Talk:Armenian genocide/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

goodwin

"Who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?" - Adolf Hitler

Apprently, You guys...

Denial = Historical revisionism?

Further information: Denial of Armenian genocide points to Historical revisionism, I think this is only true if you believe that the armenian genecide occured (POV). I think the link should be removed.

Mdozturk 23:46, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

That's where the issue is covered in context. Its presence there appears to be uncontroversial, given that the section was added to the Negationism article almost six months ago. If you want to remove it, edit the Historical revisionism (negationism) article. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Need to discuss it?

I think, the so called Armanien Genocide advertisement and cartoon photos should be removed.Also how do you know that the photos which people are starving are related to those days and events? also, they should be removed. Hipatian

I wasn't going to participate in this discussion, but it clearly spun out of control. The remarks made on this talk page or extremely racist and both Armenians and Turks have shown a bad side of them here. It is a fact, howvere, that there WAS an Armenian genocide so I think we should leave this article intact and not vandalise it. A few Turks mentioned a Turkish genocide by Armenians. I haven't found any proof of that, but if it does exist I think we should have an article about it in the same way we have this article here. I suggest that people would leave that article alone and unvandalised like I would hope they would leave this one alone. Every culture and every race has done things they should be ashamed of. I'm of Hungarian extraction and the things we did in the past are nothing to be proud of either. I'm also Flemish and the things the Flemish did in the past are just as bad as all tese genocides. Weren't the crusades a Christian genocide of muslims? Didn't many Flemish people help the Germans in their cleansing during WW II? Didn't the Hungarians commit atrocities in the balkans during their reign there? I live in Ireland and during Ireland's struggle for independance a lot of bad things have happened on both sides, but the Irish seem to be open about that. Even the loyalists and nationalsists in the North of the country admit they have done terrible things to justify their cause. Let's settle this dispute and agree there was a genocide and, indeed, put a banner on top stating The neutrality of this article is to be disputed. If there is proof of the Turkish genocide please add this article. Please, Armenians leave that article alone. Please, Turks leave this article alone. Fight your wars on the talk pages, not by vandalising the articles. Jorgenpfhartogs 13:40, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• • Look buddy....for Armenians and yourself to make harsh accusations against Turks stating that there was genocide is complete nonsense!!! It seems to me you are another gullible person who believes their lies! Why would Turkey deny that they committed genocide? Look how well Germany is doing, look how well Serbs are doing after their genocide of Bosnian Muslims, and not to forget all other civilizations across the world! All these countries are doing wonderfully with genocides and all!! Turkey has no reason to deny a "genocide". They would be like "yeah, we did it" and life goes on. However, the ARMENIAN GENOCIDE NEVER HAPPENED!! That is the only reason why Turkey denies it!! It’s a simple as that! Turks will never accept anything that never happened! Armenians that died or were deported to other countries was because of their decision to attack Turkey in the first place, and when Turkey acted in retaliation of Armenian attacks, they can't get mad and declare "genocide". The world doesn't work that way.....There are wars, where there are the victors and losers. Armenians initiated a battle and lost! They must learn to accept that. They can't change history and hope that they'll get some Turkish land out of their genocide lies. If you support Armenians so much it would also seem to me that you would also say that any country protecting itself is committing genocide! So I guess the United States is committing genocide against Arabic people when it’s cracking down on Al-Qaeda members! Or better yet Bosnian Muslims and Croatians initiated genocide on Serbs, when Serbs were killing them! Yeah right buddy! You must be on crack! However, I do pity you or anyone else that believes there was a "genocide". Note: From now on any country defending itself will now be classified as genocide committers - ha ha! I will soon provide articles where Turks and Azerbaijanis were slaughtered by Armenians before Turkey finally retaliated! There one can read for themselves that defense it not classified as "genocide". Thank-you!

First of all, I think it's common practice to sign your accusations!!!

Second, I'm indeed one of the people that thinks there was a sort of ethnic cleansing during World War I in the Ottoman Empire and we have proof of that.

Third, of you will provide articles where Turks and Azerbaijanis were slaughtered by Armenians before Turkey finally retaliated I think they SHOULD be on Wikipedia, but I must say that I never heard of it, so I really, really would be interested in reading the. I'm not, I repeat NOT, against you and if there were instances where Turks and Azerbaijanis were slaughtered by Armenians before Turkey finally retaliated, I would be the first to read it.

Third, I know for a fact that during the Balkan wars, the Bosnian Muslims initiated a genocide on Serbs, just like the Serbs did on them, the Croats did on the Serbs, the Serbs on the Croats, the Croats on theBosnian Muslims, etc, etc. I was there and I know for a fact that everyone wanted their part of the country cleansed. I admire all people in Bosnia for living together in relative peace now after such atrocities were committed. Last year, I went backpacking through Hungary, Serbia, Bosnia and Croatia with a group consisting of me, Hungarians, Bosnian Muslims, Serbs and Croats and we are still the closest group of friends you'll ever meet! We did face some hostility and were stripped naked at almost every checkpost we encountered, but the general consencus was that people found us very brave for travelling together.

Turks and Aremnians always throughout their history (dating back to Pre-Alexander eras) and I think this will never change. Azerbeidjans also don't have a good history with Ottomans although they are considered a Turk people.

Fourth, I also do believe that the United States and Israel are cleansing the middle East. They want the middle east organised in a way that fits their policies. An oil-dependant economy like the US needs the Middle East. However, does not do what they want will be attacked and I wouldn't be surprised if the US will attack Turley in the future. They attacked Iraq claiming they would like to protect the Kurdish minority there, so why not use the same reason for Turkey. I'm not aware of the current situation of the Kurds in Turkey but I believe the region is a lot quieter after the conviction of Öcalan. It don't want to go into a discussion about the Kurds, I simply don't know enough about it.

Fifth, the Ottoman empire did commit atrocities all over the empire, but so did all empires of that time. The French, Dutch, Brits, etc. were the same. Look at what the Brits did in Ireland and the Turks will be excused for what happened in the Ottoman empire. Being of Transylvanian ancestry I should have a mixed feeling about Turks and Slavs but I don't. My grandfather fled for his live after Romania annexed Transylvania, but I have no grudge against Romanians. My forfathers foughts against the Turks, but I have no grudge against the. We, Hungarians, treated Serbs very badly, but I've never met one that hates Hungarians.

Conclusion: Let's stick to the facts and rely on proof and let readers of the article decide whether they believe events in Armenia should be called a genocide. If Armenians committed atrocities please write this down with the proper proof and we'll be happy to read about it.

Jorgenpfhartogs 17:38, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

• • Jorgenpfhartogs: You totally went off topic! Your comments made me laugh however - thanks! I liked the one about Bosnians and Croatians intiating genocide on Serbs. Thats hilarious! You really show your "intellectual" level. Anyway back to the topic. Firstly I will define genocide because Armenians and their supporters seem not to know what it means. According to the dictionary genocide is systematic killing of a racial or cultural group. Now, that being pointed out I will do a brief overview of the Ottoman Empire. Anyone who studied the empire knows that is was a very culturally and religiously diverse one consisting of Arabs, Greeks, Italians, Spaniards, Armenians, etc. etc. Armenians, however, were among the most important getting appointed to high positions within the empire. Did these ethnicites get killed because of their cultural or religious beliefs??? OF COURSE NOT! In fact the empire tolerated and respected them!! Proof: all these ethnicities are practicing their religion and speaking their language!! Are they all speaking Turkish and practicing Islam - NO! This is an example of the empire's respect!! Don't get me wrong I'm not saying the empire was perfect but a few important questions remain: Why would such a culturally/religiously diverse empire that lasted between 500-600 years commit "genocide" on Armenians??? Why did Turks wait so long to commit this "genocide" near the empire's fall, fighting with Brits and others so it would't lose all its land??? Would it not make sense that if Turks were such racists they would have committed genocide when they were at the height of their power?? The answer is clear: TURKS DID NOT COMMIT GENOCIDE ON ARMENIANS! Armenian propaganda distorts from the real truth and people like you "buy it". Again of course, you are most likely Christian and you support the Armenian side of things. Turks are Muslims so it is obvious that you and other Armenian supporters will not support Turks even with evidence that prove their was no genocide! Turks did not wake up one day and say "hey let's kill some Armenians"! Again I will state that TURKEY RETALIATED FROM ARMENIAN ATTACKS!!! Do you not get it!!! The Turkish Empire was falling apart and Armenians (with Russian support) thought they could get Eastern Turkey!! So they massacred many Turks that lived in the east, that is where the Turkish genocide began by Armenians. I am preparing an article that will give further details about the Turkish genocide and Armenian lies covering it up! The Turks who died in the Armenian genocide campaign deserve justice! Tamimi111 04:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I totally (absolutely!) agree that the Ottoman was for 500 years a very diverse empire with many different ethnic races, different religions and different languages. Most of these lived in peace (Albanians for example didn't always). I love going to Bosnia and Romania and the Ottoman influences are eminent there in every aspect of live. I have a huge respect for other cultures and would never go black and white and see the world as Christians against muslims.

