Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:42, 1 February 2007

Please read this Hi, and welcome. Take a deep breath and relax your eyebrows. If you are about ready to explode it is suggested that you stop for a minute and relax, because that indeed may happen after sifting through these heated debates. This is a controversial topic, and always has been.

Armenia Unassessed

Armenian genocide is within the scope of WikiProject Armenia, an attempt to improve and better organize information in articles related or pertaining to Armenia and Armenians. If you would like to contribute or collaborate, you could edit the article attached to this page or visit the project page for further information.ArmeniaWikipedia:WikiProject ArmeniaTemplate:WikiProject ArmeniaArmenian ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Turkey B‑class High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Turkey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Turkey and related topics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TurkeyWikipedia:WikiProject TurkeyTemplate:WikiProject TurkeyTurkey B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

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.

Template:TrollWarning

Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments and look in the archives before commenting.

Disaster management Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

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 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Fadix Analysis

Grammar

The grammar in this article is shocking, "repeatedly referred to their destruction numerous times" is clearly redundent and exists is used twice in following scentences in the next paragraph...just two examples —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.109.208.68 (talk) 10:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC).

Whooa !! 29th December 2006

Warning - Edit war in progress - at least cite something boys and girls rather than this juvenile stick throwing. Pedro1999a |  Talk  21:26, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration#Armenian_Genocide

Feel free to comment on the arbitration case. --Cat out 21:49, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

A more objective view

This is the conclusions I've reached from my research of both sides of this issue. TRY TO BE MORE OBJECTIVE BY REVIEWING ALL SIDES OF THIS ISSUE.

The Ottoman Empire was engaged in a war against Russia. Most Armenians, mainly the Armenian rebels sided with the Russians in the hopes that they would gain independence and grab a large part of the Ottoman Empire and name it Armenia. The Armenians attacked Ottoman supply routes, since many of the Armenian Rebels were behind the Ottoman front lines, they provided a lot of aid to the Russians in the military effort. Not all Armenians wanted to do this, but a lot of them wanted independence. The Armenian rebels also attacked civilian villages that had a lot of Turks or Kurds. When other villages would discover such events and atrocities, they would seek revenge. This started an endless cycle of vengeance, which quickly escalated into a large civil war. Hundreds of thousands of Armenians, Kurds, and Turks died. Some people, especially Armenian propagandists who are still trying to change history, claim it as a genocide, for money, land, and the chance to fine the Turkish Government. However, it is not a genocide, because if you actually traveled to the areas where the fighting had occurred, many villagers will tell you how many of their ancestors died. In fact, the population of Muslims and Armenians dropped significantly in the area. Armenian propagandists, like to ignore the Muslim casualties, claiming that only Armenians died, and they make constant comparisons to the Holocaust. However, in Germany, there was direct orders, documentation, and physical evidence of genocide. In the Ottoman Empire, there is not a single archive that hints at ordering mass killings of any ethnic group. The only references were to the Armenian relocation in 1915, where Ottoman commanders order their soldiers to move those populations under protection of Ottoman soldiers. When the Ottoman Empire decided that the only way to stop the Armenian rebels was to relocate the Armenian populations in the troublesome areas, so that the civil war will stop and the Ottomans can continue fighting the Russians without Armenian rebel interference which caused a great amount of toll on the Ottoman military effort. This is what many historians that have done their research other than some Armenian scholars agree upon. Some people will refuse to believe this, because it's easier to believe that Muslims in a Muslim land, killed Christians, and cannot dare believe that the opposite could happen. Well for those of you skeptics out there, you will be surprised to learn that, the West did for a time believe that the Ottomans were committing atrocities! So what did they do? The British when they captured Istanbul, tried many Ottoman officials, commanders, and government leaders, that they believed were responsible. Despite all the search, by Armenians and the Western scholars, they came up short, because they thought that the Ottomans ordered mass killings. The trial was called the Malta Tribunals. Despite all the efforts, the Ottomans were found innocent and released, because there was just no evidence of a genocide or any atrocities committed by the Ottoman government or their officials that were in-charge at the time. So if they were tried and found innocent so many years ago, why are Armenian propagandists still bringing it up again? The Ottoman Empire was never guilty of genocide, so please, do the research before you start arguing based on what you've heard or read in some propagandist book. Look at all sides of the issue instead of just the Armenian side. If you want to be unbiased and objective in your view, for once read the pro-Turkish side, and compare it with the Armenian side. Then use logic and evidence to decide and draw conclusions. If anything read a few pages of this website: The Other side of the Falsified Genocide. It is pro-Turkish, but it is well documented, and for once be enlightened by OTHER points of view. You don't have to believe it if you don't want, but at least read it and learn what the other side has to say about the issue. I reviewed both sides of the issue, and I just told you the conclusion and data that I have researched. Executex 02:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

As much as I am certain you love the Falsified genocide site, and as much as he does cite his (in many cases, questionable) sources, the entire thing is basically written editorial-style, with plenty of personal attacks, exaggerations, and off-topic remarks. And don't forget that a large portion of the site is just complaining about how Turks are portrayed in the western media, or about the Cyprus and Nagorno conflict, or making attacks on Armenian culture (and to that end Greek culture) in general. While it is an interesting read (assuming you agree with the author) It can't looked at as a credible or scholarly source, even if you are just trying to glean raw information. As for your request for 'objectivity' I have certainly looked at the Turkish republic's view on the matter and cannot say it was convincing. Statistics and evidence that even come from the Ottoman empire's allies make the facts of the matter clear. To say that the Ottoman Empire was found guilty is untrue; Turkey's own Government found the three Pashas guilty of War Crimes and sentenced them to death. I also have trouble understanding why, if there was no actual Genocide, would the international Association of Genocide Scholars, at least 21 independant nations, the vast majority of Historians, and scientific/historical media such PBS and National Geographic state such. Do you think institutions such as these would make such claims based purely on the influence of propaganda? And since it is obvious Turkey has been vigorously championing it's own side of the story, why have such sources not accepted it. Evidence is, obviously, in the eye of the beholder, but when so many otherwise neutral sources chime in, can you really believe it's all an illusion?The Myotis 03:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

The status of the Armenians

The content regarding "The status of the Armenians" is all cited and presented and it begins from here . It is correct history. STOP reverting without any reason. It falls into owing the article. --OttomanReference 03:42, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The user User:Eupator ; User:Mardavich ; User:MarshallBagramyan / or one user with three names; it does not matter. Stop owning the article. The changes are fixing basic time issues; and adding basic background information. Also, your/or/you activily keeping the events out of the basic time sequence, by reverting these changes you are actively keeping the article in disorganized state. --OttomanReference 04:30, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

That article is in this disorganized state, you share an important part of the blame. You have toyed with this article by various moves, changing sections name without reasons at all, and then used a sock to enforce it. That many users see with skepticism your changes, you are the only to blame. I will repeat, your personal tastes on how this article should be organised are personal matters and should be discussed first. As for your accusation of multiple alias, I know two of the reverters, and I can confirm that they are not socks, it is not because you have used socks to enforce your edits that this is something generalised here. Fad (ix) 04:53, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Summary of Fadix (ix); Article is in CHAOS it needs work

STEP BY STEP solution:

• The simple fixation is moving Ottoman Armenian population (Fadix created) under its own section --OttomanReference 05:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• The April Comes before May; fix the order by moving April before may. --OttomanReference 05:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

It is true that this article is quite disorganized, and that could be an understatement. I thought that one of the best comments in the RfA were Francis' about how the article kept goind around and around. Many comments in the RfA had good points, and one particular thing was how the talk page had this (unavoidable) tendency to become a forum; and sometimes like one of the talk pages of Google or MySpace groups, if I may add. Maybe we should ban everyone and let some completely unrelated and non-Wikipedian people write this article, like Japanese, Peruvians, Eskimos etc :) If it were possible, I would suggest the Martians or Andromedians. Generally, and not targetting anyone in particular at all, I notice that editing this article is like skating on an unfrozen lake, really :) Even the slightest of edits can lead to all sorts of edit-wars and admin protects. This article has been full-protected a third of the time since I have joined Misplaced Pages, and semi-protected nearly all the time. In fact, I honestly don't remember seeing this article without some sort of protect tag at all. There are edit-wars even on New Year's Eve, go figure! Anyways... Baristarim 13:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

the articles main problem is that it is written by using mostly Armenian Sources. Some of these sources are totally out of the main stream understanding and contain problematic info. And some quotes are either false and or misleading. eg. the qute on the situation on Armenians and the second one supposedly taken from Ahmet refik is problematic.neurobio 13:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Only two of the sources explicitly cited are from Armenian authors. You have a poor habit of trading accusations without ever supporting them with the evidence to compliment them, but please point out the "false" or "misleading" quotes because they are sourced and unequivocal in their meanings. The books cited have been published by mainstream publishers, University of Chicago Press, Harper Perennial, Alfred Knopf, G. P. Putnam's Sons, and Berghahn Books all have listed ISBNs or reference keys, negating your claim they are obscure. Stop wasting our time with your uninformed comments.--MarshallBagramyan 21:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually You should have know that I never challange anything without solid proof. I just found the original book of Ahmet refik and found the page that the quote is. Once again I am delighted to see another Dadrian trick. When I see that real unbiased admins are managing an arbitration I will bring every thing out. if not it is a total waste of time. And I can also cite numerous articles of real historians on the value of your main stream sources/historians. also please check which publishers published pro turk wievs. Not to mention that publisher doesnt mean much in terms of Academical value. and finally lets see the sources in detail.

The main core of the article (except from the art section) has 55 citations. out of this 55 some is also about the recent political issues and the position of Turkey today. not related to history.

Dadrian, Vahakn N: Armenian “historian” 7 separate citations

Balakian: Armenian “historian”. 10 separate citations.

Robert Melson: Professor of political science. 1 citation

R. J. Rummel: Professor of political science. the guy who says 2.2 mil Armenians were killed when even armenians say 2 mil armenians were living in ottoman empire. 1 citation

ANDREW GOLDBERG: is an Emmy Award winning American filmmaker of Jewish descent who has produced four documentaries on Armenian subjects that have been broadcast internationally. 1. Citation

William Ramsay: British ethnographer. He is your source on Hamidian massacres. He was not there at that time. 2 citations

Robert Fisk: He received a BA in English and Classics at Lancaster University and a PhD in Political Science and he is a journalist now. He recently displayed his total ignorance on the issue by saying that even Atatürk admitted the genocide. 6. Citations

New York Times: The newspaper which also wrote 20.000 Armenians were gathering arms, drilling for ages and rebelled and joined the Russian army 9 months before deportation orders. And a simmilar article in washington post is not considered in the wiki article of course. 1. Citation

The Italian consul of Trabzon in 1915, Giacomo Gorrini and Winston Churchil: Great sources! Should I remind you that these countries were in war with the Ottoman Empire. 1. citations

Toynbee, Arnold: English historian of the era, (Should I remind you that these countries were in war with the Ottoman empire) who edited the blue book of the English Propaganda bureau. Employed by England foreign office. 1 citation and also mentioned in the article.

