Talk:Armenian genocide/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

LOLENLAR

I just realised that Mr. Torque who claimed not wanting to participate has just posted in the archive section, many answer, I propose everyone to read the exchanges. I will be answering every single posts he makes. I decided to not slander him anymore and maintain calm, everyone shall read the racist person he is and how he slanders his oponments. I appologize, since because of this answer, it might take longer for me to work on the pages. Fadix 16:17, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

---

He can edit his own arguments in archive, he can delete anything he posted, no conflict with wiki policy there. You cannot acuse him of being racist, thats a personal attack, refrain from persoal attacks. Even if one has Nazi propoganda on their user page tehy cant be decared racist. You cannot do that we dont allow that kind of attitide, you are new thats why people are leaving you alone. Know that tensions are rising. Several Admins are already aware how unproductive discussion is going on here. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 08:05, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Why are you so interested in the amount of time people has spend here? I can see that your first edit was made at: 10:07, 4 Feb 2005. Fadix first edit was made at: 03:46, 17 Feb 2005. So you haven't been around for much longer than Fadix, and you surely can't claim to be a really experienced user... Anyway, if anything here should end in an arbcom case, I can guarantee that both you and Torque will be punished. You have both violated many of Wikipedias policies several times. There is no lack of evidence. Stereotek 12:38, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It is the original article that was to go under mediation; why has this article changed?

I have been away from Wikipedia, and am appalled. The article now has completely been done away with and replaced by Fadix's propaganda. It should be retitled, "FADIX'S ARMENIAN GENOCIDE." How can this happen? Here, a clear propagandist with ZERO tolerance and credibility has come in here like gangbusters, and with his running mouth has chased away some of the people who have tried to counter him. Of course; who can deal with such a frantic force?

In his zeal to legitimize his genocide and place it on equal footing with the Holocaust, he has introduced theories about "concentration camps." He has made a lot of wild claims based on the weasel facts of Vahakn Dadrian. Can the reader believe these unholy claims, such as "Other records from the Military tribunal, suggest gassing installations existed as well." For one thing, the hearsay that constitutes "suggest" is out of order when all we're interested in is genuine evidence. Secondly, that "military tribunal" was conducted with almost no due process and the primary objective was to place blame on the previous government. Moreover, the puppet Ottoman government that was under enemy occupation was warned by the British to come up with culprits, otherwise the Turkish nation would be treated severely under the Peace Conference. (The Ottomans complied as much as they could, and the British/Allies rewarded them with a death sentence for their nation.) Under these circumstances, no fair person could accept their findings as just. Even the British rejected them when they took a turn for judicial credibility with the Malta Tribunal.

If the 1919 kangaroo courts were not good enough for the anxious-to-convict British, they certainly are not good enough for encyclopedia authors who are solely interested in the truth. They are not acceptable as evidence on this page.

"Children were sent there under the pretext to take baths, but were poisoned instead." How convenient! Just like the Holocaust. What's lacking is REAL EVIDENCE. People with lack of scruples can easily come up with these horrible lies, and try to pass them off as the truth. How could so many Armenian orphans have survived, if the idea was to purposefully murder Armenian children?

"While the total number of victims that perished in all camps is hard to establish, it is by some sources estimated that close to a million would be a reasonable figure. This figure excludes Armenians who died in other ways..." So here we have a pre-war population of around 1.5 million, one million survived according to Armenians, And close to a million died through outright murder? Even when that many people weren't even relocated in the first place??? (The Armenians who lobbied General Harbord in 1919 said only half a million were relocated.) And when we add the number of Armenians who died in other ways, the "famine and disease" ways in which the MAJORITY of the Armenians died (like the bulk of the 2.5 million+ Turks/Muslims who died), how many Armenians were killed in total? I guess that would run into five million or so.

And the section "The Special organization (Teshkilati Mahsusa)" is outrageous. All of this is pure DADRIAN SPECULATION. "It must be noted as well, that physicians participated in the process of selection, where health professionals were appointed by the war ministry to determine whether the selected convicts would be fit to apply a degree of savagery of killing that was required." Fanadix is actually trying to pass that nonsense off as a real fact?

TREAT THIS SHAM PAGE SERIOUSLY AT YOUR OWN RISK. IT WILL NOT LAST. It's the original article that will go under mediation. If the page was allowed to change, what is the purpose of mediation? Fanadix has already gotten everything he has hoped for and more. It is totally unacceptable.

Coolcat deserves special praise for possessing the fortitude of dealing with this unreasonable pharisee. Fanadix spills his beans on his original talk page: "I don't have much to say about me than maybe that I am allergic to the denial of the Armenian genocide and that I will fight it in Wikipedia until denialists give up." I have no doubt of his sincerity, because this is his life. No matter how much he tries to con us with his "humanitarian" claims that he is interested in other genocides and how many times he harbors no "NO PROPAGANDA OR POV" (Yes, he actually wrote that in Archives 10), his strategy is to pummel the readers with his "160 pages," utilizing all the weasel facts his Dadrians have accumulated through the years. He will lose no opportunity to discredit anything that comes his way. Nobody has the time or energy to deal with such a Fanadix. He could very well get what he's after; that's why the Armenians are far ahead in this debate, and why so many academicians mindlessly accept their propaganda as real fact. People on the other side of the fence, as myself, have much better things to do with life. What we're dealing with is pure, rabid obsession.

I have been away for over a week, and I didn't think the last Talk Page I remember would have been archived already, but Fanadix's incessant jawbone has turned this section into the "forum" he thrives on. Some of his nonsense needed to be countered, and I wondered how to handle that; adding the pages and pages of yore to the current talk page would have turned this page into the volume of seventy phone books, so I tacked on comments within the lines of the original discussions. (MGM requested we not go back into the archives, but that's presuming normal Wikipedia archives, not the forum this is turning into. In only a couple of days, there's a new archive!) It's already "old news," but the section we now need to concentrate on is the original, carefully cultivated page... the one that is supposed to be undergoing mediation.

Fanadix THINKS in his egomania that he has successfully countered the original article, but he has done no such thing. He has taken each section point by point in what is now Archives 10. (Which needs to be combined into Archives 11; the latter features repeat segments from other archive pages, and can be replaced by the second half of the overlong Archives 10. I tried to do it, but my computer kept freezing!) Here are some examples of how he has "succeeded":

• A New York Times article from 1914 attesting to Armenian rebellion faces attempted discrediting because the source originally came from the Turks. As if the NYTimes listened to what the Turks had to say! (Or the enemy Russians for that matter, who were supposed to have placed Turkish reports in their own newspapers.) How do we know this? Fanadix gives us his "word."

• An Armenian newspaper with a specific date informs us only 1,500 Turks remained at Van, after the Armenians, with the help of the Russians, got through with their murderous ways. Fanadix tells us this doesn't exist. How do we know this? Fanadix gives us his "word."

• Incriminating statements from Armenia's first prime minister are said to be fabricated by the patriotic Armenian service that presented them. How do we know this? Fanadix gives us his "word."

Here is the value of Fanadix's "word": when I asked him to prove his assertion that Kamuran Gurun stated the relocation was "final and terminal," he provided the page number. Luckily, the book is online, and I gave instructions to the reader to find that very page. There is nothing on that page indicating the decision was "final and terminal." What it says on that page is that the Armenians were to be relocated. That's because the whole idea was for the Armenians to be relocated. The word used several times to describe the process is the very opposite of "final," and that word is "temporary"; and "terminal" is Fanadix's own unscrupulous editorialization. Yet, even when countered, with the evidence under our very noses, Fanadix still kept insisting in his big-mouthed reply that the author stated the decision was "final and terminal." Such is the level of his reason!

There is absolutely no sense in arguing history with this "Armenian Weasel Beast." (A nickname he bragged about, and I only embellished it by adding the kind of beast.) As he himself indicated somewhere in his 160 (now 1,600) pages, his first instinct is to try and discredit; the truth means nothing. He possesses the dogma of the worst religious fanatic.

I am sure the framer of Wikipedia never dreamt there could be such an unreasonable and determined force to contend with.

Again, it is the original page that we must contend with; that is the one called upon for mediation. The current one of unsupported, slanderous propaganda, where we are asked to accept Fanadix's word, the opinions/theories of others, is a travesty. I commend the brave souls who have been dealing with this nonsense; you all deserve medals. --Torque March 24, 2005

Arguing About History is Impossible in the presence of dogmatism

This comment has been extensively edited to remove the very personal attacks while, I hope, preserving the sense of the words.

At the root of genocide allegations lies the assumption: it is only the Armenian dead who matter. Never mind the Armenians directly murdered, with Russian help, more Turks/Muslims than the latter did onto them. The Turks simply aren't human enough to matter.

Fadix has gone out of his way trying to prove the 518,000 dead was closer to a number like 18, in his earlier testimony. Never mind that this sense of victimhood is a credo the Turks don't live by, while Armenians thrive on it. How can any person with humanity deny the crimes of the Armenians? But the Armenians have always denied their crimes. Their mass murderers like Dro and Antranik, as well as their latter day killer terrorists, are treated as heroes by the Armenian community. Fadix has promised to work on the Wikipedia ASALA page, continuing the trend.

It's a mindset. As an Armenian writer quoted by Ara Baliozian put so well: "What kind of people are we?...Instead of reason, blind instinct. Instead of common sense, fanaticism."

Since the Armenians like to claim they are the first Christian nation (as well as their apologists, like "The Genocide of the Armenians; The Tragedy of the oldest Christian People of the Word" Wolfgang Gust, whom Fadix praised above as a legitimate source) where are the Christian qualities of these Armenians who are so genocide obsessed? Why would anyone devote so much of his life to this century-old topic?

If Armenians are under so much despair, how about turning to a Christian way to cope? How about filling one's heart with love and compassion and hopefulness and happiness? That's what the Turks did after the war. Is there one Turkish family who wasn't affected by the chaos and ugliness and inhumanity perpetrated upon them by their enemies? But they did not care to harp on these destructive thoughts. They chose to forgive and forget. It's only with the revival of this genocide obsession, and the continuous slander that goes with it, that the Turks have finally come to realize silence does not work. Otherwise the Turks had let go long ago. Thanks to the Armenians, the horrendous crimes of their forefathers are now open for new generations of Turks to learn.

Jesus taught to forgive unconditionally, yet the Armenians have chosen the path of hatred, terrorism, antagonism and aggression. Is this healthy?

There have been some attempts to establish parallels with the Holocaust. This, after Israel itself does not recognize the Armenians' genocide. Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon Peres is on record for saying, "... Armenian allegations of genocide are 'meaningless' and that there is no similarity between the Holocaust and fate of the Armenians during the first World War...' '... What occurred to the Armenians was NOT a Genocide'. 'We reject attempts to create a similarity between the Holocaust and the Armenian allegations. Nothing similar to the Holocaust occurred. It is a tragedy what the Armenian s went through but not a genocide'."

It is possible to respond by saying Israel is kowtowing to the Turks, as if Israel has been known to kowtow to any nation (not even the United States). But the above makes sense; in WWII Jews did not establish a combined force of 200,000 as Boghos Nubar tells us, almost all of whom came from the Ottoman Empire at one time or another; the Jews did not betray Germany; the Jews did not cooperate with the enemies of Germany, and the Jews certainly did not wage a campaign of ethnic cleansing against their fellow German citizens, hoping to establish a Jewish state on German soil.

This is why we must look at the BIG PICTURE and not be drowned in the statistics quoted by the Armenians, nearly all of which are based on speculation and are terribly unsubstantiated. One point to remember is the Armenians in the western portion of the Ottoman Empire were mostly unaffected by the relocation policy. Imagine conducting a genocide and ignoring the targeted people in the capital. How many German Jews in Berlin were exempt from Hitler's "Final Solution"? What about the ones from Munich or Frankfurt?

The Armenians who are very demanding and inflexible. For example, in Glendale, California, the Armenian "colony" (Hovannisian's word) have built up its numbers to 30%. With their influence and wealth has come the pocketing of the politicians. As a result, they got the city council to lower the flag to commemorate their genocide. This angered the community, because the American flag is not typically lowered for such occasions.

Then the Armenians used their influence to erect a genocide monument at public expense. A concerned reader from the local newspaper wrote:

"I do not feel that the decision to erect an Armenian Genocide monument on city property should be decided by the five men on City Council and a group of committee members. Between the flag-lowering fiasco and the current debate over the monument, this city is polarized as never before. The decision to erect a monument on city property should be left to the people of that city..."

Now doesn't that sound exactly like the genocide resolutions the Armenian Diaspora persuades governments to pass? A few bigoted and/or Armenian-catering politicians cast their votes on a historical episode they've only heard selective bits about from the "avalanche" of Armenian propaganda, and then suddenly it seems like the whole country or state has agreed upon the idea. This is so propagandists can point to these meaningless opinions and say to the unwary, You See? They Agree With Us!

A similar approach is used when this lie has been repeated so often that lazy or bigoted academicians have accepted it at face value. (It’s safer that way; who wants to be charged with being a "RACIST NAZI-LIKE FK," as Fadix called me?) So now the majority view has accepted this myth as the reality, and Stereotek can tell us this majority view is one of the "most important" facts.

More tellingly, from Glendale:

"...It's unfortunate that the leaders and spokespersons for (the Armenian) community feel the way HS (an Armenian) does. His views teach his community intolerance toward others. They teach his community to demean those that that don't agree with them. They teach his community to scream racism and hatred toward them just because they don't get their way. He teaches his community that there is only one way, the way he feels, and anyone that feels different is wrong. It teaches division rather than compromise. Compromise, (HS), is that so difficult to get? What a leader and spokesperson you are. Don't you see, the more you push this 'we won and the racists lost,' the sillier you look? Your colors are showing more and more. It's clear you have no interest in healing this community or finding a compromise. I find it amusing that you rally the Armenian community around an Armenian national issue, but debunk an American community when it rallies around something they may feel strongly about. I feel insulted being referred to as a 'ragtag group of self-described patriots' because I'm standing up for my beliefs. How dare you? ... It's clear that you don't care about the country you live in or its other residents, just your '30%.' I'm afraid, sir, that there are 70% here that are not Armenians, and maybe, just maybe, they don't all share your view and want to have it shoved down their throat..."

It's all there:

1. intolerance toward others
2. demean those that that don't agree with them
3. to scream racism and hatred toward them just because they don't get their way
4. there is only one way, the way they feel, and anyone that feels different is wrong
5. division rather than compromise
6. "we won and the racists lost"
7. It's clear that they don't care about the country they live in or its other residents, just their 30%.
8. they don't all share your view and want to have it shoved down their throat.

("You are neutral and I am not, thats your suggestion. Yout Truth is based on facts only I got a bunch of lies. Is that what you suggest? I am not accusing you of things why are you constantly acusimg me. This can be considered a personal attack you know." --Cool Cat My Talk 20:14, 19 Mar 2005)

When this genocide-obsessed pattern of the Armenians is pointed to, the best defense is to scream racist. But the ways of the Armenian colonies, whether in America or Canada and everywhere else the Diaspora has migrated to, follows a pattern that cannot be denied. We are simply up against a super-powered representative.

Epilogue: the genocide-obsessed Armenians got what they wanted by their typically underhanded manipulations, upsetting the majority of their fellow citizens by having their tax dollars spent on a genocide monument. There is a quality absent with such behavior, and that quality is: virtue. --Torque, Mar 24 2005 (substantially edited for personal attacks --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:22, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC) (and I don't claim to have gotten them all, sorry, just trying to strike a happy medium between arguable point and personal attack)

Well well, see what kind of opinions we have here afterall :)

I am patiently waiting the administration to come here and read Torque posts. I will of course answer any single points he made, it would take of course some time... but people could witness how he play with numbers he has no idea of... when I answer him, and then, probably he will claim having done it without knowing it, like he always do when he is exposed of manipuling data. As I see, the none-existing Goshnak was still brought out.

Anyway, if anyone want to report Torque, do it in your own discression, but I ask that person to not involve me, I am of course against his banning even if he has times and again abused Wikipedia rules. The reason for that is simple, he's the only supposed "other side" we officialy have, if it happens that he is banned, I know what will happen, the genocide entry will be spammed, the entry will be deleted etc. etc. I could perhaps ask something to the administration though, and that would be to edit Torque posts, by deleting racist and personnal statments, because of course if it happens that some Armenians start reading "Typical Armenian style" "So Armenian" etc. they might get offensed and start answering back, I am sure that no one is interested with that.

I apologize for the reast of the readers, since my contributation has been halted by Torque attempts and that I have to now return and expose him.

Thanks for your patience, and again, I apologize.

Regards

PS: I ask readers, should I answer first the most recent of his distortions? I have answered quite a few on the archive 10... but I was wondering if I should answer those first until I come here. Since I suppose there are reader, I guess they as well have interest on which points they want to be discussed first. Fadix 19:08, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Added Fadix response again, after editing out a couple of personal comments. The response is clearly as much on topic as Torque's rants about the Armenian people.

Fadix, I don't think you should waste your time responding to Torque's hateful attacks against Armenians in general. Such comments doesn't really need an answer, and they are clearly off-topic. If he should want to participate in a serious discussion about the article, then it is of course a new situation... Hate speech on the other hand, doesn't deserve an answer. Stereotek 07:49, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Torque is being very paient with you guys. And so am I. The article is biased, it isnt neutral (hence the tag), Torque, and as far as I can tell more than 3 experts are disputing the genocide. Creating an aurora of "world believes in genocide" is not going to happen. Torque is sick of insist of "prooving" genocide in the article which is not follwing NPOV policy. Fadix's idea of NPOV is far fetched "My ideas are right, what I read in the books are facts, anything is pure bias and propoganda" (paraphrasing). The level of insults I got from Fadix can insure his ip ban. He will stop insulting me either way. I prefer the no ban solution, ie willing. Stereotek do not pose as a mediator because I dont think you are qualified to be a mediator, you already have views regarding the article. I already asked for a mediator that has already been awarded the mediation barn-star, one of the rarest awards on wikipedia.

Torque was ranting about Armenian people as there is a "Diplomatic" sphere in the equation, The countries that have officialy recognised the Armenian genocide did not recognise on their own, they got significant pressure for various organisations. He is refering to that I believe. His attitude is not nice, but neither the attitude he argues with. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 09:11, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Fresh Start

I want to ignore what happened so far, for your sake. Lets start argueing again, and yes please summerise. I will be introducing this format (I copy pasted my default "mediation" template). I am not a mediator as Fadix will not accept it. If I refer to myself in the format I inserted below as a mediator know that it is part of the template. I am too lazy ro create a new one.

Discussion Starts

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

Your suggestions are ignored. Fadix 00:15, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Scholars to be moved away from lead

Most Armenian and Western and some Turkish scholars believe that the Armenian deaths were the result of a state-sponsored extermination plan. Most Turkish and some Western scholars, on the other hand, claim that a clash between the two-sides, and causes such as famine and disease, was the reason why a number of Armenians perished. The statistics regarding how many Armenians perished varies and there are no official numbers, but most Western sources advance a million and over [...] What is refered as the Armenian Genocide is the second most studied cases of what is called genocide and is often compared with the Holocaust.

• Not lead material, article should not start with conclusions, there is no point in having this article if the lead statement establishes that "genocide is commonly believed as happened" --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 08:36, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• <blink>It is a fact that genocide is commonly believed to have occurred.</blink> The article should, and I'm sure will, state this clearly. Davenbelle 18:19, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

• Do not reformat my comments; I do not write in green. — Davenbelle 19:11, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
• You can't read either; the color format is discussed above--Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 01:23, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• I can read, and spell, just fine, thank you. Your color scheme is lurid. — Davenbelle 02:11, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

• Well, if you want to be a part of the discussion I hope you use this color sceme as described above. You are welcome to do what you want, I will be ignoring anything not in color after a point. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 02:31, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• The First Genocide in Europe in the 20th Century: The Armenian Genocide - Facts and Future Implications, May 18-19, 2005, Copenhagen

we want to stimulate a discussion of the relationship between Turkish membership of the EU and Turkish recognition of the Armenian genocide

— Davenbelle 10:23, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

• That is still not lead material. This is a disputed article, It can be mentioned later in the article. What you are suggesting is against NPOV. I am not sure how widely its accepted, not as widely as article suggests, lets simplify a bit, lets say that there are 20 scholars on the planet. 2 are against 4 are for genocide, there still is 14, more than 50% that does not care either way around, or dispute it personaly but does not have the need/time to make his case. Its very difficult to challenge a genocide thesis. For our case for this article we agree lots (over 200,000) people died. We agree they were forced to move, the dispute revolves around why. I repeat, the classification of Armenian Genocide as a fact is against NPOV. Please refrain from "I am right you are wrong" and use other more productive methods to communicate as mentioned above. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 18:40, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• For each Western scholar that deny the genocide, there probably are hundreds agreeing there was a genocide. Your comparaison is senseless. The 69 signature Torque has presented ended up being nothing more than full of air. Because several of them recognized the genocide was a historical fact, but signed it because they thought it was a petition to support the opening of the archives, like those starting the petition have claimed and not as a tool to deny the genocide. You have nothing NADA other than Justin McCarthy and few ARIT and ITS scholars. There is an Italian physicist that believe that at the center of the Sun, the temperature is absolute zero... why not talking about it in the Sun entry? Fadix 00:29, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Do you have a list of neutral scholars who acknowlege the genocide thesis, do you have a list of neutral scholars who deny the genocide thedis, do you have a list of neutral scholars who are indiferent. If so provide URL. THis discussion is about Armenian Genocide, not Sun. Physics as we know it may not be apllicable in the SUN as excited plasma reacts with surroundings. Readings from the SUN is very difficult as there is significant interference form our star regarding any core readings. We have lmited knowlege regarding the structure of stars, we are theorising how it can be as there is significant left overs from supernova but we have no idea what is inside a star. Likelyhood is heavier elements not heavier than Iron. The suggestion from the Italian Physicist would perhaps be based on observations. We cant observe the armenian genocide.

Again, that must be a joke, visit your university history department and ask them regarding the issue... it is like asking, "Do you have a list of scientists accepting natural selection vs those that do not, so that we can compare? " As for the Sun, it is pretty much now that the center of the Sun is very hot, because there is a conversion of matter,... that one Italian physicist believe this is not the cases or two physicists etc... doesn't justify to present two theses as equaly valid. Fadix 03:20, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Insultive aproach is bad. If I wanted to practice humor I would have joined a talk show or comedy central. The point is Italian Scientist was sugessting something based on facts. In science you dont ignore new material. The senter of the sun is asumed hot. However we really have no idea. Like I told you, the history depatment is not the issue, I dont have time to goose chase everytime someone suggests a one sided article. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 03:25, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

So according to you, one scientist theory is enough to present it as equaly valid, and given as much space as what the very large majority of phsysicists believe? Fadix 04:01, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No, what I am suggesting is he may be right so it would be foolish to simply ignore him. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 08:09, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yes Coolcat - I could just as legitimatly say that about any denier of the Holocaust. So one historian disputes that the Holocaust should be considered a genocide. This we cannot present the fact that all other serious historians and more accept that it was a genocide because of the existance of the views of this one person. How can you believe that your position is th valid one> I cannot comprehend your mentality on this - what can I say? --THOTH 18:09, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Camps, death toll info be moved.

While the total number of victims that perished in all camps is hard to establish, it is by some sources estimated that close to a million would be a reasonable figure. This figure excludes Armenians who died in other ways, but may include the Special organizations participation in the events; the majority of the excluded losses are recorded in Bitlis and Sivas.

• Like I said before, extra statistics while they are disputed is not a good idea. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 08:36, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Those are the statistics of a "type" of deaths in particular. This will be covered in the entry regarding Armenian losses which I will be working on. Fadix 04:23, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• I fail to see where this referance is from. I do not care about "so such and such" suggests in "this book". I'd like to see the actual document (link please). I cannot tell if its propoganda or not. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 03:09, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Death Toll Category

• Death toll is referanced multiple times, a and only 1 section should be devoted to this material, scholars statistics also falls under this category in my opinion. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 18:43, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• You were the one that deleted the death tole category, and you want it back now. I am preparing two entries, one regarding the Ottoman Armenian population, and another the death toll. Fadix 00:19, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Yes I want all death statistics in one category. Also I want you to stop the "I know best" tone. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 01:19, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• That I know best compared to you, is obvious, that you commit vandalism is as obvious.Fadix 01:37, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• I have told you countless time to stop accusimg me of things. Why are you ignoring this, are you not civil or something? Please stop accusing me of, vandalism, hidden agenda, bias and other things you came up with. Also please use the color codes I introduced.--Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 01:58, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Victimization doesn't fit you, sorry. What other things I came up with? Again, I ask you. Will you drop the: "presenting two positions as equaly valid" ? Yes or No?

• Please dont deny you havent been insulting me with your personal attacks for the past week or two, If I wanted I could have gottenr "rid" of you ages ago, I want to have a discussion in a civil and polite tone. If I drop what you suggest completely there is no need to discuss anything. Both sides should start equal and each sides voices should be equaly heard, IE if you claim that chillderen were deliberately murdered, there should be a counter mimidiately after, etc.

Here is a graph how article is:

Pro genocide|||-------------------------------------------------------------------------Against Genocide

How it should be:

Pro genocide||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||--------------------------------------Against Genocide

Mind that it isnt in the midle --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 03:33, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Oh sure, you didn't wanted to get rid of me, I guess that's why you have been posting others member pages about me time and again. Would you be asking my question please? Answer please, will you drop the: "Two sides should be presented as equaly valid." ??? Answer to that, stop skipping that question and answer it. Fadix 03:38, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Yes I am, if you cant folow wikipedia policy of neutrality and declare I am biased, keep on personal attacks, I have my window of asking your removal. I told them not to take drastic actions. Talk to me like you would to your father, with respect. Like I am talking to you. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 03:41, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Does the "I am" mean you drop your "Two sides should be presented as equaly valid." ? Yes or no? Fadix 03:45, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Discussed below. Take a breath, seriously... Chill. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 03:47, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yes or no?

Neither, I will not accept a one sided article no. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 03:45, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It can't be neither. Or you drop the "two equaly valid position" or you don't. Please answer to that question. You claimed being sincere, so I ask you a sincere question. Will you drop it? Yes or a no? I don't think it is a difficult question Coolcat.

Like it or not and I give you a sincere answer, I refuse to accept a ONE sided article. Its a simple english sentence. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 08:10, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Relocation Camps vs. Concentration Camps

The Ottoman Empire had set up a recorded twenty-five to twenty-six of what is often reffered as "relocation camps or "concentration camps": (Deir-Zor, Ras Ul-Ain, Bonzanti, Mamoura, Intili, Islahiye, Radjo, Katma, Karlik, Azaz, Akhterim, Mounboudji, Bab, Tefridje, Lale, Meskene, Sebil, Dipsi, Abouharar, Hamam, Sebka, Marat, Souvar, Hama, Homs and Kahdem), under the command of Çukru Kaya, one of the right hands of Talaat Pasha.

The majority of of the camps were situated mostly near the Iraqi and Syrian frontiers, and some was only temporary transit camps. After reports of deaths, the camps Lale, Tefridje, Dipsi, While Del-El, and Ras Ul-Ain were built specifically for those who had a life expectancy of a few days. Other camps were only used as temporary mass burial zones (Radjo, Katma, and Azaz) and were closed by Fall 1915.

The majority of the guards inside all the camps were Armenians.

Even though nearly all the camps (all major ones were) were open air, according to records, some were not. Other camps existed, accoding to the Military court, there where irregular Red Crescent camps that were used to kill by morphine injection, (two of Saib (Health inspector) colleagues, Drs. Ragib and Vehib testified during the court) and where the bodies were thrown into the Black sea. In other instances, according to records, there were some small-scale killing and burning camps, where the Armenian population was told to present itself in a given area, and burned en mass. Other records from the Military tribunal, suggest gassing installations existed as well. For instance, during the Military tribunal, testimonies in the effect that Dr. Saib and Nail, an Ittihadist deputy, were heading two school buildings used as child extermination camps. Both Saib and Nail were allegedly in charge of providing the list of children who were to be distributed among the Muslim populace; the rest of the children were to be sent to the mezzanine floor to be killed by a mass gassing installation. The Children were sent there under the pretext to take baths, but were poisoned instead.

• Diferent parties refer to the camps diferently. Section should be rewriten in such a way that it neither proves they are indeed concentration camps nor should it appear as relocation camps.--Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 18:44, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Different parties don't name it differently, you name it differently. It was called such, and should be called such, the word "relocation camp" has never been used once to call those camps, you can not just throw words that you like. Fadix 00:17, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• I already told you I will not be satisfied with that. The definition of the camps differ between people who support the Genocide Thesis and who are against. Do a google search if you like. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 01:56, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Those are not relocation camps, the only things that have been called such were the transit camps in the Syrian desert, and not the concentration camps. This is not about satisfying you, this is about calling this like they are called. And don't ask me to do a google search, there is no such expression like "relocation camp" used, we can not use terms that you try to apply. This is not how it work. Fadix 02:49, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Yes, but the word concentration implies genocide, the word reloaction implies other words, calling them just camps does not sound right. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 03:02, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Concentration camp does not imply genocide, it imply a place where people are concentrated there by force. A relocation camp is more a transit camp, it was later mistakfuly used for the Japanese Americans, but is not used for the Armenian camps, the term has been used few times for the transit camps though, but both were different. Fadix 03:09, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• I understand that but the word does not stay at a point between the two vies hence NOT neutral. You have to asume both parties views. in one word. That is the kind of neutrality we ar elooking for. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 03:35, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It can not be called relocation camp, it isn't even a word used. It can not be called simply a camp, because there were different camps, the term used was a concentration camp, and there is no way to call it else. Were people not concentrated there, and by force? There is no other way around... there can be no other term here. The term itself has nothing to do with whatever or not there was a genocide. It has everything to do regarding whaever or not people were concentrated there, they were, so what the hell is the problem to call something by its name? Fadix 03:40, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Like I told you we need a 3rd word. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 03:45, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"The entrance of these concentration camps could well bear the legend imprinted on the gates of Dante's hell 'Ye who enter here, abandon all hope.'" (A. A. Turkei 183/46, A8613, German consul Rossler's February 14, 1917 report). I can load this pages with refferences to what was called concentration camp. It was concentration camps, an there can be no 3rd words. The thing has a name, and should be called by its name. Fadix 03:58, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Like I told you we need a 3rd word. Please do not insist. There can always be a 3rd word to define things. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 03:45, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

• Can you find a third word anyways? Try working with me for once. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 03:06, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Article should confirm the Armenian Genocide thesis

That is not how we do things in wikipedia. The article should not convince the user that the Genocide did happen. Instead we need to find a way to rewrite this article in such a way that it should neither be declared as "Armenian Genocide propoganda" nor should it declare as "Turkish propoganda dismissal". --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 02:26, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No! This is not what neutrality is. As a veteran, you still did not understood what is neutral. Neutrality is about presenting positions and their critics. It is about presenting the best arguments for each sides and their critics, by giving as much space for an argument as it is given place in the Academia. I did that in the beggining by presenting an entry presenting the Turkish government point of view. But you refused it. What you want is to merge both side as one, as if there was two equal theses. You can not present two positions as equaly valid, because the suggestion would be POV. So again, we are at square one. Why am I surprised here? Fadix 02:42, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The views of the Turkish Goverment is not wikipedia material, neither are the views of the Armenian side. Are you trying to prove Armenian Genocide here? I am asking to talk. I URGE you to talk back at me in a politer tone. I am not your enemy. I am not remotely knowlegable in the matter, I found sites that conflicted with your views suggesting bias. I need your help to make this article in such a way that disputed tag becomes obsolite. Please refrain from "I know best" attitude, as compared to me you do. However you cannot dictate facts and fiction, you hold one side of this story, that is clear given that there are websites in google top 10 that are conflicting your views. I want to improve article quality. Article is currently one sided supporting the "most widely accepted" genocide thesis. That aint NPOV. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 02:55, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

There are no "Armenian side" view, there is not a single Westerner, including the McCarthys of this word that will call the Armenian genocide as the "Armenian side," you must be the first one here. So, again, you just demonstrate above that you are against neutrality. You don't want a section regarding the Turkish government point of view, because you want to merge views and delete who says what. You want to mislead the reader... and until your drop your "presenting both sides as equaly valid" I will be ignoring you... because this is POV, and until you don't see that, I will not waste my time with this tactic of yours to sabotage the article.

I am ready to present the Turkish government point of view, it is a take or leave. You decide, this is the only way around, because what you propose is against Wikipedia policy Fadix 03:06, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You need to tune down your attitude, I am not your pet. The article should be based on NPOV meaning neither views should be present. You are lecturing me on wikipedia policy, I recomend stoping that. You should not declare yourself a wikipedia policy expert. You are welcome to present it here, not in the article. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 03:38, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You don't understand Wikipedia policy, this has nothing to do with attacks. I ask you again the question. Will you drop your "presenting both sides as equaly valid" ? Kindly answer to that please.

I will not accept a one sided article no. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 03:45, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand your answer. Answer by a yes and a no! Will you drop your "presenting both sides as equaly valid" ?

There is no discussion starting with Coolcat

Coolcat, I will be reverting every edits you make, you are a vandalist of articles, you are ignored. - Unsigned fadix

You cannot kick me out of the discussion, you have no authority, right, power. You reverted spelling fixes, Continue abusing revert power, I dare ya. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 01:17, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You have introduced in the article much more than grammer correction, you have valdalised the article by introducing non-accurate informations, it was beyong NPOV or POV... you can not suggest this is questionned between parties. This is about the large majority from one side, and turkey on the other... and I will oppose to anything that would suggest that the Academia is disied, if you do that, you vandalise the article, and that is what you did. Fadix 01:39, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Do a history comparasion, you are not acting in good failth. I made edits and removed them on my own. If you arent doing history comparasion how can you declare me of a vandal? You had no idea what I changed. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 01:51, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I will gie you the benefit of the doubt this time for paking the paragraph. Fadix 02:37, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

When this user complains about lack of good faith, it is with a cynicism that disgraces all of us. --Wetman 02:01, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Colours

I introduced this color sceme for a reason. It makes it easier on how we are thinking. I changed several of you guys comments to illustrate the concept. If you are irritated I am sorry. Colors makes it easier. If you are for a spesific argument you should use color green, if you are against color red, if you are neither for or against use color brown. Also use this indenting unindented, for, 1 indend (ie :) against 2 indents (ie ::) neither for or against.

You will be discussiong this, there is no way out. I introduced something we can discuss easier, if You have a better sugestion let me know. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 02:41, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

We've been there, and discussed about it, you can try using multi-colors to make that official, ... what is important is the content. You have an intend to dissolve the article. I want a mediator. Fadix 02:45, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You think mediator will just declare your views as neutral and kick me away? We do not need a mediator, mediation service is over booked. The kind of a mediator you will get is a person who will hear my views and your views, make suggestions, he wont be able to dictate anyhting. I suggested we start analyzing article form scratch. You dont want to discuss. If you dont want to discuss, why are you here? --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 02:51, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You do not propose discussion, and it is clear now, of what do you want me to discuss about? You ignore the topic. You want to present your views, and some are even not found in any academic works, you can not present your point of views, or expressions... and you can not merge two sides and present two positions as equaly valid. Will you drop your claim of presenting two views as equaly valid? Just answer that out so we can know how sincere you are. Fadix 03:01, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Will you drop requesting that article be one sided? --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 03:46, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC) I already answered you. N-E-I-T-H-E-R! A one sided article is unacceptable. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 08:12, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Never heard og chronology? I asked you a simple question, please answer Fadix 03:53, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Neither, I will not accept a one sided article no. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 03:45, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Still, you did not clearly answer my question. Just by a yes and a no, only by a yes and a no. Will you drop your claim of presenting two views as equaly valid positions? YES or a NO, only a yes or a no.

Instead of article wide discussion why dont you refer to smaller point, if you cant back down on any point, I cant either. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 04:05, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

I will not. That is irrelevant. Time will tell, we are already discussing the article, I will not let it stay one sided. I cant give you a clearer answer.

--Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 20:42, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Lets try this

• Regardless of the article, lets try color format.
• Instead of article wide discussion, lets discuss smaller points.

--Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 03:05, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Apologies for not understanding the format and such - but here are my comments and suggestions

I have been reading this section - article and talk - for several weeks now and I really think that most here have lost their sanity on this issue. Really - I can't believe the poisoned environment and the fact that the discussion has gone so far off base. Specifically I can certainly understand Fadix's frustrations - while at the same time understanding that he can be difficult to deal with (not that his heart or knowledge is wrong - it isn't at all - he is mostly right on the money IMO - its just his approach is perhaps a bit caustic). But ultimately I have to blame Mr Cool Cat for failing to properly understand this issue and for creating an environment that is clearly unacceptable and is not conducive for presenting actual facts or the truth.

Before I continue I wish to state that I am somewhat new to posting here and don't quite understand the dynamics of it - where this will even end up and how it will look - so bear with me please. I also don't quite understand the proposed color scheme - and perhaps this is a place to start. From what I gather posts are to be made as either "pro" "against" or "Neither pro or against" - well I just don't see at all how this will work and I can't imagine the same approach being attempted in either the Holocaust section or in any other genocide section (where the perpetrators are given – as you will – “equal time” to deny and/or present justification for their actions.

Face it Cool cat - aside from a very small but vocal contingent (based entirely within or beholden to the current Turkish government) there really is no debate concerning the Armenian Genocide (as being a genocide and in acceptance of certain basic facts) - no serious debate certainly. It is not at all an "Armenian Position" any more then if someone where to term affirmation of the Holocaust a "Jewish Position" - so please - if you really feel the need to interject - get yourself properly educated first. I find it curious that you seem very quick to accept the various posts by Tourque as factual - when his sources and presentation are clearly quite questionable and where they are basically unsupported from any broad academic nor are they generally properly sourced or put into proper context - yet you discount the very broadly accepted, supported and well known accounts and analysis that Fadix as provided - again assigning each as a "perspective" when this clearly is not the case and does not apply. What you term the “Armenian perspective” is in fact the accepted academic and historical perspective/position – what you deem the “Turkish Perspective” is just that – and no more. During the years that these events occurred there were hundreds and hundreds of newspaper articles and eyewitness accounts and reports that tracked and corroborated the acts of genocide that occurred and were perpetrated by the Turks against the Armenian population of the Ottoman Empire and various (non-political) international aid groups mobilized to assist in providing for those who were dying and suffering. The evidence supporting the Genocide thesis is so overwhelming and supported among scholars that to deny such is akin to denying any other basically accepted and well supported set of historic events and is equivalent to questioning if the earth truly revolves around the sun. The same is true for these exaggerated charges that there was some sort of civil war occurring and that the victimized Armenian community had any real power to fight back as the Turkish propaganda (from the time and continually being developed) attempts to assert. There is no factual evidence to support this counter-contention.

I have no issue with presenting a "Turkish version" of events - as such - in an addendum - and the whole issue of the history of Armenian attempts at recognition and Turkish attempts of denial could and should be an addendum to any discussion of this Genocide - as the fact that this is occurring and that deniers such as Tourque and the Turkish Government have managed to deflect the issues. It is also important to note that the Turkish government’s continued well funded and unrelenting campaign of denial (combined with its strategic position and its political leverage) have made it difficult for many nations to officially recognize the Armenian Genocide as such – but this does not in any way mean that was not truly a genocide as it meets every possible definition for such. Additionally the official Turkish campaign to deny that it was genocide essentially continues the campaign of the Genocide itself against the Armenians as a people (and this point is widely accepted among genocide scholars) and this means that this is a living ongoing event and not something that is just purely historical. A presentation of the historical and ongoing attempts on the part of Turkey to officially downplay, deny and (internally) avoid discussion of even the historical Armenian presence in Anatolia should as well be a key factor in this discussion. Likewise readers should be aware that the current laws in Turkey prescribe a penalty of death to anyone within Turkey who affirms the Armenian Genocide (I seem to recall you making a comment that most Turks do not believe it to be a genocide - well - one needn't not just wonder or speculate why this is the case). Additionally they have maintained quite a narrow and self serving educational program for their people that ensures that they have no mention of nor certainly any debate concerning the allegations or issue of the Genocide – in fact they teach their people a clearly concocted version of history that absurdly claims genocide against the Turks on the part of the Armenians. And as unbelievable as this sounds they have built monuments within their nation to this effect. Can you imagine how disgusting such a thing is to the families of Armenian victims of the Genocide (and anyone concerned with social justice and/or with any kind of mind or heart?) and how truly absurd such contentions are to any real student of history who can at the very least see that there are tens of millions of Turks remaining in Anatolia and a few thousand Armenians living their now - at best.

Mr. Cool Cat you clearly have no clue concerning the actual history and facts concerning this Genocide, nor can you apparently separate fact from fiction in this matter - I respectfully suggest that you remove yourself from any kind of moderatorship concerning this issue. Please again consider that if this were a discussion of the Holocaust/Shoa - and you decided as moderator that a presentation of the Nazi propaganda against the Jews and subsequent revisionist history denying that a Holocaust took place should be presented on equal footing with the very well known and accepted history of such as we all know and accept it - think how well this would be received and think how the victims and their descendents might feel about your supposed call for “fairness”. This issue is no different. So I suggest that you let Mr Fadix - who clearly understands the events of the Genocide a great deal and who seemingly possesses an amazing collection of material and sources concerning the Genocide - write the article (the latest attempt seems pretty close in many regards). And really I think Wikipedia should be grateful for his interest and attention to this matter. He is clearly capable of writing an accurate and detailed account. I think he should better footnote and source his presentation however and that others should be given opportunity to input and revise (if there is some consensus that it requires such). Then an addendum coving any alternate takes can be added as well as additional discussion on these talk pages. But it is very clear that Fadix is accurately portraying the underlying facts/truths and history of the Armenian Genocide. He should be allowed to present such.

What may follow and provide value are additional discussions of the environment that led to the Genocide to include causation, rationale and other related issues (very much can be said for and presented concerning why Turks may have wanted to eliminate Armenians/the Armenian nation within their empire – on a great many levels). And there would be value in a discussion of various events that occurred prior to and following the conduct of the actual Genocide itself (including the very revealing military tribunals conducted by the Ottomans in 1919 and the subsequent efforts by Ataturk’s nationalists to avoid the repercussions of the Treaty of Sevres and ensure that Armenians and other minorities were no longer a factor in modern Turkey). Other items of interest might be providing a chronology of the deportations and massacres - a really good one seems to be lacking in many presentations – and it would go far in promoting a good understanding of the systemic, well planned and organized, and widespread nature of the deportations and massacres. Also useful would be some side discussions regarding the actual number who died/were killed (and why there is uncertainty/debate) and what happened to those who escaped or why some were untouched, and perhaps some presentation of the massacres (and genocide) of Assyrians and Pontic Greeks that occurred at this time as well. Another worthwhile sidebar would be a discussion of Turkish deaths from war and conditions of war and other related failings of the Young Turks movement and the rise of Ataturk and the Nationalists as relates to the position of the non-Turkish minorities in Anatolia. An accurate presentation of the role of Armenian revolutionary political groups – some of their initial ties to the Young Turk movement and the dynamics of their split and why the Young Turks would then want to make villains/scapegoats of them; as well as the extent of their insurgent activities in Eastern Anatolia may all prove enlightening and relevant side discussions. These various issues as well as a number of others might all be subjects for additional related sidebars for presentation and discussion. Just my suggestions.

