bullets and then also have to deal with the corpses.  Further, the presence of American and other foreign missionaries in the provinces required that the government send the population out to be killed on grounds of "deportation."  This way, the government can claim that their citizens died "unfortunate" deaths that they could not have prevented due to lack of resources.  What were they doing in the desert heat anyway!  It's a clear plan of creating a situation that creates forced death on the population. Serouj (talk) 06:05, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Any way you look at it, killing people with bullets is infinitely less expensive than the massive logistical effort involved in transporting an entire population 800 miles to the West -- and this at a time when wartime conditions demanded extremely conservative use of resources.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.241.210.96 (talk) 21:52, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

text: Unfortunately you're very inaccurate. There are extensive reports from French, German and Ottoman reports that the destination of the Armenians were on the banks of Tigris and Euphrates. The reports talk about Armenians settling in and starting to conduct their business. The population rise in Syria and Iraq amounting to 500 thousand Armenians can also be found in Ottoman, French and British statistics. There are also records of numerous orders from Ottoman high command to help Armenians on their journey as much as possible. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 07:03, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL. You don't need to tell me.  My grandfather's father and older brother were conscripted into the Ottoman Army and never returned.  My grandfather, his mother, and his younger sister were all condemned to death because they were Armenian Apostolics.  The Armenian Protestants were to be spared because of the presence of local American Protestant missionaries.  Due to the quick-thinking of my grandfather's mother, as the Turkish gendarme had his back turned, she quicky slid into the crowd of the Armenian Protestants.  So please spare what you "read" in statistics. Armenians "settling in and conducting business"?  By the time my grandfather and younger sister reached Syria, they were ORPHANS!  And they weren't the only ones -- there were thousands like them, with neither mother nor father. Is that what you call "settling in and conducting their business?" Serouj (talk) 08:23, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

text: Please stop this crusade of censoring this article according to your beliefs. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 19:27, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  leaving history to historians 

message: Is there a reason why Mark L. Bristol is not mentioned in this article? He was the successor of Henry Morgenthau and discredited Morgenthaus remarks about the incidents. Here is the link to one of his letters to urge the circulation of false Armenian reports:  It's weird to see how Henry Morgenthau is mentioned a lot in this article but Mark L. Bristol is not at all. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 21:41, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Bristol didn't really "discredit" anything. Although he held anti-Armenian views and pushed for a very pro-Turkish economic policy for the United States in the years immediately following the end of World War I and the creation of modern Turkey, he nevertheless is now considered an important figure for the study of US policy regarding the Armenian Genocide after it took place. According to one recent comment by historian Levon Marashlian, Bristol "fully accepted the fact that Turks massacred Armenians on a large scale." . That seems quite in keeping with what Morgenthau had been saying for years. Thanks for bringing it up.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 21:09, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: If you care to read the link I provided you'd see that you're wrong, though I'm sorry that the letter is very wrong. Bristol hated both Turks and Armenians. He was both anti-Armenian and anti-Turk. You can see this clearly in his letter. Also pardon me for doubting what you say completely because you just gave quote from a conference about 30 years ago a recent comment. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 01:36, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is the response of James L. Barton to Admiral's letter. You can simply skim through the letters and see that neither has any love towards Armenians or Turks.  TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 02:49, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

text: Did I say that I want the title changed? What's up with this Armenians habit of creating arguments that does not exist? The links I gave has the unedited versions of two letters that very clearly shows that Armenians have been creating false reports. You say that Bristol is biased because he chose Turks but disregard the fact that Morgenthau was trying to pull USA into the war and used Armenians to do so. Simply admit that you don't want any proof that contradicts the genocide claims. Some of those 200 citations that you say this article has uses documents that are proven to be forgery. What do you say to that? TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 06:40, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:   H. Morgenthau and Admiral Mark L. Bristol 

