Talk:Armenian genocide

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

Archives (Archives have been recently merged):
Archive 1 (1068 kb/1.068mb)
Archive 2 (108 kb) .

Fadix Analysis: Fadix Analysis (575 kb)

---

...

Adding comments as a preface to an existing chain may appear presumptuous, however, I would like to add a frame of reference to the ensuing discussion. Germany was plunged into an economic, political and social abyss after World War I, which created the opportunity for nazism to flourish, leading to World War II and subsequently to the Jewish Holocaust, the genocide of gypsies, etc. The international community, starting from the trials at Nuremburg, has never allowed (and rightly so!) the destitute and depressed condition of the German people to be used as a mitigating circumstance to soften the vehement, often confrontational, and always powerful condemnation of the atrocities committed in Nazi Germany. The German people, as a nation, have never used their "baggage" (i.e., post-WWII economic depression, outcast status in Europe, political instability) as a reason for shoving denialist and apologist rhetoric down Jewish throats. Denying the Holocaust would be unfathomable, no one would suggest any "legitimate" reasons to deny it. So what makes it acceptable to look for "legitimate" reasons to deny the Armenian genocide? --Respectfully, A.N.

Why don't you give a country the right to defense itself from accusations that are far beyond any credible facts? In the article is written such nonsense like that the red crescent killed armeniens with morphium injections and gassed and burned armenian children. Thank you. By the way, do you know Sabiha Gökcen?

why don't you write an article about her? Mikkalai 15:32, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

You are responding to someone who is deploring wholesale denial of the Armenian Genocide. Arguing for the legitimacy of a Turkish defense against the Red Crescent charges is evasive.

To make clear that the turks did and do not hate armenians. Turks are not racist, that would make in no way any sense because turkey is a multiethnic country. The turkish nationalism is not based on race but on patriotism. That is the difference between the racistic armenian nationalism and it was the armenian racist nationalism that led to this catastrophe. 84.171.173.153 14:27, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

She was the first female war fighter pilot in the world. She was Armenian. In the turkish army. And she is treaten like a hero in Turkey, an airport in Istanbul is also named after her. But don't dare to mention her name in armenian forums! ;-) Greetings from Turkey. 195.175.37.38 06:02, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Whether Sabiha Gokcen was Armenian or not (which doesn't mean any difference to me) was highly debated in 2004. I have Turkish references supporting both claims, and when I have time I will translate them and add them into Sabiha Gokcen article. - Cansın 1.41 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Recent Developments on The Freedom of Speech Issue

Ironically, the following developments have occured just after the we discussed about freedom of speech in Turkey on the Armenian issue: - Belgian parliament passed a new law that classified denial of Armenian "genocide" as a crime with a penalty of 1 to 12 months of imprisonment - French "socialists" proposed a similar law to the French Parliament - A Swiss court granted an arrest warrant for Yusuf Halacoğlu, a Turkish historian and bureocrat, for rejecting the genocide claims in a talk in Switzerland. The decision was condemned by the involved community in Turkey, including supporters of genocide thesis such as Halil Berktay, and Armenian intellectuals such as Hrant Dink and Etyen Mahçupyan, who were described as "hostages of Turkey" by a representative of Armenian Diaspora in Europe recently.

Unfortunately, I was not able to find any of these in the "only reliable source of information", the western media. So I guess this will not take place in the article, unless the diaspora advocates want to proudly advertise it as evidence for international recognition. I just wanted to leave this note as an example for the never-ending double standards against Turkey. You may delete it, but please make sure that you keep claims about "Turks invading Arabia". --Cezveci 09:10, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

If this is true Cezveci, it would be a logical consequence of recognising the genocide in the countries you mention, since similar rules apply to anyone denying the Jewish genocide - revisionism is a crime in (most) European countries. No need to mindlessly cry wolf about being the victims of double standards. And WTF has "Turks invading Arabia" got to do with this? --House of Shin 11:23, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Is this the new accepted practice now - post new input at the top of the page vice the bottom? Is there some reason why this information deserves to be here rather then chronologically like everything else? --THOTH 12:12, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

I have mixed feelings about this. I don't think that questioning a historical event should be forbidden. But I do believe that Halacoglu should be jailed though, what he did was beyond denial, this man would be classified as a racist(modern or old definition) by Western standards, not because he question the genocide, but as well because this man even beats racists like Ataov. Remind to people that according to this psychotic man, about 56 thousand Armenians died during the evacuation, and that from it, less than 10 thousands were killed in total by some tribs, while according to the same individual, Armenians on the other hand have allegedly killed about 520,000 Turks(while even publicists like Emin, propagandizing about Armenians "crimes" haven't advanced half that figure in the 20s or 30s). The sick individual characterises Armenians in a way that it doesn't take any law forbidding genocide denial to sue him. And in fact, the charges against him are based on an anti-racist law rather than a law making the denial illegal. Fadix 02:12, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

The only racist I see here are you, sorry. But do you really want to jail a whole country? Talk to Turks and you will see they support rather Yusuf Halacoglu than supporting your point of view. Should Swiss jail them all? Honestly? Even Swiss is not as rich to build as many Jailhouses I guess! ;-) And by the way: Dear 198.77.78.57, stop deleting other authors writing here on the discussion page! Thank you!! 195.175.37.38 06:07, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

If you support Halacoglu, talk for yourself, that man is an example of how education doesn't necessarily equal with intelligence. Have I said that a whole country should be jailed? If you find it normal that a moron, at a head of a historic society generalizes an entire people, and uses Belge references that probably everyone even him knows being forgery, to claim that Armenians committed genocide against the Turks, and that only less than 10 thousand Armenians were killed, and all by Kurds, Arabs etc..., while Armenians have killed 520 thousand Turks; I don't. Fadix 15:48, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

I think that this may prove illustrative of my appreciation of the legitimate Turkish perspecive on this issue

I posted this in an Armenina forum today in response to some Armenians claiming that we need to demand more of the Turks etc...I just want to give some folks here an understanding of some of the level of appreciation I have for the Turkish position and (some of the reasons) why Turks are reluctant to admit/acknowledge genocide...

OK let me lay it all out....

XXXX - I understand how you feel - but unfortunately your approach will get us nowhere IMO. One reason that it is so easy for the Turkish government to convince its people that we are the aggressors - the terrible ones and that they are the victims is the attitudes and expressions of many Armenians (of the Diaspora). The Turks see this aggressive stance on the part of Armenians and immediately recoil - and if you were in their shoes you would too.

I'm not saying that you and other Armenians are wrong and that Turks (Turkish Government in particular) are/is right - but its a matter of what is constructive and what will only lead to the predictable result - rejection. And I'm not necessarily saying that we Armenians have to care (about the Turks/what Turks think & feel) - but I am one who sees the Turks as victims too - in a very real sense - and not of Armenians (don't be absurd) - but of the circumstances surrounding the fall of their Empire and culture and the resultant wars and poverty that the Ottoman Empire and that its citizens (Turks, Armenians and others) were plunged into. And this is why they will continue to deny that they could have done such a wrong.

You have to understand that like us - the Turks see first and foremost their own suffering and identify with their own plight. And the collapse of the Ottoman Empire - the rise of nationalism in the outlying districts (that led to independence [Greece/Balkans/various Arab lands] and the expulsion of ethnic Turks and [from Europe] other Muslims) as well as external campaigns against the Turks - primarily by Russia - but also by the other opportunistic European colonial powers of the day (much of WWI - particularly in the Middle East - was a big colonial land grab at the expense of the Ottoman Empire - they were salivating for years at this prospect...) - this all made for a situation of extreme xenophobia and distrust of others during this period - and resulted in extreme hardship for a great many Turks (and this is a fundamental truth that we often/most always ignore and fail to understand).

From this there was revolution - and the CUP/Young Turks were at first a promise of modernity, reform and escape from the extreme corruption and arbitrariness of the Sultan that plagued the Ottoman Empire in its later days and kept it stagnant while the rest of Europe was moving foreword and liberalizing (there was to be rule of law - necessarily for civil rights and for business prosperity). This hope was (initially) well shared by Armenians as well as Turks and all other peoples of the Empire. Unfortunately - as we have seen - and as is typical in revolutions - particularly ones with such great societal upheaval and with such tremendous outside pressures as well - those who rose to power were not at all liberal or benevolent but were bent on acquiring and maintaining power and were also determined to rid themselves of all rivals and potential competition - thus the early campaign against the very Armenian revolutionary parties that had supported them and shared their supposed goals for liberalization and equality for peoples of the Empire.

The rest is as we say history - as these same CUP leaders deluded themselves into thinking that (by allying with Germany in WWI and by removing the "foreign"/destabilizing elements within their population) they could reclaim and expand the glory of the Ottoman Empire - but this time (Eastward) for Turks and for Turks alone. But in doing so they plunged the nation into further despair. Their attempts to centralize the economy (and fund much of this through theft of Armenian property and industry) was a complete failure. This and the various impacts of the war (additional refuges and shortages) added to the suffering of the people - and the uprooting/elimination of Armenians led to tremendous food shortages and collapse of industry and commerce.

And remember they blamed the Armenians for their defeats and for all of the problems of the Empire (scapegoating) and used Turkish/Muslim jealousy of their wealth and association with their (refugee Turks) Orthodox tormentors (from the Balkans and from Russia) as a means to rally the people against the Armenians and for Armenians (and eventually Greeks) to take the blame. And during the war they saw themselves (somewhat correctly) as besieged from all sides by colonial powers that just wanted to carve up their empire and leave them with nothing (and they saw and see the Armenian question strictly within the confines of this paradigm as an integral part of such (thus the charge of treason - that we abandoned them while they were down etc - you should notice how the Turks always reference how we were and are being used by the Europeans etc) - anyway - so after WWI the Nationalist/Kemalist rise from the ashes - and it truly was a glorious thing in the eyes of the Turks - as it should be seen - but again everything falls into place with Ataturk initiating a new Turkish consciousness that is predicated on lack of any recognition of minority status. The (remaining/unmassacred) Greeks are expelled (forcibly transferred for Turks from Greece/Balkans after the failed Greek land grab that was encouraged - but then ultimately not materially supported - by the Brits/Europeans) - and all of this further led to this Turkish mindset of Armenians (and Greeks) as traitors within - that what was done was justified - and that (interestingly) it wasn't really so bad as we say (and in fact they valiantly did their part to protect us - and so on and so forth) - that this (Genocide charge) is/was all part of some anti-Turkish propaganda - and that by the way - most everything we claim was done to us they now claim was done to them by us - and again wartime propaganda and rallying and making excuse to cover what was being done all play into supporting these notions as truth in the Turkish mindset - as many years (decades) of anti-Armenian hatred and resentment had been building up on the part of the Turks and this was further enflamed by the refugees returning from other parts of the Empire with stories of Orthodox Christian brutalities against them - and these people were settled amongst the Armenians.

So this is the problem. How can we really expect the Turks - with all of this baggage - and no real incentive to dump it (much disincentive in fact) - how can we expect them to even remotely accept our claims of Genocide? (as we stridently scream accusations at them?) All the dice are loaded for them to see it totally differently and to dismiss all of our (the) facts as manufactured/invented (after all they do it all the time - so they expect others do so as well!) - etc. And we never acknowledge their suffering or conditions either - not at all (of course how could they really expect us to - but no one does - and that’s the point....)

This is why the confrontational approach will never work. --THOTH 17:36, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes, from this point of view I can understand all the things which are going here. It seems that both nations was victims o the same regime of Young Turks party. One - because of genocide, other - because of total brainwashing, economic fall, etc (Remember germans? Actually, most of them were victims of nazi regime too). This kind of situations is very common after revolutionary restructuring of empires. You can remember wars in former Tsar Russian Empire, former African colonies, Yugoslavia or USSR after changes of those regimes... So, maybe it would help in this discussion other point of view - historical perspective where genocide can be viewed from the different point? I understand that it is difficult, because of topic is really sensitive, but may be it is worth to try? --Gvorl 18:31, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thoth, thank you. May this sane attitude transpire into the article. --House of Shin 18:53, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have always had what I contend is a holistic approach to this issue. So much so that I often get attacked from both sides! I've had my approach be termed blasphemous by a Turkish view apologist speaking as if from an Armenian perspective (if that makes sense - anyway, I think he was giving me a complement...). Still - there are basic facts - and these facts will not paint the Young Turk regiem in a very good light - regardless. There is nothing I can do to change the reality or truth of this. That being said there are a very many related issues that warrent discussion and revelation (from all sides) in order for readers to properly understand the circumstances and events of this genocide.

And again - I must stress - there are very few individuals with as much knowledge and insight on this matter as Fadix. I think he has been wrongly portryed as (unreasonably) partisan because of some of the extreme denialist viewpoints he has had to deal with. I think he can be very balanced if allowed - perhaps even more so then I. Additionally, I do appreciate that there are very legitimate Turkish viewpoints and information that are not ussually stressed or mentioned by Armenians discussing this issue and I would welcome them as they are relevant and are supported. Knowing what I do know (I am quite aware of and at least fairly well read concerning what is available in English on this matter - from the Turkish perspective and otherwise) - I still fail to see where the fundemental premiss that is held by Armenians and most all legitimate genocide scholars and historians - of this being a genocide - in every sense of the word - that this premiss can be seriously challenged. I do think, however, that discussion of these events and surrounding events and circumstances need not be monolithic (or single POV) in nature. --THOTH 19:09, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I haven't experienced a hatred towards Armeinans when I were there. I think Fadix is fanatical with his beliefs, you have a cooler aproach and a civil attitude. You are encouraged to respond to my posts below, and PLEASE stick to History rather than an analysis of Turkeys denial. This is a History discussion not political. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 02:33, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

THOTH, I appreciate your constructive comments and valuable analysis on the issue. I agree with you on most parts, but I don't understand how you can claim that the Armenian issue is not being used by European big powers today. Do you really think that France cares about Armenians? Did they care about Rwanda just 10 years ago, when it was happening in front of their eyes? Do you think US will take action against Turkey on this issue as long as Incirlik remains open (which is a shame)? We just don't talk to each other, ask for third parties for help and they get the benefit from our problem. I think this is an apparent fact, and actually one of the most important things that feeds arrogant Turkish nationalism and has been shaping Turkey's attitude on the issue from the beginning.

A note on hatred. Yes, there is hatred against Armenians in Turkey. It has several reasons and cannot be simply explained by "manipulation" and "brain-washing". More of this is on the side of the Armenians, which is also very understandable. A recent joint study by academics from two countries showed that about 60% of Armenians declare negative feelings for Turks, while this is around 30% in Turkey. This makes sense as Armenian national identity is built on remembering "what Turks did to us", while the Turkish side preferred to forget what has happened and Turks, as the major entity of the Empire, did gain more than sufficient number of enemies during the collapse of the Empire. The words for national identities are sometimes used as an insult mutually. However, i am happy to note that there have been some famous Armenians in Turkey during the republican era, who were well-respected (such as Agop Dilaçar, Nubar Terziyan and Ara Güler). What bothers me on our side is that people are generally not aware of the humanistic dimension of the tragedy while talking, debating on it. I see a similar attitude from the other side, that is what has pushed me to angrily jump into this article. While they proudly use Turkish historians' names to support their theses, they don't care to listen what they say about the causalities on the other side. Taner Akçam gives an estimate of 40000 (numbers are only important to show that the event was not an outlier) Turkish villagers killed in revenge between 1917 and 1919. Local people in Northeastern Turkey tell stories about people being burned alive. These are enough to agitate that long-lasting hatred and forget questioning what "we" might have done. But people just reject listening to these, keep accusing you of "revising history" because as I now understand, the problem is totally political. Not humanitarian, not historical, it is unfortunately just political. --Cezveci 09:54, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Cezveci - I have only just seen your post here - and I believe it is a good one - with worthwhile insight. Of course France and Germany may well (and perhaps are) using the Genocide as an excuse to keep Turkey out of the EU - OK I see this - and this is politics - some of the politics that has tainted this issue - since perhaps before it was ever an issue between Turks and Armenians. And I agree with yor point about needing to see the human side of the equation - and that Turks suffered as well - most certainly. Still - the CUP actions and related (even on the part of a very many Turks/Kurds) did occur - and this must be accuratly presented. And prior and counter Armenian violence against Turks did occur (not quite at all the same thing as the deportation & Genocide however - please lets see this admission - eh) - and these needs to be properly acknowledged - though not in the exaggerated manner that it often is (as justification per se) - and I don't necessarily dispute the potential for the numbers of Turkish killed by Armenians in the 1917-19 period (Armenia was in shambles you know - leadership killed - they had no idea of how to run a state and discipline their own - and thugs and those who were hurt and bent on revenge had guns etc). I think - that in the full article everything of this nature should have its place - and included in such should be the denial issue itself in some detail (IMO). I agree with Fadix's suggestion of a main article with side/supporting articles. Anyway - no time at the moment. I am interested in your take on why the Armenians were/became to be so disliked by the Turks during the late 19th century on. Likely there is much more that we (us and each "side") might agree on when we dispasionatly lay out the events and factors. I know that there are Turks who understand much and have some special insights - I was surprised (a bit - though not totally) that you seem to possibly be one of these (based on your earlier attacks - that I see/saw as a bit off base - considering who directed at etc). Anyway like I said got to go now...--THOTH 19:52, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Concerning the Armenian Genocide as such from the perspective of scholars and the historical record

Thanks to Fadix for posting this on another site - I saw it and felt it needed to be posted here for the record - (BTW - still working - as I can on a proposed outline for this section - you will see why it is taking me so long - as it is a bit more then an outline and I am trying to be comprehensive)

INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF GENOCIDE SCHOLARS

President: Robert Melson (USA) Vice-President: Israel Charny (Israel) Secretary-Treasurer: Steven Jacobs (USA)

Respond to: Robert Melson, Professor of Political Science Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907 USA

April 6, 2005

Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan TC Easbakanlik Bakanlikir Ankara, Turkey FAX: 90 312 417 0476

Dear Prime Minister Erdogan:

We are writing you this open letter in response to your call for an "impartial study by historians" concerning the fate of the Armenian people in the Ottoman Empire during World War I.

We represent the major body of scholars who study genocide in North America and Europe. We are concerned that in calling for an impartial study of the Armenian Genocide you may not be fully aware of the extent of the scholarly and intellectual record on the Armenian Genocide and how this event conforms to the definition of the United Nations Genocide Convention. We want to underscore that it is not just Armenians who are affirming the Armenian Genocide but it is hundreds of independent scholars, who have no affiliations with governments, and whose work spans many countries and nationalities and the course of decades. The scholarly evidence reveals the following:

On April 24, 1915, under cover of World War I, the Young Turk government of the Ottoman Empire began a systematic genocide of its Armenian citizens an unarmed Christian minority population. More than a million Armenians were exterminated through direct killing, starvation, torture, and forced death marches. Another million fled into permanent exile. Thus an ancient civilization was expunged from its homeland of 2,500 years.

The Armenian Genocide was the most well-known human rights issue of its time and was reported regularly in newspapers across the United States and Europe. The Armenian Genocide is abundantly documented by thousands of official records of the United States and nations around the world including Turkey's wartime allies Germany, Austria and Hungary, by Ottoman court-martial records, by eyewitness accounts of missionaries and diplomats, by the testimony of survivors, and by decades of historical scholarship.

The Armenian Genocide is corroborated by the international scholarly, legal, and human rights community:

1) Polish jurist Raphael Lemkin, when he coined the term genocide in 1944, cited the Turkish extermination of the Armenians and the Nazi extermination of the Jews as defining examples of what he meant by genocide.

2) The killings of the Armenians is genocide as defined by the 1948 United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.

3) In 1997 the International Association of Genocide Scholars, an organization of the world's foremost experts on genocide, unanimously passed a formal resolution affirming the Armenian Genocide.

4) 126 leading scholars of the Holocaust including Elie Wiesel and Yehuda Bauer placed a statement in the New York Times in June 2000 declaring the "incontestable fact of the Armenian Genocide" and urging western democracies to acknowledge it.

5) The Institute on the Holocaust and Genocide (Jerusalem), the Institute for the Study of Genocide (NYC) have affirmed the historical fact of the Armenian Genocide.

6) Leading texts in the international law of genocide such as William A. Schabas's Genocide in International Law (Cambridge University Press, 2000) cite the Armenian Genocide as a precursor to the Holocaust and as a precedent for the law on crimes against humanity.

We note that there may be differing interpretations of genocide - how and why the Armenian Genocide happened, but to deny its factual and moral reality as genocide is not to engage in scholarship but in propaganda and efforts to absolve the perpetrator, blame the victims, and erase the ethical meaning of this history.

We would also note that scholars who advise your government and who are affiliated in other ways with your state-controlled institutions are not impartial. Such so-called "scholars" work to serve the agenda of historical and moral obfuscation when they advise you and the Turkish Parliament on how to deny the Armenian Genocide.

We believe that it is clearly in the interest of the Turkish people and their future as a proud and equal participant in international, democratic discourse to acknowledge the responsibility of a previous government for the genocide of the Armenian people, just as the German government and people have done in the case of the Holocaust.

Sincerely,

[signed] Robert Melson Professor of Political Science President, International Association of Genocide Scholars

[signed] Israel Charny Vice President, International Association of Genocide Scholars Editor in Chief, Encyclopedia of Genocide

[signed] Peter Balakian Donald M. and Constance H. Rebar Professor of the Humanities Colgate University

---

Unsigned - THOTH

So a letter from scholars asuming its authentic prooves genocide? --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 00:10, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am just impressed as newer and newer accounts are formed supporting the case. You guys have good comunication. I am not trying to disprove the genocide, nor prove it. Instead of talking diplomacy, start talking history, thanks. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 00:12, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If you however want to talk abut diplomacy, create a Armenian-Turkish relations article. Apperantly scholas worldwide accept this, dont care of the factuality of that. However discussion is not relly about genocide here. Its about how horible people who want to discuss it. Average post is a page, rambling. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 00:15, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

...

I personaly am more and more reluctant to believe State Sponsored Genocide was not the case. The more you insisst that is the case without basis the less likely I will believe that. I am even less likely to believe if you declare me Turkish/Revisionsit or anything else. I need to see the analogy of your cases... Which historian said it, based on what material, is there an alternative interpretation(s)? Is the alternative interpretation(s) significant? --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 01:06, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thank you Coolcat - this (above and your comments after my posting of the Association of Genocide Scholars letter to Erdogyn) proves everything that people here have claimed concerning your intrangesence and makes crystal clear that your objective - in the face of all evidence and with nothing to counter it - is that you will only continue to block any efforts to portray these events as they are historically known by all. I do not understand all how Wikipedia works - but it is quite clear to me that you do not belong in any way in this process - what can I say. We are not stupid...I will leave it at that.--THOTH 15:04, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think you fail to see my argument, you tall about evidence, I see no evidence of this evidence. Diplomatic mail does not proove genocide. It just proves some people are gooing in to great lenghts to make Turkey Accept it. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 23:55, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

With respect, diplomatic mail is by definition conducted between nations, for example if France wrote Germany a letter. The letter above is not diplomatic mail. If I can pose this question Coolcat, if the International Association of Genocide Scholars are not able to provide authoritative evidence, then who is? I would very much appreciate it if you could present some of your sources. --bainer 00:11, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Any material that had been added that remotley suggests otherwise has been removed. Spelling corrections were declared POV even though the actual change was superficial. This clearly shows posts by users are not read. You can have hundereds of people here, I dont quite care. In the end the article will be NPOV, like it or not. See creationism? How many scientists believe in this you think? Why is the article informative instead of "how false" the idea is. You are required to tolerate other peoples rules if you want to be a part of wikipedia. You should all the time discuss the article not the other party as explained in Wikipedia:No Personal Attacks. I never declared the pro-genocide view as "stupid" or "unacceptable". You do not have the god given right to determine facts and what is POV. All of you combined is one side of the story. It is not the only side. A significant group of people dismisses genocide thesis. I dont expect you to accept their beliefs, however you are required to live with it. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 01:06, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Everyone has their views regarding topics. Honestly, I was indifferent. I have a good understanding what Turks "feel" as I lived among them for quite a while. Knowing the reasonable sounding Turkish argument, I was going to make people present their cases. I commented out material that I thought would conflict with the Turkish Argument as that is a sign of POV/persective. I was going to rewrite some so it wasnt a blunt accusations. While genocide thesis may be true/false, that really is irrelevant when we are talking about it here. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view will tell you that presenting multiple views adds diversity. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 01:06, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

---

The vital component: good research

Many POV battles would be made much easier through the practice of good research. Facts are not points of view in and of themselves. So an easy way to avoid making a statement that promotes a point of view is to find a reputable source for a fact and cite the source. This is an easy way to characterize a side of a debate without promoting a view. The trick is to find the best and most reputable source you can. Try the library for good books and journal articles, and look for the most reliable online resources. A little bit of ground work can save a lot of time in trying to justify a point later.

The only other important consideration is that while a fact is not POV in and of itself, adding facts, no matter how well cited, from only one side of a debate is a POV problem. So work for balance. Find facts that aren't from one side or the other and cite the source.

---

Finalising my words: I do not hate you. I am not ignorant. I am not your pet. I am focusing on this article only. I shall present my case below regarding the current state of the article. I will not edit the article itself. So far i have suggested material to be discussed, I wanted to hear what others thought first, I ended up been forced to deal with insults.

---

Interesting discussion, I want to call THOTH to be honest about what the Armenian claims are looking for. Please don't take this in any way of an offense, but the main reason behind the whole so called Armenian-genocide is to get land back from Turkey. I understand your loss during the world war I and I understand that the deportation of your people had been in bad conditions and not the ideal one. But if it is sentimental to your people, maybe you might want to try to explain to people like me who has lost family during the Van massacre, where Armenians shot Turkish people and massaccared 500.000 innocent Ottoman citizens as they betrayed the Ottoman forces as they fought with the Russian side. I believe this discussion of such a complex issue should be held between Historians, not between interested people of this issue, because there is thousands of evidence that should be analyzed before coming up with a resolution. I hope two countries can get along, and yet I see no help of the Armenian Claim to Armenia. I remember that the visit of Foreign Ministir of Armenia to Turkey and he said that there should be no interference between the relations of Armenia and Turkey from international arena and added that they were not discussing the issue of Armenian Claim with Turkish side anymore.

Anonymous poster above - you obviously don't understand "Armenian losses during World war I" - and your a\calling the Genocide of Armenians "So-called" is additional testament to your ignorance on this matter. You obvioulsy have accepted the (unfactual) official Turkish party line - that Armenians are only interested in getting "land back from Turkey" - that Armenians massacred 500,000 inocent Ottoman civilians, that Armenians betrayed Ottoman forces as they fought with Russians - these are all completely spurious and untrue claims. BTW - for your informaton historians and scholars have already spoken on this issue. The truth is know - just not by you or your Prime Minister, government or a great many of your people - shame that. And regarding the loss of your family members during the Van "massacre" - I am sorry for that - however I urge you to truly study the history and reports of what occured in Van (not just fabricated Turkish propaganda that was used to incite hatred of Armenians) and then decide who might be to blame for such. --THOTH 15:06, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Coolcats suggestions

• These are my suggestions. You are welcome to respond to them, you can tell me why the change is in approporate/inapproporate. You are welcome to suggest alternatives. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 01:06, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• If you are going to be sarcastic and/or tell me how horible of a person I am, don't. This is a civilised request. You are not obligaded to follow it, I do wish you respect these conditions. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 01:20, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• I will be basing all my statements based on this version: "12:59, 20 Apr 2005 House of Shin (→Recent history — timeline -Ministry of Education recommendations of 14/04/2003 (LDH))"
• If I edit the article alone it had been reverted without beeing read so I gave up on that idea, also as I am not allowed to edit wikipedia I also gave up on my atempt to work on other articles as well as they have been constantly removed. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 01:38, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Lead

The term Armenian Genocide (also known as the Armenian [[Holocaust (disambiguation)|Holocaust]] or Armenian Massacre) refers to the deportations and related deaths of Armenians during the government of the Young Turks in 1915–1917.

Several facts in connection with the Armenian Genocide are currently causing dispute between parts of the international community and Turkey. There is an agreement about the occurence of the event, but Turkey denies that it was a , hence genocide.

Most Armenian, many Western, and some Turkish scholars believe that the Armenian deaths were the result of a state-sponsored extermination plan. Most Western sources maintain that there were at least one million deaths. What is referred to as the Armenian Genocide is the second-most studied case of what is called genocide, and often draws comparison with the Holocaust.

---

The term Armenian Genocide (also refered as the Armenian [[Holocaust]] or Armenian Massacre) refers to the deportations/relocations and related deaths of Armenians as a consequence during the government of the Young Turks between 1915 and 1917.

The event is currently a diplomatic dispute between Turkey and Armenia. Presure on Turkey by parts of international community to recognise it as a "state-sponsored extermination plan" rather than her standing "a consequence of armed conflict, civil war, disease, and famine during the turmoil of World War I" is increasing as the list of countries that have officially recognized the Armenian Genocide grows.

Scholars worldwide agree that the event did happen. However there is a lack of agreement on various details. The most significant disagreement is it's classification as genocide. While the majority agrees a state-sponsored extermination plan was the case, a considerable minority disputes this with various reasons. There is also a lack of concensius on the death toll. Numbers range between 200,000 to 1,600,000 or posibaly more, however archives do not agree with each other.

---

• Please post comments below here:

Can someone please tell me who is "comparing this with the Holocaust? Is this a personal opinion? I dont think anything can compare with the Holocaust. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 02:13, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Who claims this is the second most studied genocide case? Is this a personal opinion? --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 02:26, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As you should know, Raphael Lemkin who is creator of the genocide term, compared Armenian genocide to Holocaust in the definition of the genocide term. So, this should be clear, I think. It may be more difficult to define "the most studied", "the second most studied", etc. things, but it can be said that the most or the second most studied case can be determined by number of historic works about the case. Of course, this claim should be reffered. --Gvorl 06:09, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well my issue is "compared" makes it sound almsot as bad as and like the Holocaust when that is not the case. Article itself suggests this. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 23:43, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

---

WHO ARE YOU TO MAKE THIS CLAIM! your biases are showing! yeah yeah - "I only want NPOV & the truth - 50/50" etc - yes right - we see you. So you contend that death marches (where in some case only 10% made it), brutal and depraved rapes, being cut up with axes, swords & such, various forms of torture, cruelty, emptying of whole towns, villages, regions etc - and the killing of over one million innocent civilians - who were uprooted from their homes and had all valuables and property - everything - stolen - lives ruined (if they survived) - and the fact that there are no Armenians left in what was historical Armenia - you contend that this in no way compares to the Holocaust!! - that we are making it sound "almost as bad" etc - well for those (hundreds of thousand to millions!) who experienced each it was for all intensive purposes the same - but OK - further concerning comparability - I will contend that on average Armenians experienced quite a bit more physical cruelty and sadism - and taken on the whole - lost a larger percentage of population (they were not rescued as the [surviving] Jews were at the end of WWII) - and the historic homeland of the Armenians has been lost to them (perhaps forever) - hm what does this all amount to (unquestionably) GENOCIDE. Let me say that again in order to make it very clear - The Armenians of Anatolia - of the Ottoman Empire clearly, unquestionable, irrefutably experienced a GENOCIDE at the hands of the Ottman Turks. This is not my POV - it is fact - fact that is overwhelming supported by scholars and the historical recors and all evidence - ALL EVIDENCE! So don't you claim - as one who admits to not knowing the facts and one who says he is unbiased - that this "is not the case" - you are like an infant who is attempting to contribute to an article concerning the Theory of Relativity. Your contributions are just as valid and relevant - as you continually prove to us. Please refrain from posting your entirely ignorant and totally biased POV (child like - David Irving like) perspective! --THOTH 15:40, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Neither of these two versions above is acceptable - particularly the latter. Come now - what incredible weasle words - as well as legitimizing falsity. BTW coolcat I own several works that directly compare Holocaust/shoa with Armenian Genocide - one written by a Jewish survivor of the Holocaust BTW - and one specifically dealing with revisionism and denial.

"deportation and related deaths" - this completely circumvents the fact of deliberate killing - murder/slaughter/massacre/torture/rape/enslavement and so on and so forth that are not at issue - these things absolutly did happen and are thoroughly documented - so nada - this ording and its implications are completely unacceptable.

"The event is currently a diplomatic dispute between Turkey and Armenia." - irrelevant and an untrue statement - has no place here - I know of no ongoing dispute between the two nations that fits this description

"The most significant disagreement is it's classification as genocide" - wrong - we have already very clearly established that there is no disagreement on this point other then from Turish David Irvings and such.

"While the majority agrees a state-sponsored extermination plan was the case, a considerable minority disputes this with various reasons." - incorrrect statemtn - there is no "considerable minority that disagrees outside of a very specific list of Turkish and Turkish state sponsored individuals. Of course we should (and will) list these in a denilaist addendum to the article - but as stated this - like nearly all else in this proposed version is misleading and false

All I have time for at the moment.--THOTH 14:48, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, "denalisim" is a valid point of view. NPOV suggests an article to be written like this. Your works are comendable, McCarthy thinks it wasnt genocide. A good portion of the scientific comunity disagrees it being classified as genocide. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 23:43, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What is your source to dispute the level of agreement/disagreement? Are we suggesting Turkey + McCarthy vs world? --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 23:44, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If the main diagreement of it is not genocide vs non genocide what is it? Playing with words and making it NPOV is good practice. This is how we do things on wikipedia. Creationism is one example, not the best one though. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 01:27, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Coolcat - do you at all understand the degree to which you make no sense at all for someone who really understands this issue. Sure denialism is a valid POV - for those who have done wrong - and are in denial of such (it ain't healthy though - BTW...). Are you familiar with the "8 statges of genocide denial"? - perhaps I shall post. Your statement/contention that a "good portion of the scientific communitey disagrees (about) it being classified as genocide" is just incorrect. Perhaps you are refering to a specific subset of the scientific community - you really must specify. And you discount the (substantiated) views of the Assocation of Genocide Scholars - and - as referrenced 126 Scholars of the Holocaust who believe the same...anyway who TF cares what you think - your credibility is way past lost...--THOTH 04:57, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think you confirmed my argument regarding NPOV actualy. You dont understand what NPOV is about none of you do. Keep discussing me instead of the topic, its becoming amusing actualy. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 11:54, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thoth might not well understand NPOV, but neither do you, as it has been demonstrated times and again by many. What you can't claim is that I don't understand NPOV... Fadix 04:45, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Right and how neutral is the article now since I stop touching it (20:14 (UTC), 26 Mar 2005)? --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 06:44, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

you have categories like: "Before the genocide" and thats neutral? "Turkish government denial" ? Come on. You are presenting this as a solid fact when you cant even tell me how many people died. You said archives disagreed. Just dont claim you understand NPOV. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 06:50, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Really moving on...

Well the discussion has come along recently. I once again would like to recommend we completely ignore Cool Cat. He has served as an absolutely massive distraction from anything of substance, and I think things can move forward much more quickly even working with a nationalist Turk like Cevzeki (I cant's see the spelling from this page), than with someone who knows nothing and has feelings, and has who knows what agenda here. Perhaps it's even a well meaning one, but it has not served as one.

Now I also don't know who added the Arabia thing, but it is interesting that someone would rather complain about it repeatedly than remove it once. Let me be the THIRD person to say, TAKE IT OUT!! It is completely wrong.

Next, let me recomend someone archive almost all of this page again, and we start with a fresh one.

I agree with Fadix that a change (for now at least) should be presented here, and wait at least a couple of days for useful comment. If there seems to be no comments or disagreement, it could be implemented. If there is, then we have to decide how these things get handled. (and I again recommend anything coming from Cool Cat be ignored).

By the way, I am attending the huge international genocide conference (April 20-21) and it is excellent. 3 Israelis, 3 Turks (including one Turkish Armenian, but not including a Turk whose trial starts today for speaking the truth), lots of other international scholars, the well known Hovanissian, Dadrian, Akcam, Miller, Yehuda Bauer, Israel Charny, Juan Mendez, etc. There was mention of the NY Times open letter that was being published and which our Turkish contributer here poopooed. Too bad he, and Cool Cat couldn't attend... seriously. --RaffiKojian 02:30, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That is a discussion on armenian genocide, any of your comments refering to me were removed in accordance with wikipedia:No Personal Attacks, discus me not. Archiving in progress... --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 02:53, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Discuss me not

Coolcat, you have just archived posts made hours before they have been archived, this is a clear abuses of the archiving idea. Archiving is not there to hide posts which you don't like, you can NOT archive posts that were just made hours ago. Fadix 14:25, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, unarchive material if you wish. I archived them on some other users request, its a wiki. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 23:47, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No it is not Wiki, archiving doesn't apply to posts made hours ago, and use the archiving idea to hide posts like that. There is a reason behind archiving, and what you've did with my posts can't be included here. Oh and, as I see you have deleted again, good going, this only adds in the evidences. Fadix 00:23, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree that archiving should not proceed too rapidly, unless the page itself grows too fast to keep under a reasonable 70k in size. -SV|t 20:51, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Misconduct

I think it appropriate to point out that User "Coolcat" has edited and deleted comments made by others on this page recently. I have posted links to these actions to the Requests for arbitration page concerning User:Coolcat, however, some participants in this talk page may not be aware of this request, so I'm raising the matter here; please see this edit and this one, too to see the removal or paring-down of comments by RaffiKojian, Fadix, and THOTH. — Davenbelle 00:25, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for tracking this. So sorry a certain uncool hyena is wasting your and all of our time like this --THOTH 04:58, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

While it might be appropriate to remove flaming or abuse on one's own User Talk page, it is recommended that one should not remove personal attacks from Talk pages in general. Refactoring is only appropriate once a conversation has died down, that is, not immediately. --bainer 05:39, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Personal attacks will be removed, see tony removing such comments at the bottom of the page. Civil people dont need personal attacks, sincerely. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 11:49, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There is NO personal attack in my post you have edited. Fadix 04:41, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am adding back the comments that Cool Cat deleted. They are simply the truth, and I do not even consider them personal attacks, I am simply evaluating the worth of his participation, mentioning how he hinders discussion in every way possible, and recommending a strategy on how to continue the real work and discussion of the article. Cool Cat, do NOT delete my comments, as it has already been pointed out that this is not kosher on a talk page, and I even do not consider my comments personal attacks. They are nothing personal, and you have certainly discussed other people on this page. I will not reply to your replies to me, but will respond in kind if you delete my comments again. For peoples information, aside from posting what you deleted back where you took it from, I am posting it here for people to see. --RaffiKojian 16:29, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• I once again would like to recommend we completely ignore Cool Cat. He has served as an absolutely massive distraction from anything of substance, and I think things can move forward much more quickly even working with a nationalist Turk like Cevzeki (I cant's see the spelling from this page), than with someone who knows nothing and has feelings, and has who knows what agenda here. Perhaps it's even a well meaning one, but it has not served as one.
• (and I again recommend anything coming from Cool Cat be ignored).
• Too bad he, and Cool Cat couldn't attend [the genocide conference]... seriously.

Who are you? Please sign your posts. -SV|t 20:51, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Mediation

An old mediation request still exists for this topic. How are issues/discussion regarding this article going? They seem to at least be civil, which is the important thing. Since this is a long term (maybe permanent) npov issue, I will change the npov notice to be less obstructive. -SV|t 20:51, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Arabia

The information I posted about the Ottoman Empire wanting to expand into Arabia is not wrong. I got the information out of my school history textbook. → JarlaxleArtemis 00:42, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

What's the textbook? I wonder if its authors ever looked at a map, or knew anything about the extent and shape of the Ottoman Empire at the time, or heard the phrases "Hejaz railway" and "Arab Revolt". I wonder. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 01:17, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ototomans owned entier Middle east, all of north africa, all of balkans and surrounding areas of black sea I believe. They, just like any empier wanted world domination. Heh, :) --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 11:56, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Check your history book, even your nationalist books, I don't believe would hide that the Balkans were lost during the Balkan war of 1912-1913, which of course is before 1914, when World War I started. Fadix 04:42, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Dispute solving

Sorry for my intrusion into this dispute, simply I would like to suggest and/or review some structural solutions here (most of them are already suggested). I hope this will help by simplifying discussion. Feel free to add new ones --Gvorl 05:42, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC) :

1. Enter changes into Armenian genocide article only after reviewing them in discussion page. Simple policy can be used: change which is not explained before should be considered incorrect.
2. Create separate page describing Turkian government position
3. Create separate page analysing factual and logical accuracy of no-genocide position
4. Create separate page analysing factual and logical accuracy of pro-genocide position
5. Try to use at least one reference which can be testified in each statement.
6. Try to use position of external reviewer, trying to describe facts in context of general situation

Well, I havent touched the article. Most/All recent changes in the article recently have not been discussed. Existing material was bad enough. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 11:58, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Coolcat, my suggestion is not specially for you, please do not take it as personal suggestion or smth.. If active editors like You and Fadix will decide to discuss any changes before any changes are made, this will be decision for all, including not only You, but Fadix too. And because of somebody can be interested in such decission, please discuss it here, but not in my user-page discussion which is not interesting for anyone excepting myself, and not by placing texts about learning of wikipedia usage. Let me copy here part of your post and I'll try to answer to it also here. --Gvorl 12:50, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Next paragraph (sentences from Coolcat) is copied from User talk:Gvorl:

I understand you are trying to help, and I encourage any attempt to make this article neutral, however seperate articles will not work as there isnt much to say, the people dispute anything remotely suggesting "no genocide was not the case" or anything. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 12:07, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Separate articles will simply clear positions by avoiding change-war and searching of universal truth. Separate articles also can simplify the case - it is the only reason I had suggested this. Also, this will show points where different positions conform and where really differs. There can be separate article for Armenian position too, but it seems that such article will be nearly the same like we have currently. --Gvorl 12:50, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I will withold judgement on seperate articles - though I can see where such might be appropriate. However I cannot agree that the current article is sufficient. It is severely comprimised and is not well written. I have almost completed my editing of my anotated outline (perhaps can post later today or tommorow - depending on the time my wife allows me to spend on it) - yes I have been taking a 2 handwritten page outline that I had developed months ago as a potential outline for a documentary film and have been adapting it for an outline to present here - unfortunatly as I have gotten more into this - my outline has not paired down but has expanded a bit and now stands at five pages! (sorry - but it does include references to earlier history as well as takes us to the present - perhaps even the [lessons of the] attempt to write a Wikipedia article on the AG will be the most current/recent entry...) - but anyway much of what is included will be able to be dealt with by reference to other Wikipedia or external articles and other entries will be satisfied by one or two lines of explanation. What I will propose is for some others to perhaps take cuts at different sections (if the outline is accepted - or some varient0 and then we might edit as a group. I can wright these things rather well I think - and from (factual) NPOV (thank you) - but I will likely very much rely on Fadix and others to assist with appropriate references (even though I do have many) - hopefully I will get cooperation. Anyway - I do hope to get the outline out shortly. IMO its looking good - though many tough choices in terms of what might go where etc. Again I hope that it is well recieved. I do not think the current article or anything thus far even remotely fits the bill in a great number of areas. --THOTH 14:49, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Armenian quote

I don't know why the [Armenian quote] was first removed, and then reinserted into text, but this time without link and without explanation. Is this some kind of conspiracy or just clums editing?!Szopen 09:00, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Local populations' participation

I think the issue of local populations –not only bandits- (from neighbouring villages actually) of Turks and Kurds having taken part in the genocide, in a similar way to what happened in Rwanda, should be raised. I only have been told about it by a survivor, originally from a town in Cappadocia – are there any verifiable published records of such events that can be cited? They might have been too sporadic, but as seen in Rwanda, if there are pre-existing rivalries and tensions (and there were in Cappadocia at least, where the Armenians were generally the architects and better educated, richer ones I am told) the 'masterminds' of the genocide need only give a little shove in the "right" direction, and sit back.

I agree that the article must accuratly represent the role/actions/attitudes and such of the local populations of Turks and Kurds as we have reportings of such - agreed. There is a place for this in the outline (for a much better presentation of the Genocide) I am developing. --THOTH 14:51, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't sign that post. Looking forward to your outline ('outline' must be an understatement by now ;-))... --House of Shin 15:47, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If the article talks about local populations involvement, it should also talk about the Armenian populations involvement in the acts causing outbreaks of violence. As you mentioned previously most Turks will react if the article *only* talks about Armenians being killed by other local Turks and Kurds. If local people were involved, what is the reason? I don't want to believe that Turks and Kurds attacked Armenians when there was no reason. I am almost sure that it is a sporadic reaction to things that were going on which wouldn't be genocide but ethnic clash. As a Turk, I have no bad feelings such as hate about Armenian people whatsoever. I understand your tradegy, but it is so difficult for me to accept that my ancestors contributed to such atrocities. Even if they did, they didn't do it in my name. I want to believe that it was some insane idealist imperialist minds that also pushed us into WWI. I believe that tensions arosed, caused by nationalist feelings making both sides unrest in East Turkey (which wasn't yet Turkey at that time). I want this to be resolved in peace and I'm as curious as anybody else as to what really caused to whatever happened. Well, I want to write more from a Turk's perspective. It is nice to see there are some moderate Armenians. Thanks. --Muz

I agree with you, to a certain point only: in the end, nothing excuses genocide, which aims at wiping out a whole race, with its culture, memory, identity. Not even 'ethnic clashes' as you say - let us not muddle causes, symptoms and effects. The Germans, and their governments have acknowledged that for decades: any attempt at finding what you call 'reasons' for perpetrating genocide, just as any denial, is moral if not effective complicity. That is the sad thing about Turkey's government's attitude in so many ways even today. And nothing that government says or does will ever change what has been lived, witnessed, officially and legally recognised by so many people and countries. But yes, I agree, for my part, that Armenian nationalism and its violent outbreaks should be mentioned as well, as far as reliable (i.e. non governmental or affiliated) sources can be given, as for what I am proposing above. You are welcome to provide them if you have any! --House of Shin 23:19, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

About including Armenian nationalism, I propose we wait the publication of German records translation that is due to about 3 months, or if a German speaker bought the German volume, to tell what it has to say about it. Fadix 02:29, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Muz - I wonder what the value of focusing on any Armenian violence is, as well as focusing on not hurting Turks feelings (who really ought to get hurt in this case) in an Armenian Genocide article. The Armenian Genocide shouldn't cause today's Turks guilt, only the government campaign of denial should. Ultra-nationalism can cause these things to happen, and in a time when Armenians and Turks were just discovering nationalism (soon after it infected Europe), the Turks had a position of absolute power over Armenians and used it to a very sad ends. I am not saying no mention of Armenian violence should be made, I haven't really thought much about it, but as House of Shin says, "nothing excuses genocide", and I almost always see Armenian violence - which incidentally was so limited in the face of the genocide it is astounding - used by Turks trying to say there was no genocide as if a nation could "ask for it" and deserve genocide. If any mention of Armenian violence is included, I think the focus should be on just how limited it was, and what the causes were. Perhaps this also could use a seperate article - where the issue in general and individual cases could be developed without detracting from the main article. --RaffiKojian 03:09, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

First, from an emotional point of view, genocide is such a terrible thing, no one wants to take the blame. The government (or governments) as representatives of the population in large is no different. Having been compared to Nazis is very insulting itself. If no mention of the things that might have led to genocide is made, it will look like it was just a ideological/racist/etc. hatred or trying to wipe out a race. We know that Armenians and Turks (and Kurds, Arabs, etc.) lived together in peace for centuries on the same land. So, what happened that made it change so radically is very important to really understand genocide. We can't judge things out of context correctly. Especially if it is history. I see there are two sides to the story, first an ethnic clash caused by nationalism or whatever and there are decisions made to solve the problem (totally wrong no matter however you look at it) Another important point is that since there are two sides in this, two perspectives should be reflected in the article, side by side whenever possible. I'm not a historian, therefore, I don't want to stain the article with the things I've been taught. I think, whoever contributes should be careful not to include any preconceived bias. Otherwise, this article might never become a NPOV. (There are efforts that could lead to an understanding between people. This is being discussed by the elites of two nations right now which I think is a much better approach, a bottom-up rather than top-down. I don't really care, if it's a political or whatever stand to recognize or reject genocide, we should get over these and try to make cooperation happen between two nations.) --Muz 18:22, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hi Muz - you must understand that the reasons a genocide was committed shouldn't make anyone feel better about it having happened, any more than you as a Turk should feel personally guilty for what happened before you were born. It happened. The government did something against 2 or more million unarmed Armenian civilians and over half of them died. While I am happy to hear your specific comments on the article, I insist you go back and read ALL the archived discussions (links available at the top of this page) about the article, before you try to raise issues that we have discussed to death already, and great (and painful) length. In genocide, like in one on one murder, there are no "two sides to the story". It is murder. It is not oh, well he murdered the slave because he was afraid the slave would get away. It is true this is not pleasant, but it is what happened, and we need to deal with it in an honest and healthy way so that it can be put firmly in the past and life can go on normally. The Turkish government cannot even bring itself to establish diplomatic relations with Armenia, who has no preconditions itself... how ridiculous a situation is this? --83.217.229.146 03:03, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Muz - agreed - and all well and good - however that it was a genocide is unquestionable and the truth cannot be whitewashed. I have writtn an extensive introduction and a proposed outline Istill not fully complete) to the article that extensively discusses and addresses the issue of context - you might not like how or what I have included but I shall be shortly posting it for discussion on these pages just the same. I am still refining the outline but I do hope to post what I have sometime tonight if I can get to it. --THOTH 23:54, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Muz - It is a bit of a historical stretch to assert that Armenians, Turks, Kurds lived in peace for many years prior to the genocide of 1915. Systematic small scale massacres were routinely perpetrated against the Armenian minority in Turkey, since the time of the Seljuk-Turkic invasion of the Armenian plateau in the 12th centurty all the way through the end of the 19th century. -- Respectfully, A.N.

This is not a joke

... is it? This may be an illustrative point in "Turkish government denial" paragraph: [1] --House of Shin 11:02, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Google it and you'll find other sites with the story; would be a good addition to the article. — Davenbelle 11:49, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

Every Armenian forumist and their supporters in the internet have a cloudy mind that every Turk and Turkcophile is a sort of Turkish governement's agent whom support denialist propaganda.Whatever they say,whatever they produce as a defence is a product of Turkish Governemet.What worse is that if Turkish governemet accepts that The Genocide was the fact poor peasant Turks will go after their governemet as the slaves follow their masters.Anyone thinks like wise should look back our İndependence war against Greeks and their masters as well as the Sultan who were the slave master of the Turks for some cleverheads who could stop Mustafa Kemal Ataturk and its followers.Armenians and the their masters can claim what ever they want but Turkish people will never accept this kind of insult.Because it is not the truth.The truth lays in the Armenian state and The Tashnak party's archives where all the documents are behind close doors and kept from the world..

unsigned Turk above - can I ask you just what evidence you hope to find in the "Dashnak party's archives" (?) that you think will exonerate the Young Turk controlled Ottoman governemnt from culpilability in the Genocide of Armenians. Even if your claims were entirely true (hypothetically) and the Dashnak party was intent on overthrowing the Sultanate - and had armed agents throughout Anatolia murdering innocnet Muslim civilians (can't really see the point in this - could any Armenain have really concieved of an idea to kill every Turks to free the lands of such? etc) - anyway - suppose all these things were true - can these "facts" justify the wholesale and deliberate slaughter of the Armenian race? (or do you think perhaps these death marches and masscres of Armenains were actually carried out by Dashnaks dressed up to look like Turks and thus fool the world?) - crafty and deadly Armenians - eh? - please explain and elaborate? Otherwise I fail to see your point...oh and the Armenian State Archives will likely go back until - er - perhaps 1991...there was no Armenian state in 1915 knucklehead! --THOTH 19:27, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, but changing names of biological species because of some awful ideologic reasons is simply stupid thing :-) I do not think that it is illustration of Turkian government denial, but it simply illustrates that ideological points there can go over scientific truth. Somehow it reminds me some Lysenko theories. But anyway, this curiosity should not be taken as serious argument in this article, I think. :-) --Gvorl 20:50, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In fact you are incorrect. These acts - of changing recognized names for biological speacies is just part of the process whereby the Government of Turkey has been erasing the Armenian heretige in Anatolia. Just as they have changed the names of places, destroyed traces of Armenian habitation, destroyed churches and monestaries - this is all part of a deliberate campign to wipe the slate clean of Armenain presence in Anatolia - and that in itself is a significnat part of the denial (making it easie for ones own people and others to forget that Armenians were oonce of the land) and is an extension of the Genocide itself. --THOTH 19:18, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Reminder of some key terms

.... taken from this page.

• The crime of genocide has two elements: intent and action. “Intentional” means purposeful. Intent can be proven directly from statements or orders. But more often, it must be inferred from a systematic pattern of coordinated acts.

• Intent is different from motive. Whatever may be the motive for the crime (land expropriation, national security, territorrial integrity, etc.), if the perpetrators commit acts intended to destroy a group, even part of a group, it is genocide.

• The phrase "in whole or in part" is important. Perpetrators need not intend to destroy the entire group. Destruction of only part of a group (such as its educated members, or members living in one region) is also genocide. Most authorities require intent to destroy a substantial number of group members – mass murder. But an individual criminal may be guilty of genocide even if he kills only one person, so long as he knew he was participating in a larger plan to destroy the group.

--House of Shin 21:55, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think that third point is particularly accurate. I've just been reading this source, which is linked to in the article, and it reinforces those points above. Particularly relevant is the point that "a finding of genocide does not as a legal matter depend on the participation of state actors. On the contrary, the Genocide Convention confirms that perpetrators of genocide will be punished whether they are constitutionally responsible rulers, public officials or private individuals." (p14) At present, I don't believe that the article reflects this legal opinion. --bainer 06:44, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Quotes section removed

Whenever I see a "quotes" section in an article of Wikipedia, I remove it and ask those who have contributed to place the quotes on Wikiquote. My reasoning for rejecting such sections is that we're supposed to be telling the reader about a subject, not just compiling an unstructured list of statements about it from external sources. If a quote is relevant to the subject and has some meaning appropriate to it, include it in the appropriate part of the article as part of a paragraph describing its significance. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:25, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Proposal for re-write of Armenian Genocide Article

The following post consists of my proposal for the first two introductory sections describing the Armenian Genocide. I understand that this presentation will be controversial - but I urge all to read and reflect - because what I have presented is (except perhaps in certain trivia of detail - and I am open to correction...) entirely factual and supportable. I found it necessary to pen this introduction as a means of focusing my thoughts. I am still working on my detailed outline - and reading this - the introduction - you might imagine the degree of detail of such outline - it is extensive - but as yet (to my standards) incomplete. When I post it (next few days...) it will still be - in my mind - incomplete - but will be better organized - I am having trouble deciding what information should go where - how to emphasize - etc - and there is much (potential) overlap in terms of where issues/events should be covered. I see the potential for a deffinitive expose concerning the Genocide. I know that most Turks will not like much of this presentation - well - get over it is all I can say - but I also promise to consider your views and work with you in good faith. To some degree my outline proper (and what I envision to fill it) may be seen with more sympathy from the Turkish side then these introductory sections. But I cannot help that - what I am presenting is truthful and is the gist of what must be conveyed concerning the facts of the genocide (and surrounding events and situations). Is it complete - again - no - but it is - I contend - the essential gist of the matter - still much more needs to be brought out and discussed for readers to properly understand the context of these events. Again still - in the end - the Turks (historical and those actively involved in denial) will not end up looking as angels. Also again - much of what many Turks might hope to see in this article will likely be included - to a degree - in the more detailed presentation (so bear with me and keep an open mind....of course as I write this I am envisioning quite a different reaction!). Also I realize that I will be accuse of presenting a POV article (based on the opening sections) - but I discount this (beyond perhaps the choice of certain words [not Genocide though] and emphasis. Well I tried as best as I could to stick to the facts as I know them - and I do wish for constructive input and (once I post the full outline) discussion if this is the direction that we might want to go. Anyway - here it is:

The Armenian Genocide

1) Introduction to the Armenian Genocide and related massacres of the Armenians during the late Ottoman period and during the rise of the Republic of Turkey

Beginning in 1915, under the cover of World War I, the Ottoman Turkish Empire (under the direction/control of a revolutionary political party known as the Committee of Union and Progress (CUP)- the Ittihad and Terakki in Turkish – also commonly known as the “Young Turks”) implemented and conducted a systematic campaign of murder, torture, robbery, deportation and ethnic cleansing of a minority population of its ethnic Armenian citizens that resulted in the death of an estimated one million or more Armenians (the exact number is unknown with estimates typically ranging from 600,000 to 2 million [depending on the source – note: see related entry on Ottoman Armenian population estimates] and with 1.5 million being the most commonly accepted figure). This campaign of unbridled violence and murder resulted in the near complete ethnic cleansing and elimination of Armenians from their historical homeland in Central and Eastern Anatolia where they had lived (and were known as Armenians) for 2,500 years and is widely known as the Armenian Genocide. Historians and Genocide scholars commonly view these events as a template for most other genocides that followed in the 20th century and the Ottoman State actions taken against the Armenians were immediately followed by a similar campaign of violence, massacre and ethnic cleansing against the other Christian minority populations of the Empire consisting primarily of ethnic Greeks and Assyrians.

In addition to the specific set of events known as the Armenian Genocide of World War I (that occurred primarily in the years 1915-1917) The Sultanate led Ottoman Turkish Government had previously conducted a series of large-scale massacres of ethnic Anatolian Armenians – the most noteworthy occurring during the 1894-1896 timeframe – which both followed (and was subsequently used an example for further) massacres of other ethnic minorities in the Empire - where over time a practice and pattern regarding the use of massacre of the Christian and Armenian minorities (and denial of such massacres) was established and became an accepted method of suppression and control of these populations. After the Armenian massacres of the late 19th century, additional large-scale massacre occurred against Armenians the city of Adana on the Southern Anatolian coast. And then later, in the early 1920s – after the period of the Armenian genocide proper and following the end of World War I (during the period the Turks now refer to as their “War of National Independence), the army of the newly formed Nationalist Turks under the leadership of Mustafa Kemal (later to be known as “Ataturk” – the founder of modern Turkey) conducted military campaigns that resulted in further large-scale massacres of Armenians. One campaign was against the newly founded, fledgling Armenian Republic in the Caucuses, the other was pitted against Armenians in the Southern Anatolian region (known to Armenians as Cilicia). Kemal’s direction to his leading general Kiazam Karabekir for these campaigns was to “Annihilate (Armenia) politically and physically” and it is commonly understood that Kemal’s intentions were to eliminate – once and for all – the presence of the Armenians in Anatolia – and subsequent policies of the Government of the Republic of Turkey (aimed at erasing and denying the Armenian contributions to the Ottoman Empire and history in Anatolia) have only verified this position. It is important to note that the Nationalist Turkish campaign against the Armenians in the Caucuses was extraterritorial and essentially amounted to a Turkish attempt to eliminate remaining Armenians not just of the Ottoman Empire but beyond its borders to end – once and for all – any further consideration of the “Armenian Question” as the issue of Armenian self determination and recognition of rights was known.

Thus these various campaigns of massacre of Armenians that occurred during the 27 year period between 1894 to 1922 - begun by the Ottoman Sultan, expanded (with the explicit aim of total elimination of the Armenian presence in Anatolia) by the Young Turks and finalized by the Nationalist Turks resulted in total Armenian deaths - through massacre, deportation, and related actions - – of perhaps as many as 2 million individuals from a total population of Armenians in these regions that was likely no more then 3 million people. These related massacres warrant further discussion in other sections but are briefly presented here to illustrate the brutal pattern of treatment of Armenians by the Turks throughout this period and to illustrate the enormity of Armenian losses necessary to accurately understand the pattern of Ottoman and Turkish repression and the resultant impact upon the Armenian people. It is a history of extreme suffering, death and hardship with the resulting legacy of the near total absence of the Armenian people from their historic homeland.

2)The controversy surrounding the Armenian Genocide – Supporting Evidence, Turkish denial and counter-charges

The various massacres and brutal treatment of the Armenians (directed by the Ottoman Sultan Abdul Hamid II) during the waning days of the Ottoman Empire in the late 19th Century were both well publicized and known to the world (even though it should be noted that these massacres were vigorously denied by the Sultanate at the time). These massacres – the largest and most publicized of which occurred throughout Anatolia at various times beginning in 1894 and continuing through 1896 – resulted in up to 300,000 Armenian deaths – prompted widespread condemnation of the Turkish Sultan (nicknamed the “Bloody Sultan” by Western media) and prompted the first worldwide large scale humanitarian relief effort the like of which was unknown until that time. Christian missionaries and relief workers who poured into Anatolia to feed and care for suffering Armenians - who had been massacred and left homeless - reported the details of many of these massacres (and there aftermaths) to the West. A subsequent large-scale massacre occurred in 1909 in the Southern Anatolian city of Adana that resulted in an estimated 15,000 – 25,000 Armenian deaths and the complete destruction of the Armenian portions of the city. This massacre was likewise witnessed and reported by many foreigners – both official government representatives and unofficial observers.

And the Ottoman Turkish Genocide of Armenians that occurred during World War I was extensively witnessed and documented not only by various Western (European and American) observers (missionaries and official diplomatic personal) but by citizens of Ottoman Allies (military and civilian) who were stationed in Anatolia and in what is now known as Syria (the destination of many of the deportations where various refugee concentration camps were located).

The Ottoman Turks themselves extensively documented the events that transpired and described the planning and methodology of the Genocide itself additionally confirming that the Young Turk dominated government employed an extensive state (legal, political and military) and political party apparatus toward highly criminal ends that included actions aimed toward the elimination of Armenians and other Christian minority groups within the Empire and the wholesale plunder of their properties under the false pretense of wartime emergency. The evidence is complied in a series of post-war military tribunals that were held in various districts in Turkey beginning in 1919 immediately following the conclusion of World War I. The Ottoman Military Tribunals convicted a great majority of the Committee of Union and Progress (CUP) leadership and key personal that had directed and enacted the Armenian Genocide based on the assemblage of a compilation of incriminating evidence – in the form of secret cables (telegraph and other messages) among CUP leadership and operatives and testimony that established the premeditation, organization, methodology and undertaking of massacres, death marches, forced deportation and wholesale robbery of the Empire’s Armenian (and other Christian) citizens based upon unproven pretense and exaggeration of their potential threat to the Empire during time of war. The evidence that supports the verdicts of the tribunals and the charge of Genocide is overwhelming as is the corroboration provided by the foreign observers – including Ottoman Turkish allies, Christian missionaries and relief workers, United States Consuls, survivor accounts and others who were there in Anatolia during these events. All describe in great detail a systematic campaign aimed toward elimination of the Armenians and further detail the brutal and indiscriminant application of a wide variety of cruel and inhumane methods used to this accomplish this objective.

Regardless of the overwhelming evidence that has been complied during and subsequent to the acts of genocide - the Government of the Republic of Turkey – that assumed power in place of the fallen Ottoman Empire - immediately subsequent to this period of time – has never acknowledged that the massacres, deaths and forced relocation of Armenians during this period was either a crime against humanity or a genocide (since the time the term has been defined in 1944 - largely on the basis of the actions taken against the Armenians in World War I and against Jews and other targeted peoples in World War II); nor in fact will they admit to any worse blame then perhaps an overzealous mistake being made (though more often they claim that the measures taken were justified based on war time expediency and due to the potential for or alleged Armenian rebellion or treasonous ness). Instead the Government of Turkey has at times labeled these events a “tragedy” caused by poor wartime conditions giving a variety of explanations for Armenians deaths and subsequent absence from the Anatolian landscape and often placing the blame for deaths and losses upon the Armenians themselves whom the Turks charge with rebellion and collusion with Russia with whom the Ottoman’s were at war during this period. Additionally the official Turkish position – and that held by scholars who hold to the Turkish justifications and denial – significantly downplay the number of Armenian deaths stating that Western and Armenian claims are overstated. In some cases Turkish officials have been reported to claim that the Armenian exodus from Anatolia was voluntary or that the relocation of Armenians was done to move them from inhospitable environments to places more favorable for agriculture and commerce. Furthermore – since the 1960s (when [second generation] children of Armenian Genocide survivors began coming of age and became more aware and vociferous concerning the Genocide) the Government of Turkey began an aggressive counter campaign of denial of the historical record and rejection of nearly all charges leveled against the Ottoman Turks and the CUP in this matter – admonishing all Turks and successive Turkish governments of any blame or wrongdoing for Armenian losses and the disappearance of Armenians from Anatolia.

The nexus of the Turkish argument is that the Ottoman Armenians were in revolt and that official actions taken against them were a result of wartime urgency and need and that there was no official policy to annihilate them but only to move them from regions affected by the war where their possible loyalties might be in question. Armenian deaths are considered to be the result of Kurdish excesses, the inability of the Government to protect deportation convoys and the result of famine and other wartime conditions. Charges of deliberate acts of killing, massacre and deliberate mistreatment are rejected and denied. Furthermore, Turkish sources often claim that the numbers of Turkish deaths in this region during this period of time actually significantly exceeded that of Armenians and Armenians are often blamed for these deaths as a consequence of alleged inter-communal warfare. Turkish claims concerning Turks killed by Armenian “roving bands” number from 500,000 – 1 million individuals (and sometimes the figure of 3 million Muslims killed in World War I is used as a counter to charges of Turkish collusion in Armenian deaths – this 3 million figure appears to refer to total Muslim deaths – many of whom were Arabs who were actually killed by the Turks – and there is really very little evidence to ascribe any significant percentage of these deaths to Ottoman Armenians who were targeted by the Turks) Furthermore, these are almost impossible figures to fathom being ascribed to (being killed by) Armenians when one considers the relatively helpless situation of most Armenians, the fact that most Ottoman Armenian men had been drafted into the Ottoman Army (and were disarmed and forced into labor battalions, and considering the extensive disarming of Armenian groups that occurred prior to the war and the fact that such killings would have clearly been prevented by the Ottoman army who were in control of most all of these regions where Turks inhabited. There were certainly instances of violent acts (and murders) committed against Turkish civilians by armed members of Armenian revolutionary parties prior to this period and there were some places where Armenians actively resisted deportation and massacre. Additionally there are instances in years following this period where armed Armenians from the Caucuses (Russian citizens and in many cases soldiers in the Russian army) augmented by Ottoman Armenians who had fled or otherwise escaped massacre and deportation committed acts of violence and revenge upon innocent Turks – however the Turkish charge of wide scale rebellion, treason and other immediate justifications used for taking extreme and inhumane actions against Armenians and civilian Armenian populations appear to be either contrived or seriously exaggerated – and most arguments to this effect that are offered as justification to this day - tend to refer to Armenian actions against Turkish civilians that occurred after 1917 – well after the genocide of the Armenians had already in fact occurred.

Likewise many of the other Turkish explanations for undertaking the actions that were taken as well as the denial of the severity of the measures and their purpose do not ring true. To properly understand why the Turkish actions that amounted to Genocide were taken – how the environment within the Ottoman Empire and all that happened before built to such a point to allow for such extreme measures and actions the historical environment must be presented and discussed. The Turkish attitudes of animosity toward the Armenians and subsequent denial of what occurred can only be properly understood by examining the history and understand how the deteriorating conditions in the Ottoman Empire and related issues affected the Turkish psyche and how the circumstances of war presented the opportunity to enact the unthinkable in regards to the Armenians. The events of the downfall of the Ottoman Empire (including the environment of revolution and societal upheaval) and the rise (and triumph) of the nationalists (and Turkish nationalism in general and the circumstances surrounding the Turkish War for Independence including the nation building myths that Kemal Ataturk successfully employed to save the Turkish nation from destruction) and circumstances surrounding the (post World War I through the present) political and economic motivations of involved nations - all play into the reasons why the Republic of Turkey has never – to this day – been able to admit to the Genocide (conducted by the CUP lead Ottoman Turks) nor has the international community been able to force such recognition due to these and other strategic political factors and considerations. In fact efforts on the part of Armenians (and any and all other groups) to force recognition by Turkey have largely met with extreme and very persistent Turkish backlash and counter recognition efforts. This problem continues to the current day causing some historians and genocide scholars to term the denial a persistent or second genocide as there has been no resolution or closure for both survivors and their decedents nor for the decedents of the perpetrators nor their society as a whole which arguably suffers from the shackles of (much) false history and myth that have built up around this issue. --THOTH 20:46, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have many problems with your article, first of, I don't find it Wiki, second of, there are things that don't have their places, "counter charges" is your analysis, which is POV... Wikipedia articles can not do this, third, there are things that are not only POV, but to neutralize them require to delete them. Thoth, I think you should visit many other Wikipedia articles, to understand how articles are writen. Fadix 00:27, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well Fadix I'm sorry you feel this way - but lets let others weigh in first shall we. I myself have some ideas of edits. I understand the POV issue and perhaps the language can be softened - however the essential facts are correct. --THOTH 01:29, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oh BTW - I don't at all believe use of the term "counter-charges" is at all POV - it is just fact - but perhaps there is another way to term them - don't know? - and I see no overt violation of Wiki policies - etc - I have read many entires and in fact they vary quite a bit (particualrly in terms of quality). This is meant to be an introduction that leaves the factual impression - in no uncertain terms - what it is when one is talking about the Armenian Genocide and to aquaint the readers somwhat with the controversy (much more detail will be presented IMO - I have compiled a great many notes on this issue - but will require supplemental input as well) - and I have outlined sections and subsections that will detail the evolving Armenian situation in the empire, rising nationalism on all sides, forign interventions and so on and so forth - in addition to very specifically calling for great detail regarding the methodology, undertaking and timeline of the Genocide - etc - but perhaps tommorow - I am very tired now - just finished baseball with the kids and helping with homework/school project...concerning abolitionist movement (and uprisings) in US in fact - making me think that many American slaveholders might have made statements to the effect that the slaves had been happy and peaceful for generations - why the discontent now and they have alwasy been treated well - you can't blame the slave holders you know... etc --THOTH 02:15, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thoth, some comments, not about the facts, but about the way they are presented. As Fadix, I find that there are several POV wordings and constructions that need to be edited as you implied yourself. Second, a great part of the arguments and facts you present loose weight in the large and detailed (too detailed for an introduction) paragraphs: you would gain clarity and impact just by organising the whole lot into smaller paragraphs with strong headings. Which basically means that whole chunks of your introduction will be better off in the main body of the article in their respective sub paragraphs. I had a look at the Holocaust article to see how it is shapped, and I think we can use a similar approach here. It will give more consistancy to WP as a whole, and more importantly, it is very didactic, which is what we need here, given how reluctant some are to admit the very idea of an Armenian genocide...... All in all, I agree that you are providing the basis for a much better article than the one given. Looking forward to the rest of your outline. --House of Shin 08:03, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

OK HoS I hear you. And I anticipated the need for editing (and perhaps adding additional headings) - however I will not get to it until after I post (and we discuss) my full outline and if I feel that there is at least some degree of consensus that this is how we shall proceed. I understand that I was a bit wordy with some run on sentences and these cna be chopped - and perhaps some detail could be saved for later - but I wanted to make sure that all of the fundemental issues were presented with detail to follow. You may notice I did not get into any specifics regarding the methodology or enactment and I feel I have set the stage for allowing a presentation of Turkish counters to the historical record - I know that (if knowledgeble Turks or those knowledgeble of the Turkish perspectives participate) there will be some information presented to do justice to some Trukish claims - however IMO these claims must stand the same scrutiny as anything we might contend. I do pretty much feel that most everything I presented in the intro was necessary - though perhaps can be cut down (and maybe my tone may not be considered nuetral enough - but heh - considering what was done to the Armenian people - addressing some of the type of official and unofficial denial that comes from the Trukish "side" one cannot help to express contempt and disgust etc - I think I have toned it considerably. But I am not a Turk hater - in no way is this the case. I do not claim any race inferiority or racist viewpoints or what have you. I believe that what occured ion Anatolia beginning in the 19th century and continuing through the early 20th and even to this day is largely very understandable and can be accuratly conveyad (though somewhat complex to present). I even think it might be possible to get all but the most rabid from each side to accept what we might eventually come up with (maybe even perhaps for the average Turks to accept and understand the claim of Genocide - maybe I am dreaming though eh?) - Anyway - there is no possibility for the current article to do any of these things IMO - it is very disjoint - has uneven emphasis - does not give a true sense of place or time or action - etc - if this is understandable. Anyway - I hope to have my outline up by later today or tommorow...--THOTH 15:46, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Holocaust presentation is fantastic BTW and I feel that we can achieve something similar here - of course not by the "50-50" methodology - but by presenting the facts. Obviously there are some differences as there does exist this issue of Turkish countercharges - be they legitimate or otherwise. And less people are familiar with Armenians and the Genocide - so more explanation and background is required - IMO. An interesting side note is the link the the Wikipedia page to the Hitler quote comonly referenced (and we shall aslo do so here) - that discusion is worth taking a second look and though well presented seems to be dominated by those discounting the validity of the inclusion of the reference to Armenians and I think the other side needs to be better presented (note the POV language used in that article). Anyway concerning the Holocaust and the Genocide I have one obsevation on their differences - where the Holocaust commited by the Germans can be considered as an immense act of irrational evil - I think the Armenian Genocide can be considered an immense act of rational evil (at least on the part of those who concieved and directed it - and those - specifically Mr Ataturk - who completed the process - as the Genocide might be considered a necessary event for achievent of their related aims of founding a TURKISH state. --THOTH 16:25, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Agreed! ;-) But you might have some trouble showing the rationality of this genocide, if you trust Morgenthau's account of his meetings with Salaat, when the latter plainly looses all common sense when he hears the word "Armenian". IMO, it sounds similar to Hitler's reaction to the word "Jew".... but that is secondary, and as you point out, Ataturk probably had all his head. --House of Shin 16:54, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. Sure there was obvious hatefulness and perhaps irrational paranoia - he certainly despised the Armenians - but it was because the Turks still had not gotton over the fact that Armenians and other Christians of the Empire had prospered during a period where the Ottoman Empire and Turkish fortunes had plummeted. Armenians and other Chritians of the Ottoman Empire established school systems (sometimes with outside missionary help - and these missionaries would have just as well - and intitially intended to "help" the Muslims - but were rejected and prohibited from doing so) and with education and through business and commerce the Christians of the Empire (elites and "middle class" - mainly in Western Anatolia) became disproporiontly wealthy and with their education and exposure to (hated by the Muslims) Western/foreign ideas - well they began to see that their political situation (no real policy voice or self determination) was horrible and they began to address the Sultan for more. The Sultan wasn't too keen on these entreaties (though was briefly forced to yeild some power to a legislature and to in theory accept the concept of equal rights among ethnic groups - short lived though...) - and the Sultan tended to respond to Armenian requests for recognition (and protests against unequal treatment & taxation etc) with massacre. The average Turks was eager to join in and grab some plunder against the (by then) hated/at least disliked (rich!) minorities and much blame was placed on the Armenians for acting counter to Turkish interests and for their opwn benefit. In fact an extreme predjudical backlash ensued as the Christian prosperity upset the social and economic balance of the EMpire where the Muslim Turks had always been on top and were used to such. As this issue developed and especially as Armenians looked for outside nations such as Russia to push their case (as Armenians lacked a state of their own to lobby on their behalf) - the backlash from the Sultan and the resentment on the part of the Turks grew more severe. Of course as things progressed - the once partnership of educated - progrressive Turks who worked hand in hand along with the Armenians to press for reforms - resulting in the rise of the CUP - well - they became enamored with extreme Pan-Turkist nationalism - due to seeing other ethnicities break away and fearing if the Armenians did such it would be the end of their nation - as Imperial powers sucha s Russia Britain and France would move in and take the rest. So what to do? Kill the Armenians - thats what (and take their stuff). So yes - it was rational in a sense - for their own survival - at least this is how it was percieved (and we can see the twisted remnants of this thinking from modern Turks - as modified and followed through by Ataturk and successive Turkish governments. Doe sthis make sense? Because in a nutshell - this is the underlying truth of the Genocide - why it occured and why it was a rational (though utterly inhumane) act on the part of the Turkish leadership - versus an irrational act by Hitler and the Nazis (though many who believe in Jewish economic and political manipulations can make the paranoid case that actions against the Jews were necessary for survival of the German State [for Germans as it were]) - so not too different in some respects - but the environment with Russian interest and certain Armenian aspirations and the geography of it all - etc - certainly made such much more real and likely (threat) seen from the point of view of the Turks. --THOTH 19:55, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thoth, a Wikipedia article ideally should not contain interpretations passed as absolute truths. I don't want what has happened of the Nagorno-Karabagh article(thanks to Tabib) to happen here. People will disagree with interpretations, I for, disagree with many of your points... as well as the places you give to things, etc. The only way to work on the genocide article is to present what has no other position, as accepted. For instance, in my Ottoman Armenian Population entry, I give a historic of the Ottoman census, and how it was conducted. This is not an interpretation, but how it was carried, there is no disagreement here. When something is disagreed by enough person to worth including it, for instance, the Armenian population, I present each sides, and their critics(not my critics, but the critics comming from the specialists who criticse them), and leave the reader judge. Believe me, this is the only way to work on the genocide entry. The key is to do it as ... presenting each positions, and saying who say what, and give as much spaces to a position as it is recognized in the accademic world. The problem with your article is that it is too much "article" like personal text, of an individuals interpretation of the event. What stops a Turk to write his own theses-like article and want it to be included here? I don't know if you understand what I mean. The concept behind Wikipedia, is to present views, and positions... and saying who believes what... think this as an eternal article. Imagine that in a hundred years, the Turkish government succeed in its attempt of denial, and the Armenian genocide is thosefor denied by most historians(I have hard time imagining how that can be possible, but suppose it happen). If someone was to read your article, he will disagree with what is said. Wiki way, is to not disagree with the way something is presented.