The approach you (Cool Cat) suggest concerning an approach to properly present this issue is totally unworkable and unacceptable IMO. Again, the issue of whether this was genocide is not really a debatable one – there are not two legitimate “sides” to be presented. All serious unbiased scholars and academics that are aware of the determining events accept it as genocide. It is fundamentally acknowledged that the Young Turks planned genocide against the Armenian population within the Ottoman Empire. The evidence clearly documents that they successfully carried out such a genocide and that the great majority of victims were essentially an unarmed and overwhelmingly peaceful and innocent minority population within the Empire who happened to be in their way (in a number of respects) and who also had property and valuables for the taking (certainly a motivating factor that was well proven in Ottoman tribunals after world war I ended). An overwhelming body of documentary evidence supports these conclusions. And the lack of Armenians in Turkey/Anatolia today – where they had lived and flourished for thousands of years - is further evidence that a genocide indeed occurred --[THOTH] 21:26, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

There are many things to be added, and this is for what I have not started footnoting, as I said, I am working on two other entries, one regarding the Ottoman Armenian population, another regarding the losses. Those would have their entry. You can read the progression of one of them in a link provided from my user page. Another thing, I don't believe that discussion about Armenian revolutionaries etc. and Turkish deaths etc. is appopriate in the genocide entry, because what I am planning would reach 32Kb, and it is advised to not go over this, adding other elements that are not directly linked with the genocide entry might take space not leaving enough for the important points. Besides, there is the World War I entry to include other peoples losses.

Regarding the Pontus Greeks, I don't think this is really linked with the Armenian genocide, it happened a little after, while what happened to the Assyrians happened in the same time. I was thinking about that as well, more particularly the Assyrian genocide, that is pretty well documented, and there are some distinctions with the Armenian cases, different dates etc., . And maybe it should have its independent entry as well as the Pontian Greeks, we could add them in the "See also" section. Fadix 01:52, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Guideline

• Story has 3 sides actualy,
  • Turkish Propoganda (anti-genocide extreme with made up stories),
  • Armenian propoganda (pro genocide extreme with made up stories), and
  • the NPOV which is based on how to describe events on both sides perspective.
    • Why did the armenian elites got arrested has two answers. why did the armenians were prompted to migrate has also two or more answers.
    • I like to put factual information, however "motives" are always debatible.
    • I will not accept propoganda from either side. Just to let you know a turkish newspaper Hurriyet started a serries explainng the armenian genocide, while My turkish is Glitchy I think I can make sense of it. This will give me some insight they talk about the arrest of the Armenian Elites for example, they aslo talk about the organisation and about Teşkilát-ı Mahsusa and criminals like "Topal Osman" being a part of it, also talks about rumors of Armenians carrying gold promoting looting at the time, sounds factual and makes sense. The news paper is trying to cover this seriously I believe. It presents the Turkish version with limited to no propoganda. You have to realise they will probably dispute the Genocide but acknowlege the dead. While a newspaper is not your primary or secondary proof of things, it gives you the insight, doesnt look biased although the article did not started developing.

• Article can exeed 32 kilobytes. We can summerise some cases. Asserian genocide and the greek genocides have nothing to do with this topic, we can develope those later, one problem at a time.

• Establishing conclusions like "Armenian Genocide did happen" is no way to start a dicsussion. Lets discuss matters one at a time. I have good intentions however you think of me as an enemy of some sorth. I will request you the way you word certain things for example so they are not in the "Murderes Turks" format instead in a more politicaly acceptable tone with words not as strong as murder. I am telling you this advance so you can be prepared. Dont acuse me of things, "you clearly have no knowlege, I know best go away" is not propoer way to discuss in wikipedia. If you want to contribute please follow good Wikipedia:Wikiquette. If you cant be nice to me, I cant be nice to you. When I or you change things in the article, do not revert, instead comment out the part you dont like so I can put more effort to it. Commenting out basicaly tells me "Look, I dont like this chunk of text try a different aproach", while reverting is more vandal like. You are welcome not to follow this but I suggest you use the 3 revert rule. All parties involved should be primarily concerened with improving the quality of the article, no one should try to push their views to prove or disprove the genocide baselessly, nothing such as, "genocide did happen because my uncle said so" stuff. I am not mediating this article. I presented my mediation template as a way to discuss. I recomend you use it you are free to do what you want. In wikipedia conversations you dont ask the other party to leave who oposes your views or conflcits with them. You have to have a very positive aproach for the best result. Please lets evade what Fadix and Torque had between each other, presonal insults, asking people to leave, "I know best you suck" is not the proper way.
• Another thing is you should summerise when you present your cases. Present them in bullets when applicable. Have each argument in its own category and sign your posts.
• Please do not add material to the article withought us reaching a concensious, I havent and I expect same from you. When I talk you listen and reflect, Then I listen then reflect. This could be one of the best developed articles on the web. *Factuality of genocide is debatible. Factuality of physics concepts are also debatible. Wikipedia is based on concensious, you cannot declare what you say regarding a contraverisal article like this one to be accepted without questions asked. This is how we do things in wikipedia for articles of this nature.
• Wording is very important, how you say things should NOT be offensive by your average Turkish reader. If you want to achieve anything in this article is to win support I presume, you cant do that by establishing statistics forexample regarding scholars, wheather thats factual or not. I can understand that you want to push your case into the article, you should hear the views of the other side, we can make this article based on provable facts. The childeren massacred currrently is propoganda material (asuming it havent changed). At least the way its word. You should not present anything with absolute certainty unless the otherside accepts it. A reader is more than likely to pass this article without reading it due to the "disputed" tag, lets work in such a way that the disputed tag becomes obsolite.
• Do not make assumptions regarding me or anyone.
• If you want to be a part of the discusion as I stated above I urge you to follow good Wikipedia:Wikiquette, while I am not acusing you of not following, I urge you to take a look at the article. Also check out Wikipedia:Vandalism to see what vandalism is and is not.

--Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 08:19, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

---

I am responding to the points Coolcat raises above.

He says this "Story has 3 sides actualy,"

Actually, this is not a "story", this is history. Perhaps history can be told in different ways, but only one thing actually happened. This is what you seem to fail to accept. You seem to think that if two sides (or three) have different versions, they are all equal. What everyone is saying here is that this is obviously not so. Only one thing happened, and by and large, it is quite clear. POV does not mean that every imaginary tale can be given equal weight. Sharon cannot come here and write Israel is not occupying the West Bank and Gaza, nobody can come and write that Azerbaijan has no oil, Neo-Nazis cannot come and say there was no Holocaust. What needs to be understood is that only one party denies there was a genocide - the Turkish govt. The only reasons they deny it are 1) misplaced pride and 2) fear of reparations. What they should instead be thinking is to find their honor and admit to the wrongs of the past, and if they can make some amends, to do so.

Finally, nothing written here should offend Turks at all. Why should they be offended by anything that has happened in the past? The only thing they should be offended by (on this topic) is that their government is denying the truth in their good name. That is wrong and fortunately many Turks are beginning to speak out now that censorship is loosening up. Genocide recognition by Turkey is just a matter of time, but in the meantime a lot of minds there that have not been exposed to anything not approved by the Turkish Government to read or see or hear must be opened up.

Oh wait, no, one last thing. I just want to point out that even countries (like the US) which do not fully recognize the genocide on a nationwide level, when they debate the issue in their legislatures, NEVER debate whether or not there was a genocide. That is ALWAYS accepted by ALL parties. The debate is between those who want to recognize the truth officially, and those who do not want to offend the Turkish government. When Bush issues his April 24th statement, he uses the definition of Genocide, but not the word. When the Turkish Ambassador writes about the genocide in private, he does not call it an alleged genocide, he calls it a genocide...

Everyone knows. Everyone agrees. Things are moving progressively in one direction...

--RaffiKojian 15:52, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Response to “Guideline”

Good points Raffi. I agree with all that you have said. (with some caveat that I am not so optimistic as you are!) - I also think that the reasons for Genocide denial are not so simple and are multifaceted and that admission of such is admission of a lie that is much more far reaching as it pertains to the (ethnically clean as it were) foundations of the Turkish Republic itself and the view that Turks have concerning themselves as victorious victims from World War I - and more...the Turkish society has been intentionally kept in the dark and immature on these issues and for many reasons...reasons that IMO go far beyond just the Genocide (and admission of such) itself.

It is clear that by Coolcat's definition of how this article on the Genocide is to be presented that there is no real possibility for such (a truthful/accurate account). Most Turks (it seems - at least most vocal Turks) are offended by the insinuation that there was a Genocide - thus by definition Coolcat is telling us that we cannot make reference to what occurred as genocide. Secondly - most Turks - again it seems (and in my first post I discussed why) are offended and disbelieving of the facts of the Genocide and that the Young Turks killed so many innocents - they do not accept this and they go to great lengths to deny that this occurred. Anyway - I would love to contribute to this effort - it is (could be) perhaps a great place to present a nice (and I agree: unbiased and without rhetoric) summary of events - however it will be impossible with Coolcat's approach. As Raffi has said - all "sides" are not equal - it is impossible to present them as such. A presentation of the false (and at best highly exaggerated) claims from the Turkish side (as truth) will do nothing at getting to the real history and in fact will be a great disservice. I do not wish to be involved in such an effort. In fact I suggest that we let Mr. Tourque write the entire section and let him say whatever he wishes. (and just leave it as disputed or what have you) - anyone with any sense will understand what has occurred...

Some additional points - why would a present day Turkish newspaper be considered as some kind of a better or more accurate source of information then what scholars and the historical record present? And how are you Coolcat - qualified to judge? Of course they won't say it was genocide - its illegal to say so remember? Etc However I should add that I welcome the news that this issue is perhaps being presented (in Turkey) without the usual rhetoric. Still – one can understand the constraints and that even at best it will likely not present the “true” underlying rationales and events – as many of these concepts are difficult to present in such a format as well as in regards to the legal issues and such as mentioned earlier.

I highly dispute your "3 sides" argument having any validity. You call the Armenian views (a misnomer to begin with - it is essentially the world’s view etc) "propaganda" - and you claim that by serving equal parts of the Turkish and "Armenian" "propaganda" that you will arrive at the (NPOV) truth???? Am I the only one who sees the utter absurdity of this on a great many levels? (I address this more towards the end as well)

Pontian and particularly Assyrian Genocides do certainly warrant mention and linking with Armenian Genocide issue. Perhaps (Coolcat) you will moderate these sections as well and accept the "Turkish position" that these people were likewise traitorous (and deserving of elimination)…but perhaps it was the murderous Armenians with their grand army, concepts of racial/religious manifest destiny and history of massacre and such who killed them and drove them from their lands. Yeah – must be it…

Coolcat - pure and simple it is clear to me that it is likely that you are a (very slick) apologist for the Turks and that your mission is essentially to filibuster and outlast Fadix etc on this issue to ensure that essentially a great deal of doubt is cast on the truth and that the discredited "Turkish version" is elevated as essentially equal to the actual historical record (which it is not). You actions and position here lead me to no other conclusion.

I should add that I have long championed sympathy with the idea that to properly understand the context of the Armenian Genocide it is necessary to understand both the Turkish perspective (legitimate and otherwise) as well as all aspects of the (chaotic and highly stressed) environment (and related history) that led to this issue coming to a head as it did - with tragic consequences to the Armenian population of the Ottoman Empire/Anatolia. This does not mean one accepts the propaganda lines (as you are proposing) - one must deal with the facts and events as best they can be known and delve past the rhetoric (which does exist to some degree on both sides – however it is clear which presentation is more truthful and accepted by serious and knowing people as in line with the actual facts). Still - the fact is that these events meet every known definition of Genocide and that there is no valid contention of civil war nor can there be any question that what occurred was mass murder – planned and committed by the state (or more accurately a party apparatus that had control of the state) and that it was committed against a people who were overwhelmingly peaceful and innocent (and largely incapable of defending themselves) - etc - these are the essential historical facts and they cannot just be thrown aside and the revisionist and unsupported version accepted as history. Certainly there are many aspects and details that warrant presentation for a thorough understanding of the specifics, the causation and context – but essentially this is what occurred and what needs to be presented.

Again - your (Coolcat) willingness to do so (obscure the historical record by accepting obvious revisionist propaganda) is testament to your inappropriateness to moderate this effort – what can I say? And again - what you propose is the equivalent of neo-nazi views being held equal with - well everyone else’s! Would this in any way be acceptable in a presentation of the Holocaust? Is this approach even remotely being taken there or in any other Genocide section? And its like allowing Biblical creationists to present their version of biology as a legitimate scientific alternative to the Theory of Evolution....I mean what should they do over there - try to come up with a version that melds each "side" and present it as the compromise (non offense to anyone) version? Would this lead to an accurate portrayal of (the scientific facts of) evolutionary biology? No! Clearly not! And neither will your approach lead to a truthful presentation of the Armenian Genocide! --THOTH 16:56, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• I havent had a chance to aproach it properly. You fail to see that I am not trying to obscure histortical facts. i am merely trying to present definitons of things from both sides perspective. I am not Turkish hence my national pride can not do anything woth this. I am not saying Genocide didnt happen, I am saying you cant present it as if it were a solid historic fact, not untill you convinced me to the validity of the material. I sugest you stop accusing me of been a revisionist, I am not sure what that means either. I know the deffinition of Genocie, Armenia related articles appear to be abusively filled with it. There are diferent versions of the story, we should come up with a version all 3 sides agree, I have no reason to pleieve that the scientific comunity widely accepts the genocide, nor does the scientific comunity widely deny it. There is no concensius I know of. I suggest you use your energy on somethimg more productive. Something else than why i should not be a part of this conversation. If the armenian Genocide case is strong enopugh as it is claimed it does not leed introduction statements that starts with conclusions. When I refer to Turkish or Armenian side of the story I mean pro and anti genocide views, this is shared by scientists, the views of both pro genocide and anti genocide thesis should be investigated. I am not suggesting that we dispute everything, I am saying we should investigate matters carefully. You should follow NPOV on any article that is contraversial. Instead of acusing me of things or pointing out why I am such a horrible person, I recommend you present your case You claim you hold both views equaly. I, Fadix and others will be the judge of that. You apperantly follow the pro-genocide thesis, meaning if you remove me there will be no oposition, hence there will be absolutely no way to know if the other view is presented in a factual manner.
• Also you are recomended to follow good Wikipedia:Wikiquette, so far you havent.--Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 17:34, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Cool Colours

This talk page is in black & white. — Davenbelle 10:04, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

You cannot edit what I post. Please don't. -- Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 22:48, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Mr. "Cool Cat":

<blink>Do NOT use html in section headings; it pollutes the history with default edit summaries.</blink>

• Not quite, your blink tag is irritating as it does not work. I can use any method to post. If you have aproblem with that find wiki policy that does not allow html. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 01:35, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

<blink>Do NOT color-code user's comments.</blink>

• I can if I like, just because I am nice I wont, however do not remove what I already posted in colors.

<blink>Do NOT use level-one headings.</blink> See: Wikipedia:How to edit a page#Sections, paragraphs, lists and lines

• If you insis. Ok. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 01:35, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

<blink>Do NOT transclude anything from your user space into articles or talk pages. You have no right to do that.</blink>

• Sure I do, people do it all the time. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 01:35, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

<blink>Do NOT present yourself as a mediator; there is no acceptance of you in that role here.</blink>

• I never did, I clearly stated that when I inserted my mediation tag. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 01:35, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You should take User:Tony Sidaway's advice and "walk away from this one".

— Davenbelle 00:40, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

Your insistance on removing me from wikipedia instead of discussing is ... intresting ... good luck with that. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 01:00, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your assistance with the process! — Davenbelle 02:43, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

You are very welcome, anything else I can do for you? --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 22:10, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It is clear to me that Mr Coolcat rquires an education in Genocide/Holocaust denial

Let us assume that Mr Coolcat is just purely ignorant concerning this issue - and not actually malevolent. I believe that without a proper understanding of genocide denial one might fall into its trap as he apparently has. Some of us who have dealt with genocide and holocaust issues are familiar with the pitfalls but one who is not may unwittingly become their instrument. Giving him the benefit of the doubt – this is what I think is occurring here. Obviously the approach he advocates is completely unacceptable because it exactly falls into the denial trap – this is an exact case example. It is clear that there is no possibility of acceptable resolution as long as he holds firm to the approach that would be completely unacceptable in any other genocide subject area. If we have no ability to remove him then we must educate him and hope for the best. Otherwise I would advocate just boycotting the article and instead concentrate on making other genocide related contributors aware of what we are up against.

I want to start by posting some excepts and a link to a recent genocide denial conference that was held at UCLA in February.

http://www.international.ucla.edu/article.asp?parentid=21398

excerpts: The People Who Cover Up Genocide UCLA panel looks at people and governments who deny or explain away the Armenian genocide, the Holocaust, the killing of Tutsis in Rwanda in 1994, and the ongoing massacres in the Darfur provinces of Sudan. … Before looking at the motives of the Holocaust denial movement, Richard Eaton discussed their methods. While there are some outright lies, he said, they more commonly take isolated facts out of context and present them to mean something very different. This is usually done in a context that attempts to sound scholarly and avoids overt anti-Semitic declarations. "They pick very specific items out of the vast subject of the Holocaust and say this didn't happen that way and so forth." The deniers' strategy has been to pressure legitimate historians to debate them in public, as though their antifactual positions have equal validity with the body of established historical facts and accredited university scholars … The Institute for Historical Review and similar Holocaust denial groups write heavily footnoted essays with a scholarly tone. "All it takes to dispel this is to dig into their footnotes and see what the original sources actually say. But they know that the good majority of people are not going to do this." (my note concerning the above: it is difficult for us “amature” part timers to devote the proper time and effort to debunk this sort of thing. This is one reason why Coolcat’s approach is a “no-win” – it will not be possible to debunk everything (though Fadix has done an amazing and highly credible job – probably about as much effort as can be expected) more: http://yessem.blogspot.com/2005/03/patterns-of-genocide-denial-1.html http://www.unitedhumanrights.org/Turkish_distortions_denial.htm The following link is to a report on a Genocide denial conference from 2002 (selected excerpts to follow): (note these are not Armenians but genocide scholars who are fully accepting that it is a genocide and that it is denied much as Holocaust deniers do…): http://www.hairenik.com/armenianweekly/jan_2002/history001.html The conference moderator was Professor Roger Smith, Professor of Government at the College of William and Mary and a renowned expert on Genocide Studies. In addition to teaching and publishing widely on various aspects of genocide and its denial, Professor Smith is also the co-founder and former president of the International Association of Genocide Scholars. Formally opening the conference, Professor Smith began by briefly mentioning the impressive and diverse panel, comprised of a group of prominent experts including Samantha Power, the Executive Director Harvard University's Carr Center for Human Rights Policy; Professor Peter Ronayne of the University of Virginia and the Federal Executive Institute; Professor Christopher Simpson of American University's School of Communications; and Professor Henry Theriault, the Coordinator of Worcester State College's Center for the Study of Human Rights and visiting Professor at Clark University's Center for Holocaust and Genocide Studies. … Professor Christopher Simpson… presentation featured four main points: establishing that denial is functional, that genocide creates its own unique constituency, that denial is rooted in geopolitics, and that "standing up" for genocide recognition is crucial. Formulating three elements of genocide, Simpson explained that genocide comprises the targeting of a group, most often by race or ethnicity, the intent to destroy the targeted group, and finally, the acts carrying out the group destruction. Based on the foundation of these elements, the Armenian Genocide is "a genocide without doubt," declared Simpson. Simpson then turned to the historical record of the Armenian Genocide, establishing the factors that prevented the rehabilitation of the Turkish perpetrators and encouraged the bystanders in genocide denial. He specifically cited the fact that although the Treaty of Sevres of 1920 and the Treaty of Lausanne attempted to effectively remodel the region after World War I, the legacy created by allowing much of the Turkish political and military elite responsible for the Armenian Genocide to retain power in modern Turkey can be seen in genocide denial to this day. He went on to show that the failure to reform Turkey and the Allied policies allowing the institutions of Ottoman Turkey to maintain power in the new modern Turkey transformed by Attaturk forged the foundation for the denial of the Armenian Genocide. This failure also prevented any real justice for the Armenians and led to a strong, nationalist Turkish constituency for genocide denial. Concluding by stressing the need to "stand up" for recognition of the Armenian Genocide, Professor Simpson demonstrated the methods of denial propaganda and educated the audience on the best means to combat such revisionism. He explained that the modern approach of genocide denial is through exploiting doubt and fostering skepticism, citing the common refrain "let's leave the Armenian Genocide to the historians." This propaganda of denial, Simpson urged, must be met with truth and opposed with logic. He added that there should be no denial of issues of principled, established historical fact such as the Armenian Genocide. … Professor Henry Theriault, presenting the case of Japanese wartime atrocities in East Asia from 1931-1945, with a look at comparative dimensions of denial. Theriault, no stranger to the Armenian-American community, teaches at Worcester State College and Clark University and conducted research in Japan comparing the denials of the Japanese atrocities with the Holocaust and the Armenian and other genocides. He is the author of numerous scholarly articles, including "Universal Social Theory and the Denial of Genocide" in the June 2001 issue of the Journal of Genocide Research. The Japanese atrocities, according to Theriault, were no different than other genocides and he cited the ongoing Japanese denial as sharing commonalties with the Turkish effort to deny the Armenian Genocide. He established the pattern of omission and distortion practices by many Japanese governments and prevalent in much of the Japanese media. Theriault also pointed to the similarities between the lack of justice in the aftermath of the Turkish and Japanese cases, mainly due to the influence of geopolitics. Theriault detailed the informal "network of denial" and even the emergence of so-called "celebrity" deniers, such as the mayor of Tokyo, engaged in historical revisionism. He noted that the fight against genocide denial as seen in the Japanese case is an ongoing fight, with the Turkish denial being only one of many dangerous trends of state-sponsored denial. (note: I really must check the Rape of Nanking entry in Wikipedia to see how the Japanese “side” is being presented…) Official Turkish campaign of denial exposed: http://www.diaspora-net.org/Turkey/Princeton_Turkey.html And this piece concerning denials of the Holocaust (primarily questioning of existence of gas chambers for killing…) may prove illustrative: http://www.anti-rev.org/textes/VidalNaquet92b/ and same author as above on revisionism: http://www.anti-rev.org/textes/VidalNaquet85a/ And from the Free Dictionary (who seem to have no compunction whatsoever at labeling it a genocide): http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Genocides%20in%20history Turkey (1914–1923) genocides by the Young Turk government Approximately 0.6–1.5 million Armenians in the Ottoman Empire were killed (some sources cite much higher figures). The Turkish government officially denies that there was any genocide, claiming that most of the Armenian deaths resulted from armed conflict, disease and famine during the turmoil of World War. Approximately 300,000–600,000 Pontian Greeks in the Ottoman Empire were killed, and several hundred thousand others exiled. The Turkish government denies there was any genocide despite evidence to the contrary, instead blaming the wars with Greece which took place around the same time for the millions of deaths. See also: Armenian Genocide http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Genocide+denial BTW – here is a site that is for the prevention of all genocides. It is not an Armenian site. It has a very nice collection of scholarly and media sources that clearly present and accept that what occurred was genocide. There are sections on all other 20th century genocides besides the Armenian one as well. Note the link to Turkish sources on the Armenian Genocide page. http://www.preventgenocide.org/

http://preventgenocide.org/edu/pastgenocides/ottoman/resources/

Anyway – enough for now – I welcome others to add to this. Perhaps we’ll get this boy edumacated eh?

I see...

So you suggest that I leave the article in your capable hands and you will present it in a completely unbiased and Neutral way, and you have complete understanding of NPOV as soon as you joined wikipedia and complete knowlege on how contraversial articles are written? You suggest that anyone who thinks the Armenian Genocide's cassification as genocide be approached with suspicion be slienced. You mean you do not want any oposition while discussing the article. I am sorry but if noone is saying "No", noone is thinking. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 22:33, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Your "polite" and "civil" approach is very interesting.
• Do not refer to me as Mr.
• Do not edit what I placed in talk unless you are improving spelling or grammar.
• If you want to cut in my lines sign every single post you make
• Summerise your cases, provide links. You are on wikipedia an Online Encyclopedia, not a Forum, not your personal essay page, not your research paper.
• This is a controversial topic, the article should be presented in a way that will not insult or acuse either side of things. I am well aware what Turkey is doing, I am also aware of the Armenian presure on politicians for decades. Diplomacy has nothing to do with historic facts. What we must evade is propoganda from either side. Armenian Genocide should not be presented as a fact if there isnt enough evidence to supoort it, if there is we can discuss the evidence slowly, we dont throw each other hundereds of pages on wikipedia, we prefer slow progress through carefull negotiations on how an article should be constructed, line by line.
• I suggest you limit your acusations and insults so we can start discussing how the article is now and what should be added/subtracted. If you are not willing to discuss you are welcome to allow me to do all the edits on my own, I doubt you want that so lets start discussing the matter.
• Do NOT threaten me with reverts other stuff you may come up with. I want to have a polite, and civil discussion, like civilised people, I expect a similar response.
• I welcome you to wikipedia, I suggest you follow good Wikiquette

--Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 01:23, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

(other poor spelling and grammar ignored. — Davenbelle 02:15, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC))

Thank you for the corrections, Id prefer you corrected without giving wiki links, wikipedia is not a dictionary. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 20:53, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• One more thing, who determines what is a fact and what is fiction generated by propoganda? There is evidence suggestiong that the Armenian Genocide was indeed an genocide, there is evidence suggestiong Armenian genocide was not in fact a genocide. There are two ways to write this article:
  1. Biased(favoring the Genciode thesis/opposing the genocide thesis)
  2. Neutral(based on historic evidence)

To do this you cannot start asuming either thesis is a fact. I also suggest we provide archive numbers for any evidence for any party to go and get the archives at will. Web sites and books are not historic evidence, may be used to determine the language of the article. I want to know which archive suggests what. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 20:53, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Coolcat, after this persistance and your post above, I have no other option than concluding. Sorry. Fadix 00:21, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

SInce all 5+ of you are beyond reason Ill handle this matter on my own. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 01:04, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The only beyond reason is you here. And don't try to hijack the article. Fadix 01:07, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I will "carjack" the article instead. I am not trying to add anything to the article as 5+ of you just revert it without reading. You are jsut going to insist on your version "untill I give up". I am trying to disuss the article, I only want to put factual info. I can claim that the british had 432,147 Armenians executed millitary style in their archive, would be rather believeable, anything that supports the genocide is fact, anything anyone that suggest the other way around is definately bias by some "revisionist", "troll". --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 01:39, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You recognised as not knowing much of the subject, and regardless you want 50-50. Oghlum Ghonushma, when you don't know the subject. This is becoming quote boring. Fadix 01:53, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

What is "Oghlum Ghonushma"? I do not recognise it as an english phrase. I never said I wanted 50:50, I said I want the alnguage to be 50:50. I want views of neither side to be in the article but I want how they interprete archive material to be presented. If that ends up makeing the article neutral, well that would be excellent NPOV. Although I am certain that never is the case on conraverisal articles. I told you, I only want the article to be presented in neutral tones and that material introduced have basis, ie archive numbers. If you are talking about history and not have archive numbers I am not willing to put it in the article. This is becoming quite boring as I only get personal insults when I suggest things, you oppose anything and everything I said, Improving spelling involves reverting. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 02:04, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Google suggests: "Your search - Oghlum Ghonushma - did not match any documents" can you elaborate, no spelling suggestions either. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 02:06, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

My reverted psychology has just confirmed what I thought Coolcat. The next time you'de want to play the innocent, you should read psychology books. :) As for your above comment. 50:50 language is against NPOV... pass that, I have not read what else you had to say. Fadix 02:20, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I am an engineer, I dont like reading. I can build you something that can take you to mars however. So you suggest we determine a persentage on how much the article will support the Armenian Genocide even before we discuss. You are refusing to dicsuss the material, I have no porblem discussing it. I still have no idea what "Oghlum Ghonushma" means, whenever I come across a word I dont know or a foreign word, I google it. I do not understand what you are suggesting by "play the innocent" I am trying to be polite as hard as I can try. You still try to communicate people as if this was a forum, irc, im. This is wikipedia our language is different, please compensate as your general tone is very irritating. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 22:17, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Look Mr. Coolcat, you have exposed yourself as to misrepresent what an usual person would misrepresent. Let me explain you Mr. Coolcat, you knew what is "Oghlum" in fact, it is one of the first words that a foreigner learn in Turkey. As someone that knew as far as people in political parties in Turkey, even a foreigner would know that. Your questioning of the sentence "Oghlum Ghonushma" was rather a defense mechanism, as we'de call in psychology. You knew at least what the word "Oghlum" meant, but you thought that knowing it is not something you should display. Example, suppose that someone live in a foreign country and learn a word. If that word is writen, he'de know what it means, and he'll admit it, unless he thinks he is not supposed to know the word and knowing it and admitting knowing it, could "expose" him somehow. If you really ignored the word, you'de mistake it as a name rather than a sentence, because both letters were in capital(on purpouses). If you'de be locked for a crime, and we'de fail such a basic psychology test, this could have been used against your person. There was three options for you, two "negative" and another answer speaking in the "positive" and you just failed the test. Fadix 23:13, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Look Fadix, in wikipedia the ethnicity of a person does not make them more/less credible, such a suggestion has traditionaly been a ban reason. You may want to talk about the article isntead of me. Any time. You are telling me you have an offcial world wide statistics regarding what people think of the Armenian Genocide? "very few non-Turks deny". I could be a one of your "very-few non-Turks". Cut it out. I am a computer major I am not supposed to spell correctly. I personaly think I am doing a fine job spelling. I screw up here and there, thats neither your concern nor is it basis for you to determine my Ethnicity. This will not be allowed to cintinue, the more drastic you attack me, the more drastic mesures Ill take to remove your attack, if necesary you. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 00:12, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Protected

You can't make any progress in editing this article while certain parties continue to use reverting as a means of keeping their preferred version. Accordingly, and on long consideration of a request made some days ago, I have protected the article. Please discuss your differences on this article with civility and when they're resolved the protection can be removed. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:19, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You have made a major administraive mistake. If you read the edition on what it was locked on, you'll realise that our new aliases has made all the major changes Coolcat wanted to be made. In that articlke there is no only POV, but as well lies, something my other article did not have. That new alias is no one else than Coolcat. Fadix 23:17, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Please identify any lies in the article and I'll remove them. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:28, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The Armenian theses ignoring Turkish deaths, is one example, this is Coolcat lies. That person was Coolcat, all the changes were specifically what Coolcat wanted the article to be changed for. He reverted the "many Western scholars." There are no many Western scholars supproting the revisionbist theses this is another lie. In fact, all the changes made are only POV, and if they are not, they are simply untrue. Coolcat is lying Tony, he claimed to not be a Turk to make his national biases more credible, another member has ju8st exposed him admitting being a Turk, without including that he has in various occasion called Armenians, "Armanians" a common mistake a Turkish speaker will make. I have to say, that your locking of the article, while yesterday it was submitted to peer review was simply a big mistake. Coolcat just yesterday, accused all of us to be the same person. You can verify about Raffi, he has his own website and post with his real name, another member participate in other forums, on which I myself participate, the other members I just have met on this site. On the other hand, Coolcat yesterday said that if he had to want to use other aliases, he could do that without others knowing, and the first thing today we see, is that another aliases was created out of the blue moon, making all the edits Coolcat was fighting to make, which are simply untrue and false or POV. And you rather prefer to keep an article editted by a new aliases that just after logging, the only thing he post is to change a debated article, while the article has been placed to mediation and peer review. This time, you made a serious mistake. Fadix 23:37, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well I can see a lot of accusations of sock puppetry and lying, and frankly I wish both sides would stop these accusations because they'll not make the article any better.

So you've said that the following are in the current version of the article and are untrue:

1. That the Armenian thesis ignores Turkish deaths
2. That many western scholars support the Turkish revisionist viewpoint.

I've removed those references now. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:16, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

Do you? I think not....

OK – Ms Coolcat then? j/k…sorry…Have I offended? I’m sorry – not intentional. :) A couple of things…I don’t think I ever offered to write your article – though I do think I could do so and from a non POV and unbiased perspective – though – with your apparent biases – you might not indeed agree (considering that you believe use of the term genocide is unwarranted and I believe that anyone who believes such is either ignorant or is a genocide denier or both – but I am open to someone truly making the case – based on fact – that it was not genocide. However, I have never seen any legitimate contention of the use of this word to describe what occurred...and neither really can I – knowing the facts – imagine that this is possible – but Ok – show us…).

And while I would be honored to assist or to input into this article I cannot in good conscience perpetuate your flawed approach that gives platform to deniers. I can see that this will just go around and around with no resolution. And while I could write an appropriate summary article I have not the time to create such from scratch (anytime in the near term that is) and I think we are blessed with someone who clearly has the time, inclination, knowledge, sources and capability to put such a thing together – Fadix. Now perhaps his approach may seem to you to be biased or such – and I can concede that there may be areas he has not presented to the degree of depth and with the broadness of perspective that I would prefer and other areas he has emphasized/highlighted that I perhaps would not – but fundamentally I believe that what Fadix is presenting is based entirely in fact and is accepted by historians as accurate and I see no overt bias – only factual presentation consistent with events that are known (by scholars/historians) and accepted as legitimate historical information. So yes – my position would be to let the most qualified available person take the cut and then let others add/modify based on support/consensus and however it is done here. Clearly Mr Fadix is the most qualified person contributing to this process at this time and should be allowed to take the lead in developing the article. I am new to Wikipedia and am admittedly uncertain how this is done – so I wish to take the time to learn before interjecting in the article itself (so I have never edited there – it is unclear to me if you are accusing me of doing such).

As for your other assertions – and I admit it is not clear to me if you are referring to me or someone else – but it seems as if your comments are addressed to me so I shall attempt to answer.

Are your criticizing me for being polite and civil? I don’t understand. Am I violating Wikipedia etiquette or are you just disappointed that you have no legitimate reason to silence me?

I have never edited your “talk” comments to my knowledge unless I have inadvertently done so – again I am just trying to figure out how this works – so its possible I may have done something by mistake. Same with cut lines comment. Again, I have been signing everything I have posted to my knowledge.

I understand this is an online Encyclopedia. Thus I have refrained from injecting on the article page at this time. I feel that there are very serious issues in regards to the presentation that need to be addressed before a proper article can be presented. Thus I am posting my comments and links to information – for your benefit – in hopes of convincing you that your approach is invalid. As far as I am concerned that is what these talk pages are for – at least in part – I would think – am I wrong in thinking this?

Unfortunately it seems clear that you have not given one bit of consideration to the validity of my objections – nor does it seem that you have taken the time to review the links I posted the other day on denial and revisionism. Again it seems that you have staked out your position (from whatever motivation) and you refuse to modify it even when there is evidence that indicates it is flawed and unworkable. Again – genocide denial is a well-known phenomenon that is practiced by apologists for all genocides and their pattern is very similar. What is different here in this section is that you are providing a platform for such and are entirely taking the denialist friendly approach that facilitates seemingly legitimate non-scholarly attacks which do nothing to reach truth but in fact obscure it. What you’re doing essentially amounts to something bordering on the criminal – and I say this in all seriousness. It would not be tolerated in the Holocaust section or the Nanking Massacre section or the Cambodian genocide, Rwandan Genocide or any other similar section. I have provided links to websites where genocide scholars specifically address this issue. You obviously are completely ignoring the validity of this position that is accepted by pretty much all scholars who are knowledgeable of it and you apparently have no desire to even attempt to understand it. How then can you hold your position as valid and worthy of consideration as the accurate approach to presentation of the Armenian Genocide section of an encyclopedia?

You wrongly claim that in my/our(?) position that I/we are somehow suppressing the truth. It is you who are encouraging the inclusion of untruth in this section. Again - can you imagine that your approach and someone who holds your beliefs would be allowed to prevail in the Holocaust section? Likewise you cannot be allowed to control things here – it is just that simple. This is why you are being opposed with such vehemence. We are not (I certainly am not) attempting to suppress legitimate debate and certainly not the inclusion of relevant factual information – but consider this - would Nazi critiques concerning the Jews or sidebar accusations against the Jews be considered legitimate in a presentation of the Holocaust? Would anything that is presented as an attempt to justify (or even "just" deny) the Holocaust be acceptable? And look at the racial accusations/approach and horrible slandering language used by this torque in addition to the use of known denialist tactics. His comments are indeed offensive. And you make reference to Armenians and others exhibiting “hate the Turks” mentality? I have yet to see this in any of Fadix or anyone else’s posts here – only the opposite on the part of torque – whom you insist to get an equal voice here. So why do you make such claims – just because they object to your hijacking this section in support of a true hate monger and obfuscator of the truth? I can see no other reason for you to make this claim.

You say that this section should not “insult or accuse” - well these are entirely different things. First of all you insult all Armenians and all believers in human rights and the truth by giving platform to denilaists. All legitimate scholars accept the Armenian Genocide as such – can you not appreciate the truth of this fact? What more must we provide you to prove this that we haven’t already done? (and this is in part illustrates the difficulty of developing such a thing on the internet – deciding the legitimacy of presentations and how to include non-web based material etc). And secondly – yes – the Turks are justifiably accused. I really don’t know what else I can say about this….--THOTH 17:50, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hi, THOTH. FYI, our Mr. Coolcat has alleged that you, I, Stereotek, Fadix are all the same person, so he's nominally addressing us all as one. This is, of course, absurd.

see: User talk:Tim Starling#suspected sockpuppets (same person, using multiple usernames), (diff)

I have read all of your posts here and the links you've provided and recommend them to other readers of this talk page, and I thank you for the time you've put into preparing your posts. — Davenbelle 19:13, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

You are either a complete newbie to wikipedia or still dont understand how we do things. The whole sock puupet check is very normal, if you aren a sockpuppet you have nothing to worry. If you are a sock puppet, well... goodbye!. Even then the ban is often temporary unless you start deleting articles and stuff... --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 22:20, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Interesting – and very telling concerning our dear friend

Oh and thank you BTW for the compliment.

The Armenian Genocide issue - and specifically (slick) deniers of such - is something I am quite familiar with. I find it very telling that Coolcat is trying to peg us as all the same person. His paranoia reminds me of…oh I don’t know…many Turks I’ve come across – what can I say? I have never posted here as anyone else - though my first 2 posts on this subject I made prior to establishing a login and they are in archive 9? now - as far as I know. Coolcat utterly refuses to understand or acknowledge the legitimacy of my/our objections - be this due to ignorance or willful malevolence I know not. However he clearly is unable to accept that there is a severe problem with what he proposes and he is also clearly unwilling to make even the most mediocre attempt at educating himself regarding this issue. That’s fine – for someone who is uninvolved – but for someone who takes such an active roll in this subject I would expect a greater understanding. Who is this guy anyway? I fail to understand the hierarchy of contributors and who has what (differentiated) powers if any.

I am truly new to this place. It seems to have much potential but (obvious) pitfalls as well. And I came across this subject by accident. Wikipedia had popped up when I searched on another subject. I recalled that someone I had come across in a chat forum months ago had mentioned that the Armenian Genocide was being (more or less) debated on here but I had really thought nothing of it (as this type of thing occurs all over the internet in various - mainly less then apealing) - forms. I’m glad I finally checked it out though – hopefully a real tragedy can be avoided and this can be set right.

One thing as well I think I should add regarding my position - and as Coolcat seems to think - one sided biases. Several years ago I once had a very well (on the internet) known (Armenian Genocide) denier/general Turk Apologist (named Nick) characterize my views on the Armenian Genocide as bordering on blashphemous (as he saw it - looking at my stated views as if from the Armenian perspective) - additionally I have in the past been viciously attacked by (rabid) Armenians for being pro-Turk (much having to do with my stated admiration of Ataturk - but for other reasons [regarding expressions of sympathy/admiration for the Turks] as well) - so don't anyone think that I am on any particualr "side" here - I think the truth of this matter speaks well enough in and of itself. That being said I challenge anyone to prove in any way how what occured to the Armenians during this period can be construed in any manner other then being considered (absolutely) as being a genocide... --THOTH 20:41, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thoth, just refer me with my nick :)

Well, my view regarding the matter as I explained before is simply that both parties have significant propoganda involved (Pro - Anti genocide) I try to stand in the middle, for that I have been declared many things. I am an engineer who had an asignment in SE Turkey regarding the GAP project. I am not Turkish. I got to know multiple Ethnic minorities. Armenians being one of them, I jsut want facts to be presented, I need to know what something is based on. It does not matter if a country recognises it, I need basis to put it. Several users here declared ownership to the article and that caused significant problems.

Contraversial articles like this one are often very irrittating at times, depending on how other parties react, propting more simmilar reaction and circles between several paries like that. Curently the parties are refusing to discuss and expect me to asume their views or whatever they have in their heads. I suggest:

• We put only material as it is on archives (probably selections), provide interepretations of both sides in a 50:50 aproach.
• I'd apriciate if I am not been declared things
• Thoth, your general aproach is very welcome.
  • The sock check is a normal procedure, if you do not use the same computer as other parties mentioned you are probably ok. If you arent in the same city/region you are definately ok. Admins determine this on their own. I just told them what to check. I have no say in their desicions.
  • You must realise that there are two oposing views regarding the matter.
    • "Massacre" (State sponsored killings)
    • "Relocation" (State sponsored relocation)
  • You have to realise wikipedia is based on Neutrality, while you are welcome to argue points, you may often need to agree to disagree, as s will I. Meaning, you do not like what is been daid but you are willing to comprimise to put something that supports your views.
• Archive material is welcome, this is a history discussion not political. Politics however can be mentioned but the article cannot be based on politics.

--Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 22:41, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

(He has asserted that he is Turkish; in this post he refers to those being accused (Turks) as his ancestors. Davenbelle 22:52, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC))

What you are doing is abusing history, and user contributions, I am not Turkish, I consider my self semi Turkish, Semi-Greek, Semi Belgian, Semi Italian, as I lived in those countries over two years each. I do not need to expose my ethnicty, your efforts on exposing it is absurd. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 23:22, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

And I'm not Santa. Besides calling "my" encestors, and using the term "Armanian" insteed of "Armenian" a common mistake made by Turks, beside failing the test, beside denying the Armenian genocide(only by denying the reality of the Armenian genocide, there are over 99% chances for one ot be a Turk), beside getting a Turk registering and making the changes you wanted to make? I can present many other examples. Or besides in other genocide entries editing the Armenian references, beside getting involved in any entries involving Turkey? I'm not Santa, that that is for sure. Fadix 23:43, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Even if I were a Turk that would not made me any less credible, your level of personal attacks (ie acusinng me of things like being a troll) on almost any statement is why I alerted diferent members not because of your views regarding the article your disregard of the no personal attacks article is what that may get you in trobble. For countless timess I asked you to stop. The way you talk to me is insultive, and irritationg, that may be how you talk in a forum, that is not how you talk here. PLEASE STOP. I value my identity, you are not to expose it even though your staement regarding me is false, for all you know I could be a Black American with distant Turkish ties. The discussion is about Armenian Genocide, not be. Cease your personal issues. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 00:00, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Look dude, I don't give a thing, of whatever or not you're a Turk, French or whom else. What I do care though, is when someone came in, and make the claim of being non-Turk as a tool to make his position more credible and hide his national biases. I don't like users that use multiple aliases to get an article edited. You have used the term “accusation” “Armanian”(And you have used this term more than once, in fact many times) and even the term accusing my “ancestors.” But that is not enough, you deny what very, very few non-Turks deny, you use expressions that only Turks uses when treating the subject. You believe false informations that no one besides those blinding by nationalism believe. Such as “Armenian theses” which surprisingly was as well repeated by the new aliases. The only here being irritating is you. I should be the one saying STOP! Participate in an article you know about which is unrelated to Turkey, if you can't treat an article just don't touch it. Fadix 00:03, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

---

Coolcat - I have been to Turkey 3 times - two for several weeks/month stay and have traveled thorughout the country. I know Turks well and have Turkish friends. My views are likely not typical. However - I must insist that your approach and your position is mistaken. There were massacre and relocation. There are far to many eywitness testimonies - even from allies to Turkey (and Torque response is anti-Turk/Muslim bias - which is silly and a typical tactic - use everything - no matter how divorced from reality). These eyewitnesses recount the systemic and widespread massacre and killing of innocents (and we can also see the results). Relocation was convoys of people who were given no food - to suposedly travel for days and weeks - to some place in the desert (concentration camps and such) where there was no provision but to provide a place for them to die. The only ones who survived this were ones who escaped the relocation convoys and made it on their own. Additionally a great many people were murdered in their homes and villages. The counterclaims of civil war are exaggerated. While there was from specific and limited fighting it was not widespread and in no instance were even these lightly armed convoys disrupted or people rescued. And so on and so forth. Additionally the testimony of the 1919 military tribunals must be accepted as factual. The standards used by these courts became the evidenturary model for Nurenmburg trials (very strict). The Young Turk party had a clear plan to send out murderers and others to take all valuables from the Armenians and to eliminate them. There is a history to this (and reasons for this) that must be examined. There are many side issues and such of interest - but the fundemental truths concerning what occured must be accuratly presented. There are not two "sides" to the truth - though there may be two or more perspectives concerning certain events and why certain things may have occured. The variously stated Turkish assertions have degrees of truth - from totally untruthful and made up to presenting valid perpective. But even the latter does not obviate the truth of genocide against Armenians. And these issues are not what should be centrally presented in a discussion of the Genocide (as they have no place in the Holocaust or Nanking Massacre sections - and I have just reviewed these sections and find the discussions on revisionism and denial interesting and relevant to the discussion here). The Armenian Genocide must be clearly presented for what it was - with surounding issues presented and discused as determined to be relevant. Unfourtunatly - your approach gives equal weight (50-50 you say) to arguments which are untrue, exaggerated, hateful and rascist and so on and so forth. This cannot be a forum to make such things official. In some ways it already has become a sounding board for such views and this is unfortnate. There is a right way and a (many) wrong way(s) to proceed. Your proposed approach will not lead to truth and is inherently flawed. You must understand this. I will likely be unavailable for several days to respond or add further - but I hope that you might use the time to reflect on this. If you wish I may try to suggest an approach and possibly outline how I would present this issue (most important items to focus upon) - but it will not occur before next week. In the meantime give Fadix a chance. He really does have a very good grasp of most of the relevant issues. Take care and please consider my words. --THOTH 23:07, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

---

Well, I cant give fadix a chance as long as he insults and accuses me of things. He should stop that.

