Talk:Armenian genocide/Archive 2

message: * Learn to summerise your cases.
* Don't ask me to leave
* Stop accusing me of a hidden agenda.
* Learn to focus. This is Talk: Armenian Genocide not Talk: Kurdistan Workers Party. This is not a forum either. We are discussing Armenian Genocide not me.
* I asked people to tell me if I were biased. Those people have the identical capability as I do as far as wiki-power is concerned.
* You suggest Armenian Genocide happened and that its a fact. I suggest we dont know if it was a state organised extermination plan or just WW1 fatalities. NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW dictates thats the proper corse of action regarding this matter.
--Cool Cat  My Talk 22:06, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  4 suggestions, 2 comment for now. 

message: Please don't make up quasi-authoritative terms like "moderator".  We are all equal as editors--including the administrators.  None of us has any authority on content and it is inappropriate to demand that anyone recognise such authority. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:36, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: On Coolcat's use of the term "moderator"

message: I thought and thought about it and have read Stereotek provided link, I need people concensus about the way it will be presented.
I thought of presenting for each section, few bibliography that are concidered relevent, I thought of the footnote way, but the thing with that, is that the footnote way in other articles is always used(those I have viewed) to point to links, even thought there might be sites for some, I mostly(or nearly always) rely on works, and the footnote would direct to works rather than sites. If I present the Turkish government version, since denialists are obviously more vocal on the internet(the same goes with the Shoah), a large part of their books are accessible(not so long ago, McCarthys book was accessible from the Turkish foreign ministry website, but isn't available anymore), so maybe in the cases of the Turkish government version, citing sites would be relevent.
I am awaing peoples suggestion here, including yours Coolcat.
I also thought of starting an entry regarding the "Ottoman Armenian Population," because alone it requites an article and might be long. Fadix 19:01, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In my opinion footnotes it the way to do it. Also, footnotes doesn't always point to internet links, and I guess there is no reason why they should... I think that you might want to look at the "Schizophrenia" article? In my opinion it's a really good example on how to manage the references. Stereotek 20:06, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK! Will do it like this, but first I need to start another entry regarding the Ottoman Armenian population and losses, which is important to be attached here and included in 3 of the presented footnotes of the reference section I am working on. I will as well work on the "other side," but obviously it won't still satisfy Coolcat, since the other side points have been all answered over the years with autoritative works, so neutralizing them would include their critics, while there is no other sides and critics presented for the Special organization or the concentration camps and such key points that are entirly ignored by the revisionist side, so if there is no reinterpretation or answer about those, those can not be answered by another side. I can certainly not delete important informations just because there is no "other side" offered for them. Another thing I realised, I just realised that the April 24 hundreds of intellectuals jailed and killed has been deleted, I wonder why, because both sides don't deny that point... and in fact it is one of the most agreed points, I wonder why Coolcat has deleted it, assuming it is him. Fadix 21:08, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: About the references

message: I just realised that Mr. Torque who claimed not wanting to participate has just posted in the archive section, many answer, I propose everyone to read the exchanges. I will be answering every single posts he makes. I decided to not slander him anymore and maintain calm, everyone shall read the racist person he is and how he slanders his oponments. I appologize, since because of this answer, it might take longer for me to work on the pages. Fadix 16:17, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Why are you so interested in the amount of time people has spend here? I can see that your first edit was made at: 10:07, 4 Feb 2005. Fadix first edit was made at: 03:46, 17 Feb 2005. So you haven't been around for much longer than Fadix, and you surely can't claim to be a really experienced user... Anyway, if anything here should end in an arbcom case, I can guarantee that both you and Torque will be punished. You have both violated many of Wikipedias policies several times. There is no lack of evidence. Stereotek 12:38, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: LOLENLAR

