Talk:Armenian genocide/Archive 15

This is an archive of past discussions about Armenian genocide. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

→

Archive 20

The lack of a public prosecution of the organizers behind Armenian Genocide by the Allied powers was said to have largely influenced nazi Germany's fascist leader Adolf Hitler.

Sure nazism is influenced by facism but I think it's missleading to use "NAZI Germanys FACIST leader", in my oppnion it should simply say nazi Germany's leader Adolf Hitler. --DerMeister 20:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. It's poorly written anyway, it doesn't make any sense - how would Hitler influence them not to persecute? And who said that? --AW 21:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, how about this version "It is said that Nazi leader Adolf Hitler was encouraged to commit genocide against the Jews because of the lack of any public prosecution for the organizers of the Armenian Genocide." or "It was said that the lack of public prosecution of the organizers of the Armenian genocide imfluenced Nazi leader Adolf Hitler decide to commit genocide against the Jews." I'm just trying to make it make sense, I am not making any judgement about the statement. It needs a source in any case. --AW 23:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Sounds much better, I'll try to find it.--MarshallBagramyan 23:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I think we should add this information in this article about the findings of mass graves in Eastern Turkey believed to date from the 1915 Armenian and Assyrian Genocides. http://www.aina.org/news/20061128104356.htm Also in Turkish http://www.kurdistan-post.com/News-file-article-sid-13065.html Also if Turkey claims there was no Genocide than why is the Turkish government trying to hide this finding and the military personnel forbade the villagers to tell anyone about the site and then they closed the site. Although this information was leaked Turkey pressed the villagers to give the names of those responsible for it.

I read about this too. To me, this incident isn't surprising and it's probably one of the more blatant examples of Armenian Genocide denial (like you said, if there was no genocide, then why is the Turkish government so concerned about these bones?) This news is important and should be posted on both this article and the article on Nisibis (Nusaybin). -- Clevelander 22:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I do not think that AINA is a credible source. Besides excavated mass graves of Turks exist too, but no one has bothered to mention them[www.tbmm.gov.tr/yayinlar/yayin1/7-Konukcu(143-154).pdf Massacres of the Turks and mass graves]

--Hasanidin 02:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Hasanidin you just told me my source is not credible and you gave me a source that is also not credible either for your claim. Fine if that source is not credible I can give you another source http://www.topix.net/forum/blogs/T319LCRCGEIVKNP17 or [1] or [2] ROOB323 03:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

The accc.org.uk is Armenian controlled, whereas regnum.ru is a Russian nationalist website, which features as a top story in its Russian verision an article denying the Ukrainian Holodomor. I checked the news in Turkish newspapers though, and it seems that the Turkish newspaper Özgür Gündem has indeed reported on the discovery of some bones and it seems also that it has been suspended for 15 days after remarks by a Turkish general of it being the mouthpiece of the PKK as reported by Radikal [3]. For now, I would refrain from any speculations on this apparent mass grave and await an investigation by experts. --Hasanidin 04:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Since the Turkish government closed off this site and told the villagers that found the site to remain silent. I really don't think there is any other way for experts to come and investigate this findings if the Turkish government is trying to keep silent regarding the finding, since this site was discovered on October 17, 2006 and kept secret until one of the villagers leaked the story. ROOB323 05:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

all news sources refer to a single newspaper here "Özgür gündem" the newspaper of the PKK terorist organisation. However if you could have read Turkish you would have seen that Kurdistan news tell the story quite different. stating that the villagers have found the grave while trying burry their death. and they covered the grave with stones. No mention of soldiers coming and closing the grave and warning people to remain silent. it is just said that villagers were asked to close the grave and not to do anything (obviously not to damage the site)and it is stated in the upcoming days the place will be investigated. this is simply a thing that any goverment will do. just two months ago Turk history society challenged Armenians to come and find the mass graves of Armenians in a joined effort. This has not hit the head lines of course. So it is unfair to give an impression as if Turkey is trying to hide something. Finding a mass grave is not surprising since many people were killed during that period. what is interesting is that suddenly Swedish foreign minister jumped into that. the history is repeating it self over and over. Turkish mass graves found in so many places are no news. yet a gossib about a possible Armenian/Christian mass grave moves the Sweden parliment so deeply.neurobio 09:54, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

If the Turkish government is not trying to hide anything than we will see if the Turkish government will respond to Insan Haklari Derneği (IHD), a Turkish organisation working with human rights issues, which has sent an open letter to the Turkish ministry of the interior demanding an investigation of the mass grave discovery, to answer if the mass graves that were found near Nusaybin has something to do with the Assyrian and Armenian genicides. By the way since the Turkish government kept quiet for a while after discovering this graves the only newspaper in Turkey that took pictures and reported about this findings they dug further into it and came into contact with professor David Gaunt at Södertörn University in Stockholm who has done a lot of research about the Assyrian genocide and the news about the mass finding was distributed by Tidningarnas Telegrambyrå (TT), Sweden's top news agency and was thereafter published in several Swedish media, including the two leading morning papers Dagens Nyheter (DN) and Svenska Dagbladet (Svd) this is why "moves the Sweden parliament so deeply" like you said. Also you claim there were "Turkish mass graves found in so many places" can you give me reliable sources for your claim? I want to see what your sources are from, when you accuse me of having a false source from a terrorist organization newspaper. ROOB323 22:59, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

No one is accusing you of anything. "özgür gündem" is the newspaper of PKK and if these newspapers are using it as a source it is their fault not yours of course. here you can read an article on Turkish mass graves http://www.tbmm.gov.tr/yayinlar/yayin1/7-Konukcu(143-154).pdf. and here you can see the pictures and details of excavation http://www.ermenisorunu.gen.tr/english/massacres/assesment.html neurobio 23:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Neurobio I went to those websites that you gave me, but both of those sites were from a Turkish websites and I tried using google to find out if other countries websites claimed the same thing that were on the websites of Turkey, but I couldn't find any. I don't think that is a reliable source since only Turkish websites had those claims and the stuff I was reading were anti-Armenian website. ROOB323 03:31, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

that only confirms what I have said most of these graves were opened decades ago. there were foreign professors present at the excavation. Still you can not find a single word about it in the international press. But these are scolarly documented. that is the reason why Armenian genocide issue has become common knowledge. For example you cant find a word about the malta tribunal or the armenian rebelion except for Turkish web sites. Despite the perfect documentation. such as this one.

To call these "scholarly documented" is a bit of a joke. I have read private reports from (non-Armenian or Turk) individuals who have examined much of this "evidence" and who have noted in some cases quite a bit of doctoring of what otherwise are likely Christian/Armenians to make it look as if they are Muslims. The same hold true for a number of artifats that are kept is supposed museums that depict Muslims slaughtered by Armenians. Much of this is very amaturish with obvious mitakes that in fact shows the opposite of what is being presented/portrayed. Again, I'm not claiming that there was none of this - Armenians killing innocent Turks. When Russians took over areas Russian Armenians, Cossacks, Russians and even Ottoman Armenian men who had fled the Genocide - did torch towns and villages and commit atrocities. And as sad as these criminal acts of war are - they still do not equate - in any respect - concerning government intent and policy and the totality and severity of the acts carried out against innocent woeman and children and such - the CUP directed program to annihilate its ethnic and religious minorities - of which the Armenians were first and formost on the list to be eliminated. Let us not forget that Assyrians and Greeks were similarly (later) treated to the same fate. Were Assyrians and Greeks likewise claimed to be collaborators with enemy forces commiting atrocities against Muslims? And even if there were some Assyrian and (Ottoman) Greek individuals or even forces that happened to join the Allies (such as Jews and Jewish units that joined the allies in WW2) do we then accept that the government directed and prosecuted genocides against these people never happened?--THOTH 15:49, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Just removed the entries of the same university after some names. Would be good if someone can provide a data that these academician have also lectured at the university of Bilkent, otherwise I will see it as a cheap attempt to promote some university. xeryus 19:36, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

In regards to the Washington Post article on the left, read the text, it refers to the Russian Armenian Army in the city of Kars, moving in the Ottoman Empire. Kars had been under Russian control since 1878 so by then, any Armenians living there were subjects of the Russian Tsar, not the Ottoman Empire. This was a poor attempt to prove that Armenians had already sided with the Russians in November 1914 but it seems otherwise useful so thanks for uploading it..--MarshallBagramyan 06:33, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

it says: The Russian Army of Armenia, whose base is on Kars, Transcaucasia, is approaching the Turkish fortress of Erzerum.

In several towns occupied by the Russians the Armenian students have shown themselves ready to join the invading army. Reports tell of armed conflicts arising from the refusal of Armenians to become Turkish conscripts and surrender their arms. It is now rumored that the important city of Van is besieged by Armenian guerilla bands in great force. In Feitun the Armenians are said to exceed 20.000 in number and they are reported to have defeated all the Turkish Troops sent against them causing the Turks heavy losses.

what does occupied and invade mean??? Where is Van? where is Feitun. "Zeytun" in Turkish. Needless to say in Ottoman bordes of course. and how Russian Armenians can be asked to join turkish army. please... it seems that Armenian rebelion is not only a Turkish myth after all.neurobio 06:45, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

And where exactly do the sources come from, Petrograd or Constantinople?--MarshallBagramyan 06:55, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

it is under the section that starts as "An official communication from the general staff of the Caucasian army under date of Nov. 10, says". an in the entire article the names of the cities that all the reports are taken are Rome, London, Petrograd. neurobio 07:00, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

But who is the exact source that communique that the Armenians are in a mass uprising (20,000 is indeed a very large number)? And do other news articles at the time carry the same headline? Rome, London and Petrograd are simply the locations of the news bureau chiefs.--MarshallBagramyan 07:04, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Winston Churchill himself noted that at least 150,000 Armenian rebells joined the Russian army during its invasion of Turkey, and as many of them had fallen in battle, Armenians had to gather again around 35,000 to maintain the front against the Turks in what he called "liberated" Armenian territories. Why are you denying this mass uprising of the Armenians?

The Russian Caucasian army, which occupied the liberated Western Armenian provinces, was in disorder and rapidly disintegrating, and the Russian soldiers deserted to return to their homes. The first task of the new Caucasian government, limited though its means were, was to gather an army which could maintain the Turkish front. Since the Tatars refused to fight their Turkish cousins and the Georgian Mensheviks were under the sway of an inconvenient and illogical pacifism, the entire burden of the war fell upon the shoulders of the Armenians. Winston Churchill writes: “At the beginning of 1918 the Russian army abandoned the front in Asia Minor and became a scattered flock whose only desire was to return home. Russians left the front very quickly and the Turks had not yet advanced. The Armenians who stayed behind made a desperate attempt to defend their country, Armenia, and the Armenians in the Russian army gathered and, with the volunteer units, for a time, were able to stop the Turkish advance. Of the 150 000 soldiers that the Armenians had supplied to the Russian army, all had fallen in battle or were scattered over the empire, so that the Armenians were not able to gather more than 35 000 men.”

At the start of 1918, the Armenian army, continuing in Armenian military traditions, the hope and the condition for an independent Armenian government, took up position at the Western Armenian front. The Armenian army was led by commanders such as General Nazarbekian, General Andranik (known as the Armenian Garibaldi) and Colonel Morel, the Russian officer who was its founder and protector. The army fought without respite to defend Western Armenia and Transcaucasia, a 400 km front, against the Turkish army. General Brehman subsequently recorded: “The efforts of the Armenians at this remote front has been concealed from the European general public, but their place in history should be assured with the heroic deeds carried out during these battle.

Source: [4] --Hasanidin 15:56, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

how should I know the exact source? the section starts as "An official communication from the general staff of the Caucasian army". Also the Newyork times from the same time (there maybe several days of difference) has exactly the same news I dont have the original though just the quote from a book. also many more articles report simmilar thing from later time points. Marshall I admire your scepticism and it is well placed especially when it comes to newspapers but do you ask the same question when it fits your ideas? I wish you could have.neurobio 07:23, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

and generally they state the source especialy when it comes from a Turkish sourse such as this one.

Iowa Recorder - 1914 june 1 Destroy Many Towns

According to a dispatch from the Vali of Bitlis, Asiatic Turkey, seventeen villages have been destroyed by Armenian insurgents in the district of Sassun. More than 600 Armenian families have taken refuge at Mush, a town in Bitlis.neurobio 07:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm only curious Neuro. I only ask these questions whenever a particular source does not make sense and deserves scrutiny. It would be more sound if the information was coming from, for example, consulate officials or missionaries in the region or intl. observers rather than for obvious reasons, the government of the Ottoman Empire. In the case of the NYT article that appears on this article, it clearly states who is the source (i.e. the American Relief Society) and subsequent newspapers also state where their information is coming from (US Consuls, Ambassador so and so, etc.) Naturally the argument for the Genocide implies that all other Turkish officials, the valis and the kaymakams included, were privy to what was going to occur so such statements are of the norm.How many times have I asked for raising your opinions on the cited information on this article? --MarshallBagramyan 07:40, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunatelly I regard missionary sources as the most dubious ones. Simply because they actively took part in the Greek and Bulgarian independence wars. Also think about therir deeds in the oldworld in America continent and Africa. these "men of god" unfortunately has served as tools of invasion and propaganda for a century. They also gave the same news of atrocities from these places while all Turkish population was continuously massacred and exiled there. No one still ask what happened to Turks that lived in Greece and Bulgaria. their population now is almost non existant. I lost hope here because my simples adits like "some western scholars also has the idea as the Turks" are just removed in an instant. As you know I respect your attitute but please try to read other sources also. here I have found another article and the source is petrograd. Basicly the same story. but with some aditional data. transcription is there. neurobio 07:55, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Are we now establishing a policy that whatever is printed in an American Newspaper regarding the Armenian Genocide and suroundign events is entirely factual? If so that I would guess that we might have hundreds of entires - if not thousands to add to the database. In any event - so these articles present that some Armenian "students" have taken up arms against the Ottoman Turks - well this should be no surprise - after several generations of abuse - and recent massacres of very large numbers - that some Armenian have become dissatisfied with the protections offered by the ottoman State - or lack therof - and have taken it upon themselves to be prepared to defend themselvs and their families. As for rumours of numbers and towns such as Van being besieged - they are just that - rumors - whose sources most likely are Turkish Government connected or otherwise questionable. If of course we see that these thigs are being reported from a variety of sources (not just from a variety of newspapers using the same source) then perhaps we can judge them credible. Until then we will take the word of actual eyewitnesses to these events and rely on information that it is clearly cooroborated by multiple sources.--THOTH 15:37, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Considering that's how most information is acquired in this world, yes. But to help bolster those news reports come testimonies from everyone: Armenians themselves, Germans, Americans, Austrians, Swedes, Danes, Norwegians and even Turks that Turkish government soldiers with the help of irregular brigands took part in widespread massacres without any regard for age, indiscriminate, sadistic, systematic killing.

Yes, many Armenians deserted the Turkish army when they saw the Russians coming in. Would you blame if some of them did (and this some is at most, several hundred)? They had been desperate to leave the miserable conditions the Empire had been forcing upon them and had been deluded by the CUP's promises for constitutional reform. Reread Ramsey's quote and see how he describes that Armenians and Greeks were "dogs to be spat upon". After all those massacres and outrages and abridged rights they had been living under for centuries, would any normal human being still tolerate them and risk his life in fighting for that same government.

Unfortunately, yes, they would as the vast majority of Armenians poured their hearts into wishing well the armies of the Ottoman Empire, of blessing Armenian troops who were to be drafted, of pledging to donate foodstuffs, of condemning Armenian soldiers who deserted, of telling their people not to fight back if provoked. And look where all that blind obedience led to. A two year old child living in the heart of Turkey at that time was in no way complicit in the acts of a minority group (Russian supporters) and the fact that that child died in the Syrian desert is proof as to why the Genocide is undeniably true.--MarshallBagramyan 18:06, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

ok Marshall can you do something like that. check your sources about previous "Turkish crimes" and mark them on the map. you will see they are cumulated in an area where revolutionarists were active. Mainly Van, sasun, bitlis. But armenians were living every where. No real big thing ever happened in other areas that armenians lived. This centuries of massacres is simply un true. everything started after 1870s when Russia offically got the right to be the protector of ottoman Armenians. Every thing happened in the area is politically motivated. there has never been a racial hatered agains Armenians. one this is true about the Ottoman empire it supresses any uprising most brutally. But this holds true for anybody the same thing happened to pure Turks of Aydin, Kurds of diyabakir. No special treatment ro Armenians due to hate. there are thousands of quotes about the fairness of Ottoman rule one must have tried hard to find that piece "dogs to be spat upon". this is just the most stupid accusation ever. Armenians had hundrest of high ranking officers in the Ottoman empire. Read Armenian survivors testimonies at least they tell about their life there. you see I read the real Armenian sources but you do not. please read Hrant sariyans diary and see that the miss treatment is confined to the areas in uproar. Are you like Clevelander who can not stand any thing against his dogma.

If have talked what genocide is hundred times still you say it is undeniable the act. Many people died this is the undeniable fact but calling it genocide is simply outrageous. lets say all your claims are true but still if Armenians rebelled and joined the enemy and helped them this shows that the actions taken by the goverment is because o military or political conditions. Genocide can only be present in the highes level of hatered against a group. there is no such thing.