This article only cites non armenian historians 7 to 8 times. All other citations regarding the main article is Either by Armenian "Historians" or non historians and historical enemies of the Ottoman empire at that time. The sad part comes when newyork times is cited when it suits you but just omited when it Documents the immense Armenian uprising months before the incident. This is some history article.neurobio 00:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Those figures have much more credibility than do the pro-Turkish stooges on the Turkish government's payroll. True, many of them are not historians per se but exactly how does this disqualify them? Is it perhaps the overwhelming evidence that not only comes from "historical Turkish enemies" but also their allies who all agreed that there were no Armenian uprisings some how compel them to hold the Genocide view? Please Neuro, the Turkish conspiracy card is a flimsy excuse and does not work under Misplaced Pages's rules.

William Ramsay: British ethnographer. He is your source on Hamidian massacres. He was not there at that time. 2 citations His book's name was "twelve years of wandering" and was published in 1897. Where was he then in the previous decade, if not Turkey? The massacres were widespread and not relegated to one general location.

R. J. Rummel: Professor of political science. the guy who says 2.2 mil Armenians were killed when even armenians say 2 mil armenians were living in ottoman empire. 1 citation We've been over this dozens of times and estimates are anywhere from 1.8 million to 2.5 million. See here Ottoman Armenian population.

Robert Fisk: He received a BA in English and Classics at Lancaster University and a PhD in Political Science and he is a journalist now. He recently displayed his total ignorance on the issue by saying that even Atatürk admitted the genocide. That he did and he was correct.

New York Times: The newspaper which also wrote 20.000 Armenians were gathering arms, drilling for ages and rebelled and joined the Russian army 9 months before deportation orders. And a simmilar article in washington post is not considered in the wiki article of course. Who exactly was feeding the information to the NYT and the WP went unanswered by you. The very fact that in other articles their sources are explicitly stated (German general, American doctor, Dutch ambassador) and is missing in those two articles means that they were probably fed in by the Sublime Porte.

The Italian consul of Trabzon in 1915, Giacomo Gorrini and Winston Churchil: Great sources! Should I remind you that these countries were in war with the Ottoman Empire. And? Do Allied claims of Nazi Genocide against the Jews make them any less credible? That's red herring and detracts from the issue, you are claiming that even official members of the Italian, Dutch, Swedish, French, American, British, German and Austrian governments lied to their leaders just for propaganda purposes?

Toynbee, Arnold: English historian of the era, (Should I remind you that these countries were in war with the Ottoman empire) who edited the blue book of the English Propaganda bureau. Employed by England foreign office Read the quotations by the reputable scholars at the time who ruled out the propaganda excuse and affirmed that those testimonies were genuine. Toynbee himself denied that the book was a work of propaganda, and this was when he wrote it in his memoirs in the 1960s.

Your complaints are moot. When real "unbiased" administrators take a look at your complaints, they're going to ignore them. You are the only one who is inventing a phantom threat for pushing your POV.--MarshallBagramyan 01:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to create much problem, but I have a few questions. First, why there is not a turkish POV section in this article? Denial of the Genocide is not Turkish POV. Denial means that such an event truly happened but it is ignored. I don't think that Turkish POV is to deny it. Refuse would be a better choice to express turkish POV. Some poeple even tried to insert an armenian genocide paragraph in the history of Turkey article, where the whole seljuq and ottoman era is overviewed in a solitary paragraph. Why can't we insert at least 5% turkish POV to this article?

Second question: Can you cite me a source where Ataturk admitted the genocide? Don't leave your arguments unsupported because it means truly nothing!

Third question: Are you qualified enough to say that Turkish sources are less reliable than Armenian sources? And if turkish sources are all invaluable, than why do you use the works of Turkish historians who admitted the genocide e.g Taner Akçam. Are only the historians who admitted the genocide are reliable? I take it that the reliability of the sources depends on whether the author admits the genocide. Thanks Caglarkoca 19:25, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Caglarkoca, admitted the genocide is a strong word; the term genocide did not still exist at the time. Had he accepted that the previous regime was responsible? Yeh, he did in more than one occasion. He referred to the killing of 800,000 Armenians by the previous regime to General Harbord, Rauf Orbay relate in his memoir a discussion him and Ataturk had relating to the previous regime destruction of the Armenians. (Rauf Orbay, Rauf Orbay'ın Hatıraları, (Vol. 3), Yakın Tarihimiz, İstanbul, 1962 p. 179). I an interview of August 1, 1926 issue of the Los Angeles Examiner includes a passage, Ataturk relate to the previous regime destruction of the Armenian population.

Regarding Armenian vs Turkish source. The problem is not more on the secondary sources if there is no manipulation of primary sources, but rather the primary sources themselves. There are not much primary Armenian sources, and in the academia it is the Armenian primary sources which are discarded not Turkish. Take McCarthy for example, while the majority of the references he uses are Ottoman or Turkish records, when finding an Armenian primary source contradicting those, he plain and simply call them forgery, when they are Western, he call them prejudicial and anti-Turkish. So, I don’t think the problem is much Armenian vs Turkish sources, but rather Western vs Turkish sources. Turkish not as “Turkish author”, but as Turkish records. BTW, I exclude here forgery, since I restrain myself to the academia, and don’t consider forgers as academics. You will be surprised to find many Turkish scholars who aren’t in the list included in the article and who covers the subject academically, but since they are in the majority position line, (I mean Turkish scholars living abroad), you won’t hear about them much. I personally met some.

Lastly, regarding the Turkish POV, I have some difficulty with that term; positions should not be classified as Turkish, Armenian etc. POV, positions are entities by themselves, a certain class of people will support one position against the other, while we should definitely write those adhering to it. The text transcending should present simply the positions, and then saying who adhere. So, I believe, a section titled something like “critics” or something such. Not because Denial is not a good term, but simply because there is more than just plain denial. Zurcher disagree with many scholars, but he still considers the Ittihadists having planned the destruction of the Armenians, so I refuse to call him a denier. A denier is not someone who refuse the qualification of genocide. Fad (ix) 20:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The Ataturk thing.. Well, I read the whole story when it first starting going around and I have to say that the interpretation was really stretched, and I also noticed some problems with context. Ataturk regularly gave speeches, and the full text of his speeches for all his life take many rows and bookshelves in the Turkish National Archives. In that particular speech, he was talking about WWI and the following wars, and was lamenting the chaos and the loss of human life in general. Ataturk talked about every thing imaginable, from airplane factories to the need for more Opera houses, and that's normal since he was trying to rebuild and reorient a whole country that was created out of the remnants of an Empire. Anyways, going back to that speech, he didn't mention a genocide, but he was talking, in those series of speeches, about the general loss of life and devastation of the wars of the thirty preceding years. From what I could gather, he was complaining about inter-ethnic strife that was caused by the wars (between Kurds, Turks and Armenians) and the lack of protection that should have been offered to Armenian deportees, both of which resulted in loss of life. To stretch that and say Ataturk accepted the AG is not academically correct since he also talked about the conflicts that ravaged every part of the country. Besides, that has practically been the main Turkish POV in the first place. Is it right or not, people can debate it all they want; I am just trying to clarify... Baristarim 19:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

As I said I will not waste too much time. Just some reminders.

1. The Washington post newspaper states the source as "An official communication from the general staff of the Caucasian (russian) army under date of Nov. 10, says:" 2. Italian council and Winston Churchil quotes are from publicized sources not secret dispatches. 3. Apart from the point that Baristarim made Ataturk quotes are much dubious and/or totally fake. I can prove it when nessesary. Just think why Ataturk Who robustly stated no crime is present decide to confess to an US newpaper? 4. Actually Tonybe admitted himself that it was meant for propaganda purposes but maintained that the info is true. I have the copy of his original mail to an Armenians lady. I can send it when nessesary. Second it is published by England foreign office (a country in war with Ottoman empire) in the war time. It can never be regarded as a history book or 100% reliable. Lastly all the sources (which were just codes or nicknames in the first edition) were later discovered. They Turned out to be Missionaries or Armenian thasnak members. Check out the new version by Ara sarafian (2000). 5. the highest figure of armenian population is 2.3 by the Armenian patriache at that time which has good reasons to inflate the numbers. are you kidding me by showing the article that you created as a source. Let me remind you again that in Lousanne peace treaty armenian population before the war was taken as 1.4 mil. And finally if I were to push my POV I would have gathered a gang an start an edit war. I see only one gang around. 6. the so called hamidian massacres are all from Sasoon and surrounding region. the newspapers of the time clearly descibes that no western observer were there to report anything in most cases. and when they were there they said the figures were much lower and incidents started by armenian unsurgent provocations.

Happy new year by the way.neurobio 11:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the information fad(ix), you tried answer my questions, but couldn't satisfy me. You are pushing too hard by stating that Ataturk himself admitted the genocide. And you say that you found it in "Rauf Orbay'ın Hatıraları". Rauf Orbay is considered a traitor in Turkey, he signed the Armitice of Mudros, and was the head of the opposition to Ataturk. This is one of the basic facts of Turkish war of independence. Wouldn't it be possible that Orbay tried to vilify Ataturk? Can you provide us the exact quote? Both in Turkish and English. I believe Baristarim explained it quite right. Ataturk had a word on almost anything, so it is easy to manipulate a quote from Ataturk.

Also, in order the refuse the qualification of genocide, there must be a genocide. Turkish refuses that the unfortunate events were not a genocide, so Denial of the Genocide is neither the position of Turkish Republic nor the Turkish POV. There are many Turkish historians who refuse the idea of genocide and they are supported by a number of western scholars. So, there are enough people to establish a section called 'Turkish Thesis'. I stopped translations because there were enough pressure on me to stop it.

The sources part... You say that Turkish sources are more favored than Armenian sources, but almost every work used in the article is written by non-Turkish people. It is not a suprise to me to see that 1/3 of the works used are written by Armenian scholars, but I would expect to see as much Turkish historians used in the article as Armenian ones, because Turkey and Armenia are sides to this conflict. Thanks Caglarkoca 19:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

You are mixing primary sources with secondary I think. True, many Armenians have written about the genocide, what I am talking about is not scholarship but records, primary records. It is no secret for no one that Armenian primary records are nearly non-existing. You will hardly find more than few references to Armenian sources in published work, and no matter if the book is written by an Armenian or not. It is obvious that per population Armenians have written much more about the subject. But this doesn't mean anything. Most scholars of the Holocaust are Jews, Hilberg who wrote the major work about the Holocaust is a Jew. What matters here is the documentation of the work, most of it is not Jewish. Fad (ix) 19:35, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

When he says he can prove it, he actually means that he will dump the crap from tallarmeniantale, which I have already covered here more than necessary. The interview wasn’t even about the Armenian massacres, but about the attempts against Ataturk life, which was the subject of the interview itself. Secondo, as usual neurobio is injecting crap directly from tallarmeniantale when talking about the Blue Book, what he says is simply the same lies there which I have also already covered. This is what could be found from the Key to name of persons by Bryce and Toynbee.

