Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Tasc (talk | contribs) at 18:32, 26 March 2006 (→Please dont remove TAT link: cool down). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

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

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

Archives:

• Archive 1 (1068 kb/1.068mb)
• Archive 2 (108 kb)
• Archive 3 (648 kb)
• Archive 4 (103 kb)
• Archive 5 {113 kb)
• Archive 6 (327 kb)
• Archive 7 (225 kb)
• Fadix's Analysis: Fadix Analysis (575 kb)

• A Letter from The International Association of Genocide Scholars

some random convo

I'm stupid and i was very wrong in what i said. The armenian genocide DID OCCUR because there are photographs, life accounts of the tradegy, and much more. The reason as to why Armenians delete those pages of the opposing side and do not wish to have anyone read them is due to the fact that the Turkish government doesn't wish to confess their horrific acts upon the armenians is cause they don't want to pay billions of dollars to the victims families. Now take that into account opposers!

Indeed you are what you say you are for taking a one sided view and for suggesting that the opposing view should be censored, very unwiki behavior if you ask me!!! Stay ignorant, you are beyond hope!

We (Turks) never did a systematic cleaning like hitler to Armenians.If we did,we wouldnt still have so many people in Istanbul.I wonder why the Armenian government refuses to discuss the events in the Ottoman archives? Thats because they are scared that it will turn out not to be a genocide.Dont forget it was a war situation and nearly two million Turks were killed by Armenians.But too bad we dont have your Lobbying capacity. -Metb82

Taner Akçam has been convicted as a Terrorist in Turkey

And this needs to be metioned somewhere in the article! But again, the same hijackers are making it impossible to highlight this most important detail!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.186.224.151 (talk • contribs) 14:58, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

No, he was never charged for that, he was accused of publishing communist 'propaganda' during the years of the student movement that was wide spread in Europe. He was accused of being linked with pro-Soviet revolutionaries which is considered as against Ataturks National Assembly integrity. He was allowed back, not because his jailing time was expired, but rather because he was permitted back. He wasn't even considered dangerous, they kicked him in a primitive prison from which escaping wasn't that difficult. Do you realise that by slandering and lying about published authors you are commiting a legal offense? Fad (ix) 19:28, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Interesting, can you direct me to the source of your information? Do you have proof for your claims?

Which one? Also, isen't it amazing that I should be the one documenting that accusations against someone are unfounded when those accusations aren't even confirmed but comes from self-declared jurists, historians from know it all ultra nationalist grey wolf supporter chronicers which had they lived in any western countries they would not have a line published in the press. Fad (ix) 19:03, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Dont try to evade the question FADIX by turning it around, you deny that Akcam was convicted as a terrorist in Turkey so I ask you please to submit the source of your information!195.186.164.32 06:59, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

In the modern world, people are declared innocent until evidenced guilty. You claim he has been charged of terrorism, so prove it. Fad (ix) 17:10, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Innocent until proven guilty? Ha! You are charging Ottoman Turkey of genocide? how about applying the same presumption of innocence until proven guilty? I think its pretty clear now that your sources regarding Akcam are a figment of your imagination, a total fabrication which says something about your credibility!!!

Continue in this path(not maintaing civility) and your IPs might very well be blocked by an administrator.

As for the Ottoman guilt, after the military tribunal, after the large body of scholars and historians..., it is a cases where the guilt has been already been evidenced, it is to the minority view to convince and demonstrate that the large body of evidences brought are either forged or does not evidence genocide. You slander Akçam but you you don't even know under which penal code he was condemned neither those that assassinate his character like you. Fad (ix) 17:41, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Once again FADIX, you are evading the original question which was to provide proof for your reason as to why he was jailed which you obviously cannot produced because its yet another figment of your imagination! Stop trying to turn the question around to me, I notice that this is a tactic of yours to evade the question by either changing the topic or reformulating it so that its the other side that has to answer. I have better things to do than play games with you, so I suggest you behave in a more mature manner as a favor to everyone!

Excuse me - It is up to you to convince that Akcam is unworthy of being referenced and not the other way around. Additionally, I again reference "convicted criminals" Jesus Christ and Nelson Mandella who were arguably more active in revolutionary counter-state movements then Akcam and for which plenty of folks afterward regarded their views etc in spite of such "convictions". Your attempt to discredit Akcam is without substance and is typical of the manner that Turkish genocide apoligists make baseless accusations without substance. Please address the issues if indeed you have anything of substance to say. --THOTH 03:42, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Looks like the hijacking duo are back in business! Fine with me so long as you realize that this topic is going to remain controversial until you stop your campaign of misinformation. There is abolutely nothing wikified for this topic, no wonder its neutrality and accuracy is being contested!

Hahahaha - you're really funny...but you still have contributed anything of substance here. --THOTH 02:04, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Nor have you, except maybe a substantial amount of hot air! Im almost floating!!!

tallarmeniantale added back, I won't remove it anymore

I will just leave people judging for themselves if it should be removed or not.

Few examples(aomg MANY) which were reported being fabricated to the author.

"All Turkish children also should be killed as they form a danger to the Armenian nation"

I have pasted the pages from which this quote was said to come from, neither was it on the mentioned page, neither in all the two volumes of the work.

"Only 1,500 Turks remain in Van"

Does not exist in the Goshnak, to make matters worse, the Goshnak had not even published an issue at the date it is mentioned to come from. I have reported this too to Holdwater, the best he did is to add a note, but yet left it there.

"The Moslems who did not succeed in escaping were put to death..."

The city in question is Bitlis, the book from where it allegdly comes from, is Grace H. Knapp book The Tragedy of Bitlis, Fleming H. Revell Co., New York (1919). I don't need to add anything other than asking anyone to search the title on google to know of which tragedy in that city the book talks about.

"The Armenians did exterminate the entire Muslim population of Russian Armenia as Muslims were considered inferior to the Armenians by the prominent leaders of the Dashnaks."

This quote is a total fabrication brought in the newsgroup(like most Holdwater copypasted from) by our famous newsgroup spammer that just recently appeared to edit the article about him.

"In Soviet Armenia today there no longer exists a single Turkish soul."

It is said to come from a work published in 1920, neither the book exist, neither the author wrote something such. I don't even need to be more cvonvincing, 1920 uses of the word Soviet?

"The Armenians snap, or rather they eat, the hands that feed them"

This quote not only is racist, but Henry Morganthau never said such a thing. This quote has been fabricated by someone who called himself Ismet the Historian and participated in forums living in UK, he was a known jocker a poet and a painter, who was having pleasure to creat texts and attributing them to others. The irony is that the guy already recognized the genocide. I have reported this too to the author of tallarmeniantale, but he left it there.

Those are a few examples I have reported, and here I exclude the racistic remarks or the fact that various quotes he place there are racistic and comes from racists considering Armenians as parasits. One example is General Bronsart von Schellendorf, who defended Talaat and also one of those that initiated the deportation of the Armenians. This is what he had to say about the Armenians when his denial finally was not convincing anyone anymore.

“Namely, the Armenian is just like the Jew, a parasite outside the confines of his homeland, sucking off the marrow of the people of the host country. Year after year they abandon their native land—<nowiki>just</nowiki> like the Polish Jews who migrate to Germany—to engage in usurious activities. Hence the hatred which, in a medieval form, has unleashed itself against them as an unpleasant people, entailing their murder.” (A. A. Bonn. Goppert Papers (Nachlass), vol. VI, file 5 (files 1-Cool, p. 4, February 10,1919).

There are many such examples, or hos association of the Armenians with the NAZI, etc., I can also here provide other examples on how he slanders scholars and personally attack them under the protection of the proxy under which he hide himself.

When I have exposed the crebility of his site, he had nothing better to do than starting up rumors about me being Dadrian.

If such a site is credible enough here, perhaps I should also build a personal website in which I will also fabricate quotes and link it there in Misplaced Pages. And here I haven't even included 1/10 of the non-legit trash one could find in this site.

Like I said, if someone remove that site, it won't be me, I am starting to be very tired of POV pushing here in Misplaced Pages and being fingered as an Armenian editor to discredit my contribution. Fad (ix) 18:45, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

FADIX, how can anything you say be taken seriously? Thanks to you there are far more links supporting the genocide claims than those that oppose it. Whats absurd and funny is that if you go through the links one by one, you will notice that they all basically not only make the same claims, but the evidence that they present is identical. So what we have here is just a repetitious batch of links, but I guess thats part of your brain washing tactics! Another thing that I find very disturbing is that you refuse the addition of any mention of the fact that Taner Akçam, your darling genocide supporter, was convicted as a terrorist in Turkey back in the '70s for belonging to a group that even today is considered a terrorist organization by the EU! Not mentioning this is an attempt in censorship because the reader will look at his views in a different light if this information is presented beforehand. And dont even start with your accusations that its a TAT fabrication. His conviction and the reasons for it are historical facts! Just learn to live with it and stop distorting the truth!

There are sites which support the genocide and oppose that should be removed, because true many say the same things. But there is no question that more site supporting the genocide should be included, the article contains more space for the thesis that it did happen because this is the propertion in the academia, so it is logical that this same proportion is kept at the bottom. Also, while I don't like Akçams books, because of all the socialogical analysis mambo jumbo, still the information on terrorist activities are simple wrong. He was accused of publishing communist articles and being involved with Soviet supporters. This placed in context means nothing, he was in the wave of student movement that was also very wide spread in France and has influenced France politics since now and that period also concorded with the second phases, in which powerful syndicates were forming. The stories about Akçam being accused of terrorist activities have been not been recycled officially by the Turkish government, but rather some slanderer writers that not only self-proclame themselves as historians but jurist too. That TAT also recycle those materials, as well as the others slandering Bertkay and many others is just another indication of the non-legite way he run his own website. That he still keep the quotes I have shown him to be pure fabrication is evidence enought that the guy is using forgeries by knoweldge. Fad (ix) 20:04, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Fadix - what you call "socialogical analysis mambo jumbo" is groudbreaking analysis which all Armenians, Turks and others should heed. Ackam does the best job at articulating the mindsets of both perpetrators and deniers and provides vital context to what otherwise are just (as the prior commentator puts it) identicle facts and claims...well ye- for anyone who can read the eyewitness accounts and reiterations of such the facts are clear - what Ackam (and certainly some others) provide is context to allow a greater understanding concerning why it is so difficult for the Turks to come to terms with their past and how this mindset had its origins in the time where such draconionan and inhumane decisions were made to enact a "final solution" to what was percieved as a major hurdle for Turks to relise their national ambitions. Do not dismiss Ackam so lightly - his presentation and analysis are quite good and exceedingly worthwhile. I believe that only through analysis and presentation such as he has undertaken will Armenians and others be able to understand the Turkish intrgensience onthis issue and hopefully one day be able to come to some understanding in order to resolve the current schism of thought we find ourselves in. --THOTH 02:19, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Let say we disagree, I prefer Gocek and others that jump on concret research. Fad (ix) 19:00, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I sometimes wonder at your motivation or certainly your common sense to be continually casting doubt on the legitimate and worthwhile perspectives on this issue which happen to be other then your own. Both Akcam and Balikian - whom you've derided here and elsewhere - have both researched and presented important and relevant aspects to the history and analysis of the Armenian Genocide and their contributions are generally highly valued (Balikian while certainly no Genocide scholar per se has really done some great research and presentation of information in his "Burning Tigris" book). You're not doing anyone any favors by critiquing them here and your critique of Akcam certainly has no validity. You are not professionaly qualified to make the type of generalized disparaging commentary you do concerning the specifics and value of Akcam and his contributions so I suggest you refrain from doing so and just accept that he perhaps has a perspective and information that is valuable though perhaps does not fit into your strict "Engineering perspective" on this issue. I have an Anthropological and Sociological background as well as an appreciation for the political and social forces occuring within Turkish society (and historicaly) and I certainly appreciate the value of his input - as do many others. Likewise I find your obsessiveness with being "Wikipediacally correct" at the expense of a proper portrayal of the facts to be somewhat disconcerting. I have reviewd a great many Misplaced Pages articles concerning similar (potentially controversial historical) subjects (such as -once again - the Holocaust presentation - but many others as well...) - and I do not see the weasle wording and apoligism toward the denialist/revisionist viewpoint anywhere other then here. I suggest you consider the value you are providing (and the harm) by promoting that view. As an additional aside - for all those (Turks) who have clumsily attempted character assasination of Akcam - as if this somehow denigrates the value of his research and analysis - well consider that Jesus Christ was a convicted criminal (and revolutionary) as well - and somehow - his words/views are not denigrated for such and a great many people seem to take heed...and we might also consider the legitimacy and the motivations of those who have charged these men with crimes and consider that perhaps often - when we move into the realm of the political - such things can be manipulated and trumped up and certainly bear little on the reality of the legitimacy of the activities, message or integrity of the person accussed. Perhaps Nelson Mandella could be a more contemporary example...and there are many others besides.--THOTH 20:46, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to show me where I have discredited Akçam, I reflected my taste on the type of research I prefer. As for Balikian(its actually Balakian), I don't think that I as a scientist am any less qualified than a writer to give my opinion, I have the right to criticise any authors I do want to criticise and I believe that I have this right of opinion. And I have never underevaluated the role of sociology in the understanding of the genocide, but rather the way Akçam approch the issue which can not really be relevent for an encyclopedic article. And yeh, call this Wikipediacally correct for all I care. It amuses me to witness how I am discredited by Azeris editors as just another Armenian POV pusher and by others here because I believe that Turkish POV have some place. And you can provide examples of other articles, if other articles have POV in it, it doesn't justify to have POV in this one. Fad (ix) 22:59, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

General Writing Clean-up

I think that this article could use some general clean-up and re-wording to fix some confusing sentences and ideas. I noticed while reading this that the section titled "The Position of Turkey" (which has a few subtitles underneath) could you some major sentence restructuring. I have corrected a good amount of these, but certainly not all. Some of them also require the original source because I cannot determine what the meaning of the sentence is. --user:marioluigi123 04:39, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

FLAWED TITLE Even this article's title is flawed since the term is disputed and by no means is an established fact. It should say Claimed Armenian Genocide or not use the term genocide at all. It sounds very one sided almost like an armenian propaganda site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.189.161.150 (talk • contribs)

Er - no. --THOTH 17:13, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Er - YA! 83.78.101.7 18:57, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Please read Misplaced Pages:NPOV_tutorial#Article_names. --Army1987 11:26, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

POV Fork

Just a note to let people know a POV fork has appeared tonight, Armenian Genocide and position of Turkey. It needs to be checked out. Fadix, I know you were working on a similar article, maybe you'd like to merge your info in there. pschemp | talk 08:30, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I am presently overwhelmed, many major edits and creations of parallel articles, and fights between non registered IPs etc., that all this has appeared all together is somehow suspcious. Fad (ix) 18:58, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm just talking on behalf of myself. I do not belong to any conspricy group. I can always defend my editions, which 4 out of 5 is cosmetic anyhow. I worked on making the text to read effectively. I can also defend the seperation of Turkish arguments from the main article on the fact that whole rethoric is against laws in some EU countries.--Karabekir 20:49, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I disagree entirly, the article is not easier to read than before, to the contrary, many of your edits, I don't even understand what you mean, you add sentences that should entirly be reconstructed grammatically and you don't even justify any of your edits. This article is very controversial, in that that it has faced in the past many edit wars and we have agreed that major edits should be justified on the talk page and discussed. I do not oppose to have a section on the Turkish government position, to the contrary I was the one that proposed that, but Turkish government position doesn't mean your positions diguised as Turkish government positions. I have read all that there was to be read in French, English and even translated OCDed German works representing the Turkish government position and many of your edits claimed to be the Turkish government position are not to be found in any Turkish government publications. Example, is when you mistake the transit camps as concentration camps, or you bring the morphine injection which isen't addressed in any single Turkish publication that I am aware of. Sure, I do not claim that if I am not aware of something it must not exist, but I have read Gurun major work, Ataov publications, foreign ministry publications and various others including Halacoglu booklet and many of your edits are found nowhere so I requested you to cite them when I have removed them you reintroduced them without citing anything at all.

