Talk:Armenian genocide/Archive 11

message: Taking into account that the personal attacks became a norm in this talk page, I suggest that everyone posts under his/her own name not the nickname or unanimously. It is a matter of civilized communication and mutual respect. 
To the author of this article: It is sometimes wise to disregard and ignore those contributors who write under nicknames rather than their own names. Due to the offensive character of some contributors I urge you not to respond in any way to such people.
Thanks
Vahan Senekerimyan 20:51, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Communication 

message: I'm posting this to illustrate the similarities to the genocide denial from the "Turkish position" as presented in  the article currently - to that commonly espoused by Holocaust deniers. I should note that those who deny the Holocaust are not given equal space or such in the Holocaust article to espouse their hateful revisionist views...
http://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060513/NEWS02/605130365&SearchID=73244627604496
Excerpt:
BIRMINGHAM -- A Democratic candidate for attorney general denies the Holocaust occurred...
Speaking in an interview with The Associated Press, Darby said he believes no more than 140,000 Jewish people died in Europe during World War II, and most of them succumbed to typhus.
Historians say about 6 million Jews were slaughtered by the Nazis, but Darby said the figure is a false claim of the "Holocaust industry."
"I am what the propagandists call a Holocaust denier, but I do not deny mass deaths that included some Jews," Darby said. "There was no systematic extermination of Jews. There's no evidence of that at all."
--THOTH 14:42, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: yawn another misguided attempt to discredit those that reject the genocide thesis, its amazing how creative the human mind can sometimes be! Who knows what you will come up with next? Lutherian 16:36, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

text: What do you say we call it a so-called restoration - eh? I've been there recently BTW.--THOTH 03:43, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

text: The most famous is Ahmedia Nedjat? I thought Irving, Rassinier, Faurisson, Rudolf etc. were much more famous. 'Reputability' of a University might be relevant to draw a notability you suggest here if it correspond to the majority position. Not here, nor anywhere else in your edits in this talkpage have you confirmed this. Also, when you use the Turkish 'İ' in a post, or refer to such things such as the restoration of Akhtamar, one thing remains, is why have you found yourself the need to forge an identity to defend your position. Akhtamar important church as you refer, its renovation means the destruction of its historic nature. The church is full of bullet wholes, serving in the past as target for shuts or so-called treasure hunters destroying an important section. Leaving it to its own destruction and then renovating it simply means doing what has been done to the church's at Ani. Fad (ix) 00:14, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

text: No, not only Turks will have access to such knowledge, but only Turks will claim that Armenian monuments in Turkey are restorted by using Akhtamar as reference. Reread what I said, leaving a monument being destroyed and even participating on its destruction and then planing a renovation is actualy destroying it. It is like destroying an ancient wall and reconstructing it back and claiming it has the same historic value. www.virtualani.org/ provides various examples in particular on the supposed reconstructions at Ani. As for your claim that they restore Armenian monuments when they have no money to support their own museums, here is the sort of things that shows your clear biases. Reconstruction of monuments generate a lot of tourists, mostly in this cases Diasporan Armenians, besides UNESCO finance like various other international organizations such renovations, you are picturing this as if Turkey is doing Armenians a favior, when those monuments are protected under UNESCO and that Turkey must meet some requests. The destruction of monuments is considered as a cultural genocide, the Turkish representing party at Lausanne have threatned to bring Ani to the ground if they were not to obtain their requests, various irreplaceble Armenian monuments were destroyed, the army even used them as practice targets, Armenian letters were removed in carvings while Ottoman letters still remains to this day. I am talking about this, because I believe that this should definitly be included in the article, and that you are talking about how nice the Turkish government is here is the sort of things that makes me suspicious. You will see the Diasporan Armenians being very harsh with the Armenian government, you will see many supporting the Turks being very harsh with the Turkish government, but when someone start pretending how the Turkish government cares about Armenian monuments and bring back the rhetoric that it doesn't even have the money to restore its own... Fad (ix) 03:20, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

text: First of, as surprising as you might think, virtualani isen't an Armenian website, its author isen't an Armenian, which is by now widely known since he finally decided to become public starting with about last summer when he started to give lectures. The Turkish translation has been also done by a Turk, who BTW, I personaly know and is a friend of mine and who recognize the genocide. Surprising enought, all my Turkish friends online are from Turkey, none are from the West, who are more into fanatism and perverted patriotism. Here again, you assumed right away that just because a site cricised Turkey in anyway or that is contains references about the genocide, it must be an Armenian website. Again, as you see, by now, that your biases is not your love for Turkey or Turkish people (such words BTW are simply dumb, I love people on personal basis, it is actually dumb to claim hating or loving a people) but more to do with what is not, which from the beginning was the entire issue. I will quit talking about this now, but just to point that the threats about Ani from the Turkish delegation, was indeed real and taken serious by the Europeans that weren't caring because it was Armenian, but rather attempting to secure churchs. Fad (ix) 01:13, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually there is much truth in what you write here - (concerning the lack of official attention to historical treasures of Anatolia and the use of such primarily as a cash cow for certain well placed locals...oh and the destruction of individuals - be it for farm/home use or because of hunting for the legendary Armenian treasures eh) - however there can also be no denying that Turkey has undertaken a deliberate campaign at vandalism of Armenian structures as well as changing of (Armenian) place and other names and so on and so forth. Some of us understand why the Republic does so much to conceal the Armenian heritage much of its lands and obscure Armenian involvement in both Ottoman and pre-Ottoman history of the region. It is for some of the very same reasons Turks deny the Genocide - because their history - their national myth - of Turks as victims - and Turks as Turks - is all caught up and contradicted by the Genocide of the Armenians...the guilt is great...but the cost (of admission) is still obviously too high. I hope that Turks/Turkey can one day grow up - hopefully in my lifetime. I would think that more Turks would wish for this as well...--THOTH 03:26, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  hmmm funny how homogeneous Armenia is! Hardcore ethnic cleansing anyone? Lutherian 06:05, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Those who deny the Holocaust use same rational and arguments as Turks who deny the Armenian Genocide 

message: The metal group System of a Down wrote a lot of songs about the genocide, such as P.L.U.C.K., X, and Holy Mountains.  
Its not really important, just a neat tid bit.
(personal attacks removed) —Khoikhoi 19:43, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I dont see how that was a personal attack.  But, wouldn't that be freedom of speech?  Their just angry that a lot of their people were killed by the Turks.  They have a right to be angry.  Besides, wouldn't the Turks be racist for killing the Armenians?El benderson 20:14, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

text: oh no, here we go again Lutherian 08:02, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please dont patronize us, if you want info on Ottoman period Armenain demographics, I suggest you have a look at Justin McCarthy's excellent piece on "the population of Ottoman Armenians" here. There is no need to go around in circles, the magical vanishing act is just malicious propoganda! Lutherian 08:35, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A government site, and a work published by the National assembly. :) Fad (ix) 17:26, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  ok so anything that is funded by the Armenian disapora or the Armenian government from now on should be rejected Lutherian 18:12, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And what is funded by the Armenian government? What university chair is funded by an Armenian Institute? Fad (ix) 01:34, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Totally untrue, excludes the lead and the culture section, there are 2,629 words dedicated to the Turkish government position, and only 3,183 words for what is said by most historians in the West, the international community etc, and what is said to have happened. In terms of space, the Turkish government position is given much more spaces for the position about an accurence of an event than the majority position. So what you claim is totally groundless. As for System of a down, you should hear all the BS rap groups or rock groups scream about, personally system of a down is not my type, but the sort of music, if we can call that music, they sing, is the sort of antagonizing about every bit of daily life. Fad (ix) 17:26, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  well no matter which way you look at it the debate has been going on for 90 years so your logic that its the world vs TR and that this should be the basis of measure does not really hold! Lutherian 18:09, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well sorry, it is, a couple of vocal scholars can not be presented as equaly relevant. I don't build interpretations on what neutrality is. Fad (ix) 01:34, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, the opposit thesis is mostly supported by Turkey and Turkish diplomats, thosefor it is entry relevant to have that section. Besides, other than the former Turkish embassadors words, which no, isen't a forgery at all(the sources isen't even Armenian, those statments have created somehow some fury among academicians at that time so I doubt those involved there have forgotten it), I have nothing, absolutly nothing to do with those wordings, they have most probably been added after the conflict with Karabekir and Ottomanreference (same sock), since somehow I have stopped adding anything new or mostly stopped reverted POV pushing because I was really fed up with the way the article was modified by whomever without proper discussion. I will not take the blame for things which I have tried to prevent, when Francis has proposed to add back the NPOV tag and proposed changes made, we were to deal with that first, but then came full loads of newly registered POV pushers and voilà. And besides, you haven't ever used the talkpage to ever propose anything closely relevant for the improvement of the article, what you just brought above, except for one example which should stay and is not at all a forgery as you claim, the rest would have been reverted had I had the supports I was requesting from the beginning and haven't obtained. Those few days I had some things to do, but this week, certainly I will finally submit the RfAr. Fad (ix) 01:34, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  System of a Down 

