Talk:Armenian genocide/Archive 9

This is an archive of past discussions about Armenian genocide. 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 5

←

Archive 7

→

clevelander

Why does he get to make changes, he has a biased view on this topic, this is NOT FAIR!!!!

It is unlikely that anyone contributing to this article is unbiased. In any case, lack of bias is not a requirement to edit a WP article. Also, please sign your contributions and avoid shouting. -- Jibal 16:17, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with this anon, why should Clevelander be able to contribute? He is certainly not neutral on this issue Lutherian 13:13, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Everyone is able to contribute in any article.--Hectorian 13:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Not in this topic, last time I checked it was blocked Lutherian 13:26, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

It is semi-protected due to vandalisms by anons.Clevelander is not an anon.--Hectorian 13:28, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Well im not an anon and I cant edit it! Lutherian 13:30, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

When a page is semi-protected,as u can read in the tag,new users cannot edit either.if u can't edit,that means that u are a new user,right? --Hectorian 13:35, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Relatively new yes, but I find it highly unfair that seasoned users can make modifications because they could very well hold biased views on this highly charged topic Lutherian 13:40, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

That's the policy.btw,according to u the specific user is biased,not according to everyone...--Hectorian 13:47, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Even if he was neutral on the issue, it certainly wouldnt be the case for all seasoned users so this partial block policy is in fact flawed Lutherian 13:57, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

That's what u think.sorry,but i agree with the policy,cause in this case the article has suffered a lot by anons and new users.--Hectorian 14:00, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Well maybe thats because its not impartial enough, have you thought of that? Lutherian 14:06, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Impratial? Are you kidding? This site has been hijacked, and the hijcacking is being enforced by partially blocking it. This is turning out to be a big farce!!! 83.77.132.154 14:09, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Farse?maybe cause u cannot edit?listen:if the article had not been vandalized it would not be semi-protected. --Hectorian 14:14, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

says who the admin? since when is the admin objective on this matter? 83.77.132.154 14:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

the admin is by far more objective than u.as i see,u have a record in making personal attacks...--Hectorian 14:20, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

easy on the accusations, you are in no position to judge me 83.77.132.154 14:21, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

oh yes i am!i am not the one who personally attacks.so,i can say whatever i want as long as i do not cross the line... --Hectorian 14:31, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Well from what I see you have crossed the line several times in the past so you are in fact in no position to judge me! And BTW, your dear friend Khoikhoi has been banned from editing for 12 hours, LOL.

banned for 3RR,not for making personal attacks like u. --Hectorian 14:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Since when is stating the truth considered a personal attack? 83.77.132.154 14:41, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

That question is often asked by personal attackers. Clearly, whether a personal attack is truthful is a matter of opinion. And also clear, just considering the grammar of the previous phrase, is that whether something is a personal attack is independent of whether it is truthful. Notably, Personal attacks makes no mention of truth or falsity. What it does say is "Don't do it There is no excuse for personal attacks on other contributors. Do not make them." and "Users have been banned for repeatedly engaging in personal attacks." -- Jibal 16:32, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

You called me a freak of nature here [1], if thats not a personal attack, then I dont know what is. If your not here willing to learn and contribute in a good way, then by all means, leave. Chaldean 14:58, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

those are serious accusations that you are making, the ip's dont match and you are suggesting that I am a troll, thats a personal attack, I am reporting you! 83.76.135.121 15:34, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Please read Personal attacks, which specifically states "Your statement is a personal attack..." is not itself a personal attack. -- Jibal 16:32, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Guys, seriously. Stop feeding the troll. --Eupator 16:28, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

can we call this event as a genocide?

Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide came into force in 1950 and it is not applicable for the events before this date. legally we can't call this event as Genocide. And please do not forget that in 1915 Turkish and Kurdish civilians were also killed by Armenian forcesç for the full text of the treaty please visit: [2]--Hattusili 19:27, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

There is no law against calling an event genocide, and the killing of various parties by various other parties has nothing to do with this article. You might want to explain why you bring that up. Also, your link is bad. -- Jibal 16:40, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, what you got here, another user registering to land here. BTW, for the same token the Holocaust is not a genocide because it happened before 1950, good going Hattushil. Fad (ix) 19:34, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

For your information Fadix, the term "genocide" has been created after the Holocaust and United Nations resolution about this is solely for the Holocaust and ethnic cleasing events in the future. You can check out the tons of United Nations resolutions that Armenian Issue is NOT regarded as a genocide by the UN AND this kind of issues are not addressed retrospectively, therefore making it impossible to call Armenian issue a "genocide." If Armenian issue were called "genocide" then sure more than half a million killings of Turkish and Sephardic Jews of Ottoman Empire WILL be regarded as the Genocide of Turks and Jews by Armenians. By the way as Shimon Peres and thousands of historians have been stating for the last few decades, Armenians DO NOT have the right to compare their sufferings to that of the Jews. Nothing similar to the Holocaust occurred and hopefully it won't... --David

Under the Rome Statue of the International Criminal Court, genocide can be decided by legal principles or by a court of justice. You are right my link is bad I will soon correct it.--Hattusili 18:42, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Checkusers

It is HIGHLY LIKELY that Lutherian is most or all of those IPs. It is UNLIKELY that any of them are Shelby28. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:12, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

So basically it means that out dear anonymous friend has registered at least one login to backup his own position. Fad (ix) 21:22, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Armenian name?

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

We just call it the Armenian Genocide.

[comment moved to argument page. - FrancisTyers 11:32, 27 March 2006 (UTC)]

Do you call it in English even when speaking Armenian? --Army1987 20:03, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Also the article needs more and more images [3]. but of course images in public domain.D iyako Talk + 12:26, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Weasel words

These need to go. See Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bulgaria

On the list of countries that recognize the Armenian Genocide, I saw Bulgaria. What is the rationale of having Bulgaria on that list, since according to this http://www.arminfo.am/news_250206_2.shtml article, the resolution has been submitted to the Bulgarian Parliament.--Moosh88 00:20, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

nothing, [personal attacks removed - FrancisTyers 10:41, 27 March 2006 (UTC)]. A bit like the ridiculous number of pro genocide links that are justly being removed! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.203.130.47 (talk • contribs) 06:47, 27 March 2006.

If you knew the history of the Armenian diaspora in Bulgaria more closely, i'm sure you wouldn't be asking this question.

Arguments

Please keep your arguments to the arguments page. As the notice at the top of the page shows, any non-editorial comments may be moved there without further notice. Remember, this is a talk page for a Wikipedia article, not a soapbox. That goes for both sides of the dispute. Please refrain from personal attacks and try and remain civil. - FrancisTyers 10:41, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[comments moved to arguments page. - FrancisTyers 08:56, 28 March 2006 (UTC)]

Parliament of Kurdistan in exile

is an unofficial organization linked to terrorist PKK group as mentioned in their own website PKE Furthermore, its already mentioned in the "official recognition" section so adding it a second time serves absolutely no purpose! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.1.89.101 (talk • contribs) 18:19, 27 March 2006.

PKE is mentioned already in the "official recognition" section! To mention an unofficial organization with clear terrorist links for a second time is totally unwarranted for!!! Please remove! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.78.105.144 (talk • contribs) 07:06, 28 March 2006

It is important to mention Kurdish recognition for many reasons but primarily because most of the actual people that carried out the killing of Armenians in the Eastern provinces were not ethnic Turks but ethnic Kurds!--Eupator 13:40, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your remarks but as the anon mentioned above, the KPE is being mentioned twice in the same section. There is no need to mention it twice Lutherian 13:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the double mention, no reason whatsoever to mention it twice. Also i've referred to it as "so-called", since its only a parliament in exile by name. --A.Garnet 18:10, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

How about "self declared" instead of "so-called". "so-called" seems to be sarcastic. - FrancisTyers 18:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Sure. --A.Garnet 18:21, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Map showing recognition

Can someone double check whether that map is accurate. Having looked at the ANI list of Resolutions, Laws, and Declarations I cannot see Spain, Portugal, Bulgaria, Norway as recognising a genocide as the map (and this article) suggests. --A.Garnet 17:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Also i cannot see Australia on that list either. --A.Garnet 18:27, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