It is very interesting, that you can have access to documents on which official policy of the Republic of Turkey is "do not engage". "Do not engage" policy extends to print medium. With this policy they do not try to disprove any claims. If you have really access to these documents, you would recognize that they are nothing more than historical briefings, mainly explaining period. They generally have a secondary source (mostly TTK) which forms their official position. In this respect, I wonder where is the document that takes one-to-one approach. Some of your texts have very strong flavor of your own rethoric (I say baised). I do not see any wrong if someone uses their own rethoric within the sphare of the topic (or position in this case). In that sense, you need to be watchful when you claim righteousness, as sometimes your spicy words are just reflection of you.--tommiks 09:31, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

What you call my rhetorics are official positions which are found in various books and publications, and I have cited here various relevent works in this talk page and footnoted those that were the most controversials. Comming to the Turkish official positions, I have requested citing sources and this was the least I have requested, while I have presented positions which are found in publications, the current editor is meanly reading the article and answering to it in the Turkish government position section, this is not how it works, this is called original research and is against Misplaced Pages policies to include. And I have given some example there, also that you have no problem with those edits and even go on to criticise my participation I think would goes against you, given that not only this editor has added sentences that grammatically speaking are questionable, from which many are hard to understand, and others are simply his own thoughts and his own answer to the article he didn't understand.

About the TTK, I don't say they do not exist, I say that all those years I haven't read them, be it in Turkish I don't care I want to have them, I have friend s who would be glad to confirm what I have requested do exist, and if you have a priblem with my request to cite the source then I don't know what to say. Fad (ix) 16:50, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

And you also in your edits which you attribute to the Turkish government includes things that are actually answers to the rest of the article which you have misinterpreted possibly because of your limited understanding of English. For example, the claims of prisoners, or mass killings by biological or chimical methods that even Dadrian doesn't claim so in his specific publications about them. You have possibly read the footnote and answered to it, this can not be anymore attributed to the Turkish government position. Also, you can not just add in the Turkish government position here in this article and also reserve to it all by itself another article, this would be a misunderstanding of the policies here in Misplaced Pages. If you want to creat an article about the Turkish government position, you ought to also include in the same article the position of the critics, by doing what you are doing you are misleading readers by not only giving an entire article about the Turkish government, but also to add its views here in this very same article and creat a polarisation which is not the goal of the creation of articles about different positions.

Also, you have created an amount of other pages about chronology without prior discussion and they are copyvios, you can not just copypast from other websites like this, this is one of the most sacred policies here in Misplaced Pages. Of course, I could have worked to make of them non-copyvios, but given the speed with which you creat articles and edit this page without any summaries or justifications, it is impossible to follow you.

Lastly, better structured is a very relative term, I disagree for example that the article is more structured now than before, you should have discussed on the talk page, and asked for comments. For now, what I propose personally is to add the totallydisputed tag because many of the issues are not only neutrality issues but rather misrepresenttation of the positions. Fad (ix) 22:48, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I to am very busy at the moment - but I am just brimming with edit ideas for that article...lol. We'll see...I imagine I won't have to provide references to my comment eh - as there are none in that article...of course most of my input will be to point out the fact that the claims in the article are unfactual and reflect a very narrow POV and need to be presented as such...etc --THOTH 20:54, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

totallydisputed tag added

I had no choice other than adding the tag. Fad (ix) 04:15, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

IP 195.186.164.32 and tree revert rules

This user has done it again. Fad (ix) 17:44, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually its three revert rules, LOL

I'm glad to make you laught, if that could make you happy, fine. Fad (ix) 00:45, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

For the interest of the contributors of this article

Recently a new editor, Karabakir, has contributed a lot to this article, I admit that I was suspicious at first but I tried to assume good faith even after witnessing the obvious and since a member has warned me that Coolcat has accused another member who contribute in this article to be me under another alias I smelled that he(Coolcat) could attempt the similar. I only became convinced that Coolcat and Karabakir were the same person just after he has created the chronology pages because of the way that is particular to Coolcat, that he was creating tables with multiple colors etc., after examining Karabakir and Coolcat style and both contributions and the chronology pages I was convinced 100%. But I refrained myself to report him because I knew that those were serious charges and could lead to Coolcat blocking, I also knew that possibly another member witnssing the way the chronology pages were done will realise the same thing as me and this is why I suggested adding a deletion tag on those pages and that it could still maybe be possible to reasonate Coolcats alter ego. This was fruitless because when I have suggested this to Karabekir he answered me with an attack. People can read my talkpage for more information on this issue.

I am writting this to warn editors about who Karabkir is really and leave them judge what should be done with his future edits as it is obvious that for now he will be denying it, but probably not for too long as both contributors posting times matches, and that some of the expressions he uses are proper to Coolcat as well as the way he build time or chronology tables. Fad (ix) 00:31, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, do you actually have a life or do you just spend all your time on this wiki topic? Frankly im worried about you! 62.203.134.214 18:44, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your worrying, I'm fine thank you. :) You should take a look at my contributions first before claiming such, since you'll see I do have a life. ;) Fad (ix) 19:27, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Communitee attention, requesting a vote

I am proposing to revert the article back to what it was before Karabakir changes and moving his changes in the talk page for further discussion. I will accept the result of this poll.

Say either you agree or not. Fad (ix) 00:59, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree - revert it back - changes were not made with proper discussion. I catagorically reject the manner in which the so-called "Turkish position" has been included in this article as some kind of factual counter to the known and accepted facts concerning the Armenian Genocide. Again - this is entirely akin to the addition of Holocaust denial positions in the holocaust article presented as some kind of legitimate counter to facts concerning the Holocaust - which they are not and neither is the Turkish position factual in any measurable way. There is no sufficient academic weight in any of these arguments worth citing as such. The Turkish denials need to be presented for what they are - not as a counter to real known and truthful history. This is a disgrace. --THOTH 02:06, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

This poll is not about deleting the Turkish position section, but rather Karabekirs (Coolcat) major changes without any prior discussion. Fad (ix) 02:27, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I know this will be the unpopular opinion but... I would disagree for now. Here's my two cents - it seems to me that this contributor's first language is not English. I spent some time trying to correct the many grammar errors that he or she made. (And there's still more since there are a few sentences that I just can't make sense of) But instead of just deleting everything Karabekir added, I would say give the editor another couple weeks to clarify and edit through the parts he added. After that, if there are still major disputes, then consider revising/editing Karabekir's contributions. Shelby28 02:59, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Fadix when was the last time there was an edit to this article you didnt approve? You can't own articles you know. --Cool Cat 03:08, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

So you finally end up here, I thought you had no time and working on your new bot. As for your charges, had it been not of me, there still would be revert wars over this article and you know it, and that your claim fall short when someone check the history of this article to realise that I have been as fair as humanly possible and that there are non-Armenians here that would have opposed the inclusion of a section dedicated to the Turkish government position. Fad (ix) 03:17, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

The issue is not only grammar, I have requested him to cite his sources for many references, the user has created pages with copyvios, and refused to discuss his edits and when I have gone as to say that there is enought there to digest he jumped on me. There is also the fact that in the upcoming days I will submit an arbitration cases against him and Coolcat, since I have strong evidences that both are the same. Also, I have to be honnest with you too, that you had no any prior edit and registered just after Coolcat decided to contribute place a salty taste in my mouth, and more when you come in knowing the policies and have no any other contribution other than supporting Coolcat and just now correcting Karabekir and supporting him too, I will be requestion checking logs but I don't expect much since Coolcat would have used proxies regardless. Also, you must consider that it was already agreed here that major changes would require discussion before, had he been contributing in other articles with this inept English and without discussion his edits would have probably been sent on the discussion page. Fad (ix) 03:17, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok Fadix, now I'm offended. You're accusing me of being someone else? Does everyone who doesn't agree with you on everything must be the one and the same person? I thought I was being helpful by taking the time to make a bunch of grammar corrections to karabekir's somewhat hard to understand edits to the page. I actually thought it'd be easier that way for other people to read it and make further edits to it. Apperantly, now it means I must be him. Look, feel free to submit whatever arbitration cases you need to against whoever, not my problem. Maybe coolcat/karabekir are the same person - maybe they're not. I don't know. Heck, if it makes you feel better, include me too. My IP address will be coming from UCLA. So unless karabekir and coolcat are also UCLA students, hopefully that'll satisfy your curiosity that we're not all one and the same. Anyway, I never said you had to take my advice on anything. I simply wanted to offer my opinion as a Wiki user. And no, I don't know much about whatever history you and coolcat have over editing this article. Geez, just delete everything karabekir added if you really want to. But please don't make unfair accusations. Shelby28 05:46, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Excellent, I came here after you bothering me on my talk page. Your hostile attitude is apperantly annoying multiple users. --Cool Cat 03:19, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

No, only you under different aliases. Fad (ix) 03:25, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

One of the Checkuser operators, Fred Bauder, has examined edits by Karabekir and Cool Cat and determined that "it is extremely unlikely that Karabekir is Cool Cat." Fadix, I'm asking you to retract your accusations. --Tony Sidaway 04:29, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

No, I won't it is him, Tony, read this up. User_talk:Fred_Bauder#About_Coolcat

I have checked, checkuser is based on IP checks, while it might be a good tool for ignorant vandals, those like Coolcat who pretty much know how to use open proxies, there is no way to know. Before asking me to retract those accusations please check the first edits (more particularly the first) made by Karabekir. Also, Coolcat in the past in this very same talkpage has already said that if he would want to he could creat many aliases and no one would know, such a thing doesn't require a genious in computer programming. If you check the first edits of Karabekir, not only you will see that it is Coolcat, but you will see that as amasing as it was he wasn't the inept in English as when he started being implicated in the articles regarding the Armenian genocide. Not only I will not retract, but this time he has gone much too far and I will request a life ban on everything related to the Armenian cases, I have accumulated a bunch of evidences and will be presenting it on an arbitration cases. Fad (ix) 04:44, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Shelby28, I have not claimed that you were Coolcat, I said probably once but then changed it with possibly. There are many things happening in this page and to not see it would be to be blind. First an anonymous user under many IP addresses add continuisly TAT website which in the past Coolcat has attempted to add without success. And, there is you that log an account and post right after Coolcat request changes here supporting the adding of the POV tag, you have done nothing other than this in Misplaced Pages, of course other then re-adding it and nothing else, after over a week you stop doing anything you come in giving your 2 cent when I bring Karabekir issue and you go on correcting grammar while you had nothing to say when repeatdly I have requested in my edit summaries peoples attention..., you only decided to act after I have requested communities vote. I have also been warned by a user, and I won't reveal that users identity that Coolcat again was up to his tricks in the IRC after a time of silence when I haven't even heard of him.

What? now you are accusing me of being coolcat too? It seems that you are becoming paranoid FADIX, you should maybe take a long break to refresh your mind, its starting to work against you! And by the way, you have to admit that my english is better than that of Karabekir or coolcat, so your accusations would just not work, sorry! 62.203.134.214 18:52, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

No, for your information I do not believe you are Coolcat, but just that you have something to do with it, you don't smell Coolcat to me, you have a great sense of humour which is unproper to Coolcat. Being suspicious about someones involvement doesn't mean to think he is a sock of another user, but that that he might have something to do there in cooperation or taking advantages of. On the other hand, I do accuse Coolcat of being Karabekir. Fad (ix) 19:22, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

There has been various parallel articles created by Karabekir, they would just popup without any discussion, the guy that allegedly is inept in English would provide edit summaries the same exact way Coolcat does it, he would creat tables by using Coolcats codes, he will color them in Coolcats tastes, he will entirly rearange the Armenian genocide article nearly completly without any single previous discussion, and there is no one out there that has such particular behavior other than Coolcat... the reorganization of the article was one of the specific things that Coolcat has attempted previously and which ended up to be disruptive and one of the points of the arbitration.

Now, with the copyvio pages and the other parralel articles he has created would require hours of discussions if it was placed for deletion. Had he attempted to do that in any other controversial articles he would get his changes moved on the talk page.

Also, few questions, you are not forced to answer them. How about you know what is the arbitration process so perfectly, and all that there is about Misplaced Pages, when beside the fact that you have just appeared after Coolcat request and just now, you have no any single contribution on here. Like I said, you are not forced to answer me. Fad (ix) 17:20, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Well Fadix, you certainly had no trouble accusing me of being coolcat/karabekir on Fred's talk page. Look, you may be right and c/k are the same person, but you're really not helping your case by also accusing other people like me. And if they are the same and karabekir wrote all that stuff in poor English on purpose, then yes, I feel really dumb for taking the time to make grammar corrections. As for me, just because I haven't contributed to this page till February doesn't mean I haven't been a general Wiki reader for a long time. But no, I would never claim to have a "perfect" knowledge of any arbitration or rule process. Also, I have a million things going on in my life, and I only check this page occasionally. Does not coming here every day ban me from rendering my opinion? I am also hesistant to suggest or make edits to the content of this article rather than simple grammar edits, because of the automatic fights that many of the edits seem to trigger. My attempt is to maintain a neutral perspective on a topic that's interesting but that I don't have a stake in either way. I'm not in favor of going along with a majority of users simply because they're the majority - but prefer to remain as evenhanded as possible. That's why I'm hesistant to quickly remove npov tags, or to delete large portions of text without giving the editor a chance to make more edits/changes. If all of this makes you think I must be coolcat, well then there's really nothing more I can say.Shelby28 19:05, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Shelby28, if my memory doesn't fail me, when you have answered on Freds talk page, I was not directly accusing you, but saying that possibly you were him. I have used the word probably but retracted myself because it was as if I was convinced, I can't, you haven't posted that much for me to conclude anything in your cases. Also, you have not answered me, and I accept your silence but I will repeat. Given that you are a frequent viewer of Misplaced Pages, it still is misterious that you decided to contribute only after Coolcat brought again his cases in the talk page and that you have done nothing else. Fad (ix) 19:44, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Fadix, why is this so difficult for you to understand? I decided to contribute because the discussion of whether the article still needed the npov tag came up - and I felt that it still needed it. For the prior times I had viewed the article, I felt it had problems, but it still had the npov tag. So I decided not to get involved in the editing wars, thinking that the issues could eventually be sorted out. Then, in early February, I noticed the tag was removed, which I felt was in error. I didn't feel comfortable bringing up the topic myself - seeing as how anyone who readded the tag got it reverted - but when coolcat wrote on the discussion board, I spoke up to say that I also felt the article still needed it. Coolcat wasn't the only one who felt the article needed a tag - FrancisTyers and TonySidaway also agreed. Honestly how much more of an explanation do you need? And no, I still don't appreciate "possibly" being accused of being someone else. It's a serious accusation to make, one that you shouldn't have made lightly. Shelby28 21:04, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I strongly suppoort a revert back to the concensus version before Karabekirs (a.k.a Coolcat's) POV edits. Any major edits to an (apparently) controversial article like this needs to be discussed FIRST. -- Karl Meier 09:38, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Decision based on politics!