message: This section claims that the number claimed by the Turkish argument is that only 100 thousand Armenians died as a part of this issue. This is wrong. The official position of Turkey can be seen here:  The consensus is that slightly less than 600 thousand Armenians died.
This section hardly has any information on the study of the "Armenian Genocide" I would edit it myself but I'd just be labeled as a Turkish nationalist dog. So I will give some time for people to discuss it here and then I will edit it. If anyone objects the edit please first discuss here. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 19:16, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: 100,000; 300,000; 600,000...the numbers have always fluctuated up or down over the decades (they still do). What is important here is not that Turkey rejects that those killings were part of an organized attempt to systematically annihilate the Armenians. We can revise that figure for the sake of clarifying Turkey's current position, of course. That section, however, requires extensive editing and for anyone who has the time, I would advise they check out the essays from this book, Remembrance and Denial: The Case of the Armenian Genocide , to stand on a more firmer footing.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 21:09, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The discussion here is not about how many of them died but what the Turks claim. The claim is that slightly less than 600 thousand Armenians died. The position of Turkey didn't really ever change. The link I provided shows the claim by Turkish arguments. The number of dead Armenians fluctuated from 800 thousand to 2.5 million by genocide claimers. Turkey's position have never changed which is reflected in this section inaccurately. There is no reason to check a potentially biased Armenians source to find out what number the Turkish argument claims. I repeat right now I'm not arguing about how many died or not but the claim by Turkish argument. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 01:22, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

text: I am tolerating you calling them genocide so you can tolerate my cynicism. Armenian numbers fluctuating is not an argument here. I'm not discussing that. What I'm discussing is the Turkish argument. Yes you will find some nut job Turkish ignorant politicians who behaves like Armenians never existed but they're usually some low level politician begging for media attention to gather votes which they usually fail miserably. I have never seen any Turkish scholar or government official stance that the number of dead Armenian were no less than 500 thousand or more than 700 thousand. The 100 thousand number that the this section suggests is certainly a non existing argument. Every detail of this article matters. Otherwise you can just delete everything and write "Turks butchered Armenians". So, I urge anyone to find a source for the 100 thousand argument from reliable sources because I personally could not or I will edit this section in time. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 03:53, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Study of the Armenian Genocide 

message: The terrorist organization and it's assassinations should be mentioned in the Controversies section. It is a part of the Armenian issue. The article remains one-sided as it includes any kind of negative event or quote from Turkey while ignores anything at all from the Armenian side. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 02:22, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: ASALA can be mentioned as one of the Armenian Diaspora's reactions to Turkey's strenuous denial of the Armenian Genocide. If it is inserted, it must be placed in full context on why Armenians resorted to violent measures (they did so because they saw demonstrations and peaceful measures were largely being ignored by the rest of the world). This article is not written to cater to any side DarkLordSeth. The Holocaust article is not going to give equal airtime to both the Nazis and its victims. Although you're not trying that hard, it's  obvious you're trying to obfuscate the facts - a genocide took place, and you must accept that whether your choose to or not. This is getting repetitive - the sources are overwhelmingly clear so please give this up charade of trying to "balance" out the article by giving equal weight to the voice of perpetrator.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 03:34, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Be careful there. You're indirectly implying that terrorist activities can be justified. I'm sure if Al Queda or Hamas was the terrorist organization here you would never approach them in such a manner. ASALA is a tool that Armenians used to get Turkey to accept the so-called Armenian Genocide through fear. It has everything to do with this article. I could only obfuscate facts if I saw any. This is an article that uses so called evidences that are proven to be forgeries and yet present it's contents as facts, i.e. The Memoirs of Naim Bey a.k.a. Talat Pasha Telegrams. I'm sorry but I can't take this claim that these evidences are overwhelming when so many of them are so far away from being facts. I give you some credit though as believing in this lie for so long that your only option is to simply ignore any kind of acts that would undermine such an important issue for you. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 04:05, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

text: Same goes for you and that's exactly what I said. Please don't be double-faced next time. Rules apply to both of us. I'm not saying we should use the phrase "so-called" in the article and I've never used it as an edit in this article and never would. It clearly suggests a disbelief in the matter. I have always heard this "dubious government propaganda and works written by fringe scholars" but yet to see any evidence showing it so. It's simply a pathetic argument. You have already labeled everything I present as government propaganda or fringe scholars yet I haven't presented any source that is tied to the Turkish government or any kind of scholar. I just put a link of a letter from American authorities and you labeled it as government propaganda and fringe scholar. This is why it's really pathetic. Your argument is not even consistent with your accusations. On the other hand you have absolutely no trouble with alleged evidences that are proven to be forgery existing in this article. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 04:52, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mentioning ASALA 