I am, indeed, a Romn Catholic and if I may say so a practising one. Many of my friends have other religions and I live near the mosque in Dublin. I often visit the mosque with friends and find there are many similarities between Christianity and Islam. I also agree that the comparison with former Yugoslavia was rater poor, but I was there and I saw Muslims killing Serbs with my own eyes. (I saw everyone killing everyone in fact) But...these things always happen and the history of the war will be written by the victorious ones. I also agree that Russia and Armenia were very eager to get parts of Turkey at the end of the World War. Relations between Russia and Turkey have always been bad. Relations between Russia and Armenia have also been very, very bad at times and I don't think that Russia would have worked closely with the Armenians. If they did, they must have looked the other way when Armenians were killed. I know that Aremnians invaded Eastern Turkey in the later stages of the war and that Turkish people were killed while defending their country. May I add that many of these were Kurds that are now fighting Turkey as well? I am concerned about the killins inside Armenia and the hundreds of thousands of Armenian civilians killed. I don't care about how many soldiers were killed. It was a war and you shouldn't complain if you loose a war with big losses you shouldn't have gone to war then. Can anyone explain why so many cilians were killed? Whether we call it a genocide or not it is a fact that many Armenian civilians were killed by armed personnel. This is not a Christian view but a view of a religious person that thinks killing is wrong. You and I know that Judism, Christianity and Islam are very alike and that's it against these religions to kill innocent beings. Too much killing has been done in the name of religion, non more so than here in Ireland. I'm lloking forward to reading yor article about Armenians invading Turkey. It will be interesting to hear another point of view on the complicated story that is Turkish-Armenian relations. Jorgenpfhartogs 05:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

• • Jorgenpfhartogs: You state that you are a "fair" person and that you never see the world as black or white, however I cannot sense any evidence of that. You are quick to point fingers at Turkey, stating there was a "genocide" and thats it. A fair and logical person would not take sides and accuse a nation of such harsh accusations. You basically "ignore" the facts leading to Turkey's retaliation against Armenia but also at the same time you agree that the Ottoman Empire was a multi-ethnic one. So why would a multi-ethnic empire commit genocide? I'm sure you will not answer this question as well as the other questions I wrote earlier. Armenians killed many Turkish civilians before Turks finally retaliated. Now, if you are such a caring person about civilians dying why don't you care about the Turkish civilians? The fact is you don't care to even acknowledge them because you are only taking the Armenian side which is fine, thats your business.......but don't give me that I'm a fair person bull sh*t. The difference between me and you, is that I'm an objective person looking at all facts from all sides and you're a biased person just looking at the Armenian perspective. I looked at all sides when it comes to this "genocide" matter. And I know that the only reason why Armenian civilians were killed is because they killed Turkish people first, not because Turks had nothing better to do. It's called "eye for an eye". Armenians targeted and killed Turkish civilians and when they get a taste of their own medicine, they claim "genocide". By the way many of these Armenian civilians weren't sitting around peacefully, they were helping their soldiers killing Turkish civilians. In defense, Turkey killed Armenian soldiers and civilians, however they deported most civilians. They wanted the "Armenian terror" to stop. I think the Turkish government did a miraculous job! They were so weak, but gave all they got to save their county - what bravery! They could have easily killed the Armenians being deported, but they didn't. Thats a clear sign that in some way they did care enough not to kill them. Too bad Turkish civilians didn't have that option - they were all just mercilessly killed by Armenians. Tamimi111 04:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Edit war

Is it possible to at least put a banner stating that "The neutrality of this article is disputed"? --84.65.117.159 17:19, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

• • If Armenians want their "genocide" to be recognized they should also recognize the TURKISH GENOCIDE COMMITTED BY ARMENIANS. What I've discovered of Armenians is that they are wonderful manipulators and masters at the art of lying. They are leaving a pretty important fact out: ARMENIANS INITIATED THE ETHNIC CLEANSING OF TURKS, WHERE HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of TURKS WERE MASSACRED AND THROWN INTO MASS GRAVES. Why did Armenians do such a thing?? Answer: because they wanted to take Turkish land for themselves and instead fighting man to man, they went into villages targeting helpless Turkish civilians while the Ottoman Empire was preoccupied in other battles in Western Turkey. Afterall, the Ottoman Empire was extremely weak and lacking resources, the idea of starting an ethnic cleansing program of Armenians is F****N hilarious!!!!!!! (If the Ottoman Empire despised Armenians so much, why did they not "get rid" of them between the 500 years they were in power?? The Empire would have been a lot stronger and could have killed even more Armenians. They did not because Turks respected Armenians so much, that is why Armenians were very wealthy and successful during the Empire time). *During Armenians slaughtering and rampaging of Turkey and its civilians, Turks were finally able to defend their country. Of course, then Armenians were killed by Turks because its called DEFENSE - perhaps ARMENIANS ARE CONFUSING DEFENSE AS GENOCIDE. ARMENIANS ATTACKED TURKEY FIRST AND THEY HAVE TO DEAL WITH THE CONSEQUENCES, it's called being an adult, look into it.........Every country in the world defends itself when any enemy invades their land, in this case Armenians were the enemy. Armenians "made up" a sob story about the "genocide" to get world sympathy. They want to follow in Israel's footsteps - remember how Israel was created after their genocide, the only difference here is theirs was real and ARMENIANS ARE FALSE! Anyone who is confused about this whole situation should not take my word or any other persons word, they should read an unbiased history book, there one can see for themselves what Turks endured by Armenians before Turkey finally defended itself. And the pictures Armenians use as evidence of the "so called genocide" are mostly fabricated or pictures of people dying from disease or starvation-not of what Turks did. Please don't fall for Armenian lies and educate yourself!!!!! ARMENIANS STOP CHANGING HISTORY AND SPREADING HATE PROPAGANDA OF TURKS. WHAT YOU'RE DOING IS UNJUST AND DOWN RIGHT PATHETIC!!!
• Note: Why are Armenians always deleting my comment? I think its perhaps they don't want anyone to know the horrible atrocities they committed against Turks before the Turkish government finally defended its country - how clever! I guess thats how Armenians handle the truth - they delete it!

so my armenian friends what you are doing is unethical. if you want a change bring it here if not it means edit war.neurobio 12:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I was not following this discussion, just few points I would like to make. First, don't use qualifiers like Armenian friends here as if there are 'type' of editors. Second, Davison has no place here at all, he has a review of Hovannesian major work, he has written a work covering all three massacres, in his contribution regarding the Armenians in Lewis book published in 1983(in which Lewis estimates the losses of Armenians between a million and a million and a half), he doesn't cover the issue. Isral Charny writes about thos who signed it in his study:

several respondents indicated that

(a) they had no doubt about the essential truth of the Armenian genocide;

(b) they are fully aware of the Turkish government's intention to falsify the record through censorship, suppression and revision of the facts;

(c) and as to the advertisement itself, that they had not been aware that the Turks would use their call to open the archives to "prove" that there was no Armenian genocide, nor did they know that there would be repeated use of their statement beyond a single advertisement.

In short, we know that several of them do not question it, we know that in printed material Davison support the thesis most supported by the Accademia. Like I said, I am tired of revert wars, but definitly Davison doesn't go there, and if you are not a POV pusher you will stop with that. Fad (ix) 14:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

oh good to see you back with your fully speculative "Professor of Psychology & Family Therapy israel Charney" stuff. I thought we already passed that history profs were fooled by Turkish govement thing. again fadix and his no reference Fact sheets! neurobio 14:34, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Look dude, he could be a garbage man, those are the results of the written answers he recieved from several who signed it. We have Davison own writtings and we have here evidences that the signature was allegedly a request to open the archives. It could have been enought to refer to Davison's publications, we now have a confirmation that he might be one of those. This is enought to remove him from the list. Lists should be based on what one wrote rather than some publicity published in the press, from many who are said to have signed it claimed not questioning the Armenian genocide. Fad (ix) 14:41, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

i dont care about Davidson. I just say we are not supposed to belive anything that you write. You came up with that some time ago but never shoved a clue. just show us a page or some thing that we can see for our selves! I dont belive it because if had it been true it would give Armenians a great opportunutiy to ridicule and discredit Turkis claims. And why for gods sake none of these profs came out and said "ok guys we signed it but it was different at that time". this was not a regular puplic letter. And Profs were carelessly signing it risking their credibility? Now we are supposed to belive you or Charney. neurobio 15:12, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Well sorry, the only who between the two of us who has lied in the past is you. The evidences is here. http://www.jstor.org/search/ search for The Armenian Crisis, 1912-1914. You've claimed a PhD, neuroscience professional have access to Jstor through their institution (faculty, hospital etc.). You will find it in print, and it covers the three massacres. Davison doesn't support any arguments of the Turkish government. Have fun reading it. Fad (ix) 15:20, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

now again the samething. I want to see something where Charney shows us these letters he got from these scolars and in return you talk about Davidson. cool. FYI I will read it.85.178.20.73 15:34, 16 June 2006 neurobio 15:34, 16 June 2006 (UTC)(UTC)

Well sorry, this is not how it works, we have a published material from Davison, and regardless as far as I remember he reedited it in his Essays in Ottoman and Turkish history, 1774-1923 which was published in 1990, 5 years after 1985. This coupled with the doubt we have about whatever or not he does recognize it(when we must trust rather his works to begin with), any uses of his name beyond the reference to the advertisement is simply speculative and might hurt the scholar, in that that, if the information is wrong it makes it as if he is supporting something which he does not. You claim he does, it is up to you to show us this. Fad (ix) 15:50, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Ahh trying to change the subject like a denialist. as I said before I dont care about Davidson and I dont care so much if his name is here or not it is only a minor issue in this f*** up article. What I am saying is "you are coming up with huge claims like "charney demonstrated that many of these scolars were tricked into something that they did not mean to" and you cant show a reliable source". this is the second time you are saying this still nothing! I guess either you or charney making things up dude. And I really think that he is a garbage man indeed he has a very bad hair style.neurobio 22:57, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll ignore you, wash your mouth. Fad (ix) 23:59, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

arent you supposed to be on sick leave? lutherian 05:38, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

"What the Klingon has said is unimportant, and we do not hear his words." Leonard McCoy - stardate 3497.2. Planet Capella lV --THOTH 00:36, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Trying to be smart and funny at the same time are we? lutherian 05:38, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

File:Armenianwomencrucified.jpg

ha ha :). I would rather be a Borg. So I say "resistance is futile! you are just making things up." now energize us your document scotty.neurobio 01:20, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I just uploaded this image of Armenian women who were crucified during the Genocide. I really think we should add this photo to the article. I really think this picture disproves any notion that this was an ordinary "relocation" march. Also, can anyone here (namely the Turks) give a rational reason as to why this picture shouldn't be used besides the cliche platitudes of forgeries, biases, and embellishments? Thanks. --MarshallBagramyan 23:26, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I am surprised to see you arguing again about what you by the way always refer to as the genocide, or as you like to put it "the so-called genocide". I showed you the numbers including the ones by McCarthy, and the proportions as well, I did not see ANY comment of yours regarding those numbers. My friend coming here and posting general "philosophical" stuff is not enough, you have to be scientific, be able to work with the material and simple numbers. So far I see you failing to do that. You repeat that there is enough proof out there somewhere that what happened does not constitute an act of genocide. I called and encouraged you to a discussion based on facts and numbers from different sources.