It is very, very, disappointing to witness a decision NOT on the bases of content but claims on one person (or personality). Even more disappointing that one person (can/or did NOT) work on impersonation. That is a label attached to that person, which if I were him, I do pursue on that label assigned. HOWEVER it is more disappointing to see a group of people who takes a decision on merits beyond the information added. I have checked other genocide related page (you know which page it is); the page reverted much more aligned with that page. There were more internal links created. And if you compare until Turkish section, text is mainly same. That is what worries me. Instead of working on content, reverting whole page brings questions on the pervious information. Do people who took such an action care questions like that? I do not think so. Also personally I do not know how you can verify the “person you took the decision against” (whoever-whatever), created more balanced text. I think those were the main issues you worked against. I hope, this behavior does not signal a new set of new ethics. It seems you all contained in your own worlds, such questions do not have any importance. (PS: Are you going to question my arguments based on my alias? How I said? Though decisions.) --OttomanReference 11:18, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

What is the difference on left and right? Help me out!

I HAD THE EDITS OF THE Karabekirs (a.k.a Coolcat's WHO HAS QUESTIONAL BEHAVIOURS) PUT SIDE BY SIDE. I HAVE A PROBLEM IN RECOGNIZING THE QUESTIONABLE IDEAS THAT HE INJECTED? I CAN CLEARLY SAY "HE IS NOT A VANDAL".--OttomanReference 14:19, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I think, there was a paragraf that moved to this section, as it is in 1894 it should under this section. He fixed a timeline problem. That is an improvemnt over old text. --OttomanReference 13:34, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I thought he had moved the Hamidian massacres section to previous heading. Being here again seems to be repetetion. However, he did not delete this and just work on what he had. There might be an editorial fight. Other side was not thinking, I guess--OttomanReference 13:34, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Hamidian massacres was a section, He highlighted that section specifically adding a link. It is an improvement, an event is brought forward.--OttomanReference 13:34, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

World War I For more background on this topic, see: Timeline of Armenian Genocide, World War I, Caucasus Campaign While it is believed by many that the Armenian genocide was conducted following the declaration of war on late October 1914, according to some sources, on February 1914, during a Turkish-German meeting, a proposition to evacuate the Ottoman Armenians was already put on table. Other pre-war anti-Armenian measures are reported. Donald Bloxham writes for example that in the summer of 1914, Armenian settlements on the Ottoman borders were plundered by Ottoman forces, while Johannes Lepsius in his collection of German records includes reports of excess against the Armenian population in late December 1914, soon after the war began. In 1914, the Ottoman government passed a new law to support the war effort that required all adult males - up to the age of forty-five - to either be recruited in the Ottoman army or to pay special fees in order to be excluded from service. As a result of this law, most able-bodied men left their homes, leaving only the women, children, and elderly in the Armenian communities. Most of the Armenian recruits were later executed or forced into hard labor work gangs. In the cities of Marash and Zeytoon, Armenian men were conscripted regardless of whether they paid the military tax or not. The Ottoman Empire entered into World War I on October 29, 1914. The Ottoman army, under their war minister Enver Pasha, soon attacked the Russian forces around the city of Kars, in what was then Russian territory. Early in 1915 the Turkish army was utterly defeated (at the Battle of Sarikamis) with massive loss of life. The Russian forces under General Yudenich counter-attacked into Turkish territory, where the Armenian and Muslim communities were interleaved. Taking advantage of common religion and the recent discomfort of the Armenian community in the Ottoman Empire, Russia promoted Armenian nationalism (there were also many Russian-Armenians in the Russian army). At the same time, some Armenians had begun advocating an independent state. Further information: Timeline of Armenian Genocide and Armenian Resistance force On March 2, the Armenians of Dörtyol were evacuated by Ottoman authorities. With Russian forces approaching Lake Van, the regional administrator ordered the execution of five Armenian leaders, and a revolt resulted in Van on April 20, against the Ottoman government and in favor of the Russians (according to Turkish sources). On the other hand, it is said that the governor of Van, Jevdet, under the pretext of preventing an Armenian rebellion, justified the attack on the town by the Ottoman army. Nogales for example, reported a plan set by Jevdet to kill every Armenian male in Van. The Russians finally captured Van in late May of 1915. In August the Russian army left and the Turks re-occupied Van. Then in September the Russians forced the Ottoman army out of Van for the second time. By the end of the war, the town of Van was empty and in ruins. Execution of the Genocide Main article: Armenian Genocide and Forced Deportations Enver Pasha's response to being decisively defeated at the Battle of Sarikamis was, in part, to blame the Armenians. He ordered that all Armenian recruits in the Ottoman forces be disarmed, demobilized and assigned to labor camps. Most of the Armenian recruits were either executed or turned into road laborers - few survived. Process and Camps of Deportations Main article: Timeline of Armenian Genocide and Forced Deportations File:Armeniangenocide starvedchildren.JPG On April 24 1915 (four days after the beginning of the troubles in Van), the Young Turk government arrested several hundred - or, according to Turkish records, over two thousand - Armenian intellectuals. It is believed that most of these were soon executed. This was quickly followed - May 25 1915 - by orders from Talat Pasha (Minister of the Interior) for the forced evacuation of hundreds of thousands - possibly over a million - Armenians from across all of Anatolia (except parts of the western coast) to Mesopotamia and what is today Syria. Many went to the Syrian town of Dayr az Zawr and the surrounding desert. The fact that the Turkish government ordered the evacuation of ethnic Armenians at this time is not in dispute. It is claimed, based on a good deal of anecdotal evidence, that the Ottoman government did not provide any facilities to care for the Armenians during their evacuation, nor when they arrived. The Ottoman troops escorting the Armenians have been implicated in not only allowed others to rob, kill and rape the Armenians, but often participated in these activities themselves. In any event, the foreseeable consequence of the government's decision to move the Armenians led to a significant number of deaths. It is believed that twenty-five major concentration camps existed, under the command of Şükrü Kaya, one of the right hands of Talat Pasha. Dayr az-Zawr 35°17′N 40°10′E / 35.283°N 40.167°E / 35.283; 40.167 Ra's Al Gul Bonzanti 37°25′N 34°52′E / 37.417°N 34.867°E / 37.417; 34.867 Mamoura Intili, Islahiye, Radjo, Katma, Karlik, Azaz, Akhterim, Mounboudji, Bab, Tefridje, Lale, Meskene, Sebil, Dipsi, Abouharar, Hamam, Sebka, Marat, Souvar, Hama, Homs Kahdem The majority of the camps were situated near the Iraqi and Syrian frontiers, and some were only temporary transit camps. Others are said to have been used only as temporary mass burial zones—such as Radjo, Katma, and Azaz—that were closed in Fall 1915. Some authors also maintain that the camps Lale, Tefridje, Dipsi, Del-El, and Ra's al-'Ain were built specifically for those who had a life expectancy of a few days. Like in the cases of the Jewish KAPOs in the concentration camps, the majority of the guards inside the camps were Armenians. Even though nearly all the camps, including all the major ones, were open air, the rest of the mass killings in other minor camps, was not limited to direct killings; but also to mass burning, poisoning and drowning. Results of Deportations File:Armeniangenocide starved.JPG The Ottoman government ordered the evacuation or deportation of many Armenians living in Anatolia, Syria, and Mesopotamia. In the city of Edessa (modern Şanlıurfa) the local Armenian population, worried about their fate, revolted (early 1916) against the Ottoman government and took control of the old city. Ottoman forces attacked the city and bombarded it with artillery but the Armenians resisted. The German General in command of the closest Ottoman army to the city, Baron von der Goltz, arrived and negotiated a deal with the Armenians. In exchange for an Armenian surrender and disarmament, the Ottoman government agreed not to deport them. However, the Ottoman government broke the terms of the agreement and did deport the Armenians. Nature of Deportations It is believed that over a million were deported. The word "deportation" could be considered as misleading (and some would prefer the word "relocation", as the former means banishment outside a country's borders; it is said that Japanese-Americans, for example, were not "deported" during World War II). Many historians believe that the evacuations were, in practice, a method of mass execution which led to the deaths of many of the Armenian population by forcing them to march endlessly through desert, without food or water or enough protection from local Kurdish or Turkish bandits, and that the members of the special organization were charged to escort the convoys (which meant their destruction). The Special Organization (Teşkilat-ı Mahsusa) File:Turkish-genocide-killed-more-than-one-and-a-half-million-Armenians.jpg Main article: Timeline of Armenian Genocide and Ottoman State Related Activities While there was an official 'special organization' founded in December 1911 by the Ottoman government, a second organization that participated in what led to the destruction of the Ottoman Armenian community was founded by the lttihad ve Terraki. This organization technically appeared in July 1914 and was supposed to differ from the one already existing in one important point; mostly according to the military court, it was meant to be a "government in a government" (needing no orders to act). Later in 1914, the Ottoman government decided to influence the direction the special organization was to take by releasing criminals from central prisons to be the central elements of this newly formed special organization. According to the Mazhar commissions attached to the tribunal as soon as November 1914, 124 criminals were released from Pimian prison. Many other releases followed; in Ankara a few months later, 49 criminals were released from its central prison. Little by little from the end of 1914 to the beginning of 1915, hundreds, then thousands of prisoners were freed to form the members of this organization. Later, they were charged to escort the convoys of Armenian deportees. Vehib, commander of the Ottoman third army, called those members of the special organization, the “butchers of the human species.” The organization was led by the Central Committee Members Doctor Nazim, Behaeddin Sakir, Atif Riza, and former Director of Public Security Aziz Bey. The headquarters of Behaeddin Sakir were in Erzurum, from where he directed the forces of the Eastern vilayets. Aziz, Atif and Nazim Beys operated in Istanbul, and their decisions were approved and implemented by Cevat Bey, the Military Governor of Istanbul. According to the same commissions and other records, the criminals were chosen by a process of selection. They had to be ruthless butchers to be selected as a member of the special organization. The Mazhar commission, during the military court, has provided some lists of those criminals. In one instance, of 65 criminals released, 50 were in prison for murder. Such a disproportionate ratio between those condemned for murder; and others imprisoned for minor crimes is reported to have been generalized. This selection process of criminals was, according to some researchers in the field of comparative genocide studies, who specialize in the Armenian cases, clearly indicative of the government's intention to commit mass murder of its Armenian population.

In the context of War in Eastern Ottoman Main article: Caucasus Campaign While it is believed by many that the Armenian genocide was conducted following the declaration of war on late October 1914, according to some sources, on February 1914, during a Turkish-German meeting, a proposition to evacuate the Ottoman Armenians was already put on table. Other pre-war anti-Armenian measures are reported. Donald Bloxham writes for example that in the summer of 1914, Armenian settlements on the Ottoman borders were plundered by Ottoman forces, while Johannes Lepsius in his collection of German records includes reports of excess against the Armenian population in late December 1914, soon after the war began. The Ottoman Empire entered into World War I on October 29, 1914. The Ottoman army, under their war minister Enver Pasha, soon attacked the Russian forces around the city of Kars, in what was then Russian territory. Early in 1915 the Turkish army was utterly defeated (at the Battle of Sarikamis) with massive loss of life. The Russian forces under General Yudenich counter-attacked into Turkish territory, where the Armenian and Muslim communities were interleaved. Taking advantage of common religion and the recent discomfort of the Armenian community in the Ottoman Empire, Russia promoted Armenian nationalism (there were also many Russian-Armenians in the Russian army). At the same time, some Armenians had begun advocating an independent state. On March 2, the Armenians of Dörtyol were evacuated by Ottoman authorities. With Russian forces approaching Lake Van, the regional administrator ordered the execution of five Armenian leaders, and a revolt resulted in Van on April 20, against the Ottoman government and in favor of the Russians (according to Turkish sources). On the other hand, it is said that the governor of Van, Jevdet, under the pretext of preventing an Armenian rebellion, justified the attack on the town by the Ottoman army. Nogales for example, reported a plan set by Jevdet to kill every Armenian male in Van. The Russians finally captured Van in late May of 1915. In August the Russian army left and the Turks re-occupied Van. Then in September the Russians forced the Ottoman army out of Van for the second time. By the end of the war, the town of Van was empty and in ruins. Genocide Enver Pasha's response to being decisively defeated at the Battle of Sarikamis was, in part, to blame the Armenians. He ordered that all Armenian recruits in the Ottoman forces be disarmed, demobilized and assigned to labor camps. Most of the Armenian recruits were either executed or turned into road laborers - few survived. On April 24 1915 (four days after the beginning of the troubles in Van), the Young Turk government arrested several hundred - or, according to Turkish records, over two thousand - Armenian intellectuals. It is believed that most of these were soon executed. This was quickly followed - May 25 1915 - by orders from Talat Pasha (Minister of the Interior) for the forced evacuation of hundreds of thousands - possibly over a million - Armenians from across all of Anatolia (except parts of the western coast) to Mesopotamia and what is today Syria. Many went to the Syrian town of Dayr az Zawr and the surrounding desert. The fact that the Turkish government ordered the evacuation of ethnic Armenians at this time is not in dispute. It is claimed, based on a good deal of anecdotal evidence, that the Ottoman government did not provide any facilities to care for the Armenians during their evacuation, nor when they arrived. The Ottoman troops escorting the Armenians have been implicated in not only allowed others to rob, kill and rape the Armenians, but often participated in these activities themselves. In any event, the foreseeable consequence of the government's decision to move the Armenians led to a significant number of deaths. File:Armeniangenocide starvedchildren.JPG The Ottoman government ordered the evacuation or deportation of many Armenians living in Anatolia, Syria, and Mesopotamia. In the city of Edessa (modern Şanlıurfa) the local Armenian population, worried about their fate, revolted (early 1916) against the Ottoman government and took control of the old city. Ottoman forces attacked the city and bombarded it with artillery but the Armenians resisted. The German General in command of the closest Ottoman army to the city, Baron von der Goltz, arrived and negotiated a deal with the Armenians. In exchange for an Armenian surrender and disarmament, the Ottoman government agreed not to deport them. However, the Ottoman government broke the terms of the agreement and did deport the Armenians. It is believed that over a million were deported. The word "deportation" could be considered as misleading (and some would prefer the word "relocation", as the former means banishment outside a country's borders; it is said that Japanese-Americans, for example, were not "deported" during World War II). Many historians believe that the evacuations were, in practice, a method of mass execution which led to the deaths of many of the Armenian population by forcing them to march endlessly through desert, without food or water or enough protection from local Kurdish or Turkish bandits, and that the members of the special organization were charged to escort the convoys (which meant their destruction). The Camps It is believed that twenty-five major concentration camps (Dayr az-Zawr, Ra's Al Gul, Bonzanti, Mamoura, Intili, Islahiye, Radjo, Katma, Karlik, Azaz, Akhterim, Mounboudji, Bab, Tefridje, Lale, Meskene, Sebil, Dipsi, Abouharar, Hamam, Sebka, Marat, Souvar, Hama, Homs and Kahdem) existed, under the command of Şükrü Kaya, one of the right hands of Talat Pasha. The majority of the camps were situated near the Iraqi and Syrian frontiers, and some were only temporary transit camps. Others are said to have been used only as temporary mass burial zones—such as Radjo, Katma, and Azaz—that were closed in Fall 1915. Some authors also maintain that the camps Lale, Tefridje, Dipsi, Del-El, and Ra's al-'Ain were built specifically for those who had a life expectancy of a few days. Like in the cases of the Jewish KAPOs in the concentration camps, the majority of the guards inside the camps were Armenians. Even though nearly all the camps, including all the major ones, were open air, the rest of the mass killings in other minor camps, was not limited to direct killings; but also to mass burning, poisoning and drowning. The Special Organization (Teşkilat-ı Mahsusa) File:Turkish-genocide-killed-more-than-one-and-a-half-million-Armenians.jpg While there was an official 'special organization' founded in December 1911 by the Ottoman government, a second organization that participated in what led to the destruction of the Ottoman Armenian community was founded by the lttihad ve Terraki. This organization technically appeared in July 1914 and was supposed to differ from the one already existing in one important point; mostly according to the military court, it was meant to be a "government in a government" (needing no orders to act). Later in 1914, the Ottoman government decided to influence the direction the special organization was to take by releasing criminals from central prisons to be the central elements of this newly formed special organization. According to the Mazhar commissions attached to the tribunal as soon as November 1914, 124 criminals were released from Pimian prison. Many other releases followed; in Ankara a few months later, 49 criminals were released from its central prison. Little by little from the end of 1914 to the beginning of 1915, hundreds, then thousands of prisoners were freed to form the members of this organization. Later, they were charged to escort the convoys of Armenian deportees. Vehib, commander of the Ottoman third army, called those members of the special organization, the “butchers of the human species.” The organization was led by the Central Committee Members Doctor Nazim, Behaeddin Sakir, Atif Riza, and former Director of Public Security Aziz Bey. The headquarters of Behaeddin Sakir were in Erzurum, from where he directed the forces of the Eastern vilayets. Aziz, Atif and Nazim Beys operated in Istanbul, and their decisions were approved and implemented by Cevat Bey, the Military Governor of Istanbul. According to the same commissions and other records, the criminals were chosen by a process of selection. They had to be ruthless butchers to be selected as a member of the special organization. The Mazhar commission, during the military court, has provided some lists of those criminals. In one instance, of 65 criminals released, 50 were in prison for murder. Such a disproportionate ratio between those condemned for murder; and others imprisoned for minor crimes is reported to have been generalized. This selection process of criminals was, according to some researchers in the field of comparative genocide studies, who specialize in the Armenian cases, clearly indicative of the government's intention to commit mass murder of its Armenian population.