What is amazing is that you often remove things that should stay but request commenting when things should be removed. With the number of aliases and new users contributing in here, it is very difficult to have an eye on all this. Everything not on the list should go..., also, everything Halacoglu say should stay in the Turkish government section, he is the president of the Turkish historical society, which is basically Ataturks governmental founded institution which write the official Turkish government line, if they don't, who does? Fad (ix) 19:32, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I request comments when i am unsure, i thought perhaps someone may have seen something i have not. That you think things i remove should stay is your opinion, i have frequently secured others people opinions on things i delete, and if it is lacking, i have not gone ahead with it, or reverted it. --A.Garnet 20:38, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Whatever you say Garnet, I am not right now requesting a discussion on that. As strong as we have disagreed, at least I am sure you are not a sock. BTW, Pamuk is a novelist, Turkish researchers and other Turkish intellectuals or known figures should be separated from eachothers. Fad (ix) 21:25, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

turkish thesis

I think we should make another page about the Turkish thesis, to provide neutrality and place links between these two pages. Armenian Genocide (Turkish Thesis) --Hattusili 12:01, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi, thats a very bad idea. We call those POV forks. - FrancisTyers 12:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

"NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints" but this article does not fairly represent the opposition. We cannot request unprotection for this page because radical nationalists may ruin it all. so what should we do? --Hattusili 13:42, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

One option would be to make a copy of this page in your userspace or in the article space, e.g. Armenian Genocide/Working version edit it and then request that it replace the current page when there is consensus among all reasonable editors on the talk page. - FrancisTyers 14:39, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

you gotta be joking, thats a very bad idea! Adendum 15:02, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Please explain why you think it is a bad idea, and what you propose instead. -- Jibal 16:47, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

It already exists: Holocaust denial, under Other.

--Eupator 17:04, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Holocaust denial is totally different from what we are argueing here, the Turkish side also have strong evidences about their claims so that an article about Armenian Issue should include their thesis. wikipedia has to be neutral in such issues. --Hattusili 17:30, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[comment moved to argument page. - FrancisTyers 20:52, 29 March 2006 (UTC)]

As a side note, an article on Non-Armenian casualties during the Armenian Genocide would probably not fall under the definition of a POV fork. Providing the page did not duplicate information here and was restricted in scope. As far as I'm aware the main Turkish argument is that "lots of people not just Armenians died" so a page explaining that would probably be good. The page could then be linked from here using the {{main}} template. Just a suggestion, feel free to shoot it down... - FrancisTyers 17:57, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Unencyclopedic proposition. It is like starting an entry about 'Non-Jewish casulties during the Holocaust' etc. The reason why the Armenian genocide has it own casulties entry is because the position of an Armenian genocide exist and is more than a fringe. An encyclopedic entry would be 'Ottoman casulties during and after WWI' or something such. Besides, 'during the Armenian Genocide' does not make sense because not much or if any revisionists have placed any 'alone' figure for the period when most Armenians have died. As professor Daniel Panzac an autority in Ottoman history writes, most Muslims died after the period most Armenians have died and that for this reason both casulties are not related. Fad (ix) 18:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

That might be a good idea. During the Holocaust, there were other groups besides Jews who were killed, such as gay men, and I think they have their own seperate article. Shelby28 02:43, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