At least forty one reports found in the blue book could still be found in the U.S. Department of State archives.

• From them, ALL were sent from the Ottoman Empire.
• Fifteen of these were written by American consuls(we will come to that later)
• Ten by American missionaries.
• Eight by other nationals (four of whom German)
• Six were unclosed sources.
• And ONLY TWO were from the Dashnaks.

Neurobio claims to check the new edition (Ara Safarian 2000), well, this information could actually be found on p. x, of the work. Safarian covers from p. ix-x, opposing and documenting specifically the non-factuality of neurobio assertions. But since that work was referred on tallarmeniantale, of course he presented it without actually knowing of what he was talking about. The ‘’lies’’ he is talking about were still presented in 1967, in Toynbee’s work Acquaintances (1967)

"The collection and collation of the evidence from which the Blue Book was compiled had occupied most of my working time for an umber of months; and, after the Blue Book had been published, I could not dismiss its contents from my mind. I was not only haunted by the victims' sufferings and by the criminals' deeds; I was exercised by the question how it could be possible for human beings to do what those perpetrators of genocide had done.

My study ...left an impression on my mind that was not effaced by the still more cold-blooded genocide, on a far larger scale, that was committed during the Second World War by the Nazi.

Any great crime - private or public, personal or impersonal-raises a question that transcends national limits; the question goes to the heart of human nature itself. My study of the genocide that had been committed in Turkey in 1915 brought home to me the reality of Original Sin."

I guess, in 1967, the British were still at war against the Ottoman Empire. Another interesting note, is how neurobio is just like the author of tallarmeniantale equating the term propaganda with lies, when even his fetish scholar Justin McCarthy claimed that propaganda does not mean lying, a justification of his request that the Turkish government uses propaganda against “Armenian allegations.”

Coming to those American Consuls whose reports could be found in the Blue Book. Consuls were actually stationed on the spot. Lets give the example of Leslie Davis who was actually stationed in the East and on the spot, he was requested to investigate the reported massacres, since the reports were about a mass killing never reported ever before with such a brutality, he started being skeptical about. He actually requested a Turk to be his guide for one day and show the spots of the Armenian massacres. He submitted as a result a report in which he confirms and even say that what he actually saw was worst than could have been reported.

So, when neurobio claims that those there actually claimed much less than those who were not there. This too is not accurate, it is actually the contrary, the Italian consul for instance who witnessed what was happening, could not even believe what his eyes were showing him.

Not so long ago, the Turkish government sent a letter to the British government, presented on the House, requesting the Brits to apologies for the Blue Book and “admit” it to be forgery. The House reconfirmed the Blue Book as authentic and reaffirmed its historic value. Taner Akçam in a series in a Turkish newspaper has covered this request and said that it was an embarrassment, since still the signed reports could still be found in American archives.

Coming to the population, Neurobio claims that during Lausanne the figure of 1.4 million Armenians has been used, the sort of crap he recycle from the tallarmeniantalewebsite. What he is actually mentioning is the Ottoman Census Statistics of 1912 which was presented by the Turkish delegation. If neurobio believes to be up to the task, he could bring the trash he recycle on the Ottoman Armenian Population article, or shut the @ off about the validity of that article itself. Fad (ix) 18:30, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

That website is not even credible and basically everything in that website contradicts Armenians on everything its definitely anti-Armenian propaganda. Nareklm 03:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

he will dump the crap is not very polite, please watch your language. Caglarkoca 19:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed) Fad (ix) 19:30, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't care whether you like him or not. It is not your first insult against him that I have seen, so please cut it. Even though I don't agree with you, I like to read the info that you are presenting here, BUT IT IS TO HARD TO FOLLOW A PASSAGE WHEN IT IS FULL OF PERSONAL ATTACKS. What you write here is read by many people and they are archieved so write respectfully. Anyway, you haven't answered my questions regarding Rauf Orbay. Why should I believe a traitor? And you still didn't provide me a quote.

I also know what a primary and secondary source is, I took history lessons for many years. My question is not about the kind of source, but rather than about the historians who process the primary sources. In Armenian Genocide, if the investigation of neurobio is right (even though you don't believe him, he wouldn't have lied too easily; especially when regarding to the number of references in a wiki article) one third of the references are to Armenian historians where there is no references to the turkish historians, who refuse the genocide. We cannot behave as if the opposition side doesn't exist. Thanks Caglarkoca 00:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Look dude, what do you think readers will conclude? A user who slander an entire people in every given occasion and dump materials from a known racist website and use it as sole source in one side, and another user who slander that member in particular? Regardless of the policies here? As for personal attacks. Did you see me on this page slandering other Turks? I am even having good relations with Lutherian. Regarding Rauf Orbay, yes! I did not answer you, and for a simple reason, the guy was accused to destroy large junk of materials involving him in the massacres, his aubiography itself is full of praise of the Kemalistic regime and the accusations about him being a traitor have been cleaned up, including by the republic of Turkey. So him being a traitor and wanting to make up things allegedly said by Ataturk is your oppinion. You are not forced to believe him. But I fail to see why someone who was accused of destroying records of the destruction of the Armenians will make up thing to support a position which evidences bringing to it, he has destroyed? Comming back to neurobio? Someone who calls this article trash and hasn't any respect to the entire project which he calls in his namespace a made house, could only be here for a single reason, which he is so good at, that is, slinging here back and forth what he could use as immunition from the website tallarmeniantale. Fad (ix) 01:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Orbay knew that a Kemalist system would have resolved almost all problems of Turkey, but he advocated the American Mandate in order to accomplish it. He called Atatürk an adventurer. He was also the one of the founders of the first opposition party in Turkey, which was supported by mostly fundamentalists. I haven't heard of him being accused of destroying the genocide documents. BTW, while I was reading the biography of Orbay, I recalled that U.K held a trial in Malta about Armenian Genocide and all the Turks were cleared of the case! If it couldn't have proven in 1921, just 6 years after the crime is commited; can it be in 2007?Caglarkoca 03:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I know about the madhouse thing.. Well, it doesn't hurt to have some sense of humor, right? :)) The whole internet is a madhouse, what are you talking about??!!! I remember growing up having to dial old fashioned phones (and having to dial an operator for long-distance calls) and going to high school staring like an idiot at people who had mobile phones in their cars (you know, those big backpacks back in the day :)).. In retrospect, Internet, and a project like Misplaced Pages, can be considered a madhouse. lol. It depends on the context and the tone, obviously. There is funny and chaotic "mad" and stupid "mad". Baristarim 02:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I recalled that U.K held a trial in Malta about Armenian Genocide and all the Turks were cleared of the case!. That is perhaps the worst lie repeated by the Turkish denialists. We have discussed it dozens of times in the archives, however for the record, there was no such thing as the Malta Tribunal. There were 60 Turkish criminals held by the British on the island of Malta accused of crimes against the Armenians BUT they were released not to a lack of evidence which you guys so earnestly repeat but were in fact traded for several dozen British hostages taken by the Ataturk nationalists including British Colonel Alfred Rawlison.

Their trial was pending, the evidence was abundant and they were hopefully going to be tried by an intl. criminal tribunal. 43 of the criminals held at Malta were released in Aug. 1921 a decision made by Winston Churchill who stated that the "whole transaction tantamount to complete capitulation to Turkish blackmail." Sorry but the "Malta Tribunal" is just another utter falsehood you guys keep falling for.--MarshallBagramyan 04:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I am here for only two months, sorry, and your sources MarshallBagramyan? You have spoken so confidently, and even brutally; so you must have perfect sources which can be easily accessed by me. Caglarkoca 05:00, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Gary Jonathan Bass. Stay the Hand of Vengance: The Politics of War Crimes Tribunals. Princeton University Press, 2000.--MarshallBagramyan 05:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Come on, you know that I cannot access a book very easily. At least, a few websites (which means more than one) must have quoted this book if it is so good that you can brutally talk like that. Give me the websites, which quote that book. If none, then that source might have been not so good at all. Thanks Caglarkoca 20:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Here's a link to the book Marshall's mentioning page 106 and so on. Fedayee 20:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Spare me your nonsense on my "brutal" talking. Fedayee just gave you one link, here's another on Amazon.com, the ISBN number is 0-6910-9278-8. How much more "accesible" can this become?--MarshallBagramyan 21:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

THE LETTER OF PKK !!!!! Hi ,in this article REF NO 62 ,is a letter from the head of an terrorist organisations. It probably ment to support Armenian thesis. Before drawing your attention to this terrible mistake I have a few words to say. I am from a village near by city of Sivas in Turkey,and am a Caucassian origined Turkish citizen.In our geography Armenians,Turks,Kurds,Georgians,Cherkesses,Abhazians,Karachais,we all are brothers.Turks and Armenians live together for a 1000 years,Turks are in Armanian's humuor,Armenians are in Turk's humour,married to eachother ,grew up together,sang songs together and unfortunately died together. In a certain era of the history these two highly reputable nation had been enemies of eachother,by Russian and British Empire's influence on Some adventurous Armenians.(whereas on the other side there was another adventurous young Turks by the influence of Germans) As Anzac forces was fronting the British army in Gallibolu ,Armenians was fronting the Russian army in East. When Anzac youth was dying, as there were no tears in the eyes of Brit commanders,when Armenian and Turkish and Kurdish brothers killing eachother ,there were no tears in the eyes of Russian commanders,either. I read all your commends here guys both Turkish and Armenian. There was no any hattrate between Armenians and Turks that time to cause a genocide,and I don't think Memets in Turkish army was that violent either.Becouse I 've been in Gallibolu and have seen Memets and Jonhy's lyng in the chest of brother country,and I read their memories and have seen their pictures.THe soldier in Van area of Ottoman Empire was no different then the soldier in Gallibolu. I have loads of Armenian friends in Istanbul,Grand Bazaar. They are the most magneficent goldsmiths and the nicest people you can meet,trusthworthy ,honest ,hardworking and good friends. In my village there are 3 Armenian families (my cousin married to one the family's daughter)My family and them living together for the last 90 years.Their grandfather Tırtatt told me their story,how they moved to our village.They were one those deported families. I live in U.K now,but when I was living in Turkey.I was a close witness to how we brothers menage to live together in peace but individually,as Nazım Hikmet says, like a tree but in brotherhood of a forest. If this genocide discussion is a blame ,both sides has a lot of it to take, in different aspects. More then anything ,it seems to me that ARmenian diaspora loves to deal with it,and love to poison their youths mind with this hattrate,and I think this is just to cover a mistake once some Armenian adventurers made and regreted but couldn't get rid of it. Otherwise ,'''''''just to prove that their thesis is right ,why would they use a letter of an exteremely violent terrorist organisation called ]]who killed over 30.000 people ,as a reference in this article'''''''. And if the wikipedia editors are so objective in this discussion why would they let this letter to be used. hope you guys one days realise that we are brothers not enemies.

