Talk:Armenian genocide/Archive 9

message: Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide came into force in 1950 and it is not applicable for the events before this date. legally we can't call this event as Genocide. And please do not forget that in 1915 Turkish and Kurdish civilians were also killed by Armenian forcesç  for the full text of the treaty  please visit: --Hattusili 19:27, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no law against calling an event genocide, and the killing of various parties by various other parties has nothing to do with this article.  You might want to explain why you bring that up. Also, your link is bad. -- Jibal 16:40, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, what you got here, another user registering to land here. BTW, for the same token the Holocaust is not a genocide because it happened before 1950, good going Hattushil. Fad (ix) 19:34, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

text: For your information Fadix, the term "genocide" has been created after the Holocaust and United Nations resolution about this is solely for the Holocaust and ethnic cleasing events in the future. You can check out the tons of United Nations resolutions that Armenian Issue is NOT regarded as a genocide by the UN AND this kind of issues are not addressed retrospectively, therefore making it impossible to call Armenian issue a "genocide." If Armenian issue were called "genocide" then sure more than half a million killings of Turkish and Sephardic Jews of Ottoman Empire WILL be regarded as the Genocide of Turks and Jews by Armenians. By the way as Shimon Peres and thousands of historians have been stating for the last few decades, Armenians DO NOT have the right to compare their sufferings to that of the Jews. Nothing similar to the Holocaust occurred and hopefully it won't... --David
Under the Rome Statue of the International Criminal Court, genocide can be decided by legal principles or by a court of justice. You are right my link is bad I will soon correct it.--Hattusili 18:42, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  can we call this event as a genocide? 

message: It is HIGHLY LIKELY that Lutherian is most or all of those IPs. It is UNLIKELY that any of them are Shelby28. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:12, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So basically it means that out dear anonymous friend has registered at least one login to backup his own position. Fad (ix) 21:22, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Checkusers 

message: Hi, Nice article, but what is the Armenian name for the genocide? Diyako Talk + 12:17, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you call it in English even when speaking Armenian? --Army1987 20:03, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Armenian name? 

message: These need to go. See Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words.
*It is believed that
*Many historians believe that
*According to the same commissions and other records
*Genocide scholars answer to those claims, that
*Those who support the genocide theses state that 
*Some academics point to
*There is a general agreement among Western historians that
- FrancisTyers 16:17, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The next week I will have time addressing those issues, but of course others may start working on them. Fad (ix) 19:17, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree - at least in part. It is the use of some of these vaugue phrases in the article that causes much of my consternation regarding it. I do think they can be imporved - though it is effort of course (and much seems to fall on Fadix - as much of this article is the result of his dedicated work - but thank you for singling out some instances that perhaps we can work to improve.--THOTH 23:42, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I know it is a lot of work, but I think the article would really benefit from their removal. If we more properly source and attribute the claims/facts then there will be much less chance for people to come in and try and add the neutrality tag just for the sake of it, as we can point to the well referenced article. Especially considering the wideness of the acceptance of the thesis. - FrancisTyers 00:10, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agreed. I would love to do such - and perhaps I can make some attempt - however I have to admit - that once I get into something like this - my inate perfectionism takes over - and what I will do is rewrite the entire section - at the very least. I have a hard time just doing an insert edit if I don't feel the concepts are properly represented and information conveyed in a manner beffiting it. And I know this is how I will feel because I already have a difficult time just reading the article as it is in its current state.  This is much the reason why I have hesitated making edits with out a mandate to do more then just make minor changes. I don't know if this makes sense - and it may seem rediculous to some - but its just my way - what can I say? --THOTH 00:56, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Hope your good work will continue, but wait for the reversion of document back to the contrdictory editions.--OttomanReference 18:33, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weasel words 

message: Please keep your arguments to the arguments page. As the notice at the top of the page shows, any non-editorial comments may be moved there without further notice. Remember, this is a talk page for a Wikipedia article, not a soapbox. That goes for both sides of the dispute. Please refrain from personal attacks and try and remain civil. - FrancisTyers 10:41, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: [comments moved to arguments page. - FrancisTyers 08:56, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arguments 