It is a shame that no one in wiki took action agains Clevelanders Vandal acts (see history). this page is dead... neurobio 22:28, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

We have already discussed this before. Just because the Germans had never attempted to exterminate a race until 1941, did not mean that they didn't commit genocide in that time period. Armenians, Greeks, Assyrians and Jews were dogs to be spat upon in the eyes of Muslims. All that nonsense coming from Voltaire and other Europeans who traveled through the region is worth nil; they never had their wives taken from them with impunity, they never were forced to pay multiple taxes, they never lived under that system so they are unable to make those judgments that the Sultan was as benevolent as they described him as. Ramsay lived there for twelve years and that's what makes his account much more credible. Armenians, Christians and Jews for that matter, did not start truly begin integrating and serving in the military until the Balkan Wars of 1912.

Even claiming that Armenians held such high positions (economic wise, the Ottoman Mint, ammunition, etc.) was due to the Islamic law which precluded Muslims from entering banking or interest loaning, that's the worst excuse of the "equality" argument of all.

but calling it genocide is simply outrageous I don't make up the evidence, the fact that nearly every single person living there at the time, Turkish ally or not, stated that they saw Armenians being destroyed systematically. The fact that much of the evidence in private correspondence (telegrams, letters, etc.) comes from Turkey's allies is what makes it so damning when wartime censorship in Germany strictly omitted such references.--MarshallBagramyan 23:16, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

How about the POV in the pre-CUP history? The life of Ottoman second-class citizens was not nearly as repressive as the author makes it sound. Non-Muslim Ottomans could testify in religious court, but their testimony meant less. Like, say, if there is a believer's word against an "infidel"'s word. Mind, this was only the state within the religious courts. These always dealt with the more domestic side of the law and, even in this capacity, tended to touch and less-and-less upon the regular legal proceedings within the empire throughout the modern era. Until the fervour of nationalism infected the decaying empire, the non-Muslim Ottoman was not more often spit on than doffed a hat to; the Non-Muslim Ottoman was granted rights to facilitate the practices of his or her own faith and, before the seizure of power by the CUP, Christians and Jews had enjoyed two generations of being priveleged enough to choose between serving in or paying into the army. Armenian Ottomans dominated European land trade in and out of the empire. Members of the Armenian populace could win, by their merits, the respect of their Muslim, Greek and Jewish neighbours. I would also like to add that citing a European travelogue to characterize the treatment of Christians in the Ottoman Empire can only cast doubt on the validity of your characterization, based, as it seems to be, on unqualified Orientalist pulp. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.81.123.57 (talk • contribs) 07:03, 3 December 2006 (UTC).

Well, still no change on this part of the article. I dare not make an attempt because I know this is such a sensitive and highly controversial topic; my changes would probably not last a minute. I just can't understand why people so jealously protect their status as victims. I can imagine it must be hurtful when parties claim that your murdered ancestors were never murdered (or that they deserved what they got), but inaccurately painting the everyday treatment of non-Muslims in the Ottoman Empire does nothing to lift the veils from these eyes. It must be that hateful philosophy, nationalism, that makes some Turks vehemently deny the CUP's crimes as if today's Turk would have to inherit the blame of the atrocities if they would admit the verity of them. It must be an attempt to appease the dead that makes some Armenians wish to paint with such dark colours the daily lives of their ancestors. I must repeat, Armenians did not live in constant danger, fear and disrespect from the time that the first Turcoman tribes trickled into their homeland until the establishment of an Armenian-Nation State. We need to examine the purpose of such slander. How does it help the debate between Turks and Armenians when we make it look like only non-Muslims were subject to the whims of the arbitrary and intrusive state? Wasn't it the case that all Ottoman subjects were affected by the rare occasion that the Sublime Port managed to intrude into provincial matters? Wasn't there ever any neighborliness between Muslim and non-Muslim Ottomans? What purpose is served by ignoring the data which contradicts this British ethnographers and his friends in Wikiland? If you care, check out Colin Imber, Donald Quataert or Mark Mazower and stop trying to stir up ghosts. It hurts an impartial observer to watch this. I say I'm impartial, but I am not alien to claims of victim hood. I'm Irish, but you don't see me flinging red paint at today's English. It has recently come to my attention that I may be allergic to wheat as a direct result of English prohibitions on my ancestors' diets! This, at least, is a crime against my very person. Unfortunately, none live today whom I can punish for the crime. Admittedly, few would dare deny the crimes committed against my people (and I haven't heard any accusations of genocide leveled against my forebares), so you can say that I'm speaking from privilege. All I can say in response is that no ghost is lain to rest when you greedily clutch at claims to victimhood from a position of willful denial.

Fad (ix) asked me to explain here the reasons behind my proposals for a significant modification of the paragraph. The text which I endorse would go as follows:

In principle, Armenians, like Greeks, Jews, and other Christian communities across the Middle East were originally subject to a corpus of laws and regulations which gave them a different legal status within the Empire than their Muslim counterparts. Armenians were barred from serving in the military (and instead forced to pay an exemption tax), their testimony in Islamic courts was inadmissible against Muslims, they were not allowed to bear weapons.

In practice, the status of ethnic Armenians varied widely based upon geographical location and socio-economical conditions. Whereas ethnic Armenians might have been treated as second-class citizens in rural, conservative areas of Eastern Anatolia, others living in cities like Istanbul and Izmir were able to reach a considerably high status and even serve in the high ranks of the public administration. [5]

During the Tanzimat period, a series of constitutional reforms provided a limited modernization of the Ottoman Empire. In 1856, the Hatt-ı Hümayun promised equality for all Ottoman citizens irrespective of their ethnicity and confession, widening the scope of the 1839 Hatt-ı Şerif of Gülhane. The reformist period peaked with the Constitution which was promulgated on 23 November 1876 and which established freedom of belief and equality of all citizens before the law.

This constitution, however, was short-lived, since Sultan Abdülhamid II suspended the constitution on 13 February 1878, inaugurating a period of rather repressive and authoritarian rule over the Empire.

The single event that possibly triggered the chain of events is most likely the Russian victory over the Ottoman Empire in the Russo-Turkish War of 1877–78. At the end of the war the Russians took control over a large portion of territory inhabited by ethnic Armenians but ceded much of it after the Treaty of Berlin was signed. The Russians claimed they were the supporters of Orthodox Christians within the Ottoman Empire. 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 it.

First paragraph: The current content is expressed in a more neutral way. A reference to alleged "heavy taxation" (which suggests an ethnic-based selective fiscal burden, while not providing figures and references) is deleted. You may want to check out on İNALCIK & QUATAERT, An Economic and Social History of the Ottoman Empire, 1300-1914, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1994 or ZÜRCHER, Turkey: A Modern History, London, I B Tauris, 1993 to know more about fiscality in the Ottoman Empire.

Second paragraph: The sentence they were treated overall as second-class subjects is a subjective opinion that could spark endless debate. While it is fair to say that there was no "equality before the law" in the contemporary Western acception, I think that it should be mentioned that geographical and socio-economical parameters had a huge impact on the status de facto of Armenian individuals and communities. For Armenians serving in the Ottoman administration, see for example AKARLI, The Long Peace. Ottoman Lebanon, 1861-1920, Berkeley, University of California Press, 1993.

Deletion of Ramsay's quote: This passage must be put in the proper context. The cultural background of a 19th century English traveller might include a "propensity" (not to say bias) in favour of Christian populations which could include prejudices and sterotypes against Turks (and/or Muslims in general). If you read the autobiography of Helmuth von Moltke you can read a much more complex depiction of that society, even though again through the eyes of a European observer.

Third paragraph: These are historical facts expressed in a way that I assess fair and balanced. I think that adding these details gives a more correct explanation of what was going on at that time, instead than just writing (in a quite sloppy way) that Abdülhamid ruled as he saw fit.

Fourth paragraph: There is a minor correction. Russia endorsed the rights of Orthodox Christians.

I hope this offers a positive contribution. Your feedback will be welcome. FrancescoMazzucotelli 22:22, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I have nothing to add, and will be endorsing it. You did all I asked. Fad (ix) 22:50, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

This article has more information than any of the other articles about the Special Organization or the other one. Can anybody fix those articles, and source this one? --AW 21:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

In two days I will have few hours free in my hands, I will add those. Fad (ix) 01:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Guys, it is not my job to say that it did happen or it didn't happen, but I have a few problems with the style of te article. The word "deny" has a completely different meaning than the word "doesn't accept". I urge all wikipedians to change "deny"s to "doesn't accept"s and there is also some information on Wikipedia in Turkish. I hope that no one will not object when I translate those texts to English Wiki. Both sides have their right to express their solutions to the issue.Caglarkoca 21:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

The Turkish government denies the reality of the Armenian Genocide. Period. There's no reason to change the diction. Serouj 21:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

In the Turkish Wikipedia, you can reach the information that Armenia rejected the Turkish offer to make the government archives. Anyone can reach the Turkish archives from http://www.devletarsivleri.gov.tr/yayin/osmanli/o_b_ermeniler/obermeniler.htm Unfortunately the site is in Turkish. (of course it is Turkish archives) But I am willing to translate some texts from them if anyone wants to read them.Caglarkoca 22:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how that relates to Genocide denial by the Turkish government, and changing the diction of the word "deny." Serouj 22:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

It is well known, however, that the Ottoman archives remained closed for decades to Western scholars. In the meantime, it is highly likely that the Turkish government took the time to sort through them and remove any evidence of the Armenian Genocide. What else would explain keeping the archives closed to Western scholars for 85 years? Cheers. Serouj 22:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

If you can find for us the proceedings of the Ottoman military tribunal which convicted the Young Turk triumvirate of crimes against humanity, that would be great! Thanks. Serouj 22:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Allright, I don't want to discuss whether it is happened or not. It is historians' job. I am an engineer, sorry:) Why are the armenian archives still closed? I am open to other points of information about translating Turkish Armenian Genocide to English and add it to wiki. You cannot just reject Turkish side.Caglarkoca 22:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

No problem. Which Armenian archives are you referring to? Genocide scholars continue to be denied access to the Ottoman archives. Serouj 22:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

The article which you offer is dated 1997 which means that it is out of date. Besides, can you find me a website which includes Armenian Archives as the Turkish archives webpage http://www.devletarsivleri.gov.tr/yayin/osmanli/o_b_ermeniler/obermeniler.htmCaglarkoca 22:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Correction. Hilmar Kaiser was recently regranted access to the Ottoman archives, but important parts of it still remain closed; importantly, the Ottoman Ministry of the Interior's Directorate for Public Security, 2nd Department (Armenian Department). ref. Serouj 22:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Turkish archives are open since 1993. Hence the document that you are offering has no reliability. The date is taken from http://www.devletarsivleri.gov.tr/yayin/osmanli/o_b_ermeniler/sunus.htm. It is a governmental website.Caglarkoca 22:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

That Dr. Hilmar Kaiser, a German archival historian and genocide scholar, has not been granted access to the archives of the Ottoman Ministry of the Interior's Directorate for Public Security, 2nd Department (Armenian Department) is a documented fact. I don't understand Turkish, but maybe you can help here. Does the site you are referencing include all the material from the Ottoman Ministry of the Interior's Directorate for Public Security, 2nd Department (Armenian Department)? Serouj 22:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for a worthy comment:) I am not sure whether it includes all archive, but the whole archive is open now. I cannot possibly provide you the link which tells that all archive is available due to the fact that the link given in the Turkish wiki doesn't work. I'll give you any necessary information from here. If you want to reach Turkish wiki http://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ermeni_Soyk%C4%B1r%C4%B1m%C4%B1. I will be busy with translating the page in a few days.Caglarkoca 22:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

hilmar kaiser and Ara sarafin and many other Armenians worked in the Turkish archives and the copied some 3000 to 8000 archive documents. after working for a long time he was thrown out due to his disregard to Archvive rules. Meaning unauthorized copying and smuggling of documents. And the only noteworthy thing Ara sarafian published as far as I know is he found that the number of armenian deporties as documented by ottoman archives was not 700.000 as formerly believed. he found that that number was actually the Turkish deporties. No proof of genocide or what so ever came out.neurobio 20:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

On August 22, 1939 Adolf Hitler gave a speech outlining his plan for Lebensraum. Lebensraum was Hitler's plan for wiping out the Jews and the Poles to create living space for his new Third Riech. In this speech Hitler refers to a little known event that he calls the Annihilation of the Armenians. Hitler pointed out that very few poeple and no governments recognize or even remember what happened to the Armenians during WWI. Basically Hitler was using the Armenian Genocide as an example of what he would be able to get away with while dealing with the Jews of Europe. 206.78.245.35 16:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

And your sources are? yandman 16:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

In 1942 American author Louis Lochner published a book titled "What About Germany", my source comes from him. His source comes from a transcript of the speech Hitler gave to the commanders of the Wehrmacht. The third paragraph of the speech also hangs in the Holocaust Museum in Washington. There is also a Wikipedia article dealing with this quotation. See - Armenian Quote.206.78.245.35 20:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Here's the article. Armenian quote. it says it's in dispute. But 206.78.245.35, you should really sign up for a user name --AW 20:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Whether the Wikipedia article says so or not, the reason the quote is in dispute has to do with the fact that the Turks want to hide this embarrassing part of their history. Western European governments as well as the US do not wish to upset the Turkish government or people because Turkey is new to the EU and NATO and serves as an important jumping off point for wars that are fought in the region (ie Iraq). There is more to gain on all sides if the Armenian Genocide just goes away (thus the growing denial movement). There is very little to gain in making up the Armenian Genocide as the world community - and the UN - doesn't really do anything about genocides as you can see from what's happening in Sudan and what has happened in Rwanda, Shri Lanka, Somalia, and many dozens of other places around the globe. (As for logging in, I'm brand new to Wikipedia and not very computer saavy and I really don't know how).206.78.245.35 22:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Remember the simple fact that the "document" containing the hitler quote was rejected as "unreliable" in Nurenberg trials. the presence of this quote in the genocide museum actually shows how reluctant The armenians are abouth accepting the truth. In the same museum the proven forgeries Andonian document are also presented. not to mention the 1.5 milion figure. neurobio 22:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Not a single claim you make here is accurate or truthful. The truth is that the "Lochner" version of the Hitler speech(s)was known and accepted as the most thorough of the three versions (all from notes taken as there was no prepared text or such). The reason it was not used was that the portion of the speech that was useful to the nuremburg prosecuters concerned pre-meditation of the attack on and Hitler's plans against Poland and all of the documents contained the passages related to this. The prosecutors were aware of the aggressive cross examination and attempts b the defense to discredit documents and even though all were confident of the accuracy of the Lochner document (and have maintained this under oath) the issue had to do with the veracity of the chain of possesion of the documents. As the other two versions were taken directly from captured German Officers (at wars end) they were much more difficult to challenge then a version obtained much earlier (1939) through Lochner. Thus there was no need to enter into evidence a document that could cause delay or such from a defense challenge. And the "so-called" Andonian documents have never been proven to be forgeries. However they are difficult to verify as the originals of the documents have been lost. However, the primary content of the telegrams has been verified and corroborated through other sources - thus one can assume that these documents are in fact accurate as nothing in them has ever actually been contradicted and they conform with what is known from other sources. However, much like as with the "Lochner" version of Hitler's speech(s) the "Andonian" documents are unecessary as a proof of the Genocide as there exists a plethora of corroborated and sourced and clearly reliable data that prove the Armenian genocide with more then sufficient detail and confidence. 1.5 million figure for the Armenian genocide is at least as accurate as the 6 million figure for the Jewish Holocaust and both figures can be thought of similarly - as an approximate number useful to guage the size of the crime in terms of general numner of individuals killed. In each case whether the actual figure is somwhat more or somewhat less is immaterial. What is important is the utter devestation of the ethnic communitiy and the deliberate systamatic plan engaged to exterminate such. And what is also noteworth is how deniers of each genocide continually harp on these figures and attempt to dispute the accuracy of such as if this actually matters or changes anything. It doesen't. What it does is show the lengths that deniers will go and exposes the paucity of argument that they have to dispute the basic and known and important facts of the matter. And in this regard, as in most others, genocide deniers only show their true colors to the world.--THOTH 01:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

according to what I have read the document was rejected because some pages were changed by some one. Andonian documents are proven forgeries. No single scolar even your genocide scolars do not use these documets any more. Even good old deciever Dadrian.neurobio 21:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Well you've heard wrong. I always find it funny that some Turks would even attempt to make the claim that there was a conspiracy during/just after WWII to link Hitler with the Armenian Genocide (claiming that thses statements were fabricated...by who? For what reason? There was absolutly no Armenian effort towards Genocide recognition at this time and no involvement of any Armenians in this besides - it is an absurd claim and bespeaks of Turkihs paranoia and desperation) And indeed these are not the only statements made by Hitler concerning the Turkish extermination of Armenians - there are several on record - this one is just the most famous. And again - no one has ever "proven" the so-called "Andonian" telegrams as forgories...based on what? - official Turkish scholorship??? please - are you trying to make a joke...I'm certainly laughing. And that you call Dadrian - the absolute most respect scholar on this issue a deciever is quite telling. --THOTH 05:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

they are forged for robust and simple reason. 1. in one of the telegrams the person who sends the telegram was not working in that region at that time. 2. the guy who forged the telegram made another fatal eror by forgeting the time difference between regular calender and the callender used my muslims. 3. the paper style does not match the papers used in otoman communication and archives 4. the signatures are not real (doesnt match the real signature) as proven by forensic experts. 5. the real documents are not around no one has seen the originals but the copies. And dadriann is really respected. he was the chanpion on defending the andonian documents. Even the quote that you wrote made here citing the book "two commitees two massacres" is a distorted translatian and sipmly a scientific crime.neurobio 13:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

All those issues have already been addressed in Dadrian's own paper which you comment when you haven't even read it. His paper about the Andonians could be found here. [6] So much goes of the said scientific crime. Fad (ix) 03:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, when you say the Armenians are reluctant to accept the truth, which truth are you refering to? That the genocide did in fact happen, or that it did not. 206.78.245.35 23:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

the fact that Andonian documents are proven forgeries and still they are presented in your genocide museum. thats what I am talking about. It is rather strange to present totaly fake documents in your sacret monument. I dont expect any Armenian to say there is no genocide.neurobio 21:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Remember the simple fact that the "document" containing the hitler quote was rejected as "unreliable" in Nurenberg trials. Even if it was, Hitler referenced the fate of Armenians at least 3-5 times prior to the war and even prior to its rise to power in interviews and personal avowals.--MarshallBagramyan 23:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I have no info about previous talks of hitler. Maybe you are right but it is just a meaningles debate in terms of proving a genocide. He serves just to gain sympathy Armenian cause and draw analogy between holocaust and Armenian issue.neurobio 21:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be wise to place a lock on this article, such that only registered users may edit it, given the number of vandalisms we've had in the last day; I counted 16. Thanks. (Can the lock be made long-term?) Serouj 20:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Serouj, we need to lock this article. I think admins must place semi protection to this page. It is a sensitive issue and some people think that vandalism can solve it. Caglarkoca 22:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Done. Khoikhoi 22:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

We currently have the following link to a Turkish Genocide Denial article: http://www.ermenisorunu.gen.tr/english/intro/index.html. Doesn't this belong in the Denial of the Armenian Genocide article, under the "Websites opposing the genocide theses" heading? Serouj 20:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the policy means it should be in the article about denial, in the same way that evolution has no links to sites supporting creationism. yandman 20:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Done. The Denial of the Armenian Genocide article already has said link in the right header. Serouj 22:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

If so, I think that the "Websites supporting the genocide theses" part should be removed from the Denial of the armenian genocide page.

