Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:34, 17 February 2006

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Armenian genocide received a peer review by Misplaced Pages editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

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)

Archives:

• Archive 1 (1068 kb/1.068mb)
• Archive 2 (108 kb)
• Archive 3 (648 kb)
• Archive 4 (103 kb)
• Archive 5 {113 kb)
• Archive 6 (327 kb)
• Fadix Analysis: Fadix Analysis (575 kb)

• A Letter from The International Association of Genocide Scholars

POV

I don't see why we need to have the POV tag here. The article doesn't assert the views, all the disputed parts are labeled as "alleged," the article talks both about the Turkish and mainstream point of views--I suggest the POV be removed. If someone objects, they will need to make a good case.--TigranTheGreat 12:36, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Because it doesn't say what Turks allege Armenians did? We should then also put the other side of the story and then we can remove the POV.

Aren't all of the Armenian contributions to Ottoman civilization covered in the Ottoman Empire entires? (are these really just alleged contributions?) If not perhaps these need to be modified to properly reflect Armenian contributions first before we move on to just why Armenians became the victims of the dominant Ottoman Turkish elements of the society. Oh and BTW - only Turks (perhaps aided by some Kurds and Circassians and some Balkan and other various Turkics - commited Genocide )...--THOTH 05:05, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I am neutral on this topic and after reading the article, I think the NPOV tag needs to go. Of course many people of Turkish origin think this whole topic is not NPOV but the way the article is written is neutral. You don't need every single Turkish allegation and rationalization because they are addressed generally. Take the tag off please. Pschemp | Talk 06:07, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. Do the Nazis get to push their POV about the Final Solution, about how the Jews "violently resisted the peaceful breakup of the ghetos", "slipped intelligence to the Allies", "manipulated the war through their evil global conspiracy", etc? I think we should have a formal vote if Fadix or an admin won't do the job. John Smith's 08:37, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

As I said previously, I don't take the responsability to remove it. This should be decided by the community by a vote. Fad (ix) 15:24, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with users Pschemp and John Smith above - article is most politically correct as it stands (too much so IMO) - and certainly should not have a POV lable on it any more then the Holocaust article should. Outside of (so-called) scholars who explicitly are funded by Turkey or who have very obvious ties to Turkey there are very few - if any - scholars who truly deny the Armenian Genocide and would dispute any facts or positions contained in this article. It is most shameful that some Turks are so fanatically blindly nationalistic that they cannot accept the facts in this case even though the world and scholars are pretty convinced concerning what occured. It is also most sad that we are held hostage by this denial. I argue that this article needs to be entirely rewritten and reorganized to more resemble that of the Holocaust article. It requires more background explanation and discussion however as their is less common familiarity with the events and circumstances of the Armenian Genocide and of the Armenian experience in the ottoman Empire prior to the Genocide then there is of the Jewish experience in Germany prior to WWII and the events leading to and comprising the Jewish (and other peoples) Holocaust enacted by the Nazi Germans in WWII. Likewise I am in favor of covering a variety of events and circumstances concerning conditions and events affecting the Ottoman Empire prior to the leading up to the Armenian Genocide which I feel are important for a proper understanding and context of this event. --THOTH 13:37, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I have created a poll, so please vote at the bottom. John Smith's 15:41, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Hats on the photo

By the way, has anyone ever looked on the first photo at the article page?Hahah!If you look, you will see the Russian hats on the heads of Ottoman officers.

Look carefully.Have Ottomans ever used the hats like those?

Strange, apparently this website about the Ottoman Empire does show pictures of those hats. Conspiracy perhaps??--MarshallBagramyan 18:33, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I am suspicious of that picture myself, I have removed it a while back I think, but it was reintroduced. The victims were probably either Russian Armenians soldiers serving for the Tsar or Russian soldiers, who had their uniforms taken off and their victors dressing of those uniforms as it was coutume there. I may be mistaken, but still I believe there are better references pictures to have this one included, I don't believe this picture represent victims of the genocide. Fad (ix) 23:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Again for this article, i can just LAUGH. Please make some DEEP research and after that try to write a NEUTRAL article, i say it to main articles writer.

Reşit, from Turkey — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.96.56.38 (talk • contribs)

You guys are bunch of idiots. The officers are Russians that discovered the bodies and apparently took pictures. No turk would like to take a picture and document the fact.

HAHA...........

NPOV tag Vote

Ok, this is a simple vote that should last no longer than seven days. A simple majority should suffice. No anon-IPs please. The question is:

"SHOULD WE REMOVE THE NPOV TAG FROM THE ARTICLE?"