You know what is the difference btw your approach and that of the author of this article? It is the difference btw the lawer working with whatever material available (role of the author of the article) and someone that likes criticizing sitting in the kitchen (the role of yours). If you want to be taken serious and discuss the issue I am afraid you have to make the effort to think and dig into the literature, otherwise your comments do look rediculous.

Vahan Senekerimyan 23:56, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

It is not for us to be scientific here, thats the job of scholars as Fadix rightly pointed out somewhere. If you were a bit more attentive you would also notice here and in the archives that many valid arguments that reject the genocide thesis were submitted to the talk page and, sadly, the all too frequent response from the genocide camp was to accuse the scholars of being on the government payroll, of being nationalists or questioning their integrity etc. In other words the effort of discussing this issue has been nothing but a tremendous waste of time so please stop wasting everybody's time because we have better things to do. 83.78.49.129 19:07, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Funny - while I have seen certain folks claiming that there was no Armenian Genocide - I have yet to see any actual valid arguments that I would consider even remotely impuning such. Instead what we get is rather like the "argument clinic" from Monty Python...with the on-spot critique that contradiction alone does not make for a valid argument. Arguments are based upon evidence and supositions which are then proven by facts and data. All the counter genocide folks seem to be able to do is ad hominem attacks and saying "no it isn't" because some Turkish government pamplet says Turks are not capable of evil by definition and such...well thats not really an argument just then is it...--THOTH 23:14, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed) You may never agree with the rejection of the thesis but lets face it, the controversy has been raging on for 90 years (and dont give me the rubbish argument that most of those years dont count as Armenia was under Soviet control) And why has this issue not been settled? because the fact of the matter is that there are holes in the thesis the size of Alaska. Yeah I know its a bummer, but thats life ma boy! 85.1.89.67 05:45, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I have never used this argument - however there is no doubt that lack of an Armenian state and an international voice for Armenians made it nearly impossible for Armenians to seek and recieve justice in the years imediatly following the Genocide and even up to the recent past. However the issue of the continued success of Turkish denial has more to do with the position of the Republic of Turkey and it geo-political and economic importance - initially due to its resources, commerical oppurtunities (and the competition for trade concessions) and debt situation (which the allies - particualrly France wished to recover. Turkey and the remains of the Ottoman Empire were the richest prize in modern history - an oppurtunity for the Western nations unlike any that had existed since the discovery of the Americas. Then after World War II of course Turkey's position as a bulwark against the Soviet Union and its close proximity as a base of operations against it furthered the perception of the west that it must do everything possible to not upset Turkey and to keep it within the western sphere (and Ataturk and the following [shadow] governments have used this fact to their great advantage. Now of course there is the issue of the Islamic threat and the idea that Turkey is nominally the only Islamic democracy and certainly is considered as a bulwark against radical Islam that cannot be allowed to fall/falter or sway from its Western leanings. SO all these factors have tempered any words or actions to upset Turkey and Turkey has made it most clear that (charges concerning) the Armenian Genocide is taboo subject #1 and has consistently applied threats and pressure to blackmail Western states and insitutions from recognition and any effort to force Turkey to come to terms with this issue. That is why it is "unresolved" not because there is any issue with the known facts that we have from all cooberated eyewitness testimony of the period and from serious unbiased scholarly analysis since. As to why (beyond the obvious of not wanting to admit and be known in history as a genocidal nation akin to Hitler's Germany) Turkey is in such fierce denial. I will let you ponder the quite insightful words of Turkish scholar Taner Akcam - (my preface)

Dr. Taner Akcam – an ethnically Turkish sociologist who has researched and written several books concerning the reasons for and the role of the Armenian Genocide and its denial within the Ottoman/Turkish socio-political landscape makes a great many salient observations concerning how the situation in the Ottoman Empire came to genocide for the Armenians and why the current Republic of Turkey has such difficulty coming to terms with it. His insights should be considered by Turks, Armenians and others alike as they contain the possibility of breeching the gap in competing nationalistic rhetoric among peoples who cannot seem to do so. The following are some very relevant quotes concerning this issue of national forgetfulness and failure to come to terms with one’s past from his introduction to his book From Empire to Republic – Turkish Nationalism and the Armenian Genocide – He begins by explaining that Turkey underwent a transition from a multi-nationalistic empire to becoming a nation-state based on nationalistic lines and that this process of nation building always entails a degree of distortion and forgetfulness of the past (in this case that which is forgotten is the process of “othering” other ethnicities of the empire – and the violent criminal actions that this ultimately led to – and the replacement with a national myth based on the idea of the victimhood of the Turkish people vis-a-vis outside Imperialistic powers where the minorities are only seen as pawns of these outside powers who are used and manipulated to bring about the empires destruction and ultimate dismemberment. Akcam also makes a strong case for the continuity of the Ottoman elites as the rulers of the new Republic and this as a major stumbling block for past admissions…So without further ado –

“The Turkish Republic was born out of the destruction of the Christian populations in Anatolia and the establishment of a homogeneous Muslim state. The Armenian Genocide was the epitome of the policy of destruction and was declared a taboo subject immediately after the creation of the Republic. One important reason for this declaration was the connection between the Genocide and the foundation of the Republic. The Republic was founded to a significant degree by the members of the Committee of Union and Progress (CUP), which was responsible for the implementation of the wholesale deportation and massacres against the Armenian population of Anatolia. The authority of the Ottoman civil-military elite continued, uninterrupted, into the period marking the establishment of the Turkish Republic. This elite perceived the Christian population of Anatolia, and especially the Armenians, as internal foes working for foreign imperialist interests and the destruction of the Ottoman Empire.”

“(Turkish) Individuals who call for an open debate are stigmatized as treasonous and enemies of the nation. Scholarly activity has been locked into a cycle of verification or denial of what happened in history, as opposed to analyzing the socio-political and historical factors that allowed that history to unfold. We are lagging in the task of addressing the real question of why the Armenian Genocide occurred. There existed in 1915 a confluence of general factors – social, political, historical, and cultural – that combined in such a way as to make implementation of genocide possible. These general factors must be viewed in conjunction with the specific factors, both political and psychological, that made the implementation of genocide seem desirable to those in power in 1915. Turkish nationalism in the years of the Empire’s decline played an important role.”

“If Turkey is to develop from an authoritarian, bureaucratic state into a standard Western democracy, it must come to terms with history and take a critical approach towards the problems surrounding national identity. For this to occur…the dominance of the denial syndrome must be overcome, and direct interaction between Turkish and Armenian societies must take place. The basic problem was and remains today the continuation of the ruling elite from the Ottoman Empire to the Turkish Republic. This continuity is one of the biggest impediments to democratization.” --THOTH 14:51, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Please I beg you, spare us your long winded replies because I assure you that NO ONE reads them especially when they come from persons with dubious backgrounds such as Aksam's who is known to have been associated with terrorist organizations in the past! It is even claimed that Aksam's Phd is a fake I'm not going to bother proving any of this to you, you can very well google it yourself! lutherian 17:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I knew that this would be your (entirely worthless) response...perhaps I should have just added it myself...ie "Certain Turks claim that the (meticulously researched and highly respected...OK I added this part...) insights and positions of (Dr.)Akcam - by virtue of past arrest and imprisonment by Turkish authorities for association with an outlawed group pressing for expanded human rights in Turkey - automatically can be discounted and ignored...likewise we demand that Nelsom Mandella be recalled as President of South Africa due to his criminal past as a rabble rouser against a legitimate world government and we request that the State of Israel denounce Menacham Begin and that he be exhumed and stomped upon." (...of course Kemnal Ataturk was condemned to death by the Ottoman Government for actions against the Ottoman State...are his views likeiwse incapable of being considered? Should we judt consider that the government he founded is illegitimate due to his criminal past?) Again - no response or demonstrated ability to deal with actual relevent facts and issues....just ad homenim attack...this is called avoidance and denial. I again suggest that you are providing nothing whatsoever of value here and that your unsubstantiated comments confirm that your only purpose is to vandalise the article and the process of creating and discussing it and legitimate issues surounding it.--THOTH 18:22, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Please now the only vandal here is you with your constant bombardments of useless material that nobody bothers to read. And please dont compare a worthless thug like Aksam with great leaders of this world. In your mind anyone critical of Turkey or Turks must be good, for that reason alone you dont deserve to be replied to! lutherian 18:28, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

"What the Klingon has said is unimportant, and we do not hear his words." Leonard McCoy - stardate 3497.2. Planet Capella lV --THOTH 14:01, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Sadly the key issue is never addressed

Moved to subpage. - FrancisTyers · 14:25, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Opinion

Moved to subpage. - FrancisTyers · 14:16, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Facts to be underlined

• factual accuracy of this article
• solid non-NPOV of Armenians (I mean most of them especially USA-related)
• parliements convinced by diaspora to take legal action people in denial of a genocide —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.98.108.2 (talk •

Adieu (or Au revoir ?) Halacoglu

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

Armenian killed pregnant womans!

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

THOTH style

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

THOTH style meets its match - not quite...

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

Berktay - Armenians killed by a Special organization

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

To all anon users

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

first picture

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

Fogery an old Habit

File:Forgery.jpg

I agree with Inshanee "showing that one image has been forged does not mean that all images have been forged, nor does it mean that all of the claims about the events have been forged." But one has to admit that we are seeing a very spesific pattern here [[1]], [[2]]. Remember Andonian forgeries, Hitler quote, quotes attributed to Talat or Mustafa kemal which are still in armeniapedia or other web sites. Dear Marshall The famous painting above was enlarged and shown to the Canadian public in the 1970's, in the Yerevan Pavilion at the annual Metro International Carovan festivities in Toronto, as proof of "Armenian genocide". See the photo I uploaded. This is also a famous photo of Mustafa kemal but reckless Armenian propagandists are so sure that they wont get a reply still use it (or who will hear the reply? only Turks probably). There are a lot of pictures said to be genocide photo but only Armen wenger photos are surely known to be from that time and event. Others are all suspicious given many forgery cases. (especially the one where "ottoman soldiers" pose in front of heads. imagine! you take cut off heads go to a photo studio or call the photographer (in dar el zor "desert" or burned down Van province) set up a nice table put the heads and say cheese.)And ofcourse all photos are not photoshoped. just miss presentation of a photo from a different time or event is a forgery.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now, the real quote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Deconstructing revisionism and preserving the neutrality of this article

Well, the state of this article forced me to return. As the author of TAT was patiently waiting the occasion to hit once more. For the interested, here I evidence with my merging test that Deepblue06 and 24,211,192,250 are indeed the same users. [4] Obviously Holdwater(the author of TAT), who in the past was also known under his other Wikipedia login User:Torque. Deepblue06 and 24,211,192,250 have been used one after the other to escape 3RR block.