But actually I believe that we should have supporting web sites in the denial page and denial web sites in the Genocide page. The analogy between creatonism - evolution is an incorrect one, since they are not each others exact opposite - they are just alternative theses. But in a case like this one, you should have it with all pros and cons.

Plus this will help this article seem less POV. As a neutral viewer, to me right now it looks like it's written heavily on Armenian thesis. Don't get me wrong and pardon my ignorance if so; but as far as I know -though there certainly was a huge massacre- it is still disputed whether it should be called a Genocide or not. So I think it should be presented as a thesis with documentation, rather than a fact.

But if you don't agree with that, I insist that the supporting web sites should be removed from the denial page for the sake of being fair.

Any ideas? Moderation maybe?

Someone is trying to rewrite this as a translation of the article on the Turkish Wikipedia. Is there anyone who doesn't think this is a very bad idea? yandman 15:59, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

This idea belongs to me. I am here to ask you why are you so stressed about translation? It might seem as a bad idea to you, but anyone using wikipedia has the right to learn about the Turkish Thesis as well. Such an attempt will not violate WP:NPOV#Undue weight and is in fully accordance with WP:NPOV Caglarkoca 16:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

This article is part of WikiProject Turkey so such changes are essential to Wikipedia. Thanks. Caglarkoca 16:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Copied from your talk page:

1. We have to cite "reliable sources" when writing articles. Concerning the Armenian genocide, the Turkish government is far from being reliable.
2. Everything you put in the article was already there. Much of it is also in Denial of the Armenian Genocide.
3. We have to respect the "Undue Weight" policy. We can't present two theories as equal if one is only supported by a small minority. In this case, the minority view is put in it's own section. Consider the Holocaust. We put all the arguments denying it in this chapter of the article (An important note: I'm not comparing the two, I repeat: I'm not comparing the two). The same is done on Armenian Genocide.

Now I see you're from Turkey, so I'm sure you're making these edits in good faith, but don't forget that the Turkish view (be it true or not) is not the generally accepted one, and as a tertiary source, we have to say what's said, not what's true. Cheers. yandman 16:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

We already have a section called "Denial" in the article, and we point to the main article Denial of the Armenian Genocide. That type of information would belong in the latter article. On a related note, Caglarkoca, have you thought about making the reverse translation as well? (That is, taking information from the English language Wikipedia article on the Armenian Genocide and transferring it over to the Turkish one, which seems awfully short to me compared to the English one.) Serouj 21:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Some people prevented me from translating Turkish article on Armenian genocide to English and add it to the main article as a section without changing the content of the main article. Considering the fact that almost everyone making a research does not visit the related pages, it is a pity to not to mention of Turkish thesis in the main page. It can be accepted by most of the people that the name of the events took place in 1915 in Turkey is genocide, but the people disagreeing are not few in number. Hence, Turkish minority has the right to express themselves in the main page. The same people who prevented me from the translation were complaining about the vandals in Wikipedia. My problem is that if the page were not in the position that they do like, then they would most probably be vandals themselves. They prevent other opinions to be expressed in order to protect their opinion to be served as the best and the only opinion. It is quite unfortunate that wikipedia itself is considered to be a reliable source, but it is certainly not objective. Until such vandalism is stopped, I will not continue editing the site. It might be until forever but who cares. Thanks to Khoikhoi and Alex Bakharev who at least tried to understand me. Caglarkoca 21:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The translation is more than welcome, I don't know if I am hallucinating, but it seems that large junk of text presenting the anti-thesis have just disapeared in the last few months. I am not following this article much anymore since I am lost with all the changes happing here and because I don't have time. Just provide your translations in my talk page, and I will neutralise it and see what can go there. Regards. Fad (ix) 23:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

It was removed a while back. Neurobio sent me some documents on Halacoglu's work, but I've never had the time or energy to turn them into a summary of his arguments. But I haven't forgotten them. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

We never had an OK summary of the official Turkey's position, it was rather an Halacoglu section. This is why I believe it would be interesting that he translate it to see what relevent material could be retrieved. Fad (ix) 00:51, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't preach to us about vandalism. One of the largest vandalisms in written history was carried out by your government during the creation of the modern day republic of Turkey, and in the words of the late American ambassador to Turkey, Henry Morgenthau, "Whatever crimes the most perverted instincts of the human mind can devise, and whatever refinements of persecution and injustice the most debased imagination can conceive, became the daily misfortunes of this devoted people."

Don't talk to me about vandalism. That of the approximately 2,500 Armenian monasteries and churches in Turkey, only 6 remain in existence, that constitutes vandalism, and was perpetrated by your government which created a country from the looted property, money, and treasures of the Armenian people, and has blood all over its hands.

Don't talk to me about vandalism. That my maternal grandfather narrowly escaped death from the hands of the Turks in Diyarbekir in 1915; that my grandfather was sentenced to death because he was an Armenian Apostolic Christian; that with the quick-thinking of his mother and while the Turkish guards were looking the other way she pushed my grandfather with the other much smaller set of children who were Armenian Protestants and who were not going to be massacred due to the presence of American missionaries; that without this whim of a woman, without that random thought I would not be alive today haunts me to this day...

And yet you, who are ignorant of your own country's past, come here preaching vandalism? You, whose grandparents and great-grandparents have removed the Armenian people from their historic homeland while killing off 2/3 of them; who ripped open unborn fetuses from the belies of pregnant women; who raped Armenian women in front of their husbands before killing both; who took the most beautiful women for themselves; who plundered, burned, ruined, and destroyed forever any remaining evidence of Armenian churches, monasteries, libraries, illuminated manuscripts, books, metal artwork, church icons, khatchkars (stone crosses), embroidery and needlework, carpets, antiques, sculptures, tombstones, woodcarvings, alfresco paintings, and medieval documents, as well as many other specimens of Armenian culture; whose vandalism lead to the irretrievable loss of the culture and the arts of the Armenian people whose value cannot be measured in any way.

Go! Read the Trial of Soghomon Tehlirian , the man who assassinated one of the masterminds of the Genocide - Talaat Pasha - and who was found "not guilty" in a German court. Read the eyewitness accounts of the genocide in that trial. And then go tell your countrymen about it; tell your parents, your girlfriend, and all your friends about what your great-grandparents did to the Armenians living in your country. Tell them how Turkey was founded. The ghosts of the dead and the cries of the living will forever haunt you, otherwise. Serouj 23:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Assume good faith, he is a new user, and is apparent he is still not well aware of the policies, but there is nothing he did that could bring me to believe that he is acting in bad faith. Don't drive him away, (Personal attack removed). Besides, you haven't yourself been that wikipedias way either as new editor at first. Fad (ix) 00:51, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Caglarkoca, I would also welcome your translations and encourage you to continue. Lima6 18:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Do not post messages that have nothing to do with the content of the article nor improvements that can be made. Any such messages can be removed per Wiki policies. This is not a personal forum, nor does it belong to anyone except the Wikipedia Foundation. If you would like to post personal messages, use e-mail, MSN or create your own website. Baristarim 23:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Serouj, your comments were rather uncivil, and directed at a user who doesn't seem to be acting in bad faith. His message was rather unpleasant (and a bit silly), I agree, but then again english clearly isn't his mother tongue, and he's new, so it's mean to lash out like that. However, Baris, I wouldn't remove them, as it could be argued that they're relevant to the underlying content dispute here: That Cagaloka believes... Well, you know the story. If Serouj would retract his comments, that would be nice. If not, tant pis. Come on people, let's not get bogged down in this again, or else I'm going to go and flame the people on Talk: France for invading us back in 1066... yandman 08:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Caglarkoca may be acting in good faith. I don't want to remove my comment, because I think it addresses and puts into perspective where the word "vandalism" should really be used when talking about this subject. Lashing out at a newbie was not right; it was an impulsive and emotional response on my part, given my family's involvement in this matter — just being human. Caglarkoca, please continue on with the translation, and let the group know when it's ready. Thanks. Serouj 11:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I also apologize if I kinda jumped in there, but there have been too many instances of such conversations getting out of hand. The problem is not the posts themselves actually, but really the only thing that worries me is that when such conversations get out of hand, it contributes to the creation of a hostile working environment (even more than usual :)) I tried to contact caglarkoca to try to explain him that if he wanted he might rather want to get involved in less "hot" articles until he has understood the atmosphere in Wiki English. Cheers! Baristarim 12:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've read the translation, it is an end by itself, not what I have hopped, I have contacted Garnet as I don't see who else I could contact about it and I ask Caglarkoca to work with Garnet on this issue. Maybe Baristarim is interested too. Fad (ix) 02:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Just an indicator, starting with the foreign ministry site, Kamuran Gurun etc., would be a good start. Fad (ix) 02:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

There is much to translate, and I will continue translating. But I am not a native speaker, so it will need a review for grammer mistakes and minor corrections. I will ask baristarim to help me when I finish it. Thanks Caglarkoca 12:28, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I fail to see the point of why everyone is so interested in the Turkish Wikipedia version...we have our own Turks here who do more then enough to provide us with unsupportable excuses and explanations with holes in them miles wide. Really now - I totally fail to see what value this is supposed to add. Gurun? Haven't we heard enough of the Turkish political denial? It has no place here.--THOTH 04:33, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

The Armenian Genocide was commited by the young turks, right? As I understand, The young turks existed during the ottoman empire, so therefore, why does the republic have to put up with accusations when technically it was the ottoman empire, a different state, that executed these crimes against the armenians.

What I am trying to say is, Why should the Republic of Turkey shoulder responsibility for what the Ottoman empire did? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mert Baris Akgul (talk • contribs) 10:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC).

Please use this talk page to suggest improvements to the article. This is not the place to debate about and discuss the subject of the article. Aecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 11:00, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The Holocaust was commited by the Nazis right?...--THOTH 01:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

in the article there is a section that goes like:

An Ottoman naval officer in the War Office described the planning:

In order to justify this enormous crime [of the Armenian Genocide] the requisite propaganda material was thorougly prepared in Istanbul. [It included such statements as] "the Armenians are in league with the enemy. They will launch an uprising in Istanbul, kill off the Ittihadist leaders and will succeed in opening the straits [of the Dardanelles]." These vile and malicious incitements [were such, however, that they] could persuade only people who were not even able to feel the pangs of their own hunger.[8]

Who is this officer can some on give the original name and source (not the dadrioan book the original name).193.175.73.201 18:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Altinay Refik, Iki Komite Iki Kital (Two Committees and Two Massacres) (Istanbul, 1919), p. 40. The author later became Professor of history at the U. of Istanbul.--MarshallBagramyan 22:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

THOTH, The Nazi's told the people of Germany what was going to happen to all of the Jewish faith and yet the Germans still voted for Hitler.Mert Baris Akgul 05:53, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Not so. The "final solution" was kept very much in secret. Even the Wehrmacht was largely unaware of it. Everyone knew that the Jews were going to have a hard time. Only the Nazis knew how hard. Anyway, this is for discussing the article, ñot the subject of the article. Thanks. yandman 08:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh Ok, I also have a suggestion, why are most of the pictures shown are armenians suffering, it shows the armenians as victims. I thought this was meant to be a neutral article like most of the wikipedia articles. my suggestion? replace those pictures with the concentration camps they were "supposedly" slaughtered at or better yet, add some maps of concentration camps to the suffering armenians as well.61.68.137.27 11:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that showing pictures of the victims in an article on a genocide is PoV. There is a map of the major camps in the article. yandman 13:28, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I also have some problems with the pictures. The source is www.armeniapedia.org, and such a website cannot be neutal on this issue. Let's consider it as POV and due to WP:NPOV#Undue weight, these pictures are in the scope of wikipedia. I understand this fact. But, none of the pictures include dates, and some doesn't even include the producers. How is the reader supposed to understand that they are taken in Anatolia and the suffering people are Armenian? Thanks Caglarkoca 15:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I know the author of that site, while the pictures are from there, they are confirmed pictures, he got the written permission from the Wallstein Verlag of Wegner pictures, I asked him to obtain for Wikipedia use too, which he has obtained. There are plently of works including those pictures, they have been presented during the exibiton of Wegner pictures and are confirmed, in this cases the scan comes from him, but only because he had the written permission. The other picture which I have loaded, comes from the Soviet Union and confirmed by reports of that cites of mass burning as the description of the picture says from those who took the picture. But if you have any doubt about any of those pictures, do ask. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fadix (talk • contribs) 17:22, 19 December 2006 (UTC).

Allright, thanks Fadix, I do not really know much about the topic so I have just mentioned my concerns. Thank you for the acknowledgement. But I would advise you to include such information in picture details. I do not know how this can be done, (I am a newcomer, you know) but otherwise, the pictures will remain questionable. Caglarkoca 22:53, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, this page should not be the place to discuss those, but since it has started, and since I think it might help to improve the article and the talk page empathy-wise, I’ll be posting it here. We can later move it to the arguments article if it’s more appropriate. I hope that you read all of it.

First of all, I’ll try not to use the word “Genocide”, not because I deny it, but because I think it’s a major dialogue-cutter, and as soon as someone blurts out the words “genocide” or “not a genocide” it’s not possible to discuss anymore.

I’ll start with briefly commenting on the very first entry under this header which said “Republic of Turkey should not shoulder the responsibility for what the Ottoman Empire did” and responses to that;

I personally do not believe in any kind of behavior inheritance. One should neither be credited nor criticized for what his predecessors have done. He can be proud or embarrassed of his ancestors, but since he is not an allottee, he is not the one to be praised or accused.

And in this case of “the disgraceful event in 1915” (that’s how Atatürk called it), the new Turkish Republic certainly bears no responsibilities. The administration who were responsible for the event were exiled from the new republic; and Enver pasha (the brain behind it) even tried to lead a Soviet backed military coup against the republic. And THOTH, to your question; yes, it was the Nazis who committed the Holocaust; not the people. The German nation was just their pawns. They might be held responsible for bringing them to power, but not even strongly for that. Let me explain;

I attend to those children camps named CISV, and there we have an interesting game called “Peace war peace”. You split the kids into groups, and let the each group to build their “Perfect city” (made of cardboards/paints/scissors etc. :) ) for couple of hours. Then you send each group to a different city, and order them to destroy it. There is a brief moment of hesitation, until somebody starts smashing. And as soon as kids see their “Perfect city” getting smashed, they just smash the others’ more passionately. In the end we ask each of them why they did it, and the answer is same all the time; because they were ordered to do it…

Now you may oppose me by saying grown-ups should know better than kids. But believe me they do not. Misguidance supported with biased information can make people act in a way that they would never do or believe in things that they would never believe. Today, we are in the age of information and there are still so many people deceived by the biased information. (Just the other day I was trying to convince a Greek guy that in Turkish maps we do not show Greece as a part of Turkey) And yet a century ago, without mass media or Internet, misguiding the people was way easier for the rulers to. (Günter Grass was an SS for god’s sake)

And one more point to this discussion; the history imposed to us is deflected to begin with. I think a quote by George Orwell is best to explain it. “He who controls the past, commands the future. He who commands the future, conquers the past” The reason why Holocaust is so widely known is because of the Allied propaganda to justify their prior massacres and war-crimes, and the powerful Jewish Diaspora. If it was the Axis who won the war, we would probably listen to the stories about massacres in the British colonies and American natives wiped out in the new world. Yet USA, the only country to use a nuclear missile and thus is responsible of its direct or indirect effects on six million people (and this just made me think another thing, could you held the American citizens responsible for that?), today launches itself as the symbol of Democracy. Ever wondered why only a few know about Dresden Bombing, a civilian massacre in the once considered the most beautiful city in the Europe after it was certified that the Axis lost the war. I am not defending Hitler or whatsoever, looking at what he did he was a terrible guy, all I am saying he was not “the” terrible guy. And don’t forget that the new-arising genocide recognitions are –unfortunately- nothing but political games. Ask an average French or an Argentine about the Armenian genocide and they probably do not have any idea about it.

