Talk:Armenian genocide/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

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)

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)

To every one, for me as a oversea chinese,whether Turkish government denial on the genocide or not, to be honest, doesnt make weight that it never happened; likewise, if German government denial the Holocaust nor japanese government on Nanjing Massacre, implies they never happened? b.t.w, i am not in pos to comment armenian genocide, but ppl do normally believe in facts. [ pedestrian ,13-9-05]

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:

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.
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.
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 [1]. More detail on Rummel's calculations and sources can be found here [2][3][4][5]. 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, [6] , 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)

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.

The following are all lies: 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)

Actually, you forgot that there was a genocide in 1896 as well and the fact that the Armenians were viewed by the Turks as the Jews were by Nazi Germany. Thus leading to the first genocide and the revolt in 1915.

---Actually, both my parents were born in Amasya, and moved to Istanbul in 1962. My Armenian Grandfathers died in Amasya in 1977 and there were Armenian's living there up to the early to mid 1980's. With that being said, MANY armenians were both Killed and deported from Amasya during WWI including 7 out of 8 of my Great Grandparents. My Grandfather was forced at Knife point to change his name when he was 9 years old. All of this took place in Amasya. Though other places had it much worse, do not under estimate the carnage that took place. EVD -- 20:23, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

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)

Talat papers document that 972,000 Armenians "disapear" from Ottoman Empire 1915-1916 - needs to be in article

http://www.iht.com/articles/2009/03/09/europe/turkey.php

I'm sure more will be comming out on this shortly. In the meantime I suggest that this figure - and its source - be referenced in the article. It should be noted that the figure only refers to population decrease 1915-16 and that it is based on incomplete total population figures - though the total number killed/missing (mostly killed) is likely to be somewhat close to the actual (though likely to be somewhat low) as it is likely that the Special Organization kept some account of the properties taken and the demise of the owners though less likely (IMO) that they would have an accurate count of children.--THOTH (talk) 19:43, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

This information needs to be added to the Mehmed Talat article as well. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:06, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The collapse of the Ottoman Empire was bloody, the Turkish argument goes, and those who died were victims of that chaos.

Bardakci subscribes to that view. The figures, he said, do not indicate the number of dead, only the result of the decline in the Armenian population after deportation. He strongly disagrees that the massacres amounted to a genocide Diaspora, and says that Turkey was obliged to take action against Armenians because they were openly supporting Russia in its war against the Ottoman Empire.

Why don't you mention the above passage that bardakci said in the same herald tribune article you gave? He explains why the number of armenians were so low in 1916/1917.

He also mentioned in the black book that not only armenians but 700.000 turks were relocated from regions close to the russian border. The black book does acknowledge though that the number of armenians that were relocated was around 900.000 and not as turkey previously had claimed 400.000. The black book says nothing about extermination, it talks about the tehcir (ottoman arabic for relocation), so why claim that 970.000 armenians were exterminated? Is it surprising that the number of armenians in the ottoman empire dropped drastically if you take into account that the ottoman empire was greatly diminished in 1917 and was even smaller than turkey is now? The regions where the armenians traditionally lived in the ottoman empire were conquered by the russians and armenians and part of these regions were only reconquered later. If the ottoman empire in 1916/1917 did not include the regions the armenians traditionally lived in and the armenians had been relocated to regions which were conquered by the english and french, is it very surprising then that the numbers of armenians were so low in the ottoman empire? Could you say that if mexico and the usa were at war and mexico conquered the states of new mexico and texas and as a consequence the number of hispanics dropped drastically in the usa, the usa must have committed genocide Diaspora and the numerical difference of hispanics between pre-war usa and post-war usa must be the amount that was killed? Ibrahim4048 (talk) 18:43, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

The article is highly biased using his words partially. I have met Murat Bardakçı and know what more he said. He says the figure is too high for those that deny it completely and too low for the Armenian side. It helps those that argue that it was not a Genocide Diaspora. He also pointed out that after the deportation suddenly there are more than 200 thousand Armenians showing up each in Syria and Lebanon as the Tehcir was intended to. Those people have settled in these regions and continued their daily lives. What his documents certainly helps is to annihilate the Armenian argument that there were 2.1 million Armenians living in Ottoman Empire and 1.5 million of them were killed. These documents helps the Turkish case as they provide real statistics with real documents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheDarkLordSeth (talk • contribs) 15:34, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Assyrian, Hellenic, and Mount Lebanon genocides Diaspora...