If I say most historians in 2005 agree that this, this and this happened... in a hundred of years, if most historians believe otherwise, they can not say that Wikipedia article is wrong, because Wikipedia does not claim something being the truth, but just that "they believe this" and the others believe "that." The article has been edited, and is slightly unWiki now, more particularly the denial stuff... it has to be toned down. Believe me, it is a compromise that well worth it, and is the only rational thing to do. Insteed of saying this has happened, we just have to present each sides position, their critics(not our critics of them, but of the specialists that criticise those positions)... and give as much space as the position is recognised in the Accademia. This is the only way. Now if a revisionist come in after and decide to change it... what he will do? Change that the persons whom are claimed to believe this, don't believe this? Actualy, it is the only real disagreement there could be here... and the discussions in the talk pages should revolve around this... and it is actualy pretty easy to demonstrate that a group actualy believe something, when its position is presented.

For those reasons, I believe that your proposed article can not be a candidate, I also believe that insteed, you should work on the article that is already there. Those days I have a lot of things to do and don't have much time... I still have to work on the Ottoman Armenian Casulaties future entry and as well the already existing Ottoman Armenian population. Now that things are cooler, and that I became confortable with the way Wikipedia works, I will be instoring the "Wikipedia principle." :) Fadix 21:06, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thoth, I skimmed over your introduction and I have to say that I was expecting a thorough discussions of the history around the time these things happened. I disagree with most of what you wrote if you don't give any argument about the events that caused to violence before and after 1900. Allegations against Ataturk makes him look like he was another Hitler that was just trying to finish the last remnants of the race. Where did you get these "facts"? How did you study this? For how long? Which resources did you use? That is totally not neutral and not the way history to be presented. All you say is massacres happening all the time but never why. I'll write more about when I have time to read it thoroughly and the comments. --Muz 22:29, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Fadix - the current article is poorly written and has no sense of the event - it is disjointed. Additionally everything that I worte is fully supportable with much data - I'm very surprised that you are taking a position which seems to say otherwise. So OK - I know that I can lay out sommething that will be comparable to what is presented in the holocaust article - though what you are calling for is - I think - something quite different and IMO not so useful (or accurate). I cannot see contributing to the current article because it does not tell the true story only bits and pieces - and it does not include what I consider to be crucial elements of the history necessary for understanding what occured. Believe it or not - i thin what I am proposing to produce will be much better able to stand up to critique then the current article.

And Muz - I know that you will not accept the considerable data that back what I have written - and I was intending to present much more of the history - believe me - and I will still post my proposed outline when I can more complete it - but what I have written thus far is only an introduction - it states the esential facts of what occured - of what can be factually supported. There can be no denying that what occured was a Genocide and that such massacres and death marches and such did happen - there are far to many witnesses with coroboration. I do agree that the article should discuss in detail circumstances and events that will shed light on why such things happend and what else was occuring at the time. I agree that there is quite a lot to discuss and present. Concerning Ataturk and the early campigns of the nationlists and subsequent Turkish policy towards Christians and non-Turks (even in the late 1920s/1930s concerning the Kurds) - well many atrocities and cruel policies and actions were taken - and these can be supported. What he accomplished for Turkey was admirable - remarkable even and is well known - though certainly these accomplishments are somewhat tainted by these actions and attitudes towards the Anatolian minorities --THOTH 23:01, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thoth, if the current article does not satisfy you, because you think things are missing, discuss the issue here... besides don't forget that there is a preferable limit of 32 Kb for each articles, this is the main genocide entry, I was planning to work on other entries regarding what is called denial, the special organization, the camps, German complicity etc. But I think as a main article the current article as basis is excellent, it need much work, but it is right on track. Fadix 23:33, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Contemporary world responses to the Armenian Genocide

I have deleted this section, I don't believe a line or two require adding another section, unless it is worked, and more is added. Fadix 23:45, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Recent history — timeline

I think that section is going out of control. I also think that people fail to understand for what that section is about. It is about major events, there are daily stuff about the issue, we can not just add things wherever we want. That section need cleaning, and a standard or rules should be worked out to consider an event important enough to include it, or we will find ourselves including any insignificant things possible. Any suggestion? Fadix 02:17, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree. I have been joting down some things that might go into the category of "major" events that shoudl be mentioned - but much of what is listed now is somewhat irrelevant. --THOTH 16:32, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Removal of Working Version

It appears that a form of editing that at least appears consensual is (finally) beginning to develop for this article. In that respect—and considering that essentially no editing has been done to it—I suggest deleting the Armenian Genocide/Working version of the article as we continue to place more focus upon the current version. --DanielNuyu 03:00, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There is? The current version of the article is extremely poorly written - just read the opening paragraph for instance. Additionally I would really love to have someone who knows nothing about this issue attempt to explain back to me what the Armenian Genocide was all about - why, how when and where it occured - who did what to whom and so on andso forth - the article is comnpletely lacking in context and it is entirely uneven in emphasis - placing for instance a much greater emphasis on concentration camps then I believe is warrented (instead a better presentation of the methods used by the special organization to empty out towns and villages, the nature of the "deportation" caravans, the practice of sending secret orders to party operatives who in turn passed these to local authorities, the removal of local govenors who expressed sympathy to the Armenians and/or opposition to their deporation ans slaughter and so on adn so forth - all of these factors are just as or more important then the existance of concentration (and transit) camps - though the massacres that occured in 1916 at the wanning end of the Genocide in the Syrian camps should get special note and emphasis. Additionally there is no real explanation of who the Armenians were and what the issues concerning them were in the Ottoman Empire and neither is their any explanation of the situation with the Turks of the Empire - influx of refugees from Crimeia and the Balkasn (and why), their dire conditions and resentment of Orthodox Christians (and general predjudices of Turks towards Christians and Armenians - magnified by their disparate conditions), and neither is the entire context of the deteriorating Ottoman EMpire discused to understand how the various revolutionary forces arose and transformed over time (and even why the Sultan was massacreing Armenians etc) leading to a very specific situation whereby such a thing as a Genocide could be contemplated and undertaken. And the issue of who did such - was it just a small group of racist nationalistic revolutionary zealots who happened to control the government - national and local - or were other forces and people involved? The degree of Turkish and Kurdish citizenry involvement - as mentioned in a comment on this page - has not at all been addressed and in this regard is in contrast to the German/European experince in World War II - where there was little involvement in the process of genocide outside of the German SS and associated units. The Armenian experience - where the Turkish population had a significant role - is again - more typical of genocides to follow. Anyway - so much for the lessons of history. I really question those who trumpet the current article because it is so very lacking in so very many areas - just what is the purpose of an encyclopedia anyway - imparting knowledge - or making everyone happy? --THOTH 03:50, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Right—I listed it for deletion; hopefully it won't need to be revived. --DanielNuyu 00:41, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Blue Book

I was talking with some Armenians, and a non-Armenian colleague who is our professor of Armenian Studies (Theo Maarten van Lint), and discovered rather more about recent events. For example, the Turkish government is at the moment trying formally to get the British government to declare the Blue Book to be a fraud. I went to check to see what the article says on this, only to find that the Blue Book isn't even mentioned... Is there a reason for that? It's surely an important issue. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:18, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think it will be better to start an entry about the different records regarding the issue. BTW, Turkey has dropped, as far as I am aware, its attempt to force the British government to declare it to be a fraud. I got the information from Taner Akçam that he wrote a series in a Turkish newspaper, and in one of the articles warned the Turkish government that the records of the Blue Book are autentic and each one are signed, more particularly when the non-censured version has been published not so long ago, and for this reason, the British government won't ever declare them forgery. Fadix 15:04, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Absolutely the "Blue Book" as well as Morgenthaus book will need to be presented and discused and it will need to be made clear that each of these was produced with an incredible array of eyewitness testimony - and that nearly all of these primary reports are available in archives and have been thorougly examined and verified. The Turks are particualry concerned about the considerable amount of damning evidence presented in the "Blue Book" and have attempted to claim that the book is strictly wartime propoganda - while in fact it may have been used by the British as such - the collection of evidence by James Bryce and Arnold Toynbee that officially is called - "The Treatment of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire" (published February 1916) - has been thoroughly established as factual beyond question. In addition to the primary document there exists a supporting publication "Key to Names of Persons and Places Witheld from Publication in the Original Edition of The Treatment of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire 1915-1916" that meticulously details the sources used and their validity and corroberation. Additionally Toynbee's original papers used in the methodology, compiling and verifying of this data are available (in the British Archives I believe). Much of the evidence was derived from direct observations by American Consuls (and other nuetral sources from within the Empire) who lived and observed events in various parts of Turkey and who forwarded regular dispathes to Monganthau at the American Embassy - these were passed on to Toynbee. So the Turks are very much barking up the wrong tree in attempting to discredit this document (and it shows their desperation). This book - and the supporting (entirely verified and valid) evidence behind it cleary document a systematic central government directed plan to exterminate Armenains in the Ottoman Empire - there is no getting around this fact. Aditionally it should be noted that long after World War I and the Genocide - when there was no propoganda value to his comments/position etc - Toynbee reiterated the factualness of his work and observed: "In Turkey....in 1915...deportations were deliberately conducted with brutality that was calculated to take the maximum toll of lives en route. This was the CUP's crime, and my study of it left an impression on my mind that was not effaced by the still more cold-blooded genocide, on a far larger scale, that was commited during the Second World War by the Nazis. (from Arnold Toynbee - "Aquiantances" London: Oxford University Press, 1967 pp 241-242) --THOTH 15:45, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thoth, again you fail to understand, this is the main genocide entry, you can not start getting into detail for each points, the Blue Book might be mentioned, but that's it about it. The idea of the main genocide article, is a resume... not over 32 Kb. If we start writting in detail, people will stop reading it. On the other hand, each points could be worked as an entry as itself and be accessible from the main Armenian genocide entry. An example, is that at first, there was discussions regarding the Armenian population, and since there was much to be said about it, I have started an entry, and then, there is the estimations of Armenian losses, which I will be working on as soon as I have time, you can read what has been writen about it in my personal page. There is the history of what is called denial, that should have its own entry, there is the special organization that should have it's own entry, there is the camps that should have their own entries etc. Each of those entries accessible from here, while this main page will contain only resume of the important points. I am also starting to believe that the recent timeline should have its own entry, because it is eating space in the main entry. Besides, believe me, not only I will have problem with your working version, it is obviously unwiki, and large sections can not be wikified. I believe you should work on what is already there, because the article is starting to get very neutralised, and the revert war has been at least stabilized. Fadix 15:57, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Fadix - I fully understand and agree with what you propose regarding a main entry and linked detailed entries - this is certainly the way to go. What I propose is an outline that will be inclusive of these entries - this must be thought through IMO -and not just be randomly posted willy nilly as we lose the story - the context iMO. AN dthe curent article is not properly organized and presneted - IMO - to be the backbone for such a presentation. And are you telling me that the truth is not Wiki? I don't understand. The Holocaust presentation is not sugar coated - so why should the Armenian Genocide presentation be? The facts must be presented - and in this category I include the issue of Armenian nationalism and revolutionary political parties and the violence instigated on their behalf (which is ussually not mentioned or properly dealt with in Genocide articles and such). Additionally we need to clearly present (summarize relevancy and link to more detailed discussions if they exist and perhaps create them if they dont) the environment of the falling Ottoman Empire - the collapsing Empire - the bankrupcy, Muslim/Turkish refugee situation (and why they might be pre-disposed against Christians), the role of the European powers keeping Russia at bay, and a very many other things. SO granted - perhaps we need a somewhat streamlined Genocide section proper - but I see what I have written as a far more accurate presentation that clearly conveys what occured then the current working version - that is just poor - what can I say - I really have little hope for it as written. Anyway I'm hoping to get back to my outline - I have been unable to work on it these past few days... --THOTH 16:29, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Holocaust entry is not entirely Wiki, and I have to admit that most articles are not [entirely] either. As for the truth, the truth itself is neither Wiki or unWiki. I repeat, this has nothing to do with what the truth is or not. I know the genocide happened, and know it is the truth. But to present an article as something that did happen, is unWiki, if there is disagreement. Besides, it is of our interest to write the article the Wiki way, because it is the only way to prevent it being reverted and vandalized. Right now, most historians support one theses against the other... the article should present what is said about an event, and according to which party. And with a subject such as the Armenian genocide, the result might sound as disorganized. But here, you could work on that, and not start another article. The context? Yeh! But the context is disagreed, even among Armenian historians... we have to filter and include only the parts which are agreed among most historians, and this is a task... and could be done, but still, you can not present it as an absolute truth.

And I repeat, if we were to go your way, we'll get an article like Tabib has done in the Karabagh entry, and where he want to get with the Khojali entry(visit it, and you'll see what I mean), and we'll let the door open to everyone coming and editing the article, and we will be the one to blame. I've seen what Tabib has done, and the way he consider entries as his, NO WAY, I want to sound like him anymore. I ask you to trust me on this one. I am sure, it is the best decision. Fadix 01:55, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. The facts of the Genocide (including how it was directed and carried out) are accuratly known with a great degree of corroboration - and can and should be presented as such and in a very clear manner - that is lacking in the current article. The surrounding events - the relevant history of the Ottoman Empire and the CUP revolution (including the triumph of the xenophobic/nationalistic branch of the party), Turkey's entry into WWI - under what circumstances and how these events allowed for and percipitated genocide and the other very many factors and circumstances of the environment and pressures on the Turks that led up to the Genocide are all quite presentable and supportable and can be done in a manner that will be difficult (and perhaps impossible) to refute (and I would suspect that anything that is brought up counter to what the article will contend will be presented in accordance to its merit). Please don't attempt to compare my suggested approach and the (supported) facts that I can bring with the silly Azeri claims about a "genocide" where a few hundred peolple were killed and where the circumstances are quite questionable (that such occured entirely in Azeri controlled territory for instance and where journalists brought to the site by the Azeris reported how corpses had been doctored and moved - etc). You know the great amount of data that has been compiled concerning the Armenian Genocide and the fact that it is fully corroborated by multiple sources. I'm surprised that you are running so scared of presenting the truth. The Wikipedia Holocaust presentation is entirely appropriate and is extremely well done - the Armenian genocide presentation deserves no less - and in fact - owing to the criminal and outlandish officail Turkish denial (attempt at negation) - it is all the more reason to present the case most strongly. Additionally the history and facts surrounding Turkish denial of the Armenian Genocide need t be presented in its own section. I will propose this in my (eventual) outline - that will include sidebars on both the Benard Lewis affair and the Heath Lowery affair as well as (I hope) your excellent debunking of McCarthy. This is no time to give into the forces of denial. All the same we must strive for a truthful and highly communicative presentation that does justice to the elements of the "Turkish perspective" as such merits. However the perception among some Turks of the time (and why) is much different from the reality - and certainly cannot justify what occured - but must be properly presented for the reader to understand the environment that led to Genocide - and that such was a product of collapsing Empire, revolution and extreme societal upheaval and percieved threat - as well as the result of xenophobic racist nationalism and the transformation of the Armenians - in the eyes of the Turks - from loyal citizens to an alien (Chritian and non-Turk_) presence in very heart of Anatolia that by their very existance acted to thwart the Pan-Turkist vision that Turkish elites had come to adopt after their failure to contain and integrate the other ethnic minoriites of the Empire (Greeks, various Balkan Slavs and Arabs) --THOTH 19:57, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

We're talking entirly of different things. Thoth, I think you did not understood of what I was talking about. Fadix 21:13, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

...

Fadix, I occasionally noticed that you have twice mentioned me in this talkpage advancing some slandering and tactless comments. I would really appreciate if you stop such slanders, which moreover, you've made in my absense to people who may have no information about the background of your biased attitude going back to earlier discussions in Talk:Nagorno-Karabakh. I remember your previous offenses and how you have supported User:Rovoam [2], who was eventually punished by the ArbCom for his disruptive actions and vandalism [3].

As to Nagorno-Karabakh page, it is incomparably much more balanced than the present "Armenian genocide" page that you have turned into a real propaganda tool. In N-K page I came to a preliminary consensus with at least the neutral editors and also other Armenian User:Aramgutang and we both agreed that the page as it is now is mostly "acceptable to both sides". Unfortunately, this is not the case in this entry and frankly speaking, I don't believe a consensus could be EVER reached in this entry as long as people like you use it for his personal agendas. If you have further comments to/against me, please, make them in more appropriate circumstances and place, better, in my talkpage--Tabib 05:50, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

Look Tabib, you are a registered user, that already edited the genocide entry, and this, not only once. So, I do not consider this as talking on the back of a user, unless this same user edit the entry without bothering checking the talk page.

Second of, I have nowhere in this talk page, ever, never slandered you. If I did, show me where. It was a critic which was justified. If we were to leave every article in the hand of un-graduates or graduates of a “form” of political science and a nationalist of a nation, we have a problem here. And before referring to the Karabakh entry, you should reread my first post, and how I was answered by you, and what followed and my boycott of the Karabakh entry.

About Rovoam, there is nothing to gain by using the “guilt by association.” I know this won't be the first time, since you have tried to discredit me the first time by calling me another Armenian editor, while I have never returned you the ball. Besides, I have already told you that I found you were unjustifiably attacked by users, and I have as well already maintained that I did not support the way you were treated. But I at the end as well added that, it was clear that this kind of conflict will happen, as long as there are national POV pushers.

Now coming to Karabakh entry being more balanced than the “Armenian Genocide” entry. Wikipedia is about NPOV, and not being “balanced.” There could for instance be two type of “balanced” articles, one argument might be given more place as it is given in society, then another which has a place... as to give a 50-50 importance to both. This could be called balanced, but is not neutral, because it is a misrepresentation.

Show me Tabib, which information in the genocide entry is a propaganda tool? On the other hand, you have made of the Khojali entry, what might be called as a propaganda tool, when one of the two major references you use, its brother organization, has used the term “alleged” before the word massacre... and you have even forged the range of victims, without identifying that the official figures were something like 167, and that such figures in the same range were even published in Helzinki Watch. Propaganda is when claiming that it is also referred to as Khojali Genocide, when beside the Azeris nationalists that try to turn the Armenian genocide to derision, forge a genocide with the death of over a hundred people, and on the other hand claim that the death of over a million is not called a genocide.

Don't mistake me for you Tabib. Fadix 13:22, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I’ll cut it really short, because you seem to respond to everyone at least twice or trice as much as they write. It’s no surprise that eventually nobody gets a clue of what’s going on in here amidst these word jungles. I repeat my earlier request from you not to advance tactless and irrelevant comments against me in this talkpage. I am not reading all these posts and frankly, have no patience to read this entire one sided “brainstorming”, therefore, I can't track down every comment you make against me. In any case, this talkpage is not a place for personal discussions.

As to Khojaly massacre page, let me remind you that it was I who moved that page from original Khojaly genocide to Khojaly massacre. I can’t imagine that you can do the same in this entry or many other similar POV pages like Adana “holocaust”(?!). All I see here is that you are simply exploiting such terms as Genocide, Holocaust, distort historical facts and play on human tragedies in which both Armenians and Turks have suffered greatly to advance your personal agendas. Therefore, don’t mistake me for you too, Fadix.--Tabib 09:05, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)

We're all grown up people here, there is no limit of number of words for each posts, if you can't read long posts, I am not the one to be blamed. Secondo, with the number of edits I made in the talk page of this entry, I have referred to you in two or three occasions, as example of a kind of editor, and it was in context. I have neither attacked you, or slandered you. If you can't take critics, that's fine, but yet again, I am not the one to be blamed.

Adana Holocaust, was a term used when the event has happened, the etymology of the word Holocaust, is to burn by fire, and it is used to refer to the burning by fire of Armenians in 1909, and the term was used by Europeans to allude to what was happening there when the allied battleships were stationed on the sea, and when they were witnessing the fire. If you have a problem there, sue them not me. The term Holocaust is not a legal term, the word genocide is, you have claimed in the Khojali article that it is as well referred to as Khojali genocide, when this is completely untrue, you present range of victims, that I am sure that you yourself know them to be untrue, when the Azeris government official figures were from a hundred to the 180s... and the official list was of about 167 or something, with 30-40 unqualified.

Besides, you alluding by referring to the US department regarding 1992, I doubt BTW this information is true, is both offending, to the victims of the massacres of Toutis in 1992 in three villages, and the massacres in Algeria in 1992, just to use Wikipedia as a propaganda tool.

Oh and, I repeat, you lose any credibility you have by denying the Armenian genocide. Fadix 20:57, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ehh, whatever...[4], [5]--Tabib 05:01, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

Whatever true... now show me where my posts where I refer to you apply here... on the other hand, I can specifically show you how you have not respected those two links yourself when you have answered me in our first exchanges. Fadix 02:47, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

The art of negationnism applied to armenian genocide

hey folks I'm impressed to see that you have such long talks, but don't you understand that it's impossible to argue with negationnists ? Whatever you say, they will say opposite, whatever the proof is, they will create another one... The most important today is just "Don't forget armenian genocide, never never never". History has seen what happened, now just give human kind a few thousand years to understand that they deny a crime...

(Wiki talk pages suck as a forum... anyways) The thing is nobody owns history. Negationists (is this a word?) as you call them will be seeing the things differently than others. About proof, we are not talking about math or physics, history is complex. Although I think that genocide did actually happen, I am against it being presented as a racist or religious action. (Will it make the crime less of a crime? Probably not) In this sense, yes, I oppose some things. You have to be not opposing anything if you think you're a non-negationist. --Muz 20:57, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Muz - racism was a very large part of the motivation on the part of Turks - and here I refer to the average Turks not just the Turkish government or CUP party apparatus. You are no-doubt familiar with the concept of the Dhimmi (non-Muslim) and Millet (recognized ethno-religious community) identification of peoples whereby (religious [non-Muslim] and ethnic [who happened to predominately non-Muslim]) minorities were accorded a decidedly inferior (though in theory respected) status in Ottoman society. Well a number of things factored into the rising Ottoman (Turkish) resentment of the Christian minorities (and specifically Armenians) - the failure/downfall of the Ottoman Empire and tremendous cultural stress and upheaval, the (highly resented) pressures upon it (external and internal) for reform - adoption of (the short lived) Tanzimat reforms with establishment of a new constitution (1876) whereby minority groups were accorded more or less equal rights and could aspire to governmental and other positions etc - the successful independence movements of the outlying ethnic communities - primarily in the Balkans - creating refuges and a backlash against Christians - etc. these factors and most importantly - the fact that the Armenian and Greek communities in Anatolia were experiencing a cultural renaissance - with education and prosperity and began to assert themselves and call for greater rights - well this stoked resentment on the part of the Turks - towards these "uppity" Christians that was further fanned by extreme Turkish ethno-centric Nationalism - Golkalp, Tekin Alp, Akchura and others - who spewed much the same type of uber-Turk doctrine as Hitler and Himmler did later for the Germans - and don't forget the concept of the "National Economy" whereby a series of boycotts against Christian businesses was conducted between 1908 and 1914 as well as violence against Christian shops and properties very similar the Kristalnach against German Jewish businesses in 1933 - yes racism and religious extremism (leading to the call for jihad) all played a part - particularly when in came to the attitudes of common Turks who were driven more by emotion and thoughts of revenge (Balkans/Crimea etc) and jealousy (against former vassals who had made it good at [in their perception] their expense – and you can even see how this drives Turks today who still dig up and destroy former Armenian properties in search of fabled Armenian gold and treasure – don’t deny this!) - etc - then on the part of the CUP leaders and Ataturk and the Nationalists who used such - most assuredly - but whose vision was greater - who understood that the Armenian genocide - the annihilation of the Armenians - was the price for a Turkish state....--THOTH 17:30, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

After reading your writing above, I oppose that you write the main article or any part of it. You are simply not open-minded enough. This is not the place to be emotional. I know I cannot be objective so I'm not attempting to write anything or touch any part of the article. I quote "racism was a very large part of the motivation on the part of Turks - and here I refer to the average Turks not just the Turkish government or CUP party apparatus". This is your opinion, you're trying to impose your opinions as facts. First, not all Turks had ever interacted with Armenians. How can you generalize it then? Second, we know that there was a nationalist movement among Armenians before 1900. Don't you think this had any affect on the Ottoman perspective against Armenians? There are always nationalists in any nation. Can you say that you're not an Armenian nationalist? Please don't confuse the Nazis and the Turks. Yes, the Ottoman Empire always had different taxation rules for others but it wasn't different than the imperialist mindset of the time. Look at other empires, I claim that the Ottomans were better than most in this sense in its prosperous times. You said "you can even see how this drives Turks today who still dig up and destroy former Armenian properties in search of fabled Armenian gold and treasure – don’t deny this!". I didn't hear anything about this and I doubt your knowledge is no further than stories told to you. Suppose it's true, nobody is saying Turks are angels, you sound like there are million Turks doing treasure hunt. What's the point? Is this what we were discussing? It looks like you rationalized everything in your mind. I hope, someone objective and with more knowledge can solve this. --Muz 21:31, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Muz - you fail to understand the dynamics of the situation in the Ottoman Empire in the late 19th and early 20th century - it was a situation of upheaval - all bets were off. Like many Turks you attempt to equate Armenain nationalism with that of the Turks - and it was no such thing. While there did exixst some true Armenian nationalists among the inteligencia in the late 19th and early 20th centuries it was a very contained phenomonon. Some of these "secret societies" and what have you commited violant acts and attempted to expres themselves violently - however they neither represented any real share of Armenians at the time - nor were most politically active Armenians even nationalists at all in the conventional sense - even the Dashnaks very much worked toward reform within the Empire - much as and along with the CUP prior to the revolution of 1908. The existance of Armenian nationalist parties and just Armenian political conciousness in general (and associated agitation - even if it was consistant with that of the early CUP - aimed at reform) did upset and concern many Turks - particualry after the revolution in 1908 where the concerns of other ethnic groups were not mollified and they split off - violently. SO yes - nationalistic agitation or even the idea of it - whether it was really a serious factor absolutly terrified many Turks. As for the treasure hunting - I know directly of a number of instances of this occurring - where people I know came accoss people engaged in such and/ort evidence of such (destroyed/toppled Katchkars, holes dug under and around churches - etc - and I know people whom the Turkish authorites accused of such. You are likley not from the East where this sort of thing continuies to be rampant - fed by rumours of buried Armenain wealth. The fact that these rumours persiost even to this day is quite telling...and also indicative of the fact that there have been planty of stories told of Turks getting rich off of stolen Armenian wealth. And in fact there is likely quite a bit more unsaid. Anyway I am not at all emotional about this issuye (well I am - but not in my presentation or approach to this issue in this format) - and i assure you I am about the most open minded person you're likely ever to come across in your life - I just think you are fearful of the facts - you really don't want to knwo - I can understand that and sympathize...but I also wish you understood just how important it is that you do know the truth - you and other Turks - not sure you understand - but perhaps you will come to. --THOTH 23:44, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

(I don't know if it would be OK to insert my comment here but here it goes) I might fail to understand the dynamics of the time but I also believe that the article should reflect the dynamics, which seem missing as far as I can tell in your intro. (To close the the discussion about the treasures, give me a shovel and show me somewhere to dig. It's not about Armenians and/or Turks, it's about greed and human psychology. It doesn't explain anything). Yes, I'm fearful, you should be, too. You should be doubtful that not everything might turn out the way you'd like them to and be ready to accept that. We're talking about 90 years back. Can you tell me the truth about the Iraqi war and what's going on there right now? All we have is missing information, propaganda of sorts, analyses and perspectives.

I believe that you're an open minded person. As open minded people we are, I suggest that we all read whatever source we can find that tells the OPPOSITE of what we believe. Without prejeduice. Then I hope we can come to an understanding about the perspective of the other. There is such a dilemma, we tend to believe things that support our beliefs; an endless loop. We watch TV channels that tell the things we want to hear, read books about it, etc. (p.s. I'm not from the east but the southwest) --Muz 06:16, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Muz you are correct - my into does not discuuss those dynamics - though I fully believe that they need to be presented. It is crucial IMO. But what I presented in the intro are the essentiaol facts of what occured. And - in light of the aggressive and false campaign of Turkish denial - the trith of the Genocide must be clearly recognized with no ambiguity. Once this is properly established then I think it is important to present the history and the circumstances. Of course this is no place for a racist presentation that might spew hatred toward one group or another - the facts - as best known - must be presented so that the casual reader can understand why this happened - I don't know whaty else I can say to you to convince you that I bear no animosity towards Turks (other then those who are aggresively denying and who might know better). I also completly agree that Armenains and Turks need to keep an open mind and attempt to understand this issue from the other's perspective. I have read much - including much that is available in English concerning the Turkish view - and much unbiased history of this period in general - a great deal really. I think I have a very accute uinderstanding of the Turkish perspective - perhaps even one might call it a sympathy. But I cannot condone what happend - you must understand this. And I must insist that the facts be presented as such - without apology. And I've said before that this will not put the Turks in a good light - but please - can't you at all appreciate why this might be so. Just the same - I neither think of Turks in genral as either barbarous nor evil - in fact I find the Turks to be very endering people. We are were caught in a very nasty set of circumstances without the ability to see out. And both of our peoples suffer from this legacy this day. Muz - I would love one day to join you for a cold Efes pils dowen on the water in Bodrum of Fetayie or such - a more beautiful place I can scarcly concieve and the thought of Turks and Armenians one day sharing joyful company is something that I most wish ans strive for... --THOTH 00:51, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Thoth; it is not tacism in the proper sense of the term. You already know my position here. The term xenophobia is a more proper term here. The NAZI were racist, and their decision had a racist nature. Fadix 21:23, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There was a tremendous amount of Turkish racism against Christains and particualrly Armenains during this period. I suggest you read Stephan Astourians article "Modern Turkish Identity and the Armenain Genocide: From Predjudice to Racist Nationalism" in Rememberence and Denial - edited by Richard Hovannisian (Wayne State University Press - 1999). You should need no further convincing. His acticle is chock filled of Turksih racist epitaths and sayings that attibute naegative and dispicable characteristics to the Armenians. Interesting is the repeated comparision of Armenians to swine - a double negative connotation considering the Muslim aversion to pork. Oh yes - this and a great many more. And in fact the entire volume is first rate - with wonderful contributions from Armenian scholars, Jewish scholars and others from a variety of different fields. And as for Muz's contentions of a tolerant Ottoman Empire - I agree - however just ponder this - Germany and Germans was/were also considered particualry tolerant and accepting of Jews - which is why so many settled there and why they propspered as they did - they were more successful and more integrated and more accepted in Germany then anywhere else in Europe - bar none - yet there too is where a rising racist ideology grew - from the ashes of economic and political ruin - from a legacy of lost wars and failed empire. The parallels between Germany and The Ottoman Empire and the disposition and fate of each targeted minority bear strking similarites. So yes racism - in addition to xenophobia - was certainly a factor - and this is reinforced by the tactics used by the CUP to rally the Turks and Kurds against the Armenains and the resultant anti-Armenian frenzy that was witnessed throught the country - particualry in the East - and the ease at which the Turkish people believed the lies and exaggerations that were sown concerning Armenian rebellion and treason when we know that Enver praised the Armenian loyalty after Sarikamish and where numerous German officers and Turkish accounts - verify that the Armenians were not in rebellion and provided no provocation - thast all was in fact quiet in the East.--THOTH 23:44, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thoth, I already have read the article, while I agree regarding the prejudice against the Armenians, I disagree it being equaled with racism. I disagree with the authors argument of four types of feeling of superiority equaled with racism. It is true that racism in its modern definition is used to allude discrimination, but in its true meaning as it is used to explain German policy is quite different. The Ottoman did not discriminate the Armenians “racially” but rather “culturally.” The Armenian “blood” was not to be destroyed, what had to be destroyed was the Armenian culture. At the end, when everything was attempted to “fix” the Eastern problem, and failed, one thing remained as only option, the destruction of the Armenian community. It is as simple as that. We can play the terminology game and complexity the situation by interpretation and reinterpretation with contexts with complex terms, it's only intellectual masturbation.

Here my position is Dadrians position, while the Turkish nationalism at that time erupted, it did not grow enough for racism to become a generalized policy which could explain in anyway the Ittihadists decision. The Turks did not consider Armenian blood as inferior, even though, some ideologists might have thought of it, it was not one of the major reasons which were responsible of the destruction of the Ottoman Armenians. I advance again, that the Armenian culture was not welcome anymore, and that it had no place in the Ittihadist ideal Turkish nation. Fadix 00:59, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Fadix, the UN's "Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination" [6] contains the best accepted international definition of racism. The essential definition is "any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life." Discrimination on the basis of colour is racism, as is discrimination on the basis of culture, or on the basis of nationality. There is no distinction between "cultural" and "biological" racism. --bainer 05:34, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with the UN definition. If we were to use such a wide term, there is no way to differentiate the definition by etymology(race), and discrimination based on ones ethnicity or culture. While the Turks had no problem Turkifying Armenians in the Turkish orphanages, for the NAZI, the Jewish blood was parasidic and had to be destroyed. For me, there is a clear and obvious differences between both discriminations. Even Dadrian, who is Armenian, and who is recognized to be the authority of the question of the Armenian genocide, has made it clear in his essay regarding the role of the Turkish physicians during the genocide, that what differentiated the Armenian cases with the Jewish one, was that it was in the absence of racism. And here, he uses the same type of definition based on the words etymology.

This distinction should be made, because the Armenian genocide is now viewed as the archetype of genocides, and the fact that it was culture based discrimination, makes of its happening more possible in future in under-developed countries, where the concept of race is not well understood. Fadix 02:37, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm not trying to judge the facts at this point, I'm just pointing out that the 191 United Nations member states have seen fit to agree on this definition. This is a pretty good example of consensus. You're right, there is no way to differentiate any supposed categories of racism, because there is no need to differentiate. The only need arises when people try to compare racist policies under different regimes in different countries, which really doesn't achieve much anyway. --bainer 04:12, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Actually, my problem is the way it can not be differentiated by such definitions. By such definition, if someone believe one culture to be better than another, he will be classified as a racist. If I suppose that NAZI Germany culture was not good, and I discriminate it, I would be considered as a racist. The UN did the same thing with Raphael Lemkin Genocide term, by generalizing it. While the restrictive genocide term apply to the Armenian cases, the restrictive racism, is not a major factor of the genocide.

The Armenians were a pain in the **** for the Turks, because they were running economically the Empire, and were not assimilable after decades of attempt to assimilate them. On the other hand, for the Germans racist regime, the “inferior” races should never be assimilated, because for them it would imply the “contamination” of the Aryan “superior” blood. This is the distinction I am trying to make. While there was many conversion of Armenians, there were many Armenians that used conversion to be left alone by the oppressive regime, ... and at the end, for the Ottoman, the final decision was just destruction, because as I said, the Armenians were a pain in the ****, so they decided to evacuate(destroy), the Armenians that were converting to Islam as well. This was confirmed, with reasons of the introduction of the Capital Tax in Turkey in World War II: “Armenians are not assimilable...”(quoted in Ridvan Akar, Askale Yolculari—Varlik Vergisi ve Çalisma Kamplari (Passengers to Askale—Capitial Tax and forced labour camps), Belge Uluslararasi Yayincilik, Istanbul, 1999) ), and this non-assimilability with their economic predominance led to their destruction, and not racism. Fadix 04:48, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Fadix - sorry - but you absolutely fail to convince here. Time and time again we see quotes where Turks refer to Armenains as "swine" as "the enemy" and as dispicable in a variety of fashions. Additionally we see endless epitaths of to the glory of the Turk - of Turks as the superior people - as Nietches's supermen - etc - it is there over and over - if this isn't racism then there is no such thing. There is a temendous parallel between the attitudes held by Turks who espoused this Pan-Turanism and those attitudes held by the Nazis. And the center of both these ideologies was racism. I know that you see the destruction of Armenains as an economic thing - i have seen you write this Fadix - but I see this view as entirely too narrow and inadequate to explain somethign such as Genocide. Its basis was clearly racist - by definition. No people can just extermoinate another unless they failed to value them as equally human. It is not possible to commit such atrocites without a racist perspective - and in fact - the eveidence for such on the part of the Turks - and not just the radical CUP - but the great mass of Turks (every one - of course not - and many spoke out against the mistreament of the Armenians and did much - under penalty of death to help them) - but a prevelant racism did in fact exist by a large portion of Turks against the Armenians - and if you cannot see this Fadix - then I content your understanding of what happened and of genocide in general - is seriously flawed. --THOTH 00:35, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

I am not the one that should convince, you bring the racism interpretation as a major factor that could explain the genocide, you should be the one being convincing. I did believe years back Pan-Turanism being one of the major factors, but for me, it does not make sense at all anymore. First, the xenophobia against the Armenians was present much before the appearance of such concepts. Second, those concepts of Turanianism were brought by Tartars, or other groups outside the empire. During the Hamidian era, tens of thousands, over a hundred thousand, or few hundred thousand Armenians were brutally converted, and later Kurdified or Turkified. At that time, the Turkish identity was something new. The Turanian ideology brought by some ideologists, can not explain the decision against the Armenians, if the Ittihadist ideology was racist in nature, it would have resulted in the eradication of the Arabs, the Kurds etc. the Kurds were Turkified, and not eradicated.

I don't see how this could be compared with Germanys ideology. The Germans would have never accepted the Germanization of the Jews, because in their opinion, it would contaminate the German blood.

The economic factor on the other hand, is widely supported even in Turkish sources, the Turkish historian Avioclu(sp?) [might be: Dogan Avcioglu], use the nationalization of the economy as one of the main reasons, Edip herself in her memoir, writes that the decision against the Armenians was to replace the Armenian economic presence in the hand of Turks and Germans. There was this, and there was the fact that the Armenians were not assimilable people. The decision was to homogenize culturally the population to later form a Turkish nation. The Kurds, from the Ittihadist point of view were assimilable, this was what saved them, because they were not a threat to transform the fatherland into a motherland.

Racism on the other hand, is one of the reasons behind the denial of the Armenian genocide, reverting the role of the victims and aggressors, is a form of racism, the streotypization of the Armenians in revisionist literatures, to picture Armenians as historical “parasitic” people, is racism. Such concepts are very present in Turkish literature, and they the result of a perverted nationalism, and a sense of weakness.

Having said that, I do not claim that racism was totally absent, I claim, that it was not what brought the destruction of the Armenians, while some Ottoman elites, or psychopaths like doctor Chakir, considered Armenians as a sort of tuberculosis, the conception of race was not what brought the destruction of the Armenians.

The Germans on the other hand, during World War I, had racistic concepts against the Armenians, which inspired some Turkish ideologists. Hilmar Kaiser booklet “Imperialism, Racism, and Development Theories: The Construction of a Dominant Paradigm on Ottoman Armenians,” is an interesting read here, to understand from where those racistic ideologies really originated, but still, this is more to understand how racism emerge, rather than explaining racism as a major reason for the genocide. Racism appeared in Turkey with the Kemalists, and the taxation system against the Greeks, Armenians and Jews during NAZI Germany, in Turkey, was a racist act. Fadix 03:16, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

“No people can just extermoinate another unless they failed to value them as equally human. It is not possible to commit such atrocites without a racist perspective - and in fact - the eveidence for such on the part of the Turks - and not just the radical CUP - but the great mass of Turks (every one - of course not - and many spoke out against the mistreament of the Armenians and did much - under penalty of death to help them) - but a prevelant racism did in fact exist by a large portion of Turks against the Armenians - and if you cannot see this Fadix - then I content your understanding of what happened and of genocide in general - is seriously flawed.”

This argument makes no sense Thoth. In the cases of a homicide, the killer could kill another, and not value the life of the killed as equally as his, but yet, there are hundreds, or thousands of reasons beside racism that could explain this killing. Devaluation of ones life doesn't alone qualify as racism. That Turks believed Armenians having as god money(avarice), had little or no impact, on the decision by the Ittihadists to destroy the Armenian community, what had impact was that they tried to assimilate them, and destroy their economic power for years, but in every attempts, the Armenians were finally able to survive as an important community, what had an impact as well, was that the Armenians were sitting in the Turkish homeland to become, as an element that could never be a Turk(not assimilable).

To show you, how racism is not one of the major reasons... many Armenians during the Ottoman era believed Turks to be lazy and perverts. This might be called “racism” if we believe it to be in ones blood, but those stereotypes were present everywhere and for ages. For the Turks having beliefs against the Armenians is one thing, it is another, to believe that the perceived blood caused avarice of the Armenians somehow was one of the major causes of the genocide.

I advance again, that racism, in its true meaning appeared with the national Kemalistic regime. I think that a national consciousness should maturate enough, for racism to become predominant, the Ittihadists were the first nationalist party, but this national consciousness matured withing the Kemalistic regime. Fadix 03:47, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

I think the problem lies in the definition: Debates over the origins of racism often suffer from a lack of clarity over the term. Many use the term "racism" to refer to more general phenomena, such as xenophobia and ethnocentrism. Others conflate recent forms of racism with earlier forms of ethnic and national conflict. In most cases, ethno-national conflict seems to owe to conflict over land and strategic resources. In some cases ethnicity and nationalism were harnessed to rally combatants in wars between great religious empires (for example, the Muslim Turks and the Catholic Austro-Hungarians). As Benedict Anderson has suggested in Imagined Communities, ethnic identity and ethno-nationalism became a source of conflict within such empires with the rise of print-capitalism. From the Racism entry. Fadix 03:56, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Relevent to listen to

In real player.

http://www.cbc.ca/dispatches/

three relevent realplayers.

Turkey writes Armenians out of its science books.

Ninety years ago, Armenians suffered a genocide they can't forget, and one Turkey won't admit.

Armenians haven't had much luck squeezing any remorse out of Turkey.

Concerning Turkish racism toward Armenians – Ottoman, Young Turk, Nationalist and now

Fadix – You seem to be asserting that the post revolution (1908) CUP views were no different then that of the Ottoman – and this is incorrect. In fact there was a rapid transformation of racial views in the Ottoman Empire – much as occurred in Germany prior to World War II. Also – racism against Jews in Germany – though it existed even in the 19th century – was confined to a very small minority segment of the population and saw voice in several political parties that never achieved any widespread support. And in fact Jews became very integrated into German life – and this is (in part) what spurred the extreme racism of the Nazis – because just like the Armenians in the mid-late 19th century the Jews experienced a cultural renaissance and were increasingly successful in business and in general and began to express themselves culturally in a more visible way. Their self-confidence – like the Armenians – created a backlash – as the majority of society – in each case was experiencing economic (and political) hardship with crumbling Empire and external threats (and these external threats [nations] were considered to be in league with the minorities – further causing them to be despised and looked upon suspiciously). And contrary to your contention – Ottomanism was not about assimilation – just the opposite. Thus under the Sultan – there was no real attempt to assimilate Armenians. Of course – as the status quo was an unequal one – many Armenians did convert and attempt to become “Turkish” in a sense – for advancement/integration in the predominant society – but by and large the majority of Armenians were very much left to be such in their own communities – this concept in fact was at the center of Ottomanism – its what Abdul Hamid tried to hold onto (with Armenians not being equated equal rights and status etc – and this is where the earlier Anti-Armenian racism appeared – again as with the Jews – when the Armenians began to assert themselves in face of the status quo) – and it was only with the rise of the CUP where this concept of integration first appeared (as more or less an official doctrine) – though it was quickly abandoned when the racist (military based with ideological input form – as you said Tartars) rose up and took over the party and they defined a very explicitly racist agenda. According to David Kushner in “the Rise of Turkish Nationalism 1976-1908 (1977) – “the emergence of Turkism, the ideological core of Turkish nationalism, led to a shift from ethnoreligious racism to a more biological version of it, for Turkism centered upon the concept of race (cins or irk)” And Akchura (a Tartar BTW – who was influential with the CUP) – one of the leading proponents of Turkism proposed (in 1904) “a Turkish political nationality founded on race” While admittedly one can have stereotypes or bigotry and such based on another’s race – it is quite a different thing when one starts proclaiming that (as Ziya Golkalp did in 1911) – “the supermen whom the German philosopher Nietzsche imagined are the Turks” and one need look no further then the life exploits and proclamations of one Enver Pasha (one of the CUP triumvirate responsible for the Genocide) to see the realization of such racist/racially based outlook. And while the racism did differ in specific intensity form the Nazis – and while the CUP had other motivations (economic certainly – but then again the Nazis accused the Jews of controlling the German [and beyond] economy and wished to take it back for the Germans – there can be no doubt that Turkish racism played a central role in the Genocide – and this racism was a major motivator of anti-Armenian violence on the part of the Turkish masses/mobs as well (in addition to pillage) – that was stoked to a fury by the call for anti-Christian Jihad. Additionally this issue of allowing converts to Islam survive – yes while there was some of this – mostly for captured women and children (and remember Turks themselves are essentially multi-ethnic – so not truly “pure” as Germans see themselves…so yes some differences – still its “Turkification” and this in itself is racist – even if not strictly biologically so) – also - Talat ordered many who were converted to be “deported” just as well (particularly later when the CUP was hunting down Armenian remnants) – and these Armenians were massacred too. And the Nationalist record of “Turkey for the Turks” and more narrow Turkism was certainly racist as have been the policies of the Republic of Turkey towards “Mountain Turks” and the policy of Ionou to force the Greeks out – etc and so on and so forth. Additionally much of the anti-Armenian sloganeering (as well as publications [Weems, Fein etc] and on web sites such as TaT) one hears from Turks today is highly racist toward Armenians (though I do not discount the reverse on the part of many (uneducated and overly loud) Armenians of today as well.--THOTH 14:46, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Sorry to intervene in this discussion, but just to make things clear on this point, and so that the UN definition of racism can be better put into context, I must underline that the notion of 'race' in biology (i.e. genetically speaking) is highly debated and vastly rejected now, and even the minority of biologists that still use the word accept it in a very modified meaning. Furthermore, asserting that the UN definition lacks that reference to 'biological racism' implies the existence of different races in our species, which in itself is a racist point of view. See the WP articles here and here for the details. Therefore, the UN definition obviously applies here - but one might insert in the article a relevant reference ("...racist policies/whatever according to the UN definition, see race..." for example) if you can't help it. I do believe that one cannot afford to take a racist point of view in WP, and therefore no reference to biological races ought to be made without mentioning how debated the notion is. The word 'race' used on official (US) documents (implying Caucasian, etc.) is archaic administrative laziness referring to geographical origin, not biological makeup. The bottom line of what I'm saying here is: yes, Armenians, amongst others, were victims of racism, according to the only tenable definition of the term. --House of Shin 18:03, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Words usage change years by years. I entirely reject the concept of races in human, and have been doing it for years. But for me, it is not because I do not believe in the existence of races in human, that it means that one can not believe in races, and believe in the hierarchy, based on this conception of races. For me, that is racism, and not simply, a belief that one culture is superior than another.

German ideologists believed in the Aryan race for years before the Second World War, the concept of racism in Germany was very present at that time, as biological Darwinian racism. This is different, and obviously different than the simple stereotypes against the Ottoman Armenians. Actually, Pan-Islamism, had a more major role in the Armenian genocide, than some ideoliogists Pan-Turanist phantasms. Racism, could have been used to dehumanize the Armenians, but it was not what sparked the genocide, but just one tool among others in the achievement of the genocide.

Non-racistic genocides are more dangerous than racial genocides, because they can hit without any warnings, even though, the Armenian genocide did have many warning signs which were ignored. Fadix 23:29, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes, fine Fadix, I won't discuss whether Talaat and his two friends were racist or not. But we are discussing how to write a WP article today. How confused can one get if we start using former meanings of words? I don't need to tell you how ridiculous something like "This guy was not racist according to the 1914 sense of the term, but would be considered so today" would be! --House of Shin 08:23, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

I think I was not clear, racism could have and probably existed in Ittihadist cycles(race based belief), what I advance is that it was not one of the major reasons that led to the destruction of the Armenians. If this theses should be advanced(that racism was one of the major reasons), it should be pointed out that this is not shared by many specialists in the field, including Dadrian, who without doubt is considered the most knowledgeable specialist in the field. I am just concerned that, presenting such concepts as race, which alone are controversial conceptions, the article will be POV colored. Fadix 19:05, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Fadix, I do see your point: while I probably agree with you that pure racial hatred was not the main direct incentive in the genocide, I do maintain that it was a strong factor that ought to be mentionned in the article (may we try?), and that it is correct to call it by its name, racism. --House of Shin 19:26, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Thoth, you're absolutly wrong, I really fail to see how still you can compare NAZI racist motivated acts, with the Ittihadist decision against the Armenians. You entirely ignore my posts, and post something that is entirely independent from what I've been posting. Besides, I wonder why you post the names of Turkish ideologists, what are you trying to show me, when you know that I've been posting about this 4 years ago or so, in my exchange with Timucin, and you know I shared your view then, but not now.

Your claim that under the Sultan there was no attempt to assimilate the Armenians is entirely wrong, the assimilation attempt existed even before the arrival of Abdhul Hamid II in power, with the policies of encouraging the emigration of Muslim in the Armenian villeyets, more particularly, during the Circassian disasters(in the 1820s and 1850s) and what followed in 1867 as the Tigris massacre of Armenians, in the same year, when the Ottoman reported 2.4 million Armenians within the Empire, realizing that all over those years, the Armenians were still the group that were in number the most populous in the East.

As for the arrival of nationalism, I did not deny racism being existent, what I say is that racism did not play a major role in the decision to destroy the Armenians, because nationalism was a new concept for the Turks, and the conception of race was still something unclear for them, the Pan-Turanist aim, was Envers phantasm, and became not much shared after the defeat soon during the war, and this was before the March 2 deportations.

The words “emergence of racism” actually, is alone an indication that it was an emerging phenomena at that time, and not a final stage. Fadix 23:14, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Absolutely - HoS - very good points...and as an Anthropologist (who is familiar with and agrees with that perspective) I should have made that point! There can be no doubt that the CUP that came to control the Ottoman Government and its policies and the later Kemalists were highly racial/racist in their world view. Ataturk encouraged studies of Turkish racial origin and attempted to have the origins of the Turks be considered as arising from the mythical kingdom of Mu. Its pretty amazing - when one adopts a racist outlook - the lengths one goes to justify...and this is exactly the point of it.

While at its heart the issue of the Ottomans with the Armenians was not primarily racist - but one of maintaining an etnoreligious cultural, political and economic status quo - there can be no doubt that the rise of Turkish nationalism ushered in an era of extreme racial doctrine not unlike that avowed by the Nazis. And it is clear that in each case - regarding the Jews and the Armenians - racism played a major factor - the facts in each case support this and the similarities in how each minority group was seen by the majority are near astounding.

In each case the minority group was achieving economic and political success and cultural renaissance that was highly resented by the majority (that was suffering from extreme economic hard times and cultural stress from rapid and [perceptibly negative] cultural and political changes and from outside pressures - and from rising nationalism on the part of the majority population in each nation). In each case the majority was fearful of both the minority group's increasing economic might and potential political consequences of such - and in fact explicitly disparaged the political organizations of the minority and claimed them to be seditious. In each case there was a situation of societal upheaval and revolution from the former order that ushered in political parties whose undercurrent philosophy was one of racism and nationalistic xenophobia. In each case these parties aggressively entered a World War against external enemies that it equated as being in alliance with the minority. In each case they used the pretext of war and the charge of (alleged or potential) minority collusion with external enemies as rational for rounding up and massacring entire segments of the minority population - and in each case they aggressively seized the economic assets of that minority for their own use - and in each case they rationalized their actions based on racist ideology and rational - continuing to affix to these minority groups charges of seditious and untrustworthy racial characteristics and alleged activities - interesting in that as they started these wars - with territorial and racial aspirations of their own - they accused the minorities of such and of being untrustworthy in times of war - war that they themselves precipitated - thus a self fulfilling prophecy!

Yes - the parallels are many - indeed they are - even the denial of each to this day - is along very similar racist lines with the very same (concocted, exaggerated, and untrue!) arguments being used - the only difference being that Germany and Germans as a whole are shamed from what their nation and people did - and the Turks are mostly either ignorant of the facts or in some cases are proud - feeling that they have won some sort of victory -and indeed they have - as The Nationalist were able to triumph out of the ashes of defeat and were never called to account. They achieved their (downsized from the CUP Pan Turanist vision - but still significant) goals - where Germany was parceled and occupied. Thus Turkey and Turks can and do deny what was done where Germans - outside of a narrow groups of remaining and largely discredited anti-Semites - cannot. This is the difference.

Of course this is not the entire story - and what Fadix alludes to and what I have also mentioned before is that the Turks committed what could be considered a rational evil where the Germans just seem irrational in their fixation on the Jews. And there are reasons for this - going back to the Jews being perceived as the killers of Christ and from the roots of anti-Semitism stretching back to Roman times and through the middle ages - the baggage is oh so much greater and the root of anti-Semitism much deeper. The Ottoman Turkish racism was a comparatively newer phenomenon. Armenians - though of lower status had been accepted and respected. It was only with their rising (economic and political) status and the perception among the Turks of their potential to be another Bulgaria or Greece (or even worse as they lived in the Anatolian heartland now claimed by the Turks as home) that the extreme reactions began - and this is also where their fears were perhaps (arguably so) more legitimate then German/Nazi fears of Judiazation of the Germans (which in fact was to some degree urbanization and industrialization - need much more space to properly discuss). So the Turks fear of the potential for Armenian aspirations - as seen by the success of the other ethnics - and knowing how the Russians and others were using the Armenians for leverage against the Ottoman - well these fears were real (as fears) - and the presence of - as Fadix states - unassimilatable Armenians - in their midst - was a clear blockade to Turanist/Turkist aspirations that had clearly supplanted (the failed Ottomanism and Pan Islamism [considering the Arab revolt...]). So yes this and the fact that the Armenians (along with the Greeks) were the elements in Ottoman society that had moved toward modernization (like the Jews in Germany) and they did largely have control of (modern) commerce (education being key as well for this…). So the Turks could perhaps sense that if they did not act decisively they were doomed (this was the only option to them as they saw it - having rejected cooperation with the Armenians - as they were unwilling to cede their pre-eminent status...)....thus rational vs irrational (evil) and why Fadix (correctly in many senses) affixes pre-eminence with the (political) economic argument versus outright (irrational and extreme) racism of the Nazis. I don't disagree - but it is also clear that racism was a necessary and prevalent element. Think about it – this was Genocide – deliberate extermination of a people and elimination of a culture – not just an act of war or setting some economic policy.--THOTH 19:12, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Is this new?

This link [7] was posted by a major media corporation in Turkey. Is this new? I didn't have time to look at the relevant parts of it but I wonder if this is something that could be useful. I'll also write more about the discussion going on and my take on it later. For now, when I look at Thoth's style of writing, anything that might have factored into the mess is written as a comment between dashes. They should also be expanded into the article. I also respect your (you all who contribute) knowledge about the issue. And Thoth, I'd love to drink a couple beers on the beautiful Mediterranean but I won't be able to go there this summer (bummer). If you can go, drink an Efes for me, too. --Muz 19:36, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Muz - yes I think this is reletively recent - I had not seen it before - but I had seen it mentioned - in the context of a comment that the Armenians - probably one of the greatest refugee peoples was not included. I'm sure there were resons for this - and I can think of some - but for ow I am too tired and it is perhaps too tangental for me to focus on at the moment. I do note the mention of Balkan refugees (though the absence - unless I missed it) of the Tartar/Circasian refugees from Crimea.

Fadix - I fully understand why you wish to emphasise other factors (in part to perserve the uniqueness of the Holocaust/non-uniquness of the Armenain genocide) - and i do understand the differences between NAZI racism and that of the Young Turks (who were Pan Turan/Turkick in general and not Pan Islamist BTW - and I have much data to prove this - you forget Fadix that I too have my sources and in fact have been investigating these issues a good deal longer then you have - much of my sources are from my collection of historical information related to military, cultural and political issues that range much beyond stricly the Genocide or Armenian issues - however within these is much useful analysis - too much really for inclusion heree except by brief reference). Let me add though that you are attributing to the Germans a racism that primarily existed among the nazis - and to some degree perhaps only to a deranged subset of the Nazi inner core - and even then many were just acting to please Hitler - one man - and give him what they thought he wanted. In fact the racism (proceeding from religious ethno-centrism) against Armenians (rapidly developed perhaps - though I think not - I think it was festering in the EMpire and have much reason to believe such - was more prevelant among the average Turk then anti-Semitism was likely amopng the average German. Was such central to the Genocide - absolutly it was - but it was certainly one factor of a number. I know you have studied much - I have too. But don't forget who is the Anthropologist and who may have been studying these things for quite some time. Dont think that because I may post or believe something that you may have stated previously somewhere that I have gotten the idea from you. I respect your views and collected knowledge and data - very much - but don't assume that you are the only one here who is well read on this matter and is capable of thinking on it - perhaps with more direct tools and experience then you possess. Additionally you acknowledge Enver's pan-Turanism - of course - it was a major driver - and he was the major driver for the Ottoman's entering WWI and he was very much in on the decisions regarding Armenian policy. But do you think he was alone in these views? Certainly not - For one Golkap was in the inner circle and he and others of his ilk were highly influental. What does it take for one to become a racist? Must it exist for generations for it to be virulent and destructive? Look how easily many of the young today are influenced by such trash - to the point of giving themselves wholy to it. Anyway - we are perhaps overly focusing on this point when we should be focusing on the events/actions and result themselves - though I intend to put together (and have in part already) a numner of lists - one being the "whys" - and racism is certainly on it and i believe it is fully supportable. --THOTH 04:29, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Thoth, I am not trying to preserve the uniqueness of the Holocaust, I believe that every genocides are unique. The Armenian cases uniqueness is that the victims were destroyed in their own homeland, the uniqueness of the Armenian genocide is that butchers were selected from prisons, by a process of selection, as to choose the worst bloodish murderer that one can find to escort and destroy the Armenian convoys..., the special organization and the way it has trained, was very unique, and the crimes they have committed, in their brutality are rarely recorded in history. Decapitating victims pieces by pieces, the burial of orphans alive... throwing children in the sea...

This is were lies the uniqueness of the Armenian genocide, and not in some concept of race which were secondary to the main reasons why the Armenians were destroyed. The Ottoman culture was not the ordered Germany, and it's third Reich, with Darwinian racism. I think, it is as simple as that. The rest is just repetition, the Armenians were the pain in the **** and had to be destroyed, regardless of the presence or not of some bogus concepts of race. Fadix 18:37, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Fadix - of course unique circumstances, methods, last names etc - don't have time to further address the racism issue in detail but I will post exerpts from 2 German Archives entries for you to consider -

From Consulate Erzerum (Scheubner-Richter) to Embassy Constantinople 06/26/1915 The Supreme Commander had given instructions that all Armenians were to be deported from Erzerum. This order can only be put down to racial hatred and will, no doubt, have serious consequences for the army, because all of the military craftsmen are Armenians.

From the Consul in Trapezunt (Bergfeld) to the Reichskanzler (Bethmann Hollweg) 07/09/1915

However, it was also explained to him that the expulsion was not being carried out against the Christians but against the Armenians, so that an Armenian who had converted to Islam would then also be due for expulsion as a Muslim Armenian.

In the meantime, there are signs that elsewhere there are plans to annihilate the Armenians

--THOTH 19:35, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Thoth, as I said, the Germans had clear racial beliefs regarding the Armenians, during those years, racial ideologies among the German elite was not rare. It is true that the evuacuation law later included the Armenians converting, but this again was because the Armenians were considered as non-assimilable, and some were using conversion to try escaping their destiny. Fadix 22:33, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Fadix - "deportation" of converted Armenians occured well before the end of the war - in fact a Turk recently passed this link to a supposed Ottoman Archives site that contained this prounoucement dated July 1915 - http://www.devletarsivleri.gov.tr/yayin/osmanli/Armenians_inottoman/2b_072.htm The rest of the site can be found here - it is mostly laughable as can be ascerned after reading some of the introductory bits and the "archive" entries themselves (in English) only consist of a summary of what the material supposedly says - and in each case its mostly confirming the public policy - "we were only taking good care of Armenians" etc http://www.devletarsivleri.gov.tr/yayin/osmanli/Armenians_inottoman/ottoman_armenian.htm --THOTH 18:24, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

I know, and this is to what I was refering to. There is another such archive as well. This was why I have been telling that the number of Armenian having converted during the genocide has been less than what some estimates present, because unlike the Hamidian era, not much Arm,enians whom converted escaped. This was again, because the Ottoman considered Armenians not assimilable, and that they thought that Armenians were converting to escape the evacuation, which is obviously true. Fadix 16:35, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

tetedeturc classified as a racist site

The site is classified in the list of racist sites by the French commission of human right and compared with right wing extremist Holocaust revisionist websites.

http://www.commission-droits-homme.fr/travauxCncdh/InternetRaciste.html

Should this information, which I consider relevent be noted next to its reference? Any comment? Fadix 02:35, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I believe it should, first of all because readers must be aware that it potentially contains assertions that might be illegal in their own country, second because I consider it good practice to give a little comment about external links in general. --House of Shin 17:40, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Thoth, about your recent add-on in the chronology

First, it is POV oriented, second, even if it were to be neutralized somehow, I believe it has no place in the timeline, because it is something continual without any specific date... you could find elsewhere in the article to make such a note. But first, present it here, so that users could first try to neutralize it. Fadix 02:49, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

In the article (actually series of articles) that I will (eventually/someday) propose (don't worry - it will happen - I work in parallel - so am addressing many things simulataniously....when i can get to them...) - anyway I will propose a section (seperate article)concerning Turkish Armenian Genocide denial and Armenian eeforts toward recognition where major events and concepts should be presented. Anyway that is (part of) my idea. --THOTH 16:22, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

MAIN SUBJECT

This article should be about armenian citizens of this land. They are not forgotten here. Turkish people still deeply feels their absence in their cultural and daily life. Even though their case has been undertaken with successors of old profiteers, we aware of the facts and we are seeking for the truth. But this article is far away from neutral. It is obviously a reference of a certain side.

On our side no one is willing to support and forgive a handfull of criminal. But other party obviously chose to be a spokesman of the murderers.

I don't know whatever these propagandists are after but after all these falsifications I'm sure they are never going to be able to make the descendants to perceive how it was to be a part of this land; to be them.

I have to say - its very difficult to acertain what you are trying to say here. You acknowledge the Genocide - but are accusing Armenians of attempting to profit from it? Is this what you are trying to say? I am confused. And who is "our side" that you relate with and this "other party" - you have not explained who you are or your position and what you claim to be falsifications and what is the source and understanding of your position on this issue. I do agree though that the article itself can be made much better.--THOTH 14:14, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Armenian genocide is a proven fact like the holocaust suffered by the Jews. So why the "neutrality warning"?

The holocaust is a proven fact and so is the armenian genocide. Neither one deserves a "neutrality warning", for this would show great disrespect for the Jewish and Armenian victims. -- 213.196.247.122 (talk · contribs) 03:38, May 10, 2005 (UTC) ^diff

I believe it's more subtle than that. I don't believe there's disrespect but an ongoing discussion about how to write the article better. --Muz 05:08, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately the primary dispute here is about the factuality of the Armenian Genocide. :(   — Davenbelle 06:00, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

Recent changes are bogus

First of all, since one position is supported by much more people in the academia, and as being the first position, so I don't see why the websites against the genocide theses should be included first.

Secondly, Turkey has never had relations with Armenia, even though it recognized it soon, and this, before the conflict with Azerbaijan. More so, Turkey will not open its border with Armenia, since “dropping” genocide “claims” was one of the preconditions to open the borders, the claim of Karabakh as precondition is just a reason to justify it, and pure hypocrisy, when one consider the occupation of Cyprus for less than that. Since Turkey did not had relations with Armenia, and the border was hardly used even before the occupation, even during the Earthquake which made things difficult. Neither do I see how the conflict between Azerbaijan and Armenia has anything to do, and the information isn't even true in the first place.

I do think that there should be conditions in Wikipedia for hot article. People edit things without even justifying them. Right now, I have no time to edit, so if anyone want to correct the situation, please do so.

Besides, this new user Monsterofthelake seems suspicious at best, while he claims POV, he himself maintain an obvious POV and even delete information. I won't tell who I think he is. :) Fadix 16:19, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Fadix, "the occupation of Cyprus" is a very different issue. Citing it as an example is not appropriate if you're not an expert on that issue no matter what the mainstream media calls it. By the way, I'm not sure giving links to online media sites in a Wikipedia article is good practice because usually they might be somebody's opinion compared to an in-depth research (they might be transient, too). I didn't look at the changes, I'll do it right now. --Muz 02:10, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Muz, I agree that the occupation of Cyprus has nothing to do here, my point was regarding the hypocrisy behind that. Karabakh was invaded by Armenian forces, just before the Azerbaijan government decided to evacuate the Armenian population there. Nagorno Karabakh was inhabitated majoritarly of Armenians, while Cyprus was not majoritarly Turkish. Armenia is ready to redraw from everywhere, if Karabakh is left alone, while Turkey still remain in Cyprus without any propositions. Turkey well know that Armenians will never ever give Karabakh away, so they use it to justify the closing of borders, when they had already no relation with Armenia before the occupation. So, yes, I call this hypocrisy.

As for the media, I don't like as well, including media; I think, it has no real place in the main genocide entry, maybe starting another entry regarding medias would be more appropriate. Oh and, opinions are not restricted in the links, they are restricted in the article, unless an authors opinion is presented, and it is specified who hold the position.

And BTW, I like your tone, if you have any issues regarding the subject, you want to discuss about, just email me. Fadix 15:24, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

I seem suspicious? Super! So that's why those damn cops keep stopping me while I'm driving!

Firstly, I edited the text claiming Turkey supports Armenian invasion of Azerbaijan, which is an inane edit. Secondly; the article was larger than 31kb; so I deleted the most POV topic on there. I have no idea who "you think I am" as I've been here for over a year now.

In my "suspicious" opinion, I think there should be a div or a table to allow putting the sites on the same lines; from left to right; as putting whichever over the other will bring the masses to scream "OMFGOMFGPOV!!!!1111". MonsterOfTheLake 11:18, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

I must have been blind, since I have not seen such a text. Turkey claims that if it opens it's borders, it would mean they support the occupation, which of course is different than Turkey supporting the occupation.

Your deletion of information is unjustified and against Wikipedias principle. A long article doesn't justify deleting of information, it justify cutting an article. Besides, can you be glad to show me where in the section regarding the Turkish intellectuals recognizing the genocide., there is a POV? Fadix 15:12, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

85.99.245.252

User 85.99.245.252 is engaged in deleting references to the Armenian Genocide on related pages without discussion. If the user wants to take issue with the inclusion of an image or a reference, he or she ought to post a query on the talk page. Whatever the concern may be, has probably been discussed before. DJ Silverfish 16:43, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

User 85.99.245.252 has also deleted my request on his talk page for discussion of his changes. I noted that the image he was deleting had been discussed previously. My request is is archived here: http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A85.99.245.252&diff=0&oldid=13617304. DJ Silverfish 18:24, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

User blocked because of ignoring all warnings. Mikkalai 19:04, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism by 85.99.245.252 & 219.93.72.38

85.99.245.252 engaged in unexplained deletions of references to the Armenian Genocide on various websites. I attempted to start discussion, but 85.99.245.252 has 3RR deleted my comments from his/her talk page and the Talk:Armenian Genocide page.

• 85.99.245.252 Armenian Genocide edits

• Revision as of 16:42, 12 May 2005
• Revision as of 18:14, 12 May 2005
• Revision as of 18:38, 12 May 2005
• Revision as of 18:42, 12 May 2005
• Revision as of 18:55, 12 May 2005
• Revision as of 18:59, 12 May 2005

• 85.99.245.252 was blocked, and notified on User_talk:85.99.245.252 page:

• 19:01, 12 May 2005

• 219.93.72.38's identical edit to 85.99.245.252's Armenian Genocide edits.

• Revision as of 19:18, 12 May 2005

3RR on 85.99.245.252 Talk page:

• 18:05, 12 May 2005
• 12 May 2005
• 18:58, 12 May 2005

DJ Silverfish 19:32, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

• 85.99.245.252 reversions to comments on Talk:Armenian Genocide page

• 18:27, 12 May 2005
• 18:49, 12 May 2005
• 18:57, 12 May 2005

• 85.99.245.252 was blocked, 219.93.72.38 reverted comments to Talk:Armenian Genocide page:

• 19:08, 12 May 2005

DJ Silverfish 19:48, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

• 85.99.245.252 was blocked, 219.93.72.38 reverted comments to User_talk:85.99.245.252 page:

• Revision as of 19:36, 12 May 2005

DJ Silverfish 20:03, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Both IPs are blocked. Mikkalai 20:39, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Protected

I am regret to inform you that the page is protected from an extremely persistent desire of an anon editor(s) to remove some images from the page while editing from a wide range of IPs, so that user blocking is inefficient. Mikkalai 00:03, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

• Editable again. Mikkalai 22:28, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't think protecting the article will change anything, the article will always get modified, due to the intense revisionist pressure. This was why I have proposed, that hot articles such as this, a decision should be taken by a new created Wikipedian body, which would lock the article from edition to any non-registered people. Fadix 04:03, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

There was no Ottoman racism

How can anyone dare to say that the Ottoman Empire was racist? Facing the fact that the 3 leaders after the beginning of World War 1 came from 3 different ethnic groups this accusation against this empire makes in no way any sense: Enver Pasha (Ismail Enver) was an Albano-Serb. Talaat Pasha (Mehmed Talaat) was a Bulgarian descent. Djemal Pasha (Ahmed Djemal) had a Greek mother. It was rather the Armenians that acted in a racist way insisting they are Caucasians and therefore distanced themselves from the Turks. In fact, many of them still act in this way, still think, feel and speak like racists. You may have a look in their forums to realize this sad fact. I really don’t know how to make peace with people like that. 195.175.37.38 05:56, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Hm and Hitler was Austrian - proves he wasn't racist I guess...and neither were the NAZIs...--THOTH 15:48, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

You know that Austrians and Germans have not only the language in common but also the "race"? By the way, you know about the 812. Armenian Wehrmachtsbattalion? Rather the Armenians had and still have racistic thought than the Turks. The Osman Empire was multiethnic and the Armenians wanted an ethnic cleansing. Well, at least they got, what they wanted. 84.171.158.188 10:12, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Believe it or not, there were even Jews in the Wehrmacht.

The Armenians in the Wehrmacht did play no role compared to the bosnian-muslim SS-Battailon built up by Hitler-friend Mufti Husseini: http://www.tellthechildrenthetruth.com/AminAlHusseini.htm

After all it was Hitler himself who said "Who still talks nowadays of the extermination of the Armenians"

Armenians=Jews, Ottomans of 1917=Germans of 1933-1945, Armenian genocide=Holocaust. It is as simple as that.

Mufti Husseini was an arap nationalist, he was not a Turk. Besides, he was against Turks. There was not even one Turk who fought for Nazis in WW2. Armenians even had a radio station to support Nazis.

Armenians are not only racist but also Terrorist too.

Photos, photo names, photo captions and use of "deportation"

I am sure there are people here who know better English than me, who is not a native speaker. But I, with all my respect, want to give the definition of "deportation" here: Expulsion of an undesirable alien from a country. During 1915 events, Armenians were NOT deported. They were NOT expelled from Ottoman Empire. They were relocated from Eastern Anatolia (where Ottoman Empire was fighting against Russia in WW1, and where Armenians were uprising alongside with Russians against Ottoman Empire for an independent state) to Syria which was still an Ottoman land. Thus, I suggest to replace "deportation" words with "relocation", or "deported" words with "relocated" in the article. Furthermore, the biggest mistake, which is usually made (intentionally or not), is the easy use of the word "genocide". UN officially recognize only one Holocaust; Jewish Holocaust. There are folders among UN documents with the names of Rwandan Genocide, Bosnian Genocide, Cambodia Genocide, Paraguay Genocide, however none of them are recognized as "genocide" yet due to the ongoing trials of the defendants. There is one folder with the name of "Armenian problem" however UN genocide convention does not recognize it as "genocide" as well. Additionally, recognition of "Armenian Genocide" by some parliaments sounds ironic and highly political to me, since without a court decision (or a tribunal) noone can claim a defendant is guilty.(And interestingly noone mentions the Malta Tribunals -held by UK who had already seized the Ottoman archives as one of the winners of the WW1- where noone was found guilty among the Young Turks of "Armenian Genocide" although British historians had gone through the Ottoman archives for months.) Given these facts, if Wikipedia is trying to be neutral how come photos with "genocide" names, or "1.5 million Armenians were killed" names are placed into a neutral article. Also, does really noone question the reliability of the sources of the photos? It only helps to propaganda to reveal such photos and claiming that those 90 years old photos belong to Armenian victims. After all, how can anyone differentiate an Armenian, a Turkish or a Kurdish living in Eastern Anatolia at that time by looking at the appearance? One can find millions of photos on the web which are claimed to belong to Turkish and Kurdish victims massacred by Armenian militia. But, I again emphasize here that this only helps to propaganda. I strongly wish, all from my heart that some day we witness the revelation of truth, whether it was a state sponsored genocide or not. But now, if we are trying to contribute to a neutral article, both side's claims should be written in a proper way. If Wikipedia is trying to be a "neutral" and "well-credited" reference, it must pay attention to these facts, or it will remain as a propaganda tool not only for Armenian side but also for Turkish side which is not desirable at all. --Cansın 19.45, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

All those points have been raised here at the talk page. As for the UN, your claim isen't true at all, I suggest you to read the recognition section, one of those is the UN. The Malta tribunal never was, I have writen an essay regarding this, and you can find it in Fadix analysis section.

I just have read the genocide section, and have realised that evacuation has been replaced by relocation. Even the Turkish official foreign ministry translations of the Ottoman Turkish documents, use the term "deportation." Relocation suggest a successful resetlment, which is simply wrong. Since the Turks are so jumpy of the word "deportation" I have changed it for the term "forced evacuation," which is a compromises, but it seems that someone has reinserted the duvious "relocation" term once again.

Photos of killed by Armenians. While the large majority of the pictures of Armenian victims were taken by Germans, who were Ottoman allies, the pictures of people being killed by Armenians were used by the Ottoman themselves. There are cases of such picture on the internet, that I have exposed being Armenian victims passing as Turkish, there are even references on how Armenian victims pictures were taken and published in Ottoman newspapers claiming the victims were Muslims having been killed by Armenians.

I can continue like this again and again, but it is senseless to continue, because Wikipedia is not written based on what people believe to be the truth, but rather on positions, and what most in the field believe. The article was quite neutral before the recent weird changes. Fadix 23:47, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Shish, even Taner Akcam words in a quotation mark, have been modified as to replaced what he called deportation, as "relocation." I guess the new editor knows more than the author of a quote, what he really said. Fadix 23:55, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Dear Fadix, you are making claims about the photos. Show me official references? Do Armenia Government open its archives and reveal these photos? Which German photographer did take which photo? If Wikipedia is trying to be a serious reference, give citation to the photographers of those photos. About deportation-relocation problem, given the meanings of these two words and the event in 1915, which word is the correct one to use? (The lands that Armenian populations were being expelled to was Ottoman lands.) Sorry for changing Taner Akcam's own words. I am really sorry fot that, it was a mistake-not made intentionally-. Talking about UN, sub-commission report does not mean that UN officially recognizes the acts as "genocide". Why do they not itemize it among the other alleged genocides? --Cansın 6.30, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Cansin, if you don't know whom were the two main German photographers that took pictures, I think you are very badly placed to question the authenticity of the pictures. Since I think you won't have any difficulty finding them, I'll leave that to you.