message: is an unofficial organization linked to terrorist PKK group as mentioned in their own website PKE
Furthermore, its already mentioned in the "official recognition" section so adding it a second time serves absolutely no purpose! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.1.89.101 (talk • contribs).
:: PKE is mentioned already in the "official recognition" section! To mention an unofficial organization with clear terrorist links for a second time is totally unwarranted for!!! Please remove! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.78.105.144 (talk • contribs) 07:06, 28 March 2006
:It is important to mention Kurdish recognition for many reasons but primarily because most of the actual people that carried out the killing of Armenians in the Eastern provinces were not ethnic Turks but ethnic Kurds!--Eupator 13:40, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with your remarks but as the anon mentioned above, the KPE is being mentioned twice in the same section. There is no need to mention it twice Lutherian 13:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the double mention, no reason whatsoever to mention it twice. Also i've referred to it as "so-called", since its only a parliament in exile by name. --A.Garnet 18:10, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about "self declared" instead of "so-called". "so-called" seems to be sarcastic. - FrancisTyers 18:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure. --A.Garnet 18:21, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Parliament of Kurdistan in exile 

message: Can someone double check whether that map is accurate. Having looked at the ANI list of Resolutions, Laws, and Declarations I cannot see Spain, Portugal, Bulgaria, Norway as recognising a genocide as the map (and this article) suggests. --A.Garnet 17:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also i cannot see Australia on that list either. --A.Garnet 18:27, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What is amazing is that you often remove things that should stay but request commenting when things should be removed. With the number of aliases and new users contributing in here, it is very difficult to have an eye on all this. Everything not on the list should go..., also, everything Halacoglu say should stay in the Turkish government section, he is the president of the Turkish historical society, which is basically Ataturks governmental founded institution which write the official Turkish government line, if they don't, who does? Fad (ix) 19:32, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I request comments when i am unsure, i thought perhaps someone may have seen something i have not. That you think things i remove should stay is your opinion, i have frequently secured others people opinions on things i delete, and if it is lacking, i have not gone ahead with it, or reverted it. --A.Garnet 20:38, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whatever you say Garnet, I am not right now requesting a discussion on that. As strong as we have disagreed, at least I am sure you are not a sock. BTW, Pamuk is a novelist, Turkish researchers and other Turkish intellectuals or known figures should be separated from eachothers. Fad (ix) 21:25, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map showing recognition 

message: I think we should make another page about the Turkish thesis, to provide neutrality and place links between these two pages. Armenian Genocide (Turkish Thesis) --Hattusili 12:01, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, thats a very bad idea. We call those POV forks. - FrancisTyers 12:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

text: One option would be to make a copy of this page in your userspace or in the article space, e.g. Armenian Genocide/Working version edit it and then request that it replace the current page when there is consensus among all reasonable editors on the talk page. - FrancisTyers 14:39, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  you gotta be joking, thats a very bad idea! Adendum 15:02, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please explain why you think it is a bad idea, and what you propose instead. -- Jibal 16:47, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

text: It already exists: Holocaust denial, under Other.
--Eupator 17:04, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Unencyclopedic proposition. It is like starting an entry about 'Non-Jewish casulties during the Holocaust' etc. The reason why the Armenian genocide has it own casulties entry is because the position of an Armenian genocide exist and is more than a fringe. An encyclopedic entry would be 'Ottoman casulties during and after WWI' or something such. Besides, 'during the Armenian Genocide' does not make sense because not much or if any revisionists have placed any 'alone' figure for the period when most Armenians have died. As professor Daniel Panzac an autority in Ottoman history writes, most Muslims died after the period most Armenians have died and that for this reason both casulties are not related. Fad (ix) 18:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