I think we should link them to this article, seeing as how they are part of the same historical framework. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.234.121.233 (talk) 17:35, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

They already are, in the introduction section. Meowy 16:13, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Date agreement needed in section on "Reform Implementation"

In the section below, "Reform Implementation, 1860s-1880s", the 2nd paragraph states that the Treaty of Paris (1856) was signed after violent suppression of Christians in 1875. Something is incorrect or needs more explanation: the treaty could not be dated 21 years prior to these suppressive acts.

Reform implementation, 1860s–1880s Main article: Armenian Question

In the mid-1860s to early 1870s, Armenians began to ask for better treatment from the Ottoman government. After amassing the signatures of peasants from eastern Anatolia, the Armenian Communal Council had petitioned to the Ottoman government to redress the issues that the peasants complained about: "the looting and murder in Armenian towns by [Muslim] Kurds and Circassians, improprieties during tax collection, criminal behavior by government officials and the refusal to accept Christians as witnesses in trial."[16] The Ottoman government considered these grievances and promised to punish those responsible.[17]

Following the violent suppression of Christians in the uprisings in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria and Serbia in 1875, the Great Powers invoked the 1856 Treaty of Paris by claiming that it gave them the right to intervene and protect the Ottoman Empire's Christian minorities.

Alliwalk (talk) 20:14, 6 May 2009 (UTC) alliwalk May 6, 20

Search function for archives

I´ve noted that other articles have a searchfunction for archived discussions. I´d like to have one here, but don´t know how to add it.

--Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:24, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Much of the archived discussion here is completely pointless and repetitive - so to have some way of searching for the useful content would be useful. I wish other editors would do some regular pruning of the off-topic material this talk page attracts. Meowy 18:10, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Added a search box, and also set up an indexing function.—Chowbok ☠ 04:05, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:21, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Bat Ya'or is not a source to quote in any scholarly article

I would suggest the removal of the reference to what Bat Ya'or thinks of the Armenian Genocide. She is not a serious scholar, and furthermore her opinion is irrelevant, and does a real disservice to the study of this important subject. 62.31.57.63 (talk) 23:18, 6 October 2009 (UTC)S2ao

Problem with use of Brittanica in the Armenian deaths, 1914 to 1918 section

The use of the Brittannica article is a subject is scholarly dispute and should be removed or revised.

Dolabjian, Vartkes S.(2003)'The Armenian Genocide as portrayed in the Encyclopaedia Brittanica',Journal of Genocide Research,5:1,103 — 115

The use of the 600,000 number has been characterized as underestimating the Armenian death toll, and Brittanica in particular has been subject to a range of revisions throughout the 20th century. As argued by the author "Even calculations based on figures published by the post-war Turkish government bring the total of Armenian deaths to over a million. Under the circumstances, using the figure of 600,000,even as the lower limit of a wide range, amounts to a surrender to revisionism, and appeasement to the apologists of genocide, as well as an act of disrespect to the memory of the hundreds of thousands whose deaths are being discounted and whose very existence is being dismissed."

I would support removing the reference to Brittannica entirely as it is the subject of academic dispute.

Dreddly (talk) 13:48, 15 November 2009 (UTC)dreddly —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dreddly (talk • contribs) 18:00, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

First learn to write properly in English before discrediting Encyclopædia Britannica (!) as a proper source. 151.57.189.97 (talk) 16:37, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Tertiary sources like non-specialist encyclopaedias should, in general, not be used as sources on Wikipedia. See Primary secondary and tertiary sources Meowy 00:22, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Can we get the reference removed? The page is still locked. Dreddly (talk) 13:48, 15 November 2009 (UTC)dreddly

ASALA

Practically every detail regarding the issue has been covered, except for one important detail: ASALA and its assassination of Turkish diplomats throughout the world, as well as its airport bombings (near the Turkish Airlines counters) in Paris, Ankara and elsewhere, which caused the deaths of many civilians from Turkey, the United States, Canada, France, the United Kingdom, Austria, and numerous other nations; whose only fault was just to "be there" at those particular unfortunate moments. Should we turn a blind eye to the ASALA issue, and the deaths of all these people, as if they never existed? 151.57.189.97 (talk) 16:33, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

references for "Armenia" article

Armenia#World War I and the Armenian Genocide section is marked as "This section does not cite any references or sources." can somebody from here supply those references? -Սահակ/Sahak (talk) 15:35, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Denial season