message: Whoever DOES have authority to edit this article: the term "obviously false" with no textual support does not belong in Wikipedia. I highly recommend that a veteran Wikipedian clean this article up a bit, making the mode of communication a bit more intelligent and a bit less like a rant. I'm not debating how true it is, I'm just saying its presented in an ugly way, and you don't put personal opinions in an encyclopedia, do you?
:I agree, no one has control over this sort of edit wars, and this is what I expect from the RfAr I will fill. Only then, could this article be finally improved. Fad (ix) 17:27, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry but two things stick out of the paper: that the Ottoman government population census is way more likely to be accurate and therefore trustworthy given that most of the information comes before the period of conflict. Secondly he successfully argues that the bulk of the loss comes from migration and NOT massacres! Lutherian 15:08, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Nice effort and I see what you are getting at - but McCarthy's population estimates (and they are that - at best) have been shown numerous times to be highly suspect and faulty - including his various assumptions and calculations of undercounts and such which are based solely on his suppositions without basis and which have been tailored to ensure concluding that there were less Armenians in Anatolia (as a whole and in the specific towns and vilyets he focuses on) then has been commonly accepted by both the contempoary scholarly community as well as estimates made by various national intelligence agencies and governments during the time of the Genocide itself. Obviously when one looks at population - no matter what gross total number of Armenians one assumes lived in Anatolia pior to 1915 - the insignificant number remaining and the range of mortality estimates based on eyewitness accounts and other compiled data leads one easily to the conclusion that a great and near total decimation of the Armenain people occured in Anatolai in an incredibly short period of time - the likes of which have never been seen before or after this period in time. It can be argued that the Armenian Genocide might be considered as the single greatest human disaster to affect a single ethnic group as any that occured in history - certainly in the top few of any such cases. What more really needs to be said about this really....except to present how and why such a thing occured...and perhaps discuss why the descendents of the perpetrators still deny that such a thing occured so vehemently - in the face of all evidence to the contrary... --THOTH 20:30, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh so let me get this straight, the estimates of the Armenian church and the missionaries of the time were more accurate and honest than those of the Ottoman government census? Do you seriously belive this? Single greatest human disaster? Are you competing with the Jewish holocaust? Maybe we should discuss why the descendants of the so called "survivors" have so much hate for anything thats even remotely Turkish? Enough to kill like they did in the 70's and 80's? Maybe we should discuss why its a duty for every "good" Armenian to teach their children that all Turks are evil because they reject the "genocide" thesis! If you are going to argue this, at least make an honest attempt! Lutherian 05:28, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Irrelevant and innacurate points. Are all Turks POpe haters and pope attempted murderers because Mehemet Ali Acga attempted to kill the pope? Get real --THOTH 13:40, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

text:  BTW - the effect on the Armenain community/nation in Anatolia of the Armenian Genocide clearly exheeds in scope, brutality and ultimate wiping out of Armenian civilization in their native land as compared to what occured to the Jewish communities of Europe during WW2 in the Holocaust. I really wouldn't want to start an argument about which was worse - however you brought it up. It is clear that there still exist Jews and Jewish communities throughout Europe where the Holocaust occured - I know this as I know many European Jews. Outside of a very small enclave in Istanbul there are basically no Armenians left in Turkey - and none in the traditionally known "Armenian Vilyets" where Armenians lived and thrived for thousands of years. So yes an argument can certainly be made that the devistation of the Armenian Genocide to the Armenians was worse then that suffered by the Jews of Europe during the Holocaust of WW2 (even in terms of percentage of population lost...and clearly in terms of lands, property and communities stolen never to be returned and never to recieve any compensation for...). One reason for this I think is that the CUP/Turks were able to more or less complete their plan but in the case of the Nazis the Allies disrupted them from wiping out all they had intended (by decisively ending the war before the plans were complete). Additionally Anatolia (and ultimatly the Republic of Turkey) remained hostile to the Armenians after the war and limited, discouraged and prevented resetlement - in fact they actively murdered many hundreds of thousands more Armenians in the 1920s. Meanwhile Germany was subdued - the evil elements who sponsired the Holocaust were largely gathered up and many succesfully prosecuted and turned paraih as they should have been - while Turkey has acted to protect and sheild its criminals of the past for a variety of reasons. --THOTH 17:06, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Give your opinions factual support, please 

message: Hi I am new and not logged in, not Armenian or Turkish (ok I'm Lebanese-American). I see no mention of the novel published first in the USA by Micheline Aharonian Marcom: _Three Apples Fell From Heaven_ which deals with the Armenian Genocide. It won the Lannan prize in 2004 ($60,000) and was a New York Times notable book. It's searing and powerful. I just finished reading it. Told through multiple voices, including that of an infant who dies on the plain on the way to Der Al-Zur, this novel is a major literary contribution and needs to be noted in the pages.
68.122.238.238 00:19, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I heard about that book.  I cant remember where though.  Hmm...
El benderson 04:40, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Novel by Micheline Aharonian Marcom on Armenian Genocide 

message: It is simple: I do not believe and rely on any of the three sources about the population but  have to use either none of them or all of them. Using all of them I increse the probability of being closer to the truth compared to using just any single one of them. McCarthy, as one can see from his article, uses the numbers acquired during the Hamidian times. At those times, the issus of creation of the Armenian state in hand, data falsification would be a piece of cake by the Armenian Church as well as by the official Ottoman government. Under normal circumstances, with no politics involved, yes, I would put the official State statistics at the first place. As for the statistics done by the church, it may also be accurate the way it was conducted by the Christian churches in Europe at the time. But again, the Armenian church could have increased the numbers for the same reason that the official government would have decreased. One would think the neutral sources (Western) would reflect the real statistics, however, I do not give it a higer weight because first, the same political reasons, second, since they did not have a direct access to the population statistics as the government or the church did. Just the fact that the Western sources show statistics very close to that of the Armenian church, does not really give me a reason to count on it. So, averaging out the data from all the sources is in fact a reasonable thing to do given the circumstances, the lack of accurate information, and the contradictory scholarship. 
As for McCarthy alone, you have to take into account the fact that he is not the only scholar in the field, and there is quite a few professionals arguing and disagreeing with his methodology. I don't try to give any one scholar a high weight and price in order not to bias the issue. Common sense is the best tool. 
One has to face the facts first without referring to authorities. A very low population left in the newly-formed Republic of Turkey (or the modern Turkey), whereas most of the Armenian population of the Ottoman period resided in Anatolia (basically no Armenians left currently there), Istanbul, and a few other relatively big cities. What do we observe afterwards is a small population in Istanbul, and that's it. Even if I only take the data presented by McCarthy and forget about all other sources, I still get that about 42-43 % of the Armenian population perished after 1910-1912 and the vast majority of the survivors appeared outside the newly-formed Republic (deported/migrated). Now imagine that an ethnic minority lost 42-43 percent of its population during the war time, the rest being deported and migrated. Given the non-active involvement of the Armenians in the military at the time, these numbers are scary, think about it. Imagine that, for example, during the WWII Soviets lost over a 20mln people, and it happened such that one of their ethnic minorities (Chechens or Tartars, for instance) lost 42 % of their population. Wouldn't you be at least sceptical about it? 
If I now take not just McCarthy's numbers but the averaged values, then what I see is that 62-63 % of the population perished, a well more than half the population! 
Vahan Senekerimyan 08:15, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: we are not arguing the dramatic drop in the population of Armenians, ethnic cleansing occured no doubt. What is being argued is whether this constitutes an act of genocide so I dont really see what you are trying to get at here Lutherian 09:37, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Robert Melson - Holocaust survivor and genocide scholar has addressed this issue quite well and in fact distinguishes the Armenian Genocide and the Jewish Holocaust from other genocides due to the severity of the destruction of the populaces. In his book Revolution and Genocide - On the Origins of the Armenian Genocide and the Holocaust - he states in the introduction (page xv): "As in the case of the Final Solution, a regime formulated a public policy whose intent was the physical destruction of the Armenian community and its elimination from the society, culture, and politics of the Ottoman Empire. Both the Holocaust and the Armenian Genocide were the quintessential examples of total domestic genocide, what the United Nations has called "genocide-in-whole" to distinguish such instances from "genocide-in-part"." In this excellent study of the causations of genocide (and these two major genocides in particular) Melson makes an excellent case for how similar social/political revolutions in Nazi Germany and the Ottoman Empire led to enviroments where specific ethnic minorities (Jews and Armenians) were seen as being resented for recent economic and political progress and had become to be seen as "others" who could not be reconcilled with the newly established political and social orders these revolutionary parties (Nazis and CUP) were attempting to achieve. In both cases the parties pursued war (and the corresponding domestic martial law environment) that allowed them to take wisespread extreme and violent actions against percieved internal enemies without foriegn intervention to stop them. The parellels are quite striking. And Melson makes it quite clear that in each case the evidence clearly establishes that a government plan was carried out to the effect that - OK lets use your term - a total ethnic cleansing of a particular religious-minority citenzenry was concieved and executed - the results of which - in both cases - Total Domestic Genocide of the targetted groups...an "ethnic cleansing in whole" as you will. So yes - it was an ethnic cleansing all right - one that more correctly could be termed - genocide. --THOTH 21:59, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