The word deportation, might not be an ideal word, it is better than the word relocation, In any cases, the term “forced evacuation” is where I have settled.

As for the UN, the UN has bodies which are charged among many things, recognizing such crimes. And the Armenian cases is one of them.

Lemkin’s first studies concerning war “crimes against humanity” was referred to by H. Yahreas’ work, The World’s Most Horrible Crime, Colliers, vol. 127, 3 March 1951. The author retraces Lemkin’s interest concerning war crimes and extermination. In fact, the author reports that the first recorded conversation that Lemkin had about the subject was at Lvov University in 1920, when he engaged in a discussion concerning the extermination of the Armenians with his Russian Law professor. Rabbi Steven L. Jacobs, Temple B’nai Shalom, Huntsville, Alabama, and Martin Methodist College, Tennessee, who has researched Raphael Lemkin’s papers, has classed some of those concerning the Armenians and compiled them by the name "Lemkin and the Armenian Genocide." Lemkin also referred to the Armenian case, in his work “Le Crime de Génocide” as an example of extermination. Quoting here from its English version: “history has provided us with other examples of the destruction of entire nations, and ethnic and religious groups. There are, for example,… and more recently, the massacre of the Armenians.” (By Raphael Lemkin, American Scholar, Volume 15, no. 2 [April 1946]).

Lemkin started his works concerning “Crimes against Humanity” (we should remind the reader, that the term “crime against humanity” was first officially used to describe what happened to the Armenians) with the Armenian case. This same case, as mentioned previously, was also one of the main reasons why he decided to become a lawyer. Lemkin’s conception of the word predates the Holocaust, with the Armenian case, and then after the end of World War II, he finalized his definition and published it in a series of essays. He also wrote papers, official and unofficial. In them, he referred to the Armenian case as an integral part of his definition, an “undissociable” element of the word that he himself invented.

Lemkin writes:

"In 1915 the Germans occupied the city of W. and the entire area. I used this time to read more history, to study and to watch whether national, religious, or racial groups are being destroyed. The truth came out only after the war. In Turkey, more than 1,200,000 Armenians were put to death for no other reason than they were Christians ... After the end of the war, some 150 Turkish war criminals were arrested and interned by the British Government on the island of Malta. The Armenians sent a delegation to the peace conference in Versailles. They were demanding justice. Then one day, the delegation read in the newspapers that all Turkish war criminals were released. I was shocked. A nation was killed and the guilty persons were set free. Why is a man punished when he kills another man? Why is the killing of a million a lesser crime than the killing of a single individual?

I identified myself more and more with the sufferings of the victims, whose numbers grew, as I continued my study of history. I understood that the function of memory is not only to register past events, but to stimulate human conscience. Soon contemporary examples of genocide followed, such as the slaughter of the Armenians in 1915. It became clear to me that the diversity of nations, religious groups and races is essential to civilization because every one of those groups has a mission to fulfill and a contribution to make in terms of culture.... I decided to become a lawyer and work for the outlawing of Genocide and for its prevention through the cooperation of nations.

A bold plan was formulated in my mind. This consisted [of] obtaining the ratification by Turkey [of the proposed UN Convention on Genocide Ed.] among the first twenty founding nations. This would be an atonement for [the] genocide of the Armenians. But how could this be achieved? ... The Turks are proud of their republican form of government and of progressive concepts, which helped them in replacing the rule of the Ottoman Empire. The genocide convention must be put within the framework of social and international progress. I knew however that in this conversation both sides will have to avoid speaking about one thing, although it would be constantly in their minds: the Armenians."

[Source: With permission of the Rare Books and Manuscripts Division, the New York Public Library, Astor, Lenox, and Tilden Foundations.]

The German word often used for the word genocide, "Völkermord" has been used to describe what happened to the Armenians, even before the introduction of the more official word, “genocide.” An example of the usage of the word "Völkermord" could be found in the work of S. Zurlinden, "Der Weltkrieg, Vol. II (Zürich: Art. Institut Orell Füssli, 1918), p.649.

This German word had not the legal aspect that the word genocide does. Lemkin at that time was pressed to release his studies and the legal aspect of such crimes, in order to have legal bases for the prosecution of people responsible of such crimes. For Lemkin the criminals responsible for the Armenian genocide were released, and for him the reason was because there were laws binding countries concerning killers and criminals, but there were no laws for criminals that in the name of a state and from its laws commit genocide, as he wrote, “Why is the killing of a million a lesser crime than the killing of a single individual?” And it is exactly why, in 1944, Lemkin was preparing the legal aspect, and knew that once the war was over these NAZI criminals would be released in the same way that the criminals responsible for the Armenian genocide were released if there were no new laws that could permit judgement of the criminals.

It must be understood once again one of the main reasons of why the word genocide was invented. It was primarily invented in order to have a legal basis to condemn people accused of such crimes, in order that they do not escape justice like they had done in the case of the Malta prisoners, and also to name such crime that until then there was no word to describe. For Lemkin the Armenian case was the archetype, the case that was used as jurisprudence, in order to come up with legal bases to condemn NAZI criminals, and be sure that the same mistake that happened in the post-World War I period were not to happen in the post-World War II period or ever again.

This is exactly why according to some, there is no possible debate concerning whatever or not what happened to the Armenians was a genocide or not, for people that allege it wasn’t a genocide not only have no knowledge of or reject the why of the usage of this word, but they also have no knowledge of or reject the fact that the Armenian case is a Jurisprudence and a distinct and indivisible element of the existence of the word, an integral part of the word, months before the introduction of this word in 1948, on the date of May 28, 1948, on which date the United Nations war crimes commission released a report concerning the mass slaughter of the Armenians in World War I, followed by, the same year, on the date of December 9, 1948, the publication of the Genocide Convention by the United Nations High Commission for Human Rights. Obviously, the United Nations report released on May 28 was part of their study that permitted them to release, months later, what would become their official definition of the word genocide. Later in 1973, a reference in one of the United Nations papers concerning the Armenian genocide resulted on the part of Turkey to pressure the United Nations to withdraw the case of the Armenian genocide from the list. Due to the intensification of these pressures, the case of the Armenian genocide was redrawn in 1978, until another extensive study was to be conducted, due to Turkey’s accusations of partiality. After eight years of extensive research was undertaken, one of the specialists that conducted this meticulous research, Benjamin Withaker, released the conclusion, which was, that the Armenian case was undeniably a case of genocide. The result was intense pressures from Turkey, forcing the United Nations to ignore the conclusion of the specialists and stop the passage of this recognition, but despite Turkish pressures, the Subcomission of Human Rights, led by the expert Carey, adopted the resolution by passing it to a vote, from which only one member was against, the only vote against the resolution being from the representatives of the Soviet Union. Fadix 16:22, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

The UN is not the arbiter of what is or is not "genocide." We are —which is to say "we" the readers of history will determine for ourselves whether or not something was or was not genocide. And we can only do the best we can. Granted that the policy for naming conventions can be vague, and the definition of "genocide" is likewise —the use of the term has changed to its popular and broader application. Acts of "democide" are called "genocide." I understand your distinction between "deported" and "relocated" and think its relevant, but the term "relocated" itself does not do justice to the nature of the act. The term "ethnic cleansing" does, but we tend to avoid using it as a verb, for example "the people were ethnically cleansed." "Millions of photos for propaganda" is not a valid general argument - if you wish to cite evidence discrediting particular photos, then please do so. -SV|t 23:44, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Dear SV|t, the readers of the history can not determine whether an act is "genocide" or not. "Genocide" is a serious accusation and it has to be based on trials. If somebody killed someone, you can not claim that he/she is guilty before he/she is sentenced in a trial. So you have to assign a arbiter for naming the acts as genocide rather than ordinary people or governments. --Cansın 7.10, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Cansin - your position is silly. The word "Genocide" was based - in part - directly on the Armenian experience and their is vast amounts of evidence and scholarly verification as well as other findings (UN permenent peoples tribunal - etc ) that confirm use of the word "Genocide" - we cannot poof into existance a trial of one was not held - this ignores realities where such thing may not have been possible - so no trial - no genocide - sorry - does not work this way. But in fact there were trials - Ottoman Militayr Tribunals after the war. Many CUP - national and local - were convicted - and though there was no term "Genocide" at the time - the verdicts of the court recognized "Crimes against humanity" - premeditation - and intent to annhiliate Armenians...etc...so good enough for ya? --THOTH 16:07, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

==

Check this out, too

Also, check out this discussion forums I came by while researching on the Internet. It can be categorised as a site that supports the genocide thesis. I personally found that one unreliable, discredible and extremely POV too. An Armenian, clearly a descendant of Ottoman Armenians tells about some events his grandparents experienced. Interesting thing is, he says his grandfather joined some Armenian "freedom fighters", raiding Turkish villages and towns and killing any Kurd and Turk he could get his hands on. Why aren't such "freedom fighters" and Ottoman Kurdish and Ottoman Turkish losses covered in this article? I advise every Wikidpedian releated in this dispute to read carefully those forums. This is a perfect example of Armenian Nationalist POV, and I think it should be too included in the article to represent the releated POV. (signed, magnus) --63.239.116.254 14:56, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

That is a neo-Nazi ayran power type of forum - not an Armenian form. It is not fair or accurate to adress a serious issue by concentrating on kids and other malcontents - fo whatever nationality - who might back whatever silly philosophy - it has nothing to do with the greater portion of Armenians - these guys are clearly fringe. Turkey is filled with fringe and not so fringe racists and worse - should this be highlighted as well? I say only if it rises to become a mass movement or official government policy. SO think about - really want to go there? --THOTH 15:57, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes, stormfront is known to be extreme right-wing. I agree that links given in the article might look implicitly endorsed. On the other hand, Turkey is filled with racists MORE than any other country??? Thoth, what do you base this comparison on? % racists in turkey vs. % racists anywhere else. Of course there are racists, nationalists, etc. This discussion style won't get YOU anywhere. (Should I explicitly say that that's the style racists would use) --Muz 05:48, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Muz - that was not a quote from me - I said Turkey is filled with fringe and not so fringe racists and worse - I did not compare Turkey to any other nation. Turkey MHP has always been an openly racist party and until the last election recieved a fair percentage of the national vote (as high as 20% as I recall). And if anythign racism seems to be on the rise in Turkey. I know of Turks who are not 100% Turkish (for instance they are Christian or have Chritian names or are Kurdish or otherwise identifiable as not 100% Turk) - and have been told many interesting and somewhat disturbing stories concerning their experiences growing up in Turkey and otherwise and how the ebb and flow of racism (seemingly state encouraged at times) is on the rise currently. My point was that before one casts stones - and accuses Armenians based on a few extremists - they should look at their own situation. I used to tell soem Turks I knew who were accusatory concerning Armenians because of ASALA - would you wish the world to judge all Turks based on the actions of Mehemt Ali Acga? --THOTH 15:24, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Let's not get side tracked here. Today's situation tells not much about 90 years back. First, like the issue of Cyprus, Kurds' and Christians' situation cannot be summarized in two sentences like you do. First MHP didn't even get in the Parliament in the last election because they got less than 10%, and it doesn't mean that every person voting for MHP is racist. I could reflect your arguments back here, you're talking about extremists which are not as many as you think. This is not unique to Turks and Turkey and you tend to exaggerate. You can find similar mentality in any other nation-state. Totally faulty generalizations, you're making. ASALA, it was a terrorist group that planned and carried out attacks to civilians. About the Kurds condition, I'm not saying they have been treated fairly, there were so many mistakes and wrong-doing. However, PKK, another terrorist group (probably known as being freedom fighters outside Turkey) hurt Kurds' condition so much than nothing else. I'm not trying to find an excuse but PKK is one of the most unfortunate things that could happen to the Kurd minority in Turkey. Let's not try to find examples of current day of how bad people we are. We need to look back, before the WW1 to find what we're looking for. --Muz 16:52, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

I disagree (with many points you raise here) - First - todays situation can tell us plenty about 90 years ago - as so many of the Turkish attitudes of today are essentially unchanged - particulalry among the Turkish elites (towards minorities and towards the West). Yes there are extremistts in many nations - but Turkey seems to have an easy acceptance of them - particualrly when their anger is "properly directed". You fail to understand the point I was making concerning ASALA - it was in comparsions to generalisations certain Turks made/make about Armenians based on this non-representative group - and I would equate anyone making this connection to make the same concerning Acga and all Turks - equally spurious. Did I mention PKK? No - anyway i think that they are nuts. But I understand their apeal to the Kurds of the Southeast. When one has been repeatedly beaten down bya big bully one does not go to a nice person for help. So you cannot blame the PKK on the Kurds. Think about this one a bit. And you accuse me of sidetracking. I was only answering/countering this claim made about idiots on stormfront being somehow construed as representing Armenian views. You jumped on me about a comparision I never made. --THOTH 05:13, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough. My english might have failed me, I thought it is a baseless accusation (that we are all racists). If you are saying it's not an accusation you're making, I don't have anything to say.... Except that the Western point of view towards Turks as being barbarians, muslims, easterners, etc. have never changed. I can't blame any easterner having doubts about the west. They always have had double standards for themselves and for the "others". I'm not trying to find a counter-argument but this is true. What's my point? History can be written, we've seen examples of this many times before. My ultimate concern is that it could but shouldn't happen on Wikipedia, too. --Muz 06:15, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Dont forget - but Armenians are essentially Easterners too - though of course not-Muslim - still we have experienced very much the same sort of condecending attitudes. One difference - of course - is that Armenians were never seen as a threat to the West - which the Turks were - big time - and the connection is of course always made between Turks and the marrauding and pillaging armies of such. Additionally the latter centuries of Ottoman rule and the arbitrariness and corruption of the Sultan and the beauracracy did nothing to help the immage - not to mention the inflexibility and decidely "Old World" perspectives of the Ottomans who were unable to concieve of nationalism (and social progress) for themselves or for the minorities and reacted only violently against them even when the "provocation" was only to ask for entirely justified reform. While i do not discount the negative impression that the West has - specifically and in general concerning Turks, Easterners and Muslims in general (and they certainly utterly fail to understand the cultural dimensions of Islam) - much of the rancour against the Turks was in fact brought upon by themselves. This is even true in attitudes the Ottomans (Osman extended family...sorry if I laugh here - makes me think of the Osmonds - a morman entertainment family here in the states...) = but anyway the Ottomans thought terribly of the Turkick people and had no desire whatsoever to be considered "Turkish" - which to them meant essntially Turckomen and the like....thus an incredible amount of racial stereotyping against the Turks originally comes from the Ottomans themselves...--THOTH 17:37, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

You seem to see what I'm trying to get at which, I think, is important. When compared, all powerful west and the east, Ottomans looking down on themselves doesn't have much of an effect in our context. Most people, societies, cultures have racial (or non-racial) stereotypes embedded of others. As an anthropologist, you probably know better. --Muz 05:43, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

The serrious questions are

• People have no appriciation of the oposing view, infact they have absolutely no tolerance all. Insisting that world-wide in every single country armenian genocide is widely accepted is not right, neither have you provide me any sources of every individual case, nor have you given me the natrue of the acceptance, Official recognition is significant but means little. Theoraticaly all those acceptances can be pulled back in 24hrs. How many of such desicions in place, which of their official channel will acknowlege the claims you pose? What is the nature of the official recognition? Are they embargoing Turkey? Are they going to arrest/deny Turkish diplomats entry to their nation? Did they pull their embassy? What? --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 18:59, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Here we come again. The nationalist Coolcat, can't prevent himself coming back on this thread. That the UN recognize it, is not important for Coolcat, that the Holocaust and Genocide Institutes around the world recognize it, is not important for Coolcat. The international discussion panels from specialists, regarding war crimes and genocide, include the Armenian cases repeatedly is not important for Coolcat. What is important for Coolcat, is that his nationalist POV being presented 50/50. Fadix 22:17, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Oh really? Anyone who doesn't share your viewpoint is "nationalistic and can't stop himself from defending his own point" eh? Praytell, is this UN you speak of the United Nations? Because United Nations never recognized it. Oops, there I go again, defending another viewpoint with real facts. Farhan Haq stated United Nations has not approved or endorsed a report labeling the Armenian experience as Genocide. Please get your facts straight. MonsterOfTheLake 02:06, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Cool down, you you'll get few missing hearth beats. That the UN recognizes the Armenian genocide is even not a debate, it has been placed to vote and voted, about the same times when the Permanent People Tribunal in 1984 has considered the cases. See above. Fadix 03:04, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your concern, I'm perfectly fine though. Yeah, it's not a debate. Farhan Haq already stated that they don't recognize it. Show me proof of UN saying "We recognize it". I've shown you proof of them not recognizing it. MonsterOfTheLake 03:27, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

months before the introduction of this word in 1948, on the date of May 28, 1948, on which date the United Nations war crimes commission released a report concerning the mass slaughter of the Armenians in World War I, followed by, the same year, on the date of December 9, 1948, the publication of the Genocide Convention by the United Nations High Commission for Human Rights. Obviously, the United Nations report released on May 28 was part of their study that permitted them to release, months later, what would become their official definition of the word genocide. Later in 1973, a reference in one of the United Nations papers concerning the Armenian genocide resulted on the part of Turkey to pressure the United Nations to withdraw the case of the Armenian genocide from the list. Due to the intensification of these pressures, the case of the Armenian genocide was redrawn in 1978, until another extensive study was to be conducted, due to Turkey’s accusations of partiality. After eight years of extensive research was undertaken, one of the specialists that conducted this meticulous research, Benjamin Withaker, released the conclusion, which was, that the Armenian case was undeniably a case of genocide. The result was intense pressures from Turkey, forcing the United Nations to ignore the conclusion of the specialists and stop the passage of this recognition, but despite Turkish pressures, the Subcomission of Human Rights, led by the expert Carey, adopted the resolution by passing it to a vote, from which only one member was against, the only vote against the resolution being from the representatives of the Soviet Union.

I quite call this recognition. Fadix 04:11, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

• You do not see the significance organisations such as Asala have on the issue. Armenians killed to force/push their view in the past. What do armenians want Turkey to do? Was/is there a territorial demand? What does Armenia want? How did Armenians respond to Turkey granting access to her (even millitary) archives. Why do the Armenian goverment do not want to bother discussing matter? --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 18:59, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Coolcat is reading too much Turkish daily news. The Armenian government, regardless what the Turkish press has fabricated has accepted the Turkish government offer, but now the Turkish government to save its faces claim the Armenian government has refused dialogue, because it refused to accept the Turkish government position regarding the conflict of Nagorno-Karabakh. Try to get the point. While Turkey don't want any conditions, it imposes it positions. Where was Turkey, when the Zoryan institute has proposed late 2001 similar dialogs, but unlike what Turkey proposes, a dialog between intellectuals, and not politicians. But of course, Turkey back then, like now, has refused dialogue between intellectuals, has always refused apolitical dialogs. I almost forgot, what happened with the TARC, and how this Turkish Armenian committee died out. I almost forgot when the two groups submitted the cases to an international body, and what it has concluded. Continue shouting ASALA, like if it has anything to do with the occurrence of the Armenian genocide, continue ignoring what has been posted in the talk page, continue to not listen to others... continue with your threats of leaving Wikipedia because you are “unlove” continue with this borderline personality behavior. Fadix 22:17, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Fadix is having way too much bias. We in Turkey enjoy our free newspapers. They are not "controlled by the government" as you claim. Please show me proof for your claims from a neutral Western source -- excuse me if I don't trust your church-controlled state, but I won't sweat it since you don't seem to trust our sources anywho! See, it all works out now! MonsterOfTheLake 03:02, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Dear Fadix, could you please specify the link to the news agency which stated that Armenian government accepted Turkish government’s offer. I have not come across any news like you mentioned neither in leading Germany, UK, Spain, France nor American news agencies, nor Reuters, AP…Karabakh issue is one of the conditions of Turkish government (I do not support by the way) to start diplomatic dialogue. But Armenian government did not accept to open their archives. However, right now, in Turkey there are hundreds of historians from Europe who are going through the Ottoman archives.--Cansın 3.40, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

I'd say, you're uninformed. Armenian government sent a letter to the Turkish government, the Turkish government has answered, this has been published as well in the Turkish press.

As for the Armenian archives, they have been never closed, this claim is a pure fabrication. Recently, the first Turkish scholar that has ever researched Armenian archives, Yeftan Turkyilmaz, has claimed the reason why any Turkish scholars have ever researched the Armenian archives, was because, he don't know of any beside him that know Armenian. The kind of permission one can get to research Armenian archives, are similar to those of Bonn Centralarchiv, which are called unrestricted, nothing to do with the controlled access of the Ottoman archives, as for the Turkish military archive, if you ever try searching there, good luck. Fadix 02:28, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Again, don't say it - prove it. Give me a neutral Western source of this. You can't because you're BSing. Please stop throwing things around that you can't actually prove. MonsterOfTheLake 03:02, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Contact the Armenian foreign ministry, I can provide you all the contact info, present the University which with you are affiliated to, request an access. What do you want more than a direct written answer? Fadix 04:11, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

• Presenting both sides views equaly is unacceptable as established ages ago, this conflicts with NPoV. If you have a strong case this shouldn't be an issue. You cannot write the entier article with the Armenian/Pro-Genocide POV and declare it NPOV just because you have a section providing and disputing the Turkish/Non-Genocide POV. Do you have a problem with that? --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 18:59, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

The entry is NPOV, it present views, without presenting them as truth, you can cry and threaten to leave all you want, the Turkish government position can not, and will not be presented as an equally valid position as what is recognized by comparative genocide research institutes around the world, just because it happens that a nationalist government, and nationalists like you want to present such positions as valid as any others. Fadix 22:17, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Could that possibly be because of, oh I dunno, the UN doesn't acknowledge it? How many countries are recognizing the genocide? Partly or nonofficially does not count. 10? Maybe 12? There are 190+ countries in the world. Until you get UN approval with every country accepting this, I'll stick with my viewpoint, thank you very much. MonsterOfTheLake 03:32, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

How many countries recognize the Holocaust? 20? That's it? How many countries passed any resolutions recognition the Holocaust? What kind of BS is this? Fadix 04:11, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

• How realistic is the folowing scenario? A claim scholars worldwide dispute the holocaust factuality. found 8 friends on the internet that think the same. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 18:59, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Now as people will misinterprete such words as me disputing the holocaust. This is exactly what I was tying to say earlier on. I am not denying the holocaust as there is clear motive: "purification of race" clear evidence:"gas chambers" and are all well documented. The camps themselves are there. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 18:59, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Your contradictory nature and support of positions, wherever they will advance your cases are not fooling anyone anymore, as your admission of having lied to Raffi, and your changes of claims and positions repeatedly. You don't even understand or can conceive what “real evidences” means. Because in the real world, written admission from a Supreme General, or a Martial court, are the type of things that are called “clear evidences.” But of course, nationalists like you can't comprehend, or better don't want to comprehend this. Fadix 22:17, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

I know in Holocaust mass number of people were sent to gas chambers, ie were deliberately poisend, in armenian genocide people were deliberately forced to migrate, there were more effective ways to kill people back then. Declaring they are the same thing is wrong.

I guess there was more effective way to kill than sending a population in the desert, and escorting them with murderers and killers released from prisons, in case, some might escape starvation. You know what? For 1915, I don't seem to find any better way to destroy a population. Fadix 22:17, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Escorting them with murderers? Come now, I don't appreciate you calling our military "murderers". Yes, the Ottoman Empire actually shared some of its soldiers while in a war to carry off people trying to overthrow it. And get this -- some of those soldiers were tried and executed for mistreating them! Trust me, if there was an actual intention to destroy a group of people - a group of people who were attacking the nation - they would use methods more effective than "escorted transfer". Don't whine about escorts being too few, -- you shouldn't have attacked against us in the first place. MonsterOfTheLake 02:57, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

You have no clue of what you're talking about, browse the talk page, and spare us all this useless discussion.; I wasn't even talking about the military. Fadix 04:11, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

It would be nice if certain things can be done that didn't happen as resources were limmeted, such as escort. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 18:59, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Coolcat is finaly an expert of the Armenian “question.”Fadix 22:17, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

When you have world wide in your hands diverting millitary personel to "escort" should prove to be futile millitary strategy. Besides, germans escorted jews, POW, and others via a railway, people died on the trains as well. If Turks had a railway I am sure they would have been more sucessfull in the "eastern front". --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 18:59, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

The Turks did have railway, and many Armenians were transported to the transit camps by railway, to be sent in the camps in the desert, the mortality of those transported by railway, ended up as being as important as those that death marched on foot. There are even pictures of men being unrolled in the army, escaping from the wagons, being the trains were used to send them in the slaughterhouses, where they were taken groups by groups and executed, by pretext that they had to be sent their to complete the Baghdad railroad. Fadix 22:17, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

In reallity jews, POW, and others were very important to germans. Most of the V-2 missles were manifactured by "slave" labour of jews, POW, and others nade up a considerable amount of german millitary strenghth. They later gassed the jews, POW, and others, asuming they survive various non-natural conditions such as TNT poisoning. Even germans used the labor of jews, POW, and others and not simply kill the jews and others. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 18:59, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

I have no clue of what argument you are trying to bring there... if you want to show you know of what you are talking about, searching on the web references that are unrelated won't make your cases stronger. Fadix 22:17, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

• I am not an expert in history, no, I can ask rational questions. That is all in my agenda. If I ask why did germans kill mass number of jews and others, answer is simple, reason: "purification of race". Were Turks purifying their race? Why wasn't it the republic of the Turkic or Turkistan If that is the case why are Armenians, and many other reaces are alive and are still in Turkey?The primary reason jermans didnt "finish off" jews is because of the US/Allied/Russian presence. Turks still control the area. Why aren't Armenians killed today? Why does Armenia not have a turkish millitary occupation? How many official territorial claim Turkey imposed/imposes on Armenia? --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 18:59, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Why Jews aren't killed in Germany Today? You have no clue of what you are talking about. In Turkey, about 60,000 Armenians live, the very large majority live in Istanbul, in 1915, over 10% of Istanbuli population were Armenians, today, less than 0.01%. I can conceive anything more successful as to destroy the Armenian presence from the entire land that is today Turkey.

In 1915, there were 0 Armenians living in Armenia, as there were no such thing as Armenia. Many Armenians went to live on in what currently is Armenia. There haven't been any restrictions on Armenian migration AFAIK. If Armenians want to live in Turkey, they're welcome to -- unlike Turks in Armenia.

Hey, while you're whining about there being 60000 Armenians only in Turkey today, tell me why your country is almost 95% purified. MonsterOfTheLake 02:50, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

That is the second time I will ask you to cool down, I care for your health. :) Stop trying to find bugs, where there isn't any. Talking of statistics, in term of proportion, there is less Armenians in Turkey per population, than there is Azeris/Turks in Armenia. It is obvious that when Armenians get concentrated in a tiny land, it end up that they constitute a majority, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to comprehend that. It takes? Fadix 03:04, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Again, thanks for the concern. There are no bugs indeed. According to CIA FactBook, there is a <1% minority of Azeris and no mention of Turks. Since Turks aren't so concerned about "racial purity", CIA can't give us much info. I'd bet that there are more Armenians in Turkey than Turks in Armenia, number or proportion wise.

In Turkey, The Armenian population doesn't even make 0.001% of the population, if there is 3000 Turks or Azeris in Armenia, it would per population be more than there is Armenians in Turkey. But of course, you seem to be interested in current situations. Fadix 04:11, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Today, 60000 Armenians live in Turkey (according to Agos, an Armenian newspaper published in Istanbul), which makes about 0.08% of the population. If your claim was true, there would be less than 750 Armenians in the entire country, a dozen of which I personally know :) - Cezveci

What territorial claim? What kind of Bs is this? The Ottoman Empire even managed to take lands from Russian Armenia, they comploted to brake Karabakh from Armenia, which is the present day conflict, caused by General Halil durty plans that have gone as far as Baku. Fadix 22:17, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Take lands from Russian Armenia? Uh, you do know that there weren't a recognized state of Armenia until 1991 right? Even if there were, why would the Ottoman Empire, the "sick man of Europe", try to invade it? MonsterOfTheLake 02:50, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Russian Armenia was a term used to name the Armenian provinces withing the Russian Empire. I alomost forgot Kars, Ardahan etc. were they not literally stolen? I guess the Ottoman was defending itself, to a point that they finally invaded Russian Armenia, and made up through Alexendripole, which devastated the entire area. For a sick man, it probably was treated with steroids, not corticosteroids, but I guess, that you knew. :) Fadix 03:04, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Nope, they were not. Dunno what they teach you over there, but Ottoman territory gains stopped long before World War 1. Check http://www.worldstatesmen.org/Ottoman.jpg -- no more gains after 1798. No idea what you're smoking, but please pass it here -- must be good stuff :). MonsterOfTheLake 03:27, 19 May 2005 (UTC)~

So according to you, Kars, Ardahan etc. were not taken... talking of credibility Fadix 04:11, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

• What is the motive of the "mass murder"? In an average Sherlock Holmes novels, first question is tipicaly the motive if not second. Just by quoting someone else as you cannot provide me rational thought, the basis of science. This article just makes assumptions such as "scholars world wide accept this". What was the motive of the "Turks"? In the incident how many non-armenians died? 4,6,10? maybe 1000? What are your sources for any posible answer? scholars world wide accept this, who are these scholars? I dont want a long list, I can generate a long list myself. How can you proove such an overwhelming majority? Why do you need such statements? Do you lack a strong case? --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 18:59, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

The Armenian genocide is not a Sherlock Holmes novel, this is about the murder of a nation, this is about brutally forcing people out from their houses at night, rape their girls, abduct them, take an entire population, and force them in the desert, without any provision. And then, to be assured that most won't survive, release from prisons butchers and murderers, not those that were charged for having stolen, or felony. NO!!! But those having been charged for first degree premeditated murder.

In the mind of Coolcat this is a Holmes novel, in the mind of Coolcat, history is wherever one might write... That is not how it works in the real world. Sorry. And that scholars mostly accept the Armenian genocide. I guess it doesn't make any differences for Coolcat, that the Armenian cases is the second most studied. Raffi was right, we should leave Coolcat in his fantasy world, and ignore him. Fadix 22:17, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Please be a bit realistic. You are drastically exaggerating. It's simple logic that you're refusing -- you cooperated with Russia against the Ottomans. Ottomans naturally reacted and deported the Armenians in the trouble spots. If there was an intentional attempt to destroy the Armenian race as a whole, please explain me how Armenians in Istanbul, the CAPITAL, were untouched. MonsterOfTheLake 02:17, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

This thing was answered and answered again and again. 30,000 Armenians were evacuated from the Capital... I don't think that could be called untouched, beside those that were shut of course. Fadix 03:04, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Again, tell me why they evacuated a portion of people in the Western parts. If their plan was KILLING THAT RACE OFF, why would they leave so many untouched? MonsterOfTheLake 03:27, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

This was already been addressed, I won't repeat myself. Fadix 04:11, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

• I intentionally added Tallarmeniantale link. Its how wikipedia is PKK has a link to [www.pkk.org] the official organisations site. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 19:15, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

PKK is an official organization, with regulations, stationed... Tallarmeniantale, is a website, with wrong contact informations, which is against the “I agree” and the contract between the guy and the company with which he has registered. And this, regardless of everything I have said about the site. Fadix 22:17, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

It's not wrong. In order to protect his privacy, he's using the service of http://www.domainsbyproxy.com/. You are wrong sir. MonsterOfTheLake 20:40, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Also, PKK is a terrorist organization, but anything to attack the Turks you must condone, isn't that so? MonsterOfTheLake 02:17, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

That must have been new, maybe the guy has read my recommendations. :) In any cases, it doesn't change the fact that the site can not be included here.

As for the PKK, I find it normal that the PKK site be included in a PKK article, like I would have found normal to find out tallarmeniantale website in an entry regarding tallarmeniantale. You are searching bugs where there isn't any. Fadix 02:49, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Actually I believe it's a great site that's geared with neutral sources - which most of the other view's sites lack. No idea what you mean by "that being new", Domains By Proxy have been around for a while. MonsterOfTheLake 03:27, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Is it me that is not clear enough? I am telling you that the site contains quote that do not exist(I have given examples), you repeat me that it is a great site. So according to you, I can fabricate quotes from a work, and then place them in a site and use that site as reference? Oh as for the proxy. What I meant is that, his change for a proxy seem to be something that is recent(few months or so)... weird, I proposed him to do that. Now I guess I can contact the proxy compagny and report it. :) Fadix 15:28, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

I strongly objected to the racist and unofficial - without merit TallArmeniantale site being linked to in this article. All of your questions have answers coolcat. let me just say that you seen so clear that you know the answers in regard to the holocaust - but in fact their are many issues and unknowns. Addditionally the reasons the Nazis went after the Jews - and could do so with popular support had to do with specific charges of sedition and such that exactly parallel the type of charges made against the Armenians. There are a great many parallels in both the hidden motives and the public justifications and subsequent denials. When i cna get to it (soon?) I will complete my outline that will call for sections on denials and perhaps even comparative genocide page. etc --THOTH 05:22, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Oh really? How is a site defending the bias against a group of people racist?

What do you mean by "unofficial"? Oh, right, because it doesn't have the Armenian Government's flag on it. Gotcha. Turk viewpoint bad, Armenian right. MonsterOfTheLake 02:10, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Dude, there is sites directly from the Turkish government that are there left intact, there is tetedeturc that is included as a racist site by a French human right group that is left there. Tallarmeniantale just happens to be a site that cross the border between what can be called freedom of speech, and what can be called a slanderous racist site, which has collected bunch of newsgroups fabrications by a known and famous newsgroup spammer.

Oh really? I've read almost every single page in TallArmenianTale, and all of them had proper (usually Western or Armenian) sources. If you doubt them, please go ahead and check them against the originals, which I'm sure you'll see, are correct. I failed to find it "slanderous [and] racist", except for the parts about ASALA killing my nation's politicians off, which were about how Armenians were being "slanderous [and] racist" against the Turks. Also I don't think the Armenians can call anyone racist when their own state is 95% purified.~

You must have been blind then, I just provided few examples of quotes which do not exist. You should check where the bug is said to be, rather than searching somewhere a bug, when there isn't any. Fadix 04:11, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't know about "tetedeturc", but I wouldn't trust a French source -- show me a Neutral Western English page that I can read. Thanks. MonsterOfTheLake 03:07, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

If you can't trust a French source, that is your problem. Leave discriminations out of Wikipedia. Fadix 04:11, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Talaat Pasha's Notes, The numbers after and before the relocation

Recently released, Talat's notes are the first hand historical documents. Here, I am providing you the numbers of relocated Armenians from 18 cities he had recorded; Ankara-47.224, Erzurum-128.657, Adana-46.031, Bitlis-109.251, Halep-34.451, Bursa-66.413, Diyarbakir-61.002, Sivas-141.592, Trabzon-34.500, Elazig-74.206, Izmit-54.370, Samsun-26.374, Balikesir-8.290, Afyon-7.327, Kayseri-47.616, Maras-27.101, Nigde-5.101, Konya-4.381, Total:924.158. These are from written documents. Could anyone here among the article contributors give us a serious reference to an official document which claims the death of 1.5 million Armenians? In his notes he had also written down the estimate of Armenian population in Ottoman Empire. According to his notes, by 1914 there were 1.187.818 Gregorian Armenians, 63,967 Catholic Armenians are living in the Empire and the total number was 1.256.403. He also added that there might be an error and he estimated the total population approximately as 1.500.000 which matches with Britain archives. I will also give the detailed demography of Armenian population according to his notes. And another record from his notes; after the relocation, the number of the Armenian orphans was 10.314 mostly in Halep who were later given to Turkish families in order to be brought up. He noted that after the relocation the number of the Armenians who were living in the cities, to which relocation policy had been applied, was 284.157. He also noted that there might be errors and he estimated the number as 250.000 to 400.000 (After the relocation). Besides, according to the Ottoman archives (mostly telgrams), the relocation policy was not applied to any other Christian rather than Armenians. Those, who did not obey this policy and tried to apply it to other Christians were harshly punished by Ottoman government itself. I am not a historian and my major is totally different. I cannot devote myself to these discussions, since I cannot spend effort to make an extensive research on the events. However, I believe, as the administrators your main duty should be to evaluate the historical documents of both sides. I believe you are under the influence of only very biased or one sided figures. I wish you become more neutral and more open in evaluation and rewritten of this article. --Cansın 3.45, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

About your question, you can read this. User:Fadix/Ottoman_Armenian_Casualties The article is at a very early stage and is on my user page, I did not have much time working on it. You might as well read this entry. Ottoman_Armenian_Population

The Talaat records seen actually suggest about 1.7 million Armenians in the entire Ottoman Empire, he finds out in his correction, about 1.5 million Armenians in Ottoman Anatolia...(more or less McCarthys figure) this is what his total number of Armenian evacuated suggest. Now if you read the second link I have provided, you'll realize that the converging number is closer to 2 million.

BTW, can you post more about Talaats notes? I'm interested. Fadix 02:45, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

I can think of a great number of reasons why Talat's figures might be inaccurate (undercounted) - first if they were based on the Ottoman census figures - these are not deemed accurate for a variety of reasons. I also wonder if he is counting stricly women and children (bulk of the "deported" - or if those who were shot and killed (primarily men) prior to "deportation" might also be in the counts). Additionally a very many Armenians were not from the major cities but were from small villages and such - are these counted? And how? And what about those who escaped by running off or converting or what have you - how are these counted? Were the counts made at time of round-up or upon arrival at some destination? And do they at all take into account those who died along the way? etc etc. While I think these figures are certainly of historical interest they cannot on fact value be taken as accurate counts but must be considered (as they might merit) along with other figres and counts - and all considered and evaluated. For instance his count of about 10,000 orphans is nearly an order of magnitude less then figures I have seen in offical correspondences between the Turkish state and the Near East relief organization that was caring for them. etc --THOTH 19:45, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

UK archives about Balkan War and WW1

I added a link [8] about UK archives regarding the situation of refugees and minorities during Balkan War and WW1. However, it was removed because Fadix claimed that it is about only Balkan War not about Armenian events. I am copying the introduction paragraph of the documents and I am leaving it to you to decide whether it is about only Balkan War or about Balkan War and World War 1. "...The major European transmigrations of refugees during the twentieth century date from the disintegration of the Ottoman Empire, and awakening nationalism within territories over which it once ruled. The movements for nationalism in the region led in 1912 to the first Balkan War in which Turkey lost almost all her territory in Europe, retaining Constantinople and a small region around the ancient city. The Second Balkan War broke out in 1913 arising from competing Greek and Bulgarian nationalism. The outbreak of the First World War in 1914 further complicated an existing conflict, with Greece and Serbia joining the Allied Powers (Britain, France and Russia) and Bulgaria and Turkey joining forces with the Central Powers (Germany and Austria). The indigenous populations caught up in the escalating war were victims of the changing fortunes of the major powers and their clients, and were themselves perpetrators or victims in turn as fortunes changed. There are papers related to Ottoman Turkey in FO 78 , FO 195 , FO 421 and FO 424 .

The extensive migratory movements had become a feature of the region during the period of the Second Balkan War, with hundreds of thousands of people forced to move in response to territorial realignments. The territorial boundaries imposed by the Allies on the defeated states such as Turkey created further difficulties. The desire of the politicians at the Paris Peace Conference in 1919 was to achieve a political settlement that would ensure lasting peace. Among a number of measures imposed upon the region by the Allies was the enforced emigration of peoples to territories with which they had an ethnic, religious or political connection, within which they may not experience discrimination and expect some degree of security. The Treaty signed at Neuilly-sur-Seine on 27 November 1919 aimed at an enforced settlement along ethnic, religious and nationalist lines..." --Cansın 4.10, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Dear yce, in this entire sentences, nowhere the Armenian term is ever mentioned, while in the FO 195, there are extensive collections of records regarding the Armenian tragedy, it also contain a lot of foreign affairs documents regarding the Ottoman, the Greeko-Turkish war etc. The only places the Armenian term is used, is regarding the League of Nations records, which is purpously censured on the page. I don't see how this link could bring anything or inform anyone regarding the subject of this entry. Most of the important points and records are about the refugees during the Balkan war, which of course is unrelated with the Armenian "question." Fadix 02:34, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Fadix, I can clearly see the relationship. The source is saying that forced or voluntary relocations might be common practice during and after wars and conflicts during that period (It says that between the lines). Influential Ottomans, after seeing nationalism is breaking the empire apart, might have thought that the solution is getting rid of the ethnic components of it. My opinion about how the article should be written is to capture everything that might have factored into the situation. Empires use forceful methods to less powerful to protect their power in an area. We see examples of this in recent history, too. British know a lot about the circumstances of WWI period because they had a lot of influence in the region. My only concern is that the language in the paragraphs above might be too biased: "Among a number of measures imposed upon the region by the Allies was the enforced emigration of peoples to territories with which they had an ethnic, religious or political connection, within which they may not experience discrimination and expect some degree of security." and another one: "The desire of the politicians at the Paris Peace Conference in 1919 was to achieve a political settlement that would ensure lasting peace." Politicians of several empires involved want lasting peace? Well, possible as long as they already had what they wanted. --Muz 16:17, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

I absolutly think that it is necesary that we do discuss the various Muslim expulsions from the Balkans, the Caucuses and Crimea and such in the article (though i don't think the current article is well suited for this presentation at this time). There can be no doubt that with 25% of the population of Anatolia at the beginning of WWI being refugees from outlying regions of the Ottoman and Russian Empires that this was not a significant factor in the cause of much of the rancour against the Armenians by the population (seen as fellow Orthodox Christians and such - who were the percieved cause of their ills) - and there can also be no doubt that there had been established the concept of moving unwanted populations (intentionally or as a result of fleeing due to fears of massacre and such from the new rulers [or from irregulars who roamed freely...). These issues obvioulsy are directly related to the Armenian Genocide (though I argue that the article is missing many contextual as well as detail presentations that equally require coverage). In Anatolia the CUP did move Armenian people out of their villages and areas (and replaced them with Muslims) - similar to what effectively occured in the Balkans in many places and perhaps was more deliberatly enacted by the Russians in other areas. Yet it should be emphasised that the enaction of the "deportation" by the Young Turks was at the same time fundementally different in a nukber of respects. First Armenians were being expelled from Anatolia - but still within the areas of the Ottoman Nation - thus the Ottoman's continued to control the areas which they were explelled into. Secondly the Ottomans directly controlled and herded along the deportees - and simultaniously (through secret orders as well as the intent to send Armenian convoys through hostile areas) directed a plan to ensure the massacre and decimation of the convoys - even through methods such as deprival of food and water and marching "deportees" not toward a destination but back and forth and around in circles with the intention of killing and not actually delivering them to some place. And this was in additiona to massacre of the men which occured prior and the instances of direct massacre in luie of "deportation" Thus - while I see the conection - and the validity of wishing it to be included in the article (and support eventual inclusions as such) - we must be careful to present it properly. Yes - Muslims were victims of expulsions (and massacre) and the resentment and feelings for revenge were a factor in the brutalities commited against the Armenians. And yes - expulsion of populations - intentionally or as as a result of fear of massacre in the aftermath of war and opposing victory - were also realities of the day - and these concepts no doubt influenced the Young Turks in enacting a deliberate policy that included the concept of deportations. However there are fundemental differences in the nature of the Armenain "deportations" in terms of how they were conducted as well as intent and outcome (extremely high % of death and the deliberate plan for such) etc. This distinction must be made as it accuratly reflects the true nature of the CUP plans and how the deporation piece of the Genocide was enacted. --THOTH 19:24, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

European Union

Turkey wants to join the EU, but in order to do so, they must acknowledge the Armenian Genocide. They refuse to acknowledge it, of course, so they cannot join the EU. → JarlaxleArtemis 02:57, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

Correction: France suggested Turkey should acknowledge the Armenian Genocide. It's not the final word, as the talks are still going on. Thanks for your opinion, but I wouldn't speak so early. MonsterOfTheLake 03:09, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Malta Tribunals

Can someone please tell me why there isn't a section, let alone a single mention, of the Malta Tribunals? Could it be because it completely retards all the "for" viewpoints? MonsterOfTheLake 03:39, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

There never was any Malta tribunal. This has been answered here: Talk:Armenian_Genocide/Fadix_Analysis#RE:_The_Real_Malta_Tribunal

Could you possibly be refering the the Ottoman Military Tribunals? They are presented though I agree - more details concerning accusations, discovery and documentation and verdits should be provided. Also concerning how the trials were basically halted because of upsurge of opinon against the Entente who were seen as abrogating the terms of armistice by allowing the Greeks access to the Anatolian interior and because of the British actions concerning the prisoners held in Malta. The Brits had taken a number of the Tribunal's detainees to Malta as former CUP and sympathizers who controlled the jail where they were held near Istanbul were allowing them to escape. Later the British exchanged these prisoners for a number of British soldiers who were captured in the interior and were being held by the Nationalists. This outraged the Ottoman court as it was a clear indication that their soveriegnty over their own prisoners (and the legitimacy of the trials) was not respected by the British. Likewise - British Parlimentarians and others - such a Llyod George - were outraged upon hearing news of the release of these prisoners. BTW - the British were only holding these prisoners for the Ottoman court - there was never any intention of trying them independently - nor was there any discovery conducted to lead to any trial...FYI. --THOTH 18:54, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Usage of Photos in the articles

As a reader of wikipedia or any other encyclopedia, I can’t and do not need to know every detail in the history. Actually that is the reason why I am using an encyclopedia. Because of this reason I believe that anything, which is used in the article, has to have a reference. It will not do any harm to Wikipedia to use more references, especially for photos, just the opposite it will help Wikipedia to be a well-credited reference. And more importantly, the captions and names of the photos should not be "Armenian genocide" or "Turks killed 1.5 million Armenians in 1915". How can you understand whether it is genocide or not by looking at the pictures? Please do not miss my point here. There is an article about "Armenian Genocide" here, which is currently being disputed. And when you use such names/captions for the pictures, this is pure propaganda. If the photographer is known then most probably where the picture was taken is known. Then "Armenian massacres in this city" or "Armenian civilians near this town being relocated" can be used. But if neither the photographer nor where the picture was taken is not known, then that picture cannot be used in an encyclopedia as a reference. Please do understand my point here. Using such photos without references is too abusive. One can find a picture belonging to an Iraqi, or Palestinian today and play with it in Adobe Photoshop and create such a photo, which will look like a Turk or an Armenian in 1915, and claim that it belongs to Turkish or Armenian civilians massacred by Armenians or Turks in 1915. Cansın 20.03, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

These pictures and their source are well known. I'm not sure if in every case the location of the picture is known (though I think that many are referenced as to location) - but the fact that these were Armenians most certainly is - it is not disputed. Additionally I have already - in previous talk pages - outlined the rational for use of the word "Genocide" in the Armenian case. I don't think there is any true scholarly dispute concerning use of this term - it is a purly a political position taken by Turkey (and nations that bow to pressure to not politically use the term) to not accept use of or use this term. Association of Holocaust and Genocide scholars, UN, independent historians and researchers all use this term - additionally - as Fadix has posted - Ralph Lemkin developed the term specifically to describe the Armenian experience as no other words could adequalty describe the horrors - crimes against humanity and the totality of the effort aimed at exterminating the Armenians that was purpetrated by the Young Turk contro--THOTH 19:00, 19 May 2005 (UTC)lled Ottoman regiem.

THOTH, you are missing my point. I am not discussing the use of "Genocide" for events. I am discussing naming and captioning the photos along with proper references. Since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia you cannot say "These pictures and their sources are well known." You have to provide references and you have to convince that the photos that have been used in the article were not fabricated. Do not misunderstand my point nor discuss something else. My point is clear. --Cansın 22.20 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Denial of the armenian genocide should be treated just like Holocaust denial

Why make a difference?

WHY? Let's explain why a difference should be made, please read carefully;

1. Jews did not demand the dismemberment of the nations in which they had lived. By contrast, the Ottoman Armenians openly agitated for a separate state in lands in which they were numerically inferior. The Hunchak and Dashnak revolutionary organizations, which survive to this day, were formed expressly to agitate against the Ottoman government.

If one uses the same sort of materials in the cases of the Holocaust, as those used here to find some sort of Armenian conspiracy, one has to conclude that Jews did just that. There are hundreds of Holocaust revisionist sites around the web, more so than Armenian genocide revisionist web-sites. Fadix 16:13, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

2. Jews did not kill their fellow citizens in the nations in which they had lived. By contrast, the Ottoman Armenians committed massacres against local Muslims.

If one uses the same sort of materials in the cases of the Holocaust, as those used here to find out some sort of Armenian conspiracy, one has to conclude that Jews did just that. There are hundreds of Holocaust revisionist sites around the web, more so than Armenian genocide revisionist web-sites. Fadix 16:13, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

3. Jews did not openly join the ranks of their countries’ enemies during World War II. By contrast, during World War I, Ottoman Armenians openly and with pride committed mass treason, took up arms, traveled to Russia for training, and sported Russian uniforms. Others, non-uniformed irregulars, operated against the Ottoman government from behind the lines.

Jews were accused of doing just that, when they were sent in concentration camps. Fadix 16:13, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't want to fan the flame, since these two genocides that I believe both happened should be looked at as historically unique events and comparrison really doesn't get us anywhere, but I can't resist correcting a gross historical innaccuracy when I see one.

The Jews in fact DID join resistance groups all throughout Europe during the Holocaust, most notably joining the French Resistance and Partisan fighters in Eastern Europe. They were almsot always cooperative with the official Allied forces. Here is a link from the Holocaust Museum. Also, Read Dr. John Michalczyk's work on the subject for more in-depth analysis. Long story short, the fact that the Armenians, who had lived alongside Turks for hundreds of years, suddenly started pushing for their own state and taking up arms against Turks would increase my suspiciions that there was a genocide going on. As far as nationalist tendencies go, although there was no Jewish movement to dismember Germany after World War II, a good number of the Partisan Fighters from Poland immediately went to Palestine from 1945 to 1948 and joined the fight for a Jewish State.Billy P 17:23, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

4. Solemn tribunal at Nuremberg proved the guilt of the perpetrators of the Holocaust and sentences were carried out in accordance with agreed-upon procedures. By contrast, the Malta Tribunals, which were convened by the World War I victors, exonerated those alleged to have been responsible for the maladministration of the relocation policies.

There was no Malta Tribunals to begin with, the comparison with the Nuremberg is the Military Tribunal, which judged the leading figures of the Ittihadist government and condemned them to death for what they did to the Armenians. Fadix 16:13, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

5. Open Armenian-Nazi collaboration is evident in the activities of the 812th Armenian Battalion of the [Nazi] Wehrmacht, commanded by Drastamat Kanayan (a.k.a. "Dro"), and its successor, the Armenian Legion. Anti-Jewish, pro-Nazi propaganda was published widely in the Armenian-language Hairenik daily and the weekly journal, Armenian.

From 300,000 to 500,000 Armenians served in the Soviet Union, their brigades were the first to enter Berlin, among the first to liberate Auschwitz. Armenians had key roles in the French resistance, Manouchian and l'affiche rouge are pretty well known. A Soviet thank, “Sassountzi David” was entirely financed by the Diasporan Armenians, and was used attacking German troops. The 18,000 Armenians in German army, were mostly prisoners of war, from whom 11,000 were field battalions and 7,000 in supply. The official Dashnak position was AGAINST Germany, and its headquarters in Cairo was staunchly pro-British. Beside that, Hitler was not interested to have Armenians and Georgians in his army, because he was not convinced of their royalty. Those that served were sent to the Netherlands where most deserted.(See: “German Rule in Russia 1941-1945” by Alexander Dallin) I could continue long and long by enumerating examples. Now, let compare that with Turkey. In May 10, 1934, student associations were distributing Swastikas at university levels. Later, German officials in the guise of assistant professors, accompanied their colleagues in the Tukish army, with the purposes of making the promotion of Nazism( Dr. Ayhan Aktar, Varlik Vergisi ve 'Türklestirme' Politikalari. (The Capital Tax and and the politics of Turkification), Iletisim Publishers, Istanbul, 2000)

Later an agreement between NAZI Germany and Turkey was made preventing Jewish immigration to Turkey. On December 15, 1941, the ship named “Struma” with 761 Jewish passengers escaping the NAZI invasion arrives in Istanbul and asks for the authorization to cross the Bosphorus. The ship had to wait until February 24, 1942, over a month of negotiations between the allies and Turkey, requesting Turkey to permit the passage, Turkey denied access. They haven't even fed the passengers, who were dying of famine, the Ship had to return, where it was torpedoed by a submarine. One survivor. One day after, people would have expected the prime minister to apologies, but no, the then prime minister Refik Saydam, happy to respect their agreement with Germany declared: “Turkey cannot be the destination of undesirable refugees” While in 1942 NAZI Germany takes the decision to destroy the Jews, on November 11 of the same year, Turkey come up with the Capital tax against the Jews, Armenians and Greeks, and even propositions are made of their deportation, the capital tax was justified with this remark: “Against those who profit from the hospitality offered by this country and become wealthy, while at the same time abrogate their responsibilities at this critical moment, the law will be applied with full force”. Turkey had even plans to join Germany to invade SSR Armenia, when Germany was to take Stalingrad. A report was made regarding the Jews, Armenians and Greeks. For the Greeks, it was written among many other things: “On the 500th anniversary of the conquest of Istanbul by the Ottoman forces, not one Greek should be left in the city.” About the Armenians: “Armenians are not assimilable and those who survive must be encouraged to depart (emigrate).” And for the Jews: “Stop all Jewish immigration, while provoking incidents within the country with the goal of creating a Jewish exodus, keep them away from all government activity, be it financial or economic” (source: Ridvan Akar, Askale Yolculari—Varlik Vergisi ve Çalisma Kamplari (Passengers to Askale—Capitial Tax and forced labour camps), Belge Uluslararasi Yayincilik, Istanbul, 1999) In 1948, 40,000 Turkish Jews living in Istanbul have run away in Israel. Embarrassed and exposed, Turkey was the first Muslim state to recognize Israel and thought that it would be some sort of way to apologize.

At the outbreak of the war, Turkey mined 190,000 tons of chromite, 1/5 of the world total output. (See: Turkish Foreign Policy 1943-1945: Small State Diplomacy and Great Power Politics by Edward Weisband) Those were the result of agreements between Germany and Turkey, Turkey becoming the major German supplier, of this essential material for the military. Turkey later signed another contract with Germany to provide 135,000 tones, regardless of the allies pressures to stop. The German minister of armaments and munitions declared that chromium was the element with the shortest supply, and was indispensable to a highly developed armaments industry. Turkey permitted the German armament developments, ignoring the continuous allied requests. As the German Minister for Armaments and Munitions Albert Speer confirmed when he wrote in his memoirs: "Hence the element in shortest supply is chromium. This is especially grave since chromium is indispensable to a highly developed armaments industry. Should supplies from Turkey be cut off, the stockpile of chromium is sufficient only for 5.6 months. The manufacture of planes, tanks, motor vehicles, tank shells, U-boats, and almost the entire gamut of artillery would have to cease from one to three months after this deadline, since by then the reserves in the distributions channels would be used up." He then declared that if it wasn't of Turkish supply: "no more or less than that the war would be over approximately ten months after the loss of the Balkans." (Albert Speer, Inside the Third Reich: Memoirs, translated by Richard and Clara Winston (New York and Toronto, 1970)). In short without Turkeys help, the war would have not continued more than months. I could continue and discuss regarding the “Missing Jews” or the missing gold bars looted by NAZI Germany and transferred to Turkey.

Recently, the anti-Jewish movement in Turkey has become imposing, the “The Middle East Media Research Institute” is now publishing a series of articles titled: “Antisemitism in the Turkish Media” as a result.

Sorry here to change subject, but this argument of an Armeno-NAZI collaboration is so hypocritical, and so disrespectable of the tens of thousands of Armenians whom died fighting the NAZI, more disrespectable is when the Armenians were in the region per habitant, if not one of those groups, the group that provided the most men. The Yerevan monument in that regard is much telling. I will call this accusation against the Armenians, a way to divert Turkey's [dis]loyalty during World War II. Fadix 16:25, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

6. Hitler did not refer to the Armenians in plotting the Final Solution; the infamous quote is fraudulent. All sources attribute the alleged quote, "Who remembers the Armenians?" to a November 24, 1945 Times of London article, "Nazi Germany’s Road to War." The article’s unnamed author says Hitler uttered the phrase in an address on August 22, 1939 at Obersalzburg. The Times of London author claims the speech was introduced as evidence during the November 23, 1945 session of the Nuremberg Tribunal. Yet the Nuremberg transcripts do not contain the alleged quote.

In fact, the quote first appeared in a 1942 book by Louis Lochner, the AP’s Berlin bureau chief during World War II. Lochner, like the Times of London author, never disclosed his source. The Nuremberg Tribunal examined and then rejected Lochner’s third-hand version of Hitler’s address and rejected it. Instead, it entered into evidence two official versions of the August 22, 1939 address found in captured German military records. Neither document contains any reference to Armenians, nor in fact do they refer to the Jews. Hitler’s address was an anti-Polish invective, delivered years before he conceived the Final Solution.

Edourd Calic in the book “Two confidential interviews with Hitler in 1931” provides an interview of Adolf Hitler published by the Leipziger Neueste Nachrichten in 1931, where Hitler makes a similar statement regarding Armenia[n]("Erinnern Sie sich doch an die Austrottung Armeniens.")

"...Are we really to remain as a nation of have-nots for ever? Why should not the sources of raw materials be equitably distributed? We save the capacity to rouse and lead the masses against this situation. In the long term ought Germany to be ground down economically? Everywhere there is discontent. Everywhere people are awaiting a new world order. We intend to introduce a great resettlement policy; we do not wish to go on treading each other's toes in Germany. In 1923 little Greece could re-settle a million men. Think of the biblical deportations and the massacres of the Middle Ages and remember the eradication of the Armenians. One eventually reaches the conclusion that masses of men are mere biological plasticine. We will not allow ourselves to be turned into *beep* as the French tried to do after 1918. The nordic blood available in England, northern France and North America will eventually go with us to reorganize the world. The discontent in their own home countries and in their colonies will leave them no choice."

This style of Hitler that was similar to his speech is recognized by Ludwig Krieger. As it has been published in “Yale Journal of International Law”, Vol. 23, No.2, 1998, p.540

“The transcript checks with the original...Having been a shorthand writer at Hitler's briefing conferences in his headquarters during the Second World War, I recognize Hitler's style and reactions throughout the record. Breiting's papers as a whole confirm the sequences of events. Both from the factual and political point of view; the checking of these papers has been of extreme interest to me.”

Adolph Hitler known style to refer to success and models, was further confirmed when he was interviewed by the editor of the Turkish newspaper Milleyet in July 1933 as Norman H. Baynes report in the book: “The Speeches of Adolf Hitler. April 1922-August 1939”, Vol. 1(Oxford, 1942) p. 868

In the interview he refer to the success the Ataturkist Turkish states foundation was,(that was a consequences of the destruction of the Ottoman Armenian population) the movement in modern Turkey was according to him a “shining star.”

Hitler's sympathy with the founder of the Turkish republic was confirmed earlier, during his November 1923 Putsch in Munich, as Joachim C. Fest affirm in his book “Hitler”(pp. 156-57) according to Hitler the founder of the Turkish republic Mustafa Kamel Ataturk was a true statesman, and whom has acted “boldly” and “forcefully.” Paul du Veou, in his book “Le desastre d'Alexandrette 1934-1938” (Paris 1938) pp. 2, 136-139, confirm that Hitler was influenced by modern Turkey, by referencing to the Turkish design to annex Alexendrette, to annex in its turn Austria.

Ernst Jackh, a German author, wrote in his book The Rising Crescent (New York, 1944), pp. 64-5

"The Ottoman dynasty began at a time when the hordes of Genghis Khan—the Pan-Asiatic Mongol—was sweeping westward and carrying the swastika in Asia Minor. It ended when the modern Genghis Khan—the Pan-European Hitler—was laying plans for the drive of his swastika-bearing armies toward the ends of the earth."

As noted by Leo Alexander in "War Crimes and Their Motivation. The Social Psychological Structure of the SS and the Criminalization of Society," Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology and Police Science, XXXIX (September-October 1948) p.300

"[Hitler] had discovered in a book about Genghis Khan ... as early as his Landsberg Prison days"

Wanda von Baeyer, a German psychologist, has even gone as far as to stat Hitler himself had introduced the SS practice of Blutkitt, Genghis Khan's tradition of cementing solidarity among his hordes through the perpetration of merciless mass murder.

If one compare one will come up the interpretation that not only it was a Hitlerian rhetoric and style, but as well it is suspicious to think that such a quote could have been forged for various reasons such as the fact that a near identical ending of a Hitlerian speech when exposing the exact same ideal was made 8 years prior to the one that is questioned here... and that the interview was retraced by Edourd Calic in his famous work, leading many to believe that Canaris story seems to at least hold.

Another note regarding Hitlers quote, those that claim that the “who remember the extermination of the Armenians.” Is not found in the original version are probably mixing three possible repeated Hitlerian speeches, or at least two of them. One has to read Nuremberg exposition of those versions to suspect that there was at the very least two different Hitlerian speeches given the same day, and possibly in the second copy, the “who remember the extermination of the Armenians” is not present. The file USA-29 and USA-30 seems to be different records of the same speech.

The exhibition files during the Nuremberg concerning Hitlers speech were those that follow.

The three exhibition files were.

USA-28(the famous L-3 that contain the Armenian quote)

USA-29

USA-30

The variation of the USA-29 and USA-30, were probably a question of expected human error, while USA-28 was different, not only with the ending where we found out “who remember the extermination of the Armenians.” But as well, the rest of the text. It becomes more clear when one read on USA-30 identification: “Second Speech by the Fuhrer on August 22, 1939.” The USA-29 and USA-30 were possibly copies of the same speech, making of the USA-28 and USA-29 the first speech.

One could conclude, that the versions where the sentence regarding the Armenians were not included were not the same speech, the other variants where the rest of the text was identical, the Armenian part was removed to imitate the second speech from individuals that had no clue of the reason why the Armenian quote was there… but those evidences indicate that it was there…

One could conclude, that the versions where the sentence regarding the Armenians were not included were not the same speech, the other variants where the rest of the text was identical, the Armenian part was removed to imitate the second speech from individuals that had no clue of the reason why the Armenian quote was there… but those evidences indicate that it was there… More ground to this was given, when Professor Gerhard L. Weinberg from the University of North Carolina wrote in his book: “The Foreign Policy of Hitler’s Germany: Starting World War II, 1937-39 reports that this first speech in question(AKA L-3(USA-28)) was obtained by the British Ambassador to Berlin, Neville Henderson, on August 25 and that there is a ribbon copy in his own papers which could be found in the Public Record Office at Kew. In Vol. VII (1954) of the official series Documents of the British Foreign Policy, 1919-1939.

The source of this problem appears to be that the quote allegedly comes from a speech made by Hitler, not from any written or published text. Its authenticity or otherwise thus depends on the recollections of eye-witnesses, the validity of which may be doubted, and has been doubted, by later commentators, but the majority of those commentators doubting the existence of the quote refers to work by Turkish diplomats like Gurun, or Turkeys political scientists working at the foreign ministry like Ataov.

And as Professor Gerhard L. Weinberg wrote. Nuremberg needed more informations about the rejected L-3, the actual version they have used has been criticized by experts later(see the two detailed articles appearing in the scholarly quarterly Issued by the Institute for Contemporary History in Munich in 1968 and 1971 written by Winfried Baumgart). It was actually Hermann Bohn version that was the abbreviated version, and one of the two replaced documents used in the Nuremberg in that form. What this means? It actually means that Hitlers reference to the Armenians was possibly not a “forgery” and one of the two speeches of Hitler. Fadix 16:13, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

7. The depth, breadth, and volume of scholarship on the Holocaust are tremendous. The physical and documentary evidence is vast and proves indisputably the aims, methods, and results of the racist Nazi policies. By contrast, scholarship on the late Ottoman Empire is comparatively scarce. Much research has yet to be completed and many conclusions have yet to be drawn. Non-biased research from that period has thus far revealed tragedies afflicting all sides in a conflict with numerous belligerents. Nothing has yet been uncovered which establishes genocide. In light of the ongoing research and the other distinctions raised above, it would be improper, if not malicious, to equate a desire to challenge Armenian American assertions with Holocaust denial. [9] -- Cansın 7.46, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't think that you would have said what you've said, had you really undergone an extensive research regarding the topic. Don't take this personal. Fadix 16:13, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

These sorts of claims don't really help get the article to WP:NPOV standard. I would like to encourage everyone to please stop making comparisons (whether positive or negative ones) with other historical events such as the Holocaust, and consider the events on their own. Comparisons do nothing more than invite the introduction of POV. --bainer 06:24, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Every single one of these contentions is patently untrue. Additionaly it is a direct quote from the Turkish Embassy in Washington - an obvious political piece designed to attempt to whitewash the issue. Claims such as "Nothing has yet been uncovered which establishes genocide" and that Armenians were somehow responsible for something that is claimed never happened anyway - well you be the judge. Additionally it can be fairly well proven that Hitler did say those words - and not just at that speech - but there are records of him saying pretty much exactly the same thing in published interviews from as far back as 1931 - though I should note - the Hilter issue has nothing directly to do with the Armenian Genocide or establishing it as fact - it does concern though - the lessons of unpunished genocide and how this motivated the Nazis to attempt the same. Additionally how many times do we have to point out that there were no Malta tribunals - this is a fiction - htere were no such thing. Please read my post concerning this above and Fadix's copmmentary on such in the archives. There were tribunals - Ottoman Military Tribunals that occured in 1919 and resulted in convictions of CUP members and death sentences for the CUP leadership and much detailed evidence to proove Crimes Against Humanity as well as pre-meditation and intent (to exterminate the Armenians) and much of the detial on the approach taken to implement such a design. And again - the word "Genocide" was coined to a major degree to exactly describe the Armenian situation. --THOTH 14:51, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes, this is taken from the embassy's site and probably an official declaration of some sort. Cansin added a link, just before he signed. It is not very visible so I put it here FYI: Link to doc. --Muz 05:42, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

An article by Samuel Weems, opposing to "Armenian Genocide"

Historical Evidence Proves There Was No Armenian Genocide, by Samuel Weems

Today, Armenians claim they were victims of an Ottoman genocide committed in 1915. The Armenians blame Turkey even though Turkey didn't become a republic until 8 years after the "fake" Armenian claims. The real historical truth is that there was no Armenian genocide and the following historical facts are absolute proof that the self-claimed Armenian genocide is nothing more than the figment of their rich and vivid imaginations to try to get something for nothing. The Armenians have created a "genocide industry" for one very simple and basic reason--to deceive, fleece and scam the Christian world out of billions of dollars. Examine the actual historical truth:

The then League of Nations president has reported in his work, how the hundreds of millions of worth dollars, of money transferred to Berlin from the Ottoman Empire, were mostly of Armenian provenance, money looted by the Ottoman authorities and transferred to be secured in Germany. The allies “captured” the banks and claimed it to be used for the Ottoman to pay its war debts. To this adds to the uncompleted compilation of 1 billion Gold Mark worth of Armenian properties looted from the Ottoman authorities Lepsius reported. Accounting the inflation, the allies got hold of more than they ever had “given to the Armenians.” Fadix 17:31, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

The word "genocide" was invented and first used to describe the Nazi German attempted extermination of the entire Jewish race during the World War II years starting in the mid 1930s and lasting until 1945. Rafael Lemkin of Poland coined the phrase and invented the world "genocide" in 1944 to describe the Nazis annihilation of specific groups of people by both direct and indirect murder during World War II. The Nazis efforts to destroy the entire Jewish race first began in Germany and thereafter in every country they invaded and conquered. This Nazi planned and carried out terror became known as the Holocaust Genocide. The Nazi horror campaigns against Jews became the basis for creation of an international crime in 1951. The 1915 Armenian fake "massacre" claim of 1915 had nothing to do with the adoption of the 1951 international law as Armenians also falsely claim today.

Question: Does anyone seriously doubt the contention that there were large scale massacre of Armenians - including women and children - that were largely enacted by official and semi-official (para-military) elements representing the will of the CUP/Ottoman Government? --THOTH 09:04, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Lemkin’s first studies concerning war “crimes against humanity” was referred to by H. Yahreas’ work, The World’s Most Horrible Crime, Colliers, vol. 127, 3 March 1951. The author retraces Lemkin’s interest concerning war crimes and extermination. In fact, the author reports that the first recorded conversation that Lemkin had about the subject was at Lvov University in 1920, when he engaged in a discussion concerning the extermination of the Armenians with his Russian Law professor. Rabbi Steven L. Jacobs, Temple B’nai Shalom, Huntsville, Alabama, and Martin Methodist College, Tennessee, who has researched Raphael Lemkin’s papers, has classed some of those concerning the Armenians and compiled them by the name "Lemkin and the Armenian Genocide." Lemkin also referred to the Armenian case, in his work “Le Crime de Génocide” as an example of extermination. Quoting here from its English version: “history has provided us with other examples of the destruction of entire nations, and ethnic and religious groups. There are, for example,… and more recently, the massacre of the Armenians.” (By Raphael Lemkin, American Scholar, Volume 15, no. 2 [April 1946]).

Lemkin started his works concerning “Crimes against Humanity” (we should remind the reader, that the term “crime against humanity” was first officially used to describe what happened to the Armenians) with the Armenian case. This same case, as mentioned previously, was also one of the main reasons why he decided to become a lawyer. Lemkin’s conception of the word predates the Holocaust, with the Armenian case, and then after the end of World War II, he finalized his definition and published it in a series of essays. He also wrote papers, official and unofficial. In them, he referred to the Armenian case as an integral part of his definition, an “undissociable” element of the word that he himself invented.

Lemkin writes:

"In 1915 the Germans occupied the city of W. and the entire area. I used this time to read more history, to study and to watch whether national, religious, or racial groups are being destroyed. The truth came out only after the war. In Turkey, more than 1,200,000 Armenians were put to death for no other reason than they were Christians ... After the end of the war, some 150 Turkish war criminals were arrested and interned by the British Government on the island of Malta. The Armenians sent a delegation to the peace conference in Versailles. They were demanding justice. Then one day, the delegation read in the newspapers that all Turkish war criminals were released. I was shocked. A nation was killed and the guilty persons were set free. Why is a man punished when he kills another man? Why is the killing of a million a lesser crime than the killing of a single individual?

I identified myself more and more with the sufferings of the victims, whose numbers grew, as I continued my study of history. I understood that the function of memory is not only to register past events, but to stimulate human conscience. Soon contemporary examples of genocide followed, such as the slaughter of the Armenians in 1915. It became clear to me that the diversity of nations, religious groups and races is essential to civilization because every one of those groups has a mission to fulfill and a contribution to make in terms of culture.... I decided to become a lawyer and work for the outlawing of Genocide and for its prevention through the cooperation of nations.

A bold plan was formulated in my mind. This consisted [of] obtaining the ratification by Turkey [of the proposed UN Convention on Genocide Ed.] among the first twenty founding nations. This would be an atonement for [the] genocide of the Armenians. But how could this be achieved? ... The Turks are proud of their republican form of government and of progressive concepts, which helped them in replacing the rule of the Ottoman Empire. The genocide convention must be put within the framework of social and international progress. I knew however that in this conversation both sides will have to avoid speaking about one thing, although it would be constantly in their minds: the Armenians."

[Source: With permission of the Rare Books and Manuscripts Division, the New York Public Library, Astor, Lenox, and Tilden Foundations.]

The German word often used for the word genocide, "Völkermord" has been used to describe what happened to the Armenians, even before the introduction of the more official word, “genocide.” An example of the usage of the word "Völkermord" could be found in the work of S. Zurlinden, "Der Weltkrieg, Vol. II (Zürich: Art. Institut Orell Füssli, 1918), p.649.

This German word had not the legal aspect that the word genocide does. Lemkin at that time was pressed to release his studies and the legal aspect of such crimes, in order to have legal bases for the prosecution of people responsible of such crimes. For Lemkin the criminals responsible for the Armenian genocide were released, and for him the reason was because there were laws binding countries concerning killers and criminals, but there were no laws for criminals that in the name of a state and from its laws commit genocide, as he wrote, “Why is the killing of a million a lesser crime than the killing of a single individual?” And it is exactly why, in 1944, Lemkin was preparing the legal aspect, and knew that once the war was over these NAZI criminals would be released in the same way that the criminals responsible for the Armenian genocide were released if there were no new laws that could permit judgement of the criminals.

It must be understood once again one of the main reasons of why the word genocide was invented. It was primarily invented in order to have a legal basis to condemn people accused of such crimes, in order that they do not escape justice like they had done in the case of the Malta prisoners, and also to name such crime that until then there was no word to describe. For Lemkin the Armenian case was the archetype, the case that was used as jurisprudence, in order to come up with legal bases to condemn NAZI criminals, and be sure that the same mistake that happened in the post-World War I period were not to happen in the post-World War II period or ever again.

This is exactly why according to some, there is no possible debate concerning whatever or not what happened to the Armenians was a genocide or not, for people that allege it wasn’t a genocide not only have no knowledge of or reject the why of the usage of this word, but they also have no knowledge of or reject the fact that the Armenian case is a Jurisprudence and a distinct and indivisible element of the existence of the word, an integral part of the word, months before the introduction of this word in 1948, on the date of May 28, 1948, on which date the United Nations war crimes commission released a report concerning the mass slaughter of the Armenians in World War I, followed by, the same year, on the date of December 9, 1948, the publication of the Genocide Convention by the United Nations High Commission for Human Rights. Obviously, the United Nations report released on May 28 was part of their study that permitted them to release, months later, what would become their official definition of the word genocide. Later in 1973, a reference in one of the United Nations papers concerning the Armenian genocide resulted on the part of Turkey to pressure the United Nations to withdraw the case of the Armenian genocide from the list. Due to the intensification of these pressures, the case of the Armenian genocide was redrawn in 1978, until another extensive study was to be conducted, due to Turkey’s accusations of partiality. After eight years of extensive research was undertaken, one of the specialists that conducted this meticulous research, Benjamin Withaker, released the conclusion, which was, that the Armenian case was undeniably a case of genocide. The result was intense pressures from Turkey, forcing the United Nations to ignore the conclusion of the specialists and stop the passage of this recognition, but despite Turkish pressures, the Subcomission of Human Rights, led by the expert Carey, adopted the resolution by passing it to a vote, from which only one member was against, the only vote against the resolution being from the representatives of the Soviet Union. Fadix 17:31, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

There is no historical doubt but that the German Nazis carried out a genocide of Jews and they carried out a ten year series of on-going campaigns to murder every Jew they could get their hands on. Adolph Hitler was the evil genius who concocted the theory that the Aryan race was the master race of people and that all non-Aryan races were inferior.

Back from the first major massacre in 1867, known as the Tigris massacre, to late 1922, there are decades of crimes and continual massacres, which lead to the destruction of the Anatolian Armenian community. In Anatolia, there is not a reported single Armenian left. There is no historical doubt that the NAZI carried genocide, when one does not uses Irving, Zundel or such scholars. Fadix 17:31, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

The Armenians claim their ancestors suffered from the first "genocide" of the 20th century even though what they claim took place 29 years before the word "genocide" was even invented.

The word genocide was not invented during the NAZI reign which led to the destruction of millions of people. The word “water” did not exist hundreds of thousands of years ago, when man, wasn't still cave man... according to the same logic, we can't call water the transparent substance covering ¾ of Earth surface. Fadix 17:31, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

In addition, there is no way to compare the Nazi World War II acts of ten long unending years throughout Europe to one event during World War I in the Ottoman Empire in 1915.

Who shall we trust? You? The men that mysteriously ended up in Turkey turning documentaries and ended up marrying a Turk “by accident” ? ... a disbarred lawyer? And from when a lawyer is to be trusted in such matters, when it is the only profession that one can pay to defend a position, and this is not called corruption? I almost forgot Bruice Fein, a lawyer as well, that works for ATAA. Fadix 17:31, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Again 10 years of violence perpetrated against Jews - 20 years (at least) of violence perpetrated against Armenians (1894-1915)...--THOTH 09:04, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

What the Armenians complain of today is the fact that the Ottoman government removed disloyal Armenians who were committing many acts of treason from behind the Ottoman army in just one place within their legal country.