Voting

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~

• Support. I believe that this article does not simply push one side of the argument and could actually stand to be more critical. John Smith's 15:41, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

• Support.--MarshallBagramyan 18:33, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

• I retract from voting due to my intense participation on this article and my involvement. Just one comment, those who will vote should do it not based on what they believe to be true, but rather if they think that this article is clearly POV. There are some POV issues, but I believe they are minor, people should vote if some minor issues are serious enough to keep the POV tag or not. Fad (ix) 18:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

• Support. As my comments above. I am not involved in this article in any other way, so I feel like a pretty neutral source. Pschemp | Talk 22:41, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

• Support I think that the article is more or less objective, and there is no need for disputes. Diegon

• Support. The article presents both sides of the story, and complies with both the WP:NPOV and Undue Weight policies, the later stating that when a position is held by a minority, it has to get a proportional focus in the article. --TigranTheGreat 19:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

• Support As it stands now, this article seems very NPOV, compare it to similar articles if you want to see what I mean. The article in general has been stable for quite a while now as well.--Eupator 19:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

• Support. --RaffiKojian 22:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

• Support the Armenian genocide is solidly established and the objections of many Turks are clearly represented in the article. Some injustice to the Turkish POV is done by not recognizing that Turkey did not always deny the genocide, however the warning represents quite the opposite view. Progress has been made on the late recognition of the genocide by Turks. If asked, I am willing to elaborate on the early Turkish views of the Armenian genocide, with references. Overall the article is NPOV. gidonb 23:08, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

++VOTING CLOSED++ There has not been one dissenting voice on the vote after several days, so I am removing the tag as of now. John Smith's 23:50, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

It appears to me this page is completely dominated by those who have a stake in this matter, and naturally this sort of vote will garner such a result. In order to have dissenting voices, dissenting parties would need to dedicate themselves as eagerly as those for whom this matter means so much. The fact that this page is stable points not to the truthfulness of many of the claims, but to the commitment of those who have made this page their calling; this article is not, in any shape or form, "objective," and does not at all "present both sides of the story." Blissmiss 07:32, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

It appears to me that you are a brand new account that has done nothing but edit this page and the article and thus are most likely a SOCK and have no say on wikipedia. pschemp | talk 07:41, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I am new. Hello, how are you? I believe you also were new at one time, were you not? I have read the page of the founder, and he encourages anyone to edit articles, regardless of seniority. That is the basis of Misplaced Pages. I have not edited this page, by the way; I have merely added my voice. You have edited my above contribution, however, and that is not polite. Please refrain from doing so in the future. Blissmiss 08:21, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Screaming in bold is not polite, fixing format issues is expected on WP and considered polite. Making unfounded accusations of bias is impolite also. When you add anything to a page you make an edit, thus above this is your edit to this page. I think you misunderstand the meaning of edit as used here. As of this point, ALL of your edits are to this article and its talk page and it appears you created this account purely for inserting accusations of bias into this topic. Of course you are allowed to do so, but anyone is also allowed to completely disregard your opinions. I will do what it takes to maintain the format of this page in a readable manner and will not refrain from doing so for any reason. pschemp | talk 08:38, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I am aware of what edit means; I have noticed the word "edit," to be clicked on to make a change. I was making the distinction of adding a fresh entry on this talk page, which is technically not an "edit" to my mind, versus making changes in already existing material.

We have a good difference in opinion. Anyone who has the capability of looking at this topic in an impartial manner knows what I am referring to; examples abound from some of the talk pages that I have read here. Many of the sources in this article are not of the variety a genuine historian would accept. (Such as undocumented photographs, fixed trials conducted under enemy occupation, and one professor of notoriety of whom even Hilmar Kaiser has concluded that "serious scholars should be cautioned against accepting all of Dadrian's statements at face value.") As Guenter Lewy has written recently, "a large number of Western students of Ottoman history reject the appropriateness of the genocide label for the tragic fate of the Armenian community in Ottoman Turkey. This list includes distinguished scholars such as Roderic Davison, J.C. Hurewitz, Bernard Lewis, and Andrew Mango. Ignoring this formidable array of learned opinion, most Armenians and their supporters among so-called genocide scholars assert with superb arrogance that the Armenian genocide is an incontrovertible historical fact."

That is exactly the case here. An exclusive club has been formed. Anyone who arrives with a different perspective is immediately attacked, as you have demonstrated, "with superb arrogance." You have stated clearly that someone as myself should "have no say on wikipedia," as if you have the right to be the judge and jury.

