Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:59, 29 March 2005

Archives
Please do not edit archived pages. If you want to react to a statement made in a archived discussion, please make a new header on THIS page. -- Mgm| 09:20, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)

Fadix Analysis: This section exist to answer Torque claims and is kept up to date (new materials posted as well as new answers). (VERY LONG PAGE) 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14.

Can someone merge the archives? They all are excessively large.

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 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. User:Mr. Coolcat

— removed User:Coolcat's 'mediat' transclude. — Davenbelle 10:04, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

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 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 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 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 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 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 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 08:09, 27 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 03:47, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yes or no?

Neither, I will not accept a one sided article no. --Cool Cat 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 Misplaced Pages 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 03:38, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You don't understand Misplaced Pages 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 Misplaced Pages 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 -- 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 Misplaced Pages: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. Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette, while I am not acusing you of not following, I urge you to take a look at the article. Also check out Misplaced Pages:Vandalism to see what vandalism is and is not.

--Cool Cat 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 Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette, so far you havent.--Cool Cat 17:34, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

KewlKolours

This talk page is in black & white. — Davenbelle 10:04, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC) You cannot edit what I post. Please dont. --Cool Cat 22:48, 29 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 Misplaced Pages 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 way? 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 22:33, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Your "polite" and "civil" approach is very interesting. --Cool Cat 22:33, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)