text: That might be a good idea.  During the Holocaust, there were other groups besides Jews who were killed, such as gay men, and I think they have their own seperate article. Shelby28 02:43, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  If this is your reasoning then the appropriate articles in relation to the Armenian Genocide would concern the Greeks of Anatolia and the Assyrians of Anatolia who were both subject to very similar genocidal policies and actions directed by the CUP/Young Turks. In fact the actions against the Greeks (of the Aegean coastal regions) began in earnest as early as 1913 and were akin to a Kristnacht against the Greeks that lasted for over a year. These massacres and forced expulsions were a prelude to the Armenian Genocide where the CUP was testing the waters as it were to see if their actions would provoke a response from the West. Then beginning in 1916 as the peak of the Armenian Genocide was winding down renewed actions were begun by the CUP against the Greeks - this time concentrating on the Greeks of the Black Sea (Pontos) region and against Assyrians who primarily resided to the south of Anatolia proper. Like the Armenians these groups experienced horrible massacres and expulsions at the hands of the Ottoman Turks and like the Armenians these communities were decimated and no longer exist today. There has been no such genocide against Anatolian Turks to warrent a collalary article BTW. Unless of course we place such in the fantasy and fiction section. --THOTH 08:14, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I don't know yet.  I would have to see what kind of an article somebody would write about the deaths of a large number of Muslims/Turks around the same time period before I could decide whether it was fair or not. Shelby28 00:30, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Would you consider it sufficient if Turks present a story of 500,000 (and in some cases I've seen 3 million etc) Muslims/Turks supposedly killed by Armenians during this period - where there are absolutly zero eyewitness reports for such things? Where the only "evidence" is the unsupported/uncorraborated claims of the Turks themselves? Where the only academics who adhere to such views are ones who are Turkish and/or in the employ of the Turkish government (in terms of grants and stipends etc)? Because this is what you will have. The record of this period is well known. There was no Turkish genocide during this period no more then the Germans can claim such (and blame the Jews) for thie deaths in WWII. When are people going to wake up and understadn what is going on here? --THOTH 14:59, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, I would have to see what was written and the references it had before I could decide whether it was fair or not.  From what I understood of FrancisTyer's proposition, it wouldn't be an article about any Turkish genocide, but rather an article discussing the many Muslim/Turk deaths.  If such an article were written, I would approach it with an open mind before deciding if I thought it was objective and neutral.  That's all I'm trying to say.  But since no such article exists yet, and I wouldn't be the one writing it anyway, there's really nothing more I can say.Shelby28 00:09, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  What would be the point of such an article? Why is such an article needed outside of a generic article concerning casulaties of nations involved in WWI? (or just as some factoid in an article concerning WWI in general) What relevance is this to the Armenian Genocide? Are there articles concerning British or German or Austrian casulaties of WWI? Is there an article concentrating on Christian deaths during WWI? I totally fail to see the interest or purpose of such an article (unless somehow it be supporting the perpetuation of Turkish denilaist propoganda). Does the fact that Turks/Muslims died during WWI have any bearing on the factuality of the Armenian Genocide? Does the fact that (huge numbers of) Germans died during WWII have any relevance to the factualness of what is known and accepted concerning the Holocaust? If it looks like s***, smells like s***, tastes like s***....then I can only conclude...--THOTH 01:56, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: At the risk of repeating myself for the third time, I would have to see the article before I decided whether it served a purpose or not. Maybe it would, maybe it wouldn't.  It would depend on how it related to the main article, the sources used, how well it was written, etc.  I'm just not ready to immediately dismiss FrancisTyer's proposition before even seeing how someone would write it.  I simply prefer to keep an open mind, so perhaps we can just agree to disagree.  But right now, there is no such article and I don't personally plan on writing one - so I don't feel I can comment further on the purpose, point, or objectivity of an article that does not exist.Shelby28 13:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh - well as long as we are talking about entirely theoretical articles I would like to see one concerning mermaid deaths in the Sea of Maramara during the Armenian Genocide as a result of Turkish troop transport ships leaking oil...do you likewise have no opinion concerning this article until you see it in writing? Well I think that the knowledgeble objective person could and should have an opinion about such things - particularly when making suggestions about what ought to be in an encyclopedia obstensibly based upon fact and not myth and fairie tales...