Writing in capitals is impolite; the occasional bold imprinting to distinguish a message from what is obviously the run of an exclusive club is very much justified. But I realize if I exercise my right, two minutes later, someone with a highly unfriendly attitude and single-minded determination will impose her dictatorship. In order to persist, one must possess the time and will. Those of us who are not as emotionally invested cannot last very long. This is exactly why the above "vote" is invalid, when only like-minded people are present to vote. Blissmiss 10:10, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Although particpants seem to be in many cases from Armenian and Turkish backgrounds, I disagree that this discussion is controlled by an exclusive club of insiders. I am new to this discussion, have a somewhat different take on the genocide than the participating groups and have so far received only positive feedback. I do believe that in the dynamics between the groups certain aspects are apt to be overlooked. gidonb 11:12, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Ah yes, I must be Armenian because I believe this happened. Of course. There are those out there that deny the holocaust too, but that doesn't mean they need to be exhasutively included or discussed on the holocaust page. If you think those experts are so worthy, then go write a separate page about their views on the "non-existing genocide". This page is not the place for it. The article makes it very clear that some people disagree with calling it a geneocide, no more is needed here. It is the nature of political issues that someone always disagrees. We've heard that here before, nothing you say is new. Again, if you believe that strongly about it, go write your own article. You are starting to sound like a sockpuppet of certain anon contributors below who are upset because they didn't get their way either. pschemp | talk 22:10, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, we would delete such an article since it is a POV fork. The point is that the Armenian genocide is hardly contested outside Turkey and widely accepted as a historical fact. Immediately after the genocide and more recently it is partially accepted in Turkey too. Both the history of the genocide and the fact that many Turks and few others have reservations is well covered in the article. Therefor it is NPOV. We also cover the recent recognition of the genocide in Turkey, but are still weak on its early recognition. gidonb 22:51, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I apologize for intimating that blissmiss was a sock, as that has been shown not to be. My other opinions stand. pschemp | talk 05:02, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Gidonb, your sentence above does not fit the real facts on the ground. The genocide is not accpeted and characterized as a big lie in Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan, Kazakistan, China, Iran, Pakistan, Indonesia, Malaysia, Tataristan, and almost all muslim countries. There was one who said that Leabon pseudo recognized the alleged genocide, there is no credible source to approve that. No official gov't wweb site of Lebanon talks about the alleged and lie armenian genocide. As to other countries except 15 mostly christian countries no country has recognized the genocide. Even the US characterizes it as a massacare. Your armenian love or fundamentalism has closed your eyes to reality and real facts. Try to be more correct. --71.195.182.195 09:04, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

The countries you listed are hardly up-standing members of the international community, especially as many of them have committed State-sponsored violence against their citizens, while denying it. Indeed a lot of these countries seem to have some sort of "gentleman's agreement" where they cover up for each other in the international community whenever one does something wrong. And Muslim countries are obviously going to take the side of other Muslims. When you have countries like France, Canada or Scandavian nations saying it's a lie then there might be some credance to it. But all you've done is mention places that have a questionable human rights record themselves. Not a good idea. John Smith's 12:18, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Several of these countries have themselves massacred segments of their population or committed genocide. Armenian love and fundamentalism do not describe me, politically I am closer to Turkey if already. Genocide deniers will say anything to justify their extreme minority positions. gidonb 13:57, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Gidonb, yes it does and it does well. The countries that recognize the alleged and lie based armenian genocide are the biggest genocide doers and now they with zealot woudl like to balckmail the Turkey and label it as one of them as well. Becasue pseudo for them it would reavealing that they weren't alone in the world. The biggest genociders are France, Germany, Italy, and UK. Don't forget that 3 million died with direct inaction of the British in Bengal in 1940s. The germans killed 6 or more Jewish. I especially see the activeness of the German as they did such a wrong thing and now try to label Turkey as genocider, as this will give them the psychological releif that they are not so horrible. You just might be a German or European who have been the biggest and largest genociders in the world and nothing will clean this.

So as we see the countries that recognize the alleged armenian genocide and armenian lies are those countries which have done the biggest genocides in the world. See who are recognizing the alleged armenian genocide. --71.195.182.230 17:32, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Anon, funny you would mention Germany. Hitler in his final solution was inspired by the Armenian Genocide. He refered to it personally and specifically. He also had the ashes of the architect of the Armenian Genocide sent to Turkey, where this man was added to the Mauseleum of the Fallen Heroes and lies until today. All this is on record. gidonb 17:49, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Gidonb, the armenian loved and faked words of Hitler is nothing more than the myth as the armenian genocide allegations. You know that better than me. Also would like to note that UK hasn't recognized the alleged armenian genocide. In other countries they were done mostly bby some group of parlamentarians, who are most likely anti muslim, anti Turk and or christian fundamentalists. So as yo u see the armenians millions are going to toilet as the flush of water. I woudl suggest those armenian diaspora people to spend this money for armenians who are dieing in armenia from poverty. It would be interesting for you to know that half of the armenian population has already left armenia. So funny that most of armenians as you gidonband and lovers of armenians for this or another reason always try to relate the armenian genocide to notorious people in the world therefore trying to justify their position. So far these are Stalin, Hitler and Mussolini. God known who will be tomorrow. May be the Pope Rome himlself. Haaaaaaaaaaaaa:)))))Ramil --71.195.182.195 19:25, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Also I don't know why Armenians want to hide that one of the biggest genociders in the world was Armenian. Lavrenty Beriya was an armenian and the right hand of Stalin. Indeed the entire massacre of intellectuals and anti-soviet people had been directly managed by Lavrenty Beriya, not by Stalin. He has killed by some estimations 30 million people in the entire former Soviet Union. Do you the see the parallel between the tendency of Lavrenty Beriya to commit genocide, and armenian in Turkey in 1915 who killed half a million Kurds and some Turks.