message: : This comment has been extensively edited to remove the very personal attacks while, I hope, preserving the sense of the words.
At the root of genocide allegations lies the assumption: it is only the Armenian dead who matter. Never mind the Armenians directly murdered, with Russian help, more Turks/Muslims than the latter did onto them. The Turks simply aren't human enough to matter.
Fadix has gone out of his way trying to prove the 518,000 dead was closer to a number like 18, in his earlier testimony. Never mind that this sense of victimhood is a credo the Turks don't live by, while Armenians thrive on it. How can any person with humanity deny the crimes of the Armenians? But the Armenians have always denied their crimes. Their mass murderers like Dro and Antranik, as well as their latter day killer terrorists, are treated as heroes by the Armenian community. Fadix has promised to work on the Wikipedia ASALA page, continuing the trend.
It's a mindset. As an Armenian writer quoted by Ara Baliozian put so well: "What kind of people are we?...Instead of reason, blind instinct. Instead of common sense, fanaticism."
Since the Armenians like to claim they are the first Christian nation (as well as their apologists, like "The Genocide of the Armenians; The Tragedy of the oldest Christian People of the Word" Wolfgang Gust, whom Fadix praised above as a legitimate source) where are the Christian qualities of these Armenians who are so genocide obsessed? Why would anyone devote so much of his life to this century-old topic?
If Armenians are under so much despair, how about turning to a Christian way to cope? How about filling one's heart with love and compassion and hopefulness and happiness? That's what the Turks did after the war. Is there one Turkish family who wasn't affected by the chaos and ugliness and inhumanity perpetrated upon them by their enemies? But they did not care to harp on these destructive thoughts. They chose to forgive and forget. It's only with the revival of this genocide obsession, and the continuous slander that goes with it, that the Turks have finally come to realize silence does not work. Otherwise the Turks had let go long ago. Thanks to the Armenians, the horrendous crimes of their forefathers are now open for new generations of Turks to learn.
Jesus taught to forgive unconditionally, yet the Armenians have chosen the path of hatred, terrorism, antagonism and aggression. Is this healthy?
There have been some attempts to establish parallels with the Holocaust. This, after Israel itself does not recognize the Armenians' genocide.  Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon Peres is on record for saying,  "... Armenian  allegations of genocide are 'meaningless' and that there is no similarity between the Holocaust and fate of the Armenians during the first World War...'  '... What occurred to the Armenians was NOT a Genocide'.  'We reject attempts to create a similarity between the Holocaust and the Armenian  allegations. Nothing similar to the Holocaust occurred. It is a tragedy what the Armenian s went through but not a genocide'." 
It is possible to respond by saying Israel is kowtowing to the Turks, as if Israel has been known to kowtow to any nation (not even the United States). But the above makes sense; in WWII Jews did not establish a combined force of 200,000 as Boghos Nubar tells us, almost all of whom came from the Ottoman Empire at one time or another; the Jews did not betray Germany; the Jews did not cooperate with the enemies of Germany, and the Jews certainly did not wage a campaign of ethnic cleansing against their fellow German citizens, hoping to establish a Jewish state on German soil.
This is why we must look at the BIG PICTURE and not be drowned in the statistics quoted by the Armenians, nearly all of which are based on speculation and are terribly unsubstantiated. One point to remember is the Armenians in the western portion of the Ottoman Empire were mostly unaffected by the relocation policy. Imagine conducting a genocide and ignoring the targeted people in the capital. How many German Jews in Berlin were exempt from Hitler's "Final Solution"? What about the ones from Munich or Frankfurt?
The Armenians who are very demanding and inflexible. For example, in Glendale, California, the Armenian "colony" (Hovannisian's word) have built up its numbers to 30%. With their influence and wealth has come the pocketing of the politicians. As a result, they got the city council to lower the flag to commemorate their genocide. This angered the community, because the American flag is not typically lowered for such occasions.
Then the Armenians used their influence to erect a genocide monument at public expense. A concerned reader from the local newspaper wrote:
"I do not feel that the decision to erect an Armenian Genocide monument on city property should be decided by the five men on City Council and a group of committee members. Between the flag-lowering fiasco and the current debate over the monument, this city is polarized as never before. The decision to erect a monument on city property should be left to the people of that city..."
Now doesn't that sound exactly like the genocide resolutions the Armenian Diaspora persuades governments to pass? A few bigoted and/or Armenian-catering politicians cast their votes on a historical episode they've only heard selective bits about from the "avalanche" of Armenian propaganda, and then suddenly it seems like the whole country or state has agreed upon the idea. This is so propagandists can point to these meaningless opinions and say to the unwary, You See? They Agree With Us!
A similar approach is used when this lie has been repeated so often that lazy or bigoted academicians have accepted it at face value. (It’s safer that way; who wants to be charged with being a "RACIST NAZI-LIKE FK," as Fadix called me?) So now the majority view has accepted this myth as the reality, and Stereotek can tell us this majority view is one of the "most important" facts.
 
More tellingly, from Glendale:
"...It's unfortunate that the leaders and spokespersons for (the Armenian) community feel the way HS (an Armenian) does. His views teach his community intolerance toward others. They teach his community to demean those that that don't agree with them. They teach his community to scream racism and hatred toward them just because they don't get their way. He teaches his community that there is only one way, the way he feels, and anyone that feels different is wrong. It teaches division rather than compromise. Compromise, (HS), is that so difficult to get? What a leader and spokesperson you are. Don't you see, the more you push this 'we won and the racists lost,' the sillier you look? Your colors are showing more and more. It's clear you have no interest in healing this community or finding a compromise. I find it amusing that you rally the Armenian community around an Armenian  national issue, but debunk an American community when it rallies around something they may feel strongly about. I feel insulted being referred to as a 'ragtag group of self-described patriots' because I'm standing up for my beliefs. How dare you? ... It's clear that you don't care about the country you live in or its other residents, just your '30%.' I'm afraid, sir, that there are 70% here that are not Armenians, and maybe, just maybe, they don't all share your view and want to have it shoved down their throat..."
It's all there:
# intolerance toward others
# demean those that that don't agree with them
# to scream racism and hatred toward them just because they don't get their way
# there is only one way, the way they feel, and anyone that feels different is wrong
# division rather than compromise
# "we won and the racists lost"
# It's clear that they don't care about the country they live in or its other residents, just their 30%.
# they don't all share your view and want to have it shoved down their throat.
("You are neutral and I am not, thats your suggestion. Yout Truth is based on facts only I got a bunch of lies. Is that what you suggest? I am not accusing you of things why are you constantly acusimg me. This can be considered a personal attack you know." --Cool Cat My Talk 20:14, 19 Mar 2005)
When this genocide-obsessed pattern of the Armenians is pointed to, the best defense is to scream racist. But the ways of the Armenian colonies, whether in America or Canada and everywhere else the Diaspora has migrated to, follows a pattern that cannot be denied. We are simply up against a super-powered representative.
Epilogue: the genocide-obsessed Armenians got what they wanted by their typically underhanded manipulations, upsetting the majority of their fellow citizens by having their tax dollars spent on a genocide monument. There is a quality absent with such behavior, and that quality is: virtue. --Torque, Mar 24 2005 (substantially edited for personal attacks --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:22, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arguing About History is Impossible in the presence of dogmatism 

message: I am patiently waiting the administration to come here and read Torque posts. I will of course answer any single points he made, it would take of course some time... but people could witness how he play with numbers he has no idea of... when I answer him, and then, probably he will claim having done it without knowing it, like he always do when he is exposed of manipuling data. As I see, the none-existing Goshnak was still brought out.	 
	 