--THOTH 14:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If someone wants to write about mermaid deaths, sure, why not.  And if it's pointless, doesn't have good references, has no basis in reality, then it can simply be deleted.  Nothing in Wikipedia is set in stone.  In general, I don't like saying 'No, you can't write about that' before giving someone a chance to see what they can actually come up with - cause maybe I'll be surprised and it'll be something good. I'm not trying to get you to agree with me.  Everyone approaches Wikipedia differently -  this is simply the approach I take.Shelby28 23:01, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In general? Well, you only contributed to this article, mostly in its talk page, I don't see how you can draw a generality over your participation. Also, it event became an approach you took? When and where you took such an approach. The decision on creating articles depend on the subject, and either or not it is encyclopedic. The only notable figure who separated losses of Ottoman Muslims is Justin McCarthy, and he is considered the Rassinier of the Armenian genocide. Besides, separating losses as Christian and Muslim deaths is discriminatory, the only reason the Armenian genocide has its casulty pages is because there are various notable books about the issue of Armenian losses. While Ottoman casulties of WWI and after, is encyclopedic, there is no reason to exclude other groups in creating articles. Fad (ix) 01:01, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was explaining how I feel in general when it comes to creating new articles.  I didn't realize I had to show previous examples of my approach to justify anything to you.  This is not about me, so please don't make it personal.  And if anyone writes such an article, it won't be me, and I don't get to make any final decision regarding its existence.  I've repeatedly explained my position, so if later on an article is written, we can discuss its merits further - but until that time, there's no point in continuing to argue.Shelby28 01:49, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It wasn't personal before you made it personal. Generality assumes a repetition, you can not draw a generality out of something, when you are limited to this article, and that's how your presence is limited to. There is nothing personal in me saying this. Also, again, like I said, subjects are either encyclopedic or not, I could always write an article about my left hand, it could be sources with various pictures, still the subject isen't encyclopedic. Fad (ix) 03:59, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why is this so difficult to understand?  I was talking about how I approach the idea of creating a new article.  The fact that you didn't have prior knowledge of my thoughts on this issue doesn't make my opinion any more or less valid.  And go ahead and write an article about your left hand; if other people don't feel that it belongs in Wikipedia, I'm sure it'll be deleted in no time.  And to me, that's how Wikipedia works.  I never said you had to feel the same way.Shelby28 05:12, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I think an Ottoman Muslim casualties during WW1 is actually a good proposition for an article. It doesnt have to do anything with this article, but can show a side of WW1 which is always overlooked. The figures can show not only casualties sustained in fighting, but also from expulsion from the Balkans, and occupation in wake of Treaty of Sevres. --A.Garnet 00:43, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are proposing a thesis, creating articles under the justification of the subject being overloocked is not encyclopedic, it is the notability that makes of a subject encyclopedic, by far per population there has been more Christian casulties than Muslim in Anatolia, and the only notable researcher that say else is McCarthy, Irving is notable, but notability for an encyclopedic article doesn't end on a persons notability but the notability of a subject too. The Ottoman casulties during and after WWI is notable, dividing a certain group based on religion is not. Fad (ix) 01:01, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Again - the linkage with this issue with the Armenian genocide is nil and I don't understand why it is even being discussed here. Likewise how are casulties of Ottoman Muslims who were expelled from the Balkans have anything to do with either Armenians or WWI? This event did not occur during WWI. And Ottoman Muslim casualties from the "occupation in wake of [the] Treaty of Sevres"? Are you kidding me? Treaty of Sevres was never put into effect? And occupation of what by whom? What does this additional fiction have to do with the Armenian Genocide? - except as I have been contending and as is obvious - as a diversion from the Ottoman Turkish culpability in the Armenian Genocide - which is what this article we are allegedly discussing here is about. I suggest that those who are interested in the mortality of Mermaids and Turkish indegestion as a result of eating too much taffy while boating on the Bosphorus in sprintime be discussed on some other talk page.--THOTH 01:10, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