text: your game plan is obvious, your objective is to prove that the so called genocide actually occured by facts and figures and whatever else there is out there. My point is, all this has been debated countless times not only by the likes of yourself and I but by true historians, scholars etc following the same principals of building a case and the outcome was failure. But that should be evident to you, you cite figures and you yourself admit that these figures cannot be accurate because the sources cannot be taken at face value, so then you go on to say well lets reach a compromise, something like an average between the various sources but, I am sorry, that doesnt work, what if one of the sources is so tainted that its figures are way elsewhere? Thats going to create a serious skew dont you think? Listen, all I am saying is that this approach of yours is bound to fail just like all the previous attempts because the indoctrination is complete and so there is no neutrality on either side, and thats a fact! And to answer your question about ethnic cleansing, yes, obviously you had organization to carry it out, the government had plans and gave instruction to deport Armenians from the sensitive areas, but dont think for a second that if ethnic cleansing occured this means that genocide was the next step. There is NO documented evidence that the central government gave explicit or implicit orders as such, now if you base your proof on foreign witnesses, im sorry but that just does not hold, most if not all of them held biased views on the matter for a multitude of reasons including religion and racism. Also, you mention above that 60% of the pop perished, so this is an implicit belief of yours that 60% were massacred whilst earlier you mention massacre and relocation, you are contradiciting yourself! My point is, lets not waste our breath because there is nothing here that our resident contributor Fadix has not already explored and therefore there is nothing to discuss. Lutherian 11:42, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Vahan - as Fadix often says - we need to present the various data as has been put foreward by various scholarls and analysts (you should also look at the section linked in the main article on Ottoman population that Fadix has produced). But yes I agree with what you are saying here. The bottom line - the one that the Turks - including Turks attempting to contribute here - don't want to face up to - is that such a decimating loss of population in such a short periiod of time - experienced by one community (actuly the Greeks and Assyrians experienced similar as well in places) can only be explained by accepting that there was a genocide. And considering the great deal of evidence - eyewitness - that of Turky's allies - confessions and convictions of various CUP and such - the facts and history of what occured is very clear. There is really very little of substance that is even really disputable. --THOTH 13:51, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The indoctrination is complete, hence discussion on this matter with the hope of reaching agreement is futile, thanks for once again confirming this point THOTH.Lutherian 16:17, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry to expose you to truth and reality - but yeah - your contributions here have been pretty worthless. There are certainly issues to discuss - but the outright denial that you bring here really has no place in a civil discussion or a realistic treatment of these issues. Sorry to burst your bubble. --THOTH 16:57, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please dont worry, you certainly did not burst no bubble of mine but lets get one fact straight here, there are two POVs held on this issue, and yes, sorry to dissapoint you but the genocide thesis is just that, a simple POV and nothing else! Why else has this emotionally charged debate been going on for 90 years and, more importantly, why do you bother to answer me and countless others if you believe yourself to be of a higher order with your insidious remarks that what I am saying has no place in a civil discussion? Do you have a monopoly on knowledge? It seems that its your bubble that is being burst here! Lutherian 18:55, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ha ha - and how is that. Just by claiming that the Armenian Genocide didn't happen is no better then claiming that the Holocaust didn't happen (and pretty much using the exact same rational) - the only difference being that the government of Turkey - the inheritor of the Ottoman Empire - the perpetrator of these crimes - refuses to accept/acknowledge the truth. Otherwise there is no argument. The evidence supporting the contention of genocide in this case is simply overwhelming. You have done nothing to counter such. Additionally - as has been amply demonstrated here numerous times - the word itself was coined by Lemkin in great part to describe the Armenian experience in Anatolia during 1915-16 at the hands of the Ottoman Turkish government - thus the Armenian Genocide being such is explicit in the use of the term. And one can just as easily compile a list of "scholars" who deny the Holocaust - does this mean it didn't occur? Do claims that (some/certain/several or what have you or just in general) Jews were a threat to the Third Reich and acted counter to state interests in any way invalidate what was done to them. By the way I'm waiting for your claims that the earth is flat and that the moon is made of cheese...--THOTH 21:29, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Im sorry, just because the pope or his messenger says that a genocide occured doesnt mean that it really did occur and please stop comparing the Jewish holocaust, a horrendous crime in the hands of murderous Nazis which really did happen and your alleged genocide which is nothing more than the collective bitterness from a failed attempt to carve out eastern Anatolia for Armenia. In the end, it doesnt matter much because although Turkey has only woken up now, afters years of a concerted hate campaign against them, they are in full throttle and the truth WILL be revealed in due course! Lutherian 05:02, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You have it all backwards. Just because you - and some other hyper-nationalistic Turks - say that the Armenian Genocide didn't happen doesn't mean a thing because it did happen and there is more then sufficient proof that it did - far beyond anyone just claiming that it did for some nefarious political reason (in fact it is the denial that is both nefarious, untruthful and politically motivated). Your arguments are weak and without substance and your tired (nothing new or factual) schtick is getting quite old. yawn. --THOTH 05:44, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  LOL, because I reject the thesis im now accused of being a nationalist or on the payroll of the goverment, please you are going to have to come up with something more credible than that! Its a fact that the so called genocide is a figment of your imagination and a systematic Armenian policy of denigrating and tarnishing the Turkish image for religious/racial purposes! Please put an end to your hate campaign, its a waste of time and you will never succeed Lutherian 08:29, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You must be joking...who would pay you for the crap that you come up with? Even the Turkish Government isn't so lame and naive. Pay you? Just to come here and say - "no its not true"? BTW - your position that Armenians (or anyone adherring to the factual history affirming the Armenian Genocide) is juts here to hate Turkey/Turks and tarnish the image of such and that the Armenain Genocide is just a figment of immagination...well I think these positions of yours entirely validate my claim that you are just a Turkish hyper-nationalist with nothing of substance to add to this issue. Otherwise in Wiki terms you are known as a TROLL. --THOTH 13:43, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ottoman Armenian Population discussion continued 

message: "Lutherian", hahaha! First of all, it's called "lutheran", and then you go check his profile: "calvinist at heart". What a laugh! Old Martin himself said, he'd rather go to Rome than Geneva were he forced to choose. It's like choosing the faulty nick of "sonnite" and then go lauding shi'ite imams on your page.
Efriden 19:12, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who is this geezer anyway? What a fake! 

message: For the list of countries that have recognized the genocide, could we find some sources for that? I'm thinking of Canada in particular. Though Prime Minister Harper used the term 'genocide' in the House of Commons, I dont know if that constitutes an official recognition. Does anyone have any clear information on this case or any others?
:Harper's comments are not what the article is referring to. See here  and here --MarshallBagramyan 19:41, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Countries who have recognized the genocide 

message: ...what I wrote above was a question meant to be taken seriously. Maybe "Lutherian" himself would care to comment if nobody else will? I'm not an internet troll, just someone (lutheran) completely baffled by the abovementioned discrepancies in the profile.
Efriden 11:01, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Perhaps the "ian" is a play on the "ian" of Armenian and Armenian names...meant as an insult etc. What I find more disturbing are his repeated blanket unsupportable and unfactual attempts at genocide denial - these disruptive postings are what I feel amount to trolling this page - don't you think? Regardless of what he or anyone choose to call themselves IMO it is the content of their contributions (or lack thereof) which is relevant - no? --THOTH 13:21, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Could it be that you are a retard posing as a genius because using your definition of "sockpuppet" it would also qualify PlasmaGirl 16:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes I certainly see your point...however I am not aware of any Wiki rules or guidance that applies...Sinn BTW is claimed by both the Greeks and Armenians...perhaps he was both! Don't know for sure. However like a great many Greeks and Armenians of Anatolia for a great many years they he/were fully integrated into Ottoman life. However - to the Pan-Turkic racist homocidal CUP this mattered not - it was all or nothing - Muslim/Turk or extermination...--THOTH 22:30, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  And for the record... 

message: Under the position of Turkey we find the following:
:(likewise this seems out of place to me here and perahaps should be included as some adendum to this article with more discussion and information)
Let's hide this text, shall we? Mithridates 13:18, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Understood - however the point is valid as stated. The information being refered - as stated - does not directly address the issue of the Armenian Genocide but more properly belongs within a section on recognition of Genocide or such. It is not a factual statement concerning the Genocide itself. Whether political representatives the nation of Armenia choose to accept an offer from the representatives of the nation of Turkey to form a commission to discuss the issues has no factual impact on the factuality of the Armenian Genocide itself. It does not give any credence - one way or another concerning it. To properly discuss the issues regarding such a commision - to know that the discussion would consist of unbiased or not pre-approved positions - how such a thing could be prevented from just being the political sound off platform of two opposing state positions - if composed of "scholars" appointed by each - is beyond me. Likewise I suspect that the state of Armenia sees the futility of such an effort. In any event as presented it fails to address these relevent contextual and subjective issues. Perhaps the articel should be filled with accounts of the great many instances where Turkey has just failed to own up to the great deal of scholarly evidence put foreward concerning the factuality of the Armenian Genocide and instead continues to spout discredited views that no special number of Armenians died for any special or outstanding reason or that Armenians somehow brought this tragedy upon themselves by revolting and aiding enemies during time of war or that somehow these massive deaths of Armenians were the result of local officials or populace having nothing to do with orders/direction from central authorities - all of these claims have already been proven entirely faulty and are not accepted by most all scholars and historians...yet the Government of Turkey and their paid and indoctrinated supporters continue to cling to such non-historically accurate dipictions of events - using nearly identicle arguments that Holocaust deniers use. This to me is more relvant and to the point - not weather some dubious commision is set up between two governments (particularly when Armenian President Kocharian has already publically stated that Armenia as a nation state has no substantive claims directly tied to the Genocide (beyond perhaps just recognition) --THOTH 13:36, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Let's remove this 

