Misplaced Pages

Adieu (or Au revoir ?) Halacoglu

The material referring to Halacoglu in the Turkish Position/Casualties which relied on TV interviews, and wasn't in English as she is spoke or writ, has been removed. There's no reason why Halacoglu's writings on the subject (in particular the two works in English) shouldn't be mentioned, but not second hand, only if supported by citations from the works in question. WP:CS refers. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:42, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Armenian killed pregnant womans!

Moved to subpage. - FrancisTyers · 14:17, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

THOTH style

Moved to subpage. - FrancisTyers · 14:19, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

THOTH style meets its match - not quite...

Moved to subpage. - FrancisTyers · 14:21, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Berktay - Armenians killed by a Special organization

Moved to subpage. - FrancisTyers · 14:22, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

To all anon users

your changes to the article without an explanation and a signature is generaly automaticly reverted by other users since this is regarded as vandalism and your acts proves basis for the protection of the article. Please stop that and use legit. means. neurobio 11:20, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

first picture

can someone describe me what they see in the first picture? where does it come from? who are these soldiers?neurobio 14:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Fogery an old Habit

File:Forgery.jpg

I agree with Inshanee "showing that one image has been forged does not mean that all images have been forged, nor does it mean that all of the claims about the events have been forged." But one has to admit that we are seeing a very spesific pattern here ], ]. Remember Andonian forgeries, Hitler quote, quotes attributed to Talat or Mustafa kemal which are still in armeniapedia or other web sites. Dear Marshall The famous painting above was enlarged and shown to the Canadian public in the 1970's, in the Yerevan Pavilion at the annual Metro International Carovan festivities in Toronto, as proof of "Armenian genocide". See the photo I uploaded. This is also a famous photo of Mustafa kemal but reckless Armenian propagandists are so sure that they wont get a reply still use it (or who will hear the reply? only Turks probably). There are a lot of pictures said to be genocide photo but only Armen wenger photos are surely known to be from that time and event. Others are all suspicious given many forgery cases. (especially the one where "ottoman soldiers" pose in front of heads. imagine! you take cut off heads go to a photo studio or call the photographer (in dar el zor "desert" or burned down Van province) set up a nice table put the heads and say cheese.)And ofcourse all photos are not photoshoped. just miss presentation of a photo from a different time or event is a forgery.

I also partly agree with Inshanee when he says ”It's POV and demonstrates nothing of relevance” about forged photos, but he or anyone else has to explain us what the Turkihs denial Advertisement in the article demonstrates? What is its relevance? For me it only shows that the Diaspora puts at least 400.000 dollars (a full page in The times!) for a hate advertisement instead of building a school or orphanage in Armenia.

I am asking once again what is the source of the first photo in the article. who are these soldiers. who are the dead people? What is the date? if no one gives a satisfying answer it should be deleted.neurobio 00:36, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Using material from TAT is like a neo-nazi using material from stormfront on the Holocaust page.--Eupator 02:41, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

thanks for your nice comment. no offence taken :). Still no one informs us about the picture thereneurobio 12:58, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

And what do you call Systems of a down? your band of beloved racist satanists, LOL lutherian 05:32, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

When are you going to learn that repeatedly making comparisons to Jewish holocaust does not make your story any easier to swallow, no matter how many times you repeat it.

" What happened to the Armenians is a matter for historians to decide. We reject attempts to create a similarity between the Holocaust and the Armenian allegations. Nothing similar to the Holocaust occurred. It is a tragedy what the Armenians went through but not a genocide. " Nobel Peace Laureate, Former Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon Peres

" The Armenians want to benefit from both worlds. On the one hand, they speak with pride of their struggle against the Ottoman despotism, while on the other hand, they compare their tragedy to the Jewish Holocaust. I do not accept this. I do not say that the Armenians did not suffer terribly. But I find enough cause for me to contain their attempts to use the Armenian massacres to diminish the worth of the Jewish Holocaust and to relate to it instead as an ethnic dispute. " Professor Bernard Lewis, published in the Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz, January 23, 1998

" If 1.5 million Armenian lost their lives during that war, they died as soldiers, fighting a war of their own choosing against the Ottoman Empire which had treated them decently and benignly. They were the duped victims of the Russians, of the Allies, and of their own Armenian leaders. A few thousand Armenians may have lost their lives during their relocation, caused by their own subversion " Rabbi Albert Amateau, Sephardic Jewish leader in the United States addressing the Congress in 1990 24.211.192.250 04:34, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

So what if some Jewish leaders don't recognize the Armenian Genocide? Shame on them, each and every one of them. Many of them don't recognize the Rwandan Genocide, the Cambodian Genocide, the Sudanese Genocide, and think the Holocaust is its own entity that no one else can share such a victim role. Yossi Beilin, Israel's former Deputy Foreign Minister and Education Minister however (along with many other Jewish leaders), acknowledged the Armenian Genocide and he had it implemented in Israel's education system, he castigated leaders like Shimon Peres who are so shamelessly insensitive to the victims.

"It was not war. It was most certainly massacre and genocide, something the world must remember... We will always reject any attempt to erase its record, even for some political advantage." Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister. April 27, 1994 on the floor of the Knesset in response to a TV interview of the Turkish Ambassador

Them saying so doesn't make it true, especially Bernard Lewis who once called the Genocide the "Armenian Holocaust" in his 1962 book.--MarshallBagramyan 05:04, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

With regard to Bernard Lewis, that's the difference between a researcher and an obsessive "genocide" zealot. Researchers don't treat the subject as religious dogma, they do go after the facts, collect more data, and might change their opinion, whenever they realize that the facts point to the other direction. I laugh at these users here who see themselves as authority asking not to believe Bernard Lewis, a distinguished Princeton professor, fellow of American Academy Arts and Sciences and British Royal Academy, but to believe them. Get real please!24.211.192.250 13:03, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Its not just some Jewish leaders, its the leaders that matter who reject those absurd claims and thats what counts! lutherian 05:27, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Theirs saying so doesn't make it true. Great example of a logical fallacy though.--MarshallBagramyan 05:29, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you partially, and disagree with some points. I disagree that the photos can possibly demonstrate anything. Find any major historical event since the invention of the camera, and I'll show you some rather silly faked photos. Just because faked photos exist does not say anything about the authenticity of the event itself, and trying to draw that connection is POV original research. On the other hand, you bring up a valid point about the image source. With no information whatsoever, it is definatly hard to make a case for its inclusion in this article (or any). --InShaneee 01:26, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

And uh, where's the proof that Armenians fabricated this? - or is this another Turkish attempt to portray Armenians as falsifiers of a picture of a man that almost had no relevance to the Armenian Genocide and thus the point of such a fabrication eludes one's mind. If you want fabricators, I'll show the more shameful examples by Turks who embellish historical evidence that corrborated the existence of an intentional widespread massacre:

Here is a quote by a supposed Turkish historian named Enver Zia Karal in a book or pamphlet called the “Armenian Question: (1878-1923) in p.22. He falsifies a quote by a Major General James G. Harbord who was sent by the United States to investigate the claims of the Genocide in 1919-1920.

“Meanwhile, the Armenian, unarmed at the time of the deportations, a brave soldier by thousands in the armies of Russia, France, and America, is still unarmed and safe in a land where every man but himself need to carry a rifle.”

Now, the real quote:

“Meanwhile, the Armenian, unarmed at the time of the deportations and massacres, a brave soldier by thousands in the armies of Russia, France, and America, is still unarmed in a land where every man but himself carries a rifle.”

Found at: U.S. Congress, 66th Congress, 2nd Session. Major General James G. Harbord, “Conditions in the Near East: Report of the American Military Mission to Armenia.” Washington D.C. 1920. p.11

Note the ommissions of the word "massacres" and the allusion that Armenians had an abundance of weaponry while others didn't. Just a very minor example of falsification, but I have many more by Turkish so-called historians which constantly distort the quotations to portray the events of 1915 as a nonevent.--MarshallBagramyan 01:28, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, right now, Thoth and Neurobio were the ones spamming it, and I felt that I this talkpage was left to them, a copypasting war would have resulted. Fad (ix) 22:22, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Please assume good faith and don't make preemptive accusations of other users. --InShaneee 23:30, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Oups, posted my reply to the wrong place. That reply was meant to be an answer to this message posted by the member you blocked. But Thoth and Nerobio did spam this page, they have copypasted a huge amount of materials when they could have simply posted the links from where they come from. Fad (ix) 01:55, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Deconstructing revisionism and preserving the neutrality of this article

Well, the state of this article forced me to return. As the author of TAT was patiently waiting the occasion to hit once more. For the interested, here I evidence with my merging test that Deepblue06 and 24,211,192,250 are indeed the same users. Obviously Holdwater(the author of TAT), who in the past was also known under his other Misplaced Pages login User:Torque. Deepblue06 and 24,211,192,250 have been used one after the other to escape 3RR block.

Isen't it amazing that I quit and soon after the page is respammed by materials which have mostly been addressed?

Neuro, I like when you use the term forgery, since I shall now show you few example of forgeries you brought yourself in the very same page.

Lets first deal with the picture of Ataturk with the dead body, which is said to be an Armenian forgery. Is it so? The picture in question was exibited to announce a conference about Denial, 'The Face of Denial.' The picture is indeed photoshoped, but it never was claimed to be an original, the photoshoped version is symbolic. Ataturk staying there represent the modern republic of Turkey, which is totally indifferent regarding the body of the dead child there. The child which was photoshoped and merged to Ataturks famous picture with the little dog, is one of the most famous picture used in published media. One of the pictures taken by Wegner. It is widelly available on the web.

The title actually say it well, 'The Face of Denial.' Forgery imply an intent to mislead. While this was a 'collage' a work of art, a marging which was symbolic. Turkaya Ataov was totally clueless, and I wonder how it could have been interpreted the way Ataov interpreted it, an interpretation which you recycled.

Comming to 'Hovhannes Katchaznouni' 'admissions,' this has been already addressed by me after it has been posted, follow my reply.

Comming to your 'brand new' translation from Bolshevik Zakavkazya. You are quite fluent in Turkish I must say, since it does not concord with the original Russian version but rather the tainted Turkish version provided by Mehmet Perincek.

You claim that according to Boghos Nubar there was between 300,000 to 400,000 Armenians who have died and you claim having the document from French archive. Be glad to provide it to me, it'll be nice, since Boghos Nubar provides over a million. See for example, footnote number 21 in this article.

You also claim that ASALA assassinate over 200, while unrelated to the article, feel free to provide the relevant materials to support such a claim.

Here, I won't even bother addressing 24.211.192.250 who knows I have addressed the many fabricated quotes which he present in his website, and thinking I have left has used the occasion to recycle them here once more.

But just for the sake of it, I shall maybe raise Bronsart cases, which is recycled again and over again, just to show what sort of materials revisionists rely on.

Let see his admission of the Armenian destruction in closed doors. “Namely, the Armenian is just like the Jew, a parasite outside the confines of his homeland, sucking off the marrow of the people of the host country. Year after year they abandon their native land—just like the Polish Jews who migrate to Germany—to engage in usurious activities. Hence the hatred which, in a medieval form, has unleashed itself against them as an unpleasant people, entailing their murder.” (A. A. Bonn. Goppert Papers (Nachlass), vol. VI, file 5 (files 1-8), p. 4, February 10,1919). I shall for now exclude the many other 'interesting' thing about the man.

But, let provide other examples of forgeries 24.211.192.250 provides, which he knows them to be forgeries, since I corrected him in the past and he still recycle them.

Cited from Mikael Varandean, "History of the Dashnaktsutiun." The quote presented does not exist, I have provided him the content of the pages from which it supposedly come from, the work is on two volume, and it is neither in one nor the other on the page mentioned(and I see now that he just removed the page), but neither is it anywhere in both of those volumes.

Grace H. Knapp, The Tragedy of Bitlis, Fleming H. Revell Co., New York (1919) , page 146. This is one of the most infamious distortion, this book from one cover to the other relate to the destruction of the Armenians in Bitlis. Shall I quote from the book about what was happenong the the Armenians?

Other forgeries? Well, Nikolayev supposed reports originating from the Ottoman archives, part of the supposed Russian records prepared by the Ottoman Empire, like General Mayewski 'report' presented by Major Mehmet Sadik who was an intelligence officier at the General Staff Department II engaged in literaly fabricating Russian reports to justify the decision taken against the Armenians. So, it isen't surprising that the said memoir of Tatiana Karameli which you present only exist in Turkish and found in Ottoman archive listed also in the series 'dismissing' the Armenian massacres.

Forgeries you say? I can load the talk page with example of forgeries, non existing quotes, not only comming from TAT site, but also academics of the Turkish republic. And believe me, this reply was rather short, considering the many worthyness of the copypasting job made by Holdwater under yet again, another pseudonym. Fad (ix) 20:15, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Who's this clown? From the post, I understand that this guy has a history of issues. 24.211.192.250 20:45, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Is there a reason you enjoy call people names while remaining under the shroud of an anonymous user?--MarshallBagramyan 21:01, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

You know who is this clown(me). I thought the evidences I have provided would be enough, but obviously it wasn't for you.

On 10 May, 16:59, Deepblue06 makes the edit on PKK being terrorist, he is reverted, the next contribution you make then, is to reinsert it and fight over it(the same day). The same day at 23:20 Deepblue06 again makes his edits over the Armenian genocide page, regarding the reasons why the US does not officially recognize it, this after, you the same day have fought over it and was reverted. 40 minutes after his edit, you revert back to the same version, switching reverts to not be blocked for 3RR. Everytime you were there for days, Deepblue06 was not, with few exceptions which are much telling. Here are the exceptions, 10 May, which was the day Deepblue06 registered. And 4 June, 4 June, you reported the arguments I and Thoth had, it would have been a suicide for Deepblue06 to do it, which explains why you did it. You also on that date reported it on Deepblue06 page at 18:06, and Deepblue06 reported it to another user at 18:27 claiming it was posted on his talkpage. Which is 20 minutes after it was reported to him and 7-8 hours after the last Deepblue06 contribution that day. You reported it also to CoolCat, who you knew is for months attempting to find any evidences to Arbcom me. You know CoolCat cases, my cases, Thoth etc., but now, you ignore this clown(me). June 4 was your last post until June 17, and what is June 17? It is one day (actually 4 hours and 40 minutes) after DeepBlue said he left Misplaced Pages. Your first contribution under this IP is on September 18, 2005. You could not have missed the clown. I guess I'll recieve a warning if I say that you are Holdwater. Fad (ix) 22:03, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I have all along been right about Holdwater. Fad (ix) 22:03, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey, buddy, I understand you've some issues with me. I did not waste my time to read your pseduo-dedective story. If you've any evidence that proves something, report it to admins and get me banned. Otherwise, stop crying and don't fill this page with your nonsense. 24.211.192.250 22:55, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Report you? Who talked about reporting anyone? I'll leave that to you, both with your DeepBlue06 alias and this IP, you know I don't like reporting people, don't you? Who would have thought, I always thought that you were Lutherian socks, I guess my absence served for something, had it been not of your copypast job from TAT, I would have never guessed that Lutherian was not Holdwater, and my first suspicion was true. Lutherian was not alone adding TAT site in the article, you did that yourself as evidenced by your log, something which I would never have checked had you not posted your stuff over here. A merging test when effectivally including a correlative assessement is more accurate than Checkusers(Checkusers can be fooled by open proxies). This indeed confirms both of you are the same users. Again, I propose you to read what is there carefully, evading 3RR is not good, also, while you reported another user for incivility (with both of your accounts) to InShaneee, I have been blocked for three days for less than your above slanders. But I will not be playing cheap here. Fad (ix) 01:36, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

wait im a bit confused here, who am I accused of being now? lutherian 06:41, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry, you aren't accused of anything... perhaps, for now. ;) Fad (ix) 16:40, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Fadix's bold claims about evidence, proof and forgery are quite impressive. However, the first stunning image of soldiers standing by a pile of dead bodies still remains clueless. I wonder what he had to say about an image uploaded from Armeniapedia, which is definetely, looking the issue from a certain point of view. InShaneee calls these sites as propaganda sites. Without certain references and evidences, I urge the administration to remove that image, which constitutes a clear bias to a newcomer to the article.

PS: Newcomers to the discussion page, like Fadix, please do not try to change the direction of the discussion which have been formed for a certain time by spamming the page with lots of irrelevant information for the moment. I said : for the moment. Thanks

I already removed that picture in the past, it isen't a famous picture, most probably an Armenian contigent of the Tsar army in the Easter zone killed in a battle, and which the Turkish soldiers dressing of their uniform. It was costum during a defeat during those periods to do that. I already proposed its removal, I don't think it represent a genocide photo. Fad (ix) 22:19, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Dear Fadix, please do not edit my comments by dividing them into half, and posting your comment in between. By saying that `I already proposed its removal` you sound like you are an authority. If you read my comment you will not see a direct proposition to you about the removal. Anyone who spends a mere half an hour in the archive pages (let alone your personal blocks) can understand your biased position to the subject. So please do not act like this. This is a common page, and I propose it to the community.

Thanks USer : Sokrateskerem

I am user : sokrateskerem, and I will sign my post as soon as I get unblocked.

I removed that picture myself, before it was reverted long time ago, I also agreed to its removal in the archive. I will not bring back things there. CoolCat placed a tag for deletion for my replacement picture while it was sourced, and while I was out of Misplaced Pages, it was deleted without my consent, if you read the archive, you will see that Cansin, the Turk with whom I discussed and I agreed that the picture which I requested to replace this one was indeed sourced. I do not own this article, it is very difficult to work on it, when from one side, there is Thoth who discuss about anything but the article and others like Neurobio. Also, about my biases, while I may be biased in the talkpage, you should judge my contributions according to the edits in the articles mainspace. Everyone here or anywhere else in Misplaced Pages are probably biased about a subject, but unlike some who will register an account to pretend to be an uninvolved party, I do not deny being Armenian, neither do I deny having a POV about the issue. What I deny though, is that my contribution in the articles mainspace is biased. This I deny. Fad (ix) 01:36, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

External links are not an excuse for linkspam

Even with the duplicate and irrelevant links I removed, there are a great many links of doubtful relevance. Why should readers care what a columnist in the Hindustan Times says in his blog ? What relevance does Time Magazine's fuckup have ? Why link to websites whose authors are anonymous cowards (as they say on /.) ? Why should anyone care what the city of Ryde, New South Wales does or doesn't do ? No doubt there are more links of minimal relevance. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:00, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree, but it's better to seek some consensus before unilaterally deleting the ones that you deem irrelevant. 24.211.192.250

This issue was discussed in the past, I for that reason created a page just for the resources. I am unconfortable with links, maybe only official organizations or something such? If it was of me, no Misplaced Pages articles will have links as references, encyclopedia articles should be written from research on the published materials available, not from some blog. Fad (ix) 16:43, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

are you still in the midst of departure or did you change your mind? ure a funny guy lutherian 18:22, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I know. It would have been selfish of me to let this article be ruinated by Holdwater and his socks. BTW, out of subject, just to tell you that I really like your humour, the kind of guy I hang up with. :) Fad (ix) 18:34, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Did you mean to say hang out with? Kind of confused over here lutherian 20:03, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeh, yeh! sorry for my dyslexia. ;) Fad (ix) 20:25, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Its ok, also happens to me usually in the morning when I am still brain dead :-O lutherian 20:52, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the first picture

Plain and simple, it is not a famous picture, it is of questionable provenence as what it really is. I will find a replacement for it. Fad (ix) 18:34, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

thanks for removing that mispresented picture where Russian Soldiers were standing in front of killed people (maybe they killed these poor people). It is presented as a genocide picture and in some sites it was presented as "Turkish soldiers posing in front of dead armenians". It was so obvious that these were Russian soldiers. And you know what some of the poor dead guys seemed to have a circumcisition. Unlucky that we dont have a better resolution. Actually this picture seemed more like "armenian volunteers posing in front of their Muslim victims". Any way it is my speculation but more logical than saying that these are Turkish soldier who are wearing russian army clothes enmasse.

Now I put a picture which shows the deportations. It suits well with the first paragraph. ... you are wellcomeneurobio 21:14, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, getting the enemy naked and dressing its uniform was common practice. Or else, there is no reason to undress the enemy. As for circumcision, not a good indicator, Armenians were too. You could ask Syrian and Lebanese Armenians, you will find many who are circumcised, and they are not in the Ottoman Empire anymore. I already know which picture will replace it. This one, , and there is another picture which I will request its undeletion. This , a mass burning cite in Mus, we sourced it. , but Coolcat was effectivally able to get it deleted since he did not remove the tag while I was away. Fad (ix) 21:25, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

you are right. but in most cases just poor villagers were taking the dresses. you dont take your enemies underwear normally i guess. well the 2. picture is nice. something i have never seen before. I just find it interesting that clothes survived in a mass burning site. And I figured you said "we sourced it." I guess you finally confess that you are actually professionaly in this bussiness.neurobio 21:37, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

We sourced it, I was referring to the discussion I and Cansin had. Don't assume things. As for the dress, actually, clots and dress parts could survive during a human cumbustion, as amazing as it might appear. Actually the picture shows about what we might expect. If you really want to know how so, I'll refer you to forensic science. Fad (ix) 21:51, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Photo

What is the reason that this has been removed from the article? -- Karl Meier 16:31, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Because there's already another starving child picture. 24.211.192.250 02:33, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but there is no other photo of starving mothers in the article. So, do you have any valid objections against the inclusion of that photo? -- Karl Meier 18:06, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Please avoid uncivil comments such as "this's nonsense" written in you edit summary.

Photos are included for a purpose. If the point is that people were starving, this point is made by one photo (actually, this point does not need a photo anyway). There is a difference between an encyclopedic article is different than a photo gallery. 24.211.192.250 22:14, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Please avoid wiki-stalking and violation 3rr. Would you like me to report you regarding these issues? -- Karl Meier 05:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

With regard to your threat, please go ahead and report it. Otherwise, please stop unilaterally trying to label Academic Opposition as denial. There's a consensus dating back one year. In addition, all the facts tags that you're trying to insert are already referenced in the article. 24.211.192.250 10:20, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, maybe he want those pictures to be replaced by mass grave photos? Fad (ix) 18:08, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Wordings

Insteed of starting a revert war, what if people here start quoting every wordings they have problem with? Fad (ix) 17:41, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

the article contains many weasel words first they should be fixed. Such as

The event is also said to be the second-most studied case of genocide, and often draws comparison with the Holocaust.

It is said that the documents were burned in the basement's furnace.

Misplaced Pages:Avoid weasel words neurobio 22:41, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

It is the second most studied genocide, this lack of footnote, which I will provide. And I have already provided statistics from relevant journals which have published about war crimes. As for the second, it is a quote, the quote is sourced. You aren't requesting the removal of a quote are you? Fad (ix) 23:02, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

first it is not universally accepted as genocide so saying "It is the second most studied genocide" is POV. I just gave these random lines just to draw attention to weasel words. I will change them according to wiki rules. ok? Second you can put your picture. it is sourced. ok. but this is an article not photo album of the massacred please try to put pictures where they help understanding the context of the topic. the main event is the deportations or relocations so the first pic is relevant.neurobio 23:55, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Neither is the Jewish holocaust "universally accepted", but that doesn't mean it didn't happen. Your two examples of weasel words were addressed by Fadix, who asked for a comprehensive list. Why don't you make a comprehensive list which can be posted here and addressed properly? --RaffiKojian 04:20, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

well I would counter by saying that the Jewish Holocaust will stand its ground in a court of law (im not referring to the bogus organizations out there so dont waste your breath with silly examples) unlike the so called Armenian genocide. The Armenians have rejected an offer to submit its case to the ICJ and that really makes one wonder whats really behind this industry! lutherian 16:12, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Lutherian, this quote: The event is also said to be the second-most studied case of genocide, and often draws comparison with the Holocaust. Does not present the genocide as a fact. It is said which is true, it is specifically because it would have been to present it as truth (which Misplaced Pages does not) that the wording 'it is' rather than 'it is said' was not used. Fad (ix) 17:04, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Getting into semantics won't get anyone anywhere here. What matters is if some large, significant body DOES recognize this. If they do, then it doesn't matter who discounts it (for the most part). --InShaneee 16:50, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

"Almost all Turkish intellectuals, scientists and historians accept that many Armenians died during the conflict." --> I have a problem with the last word. To call what happend or the relations between the victims and the perpetrators of the genocide a "conflict" is absurd, insulting to the victims, and entirely POV. Whats next? Was what happend at Auschwitz a "conflict" between the Nazis and the Jews? We should not allow Misplaced Pages to be turned into a soapbox for a biased Turkish Genocide denialist agenda. -- Karl Meier 18:31, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

It isen't much difficult to make that neutral, just replace it by 'during what they consider a conflict.'

In my opinion, various sections should probably be rewriten. One of the problem with Misplaced Pages articles, is when an editor work, he classify things based on the materials he add, and consider it as an end in itself. When an article grow, sometimes there is forced patching. It is much like an open source software like Blender, adding, adding codes, and then, we come to a situation in which the sotware should be totally reworked.

The example, is about those western scholars who oppose to the word genocide, as if opposing to the term makes them support the Turkish government and Turkish scholars position, which is not so. There is for instance a clear differences between Halacoglu belief that only 56,000 Armenians perished during the evacuation and that less than 10 thousand were killed and Lewis who maintained the range of 1-1.5 million Armenian victims while opposing the term genocide(even though in his earlier work used the term Holocaust, which was kept in its Turkish translation). This situation is a forced 'glueing' of new material. Only Stanford Shaw and Justin McCarthy among all named really qualify as supporting the Turkish government position. Other scholars should rather be included in another section. It think I will address this in the article I will creat on the term genocide and its applicability in the Armenian cases. Fad (ix) 18:51, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I came up with examples of weasel words so that we can make a easy start. that is just a simple wiki policy still there is much opposition even to that. Fadix says "This situation is a forced 'glueing' of new material" about opposing historians. he has a point yet he still misses we have come to this point because you want to present the issue as Turkey vs the World. if you say opposition should be adressed propery then you should let us to adress it properly. the first step may be to stop using Denial title.neurobio 19:41, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

What example you came up with? The second is a quote, quotations are positions in principle, they can contain 'weasel words.' The first one can not be changed, unless there is any other wording for that, the it is said, is not used to place the emphases on the 'it is' but for the 'genocide,' there is no other wordings which could effectivally replace it. And please don't place intentions on my contribution. Yes! This issue is mostly Turkey vs the world, at least vs the West, I am not making up anything, just pay attention to the published literature. Just as a side note, pay attention to the number of sites which deny the Armenian genocide, how many of them are not from Turks, Turkish government, Turkish associations. On the other hand, I could provide various sites which are not made by Armenians relating to the genocide. This is the exact representation you will find in the accademia. That revisionists uses scholars like Lewy further support this. The official Turkish government position is in clear contradiction with Lewy revisionist position, only does Shaw and McCarthy maintains the Turkish government position, the others that are said to not use the term genocide, covers the subject with elements which are opposit to the official revisionist thesis vehiculated by the Turkish government. that the article gives the impression that it is Turkey vs the World does not mean in any way that those who contributed to it have intentions to picture it as such. Fad (ix) 19:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Tukey vs World? not really... the issue is much more complex than that. Some other historians do not portray the issue as the Turkish position but they are strictly against Genocide term. just like many other Turkish and international scolars and intellectuals. So obviously this is not really present in the article. if this is a history article, and there are historians (it is not in our authority to judge on their academic value) opposing the orthadox thesis in one way or another, their position should be the one presented just after the "genraly accepted story", if not in the main article body. But there is only one paragraph for historian opposition which is under constant vandalism. yet novelist like Pamuk and other turkish pro-genocide activist (none of them being a real historian) have their 3-4 paragraphs.

according to wiki guidelines one has the right to remove uncited lines. Second one has the right to change weasel words and wiki strongly encourages it. So do I have to show you each and every uncited, weasel word. I just brought it up here with ramdom examples to avoid an edit war. But it is wiki who suggests us to do so. why is that reaction?

So If by citing a name it is posible to come up with a huge and generally undocumented claim and present it in the "orthadox story"than we obviously and undoubtfully have the right to equaly refer to the opposition in the entire article. Or I can come up with "historian xxx cites that "a commander in erzurum withnessed that armenians wearing Turkish army uniforms or kurdish dressing were constantly attacking armenian villages in Turkey inorder to inflame riots among armenian comunity" (whic probably has better documentations than clean up story). Also is that cited historian or person spesificly talking about documents related to "genocide" or is it just other documents which include other secrets that should be kept away from the invading army. One should remember that armenian issue was not Ottoman Empires one and only trouble at that time. By citing it under this article and under Trials title you automaticly give the impression to the reader that Talat and budies cleaned their orders to exterminate armenians(as if it was possible to clean every thing without a trace). Is it what the histoian or the "eye withness" really mean? I doubt that. At least that citations need to have something like "however this claim is not fully supported and also it is not possible to know if these documents contain any evidence related to armenian events"neurobio 22:49, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Look, you have claimed not knowing much the subject and now you are lecturing and disagreeing with an element of knowledge, about a subject which you have already admitted not knowing much.

This entry is not only about the applicability of the term genocide, in fact, it also relates to what is called the Armenian massacre. You claim various historians, but this is not so, even various Western Turkish historians who deny the Armenian genocide have a position which contradicts the official position of the republic of Turkey. Do you want a comparaison? I will provide them if wanted. Even Lewy position is different. Shall we quote from 'The First Genocide of the 20th Century'? The paper he submitted to the Commentary Vol. 120, december 2005?

THE TERM "genocide," coined in 1944 by the Polish-Jewish emigre lawyer Raphael Lemkin, was meant to describe Hitler's then-on-going campaign to exterminate the Jews of Europe. But Lemkin's interest in this most heinous of crimes--what he and others would define as the planned effort to destroy an entire people or ethnic group--long predated the rise of the Nazis. The atrocities that first drew him to the issue emerged from a different world war and a different context. They were the vicious actions not of Germans against Jews in the early 1940's but of Ottoman Turks against Turkey's Armenian minority in 1915-16.

Also, mind you that beside the Holocaust, according to Lewy, there was no other genocide. I must have been sleeping when I have read that paper of his for the first time, for I haven't pied attention that he is calling what happened in Rwanda not more than an ethnic cleaning. He claims that the term genocide neither applies to the Armenians, nor Rwanda, nor the Gypsies in WWII, nor the American Indians and the list is growing.

Here, this should clearly be differenciated with the plain denial of the murders, applicability of the term genocide does not amount to be caracterised and dumped as someone supporting the official Turkish government position. I have already shown a passage Hurewitz review about a work which contains primnary records from German sources regarding the treatment of the Armenians, which he consider the treatment of the subject as being a mature judgement and convincing argument. That you rely on such a thing as an advertisement with signatures to attach scholars name as if they have all covered the subject, is indicative that it is indeed mostly about the West and the World. You can not glue what you propose in the article, when you have few vocal scholars to suggest that the opposition is more than a minority. Justin McCarthy himself personally admit that his view is the view of a minority.

As for weasel words, I repeat again, you have shown two examples, one is a quote, a -quote-, you are suggesting that I modify a statment made by someone in a quote, because that statment contains 'weasel words.' The other wording which you caracterise as weasel word, is only weasel word if you suppose that the emphasis is on the it is, while it is on the word genocide. That term removed, it will be worded as follows: It is the second most studied genocide. This will be presenting it as if it being a genocide is the truth, while the term 'it is said' suggest that it might or might not be genocide.

Again, if you can propose any other wordings, do so, or else please stop throwing me stuff and giving me the option of deleting them.

As for the wiki guideline, please read the tags on the top of this talkpage, do you want me to quote them? I agreed to discuiss, which I do, your behavior will only bring members into a revert war, not me, because I don't engage in revert wars, I rarely if ever revert more than 2 times.

Your last paragraph, I have no clue about what it might be, I really fail to see your point. Are you trying to make a point or requesting something? Fad (ix)

and by the way we should also add 'during what they consider a genocide.' to make it neutral.neurobio 22:53, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Sure, as long as 'during what they consider' is added on every articles in Misplaced Pages, why not. :) {note, those that don't like sarcasm, I apologise} Fad (ix) 01:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I am quoting you up there Fadix. ] should I put a smiley and a link every time. for the last paragraph read it again after a coffe maybe. let me summerise what it says 1. quotations does not make putting unsported(i would dare to say made up) claims to a historical article right2. the quote is used in a distorted way.3. if you present the "generally accepted" viev but also add a radical wiev to that story via quoting or any other way. then the opposition by real historians should be quoted all along the article.

thanks for reminding me my ignorance. but i am trying to improve. reading you know. now do you suggest that all should bow in front of your expertise and worship you?neurobio 01:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand still what you mean. Maybe another editor understood, and could explain it to me, or else I request another clarification. Fad (ix) 05:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

No, no, and no. That's been discussed ad absurdum, and this IS to be referred to as The Armenian Genocide, not the Alleged Armenian Genocide or What Some Have Referred To As The Armenian Genocide. --InShaneee 01:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I dare you, no double or triple dare you to remain here for one month and maintaining civility. You shall recieve a dozen of barnstars if you do. Fad (ix) 01:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Please stay on topic and do not make discussions difficult to read by placing new comments in the middle of existing threads. --InShaneee 22:43, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Deepblue recent deletions

I see that he still continue deleting without using the talk page. But the most ridiculous deletion of all is that the International League of Nations does not recognize it as genocide, which is simply and plainly wrong. The original Fédération internationale des ligues des Droits de l'Homme which covers the last time I have checked, over a hundred organizations, not only the French. And which actually recognize the Armenian genocide and has published various works covering it, mistaking it with the one based in New York. The original one which covers the French League of human rights has been founded in 1922, while the other one, which took that name, but in English has been founded in 1942(they claim prior, but it really got its international statu then). Both organizations originate from a French organization. The ILHR originate from the Défense de Droits de l'Homme et du Citoyen, while the FIDH the French League of human rights, and which from its original name is the Fédération internationale des ligues des droits de l'homme. The one based on New-York, does not speak in the name of the organizations, but rather is an entity, while the other does. --Fad (ix) 15:30, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

You can check the 141 organizations it includes here. It includes also 3 Turkish organizations. One of them, The Human Rights foundation of Turkey. --Fad (ix) 15:36, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I ask you to avoid uncivil comments such as "most ridiculous deletion." I also ask you to stay away from allegations here. You can request a usercheck, if you believe that I'm another user, but this page is not to place to make that claim.

Article was referring to League for Human Rights, which I removed . There's no such thing as League for Human Rights, it could have meant International League for Human Rights (ILHR). To best of my knowledge International League for Human Rights does not have a report recognizing Armenian thesis. Apperantly you're confusing this with France based International Federation of Human Rights (Fédération Internationale des Ligues des Droits de l'Hommes, FIDH). International Federation of Human Rights and International League for Human Rights are independent of each other, none of them is a branch (or entity) of other. If International Federation of Human Rights recognize Armenian Genocide, it can be added with a proper reference. 24.211.192.250 22:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Most ridiculous deletion is about the act of deletion. And yes! You indeed are Deepblue and Holdwater, this has already been evidenced, if you pay attention to the administrator notice boards, you will see that there is indeed much less evidences required to assume socks than this, the evidences I have provided are much more exact than a checkusers.

I request you to stop your accusations on this page. Please take this as your second warning. 24.211.192.250 01:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

As for the reference to the league of Human right, you are simply saying about the same thing which I have said. There was a mistake, which I doubt I have added, in claiming ILHR, this was probably added by another user. ILHR is concerned with current issues and actions, it has become over the years even slightly political since the UN permitted itself access. You should have requested discussions, but it appears that nothing has changed since you came with your Torque alias, or Deepblue, you still repeatdly modify things you want, without even bothering discussing them in the talk page. Fad (ix) 00:07, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Once again, I request you to stop your accusations and personal attacks on this page. Please take this as another warning. If you continue in this manner, I'll be compelled to request admin help.

Returning to the subject, you did not say the same thing. You claimed above that ILHR is an entity of FIDH, and FIDH can speak on its behalf which is not true per my response. 24.211.192.250 01:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I did not, what I highlined was that the League of Human rights proper, is an English translation from French, and the French organization is not an componment of the ILHR BUT the FIDH(you implied in your edit summary they were). The term ILHR was added by another editor, it should have been corrected and NOT deleted by the FIDH insteed of the ILHR. Fad (ix) 05:12, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Here's what happened: I read the article, it was referring to League for human rights and there was a French link included in the article. I searched the net, there was nothing like League for human rights, but there's International League for Human Rights. So, I thought may be the French link was referring to a branch of ILHR (without knowing the existence of FIDH). I searched the net whether ILHR has any report referring to the Armenian Genocide, and I could not find one. So, would you expect me then to include it? How could I have corrected it? I've no objection including any organization, once they're properly referenced. I could not find a reference myself for ILHR, if you find one let me know and I'll add it myself. 24.211.192.250 05:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you start learning what the rules are for Misplaced Pages instead of constantly unleashing out the "incivil warning" to others. We've been been working on this article for a long time and its bad enough a new anon user drops by every week lecturing us on the rules and acting as if they are an impartial visitor on the article. If you plan on staying, create a user name and an account so we can keep track of whose who.--MarshallBagramyan 22:18, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Let me know which rule I've violated and I'll be more careful next time. Otherwise please stay away from ungrounded accusations. My user name, that's my static IP, is as good as your username (probably can be tracked better than a username). You are not less anonynomous than I do (probably more anonynomous). Misplaced Pages rules are clear, an editor cannot dictate who can or cannot contribute to an article. 24.211.192.250 22:37, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Fadix's "But the most ridiculous deletion of all is that the International League of Nations" has not a bit of incivility in it, none that I see defined by Misplaced Pages's rules. We've been dealing with dozen of anon IPs, sure you can edit and participate in articles and I'm not saying that either but its much better if only registered users be able to do this in Misplaced Pages. A dozen or more anonymous users have came by these past few months and they edit articles, such as this one for example by writing "Its all a lie" or "its an Armenian forgery and falsification" and we're forced to revert it each and every time. Such as here and and here . We cannot keep track of every troll who vandalises the article with an anonymous IP so that's why if you are considering on staying here and actually contributing, then register so we can address each other directly than by a set of numbers.--MarshallBagramyan 23:26, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I find it offensive when someone refers to my edit as a ridiculous one and I beliebe this is common sense. I don't want to get a user name at this point, not to get too much attached to Wiki. Once again, I'm using a static IP, you've no problem of tracking me and my edits. 24.211.192.250 01:26, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

First, calling someone's edits 'rediculous' IS incivil, period. Secondly, assuming that a user is a vandal just because they use an IP IS against policy. --InShaneee 22:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't see where I have called him a vandal, I did accuse him of being another user, and not only because of IP uses, but because of this. . As for the deletion being ridiculous. Please see his summary for the deletion, his justification was an assumption he made himself about what the League of Human rights was(he assumed that it was another organization without requesting a clarification), so he deleted it based on this. ThisI called a ridiculous deletion, I did not talk about him, and neither have I said that he was ridiculous, I simply said that that deletion was ridiculous. We can not just start deleting everything from an article based on an assumption because what is written there is not clear. A request for clarification should be made insteed. He decided not to. Fad (ix) 00:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, this is not the place to discuss who a user may or may not be. For civility and focus purposes, just assume good faith. And again, do NOT describe someone's edits as 'rediculous' just because you don't agree with them. You can simply say why the removed content should be added back in, no need to degenerate into name-calling. --InShaneee 00:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Protected

Seeing as all that has been happening for the past week or so here is a slow revert war, I've protected the page again. Decide amongst yourselves here what headings you would like, and whether or not to mention some guy's name as an endorsement, then let me or another admin know. Thanks :) Stifle (talk) 21:57, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

these headings are there for 1 year and there has been no conflict on them among regular contributers until John smith and Karl Meier decided they know better. I thank john smith since he is a reasonable man. he quited adding when I explained him the situation. But Karl Meier is not participating in any discussion and despite my explanation he doent stop. he has nothing to say in discussion page yet he thinks has the authority to change a title which is there almost for 1 year with a consensus. besides his headings are inacceptable and does not comply with encylopedic requirements. by the way it is cool to ask for protection instead of stoping that user you know what I am saying marshall.neurobio 23:57, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but you are as much to blame here, maybe if you guys bring it on the talkpage insteed of reverting it'll help. That revert war seems to be over minor stuff which could be settled easily. Fad (ix) 01:29, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

maybe but I wrote to his talk page saying that there is no problem among contributers on that and what he does is not encylopedic but it did not help. neurobio 02:15, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

His talkpage is not here. This BTW goes for both of you. Fad (ix) 02:26, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Neurobio's messages on my talkpage, was essentially nothing but personal attacks, and I of course removed them on sight. Anyway, the current headings doesn't make any sense. It is a fact that there is some who recognize and some who deny that the killings of more than a million people was a case of genocide, and I don't see why it should be controversial to mention that. There is no-one who oppose or support the Genocide, as it is a historical event, and the current headers will only confuse our readers. The only opposition to my editing has been from Turkish pro-denialist editors, that continue to argue that the previous headers has been there for a long time, and that it somehow makes them "neutral". However, still noone has explained why the more new headers with their more straight forward titles should be against Wikipedias policies regarding neutrality. -- Karl Meier 17:14, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Because you are assuming that the genocide contention is universal, which its NOT! You mention that only Turkey and its lobby reject the thesis, but many other countries and scholars side with the Turks on this matter whatever the reason for that may be. As long as this is the case, you cannot accuse those that reject the thesis as being denialists and thus dilute their message by drawing comparisons with the Jewish holocaust denialists (where apart from rogue regimes like that of Iran, the acceptance is universal)! That is plain misleading! And again I repeat: nobody is arguing that massacres were not committed against Armenians, what is being vehemently rejected here is to make this conflict a one sided story by claiming that it was an act of genocide! lutherian 06:00, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Personally I disagree with both versions, opposition limit the entire event to a word, while the other drag authors who might recognize most of what happened as denialists.

As for your comment, beside mathematic laws there is nothing universal. About the Holocaust, there actually is more people who deny the Holocaust than the Armenian genocide. Visit, Iran, Irak, Syria, Pakistan etc., most of the population in such country's probably think of the event as a 'Zionist' conspiration. Also, in the west, there indeed scholars who openly deny the Holocaust, Zundel, Rudolf, Irving, Rassinier, Faurisson are just few examples. There is no much more Western scholars who deny the Armenian genocide than those who deny the Holocaust. The differences is that those who deny the Holocaust are more cautious because of threat of legal action. If France pass the law on denial(which BTW I oppose very strongly to), you could expect that in France that the Ottoman chairs will have to be completly restructured even as going as far as to forbiden financings from Turkey.--Fad (ix) 14:56, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

True but most of the people you site in your example come from third world countries frequently under some form of dictatorial rule. Not only that, most of these people are uneducated and prey to fundamentalism and, as you probably know, fudnamentalism teaches you to hate others for their differences! Personally I dont like the French for their faux cul attitude and for that very reason I am glad they got their asses whipped last night! BTW where is THOTH?(not that I miss him), its wondering if he went of to deep space nine to battle the klingons, LOL. lutherian 18:47, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Lutherian, how many countries actually say genocide did not happen, as opposed to not recognising it? It's well accepted that the reason some countries don't accept it is that they don't want to piss Turkey off, which has stated it will take action against countries that formally recognise it - e.g. when it threatened sanctions against France earlier this year. Guess what happened - the vote was shelved. John Smith's 11:24, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

It certainly didnt stop France from recognizing the so called genocide a couple of years ago so I dont see why a veiled Turkish threat now would change matters. Also, I dont think you read my comment above carefully enough, I did point out that they remained silent for whatever reason. If countries like France who did and still does enjoy good commercial ties with Turkey piss them off, I dont see why others would not. The cold war days are long gone! lutherian 18:46, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Turkey did pass restrictions on business with France and proposed tougher ones this time. The decision for countries like the UK and US is to do with business and politics (Turkey is important for many countries due to its geographical position) - it's nothing to do with whether they think it was genocide or not. Fadix also made a good point about the Holocaust being denied by some countries and academics, just as with the Armenian deaths. John Smith's 20:44, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

You exagerate the importance of Turkey's commercial ties, especially with developed countries, its really no big deal economically speaking. Its strategic value and importance has also been eroded significantly since the collapse of the Berlin wall and that is a fact! You are not going to tell me that the sole superpower of this world is at the mercy of a third world country when it comes to taking a stance on such an important matter especially considering the power of the Armenian lobby. lutherian 06:10, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe UN was also making good trade with Turkey. Buying potatoes and Turkish delight. That may be the reason they did not call the events genocide. You deny a fact (which may be established by UN or an international court), You reject or oppose a claim."The United Nations has not approved or endorsed a report labeling the Armenian experience as Genocide."Farhan Haq, U.N. spokesman, October 5th, 2000.neurobio 23:00, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Turkey's strategic importance grew more vital after the USSR collapsed. The United States needed staging areas for military air strikes against Iraq during the entire 1990s and for the enforcement of no-fly zones, and it was only until 2003, when Turkey refused to allow US troop movements to invade Iraq, did Turkey's importance begin to deteriorate militarily. Economically, French businessmen for example, were warned by Turkey's leaders that their businesses would collapse with their countries if the law to deny the Genocide was to pass which made them oppose the bill. And please, quit with the childish Armenian lobby fairy tales; it has nothing in terms of power and its time Turks finally discontinue their own self-delusion in constantly projecting it as if its some monolithic giant that stomps through one obstacle over another just to get what it wants. If it truly was as powerful as you say it is, the Genocide would have passed in the United States decades ago. The United Nation's subcommittees have agreed and verified the event as Genocide. Failure to remark it as such by the General Assembly or say, the UNSC, is irrelevant and misleading to say the organization hasn't recognized it as Genocide.--MarshallBagramyan 01:09, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Marshall do you really believe in the things that you have written here. Which sub comission which document says that UN accept and name the event as genocide. Please research this one you will see not only the world but naive armenians are missled by their Diaspora and goverment.neurobio 17:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

and the French listened? They passed the law and its still business as usual, but anyone with a bit of sense realizes that Turkey is no economic superpower! As for the power of the diaspora, you are so mistaken, I dont think there is a more effective propaganda and censorship machine in the world today that rivals those of Stalin and his network of cronies. lutherian 06:55, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Sadly they did. I dont think there is a more effective propaganda and censorship machine in the world today that rivals those of Stalin and his network of cronies.-- Or so you have all been lead to believe--MarshallBagramyan 15:51, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Fadix, Neurobio, BOTH of you need to stop pointing fingers. --InShaneee 17:46, 9 July 2006 (UTC)