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

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

Lets first deal with the picture of Ataturk with the dead body, which is said to be an Armenian forgery. Is it so? The picture in question was exibited to announce a conference about Denial, 'The Face of Denial.' The picture is indeed photoshoped, but it never was claimed to be an original, the photoshoped version is symbolic. Ataturk staying there represent the modern republic of Turkey, which is totally indifferent regarding the body of the dead child there. The child which was photoshoped and merged to Ataturks famous picture with the little dog, is one of the most famous picture used in published media. One of the pictures taken by Wegner. It is widelly available on the web. [5]

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

Comming to 'Hovhannes Katchaznouni' 'admissions,' this has been already addressed by me after it has been posted, follow my reply. [6]

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

You claim that according to Boghos Nubar there was between 300,000 to 400,000 Armenians who have died and you claim having the document from French archive. Be glad to provide it to me, it'll be nice, since Boghos Nubar provides over a million. See for example, footnote number 21 in this article. [7]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Report you? Who talked about reporting anyone? I'll leave that to you, both with your DeepBlue06 alias and this IP, you know I don't like reporting people, don't you? Who would have thought, I always thought that you were Lutherian socks, I guess my absence served for something, had it been not of your copypast job from TAT, I would have never guessed that Lutherian was not Holdwater, and my first suspicion was true. Lutherian was not alone adding TAT site in the article, you did that yourself as evidenced by your log, something which I would never have checked had you not posted your stuff over here. A merging test when effectivally including a correlative assessement is more accurate than Checkusers(Checkusers can be fooled by open proxies). This [8] indeed confirms both of you are the same users. Again, I propose you to read what is there carefully, evading 3RR is not good, also, while you reported another user for incivility (with both of your accounts) to InShaneee, I have been blocked for three days for less than your above slanders. But I will not be playing cheap here. Fad (ix) 01:36, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks USer : Sokrateskerem

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

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

External links are not an excuse for linkspam

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have removed the first picture

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

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

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

Actually, getting the enemy naked and dressing its uniform was common practice. Or else, there is no reason to undress the enemy. As for circumcision, not a good indicator, Armenians were too. You could ask Syrian and Lebanese Armenians, you will find many who are circumcised, and they are not in the Ottoman Empire anymore. I already know which picture will replace it. This one, [9], and there is another picture which I will request its undeletion. This [10], a mass burning cite in Mus, we sourced it. [11], but Coolcat was effectivally able to get it deleted since he did not remove the tag while I was away. Fad (ix) 21:25, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Photo

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wordings

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am quoting you up there Fadix. [[12]] should I put a smiley and a link every time. for the last paragraph read it again after a coffe maybe. let me summerise what it says 1. quotations does not make putting unsported(i would dare to say made up) claims to a historical article right2. the quote is used in a distorted way.3. if you present the "generally accepted" viev but also add a radical wiev to that story via quoting or any other way. then the opposition by real historians should be quoted all along the article.

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

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

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

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

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

Deepblue recent deletions

I see that he still continue deleting without using the talk page. But the most ridiculous deletion of all is that the International League of Nations does not recognize it as genocide, which is simply and plainly wrong. The original Fédération internationale des ligues des Droits de l'Homme which covers the last time I have checked, over a hundred organizations, not only the French. And which actually recognize the Armenian genocide and has published various works covering it, mistaking it with the one based in New York. The original one which covers the French League of human rights has been founded in 1922, while the other one, which took that name, but in English has been founded in 1942(they claim prior, but it really got its international statu then). Both organizations originate from a French organization. The ILHR originate from the Défense de Droits de l'Homme et du Citoyen, while the FIDH the French League of human rights, and which from its original name is the Fédération internationale des ligues des droits de l'homme. [13] The one based on New-York, does not speak in the name of the organizations, but rather is an entity, while the other does. --Fad (ix) 15:30, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

You can check the 141 organizations it includes here. [14] It includes also 3 Turkish organizations. One of them, The Human Rights foundation of Turkey. --Fad (ix) 15:36, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

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

Article was referring to League for Human Rights, which I removed [15]. There's no such thing as League for Human Rights, it could have meant International League for Human Rights (ILHR). To best of my knowledge International League for Human Rights does not have a report recognizing Armenian thesis. Apperantly you're confusing this with France based International Federation of Human Rights (Fédération Internationale des Ligues des Droits de l'Hommes, FIDH). International Federation of Human Rights and International League for Human Rights are independent of each other, none of them is a branch (or entity) of other. If International Federation of Human Rights recognize Armenian Genocide, it can be added with a proper reference. 24.211.192.250 22:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Returning to the subject, you did not say the same thing. You claimed above [16] that ILHR is an entity of FIDH, and FIDH can speak on its behalf which is not true per my response. 24.211.192.250 01:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Fadix's "But the most ridiculous deletion of all is that the International League of Nations" has not a bit of incivility in it, none that I see defined by Wikipedia's rules. We've been dealing with dozen of anon IPs, sure you can edit and participate in articles and I'm not saying that either but its much better if only registered users be able to do this in Wikipedia. A dozen or more anonymous users have came by these past few months and they edit articles, such as this one for example by writing "Its all a lie" or "its an Armenian forgery and falsification" and we're forced to revert it each and every time. Such as here [17] and [18] and here [19]. We cannot keep track of every troll who vandalises the article with an anonymous IP so that's why if you are considering on staying here and actually contributing, then register so we can address each other directly than by a set of numbers.--MarshallBagramyan 23:26, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

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

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

I don't see where I have called him a vandal, I did accuse him of being another user, and not only because of IP uses, but because of this. [20]. As for the deletion being ridiculous. Please see his summary for the deletion, his justification was an assumption he made himself about what the League of Human rights was(he assumed that it was another organization without requesting a clarification), so he deleted it based on this. ThisI called a ridiculous deletion, I did not talk about him, and neither have I said that he was ridiculous, I simply said that that deletion was ridiculous. We can not just start deleting everything from an article based on an assumption because what is written there is not clear. A request for clarification should be made insteed. He decided not to. Fad (ix) 00:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

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

Protected

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But this could be applied to Turkey too, that you will find those who accept the thesis of genocide per population in open minded cities where the level of education is the highest like Istanbul is again comparable(or either this or some eastern Kurdish populated villages where the government control is the weakest). The Turks who I have met on the internet and who accept the event were all without exception students of higher education. My first friend Ceyhun was a PhD in psychology, another one from now dead Turkey.com was completing a PhD degree, another one has now returned in Turkey and is teaching in a historty field. Another one has a master degree in a science discipline. Obviously education in this cases is making a lot of difference as 100% of the Turks I have met who recognize it had all beyond Bachelor degrees. For sure the sample size is too small to find any causality here between education and recognition, but this is the appearence we do have. Another appearence, those that tend to recognize it were all critical of nationalism. About the French getting their cul kicked, Italia is a much more closed society than France, check the players in the French team. Also rumors want that Zidane was called a terrorist and his mother being insulted by the guy he head kicked, knowing the trend of xenophobia circulating in some Italian societies within the country, would not surprise me to play that cheap. Fad (ix) 00:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

come on man, dont get me started with the French, their team almost exclusively composed of arabs and africans reflects their hypocritical nature, the French are well known for their racist attitudes, one just needs to observe the prejudices against their second class citizens living in ghettos with very high unemployment, not very different from the aborginies in Australia. As for your correlation between the level of education and the acceptance of the genocide thesis, the sample is indeed much too small to may any reasonable inference and I must be the first exception to your observations since my education is above that of a bachelors and I have never lived in TR :-) lutherian 06:11, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

According to the Permanent People's Tribunal, it was the UN Commission on Human Rights: "In 1971, the United Nations Commission on Human Rights asked its Sub-Committee on the fight against discriminatory measures and the rotection of minorities, comprising independent experts, to undertake a 'study of the question of the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide.' In 1973 and 1975, the two interim reports which were submitted to the Sub-Committee by the special rapporteur contained a paragraph 30 which read as follows: 'In modern times, attention should be drawn to the existence of fairly abundant documentation relating to the massacre of the Armenians, considered as the first genocide of the twentieth century.'In the final report submitted to the Commission in 1979, the aforementioned paragraph 30 was omitted" due to protestations made by the Turkish delegation present at the committee's hearings. See the United Nations Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities' report which affirms and refers to the events of 1915 as a Genocide here: [21]. I on the other hand am not incredulous that you are so resistant to hearing the truth. Saying that we have been mislead by the diaspora is like the pot calling back the kettle, I wouldn't be quick to say such things when your own government has been everything but truthful with its people.--MarshallBagramyan 18:33, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

Unprotecting

I'm unprotecting because nothing seems to be going on on the talk page here in the past week, and it's been protected for ages. --Tony Sidaway 04:02, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

hijacking

This site has cleary been hijacked by the usual suspects of Armenian nationalists and their sympethizers, it is turning into a plain and simple propaganda site and therefore losing all its credibility! lutherian 05:49, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

My my, and the anon users who always add racist websites without any explanations for their edits and arrive by the dozen are always acting in good faith...Sounds alot like the teapot calling the kettle.--MarshallBagramyan 06:27, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

there have been anon users from both sides of the debate, but bombarding the site with photos (this is not an exhibit or a museum mind you) and changing key words such as support and opposition to recognition and denial as clevelander and others have frequently done gives a very tainted impression to this debate. As I said earlier, this is NOT the Jewish Holocust which is well documented and proven beyond any reasonble doubt and recognized by every single country with the exception of a couple of rogue states. If you dont want this topic to resemble a circus, then stop hijacking it with propaganda material. lutherian 10:10, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, stop being so hysterical, Lutherian. I don't see what's wrong with the pictures. I also don't see what's wrong with having translated terms at the start. John Smith's 13:14, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

you also dont see anything wrong with changing what are considered key terms, heck why dont just remove all the content that rejects the genocide thesis and like that we can have a pure propaganda site which I know would delight your armenian buddies! lutherian 13:33, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