He changed "In the context of War in Eastern Ottoman" to "World War I". I have worked with many books. My expert conclusion is that his title covers the same meaning with better wording. That is an improvement. --OttomanReference 13:45, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Genocite is about killing people in a systematic way. Camps are the mechs of SYSTEMIC KILLING. He has turned the camps into table and added links to the locations. I think that is improvement.--OttomanReference 13:34, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

He added an link for the use of DEPORTATIONS AS A METHOD OF GENOCIDE. How could you have a genocide page and not develop the idea of agenda of extermination. That is an improvemnt.--OttomanReference 13:34, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

He also added headings to point out specifics of the genocide. The specifics have been in the text, I did not catch any of his additions or deletions on the text. That is an improvement. There is no vandalization as far as the specifics of the process is considered.--OttomanReference 13:34, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

He added a very important section that was missing. These criminals tried twice not once. How could you miss that point.--OttomanReference 13:34, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

He also added a link to what happaned to the criminals. How could you have a genocide page and not mention about the CRIMINALS. IT DID NOT HAPPEN BY ALIENS, RIGHT. There are leaders. That information was missing. That is an improvemnt.--OttomanReference 13:34, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

If you are talking about an international tribunal, but not mention the agreement that initiates the process also explain who is responsible for the punishment, court, etc. was a big broblem. That is an improvemnt.--OttomanReference 13:34, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Summary:

Deletion of previous text: No deletions.

Addition of new text: The content is not irrelevant, covers a missing information. Reports the events with dates, gives references.

Addition of links: Relevant links. He also wikified the old text.

Added timelines: Timelines are collection of dates. You can not claim injection of ideas through timelines. For the claim of cpyvio, he specifically worked on classifying the dates on specific topics. These topics are relevant to the text. I have not seen a page that classified these dates as he worked. If you look at his editing history, you can see that he has his input, both on organization and classification. He also dropped remarks on dates that do not seem right to him. ALL THESE ACTIVITIES ARE GUNIEN AND “END PRODUCT” IS NOT COPY OF ANOTHER PAGE, BUT A UNIQUE SOURCE.

These are the edits that caused reaction.

One of the arguments were he was introducing new information; I have collected all his additions at the end. He first organized the information that was already in the page. He did not paste anything. Everything is developed through out time. --OttomanReference 19:05, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

This section is added to explain where the 10,000 comes from.--OttomanReference 19:05, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

These are his additions that are behind the whole discussion.--OttomanReference 19:05, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Turkish historians have been very slow on responding to Armenian positions, even though nearly a century passed after the events. In 1975, Sevket Sureyya Aydemir, Turkish historian and biographer, summarized the reasons of this delay. He said, "The best course, I believe, is not to dwell on this subject and allow both sides to forget (calm) this part of history." The same perspective was shared by the foreign ministery of Turkey at that time. With Kamuran Gurun for first time a period in Ottoman Empire began to be questioned by Republic of Turkey. Other Turkish institutions fallowed Kamuran Gurun. Zeki Kuneralp, a former ambassador, has a different explanation regarding why it took so much time to not publish the Ottoman records; he declared: The liabilities of not publishing the historical documents outweigh the advantages. The thesis brought by Armenian and foreign historians were then answered through analysis of casualties of deportations, and alleged casualties of inter ethnic fight, etc. Initial studies were basicly on aggregated data issues, through classifications and categorizations. These discussions have been moved to issues like why Armenian resistance force failed to support a sustainable Armenian state and Ottoman millitary problems under insurgency.	This is an introduction section to the authorities, who they are and where were they?
Turkish authorities hold the position that the Ottoman Empire did not hold as much control as the opposing parties claim. This inability was the main reason. Turkey claims that in 1915 there was only one railway that connects west-east and that the path of what it considers relocation was not a conspiracy to exterminate Armenians. Turkish authorities strongly reject claims that the locations of these camps are a result of a conspiracy to bury Armenians in deserts. They attribute the graves in these areas to difficulties of traveling under very hard conditions, and that the conditions of these camps reflected the dire condition of the Ottoman Empire. The Ottoman Empire was facing Gallipoli at the west, and the Caucasus Campaign at the east; Dayr az-Zawr is a district along the europhites and one of the unique places far away from any military activity; thus, Dayr az-Zawr's selection as a burying site in a deserted location is rejected by Turkey. Turkish authorities recall that WWI precipitated the end of the empire financially and economically. Turkish authorities also point out that the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire and the Balkanization process were at the same period. They state that claims based on non-existant Armenian unrest, or non-existant ethnical-religious conflicts among other sections, concluding everything as a state organized activity, are unconnected to historical facts. There was a political move toward creating a "Republic of Armenia" and without opening the archives of Armenia, the population moves can not be really constructed in both sides and the numbers that are presented would always be in error. Turkish authorities hold the position that historical conciliation would help political conciliation between the Turkish authorities and Armenia, even if there are other issues between the states. Political conciliation before the historical conciliation or using the genocide terminology in every aspect of the communications seems to be unrealistic. Further information: Balkanization	This is an summary of the political view, Balkanization and difficulties of migration perspectives have always been central position of the political arguments.
As a scholarly study area, the field is highly divided, as the camps on both side of this issue approach it very strongly. Turkish authorities constantly brought arguments related with single source (Ottoman or a Western) issues. They point out that without doing a triangulation, even if the facts were reported correctly, the conclusions drawn can be false. They constantly point out the general attitude Sick man of Europe of the time and how it deforms perceptions. They claim the conclusions reached toward genocide are highly biased. Turkish authorities also claim that without confirming from the Ottoman Archives, conclusions regarding the goals of emigration(deportation)/locations, and functions of what Turkish authorities call "so called concentration camps" can not reflect the truth. It is also possible to look at secondary sources in the Ottoman Archives of the period such as budget, allocations, decisions/reasons of requests. There are also personal records such as Mehmed Talat Pasha's personal notes. Some very "central" (most cited) sources are actively questioned on the basis that they do not include a single reference from the Ottoman Archives. Reverse enginering of activities aimed to provide evidence without covering opposing reasoning are questioned. There are many periphery central transmissions on how to deal with emerging issues, such as allocating more than 10% of the destination population and its consequances to the local economy. Arguments that use target locations to build genocide are regarded suspiciously, as is using mainly occupying force's sources of the period (British, French) on the basis of their Intelligence (information gathering) issues. There are concerns that these sources may promote propaganda. They bring up points on arguments that there is a secret arrangement which can be traced through mismatches on orders and distributions of the forced deportations without considering (or not checking) periphery central transmissions on how to deal with emerging issues are actively questioned. The conclusions presented by historians who have never used Ottoman Archives are approached with questions. Turkish authorities question the validity of the "Map of Genocide". They claim it contains factual problems, repeating the previous arguments that most of the data is not collaborated with Ottoman sources. Also, the map for "Centers of Massacre and Deportation", is visually a very sophisticated tool; however, the methodology used such as adding data from three different sources, (the data in these sources are also aggregate data), is only correct as the perception of the image. Its use as a source of validation among Western scholars has been questioned. Enver Zia Karal (Ankara University), Salahi Sonyel (British historian and public activist), Ismail Binark (Director of Ottoman archives, Ankara), Sinasi Orel (director of a much publicized project on declassifying documents on Ottoman Armenians), Kamuran Gurun (former diplomat), Mim Kemal Oke, Justin McCarthy, and others have cited the "Blue Book" by James Bryce and Arnold Toynbee and have insisted that it lacks credibility.	You can not talk about Ottoman Archives and claim you cover Turkish side. Why this section was missing in the first place? I belive this shows the attitude of the previous authors.
Arguments disputing the similarities to the Holocaust are as follows: (a) there is no record of (neither from origination archives nor from destination archives in Syria) an effort to develop systematic process and increasingly efficient means of killing, (b) no lists or other way of tracing to assemble and kill as many people as possible, (c) no resource allocation to exterminate Armenians (biological, chemical warefare allocations), and the use of morphine as mass termination agent is not accepted; conversely there was a constant increase in food and support expenses and these efforts continued after the end of deportations, (d) there is no recod of Armenians (through ethnic profiling) in forced deportations (emigration) being treated as prisoners, (e) the claims of prisoners were only the leaders of the Armenian militia, but did not extended to ; the size of the security force needed to develop these claims was beyond the power of Ottoman Empire during 1915, (f) there is no record of prisons designed, build for matching the claims of Holocaust and also any process of forced surrender of all personal property.	He just points to problems of the logic. I personally know that there were no prisons build or lists to trace the people. If there was a list, the solution to the "number of deaths" would be so simple. This section only builds what is obvious.

Summary:

Deletion of previous text: No deletions.

Addition of links: Relevant links. He also wikified the old text.

Addition of image: One, the original text of "tacir".

Addition of new text: The content he added is not irrelevant. He covers missing information. He specifically added information regarding Ottoman Archives and gave some reasons why it is important. Developed an introduction to one section. Gave more information regarding position of Yusuf Halacoglu. ALL THESE ACTIVITIES DO COVER VERY IMPORTANT POINTS WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN THERE.

Before making any points, please feel free to run a word count on the sections regarding Western and Armenian position vs Turkish government position AFTER Coolcat(AKA Karabekir) edits. Second of all, I will for now only comment the last part. Arguments disputing the similarities to the Holocaust are as follows: (a) there is no record of (neither from origination archives nor from destination archives in Syria) an effort to develop systematic process and increasingly efficient means of killing, (b) no lists or other way of tracing to assemble and kill as many people as possible, (c) no resource allocation to exterminate Armenians (biological, chemical warefare allocations), and the use of morphine as mass termination agent is not accepted; conversely there was a constant increase in food and support expenses and these efforts continued after the end of deportations, (d) there is no recod of Armenians (through ethnic profiling) in forced deportations (emigration) being treated as prisoners, (e) the claims of prisoners were only the leaders of the Armenian militia, but did not extended to ; the size of the security force needed to develop these claims was beyond the power of Ottoman Empire during 1915, (f) there is no record of prisons designed, build for matching the claims of Holocaust and also any process of forced surrender of all personal property.

The obvious that you claim is called original research, I have requested any books showing covering most of this above. And those claims are even disputed, where on the world is there A SINGLE BOOK published by those that deny the Armenian genocide that covers in one way or another morphine injections as way of killing, confirming OR denying it. Again, what you call as the obvious, IS what is called personal research. Amny examples such as thing, like the claim of the non-existance of lists, Armenian properties were listed with the name of those living their before the evacuation, Halacoglu claims alone contradict the claim of an absence of a list. The statistics placed on the table of Djemal of death figures was also claimed to originate from such lists. As for the prisoners claim, what book even covers this? Is the Armenians placed in labor works to complet the Baghdad Railroad not classified as prisoners and restricted to leave? Were they not civilians? Is this Railroad Armenians uses also NOT included in Ottoman records? Is it denied by anyone? There are such many examples. Or the claim of Armenians being displaced to constitute 10% of the population the rest to be moved, this also is controversial. How? Well, simply by the fact that German records exist about the same Ottoman order of 10% quota but insteed of the Ottoman records claiming that the rest to be moved, it is replaced by the equivalent word of 'exterminated'... VARIOUS such examples can be provided, examples of misrepresentation, not only of the rest but also Coolcats proper interpretations or rather beliefs passed as those of the Turkish government. Besides, there are much too details added, like about Halacoglu research, how this is even relevent to give anything more than few lines in the MAIN article about Halacoglu that for the west has simply published a tiny work a booklet in English language and which is even not notable. If we start adding as much space for Ataov, Gurun and others which I consider their contributions as more major we can very well screw the rest of the article.

My problem with the editions has nothing to do with Coolcat claims of me owning the article, but rather the hasty way all those materials were added without prior discussion, how the page was reorganized, how materials were misrepresented. And you should also consider that the proportion should be kept so your questioning of the prior contributors of the article for not placing anything about Ottoman records doesn't have much ground. It was planed, and it is obvious that it should have been added, but this should be added in the context of expending the article. And not to forget the hasty way how the parallel article has also been created about the Turkish government position, which basically is called 'Armenian relocation' and not this bogus unencyclopedic title.