Removal of external links and locking

OK. I hope that this username is not as spammy as the latter. So, why have the external links disapeared? I see this as rather a lack of knowledge among the editors than anything else. Just because certain people are not well informed about this topic (or deny it) does not justify censurship of this kind. Our site, among those external links deleted, contain professional educational and informative data, video and material and I can not see why educational information such as a video of a lecture conference is not relevant in this area.

Furthermore I can not see why ths topic is often locked. Terrorising the topic should not result in locking it for editing. Whether the information added is biased or not can be discussed, but never the less the discussion must go on. And bare in mind: the Armenian genocide might be a political controversy but it is a historical fact. The main deniers are the Turkish offical side. The rest are mostly Jewish historians who are either functionalists themselves (regarding the Jewish genocide) or are singulaists (also regarding the Jewish genocide). So please do not mix these two issues together and keep on to the facts.

BR,

Vahagn Avedian Editor of Armenica.org History student at Historical Institute of Uppsala University, Sweden — Preceding unsigned comment added by VahagnAvedian (talk • contribs)

First of all see Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest. You should refrain from adding the link yourself. Secondly see WP:External links. External links should be added if they can further enlighten the subject for points not covered in the article, and external links shouldn't duplicate information. This is the most important part: if there is one site that covers the content of five other links, then there is no need for those other five. I don't know about the specifics of this particular site, but the content of most of the external links already listed cover that site it seems. I don't know about the links present in other articles however. Cheers! Baristarim 14:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I understand the basic argumentation, but

• I don't think that anyone would treat the Holocuast article like this if neo-nazis or Holocaust deniers would step in and add their point of view. I firmly blame this on lack of general knowledge about the Armenian Genocide and the fact that people mix policitcal point of view with historical facts and evidence. And as far as it goes for historians denying the Armenian Genocide, there is very simple explanation once you look at who these persons are and their historical views in general. E.g.
  

- Andrew Mango is born and educated in Istanbul and working almost with Turkish related areas including a comprehensive book about Ataturk. So I guess you could say that his view of the things might be coloured by his upraising, education and work.

- Bernard Lewis' view in regard to the Armenian genocide is very much like the discussion between the two camps of Functionalists and Intentionalists in regard to the Holocaust. These argue whether the Jewish genocide was intentional on the part of the German authorities or was it a by product of the war as the functionalists claim it to be. Mr Lewis belongs to the latter group sa far as it goes for the Armenian genocide. He affirms that some 1 million Armenians were killed, but this was not the intention of the Turkish government, but rather a by product of the war. As in the Holocaust discussion the intentionalists would beg the difference.

- Guenter Lewy is a supporter of the singularity of the Jewish genocide, i.e. he means that it is unique and no other "genocides" could be compared to it. Professor Yair Auron, Jewish historian and lecturer in Israel, blames the American lack of recognition on Israeli pressures. According to him, the Holocaust (the Jewish Genocide) plays a central role in Israeli society and within historical circles, increasing in importance as the years progress, and relying on the uniqueness of the Jewish Genocide. Political Israel, he argues, has intentionally repressed and refused to acknowledge the existence of the first genocide of the 20th century. He is not alone in his claims. Other Israeli historians, such as Professor Yehuda Baur and Shlomo Avineri, the former foreign minister of Israel, have openly called the Armenian massacres a genocide.

- Justin McCarthy is awarded Order of Merit of Turkey by the Turkish President Süleyman Demirel in 1998 for his "services." He has based his entire claim on the fact that the deportations were "relocations", nothing more. His argumentation is quite shallow and in disregard to several other parameters in the equation, such as the ethnic cleansings that these deportations resulted in.

I think it is quite important to lift forward this smal facts which make a huge difference once they are mentioned. It is these details that the denialist side comfortably "forgets" to mention. The above mentioned people are the major non-Turks. The rest are exclusively Turks who follow the policital agenda of the Turkish Foreign Ministry.

• Eventhough if say armenian-genocide.org covers the chronology, Armenica.org gives a much more detalied overview of the circumstances and the history which led to the definitive genocidal measures. Now days many people (inlcuding this article) put much emphesis on the genocide itself, wihtout mentioning important details about the reform demands and efforts during the period 1878-1908. Furthermore, the entire focus is set on Turkish and German actions, while the role of the British, Russian, French and US failure in realisation of the demanded reforms or the later recognition of the genocide is not touched upon (at least not as satisfactory as it should). Secondly, 1) the link to our site (armenica.org) was not meant as a pointer to the text, but to the video lecture with quite exhaustive facts, information and argumentation which is unique in its kind as far as online informative material is concerned 2) when I then visit the article about the denial of the Armenian genocide I see 31 external links pointing to Turkish sites. If this is not biased behaviour then I don't know what is. The articles of wikipedia how informative than they might be, are a great source for further reading (at least for me). I agree that links to sites with almmost identical content should be replaced by only one link to the "best choice", but I can't see how the sites included in the external links even cover the parts presented on Armenica.org, with, among others, interview with Prof. Taner Akcam, lecture by Prof. Dadrian etc. And bare in mind that other updates are conitnuously added. Best regards, VahagnAvedian 9:29, 10 January 2007 (CET)

There are mistakes in the above, such as Functionalists and Intentionalists. But this is irrelevent, I have checked the site and it is full of personal opinions, I don't think this issue is only of self promossion. We had problems in the past with personal sites, and I wish your site not be there. Raffi wiki encyclpedia shall remain an exception for materials such as picture that site provide. The only worth your site could have, it is the interviews by Akçcam and Dadrian. But did you took permission to load them? The interviews could go in the media section, but your site as an overall can not be presented as source for the article, and another editor shall do what is best and you shall remain out of that. That you add your true name and don't hide under a proxy is good, but not enough. Fad (ix) 17:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

North Dakota

PanArmenian.net reports that North Dakota has proclaimed April 24 as Remembrance Day for the Victims of the Armenian Genocide. If this is true, could someone fix this map to add North Dakota when the page is unlocked? - Fedayee 18:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

PanArmenian.net is not a credible source, we need another source to confirm that information. Fad (ix) 21:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Theres another website confirming http://www.anca.org/press_releases/press_releases.php?prid=572 ROOB323 22:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

There Was No Genocide (....of Turks)

Moved to /Arguments subpage. Talk page comments are supposed to be about the article, not the subject in general. Khoikhoi 10:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep deleting what I write and write whatever you can write. That's you.

Dispute

The same old I see.. Well, on a sidenote (in fact, this should be the main note, but hey), has any progress been made to resolve the content dispute that led to this article's protection? I think that its mention kinda got lost somewhere above :) Baristarim 10:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe the article should be kept under semi-protection. It is a sad fact that there are many people waiting to vandalize the page. Caglarkoca 16:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

The article has been in semi-protection pretty much all the time for months :) However, there was a specific dispute about the structure of the article that was raised, and it led to an edit-war and to full-protection. I wasn't following what was happening, so I am just curious as to what the dispute was. Baristarim 17:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

why?