message: Deepblue(one might read his answer in neurobio talkpage, if there is still doubt that he is Holdwater :) ), claimed that there was no evidences that the bill was taken off because of pressures, I tried finding something which will place to rest his claim, I though that the American Journal of International Law is more than credible as a source and it does cover the dropping of the resolution, and as the president warning. Here is what it has to say.
After the resolution was approved by the House International Relations Committe, the government of Turkey warned the United States that enactment would have repercussions. Turkey indicated that it might withdraw certain defense contracts with U.S. firms, reopen ties with the government of Iraq, and withdraw its content to U.S. use of Turkey's Incirlik air base for air patrols over northern Iraq. Then the Journal cites Clinton's warning, if need be I will cite it. And continue And then Minutes before the House was to vote on the resolution, Speaker J. Dennis Hastart withdrew the resolution, citing President Clinton's warning. Thereafter, Representative Rogan lost his bid for reelection. (The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 95, No. 2  (Apr., 2001), pp. 396-397)
There is no question about why the resolution was removed contrary to what Deepblue claims, there are not only plenty of evidences about that pieces, but the government of Turkey doesn't even deny making pressures. I admit the wording were not neutral, they were after my modification in the past before someone edited them, but Deepblue removal is clearly a removal of relevant information. 
Also, Deepblue, if you want to discuss about the content of the article be my guest.
: Once again, I ask you to stop your false accusations. Stop accusing me being another user. You have no right to falsely accuse me.  You've proved over and over again that you cannot engage in a civil discussion, so I choose not to talk to you. If anyone else brings this point, I'd try to contribute to the discussion as much as possible given my schedule. Deepblue06 18:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well sorry, if you want to make any progress you are forced to talk to me. As for the accusations, you recycle everything from tallarmeniantale website, you even think alike, you present primieres from it, exactly the same misconceptions (example the Andonians). If you want to convince anyone that you can contribute to this article and bring anything new, you should once bring a claim or a reference that is not in that site. As I see, you want to bring back that site in the article, unless you change it and correct what I have reported and stop slandering everyone and delete the racistic trash, that site won't be in the article, I am sorry. Everyone can start building sites to add them in Wikipedia, there are some standards and where to cut, and here is where we cut. Now I made my point, and clearly showed that the information about the threats should not have been deleted, at least for the US, also in light of the fact that most states officially recognize it. You can ignore me, you should still answer what more than a presidents warning it would take and the reason of its removal. Fad (ix) 19:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  There he goes again, accusing others because they dont follow the party line, just like someone else said earlier, Fadix is a control freak and wants the topic all to himself. This guy is seriously deranged and dangerous. 83.78.109.4 05:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yeh, I'm on heavy medication with high doses of Haldol injections and atypical anti-psychotic. I eat babies for dinner. Fad (ix) 06:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  whatever man, the majority of contributors here (including those that side with you) agree that you are a megalomaniac and that you probably suffer from a severe case of OCD. The problem with you is that you are dishonest, lack integrity and have an ego big enough to eclipse the sun for the rest of this century. Your contributions amount to nothing except maybe alot of nuisance. 83.78.109.4 06:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Speak for yourselves; all your contributions have added little next to nothing and your presence here has only been detriment to the article. It'll be helpful if all of you unveil your masks and admit that you all have an agenda and a biased view towards the article (just as any Armenian does, the exception is that we do not pretend we don't); namely you want this want article named the Armenian "massacres" or "relocations". Drop the charade. We've been honest since the ball got rolling on this article, don't play these childish games.--MarshallBagramyan 06:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You've been honest? you're only kiddin yourself, its plain to see that this topic is heading for the trash heap because of its subjective nature. You guys have succeeded in spreading your propaganda material around the world but your sorry attempts are bound to fail here where all voices have a chance to be heard. And your malicious intent is clearly evident in your pathetic attempts to whitewash a gang of vile murderers: the Armenian legion. 83.78.109.4 06:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Just where were the "Armenian Legion" stationed in WWI and what were their relevant actions? I don't see that you or your doubles have contributed anything here except for ad hominem attacks and baseless allegations. You are (a) genocide denier(s) and the (basic and relevant facts of the) Armenian Genocide is/are more then proven. Just because you don't like some resarcher's hair style is no basis for a proper critique. Likewise - just by saying that every eyewitness is biased against Turks and such - well that just doesn't cut it. Your contributions here have been less then zero...they are well into the negatives in every respect. It is quite laughable that you have the gaul to accuse Fadix of not substantially contributing here. Whatever are his flaws - your accusations are groundless - just as are your assertations regarding the content of this article. Additionally your tone and manner are offensive and your empty words are meaningless and irrelevant.--THOTH 13:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  My "empty" words are irrelevant? meaningless? If so why do you bother to answer? Your really making a fool out of yourself. 85.0.90.46 15:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

text: The anon is the banned troll Lutherian.--Eupator 15:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The turd is back, we missed you85.0.90.46 16:11, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Did you mean to say "turk"? ...anouncing yourself now? Wouldn't it be easier to just add a signature? ...easier still to not bother posting "empty, irrelevent, meaningless" and I shall add "undeniably base and utterly worthless" commentary at all...do yourself and us all a favor...learn some manners and wipe the spittle off your chin. --THOTH 17:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually in your case I think the right word is dork. 85.0.88.184 04:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Back to the article, and the claim of redrawing the Armenian bill because of threats 

message: For instance this bit -
"The single event that started the chain is most likely the Russian victory over the Ottoman Empire in the War of 1877-78. At the end of this war the Russians took control over a large part of Armenian territory (including the city of Kars). The Russians claimed they were the supporters of Christians within the Ottoman Empire and now they were clearly militarily superior to the Ottomans. The weakening control of the Ottoman government over its empire in the following 15 years led many Armenians to believe that they could gain independence from them."
This statement includes many patently false and unsupported statements. Scholars who debate the factors that led to conditions in the Ottoman Empire and among the Ottoman leadership that led the Turks to contemplate and eventually carry out genocide against the Armenian population of the empire (and their animosity towards Armenians and exclusions of Armenians [and other Christians] from their concept of the Ottoman/Turkish nation) introduce a number of factors which precipitated the situation and Russian interest in Ottoman territory and its concern over the depredations being experienced by the Armenians at the hands of the Ottoman Sultan and Kurdish chieftains is only one of a number of factors that influenced the attitudes of Ottoman and Young Turks elites and Muslims of the Empire to turn on the Armenians. Scholars do acknowledge that the Ottoman/Turkish elites had grave concerns that Armenians - as another (Christian) self-aware minority might seek independence from the Empire as the Greeks, Bulgarians, Serbians and others had done (with foreign [primarily though not exclusively] Russian support) and they also [rightly] distrusted Russian [and other Western powers'] designs on territories and resources of the Empire. However, these factors alone cannot be said to be  "The single event that started the chain" for a number of reasons. First of all the Young Turk/Committee of Union and Progress (CUP) party did not come to power until 1908 and the radical wing (led by Enver, Talaat and Jemal - the acknowledged architects of the Armenian Genocide - did not seize all the mechanisms of government (and the ability to fully impose their will on the affairs of state) until around 1911/12 (for instance the influential Pan-Turkist ideologue Zia Golkap joined the CUP central committee in 1911 and foreign intelligence reports of the central committee meetings of the CUP party congress of that year mention discussions of policies of “ethnic cleansing” [expulsion and killing of] of Christian minorities). They (the Pan-Turkic element of the CUP) were entirely non-factors before this time. While (it is understood by scholars that) the Sultan and the traditional Ottoman elite did employ large massacres, violence and terror against Armenian populations beginning in this period (latter half of the 19th century) it is generally agreed among scholars studying this period that the object of these measures was suppression of Armenian political aspirations (within the Ottoman Empire - for reform and greater rights and status) and not (what we would consider to be) genocide or elimination of the Armenian population. Scholars point out that nearly all of these massacres came directly on the heals of (foreign imposed) Armenian reforms and the thinking is that the object of the massacres were to essentially remind the Armenians of their place to discourage them from further efforts to attain greater rights and power within the Empire. 
Scholars discuss a great variety of factors which led to the genocidal situation and all of these must be introduced into the article for a proper understanding of the situation within the Ottoman Empire at the time which influenced events and attitudes among (those who came to be) the rulers of the Empire and among the majority Muslim population. Scholars such as Robert Melson, Stephan Astourian, Tanar Ackam and others consider the Armenian Genocide to be a result of the radicalization of the CUP revolution which sought to re-align the Ottoman Empire from a multi-national/multi-cultural one to one of a single identity - that of the Muslim Turk. These (and other) Scholars point out how Turkish national identity (and ideological racist views based on such) formed in response to Ottoman losses of territory and (non-Turkish) population and that the response was development of a type of a religious-racial backlash where Turkism (and elimination of non-Turkish elements) was ultimately thought to be the solution to the problems of the (crumbling) Empire. These new thinking Turks saw nationalism as the underpinnings of the modern nation-state and this excluded the concept of a multi-ethnic polity. Combined with and influencing this was a backlash against the Armenians and other Christians who were experiencing a cultural, political and economic renaissance which came to be resented by both the Turkish and Ottoman elite and by much of the Muslim/Turkish population of the Empire who were determined to maintain political hegemony and looked with a jealous eye towards Christian economic successes. These factors, combined rising anti-Christian feeling that intensified with the influx of (Balkan and Caucasian) Muslim refugees from outlying provinces (particularly from late 1908 onward) who had either fled or were expelled from these areas by various Christian ethnicities (once they freed themselves from Ottoman domination/control) are all thought to have influenced the rising negativity and resentment towards Armenians and other Christians of the Empire. The CUP party - as it came to be transformed through phases of the (Young) Turkish revolution became increasingly radicalized and negative towards the remaining Christian minorities - and saw them as preventing their desired homogination of the Empire along Muslim/Turkish (and eventually Pan-Turkic) lines (as pan-Islamic concepts fell by the wayside after the Albanian succession of 1911 and Pan-Turkism became ascendant - where Muslim identify was only used to increase the "us versus them" perspective to enable the Turks to include Kurds and other (Balkan and Caucasian) Muslims within their framework where later they were essentially "Turkified" etc. 
So in summary - the accepted factors which led to the Armenian Genocide include: ascendancy of Pan-Turkic racial (incl political and economic) identity which excluded the idea that the Empire's Christians could be absorbed/included in such (this included the rejection of power sharing and such), the perception that Christian non-ethnic minorities of the Empire posed a (at least potential) threat that needed to be dealt with for the nation to survive (under Turkish hegemony), and the concern that Western Government (incl Russia) might use the presence of the Armenians to force an eventual partitioning of what remained of the Empire. In fact scholars clearly show that the CUP was influenced not only by the concern of the Empire crumbling but by the Pan-Turkic concepts of eventual re-expansion. These ideas became factors for both Ottoman entry  into WWI in the first place and is witnessed by Enver's immediate attempts to secure the Caucuses at the start of the war as well as by the intense efforts on the part of the para-military Special Organization to stir up Muslims and Turkic peoples under Russian control their and even further East even prior to the war and scholars generally agree that these pan-Turkic concepts were a major factor in "othering" the Armenians and other Christians from the Empire and seeking their elimination. 
Likewise - the Turkish claim of provocation by Armenians - that there was any substantial resistance, collusion with enemies or uprising by Ottoman Armenians against the state has been completely disproven by contemporary scholars as well as by numerous statements of eyewitnesses - including most prominently those of Turkey's allies - the Germans and Austrians - in confidential dispatches and reports made at the time.
Lastly I want to address this claim of "The weakening control of the Ottoman government over its empire in the following 15 years led many Armenians to believe that they could gain independence from them." This is a patently false statement. At no time was there any majority Armenian political view during this period which sought or advocated independence from the Ottoman Empire. Clearly Armenians sought political reform. But even groups such as the Dashnaks were actively working with the CUP in the years prior to WWI and the Genocide to achieve a more modern inclusive political situation within the Empire. This is proven by the factual record. Sure there were some minority Armenian rabble rousers who dreamed of independence and even - for a time - acted - sometimes violently towards achieving these ends - but this was never a majority position - even among most of the active Armenian political parties of the time. After the war - of course - the Ottoman government had proven itself unable to govern (its ethnic minorities) - as witnessed by the mass slaughter of them. Thus Wilson's 14 points and the Treaty of Sevres (that was signed by the Ottoman government BTW) established an Armenian state in Anatolia (and rightly so). Of course the Turkish Nationalists resisted this fiercely and fought to ensure Turkish control of these areas and through military, political and economic means eventually caused the victorious Allies to abandon seeking justice for the victimized Armenians - but that is the topic for another article perhaps. 
Note - I also believe that the introduction to the article must reference the fact that the Armenian Genocide meets all the criteria for genocide and that this is established by scholarly, UN and other findings and that the Turkish counter claims are substantially rejected and disproven among the vast majority of scholars and by the findings of the various UN and other commissions. Lemkin's motivation for devising and application of the word "genocide" in the Armenian case must also be referenced --THOTH 14:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No such thing as false and true in here, only positions. I agree that the first sentence isen't neutral, "The weakening control of the Ottoman government over its empire in the following 15 years led many Armenians to believe that they could gain independence from them" too is not neutral, but that section could be neutralise at least with words such as 'according to' (citing the author), Davison here could be cited, as he covers the Armenian situation (irronically Davison has been placed in the list of 'denialist' by Deepblue06) and their aspiration in his work covering the Armenian crises (1912-1914) prior to the war. This work is really a must read. BTW, the rest of what you write is POV and at this point irrelevent. Fad (ix) 15:12, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  POV? Yes by a great deal - if not most - scholars of this subject. Just because you personally reject Pan-Turkism as a motivator does not make your views the official ones. And emphasis should be placed on prevailing views. The statement "The weakening control of the Ottoman government over its empire in the following 15 years led many Armenians to believe that they could gain independence from them" is neither a prevailing (or correct) view - and neither is it central to a presentation of the Armenian Genocide - particularly not in an introductory paragraph. How does this statement add to the understanding of the process and enactment of the Armenian Genocide? Abd BTW - I am more then tired of you disparaging my contributions each and every time - because they do not always agree with your own views. You are not the arbitrator of content in this articel even though you obviously think that you are. --THOTH 15:48, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