Why you don't tell the truth? WHy you don't tell that one the biggest genocider in the world was Armeninan, Lavrenty Beriya. His genocide may be exceeds the genocide committed by Hitler. --71.195.182.195 00:03, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Beriya was not Armenian, he was a Georgian Jew but the only person who was in the high ranks of the Communist Party at that time who was Armenian was Artem Mikoyan and he aided in policy making, not deporting and starving peoples. Where in the world did you get this erroneous info anon?--MarshallBagramyan 03:19, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I have never seen one credible source on the Jewishness of Beria. Where did you read that he was of any Jewish decent? According to most sources he was the son of Mingrelian peasants from the Abkhazian region of Georgia. The sources that claim he was Jewish seem to be from a very specific kind. Striking enough some postings on anti-Semitic forums also deny that he was Jewish. Of course, since Beria did not have many papers and the few he had were partly forged, much can be claimed about him. Beria was one of the major criminals behind the "Great Purge" (greatest after Stalin) and responsible for the death of many Jews. By the way, a well known hoax claims that Stalin himself was Jewish. Truth is that Stalin studied to be a priest at a seminary before he turned to communism. gidonb 01:33, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I lived in the Soviet Union and books like those were viewed unfavorably by the USSR government and hence, were read in secret. It was an omnipresent view held by the people in the USSR. The books didn't have any hint of anti-semitism, they simply stated that Beria was of Jewish descent and undeniably, a corrupt and ruthless "politician" in the Stalin's government, the one who did his dirty work. And Stalin for a fact, was definitely not Jewish. --MarshallBagramyan 07:03, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Very true but some Soviet books were against Beria for political reasons or rehashed information. To the best of my knowledge it has not been included in a credible source. Of course I would be interested to know if such a source existed. It is not in the very detailed Lavrenty Beria article and would be if there was something to it. It also is not proven he was not a Jew. In any case Beria did not study to be a priest. gidonb 08:03, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments

I dont think it is neutral to place "Further information: Denial of Armenian genocide" wherever an opposing view is expressed. You are in effect telling the reader "this is denial". --A.Garnet 18:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

"Denial" doesn't mean what you are denying is true. It means denial of a view. The focus in this case is Armenia Genocide. Someone who says that it didn't happen by definition denies it. --TigranTheGreat 19:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Denial is a loaded word - it is usually associated with refusing to accept something which is true, it gives the article a slanted tone, that one view can be dismissed as denial. If there are no objections, I will remove both the links. --A.Garnet 17:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

No, quit removing, that is what you're good at. You have already removed something on the bases that it does not fit in the article and deleted an entire section. There will already by an entire article regarding Denial of the Armenian genocide, because the position of denial of the genocide exist and cover more than half of the works published about the topic. You will hardly find any work covering the topic which does not at least have one chapter about what is termed denial. It is the least one could do to have at least a little link to another article with that name, and the fact that it is largelly underused in the article is clearly misleading because if we were to give the space on denial that is covered in the academia we would have to give half of the space of the current article. Fad (ix) 19:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

This is why I took the article off my watchlist, it seems it is ok for someone to go and add the denial link without discussion, but as soon as I introduce it into discussion, I get a personal retort off you. I have made it clear before, that this article does not present the Turkish POV in a sympathetic tone as Misplaced Pages requires, but instead slams it at every given opportunity. On top of this, we are now placing a link called denial wherever an opposing view is expressed. This is just another instance of the discreet presupposition running throughout this article that the Turkish view is wrong. At least we have moved on from when the Turkish government position was simply entitled denial! (which if i remember you once again opposed). --A.Garnet 20:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

What? What? What? Look dude, you have deleted an entire section about the denial while there was a clear opposition for you to not do it, and I accepted it to not start out a conflict. You have deleted sentences because you considered them showing the Turkish government in bad light and when I have reintroduced it you have deleted it as per talk page, when I have justified its inclusion and in the last part of the discussion you haven't even answered me. I repeat, what is termed as denial, should take half of the space of the article because half of the time or even more, when the Armenian genocide is reffered to is to point of its denial. This is what it is called, I already used Universalis which is owned in part by Britannica, which call it as such. In fact, the only encyclopedia that I know of that does not do this is Britannica which is the record holder on the numbers of times that it changed its entry about the Armenian genocide and it was always after intense Turkish pressures. Britannica has even mistakes in its statistic table about the entry which were directly pasted from the Turkish foreign ministry. They were even forced to remove their maps of historic Armenia which was a reprint of National Geographic map, and Tabib whom is a member here in Misplaced Pages was one of those who wrote for the removal.