why doesn't this article mention that armeinean gangs attacked turkish towns and massacred hundreds of Turk men, women and children? It instead brands it as "minor unrest". Armanalp 16:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Does the Holocaust article make any mention of Germans that were killed by Jews in revenge or as part of allied armies? I can think of a great many more relavent details concerning the Armenian Genocide that could be included in the article - such as all the many (tens to hundreds of) thousands of Turks who enriched themselves off of stolen Armenian properties...or specifics regarding the murders of Ottoman Officials who resisted deportation (murder) of Armenians by CUP operatives (thugs)...or the large scale (CUP) falsifying of claims/reports of Armenian rebellions - countered by reports of local Ottoman and German officials and other eyewitnesses....etc etc who claim that no such thing was occuring. I can think of a great many relevant details to include regarding the annhilation of the entire Ottoman Armenian nation (1.5 million +) that have quite a bit more relevance then the deaths of hundreds (or even a few thousand) Turks at the hands of Armenians...more Turkis were killed by Kurdish bands, Turkish deserters and CUP/Ottoman Special Organization "gangs" then were ever killed by any Ottoman Armenians....think about it...--THOTH 07:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think here the situation is a little bit different than the Holocaust, I find it very amusing to see that you always compare the so called Armenian Genocide to the Holocaust. Jews didn't have a chance to declare war against Germany, but Armenians indeed openly attacked Ottoman empire. On the washington post in the talk page, it is clearly stated that Armenians join Russians, isn't it? Then here we have a war situation rather than a Holocaust like genocide, where jews beginning from 1933 were systematically destroyed, in spite of not joining Russians. Armanalp is quite right. Caglarkoca 06:30, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm so sorry that you aparently just have no clue. You say that Jews never "attacked" Germany - however the Germans at the time claimed that in fact they did and they quote Weizman's "declaration of war" against Germany as proof of this and make many other claims as well - equally spurious as your claims that Armenians "attacked" the Ottoman EMpire. You talk of Jews being systematically destroyed by Germany since 1933 - and of course we are well aware of the various campaigns - economic, political, social that were undertaken to exclude the Jews from German society and disenfranchise them - however Armenians and Greeks of the Ottoman Empire generally experienced far warse prior to 1915. Massacres, depridations and other predatory behaviors against them were common. The Sultan and then the CUP particularly took many steps to exclude Greeks and Armenians from participation in the economy. Many of the very same steps to exclude Jews from German economic and societal life were taken agaionst Greeks and Armenians - and far worse. And the Genocide commited against Armenians was in most all senses EXACTLY like the Holocaust was to the Jews. Your contention that there was no Armenian Genocide because some Armenians may have joined with Russians (prior to the Genocide this numnber is estimated at less then 4,000...when there were 250,000 Ottoman Armenians in Ottoman armies at this time) is quite ludicrous. And besides - Ottoman Muslims experienced more attacks against them from Kurdish bandits, Turkish deserters and CUP Special Organization units then they suffered from any attacks commited by Ottoman Armenians. In 1917 Ottoman Military accounts indicate that Turkish/Muslim (civilian) deaths in Anatolia that could be attrributed to Russians and Armenians combined amonted to no more then 5,000 and Turkish historian Halil Beketay believes that no more then 10,000 Turkihs/Muslim civilian deaths can be attributed to Russians and (primarily) Russian Armenians through the entire course of events from 195-1923)...as opposed to 1.5 million + Ottoman Armenians killed by the Ottoman Turks....so come now. Your claims are entirely spurious and are not supported by any legitimate sources scholarly opinion. The history as recorded by eyewitnesses, memoirs/confessions (of CUP/Ottoman Military and Special Organization members), and incredible amounts of detailed documentary evidence do not support your claims in any way shape or form. And besides dose the prescence of Jews - even German Jews - in the armies of the Allies during WWII mean that there was no Holocaust? No it does not. So are you really telling us that you are unaware of the details of the Armenians Genocide...that you cannot fathom that 1.5 million + Armenians just disapeared from the face of the Earth - most within the space of a few short months - the rest in just a few short years - because of some natural causes? Are you just entirely unaware of the detailed records and statements from ex-CUP and Ottoman Officials and operatives and their German allies present at the time attesting to secret orders that "deporatation" meant extermination of the Armenians - that this was deliberate policy and that in fact it was undertaken and thouroughly witnessed and that the (successful) results are quite clear. --THOTH 16:07, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Of course, you might have some right points, especially on the fact that the nationalist CUP make the life miserable for the non-Muslims. But the terms genocide and Holocaust are too strong to be used for those unfortunate events. I must confess that the events in 1915 were truly dark marks on the Turkish/Ottoman history. Even if there was no genocide (as I advocate for) delocalizing a whole nation is a very huge guilt. I admit that. But I am against the content of the article. As I said before, Holocaust is too insane to be compared with these events. And the lack of Turkish POV... That is what I am trying to say beginning from the first day I entered wikipedia. BTW, I am quite interested in 250000 Ottoman Armenians in the Ottoman Army. Do you have a source? Thanks for the valuable information. Caglarkoca 19:15, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to sound crass - but your opinion on whether or not "genocide" or "holocaust" may or may not be the correct terms is not the issue. The issue is that the overwhelming number of scholars and historians and scholarly historical sources fully accept these events as genocide and that all definitions of genocide are clearly met by the CUP/Ottoman Turkish actions taken against the Ottoman Armenians and the results of such. I am pleased (not sure of the right word - but close enough...) that you (as a Turk? ) at least understand/appreciate the feelings of guilt or perhaps shame might be a better word for what your nation (the Turkish nation of the time that Turkey of today is the inheritor for) should rightly feel for what was done. However when you continue to claim that the events of the time and the experiences of Armenians of the Empire do not consititute genocide and are somehwo less "insane" as you say it - less brutal, less demeaning, less destructive etc and that Armenians somehow experienced less persecution/destruction and so on then the Jews of WWII - well in this claim you are entirely 100% wrong. I am always perplexed that so many Turks - even ones who seem to have some conception of what occured - cannot understand how what the Armenians went through was in fact the very equivilant of the Jewish experience in nearly every concievable sense - and this is clearly demonstrated by the vast and corroborated eyewitness accounts and documentation of the horrors that were carried out against innocent and defeseless Armenians empire wide. Like the Jews - Armenians provided very little resitance and were mercilessly and brutally slaughtered - individually and en mass. I would really urge you to read more of the eyewitness acounts and testimonys to try to achieve a greater understanding of the level of brutality and one sided predation that occured during these times to better understand and conceptualize these events. I doubt that anyone who reads these accounts and who takes the time to read about and understand the history and development of the extermination plans and how they were carried out will possibly come away not thinking/understanding how these events were - for all relevant purposes - no different whatsoever then what the Jews experienced in WWII. As for the 250,000 figure of Ottoman Armenians in the Ottoman army I do have a source - but not where I am right now. I will try to check on this for you. And as far as Turkish POV - well IMO - beyond acknowledging such - that it is a view of denial of these events (and in fact such position has changed/morphed over time from an outright denial that such things ever happened at all to now claiming that it was more akin to a civil war of some sort - etc) - I think mention of this view is warrented - but beyond mention of it - it really does not warrent any detailed treatment as their is really very little corraborated basis for such arguments and they are in fact political arguments (and accusations and denials) not really based in fact. The facts speak for themselves. They are not the "Armenian"perspective - but the overwhelmingly accepted and understood version of what actually occured. Granted a great deal more could be presented and discussed which would provide context to these events, could add to the understanding of how circumstances led to the situation as it did and to the mindset of the CUP leadership and cadres and of the carious Turkish people who took part in such things - and I have often supported the idea of doing such. But we must remember this is essentially an encyclopedic article - not a definitive tome or historical analysis and accounting. The goal here is to partake a level of understanding of these events so that the casual reader or amature researcher is able to seek and recieve a basic understanding of just what is/was this Armenian Genocide thing all about. The article, as it stands, more or less accomplishes this. It certainly can be improved and I have in the past expressed my opinions in this regards - but expanding upon the denial of the events is IMO - not where the presentation is really lacking - it is in providing some overall background and context (some of which might be seen/interpreted to some degree as additional Turkish perspective) and I also believe that a more accurate chronology that depicts when and where major massacres and "deporations" occured and how procedures differed from place to place (primarily regional differences in how the genocide was carried out) would be helpful in allowing the reader a better feel for just what it was that occured that we (properly) term/call the Armenian Genocide.--THOTH 20:30, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I think this dialog is becoming more helpful than the previous ones:) To be honest with you, I do not have a great knowledge on this area. It is mostly limited to Turkish+ English wikipedia+ a few more sources; and I have never said that I know the topic very well. What I usually say is about the format of the article. I am aware that the events of 1915 is considered as genocide by overwhelmingly many scholars and countries so that what is on the wiki is not the Armenian POV, but the worldwide (I mean by the majority) accepted version. But the ones that does not accept the term genocide is enough to have the right to express their opinion in wikipedia. You understood what I meant by Turkish POV very well. We claim that unfortunate Armenian Unrest followed by the delocalization caused many people to lose their lives. This POV has the right to expressed under the title Turkish Thesis on the Events of 1915 or Refusal (rather than denial) of the Article, and as you stated civil war sort of thing should be included in that article as well as the position of Turkey. And for my feeling... I know it is of wikipedia, but I must state them:) I would feel ashamed if I have decided on delocalization or supported the idea of delocalization. Therefore shame is not the best word. But I admit that it was a very insane guilt to delocalize a whole nation. (BTW I am Turkish) Please think about the addition of Turkish POV to the article. And don't forget to provide me a source on the Ottoman Armenian soldiers. Thanks Caglarkoca 10:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

OK - you admit to not having great knowledge of these events - yet you continue to insist that a (widely discredited/not accepted) minority view - pretty much held only by Turks and scholars who are linked to Turkey in some manner - deserves to be presented and explained in a manner beyond just introducing that such a view is held - and I disagree (I think it has been given greater emphasis then is deserved). Additionally you continue to espouse this idea the the Armenian Genocide was just some sort of "delocalization" (whatever this really means) - when the overwhelming evidence (that is demonstrated by numerous collaborated accounts of C top CUP member's statements as well as an examination of the methods employed etc etc) clearly proves that there was a desire and deliberate pre-planned cordinated action to eliminate Armenians (as a group with any real presence) from Anatolia - and that this involved killing most of them and only displacing a few in comparision. Taner Akcam discusses the CUPs stated desire to have no more then 10% Armenian presence in any one area and how - with the arrival of some number of deportees (who somehow survived - in many cases quite unexpectadly) in the areas around Aleppo and in Der Zor - that a second round of outright massacres (and deliberate starvation in death camps) was undertaken to ensure that the number of Armenian survivors would not exheed this percentage. Well the CUP more then suceeded with its plans - and its leaders were quite pleased with themselves in this regard and stated such numerous times. It is also enlightening to read accounts of Ottoman Parlimentarians (reconvened briefly after the war) and of Ottoman newspapers from just after the war where many express outrage over what was done. In any event - accusations that Armenians were responsible for all of this (their own demise) are quite laughable (or very sad really) when one knows and understands the facts. I would suggest that you educate yourself further in this regard. And perhaps then you might (properly) feel some shame for the actions of your nation - in the past - for comitting this genocide in the first place - and now - for denying it so vehemently.--THOTH 14:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Thoth--Some of what you have written is slightly confusing to me. I am not terribly familiar with the events we're discussing, nor do I have a personal stake in the matter, but it seems to me from what I've read above that there is a significant disparity in the evidence cited regarding the Armenian incident. (I am hesitant to use genocide because I really don't know much about the issue at all.) The reason the Holocaust is universally accepted as a genocide is because of the extensive primary German documentation discovered by the Allied armies, along with testimony from German soldiers/officers. Furthermore, the simple fact that the evidence left behind in concentration camps was discovered and documented by various third parties lends more credence to the Holocaust's unequivocal classification as a genocide.. Looking through the sources for this article, however, paints a much more colorful picture: as an example, the article cites Peter Balakian, whom I know personally and can assure you is the worst kind of scholar. He teaches at Colgate University and was kind enough to be openly hostile to Muslim students on campus--enough so that numerous students complained to the administration about him while I attended the institution. Clearly an issue such as this is going to be extremely sensitive, but the impression I get from reading the cited sources is that the article relies heavily on evidence presented from what can only be described as biased sources. There are a few "neutral" sources--the U.N. report on genocide, the NYT dispatch dating from 1916--but they are peppered in between numerous Armenian scholars. Please note, however, that I do not think this makes them less valid! Far from it. However, given that precedent, we are obligated to lend similar credence to the genocide refusals, unless a body of evidence that is sufficiently neutral can be directly cited. It is not our place as wikipedians to determine what viewpoint is more "valid." We're only here to present the situation as it stands. I have no qualms including the fact that the vast majority of scholars agree that this should be considered a genocide. But unlike the Holocaust, we don't have the circumstances necessary to declare any opposition stances invalid. And if we do in fact have those circumstances, the vast majority of our citations should reference them, and not the secondary sources it currently does. Let me know what you think. Spectheintro 02:00, 20 January 2007 (UTC)spectheintro