You need to calm down. For one thing I don't have any "Armenian buddies" - stop making childish statements against people just because they disagree with you. John Smith's 14:04, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

please answer only if you have something constructive to say and stop evading the issue, you are clearly extremely biased on this topic and probably inherited the mindset of your english ancestors so obsessed with getting rid of the sick man of Europe. lutherian 16:31, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Please stop your trolling and name-calling Lutherian. Your denialist point of view is already presented in the article, and is actually given undue weight. I believe it is about time that we consider removing some of the extreme Turkish denialist point of views from the central parts of the article such as the intro, in order to avoid giving undue weight to these minority POV's. -- Karl Meier 22:45, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

we are not discussing the world according to Karl Meier and his extreme shortsightedness so if you have something of value to contribute then concentrate on that instead of trying to just slander the opposite view! lutherian 05:31, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I am simply pointing out that the denialists POV is given undue weight in this article, and I mention that we should adjust it according to WP:NPOV#Undue_weight. Unlike your trolling and personal attacks, that is very relevant. -- Karl Meier 06:18, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I entirely agree - the denilaist position is given more then undue weight in this article - to the point of embarrasment. The "Turkish position" as presented in this article is merely a list of unsupported (and largely already discredited) suppositions. They have no place in this article taking up the amount of space that they do when the article is lacking in presenting a tremendous amount of substantsiated material that documents the acts of genocide against the Armenians (check out the detail presented in the Holocaust article for instance). The Armenian Genocide article demands precisely this level of detail if not more - if only because its denial is so prevelant. And denialist trolls such as Lutherian should not be tolerated. Their aim is stricly to disrupt the process of portraying the truth and create confusion - and we are letting it suceed at this reprehensible task. shame. --THOTH 14:11, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

even in your choice of words your frame of mind, more specifically your biased views on the subject matter come out, you call the opposite view denialist, this is not the Jewish Holocaust mind you and no matter how hard you try you will never succeed in making it so because there is a notion called the truth and this topic seems to be lacking that very essential notion thanks to the likes of yourself! But whine all you want, your contributions will always go to waste because of your flawed manner of distinguishing fact from fiction lutherian 08:19, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

There are some who deny that the killings commited by Turkey was a case of genocide, and there is nothing wrong with calling them "denialists". It is very accurate. Another thing is that there seems to be a lot of "new" IP-address editors appearing in articles where other editors are opposing your editing, supporting you with reverts. Lutherian, are you using these IP accounts as sockpuppets to win your revert-wars? -- Karl Meier 08:28, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

pls dont try to change the subject by accusing me of sockpuppetting, vandalism and what not. Funny how because I support the opposite view, I have been accused of all kinds of absurd things. There are very well respected scholars, dignitaries, politiciens, individuals etc that reject the genocide claims so if you want to make a fool out of yourself and call the US of A a denialist nation, then pls be my guest. Its plain to me from reading your contributions that not only do you have a fundamental hatred for Turks but you seem to be islamophobic which clearly puts you in the ranks of known racists such as Eupator lutherian 08:42, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I am not going to accept your trolling and namecalling Lutherian. I will not respond to messages unless you give up your name-calling, and I'll file a personal attack report regarding your behavior here. -- Karl Meier 08:46, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

sockpuppeting is a serious accusation and since I know that I was not involved in any of that I will be filing a complaint against you for your defamatory remarks lutherian 09:11, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

That would be interesting. -- Karl Meier 09:12, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

"The Armenian Genocide is proven in all its components - among them intent. The converging evidence is well in excess of that generally judged abundant in establishing other historical truths. The genocide was a horrendous crime. The evidence is there - province by province, city by city, village by village, hamlet by hanlet, with its countless variations according to time and place yet all the same in the vast process of extermination - genocide. A deliberate plan, carefully organized and brutally executed. The deniers and rationalizers offend the dignity of the historian and of all humanity." Yves Ternon - author of several volumes concerning human rights and genocide in - Freedom and Responsibility of the Historian - the "Lewis Affair" - 1999 --THOTH 14:05, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

yes we have heard it countless of times especially the part where Turks are superhumans, incredibly well organized and infinately evil making even the Nazis seem like nice guys in comparison. But more importantly, you are back, I was worried about you, I kind of missed all those endless cut and pastes, its been lonely out here!!! lutherian 18:29, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Blah blah blah...--THOTH 02:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

ASALA

I came to this page and am surprised that it doesn't have a mention of Asala, a group of armenian ultra-nationalists who committed numerous terrorist atrocities in the name of Geno-lies recognition. Instead we have trivia concerning a song made up by some third rate metal band.

THE REASON WHY WE DON'T SEE ASALA IN THIS PAGE

Dear newcomer. I am a senior relative to you but relative to the other guys here, I am still a newcomer to this article. First of all, in this article, there is no Neutral Point of View policy, nor a valid accurate perspective. The people who "support" some aspects of this article, which has always been questionable - I do not say certain or vice versa -are the ones who control the page and unfortunately they are more than the people who support the opposite questionable parts. We once had something going on in this talk page, and before a consensus was achieved nobody would attack and spam the article. Any knowledgeable person will certainly find this article biased not only because the editors are one-sided, but also the article has a strong shift to their idea. You can for example check the online Brytannica- a real encyclopedia- which was edited by experts in the field, and you will see something very different. Do not waste your time here, because you will be immediately identified as a vandal, if you are to change for example the biased parts, such as references, and etc... Unfortunately, evertything according to these people showing the other side of the problem neutrally is problem. They cannot acccept that. Okay in Wiki, if you are a POV pusher, you will be exposed by the other neutral editors on an article. But what if there are 15-20 people who constantly bias the article ? And what if whenever you revert, you become a vandal? What if you are using an anon account (even with a static ip ) and that is not effectively allowed in this page?( They think that anon users are by definition vandals.) No, there is no way out of this. What they seek is to post what they think. Not to introduce the whole problem. There are lots of extreme lines in the article-some of them are very silly details though - (like "he claims ... is converted to it is claimed"), but the other side's supporters are too tired to fight with these groups, since they don't have enough time, or they are fed up.

And what makes it even worse is that, imagine that you have a certain discussion and the most authorized person has nothing to do with it. All the admins who take care of this article , as far as I've seen, may not even know where Armenia is. They have some rules you have to attend and that is it. Never imagine that they make their own research and make decisions. They are using their Wikipedia Intuitions :) Of course you can't run a hospital if the man in charge is not even a nurse. That is the main problem. And what happened lately is that the guys who supported a single thought biased the article even more with unreferenced pictures, with irrelevant pictures, with photos that are agreed to be removed from the article etc..., and after they screamed and said the page was being vandalized (!) by anon users!!! And they called an admin and he locked the page. So, the admin did not even bother to check ,why the edit wars started in the first place! Their assumption is that if majority tells something is that way, it is true. What a shame, whan an apathy, what a sad situation. But it is not our problem since even 12 year olds can smell the bias in the air, and they are only making Wiki a worse place. I suggest you read a respectable encyclopedia if you want to see ASALA and other aspects of the problem. However, probably you will not see the metal band you are referring, not only because they are young, but also they are not the first and the last people to act like that.

IT is very sad that ASALA is not mentioned here. But as I said : You have nothing to do. So let them make it look like Armeniapedia which is another very very biased source. It is also in the references --128.211.201.37 22:40, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your feedback, from what I understand you are questioning the neutrality of this article, examples would help, because from what I understand you criticise the pictures and the lack of information on ASALA but neither of those have directly to do with the text. For the pictures, I can not tell what really is the problem since I am not following recently what is happening in the mainspace, so I don't really know which pictures in particular have been added and removed or which ones are not recieving concesus. For ASALA, I can answer, there is an article on Wikipedia on ASALA. Personaly, I don't see how in an article covering what happened in the 1910s reference to events in 1970s and 1980s is relevent. Regards--Fad (ix) 23:27, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Relevance

Asala articles' introduction : The Armenian Secret Army for the Liberation of Armenia (ASALA) was a Marxist-Leninist guerilla organization whose primary objective was to assassinate Turkish diplomats and politicians in revenge for the deaths inflicted upon the Armenians during the Armenian Genocide.

I think the relevance is obvious. There's an extremist group who - as the article suggests not me- seeks revenge of the events happened in 1910. In other words, there are some vicious terrorists ( terrorists are always vicious whatever they suport ) who kill some people in 1970s and 1980s for something happened in 1910s. SO there IS a connection right? Maybe too obvious to be included in this article

Moreover, if you are not following what's happening here (or maybe you just prefer to ignore since what's going on here is something you should like- based on your previous views- please check the site. Firstly, the abundance of pictures, secondly, admins who lock the article when there's a huge difference betweent the last lock and the current lock. This is outrageous. But there's noone you can tell it in Wikipedia. Because they don't know the issue. While Armeniapedia is a reliable reference but TAT is not, for example. I am sure you know that I am someone( not a sock puppet ) by your detective skills so you don't have to act like you don't know me.

This page has a very strong bias. And this bias is day-by-day growing thanks to fellow Armenians(they are always friends, I will never forget what I shared with many armenians, in France, Italy, Spain, in workcamps, and international forums). Support is substituted by Recognition, someone's claims becomes a general fact, extremist references are cited as reliable, irrelevant pictures are included, Pamuk's views are distorted, the word denial is excessively used and etcc etc etc... This is just I can notice.

Who to inquire with about these? Admins... And you can be sure that they are experts in the field. They are just teenage boys coming from the US ( you can take it as an insult if you want to ban me, these are my (almost) last entries in a biased source like this one )who have never heard of neither Armenia nor Turkey, or Genocide, or anything else UNLESS they are Armenian diaspora. Unfortunately, diaspora is not calm enough to be neutral, so relatively neutral people ( Turkish people really don't care about this because they are not schooled on this, and even if they are, it is not a big deal for them) just sit back and watch the show.