Looks like the denial season started early this year. VartanM (talk) 04:07, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

What did you achieve/contribute by saying that? Ibrahim4048 (talk) 04:35, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I just noted my observation, that every spring fine denialists like yourself "wake up" from their annual hibernation and make their mission to right the wrongs. This year the spring came early, perhaps because of the global warming caused by Obama's promise to recognize the Armenian Genocide. By the way Armenians, Greeks, Jews, Ottomans and Russians are capitalized in English language.

P.S. Welcome to wikipedia, enjoy your stay. VartanM (talk) 06:03, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you are a bear who hibernates but I am a human being and don't appreciate it when people try to make witty remarks. I also don't care that much what obama promises or not. I think he is just "the good cop" after "the bad cop". Nothing will significantly change in america's foreign policy, unfair trade and the so called war on terror. By the way I know that armenians etc are capitalized and don't need you to remind me of that.

P.S. Thanks for welcoming me on wikipedia, I'll try to enjoy my stay though it has not been so pleasant thus far. Ibrahim4048 (talk) 06:28, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, Ibrahim4048 is here because he has been directed here as an alternative to the Mehmed Talat article. He, and others who will arrive when the denial season starts for real, will just be saying the same things that will have been said, discredited, and discounted somewhere on the 18-page archive of this talk page. So, rather than addressing what has been addressed before, it would be better to spend time on getting the article into a decent shape. Meowy 22:46, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Just like you guys also have been saying the same things over and over again. I'm having midterms this week and I can't participate on wikipedia for now but I will discuss it with you. The article is POV fork because it is one sided and only in the denial article denial material is allowed. The good denial/doubt arguments are left out though and if you look at the bibliography and the reference list you'll see that even in the denial article most content is pro-recognition. You have been monopolizing this article for too long now. This is not acceptable. Every viewpoint should be given in an article about a subject. There should be a denial section in the armenian genocide article. I will make it myself and will make adjustments where needed. As long as I give proper references and explain my contributions you have no right to delete it. There is no rule that pro-recognition material should be in the armenian genocide article and denial material on the denial article. That's exactly what POV fork is and is against wikipedia rules. Ibrahim4048 (talk) 23:19, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

The reason is because Turkey is emerging as a major world power; we have other issues like prospering our country by working hard. We are busy people, and none of us earn our lives out of this wiki thing. Perhaps we should employ full-time people for correcting your propaganda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.109.98.30 (talk) 07:12, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Nazim quotes

A recent article in Armenian Weekly (February 4, 2010) by Eren Keskin, titled "From April 24, 1915 To January 19, 2007", contains two quotes by Ittihaddist politician Dr Mehmed Nazim made "in a secret meeting of the CUP in the beginning of 1915" according to Eeskin. The quotes are:
"...Armenians are like a deadly wound. This wound is first thought to be harmless. But if it is not treated by a doctor in time, it definitely kills. We must act immediately. If we act as in 1909, it will do more harm than good. It will awaken the other groups we have decided to eliminate, the Arabs and the Kurds, and the danger will become threefold..."
"...If this cleaning out is not general and final, it will hurt more than heal. We must wipe out the Armenian nation from our lands. Not even a single person must survive and the Armenian name must be forgotten... This time the operation will be a total wiping out. And provided that not even a single Armenian survives, total elimination is a must."
Keskin give as her source Recep Marasli, Ermeni Ulusal Demokratik Hareketi ve 1915 Soykirimi (2008). These quotes seem to me to be important enough to be included into the article, but page numbers are needed for the source, as well as some information about the background to the quotes, where the source got the quotes from, etc. Meowy 16:54, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Ararat, The Film