First - I've never seen any "evidence" that in any way disproves the huge volumes of such that clearly show the Armenian Genocide to be such. Evidence includes 37,000 documents in the archives of the United States on this issue. 9,000+ (don't know exact numner) of such documents in the German Archives. Thousands and thousands of direct eyewitness reports (far more then what documents the Holocaust even), as well as numerous Ottoman documents (including testimony, confessions, correspondences, memoirs...etc - that clearly make the case for genocide. The "other side" (standard Turkish view and that supported by so-called Turkish scholars and those supported by Turkey) offer nothing to invalidate this huge compliation of corroborating evidence. What they do is to essentially repeat wartime Turkish propoganda - that is the equivilant to nearly identicle Nazi wartime racist hate propoganda against the Jews - and expect us to accept such as truth - when the documentary evidence and eyewitness testimony - even from a great many Turks and from germans and Austirans who were allies to the Turks and present during these times - utterly refutes the counter-claims. Inclusion of Armenian Genocide denial - beyond just a reference that Turkey and certain Turkish shupported scholars deny it and a very minimal mention of why this might be so and the jist of their (discredited) argument - is all that this view warrents. Only by the fact the the inheritor government of the perpetrators of this genocide continues to deny it (and to aggressively sponsor, lobby on behalf and fund such denial) is there any significant difference between denial of the Holocaust and denial of the Armenian Genocide - and the article as it stands more then addresses this fact. If you are so keen on finding non-Armenian scholarly sources that paint a most clear picture of the factual record of the Armenian Genocide then I would strongly suggest that you read Turkish scholar Tanar Akcam's latest book - A Shameful Act - The Armenian Genocide and the Question of Turkish Responsibility. The book is based entirely on first hand Ottoman Turkish and to some extent first hand German documentary and eyewitness accounts and it clearly documents the culpilbility and genocidal intentions of the CUP Ottoman Turks in planning and carrying out the Armenian Genocide. It is impossible that any who reads this book will ever again question that the Armenian Genocide was not deliberatly undertaken and that it indeed was a genocide in every sense of the word and that the article in Misplaced Pages as it stands today is accurate and supportable. If anything a great deal of factual information that bolsters this case has been left out and any Turkish (or other) objection is left as being quite groundless.--THOTH 03:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Reading only parts of this argument, I saw that the comparison between the Holocaust and this Genocide were being dispiuted because the Armenians "declared war" and the Jews didn't.

First of all, its is disputed whether or not the Armenians joined the Russians in world war one. In any case, the Russians were badly losing (due to German support ) and did not reach any were near Cilicia were most of the Genocide occured. Secondly, there was no Armenian declaration of war, because there was no country!!! Thirdly, war does not mean total annihalation of a population. Its why Hitler's thugs were tried for war crimes. Armenian genocide was not just Turks defending themselves against rebels. They killed women and children too, or atleast left them to starve. Either way, this was defintely not a war no more than if I may qoute it was a war between "men and maggots" except that I think in this situation, the maggots have more honour than the men. Tourskin.

Dispute 2

I hate to sound like a prick by insisting on this, but has anyone have something to say about what I wrote above in the section "Dispute"? What was the dispute about that led to this article's protection? If it could be talked about, at least there could be the (small) possibility that there might be (a bit) less edit-wars in the future. Baristarim 16:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know specifically the answer to your question - however I think it may have had something to do with the continued efforts on the part of some (vandals) to present the (so-called) "Turkish position" (which is clearly a minority position not held by the vast majority of scholars nor supported by sufficient evidence)that denies that the Armenian Genocide was/is indeed a genocide. As long as such vandals continue to push this idea objecting to characterizing the Armenian Genocide as a genocide - contrary to all eveidence (that has been repeatedly presented here in the talk pages) then I fear this article will always need some sort of protection. However, if the article is specifically labeled as "disputed" because of the notion that the genocide itself is (legitimatly) disputed - then I would agree that this is not proper.--THOTH 18:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmm.. I was thinking that it might have had to with the structure of the article, and the timeline of the events + a/the section about the status of the Armenians in the Empire before the WWI. The thing is, the reverts and additions were so complex that I am not able to figure out from the article's history what exactly the dispute was. It just seems that there were some additions, blind reverts, some shouting along the way and a protection by an administrator :) If it were some simple addition I wouldn't have asked.. I was just curious... Baristarim 19:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Baristarim I'm sorry but I don't know the answer to your question. I am however enjoying the manner in which you are asking it....--THOTH 20:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

We need some humor from time to time :) Well, I don't think you were here at that particular time when there was that edit-war, and I was only watching from a distance, so I am just trying to understand what was happening and what could be done. But no worries, I am sure the editors involved will expand further later on.. Baristarim 21:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Genocide lie

Moved to /Arguments subpage. Talk page comments are supposed to be about the article, not the subject in general.

A little point

The caption under the photo of the telegram sent to the 'State Department' should state that it is the United States State Department. This is an international encyclopaedia - it may be apparent to US readers what the State Dept is, but its not necessarily clear to those from other countries. 86.136.27.193 12:19, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Please accept my sympathy

I'd already watched the pictures of this genocid in a very famous and old church in Isfahan/Iran and as far as I know Iranians and Armenians have lots in common and during this awful historical events many armenian came to Iran and they have always been treated with respect and also every year they demonstrate to protest against Turkey in Iran,Why haven't been written anything about it? fo more information you can also refer to :http://www.ourararat.com/eng/e_jamal.htm thanks

This is amongst the events and incidents which demonstrate a need for another segment in the article, "The Ongoing Struggle" or "Ongoing Saga". Obviously, this matter did not end in 1915. Please see to it that more current events are included, from the 1960s on to current day? It should be less controversial, as there are modern accountings and news articles to go by. Thank you!

P.S. Dunno where the error is coming from. This is the SECOND time I've posted the EditProtected to the FOLLOWING article, only to have it attached to this one in error. Please see the following piece, about the journalist who was just killed, and create changes based on THAT article? THANK YOU --JT 17:07, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

If you're going to start adding current events into this page from the 1960s onward, then you'll also have to mention the Armenian terrorists (ASALA) who murdered nearly 50 Turkish diplomats and their families in the 1970s/1980s in the name of genocide recognition. Lima6 17:28, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that any info needs to be added will be added when it becomes unprotected. It involves somewhat a delicate addition, and its place and wording needs to be decided following the wikiprocess, which means many editors will need to have the possibility to edit continously until a compromise and concensus version will be born. Until then, any unilateral addition which would leave the other editors without the ability to edit will be unfair. Just wait until the page becomes unprotected - besides, there are some disputes about structure that (still) needs to be ironed out.. Baristarim 17:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I totally disagree with JT, recent events which would include both the actions of ASALA and the crimes committed in Turkey, do not belong to this article. I agree that wikipedia must have them in one way or the other, but Armenian Genocide article is completely devoted on the alleged genocide of 1915. Such material could be presented in an article called "Turkish-Armenian Relationships", in order to include both ASALA and other actions. It is also unethical to edit a page which is under protection. Thanks Caglarkoca 09:14, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

There is an article covering events after 1917 which includes ASALA. Those events should be included on that article. Fad (ix) 17:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Which article is it? If we have such an article, there is no need to insert those events here. Loss of Hrant Dink would go there. Thanks Caglarkoca 23:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I also stress on the edit done in this protected page (of course by an admin). It is totally unethical. Caglarkoca 23:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Caglarkoca, stow the "unethical" nonsense. Nobody is editing a protected page. This is the TALK section, and as such is EXACTLY where this sort of dialogue belongs.

To separate Armenian/Turkish relations from the genocide attempt is patently rediculous. The two are intrinsically linked, and will be for many generations to come. That happens when people try to exterminate a race. Those they miss are bound to have issue with it, and this is not a separate topic at all.

Much as I'm trying to avoid the soap box, I feel the need to remind that the Armenians and Turks lived side by side as neighbors for a very long time before this betrayal and attrocity occurred. Young Armenian men, feeling the urge to be soldiers as some always do, signed on with the Turkish army, even unto 1915. That, too, is Armenian/Turkish relations. But it's not a separate subject, and trying to diminish the ongoing conflict and/or the damage done to subsequent generations, this is tantamount to squelching history and turning a blind eye to an inconvenient truth. Had the Turks not performed those actions, there would be no Armenian/Turkish Relations, not any more than there would be a Guinean/Senegalese Relations article. Do you see a Turkish/Swedish Relations article? There's not even a Turkish/Greek Relations article. Why not, I ask, rhetorically. No, folks, sorry... it isn't a separate subject, and these actions - whether by Armenians or Turks, should not be swept under the carpet. --JT 08:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

ARGH! For the record, after becoming curious as to who this Caglarkoca is, I went to his page. He specifically has flags stating his opposition to the term Genocide, and also in favor of the recognition of Cypress as a Turkish place. In short, his protests that he has no opinion and is unfamiliar with the issues are pure BS. Nice try, but no cigar. --JT 09:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Is it also forbidden in Misplaced Pages, just like it is in France and Switzerland, to say that the alleged genocide hadn't happened? Is it also against laws of wikipedia to state that TRNC exists? You have inserted the link to there. It doesn't matter whether your edit is minor or major. That page was under protection that means that the page is not to be edited. Moreover, have ever claimed that I have a great knowledge on the issue? No, I don't I speak of the format, rather than the information. Do I have many mainspace edits in English wiki? No, I express my opinions in the talk pages. (I have translations from English to Turkish wiki) So why are you trying to insult me due to my opinions on the alleged genocide and cyprus? It is clear you don't know much about the Cyprus, i.e Atlilar Massacre which was the main reason of Turkish interference to the island. Or you don't know EOKA. I just write cyprus because you brought it here even though it is not relevant. I don't have anything else to say someone like you. Caglarkoca 09:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Outspoken Armenian/Turkish Journalist assasinated

I would like to add the summary of this event to the current status of the Armenian people. The intent isn't to enflame, but to chronical and recognize that the passions are still high enough to commit murder, even today.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/20/world/europe/20turkey.html_r=1&th=&oref=slogin&emc=th&pagewanted=print

PS: I just tried the link and find it isn't working properly as pasted here, so you will find the contents of the NY Times article at the end of this article. It remains their property and is NOT to be pasted into the article in its entirety, though it is lawful to summarize, paraphrase, etc., to convey the event.

As an aside, the way that this article and forum goes demonstrates exactly the way/nature/problem with this situation. The Turks continue to attempt to deny, just as does the Turkish government. ven those of us with both bloods in our veins are willing to admit, as does the rets of the world, that the genocide attempt occurred. Yet there are the handful who would deny even those facts. Why they feel compulsion to obsfucate the facts today, when they themselves could not be held culpable, is beyond me. Yet here is their record, chronicled on these pages and now in the real world newspapers, proof that they are willing to kill over it. Gratefully, there remain men such as this one:

"A bullet was fired at freedom of thought and democratic life in Turkey. Once again, dark hands have chosen our country and spilled blood in Istanbul to achieve their dark goals." RECEP TAYYIP ERDOGAN, Turkey’s prime minister, on the killing of an outspoken newspaper editor.