Back in the subject. Right now I am almost about to finish a pro-Armenian Genocide book called “the Great Calamity” by a Turkish scholar Halil Berktay. I believe I can see it from Armenian point of view. It’s simple, a nation seeking independence just like Greeks and Bulgarians, backed up by Tsardom of Russia of the Allied to finish up already wounded Ottoman Empire. Then I can see the Ottoman point of view, once a world renowned glorious empire, now leaking, trying to cleanse the infidels from every bit of its land left. Combining it with the misguidance I mentioned above, I bet even the Armenian ultra-nationalist of today would take part in the Ottoman side in the 1915 events if they were born Turkish, and vice versa.

I clearly remember the first time I heard about the massacre in 1998, when I was 15. That was in Italy. Before that, I had never heard anything, not even a word about it because of our Governments’ policies. I was asked about what I think about it, and I had no idea. It’s not that I am constantly doing researches about the subject, but since then I had been thoroughly reading everything that I come across. And I think that both Turkish and Armenian approaches to the subject are awful. Turkish education system trains people to be ignorant defendants parroting the word “relocation”, while the Armenians are getting filled up with rage and hatred against the “bloodthirsty Turks”.

In my humble opinion, acceptance or denial of the Armenian genocide should not be the issue at this point. I, as a Turk, personally feel embarrassed of what some of my people did in 1915, but I think even Armenians should feel a portion of that – As a human. “The disgraceful act” should remain in the past, never to be forgotten, but not to be burdened on the shoulders of the new Turkish generation.Ombudsee 17:14, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I will try to answer the points you bring up. First, if there is no justice done to the perpetrators (or their descendants) then history quite simply repeats itself. And this is why legal institutions have been created.

In regards to your empathy point, try this on for size: How would you feel if a future "temporary" Armenian government (similar to the CUP in intent and time of power) attempted to annihilate Turkey, but only be able to wipe out 2/3 of Turkey's population and confiscate the property and assets owned by 99% of the Turkish population; politically went out of power; and the new Armenian government denied it ever happened, hired historians to rewrite that chapter in Armenia's history, taught subsequent generations of Armenian people that the incident never happened, destroyed any Turkish mosque or other cultural building in the part of the territory which it attacked (even 50 years after the fact), removed all traces of the word "Turkish" from Eastern Anatolian tourist guides, and claimed that even if the Turkish Genocide was true, that the new government could not be held responsible, since it was a different government who perpetrated it. Have you thought about how you might feel about that? Are you implying that it would be alright if Armenians completely disclaimed any responsibility, accountability, and even association, if they allowed such a "crazy" Armenian government to temporarily come to power, wipe out the bulk of the Turkish population, and then be replaced by a new government?

In the U.S., when a new president is elected or a republican-controlled Congress is voted out and replaced by a Democratic one, the new president or Congress (and the American people who brought them to power) continues to bear responsibility for any liabilities incurred by the outgoing administration (as much as they reap the benefits of any inherited assets). Once president George W. Bush is gone, the incumbent president won't be able to say, "Iraq is not our responsibility, we're pulling out. Fallujah? What is that?", or "You remember that 8 trillion dollar national debt from a year ago. Well, that was just part of the old administration. They had nothing to do with us. We're a new start, everyone deserves a fresh start. How do you expect us to be held liable for what they did? They're long gone." You see, no matter what government controls a country, the people are ultimately responsible for bringing that party to power. The continuum here is the people, and although leaders change, the people who bring them to power don't, and therefore are collectively responsible for their actions in the past, just as future generations will be for their collective actions in the present.

As an aside, there is ample evidence of the participation of the local Turkish population in the massacres during the Hamidian massacres as well as the Armenian Genocide. The sentiments of the Turkish locals were displayed in their preference of using bludgeons to beat to death their Armenian neighbors. (Albeit it can be argued that not all Turkish locals felt this way, but evidently the sentiment against the Armenians ultimately won out the sentiment for the Armenians among the Turkish people.) Serouj 19:12, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Calm down Serouj. That’s good, at least now we are beginning to talk.

First of all you just can not hold responsible the descendants of the perpetrators. That is against the law. That would be like sending you to the jail because your father committed a crime and died before he was punished. Your example about US Government is totally irrelevant. Change of administration is one thing, finding a new government, overthrowing the old one, and sending the old executives to exile is another. And plus, it was not the Turkish people who brought the Enver Pasha to power to begin with.

About your story of empathy; As I said, I am not defending Turkish point of view. Nevertheless I am criticizing it. I just said that I have never heard about this tragic event until I was 15. So I am on your side about the unfair behavior done to your people. What I am saying is, you could hear another empathy story from a Turkish ultra-nationalist as; (your style - changing the words Turkish and Armenian) “How would you feel if Armenian men were on a battle in Eastern Armenia, and the Turkish gangs attack on the undefended Armenian women and children in western Armenia, gathering them together in a church and burn them alive”. -That’s exactly what I mean-. It’s probably not only our history that was re-written and biased – Yours is too. Right now you think of the Dashnaks as valiant partisans fought for their independence. For many Turkish people lived in the Eastern Ottoman Empire they were bloodthirsty villains! It’s clear that both of our histories look at this event from two extends, and truth is somewhere in between.

About the Turkish population joining the massacres, of course they did! In the end it was not only Enver Pasha himself committed the crime. I already told it in the misguidance part of my first post. Again what I am saying was that the Armenians people also reacted the same way to Turkish locals (Action – Reaction). It happened almost a century ago, and neither you nor me are in responsible for any of these; but we humans, don’t we love to sow seeds of hatred for generations.Ombudsee 20:13, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

1. Ombudsee: "First of all you just can not hold responsible the descendants of the perpetrators. That is against the law."

I'm not sure what law you're referring to and in which country, but there is no statute of limitations for crimes within the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court; this includes war crimes and crimes against humanity (e.g. genocide).(See ROME STATUTE OF THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT)

2. Ombudsee: "And plus, it was not the Turkish people who brought the Enver Pasha to power to begin with."

Then who? The Morrocans?

3. Ombudsee: "... gathering them together in a church and burn them alive”.

I'd like to see a reference to that account you're referring to, wherein Armenians rounded up Turks and burnt them in a mosque. It sounds fabricated, to me.

4. Ombudsee: "Again what I am saying was that the Armenians people also reacted the same way to Turkish locals (Action – Reaction)."

Wrong. Armenians didn't react in the same way, because they couldn't. The Ottoman government disarmed all the able-bodied Armenian men who were recruited into the Ottoman army and who were fighting on the side of the Ottoman Empire, they were forced to work in labor battalions, and were subsequently slaughtered. Armenians living in the Ottoman Empire couldn't react the same way, because there were no able-bodied men to protect the civilian population in most of Anatolia - hence the unabated forced marches of the civilian population into the deserts and in circles. (Now once the news spread of the massacres, the small portion communities which could defend themselves did.)

5. Ombudsee: "but we humans, don’t we love to sow seeds of hatred for generations."

Obtaining due justice for the crime of the Armenian Genocide is not to "sow seeds of hatred." Rather, it is about sowing seeds of justice, an act of enforcing international law, for a more peaceful world. How? By deterring those intent on enacting genocide in the present and in the future. So that future generations will understand that the act of genocide is a crime punishable by the law, that it is a crime that is enforced, not something lost to time and fading memories. And, importantly, that crimes against humanity have no statute of limitations, that there is no legal loophole wherein one government can commit a genocide, only to have a subsequent government deny association and responsibility. This is the crux of genocide law.

Ultimately, genocide law enforcement is about creating a more sustainable world for future generations of humans. Serouj 20:56, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

You are way off the charts Serouj:

1* You have no idea what the ICC is about. + see the principle of the non-retroactivity of the penal statutes. I left a very detailed explanation about this couple of weeks ago, in which I explained the position of the international law on this. I suggest you take a look at it again. I explained what conventions, courts apply/don't apply, and for which jurisdictions or acts. No court on the face of this earth has the authority to judge this except a "half-court" which can only do so if it is seized by concerned nation-states, and that only for an opinion, not a judgement. I am not going to waste my time writing all my opinion again, it is up there. ICC cannot even judge the American soldiers in Iraq, what r u talking about? :)

2* What he meant was the analogy with the Nazis: Nazis were elected, however Enver Pasha & co. came to power via a ~palace coup (kinda).

For the rest.. I don't want to get in since I am not a historian. But also know that your last paragraph was completely false and filled with half-truths: a) there is no statute of limitations for crimes against humanity but there is no retroactivity either. In any case, they apply for individuals, and they are all dead b) ditto for genocide law. I am an intl lawyer, and if you find a legal precedent that says the Genocide convention is retroactive without its express modification and ratification by its signatories (something that was not even proposed until today), then I will throw my Bar membership to the garbage. :)

In any case, this article is currently based on historical analysis. So do not bring in modern political disputes into it. As for crimes against humanity, you can sue the individuals, but they are all dead. As for genocide, can't sue Turkey since the convention is not retroactive. Simple really. So stick to the historical analysis and establishment of dialogue between Turkey and Armenia so both sides can share their stories: no need to speculate about other things like compensation, territory etc.Baristarim 21:26, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Legal loopholes in this are as big as the Ozone hole btw.. I suppose that's why the whole rambling is about unfortunately. Whatever people might say, law provides the real closure for humans, not historians. It would actually be nice if this issue could have been settled by some courts back in the day either way. Then at least people could get a move on. I am just saying that, unfortunately, the obscurity surrounding the legal situation (in its entireity: genocide question + the issues concerning individuals) will continue until the end of time, unless there is some sort of extremely unexpected event that takes place (i don't know what that would be).Baristarim 21:35, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Serouj, in each post of yours, we are going back to square one.

1. I actually wrote about it, but being a lawyer Baristarim explained it well better.

2. No, not the Moroccans. Enver Pasha took over the government with the Coup of 1913. And he was the de facto dictator during Armenian Genocide. Read more before your sputtering attacks. I am trying to be as objective as possible, yet you always seem aggressive.

3. Actually (and ironically), might be surprising to you, but I read that event from that Pro-Armenian Genocide book I mentioned before. And just the feed your appetite quickly, I typed the words "burn, mosque, Armenian, alive" to Google; and reached this web site; http://genocide.blogcu.com/1280868/ Towards the end, you'll see the English version of it. Now you'll probably say that it is a POV source - And that's what I had been saying from the beginning! We – both – have – biased – POV – sources. But there’s “a portion of truth” in all of them, and “the truth” is somewhere in between.

4. You picture Armenians as sole defenseless victims that showed no resistance while massacred. (Or maybe that’s how your history told you so) However, there was a constant fight between the Armenian gangs, fed by Tsar’s Russia, and the Armenian nation was unfairly punished for that. I want to put a stress on unfairly, since I strictly believe that wars are between armies, not an army against civilians. Actually Baristarim is again right in this issue. I may have gone too far in this reply though I am not a historian. But sincerely, those are the sum of my readings (of both thesis) up to now, presented as objective as possible.

5. How can you even talk about punishing The Turkish people of today for a more peaceful world? To me, you sound no different than the Turkish ultra-nationalists who says that there was not a single Armenian that was killed, but all of them were peacefully relocated. Take a deep breath, and think about it.

Omar Khayyam states in one of his Rubais; (Sorry for the possible inaccuracy in the translation) “If you act maliciously towards me, because of my malignant act; then what’s the difference between you and me”. (Actually that was his interpretation of Hell, but also fits here perfectly) Yet again, the seeds of peace is not sown by punishing (that is like beating your kid when he does something wrong); but by forgiving, listening to the other side, and never forgetting. Your lust for revenge won’t bring back the massacred people of you, but a step towards may prevent the similar events of the future.

I hope you understand that. Ombudsee 22:26, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

First, please quit the personal attacks of "aggression" against my person; there is no basis for that.

3. "I read that event from that Pro-Armenian Genocide book I mentioned before."

If you don't mind, please re-cite the book and the page number.

4. "You picture Armenians as sole defenseless victims that showed no resistance while massacred. (Or maybe that’s how your history told you so)"

I studied the Armenian Genocide at the University of California. Armenians were defenseless in the vast majority of their communities in the Ottoman Empire, once able-bodied men were enlisted in the Ottoman army, disarmed, and subsequently slaughtered.

5. "How can you even talk about punishing The Turkish people of today for a more peaceful world?"

In the same way I, and the rest of the world, can talk about holding Germany accountable for the crimes of the Third Reich.

6. "the seeds of peace is not sown by punishing (that is like beating your kid when he does something wrong); but by forgiving, listening to the other side, and never forgetting."

And in this utopia of yours, do murderers, rapists, and robbers roam the Earth as free men? "Forgiven" and "listened to," even befriended by the families of their victims? Or are they incarcerated? Or some how held accountable for their crimes? I, and the civilized world, certainly prefer accountability; that's why we have created laws and corresponding penalties when those laws are broken.

7. To answer Baristarim and you regarding genocide law, international law as all law is continually evolving and is meant to maximize sustainability of human life on Earth. To this end, maximizing justice (which includes amending and reforming current law) benefits all of humanity, because it leads to greater peace (by deterring others from carrying out the same crime). Will international law on genocide be applied retroactively in the future? Perhaps, if in so doing human sustainability is increased (and with sufficient diligence on the part of humanity). History is in the making today, and we're all a part of it. Serouj 23:17, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, This will be the last post of mine, since it seems like it’s going completely to the other direction of my primal intentions;

3. I don’t mind at all. The name of the book is “Büyük felaket; 1915 Katliamı ve Ermeni Sorunu, Belgeler, tanıklıklar ve Halil Berktay, Taner Akçam, Stefanos Yerasimos’un yorumlarıyla”, rawly translated as “The Great Calamity, 1915 Massacres and Armenian incident; Documents, eyewitnesses and the comments by Halil Berktay, Taner Akçam and Stefanos Yerasimos” page 8 - A memory by Suat Yalaz. Plus; I came across something else in the same book and would like to share that; It is from the Interview by Die Zeit, of Charles Aznavour, the French artist with Armenian ancestry whose parents migrated to Paris from Istanbul (as you probably knew before), who is one of the biggest defendants of recognition of Armenian Genocide by the French Government. He states “why should one weigh down the hunchback of 1915 Genocide on the today’s Turkish Generation? Yes, why? Why should today’s generation carry this burden! It’s obvious that what has been done, how it has been done and who has done it.”

4. This sounds like a parrot cry. You are repeating the same things; I am not going to do that. It’s not even important how it has happened – It was a disgraceful act anyways. I say that I am sharing your pain of what has happened to Armenian nation; and I feel obligated to say that I would never join such a treacherous act if it happened now (not that there’s a slightest possibility that it will) – And there’s nothing else I can do about it.

5, 6 and 7. Your alternative to “my utopia” is punishing the children of the murderers, rapists, and robbers. Not the actual criminals. Besides, it’s even more of an utopia to apply retroactivity in crimes. One third of the USA would join Mexico, while the other two third of Americans go back to Europe – because their ancestors committed crime against American Indians. Let’s please be realistic and a little bit positive while we still have a chance. We can not change the past, but we can reminisce, respect and learn from it. Your solutions are only to turn the problem to a feud.

I wish that one day my country officially recognize the terrible massacre done against the Armenians. I don’t think the word “genocide” is important at all. In my humble opinion, we should not fight over the wording of what has happened in 1915, but instead commemorate and show respect to the unfortunate common history we have. The only way we can punish the ones who were responsible is by building a future together thus proving them wrong. Ombudsee 01:04, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (to Serouj) You really made me smile, and I am not being sarcastic! I really wish that the world was that romantic and idealistic. Unfortunately, it is not. I wish some of the things you said about law were true.. Law doesn't exist to maximize the sustainibility of human life on earth per se, it exists to provide "order" first and foremost. From a Marxist point of view, you can also say that it serves to "legitimize" the violence of the rich against the poorer classes. However, what's tricky is that, "maximizing the sustainibility of human life/the greater good" doesn't mean the "ideological good". "Good" is a matter of interpretation. I definitely don't see the genocide convention being amended, and not at all because of Turkey/Armenia: because of much greater wars and "genocides" that took place in China, Africa, Soviet Union, with much greater casualties. Besides, from a philosophical point of view, retroactivibility of notions is not correct: it can lead to anachronisms and confusion of notions with eras. But who knows, maybe it will be amended one day. But what will it bring at the end of the day?

I also prefer accountability, however one should also not forget to be pragmatic and remember one of the basic tenets of nature: "time". Human creations of "law" and "ideology" are no match for the creations of nature: "time". It has been nearly a century, there won't be any "accountability". Not to mention the increasing fuzziness about what happened. My grandfather was born 1910, what r u talking about? Acccountability of what to whom precisely? Time took care of that: there are no second takes in life. So, I agree: history for historians.

And nobody should emotionalize the issue: that's not a good outlook on life. Life is hard&complicating, and emotionalizing issues won't get people somewhere. So get a grip. In any case, this is not a forum: how is this discussion relevant to the article? Baristarim 01:14, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

1. "Your solutions are only to turn the problem to a feud."

I don't think so. Germany was held accountable for the crimes of the Third Reich, and relations between Israel and Germany are quite alright, no feud there.

2. We're talking about the Armenian Genocide here; not the genocide of the Rwandans, Native Americans, etc. Each of those are significant and have their separate articles, so please stick to the subject.

3. "we should not fight over the wording of what has happened in 1915, but instead commemorate and show respect to the unfortunate common history we have."

Right. Turks should accept the Armenian Genocide for what it is.

4. "Your alternative to “my utopia” is punishing the children of the murderers, rapists, and robbers. Not the actual criminals."

Some entity has to be held accountable, and that is the republic of Turkey, which inherited the Ottoman Empire and has been politically considered to be the same state. In the same way that Turkey has inherited the assets and liabilities of the Ottoman Empire, it also has inherited accountability to war crimes and genocide.