We have nothing to do with this page, and Fadix you can continue to act like a mild, understanding person, but I know you are not. That is sad. Just look at the page, and be happy because it only presents your views. Then please check with Brytannica. And compare. And that will make you understand WHY an encyclopedia cannot be formed by millions of users coming from different backgrounds especially on political subjects. This will decline in the future, because this enyclopedia even claims people to be murderer's...( You should know that story as fellow Wikipedians...)

Finally, it is disputable for you guys( especially the latest vandals like Meier for example) if these changes are that good. Okay, here's a suggestion : Just give a flavour of the opposite view so that the people who want to know the facts will not be stunned by your voluminous evidence, pictures, and references and that he will not suspect the factual accuracy of your views. Just leave a little bit of noise margin. This is an advice. Because if you go on this way, it will look like Armeniapedia which has a one line entry of Justin McCarthy, who opposes the web site's view, but has more than 3-4 pages about Elif Safak who speaks highly of her Armenian advocates.

Anyway, I just want you to see this constant bias, and I leave you alone :) Regards, and farewell --128.211.201.37 00:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Again, you don't provide me examples. Your argument regarding ASALA makes no sense, this article at this stage is underdevelopped, I don't say that one day ASALA will not have a place, but at this stage, with the current form of the article, there is no way that you can pick anywhere in the mainspace to add such an information in a way that people won't start wondering what the hell that piece is doing there. There is no more relevency there than the Jewish vengence group who planed after WWII the poisoning of German central aqueducs.

Secondly, about Armeniapedia vs TAT, I think it is very obvious why they don't compare. Armeniapedia author is known, that site is open, you can expend articles there, it is a Wiki. TAT is registered under proxy, the author using his anonymity slanders scholars, use fabricated references, that site is simply unreliable. This has been discussed here for way too much time. TAT will stay out from here, its name alone should have been enough to justify its exclusion, but people will add it back no matter if it has demonstrated fabrications, slanders against authors, false rumors about them. It is a site which could be shut down the day the proxy holder is threatened by legal actions by one of the authors there.

This article provides more than enought space for the opposite side. Khmer rouge article, neith Rwanda genocide or even Bosnia massacres etc., with some cases that are even more disputed among the academia is there such space for the opposition as there is here.

Regarding Britanica, the entry about the casulties use the same range of deaths as the one on Armenia on Britannica, which also uses the word genocide. I have also quoted from various Britannica issues from different periods to show that the entry here also concord. It concords with the entry on Universalis which tone is even more one sided. It isen't also much different than Encarta. None of the Encyclopedias gives anywhere near the space which is provided to the opposition. But sorry, you would expect a 50% coverage, something which I will never accept, neither any good intentioned Wikipedia, undue weight is unencyclopedic, and against NPOV policy and would even affect the general accuracy of this article.

To be fair with you and not initiate noises on your erronous description of my intention or the Administrators here on Wikipedia, I will ignore the rest of the points you have raised here. If you do have any critics on sepecific sections of the article, you are welcome to present them here and discuss, but criticising the whole article without clarification is unconstructive.--Fad (ix) 02:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree. "System of a Down" also has its own article, but somehow, people made the space to include a metal band's songs in this article. But when it comes to adding a few sentences about ASALA terrorists murdering Turks for "genocide recognition" -- which this article discusses in other contexts -- nope, no space whatsoever to add ASALA, wouldn't flow, or whatever other excuse one can think of to leave it out. Lima5 05:26, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes - let historians decide

The evidence...from German, Austrian and Turkish sources in my view leads inescapably to the conclusion that the extermination of the Armenians was actually planned by a clique within the Young Turk leadership and executed by the sinister Special Organization ("Teshkilati Mahsusa") of the army. - Dominic Lieven - Empire - Yale University Press, 2001

In fact most of the available evidence points to the conclusion that a systematic decimation of the Armenian population in the eastern provinces had already been decided on by the Ittihad ve Terakki regime, and that the troubles in Van and elsewhere merely served as a convenient excuse for getting a program of mass deportations and large-scale extermination. - Ulrich Trumpener, (Historian) - Germany and the Ottoman Empire. Princeton, 1968

In the Spring of 1915...the government in Constantinople began work on the systematic annihilation of Armenians - Hilmar Kaiser - PHD - European Institute, Florence - Historian (Ottoman social and economic history) and Armenian Genocide resercher - from an interview with Dirk van Delft - NRC Handelsblad Page 51 - Amsterdam - May 27, 2000

Yes, it was genocide - Halil Berktay - The Specter of the Armenian Genocide - An Interview with Halil Bektay - by Katchig Mouradian - November 1 2005

It is clear that the Ittihadist faction that took control of the Ottoman Empire in 1912 was the organizer of the Armenian genocide in 1915. The First World War presented the ruling triumvirate with an opportunity, as Djemal Pasha put it, to “free ourselves through the world war from all conventions which meant so many attacks on our independence.” He went on to say that “ We had determined on radical reform….” ...“radical reform” was to eliminate the Armenian problem by eliminating the Armenians. That that was their plan was confirmed at the time by Lord Bryce and Arnold Toynbee, Ambassador Morgenthau, and German officials who were there as allies of the Ottoman government. - Helen Fein - Director of the Institute for the Study of Genocide and an Associate of the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University - Looking Backward: The Armenian Genocide, the Holocaust, And Responses to Genocide Yesterday and Today - given at the Symposium on Genocide - 20th Century Genocide: Memory, Denial and Accountability, April 7, 2000

The first implementation of the CUP regime’s goal of creating a homogeneous nation was the elimination of the Armenians from Anatolia in 1915 - Ayla Gul - Imagining the Turkish nation through ‘othering’ Armenians - in Nations and Nationalism 11 (1), 2005

...the fact that what happened in 1915 was a mass murder was not even the subject of an argument in any manner from the viewpoint of the actors of that period, with Mustafa Kemal at their head. - Taner Akcam - Historian and sociologist - The Genocide of Armenians and the silence of the Turks

The Armenian Genocide and the Holocaust were the quintessential instances of genocide in the modern era. - Professor Robert Melson - Holocaust survivor and genocide scholar in Revolution and Genocide: On the Origins of the Armenian Genocide and the Holocaust - University of Chicago Press 1992 --THOTH 02:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Interesting to note almost all of the "evidence" supporting the genocide thesis is faked, isn't it? Takhisis 07:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

False premises and begging the question, I am impressed. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right, come to think of it. Takhisis 07:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Websites opposing the Genocide thesis

   * http://www.ermenisorunu.gen.tr/english/index.html
   * http://www.ataa.org/
   * http://www.armenianquestion.org/page.php - German
   * http://www.iksaren.org/index.php?Page=&Lisan=en

Change {{main articles}} to {{main}}

{{Main articles|[[World War I]] and [[Caucasus Campaign]]}} needs to be changed to {{main|World War I|Caucasus Campaign}} please per TfD To Orphan. If an admin could do this please, thank you. --MECU≈talk 13:57, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Done.--Commander Keane 18:25, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Dead template

Can an admin please fix the {{main articles}} template to properly use {{main}} as I am trying to clean up all the references to that obsolete template. Thanx. Please reply on my talk page if there's a reason you don't want to, I am not watching this page. — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 12:33, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

As per the above section, done.--Commander Keane 18:25, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Position of the international community: citations needed

The section entitled "The position of the international community" lists many countries and international bodies as "officially recognizing the Armenian genocide", but gives hardly any citations. --Lambiam^Talk 19:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Tall Armenian Tale

This website why removes at external links? I want answer.--Tall Armenian Tale 22:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Textual small improvement, should be non-controversial

Section: Process and camps of deportation. Last sentencte: "In any event, the foreseeable consequences of the government's decision to move the Armenians led to a significant number of deaths." It think the correct way to say this is: "In any event, the foreseeable consequence of the government's decision to move the Armenians was a significant number of deaths." Pukkie 06:03, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Done. Just zis Guy you know? 10:58, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Obama's speeches on April 24

Hittit, you are making disruptive edits, as there is not said that President Obama used the term Genocide. Vice-Versa, it is said that he did NOT use it in his April 24 speaches.

The sentence states what you are telling: "In April 24 commemoration speeches President Obama has yet referred to the Armenian Genocide by the Armenian synonym Metz Eghern ("Mec Eġeṙn")."

1. Taking away "has yet" makes it seem indefinite which is wrong; it is the 2nd time he didn't use it and so it is "yet" until he isn't president anymore.

2. He referred to the Armenian Genocide when calling it Meds Yeghern. Or did he refer to some other Armenian "issue", as your change states? Maybe to the Armenian gas pipeline? Or the political debate over the budget expenditure?

Why your edits are disruptive? You are changing the meaning of the sentence by the above mentioned edits:

"In April 24 commemoration speeches President Obama referred to the Armenian issue only by the Armenian synonym Metz Eghern ("Mec Eġeṙn")."

The sentence said about some Armenian issue Obama refers to as Metz Yeghern all the time. Obviously you wish to see it so but it isn't.

Your comment for the change you made is "still no sign of the word "genocide" in Obama's speech therefore you cannot quote Obama saying it". As I stated in the first paragraph, there is no place in the sentence, where it states, that Obama used the term genocide in his April 24 speeches until now, so your reasoning is false.

If you do not present a reason on the talk-page why the sentence is wrong, please do not make disruptive edits. Aregakn (talk) 12:23, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

What is so hard to understand, if Obama did not intentionally use the word "genocide" when he referred to the faith Armenians during WWI then why do you want to stick a redirect sentece to imply that he actually meant the English word "genocide"? If he has substituted "genocide" for "Meds Yeghern" then he does not want to refer to it as "genocide" in plain English full stop. Are you the personal speech maker of Obama? you what he meant? Hittit (talk) 16:24, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

You are failing to show where in that sentence it's written, that Obama mentioned the term "Genocide" in his Apr 24 speeches. I have shown that it states that he didn't mention that term. Either cite from the sentence what states he said it or, if not, it is clearly a [|refusal to get to the point, leave alone the possibility of WP:TE.