Anyway, if anyone want to report Torque, do it in your own discression, but I ask that person to not involve me, I am of course against his banning even if he has times and again abused Wikipedia rules. The reason for that is simple, he's the only supposed "other side" we officialy have, if it happens that he is banned, I know what will happen, the genocide entry will be spammed, the entry will be deleted etc. etc. I could perhaps ask something to the administration though, and that would be to edit Torque posts, by deleting racist and personnal statments, because of course if it happens that some Armenians start reading "Typical Armenian style" "So Armenian" etc. they might get offensed and start answering back, I am sure that no one is interested with that.	 
	 
I apologize for the reast of the readers, since my contributation has been halted by Torque attempts and that I have to now return and expose him.	 
	 
Thanks for your patience, and again, I apologize.	
Regards	 
	 
PS: I ask readers, should I answer first the most recent of his distortions? I have answered quite a few on the archive 10... but I was wondering if I should answer those first until I come here. Since I suppose there are reader, I guess they as well have interest on which points they want to be discussed first. Fadix 19:08, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Torque is being very paient with you guys. And so am I. The article is biased, it isnt neutral (hence the tag), Torque, and as far as I can tell more than 3 experts are disputing the genocide. Creating an aurora of "world believes in genocide" is not going to happen. Torque is sick of insist of "prooving" genocide in the article which is not follwing NPOV policy. Fadix's idea of NPOV is far fetched "My ideas are right, what I read in the books are facts, anything is pure bias and propoganda" (paraphrasing). The level of insults I got from Fadix can insure his ip ban. He will stop insulting me either way. I prefer the no ban solution, ie willing. Stereotek do not pose as a mediator because I dont think you are qualified to be a mediator, you already have views regarding the article. I already asked for a mediator that has already been awarded the mediation barn-star, one of the rarest awards on wikipedia.
Torque was ranting about Armenian people as there is a "Diplomatic" sphere in the equation, The countries that have officialy recognised the Armenian genocide did not recognise on their own, they got significant pressure for various organisations. He is refering to that I believe. His attitude is not nice, but neither the attitude he argues with. --Cool Cat My Talk 09:11, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Well well, see what kind of opinions we have here afterall :) 

message: I suggest no one touch the article now on untill we reach concensiuses, while being bold sounds fun, we will end up with nothing productive if you guys and us start reverting. I already declared 2 cases, I commented out items that we will be discussing, nothing is gone just commented, You are welcome to comment out anything and discuss here as well.
--Cool Cat My Talk 08:31, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Your suggestions are ignored. Fadix 00:15, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion Starts

message: While the total number of victims that perished in all camps is hard to establish, it is by some sources estimated that close to a million would be a reasonable figure. This figure excludes Armenians who died in other ways, but may include the Special organizations participation in the events; the majority of the excluded losses are recorded in Bitlis and Sivas.
* Like I said before, extra statistics while they are disputed is not a good idea. --Cool Cat My Talk 08:36, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Those are the statistics of a "type" of deaths in particular. This will be covered in the entry regarding Armenian losses which I will be working on. Fadix 04:23, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *  I fail to see where this referance is from. I do not care about "so such and such" suggests in "this book". I'd like to see the actual document (link please). I cannot tell if its propoganda or not.  --Cool Cat My Talk 03:09, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Camps, death toll info be moved.