5. "we should not fight over the wording of what has happened in 1915, but instead commemorate and show respect to the unfortunate common history we have."

I think the average Turk turned out okay in the end: he got his Armenian neighbor's house, property, money, and perhaps his best-looking daughter as a concubine or wife — all for free. So I fail to see the unfortunate "common" history.

6. "The only way we can punish the ones who were responsible is by building a future together thus proving them wrong."

The last time Armenians agreed to build such a future "together" with the Turks was with the Committee of Union and Progress. Same promises, same hopes, and we know what that future looks like: physical genocide, cultural genocide, and now denial of genocide. (Indeed, the Dashnaks were among those who signed up for this "collective future" and helped the CUP come to power, which I think is one of the ironies of the Armenian Genocide.) You must therefore take me for an imbecile. I don't think the collective memory of Armenians are that short-sighted (mine certainly isn't) to sign up with Turks again, especially with today's Turkey not even admitting guilt on the part of the Ottoman Empire.

A crime unpunished is a crime encouraged. Serouj 05:34, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, historical "guilt" could be a tricky one, particularly if "guilt" is not clearly attributed and/or not defined. Frankly, I think that people should just get a move on. None of us were alive back then, even my granpa was six years old during the FWW. And he is already dead. So I don't understand why people of today should start guilt-tripping. "Recognition" won't bring anything either. Even if one day Turkish parliament says "yes, Turks are genocidal barbarians", I know exactly what will happen: nothing. What is it going to bring? The only thing, that I have felt over the years, that would bring "closure" to some people would be to establish some sort of Great Armenia et al. Well, there you enter modern politics and exit the realm of history. In fact, sometimes I think that the only thing keeping alive the Armenian identity is the fact that Turkey contests the attribution of the g-word. If it ever did, I think that a majority of the Armenian identity would dissolve and Armenia become an ordinary small state of the world. So, it's a double-edged sword: do people want Turkey to use the g-word knowing that doing so would lead to the dissolution of the Armenian identity in a few generations? That's the food for thought 4 today :) Baristarim 10:01, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

You're absolutely right. Nevermind the Armenian language, Armenian traditions, Armenian architecture, Armenian stone masonry, the 1700 year old Armenian Church, Armenian literature of 1600 years, Armenian embroidery, the 1600-year-old Armenian alphabet, Armenian dance, Armenian food, Armenian songs and music, Armenian cultural monuments of millenia, and 2,500 years of Armenian history. Certainly none of those can be considered Armenian culture and the basis of Armenian identity. After all, just like other humans, Armenians are limited to only 100 years of memory, and the Armenian clock therefore starts ticking shortly before the Armenian Genocide in 1915... Surely not back to 500 B.C... Who remembers that long?

You're absolutely right. Just like the Jews, Armenians will forget their identity once the genocide perpetrated against them has seen justice.

Surely as the Jews dissolved Israel after the Nuremberg Trials, after the Armenian Genocide is properly recognized and justice served, Armenians, too, will have an identity crisis, will dissolve Armenia, and call their 2500-year-old collective existence quits.

NOT! That doesn't fly with me!

Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.

Like the Holocaust was for the Jews, the Armenian Genocide was a wakeup call to Armenians on the true intentions of Turkey and its leaders: a Pan-Turan across Asia; and that means there's no room for Armenians nor Armenia. Their respective genocides is something that neither group can forget, and indeed has become part of the psyche of any group surviving such unimaginable suffering. Furthermore, Armenians can never forget the deception of the Turks (specifically, the governing CUP) up to the very last moments of the Armenian Genocide. Serouj 19:43, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think this marks a new trend in genocide denial. Here's a brief history:

1. "Genocide? What Armenian Genocide? They were harmless deportations and relocations, inter communal warfare."

2. "Alright, genocide, but on the part of the Ottoman Empire; not Turkey! Certainly you can't hold us accountable, even though we did inherit everything else belonging to the Ottoman Empire, and are in fact the same state legally."

3. "Okay. Okay. The Ottoman Empire executed the premeditated genocide of the Armenian people, and Turkey should be held accountable, as did Germany after the Third Reich. But so what? What does that change? That didn't change the relationship between Germany and Israel an inch!"

4. And finally today... "Do Armenians really, truly, surely want recognition of the Armenian Genocide? Surely they can't be that short-sighted; after all, with the recognition of the Armenian Genocide, Armenians will lose their their 2500 year old identity! Stop now, Armenians, while you can! It's a geno-suicide!"

Indeed, the human mind can be quite creative when it doesn't want to believe something — an interesting evolutionary trait of man. Serouj 19:43, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

"Frankly, I think that people should just get a move on. None of us were alive back then, even my granpa was six years old during the FWW. And he is already dead."

No one is forcing you to stay out of your free will. Fortunately, enough eyewitness accounts (both third-parties in the Ottoman Empire, as well as survivors of the genocide) have been documented and disseminated, thanks to the inventions of writing and the printing press (and, of course, the camera) that we don't need to have those eyewitnesses alive today; their testimonies have been written in books (e.g. by Henry Morgenthau, Sr.) (and sometimes with cross-examination, in the case of the trial of Soghomon Tehlirian). Serouj 20:20, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

"So I don't understand why people of today should start guilt-tripping."

There's no more "guilt-tripping" here than there has been for the pressing by Jews and others who suffered at the hands of the Nazis for proper recognition and justice for the Holocaust. Serouj 20:20, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Aha.. The difference between Israel is that the Israeli people do not wish to carve back today's German lands for themselves. Secundo, analogy with the Jews is not correct: it is just a tool to get greater publicity, I am sorry to say. In any case, to clear a misunderstanding, I was referring primarily to the Armenian diaspora. Armenia will stay there obviously, but it is a very small country - that's all I was trying to say. + what are you talking about germany having been held accountable and all? Germany was never held accountable, and the treaties signed after the second world war specifically specified that Germany will not be held accountable for anything against anyone, neither against any individual or any state. Nuremberg trials were for the individuals, not the country. My father's uncle married a German Jew back in the 50s, and the only compensation they ever received was part of a settlement in 2000 between the German companies who had used Jewish labor and their descendants. That's all. Germany never a) paid a cent b) compensated with territory c) done anything except attending memorial ceremonies. Was that right? Maybe not, but all I am trying to say is: put things in context. That's all. This whole issue has become definitely not historical: This whole thing has become a mix of pyschological and sociological projections, some at the deepest level, reflected on a wide range of issues supported by various obscure and undeterminable traits of human nature, all with completely different aims. This goes for everyone involved by the way. Baristarim 20:32, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Theres nothing tricky about historical guilt the ottomans were responsible for thousands of Armenians death the turks say they were simply relocated Armenians that actually falls in the category of 'Ethnic cleansing" the ottoman empire had a population of almost 2 million Armenians while they were slowly disappearing. There were many wars during the noted genocide years so you can't blame the Turkish government for all that. But nower days people are doing very bad things the newer generations are breeding hate so much on both sides its sick very sick people fighting over these things obviously a historical debate will not help all that would do is cause more constriversy if one side doesn't aggree after. Millions of Armenians were simply "Relocated" that caused them to suffer and die without homes, refuges, homeless etc. Also theres nothing wrong with recognizing a crime you have done Germany took it well so should turkey if it wasn't a genocide it was a massacre either way thousands of Armenians were being persecuted in the hands of there governments, or discriminated against, maybe the militias started this but thats no reason to take it out on the poor civilians and propaganda is no way to look at this. The Assyrians and Kurds were also victimized by the ottoman empire. Even if it was genocide or not millions were being deported from there homes the turks dislike this and they cant believe there ancestors would commit such crimes i guess. Both sides suffered alot thousands were killed the fact is turkey denying such a thing is irrational to the Armenians while the some turks claim Armenians killed one million turks Eh let the historians debate this. Nareklm 10:43, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, let's say Turkey recognise the events that happend to the Armenians as genocide, What next? You think the hatred will stop? I think not.Mert Baris Akgul 07:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Also what hatred i hope your not referring to Armenians, the other thing is the "Lands" of course. Nareklm 07:44, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, whatever "hatred" there is, nothing much will happen at the society level until the general situation in the Caucausus, Middle East and Western Asia improves. I mean, the situation is so s... in that part of the world (not because of Armenia/Turkey, but with all sorts of weird political stuff happening in every km square), that I am sometimes surprised that things are holding out the way they are now. That's why historical discussions are not taking place in a healthy environement. The day there are no borders and there is some sort of unity between the states of the region like in the EU, there won't be any problems at a social level either. France and Germany kicked each other's a... for centuries, but all is cool now. That's the only way, and nothing else. Otherwise every ethnicity in the region will continue to be at each other's throats for a long time to come. I wonder if I will ever see the day when I can go around in Western Asia like I can in the EU... Really sad you know. Baristarim 08:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess "hatred' is overstepping the markMert Baris Akgul 12:01, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

The grammar in this article is shocking, "repeatedly referred to their destruction numerous times" is clearly redundent and exists is used twice in following scentences in the next paragraph...just two examples —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.109.208.68 (talk) 10:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC).

Warning - Edit war in progress - at least cite something boys and girls rather than this juvenile stick throwing. Pedro1999a |  Talk  21:26, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to comment on the arbitration case. --Cat out 21:49, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Discussion moved to Talk:Armenian Genocide/Arguments

The content regarding "The status of the Armenians" is all cited and presented and it begins from here . It is correct history. STOP reverting without any reason. It falls into owing the article. --OttomanReference 03:42, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The user User:Eupator ; User:Mardavich ; User:MarshallBagramyan / or one user with three names; it does not matter. Stop owning the article. The changes are fixing basic time issues; and adding basic background information. Also, your/or/you activily keeping the events out of the basic time sequence, by reverting these changes you are actively keeping the article in disorganized state. --OttomanReference 04:30, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

That article is in this disorganized state, you share an important part of the blame. You have toyed with this article by various moves, changing sections name without reasons at all, and then used a sock to enforce it. That many users see with skepticism your changes, you are the only to blame. I will repeat, your personal tastes on how this article should be organised are personal matters and should be discussed first. As for your accusation of multiple alias, I know two of the reverters, and I can confirm that they are not socks, it is not because you have used socks to enforce your edits that this is something generalised here. Fad (ix) 04:53, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Summary of Fadix (ix); Article is in CHAOS it needs work

STEP BY STEP solution:

• The simple fixation is moving Ottoman Armenian population (Fadix created) under its own section --OttomanReference 05:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• The April Comes before May; fix the order by moving April before may. --OttomanReference 05:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

It is true that this article is quite disorganized, and that could be an understatement. I thought that one of the best comments in the RfA were Francis' about how the article kept goind around and around. Many comments in the RfA had good points, and one particular thing was how the talk page had this (unavoidable) tendency to become a forum; and sometimes like one of the talk pages of Google or MySpace groups, if I may add. Maybe we should ban everyone and let some completely unrelated and non-Wikipedian people write this article, like Japanese, Peruvians, Eskimos etc :) If it were possible, I would suggest the Martians or Andromedians. Generally, and not targetting anyone in particular at all, I notice that editing this article is like skating on an unfrozen lake, really :) Even the slightest of edits can lead to all sorts of edit-wars and admin protects. This article has been full-protected a third of the time since I have joined Wikipedia, and semi-protected nearly all the time. In fact, I honestly don't remember seeing this article without some sort of protect tag at all. There are edit-wars even on New Year's Eve, go figure! Anyways... Baristarim 13:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

the articles main problem is that it is written by using mostly Armenian Sources. Some of these sources are totally out of the main stream understanding and contain problematic info. And some quotes are either false and or misleading. eg. the qute on the situation on Armenians and the second one supposedly taken from Ahmet refik is problematic.neurobio 13:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Only two of the sources explicitly cited are from Armenian authors. You have a poor habit of trading accusations without ever supporting them with the evidence to compliment them, but please point out the "false" or "misleading" quotes because they are sourced and unequivocal in their meanings. The books cited have been published by mainstream publishers, University of Chicago Press, Harper Perennial, Alfred Knopf, G. P. Putnam's Sons, and Berghahn Books all have listed ISBNs or reference keys, negating your claim they are obscure. Stop wasting our time with your uninformed comments.--MarshallBagramyan 21:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually You should have know that I never challange anything without solid proof. I just found the original book of Ahmet refik and found the page that the quote is. Once again I am delighted to see another Dadrian trick. When I see that real unbiased admins are managing an arbitration I will bring every thing out. if not it is a total waste of time. And I can also cite numerous articles of real historians on the value of your main stream sources/historians. also please check which publishers published pro turk wievs. Not to mention that publisher doesnt mean much in terms of Academical value. and finally lets see the sources in detail.

The main core of the article (except from the art section) has 55 citations. out of this 55 some is also about the recent political issues and the position of Turkey today. not related to history.

Dadrian, Vahakn N: Armenian “historian” 7 separate citations

Balakian: Armenian “historian”. 10 separate citations.

Robert Melson: Professor of political science. 1 citation

R. J. Rummel: Professor of political science. the guy who says 2.2 mil Armenians were killed when even armenians say 2 mil armenians were living in ottoman empire. 1 citation

ANDREW GOLDBERG: is an Emmy Award winning American filmmaker of Jewish descent who has produced four documentaries on Armenian subjects that have been broadcast internationally. 1. Citation

William Ramsay: British ethnographer. He is your source on Hamidian massacres. He was not there at that time. 2 citations

Robert Fisk: He received a BA in English and Classics at Lancaster University and a PhD in Political Science and he is a journalist now. He recently displayed his total ignorance on the issue by saying that even Atatürk admitted the genocide. 6. Citations

New York Times: The newspaper which also wrote 20.000 Armenians were gathering arms, drilling for ages and rebelled and joined the Russian army 9 months before deportation orders. And a simmilar article in washington post is not considered in the wiki article of course. 1. Citation

The Italian consul of Trabzon in 1915, Giacomo Gorrini and Winston Churchil: Great sources! Should I remind you that these countries were in war with the Ottoman Empire. 1. citations

Toynbee, Arnold: English historian of the era, (Should I remind you that these countries were in war with the Ottoman empire) who edited the blue book of the English Propaganda bureau. Employed by England foreign office. 1 citation and also mentioned in the article.

This article only cites non armenian historians 7 to 8 times. All other citations regarding the main article is Either by Armenian "Historians" or non historians and historical enemies of the Ottoman empire at that time. The sad part comes when newyork times is cited when it suits you but just omited when it Documents the immense Armenian uprising months before the incident. This is some history article.neurobio 00:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Those figures have much more credibility than do the pro-Turkish stooges on the Turkish government's payroll. True, many of them are not historians per se but exactly how does this disqualify them? Is it perhaps the overwhelming evidence that not only comes from "historical Turkish enemies" but also their allies who all agreed that there were no Armenian uprisings some how compel them to hold the Genocide view? Please Neuro, the Turkish conspiracy card is a flimsy excuse and does not work under Wikipedia's rules.

William Ramsay: British ethnographer. He is your source on Hamidian massacres. He was not there at that time. 2 citations His book's name was "twelve years of wandering" and was published in 1897. Where was he then in the previous decade, if not Turkey? The massacres were widespread and not relegated to one general location.

R. J. Rummel: Professor of political science. the guy who says 2.2 mil Armenians were killed when even armenians say 2 mil armenians were living in ottoman empire. 1 citation We've been over this dozens of times and estimates are anywhere from 1.8 million to 2.5 million. See here Ottoman Armenian population.

Robert Fisk: He received a BA in English and Classics at Lancaster University and a PhD in Political Science and he is a journalist now. He recently displayed his total ignorance on the issue by saying that even Atatürk admitted the genocide. That he did and he was correct.

New York Times: The newspaper which also wrote 20.000 Armenians were gathering arms, drilling for ages and rebelled and joined the Russian army 9 months before deportation orders. And a simmilar article in washington post is not considered in the wiki article of course. Who exactly was feeding the information to the NYT and the WP went unanswered by you. The very fact that in other articles their sources are explicitly stated (German general, American doctor, Dutch ambassador) and is missing in those two articles means that they were probably fed in by the Sublime Porte.

The Italian consul of Trabzon in 1915, Giacomo Gorrini and Winston Churchil: Great sources! Should I remind you that these countries were in war with the Ottoman Empire. And? Do Allied claims of Nazi Genocide against the Jews make them any less credible? That's red herring and detracts from the issue, you are claiming that even official members of the Italian, Dutch, Swedish, French, American, British, German and Austrian governments lied to their leaders just for propaganda purposes?

Toynbee, Arnold: English historian of the era, (Should I remind you that these countries were in war with the Ottoman empire) who edited the blue book of the English Propaganda bureau. Employed by England foreign office Read the quotations by the reputable scholars at the time who ruled out the propaganda excuse and affirmed that those testimonies were genuine. Toynbee himself denied that the book was a work of propaganda, and this was when he wrote it in his memoirs in the 1960s.

Your complaints are moot. When real "unbiased" administrators take a look at your complaints, they're going to ignore them. You are the only one who is inventing a phantom threat for pushing your POV.--MarshallBagramyan 01:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to create much problem, but I have a few questions. First, why there is not a turkish POV section in this article? Denial of the Genocide is not Turkish POV. Denial means that such an event truly happened but it is ignored. I don't think that Turkish POV is to deny it. Refuse would be a better choice to express turkish POV. Some poeple even tried to insert an armenian genocide paragraph in the history of Turkey article, where the whole seljuq and ottoman era is overviewed in a solitary paragraph. Why can't we insert at least 5% turkish POV to this article?