Please comment not on who I might be for/to Obama even as a joke. Aregakn (talk) 22:40, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

If he didn't say it why you want to redirect the sentence to indicating that he meant the "Armenian Genocide"? Hittit (talk) 05:00, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me!? Do you mean he spoke not of the Armenian Genocide but, say, the Armenian external debt? Aregakn (talk) 23:34, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, Hittit I think this is not really that important. I wouldn't like to offend you of course. My reason is Obama is a politician. He says the things that will not destroy his country's relationships with Armenia and Turkey. That's why he said such good things about Turks and then said Meds Yeghern or whatever so. He is not interested in the truth, he is interested in his foreign relationships and his political career. But of course if you want go for this Meds Yeghern thing, I would say go for it, at last we are here to discuss some additions like this one.--Lonewolf94 (talk) 15:20, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

There isn't any ARMENIAN town city or village in Turkey

Can somebody add that in Turkey there is not any Armenian village: afer thousand and thousand years of presences, nowsaday in Turkey there is no Armenian village--Alsace38 (talk) 12:59, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes. This, I think, is what the above proposed paragraph of "Patriocide", as I conventionally refered to, should include. So let us concentrate the efforts to "build it up". Aregakn (talk) 23:41, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

There is unfortunately only one insignificant ethnic Armenian village left in Turkey, it is called Vakifli.--Davo88 (talk) 03:06, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

The "Turkification" and/or "Kurdification" of those kind of villages is an other issue we could or should discuss and present in the "Patriocide" section. Aregakn (talk) 17:57, 30 April 2010 (UTC)Aregakn (talk) 20:33, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Of course there is no Armenian villages. Mostly because of the deportation and then migration to the Armenian state after WWI. Then they integrated to the urban life. This fact proves nothing but itself: there is nomore Armenian villages.--Lonewolf94 (talk) 11:07, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you may have a POV as well. Of course, this article is about the Armenian Genoide and it contains the fact of forceful deportations after division (and murder) of most of men from the rest of the population and the facts of massacres on their way. What you say is mentioned in the article already. Thank you for bringing it up again, but no need to repeat oneself. Aregakn (talk) 21:15, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Well all Turkey says that there wasn't any genocide, but when you see that only "1" village is present in Turkey, that means we have loste thousand and thousand villages: what did they become?

If we say no genocide? so where are all armenian heritage, that's mean there was an "ETHNIC CLEANING OF ARMENIANS"!--Alsace38 (talk) 12:10, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Guys, rhetorics isn't useful in Wikipedia, usually. I'd like to ask and suggest you all concentrating on contributions to the articles of knowlegde. As this topic is directly what a loss of motherland is ("Patriocide"), I'd like to urge you all to participate in the discussion of how to add to the value of it. Thanks Aregakn (talk) 21:58, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Demands for Armenian genocide reparations

The reparations issue is not really present in this article nor in any related articles listed in the template. However, demands for reparations clearly do exist, they are a reality even though Turkey has not granted any reparations due to its non recognition of the genocide. So I was wondering if it would be a good idea to talk about the demands for Armenian genocide reparations either here and/or create a separate article and list it in the template. Thanks. --Davo88 (talk) 00:22, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

If the Information and sources we have can be presented in an appropriate way with no WP:OR or WP:SYNTH violation in the manner, that it will constitute a WP:Notability, then a separate article can exist on the issue. The problem is, that in the article there is little about non-population losses. And so having little said about the losses one can little say about reparations. This is what I encourage editors to involve in and this is why I proposed the Patriocide as a loss (in it's main territory) of motherland. I think, when we constitute a good division of all other than human losses in this article, we might be able to separate into an independent article. Aregakn (talk) 12:40, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Here is a preliminary version of the article - Demands for Armenian Genocide reparations. --Davo88 (talk) 19:39, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

An interesting start. Good work! Surely things can be added etc. Aregakn (talk) 20:18, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, now you see what I meant with urging editors to first work on determination of losses and not rush to it :). Edit wars is what we get when there are "senative editors" with an agenda.

I shall include the article resume on the Genocide pageAregakn (talk) 02:52, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

How is it possible to add  an article on this page? Im new at this. Thank you  —Preceding unsigned comment added by ArmenianPhD (talk • contribs) 16:22, 17 May 2010 (UTC) 

Information about the jewish community

I removed the following information: The Jewish community in Constantinople hid many Armenians in their homes during the riots and the local synagogue was therefore attacked by Muslims on Yom Kipur in September the same year. with the comment: "Although the fact is interesting, it is quite anecdotical in such a general article where only the main facts should be presented. It is enough to mentıon it on Hamidian Massacres". Aregakn revert me, and then added a comment on my discussion page : You are welcome to participate in the discussions of the Armenian Genocide article. But before reverting an edit claiming that it is unneeded, pls discuss it. And I am sorry but an other claim of yours that the info is on Hamidian massacres page is not true. First of all, I would like to make clear that I didn't said that the fact was on the page Hamidian Massacres but that it was enough to mention it there. This stated, I would like to reach an agreement regarding this quotation. Such a general article should only mention very general facts and not unecessary details. Here the subject is not the Hamidian massacres but the Armenian genocide. Therefore, the account of this massacre should be kept as simple as possible. My proposition is the following : 1)add the information into the article Hamidian massacres. 2) Remove it from this article.--Kimdime (talk) 11:05, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. The nature of the article is too general and too oriented toward the Ottoman Empire's internal conditions and intl. politics to focus on another community's very specific actions during a single event. Something like that may be appropriate in the lower section of the article, detailing the reaction of the non-Armenian communities during the genocide, but not in the general lead-up of the article.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 16:58, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. But first of all, deleting information with summary "It is enough to mentıon it on" when this is not mentioned there and neither did you change it's location, is simply deleting relevant information. It simply means "I'll delete, you do with it whatever". Secondly, I tried to let you know simply deleting/blanking isn't the propper way. Calling that info's presense on this article "anecdotical" is also irrelevant, though it can show why you didn't add it to Hammidian's. Thank you for copying messages to invite to discussions to discussion pages. It is very relevant. Aregakn (talk) 17:09, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

ALl I want to say is that blanking in this manner is unacceptable. The rest I leave to others to decide as I hate clicking 100 articles (and forgetting where I was before) to know the whole story about 1 thing even if people think it's practical. IsmailAhmedov (talk) 03:28, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

 Done--Kimdime (talk) 14:25, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Constantinople-Istanbul

This article refers Istanbul as Constantinople. After the city was conquered by Ottoman Empire, it was called Istanbul. So in 1915 the city was called Istanbul not Constantinople. However this article says "The starting date of the genocide is conventionally held to be April 24, 1915, the day that Ottoman authorities arrested some 250 Armenian intellectuals and community leaders in Constantinople.". It should be "...in Istanbul." (Of course that sentence should show references too, since such a claim should be proved) Reffering Istanbul as Constantin--Lonewolf94 (talk) 15:14, 25 May 2010 (UTC)ople is very wrong and it should be corrected. Also if there is such a mistake throughout the article, of course it shoul be corrected.--Lonewolf94 (talk) 09:07, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Constantinople was renamed to "Istambul" by the Turks in 1923. Prior to that it should be referred to as Constantinople. As the genocides took place before the renaming it should be called Constantinople. FYI "Istanbul" is also derived from Greek.--Anothroskon (talk) 09:12, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

To quote from WP:PLACE

Within articles, places should generally be referred to by the same name as is used in their article title, or a historic name when discussing a past period. Use of one name for a town in 2000 does not determine what name we should give the same town in 1900 or in 1400, nor the other way around. Many towns, however, should keep the same name; it is a question of fact, of actual English usage, in all cases. For example, when discussing the city now called Istanbul, Wikipedia uses Byzantium in ancient Greece, and Constantinople for the capital of the Byzantine Empire, and also the Ottoman Empire. Similarly, use Stalingrad when discussing the city now called Volgograd in the context of World War II. For more details on this subject see Wikipedia:Proper names.--Anothroskon (talk) 09:17, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Still, that is wrong because Istanbul was conquered by Ottoman Empire at 1453 and after that it was refered as Istanbul not Constantinople. And when it was 1923 there was no renaming, it was just saved from British Army as Istanbul. And when the city was the capital of Ottoman Empire, it was always Istanbul because if you think it would be stupid for an Ottoman padishah-king- to use the name of a Byzantine king for his capital city. But I understand why there is a mistake because the wiki site for Constantinople is a little bit mistaken about it too.--Lonewolf94 (talk) 10:14, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Appearently, I couldn't explain myself since Istanbul was made Constantinople again after I have just changed. Refering Istanbul as Constantinople is wrong because after 1453 the city is called Istanbul and since 1915 is after 1453 the city should be called Istanbul. At least let us correct this mistake so that at least minor mistakes are gone.--Lonewolf94 (talk) 17:08, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Two references have been added which are quite clear as to the name of the city. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:33, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Lonewolf94, as a general note in relevance to similar issues, by your logic (excluding that there are references for your mentioned issue being wrong) if Urartians called their Kingdom Biaynili, other names (of the same period) should not be used. Aregakn (talk) 19:04, 23 April 2010 (UTC)(adding to whom the note refers Aregakn (talk) 08:06, 24 April 2010 (UTC) )

OK I will show you your refererence for a commonly known fact. The source says"Finally, weakened by almost constant battle, the Ottoman Turks lead by Sultan Mehmet II conquered Constantinople in 1453. Renamed Istanbul, it became the third and last capital of the Ottoman Empire."[22]--Lonewolf94 (talk) 07:01, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

• 1)Encyclopaedia Britannica is published
• 2)Encyclopaedia Britannica is a reliable source, not some website.
• 3)Why doesn't the "all about Turkey website" mention how the Republic of Turkey passed a Postal Service Law in 1930, stating that it would no longer recognize postage addressed as Constantinople(thus officially changing the name to Istanbul)?
• 4)Articles should be based on reliable, third-party (independent), published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy[23]. --Kansas Bear (talk) 07:16, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, that is coming too. I have just figured out that a Turkey based site might seem suspicious about its reliability. This article says "After being considerably weakened by constant invasions and being cut off from its neighbors by the Ottoman Turks, Constantinople was officially conquered by the Ottomans, led by Sultan Mehmed II on May 29, 1453 after a 53-day siege. During the siege, the last Byzantine emperor, Constantine XI, died while defending his city. Almost immediately, Constantinople was named as the capital of the Ottoman Empire and its name was changed to Istanbul." [24] I belive this one is more objective since it is not Turkey based.--Lonewolf94 (talk) 07:22, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
:By the way the reason of that Post Law is the fact that Europeans were still refering the city as Constantinople and by doing that not recognizing Turkish rule of Istanbul. By this Turkey made it clear that city is named Istanbul.--Lonewolf94 (talk) 07:31, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

No, it means that the Republic of Turkey recognized Constantinople as the name of the city, since they had to change their recognition concerning the name of the city. --Kansas Bear (talk) 08:30, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Changing the name doesn't add to the article. Anybody can click the link and read the history of the city. And, Lonewolf94, once again, if the Kingdom of Urartu or Ararat was called such by Assyrians and the people themselves called the kingdom Biaynili does not mean, that Urartu should not be used. An other thing is about the mountain Ararat. If Turkey has renamed it, should you claim the use of the name Ararat is unacceptable?