I understand your position. We can do that some of both if you will, but we have to carefully assest if these "masacres" (The factuality must be assesed). Was it goverment organised or isolated incidents by some inhumane people. I just want to make sure the testimonials are facts, not propoganda generated bs. Also the translation should be checked, perhaps a link to the transcript of these testimonials may be helpfull.

My 50:50 approach is regarding any interpretation. This aproach is the tipical aproach in wikipedia on contraversial articles where there is little mention of facts but lots of opinions. I never said we HAVE to do 50:50 precisely, we may end up that way who knows.

I tried to talk to fadix several times, he continiously insisted on the 50:50 thing, I came up with many ideas how to do this article, all had extreme opposition. Anything I suggested was oposed, spelling corrections were reverted and declared vandalism, meaning he was not reading what I was suggesting. I can not talk to a person who will not talk to me in a civilised manner. The articles header must be 50:50. If your case is strong you do not need the header to be anything else than 50:50 as claimed, your case is strong hence such information can be mentioned later.

I want to discuss the article in detail, making sure propoganda is filtered. If that proves genocide, so be it, however you have to realise there will be material proving it was a relocation, from what you suggest it was a bit of both. I am not knowlegable regarding the issue. Living in Turkey I noticed how the people refered to the incident. I believe they have their reasons, I also noticed the significant propoganda from both sides of the discussion. Lots of false claims were made, mostly by the pro-Genocide side as Turks tend to ignore the issue. I just want to make sure the material presented are facts. I can claim, like anyone else, material in a archive that isnt necesarily there. You have to understand the reasons of my skepticism.

Wikipedia is more than just this article. You are welcome to edit/create other articles I can guide you with the process. While this article was commencing I created this article (Ranks and Insignia of NATO) pretty much on my own. This should be the median where we present the facts presented, any interpretation of the facts must be done in a 50:50 aproach to evade bias.

Keep in mind that we have to be carefull using words like many/most. If you suggest most scholars thinks so such and such there has to be a basis, I personaly do not see why it is necesary to mention what scholars think, the material is how people should think, not what scholars think of the material. Scholars are also people. If they start their research by accepting denying the genocide their results may not be as acurate as we want them.

In sum all I want is for any material you want to add you must convince me its not fictional. If you tell me the archive material regarding it thats more than enough of course you are not limmited to that.

--Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 23:40, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Again, another broken records. Been there done that... you still lie about me, as you have been doing when you have alerted countless numbers of members. What accusations are you talking about? Shall I post ten or more members lists, that you have warned and lied about me to get me out of Wikipedia, while you were editing the article without even discussing about it?

The rest of your post is just repetition, of what I have been answering countless numbers of times, you've been ignoring it and repeating the same thing, again, again and again. Fadix 23:48, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If the only way for you to stop your insults and personal attacks directed at me is via you beeing banned, so be it. I never requested your removal, I asked the removal of your insults. "You have a hidden agenda", "you are biased", "you are a troll" are personal attacks and are very unaproporate. You cant seem to stop insulting me. I will make you stop if you wont stop. The admins perefer users resolve their hostilities among each other by themselves, the reason why they are taking their time is that, the reason I am trying to smoothen things is that. All I get is "you are a troll". --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 00:05, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

On the other hand, I do not make charges without support, like you did against my person. I have never lied about me. Unlike you, I have never registered another alias to make my cases. Fadix 00:08, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You accuse me of sock puppeting, I never acused you of it, I merely point it out to admins to check it. You now declare I am a lier. You again declared that I have a hidden agenda and that I am a troll, why are you insisting on these personal attacks? You cant do that. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 00:16, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If you think your position is so strong as to convince people, why are you still lying about yourself Coolcat? Why did you attacked me by warning countless numbers of members when we had nearly not exchanged at that time? Fadix 00:24, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You do not understand how we do things on wikipedia, I asked them on how I should deal with you, most of the people did not respond. Tony guided me on mesures I should take. At a point I wanted your removal bad because of the annoyance you caused by your revert thing, I did pull back all requests regarding you aside from asking users how should I deal with you if you do not stop. I never asked for your ban I asked for help. I ask people what I do to deal with people who refer to personal attacks. People will not block you just because I told them to. I was trying hard to treat you fair. I am also a human, I sometimes loose my grip at times. Talking to other members regarding you is not described as a personal attack in Wikipedia:No Personal Attacks, If you were offended I am sorry, you have been a bit to defensive. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 04:12, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oberiko's conclusion of the page

After reviewing the two pages, I'm going to have to side with the current version. I find that what Fadix labels "vandalism" is far from it and there is a tendancy by Fadix to remove anything which has a negative impact on the Armenian side of the discussion (The removal of references to ANSLA, official Turkish websites etc.).

I should state that I have not read the full discussion (I don't think anyone has time for that), I have simply compared the two versions of the pages as presented with the twoversions tag. Oberiko 08:25, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have plainly shown that what the new user has done could be called as vandalism, in my talk page. What I have against the current version has nothing to do with me wanting supressthe opposing view, since I was the one that added a section to present it before Coolcat deleted it, to get the entire website as it is presented by the Turkish government. As for the ASALA removing, let me tell you that I was at first against the entire post genocide timeline, and that the deleting of it was more about the wording and the way it was presented, including the ASALA entry and the way Coolcat has worked on it.(the ASALA entry since then has been neutralised, not by me but others) So, I ask you before making charges against me, to follow the discussion closer. Fadix 13:58, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You declare yourself as pro too easily and too fast. The way you own the article is not apriciated. POV, which is your claim btw, is never vandalism. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 03:42, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You are just repeating the old rhetoric of yours, you don't need to do that, I'm not the bone head you think I am. Fadix 04:24, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I do not like the way you treat everybody who disagrees with you. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 05:36, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Don't make this as if I treat “anyone” that disagree with me, this is me, and others, against your behavior at Wikipedia. Fadix 16:09, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oberiko and others are not a persons? --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 10:34, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

And how I "treat" him? Fadix 16:58, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Cezveci's Conclusions on the Discussion

original section name introduced by User:Cezveci here. — Davenbelle 00:33, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

My conclusions are the following. I believe they will be reviewed objectively and with Coolcat's constructive and responsible efforts, the article will be put in a more neutral shape. I would like to mention the general conclusions I draw from the discussion below. Extensive support for these conclusions can be found in the discussion below. I will also note what I believe needs to be done specifically for each item. I will try to be objective. (As I don't know the gender of anybody, I will use they even while mentioning one person)

• Fadix and many others who edit this page are pro-Armenian propogandists with extreme prejudice against Turkey.

What you claim and what “is” are two different things. The article was presenting positions, before you have edited it and present your POV as historical facts, never, including in my first version before its neutralization, I had presented anything the way you did, but I guess that administrators like Tony rather prefer giving equal weight to them like you, against researchers. Fadix 21:13, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Fadix discloses facts only partially to alter to truth. In other words, they make the reader derive the conclusions they want by stating irrelevant facts, while hiding the underlying relation.

The article before you edited it presented parties position, without presenting them as facts... each things were “according to” while your editions are “this is what...” and this is POV. But according to Tony, POV is good faith. Fadix 21:13, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Fadix deletes new contributions by accusing them with vandalism, without even reading them (They confess this below). Without question, this itself is vandalism.

Those are your words Coolcat, I did read, and even shown the ridiculous additions and modifications of the NPOV article. And where did I confess anything, care to show me? Fadix 21:13, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I confess I added Star Trek next to Star wars. I am a Federation Nationalist long live the Federation! Death to the Klingon Empier. I have to be sarcastic when I am this bluntly and falsely accused.

• Fadix does not discriminate between facts and their interpretations. They delete simple facts about actions of people based on their assumptions on the intentions of these people.

This is hypocrisy at best, that is exactly what you did in your editions, and while I reported them, you have nothing to defend why your POV should have been presented as facts. Give me just one example of POV in the original article before Tony has locked it on your vandalism. And you know well I have shown your POVs clearly, and you have even not dared denying them to be POV. Fadix 21:13, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You are not the only desicion making body in this article. Your attitude of ignoring the opposition and scaring them away is HIGHLY discouraged.

• Fadix and other pro-Armenians oftenly insult a nation.

Where did I ever insulted a nation? That the Armenian genocide happened, is hardly denied by any serious academic, according to you, the academic world is conspiring to insult Turkey. And you don't even see how ridiculous such a belief is. Fadix 21:13, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Although Coolcat displays an extremely sensible and constructive approach, they are attacked by pro-Armenians (especially Fadix) with insults and baseless accusations. --Cezveci ^{My Talk} 06:08, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It is obvious that you will support yourself Coolcat. Fadix 21:13, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It is obvious you have no idea. It is also obvious you have no idea what is not vandalism on wikipedia, POV is never vandalism. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 03:36, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I repeat, the changes were not only POV... but obvious lies, like claimed Torques site to be from Western and Turkish scholars, or regarding the so-called second meeting, or an attack in 1914 etc. Those are beyond POV. Fadix 13:52, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Fadix is apparently accusing Coolcat of using more than one alias. The additional one happens to be mine in this case. This is a serious accusation. Note that not only he (now I now he is a he) states this accusation, but also answers me as if I were Coolcat and answers Coolcat as if Coolcat was me. This clearly is an easy way of getting around the difficult situation he fell after it has been shown that he vandalizes the article and manipulates facts to alter the truth. Anyway, I am protesting Fadix's accusation of myself being Coolcat, and I will do anything to prove that this is not true (I guess the easiest way is for the moderators to check our IPs, I am asking the moderators let me know about any other way to prove that I am not Coolcat). I also urge Fadix to apologize for this ugly and baseless accusation. """.

I am not the only one that suspected you to be Coolcat. Coolcat claims he knows technology and he can post with different aliases without others knowing it, the next day, we get you editing the article the way he wanted it.

So, I have been shown to manipulate facts? That's amazing, I told you to give me examples, and you were even not able to do so, while I have shown many cases of not only manipulations of facts from your part, but actual fabrication. Do you think that I need to claim other peoples are the same to support my position? Readers are free to read my answers, and they will realize that I actually answer every points you make and do listen to you. You have fabricated claims in the article, like Torques site being Western and Turkish academics website, or that Armenians attacked Muslim villages in 1914. Fadix 17:36, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This is in consistence with the way you write and interpret history. You just guess something, and immediately claim that it is true. I am still waiting for you to either prove that I am Coolcat's second alias, or apologize from both of us. Cezveci 21:35, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Can I “prove” that you are Coolcat? No! I can't. Prove is rather a strong word, in court of law, it is called “beyond any reasonable doubt” and in theory, only in math can something be really proved... in other scientific disciplines, “prove” is used with the same definition as the term used in court of law. Can I bring evidences that support my position? Sure I can, I still believe you are suspicious, and for many reasons. But does that prevented me to answer your posts? Did I used this because I could not answer you? The answer is obviously no!

As I told before, it can be PROVEN that I am not Coolcat's alias by simply checking our IP's. Can a moderator or anybody who has access to IP's do that for me? What you call your evidence is speculation, and it is apparent that speculation that supports your POV counts as evidence for you. You are so hysterical about your position that you cannot simply apologize by the bullshit you have thrown at the middle of the discussion. As for editing the article, I think the current working version is totally based on Armenian diaspora's propaganda, and your (as a matter of fact, I believe Fadix is the least fanatic among all of you) attitude against us makes it impossible for me (or another neutral or Turkish POV person) to contribute to the article in a healthy way. Thus, I will not continue to try to invite you to an objective POV any more and I am requesting that a disclosure about our claims of the article being soleley based on Armenian propaganda and aiming at promoting hate against Turks be placed at the top of the article. You cannot construct and maintain peace with this attitude and you cannot make Turkey open the Armenian border with this aggression, which is very important for the people who live in Armenia today. But as everybody knows, you don't care about what is good for the Armenians of Armenia, you only care about what is bad for the Turks of the world. Cezveci 21:53, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The thing is that you have posted one day after Coolcat has announced that he know technology, and that he could pass incognito. IP can be changed, by using a proxy server. And this is an easy thing to do.

You have edited all the sections Coolcat did not wanted to have, and this one day after Coolcat claim about “clones” etc. In such a cases, it is apparent that anyone would be very suspicious about it.

If I did make a mistake about that, and that in fact you are not Coolcat, I apologize, I don't find anything wrong apologizing. I will give you the benefit of the doubt. When you came in, it was a very tense time. But I still do consider your edit as vandalism, at least for the changes of Armenian genocide, to Armenian relocation.

Regarding the working version, I do admit there is POV in it, and I will be working to neutralize it. I know that there will never be a consensus about this. And here is why I proposed to present every parties positions and their critics at first. If you read my “Ottoman Armenian population” entry, you'll see that I did just that. And right now, I am working on the Armenian casualties entry. But it is obvious that the genocide entry will never satisfy you, as long as you think it is an Armenian diaspora ploy to get Turkey destroyed. This is not what it is. I will strongly disagree with other Armenian's about any other matters, but I believe that the genocide issue by “accident” happens to be the only thing Armenian's are over 90% right. My research about this topic, is concentrated around one of Voltaire's maxim: “We owe respect to the living; to the dead only truth.” Fadix 21:19, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As for the way I interpret history, short of answering my arguments, it seems that you are using such cheap tricks to undo them. But this is not how it works. Fadix 21:30, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Special note to Fadix: I am not answering you anymore, since you showed that you don't care to read what I write in your latest replies. There is no reason to discuss with somebody if he doesn't listen to you. I have sent any source of information that you asked me, but you never cared to answer my inquiries about your so-called "proof"s. Don't even dare to compare me against grey-wolves again, I lost my family members to their cruelty. I think you here have proved several times that you are the Armenian counterpart of greywolves. You also stand as a live-proof of the hatefulness and influence of the Armenian diaspora. Thus, my position is the same against both of you. One last question, how are you so sure that I am a male and you can talk about me as "he" without any hesitation, Mr. Patriarchal Prejudice? Cezveci 18:02, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Do us all a favor, show me where I did not read before I replied, you again throw words and wish they will actually stick, this is not how it works. As for the Grey Wolf, were you not the one calling Turks fighting for the advancement of the Turkish society as racists against their owns, just because they happen to run a Turkish human right organization? Such statements actually are comparable to what Grey Wolves, and the political party equivalent say about those peoples. What I said was not a cheap shot as you seem to make it look like. BTW, could you be glad to show me where I actually did not answer to your inquiries, I don't see any “non-answers?” I might be wrong, and maybe I did forget a point, show it to me so that I answer it.

A last not, thanks for claiming that I am a Grey Wolf equivalent. But you shall ask Raffi, who was witness of Armenian fanatics calling me a “Turk” and how I have so much Turkish friends... one of the reasons why I was banned from a Turkish board, in which one of the moderators to justify it claimed that I was tricking people. Bad me. Fadix 17:36, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am tired of dicussing with you. YoGo find yourself you omitted answering me. Go find yourself, I asked you for the source of the turkish text, and you didn't care to provide it. Go find yourself, you asked me for my source of information, I provided the link and you didn't like it because it was showing that I am talking the truth. You are claiming you are a researcher. I am in the academy, and I know what an academic tries to. An academic tries to answer the question "why?", Fadix. An academic does not create "his" truth by generating falsified documents (the documents in ANI website for example, Talat's telegraphs...). If you are not a fanatic, if you really care about understanding the history, first answer the question "why did the turks kill armenians?" Why? If I will believe you, I have to understand that, right? But what you're doing is trying to remove all the history that will help answering that question by attacking any source you don't like. This is not an academic does. This is what a fanatic does. As Bertrand Russell states, "The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts." As you believe that you have been victimized so unfairly, you don't care about lying to prove your claims. Because you "believe" that you are right. I am sorry but you're not a scientist, only a fanatic. Taner Akcam is a scientist, and shame on you, you use his scientific approach to prove your fanatic claims. You have shown this by everything you made on this page. If you want to behave like a real academic, just try to answer this question first: "Why did the Turks kill the Armenians?" Cezveci 21:29, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hola, hola... what source for the Turkish text? Did I miss something? What Turkish text are you talking about? As for the link, what do you expect me to say? Thanks, you provided the link? OK thank you... I didn't thought that each time one provide a link about something I have to comment about it, or it will be considered as ignoring the “other side.” The only reason I commented about the Turkish media, is because you implied that the Turkish media was more neutral than Western media, which obviously is wrong, more particularly on this specific subject, when the Turkish media has in various occasion just fabricated informations. And I can give examples if you wish.

Coming to Talaat documents, sorry, I do not use the internet for my research, but it happaned that sometimes I did research ANI website just to see what they had(I must admit not being impressed with the material there), but I do not remember any such Talaat telegraphs, or telegrams, can you show me where please?

Why the Turks killed Armenians? Did the Turks killed Armenians for a reason? OF COURSE!!! I have never denied that, I am not insane, it is obvious Armenians were killed for a reason, actually many reasons. Just like the Kmer Rouge killed Cambodian in their hierarchy systems, for a reason, just like the Germans have mass slaughtered in the Ghettos, or the way countless numbers of people were sent in camps to be killed in mass(of course there are revisionists like Rassinier, Faurrisson, Irving, Zundel etc. that question that those things actually really happened, each genocide has its deniers, it is a known phenomenon). For reasons... just like what was behind the Ukrainian famine. Or why the Outis butchered the Toutis. People just don't get killed without reason.

The reasons for the Armenian genocide though, are not what you claim they are... you claim the decision was taken because Armenians started attacking.(even if it were to be true, it does not justify the decision) But this theses is not supported by using the official Turkish foreign ministry released archives. The first dates in the BOA series is March 2, 1915... about a deportation, and it is said that rebellions should be prevented during it, and not that those deportations happened because of rebellions. Incidences against Armenians were reported back at middle to end of 1914. The nationalization of economy, and the Armenian presence in the East were logical factors that are supported by Turkish historians like Avioglu... and even Edip in her memoirs write that the Armenian economical power was to be replaced by the Turks and the Germans. The proposition of evacuation was actually placed on table as soon as Feb. 1914 lecture organized by a German-Turkish organization.

You may have a ground for Armenian revolt, had you talked about 1894, but not for 1915. There has been over the years(90s) people that to try to favor both the Turks and Armenians, have mixed both theses, and claimed Armenians having attacked first and were answered by a repressive system. But this position over the last years is not supported anymore, recent serious studies do not support that theses, more particularly, when more findings are done from the German archives, and that we find out, that after all those years... the Turkish government was unable to support this theses, and has relied on 1894-1896 materials to support it, by a psychology of: “This happened in 1894, and is documented, so the same thing happened in 1914-1915.” Just to give you an example, Nogales for example in his memoirs, bring this charges against the Armenian, but when we pay a closer look, he learn it once in the city, from Ottoman soldiers... of what happened that have justified the decision, but those said reports must be somewhere... but they actually are nowhere. Djemal himself write in his memoir that he was even not aware of why Armenians were moved when the decision was taken(he as one of the leaders, did not know of Armenian revolts).

Another thing, is the fact that prisoners were released the months preceding 1915... those prisoners were chosen selectively, during that time, the Ottoman still has not lost on the Russian front to accuse Armenians of anything. So this releases of prisoners to form the special organization, which will later be charged at escorting the Armenians... has absolutely no reason to exist, other than to butcher people. And, I will go as far as telling you, that there were so much evidences, that by accident the Turkish government forgot one to suppress in their attempt to clean the archives. Read No. 71, of the official documents released from the foreign ministry, I know it is Ottoman Turkish, so there are words you might not understand, I have a translation with me. It is said, that there are butcheries of Christians, from the people that were specifically sent for the task(special organization), and they call this as the “measures,” it then say that those measures against the Armenians should not be extended to other Christians, and order that those measures should only be limited to the Armenians. And from who was this telegram? From Talaat.

Now coming to what I believe. Sorry Cezveci, I do not believe the genocide happened, but I know it happened, your claim does not make sense, the first work I have read about the subject was a revisionist book, and I have read all major revisionist books. So your accusations about an unscientific approach of mine is baseless. Perhaps, shall I ask you, what book have you read about the subject? Fadix 21:23, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Samples of free speech in Turkey about the Armenian issue

• An article by Taner Akçam in the popular liberal paper Radikal. This is only one sample, he writes occassionally there, but no legal action is taken against either the author or the paper. http://www.radikal.com.tr/ek_haber.phpek=r2&haberno=2251&tarih=29/05/2003&ek_tarihi=25/05/2003
• Taner Akçam is currently publishing a series named Ermeni Dosyası (The Armenian File) in left-wing newspaper Birgün, starting March 27, 2005. No attempt to stop publication. http://www.birgun.net/ (You have to be subscribed to be able to view the series, but there is a banner for the series on the top of the page currently)
• Hrant Dink, an Armenian who lives in İstanbul, publishes the paper named Agos in both Armenian and Turkish. Dink is definitely critical of the Turkish government's stance and ideology on the Armenian issue. http://www.agos.com.tr/
• Halil Berktay, a turkish historian who has recently told the press several times that he believes that the tragedy was a genocide. He is currently a professor in Sabancı University (not a prison) in Turkey.

Last word: I have heard the imprisonement of pro-Armenian intellectuals story from several Armenian sources. There is no agreement on the length of sentence, it ranges from 5 to 20 years. These are very easy and dirty propaganda to hide Turkey's recent friendly approach on the issue. They don't help for a solution, but I suspect the Armenian propagandists care about a solution. --Cezveci ^{My Talk} 16:01, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I almost forgot how Taner Akcam was jailed and had to escape from prison, or how Berktay is treated... or better the lawsuits waiting Pamuk, and how it was ordered to take his books out from the libraries. Or how Zarakollus wife and including him, were jailed countless numbers of times. I guess all this is Armenian propaganda, including this http://www.info-turk.be/ Fadix 17:06, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You are now busted Fadix! I knew that you're so ignorant about what's going on in Turkey. Thanks for helping me demostrate how ignorantly you use irrelevant things to make your own propaganda. Akcam's and Berktay's imprisonments have nothing to do with the Armenian issue. They have been left-wing activists during the 70's. And like many left-wing activists and intellectuals, they have been imprisoned and many of them had to leave the country after the American-supported military coup. Both Akcam and Berktay have started working on the Armenian issue years after the coup. And as I illustrated above, they freely express their ideas in Turkish press. You are trying to show Turkey as a single identity without any internal dynamics, because your only aim is to promote hate against Turks. If the government attempts to pass a penal code to prevent free speech, which is unlikely because of the currently hot EU bid, a large community will be against such actions, as they support Orhan Pamuk's freedom of speech nowadays. --Cezveci ^{My Talk} 17:39, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sure, I'm busted, and I'm Santa as well. I never claimed that Akçam was jailed because of anything regarding the Armenian genocide, it had more to do with freedom of speech, I participated in a Symposium, where Akcam was present, and even talked with him. He specifically said why he was jailed, and has read the article of law he did not respect, and no, it does not exactly have to do with what you claim. The 70s student movement was not only proper to Turkey, but was as well wild spread in other countries, more particularly in France. The thing with him being jailed had more to do with supression of freedom of speech, and that was why I refered to it. As for Berktay having been jailed, don't jump on conclusions that quickly, I didn't even refered to that, but rather how he was treated in Turkey. And now, a Mayor, and others are trying to get Pamuk books banned, they have already ordered “out” his books from libraries. And no, they are not freely expressing their ideas, you should start reading the cases on the link I have provided, and you'll see that it is beyond being “Armenian claims.” As for the Turkish penal code: “Keza, bu fıkraya göre, basın ve yayın yoluyla propaganda yapmak üzere para veya yarar veya vaat kabul edilmiş ise ceza artırılacaktır: Para, yarar veya vaat kabulü suretiyle bugün Türk askerinin Kıbrıs’tan çekilmesi veya bu konuda Türkiye aleyhine bir çözüm yolunun kabulü için veya sırf Türkiye’ye zarar vermek maksadıyla, tarihsel gerçeklere aykırı olarak, Birinci Dünya Savaşı sonrasında Ermenilerin soykırıma uğradıklarının basın ve yayın yoluyla propagandasının yapılması gibi.” Matbe you should translate to all of us, what this mean. Shall you? Fadix 17:59, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This proves your intentions Fadix. You knew why Akcam was jailed, but you didn't even need to mention that it was irrelevant to the Armenian issue. Akcam's or many other people's imprisonement was definitely not fair, and there are still serious freedom of thought issues. We've been in between US and USSR during the cold war. We still have secularity-islamism issues. And we are fighting against many opressive conditions. And these definitely have nothing to do with your genocide claims. You're just taking advantage of "our" suffering to promote hate against "us". And you again fail to mention that the "mayor" who tried to censor Pamuk was stopped by the governor, and there's ongoing investigation of the "mayor"'s behavior. I will be glad to translate that text into English if you can show me that it is taken from a reliable source. --Cezveci ^{My Talk} 18:59, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hell my intentions, are you some kind of psychi reading on peoples mind? When I discuss with someone, usually I suppose that he is at least as intelligent as I, and I expected you to know why he was jailed, You've raised the Freedom question, and that is beyond the Armenian genocide, which means freedom does not equal with the genocide issue. But you have supposed that I had such intentions, which shows how you'd interpret anything I could say probably the wrong way. As for the mayor, I haven't heard anything about what you report, can you be glad to present me the article? Don't worry you don't have to translate it to me, I do have many Turkish friends who could translate it for me. Yeh! “Turk hating” Fadix has Turkish friends that would support him before you. Fadix 01:24, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes, so after 90 years things have loosened up a little. Find me an example from 10 years ago if you are so proud of the opennes in Turkey. And how about the ones who to this day get into trouble for talking about the genocide - including that group of Turkish teachers last year... you obviously are following the issue, why do you leave these things out? "Caught" indeed. --RaffiKojian 03:11, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

My proof regarding the "free speech about Armenian issue" could not be invalidated. Fadix failed to prove that their quote dependes on a reliable source. More importantly, it is proven that Fadix tries to alter the truth by disclosing the part of truth they like (ok, let's assume you thought I knew the truth about Akcam, how do you expect the people who are reviewing this page to know all these?). Fadix apologized for their racist insults by remarking they have Turkish friends. Not accepted. (I think it should be natural for somebody mature enough to have friendships beyond any political conflict. If somebody needs to mention that, there's a problem there). Pathetic provocation attempt from RaffiKojian. Not taken seriously. My recommendation: There should be no mention about general freedom of speech in Turkey because it is irrelevant to the subject and people can freely express their opinions about the Armenian issue. Discussion of pro-genocide Turkish historians most welcome with appropriate neutralization of language (I think it is on the pride of Turkey that these people exist and publish. If you can find any Armenians living outside Turkey with a similar trying-to-understand-otherside approach, I encourage you to add discussion about them as well, it will strengthen your point.) Here's the link you need about the mayor: http://www.hurriyetim.com.tr/haber/0,,sid~1@w~2@tarih~2005-03-30-m@nvid~556518,00.asp (Your source of information is biased. European and American media only display negative developments in Turkey.) --Cezveci ^{My Talk} 06:27, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You haven't posted anything like “proof” you have modified the article with wrong informations, you even deleted the part regarding the new Turkish penal code, while you have denied it, I have posted the original Turkish part, while you have entirely ignored it.

And no, I have never apologized for any racist comments, because I did not make any racist insults to begin with. I have written two papers about the non-existence of races, and those that know my position regarding the entire concept of race, know that I consider "race" as a “social construct.” For those reasons, I can not “insult” racially anyone. If you want to “expose” my “racism,” I would be glad to read your theories, but let me prepare some popcorns, because I believe it would be kind of hard to show me this.

Turks can not freely express their opinions in Turkey, you've been editing the article with false informations of a subjective freedom, while the original article referred to the new Turkish penal code that was the result of the position taken by some Turkish intellectuals. There was no POV in that, in the original form, because it was only reporting the Turkish penal code, and the freedom in question was related with the Turks whom recognize the genocide.

As for the source of information, what you say is ridiculous, the Turkish media in one than one occasion has been accused of fabricating entire stories regarding the issue in question, I will take the Western media before Turkish media, because the standards of press are obviously higher, and they are higher than Armenia, I don't even accept as fact Armenia's media. Fadix 19:38, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

We are not discussing youir views or my views in Turkish internall affairs regarding the Freedom of Speech, I do not believe Turkey has an opressive policy. I havent seen an evidence of it unless people start talking about how horible Turkey is and why they should seperate from the country. Even countries like the US do not quite allow this, esspecialy not after the Patriot Act. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 21:27, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC) It is sensable to ask for you to stop discussing how well or how horrible free speech is promoted, but instead what the article in question. This is a discussion on History NOT politcs.

Is the current shape NPOV? Does Fadix prevent vandalism or censor facts?

My recent contributions were deleted by Fadix with accusation of vandalism. Here are my defense of my contribution. I request that the page be reverted to my final version with minor modifications to trim my possibly POV language.

• I added ASALA's foundation in the timeline. This is the only time blood was shed after the tragedy of 1915 and is directly related to the issue. While a rock band's song is regarded as a related or important development about the issue, note of ASALA's existence is named vandalism? Why? Are songs more important than lives? Oh sorry, Turkish lives don't count, I forgot for a second... Or maybe you are trying to hide some facts? Speaking of revisionism, the best revisionism of history is not noting the events that occured, actually.

ASALA has its own entry, was a recognized terrorist organization, and its sphere of influence was beyond the recognition of the genocide. Fadix 17:02, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• • • • • • Yes it has its own entry and it has a place in timeline. It is more valuable to the material then what a buch of politicians said.

So there should be no cross-links between relevant entries in wikipedia? A pro-Armenian band is more important than a pro-Armenian terrorist group? Why? Because Fadix doesn't want to destroy the innocent Armenian image he is drawing. ASALA is a fact Fadix, it is a FACT, you can't escape from that! Cezveci 17:44, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I was not the one including the stupid Armenian band, I hate their musics. But that band exist and is singing for the recognition of the genocide. ASALA doesn't even exist anymore, and was a known terrorist organization that has its own entry. I fail to see what that should be included, before other things that are even not included and are more relevant. Fadix 18:12, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"PLUCK" maybe offensive when expanded, maybe reword.

So you don't remove the bad musicians, but you remove ASALA? And you're still so shameless to claim that ASALA is irrelevant? Well Enver, Talat (not Talaaat), and Cemal (not Djemal) don't exist anymore, let's remove the whole article then. Cezveci 18:46, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What kind of comparison is this, the entry is about 1915, Talaat and his team have everything to do with the entry. As for the musician, you can delete it for all I care, the only reason ASALA was deleted, actually I don't remember having done it, so it must have been the way it was phrased.Fadix 01:03, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You should be reading what you are reverting before deleting, you are required to review other peoples work before disagreeing with it.

What kind of reasoning about history is this, "they don't exist any more, so let's not mention them"? Do you think everybody except yourself is fool? My recommendation: If there is a timeline, ASALA needs to have the best place there as the only blood-sheddinng development in the timeline. With appropriate neutralization, of course (it was already neutral, by the way. I did not call ASALA "Armenian" to avoid associating a whole nation with terrorists). The hateful song is welcome stay with appropriate neutralization. Please do not try to delete both, assuming that people are dumb, as you do usually. --Cezveci ^{My Talk} 06:32, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am not a fool, unless you think you're one and you project others on your perceived image? ASALA is not a major news more than other relevant informations not present in the entry. The entry is regarding the Armenian genocide, ASALA like other such informations are unrelated with the occurrence of the event in question.

Asala is related to this article more than how American Politicians reacted on 24th april, or music bands. Since this is a discussion on politics, countries that recognises the genocde today have no relevance in a history discussion. Abolish every modern event or none. No selective deleting please.

As for the reasoning of history, don't just throw words to show you have something to say. The reasoning of “history” here is the way history is studied.Fadix 19:39, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• • • • • • • • • Requires documents, you should agree. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 03:41, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• I added Turkey's recent disclosure on the issue and Armenia's answer in the timeline. This was regarded to be a very important development in both American and European media. Is American presidential candidate's statement more relevant than the accused side's milestone attempt on getting into a dialogue?

You mean, you've introduced your POVs as fact in the timeline. Fadix 17:02, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

So, you've now answered my point? Kerry's POV is more important than the accused side's milestone action? Oh, I forgot to note, Turkish politicians also declared that Turkey is ready to face any outcome of such colloborative research. This was important, because it was showing a change in the attitude of Turkey. Many EU and US bureocrats acknowledged the improtance of this development. It does not qualify as a fact in the timeline, because you don't like the fact that Turkey is trying to find a way for dialogue? And we are "revisionists"? Look at the mirror, Fadix. Cezveci 17:50, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Turkish politicians that claimed that, wants the position to be supported by Ottoman archives, that are still not widely opened, and that were “cleaned” in various occasion by the military. They want the world to accept the Ottoman “cleaned” documents over the rest of the world documents, over the Turkish military tribunal, over anything else. This is called “selling” and not being ready to accept anything at all. More so, when a major work relating to German archives will be published in few weeks. Fadix 18:12, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The thing important is what the Turkish politicians "say", not their intentions. It is a political war and all sides, including imperialists, play their game. This development is important because it shows a significant change in Turkey's policy. Kerry's intention was getting some more votes from the Armenians, why does Kerry's position stay there? Are we supposed to censor the main actors' actions just because of your speculations? You're trying to revise today, not only the history. Cezveci 18:51, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No, the way it is phrased is actually wrong, the meetings in question are about selling Halacoglus so-called studies and has nothing to do with discussion. Taner Akcam himself had an invitation, but he claimed that he would accept if there is a neutral mediator, Halacoglu lied and said that Akcam refused, like they've lied for Vienna. You can not use claims from dubious sources and present them as factual. Fadix 01:03, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This is about Turkey's disclosure, not the meetings. My final recommendation: Turkey's disclosure was an important milestone, and needs to stay in the timeline. Europe's and US's comments may be added as well. Good news won't hurt anybody. Fadix can write their interpretation of this development in a newspaper column, as normal people do. --Cezveci ^{My Talk} 06:36, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This so-called meeting was nothing important to be included with important dates, there has been many other much more important things which were true that are not included here. The info is erroneous, first of all, there never was any first meeting to begin with, second of all, such invitations of meetings happen very often, it just happen to be much more publicized this year, because of the symbolic 90 years. This information is not accurate and therefore has no place here. When I present an information, it must be accurate in the first place... and here I am speaking of the “accuracy” of the existence of the “claim.” And not the factuality. Both are different. For instance, I reject the claims made by the Turkish government, but those claims exist, the representation of the claim must be accurate. So, it should be presented. But if I claim that the Turkish government claim A, while they really claim it is B... the representation of the claim is not accurate. The meeting in question was to be a way for Halacoglu to present his “studies.” Such meetings happens each years in form of Symposiums, lectures, conferences, discussions etc. There are dozens and dozens each years. There is no way that just because this one happened to be Halacoglus studies and that he has publicized this beyond limits, that it means that it should be misrepresented by its representation. And if you read the materials regarding neutrality here in Wikipedia, you will see that this is part of what is not neutral. If you give space to something that has no reason to have this space before other more important and relevant things, you mislead the reader, and therefore it can not be accurate. Fadix 19:49, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• I added Armenian historian's withdrawal from the Turco-Armenian meetings. If wikipedia is about facts, and history is more factual than politics, why is historians' attitudes considered less relevant than politicians?

First of all, this has no place at all in Wikipedia, it is a POV from the Turkish press, the leading figure of the Turkish team is Halacoglu, a self-deceiving clown. Besides, only the reason why Armenia has refused, is self-destructive of your own claim. Mainly because Armenia has countless numbers of of times, claimed that it does not get involved in historical discussion as a country, unlike Turkey. And not only Armenian historians have refused those meetings, but international historians as well, because it was a political meeting to sell Halacoglu so-called findings, rather than a discussion panel. Fadix 17:02, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ok, we're removing this because Fadix doesn't like Halacoglu. Honestly, I don't like him either. And Turkey is side who censor everything they don't like. Cezveci 19:06, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No, it has nothing to do with me not liking him, but everything to do with the way it is represented, those so-called invitations are just pathetic attempts, by knowing that there is no one that would accept panels mediated by someone that is there to support a position. We all have seen the last time it was channeled in Turkish TV, about the so-called “debate.” Fadix 01:03, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have attended to several pro-genocide American historians' seminars and they were clearly supporting a position, displaying stupid things as "proof" (before seeing them, I was thinking that the genocide theses lied on a stronger ground and believing that the Armenian lobby's influence was just our government's propaganda. How silly I was!) My final recommendation: This can be deleted. --Cezveci ^{My Talk} 06:43, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Armenian “lobby's” influence is your government propaganda. To think that serious scholars will be influences by lobby's before actual studies, you must be brain washed. Fadix 19:53, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• I added two websites on the Turkish side's external link list. One was a propoganda site of turkish thesis, many of Armenian counterparts exist in the other list.

Torque website is a fraud, it has no place in Wikipedia, the others documents are already included in the other websites, it has no justification to be included. Fadix 17:02, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and the Armenian sites are full of truth. I think your racist source of information info-turk.be is more reliable. Cezveci 19:11, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Armenian sites are official web-sites, only Raffis site as far as I am aware of, is a personal website... and he just present publish things that are from press etc. If a Turkish website present documents that exist, that those documents are factual or not, I would have no problem including the site, but Torque site claim the existence of quotes which do not exist, this is the differences and that was why I deleted that entry. Wikipedia can not contain such site as reference. Fadix 01:03, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

A website that publishes all fundemental documents that exist and is official is removed by yourself, and you're continuing to defend that decision below. My final recommendation: The link to this website may be deleted, but I think it is against freedom of speech, you don't look for quality while allowing freedom and wikipedia is not responsible for the accuracy of the external links, relevance matters. Moreover, it would be good for you if people saw that site. --Cezveci ^{My Talk} 06:47, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That is untrue, Torque website did contain non-existing documents, I have shown that with my exchanges with the author in question. And you have even lied by presenting the site as being from Western and Turkish scholars. Such a site has no place as references in Wikipedia, the site is a fraud. And again, let me repeat, because it seems you don't understand. The reason I deleted the website was not because it had a different opinion than I do have, other websites like tetedeturc, who bring more documents, were left untouched. The reason why I deleted that website was because it was reporting quotes that do not exist in the said documents in which they were supposed to exist in. I have compared with the originals and have shown how. Besides, the site is racist in nature, and compare Armenians as less than animals. The site in question is in the limit of legality, and I repeat, such a site has no place in Wikipedia. Fadix 19:58, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• More importantly I added Turkish government's official site of Ottoman archives related to the issue. Can anything be more useful than the accused state's archives while doing research on claims? What scares you about these archives?

As I said, those same state archives can be found from one of the other sites already included. Fadix 17:02, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You removed that link so that below you can comfortably lie about Turkey's official archives not containing any document about the massacres by Armenians. Why shouldn't we include an "official" source of informatuion in wikipedia? Are you so afraid of the truth? Cezveci 19:13, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No, the link was removed because the documents from the Turkish archives were already in the other link that was still there, and for that reason that link had no reason to be there. Fadix 01:03, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What a ridiculuous excuse is that? It is an official site, it is a source of information and my final recommendation: It should stay there. If you don't let it stay there, just put a disclosure at the top stating "You are allowed to edit this webpage only if you are on Fadix's side" --Cezveci ^{My Talk} 06:51, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

True, it is an official website, but I repeat, the same exact material was present in the other websites, why posting two websites which have the same documents? It is like providing two links with the same book. It is a “double posting.” Fadix 20:01, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• I removed the claim about pro-Armenian-theses Turkish intellectuals being imprisoned in Turkey and acknowledged that such claims do not reflect the truth. I noted that these intellactuals are protested strongly by extreme nationalists. I corrected misspelling (which I think is disrespectful) of Orhan Pamuk's name and noted what he exactly said (which is against Turkish thesis). I also added one more Turkish historian, Halil Berktay's name to support your point. But apparently, Fadix does not find Halil Berktay pro-Armenian enough.

This was your POV, and do not reflect reality, http://www.info-turk.be/ this alone provide countless numbers of cases. What you claimed was just a pathetic lie. Without including the Turkish new penal code. Fadix 17:02, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Your source of information is a racist hate-promotion site and you're accusing me, who noted the unaccepteble behavior of Turkish nationalists, of lying? So we believe racists as long as they are anti-Turkish, but we don't believe a Turk even though he is against Turkish nationalism and does not try to hide the acts of Turkish nationalists (unlike some other nationals who try hard to hide ASALA). Freedom of speech and Fadix's intention to falsify situation are demonstrated above. Cezveci 19:23, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Before lying about the website, you should check before. The site is not anti-Turkish and racist, it is build and run by Turks, it is from a Turkish human right organization, and has bureaus and is registered officially. Fadix 01:03, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Luckily, I can recognize turkish names (not Talaat, Talat by the way, insisting on a wrong doesn't make it right, no need being allergic to Turkish language) and they are at the top of the page. And I am repeating, that is an anti-Turkist hate promotion site. My final recommendation regarding this issue is above. --Cezveci ^{My Talk} 07:01, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You can't just call Turks who disagree with your ultra nationalist point of view, as anti-Turks. The site is build and run by Turks that are fighting for the progression of the Turkish state, and you on the other hand, will, as an ultra national with a Grey Wolf mentality, dump them as “anti-Turks” and “racists” and slandering them. Nice job. Fadix 20:04, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think fadix you need to re evaluate where your standing as far as hatered goes. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 21:53, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• The current story does not acknowledge the fact that Ottomon Empire was in a war during the time and that Armenians were living on the Eastern Front. I noted that Armenian militia supported and armed by Russia did attack on muslim villages. This is a fact. Even the most pro-Armenian historians can't deny this and consider it as a mistake on the Armenian side. Why do you want to hide these facts? Is it more factual or neutral if you show the events to come out of nothing? Is it scientific? Even though there was an intention of extermination, aren't these worth note as the shown excuse? Why are you even so scared to note that the event took place during WWI?