Please, Staff, facilitate the addition of this important event, that it isn't forgotten or swept under the carpet as another Armenian "myth". Thank you! --JT 16:48, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

NYTimes Article Removed. Sorry, but (as far as I know) just because this is a talk page, it doesn't mean it can ignore the law... yandman 09:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

A link to the article should be okay.--213.46.128.161 20:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Armenian Editor Is Slain in Turkey
By SEBNEM ARSU
Published: January 20, 2007
Hrant Dink, who was convicted last year of insulting the Turkish state, was assassinated outside his office.

I tried to reply above to the inappropriateness of such an addition when the full-protection is in place.. Baristarim 17:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

It is not in the least bit inappropriate. Rather, it demonstrates an aspect of the ongoing persecution, that it remains a hot topic nearly 100 years later, and chronicles the ongoing situation, so we do not forget. As I wrote you semi-privately, Baristarim, it is essential that we learn from our mistakes. That people think that this is all "a long time ago, in the past" is further proof that such additions are essential to a complete and accurate depiction, historical fact, and even to the ethical treatment of this subject. I'm not opposed to balance, but let's not brush such events under the carpet or lose track of them.--JT 08:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The question is not about the content, but editorial encyclopedic spirit: when an article is protected, it is not fair when an addition can be made by an editor and not the others - this goes for any article, not just this one. It will be unprotected - it is against Misplaced Pages policy to protect articles for more than a couple of weeks. There was a particular structural dispute that led to its protection and it should come out of protection soon enough. Many articles get protected from time to time in Wiki, and the normal editing process resumes when they become unprotected. Cheers! Baristarim 23:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Section removed

I have removed the section "Evidence against Armenian Genocide" . It was pov, original research and unreferenced. If any editor feels that part of the information needs to be put back in, it should be done in a neutral way, in the proper section and, most importantly, with references. Aecis 01:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Good call. Wasn't sure to laugh or cry reading that section of supposed "evidence". I suspect it was lifted from some Turkish child's requirred primary school paper denying the Armenian Genocide. Every line in that section is completley without merit - quite embarrasing really - but very typical of the low quality and unsupportablility of Turkish denial.--THOTH 04:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Note that the user in question, SharkSmile (talk · contribs), has now created the pov fork Evidence against Armenian Genocide. Aecis 13:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Moved to AfD so as to follow the procedure correctly. Follow the link to give your opinion. yandman 13:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Add some Armenian Genocide related websites to External Links

I ask to add these website links to External Links section of the article: http://www.armenian-genocide.org http://www.theforgotten.org http://egern.net (language: Armenian and English) http://genocide.ru (language: Russian) Egern.net 10:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

To Add: New documentary films on the Armenian Genocide

I think it would be nice to add the following recently debuted documentary films to the "Art" section:

1. The Genocide in Me by Informaction Films Inc. and Araz Artinian Productions (2005)
2. Screamers (2006)

Thanks. Serouj 23:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Deir ez-Zor

The main page for Dayr az-Zawr has been changed to Deir ez-Zor. If someone with editing access to this page could change the link in the "deportation" section that'd be great. Thanks. --Optimussven 16:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks for the notification. Aecis 18:24, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Lie of Omission (Dhimmi)

"However, unlike Muslim citizens, Armenians, Greeks, other Christians, Jews, and other minorities were subject to laws which gave them fewer legal rights and they were subject to numerous limitations in legal rights in the empire."

This ignores dhimmi status which included poll taxes and a prohibition against giving testimony in court (both of which the article implies are exclusive onuses on Armenians).

~~ Abra

Citations

I'd really like to add some citations to this article. (I purchased a subscription to the NYT archives without realizing that I was prohibited from editing the article.) Any chance I could add some citation and a little clarification, all of it wholly sourced to NYT? It's terribly unfortunate that the citations seem to rely more on Peter Balakian than the New York Times; the Times' documentation is readily available online for a modest fee, even back beyond the Bitlis massacre of 1894.

It's quite tragic to see this "controversial" issue so poorly sourced! As long as the page relies more on Armenian-authored texts than formal documentation of the outside objective world, it truly serves to grant Turkish revisionism that benefit of a doubt for which it is so desperate.DBaba 05:31, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi, DBada, thanks for your feedback, I also thank you for your contribution to the Adana massacre article. This article is in a very bad shape, but I don't think sourcing is the main problem. It is OK to quote Armenian scholars, more particularly when they use other sources, when the writter is in the west and that the work is criticised in peer reviewed publications. Anyway, I don't think relying mainly on newspaper articles is the right thing to do. Because newspapers mostly report an event in the instant it happens, while historic works uses sources to connect and present the overal picture of the event, something which we need here. Regards. Fad (ix) 19:47, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Very good point on the newspapers, as I've learned in struggling to assemble a timeline for the Adana massacre from contemporary New York Times reports.

I'm sorry to upset you Serouj, I didn't mean to sound provocative, only to note that the full force of historical documentation is conspicuously absent in this entry. I tend to suspect that it's not Dink, Pamuk, or your passion that best evidences the events of the past, but rather the incredibly vast body of documentation readily available to us all.DBaba 20:11, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Dbaba, I completely misinterpreted your comment and have retracted my statement. Sorry about that, and I agree that we do have a vast sea of documentation in support of the Armenian Genocide, and we need to include more first hand sources. We need a mechanism to add this information. Serouj 20:23, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Serouj, I was going to make the same critization about citations, then I saw these posts and your name in it, and hesisated to do so, since I was afraid to be misunderstood. Not to recall you bad memories, but I guess you had some losses that suffered in 1915, and therefore you're being very sensitive about the subject.

After Dink's assassination, I was discussing with a Turkish guy on the slogan saying "We are all Armenians". The guy said that he'd never ever say such thing, since it was him himself who were listening stories from his great-grandfather about every women in his town being raped by Armenians, regardless of age. I tried to explain the guy about how Armenians suffered, but apart from not being very willing to listen, the guy accused me of being a traitor. (He even called me Kirkor :), which you know is an Armenian name, and sounds a bit like my name). So please you do not act like he did, and try to keep your cool when discussing. there I begin :) (It's also interesting that taking a look at your user page, I have to tell you that we have a lot in common)

I personally am not in favor of having citations from www.armenica.org (Armenian POV) as well as www.ermenisorunu.gen.tr (Turkish POV). For example this concentration camp map. It shows it as Armenians are gathered in government established arbeit camps to be sent to "Deir ez-Zor", the main extermination center. Well, of course none of us today are to know the absolute truth about it, but even the most genocide supportive western academics (or the pro-genocide Turkish academics such as Taner Akçam and Halil Berktay) state that it was officially an order of deportation which secretly supported the perishing of Armenians en-route or not protecting them against the gangs attacked them.(or sometimes even encouriging the gangs to attack the Armenians) I know you're sensitive on this issue but I read quite a lot about this event past couple of months (since september I believe), and still reading on it, but it is nowhere else that I've seen any other sources that are mentioning about such arbeitcamps or extermination centers (This is why some of those academics call 1915 a massacre rather than genocide)

And if you are really willing to improve the article, but not to use it as AG propaganda, I believe that statements beging with "it is believed", "it is said" or such should be removed from the article.

One more time to mention, I respect the pain of everybody that has such a loss, including yours and the loss of my own people (regardless of numbers of casulties, condemning the people who gave statistical importance to the peoples pains) Regards, Ombudsee 15:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

We’ve been there already. If you check the footnotes, the work relating to the concentration camps is a French work on the concentration camps of the last century(but other works are also cited). Most work published relating to them are French or German, French because the Arabic deserts were on French mission, German because they were Ottoman ally. The term concentration camp was used back then. This is what the German consul Rossler's February 14, 1917 report wrote about them: "The entrance of these concentration camps could well bear the legend imprinted on the gates of Dante's hell 'Ye who enter here, abandon all hope.'" (A. A. Turkei 183/46, A8613, German consul Rossler's February 14, 1917 report). You relate to Akçam and Berktay, I don’t know if we have been reading the same stuff, but I propose you to read the most recent work written by Akçam, it basically say about the same thing, but concentrate more on the special organization, its structure and the way it accomplished what they were said to accomplish. So, I don’t see what AG propaganda you are talking about. I will also mind you, that Zurcher himself wrote a paper published in a work, which also included a paper on the concentration camps.

You tell Serouj that he is probably sensible about the topic because he lost a relative in 1915. Like I have been saying in the past, you will hardly find anyone in the Diaspora who hasn’t lost a relative, when I say this, I am not talking about: “My relative heard that all the people were raped etc.” But rather, that:”My relative was the only surviving, brothers and sisters lost, ending in a Syrian orphanage etc.”

So you don’t expect any Armenian to believe that guys story do you? How many Armenian properties were distributed among the local population or placed to sell for the fraction of the price? You don’t expect me or any Armenians to believe those who have ended up in those houses. Or, you don’t expect any such person saying: “The Armenians there were butchered, thrown out, and I am living in one of the property of one of those Armenians.” I have heard my share of history of those saying how Armenians have raped, and killed…, most of the time, a relative saying to his grandchild: “I have heard in my village Armenians have burned Muslims.” How often do you hear: “I was the only surviving,” or “My parents were killed, my sisters taken away.” Even in Turkey there were orphanages for those Armenians, Hilmar Kaiser had made his doctoral research on the forced assimilation or simply the destruction of the orphans. Fad (ix) 23:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Well I guess I was misunderstood. To clarify it, I have never ever underestimated how Armenians suffered. And the guy whom I argued with was not saying that he heard such a rumour. He said it was his grandfather who experienced it. You can check the previous discussions I've been into to see where I stand. See, I could have copy-pasted here stories of the Turkish population that suffered too. They are just a google-search away. Of course it's not that I'm claiming that they are all-true, but the way you're looking at the subject is as Turks are all born bloodthirsty, while all Armenians were turning-other-cheek victims.

As I stated before, the truth is somewhere in-between the scale. I know it's nowhere near the official Turkish thesis at all, but also I don't believe it's overlapping what armenica.org-type-of-sites shows it like.

About the Concentration camps; candidly it might be possible that I missed about them for all my last months of reading. But sincerely I didn't see or read anything about my understanding of concentration camps (Like the arbeitcamps of Nazi) And when it comes to Akçam; yes, we're reading the same stuff; no, he doesn't mention about the concentration camps. He says that Teşkilat-ı Mahsusa (that special organization you're talking about - Basically the Turkish CIA of the day) undertook the crimes of massacres en-route or provoked the Kurdish tribes to do so. And when it comes to the that German consel footnote, since armenica.org-type-of-sites are the only places to find these type of sources, I think the reliability is still disputed regardless who wrote it. For example in "Sarı Gelin" documentary (which is extremely Turkish POV by the way) it shows documents by a Russian comrade on how Armenians were not obeying the Russian orders in Kars by torturing the muslim population, a declaration printed in the Washington Post and the New York Times in 1985 by 70 American and Canadian academics on why the events were not Genocide or an Italian academics findings about mass Turkish graves in Bitlis. These documents can either be reliable or not - I'm not advocating those here and it's not the issue. But what I'm saying is just because somebody from Europe or US wrote that, it doesn't necesseraly make it a proof.