Second question: Can you cite me a source where Ataturk admitted the genocide? Don't leave your arguments unsupported because it means truly nothing!

Third question: Are you qualified enough to say that Turkish sources are less reliable than Armenian sources? And if turkish sources are all invaluable, than why do you use the works of Turkish historians who admitted the genocide e.g Taner Akçam. Are only the historians who admitted the genocide are reliable? I take it that the reliability of the sources depends on whether the author admits the genocide. Thanks Caglarkoca 19:25, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Caglarkoca, admitted the genocide is a strong word; the term genocide did not still exist at the time. Had he accepted that the previous regime was responsible? Yeh, he did in more than one occasion. He referred to the killing of 800,000 Armenians by the previous regime to General Harbord, Rauf Orbay relate in his memoir a discussion him and Ataturk had relating to the previous regime destruction of the Armenians. (Rauf Orbay, Rauf Orbay'ın Hatıraları, (Vol. 3), Yakın Tarihimiz, İstanbul, 1962 p. 179). I an interview of August 1, 1926 issue of the Los Angeles Examiner includes a passage, Ataturk relate to the previous regime destruction of the Armenian population.

Regarding Armenian vs Turkish source. The problem is not more on the secondary sources if there is no manipulation of primary sources, but rather the primary sources themselves. There are not much primary Armenian sources, and in the academia it is the Armenian primary sources which are discarded not Turkish. Take McCarthy for example, while the majority of the references he uses are Ottoman or Turkish records, when finding an Armenian primary source contradicting those, he plain and simply call them forgery, when they are Western, he call them prejudicial and anti-Turkish. So, I don’t think the problem is much Armenian vs Turkish sources, but rather Western vs Turkish sources. Turkish not as “Turkish author”, but as Turkish records. BTW, I exclude here forgery, since I restrain myself to the academia, and don’t consider forgers as academics. You will be surprised to find many Turkish scholars who aren’t in the list included in the article and who covers the subject academically, but since they are in the majority position line, (I mean Turkish scholars living abroad), you won’t hear about them much. I personally met some.

Lastly, regarding the Turkish POV, I have some difficulty with that term; positions should not be classified as Turkish, Armenian etc. POV, positions are entities by themselves, a certain class of people will support one position against the other, while we should definitely write those adhering to it. The text transcending should present simply the positions, and then saying who adhere. So, I believe, a section titled something like “critics” or something such. Not because Denial is not a good term, but simply because there is more than just plain denial. Zurcher disagree with many scholars, but he still considers the Ittihadists having planned the destruction of the Armenians, so I refuse to call him a denier. A denier is not someone who refuse the qualification of genocide. Fad (ix) 20:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The Ataturk thing.. Well, I read the whole story when it first starting going around and I have to say that the interpretation was really stretched, and I also noticed some problems with context. Ataturk regularly gave speeches, and the full text of his speeches for all his life take many rows and bookshelves in the Turkish National Archives. In that particular speech, he was talking about WWI and the following wars, and was lamenting the chaos and the loss of human life in general. Ataturk talked about every thing imaginable, from airplane factories to the need for more Opera houses, and that's normal since he was trying to rebuild and reorient a whole country that was created out of the remnants of an Empire. Anyways, going back to that speech, he didn't mention a genocide, but he was talking, in those series of speeches, about the general loss of life and devastation of the wars of the thirty preceding years. From what I could gather, he was complaining about inter-ethnic strife that was caused by the wars (between Kurds, Turks and Armenians) and the lack of protection that should have been offered to Armenian deportees, both of which resulted in loss of life. To stretch that and say Ataturk accepted the AG is not academically correct since he also talked about the conflicts that ravaged every part of the country. Besides, that has practically been the main Turkish POV in the first place. Is it right or not, people can debate it all they want; I am just trying to clarify... Baristarim 19:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

As I said I will not waste too much time. Just some reminders.

1. The Washington post newspaper states the source as "An official communication from the general staff of the Caucasian (russian) army under date of Nov. 10, says:" 2. Italian council and Winston Churchil quotes are from publicized sources not secret dispatches. 3. Apart from the point that Baristarim made Ataturk quotes are much dubious and/or totally fake. I can prove it when nessesary. Just think why Ataturk Who robustly stated no crime is present decide to confess to an US newpaper? 4. Actually Tonybe admitted himself that it was meant for propaganda purposes but maintained that the info is true. I have the copy of his original mail to an Armenians lady. I can send it when nessesary. Second it is published by England foreign office (a country in war with Ottoman empire) in the war time. It can never be regarded as a history book or 100% reliable. Lastly all the sources (which were just codes or nicknames in the first edition) were later discovered. They Turned out to be Missionaries or Armenian thasnak members. Check out the new version by Ara sarafian (2000). 5. the highest figure of armenian population is 2.3 by the Armenian patriache at that time which has good reasons to inflate the numbers. are you kidding me by showing the article that you created as a source. Let me remind you again that in Lousanne peace treaty armenian population before the war was taken as 1.4 mil. And finally if I were to push my POV I would have gathered a gang an start an edit war. I see only one gang around. 6. the so called hamidian massacres are all from Sasoon and surrounding region. the newspapers of the time clearly descibes that no western observer were there to report anything in most cases. and when they were there they said the figures were much lower and incidents started by armenian unsurgent provocations.

Happy new year by the way.neurobio 11:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the information fad(ix), you tried answer my questions, but couldn't satisfy me. You are pushing too hard by stating that Ataturk himself admitted the genocide. And you say that you found it in "Rauf Orbay'ın Hatıraları". Rauf Orbay is considered a traitor in Turkey, he signed the Armitice of Mudros, and was the head of the opposition to Ataturk. This is one of the basic facts of Turkish war of independence. Wouldn't it be possible that Orbay tried to vilify Ataturk? Can you provide us the exact quote? Both in Turkish and English. I believe Baristarim explained it quite right. Ataturk had a word on almost anything, so it is easy to manipulate a quote from Ataturk.

Also, in order the refuse the qualification of genocide, there must be a genocide. Turkish refuses that the unfortunate events were not a genocide, so Denial of the Genocide is neither the position of Turkish Republic nor the Turkish POV. There are many Turkish historians who refuse the idea of genocide and they are supported by a number of western scholars. So, there are enough people to establish a section called 'Turkish Thesis'. I stopped translations because there were enough pressure on me to stop it.

The sources part... You say that Turkish sources are more favored than Armenian sources, but almost every work used in the article is written by non-Turkish people. It is not a suprise to me to see that 1/3 of the works used are written by Armenian scholars, but I would expect to see as much Turkish historians used in the article as Armenian ones, because Turkey and Armenia are sides to this conflict. Thanks Caglarkoca 19:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

You are mixing primary sources with secondary I think. True, many Armenians have written about the genocide, what I am talking about is not scholarship but records, primary records. It is no secret for no one that Armenian primary records are nearly non-existing. You will hardly find more than few references to Armenian sources in published work, and no matter if the book is written by an Armenian or not. It is obvious that per population Armenians have written much more about the subject. But this doesn't mean anything. Most scholars of the Holocaust are Jews, Hilberg who wrote the major work about the Holocaust is a Jew. What matters here is the documentation of the work, most of it is not Jewish. Fad (ix) 19:35, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

When he says he can prove it, he actually means that he will dump the crap from tallarmeniantale, which I have already covered here more than necessary. The interview wasn’t even about the Armenian massacres, but about the attempts against Ataturk life, which was the subject of the interview itself. Secondo, as usual neurobio is injecting crap directly from tallarmeniantale when talking about the Blue Book, what he says is simply the same lies there which I have also already covered. This is what could be found from the Key to name of persons by Bryce and Toynbee.

At least forty one reports found in the blue book could still be found in the U.S. Department of State archives.

• From them, ALL were sent from the Ottoman Empire.
• Fifteen of these were written by American consuls(we will come to that later)
• Ten by American missionaries.
• Eight by other nationals (four of whom German)
• Six were unclosed sources.
• And ONLY TWO were from the Dashnaks.

Neurobio claims to check the new edition (Ara Safarian 2000), well, this information could actually be found on p. x, of the work. Safarian covers from p. ix-x, opposing and documenting specifically the non-factuality of neurobio assertions. But since that work was referred on tallarmeniantale, of course he presented it without actually knowing of what he was talking about. The ‘’lies’’ he is talking about were still presented in 1967, in Toynbee’s work Acquaintances (1967)

"The collection and collation of the evidence from which the Blue Book [The Treatment of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire] was compiled had occupied most of my working time for an umber of months; and, after the Blue Book had been published, I could not dismiss its contents from my mind. I was not only haunted by the victims' sufferings and by the criminals' deeds; I was exercised by the question how it could be possible for human beings to do what those perpetrators of genocide had done.

My study [of Armenian Genocide]...left an impression on my mind that was not effaced by the still more cold-blooded genocide, on a far larger scale, that was committed during the Second World War by the Nazi.

Any great crime - private or public, personal or impersonal-raises a question that transcends national limits; the question goes to the heart of human nature itself. My study of the genocide that had been committed in Turkey in 1915 brought home to me the reality of Original Sin."

I guess, in 1967, the British were still at war against the Ottoman Empire. Another interesting note, is how neurobio is just like the author of tallarmeniantale equating the term propaganda with lies, when even his fetish scholar Justin McCarthy claimed that propaganda does not mean lying, a justification of his request that the Turkish government uses propaganda against “Armenian allegations.”

Coming to those American Consuls whose reports could be found in the Blue Book. Consuls were actually stationed on the spot. Lets give the example of Leslie Davis who was actually stationed in the East and on the spot, he was requested to investigate the reported massacres, since the reports were about a mass killing never reported ever before with such a brutality, he started being skeptical about. He actually requested a Turk to be his guide for one day and show the spots of the Armenian massacres. He submitted as a result a report in which he confirms and even say that what he actually saw was worst than could have been reported.

So, when neurobio claims that those there actually claimed much less than those who were not there. This too is not accurate, it is actually the contrary, the Italian consul for instance who witnessed what was happening, could not even believe what his eyes were showing him.

Not so long ago, the Turkish government sent a letter to the British government, presented on the House, requesting the Brits to apologies for the Blue Book and “admit” it to be forgery. The House reconfirmed the Blue Book as authentic and reaffirmed its historic value. Taner Akçam in a series in a Turkish newspaper has covered this request and said that it was an embarrassment, since still the signed reports could still be found in American archives.

Coming to the population, Neurobio claims that during Lausanne the figure of 1.4 million Armenians has been used, the sort of crap he recycle from the tallarmeniantalewebsite. What he is actually mentioning is the Ottoman Census Statistics of 1912 which was presented by the Turkish delegation. If neurobio believes to be up to the task, he could bring the trash he recycle on the Ottoman Armenian Population article, or shut the @ off about the validity of that article itself. Fad (ix) 18:30, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

That website is not even credible and basically everything in that website contradicts Armenians on everything its definitely anti-Armenian propaganda. Nareklm 03:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

he will dump the crap is not very polite, please watch your language. Caglarkoca 19:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed) Fad (ix) 19:30, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't care whether you like him or not. It is not your first insult against him that I have seen, so please cut it. Even though I don't agree with you, I like to read the info that you are presenting here, BUT IT IS TO HARD TO FOLLOW A PASSAGE WHEN IT IS FULL OF PERSONAL ATTACKS. What you write here is read by many people and they are archieved so write respectfully. Anyway, you haven't answered my questions regarding Rauf Orbay. Why should I believe a traitor? And you still didn't provide me a quote.

I also know what a primary and secondary source is, I took history lessons for many years. My question is not about the kind of source, but rather than about the historians who process the primary sources. In Armenian Genocide, if the investigation of neurobio is right (even though you don't believe him, he wouldn't have lied too easily; especially when regarding to the number of references in a wiki article) one third of the references are to Armenian historians where there is no references to the turkish historians, who refuse the genocide. We cannot behave as if the opposition side doesn't exist. Thanks Caglarkoca 00:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Look dude, what do you think readers will conclude? A user who slander an entire people in every given occasion and dump materials from a known racist website and use it as sole source in one side, and another user who slander that member in particular? Regardless of the policies here? As for personal attacks. Did you see me on this page slandering other Turks? I am even having good relations with Lutherian. Regarding Rauf Orbay, yes! I did not answer you, and for a simple reason, the guy was accused to destroy large junk of materials involving him in the massacres, his aubiography itself is full of praise of the Kemalistic regime and the accusations about him being a traitor have been cleaned up, including by the republic of Turkey. So him being a traitor and wanting to make up things allegedly said by Ataturk is your oppinion. You are not forced to believe him. But I fail to see why someone who was accused of destroying records of the destruction of the Armenians will make up thing to support a position which evidences bringing to it, he has destroyed? Comming back to neurobio? Someone who calls this article trash and hasn't any respect to the entire project which he calls in his namespace a made house, could only be here for a single reason, which he is so good at, that is, slinging here back and forth what he could use as immunition from the website tallarmeniantale. Fad (ix) 01:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Orbay knew that a Kemalist system would have resolved almost all problems of Turkey, but he advocated the American Mandate in order to accomplish it. He called Atatürk an adventurer. He was also the one of the founders of the first opposition party in Turkey, which was supported by mostly fundamentalists. I haven't heard of him being accused of destroying the genocide documents. BTW, while I was reading the biography of Orbay, I recalled that U.K held a trial in Malta about Armenian Genocide and all the Turks were cleared of the case! If it couldn't have proven in 1921, just 6 years after the crime is commited; can it be in 2007?Caglarkoca 03:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I know about the madhouse thing.. Well, it doesn't hurt to have some sense of humor, right? :)) The whole internet is a madhouse, what are you talking about??!!! I remember growing up having to dial old fashioned phones (and having to dial an operator for long-distance calls) and going to high school staring like an idiot at people who had mobile phones in their cars (you know, those big backpacks back in the day :)).. In retrospect, Internet, and a project like Wikipedia, can be considered a madhouse. lol. It depends on the context and the tone, obviously. There is funny and chaotic "mad" and stupid "mad". Baristarim 02:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I recalled that U.K held a trial in Malta about Armenian Genocide and all the Turks were cleared of the case!. That is perhaps the worst lie repeated by the Turkish denialists. We have discussed it dozens of times in the archives, however for the record, there was no such thing as the Malta Tribunal. There were 60 Turkish criminals held by the British on the island of Malta accused of crimes against the Armenians BUT they were released not to a lack of evidence which you guys so earnestly repeat but were in fact traded for several dozen British hostages taken by the Ataturk nationalists including British Colonel Alfred Rawlison.

Their trial was pending, the evidence was abundant and they were hopefully going to be tried by an intl. criminal tribunal. 43 of the criminals held at Malta were released in Aug. 1921 a decision made by Winston Churchill who stated that the "whole transaction [was] tantamount to complete capitulation to Turkish blackmail." Sorry but the "Malta Tribunal" is just another utter falsehood you guys keep falling for.--MarshallBagramyan 04:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I am here for only two months, sorry, and your sources MarshallBagramyan? You have spoken so confidently, and even brutally; so you must have perfect sources which can be easily accessed by me. Caglarkoca 05:00, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Gary Jonathan Bass. Stay the Hand of Vengance: The Politics of War Crimes Tribunals. Princeton University Press, 2000.--MarshallBagramyan 05:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Come on, you know that I cannot access a book very easily. At least, a few websites (which means more than one) must have quoted this book if it is so good that you can brutally talk like that. Give me the websites, which quote that book. If none, then that source might have been not so good at all. Thanks Caglarkoca 20:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Here's a link to the book Marshall's mentioning [7] page 106 and so on. Fedayee 20:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Spare me your nonsense on my "brutal" talking. Fedayee just gave you one link, here's another on Amazon.com, the ISBN number is 0-6910-9278-8. How much more "accesible" can this become?--MarshallBagramyan 21:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

THE LETTER OF PKK !!!!! Hi ,in this article REF NO 62 ,is a letter from the head of an terrorist organisations. It probably ment to support Armenian thesis. Before drawing your attention to this terrible mistake I have a few words to say. I am from a village near by city of Sivas in Turkey,and am a Caucassian origined Turkish citizen.In our geography Armenians,Turks,Kurds,Georgians,Cherkesses,Abhazians,Karachais,we all are brothers.Turks and Armenians live together for a 1000 years,Turks are in Armanian's humuor,Armenians are in Turk's humour,married to eachother ,grew up together,sang songs together and unfortunately died together. In a certain era of the history these two highly reputable nation had been enemies of eachother,by Russian and British Empire's influence on Some adventurous Armenians.(whereas on the other side there was another adventurous young Turks by the influence of Germans) As Anzac forces was fronting the British army in Gallibolu ,Armenians was fronting the Russian army in East. When Anzac youth was dying, as there were no tears in the eyes of Brit commanders,when Armenian and Turkish and Kurdish brothers killing eachother ,there were no tears in the eyes of Russian commanders,either. I read all your commends here guys both Turkish and Armenian. There was no any hattrate between Armenians and Turks that time to cause a genocide,and I don't think Memets in Turkish army was that violent either.Becouse I 've been in Gallibolu and have seen Memets and Jonhy's lyng in the chest of brother country,and I read their memories and have seen their pictures.THe soldier in Van area of Ottoman Empire was no different then the soldier in Gallibolu. I have loads of Armenian friends in Istanbul,Grand Bazaar. They are the most magneficent goldsmiths and the nicest people you can meet,trusthworthy ,honest ,hardworking and good friends. In my village there are 3 Armenian families (my cousin married to one the family's daughter)My family and them living together for the last 90 years.Their grandfather Tırtatt told me their story,how they moved to our village.They were one those deported families. I live in U.K now,but when I was living in Turkey.I was a close witness to how we brothers menage to live together in peace but individually,as Nazım Hikmet says, like a tree but in brotherhood of a forest. If this genocide discussion is a blame ,both sides has a lot of it to take, in different aspects. More then anything ,it seems to me that ARmenian diaspora loves to deal with it,and love to poison their youths mind with this hattrate,and I think this is just to cover a mistake once some Armenian adventurers made and regreted but couldn't get rid of it. Otherwise ,'''''''just to prove that their thesis is right ,why would they use a letter of an exteremely violent terrorist organisation called [[[PKK]]]who killed over 30.000 people ,as a reference in this article'''''''. And if the wikipedia editors are so objective in this discussion why would they let this letter to be used. hope you guys one days realise that we are brothers not enemies.