This is your claims, you can not present your claims as facts, more so when the dates you propose, there was not a single German or Austrian reports testifying about it. You can not take the Turkish government theses and present it as a fact. You claim even pro-Armenian historians do not deny that, care to provide any examples please, of Armenians having attacked Muslim villages in 1914? Go ahead. Fadix 17:02, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"You can't present your claims as facts". That I agree and that I am trying to establish here. Facst are not your claims Fadix. No double-standards here. Follow what you have just stated. Armenians proudly state that there was a struggle of independence since the late 1800's. These were written here by pro-Armenians as a heroic epic (Turks are always the "others" in the language, "we" are the Armenians and imperialists). I guess you were the one who removed them. Pro-Armenian historians try never mentionining these while trying to rule out Bernard Lewis and others "provocation" theses, but when you ask them why the Greek's on the west were not relocated, they confess the "mistake" of Armenian nationalists who collaborated with Russians. You want proof of attacks on villages? But you don't believe Turkish archives. Then read the history of Dashnaks. Then go to Eastern Anatolia, go to Erzurum, Hasankala, Sarikamis, Van and listen to those people's memories. Observe the unwritten, but. Witness the tragedies of those people yourself. Not only the Turks, the Kurds also experienced the same tragedy. You accuse Turkey of denying the suffering of Armenians, but you're the real denier, you don't give a shit about the suffering of muslims in Eastern Anatolia, do you? Cezveci 22:39, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What I present is what is mostly recognized by Academics, what you do present is the Turkish government official version, you can not present that by claiming it is a historical fact. Nowhere in the article before you have edited it, there was any such tones of a theses as being indisputably a fact. Besides, I suggest you to find Assyrians and ask their “stories,” they were deported and killed as well, would you claim they have collaborated with the enemy? Why the Jewish Nili group in its reports feared that the interventions would later not be only limited to Armenians, Assyrians etc., and probably even include the Jews? As for the stories your side can come up with? Not so long ago, a New York Times reporter has been in Eastern Turkey and HAS interviewed Turks and Kurds, and they were saying about how the Armenians were taken and just wiped out... there are even stories of why in a region the soil is red, they believe that the Armenian blood colored it. It is pretty much easy for the Turkish government to search and introduce memories to peoples and then publish what they have to say. My grandpa was orphaned, and I know hardly any Armenians in all the communities, that had no similar stories, you can in no way compare the Armenian losses, while your sides stories are about “this person was dead, we heard this etc.” you will find Armenians saying: “My grandpa, grandma were orphaned, their sisters, brothers killed. Etc.” Besides, the 1914 attack in Muslim villages is even not reported by any memoirs I have read... this is NOT supported nowhere, so claiming something such is just a lie, more so, you even have the audacity to present it as historical fact. Fadix 01:03, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Which academics? Oh, we only listen to the ones supported by the Armenian diaspora, sorry. My mother knows folk songs that talk about Armenian cruelty (no offense), do you expect me to believe that Halacoglu implanted them into her head so that she would remember them as if they were traditional songs that she learned during her youthood, which happens to be 40's? Have you ever heard about muslims being murdered in and exiled from Balkans and Russia throughout 19th century? In todays Turkey, there is a province that hosts a particular ethnic group who were driven to Anatolia in those days (Circassians in Corum, Tatars in Eskisehir, Bosnians in everywhere, Balkanese Turks and Bosnians in Edirne, Kirklareli, Tekirdag). Those people did not happily run here. 2 million of them died. Western history doesn't record these. My final recommendation: WWI should be recorded. War against Russia should be recorded. Armenians mostly living on Eastern Front should be recorded. Armenians living on the west were not relocated, this should be recorded. These are very well-established facts. Russian-Armenian relations, Armenian independence movements (how shameless or illogical can a person be to name these two a claim, but anyway) and attacks on muslim villages should be recorded with the statement of being claimed. --Cezveci ^{My Talk} 07:56, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

So, your mother knows folk song talking about Armenian cruelties? My grandparents were singing such songs when they got their family members killed. You see what I mean? While you will report things as “She knew, he knew” you can pick any Diaspora Armenians, and this “I knew” would be about grandparents being orphaned and, brothers and sisters killed. One person can be killed in a village, and it could be enough to have a story of cruelty, but when the majority are killed, you'll get stories, from the nation that was murdered, of brothers, sisters, mothers, father etc. killed. As Nazim Hikmet the Turkish poet wrote: “Karabet loves you, Because he knows well, That you yourself have not forgiven, Those responsible for the shame brought on the Turkish people.” I don't think this Karabet will love you, because not only do you deny it, but you even try to attempt reverting the role of victims and aggressors. What's so amazing as well, is how you want compassion from my side for those Turks, and Muslim having lost their lives, when you disgustfully revert the role of victims and aggressors of a genocide. While people like you have no problem shouting “millions” of death Muslim, without any attempt to back it up, and consider is as a historical fact, you'll try to minimize the Armenian losses. Of course, had you read works and researched the matter, you will right away see what distinguished the Armenians cases. While the Balkan Muslim, and those in Russia, were kicked out, Armenians were not permitted to leave the Empire, they were sent in camps, and criminals released from prison were sent on them to butcher them. As for your claim that Armenians from the West were not moved, that is a revisionist claim that could even be rejected when using Ottoman or Turkish records. At first only Izmir and Istanbul Armenians were prevented to leave, and those far reaching ones in th West, were left there, when the Ottoman realized that it would lose those lands. In Istanbul, 30,000 Armenians were evacuated to be sent in the slaughter house. In Izmir, a circular order for their evacuation was stopped by the German threatening to intervene military, because those movement of population were seriously interrupting the war efforts. But we know what happened, when the Ottoman got a hand on Izmir at the end. Let see what Hamdullah Suphi has written about the Balkan war in Ikdam, 17 December 1912: “Presently when the other people murdered before our very eyes our fleeing wives and children, the Armenian soldiers who had enrolled in our army fought with a heroism that knows no higher degree. The officials whom the Armenians had put at the disposal of our government were the last ones leaving their posts when the cities that were threatened by the enemy were being evacuated. Their families were the ones which opened their doors to the fleeing citizens with the please. “Don't go away. Don't destroy your hearth. Let us live together until such time when the unhappy days are over.””

Coming to the attacks in Muslim villages, there was NO attack in Muslim villages in 1914, like you wrote, this is a complete fabrication that could even not be supported by the official Turkish foreign affair publication of the archives. You can not present your POV as historical facts. Besides, the Neutral Point of view, require that each events be given as much space as they are represented. Villages attacked in 1917 and later, can in any way not be compared with the destruction of over a million of people, by a centrally planned mass extermination policy. It is like taking the destruction of an entire city, and treating it in an article by giving a space for a quarter... when the rest of the quarters were in much worser shape. This is about the Armenian genocide, and should cover the Armenian genocide. The entry about the Holocaust, is about the Holocaust, and not about the German losses due to the allied bombing or the atomic bombs lunched at the end of World War II. As for your question of which academics... such statments don't even bother answering to. Fadix 20:42, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Not all science agree, majority doesnt necesarily make right in science either. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 21:53, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• I changed the introduction to establish NPOV. The current introduction shows the intention of extermination by the Ottoman government as an established fact, which is in dispute, hence a clear onse-sided POV. Second, it does not even mention the claims about the massacres of muslims by Armenian militia. Well, not an established fact, the other side's POV, but why censor it? I stated the conflict and both sides's views in a neutral way. How vandal I am!

The introduction was clearly NPOV before you touched it. Fadix 17:02, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Dont cut in other peoples conversation like this. Its difficult to tell what you said and what he said. I just noticed this.

Ay ay ay, I am expected to believe that. Not a mentioning of what is disputed, not a mentioning of major claims, and that's NPOV. I did not remove any claim of the Armenian side, just added the claims and position of the other side. And you show allergic reaction to that, because you don't what it to be discussed. You don't want the truth, you want your own claims to be propagated. Wikipedia is not your private website. Go do your propoganda in your own racists sites. Cezveci 20.07, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That's untrue, the positions were clearly made, and that point even Coolcat agreed on, besides wanting that most Western Academics believe one position against the other to be removed. Fadix 01:03, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Nobody is fool Fadix. Be respectful to yourself. Recommendation: Reviewers should read both versions and decide which one is NPOV, with possible modification. --Cezveci ^{My Talk} 07:20, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Both version were represented with NPOV before you have vandalized the article, I have even included a section to represent the Turkish government version, before your other alias has deleted it. Your edits are not NPOV, two versions should be present, but each of them should be presented as NPOV and not POV as you did it. And more, it is POV to misrepresent in an article like you have done. Fadix 20:45, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

POV is not Vandal. Pro-genocide is not NPOV either. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 21:53, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• I changed the section name from "Armenian Genocide" to "Relocation of Armenians". The title of the article is already "Armenian Genocide", which is definitely POV. The section, on the other hand, is supposed to talk about the events of 1915, which is indeed a relocation, which has caused extensive life loss. It is claimed to be considered as a genocide, but this is an interpretation, not the name of the event that took place.

No, “Armenian relocation” is not NPOV, it actually IS POV, the words Armenian Genocide, are generally accepted, while “Armenian relocation” is recognized by a minority of academics as expression, and even the Turkish government released archives use the term “deportation.” And besides the Armenian genocide is just more than the moving of population. Fadix 17:02, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Armenian genocide is" POV. We know that a relocation has happened. That is NPOV. The debate is on whether it was an intended genocide or not. The debate is on whether the main reason was the provocation or not. These are POV. NPOV on a disputed issue is displaying both POVs, not censoring the one that we don't like. Sorry, your point has to be taken as NPOV because you're "western" or "civilized"? Cezveci 19.59, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Armenian Genocide is NOT POV, this is how it is called, this is how the person who coined the term genocide has called it, this is how the UN and international such bodies call it. If the event is called the Armenian genocide, it is called such. It is like not agreeing that a Toyota Matrix is not a car. As for POV, there was nothing POV in the original article you have edited, if there is any, you can show it to me, on the other hand, I have clearly shown POV in your editions. This is not whatever or not you like something, this is presenting the different views, by clearly stating who says what, but what you did is to present your POVs and present them as facts... while your POV is supported by very few scholars, and this has nothing to do with Western or non-Western. Fadix 01:03, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Recommendation: The article is already named Armenian Genocide. The section should be named "The relocation of Armenians and Subsequent Massive Deaths" --Cezveci ^{My Talk} 07:21, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No! This is not how it works, only the Turks call it relocation, there is no way to misrepresent an entry, the entry is called the Armenian genocide, and is about the event that is called the Armenian genocide, it is called such by most, and should be called such, you can not present the version of a minority and call the section such. Fadix 20:49, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• The camps section is pure propaganda and POV. It needs to be supported with documents. You can't find a single document about camps in the Ottoman Archive's and no state is that primitive in writing or advanced in espionage to "sponsor" an "extermination plan" without written documents.

Maybe you should read the official Ottoman archives as you'd call them, on the link you yourself has provided. People sent in a place by force, and to be concentrated, is actually a concentration camp, the term at that time was not widely used by people, but the Germans did call it as such, and the genocide maps, and works do call it “concentration camps” including works covering last century concentration camps. Fadix 17:02, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oh, so let's try hard to make a case that has its own dynamics the same as the holocaust, so mightbe we can also come back and massacre some more turks and kurds in Eastern Anatolia, huh? Let every event be considered in its own dynamics, to be scientific, first of all. Cezveci 19.49, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Fact, the claims of Armenians mass killing Turks is only claimed by Turkish nationalist scholars, something that just erupted in the 70s, neither this claim is supported by credible and serious academics, neither does it explain how every places where you claim Armenians have killed Muslim, there is not a single Armenian reported living there now. And neither as well, doesn't explain how, not only Armenians from what was called Ottoman Armenia, just disappeared, but that the Ottoman even destroyed the Alexandriopole Armenian community and other places such as Kars that were part of Russian Armenia, neither does it explain General Halil excursions as far as Baku to destroy the Armenian presence. Wikipedia has no place for national biases, what a minority believe can not be presented as truth, even if a majority was to believe something, no one could present it as truth, now imagine the slight minority view that you have imposed in the article as truth. Fadix 01:03, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Any relevance of these with the camps? My recommendation: Camps section should be deleted or rewritten with statement of claims based on reliable documentation. --Cezveci ^{My Talk} 07:59, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What kind of BS is this? Are you denying the existence of the camps? I guess the Armenians were all sent in a spaceship and not camps. Those are based on reliable documents, German documents are reliable. Fadix 20:57, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• The current shape of the article is not scientific. There must be discussion on the background of the events, discussion of the sociology and psychology of the Armenian "millet" at the time, discussion of the political situation in Ottoman Empire (The wars, the crisis, rising movements, islamism, nationalism, pan-turkism, revolutions against the sultan) and motivation of the Ottoman government about the decision of the relocation decision. The current article is a worst-quality edition of the classical Armenian propaganda, contributing to he ignorant and racist Anti-turkism.

--Cezveci ^{My Talk} 05:48, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That's not right, this is about one event, that is called the Armenian genocide, we can try to relativize any entries at Wikipedia and claim the “bigger picture,” this is not how it works. As for racism, there is no worst form of racism, than one that deny a genocide and revert the role of victims and agressors, just because as a person of one ethnic group, he can't accept facts, because of his perverted nationalism. That is racism. Fadix 17:02, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You don't like big pictures I know, Fadix. You like mentioning Taner Akcam is pro-Armenian, you like mentioning Taner Akcam was imprisoned in Turkey, but you don't like completing the picture by stating that the imprisonment had nothing to do with the Armenian issue. Bigger (I'd rather use complete, but you won't like that word either) pictures don't provide the falsified conclusion you're trying to reach, don't they? Comparing it with the holocaust (which happened in western Europe in a very different context) is the right approach to take, right Fadix? That's how you look at history, that's how you try to understand social dynamics. Just draw a picture of "evil turks" and "poor armenians", and win the game. I indeed think the Armenians are victims, who were murdered and had to leave their country. But you'll never accept that a turk can be victim, because it doesn't fit the "evil turk model" your friends are construction in "info-turk.be". I am also sorry for today's Armenians, who have to construct their national identity on a big tragedy and whose suffering is being explotied by the imperialist states just to strengthen their position against Turkey. Do you really think the imperialists care about the Armenians? Greeks, Turks, Armenians are just toys for them, they don't care about what happened in history. They only care about what is useful for them today. Greeks and Armenians get the candies just because Turkey is more powerful, hence harder to handle. That's what we learned a single thing about the history written by our ("we" here stands for Turks, Greeks, Kurds, Armenians, Arabs, even Australians, Indians...) blood. Cooperating with the imperialists does no good for yourself. I am not blaming anybody for being traitors, it is a social fact that you will give your hand to them if you're in need of help. I am not blaming the Armenians because they had a nationalist awakening, because it was the trend at that time. But I blame those who deny this actually happened. I blame those who write history on only western standards and accuse the "others" of being revisionist. This is our history. This is our problem. First thing we have to do is to take their hands of this. But, the Armenian Diaspora plays the imperialists' game, and that does no good for the Armenian national identity. As Hrant Dink says, "Constructing your own identity against the existence of others is sickness. If you need an enemy to preserve your identity, your identity has a disease". No need to mention, he doesn't talk about only one side here. I don't hate Armenians Fadix. I never hated them. Most Armenians hate me, and I understand them. There are people in Turkey who hate Armenians, and I understand them as well. I try to clean the black mark of history in my own society, that's my responsibility. You're the one who provokes Armenians against Turks, you're the one who blames Turkey as a whole society for things that happened in the natural course of history. You're the one who refers to websites that is founded on the basis of hate against Turks. If you try to hide terrorist activities that happened just 30 years, I can't trust you, I am sorry. I can't believe that you won't take the terrorists' side when they come to murder me again.

This sort of retarded mentality has no place in a serious discussion, such sarcastic tones like “poor Armenians” and “Evil Turks” can hardly support anything. What you just wrote above has nothing to do with the points I raised, besides, that the Armenian genocide is often compared with the Holocaust has nothing to do with “me.” That the Armenian genocide is agreed by most academics has nothing to do with “me.” All your above regurgitation is worthless in what regards the article. The article should present the positions, and not suggest, I have accepted this, and have worked on it, you can not say “this happened” without presenting it as view, your editions were not that. This is unrelated to your retarded rhetorics that we often hear of a said Armenian Diaspora propaganda about poor poor Turks. I was ready to present the Turkish government version... positions should be presented, but it should be said who believes what, and not “this is that” something you did. The rest I won't bother answering. Fadix 01:03, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I am sorry, I emphathized with you for a while and made the mistake of discussing things that are irrelevant to how you want the page to be. Don't lie, you are deleting any single pro-relocation claim even though they are stated as claims. The article was much more neutral before you showed up. My recommendation: Both sides' claims should be in and stated as claims. Don't try to fool anybody and state your claims as facts while stating others as claims (I guess that's why coolcat opposed that action, you think you're too smart Fadix, but you're just the counterpart of Halacoglu) --Cezveci ^{My Talk} 07:27, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I seems that it is the other way around, you are lying... before you edited the article both side claims were presented as positions, while you came in and colored the entry with claims that were presented as facts, when there were some that could even not be supported from the other side. I had even added a section to present the Turkish government version. The entry is not about what an ultra nationalist blinded by patriotism think is true, but presenting positions as they are recognized, and right now, the entry is not this anymore. Fadix 21:01, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

you fail to acknowlege this as a dipute, you fail to welcome oposition either. "Genocide did happen and Turkey must accept this!" is a POV. "Armenians use other nations to promote their Genocide thesis". is another POV. NPOV is not either. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 21:53, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

We will work on how the article is shaped, you are welcome to stay. Please I ask neither parties to present insults, my personal request to some parties is to refrain from the "Mr." nick, its very irritating. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 06:00, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I suggest we proceed slowly. The article accoding to both sides is not neutral at the moment. Just tag along and take it slow. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 06:00, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

POV is clearly stated as NOT being vandalims in Wikipedia:Vandalism. It is classified as "WHAT IS NOT VANDALISM".

I am not sure if fadix bothered reading every single edit you made. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 11:36, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Working towards consensus

I agree with Tony Sidaway's protecting of this article. I don't know whether it's protected on the "correct" version and it doesn't really matter. The disagreements need to be resolved here on this talk page. What's not helpful are personal attack on this page and in edit summaries. I'd like to see the editors of this article list the points they believe are false or POV. Once the points of contention are identified, we can start moving towards consensus. Carbonite | Talk 00:17, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Agreed...--Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 00:20, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Tony uses of the article to be locked is not what was asked to be peer reviewed, neither what was asked to be mediated, it was all the edits Coolcat was asking for. Let post you the changes and show you how Tony has abused his powers.

“There is an agreement about the occurence of the tragedy. However, there is ongoing debate on two issues, "whether it was a state-sponsored extermination plan, hence genocide" and "whether the tragedy was one sided or the Turks were also massacred by Russian-supported Armenian militia". While Turkey officially denies the occurence of a "genocide", the Armenian theses consistently reject acknowledging the causalities on the Turkish side."

This is not what the debate is about. This was Coolcat claim, it is POV, and is innacurate in what regards the debate.

“Most Armenian, many Western and some Turkish scholars believe that the Armenian deaths were the result of a state-sponsored extermination plan. Most Turkish and many Western scholars, on the other hand, claim that a clash between the two sides, along with famine and disease, was the reason why a number of Armenians perished. Death toll claims range from 200,000 to 1.8 million, and while there is no official international consensus regarding exactly how many Armenians died, most Western sources maintain that at least one million deaths took place. What is referred to as the Armenian Genocide is the second most studied case of what is called genocide and often draws comparison with the Holocaust.”

This was what Coolcat wanted the changes to be made, and I have proposed him by presenting a link to an on line library. It is not a “many” Western vs “many” Western. This is just innacurate, most Western academia, against some Western Academia, I have told Coolcat to verify that on the list of an on line library, and have offered even more supports. He then claimed that it is not because from one side there are more works published that it means it is more supported. And anyone in scientific fields know that something should actually be published and be peer reviewed to BE considered.

The Armenian genocide has been changed for “Relocation of Armenians.” I guess for you Tony, this is more neutral right?

Or another change.

“Following Ottoman Empire's entry in WWI, the Imperial Russia has invaded Eastern Anatolia, where the Armenian and muslim communities were interleaved. Taking advantage of common religion and recent discomfort of the Armenian community in Ottoman Empire, Russia was promoting Armenian nationalism and there were many Russian-Armenians in the Russian army. Late in 1914, Russian supported and tranied Armenian militia started treachery and attacking on muslim villages.”

Or what about this change, is that neutral as well?

“There are a number of Turkish scholars who support the theses of genocide, including Taner Akçam and Halil Berktay. Despite being protested strongly by some Turkish nationalists, these scholars freely express and publish their opinions in Turkey. However, the Armenian propagandists falsely claim that confirming the so-called genocide is a crime subject to imprisonment in Turkey. Orhan Pamuk, a famous Turkish novelist, has also recently told the press that he believes that a million Armenians were killed in Turkey.”

And last, not the least, Torque website has been added back, when I have demonstrated that the site contain non existing quotes that were fabricated, as well as a Turkish government website, with documents that are already present in the other websites. Fadix 00:22, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't endorse any version of the article. Now in my earlier comment (in another section) I responded to Fadix identifying two disputed statements by editing the article to comment out those claims (they're still in the source but not visible in the article).

Now Fadix identifies more:

1. Armenian genocide section changed to "Armenian relocation"--a disputed/inaccurate characterization.
2. Claims about Russian promotion of Armenian nationalism are disputed/inaccurate.
3. Characterization of Armenian claims about alleged Turkish suppression of the Genocide thesis is disputed/inaccurate.
4. A website cited has disputed/inaccurate figures.

Is that it? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:25, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Tony, do you realise that this is about all of the edits made? You remove them and you've got about the article I had, while you have reverted my revertion, you will just come back nearly to what I have been posting, and that article I had was the result of neutralizing that even Coolcat has participated in. Fadix 01:29, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I cooperated by removing two disputed statements in the introduction. Now I want to see you and Coolcat, and others, doing what Carbonite suggested:

I think that the next step is for the editors of this article to list the points they believe are false or POV. The personal attacks and snide edit summaries should also cease.

Then I want you to discuss these matters courteously and without recriminations, and decide between yourselves what the most agreeable wording is. You both have strong opinions that represent opposing viewpoints, but there's nothing wrong with that. Given goodwill you can come up with a truthful version of the article that represents the facts in a way that neither of you objects to. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:36, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Tony, some things are about opposing views, and some are not. Wikipedia neutral point of view requires some important things which Coolcat refuse to accept. As much space should be left as the ratio in the Academic world between those supporting one theses, and the other.

The entry is called Armenian genocide, and the name in the article has been reverted to “Armenian relocation” are you really expecting us to discuss about that? It is called the Armenian genocide, and the absurdity of the other sides position, is that even if we take the other sides theses, it still qualify as genocide under the UN convention.

Point 2, is what the other side claim, it isn't only POV, but it is the Turkish government POV, while it is mixed with the bunch, without indicating who believes what... something Coolcat was against with from the beginning. I will object on that, and i do believe that it is against NPOV, to mix everything as equal, without indicating who believes what. I have included a “Turkish government” section, but Coolcat deleted it, in fact, Coolcat even deleted the fact that in April 24, Armenian intellectuals were jailed and killed, something that even the other side recognize. Do you really think in those circumstances that it is possible to discuss with someone, that does not only want POV to be introduced, but his OWN POV?

Point 3, The Turkish human right organization report abuses each months, another Turkish human right organization “Info-Turk” even publish each months, and its articles can be accessed on line. The “Armenian claims” and the claim of freedom is simply untrue, when considering the countless numbers of people having been jailed.

Point 4, two websites added, one of those relevant articles are contained in another website already included, the other site, which is claimed to be by Turkish and Western scholars is Torques website, and I have shown clearly fabrications, quotes supposedly coming from works, when the quotes were not in the pages and the works mentioned, other times, a work that do not exist, a fabricated quote etc... copypasted from the newsgroups, and when the originator was a legendary spammer of the 90s. Fadix 01:52, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Coolcat, without attacking Fadix, what's your response to this? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 02:24, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

We have to clarify one thing. Relevancy, you should not, none of you, in anyway try to degrade my or anyones credibility based on what they did on a linked article. What I did elsewhere is irrelevant while we are discussing.

1. Carectising it as Genocide will mean the article acknowleges that as a fact. Characterising it as Relocation apperantly acknowleges the deniel. My intention was not that, I just wanted to use a word that was more neutral. I suggests using both words, ie Armenian Genocide/Relocation on the sole fact that there are claims disputing the classification of the event as Genocide, it would be futile to claim that anyone suggesting it wasnt a genocide as "a bunch of biased and misguided people" dont take this as an attack but all I am saying is views of the other party classifiying the thing should be pointed out.

Characterizing as genocide only confirm the title of the article. Read the UN convention, and even revisionists like McCarthy admit that using the UN convention for genocides, it would still be classified as genocide when one uses your theses. Relocation suggest a success of resettlement, since most that were “relocated” perished, there is no way to call it “relocation.” Furthermore, using such term as relocation mislead the reader into believing that only that happened. While the Armenian genocide is a very vast subject. Another thing you fail to understand, wherever or not one event could be classified as genocide is not your job, but rather international bodies like the UN. This is why for instance Gilbert in his work of World War I, report the qualification among scholars, while he report how the Armenian community was destroyed. An academic try to show or not the intend of the Ittihadist party who dissolved the government to enter in the war. That is what the subject is all about... if the UN classify an event as genocide, end of the story, those in charge of qualifications have already qualified the event, and not you or anyone can change that fact. It is called genocide, and any symposiums and conferences about genocide in history refer to the Armenian cases. Fadix 16:01, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Aperantly you are convinced its a solid fact and views fo the other party in this discussion is unimportant. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 22:29, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

1. If russian involvement is documented, that may be presented.

No, that the Armenians soon in the war engaged in massacring Muslim by joining the Russians, is not documented, this is just a big lie, and even the official Turkish foreign ministry affair archives publication don't show such, neither Germany or Austria report something like that. You not only have used what has been build by Refik Department II bureau to justify the decision, but you have entirely ignored that Refik himself wrote a booklet admitting that those were lies build to justify the decision against the Armenians. Djemal himself was even not aware of anything such. You can not just post lies like that, that are not only POV, but that they are even not documented from the revisionist sides, and that the only collection of files used were admitted to be fabrication by one of the leading figures that participated in their fabrication. Fadix 16:01, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You want to assumue armenians were a hundered percent innocent, thats rather fanatic. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 22:29, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

       I did not object the "intellectuals were jailed and killed" material, I commented out for review, instead of rewriting you reverted it. That was a mistake. I commented out lots of sections that was worded improperly. You dont say "Armenians were murdered" you say "Armenians are killed" this is how we say things on wikipedia. You cannot declare anything that suggests Armenian genocide as "propoganda". It must have a basis. It would not be right for either party of the story, PRO-ANTI genocide, to assume pure innocence, however neither nation should be insulted. An example: "Tratious Armenians" is definately unacceptable. Instead you can say "Armenian Rebelion" or something even more neutral.

There is a clear distinction between killed and murdered, you are again playing the same game you've played with the “concentration camps.” While this is how it is called by the very large majority of people, you just want the words used by a minority, this is not how we do it here at Wikipedia, and as a veteran you should know it. When the special organization was sent to escort the Armenians, they were committing murder and NOT killing, when the Ittihadist was sending them, they were sending them to murder Armenians. Fadix 16:01, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You want to assumue armenians were a hundered percent innocent, thats rather fanatic. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 22:29, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

1. That is politics, article cannot be based around politics. It can be mentioned in the aproporate tone. Preferably at the VERY END of the article where POVs, Interpretations should be placed.

You are the one that want to include political views, you want the Turkish government version to be presented as equally truth as what is said by the Academic world, this is not how we do it in Wikipedia.Fadix 16:01, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Aperantly you are trying to ignore this as a disputed matter for you your views are solid facts you will not back down untill others give up. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 22:29, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

       Turkish Human Rights Organisation is not an institiution that in anyway is related to the "Armeinan Genocide". Turkey has their own internal problems and this article is not related to turkeys internal problems today. You cannot and should not try to create an aurora of "Evil Turks". Same could be said for the United States, if I recall the a "Black" been beaten to death by "White" cops. This does not mean the goverment supports the incident. As far as I know such "Abuses" is declared illegal in Turkey. Lots of people get jailed in every country, your point? I do not care what "organisation A" claims, I care about what their claims are based on, which evidence?

That the Turkish human right organization recognize the Armenian genocide, is related with the Armenian genocide, that many from whom were jailed for this recognition IS related with the Armenian genocide. That now under the Turkish penal code, someone recognizing the genocide could be sued and jailed for over 10 years, IS related with the Armenian genocide, and your other alias just hijacked that part. Fadix 16:01, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I dont see how this supports hisoric material. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 22:29, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

1. External websites should be reexamined, you cant declare it "POV, bad". Thats what we can do after we are done with the rest of the article. Propoganda links from either side is unacceptable no matter which version they support.

No way, that is stupid, the reason why I have deleted that website had nothing to do with POV, obviously each side might present POV, I deleted that website because it had quotes that were build in the newsgroups by Multu and his aliases, the website was assassinating academics characters, and was in the limit of legality, the website has racist characterizations, such as an email by racist professor Ozan, that was claiming Armenians to be the lowest form of life. That website is Torques website, and I have shown how he has used non-existing materials. This is beyond POV, if I claim that on page 22 of a book, this quote exist, but after checking, the quote in fact did not exist, neither on that page, or anywhere in the book, my claim is not only not credible, but it is a fraud. The other site from the Turkish government, all the relevant stuff there are present on the other sites, so it is just quoting another site with the same materials. Fadix 16:01, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

So anybody who does not share your views are racist? You are not willing to discuss. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 22:29, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

1. A considerable amount of people worldwide think The "Genocide" was a bad consecuence of a good intention. MOST people dont care. They have other things they are investigating, there is more in history than Armenian Genocide, most scientists do not investigate the armenian genocide. There isnt a concensius involving Turkey either, you may call that "denial" or "pov" (not in the article), which is fine, but you cannot declare anything said that supports against genocide as propoganda.

You were the one yapping “Armenian propaganda,” what I report and have against, is not propaganda, propaganda does not necessarily mean that something is a lie. But you can not edit the article and introduce personal POV, like you have done, you can not present things that are even not POV, but beyond, because they could even not be supported when using your sides own materials. Wikiepdia is not the place for that... you can ask me to support any points there was in the previous article, before Tony committed a major mistake, and I will load references from Turkish, German and Austrian sources. And mind you here that Germany and Austria were Ottoman allies. Fadix 16:01, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

So you are saying that there is 0 propoganda and now are lecturing me what is wikipedia material and what isnt, your views are fanatical, I want to discuss things that appear to be unacceptable. You cant sacrifice hence talking wth you is pointless. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 22:29, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

1. I am not here to proove/disproove the genocide. All I want is article contain less POV more factual evidence. I want to recheck the validity on each and every statement in the article. There is lots of Propoganda from Either side, Armenian propoganda is more wide spread as Turkish propoganda is confined to the country. On 24th april on campus we have the Armenian Genocide day posted on every wall window, toilet door, everywhere. While I never seen anything remotely regarding the Turkish claim. I attend such things. Attendance was... not much, we had about 20 people in a 100+ lecture hall. People talked pro genocide of course. I listened and left quietly. I even had taken notes.

Besides, the Armenian side might be more active in such spheres, but it has no weight, in where it matters, the Turkish government found and fund university departments, directly pay scholars(see chronicle of higher education, and a publication in the Holocaust and Genocide studies etc.)... the Turkish government directly pressurize countries to not recognize the genocide. E.g, the US was to recognize it, Turkey pressurized it with repercussions, such as closing the US bases in Turkey etc. Obviously your side has more weight here. Fadix 16:01, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, I do not know who has more weight, if that was the case noone in eu would have regognised genocide. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 22:29, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

1. I am willing to forget past hostilities and start from scratch, I propose my color scheme to talk. You are welcome to use it. If you do so will I. Information avalible at: User:Coolcat/mediat

--Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 04:00, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am not interested in your color scheme, neither interested in your mediation, you can not mediate this place, when your intention is to dissolve the article. Fadix 16:01, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes, you are not willing to doscuss and cant agree on anything that disagrees with you. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 22:29, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I expected you to answer my above answer, but you had nothing to say, but I expected that.

• Questioning the innocence of a group or an ethnic group is racistic in nature, anothger comment made by nationalist Turks. But of course, I hope you are not denying anymore being a nationalist Turk. Are you?

• Do you actually believe that by just writing things that have nothing to do with what I wrote, people will believe you've actually brought an argument?

• This is not about supporting or not, but rather presenting who believes what, and this is important.

• OK then, you wanted it, you will get it, just let post professor Ozan message regarding the Armenians: "You Armenians claim that you are the direct descendents of Prophet Noah. What a self-serving braggadocio! According to your 'fable' you were saved from the deluge by prophet Noah taking you the Armenians into his wooden barge. It is reported in the Bible that he took two of every kind of creature, at the height of those terrible floods, those who would otherwise be destined to drown. He must have taken at least two of your kind into his ship also."

"But let us not forget that he also took in among other creatures, Hyenas, snakes, leeches and scorpions too. I got a hunch that he was not very happy that he had given the Armenians a ride. He is heard afterwards saying the following: "What a mistake have I committed? What a wonderful place this GOD's earth could have been If I had not taken them in with us to be transported to dry lands."

"Those are pretty sad words, Mr. Gasparian, but not mine. Mine would be: "Let even the Armenians live among us. There is still hope that they may be transformed eventually into some acceptable creatures. There is still hope for them even, because look at history! It is replete with primitive mortals who were the most uncivilized, the most cruel, the most boodthirsty people of their times: the "Vikings." Since we can count all Scandinavians, the descendents of the Vikings nowadays amongst the most civilized, most humane, most peaceful members of wordly society of human beings, who knows, Mr. Gasparian, your kind also, one day, will see the light and emulate the Vikings. At least that is my fervent wish for you and for your people."" But you know what? I think I'll leave it to that, unless you want me to post the juicy comments in the site regarding the Armenians? Or the examples of non-existing works and character assassinations against academics? The site is on the limit of legality, if any of those slandered on Torques site were to know his name, Torque would find himself with serious lawsuits.

• Actually, it is the other way around, talking with you is pointless, you want the article to contain your POV, you can just not do that. And yes! I am lecturing you on what are Wikipedia materials and what are not, because you still fail to understand.

• Actually, the fact that they do recognize the genocide after all the pressure, is an evidences on how the facts are just too strong.

• You are lying here, don;t forget that I have added a section to present the Turkish government version, you preferred deleting it, because you want all the article to be the Turkish government version. I was ready to make many compromises, you have from the beginning made none. Fadix 01:26, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am a newbie so please go easy if I make any mistakes. I just want to say I disagree with CoolCats point two. In reference to wording with killing or murdered. The words kill or murder do not have the same meaning. Killin someone does not suggest intent (while it might be there). For example "John killed Tim in a car accident". Murder suggest by definition intent to kill. So murder does not happen by accident. This is why it is a harsher word. Not neccessarily because of the words connoctations but rather because it has a different meaning. It is saying something different. I believe if in fact the usage of murder is factual it should be used as it is a a more descriptive word. It is more desriptive, in the same way as rape is more descriptive than sex. It is basically telling the reader more, the simple act of using the word in a factual situation is not a POV. Also a thing to note is that other articles indeed do use the word murder. Perhaps you should either point out their mistakes or accept the usage of the word murder is ok. Meok 06:26, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes. But the nature of this article requires "politicaly correct terms". It is best to write contraversial articles this way. There is a wing disputing it and there is a wing that want the world to accept it. Kill works for both groups as you can kill by intending it, while it can also be accidental. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 09:31, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I disagree so do many other articles. To demonstrate that here is a link that shows all the pages that link to the murder article. This shows it is acceptable for use. It shows that it is "politically correct". And as long as it is correct (factually) it should be used. I assume that if you maintain the postion that murder is not "politically correct" you will complain about its use in other articles which also use the term. Meok 10:45, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Two thins

1. There are more important things to discuss in this artcile.
2. Murder will acknowlege genocide, hence in aproporate, unless the material as archived supports it murder cant be used. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 11:33, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I recomend we start Working towards consensus rtaher than petty argument of words. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 11:34, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What I've been saying is your 2nd point, Coolcat, that if factually correct ie there is material that supports it, the word murder should be used. If it isn't factual, if there isn't evidence then obviously the word murder shouldn't be use. "Political correctness" shouldn't come into it, due to reasons stated before. Correct? One step at a time. Meok 12:03, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree that faddish concepts like "political correctness" have no place in an encyclopedia. Mass murder is the correct term to use here if people were forced out of their homes and carried away in a way that could predictably cause them to die in great numbers. There may be some people who legitimately cast doubt on the question of whether it was planned, but the effect was clear and must have been clear both before and during the genocide. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:40, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You fail to see that the "mass murder" part is been disputed... --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 22:29, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Mass murder?

Can we all agree on these facts?

1. The Armenians were removed from their homes by force.
2. The Ottomans did not provide anything like adequate facilities to care for these people during transportation or when they arrived.
3. Hundreds of thousands of people died as a consequence.
4. This consequence was forseeable prior to, and during, the transportation.

--Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:02, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Can we all agree on THESE facts?

1. The Armenians were removed from their homes by force.
2. The Ottomans did not provide any facilities to care for these people during transportation or when they arrived. Rather, the Ottoman troops "escorting" the Armenians as a matter of course both allowed others to rob, kill, rape the Armenians, even preventing those who could have otherwise purchased their own food, and often participated in this activity themselves.
3. Hundreds of thousands of people, possibly surpassing a million died as a consequence.
4. This consequence was forseeable prior to, and during, the transportation.

--RaffiKojian 03:07, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

nothing new under the sun

Unfortunately, the denial of Holocaust by nationalists is nothing new under the sun. The Germans did it before 1945 and neo-nazi's still do it. The Japanese deny they the fact that they put my grandfather in a concentration camp in Birma, the Turkish government jails writers who describe the Armenian holocaust. In my view, "historical revisionism" is incompatible with the philosophy of Wikipedia!

Thanks to the anti-elitist and anti-academic policy here, of course... wait and see when physic entries will be edited by co-religionists. It is disgusting how national biases are considered as equal as decades of Academic research by thousands of specialists. I am losing trust on Wikipedia entire project. Fadix 19:48, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I do not understand what is so difficult about "proove your facts". What kind of a scientist investigating this genocide are you if you do not have the archive numbers of the documents you are dealing with? I want verifyable facts in the document. That is clearly my standing, any interpretation should be done 50:50 of such documents but sellections be presented raw. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 20:00, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Of course you HAVE NO PROBLEM with the edit, when the edit makes statments that are not neutral in their tones, less than any of my edits were. As for "proving," all my edits were justified with references in the talk page and such... with references to the Martial Court etc. The footnotes that I was going to provide were things that I have already discussed about, and the origin of the statments were clearly writen in MY VERSION, and you had a problem with it, while you don't seem to have any problem with the balatant lies in the actual article, when some of them can even not be supported from the other side. You see how no one should trust you? You lie about you, you lie about everything, and then you play the innocent being attacked, and when people go against you, you dump them all toegether and you claim they are clones. As for the 50:50, forget about it, you will never obtain it. I mad MANY concession, MANY, I EVEN ADDED A SECTION FOR THE TURKISH GOVERNMENT VERSION, BUT YOU DELETED IT, BECAUSE YOU WANTED THE ENTIRE ARTICLE TO BE THAT VERSION. Ad Adam said for the other entry you were hijacking, go get another entry, and stop it. Fadix 20:11, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

twoversions template

At the suggestion of another administrator, I have switched the protection template to "twoversions", which includes links to the other version and also the difference between the two. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:58, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As I see, you are even not admitting your OBVIOUS mistake. Fadix 19:46, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You are using too many lead :'s and you are over reacting, not being polite either. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 20:00, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

picture

Here is a picture for the right version:

File:Turkish-genocide-killed-more-than-one-and-a-half-million-Armenians.jpg

Armenians killed during the Armenian genocide

That picture is nothing compared to others. I had planned to add pictures myself, but nationalist revisionists like Coolcat have interupted any advance in the articles progression. Fadix 19:49, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes thats a dead person. Thank you, thats all it is. Also stop it with your personal attacks. Declare me things more such as "nationalist revisionists". That is like declaring me as a Nazi and is not permitted on wikipedia. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 19:55, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That picture shows people died. That pictire does not show the guy, and probably more in the bg been murdered by Turkish troops. Your facts are not the only facts. This article will not be your version only. I cannot tell if that person is Armenian or African, personaly. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 19:55, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oh no, he's not a Turk... ignorant, most pictures of Armenian victims were taken by Germans, OTTOMAN ALLIES, there are pictures of hundreds of bodies, bones, in each of them. There are of calcified soil, if you know how much bone it takes for the calcification of the soil, do the math. Oh yeh!!! I guess, the Germans were just presenting fake pictures of Armenian victims to slander their OWN. ALLIES!!! Fadix 20:21, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Look, I am not claiming they are fake. I can understand how important it is for you to present this article a fact. However, this does not give you the right to acuse me of things, declare me of things. Naming the file as "Turkish-genocide-killed-more-than-one-and-a-half-million-Armenians" is just not fair. You wont push your views in this article the way you are doing. For every fact I need evidence. Lets start what we have in common as far as material is concerned. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 22:21, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I understand how it is important for you to wage a war in every articles involving Turkey. However, this does not give you the right to accuse me of things, declare me things. Where the file was named what you claim? The original article was just presenting what parties were saying, and there even was a section for the Turkish government view, but this did not satisfy you at all, since you deleted it, you wanted all the article to represent your views. You claim wanting evidences, but when I present them, you claim that this site is not there to “prove” anything but presenting views, when I do that, you claim wanting “proves.” The article was to present who says what, you always objected to that, while it had everything to do with what a NPOV article was about. Oh another thing, the only persons telling that pictures can not be used to identify people as being Armenians, are Turks. Fadix 22:31, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Coolcat, this has nothing to do with what I say as being facts, the article was supposed to present positions, each sides positions and their critics, as simple as that, you refused... I then, tried to work on your request, you again refused... you want the article to present innacurate informations and present them as facts... such as deleting that most recognize the genocide etc. and present two positions as equaly valid. Fadix 13:59, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You refused discussing, prooving evidence, It was a suggestion just like 10's you did not like. Present me a way to do this article that will get us a neutral article. How should we do it?

Fresh Start #3

Ok, lets take this slow. You are welcome to use my color scheme, if you do so will I.

• I suggest we establish what both pro-anti genocide spheres accept. Also what point of the issue is disputed by either party.
• I suggest no personal attacks no one should be discussing how horrible a person is. We had over a meg worth of this. Enough.

--Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 05:34, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Run #1

• Hundereds of thousands, possibly over a million Armenians died. Any opposition? --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 05:34, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No. --RaffiKojian 03:49, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

So Armenians did not die? --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 22:32, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You asked "Any opposition?". I answered "No." Clear now? --RaffiKojian 17:29, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Mass number of Armenians were requested to move, reasons are open to debate. Any opposition? --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 05:34, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Of course. Nobody was "requested" to move. They were either murdered outright or TOLD they were moving. Everything is open to debate, but they are quite clear to everyone familiar with the subject. As has been said before, the consequense of the deportation would obviously be death, and those ordering it would have to have intended that. Have you read "Survivors" by the Millers? You really should. --RaffiKojian 03:49, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You should realy read the NPOV article. We can work on the wording. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 22:32, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

First, sorry for suggesting you possibly read a primary source, but I strongly believe you should read that book. Second, I assume you mean the current article when you say "the NPOV article" - even though you must know I do not find it NPOV. In which case - yes I have read it. Do you want me to suggest an alternative text/wording for the article? I don't understand. --RaffiKojian 17:29, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• This consequence was forseeable prior to, and during, the transportation.