text:  There are a great many scholars – I could practically say nearly every scholar – of this era – points to the goal and effort by the CUP during this period of “Turkifying” the Empire through elimination of Christian minorities –including the Armenians. Even Dadrian – who is normally more concerned with the process of the Genocide and accountability (and not the rational for such) references these motivations. Beginning on page 179 of his The History of the Armenian Genocide he references the 1908 “revolution” of the Young Turks and discusses their radicalization. Quoting J Marriott from The Eastern Question – a Historical Study in European Diplomacy he states – “The Young Turk revolution…was in fact a last effort of the Moslem minority (sic) to retain its ascendancy in the face of growing resistance on the part of subject races and impending European intervention. The revival of the constitution was little more then an ingenious device for appeasing Liberal sentiment abroad while furnishing a pretext for the abrogation of the historic rights of the Christian nationalities at home.”  (This is a reference for CUP elimination of the millyet system where minorities had a degree of self government within the Ottoman system). Dadrian further states that “ the 1910 annual Ittihadist Congress at Saloniki, the secret discussions…revolved around the plan for the coercive homogenization of Turkey” He further expounds on this by quoting a number of foreign and Turkish sources – contemporary and more recent (including statements from Talaat and Golkap) that further outline the racial element of the CUP thinking and their plans to “employ force, violence…and massacres…for the resolution of nationality conflicts” and Talaat’s use of the word “liquidation” and Golkap’s statements in his publication “The Two Mistakes of the Tanzimat” equating nationality conflicts with “statuatory public laws equating Muslims with non-Muslims” claiming “Islam mandates domination” and then Dadrian quotes your man Davison that the Ittihad “soon turned from equality and Ottomanization to Turkification” So even Dadrian – not to mention a host of other prominent Genocide scholars and historians  – explains the move to genocide – in great part – due to racist efforts to achieve Turkification. This view cannot be labeled and passed off strictly as POV just because you happen to hold to different (and also valid but not exclusively so) views of the motivation and impetus for the Armenian Genocide.--THOTH 16:24, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I would agree with Fadix on this one, you seem to hold a very POV position on this topic and there is a contradiction when you state that the CUP aimed for racial purity rather than diversity. They didnt need to hold this position considering that all minorities including Armenians were aiming towards nationalism/independance during that period. JorgChire 17:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not my POV - but that of Genocide scholars and historians. While there was certainly growing nationalism among Armenians beginning in the late 19th century there was no major move to independence prior to the end of WWI - after the Genocide. Your contention is unsupportable and conflicts with scholarly thought/evidence. And your position concerning countering CUP racialism is unsupported as well - and is obviously your POV - you say "they didn't need" to hold this view...that is your opinion and unfortunatly it is not based on evidence. There is overwhelming evidence supporting the fact that they held these views...ever read any Tanar Ackam? --THOTH 18:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Thoth, don't take this badly, but until you work on a proposition in your userspace, neutralise it, I will ignore those long posts. One thing that you still fail to understand. It doesn't matter if it is your POV or most scholars POV, a POV is a POV. When someone reads the article he/she should not feal that someone is giving his opinion. This is the NPOV way 'professor X alleges that blablabla..., but professeur Y claims that blablabla...' Fad (ix) 22:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You are sounding like coolcat now...and you chose to ignore my long posts (the evidence/backing for relevent information pertinetn to the article when you first claimed that this was just my POV...) because you believe differently and this rational is an excuse - and not good enough. Again you don't contrl the article...and in fact I have great problems with the current state of the article that I largely blame you for. Certainly I believe in laying out all legitimate perspectives...in this case however I believe that the first hand evidence/documentation of the stated positions of these (and other) scholars speaks for itself. Are you claiming that the CUP leadership during this period was not Pan-Turkist? That they did not act against the Armenians for the reasons that have been given? That such events and ideology played no factor? I think that quite a few (most all) scholars of the Armenian Genocide as well as historians of this period would seriously disagree with you. I contend that you are pushing a minority POV in this case because it conforms to your particular a priori view. --THOTH 03:53, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

text: BTW Armenian MFA Vartan Oskanian declared that Armenian Genocide amounted to the most extreme form of racism in an address made at the World Conference Against Racism on 31 August 2001 - excerpt follows - "The ultimate culmination of such racist persecution, in the case of the Armenians, was genocide...Armenia and Armenians have become aware of the profound linkage that exists between the ultimate expression of racism, which is genocide, and the right of a people to self-determination. These two seemingly different phenomena are fundamentally connected.... It is this instinct of a people to secure its own physical, cultural and collective survival, that is often used as the justification for the ultimate form of repression: the active, concerted, planned action for the physical annihilation of that people: Genocide...Armenians were subjected to the genocide perpetrated by Ottoman Turkey in 1915, because they had wanted to be free from harassment, arbitrary rule, denial of rights and physical threats. They had, in fact, dared to declare themselves deserving of protection, security and freedom. They were, therefore, punished, persecuted and driven to annihilation as disloyal troublemakers. Still today, the Armenian genocide is being dismissed by some, as nothing more than the justifiable, understandable, larger scale massacre of rebels and renegades...Today we have reached a critical point in our attempts to free the world from all forms of racism and racial discrimination, and to ensure that the fate, which binds us, is hopeful and promising. This conference has the unique capacity to lay down a solid framework for new partnerships between States and civil societies stressing the growing importance of combatting traditional forms of racism as well as its contemporary manifestations."--THOTH 06:40, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