OK. I hope that this username is not as spammy as the latter. So, why have the external links disapeared? I see this as rather a lack of knowledge among the editors than anything else. Just because certain people are not well informed about this topic (or deny it) does not justify censurship of this kind. Our site, among those external links deleted, contain professional educational and informative data, video and material and I can not see why educational information such as a video of a lecture conference is not relevant in this area.

Furthermore I can not see why ths topic is often locked. Terrorising the topic should not result in locking it for editing. Whether the information added is biased or not can be discussed, but never the less the discussion must go on. And bare in mind: the Armenian genocide might be a political controversy but it is a historical fact. The main deniers are the Turkish offical side. The rest are mostly Jewish historians who are either functionalists themselves (regarding the Jewish genocide) or are singulaists (also regarding the Jewish genocide). So please do not mix these two issues together and keep on to the facts.

BR,

Vahagn Avedian Editor of Armenica.org History student at Historical Institute of Uppsala University, Sweden —The preceding unsigned comment was added by VahagnAvedian (talk • contribs).

First of all see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. You should refrain from adding the link yourself. Secondly see WP:External links. External links should be added if they can further enlighten the subject for points not covered in the article, and external links shouldn't duplicate information. This is the most important part: if there is one site that covers the content of five other links, then there is no need for those other five. I don't know about the specifics of this particular site, but the content of most of the external links already listed cover that site it seems. I don't know about the links present in other articles however. Cheers! Baristarim 14:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I understand the basic argumentation, but

• I don't think that anyone would treat the Holocuast article like this if neo-nazis or Holocaust deniers would step in and add their point of view. I firmly blame this on lack of general knowledge about the Armenian Genocide and the fact that people mix policitcal point of view with historical facts and evidence. And as far as it goes for historians denying the Armenian Genocide, there is very simple explanation once you look at who these persons are and their historical views in general. E.g.
  

- Andrew Mango is born and educated in Istanbul and working almost with Turkish related areas including a comprehensive book about Ataturk. So I guess you could say that his view of the things might be coloured by his upraising, education and work.

- Bernard Lewis' view in regard to the Armenian genocide is very much like the discussion between the two camps of Functionalists and Intentionalists in regard to the Holocaust. These argue whether the Jewish genocide was intentional on the part of the German authorities or was it a by product of the war as the functionalists claim it to be. Mr Lewis belongs to the latter group sa far as it goes for the Armenian genocide. He affirms that some 1 million Armenians were killed, but this was not the intention of the Turkish government, but rather a by product of the war. As in the Holocaust discussion the intentionalists would beg the difference.

- Guenter Lewy is a supporter of the singularity of the Jewish genocide, i.e. he means that it is unique and no other "genocides" could be compared to it. Professor Yair Auron, Jewish historian and lecturer in Israel, blames the American lack of recognition on Israeli pressures. According to him, the Holocaust (the Jewish Genocide) plays a central role in Israeli society and within historical circles, increasing in importance as the years progress, and relying on the uniqueness of the Jewish Genocide. Political Israel, he argues, has intentionally repressed and refused to acknowledge the existence of the first genocide of the 20th century. He is not alone in his claims. Other Israeli historians, such as Professor Yehuda Baur and Shlomo Avineri, the former foreign minister of Israel, have openly called the Armenian massacres a genocide.

- Justin McCarthy is awarded Order of Merit of Turkey by the Turkish President Süleyman Demirel in 1998 for his "services." He has based his entire claim on the fact that the deportations were "relocations", nothing more. His argumentation is quite shallow and in disregard to several other parameters in the equation, such as the ethnic cleansings that these deportations resulted in.

I think it is quite important to lift forward this smal facts which make a huge difference once they are mentioned. It is these details that the denialist side comfortably "forgets" to mention. The above mentioned people are the major non-Turks. The rest are exclusively Turks who follow the policital agenda of the Turkish Foreign Ministry.

• Eventhough if say armenian-genocide.org covers the chronology, Armenica.org gives a much more detalied overview of the circumstances and the history which led to the definitive genocidal measures. Now days many people (inlcuding this article) put much emphesis on the genocide itself, wihtout mentioning important details about the reform demands and efforts during the period 1878-1908. Furthermore, the entire focus is set on Turkish and German actions, while the role of the British, Russian, French and US failure in realisation of the demanded reforms or the later recognition of the genocide is not touched upon (at least not as satisfactory as it should). Secondly, 1) the link to our site (armenica.org) was not meant as a pointer to the text, but to the video lecture with quite exhaustive facts, information and argumentation which is unique in its kind as far as online informative material is concerned 2) when I then visit the article about the denial of the Armenian genocide I see 31 external links pointing to Turkish sites. If this is not biased behaviour then I don't know what is. The articles of wikipedia how informative than they might be, are a great source for further reading (at least for me). I agree that links to sites with almmost identical content should be replaced by only one link to the "best choice", but I can't see how the sites included in the external links even cover the parts presented on Armenica.org, with, among others, interview with Prof. Taner Akcam, lecture by Prof. Dadrian etc. And bare in mind that other updates are conitnuously added. Best regards, VahagnAvedian 9:29, 10 January 2007 (CET)

There are mistakes in the above, such as Functionalists and Intentionalists. But this is irrelevent, I have checked the site and it is full of personal opinions, I don't think this issue is only of self promossion. We had problems in the past with personal sites, and I wish your site not be there. Raffi wiki encyclpedia shall remain an exception for materials such as picture that site provide. The only worth your site could have, it is the interviews by Akçcam and Dadrian. But did you took permission to load them? The interviews could go in the media section, but your site as an overall can not be presented as source for the article, and another editor shall do what is best and you shall remain out of that. That you add your true name and don't hide under a proxy is good, but not enough. Fad (ix) 17:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

PanArmenian.net reports that North Dakota has proclaimed April 24 as Remembrance Day for the Victims of the Armenian Genocide. If this is true, could someone fix this map to add North Dakota when the page is unlocked? - Fedayee 18:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

PanArmenian.net is not a credible source, we need another source to confirm that information. Fad (ix) 21:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Theres another website confirming http://www.anca.org/press_releases/press_releases.php?prid=572 ROOB323 22:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Moved to /Arguments subpage. Talk page comments are supposed to be about the article, not the subject in general. Khoikhoi 10:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep deleting what I write and write whatever you can write. That's you.

The same old I see.. Well, on a sidenote (in fact, this should be the main note, but hey), has any progress been made to resolve the content dispute that led to this article's protection? I think that its mention kinda got lost somewhere above :) Baristarim 10:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe the article should be kept under semi-protection. It is a sad fact that there are many people waiting to vandalize the page. Caglarkoca 16:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

The article has been in semi-protection pretty much all the time for months :) However, there was a specific dispute about the structure of the article that was raised, and it led to an edit-war and to full-protection. I wasn't following what was happening, so I am just curious as to what the dispute was. Baristarim 17:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

why doesn't this article mention that armeinean gangs attacked turkish towns and massacred hundreds of Turk men, women and children? It instead brands it as "minor unrest". Armanalp 16:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Does the Holocaust article make any mention of Germans that were killed by Jews in revenge or as part of allied armies? I can think of a great many more relavent details concerning the Armenian Genocide that could be included in the article - such as all the many (tens to hundreds of) thousands of Turks who enriched themselves off of stolen Armenian properties...or specifics regarding the murders of Ottoman Officials who resisted deportation (murder) of Armenians by CUP operatives (thugs)...or the large scale (CUP) falsifying of claims/reports of Armenian rebellions - countered by reports of local Ottoman and German officials and other eyewitnesses....etc etc who claim that no such thing was occuring. I can think of a great many relevant details to include regarding the annhilation of the entire Ottoman Armenian nation (1.5 million +) that have quite a bit more relevance then the deaths of hundreds (or even a few thousand) Turks at the hands of Armenians...more Turkis were killed by Kurdish bands, Turkish deserters and CUP/Ottoman Special Organization "gangs" then were ever killed by any Ottoman Armenians....think about it...--THOTH 07:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think here the situation is a little bit different than the Holocaust, I find it very amusing to see that you always compare the so called Armenian Genocide to the Holocaust. Jews didn't have a chance to declare war against Germany, but Armenians indeed openly attacked Ottoman empire. On the washington post in the talk page, it is clearly stated that Armenians join Russians, isn't it? Then here we have a war situation rather than a Holocaust like genocide, where jews beginning from 1933 were systematically destroyed, in spite of not joining Russians. Armanalp is quite right. Caglarkoca 06:30, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm so sorry that you aparently just have no clue. You say that Jews never "attacked" Germany - however the Germans at the time claimed that in fact they did and they quote Weizman's "declaration of war" against Germany as proof of this and make many other claims as well - equally spurious as your claims that Armenians "attacked" the Ottoman EMpire. You talk of Jews being systematically destroyed by Germany since 1933 - and of course we are well aware of the various campaigns - economic, political, social that were undertaken to exclude the Jews from German society and disenfranchise them - however Armenians and Greeks of the Ottoman Empire generally experienced far warse prior to 1915. Massacres, depridations and other predatory behaviors against them were common. The Sultan and then the CUP particularly took many steps to exclude Greeks and Armenians from participation in the economy. Many of the very same steps to exclude Jews from German economic and societal life were taken agaionst Greeks and Armenians - and far worse. And the Genocide commited against Armenians was in most all senses EXACTLY like the Holocaust was to the Jews. Your contention that there was no Armenian Genocide because some Armenians may have joined with Russians (prior to the Genocide this numnber is estimated at less then 4,000...when there were 250,000 Ottoman Armenians in Ottoman armies at this time) is quite ludicrous. And besides - Ottoman Muslims experienced more attacks against them from Kurdish bandits, Turkish deserters and CUP Special Organization units then they suffered from any attacks commited by Ottoman Armenians. In 1917 Ottoman Military accounts indicate that Turkish/Muslim (civilian) deaths in Anatolia that could be attrributed to Russians and Armenians combined amonted to no more then 5,000 and Turkish historian Halil Beketay believes that no more then 10,000 Turkihs/Muslim civilian deaths can be attributed to Russians and (primarily) Russian Armenians through the entire course of events from 195-1923)...as opposed to 1.5 million + Ottoman Armenians killed by the Ottoman Turks....so come now. Your claims are entirely spurious and are not supported by any legitimate sources scholarly opinion. The history as recorded by eyewitnesses, memoirs/confessions (of CUP/Ottoman Military and Special Organization members), and incredible amounts of detailed documentary evidence do not support your claims in any way shape or form. And besides dose the prescence of Jews - even German Jews - in the armies of the Allies during WWII mean that there was no Holocaust? No it does not. So are you really telling us that you are unaware of the details of the Armenians Genocide...that you cannot fathom that 1.5 million + Armenians just disapeared from the face of the Earth - most within the space of a few short months - the rest in just a few short years - because of some natural causes? Are you just entirely unaware of the detailed records and statements from ex-CUP and Ottoman Officials and operatives and their German allies present at the time attesting to secret orders that "deporatation" meant extermination of the Armenians - that this was deliberate policy and that in fact it was undertaken and thouroughly witnessed and that the (successful) results are quite clear. --THOTH 16:07, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Of course, you might have some right points, especially on the fact that the nationalist CUP make the life miserable for the non-Muslims. But the terms genocide and Holocaust are too strong to be used for those unfortunate events. I must confess that the events in 1915 were truly dark marks on the Turkish/Ottoman history. Even if there was no genocide (as I advocate for) delocalizing a whole nation is a very huge guilt. I admit that. But I am against the content of the article. As I said before, Holocaust is too insane to be compared with these events. And the lack of Turkish POV... That is what I am trying to say beginning from the first day I entered wikipedia. BTW, I am quite interested in 250000 Ottoman Armenians in the Ottoman Army. Do you have a source? Thanks for the valuable information. Caglarkoca 19:15, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to sound crass - but your opinion on whether or not "genocide" or "holocaust" may or may not be the correct terms is not the issue. The issue is that the overwhelming number of scholars and historians and scholarly historical sources fully accept these events as genocide and that all definitions of genocide are clearly met by the CUP/Ottoman Turkish actions taken against the Ottoman Armenians and the results of such. I am pleased (not sure of the right word - but close enough...) that you (as a Turk? [I assume]) at least understand/appreciate the feelings of guilt or perhaps shame might be a better word for what your nation (the Turkish nation of the time that Turkey of today is the inheritor for) should rightly feel for what was done. However when you continue to claim that the events of the time and the experiences of Armenians of the Empire do not consititute genocide and are somehwo less "insane" as you say it - less brutal, less demeaning, less destructive etc and that Armenians somehow experienced less persecution/destruction and so on then the Jews of WWII - well in this claim you are entirely 100% wrong. I am always perplexed that so many Turks - even ones who seem to have some conception of what occured - cannot understand how what the Armenians went through was in fact the very equivilant of the Jewish experience in nearly every concievable sense - and this is clearly demonstrated by the vast and corroborated eyewitness accounts and documentation of the horrors that were carried out against innocent and defeseless Armenians empire wide. Like the Jews - Armenians provided very little resitance and were mercilessly and brutally slaughtered - individually and en mass. I would really urge you to read more of the eyewitness acounts and testimonys to try to achieve a greater understanding of the level of brutality and one sided predation that occured during these times to better understand and conceptualize these events. I doubt that anyone who reads these accounts and who takes the time to read about and understand the history and development of the extermination plans and how they were carried out will possibly come away not thinking/understanding how these events were - for all relevant purposes - no different whatsoever then what the Jews experienced in WWII. As for the 250,000 figure of Ottoman Armenians in the Ottoman army I do have a source - but not where I am right now. I will try to check on this for you. And as far as Turkish POV - well IMO - beyond acknowledging such - that it is a view of denial of these events (and in fact such position has changed/morphed over time from an outright denial that such things ever happened at all to now claiming that it was more akin to a civil war of some sort - etc) - I think mention of this view is warrented - but beyond mention of it - it really does not warrent any detailed treatment as their is really very little corraborated basis for such arguments and they are in fact political arguments (and accusations and denials) not really based in fact. The facts speak for themselves. They are not the "Armenian"perspective - but the overwhelmingly accepted and understood version of what actually occured. Granted a great deal more could be presented and discussed which would provide context to these events, could add to the understanding of how circumstances led to the situation as it did and to the mindset of the CUP leadership and cadres and of the carious Turkish people who took part in such things - and I have often supported the idea of doing such. But we must remember this is essentially an encyclopedic article - not a definitive tome or historical analysis and accounting. The goal here is to partake a level of understanding of these events so that the casual reader or amature researcher is able to seek and recieve a basic understanding of just what is/was this Armenian Genocide thing all about. The article, as it stands, more or less accomplishes this. It certainly can be improved and I have in the past expressed my opinions in this regards - but expanding upon the denial of the events is IMO - not where the presentation is really lacking - it is in providing some overall background and context (some of which might be seen/interpreted to some degree as additional Turkish perspective) and I also believe that a more accurate chronology that depicts when and where major massacres and "deporations" occured and how procedures differed from place to place (primarily regional differences in how the genocide was carried out) would be helpful in allowing the reader a better feel for just what it was that occured that we (properly) term/call the Armenian Genocide.--THOTH 20:30, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I think this dialog is becoming more helpful than the previous ones:) To be honest with you, I do not have a great knowledge on this area. It is mostly limited to Turkish+ English wikipedia+ a few more sources; and I have never said that I know the topic very well. What I usually say is about the format of the article. I am aware that the events of 1915 is considered as genocide by overwhelmingly many scholars and countries so that what is on the wiki is not the Armenian POV, but the worldwide (I mean by the majority) accepted version. But the ones that does not accept the term genocide is enough to have the right to express their opinion in wikipedia. You understood what I meant by Turkish POV very well. We claim that unfortunate Armenian Unrest followed by the delocalization caused many people to lose their lives. This POV has the right to expressed under the title Turkish Thesis on the Events of 1915 or Refusal (rather than denial) of the Article, and as you stated civil war sort of thing should be included in that article as well as the position of Turkey. And for my feeling... I know it is of wikipedia, but I must state them:) I would feel ashamed if I have decided on delocalization or supported the idea of delocalization. Therefore shame is not the best word. But I admit that it was a very insane guilt to delocalize a whole nation. (BTW I am Turkish) Please think about the addition of Turkish POV to the article. And don't forget to provide me a source on the Ottoman Armenian soldiers. Thanks Caglarkoca 10:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