text: You can have WWI Turkish casualties.--Eupator 18:38, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  turkish thesis 

message: you are so biased that you do not hesitate to use such terms against people who does not think lilke you.--Hattusili 10:16, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  hateful genociders 

message: [section moved to arguments page. - FrancisTyers 01:36, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Armenian Genocide 

message: I think it was rovoam who vandalised this page. If he gets blocked he comes back on another IP address and these are the type of pages he vandalises. Be careful of him as he's the most dangerous and persistent vandal in all of wikipedia.
Thank you.
Micoolio101 07:21, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalised page 

message: Are they not as important as the Jewish so their deaths are called a genocide instead of an holocaust? Or is the word holocaust used only for what happened to the Jews between 1939 - 1945?
Rastishka
:The term holocaust means burning by fire, it was indeed used during the period to discribe what happened, but the first time it was used to refer to Armenian sufferings was the burning of the Armenian town in Adana, in which thousands of Armenians were consumed by fire in April 1909. The term Holocaust with a capital 'H' is used to refer to NAZI war crimes in Europe (in the ghettos and the concentration camps), mostly Jews, it also refers to other groups like the Gypsies, it is not much of the appropriation of the term than rather the capitalisation. Also, the term genocide isen't to be taken more lightly than holocaust, while what happened in Adana in 1909 was a holocaust, the restrictive term for genocide would somehow excludes to its qualification as such(genocide). Holocaust with a capital 'H' doesn't mean exactly the same thing as 'h,' the capitalisation refers to a specific event and this doesn't mean in anyway that Armenian deaths are less important. Bernard Lewis before his departement was founded by Turkish institutions himself has used the words 'Armenian Holocaust' to refer to those deaths and this term is still used quite frequently but not as frequently as the most used term 'Armenian Genocide' which is official and should remain as such. Fad (ix) 01:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:   yes, hmmm, lets see which term has the greatest impact, we need to feed our propaganda machine! And lets also try to link the Armenian massacres to the Holocaust of the Jews, like that we may just get their support on this matter! 85.1.33.43 05:27, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Anonymous, you are hardly credible in your role as an Armenian. With what new trick you will come up with? :) Fad (ix) 06:00, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Its called sarcasm my dear Fadix, I am surprised you didnt catch that! 81.213.178.166 06:06, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Armenians 

message: [discussion moved to arguments page. - FrancisTyers 11:56, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ??? 

message: You can see the photos here I will be adding them to the article when the page gets unprotected--CltFn 05:05, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No you are not. The copyright status of those images are highly disputed. --Cool CatTalk|@ 09:26, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  They are in the public domain. That is an easy one.Public Domain Chart--CltFn 11:38, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Armenian Genocide photos 

message: This statement is the intro is horseradish. Makes it seem like the Ottoman's were so kind as to  "evacuate" the Armenians , for their own protection no  doubt , and how unfortunate that the Armenians accidentaly died in the process.--CltFn 04:38, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think forced evacuation is a good term, it took a while to find a good term. Forced evacuation is one of the most efficient way of extermination. The Germans used it against the Herreros at the beggining of the last century, the Turks with the Armenians, NAZI Germany did the same with the Jews, Gypsies and other groups, Khmer Rouge regime attempted it etc. The words forced evacuation doesn't cover what happened to those evacuated, but those things are covered in the article. Fad (ix) 16:16, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "the forced mass evacuation and related deaths" 

message: Folks, please discuss changes.  Please also let me know when everyone has calmed down.  (Be aware that the protection is not an endorsement of the current version.)  --Nlu (talk) 05:28, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This article should always be partially blocked in my opinion. Fad (ix) 16:18, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection 

message: Any comment? Fad (ix) 16:10, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What is this - I don't understand?--THOTH 16:57, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My suggestion is a permanent partial block of the article. Those who are not registered and new users restriction to edit it. Fad (ix) 18:11, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  ??? Fad (ix) 01:38, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Permanent partial block 

message: [moved to arguments page. - FrancisTyers 08:26, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Important Interview with Andrew Goldberg - producer of documentary The Armenian Genocide 

message: I think the following links must be included in the article and the denial of the Armenian Genocide - includign attempts by Turks and such here to do so - must be presented in their proper light - as genocide denial and nothing more. --THOTH 17:13, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: THOTH, you sick man, stop using propaganda and leave it where it belongs -> the deep end of the rubbish heap 83.76.143.246 18:53, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Links to non-credible sites of disputable neutrality(shear sarcasm here)
See for yourselves http://www.theforgotten.org/denial2005/slide.asp?image=4
85.101.153.17 23:50, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Genocide Denial - links and information 