I saw on the "Talk:Armenian Genocide/Proposed Refactor" shows that under "Later Assessments" that "The Armenian Genocide is the subject of a 2002 film, Ararat, by Armenian-Canadian director Atom Egoyan." is proposed. I would like to see this line above the Contents box, because it is the highest profile of art that help shed some light on this topic for the masses. For most of us we don't have the time to read deeply on all that we want to learn :-/ but by putting this reference high up in the article it can be a reference point for those of use who read in summary, but tend to watch TV & Film more often then read books etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KSpittel (talk • contribs) 06:23, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

leaving history to historians

Justin A. McCarthy is an American demographer, professor of history at the University of Louisville, in Louisville, Kentucky. McCarthy does not deny that hundreds of thousands of Armenians died, but claims that millions of Muslims [1] in the region were also massacred in this period and many in the hands Armenian insurgents and milita.[2] He has contended that all of those deaths during World War One were the product of intercommunal warfare between Muslims and Armenians, famine and disease, and did not involve an intent or a policy to commit genocide by the Ottoman Empire. McCarthy has been active in disseminating the results of his work and analysis, that Ottomans never had a policy of genocide, through books, articles, conferences, and interviews.[3] This has made him a target of much criticism from mainly strong Armenian diaspora organizations and historians. He was one of four scholars who participated in a controversial debate hosted by PBS about the Armenian Genocide in 2006.[4]

^ McCarthy, Justin Let the Historians Decide, Ermeni Arastirmalari, volume 1, Ankara 2001. ^ McCarthy, Justin Death and Exile: The Ethnic Cleansing of Ottoman Muslims, 1821-1922. Darwin Press, Incorporated, 1996, ISBN 0-87850-094-4 ^ Jaschik, Scott (October 22 2007). "Genocide Deniers". http://hnn.us/articles/43861.html. ^ "A PBS Documentary Makes Its Case for the Armenian Genocide, With or Without a Debate". New York Times. 2006-04-17. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/17/arts/television/17stan.html?ex=1302926400&en=42703f4960edef66&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss. Retrieved 2006-09-02. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.29.157.11 (talk) 05:22, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

H. Morgenthau and Admiral Mark L. Bristol

Is there a reason why Mark L. Bristol is not mentioned in this article? He was the successor of Henry Morgenthau and discredited Morgenthaus remarks about the incidents. Here is the link to one of his letters to urge the circulation of false Armenian reports: [7] It's weird to see how Henry Morgenthau is mentioned a lot in this article but Mark L. Bristol is not at all. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 21:41, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Bristol didn't really "discredit" anything. Although he held anti-Armenian views and pushed for a very pro-Turkish economic policy for the United States in the years immediately following the end of World War I and the creation of modern Turkey, he nevertheless is now considered an important figure for the study of US policy regarding the Armenian Genocide after it took place. According to one recent comment by historian Levon Marashlian, Bristol "fully accepted the fact that Turks massacred Armenians on a large scale." [8]. That seems quite in keeping with what Morgenthau had been saying for years. Thanks for bringing it up.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 21:09, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

If you care to read the link I provided you'd see that you're wrong, though I'm sorry that the letter is very wrong. Bristol hated both Turks and Armenians. He was both anti-Armenian and anti-Turk. You can see this clearly in his letter. Also pardon me for doubting what you say completely because you just gave quote from a conference about 30 years ago a recent comment. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 01:36, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Here is the response of James L. Barton to Admiral's letter. You can simply skim through the letters and see that neither has any love towards Armenians or Turks. [9] TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 02:49, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry but your links are just crude, empty propaganda, sponsored by the Republic of Turkey's government - if you haven't noticed but there are currently over 200 citations on this article and the mere notion that Bristol challenged Morgenthau's account (which he seemingly doesn't) does not in any way disprove the fact that a genocide took place. Bristol was very prejudiced, correct, but in that link I provided, he does admit that his feelings lie more with the Turks than anyone else. We're not going to suddenly change the name of the article to "Soezde Ermeni Soyqirimi" all because of this revelation, so please find something more practical to do.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 03:34, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Did I say that I want the title changed? What's up with this Armenians habit of creating arguments that does not exist? The links I gave has the unedited versions of two letters that very clearly shows that Armenians have been creating false reports. You say that Bristol is biased because he chose Turks but disregard the fact that Morgenthau was trying to pull USA into the war and used Armenians to do so. Simply admit that you don't want any proof that contradicts the genocide claims. Some of those 200 citations that you say this article has uses documents that are proven to be forgery. What do you say to that? TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 06:40, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Study of the Armenian Genocide

This section claims that the number claimed by the Turkish argument is that only 100 thousand Armenians died as a part of this issue. This is wrong. The official position of Turkey can be seen here: [10] The consensus is that slightly less than 600 thousand Armenians died.