Not sure, sounds plausable, wording should be important. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 22:32, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Again - are you asking for my suggested wording?--RaffiKojian 17:29, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• The Ottomans did not provide any facilities to care for these people during transportation or when they arrived. Rather, the Ottoman troops "escorting" the Armenians as a matter of course both allowed others to rob, kill, rape the Armenians, even preventing those who could have otherwise purchased their own food, and often participated in this activity themselves.

Not sure, sounds plausable, wording should be important. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 22:32, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

---

Cool Cat, please drop the color scheme - clearly nobody is interested despite your having brought it up numerous times. I suggest that if you are so keen on "discovering" the facts, which are already well known, you do some serious reading. But short of that (which you do not appear terribly interested in - rather you want to make sure this is not clearly described as a genocide), let us go ahead, and hash out the facts for the gazillionth time, because lord knows, every time someone new hears that there was a genocide and isn't sure whether to believe it, we should all drop everything we are doing and defend the facts from scratch. Sorry about the sarcasm, but this has got to be at least the 20th time I am doing this online. That is why I created the website - so you can go and read materials online, judging the sources yourself, and come to you conclusion. Oh well, I guess that was a waste as well... so back to the basics.

As I asked above, can you agree to THESE facts?

1. The Armenians were removed from their homes by force.
2. The Ottomans did not provide any facilities to care for these people during transportation or when they arrived. Rather, the Ottoman troops "escorting" the Armenians as a matter of course both allowed others to rob, kill, rape the Armenians, even preventing those who could have otherwise purchased their own food, and often participated in this activity themselves.
3. Hundreds of thousands of people, possibly surpassing a million died as a consequence.
4. This consequence was forseeable prior to, and during, the transportation.

discussed above. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 22:32, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If not, please answer very convincingly why you could still have major doubts about any of these. In fact, if you disagree, then please provide some evidence that they are not true. --RaffiKojian 03:32, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

PLease discuss above. Establishing the comon ground is first step in resolving conflicts. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 22:34, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

New related entry

Ottoman_Armenian_Population More would be added in it, after I complete the entry regarding the Armenian losses. As one can see, every points are supported by footnotes and references, and even Turkish ones. -Unsigned, likely fadix

Even Torque has not gone as far as getting involved in everything that could relate to Turkey. You have even pl;aced in Musa Dagh book talk page, the banner of controversial, when it is about a damn book. Fadix 23:55, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Coolcat, what will you answer?

Who beside the Turks call the genocide theses as "Armenian propaganda." Don't escape it, answer me please. Fadix 23:52, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I do not know, I do know Armenians added facts that arent facts but merely propoganda material. While I am not suggesting everything you provide me as pure BS created by propoganda, I require archive material to make sure the material is factual. Often the documents dont say much. Then youll have to interprete the meaning. For all cases both sides views should be presented unbisased. I believe Turks argue with the clarification of the issue not the facts beind it. The motives are questionable as far as both parties are concerned. Pro-Anti genocdie parties agree with a good portion of the materal.

We will have our disagreements I am sure. We can work on those one at a time. Lets asses what both parties strongly agree on.

Please do not simply dismiss what people say just because they may not support the genocide. This is how wikipedia works, like it or not.

Its easy to add material that is not in conflict between us. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 03:23, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Coolcat, you have called the genocide theses as "Armenian propaganda." Again, answer me, who besides Turks call it that? As for the materials, I have posted bunch of documents and materials in the Fadix analysis... you claimed it was not about proving but presenting views, when I do that, you get them deleted to merge them and to get the entire article to represent the Turkish government point of view... and then you require proof, when I do that, you claim it is not about proving but to represent positions, when I do that, again you backtrack and ask for proves... this is the kind of contradictory sort of things I have to answer. Fadix 15:02, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If it is only your view that it is Armenian Propaganda then perhaps it shouldn't be stated in the article. Simply you saying you know it is isn't enough. Meok 06:38, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What the hell are you tlking about? I always had this tone, ... I repeat Coolcat, your answer does not satisfy me. Who besides Turks call the genocide theses as ": Armenian propaganda?" Fadix 13:55, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Nevermind, I though you finaly had a civilised tone. I was mistaken. Drop the caveman talk and be civil and polite, please. On 03:23, 4 Apr 2005 I answered the question "Who besides Turks call the genocide theses as Armenian propaganda?". I do not care if it satisfies you or not. I stated armenians have significant propoganda involved in their case. The armenian Genocide is promoted on universities worldwide, while no Turkish views are mentioned. There is room for propoganda there. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 22:09, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Coolcat, you did not answer my question. Who besides Turks claim the genocide theses to be "Armenian propaganda." A simple question that need a simple answer. Fadix 22:35, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I gave you a smple answer. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 00:09, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Your answer was "I do not know, I do know Armenians added facts that arent facts but merely propoganda material.". In other words you sidestepped the answer. Meok 01:40, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You mean not one "fact" regarding Armenian Genocide was a product of Armenian propoganda? --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 10:32, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Never claimed that rather I said you did not answer the question past saying that your opinion of what is propaganda is simply just your opinion.

Do not...

• ...cut IN my discussion unless you have to, copy my sic to every seperation of my discussion. Embeded messages are not welcome.--Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 22:09, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• ...refrain from bold tag. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 22:09, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• ...do not insult me, dont declare anyone not credible because they are nationalist/reservionist/a troll/satanist/anything else --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 22:09, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• ...do not claim POV is Vandal. It is not. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 22:09, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• ...do not discuss me, discuss the article. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 22:09, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Here comes again Coolcat arrogant tone, believing he owns this site. Fadix 22:11, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Insulting me, pointing out how horible I am declaring POV as Vandal is how we run wikipedia. We allow users credibility to be destroyed by personal insults. Cutting in embaded msgs are always welcome that way people will not know who said what. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 22:22, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That is arrogance, is it not?--Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 22:20, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Coolcat, why are you throwing words where they do not fit? You remind me a new alias in that regard. Peoples credibility are only destroyed based on what they say. You are a vandal and a troll, that Tony agree or not, this is what you are. Fadix 22:34, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have reviewed the two articles and the talk of this last weekend - and I repeat - there is no hope in this approach

Unless it is one's intention to promote advocacy of largely unsupported revisionism and muddy the truth. Frankly I don't much like either article. I have not much hope at all that there will ever be anything decent here as we can see from the charges and countercharges - there is really no "middle ground" on most of this and any "middle ground" is likely not the truth besides.

Obviously if we are stuck on use of the term "Genocide" - questioning if it is historically accurate/inaccurate - then yes - we have problems. It is only politically controversial - it is otherwise completely accepted. Why is the Armenian Genocide given recognition for/as such at Genocide conferences and when (cross disciplinary) Genocide scholars discuss genocide denial if it is not considered as genocide? And for Coolcat to state "why should we care what scholars think - because they are biased" etc - well - I thought it was Turkey's position to leave the issue to the historians. Well I think the historians have spoken. If we are to take a political position as equivalent to the historical position - well it makes me wonder how other articles in Wikipedia might look with this approach.

And again - what Coolcat is advocating is essentially to let the Holocaust denier have an equal voice to that of legitimate scholars, historians and in the face of accepted truth. I have scanned (read in its entirely actually) the talk pages since I last posted - and what I see is clear advocacy. Coolcat is not objective and this "approach" is a ruse. For one - to refuse to use the term "murder" when this is clearly what has occurred. Again - I find Coolcat's statement - repeated several times –

"You want to assume Armenians were a hundred percent innocent, thats rather fanatic. --Cool Cat My Talk 22:29, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)"

highly offensive. To suggest that the hundreds of thousands - and yes perhaps/likely million plus innocent human beings - who were brutally

murdered

that somehow they were not innocent - that they deserved it....and to accuse one of fanaticism for believing that these innocents were such - well I am offended (he clearly either is completely ignorant or is just hateful, callous and mean) - and I think Armenians are deserving of an apology. If I were to go over to the Holocaust page now - and state that anyone who believes that the Jews were innocent (with the implication that they were deserving of their slaughter) and I think I might do this - and put a link to this discussion page - just what do you think the reaction might be?

Fadix has issued a challenge to all who advocate that Armenians were somehow equal perpetrators against innocent Turks - to prove such - to prove massacres of Turks in 1914 or 1915 on any kind of scale. I even believe that there were isolated instances of such - as there have been sporadic massacres of Armenians by Turks and particularly Kurds, Circassians (Cherkes) and others over the proceeding 50-100 years - and clearly quite disproportionately so. So some misguided Armenian “gangs” did taken retribution upon innocent Turkish citizens – yes – it is clear that this did happen in some places – and my heart grieves for those whose families suffered this senseless violence – but likewise Armenians have regularly been slaughtered by Kurdish bandit chiefs and such - even so - does this justify the terrible crimes that were committed against the Armenian population – such to wipe it out completely? Why were no such steps taken to curb the Kurdish violence against the Armenians if the Ottomans had such a sense of peace and justice?

No – this was different. The Armenians were deliberately killed – and for a number of reasons (and we should examine the wartime conditions and the swing of revolutionary zeal and societal stress – these are all factors certainly to what occurred) – but do not deny what did happen! The article must focus on the plight of the Armenians who were slaughtered if the relevancy of such events is to be portrayed in its rightful truthful manner. This is the overwhelming truth – the reason for this issue – the why we care – and it is as factual and true – unfortunately so – as any known historical event that has occurred on the planet – so we must deal with this – and not hide our heads in the sand and cry that such a thing never occurred. First and foremost this must be acknowledged!

I am not opposed at all for discussing the circumstances and the whys and such – and in fact I have developed a rather comprehensive outline if the approach we finally settle on is one of a complete presentation in all contexts (but I warn this may need to go far beyond just some encyclopedia article to do it justice). However I must emphasize that it is entirely clear that no real body of evidence supports the jist of official Turkish Thesis (and much of what is offered was poor untrue and massively exaggerated propaganda from the time designed to incite violence against Armenians)– and we cannot give credence to unsupported claims that Armenians of this period did such violence against Turks on any truly noticeable or widespread scale (an argument might be able to be made that the Young Turks – knowing how easily they got into power and also seeing the success the other minorities had at breaking away – overreacted – pure and simple…still what was done was done…) – However it is clear that the Ottoman Turks – led by the (by then) xenophobic Young Turk party – planned and committed a deliberate policy of a state slaughter of one of its minority peoples (and actually more then one – as Assyrians and Greeks were killed too) – they employed the state apparatus for massive repression and brutality and they carried it out to its most inhumane and terrible ends.

There can be no rational claim that in any way were Armenians responsible for the kind of mass crimes against humanity as what the Ottoman Armenians experienced at the hand of the Turks – you have no case to present such – it is entirely untrue and it is a travesty of justice blame the victims and to suggest such and it is an affront to all of the innocent victims who were slaughtered and brutalized – lives forever ended – forever altered – survive or persih. To suggest such and then to claim to be an impartial moderator is just an out an out travesty and you sir have really gone too far here! --THOTH 20:49, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Response

Please try not to embed other users messages like that. Your views regard genocide as deliberate killing, ie murder. There is another view like it or not sugests that it wasnt intentional. Wikipedia Neutral Point of View article dictates that article be written in accordince to both views. If you do not want a 50:50 aproach, I need documentation and hard evidence for you to support your case, otherwise this is nothing more than a dispute, I need to have some offical goverment "deliberately kill" order, otherwise it can and will be disputed. I am sorry but I insist that you should keep your Point of View regarding the matter off of the topic like I am. You never saw me acusing Armenians of anything in the article, but judging from some web sites there was a revolt or revolt like movement among some Armenians. Please summerise your cases, this isnt a forum, you are rambling on the same words over and over. I cannot allow propoganda to be on this article. I need you to proove your cases. It is a two sided discussion. Dont ignore the othersides views, which I am not that otherside, some historians are. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 21:18, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Here square one. Coolcat, there are admissions in the Armenian cases that can not be found in any other instances of genocides. And I have presented many from Turkish records in Fadix analysis. But of course by then... you did not wanted proves. "I have endeavored to wipe out the Armenian nation to the last individual" (onferdine kadaryok etmeye gah$tigim Ermeni milleti) Halil Pasa, Ittihad ve Terakkiden Cumhuriyete: Bitmeyen Sava§ (From Ittihad ve Terakki to the Republic: The Unending Fight) (Istanbul, 1972), p. 241

This was General Halil memoirs, the Supreme General of the East and Enver(the minister of war) Uncle. General Ilham himself testified as well not trying to leave a single Armenian alive in the zone he controlled. Commander of the third army, General Vehib,(the zone where most of the butchery happened) wrote a 12 pages affidavit, by an admission nowhere found in any other instances of genocides. And I have quote from it it in “Fadix analysis.” He testify the way the Ittihadist party has planned and executed the extermination of the Armenians. Mr. Torque as a result, claimed that it is not because Generals plan such acts that it means that the government planned it. But he had yet to explain why not only those generals were placed there, and some very close in the party(Halil), but as well Governors. Not any serious historian deny that the Armenian genocide happened, no serious historian claims there is no evidences. Yves Ternon has even written that the evidences used the prove the Armenian genocide happened are evidences higher than those used to write any other historical events. Was there Armenian revolt in 1914? Well, I thought this in the beginning, but after an extensive research, I am forced to conclude there was NO revolt at that date, was the cases about 1894, you might have some ground to claim that, but not for 1914. In fact, even the official Turkeys foreign ministry released Ottoman archives, the first one by chronology is dated in March 2, and concerns the deportation of Armenians and asked that revolts be prevented, and not be the deportation because of a revolt. Which means that Armenians were not moved because they were revolting. In fact, records from the Germans back in late 1914 shows that crimes against Armenians have started before any single Armenian incidences reported. This is entirely different than other instances in which you could have used the “revolt” claim. Even Gurun works report of Enver official announces of the law of “resettlement” it is referred to the “danger” the Armenians have been in the past, but nearly nothing about the danger they have shown to be during the war. In Feb. 1915, after Enver got his @ss saved before by an Armenian brigade after his defeat in the Russian front, felicitated the Armenians for their loyalty, while the same months the order of destruction has been promulgated during a meeting. And those are as well documented. But of course, when faced with evidences Coolcat, will claim this is not about proving. There is nothing such as 50:50, serious historians don't deny the genocide, and this is a historical event, therefore should present the cases as it is recognized by most historians. And I have no problem leaving a place for the Turkish government version, but as you have refused at the beginning, I expect you to refuse again. Fadix 21:59, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thoth, I don't agree with my version either, but I made many concessions, and that is why it seems to give more weight to revisionists than they worth it. But this does not satisfy them, they wish the article to be the Turkish government political version. As for apology, don't expect any from Coolcat. Fadix 22:10, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You should be the one to apologise for the level of insults fadix. Seems like it is necesary for you to destroys peoples credibilty by making them revisionsist/Turkish/whatever. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 22:17, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC) Historians apperantly widely accept whatever fadix says. I dont want your analysis, I want the documents' archive numbers in question. Majority doesnt make right. A disputed aricle cannot be truley neutral if it starts neutral. Just because you think something isnt NPOV doesnt make it not NPOV. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 22:17, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC) You are taling about things you are claiming things you are not iclined to provide the documents. Is that it? I want to know which selection is from wich archive material. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 22:17, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Coolcat, I judge people on personal bases, I accuse someone and not a “nation.” While you were shouting “Armenian propaganda” here and there, I termed your behavior as denial and you as a denialist. I have no apology to make to you, because all what I said about you were what I believed and are grounded. And when I claimed you to be a Turk, it was not an insult, neither an attack, but rather a question of honesty. How do you expect me to believe that you will accept facts when they are presented, when you deny something that as we speak, no one will argue about, the fact that you are a “nationalist” Turk. As I have shown, there is more chances for me to win the lottery jackpot than you not being what I say. And no, I am not trying to destroy your credibility by claiming you to be a Turk, peoples words should be judged based on what they say, and not who they are, this is why I do not hide my ethnicity to anyone. True, Historians apparently widely accept what I say. But “WHY” do they accept it? You don't want them to be referred, you don't consider works published as evidences but you want archives. Coolcat, now follow my advice, read what is in “Fadix Analysis” while first you claimed that it was nothing to do with proving, now you want proves. But I just referred to Halils memoirs... and many other records are in Fadix analysis. Archives references are abound in works treating about the subject, instead of wasting our times with your rhetorics of “I want proves” read few works about the topic. I know, for you, historians are not people to trust in what concerns history, but I say, maybe, yes, maybe, you could change your mind. In two months Coolcat, the official translation(English translation) of the German archival records that are due for publication in a week or so in German original language... why don't you spent few dozens of dollars to buy it, and spare us with all this nonsense you spew here? Fadix 22:31, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sir Dr. Fadix, please drop the Mr. as I asked several times, thanks --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 22:39, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Reading fadix analysis is what I have done, Ill re read it. Why dont you rpovide the archive numbers, I believe you have the archives. If you havent seen the archives and dont know they are there, how certain are you they exist? --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 22:39, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am NOT Turkish. I do not care if you accept it or not. Stop talking about it though. Talk about the article not me. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 22:39, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

From the way I was educated, Mr. Is a mark of respect.

Second, are you talking about the German archives? I have a scan of an original, do you perhaps want the picture to be posted?

Third, you seem to not have a clue of what the word “archive” means, perhaps a dictionary may help you. I provided you a memoir from Envers Uncle, you wanted an admission, and I posted it to you. There are records from General Paraquin, a German General, and the “Fadix analysis” actually quote many documents, as well as the archives in this discussion. You lie when you say you have read Fadix analysis, if you did not lie, than you done have sincere intentions to claim there is no archival records there. Read for instance my covering of Malta, it contains records from Turkish and British sources, such records are called “archives” as for “archive numbers” it is not called “archive numbers” if you refer to the archival classification ID, more particularly the BOA etc. Turkish records.

Perhaps do you want me to quote from Mevlan Zade Rifat “Turkie inkilabinin ic uyzu, Halep,” published in 1929???... the Verbatim of the Feb. meeting of the decision for the destruction of the Armenians?

Oh, well, perhaps, does Coolcat want me to quote Ottoman official archives guarded by the National assembly?

Coming to you not being a Turk. Coolcat, you called the Ottoman Turks as your ancestors, you called Armenians as 'Armanians” in various occasions, you have written the special organization name with Turkish characters. You have called the genocide theses as “Armenian propaganda.” You made claims only published in the Turkish press, nowhere else. You got involved in every entries directly or indirectly involving Turkey you can get a hand on. And Those are just a few. Again Coolcat, this is a question of trust, you are in the same situation as the Turkish government here. You know others know, but admitting it will show you've been lying. Fadix 22:57, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Please avoid personal attacks. I suggest it would be more helpful to discuss the article than to discuss the motives of other editors. Jonathunder 23:02, 2005 Apr 4 (UTC)

I spent over a hundred pages on discussing on the article, the pther party was declaring it was not about "proving" but presenting positions, and now, the other party claims that historians are not to be trusted, works are not to be trusted... and when I refer to documents he claims where they are. In such cases, I believe questioning ones intention is the only thing left. Fadix 23:18, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It's very hard in this format of conversation to find an appropriate place to insert my reply. This reply is to Cool Cat's original post under "Response". --RaffiKojian 17:54, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Cool Cat - again you are repeating the same fallacy. Because Neo-Nazis deny the jewish holocaust, does not mean the article should present their side as equal. Also regardless of any "deliberately kill" order, there was a genocide. You apparently have not read Survivors - since you didn't reply affirmatively above. In towns across Anatolia the same things happened. Able men were taken away and largely murdered. Women, children and elderly were told they were being moved, and were walked to the desert being pillaged and murdered and kidnapped and raped along the way. NO PROVISIONS were ever recorded for any of them to eat, be sheltered, or housed at any destination. They were by and large marched towards Der El Zor desert. They were escorted by soldiers who participated in their demise - and often prevented them even from taking care of themselves along the way. These are the simple facts. There IS no dispute that all the Armenians were moved, right? None? On any side? Now then - there is not a single document showing that these violations of the Armenians, by the Turkish soldiers and under their watch were punished. There is no record of any food or shelter actually being provided. No "destination" with any tents or shelters or anything. Not only this - the Armenians weren't even allowed to provide these things for themselves, which many could afford to. This is a death sentence. Since all agree that the Armenians were forcibly removed by the Ottoman government, and unless you can show any evidence that any assistance or protection was provided, and all eyewitness accounts confirm that these people were treated across the Empire in a way which could only be expected to lead to deeath, then it was clearly, undeniably a genocide. Very simple really. The ICTJ study confirms it and so do all the scholars who have not directly recieved financial assistance from the Turkish Govt. --RaffiKojian 17:54, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Are you genuinely interested in the truth? Are you ever going to answer these particular points? Can you show anything detailing any food or shelter ever provided to these hundreds of thousands of people being relocated? These are critical points and they show up in my edit of the genocide article. --RaffiKojian 17:54, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Raffi, I would like to specify what you brought, because it is necessary to do so. The official Ottoman records released by the General Directorate of the States Archives, do claim that food were supplied, but on the other hand, and here is the point Taner Akcam raised in his work, there is no list of such a provision, which means that those were just reports of "do this" without actualy any provision. For instance, there are lists in the cases of the Muslims that were moved from the Russian empire, lists going even as far as vaccination records. Imagine the Ottoman Empire had such lists for people that were not their subjects, but had none for the people that were their subjects(Armenians). This is why Akcam writes: “The fact that neither at the start of the deportations, nor en route, and nor at the locations, which were declared to be their initial halting places, were there any single arrangement, required for the organization of a people's migration, is sufficient proof of the existence of this plan of annihilation.”

There is a differences between arrangement, and reports saying "provide foods" that the official archives contain, without any single lists. And this is how, during the tribunal, it was testified, that they had two set of document, one for public consuption saying: "feed them, give them food"(but without any lists on the relief that had to be recieved, neither any regarding how much recieved, which clearly show the "fake" nature of the official public consuption material), and on the other hand, other orders: "As soon as the Armenian convoys leave the cities and town, sent the special organization and the irregulars." And there were even documents as how much were actualy killed, and this is the investigation to know how much were killed took time to collect and calculate. And only the fact that the figure was even later recorded in a Turkish Official Military Book, indicate the "official" nature of the figure, without ignoring that it was even included in Bayur book, and Bayur himself affirmed them to be accurate data. Fadix 00:14, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In hope of finalising

I hope the disputants can stop the bickering and personal insults for a bit. It's sad that these insults are being reproduced faster than I can remove them.

It seems to me that we've got the basics of general agreement on the facts. The Armenians were removed from their homes by force and transported in circumstances that predictably resulted in many deaths, perhaps a million or so. There is no question of this. I am minded to let disputants produce their final words--and don't waste time responding to personal attacks, stick to the subject. When that has been done I will unprotect the page. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:31, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I cannot at all agree that we are anywere close to agreement. This Coolcat character has hijaked this issue and has insured that it will go around and around for ever with no resolution. He disputes the view of historians and genocide scholars and claims that we must include denialist views. This is clearly unacceptable. Could you imagine such being presented on the Holocaust page? This meets every criteria of genocide. This is accepted fact. And there was no Armenian revolt in any sense that Coolcat claims - the evidence supports the opposite - overwhelmingly - that these were innocent populations/people who were killed. To attempt to make this case and insist that unsupported denilaist propoganda claims be given equal weight to commonly accepted acholarship and overwhelming evidence on this matter is clearly unacceptabel - in fact it is an outrage. Until we can get beyond this there is no possibility of resolution here - and this seemingly is what he wants. Fadix has presented more factual and supported information on this matter then I have seen in other genocide and related articles - yet his presentation is essentially shuffled to the side and very ugly racist attacks have been allowed against him and against Armenians. For presentations affirming Genocide Coolcat insists on levels of doscumentation/citation/verification that are in some cases very difficult to get - yet these points are widely known and accepted as the truth. Meanwhile he entertains any counter argument no matter how flimsy and disproven and calls for giving equal time. Again - it is the same as giving Holocaust deniers equal time. I for one will not participate in such an exercise but will continue my valid protests until some sanity can prevail here. I think that Coolcat has already clearly been exposed as biased on this issue. He cannot be allowed to determine the content of this article. And Fadix has provided more then enough effort and evidence to be allowed a free hand to make a proper presentation. --THOTH 14:48, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

THOTH, you seem to be determined to turn this discussion into a personal attack. I certainly don't expect Coolcat to have any influence in the content of the article, because his view is in the minority and is unsupported by the facts. I want to ask you to set aside your harping on personal grievances and instead concentrate on the article. It seems to me that we have the makings of a good, solid consensus on article content--notwithstanding Coolcat's demurrals. Thus I won't be holding this article under protection much longer if I can possibly help it.

All I'm looking for is some sign that there is substantial agreement that the displacement of the Armenians was foreseeably homicidal in its execution. I think we can nearly all agree with this. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:59, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

THOTH - I know you're not excited by the layout of my working version - but why don't you go ahead and make the changes you'd like to see on there for us to look at? For the record, I think that ASALA should be on the page somewhere - especially the timeline, but that it should be a lead in to a thorough seperate article. --RaffiKojian 16:39, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Raffi - my changes would be substansial. I'm not certain I would want to introduce such in their entirety without some basic agreements regarding what I might include and the approach I might take. I think it is important that we clearly establish some undisputed facts - such as the use of the term genocide and what we are primarily talking about - the actions taken by the Young Turk controlled government aparatus - against the Armenian population - before preceeding. But yes - I would love to take a cut at this. In fact I have an outline for such - in a sense - however it is 2 pages handwritten! yeah I know...but its intention is for a documentary film I am proposing to produce...(so I may not want to share it all...) --THOTH 17:27, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

THOTH - I think you should outline the sections you want to have, and a one line summary of what would go there. I also think it seems clear we have a basic agreement that the events were a genocide, as that is how I proceeded with my rewrite. I tried to include all the relevant facts in the lead up to. Then the actual genocide, and then the aftermath of what happened. It seemed rather logical - but anyway, let's see what you have come up with (and want to share). --RaffiKojian 02:17, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

OK - but have patience. I'm approaching the deadline for tax filing and have some other obligations. My outline is not necessarily 100% appropriate for this presentation - as it is much concerned with the (prior) history - still I'll look it over and see if I can mod it and think what might be appropriate. --THOTH 13:36, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Concerning the legitimacy of using the term "genocide" in this case - and related issues

(note - I just posted this and it was seemingly deleted in its entirety. if someone is playing games here I suggest that they stop!)

the deletion was by User:RaffiKojian; however, there were edits by both of you in very close succession and I believe it was an entirely inadvertent consequence of an edit conflict. thanks for reposting it. — Davenbelle 18:30, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

Before it is possible to proceed further to develop this article (that I think basically needs to be redone from scratch) it is clear that certain issues must be resolved and certain facts and definitions agreed upon. First and foremost - of course – we must establish the legitimacy of use of the term "genocide" to describe the primary events we are discussing in the article. (I think Fadix has already more then adequately done so – but as this is – in a sense – a restart – and considering the controversy – I think we need to take this step by step and establish a baseline to provide an agreed upon foundation for the article. So is use of the term “genocide” legitimate. Wikipedia itself has an entry concerning genocide that should be referenced (and in it there are links to source material for such a definition) - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide

I believe the evidence entirely and most clearly supports the contention that the Armenian people of Anatolia/the Ottoman Empire were subjected to a campaign of genocide and that what resulted from such was in fact genocide. For instance in 1985 the United Nations Economic and Social Council Commission on Human Rights Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities released this following findings: (this is an excerpt with my highlights)

“…the distinguishing characteristics of the twentieth century in evolving the development of genocide "are that it is committed in cold blood by the deliberate fiat of holders of despotic political power, and that the perpetrators of genocide employ all the resources of present-day technology and organization to make their planned massacres systematic and complete". The Nazi aberration has unfortunately not been the only case of genocide in the twentieth century. Among other examples which can be cited as qualifying are the German massacre of Hereros in 1904, the Ottoman massacre of Armenians in 1915-1916, the Ukrainian pogrom of Jews in 1919, the Tutsi massacre of Hutu in Burundi in 1965 and 1972, the Paraguayan massacre of Ache Indians prior to 1974,16 the Khmer Rouge massacre in Kampuchea between 1975 and 1978, and the contemporary Iranian killings of Baha'is.

Additionally (the footnote):

At least 1 million, and possibly well over half of the Armenian population, are reliably estimated to have been killed or death marched by independent authorities and eye-witnesses. This is corroborated by reports in United States, German and British archives and of contemporary diplomats in the Ottoman Empire, including those of its ally Germany. The German Ambassador, Wangenheim, for example, on 7 July 1915 wrote "the government is indeed pursuing its goal of exterminating the Armenian race in the Ottoman Empire" (Wilhelmstrasse archives).”

And:

“The Turks also in 1919-20 held trials: not of ‘war criminals’ but of some of the Ottomans guilty of the Armenian genocide”.

http://www.armenian-genocide.org/Affirmation.169/current_category.6/affirmation_detail.html

Based on this statement alone I believe we can justifiably use the term “genocide” to apply to the Armenian case. But of course there are reams of other affirmations of use of this term to apply to this case. One other statement I want to add to illustrate the proper use of the term is the 1995 Resolution by the State Duma of Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation:

Based on irrefutable historic facts which attest to the extermination of Armenians on the territory of Western Armenia from 1915 to 1922 and, in accordance with the following Conventions adopted by the United Nations:

Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, December 9, 1948;

Convention on the Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitations to War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity, November 26, 1968;

Aspiring to restore the humanitarian traditions of the Russian State and,

Emphasizing that through the initiative of Russia, the Great European Powers already in 1915 characterized the actions of the Turkish Empire against the Armenian people as a "Crime Against Humanity" and,

Noting that the physical extermination of the fraternal Armenian people in its historic homeland aimed at destroying Russia;

The State Duma of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation:

Condemns the perpetrators of the extermination of Armenians from 1915 to 1922;

Expresses its deep sympathy to the Armenian people and recognizes April 24 as a day of remembrance for the victims of the Genocide. http://www.armenian-genocide.org/Affirmation.151/current_category.7/affirmation_detail.html

I invite others to comment and to provide other links if it is thought necessary. I think we should come to agreement on use of this term and move on. Once we move beyond this point I think we should perhaps examine and agree upon a basic chronology of the Genocide and then discuss the issue of pre-meditation (proof for such) and perhaps motivation/justification/intent and then we should arrive at an agreement and develop a presentation illustrating the mechanics of how the Genocide was carried out (deportations [including by who/what means – with examples etc] and perhaps introduce the subject of the concentration camps and what they were etc, discuss instances of mass killings [again by who – role of Kurds and such should also be discussed] and methods of killings etc) . We should conclude with the results of the Genocide – depopulation Armenians from Anatolia and discuss numbers of total (and perhaps place specific) deaths. This I propose is the outline of a very basic presentation that I think we can establish as fact. Beyond this there are numerous other issues and events that could and do warrant further in-depth discussion. But I propose that we proceed with the basics - as just outlined – in a step-by-step fashion. Then at some point I think we need to address this whole issue of Turkish counter-charges (legitimate or not) and the issue and history of genocide denial.--THOTH 17:33, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Again - concerning use of the term "genocide" and why I think the entire article - and specifically the introductory paragraph needs to be completely re-written (there are word, sentence and paragraph structure issues as well). First – Tony Sidaway has presented an argument that he claims everyone agrees on – and I think I can agree that it is agreed to and well proven – that (at a very minimum) the Government of Turkey ordered the “deportation” of Armenians from their homes without any provision to ensure that they were cared for – ie – that the intention (or at least the clear understanding) was that these people were going to die – and for the most part they did – through the rigors of forced march without food or water or from deliberate murder en route. It is also clear that the Turkish authorities emptied all cities, towns, villages and the countryside of Eastern Anatolia – the traditional and acknowledged home of the Armenian people – leaving (resulting in) very few Armenians living/left in these areas. Additionally, with only a few exceptions, the Young Turk controlled Ottoman government “deported” significant portions of Armenians from all other inhabited areas of Anatolia leaving these areas likewise empty of Armenians. Thus – as the accepted definition of genocide clearly includes this concept of removing people from their homes and destroying them as a group – which is what was done. (and what occurred meets the mental element as well as at least 4 of the 5 physical elements – not sure about preventing births)…I think its clear that we can easily call this genocide without (serious) objection) – (here is the excerpt BTW):

The international legal definition of the crime of genocide is found in Articles II and III of the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide. Article II describes two elements of the crime of genocide: 1) the mental element, meaning the "intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such", and 2) the physical element which includes five acts described in sections a, b, c, d and e. A crime must include both elements to be called "genocide." "Article II: In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: (a) Killing members of the group;

(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Punishable Acts The following are genocidal acts when committed as part of a policy to destroy a group’s existence:

Killing members of the group includes direct killing and actions causing death.

Causing serious bodily or mental harm includes inflicting trauma on members of the group through widespread torture, rape, sexual violence, forced or coerced use of drugs, and mutilation.

Deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to destroy a group includes the deliberate deprivation of resources needed for the group’s physical survival, such as clean water, food, clothing, shelter or medical services. Deprivation of the means to sustain life can be imposed through confiscation of harvests, blockade of foodstuffs, detention in camps, forcible relocation or expulsion into deserts.

Prevention of births includes involuntary sterilization, forced abortion, prohibition of marriage, and long-term separation of men and women intended to prevent procreation.

Forcible transfer of children may be imposed by direct force or by fear of violence, duress, detention, psychological oppression or other methods of coercion. The Convention on the Rights of the Child defines children as persons under the age of 18 years.

Genocidal acts need not kill or cause the death of members of a group. Causing serious bodily or mental harm, prevention of births and transfer of children are acts of genocide when committed as part of a policy to destroy a group’s existence.

--THOTH 15:49, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Working Version

What do folks think of the Armenian Genocide - Working Version? --RaffiKojian 17:35, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't like it on a number of levels. I don't like the way it begins - talking about issues being disputed. (this discussion should be later). A clear presentation of what was done - by whom - affecting who and the aftermath need to be presented. I think more contextual information needs to be listed as well. I also think we need to seperate the actual event(s) with the other controversy surounding (Turkish denial and attempts to get recognition, commemeration etc). In general I find the overall approach and content to be disatisfying. (not that it is all bad - but this is my gut reaction). --THOTH 17:56, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• • • Are you making fun of people, or what? Your "working version"(!) is even worse than Fadix's last version. "Turkey disputes..." Yeah, yeah, have respect for yourselves. Not a mention of Turks attacked by Armenians. Language more fanatic than Fadix's "academic" language. THOTH even doesn't like this version: we need to separate "actual" events with "turkish denial". Actual events, meaning the "events" written by paid historians of Armenian lobby in 90 years of work? You don't have any willing to reach a consensus. The only thing you want is using wikipedia as Armenian diaspora's propaganda page. You are so fanatic, so racist that you even believe "turks are genetically dumb" so that you can fool them easily. Go put your "working version" in your propaganda sites, you have zillions of them. --Cezveci 21:03, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well well - a nice diatribe - but that is about all you are aparently good for. Tony Sidaway - a Wikipedia moderator/administrator of some sort has stated that Coolcat would likely not be contributing much to this article as his views are in the minority and are unsubstantiated. I suspect that your position - particularly if it is as aparently misinformed and in line with Turkish denilist propoganda as it seems will fall into a similar category. However I would like to extend the invitation for you to contribute - factually, with support and where appropriate where you deem it necessary to present additional information. Still I would warn you to not attempt to brand me racist or a fanatic - as I am neither - but yes - in fact - I do believe that there is a substansial difference between the truth of this matter and what commonly passes for the official Turkish perspective - which is essentially denial of the truth. I do think that both the common Armenian viewpoints and that of most Turks are missing key aspects of the truth as seen from the other side - however it is likewise clear to me that the common Armenian perspective has much more in common with that of serious scholars on this issue and that this version is far closer to the truth - or at least the most relevant facts that that which is commonly espoused form the Turkish side. And yes - the article - as it currently stands is far too compromised with wishy washy language. What occured should be made clear. The fact of genocide should be clear - the program for carrying such out and the methods - all extensively witnessed and documented - should be accuratly presented. I have yet to see any real (supportable) dispute to the basic contentions of genocide and of the Ottoman campaign of deportation (to death) and massacre as accepted by historians and by observers from the time. I do not dispute that there might be ancillary events that should be presented in a comprehensive manner taking into account the Turkish perspective - however I have yet to see anything that truly disputes the fundemental accepted assertions of genocide and the basic chronology of events and results. Issues of Turks attacked by Armenians and such - while they did occur and were an unfotunate sign of violence of the times - are neither in the same category of crimes (just based on numbers and for other reasons as well) and are not any type of viable justification or counterweight to the fact that over 1 million Armenians were mercilessly slaughtered by the Ottoman Turk state aparatus. I suggest that you attempt to educate yourself just a bit on this issue and not just accept what your government has been preaching to you. I know that it is difficult as you have been taught that a Turk can do no wrong and that everything done was justified or happend to Turks and not by Turks - but just calling us racsist because we are attempting to present the truth is not going to cut it. --THOTH 20:30, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Raffi, I have to disagree with you and Thoth here. I made those concessions while back, and there is no turn back, it is the only way to work on. The Turkish government denial, I have a problem with as term. I know this is what it is, but "denial" imply that the thing did happen, and might be a proposition of word. A better term would be: "What is often called as denial" and I have planned to make an entry about that. Those things should have their enteries, like the losses with relevent sources and quotes.

Now, comming to you Cezveci, just something, be easy calling Thoth as "fanatic" and "racist" the same Thoth that has been attacked by "fanatic" and "racist" Armenians. I am just saying this, because it might just turn against you, more so when you have called members of a Turkish human right organization as racist against their owns.

As for Armenians paying historians, please feel free to provide examples, on the other hand, the corruption of Western academicians by Turkey is well documented, and there has been articles published in the cronicle of higher education, and the Holocaust and Genocide studies, and I can provide here a list of such academics and the funds they have recieved.

Thoth, why I disagree with you, is because I think you don't understand Wikipedia NPOV, it is not about the truth, but presenting the versions about an event, you can not suggest something directly, but rather present the arguments from each sides and their critics(not your critics, but the critics of the "other side"). But Wikipedia was well requires more place to be left for the version most supported. This was first the way I was working on the version, before being interupted by Coolcat. I think for the time, since there is an arbitration cases between me and Coolcat, we should refrain making much changes of the article, but I do still believe that the version before the new aliases edition should be left. I, on my side, will be working on another entry, regarding the Armenian losses, and this according to each sides. I have decided to stick to Wikipedia neutral point of view way, because I am starting to like it, and is actualy the best way to discuss the matter. Fadix 20:45, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Fadix - I admit that i am still developing an understanding and appreciation of how Wikipedia approaches issues - but I have been reviewing many differnt and diverse entries and their associated talk pages - so I am catching on (and am not entirely ignorant). I have yet to edit any page - only comment here. I am reluctant to edit the current article both nbecause of allthe ongoing and past baggage associated with it and because it is reallylacking in a very many areas (not the only Wikipedia presentation to suffer from this and other shortfalls however). I am adamant about presenting the truth however and I will never be satisfied if this event is whitewashed such as many official genocide (not called such) resolutions often are. ANd you know me from our interaction on other sites in the past - I am one of the more accepting of aspects of the Turkish perspective. I am a known and admitted admirer of Ataturk and a lover of Turks! I have been to Turkey and enjoy its culture and people. I have (several) very good Turkish friends here in the states. I hold no animosity towards Turks whatsoever and I am fair and balanced in my beliefs and approach. Still - I will not ever accept a whitewashing of the truth. --THOTH 20:58, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• • • The tragedy does not confirm to the official definition of genocide by UN. If it was, the international law would confirm that, and either Armenia or the Armenian diaspora could invite Turkey to international court. But, they haven't done that for 90 years, because they know they will lose. Rather, they write a history on their own through fake documents and propagate their version of history throughout Europe and North America. We have also seen in this discussion how these fanatics try to hide facts and how they are willing to put John Kerry's statement as an important development while supressing facts about ASALA terror. Nobody is claiming that the Armenians deserved it, no nation "deserves" anything in the history and nothing happens without any reason, as you are trying to claim (please tell me "why" turks killed armenians, if you are so expertised about history). But I think you all believe that Turkish diplomats and civilians have deserved being killed by ASALA, that's why you're trying to hide the facts about ASALA. It is very clear here "who are trying to hide facts" and "who are trying to acknowledge all claims and doubts about history". However, as I see that you are so determined to promote hate against Turks, and that is your only motivation, I am proposing that the following disclosure be added at the top of the page and you can write whatever will make you happy and fulfill your uncontrolled hate: "This article discusses an internationally disputed issue and is allowed to be edited by the defenders of only one view of history. The defenders of the other view claim that the article is extremely biased, is based on fake documents and revision of history, aims for Armenian diaspora's propaganda and promotes hate against Turks. " (As you see, I can use a neutral language even when I am talking about "my" claims). """

Seems to me that you fail to understand how such cases are treated in international courts. But before making the point clearer, the UN recognize it as genocide, the Permanent People Tribunal recognize it as genocide, the International Center for Transitional Justice just recently as well concluded genocide. The Turkish military tribunal, concluded there was a programmed plan of destruction which was successfully executed(at that time, the word genocide was still not coined). An international court like Hague can only used to condemn and trial criminals, the criminals in this cases are already dead. Beside Armenia can not do anything as representing one party, because Armenia was a part of what was known as Russian Armenia, which was “outside” of most of the crimes. The lawyer who coined the word genocide included the Armenian cases as part of the definition of genocide. You know what this means? It means that in comparative studies, what is like what happened to the Armenians is classified as genocide. International courts like Hague which are charged to trial war criminals can only be used to charge and condemn criminals, when they are dead, other such international bodies are used to classify whatever or not what happened was in fact genocide.

As for fanatics, I will never call an Armenia human right organization as racist against their own, like you have done with those Turks you have called just that. Not only I will never call them what you have called those Turks, but I will even praise them, and support them. Don't call others what you have displayed yourself please, this is highly hypocritic.

Coming to fake documents. Do you actually believe that researchers are so easily fooled by a people that its world population is only about 8 million? Be serious please. Do you actually believe that Armenians at night, in some sort of way managed to enter in Bonn “centralarchiv” building, and such places, and have managed to forge German documents? Do you think they did the same for all those other countries archives? Or what about the Turkish military tribunal? Do you think Armenians managed to forge documents for them as well? What about all those witnesses? Maybe the Ottoman third army commander Vehib was an Armenian, and wrote a fake affidavit, maybe Halil memoirs published in Istanbul were forged and the words relating to his plan of not living a single Armenian alive, just fabricated. Maybe those Germans officials communicating with General Ilham were all Armenians passing as Germans. Maybe General Paraquin was Armenian. Maybe the German in charge of one of the special organization was as well Armenian, and in his report was just lied. Maybe all those hundreds of officials, generals, soldiers etc. were all Armenians comploting against the Turks. Armenians would even beat the “Jews” like they are considered by some wacko Holocaust revisionists, we afteral, a little group of people, 8 million, are successful of doing all that.

Coming to ASALA. Do you have any idea of why ASALA appeared in the 70s-80s ? Do you know that the first murder was actually from an elderly men having lost his entire family during the genocide? Do you know why those dates? It was in the 70s, years after the 50nt year of commemoration of the Armenian genocide, that the Turkish government has finally decided to once for all erase history, by sending diplomats around the world, founding chairs of history's to deny the genocide. Do you want a neutral work regarding ASALA? I propose you one written in Israel: “Asala--Irrational Terror or Political Tool” by Ariel Merari, Jerusalem Post, Jerusalem, 1985. Reading it, you just might maybe understand why the Jerusalem post, during those years of Palestinian terrorism, has classified ASALA as a terrorist organization very much different than any other such organizations. The introduction of the work, is a good start. Let me quote a little bit from it for you: “In 1973 two Turkish diplomats were shot in Los Angeles by an 80-year old Armenian named Kirkan Yanikian. Behind this act of revenge by a lone individual lay a national reawakening among the dispersed Armenians in the world, which had begun in the early 1970s. This incident might gradually have been forgotten, had it not in fact catalyzed a chain of events which turned it, and its perpetrator, into a symbol signifying the end of the conspiracy of silence which since 1915 had surrounded the holocaust of the Armenian people. Since 1975 some 30 Turkish diplomats or members of their families have been attacked in dozens of terrorist actions, with the result that Armenian revenge, as well as the background to the Armenian struggle, have become a near permanent feature in the world press. These terrorist acts were actually carried out by a small group of people, but due to their spectacular nature they were successful in bringing the Armenian tragedy to the forefront of international awareness.”