message: The article says that "The majority of the camps were situated near the Iraqi and Syrian frontiers", but neither "Iraq" nor "Syria" existed at this time (it should be something like "situated near what is now the Iraqi and Syrian frontiers").  Also, Dayr az-Zawr is on the "Euphrates" river, not the "europhites".  The footnotes should be fixed as well to go to the correct number.  Makgraf 03:23, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are right. As for the footnotes, it was all scrapped when Tommils started 'reorganizing' the article. Fad (ix) 04:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Technical Fixes 

message: Mesrob II was the honour guest in the conference in Erciyes University. His statements about the massacras may show us the right way in this discussion. As the religious leader of Armenians in Turkey he stated that both Armenians and Turks (in addition to foreign countries)were responsible in the events. I will provide the English text of his speech soon.--Hattusili 17:09, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeh! the same sort of religious figure as those fanatic Rabbis who also blame the Jews for their unfidelity to Yaveh and which according to them was punished through the Holocaust, or the Armenian Priest who claims that Armenians could have sperred themselves the fate of the genocide had they been more fidel to the Church. I spare you the rest of the story, or how much the Armenians have waited before obtaining the financing to build the church destroyed by the Earthquake in Turkey and how much @ kissing it took. But if indeed a religious figure's word are relevent to a historic article, I should find a Turkish card reader who recognize the genocide too. :) Fad (ix) 17:11, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Do you guys really do this distinction between armenians in diaspora and armenians in Turkey?  why is that? --Gokhan 17:00, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

text: These people are more Turkish than Armenian. I mean they are as much Armenian as your average Turk in Western Anatolia is Greek...--Eupator 17:56, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "However, since Ataturk's Europeanization drive, the traditional Turkish scimitar has been replaced by more sophisticated methods with the very same ultimate goal - to drive the original inhabitants of the land into oblivion." And this is Armenians most liberal party? --A.Garnet 18:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I dont see what purpose that links serves. Is it meant to prove Turks drive "original inhabitants of the land into oblivion"? --A.Garnet 18:57, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mesrob II's statements in Erciyes University 

message: I just reverted a very rude genocide denial attempt, the umpteenth of the denial attempts, that rewrote the intro and deleted all the photographs. Lately I have been busy with the minimization of another genocide, but I will get back to this very important history article in the future. gidonb 18:36, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Genocide denial 

message: Charges against Orhan Pamuk were not brought by the government, they were brought by the Turkish Attorney General  which is independent of government. I tried to revise it, but my changes were later removed.
:Things may work differently in Turkey, but I know in the US the Attorney General is appointed by the President and prosecutes and functions as part of the executive branch. Fightindaman
In Turkey judicial system is independent of goverment as in most European Countries (Turkey's judicial system has been based on the Swiss Civil Code). Charges brought against Orhan Pamuk is not in the control of government, it's solely the decision of independent prosecutors. As it stands, what's written in the article with regard to Orhan Pamuk is factually wrong.
:So how does one become Attorney General in Turkey?  If one is either elected or appointed by an elected official then I would say that it is still acting as part of the government.  It enforces the law of the government, it is PART of the government.  It may be given considerable freedom from the other branches, but it is still part of the government.  Also, please sign your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~) at the end.  Thanks. Fightindaman 17:36, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orhan Pamuk 

message: I'm sorry but you cannot accuse everyone as nationalists who doesn't admit armenian genocide and you cannot praise anyone as intellectual who admits.Everyone has thinking freedom.So that must be removed.This article already includes too much propaganda facts.--Karaman 23:24, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Karaman, I guess you are talking about the term 'Turkish intellectuals' used. But this is not about praising, the reason why they are included is because intellectuals publish, and published works make their position as encyclopedically relevent. Those that do not support the thesis of genocide too are reffered to as intellectual. Fad (ix) 23:03, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV Please! 

