Talk:Armenian genocide/Archive 18

message: According to United Nations, a genocide can only be regocnized if the country who made it and a group of countries come together and search the history. If it is found to be really done, then they can regocnize it. It is not possible to understand those countries who recognized a so-called genocide.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.108.171.54 (talk) 21:53, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  JUST ONE THING! 

message: BBC, The World's most prestigous and reputable news channel does not call these events "a genocide" http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6505927.stm, so can anybody explain to me why we have such article on Wikipedia? Furthermore, to my opinion Turkish people are not so mean with their words as Armenians when you read through the discussions on this page. Don't you agree? 88.235.97.58 16:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, because one article calling it "mass killings" instead of genocide means the whole page should be deleted. Not quite --AW 16:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, did you read the article? It says this "Armenians say 1.5 million of their people were killed in a genocide by Ottoman Turks during World War I, either through systematic massacres or through starvation. More than a dozen countries, various international bodies and many Western historians agree that it was genocide. Turkey says there was no genocide. It acknowledges that many Armenians died, but says the figure was below one million." --AW 16:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Check this out ! 

message: 'Armenian Genocide' is a controversial topic on which there is no scientific consensus.
"Wikipedia:Protection policy" (and "Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines") in a way restrict a democratic discussion.
I do not mean that I favor any side of the debate but as far as I am concerned, this article is similar to an article which would claim that God absolutely existed and some certain group or society was rejecting this fact. Presenting a controversial subject as a fact and saying that one of the sides of this two-sided event rejects this fact, do not contribute to the discussion.
Armenians claiming that this is such a fact that it is not debatable or Turks claiming that this is such unreal that it is not debatable are both wrong.
It should be stated in the article that this is not a fact but a claim, one side of the story. And people who are on the other side should be allowed to tell their point of view, rather than just being mentioned in the article as the "rejecting" side or the minority that accepts this.
I believe that many people like myself would prefer to hear different points on a subject rather than being presented with selective information.
Forgive me if I made any mistakes.
Thank you for your consideration.
Memox 17:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you Memox, I have been arguing for this for a long time, and I even quite Wiki for a couple of months. It is very good to have a second opinion. I have never tried to change the article itself, but wanted to add some translation from Turkish wiki, which was the Turkish POV. I want to ask again, whether it would be suitable to insert some parts of Turkish POV, with Turkish claims? Caglarkoca 11:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Notable and relevant Turkish views can be added to Armenian Genocide#The positions of Turkish people, provided they are referenced. Other relevant views can be added to Armenian Genocide#Academic views on the issue outside Turkey and Armenian Genocide#The position of the international community. AecisBrievenbus 11:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection Policy 

message: The "Recognition of the Armenian Genocide" section reads more like  someones arguments for why it would be a bad idea for the USA to recognise the genocide. 
Phrases such as "This measure has a high probablility of resulting in immediate negative impacts on the lives and welfare of American troops stationed in the Middle East." are used without being backed p by any sources.
I suggest the section is stripped back to just the facts, which are currently rather overtaken by speculation.
82.36.106.9 17:57, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recognition of the Armenian Genocide 

message: I've tagged this article the section on recognition as current due to the large amount of coverage generated by the recent US House committee vote and its potential impact on U.S./Turkish diplomatic relations. If there is consensus to remove it, I will do so. Ronnotel 12:45, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added current tag 

message: Should be given, and appropriate template used on main article page. If this was done due to Office Action,  should be used.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  21:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reason for protection 

message: 
The the section "Recognition of the Armenian Genocide" is the line "22 countries, the constituent UK country of Wales, and 40 of the US states, have adopted formal resolutions acknowledging the Armenian Genocide as a bona fide historical event." The oroblem here is the number "22"; a sentence should never start with a numerical quanitity, that quantity should always be spelt out. Given as how this is currently on the main page, I suggest this be changed forthwith. 70.135.170.16 23:08, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Ronnotel 02:12, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grammar error 

message: Article states: "Turkish-Armenian intellectual Hrant Dink (who recognized the Genocide) was often critical of these recognition campaigns as being unhelpful.[114]", however this is NOT what the reference cites in any capacity.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.73.110.171 (talk) 23:39, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hrant Dink 

message: I've removed Wales from the section about recognition by country. It struck me as rather odd that the Welsh Assembly would bother recognizing this or any other event of this nature. The Welsh Assembly is devolved from the Parliament of the UK but it has very limited powers. It does not have the power to make any kind of legislation regarding foreign relations. Trying to Google up something on this turns up this page which appears to relate to Cardiff Council. This is hardly recognition by Wales, and appears too trivial to stay in the article listed under Cardiff. Jooler 00:24, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I take it back http://www.assemblywales.org/hom-pdfviewer?url=n0000000000000000000000000003432 Jooler 00:39, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wales 

message: The turkish translation for Armenian Genocide ist not that right. In Turkey they use to say 
Sözde Ermeni Soykirimi which means quasi armenian genocide . Now some ppl. will just freak out and say "there was a genocide" but that's not the point. I mean no one uses "ermeni soykirimi" they always say "sözde ermeni soykirimi" that's the "official" translation. That's just a suggestion. Greetings --Azec 01:13, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is reminiscent of the terminology used in the Federal Republic of Germany to refer to the Democratic Republic of Germany - Die sogenante DDR - the so-called democratic republic. It was definitely political and by Wikipedia standards it would have been considered POV if someone introduced "so-called" into the article about the DDR, even though that's what most people in the Federal Republic called it. I think the same applies in this case. Harry was a white dog with black spots 15:33, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong translation 