...

“The absence of a popular support base within its homeland constitutes a critical limitation for any organization with nationalist aspirations. In the present case this has dictated the central characteristics of ASALA, and in effect has determined the nature of the international framework within which the organization operates.”

...

“The ASALA phenomenon is of special interest to the Jewish people and to Israel for several reasons. Both Jews and Armenians have been the victims of genocide in the 20th century. The establishment of ASALA was a belated reaction to the holocaust which struck the Armenian people, and an indirect result of the conversion of Beirut into the terrorist capital of the world during the 1970s.”

Do I support this organization? No I don't... what I have against though, is your uses of what happened decades after the event, to try to picture Armenians as some sort of animals at the bottom of the food chain, who somehow merited what happened to them in 1915, regardless of your denial of doing just that. I don't support terrorism, but I understand it(understanding and supporting something is two different thing). Had it not been of ASALA, possibly the memory of the Armenian genocide would have been erased from history... had it not been of this terrorist organization acting after the Turkish government foundation and funding, and sending of diplomats around the world as tool of denial..., there are chances that in Wikipedia there would be no “Armenian genocide” entry. So, now perhaps you may understand why I have deleted the reference to ASALA, because the way it was cited, makes it no sense at all that it is in anyway related to the Armenian genocide, because it does not say anything about the true aim of the organization that had to do with the genocide, but rather its terrorist nature, that itself alone has little to do with the genocide... and at that period, the ASALA entry was POV(Coolcat POV), but since then, it has somehow been neutralized(not by me, but others). Now you can understand why ASALA was even by some Western country not really classified of terrorism at the beginning, people were easy about it. They were rather called a “terror” organization, I know, it might be a synonym.

Oh, and for the “why Turks have killed Armenians.” I have answered this in my other answer to you above. Fadix 22:23, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I would like to second Fadix's excellent response to this contention that such an absurd "disclosure" and the suggestion that mention of ASALA has any place in the core of a discussion concerning the Armenian Genocide. It is the fact of the Genocide itself as known and accepted by scholars and international bodies that must be presented not unproven and highly suspect contentions that only support one POV – that of the government of Turkey and certain of its citizens and supporters who have clear agenda/bias and misunderstanding of the truth.

This issue of "disclosure" is patently absurd. Again - if such were considered acceptable as a lead in to the discussion of the Holocaust on Wikipedia then perhaps it might be considered acceptable here - but that of course would be an admission that anyone might dispute known facts and history from whatever questionable and unproven basis - because that is exactly what you propose and its "not worth the ink it is written on".

I think ASALA perhaps merits its own entry or discussion in a section that deals with genocide denial and its response. But ASALA was a group and a phenomenon that existed independently, was not supported by the vast numbers of Armenians nor any other Armenian organizations and it has no direct relevance on the Genocide that was committed in and around 1915 - unless, in fact you acknowledge that the Genocide is perhaps ongoing as continued Turkish denial of such is perpetuation. Even then ASALA needs to be presented in proper context not POV which is what you propose.

As for why Turks killed Armenians that can be easily answered - but should be done in the article itself and IMO it cannot be viewed in isolation but is related to the earlier massacres of Armenians by Turks that occurred in the 1890s and in Adana in 1909 and in relation to the overall political and economic environment and the fall/dissolution of the Ottoman Empire. IMO to properly discuss and present this entire matter the rise of (and ascendancy of hyper Turkish nationalists within) the Committee of Union and Progress (Young Turks) needs to be presented (or at least linked to - with proper relation to the Armenians - and it is already there [in the Wikipedia presentation] in part) and a proper understanding of the entire "Armenian Question" in regards to the Ottoman Empire and its downfall (Fall of Empire, failure of government to adapt to the times, including the corruption, violence, lawlessness etc – as well as the history of break-away of other nationalities (and the influx of Muslim refugees), the dire economic and political straights of the nation [including impact of WWI and relations with the European powers] and the [Turkish] revolution against and fall from power/grace of the Sultan...and why the Sultan earlier chose to suppress and massacre Armenians…and how Turkish nationalism became a force to the detriment of other sects/nationalities within the empire) - all of this should be presented (or at least properly linked to). However the core of the presentation should clearly present the Genocide for what it was with the surrounding events and causative issues presented as they warrant. In the mean time I see little value in your contributions amounting to only calling Armenian's hateful fanatics with no proof of such. What we are trying to present is accurate history. I will give you the benefit of the doubt to not call you hateful - but only ignorant and consumed with nationalist fervor. --THOTH 15:16, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Working version moved

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

To follow the progress

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

Unprotecting

This period of protection has gone on much longer than I anticipated, and I'm releasing it for edits because I don't think anything more can be achieved by this process. I will only protect again if you all start being naughty and getting into an edit war again, so behave. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:00, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have moved the working version to the current article page. Since nobody else made any changes - I am going to assume it can at least be used as the basis for further changes... --RaffiKojian 03:34, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

My views

I believe in rewiewing facts. I do not care what you were told/taught. I am a scientist, my job is to examine the facts. I would have left this article alone LONG ago if I was not insulted on an edit basis. It had been my experience that if people are not willing to discuss the factuality of their "facts", they are not necesarily "facts". Not all mass number of deaths are defined as "Massacre". I never declared the entier artilce as propoganda, I never acused you of things. Some material looks one sided. I challenge their factuality. I challenge the factuality of all material. If you cant prove it I have no reason to believe in it. I do not care what Historians think, I care about why they think what they think based on what. Do you have a problem with that? It is imposible to discuss this as long as you keep insulting me and any party that joins the conversation. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 02:56, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Fadix analysis provides me no relevant info. It has to be cleaned. I do not care you disputing some other party, who apears to be Torque, views. I care about evidence and factual material. Or would you rather folow the: Must be true because my uncle/this scholar/I said so attitude? --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 03:01, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well Cool Cat - as I have said before, I think your approach was not fair to anyone. Coming into a discussion on an article like this, without first educating yourself on the subject better was a massive imposition on the discussion. Saying things like Armenians weren't 100% innocent is like saying a rape/murder victim "asked for it" because of the way they dressed. You cannot deserve such a thing. I draw the comparison to the Jewish experience again and again. Just because the Turkish Government has not done the honorable thing yet and admitted it, unlike the German Government, doesn't mean Armenians should be subjected to this kind of "why don't you prove it to me" attitude by one person after another. It has been proven thoroughly, and you have not yet taken the time to educate yourself on the subject. That is *exactly* what the Turkish Government counts on. People don't have time. If the Turkish Govt claims something outrageous, people will assume there might be (perhaps *must* be) some truth to it. The simple fact that nationalism had hit the area just like it had all over Europe meant that some Armenians began to dream of independence, or at least better treatment, and that some Turks began dreaming of a new Turkish Nation-State-Empire, from the Bosphorus to China (Tajikistan) - incidentally the traditional Western Armenians name of Turks is "Tajik" (Dajig) the place of the Turkish origin. The ones with the latter ambitions gained control of the Ottoman Turkish Empire and the destruction of a 3,000 year presence followed.. genocide. --RaffiKojian 03:34, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Historic discussion, we do not discuss politics, we do not discuss what politicians say, we discuss history. Current claim is that Turks killed Armenians for the money in the middle of a war, correct me if I am wrong. Logicaly speaking, you can forcefully take money and moving people requires some money, Turks had their hands full with russians. Logicaly there is a problem, if they desperately need cash, why do they spend it? --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 08:53, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Just because Turkish Goverment did not recognised Armenian Genocide does not mean everything regarding the Genocide can be accepted eyes closed. Most trekkie fans dream of a "United Earth". Russians have always wanted to reach the Mediterranian, still do. China want Taiwan, claim its theirs. Mexicans unofficialy want what they lost to the Americans (at least some do). --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 08:53, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I do not see money as a sufficent sole motive. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 08:53, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In order to discuss armenian genocide, one must not assume it as a fact. If it is a fact, there is nothing to discuss, then why is prooving it in the article so hard. I currently surrendered the article to fadix as he will revert everything, often without reading. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 08:53, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

My reply to all three of your points is: When did I ever say anything about money being a motive? When did anyone? What are you talking about? And frankly - motives are irrelevant. Your attempt to understand motives in order to believe there could have been a genocide at all is quite frankly, insulting. We all agree it was not logical to kill all the Armenians, ok? So please don't ask us to convince you it was!! --RaffiKojian 03:20, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No fadix said that, you are not the only party in the discussion. In a suspected murder motive is the first thing asked in court. Unless a person is insane there is a logical reason to kill. Now if we want to talk about the classification of "massacre". Any information that suggests this was infact not a genocide is as relevant as any information sugesting itwas infact a genocide. Why did Turks kill all armenians to begin with? Why did Turks walk them to death. While its a long walk, people are likely to survive it. If you want exterimination no one should survive it. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 10:41, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Again, I have never refused that the “other side” should be presented, but this “other side” should be specified by whom it is claimed, and this you refuse.

And what dumb thing it is to write something like: “While its a long walk, people are likely to survive it. If you want exterimination no one should survive it.”

Before writing such a BS, take a map and study where Armenians were sent. Perhaps, maybe you should visit Del-El-Zor in Summer and try to survive there for a week on direct Sun, without anything to protect yourself from. Oh and, of course, without water too. Maybe if you do survive, someone then release from prison criminals and send them on you, so that he “study” what is your chances of survival. And if it happens that you die, that person dare your family to sue him and claim that his intention was not to “kill” you, and that there was no premeditation in sending you in the desert for a week on the Sun, without water, and there was neither any premeditation to release from prison murderers and send them on you.

Le see, what “logical” reason that person might come with that will free him from charges of murder. Fadix 20:41, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

RaffiKojian, I am not trying to offend you, frankly I prefer putting verifiable information regarding the matter. Archive numbers should be a start, a good historian always mentions his resources. Why historians investigating the matter think what they think based on what? I expect to be overwhelmed with material as claimed this is a fact, lack of material implies uncertainty, uncertainty imlies lack of factual acuracy and room for propoganda to fill. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 08:58, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well as you can see from the population articles Fadix put together, if we waste weeks of our time, we can apparently please you. But if you were to just read some books yourself instead of demanding we quote every single word used to you, you'd see the whole picture, and that everything we have written is sound. If we used sources as poor as Torque and others, we could apparently have convinced you that the moon is made of cheese - it is about studying the entire subject, not just including quotes. It is nice for you that "you expect to be overwhelmed with material" from us. It is nice for you that you "prefer weblinks to books", but other people have lives, you know? I really find your "I'm an ignorant outsider, go ahead and educate me" attitude infuriating and intolerable. It is not our job (as I have said before) to hold every persons hand who has just heard something about the genocide and isn't sure whether to believe the Turkish Government denial or not, and to walk them through the whole thing. So if you take a step back, try to imagine a genocide victim being subjected to this day after day, year after year, perhaps you'd appreciate better some of the anger and impatience that has been displayed. Again, I tell you GO TO THE LIBRARY - read Survivors, read Hovanissian and Dadrian, I even encourage you to read books like Fiegl's Myth of Terror. After that, you can come back and edit the article like a pro. But before that, you really need to take it a bit easy... --RaffiKojian 03:20, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Read this book and you will have my POV and then youll edit this article my way is what you suggest? I am sure Armenians are not baselessly claiming it is genocide, I am also sure Turks arent baselessly claiming it wasnt genocide. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 10:43, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No! What he is saying, is that you should at least read about the subject you want to be involved in. Fadix 16:46, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Apperantly Fadix, aside from swearing and screaming came up with a brilliant article. User:Fadix/Ottoman Armenian Casualties. Congrats, we can work like that. Book links are great, web links may be more insightfull. ;) --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 09:05, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I propose fadixes article be moved as an actual wiki article. And numbers on this and all Armenian Genocide article be based on highest and lowest numbers represented in that article. That looks good. I am not moving it myself to evade conflict. The move button will do it. All the blaber about numbers on Armenian Genocide be linked to fadixes page. I say thats a barnstar candidate, any objections? --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 09:14, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As a scientist, you have a funny way to see what is the job of a scientist is. Please stop repeating this over and over again. I am as well a scientist, but I have never used this to improve my credibility.

Look Coolcat, I have to admit that you did nothing to change, you have edited the article and reintroduced what I believe even Tony has agreed to not be the best changes, when you have reintroduced the same thing over again.

As for the Fadix analysis, I am not here to educate you about a subject that you have even not bothered reading about, you ignored at first who was Justin McCarthy, the revisionists number one reference. You can't expect to claim there is no evidences, and wait others to answer you, when you were not able to cite a single book you have read about the topic.

I know a lot about math, I could have worked in Fourier entry etc. or such entries, it is one of my field of studies... but have not injected myself in such discussions, because there are possibly PhDs and people that know very much about such topics to work on them. I will not participate in a subject I don't know well about. It would be logical, and ideal for any Wikipedians to do the same. If someone is here to neutralize the tone, great, if someone is here to delete informations like you have been doing, or recopy and past things which its deletion has been explained in the talk page and the users own talk page... I would consider this as a cases of harming Wikipedia.

And more so, you again interpret, more particularly in your answer to Raffi. This is what I call biases, I do have my opinions about the topic, but I can give educated opinions, from what I have studied, I will cite from all major revisionist works, including Halacoglu recent studies that would be considered as jokes by any high standard in the field, but you on the other hand, will comment about it, when you know near to nothing. Will a true scientist do this, or would he rather study and than judge? Fadix 00:14, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

And another thing, please don't edit my posts in talk pages, more particularly in the archives as you have done with my "Fadix analysis" and more recently, entrie paragraphs were just deleted by someone. Fadix 00:17, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Give me one occasion I edited your posts that changed its meaning? I only remove personal insults. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 03:32, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You have played with my archived posts, and it happens that entire section was deleted few days after yours. I don't know who did it, but I really don't like that, please leave them to others, seems that Tony is here trying to moderate, as a party that is implicated, I don't like you to edit things that have no reason to be edited. Fadix 04:22, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Agree good article on numbers by Fadix - as usual. I've always regarding these type of arguments contesting how many were killed to be somewhat strawmen like - as they really have little bearing or relevance (IMO). The fact that under the cover of war the Young Turks undertook (a successful) campaign to rid Anatolia of Armenians (and other Christians...oh and not just for their wealth BTW - but it was certainly a factor...again many parallels t the Holocaust) - and the results of ethnic cleansing/genocide through deportation and massacre of innocent civilian populations is unchanged - regardless of the numbers. It is still a genocide and a terrible crime against humanity and against the Armenians - regardless.

Fadix and I have both sucessfully debunked the McCarthy figures/claims in the past. The extreme "wand waving" done by McCarthy concerning numbers of Armenians within the various Ottoman provinces via the various seriously flawed "census" counts (or to use the Turkish venacular - "so-called" census counts) is testament to his flawed and biased (again "so-called" scholarship). I do find more worthwhile information in "Death and Exile" - but it is clear he is pitching his agenda of complete Turkish apolegetics and is not interested in truth.

Anyway. I have transcribed about 1/3 of my outline as I would like to present it. While I ussually just write rapidly off the top of my head in these talk pages and on forums - for somethign of this magnitude I am deliberate and try to really think things through. Obviously I will miss much regardless - and I am hoping that my proposed outline will be well recieved and become a basis for a serious presentation of the Armenian Genocide. The current article is neither appropiatly encompassing nor does it empahsise all of what I believe are the key events and key points that should be raised. I also find the current article to somewhat lack context - so much so that I think it would be difficult for the casual reader to truly understand what occured (in part better linkages and references will help). I hope to have something to present sometime this week. I believe it will be worth waiting for to at least consider some of my points even if the group may not decide to abandon the current article and proceed on this new path in its entirety. Thanks for the consideration. --THOTH 23:04, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Actualy, Death and Exile Academically speaking I would consider as less worthy, because of the nature of “throwing” numbers and attempt to mislead people. I gave an example where McCarthy referred to Van, and footnoted Nogales and Ussher, when both were saying the complete opposite to what McCarthy was claiming. Or his footnote on Erzerum etc, or the way he throw absolute numbers. Well, apparently Dr. Frédéric Paulin the one who studied McCarthy, from the researches he has done in many advanced mathematic domains, will become a name to remember for mathematicians. (many of it, accessible from his personal web page) While McCarthy in the last few years has lost his credibility in the Academic world. Fadix 00:23, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

...

I am not trying to improve my credibility, on wikipedia everyone has equal level of credibility, however on many ocasions my credibility was disputed on this page which is at best unwiki. I want to hear more "Why historians investigating the matter think what they think based on what?", less "Coolcat is bad.", less "Tony sais so", less "Genocide is fact because I said so". --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 03:32, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I would like to remind you to be tolerant of others views, even if you disagree with them. You may well regard the other party's views as being on the fringe. This may even be true, but Wikipedia is aiming for a neutral point of view, not to exclude unconventional views. We are not trying to write a "single correct version of the truth."--Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 03:50, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Quit the official talk please, in Wikipedia there is no such thing as having equal credibility, it is like in real life, peoples credibility are hurt, or some become more credible due to behaviors. Besides, your arguments against historians is purely offending for the discipline called history. That you have not done any research about a topic, one can understand that, but that you question the entire field of history as to claim that what historians believe is not relevant in what regards history, I find that quite offending for the tens of thousands of historians that publish works and study history, and this in any subjects. Wikipedia is not about presenting subjects the way it is appealing for you, but rather is a place of resource that collect what is relevant regarding a subject. And this has nothing to do with, wherever or not a version satisfies me or not. I have no problem presenting any versions of history, what I have a problem with, is your anti-NPOV policy of wanting to present two positions as equally valid, you want to suggest in all the articles that relates to Turkey, directly or indirectly, two theses as equally valid, when they are against the Turkish government point of view.

If you want to present the Turkish government version regarding a subject, go build your website, this place is not your server. And as I said, take this as an offense, but if you can not neutralize this article, neither have no knowledge about the subject, you are not needed here, your presence is worthless in this entry because you can not contribute in any way. There are some here that probably don't know much about the subject, but still, they can neutralize the article and not POV push, you are not one of them. Fadix 04:22, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Please respect the right of others to hold their views. This does not mean that you have to agree with me, but just agree to disagree. Discuss the facts and how to express them, NOT the attributes of the other party, in this case me. Never suggest a view is invalid simply because of who its proponent is. Negative personal comments and "I'm better than you" attacks, such as "You have no life." are not welcome. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 05:32, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Finding “facts” is the task of researcher in the topic, Wikipedia doesn't permit for one to write his “research” or theses like, without being peer reviewed. The only way of writing such articles is to present views and positions defended, and by each parties by specifying who's position it is. You still refuse this, and you can go ask to any admins or veterans that are not in Wikipedia for POV pushing, and they will confirm what I just said. My critic of you has nothing to do with differences of opinion, personal opinion does not change the courses of a Wikipedian article. My critic of you is that you edit the article to “mean” things, when you were unable to cite any works you have read about the topic. This is the whole point here. Davenbelle or other editors have not done what you've did, neither Tony.

This is how I say, you have no place in the process of writing the article, neither do you have knowledge of the positions, but you are opinioned about the topic, when you lack the knowledge... and you try to color the article based on that opinion. And again , I repeat, this has nothing to do with views. That I have certain views or not about the article, what was my goal, was to present each positions, and specify from which party it comes from, and Wikipedia stat that this is what should ideally be done, and I believe that do to the conflict that Turks like you have with the article, it is the only way to do things. I am sure that not a single Admin will tell that this is not what should be done.

Therefore I pass to a vote. I ask people to vote, be it Tony, or anyone. Who agree that the Armenian genocide entry should present each major views, given as much spaces as it is accepted in the Academia, present the best arguments from each sides, their critics(when there is). I advance that it is the only way to do this. So I pass this to a vote. Fadix 16:07, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am sorry, I was quoting Wikipedia:No personal Attacks, you are obligated to folow these. There is no excuse for such attacks on other contributors. Do not make them. Please be civil. The article is disputed in its current state. We do not do votes on every disputed article. Creationism is there even though majority perhaps agrees its a complete load of crap. Wikipedia requires facts, this is not your research paper, you cannot and shouldnot try to prove the Armenian Genocide here, it is disputed, something you do not acknowlege. Admins do not interfere with articles, any admin will tell you constantly reverting the article is not the right way. I was reminded of this flaw by steriotek, rather harsh I think given he is not any better than I am as reverting goes. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 10:28, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

OK! Fine, show me where are those “personal attacks” in my post above, if you ain't able to do so, I will conclude that you are trying to change the subject.

Now coming to your text. First you write: “Wikipedia requires facts,” and then, “you cannot and shouldnot try to prove the Armenian Genocide here, ...” Let me understand well, Wikipedia requires facts, but I should NOT bring those facts here. Who are you trying to kid? You've been trying to maintain this type of “logic” which is just a paradox.

So the genocide is disputed, but Coolcat hasn't read any works about it. But of course if we only read the Turkish press like you do, we will conclude just that. This place is not a Turkish government founded encyclopedia. Sorry. Fadix 16:44, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

a real article on the Armenian Genocide

I think that this article needs to look a whole lot more like this article on the Armenian Genocide which, you'll note, is a fork of an earlier version of this article. — Davenbelle 09:40, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

I think I disagree. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 10:20, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Childish Wars of Words

I visited the discussion page to read some interesting views. All I see are childish comments between a few users more about THEIR credibility than the credibility of the information presented. All you do here is create a garbage of information. I have to lower myself to say this but I think it is the only way it will make sense to you: Get a life.

Each of you present your views and facts and let others make their own judgements. You have to assume that the individuals reading these are interested in the subject and will try to get the best of what they read. - (unsigned) Rotband

Sorry, I'll try to give my view of situation: after reading of article and discussions (for this and several related discussions it took several days), I tried to search truth by myself. I tried to find some information using Google, encyclopedias, etc., and I found that even most Turkian sources do not deny that there were mass killings of armenians, and their point of view mainly differs in definition of who was guilty: turkians try to blame mostly the war and partially both sides - turkish and armenian. But what we see in this _discussion_: it is maybe the worst possible case when wikipedia can not give you straight and clear article. (try to look from POV of commercial encyclopedies: "look at this - wikipedia ish bullsh..., instead of giving clear data they are fighting between themselves and profanating all the subject!"). Maybe my opinion is wrong, sorry, I simply trying to give you my POV to _this_ discussion: one person, only one single person, by trying to POV-ize topic in the wrong (profanic) way, and only because of he even hasn't tried to read at least something about topic, makes writing of article almost impossible. It is a shame. I think users who write articles should have better possibilities than teaching ignoramus. --213.197.137.20 18:49, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

An insight is always welcome, something I have been saying forever. The dispute revolves around (mostly the war and partially both sides vs Genocide). That part is disputed agree with it or not. This is Cool Cat signing off. - 10:14, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Cite from Cool Cat text - when RaffiKojian suggested him to read some literature about the subject, Cool Cat paraphrased: Read this book and you will have my POV and then youll edit this article my way is what you suggest?. I think, here is nothing more to say. --Gvorl 11:07, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

...So if you take a step back, try to imagine a genocide victim being subjected to this day after day, year after year, perhaps you'd appreciate 
better some of the anger and impatience that has been displayed. Again, I tell you GO TO THE LIBRARY - read Survivors, read Hovanissian and Dadrian,
I even encourage you to read books like Fiegl's Myth of Terror. After that, you can come back and edit the article like a pro. But before that,
you really need to take it a bit easy... --RaffiKojian 03:20,  12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am merely suggesting, If I share your views you will loose the only objective party. I know more about the topic than I appear, I was tring to hear what you have to say, so I can determine my bias. Was a failed strategy I admit. You declare that I must accept genocide, should you not want an objective view? Otherwise isnt this bias? --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 02:38, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What failed strategy? What you've did is a misrepresentation. And are you claiming here that you are objective? Fadix 01:26, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Like I said, armenians have their reasons for their beliefs so does the turks. A uniformal truth should satisfy both. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 02:39, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There is no such thing as "satifying" as rules in Wikipedia. An article should be neutral, that is all. To build new rules. Fadix 01:25, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

So far I haven't seen indications of your knowledge. When your oponents ask you for facts you say that you do not need those. You are asking for provements from others but your disagreements are not not based on any facts or findings. It seems that you want that Fadix and others argument that there was no genocide and similar things. But such behaviour is simply trolling of al the discussion. --Gvorl 05:32, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Agree (with Gvorl) - as anyone who truly understands what occured in 1915 - and before and after - in regards to this issue could never (honestly) say the things that Coolcat does. Obvioulsly most Turks and Armenians are not going to agree on the issue at this point in time. They do nto agree out in the real world - how can you expect that they will agree here? Obvioulsy - you will never convince any Armenian (nor any proper knowledgable historian) that there was no Genocide. (and we have proved that there was by a very clear margin - so I can see no real denbate on this issue) - but - I can neither see most Turks (or Coolcat) every admitting to Genocide. So where does this leave us by the seemingly/alleged unbiased Coolcat approach? With no solution - with no Armenian Genocide article - curious isnt't it? --THOTH 18:09, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree with everybody but Cool Cat that Cool Cat has contributed nothing to this article at all. Has not shown any knowledge of the subject. Has inserted opinion which he says he has not formed yet. Has stated he was lying that he has little real knowlege of the subject (without proving any such thing). Twisted my words when I say he should read up on the subject. So all he has done (assuming it is a he - but he prefers to remain completely anonymous) is create a MASSIVE obstacle to progress on the article, waste all of our time, and make a joke of wikipedia. Can we just ignore him? I mean, if someone wants to argue facts here, that is one thing, but this whole "You have to convince me the Turks had a logical, sane reason to wipe out the Armenians or I can't believe it was genocide" at this point in the conversation is so ridiculous, we can't actually be expected to respond. It is almost like someone is playing a joke on us all. So again I ask. Can we just ignore this thing called Cool Cat until he possibly has something meaningful to contribute? --RaffiKojian 04:32, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have already proposed this myself, there is no point one to waste his time with Coolcat. The guy has even loaded my talk page. I won't even read him anymore. Fadix 18:05, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, yeah, yeah! Everybody will be happy if you can get rid of coolcat. Coolcat is not knowledgable, I am vandal, every edit we make is immediately deleted by one of you. But look at the following, nobody dares to remove this edit: "The Ottoman government wanted to expand their empire and conquer Arabia. However, sitting between the Ottoman Empire and Arabia was Armenia. Ottoman officials surmised that the best way to reach Arabia was by removing the Armenian "problem." It is said that this genocide greatly inspired Hitler in his attempted extermination of the Jews, Gypsies, and other peoples." How knowledgeable! How true! But no, you don't remove this, because it doesn't destroy the picture you're trying to draw. It just adds to it, so you don't care how ignorant it is, you don't care how ill-intentioned that edit is. Please be honest, respect yourself, and put a disclaimer on the top of the page stating that this is the propaganda page of Armenian diaspora, which literally is true if you look at the current shape of the article (everything that might mean that there might be alternative explanations and/or facts were systematically deleted since I have last checked this article). Cezveci 16:05, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I was away these days and not had much time. I was surprised to learn this change as well, I don't remember this thing being there when I last edited the article. Who added it? I agree it is a mistake and should not be there. Delete it if you want.

I think that after the deletion, from there on, every adding of materials should be discussed in the talk page so we do not end up in such situations. I apologize. As for Coolcat, I will not comment, the guy left a message on my talk page that I stillam not able to know what it means. Just wondering. Fadix 00:09, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hm - I don't dispute that this "arabia" claim is in error - the exact quotes from the CUP leaders directly mention the Central Asian Turkick lands - even to include the Uigyurs who live in China. However this motivation was only one of many for "removing the Armenian problem" - and hard to prove if the average Turk who participated or took advantage of the slaughter of Armenians was truly motivated by such. As for the Armenian Genocide being an inspiration for Hitler - well there are several sources of his mentioning such as well as a great deal of circumstansial evidence considering the role of his advisor Count Max Erwin von Scheubner-Richter - German Vice-Consul at Erzerum (who by the way had this to say about the matter):

"I have conducted a series of conversations with competent and influential Turkish personalities, and these are my impressions: A large segment of the Ittihadist Young Turk party maintains the viewpoint that the Turkish empire should be based only on the principle of Islam and Pan-Turkism. Its non-Muslim and non-Turkish inhabitants should either be forcibly islamized, or otherwise they ought to be DESTROYED. These gentlemen believe that the time is propitious for the realization of this PLAN. The first item on this agenda concerns the LIQUIDATION OF THE ARMENIANS. Ittihad will dangle before the eyes of the allies the specter of an ALLEGED REVOLUTION prepared by the Armenian Dashnak party. Moreover. local incidents of social unrest and acts of Armenian self-defense will deliberately be provoked and inflated and will be used as pretexts to effect the deportations. Once en route however, the convoys will be attacked and EXTERMINATED by brigands, and in part by gendarmes, who will be instigated for that purpose by Ittihad."

curious isn't it - that he was so perceptive - that the CUP had such a plan...and that so much of what the Nazi's attempted some 30 years later bore so much similarilty....--THOTH 16:56, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Curious, isn't it? "that he was so perceptive"... good point! Thank you.

About the Arabia thing, yes yes, it was just a "small error". Apparently, that's what you teach your kids. And the knowledgeable, Turk-friend THOTH corrects the error with their wisdom: "Turks were willing to invade China". How elegant... Admirable. We are talking about the Turks by the way, who had "control" of Arabia at the time, that they were planning to "conquer". They weren't trying to "conquer" Arabia, they were trying to "defend" Arabia, and nobody who went to Yemen came back. We are talking about the Turks, by the way, who were fighting against an army of tens of nations brought in by British Empire in Dardanelles. They didn't have any technology to fight against the modern army of allies, and they were defending only with their lives (There were also Armenians among these heros, by the way). It was a miracle that the allies couldn't capture Dardanelles. These were the conditions. We are talking about Turks, whose thousands of soldiers - who were supposed to defend Eastern Anatolia against Russians and Armenian militia- were frozen to death in Sarikamis, because they had summer clothes. And these Turks were planning to "expand" to China? And these Turks are accused of not providing reliable escort for Armenians "intentionally"? "Errors" my friend, these are small "errors", just confusing Arabia with China. Continue, my friend, continue to fill in the article with your small "friendly" errors, and censor anything that might mean something that you don't want to be understood, and shamelessly label them "vandalism". That's all you need, because you know that you are not speaking the truth. Cezveci 04:13, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I will ignore the first part of your post, you can go and edit the article and correct that mistake, if someone revert it back, I will revert to your correction. What I will answer is your claim about Sarikamis. I don't know what they teach you in your text books, but you have the history of Sarikamis all wrong. The region is near Kars, and was situated about what was in Russian Caucasus, what happened is that early during the war the Ottoman tried to invade Russia, and from failures the amassed men on that region while the Russians as a counter measure were planning to take Erzerum from the same front. What happened at Sarikamis had absolutely nothing to do with any Armenian militia, those deaths were the result of Envers megalomanic Pan-Turanist attempt soon during the war that ended up to be a complete failure which gave the Russians the pretext to invade later. Enver has sent thousands and thousands of men to open the front, he didn't cared of their lives in Winter, to die frozen, unprepared, and without sufficient provision. The only Armenians serving at that time against the Ottoman were Russian Armenians that have decided to block the front that if broken would give access to Russian Armenia to the Ottoman army. In fact, Enver was so obsessed about his plan, as the minister of the war, he even has gone on the front to fight, and it is said that it was an Ottoman Armenian brigade that saved his life... he as an answer in February 1915 thanked the Armenians for their loyalty, when on the other hand he was preparing their destruction. Fadix 01:28, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Don't preach to me. I know the history - a good deal better then you I think. I have not written this article. It is much too soft IMO - among other shortfalls. My having many Turkish friends has no bearing on presenting the truth here. You have spent the better part of a paragraph saying nothing and putting words in my mouth. Your depiction of Turkey as the victim is very typical. Funny that it was the Turks who began the aggression. The British would have been most happy - and made many attempts to convince the Turks to not go with the Germans - yes it was the greed of Enver and the others that won out in the end - the idea that the Germans would win and thus The Ottoman Empire could once again be great and vast (but this time Turkish and not multi-cultural). Its only lucky that the Brits and French and even the Russians had their hands full elsewhere and with other things. Its no coincidence theat Lennin was bankrolled by the Germans. And as valiant as the Ottoman armies did fight at times - these were clearly just skirmishes in the grand scheme of things. There was no possibility that the Ottoman Empire would come out of this one much of anything like it came into it (the CUP were stupid fools - and it is they who are to blame for not only the terrible Armenian suffering but the Turkish suffering as well...and you are a [fooled] fool if you believe otherwise) - and Ataturk and the Turks are certainly deserving of much credit for salvaging and leveraging what they got - Anatolia - free of all capitulations....of course without the Armenians - and that was certainly by design (but your nation suffers still - much - from this shortsightedness). So squirm away - you cannot use your critique of a poorly written article to supress the truth. Yeah funny - the Turks being so weak - yet no caravan was ever intercepted - no rescue ever made - some Armenian resistance eh? --THOTH 07:57, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I contributed nothing because my contributions were immidiately reverted. One thing you so knowlegable people dont recognise is you have 0 tolerance to any view aside from your own. I am not sure you are as knowlegable as you think... I think you are quoting someone else. You talk about the truth, your truth. So its a lie if it disagrees with you? Fadix for instance declared Tony as "revisionist" he declared me Turkish, they post how horible I am on every article I go. They bother me in various ways. I do not understand why they are going to great lengths to remove my presence from wikipedia. In the end they win. They can celebrate and do what ever the hell they want with wikipedia, I have no reason to stay here if hard working people like me are allowed to be bullied like this. Discussion here is mostly how horible the other party is. People are very confortable in placing information without sources, "go read books dude" attitude is comendable. Your(plural) case is either extremely weak or you(plural) are very ignorant. I asked you to proove it. All I got is insults. All I still get is insults and personal attacks. Users do not even acknowlege what personal attacks are, or what good wikiquette is all about. It is the very foundation of wikipedia. I cant tolerate this constant bulliying I recieved just because I asked sources and neutrality on this article. Commendable, keep destroying wikipedia community for your petty genocide thesis. You(plural) live in the dilusional past I guess, or else instead of annoying me you would provide me evidence. There is no doubt people died, no one is denying that. I cannot get a straight answer to something as simple as: "what was the motive of turks when they requested Armenians to move"?, "why?". You talk about historical events, I see them as mere "stories" or "legends", I do not see a basis. Isolated events do not necesarily affect the big picture. Hand picking minor incidents, exagarating them and pasting it together is not how proper history is practiced. However it is fanatc. All you suggest is "go away". I never heard of a "stay". This brriliant strategy hopefully will last forever and you will save the world from retarded revisionists, whatever that means, like me. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 16:11, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't remember calling Tony a revisionist, please enlighten me. As for you being Turkish, this is not an attack, you have admitted it yourself, I don't see what is wrong saying what you have admitted. Now coming to your point, now I understand what the words “you win” meant. So finally this was really a game for you. Do you really believe that this was about winning and loosing for me? Why is everything a game for you? The ranking idea, and now this. I told you, I was ready to provide you references, now please go back in the history of this entry, and reread what went wrong, and why I answered you the way I have answered. You did not ask me to “prove” you anything at first... you edited the entry again and again without even justifying it on the talk page, while I had justified my edits. You did everything to get people against you... and when you then asked for “prove” you then retracted claiming it was not about proving, and then again it was about proving. Reread Wikipedia policy please another time. I have accepted that Wikipedia is not about the truth, but positions... that is all, of course you don't have the same problem at the Karabagh entry where Tabib kicked me out accusing me of hidden agenda after my FIRST post there quoting something? Of course you had nothing to say about those things when you wanted to moderate it right? Go read the entry and compare it with this one. While this one has a tone of “according to this”... the Karabagh entry is “this is what...” Or now, the Khojali genocide entry, which under the guise of neutrality Tabib has made of it “Khojali massacre” but claimed it was also called Khojali genocide. Tell me Coolcat(I wanted to place the Mr. Here, but apparently you don't like to be referred as Mr.), how would the Armenian cases, the second most studied cases doesn't worth the term genocide for over a million victim, the destruction of the Armenian community from a place they have lived for 3 millennium doesn't “worth” the term genocide, but an incident that cost the live of over a hundred civilian can be qualified as genocide and considered as “also referred as the Khojali Genocide,” when outside of the Turkish and Azeris circle, trying to turn the Armenian genocide to derision, there is not a SINGLE non-Turkish non-Azeris specialist, or any single international body that call it such. While I have accepted in the range of Armenian victim, to include the 300,000, when even many and many Turkish historians that deny the genocide provide a higher figure. But of course you have nothing to say about the “Khojali Genocide” entry 400-1000 range, when the first official Azeris government figures were from 100 to about 180.

Coolcat, as a nationalist Turk, you still think that this is a conspiration against Turkey. You can't be further from the truth. The most incriminating evidences against the Ittihadist leaders came from a Turkish tribunal, NOT Armenian or Western. A tribunal, who's decision was accepted by the man you consider as your father, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk. You can debate on everything with me, regarding any other topics and criticize Armenians “behaviors,” and I will condemn whomever did wrongdoing, that they are Armenians, Turkish, Chinese, Martian etc. As I said in the past, I judge people in daily and personal basis, and not based on their social construct(ethnicity etc.). But, sorry about the genocide, the Armenians won't give away the recognition. It destroyed the Armenian presence from their 3 millennium homeland, it dispersed the survivors in any corner of the world, alienated from a nation. I was born in Lebanon, and live in Canada, the typical story of a Diasporan Armenian, who's grandparents were orphaned, having witnessed the destruction of their entire family. So tell me Coolcat, which nation is mine? Canada? Lebanon? Anatolia? Armenia? ...

You have no clue, and believe me here, you have no clue of what the hell you are denying. Fadix 01:13, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Coolcat - I have no concern if you stay - but I am concerned - as I have well expressed and explained - that your approach is not at all condusive to reaching the truth in this case. I agree that the current article is severly lacking and is somewhat unfocused. I wish I had the time to write the whole thing but I really don't - at least not in quick order. I am hopng to have my proposed outline available today or tomorow however. I want to comment though that your characterizing the known historical and (mulitply independently coroborated and objective) eyewitness record as "stories" and "legends" only bespeaks your ignornace (or agenda). Anyway - I can and will very much so - adress this issue of why the Turks/CUP undertook genocide. --THOTH 16:36, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

...

Adding comments as a preface to an existing chain may appear presumptuous, however, I would like to add a frame of reference to the ensuing discussion. Germany was plunged into an economic, political and social abyss after World War I, which created the opportunity for nazism to flourish, leading to World War II and subsequently to the Jewish Holocaust, the genocide of gypsies, etc. The international community, starting from the trials at Nuremburg, has never allowed (and rightly so!) the destitute and depressed condition of the German people to be used as a mitigating circumstance to soften the vehement, often confrontational, and always powerful condemnation of the atrocities committed in Nazi Germany. The German people, as a nation, have never used their "baggage" (i.e., post-WWII economic depression, outcast status in Europe, political instability) as a reason for shoving denialist and apologist rhetoric down Jewish throats. Denying the Holocaust would be unfathomable, no one would suggest any "legitimate" reasons to deny it. So what makes it acceptable to look for "legitimate" reasons to deny the Armenian genocide? --Respectfully, A.N.

Why don't you give a country the right to defense itself from accusations that are far beyond any credible facts? In the article is written such nonsense like that the red crescent killed armeniens with morphium injections and gassed and burned armenian children. Thank you. By the way, do you know Sabiha Gökcen?

why don't you write an article about her? Mikkalai 15:32, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

You are responding to someone who is deploring wholesale denial of the Armenian Genocide. Arguing for the legitimacy of a Turkish defense against the Red Crescent charges is evasive.

To make clear that the turks did and do not hate armenians. Turks are not racist, that would make in no way any sense because turkey is a multiethnic country. The turkish nationalism is not based on race but on patriotism. That is the difference between the racistic armenian nationalism and it was the armenian racist nationalism that led to this catastrophe. 84.171.173.153 14:27, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

She was the first female war fighter pilot in the world. She was Armenian. In the turkish army. And she is treaten like a hero in Turkey, an airport in Istanbul is also named after her. But don't dare to mention her name in armenian forums! ;-) Greetings from Turkey. 195.175.37.38 06:02, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Whether Sabiha Gokcen was Armenian or not (which doesn't mean any difference to me) was highly debated in 2004. I have Turkish references supporting both claims, and when I have time I will translate them and add them into Sabiha Gokcen article. - Cansın 1.41 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Recent Developments on The Freedom of Speech Issue

Ironically, the following developments have occured just after the we discussed about freedom of speech in Turkey on the Armenian issue: - Belgian parliament passed a new law that classified denial of Armenian "genocide" as a crime with a penalty of 1 to 12 months of imprisonment - French "socialists" proposed a similar law to the French Parliament - A Swiss court granted an arrest warrant for Yusuf Halacoğlu, a Turkish historian and bureocrat, for rejecting the genocide claims in a talk in Switzerland. The decision was condemned by the involved community in Turkey, including supporters of genocide thesis such as Halil Berktay, and Armenian intellectuals such as Hrant Dink and Etyen Mahçupyan, who were described as "hostages of Turkey" by a representative of Armenian Diaspora in Europe recently.

Unfortunately, I was not able to find any of these in the "only reliable source of information", the western media. So I guess this will not take place in the article, unless the diaspora advocates want to proudly advertise it as evidence for international recognition. I just wanted to leave this note as an example for the never-ending double standards against Turkey. You may delete it, but please make sure that you keep claims about "Turks invading Arabia". --Cezveci 09:10, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

If this is true Cezveci, it would be a logical consequence of recognising the genocide in the countries you mention, since similar rules apply to anyone denying the Jewish genocide - revisionism is a crime in (most) European countries. No need to mindlessly cry wolf about being the victims of double standards. And WTF has "Turks invading Arabia" got to do with this? --House of Shin 11:23, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Is this the new accepted practice now - post new input at the top of the page vice the bottom? Is there some reason why this information deserves to be here rather then chronologically like everything else? --THOTH 12:12, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

I have mixed feelings about this. I don't think that questioning a historical event should be forbidden. But I do believe that Halacoglu should be jailed though, what he did was beyond denial, this man would be classified as a racist(modern or old definition) by Western standards, not because he question the genocide, but as well because this man even beats racists like Ataov. Remind to people that according to this psychotic man, about 56 thousand Armenians died during the evacuation, and that from it, less than 10 thousands were killed in total by some tribs, while according to the same individual, Armenians on the other hand have allegedly killed about 520,000 Turks(while even publicists like Emin, propagandizing about Armenians "crimes" haven't advanced half that figure in the 20s or 30s). The sick individual characterises Armenians in a way that it doesn't take any law forbidding genocide denial to sue him. And in fact, the charges against him are based on an anti-racist law rather than a law making the denial illegal. Fadix 02:12, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

The only racist I see here are you, sorry. But do you really want to jail a whole country? Talk to Turks and you will see they support rather Yusuf Halacoglu than supporting your point of view. Should Swiss jail them all? Honestly? Even Swiss is not as rich to build as many Jailhouses I guess! ;-) And by the way: Dear 198.77.78.57, stop deleting other authors writing here on the discussion page! Thank you!! 195.175.37.38 06:07, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

If you support Halacoglu, talk for yourself, that man is an example of how education doesn't necessarily equal with intelligence. Have I said that a whole country should be jailed? If you find it normal that a moron, at a head of a historic society generalizes an entire people, and uses Belge references that probably everyone even him knows being forgery, to claim that Armenians committed genocide against the Turks, and that only less than 10 thousand Armenians were killed, and all by Kurds, Arabs etc..., while Armenians have killed 520 thousand Turks; I don't. Fadix 15:48, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

I think that this may prove illustrative of my appreciation of the legitimate Turkish perspecive on this issue

I posted this in an Armenina forum today in response to some Armenians claiming that we need to demand more of the Turks etc...I just want to give some folks here an understanding of some of the level of appreciation I have for the Turkish position and (some of the reasons) why Turks are reluctant to admit/acknowledge genocide...