text:  And here - a confirmation of the role of CUP racist nationalism with the goal of Turkification from a Turkish historian (other then Ackam) Halil Berktay - from a November 12, 2005 interview: "It was clear that the Armenians of the Ottoman Empire were rounded up, socially deracinated and deported, and, therefore, in the process, comprehensively uprooted and dispossessed, for no other reason than that they were Armenians. ...by 1912-13, and especially after the traumatic Balkan wars, the unionist leadership had already acquired a comprehensive ethnic cleansing mentality. They had arrived at the crystallization of their own version of Social Darwinistic, violent, anxious, and, therefore, malicious and malevolent unionist nationalism. That is to say, it was their ideology that was telling them “we cannot have a patriotic self defense unless and until we have an Anatolia that has been comprehensively Turkified. That is to say, they had acquired a nationalist ideological perspective of regarding all non-Turks as suspect, hostile elements. It was this ideology that led to the tehcir and the accompanying orders. That is why it is a mediated cause and effect relationship, and what one can say about nationalist revolutionary activity and the intervention of great powers is that they heavily and strongly contributed to the anxious and fearful defensive and therefore bristling kind of Turkish nationalist and ethnic cleansing mentality. It was this ideology, in turn, which lead to the horrors of 1915."--THOTH 07:02, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  After reading a sample of your contributions I get the impression you don't appreciate/like Turks (both present and past) very much and I find that very sad. Im not saying they were angels but to single them out like you and to isolate the sufferings of a single community seems disrespectful of the others. I think this was a period in which many people suffered tremendously. I also don't understand what you are trying to get at with your copypastes I think it would be more constructive and less cumbersome if you just provided the links JorgChire 10:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  What is the basis of this contention of yours? (It is false BTW). I am posting concering historicl facts. It has nothing to do with being disrespectful of anyone (though I could easily argue that denying genocide is extremely disrespectful). You claim that many people suffered tremendously during this period. OK - I suggest you work to edit articles on WWI and on the CUP/Young Turks revolution and/or the downfall of the Ottoman Empire where this information is perhaps more appropriate. What is appropriate in an article concerning the Armenian Genocide are facts and scholarly views concerning such. I find your contentions in this case - that I am merely concerning singling out communities which suffered to be quite disingenuous (again this article is about the Armenians Genocide - though I suppose you may have a point - becuase the massacres/genocides of Assyrians and Anatolian Greeks commited by the CUP/Ottoman Turks during this very same period are very directly related to the Armenains Genocide and stem from the very same attitudes, objectives and actions on the part of the very same perpetrators...perhaps a point to consider - eh?). Also I am not just copy pasting but forming positions which should be reflected in the article. When I did this entirely in my own words at the beginning of this section I was attacked by you and another for mearly providing an unsupported POV. So I provided support. Much of this material BTW I did not aquire from the internet but from books and papers that I have - thus these entries were fat fingered in and I don't have links. Furthermore - even for items that exist on the internet they are often much longer with a wider coverage of issues then the points I am addressing - thus I have extracted what I believe are the relevent sections to support my points of centention. So some thought went behind them (and I also present them with some commentary) - not just cut and paste. If you can't understand what I am trying to get at with these posts then I suggest you might not be capable of properly comprhending the facts and issues of the Armenian Genocide and perhaps you might do better contributing to an article about Brittney Spears or Fennerbache or some such.--THOTH 19:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverted Article is filled with many factual errors and false and unsupported statements 

message: According to a reuters article here so I dont understand Fadix's modification suggesting that the Armenians would agree to the offer on condition of improving relations. Could you please comment Fadix? JorgChire 17:32, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Look, this is documented both by the president's official letter to Turkey and the prior Turkish newspapers reporting about that letter(See Zaman Thursday 25, 2005) and Erdogan answer to that letter. As reported in Turkish newspapers(which at first reported correctly the incidence), and I have provided one example here, the president agreed that with good relations between both states commissions could be created about every issues and that the key is compromising. But Erdogan answered as reported in Zaman by claiming that their arguments are based on documents and they will prove it, clearly showing that the commission was supposed to set up not for discussion but to sell their thesis and this as an answer to Armenia's readiness to compromise but Turkey's refusal to do so. This followed Armenia's emited statment that it was already decided by historians. We do not rely on a newspapers allegations when we have official letters from the concerned parties about whatever or not they refuse something. And keep in mind that I think it was Bertkay that said that the commission wasn't sincere and was proposed to sell a position, and once Erdogan said it was about, Armenia replied in kind. As of now yet Israel hasn't accepted the supposed Iranian commission, I don't see this highlined in the Holocaust article. I hardly see what we will achieve by presenting any news incidences such as this. Do you see any encyclopedia that does that? To claim Armenia refused when its president wrote a letter to the contrary is totally misleading. Fad (ix) 19:27, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  well AFAIK Iran did not participate either directly or indirectly in the Jewish holocaust so you cant draw parallels here. You say that you dont see the point in including this information but I think the objective here is to show the hardline stance and the unwillingness of the Armenians to find a way out of this deadlock. JorgChire 04:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Turkey's offer to set up a commission was outright rejected 

message: Orhan Pamuk section -if it's going to stay- needs to move to some other place. Currently it's under the academic view subsection. But Orhan Pamuk is not an academic, especially not a historian. He's a novelist or at best an intellectual. Deepblue06 18:38, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually it properly belongs in a section on Turkish denial as what is more important then what he said is that he was prosecuted in Turkey for saying it. He also deserves mention in a section that covers changing attitudes within Turkey/among Turks where there has been increasing awareness and acceptance among (many) Turks concerning the truth of the Genocide - particularly within intelectual circles... --THOTH 18:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry but if you watched the BBC interview Mr. Pamuk clearly points out that his objective in the row was to highlight freedom of speech issues in Turkey and not the massacre of Armenians. In other words he just used the Armenian issue as bait to make a point. JorgChire 05:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Obviously you have chosen a very narrow view. Have you read Snow? etc --THOTH 06:14, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  yes I have, a fascinating read indeed. Still you cant ignore his own words in the interview he made clear the issue was freedom of speech in TR. JorgChire 06:33, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Your Point? Pamuk is concerned about (lack of) Freedom of speech in Turkey...AND that no one but he is talking about the massacres of a million Armenians and 30,000 Kurds - these are the word he said which are quoted...which i contend - makes them at least as relevent as secondary explanations for one - could be of several - possible reasons for him stating such a thing. Are you contending that he could have just as easily been talking about starving dogs in Adana and that he would have been prosocuted for being disrespectful of city officials? If you fail to understand the reasons why he made that statement and why it elicits such a backlash in Turkey -  --THOTH 20:14, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't understand why you have to insult me this way, there is absolutely nothing offensive in anything I said, I am just questioning certain things or maybe I should not be allowed to do so and we should just keep quiet and listen to your fiery rethoric? JorgChire 04:20, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You have first accused me (in a section above) of hating Turks - with no basis for such a comment - I consider such a charge an insult and a personal attack against me. Furthermore it is quite clear where you are commming from with your attempts to deny and minimize the Armenian Genocide and your tactics are apparent as well. I also find this insulting. People who deny the obvious and the proven have no business being involved in discussions concerning factual issues related to such and would be better off spending their time on less serious issues. --THOTH 13:19, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't think your read my comment above carefully. I said that from reading the stuff you post on this talk page, I get the impression that you don't like Turks. An impression is not an accusation. I wish to appraoch this subject which I take very seriously with an open mind and discuss it with others that also approach it in the same way. In any case I did not mean to offend you so maybe its better we leave it at that. JorgChire 16:48, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Perhaps...would have to see it I guess (however if the "Turkey's public" position is not substansially different then the government view I'm not so sure that it adds anything. - beyond a statement that most Turks subscribe to the Government position (if this is true...have their been any polls? ...don't know...) What is really more important and interesting is that an increasing number of Turks (academic, public figures or therwise) are expressing themselves contrary to the official Turkish government line. I do aggree though - things like the mandates of the Turkish public educational system which advocates denial of the genocide and forces all students to write on this - with this one view - should be highlighted in the article...etc  --THOTH 18:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orhan Pamuk 