Mr. Weems, my grandfather was 9 years old, when he was orphaned... the teachers, poets and artists that in April 24 were taken prisoner, to then being killed in mass, were intellectuals, ... of course, given that the present Turkish government call pacific Turkish intellectuals traitors... we know the worth of this word when used in association with the word Armenians. Fadix 17:31, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Mustafa Arif - Ottoman Minister of Interior (after Talat) stated on 13 December 1918:

Surely a few Armenians aided and abetted our enemy, and a few Armenian Deputies committed crimes against the Turkish nation... it is incumbent upon a government to pursue the guilty ones. Unfortunately, our wartime leaders, imbued with a spirit of brigandage, carried out the law of deportation in a manner that could surpass the proclivities of the most bloodthirsty bandits. They decided to exterminate the Armenians, and they did exterminate them. --THOTH 09:04, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Let us look at the historical evidence that caused the word "genocide" to be invented and compare the Armenian 1915 experience to what the Nazis did between 1935-1945 to determine if the Armenian's treason can be called a genocide as compared to the Jewish experiences of World War II.

April 15, 1924: Hitler began writing his book Mein Kampf (My Struggle) while he was in prison for committing treason against Germany. Hitler writes that the Jews must be eliminated from society.

I do have the English version of Mein Kampf, please provide the page(you can't you allegedly died), as I can provide Ottoman works, which were worst than anything one can find in Mein Kampf. Fadix 17:31, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Dear Fadix, could you please provide any documents or references about Ottoman works which were worst than anything one can find in Mein Kampf , I am interested. -Cansın 17.49, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

I will when I have time, if I don't, just remember me. Fadix 18:25, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Please read my entries concerning racism above for some quotes and discussion of this matter. Also I utterly reject this treason charge. Armenians, even Dashnaks and such, had thrown their lot in with the CUP. They wanted reform certainly - but did not -as a group - persue any national ambition contrary to the Ottoman State at this time. If the cahrge is Ottoman Armenians deserting (well a great many Turks did as well)or similar - well while these things did occure - charges are overblown. See Mustafa Arif quote above and look into the verdicts of the post war Ottoman Military tribunals...--THOTH 09:04, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

July 18, 1925: The first phase of Mein Kampf is published. Hitler begins his personal public hate campaign against the entire Jewish race. This is Hitler's beginning to destroy the Jews. This 8 year campaign continued throughout Germany until Hitler came to power in 1933. No Ottoman leader wrote such a book condemning the Armenians and there was no long or short campaign to exterminate the entire Armenian race by any Ottoman leader.

Mr. Weems is of course not an intellectuals, it is surprising that such a man displaying the behavior of someone who has an under average IQ, managed to be a lawyer. Mr. Weems, shall I quote what Abdul Hamid was thinking regarding the Armenians, when he lunched a mass slaughter that cost the live of over a hundred thousand Armenians? Fadix 17:31, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the writting of Gokalp and Ackun? (latter may be spelled wrong)...etc --THOTH 09:04, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

There is no comparison on this point between the Nazis and Ottomans.

The comparsion - and one that is highly valid is between the radical Nazis and the Radical CUP who came to control each of their respective pasrties. Anti-semitism was not on the Nazi party platform when they first acheived political mandate to form a coalition government (in 1933?). Likewise CUP radicallized (with ascendency of Talat, Enver, Djemal etc and inclusion of Gokalp and such into CUP central commitee) after 1909 Islamic student counterevolution...--THOTH 09:04, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

January 30, 1933: Hitler comes to power as the unelected Chancellor of Germany.

And from when Sultans were elected by the population? The Young Turks took power by a revolution in 1908, could we call this “unelected” as well. Thanks, I haven't thought of this parallel before. Fadix 17:31, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

February 22, 1933 some 40,00 members of Hitler's private army are appointed auxiliary policemen.

And? Fadix 17:31, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

March 21, 1933: Hitler and his Nazis create special courts to persecute political enemies. No such court was ever established within the Ottoman Empire.

In the Ottoman, one of the worst sentence was kept for those accused of “treason,” people were actually hanged without even needing courts in many cases. Political “enemies” were among the first to be included in the list. This even extended during the war, to the Muslim populace, those that were to hide Armenians in their home, were hanged outside their homes without any trials, and their homes were burned. Thanks again, I didn't thought of this parallel. Fadix 17:31, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Numerous death sentences and orders of "liquidation" of individuals and groups were ordred and carried out...--THOTH 09:04, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

April 1, 1933 marks the date Hitler and his Nazis began their "official" persecution of the Jews. This is the date there was a national boycott in Germany of Jewish business and professional people. The Ottomans never did such a thing to the Armenians.

AbdulHamid already attempted this, and we all know why it failed. And later, with the new administration, the nationalization of the economy was to be used to put an end to this dependency on minorities, more particularly the Armenians. For the Germans, it was possible to boycott Jewish businesses, Armenians in the Empire were controlling 1/3 of the economy, boycotting them, and it would have accelerated the fall of the Ottoman Empire. It appears to me that you have actually never defended a cases, where business was involved. Fadix 17:31, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

In fact there were a series of boycotts - and much worse - massacres and destuction of [primariliy] Greek and also Armenian businesses throughout 1913 and 1914 on orders of the CUP as part of their "Nationa Economy" These boycotts and massacres were extensive with far greater devestation then eithe the Kristlnach or the anti-Jewish boycotts...but yes - same idea...--THOTH 09:04, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

April 26, 1933: Hitler organized the infamous Gestapo, this "above the law" police force would lead in the Jewish extermination campaigns. The Ottomans never had such a special police force to terrorize the Armenians.

The Teshkilati Mahsusa was just that, they were a government in a government, they were above the laws. Fadix 17:31, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes the Special Organization's activities are well documented and can be seen as a direct coralary to the Gestapo...--THOTH 09:04, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

May 2, 1933: Hitler dissolved all labor unions. The Ottomans never did such a thing.

I didn't knew that the Ottoman actually had labor unions. Fadix 17:31, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

However, in Armenia today, labor unions like in Nazi Germany are not permitted.

Again, another fallacious claim, which show how much you should be trusted Mr. Weems. Fadix 17:31, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Between 50% and 60% of all Armenian businessmen do not pay any taxes. This is why the Armenian number one import is foreign aid from the Christian nations of the world.

It would be interesting to know from where you took those numbers. Secondo, the aid Armenia is receiving from the West doesn't even cover the losses due to the double Azerbaijan-Turkey blockage. Turkey on the other hand, is one of the privileged ones in term of “Christian world” aids. Fadix 17:31, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

In Armenia today the privileged few, just as in Nazi Germany, get richer while the working people of this tiny state remain in poverty and are forced to live a life of squalor.

Isn't this the problem of any neo-liberal, capitalist system? In the Western World, the differences between the rich and poor is growing years after years; 20% of the population have 80% of the resources. Fadix 17:31, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Irrelevent spurious and (as with everything else) unsupported comment by Weems...--THOTH 09:04, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

May 10, 1933; The Nazis burnt all books written by Jewish authors in Berlin and throughout Germany. The Ottomans never burned books written by Armenian authors.

So, just because the NAZI burned books, there was no genocide? Mr. Weems, is the fact that Armenian poets, writers, teachers, even PAINTERS, were arrested to then be executed, not just more than burning what they actually wrote? Armenian works during World War I, were destroyed, alongside the author of those works... up until now, historical revisionism continue by eradicating the evidences of Armenian presences, the Turkish government just recently changed the scientific name of an animal, just because it contained the "banished" word “Armen...” Thanks again, I never thought of this parallel before. Fadix 17:31, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

CUP also forced Turkish language usage in all schools and business practices and conducted harrasment campaigns of minorities using language other then Turkish. These same policies were adopted by Ataturk in 1923. --THOTH 09:04, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

September 15, 1935: The Nazi controlled German parliament passed what became known as the "Nuremberg Laws." The Nazis disenfranchised all Jews. The Ottomans never did such a thing to Armenians.

Before the war, the Ittihadist controlled the Ottoman parliament, by dissolving the government to get Ottoman entry in the war approved. Talaat and his “team” got the control over the government, just like the NAZI party did. Thanks again, for the parallel. Fadix 17:31, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

CUP passed Law of Association (in 1910/11? - I referenced this in earlier post) among other things prohibiting ethnic based political organizations (another attempt to decapitate Armenian political leadership and deprive it of a voice) - CUP was a revolutionary party that came to see all others as competitors - particularly after they secretly then openly adopted "Turkism" as a fundemental part of their party platform. Other laws were passed to restrict and hamper minorites as well and make it easy for them to be arrested. --THOTH 09:04, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

March 12, 1938: Germany invaded Austria. This was the beginning of Nazi conquest of European countries and total extermination of Jews. The Ottomans did not invade other nations during World War I that the Armenians complain about.

Oh OK, I see, according to Mr. Weems, it takes invasion for an event to be genocide. Fadix 17:31, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Ottomans conducted significant sabotage and related activites in Russian territory months before entering the war - and once they did - by attacking Russia using German naval vessels - also did invade the Cacauses but were driven back with great losses. And as with germany - the CUP initiated an extermination campaign of troublesome minorities and stole their wealth in the process. Again with incredible similarities in intent and methodology. --THOTH 09:04, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

October 28, 1938: the first Jews were deported just because they were Jews. The Ottomans never deported anyone because of race. What the Ottomans did was deport Armenians from only one part of their empire for being disloyal citizens who were actively helping the invading Russians. The Jews never helped anyone invade Germany. There is no way anyone can compare the Jews to Armenians!

Mr. Weems, according to the NAZI, the Jews were helping the Bolshevics to invade and destroy Germany. The same crap is repeated by revisionists of the Holocaust, whom uses the same “type” of credible materials you use to deny the reality of the Armenian genocide. But again, we all know what your words worth are. Also, the worth of your words when you say that Armenians were only deported from one part of the Ottoman, when even official Ottoman recorded released by Turkeys interior ministry shows else. Fadix 17:31, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Law of Deportations was specifically applied to Armenians. Over and over orders were given to liquidate Armenians. The charges of Armenians assissting Russians were exaggerated and overblown and were only used as an excuse to the public and foriegners to cover the true nature and genocidal intent of the actions. Comparison stands in all respect - sorry Weems. --THOTH 09:04, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

However, in 1938 when the first Jews were deported, Armenians were voluntarily joining the Nazis to help them create the real genocide of the 20th century. The evidence is absolute that more than 100,000 Armenians joined Hitler. The evidence is also absolute that Armenian politicians took part in Hitler's racial purity campaigns.

Mr. Weems, it would have been kind enough for you, to back up your poop of 100,000 Armenians having served for the NAZI.

From 300,000 to 500,000 Armenians served in the Soviet Union, their brigades were the first to enter Berlin, among the first to liberate Auschwitz. Armenians had key roles in the French resistance, Manouchian and l'affiche rouge are pretty well known. A Soviet thank, “Sassountzi David” was entirely financed by the Diasporan Armenians, and was used attacking German troops. The 18,000 Armenians in German army, were mostly prisoners of war, from whom 11,000 were field battalions and 7,000 in supply. The official Dashnak position was AGAINST Germany, and its headquarters in Cairo was staunchly pro-British. Beside that, Hitler was not interested to have Armenians and Georgians in his army, because he was not convinced of their royalty. Those that served were sent to the Netherlands where most deserted.(See: “German Rule in Russia 1941-1945” by Alexander Dallin) I could continue long and long by enumerating examples. Now, let compare that with Turkey. In May 10, 1934, student associations were distributing Swastikas at university levels. Later, German officials in the guise of assistant professors, accompanied their colleagues in the Tukish army, with the purposes of making the promotion of Nazism( Dr. Ayhan Aktar, Varlik Vergisi ve 'Türklestirme' Politikalari. (The Capital Tax and and the politics of Turkification), Iletisim Publishers, Istanbul, 2000)

Later an agreement between NAZI Germany and Turkey was made preventing Jewish immigration to Turkey. On December 15, 1941, the ship named “Struma” with 761 Jewish passengers escaping the NAZI invasion arrives in Istanbul and asks for the authorization to cross the Bosphorus. The ship had to wait until February 24, 1942, over a month of negotiations between the allies and Turkey, requesting Turkey to permit the passage, Turkey denied access. They haven't even fed the passengers, who were dying of famine, the Ship had to return, where it was torpedoed by a submarine. One survivor. One day after, people would have expected the prime minister to apologies, but no, the then prime minister Refik Saydam, happy to respect their agreement with Germany declared: “Turkey cannot be the destination of undesirable refugees” While in 1942 NAZI Germany takes the decision to destroy the Jews, on November 11 of the same year, Turkey come up with the Capital tax against the Jews, Armenians and Greeks, and even propositions are made of their deportation, the capital tax was justified with this remark: “Against those who profit from the hospitality offered by this country and become wealthy, while at the same time abrogate their responsibilities at this critical moment, the law will be applied with full force”. Turkey had even plans to join Germany to invade SSR Armenia, when Germany was to take Stalingrad. A report was made regarding the Jews, Armenians and Greeks. For the Greeks, it was written among many other things: “On the 500th anniversary of the conquest of Istanbul by the Ottoman forces, not one Greek should be left in the city.” About the Armenians: “Armenians are not assimilable and those who survive must be encouraged to depart (emigrate).” And for the Jews: “Stop all Jewish immigration, while provoking incidents within the country with the goal of creating a Jewish exodus, keep them away from all government activity, be it financial or economic” (source: Ridvan Akar, Askale Yolculari—Varlik Vergisi ve Çalisma Kamplari (Passengers to Askale—Capitial Tax and forced labour camps), Belge Uluslararasi Yayincilik, Istanbul, 1999) In 1948, 40,000 Turkish Jews living in Istanbul have run away in Israel. Embarrassed and exposed, Turkey was the first Muslim state to recognize Israel and thought that it would be some sort of way to apologize.

At the outbreak of the war, Turkey mined 190,000 tons of chromite, 1/5 of the world total output. (See: Turkish Foreign Policy 1943-1945: Small State Diplomacy and Great Power Politics by Edward Weisband) Those were the result of agreements between Germany and Turkey, Turkey becoming the major German supplier, of this essential material for the military. Turkey later signed another contract with Germany to provide 135,000 tones, regardless of the allies pressures to stop. The German minister of armaments and munitions declared that chromium was the element with the shortest supply, and was indispensable to a highly developed armaments industry. Turkey permitted the German armament developments, ignoring the continuous allied requests. As the German Minister for Armaments and Munitions Albert Speer confirmed when he wrote in his memoirs: "Hence the element in shortest supply is chromium. This is especially grave since chromium is indispensable to a highly developed armaments industry. Should supplies from Turkey be cut off, the stockpile of chromium is sufficient only for 5.6 months. The manufacture of planes, tanks, motor vehicles, tank shells, U-boats, and almost the entire gamut of artillery would have to cease from one to three months after this deadline, since by then the reserves in the distributions channels would be used up." He then declared that if it wasn't of Turkish supply: "no more or less than that the war would be over approximately ten months after the loss of the Balkans." (Albert Speer, Inside the Third Reich: Memoirs, translated by Richard and Clara Winston (New York and Toronto, 1970)). In short without Turkeys help, the war would have not continued more than months. I could continue and discuss regarding the “Missing Jews” or the missing gold bars looted by NAZI Germany and transferred to Turkey.

Recently, the anti-Jewish movement in Turkey has become imposing, the “The Middle East Media Research Institute” is now publishing a series of articles titled: “Antisemitism in the Turkish Media” as a result. Fadix 17:31, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Good points Fadix. Come now Weems/Casin - please explain the relevance of this - of any of this to the genocide of the Armenians? --THOTH 09:04, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

November 9, 1938: This is the date that became known as the "Crystal Night" because Nazi mobs throughout Germany attacked Jewish synagogues and stores. The Muslim Ottoman government never attacked "Christian" Armenian churches and stores. There is no way to compare this German action to the Ottomans. Today, in modern day Turkey, there are more Armenian churches operating that in Armenia.

April 1915, The governor of Van, ordered all males to be butchered, and this is even recorded in Nogales memoirs, that revisionists use to deny the reality of the Armenian genocide. Not only this, but Armenian shops and churches were destroyed in Van, forcing Armenians to organize. The destruction of Armenian shops is reported by Muslim memoirs, that the revisionists use to claim there was no genocide. Thanks again, I didn't thought of this parallel before. Fadix 17:31, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Already addressed this - widespread boycotts and destruction of greek and Armenian businesses were organized beginning in 1913. And Weems just contends that things did not happen - just because he contends such - not because they did not happen - they did. And this claim of more Armenian Churchs in Turkey today then in Armenia is just laughable - as is this entire piece. --THOTH 09:04, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

November 12, 1938; German Jews were fined 1 billion marks solely because of their race. The Ottomans never did such a thing.

Armenians had to pay the “Kurdish tax” only because they were Armenians. And this for a long time. Fadix 17:31, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Other taxes as well - not just to Kurds but to ottomans and just prior to the war these were increased by hundreds of percent with the intent to decimate the Greeks and Armenians. Remember calling Jews a "race" as calling Armenians and Greeks such is a minnomer. They were each minority religious-ethnic groups. Again their treatment and attitudes on the part of the majority groups towards them were eirily similar. --THOTH 09:04, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

November 15, 1938: All Jewish students were expelled from all German schools for the sole reason of their race. The Ottomans never did such a thing.

What kind of BS is this. Armenian schools were closed, the teachers were arrested and later executed. Fadix 17:31, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

December 3, 1938: Hitler issued a decree for compulsory Aryan ownership of all Jewish enterprises and shops throughout Germany and the occupied countries. The Ottomans never did such a thing—ever!

And what happened to the Armenians belongings? What about the special laws regarding the Armenian properties, after the Armenians were deported? Thanks again, I didn't thought of this parallel before. Fadix 17:31, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Again exactly what occured even prior to the war in the wealthy Aegean and Black Sea regions. And later of course with the "abandoned" property laws. There is a great quote from this time (the passing of this law) from an Ottoman parlimentarian that speaks to this directly and eloquently - I have the quote but cannot locate it at the moment. --THOTH 09:04, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

July 4, 1939; Hitler decreed that German Jews were prohibited from holding government jobs. The Ottomans never did such a thing.

Armenians in the government lost their jobs, actually, after the dissolution of the Parlement, only the Ittihadists had the whole Empire in their control. Fadix 17:31, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Armenians were never allowed to hold government jobs within the Ottoman Empire - this always had been strictly forbidden. To some extent the CUP 9under their intitial liberal direction) attempted to open some of these positions to minorities and many Armenians possesed specialized skills that were useful - however by Ottoman law they could not hold these positions. With the rise of the radicals in the CUP Armenians who had managed to obtain low level government employment were by and large removed and replaced. --THOTH 09:04, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Dear Fadix, what do you say about the following excerpt:

"...400 years after the rights granted by Sultan Mohammed the Conqueror, the right of constituting an Armenian Assembly of 140 members and some other new concessions were granted to the Armenians with the "Decree on Armenian Nation" published in 1860. With this decree, a kind of state in a state was created by means of assigning the government of the Armenians within the State to an assembly. This decree was approved by Sultan Abdulaziz in 1863.

Tn the Ottoman era, Armenians have been appointed to the posts of 22 generals, 33 member of parliaments, 7 ambassadors, 11 consulates, 11 lecturers, 8 doctors generals, 41 senior civil servants. Examples of such posts are Agop Pasha, who served for two terms as the Minister of Finance in the Sultan Abdulhamit II, Mavro Kordato Efendi who served as the Minister of Forestry, Mines and Agriculture, Naum Pasha who served as Minister of Trade and Gabriel Norodonkian Efendi..."

And a list of famous Armenians of Ottoman Government can be found in here [10] and in here [11]

And FYI, a sworn statement of Albert J. Amateau on the allegations that Armenians suffered "genocide" by the government of the Ottoman Empire can be found here [12]. And what are your comments on the breakdown of the population of the Ottoman State in terms of communities (1906-1914) specified in [13]. Dear Fadix, I am waiting for your comments and references.-Cansın 18.43, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Cansin - Under the European enforced Tanizimat - the Sultan was forced to allow constitutional government and Armenians did serve. However the Sultan abolished the constitutioin and later the CUP removed remaining Armenians from such positions. Remember - of all the minorities the (urban) Armenians were the most integrated, accepted and trusted by the Ottomans - a very many thought themselves as ottoman as any Turks - and rightly so. However these facts do not negate that the CUP ultimatly exterminated them. Jews served in important posts in Germany as well - some continued serving in these post throughout the war and the Holocaust...does this prove that there was no Holocaust? --THOTH 09:04, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

July 21, 1939: Adolph Eichmann was appointed head of the Prague office of Jewish Emigration. The Ottomans never set up such a system in their lands or anywhere else as the Nazis did.

Şükrü Kaya was appointed at the head of an alien space ship airport I guess, and not at the head of the so-called Armenian-Emigration committee, which in the same time was heading the concentration camps. Fadix 17:31, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

haha - no the CUP entrusted the Special organization for its "emigration" functions...additionally there was a long time policy - beginning with the Sultan of harrasment of many Armenian localities in an attempt to force migration to the Caucuses and elsewhere and a great many Armenains did leave Anatolia throughout the 18th and 19th centuries. --THOTH 09:04, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

September 1, 1939: Hitler issued a decree that Jews in Germany were forbidden to be outdoors after 8 P.M. in winter and 9 P.M in summer. The Ottomans never did such a thing to the Armenians.

Oh OK., so there was no genocide afteral. Fadix 17:31, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes Fadix I think he has us there - I am not aware of any Armenian specific curfews...So he wins - he has disproven the genocde after all!!!! --THOTH 09:04, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

September 23, 1939; German Jews were forbidden to own wireless radios. The Ottomans never did such things to the Armenians

I didn't knew there were wireless radios in 1915, for the Ottoman to forbid them. Are you just copy pasting a chronology of the Holocaust, and then adding to it: “Ottoman never did this” or “Armenians are NAZI”? Fadix 17:31, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

CUP had srict information contol and censorship throughout the Empire making it difficult for reporting of atrocites againt the Armenians. Armenian newspapers were also shut down as part of the Law of Associations - no ethic based newspapers or periodicals were allowed.--THOTH 09:04, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

October 6, 1939; Hitler issues a proclamation for the isolation of Jews from the German population. The Ottomans never did such a thing.

And what was the May 1915 Armenian measures then? Fadix 17:31, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Hm - deporting Armenians into the desert doesn't qualify? In some cases Armenians were deported by local govenors from Armenian areas to more Turkish and Kurdish ones (there was intitially some confsion on the part of local authorites who were not privy to the secret orders). We then see numerous complaints on the part of Ottoman official from these areas that there are now too many Armenians in there areas and they ask for them to be removed...which was done...--THOTH 09:04, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

October 12, 1939: Jews were removed from Vienna, Austria for the sole reason they were Jews. The reason the Ottomans removed Armenians from eastern Anatolia was because they were disloyal and were helping the invading Russians. The Nazi acts do not compare to the Ottoman actions. For anyone to compare Nazi Germany to the Ottoman Empire is to compare an apple to a fence post.

Women, children, elderly, all disloyal parasites, this is how far Weems intelligence could go? Fadix 17:31, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Armenians were removed from every province - including all of the Western ones and ones in the interior that were far away from any battles. The military excuse was specifically disproven in the Ottoman Military Tribunals and in statement by a number of ex-CUP and others involved in these decisions and implementation. --THOTH 09:04, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

February 12, 1940: The Nazis deported the first Jews from Germany just because they were Jews. The Ottomans never did such a thing to the Armenians.

Oh yeh? So why it was proposed to deport the Armenians back in Feb. 1914... was it not because they were Armenians? Fadix 17:31, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

ibid --THOTH 09:04, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

August 15, 1940; Adoplh Eichmann presented what became known as the Madagascar Plan for the removal of the entire Jewish race. The Ottomans never did such a thing.

The removal of the Ottoman Armenians is enough to be qualified as genocide. Fadix 17:31, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

CUP called it the "Der Zor" plan. And funny I never knew that Aushwitz and Dachau etc were in Madagascare? Oh might it be possible that use of the word "deportation" actually meant extermination? Can you show us Hitler's ordr to exterminate the Jews? --THOTH 09:04, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

November 15, 1940: The Nazis sealed off the Jewish "ghetto" in Warsaw, Poland.

You convinced me, there was no Armenian genocide. Google just has shown me that you have actually copied a chronology of the Holocaust. Fadix 17:31, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

March 7, 1941: Jews were compelled to provide forced (slave) labor for the Nazis. The Ottomans never did such a thing to the Armenians.

Oh yeh right! I guess the Armenians that were forced to complete the railroad during the war, were not forced labors, or those men that were disarmed and were lucky enough to be dispensed from being killed were not used as labor. Vehib, the commander of the third army, himself had 2 thousand Armenian labors working for him, before as he report, they were all butchered. Fadix 17:31, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

July 31, 1941: The Nazis issued the order to remove all Jews from German occupied territory in Europe. The Ottomans did not attack nor occupy any other nations' land during World War I and there is no way to compare the Nazi action to that taken by the Ottomans against disloyal Armenians. The Nazis were on the offense capturing other people's lands while the Ottomans were defending their empire from the invading Russians who were being helped by Ottoman citizen Armenians.

It was the Ottoman Empire that tried to invade Russia, it was the Ottoman Empire that has tried to invade Russian Armenia, and later have stolen Kars, Ardahan etc. Which lands were taken away by Russia? But of course, with your neural capabilities, Mr. Weems, I don't expect you to understand more than the words: “Back stabber, traitor, disloyal.” Fadix 17:31, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

I have extensive materials on the Holocaust including some chronicals of Jewish resistance and fighting against the germans form quite ealy on in the ar - prior to the existance of concentrationcamps...so were the Germans justified in slaughtering the Jews? SInce they demonstradably were fighting against them...--THOTH 09:04, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

September 1, 1941: This is the date Nazis decreed that all Jews must wear a yellow star. The Ottomans never required the Armenians to wear the Christian cross as contrasted to the yellow star of David the Germans forced the Jews to wear.

You convinced me again, there was no Armenian genocide. Fadix 17:31, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes he has us there...--THOTH 09:04, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

September 17, 1941 marks the date the Nazis began the general deportation of all German Jews. The Ottomans never attempted to deport all Armenians. There is no way to compare the German acts to the Ottomans'.

This was what the Germans reported, the Ottoman did attempted to deport all Armenians, including tho0se in the Capital, and Smyrna, had the Germans not intervened. Fadix 17:31, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

No - Ottomans never deported Armenians...who could have thought that suah a peace loving people could think to do such a thing? --THOTH 09:04, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

September 23, 1941: The Nazis began tests for gassing Jews at Auschwitz. The Ottomans never did such a thing.

I guess, Dr. Said tests, were not gassing tests. Fadix 17:31, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Fadix, could you please provide references or documents about concentration camps, Dr. Said tests and gassing...etc, I am interested. Cansın 18.20, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

January 20, 1942: This is the date of the Wannsee Conference where the decision for the "Final Solution" to mass murder the entire Jewish population was made. The Ottomans never had such a conference and there never was an Ottoman "Final Solution" for all Armenians.

Revisionists of the Holocaust claim that the Wannsee Conference was not to take any destruction decision against the Jews. Besides, Mevlan Zadeh Rifat in his work present a transcript of a closed dore conference, where the destruction of the Armenians is voted among the Ittihadists. Fadix 17:31, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

March 29, 1942; The Nazis sent the fist train filled with Jews from Paris, France to Auschwitz.

Many Armenians were sent by train too. So? Fadix 17:31, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

April 20, 1942: The Nazis issued a decree to ban all Jews from using public transportation. The Ottomans never did such a thing.

So I guess, in 1915, there were public transportations such as cars and bus. Fadix 17:31, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Armenians had long been forbiden from riding on horseback in the ottoman Empire. So what does this prove? --THOTH 09:04, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

September 18, 1942: The Nazis reduced food rations of Jews in Germany. The Ottomans never did such a thing to Armenians throughout their empire.

Armenians were sent in the desert, if that is not as well to reduce Armenian food rations, I wonder what it is. Fadix 17:31, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

October 4, 1942: All Jews in German concentration camps were ordered to be sent to Auschwitz. The Ottomans did not have concentration camps nor did they use gas chambers to murder Armenians as the Nazis did to the Jews.

The Ottoman did have concentration camps, at least, this is what the Germans were calling them. The Ottoman had as well Gas chambers, but of limited scope, but this is irrelevant here. The fact of the matter is that in 1916, the Ottoman took the decision, to excort the rest of the Armenians to Del-El-Zor. Fadix 17:31, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

December 15, 1942: The Armenian National Council was given official Nazi recognition by Alfred Rosenberg, the German minister of Nazi occupied areas. The Armenians had made a consecrated effort to prove to Hitler that they were Aryans like he was and they were so accepted. The proof is the Armenians were never persecuted in any Nazi occupied lands because they were Armenians.

Here is what Rosenberg thought of the Armenians: "Armenians were even worse then the Jews."

The Myth of the Master Race, Alfred Rosenberg and the NAZI ideology, by Robert Cecil [n.32 ] p.30

The 40 days of Musa Dagh was one of the books banned by NAZI Germany. I can present here various other quotes from NAZI sources, like the NAZI monthly publication Das Schwarze Korps, which has published in its November 1936 issue, an article, in which they considered Armenians as "Armenian Jews." It isn't surprising, that the same survivors of a genocide, faced with another xenophobia directed at them, will try to “prove” that they were not the same as the NAZI first targets, the Jews, and this while the NAZI considered the Turks as Aryans. Fadix 17:31, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

The Armenians made radio broadcasts from Berlin supporting Hitler's Aryan and racially pure beliefs. Several Armenian newspapers also supported Hitler's ethnic/racial pure beliefs during World War II. The Ottomans never did such things. The actual proof is that during World War II the Turks opposed Hitler while the Armenians within Turkey supported first Hitler and then switched sides to the Russians when they saw Germany losing the war.

What full of crap, earlier in my answer, I have shown, how BS is accusation against the Armenians were. I have also shown how the claim about Turkey and Germany was wrong, of and, why are you accusing the Armenians of Turkey of what Turkey did? When has Turkey declared war against Germany? It was few days before Germany was defeated... I don't think that Armenians during those days were in position to support anyone, while they were discriminated with the Jews and Greeks, with a special tax imposed to destroy them economically and force them to migrate. Fadix 17:31, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

February 27, 1943: Jews who were forced to work in the German armaments industry were sent to Auschwitz. The Ottomans never did such a thing.

What happened with the Armenian men serving in labor battalions, or what happened to those Armenians serving as labor in the construction of the railroad? Were they not executed? Fadix 17:31, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

March 13, 1943: The Nazis opened their first new crematorium at Auschwitz. The Ottomans never did such a thing.

The Jewish NILI group reported about how Armenians were taken by thousands placed as pyramids, petroleum pulled on them and set on fire. I'd consider this as crematorium. Fadix 17:31, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

April 14, 1943: The Nazis began transporting Jews from Athens, Greece to Auschwitz. The Ottomans never did such a thing.

What they did not do, transporting Armenians from Athens, Greece? Fadix 17:31, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

No he is saying that the CUP never sent any Armenians to Auschwitz - which I supose is true...--THOTH 09:04, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

April 30, 1945: Approximately 33,000 inmates were freed from Nazi concentration camps by American troops. The United States was never at war with the Ottoman government in 1915 or ever. There were no concentration camps used by the Ottomans.

I fail to see the point here. Fadix 17:31, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Of course - what is new --THOTH 09:04, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

November 20, 1945: The Nuremberg International Tribunal began to try Nazi leaders for war crimes. There was no such international tribunal who tried the Ottomans for war crimes after World War I.

The Turkish Military Tribunal, trialled Ittihadist leaders. Fadix 17:31, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

The truth is the British and French did arrest a number of Ottoman citizens after World War I ended. After holding these men in prison for some two years each and every Ottoman citizen was released as the British could find no evidence that they had committed any war crimes.

Talk:Armenian_Genocide/Fadix_Analysis#RE:_The_Real_Malta_TribunalFadix 17:31, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

After World War I the Paris Peace Conference was held. The Armenians presented their massacre claims to this conference who heard them out and considered the evidence presented by the Armenians. The Peace Conference rejected the Armenians massacre claims and gave them nothing for damages.

The kind of BS you use in your book. The Peace conference gave to the Armenians a border, it gave an American mandate to secure an Armenia. The files of the conference present the massacres as indisputable truth, the League of Nations as well. Fadix 17:31, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

The Armenians refused to accept the Peace Conference "NO" answer and again asked to be heard and to present more evidence. The Paris Peace Conference agreed to allow the Armenians to present their massacre claims a second time and again--for a second time the Paris Peace Conference rejected the Armenians claim against the Ottoman Empire and gave them nothing.

Laughable Mr. Weems. Fadix 17:31, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

The Armenians have had their day in court not once, but twice, and they offered their self-called proof twice and each time they received nothing. Today the Armenians want land and reparations from Turkey, which didn't even come into existence until 1923--8 years after the self anointed Armenian genocide bogus claim. The Armenian government demands today that the Turkish government admit to this fake genocide claim. The question cries out to be answered: Why should the Turks admit to any such thing? When will the Armenians work for peace in their region of the world rather than starting war after war and making false demands upon its neighbors?

We're such a parasite are we not? Fadix 17:31, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Crime of Genocide not only has no statue of limitations but I believe can be specifically applied retroactively. --THOTH 09:04, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

The rest of the story is simply this:

(1) The Armenians have had their false claims of a massacre against the Ottoman Empire heard in a friendly court not once but twice. The Armenians have twice had their day in the proper courts. Each time the friendly court rejected the Armenians own evidence. In plain language the Armenians presented their claims. The losing World War I Ottoman government did not appear to contest the Armenian claims. The truth is the Armenians, not once, but twice lost their uncontested day in court.

The only times there were courts, the charges of extermination were supported, every time there was legal proceedings, the charges were maintained. No one buys your BS. Fadix 17:31, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

(2) Today, the Armenians dare to compare their self-anointed bogus "genocide" claim to what the Nazis did to the Jews during the World War II era. The above listed examples are but a few of the many that are in the history books to contrast and prove (as proof certain) there is no real world way to compare the Nazis to the Ottomans as the Armenians try to do.

Genocides are compared everytime, you compared the two events yourself... but as one can realize you yourself unknowingly, have shown that there is actually many parallels between the two events. Fadix 17:31, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

(3) The rest of the story, based on actual historical evidence, proves than more than 100,000 Armenians voluntarily joined the Nazis beginning in 1935 to help create an ethnic/racial pure state.

I have already addressed this BS. Fadix 17:31, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Today in Armenia, the Armenian government honors one of its Nazi Armenian generals of World War II fame. There is a youth leadership Institute bearing his name. The question must be asked just what are the Armenians teaching their children in the name of this Nazi who helped exterminate so may Jews?

Without Dro, the Armenians sent in the concentration camps would have never been freed. Of course, the Turks didn't had to try to “prove” being Aryans, they were already been considered as such. Fadix 17:31, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

(4) Armenians produced a weekly radio program in Berlin titled "Armenia. This Armenian radio program supported Hitler's Aryan ethnic/racial pure state. Armenian newspapers also supported Hitler and his Nazis.

Walker in his work, cover this, as well as the fact that such lies of Armenian supports were fabricated in Ankara during the war. "A letter in The Times (London) of 19 July 1941 indignantly rebutted the idea that any of the Armenian people entertaining pro-Axis sympathies. It was written by J. [Jrair] Missakian, then the only Dashnak member in Britain. He wrote of the "fantastic hints" that Armenians were leaning towards the Axis - hints which had indeed been fed to The Times from its corespondent in Istanbul, whose dispatches echoed official Turkish attempts to smear Armenians." Fadix 17:31, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

(5) Armenian leadership conspired with Hitler's top lieutenants and the end result was that Armenians were labeled by the Nazis as "racially pure." After Hitler and his Nazis lost the war Armenians switched sides and forged a document to falsely claim Hitler said at one time "Who remembers the Armenians?" The truth is that Hitler and his Nazis remembered the Armenians and they were so recognized by him as fellow Aryans and together they committed a genocide of the Jews.

Oh! Us Armenians we are such monsters... bad, bad us, we have committed genocide against the Jews. Let see what Walker had to say about this: “In the first place, there is in the untutored mind a tendency to class Armenians and Jews together (offensive to both peoples); and the malevolent paranoia of the Nazis might have manifested itself against Armenians as well as Jews. Hence it was important to prove to the Nazis that Armenians were "Aryans". With the help of Dr. Rohrbach they seemed to have achieved this.” Let see what else Walker had to say: "The number of Soviet Armenian soldiers has been estimated at between 300,000 and 500,000; more than 50 Soviet generals were Armenian, including General (later Marshal) Baghramian. Three Soviet Admirals were also Armenian, which is all the more surprising when one considers that Armenia has never has a coastline; they include Admiral Isakov, whose account of the Sovier war at sea has been translated into English. Over 32,000 Armenia soldiers were decorated in the war, and over 100 received the award, "Hero of the Soviet Union". Fadix 17:31, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

(6) The Paris Peace Conference, at the time, immediately after World War I heard all the evidence and made decisions about what was right and wrong. Since the Paris Peace Conference at the time rejected Armenian claims--what right does any nation or group now have to reopen this historical period of time to give Armenians damages from a country that wasn't even in existence until 8 years after the false claim was first made? To grant the Armenian "wish" of condemning modern day Turkey of committing a genocide is just not justice in today's world.

What right do the Jews have to ask reparation for what the German Reich did? The Reich don't exist anymore. Such is your twisted logic. As for the Peace Conference, this is entirely a fabrication. Now we have a clue of the worth of your pathetic book. Fadix 17:31, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Samuel Weems, was a retired judge from Hazen, Arkansas, he died of a heart attack on January 25, 2003. He is the author of "Armenia - Secrets of a Christian Terrorist State", ISBN: 0971921237 --Cansın 6.34, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Weems was not a retired Judge, this is a lie, he was a disbarred lawyer, who ended up “accidentally” in Turkey to produce a documentary, as well as accidentally marrying a Turk. Allegedly his dead body was sent to be buried in Turkey. Fadix 17:31, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

laughable --THOTH 21:06, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

And almost entirely off topic besides...--THOTH 21:16, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Dear THOTH thanks for your compliments, after your "silly" comment about me under another topic, now these provide enough information about you. I do not like your tone in your comments. You are attacking persons instead of presenting your opinions with references. Your sarcastic tone does not help me to proceed on discussions with you. You cannot reach any point by trying to humiliate people. I do not agree with you in "genocide" issue, and I do not find your inputs reliable. However, I never felt that your position is "silly" or "laughable" or whatsoever. Those are your opinions and I tell you from my heart that I respect. On the contrary, you always add some unnecessary comments. I also disagree many things with Fadix, however he is making his points clearly with remarkable effort. You are not contributing to discussion, you are creating a negative atmosphere. --Cansın 21.31, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Look Cansin - If and when you present something worthy of serious comment you will get it. To date you have not done that. The absurdity and entirely without merit post you just made surely takes the cake. (Even knowing that it was Weems - a potentially ficticious character in the first place) I read through your posting looking (in vain) for some substance concerning this claim that the Genocide is disproved - and found nothing. I could go through it point by point and demonstrate where these various claims are factually wrong - but why bother? It would be a complete waste of my time - there is no substance or anything worthwhile in these claims to comment on. --THOTH 01:12, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Origins of the Armenian Genocide

Wiki intro - I submit this in part to answer some of Coolcat's questions and because I felt like gathering some of my thoughts on this issue. While it was written without footnotes I have extensive sources that can back up pretty much everything written here. I look foreward to comments - particularly from some of our Turkish collegues...I also know that major aspects are not covered such as the role of the Germans and such (and this is not meant to discuss the actual methodology and such of the Genocide itself. I am also open to discussion of the role of Armenian violence in provoking the Turks - however I do not believe that the Armenian actions alone can account for or at all justify what occured. The key point is perhaps Young Turk perceptions of these limited Armenian activities and their overall sense of paranoia and fear of national destruction. Anyway here goes....

Otherwise intro - This is a very high level summary of course (and I particularly regret not having the time or space to elaborate on the transformation of the CUP over time – but perhaps I can present more of this at a later date) - I write this up to pass on a bit of understanding of why such a thing as the Armenian Genocide occurred and to put into context and perspective with other massacres that occurred to Armenians and other Christians of the Ottoman Empire during this period and to present an overview of the social and political situation within the last phase of the Ottoman Empire and the revolution that led to the Genocide.

We often see Turks claiming that Armenians were the first to kill Turks and that Turks were only "deporting" Armenians because Armenian "gangs" were somehow a threat to the state and were killing Turks. They claim that these actions were defensive and that there was a civil war and such - putting the burden of blame on Armenians. Of course this is the furthest thing from the truth and is in fact completely the opposite of what occurred. There is ample evidence - and incredible amount of it in fact - entirely from official Ottoman and CUP party records - as well as from accounts (descriptions and explanations of and for meetings, plans and activities) written by Ottoman and CUP members after WWI that details the intentions, plans and methods for cleansing (exterminating) Armenians and other Christians from Anatolia and the Ottoman Empire.

Political deterioration and Christian Massacres during the late Ottoman period

Of course we are all aware of the series of large scale massacres committed under the direction of Sultan Abdul Hamid in the late 1800s and the (for over 100 years) almost continuous massacre and repression by Kurds and other nomadic chettes who roamed the Eastern provinces (having been deliberately relocated by the Ottomans into Armenian provinces for the intention of de-Americanizing them) still living off of booty and pillage as they always had done. However the intentions of the CUP directed deportations and massacres were much different (and far more sinister) then these earlier massacres. The goal of Abdul Hamid and the Ottomans was suppression of political and economic expression of the Christian minorities in order that they maintain their place in Ottoman society – as Dhimmi – religious minorities of lesser status then the Muslims of the Empire. Much like the Jews in Germany early in the 20th century the Christians of the Ottoman Empire were prospering and developing a substantial modern urban presence consisting of educated and relatively wealthy individuals. (It should be noted that the majority of the populations of each of these groups remained as they had always been – poor and agricultural – in the Armenian case - and poor and urban [ghettoized] in the Jewish case – however the perceptions among the majority groups - based on a sizable though still small percent of the population - were that these minorities were becoming enriched and more powerful – and in fact this was true as such for a segment of the population). This occurred due to education and the fact that these groups were forced into economic paths that had become lucrative but didn’t fit into the occupations that fit high social status of traditional Ottoman society – government and military service – that Christians were prohibited from joining. As a result these groups began to exercise political aspirations where before there were none. These aspirations were primarily in the form of pressing for “equal rights” – individual and in regards to property (necessary for development of stable business environments) and also included calls for ending repression, massacres and other deprivations against them. While there existed an undercurrent of nationalist sentiment – primarily among the foreign educated student population who became exposed to such concepts in Europe – the political goals of the vast majority of Armenians (those who had them at all) were for greater equality and recognition within the Ottoman system that had always been exclusively dominated by Muslim Turks. During the Tanzimat period (1839-1876) a constitution was adopted that acknowledged these concerns for equality of Ottoman citizens. However these reforms and Christian calls for greater rights were opposed by the Sultan and were only adopted by outside force of the European powers – primarily Russia, Britain and France (and all of these reforms and the constitution itself were ultimately nullified by the Sultan). Sultan Abdul Hamid’s response to Christian situational reforms was to use force and massacre to quiet the Christians and to teach them that their entreaties for help would lead to no good for them (quite the opposite) and that change was not possible. The Sultan and the Ottomans were desperate to maintain the system that legitimized them and their centuries long order and domination.

The European powers were able to force many concessions from the Ottomans – in the political arena – at least on paper – though largely not carried out – but more importantly in the Economic arena. These concessions amounted to capitulations that gave the European powers specific legal and economic powers within the Ottoman Empire itself. These were highly resented by the Ottomans who blamed the Christian minorities for their humiliation. Thus a cycle of Ottoman massacres of minorities, European intervention, and resentment of the Christian minorities began. Additionally, the European powers were annexing Ottoman territories – often through the rational of protecting Christian minorities - and other territories were lost in war – particularly against Russia – who specifically carved a role of defender of their fellow Orthodox Christians (and took advantage of this for her own gain). As the Ottoman Empire’s fortunes waned and territory was lost to (once despised and looked down upon) foreign powers and to Christian minority uprisings (such as in Greece and in the Balkans) supported by the former States – a great resentment began to build against both outside powers and internal minorities. This was exacerbated due to the influx of hundreds of thousands of refugees from these lost territories and as a result of various Turkic groups fleeing massacre committed by Russians and the newly freed minority groups themselves who had experienced such at the hand of the Turkish overlords and were seeking revenge. Many Turks were forcibly deported from these areas as well – though most refugees were voluntarily fleeing expected and actual reprisals. The Ottomans settled a great many of these (angry and desperate) exiles into traditional Armenian provinces and areas in part accounting for and adding to the great animosity that had been building on the part of Muslim Turks – already resentful of their Empires and their own falling fortunes (due to the rising Ottoman corruption and economic impact of lost wars and crumbling Empire) and they further resented the perceived prosperity, growing status and special treatment afford the minorities.

Young Turks, Pan-Turkism and Revolution

In this environment there rose among educated Ottomans (primarily among the young military and medical fields) a desire to save the Empire and to modernize. There were however many competing and often improvised schools of thought that arose on how to achieve this. Most all on some level appeared to view the (absolute power of the) Sultanate as a relic of the past and wished for political and economic reform to break the Empire form its malaise and inferior (and rapidly falling) status vis-à-vis the European powers. On one hand there were those who aspired to French style democracy and equal rights and responsibilities for all citizens – with the removal of ethnic distinction and restriction – who could imagine an Empire where all ethnicities could contribute and be a part of an integrated whole (still however, it should be added – under ultimate Turkish dominion). On the other hand a small but over time growing contingent of reformers emphasized nationalist Turkish (and Muslim-Turkish) aspirations to the exclusion of the Christian minorities. It is telling that nearly all who advocated this path had their roots in either the Balkans or in by then Russian held territories be it Crimea or the Caucuses and nearly all of the “Turks” were in fact not quite ethnically Turkish (and certainly not Ottoman Turkish) – but were some variant – Tartar, Bulgarian, Azeri or such – and these individuals were raised to manhood in environments where their home territories were lost to foreign Christian powers and to nationalized former Christian minorities – and this is a very key aspect to their development and thinking – particularly in regards to their perceptions concerning the remaining Christian minorities of the Empire (Armenians, Greeks and Assyrians). Eventually those who aspired for reforms were lumped together and considered as “Young Turks” (there were as well Young Ottomans who advocated concepts of reform within the Ottoman structure). All of these Turkic groups however never abandoned the concept of the Turks as the ruling people of the Empire and in fact as Turkish nationalism arose out of the defeats (and obvious bankruptcy of Ottomanism) and loss of outlying territories at the hands of Foreign and minority Christian groups there arose great enthusiasm for the concepts of Pan-Turkism and Pan-Turanism – the later being the extension of the concept of the Turkish “nation” to include all Turkic peoples of the world across Central Asia. These concepts took on greater importance to the Young Turk movement with the ascendancy of the radical wing of the Committee of Union and Progress (CUP) – the leading Young Turk political party – that adhered to these principals.

The CUP undertook a successful coup of the government in 1908. At this time the liberal faction held sway and they reinstalled the constitution that Abdul Hamid had suspended and invited participation from representatives of the minority communities. The Armenian political parties and populace supported the new regime and were hopeful for reform. However after an Islamic student led counter-coup in 1909 (in large part in protest of this concept of elevating minority rights) led to an ascendancy of the Pan-Turkic/Pan-Islamic CUP faction that quickly passed the Law of Associations forbidding ethnically based political associations (parties) – thus banning the Armenian political parties whom in their pan-Turkic vision had become adversaries. The various CUP actions against the minorities – such as forbidding any language besides Turkish to be taught in schools – prompted protests and even revolts in the minority communities. It was this very issue that prompted the Albanian revolt in 1910 and this further turned the CUP toward a Turkic only platform (as Albanians were Muslim but non-Turkish) and further hardened the CUP against the minorities. It was beginning at this time where CUP Central Committee records and foreign observers at CUP Congresses first mention that the use of violence and force to transform the Empire and specifically against the minorities was given broad recognition within the party and was a policy (secretly) adopted at the highest levels. The Balkan War in 1912 further hardened the CUP/Ottoman elite and convinced them that there was no chance to reform the Ottoman Empire in a multi-ethnic fashion. However it should be noted that all attempts to do so up to this point all were clearly determined to enforce the concept of Turkish dominance and force the minorities to Turkify and it is no surprise that the minority groups – even the Muslim ones – reacted against this.

CUP campaign to eradicate Christians from Anatolia

By 1913 when the CUP took full control of the state with the assassination of the Grand Vizer Mahumet Sevket - Turkism was officially adopted as party policy and enactment of this vision was put into effect. Various committees were established such as the National Defense Committee and the Committee of National Independence whose aims were to Turkify the economy by force and extended the power of the party and of trusted pan-Turkist Turkish operatives throughout the Empire. These committees organized boycotts of Armenian and Greek businesses and formed volunteer armed gangs called fedai cheteler (or chettes) who were charged with committing massacres and expulsions of Christians with the explicit aim to thin their populations. What is interesting is that these actions – which began in late 1913/early 1914 occurred prior to the Ottoman’s entering the war and were concentrated in Western Anatolia – in the Aegean region and to a lesser extent in the Black Sea region – where the bulk of the prosperous Greeks resided. It is also interesting that at this time (January 1914) Enver Pasha was appointed Minister of War and under him the Special Organization was reformed with operatives sent both East and West. East to the Caucuses to prepare the Muslims there under the Russian Empire to revolt with the intention of joining the Ottoman Empire and West to massacre Greeks and Armenians along the Aegean coast. Its also interesting that a senior government official from the Tekfurdagi district who was involved in implementing these measures at the time later said that the policy was variously called “emigration” or “deportation” but that the intent was “devastation and annihilation”. As word of these massacres reached the Western powers in Istanbul a commission of Inquiry was established but by then the damage had been done – hundreds of thousands of Greeks and Armenians had been slaughtered and an estimated 500,000 ethnic Greeks were forced to flee to Greece. Later, after the bulk of the Armenian Genocide had occurred (in both 1916 and again in 1918) these massacres and expulsions resumed. The head of the Special Organization – Kushchubasi Eshref Bey - later admitted that in 1914 alone the number of Greeks and Armenians affected by his “purifying conquest operations” was 1,150,000 – with an estimate 500,000 killed! These massacres and expulsions occurred over one year prior to the more commonly known Armenian “deportations” and Genocide and they began well prior to the outbreak of World War I and there was no violence or charges of sedition to prompt them. The lack of any repercussions from these massacres must have further emboldened the CUP central committee as they contemplated their plan to eliminate the Armenians who stood between them and their Turkish brethren to the East.

During this same period of time Ottoman military operatives and special organization members were scouring various Armenian localities charged with disarming the population (on pretext of measures being taken against violent Armenian “secret” political parties and gangs – who were outlawed and seen by the CUP as potential threats). Armenian communities that had successfully resisted massacres in the 1890s were specifically targeted and their inhabitants harassed. Additionally, even prior to the April 1915 round up of Armenian leaders and intelligencia in Istanbul and other Armenian towns there were selected arrests and murders of Armenian political and religious leaders, and various massacres were conducted throughout Anatolia designed in part to provoke the Armenian population to revolt (which they by and large did not do) and any counteraction was used as an excuse for further repressive measures. In August of 1914 all Armenian men between the ages of 20 and 45 were subject to being drafted and resistance to this was used as an excuse to harass Armenian communities. Additionally, the Ottomans forced Armenians from all the provinces to pay enormous war contributions. All of these events occurred prior to the Ottoman Empire entering World War I and during this period all reports form the Armenian provinces suggest that there was no revolt and no significant activity whatsoever. Shortly after the Ottomans joined World War I and attacked Russia the CUP began to circulate charges of Armenian sedition and Armenian soldiers in the Ottoman Army were disarmed and converted into labor battalions. Incidents of massacre and attacks on Armenians increase significantly throughout Anatolia. Charges of sedition became particularly strident after Enver’s disastrous defeat at Sarakamish in the Caucuses in January of 1915 where additional charges against Armenians to excuse the defeat – yet Enver himself actually praised the valor of Armenian units that had saved his life. However, it was when the Allies invaded and attacked the Dardenelles in March 1915 and Istanbul itself was threatened that the “final solution” to the “Armenian Question” was put into effect. These CUP central committee decisions are well documented. In April 1915 Armenian community, political and artistic leaders from Istanbul and major Armenian towns throughout Anatolia are rounded up and taken away – most will be killed. And following the successful resistance to massacre by the Armenians of Van the CUP enact the Temporary Law of Deportations – that acts as the cover for the extermination and cleansing of Armenians from Anatolia and the Ottoman Empire. The Law of Abandoned Properties was further used to seize Armenian economic assets and complete the CUP plan to nationalize the economy and Turkify the nation. Within a year nearly all Armenians are gone from Anatolia – with more the half killed (estimated at over 1 million individuals) and most of the rest of the survivors in death camps in the Syrian desert (where nearly ½ million more would die), with a percentage escaping into Russian controlled Caucuses or elsewhere. In the years following the vast majority of the Armenians, Greeks and Assyrians – the last remaining Christian communities of the Empire – are either killed or expelled. These actions against the Christian minorities continued throughout World War I and recommenced with the advent of the Nationalist Turkish War for liberation in 1919 with actions taken against remaining Armenians in Anatolia as well as in the Armenian Caucuses where up to an additional 400,000 Armenians may have been massacred and killed. The final stage of the Turkish Genocide of its Christian communities can be said to have occurred in 1922 and 1923 with the burning of the predominantly Greek and Armenian city of Smyrna and the forced expulsion (that became a population exchange) of the remaining Greek and Christian elements of Turkey save for a small community that remained in Istanbul and a very few isolated Armenian villages that somehow escaped or who converted to Islam and were left be. However even converting to Islam did not save many of the Empires Christians as even these too were directed to be “deported” (massacred)…and today there are only a small handful of Armenians and Christians left in Turkey – again mostly concentrated in Istanbul itself. --THOTH 21:14, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Turkish Government cancels Armenian Genocide conference by Turkish Scholars

The conference was NOT cancelled by the government. It was cancelled by one of the three organizers, Bosphorus(Bogaziçi) University, due to the remarks in Justice Minister Cemil Cicek's speech about the conference in the parliament. --Cansın 2.27, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Wrong - this is an entirely Turkish Government controlled State University - --THOTH 16:59, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

And you know what is what in Turkey better than me. laughable! The governments have no right to interfere state university's internal affairs according to the law! --Cansın 5.19, 26 May 2005

Should we believe you to be so naive? --THOTH 18:45, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Bosphorus University had a lot of disaggreements over very serious issues with the current government in the past. They never took a step behind. They always defended what they believed. Now, they are afraid of the public opposition after the unfortunate remarks of the Justice Minister. However, the university administration could still have held its position, because there were student and faculty demonstrations supporting the conference. Additionally, over a hundred faculty submitted a petition to the administration stating that the conference should be held in order to validate the freedom of speech and scientific respect of the university. Now, many columnists in Turkish media condemn Justice Minister's speech even though they do not support the conference 's content. As added into the timeline today, the organizers publicly declared that the conference is going to be held. -Cansın 1.38, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Turkish professors condemn reaction to conference on Armenian issue

NTV television, Istanbul 25 May 05

Issuing a statement on the postponement of the conference on "Ottoman Armenians during the collapse of the empire," the organizing committee condemned attempts to pinpoint the Bogazici University as a target.

Selim Deringil and Edhem Eldem, who are members of the organizing committee, held a news conference. Eldem said that the targeting of a state university with unfair accusations is worrisome, adding that Turkey will be the side to lose most from this action.

Noting that their aim is to leave aside the bellicose and sterile style and discuss the issue within a broad historical perspective, Selim Deringil said, in turn, that the policy of the government or of the official circles does not bind them, adding that they are not obliged to be of the same opinion with them.

And a group of Bogazici University students held a protest action on the campus, asserting that a concerted campaign is being waged against the independence of the university.

The organizing committee said that the conference organization and advisory boards will meet to decide the future course.--THOTH 17:01, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Turkey postpones conference on Armenian killings

Wed May 25, 2005 3:17 PM BST

By Ayla Jean Yackley

ISTANBUL (Reuters) - A Turkish university facing accusations of treason has postponed a conference that offered a platform to academics questioning a national policy that denies any World War One genocide of Armenians.

The conference, due to start on Wednesday at Istanbul's Bosphorus University, was organised as Muslim Turkey faces mounting pressure from the European Union to accept that mass killings of Christian Armenians starting in 1915 was genocide.

Turkey's pro-European government has broken with past administrations and said it is willing to discuss historical differences with Armenians, but official policy still vehemently rejects claims that 1.5 million Armenians were slaughtered.

It accepts that hundreds of thousands of Armenians were killed by Ottoman Turks but says even more Turks died in a partisan conflict that erupted as the Ottoman Empire collapsed.

Justice Minister Cemil Cicek said in parliament on Tuesday the conference by Turkish historians who say genocide occurred was a "stab in the back of the Turkish people.

"We must end this treason, the spreading of propaganda against Turkey by the people who belong to it," he said.

Bosphorus University said it had decided to put off the conference because of the prevailing climate.

"We are anxious that, as a state university, scientific freedom will be compromised due to prejudices about a conference that has not yet occurred," it said in a statement.

Edhem Eldem, a Bosphorus University historian, said organizers had not yet decided whether they would hold a conference at a later date or scrap the event completely.

"The side that will suffer the greatest loss is, unfortunately, Turkey," Eldem said.

Face it - the denialist position is both academically and even politically bankrupt. Come back from the dark side...--THOTH 17:54, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

First Conference by Turkish Scholars on the Armenian Genocide in Istanbul Postponed (Cancelled?) by Government

Istanbul, Turkey -- During May 25-27, 2005, there was to be a conference organized at Bogaziçi University. The hosts of the conference are the Comparative Literature Department of Bilgi University, the History Department of Bogaziçi University and the History Program at Sabanci University. The title of the conference was "Ottoman Armenians during the Decline of the Empire: Issues of Scientific Responsibility and Democracy." Only Turkish scholars from around the world were invited to participate in this conference, notably those who dispute the Turkish Government's version of the events of 1915, which other countries recognize as the planned Armenian Genocide.

This was an unprecedented, major, international conference. According to the organizers, it was "time, ninety years after 1915, this tragic event in the history of our country, for Turkey's own academics and intellectuals to collectively raise their voices that differ from that of the official state thesis.."

At the opening of the conference, the President of Sabanci University, Dr. ?, announced suddenly, to the great consternation of all present, that the conference was postponed. The day before, Turkish Justice Minister Cemil Cicek accused those who organized and participated in the conference of treason, calling them traitors to their country. He condemned the initiative as a blow to government efforts to counter a mounting Armenian campaign to have the killings recognized internationally as genocide.

"This is a stab in the back to the Turkish nation. this is irresponsibility," the Anatolian News Agency quotes Cicek as saying at a parliamentary debate.

"We must put an end to this cycle of treason and insult, of spreading propaganda against the nation by people who belong to it," he added. All of this calls into question the letter sent by Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan only a few weeks ago to the President of Armenia, Robert Kocharyan, calling for a joint commission on the Armenian issue. If Turkish scholars, themselves, are not allowed to discuss this issue, without the participation of scholars of other nationalities, how could such a joint commission ever work?

First Conference on the Armenian Issue Organized in Istanbul, Turkey

During 25-27 May 2005, there will be a conference organized at Bogaziçi University. The hosts of the conference are the Comparative Literature Department of Bilgi University, the History Department of Bogaziçi University and the History Program at Sabanci University. The title of the conference is "Ottoman Armenians during the Decline of the Empire: Issues of Scientific Responsibility and Democracy."

Only Turkish scholars will participate in this conference which is not international in character. As a consequence, the working language of the conference will be entirely in Turkish. Only an invited group of people will be able to attend the conference because of limited space and the vast interest expressed in the proceedings.

The Organizing Committee of faculty members from the three participating universities are, in alphabetic order, Murat Belge (chair, Comparative Literature Department, Bilgi), Halil Berktay (coordinator, History Program, Sabanci), Selim Deringil (chair, History Department, Bogaziçi), Edhem Eldem (History Department, Bogaziçi), Hakan Erdem (History Program, Sabanci), Çaglar Keyder (Sociology Department, Bogaziçi), Cemil Koçak (History Program, Sabanci), and Aksin Somel (History Program, Sabanci). In addition, the Consulting Committee of academics from Turkey and abroad comprises, in alphabetical order, of Fikret Adanir (Bochum Ruhr University, Germany), Engin Akarli (Brown University, USA), Taner Akçam (University of Minnesota, USA), Ayhan Aktar (Marmara University, Turkey), Seyla Benhabib (Yale University, USA), Üstün Ergüder (Director of Istanbul Policy Center at Sabanci University, Turkey), Fatma Müge Göçek (University of Michigan, USA), Nilüfer Göle (Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales, France), Cemal Kafadar (Harvard University, USA), Metin Kunt (Sabanci University, Turkey), Serif Mardin (Sabanci University), Oktay Özel (Bilkent University, Turkey), Ilhan Tekeli (Middle East Technical University, Turkey), Mete Tunçay (Bilgi University, Turkey), Stefan Yerasimos (Universite Paris VIII, France). The schedule of the conference already contains more than thirty papers to be delivered at ten sessions, a number of panels and a round table discussion. The organizers of the conference regretfully note that they have been unable to include many valuable suggestions that would have made the schedule much richer because of the large number of interested participants and the need to contain all the proceedings in three days.

According to the conference organizers, it is time today, ninety years after 1915, this tragic event in the history of our country, for Turkey's own academics and intellectuals to collectively raise their voices that differ from that of the official [state] theses and put forth their own contributions. Turkish society that has grown, differentiated within itself, and opened to the world has accumulated both qualitatively and quantitatively an impressive amount of independent and critical thought. This accumulation already covers a rather large spectrum, achieves breadth and depth along the intellectual circles of historians, social scientists, writers, publishers, lawyers, journalists and independent intellectuals, and now wants to make its own voice heard and thus come of age as an intellectual generation with its own free and autonomous ideas. The conference organizers express the common denominator of this new formation to be the recognition of a responsibility of conscience. This is not solely a responsibility in reference to scientific truth or world citizenship, but also a responsibility toward our own country, society and democracy. It is once again Turkey that would benefit the most from the emergence of different, critical and alternative voices and the portrayal of multiplicity of ideas contained in Turkish society.--THOTH 15:14, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

THOTH, I removed your following comment from the main article. This is your own comment and nothing to do with the timeline.

"This stance causes great doubt as to the seriousness of Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan's proposal just a few weeks prior to the President of Armenia, Robert Kocharyan, calling for a joint commission on the Armenian issue. Armenian and other international scholars affiliated with the Zoyan Institute had high hopes for this conference and concluded that "if Turkish scholars, themselves, are not allowed to discuss this issue, without the participation of scholars of other nationalities, how could such a joint commission ever work?"

The conference organizers did not invite any historian or scholar who opposes to "genocide" claim. One of the organizers said that "The opposing historians are representing the hardcore government policy. We listened them for years and now we do not listen to them. Now it is our turn to talk." What kind of attitude is this? The conference is organized by three leading universities of Turkey. However, all of the organizers support the "genocide" claim and they do not create a platform to discuss the issue with scholars who opposes to the claim. What is the purpose of the conference then? To what purpose will it serve? What kind of bad intention is that? How credible do they become, once they reject to discuss the issue with their colleagues? How can Turkish people find them reliable? This issue should be discussed in Turkey, among the Turkish historians, but not like this. I follow all of the main organizers. I read every article they write, not only about "genocide", but also about Turkish politics and human rights...etc. They always support democracy, freedom of speech,...etc. Now where is it? They organize the most important conference of Turkey, the most critical one, and what did they do? They invited scholars only those who support "genocide" claims. - Cansın 6.14, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Regardless of Turkish attempts to justify this quashing of freedom of speech it is clear what has been done:

ANCA PRESS RELEASE May 25, 2005

TURKISH GOVERNMENT FORCES "POSTPONEMENT" OF GENOCIDE CONFERENCE

-- Silences Discussion of Armenian Genocide

WASHINGTON, DC - The Turkish Government compelled scholars from three universities in Turkey today to indefinitely postpone a conference which would have focused on the Armenian Genocide, reported the Armenian National Committee of America (ANCA). The move is another in a series of government actions in Turkey to quash freedom of speech and prevent open discussion regarding this crime against humanity.

"The Turkish government's actions reflect a long-standing, profoundly troubling, and increasingly aggressive policy of seeking to silence any discussion of the Armenian Genocide - domestically, through coercion and threats of prosecution, and abroad through blackmail and intimidation," said Aram Hamparian, Executive Director of the ANCA. "In taking these steps, Turkey's leadership has made a mockery of its claims to seek a dialogue with Armenians, compounded international skepticism about its willingness to meet even minimal standards for freedom of expression, and underscored the need for our government and the international community to press Turkey - once and for all - to end its campaign to deny justice for this crime against humanity."

The Conference, titled "Ottoman Armenians During the Decline of the Empire: Issues of Scientific Responsibility and Democracy," was jointly organized by the Comparative Literature Department of Bilgi University, the History Department of Bogazici University and the History Program at Sabanci University. Originally set to take place May 25th-27th at Bosphorus University, the schedule was to include over 30 papers by Turkish scholars from Turkey and abroad.

In the days leading up to the conference, Turkish Government officials spoke stridently against the conference and its organizers. Turkish Justice Minister Cemil Cicek, in a speech before the Turkish Parliament on Tuesday, went so far as to accuse the academics of "treason." The Minister described the conference as a "a stab in the back to the Turkish nation." Cicek expressed regret that, as Justice Minister, he could not personally prosecute the organizers and participants.

Opposition parliament members concurred with the government's views. According to the Agence France Presse, senior Republican People's Party Parliament member and former Turkish Ambassador to the U.S., Sukru Elekdag, referred to the conference as a "treacherous project."

The government crackdown on the conference is the most recent chapter in the Turkish government's 90-year campaign of genocide denial. This effort has intensified in recent years. In 2003, Education Minister Hikmet Cetin issued a decree making student participation in a nation-wide essay contest denying the Armenian Genocide compulsory. The most recent revisions to the Turkish Penal Code criminalize references to the Armenian Genocide and the removal of troops from Turkish occupied northern Cyprus. World- renowned Turkish writer Orhan Pamuk, is the latest to be charged with violation of the Turkish penal code for references to the Armenian Genocide. According to news reports, Pamuk stated, "30,000 Kurds and 1 million Armenians were killed in Turkey. Almost no one dares to speak out this but me, and the nationalists hate me for that." --THOTH 16:59, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

You are talking about "penal code", why don't you show the same sensitivity when France and Switzerland passed the law which forbids to say "there is no Armenian Genocide". See the difference. "Armenian Genocide" is not an established history yet and these countries passed these laws due to the political pressure. Very democratic! But when it comes to Turkey (although there is not a law which forbids to say "there is Armenian Genocide"), Turkey is anti-democratic. laughable!

I am sad that the conference was postponed. But it will be held soon according to the organizers' public declaration. But let me ask you this question since you show remarkable reaction to the incident. In France or in Switzerland or in Armenia is it possible to hold a conference which is organized by scholars who only support that there was no genocide? I tell you this: Impossible. These countries are more anti-democratic than Turkey in this issue. You cannot give one example in Turkey who is sentenced because he/she supported and expressed his/her opinions freely that "there was a genocide". Taner Akcam, Halil Berktay...etc, they all express their opinions in public newspapers and they are not jailed. However, Prof. Halacoglu was reported to Interpol by Switzerland because in a conference where he was invited he presented his opinions saying that there was no genocide. Democratic! --Cansın 5.29, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Your wrong - Armenian genocide is established as factual history. Get over it already. It is just because of this that comments such as Halacoglu's are seen in the same light as those who deny the Holocaust - which they are - one in the same. I have mixed opinons about these type of statments being made illegal - but the intent is that this sort of hate speech has the potential to insight violence against minority groups and considering specifically anti-semetic violance that has occured and still occurs in Europe its no wonder that they are sensitve to this. On the other hand a confernace among scholars to actually presnt historical information is not hate speech. Besides all but Turksy and a very specific group of Turkish sponsored academics accept the essential contention that a genocide was commited by the Ottomans/Turks against the Armenians - this is just fact. --THOTH 18:03, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

To me you are wrong. And I find it useless to say "you are wrong, I am right". If it were a well established history, it would have been included in the official history books in all around the world and all countries would officially accept it, including Turkey (Only 17 of 193 countries recognized it due to the political concerns and powerful Armenian Dispora in those countries.). It shouldn't be forgotten that this issue cannot be an established history unless Turkish people are convinced about it and Turkey officially accepts that it was state-sponsored extermination of Armenian nation. --Cansın 6.36, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Sorry no. It does not require Turkey to accept it in order to be true. And BTW - it isincluded in history books and such everywhere but in Turkey (OK perhaps not in Azerbaijan). I have numerous WWI hisotry books for instance - and all speak to the Armenian Genocide (as such) and talk of the massacre of 1-1.5 million Armenians at the hands of the Ottoman Turks. This is fact. --THOTH 18:44, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Could you please provide those WW1 history books which are officially used as texbooks in the countries which did not recognize "genocide". -Cansın 19.24, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

lol - yeah right - as if I know such things. I will however reference a number of well known academically sound (and non-Armenian) accounts of WWI when I submit my input to the article. You are pushing a political agenda here that is rather pathetic IMO. --THOTH 19:33, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

The cancelled conference is a different issue. It was a meeting rather than a academic conference where usually open ideas are discussed. According to a credible columnist, this meeting wasn't even open to public nor media. It would rather be a small thing if it wasn't made a big deal by the government and the media. (About the factualness of the genocide, (I believe) many Turks will agree that what was done to Ottoman Armenians is terrible and in fact was massacre. Note the wording, many Turks don't believe that it is the same as the Holocaust. It is the general belief that what happened to Native Americans should also be called genocide or the Mayas. It also would apply to most wars, too.) --156.56.90.179 18:55, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

There are very specific reasons why the term Genocide is applied in the Armenian case. In fact Dr Melson and others use the term "total genocide" to describe the Armenian (and Jewish) case versus "partial genocide" that applies to most others.

"...total genocide implies either (a) the extermination of a group, or (b) the mass murder of a large fraction of its members together with the destruction of its cultural and social identity...partial genocide is less drastic. It stops short of intending the total extermination of the members of the group...and does not attempt to destroy completely its cultural and social identity." Revolution and Genocide pp 27 & 28

Dr Melson goes on to characterize the Armenian Genocide and the Nazi genocide of the Jews and Gypsies as the two examples of total genocide in the modern era. --THOTH 19:25, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Armenian Revolt

Correct me if I'm wrong. As I understand Fadix disputes that there was a revolt. He thinks the so called revolt was a resistance to the exodus or genocide.

I checked these revolt claims. There is a book written by Allen W.E.D. and Paul Muratoff at 50's called "Caucasian Battlefields". The book tells about the revolution activities of some armenian groups which are heavily armed. Rafael DeNogales also mentions the same facts as armenians being heavily armed in his journal "four years under crescent".

especially on April 14, 1915 before Russian army arrives the revolutionaries took over the control at Van which is 10 days before the exodus announcement. Also we have to note that April 25th(gallipoli), April 14th(mesopotamia), May 6th(erzurum) are the dates when allies started their attacts against Ottoman Empire. So the exodus or genocide request made by Enver Pasa regarding military objectives such protecting the as armies and roads from Armenians. But since all the men were fighting on the battlefields, the exodus is practiced by local authorities.

But again, no one claims a complete revolt of Armenians. These intentions are limited by a number of groups.

So if these activities are fact why not mention in the article? I don't think this will hurt any genocide thesis. Either way if there was an intention of exterminating the whole nation it has to be called as genocide.

Anyway, I don't agree or disagree with the genocide. I'm just trying to find out what was on young turk's mind on those days. And regarding their numerous tragicly ended false judgements and pointless moves it is really very complicated. Knowing their ambitions and huge balkan failure it is hard to understand if these decisions made with a revenge or a fear. I think there lies the truth.

Also I believe, late arrived nationalism ideas to anatolia has a strong connection with this subject. The Armenians and Turks awaken to this ideas nearly at the same time. Accordingly, examining the greek and bulgarian independence pattern for a possible inspiration will be helpful to understand the intentions of both sides.

Since this article is only about the genocide, in relation to this, the struggle between Turks and Armenians which is tied to a proof of intention, I think just noting these facts as additional reading will be a sensible. --Cipura 18:13, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

I am not ignoring you, I will answer when I have time. I happen to have read both books, and I have one of them. Fadix 18:11, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Cipura - OK I will correct you! - you make some valid points that need to be discussed I agree. The article as written has many shortcomings. Let me just mention though that although the "Deportation Order" was issued in April 1915 the violence against Armenians and Greeks began much earlier. To some degree it was a continuum of violence and massacres committed against the Armenians - with some of such by Armenians against Kurds and Turks in response as well - in addition to some revolutionary gang activities - but these had pretty much ceased with the revolution of 1908 where Armenians felt that they would get their reforms and recognition by the CUP - which began as a progressive party with such on their platform. The Armenians were essentially taken by surprise when the CUP leadership quickly radicalized after the Islamic student counter-coup in 1909. Various secret party meetings were held and documented by the CUP from 1909-1914 whereby one can track the further radicalization and hostility of the CUP leadership towards the minorities - in large part due to the secession of Albania in 1910 and the failed Balkan War of 1912. The CUP were desperate to save what they saw as the Turkish nation and initiated an anti-Christian economic campaign of boycotts and destruction of Christian businesses - primarily in the Aegean and Black Sea regions - along with massacres and expulsions of Christians - mainly Greeks (and estimated 500,000 were killed and over 1 million displaced (mainly to Greece). All of this occurred before 1915! The CUP can be seen to transform and adopt the clear approach that only through violence - "liquidation" (ultimately is the word used) of the Christian population can their national goals (of Turkifying the Empire and retaining remaining territories). A Special Organization composed of Kurdish raiders, displaced, (angry and looking for revenge) refugees from the Balkans, Crimea and the Caucuses and released violent prisoners were formed together as part of the CUPs plan and they were designed and directed specifically to "liquidate" the Armenians and other Christians. All of this is well documented. This Special Organization of irregulars first acted against the Greeks in the Aegean region then was sent East against the Armenians (and to stir up trouble in the Caucuses to prepare it for invasion). They massacred and plundered mercilessly - targeting Armenian villages within Anatolia and in the Caucuses. All of this prior to the entry of Turkey into WWI. Initially they were under command of the Ottoman Army (in the East it was the Ottoman 3rd Army). However the in truth (and eventually officially) reported directly to the CUP central committee. In fact all along they used the secret cipher system of the Interior ministry and not the Defense Ministry - so that their order were even kept secret from the Army. However in their uncontrolled zeal they even began to raid and pillage and massacre Muslim villages - and this is documented in German reports and Ottoman Army reports. The 3rd Army Commander and other even urgently cabled the CUP in Istanbul and demanded that the Special Organization be disbanded because of their excesses (and crimes against Muslims!). The Special Organization Commander Dr Bennedhin Sakir even came under indictment by the Army and from local government districts - but instead of being prosecuted he was recalled to Istanbul (temporarily) and when he returned to Istanbul he blamed the charges against him and the Special Organization gangs on Armenians! Yes. Again these things are documented - and this is all prior to April 1915. Thus with Sakir's "evidence" against Armenians (and perhaps some instances were true of course - but others were an attempt to deflect blame from the Special organization and were useful as propaganda against the Armenians)- this "evidence" and the resistance on the part of the Armenians of Van to the men being "drafted" (to be massacred - as was already occurring throughout the region by the Special Organization...) - the CUP passed the Deportation Order - and at the same time promulgated a secret order through CUP trusted channels that the deportation was in fact to be the "liquidation" of Armenians. So you must understand the basis of the charges of sedition by the Armenians - at this point in time - is largely spurious. --THOTH 18:38, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

A question to Armenian fellows: Armenian Land Indemnity from Turkey?

I recently came accross an Armenian forum (Arminfo News Agency) where news from Armenia were being discussed. I am providing the link here but for some odd reason the link is not working properly right now [14]. Anyway, in the archives I found the following:

"...Prime Minister Margarian spoke in the following manner: "Problems, such as the Nagorno Karabakh problem, recognition of genocide and demanding land indemnity from Ankara can be solved with the formation of a powerful Armenian state. If we want to receive land indemnity from Ankara, then we should not talk about it loudly everywhere."