message: The Ottoman Empire had set up a recorded twenty-five to twenty-six of what is often reffered as "relocation camps or "concentration camps": (Deir-Zor, Ras Ul-Ain, Bonzanti, Mamoura, Intili, Islahiye, Radjo, Katma, Karlik, Azaz, Akhterim, Mounboudji, Bab, Tefridje, Lale, Meskene, Sebil, Dipsi, Abouharar, Hamam, Sebka, Marat, Souvar, Hama, Homs and Kahdem), under the command of Çukru Kaya, one of the right hands of Talaat Pasha.
The majority of of the camps were situated mostly near the Iraqi and Syrian frontiers, and some was only temporary transit camps. After reports of deaths, the camps Lale, Tefridje, Dipsi, While Del-El, and Ras Ul-Ain were built specifically for those who had a life expectancy of a few days. Other camps were only used as temporary mass burial zones (Radjo, Katma, and Azaz) and were closed by Fall 1915.
The majority of the guards inside all the camps were Armenians.
Even though nearly all the camps (all major ones were) were open air, according to records, some were not. Other camps existed, accoding to the Military court, there where irregular Red Crescent camps that were used to kill by morphine injection, (two of Saib (Health inspector) colleagues, Drs. Ragib and Vehib testified during the court) and where the bodies were thrown into the Black sea. In other instances, according to records, there were some small-scale killing and burning camps, where the Armenian population was told to present itself in a given area, and burned en mass. Other records from the Military tribunal, suggest gassing installations existed as well. For instance, during the Military tribunal, testimonies in the effect that Dr. Saib and Nail, an Ittihadist deputy, were heading two school buildings used as child extermination camps. Both Saib and Nail were allegedly in charge of providing the list of children who were to be distributed among the Muslim populace; the rest of the children were to be sent to the mezzanine floor to be killed by a mass gassing installation. The Children were sent there under the pretext to take baths, but were poisoned instead.
* Diferent parties refer to the camps diferently. Section should be rewriten in such a way that it neither proves they are indeed concentration camps nor should it appear as relocation camps.--Cool Cat My Talk 18:44, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: * Different parties don't name it differently, you name it differently. It was called such, and should be called such, the word "relocation camp" has never been used once to call those camps, you can not just throw words that you like. Fadix 00:17, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Those are not relocation camps, the only things that have been called such were the transit camps in the Syrian desert, and not the concentration camps. This is not about satisfying you, this is about calling this like they are called. And don't ask me to do a google search, there is no such expression like "relocation camp" used, we can not use terms that you try to apply. This is not how it work. Fadix 02:49, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: Concentration camp does not imply genocide, it imply a place where people are concentrated there by force. A relocation camp is more a transit camp, it was later mistakfuly used for the Japanese Americans, but is not used for the Armenian camps, the term has been used few times for the transit camps though, but both were different. Fadix 03:09, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It can not be called relocation camp, it isn't even a word used. It can not be called simply a camp, because there were different camps, the term used was a concentration camp, and there is no way to call it else. Were people not concentrated there, and by force? There is no other way around... there can be no other term here. The term itself has nothing to do with whatever or not there was a genocide. It has everything to do regarding whaever or not people were concentrated there, they were, so what the hell is the problem to call something by its name? Fadix 03:40, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  "The entrance of these concentration camps could well bear the legend imprinted on the gates of Dante's hell 'Ye who enter here, abandon all hope.'" (A. A. Turkei 183/46, A8613, German consul Rossler's February 14, 1917 report). I can load this pages with refferences to what was called concentration camp. It was concentration camps, an there can be no 3rd words. The thing has a name, and should be called by its name. Fadix 03:58, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text:  No! There can't, we can not invent an expression not used in the academia... It is called such, and should be called such. Fadix 04:06, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Relocation Camps vs. Concentration Camps

message: Coolcat, I will be reverting every edits you make, you are a vandalist of articles, you are ignored. - Unsigned fadix
You cannot kick me out of the discussion, you have no authority, right, power. You reverted spelling fixes, Continue abusing revert power, I dare ya. --Cool Cat My Talk 01:17, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You have introduced in the article much more than grammer correction, you have valdalised the article by introducing non-accurate informations, it was beyong NPOV or POV... you can not suggest this is questionned between parties. This is about the large majority from one side, and turkey on the other... and I will oppose to anything that would suggest that the Academia is disied, if you do that, you vandalise the article, and that is what you did. Fadix 01:39, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I will gie you the benefit of the doubt this time for paking the paragraph. Fadix 02:37, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: There is no discussion starting with Coolcat

message: I introduced this color sceme for a reason. It makes it easier on how we are thinking. I changed several of you guys comments to illustrate the concept. If you are irritated I am sorry. Colors makes it easier. If you are for a spesific argument you should use color green, if you are against color red, if you are neither for or against use color brown.
Also use this indenting unindented, for, 1 indend (ie :) against 2 indents (ie ::) neither for or against.
You will be discussiong this, there is no way out. I introduced something we can discuss easier, if You have a better sugestion let me know.
--Cool Cat My Talk 02:41, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  We've been there, and discussed about it, you can try using multi-colors to make that official, ... what is important is the content. You have an intend to dissolve the article. I want a mediator. Fadix 02:45, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You do not propose discussion, and it is clear now, of what do you want me to discuss about? You ignore the topic. You want to present your views, and some are even not found in any academic works, you can not present your point of views, or expressions... and you can not merge two sides and present two positions as equaly valid. Will you drop your claim of presenting two views as equaly valid? Just answer that out so we can know how sincere you are. Fadix 03:01, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Never heard og chronology? I asked you a simple question, please answer Fadix 03:53, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text:  Neither, I will not accept a one sided article no.  --Cool Cat My Talk 03:45, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Still, you did not clearly answer my question. Just by a yes and a no, only by a yes and a no. Will you drop your claim of presenting two views as equaly valid positions? YES or a NO, only a yes or a no.
Instead of article wide discussion why dont you refer to smaller point, if you cant back down on any point, I cant either. --Cool Cat My Talk 04:05, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: I am waiting Coolcat, that you answer to my question, by a yes or a no. Fadix 04:07, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Colours

message: * Regardless of the article, lets try color format.
* Instead of article wide discussion, lets discuss smaller points.
--Cool Cat My Talk 03:05, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Lets try this