message: A reasonable question which is never addressed iin the article s why, if the Turks really intended to commit genocide against the Armenian minority, they decided not to kill them on the spot but instead chose to expend vast resources they could little afford during wartime conditions and ship them 800 miles away to Syria, then kill them.  Since this seems to support the Turkish claim that the Armenian deaths were the result of the displacement process rather than systemic genocide, the article should deal with it.
Also, all the evidence of Christian Armenian collusion with Christian Russians against Muslim Turks is presented as a mere assertion -- "X claimed/ X said" -- by Turkish officials, even though historians do not dispute that this traitorous action was real.  Armenian action blocking Turkish supply routes through narrow mountain passes caused numerous deaths in the Turkish Army, and the displacement of a hostile, Christian, Armenian minority away from the battle front could be seen as a reasonable response to this hostile action.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.241.210.96 (talk) 21:36, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, Armenians living in the Ottoman Empire conscripted in the Ottoman Army (and swiftly disarmed, forced into labor battalions, and soon thereafter killed).  It shouldn't be a surprise that Armenians living in the Russian Empire similarly conscripted in the Russian Army.  So you shouldn't be confusing the two sides.  With regards to your "reasonable" question, it seems that it's cheaper to have 1.5 million people walk in circles in mountains and deserts than to expend 1.5 million bullets and then also have to deal with the corpses.  Further, the presence of American and other foreign missionaries in the provinces required that the government send the population out to be killed on grounds of "deportation."  This way, the government can claim that their citizens died "unfortunate" deaths that they could not have prevented due to lack of resources.  What were they doing in the desert heat anyway!  It's a clear plan of creating a situation that creates forced death on the population. Serouj (talk) 06:05, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Any way you look at it, killing people with bullets is infinitely less expensive than the massive logistical effort involved in transporting an entire population 800 miles to the West -- and this at a time when wartime conditions demanded extremely conservative use of resources.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.241.210.96 (talk) 21:52, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

text: Unfortunately you're very inaccurate. There are extensive reports from French, German and Ottoman reports that the destination of the Armenians were on the banks of Tigris and Euphrates. The reports talk about Armenians settling in and starting to conduct their business. The population rise in Syria and Iraq amounting to 500 thousand Armenians can also be found in Ottoman, French and British statistics. There are also records of numerous orders from Ottoman high command to help Armenians on their journey as much as possible. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 07:03, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL. You don't need to tell me.  My grandfather's father and older brother were conscripted into the Ottoman Army and never returned.  My grandfather, his mother, and his younger sister were all condemned to death because they were Armenian Apostolics.  The Armenian Protestants were to be spared because of the presence of local American Protestant missionaries.  Due to the quick-thinking of my grandfather's mother, as the Turkish gendarme had his back turned, she quicky slid into the crowd of the Armenian Protestants.  So please spare what you "read" in statistics. Armenians "settling in and conducting business"?  By the time my grandfather and younger sister reached Syria, they were ORPHANS!  And they weren't the only ones -- there were thousands like them, with neither mother nor father. Is that what you call "settling in and conducting their business?" Serouj (talk) 08:23, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

text: Please stop this crusade of censoring this article according to your beliefs. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 19:27, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historical Neutrality 

message: Should the article have a more thorough discussion of the role of Israel in preventing the U.S. from officially recognizing the Armenian Genocide for so many years.  I read an article in the Jerusalem Post (http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=170394 that points out precisely this, so don't brand me an anti-Semite.  Ndriley97 (talk) 22:45, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't brand you anti-Semite. Israel have a tradition of elevating the Jewish Genocide during the WWII to be something extraordinary, a position that is not shared by all historicians. I personally am undecided for lack of knowledge of detail. Since the political reactions of the topic is dealt with in the section Contemporaneous reports and reactions with painstaking detail, the source belongs to there. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 10:16, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

text: Reading it: the source is too weak! It alleges lefthandedly in a side comment. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 10:18, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Israel's position 

message: Lemkin did not coin the term genocide to refer to this incident. it was first used in 'Axis Rule in Occupied Europe: Laws of Occupation' to describe the holocaust. He used the terms barbarity and vandalism to describe the Armenian genocide and those terms did not morph into the term genocide until after his family was killed under Nazi occupation.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.177.2.56 (talk) 02:15, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  history of the term genocide 

message: Substituted at 20:09, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment