Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:52, 18 March 2005

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

Fadix Analysis:
This section exist to answer Torque claims and is kept up to date (new materials posted as well as new answers). (VERY LONG PAGE)
Archive 1:
Hitler's quote and Holocaust, The rest of discussion, Strong bias, Events of Musa Mountain, Musa Mountain, Move Musa Dagh.
Archive 2:
Examining chiefly Turk-unsympathetic sources for the "Armenian Genocide" article, Response to Raffi Kojian, Continuing our Discussion, Reference and link titles, Is Raffi Responding Roughly?, Let us recap the foregoing discussion.
Archive 3:
Raffi, I thought you were "finished"!, 80.177.169.33, Do these people have scruples?, The original article is back, Armenian Genocide, The Vandal Speaks.
Archive 4:
Professional Denier Speaks, Denying is a Two-Way Street, Jewish lobby groups, Another Partisan at work, What does it mean when a nation recognizes the "genocide"?
Archive 5:
Need Link, The "Vigilante" has a name, History is written by winners.
Archive 6:
Disputing the Article, Fresh Overhaul, Fresh Overhaul -- Dialogue Continues. (LONG PAGE)
Archive 7:
Archive 8:
Archive 9:
Archive 10:

FYI

Definition of NPOV is that both views have equal grounds, thats the wikipedia way. See how Ranks and Insignia of Starfleet was developed. I knew a lot regarding the matter so was my co-aurthor. We edited, and rechecked eachothers work, now the article was not contriverisal so its easy, you chose a very difficult and conriversial article to start your wiki career. --Cool Cat 15:00, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

FYI: 2+2 can equal 5 in complex math.

I have commented out several sections of the article which in my opinion are not neutral, they will not be visible to regular people viewing th article untill the comment tags <!-- --> are removed. Please make them neutral and remove the tags. I have made several sections neutral for you. Again neutral means the article does not favor neither side while taking into account the views of all parties regarding the matter. Words like "most of scholars" are not neutral, there is no widely accepted concensus from a scientific(history) convention that you can put here. Even if that would be the case you would add that to the recent history category while keeping the article neutral. You may not like it, I may not like it, but thats how wikipedia runs. Do not remove my entries, instead try rewriting them in a neutral tone. --Cool Cat 16:16, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The book links belong to external link category as they are one sided view I believe. --Cool Cat 22:06, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Onlu by placing Justin McCarthys book at the section supporting the genocide theses, you just have shown that you have absolutly no clue of what you are talking about. McCarthy is the only major Western Historian claiming there was no genocide. Anyone ignoring this should even not debate.Fadix 18:13, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well, my bad. I'll recategorise it and tone down your language when you are talking to me. You cannot tell me to shut up. I am not telling you to shut up. I am telling you to "TALK" neutral. If I made an error in categorising things you put it to the "another view" actegory instead of hissing me. --Cool Cat 22:06, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It wasn't just a mistake, you did that mistake more than once because you obviously ignore who McCarthy is. Can you be kind to present the books you have read about the topic please? Fadix 22:19, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Dear sir. I am not knowlegable in the Armenian Genocide article enough to comment. I am merely folowing wikipedia NPOV article. I lack a hidden agenda. I dont purposly make mistakes. Now when you have someone who insist on reverting your edits without reading them its hard to focus. --Cool Cat 22:32, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You are not following Misplaced Pages policy, and if you have no knowledge of the subject, you can not introduce claims which are erronous, you are not neutralising the article, you are injecting in it claims you make yourself... Misplaced Pages present positions recognised and NOT your position, and that is what you are doing right now. And a last thing, you obviously do have an agenda, you live in Turkey(which libraries only contain one biased version of history), and do inject your biases in every Misplaced Pages articles which involve Turkey. And above all, you can't hide behind the claim that you are not Turk and that you only live in Turkey, unlike you, I do not hide my ethnicity because I believe that this is irrelevent and I support the position that one is credible for what he says and not based on the social construct called ethnicity he belongs to. The next time you would want to pass as a neutral individual, don't use the word "Armanian" repeatadly exposing that it is not only a mistake, but rather the Semitic(Arab/Hebrew) or Turkish pronounciation as in "Ermen" or "Arman." Now I commited a mistake, I should not have writen this I admit, but you provoked me by claiming you have no agenda which is obvious wrong.Fadix 22:44, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You are constantly accusing me of a hidden agenda, accusing Turkey of a massacre and acusing a lot of people with things and claiming you are staying neutral. I dont hide my ethnicity. I have no reason to advertise it either. In english Armenian refers to the people living in Armenia proper spelling requires that and I am not a spelling genius. The word has 2 a's and one e. I am not Turkish. I lived in Turkey for quite some time due to my asignment. I am not making claims, I am rewording your claims. You cant quite see it as you arent reading, merely pasting/typing... Armenian Genocide did not happen as far as most of the world nations are concerned, since they have not recognised it. The Turks claim it wasn't a massacre. No mather HOW much stuff you throw at me that will not change the fact that Tuks claim otherwise. Not only that but you remove lots of productive edits (like spelling fixes) by other people. You declare that majority thinks this. While I am trying to keep this at EQUAL ground. Please GRAB a dictionary and READ WTF "Neutral" means ALSO read Misplaced Pages:Neutral Point of View. --Cool Cat 22:56, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

So you don't have any hidden agenda right? So, maybe you can all tell us why you only play this hijacking game in entries involving Turkey? And you are lying here, the Armenian genocide is not denied by most countries... not recognizing something by a government is not denying a genocide. Most US states have passed bills recognizing it, Canada did the same, France as well, Germany is thinking doing the same etc. and this even after the Turkish republic continual threats. It is as well a fact that most states have not passed bills recognizing the Shoah, according to you it would mean it did not happen. And only your above claims show that you are lying when you say you are neutral. You have admitted not knowing the subject, yet you claim it did not happen. How can one admit not knowing the subject at the same time having a position? This is called a preconceived belief. You can not participate in this article, because you have no knowledge of the event, and that you have a preconceived belief.

As for the spelling, you did that continuously, not only with the word Armenia but as well with the word Armenians... I won't call this a mistake at all, a mistake is something that is done once, twice etc. and not repeated after it is shown to you...

Again, NEUTRAL... presenting every sides.

International Community(UN etc.) answer. Genocide

Western Academia and even many Arabic and Iranian. Genocide

Turkish human right organization. Genocide

Some Turkish Academics. Genocide

Armenians position. Genocide

Even in Iran a bill was to be passed, prevented by Turkeys pressure, when did Iran ever considered passing such bill to recognize the Shoah?

There is this, against the Turkish government official version, there is no way that you will take those sides and present them with the Turkish government official version as equal, if you do that, you automatically give each opposing side to your claim less place than the official Turkish government version, and this is not neutral.

But this is not all, you make up things such as “Relocation camps,” that's completely ridiculous, you just made it up, you can not just invent expressions like this. A relocation camp does not make any sense... maybe it is time for you to check what a concentration camp mean. You have done many mistakes like this. And besides, you can not just shoot the 200,000-1,5 million, without indicating the sources... there are many such things that you have purposely deleted, and even some that are not denied by the official Turkish government diplomat publications, which mean that you just have made up things.Fadix 23:17, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Relocation camp is the neutral word for "concentration" which assumes a genocide has happened. Its a more neutral word. If you have a better word edit accordingly.

I dispute the way you say it not what you say. I am not in the position to dispute what you say, not my major. You refuse to comprihend this. I am knowlegable to know that the issue is disputed. "hijacking game". Sorces for 1.5 million is your sorces. sorces for 200,000 is official Turkish data according to you. I did not delete them, I commented them out so you and other mods can review them and make them neutral. AS I explained before thats how we do things in wikipedia. You are claiming by making this article pro genocide you are being neutral. I think you should cut back on crack. --Cool Cat 00:36, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Concentration camp mean a camp where people are concentrated, I haven't seen any works even those not supporting my position which claim such a concentration did not happen. That was the official name given by officials, including German officials. It is neutral, while you introduce an expression that does not make sense at all. As for “Turkish data,” they vary a lot, ATAA, the largest Turkish American organization, has even an article claiming 700,000 Armenians died... the official Ottoman statistics are of 800,000 killed(not casualties, but KILLED)... you can not present this as if from 200,000 to 1.5 million died, without including those facts, because you are are doing is misleading people. Even Turkish historians like Fikret Adanir who do not entirely support the official Western version, recognize that possibly over a million may have perished. All major German official records vary from 1.2-1.5 million, this is from where the Armenian figures of 1.5 million comes from. You can NOT just claim that from 200,000 to 1.5 million perished without noting the sources. The reader has the right to know those informations, but you are purposely deleting them. If you want to edit the article as I repeated, I am ready to make compromises, but I am not ready to delete important informations,or misleading with erronous clames that you just make up, when the edition will mislead the reader... and that is what you are after. Oh and, are you suggesting that I am on drug? Cut the crap please.Fadix 00:46, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

My case

I presented the lowest claim and the higest claim.If 800,000 died thats between the range page gave. The current verison is more biased and makes little sense as it has been vandalised by both saides. Your version made more sense but was biased. So I had taken the time to make it neutral. I am not denying the massacre on my version nor am I supporting it. I dont care which version of the story is widely accepted. All I care is what will make it neutral. I was not done making it neutral. I comented out parts I though was biased. Its difficult to purge your views, thats quite normal. This is a contriversial topic. Its not right and impolite to acuse the other side. All I did was reword what you said and move items around in a logival order, merge/seperate categories etc... You cannot refer the camps as concentration camps, thats where people go to stay permenantly as prisoners. Your original version of the article disputes that. That would mean a genocide has happened, hence would be biased. I used the word relocation camp as that was the other word to refer to the camps in the original version of your article. If you know a better word you are welcome to change it. I can review it and comment on it. Would be much more productive than a revert. What ottoman records say is disputed so are German, UK, Russian records. When numbers are disputed you put lowest and higest numbers. The current version of the article has 200,000 as the lowest value, the higest value I have seen so far is 1.5 mil so 200K-1500K. We can be productive if you see my motives as I claim them instead of assuming/hyotosizing hidden agendas and other paranoid stuff... --Cool Cat 03:46, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Coolcat, that is the point, you did not make it more neutral, you introduced your POV in them. There is a distinction between specialists POV and an individual POV. If you want the “other side” to be included more, you have to ask me... I will include what is said from the other side, which would be different than what you do say. Another thing, as I said, you seem to intentionally introduce the other version as equal in the same text, that would work if there was a critic of a scholar made by another scholar, but not when there is a general view, and an alternative one... if you do that you go against the Neutral Point of view, because you mislead the reader. If you present the range 200,000-1.5 million, you mislead the reader. And I explain again why, many Turks generally accept 600,000, the 200,000-300,000 is the official Turkish government version and not the “Turkish view” which mean that those figures are shared by very few people. So, don't you see why now, you can not present such a range? The thing is that official denialists use the 600,000 figure, and there are even denialists who uses the partial Ottoman statistics of 800,000... but in your edition this does not appear at all. Readers will come here, and read, they will give as much credence to the official Turkish government version as for instance, German official records range of the time(1.5 million). And as for the highest value, 1.5 million is not the highest value, specialists like Rummel, for the entire period between 1914 to 1922 give 1.8 million as figure(including Armenians outside of Ottoman borders which felt as well victim)... there are such higher figures... those are the minority, like 200,000-300,000 is a minority... so I decided to stick with the Turkish government version, present it, present what Western scholars say, and what Armenians say... this way, when people read, they will know what is what... if you delete that information, you mislead the reader.

Coming to the “controversial” point, every subject are controversial, generally when something is controversial, it is because there is two clear opposing sides fighting for a version. I mean, if we speak about Quantum mechanic, specialists in the field may disagree, and they will “fight” regarding what is the best interpretation, obviously they won't include in their discussion a Priest, an Imam, a Rabbi etc. This is about a genocide, and there are specialists in comparative genocide study, and for them, this topic is not controversial, it becomes controversial when you introduce in the discussion Ottoman historians that rely on Turkeys historiography, no one will include an Armenologist in the discussion, why would we include an Ottomanist... those two parties are biased, because their subject of study is based on the use of records, sources from biased parties. So, adding “Controversial” as message is to mislead the reader who will believe that the Armenian cases is debated among specialists in the field, which is obviously wrong,

Neutrality for Misplaced Pages means to present every considerable versions, and not to mislead the reader. For instance, I can not in a natural selection entry give as much place to the “creationist” theses. And here again, I stress out the point that the Armenian genocide is the second most studied genocide in the world, Lemkin the inventor of the term not only has he included this cases, but he used is as part of the genocide definition. Let me explain for you what it means, in international law it means that every events similar to the Armenian cases is a genocide, because the Armenian cases is included in the restrictive definition with the Shoah as an integral part of the word genocide. Now what you want to do, is the present both as equally, when the denialist theses revolve around the claim: “Armenians backstabbed us, so they were relocated because they were dangerous.” You have this position, against a a bunch of extensive studies like the concentration camps, the special organization, the Ottoman methodology etc. Not only do we have this, we have the international community, the UN cases should be presented, the Military tribunal, the Permanent Tribunal etc. Now you want me to all merge those things together, and equally present it with the Turkish government point of view? Let me clearly explain what you want to do. There are many versions supporting the theses of genocide, there is the Pan-Turkish version, there is the Pen-Turanist version, there is the Nationalization of the Economy version etc. all those versions supported by various sides... which leads to the same conclusion, and on the other side we have one version: “they backstabbed us, and were relocated.” If you want me to present every versions equally I will do, but let me tell you what happen if I do that... if I do that, the “other side” will be represented even less if we were to give each sides as much space. So, what I did was to merge the genocide “supportative” side, and then, present the revisionist version. And here again, you don't want the word revisionist to be used. “Revisionism” of history is a known phenomenon, it does not mean denial... it simply means a more recent interpretation of the events, and the denialist version is just that... there was the official version, that was accepted by the Ottoman government just when it happened, it was accepted by Ataturk the founder of the republic himself... revisionism is about going back in what is recognised by most, and reinterpret it, it does not necessarily mean denial, or is not necessarily bad. There are revisionist of the Armenian genocide who still recognise it, but reinterpret the event.

Now, coming to concentration camp, again, I don't see what your problem is, that was what it was called, a concentration camp doesn't necessarily mean there was a genocide, it just mean that people were sent to stay in an area, concentrated etc. There is no other word that one can use, and that was the term, what justification there is to not call it what it is? “Relocation camp” does not make sense... and is not a term used regardless.

Regarding the “hidden agenda” sorry Coolcat, I do believe you have a hidden agenda, your behavior is open for everyone to witness, you participate in Turkeys politic entries, the PKK, every such hot topics in Turkey... and always go in one side against the other, that is called hidden agenda. While I have decided to participate on this entry because I know about it... I do not participate in the Armenia entry, the Karabagh entry, I just submitted a link, which was reverted by Tabib that is using this site like Torque is using it. The Hamidian massacres, the Adana massacres are all subjects that interest me, as I will participate in a Cambodian genocide, the genocide in Rwanda, the massacres of Sierra Leone, Bosnia, if times permit me... and that is only because I am interested in war crimes studies, regardless of ethnicity. I am not the one going after every political subject involving Armenia, like you do with Turkey. Fadix 15:52, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Regarding an earlier question, I do not need to explain to you why I edited articles related to Turkey. I am knowlegable with the people as I lived around the counbtry on various locations. They are generaly a nice and helpfull group of people with some social problems some groups are makeing a big deal of. Heck Belgians have much serious issue with their social problems and France is a bomb waiting to explode, you know what I mean if you had ever been to paris Metro. So many under-payed immigrants... They aren't as discriminated as what USA but their childeren will prove to be a serious problem as they will probably have better education than their parents and threaten "Frech" jobs. Lack of jobs due to the Newcomers often lead to Ethnic hatret (Affirmative Action caused this kind of reaction esspecialy on soulthern US). This is in no way related to this article but answers a previous question. --Cool Cat 03:58, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You see, it is messages like this that gives you away, it is not only your repeated uses of “Arman,” but also, things like, “attacking a nation,””they are good people.” Those are defensive answers, and are suggestive, you raise such issues when they were even not brought. Who told you that I questioned their niceness or their helpfulness... that's besides the point. And no, you can not claim that France or such countries have more problem in term of human rights etc. read a little from info-Turk, a Turkish human right organization, you can access to their publications from the web. If you want the Turkish society to evolve, you just raise the issues and not hide them, and that's exactly what you do, and that is called a hidden agenda. Fadix 15:52, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)