Taking back some of the provinces in Turkey's Eastern Anatolia region is in the Armenian constitution and Agri Mountain is used as a symbol. Although Turkey recognized Armenia, it does not establish diplomatic relations with Yerevan, which does not change its demands and policy, and Turkey does not open its borders..."

Could anyone please provide more information about regarding articles of the Armenian Constitution? I am curious about this and I want to be sure whether the above mentioned matters are in the constitution or not. Thanks. -Cansın 6.45, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

As far as I know (and I'm not claiming to know the Armenian Constitution - but instead I speak from an understanding of Turkish denialist politics...) this (Armenian Constitution issue) is another claim on the part of Turkey to deflect and define the Genocide issue according to its terms - as a land grab on the part of Armenians. Pathetic. --THOTH 19:29, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Dear THOTH, above excerpt is from an independent Armenian news agency. It is true that "land indemnity article in Armenian constitution" is used as propaganda tool in Turkey for Turkish citizens. But, I am asking you or other fellows if there is such an article or not. I am just asking, I did not think about starting discussion on something I do not know. No bad intentions, just asking. -Cansın 19.39 26 May 2005 (UTC)

hahaha - yeah sure - OK - --THOTH 20:00, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Thoth, you accuse us Turks and the Turkish state of being complicit of everything. Denying it, not teaching it, etc. Nobody questioned Armenians' use of the genocide as a political propaganda tool. Of course, we'll try to deflect it, it is called defense. You can't see the complex nature of the problem and its roots - although I'm sure you could, if you wanted to. Instead you dodge any claims made to understand it fully, by bringing up new counter-claims - related or unrelated. We are trying to understand what lead to such sad events which caused so much harm to mostly underpowered innocent peasants - who got caught in between. The issue is still doing harm to the same people. If you solved the puzzle in your mind, don't hamper it for others to do the same. If you need an apology, I'll give you mine. This discussion is getting out of control, mannerwise. It might be time to open up a new page. --Muz 20:34, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Muz - I think you are incorrect that I don't understand the various ramifications of this issue - even from the Turkish side. However there is a difference between presenting serious issues and presenting the kind of garbage like Weems and such. You accuse me of dodging and counter claims? I think you are looking the wrong direction sir. I am fully prepared to discuss real issues and events. Did you not read my piece above on the origins of the genocide? I am trying to find a way to present this history in a manner that addresses causation and context. Even so - and even understanding the suffering of various Turkis and Muslims peoples - there is a clear difference to the degree of what occured to Armenia and Armenians - and regardless - this blame of Armenians - a la Weems - just doesn't cut it. Were all Armenains saints - no certainly not. But these various Turkish claims concerning organized Armenian revolts and that Armenians were "liquidated" due to actual military necessity and such do not fly. I have addressed many of the socialogical and situational developments that drove the CUP leadership to the decision of Genocide - and we have already discussed how such was perpetrated - but this too needs to be presented in a much more systematic and detailed (and supported) fashion IMO. But first some basic things must be established IMO. Does not this make sense? --THOTH 21:19, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Excuse me but show me another way to learn if it is true or not. I am checking its accurateness by asking you guys. What else can I do? I do not know Armenian in order to go through Armenian Constitution. I could have started discussion assuming that it is true but I didn't. Why are you making such gestures? If you do not know, then why are you making sarcastic comments? Come on, I am not your enemy, I do not hate you, I do not even know you, calm down a bit. -Cansın 20.18, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Anyone who would post such garbage as Sam Weems and claim that such disproves the Genocide is not dealing honestly here. The use of this "land" issue is well known on the part of those who would divert the issue within Turkey. I have no idea about the answer to your question - but for the idea of the absurdity of it being true. I mean come on now - do you really think that such would be written in the Armenian constitution? Besides - even Kocharian has explicitly stated that Armenia has no land claims on the territory of Turkey... This is a non-issue --THOTH 20:24, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

I do not know what you are talking about Samuel Weems's fictitiousness. I know his book and I gave the ISBN number. I did not claim that Samuel Weems's article disproves genocide claims. It is just one of the references of opposing side. I found out that he was a retired judge and a historian. If you claim that he is a fictitious character, give references and convince me. You ask me this: "...do you really think that such would be written in the Armenian constitution?..." I never gave credit to those claims(Armenia does not recognize Turkey's borders...etc) made in Turkey or in Turkish media about Armenian Constitution, and I asked you. If I think or believe in it, then why am I asking to you? Turkey was one of the first countries recognizing Armenia in 1991. If there were such articles in the Armenian Constitution then it is not reasonable for Turkey to recognize Armenia, right? After all these, we see such claims in Turkish media about some articles in the Armenian Const., and I am suspicious of these claims, then I come accross an Armenian News Agency, and I see Armenian Prime Minister's comments. And I want to learn if it is true or not...That is it...-Cansın 20.30, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Historical Evidence Proves There Was No Armenian Genocide, by Samuel Weems - is this not the title that YOU used for this post. I have seen mention of several inquires made to determine who this Sam Weems really is and I recall that no one was able to find anything about this individual. Additionally there was some issue concerning the publisher - but I don't recall details. It sems however that this (so-called) book of his is little more then another misleading propaganda attempt on the part of the Turkish Government (or perhaps ATAA - who knows). Can't you see that the level of (so-called) scholarship on the Turkish side is generally lacking? The arguments put foreward tend to be diversions and the position that every corroborating account and data that illustrates aspects of the genocide is somehow contrived and doen for a political agenda. This is not scholarship - it is an attempt to whitewash history. Now I will admit that the Armenian approach is often sometimes simplisitc - but the facts are essentially correct - just not presented in full context. I am for presenting the history as clearly and accuratly as possible. --THOTH 21:11, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

That was the title of his article and I now changed the title of that section. You are saying "so-called" book, however you can find that book in Amazon. It is a real book although the author is questionable according to you. I am providing an interview with him here [15]. And here is another link [16] that I ran accross after a quick google search about "Samuel Weems". I have also contacted with one of his family members and requested a brief life history. Once I manage to get it I will share it with you. -Cansın 21.34 26 May 2005 (UTC)

THOTH , I see things very clearly. I admit there has been a lot of propaganda tool by Turkish side, however to me, less than what Armenian side has been doing. Come on, don't you see the Armenian Diaspora's actions for demonization of Turks for how many years...? The problem is: Armenian Diaspora never accepted the nationalist Armenian parties', militia's role in those events. They never acknowledged the loss of Turks, Kurds, Muslims in the same period. Armenian Diaspora always presented the issue as "Armenians were innocents, these barbaric Turks came over, invaded our land and tried to exterminate us." Especially in US, Armenian new generations are growing up with enormous amount of hatred and prejudice against Turks. They only know the relocation/deportation/genocide/whatsoever and they have no idea about the history. (Of course here we also disagree with each other, since you do not believe that some Armenian nationalists started seeking independece and committed themselves to the preparations in 1880s). I also admit that there is a lack of Turkish scholarship. But let me tell you this; I suppose you are old enough to remember 70s, how ASALA attacked Turkish diplomats and civilians. How ASALA and some other Armenian nationalist groups terrorized every historian in US who opposed "genocide" claims. What happenned to Lewis, Lowry...etc. After house bombings, house arsonings, numerous life threats they stopped making research on the issue and expressing their opinions. And was there any Armenian groups condemning those acts? How about you? I condemn, truly, the people who decided to relocate those Armenians, and I condemn people who massacred innocent Armenians. Do you condemn those people who massacred Kurds and Turks at the same time period? Do you condemn those people who killed innocent Turkish diplomats and civilians in 1970s and 1980s? My grandgrandfather was a high ranking agent in Eastern Anatolia during that time. I know stories from my grands as Armenian Diaspora kids know stories from their own grands. I saw mass graves of Armenians, I saw mass graves of Turks...However we are not being grown up with hatred against Armenians. In your early postings you talk about hatred against Armenians in Turkey...Come on, except the ultra nationalist people, ordinary people have no hatred or whatsoever, maybe some prejudice, yes, but not hatred like Armenian Diaspora people have against Turks. I experienced this in US, and I was really shocked and upset. Then when I started to look at Armenian forums on the web, I was really amazed...I couldn't believe those hatred speech, cursing...Anyway, you claim that you are trying to be rational, and trying to understand each sides, but I don't think you are successful enough. This issue is undiscussable with you, because, according to you every opinion which does not accept genocide should be humiliated, or it is coming from "so-called" Turkish scholarship or those international historians, who do not accept genocide are being paid by Turkish government...etc. Sad! Cansın 2.00, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Like fadix I too am busy and otherwise occupied at the moment - but when I get the time (next week? perhaps Saturday?) I will address these issues. Anyway I feel that I am addresing the facts - with a good deal of appreciation of the Turkish "position" (or why Turks and the Turkish government see things as they do and take the positions that they do) - however an appreciation for these things - and an appreciation for what I see as shortcommings as well in the Armenian approach - does not deter my quest to present the essential truths of this matter (and do do so with proper hitorography - not political positions). If we cannot come to some basic agreement on some fundemental facts however - and keep going around by staking out political and not accurate historical positions we will get nowhere. It is funny that you (as a Turk who seems to be holding on dearly to the Turkish propaganda line) accuse me of taking a doctrinare and unmovable postion. Believe me I fully understand the Turkish position (well much more then you might realise and I think I have a fairly accurate understanding of it in all respects - then and now). I understand the validity of some of the issues that you and Muz and others raise - however these need to be discussed in there proper context as well. For various Turks such as yourself to rely on these assorted contentions as some kind of proof that a genocide did not occur is entirely facitious and fundementally dishonest. Do you understand what I am saying here? Now lets talk. --THOTH 19:18, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

According to Armenian Parliamentary Speaker Arthur Baghdassarian speaking to Turkish Justice and Development Party (AKP) Deputy Turhan Comez - on 11 June 2005 - "there is no demand for land from Turkey in the Armenian constitution." --THOTH 19:00, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Recent edits

I have reverted to Yce last edit, for the entry, which is obvious why, I have as well made slight changes(like tallarmeniantale site deleting). Yce, I have not touched your changes. I am very busy those days, so I ask people to be patient for my replies. :) Oh and, it would be nice for editors of the articles, to before editing, reading the recent changes made in the article. I say this, because sometimes dubious changes are made before a good changes, and when the article is reverted back, good changes are reverted as well, because many times, the reverter will not bother manualy add the good changes, which might as well turn into a mini "conflict" in the talk page. Oh and, if it continue like this, not only the timeline section should have its own entry, but as well the reference section. :) Anyway, I have to go. Regards. BTW Yce, my harsh words in my answers were directed at Weems, not you. I have against him since the guy shout my personal page about him. :) Fadix 19:36, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Fadix, I didn't add that www.tallarmen... website. Actually I was wondering why you or Thoth was not removing it :). I know your opinion about that website, and I do not attempt to do something which I am 100% sure that is going to be removed :). I added some other links under media and I added independent studies section. BTW, thanks for your sensitivity, I didn't get what you have said about Weems personal, don't worry ;). Regards. Cansın 19.45, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

I think many of the links under media and particularly independent studies are irrelevant or questionable for inclusion in an article such as this. Many of the media links are to articles that are just not that interesting or worthwhile to be included. Literally thousands of such articles could be posted that reflect prevailing views on the Genocide. I think that only articles of some noteworthy value should be included. And the independent studies links seem to me to be totally irrelevant to the issue.--THOTH 02:40, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Europe Responds To Postponed Conference In Turkey

The university administration of Bosphorus University in Turkey postponed "Ottoman Armenians at decline of the Empire. Scientific Responsibility and Issues of Democracy" workshop after the threatening speech of Turkish justice minister Cemil Ciceq on May 24.

The fact of the conference's postponement was largely echoed in both Turkey and Europe. The decision of the university administration hit the headlines of many influential papers of the world.

If the Turkish press aims at minister Ciceq, the government and political parties then Europe's target is Turkey as a whole.

As a significant counterattack came the statements of the Union of Human Rights of Turkey and Turkish History Foundation on May 25. If the Union "condemns all politicians in the persons of justice minister and oppositional party speaker who do not tolerate freedom of thought in the country and threaten Bosphorus University to wreck the workshop", then the Foundation underscores that "the campaign against the workshop that launched in Mejlis is the next manifestation of Turkish chauvinism peculiar to ruling elite. It once again blocks the roads leading to democracy and mutual understanding".

Meanwhile, the organizers of the workshop turned to the American Historical Association, Middle East International Establishment and International Union of Lawyers. And Bosphorus University published a statement with 109 signatures of the University staff.

The statement expresses worry that the scientific thought is being encroached upon, condemns every political interference, indicates that it contradicts Turkey's official stance of "impartial discussion of the Armenian issue" and reveals University's resolution to hold the workshop the soonest possible.

On May 26, Bilgi University of Istanbul released an identical statement signed by 130 staff members condemning officials' encroachment on independent activities of the university. The 43 scientists including Taner Akcam, Murad Belge and Halil Berktay that were supposed to report at the workshop also came out with a statement.

Turkish Milliyet newspaper writes about international response to the postponement in its May 26 issue. The paper writes that European diplomats commissioned in Ankara strongly opposed to the fact of rescheduling. They said that the justice minister's words disappointed them and emphasized that the statement disagrees with Prime Minister Erdogan's and Turkish parliament's position that was also widely received in the US and Europe.

Response came from the EU as well, which noted that the postponement will not assist Turkey's accession. According to Milliyet, a EU official expressed hope that Turkey will mature to openly discuss the Armenian cause. He called the suspension of the workshop "display of intolerance".

A representative of EU Commissioner for Enlargement, Oli Ren, confirmed latter's words saying, "EU wants and contributes to creation of atmosphere of mutual trust between Armenia and Turkey. We hope that this atmosphere will have positive impact on Turkey's EU membership". Joost Lagendijk, co-chair of the EU-Turkey Joint Parliament Committee, responded from Brussels. In a written statement he said that the fact of putting the conference off will open doors for comments over absence of free scientific thought and existence of taboos in Turkey. Answering to Milliyet's question Lagendijk said, "The words of justice minister Ciceq show that in Turkey it is still the state that decides should an issue be discussed at a university or not". Those are serious responses, and Turkey is expected to hand out official reply.

Turkish Foreign Ministry accepted that the postponement of the workshop contradicts the spirit of both "Erdogan's letter to RA President Kocharian" and "reforms unfolded in the country on its way to the EU".

Opposition to the suspension of the workshop having gone far beyond Turkey's borders cannot go without consequences for Turkey. A May 26 article in Milliyet considers postponement "a big mistake", saying that it will pose Turkey to international pressure, moreover, will show Turkey as a country that does not tolerate free discussion over historic issues, thus adding momentum to Armenians efforts for getting the Genocide recognized. --THOTH 07:27, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

NEW FORM

I divided article in two section including turkish opinion and armenian opinion cause we all know that article wasn't objective before. At least we can see both side's thesis and I didn't change the old version but i just added turkish opinion section. I think this version looks much more objective.

The issue is not "Turkish opinion" and "Armenian opinion" (and its not just Armenian opinion BTW) - go start a page titled "Turkish opinion concerning the Armenian Genocide" and leave the writing of the serious article to serious people who wish to present the actual history as acuratly as possible. --THOTH 02:17, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

What you did is against Wikipedia rules, you can not just copypast materials and dump them in a wikipedia article. This is becoming like a joke, eachtime there is edits comming out of the blue moon, in major changes without any discussions, and like this was not enought, we get here an entire copypast job. Fadix 23:28, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Another thing I would add before I go. Tell me where and how this is not objective: "The Armenian Genocide (also known as the Armenian Holocaust or the Armenian Massacre) is a term which refer to the forced mass evacuation and related deaths of hundreds of thousands or over a million Armenians, during the government of Young Turks from 1915 to 1917. Several facts in connection with what is called the Genocide, is a matter of ongoing dispute between parts of the international community and Turkey. Although it is generally agreed that the events said to comprise the Armenian Genocide did occur, the Turkish government reject that it was genocide, on the alleged basis that the deaths among the Armenians, was not a result of a state-sponsored plan of mass extermination.

Despite this theses, most Armenian, Western, and some Turkish scholars believe that the Amernian Genocide was in fact a case of what is termed genocide. For example, most Western sources point to the sheer scale of the death toll, maintaining that there were probably a million or more deaths. What is referred to as the Armenian Genocide is the second-most studied case of genocide, and often draws comparison with the Holocaust. A growing list of countries, as discussed below, have officially recognized and accepted the authenticy of the Armenian Genocide."

The article is centered around that, in accordance of what is NPOV. The Turkish government theses is highlined clearned, on top of the article.

Here more from the article: "Taking advantage of common religion and the recent discomfort of the Armenian community in the Ottoman Empire, Russia promoted Armenian nationalism, and there were many Russian-Armenians in the Russian army. At the same time, some Armenians had begun advocating an independent state." And the position of the Turkish government is repeated in what is termed as denial. I think anyone here are ready for changes, but they have to be in accordence with NPOV policy. Fadix 23:38, 28 May

2005 (UTC)

Why are you deleting the links under "opposing genocide thesis"? and please use your ID. -Cansın 20.22, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Again over Photo Issue

The photos of Armenian massacres are all taken from here [17], where the photographers' names are not given. The photos of Turkish massacres are not given either. I propose the use of photos if and only if the photographer names and references are given. -Cansın 21.17, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

As I said, I do agree with you here, unfortunitly, I really have no time right now, but if you decide to take the pictures away, before authentification is done, I won't oppose your decision. Regards. Fadix 23:31, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't want to remove any of the photos in the article without any consensus in order not to offend anybody. My proposition is: The photos can be used if and only if the photographer name and the place they were taken at are given with solid references. Otherwise this issue is open to exploitation and the credibility and reliability of the article is damaged. I propose a discussion or voting over this issue. Regards -Cansın 1.33, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Removing historical photos because we do not know the names of the photographers is absurd. I am not aware of any other Wikipedia article where a similar criteria has been established. If you think the photos are fakes then please say so outright. Thanks, -Willmcw 00:11, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

Protected

Fadix last reverted the edits of User:Yce in an apparently major removal of material, [18] calling it POV. While I agree that "they say, we say" writing is not appropriate, it nevertheless seems proper to force discussion here. -SV|t 23:59, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

SV, those POV edits were not mine. I have reentered some links under "Media" and "independent studies" sections which were removed by that user who entered those POV edits into the article. Check the page history [19], [20], [21], and please make sure. -Cansın 1.20, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Is this objective?!? Why don't you talk about Dashank and Huncak organisations, armenian terrorists who killed thousands of turks before the deportation, armenian rebellions? Why don't u put dead turks pictures too?? This article is sided and had nothing to do with honesty. You should be OBJECTIVE and give same place and importance to both ideas. When i read this article, i can't even find a little information about turkish opinion and turkish massacres commited by armenians. What's your purpose? Do want to make people believe in armenian masacre? or do u want to make people decide themselves if there was a genocide or not? Second one seems better and if so you must talk about dead turks, armenian terrorists, armenian rebellion, armenians who joined russian side while Ottoman Empire was fighting against russians, put pictures of dead turks like i did. At least you must transmit turkish opinion. Telle me WHAT'S YOUR PURPOSE?

I supose we are writing a comic book here. Where is the proof that Dashnaks and Hunchaks killed thousands prior to the Genocide? Where is the proof of "Armenian rebellion" besides the Turkish claim for such? Where is the undisputed and verified proof for all of these claims? This is not a site to transmit Turkish denmilait propoganda any more then the Holocaust entry legitimizes Nazi false claims against the Jews. The level that the Turkish side approaches this issue is - for the most part - entirely unworthy of serious discussion - as it certainly is not presented as such. The issue here is first and foremost presentation og the Armenian Genocide - an event that did occur and is acknowlwedged as such by practically every serious scholar who is familiar with is - including an overwhelming number of Holocaust scholars. I agree that the current article is seriously lacking in context and detail - however a presentation that attempts to disprove the Genocide by offering up Turkish justifications and denials is a diservice to the truth and has no place here. --THOTH 02:13, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

One Turk's eloquent call for Genocide recognition

Genocide... By Ahmet Altan May 9, 2005 http://www.gazetem.net/ahmetaltan.asp Translated by the Zoryan Institute

I would like to ask a very simple, ordinary question.

Would you wish to be an Armenian in 1915?

No, you wouldn't.

Because now you know you would have been killed.

Please stop arguing about the number of murdered or the denials or the attempts to replace pain with statistics.

No one is denying that Armenians were murdered, right?

It may be 300,000, or 500,000, or 1.5 million.

I don't know which number is the truth, or whether anyone knows the true number accurately.

What I do know is the existence of the death and pain beyond these numbers.

I am also aware how we forget that we are talking about human beings when we are passionately debating the numbers.

Those numbers cannot describe the murdered babies, women, the elderly, the teenage boys and girls.

If we leave the numbers aside, and if we allow ourselves to hear the story of only one of these murders, I am sure that even those of us who get enraged when they hear the words "Armenian Genocide" will feel the pain, will have tears in their eyes.

Because they will realize that we are talking about human beings.

When we hear about a baby pulled from a mother's hands to be dashed on the rocks, or a youth shot to death beside a hill, or an old woman throttled by her slender neck, even the hard-hearted among us will be ashamed to say, "Yes, but these people killed the Turks."

Most of these people did not kill anyone.

These people became the innocent victims of a crazed government powered by murder, pitiless but also totally incompetent in governing.

This bloody insanity was a barbarism, not something for us to take pride in or be part of.

This was a slaughter that we should be ashamed of, and, if possible, something that we can sympathize with and share the pain.

I understand that the word "genocide" has a damningly critical meaning, based on the relentless insistence of the Armenians' "Accept the Genocide" argument, or the Turks' "No, it was not a genocide" counterargument, even though the Turks accept the death of hundreds of thousands of Armenians.

And yet, this word is not that important for me, even though it has significance in politics and diplomacy.

What is more important for me is the fact that many innocent people were killed so barbarically.

When I see the shadow of this bloody event on the present world, I see a greater injustice done to the Armenians.

Our crime today is not to allow the present Armenians even to grieve for their cruelly killed relatives and parents.

Which Armenian living in Turkey today can openly grieve and commemorate a murdered grandmother, grandfather or uncle?

I have nothing in common with the terrible sin of the past Ittihadists, but the sin of not allowing grief for the dead belongs to all of us today.

Do you really want to commit this sin?

Is there anyone among us who would not shed tears for a family attacked at home in the middle of the night, or for a little girl left all alone in the desert during the nightmare called "deportation," or for a white-bearded grandfather shot?

Whether you call it genocide or not, hundreds of thousands of human beings were murdered.

Hundreds of thousands of lives snuffed out.

The fact that some Armenian gangs murdered some Turks cannot be an excuse to mask the truth that hundreds of thousands of Armenians were murdered.

A human being of conscience is capable of grieving for the Armenians, as well as the Turks, as well as the Kurds.

We all should.

Babies died; women and old people died.

They died in pain, tormented, terrified.

Is it really so important what religion or race these murdered people had?

Even in these terrifying times there were Turks who risked their lives trying to rescue Armenian children.

We are the children of these rescuers, as well as the children of the murderers.

Instead of justifying and arguing on behalf of the murderers, why don't we praise and defend the rescuers' compassion, honesty, and courage?

There are no more victims left to be rescued today, but there is a grief, a pain, to be shared and supported.

What's the use of a bloody, warmongering dance around a deep pain?

Forget the numbers, forget the Armenians, forget the Turks, just think of the babies, teenagers, and old people with necks broken, bellies slashed, bodies mutilated. Think about these people, one by one.

If nothing moves in you when you hear a baby wail as her mother is murdered, I have nothing to say to you.

Then add my name to the list of "traitors."

Because I am ready to share the grief and pain with the Armenians.

Because I still believe there is something yet to be rescued from all these meaningless and pitiless arguments, and that something is called "humanity."

Soykirim...

Çok basit ve siradan bir soru sormak istiyorum.

1915 yilinda bir Ermeni olmak ister miydiniz?

Istemezdiniz.

Çünkü öldürüleceginizi biliyorsunuz simdi.

Öldürülenlerin kaç kisi oldugunu iddialarla ve inkarlarla tartisip, yasanan bütün acilari rakamlara indirgemeyi bir yana birakin.

Ermenilerin öldürüldügünü reddeden kimse yok, degil mi?

Üç yüz bin kisi, bes yüz bin kisi, bir milyon kisi ya da bir buçuk milyon kisi.

Rakamlarin hangisinin tam gerçegi gösterdigini bilmiyorum, kesin rakami bilen biri var mi ondan da emin degilim.

Bildigim, bu rakamlarin arkasinda insanlarin, ölümlerin ve acilarin oldugu.

Rakamlari sehvetle tartisirken aslinda insanlardan bahsetmekte oldugumuzu unuttugumuzun farkindayim yalnizca.

O rakamlar öldürülen bebekleri, kadinlari, yaslilari, delikanlilari, genç kizlari anlatmiyor bize.

Eger bu büyük rakamlari bir kenara birakip öldürülen insanlardan yalnizca bir tanesini

n hikayesinin bize anlatilmasina izin versek, bugün "Ermeni soykirimi" lafini duyunca öfkeden çildiranlarin bile içlerinin aciyacagina, gözlerinin yasaracagina eminim.

Çünkü o zaman insanlardan söz edilmekte oldugunu farkedecekler.

Annesinin kucagindan kopartilip taslara çarpilarak öldürülen bir bebegi, bir dagin yamacinda kursuna dizilen delikanliyi, ince boynu sikilarak bogulan bir yasli kadini bize anlattiklarinda "onlar da Türkleri öldürmüslerdi" demekten en tas kalplilerimiz bile utanir.

Onlarin çogu kimseyi öldürmemisti.

Iktidarlarini cinayetlere yaslamis, insafsiz oldugu kadar beceriksiz bir yönetimin tutuldugu bir cinnetin kurbani oldular onlar.

Bu kanli cinnet ne övünebilecegimiz ne paylasabilecegimiz bir vahset.

Bu, utanacagimiz ve mümkünse acisini paylasacagimiz bir katliam.

Ermenilerin, atalarinin yasadigi dramlari bile neredeyse bir kenara birakarak "soykirim oldugunu kabul edin" diye tutturmalarindan, Türklerin de yüz binlerce insanin ölümünü kabul ederken bile "hayir, asla soykirim degildi" diye diretmesinden bu "soykirim" sözcügünün lanetli bir önemi oldugunu seziyorum.

Ama gene de, bu sözcük politikada ve diplomaside nasil bir önem tasirsa tasisin benim için büyük bir önem tasimiyor.

Masum insanlarin vahsice öldürülmüs oldugu gerçegi, bu gerçegin adindan daha önemli benim için.

Bu büyük dramin günümüze düsen gölgesine baktigimda ise Ermenilere yapilan bir baska büyük haksizligi görüyorum.

Yakinlarini zalimce cinayetlere kurban vermis olanlarin bugün bu aci için yas tutmalarina izin vermemek bizim suçumuz.

Bugün Türkiye'de hangi Ermeni öldürülen büyükannesi, dedesi, amcasi için açikça yas tutabilir?

Ittihatçilarin isledigi korkunç günahla bir ortakligim yok ama yas tutmalarina bile izin verilmemesinin günahi bugün hepimize ait.

Bu günahi islemek istiyor musunuz gerçekten?

Aranizda bir geceyarisi evi basilan bir ailenin öldürülmesine, annesini kaybeden küçük bir çocugun tehcir denilen o mahserde yapayalniz kalmasina, ak sakalli bir Ermeni dedesinin vurulmasina göz yasi dökmeyecek kimse var mi?

Adina ister soykirim deyin ister demeyin, yüz binlerce insan öldürüldü.

Yüz binlerce hayat söndü.

Ermeni çetelerin de Türkleri öldürmüs olmasi Ermenilerin öldürülmüs oldugu gerçegini gözlerden saklayacak bir mazeret olmamali bence.

Insan vicdani öldürülen herkes için, Ermeniler için, Türkler için, Kürtler için yas tutabilir.

Bana sorarsaniz tutmalidir da.

Bebekler öldü, kadinlar, yaslilar öldü.

Aci çekerek, aglayarak, dehsete düserek öldüler.

Öldürülenlerin irklari ve dinleri gerçekten o kadar önemli mi sizin için?

O korkunç zamanlarda bile Ermeni çocuklarini kurtarmaya çalisan, bunun için kendi hayatini tehlikeye atan Türkler vardi.

Biz, öldürenlerin çocuklari oldugumuz kadar kurtarmaya çalisanlarin da çocuklariyiz.

Öldürenlerin vahsetine sahip çikmak yerine kurtaranlarin merhametine, dürüstlügüne, cesaretine neden sahip çikmayalim?

Bugün kurtarilacak kurbanlar yok ama kurtarilacak, sahip çikilacak, desteklenecek bir yas var.

Agir bir yasin çevresinde kanli bir totem dansina dalmanin nasil bir yarari olacagini düsünüyorsunuz?

Rakamlari unutun, Ermenileri unutun, Türkleri unutun, boyunlari kirilan, karinlari desilen, vücutlari parçalanan bebekleri, gençleri, kadinlari yaslilari düsünün yalnizca.

Bütün o insanlari tek tek düsünün.

Içinizde en küçük bir kipirti bile olmuyorsa, annesi öldürülürken aglayan bir bebegi düsündügünüzde gözünüzde bir dirhem gözyasi belirmiyorsa, size söylenecek bir sözüm yok.

O zaman benim adimi "hainlerin" arasina yazin.

Çünkü ben öldürülen onca insanin yasini Ermenilerle birlikte tutmaya hazirim.

Bütün bu acimasiz ve anlamsiz tartismalarin ortasinda hala kurtarilacak bir sey olduguna ve ona da "insanlik" dendigine inaniyorum çünkü.

9 Mayis 2005, Pazartesi

Of course turkish denials don't have place here cause if you add the pictures of dead turks, this will harm your thesis. Why don't you put this pictures? Do you want proof? Everybody knows that dashnak and hunchak organisations were supported by russians. Do you know how many weapons were found in Anatolia? Tell me what did armenians do with weapons, did they hunt birds? Did thousands of turks suicide? Do you know that mass graves have been found in East Anatolia where armenians killed thousands? I don't mean that the massacres commited by turks were normal but massacres commited by armenians weren't good too. Children, women who died there because of armenian terrorist attacks deserve to be remembered like armenians. 3.1 million people died there, you are only talking about armenians what about others? kurds, turks?

Anonymous poster - first of all your 3.1 million claim is patently absurd. Halil Berktay believes that the number of Turks whose deaths can be attributed to Armenians (in ther period of 1915-1920 give or take) is likely no more then 10,000. Sure still significant - but most of this was after 1916. Again it is absurd to claim or think that Armenians had any capability to do such even if they wished. Secondly after the ascendency of the CUP in 1908 the Armenian revolutionary groups (who were quite small in number at this time anyway) largely took a wait and see approach and advocated (and expected) constitutional reform. Third, after the international outcry began to mount concerning Armenian deaths even with intense effort to prevent such word getting out - Talat Pasha issued a call to regional govenors and CUP operatives to dig up information to inciminate Armenians. Almost all of this was faked or minsreported information - even the pictures of so called Turks and very particualry pictures of weapons. There are notable examples of supposed Armenian weapon stockpiles that consist of Ottoman army weapons - and this fact is confirmed by Refael de Nogales in his book Four Years Beneath the Crescent ...and speaking of that book I would say it is a must read on this subject - quite damning - and produced by an on the spot insider who reports his eyewitness testimony as well as revelations of incredible candor from CUP and other Ottoman government officials. So in the end your counter-claims just don't add up. On the other hand the known and observed and documented facts of the Armenian Genocide are just that. Your call to show pictres of dead Turks allegedly killed by Armenians as some sort of counter to the crimes of the Armenian Genocide planned and executed with premeditation and intent of extermonation of the entire Armenian people are the equivilent of some Neo-Nazis showing pictures of dead Germans killed by Jews of Lodz or Warsaw and shouting out - see those murderous Jews - they were killing Germans and for that their entire race had to be exterminated! --THOTH 06:56, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

BTW - for comparisons sake Nogales documents how Djevded bey killed 50,000 Armenians in a fortnight in Mush (p 117) and he documents how Enver's brother KHalil had 15,000 Armenians from Bitlis killed in a single day (p 115). (I should note that Khalil in his memoirs claims to have been personally responsible for the deaths of 300,000 Armenians...he is quite proud of this in fact...) Nogalas describes some of the horrid manner of their deaths in great detail. He specifically cites that he witnessed the following: "After the massacres of Djarbekir, the tide of carnage and persecution rolled over the provinces of Adana and Northern Syria (Zeitun, Urfa, Marrash, etc) which were at the time crowded with deportees from Central and Northern Anatolia.....The provinces of Van, Bitlis, Djarbekir...were the only ones which suffered massacres in the true sense of the word. In the remaining vilayets of the Empire persecution took the form of deportations, which effected almost the same results as the massacres." He then discusses mortality rates (and non-benign causes for such) at from 75-95%! (p 117). The he follows by very clearly acknowledging: "there can be no doubt that the massacres and deportations took place in accordance with a laid-out plan for which the responsibility lay with the retrograde party, headed by the Grand Vizier Talat Pasha and the civil authorities under his orders. They aimed to make an end first of the Armenians, then of the greeks and other Christians, Ottoman subjects, in the Empire. We glean ample verification for this from the masacres of Sairt, Djesiret, and the surrounding districts, during which perished no less then two hundred thousand Nestorian Christians, Syrio-Catholics, Jacobites, etc, who had no connection whatever with the Armenians, and who had always been the Sultan's loyal subjects." (p 118) Nogales speaks very specifically about observing various Ottoman goveners and/or their direct agents leading band of irregulars tot he slaughter and of witnessing the crimes in action and the results. In each case they tell Nogales that they are doing such on orders of the central authorities. Additionally Nogales documents (in great detail) the manner in which all of these officials as well as the CUP heirarchy personally enriched themselves from the stolen wealth of the Armenians. After describing how he expends all his personal funds to feed the starving in Aleppo that he can manage Nogales describes a written order from Talat: "Officially we are forbidden to give the deportees any ration without a written order signed by the civil authorities of the province from which they came, along with other idiocies invented by Talat Pasha in order to kill the poor devils with starvation." (p 147). By the way - anonymose poster - you do acknowledge that there has been commited a Genocide upon the Armenian people in 1915-1916 - yes? --THOTH 07:33, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hundreds of historians, scholars, Holocaust and genocide experts and statesmen have confirmed that the Armenian massacres were a typical case of genocide.

Jurist Raphael Lemkin, who drafted the UN Convention on Genocide and coined the term "Genocide" in 1948, on many occasions cited the attempt to annihilate the Armenians as a clear case of genocide as defined by the UN Convention on Genocide. In his autobiography, Prof. Lemkin wrote:

"I identified myself more and more with the suffering of the victim, whose numbers grew, as I continued my study of history. I understand that the function of memory is not only to register past events, but to stimulate human conscience. Soon contemporary examples of genocide followed, such as the slaughter of the Armenians in 1915."

Elsewhere in the book he writes:

"...A bold plan was formulated in my mind. This consisted [of] obtaining the ratification by Turkey [of the proposed UN Convention on Genocide. Ed] among the first twenty founding nations. This would be an atonement for [the] genocide of the Armenians.'

Numerous non-Armenian and non-partisan historians have verified the reality of the Armenian Genocide. The International Association of Genocide Scholars, an eminent body of scholars who study genocide, during its 1997 convention, adopted a resolution unanimously reaffirming that:

"The mass murder of over a million Armenians in Turkey in 1915 is a case of genocide which conforms to the statutes of the United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide. It further condemns the denial of the Armenian Genocide by the Turkish government and its official and unofficial agents and supporters."

On April 23, 1999, more than 150 distinguished scholars and writers (among them Nobel Laureates Seamus Heaney, Wole Soyinka, Derek Walcott, in addition to Deborah E. Lipstadt, Norman Mailer, Helen Fine, Robert Melson, Arthur Miller, Joyce Carol Oates, Harold Pinter, Roger Smith, Daniel Goldhagen, Susan Sontag, William Styron, John Updike, Kurt Vonnegut, Cornel West, Henry Louis Gates, Alfred Kazin, Grace Paley, D.M Thomas,) published a declaration in the Washington Post stating:

"We denounce as morally and intellectually corrupt the Turkish Government's denial of the Armenian Genocide." They went on to recommend to governments around the world to "refer to the 1915 annihilation of the Armenians as Genocide."

On June 9, 2000, 126 Holocaust scholars (among them Nobel Laureate Elie Wiesel, Prof. Yehuda Bauer, Prof. Israel Charney, Prof. Irving L. Horwitz, Prof. Steven Jacobs, Prof. Steven Katz, Dr. Elizabeth Maxwell, Prof. Saul Mendlowitz, Prof. Jack Needle, Prof. Samuel Totten) published a statement in The New York Times:

"...affirming that the World War I Armenian Genocide is an incontestable historical fact and accordingly urge the governments of Western democracies to likewise recognize it as such."

--THOTH 08:43, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Should the article include a composite list of notable public figures who have called on Turkey to recognize the Armenian Genocide? -- James 7/29/2005

Regarding the Talat Pashas notebook entry and other media entries etc

Including Talat Pashas notebook - obvioulsy something that was produced for political purposes - if even by himself - is spurious information. Its also way too long IMO even if it is to be included. It strikes me the same as including Hitler's account of the nice treatment of Jews during the war as part of the Holocaust entry - just as valid IMO.

Also many the media entries and the so called Independent Studies section are off topic or just trivial - specifically those entries under independent studies do not relate to the genocide in any direct way whatsover and I am giving notice that I will be removing them shortly unless there is consensus not too.

I also find the repetition of the discredited Turkish Government official denial postions as contained in the Fein and Sonyal articles in particualr to be distasteful and insulting. In denying the Armenian Genocide - an event that has been factualy proven over and over again in academic circles and by definition - by Lemkin's specific definition - I am insulted and deeply grieved. Again - denial of the holocaust is a crime in some places - and it certainly is never something that anyone would just do in front of a Jew or in front of any thinking and feeling person. For Turks to continue to deny this Genocide and continue to argue and press these secondary points as some kind of rational or justification for what was done is in my opinion highly hurtful, insulting and inconsiderate and it must stop. We need to get on with proper discussion of the issue already and it can never be done in this environment where no matter how many very clear and unassailable proofs and verifications are put forth various Turks and the Turkish government believes it can continue to deny this historical event and insult Armenians to their face. --THOTH 07:58, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I will cut this short, I will be probably having some time soon to answer all the answers I own here. I just want to make a point. I do believe that many entries in the timeline have no place here, but Talaat notebook is not one of them. It is not everyday that we get lists comming from Talaat notebooks. There is a mistake though in the insinuation from it that that it indciate 1.5 million, the correction applied and the cities listed, when including the entire Ottoman Empire, would indicate about 1.7 million according to this notebook. As for Fein and Sonyal articles, they are articles, and we can do nothing about them, they exist, so be it. Fein is a lawyer, and will defend his clients(ATAA in this cases), I do believe that his association with ATAA as his client should be indicated, for public information, but pass that, we can not delete media publications. Fadix 02:53, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

OK then perhaps I shall post a link to each and every article on the Genocide I come accross....is rthere no such thing as degrrees of relevancy and utility? And I also object to the posting of racist type allegations that blame the victims for their own Genocide. This would not be tolerated on any Holocaust presentation.

Turkish charges of Armenian insurection and violence towards Turks - prior to WWI

Many Turks today repeat the charges made by the CUP subsequent to their decision to massacre and deport Armenians from Anatolia that Armenians were in open rebellion, were assisting Russians and that gangs of Armenians were going around murdering innocent Turks. I contend that the evidence does not support these contentions - and certainly not for for the period from the CUP revolution in 1908 up through the beginnings of (Turkish entry into) WWI. Certainly there was a great deal of sympathy with the allies among many Armenians - but this can be considered reasonable considering the massacres of the recent past (1890s) and considering that the CUP had unleashed the Special Organization gangs of irregulars upon Armenians of the eastern provinces (as well as even earlier against Greeks and Armenians of the Aegean regions). All this is well documented. Concerning the performance of Armenian troops there are mixed accounts - well certianly there were desertions - as there were with Turks, Kurds and Arabs at alarmingly huge rates (in some cases Ottoman reports indicate desertion rates of up to 50% [for Muslim forces] before some battles and there are numerous reports of entire Kurdish regiments quiting battles for various reasons. So Armenian desertions were nothing out of the ordinary. Did some join the Russian side - undoubtably yes - again considering the situation this should not be surprising (just as Muslims from the Caucuses joined the Ottoman forces and in fact were actively recruited by the Special Organization to do so). However I have seen corroborated reports from German and Armenian sources that after Sarikamish Enver actually praised the valor and loyalty of Armenian troops - a group of whom is reported to have saved his life. Anyway I want to post some revealing exerpts from German Ambassador Von Wangenheim's April 15 1915 report back to Germany:

German archives # DE/PA-AA/R14085

"Pera, 15 April 1915 From the news from East Anatolia it is obvious that the relations between the Turkish Muslim population and the Armenians, which were already tense beforehand, have worsened even more in the course of the past few months. The mutual mistrust is growing and dominating the people and official circles, both in the interior as well as in the capital.

The complaints about the alleged and actual persecution which the Armenians are suffering as a result of the war are increasing in number and volume; on the other hand, they are being accused of sympathising with the Empire's enemies...

Each side is revoking the accusations of the other party as unfounded, or the blame for such events is being put on the others. There only seems to be agreement on one point: that the Armenians have given up their ideas of a revolution since the introduction of the Constitution and that there is no organisation for such a revolt.

Without doubt, excesses and acts of terror have taken place against the Armenians in eastern Anatolia and, in general, the events have probably been related correctly by the Armenian side, even if they were somewhat exaggerated.

For the events in these areas, the following are being made responsible by the Armenian side:

1. The irregulars and bands of marauders organised in military fashion and bearing the title Militia; these are being blamed for numerous plunders, murders, for robbery and other acts committed against the Armenian population of the country.

2. The clubs affiliated with the Comité Union et Progrès, in which many dishonest elements are said to be present. It is said that these clubs, in particular the one in Erzerum, have set up formal proscription lists, and a series of political murders which were committed on various respected Armenians since December of last year are attributed to their activities. It is added that the Ministry of the Interior is said to have been warned some time ago by the Armenians about the activities of these clubs which have already played a disastrous role during the events at Adana in 1909.

3. Various civil servants, in particular the governor of Musch (Vilayet Bitlis) and the Vali of Van. It is stated amongst other things that some 2000 Muslim families from the Russian occupied district of Alaschgerd, who are hardly in a position to pay for their own keep, have been accommodated in the Armenian villages of Musch; the Armenian farmers were being used like draft animals to transport ammunition and provisions and many of them died from this inhumane treatment; the least of them, it is said hardly a quarter, returned to their villages. 'In two districts of Van formal butcheries took place under the connivance of the Kaymakams'.

it is emphasised that the Armenians – a fact which, one might note, is contested by the Turks - despite all the suffering they have been subjected to, are behaving loyally and correctly, but at least passively. However, under a continued, systematic persecution it can be feared that this peaceful attitude may take a turn to the contrary; the parties loyal to the government, such as the Daschnakzutiun, would no longer be able to hold back the masses and there would be a danger that, if the Russians advanced, not only the Armenians in the invaded area would go over to the side of the enemy, but also possible insurrections would be aroused behind the backs of the Turkish Army.

The appeal to the nobile officium of the German representation in Turkey is understandable following the development of the Armenian question, but especially now when, as a result of the war, the Triple Entente is eliminated as protectors. But an attempt at complying with this appeal and taking on the role that England after the Berlin Congress, and most recently Russia, have played as protector of the Armenians, would be regarded by the Porte as an unjustified and annoying intervention in their internal political affairs. The moment is even less suitable since the Porte has just made the effort to eliminate the protective rights, which other foreign powers have exercised over Turkish subjects. The Porte must also have respect for the national awareness of the Turkish elements, which has drastically increased over the past few years.

As far as the considerations otherwise presented by the Armenian side are concerned, they deserve serious attention.

...the present atmosphere in government circles...is most unfavourable for the Armenians...

I also believe that the increase in the number of German consulates in the so-called Armenian provinces, initiated in this connection, would not fulfil its purpose. It is probable that the Porte would see in this the attempt on our part to have their own authorities supervised...a procedure of this kind would have the consequence of setting the authorities against the Armenians even worse than ever and, therefore, of achieving results of just the opposite kind."

So from the above one can see that violent actions are already occuring against the Armenians (as we know by centrally directed Special Organization irregular units as part of a grand plan) with no mention of the reverse (Armenians are amazingly docile and quite considering - with individuals fleeing and deserting to the other side only) - which surely would have been mentioned by Turkey's ally it would seem. Also there is concern that the Turkish population and leadership is increasingly anti-Armenian and prone to take violent anti-Armenian action - because of the perception of foreign Armenians fighting with the Russians and the potential that Ottoman Armenians would show sympathy to the Russians if Russia were to acheive victory. And as an added note I will say that we do later see this in addition to Armenian, Cossak and Russian units commiting atrocites against Muslim civilians in areas that come under there control - however - prior to the decision of deportation and genocide and prior to the CUP organizing the special organization to sen dout irregulars (released from jails, and from the Muslim refugee and Kurdish populations) - we see no appreciable Armenian violence against Turks and certainly no armed rebellion of any kind. --THOTH 20:49, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Gerçekler - Facts

Bir soykırım hitlerin yaptığı gibi nedensizce öldürme eylemidir. Aynı gendenden gelen insanların öldürülmesidir. Oysa dönemin Türkleri bağımsızlık mücadelesi veren bir ülkenin doğmamış bebeklerinin Ermeniler tarafından öldürülmesi sapıkça katledilmesi üzerine tehcir kararı almıştır. Öte yandan savaştan dönen kahraman asker bebesinin anasının öldüğünü görünce çılgına dönmüştür. Bu durumda Ermenilerin öldürdüğü Türk masumarın evlatları yüzyıllarca beraber yaşadıkları bağırlarına bastıkları Ermeniler tarafından namussuzca ihanete uğramıştır. Söz konusu bir soykırım varsa o da Ermenilerin Türklere yaptıkları soykırım düşüncesidir. Ama ne yazıkki burda asıl suçlu Ermenileri bir maşa gibi kullanan Ruslar ve buna destek veren merhametten vicdandan uzak bazı batılılardır. Dünyada Türklerin istemediği hiçbir ulus yaşayamaz! Türkler barış içinde bir ulus olmanın verdiği ahlakla yaşarlar. Bu suçlamayı yapmaya kimsenin gücü yetmez! Ne mutlu Türküm diyene!

Dear Anonymous user, sorry for my impudence, but let me ask you for favour to translate this text into English, because of I am not able to understand texts written in Turkish language. --Gvorl 01:05, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

let me clarify: "a genocide is a mass killing without a reason, like hitler did. It is against people with the same genes. What turks did was to protect their country, for freedom. Turks gone mad after they have seen their families killed by armenians when they returned to their homeland after war. We call it "war" when both side have great casualities. Both armenians and turks have died. Also turks not directly killed armenians. As they became harmful to the Turks as they killed a lot of Turkish, they were sent to the east. The guilty is Russia for provoking armenians against Turks."

WHY THE ARMENIAN GOVERNMENT IS NOT DISCLOSING THEIR ARCHIVES ?

I want to ask why the Armenian government is not disclosing their archives in spite of the Turkish government disclosed the archives? I want to ask how can you ignore the massacre activities by Armenians against Non-Armenians in the Eastern Anatolia Sector in 1915? How can you say that the photographs in the page which was named "Armenian Genocide" are real, how can you prove that these photographs are really belonging to the armenians? How can you ignore the anthropological searches in the mass graves which were belong to Turks that overrules the "Armenian Thesis" ( Note: Turkish Government admitted the international observers) aozan 22:36, June 12 , 2005

Armenian Archives have always been open (and unrestricted - contrary to Turkish Archives) and there even has been at least one Turkish researcher working in them (recently reported in the press - his account of such and it being unrestricted to him). This - like your issue with photographs and supposed mass graves of Turks are nothing new but smokescreens. Photos are documented BTW - and were mostly all taken by Germans and brought out of Ottoman territories even under extreme censorship rules. And "mass graves" of Turks - OK - but prove who killed them. Did you know that the CUPs Special Organization was implicated in mass slaughters of Turkish villagers in 1915? Oh yes - the head of the Ottoman 3rd Army even cout marshalled Sakir in abstensia (one of at least two times such was done with him) and the Ottoman 3rd Army commander sent reports to Istanbul concerning the out of control atrocities being commited by the SO - even against muslims. He further asked that the SO be disbanded entirely for such. But what did the CUP do - they just transfered the SO out from under army control and instead directed them directly from the Interior Ministry. And even if there were instances of Turks killed by Armenians - and there were - when did these killings occur? Under shose orders? How many were actually killed in total (nad again when and by whom)? etc - these suposed counter-charges prove nothing as they fail to address the fact that orders from the CUP to exterminate (liquidate) Armenians are fact - the total cleansing and slaughter of Armenians under Ottoman Government direction are fact and the Armenian Genocide is fact. Prove to me that these things of which I speak did not occur...--THOTH 16:15, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sorry Mr THOTH but your allegations are unfounded and not supported by neutral sources. My answer is in the bottom of the page please read it.

Sorry, but what kind archives you both are discussing about? As far as I know, there were no such thing as Armenian government, Armenian state or anything similar on period of Armenian genocide. So, any talks about open or closed Armenian Archives where secret information is stored seems to me bit nonsense. --Gvorl 14:35, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Here some page names about so-called Armenian genocide

[22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] - aozan 22:43, June 12 , 2005

Here are some page names that prove that Hitler and Elvis are alive and well and living on the moon...on second thought I think I'll stick to facts and real evidence and I suggest that you do the same...--THOTH 16:16, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hello Mr THOTH, First, the Armenian Government did not disclosed their archives, I don't know how can you say that thing! But if you prove that the Armenian Government disclosed their archives (For example you can put here a document from a respectible news agent's archive that says when the Armenians Disclosed their archives, until you do that this means that you are not saying the truth) then I can accept your allegation. Second, you can not say that the Non-Armenian people were killed by Non-Armenians, there is no authority that supprots that idea, because the Armenian and Western authorities are saying that only the armenians were killed. I know the CUP and "Teşkilat-ı Mahsusa" , (In Turkish : Ittihad ve Terakki Cemiyeti) and I am not their supporter because of their nationalism , but they were not look like the Nazi Party in Germany, they were only nationalist and Pan-Turkist , furthermore you can not show any evidence from a respectible source , so your allegations are unfounded until you show references from respectible sources. Please look to the pages that I showed above . These allegations are imperialist propaganda , don't be a toy in the imperialists' hand. Finally I am inviting you to talk about this case friendly and objectively if you want. Have a nice day :) - aozan 13:38 14 June 2005

Aozan - you are parroting the offical Turkish line and perspective that blames everything on Imperialist ambition and refuses to examine the actual mechanisms of Turkish hyper-nationalism and the pre-planned racist campaign against the Armenians. I strongly suggest you read Taner Akcam - From Empire to Republic - Turkish Nationalism and the Armenian Genocide. And BTW - the sources (note: multiple) I use are corroborated and based on primary documentation and educated, accurate and thorough analysis. Please don't rely on pseusdo-scientific propoganda presentations when you investigate historical events. --THOTH 14:41, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Turkish Scholar Uses Armenian Archives For Ottoman History Research

E/RL May 11, 2005

By Gayane Danielian

Yeftan Turkyilmaz is the first and so far the only Turkish scholar given access to Armenia's state archives and he believes the reason for that is more simple than one might think.

`There are no people in Turkey who can work with these archives,' the young doctoral candidate explains in perfect Armenian. `I just don't know of any other Turkish scholar who speaks Armenian. That is the main obstacle.'

Turkyilmaz, who was taught the language by an Armenian teacher in Istanbul, pursues a Ph. D. in history at the University of North Carolina. His doctoral thesis will focus on the creation and activities of Turkish, Kurdish and Armenian nationalist parties during the final decades of the Ottoman Empire. He began looking for relevant documents kept at the Armenian National Archive on May 2 and says he has had no trouble accessing and photocopying them.

`Interestingly, people in Turkey believe that Armenia's archives are closed, especially for Turkish citizens,' says Turkyilmaz. `That is not true. Here I am easily working with them.'

Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan is certainly one of those people. As part of his government's efforts to counter international pressure for Turkish recognition of the 1915 mass killings and deportations of Ottoman Armenians as genocide, Erdogan has repeatedly stated in recent weeks that Ankara has declassified its Ottoman-era archives and urged Yerevan to follow suit.

Armenia, however, maintains that its archives have always been open to Turkish and other foreign researchers. `Many foreign scholars have used them to date and none of them was Turkish,' an Armenian Foreign Ministry spokesman said just days before Turkyilmaz arrived in Yerevan.

The Armenian archive director, Amatuni Virabian, reiterated in an RFE/RL interview this week that any Turkish scholar can have unfettered access to its approximately 12,000 genocide-related documents. Most of them contain information on tens of thousands of genocide survivors that found refuge in Armenia between 1915 and 1918.

Turkyilmaz says that as far he is concerned, Virabian and other Armenian archive officials have been true to their words. `They have helped me a lot and I have no problems interacting with them,' he tells RFE/RL.

Armenian historians, for their part, remain skeptical about Turkey's regular pledges to open its Ottoman-era archives. They also suggest that the Turkish archives have long been purged of any incriminating evidence.

`Sadly, young people in Turkey know nothing about the subject,' Turkyilmaz says. `All they know is nationalist things written in school textbooks. And because they lack that knowledge, they believe that the Armenians plot bad things against their country.'

Will Turkey recognize the Armenian genocide in the near future? `No, it won't,' says the Turkish scholar. `But maybe future generations will address the subject in a more reasonable and calm manner.'--THOTH 17:08, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

TURKISH GOVERNMENT DID NOT CANCELLED THE CONGREGATION ABOUT ARMENIAN GENOCIDE

How can you say that "Armenian Genocide Congress in Istanbul was cancelled by Turkish government" what is the source of this information, can you show it in here is this a neutral source ? I think you can not show because the Turkish Government did not officially cancelled it ,there were no actions by police or another governmental association against the so called-Armenian Genocide Congress. Is there any evidence that shows that there is an offical charge by any governmental association in Turkey ? Please show it in here. I am waiting.

This has already been presented in great detail - see above. --THOTH 14:36, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Let's create a 'Turkish-Turkish Reconciliation Committee'

Yerkir/arm 10 June 05

Some time ago an attempt was made to settle the problems between two states and nations through creation of a Turkish-Armenian Reconciliation Committee. The attempt failed. There were many reasons for its failure and a lot has been written on this issue.

The recent developments show that one of the reasons is that the Turks have many problems with themselves while neither the Turkish state nor the society has any clue of how to solve those problems. The banning of the conference on the Armenian Genocide, criminal punishment envisaged in Turkey's new criminal code for recognition of the Genocide and the division of the Turkish society whenever the Turkish intellectuals and NGO's make controversial statements on the Armenian Genocide - these facts come to prove the above-mentioned point. One gets an impression that the Turkish society urgently needs a reconciliation process within itself.

Therefore, we can suggest to the Turkish political and social leadership as well as the interested international organizations to create a "Turkish-Turkish reconciliation committee". The famous expert David Phillips could be appointed the coordinator of the committee.

An authoritative research institute could be involved to support the initiative with expertise and consulting. It would be very interesting to read Mr. Phillips's book telling about the results of the committee's activities.

We think the activities of the Turkish-Turkish reconciliation committee will contribute to the establishment of regional stability, mutual understanding and good neighborly relations between the two states. We are ready to support this historical dialog and be the information sponsor of this initiative. --THOTH 18:06, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No need for further evidence

Editorial

Yerkir/arm 10 June 05

The Middle East Studies Union, a research organization, has recently addressed a letter to the Turkish Prime-Minister Erdogan voicing its protest against postponing the conference on the Armenian Question that was planned to be held at Bosporus University of Istanbul.

The letter was signed by 2600 academics who voiced their concern with the Turkish government's position against discussion of the Armenian Genocide. The letter noted that the banning of the conference violates the rights of the Turkish academics that were supposed to participate in the conference. The letter further stated that the conference was organized in accordance with the Turkish laws.

The American academics severely criticized the Turkish Justice Minister Jemil Cicek for accusing the conference organizers of treason. Noting that Turkey is a member of the Council of Europe and has signed the European Convention on Human Rights, they called for Erdogan to undertake measures to hold the conference on the Armenian Genocide as soon as possible.

The American academics appealed to Erdogan not to enact article 305 of Turkey's new criminal code that limits academic liberties. How can the highly distinguished academics hope that Turkey will eliminate the criminal code article that limits the academic liberties? In Turkey, not only the academics but also anyone who dares to express any opinions on the Armenian Genocide that would diverge from Turkey's official position will immediately be arrested.

The European political leaders that were expressing their admiration and encouragement after the Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan's letter addressed to the Armenian President Kocharian should think about this incident.

They were calling for Armenia to respond constructively to Turkey's call for dialog. Meanwhile, the discussions of the Armenian President's reply resulted in adoption of the well-known article in the Turkish criminal code. Turkey's response was not addressed only to Armenia; it was addressed to all those, including some Armenians, who believed Turkey could become a part of the European civilization, those who believed that Turkey's membership in the EU is in Armenia's interests since Armenia in this way would border the EU.

By adopting this law, Turkey once again reminded everyone, including the Armenians, what kind of a state it is. It reminded us what kind of a state we are bordering and hinted us at the main principles that should underlie our political position. The Turks themselves proved the veracity of arguments that were raised in our press for months. Now both the foreigners and some of our fellow-Armenians should accept this evidence and learn a lesson from it. --THOTH 18:10, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Chronicle of Higher Education June 10, 2005, Friday

Conference in Turkey on Armenian Question Is Canceled Under Government Pressure

--THOTH 18:14, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please read it to the bitter end

BERNARD LEWIS CONDEMNED FOR HAVING DENIED THE REALITY OF THE ARMENIAN GENOCIDE! Mr THOTH please read it to the bitter end: In Turkey you can't see a sentenced or condemned person because of defending Armenian Genocide , but as you see in the Western Countries (I think that you are living in a Western Country also) , there is a governmental pressure on the historians and scientists. How can a scientist can be neutral and objective in this condition. How can you say to me that "You are parroting the common decision in Turkey" while you are doing the same thing in your country. On the other hand the sources that you showed are "Armenian Sources" (And excuse me but what is the meaning of BTW, how can you say that this is a respectible and neutral source). Also Yeftan Turkyilmaz is probably an armenian, because "Yeftan" is not a TURKISH NAME! But I will read the book that you said, but writing a book about "Armenian Genocide" doesn't make an author an authority. But I am not a nationalist as you thought, I hate from Recep Tayyip Erdogan , I am not a conservative also, I believe in Socialism, I am against your decision because I am irritated by this crime against Non-Armenians committed by Armenians, also the crimes that Turks did to the Armenians, if you were here, near me I could show you a book printed in Turkey, written by a man that describes himself as a Marxist , that only contains photographs about brutality in the Eastern Anatolia, it contains both Armenian and Turkish victims. In my opinion the Turks and Armenians were killed each other. I don't think that there is a systematical ethnic annihilation by Ottoman Government. Also I have Kurdish friends in the university, some of them came from Igdır , Kars and Malatya. One of them is Tacim Polat (He was born in Elbistan, Malatya),he told me that his grand mother was told him that the Armenians were killed her pregnant mother in these facts . HOW CAN YOU IGNORE THESE PEOPLE ? My grand mother was born in Mardin, do you know what happened in there , in 1915 ? You think that you know the real but how can you make judgments without restraint while you are not living in here! I am living in the lands where these facts has happened. Your relatives weren't die in these facts I see . I am sorry my friend but I can't accept your decisions. Furthermore I am not your enemy, also not an enemy to Armenians too. But these arguments make the people in Turkey enemy to each other. If the United Nations take a decision that "There was a genocide against Armenians by Ottoman Turkish Government" , I can't say you anything more but there is not an adopt like this. So your allegations are unfounded and not suitable for international law YET. Have Nice Day My Friend , Mr THOTH - aozan 21:24 14 June 2005

Aozan - Your entirely incorrect to claim that "I don't think that there is a systematical ethnic annihilation by Ottoman Government." There is such overwhelming and ample proof of this fact that it is indeed beyond contention. Much as Lewis was prosecuted in France for denying the Armenian Genocide other "so-called" scholars who have denied the Holocaust have been prosecuted elsewhere. These events are facts and denial is perpetuation. As far as I'm concerned - considering the evidence at hand Lewis - who has been seen to dileberatly distort and omit facts should be exposed even further then he has been. I won't discount that some Armenians have commited acts against innocent Turks in various times and places - but these largely isolated instances (particularly in the period prior to 1916 since the intital CUP revolution of 1908 cannot be seen as any rebellion or revolution and in fact arguably more violence was commited against Turks by Kurdish bands during this period then by any Armenians. The Armenian Genocide is entirely well proven as my presentation here will soon demonstrate. In fact the UN has ruled not once but I think 3 times concerning the veracity of the Armenian Genocide. It amazes me that so many Turks seem completely unaware of facts in this regard and cannot seem to comprehend that there is more then sufficient documentation that proves the charge of Genocide and that the countercharge of (any comnparable) Armenian atrocities against Turks is no more then a smokescreen. Please do try to read some balanced scholarly analysis and not just (discredited and rightfuly not believed) Turkish propoganda. --THOTH 18:38, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The article listed his first name as Yeftan - however I see he actually goes by Yektan - so perhaps it was a typo or such. See the following (turns out he is an ARIT (American Research Institute in Turkey) grant reciever - listed about 1/4 the way down - http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/ARIT/ARITFellows.htm

and here is is listed as a graduate member of the Duke Univesity Turkish Students Association..

http://www.duke.edu/web/tsa/members.html

etc - so I would think prety much that he is likely Turkish...--THOTH 18:56, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

So that I can not accept your decision, because you are in the same conditions like mine's. I am saying again there is no proof about this fact, your references are not enough , so-called Armenian Genocide is the propaganda of the imperialists, USA is an imperialist state , EU is an imperialist organisation (but Ottoman Empire is an imperialist state too, I accept this but this does not mean that Armenian Genocide is real) and it is not official and not suitable for international law until the United Nations Organization accepts it (This will never happen , because it is not real). Good Bye - aozan

Armenian Atrocities and Terrorism

The experience of the Turks and Armenians during World War I and its aftermath has been widely distorted. Armenians in diaspora around the world have aggressively promoted their claims that the Turks of the Ottoman Empire perpetrated a systematic annihilation campaign against the Armenians of eastern Anatolia. This distortion of history has been so widely and incessantly dispersed by the Armenians that, year after year, resolutions are considered in the U.S. Congress and throughout Canada and Europe promoting Armenian claims. There are many reasons why we feel that we must defend our ancestors as well as future generations against these attacks. For the objective observer, it will undoubtedly be difficult to understand the passions that run so deeply on both sides of this issue. While it is difficult to summarize the feelings of an entire people on a few pages, there are some common sentiments which must be briefly touched upon: First, while it is not disputed that the whole population in eastern Anatolia suffered losses during this period, the enormous loss of life among the Muslim people often goes ignored or is even flatly denied. Secondly, Turks have been falsely accused of the most heinous of crimes: genocide. This is certainly not a charge which should be accepted at face value by scholars, the U.S. Congress, or the general public. Thirdly, by continuing to present inaccurate depictions of history and Turks, unfounded ethnic hatred is perpetuated. This was clearly manifested in the 1970's and 1980's when Armenian terrorists waged a campaign to advance their goals, targeting Turks and killing many innocent people in the United States, Canada, Europe, and Australia. The truth of the matter is that Turks and Armenians lived together for centuries. Armenians lived comfortably in areas of the Empire removed from the intercommunal fighting, and they continued to serve in high-level offices of the Ottoman government. These realities clearly defy the concept of an annihilation campaign, which would have put the entire Armenian population at risk. Today, an Armenian minority continues to live and thrive in Turkey, enjoying the full rights of Turkish citizenship. However, the subject at hand discusses a time of war, and it is not our intent to minimize the suffering of any side of the conflict. It is our hope that this volume will shed light on an often overlooked aspect of history. Only after the full truth is accepted can we redeem our people, adequately commemorate the period, and honor those who suffered unspeakable hardships and lost their lives.

The recollections of Armenians who lived through the ethnic warfare and conflict that raged through eastern Anatolia and the Caucasus from 1915 to 1921 have been frequently used by Armenian writers and propagandists to illustrate that a "genocide" was perpetrated against the Armenians by the Turks. The heartbreaking stories of Armenian "survivors" are often presented as part of the proof that the Ottoman authorities engaged in a systematic destruction of the Empire's Armenian citizenry. These stories have also become a major and potent source for indoctrinating younger generations of Armenians in this country into believing that a horrible crime was committed against their ancestors and that they should forever hate and despise the Turks and seek revenge against them for the events that took place more than 80 years ago. These themes and messages are repeated in countless books, essays, novels, poems, and plays that focus on the experiences and recollections of those Armenians who survived the ravages of war and famine that took place in eastern Anatolia and the Caucasus during and immediately after World War I. Reading the standard Armenian interpretations of the events surrounding World War I, or those written by the supporters of the Armenian views, one would have no idea that more than a million Muslims, the majority of them Turks, also lost their lives in intercommunal fighting, and that another 900,000 became refugees in eastern Anatolia during 1914-21. According to careful and detailed analysis of historical statistics and records, the ethnic warfare that engulfed the Armenian, Turkish, and Kurdish communities led to drastic losses of the Muslim population in major eastern Anatolian cities: For example, the Muslim population of Van decreased by 62 percent, that of Bitlis and Erzurum by 42 percent and 31 percent, respectively.1 Eyewitness accounts and reports show that the majority of the Turks and other Muslims who lost their lives were killed by bands of Armenian irregulars or by Armenians serving in the Russian army. The massacres committed by the Armenians indiscriminately targeted men, women, and children, and they involved gruesome methods that were intended to spread terror among the innocent civilians and cause total physical destruction of their communitites. The methods, scope, and the impact of the ethnic cleansing strategy used by the Armenian revolutionary groups were witnessed and recorded by numerous non-Turkish and independent observers. For example, Captain Emory Niles and Mr. Arthur Sutherland, two Americans who investigated the conditions in eastern Anatolia for the U.S. government, reported: "In this entire region, [Region from Bitlis to Van to Beyazit], we were informed that the damage and destruction that had been done by the Armenians, who, after the Russians retired, remained in occupation of the country, and who, when the Turkish army advanced, destroyed eveything belonging to the Musulmans. Moreover, the Armenians are accused of having committed murder, rape, arson, and horrible atrocities of every description upon the Musulman population. At first we were most incredulous of these stories, but we finally came to believe them, since the testimony was absolutely unanimous and was corroborated by material evidence. For instance, the only quarters left at all intact in the cities of Bitlis and Van are the Armenian quarters, as was evidenced by churches and inscriptions on the houses, while the Musulman quarters were completely destroyed. Villages said to have been Armenian were still standing, whereas Musulman villages were completely destroyed."2 The atrocities committed by the Armenians against the Turks had begun before the Ottoman government's decision in late May 1915 to deport Armenians from eastern provinces. However, their intensity and scope increased vastly during the latter part of the decade. Reports sent by the Ottoman officials in Van, Bitlis, Erzurum, and other eastern provinces to Istanbul describe in detail the massacres that were carried out by the Armenians.3 What took place in Van following the rebellion by the Armenians in March 1915 was typical of many towns and villages in eastern Anatolia: "The stories told by Muslim villagers were all much the same. When the Armenians attacked Muslims' own villages or nearby villages, Muslims fled with whatever moveable property they could carry. On the road, Armenian bandits first robbed them, then raped many of the women and killed many of the men. Usually, but not always, a number of women and young children were killed as well. The surviving villagers were then left to travel to safety if they could, without food or adequate clothing. The villagers were unable to defend themselves either in their homes or on the road because most young Muslim males had been conscripted. Only very old and very young males and women were left. Armenian bands, however, were made up of young males who had never been drafted, were deserters from the Ottoman army, or had come from the Caucasus."4 Despite overwhelming historical evidence, the plight and suffering of the Turks and other Muslim communities in eastern Anatolia and the Caucasus have received far less attention than that experienced by the Armenians. By talking only about the Armenian "survivors" of an alleged "genocide" perpetrated by the Ottoman government, Armenian writers and propagandists, along with their sympathizers, have managed to disseminate the misperception that it was only the Armenians who were killed, tortured, and forced to flee from their traditional homelands. The success of the Armenian propagandists in perpetuating the myth of "genocide" has led many Americans to overlook the fact that more than a million Muslims also lost their lives and close to a million became refugees. Several factors have been responsible for the silence about the plight of the Turkish victims of Armenian atrocities. The most important has been the historical prejudice and bias in the West against the Turks and Muslims in general which led many to view only the Armenians as the victims and to ignore the calamity that fell on the non-Christian populations of the Empire. This traditional one-sided and biased perception was bolstered in the late 19th and early 20th centuries by the reports of the Christian missionaries, sent to the region mostly from the United States, whose religious zeal and anti-Muslim world view precluded objectivity in dealing with the causes and consequences of the rising ethnic and religious tensions in the Ottoman Empire.5 Another reason is that unlike their Armenian counterparts, the Muslim survivors of the violence that gripped eastern Anatolia had no chance to make their voices heard in the West, especially in the United States. Many Armenians who survived World War I and immigrated to this country succeeded in telling their recollections and stories to sympathetic audiences. More importantly, their children and grandchildren went to some of the best American universities. These second and third generation Armenians - novelists, professors, poets, playwrights - then became articulate spokespeople for their grandparents and parents. By contrast, few, if any, of the Muslim survivors immigrated to the United States after World War I to tell their recollections of the horrors they lived through at the hands of the Armenians. The majority of the Turks who survived the violence of 1915-21 continued to live as simple peasants and villagers in some of Turkey's least developed regions. Consequently, they had no means to influence American public opinion through books, "oral history" programs in universities or media appearances. Although their travails and horrible experiences are well-known and still remembered in their small villages or towns, as a trip to eastern Turkey today will readily show, they have remained largely unknown to the rest of the world. While the Armenians have continued to clamor for an apology from Turkey, they have shown no inclination whatsoever to express any regret or remorse for millions of Muslims who were either killed or forced to become refugees in eastern Anatolia during 1915-21. Characteristically, Armenian writers and propagandists either completely ignore the killings of innocent Muslim men, women, and children, or come up with superfluous explanations. The following statement by Dennis Papazian, Director of the Armenian Research Center at the University of Michigan-Dearborn, is typical of the Armenian attitude: "The Turks died unfortunately because their own government led them into World War I against the European allies. Many Turkish Muslims also died fighting Arab Muslims . . . and Indian Muslims who were with the British Middle East army in Mesopotamia. All this Muslim blood, then, is on the head of the Ottoman Turkish government and not on the victimized and helpless Armenians."6 Papazian's argument is not only a blatant distortion of historical facts, but defies logic as well: How could anyone account for the massacres of more than a million Muslims in eastern Anatolia, in places such as Van, Bitlis, or Erzurum, with the Arab-Ottoman or British-Ottoman war campaigns that took place in Iraq, Syria, or Yemen? And how is it possible, indeed, for the so-called "helpless" Armenians to slaughter entire village communities, brutalize their victims, rape women, and bring about so much havoc and destruction? Papazian clearly fits into the category of Armenian-American historians whose writings have been described by the British historian Gwynne Dyer as representing "capering caricatures of the historical method" which reflect "the deafening drumbeat of the propaganda, and the sheer lack of sophistication in argument which comes from preaching decade after decade to a convinced and emotionally committed audience."7 In addition to official Ottoman records and reports prepared by Western observers, there is much information about the intensity and scope of Armenian atrocities in the recollections of some of the Muslims who survived the ethnic warfare in eastern Anatolia. By now, the majority of the victims of Armenian violence have passed away without, unfortunately, having had a chance to talk about their experiences to scholars, writers, and journalists. Only a handful of them are alive today and they are in the very late stages of their lives. An effort-albeit belatedly-was made by a team of researchers led by Professor Azmi Suslu in the early 1980's to interview some of the survivors in Van, Kars, Bitlis, and Mus. These interviews, together with the photographs of the individuals who were interviewed, were published in Turkish as Van, Bitlis, Mus, ve Kars'taki Ermeni Katliamları;, Gazilerle Mulakat Van Yuzuncu Yıl Universitesi Rektorlugu Yayinlari, No. 8 Ankara, 1994. The translations of these interviews are presented here see Part III for the first time in English.

Footnotes: 1 Justin McCarthy, Death and Exile: The Ethnic Cleansing of Ottoman Muslims, 1821-1922 Princeton, N.J.: The Darwin Press, 1995, p. 229 2 Ibid, pp. 224-225. 3 See, e.g., the documentation and references in Kamuran Gurun, The Armenian File London: Weidenfeld and Nicholson, 1985, pp. 196-200. 4 Ibid., p. 189. 5 For a detailed account of how the Christian missionaries conveyed a distorted image of the Armenian question to the West, see Jeremy Salt, Imperialism, Evangelism, and the Ottoman Armenians, 1878-1906 London: Frank Cass, 1995. 6 The Armenian Research Center, What Every Armenian Should Know Dearborn, Michigan, n.d., p.29. 7 Gwynne Dyer, "Turkish 'Falsifiers' and Armenian 'Deceivers': Historiography of the Armenian Massacres," Middle Eastern Studies, January 1976, p. 101. - aozan 18:52 , 15 June 2005

Recollections of the survivors

The testimonies of those who were interviewed by the team of researchers show that Armenian and Muslim communities lived on relatively good terms and peacefully until the Armenian revolutionary organizations began their rebellion against the Ottoman government and started their collaboration with the Russians. As Haci Zekeriya Koç, born and raised in a village called Ayanis near Van, recalls:

"When the Armenian incidents broke out we were in our village, Ayanis. Zeve, Mollakasim and Ayanis were the villages in the region inhabited entirely by Muslims. There were five or ten Armenian homes in the other villages. Before these problems broke out, we had excellent relations with the Armenians. We got along particularly well with Armenian-inhabited Alakoy. We would invite each other to banquets, and there were no hostilities between us."

Others, such as Bekir Yöruk, who was born in Van in 1900, express a similar view:

"We lived in the same neighborhoods as the Armenians. We too livedin the Norsin neighborhood and got along well until the Russians intervened."

However, once the political agitation by the Armenian revolutionary and terrorist organizations began in earnest in early 1915, violence and bloodshed replaced these peaceful relations after the Armenians began attacking civilian Muslim communities. The eyewitness testimonies of the victims of these Armenian attacks underscore a systematic policy of ethnic cleansing that is reminiscent of the horrors that were inflicted on the Bosnian Muslims by the Serb extremists in the 1990's: Massacres of entire villages, indiscriminate killing of the old and the young, brutalization and rape of women, burning and destruction of mosques, and forced expulsion of people from their villages. The atrocities committed by the Armenians in and around Van and Bitlis during 1915-16, for example, are vividly recalled by those who managed to save their lives. Sait Aldanmaz, who was born in Bitlis in 1900, remembers:

"With my own eyes I saw an Armenian poke a dagger into a woman's stomach and pull out her child. They killed 15-20 people with bayonets in my neighborhood of Ersan. When the Russians arrived, the Armenians helped them . . . . Among the ruins of every home, in the fields, and in the farms were the bodies killed with the Armenians' bayonets. We applied for permission to bury them. The soldiers dug ditches and the bodies were buried there."

Ibrahim Sargin who lived in the village of Zeve near Van was 11 years old when he witnessed the destruction of his community by the Armenians:

. . . The village was burning . . . The Armenians were throwing small children in the air and piercing them with bayonets or sticking them in the stomach with bayonets. The children let out shrill cries and fell to the ground like baby birds . . . They captured Corporal Seyyat alive, laid him on the ground, undressed him, and skinned him alive. They also carved out his shoulders and carved into his sides, taunting him by saying that Sultan Resat promoted him and gave him a medal. The Armenians also set fire to the grass and threw some of our women and children into the fire and burned them alive. They sliced the throats of the rest of the survivors as if they were sacrificial lambs . . . After massacring the entire village, they killed the five most attractive women: my cousin Seher, Esma, the headman's wife, a distant relative Hayriye, my Aunt Ayse, and Gullu."