The Turkish government position already states "Those who support the genocide theses state that Turkey is denying its past and accuse it of suppressing international attempts to recognize a genocide". But for some this does not dismiss the Turkish view enough, there has to be links placed at every mention of an opposing view that indicate Turkey is in denial. This is what I am opposed to. --A.Garnet 17:01, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Imagine that we were condemned for a crime you did not commit, would your refusal to accept it be termed denial. I don't see how denial is to be changed, it only say that the Turkish government reject the term.

Also, as I said, this term is generally attached to the Turkish government position, it is a notable term, in fact it is more associated to the Armenian genocide than any other cases, including the holocaust. Fad (ix) 18:14, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Also, you are the one refusing the include the whole Turkish version, because when I do it, you claim it does show the Turkish position as bad light. But it is TRUE that Halacoglu, Ataov all those working in the Turkish historical society which is owned by the National Assembly(AKA government) claims that it was actually the Armenians whom commited genocide against the Turks and that even figures of over a million killed by Armenians were presented. I am ready to include those, but you will refuse, actually the Turkish version you want to be included is YOUR Turkish version not those published. Even thought it is supported by a good portion of the Turkish population, we need publications for it to be included, but the only publications that one could find are those by Halacoglu, Ataov or those published by the Institute of Armenian studies founded by the Turkish government aimed specifically to deny the Armenian genocide. Those publications are the official versions, the official version is Halacoglu's 56 thousand Armenians perished and that Armenians killed a half a million Turks, but when I have included those you wanted it to get deleted. Is it my fault that the governments version destroy its own credibility? The same government that accused nearly every Western country of genocide? But of course you also opposed to the inclusion of this, as well as your probably inclusion of the claim from the Turkish government that the Armenian genocide is an international lie and that Western democracies position is controled by the Diaspora.

My source for the Turkish governments position was taken from their embassy website. It made no mention of 56,000 Armenians dying, therfore I had no way of knowing the signficance of the Halacoglu claims on the Turkish governments position, I removed it because it was clearly no longer the position of the Turkish government. Now, as for you accusation about Turkey accusing other countries of genocide, I had the support of both El C and Tony Sidaway in removing that sentence. It was an attempt by you to misprepresent the words of individuals as part of a greater hyprocrisy by the Turkish government. And I noticed that you had no problem reintroducing it recently without discussion. --A.Garnet 17:01, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

And my source from the Turkish government position was taken from the books published by the Turkish governments personals which are the bases of what there is in the ministry website. Halacoglu is the president of the Turkiish historical foundation AKA society, which was founded since under the Kemalistic regime and is attached to the General assembly, he is hired and pied by the government and right now is the minister of the Armenian genocide 'allegations.' If you want to know his position and his claims of Armenian casulties or that you want a reference from his books, I will gladly footnote his claims, I was going to do that already. As for your claim that you got the support of Tony and El C, you are misinterpreting their acts the same way that you have tried to assassinate my character by claiming that I was already banned by an Administrator, when you knew that it was a mistake because my ban was lifted soon after I was banned. El C revert to vandalism to your own version is not a support, you have mislead in your edit as if there was an agreement when there was none. Tony made a remark but has not followed when I have answered. As I already said, the Turkish government had accused pratically every Western nations of genocide as an answer, and I don't even include what happened here with the Israeli minister of education who left his job after he had attempted to include the Armenian genocide alongside with the Holocaust in school curriculums. Fad (ix) 18:14, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

You are the one who continually makes remarks on mine and other peoples character, and you accuse me of character assasination?! Your first line in this disucssion was "quit removing, that is what you're good at", you introduce your arguments by telling other users that I have history of removing material, you call my discussion with you Bullshit, you raise your voice as to be patrionising, and now you accuse me of deceiving people over El_C's support. For your information, I was not going off his revert, but off his reply (towards bottom) on his discussion page. If I mistakenly took that as support, then I apologise to El_C. With regards to your block, it came as no surprise to me after witnessing how uncivil you can be (which I actually warned you about), that you judged it as a mistake seems to be your interpretation, If i'm not mistaken the admin unblocked you on good faith. --A.Garnet 20:05, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Garnet, my accusation about you removing materials is founded and you know it, not only on this thread but elsewhere, including Ataturks entry, which the critics have simply been removed, while your accusation against me was simply untrue and you knew it. You raised the issue of my blocking when you knew that the decision was reverted soon after it was implemented, but since you raise it again and still maintain that, know that the one who blocked me apologized in private and while I promessed to not talk about that, that you still don't drop that I am forced to bring that. From all the arbitrators, administrators involved in that cases only you claim I was uncivil, only you witnessed that, I guess you see what you want to see. Also, you recieved a warning yourself by an administrator and I have never fallen that low to discredit you. This was the caracter assassination I was talking about, you pointed that to picture me as someone who could not behave and was blocked therefor. As for everytime I have used the term BS they fitted there, you were deleting sentences what was I to do of that? Comming to El_C, I don't think it is a bright thing to interpret somemones remark, when your interpretion of it in light of my reply which BTW you haven't answered to, doesn't make much sense. Prime ministers, presidents etc. are very relevent more so when there is no written on stone Turkish government position and that from the same logic I could delete all that section from the same basis. When I brought that you have skipped replying to that, and that accusing various countries of genocide is generalised. Fad (ix) 01:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