If this is your reasoning then the appropriate articles in relation to the Armenian Genocide would concern the Greeks of Anatolia and the Assyrians of Anatolia who were both subject to very similar genocidal policies and actions directed by the CUP/Young Turks. In fact the actions against the Greeks (of the Aegean coastal regions) began in earnest as early as 1913 and were akin to a Kristnacht against the Greeks that lasted for over a year. These massacres and forced expulsions were a prelude to the Armenian Genocide where the CUP was testing the waters as it were to see if their actions would provoke a response from the West. Then beginning in 1916 as the peak of the Armenian Genocide was winding down renewed actions were begun by the CUP against the Greeks - this time concentrating on the Greeks of the Black Sea (Pontos) region and against Assyrians who primarily resided to the south of Anatolia proper. Like the Armenians these groups experienced horrible massacres and expulsions at the hands of the Ottoman Turks and like the Armenians these communities were decimated and no longer exist today. There has been no such genocide against Anatolian Turks to warrent a collalary article BTW. Unless of course we place such in the fantasy and fiction section. --THOTH 08:14, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I don't know yet. I would have to see what kind of an article somebody would write about the deaths of a large number of Muslims/Turks around the same time period before I could decide whether it was fair or not. Shelby28 00:30, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Would you consider it sufficient if Turks present a story of 500,000 (and in some cases I've seen 3 million etc) Muslims/Turks supposedly killed by Armenians during this period - where there are absolutly zero eyewitness reports for such things? Where the only "evidence" is the unsupported/uncorraborated claims of the Turks themselves? Where the only academics who adhere to such views are ones who are Turkish and/or in the employ of the Turkish government (in terms of grants and stipends etc)? Because this is what you will have. The record of this period is well known. There was no Turkish genocide during this period no more then the Germans can claim such (and blame the Jews) for thie deaths in WWII. When are people going to wake up and understadn what is going on here? --THOTH 14:59, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Again, I would have to see what was written and the references it had before I could decide whether it was fair or not. From what I understood of FrancisTyer's proposition, it wouldn't be an article about any Turkish genocide, but rather an article discussing the many Muslim/Turk deaths. If such an article were written, I would approach it with an open mind before deciding if I thought it was objective and neutral. That's all I'm trying to say. But since no such article exists yet, and I wouldn't be the one writing it anyway, there's really nothing more I can say.Shelby28 00:09, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

What would be the point of such an article? Why is such an article needed outside of a generic article concerning casulaties of nations involved in WWI? (or just as some factoid in an article concerning WWI in general) What relevance is this to the Armenian Genocide? Are there articles concerning British or German or Austrian casulaties of WWI? Is there an article concentrating on Christian deaths during WWI? I totally fail to see the interest or purpose of such an article (unless somehow it be supporting the perpetuation of Turkish denilaist propoganda). Does the fact that Turks/Muslims died during WWI have any bearing on the factuality of the Armenian Genocide? Does the fact that (huge numbers of) Germans died during WWII have any relevance to the factualness of what is known and accepted concerning the Holocaust? If it looks like s***, smells like s***, tastes like s***....then I can only conclude...--THOTH 01:56, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

At the risk of repeating myself for the third time, I would have to see the article before I decided whether it served a purpose or not. Maybe it would, maybe it wouldn't. It would depend on how it related to the main article, the sources used, how well it was written, etc. I'm just not ready to immediately dismiss FrancisTyer's proposition before even seeing how someone would write it. I simply prefer to keep an open mind, so perhaps we can just agree to disagree. But right now, there is no such article and I don't personally plan on writing one - so I don't feel I can comment further on the purpose, point, or objectivity of an article that does not exist.Shelby28 13:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh - well as long as we are talking about entirely theoretical articles I would like to see one concerning mermaid deaths in the Sea of Maramara during the Armenian Genocide as a result of Turkish troop transport ships leaking oil...do you likewise have no opinion concerning this article until you see it in writing? Well I think that the knowledgeble objective person could and should have an opinion about such things - particularly when making suggestions about what ought to be in an encyclopedia obstensibly based upon fact and not myth and fairie tales...--THOTH 14:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

If someone wants to write about mermaid deaths, sure, why not. And if it's pointless, doesn't have good references, has no basis in reality, then it can simply be deleted. Nothing in Wikipedia is set in stone. In general, I don't like saying 'No, you can't write about that' before giving someone a chance to see what they can actually come up with - cause maybe I'll be surprised and it'll be something good. I'm not trying to get you to agree with me. Everyone approaches Wikipedia differently - this is simply the approach I take.Shelby28 23:01, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