message: Dear Admins, please delete the following paragraph:
"Some Germans openly supported the Ottoman policy against the Armenians, as the German naval attaché in Constantinople said to U.S. Ambassador Henry Morgenthau; "I have lived in Turkey the larger part of my life," he told me, "and I know the Armenians. I also know that both Armenians and Turks cannot live together in this country. One of these races has got to go. And I don't blame the Turks for what they are doing to the Armenians. I think that they are entirely justified. The weaker nation must succumb. The Armenians desire to dismember Turkey; they are against the Turks and the Germans in this war, and they therefore have no right to exist here."[65]"
Morgenthau's book "Ambassador Morgenthau's Story" - the quote is taken from it - is a crude piece of propaganda to drum up support for the American war effort. It is not only biased, but Morgenthau also made up crucial facts.
Please compare the article of Henry Morgenthau, Sr.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.59.133.60 (talk) 22:24, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Morgenthau 

message: Just curious, how can a genocide taken place some 90 years ago be a "current event"? Is it still going on? If not, I'm removing it. Feel free to restore it in case it stands for a purpose.
Wikinist 15:49, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Lurker, thats not justify the tag you added! This article is not dedicated to the US congressional recognition, but the Genocide happened 90 years ago. And such a tag is already added to the "Recognition of Armenian Genocide" section. Last 30 years different countries parliaments continuosly are recognizing the Armenian Genocide, it never means we must keep this tag for decades...Andranikpasha 16:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A current event? 

message: I think the following line from the second section should be moved to the "Denial of the Armenian Genocide" article as it represents denialist propapagnda of the Ottoman state during the genocide:
::The New York Times quoted a Turkish embassy gazette in 1896 that stated: "It wasn't the Porte that caused the massacres in Armenia, but the Christian propaganda in Asia Minor where their cry, "Down with Islam," initiated the war of the crescent against the cross." [13]
This type quote has NO place in the second section of an Armenian Genocide article.  This propaganda was made by Ottoman officials to deny the Armenian genocide as it was occurring.
67.101.234.96 16:27, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree, but mostly because the quote concerned the 1896 massacres, not the Armenian Genocide. For the same reason I've removed the sentences that recounted a specific incident during the 1909 Adana massacres, they seemed out of place in an general entry about the Armenian genocide. Meowy 21:39, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't agree.  The Adana massacre and the Armenian genocide are issues that are very much related.  The quote above is from an official Ottoman Turkish source which is spreading false propaganda while the massacres were taking place, in order to justify them.  Serouj 06:06, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

text: There is considerable academic scholarship on the Armenian Genocide.  If you feel that a genocide did not take place, then I suggest you become an academician and try to present your claims in an international peer-reviewed journal.  FYI It is not true that Armenians of the Ottoman Empire joined the Russians; there were Armenians living in both the Russian and the Ottoman Empire at the time, and the Armenian Revolutionary Federation had a specific policy of having Armenians fight for the side they were living on.  This effectively pitted Armenian against Armenian within the armies they were fighting for.  However, on the Ottoman side, the Armenians in the Ottoman Army were not given arms and were forced into labor battalions and later killed.  My great-grandfather and my grandfather's two brothers both were part of these battalions, and never returned.  Serouj 22:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

text:  Sorry 24.5.70.65  - Historians and scholars disagree with your "so-called" "facts". If you are so interested in a fair treatment of this issue I suggest that you first educate yourself beyond the (untrue) Turkish Government propoganda level treatment of these issues. sad. I just want to add that there is one significant difference between your contentions concerning the differences between accusations concerning Jews an WWII and those you present against Armenians here that needs to be noted. And that is - the Germans of today no longer believe the racist propoganda, exaggerations and untruths that their genocidal regiem perpetuated against the Jews. Unfortunatly the same cannot be said regarding the Turks of today - such as yourself - who continue to believe - lock stock & barrel - in the lies and untruths purpetrated against their "hated minority" the Armenians from the time where Turks were incited against them and undertook a methodical genocidal campaign with the intention of eliminating them from the political & social landscape of the nation. Armenian Genocide denial is only not contained among the "lunitic fringe" - as you say - like Holocaust denial - because of the perpetuation of such by the Turkish Government. Factualy - there is no difference. Denial of the Armenian Genocide is just as factually incorrect and just as repulsive and wrong as denial of the Holocaust. Is this really who you want to be? --THOTH 17:04, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move request of denialist quote to Denial of Armenian Genocide article 

message: "Nations which did not get rid of the Jews perished. One of the most famous examples of this was the downfall of a people who were so proud — the Persians, who now lead a pitiful existence as Armenians." I do not find one single German source for this quote and doubt the authenticity. --KnightMove 12:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, you're right. And the quote about Hitler referencing the Armenians was considered unverified and unverifiable by those who've looked into it after  WW2. Presented like fact here, though, big surprise!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.5.70.65 (talk) 17:59, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hitler on Persians and Armenians... 

message: There is no verifiable source information for bone photos of supposedly killed Armenian people. They might well be of Ottoman civilians killed by armed Armenian forces during WW1. --88.244.62.15 22:45, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here you go. http://net.lib.byu.edu/~rdh7/wwi/comment/morgenthau/Morgen27.htm  --VartanM 23:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Perhaps they are Barsoomians? Or might you be able to offer us some other rather fanciful speculation as to their improbable origin?--THOTH 00:10, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bone photos 

message: 1st paragraph: ..."to have been between 1 million and 1.5 million."  sidebox: Deaths	600,000 - 1,800,000[1][2][3] Smashkeyboardcreateusername (talk) 23:05, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  death count?