OK let me lay it all out....

XXXX - I understand how you feel - but unfortunately your approach will get us nowhere IMO. One reason that it is so easy for the Turkish government to convince its people that we are the aggressors - the terrible ones and that they are the victims is the attitudes and expressions of many Armenians (of the Diaspora). The Turks see this aggressive stance on the part of Armenians and immediately recoil - and if you were in their shoes you would too.

I'm not saying that you and other Armenians are wrong and that Turks (Turkish Government in particular) are/is right - but its a matter of what is constructive and what will only lead to the predictable result - rejection. And I'm not necessarily saying that we Armenians have to care (about the Turks/what Turks think & feel) - but I am one who sees the Turks as victims too - in a very real sense - and not of Armenians (don't be absurd) - but of the circumstances surrounding the fall of their Empire and culture and the resultant wars and poverty that the Ottoman Empire and that its citizens (Turks, Armenians and others) were plunged into. And this is why they will continue to deny that they could have done such a wrong.

You have to understand that like us - the Turks see first and foremost their own suffering and identify with their own plight. And the collapse of the Ottoman Empire - the rise of nationalism in the outlying districts (that led to independence [Greece/Balkans/various Arab lands] and the expulsion of ethnic Turks and [from Europe] other Muslims) as well as external campaigns against the Turks - primarily by Russia - but also by the other opportunistic European colonial powers of the day (much of WWI - particularly in the Middle East - was a big colonial land grab at the expense of the Ottoman Empire - they were salivating for years at this prospect...) - this all made for a situation of extreme xenophobia and distrust of others during this period - and resulted in extreme hardship for a great many Turks (and this is a fundamental truth that we often/most always ignore and fail to understand).

From this there was revolution - and the CUP/Young Turks were at first a promise of modernity, reform and escape from the extreme corruption and arbitrariness of the Sultan that plagued the Ottoman Empire in its later days and kept it stagnant while the rest of Europe was moving foreword and liberalizing (there was to be rule of law - necessarily for civil rights and for business prosperity). This hope was (initially) well shared by Armenians as well as Turks and all other peoples of the Empire. Unfortunately - as we have seen - and as is typical in revolutions - particularly ones with such great societal upheaval and with such tremendous outside pressures as well - those who rose to power were not at all liberal or benevolent but were bent on acquiring and maintaining power and were also determined to rid themselves of all rivals and potential competition - thus the early campaign against the very Armenian revolutionary parties that had supported them and shared their supposed goals for liberalization and equality for peoples of the Empire.

The rest is as we say history - as these same CUP leaders deluded themselves into thinking that (by allying with Germany in WWI and by removing the "foreign"/destabilizing elements within their population) they could reclaim and expand the glory of the Ottoman Empire - but this time (Eastward) for Turks and for Turks alone. But in doing so they plunged the nation into further despair. Their attempts to centralize the economy (and fund much of this through theft of Armenian property and industry) was a complete failure. This and the various impacts of the war (additional refuges and shortages) added to the suffering of the people - and the uprooting/elimination of Armenians led to tremendous food shortages and collapse of industry and commerce.

And remember they blamed the Armenians for their defeats and for all of the problems of the Empire (scapegoating) and used Turkish/Muslim jealousy of their wealth and association with their (refugee Turks) Orthodox tormentors (from the Balkans and from Russia) as a means to rally the people against the Armenians and for Armenians (and eventually Greeks) to take the blame. And during the war they saw themselves (somewhat correctly) as besieged from all sides by colonial powers that just wanted to carve up their empire and leave them with nothing (and they saw and see the Armenian question strictly within the confines of this paradigm as an integral part of such (thus the charge of treason - that we abandoned them while they were down etc - you should notice how the Turks always reference how we were and are being used by the Europeans etc) - anyway - so after WWI the Nationalist/Kemalist rise from the ashes - and it truly was a glorious thing in the eyes of the Turks - as it should be seen - but again everything falls into place with Ataturk initiating a new Turkish consciousness that is predicated on lack of any recognition of minority status. The (remaining/unmassacred) Greeks are expelled (forcibly transferred for Turks from Greece/Balkans after the failed Greek land grab that was encouraged - but then ultimately not materially supported - by the Brits/Europeans) - and all of this further led to this Turkish mindset of Armenians (and Greeks) as traitors within - that what was done was justified - and that (interestingly) it wasn't really so bad as we say (and in fact they valiantly did their part to protect us - and so on and so forth) - that this (Genocide charge) is/was all part of some anti-Turkish propaganda - and that by the way - most everything we claim was done to us they now claim was done to them by us - and again wartime propaganda and rallying and making excuse to cover what was being done all play into supporting these notions as truth in the Turkish mindset - as many years (decades) of anti-Armenian hatred and resentment had been building up on the part of the Turks and this was further enflamed by the refugees returning from other parts of the Empire with stories of Orthodox Christian brutalities against them - and these people were settled amongst the Armenians.

So this is the problem. How can we really expect the Turks - with all of this baggage - and no real incentive to dump it (much disincentive in fact) - how can we expect them to even remotely accept our claims of Genocide? (as we stridently scream accusations at them?) All the dice are loaded for them to see it totally differently and to dismiss all of our (the) facts as manufactured/invented (after all they do it all the time - so they expect others do so as well!) - etc. And we never acknowledge their suffering or conditions either - not at all (of course how could they really expect us to - but no one does - and that’s the point....)

This is why the confrontational approach will never work. --THOTH 17:36, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes, from this point of view I can understand all the things which are going here. It seems that both nations was victims o the same regime of Young Turks party. One - because of genocide, other - because of total brainwashing, economic fall, etc (Remember germans? Actually, most of them were victims of nazi regime too). This kind of situations is very common after revolutionary restructuring of empires. You can remember wars in former Tsar Russian Empire, former African colonies, Yugoslavia or USSR after changes of those regimes... So, maybe it would help in this discussion other point of view - historical perspective where genocide can be viewed from the different point? I understand that it is difficult, because of topic is really sensitive, but may be it is worth to try? --Gvorl 18:31, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thoth, thank you. May this sane attitude transpire into the article. --House of Shin 18:53, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have always had what I contend is a holistic approach to this issue. So much so that I often get attacked from both sides! I've had my approach be termed blasphemous by a Turkish view apologist speaking as if from an Armenian perspective (if that makes sense - anyway, I think he was giving me a complement...). Still - there are basic facts - and these facts will not paint the Young Turk regiem in a very good light - regardless. There is nothing I can do to change the reality or truth of this. That being said there are a very many related issues that warrent discussion and revelation (from all sides) in order for readers to properly understand the circumstances and events of this genocide.

And again - I must stress - there are very few individuals with as much knowledge and insight on this matter as Fadix. I think he has been wrongly portryed as (unreasonably) partisan because of some of the extreme denialist viewpoints he has had to deal with. I think he can be very balanced if allowed - perhaps even more so then I. Additionally, I do appreciate that there are very legitimate Turkish viewpoints and information that are not ussually stressed or mentioned by Armenians discussing this issue and I would welcome them as they are relevant and are supported. Knowing what I do know (I am quite aware of and at least fairly well read concerning what is available in English on this matter - from the Turkish perspective and otherwise) - I still fail to see where the fundemental premiss that is held by Armenians and most all legitimate genocide scholars and historians - of this being a genocide - in every sense of the word - that this premiss can be seriously challenged. I do think, however, that discussion of these events and surrounding events and circumstances need not be monolithic (or single POV) in nature. --THOTH 19:09, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I haven't experienced a hatred towards Armeinans when I were there. I think Fadix is fanatical with his beliefs, you have a cooler aproach and a civil attitude. You are encouraged to respond to my posts below, and PLEASE stick to History rather than an analysis of Turkeys denial. This is a History discussion not political. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 02:33, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

THOTH, I appreciate your constructive comments and valuable analysis on the issue. I agree with you on most parts, but I don't understand how you can claim that the Armenian issue is not being used by European big powers today. Do you really think that France cares about Armenians? Did they care about Rwanda just 10 years ago, when it was happening in front of their eyes? Do you think US will take action against Turkey on this issue as long as Incirlik remains open (which is a shame)? We just don't talk to each other, ask for third parties for help and they get the benefit from our problem. I think this is an apparent fact, and actually one of the most important things that feeds arrogant Turkish nationalism and has been shaping Turkey's attitude on the issue from the beginning.

A note on hatred. Yes, there is hatred against Armenians in Turkey. It has several reasons and cannot be simply explained by "manipulation" and "brain-washing". More of this is on the side of the Armenians, which is also very understandable. A recent joint study by academics from two countries showed that about 60% of Armenians declare negative feelings for Turks, while this is around 30% in Turkey. This makes sense as Armenian national identity is built on remembering "what Turks did to us", while the Turkish side preferred to forget what has happened and Turks, as the major entity of the Empire, did gain more than sufficient number of enemies during the collapse of the Empire. The words for national identities are sometimes used as an insult mutually. However, i am happy to note that there have been some famous Armenians in Turkey during the republican era, who were well-respected (such as Agop Dilaçar, Nubar Terziyan and Ara Güler). What bothers me on our side is that people are generally not aware of the humanistic dimension of the tragedy while talking, debating on it. I see a similar attitude from the other side, that is what has pushed me to angrily jump into this article. While they proudly use Turkish historians' names to support their theses, they don't care to listen what they say about the causalities on the other side. Taner Akçam gives an estimate of 40000 (numbers are only important to show that the event was not an outlier) Turkish villagers killed in revenge between 1917 and 1919. Local people in Northeastern Turkey tell stories about people being burned alive. These are enough to agitate that long-lasting hatred and forget questioning what "we" might have done. But people just reject listening to these, keep accusing you of "revising history" because as I now understand, the problem is totally political. Not humanitarian, not historical, it is unfortunately just political. --Cezveci 09:54, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Cezveci - I have only just seen your post here - and I believe it is a good one - with worthwhile insight. Of course France and Germany may well (and perhaps are) using the Genocide as an excuse to keep Turkey out of the EU - OK I see this - and this is politics - some of the politics that has tainted this issue - since perhaps before it was ever an issue between Turks and Armenians. And I agree with yor point about needing to see the human side of the equation - and that Turks suffered as well - most certainly. Still - the CUP actions and related (even on the part of a very many Turks/Kurds) did occur - and this must be accuratly presented. And prior and counter Armenian violence against Turks did occur (not quite at all the same thing as the deportation & Genocide however - please lets see this admission - eh) - and these needs to be properly acknowledged - though not in the exaggerated manner that it often is (as justification per se) - and I don't necessarily dispute the potential for the numbers of Turkish killed by Armenians in the 1917-19 period (Armenia was in shambles you know - leadership killed - they had no idea of how to run a state and discipline their own - and thugs and those who were hurt and bent on revenge had guns etc). I think - that in the full article everything of this nature should have its place - and included in such should be the denial issue itself in some detail (IMO). I agree with Fadix's suggestion of a main article with side/supporting articles. Anyway - no time at the moment. I am interested in your take on why the Armenians were/became to be so disliked by the Turks during the late 19th century on. Likely there is much more that we (us and each "side") might agree on when we dispasionatly lay out the events and factors. I know that there are Turks who understand much and have some special insights - I was surprised (a bit - though not totally) that you seem to possibly be one of these (based on your earlier attacks - that I see/saw as a bit off base - considering who directed at etc). Anyway like I said got to go now...--THOTH 19:52, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Concerning the Armenian Genocide as such from the perspective of scholars and the historical record

Thanks to Fadix for posting this on another site - I saw it and felt it needed to be posted here for the record - (BTW - still working - as I can on a proposed outline for this section - you will see why it is taking me so long - as it is a bit more then an outline and I am trying to be comprehensive)

INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF GENOCIDE SCHOLARS

President: Robert Melson (USA) Vice-President: Israel Charny (Israel) Secretary-Treasurer: Steven Jacobs (USA)

Respond to: Robert Melson, Professor of Political Science Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907 USA

April 6, 2005

Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan TC Easbakanlik Bakanlikir Ankara, Turkey FAX: 90 312 417 0476

Dear Prime Minister Erdogan:

We are writing you this open letter in response to your call for an "impartial study by historians" concerning the fate of the Armenian people in the Ottoman Empire during World War I.

We represent the major body of scholars who study genocide in North America and Europe. We are concerned that in calling for an impartial study of the Armenian Genocide you may not be fully aware of the extent of the scholarly and intellectual record on the Armenian Genocide and how this event conforms to the definition of the United Nations Genocide Convention. We want to underscore that it is not just Armenians who are affirming the Armenian Genocide but it is hundreds of independent scholars, who have no affiliations with governments, and whose work spans many countries and nationalities and the course of decades. The scholarly evidence reveals the following:

On April 24, 1915, under cover of World War I, the Young Turk government of the Ottoman Empire began a systematic genocide of its Armenian citizens an unarmed Christian minority population. More than a million Armenians were exterminated through direct killing, starvation, torture, and forced death marches. Another million fled into permanent exile. Thus an ancient civilization was expunged from its homeland of 2,500 years.

The Armenian Genocide was the most well-known human rights issue of its time and was reported regularly in newspapers across the United States and Europe. The Armenian Genocide is abundantly documented by thousands of official records of the United States and nations around the world including Turkey's wartime allies Germany, Austria and Hungary, by Ottoman court-martial records, by eyewitness accounts of missionaries and diplomats, by the testimony of survivors, and by decades of historical scholarship.

The Armenian Genocide is corroborated by the international scholarly, legal, and human rights community:

1) Polish jurist Raphael Lemkin, when he coined the term genocide in 1944, cited the Turkish extermination of the Armenians and the Nazi extermination of the Jews as defining examples of what he meant by genocide.

2) The killings of the Armenians is genocide as defined by the 1948 United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.

3) In 1997 the International Association of Genocide Scholars, an organization of the world's foremost experts on genocide, unanimously passed a formal resolution affirming the Armenian Genocide.

4) 126 leading scholars of the Holocaust including Elie Wiesel and Yehuda Bauer placed a statement in the New York Times in June 2000 declaring the "incontestable fact of the Armenian Genocide" and urging western democracies to acknowledge it.

5) The Institute on the Holocaust and Genocide (Jerusalem), the Institute for the Study of Genocide (NYC) have affirmed the historical fact of the Armenian Genocide.

6) Leading texts in the international law of genocide such as William A. Schabas's Genocide in International Law (Cambridge University Press, 2000) cite the Armenian Genocide as a precursor to the Holocaust and as a precedent for the law on crimes against humanity.

We note that there may be differing interpretations of genocide - how and why the Armenian Genocide happened, but to deny its factual and moral reality as genocide is not to engage in scholarship but in propaganda and efforts to absolve the perpetrator, blame the victims, and erase the ethical meaning of this history.

We would also note that scholars who advise your government and who are affiliated in other ways with your state-controlled institutions are not impartial. Such so-called "scholars" work to serve the agenda of historical and moral obfuscation when they advise you and the Turkish Parliament on how to deny the Armenian Genocide.

We believe that it is clearly in the interest of the Turkish people and their future as a proud and equal participant in international, democratic discourse to acknowledge the responsibility of a previous government for the genocide of the Armenian people, just as the German government and people have done in the case of the Holocaust.

Sincerely,

[signed] Robert Melson Professor of Political Science President, International Association of Genocide Scholars

[signed] Israel Charny Vice President, International Association of Genocide Scholars Editor in Chief, Encyclopedia of Genocide

[signed] Peter Balakian Donald M. and Constance H. Rebar Professor of the Humanities Colgate University

---

Unsigned - THOTH

So a letter from scholars asuming its authentic prooves genocide? --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 00:10, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am just impressed as newer and newer accounts are formed supporting the case. You guys have good comunication. I am not trying to disprove the genocide, nor prove it. Instead of talking diplomacy, start talking history, thanks. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 00:12, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If you however want to talk abut diplomacy, create a Armenian-Turkish relations article. Apperantly scholas worldwide accept this, dont care of the factuality of that. However discussion is not relly about genocide here. Its about how horible people who want to discuss it. Average post is a page, rambling. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 00:15, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

...

I personaly am more and more reluctant to believe State Sponsored Genocide was not the case. The more you insisst that is the case without basis the less likely I will believe that. I am even less likely to believe if you declare me Turkish/Revisionsit or anything else. I need to see the analogy of your cases... Which historian said it, based on what material, is there an alternative interpretation(s)? Is the alternative interpretation(s) significant? --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 01:06, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thank you Coolcat - this (above and your comments after my posting of the Association of Genocide Scholars letter to Erdogyn) proves everything that people here have claimed concerning your intrangesence and makes crystal clear that your objective - in the face of all evidence and with nothing to counter it - is that you will only continue to block any efforts to portray these events as they are historically known by all. I do not understand all how Wikipedia works - but it is quite clear to me that you do not belong in any way in this process - what can I say. We are not stupid...I will leave it at that.--THOTH 15:04, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think you fail to see my argument, you tall about evidence, I see no evidence of this evidence. Diplomatic mail does not proove genocide. It just proves some people are gooing in to great lenghts to make Turkey Accept it. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 23:55, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

With respect, diplomatic mail is by definition conducted between nations, for example if France wrote Germany a letter. The letter above is not diplomatic mail. If I can pose this question Coolcat, if the International Association of Genocide Scholars are not able to provide authoritative evidence, then who is? I would very much appreciate it if you could present some of your sources. --bainer 00:11, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Any material that had been added that remotley suggests otherwise has been removed. Spelling corrections were declared POV even though the actual change was superficial. This clearly shows posts by users are not read. You can have hundereds of people here, I dont quite care. In the end the article will be NPOV, like it or not. See creationism? How many scientists believe in this you think? Why is the article informative instead of "how false" the idea is. You are required to tolerate other peoples rules if you want to be a part of wikipedia. You should all the time discuss the article not the other party as explained in Wikipedia:No Personal Attacks. I never declared the pro-genocide view as "stupid" or "unacceptable". You do not have the god given right to determine facts and what is POV. All of you combined is one side of the story. It is not the only side. A significant group of people dismisses genocide thesis. I dont expect you to accept their beliefs, however you are required to live with it. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 01:06, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Everyone has their views regarding topics. Honestly, I was indifferent. I have a good understanding what Turks "feel" as I lived among them for quite a while. Knowing the reasonable sounding Turkish argument, I was going to make people present their cases. I commented out material that I thought would conflict with the Turkish Argument as that is a sign of POV/persective. I was going to rewrite some so it wasnt a blunt accusations. While genocide thesis may be true/false, that really is irrelevant when we are talking about it here. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view will tell you that presenting multiple views adds diversity. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 01:06, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

---

The vital component: good research

Many POV battles would be made much easier through the practice of good research. Facts are not points of view in and of themselves. So an easy way to avoid making a statement that promotes a point of view is to find a reputable source for a fact and cite the source. This is an easy way to characterize a side of a debate without promoting a view. The trick is to find the best and most reputable source you can. Try the library for good books and journal articles, and look for the most reliable online resources. A little bit of ground work can save a lot of time in trying to justify a point later.

The only other important consideration is that while a fact is not POV in and of itself, adding facts, no matter how well cited, from only one side of a debate is a POV problem. So work for balance. Find facts that aren't from one side or the other and cite the source.

---

Finalising my words: I do not hate you. I am not ignorant. I am not your pet. I am focusing on this article only. I shall present my case below regarding the current state of the article. I will not edit the article itself. So far i have suggested material to be discussed, I wanted to hear what others thought first, I ended up been forced to deal with insults.

---

Interesting discussion, I want to call THOTH to be honest about what the Armenian claims are looking for. Please don't take this in any way of an offense, but the main reason behind the whole so called Armenian-genocide is to get land back from Turkey. I understand your loss during the world war I and I understand that the deportation of your people had been in bad conditions and not the ideal one. But if it is sentimental to your people, maybe you might want to try to explain to people like me who has lost family during the Van massacre, where Armenians shot Turkish people and massaccared 500.000 innocent Ottoman citizens as they betrayed the Ottoman forces as they fought with the Russian side. I believe this discussion of such a complex issue should be held between Historians, not between interested people of this issue, because there is thousands of evidence that should be analyzed before coming up with a resolution. I hope two countries can get along, and yet I see no help of the Armenian Claim to Armenia. I remember that the visit of Foreign Ministir of Armenia to Turkey and he said that there should be no interference between the relations of Armenia and Turkey from international arena and added that they were not discussing the issue of Armenian Claim with Turkish side anymore.

Anonymous poster above - you obviously don't understand "Armenian losses during World war I" - and your a\calling the Genocide of Armenians "So-called" is additional testament to your ignorance on this matter. You obvioulsy have accepted the (unfactual) official Turkish party line - that Armenians are only interested in getting "land back from Turkey" - that Armenians massacred 500,000 inocent Ottoman civilians, that Armenians betrayed Ottoman forces as they fought with Russians - these are all completely spurious and untrue claims. BTW - for your informaton historians and scholars have already spoken on this issue. The truth is know - just not by you or your Prime Minister, government or a great many of your people - shame that. And regarding the loss of your family members during the Van "massacre" - I am sorry for that - however I urge you to truly study the history and reports of what occured in Van (not just fabricated Turkish propaganda that was used to incite hatred of Armenians) and then decide who might be to blame for such. --THOTH 15:06, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Coolcats suggestions

• These are my suggestions. You are welcome to respond to them, you can tell me why the change is in approporate/inapproporate. You are welcome to suggest alternatives. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 01:06, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• If you are going to be sarcastic and/or tell me how horible of a person I am, don't. This is a civilised request. You are not obligaded to follow it, I do wish you respect these conditions. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 01:20, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• I will be basing all my statements based on this version: "12:59, 20 Apr 2005 House of Shin (→Recent history — timeline -Ministry of Education recommendations of 14/04/2003 (LDH))"
• If I edit the article alone it had been reverted without beeing read so I gave up on that idea, also as I am not allowed to edit wikipedia I also gave up on my atempt to work on other articles as well as they have been constantly removed. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 01:38, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Lead

The term Armenian Genocide (also known as the Armenian [[Holocaust (disambiguation)|Holocaust]] or Armenian Massacre) refers to the deportations and related deaths of Armenians during the government of the Young Turks in 1915–1917.

Several facts in connection with the Armenian Genocide are currently causing dispute between parts of the international community and Turkey. There is an agreement about the occurence of the event, but Turkey denies that it was a , hence genocide.

Most Armenian, many Western, and some Turkish scholars believe that the Armenian deaths were the result of a state-sponsored extermination plan. Most Western sources maintain that there were at least one million deaths. What is referred to as the Armenian Genocide is the second-most studied case of what is called genocide, and often draws comparison with the Holocaust.

---

The term Armenian Genocide (also refered as the Armenian [[Holocaust]] or Armenian Massacre) refers to the deportations/relocations and related deaths of Armenians as a consequence during the government of the Young Turks between 1915 and 1917.

The event is currently a diplomatic dispute between Turkey and Armenia. Presure on Turkey by parts of international community to recognise it as a "state-sponsored extermination plan" rather than her standing "a consequence of armed conflict, civil war, disease, and famine during the turmoil of World War I" is increasing as the list of countries that have officially recognized the Armenian Genocide grows.

Scholars worldwide agree that the event did happen. However there is a lack of agreement on various details. The most significant disagreement is it's classification as genocide. While the majority agrees a state-sponsored extermination plan was the case, a considerable minority disputes this with various reasons. There is also a lack of concensius on the death toll. Numbers range between 200,000 to 1,600,000 or posibaly more, however archives do not agree with each other.

---

• Please post comments below here:

Can someone please tell me who is "comparing this with the Holocaust? Is this a personal opinion? I dont think anything can compare with the Holocaust. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 02:13, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Who claims this is the second most studied genocide case? Is this a personal opinion? --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 02:26, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As you should know, Raphael Lemkin who is creator of the genocide term, compared Armenian genocide to Holocaust in the definition of the genocide term. So, this should be clear, I think. It may be more difficult to define "the most studied", "the second most studied", etc. things, but it can be said that the most or the second most studied case can be determined by number of historic works about the case. Of course, this claim should be reffered. --Gvorl 06:09, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well my issue is "compared" makes it sound almsot as bad as and like the Holocaust when that is not the case. Article itself suggests this. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 23:43, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

---

WHO ARE YOU TO MAKE THIS CLAIM! your biases are showing! yeah yeah - "I only want NPOV & the truth - 50/50" etc - yes right - we see you. So you contend that death marches (where in some case only 10% made it), brutal and depraved rapes, being cut up with axes, swords & such, various forms of torture, cruelty, emptying of whole towns, villages, regions etc - and the killing of over one million innocent civilians - who were uprooted from their homes and had all valuables and property - everything - stolen - lives ruined (if they survived) - and the fact that there are no Armenians left in what was historical Armenia - you contend that this in no way compares to the Holocaust!! - that we are making it sound "almost as bad" etc - well for those (hundreds of thousand to millions!) who experienced each it was for all intensive purposes the same - but OK - further concerning comparability - I will contend that on average Armenians experienced quite a bit more physical cruelty and sadism - and taken on the whole - lost a larger percentage of population (they were not rescued as the [surviving] Jews were at the end of WWII) - and the historic homeland of the Armenians has been lost to them (perhaps forever) - hm what does this all amount to (unquestionably) GENOCIDE. Let me say that again in order to make it very clear - The Armenians of Anatolia - of the Ottoman Empire clearly, unquestionable, irrefutably experienced a GENOCIDE at the hands of the Ottman Turks. This is not my POV - it is fact - fact that is overwhelming supported by scholars and the historical recors and all evidence - ALL EVIDENCE! So don't you claim - as one who admits to not knowing the facts and one who says he is unbiased - that this "is not the case" - you are like an infant who is attempting to contribute to an article concerning the Theory of Relativity. Your contributions are just as valid and relevant - as you continually prove to us. Please refrain from posting your entirely ignorant and totally biased POV (child like - David Irving like) perspective! --THOTH 15:40, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Neither of these two versions above is acceptable - particularly the latter. Come now - what incredible weasle words - as well as legitimizing falsity. BTW coolcat I own several works that directly compare Holocaust/shoa with Armenian Genocide - one written by a Jewish survivor of the Holocaust BTW - and one specifically dealing with revisionism and denial.

"deportation and related deaths" - this completely circumvents the fact of deliberate killing - murder/slaughter/massacre/torture/rape/enslavement and so on and so forth that are not at issue - these things absolutly did happen and are thoroughly documented - so nada - this ording and its implications are completely unacceptable.

"The event is currently a diplomatic dispute between Turkey and Armenia." - irrelevant and an untrue statement - has no place here - I know of no ongoing dispute between the two nations that fits this description

"The most significant disagreement is it's classification as genocide" - wrong - we have already very clearly established that there is no disagreement on this point other then from Turish David Irvings and such.

"While the majority agrees a state-sponsored extermination plan was the case, a considerable minority disputes this with various reasons." - incorrrect statemtn - there is no "considerable minority that disagrees outside of a very specific list of Turkish and Turkish state sponsored individuals. Of course we should (and will) list these in a denilaist addendum to the article - but as stated this - like nearly all else in this proposed version is misleading and false

All I have time for at the moment.--THOTH 14:48, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, "denalisim" is a valid point of view. NPOV suggests an article to be written like this. Your works are comendable, McCarthy thinks it wasnt genocide. A good portion of the scientific comunity disagrees it being classified as genocide. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 23:43, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What is your source to dispute the level of agreement/disagreement? Are we suggesting Turkey + McCarthy vs world? --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 23:44, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If the main diagreement of it is not genocide vs non genocide what is it? Playing with words and making it NPOV is good practice. This is how we do things on wikipedia. Creationism is one example, not the best one though. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 01:27, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Coolcat - do you at all understand the degree to which you make no sense at all for someone who really understands this issue. Sure denialism is a valid POV - for those who have done wrong - and are in denial of such (it ain't healthy though - BTW...). Are you familiar with the "8 statges of genocide denial"? - perhaps I shall post. Your statement/contention that a "good portion of the scientific communitey disagrees (about) it being classified as genocide" is just incorrect. Perhaps you are refering to a specific subset of the scientific community - you really must specify. And you discount the (substantiated) views of the Assocation of Genocide Scholars - and - as referrenced 126 Scholars of the Holocaust who believe the same...anyway who TF cares what you think - your credibility is way past lost...--THOTH 04:57, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think you confirmed my argument regarding NPOV actualy. You dont understand what NPOV is about none of you do. Keep discussing me instead of the topic, its becoming amusing actualy. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 11:54, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thoth might not well understand NPOV, but neither do you, as it has been demonstrated times and again by many. What you can't claim is that I don't understand NPOV... Fadix 04:45, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Right and how neutral is the article now since I stop touching it (20:14 (UTC), 26 Mar 2005)? --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 06:44, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

you have categories like: "Before the genocide" and thats neutral? "Turkish government denial" ? Come on. You are presenting this as a solid fact when you cant even tell me how many people died. You said archives disagreed. Just dont claim you understand NPOV. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 06:50, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Really moving on...

Well the discussion has come along recently. I once again would like to recommend we completely ignore Cool Cat. He has served as an absolutely massive distraction from anything of substance, and I think things can move forward much more quickly even working with a nationalist Turk like Cevzeki (I cant's see the spelling from this page), than with someone who knows nothing and has feelings, and has who knows what agenda here. Perhaps it's even a well meaning one, but it has not served as one.

Now I also don't know who added the Arabia thing, but it is interesting that someone would rather complain about it repeatedly than remove it once. Let me be the THIRD person to say, TAKE IT OUT!! It is completely wrong.

Next, let me recomend someone archive almost all of this page again, and we start with a fresh one.

I agree with Fadix that a change (for now at least) should be presented here, and wait at least a couple of days for useful comment. If there seems to be no comments or disagreement, it could be implemented. If there is, then we have to decide how these things get handled. (and I again recommend anything coming from Cool Cat be ignored).

By the way, I am attending the huge international genocide conference (April 20-21) and it is excellent. 3 Israelis, 3 Turks (including one Turkish Armenian, but not including a Turk whose trial starts today for speaking the truth), lots of other international scholars, the well known Hovanissian, Dadrian, Akcam, Miller, Yehuda Bauer, Israel Charny, Juan Mendez, etc. There was mention of the NY Times open letter that was being published and which our Turkish contributer here poopooed. Too bad he, and Cool Cat couldn't attend... seriously. --RaffiKojian 02:30, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That is a discussion on armenian genocide, any of your comments refering to me were removed in accordance with wikipedia:No Personal Attacks, discus me not. Archiving in progress... --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 02:53, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Discuss me not

Coolcat, you have just archived posts made hours before they have been archived, this is a clear abuses of the archiving idea. Archiving is not there to hide posts which you don't like, you can NOT archive posts that were just made hours ago. Fadix 14:25, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, unarchive material if you wish. I archived them on some other users request, its a wiki. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 23:47, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No it is not Wiki, archiving doesn't apply to posts made hours ago, and use the archiving idea to hide posts like that. There is a reason behind archiving, and what you've did with my posts can't be included here. Oh and, as I see you have deleted again, good going, this only adds in the evidences. Fadix 00:23, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree that archiving should not proceed too rapidly, unless the page itself grows too fast to keep under a reasonable 70k in size. -SV|t 20:51, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Misconduct

I think it appropriate to point out that User "Coolcat" has edited and deleted comments made by others on this page recently. I have posted links to these actions to the Requests for arbitration page concerning User:Coolcat, however, some participants in this talk page may not be aware of this request, so I'm raising the matter here; please see this edit and this one, too to see the removal or paring-down of comments by RaffiKojian, Fadix, and THOTH. — Davenbelle 00:25, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for tracking this. So sorry a certain uncool hyena is wasting your and all of our time like this --THOTH 04:58, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

While it might be appropriate to remove flaming or abuse on one's own User Talk page, it is recommended that one should not remove personal attacks from Talk pages in general. Refactoring is only appropriate once a conversation has died down, that is, not immediately. --bainer 05:39, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Personal attacks will be removed, see tony removing such comments at the bottom of the page. Civil people dont need personal attacks, sincerely. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 11:49, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There is NO personal attack in my post you have edited. Fadix 04:41, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am adding back the comments that Cool Cat deleted. They are simply the truth, and I do not even consider them personal attacks, I am simply evaluating the worth of his participation, mentioning how he hinders discussion in every way possible, and recommending a strategy on how to continue the real work and discussion of the article. Cool Cat, do NOT delete my comments, as it has already been pointed out that this is not kosher on a talk page, and I even do not consider my comments personal attacks. They are nothing personal, and you have certainly discussed other people on this page. I will not reply to your replies to me, but will respond in kind if you delete my comments again. For peoples information, aside from posting what you deleted back where you took it from, I am posting it here for people to see. --RaffiKojian 16:29, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• I once again would like to recommend we completely ignore Cool Cat. He has served as an absolutely massive distraction from anything of substance, and I think things can move forward much more quickly even working with a nationalist Turk like Cevzeki (I cant's see the spelling from this page), than with someone who knows nothing and has feelings, and has who knows what agenda here. Perhaps it's even a well meaning one, but it has not served as one.
• (and I again recommend anything coming from Cool Cat be ignored).
• Too bad he, and Cool Cat couldn't attend [the genocide conference]... seriously.

Who are you? Please sign your posts. -SV|t 20:51, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Mediation

An old mediation request still exists for this topic. How are issues/discussion regarding this article going? They seem to at least be civil, which is the important thing. Since this is a long term (maybe permanent) npov issue, I will change the npov notice to be less obstructive. -SV|t 20:51, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Arabia

The information I posted about the Ottoman Empire wanting to expand into Arabia is not wrong. I got the information out of my school history textbook. → JarlaxleArtemis 00:42, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

What's the textbook? I wonder if its authors ever looked at a map, or knew anything about the extent and shape of the Ottoman Empire at the time, or heard the phrases "Hejaz railway" and "Arab Revolt". I wonder. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 01:17, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ototomans owned entier Middle east, all of north africa, all of balkans and surrounding areas of black sea I believe. They, just like any empier wanted world domination. Heh, :) --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 11:56, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Check your history book, even your nationalist books, I don't believe would hide that the Balkans were lost during the Balkan war of 1912-1913, which of course is before 1914, when World War I started. Fadix 04:42, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Dispute solving

Sorry for my intrusion into this dispute, simply I would like to suggest and/or review some structural solutions here (most of them are already suggested). I hope this will help by simplifying discussion. Feel free to add new ones --Gvorl 05:42, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC) :

1. Enter changes into Armenian genocide article only after reviewing them in discussion page. Simple policy can be used: change which is not explained before should be considered incorrect.
2. Create separate page describing Turkian government position
3. Create separate page analysing factual and logical accuracy of no-genocide position
4. Create separate page analysing factual and logical accuracy of pro-genocide position
5. Try to use at least one reference which can be testified in each statement.
6. Try to use position of external reviewer, trying to describe facts in context of general situation

Well, I havent touched the article. Most/All recent changes in the article recently have not been discussed. Existing material was bad enough. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 11:58, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Coolcat, my suggestion is not specially for you, please do not take it as personal suggestion or smth.. If active editors like You and Fadix will decide to discuss any changes before any changes are made, this will be decision for all, including not only You, but Fadix too. And because of somebody can be interested in such decission, please discuss it here, but not in my user-page discussion which is not interesting for anyone excepting myself, and not by placing texts about learning of wikipedia usage. Let me copy here part of your post and I'll try to answer to it also here. --Gvorl 12:50, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Next paragraph (sentences from Coolcat) is copied from User talk:Gvorl:

I understand you are trying to help, and I encourage any attempt to make this article neutral, however seperate articles will not work as there isnt much to say, the people dispute anything remotely suggesting "no genocide was not the case" or anything. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 12:07, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Separate articles will simply clear positions by avoiding change-war and searching of universal truth. Separate articles also can simplify the case - it is the only reason I had suggested this. Also, this will show points where different positions conform and where really differs. There can be separate article for Armenian position too, but it seems that such article will be nearly the same like we have currently. --Gvorl 12:50, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I will withold judgement on seperate articles - though I can see where such might be appropriate. However I cannot agree that the current article is sufficient. It is severely comprimised and is not well written. I have almost completed my editing of my anotated outline (perhaps can post later today or tommorow - depending on the time my wife allows me to spend on it) - yes I have been taking a 2 handwritten page outline that I had developed months ago as a potential outline for a documentary film and have been adapting it for an outline to present here - unfortunatly as I have gotten more into this - my outline has not paired down but has expanded a bit and now stands at five pages! (sorry - but it does include references to earlier history as well as takes us to the present - perhaps even the [lessons of the] attempt to write a Wikipedia article on the AG will be the most current/recent entry...) - but anyway much of what is included will be able to be dealt with by reference to other Wikipedia or external articles and other entries will be satisfied by one or two lines of explanation. What I will propose is for some others to perhaps take cuts at different sections (if the outline is accepted - or some varient0 and then we might edit as a group. I can wright these things rather well I think - and from (factual) NPOV (thank you) - but I will likely very much rely on Fadix and others to assist with appropriate references (even though I do have many) - hopefully I will get cooperation. Anyway - I do hope to get the outline out shortly. IMO its looking good - though many tough choices in terms of what might go where etc. Again I hope that it is well recieved. I do not think the current article or anything thus far even remotely fits the bill in a great number of areas. --THOTH 14:49, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Armenian quote

I don't know why the [Armenian quote] was first removed, and then reinserted into text, but this time without link and without explanation. Is this some kind of conspiracy or just clums editing?!Szopen 09:00, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Local populations' participation

I think the issue of local populations –not only bandits- (from neighbouring villages actually) of Turks and Kurds having taken part in the genocide, in a similar way to what happened in Rwanda, should be raised. I only have been told about it by a survivor, originally from a town in Cappadocia – are there any verifiable published records of such events that can be cited? They might have been too sporadic, but as seen in Rwanda, if there are pre-existing rivalries and tensions (and there were in Cappadocia at least, where the Armenians were generally the architects and better educated, richer ones I am told) the 'masterminds' of the genocide need only give a little shove in the "right" direction, and sit back.

I agree that the article must accuratly represent the role/actions/attitudes and such of the local populations of Turks and Kurds as we have reportings of such - agreed. There is a place for this in the outline (for a much better presentation of the Genocide) I am developing. --THOTH 14:51, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't sign that post. Looking forward to your outline ('outline' must be an understatement by now ;-))... --House of Shin 15:47, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If the article talks about local populations involvement, it should also talk about the Armenian populations involvement in the acts causing outbreaks of violence. As you mentioned previously most Turks will react if the article *only* talks about Armenians being killed by other local Turks and Kurds. If local people were involved, what is the reason? I don't want to believe that Turks and Kurds attacked Armenians when there was no reason. I am almost sure that it is a sporadic reaction to things that were going on which wouldn't be genocide but ethnic clash. As a Turk, I have no bad feelings such as hate about Armenian people whatsoever. I understand your tradegy, but it is so difficult for me to accept that my ancestors contributed to such atrocities. Even if they did, they didn't do it in my name. I want to believe that it was some insane idealist imperialist minds that also pushed us into WWI. I believe that tensions arosed, caused by nationalist feelings making both sides unrest in East Turkey (which wasn't yet Turkey at that time). I want this to be resolved in peace and I'm as curious as anybody else as to what really caused to whatever happened. Well, I want to write more from a Turk's perspective. It is nice to see there are some moderate Armenians. Thanks. --Muz

I agree with you, to a certain point only: in the end, nothing excuses genocide, which aims at wiping out a whole race, with its culture, memory, identity. Not even 'ethnic clashes' as you say - let us not muddle causes, symptoms and effects. The Germans, and their governments have acknowledged that for decades: any attempt at finding what you call 'reasons' for perpetrating genocide, just as any denial, is moral if not effective complicity. That is the sad thing about Turkey's government's attitude in so many ways even today. And nothing that government says or does will ever change what has been lived, witnessed, officially and legally recognised by so many people and countries. But yes, I agree, for my part, that Armenian nationalism and its violent outbreaks should be mentioned as well, as far as reliable (i.e. non governmental or affiliated) sources can be given, as for what I am proposing above. You are welcome to provide them if you have any! --House of Shin 23:19, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

About including Armenian nationalism, I propose we wait the publication of German records translation that is due to about 3 months, or if a German speaker bought the German volume, to tell what it has to say about it. Fadix 02:29, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Muz - I wonder what the value of focusing on any Armenian violence is, as well as focusing on not hurting Turks feelings (who really ought to get hurt in this case) in an Armenian Genocide article. The Armenian Genocide shouldn't cause today's Turks guilt, only the government campaign of denial should. Ultra-nationalism can cause these things to happen, and in a time when Armenians and Turks were just discovering nationalism (soon after it infected Europe), the Turks had a position of absolute power over Armenians and used it to a very sad ends. I am not saying no mention of Armenian violence should be made, I haven't really thought much about it, but as House of Shin says, "nothing excuses genocide", and I almost always see Armenian violence - which incidentally was so limited in the face of the genocide it is astounding - used by Turks trying to say there was no genocide as if a nation could "ask for it" and deserve genocide. If any mention of Armenian violence is included, I think the focus should be on just how limited it was, and what the causes were. Perhaps this also could use a seperate article - where the issue in general and individual cases could be developed without detracting from the main article. --RaffiKojian 03:09, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

First, from an emotional point of view, genocide is such a terrible thing, no one wants to take the blame. The government (or governments) as representatives of the population in large is no different. Having been compared to Nazis is very insulting itself. If no mention of the things that might have led to genocide is made, it will look like it was just a ideological/racist/etc. hatred or trying to wipe out a race. We know that Armenians and Turks (and Kurds, Arabs, etc.) lived together in peace for centuries on the same land. So, what happened that made it change so radically is very important to really understand genocide. We can't judge things out of context correctly. Especially if it is history. I see there are two sides to the story, first an ethnic clash caused by nationalism or whatever and there are decisions made to solve the problem (totally wrong no matter however you look at it) Another important point is that since there are two sides in this, two perspectives should be reflected in the article, side by side whenever possible. I'm not a historian, therefore, I don't want to stain the article with the things I've been taught. I think, whoever contributes should be careful not to include any preconceived bias. Otherwise, this article might never become a NPOV. (There are efforts that could lead to an understanding between people. This is being discussed by the elites of two nations right now which I think is a much better approach, a bottom-up rather than top-down. I don't really care, if it's a political or whatever stand to recognize or reject genocide, we should get over these and try to make cooperation happen between two nations.) --Muz 18:22, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hi Muz - you must understand that the reasons a genocide was committed shouldn't make anyone feel better about it having happened, any more than you as a Turk should feel personally guilty for what happened before you were born. It happened. The government did something against 2 or more million unarmed Armenian civilians and over half of them died. While I am happy to hear your specific comments on the article, I insist you go back and read ALL the archived discussions (links available at the top of this page) about the article, before you try to raise issues that we have discussed to death already, and great (and painful) length. In genocide, like in one on one murder, there are no "two sides to the story". It is murder. It is not oh, well he murdered the slave because he was afraid the slave would get away. It is true this is not pleasant, but it is what happened, and we need to deal with it in an honest and healthy way so that it can be put firmly in the past and life can go on normally. The Turkish government cannot even bring itself to establish diplomatic relations with Armenia, who has no preconditions itself... how ridiculous a situation is this? --83.217.229.146 03:03, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Muz - agreed - and all well and good - however that it was a genocide is unquestionable and the truth cannot be whitewashed. I have writtn an extensive introduction and a proposed outline Istill not fully complete) to the article that extensively discusses and addresses the issue of context - you might not like how or what I have included but I shall be shortly posting it for discussion on these pages just the same. I am still refining the outline but I do hope to post what I have sometime tonight if I can get to it. --THOTH 23:54, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Muz - It is a bit of a historical stretch to assert that Armenians, Turks, Kurds lived in peace for many years prior to the genocide of 1915. Systematic small scale massacres were routinely perpetrated against the Armenian minority in Turkey, since the time of the Seljuk-Turkic invasion of the Armenian plateau in the 12th centurty all the way through the end of the 19th century. -- Respectfully, A.N.