OK - you admit to not having great knowledge of these events - yet you continue to insist that a (widely discredited/not accepted) minority view - pretty much held only by Turks and scholars who are linked to Turkey in some manner - deserves to be presented and explained in a manner beyond just introducing that such a view is held - and I disagree (I think it has been given greater emphasis then is deserved). Additionally you continue to espouse this idea the the Armenian Genocide was just some sort of "delocalization" (whatever this really means) - when the overwhelming evidence (that is demonstrated by numerous collaborated accounts of C top CUP member's statements as well as an examination of the methods employed etc etc) clearly proves that there was a desire and deliberate pre-planned cordinated action to eliminate Armenians (as a group with any real presence) from Anatolia - and that this involved killing most of them and only displacing a few in comparision. Taner Akcam discusses the CUPs stated desire to have no more then 10% Armenian presence in any one area and how - with the arrival of some number of deportees (who somehow survived - in many cases quite unexpectadly) in the areas around Aleppo and in Der Zor - that a second round of outright massacres (and deliberate starvation in death camps) was undertaken to ensure that the number of Armenian survivors would not exheed this percentage. Well the CUP more then suceeded with its plans - and its leaders were quite pleased with themselves in this regard and stated such numerous times. It is also enlightening to read accounts of Ottoman Parlimentarians (reconvened briefly after the war) and of Ottoman newspapers from just after the war where many express outrage over what was done. In any event - accusations that Armenians were responsible for all of this (their own demise) are quite laughable (or very sad really) when one knows and understands the facts. I would suggest that you educate yourself further in this regard. And perhaps then you might (properly) feel some shame for the actions of your nation - in the past - for comitting this genocide in the first place - and now - for denying it so vehemently.--THOTH 14:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Thoth--Some of what you have written is slightly confusing to me. I am not terribly familiar with the events we're discussing, nor do I have a personal stake in the matter, but it seems to me from what I've read above that there is a significant disparity in the evidence cited regarding the Armenian incident. (I am hesitant to use genocide because I really don't know much about the issue at all.) The reason the Holocaust is universally accepted as a genocide is because of the extensive primary German documentation discovered by the Allied armies, along with testimony from German soldiers/officers. Furthermore, the simple fact that the evidence left behind in concentration camps was discovered and documented by various third parties lends more credence to the Holocaust's unequivocal classification as a genocide.. Looking through the sources for this article, however, paints a much more colorful picture: as an example, the article cites Peter Balakian, whom I know personally and can assure you is the worst kind of scholar. He teaches at Colgate University and was kind enough to be openly hostile to Muslim students on campus--enough so that numerous students complained to the administration about him while I attended the institution. Clearly an issue such as this is going to be extremely sensitive, but the impression I get from reading the cited sources is that the article relies heavily on evidence presented from what can only be described as biased sources. There are a few "neutral" sources--the U.N. report on genocide, the NYT dispatch dating from 1916--but they are peppered in between numerous Armenian scholars. Please note, however, that I do not think this makes them less valid! Far from it. However, given that precedent, we are obligated to lend similar credence to the genocide refusals, unless a body of evidence that is sufficiently neutral can be directly cited. It is not our place as wikipedians to determine what viewpoint is more "valid." We're only here to present the situation as it stands. I have no qualms including the fact that the vast majority of scholars agree that this should be considered a genocide. But unlike the Holocaust, we don't have the circumstances necessary to declare any opposition stances invalid. And if we do in fact have those circumstances, the vast majority of our citations should reference them, and not the secondary sources it currently does. Let me know what you think. Spectheintro 02:00, 20 January 2007 (UTC)spectheintro

First - I've never seen any "evidence" that in any way disproves the huge volumes of such that clearly show the Armenian Genocide to be such. Evidence includes 37,000 documents in the archives of the United States on this issue. 9,000+ (don't know exact numner) of such documents in the German Archives. Thousands and thousands of direct eyewitness reports (far more then what documents the Holocaust even), as well as numerous Ottoman documents (including testimony, confessions, correspondences, memoirs...etc - that clearly make the case for genocide. The "other side" (standard Turkish view and that supported by so-called Turkish scholars and those supported by Turkey) offer nothing to invalidate this huge compliation of corroborating evidence. What they do is to essentially repeat wartime Turkish propoganda - that is the equivilant to nearly identicle Nazi wartime racist hate propoganda against the Jews - and expect us to accept such as truth - when the documentary evidence and eyewitness testimony - even from a great many Turks and from germans and Austirans who were allies to the Turks and present during these times - utterly refutes the counter-claims. Inclusion of Armenian Genocide denial - beyond just a reference that Turkey and certain Turkish shupported scholars deny it and a very minimal mention of why this might be so and the jist of their (discredited) argument - is all that this view warrents. Only by the fact the the inheritor government of the perpetrators of this genocide continues to deny it (and to aggressively sponsor, lobby on behalf and fund such denial) is there any significant difference between denial of the Holocaust and denial of the Armenian Genocide - and the article as it stands more then addresses this fact. If you are so keen on finding non-Armenian scholarly sources that paint a most clear picture of the factual record of the Armenian Genocide then I would strongly suggest that you read Turkish scholar Tanar Akcam's latest book - A Shameful Act - The Armenian Genocide and the Question of Turkish Responsibility. The book is based entirely on first hand Ottoman Turkish and to some extent first hand German documentary and eyewitness accounts and it clearly documents the culpilbility and genocidal intentions of the CUP Ottoman Turks in planning and carrying out the Armenian Genocide. It is impossible that any who reads this book will ever again question that the Armenian Genocide was not deliberatly undertaken and that it indeed was a genocide in every sense of the word and that the article in Wikipedia as it stands today is accurate and supportable. If anything a great deal of factual information that bolsters this case has been left out and any Turkish (or other) objection is left as being quite groundless.--THOTH 03:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Reading only parts of this argument, I saw that the comparison between the Holocaust and this Genocide were being dispiuted because the Armenians "declared war" and the Jews didn't.

First of all, its is disputed whether or not the Armenians joined the Russians in world war one. In any case, the Russians were badly losing (due to German support ) and did not reach any were near Cilicia were most of the Genocide occured. Secondly, there was no Armenian declaration of war, because there was no country!!! Thirdly, war does not mean total annihalation of a population. Its why Hitler's thugs were tried for war crimes. Armenian genocide was not just Turks defending themselves against rebels. They killed women and children too, or atleast left them to starve. Either way, this was defintely not a war no more than if I may qoute it was a war between "men and maggots" except that I think in this situation, the maggots have more honour than the men. Tourskin.

I hate to sound like a prick by insisting on this, but has anyone have something to say about what I wrote above in the section "Dispute"? What was the dispute about that led to this article's protection? If it could be talked about, at least there could be the (small) possibility that there might be (a bit) less edit-wars in the future. Baristarim 16:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know specifically the answer to your question - however I think it may have had something to do with the continued efforts on the part of some (vandals) to present the (so-called) "Turkish position" (which is clearly a minority position not held by the vast majority of scholars nor supported by sufficient evidence)that denies that the Armenian Genocide was/is indeed a genocide. As long as such vandals continue to push this idea objecting to characterizing the Armenian Genocide as a genocide - contrary to all eveidence (that has been repeatedly presented here in the talk pages) then I fear this article will always need some sort of protection. However, if the article is specifically labeled as "disputed" because of the notion that the genocide itself is (legitimatly) disputed - then I would agree that this is not proper.--THOTH 18:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmm.. I was thinking that it might have had to with the structure of the article, and the timeline of the events + a/the section about the status of the Armenians in the Empire before the WWI. The thing is, the reverts and additions were so complex that I am not able to figure out from the article's history what exactly the dispute was. It just seems that there were some additions, blind reverts, some shouting along the way and a protection by an administrator :) If it were some simple addition I wouldn't have asked.. I was just curious... Baristarim 19:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Baristarim I'm sorry but I don't know the answer to your question. I am however enjoying the manner in which you are asking it....--THOTH 20:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

We need some humor from time to time :) Well, I don't think you were here at that particular time when there was that edit-war, and I was only watching from a distance, so I am just trying to understand what was happening and what could be done. But no worries, I am sure the editors involved will expand further later on.. Baristarim 21:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Moved to /Arguments subpage. Talk page comments are supposed to be about the article, not the subject in general.

The caption under the photo of the telegram sent to the 'State Department' should state that it is the United States State Department. This is an international encyclopaedia - it may be apparent to US readers what the State Dept is, but its not necessarily clear to those from other countries. 86.136.27.193 12:19, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd already watched the pictures of this genocid in a very famous and old church in Isfahan/Iran and as far as I know Iranians and Armenians have lots in common and during this awful historical events many armenian came to Iran and they have always been treated with respect and also every year they demonstrate to protest against Turkey in Iran,Why haven't been written anything about it? fo more information you can also refer to :http://www.ourararat.com/eng/e_jamal.htm thanks

This is amongst the events and incidents which demonstrate a need for another segment in the article, "The Ongoing Struggle" or "Ongoing Saga". Obviously, this matter did not end in 1915. Please see to it that more current events are included, from the 1960s on to current day? It should be less controversial, as there are modern accountings and news articles to go by. Thank you!

P.S. Dunno where the error is coming from. This is the SECOND time I've posted the EditProtected to the FOLLOWING article, only to have it attached to this one in error. Please see the following piece, about the journalist who was just killed, and create changes based on THAT article? THANK YOU --JT 17:07, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

If you're going to start adding current events into this page from the 1960s onward, then you'll also have to mention the Armenian terrorists (ASALA) who murdered nearly 50 Turkish diplomats and their families in the 1970s/1980s in the name of genocide recognition. Lima6 17:28, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that any info needs to be added will be added when it becomes unprotected. It involves somewhat a delicate addition, and its place and wording needs to be decided following the wikiprocess, which means many editors will need to have the possibility to edit continously until a compromise and concensus version will be born. Until then, any unilateral addition which would leave the other editors without the ability to edit will be unfair. Just wait until the page becomes unprotected - besides, there are some disputes about structure that (still) needs to be ironed out.. Baristarim 17:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I totally disagree with JT, recent events which would include both the actions of ASALA and the crimes committed in Turkey, do not belong to this article. I agree that wikipedia must have them in one way or the other, but Armenian Genocide article is completely devoted on the alleged genocide of 1915. Such material could be presented in an article called "Turkish-Armenian Relationships", in order to include both ASALA and other actions. It is also unethical to edit a page which is under protection. Thanks Caglarkoca 09:14, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

There is an article covering events after 1917 which includes ASALA. Those events should be included on that article. Fad (ix) 17:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Which article is it? If we have such an article, there is no need to insert those events here. Loss of Hrant Dink would go there. Thanks Caglarkoca 23:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I also stress on the edit done in this protected page (of course by an admin). It is totally unethical. Caglarkoca 23:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Caglarkoca, stow the "unethical" nonsense. Nobody is editing a protected page. This is the TALK section, and as such is EXACTLY where this sort of dialogue belongs.

To separate Armenian/Turkish relations from the genocide attempt is patently rediculous. The two are intrinsically linked, and will be for many generations to come. That happens when people try to exterminate a race. Those they miss are bound to have issue with it, and this is not a separate topic at all.

Much as I'm trying to avoid the soap box, I feel the need to remind that the Armenians and Turks lived side by side as neighbors for a very long time before this betrayal and attrocity occurred. Young Armenian men, feeling the urge to be soldiers as some always do, signed on with the Turkish army, even unto 1915. That, too, is Armenian/Turkish relations. But it's not a separate subject, and trying to diminish the ongoing conflict and/or the damage done to subsequent generations, this is tantamount to squelching history and turning a blind eye to an inconvenient truth. Had the Turks not performed those actions, there would be no Armenian/Turkish Relations, not any more than there would be a Guinean/Senegalese Relations article. Do you see a Turkish/Swedish Relations article? There's not even a Turkish/Greek Relations article. Why not, I ask, rhetorically. No, folks, sorry... it isn't a separate subject, and these actions - whether by Armenians or Turks, should not be swept under the carpet. --JT 08:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

ARGH! For the record, after becoming curious as to who this Caglarkoca is, I went to his page. He specifically has flags stating his opposition to the term Genocide, and also in favor of the recognition of Cypress as a Turkish place. In short, his protests that he has no opinion and is unfamiliar with the issues are pure BS. Nice try, but no cigar. --JT 09:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Is it also forbidden in Wikipedia, just like it is in France and Switzerland, to say that the alleged genocide hadn't happened? Is it also against laws of wikipedia to state that TRNC exists? You have inserted the link to there. It doesn't matter whether your edit is minor or major. That page was under protection that means that the page is not to be edited. Moreover, have ever claimed that I have a great knowledge on the issue? No, I don't I speak of the format, rather than the information. Do I have many mainspace edits in English wiki? No, I express my opinions in the talk pages. (I have translations from English to Turkish wiki) So why are you trying to insult me due to my opinions on the alleged genocide and cyprus? It is clear you don't know much about the Cyprus, i.e Atlilar Massacre which was the main reason of Turkish interference to the island. Or you don't know EOKA. I just write cyprus because you brought it here even though it is not relevant. I don't have anything else to say someone like you. Caglarkoca 09:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I would like to add the summary of this event to the current status of the Armenian people. The intent isn't to enflame, but to chronical and recognize that the passions are still high enough to commit murder, even today.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/20/world/europe/20turkey.html_r=1&th=&oref=slogin&emc=th&pagewanted=print

PS: I just tried the link and find it isn't working properly as pasted here, so you will find the contents of the NY Times article at the end of this article. It remains their property and is NOT to be pasted into the article in its entirety, though it is lawful to summarize, paraphrase, etc., to convey the event.

As an aside, the way that this article and forum goes demonstrates exactly the way/nature/problem with this situation. The Turks continue to attempt to deny, just as does the Turkish government. ven those of us with both bloods in our veins are willing to admit, as does the rets of the world, that the genocide attempt occurred. Yet there are the handful who would deny even those facts. Why they feel compulsion to obsfucate the facts today, when they themselves could not be held culpable, is beyond me. Yet here is their record, chronicled on these pages and now in the real world newspapers, proof that they are willing to kill over it. Gratefully, there remain men such as this one:

"A bullet was fired at freedom of thought and democratic life in Turkey. Once again, dark hands have chosen our country and spilled blood in Istanbul to achieve their dark goals." RECEP TAYYIP ERDOGAN, Turkey’s prime minister, on the killing of an outspoken newspaper editor.

Please, Staff, facilitate the addition of this important event, that it isn't forgotten or swept under the carpet as another Armenian "myth". Thank you! --JT 16:48, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

NYTimes Article Removed. Sorry, but (as far as I know) just because this is a talk page, it doesn't mean it can ignore the law... yandman 09:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

A link to the article should be okay.--213.46.128.161 20:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

---

Armenian Editor Is Slain in Turkey
By SEBNEM ARSU
Published: January 20, 2007
Hrant Dink, who was convicted last year of insulting the Turkish state, was assassinated outside his office.

---

I tried to reply above to the inappropriateness of such an addition when the full-protection is in place.. Baristarim 17:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

It is not in the least bit inappropriate. Rather, it demonstrates an aspect of the ongoing persecution, that it remains a hot topic nearly 100 years later, and chronicles the ongoing situation, so we do not forget. As I wrote you semi-privately, Baristarim, it is essential that we learn from our mistakes. That people think that this is all "a long time ago, in the past" is further proof that such additions are essential to a complete and accurate depiction, historical fact, and even to the ethical treatment of this subject. I'm not opposed to balance, but let's not brush such events under the carpet or lose track of them.--JT 08:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The question is not about the content, but editorial encyclopedic spirit: when an article is protected, it is not fair when an addition can be made by an editor and not the others - this goes for any article, not just this one. It will be unprotected - it is against Wikipedia policy to protect articles for more than a couple of weeks. There was a particular structural dispute that led to its protection and it should come out of protection soon enough. Many articles get protected from time to time in Wiki, and the normal editing process resumes when they become unprotected. Cheers! Baristarim 23:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the section "Evidence against Armenian Genocide" [8]. It was pov, original research and unreferenced. If any editor feels that part of the information needs to be put back in, it should be done in a neutral way, in the proper section and, most importantly, with references. Aecis^Bravado 01:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Good call. Wasn't sure to laugh or cry reading that section of supposed "evidence". I suspect it was lifted from some Turkish child's requirred primary school paper denying the Armenian Genocide. Every line in that section is completley without merit - quite embarrasing really - but very typical of the low quality and unsupportablility of Turkish denial.--THOTH 04:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Note that the user in question, SharkSmile (talk · contribs), has now created the pov fork Evidence against Armenian Genocide. Aecis^Bravado 13:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Moved to AfD so as to follow the procedure correctly. Follow the link to give your opinion. yandman 13:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I ask to add these website links to External Links section of the article: http://www.armenian-genocide.org http://www.theforgotten.org http://egern.net (language: Armenian and English) http://genocide.ru (language: Russian) Egern.net 10:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be nice to add the following recently debuted documentary films to the "Art" section:

1. The Genocide in Me by Informaction Films Inc. and Araz Artinian Productions (2005)
2. Screamers (2006)

Thanks. Serouj 23:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Is it really indiscriminate of gender? Esat Cemiloğlu, the eye-witness of the events gave a letter to Naci Kutlay. In the letter, he said:

"Artık kafile başlamıştır. Sivas'tan, Erzincan'dan, Elaziz'den getirilen genç kız ve kadınları kapatma olarak alırlar. M. Ünal'ın babası Asım Efendi bunlardan birini almak ister. Kız yüzüne tükürür ve ‘benim bütün akrabalarım ölürken ben senin keyfini yerine getirmem' der ve kendini nehre atar"

"They took the girls and women from Sivas, Erzincan,and Elaziz as wives(kapatma). Father of M. Ünal, Asım Efendi wanted to marry one of them. The girl says "I cannot make you happy when all my relatives are dying" and throws herself to the river."

This shows that the Kurds forces some Armenian girls to marry them instead of killing them like their relatives. Kavas (talk) 13:56, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Indiscriminate as in, they killed both men and women. The fact that some were forced to marry doesn't change the fact that both men and women were targeted. Zeus^u|c 18:30, 21 August 2010 (UTC)