This section hardly has any information on the study of the "Armenian Genocide" I would edit it myself but I'd just be labeled as a Turkish nationalist dog. So I will give some time for people to discuss it here and then I will edit it. If anyone objects the edit please first discuss here. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 19:16, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

100,000; 300,000; 600,000...the numbers have always fluctuated up or down over the decades (they still do). What is important here is not that Turkey rejects that those killings were part of an organized attempt to systematically annihilate the Armenians. We can revise that figure for the sake of clarifying Turkey's current position, of course. That section, however, requires extensive editing and for anyone who has the time, I would advise they check out the essays from this book, Remembrance and Denial: The Case of the Armenian Genocide [11], to stand on a more firmer footing.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 21:09, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

The discussion here is not about how many of them died but what the Turks claim. The claim is that slightly less than 600 thousand Armenians died. The position of Turkey didn't really ever change. The link I provided shows the claim by Turkish arguments. The number of dead Armenians fluctuated from 800 thousand to 2.5 million by genocide claimers. Turkey's position have never changed which is reflected in this section inaccurately. There is no reason to check a potentially biased Armenians source to find out what number the Turkish argument claims. I repeat right now I'm not arguing about how many died or not but the claim by Turkish argument. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 01:22, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

The "genocide claimers"? Please avoid using that language. Well, of course the figures fluctuated on the Armenian side - how on earth do you calculate the deaths of so many people when the post-war conditions did not allow for a proper count to be taken? And yes, the Turkish government has revised its figures numerous times - they go up, they go down, they stay the same, but it's largely unimportant here.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 03:34, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I am tolerating you calling them genocide so you can tolerate my cynicism. Armenian numbers fluctuating is not an argument here. I'm not discussing that. What I'm discussing is the Turkish argument. Yes you will find some nut job Turkish ignorant politicians who behaves like Armenians never existed but they're usually some low level politician begging for media attention to gather votes which they usually fail miserably. I have never seen any Turkish scholar or government official stance that the number of dead Armenian were no less than 500 thousand or more than 700 thousand. The 100 thousand number that the this section suggests is certainly a non existing argument. Every detail of this article matters. Otherwise you can just delete everything and write "Turks butchered Armenians". So, I urge anyone to find a source for the 100 thousand argument from reliable sources because I personally could not or I will edit this section in time. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 03:53, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

MarshallBagramyan, I will report you if you continue to alter my edit. You allegation that they're cosmetic is completely unreal. You're trying to portray Turks as worst as possible by twisting reality. Please refrain from such foul acts in the future. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 04:19, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Mentioning ASALA

The terrorist organization and it's assassinations should be mentioned in the Controversies section. It is a part of the Armenian issue. The article remains one-sided as it includes any kind of negative event or quote from Turkey while ignores anything at all from the Armenian side. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 02:22, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

ASALA can be mentioned as one of the Armenian Diaspora's reactions to Turkey's strenuous denial of the Armenian Genocide. If it is inserted, it must be placed in full context on why Armenians resorted to violent measures (they did so because they saw demonstrations and peaceful measures were largely being ignored by the rest of the world). This article is not written to cater to any side DarkLordSeth. The Holocaust article is not going to give equal airtime to both the Nazis and its victims. Although you're not trying that hard, it's obvious you're trying to obfuscate the facts - a genocide took place, and you must accept that whether your choose to or not. This is getting repetitive - the sources are overwhelmingly clear so please give this up charade of trying to "balance" out the article by giving equal weight to the voice of perpetrator.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 03:34, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Be careful there. You're indirectly implying that terrorist activities can be justified. I'm sure if Al Queda or Hamas was the terrorist organization here you would never approach them in such a manner. ASALA is a tool that Armenians used to get Turkey to accept the so-called Armenian Genocide through fear. It has everything to do with this article. I could only obfuscate facts if I saw any. This is an article that uses so called evidences that are proven to be forgeries and yet present it's contents as facts, i.e. The Memoirs of Naim Bey a.k.a. Talat Pasha Telegrams. I'm sorry but I can't take this claim that these evidences are overwhelming when so many of them are so far away from being facts. I give you some credit though as believing in this lie for so long that your only option is to simply ignore any kind of acts that would undermine such an important issue for you. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 04:05, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