The savagery and brutality that was inflicted on the innocent villagers by the Armenian rebels in 1915 in Van's villages was also recalled by Bekir Yöruk:

". . . My uncle, his family and children, were cut into pieces with a hatchet under the mulberry tree in our neighborhood. They [Armenians] massacred all those that stayed behind when we left . . . They killed whomever they could corner. They killed them and threw them into the lake or into the fire. For example, a woman was baking bread in a nearby village, and had her young child at her side. The Armenians went into her backyard and asked her what she was doing. When she answered that she was baking bread, they insisted she needed a kebab as well, and pierced her child and threw him into the fire and burned him alive."

Mehmet Hatunoglu similarly lived to tell the horrors that he witnessed as a child:

"I can't tell you what I saw, it was so hideous. They [Armenians] planted a stake every fifty meters on the Pulur (now Çinarli neighborhood) and Ercis-Egans road, and impaled the elderly taken from the mosques on these stakes. They all died in a pool of blood. Then we went into the large Çavusoglu barn, and saw people sliced up and laying in blood, most of whom were relatives or people we knew. They were beaten and killed with axes, shovels, and cleavers. They placed a basket over the head of Haydar Imam, and impaled him.

According to the recollections of the victims, rape of Muslim women and young girls was widely practiced by the Armenians to terrorize the civilian population. Haci Sait Aldanmaz, born in Bitlis in 1902, remembers a particularly horrible incident:

"The Armenians were committing atrocities [in Bitlis] before the Russian invasion as well, but after the occupation, the crimes accelerated. As far as I remember, 9 year old Hatice who lived in the Hersan neighborhood was taken from her mother's arms by the Armenians, who viciously raped her without reference to the fact that she was a child. Hako was the Armenian who took this child from her mother and raped her."

Thousands of those who managed to escape the Armenian violence were uprooted from their villages and became refugees. Those who escaped from Van, Bitlis, or Kars were forced to travel very long distances to safety under the most difficult conditions. Many of them died on the way from hunger and disease, but some managed to survive. As a child, Bekir Yöruk witnessed the suffering of Turks who escaped from Van in 1915 and became refugees:

"We left before the Russians arrived. There were about 250 in our group, and 60 died. Some died at the hands of the Armenian bandits, others from cholera, disease, and hunger . . . The women couldn't take care of the children. Hunger and disease were rampant."

Kadriye Duran, the daughter of Hamit and Nigar Duran, was ten years old when she was uprooted from her village called Kavunlu near Van by the Armenians and became a refugee:

"We were going towards Edremit when the Armenians raided Van. The city was burning . . . We reached Edremit, but they raided that too. We went from there to Bitlis to Siirt, to Diyarbakir, and then to Siverek. We stayed there three years. There were eight people in our family who became refugees. On the way, my brother Ali was captured. The rest died on the road. Only my mother and I were able to return to Van. We weren't the only ones affected. The inhabitants of Van, Edremit, and Van's Muslim villages all became refugees. Those that didn't run were killed at the hands of the enemy, while most of those that got away died on the road."

While most of the people who were interviewed talked about the horrible events that they witnessed in Armenian attacks on Muslim citizens, some also mentioned a few brave Armenians who ventured to help them. Cevahir Kokum, born and raised in Bitlis, remembers one:

"My deceased grandmother would always talk about an Armenian called Manik. When talking about him, she would also pray in thanks for all that he had done. Manik worked as a servant for Haci Yusufzade. This Armenian saved my grandmother and her other relatives from the Armenian massacres . . . Manik would leave in the day, and return at nightfall with all of the bread, sugar, and other food supplies he could find. When we asked why he was doing this, he replied that he could not betray us after eating our bread for so many years. One day Manik came to us excitedly and said that the Russians had emptied the city, and that it was not right for him to stay after everything that the Armenians had done, and that he would emigrate to Russia with the rest of the Armenians . . . Manik left, but we did not forget him or what he did."

The recollections of those who were interviewed show, once again, that explanations of the events that took place in eastern Anatolia during World War I with reference to an alleged "genocide" committed by the Turks against the Armenians are gross distortions of the historical record. Descriptions and analyses of this period that do not take into consideration the aims, methods, and ultimate objectives of the Armenian revolutionary and terrorist organizations, especially their systematic use of violence against innocent Muslim civilians and the havoc they brought on to Muslim communities, do not reflect historical accuracy and objectivity. Similarly, any description of this turbulent period has to take into account not just what the Armenians had to endure but also the plight and suffering of the Empire's Muslim population as well. Moreover, the tragic developments that cost the lives of millions of people on both sides during 1915-21 have to be viewed in the context of great power rivalries in the region, Russia's efforts to use the Armenians in its expansionist policies vis-a-vis the Ottoman Empire and the fateful decision of the Armenian organizations to collaborate with the Russians. To describe the tragic events during World War I that claimed the lives of both Armenians and Turks as a pre-meditated and planned "genocide" perpetrated by Ottoman authorities against the Armenians simply is a gross distortion of historical facts. - aozan

Perpetuating the Genocide Myth

Despite overwhelming evidence that Muslims also suffered greatly in the events of eastern Anatolia during the turbulent years from 1915 to 1921, Armenian propagandists have continued to claim that Armenians were the only victims of these incidents. Moreover, they have sought to convince American and world public opinion that the Ottoman authorities were engaged in a systematic and planned effort to eradicate the Empire's Armenian population. The stories told by Armenian survivors and reports written at the time by Christian missionaries and Western observers sympathetic to the Armenians are weaved together with forged documents such as the infamous Andonian book and fabricated statements attributed to Hitler to perpetuate the myth of "genocide."8 Instead of historical objectivity, based on a careful study of all the available evidence, Armenian propagandists continue to claim that their own version of the events that took place in eastern Turkey more than 80 years ago as the absolute and undeniable truth. Although world-renowned experts and historians of the Ottoman Empire and modern Turkey &emdash; scholars who, unlike the Armenian propagandists, have worked for long years in the Ottoman archives in Istanbul &emdash; reject the "genocide" allegation and refuse to support Armenian claims, the Armenian propaganda machine in this country continues to parrot the standard "party line" Armenian accusations against the Turks.9

In addition to books and publications, extensive lobbying in Congress, and grassroots activities to influence American public opinion, Armenian propagandists seek to perpetuate the "genocide" myth to convince younger generations of Armenians that they are the descendants of innocent victims of a "genocide" that was committed by the Turks. Young Armenian children are taught that their ancestors, who lived peacefully and minded their own affairs in the Ottoman Empire, were suddenly subjected to a horrible crime perpetrated by the Turks who massacred millions of Armenians and tried to exterminate their race from the face of the earth. This so-called "history" that is taught to young Armenian children has nothing to say about the fact that many Armenians rose to the highest positions of power in the Ottoman Empire, that they practiced their religion freely in a predominantly Muslim state and that many Armenians in large Ottoman cities such as Istanbul or Izmir lived prosperous lives since they controlled a great deal of commercial and business activities. The standard "history" that the young Armenians learn today similarly has nothing to say about the real course of events that preceded the Ottoman government's decision to deport Armenians from several eastern provinces: How Armenian revolutionary groups decided to seek independence through violence, how terrorism was used by the Armenian radicals to provoke an intervention by the Western powers, how rebellions were started in cities like Van and Bitlis in 1915 in which thousands of innocent Muslim civilians were killed or forced to flee their homes, or how the Armenian rebels made the fateful decision to side with the advancing Russian army and fight against the Ottomans.

Armenian propagandists and writers seek to accomplish several objectives in their ceaseless efforts to indoctrinate young Armenian-Americans in this country. Their first, and most important objective, is to have these young people develop intense hatred and enmity towards Turks and Turkey. In books, essays, and poems written by Armenian authors, the Turks are portrayed as the most barbaric nation in the world and capable of carrying out only the most heinous and horrible acts against humanity. The dehumanization of "the Turk" through blatantly racist remarks and characterizations is one of the most common themes in books written by Armenians or in the articles and essays published in Armenian-American newspapers and magazines. The second objective of the Armenian propaganda machine is to convince the young Armenian-Americans that they should "never forget" what happened in 1915 and seek revenge against the Turks for the alleged atrocities they committed against the Armenians. Again, in Armenian newspapers and publications the theme of "revenge" is constantly played up and the Armenian youth is exhorted to action to "pursue the just cause of their people." The third objective of the Armenian scholars, writers, and propagandists is to indoctrinate the young Armenians into believing that their homeland was taken away from them forcibly and that it should be returned to them. The effort here is directed toward first pushing Turkey into a position of accepting the blame for an alleged "genocide" and, following that admission, to press for territorial claims in eastern Turkey near the borders of the newly-independent Armenian republic. Finally, Armenian propagandists use the myth of "genocide" to instill a sense of identity among the Armenian youth to prevent their complete assimilation into American society and culture. The process of building up national or cultural identity by choosing an "enemy" has been practiced widely by many ethnic groups throughout the world. In the case of the Armenian-Americans, fostering enmity toward Turkey by perpetuating the myth of "genocide" serves the same purpose.

The process of indoctrinating the Armenian-American youth takes place at many different levels, ranging from church sermons on Sundays to organized activities such as "genocide workshops" at youth camps. For example, the Armenian Youth Federation regularly conducts a "genocide education workshop" at Camp Haiastan to provide Armenian youth "with a better knowledge and understanding of the Armenian Genocide."10 A 16-year-old, who participated in one of these so-called "education workshops," described her impressions as follows:

"Upon arriving at the camp, I saw most of the Watertown chapter already there. I met people from Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, New Jersey, and New York. There were more than 100 kids there all busy getting to know each other . . . The main reason we had this weekend was to learn about the awful incident that took place in 1915, the Genocide. We went to lectures on Saturday and Sunday and learned about the "bigger picture." . . . While listening to the different discussions during the weekend, we were all reminded of where each came from and what our ancestors had to go through for us to be here today."11

According to reports in the Armenian-American newspapers, the "education" of the Armenian youth in these camps goes beyond teaching them the Armenian version of history. It also includes training them in techniques of "activism." These involve teaching youngsters how they should organize demonstrations in front of Turkish Embassy and consulate buildings in the United States. For example, the caption of a photo taken on the camp grounds showing young kids with posters and banners denouncing Turkey reads: "Campers learn a little about activism during a mock demonstration in the cabin circle."12

Another photo that appeared in an Armenian-American newspaper has far more serious and alarming implications about how far the Armenian propagandists go in turning young children into hate merchants and potential terrorists. This photo shows a group of five young Armenian children holding another young person hostage with his hands tied behind his back and seated on a chair. The scene was apparently the reenactment of the 1983 attack on the Turkish Embassy in Lisbon when five Armenian terrorists tried to get into the building and take its residents hostage. The newspaper report states: "On July 5, 1983, five Armenians now known as the Lisbon 5 took over the Turkish Embassy in Lisbon. These brave Armenians' purpose was to attract attention to the unjust acts of 1915. The Lisbon 5 were about to get caught when the building blew up. All five Armenians perished. Last Saturday, July 10, we at Camp Haiastan had a reenactment of what happened. We broke up into different committees to help the Lisbon 5."13

Given the "education" and "training" they receive from the Armenian propaganda machine, it is no wonder that the Armenian youth is indoctrinated not just into believing the genocide myth, but also conditioned to use whatever means necessary, including the use of terrorist methods, to avenge an alleged crime that was committed against their ancestors. Indeed, the anti-Turkish propaganda that has been churned up by the Armenian propaganda machine for decades in this country played a significant role in the wave of Armenian violence that has targeted Turkish diplomats, Turkey's diplomatic and commercial offices, businesses owned by Turkish-Americans, and American professors of history who have dared to speak out objectively on the Armenian issue in the Ottoman Empire.

Footnotes: 8 For years, Armenians used a book supposedly written by an Armenian named Aram Andonian called the Memoirs of Naim Bey: Turkish Official Documents Relating to the Deportations and Massacres of Armenians to prove that the Ottoman government in Istanbul sent directives to officials in the provinces to massacre the Armenians. The book was exposed as a forgery in Sinasi Orel and Sureyya Yuca's book Ermenilerce Talat Pasa'ya Atfedilen Telgraflarin Gercek Yuzu Ankara: Turk Tarih Kurumu, 1983. For its English translation, see The Talat Pasha "Telegrams": Historical Facts or Armenian Fiction? Nicosia: Rustem and Bro, 1983. Armenian propagandists continue to use a statement allegedly made by Hitler: "Who, after all speaks today of the extermination of the Armenians?" This quote, too, has been proven false and unfounded. See Heath W. Lowry, "The U.S. Congress and Adolf Hitler on the Armenians," Political Communication and Persuasion: An International Journal Vol. 3, No. 2, 1985.

9 For the statement signed by more than 60 American scholars of Ottoman Empire contesting Armenian claims, see "What American Scholars Say About Armenian Allegations," the advertisement that was prepared by the Assembly of Turkish American Associations that appeared in The Washington Post and The New York Times on May 19, 1985.

10 The Armenian Weekly, May 17, 1997.

11 Letter from Alina Nalbandian in The Armenian Weekly, June 1, 1996.

12 The Armenian Weekly, July 17, 1993.

Armenian Terrorism and the Armenian-American Community

Beginning with the cold-blooded murder of Turkey's Consul General in Los Angeles, Mehmet Baydar, and his young deputy, Consul Bahadžr Demir in January 1973, Armenian terrorists waged a relentless campaign of assassination against Turkish diplomats and officials. For the next 15 years, Armenian terrorists murdered 73 innocent men, women, and children, including 41 Turkish diplomats in the United States, Canada, Europe, the Middle East, and Australia. In addition, the spree of Armenian political terrorism involved bombings that claimed the lives of innocent bystanders in France and Turkey as well as several hostage-taking incidents.

With the exception of the first event in Los Angeles that was carried out by a lone Armenian-American, all other terrorist acts were carried out by the two main Armenian terrorist groups, Armenian Secret Army for the Liberation of Armenia (ASALA) and the Justice Commandos for the Armenian Genocide (JCAG). The worldwide campaign of Armenian terrorism against Turkish diplomats usually involved two or three gunmen stalking the official travelling in his car between home and work, and shooting at the intended victim when his car stopped at a traffic light. Although few of the Armenian assassins were apprehended, most have eluded capture by the authorities.

The United States and Canada ranked high in terms of the number of Armenian terrorist acts around the world. In addition to the murders of Mehmet Baydar and Bahadžr Demir, Kemal Aržkan, the Turkish Consul General in Los Angeles was assassinated by two Armenian terrorists in January 1982, and the Honorary Turkish Consul General in Boston, Orhan Gündüz, was killed in May 1982. Both attacks were claimed by JCAG. While an Armenian terrorist named Hampig Sassounian was charged with Aržkan's murder, Gündüz's killer was never apprehended. During the same year, Kani Güngör, a commercial counselor at the Turkish Embassy in Ottawa was seriously wounded and permanently paralyzed by an ASALA member and Turkey's military attache in Ottawa, Colonel Atilla Altžkat was shot to death by a gunman of the JCAG.

In March 1995, the Turkish Ambassador in Ottawa was seriously injured and his wife and daughter were taken hostage by the JCAG-ARA (Armenian Revolutionary Army). In addition to assassinations, Armenian terrorists frequently planted bombs at various targets and threatened the lives of many Turks and friends of Turkey. At least two other potentially deadly Armenian terrorist attacks planned against the Honorary Turkish Consuls in Tampa and Philadelphia were aborted either by the intended victim or by the police.

The Armenian terrorist campaign against the representatives of Turkey, Turkish-Americans, and friends of Turkey was widely criticized by the U.S. government and in the media. By the early 1980s, U.S. officials and American experts on international terrorism ranked the Armenian terrorist groups among the deadliest terrorist organizations in existence and a major threat to law and order in the United States. Similarly, especially in view of the indiscriminate killings and bombings that targeted both Turks and others, there was a growing backlash against the Armenian terrorists in Western Europe as well.

However, some Armenian-Americans, including professors teaching at prestigious universities in this country, prominent writers and elected public officials, expressed their satisfaction at the fact that Armenian terrorism had led to widespread publicity about the events that took place in eastern Turkey during World War I. The typical attitude of many Armenians was that while they did not necessarily approve of the killings of Turkish officials, they were nevertheless happy that these events had put the spotlight on the alleged "genocide" of the Armenians by the Turks more than 80 years ago.

However, there were also many Armenian-Americans who did not shy away from expressing their open support for the terrorists. The trial of Gourgen Mkritch Yanikian in Santa Barbara in 1973 was a harbinger of things to come: Yanikian, who had carried out one of the most heinous double-murders in the state's history, was treated as a "hero" by the crowd of Armenians who had gathered in the courtroom. Armenian-Americans quickly mobilized and formed a group called "American Friends of Armenian Martyrs" to raise funds for his defense and to use the court case as "an educational campaign to bring the story of Turkish genocide before the American and world attention."(14) Until his death almost a decade later, a few months after he was released from prison on the order of the then California governor, George Deukmejian, Yanikian continued to receive gifts and supportive letters from Armenian-Americans. Similarly, after Hampig Sassounian was found guilty of murdering the Turkish Consul-General in Los Angeles, Kemal Aržkan, a campaign to provide funds for his defense raised $250,000 in small donations from Armenian-Americans throughout the United States.(15) Armenian-Americans launched similar campaigns for moral support and fund-raising for several other Armenian terrorists who were captured by the authorities in this country and in Europe.(16)

In his study of Armenian terrorism, Michael Gunter provides a detailed description of the attitudes expressed by some of the leading members of the Armenian-American community about the Armenian terrorists:

"Harry Derderian, a leading official of the Armenian National Committee (the Dashnag's political arm), for example, told a reporter: "If terrorism is a contributing factor in getting people's attention, I can go along with it." Commenting about the events of 1915 and the current terrorism, Armand Arabian, a superior court judge in California, declared: "It is the right of Armenians to seek redress . . . Some seek it on street corners." After Hampig Sassounian was found guilty of murdering the Turkish Consul in Los Angeles in 1982 . . . Bishop Yeprem Tabakian, the prelate of the Western Prelacy of the Armenian Apostolic Church, stated: "Hampig's conviction is an indictment directed against all Armenians." Archbishop Vatche Hovsepian, the primate of the Western Diocese of the Armenian Church, added: "I am truly shocked about the verdict." George Mason, the moderate publisher of The [Armenian] California Courier, concluded: "There are many Armenian Americans in California who feel great sympathy and support for Armenian terrorists. I have talked to numerous peaceful, fair, and thoughtful men who have expressed support for the terrorists."

Levon Marashlian, of the Glendale College of Armenian history and culture, said Armenian terrorists are "patriots who have been waiting for 70 years." An Armenian student of Dr. Dennis Papazian, professor of history and the University of Michigan in Dearborn, was quoted as saying: "In a way, I'm kind of proud of the terrorists."(17)

The support that Armenian-Americans gave to the assassins of Turkish diplomats was also reflected in the Armenian publications in this country. For example, the January 28, 1982 issue of The Armenian Reporter published a New Year's message by Ara Alex Yenikomshian, a leading member of ASALA. The message, a transcript of the broadcast that was made in Beirut, discussed openly the terrorist activities that were carried out by ASALA during 1982 and exhorted all Armenians to "action" until "occupied Armenian lands are liberated."(18 )The openness with which a prominent Armenian newspaper in this country lent its pages to one of the top leaders of ASALA clearly showed the degree of sympathy and support that many Armenian-Americans extended to a terrorist organization that was considered to be a threat to law and order by the FBI and other American law enforcement agencies.

The direct or indirect support that was given to Armenian terrorism by many Armenian-Americans played a major role in the acts of violence that led to scores of fatalities in this country and elsewhere in the world during the 1970s and 1980s. Undoubtedly, the efforts of the Armenian propagandists to portray Turks and Turkey as the enemy of the Armenian people, to dehumanize the Turks, and to glorify the assassinations of the Young Turk leaders by Armenian terrorists after World War I were all influential in leading young Armenians toward the path of terrorism and violence. Studies on terrorism show that many terrorists are drawn to violence when they are able to overcome moral restraint through the process of socialization, collective beliefs, influence of history, and family traditions.(19) These studies also show how through indoctrination and propaganda, individuals can be "transformed rapidly into skilled combatants, who may feel little compunction and even a sense of pride in taking human life."(20) One of the main objectives of the Armenian propaganda machine in the United States is to perpetuate the "genocide" myth to such an extreme that taking revenge against the Turks through any means, including acts of violence against Turkish officials, becomes morally acceptable for young Armenian-Americans. An Armenian terrorist, who got caught with four others in 1982 after five sticks of dynamite and a timing device was found in their luggage at Boston's Logan International Airport, underscored this point when he said later in an interview: "We had no intentions of plea bargaining . . . because we sincerely thought that what we had done was morally justifiable."(21)

The dehumanization of the intended victims is another characteristic feature of terrorist mentality and behavior. As one expert notes: "Once dehumanized, the potential victims are no longer viewed as persons with feelings, hopes, and concerns, but as subhuman objects . . . It is easier, for example, to brutalize victims when they are referred to as 'worms'."(22) The behavior of the Armenian terrorists conformed to this pattern. With their constant vilification and dehumanization of "the Turk" in their writings, Armenian propagandists in this country created a favorable environment for the wave of violence and terrorism by young Armenian terrorists against Turkish officials for nearly two decades beginning in the early 1970s. The comments of John D. Hagopian in an Armenian-American newspaper is a typical example of this effort to divest the Turks of human qualities: "You [the Turks] are the offspring of those who butchered my people, and I have no love for you whatsoever. Yes, God made you and your fathers. But he also made snakes and jackals and hyenas, and Oswald, and Manson."(23)

The glorification of the Armenian terrorists who assasinated the Young Turk leaders after World War I by the Armenian propagandists and writers has similarly contributed to the attractiveness of terrorism for some young American Armenians. Books and articles written about the Armenian terrorists of the 1920s portray them as national heroes who fulfilled their mission of taking revenge against the Turks rather than criminals or terrorists. Individuals who carried out these assasinations are presented to the younger generations of Armenians in this country as virtual role models who dared to challenge the historical "injustice" that was done to the Armenian nation by the Turks.24 Decades of hero-worshipping of those who assassinated Young Turk leaders influenced the motives and behavior of those young Armenians who chose to follow in their footsteps more than 60 years later. It is also worth noting the similarities and continuities between the two waves of Armenian community mobilized to raise funds for the terrorists with the Armenian churches and community centers in America taking the lead. And in both instances, the actions of the Armenian terrorists were supported directly or indirectly by many Armenian-Americans for publicizing their "cause" and reviving an interest about the Armenian question in American public opinion.

Footnotes: 14 The Armenian Mirror-Spectator, March 24, 1973.

15 Michael M. Gunter, "Pursuing the Just Cause of Their People": A Study of Contemporary Armenian Terrorism (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press), p. 74.

16 See, e.g. the coverage of the "campaign of solidarity" with Max-Hrair Klindjian, who was caught after he unsuccessfully tried to assassinate Turkey's Ambassador to Switzerland in The Armenian Weekly, January 19, 1982.

17 Gunter, "Pursuing the Just Cause of Their People:" A Study of Contemporary Armenian Terrorism, pp. 99-100.

18 "ASALA's A. Yenikomshian Addresses New Year's Message to Armenians" The Armenian Reporter January 26, 1982.

19 Martha Crenshaw, "Questions to be answered, research to be done, knowledge to be applied," in Walter Reich (ed.), Origins of Terrorism: Psychologies, Ideologies, Theologies, States of Minds (New York, NY, Cambridge University Press), pp. 252-54.

20 Albert Bandura, "Mechanisms of moral disengagement," in Reich (ed), Origins of Terrorism, p. 163.

21 Quoted by Jeffrey D. Simon in his The Terrorist Trap: America's Experience With Terrorism (Bloomington, IN, Indiana University Press), p. 317.

22 Ibid. 181.

23 John D. Hagopian, "We will never forget," The Armenian Reporter, January 23, 1982.

24 See, e.g., Edward Alexander, A Crime of Vengeance (New York, NY: Free Press, 1991), and Jacques Derogy, Resistance and Revenge (New Brunswick, N.J., 1990).

Intimidation in Academia

One of the major goals of the Armenian propaganda machine in this country has been to suppress scholarly debates and discussions of the tragic events that took place in eastern Anatolia during World War I. Fearful that objective and unbiased historical analysis might endanger decades of propaganda based on one-sided interpretations of the historical record, Armenians have tried to use various methods to silence those American historians and experts on the Ottoman Empire who do not subscribe to the standard "party line" perspective on the Armenian question. Initially, these methods involved the use of physical violence and terrorism: In 1982, Armenian students and extremists disrupted the history class taught by Professor Stanford J. Shaw at the University of California in Los Angeles (UCLA), a prominent scholar and a widely-recognized expert on Ottoman history. Later, Armenians turned to terrorism: They bombed Shaw's home and also broke into his office at the university and ransacked it. Professor Shaw had become a target for Armenian terrorists because, based on his years of meticulous research in the Ottoman archives, he had come to the conclusion that there was no systematic effort by the Ottoman government to engage in a genocide against the Armenians. The fact that the physical violence and terrorism directed at Shaw took place at UCLA was no coincidence: In addition to being located in one of the largest Armenian-American communities in the United States, UCLA's Center for Near Eastern Studies has become a major center for producing anti-Turkish propaganda through the efforts of a leading Armenian-American historian, Richard G. Hovannissian.

The terrorist bombing of Shaw's home was meant to send a signal to other American historians who might challenge the "facts" of the events during 1915-21, as presented by the Armenian propagandists. In fact, since the incidents at UCLA, their efforts to intimidate other historians and suppress their views have continued unabated. However, instead of actual terrorism and physical violence, this intimidation campaign has involved sending messages of threat via mail or telephone, intervening with the university administrators to undermine academic careers and seeking to discredit individuals through well-publicized campaigns. More recently, the Armenian propaganda machine has begun yet another campaign designed to prevent free academic debate, discussion and learning at American universities. This time the target is a program to establish Turkish Studies Chairs at several American institutions of higher learning such as Harvard, Princeton, Georgetown, and the University of Chicago. The program, which is partly funded by the Turkish government, seeks to expand the study of Turkish history, society and culture through the establishment of professorships in Ottoman and modern Turkish history.

Armenian propagandists have been very critical of Turkish Studies Chairs on the grounds that they were being established by the Turkish government to present its views on the Armenian question and that they would be filled by individuals who sympathized with Turkey's stand on this issue. As usual, Armenian allegations have large doses of fiction and untruth mixed with the fear that learning more about Turkey and its people might offset the negative propaganda that has been disseminated in this country for decades about the Turks. The charges and allegations are false since the Turkish officials have repeatedly stated that they have no intention to interfere with the selection of professors for these chairs or the contents of the course materials. Furthermore, the university administrators at Harvard, Princeton, Georgetown, and Chicago have also repeatedly stated that the Turkish government has made no attempt to influence their choice of candidates for these positions. Despite the absence of any evidence that would contradict these statements, Armenian propagandists continue to fabricate unfounded allegations based on conspiracy theories. Their objective is to intimidate American universities, this time through orchestrated campaigns rather than terrorism and violence directed at individual professors, to prevent the dissemination of objective and unbiased knowledge about Turkey. The efforts of the Armenians on this issue are all the more hypocritical since during the past two decades, more than a dozen major American universities have established professorships or programs in Armenian studies with contributions from wealthy Armenian-Americans. Some of these universities, such as UCLA, have gone even further and specifically designated these new programs to support the study of the "Armenian genocide." Clearly, in the distorted world of the Armenian propaganda machine, the establishment of Armenian studies programs where the main focus is on the study of an alleged "genocide" qualifies for genuine academic scholarship whereas the promotion of knowledge and learning about the Ottoman Empire and modern Turkey does not.

Joining the Holocaust Bandwagon

Since the 1970s, Armenian writers and propagandists have followed a new strategy to win greater support and sympathy for their "cause." This strategy aims at establishing parallels between the fates of the European Jewry during World War II and that of the Armenians in the Ottoman Empire during World War I. By equating the tragedy that fell upon the Jews in the Holocaust and the sufferings experienced by many Armenians in an alleged "genocide," Armenian propagandists seek to exploit the sensitivities of many Americans who are deeply troubled by the horrible events that led to deaths of more than 6 million Jews in Europe at the hands of the Nazis. The efforts of the Armenians to join the "Holocaust bandwagon" and benefit from the sympathies of Americans towards the victims of Nazi violence have included support for "scholarly" studies that seek to establish linkages between the two events, letters to major American newspapers where this linkage is emphasized, grassroots activities that are intended to gain the sympathy and support of the American Jewish community, and repeated use of a statement attributed to Hitler alleging a similarity between the Jews and the Armenians - a statement that has been proven false and without any foundation.

Anyone who is even remotely familiar with the experiences of the Jews in Europe and the Armenians in the Ottoman Empire can easily see that the two have very little in common. Germany's Jews did not rebel against the German government in search of an independent state, they did not begin a campaign of violence, terrorism, and ethnic cleansing against the Germans, the Jews did not collaborate with Germany's enemies during a major war, and few of them managed to live normal lives in Germany while the Nazis embarked on a campaign that was planned to exterminate their race. The case of the Armenians in the Ottoman Empire during World War I was strikingly dissimilar: Armenians revolted against the Ottoman state and collaborated with the invading Russian army, Armenian revolutionary organizations engaged in mass violence and terror against innocent Muslim civilians and uprooted them from their homes, and millions of Armenians continued to live in peace in cities and towns in Western Turkey that were not gripped by communal violence. More importantly, there is no question about Hitler's plans to exterminate the Jews or about the horrible Holocaust event.25 There is no evidence, however, that the Ottoman government ever had a similar plan and the Armenian allegations about a "genocide" is strongly disputed by qualified American scholars and experts on Ottoman history.

The efforts of the Armenian writers and propagandists to establish a linkage between the Holocaust and the events of 1915 to gain the sympathy of the American Jewish community conveniently overlook the fact that during World War II, a large number of Armenians living in Germany actively supported Hitler's policies. According to Christopher J. Walker, a pro-Armenian historian and the author of a major study of Armenian history, this support took the form of Armenians fighting in the Nazi armed forces. As Walker puts it:

"Nevertheless, there remains the incontestable fact that relations between Nazis and Dashnaks living in the occupied areas were close and active. On 30 December 1941 an Armenian battalion was created by a decision of the Wehrmacht, known as the 'Armenian 812th Battalion.' It was commanded by Dro, and was made up of a small number of committed recruits and a larger number of Armenians from the prisoners of war taken by the Nazis in their sweep eastward. Early on the total number was 8,000; this number grew to 20,000. The 812th Battalion was operational in the Crimea and the North Caucasus.

A year later, on 15 December 1942, an 'Armenian National Council' was granted official recognition by Alfred Rosenberg, the German Minister of the occupied areas. The 'Council's' president was Professor Ardashes Abeghian, its vice-president Abraham Giulkhandanian, and it numbered among its members Nzhdeh and Vahan Papazian. From that date until the end of 1944 it published a weekly journal, Arménien, edited by Viken Shant (the son of Levon) who also broadcast on Radio Berlin."26

The collaboration between the Dashnak Armenians and the Nazis during World War II was accompanied by articles appearing in the pro-Nazi Armenian publications that praised Hitler's policies and made derogatory and anti-Semitic remarks about the Jews. The service of the Armenians to Hitler's efforts to exterminate the Jews came at a time when the Turkish government was giving asylum to many German Jews who were fleeing from Hitler. Given the fact that scores of Armenians expressed blatantly anti-Semitic and pro-Nazi views in this country and in Europe during World War II and large numbers of Armenians served in Hitler's armies, one wonders how-without feeling any shame or guilt-the Armenian propagandists today can ask the support and sympathy of the American Jewish community.

Footnotes: 25 For years, Armenian writers have claimed that there were orders sent from Istanbul to Ottoman provincial officials regarding the extermination of the Armenians. The main source of the Armenian claims - the infamous Andonian book - has been proven to be a forgery. Armenian propagandists now admit that there is no evidence to support these claims. See e.g., V.N. Dadrian's letter to the Journal of Middle East Studies (July 1997) where he concedes that there is no concrete evidence implicating the Ottoman officials.

26 Christopher J. Walker, Armenia: The Survival of a Nation (New York, NY: St. Martin's Press, 1990), p. 357.

27 Crenshaw, op.cit., p. 253.

Conclusion

The following sections in this publication offer the recollections of those who survived the Armenian atrocities against the Muslims in eastern Anatolia during World War I and a chronology of the incidents of terrorism that were carried out by Armenian terrorists during the 1970s and 1980s. The first is a testimony to the fact that the Armenians were not the only victims of the tragic events that took place more than 80 years ago, and that large numbers of Turks, along with other Muslim groups, also suffered in the communal strife and warfare that began with the insurrection of the Armenians against the Ottoman government. The recollections of these survivors also make it evident that biased and one-sided interpretations of these events, in which the Armenians are portrayed as the helpless victims of a sudden policy change in Istanbul, are simply not corroborated by many who lived through the bloodshed and suffered at the hands of the Armenians. The insistence of the Armenians that a "genocide" was perpetrated against them - allegation that can not be taken lightly and accepted by any country in the world simply because of the claims made by one of the parties in the ethnic and communal conflict - overlooks the fact that more than a million Muslims lost their lives and close to a million were forced to become refugees largely as a result of the violence caused by the Armenian revolutionary groups and Armenians who fought alongside the invading Russian army.

The second section on Armenian terrorist activities is a stark reminder of how decades-long propaganda against Turkey and the Turks led many Armenians to turn to violence and murder as a means to take revenge and create worldwide publicity for their cause. Armenian terrorism is also instructive in demonstrating the consequences of "educating" young children in the so-called "genocide workshops" where one-dimensional perceptions of the Turks as the "evil enemy," along with moral justifications for seeking revenge from Turkey, are poured into the minds of the teenagers. Studies on terrorist movements show that sustained waves of terrorism, such as the one that involved the Armenian terrorist organizations, are difficult to maintain without a certain level of popular support.27 While the majority of the American public did not condone the assassinations of the Turkish diplomats and the bombing of Turkish consular offices or businesses owned by Turkish-Americans, many in the Armenian-American community did, either openly or indirectly. Clearly, this support, displayed through fund-raising campaigns for the captured terrorists along with meetings and various activities organized by the Armenian churches and community centers throughout the United States, was instrumental in perpetuating the spree of murders targeting innocent civilians.

Turkish-Americans are part of the ethnic mosaic that makes up the United States. As a community, it does not believe in fostering enmity against other ethnic groups in this country and views such efforts as contradictory to the basic founding principles and philosophy of America. The perpetuation of the enmity towards Turkey and Turks by the Armenian propagandists are not in the best interests of anyone living in this country, with the exception, perhaps, of those who thrive on the continuation of historical animosities.

Armenian Terrorism - A Chronological Rundown

January 27, 1973 Santa Barbara, California

The Armenian Gourgen Yanikian, a U.S. citizen, invites the Turkish Consul General, Mehmet Baydar, and the Consul, Bahadır Demir to a luncheon. The unsuspecting diplomats accept the friendly invitation. Gourgen Yanikian murders his two guests. He is sentenced to life imprisonment.

April 4, 1973 Paris

Bombings at the Turkish Consulate General and the offices of Turkish Airlines (THY). Extensive damage.

October 26, 1973 New York

Attempted bombing of the Turkish Information Office. The bomb is discovered in time and defused. A group calling itself the "Yanikian Commandos" claims responsibility. They want the release of the double murderer of Santa Barbara, Gourgen Yanikian, who insidiously murdered two Turkish diplomats.

February 7, 1975 Beirut

Attempted bombing of the Turkish Information and Tourism Bureau. The bomb explodes while being defused. A Lebanese policeman is injured. The "Prisoner Gourgen Yanikian Group" claims responsibility.

February 20, 1975 Beirut

The "Yanikian" group demanding the release of the double murderer of Santa Barbara strikes again. Extensive damage is caused by a bomb explosion at the THY offices. ASALA (Armenian Secret Army for the Liberation of Armenia) also claims responsibility for the bombing.

October 22, 1975 Vienna

The Turkish Ambassador, Danis Tunalıgil, is assassinated in his study by three Armenian terrorists. ASALA claims responsibility.

October 24, 1975 Paris

Ambassador Ismail Erez and his driver, Talip Yener, are murdered. The ASALA and the JCAG (Justice Commandos for the Armenian Genocide) dispute responsibility.

October 28, 1975 Beirut

Grenade attack on the Turkish Embassy. The ASALA claims responsibility.

February 16, 1976 Beirut

The First Secretary of the Turkish Embassy, Oktar Cirit, is assassinated in a restaurant on Hamra Street. The ASALA claims responsibility.

May 17, 1976 Frankfurt, Essen, Cologne

Consulates General in Frankfurt, Essen and Cologne are the targets of simultaneous bomb attacks.

May 28, 1976 Zurich

Bomb attacks at the offices of the Turkish Labor Attache and the Garanti Bank. Extensive damage. A bomb in the Turkish Tourism Bureau is defused in time. Responsibility is claimed by the JCAG.

May 2, 1977 Beirut

The cars of the Military Attache, Nahit Karakay, and the Administrative Attache, Ilhan Özbabacan, are destroyed. The two diplomats are uninjured. Credit is claimed by the ASALA.

May 14, 1977 Paris

Bomb attack at the Turkish Tourism Bureau. Extensive damage. The "New Armenian Resistance Group" claims responsibility.

June 6, 1977 Zurich

Bomb attack at the store of a Turkish citizen, Hüseyin Bülbül.

June 9, 1977 Rome

Assassination of the Turkish Ambassador to the Holy See, Taha Carım. He dies soon after the attack. The JCAG claims responsibility.

October 4, 1977 Los Angeles

Bomb attack at the house of Professor Stanford Shaw, who teaches Ottoman history at the University of California in Los Angeles (UCLA). Responsibility is claimed by an "Armenian Group of 28."

January 2, 1978 Brussels

Bomb attack at a building containing Turkish banking services. The "New Armenian Resistance" claims credit.

June 2, 1978 Madrid

Terrorist attack on the automobile of the Turkish Ambassador, Zeki Kuneralp. His wife, Necla Kuneralp, the retired Turkish Ambassador Besir Balcžoglu die immediately in the rain of gunfire. The Spanish chauffeur, Antonio Torres, dies of his injuries in the hospital. ASALA and JCAG claim responsibility.

December 6, 1978 Geneva

A bomb explodes in front of the Turkish Consulate General. Extensive damage. The "New Armenian Resistance Group" claims responsibility.

December 17, 1978 Geneva

A bomb explodes at the THY Bureau. ASALA claims responsibility.

July 8, 1979 Paris

The French capital experiences four bomb attacks in a single day. The first is at the THY offices; the next at the offices of the Turkish Labor Attache; the third in the Turkish Information and Tourism Bureau. A fourth explosive, intended for the Turkish Permanent Representative to the O.E.C.D., is defused before it explodes. The JCAG claims responsibility.

August 22, 1979 Geneva

A bomb is thrown at the car of the Turkish Consul General, Niyazi Adalı. The diplomat escapes unhurt. Two Swiss passers-by are injured. Two cars are destroyed.

August 27, 1979 Frankfurt

The offices of THY are totally destroyed by an explosion. A pedestrian is injured. The ASALA claims responsibility.

October 4, 1979 Copenhagen

Two Danes are injured when a bomb explodes near the offices of THY. ASALA claims credit.

October 12, 1979 The Hague

Ahmet Benler, the son of Turkish Ambassador Özdemir Benler, is assassinated by Armenian terrorists. The murderers escape. JCAG and ASALA claim responsibility.

October 30, 1979 Milan

The offices of THY are destroyed by a bomb explosion. ASALA claims responsibility.

November 8, 1979 Rome

The Turkish Tourism Office is destroyed by a bomb. ASALA claims responsibility.

November 18, 1979 Paris

Bomb explosions destroy the offices of THY, KLM, and Lufthansa. Two French policemen are injured. Responsibility is claimed by ASALA.

November 25, 1979 Madrid

Bomb explosions in front of the offices of TWA and British Airways. ASALA, in claiming responsibility, states that the attacks are meant as a warning to the Pope to cancel his planned visit to Turkey.

December 9, 1979 Rome

Two bombs explode in downtown Rome, damaging the offices of PAN AM, British Airways and the Philippine Airways. Nine people are injured in the terrorist attack. A "New Armenian Resistance Movement" claims responsibility.

December 17, 1979 London

Extensive damage is caused when a bomb explodes in front of the THY offices. A "Front for the Liberation of Armenia" claims responsibility.

December 22, 1979 Paris

Yžlmaz Çolpan, the Tourism Attache at the Turkish Embassy is assassinated while walking on the Champs Elysées. Several groups, including ASALA, JCAG and the "Commandos of Armenian Militants Against Genocide" claim responsibility.

December 22, 1979 Amsterdam

Heavy damage results from a bomb explosion in front of the THY offices. ASALA claims credit.

December 23, 1979 Rome

A bomb explodes in front of a World Council of Churches Refugee Center, being used as a transit point for Armenian refugees from Lebanon. ASALA claims credit for the attack and warns the Italian authorities to halt "the Armenian diaspora."

December 23, 1979 Rome

Three bomb explosions occur in front of the offices of Air France and TWA, injuring a dozen passers-by. ASALA claims responsibility, stating that the bomb was placed "in reprisal against the repressive measures of French authorities against Armenians in France" (i.e., questioning suspects, carry out investigations, etc.)

January 10, 1980 Teheran

A bomb which explodes in front of the THY offices causes extensive damage. ASALA claims responsibility.

January 20, 1980 Madrid

A series of bomb attacks, resulting in numerous injuries, occurs in front of the offices of TWA, British Airways, Swissair, and Sabena. The JCAG claims credit for the attacks.

February 2, 1980 Brussels

Two bombs explode within minutes of each other in front of the downtown offices of THY and Aeroflot. The "New Armenian Resistance Group" issues a communique in which they claim responsibility for both attacks.

February 6, 1980 Bern

A terrorist opens fire on Turkish Ambassador Dogan Türkmen, who escapes with minor wounds. The would-be-assassin, an Armenian named Max Klindjian, is subsequently arrested in Marseilles and returned to Switzerland for trial. The JCAG claims credit for the attack.

February 18, 1980 Rome

The offices of Lufthansa, El Al and Swissair are damaged by two bomb attacks. Telephone messages give three reasons for the attacks: 1. The Germans support "Turkish fascism"; 2. The Jews are Zionists (ASALA); 3. The Swiss behave "repressively" towards the Armenians.

March 10, 1980 Rome

Bomb attacks on the THY and Turkish Tourism Bureau offices on the Piazza Della Repubblica. The blasts kill two Italians and injure fourteen. Credit for the attack is claimed by the "New Armenian Resistance of the Armenian Secret Army."

April 17, 1980 Rome

The Turkish Ambassador to the Holy See, Vecdi Türel, is shot and seriously wounded. His chauffeur, Tahsin Güvenç, is also slightly wounded in the assassination attempt. JCAG claims responsibility for the attack.

May 19, 1980 Marseilles

A rocket aimed at the Turkish Consulate General in Marseilles is discovered and defused prior to exploding. ASALA and a group calling itself "Black April" claim credit for the attack.

July 31, 1980 Athens

Galip Özmen, the Administrative Attache at the Turkish Embassy, and his family are attacked by Armenian terrorists while sitting in their car. Galip Özmen and his fourteen-year-old daughter, Neslihan, are killed in the attack. His wife, Sevil, and his sixteen-year-old son, Kaan, are wounded. Credit for the double killing is claimed by ASALA.

August 5, 1980 Lyon

Two terrorists storm into the Turkish Consulate General in Lyon and open fire, killing two and injuring several other bystanders. ASALA claims credit for the attack.

August 11, 1980 New York

An "Armenian group" hurls paint bombs at the Turkish House across from the United Nations, home of the Turkish Representations in New York.

September 26, 1980 Paris

Selçuk Bakkalbasž, the Press Counselor at the Turkish Embassy, is shot as he enters his home. Bakkalbasž survives but is permanently paralyzed as a result of his injuries. ASALA claims responsibility for the attack.

October 3, 1980 Geneva

Two Armenian terrorists are injured when a bomb they are preparing explodes in their Geneva hotel room. The two, Suzy Mahseredjian from Canoga Park, California, and Alexander Yenikomechian, are arrested. Their arrest leads to the formation of a new group called "October 3," which subsequently strikes at Swiss targets.

October 3, 1980 Milan

Two Italians are injured when a bomb explodes in front of the THY offices. ASALA claims credit for the attack.

October 5, 1980 Madrid

The offices of Alitalia are rocked by a bomb explosion which injures twelve individuals. The ASALA claims responsibility for the attack.

October 6, 1980 Los Angeles

Two molotov cocktails are thrown into the home of the Turkish Consul General, Kemal Aržkan. He survives with injuries.

October 10, 1980 Beirut

Two bombs explode near Swiss offices in West Beirut. A group calling itself "October 3" claims responsibility for these bombings as well as others on the same day against Swiss offices in England.

October 12, 1980 New York

A bomb placed in front of the Turkish House explodes. Four passers-by are injured. JCAG assumes responsibility.

October 12, 1980 Los Angeles

A travel agency in Hollywood, owned by a Turkish-American, is destroyed. JCAG claims responsibility.

October 12, 1980 London

The Turkish Tourism and Information Bureau's offices are damaged by a bomb explosion. ASALA claims credit.

October 12, 1980 London

A Swiss shopping complex in central London is damaged by a bomb blast. Callers claim the explosion was the work of "October 3."

October 13, 1980 Paris

A Swiss tourist office is damaged by a bomb explosion. "October 3" again claims credit.

October 21, 1980 Interlaken, Switzerland

A bomb is found in a Swiss express train coming from Paris. Luckily, it does not explode. "October 3" is believed to be behind the action, which could have caused a catastrophe.

November 4, 1980 Geneva

The Swiss Palace of Justice in Geneva is heavily damaged by a bomb explosion. Credit is claimed by "October 3."

November 9, 1980 Strasbourg

Heavy damage results from a bomb blast at the Turkish Consulate General. The attack is claimed by ASALA.

November 10, 1980 Rome

Five people are injured in attacks on the Swissair and Swiss Tourist offices. ASALA and "October 3" claim credit.

November 19, 1980 Rome

The offices of the Turkish Tourism Bureau and those of THY are damaged by a bomb explosion. ASALA claims responsibility.

November 25, 1980 Geneva

The offices of the Union of Swiss Banks are hit by a bomb explosion. Responsibility is claimed by "October 3."

December 5, 1980 Marseilles

A police expert defuses a time bomb left at the Swiss Consulate in Marseilles. "October 3" claims responsibility.

December 15, 1980 London

Two bombs placed in front of the French Tourism Office in London are defused by a Scotland Yard bomb squad. "October 3" claims the bombs are a warning to the French for assistance they have rendered the Swiss in fighting Armenian terrorism.

December 17, 1980 Sydney

Two terrorists assassinate saržk Aržyak, the Turkish Consul General, and his bodyguard, Engin Sever. JCAG claims responsibility.

December 25, 1980 Zurich

A bomb explosion destroys a radar monitor at Kloten Airport, and a second explosive planted on the main runway of the airport is defused. "October 3" claims credit for these attempted mass-murders.

December 29, 1980 Madrid

A Spanish reporter is seriously injured in a telephone booth while calling in a story to his paper about the bomb attack on the Swissair offices. "October 3" claims responsibility.

December 30, 1980 Beirut

Bomb attack on the Credit-Suisse offices. ASALA and "October 3" fight over who gets the credit.

January 2, 1981 Beirut

In a press communique, ASALA threatens to "attack all Swiss diplomats throughout the world" in response to the alleged mistreatment of "Suzy and Alex" in Switzerland. On January 4, ASALA issues a statement giving the Swiss a few days to think things over.

January 14, 1981 Paris

A bomb explodes in the car of Ahmet Erbeyli, the Economic Counselor of the Turkish Embassy. Erbeyli is not injured, but the explosion totally destroys his car. A group calling itself the "Alex Yenikomechian Commandos" of ASALA claims credit for the explosion.

January 27, 1981 Milan

The Swissair and Swiss Tourist offices in Milan are damaged by bomb explosions. Two passers-by are injured. "October 3" claims credit for the bombing in a call to local media representatives.

February 3, 1981 Los Angeles

Bomb-squad officials disarm a bomb left at the Swiss Consulate. The terrorists threaten in anonymous phone calls that such attacks will continue until Suzy Mahseredjian is released.

February 5, 1981 Paris

Bombs explode in the TWA and Air France offices. One injured, heavy material damage. "October 3" claims credit.

March 4, 1981 Paris

Two terrorists open fire on Resat Moralž, Labor Attache at the Turkish Embassy, Tecelli Arž, Religious Affairs Attache, and Ilkay Karakoç, the Paris representative of the Anadolu Bank. Moralž and Arž are assassinated. Karakoç manages to escape. ASALA claims responsibility.

March 12, 1981 Teheran

A group of ASALA terrorists try to occupy the Turkish Embassy, killing two guards in the process. Two of the perpetrators are captured and later executed by the Iranians. ASALA claims credit.

April 3, 1981 Copenhagen

Cavit Demir, the Labor Attache at the Turkish Embassy, is shot as he enters his apartment building late in the evening and is seriously wounded. Both ASALA and JCAG claim the attack.

June 3, 1981 Los Angeles

Bombs force the cancellation of performances by a Turkish folk-dance group. Threats of similar bombings force the group's performances in San Francisco to be canceled as well.

June 9, 1981 Geneva

Mehmet Savas Yergüz, Secretary in the Turkish Consulate, is assassinated by the Armenian terrorist Mardiros Jamgotchian. The arrest of the ASALA terrorist leads to the formation of a new ASALA branch called the "Ninth of June Organization," which will be responsible for a new series of attacks.

June 11, 1981 Paris

A group of Armenian terrorists, led by one Ara Toranian, occupies the THY offices. Initially ignored by the French authorities, the terrorists are only evicted from the premises after vehement protests from the Turkish Embassy.

June 19, 1981 Teheran

A bomb explodes at the offices of Swissair. The "Ninth of June Organization" claims responsibility.

June 26, 1981 Los Angeles

A bomb explodes in front of the Swiss Banking Corporation offices. Again the work of the "Ninth of June Organization."

July 19, 1981 Bern

A bomb explodes at the Swiss Parliament Building. "Ninth of June" claims responsibility.

July 20, 1981 Zurich

"Ninth of June" strikes again. A bomb explodes in an automatic photo-booth at Zurich's international airport.

July 21, 1981 Lausanne

Twenty women are injured as a bomb laid by Armenian terrorists explodes in a department store. "Ninth of June" claims responsibility.

July 22, 1981 Geneva

A bomb explodes in a locker at the train station. Authorities suspect "Ninth of June."

July 22, 1981 Geneva

An hour later, a second bomb explodes in a locker at the station. Police cordoned off the area following the first explosion, thereby preventing injuries from the second.

August 11, 1981 Copenhagen

Two bombs destroy the offices of Swissair. An American tourist is injured in the explosion. "Ninth of June" claims responsibility.

August 20, 1981 Los Angeles

A bomb explodes outside the offices of Swiss Precision Instruments. The attack is claimed by "Ninth of June."

August 20, 1981 Paris

Explosion at Alitalia Airlines. "October 3" is back in action.

September 15, 1981 Copenhagen

Two people are injured as a bomb explodes in front of the THY offices. Police experts manage to defuse a second bomb. Credit is claimed by a "Sixth Armenian Liberation Army."

September 17, 1981 Teheran

A bomb explosion damages a Swiss Embassy building. ASALA's "Ninth of June" claims responsibility.

September 24, 1981 Paris

Four Armenian terrorists occupy the Turkish Consulate General. During their entry into the building, the Consul, Kaya Inal, and a security guard, Cemal Özen, are seriously wounded. Terrorists take 56 hostages. Özen dies of his injuries in the hospital. The terrorists are ASALA members.

October 3, 1981 Geneva

The main post office and the city courthouse are hit by bomb explosions. An ASALA member is scheduled to go on trial for murder in the courthouse. "Ninth of June" claims credit for the attacks, which leave one person injured.

October 25, 1981 Rome

An Armenian terrorist fires at Gökberk Ergenekon, Second Secretary at the Turkish Embassy. Ergenekon is wounded in the arm. ASALA claims credit in the name of the "September 24 Suicide Commandos."

October 25, 1981 Paris

Fouquet's, the fashionable French restaurant, is the target of a bomb attack. A group calling itself "September-France" claims the attack.

October 26, 1981 Paris

The same group is behind the explosion of a booby-trapped automobile in front of "Le Drugstore."

October 27, 1981 Paris

"September-France" carries out a bomb attack at Roissy Airport.

October 27, 1981 Paris

A second bomb explodes near a busy escalator at Roissy Airport. No one is injured. "September-France" claims responsibility.

October 28, 1981 Paris

The same group is responsible for a bomb attack in a movie theater. Three people are injured.

November 3, 1981 Madrid

A bomb explodes in front of the Swissair offices, injuring three persons. Considerable damage to nearby buildings. ASALA claims responsibility.

November 5, 1981 Paris

A bomb explodes in the Gare de Lyon, injuring one person. The attack is claimed by the Armenian "Orly Organization."

November 12, 1981 Beirut

Simultaneous bomb explosions occur in front of three French offices: the French Cultural Center, the Air France offices and the home of the French Consul General. The "Orly Organization" claims responsibility. This organization owes its name to the fact that the French police arrested an Armenian at Orly Airport in Paris because of forged papers. The idea now is to "bomb him free."

November 14, 1981 Paris

A bomb explosion damages an automobile near the Eiffel Tower. "Orly" claims responsibility.

November 14, 1981 Paris

"Orly" launches a grenade attack on a group of tourists disembarking from a sightseeing boat on the River Seine.

November 15, 1981 Paris

"Orly" threatens to blow up an Air France airplane in flight.

November 15, 1981 Beirut

Simultaneous bomb attacks are carried out against three French targets: the "Union des Assurances de Paris", the Air France offices and the "Banque Libano-Française". "Orly" is responsible.

November 15, 1981 Paris

A McDonald's restaurant is destroyed by "September-France."

November 16, 1981 Paris

A bomb injures two innocent bystanders at the Gare de l'Est. "Orly" claims responsibility.

November 18, 1981 Paris

"Orly" announces that it has planted a bomb at the Gare du Nord.

November 20, 1981 Los Angeles

The Turkish Consulate General in Beverly Hills suffers extensive damage. The JCAG claims credit.

January 13, 1982 Toronto

An ASALA bomb causes extensive damage to the Turkish Consulate General.

January 17, 1982 Geneva

Two bombs destroy parked cars. The ASALA "Ninth of June Organization" claims credit.

January 17, 1982 Paris

A bomb explodes at the Union of Banks and a second is disarmed at the Credit Lyonnais. "Orly" claims responsibility.

January 19, 1982 Paris

A bomb explodes in the Air France offices in the Palais des Congres. "Orly" claims responsibility.

January 28, 1982 Los Angeles

Kemal Aržkan, the Turkish Consul General in Los Angeles, is assassinated by two terrorists while driving to work. Nineteen year old Hampig Sassounian is arrested and sentenced to life.

March 22, 1982 Cambridge, Massachusetts

A gift shop belonging to Orhan Gündüz, the Turkish Honorary Consul General in Boston, is blown up. Gündüz receives an ultimatum: Either he gives up his honorary position or he will be "executed." Responsibility is claimed by the JCAG.

March 26, 1982 Beirut

Two dead, sixteen injured in an explosion at a movie theater. ASALA claims credit for the attack.

April 8, 1982 Ottawa

Kani Güngör, the Commercial Attache at the Turkish Embassy in Ottawa, is seriously wounded in an attack by Armenian terrorists in the garage of his apartment house. ASALA claims responsibility.

April 24, 1982 Dortmund, West Germany

Several Turkish-owned businesses suffer extensive damage in bomb attacks. The "New Armenian Resistance Organization" claims responsibility.

May 4, 1982 Cambridge, Massachusetts

Orhan Gündüz, the Turkish Honorary Consul General in Boston is assassinated. The murderer is still at large.

May 10, 1982 Geneva

Bombs explode at two banks. The attacks are claimed by an Armenian "World Punishment Organization."

May 18, 1982 Toronto

Four Armenians are arrested for trying to smuggle money out of the country. The money was extorted from Armenians, a common practice throughout the world. In the course of the investigation, it is discovered that the terrorists fire-bombed the house of an Armenian who refused to make his contribution to Armenian terrorism.

May 18, 1982 Tampa, Florida

Attack at the office of Nash Karahan, the Turkish Honorary Consul General.

May 26, 1982 Los Angeles

A bomb damages the office of Swiss Banking Corporation. The suspects: four Armenians accused of involvement in ASALA.

May 30, 1982 Los Angeles

Three members of ASALA are arrested when planting a bomb in the Air Canada cargo-office.

June 7, 1982 Lisbon

The Administrative Attache at the Turkish Embassy, Erkut Akbay, and his wife, Nadide Akbay, are assassinated in front of their home. JCAG claims responsibility.

July 1, 1982 Rotterdam

Kemalettin Demirer, the Turkish Consul General in Rotterdam, is shot down by four Armenian terrorists. An "Armenian Red Army" claims responsibility.

July 21, 1982 Paris

Sixteen injured in a bomb explosion near a cafe in the Place Saint-Severin. Credit is claimed by the Orly Organization. "Orly" complains that the French do not treat the arrested Armenian terrorists as "political prisoners," but rather as ordinary criminals.

July 26, 1982 Paris

"Orly" is responsible for injuring two women in an explosion in Paris' "Pub Saint-Germain."

August 2, 1982 Paris

Pierre Gulumian, an Armenian terrorist, is killed when a bomb he is making explodes in his face.

August 7, 1982 Ankara, Esenboga Airport

Two Armenian terrorists open fire in a crowded passenger waiting room. One of the terrorists takes more than twenty hostages while the second is apprehended by the police. Nine people are dead and eighty-two injured&emdash;some seriously. The surviving terrorist, Levon Ekmekjian is arrested and sentenced.

August 8, 1982 Paris

A bomb is defused in time. "Orly" regrets the discovery.

August 12, 1982 Paris

Terrorists open fire on a policeman assigned to protect the offices of the Turkish Tourism Attache. Luckily, he escapes without injury.

August 27, 1982 Ottawa

Colonel Atilla Altžkat, the Military Attache at the Turkish Embassy, is assassinated in his car. JCAG claims responsibility.

September 9, 1982 Burgaz, Bulgaria

Bora Süelkan, the Administrative Attache at the Turkish Consulate General in Burgaz, is assassinated in front of his home. The assassin leaves a message "We shot dead the Turkish diplomat: Combat Units of Justice Against the Armenian Genocide." An anonymous caller claims that the assassination is the work of a branch of the ASALA.

October 26, 1982 Los Angeles

Five Armenian terrorists are charged with conspiring to blow up the offices of the Honorary Turkish Consul General in Philadelphia. All belong to the JCAG.

December 8, 1982 Athens

Two Armenians on a motorbike throw a bomb at the offices of the Saudi Arabian Airlines. The bomb hits a power pylon, explodes and kills one of the terrorists. His accomplice, an Armenian from Iran named Vahe Kontaverdian is arrested. It is later revealed that ASALA ordered the attack because Saudi Arabia maintains friendly relations with Turkey.

January 21, 1983 Anaheim, California

Nine "sophisticated" pipe bombs are confiscated from an Armenian bakery after one of the detonators goes off and causes fire.

January 22, 1983 Paris

Two terrorists attack the offices of THY with hand grenades. No one is injured. ASALA claims credit.

January 22, 1983 Paris

French police defuse a powerful explosive device near the THY counter at Orly airport.

February 2, 1983 Brussels

The offices of THY are bombed. The "New Armenian Resistance Organization" claims responsibility.

February 28, 1983 Luxembourg

A bomb placed in front of Turkey's diplomatic mission is defused. The Armenian Reporter in New York reports that the "New Armenian Resistance Organization" is responsible.

February 28, 1983 Paris

A bomb explodes at the Marmara Travel Agency. Killed in the explosion is Renée Morin, a French secretary. Four other Frenchmen are wounded. A few minutes after the attack, ASALA claims responsibility.

March 9, 1983 Belgrade

Galip Balkar, the Turkish Ambassador to Yugoslavia is assassinated in central Belgrade. His chauffeur, Necati Kayar is shot in the stomach. As the two assailants flee from the scene, they are bravely pursued by Yugoslav citizens. One of the terrorists shoots and wounds a Yugoslav Colonel, and is in turn apprehended by a policeman. The second terrorist opens fire on civilians who are chasing him, killing a young student and wounding a young girl. The two terrorists, Kirkor Levonian and Raffi Elbekian, are tried and sentenced.

March 31, 1983 Frankfurt

An anonymous caller threatened to bomb the offices and kill the staff of Tercüman newspaper, a Turkish daily.

May 24, 1983 Brussels

Bombs explode in front of the Turkish Embassy's Culture and Information offices and in front of a Turkish-owned travel agency. The Italian director of the travel agency is wounded. ASALA claims credit.

June 16, 1983 Istanbul

Armenian terrorists carry out an attack with hand grenades and automatic weapons inside the covered bazaar in Istanbul. Two dead, twenty-one wounded. ASALA claims responsibility.

July 8, 1983 Paris

Armenian terrorists attack the offices of the British Council, protesting against the trials of Armenians in London.

July 14, 1983 Brussels

Armenian terrorists murder Dursun Aksoy, the Administrative Attache at the Turkish Embassy. ASALA, ARA and JCAG claim responsibility.

July 15, 1983 Paris

A bomb explodes in front of the THY counter at Orly airport. Eight dead, more than sixty injured. A 29 years old Syrian-Armenian named Varadjian Garbidjian confesses to having planted the bomb. He admits that the bomb was intended to have exploded once the plane was airborne.

July 15, 1983 London

A bomb, similar to the one that exploded at Orly, is defused in time. ASALA claims responsibility for both attacks.

July 18, 1983 Lyon

A bomb threat is made by ASALA against the Lyon railroad station.

July 20, 1983 Lyon

Panicky evacuation of Lyon's Gare de Perrache following a bomb threat from ASALA.

July 22, 1983 Teheran

"Orly" carries out bomb attacks on the French Embassy and Air France.

July 27, 1983 Lisbon

Five Armenian terrorists attempt to storm the Turkish Embassy in Lisbon. Failing to gain access to the chancery, they occupy the residence, taking the Deputy Chief of Mission(DCM) and his family hostage. When explosives being planted by the terrorists go off, Cahide Mžhçžoglu, wife of the DCM and four of the terrorists are blown to pieces. The DCM, Yurtsev Mžhçžoglu, and his son Atasay are injured. The fifth terrorist is killed in the initial assault by Turkish security forces. One Portuguese policeman is also killed and another wounded. The ARA claims responsibility.

July 28, 1983 Lyon

Another bomb threat on Lyon-Perrache railroad station. ASALA claims responsibility.

July 29, 1983 Teheran

A threat to blow up the French Embassy in Teheran with a rocket attack causes Iranian officials to increase security at the facility.

July 31, 1983 Lyon and Rennes

Bomb threats from Armenian terrorists force the emergency landing of two domestic French flights carrying 424 passengers.

August 10, 1983 Teheran

A bomb explodes in an automobile at the French Embassy. ASALA claims credit for the attack.

August 25, 1983 Bonn

A whole series of bomb attacks against offices of the French Consulate General claim two lives and leave twenty-three injured. ASALA claims responsibility.

September 9, 1983 Teheran

Two French Embassy cars are bombed. One of the bombs injures two embassy staff members. ASALA claims credit.

October 1, 1983 Marseilles

A bomb blast destroys the U.S., Soviet and Algerian pavilions at an international trade fair in Marseilles. One person is killed and twenty-six injured. ASALA and "Orly" claim credit.

October 6, 1983 Teheran

A French Embassy vehicle is bombed, injuring two passengers. "Orly" claims responsibility.

October 29, 1983 Beirut

Hand-grenade attack on the French Embassy. One of the ASALA terrorists is arrested.

October 29, 1983 Beirut

The Turkish Embassy is attacked by three Armenian terrorists. One of the assailants, Sarkis Denielian, a 19 years old Lebanese-Armenian is apprehended. ASALA claims responsibility.

February 8, 1984 Paris

Bomb threat on an Air France flight to New York.

March 28, 1984 Teheran

A timed series of attacks is carried out against Turkish diplomats:

Two Armenian terrorists shoot and seriously wound Sergeant Ismail Pamukçu, employed at the office of the Turkish Military Attache;

Hasan Servet Öktem, First Secretary of the Turkish Embassy, is slightly wounded as he leaves his home;

Ibrahim Özdemir, the Administrative Attache at the Turkish Embassy, alerts police to two suspicious looking men. They turn out to be Armenian terrorists and are arrested;

In the afternoon of the same day, Iranian police arrest three more Armenian terrorists outside the Turkish Embassy;

An Armenian terrorist is killed when a bomb he is attempting to plant in the car of the Turkish Assistant Commercial Counselor explodes prematurely. The dead terrorist is later identified as Sultan Gregorian Semaperdan (ASALA).

March 29, 1984 Los Angeles

ASALA sends a written threat, saying they will assassinate Turkish athletes who take part in the Olympics.

April 8, 1984 Beirut

ASALA issues a communique warning that all flights to Turkey will be considered military targets.

April 26, 1984 Ankara

The Turkish Prime Minister, Turgut Özal, receives a threat warning him that if he goes ahead with a planned visit to Teheran, ASALA will schedule a major terrorist operation against his country.

April 28, 1984 Teheran

Two Armenian terrorists riding a motorcycle open fire on Isžk Yönder as he drives his wife, Sadiye Yönder, to the Turkish Embassy where she works. Isžk Yönder is killed, and ASALA claims credit for yet another senseless murder.

June 20, 1984 Vienna

A bomb explodes in a car belonging to Erdogan Özen, Assistant Labor and Social Affairs Counselor at the Turkish Embassy in Vienna. Özen is killed and five others seriously wounded, including a policeman. ARA terrorists claim credit for the crime.

June 25, 1984 Los Angeles

A news agency office in France receives a letter threatening to attack all governments, organizations and companies which assist, in any way whatsoever, Turkey's team at the Los Angeles Olympics.

August 13, 1984 Lyon

A bomb explodes in a Lyon train station causing minor damage. ASALA claims credit.

September 1984 Teheran

Several Turkish owned firms in Iran come under attack after receiving warning letters informing them that they are to be targeted. The first victim is the Sezai Türkes Company. A Turkish employee is injured while fighting the fire caused by the explosion. A chain of smaller scale acts of intimidation follows.

September 1, 1984 Teheran

Iranian authorities expose a plot to assassinate Ismet Birsel, the Turkish Ambassador to Teheran.

September 3, 1984 Istanbul

Two Armenian terrorists die as one of their bombs goes off too soon. The ARA claims credit.

November 19, 1984 Vienna

Evner Ergun, Deputy Director of the Centre for Social Development and Humanitarian Affairs of the United Nations, Vienna is assassinated while driving to work. The assassins leave a flag with the initials "ARA" on his body.

December 1984 Brussels

Authorities are able to thwart a bombing attempt at the residence of Selçuk Incesu, Turkish Consul General.

December 29, 1984 Beirut

Two French buildings in East Beirut are bombed. ASALA claims credit.

December 29, 1984 Paris

Following an ASALA threat to blow up an Air France plane, police increase security at the Charles de Gaulle Airport.

January 3, 1985 Beirut

The offices of Agence France Presse are extensively damaged when a bomb explodes.

March 3, 1985 Paris

An anonymous caller to Agence France Presse threatens to attack French interests throughout the world upon the indictment of the three terrorists who participated in the Orly attack.

March 12, 1985 Ottawa

Three heavily armed terrorists storm the Turkish Embassy, killing a Canadian security guard in the process. After blowing up the front door, the gunmen enter the building. Ambassador Coskun Kžrca manages to escape but suffers extensive injuries. The wife and daughter of the Ambassador, who were taken hostage, are later released, and the terrorists surrender. ARA claims responsibility.

March 26, 1985 Toronto

A threat to blow up the city of Toronto's transit system leads to chaos during the rush hour. An "Armenian Secret Army for the Liberation of Our Homeland" claims responsibility for the threat.

November 1985 Brussels

A special anti-terrorist security squad of the Belgian police exposes and arrests three Armenian terrorists with Portuguese passports. They were planning an attack on Turkish officers at NATO headquarters.

November 28, 1985 Paris

French police arrest the leader of the terrorist organization&emdash;the "Armenian Secret Army for the Liberation of Armenia-Revolutionary Movement" (ASALA-RM)&emdash;Mr. Monte Melkonian, a U.S. citizen. In Melkonian's apartment, police confiscate weapons, explosive devices, arrival and departure information on Turkish ships scheduled to visit France and a picture of Turkey's Ambassador to France, Adnan Bulak.

December 1985 Paris

Forty-one shoppers in two of Paris' leading department stores (Gallerie Lafayette and Printemps) are injured (twelve seriously) when nearly simultaneous bomb explosions rip through the stores. In the ensuing panic, some 10,000 Christmas shoppers flee into the street. The Armenian Reporter, published in New York, reports in its December 12th issue that French law enforcement authorities are concentrating on ASALA as the most likely perpetrator. ASALA later takes credit for the two bombings.

November 23, 1986 Melbourne

At 2:15 a.m. a bomb explodes in front of the Turkish Consulate General. One dead -presumedly the perpetrator- and one Australian injured. (source:www.ataa.org)

As last word I want to say something more ; there is no international agreement or there is no decision that taken by United Nations that there was a genocide, so the allegation of Armenian Genocide is not official and not suitable for the international law. ---aozan 20:00 , 15 June 2005 , HAVE A NICE DAY

Holly St

I visit the page to realise that all the interesting discussions I had to answer are light years away, replaced by spamming. To aozan, why don't you just post the link to the articles? What do you expect by spamming the talk page? Besides, before answering check the archives, those points have already been addressed entirly, as well as the UN recognition of the Armenian genocide in 1985 following the Permanent Peoples tribunal a year before.

I think you fail to understand what Wikipedia is all about and how it works. Wikipedia is not about "proving," Wikipedia is not about what is the "truth," Wikipedia is not about what is "right." Wikipedia is about presenting positions for each entry. Is there no position that a genocide accured? Yes there is. The talk page is not a place to debate if in fact it happened or not, but rather discussing regarding what each positions are and how they should be presented. Isen't it the truth that in the West, a lot more accademicians takes the position that a genocide did happen under the UN convention? Those accademicians position should be presented, regardless of yes or no you think the theses is wrong or an imperialist propaganda. To write a neutral article it is as well required that more places is left to the official position, when it is a historical subject, more place should be left to the theses defended by most historians.

This does not mean that the other position should be supressed, it just mean that you can not equaly present another position, when it is not presented equaly in the Accademic circles.

The article already there is not perfect, it will probably never be, like any written articles, it can always be improved. Make propositions, but those propositions should be within Wikipedia NPOV and neutrality principles, and those last words as well concerns Thoth.

Regards Fadix 16:43, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, but Wikipedia is becoming a propaganda tool in this condition , so I wanted to give an opposite voice , putting here a link does not explain anything , so I put here all the text , because this is the suitable form of my ideas, and I think that talking and explaining my ideas is my right as you and as every human, on the other hand you can prevent me or delete this text but I have grown used to injustice. The recognising of UN nations does not mean that it is offical because there is no international agreement that accepts this. My native language is not English but I am trying to use it more good as I can, this is an inequality first , second the common decision is against mine decision, third your relatives did not die in this facts , I used to live in injustice. I wrote the real above whether you ignore or not , these are real , whether you delete this or not , " the snow does not cover the vileness forever " . ---aozan 20:30 , 15 June 2005

No one is restricting you to give an opposit voice. This is a talk page, people debate, if you start copypasting thousands of words of texts, you are killing discussion. There are hundreds and hundreds of texts on the web, there is no limit, we can start filling hundreds of pages of archives just by copypasting from the web. I don't see what is the problem to just provide the link to the articles, and leave people the talk page to discuss about the entry.

About idea's, the talk page is about the Armenian genocide entry, it is about presenting positions, it is not about what me and you believe. Besides, this entry is about what happened in 1915, what is the point of providing ASALA articles here? Are you one of those that believe that Armenians are terrorist by blood, and by thinking that by showing what happened decades after the event, it would should that Armenians must have been guilty of their own fate? As for my relatives, you have no clue of how they died, I won't write a complet description of what happened to them, because I believe that it is a rated R.

Lastly, and this is the most important point here. Do you agree that most historians outside of Turkey agree with the theses of genocide? Don't you believe that if this is a fact, it would be logical to give more place to the position maintained by most historians? If you don't believe that. Tell me why please. I expect you to answer this. Fadix 17:35, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oh, can you clarify your statment regarding international agreement? Iran, Syria, and other such countries do not recognise or agree that the Holocaust did happen. Why not editing the Holocaust entry? Because according to your logic, there was no international agreement on that. Fadix 17:39, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

First ,I WROTE HERE MY DECISIONS AND DID NOT PUT THIS INFORMATION TO HERE BY TEXT , ONLY PUT LINKS, BUT THESE LINKS WERE NOT TAKEN SERIOUSLY BEFORE, SO I DEPENDED ON DOING THIS , if you understand now! . Also there are some information in here ( but in my opipinion these are strained information that you put here), so I thought that if you can put here information and the contents, instead of links so this is mine right also , or LETS FILL HERE WITH LINKS, BEFORE CRITICIZE ME LOOK BEHIND AND LOOK WHAT DID YOU DO , YOU DID THE SAME THING, IF I PUT HERE LINKS ONLY HERE AND ONLY MY DECISIONS SO HOW CAN I EXPLAIN MY SELF WITHOUT RELATED INFORMATION. Second, I talked about ASALA because , there is an accusation to Turkey and TURKS, ASALA is an example about Armenian Terrorism , because it looks like to the Armenian gangs that killed the Non-Armenian people in First World War, that supported by Russia . This was to show the Armenians National Psychology to the Turks! And you are in the same I idea with these terrorist organizations as you see and if you think. (""Lastly, and this is the most important point here. Do you agree that most historians outside of Turkey agree with the theses of genocide?... "") DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND THAT THE ARMENIANS KILLED THE NON-ARMENIANS , BUT YOU ARE ONLY IGNORING!!! I KNOW ALL OF THESE THESIS AND THIS IS ANOTHER PROOF THAT YOU DID NOT LOOKED TO THE LINKS THAT I SHOWED BEFORE WHILE TALKING WITH Mr THOTH , THERE ARE SOME LINKS IF YOU WANT TO LOOK.

"""Oh, can you clarify your statment regarding international agreement? Iran, Syria, and other such countries do not recognise or agree that the Holocaust did happen. Why not editing the Holocaust entry? Because according to your logic, there was no international agreement on that. Fadix 17:39, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)""" YES I KNOW THAT THESE STATES ARE (IRAN , SYRIA , IRAQ etc.) NOT IMPERIALIST STATES , I KNOW THAT FRANCE, ARMENIA etc ARE IMPERIALIST STATES ,SO AND BECAUSE OF THAT THEIR RECOGNIZATION IS MORE IMPORTANT IS'NT IT?

""Don't you believe that if this is a fact, it would be logical to give more place to the position maintained by most historians?"" SO THIS IS ANOTHER PROOF THAT YOU DO NOT READ THE LINKS THAT I SHOWED OR YOU IGNORE OF THE CONDEMNATION OF A HISTORIAN: PROF. LEWIS IN FRANCE.

"""": THOTH, I removed your following comment from the main article. This is your own comment and nothing to do with the timeline..."""" === NO COMMENT , BECAUSE I DON'T NEED TO SAY ANYTHING AFTER THIS. BY DOING THIS YOU ARE ONLY DAMAGING THE RESPECT OF WIKIPEDIA ,NOTHING MORE

And at last: I do not need to defend Turkey , MY AIM WAS TO DEFEND WIKIPEDIA. Because the reality of this fact is not proved YET. This case is indeffinite. It does not matter for me if Turks are right or not. In any case I am neutral in this fact, in my opinion they were killed each other ; KURDS , TURKS , ARMENIANS , because they are all barbarians , in here the criminal is nationalism of them , in my opinion. Have a nice day.