message: * Story has 3 sides actualy,
**Turkish Propoganda (anti-genocide extreme with made up stories),
**Armenian propoganda (pro genocide extreme with made up stories), and
**the NPOV which is based on how to describe events on both sides perspective.
***Why did the armenian elites got arrested has two answers. why did the armenians were prompted to migrate has also two or more answers.
***I like to put factual information, however "motives" are always debatible.
*** I will not accept propoganda from either side. Just to let you know a turkish newspaper Hurriyet started a serries explainng the armenian genocide, while My turkish is Glitchy I think I can make sense of it. This will give me some insight they talk about the arrest of the Armenian Elites for example, they aslo talk about the organisation and about Teşkilát-ı Mahsusa and criminals like "Topal Osman" being a part of it, also talks about rumors of Armenians carrying gold promoting looting at the time, sounds factual and makes sense. The news paper is trying to cover this seriously I believe. It presents the Turkish version with limited to no propoganda. You have to realise they will probably dispute the Genocide but acknowlege the dead. While a newspaper is not your primary or secondary proof of things, it gives you the insight, doesnt look biased although the article did not started developing.
*Article can exeed 32 kilobytes. We can summerise some cases. Asserian genocide and the greek genocides have nothing to do with this topic, we can develope those later, one problem at a time.
*Establishing conclusions like "Armenian Genocide did happen" is no way to start a dicsussion. Lets discuss matters one at a time. I have good intentions however you think of me as an enemy of some sorth. I will request you the way you word certain things for example so they are not in the "Murderes Turks" format instead in a more politicaly acceptable tone with words not as strong as murder. I am telling you this advance so you can be prepared. Dont acuse me of things, "you clearly have no knowlege, I know best go away" is not propoer way to discuss in wikipedia. If you want to contribute please follow good Wikipedia:Wikiquette. If you cant be nice to me, I cant be nice to you. When I or you change things in the article, do not revert, instead comment out the part you dont like so I can put more effort to it. Commenting out basicaly tells me "Look, I dont like this chunk of text try a different aproach", while reverting is more vandal like. You are welcome not to follow this but I suggest you use the 3 revert rule. All parties involved should be primarily concerened with improving the quality of the article, no one should try to push their views to prove or disprove the genocide baselessly, nothing such as, "genocide did happen because my uncle said so" stuff. I am not mediating this article. I presented my mediation template as a way to discuss. I recomend you use it you are free to do what you want. In wikipedia conversations you dont ask the other party to leave who oposes your views or conflcits with them. You have to have a very positive aproach for the best result. Please lets evade what Fadix and Torque had between each other, presonal insults, asking people to leave, "I know best you suck" is not the proper way.
*Another thing is you should summerise when you present your cases. Present them in bullets when applicable. Have each argument in its own category and sign your posts.
*Please do not add material to the article withought us reaching a concensious, I havent and I expect same from you. When I talk you listen and reflect, Then I listen then reflect. This could be one of the best developed articles on the web. *Factuality of genocide is debatible. Factuality of physics concepts are also debatible. Wikipedia is based on concensious, you cannot declare what you say regarding a contraverisal article like this one to be accepted without questions asked. This is how we do things in wikipedia for articles of this nature.
*Wording is very important, how you say things should NOT be offensive by your average Turkish reader. If you want to achieve anything in this article is to win support I presume, you cant do that by establishing statistics forexample regarding scholars, wheather thats factual or not. I can understand that you want to push your case into the article, you should hear the views of the other side, we can make this article based on provable facts. The childeren massacred currrently is propoganda material (asuming it havent changed). At least the way its word. You should not present anything with absolute certainty unless the otherside accepts it. A reader is more than likely to pass this article without reading it due to the "disputed" tag, lets work in such a way that the disputed tag becomes obsolite.
*Do not make assumptions regarding me or anyone.
*If you want to be a part of the discusion as I stated above I urge you to follow good Wikipedia:Wikiquette, while I am not acusing you of not following, I urge you to take a look at the article. Also check out Wikipedia:Vandalism to see what vandalism is and is not.
--Cool Cat My Talk 08:19, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Guideline 

message: You can't make any progress in editing this article while certain parties continue to use reverting as a means of keeping their preferred version.  Accordingly, and on long consideration of a request made some days ago, I have protected the article.  Please discuss your differences on this article with civility and when they're resolved the protection can be removed. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:19, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You have made a major administraive mistake. If you read the edition on what it was locked on, you'll realise that our new aliases has made all the major changes Coolcat wanted to be made. In that articlke there is no only POV, but as well lies, something my other article did not have. That new alias is no one else than Coolcat. Fadix 23:17, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The Armenian theses ignoring Turkish deaths, is one example, this is Coolcat lies. That person was Coolcat, all the changes were specifically what Coolcat wanted the article to be changed for. He reverted the "many Western scholars." There are no many Western scholars supproting the revisionbist theses this is another lie. In fact, all the changes made are only POV, and if they are not, they are simply untrue. Coolcat is lying Tony, he claimed to not be a Turk to make his national biases more credible, another member has ju8st exposed him admitting being a Turk, without including that he has in various occasion called Armenians, "Armanians" a common mistake a Turkish speaker will make. I have to say, that your locking of the article, while yesterday it was submitted to peer review was simply a big mistake. Coolcat just yesterday, accused all of us to be the same person. You can verify about Raffi, he has his own website and post with his real name, another member participate in other forums, on which I myself participate, the other members I just have met on this site. On the other hand, Coolcat yesterday said that if he had to want to use other aliases, he could do that without others knowing, and the first thing today we see, is that another aliases was created out of the blue moon, making all the edits Coolcat was fighting to make, which are simply untrue and false or POV. And you rather prefer to keep an article editted by a new aliases that just after logging, the only thing he post is to change a debated article, while the article has been placed to mediation and peer review. This time, you made a serious mistake. Fadix 23:37, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text:  Read at the bottom of the talk page, there are more, nearly all the edit you've kept are either POV or simply untrue. Fadix 01:20, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Protected