You have absolutely no right to interpret nor comment on my beliefs and opinions in such a manner - comment on the content of this article or don't do it at all. With that said, I'm no longer going to waste my time with your rabble-rousing. The Armenian Genocide is a fact and any attempts to insert doubt in this article by using weasel wording (like that the tired phrase "so-called"), inserting dubious government propaganda, and works written by fringe scholars, have absolutely no place here.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 04:38, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Same goes for you and that's exactly what I said. Please don't be double-faced next time. Rules apply to both of us. I'm not saying we should use the phrase "so-called" in the article and I've never used it as an edit in this article and never would. It clearly suggests a disbelief in the matter. I have always heard this "dubious government propaganda and works written by fringe scholars" but yet to see any evidence showing it so. It's simply a pathetic argument. You have already labeled everything I present as government propaganda or fringe scholars yet I haven't presented any source that is tied to the Turkish government or any kind of scholar. I just put a link of a letter from American authorities and you labeled it as government propaganda and fringe scholar. This is why it's really pathetic. Your argument is not even consistent with your accusations. On the other hand you have absolutely no trouble with alleged evidences that are proven to be forgery existing in this article. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 04:52, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Historical Neutrality

A reasonable question which is never addressed iin the article s why, if the Turks really intended to commit genocide against the Armenian minority, they decided not to kill them on the spot but instead chose to expend vast resources they could little afford during wartime conditions and ship them 800 miles away to Syria, then kill them. Since this seems to support the Turkish claim that the Armenian deaths were the result of the displacement process rather than systemic genocide, the article should deal with it.

Also, all the evidence of Christian Armenian collusion with Christian Russians against Muslim Turks is presented as a mere assertion -- "X claimed/ X said" -- by Turkish officials, even though historians do not dispute that this traitorous action was real. Armenian action blocking Turkish supply routes through narrow mountain passes caused numerous deaths in the Turkish Army, and the displacement of a hostile, Christian, Armenian minority away from the battle front could be seen as a reasonable response to this hostile action. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.241.210.96 (talk) 21:36, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Armenians living in the Ottoman Empire conscripted in the Ottoman Army (and swiftly disarmed, forced into labor battalions, and soon thereafter killed). It shouldn't be a surprise that Armenians living in the Russian Empire similarly conscripted in the Russian Army. So you shouldn't be confusing the two sides. With regards to your "reasonable" question, it seems that it's cheaper to have 1.5 million people walk in circles in mountains and deserts than to expend 1.5 million bullets and then also have to deal with the corpses. Further, the presence of American and other foreign missionaries in the provinces required that the government send the population out to be killed on grounds of "deportation." This way, the government can claim that their citizens died "unfortunate" deaths that they could not have prevented due to lack of resources. What were they doing in the desert heat anyway! It's a clear plan of creating a situation that creates forced death on the population. Serouj (talk) 06:05, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Any way you look at it, killing people with bullets is infinitely less expensive than the massive logistical effort involved in transporting an entire population 800 miles to the West -- and this at a time when wartime conditions demanded extremely conservative use of resources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.241.210.96 (talk) 21:52, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately you're very inaccurate. There are extensive reports from French, German and Ottoman reports that the destination of the Armenians were on the banks of Tigris and Euphrates. The reports talk about Armenians settling in and starting to conduct their business. The population rise in Syria and Iraq amounting to 500 thousand Armenians can also be found in Ottoman, French and British statistics. There are also records of numerous orders from Ottoman high command to help Armenians on their journey as much as possible. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 07:03, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