This is not a joke

... is it? This may be an illustrative point in "Turkish government denial" paragraph: [1] --House of Shin 11:02, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Google it and you'll find other sites with the story; would be a good addition to the article. — Davenbelle 11:49, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

Every Armenian forumist and their supporters in the internet have a cloudy mind that every Turk and Turkcophile is a sort of Turkish governement's agent whom support denialist propaganda.Whatever they say,whatever they produce as a defence is a product of Turkish Governemet.What worse is that if Turkish governemet accepts that The Genocide was the fact poor peasant Turks will go after their governemet as the slaves follow their masters.Anyone thinks like wise should look back our İndependence war against Greeks and their masters as well as the Sultan who were the slave master of the Turks for some cleverheads who could stop Mustafa Kemal Ataturk and its followers.Armenians and the their masters can claim what ever they want but Turkish people will never accept this kind of insult.Because it is not the truth.The truth lays in the Armenian state and The Tashnak party's archives where all the documents are behind close doors and kept from the world..

unsigned Turk above - can I ask you just what evidence you hope to find in the "Dashnak party's archives" (?) that you think will exonerate the Young Turk controlled Ottoman governemnt from culpilability in the Genocide of Armenians. Even if your claims were entirely true (hypothetically) and the Dashnak party was intent on overthrowing the Sultanate - and had armed agents throughout Anatolia murdering innocnet Muslim civilians (can't really see the point in this - could any Armenain have really concieved of an idea to kill every Turks to free the lands of such? etc) - anyway - suppose all these things were true - can these "facts" justify the wholesale and deliberate slaughter of the Armenian race? (or do you think perhaps these death marches and masscres of Armenains were actually carried out by Dashnaks dressed up to look like Turks and thus fool the world?) - crafty and deadly Armenians - eh? - please explain and elaborate? Otherwise I fail to see your point...oh and the Armenian State Archives will likely go back until - er - perhaps 1991...there was no Armenian state in 1915 knucklehead! --THOTH 19:27, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, but changing names of biological species because of some awful ideologic reasons is simply stupid thing :-) I do not think that it is illustration of Turkian government denial, but it simply illustrates that ideological points there can go over scientific truth. Somehow it reminds me some Lysenko theories. But anyway, this curiosity should not be taken as serious argument in this article, I think. :-) --Gvorl 20:50, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In fact you are incorrect. These acts - of changing recognized names for biological speacies is just part of the process whereby the Government of Turkey has been erasing the Armenian heretige in Anatolia. Just as they have changed the names of places, destroyed traces of Armenian habitation, destroyed churches and monestaries - this is all part of a deliberate campign to wipe the slate clean of Armenain presence in Anatolia - and that in itself is a significnat part of the denial (making it easie for ones own people and others to forget that Armenians were oonce of the land) and is an extension of the Genocide itself. --THOTH 19:18, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Reminder of some key terms

.... taken from this page.

• The crime of genocide has two elements: intent and action. “Intentional” means purposeful. Intent can be proven directly from statements or orders. But more often, it must be inferred from a systematic pattern of coordinated acts.

• Intent is different from motive. Whatever may be the motive for the crime (land expropriation, national security, territorrial integrity, etc.), if the perpetrators commit acts intended to destroy a group, even part of a group, it is genocide.

• The phrase "in whole or in part" is important. Perpetrators need not intend to destroy the entire group. Destruction of only part of a group (such as its educated members, or members living in one region) is also genocide. Most authorities require intent to destroy a substantial number of group members – mass murder. But an individual criminal may be guilty of genocide even if he kills only one person, so long as he knew he was participating in a larger plan to destroy the group.

--House of Shin 21:55, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think that third point is particularly accurate. I've just been reading this source, which is linked to in the article, and it reinforces those points above. Particularly relevant is the point that "a finding of genocide does not as a legal matter depend on the participation of state actors. On the contrary, the Genocide Convention confirms that perpetrators of genocide will be punished whether they are constitutionally responsible rulers, public officials or private individuals." (p14) At present, I don't believe that the article reflects this legal opinion. --bainer 06:44, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Quotes section removed

Whenever I see a "quotes" section in an article of Wikipedia, I remove it and ask those who have contributed to place the quotes on Wikiquote. My reasoning for rejecting such sections is that we're supposed to be telling the reader about a subject, not just compiling an unstructured list of statements about it from external sources. If a quote is relevant to the subject and has some meaning appropriate to it, include it in the appropriate part of the article as part of a paragraph describing its significance. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:25, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Proposal for re-write of Armenian Genocide Article

The following post consists of my proposal for the first two introductory sections describing the Armenian Genocide. I understand that this presentation will be controversial - but I urge all to read and reflect - because what I have presented is (except perhaps in certain trivia of detail - and I am open to correction...) entirely factual and supportable. I found it necessary to pen this introduction as a means of focusing my thoughts. I am still working on my detailed outline - and reading this - the introduction - you might imagine the degree of detail of such outline - it is extensive - but as yet (to my standards) incomplete. When I post it (next few days...) it will still be - in my mind - incomplete - but will be better organized - I am having trouble deciding what information should go where - how to emphasize - etc - and there is much (potential) overlap in terms of where issues/events should be covered. I see the potential for a deffinitive expose concerning the Genocide. I know that most Turks will not like much of this presentation - well - get over it is all I can say - but I also promise to consider your views and work with you in good faith. To some degree my outline proper (and what I envision to fill it) may be seen with more sympathy from the Turkish side then these introductory sections. But I cannot help that - what I am presenting is truthful and is the gist of what must be conveyed concerning the facts of the genocide (and surrounding events and situations). Is it complete - again - no - but it is - I contend - the essential gist of the matter - still much more needs to be brought out and discussed for readers to properly understand the context of these events. Again still - in the end - the Turks (historical and those actively involved in denial) will not end up looking as angels. Also again - much of what many Turks might hope to see in this article will likely be included - to a degree - in the more detailed presentation (so bear with me and keep an open mind....of course as I write this I am envisioning quite a different reaction!). Also I realize that I will be accuse of presenting a POV article (based on the opening sections) - but I discount this (beyond perhaps the choice of certain words [not Genocide though] and emphasis. Well I tried as best as I could to stick to the facts as I know them - and I do wish for constructive input and (once I post the full outline) discussion if this is the direction that we might want to go. Anyway - here it is:

The Armenian Genocide

1) Introduction to the Armenian Genocide and related massacres of the Armenians during the late Ottoman period and during the rise of the Republic of Turkey

Beginning in 1915, under the cover of World War I, the Ottoman Turkish Empire (under the direction/control of a revolutionary political party known as the Committee of Union and Progress (CUP)- the Ittihad and Terakki in Turkish – also commonly known as the “Young Turks”) implemented and conducted a systematic campaign of murder, torture, robbery, deportation and ethnic cleansing of a minority population of its ethnic Armenian citizens that resulted in the death of an estimated one million or more Armenians (the exact number is unknown with estimates typically ranging from 600,000 to 2 million [depending on the source – note: see related entry on Ottoman Armenian population estimates] and with 1.5 million being the most commonly accepted figure). This campaign of unbridled violence and murder resulted in the near complete ethnic cleansing and elimination of Armenians from their historical homeland in Central and Eastern Anatolia where they had lived (and were known as Armenians) for 2,500 years and is widely known as the Armenian Genocide. Historians and Genocide scholars commonly view these events as a template for most other genocides that followed in the 20th century and the Ottoman State actions taken against the Armenians were immediately followed by a similar campaign of violence, massacre and ethnic cleansing against the other Christian minority populations of the Empire consisting primarily of ethnic Greeks and Assyrians.

In addition to the specific set of events known as the Armenian Genocide of World War I (that occurred primarily in the years 1915-1917) The Sultanate led Ottoman Turkish Government had previously conducted a series of large-scale massacres of ethnic Anatolian Armenians – the most noteworthy occurring during the 1894-1896 timeframe – which both followed (and was subsequently used an example for further) massacres of other ethnic minorities in the Empire - where over time a practice and pattern regarding the use of massacre of the Christian and Armenian minorities (and denial of such massacres) was established and became an accepted method of suppression and control of these populations. After the Armenian massacres of the late 19th century, additional large-scale massacre occurred against Armenians the city of Adana on the Southern Anatolian coast. And then later, in the early 1920s – after the period of the Armenian genocide proper and following the end of World War I (during the period the Turks now refer to as their “War of National Independence), the army of the newly formed Nationalist Turks under the leadership of Mustafa Kemal (later to be known as “Ataturk” – the founder of modern Turkey) conducted military campaigns that resulted in further large-scale massacres of Armenians. One campaign was against the newly founded, fledgling Armenian Republic in the Caucuses, the other was pitted against Armenians in the Southern Anatolian region (known to Armenians as Cilicia). Kemal’s direction to his leading general Kiazam Karabekir for these campaigns was to “Annihilate (Armenia) politically and physically” and it is commonly understood that Kemal’s intentions were to eliminate – once and for all – the presence of the Armenians in Anatolia – and subsequent policies of the Government of the Republic of Turkey (aimed at erasing and denying the Armenian contributions to the Ottoman Empire and history in Anatolia) have only verified this position. It is important to note that the Nationalist Turkish campaign against the Armenians in the Caucuses was extraterritorial and essentially amounted to a Turkish attempt to eliminate remaining Armenians not just of the Ottoman Empire but beyond its borders to end – once and for all – any further consideration of the “Armenian Question” as the issue of Armenian self determination and recognition of rights was known.

Thus these various campaigns of massacre of Armenians that occurred during the 27 year period between 1894 to 1922 - begun by the Ottoman Sultan, expanded (with the explicit aim of total elimination of the Armenian presence in Anatolia) by the Young Turks and finalized by the Nationalist Turks resulted in total Armenian deaths - through massacre, deportation, and related actions - – of perhaps as many as 2 million individuals from a total population of Armenians in these regions that was likely no more then 3 million people. These related massacres warrant further discussion in other sections but are briefly presented here to illustrate the brutal pattern of treatment of Armenians by the Turks throughout this period and to illustrate the enormity of Armenian losses necessary to accurately understand the pattern of Ottoman and Turkish repression and the resultant impact upon the Armenian people. It is a history of extreme suffering, death and hardship with the resulting legacy of the near total absence of the Armenian people from their historic homeland.

2)The controversy surrounding the Armenian Genocide – Supporting Evidence, Turkish denial and counter-charges

The various massacres and brutal treatment of the Armenians (directed by the Ottoman Sultan Abdul Hamid II) during the waning days of the Ottoman Empire in the late 19th Century were both well publicized and known to the world (even though it should be noted that these massacres were vigorously denied by the Sultanate at the time). These massacres – the largest and most publicized of which occurred throughout Anatolia at various times beginning in 1894 and continuing through 1896 – resulted in up to 300,000 Armenian deaths – prompted widespread condemnation of the Turkish Sultan (nicknamed the “Bloody Sultan” by Western media) and prompted the first worldwide large scale humanitarian relief effort the like of which was unknown until that time. Christian missionaries and relief workers who poured into Anatolia to feed and care for suffering Armenians - who had been massacred and left homeless - reported the details of many of these massacres (and there aftermaths) to the West. A subsequent large-scale massacre occurred in 1909 in the Southern Anatolian city of Adana that resulted in an estimated 15,000 – 25,000 Armenian deaths and the complete destruction of the Armenian portions of the city. This massacre was likewise witnessed and reported by many foreigners – both official government representatives and unofficial observers.

And the Ottoman Turkish Genocide of Armenians that occurred during World War I was extensively witnessed and documented not only by various Western (European and American) observers (missionaries and official diplomatic personal) but by citizens of Ottoman Allies (military and civilian) who were stationed in Anatolia and in what is now known as Syria (the destination of many of the deportations where various refugee concentration camps were located).

The Ottoman Turks themselves extensively documented the events that transpired and described the planning and methodology of the Genocide itself additionally confirming that the Young Turk dominated government employed an extensive state (legal, political and military) and political party apparatus toward highly criminal ends that included actions aimed toward the elimination of Armenians and other Christian minority groups within the Empire and the wholesale plunder of their properties under the false pretense of wartime emergency. The evidence is complied in a series of post-war military tribunals that were held in various districts in Turkey beginning in 1919 immediately following the conclusion of World War I. The Ottoman Military Tribunals convicted a great majority of the Committee of Union and Progress (CUP) leadership and key personal that had directed and enacted the Armenian Genocide based on the assemblage of a compilation of incriminating evidence – in the form of secret cables (telegraph and other messages) among CUP leadership and operatives and testimony that established the premeditation, organization, methodology and undertaking of massacres, death marches, forced deportation and wholesale robbery of the Empire’s Armenian (and other Christian) citizens based upon unproven pretense and exaggeration of their potential threat to the Empire during time of war. The evidence that supports the verdicts of the tribunals and the charge of Genocide is overwhelming as is the corroboration provided by the foreign observers – including Ottoman Turkish allies, Christian missionaries and relief workers, United States Consuls, survivor accounts and others who were there in Anatolia during these events. All describe in great detail a systematic campaign aimed toward elimination of the Armenians and further detail the brutal and indiscriminant application of a wide variety of cruel and inhumane methods used to this accomplish this objective.

Regardless of the overwhelming evidence that has been complied during and subsequent to the acts of genocide - the Government of the Republic of Turkey – that assumed power in place of the fallen Ottoman Empire - immediately subsequent to this period of time – has never acknowledged that the massacres, deaths and forced relocation of Armenians during this period was either a crime against humanity or a genocide (since the time the term has been defined in 1944 - largely on the basis of the actions taken against the Armenians in World War I and against Jews and other targeted peoples in World War II); nor in fact will they admit to any worse blame then perhaps an overzealous mistake being made (though more often they claim that the measures taken were justified based on war time expediency and due to the potential for or alleged Armenian rebellion or treasonous ness). Instead the Government of Turkey has at times labeled these events a “tragedy” caused by poor wartime conditions giving a variety of explanations for Armenians deaths and subsequent absence from the Anatolian landscape and often placing the blame for deaths and losses upon the Armenians themselves whom the Turks charge with rebellion and collusion with Russia with whom the Ottoman’s were at war during this period. Additionally the official Turkish position – and that held by scholars who hold to the Turkish justifications and denial – significantly downplay the number of Armenian deaths stating that Western and Armenian claims are overstated. In some cases Turkish officials have been reported to claim that the Armenian exodus from Anatolia was voluntary or that the relocation of Armenians was done to move them from inhospitable environments to places more favorable for agriculture and commerce. Furthermore – since the 1960s (when [second generation] children of Armenian Genocide survivors began coming of age and became more aware and vociferous concerning the Genocide) the Government of Turkey began an aggressive counter campaign of denial of the historical record and rejection of nearly all charges leveled against the Ottoman Turks and the CUP in this matter – admonishing all Turks and successive Turkish governments of any blame or wrongdoing for Armenian losses and the disappearance of Armenians from Anatolia.

The nexus of the Turkish argument is that the Ottoman Armenians were in revolt and that official actions taken against them were a result of wartime urgency and need and that there was no official policy to annihilate them but only to move them from regions affected by the war where their possible loyalties might be in question. Armenian deaths are considered to be the result of Kurdish excesses, the inability of the Government to protect deportation convoys and the result of famine and other wartime conditions. Charges of deliberate acts of killing, massacre and deliberate mistreatment are rejected and denied. Furthermore, Turkish sources often claim that the numbers of Turkish deaths in this region during this period of time actually significantly exceeded that of Armenians and Armenians are often blamed for these deaths as a consequence of alleged inter-communal warfare. Turkish claims concerning Turks killed by Armenian “roving bands” number from 500,000 – 1 million individuals (and sometimes the figure of 3 million Muslims killed in World War I is used as a counter to charges of Turkish collusion in Armenian deaths – this 3 million figure appears to refer to total Muslim deaths – many of whom were Arabs who were actually killed by the Turks – and there is really very little evidence to ascribe any significant percentage of these deaths to Ottoman Armenians who were targeted by the Turks) Furthermore, these are almost impossible figures to fathom being ascribed to (being killed by) Armenians when one considers the relatively helpless situation of most Armenians, the fact that most Ottoman Armenian men had been drafted into the Ottoman Army (and were disarmed and forced into labor battalions, and considering the extensive disarming of Armenian groups that occurred prior to the war and the fact that such killings would have clearly been prevented by the Ottoman army who were in control of most all of these regions where Turks inhabited. There were certainly instances of violent acts (and murders) committed against Turkish civilians by armed members of Armenian revolutionary parties prior to this period and there were some places where Armenians actively resisted deportation and massacre. Additionally there are instances in years following this period where armed Armenians from the Caucuses (Russian citizens and in many cases soldiers in the Russian army) augmented by Ottoman Armenians who had fled or otherwise escaped massacre and deportation committed acts of violence and revenge upon innocent Turks – however the Turkish charge of wide scale rebellion, treason and other immediate justifications used for taking extreme and inhumane actions against Armenians and civilian Armenian populations appear to be either contrived or seriously exaggerated – and most arguments to this effect that are offered as justification to this day - tend to refer to Armenian actions against Turkish civilians that occurred after 1917 – well after the genocide of the Armenians had already in fact occurred.

Likewise many of the other Turkish explanations for undertaking the actions that were taken as well as the denial of the severity of the measures and their purpose do not ring true. To properly understand why the Turkish actions that amounted to Genocide were taken – how the environment within the Ottoman Empire and all that happened before built to such a point to allow for such extreme measures and actions the historical environment must be presented and discussed. The Turkish attitudes of animosity toward the Armenians and subsequent denial of what occurred can only be properly understood by examining the history and understand how the deteriorating conditions in the Ottoman Empire and related issues affected the Turkish psyche and how the circumstances of war presented the opportunity to enact the unthinkable in regards to the Armenians. The events of the downfall of the Ottoman Empire (including the environment of revolution and societal upheaval) and the rise (and triumph) of the nationalists (and Turkish nationalism in general and the circumstances surrounding the Turkish War for Independence including the nation building myths that Kemal Ataturk successfully employed to save the Turkish nation from destruction) and circumstances surrounding the (post World War I through the present) political and economic motivations of involved nations - all play into the reasons why the Republic of Turkey has never – to this day – been able to admit to the Genocide (conducted by the CUP lead Ottoman Turks) nor has the international community been able to force such recognition due to these and other strategic political factors and considerations. In fact efforts on the part of Armenians (and any and all other groups) to force recognition by Turkey have largely met with extreme and very persistent Turkish backlash and counter recognition efforts. This problem continues to the current day causing some historians and genocide scholars to term the denial a persistent or second genocide as there has been no resolution or closure for both survivors and their decedents nor for the decedents of the perpetrators nor their society as a whole which arguably suffers from the shackles of (much) false history and myth that have built up around this issue. --THOTH 20:46, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have many problems with your article, first of, I don't find it Wiki, second of, there are things that don't have their places, "counter charges" is your analysis, which is POV... Wikipedia articles can not do this, third, there are things that are not only POV, but to neutralize them require to delete them. Thoth, I think you should visit many other Wikipedia articles, to understand how articles are writen. Fadix 00:27, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well Fadix I'm sorry you feel this way - but lets let others weigh in first shall we. I myself have some ideas of edits. I understand the POV issue and perhaps the language can be softened - however the essential facts are correct. --THOTH 01:29, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oh BTW - I don't at all believe use of the term "counter-charges" is at all POV - it is just fact - but perhaps there is another way to term them - don't know? - and I see no overt violation of Wiki policies - etc - I have read many entires and in fact they vary quite a bit (particualrly in terms of quality). This is meant to be an introduction that leaves the factual impression - in no uncertain terms - what it is when one is talking about the Armenian Genocide and to aquaint the readers somwhat with the controversy (much more detail will be presented IMO - I have compiled a great many notes on this issue - but will require supplemental input as well) - and I have outlined sections and subsections that will detail the evolving Armenian situation in the empire, rising nationalism on all sides, forign interventions and so on and so forth - in addition to very specifically calling for great detail regarding the methodology, undertaking and timeline of the Genocide - etc - but perhaps tommorow - I am very tired now - just finished baseball with the kids and helping with homework/school project...concerning abolitionist movement (and uprisings) in US in fact - making me think that many American slaveholders might have made statements to the effect that the slaves had been happy and peaceful for generations - why the discontent now and they have alwasy been treated well - you can't blame the slave holders you know... etc --THOTH 02:15, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thoth, some comments, not about the facts, but about the way they are presented. As Fadix, I find that there are several POV wordings and constructions that need to be edited as you implied yourself. Second, a great part of the arguments and facts you present loose weight in the large and detailed (too detailed for an introduction) paragraphs: you would gain clarity and impact just by organising the whole lot into smaller paragraphs with strong headings. Which basically means that whole chunks of your introduction will be better off in the main body of the article in their respective sub paragraphs. I had a look at the Holocaust article to see how it is shapped, and I think we can use a similar approach here. It will give more consistancy to WP as a whole, and more importantly, it is very didactic, which is what we need here, given how reluctant some are to admit the very idea of an Armenian genocide...... All in all, I agree that you are providing the basis for a much better article than the one given. Looking forward to the rest of your outline. --House of Shin 08:03, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

OK HoS I hear you. And I anticipated the need for editing (and perhaps adding additional headings) - however I will not get to it until after I post (and we discuss) my full outline and if I feel that there is at least some degree of consensus that this is how we shall proceed. I understand that I was a bit wordy with some run on sentences and these cna be chopped - and perhaps some detail could be saved for later - but I wanted to make sure that all of the fundemental issues were presented with detail to follow. You may notice I did not get into any specifics regarding the methodology or enactment and I feel I have set the stage for allowing a presentation of Turkish counters to the historical record - I know that (if knowledgeble Turks or those knowledgeble of the Turkish perspectives participate) there will be some information presented to do justice to some Trukish claims - however IMO these claims must stand the same scrutiny as anything we might contend. I do pretty much feel that most everything I presented in the intro was necessary - though perhaps can be cut down (and maybe my tone may not be considered nuetral enough - but heh - considering what was done to the Armenian people - addressing some of the type of official and unofficial denial that comes from the Trukish "side" one cannot help to express contempt and disgust etc - I think I have toned it considerably. But I am not a Turk hater - in no way is this the case. I do not claim any race inferiority or racist viewpoints or what have you. I believe that what occured ion Anatolia beginning in the 19th century and continuing through the early 20th and even to this day is largely very understandable and can be accuratly conveyad (though somewhat complex to present). I even think it might be possible to get all but the most rabid from each side to accept what we might eventually come up with (maybe even perhaps for the average Turks to accept and understand the claim of Genocide - maybe I am dreaming though eh?) - Anyway - there is no possibility for the current article to do any of these things IMO - it is very disjoint - has uneven emphasis - does not give a true sense of place or time or action - etc - if this is understandable. Anyway - I hope to have my outline up by later today or tommorow...--THOTH 15:46, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Holocaust presentation is fantastic BTW and I feel that we can achieve something similar here - of course not by the "50-50" methodology - but by presenting the facts. Obviously there are some differences as there does exist this issue of Turkish countercharges - be they legitimate or otherwise. And less people are familiar with Armenians and the Genocide - so more explanation and background is required - IMO. An interesting side note is the link the the Wikipedia page to the Hitler quote comonly referenced (and we shall aslo do so here) - that discusion is worth taking a second look and though well presented seems to be dominated by those discounting the validity of the inclusion of the reference to Armenians and I think the other side needs to be better presented (note the POV language used in that article). Anyway concerning the Holocaust and the Genocide I have one obsevation on their differences - where the Holocaust commited by the Germans can be considered as an immense act of irrational evil - I think the Armenian Genocide can be considered an immense act of rational evil (at least on the part of those who concieved and directed it - and those - specifically Mr Ataturk - who completed the process - as the Genocide might be considered a necessary event for achievent of their related aims of founding a TURKISH state. --THOTH 16:25, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Agreed! ;-) But you might have some trouble showing the rationality of this genocide, if you trust Morgenthau's account of his meetings with Salaat, when the latter plainly looses all common sense when he hears the word "Armenian". IMO, it sounds similar to Hitler's reaction to the word "Jew".... but that is secondary, and as you point out, Ataturk probably had all his head. --House of Shin 16:54, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. Sure there was obvious hatefulness and perhaps irrational paranoia - he certainly despised the Armenians - but it was because the Turks still had not gotton over the fact that Armenians and other Christians of the Empire had prospered during a period where the Ottoman Empire and Turkish fortunes had plummeted. Armenians and other Chritians of the Ottoman Empire established school systems (sometimes with outside missionary help - and these missionaries would have just as well - and intitially intended to "help" the Muslims - but were rejected and prohibited from doing so) and with education and through business and commerce the Christians of the Empire (elites and "middle class" - mainly in Western Anatolia) became disproporiontly wealthy and with their education and exposure to (hated by the Muslims) Western/foreign ideas - well they began to see that their political situation (no real policy voice or self determination) was horrible and they began to address the Sultan for more. The Sultan wasn't too keen on these entreaties (though was briefly forced to yeild some power to a legislature and to in theory accept the concept of equal rights among ethnic groups - short lived though...) - and the Sultan tended to respond to Armenian requests for recognition (and protests against unequal treatment & taxation etc) with massacre. The average Turks was eager to join in and grab some plunder against the (by then) hated/at least disliked (rich!) minorities and much blame was placed on the Armenians for acting counter to Turkish interests and for their opwn benefit. In fact an extreme predjudical backlash ensued as the Christian prosperity upset the social and economic balance of the EMpire where the Muslim Turks had always been on top and were used to such. As this issue developed and especially as Armenians looked for outside nations such as Russia to push their case (as Armenians lacked a state of their own to lobby on their behalf) - the backlash from the Sultan and the resentment on the part of the Turks grew more severe. Of course as things progressed - the once partnership of educated - progrressive Turks who worked hand in hand along with the Armenians to press for reforms - resulting in the rise of the CUP - well - they became enamored with extreme Pan-Turkist nationalism - due to seeing other ethnicities break away and fearing if the Armenians did such it would be the end of their nation - as Imperial powers sucha s Russia Britain and France would move in and take the rest. So what to do? Kill the Armenians - thats what (and take their stuff). So yes - it was rational in a sense - for their own survival - at least this is how it was percieved (and we can see the twisted remnants of this thinking from modern Turks - as modified and followed through by Ataturk and successive Turkish governments. Doe sthis make sense? Because in a nutshell - this is the underlying truth of the Genocide - why it occured and why it was a rational (though utterly inhumane) act on the part of the Turkish leadership - versus an irrational act by Hitler and the Nazis (though many who believe in Jewish economic and political manipulations can make the paranoid case that actions against the Jews were necessary for survival of the German State [for Germans as it were]) - so not too different in some respects - but the environment with Russian interest and certain Armenian aspirations and the geography of it all - etc - certainly made such much more real and likely (threat) seen from the point of view of the Turks. --THOTH 19:55, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thoth, a Wikipedia article ideally should not contain interpretations passed as absolute truths. I don't want what has happened of the Nagorno-Karabagh article(thanks to Tabib) to happen here. People will disagree with interpretations, I for, disagree with many of your points... as well as the places you give to things, etc. The only way to work on the genocide article is to present what has no other position, as accepted. For instance, in my Ottoman Armenian Population entry, I give a historic of the Ottoman census, and how it was conducted. This is not an interpretation, but how it was carried, there is no disagreement here. When something is disagreed by enough person to worth including it, for instance, the Armenian population, I present each sides, and their critics(not my critics, but the critics comming from the specialists who criticse them), and leave the reader judge. Believe me, this is the only way to work on the genocide entry. The key is to do it as ... presenting each positions, and saying who say what, and give as much spaces to a position as it is recognized in the accademic world. The problem with your article is that it is too much "article" like personal text, of an individuals interpretation of the event. What stops a Turk to write his own theses-like article and want it to be included here? I don't know if you understand what I mean. The concept behind Wikipedia, is to present views, and positions... and saying who believes what... think this as an eternal article. Imagine that in a hundred years, the Turkish government succeed in its attempt of denial, and the Armenian genocide is thosefor denied by most historians(I have hard time imagining how that can be possible, but suppose it happen). If someone was to read your article, he will disagree with what is said. Wiki way, is to not disagree with the way something is presented.

If I say most historians in 2005 agree that this, this and this happened... in a hundred of years, if most historians believe otherwise, they can not say that Wikipedia article is wrong, because Wikipedia does not claim something being the truth, but just that "they believe this" and the others believe "that." The article has been edited, and is slightly unWiki now, more particularly the denial stuff... it has to be toned down. Believe me, it is a compromise that well worth it, and is the only rational thing to do. Insteed of saying this has happened, we just have to present each sides position, their critics(not our critics of them, but of the specialists that criticise those positions)... and give as much space as the position is recognised in the Accademia. This is the only way. Now if a revisionist come in after and decide to change it... what he will do? Change that the persons whom are claimed to believe this, don't believe this? Actualy, it is the only real disagreement there could be here... and the discussions in the talk pages should revolve around this... and it is actualy pretty easy to demonstrate that a group actualy believe something, when its position is presented.

For those reasons, I believe that your proposed article can not be a candidate, I also believe that insteed, you should work on the article that is already there. Those days I have a lot of things to do and don't have much time... I still have to work on the Ottoman Armenian Casulaties future entry and as well the already existing Ottoman Armenian population. Now that things are cooler, and that I became confortable with the way Wikipedia works, I will be instoring the "Wikipedia principle." :) Fadix 21:06, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thoth, I skimmed over your introduction and I have to say that I was expecting a thorough discussions of the history around the time these things happened. I disagree with most of what you wrote if you don't give any argument about the events that caused to violence before and after 1900. Allegations against Ataturk makes him look like he was another Hitler that was just trying to finish the last remnants of the race. Where did you get these "facts"? How did you study this? For how long? Which resources did you use? That is totally not neutral and not the way history to be presented. All you say is massacres happening all the time but never why. I'll write more about when I have time to read it thoroughly and the comments. --Muz 22:29, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Fadix - the current article is poorly written and has no sense of the event - it is disjointed. Additionally everything that I worte is fully supportable with much data - I'm very surprised that you are taking a position which seems to say otherwise. So OK - I know that I can lay out sommething that will be comparable to what is presented in the holocaust article - though what you are calling for is - I think - something quite different and IMO not so useful (or accurate). I cannot see contributing to the current article because it does not tell the true story only bits and pieces - and it does not include what I consider to be crucial elements of the history necessary for understanding what occured. Believe it or not - i thin what I am proposing to produce will be much better able to stand up to critique then the current article.

And Muz - I know that you will not accept the considerable data that back what I have written - and I was intending to present much more of the history - believe me - and I will still post my proposed outline when I can more complete it - but what I have written thus far is only an introduction - it states the esential facts of what occured - of what can be factually supported. There can be no denying that what occured was a Genocide and that such massacres and death marches and such did happen - there are far to many witnesses with coroboration. I do agree that the article should discuss in detail circumstances and events that will shed light on why such things happend and what else was occuring at the time. I agree that there is quite a lot to discuss and present. Concerning Ataturk and the early campigns of the nationlists and subsequent Turkish policy towards Christians and non-Turks (even in the late 1920s/1930s concerning the Kurds) - well many atrocities and cruel policies and actions were taken - and these can be supported. What he accomplished for Turkey was admirable - remarkable even and is well known - though certainly these accomplishments are somewhat tainted by these actions and attitudes towards the Anatolian minorities --THOTH 23:01, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thoth, if the current article does not satisfy you, because you think things are missing, discuss the issue here... besides don't forget that there is a preferable limit of 32 Kb for each articles, this is the main genocide entry, I was planning to work on other entries regarding what is called denial, the special organization, the camps, German complicity etc. But I think as a main article the current article as basis is excellent, it need much work, but it is right on track. Fadix 23:33, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Contemporary world responses to the Armenian Genocide

I have deleted this section, I don't believe a line or two require adding another section, unless it is worked, and more is added. Fadix 23:45, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Recent history — timeline

I think that section is going out of control. I also think that people fail to understand for what that section is about. It is about major events, there are daily stuff about the issue, we can not just add things wherever we want. That section need cleaning, and a standard or rules should be worked out to consider an event important enough to include it, or we will find ourselves including any insignificant things possible. Any suggestion? Fadix 02:17, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree. I have been joting down some things that might go into the category of "major" events that shoudl be mentioned - but much of what is listed now is somewhat irrelevant. --THOTH 16:32, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Removal of Working Version

It appears that a form of editing that at least appears consensual is (finally) beginning to develop for this article. In that respect—and considering that essentially no editing has been done to it—I suggest deleting the Armenian Genocide/Working version of the article as we continue to place more focus upon the current version. --DanielNuyu 03:00, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There is? The current version of the article is extremely poorly written - just read the opening paragraph for instance. Additionally I would really love to have someone who knows nothing about this issue attempt to explain back to me what the Armenian Genocide was all about - why, how when and where it occured - who did what to whom and so on andso forth - the article is comnpletely lacking in context and it is entirely uneven in emphasis - placing for instance a much greater emphasis on concentration camps then I believe is warrented (instead a better presentation of the methods used by the special organization to empty out towns and villages, the nature of the "deportation" caravans, the practice of sending secret orders to party operatives who in turn passed these to local authorities, the removal of local govenors who expressed sympathy to the Armenians and/or opposition to their deporation ans slaughter and so on adn so forth - all of these factors are just as or more important then the existance of concentration (and transit) camps - though the massacres that occured in 1916 at the wanning end of the Genocide in the Syrian camps should get special note and emphasis. Additionally there is no real explanation of who the Armenians were and what the issues concerning them were in the Ottoman Empire and neither is their any explanation of the situation with the Turks of the Empire - influx of refugees from Crimeia and the Balkasn (and why), their dire conditions and resentment of Orthodox Christians (and general predjudices of Turks towards Christians and Armenians - magnified by their disparate conditions), and neither is the entire context of the deteriorating Ottoman EMpire discused to understand how the various revolutionary forces arose and transformed over time (and even why the Sultan was massacreing Armenians etc) leading to a very specific situation whereby such a thing as a Genocide could be contemplated and undertaken. And the issue of who did such - was it just a small group of racist nationalistic revolutionary zealots who happened to control the government - national and local - or were other forces and people involved? The degree of Turkish and Kurdish citizenry involvement - as mentioned in a comment on this page - has not at all been addressed and in this regard is in contrast to the German/European experince in World War II - where there was little involvement in the process of genocide outside of the German SS and associated units. The Armenian experience - where the Turkish population had a significant role - is again - more typical of genocides to follow. Anyway - so much for the lessons of history. I really question those who trumpet the current article because it is so very lacking in so very many areas - just what is the purpose of an encyclopedia anyway - imparting knowledge - or making everyone happy? --THOTH 03:50, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Right—I listed it for deletion; hopefully it won't need to be revived. --DanielNuyu 00:41, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Blue Book

I was talking with some Armenians, and a non-Armenian colleague who is our professor of Armenian Studies (Theo Maarten van Lint), and discovered rather more about recent events. For example, the Turkish government is at the moment trying formally to get the British government to declare the Blue Book to be a fraud. I went to check to see what the article says on this, only to find that the Blue Book isn't even mentioned... Is there a reason for that? It's surely an important issue. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:18, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think it will be better to start an entry about the different records regarding the issue. BTW, Turkey has dropped, as far as I am aware, its attempt to force the British government to declare it to be a fraud. I got the information from Taner Akçam that he wrote a series in a Turkish newspaper, and in one of the articles warned the Turkish government that the records of the Blue Book are autentic and each one are signed, more particularly when the non-censured version has been published not so long ago, and for this reason, the British government won't ever declare them forgery. Fadix 15:04, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Absolutely the "Blue Book" as well as Morgenthaus book will need to be presented and discused and it will need to be made clear that each of these was produced with an incredible array of eyewitness testimony - and that nearly all of these primary reports are available in archives and have been thorougly examined and verified. The Turks are particualry concerned about the considerable amount of damning evidence presented in the "Blue Book" and have attempted to claim that the book is strictly wartime propoganda - while in fact it may have been used by the British as such - the collection of evidence by James Bryce and Arnold Toynbee that officially is called - "The Treatment of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire" (published February 1916) - has been thoroughly established as factual beyond question. In addition to the primary document there exists a supporting publication "Key to Names of Persons and Places Witheld from Publication in the Original Edition of The Treatment of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire 1915-1916" that meticulously details the sources used and their validity and corroberation. Additionally Toynbee's original papers used in the methodology, compiling and verifying of this data are available (in the British Archives I believe). Much of the evidence was derived from direct observations by American Consuls (and other nuetral sources from within the Empire) who lived and observed events in various parts of Turkey and who forwarded regular dispathes to Monganthau at the American Embassy - these were passed on to Toynbee. So the Turks are very much barking up the wrong tree in attempting to discredit this document (and it shows their desperation). This book - and the supporting (entirely verified and valid) evidence behind it cleary document a systematic central government directed plan to exterminate Armenains in the Ottoman Empire - there is no getting around this fact. Aditionally it should be noted that long after World War I and the Genocide - when there was no propoganda value to his comments/position etc - Toynbee reiterated the factualness of his work and observed: "In Turkey....in 1915...deportations were deliberately conducted with brutality that was calculated to take the maximum toll of lives en route. This was the CUP's crime, and my study of it left an impression on my mind that was not effaced by the still more cold-blooded genocide, on a far larger scale, that was commited during the Second World War by the Nazis. (from Arnold Toynbee - "Aquiantances" London: Oxford University Press, 1967 pp 241-242) --THOTH 15:45, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thoth, again you fail to understand, this is the main genocide entry, you can not start getting into detail for each points, the Blue Book might be mentioned, but that's it about it. The idea of the main genocide article, is a resume... not over 32 Kb. If we start writting in detail, people will stop reading it. On the other hand, each points could be worked as an entry as itself and be accessible from the main Armenian genocide entry. An example, is that at first, there was discussions regarding the Armenian population, and since there was much to be said about it, I have started an entry, and then, there is the estimations of Armenian losses, which I will be working on as soon as I have time, you can read what has been writen about it in my personal page. There is the history of what is called denial, that should have its own entry, there is the special organization that should have it's own entry, there is the camps that should have their own entries etc. Each of those entries accessible from here, while this main page will contain only resume of the important points. I am also starting to believe that the recent timeline should have its own entry, because it is eating space in the main entry. Besides, believe me, not only I will have problem with your working version, it is obviously unwiki, and large sections can not be wikified. I believe you should work on what is already there, because the article is starting to get very neutralised, and the revert war has been at least stabilized. Fadix 15:57, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Fadix - I fully understand and agree with what you propose regarding a main entry and linked detailed entries - this is certainly the way to go. What I propose is an outline that will be inclusive of these entries - this must be thought through IMO -and not just be randomly posted willy nilly as we lose the story - the context iMO. AN dthe curent article is not properly organized and presneted - IMO - to be the backbone for such a presentation. And are you telling me that the truth is not Wiki? I don't understand. The Holocaust presentation is not sugar coated - so why should the Armenian Genocide presentation be? The facts must be presented - and in this category I include the issue of Armenian nationalism and revolutionary political parties and the violence instigated on their behalf (which is ussually not mentioned or properly dealt with in Genocide articles and such). Additionally we need to clearly present (summarize relevancy and link to more detailed discussions if they exist and perhaps create them if they dont) the environment of the falling Ottoman Empire - the collapsing Empire - the bankrupcy, Muslim/Turkish refugee situation (and why they might be pre-disposed against Christians), the role of the European powers keeping Russia at bay, and a very many other things. SO granted - perhaps we need a somewhat streamlined Genocide section proper - but I see what I have written as a far more accurate presentation that clearly conveys what occured then the current working version - that is just poor - what can I say - I really have little hope for it as written. Anyway I'm hoping to get back to my outline - I have been unable to work on it these past few days... --THOTH 16:29, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Holocaust entry is not entirely Wiki, and I have to admit that most articles are not [entirely] either. As for the truth, the truth itself is neither Wiki or unWiki. I repeat, this has nothing to do with what the truth is or not. I know the genocide happened, and know it is the truth. But to present an article as something that did happen, is unWiki, if there is disagreement. Besides, it is of our interest to write the article the Wiki way, because it is the only way to prevent it being reverted and vandalized. Right now, most historians support one theses against the other... the article should present what is said about an event, and according to which party. And with a subject such as the Armenian genocide, the result might sound as disorganized. But here, you could work on that, and not start another article. The context? Yeh! But the context is disagreed, even among Armenian historians... we have to filter and include only the parts which are agreed among most historians, and this is a task... and could be done, but still, you can not present it as an absolute truth.

And I repeat, if we were to go your way, we'll get an article like Tabib has done in the Karabagh entry, and where he want to get with the Khojali entry(visit it, and you'll see what I mean), and we'll let the door open to everyone coming and editing the article, and we will be the one to blame. I've seen what Tabib has done, and the way he consider entries as his, NO WAY, I want to sound like him anymore. I ask you to trust me on this one. I am sure, it is the best decision. Fadix 01:55, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. The facts of the Genocide (including how it was directed and carried out) are accuratly known with a great degree of corroboration - and can and should be presented as such and in a very clear manner - that is lacking in the current article. The surrounding events - the relevant history of the Ottoman Empire and the CUP revolution (including the triumph of the xenophobic/nationalistic branch of the party), Turkey's entry into WWI - under what circumstances and how these events allowed for and percipitated genocide and the other very many factors and circumstances of the environment and pressures on the Turks that led up to the Genocide are all quite presentable and supportable and can be done in a manner that will be difficult (and perhaps impossible) to refute (and I would suspect that anything that is brought up counter to what the article will contend will be presented in accordance to its merit). Please don't attempt to compare my suggested approach and the (supported) facts that I can bring with the silly Azeri claims about a "genocide" where a few hundred peolple were killed and where the circumstances are quite questionable (that such occured entirely in Azeri controlled territory for instance and where journalists brought to the site by the Azeris reported how corpses had been doctored and moved - etc). You know the great amount of data that has been compiled concerning the Armenian Genocide and the fact that it is fully corroborated by multiple sources. I'm surprised that you are running so scared of presenting the truth. The Wikipedia Holocaust presentation is entirely appropriate and is extremely well done - the Armenian genocide presentation deserves no less - and in fact - owing to the criminal and outlandish officail Turkish denial (attempt at negation) - it is all the more reason to present the case most strongly. Additionally the history and facts surrounding Turkish denial of the Armenian Genocide need t be presented in its own section. I will propose this in my (eventual) outline - that will include sidebars on both the Benard Lewis affair and the Heath Lowery affair as well as (I hope) your excellent debunking of McCarthy. This is no time to give into the forces of denial. All the same we must strive for a truthful and highly communicative presentation that does justice to the elements of the "Turkish perspective" as such merits. However the perception among some Turks of the time (and why) is much different from the reality - and certainly cannot justify what occured - but must be properly presented for the reader to understand the environment that led to Genocide - and that such was a product of collapsing Empire, revolution and extreme societal upheaval and percieved threat - as well as the result of xenophobic racist nationalism and the transformation of the Armenians - in the eyes of the Turks - from loyal citizens to an alien (Chritian and non-Turk_) presence in very heart of Anatolia that by their very existance acted to thwart the Pan-Turkist vision that Turkish elites had come to adopt after their failure to contain and integrate the other ethnic minoriites of the Empire (Greeks, various Balkan Slavs and Arabs) --THOTH 19:57, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

We're talking entirly of different things. Thoth, I think you did not understood of what I was talking about. Fadix 21:13, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)