message: In case, there is any ambiguity about the position of Gilles Veinstein:
" ...
But the last point, crucial, of the debate, by the legal and political implications, is to know if massacres against the Armenians were committed on order of the government Young-Turks, if transfers were only a bait for a systematic campaign of extermination, implemented according to different, but decided, planned modalities, remote-controlled at government level, or if Young-Turks were only guilty of having carelessly started movements which ended in bloodbaths. The simple fact of asking this question can seem absurd and scandalous. It is true that state implication is a preliminary of the full application of the word genocide to the Armenian tragedy, such as it was forged in 1944 and defined by the lawsuit of Nuremberg and the 1948 United Nations convention.  
It is necessary nevertheless to admit that we do not have, as yet, proof of this governmental implication. Documents produced by the Armenians, Talaat Pasha’s orders, Interior secretary, and other higher Ottoman officials ordering explicitly the massacre of the people, the women, and the Armenian children, referred to as ’Andonian documents’, derived from the name of the author were only fakes, as the historic criticism doubtlessly proved afterward. We find in the indictment of the court martial charged to judge the members of the government.
...
For lack of conclusive evidence, the historians defenders of Armenian theses advance several contemporary testimonies, emanating from survivors, from diplomats and from foreign missionaries of different previous origins. They are far from being unimportant and are even in the best irreplaceable cases. For all that, every rigorous historian knows the limits of a testimony - all the more susceptible to express a point of view ’engaged’ in a context of generalized conflict. ...  "
From L'Histoire, n°187 of April, 1995  (translation) Deepblue06 23:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Interestingly enough, nothing resembling Veinstein's article appears when I open www.histoire.presse.fr/product_anciens.asp?Sku=187 . No clickable links either. How strange is that ? Angus McLellan  (Talk) 00:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Angus, the man indeed wrote denying the Armenian genocide, there has been a chair of Turkish studies specifically build for him. He is the Justin McCarthy of Europe, there are works which he has published that I can cite and in which he says about the same things as McCarthy. He should stay, but Roads must go, unless he can cite any works published by him. I have found nothing. Fad (ix) 00:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hurewitz must go too, I have not found anything directed on the subject, except a review of a work heavily covering the Armenian genocide and documenting it with German record. In his review of the authoritative work of Ulrich Trumpener 'Germany and the Ottoman Empire, 1914-1918' Hurewitz write "...German failure to moderate the brutal Ottoman policies on the Armenians...(the rest of this sentence is only citation of other events he qualify as being well worked by the author) are examined on the whole with mature judgement and convincing argument." He find fait the coverage of the book about the Armenians, while that coverage provides evidences of state sponsered dustruction of the Armenians and the Germans attempt to stop it. I fail to see how someone who call Trumpener judgement as mature and with convincing argument as someone who question the genocide. Here too, we need a work writen by the author to confirm he should be on the list. (for the quote about the Armenians see: The American Historical Review,  Vol. 75, No. 3  (Feb., 1970) p. 822). Fad (ix) 01:14, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  See the discussion above  Deepblue06 01:18, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would think that a text written by his fingers is actually much more worthy of being included than a declaration which we are in doubt about on whom might be those severals whom retract. We must be clear about ones positions. I don't think there are any academics involved in writting any encyclopedias who would rather use a declaration signed and from which many have retracted later, they will rather rely on something the author wrote. Anyone who praises Trumpener coverage of the Armenian question can in no way be considered as someone who question the evidences. I propose you to read that work and you will see by yourself. When Hilmar Kaiser accused Dadrian in bringing nothing really new when writting his work about German complicity, it was one of the prime works(which was in the list of Dadrians bibliography and used to pick what archive to choose from Centralarchiv at Bonn) which was considered which Dadrian the material he recycled. Having yourself criticised Dadrian and cited Hilmar Kaiser, I don't see how you still would ask an evidences when the author in question which is in the list happens to praise one of the golden work of German referrences documenting the destruction of the Armenians. Now the question is. What would we choose, his written work, or a declaration from which you don't know who retracted and who are those several scholars who recognize it. So for you to confirm, you must have this confirmation from Israel Charny. It is up to you. Fad (ix) 01:31, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  If you can -indeed- provide a reference to a work by Hurewitz accepting the genocidial nature of Armenian claims then I would not object to removing his name.  But I doubt that you can provide such a reference because Professor Lewy says that Professor Hurewitz rejects the appropriateness of the genocide label.  Deepblue06 02:10, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't do it, I have provided -his own words- in which he discribes as mature judgement and convincing argument one of the most authoritative German archival research work containing a large section on the documentation of the Armenian genocide. Lewy recycle it from the list for all we know. I don't remember he cite Hurewitz in his book in connection of the appopriatness of the word genocide. I might have suffered of amnesia, here you can help me. Lewy after his interview given in a Turkish newspaper, which could be considered as prejudicial and even reach racism and maintain exactly the same language as Zundel in one of his speech which placed him in trouble here in Canada. I'd rather take the one who is concerned words as granted than an author who has been accused of fabrication by some in regards to the commission concerning the Marines or accused to rewrite the history of the Vietnam war by denying the crimes (see Marilyn Young, Vietnam Rewrite, Bulletin of Concerned Asian Scholars, Vol. 10, 1978, in which work Lewy is concerned), who also happens to dismiss the evidences on the destruction of American Indians and even goes as far as claiming it wasn't a crime(this same claim he maintains for what went in Vietnam), or that the Gypsies according to him were not victim of genocide under NAZI Germany. Lewy is a concerned party, you can not use someone on your list to confirm nor 'infirm' someone on your list, this sort of circular logic is far from being encyclopedic, either we are able to cite relevent works written by those concerned either we exclude them. I repeat, if the words of a president warning that a bill should be redrawn because of threats from Turkey are not enought, if the redrawel of this bill under the same arguments are not enought, and that the words from a translator from the central intelligence is not enought neither, so as what is in a list which we are in doubt as to whom retracted. Or either it should clearly be specified that this is according to a list which was prepared to redraw a bill and that according to a paper from Israel Charny, several of those who signed it retracted and were not aware that this will be made public. If you have an intention to improve the article, you will attempt to not add misleading informations. I am prepared to write this article according to mpublished data, not some newspaper coverages or from some obscure list which can not be confirmed by publication, no serious encyclopdia does that. Also, it would be relevent to note that up checking Armenian history entry in Britannica, it uses the same range of Armenian victims as the article I have prepared 600,000 to 1.5 million) and does cite that it has later been called the first genocide of the 20th century. So, now, we can't affirm that there is any reputable encyclopedia which support your position, so I don't see why Wikipedia should. Fad (ix) 03:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You did not provide -as you claim- Hurewitz's words accepting genocidial nature of Armenian claims. You're overstretching his review of someone else's work. If you provide a reference to an article by Hurewitz (or an interview etc.) that accepts the genocide claims,  nobody will object to removing his name. No offense to you, but I'll take Professor Lewy's words over any anonymous person lacking credentials. If other academics or intellectuals critic Lewy's statement on Hurewitz then they'll deserve consideration. But an anon user's critic of Lewy has no bearing. Professor Hurewitz's signature in the 69 scholar declaration stands until he says that he's changed his position (or his work shows otherwise). For other claims in your post, please start other threads. I don't want to divert the discussion to some other discussion. Deepblue06 04:14, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So, what you are simply saying is that a newspaper publication not even written by him worths more than his own words? I will not tango with you here, and unless you provide a writen confirmation by him, and from any of his publications, you are simply pushing your POV by including him, given that the only material presented written by him that can be found, which comes near the description of the event, is his praises for the section regarding the Armenian question. True, an anon users critic of Lewy has no bearing, what has bearing though, is that Lewy is known to pump the number of scholars who support his position, since he also claims that many scholars too reject the charges that what happened to American Indians can not qualify as genocide, and those he cite, most don't even cover the appopriatness of the word. And no, the 69 signatures doesn't stand, find one encyclopedia where names are cited according to some advertisement, accademic names to be included, it should have some relevancy with the article. You can add the information that 69 have signed this, but you can not present his name and claim that he adheres to this vision, if you do that, you are simply POV pushing because there is no way to confirm that he does that. Fad (ix) 17:13, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Repeat of arguments. See above and .  Deepblue06 17:11, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

text: No, he actually has a publication exposing the myth of the Armenian revolutionaries out to get Turkey and discribes pretty well the prejudices they faced. I already cited it. His own paper worths more than an advertisement. Fad (ix) 17:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gilles Veinstein's position 

message: I would like to know what the purpose of this is? Is it to list all websites on the internet that support or reject the genocide allegations? If so doesnt this result in a lot of repetitious material? Are there any standardized rules for inclusion here? JorgChire 06:44, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  pro/con websites 

message: Nothing is mentioned about the Kurds in this article and the gigantic role they played in the Armenian Genocide, most of the killing was carried out by Kurds and Kurds have acknowledge this and various Kurdish leaders have apologized. --Eupator 14:42, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, maybe if some stop on attempting to make of this article as a sort of Courier relying on newspapers and wasting peoples time by doing so, we might maybe move. Fad (ix) 17:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Eh...It would also be nice in the future to mention the tremendous assistance and help received from Arabs as well as the Armenian survivors who ended up as slaves in the Bedouin trade network.--Eupator 17:42, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't think that the facts support that "most" of the killing was done by Kurds...though Kurdish irregulars and bandit types did have a central role and I agree it should be highlighted. However what is also clear is that they acted either directly as agents for or in the employ of the Ottoman Turkish government or that they were encouraged by such to act in the unbridled manner that they did towards the Armenians. The article requires full sections that elaborate on all principle extermination methods (much as the Holocaust article includes such), places of major massacre and deportation (where the camps section would be subsumed under), and just as importantly - IMO - the article requires a section that better explains who the perpetrators of the Armenian Genocide were - not just the top level CUP - but other important figures within the CUP heirarchy, among regional govenors and officials, within the military - and so on and so forth - a brief bio of each should be provided as well as an indication of the types and range of crimes they were responsible for. This is particularly important for this article as this genocide (its details) and its perpetrators are much less known then the Holocaust - where the names of the arch-criminals are common knowledge. Additionally I think that it is extremely important that the article contain a chronology and a major section that should cover eyewitnesses to the Genocide - who were they - what did they report - and from where - and why this information is crucial to our knowledge of the Armenian Genocide and the specific methods and activities employed by the CUP to exterminate and remove the Armenians from Anatolia. We need to as well distinguish from places where there were just outright massacres and where there was a deportation process and how these (and other) killing methodologies differed. Within this section and/or in the perpetrator section the role of Kurdish groups and key Kurdish actors should be detailed. The Arab role - pro and con - is worthy of at least a mention - as is the resistance by some Turkish regional officials to the extermination orders and the role of many Turks in safeguarding Armenians - under threat of death. Part of my family BTW was a major player in harboring and helping many important (and otherwise) Armenians to escape - though they were not Turkish and this is not a story for the article. Additionally, more attention needs to be paid to properly convey the manner of the CUP seizure of the mechanisms of the Ottooman State and their abrogation of Parlimentary government and how their "trusted agents" acted behind the scenes with their own internal lines of authority to implement the extermination plans and force sometimes unwilling local officials to comply with their requests to remove Armenians - etc - I could go on and on. All of this has been heavily documented BTW as you probably already know. --THOTH 20:33, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kurds 