LOL. You don't need to tell me. My grandfather's father and older brother were conscripted into the Ottoman Army and never returned. My grandfather, his mother, and his younger sister were all condemned to death because they were Armenian Apostolics. The Armenian Protestants were to be spared because of the presence of local American Protestant missionaries. Due to the quick-thinking of my grandfather's mother, as the Turkish gendarme had his back turned, she quicky slid into the crowd of the Armenian Protestants. So please spare what you "read" in statistics. Armenians "settling in and conducting business"? By the time my grandfather and younger sister reached Syria, they were ORPHANS! And they weren't the only ones -- there were thousands like them, with neither mother nor father. Is that what you call "settling in and conducting their business?" Serouj (talk) 08:23, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I believe that this entire section is off-topic and should be removed. Talk pages are not intended to be message boards for personal opinions and essay writing. Though sometimes a minor article with a little-used talk page can benefit from such stuff, this is not such a case. This article's completely unusable 19-page talk archive might have been a usable 5-page one if all the off-topic rubbish had been cut from it! I wish those that has initially responded to this "leave it to the historians" posting had instead erased it on sight. Meowy 17:06, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Please stop this crusade of censoring this article according to your beliefs. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 19:27, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Commemorations

Does anyone know more about the commemorations in Turkey today where thousands of scholars, intellectuals, human rights activits and well-known Turkish artists commemorated these events and apologised for it? I think we should add that to the article. Bare in mind though that we should keep neutrality. Armenians weren't completely innocent either. Jorgenpfhartogs (talk) 15:53, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Here is a little insight: http://www.armenianweekly.com/2010/04/24/genocide/ and http://www.armenianweekly.com/2010/04/23/ankara/. Should be more on the net in the next few days.

May be we should add this but keep in mind that The Republic of Turkey don't recognize "The Armenian Genocide". For Turkey it is still a claim and they are right because there is no better evidence-if you can call it an evidence-than Armenian scholarship. Turkey stil wants a history comission which will look at the Ottoman and Armenian archives so that the truth about "Armenian Genocide" can be found. Though Turkey accepts that massacres against Armenians were done but also massacres against Turks were done too. And none of them were govermentally supported. Besides those activists and intellectuals are condemned by the Turkish nation because they generally do that just to be famous. However, if you would like I can provide you a list of those intellectuals who are apoligizing for the "Armenian Genocide", there is a site for that in Turkey. Altough I don't understand why they are apoligizing for a non-existing thing.--Lonewolf94 (talk) 07:59, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

1) Jorgenpfhartogs, you should bare in mind, that before accusing one wholenation in something, you have to think very carefully, as this is incorrect terminology to use and may be count to be "racistic": "Armenians weren't completely innocent...".

2) When having such things said you should not only use correct wording, but also express exactly what you mean and what connection there is with the topic opened by you. Otherwise it may be (see point 1).

Regards, Aregakn (talk) 22:29, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay. let me rephraze that. I think it's good that some Turks finally take responsibilty for what happened. I fully un derstand that not every Turk or every Armenian are or were responsible for events in the past. There's enough evidence to proof something did happen though any proof this was organised by the Turkish government is very unclear since of course the Turkish government would never release such documents. What I meant with the Armenians weren't completely innocent is the reason for why Turks and Armenians hated each other so much and that is high tensions between the two nations. Armenians of course did kill Turks too though not on the same scale. That's why this was called a war. British and German soldiers at the same time killed each other en masse too. It's very sad these things happened but my believe is that a genocide did happen.

It's not a racist thing and the sooner both nations accept the events the sooner they can think about forgiving each other. After all, Turks and Armenians have also lived peacefully next to each other for a long time and many Armenians still live in Turkey. My question was however regarding the recent commemorations and increasing calls by Turkish people to acknowledge the genocide. I still believe we should document that change in attitude in Turkey since it is significant to the articleas a whole. Jorgenpfhartogs (talk) 00:10, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

So I hope you can clearly state the sources or maybe clarify what you mean "armenians killed turks"! If you mean the self-defense groups is one thing, but if you mean some kind of organisation with an aim to kill turks you have to cite.

In addition, it is clear you have no idea of who participated in the WWI. FYI, there was no Armenia as a state then and Armenia could not be a state involved in a war. Comparing Germany and Britain armies with the Ottoman army and the civilian population of it's own state sounds ridiculous.

You are also bringing up an issue of hatred of 2 nations towards each other for whatever period based on.....? Any reading made on that? Or maybe there are citations you can bring?

You also fail to have known or at least read about (at least) the Turkish Courts-Martial. Turkey itself had condemned the involvement of it's government in the war AND the Armenian Massacres.