If people start doing like Coolcat has done and adding and dumping materials without verification this article would just be a chaos, I always justify my major edits and write more in the talk pages than the tiny edits I make and give others the chance to give their feedbacks. Also, Coolcat changes were made about the same times as issues of POV were presented and asked to be corrected, thos issues should have been settled FIRST. Fad (ix) 19:55, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Communitee attention, requesting a vote

I want to open this question to vote:--OttomanReference 04:40, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

There is a very good work which was reverted. I believe big part of this work is positive (good organization and important editions). The author have improved the article. For a reason which is not related with the effort given; IT WOULD BE A MISTAKE to loose his/her additions, and more important is not to loose the "person" who has been trying to add to public system with issues unrelated to her/his efforts. For the couple of paragraphs which there has been objections, these points can be reflected before or after the text, or even re-worded. I believe letting this work washed away is something that should be avoided.

Everyone can guess my vote.--OttomanReference 04:40, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Well you got my attention... but what is the vote about? If you want to include other people from other parts of the Wiki, I suggest you list the argument (pro and contra) very clearly here, and then post a Request for comment. Good luck, The Minister of War 08:50, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I think he means he wants the administration to review the article for neutrality. He thinks that it isn't that bad and could be easily improved, but that some people are deliberately trying to keep the POV tag to suit their own positions. At least that's what I guess he's saying. John Smith's 12:20, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Karabekirs (a.k.a Coolcat's or ...) worked on both sides of the issue. Paragraphs that are claimed to be impartial belongs to the one sub-section, (Turkish side and holocoust as far as I can trace). Fadix can (will) work on them (which will be on three issues including the holocoust section). Fadix already responded to these arguments and he is supposed to be going to library to find counter arguments. To be realistic, these paragraphs will be deleted from the text, fadix is on them. I do think that anything that contradicts to the "title" of the article is already doomed to be destroyed. My personal view on a "genocide related issue" is that NPOV can not be claimed, or even become an argument, as there are countries who ban development of these positions. Karabekir specifically points out on one section (there are many sections he contributed) that "Not the sufferings but what is rejected is the label (systematicly destroying an ethnic/religious group) attached to it" (this is my interpretation). These are views of sides of the issue, anyway. However, there is a good deal of information added which was deleted (reverted) on the pretense of Fadix's understanding of issues. Fadix also claimed that Karabekirs timelines are copyvio. Karabekirs unique contribution on timelines comes from organization of the events on issues, such as forced deportations, military activities, etc. Dates and events are "dates and events", they can be find anywhere, all good historical books have them. Fadix by ignoring Karabekirs organizations, he claimed they are copyvio. That was a unique source of work. Like many other works, knowledge is a systematic activity. His activities are not vandalism, or anything else besides "decent work".--OttomanReference 13:43, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

• "Karabekirs (a.k.a Coolcat's or ...) additions on the main article should be reverted back. Revision of 07:12, 9 March 2006"

• "Karabekirs (a.k.a Coolcat's or ...) additions of timelines should be reverted back (undelete them). Let him contiue with the organization of the timelines."

• "Karabekirs (a.k.a Coolcat's or ...) controversial additions on Turkish side of the argument that brought whole issue (I support keeping them) should be left as it is. Let Fadix deal with them, not the whole community by voting."

I assume OttomanRef is referring mostly to this edit, in which case, I see his point. The addition of Kamuran Gurun seems noteworthy (is it verified?), so why not include it. The section on the Ottoman archives is not true however - certain aspects of the military archives are still closed. The Minister of War 16:34, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

You can add these points to the text, instead of getting rid of them.--OttomanReference 17:16, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

reverted edit, Instead of getting rid of all work, if there is some controversial issues are arised, they should be fixed from this point on.--OttomanReference 17:16, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

OttomanReference, I don't think you fully grasped why I had those problems with Karabekir edits.

I never said that I will be going to the library, in fact, Turkish sources are not acquired from my libraries, I have to place an order for interloaning, for this I should first know the book. This is not an easy task, it is not to me to try finding if those sources exist but rather to the one claiming that they do exist to show them to me. Also, where have I claimed to go to the library for the counter arguments? I am questioning the existing of some of the positions period, I am questioning the utility of this reorganization period, I also was requesting proper discussion in the talk page period. You like Coolcat are implying(him more directly, actually he is not implying he is saying it) that I own the article. But consider one thing please, this article can be as neutral as humanly possible it will still not satisfy those who deny the Armenian genocide. I even recieved emails in the past when the Turkish government section was added furious that I have accepted such a thing(something I have BTW proposed myself in the past, which Coolcat ignored because he wanted the entire article representing his view).

Now comming to the timeline, what you claim is simply untrue, there are much better worked around timelines, you will find various such timelines in books that are sourced and they still somehow slightly contradict with eachothers, others don't cover this, this or that while some do etc., Karabekir not only created this timeline with copyvio material, but he copypasted a copyrighted material, and like if it was not enought he started creating bunch of new articles and cut them. A timeline is not created this way, it requires gattering of different timelines a rewritting of the materials a sourcing of them. Yes, true many, and probably the majority of the timelines don't source each dates, but the large majority of articles are not prone to edit waring and people going as far as requesting the color of Talats or Envers pillow.

A last thing, I find that you have nothing to say about the fact that one add materials without proper discussion in a controversial article and that those that require its deletion before this discussion should be the one sourcing their decision. I required books, sources, Karabekir hasn't answered to any of the requests, you can't claim « just go and search those books in the library » and this is not about preparing arguments and counter arguments..., if there is no arguments and counter arguments found in works I just can't start writting something to answer an argument and than claim it is obvious, this is 'my obvious' but still it isen't in any published work.

PS: On what should we exactly vote one? Fad (ix) 17:39, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, it was decided to add back the POV tag until some issues are sorted out, why don't you help us Ottomanreference sorting those issues first(before Karabekir started editing), don't you think that we should first work on the foundation of the house before? Fad (ix) 17:44, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

• (a)Reverting of "decent work" should be banned (even if it does not fit your worldview). (b) Reverting of "vandalism" should be promoted. --OttomanReference 13:56, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

• This is in reference to what? El_C 16:31, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm reverting the text to version before the controversial editing began. Hope everything is cleared, and discussed.--OttomanReference 18:31, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

As it should be - reverted to a point prior to the changes. Coolcat is no newbie to this article to claim ignorance that there needs to be discussion prior to making such substansial changes to the article. He is entirely in the wrong for making such changes and they should be reverted. --THOTH 19:48, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

OttomanReference, if you feel upto the task of editing through what karabekir added - making it shorter, more accurate, and of course referenced - go for it. But maybe to reduce any controversy, perhaps you can post your version on the discussion section before adding it to the article. Shelby28 20:38, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Armenian name?

Hi, Nice article, but what is the Armenian name for the genocide? Diyako Talk + 12:17, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Also the article needs more and more images . but of course images in public domain.Diyako Talk + 12:26, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Weasel words

These need to go. See Misplaced Pages:Avoid weasel words.

• It is believed that
• Many historians believe that
• According to the same commissions and other records
• Genocide scholars answer to those claims, that
• Those who support the genocide theses state that
• Some academics point to
• There is a general agreement among Western historians that

- FrancisTyers 16:17, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

The next week I will have time addressing those issues, but of course others may start working on them. Fad (ix) 19:17, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Agree - at least in part. It is the use of some of these vaugue phrases in the article that causes much of my consternation regarding it. I do think they can be imporved - though it is effort of course (and much seems to fall on Fadix - as much of this article is the result of his dedicated work - but thank you for singling out some instances that perhaps we can work to improve.--THOTH 23:42, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I know it is a lot of work, but I think the article would really benefit from their removal. If we more properly source and attribute the claims/facts then there will be much less chance for people to come in and try and add the neutrality tag just for the sake of it, as we can point to the well referenced article. Especially considering the wideness of the acceptance of the thesis. - FrancisTyers 00:10, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I would love to do such - and perhaps I can make some attempt - however I have to admit - that once I get into something like this - my inate perfectionism takes over - and what I will do is rewrite the entire section - at the very least. I have a hard time just doing an insert edit if I don't feel the concepts are properly represented and information conveyed in a manner beffiting it. And I know this is how I will feel because I already have a difficult time just reading the article as it is in its current state. This is much the reason why I have hesitated making edits with out a mandate to do more then just make minor changes. I don't know if this makes sense - and it may seem rediculous to some - but its just my way - what can I say? --THOTH 00:56, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Why don't we work on this first? Fad (ix) 17:48, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Hope your good work will continue, but wait for the reversion of document back to the contrdictory editions.--OttomanReference 18:33, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Initiating the process of dispute resolution.

Karabekirs additions on the Turkish position is moved to the "Position of Turkey" page. Please give your position on its talk page, as soon as possible so that we can unite the section to the main page. --OttomanReference 20:47, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

First, the Turkish position page has entirly to be reorganised and changed, renamed. The Turkish position has a name, it is called 'Armenian relocation' 'Armenian Question' which is more general contain this position. The name it currently has is unencyclopedic, I doubt I would find any article titled: 'The creationists position of Evolution' it is simply 'Creationism' as article and those issues are covered in that article. Armenian relocation refers to what the Turkish government calls of the decision taken against the Armenians etc..., this was a proper article to work on, which BTW was proposed by myself. Also, that a text is unsourced, has to be reorganised and is very bad quality English in this article doesn't make it better in another.

Had you or another person(excluding Coolcat, since for me him being included in this in anyway anymore is out of question) proposed to help writing such a sourced article I would have been the first to help, but this was not what was done, multiple pages that had no reason to exist(like bunchs of pages on chronology) with childishtic color stupid and unencyclopedic layouts with copyvio materials in it, and another page which was basically dumping the material here on the other article, is not a good thing to do and should not be supported, this is unWiki and should be condemned. Try adding inept English hardly decyphrable in the Holocaust article, how much it is sourced it will still most certainly be moved to the talk page. Or try creating a page titled 'Iranian position on the Holocaust' and see how much it will make before being placed for deletion. The Turkish government postion has a place in the main article, and has a place on an 'Armenian relocation' article, new articles on a main issue are not created to polarise positions but rather expend them, this is the goal... if it wasn't that, we could start slicing every articles in two parts which should never be tolerated. Fad (ix) 21:44, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

thanks for everything --OttomanReference 22:00, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

First, somebody tagged the temporary page for deletion and told that these has to be performed under user page, so I created one. It is really not intended to be developed in two parts which should never be tolerated as you say. this is the page --OttomanReference 22:00, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Second, I itemized the claims (as far as I can) . If you pass over them and tell which ones needs to be droped or developed, that would be nice.--OttomanReference 22:00, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Third, Please do what ever is necessary to fit the timelines to your understanding. But I personally think they will be good tools if developed appropriately. --OttomanReference 22:00, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

The rest of the article is restored; I guess this would satisfy your position. I have no other solution in my mind that would make you totally happy right away. thanks.--OttomanReference 20:52, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I moved it here if you don't mind, I think this is relevent to here. I don't quite well understand what you mean by temporary page. Which page were you reffering to? About the changes, it should be started one by one, the Holocaust similairities section and differences is a field in itself and I will be citing many works on this, mainly the simlarities between the Armenian genocide and those maintaining the moderate functionalism theory of the holocaust, and the differences more particularly by those adhering to the string intentionalist position etc. Placing this on the Turkish government section and giving that much space is not really a good idea, because a section independent to it about the Holocaust and the Armenian genocide should be added regardless and the Turkish government uses of it should be referenced to one of the three views(three since there are among some that while maintaining strong intentionalism position of the Holocaust still seems to be between both positions when comparing rather than being in one pole(example, Yahuda Bauer). We can always refer to the the section presenting those that think both are very different rather than double writting it(since once this is created a doubling of the same material will happen). I don't want to be very technical there and this was why I tried to be as clear as possible and not go much into the details. I guess now you will understand why I opposed giving too much details in one part of the article and leave the others untouched. Definitly, Halacoglus work details added by Karabekir should go, there is no way to give one man that has contributed to near nothing in any Western languages(beside his famous book, which beside some National libraries like the Australian National library). Gurun is notable enought there and for sure should have a place there, how much, this is the question, bear in mind that there still is no place left to Western historians and this should also be expected in the same time.

For now, what I can propose, is not for you to work on another version, but rather filtrate what you can source and present them in here, those that you know true, present it too with a note that you request a citation, and I will try to find it, I have access to many databases with the permissions and I will run a search.

Comming to the chronology, like I already said, this is a very difficult task, it would require about 30 notes and maybe even more, at least one neutral sources for each dates and other references to other chronologies. There are some articles that I am afraid to jump in to write it, and this is one example of such an article. Fad (ix) 22:26, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh boy, it doesn't work, the titles don't match with the contents in some of the sections, the organization doesn't work, all seems to be much more chaotic and badly arranged, and notes don't match, while previously there was a date continiuty and some logical continuity, I'm lost with this now. I really think this reshaping has a lot to do with the problem Ottomanreference. Fad (ix) 23:15, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

How about we use this genocide article as a template for what can and should be presented concerning the Armenian Genocide. http://en.wikipedia.org/Holocaust I see no reason why there should be any difference in the presentation of facts and content and chronology and treatment of genocide denial between this article and the one that is atttempting to be put together here. As written this article on the Armenian Genocide is a disgrace. The fact that the Turkish denial is presented as some kind of legitimate position and that it takes more the half the article is a testiment to your complete and utter failure here Fadi. --THOTH 00:13, 11 March 2006 (UTC)" I would like to includ one more information which I've read recently at an internet site that says teh Turkish government had offered lots of money for an university which I don't remember exactlty which was, but the Turkish ask them to cover this part of the history in the ottaman empire for the students of history, I'm not really sure but whatever it is, it's a shame!

Thoth, can't be compared. While there aren't less people denying the Holocaust than the Armenian genocide, there are much more published materials maintaining the thesis that there was no Armenian genocide. Also, the article was not half Turkish government position prior to Karabekirs edits. Also, the Holocaust article has the support of many people knowing the subject very well, how many people can you find in Misplaced Pages who knows the Armenian genocide as much as those that knows the Holocaust that have contributed. Most that come here and want to contribute past what they read on the internet haven't probably read a single book about the subject, such people could not contribute much in the Holocaust article while they could here because there aren't much people knowing past that.

The Turkish government position must be known, it exist, they deny and have a position, that you delete that the position still exist and Misplaced Pages can not remove it. Misplaced Pages does not present the truth or a truth, it only present positions. And perhaps if you want this article being developped stop wasting my time and yours by always questioning it and telling how much less time you have to contribute you talk, talk and talk but yet have nothing to offer. True, if I wanted to, I would completly rewrite this article and it would get over 100 notes on the bottom with all the technicalities, but I am ALONE... this is not about me owning the article, it is really about me being alone there I had to work on it alone and CONSTANTLY being criticized by you or some others emailing me asking how come there is the Turkish position there slandering me calling me a traitor and on the other hand having nationalist POV pushers like Coolcat and his alias or some others just loging an account for that purpouses. I am really TIRED, if you think you can do better, if anyone think they can do better be it a Turk or anyone without starting an edit war, go ahead I will be the first LEAVING this article or any politically heated ones and go contribute in microscopy or immunology articles in which people will at least recognize my work far away this constant pressure of POV pushers in an stress free environment... but then if I do this, I won't care what happen here if you guys are on the middle of an edit waring emailing me asking me to do something about it.