message: After reviewing the two pages, I'm going to have to side with the current version.  I find that what Fadix labels "vandalism" is far from it and there is a tendancy by Fadix to remove anything which has a negative impact on the Armenian side of the discussion (The removal of references to ANSLA, official Turkish websites etc.).  
I should state that I have not read the full discussion (I don't think anyone has time for that), I have simply compared the two versions of the pages as presented with the twoversions tag. Oberiko 08:25, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have plainly shown that what the new user has done could be called as vandalism, in my talk page. What I have against the current version has nothing to do with me wanting supressthe opposing view, since I was the one that added a section to present it before Coolcat deleted it, to get the entire website as it is presented by the Turkish government. As for the ASALA removing, let me tell you that I was at first against the entire post genocide timeline, and that the deleting of it was more about the wording and the way it was presented, including the ASALA entry and the way Coolcat has worked on it.(the ASALA entry since then has been neutralised, not by me but others) So, I ask you before making charges against me, to follow the discussion closer. Fadix 13:58, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You declare yourself as pro too easily and too fast. The way you own the article is not apriciated. POV, which is your claim btw, is never vandalism. --Cool Cat My Talk 03:42, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You are just repeating the old rhetoric of yours, you don't need to do that, I'm not the bone head you think I am. Fadix 04:24, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I do not like the way you treat everybody who disagrees with you. --Cool Cat My Talk 05:36, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't make this as if I treat “anyone” that disagree with me, this is me, and others, against your behavior at Wikipedia. Fadix 16:09, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Oberiko and others are not a persons? --Cool Cat My Talk 10:34, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: And how I "treat" him? Fadix 16:58, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Oberiko's conclusion of the page

message: Can we all agree on these facts?
# The Armenians were removed from their homes by force.
# The Ottomans did not provide anything like adequate facilities to care for these people during transportation or when they arrived.
# Hundreds of thousands of people died as a consequence.
# This consequence was forseeable prior to, and during, the transportation.
--Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:02, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Mass murder?

message: Unfortunately, the denial of Holocaust by nationalists is nothing new under the sun. The Germans did it before 1945 and neo-nazi's still do it. The Japanese deny they the fact that they put my grandfather in a concentration camp in Birma, the Turkish government jails writers who describe the Armenian holocaust. In my view, "historical revisionism" is incompatible with the philosophy of Wikipedia!
:: Thanks to the anti-elitist and anti-academic policy here, of course... wait and see when physic entries will be edited by co-religionists. It is disgusting how national biases are considered as equal as decades of Academic research by thousands of specialists. I am losing trust on Wikipedia entire project. Fadix 19:48, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I do not understand what is so difficult about "proove your facts". What kind of a scientist investigating this genocide are you if you do not have the archive numbers of the documents you are dealing with? I want verifyable facts in the document. That is clearly my standing, any interpretation should be done 50:50 of such documents but sellections be presented raw. --Cool Cat My Talk 20:00, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Of course you HAVE NO PROBLEM with the edit, when the edit makes statments that are not neutral in their tones, less than any of my edits were. As for "proving," all my edits were justified with references in the talk page and such... with references to the Martial Court etc. The footnotes that I was going to provide were things that I have already discussed about, and the  origin of the statments were clearly writen in MY VERSION, and you had a problem with it, while you don't seem to have any problem with the balatant lies in the actual article, when some of them can even not be supported from the other side. You see how no one should trust you? You lie about you, you lie about everything, and then you play the innocent being attacked, and when people go against you, you dump them all toegether and you claim they are clones. As for the 50:50, forget about it, you will never obtain it. I mad MANY concession, MANY, I EVEN ADDED A SECTION FOR THE TURKISH GOVERNMENT VERSION, BUT YOU DELETED IT, BECAUSE YOU WANTED THE ENTIRE ARTICLE TO BE THAT VERSION. Ad Adam said for the other entry you were hijacking, go get another entry, and stop it. Fadix 20:11, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  nothing new under the sun 

message: At the suggestion of another administrator, I have switched the protection template to "twoversions", which includes links to the other version and also the difference between the two. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:58, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  As I see, you are even not admitting your OBVIOUS mistake. Fadix 19:46, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You are using too many lead :'s and you are over reacting, not being polite either. --Cool Cat My Talk 20:00, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: twoversions template

message: Ok, lets take this slow. You are welcome to use my color scheme, if you do so will I.
*I suggest we establish what both pro-anti genocide spheres accept. Also what point of the issue is disputed by either party.
*I suggest no personal attacks no one should be discussing how horrible a person is. We had over a meg worth of this. Enough.
--Cool Cat My Talk 05:34, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fresh Start #3 