No it is not founded, and i am getting fed up of having my character attacked each and every time I come into contact with you. I didn't bring up your ban, your brought up your ban to again accuse me of being underhanded. The reason i ignore most of your ranting is evident from this discussion, look at the size of it! I have no interest in taking part in 1mb of discussion with you every time I want to edit an article. You even make no hint of apology in calling other peoples contribution bullshit, but instead think you are fully justified! You accuse me of basing El_C support on a revert, I show you otherwise, and you give me some nonsensical reply to avoid losing face. Now show me this warning i received from an administrator which you have been so modest as to mention, other than a 3RR I received in my early days I dont know what your on about. --A.Garnet 01:59, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

The above message of yours is the kind of I recieved everytime I requested explainations for your deletions. And yes, BS was a term I used, and I was harsh pratically in every interactions we had, but this isen't surprising, since our discussions generally revolved around your deletions when you were adviced not to delete, and I wasn't the only one being harsh with you there when you were deleting materials..., more particularly in other articles.

Also, I don't remember myself generally calling other peoples contribution bullshit, in fact I don't even remember using this term but rather BS and it was directed at your justification for deletions in a talk page, therefor it could not be about your contributions in articles.

Comming to your claim that I was trying to save my face. I don't see how, what do you want me to do, appologize for my mistake over your comment on El_C answer? Fine I appologize, on the other hand, I don't see how me pointing to the fact that your argument doesn't support what you claim or rather suggest it support is to save my face.

And lastly, me reffering to your warning was not to discredit you, unlike what you did in my cases, I just pointed that I will never fall that low and reffer to your warning on the middle of a discussion, please don't put words in my mouth to then answer them. This is my last reply regarding this subject, since it turned out to be unconnected with the current article. Fad (ix) 03:30, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Not to say like the official publications such as the classical book Le peuple arménien et les tentatives de rendre en servitude le peuple turc by Inayetullah Cemal Özkaya and Gurun who attempt to even question the existance of the Armenians as a people from the logic: "If there is no Armenians, how could an Armenian genocide exist?"

Another thing is that the Turkish government position there, is your position since you control that section and consider what is the Turkish government position. In short, you have already removed an entire section regarding the genocide, and like it or not the term denial is here to stay when the term is used in the very large majority of the works each time the question of the Armenian genocide is mentioned and one of the reasons why I have a problem to remove the neutral tag is because without any inclusion of the denial this article is misleading and does not cover it as it is in reality.

I dont 'control' that section. I only take an interest in it because it is only place in the article which represents the Turkish view. If I'm not mistaken there were previously about 3 lines in the entire article which treated the Turkish view and you deemed this as incorporating the Turkish view and therefore making the need for a separate section redundant. And I find it surprising that your idea of making the article more neutral is to emphasise the Turkish view as denial even more. And heres me thinking you were going include the non-Turkish academics who dont support the genocide thesis (which you said you were going to do no?). --A.Garnet 17:01, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

The Turkish view is recorded only on publications not on what you believe as a Turk. I am ready to include Gurun, Ataov, Halacoglu etc. who actually represent the official version, and it was you who named that section to represent the Turkish government view, which is not blindly to be equated with the general Turkish population, when the last poll in Turkey about Armenians showed that the general population has no clear idea of who exactly are Armenians and how big is Armenia. As for denial,I have opposed many Armenians to introduce their POV, but I will oppose to delete the term denial, because this is what is the Turkish government position, and had the genocide not happened it would still be termed as denial, because the Turkish government refuse the official position which is the thesis that a genocide did happen. Fad (ix) 18:14, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

And since we are at it about things to remove, I see that no one had any problems beside me with the inclusion of websites such as armenianreality.com or armenian-genocide-lie.com when neither the authors are unknown(under proxy), nor it is an official position nor from an organization, and above everything had I included a site such as Turkishlies.com or Turkishreality.com you would have been the first one to jump on it to remove it, but lucky you I would have supported you if such a thing was to happen and that I would have removed it myself. By Nooo!!! You will always try removing sentences that are official positions and even others which you do not deny the existance(like turkish officials accusing other nations of genocide they were even to pass a resolution accusing Armenia of genocide in Xojali). Fad (ix) 23:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

By all means remove those websites, you obviously have a poor judgement of me if you believe I have the intention of propogandising articles. I only believe in the fair representation of views, and when i say fair I dont mean equal as some people have suggested below, I mean fair as in not being dismissive. It is now obvious that the chances of me editing this article without getting an instant revert are next to zero, not because of my edits, but because of the strong prejudice against any Turk editing this article.