So here, I'll leave the communittee decide if it is for the best interest of this article that I leave it at that and leave others contributing to it. Here is your chance to vote. From the beggining I haven't recieved any supports, in the past when Coolcat was crying and alerting the entire communittee about me, I had choosen a historian to mediate the article(an official mediator), but I guess even him thought it was much too heated a debate for him to even try mediating. Fad (ix) 02:34, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Your level of incivility has reached a new level. You are still acusing me of stuff even on conversations not about me... --Cool Cat 10:02, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Fadix - I would never suggest that you not contribute to this article. I fully respect your knowledge and amount of research you have done on this issue - however my critique stands. I think that you have lost sight of things a bit. While I understand your points concerning the numbers of highly informed people concerning the Holocaust and the contrast with the level of general ignorance concerning the Armenian Genocide - you and I are certainly not in this category (of ignorance) - so why can't we build an article that is accurate and fully supportable - instead of cowtowing to the lowest common denominator? You can see that if you give in an iota to deniers they will push beyond all reason and attempt to portray their position as legitimate as the truth - and it is not and it should never be allowed to be presented as such. I know that you have the knowledge and sources to discredit all of their unsubstantiated and refuted claims - so why play this game of allowing their filfth to be presented as anything other then it is? Did your Wikipedic correct - holier then thou posture buy you anything at all? I don't think so - we are right where we would have been - revert and contribution wise from the deniers - yet the real story of the Armenian Genocide has been allowed to be diluted and muddled. The Holocaust Misplaced Pages page suffers not this problem at all. It is thorough and inclusive of the facts. It lays out the evidence and the story. It conveys what occured. It makes no apologies to deniers except to treat them as they deserve and present them as such. Our genocide deserves no less. I really think you need to re-think the purpose of your contribution here. I know that you can do great things but I feel that you have been led astray by a twisted sort of Wikipedic idealism. And they are taking full advantage of it. Think what you are doing here and how this is turning out. Think where it will go. This is no time for weakness. --THOTH 23:06, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

The naming of a sub section.

There is a section under tribunal, which tells the story of the seven quilty people who had escaped from punishment. It was also known as "The Armenian Nuremburg". I would like your ideas about changing the page title from "Executors of the Armenian Genocide" to "The Armenian Nuremburg".--OttomanReference 05:50, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Neither is a good title. It should simply be titled something like - "the Post War Ottoman Trials of Turks accused of Crimes Against Humanity for their role in mass murder of Armenians and theft of their properties" - something of that sort that conveys exactly what occured and what we are referrening to. --THOTH 23:11, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

No I disagree with you THOTH, you have to realize that this topic has been and still is controversial and hotly debated, there is just not enough evidence to rule out withtout the slightest doubt that a genocide rather than a massacre did occur and as long as that is a fact, please stop spreading confusion on this topic, I am really getting tired of your disingenuous method of distorting the truth.

you are wrong. (and before someone edits this note that he has accused me of being a candiate for working for Stalin or the Third Reich - and I certainly find this highly slanderous and offensive) So - you remain unconvinced - obvioulsy it is your a priori view or a lack of ability to digest facts that causes such - or both. Check out "A Letter from The International Association of Genocide Scholars" At the top of this page - among other fully credible sources that fully confirm Genocide - without a doubt. Need I remind you that Ralph Lemkin based his notion of the word/concept of genocide specificaly based on the Armenian case - because there was no word avaialable to adequatly describe the horrors of it. The UN Permenant Peoples Tribunal (in 1984?) and the International Center for Transitional Justice (sponsored jointly by both the Armenian and Turkish side of TARC BTW) all found the charge of Genocide to be accurate and appropriate. Furthmore nearlly 100% of scholars that are not beholden to the Turkish Government in some way agree that the evidence fully supports a contention of Genocide. Likewise you clearly outright ignore the eyewitness evidence of the time - corroborated by a great number of mutiple sources - including from Turkey's ally Germany and from U.S. consuls stationed about the country who fully documented large scale atrocities. And of course - after all what has happened to the centuries old Armenian presence in Anatolia? Where did all of the people go? (BTW numbers of deaths are well documented). And why is it that to this day the Armenian Genocide is a taboo subject in Turkey - mention of which is a punishable offense - and why the need for your schools to teach distorted and obviously false history? --THOTH 14:55, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

You very well know that the accusations are based on three pillars, namely the military tribunals, the special organization and the evidence presented in the memoires of the fictious alcoholic gambler, Naim Bey. You also probably know that the foundation of these so called pillars are built on fault lines like those of San Andreas. So please redirect your aguments to the individuals who are the only ones eager to take you seriously. BTW, I find your calling me "pathetic one" extremely slanderous and highly offensive. I am in a state of shock right now!

Francis, why are you echoing out Guenther Lewy's words? Whoever said that the Armenian Genocide is based on just three pillars is plain stupid. Here, reputed Armenian Genocide scholar Vahakn Dadrian responds and debunks Lewy's claims that there we are basing the Genocide on only three columns of evidence. .--MarshallBagramyan 21:41, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

He wasn't. He was removing the personal attacks and rude comments from an anon IP that didn't want to sign himself. You can ignore such views. John Smith's 23:32, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Like most "views" called upon by apologists for the "Turkish perspective" Gunter Lewy's contentions are half baked and unsupported and again they rely on one with a clear agenda (who has activily oposed recognition of all other genocides save the Holocaust). Lewy's claim of 3 pillars is faulty and his level of research is incredibly lacking - another one who just cannot be taken seriously because the level of his "scholorship" is nil. And again - instead of addresssing real issues concerning/surrounding the Genocide he, in the typical Turkish view apologist manner - avoids discussion of the real issues and instead makes the issue about only the points he wants to make - regardless of them being at best tangental and at wost out and out false. --THOTH 12:41, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

and Dadrian should be taken seriously? Ha! Not only is he a bigot of the first order basing all his arguments exclusively from the Armenian perspective but, even more disturbingly, he is a first class racist as he tries to suggest in his work that in fact all Turks were evil and probably still are, a bit like Goldhagen with his famous "Hiter's willing executioners" publication. But ofcourse you are blind to all of this because you are light years away from being objective on this matter!

You are making us all laugh now. --THOTH 09:43, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Dadrian is a well known and reputed scholar and is considered to be perhaps the most knowledgable expert on the topic. He is embraced by the scholarly community and praised by academic professors for his pain-stakingly extensive scrutiny into the matter of the Genocide and events surrounding the 1915 Genocide, both before and after.

Lewy is just the exact opposite who recycles the Turkish government's garbage. And speaking of being blind, ever read Plato's Allegory of the Cove? Go for it, its fairly obvious who is blind here. --MarshallBagramyan 00:55, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Irrespective of how much of a scholar Dadrian may very well be, he is above all a bigot and a racist, so his reseach and conclusions are bound to be impacted by this obvious fact! And THOTH, im glad it makes you laugh, there is indeed a lot to laugh about!

Yes just as Pamuk is a self agrandizing know-nothing and Akcam is a commie-terrorist traitor. Yes of course in this context your baseless "charges" against Dadrian can be clearly seen for what they are. And again you spout away with no proof. Anonymous idiot. --THOTH 16:52, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually Pamuk is an awesome writer and he pointed out rightly that what occured was a massacre and not a genocide! Thanks for bringing this up! And please stop using foul language and insulting me or you will be banned!

Yes a massacre of over a million - didn't he say? Some massacre. And if indeed he had used the word Genocide - as a Turks living in Turkey - what may we suppose would have happened to him then? --THOTH 20:09, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely nothing, just like in his most recent trial where nothing happend!

Speaking of Lewy and Dadrian, I came across this small debate between them. Dadrian responds to Lewy's article by saying Lewy misunderstands/misinterprets - Lewy replies by naming other historians who say Dadrian has selective use of sources and misleading quotations. I'm guessing these two will never see eye to eye. http://www.meforum.org/article/895 Shelby28 17:36, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Not really much of a debate but thanks for providing the link. It is clear that it is Lewy who is being selective. He jumps on the fact that Kaiser has critiqued Dadrian - but we should consider the context of this critique - it is because Dadrian (correctly) accuses the germans of complicity in the Genocide (needs to be in the Wiki article at least in reference as it is an important element) - and Kaiser - being German - is upholding the German tradition of distancing itself from the genocide begun during the Genocide itself - even though there is overwhelming evidence (and not just from Dadrian) of significant German involvement. What is interesting is that Lewy also attempts to discount the claim if Genocide by mentioning Istanbul (then called Constantinople), Izmir (Smyrna) and Aleppo...well the primary reasons that Armenians were not totally cleared form these places is that prominant Germans - mainly Field Marshal Limon Von Sanders - prohibited it under severe German counter threat - and basically for no other reason were they saved. Germany in WWII did not have such a "senior partner" that could at least somewhat reign in their excessess - and neither did a substantsial international presence maintain itself in the capital throughout the period of war. Both the Ottomans and the Germans (in WWI) were concerned about outward appearences...(and much more could be said about this issue - for those who know thie facts of it - unlike Lewy).

And where Lewy otherwise critique's Dadrian - concerning the SO addmissions etc - well its pretty clear that in fact Dadrian is presenting and interpreting what is being said correctly. Such phrases as "Patriotic Duty" were euphamisms for massacre of civilians - specifically in light of the "Armenian Problem" that the CUP were boasting about solving. There are far too many CUP (and even SO) officials who have confessed to such in memoirs after WWI - in additin to the Ottoman Military Trial verdicts - where evidence and convictions were most clear and cannot really be desparaged by Lewy. After all - if the Turks managed to successfuly destroy the original minutes to these trials are they automatically let off the hook? Do the facts of the trials and the truth of events immediatly cease to be? No. These trials occured and evidence was provided and confessions were made and CUP Turks were found guilty. In fact the newspapers of the time abound in accounts of shame felt by the Turkish people for such things - as they were very well aware of the truth of these verdicts and knew what occured. Again the final evvidence was put foreward by Mr Tavitian in his comments on Lewy's article: "Genocides usually fail. There are Jews in Germany today, and Tutsis in Rwanda. But, Istanbul aside, there are no Armenians in Turkey. What happened, if not genocide?"--THOTH 18:40, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Regarding who is being selective, honestly, I don't know. Looking at Lewy's article, Dadrian's response, and Lewy's response back, both men make strong arguments. I don't think I'd be able to argue with either; that's why I just gave the link. I do agree with you that if there was German involvement of some sort, it should be mentioned in the article. Whether that's Kaiser's reason for questioning Dadrian's work, I'd be hesistant to say that, as I try not to look for ulterior motives.Shelby28 00:18, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Dadrian is the most respected scholar concerning the Armenian Genocide for very good reason. Obviously there can always be points of contention and interprational issues/disputes over specific issues and Dadrian is certainly not the sole source for knowledge and analysis of the Armenian Genocide. However Lewy is way out of his league in questioning Dadrian or Armenian Genocide scholarship in general and it shows. As for German involvement in the Armenian genocide it is both deep and wide. If you are interested in this issue I would recomend starting with a monogram by Hilmar Kiaser himself titled: Imperialism, Racism, and Development Therories - the Construction of a Dominant Paradigm on Ottoman Armenians - It very clearly lays out some German percieved economic competition with the Armenians and more specifically racial sterotyping of Armenians by the Germans and the influence these views had upon the impressionable Ottoman's who were currying for German favor and interested in blunting the growing economic and social presence of the Armenians. Others have detailed these German interests in eventually displacing Armenians as a prime motivator for their initial urging of Ottoman action against them and then unwillingness to stop the Turks even when they felt they had gone to far (were excessively brutal and efficient). Kaiser has also written a piece titled: The Bagdhdad Railway and the Armenian Genocide, 1915-1916 - A case study in German Resistance and Complicity where he recounts German efforts to save Armenian railway workers (aka Schindler) while at the same time other Germans more ingrained with the Ottoman political and military structure act to carry out the CUP wishes and have them destroyed - specifically implicatring German LtCol Bottrich who was associated with the Ottoman High Command with personally directing the "deporation" of Armenian railway workers who were witnessed being killed by Ottoman forces under the direction of Ataf Bey. Kaiser also provides some detailed descriptions of numerous concentration camps that were situated along the roadway and how many of these became death camps. These descriptions are taken from German eyewitness reports. Dadrian tends to take the claims of German complicity further - however even short of Dadrian's evidence there is plenty to implicate the Germans in significant aspects of participation in the Genocide. Likesise Germans were also instrumental in documenting and protesting the Genocide occuring and as has been discused preventing certain potential major actions such Marshal Liman Von Sanders actions to prevent the cleansing of Constantinople and Smyrna.--THOTH 04:44, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Ahem, Istanbul aside?? Isnt that enough of a proof that there was NO systematic centralized campaign to eradicate the Armenians? How very strange that the ones to have suffered were those that were closest to Russia. Doesnt take a rocket scientest to figure out what really happened. In any case THOTH, thru your constant bickering and senseless accusations you are in fact showing your true colors, your complete intolerance and deep hatred of Turks both in the past and today. Anything remotely Turkish seems to sicken you and that is very sad. Its time you learnt that hate will get you nowhere!

The entreties by Sanders to save the Armenians of Smyrna and Constantinople are well known as is the political consideration where many foreigners were present and the Turks wished to be able to claim that rumours of massacres in the countryside were just that and no more - offering "proof" of unmolested Armenians in Constantinople (though in fact this wasn't entirely true as I believe 20-40,000 Armenians were taken from Constantinople regardless). And likewise exterminations of Armenians did not occur only in the Eastern Vilyets but extended even into Thrace. Obviously the first locations cleared of Armenians were in the Eastern areas where they were more concentrated - for a variety of reasons - likley well beyond your ability to comprhend. BTW - I have likely been to far more places in Turkey then you have and have a number of very good Turkish friends. I have never hated Turks nor have I written anything that anyone could condone as hatred towards Turks. Your baseless accusations towards me are very much in line with your wild and unsupported claims denieing the Armenian Genocide. In neither case have you been able to bring a single fact to bear to support your rather humorous contentions and your rather humorous attempts at denial of the genocide and disparegement of my self. To call you pathetic is giving you undeserved credit. --THOTH 19:49, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I see that you are in the business of insulting those that dont agree with your opinions, how very sad. Maybe you have been to more places in TR than I ever will but I doubt very much that you do have a single Turkish friend. Your deep hatred towards Turks is evident in almost all your sentences as they all contain something negative about Turks. And now you even dare to claim that the Armenians in Istanbul were spared in order not to raise suspicion? That is probably one of the most ridiculous claims I have ever heard but its not surprising coming from you! I have Turkish Armenian friends and they all without exception feel embarrassed by the all the rubbish that is being spewed by the diaspora.The Turks have a fine tradition of hospitality that spans way back to the time of the Spanish inquisition whilst your fellow christian fanatics were busy burning their "infidels" on crosses. Armenians thrived under Ottoman rule, and they were treated extremely well. Like the Jews, they held positions of stature in the Ottoman government and elsewhere. And lets not forget the second world war where, whilst the barbaric Europeans, who only 60 years later claim the so called moral higher ground, where busy slaughtering Jews on almost evey part of the continent, whlst the Turks provided them with support and refuge and helped contribute to the creation of the Israeli state.