I took this from the discussion page of your user page Mr Fadix , to remind you and the others: """"Hi! Welcome to wikipedia. In regarding your edits to the Armenian genocide article, Please read the following articles: Wikipedia is not an online forum. Armenian genocide is a dispute that is yet to be resolved. Your edits are POV (point of view) oriented. No one is or can acknowlege or deny the Armenian Genocide on wikipedia. Please read the articles below, you are OBLIGATED to follow thse:

• Neutral point of view
• What Wikipedia is not

Thank you for your time! --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 14:43, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)""""

Dear aozan, I don't think I did anything that could justify your uses of capitals to answer me. Please respect me as much as I am respecting you.

1- You told me that I did the same thing(copypasting), I don't remember having done the same thing, there is no limit here, you can write as much as you want. What is not accepted though, is to copypast dozens of texts one after the other. This can be called spamming and is against the code of conduct. You could of course post once in a while, newspaper articles regarding the current situation and stuff, or elements relevent to a given discussion; things in context. But this is not what you did, had I not interviened, you'de probably continue posting articles one after the other.

2- ASALA has absolutly nothing to do with what happened in 1915. I repeat, the only way for one to believe that ASALA could be used to somehow "disprove" what is reported having happened in 1915, is for one to have some racist beliefs.

3- This entry is not regarding crimes perpetrated by some Armenian groups, this entry is about the tragedy that is called the Armenian genocide. The next time I have checked, I did not find in the Lipitor entry informations regarding Celexa. Did you?

4- It is the first time I hear the term "imperialism" used as a characteristic of Armenia, I won't ask the logic behind this, as it is totally irrelevent here.

5- I've read every single books written by Lewis, including the one where he calls what happened to the Armenians as the "Armenian Holocaust" and the revision of his version after that thew Turkish government founded and funded chairs in the Middle East department of his prestigious university, with the apparition of the so-called Ottoman department. I have read every single links from where the texts your posts come from, I have read every single major revisionist books in French and English language(including the major Turkish works translated to English). I doubt that you know your own theses as much as I know it. But I think that is irrelevent too.

6- Your problems with Thoth, discuss them with him, don't drag me in this childish ball game I run away from. PLEAZZZ.

7- I fail to see how by spamming the talk page you are defending Wikipedia.

Having said all this, I expect you to answer my question please. Reread my previous answer once again. Regards Fadix 23:43, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

PS: If you want to discredit me, Coolcat would be the last user to reffer to. Fadix 23:43, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Fadix - I don't discount anything you said above except # 6. How is it that his "problems" are with me? What is it concerning Asala or spurious Turkish charges against Armenians that is specific to me? I fail to understand your point here. --THOTH 00:00, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am only trying to say your wrong behaviours against the other users, I don't have any problem with THOTH , and I am respecting you as you respecting to me, lastly I did not understand what did you ask Fadix, and USA is not a reference to me. We know what kind of state it is. AND YOU ARE CONTINUING TO DAMAGING WIKIPEDIA'S RESPECT. GO ON PLEASE.

Sorry, I have no clue of what the hell you're talking about. As for Thoth, you have quoted something involving him, which does not concern me. The rest..., you won't drag me there. Sorry. Fadix 15:49, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Heresay and spamming

I find nothing in the preceeding spamming of the talk page to be of any inherent value to the discussion or to reaching truth in this matter. I could post thousands of pages of Armenian accounts of their suffering at the hands of Turks and I can refute a great deal of what has been presented as it is entirely non-credible and non corroborated and does not fit with any facts that nuetral and even Turkish friendly (German and Austrian and at least one Venezualan) observers noted at the time. The McCarthy presentation is especially deceitful and based upon twisting of the truth and outright ommision. ASALA is entirely immaterial unless we should likewise present every detail of aspects of the various Turkish dirty wars against the Kurds - beginning in the late 1920s as well as the account of how M Ali Acga attempted to assasinte the Pope. If what we are after here is a truthful presentation I am afraid the Turkish contributors will have to do better then offering up of unsupported propoganda and making spurious claims concerning why Armenians are concerned with pursueing justice in regards to the Genocide and the merits of the international scholarship and recognition that affirms the case of pre-mediated Genocide with no military or overiding threat to justify it.--THOTH 23:50, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

))))))))))))))) GO ON DISINFORMATING :))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

Footnote: M Ali Agca attempted to assasinate the Pope because Pope Jean Paul II (Karol Wojtila) was a threat against communism, because he was from Poland and this was value to Poland Catholic Church and Lech Walesa , which were opposing with the Socialist Regime in Poland. M Ali Agca was an agent, both working for Turkish National Intelligence Service (Mlli Istihbarat Teşkilatı as we know M.I.T.) and Soviet State Security Association (Komitet Gosudarstvenniy Bezopasnostiy as we know K.G.B.) But you can give Abdullah Çatlı as an example , he was a terrorist in TIT (A Turkish terrorist organization, TIT means Türk Intikam Tugayı) and it is known that in Turkey , he was an agent in the Turkish National Intelligence Service also. (TIT was a nationalist terrorist organization to kill Armenians , Socialists and Communists , Mehmet Ali Agca was also working in TIT , he killed Abdi Ipekçi , a journalist , he was the general publishing director of Milliyet newspaper in Turkey.) I don't have any problem with you you can say everything to the Turkish government , it is not important for me , I know what is going on in the World, Turkey is an ally of USA , so it is normal that they are looking like to each other, but I am saying again Armenian Genocide is not offical to international law, recognising of it by USA does not make it official, I have no problem with you, and I see that I can not prevent the Wikipedia from your disinformatings so I am giving in to try to save the Wikipedia . I am not saying that you are not right, but this case is not official yet.

US Congress to propose recognition of Armenian Genocide

REPS. RADANOVICH, SCHIFF, KNOLLENBERG, AND PALLONE INTRODUCE ARMENIAN GENOCIDE LEGISLATION

-- Resolution Reaffirms U.S. Record on the Armenian Genocide

WASHINGTON, DC - A bipartisan group of over 50 U.S. Representatives joined today with lead sponsors George Radanovich (R-CA), Adam Schiff (D-CA), and Congressional Armenian Caucus Co-Chairmen Frank Pallone (D-NJ) and Joe Knollenberg (R-MI) in introducing the Armenian Genocide Resolution in the House of Representatives, reported the Armenian National Committee of America (ANCA).

"We join with Armenian Americans across the United States in welcoming the introduction today of the Armenian Genocide Resolution by Congressmen Radanovich, Schiff, Knollenberg, and Pallone," said ANCA Executive Director Aram Hamparian. "We look forward to working with our Congressional friends, community partners, and the growing genocide-prevention coalition to build bipartisan support for this measure and to help secure its timely adoption by the House of Representatives."

The resolution enjoys the support of the ANCA, Armenian Assembly, and the entire Armenian American community. It will be referred to the House International Relations Committee for consideration.

The Radanovich-Schiff-Knollenberg-Pallone Resolution calls upon the President "to ensure that the foreign policy of the Untied States reflects appropriate understanding and sensitivity concerning issues related to human rights, ethnic cleansing, and genocide documented in the United States record relating to the Armenian Genocide." The resolution includes thirty detailed findings from past U.S. hearings, resolutions and Presidential statements on the Armenian Genocide from 1916 through the present, as well as references to statements by international bodies and organizations.

Upon introduction of the measure, Rep. Radanovich noted that "By properly acknowledging the Armenian Genocide, we recognize this atrocity and renew our commitment to prevent other occurrences of man's inhumanity to man. I am proud to have been a leader in this community for the past decade as one voice for a people who were silenced for too long."

Members of Congress joining Representatives Radanovich, Schiff, Knollenberg and Pallone as original cosponsors of the resolution are: Rob Andrews (D-NJ), Charles Bass (R-NH), Howard Berman (D-CA), Michael Bilirakis (R-FL), Jeb Bradley (R-NH), Dennis Cardoza (D-CA), John Conyers (D-MI), Jim Costa (D-CA), Jerry Costello (D-IL), Joseph Crowley (D-NY), David Dreier (R-CA), Anna Eshoo (D-CA), Bob Filner (D-CA) , Mark Foley (R-FL), Barney Frank (D-MA), Scott Garrett (R-NJ), Raul Grijalva (D-AZ) , Maurice Hinchey (D-NY), Steve Israel (D-NY), Darrell Issa (R-CA), Patrick Kennedy (D-RI), Mark Kirk (R-IL), James Langevin (D-RI), Sander Levin (D-MI), Carolyn Maloney (D-NY), Thaddeus McCotter (R-MI), Jim McDermott (D-WA), James McGovern (D-MA), Buck McKeon (R-CA), Michael McNulty (D-NY), Marty Meehan (D-MA), Robert Menendez (D-NJ), Candice Miller (R-MI), Grace Napolitano (D-CA), Devin Nunes (R-CA), Mike Rogers (R-MI), Steve Rothman (D-NJ), Lucille Roybal-Allard (D-CA), Ed Royce (R-CA), Jim Saxton (R-NJ), Joe Schwarz (R-MI), E. Clay Shaw (R-FL), Brad Sherman (D-CA), John Shimkus (R-IL), Chris Smith (R-NJ), Mark Souder (R-IN), John Sweeney (R-NY), Peter Visclosky (D-IN), Diane Watson (D-CA), and Anthony Weiner (D-NY).

The text of the resolution is similar to one introduced in 1999, during the 106th Congress, again led by Rep. Radanovich, spearheaded along with then House Democratic Whip David Bonior (D-MI) and the Congressional Armenian Caucus Co-Chairs. That bill secured the support of over 140 cosponsors and, following extensive hearings, was overwhelmingly adopted by the House International Relations Committee by a vote of 24 to 11, and scheduled for a floor vote. Despite the clear bipartisan support for the measure, it was withdrawn from the House calendar in October of 2000 by the Speaker of the House, under heavy pressure from President Clinton.

The text of the resolution follows.

============================================ =======

TEXT OF RADANOVICH-SCHIFF-KNOLLENBERG-PALLONE ARMENIAN GENOCIDE RESOLUTION

============================================ =======

Affirmation of the United States Record on the Armenian Genocide

RESOLUTION

Calling upon the President to ensure that the foreign policy of the United States reflects appropriate understanding and sensitivity concerning issues related to human rights, ethnic cleansing, and genocide documented in the United States record relating to the Armenian Genocide, and for other purposes.

Resolved,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This resolution may be cited as the "Affirmation of the United States Record on the Armenian Genocide."

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

The House of Representatives finds the following:

1) The Armenian Genocide was conceived and carried out by the Ottoman Empire from 1915 to 1923, resulting in the deportation of nearly 2,000,000 Armenians, of whom 1,500,000 men, women, and children were killed, 500,000 survivors were expelled from their homes, and which succeeded in the elimination of the over 2,500- year presence of Armenians in their historic homeland.

2) On May 24, 1915, the Allied Powers, England, France, and Russia, jointly issued a statement explicitly charging for the first time ever another government of committing "a crime against humanity."

3) This joint statement stated "[i]n view of these new crimes of Turkey against humanity and civilization, the Allied Governments announce publicly to the Sublime Porte that they will hold personally responsible for these crimes all members of the Ottoman Government, as well as those of their agents who are implicated in such massacres."

4) The post-World War I Turkish Government indicted the top leaders involved in the "organization and execution" of the Armenian Genocide and in the "massacre and destruction of the Armenians."

5) In a series of courts-martial, officials of the Young Turk Regime were tried and convicted, as charged, for organizing and executing massacres against the Armenian people.

6) The chief organizers of the Armenian Genocide, Minister of War Enver, Minister of the Interior Talaat, and Minister of the Navy Jemal were all condemned to death for their crimes, however, the verdicts of the courts were not enforced.

7) The Armenian Genocide and these domestic judicial failures are documented with overwhelming evidence in the national archives of Austria, France, Germany, Great Britain, Russia, the United States, the Vatican and many other countries, and this vast body of evidence attests to the same facts, the same events, and the same consequences.

8) The United States National Archives and Record Administration holds extensive and thorough documentation on the Armenian Genocide, especially in its holdings under Record Group 59 of the United States Department of State, files 867.00 and 867.40, which are open and widely available to the public and interested institutions.

9) The Honorable Henry Morgenthau, United States Ambassador to the Ottoman Empire from 1913 to 1916, organized and led protests by officials of many countries, among them the allies of the Ottoman Empire, against the Armenian Genocide.

10) Ambassador Morgenthau explicitly described to the United States Department of State the policy of the Government of the Ottoman Empire as "a campaign of race extermination," and was instructed on July 16, 1915, by United States Secretary of State Robert Lansing that the "Department approves your procedure . . . to stop Armenian persecution."

11) Senate Concurrent Resolution 12 of February 9, 1916, resolved that "the President of the United States be respectfully asked to designate a day on which the citizens of this country may give expression to their sympathy by contributing funds now being raised for the relief of the Armenians", who at the time were enduring "starvation, disease, and untold suffering."

12) President Woodrow Wilson concurred and also encouraged the formation of the organization known as Near East Relief, chartered by an Act of Congress, which contributed some $116,000,000 from 1915 to 1930 to aid Armenian Genocide survivors, including 132,000 orphans who became foster children of the American people.

13) Senate Resolution 359, dated May 11, 1920, stated in part, "the testimony adduced at the hearings conducted by the sub-committee of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations have clearly established the truth of the reported massacres and other atrocities from which the Armenian people have suffered."

14) The resolution followed the April 13, 1920, report to the Senate of the American Military Mission to Armenia led by General James Harbord, that stated "[m]utilation, violation, torture, and death have left their haunting memories in a hundred beautiful Armenian valleys, and the traveler in that region is seldom free from the evidence of this most colossal crime of all the ages."

15) As displayed in the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, Adolf Hitler, on ordering his military commanders to attack Poland without provocation in 1939, dismissed objections by saying "[w]ho, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?" and thus set the stage for the Holocaust.

16) Raphael Lemkin, who coined the term "genocide" in 1944, and who was the earliest proponent of the United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide, invoked the Armenian case as a definitive example of genocide in the 20th century.

17) The first resolution on genocide adopted by the United Nations at Lemkin's urging, the December 11, 1946, United Nations General Assembly Resolution 96(1) and the United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide itself recognized the Armenian Genocide as the type of crime the United Nations intended to prevent and punish by codifying existing standards.

18) In 1948 the United Nations War Crimes Commission invoked the Armenian Genocide "precisely . . . one of the types of acts which the modern term 'crimes against humanity' is intended to cover" as a precedent for the Nuremberg tribunals.

19) The Commission stated that "[t]he provisions of Article 230 of the Peace Treaty of Sevres were obviously intended to cover, in conformity with the Allied note of 1915 . . ., offenses which had been committed on Turkish territory against persons of Turkish citizenship, though of Armenian or Greek race. This article constitutes therefore a precedent for Article 6c and 5c of the Nuremberg and Tokyo Charters, and offers an example of one of the categories of 'crimes against humanity' as understood by these enactments."

20) House Joint Resolution 148, adopted on April 8, 1975, resolved: "[t]hat April 24, 1975 is hereby designated as 'National Day of Remembrance of Man's Inhumanity to Man', and the President of the United States is authorized and requested to issue a proclamation calling upon the people of the United States to observe such day as a day of remembrance for all the victims of genocide, especially those of Armenian ancestry. . . ."

21) President Ronald Reagan in proclamation number 4838, dated April 22, 1981, stated in part "like the genocide of the Armenians before it, and the genocide of the Cambodians, which followed it-- and like too many other persecutions of too many other people--the lessons of the Holocaust must never be forgotten."

22) House Joint Resolution 247, adopted on September 10, 1984, resolved: "[t]hat April 24, 1985, is hereby designated as 'National Day of Remembrance of Man's Inhumanity to Man', and the President of the United States is authorized and requested to issue a proclamation calling upon the people of the United States to observe such day as a day of remembrance for all the victims of genocide, especially the one and one-half million people of Armenian ancestry . . . ."

23) In August 1985, after extensive study and deliberation, the United Nations SubCommission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities voted 14 to 1 to accept a report entitled "Study of the Question of the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide," which stated "[t]he Nazi aberration has unfortunately not been the only case of genocide in the twentieth century. Among other examples which can be cited as qualifying are . . the Ottoman massacre of Armenians in 1915-1916.".

24) This report also explained that "[a]t least 1 million, and possibly well over half of the Armenian population, are reliably estimated to have been killed or death marched by independent authorities and eye-witnesses. This is corroborated by reports in United States, German and British archives and of contemporary diplomats in the Ottoman Empire, including those of its ally Germany."

25) The United States Holocaust Memorial Council, an independent Federal agency, unanimously resolved on April 30, 1981, that the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum would include the Armenian Genocide in the Museum and has since done so.

26) Reviewing an aberrant 1982 expression (later retracted) by the United States Department of State asserting that the facts of the Armenian Genocide may be ambiguous, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in 1993, after a review of documents pertaining to the policy record of the United States, noted that the assertion on ambiguity in the United States record about the Armenian Genocide "contradicted longstanding United States policy and was eventually retracted."

27) On June 5, 1996, the House adopted an amendment to the Fiscal Year 1997 Foreign Operations Appropriation Act to reduce aid to Turkey by $3 million (an estimate of its payment of lobbying fees in the U.S.) until the Turkish government acknowledged the Armenian Genocide and took steps to honor the memory of its victims.

28) President William Jefferson Clinton, on April 24, 1998, stated in part "This year, as in the past, we join with Armenian-Americans throughout the nation in commemorating one of the saddest chapters in the history of this century, the deportations and massacres of a million and a half Armenians in the Ottoman Empire in the years 1915-1923."

29) President George W. Bush, on April 24, 2004 stated in part "On this day, we pause in remembrance of one of the most horrible tragedies of the 20th century, the annihilation of as many as 1.5 million Armenians through forced exile and murder at the end of the Ottoman Empire."

30) Despite the international recognition and affirmation of the Armenian Genocide, the failure of the domestic and international authorities to punish those responsible for the Armenian Genocide is a reason why similar genocides have recurred and may recur in the future, and that a just resolution will help prevent future genocides.

SEC. 3. DECLARATION OF POLICY.

The House of Representatives -

1) Calls upon the President to ensure that the foreign policy of the United States reflects appropriate understanding and sensitivity concerning issues related to human rights, ethnic cleansing, and genocide documented in the United States record relating to the Armenian Genocide and the consequences of the failure to realize a just resolution;

2) Calls upon the President in the President's annual message commemorating the Armenian Genocide issued on or about April 24 to accurately characterize the systematic and deliberate annihilation of 1,500,000 Armenians as genocide and to recall the proud history of United States intervention in opposition to the Armenian Genocide.

THE NEUTRALITY OF THE ARTICLE ABOUT ARMENIAN GENOCIDE IS OBVIOUSLY QUESTIONABLE

If "Armenian Genocide" was carried by an international agreement or if there was a INTERNATIONAL COURT DECISION about this case, it could be OFFICIAL and LEGAL ,after that you can put the "Armenian Genocide" as an article in this ENCYCLOPEDIA. Recognisation of this case by USA , UN (It was not recognised officially and by accord as "Armenian Genocide" in UN General Congress) , European Countries does not make it OFFICIAL AND LEGAL , recognisation of a case in a country is about territorial law , but this case is an international law case , and in territorial it is the problem of the Turkey and Armenia. Armenian Genocide is not official to the international law and it is illegal , WHY? BECAUSE IT DID NOT RECOGNISED OR CARRIED BY AN INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENT OR THERE IS NO INTERNATIONAL COURT DECISION ABOUT THIS CASE HAS HAPPENED. WIKIPEDIA CAN NOT BE AN ENCYCLOPEDIA WHILE IT IS CONTAINING UNOFFICAL AND ILLEGAL ARTICLES. I hope you will understand that what are you doing. Please read the articles below, you are OBLIGATED to follow these:

• Neutral point of view
• What Wikipedia is not

Have a nice day and life Mr THOTH and Mr FADIX -- aozan

Then wikipedia should not have articles about e.g. Northern Cyprus nor mention it anywhere since it's not internationally recognized, or Holocaust denial for that matter. The fact that a topic is controversial (or just against the interests of some party) shouldn't prevent it from being included. EpiVictor 11:49, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not about legal cases of international law, so this statement seems as a nonsense. Also, internationally there are only post-WWII genocides investigated by courts, so this statement seems as a nonsense also because of its pseudo-legal claims too. --Gvorl 12:29, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I propose you, to before saying noensense, to read the entry you're trying to kill.

Fadix, I think you simply misunderstood me :-) Wikipedia is not about legal cases of international law: this means that Wikipedia is not site studying international law cases and as such it can not pretend to anlyse which case should be treated as legally proved or unproved or which court decission should be treated as correct or incorrect or was some court authoritative on some decision or not, etc., so it it is a nonsense to go here with argument like "international court hasn't made decision". The only legal thing which can be used here - it is references to legal sources and their decisions, but not our legal evaluations. Also, because of Armenian genocide was far before invention of international laws related to genocides (and even invention of genocide term), nobody can expect that this case will be investigated in any authoritative international courts responsible for genocide cases. So, Armenian genocide simply is a case which forms foundation to analysis of genocides as one of cases which clearly illustrates definition of genocide term, and this is deliberatelly shown as such by Raphael Lemkin. --Gvorl 05:34, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In the official recognition we find: "United Nations Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities." It was voted and passed. On the same list we find: "International Center for Transitional Justice (ICTJ)" and "Permanent Peoples' Tribunal." To this add the section in the entry regarding the Military trials conducted in Istanbul that followed the Mazhar commission. On the talk page, I've posted materials regarding the UN report of 1948 regarding the Armenian massacres months before the introduction of the genocide convention. I have posted records from Lemkin the person who coined the term genocide. While, there are legal ground to call the event "Armenian genocide" if there were no, it won't exclude it from Wikipedia, the Association of genocide scholars, the largest association grouping genocide researchers, call it such, most of Western historians call it such. Like it or not, it is the official version in the accademic world, and as the official position, this version of history should have its place. Fadix 15:59, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree that this is just another pathetic non-argument - but I think that the findings in 1984 of the Permanent Peoples Tribunal are partticularly relevent here and I am going to post some exerpts. It is important to note thet the UN tribunal extensivly considered the Turkish denials and looked for evidence to contradict the Genocide claim vbut could find no basis for belief in the Turkish counter-claims:

UN Permanent Peoples' Tribunal, Verdict of the Tribunal

April 16, 1984

Verdict of the Tribunal

"...the basic grievance of massacre and extermination is fixed in time sixty-nine years ago in 1915. The Tribunal is convinced that its duties include the validation of historic grievances if these have never been properly brought before the bar of justice and acknowledged in an appropriate form by the government involved.

In this instance, the basis for an examination and evaluation of these Armenian allegations is especially compelling. Every government of the Turkish state since 1915 has refused to come to grips with the accusation of responsibility for the genocidal events.

Particularly relevant in this regard are the charges of deliberate destruction, desecration, and neglect of Armenian cultural monuments and religious buildings. The Tribunal adopts the view that charge of the crime of genocide remains a present reality to be examined and, if established, to be appropriately and openly acknowledged by leaders of the responsible state. The victims of a crime of genocide are entitled to legal relief even after this great lapse of time, although this relief must necessarily reflect present circumstances.

III. The Evidence The Tribunal is invited to pronounce judgement on the charge of genocide brought on the basis of the events of 1915-1915.

IV. The Turkish Arguments The Tribunal has examined the Turkish arguments as set forth in the documents submitted to it.

There can be no doubt that the Armenians constitute a national group within the definition of the rule outlawing genocide. This conclusion is all the more evident since they constitute a people protected by the right to self determination which necessarily implies that they also constitute a group, the destruction of which is outlawed by virtue of the rule pertaining to genocide.

There is no doubt regarding the reality of the physical acts constituting the genocide. The fact of the murder of members of a group, of grave attacks on their physical or mental integrity, and of the subjection of this group to conditions leading necessarily to their deaths, are clearly proven by the full and unequivocal evidence submitted to the Tribunal. In its examination of the case the Tribunal has focused primarily on the massacres perpetrated between 1915 and 1917, which were the most extreme example of a policy which was clearly heralded by the events of 1894-1896.

The specific intent to destroy the group as such, which is the special characteristic of the crime of genocide, is also established. The reports and documentary evidence supplied point clearly to a policy of methodical extermination of the Armenian people, revealing the specific intent referred to in Article II of the Convention of December 9, 1948.

The policy took effect in actions which were attributable beyond dispute to the Turkish or Ottoman authorities, particularly during the massacres of 1915-1917. The Tribunal notes on the one hand, however, that in addition to the atrocities committed by the official authorities, the latter also used malicious propaganda and other means to encourage civilian populations to commit acts of genocide against the Armenians. It is further observed that the authorities generally refrained from intervening to prevent the slaughter, although they had the power to do so, or from punishing the culprits, with the exception of the trial of the Unionists. This attitude amounts to incitement to crime and to criminal negligence, and must be judged as severely as the crimes actively committed and specifically covered by the law against genocide.

On the evidence submitted, the Tribunal considers that the various allegations (rebellion, treason, etc.) made by the Turkish government to justify the massacres are without foundation. It is stressed, in any event, that even were such allegations substantiated, they could in no way justify the massacres committed. Genocide is a crime which admits of no grounds for excuse or justification.

For these reasons, the Tribunal finds that the charge of genocide of the Armenian people brought against the Turkish authorities is established as to its foundation in fact.

The Tribunal notes that one of the most serious consequences and one of the most disturbing effects of genocide - above and beyond the irreparable wrongs inflicted upon its immediate victims - is the degradation and perversion of humanity as a whole.

For These Reasons

in answer to the questions which put to it, the Tribunal hereby finds that:

the Armenian population did and do constitute a people whose fundamental rights, both individual and collective, should have been and shall be respected in accordance with international law;

the extermination of the Armenian population groups through deportation and massacre constitutes a crime of genocide not subject to statutory limitations within the definition of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide of December 9, 1948. With respect to the condemnation of this crime, the aforesaid Convention is declaratory of existing law in that it takes note of rules which were already in force at the time of the incriminated acts;

the Young Turk government is guilty of this genocide, with regard to the acts perpetrated between 1915-1917;

the Armenian genocide is also an 'international crime' for which the Turkish state must assume responsibility, without using the pretext of any discontinuity in the existence of the state to elude that responsibility;

this responsibility implies first and foremost the obligation to recognize officially the reality of this genocide and the consequent damages suffered by the Armenian people;

the United Nations Organization and each of its members have the right to demand this recognition and to assist the Armenian people to that end.--THOTH 16:38, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Credit user:aozan with writing the best talk page header I've seen in a while. "Unofficial And Illegal Articles"? Without those, what else would we have? -Willmcw 17:15, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

I'd laugh too if it were not for the seriousness of this issue and the blatant and aggrresive official (and illegal) campaign of Turkish denial! --THOTH 17:27, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No, you are mistaken in this point, I think we should take this warning seriously about policy of wikipedia. --krasnoya

Facts will be presented and a proper chronolgy laid out. Are you saying that you have a problem with this? Is there some overiding reason why Wikipedia policy should be to promote untruths and distortions (as something other then what they are)? --THOTH 20:36, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No one can acknowledge or deny "Armenian Genocide" on Wikipedia. If you acknowledge it in here someone can create an article as "American Indian Genocide" , "Basque Genocide" , "Genocide by France in Algeria", "Genocide by Spain against the Natives of the Southern America" etc. But if there was a judgement of international court about war crimes or an agreement that says "Turkey is responsible of the Armenian Genocide" ,this case could be official. The thing you do in here is looking like to say that "Antonio Meucci is not the inventor of the Telephone , the inventor of the telephone is Graham Bell" (In here the important thing is what is officially done). So you should write to here "According to the many historians and evidences there was a Genocide and it's responsible is Turkey or Turks , but according to the some other historians and evidence there was not a genocide or there was massacre activities against the Turks and Kurds by Armenians too... "

Historically, Armenian genocide was before invention of genocide term, so usage of genocide term in this case can not be restricted because of any legal presumptions. Also, genocide term is not only legal term, so it can be used anyway. Secondary, it was mentioned in the definition of genocide term used by UN and currently existing international courts, as a case which illustrates what genocide is. So, Armenian genocide together with Holocaust are indirectially meaned in any international court decission which can be made in any genocide investigation at all. So, if you are trying to do some questioning of Armenian genocide, I would like to suggest you do not mention any legal definitions. --Gvorl 08:28, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am not questioning the Armenian Genocide, I am questioning that is this article suitable to the Wikipedia Policies. Wikipedia is not a FORUM, no one can DENY or ACKNOWLEDGE something in Wikipedia.

Please see the Wikipedia:NPOV policy, which is the Wikipedia way of addressing highly controversial topics such as this. Note that by describing other people's verifiable statements, NPOV allows the reader to make up their own mind about the truth or falsity of the proposition being described in the article. -- The Anome 11:33, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

At last. Thanks , this is what I wanted to hear , the NEUTRALITY of this article is OBVIOUSLY QUESTIONABLE. Thanks to you :-)

Now I want to ask if that thing is real , why there is a DISPUTED TAG on this article about "Armenian Genocide" or "So-Called Armenian Genocide" ? Why there isn't a DISPUTED TAG on the Jewish Holocaust Article? Because the Jewish Holocaust is a reality , but Armenian Genocide is not a reality, because it is the propaganda of the Armenian Diaspora and Imperialist Countries , because they couldn't destroyed the Anatolian Republic both by military power and terrorism.

Encyclopedia is not a propaganda tool. -- aozan

Oh dear. There's clearly no reasoning with you; you have taken my comments in the opposite sense to that meant. The article is already framed in NPOV terms; perhaps it could be better, but the essentials are this:

• Many people believe lots of Armenians were killed
• Some commentators believe that this is not the case
• Most of those who believe that lots of Armenians were killed believe that the term "genocide" applies
• Some commentators believe that it does not.
• Some also want to mention deaths of Turks from internecine violence.

All of the above can be framed in NPOV terms. If there are still arguments about sources for statements, cites should be given.

-- The Anome 13:22, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

I don't think so, [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41]

I am asking again the questions above- aozan.

And I'm asking you again if, with the same mentality, articles and referenced to Northern Cyprus and Holocaust denial should be removed. It's not about the Armenian problem, but they both are "officially unrecognized".

I don't remember that I defended the Northern Cyprus and Jewish Holocaust Denial ,if I did show me where I did this?

Also, has anybody though of making a Armenian Genocide denial article, since it is so controversial and since there are so many sources to back it up? Take the Genocide denial article as a base. EpiVictor 14:04, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am against the Armenian Genocide Denial article too because this is not official too. Because defending the denial is a propaganda too. In my opinion Wikipedia is not a PROPAGANDA tool , NO ONE CAN DENY IT ALSO on Wikipedia. But in talk page everybody can tell their decision I think , I am talking about the articles only, not the talk pages. And again I am not your enemy , but if you think that the opposite about me (because I am a Turk), I surrender

Armenia Rejects Turkey's Dialogue Call

March 11, 2005

Armenian Foreign Minister Oskanyan: “There is no need to discuss with the Turkish historians”

Jan SOYKOK

Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Opposition Party CHP ’s Leader Deniz Baykal called Armenia and Armenians to open their archives and to make negotiations on Armenian issue. Turkish PM said on Tuesday " We have already opened our archives to those who claim there was a genocide. If they are sincere, they should also open theirs. This would allow historians to work on documents on both sides… Teams of historians from both sides should conduct studies in these archives… We do not want future generations to have a difficult life because of hatred and resentment.” However Armenian side says there is no need to discuss the Armenian allegations, because they are already proven. Armenian Foreign Minister Oskanyan said the problem is political and Armenia does not need to discuss the ‘genocide’ argument with the Turkish side. Oskanyan claimed the historians had made their all studies and they do not need make any more study. However the Turkish historians and many American and British researchers do not agree with the pro-Armenian historians. Many historians from the US and Europe including Prof. Dr. Justin McCarthy and Prof. Dr. Stanford Shaw says the 1915 events cannot be considered as ‘genocide’.

Conflict resolution

Gvorl thinks he knows a way to deal with such conflicts, he present his proposition here and we discuss. I have also a proposition. First, Thoth thinks he can do better with the article, I proposed him to try merging the information already in the article in his attempt and present it here. I will edit it. And after completing this, Yce could give his opinion and make propositions. We could then cut pieces by pieces the edit and propose a suggestion for each pieces and if they are OK. Then, we could pass to a vote, not on if what is writen in the article are facts or not, but rather if the positions are correctly presented.

After this, we may perhaps change this version, and after completing it, adding a banner like this.

Please read the Talk:Armenian_Genocide (and its archives) before making any substantial changes, and post your editing proposals there first. Otherwise, your edits might be revoked.

Fadix 19:57, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Structure of the conflict

I would like to emphasize few things about this conflict at first. This conflict is really unsolvable (see below, "Situation"). Leave any hope that any position (Armenian or Turkian) will become accepted by opposing side. The only thing we can do here - make positions as clear as possible and avoid further conflicts.

This Wikipedia conflict is a continuation of the conflict which started maybe 100 years ago. And now, in Wikipedia, somebody can win only by consensus: you can win something only if you yeld to something. I would like to suggest strong formalization of the discussion: such formalisation will be something you'll give to each other to win the some truth.

And the last thing (it is only my opinion, I do not pretend to discuss it here): both sides of this conflict were victims. And not victims of the each other, but victims of the some corrupted political group. Try to understand this: not only armenians but turks too were victims and both was used by the same government, but simply in different ways.

Sure Turks were victims - many Turkics and other Muslims suffered terribly in years of 19th centry primarily as the Empire collapsed. And all Ottoman citizens suffered under the yolk of misrule of the Sultans in recent centuries that could not adapt to the changing times and fortunes. And all suffered from the horrible zealotry and desperation of the CUP/Young Turks...agreed...and all suffered due to the horros of World War I - in differening degrees...but only the Armenians experienced a Genocide as a people and only Armenians were deliberatly set upon and exterminated and were subject to mass barbarities and cruelties beyond immagination - and until this is examined in proper perspective it is impossible to likewise accuratly examine and understand all of these other events. One cannot concoct a false history of one period and expect to portray and understand prior and subsequant historical events - these are all related and interconnected and cannot be accuratly seen in isolation or through the lens of falsity. --THOTH 02:57, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

So, most of formal and structural things I had presented below --Gvorl 12:01, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Reasons and possible solutions

Situation

• At first, what we have? We have a conflict which is unsolvable in Wikipedia at all:
  • There are two different positions which strongly opposes each other
  • Reasons for this are not in people who discuss here
  • Reasons for this conflict are outside (not in Wikipedia community)
  • Those reasons are strong enough to keep this article conflict active for unlimited time

Resolution

What we can do here? Mainly - avoid discussions if possible, formalize discussions when they start:

• Try to write this article from outside position, which would be outside of the conflict between two sides. Position of some imaginary chinese or estonian researcher would be good enough.
• General politcorrectnes:
  • No personalities:
    • No any personal attacks.
    • No any analysis of people who are involved into discussion.
    • Discuss the claims but not the people.
  • No generalization:
    • Do not claim that genocide was performed by turks or turkian nation (murderer is not a nationality).
    • Do not claim that genocide was performed by Turkey, or even Ottoman Empire as a nation (somebody was against, yes?).
    • Do not claim that armenians or armenian nation was guilty.
    • Do not claim that turks or turkian nation was guilty.
    • Do not claim that any massacres were legitimate because of any actions somebody performed.
    • Do not value any nations at all.
    • Account only the actions performed only by concrete political group.
• Factual analysis:
  • Stop any analysis of things which are not theme of this article.
  • Stop searching the truth (documented facts will show it).
  • Start searching for the documents.
  • Discuss and describe the terms you use.
  • Discuss the sources you use:
    • Is it direct source (e.g. Ottoman Empire document or direct evidence)?
    • Is it indirect source (e.g. later historical analysis)?
    • Specify time period you are discussing about.
• General formalisation:
  • Each discussion topic should be checked at first for suiting the topic of the article. No irrelevant things should be discussed.
  • Each proposition should be documented as possible, references should be used.
  • Each change in the article should be discussed before, any undiscussed article changes should be rejected absolutelly unconditionally.
• Article reorganisation:
  • The topic of the article and the discussed terms should be neutrally described on the top of all and without any claims, if possible (facts should be separated from description of terms).
  • Article should be divided according to possible discussion topics.
  • As much as possible things should be moved to the other articles.

Cyclic repetitions

The most specific process in discussions here - cyclic repetition of discussion topics. For example, discussion about sources, discussion about international recognition, discussion about armenian terrorists, etc.. Such repetitions interfere with any effective factual analysis, so I would like to suggest one thing:

• After some topic was discussed, describe final positions and important data you got.
  • Such description of final positions should be acceptable for all and it should not describe "reality" or "truth", but only positions, claims and facts which are presented by the discussion participants.
• Then freeze this discussion topic.
• Any further discussion on such topic should be performed only after new facts on the topic are got.
• Any other tries to repeat such discussion should be rejected unconditionally.

Why are Turkish nationalists turning fact such as the Armenian Genocide into debate, it happend, proof from both Armenians themselves and foreign witnesses who were there at the time and saw it for themselves such as American doctor Clarence Ussher whose notes on the events he saw were made into a film entitled Ararat (which was discredited in Turkey) There is no need to see "both" sides of the coin, how would people feel if Germany began to deny the holocaust and begin to focus on the poor SS men who were killed during the Warsaw uprising or various other concentration camp uprisings by Jews, we would be appaulled if this happend. Turks need to forget what they were taught by their own bias schools whose curriculum taints the truth, the world knows what happend, the world saw what happend and there is a Turkish conspiracy to hide and cloud the truth from their own people and the rest of the world.

Why are Turkish nationalists turning fact such as the Armenian Genocide into debate, it happend, proof from both Armenians themselves and foreign witnesses who were there at the time and saw it for themselves such as American doctor Clarence Ussher whose notes on the events he saw were made into a film entitled Ararat (which was discredited in Turkey) There is no need to see "both" sides of the coin, how would people feel if Germany began to deny the holocaust and begin to focus on the poor SS men who were killed during the Warsaw uprising or various other concentration camp uprisings by Jews, we would be appaulled if this happend. Turks need to forget what they were taught by their own bias schools whose curriculum taints the truth, the world knows what happend, the world saw what happend and there is a Turkish conspiracy to hide and cloud the truth from their own people and the rest of the world.

I think it is not possible to answer to this "why?". Simply here is such situation that we have two different positions. And we all (all the Wikipedia community) can not simply decide here that one position is right and other one is wrong, because of some of us actually are supporting different positions. Wikipedia is a community driven by actual consensuses but not by elitism (authorities). So, here is the only way which (I hope) can be successful for both sides: write article in such manner that it would be impossible to discuss its accuracy, and not by simply presenting contradictory POVs, but simply by structure where each fact or consequence of facts can be analyzed clearly. Strictly defining subject and terms, clearing the structure and grading the sources may be the way. And discussion topics freezing is simply needed to calm down any flames and get to actual analysis. --Gvorl 21:34, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Its hopeless anyway really. When you have one side (that is attempting to deny and hide the guilt of their nation) that absolutly cannot accept the truth - and the other "side" (the rest of humanity basically) is expected to cave in to this? You are now saying (above) that we cannot claim that the Ottoman Turkish Government directed and carried out a Genocide against its ethnic Armenian population? ...When this is proven fact...come now...but yes - we are essentially held hostage in forum such as this. The product will be watered down to the point of meaninglessness - as it already has been. Whatever...--THOTH 02:48, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The last thing about Ottoman Empire is simply politcorrectnes: No all the Otoman Empire people was responsible for any casualities. The some GOVERNMENT or political group was reponsible for any. When you distinct such things like difference between country (people) and government (political group), you get much more understanding from your opponent. (I had emphasised as bad thing exactly claims against the country (or its people), but not against the government). It is simple: any accusation interfere with any positive discussion. Actually, in the abstract, you can write good and truthful article without politcorrectnes, but it will be very difficult, simply because lots of your opponents will hamper the development. --Gvorl 03:12, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Understood - however it does no one any good to perpetuate (or accomodate) untruths. The fact of the matter is that a substansial portion of the Ottoman Muslim population was involved in the killing of Armenians and the appropriation of their fixed and transportable property and capital. Sure - a great many Turks and Kurds were disgusted by what they saw the government and the Turkish gangs ad such doing to the Armenians and many common Turks and Kurds did what they could - there are a great many stories of such and many Armenians owe their lives to Turks and Kurds of this period. But the fact remains that a good deal of the population was roused to bloodlust and savegry through - jihad - racist venting - jealous greed - revenge for past mistreatment and expulsion by other Orthodox - etc and such and these Muslims repeatedly fell upon the Armenians with great fury and were more then happy to carry out the CUP directed vengence against the Armenians. So how to say that in a politically correct manner eh? But it must be said - it must be demonstrated and the evidence is available and indisputable....--THOTH 13:54, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

THOTH, can you provide us what you mean by "substansial portion of the Ottoman Muslim population"? Give us a figure so that we know what you're talking about. Was it 50%? Was it 2 million? What do your sources say about it? --Muz 00:11, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Muz - nearly every account of Armenian towns being emptied contains accounts of Muslims/Turks maltreating Armenians - verbally and physically, as well as taking their goods (including livestock), money, and ultimatly of course taking their homes and fixed posessions. Nearly every story of a deportation caravan that has been reported describes incidents of the Armenians being acosted by portions of the local populations in the regions that they passed through - again with violence of all types. Additionally there are a great many incidents reported where Muslims were directly incited to violence by religious authorities - often times durning religious services - after which the mob set upon Armenians and massacred them and either destroyed or seized their properties - or both. The period of Rhamadan saw a dramatic increase in this violence according to numerous reports. And there are countless documentation of all of these acts.

While the Special Organization and the CUP trusted agents were the primary means of implementation of the Genocide much of the violence was conducted by local populations incited toward hatred and violence. These populations - many of whom were refugees from the Balkans and Crimea and the Caucuses were already predisposed against the Armenians as were most Muslims due to their intense resentment of the Tanzimat reforms and associated Armenian status gains (fictional or otherwise) and repeated calls by Armenians for foreign power assistance in their plight. Again there are a myriad of sources for this material - I don't know of any cumulative figures - and of course mostly Turks who were in proximity to Armenians and their deportation routes, concentration (tranist & death) camps and such could participate - however there are accounts (admissions) of Turks (from various removed places in the Empire) signing up to join special organization bands just for the opportunity to kill and pillage the Armenians. The latter motivation - economic - was no small factor on the part of both common Turks as well as CUP and Ottoman regional officials - for participating in the Genocide of Armenians. When I actually get to writing some sections I will do my best to thoroughly document my sources.

One problem I am having as I review my materials is that I have a great deal more detailed information that I can ever possibly fit in an article of this type. believe me - every day I have been going over my library and reading and marking passages. I think I will surprise many of you with the nature of some of my sources - many of which are from noted historians not in any way directly connected with the Armenian Genocide issue per se. As I have long had an interest in military history I have a fair library of treateses on World War I - many of which are currently out of print. Of course for detailed accounts of actual Genocide events sources tend to fall within the commonly known accouts - of whcih there is a plethora and which interestingly all tend to corraborate the chronology, methods employed, personalities and specific events.

My proposed outline for this section will include sections that will specifically detail not only specific defining events but also short bios of main perpetrators and their significant actions and admissions. In the methodology of the Genocide section I would expect to include details of Muslim/Turkish civilian participation in Genocidal actions - massacres and other deprivations. Likewise I do think it will be important to note the great many of Turks and Kurds who objected to what they saw occuring around them and took various actions - under penalty of death - to aid and assist Armenians as they could. This is all part of the story that must be told--THOTH 02:12, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC).

Gvorl proposition for conflict resolution.

I may have few problems in some points,(because of the possible wrong interpretation of them) but all in all I think it might be a good start. I do believe though, that the points regarding neutrality I have selected and included in my user page User:Fadix is an essencial add-in to Gvorl proposition, more particularly those in bold.

To Thoth and the other user that answered, I think reading few pages on how Wikipedia works, and trying to really understand the concept, will make you guys realise that what Gvorl proposes will NOT LEAD to a reletivzation or neither the denial of the genocide. Just to compare, the actual article, which is near NPOV, adhere more or less to Gvorl "rules," can you call it a revisionist entry?

Thoth, I told you, work and make propositions, the only thing I ask you, is to merge the informations of the present article in the new work, because those are essential points which should not be ignored. Yce, you are open for propositions too. Fadix 23:18, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I specially haven't entered things about viewpoints presentation because it is thing which can not be formalised directly. But I hope that balanced presentation of views can be assesed by some audit of sources which would classify them as direct and indirect ones. Also, I already see that few points I had entered (e.g. politcorrectness) were bit misunderstood, so I will bit clarify them. --Gvorl 05:36, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The current article - while it certainly has good information that can and I supose will be kept - is inadequate in a number of was. The English usage is somewhat marginal and their is no overarching presentation - it is a bit of a grab bag. It emphasizes some things and entirely neglects to present a great amount of material that is equally compelling. Overall it fails to convey the genocide as a serioes of historical events in a manner that conveys to the casual reader a proper understanding of what really went on to whom by whom and for what reasons - nor does it adequatly cover the factors for why such a thing occured or the reasons why recognition (knowledge) of such events is generally lacking among most people today. I do strongly believe that an entire seperate section concerning (Armenian) Genocide denial is warrented considering the fact that it is a current ongoing unresolved international issue in the world today. I propose to cover the intital failures of the post-war peace process and competition among the allies for territory and commercial concesions, the sucess in the Nationalist revolution and the elimination of Armenians and the Armenian State, Cold War issues, Armenian campaigns for Genocide recognition, Turkish evolving denials, Heath Lowery affair, Benard Lewis Affair, various Genocide resolution attempts - sucessful and otherwise, associated lobbying and so on and so forth - up to the current cancellation of the genocide conference in Istanbul and the current Turkish media campaign for denial. Even perhaps the change wars and such on Wikipedia may warrent a byline...--THOTH 02:22, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I should also add to the above list the shameless Turkish attempts to wipe out Armenian cultural monuments and recognition of Armenian cultural contributions and presence in Turkey. There is a ctually a great deal of similar and related and other material that warrents presentation IMO. --THOTH 02:27, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It depends on you, what will be written, but as many extra things you add as more complex article will become and discussions will grow by progression, keep in mind that. Simply sometimes less is more: maybe without minor things we will avoid major discussions? Also, I suggest you to get some response from your opponents: it is necessary to aggre that _both_ sides will keep the same rules. --Gvorl 05:21, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Category

Could an admin please change Category:Armenian history to Category:History of Armenia? The former is being renamed. Thanks, Beland 20:15, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Proposed Armenian Genocide Article Outline (partial and incomplete)

I wanted to get something out here before I went on vacation. I have a great deal more detail and such though not all tpewritten and not in this final format that I settled on and I feel that much more is required to really have a complete presentation. However I wanted to offer this up for something to chew on and I will be tweaking and adding to it while on my vacation and hopefully will be ready to post up something more complete in a few weeks. In the mean time think over this a bit - and I know it is really only complete through the Hamidiye massacres (which I see as being mentioned here but really needing to be a seperate section and the one that is there requires serious upgrading). I apologize for my lack of being able to format things in Wiki at this time. I really just haven't looked into how it is doen yet - and will likely require some assistance....

Outline for AG Wikipedia presentation

1) Introduction

- What was/is the Armenian Genocide o a brief overview of the essential facts concerning the elimination of the Armenian people and culture from Anatolia (1914-1922)

- Issues and controversy surrounding the Armenian Genocide o What is “genocide” – origin and applicability of the term (links to other genocide articles in Wikipedia) o Official Turkish denial of the Genocide – origin and issues o Armenian attempts at Genocide recognition

2) Relevant History of Armenians in Anatolia and the Ottoman Empire prior to the Genocide

- (Highlights of) Armenian history (in Anatolia) prior to arrival of the Ottomans (perhaps briefly presented then referenced to articles elsewhere in Wikipedia)

- Armenians in the Ottoman Empire

o Ottoman arrival and conquest in brief (perhaps briefly presented then referenced to articles elsewhere in Wikipedia) o Millyet system (Armenian Millyet and Armenians as loyal Millyet)  Establishment of Armenian Patriarch  Major centers of Armenian culture and population o Treatment of Armenians by Ottomans and Armenian migration  Armenian integration into Ottoman Society  Sultan, theocracy and law in the Ottoman Empire • Dhimmi laws • Limits of Ottoman control in the remote provinces and countryside  Sultanate attempts to weaken Armenian national base • Repressive laws and policies • Settlement of Kurds into Armenian lands • Armenian migration and forced conversion o Armenian Contributions to Ottoman Society (art, architecture, etc)

3) The disintegration of the Ottoman Empire, attempts to forestall its decline and the rise of nationalism among Ottoman ethnic populations

- Ottoman Empire in decline – 17th – 19th centuries (perhaps briefly presented then referenced to article elsewhere in Wikipedia) - Empire in contraction – lost wars and territories (detail and describe impacts – [perhaps briefly presented then referenced to article elsewhere in Wikipedia]) - Attempts to modernize and forestall decline o Tanzimat period and Muslim reactions to change of order - Nationalism and revolt of occupied Ottoman peoples o Wars of Greek and Balkan independence and Ottoman response (perhaps briefly presented then referenced to article elsewhere in Wikipedia)  Balkan insurrection and massacres of 1876  Muslim refugees from territories of Ottoman withdraw o Rise of Armenian discontent and Ottoman response  Armenian protestations for reform  Birth of Armenian political parties • Orientation and aims • Membership and representation • Attempts to rouse peasantry • Resort to Violence

- Foreign Intrigue surrounding disintegrating Ottoman Empire o Russian geo-strategic and ethno-religious interests o British attempts to counter Russian Interests o German interests in Ottoman Empire o Rising European colonial interests in Ottoman territories o Ottoman reforms imposed by European Powers

- Armenian Massacres of the Abdul Hamid Era (perhaps briefly presented then referenced to article elsewhere in Wikipedia) o Instigation and rational  Threat perceived by Islam of Christian ascendancy  Reaction to European initiated reforms and Armenian attempts at intercession and implementation  Kurdish extortion and harassment of Armenian towns and villages  Abdul Hamid’s belief in maintaining the old order  Ottoman Bank incident o Chronology and Methodology of massacres  Establishment of Kurdish Hamidiye regiments  Sassoun uprising and subsequent Massacre (Oct/08-Sept/10 1894)  Constantinople Demonstration and Massacre (Oct 1 1895)  Turkish mob violence against Armenians  Locations of primary massacres, estimates of deaths and overall assessment  Zeitoun Rebellion of 1895-96  Van Resistance of 1896 o European reaction to Massacres  Eyewitnesses and observers  European and Ottoman Inquiry • Anatolian Investigation Commission • British Vice Consul Hallward’s report  Impotency and humanitarian concern subjugated by commercial interests  Statements from foreign leaders  Actions to provide humanitarian relief

o Lessons learned and post massacre circumstances  Sultanate denial of complicity and attempts to shift blame  Armenian post massacre migration

4) The ascendancy and evolution of the CUP and the Rise of Turkish Nationalism

5) The Decision to commit Genocide and the Rational and Pretexts used to cover it

6) Implementation of the Armenian Genocide – methods, key actors, events

- Key Architects and perpetrators of Genocide - Genocide Timeline

7) The Witness and Documentation of the Armenian Genocide

8) The aftermath of Genocide – acknowledgement and denial

9) The perpetuation of Genocide by the Republic of Turkey

10) References and external links to related sites and information

- Websites presenting Armenian Genocide Information o Sites confirming, documenting or commemorating the Genocide o Sites presenting opposing or contrary views regarding the Genocide o Forums for presenting issues regarding and discussing the Genocide

- Relevant Media links

--THOTH 04:20, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Suggestion to THOTH and those concerned

I think you have to be careful with the terminology you use. When you use "the genocide" in a sentence, you portray it as a undisputed fact, which it is not. For example:

• Official Turkish denial of the Genocide
• Relevant History of Armenians in Anatolia and the Ottoman Empire prior to the Genocide
• The Decision to commit Genocide and the Rational and Pretexts used to cover it
• Implementation of the Armenian Genocide – methods, key actors, events
• Key Architects and perpetrators of Genocide - Genocide Timeline
• The Witness and Documentation of the Armenian Genocide
• The aftermath of Genocide – acknowledgement and denial
• The perpetuation of Genocide by the Republic of Turkey

With these titles you have already forfeited any chance of a neutral article, because you are forcing one point of view. A neutral article should follow wording like that of BBC articles seen here:

• Turkey edges towards Armenia ties - You will note from this article the deaths are quoted as massacres and any mention of genocide is shown as "genocide"
• Armenians remember mass killings - The title of this article refers to mass killings, not genocide. You will again note that the articles does not portray the genocide as undisputed fact.
• Armenia remembers 1915 killings - Again look at the title, it refers to the events as '1915 killings', not genocide. The article also explains how Armenia wants Turkey to recognise genocide and Turkeys reason for not recognising it as such, it doesnt use inflammatory words such as 'denial'.

An encylopedia article should portray the events like in these BBC articles. When you say 'the genocide', you make it irrefutable to the point no other views are valid. This has to be addressed to give this article credibility. --E.A 16:04, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, with one exception, there are encyclopedias that do use the term genocide directly as if it was an established fact, one example is the very huge French language encyclopedia, Universalis. The article can use the term genocide when using the UN convention and other such instances by still being non-POV, but I believe that since there is a very vocal Turkish opposition there, it would be better to stick as you said to not cause a revert war or spammings of the talk page. I proposed to edit Thoth texts, so don't take his propositions as final. Fadix 19:39, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm guessing thats because France recognises the deaths officially as genocide, amongst 14 other countries, but their view does not represent everyone. I think it is important to remember that this articles job isn't to prove or disprove genocide occuring, i believe many people are becoming passionately involved in this article to prove what they deem to be the truth (whether for or against genocide occuring). The only real fact of the argument is that there is conflict of opinion, the article should explain this conflict and why it exists. --E.A 22:14, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

All encyclopedias I have read present it as fact, except for Britanica, so I don't think it is a question of countries recognising it as genocide. But regardless, this conversation is worthless, because I don't disagree with you here. But when we refer to sections title, they can in some cases be words that in the articles presenting them as fact would make them POV. A section called Armenian genocide could be permitted, the explaination on the other hand, should say something such: "What is often called" etc. This is only because those are word "conventions." Fadix 01:44, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I completly disagree that there is any real controversy - in any real academic sense - concerning the use of the word Genocide to describe what occured to the Armenians during the period coinciding with WWI (and perhaps including events prior and after). After all the title of this article is the Armenian Genocide - and that is what it is and what we are talking about. In academic circles there is no real dispute of the use of this term and in fact the term itself was largely based on the Armenian experience and this has been well documented and discused here in these talk pages already. Likewise it is pretty much accepted that there is an ongoing campaign of Tukish denial of the truth of this matter and these facts require very explicit exposure and documentation IMO. Of course there is also a great deal of surrounding issues and events (including the "controversy" aspect) that need very clear and thorough explanation. I contend that acuratly presenting the facts and supporting such in all of these cases will in fact not be all so difficult whatsoever. And when presented it will be clear what is truth and what is distortion and IMO there will be little basis for much real dispute - not that I don't expect any from the less rational and more politically motivated commentators among us...--THOTH 20:15, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Armenian casulties entry created

I have created Ottoman Armenian casualties, which still need a lot of work, but I thought it was mature enough to have its entry. Fadix 01:45, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I THINK THE PROBLEM IS THAT NOBODY HERE APPRECIATES THE FORMAL DEFINITION OF "GENOCIDE' IS IN LEGAL TERMS WHICH IS THE ACTUAL DEBATE. THE HISTORICAL EVENT SHOULD BE LEFT FOR SERIOUS HISTORIANS WHO'VE BEEN TRAINED TO SPOT BIAS AND ANALYSE DOCUMENTS TO DECIDE WHETHERE THE EVENTS WERE GENOCIDE AS ARMEINANS CLAIM OR WHETHERE THEY CANNOT BE CLASSIFIED AS A GENOCIDE AS THE TURKS CLAIM. THE FACT THAT THE HITLER QUOTE IS ACTAULY A FAKE IS ACTUALLY KNOWN IF YOU INTERESTED PLEASE PICK UP THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT IT IS SAID TO BE CITED FROM AND ACTUALLY READ IT...IT DOES NOT EXIST IN THE ORIGINAL...I DONT KNOW WHY ANYONE WOULD HAVE MADE THIS UP MAYBE IT WAS A MISTAKE BUT IT SHOWS HOW PEOPLE ARE JUTS BRAINWASHED BY THEIR PARENTS AND COMMUNITY TO BELIEVE WITHOUT QUESTION. EITHERWAY HISORY MUST BE STUDIED IN CONTEXT OF TIME AND EVENTS. ITS NEVER BLACK AND WHITE AND IF YOU BELIEVE IN AN EXTREME POINT OF VIEW THEN YOU ARE PROBABLY WRONG! THESE THINGS ARE NOT A MATTER OF BELIEF ITS A MATTER OF FACTS PUT TOGETHER TO UNRAVEL THE TRUTH AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE. THE EVENTS WERE NOT A GENOCIDE, INFACT IT WAS NOTHIG TOO DIFFERENT FROM WHAT HAPPENED TO MANY OTHER ETHNIC GROUPS INCLUDING THE TURKS IN THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE DURING THAT ERA...AND ITS IMPORTANT TO REMEBR THAT MANY PEOPLE STARVED TO DEATH AND HAD THEIR CHILDREN KILLED BY TERRORISTS FROM THE NEXT VILLAGE OF A DIFFERENT RELIGION,OR GROUP. WHEN GREEKS AND BULGARIANS GAINED THERI INDEPENDANCE THE TURKS SUFFERED JUST AS MUCH AS ARMENIANS BUT NO ONE CARES BECAUSE THEY ARE MUSLIM.... LIKEWISE NOONE SEEMS TO APPRECIATE THAT THE RESON FOR ARMENIAN DEATHS ARE ARMEINAN REVOLTS WHCIH WERE CONDUCTED BADLY IN AREAS WHERE THEY DID NOT HAVE A STRATEGICALY HIGH ENOUGH POPULATION TO CARRY ON A REVOLT SUCCESFULL ENOUGH TO OBTAIN THE INDEPENDANCE THEY FOUGHT FOR AS THE OTHER CHRISTIONS IN THE BALKANS HAD DONE PREVIOUSLY. UNFORTUNALTLY CONFLICT COMES WITH CASULTIES... AND THIS IS WHY IT CANNOT BE COMPARED TO THE HOLOCAUST SUCH A CONFLICT DID NOT EXIST IN GERMANY. WHEN A CONFLICT IS INITIATED BY 2 ENTITIES DESIRING THE SAME THING THERE IS ALWAYS DESTRUCTION AND WHEN INITIATING A CONFLICT THESES THINGS HAVE TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT!

I'M SORRY BUT THERE IS NO NEED TO SHOUT! - TA BU SHI DA YU 28 JUNE 2005 06:09 (UTC)

Yes, pressing Caps-Lock key once can help in this case :-) --Gvorl 28 June 2005 06:55 (UTC)

Actual suggestion seems important and very clear: one of the main subjects here is a definition of the genocide term. Legal definition is not necessary (because the Wikipedia is not legal site, also this case is really old, so can be classified retrospectivelly, etc.) but anyway, without the clear definition of this term here will be lots of problems. So, I suggest few things:

1. Define genocide term formally, but without relations to this concrete case. Is the definition in Genocide article sufficient and clear enough to be used? At first, the term which can be used whould be described very formally.
2. Define few formal (conclusive) criterias which would confirm to _both_ sides that some abstract genocide case can be classified as true genocide case. Those criterias should be abstracted from this (Armenian) case for the begining.
3. After this, both sides will have some common set of terms and it will be easer to do further discussions.

--Gvorl 28 June 2005 07:16 (UTC)

• • From what I've read of this article, it does seem to be genocide. However, the genocide article does note that "there is disagreement over whether the term genocide ought to be used for politically-motivated mass murders in general (compare "democide"), but in common use it simply refers to the deliberate mass murder of civilians." - Ta bu shi da yu 28 June 2005 07:26 (UTC)

Suggestions from an uninvolved party

At the risk of throwing myself into a highly controversial article, I thought I'd give some feedback from an outsider's POV. I suggest the extensive use of footnotes: see Template:Ref and Template:Note (a good example of its use is Windows 2000 and W. Mark Felt) Several important facts need to be sourced:

The Armenian Genocide

• On April 24, 1915, the Young Turk government arrested several hundred - or, according to Turkish records, over two thousand - Armenian intellectuals.
  • Records are referred to here, and two conflicting figures are given. What are the sources for the several hundred arrests? What Turkish records are referred to that support the arrest of over 2,000 Armenian intellectuals?
• It is believed that most of these were soon executed.
  • Who believes this?
• Most historians believe that the government did not provide any facilities to care for the Armenians during their evacuation, nor when they arrived.
  • If many historians believe this, then we must provide their names.
• Rather, records suggest that the Ottoman troops escorting the Armenians as a matter of course not only allowed others to rob, kill, and rape the Armenians, but often participated in this activity themselves.
  • This is a bold claim. Evidence (in the form of sources) must be provided to show where this information is coming from. Note that I am not denying it happened (my knowledge of this event is almost non-existent), I am merely asking for sources. Records are mentioned here, therefore there must be a source that can be cited.
• Most Western sources maintain that a million or over Armenians lost their lives as a result.
  • Which Western sources are being referred to here?
• After the recruitment of most men and the arrests of certain intellectuals, widespread massacres have been reported taking place throughout the Ottoman Empire
  • If they were widely reported, may I request that the source of these reports be given?
• In Van, it is said that the governor Djevdet ordered irregulars to commit crimes and force the Armenians to rebel to justify the encircling of the town by the Ottoman army.
  • Who said this? Again, a source should be cited.
• It is believed that over a million were deported, though this figure has not been conclusively established.
  • Who believes this? If the figure has not been conclusively established, why is this not speculation?
• Some historians believe that the deportations were, in practice, a method of mass execution which led to the deaths of many of the Armenian population by forcing them to march endlessly through desert, without food or water or enough protection from local Kurdish or Turkish bandits, and members of the special organization were charged to escort the convoys (which meant their destruction).
  • Which historians are being referred to here? We need a source here.

The camps

• The Ottoman Empire set up a recorded twenty-five to twenty-six of what are often called major "concentration camps" (Deir-Zor, Ras Ul-Ain, Bonzanti, Mamoura, Intili, Islahiye, Radjo, Katma, Karlik, Azaz, Akhterim, Mounboudji, Bab, Tefridje, Lale, Meskene, Sebil, Dipsi, Abouharar, Hamam, Sebka, Marat, Souvar, Hama, Homs and Kahdem).
  • Though this seems to be an obvious fact, could I ask where these are recorded?
• After reports of deaths, the camps Lale, Tefridje, Dipsi, Del-El, and Ras Ul-Ain were built specifically for those who had a life expectancy of a few days. The majority of the guards inside the camps were Armenians.
  • Where did the reports come from? If there are reports then there must be a source of the report. The fact that the majority of the guards in the camps were Amerinians comes from somewhere: what is its source?
• Even though nearly all the camps, including all the major ones, were open air, according to records, some were not.
  • Which records are being sourced here?
• Other camps existed, according to the military court, that were irregular Red Crescent camps used to kill by morphine injection (two Saib (health inspector) colleagues, Dr. Ragib and Dr. Vehib, testified during the court) and from which bodies were thrown into the Black Sea. In other instances, according to records, there were some small-scale killing and burning camps where the Armenian population was told to present itself in a given area, and was subsequently burned en masse. Other records from the military tribunal suggest that gassing installations existed as well.
  • Which military court? Which case is being references here? What records from which military tribunal?
• Both Saib and Nail were allegedly in charge of providing the list of children who were to be distributed among the Muslim populace; the rest of the children were to be sent to the mezzanine floor to be killed by a mass gassing installation.
  • This states that they were allegedly in charge of providing the list of children: who made these allegations?
• While the total number of victims that perished in all such camps is hard to establish, it is estimated by some sources at close to a million.
  • Which sources suggest this?

The special organization (Teshkilati Mahsusa)

• ...according to the military court and other records, it was meant to be a "government in a government" (without needing any orders to act).
  • Source?
• This selection process of criminals was, according to most Western researchers, clearly indicative of the government's intention to commit mass murder of its Armenian population.
  • Can we have the main Western researchers who believe this? Again, we need a source.
• It must also be noted that, according to records, physicians participated in the process of selection; health professionals were appointed by the war ministry to determine whether the selected convicts would be fit to apply the degree of savagery of killing that was required.
  • Please note that "it must be noted" is what we call a peacock term. Suggest the removal of these words. Again however, no mention of which records are being sourced here. Please provide a source.
• It is estimated that the members of the special organization have killed hundreds of thousands of Armenians.
  • Who estimates this?

Military trials, Istanbul, 1919

• The accused succeeded in destroying the majority of the documents, that could be used as evidence against them, before they escaped.
  • Is this speculation, or was it determined by the authorities? Does the sentence "The martial court established the will of the Ittheadists to eliminate the Armenians physically, via its special organization." provide this source?
• Though soon after the Armenian massacres, the world was well aware of the "extermination of the Armenians", which was openly discussed by Turkish government officials, and trials of Ottoman officials were held in regard to the events, after a period of quiet, a new policy of silencing and what is called as denial began.
  • We have what looks like a quote here. What is it quoting? Also, what is the source of this? How do I know this is not just the POV of the author? Please note that I am not actually saying that it is, I am merely pointing out that this could be construed as POV pushing. Which leads me to...
• Eventually, a policy that is considered by many historians as official state denial emerged.
  • Which historians believe this? We must have sources.
• Mention of Armenian Genocide almost anywhere in the world was met with rebukes from Turkish Ambassadors, while mention of it in Turkey itself led to jail terms or worse on many occasions — often prosecuted under a law against inciting ethnic hatred.
  • Which court cases and which convictions? Where are the rebukes from Turkish Ambassadors documented?
• Turkey began to spend large amounts of money on lobbying firms in Washington D.C. to counter genocide allegations, and improve its image. It also began to spend large amounts of money on endowed chairs of Turkish or Ottoman history in different U.S. universities which had conditions that the professors who were hired must be on "friendly" terms with Turkey.
  • I find this passage to be deliberate speculation. There is clearly a motive being provided for Turkey's money spending on U.S. universities. What evidence is there that large amounts of Turkish money was spent on lobbying firms in Washington D.C. to counter genocide allegations and to improve Turkey's image? What evidence is there that "professors who were hired must be on "friendly" terms with Turkey"?
• Some of their efforts to establish such chairs were met with student and public resistance and not all were eventually successful in being beforehand armenian counterpart establishments.
  • Source and evidence for this please.
• The campaign of what is called as denial was met with mixed success.
  • Sorry, this is the POV of the author. This appears to me to be commentary and is unnecessary.
• Some governments, notably Turkish allies the U.S. and Israel will not officially use the word genocide to describe these events, though some government officials have used it personally. Many newspapers for a long time would not use the word genocide without disclaimers such as "alleged".
  • If this is an official policy of the U.S. and Turkey then a source should be easily found. If many newspapers would not use the word genocide without the word alleged, then those newspapers must be named. I notice that the NYTs has been named, however...
• A number of those policies have now been reversed so that even casting doubt on the term is against editorial policy, such as the case is with the New York Times.
  • Which policy? Source please.

Recent history — timeline

• In the past, many prominent American politicians have made statements in support of formal recognition of the Armenian genocide.
  • Only one politician is given: Ronald Reagan. The term used here is "many", in which case more than one politician must be provided. Also, what is meant by "prominent"? Prominent to whom?
• The Armenian side speculates that fear of retribution from Turkey, a US ally and NATO partner, is behind the lack of formal recognition, whereas the Turkish side speculates that the only reason for the possibility of such a recognition would be the strength of Armenian lobby efforts within the US rather than the genuineness of the claims.
  • Sources for both sides needs to be given. Can we back up these claims of speculation with evidence of the speculation of both sides?

Ta bu shi da yu 03:37, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

A temporary answer

I don't have much time to answer more deeply for now, I tried answering in most cases without checking my notes because I was requested to do it a second time. I will do it as soon as possible. But I hope that before footnoting starts people that debate about how they want the article to be, of course, NPOV policy should be respected, the only thing I ask, is to respect what I quoted at my user pages, and do not divert out of the subject of the entry. Gvorl conflict resolution is as well a good start. Fadix 1 July 2005 17:43 (UTC)

The Armenian Genocide

• On April 24, 1915, the Young Turk government arrested several hundred - or, according to Turkish records, over two thousand - Armenian intellectuals.
  • Records are referred to here, and two conflicting figures are given. What are the sources for the several hundred arrests? What Turkish records are referred to that support the arrest of over 2,000 Armenian intellectuals?

Any Armenian genocide works covers what happened in April 24. As for the over 2000 from Turkish records. The actual number is 2345, you can find those numbers by reading Turkish governments work, Kamuran Guruns “Armenian Files” is a start. This is only what happened in April 24, the next days, other Armenian intellectuals.(Writers, poets, journalists, professors, teachers etc.) All accused to be members of some revolutionary groups. Fadix 1 July 2005 17:43 (UTC)

• It is believed that most of these were soon executed.
  • Who believes this?

Again, what happened to Armenian intellectuals is sourced in any Armenian genocide books. Pick any of them. You can as well run a search regarding Armenian artists, intellectuals of those times, and you'll see that most date of death is 1915.

• Most historians believe that the government did not provide any facilities to care for the Armenians during their evacuation, nor when they arrived.
  • If many historians believe this, then we must provide their names.

One of them, a Turkish researcher is quoted there, it is one of the major three reasons, why some Turkish intellectuals believe it was a planned murder. I do plan to footnote as I did on the two articles I have created once there is a good final working version. Fadix 1 July 2005 17:43 (UTC)

• Rather, records suggest that the Ottoman troops escorting the Armenians as a matter of course not only allowed others to rob, kill, and rape the Armenians, but often participated in this activity themselves.
  • This is a bold claim. Evidence (in the form of sources) must be provided to show where this information is coming from. Note that I am not denying it happened (my knowledge of this event is almost non-existent), I am merely asking for sources. Records are mentioned here, therefore there must be a source that can be cited.

I agree here, I was not the one having added this entry, but there are reports, Ussher(an American physician of Van) do report this in his memoirs, or Vehib the then commander of the Ottoman Third army. But the way this passage is placed there is not entirely true, since most of those escorting Armenians were not the official Ottoman army, but the special organization and irregulars. Fadix 1 July 2005 17:43 (UTC)

• Most Western sources maintain that a million or over Armenians lost their lives as a result.
  • Which Western sources are being referred to here?

See the Ottoman Armenian casualties entry I have created. Still incomplete, but...

• After the recruitment of most men and the arrests of certain intellectuals, widespread massacres have been reported taking place throughout the Ottoman Empire
  • If they were widely reported, may I request that the source of these reports be given?

They're in the hundreds, one of the links provided as sources and the bottom of the entry is from the German(Ottoman allies at that time) archives. Fadix 1 July 2005 17:43 (UTC)

• In Van, it is said that the governor Djevdet ordered irregulars to commit crimes and force the Armenians to rebel to justify the encircling of the town by the Ottoman army.
  • Who said this? Again, a source should be cited.

Nogales reports in his memoirs, how the governor has planned to kill any single Armenian man. German records(few included in the German archive site) show how in that region irregulars were disturbing peaces, in the records it is said that the authorities would correct the situation, but more irregulars were placed there, when at the end, Armenians have decided to resist. Ussher as well depict this situation pretty well. Fadix 1 July 2005 17:43 (UTC)

• It is believed that over a million were deported, though this figure has not been conclusively established.
  • Who believes this? If the figure has not been conclusively established, why is this not speculation?

My mistake, that was not what I wanted to mean, I wanted to say that the actual figure is still not well established. Alexander report that that Djemal(a minister in the Ottoman government), has estimated it to be 1.5 million, Talaat recently released notes suggest that for a dozens of cities, it was close to a million. Toynbee in his incomplete 1915 estimates, it was 1.2 million. Piratically all Austrian and German figures were of over a million. Fadix 1 July 2005 17:43 (UTC)

• Some historians believe that the deportations were, in practice, a method of mass execution which led to the deaths of many of the Armenian population by forcing them to march endlessly through desert, without food or water or enough protection from local Kurdish or Turkish bandits, and members of the special organization were charged to escort the convoys (which meant their destruction).
  • Which historians are being referred to here? We need a source here.

“The Association of Genocide Scholars” the largest group of Holocaust and genocide historians in their joined and official recognition made this one of the points showing the intend of the Ittihadist party. The Permanent People Tribunal, place this as one of the most clear evidences. Those are just some. Fadix 1 July 2005 17:43 (UTC)

The camps

• The Ottoman Empire set up a recorded twenty-five to twenty-six of what are often called major "concentration camps" (Deir-Zor, Ras Ul-Ain, Bonzanti, Mamoura, Intili, Islahiye, Radjo, Katma, Karlik, Azaz, Akhterim, Mounboudji, Bab, Tefridje, Lale, Meskene, Sebil, Dipsi, Abouharar, Hamam, Sebka, Marat, Souvar, Hama, Homs and Kahdem).
  • Though this seems to be an obvious fact, could I ask where these are recorded?

Survivors testimonies, relief organizations, German reports etc. The volume on concentration camps of the last century "Le Siècle des camps" by Joël Kotek and Pierre Rigoulo as well record 25 as established, I presented 25-26, because one of the spots is unclear on wherever or not it was one or two.(with a map) But I can take off one if required. Those camps are widely present in most genocide maps. Fadix 1 July 2005 17:43 (UTC)

• After reports of deaths, the camps Lale, Tefridje, Dipsi, Del-El, and Ras Ul-Ain were built specifically for those who had a life expectancy of a few days. The majority of the guards inside the camps were Armenians.
  • Where did the reports come from? If there are reports then there must be a source of the report. The fact that the majority of the guards in the camps were Amerinians comes from somewhere: what is its source?

Reports of deaths? German reports ... if you mean the reports of deaths that caused the closure of the camps. They are presented in the public Turkish Martial Court, and published in the Official Ottoman [Law] gazette, Takvim-i Vekayi. Here quoting from it one section regarding the corps: “it is noted that there was such a great number of corpses strewn around the roads that unless dealt with they would create dangerous consequences. And advice is given to alert the Ministry of Internal Affairs, so that drastic measures be taken to punish the officials who were acting so irresponsibly in this matter. It is also noted that it was essential to assign an appropriate number of gendarmes under the leadership of key officials, so that all the corpses within the border are buried. In a September 15, 1331 (1915) cipher-telegram, sent by Resid to the Interior Ministry, it is mentioned that the number of Armenians being deported from Diyarbakir had reached 120,000 -- which demonstrates the scope and meaning of the operation that had taken place (see series 12, document #1).” Oh and, the closure of those three camps is presented in the above mentioned book as well. Fadix 1 July 2005 17:43 (UTC)

• Even though nearly all the camps, including all the major ones, were open air, according to records, some were not.
  • Which records are being sourced here?

The Jewish intellectual NILI group report burning sections, where people were concentrated and then, burned in mass. All of those will be included as footnotes, when the article becomes more complete. The Turkish military tribunal as well presented cases, where the Red Crescent camps were used to poison people. There are as well Dr. Said installations, two of his colleagues testified during the tribunal and submitted a report. Fadix 1 July 2005 17:43 (UTC)

Other camps existed, according to the military court, that were irregular Red Crescent camps used to kill by morphine injection (two Saib (health inspector) colleagues, Dr. Ragib and Dr. Vehib, testified during the court) and from which bodies were thrown into the Black Sea. In other instances, according to records, there were some small-scale killing and burning camps where the Armenian population was told to present itself in a given area, and was subsequently burned en masse. Other records from the military tribunal suggest that gassing installations existed as well.

• • Which military court? Which case is being references here? What records from which military tribunal?

The Turkish military Tribunal, in Istanbul in 1919. A Military tribunal that was conducted against those officials that were implicated in the destruction of the Ottoman Armenians. Fadix 1 July 2005 17:43 (UTC)

• Both Saib and Nail were allegedly in charge of providing the list of children who were to be distributed among the Muslim populace; the rest of the children were to be sent to the mezzanine floor to be killed by a mass gassing installation.
  • This states that they were allegedly in charge of providing the list of children: who made these allegations?