message: * Hundereds of thousands, possibly over a million Armenians died. Any opposition? --Cool Cat My Talk 05:34, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No. --RaffiKojian 03:49, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  So Armenians did not die? --Cool Cat My Talk 22:32, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You asked "Any opposition?".  I answered "No."  Clear now? --RaffiKojian 17:29, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: Of course.  Nobody was "requested" to move.  They were either murdered outright or TOLD they were moving.  Everything is open to debate, but they are quite clear to everyone familiar with the subject.  As has been said before, the consequense of the deportation would obviously be death, and those ordering it would have to have intended that.  Have you read "Survivors" by the Millers?  You really should.  --RaffiKojian 03:49, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You should realy read the NPOV article. We can work on the wording. --Cool Cat My Talk 22:32, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: First, sorry for suggesting you possibly read a primary source, but I strongly believe you should read that book.  Second, I assume you mean the current article when you say "the NPOV article" - even though you must know I do not find it NPOV.  In which case - yes I have read it.  Do you want me to suggest an alternative text/wording for the article?  I don't understand. --RaffiKojian 17:29, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: Not sure, sounds plausable, wording should be important. --Cool Cat My Talk 22:32, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Again - are you asking for my suggested wording?--RaffiKojian 17:29, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: Not sure, sounds plausable, wording should be important. --Cool Cat My Talk 22:32, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ditto - so based on that assumption, I have edited the genocide article on very basic fact.  I am sure you'll find it POV, but I strongly believe it is not.  That it is the most basic account of what happened, and every point can be backed up easily and substantially.  I worked on those sections which seem to have been the source of disagreement and added some too.  Please look at the Armenian Genocide - Working Version to see what you think of it.  Let me know your thoughts.  If you find it way off, tell me why.  If your issues are relatively minor, please list them point by point.  --RaffiKojian 17:29, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text:  discussed above. --Cool Cat My Talk 22:32, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: PLease discuss above. Establishing the comon ground is first step in resolving conflicts. --Cool Cat My Talk 22:34, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Run #1 

message: Ottoman_Armenian_Population More would be added in it, after I complete the entry regarding the Armenian losses. As one can see, every points are supported by footnotes and references, and even Turkish ones.  -Unsigned, likely fadix
::: Even Torque has not gone as far as getting involved in everything that could relate to Turkey. You have even pl;aced in Musa Dagh book talk page, the banner of controversial, when it is about a damn book. Fadix 23:55, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  New related entry 

message: *...cut IN my discussion unless you have to, copy my sic to every seperation of my discussion. Embeded messages are not welcome.--Cool Cat My Talk 22:09, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Here comes again Coolcat arrogant tone, believing he owns this site. Fadix 22:11, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Insulting me, pointing out how horible I am declaring POV as Vandal is how we run wikipedia. We allow users credibility to be destroyed by personal insults. Cutting in embaded msgs are always welcome that way people will not know who said what. --Cool Cat My Talk 22:22, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: That is arrogance, is it not?--Cool Cat My Talk 22:20, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Coolcat, why are you throwing words where they do not fit? You remind me a new alias in that regard. Peoples credibility are only destroyed based on what they say. You are a vandal and a troll, that Tony agree or not, this is what you are. Fadix 22:34, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Do not...

message: Unless it is one's intention to promote advocacy of largely unsupported revisionism and muddy the truth. Frankly I don't much like either article. I have not much hope at all that there will ever be anything decent here as we can see from the charges and countercharges - there is really no "middle ground" on most of this and any "middle ground" is likely not the truth besides. 
Obviously if we are stuck on use of the term "Genocide" - questioning if it is historically accurate/inaccurate - then yes - we have problems. It is only politically controversial - it is otherwise completely accepted. Why is the Armenian Genocide given recognition for/as such at Genocide conferences and when (cross disciplinary) Genocide scholars discuss genocide denial if it is not considered as genocide? And for Coolcat to state "why should we care what scholars think - because they are biased" etc - well - I thought it was Turkey's position to leave the issue to the historians. Well I think the historians have spoken. If we are to take a political position as equivalent to the historical position - well it makes me wonder how other articles in Wikipedia might look with this approach. 
And again - what Coolcat is advocating is essentially to let the Holocaust denier have an equal voice to that of legitimate scholars, historians and in the face of accepted truth. I have scanned (read in its entirely actually) the talk pages since I last posted - and what I see is clear advocacy. Coolcat is not objective and this "approach" is a ruse. For one - to refuse to use the term "murder" when this is clearly what has occurred. Again - I find Coolcat's statement - repeated several times –
: "You want to assume Armenians were a hundred percent innocent, thats rather fanatic. --Cool Cat My Talk 22:29, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  I have reviewed the two articles and the talk of this last weekend - and I repeat - there is no hope in this approach 