What sickens me is your systematic portrayel of Armenians as the poor innocent and peace loving ones who never stirred trouble and that of the evil Turks who are probably genetically predisposed to being evil and stirring trouble. You and your fellow haters should learn to be impartial for once. Take a step back and look at the bigger picture, or put things into context. Like Dadrian, you seem to excel in the art of selective facts!

Oh and by the way I am neither Turkish nor have I ever lived in Turkey, its just obvious to me that this whole finger pointing exercise is part of a wider campaign of discrediting the Turks and that is plain unjust in my books.

Well i am sorry for you that you choose to live in a fictional world where what you believe is your own myth and misunderstanding and not the truth. I have a number of good Turkish friends - have had so all of my life - and the Turks (CUP) did commit a genocide against the Armenians who were for all practicle purposes as innocent and undeserving of such as Jews living in Germany in the 1930s/40s were of being treated as they were by the Nazis. --THOTH 20:53, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh and lets see - you are neither Turkish nor have lived in Turkey - yet you have Turkish-Armenian friends who disparage Diasporan Armenians - something does not compute here - mr "I'm not Turkish" alter ego of OttomanResearch or whatever it is you call yourself when you attempt to make more sensicle posts. --THOTH 20:57, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

OttomanResearch? LOL, I didnt know I had an alter ego, hope he doesnt sound too much like me though, well I guess anything is fine as long as it doesnt sound like you! Oh and about the Turkish Armenian pals, I did forget to mention that I also do have many Turkish Turkish friends too, hope that it helps to compute a little more!

No it does not - not at all - I mean you say you are not Turkish and have never been there - yet you have Turkish-Armenian friends that you speak for - who are not of the Diaspora. Somewhere in this tale your logic has failed you - anonymous no-nothing non-Turk...--THOTH 22:03, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

And have never been there? Ha, now here is a typical example of your methods of distorting the truth, where did I say I had never been to Turkey? I said I had never lived there! Duhhhh! Do you comprehend the meaning of having lived somewhere? Hello??? does not compute Mr. trying hard to be a wise guy? And I dont need to justify or prove anything to you, if you dont want to believe me, thats your perogative. One thing is sure tho', you aint got no Turkish friends, boy!

Is this all you can do - banter about meaningless BS? You have no clue who I know or am friends with. But I'll wager plenty that your claim of having Turkish-Armenian friends who are disparaging of Diasporan Armenians is a made up one - not that it matters or is relevant to anything anyway - as nothing you have added is is any better then trolling. --THOTH 14:34, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

And that is why you have spent so much of your "precious" time responding to my posts? And what, do you really believe that Armenians living in Turkey today suck up to your diasporans? Think again!

Did you mean OttomanReference? LOL, come on, my english is better than his, dont you think so? I think you are exhibiting signs of psychosis and need to get yourself checked out urgently!

Why all this vale of anonymity? Its much simpler to create a Misplaced Pages account and debate rationally than it is to not sign off on your name. You're just a troll and your credibility is lacking, its as if you have something to hide.--MarshallBagramyan 21:18, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

So what you are saying is that if I created a username such as Einstein, that would restore my credibility? Wow, this is news to me! The reason why im anonymous is so that people like yourself wonder why, thanks for confirming!

Sites supporting genocide thesis is turning out to be a big joke

Its almost like a brainwashing session because most of them make the exact same arguments and use the exact same reference or factual material, I didnt realize that there was a race going on to come up with as many links as possible. This is turning out to be ridiculous!

Duh - that most make the "exact same arguments and use the exact same reference or factual material" shouldn't be a surprise as this is reporting of the facts as known. I would argue that there are a great many sources of information supporting these claims - and that they all reach the same conclusion should be of no surprise. Contrast the level of scholarship and reliance on mass numbers of eyewitness accounts between the sites that support the contention of Genocide and the rather flimsy and decietful - change the subject - sites that support the so-calle (joke) "Turkish thesis" and then we can talk about what may or may not be ridiculous.--THOTH 14:59, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

, I didnt know that the exercise here was one of repetition.

Interested folks should read the interchange that OttomanReference and I have had on my talk page this past day or so

He is claiming that Turks never killed any Armenians in 1915 - but it was entirely the other way around. He blames unamed Armenian nationalsits for killing Turks and carving a state out of Turkish lands and that this is the reason for the Turkish-Armenian animosity. I can hardly stop laughing at these contentions to post this - but I really think that this discussion is of interest for those attempting to understand the lengths of Turkish denial and unsupported "blame the victim" counterclaims made by Turkish apologists. BTW - though entire discussion is perhaps of interests - OttomenResearch's most dramatic claims are made in his last paragragh written before I posted this here.--THOTH 21:23, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:THOTH#Hi.21_I_saw_You_made_some_changes.21

And now he has just confirmed his belief in anti-Armenian racist propoganda (he claims that some anti-Armenian proverb that he does not quote is based upon truth - he repeats this over many posts - and that htis is somehow indicative of a true historical inditment of Armenians - that somehow proves the genocide never happened - this is what we are dealing with here...) and he posts such from a Turkish government site. And I (once) called him pathetic only in his anonymous guise...most sad --THOTH 21:59, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

With your words the Tashnaks are "I don't at all credit those who strove for independence during (mostly prior to) these times as being heros (THOTH)". If you do not know Armenian history and thousands who died to build First Republic of Armenia, OttomanReference can not help you. Also if there was fight, as you claim, between the Turks and Armenians and Turks were killing Armenians, that would be a civil war. I tried to tell you there was no civil war, but something else. That gets the CUP or Ottoman state out of hook from genocide claims, as the sole "aim to destroy a group, or society" would degrade under the conditions of civil war. Do you really want to claim that? I have a feeling THOTH needs to work on his concepts and his national history. You do not have to belive everything you read, but would it hurt you to take a look at the site? Be open minded!--OttomanReference 00:49, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

There was no "civil war" or nothing even close - the facts do not support your extreme propaganistic and discredited contentions which were not even remotely accepted as such even at the time - not even by allies of the Turks. Nuetral and even pro-Turkish eyewitness witnessed and reported round up and slaughter of defensless Armenian women and children. If you call this civil war then no wonder you can't understand the concept of Genocide. The very few incidents where Armenians resisted being taken away and slaughtered can in no way be considered revolt or civil war - only desperate self preservation. The few Armenians who ever preached or practiced/attempted acts which might be construed as seperatist or who commited vilence against Turks pales against the decades of extreme state sponsored violence commited against peaceful sedentary Armenian farmers, villagers and communities. The militaristic Ottoman State brought its full power against a religious-ethnic minority whom it viewed as being out of step with racist pan-Turkik doctrine pursued at the time and under cover of war moved to eliminate this population and suceeded in this effort. We call this genocide - not civil war - learn some of your own history before you flame away so imbicile like. And your tactic of attempting to use my words out of context to somehow prove (your) historical position is a testament to the weakness and unsupportability of your position in the first place. --THOTH 04:08, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Obviously the Dashnaks can be seen only as an utter failure for the Armenian people. They were duped and stabbed in the back by the CUP and they failed to prevent - through political means (as there was no military power to prevent) the Ottoman State from slaughtering perhaps 3/4 of all Anatolian Armenians who lived at the time. i cannot consider these people heros who played so blindly into the hands of the bloody racist CUP murderers. If your claim of civil war were true then why were no "deporatation" conveys ever interdicted and saved by one of the vast numbers of marrauding Armenian bandit forces allegedly criss crossing the Anatolian interior behind Ottoman lines while Ottoman forces were otherwise occupied and "deporation" convoys were so lightly protected by a few gendarmes each? eh? WHy? Because there were no such Armenian bandit forces fighting against the ottomans in Anatolia at this time - there was no civil war - your claims are false and highly insulting to the memories of those who suffered and lost their lives due to the genocidal policies of the CUP! --THOTH 04:15, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Because there were no such Armenian bandit forces fighting against the ottomans in Anatolia at this time Whether you believe it or not, there were Armenian groups that attacked to Turkis-Muslim citizens of Ottoman Empire. Since there are lots of sources which are provided by German, France, USA and Ottoman.--TuzsuzDeliBekir 19:16, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry you are incorect. The corraborated eyewitness sources of the time describe in great detail a systematic campaign to cleans Armenian populations from their traditional towns and villages and also describe terrible atrocities and mass murders of these people throughout the nation. There are very few reports (and none where these "deporations" were taking place) of any armed Armenian groups attacking Turks. This claim of Armenian bandit "forces" is entirely overblown and exists primarily in the minds of Turks. The claim of "civil war" or that Armenians (who were a powerless ethno-religiou minority people within the militaristic Ottoman Empire) were doing anything even remotely complementary towards Turks as what was being done to them is both patently false and patently absurd and has no basis in fact whatsoever. I will leave you with two quotes from prominant Turks of the period (just after) which should be taken to heart:

Prince Abdul Mecid (Heir to the Ottoman Throne) - I refer to those awful massacres. They are the greatest stain that has ever disgraced our nation and race. They were entirely the work of Talat and Enver. I heard some days before they began that they were intended. I went to Istanbul and insisted on seeing Enver. I asked him if it was true that they intended to recommence the massacres which had been our shame and disgrace under Abdul Hamid. The only reply I could get from him was: 'It is decided. It is the program.'

Mustafa Arif - Post War Minister of Interior (13 December 1918) Surely a few Armenians aided and abetted our enemy, and a few Armenian Deputies committed crimes against the Turkish nation... it is incumbent upon a government to pursue the guilty ones. Unfortunately, our wartime leaders, imbued with a spirit of brigandage, carried out the law of deportation in a manner that could surpass the proclivities of the most bloodthirsty bandits. They decided to exterminate the Armenians, and they did exterminate them.

--THOTH 15:11, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Anatolia 1915: Turks died, too

File:Armenianreal.gif

]

During World War 1, Anatolia, the Asiatic section of modern Turkey, was the scene of horrible acts of inhumanity between Armenians and Turks. For many decades, the history of the conflict between the Turks and the Armenians has primarily been written from the viewpoint of the Armenians but completely ignores the deaths of Turks.

The Armenian position has been effectively publicized. Every year in Congress, a group of representatives attempts to pass a bill that says the Turks were guilty of genocide. Newspapers feature articles on events in turkey in 1915 as if they were today's news. Over the weekend, the Public Broadcasting System carried the historical visions of Armenian producers all across the country.

NewYork Times 1914

It may not be fair to provide this source from The New York Times, as the newspaper has had a strong anti-Turkish bias which continues (at some level) to this day. However, during World War I, The New York Times (along with every other newspaper of the period... but The New York Times has the reputation of being America's most prestigious) printed a slew of fallacious articles... some because of readiness to totally believe the sources (who would doubt the word of missionaries?), and some because of deliberate wartime propaganda. Not to mention quite a number out of downright prejudice.

Certain Armenian web sites have an unending list of anti-Turkish newspaper accounts from this period. These can be trusted as far as they can be thrown, from an objective perspective.

The Armenian problem was put into agenda for the first time at the end of the Ottoman-Russian War dated 1877-1878. The Russians wanted the Ottomans to withdraw from the places they usurped, to give autonomy to the region or to accept the reform demand in favour of the Armenians. The Armenian Committees, who took courage from them, as a result of the provocations, rebelled several times primarily the Erzurum Rebellion in 1890 and then the Kumkapı Demonstration, city of Kayseri, city of Yozgat, city of Çorum and city of Merzifon Uprisal, Sason Rebellion, Bab-ı Ali Demonstration, city of Zeytun and city of Van Rebellion, Occupation of the Ottoman Bank, conspiracy attempt against Abdulhamit II (34th Ottoman Sultan) and Adana Rebellion in 1909. During these rebellions, in 1914 100 in Zeytun, in 1915 Van Uprisal 3000 and 1914 Muş Uprisal 20.000 Turkish people died as a result of the Armenian oppression. According to the Ottoman archives, 517.955 Turkish people were killed by Armenian Committees at the same term.

Stop lyng. These claims are unfounded distortions. You can't just say that there was such and such revolt in someplace in 1878 and thus claim that there was no Genocide if Armenians in 1915. First of all these so called "revolts" need to be presented in proper context if they are to be presented at all - and this includes the tens to hundreds of thousands of Armenians who were masscred during these times and in these places. Secondly these most absurd and impossible claims of 500,000+ Turks killed by Armenians - even 20,000 in Mus - are a joke - they are an insult to scholarship as they represent known proven fabrications and they are an insult to Armenians who were mass slaughtered during the Genocide for no reason other then that they were Armenians and were different and considered to be "other" and they are an insult to survivors of the Genocide and their decendends and they are an insult to all thinking and feeling people of the world. Those who propogate such lies and distortions are no better then the Irvings and the Fuarrisons who deny that the Holoaustr ever took place and who likewise come up with justifications for murderous events that they claim never happened. --THOTH 00:09, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi all, I put the artiles and links above. All of the sources were written by non-turkic people. So they are not neutral sources. As one of the sources says, and I strogly believe, All the things happened in Anatolia can be called inhumanity for both Turks and Armenians Armenian people have to accept that not only Anatolian-Armenians but also Turks were killed in Anatolia. --TuzsuzDeliBekir 16:48, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

hmmmm, again THOR decides to show his true colors, his utter contempt and hatred of Turks. If you ask him, not a single Turk was killed by Armenians. Put an end to your farcical comments, THOR, its embarrassing!

Tasc et al, stop reverting the TAT link

Its one of the most comprehensive sites rebutting the "genocide" view and it contains a lot of factual information. By removing it you are in fact preventing the reader from getting a fairer view of that tragic period of history!

I suspect that your concept concerning what is "fact" leaves much to be desired. That propoganistic hate site does not even merit in any insigifigant way any consideration as a scholarly or reputable source of any kind. It is a joke and an insult. It is telling that this is the best can you can rely on to support your very weak positions. --THOTH 00:13, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

That is why you are so obsessed by not having it mentioned? Because it provides very weak positions? Have you had a look at other sites like "armenian reality"? Its almost laughable, especially its english grammer but you dont seem to mind it!

Armenian reality is likewise an amatursih hate site and not worth any consideration as a source of ideas/positions...TAT is the same. --THOTH 14:58, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Memorial of the genocide in Rosario, Argentina

I have just discovered that the Armenian immigrant community of my hometown (Rosario, Argentina), erected a small monument in memory of the 90th anniversary of the beginning of the genocide (2005). I don't know if this is significant enough to merit inclusion in the article, but in any case I took 3 pictures: 1, 2, 3. These pictures have been uploaded to the Commons. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 03:20, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

maybe you can also tell us when someone erects a monument in their living room or out of sand on the beach, like that we can keep track! —This unsigned comment was added by 83.79.109.74 (talk • contribs) 02:25, 21 March 2006.

I see that common courtesy is not that common after all. I thought about recommending this page to some of the 120,000 Armenians that live here in Argentina , but I0ve reconsidered. Ah well. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 18:15, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment Pablo, apologies for the rude response, in all likeliness from a genocide denier and certainly not from an active contributor to the article. The page does tend to attract a lot of that manner of person. The active contributors would I'm sure be glad to hear of information relating to Argentina! :) - FrancisTyers 15:11, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Սահակ stop vandalising the article by systematically removing opposing links!