You are misinterpreting what I've said, my point is that you leave obvious mistakes and do nothing about, but will oppose any changes on the Turkish government section. Fad (ix) 18:14, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Also this is to User:TigranTheGreat, please dont manipulate the vote by informing your buddies, why dont you message some Turkish people as well? --A.Garnet 17:01, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Because I don't have to. Informing is a necessary part of making informed decisions and has absolutely nothing to do with manipulation. None of the persons I have informed are my buddies, in fact most are neutral administrators. My act of informing actually resulted in one of them getting involved to make the article more neutral, so I say it had positive results for everyone. --TigranTheGreat 17:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Fadix, I believe the Undue Weight policy requires to represent views not in proportion to how widely they are covered, but how widely they are *held* (actually I learned this from your discussions on other talk pages). "NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints, in proportion to the prominence of each. ...Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views". The denialist position is a minority--the vast majority of scholars outside Turkey support the Genocide (save for some historians up-for-purchase), and the general public knowledgable with the events agrees that it was a Genocide:

Most scholars outside Turkey agree that the killings are among the first 20th-century instances of "genocide," (http://hnn.us/roundup/entries/4024.html)

The Armenian genocide is not the first 20th-century genocide, Herreros were eradicated by the Germans before that. The Armenian genocide on the other hand is the first modern genocide, which is different. Fad (ix) 18:14, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I am almost sure that you noticed it, but I decided to mention it anyway. The article says "amont the first." As such, it is accurate. By the way, many scholars, perhaps justifyably, regard Abdul Hamid's massacre of 300,000 Armenians in 1890's as part of a 20 year long genocide campaign (1894-1923) in 4 stages: 1890's, 1909 (Adana, 30,000 victis), 1914-18 (1.5 million), 1920-23 (by Kemal, 300,000, mainly in Cilicia, West, and Caucasus). In that case, it does become the first genocide of 20th c. --TigranTheGreat 17:07, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Plus

A legal analysis commissioned last year by the International Center for Transitional Justice in New York concluded that sufficient evidence existed to term the killings a "genocide" under international law.(http://hnn.us/roundup/entries/4024.html)

(Thanks to a joint research by me and my good buddy MarshallBagramyan :) ). In sum, just because the denialist position is covered widely, doesn't mean it should be covered here as much as the majority position.--TigranTheGreat 10:05, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I find A.Garnet's position ridiculous in its entirety. The article already gives too much emphasis on turkish denial, way too much. I don't see a section for neo-Nazi position in the Holocaust article. Add all you want in an Armenian Genocide denial page. It should not be here, as all denial of the Holocaust is in the Revisionism page and not in the main article.--Eupator 21:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Eupator. Go make it its own article. Pschemp | 02:30, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Me too. Deny is the most common and accepted word for a negative response to a charge: "I deny these charges." To say that "usually it denotes a negative meaning" is completely unwarranted. It also fits the most common definition: Deny: To declare untrue; contradict (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=deny). As such, the term shall stay.--TigranTheGreat 09:34, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Fadix, is there a rule that prohibits those who are involved in the article from voting? You are an editor and I think your vote is both legitimate and important. The President of the US can cast a vote for himself, I don't see why can't you.--TigranTheGreat 10:27, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

No there is none, the decision of not voting is mine. Fad (ix) 16:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

This is unfair and can not be the solution to the disputed and questionable genocide allegations. I am taking this issue to the arbitration. There is voting, nodboy is informed, couple of armenians and you remove the tag giving the illusion to people that the issue is not disputed. The tag should stay there and should remain there. Otherwise, I am taking this to the arbitration. Let me know your response in couple of days. --ramil 21:53, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I allowed 5 days for the voting. But not one person that didn't want it removed came along in that time. There was plenty of opportunity for people to read this page. And how was I supposed to announce it other than to put the message here? I think the fact that you're stereotyping everyone that voted as being Armenian shows your bias.

You're the only person to show up here to want the tag, a full week after the vote was started. I was never going to leave it longer than a week and you still would have lost the vote, so the tag stays off. John Smith's 22:00, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Several non-Armenians, including neutral administrators, participated in the voting process or assisted it by taking a neutral look at the article and suggesting modifications. Francis' contribution was very valuable in gaining informed, neutral consensus. The process was legitimate, and the tag shall stay off.--TigranTheGreat 09:28, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

My armenian or pro-armenian friend John Smith. If you call the week as plenty of opportunity, my response to you is that it is nothing more than a perverted understanding of opportunity. Even unimportant elections in US towns take 3 months and that with notification to eveybody.

Also disputed issues should have the disputed tag. That is the rule of the Misplaced Pages. You can not address it with 8 votes:-)))) 8 votes and that is more than enough for you to lift the tag. My friend I would suggest you to learn more about democracy, elections and voting. Be more tolerant and don't try to manipulate the lack of voice form another side to achieve your dirty puporse of cheating people on alleged and never happened armenian genocide lies. If you want to learn more about armenian lies, I have put the link below in the armenian lies section, you can see it. I am taking it to the arbitration unless you bring back the tag. Rest assured. --71.195.182.195 13:34, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately for you, as an anon, you don't have that right. Second, Misplaced Pages is not a democracy. Please review the Misplaced Pages policy before lecturing others. Finally, no personal attacks....WP:NPA. This includes racist comments such as the Armenian lies comment. If you persist in doing this, you WILL be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages. ⇒ SWATJester Aim _Fire! 18:53, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

A disputed article does not need a tag. Otherwise 100% of political wiki articles would have tags.