message: (note - I just posted this and it was seemingly deleted in its entirety. if someone is playing games here I suggest that they stop!)
:the deletion was by User:RaffiKojian; however, there were edits by both of you in very close succession and I believe it was an entirely inadvertent consequence of an edit conflict. thanks for reposting it. — Davenbelle 18:30, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
Before it is possible to proceed further to develop this article (that I think basically needs to be redone from scratch) it is clear that certain issues must be resolved and certain facts and definitions agreed upon. First and foremost - of course – we must establish the legitimacy of use of the term "genocide" to describe the primary events we are discussing in the article. (I think Fadix has already more then adequately done so – but as this is – in a sense – a restart – and considering the controversy – I think we need to take this step by step and establish a baseline to provide an agreed upon foundation for the article. So is use of the term “genocide” legitimate. Wikipedia itself has an entry concerning genocide that should be referenced (and in it there are links to source material for such a definition) - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide 
I believe the evidence entirely and most clearly supports the contention that the Armenian people of Anatolia/the Ottoman Empire were subjected to a campaign of genocide and that what resulted from such was in fact genocide. For instance in 1985 the United Nations Economic and Social Council Commission on Human Rights
Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities released this following findings: (this is an excerpt with my highlights)
“…the distinguishing characteristics of the twentieth century in evolving the development of genocide "are that it is committed in cold blood by the deliberate fiat of holders of despotic political power, and that the perpetrators of genocide employ all the resources of present-day technology and organization to make their planned massacres systematic and complete". The Nazi aberration has unfortunately not been the only case of genocide in the twentieth century. Among other examples which can be cited as qualifying are the German massacre of Hereros in 1904, the Ottoman massacre of Armenians in 1915-1916, the Ukrainian pogrom of Jews in 1919, the Tutsi massacre of Hutu in Burundi in 1965 and 1972, the Paraguayan massacre of Ache Indians prior to 1974,16 the Khmer Rouge massacre in Kampuchea between 1975 and 1978, and the contemporary Iranian killings of Baha'is. 
Additionally (the footnote):
At least 1 million, and possibly well over half of the Armenian population, are reliably estimated to have been killed or death marched by independent authorities and eye-witnesses. This is corroborated by reports in United States, German and British archives and of contemporary diplomats in the Ottoman Empire, including those of its ally Germany. The German Ambassador, Wangenheim, for example, on 7 July 1915 wrote "the government is indeed pursuing its goal of exterminating the Armenian race in the Ottoman Empire" (Wilhelmstrasse archives).”
And:
“The Turks also in 1919-20 held trials: not of ‘war criminals’ but of some of the Ottomans guilty of the Armenian genocide”.
http://www.armenian-genocide.org/Affirmation.169/current_category.6/affirmation_detail.html
Based on this statement alone I believe we can justifiably use the term “genocide” to apply to the Armenian case. But of course there are reams of other affirmations of use of this term to apply to this case. One other statement  I want to add to illustrate the proper use of the term is the 1995 Resolution by the State Duma of Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation:
Based on irrefutable historic facts which attest to the extermination of Armenians on the territory of Western Armenia from 1915 to 1922 and, in accordance with the following Conventions adopted by the United Nations:
Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, December 9, 1948;
Convention on the Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitations to War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity, November 26, 1968;
Aspiring to restore the humanitarian traditions of the Russian State and,
Emphasizing that through the initiative of Russia, the Great European Powers already in 1915 characterized the actions of the Turkish Empire against the Armenian people as a "Crime Against Humanity" and,
Noting that the physical extermination of the fraternal Armenian people in its historic homeland aimed at destroying Russia;
The State Duma of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation:
Condemns the perpetrators of the extermination of Armenians from 1915 to 1922;
Expresses its deep sympathy to the Armenian people and recognizes April 24 as a day of remembrance for the victims of the Genocide. 
http://www.armenian-genocide.org/Affirmation.151/current_category.7/affirmation_detail.html
I invite others to comment and to provide other links if it is thought necessary. I think we should come to agreement on use of this term and move on. Once we move beyond this point I think we should perhaps examine and agree upon a basic chronology of the Genocide and then discuss the issue of pre-meditation (proof for such) and perhaps motivation/justification/intent and then we should arrive at an agreement and develop a presentation illustrating the mechanics of how the Genocide was carried out (deportations [including by who/what means – with examples etc] and perhaps introduce the subject of the concentration camps and what they were etc, discuss instances of mass killings [again by who – role of Kurds and such should also be discussed] and methods of killings etc) . We should conclude with the results of the Genocide – depopulation Armenians from Anatolia and discuss numbers of total (and perhaps place specific) deaths. This I propose is the outline of a very basic presentation that I think we can establish as fact. Beyond this there are numerous other issues and events that could and do warrant further in-depth discussion. But I propose that we proceed with the basics - as just outlined – in a step-by-step fashion. Then at some point I think we need to address this whole issue of Turkish counter-charges (legitimate or not) and the issue and history of genocide denial.--THOTH 17:33, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Concerning the legitimacy of using the term "genocide" in this case - and related issues 

message: :: NOTE I have moved Armenian Genocide - Working Version to Armenian Genocide/Working version in accordance with site policy on working versions. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:03, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Working version moved

message: User:Fadix/Ottoman_Armenian_Casualties This is the article I am working on, it is at a very early stage of developpement. It will only concentrate on the casulties figures on this article. More info and the footnotes will be added later. Fadix 03:24, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: To follow the progress

message: This period of protection has gone on much longer than I anticipated, and I'm releasing it for edits because I don't think anything more can be achieved by this process. I will only protect again if you all start being naughty and getting into an edit war again, so behave. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:00, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have moved the working version to the current article page.  Since nobody else made any changes - I am going to assume it can at least be used as the basis for further changes... --RaffiKojian 03:34, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Unprotecting

message: I think that this article needs to look a whole lot more like this article on the Armenian Genocide which, you'll note, is a fork of an earlier version of this article. — Davenbelle 09:40, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
:I think I disagree. --Cool Cat My Talk 10:20, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  a real article on the Armenian Genocide