Fadix

Hi, I'm from Turkey and I have been following this article for quite some time and commend Fadix' fair and balanced participation. Can someone confirm he is an Armenian? I would like to know why has he been banned from here, if he has. Else, why doesn't he participate anymore? I also would like to have his email address as there are a few things I'd like to ask. Also, I know I should only write in English, but I want to say something in private to other Turks. Moderators, please tolerate this just this once.

Neden onu kovdurdunuz, eğer diğerleri onun yerini alırsa bizim yazdıklarımız muhtemelen silinecek ve Yahudi soykırımı makalesinde olduğu gibi diğer tarafların olmamasıyla soykırımı gerçek olarak kabul etmeyi sebep gösterecekler. Gerçekten Ermeni olduğundan emin miyiz, yoksa niye bizim tarafı da sunsun ki? Kendi tarafımızı bulundurmakta ısrar edersek başkaları bize karşı gelip siler ve herşeyimizi kaybederiz, en azından bu herif dengeli bir sunuşun garantisiydi.

you are mistaken, FADIX is no balanced contributer and BTW, he has not been banned, he has left this topic on his own free will as he mentioned somewhere above that he is fed up (of what, im not too certain).

For someone who known the history - in a great deal more detail - it is suprising that he pushes for such balance - as equal treatment is one thing - when the facts on opposite sides are more or less equal - but in this case this is quite far from the situation. The vast overwhelming evidence supports the known history of Genocide and the Turkish position is at best a smokescreen - a diversion from the relevant facts - and nothing that has been presented by the Turksih "side" even if factual (which it largely is not - certainly not in context) - still does not at all repudiate any claims of Genocide. There is just no way to discount the volumes of eyewitness testimony, confessions and convictions which paint the clear picture of a nation of innocent unarmed people being herded away and slaughtered with the survivors spread to the 4 winds never again to reinhabit their historical homeland - this is fact and the article must be most clear to present it as such and to properly account for the the significant events which occured that led to this and that encompassed this series of barbaric and horrific events. Likewise the maleable Turkish denial campaing that has shifted and morphed through the years must be presented for what it is - a shameful campaign to shield the criminals and distort the truth. Fadix must think that by presenting such drivel (as some legitimate counter argument) it will disinegrate of its own accord - lacking coherency and any real semblence to reality. Perhaps so - if only we could count on the readership of Misplaced Pages being aware of the facts and not susepitble to believing something that they read just because it is written somewhere - and this is the danger. In the meantime I have to demand that any "Turkish position" be subject to the same degree of verification and scrutiny as the international scholarly position has been. Claims that are based on a single (Turkish) source should not be allowable. Believe me - most of the Turkish claims are no more then this. They are both embarrasing and shameful to be included/considered as something of a kind of equal validity to the position known and accepted by historians and scholars worldwide - ri-iterated adn affirmed by governments and international bodies and known and accepted by all but a specifc ethnic population. Yes Fadix is balanced - what of it? The same could be said of someone who insists that the Nazi slanders against the Jews be included in the Holocaust article as a legitimate position that casts doubt on the historicity of the holocaust as we know it. Balanced? In a sense...accurate...not. --THOTH 03:30, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

THOR, you are at it again, spewing rubbish, it is absurd (do you know the meaning of this word?) to even suggest that the attacks were directed against an "innocent unarmed people", this is exactly the type of comment that will get you no where. I know its difficult for you to accept the fact that Turks did not just wake up one day and decide that it was a great day to slaughter Armenains. The Armenians were FAR from innocent and they were far from being unarmed. Those are just plain and simple lies and you know it. The truth of the matter is that imperial Russia who had its own designs on the Ottoman territories encouraged the Armenians to revolt, there is monumental proof of this but you just decide to turn a blind eye to because it does not suit your agenda. And to even suggest similarities with the Jewish holocaust is just plain shameful. Read the articles submitted to the Turkish hisotrical society and get a dose of reality!

. How many times do i need to reference the multitudes of corraborated eyewitness testimony as well as historical acceptance of the FACT that the Armenian people were mass slaughtered due to a state sponsored extermination campaign and that outside of only a handful of cases of resistance these people - over 1 million souls - and likely as many as 1.5 million - were led like sheep to the slaughter. Additionally nearly every aspect of the extermination campaign perpetrated against the Jews in WWII by the German Nazis has precedent in tyhe CUP/Ottoman/Turkish campaign against its Armenian population. Again - this is fact. It is accepted by historians and scholars and it is supported by the historical record from the times. It is the Turkish avoidance of these facts through unsubstantiated claims that is shameful here and I find it interesting that this is allowed to continue his entirely unsubstantiated acusations, personal attacks and name calling against myself and that he is allowed to defame and dishonor those killed so brutally. Is this what Misplaced Pages is all about? Where are all the now when real trash is being slung? --THOTH 21:07, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Something in your behavior does not compute, Mr. I am the exclusive source of all truth (LOL). Since you accuse me of being a troll and contributing nothing constructive, why dont you just ignore me because if you think for a second that you are going to succeed in brainwashing me with your trash, think again! The reason why this massacre is not called a "genocide" is certainly not because Turkey is resisting! Far from it! The cold war has been over for more than a decade, Turkey's strategic value has shrunk, wake up!!! The reason why it doesnt get universal acceptance is that everyone knows the accusations are highly controversial and, lets admit it, the Armenians have not been honest and impartial by focusing exclusively on their plight and ignoring the suffering of others. We can only move forward the day this stubborn attitude changes (which is probably never!)

. You have nothing to add here. There is no real controversy whatsoever. The facts are not disputed. In fact neither you nor anyone from the Turkish "side" can really dispute the known and documented facts nor the contention of Genocide. Just saying that you don't accept it isn't good enough. And I supose you could accuse the Jews of "focusing exclusively on their plight and ignoring the suffering of others" as well eh? --THOTH 14:57, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Please. Please. Please. Try and refrain from personal attacks and Please! Keep the discussion to the content of the article. THOTH, why don't you try editing the article instead of participating in political debates on the talk page? This is Misplaced Pages, not a bulletin board or forum. - FrancisTyers 15:06, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Francis I have alreay explained why I cannot just go in an edit a sentance here or there. The way I think is in concept blocks - and my personal standards are much higher then the quality level at which the article is written at - thus any editing I would perform would be major and not minor. I am not willing to do such in this current environoment - without a mandate to do so. I also am objecting to your editing of my contributions here. BS is not an insult - it is a qualitative assessment of the controbutions of the on these talk pages. He is the one who is continually insulting me and posting of no substance here. If you continue to edit my responses I intend to quit this page alltogether. --THOTH 15:19, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I am not attempting to make you leave altogether, but please read our policy on personal attacks, please try and remain civil. If you feel I am being uneven in my editing out of personal attacks, please draw it to my attention as you have done, look above I removed the offending comment. Why don't you work on your own copy of the article in your userspace and then suggest it for replacing the current article. You can copy this article in as a base, or just start from scratch. I did this and it worked out reasonably. - FrancisTyers 15:38, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Please dont remove TAT link

It contains many relevant arguments to counter the allegations. Granted, it is obviously pro Turkish and anti Armenian, but many of the pro genocide links are vehemently anti Turkish. Therefore its only fair to include this very important site in the form of a link. Leave it to the user to make up his or her opinion! Lutherian 19:17, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

The site is full of racist and fascist garbage, unless you condone such messages in this day and age you need to reconsider. Furthermore, in regards to your allegations about "anti-Turkish" sites, you need to provide examples if you want to be taken seriously.--Eupator 23:18, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I beg to differ, you cannot reject a site and accuse it as being racist and fascist because it rebutts the genocide allegations, that is totally absurd and nonsensical, unless you have another agenda in mind? Lutherian 05:46, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

You can beg to differ all you want, this site will never be permitted.

Racist? Why shall we not limit ourself to what the author of this site had to say about the Armenians in this very same Misplaced Pages?

“Like 99% of Armenians, he is only content in studying what his deceptive Armenian professors and the hypocritical genocide scholars tell him...”

“In typical Armenian style,”

“This is the job of Armenians: to knock down anything that debunks their big genocidal con job, regardless of the source, and of the truth.”

“the roots of the "genocide" lie in Armenian treachery.”

“Note Lynch is aware of the Armenian propensity for exaggeration,”

“Well in opposition to the Armenians who have gotten away with their lies and distortions for so long.”

“...then the exposure of the characterization of Armenians to lie and distort their religiously held genocidal obsession is not racism, but simply the truth.”

“If Fadix thinks it's racist to bring up this characteristic acknowledged since centuries ago by a Roman historian,...”

“Once again, Armenians love to charge others with the same unethical stunts Armenians are guilty of....”

“Every time the Armenians were granted further freedoms, they gained increasing license to practice their treachery...”

“This is the typical Armenian smear tactic going way back, perfected by many ethically-challenged Armenians like Vahan Cardashian.”

This sort of language is regurgitated in the site you find so much well source, not to ignore the non-existing quotes in that site which I have presented here to the author who still kept them after I have presented the original works and showed him how those said quotes don't exist.

I also quoted from this same site, comparing Armenians to the lowest form of life. Or how scholars are slandered the title of their works modified to make fun of them.

I already told, the day there would be sites titled: 'talljewishtales.com' in the Holocaust article is the day this infamous site will be included here. I have already debunked the author for the fraud he was here in Misplaced Pages and genocide.com which was hacked by Turks soon after it, the administrator had to reinstall the entire thing losing all the valuable information. You can always contact the administrator to request a confirmation.

In cases this is not enought for you, I can present other examples of racistic trash comming from that 'well-sourced' site.

We all have witnessed what happened to the Armenian genocide article, while administrators were silent, you aren't gonna fooling anyone by pretending to be a Lutherian, what is next? http://en.wikipedia.org/User:Fadix/evidencepage There are pages and pages to come, and I just hope that you aren't in the list. Truly yours Fad (ix) 07:14, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I really dont know who the hell you think you are to start accusing me of pretending things, is this what you do to those that dont agree with you? I realize that I touched a raw nerve, you sure seem have developed bitterness towards the author of the TAT sight for whatever reasons! I find that very revealing and at the same time wonder if its not you who is being extreme here! In any case I dont care what you think and I suggest that you stop insulting me as a fellow WP user.

By the way, you should stop trying to clump what happened to the Armenians with the Jewish holocaust. Its in bad taste and a very poor attempt to try to enhance the credibility of the Armenians! Lutherian 08:38, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeh, yeh, whatever you say.

This is exactly the point i have been trying to make, this topic is unfortunately hijacked by Armenian fanatics and their sympethizers! Its sickening!

You must be kidding right? TuzsuzDeliBekir just yesterday was exposed to have two other socks uncovered by an administrator, Tommiks has used two other socks himself to scrap this page http://en.wikipedia.org/User:Fadix/evidencepage there are this so-called Lutherian just like Shelby28 that land in this page and who is hardly credibile in his/her role. There are also the others who have registered in the Feb. 10s, during the same period that Coolcat after 4 months of silence from this page has decided to edit it. Hijacking you say? Besides, the last time I have checked, you too had a username registered, why don't you use it?

Would a website titled "Filfthy Lying Jews" be permitted as a reference in the Holocaust article? I think not. This is the same. It is a racist trash site that has zero scholarly value. It is highly insulting to Armenians and to the victims of the Armenian Genocide - those who survived such and those who are descended from survivors and particularly to the very many who were not so lucky - who lost their lives, their homes, their villages and the entirety of their existence. The Armenian Genocide is fact. That over 1 million Armenians were brutally slaughtered (and others - including young children -experienced inhuman deprivation) as part of a systemic state sponsored campaign to eliminate them is fact. Denying it is shameful and in some places criminal - as it should be. An ancient and unique nation and culture was estinguished from their ancestral lands. A modern, sedentary, peaceful, artistic and accomplished people were brutalized by the forces of evil - by racism and militarism - by leaders/people who placed no value on human life - and some of the descendents of these criminals wish to hide the fact that these crimes occured and deny and obscure history. Meanwhile they parrot the racist hateful fiction perpetrated by the criminal murderers against the victims and now apply such racism to their decsendents. Sites like TAT are the tools of their racist hatred. They are nothing more then this. --THOTH 08:26, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Please stop making comparisons with the Jewish holocaust, these are two separate issues so any comparison is unwarranted for 195.186.229.91 09:04, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I strognly agree with you. Jewish holocaust was planned by someone. But Armenian case is much more different than Jewish holocaust. Most of the German sources point that What happened to Armenians caused of environmental difficulties. A German officers said that most of Armenian died of illnesses. Unfortunately, Armenian sources always keep the truth and change them with their claims.--TuzsuzDeliBekir 09:41, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Thiese claims of yours are completely untrue fabrications. Please provide specific citations to such claims. BTW - thousands of eyewitness accounts - from German and American missionaries, german soldiers, German, Austrian and American Diplomatic officials, Turks, Armenians etc prove your claims false and otherwise. Armenians were rounded up and killed in a systematic fashion. Of course many did die of hunger and disease - but this was intentional - it was an efficient method of killing that wasted few bullets. Of course many Armenians were killed by other means that included bullets, by the sword, being set afire, drowned, and so on and so forth. All of these things are extremely well documented. Additionally nearly every killing method and a great deal of the circumstances and developing program that the nazis employed against the Jews had precedence with the CUP program against the Armenians. This is also fact - weather this makes you uncomfortable or not - it is truth. --THOTH 12:27, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

OK. I have lots of time to listen to you. Prove it. Show me how many of them died of illnesses, how many of them died of scarcity of food how many of them died of bullets and any other waepons and how many of them coverted to Islam. 2 million is such a big quantity, well I have to say that generally speaking the number is around 1 million. The number was doubled by Armenian scholars. I will be waiting for your answer. --TuzsuzDeliBekir 18:06, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Thor was it? I just cant believe how at ease you are with your malicious lies, you gotta be kidding or maybe its the prozac thats taking effect in making you so delusional, its amazing how readily you accuse the Turks of the most horrible acts, portraying them as probably the most evil people to ever set foot on this earth. Just shows how little you know of this great nation and people. Correct me if I am wrong, there were military tribunals set up to punish the CUP leaders with death sentances which were followed by your version of Nuremberg when your beloved diaspora sent their murderous thugs to assassinate the CUP leaders. As if that was not enough, your terrorist scum murdered totally innocent Turkish diplomats, women and children between the seventies and eighties. And now you are harrassing us with this genocide claim? What the hell do you want from us, why dont you just turn the page and move on? Do you actually believe that you will get a single inch of land or other form of compensation after all the bad will you have created? Your constant old hag whining is really giving me a headache, go get a life, find something constructive to do rather than moan all day! You are truly pathetic! An exmaple of failure in its extreme form!

I've removed the site because it is poor quality. I have also removed a number of pro-sites. The external links really need to be culled more completely. I may take this task on hand at some point in future, however in the meantime I would encourage people to remove low quality external links from either side. - FrancisTyers 12:47, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

The only sites that should remain are official websites, registered under a valid non-proxy name. Most 'pro' and 'anti' sites must go, I have already attempted this in the past but without support.

Is this a site where all those who dont like Turks get together? It sure seems to be the case. Lutherian 18:25, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

please, assume good faith. thanks, --tasc 18:32, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• Old requests for peer review