message: The Position of Turkey should have a subsection listing Western Historians opposing genocide claims like Bernard Lewis (Princeton University), Roderic Davison (Central European University), J.C. Hurewitz (Columbia University), Guenter Lewy (University of Massachusetts), Justin McCarthy (University of Louisville), Stanford Shaw (retired UCLA Professor)...
:Did you read the work of any of those people? Roderic Davison can not be really qualified as someone denying the Armenian genocide, I know Lewy suggest this, but here too he twist things up. While Davison is one of those having signed the advertisement and has recieved ARIT grants(Turkish government founded), in his cases it is very difficult to say who's position he maintains. Read for instance 'The Armenian crises 1912-1914,' we really don't know where he stand. Lewy should go there, but it should also be added that he denies that the Gypsies faced genocide in second World War, he denied that American Indians faced genocide, and has even gone as far as to say what they faced wasn't criminal, and finally was one of those few accademics who loadly denied US war crimes in Vietnam. Hurewitz recieved at least 10 ITS grants according to the list, and doesn't have much of anything published particularly about the event. Shaw has been accused of plagiating his major work on a Turkish scholar. Bernard Lewis before the introduction in his departement of the Ottoman history chairs, wrote in his major work 'Armenian Holocaust' before doing a 180 degree turn. Sure, they should be included, but Davison definitly doesn't go there as it is difficult to classify him, about Lewy, his previous position should also be mentioned. Of course, they all should be added, afteral it is not like there are hundreds, it is acceptable when a position is a minority the name of its supporters could be mentioned. Fad (ix) 02:42, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And how am I twisting the facts? Has Lewy not denied pratically all other genocides beside the Holocaust? He is on the restrictive list of those that still believe that the Holocaust is the only event that really qualify as genocide. This is relevent to the article, since the article is about a genocide. Lewis mention should also indicate that in his major book he uses the term 'Armenian Holocaust' before changing his opinion. Those are not twisting, those are not POV, I haven't writen Lewis book, he wrote it. Also the controversy about Shaw major book being a plagiate is also relevent. Fad (ix) 17:42, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

text: No, adding the names from the declaration is not valide, because an important part of those there don't even deny the Armenian genocide, many have confirmed. And most of them have no publication about the issue in which they take any stance. The declaration goal was that research was needed about the issue and that archives should be opened. ATAA later has used it as a list of scholars who deny the genocide, when many were disturbed to learn that this declaration was to be published. Fad (ix) 17:42, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

text: You are a funny one. Search google book the term 'Armenian genocide' and 'Armenian massacre' search oxford journals databases, search Jstor databases etc. and compare those with the little fringe in the West who denies the Armenian genocide. The list is so exostive that I won't start giving names. There has been at least two petitions published as well. Fad (ix) 17:42, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hey Fadix, your sidekick THOTH was salivating on a controversial documentary piece by Goldberg on the so called genocide. What he failed to mention was that most of the funding came form private Armenians and Armenian related organizations. Another big farce just like most of the pro Armenian scholars Lutherian 18:38, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What I do of my money is my business, fund raising isen't an issue here, getting financed by a government is. But besides, I am not much requesting this to be included in the article. What should be included though is that Lewy also denies the Gypsies genocide, the American Indian genocide as well as the war crime against the Vietnamese. Those are relevent. Fad (ix) 19:10, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

text:  No one who would term the Armenian Genocide as "so-called" has any business what so ever editing or really even being involved in this discussion. There is nothing "so-called" about it (and we have been over this a great many times before) - not only does it clearly meet every qualification for being considered as a genocide - but it is well documented that Ralph Lemkin - the inventer of the word - specifically has created the word to describe specifically what occured to the Armenians - as no such word existed before. He used the Armenian case as the pre-eminent example of such a thing as genocide. So considering this and considering that it meets each and every definition of such - UN, scholarly, and pretty much any other - there is and should be no question concerning categorization of these events as genocide - and the title of the article is consistent with the internationaly acceptance of such usage. Ther eis no debate - there is no argument - unless of course one would say that there is a debate whether or not the Holocaust occured - and bestow legitimacy on those who deny this genocide as well...other then this it is a non-issue or perhaps a "so-called" issue --THOTH 22:33, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Checkuser has already shown that Lutherian is the multiple IP user. But he has my respect when at least he sign with a login. He do have the right to call it 'so-called.' Fad (ix) 22:55, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Certainly he has every right to believe in and speak about any fiction he so desires - with his buddies while playing backgammon and smoking his hooka at some sidewalk cafe along the Bosophorus...however we have more important things to concern ourselves with then responding to the tantrums of 5 year olds or their equivilant. I guess I have every right to go on an Astronomy page concerning the moon and claim that it is made of cheese or go on a geography page and claim that the earth is flat...or to contest that Hitler and his cronies killed 6 million Jews - I'm sure you would agree eh? --THOTH 01:56, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Well it's forbidden and even legally punishable to oppose the genocide in switzerland, I heard they're discussing similar thing in france.  So in the near future that "little fringe in the West" opposing the "so exostive" list will be even smaller :)  --Gokhan 17:57, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: From what I understand, the Armenian Genocide itself is not a subject of such laws. They only cover Holocaust denial. If the Armenian Genocide is ruled to apply to this, that is because the courts deem it falls within the perameters of the law - it is not because the law itself says that the Armenian Genocide cannot be denied. John Smith's 18:20, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Western Scholars opposing genocide claims 