FYI, some citation that concerns our topic from a very long verdict (separate paragraphs from it):

There was even more to it. They created an even greater atmosphere of harassment of the non-Islamic elements of the land, the Armenians in particular, who had hoped, from our precious Constitution, for justice and peace. These people now understood that they had been victimised by hypocrisy, and they assumed the posture of awaiting that opportune moment when they would be able to realize their former national aspirations. And the cause of all this were the Ittihadists themselves. They even raised national and racial issues among the Moslems of the land, they promoted divisiveness and conflict and jeopardized Ottoman unity. All this has been established by the intensive studies and examinations done of the matter as they appear in the charge of the Attorney General.

The authors of the above-mentioned crimes, representing the moral person of the Ittihad and Terakki Party, are the members of its General Assembly, the fugitives — Prime Minister Talaat Pasha and Minister of War Enver Effendi, now expelled from his military career; Djemal Effendi, Minister of the Navy, likewise expelled from the service; Dr. Nazim, Minister of Education — these were the principal criminals(fayili asli)and their guilt has been determined by a unanimous vote.

As to the sentences: punishment is to be meted to the abovementioned persons: Talaat, Enver, Djemal and Dr. Nazim, whose crimes were the greatest according to the first paragraph of the 45th Article of the Imperial Municipal Punitive Lawbook; also to be punished are Djavid, Mustafa Sheref and Musa Kiazim, by virtue of the second paragraph of the same Article and in accordance with the last paragraph of the 55th Article of the same Lawbook.

Published in the Official Gazette of Turkey (Takvimi Vekayi),no. 3604 (supplement), July 22, 1919.

Hope some things became at least more clear now! Aregakn (talk) 01:36, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Of course, Turks butchered Armenians! (If you can't understand it, it was sarcasm.) Now, if you will show a gazette of Ottoman Empire-not Turkey- you should also show that they were independent. Many gazettes in 1919 were in British control. Accept it it was a war and we had a fight. "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies, and the number of Armenians who are claimed by Armenians and their echo chambers to have died in an alleged World War I genocide." [[12]]--Lonewolf94 (talk) 05:59, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

For a sarcastic guy like you, you should better look for the ruling of the Courts-Martial first. And once again, you fail to understand (I think any) Wiki rules. Do not interpret the sources! one way or another, it's a POV you claim now, a ridiculous one, I'd say. Aregakn (talk) 08:55, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I am sarcastic indeed, Mr.Patriocide. You said "Do not interpret the sources!" If we are not interpreting the sources of something, are we even human? Or do you want people to just believe in "Turks butchered Armenians" so that the Armenian people can have some attention? You are accusing me and TheDark with propaganda and who are opposing with so-said Armenian Genocide turns out to be racist so that you can prove the claim of Armenian Genocide without any good support. Don't you think that you are the one making this propaganda, Mr.Patriocide!--Lonewolf94 (talk) 13:45, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Israel's position

Should the article have a more thorough discussion of the role of Israel in preventing the U.S. from officially recognizing the Armenian Genocide for so many years. I read an article in the Jerusalem Post (http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=170394 that points out precisely this, so don't brand me an anti-Semite. Ndriley97 (talk) 22:45, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

We don't brand you anti-Semite. Israel have a tradition of elevating the Jewish Genocide during the WWII to be something extraordinary, a position that is not shared by all historicians. I personally am undecided for lack of knowledge of detail. Since the political reactions of the topic is dealt with in the section Contemporaneous reports and reactions with painstaking detail, the source belongs to there. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 10:16, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Reading it: the source is too weak! It alleges lefthandedly in a side comment. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 10:18, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

history of the term genocide

Lemkin did not coin the term genocide to refer to this incident. it was first used in 'Axis Rule in Occupied Europe: Laws of Occupation' to describe the holocaust. He used the terms barbarity and vandalism to describe the Armenian genocide and those terms did not morph into the term genocide until after his family was killed under Nazi occupation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.177.2.56 (talk) 02:15, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

You certainly lack knowledge then. Read other references discussions and you shall find what exactly he said. Aregakn (talk) 14:43, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Armenian genocide/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

another resource site link for the Armenian Genocide should be added. its 100% related and here are the details:

Site Name: GenoPosts.com URL: http://www.genoposts.com/

Sosarkissian 22:13, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 18:36, 14 April 2015 (UTC). Substituted at 20:09, 2 May 2016 (UTC)