As if some editors are not trying to improve articles but to make at least one, I'd call it, pro-turkish change. Aregakn (talk) 08:33, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I am not trying to have a pro-Turkish change, I am trying to improve the article since it is important for people to have the right name of the city which is used at that time. Of course if the article was telling the Byzantine rule of the city, it would be ridiculous for me to say it is Istanbul. But here it should be used as Istanbul, since all these things are claimed to be happened at 1915 and in that time the city was called Istanbul. Here even Wiki site:History of Istanbul's "Ottoman Empire" subtitle's sixth paragraph says "Finally, Constantinople was under Ottoman rule...Before leaving the city, Mehmed declared that Constantinople was to be called Istanbul." And if these are not enough I will try to find an independent and objective published source to prove that.--Lonewolf94 (talk) 09:38, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

You did not show what tha change is adding to the article and how it contradicts with the fact that clicking the name they can find out the present name. Neither did you comment what I said about 2 other similar issues. Aregakn (talk) 09:55, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I am showing you evidence that at that time it was used as Istanbul, what can I do more. I think people should not be obligated to click on the link to find the name of the city at 1915. Lets come to your Mount Ararat issue. Mount Ararat is still refered as that and in fact I have no problem with that because the Turkish name Ağrı is hard for international usage because of "ğ". However the usage of Constantinople implies that people are not recognizing the Turkish rule of the city. That's why we had the Postal Service Law at 1930, to make it clear that Turks are ruling the city since 1453 and we call it Istanbul again since 1453. So that people will understand that Constantinople is Istanbul after 1453 and refering the city as Constantinople is wrong and insulting.--Lonewolf94 (talk) 10:20, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

1. I am glad that what you wrote lately clearly shows the true goal of your edits: "That's why we had the Postal Service Law at 1930, to make it clear that Turks are ruling the city...". This change would obviously NOHOW contribute to the article.

2. I'd prefer you to have been discrete, rather than refusing my assumption that some editors have in goal to make some "pro-Turkish" change.

3. The change neither has any information in it, nor the present name in the article prevents in any way the understanding of the information.

4. The pronunciation of the words has no connection to these type of issues. The letter "ğ" can easily be changed into "gh".

5. In the other example of the Kingdom of Ararat/Urartu (Biaynili) the pronunciation issue is absent, but you preferred not to address it, didn't you?! Aregakn (talk) 12:11, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Even if people accept or not, the city is under Ottoman rule since 1453 and it is called Istanbul since 1453 and I have shown evidence of that and as I said I will show more solid ones. If we think 1915 is after 1453 and that makes it an obligation for us to call the city Istanbul when refering an event at 1915. And don't blame me for pro-Turkish changes because you have been making pro-Armenian changes. And I totally do not understand the reason why you care too much, is it because you think Constantinople is the right usage or do you want to not recognize the Turkish rule of the city? If you ask why I do care, that would be because of the fact I want to correct and improve article by changing that Constantinople into Istanbul-which is the right usage.--Lonewolf94 (talk) 13:30, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

It's a question if your proof are proofs. But regardless that, people know the relevance of the genocide and Constantinople and your change is not adding value but has a goal to prove something that doesn't need to be done on this article. You are welcome to make such change on the article about Istanbul it the first name was used Constantinople instead. Otherwise, your change is irrelevant to the article as it is to any other not concerning the official present names.

A note: even though Ararat is changed to Aghri to clear the region of historical traces it's no THE name of the mountain and isn't accepted by the world. So, if not the mentioned above law the other name wouldn't have been accepted either. Aregakn (talk) 14:48, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

This discussion is pointless. There is a WP rule about the name of the specific city and it is quite clear. Case closed.--Anothroskon (talk) 15:16, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

This is not pointless. I am really hoping that at least this mistake can be corrected. I am not trying to prove something besides of the fact that after 1453 the city is called Istanbul. This article is mistaken by calling Istanbul Constantinople and I am trying to improve the article isn't it the whole purpose of this discussion page?--Lonewolf94 (talk) 16:27, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Correct, your mistake is ignoring the fact that the Republic of Turkey passed a law changing their recognition of Constantinople to Istanbul. You should work on correcting your mistake. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:20, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Look, my base here is the fact that the city is called Istanbul since 1453. The law at 1930 is to say the world that Turks are ruling the city and Turks call it Istanbul and if the world doesn't call it like that Turkey will not accept their letters going to "Constantinople" because since 1453 the city is called Istanbul--Lonewolf94 (talk) 06:22, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Why do you continue to say, is to say the world that Turks are ruling the city and Turks call it Istanbul and if the world doesn't call it like that Turkey will not accept their letters going to "Constantinople, when it is clear that the law was for the TURKISH POSTAL SERVICE to change ITS recognition of Constantinople to Istanbul. The law was passed for the Turkish Postal Service not for anyone else. Typical WP:SYN and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT on your part, trying to imply a different meaning into a law than what it was created to change. --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:02, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

It's not important what Turkey has called it since 1453, what's important is what the rest of the world has called it since 1453. The world knew it as Constantinople until the 1920's, so any references to Istanbul made to the pre-Republican era will have the name as "Constantinople." That's it. Montyofarabia (talk)
You are absolutely right about the fact that world called the city Constantinople in the pre-repuclican era even though the name was Istanbul. And that mistake is what I am trying to correct. The name was Istanbul but people knew it as Constantinople, and now for Wikifans not to do the same mistake, I am trying to correct it--Lonewolf94 (talk) 08:06, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Lonewolf94 forgets that this is not a propaganda site. I'd suggest you, comrade, to think about (once again) ADDING VALUE. Aregakn (talk) 22:46, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, this is propaganda, Mr.Patriocide!-sarcasm again- --Lonewolf94 (talk) 06:03, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

As I promised I found some third party published resources. And one of them is the one which is used to prove that Constantinople is the right usage. I found same Encyclopedia Brittanica and looked at the Constantinople part. It really says that Constantinople is the capital of the Ottoman Empire. However, it doesn't say that it was called like that. Then it adds "In 1930, it was officially renamed Istanbul, as it had long been popularly called." This shows that the city was called Istanbul. Probably, you will say that as wikpedians you are not accepting non-official things. I have only one answer: Look at Transnistria and Nagorno-Karabakh--Lonewolf94 (talk) 14:00, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Here are evidences
[[25]]-"Almost immediately, Constantinople was named as the capital of the Ottoman Empire and its name was changed to Istanbul."
History of Istanbul-"Finally, Constantinople was under Ottoman rule...Before leaving the city, Mehmed declared that Constantinople was to be called Istanbul."
Freely, John. Blue Guide Istanbul. New York: W.W.Norton, 1987.- "Istanbul, Capital of the Ottoman Empire."
Now, is this enough, can I change it in "...in Istanbul"--Lonewolf94 (talk) 15:11, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Wow, talk about hard up to prove the Republic of Turkey did not pass a law.

All you have is some online nonsense, and a travel guide?? So now, a travel guide is more authorative than Encyclopedia Britannica?

And even the online site contradicts itself, http://worldnews.about.com/od/turkey/f/istanbulconstan.htm; After the death of Constantine, the first Christian Roman emperor, the city was renamed Constantinople and remained so through the reign of the Ottoman Empire. With the Turkish Republic's founding in 1923, the city was renamed Istanbul as Mustafa Kemal Ataturk moved the capital to Ankara.

Wow. --Kansas Bear (talk) 15:57, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

And despite having two sources(The Encyclopædia Britannica, & http://concise.britannica.com/ebc/article-9368294/Istanbul Britannica, Istanbul ) that clearly state it was Constantinople, I still link it to the popular name of Istanbul. Perhaps since more evidence has been in-advertently provided, it should be linked to Constantinople. --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:05, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

The fact that you liked this Postal Law too much ipressed me. However, the reason of that was to send a message to Westerns: If you don't call the city Istanbul, we are not delivering your posts. Now, only thing you can say to me is the fact that the Postal Law was an official declaration as said in Encyclopedia Brittanica "In 1930, it was officially renamed Istanbul, as it had long been popularly called." And if you would like this encyclopedia's citation I would be glad to provide you that. And if you are not happy with the fact that it was inofficial, again I am telling you Transnistria and Nagorno-Karabakh.--Lonewolf94 (talk) 16:01, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Guys, guys... This discussion is closed! WIkipedia relates the names to the accepted English naming of them or official local in some cases. This case is closed and the name stayes "Constantinople" in accordance to both of these 2 in WP:Names. Why to "waste breath"?! Aregakn (talk) 11:24, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Sir, I am not wasting breath here. I accept the fact that Istanbul is (unfortunately) called Constantinople after 1453 as a common mistake(or as an insult). As I just highlighted and have highlighted many times Constantinople is Istanbul after 1453. However even though it is a mistake the fact that Istanbul is Constantinople in English may be accepted as Ağrı and Ararat issue. But the main problem of this Istanbul-Constantinople issue is the fact that Constantinople is used as an insult since it, in a way, underestimates Turkish rule of Istanbul. The reason of this thought is the fact that after 1453 the city is called Istanbul whereas in an Armenian Genocide related article the city is called Constantinople with the excuse of the Postal Law. It appears that there is something personal in this. In any way don't answer this because I decided not to continue this because appearently thi is such a common mistake that it can't be corrected and people like to insult the Turkish nation (even by using the wrong name of their old capital and their most important city) who has supposedly comitted so-said Armenian Genocide.--Lonewolf94 (talk) 15:14, 25 May 2010 (UTC)