message: I remember seeing on the PBS documentary that a contingent of Ottoman Armenians had defected to the Russian side, and Enver (rightly or wrongly) held them responsible for the defeat, should this not be highlighted as an important precursor? --A.Garnet 20:27, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, not unless someone has a reliable source that matches your recollection. A PBS documentary, given the contentious nature of the subject, isn't that. Angus McLellan  (Talk) 21:34, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps some of the more knowledgable editors can clarify this. It should definitely be included when talking about the Battle of Sarikamis. --A.Garnet 22:12, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll help you out anyway. I have a reliable source which says no such things. Huw Strachan has a six page account of the campaign in To Arms, pp. 722–729. The only Armenians mentioned by Strachan are those of Russian Armenia. And the only partisans are the Adzharis of the Çoruh valley, who suffered a great deal from Russian reprisals as a result. Angus McLellan  (Talk) 22:34, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Having re-watched the documentary, it states the Russian army consisted of an Russian Armenian division, within which there was a number of Ottoman Armenian defectors. --A.Garnet 22:48, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There definitly is something to add about that, more in the context of the fear following the defeat in Sarikamis. I will see to that. Fad (ix) 22:57, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Who talked about justifying anything? The defeat on Sarikamis is as important as the German winter defeat in the Soviet front after which the concentration camps were transformed into killing factories. Sarikamis defeat is really relevant and important. About the CUP beliefs, there are various theories about the factors, reasons and the circumtances that lead to the genocide, and the racial theory isen't much developped in notable publications. When I am talking about racial I mean not in the ethnic sense of the term but racism as it was seen in Europe. Even Dadrian in his paper on Turkish physicians implication in the genocide say that a differences with the Holocaust is that the Armenian genocide was absent of racism, since the Armenians were Turkified and many Armenian women were forcedly transfered in another group, the original theories of racism are uncompatible there. The work from a Turkish scholar I sent you, supporting the racial thesis on the genocide, while interesting is still not what most who support the thesis of genocide adhere too. I for one, don't see how a racial theory was necessary for the genocide to happen it could have helped but it doesn't provide anything not explained by the more notable thesis, the Armenians were there, they were problematic, and their presence was a major problem uncompatible with every major plans set by the Young Turk regime. There nationalisation of the economy was impossible, Armenians were controling the economy on the East. Armenians were a distinct group with a distinct language and religion and 'unturkifiable,' they were the pretext of continuous foreign intervention. They were a threat (not in the sense of attacks, but their existance in Anatolia) by their existance as being the Turks competitors for the same homeland..., those factors and many others coupled with Envers megalomanic ambitions and those amplified by the defeat in Sarikamis the Turkish autorities turned back against the Armenians and gained public support in doing so. Those are factors supported by most, racial theories on the other hand can not be presented equaly, but rather as a suggestion by some authors. But we've been already there. The point here is not what you believe being the cause of the genocide, but rather each different positions, and which position is maintained by most which should be highlined. Armenians were indeed called parasits, tuberculosis..., but thise hasn't prevented those same autorities to forcedly transfering women and dividing in the orphanged who were too young to remember (having killed the rest) and distributing them to Turkish families. Fad (ix) 04:00, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ottoman defeat against the Russians