Third session of the Martial Court, on the date of April 1, 1919, published in the Takvim-i Vekayi, Dr. Ziya Fuad, health services inspector of Trabzon at the time of the massacres, and Dr. Adnan, public health services director of Trabzon, submitted affïdavits (authenticated oaths) which corroborate the charges of poisoning and drowning of children Nail, Ittihad deputy, and Dr. Saib, Health inspector, would provide the lists of the victims which would be then collected by Turkish women employees of these schools. On the mezzanine floor of one of those schools there was a room covered with tiles that was supposedly vapour bathroom (islim). The Turkish women would accompany the groups of young children to this part for a steam bath. And then... Fadix 1 July 2005 17:43 (UTC)

• While the total number of victims that perished in all such camps is hard to establish, it is estimated by some sources at close to a million.
  • Which sources suggest this?

Read Ottoman Armenian casualties entry, I will add more later. Fadix 1 July 2005 17:43 (UTC)

The special organization (Teshkilati Mahsusa)

• ...according to the military court and other records, it was meant to be a "government in a government" (without needing any orders to act).
  • Source?

Various sources, including the only German member of the special organization. Military tribunal indictment session, published in Takvim-i Vekayi April 27, 1919 N. 3540, differenciate the two branches of the special organization, from which, one was ordered by a special committee composing of members of the Ittihadist government which dissolved the government to get Ottoman entry in the war. This special committee received orders from the special committee that was leading it, which basically means a “government in a government.” Fadix 1 July 2005 17:43 (UTC)

• This selection process of criminals was, according to most Western researchers, clearly indicative of the government's intention to commit mass murder of its Armenian population.
  • Can we have the main Western researchers who believe this? Again, we need a source.

Professor Melson(the president of the International Association of Genocide Scholars) is an example, this reality of releasing from prison criminals is reported in the very large majority of books regarding the Armenian genocide, Melsons book: “From Revolution and Genocide: On the Origins of the Armenian Genocide and the Holocaust.” Isn't an exception here. You can read here the letter write by his association. Talk:Armenian_Genocide#Concerning_the_Armenian_Genocide_as_such_from_the_perspective_of_scholars_and_the_historical_record Fadix 1 July 2005 17:43 (UTC)

• It must also be noted that, according to records, physicians participated in the process of selection; health professionals were appointed by the war ministry to determine whether the selected convicts would be fit to apply the degree of savagery of killing that was required.
  • Please note that "it must be noted" is what we call a peacock term. Suggest the removal of these words. Again however, no mention of which records are being sourced here. Please provide a source.

I will rephrase it. As for references, it was recorded in the martial court. Dr. Haydar Cemal wrote in “Türkce” Istanbul, No. 45, December 28, 1918. An article saying how physicians were appointed “to determine whether the selected convicts would be fit to apply a degree of savagery of killing you required?” Fadix 1 July 2005 17:43 (UTC)

• It is estimated that the members of the special organization have killed hundreds of thousands of Armenians.
  • Who estimates this?

You can read the casualties entry of victims for now. Fadix 1 July 2005 17:43 (UTC)

Military trials, Istanbul, 1919

• The accused succeeded in destroying the majority of the documents, that could be used as evidence against them, before they escaped.
  • Is this speculation, or was it determined by the authorities? Does the sentence "The martial court established the will of the Ittheadists to eliminate the Armenians physically, via its special organization." provide this source?

This is documented. And I can document this part more clearly than others for now, because I just have the references on my table, and won't need to consult my archives.

On 10 February 1919, British High Commissioner, Admiral Calthorpe sent to London reports from the British intelligence agency, from where the Turkish Public security official Mr. Aziz in charge of Interior Ministry's wartime archives declares:

“Just before the Armistice, officials had been going to the archives department at night and making clean sweep of most of the documents.”

Source: British Foreign Office Archives. FO371/4172/31307, folio 385.

“The documents of Ittihad party were crammed into a suitcase by Dr. Behaeddin Sakir after they had been removed from the party headquarters by Dr. Nazim. The suicase was taken to home of attorney Ramiz, Sakir's brother-in-law.”

Source: Tunaya, T.Z. "Türkiyede siyasal partiler, Vol. 2, 2nd ed. Istanbul: Hürriyet Vakfi publications. p. 96, n.16.

The Turkish press reported in December 1918 ("Aksam," 12 Dec. 1918; "Tasviri Efkâr," 13 Dec. 1918) that when the police raided Ramiz’ homes, they found documents that were still intact and handed these documents to the Martial-court??? Following the dissolution of the martial-court the documents left were never handed to the British like promised. Mr. Aziz, contrary to the promises he had made, never handed those documents to them.

It must be noted here that Djemal's bureau's Deputy Director stated that, before Djemal, flight from Istanbul:

“...some of his files [containing] official documents were left in the custody of Syfi, one of his men, who out of fear burned them. “

Source: Atay, F.R. "Çankaya." Istanbul: Sena. pp. 127-128

The then minister of education Midhat Shukru…

“…made most of the CUP documents relative to Armenians disapper.”

(Source: FO 371/6500 p.480)

The documents incriminating some of the prisoners in Malta that the British were able to locate in Istanbul were reported disappearing. And the Nationalist government was suspected of being the responsible.

“…disappearance of documents incriminating certain persons …saying that the matter has been arranged by local Nationalist leaders.”

(Source: Weekly Summary, March 4, 1920, British Embassy publication)

Other references to the destruction of those documents could be found in Aydemir’s work, where he writes:

“Before the flight of the top Ittihadist leaders, Talat Pasa stopped by at the waterfront residence of one of his friends on the shore of Arnavudköy, depositing there suitcase of documents. It is said that the documents were burned in the basement's furnace. Indeed ... the documents and other papers of Ittihad's Central Committee are nowhere to be found. “

Source: Aydemir, S.S. "Makedonyadan Ortaasyaya Enver Pasa." Vol. 3, 1914-1922. Istanbul: Remzi. p. 493

It is evident when referring to those pieces of references that the allies had no access to the documents contrary to what is claimed by denialists. A telegram ordering the destruction of telegrams, from the Turkish Interior Minister to the provincial governor at Ayintab, was intercepted by the General Headquarters of the British Army's Egyptian Expeditionary force on 24 January 1919.

“Burn originals of official telegrams since mobilisation on files of district.”

(Source: FO371/4174/15450)

On 17 June 1919 the Turkish foreign Minister Safa protested to the British High Commissioner regarding British intrusions by trying to examine documents, and finally answered that such an intrusion will be unsuccessful, because the Diyarbekir-based Director of Telegraphic Service sent a circular telegram ordering to destroy these documents. Admiral Calthrope reported to London after this message:

“…attention to the tenor of this note which treats as a mere matter of office routine such an important matter as the proposed destruction of documents relating to the period of deportations, massacres, and the activities of the Turkish authorities during the war. “

(source; FO371/4174/102551)

The British, facing the destruction of the documents, in a weekly summary of intelligence report, dated 4 March 1920, declared from the British Military Intelligence Bureau:

“…the disappearance of documents incriminating ... Ittihadist. Talking of Rauf: he urged the destruction of incriminating documents. It is understood that Rauf had already arranged the disappearance of documentary material implicating himself and Enver Pasa.” [source: FO371/5166/E1782, Reports 575, 592]

Karay, who in 1919 was the General Director of Telegraphic Service in Turkey, wrote that Mehmet Emin, his predecessor, had sent orders to all principal telegraph centres in the country, directing them to:

“…destroy all official papers, the originals and copies of all telegrams. “

(Karay, R.H. Minelbab lelmihrab, Istanbul: Inkilâp and Aka, p. 221)

Post minister Hüseyin Hasim admitted ordering the destruction of telegrams in 3 June 1919:

“…all military telegrams burned on orders from the War Office.” [source: "Takvimi Vekayi." No. 3573, 12 June 1919] Fadix 1 July 2005 17:43 (UTC)

• Though soon after the Armenian massacres, the world was well aware of the "extermination of the Armenians", which was openly discussed by Turkish government officials, and trials of Ottoman officials were held in regard to the events, after a period of quiet, a new policy of silencing and what is called as denial began.
  • We have what looks like a quote here. What is it quoting? Also, what is the source of this? How do I know this is not just the POV of the author? Please note that I am not actually saying that it is, I am merely pointing out that this could be construed as POV pushing. Which leads me to...

I don't think I am the author of this quote, I edited it to make it less POV, but don't remember having actually written it. Fadix 1 July 2005 17:43 (UTC)

• Eventually, a policy that is considered by many historians as official state denial emerged.
  • Which historians believe this? We must have sources.

I think the International Association of Genocide Scholars has signed enough petitions and have among them enough historians to not need to name few of them. Don't you believe so? Fadix 1 July 2005 17:43 (UTC)

• Mention of Armenian Genocide almost anywhere in the world was met with rebukes from Turkish Ambassadors, while mention of it in Turkey itself led to jail terms or worse on many occasions — often prosecuted under a law against inciting ethnic hatred.
  • Which court cases and which convictions? Where are the rebukes from Turkish Ambassadors documented?

I was not the one adding this information, but this is a true information, I don't have much time right now to answer it, as I said, I just answered because you requested a second time in my talkpage, so I felt forced to answer something. Just to name the co-founder of the Turkish human right organization, Dr. Zarakollu that had to face justice, like his wife because of this. Fadix 1 July 2005 17:43 (UTC)

• Turkey began to spend large amounts of money on lobbying firms in Washington D.C. to counter genocide allegations, and improve its image. It also began to spend large amounts of money on endowed chairs of Turkish or Ottoman history in different U.S. universities which had conditions that the professors who were hired must be on "friendly" terms with Turkey.
  • I find this passage to be deliberate speculation. There is clearly a motive being provided for Turkey's money spending on U.S. universities. What evidence is there that large amounts of Turkish money was spent on lobbying firms in Washington D.C. to counter genocide allegations and to improve Turkey's image? What evidence is there that "professors who were hired must be on "friendly" terms with Turkey"?

I was not the one adding this, and as well don't like the way it is presented, but the information is accurate, there has been an article in the Chronicle of higher education regarding this, another in the Holocaust and Genocide studies written by Dr. Lifton and two of his colleagues. I propose making this less POV and more as a position, will be documenting it when I have time. I do believe this controversy of Turkish government financing should get alone an entry since there is many things to say and makes a historic. Fadix 1 July 2005 17:43 (UTC)

• Some of their efforts to establish such chairs were met with student and public resistance and not all were eventually successful in being beforehand armenian counterpart establishments.
  • Source and evidence for this please.

I didn't wrote that, and it should be rewritten. I will provide references when I can. Fadix 1 July 2005 17:43 (UTC)

• The campaign of what is called as denial was met with mixed success.
  • Sorry, this is the POV of the author. This appears to me to be commentary and is unnecessary.

I wasn't the author, I edited and tried to make it less POV, but I agree that it still seems to be POV. Fadix 1 July 2005 17:43 (UTC)

• Some governments, notably Turkish allies the U.S. and Israel will not officially use the word genocide to describe these events, though some government officials have used it personally. Many newspapers for a long time would not use the word genocide without disclaimers such as "alleged".
  • If this is an official policy of the U.S. and Turkey then a source should be easily found. If many newspapers would not use the word genocide without the word alleged, then those newspapers must be named. I notice that the NYTs has been named, however...

I was not the author of this either. This alone is an entire long issue which I believe should have its own entry. Right now I have no time, but I will be working for a new entry, you can take it out from the article until then, or until someone document it if you want. Fadix 1 July 2005 17:43 (UTC)

• A number of those policies have now been reversed so that even casting doubt on the term is against editorial policy, such as the case is with the New York Times.
  • Which policy? Source please.

The New York Times, after excessive research, months before, has officially recognized that the genocide is not an allegation, and that it can now use it in their articles without presenting it just as a claim. It as well just recently refused to publish a publicity from the Turkish government denying the theses. The Boston Globe did the same. Fadix 1 July 2005 17:43 (UTC)

Recent history — timeline

• In the past, many prominent American politicians have made statements in support of formal recognition of the Armenian genocide.
  • Only one politician is given: Ronald Reagan. The term used here is "many", in which case more than one politician must be provided. Also, what is meant by "prominent"? Prominent to whom?
• The Armenian side speculates that fear of retribution from Turkey, a US ally and NATO partner, is behind the lack of formal recognition, whereas the Turkish side speculates that the only reason for the possibility of such a recognition would be the strength of Armenian lobby efforts within the US rather than the genuineness of the claims.
  • Sources for both sides needs to be given. Can we back up these claims of speculation with evidence of the speculation of both sides?

For me the time line is a mess, I really don't want to get involved in this time line stuff which I believe has no place in the central entry and should get its own. I'll leave this debate between other members, unless there is clear abuses. I want to only get involved in the history of the genocide, and very important post genocide events that should be included. Fadix 1 July 2005 17:43 (UTC)

Motivation

I've just come upon this article for the first time, and especially given the complete lack of attention this event was given in American school, hearing of the Armenian Genocide for the first time is shocking and haunting to me.

I've noticed there's a lot of controversy as to whether this event even took place (to put it mildly), but I'm not going to get into all that. I simply noticed that while I was reading the article, there wasn't really any discussion of the motivation of the Ottoman government to commit such atrocities. When discussing the Holocaust, there are any number of theories as to why the Nazi government felt motivated to kill so many Jews (from the "Hitler believed evidence that Jews were conspiring to take over the government" theory to the "Hitler got dumped by a Jewish girl in elementary school" theory, and many, many more ideas).

But in this article, I didn't see a discussion of a fundamental reason why the Turks suddenly began slaughtering the Armenians en masse. It simply talks about how Ottoman law was changed to force all able-bodied males under 40 to serve in WW1, and then goes straight into talking about how Armenian recruits were later forced to work as laborers and many were executed.

Obviously, the question "why" can't even begin to justify such a momentous outrage, but... what event caused the Ottoman Empire to suddenly see the Armenians as, apparently, a scourge that must be destroyed? And why is Turkey's official position on the Armenian Genocide (denial of its existence) so fundamentally different from Germany's official position on the Holocaust (prosecution of those who do deny its existence)? ekedolphin July 6, 2005 05:13 (UTC)

I agree - the current article is entirely deficient in terms of context and explanation. I can fully understand where someone who is not familiar with this history would be thoroughly confused and have no real understanding of the specific and surrounding events that consititute the Armenian Genocide from reading this article. It needs to be vastly improved. I have attempted to conceptualize a replacement article where causative events (and forces/ideologies etc) are clearly explained but there seems to be no interest in pursueing this line. The current article is pretty much beyond redemtion IMO. My proposed outline - (a draft of the background sections is provided above)- would clearly answer all of your questions. Their is incredible amounts of first hand documentation of these events as well as a large body of subsequant analysis. All of your questions are easily answered but unfortunatly few people (laymen) really know and understand the history. I also dispute the claim made by one commentator above that there is any real dispute or controversy sorrounding the factuality of the Armenian Genocide (as a Genocide and by serious historians) - the "dispute" is purely political and is entirely of Turkish making to deflect an accurate and truthful examination and presentation of history. Any denial of the Armenian Genocide is just this!--THOTH 19:58, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes, we've agreed on this over and over again but I think we're seeing a status quo effect. Nobody has the will or time to change the article into a more consistent one. Maybe everything should be removed first to make a clear start and we should put a banner on top to advertise that we need people in the know to participate. THOTH can provide an outline that I know he's been working on. --Muz 21:07, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Well Muz - I would be happy to - but your the very first person who has even commented on the outline at all (I posted a piece of it a month ago - above). I fundementally don't think it is all that difficult to lay our the facts and history in an accurate manner - the tough part is that everyone has far more preconception then actual knowledge and as we have discussed most are caught up in a particular viewpoint that interferes with taking a more comprehensive approach to the issue. As it stands the article is amaturish and unuseful/incomplete. I will complete my outline if there is any prospect on it actully being implemented. As you and I seem to agree on at least this much perhaps it is a start - I mean when have a Turk or an Armenian agreed an anything regarding this article before? - lol --THOTH 04:07, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

More sources

A long list of different sources and different estimates of the numbers killed can be found here [42]. More detail on Rummel's calculations and sources can be found here [43][44][45][46]. Ultramarine 6 July 2005 23:30 (UTC)

I am sorry but the websites that you showed , can not be evidence because they do not contain the real documents, otherwise in Turkish Universities historical researches , there are information about Armenians killed the Turks and the Kurds , but both of these are only allegations , because there is no evidence,there is no real documents but I can show you the Turkish Governmental website that shows the real document about the massacre activities of Armenians against the Kurds and Turks and also activities of the Ottoman Government Gendarmarie and Security organisations against the rebels and criminals in this region , in their archives, unfortunately it is not in English but it could be translated, the documents are in Ottoman Turkish , but if you don't trust to the Turkish Government you can see the original forms of the documents in here , a specialist can examine them, [47] , if there is a document that shows an order given by Talat Pasha or Enver Pasha, please show it in here please, otherwise the allegation about "the systematical annihilation of the Armenians by Ottoman Government" is unfounded. -- aozan

Rummel's sources are documented in detail. Ultramarine 8 July 2005 11:59 (UTC)

Note that Rummel also supplies figures for Greeks and other Christians killed, and yes, also figures for Turks killed by Armenians. Ultramarine 8 July 2005 12:10 (UTC)

No I couldn't see any original document in the details of the website that you said, please show original historical documents, there are only tables , passages , books , etc. I need real documents about this thing not tables or passages. -- aozan

This is not a library. The secondary sources can however be found in or ordered in a library. The primary sources can not be found on internet. That is true all historical souces from the time before the Internet. Ultramarine 8 July 2005 12:28 (UTC)

No, the primary sources can be shown on internet , the website that I showed above contains the primary sources, also they are open to the public, any scientist can examine them , both by coming to Turkey and by computer on internet , if you say the information about that thing is real, prove it by original historical documents please -- aozan

That is not primary sources, that is a copy that could have been edited or fabricated. Real historians certainly do not rely on such sources but on the originals. And the overwhelmingly majority of scholars accept the Armenian genocide based on real-world sources such as those refered to by Rummel. Ultramarine 8 July 2005 12:47 (UTC)

No they are not copies , they are images, on the other hand why don't you show me images of documents about your allegation , you can show images the real documents to me , if there is a document , can't you? Also the images in the website can be examined, why don't we have any document to examine about this allegations, if there is , please show, show any document about any order given by Ottoman Government, if there is , this means there is a real ethnic cleansing, otherwise we can not call it genocide -- aozan

You have a strange idea of the world if you think that only things that exist in digital form on the internet are true. There are many real world documents documenting the Armenian Genocide, and they are not less real even if they have not been scanned into a computer. Computer bits are easily fabrictaed, historians use real world documents. Ultramarine 8 July 2005 13:25 (UTC)

OK let's guess that the documents are not real that I showed before (inspite they are real as specialists came to Turkey and examined to search the Turkish Governmental Archives) and so show me your historical documents so a scientist can examine them -- aozan

Again, for example Rummel is not denying that there were also killings of Turks by Armenians, although on a smaller scale. Ultramarine 8 July 2005 13:44 (UTC)

Belge[ler] records which have been used for the said 523,000 killed by Armenians are authored. And Aozan before posting new material here, I suggest you to read the forum archive, as I have clearly demonstrated the nature of this forgery by using the documents themselves and have shown how the figure "8" was used to add "sifers" (Ottoman zeros). They are the same sort of authored as were Shemshis publications. On the other hand, I do agree with you regarding secondary sources, Ultramarine figures were secondary and third(Is the Holocaust Unique uses for instance McCarthy statistics to draw the figure of losses" so it makes of it a third source) sources. But the entry I have created regarding Armenian casulties, besides McCarthy, the rest are all original first sources, from which, one is the original Ottoman statistics of Armenian casulties as well as Germanys secret reports of Armenian casulties during the war, and others etc. Ehmed Emin, in his book published in 1930, provideas figure of Muslim killed by Armenians to about 150 thousand, for the entire period. Emin was a known anti-Armenian who participated in the construction of anti-Armenian propaganda material to justify their evacuation. For this reason "he finds" Muslim killed during the 1917 period, by Armenians, fold lower than those of 1914-15, which of course is ridiculous, but when understanding that most of the propaganda materials were build early during the war, one can understand why so the differences between the two dates is that much disproportionate, when the ratio should be quite the opposit, which will bring his figure to drop to bellow 50,000. Oh and if you were to pay closer look at Rummels calculations, you'll see that he himself uses Emin. Fadix 8 July 2005 14:15 (UTC)

Sorry but I have limited time to read all of the information in here in this page , and other archived pages , or the article, can you say where these sources on the page or pages, or can you put here links of them, if you put here before as a link, what is their number? The page and the other pages are too long to read all,but about your original and primary documents that you meaned "primary" , I want to examine them or I can show them some specialists. -- aozan

And there is PDF files in the page if you look more detailed , please look to the PDF files also -- aozan

First of, the 523,000 figure and the Belge records has been discussed here on more than one occasion, and I don't think it is difficult for you to find out. You just have to research the archives (Ctrl and F) the term Belge, as well as in the Fadix analysis section. Second of, you can visit the entry I have created regarding Armenian casulties, and don't have more time for now. Fadix 03:19, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

About authenticity of the sources

Ok, we need to separate direct sources from indirect (analysis). On the one hand, let assume that nobody can show original paper documents to every (or any) Wikipedian, so any request for those papers should be ignored. On the other hand - Internet is not the place where all the documents (particularly historic) or scans of them can be found. So, we need to acknowledge that here we can assess direct sourcess only indirectly, by referencing to some authors. I would say that source can be treated as a direct one if it have some atributes like folloowing:

• Have attributes showing that it is direct:
  • Dated by period of the subject, or
  • Is witnessing of some participant
• Can be indirectly investigated by wikipedians:
  • Referenced by indirect sources
  • Assessed by historians
  • Hadn't been widelly recognized (using other direct sources and expertises) as falsified

--Gvorl 8 July 2005 14:52 (UTC)

The so-called "armenian genocide" is nothing more than an attempt to mobilize minorities against Turks. It was not a politically taken decision of genocide. I recommend you to pay attention that armenia does not want to open its archives. Also the word "techir" choosen by Ottoman government comes from the word "hicr" originally.please check the meanings of these words..

The word "techir" (at the time, "tenkil") is a derivation of an arabic term, its true Ottoman meaning is to "kick out," force someone to exile(as forcing an intellectual to exile in another country), and it can even mean to annihilate an enemy through way of evacuation, check any Ottoman dictionary, or ask an Arab languist. The first one that manipulated the Ottoman term "tenkil" is professor Halacoglu there again. Never heard of "tenkil ve tehcir'den?" You may know Turkish a lot better than I, but I know Arabic, which even though I place "basic" in my user page, is between basic and intermedary, as well as Ottoman Turkish, which is not modern Turkish. My parents and grandparents still speak Ottoman Turkish and can write as well, when the Turkish population adhered to the modern Turkish language introduced by who you consider your father Ataturk. Besides, this adds to the fact that I do have Turkish friends whom live in Turkey and who master Turkish perfectly and would translate for me any modern complex texts. If you don't trust me, just give it a try. Fadix 21:18, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Oh and another thing, since the fall of the Soviet Union, important and critical KGB files were made public, it either take an ignorant or self-fooling parots to claim that Armenian still restrict its archives. Oh and again, another thing pooped by the Turkish government. Fadix 21:21, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

To anonymous 193.140.194.117: Your claim seems currently to be irrelevant because it is not substantiated by any sources. Please provide sources for any further discussion. Also, please do not delete other texts when entering comments. --Gvorl 07:15, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Archiving

This discussion page is already very big. I would like to suggest archiving older part (e.g., older than 2 months) of it. Also, it would be good to make some generalisation of the things which will go to archive. --Gvorl 8 July 2005 14:52 (UTC)

oh i bet you know little about Ottoman language because it seems so.Its just limited to a few words that you heard from your parents, may be only the word "hatret" because it seems they only teach you this.What you call about the deaths during the "techir" does not suit with the definition of genocide at first place.I repeat again that it was not a politically decided genocide attempt.Many Turks passed away as well.Have you ever heard about how many people were dead during the war in Dardanels in World War 1.Also, what will you say about the genocide commited by armenians during the Turkish independence war i,e,. when armenians invaded Turkish lands in 1920s or do you have courage to confess the genocide still going on in azerbaican??

No, it doesn't seem so, pay a visit to Lebanon or Syria and you'll witness yourself what language elderly people still speak, and even with their son and daughters. The Turkish those people knew/know is Ottoman Turkish, and there still are people of my generation that have learned from their parents and grandparents still speaking the language as a cipher code so that the younger ones don't understand. My knowledge doesn't limit to few words, and more so when Arabic words are concerned. The fact of the matter is that Tehcir, or more precisely Tenkil implyed a forced evacuation and not just simple immigration, and this is even recorded in widely available foreign ministry publications. Halacoglu claims that it was wrongly translated to deportation, when it actually meant immigration, this claim was again included in other sites as a result. This is completly wrong, and I suggested you to verify in an Ottoman dictionary yourself. It does not simply mean immigration, it means a forced transfer, evacuation, deportation, and even destruction(to do away).

Comming to what you call "Turkish genocide;" it takes a brain not functioning like it should, to think that in 1920, when over half of the Ottoman Armenian population already perished, it was possible for the Armenians to commit genocide. To the contrary, during the so-called Turkish war of independence, the Kemalist troops have reached Alexandripole, without any resistance, as if they were cutting into butter, the result was the entire destruction of Russian Armenia, and the death of hundreds of thousands of people. The Germans reported from past 1918, the condition of Russian Armenia as a result. The Ottoman managed to take away three pieces of lands they sliced from there, and they even planed to go through Alexandripole to Baku. Karabkir in his own memoirs during his plans to Nachikevan and Karabagh, wrote: "Armenia destroy for eternity." As for the Turkish casulties of war, more German than Jews died in World War II, doesn't in anyway excuse the Germans for what they did to the Jews.

Armenians invaded Turkish lands? The last time I have checked, it was the other way around, take a historic map, and compare the Armenia to the current republic of Armenia? Whom invaded whom? Where are the Armenians in Western Armenia? They vanished. As for Azerbaijan, don't drag me there for your own sake. Fadix 16:51, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

to be added when unprotected

(in the Section about Switzerland recognizing the holocaust)

... likewise, the president of the Turkish labour party, Dogu Perinçek is facing charges after he called the genocide an "imperialist lie" in a speech held at the celebrations of the 82nd anniversary of the Treaty of Lausanne on 22 July, 2005.

Official recognition: Sources should be indicated

The item "European Parliament" should be linked to the "European Parliament resolution on the 2004 regular report and the recommendation of the European Commission on Turkey's progress towards accession" (see topic 39), which states:

"...the European Parliament...calls on Turkey to promote the process of reconciliation with the Armenian people by acknowledging the genocide perpetrated against the Armenians..."

It would be quite helpful to always link to sources.

--Marek Moehling 01:27, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Venezuela recognized the Armenian Genocide

VENEZUELA http://www.panarmenian.net/news/eng/separate.php?id=14236&task=world&cat_id=2

I don't doubt it, but a reliable source in this case would be the corresponding governmental body (here: the Venezuelan Parliaments' website). The Armenian Genocide is highly controversial, some contributors may not attribute much credibility to Pro-Armenian lobby group's websites, whether this attitude is justified or not. --Marek Moehling 07:01, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Denial is ridiculous

I'm sorry, but if anyone wants to deny or belittle the Armenian genocide, they are no different in my view than holocaust deniers. I wish the academic community would treat the deniers of the Armenian genocide with the same attitude they have adapted towards holocaust revisionism.

Why did Turks suddenly decided to kill Armenians ?

As it is at August 2005, "Armenian Genocide" article is a pure propaganda, not an encyclopaedia item. Turks and Armenians have lived in peace for more then 900 years in Anatolia until 1915. Half of the Ottoman "sadrazam" ( primeminister ) were ethnic Armenians. Why did Turks suddenly decided to kill Armenians ? Reading this article , one gets the impression that, one day, "Young Turks" decided to eliminate Armenian population in Ottoman Empire for the fun of it.

To understand what really happened , you should get a good look at "Tashnak" article. Founded at 1890, financed by Imperial Russia, England, French and also by U.S. , never mind also by rubbing other Armenians in Ottoman Empire, Tashnak started as a terrorist gang and organised a bloody revolt. At spring of 1915, nearly a quarter million Turkish civilians were killed during the Armenian uprising in East Anatolia. With all young man at fronts, Turks were cached defenceless against their neighbours, who were well trained and armed and has been preparing for their day since 25 years. Fighting in Galliipoli for the very life of the empire, it took Ottoman army months to gather troops to suppress the revolt. Suppressing a bloody revolt was also bloody. Ottoman troops killed every Armenian holding a gun.

After the revolt, Ottoman government decided to exile Armenians at east Anatolia to Lebanon. The exile was poorly planned and executed. My estimate is that nearly half a million Armenian civilians died during the exile because of neglect and mistreatment of Ottoman authorities. Main dead causes were epidemics, lack of supplies and attacks of Kurdish tribes on convoys, which had no proper military escort. It is a common fact that the exile turned to a big fiasco for Ottoman government and a big disaster for the exiled Armenians. Yet this is not a holocaust , but a tragedy of war.

Armenians at west of empire and Armenian villages which declared their loyalty during the uprising (like Armenians in Malatya, in Amasya...) were not effected. This clearly shows that this is not an ethnic cleansing.

After 1915, the blood did not stop there. Armenian troops under Imperial Russian control invaded most of the eastern Turkey in 1917. Turkish civilians had to run or die. Then the cards turned again at 1918, when Soviets withdraw their support from Armenians. Then, when French troops invaded most of east Turkey at 1919, including Adana, Maras, Antep and Urfa, they armed Armenians as gendarme troops. Their misbehaviours against Turkish civilians ended up with this cities revolting against superior French forces and forcing them out of the region at 1920-1921, not without help of the revolution government in Ankara, formed by Mustafa Kemal. It is no small wonder that the Armenian population in the French occupation zone either has leaved with the French troops to Syria or forced to live. The same fate was waiting the Armenians who cooperated and joined the Greek invasion army in the Aegean region at 1919, when Turkish cavalier reached Smyrna at 1922.

On the other hand, I also personally know an Armenian who fighted AGAINST the Greek invasion in Turkish Liberation War ( Greco-Turkish War (1919-1922) ) and carried the Liberation Medal with honour and pride until his dead at 1976 at age of 75. At every Victory Day ( 30 August ) , I visited him and kissed his hand.

The adaptation of the Latin alphabet to Turkish and forming of the Turkish grammar has been done by another Armenian, who was the General Secretary of Turkish Linguistic Institution until his dead at 1960's.

Every 3 th man in Anatolia has some Armenian genes beside Turkish ones after living together for 900 years. Indeed a big majority of Anatolian Armenians are not true Armenians but grand sons and daughters of Hittites , who adopted Armenian language and culture in the 2.th century, Armenia being the only Christian state, supporting Anatolian Christians.

I can trace 6 different ethnic origins in 4 generations in my family, like many other Turks.

Why and how should we make genocide ?

By --Isarioglu 15:24, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

The above is comprised entirely of untrue and unsupported propoganda - If there is even a sliver of truth to anything you have said above its only by chance. I won't even waste my time with this - but one point I will make - all Armenain s of Amasya were deported and most killed and this has been extremely well documented - unlike your entirely made up baseless monologue above.--THOTH 03:04, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Categories

This article should be added to the category for World War I events. -- James

Dead Armenians from the town Amasya

If you come to Istanbul, or travel to Amasya, or Malatya, (which you can do freely also as an Armenian Republic citizen ) you can still talk to the "dead" or "fictional" Armenians from this towns. I have talked with many people from both sides , who PERSONALLY lived this events. Unfornunatly, almost all are dead now due age.

If your hate does not blind you, you should listen and look at both sides. Armenian Diaspora and Armenians in Armenia grow up with a constant conditioning and hate against Turks. If you object this, have a good look at your primary school books.

We live together with people from many ethnic origins and we learn to understand and respect them, where as in modern Armenia, hate against Turks is state policy.

What Armenians did at Azerbaijan Nagorno-Karabakh at 1992-1994 is another proof of how they rise their children since 3 generations...

For the last, Turkish historian Yektan Turkyilmaz is under arrest since 17 June 2005 in Erivan. He is a professor at Duke University US. He made a study in the Armenian State Archives in Mai and June 2005. As he was returning to US, he was arrested at the airport and accused with "smugling valuable books out of Armenia" , which he purchesed from a second hand shop in Erivan for a few US$. His work and all other documentation is taken from him and he is still in prison at 10 August 2005, without any trial.

So long for the open Armenian State Archives story. You can go and have look , but it is not so sure , if you can return... --Isarioglu 15:10, 10 August 2005 (UTC)--

My primary school books? My primary schools books didn't even mentioned Armenia or Turkey, I was even not aware where Armenia or Turkey were on a map. I don't see how I was conditioned this way here in Quebec, I wasn't even studying in an Armenian school. Could we say the same about you and Turkish schools? State policy you say? Are you trying to kid me? Just read Turkish newspapers and how Armenians are viewed, only 20 years ago, Armenians were considered as lower than animals in those same newspapers. Perhaps should I quote one article that ask to not call Armenians dogs anymore because it will bring in the population hate against the animals? And what to say about "professors" such as Halacoglu and how they treat the Armenians in their pseudo-works? What I have done in Azerbaijan, Sir? What do you have to say about Azerbaijani autorities statments regarding not leaving a single Armenian in Azerbaijan, which was one of the things that sparked a conflict there? Oh yeh! I forgot, since Armenians are always those to be blamed, it must have been their faults.

What do you know about Yektan Turkyilmaz? Did you know that he recognizes the Armenian genocide? The guy told how he was free to get any documents he wanted in the archives, there aren't many researchers that will claim the samein Turkey. Oh and, the guy is a student of Duke, not a professor, he was undergoing researches for his PhD degree, and I, like many Armenians were sympathic to his work. He was not arrested because of restriction in the archives, but rather because of an Armenian law meant for the protection of national treasures, restricting people to get more than 6 old books out of the country without a permission. He took over 80 books. He probably ignored the law, like many do, and it is stupid to still keep him there, but this law is not selective, even if I strongly disagree with his detention. But talking of hypocrasy, shall I cite various names of people in Turkey jailed for similar offenses? Do you have anything to say about those? Fadix 16:35, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I've been too Amasya twice BTW - it isone of my favorite places in all of Anatolia - a wonderful town in an incredible setting. I stayed in an Armenian house there in fact (now owned by Turks)...this does not change the fact that the Armenians of Anasya were brutally killed - and for no reason - this is fact. They were "deported" into the widerness, slughtered en-route - and very few survived. I have read accounts of these incident (though am unsure if what I read is available online). Anyway I fail at all to see any poit you are trying to make. The Armenian Genocide is incredibly well documented. The lack of any Armenian uprising or revolt is also documented. The CUP central commitee decision to commit/undertake Genocide and the methodologies employed - the party aparatus emplaced in the provinces, the Special Organization drafted of trained killers and violent convicts, the disarming and masacre of Ottoman Armenian soldiers was all witnessed and documented. Do you deny any of this? If you do then you are pityfly unifomed - willfuly or otherwise - if you do acknowledge and understand - then why the lame excuses - why are you changing the subject and making up things that are untrue? Can you truly be so ignorant and stupid? --THOTH 20:39, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

---

Dear Thoth,

You seem to lose it. I am considered nor ignorant , neither stupid . But, you are getting easily rude. For the non existent Armenian revolt at 1915, I can tell you MANY things with great confidence, because one of the victims of the "fictional" revolt happened to be my grandfather, Recep Ayhan ( Muftuoglu) ( 1905 Van-1998 Mersin ). His family was a well established Turkish family from Van. Indeed, his father was "Muftu" of Van at 1915. When the Armenians revolted and it was obvious that the local military had no change to stop the slaughter ( Armenians slaughtering Turks and Kurds ) , the family and their peasants (around 100) , also taking their herd, headed for west trough the mountains. They had no time to stop and cook, because they were pursued. When they needed food, they just killed a cow and eaten the raw meal. Because of this memory, he became a vegetarian for the rest of his life. After one week, in the dark, they were ambushed by a Tashnak band. Most of the peasants, his mother and father , one brother and two sisters were killed in the brief first exchange. The Tashnak were using modern ( of the time) rifles, where as the convoy had only 6 one shot guns. My grandfather (10) and his two brothers (4, 8), each carried by a loyal servant found salvage in the darkness of the night, each heading at another direction. One week later, the servant who saved my grandfather meets a Turkish cavalry group from the cavalry army under General Kazim Karabekir (RIP), and was delivered first to Malatya, then in time to Istanbul. At 1925, he finalized his government financed education as a teacher. He found his remaining brothers at 1975 and learned that they adaptop the surname "Muftuoglu", meaning the son of the "muftu". I have heard this story for many times and in every detail he could recall.

I have heard confirming memories from many other old Turks, who personally witnessed and involved and also two old Armenians in Istanbul, who know details of the revolt.

By the way, Aram Quirik, the gentleman with the Turkish Libaration Madal, is from the town Amasya. Most of the Amasya Armenians moved to Istanbul after the republic on their own will. None were killed, but a few Tashnak militans, who were trying to make them revolt and turned to Ottoman authorities by loyal Armenians.

You may easly say that I am lying and producing fictional excuses for the genocide. You are free to do so. Even if the Tashnak leaders, who leaded the revolt would rise from their graves, find you in person and tell you their true story, you wouldn't belive them...

By the way, I had a live-in girl friend for 3 years , with an Armenian father and Turkish mother. My wife is still jealous of her and she is still a good friend.

Regards, --Isarioglu 19:55, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Would it be too much asking, for you to post the dates, when those things happened? It happens that part of my family were from Van, from all of them, only 2 remained alive, they didn't had the chance to kill a cow to eat its meat, but rather the send, for a little boy not having still reached 10 year old, must have been not so easy. The same story from Marash from the other side of my family. Those from Van were there, when Jevet has ordered to eliminate any single Armenian male through Van(even Nogales the psychopath report this in his memories, when him and his cavalry fighting under the Ottoman flag were cannonading Armenian buildings.)

Dear Fedix,

My Grandfather told me that it was end of winter, early spring. Probably end of March or early April 1915. But I can not be sure, because the spring is late at Van region.

The first week of April, from over 20 people in one side of my family, only about 2 remained alive, and this in Van. Ussher, had a mission there, the same zone where a Red-Cross mission was attacked, because it was trying to rescue Armenians. I have gathered from the collections of said memoirs from Turks there, published by, I believe ATAA, an admission that before any upraising, in few days, Armenian shops were entirely destroyed. I gather from memoirs of my family, that irregulars under the order of Jevet, the governor, were rounding males from teenage year, to 65 years old, and killing them. Boys were hidden in baskets, and here is how the male survivor from the other side of my family made it through. This order, is even confirmed by Nogales, when he learns in April, that the upraising has started when the fool, Jevet, has ordered that every Armenian male in the city had to be killed. While Armenian shops were destroyed, and males butchered. Jevet was placed there by the Ittihadists to replace the other governor, because that governor was refusing to follow orders. Fadix 19:54, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

So, you have heard those memories from many elderly Turks? You know what? Either some were hiding things, not being sincere, or lying. And before you claim that I am disrespecting your ancestors, start asking Armenians about their “stories.” Every Diasporan Armenian has his/her story, all similar one from the other. Must have been weird that from those that you have asked, it was always one sided. Have you gone to Nalyhan, have you asked the Turkish natives there why the soil is red? They believe the soil was colored reddish because the the Armenian blood that has covered the entire area after the Armenians were killed. Or what about those native Turks and Kurds along the Hazar lake? Have you interviewed them about the Armenians? Here, you can read what those you have interviewed haven't told you: http://www.library.cornell.edu/colldev/mideast/armnm.htm

I can easly guess the rest of story and I also have heard partial confessions. After the Armenian revolt was suppressed and most of the able bodied Armenians died fighting, Turkish and Kurdish villains returned to their villages ( to run for their lives again one year later ) and started revenging on the Armenian villages. Once the army leaved a village, Armenians were killed by their neighbours, because their cousin killed someones cousin during the revolt. At that interval, Turks and Kurd had the upper hand. The governments official reason ( which you doubt ) for the exile is :

::1-To stop the fighting between the subjects of the empire. ::2-To secure the region from any new revolt, which is near the war zone, ::by moving Armenians to a neutral and secure region of the empire( at that time), Lebanon.

I will not fight you now on the real intend but on the results of the exile , we both agree, disagreeing with the numbers and intension.

We had the "Chain Revenge Crimes Law" effectiv until 1970's. If one man gets killed, a relative of his goes and kills the killer, if the killer is not available (prisoned), his brother or cousin and now it is the other families turn... It is called "Kan Davasi" or "Blood Case". It can sometimes go on for generations. To stop this hostality, the classical Ottoman solution to the problem was hanging the killers and exiling the whole family ( most of the time some 100), which started the fight to another region of the empire.

There is a weakness in your equation, at that time, most Armenian able bodied male, were conscripted in the Army, even those whom pied the military taxes were conscripted by force, to later be disarmed, sent in labor battalions or either being liquidated. So, those male could not have been killed in fightings. You can, to convince yourself, watch pictures taken by Germans, of Armenian convoys, you will see that there are no men aging from 14 to 65 years old, if there are some, they managed to hide. In fact, the official Tashnak press organs letter to the Ittihadist, indicate, how they were taken in surprise, this later is even in Uras collections. And later, many people were thrown to complete the Baghdad railroad. So, I can't conceive, how Armenians could have done what you report, when they were alienated, first from their intellectuals(whom were taken in shut), and their male population. There are even in Austrian and German records, crimes perpetrated soon in the war, in late 1914 against Armenians. I have already provided a reference here. Fadix 20:04, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

And sorry, but as I confess, you should also confess that the Armenians also has the same notion of REVENGE as Turks and Kurds. At 1916-1919 , when Armenian troops with Rusian officers took control of the region, it happened all over again. At 1919-22 interval, when Turks won control again, all Armenian were forced to leave the region again. There were not many civilians left from any side in region at the end of this bloody war--Isarioglu 18:44, 12 August 2005 (UTC).--85.96.187.191 18:33, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Confessing what? I will only confess for things I did, and never for things I did not. The official Ottoman statistics were of 800,000 killed, during the Military tribunal, the figure of 1.2 million having perished was presented. On the other hand, Ahmed Emin, whom was known to be anti-Armenian, has presented in his work, the figures of Muslim having perished because of Armenians, and the total figure for the entire period, hardly exceeded 150,000. The guy was an Ittihadist, and later introduced in the Kemalist administration. He was as well a Malta prisoner, and was closely implicated in the destruction of telegraphic orders to liquidate Armenians. The guy to come up with his figures has used war time propaganda, which is exposed, for the simple fact that he use for the second period of 1916 and over a more accurate and certified number, that is lower than those he brings for 1914-15. Not only a little lower, while those of 1914-15, reach over 100,000, the second set is more like 30,000. The only reason for this, is that there are no set of figures available, other than those produced by the Ittihadist party press organ, which also suggest that the total number of Muslim killed by Armenians could hardly reach 50,000, when using the confirmed figures for the second period of the war, and extrapolating from it, those of 1914-15. Because most Muslim died, mid late 1916 to later, while most Armenians died from 1914 to beginning of 1916, which also mean, those two events were unrelated.

Now, when one considers, the extend and nature of the crimes perpetrated against the Armenians, any crimes that Armenians would have committed in WWI, would be considered as insignificant, and could never justify, the total destruction of the Armenian community from the hearthland of Anatolia, where they lived for 3 millennium. And just in a matter of 2 years, the community just vanished. It is rather ironic, that everywhere, where Turks claims Armenians have committed massacres, there is no traces of Armenian presence, as if, those that massacred were those that vanished. Fadix 20:58, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

As for Amasya, sorry, you are completely wrong. Have you read, Ernst von Kwaiatkowski's(Austrian Consul-General) reports and dispatches regarding how Armenians in Amasya were brutally butchered like animals(and by pretext the Ittihadist press organ were dispatching advertisement of authored pictures of cache of arms to justify the decision)? Do you think that Armenians left Amasya to Istanbul from their own? Not only the Armenians there that managed to survive have lost their resources, but they had to face the attacks under the pretext of Ataturks “Amasya Declaration,” that made later those Armenians being dumped in the so-called Greeko-Armenian population exchange quit to Istanbul, that for most of those that survived and made it through, was even not the final destination. Fadix 23:27, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

There was a Tashnak cell in Amasya, but they did not success to organise a revolt , because the local Armenians did not cooperate. In the end they were turned to Ottoman by Armenians and killed. I do not deny that most of the Turkish population was no more friendly with the Armenians in Anatolia. But nobady killed them or hurt them. Kemalist regime did not allow any such a crime after 1923, when law and order was restored under the new republic. At 1923- 1938, the economy in Anatolia was in bad shape, trying to recover from a deep trauma. After 1939 eartquake, thinks turned worse. It was the logical move to move for Istanbul for any craftsman.

Are you claiming that Ernst von Kwaiatkowski reports and survivors accounts of Amasya, were lies?

----Isarioglu 18:44, 12 August 2005 (UTC)85.96.187.191 18:33, 12 August 2005 (UTC)--Isarioglu 18:44, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Armenian Archives Can Not Be Used Freely

Trial Of Arrested Turkish Scholar Opens In Yerevan Baku Today Radio Free Europe 10/08/2005 10:40 [...] The opening session of the trial adjourned less than an hour after its beginning at the request of one of Turkyilmaz’s newly hired lawyers who said he needs more time to familiarize himself with the case. [...] the next hearing {is} for Friday. Among those attending the first hearing were local human rights activists and officials from the U.S. embassy in Armenia. [...] Individuals convicted of smuggling have rarely ended up in jail in Armenia. Hence, growing questions about reasons for the severity of the charges leveled against the Turkish national of Kurdish extraction. The chief prosecutor at the trial, Koryun Piloyan, refused to explain them on Tuesday.

“You don’t look at the issue correctly,” Piloyan told RFE/RL. “[Turkyilmaz’s] deed corresponds to that article of the Criminal Code.” [...] “Yektan is a good man, there is nothing bad I can say about him,” said Sevan Deirmenjian, an ethnic Armenian citizen of Turkey who is pursuing a doctoral degree at Yerevan State University and befriended Turkyilmaz after meeting the latter in Armenia.

Avetik Ishkhanian of the Armenian Helsinki Committee, a human rights group, was also at the trial and urged the authorities not to give the defendant a prison sentence.[...].

Ishkhanian was among those who were allowed to visit the arrested scholar at a maximum security prison in Yerevan. “He wasn’t particularly unhappy with conditions there,” he told RFE/RL. “His main grievance was his detention. I also remember him saying that he could imagine being arrested in Turkey but never thought that could happen in Armenia.”

Note: Above are excerpts from the article. The full article appears here. Clarifications and comments by me are contained in {}. Deletions are marked by [...]. The bold emphasis is mine.

So as you see, no body can use Armenian Governmental Archives freely as commonly known, but Turkish Governmental Archives are open to everyone, also there are people in Turkey, who accepts the Armenian genocide, but there is no arrestment to anybody, everybody can discuss the Armenian Genocide by opposite decisions. And there is no primary document about any order that was given to ethnically annihilate the Armenians by Ottoman Government. If there is show it.-- aozan

Turkyilmaz do recognize the Armenian genocide, he was arrested not for his works in the archives, according to his own words he had access to everything he asked, there are hardly any scholars that would claim having had access to any files they wanted in Turkish archives(and I can name many if you want). This thing makes me wonder if he wasn't arrested for some reason that has more to do with the fact that he tried to get over 80 books out of the country, and not few books, which led Armenian autorities to believe he was some Turkish agent, which of course is ridiculous. I am all for his liberation, from what I gathered from the guy, he seemed to be a serious and professional researcher whom had no ill intend, I may be wrong though. Oh and another thing, there are two trials pending these days in Turkey close to the issue, and those that are accused were accused for less than that, while there are similar laws in other countries as those existing in Armenia, for the protection of national heritage materials, and this including for Turkey, those two cases pending in Turkey are based on ridiculous laws. Fadix 17:28, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

If he did not accept it beforehand , he would never have any access to Armenian archives. By the way, please name the 2 pending similar cases in Turkey, so that we Turks also know it please.

--Isarioglu 21:17, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

First of, we are skipping the purpouses of the talk page. Tell me how this discussion is relevant for the progress of the article.

As for his aknowledgement, you are assuming here. The guy was ethnicly Kurd, and very friendly with the Armenian community, and very critical of the official Turkish government history, and this before he has undergone to research in the Armenian archive. So claiming that he has done this to be accepted is pure speculation. As for the names, do you want that I refresh your memory about the cases of Hrant Dink, and post why he is accused so that one might compare the ridiculous nature of the accusation? What about the Kurdish lawyer accused? Oh and, I might ignore your answer, if it has nothing to do with the current article and a way to improve it. It is not that i don't like the discussion, but we should continue in our talk pages if it is uninvolved with the article. Fadix 22:46, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Protection

This article has now been protected for over two months. Is there any reason why it should not be unprotected? Kelly Martin 15:08, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Some questions

Firstly, i'm no expert on the whole Armenian problem, but in the interests of improving this article i wanted to ask some questions.

• If genocide did happen and academics have proved it irrefutable (as this article suggests), why has the UN still not recognised an Armenian genocide?

I don't see how this article suggest the genocide to be irrefutable, it only present positions. Furthermore, the UN did recognize it in 1985, a year after the Permanent People Tribunal. Fadix 22:39, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

U.N. Councel Document Referance Please ! --Isarioglu 00:31, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

This was covered in various occasions here. And most recently, there: Talk:Armenian_Genocide#Photos.2C_photo_names.2C_photo_captions_and_use_of_.22deportation.22. You can have the full report that was voted, from the booklet: “UNITED NATIONS REPORT ON THE ARMENIAN GENOCIDE: UN 38th Session, 1985.” You can follow the link here for a resume: http://www.chgs.umn.edu/Educational_Resources/Curriculum/Teaching_Armenian_Genocide/Resources_6__Armenian_Genocide/resources_6__armenian_genocide.html

Or either, you could have excerpts of the voted report, here: http://www.teachgenocide.org/files/DocsMaps/UN%20Report%20on%20Genocide%20(excerpts).pdf

There is also a book published under the title: “Le Génocide des Arméniens devant l'ONU” in French, covering the entire issue, from the 70s, famous paragraph 30, which Turkey forced to delete, to the final report and it's vote. Fadix 02:32, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

• For a country/regime/people to be found guilty of genocide shouldnt there be some sort of trial in a court of law e.g. Milosevic? Were the Turks not cleared in the Malta Tribunals?

There never was a Malta Tribunal, there were Malta prisoners, and this was covered in the talk page extensively in the past. On the other hand, there was the Military tribunal which convicted the leaders of the Ittihadist party. Fadix 22:39, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

• Why do many respectable sources still refer to it as Armenian massacres e.g. BBC, Reuters, Encylopedia Brittanica?

Encyclopedia Brittanica entry regarding the topic has been widely changed over the years, and is the only encyclopedia of its type, that treat the subject like this. Le Robert, Universalis, Encarta and various other encyclopedias refer it as genocide. As for newspapers, various other newspapers refer it as genocide, and other times it depend on the writer. The New York Times, and the Boston Globe have officially recognized it. Fadix 22:39, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Did anyone watch the movie "WACKING THE DOG" ? --Isarioglu 00:33, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

If you're trying to be silly, it's really not the place. Fadix 02:32, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

• I notice the article states that the Swiss government recognises an Armenian genocide, but this news articlesays the House of Representatives does, but the government does not.

Not exactly. The article doesn't say the government, but rather the country. While Canada recognize the genocide, the ministers refused to take position, the recognition of the country depend on the vote of the deputies, those that were elected democratically to represent the citizens. The national council of Switzerland, The Swiss House of Representatives is what count as to say recognized by a country. Fadix 22:39, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Turkish Workers Party Chairman Dogu Perincek has violeted the Swiss law on "Denial of Armenian Genocide" some week ago , willingly and in public. Swiss police arrested him. After questioning, they let him free, against his protests. He DEMANDED a court in Bern and in the coming month, we will see a good law match.--Isarioglu 00:31, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't see how this is relevant. Fadix 02:32, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

• If many countries still do not recognise a genocide aswell as the UN, is it fair for this article to use the subsection "Turkish government denial"? Does this not unfairly create the impression that there is no doubt surrounding the genocide claims and that Turkey is lying? Isn't this quite a strong POV?

As I said, the UN recognized it in 1985, as for countries, as I told you in another entry, many countries still do not recognize the Holocaust, will you propose to modify the Holocaust entry for this? Oh and, not recognition does not mean denial. Only Turkey and Azerbaijan deny the genocide. Fadix 22:39, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

U.N. Councel Document Referance Please ! --Isarioglu 00:31, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

See above. Fadix 02:32, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

I want to add that my only interest in this article is to create a fair and balanced topic, the kind that is seen in many other respectable sources on the Internet. --

Thanks Lord! A sane person.

Your assumptions regarding the [lack of] sanity of certain persons are unwelcome here in Wikipedia. Fadix 02:32, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Sorry and thanks for reminding me. Would you also remind Mr.Troth for "Can you truly be so ignorant and stupid? --THOTH 20:39, 10 August 2005 (UTC) please ?

Suggestion about "Turkish government denial"

I propose to move it in the talk page for further discussion as to how to make it more NPOV. So let make that a poll. Agree or oppose? Fadix 00:14, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

My only suggestion is that it be renamed "Turkish government position". I really cannot imagine any printed encylopedia using the term "Turkish government denial", it wreaks of POV (for the short term i agree it be moved to discussion). --E.A 12:34, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

There was a proposition, to have a Turkish government position in the article, presenting the different official versions of the article. Coolcat could not accept. There is something called "Turkish government denial," it doesn't require a statment to be true to be accepted, in fact, Wikipedias NPOV policy treat subjects not to reveal truths, but positions. How you should see this thing, is: "Is there a phenomenen called "Turkish government denial"? There is one. You then present those that support the position, and reject it, and what both positions are. The reason why I have proposed to redraw that section was not because of its title, but rather the content that is not really NPOV. If you move it here, I will have no problem, but I want still to know what others believe, because I am really not interested to face another revert war. Fadix 17:00, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Can you really imagine (or have you actually seen) a section entitled "Turkish government denial" in any credible Encyclopedia or other source explaining these events? Your effectively saying a genocide did happen, and Turkey is denying it. For there to be a "Turkish government denial", then there must be an "Armenian genocide" to be denied, since the latter is a matter of dispute not just between Turkey and Armenia, but between several other countries and Armenian also (e.g. UK as below) then for the article to hold such a position is POV.

I'm all for discussing it here, reverts get you nowhere. When you say "move it here", do you actually mean a cut and paste from the article for the time being, or just to create a discussion on it? --E.A 17:38, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Turkish government denial, is an encyclopedic article. Encyclopedic articles are not based on wherever or not something did happen, but rather if such a position exist. There is a position called the Turkish government position, as denial. If we were to apply your logic here, we should probably take off, or delete every articles other than mathematical concepts, because, there will be a position against the maintained position that the article cover. Much like the Armenian genocide entry. The Armenian genocide entry exist, because a position called “Armenian genocide” exist, and this regardless of wherever or not there was an Armenian genocide.

The section on the other hand, should specify what the position is. Something such: “What is often called the Turkish government denial, is the position maintained by scholars that support the theses of genocide, on the other hand, the Turkish government refuse to accept its position as denial etc...” Fadix 19:00, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

I say again Fadix, have you ever seen in any credible encylopedia, a section entitled "Turkish government denial"? It is a completely partisan statement aimed at reaffirming one point of view at the expense of another. What i suggest is a section entitled "Turkish government position" - within this explanation there can be a sentence such as "Those who accept the genocide thesis view this position as denial".

Your proposition is problematic thanks to Coolcat. The Turkish government version has already been merged in the article, randering such change useless. As for encyclopedia, we can not search entries name in other encyclopedias the way you do. You should rather ask yourself if the name is encyclopedic, I really don't see how it is not. Is there a position called : "Turkish government denial"? There is one, I don't see how presenting a title for a position, suggest the position in question to be true, since the article itself present it, as a position maintained by some. All articles are presented this way in Wikipedia. If we apply your logic, we should not present an entry regarding Santa, because only presenting that title would suggest that Santa exist. Fadix 00:15, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

My proposition is not problematic at all, since i cannot spot any version of the Turkish government position in the article. Fadix, if your going to be stubborn about removing such a blindingly obvious POV statement as "Turkish government denial", something no respectable source of information would print or has printed, then what hope do i have of getting anything changed in this article? --E.A 12:09, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Fadix, please show me where in this article the Turkish governments position is sufficiently conveyed to make my idea problematic and useless. --E.A 18:14, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

The Turkish government position was sufficiently conveyed, according to the NPOV policy here in Wikipedia, which stat that idealy as much spaces should be left to a position as it is supported by the accademia. Fadix 21:48, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

The Turkish governments position was not conveyed at all. Firstly, this article contains a declaration by 69 American academia supporting Turkeys view, secondly whether or not academia support it, Turkeys position exists and has reprucussions which must be explained here. --E.A 22:38, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

So according to you, the lead section is lacking of that? Mind you again, that Coolcat was the one that refused to have a Turkish government version, because according to him, it would lead people to believe that the Turkish government version is wrong. The article was worked around as to merge the Turkish government version in it, rather than having its own section, largely because of Coolcat. Don't blame me for something I am not responsable of. Fadix 22:43, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

UN recognition

I wanted to make a separate section on this because i feel it is important. I think we have to establish whether the adoption of that report is tantamount to recognition from the UN. I would have thought recognition would have come in the form of a Resolution, not an obscure sentence in a general report on genocide. Furthermore, i have read on other websites that "The Sub-Commission after meticulous debate refused to endorse the indictment for lack of convincing evidence" (ATAA), perhaps someone can clarify this.

Also on the Turkish embassy website it states "A recent comment on the U.N. position was rendered by, U.N. spokesman Farhan Haq on October 5, 2000 when he confirmed that the U.N. has not approved or endorsed a report labeling the Armenian experience as genocide." Can someone explain this statement?

--E.A 12:34, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

When it is a resolution, the “other side” will claim that it is not researched and is political, when it is a report, in this cases the result of 8 years of studies, it is claimed it isn't a resolution. The thing is that the report was submitted to the United Nations Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities and voted. Call this what you want, it was voted and passed. The Sub-committee never refused for lack of evidences, there are transcriptions of the panel discussion, and not only for the Armenian cases, and I don't recall reading anything such. What happened is that there were problems to the UN, because the nature of the resolution, it was taken and presented to the Sub-committee, and later placed to a vote. Farhan Haq statement could mean everything, it could be interpreted as, the report being transferred from the UN proper, to the sub-committee as a refusal for the UN, but this interpretation still is questionable, because the reason why it was transferred had more to do with the nature of the report than the reference to the Armenians. Besides, I don't remember there is a Holocaust resolution testifying the “accuracy” of the event. While the 1948 convention did include provision for it, the report submitted few months before that convention regarding the Armenian massacre made of the cases inclusive of the convention. I do think that the 70s famous paragraph 30, referencing to the Armenian cases was enough clear about this, before the Turkish side, with a Pakistani lawyer tried to redraw it. Fadix 16:51, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

The difference between the Holocaust and the Armenian massacres is that people were tried and found guilty of the Holocaust, whereas the Armenian massacres rely on historical interpretation to find a country guilty of genocide. I would have thought for a country to be accused of genocide there must be some legal findings, this sentiment is echoed by a recent House of Lords discussion for example when Lord Triesman stated:

"neither this Government nor previous British governments have judged that the evidence is sufficiently unequivocal to persuade us that these events should be categorised as genocide as defined by the 1948 UN convention on genocide...

...The judgment required under the United Nations convention is that it can be demonstrated that a state had intent. That is the element that the lawyers have concluded is not shown in this case. That is why the difference is made." (http://www.accc.org.uk/News/Lords_-_14July05/lords_-_14july05.html)

How would the British government be able to say lawyers do not find the evidence points to genocide according to UN conventions, when you say the UN recognises genocide?

Also, with regards to Switzerland, i think a distinction should be made as was done with Canada, that while the House of Representatives recognises the genocide, the governments holds a different position: "swissinfo: Why won't the Senate recognise the Armenian deaths as genocide like other western countries?

P.B.: I think that the position of our government is the better one. I don't feel comfortable being the judge of the whole world and of something that happened a long time ago."

(http://www.swissinfo.org/sen/swissinfo.html?siteSect=107&sid=6003167&cKey=1123784833000)--E.A 17:38, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

We've been there. The Turkish military tribunal found guilty, the leaders of the Ittihadist party, of having planned the destruction of the Armenians. The term, crimes against humanity and civilization, was coined during World War I to refer to the Armenian cases. The first time, the German equivalent for the term genocide, was ever used massively was before even Raphael Lemkin has coined the term, and this to refer to the Armenian cases. In 1948, months before the genocide convention, a report prepared by the UN, and this after Lemkin presentation of the cases for the last years before it was adopted, presented the Armenian cases, which was used as one of the foundations of the convention on genocide. Raphael Lemkin, the person whom coined the term genocide, became a lawyer, and worked in finding a legal term, which would be applicable to condemn authors of such acts, because of what happened to the Armenians. I have presented here Lemkins own wittings explaining this, which was as well published in the Genocide encyclopedia written by Israel Charny.

The UN, when reviewing the cases of genocides in the 70s, because they thought that an upgrade was in order, to include all the reported cases of genocide, included the Armenian cases, as if, it was never debated, before the Turkish side pressurized and forced it to be redrawn. The Permanent Peoples Tribunal, a year before the UN vote, clearly mentions that the Armenian cases has all of the elements of the UN convention for genocide, without ignoring here, that Raphael Lemkin, the person who coined the term, included the cases with the Holocaust, not only as cases of genocides, but elements and part of the definition of genocide. Which basically means that it is not the Armenian cases that should respect elements to be called genocide, but rather, any other cases having the components of the Armenian genocide, to be a genocide.

Not only, was there a tribunal judging the authors of the Armenian massacres, but those condemned were the leaders, and their link in the destruction of the Armenians was made, more clearly than the Nuremberg.

Coming to the distinction, countries recognition is independents from a government. I followed the entire thing here in Canada, I have witnessed a deputy reading a pamphlet prepared by the Turkish embassy, with the moon and star on the cover. I have witnessed how Turkey has pressurized Canada and has threatened. I have viewed something that I have never seen, even during the vote on Gay marriage. The deputies of the governing party voting against the ministers, and this, IN MASS, I have witnessed the minister of justice that was pressurized by the Turkish government to vote against, whom to not be forced to vote against the governments line, was not present at the house. I have witnessed, the prime ministers absence during the vote. Do you even have an idea, what the Turkish government did to threaten Canada? Do you have an idea on what they did until the last second? I wonder how one can dare claiming that the governments position was not the same. The governments position, was to not take position because of the repercussions, while they have made a little statement to the Turkish embassy, that was later manipulated as to make of it, as if the Canadian government contrary to the house deny the genocide.

Did you watch, Democracy Now, few days ago, about the allegations that a Turkish embassy member declaring that the cost of Hastert redrawel of the genocide resolution of 2000 in the US, would be of 500,000$, when internal polls indicated that the resolution, if put to vote would have passed? Why do you think, that a majority of the US states, recognize the genocide, while resolutions are drawn even before they are voted in the Federal? How can one equate, a non-vote as denial, the way you do? When governments recognize, revisionists claim, history must be decided by historians, when historians are referred, it is claimed that the country in which they live, does not officially recognize the genocide. So, here let stick, the the deputies voted democratically by the citizens of a country.

Coming to Switzerland, how dare you mention this, after the Turkish government has treatned to sue Switzerland, and threatened it, in a way, so childishtic, that I couldn't find any words from all the languages I know to describe such a behavior. And when refuse to pass a resolution to vote, revisionists are the first to come and claim, the country do not recognize the genocide. Let me tell you E.A., since you quote Lord Triesman. Let refer to the link here: http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld199900/ldhansrd/pdvn/lds05/text/50714-02.htm

Before I continue, E.A., do you know which lawyers are referred here? Fadix 19:40, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Your completely missing my point Fadix, i'm not trying to say Switzerland does not recognise a genocide. I'm trying to point out that like Canada, the Swiss government does not take the position of its House of Representatives as shown in those Swiss news articles. Since the entry on Canada highlights this in the article, then why does it not say the same for Switzerland, this is all i am trying to point out. --E.A 22:32, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

The statement regarding Canada was added there, before there was attempts to remove Canada from the list. Governments recognition is subjective, and I advance that this statement about Canada should be taken back, and I believe the reason is obvious. Governments change, a government can decide to take position, another not, what counts is what has been placed to votes, such as resolutions and laws, those remains. It is not governments that decide on the adoptions of resolutions or laws, but to the deputies who vote. This is what it has always been, no one remind about governments positions during the voting of resolutions and laws, but rather if it has passed or not. Both the Canadian senate, and the House have recognized the event as genocide. The house is formed of the deputies voted democratically to represent the citizens, what a government during a mandate think, can be reverted by another governments words. Besides, did you listen to the debates before it was voted? Ignoring the person that has read a pamphlet of the Turkish embassy, there was no one questioning the events. The few others that spoke opposing it, was the concerns of Turkish answer and the canceling of Canadian contracts. The government has affirmed to the Turkish embassy, that the House has spoken, and that the government should not be considered as responsible. The prime minister is the leader of our government and he decided to not vote, because he could just not do what the Turkish government has instructed him to do, and this, neither the minister of justice. For those reasons, any more statements clarifying the Canadian governments position is bogus, because it suggest Canadian governments as if they were eternal and not voted each 4-5 years. Fadix 23:55, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Parliament of Kurdistan in Exile

Stating that the "Parliament of Kurdistan in Exile" is a legitimate source of recognition undermines this articles credibility. Firstly, there is no Kurdistan from which this "parliament" is exiled, secondly, the 'recognition' was delivered by the head of the PKK (a terrorist organisation recognised by EU and US), Abdullah Ocalan. By using this your supporting the Kurdish POV and making this article naturally anti-Turkish by supporting PKK activities to split Turkey. --E.A 18:44, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

I posted the official name of that body, which was translated by I don't know whom. That body exist, and it recognize it. What do you suggest? Fadix 21:06, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Unless you can find a legitimate body, i suggest it be completely removed. Its a mickey mouse title and it doesn't help this article one bit. --E.A 22:32, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

It is a registered organization founded in Hague, it now has a registered address in Belgium. The organization claim to represent not only the Kurds of Turkey, but also those of Iraq, Iran and elsewhere. I don't see why it should be removed. If you think the words are misleading, you can place a parantheses to clarify that it is not a parlement in the proper sense of the term. Fadix 00:05, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Recent history — timeline

That section is all upside down, informations not important enough are included, others more important, not. By important I mean, the recognitions by states, and organizations etc. By not important, I mean, statments given by the Turkish government or such. Beside, a timeline is too long, and a recent one not really related with the genocide itself, I propose to creat another page for it. Any suggestions? Fadix 16:59, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Changing Istanbul for Constantinople

There was a reason why first when I added that section, I named Constantinople, this was changed by Coolcat. It is a question of name conventions. In historical works, places are called according to what they were called during the period treated. In 1919, English language publications mostly used Constantinople, and in accordance to name convention, this is the term that should be used. The same is done also for the Istanbul entry, I don't see the word Constantinople deleted there. Also the French entry of the Armenian genocide, for the trial, use also Constantinople and not Istanbul. Fadix 18:30, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Edits

Due to no response for my suggestion on "Turkish government position", i've gone ahead and implemented it (especially since i notice French Wikipedia using the same). I've reworded some parts, reshuffled paragraph on recognition and added other small edits. --E.A 21:13, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Hold on, what no response? There is a warning in the talk page, saying that since the article is controversial, there should be discussions here before any important changes, which you did not respect. You refuse to accept that "Turkish government denial" is encyclopedic, but the Genocide Encyclopdia by Israel Charny, has just such a section regarding what is termed there as the denial by the Turkish state. Universalis, the French encyclopedia, treat the subject by terming it as such. You were free to add a section regarding the Turkish government position, but this is not what you did, you entirly modified an already existing section without discussing it. For now, I have to think of what to do of it. Fadix 21:54, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

You told me my suggestion to have a Turkish government position was pointless because "The Turkish government version has already been merged in the article, randering such change useless.". I asked you twice to show me an example of the Turkish government position within this article and you didn't respond. After looking at the French entry on this article i noticed "La position turque" and decided the same can be applied here. --E.A 22:16, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Pay attention to the lead text, and compare it with the French enty. The text there was to have its own section, and only a presentation that the Turkish government reject such "charges" was to be presented. This was merged, mostly because of Coolcat implications. The French entry, on the other hand, has no such clarification on the lead section regarding the Turkish government position, and for this reason, it has a need to have a Turkish government position, which basically say what the English version say in its lead section. More than that, for it to need more informations, it would be misleading and push the article into POV, because it misrepresent, and give a government version more places than, let say the position of the Accemia, which in what concerns this cases should have a section, and it has not, because the last time I checked, they are those that write history and not governments. You are politicizing the issue, while history is supposed to be as much apolitical as possible. Another differences with the French version, is that the French versions, Turkish government section, does not do what you do, after covering what the English lead sections Turkish position, it present the Turkish governments answer to the "charges" and more current events, most of that section is about that, as to not misrepresent positions to mislead readers into believing that both positions are supported equaly, when they are obviously not. Had the English version been a copy of the French or German version, it would be called pro-Armenian POV, even thought, the French version is moderated by an Administrator. But let ignore all of this, had you wanted and proposed to have a Turkish version section, which would include the government and the Turkish public opinion, there was nothing I could have done about it, but only be cautious as to respect the ratio. But what you did, is to propose changing an already existing section that had not the same task as the task you wanted it to have, and finally you decided to push that and entry modify that section. This is deleting of information, and is simply wrong. But since the mistake has been done, and I believe that we can work out this way, let it work this way then. But in future, I hope that before changing important sections of the article, you discuss it in the talk page, because I will revert it, because I will have to do that. Fadix 22:40, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

I have not attempted to claim that anything Turkey says has the same amount of consensus as opponents of her view. Everything wrote was in relation to what the official Turkish government position is, hence: "Turkey does not accept", "Turkey holds the position that", "Turkey states that", "Turkey believes", "Turkey also critcises" etc etc. I could have gone into a lot more depth on this, but as it is, i have provided 1 paragraph in the whole article on the Turkish government POV. The only information which i removed, which i did plan to discuss here but forgot in all this writing, was the allegations that Turkey funds a world wide attempt to deny a genocide. This is accusing the government of bribery and until definitive proof of these allegations is provided then i felt it too POV to be included.

I am particularly insulted by your comment that i am changing things because it "had not the same task as the task you wanted it to have". Your suggesting i'm trying to manipulate a very serious article to misinform readers according to my own views. The only thing i am trying to attempt is to give this article some fairness and credbility. --E.A 23:10, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

I have not accused you of such. Don't take me wrong, as I said, we will be working with your changes. What was my real problem is the changes of a section. While the subject of that section was about one thing, you have made of it a section regarding the Turkish government position. That's what I really have against. As for the Turkish governments "corruption," E.A., while corruption is a strong word, the information of Turkish government financing is even not denied by the Turkish state. Financing of universities is public domain information, and you can recieve the informations without much difficulties. The ITS and ARIT grants do exist, in a way, that such grants from the Israeli state to American universities the way they exist with Turkey, don't even exist. All the noises around universities like Princeton, were about real financings not only claims. The only reason it was rejected in UCLA, was because of the Armenian students and community there that was pretty strong, had it not been of this, the UCLA among the professors of Middle East studies, would have those DIRECTLY financed through the ITS and ARIT grants. Anyway, the change is made right? Lets stick to it, and work on this new version. OK? Fadix 23:26, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

A little History : General Drastamat Kanayan

General Drastamat Kanayan (known as General Dro), 1884-1956, was an Armenian general and nationalist leader.

He served in the Russian army during WW1. In 1918-1920, he was Defense Minister of short-lived Republic of Armenia and commanded Armenian troops in the wars with Turkey, Azerbaijan and Georgia. Dro became a popular military leader after the victories over the Turkish in 1918 and 1920. In 1920, after the fall of Republic of Armenia, Dro immigrated to Germany. During WW2, a minority of Armenian Dashnaks, mostly POWs, collaborated with the Nazis to expel the Soviets from their Motherland. In 1941 they formed the "812th Armenian Battalion of Wehrmacht" (later "Armenian Legion") under the command of Dro. These troops fought in Crimea and North Caucasus and served as police units for internal security duties in the occupied territories. With the end of the WW2, Dro immigrated to the USA, where he died in 1956.

How is this related to the current article. Fadix 14:22, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

The Massacre of Khojaly: Armenia's Crime Against Humanity

Azerbaijan Newsletter - Embassy of the Republic of Azerbaijan, Washington DC -February 23, 2001 - Nine years ago, the name of the Azerbaijani town of Khojaly (Xocali), previously virtually unknown, became a symbol of unprecedented brutality against peaceful civilians and crimes against humanity. On February 26, 1992, Armenian armed forces backed by Russia's 366-th Infantry Regiment massacred more than 700 civilians and destroyed the town in what the Human Rights Watch called "the largest massacre to date in the conflict."

The extent of the cruelty of this massacre against women, children and elderly is shocking. Nine years after, for people of Azerbaijan, the word Khojaly is synonymous with pain and sorrow.

Memorial, a Russian human rights group, reported that "scores of the corpses bore traces of profanation. Doctors on a hospital train in Agdam noted no less than four corpses that had been scalped and one that had been beheaded.... and one case of live scalping:"

Various other witnesses reported horrifying details of the massacre. The late Azerbaijani journalist Chingiz Mustafayev was first to film the aftermath of what happened in Khojaly. "Some children were found with severed ears; the skin had been cut from the left side of an elderly woman's face; and men had been scalped," wrote Mustafayev.

The massacre of Khojaly set a pattern of destruction and ethnic cleansing methodically carried out by the Armenian armed forces. On November 29, 1993, Newsweek quoted a senior US Government official as saying: 'What we see now is a systematic destruction of every village in their way. It's vandalism."

The massacre of Khojaly revealed to the world the essence of Armenian ethnic expansionism and the true goals of the war waged against the people of Azerbaijan. According to Azerbaijan's President Heydar Aliyev, "the policy of genocide has become an integral part of the Armenian aggression against Azerbaijan."

In his address to the nation, President Aliyev said: "Khojaly saw unprecedented atrocities and brutal massacre of civilians. To prevent such atrocities from happening anywhere in the world, we should work hard to tell the international community the truth about Khojaly, and all the injustice and hardship suffered by the people of Azerbaijan in the course of the Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict. The international community should voice its clear and unambiguous judgement."

Every year religious leaders of Azerbaijan's Christian, Jewish, and Muslim communities issue appeals on the eve of commemoration of the massacre of Khojaly. They urge the international community to condemn the February 26,1992 bloodshed, facilitate liberation of the occupied territories and repatriation of the displaced communities.

"We appeal to the international community with pain and hope," said a statement by survivors of Khojaly. Years later, those residents of Khojaly, who survived the massacre, are appealing to hold Armenia responsible for this crime.

"The ignorance of the international community allows Armenia to avoid its responsibility for aggression," said Azerbaijan's Ambassador Pashayev. "It seems hypocritical that the world's media is now focused on the events at the end of World War I in the region, while at the same time ignoring the massacre by Armenians of Azerbaijanis in Khojaly."

The tragedy of Khojaly stands as the most vivid reminder of the consequences of Armenian aggression and policy of ethnic cleansing. Its survivors are still scattered among one million refugees and displaced persons in camps around Azerbaijan, and Armenia still occupies 20% of our country. The world should know about Khojaly!

Azerbaijan Newsletter is published by The Embassy of the Republic of Azerbaijan 927 15th Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005 Tel: (202) 842-0001 Fax: (202) 842-0004 www.azembassy.com Contact: Elin Suleymanov

I wonder what would have gone of my credibility, had I posted something such: Turkey's Crime Against Humanity. Secondly, I don't see how those events have any places in what happened in 1915. Thirdly, the last time I've checked, the number of victims were amounting in the 100 to 200, published both in the Helzenki Watch and, Azeris government officials, before all the victims during the period few days of war in that region were dumped as Khojali victims, when the Iranian authorities have organized a day of cease fire, for both parties to move the courps. While what happened in Khojali is considered much more controversial than the Armenian massacres, yet! I find this discussion comming up in the Armenian genocide section, and this, from someone that would rather prefer hidding behind an IP address. Let me say you something. If the death of over a hundred people is a crime against humanity?(ironically this term was coined to refer to what Armenenians were facing) What is the death of over a million people? Fadix 14:20, 15 August 2005 (UTC)