message: Neurobio, stop adding him, his only relevant material written about the question support the majority view, he oppose nearly to every single propositions brought by Turkish officials. Example, the claim that Armenians were well armed, he claims that in the East most Armenians were not when the Kurds were armed, and that disarming the population was only effective for the Armenians because they were sedentary or that subordinated Turkish officials tended to favior the Kurds over the Armenians. Or when he writes that the Young Turk soon after it took power turned from Ottomanization to Turkification. Or how they have gone as even limiting the privilages of the Patriarchate. He also includes depredations against Armenians in the fall of 1912 and how the concil of minister left them down. And this is what he has to say about the Dashnaks: "Their program was essentially one of reform within the Ottoman Empire. They did not believe that Russian occupation of Armenia would bring them more freedom, though it would bring more order. Varandian, writting as a member of the Dashnakzouthiunm asked reform and autonomy for Turkish Armenia, saying that a complete separation of Armenia from Turkey was ethnographically and geographically impossible." He then discribes the evolution, from Ottoman radicalization and Dashnaks reaction to it. And through the Balkan war, requesting more freedom and justice and the acceptation of Berlin Treaty, met with refusal and radicalization which later led to the massacre and deportation. So, his only work about the issue contradict the signature in the press. Fad (ix) 18:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Davison rightfully belongs to the list. He signed the declaration. Unless you provide a reference showing that he's changed his position (which you cannot), he's in the list. Professor Davison has many works discussing the events and you cannot find a single example where he refers to the event as 'Armenian Genocide'. 'Armenian Crisis 1912-1914' does not do the job. It's not about the events of 1915 and it does not say anything that would imply that a genocide took place later. Deepblue06 17:28, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Lists are just names - often meaningless to most people - what is more important - IMO - is what of relevance did he/they say and why...what is the point they are trying to make and what backing do they have for making contentions - be they pro or con. Just stating that they are saying "yeah" or "nay" really tells us very little.--THOTH 20:35, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes of course. It is the substance of what is being said that matters - not just a list of names per se. If x # of scholars are signing a statement - then what is the statement saying and why. Of course that particularl folks are ascribing to a view or advocating or demanding something is also relevent - relevant enough in fact to look into what the motivations and affiliations of these scholars are - if they have actually studied and published concerning the issue of whcih they speak or if they might be beholden to governments or institutions for one reason or another. However specifically I was referring to this Wikipedia article. There is too much making lists of names and other less then meaningful content when the relevant and more pertinant facts have not been properly or sufficiently presented. This was the specific intent of my comment. --THOTH 21:16, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Davison should not be included in the list 

message: The following trial material will probably soon be deleted from the article on :Trabzon.  There may be places in this or other articles where this content should be added as an appropriate location for it. 
Trabzon was a major Armenian extermination center during the Armenian Genocide, as well as a location of subsequent trials. Eitan Belkind was a Nili member, who infiltrated the Ottoman army as an official. He was assigned to the headquarters of Camal Pasha. He claims to have witnessed the burning of 5,000 Armenians, Yair Auron, The Banality of Indifference: Zionism and the Armenian Genocide. New Brunswick, N.J., 2000, pp. 181, 183. Lt. Hasan Maruf, of the Ottoman army, describes how a population of a village were taken all together, and then burned. See, British Foreign Office 371/2781/264888, Appendices B., p. 6). Also, the Commander of the Third Army, Vehib's 12 pages affidavit, which was dated December 5, 1918, presented in the Trabzon trial series (March 29, 1919) included in the Key Indictment (published in Takvimi Vekayi, No. 3540, May 5, 1919), report such a mass burning of the population of an entire village near Mus. S. S. McClure write in his work, Obstacles to Peace, Houghton Mifflin Company, 1917. pp. 400–1, that in Bitlis, Mus and Sassoun, "The shortest method for disposing of the women and children concentrated in tile various camps was to burn them." And also that, "Turkish prisoners who had apparently witnessed some of these scenes were horrified and maddened at the remembering the sight. They told the Russians that the stench of the burning human flesh permeated the air for many days after." 
The Germans, Ottoman allies, also witnessed the way Armenians were burned according to the Israeli historian, Bat Ye’or, who writes: "The Germans, allies of the Turks in the First World War, …saw how civil populations were shut up in churches and burned, or gathered en masse in camps, tortured to death, and reduced to ashes,…" B. Ye'or, The Dhimmi. The Jews and Christians under Islam, Trans. from the French by D. Maisel P. Fenton and D. Liftman, Cranbury, N.J.: Frairleigh Dickinson University, 1985. p. 95)
During the Trabzon trial series, of the Martial court (from the sittings between March 26 and May 17, 1919), the Trabzons Health Services Inspector Dr. Ziya Fuad wrote in a report that Dr. Saib, caused the death of children with the injection of morphine, the information was allegedly provided by two physicians (Drs. Ragib and Vehib), both Dr. Saib colleagues at Trabzons Red Crescent hospital, where those atrocities were said to have been committed. Vahakn N. Dadrian, The Turkish Military Tribunal’s Prosecution of the Authors of the Armenian Genocide: Four Major Court-Martial Series, Genocide Study Project, H. F. Guggenheim Foundation, published in The Holocaust and Genocide Studies, Volume 11, Number 1, Spring 1997. Dr. Ziya Fuad, and Dr. Adnan, public health services director of Trabzon, submitted affidavits, reporting a cases, in which, two school buildings were used to organize children and then sent them on the mezzanine, to kill them with a toxic gas equipment. This case was presented during the Session 3, p.m., 1 April 1919, also published in the Constantinople newspaper Renaissance, 27 April 1919  Vahakn N. Dadrian, The Role of Turkish Physicians in the World War I Genocide of Ottoman Armenians, in The Holocaust and Genocide Studies 1, no. 2 (1986): 169–192. The Ottoman surgeon, Dr. Haydar Cemal wrote in Türkce Istanbul, No. 45, 23 December 1918, also published in Renaissance, 26 December 1918, that "on the order of the Chief Sanitation Office of the IIIrd Army in January 1916, when the spread of typhus was an acute problem, innocent Armenians slated for deportation at Erzican were inoculated with the blood of typhoid fever patients without rendering that blood ‘inactive’." Jeremy Hugh Baron writes : "Individual doctors were directly involved in the massacres, having poisoned infants, killed children and issued false certificates of death from natural causes. Nazim's brother-in-law Dr. Tevfik Rushdu, Inspector-General of Health Services, organized the disposal of Armenian corpses with thousands of kilos of lime over six months; he became foreign secretary from 1925 to 1938." Jeremy Hugh Baron, Genocidal Doctors, publish in Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, November, 1999, 92, pp. 590–3). The psychiatrist, Robert Jay Lifton, writes in a parenthesis when introducing the crimes of NAZI doctors in his book Nazi Doctors: Medical Killing and the Psychology of Genocide, Basic Books, (1986) p. xii:  "Perhaps Turkish doctors, in their participation in the genocide against the Armenians, come closest, as I shall later suggest)." and drowning. Oscar S. Heizer, the American consul at Trabzon, reports: "This plan did not suit Nail Bey…. Many of the children were loaded into boats and taken out to sea and thrown overboard." U.S. National Archives. R.G. 59. 867. 4016/411. April 11, 1919 report. The Italian consul of Trabzon in 1915, Giacomo Gorrini, writes: "I saw thousands of innocent women and children placed on boats which were capsized in the Black Sea." Toronto Globe, August 26, 1915 Hoffman Philip, the American Charge at Constantinople chargé d'affaires, writes: "Boat loads sent from Zor down the river arrived at Ana, one thirty miles away, with three fifths of passengers missing." Cipher telegram, July 12, 1916. U.S. National Archives, R.G. 59.867.48/356. The Trabzon trials reported Armenians having been drown in the Black Sea. (Takvimi Vekdyi, No. 3616, August 6, 1919, p. 2.)
These are all impressive claims and some there are appearently some supports but are these supports, evidences reliable? How much you can trust in a psychiatrist who is trying to be a historian? How much you can trust people who wanted Ottoman Empire to be crushed? How much you can trust in someone(Vahakn N. Dadrian-Armenian name) who is not actually that objective? How much you can trust in the testimony of poor peasants? And if all these evidences are reliable and real, why didn't British investigators found them and proved the claim of Armenian Genocide after WWI when they were investigating and trying it?--Lonewolf94 (talk) 09:58, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: By Wiki rules editors are not to interpret authors or give them value but cite and describe. Hope that's clear. Aregakn (talk) 18:57, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  added material