So back in the subject, can you provide some better and npov sources about those camps and their purposes for existance? If it's my ignorance then we can just add those to the article. See internet is the only source I can get to now, and I tried to look for them, but the only places I found the words "Armenian genocide" and "concentration camps" together are either the Armenian POV sites or open-contribution wiki-type structures, and even in those it doesn't go into any details about what was the purpose for these camps existance or how they were like. (Even in one of them it was briefly written that they were administered by Armenian officers)I need to do more research on it, but if you ask my opinion, they were the bogus gathering points created by the government to back-up the official deportation thesis, where Armenians perished because of terrible life conditions and Turkish official didn't care about it. Still as far as I see, it was nothing like forced labour or crematoriums of the Nazi Arbeitcamps (As you see I'm not defending anything, but I am against the distortion of the facts. If you can prove me wrong, please do so)

This applies for other stuff too that is written relying on the armenian-pov sites, and statements with beginnings "It is believed" and such.

Please believe in my good faith by the way. I am just trying to help this article to get better and be more balanced. Otherwise you know what's the difference it would make to me if there were no concentration camps map on the article. simply none. Actually in a way you can say that I'm even doing it due to my respect of Armenian victims in 1915. I believe that distorting the facts is being disrespectful to the death (which might be the case here or not). For example the other day I read a source that says Armenian casulties in 1915 were over 2 million. See, I hate to talk with numbers, since it doesn't matter if it was half a million Armenian perished or over 2 million (by which I mean it was a calamity anyways), but if people are pumping up the number of victims while even the official Armenian thesis is saying that it was around 1.5 million, there I sense a huge indignity.

As I always say, the truth is somewhere in between our official thesis (But definately closer to the Armenian side) Regards, Ombudsee 01:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Ombudsee - I do not question either your scincerity or your empathy with Armenian losses - however why is it that most all Turks - even yourself as example here - even when presented with direct citations from - in this instance - a German source - still attempt to claim that the information has Armenian bias...I just don't understand. Likewise, why, when presented with such overwhelming evidence do most Turks, such as yourself in this instance - still try to cling to this "Armenian viewpoint" or "Truth is in the middle" fiction when in fact it is the vast overwhelming majority of scholarship and the vast perponderance of corraborated eyewitness and documentary evidence that clearly supports the facts as you see them on most all serious Armenian websites and in articles such as this one. (I'm not discounting that there are websites and/or posters on Armenian webforums that present information and base opinions on less factual basis) but bottom line the history as presented in this article represents the historical facts. Isn't it about time that reasonably educated and aware Turks such as yourself stop questioning the fundemental truth of the Armenian Genocide and the fact that the evidence is more then sufficient to prove CUP/Ottoman Turkish genocidal intent - and that CUP cover stories and rational are what is fictional and unsupported by fact - and instead join with Armenians and non Armenian Western scholars in examining the historical record to better understand what occured - and not to attempt to dig up more strawman arguments which at best are tangental and evasive and do not address the most relevant and significant aspects of these events and of the motivations of those involved in perpetrating and carrying out the Genocide? Haven't Armenians and Turks spent far too much time arguing about something that is in fact already pretty much known and understood (by all but those who deny due to political/ethnic predetermination) - and couldn't this time and effort be better spent in learning and understanding the relevant facts, context and perspectives of those involved? IMO this article, and this issue in general, would be much more well served by honest effort towards discovery of the truth and not essentially dishonest denial of the obvious.--THOTH 06:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Ombudsee, I don’t think you have been misunderstood. The Armenian concentration camps were not in buildings, they were just places in desertic zones where Armenians were sent. (The 25 camps, relate to those places) And for the German consul, I brought that quote on the web, and you can use an interloan system to confirm it, I can tell you how to do it if you want. While the translation is not mine, it conforms with what Systran gave me. Many of the stuff used in some sites are actually things they have fished from my writings.

Regarding the Russians stuff, this too was covered here in the past. The one single most cited report from a Russian official, the official was an Azeri Tartar who was accused of cannonading Yerevan, the equivalents have never been found in Russian records. There was some pamphlet published prepared by the Turkish delegation, in French, and then published in English, which was containing the said Russian reports, the major translator of those stuff is an intelligence official of the Ottoman, who has already been found to distort Russian materials. The identification isn’t a Russian identification, but a collection now found in the Ottoman archive.

And no, I am not saying that Turks were all born bloodthirsty, while all Armenians are angels. In the same situation Armenians would have probably done the same. What I am saying is that Armenians were in no position to have done all what is reported they have done. And if you pay attention to the relevant materials, Armenians at that time, not only were not hiding their own crimes, but were proudly citing them and even exaggerating them, to show how small they were against the ‘’enemy’’ and were still able to have an upper hand. This is why they took the defence of Musa Dagh as main example. Anyway, if you want to discuss we can continue in your talkpage. Fad (ix) 16:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Well you know what, actually I am going to take a break from the virtual world for a while. I was spending way too much time here for the last week and plus there's so much going in my life now. Anyways, my point is (and was) that some parts in the article as I stated before seems a little... uhm... swaying? so maybe more work on them can be done (better citations, more detailed info or so...) It just happened that we were talking about that concentration camps in this case, but giving an example from the same section once more, more detailed information such as why those camps were there what was done there should also be added to article if they are going to be mentioned. I don't want to repeat the same stuff once more but as I said, in the present article it just blurrilly says that there were some concentration camps and the way it's shown in the map is like they were the main extermination centers. I don't say they weren't, maybe they were and I missed it for all of my past readings, but if that was the case please back it up with better and more solid citations. I'm trying to make constructive criticism, so you might even take it as I'm doing you a favor by showing that specific part of the article is not very-well propped up.

And THOTH, I really don't think I don't think I am questioning the fundemantel truth of the Armenian Genocide, do you? I think right now I'm pretty much in the encyclopedic details :) And since we are in a wikipedia, that's the place for that. Though I have to say I am sorry for the misconception of "truth is somewhere in the middle". It sounds like it's about equal distance from both of the official thesis. I meant to say the truth is somewhere in between them, definately way closer to Armenian thesis. Plus it sounds a little bit rebarbative (I got that word from the dictionary. don't know if it's the exact turkish equivalent. Just to clarify, it's not an offensive one :) ) to call me "a reasonably educated and aware Turk" just because I share similar beliefs to you rather than most Turkish.

About that Russian document stuff; see, that's exactly what I have been saying! -It doesn't mean that a foreign guy saying it makes it true- Well let's just assume that the German consel in the previous case was an anti-muslim German who wanted to prepare propaganda stuff against Turks using Armenians, like that Azeri-Tartar-Russian. It's not that I believe that it is so, but if you cite several different sources from severeal different background-people that will make the article more stable, and turn the claim-like structure of the existing one to the factual. Try to show the same doubts against the Armenian-thesis-supportive documents, as you do to the Turkish-thesis-supportive ones. I am trying so hard to chose my words while writing those. I hope once more that you will believe in my good faith (Hope I have not been speechifying you with all that sincerity thing :) )

Fad(ix), as you just said, and somebody else also mentioned it long before, I think that Armenian Genocide now became more of a political issue rather than an ethical one. I don't believe that even the ones in the government look at the issue like the official thesis does, but feel obligated to seem like it for various political reasons. (That's one of the reasons why politics disgust me)

Anyway, so to sum it up; I still think the article needs better citing. And farewell for a while. Happy editing :) Ombudsee 20:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Again Ombudsee - its not an "Armenian Thesis" - its what occured. Obviously more Armenians have researched, documented and presented these facts then others but this should be no surprise. I've met highly educated and aware Turks with which I have had some fundemental disagreements...but it would be rather difficult for me to lable any Turk "aware" or "educated" who outright denies the Armenian Genocide or attempts to claim it was something other then what it was - certainly not educated or aware when it comes to this issue. The evidence confirming the known facts of the Armenian Genocide are more then sufficiently corroborated for us (or anyone who bothers to honestly investigate a bit) to accept both the patterns and specific events and circumstances - including regarding this issue of concentration camps - whose existance is well known and documented in the literature. On a parting note (if indeed you are partin and actually I would hope that you are not) I would highly suggest that you read Akcam's latest book - A Shameful Act...and take the time to check his citations. I believe that you will find the read very enlightening. I suspect that you will apologize for the use of the term "truth is somewhere in the middle" as this is quite offensive - as it would be to say to a Jew in regards to the veracity of Holocaust denial arguments compared to the widely known and understood truth regarding the Holocaust. Akcam's book - as well as others - discuss and present in proper context and with due weight the various Armenian movements and actions of certain Armenians (political and violent) and such that are often used by Turks as a counter to Genocide "allegations" and these circumstances and events are not unkown to us nor do we or would we fail to acknowledge such things (good bad and ugly etc) in their proper context. Still it is impossible to legitimatly claim that Armenians "stabbed Turks in the back" or that the "deporation" was just that and that it was really justifyable in any way or that any of these positions and or actions held/commited by certain Armenians in any way can justify (or even necissarily can be said to have caused/directly spurred on) the brutal, utterly indefensible and unprecidented actions (deliberatly) taken by the CUP/Ottoman Turks against the Armenians who overwhelmingly were peaceful and loyal and innocent Ottoman citizens. And the results of the CUP/Ottoman Turkish actions are obvious and there can be no questioning their categorization as (deliberate and pre-planned) genocide. I urge you to read this book and other scholarly works on this issue and welcome your contributions to this article and to the further discussion of this issue/subject.--THOTH 23:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

My god....

I have never seen such horrifying images besides that of the Jewish Holocaust. Slowly starving a person to death is a cruel way to kill a person. The Turkish Government, whether it is Genocide or not, must officially recognise their crimes against humanity and apologize for the suffering they have caused to the Armenian people. Germany has apologized to the Jews, I say it is required of a modern nation to take in to thought of their crimes, and apologize. Odst 05:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I think what British ethnographer William Ramsay is not so much relevant neither for the armenian genocide nor for the status of the armenians in ottoman empire. He can only describe what he saw during late 19th century. At that time ottoman empire was quite an oppresive regime for all minorities in the empire beacuse of the fear of disintegration, thats true, but that doesnt reflect exactly centuries long ottoman rule of Armenians..i suggest that part to be deleted or put into another section.--laertes d 19:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• Unassessed Armenian articles
• Unknown-importance Armenian articles
• WikiProject Armenia articles
• B-Class Turkey articles
• High-importance Turkey articles
• All WikiProject Turkey pages
• Old requests for peer review
• Unassessed Disaster management articles
• Unknown-importance Disaster management articles