HAHAHAHA, yeah go to admins and ask for a 3 month vote. I'm sure they'll back you up ^____^ John Smith's 21:07, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Looks like he already tried here. Too bad it was incomprehensible.pschemp | talk 21:46, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Lol, thanks for the link. Did you see the bit about me and "other Armenians". Oh yeah, like there's no one outside Armenia that supports the discussion on that page....... :p John Smith's 23:39, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh yes, that's very nice. Evidently I've become an Armenian too, just by voting to remove the NPOV tag. pschemp | talk 14:47, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Changes after removal of POV tag

A growing list of countries, as discussed below, have officially recognized and accepted its authenticity as Genocide.

This should probably be reworded. I think the article is not particularly biased in content, however it is slightly biased in tone - I think that it could do with a copyedit by a more impartial user before removing the tag. If you want me to take this up I would be willing to attempt it, although as prior warning I have been accused of being Armenian! :) FrancisTyers 10:38, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like an idea. Please post the rewording here first and then we can all be happy about it. Pschemp | 18:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree, I had a problem with this sentence myself. Fad (ix) 18:14, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Ask Fadix, he has invested much in the article--if he has no problem with it, neither do I. I am strongly against removing the word "denial" for the reaspons explained elsewhere, as are most editors here. Don't worry about being called Armenian--your neutral track record and reputation speaks for itself.--TigranTheGreat 09:34, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Further note: It is believed that twenty-five major "concentration camps", why is concentration camps in scare quotes? - FrancisTyers 10:38, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

No idea. Well maybe because some people object to the use of that word, but it should either be a different word or take the quotes off. Pschemp | 18:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

The term is used in maps of the camps, including the Germans during the war as well as concentration camps books(I noted one such work in the footnote). I placed it in scare quotes because Coolcat would delete it so the scare quotes were left intact. Remove the quote if you think it should. Fad (ix) 18:31, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Scare quotes are discouraged by Wiki guidelines much like weasel words (WP:AWW)--words like "claim, allege," which pretend to be neutral but contain hidden POV. We shouldn't keep them just because someone keeps removing the entire phrase--NPOV is non-negotiable policy. They need to stay away.--TigranTheGreat 09:34, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Instead of editing this article and getting in peoples way, I've copied the article to User:FrancisTyers/Armenian Genocide provisionally. I've adjusted the lead, if people agree with these adjustments and think that it is an improvement then I will continue with the rest of the article. If you disagree with any changes I've made, let me know here and I'll think about if its worth me continuing. - FrancisTyers 01:42, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

So far so good. Pschemp | 06:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I've been through the whole thing, see: User:FrancisTyers/Armenian Genocide. I would say that there are still certain "issues" with the text, but I can't fix them as I don't know enough about the subject. One thing that it is sorely missing is inline citations. Stuff like It is believed that most of these were soon executed with a citation would be bad enough, but without a citation shows a significant bias. Who believes this? The discussion about "deportation" is misplaced, as is the comparison with Japanese during WWII, the modern term I think would be internally displaced person. If you think its worth me continuing I'll go through and add fact tags to the parts that, in my opinion, are in dire need of citation. Feel free to edit the page in my userspace if you think I've cut something important. - FrancisTyers 18:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

The lack of citations is an issue of citing and not POV. I don't think the article needs to suffer from a glaring POV tag just because of that. I believe adding fact tags should suffice. Fadix is more knowledgable on this, but I believe "deportations" is the most common term used in literature with respect to the "displacements." Plus, it is somehow accurate, since we are talking about moving people from one part of a multi-part empire (Armenia, i.e. the homeland lf the people) to another part (Syria).--TigranTheGreat 19:26, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I would agree that the citation is a matter of {{verify}} and not {{neutrality}}, however the two are interlinked in some way, for example it is POV to say It is believed that most of these were soon executed, it is not POV to say Scholars at the Kyrgyz State Institute of Genocide Historians believe that most of these were soon executed (purely random example). The deportation thing doesn't really matter, just that whole paragraph is clunky. Although this is not necessarily a problem for the NPOV tag. Have you considered RfC'ing this to get other editors to look it over? - FrancisTyers 19:34, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I copied in the version from my talk page and then reverted myself. My revision is here. I would encourage people to check it out and if they feel it is an improvement to merge the diffs. - FrancisTyers 17:05, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Good except for these things:

(Idiocy Removed)

Thank you for working on this!Pschemp | 04:56, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• Old requests for peer review