In general? Well, you only contributed to this article, mostly in its talk page, I don't see how you can draw a generality over your participation. Also, it event became an approach you took? When and where you took such an approach. The decision on creating articles depend on the subject, and either or not it is encyclopedic. The only notable figure who separated losses of Ottoman Muslims is Justin McCarthy, and he is considered the Rassinier of the Armenian genocide. Besides, separating losses as Christian and Muslim deaths is discriminatory, the only reason the Armenian genocide has its casulty pages is because there are various notable books about the issue of Armenian losses. While Ottoman casulties of WWI and after, is encyclopedic, there is no reason to exclude other groups in creating articles. Fad (ix) 01:01, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I was explaining how I feel in general when it comes to creating new articles. I didn't realize I had to show previous examples of my approach to justify anything to you. This is not about me, so please don't make it personal. And if anyone writes such an article, it won't be me, and I don't get to make any final decision regarding its existence. I've repeatedly explained my position, so if later on an article is written, we can discuss its merits further - but until that time, there's no point in continuing to argue.Shelby28 01:49, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't personal before you made it personal. Generality assumes a repetition, you can not draw a generality out of something, when you are limited to this article, and that's how your presence is limited to. There is nothing personal in me saying this. Also, again, like I said, subjects are either encyclopedic or not, I could always write an article about my left hand, it could be sources with various pictures, still the subject isen't encyclopedic. Fad (ix) 03:59, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Why is this so difficult to understand? I was talking about how I approach the idea of creating a new article. The fact that you didn't have prior knowledge of my thoughts on this issue doesn't make my opinion any more or less valid. And go ahead and write an article about your left hand; if other people don't feel that it belongs in Wikipedia, I'm sure it'll be deleted in no time. And to me, that's how Wikipedia works. I never said you had to feel the same way.Shelby28 05:12, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I think an Ottoman Muslim casualties during WW1 is actually a good proposition for an article. It doesnt have to do anything with this article, but can show a side of WW1 which is always overlooked. The figures can show not only casualties sustained in fighting, but also from expulsion from the Balkans, and occupation in wake of Treaty of Sevres. --A.Garnet 00:43, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

You are proposing a thesis, creating articles under the justification of the subject being overloocked is not encyclopedic, it is the notability that makes of a subject encyclopedic, by far per population there has been more Christian casulties than Muslim in Anatolia, and the only notable researcher that say else is McCarthy, Irving is notable, but notability for an encyclopedic article doesn't end on a persons notability but the notability of a subject too. The Ottoman casulties during and after WWI is notable, dividing a certain group based on religion is not. Fad (ix) 01:01, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Again - the linkage with this issue with the Armenian genocide is nil and I don't understand why it is even being discussed here. Likewise how are casulties of Ottoman Muslims who were expelled from the Balkans have anything to do with either Armenians or WWI? This event did not occur during WWI. And Ottoman Muslim casualties from the "occupation in wake of [the] Treaty of Sevres"? Are you kidding me? Treaty of Sevres was never put into effect? And occupation of what by whom? What does this additional fiction have to do with the Armenian Genocide? - except as I have been contending and as is obvious - as a diversion from the Ottoman Turkish culpability in the Armenian Genocide - which is what this article we are allegedly discussing here is about. I suggest that those who are interested in the mortality of Mermaids and Turkish indegestion as a result of eating too much taffy while boating on the Bosphorus in sprintime be discussed on some other talk page.--THOTH 01:10, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

what about starting an entry about "Turkish Casualties in Eastern Anatolia in 1915" or "Armenian armed operations and forced emigration" ? I think it can be a fair start. --Hattusili 18:33, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

You can have WWI Turkish casualties.--Eupator 18:38, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[comment partially moved to argument page. - FrancisTyers 20:52, 29 March 2006 (UTC)] Wikipedia should not be allowed to be used as propoganda for hateful genociders - for those who perpetuate genocide through its denial. None of this would even be remotel;y allowable in a Holocaust article and this article should be no different. --THOTH 19:25, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

You see, I have left this article for near a week I think and thought that things will settle down, but this is not what happened, visit any pages, or the Hereros, or the Khmer Rouge regime, the Holocaust, the Ukrainian famine, the Hereros genocide etc., etc., etc... and tell me if there is at least one other equivalent article that has given as much space or if any members there had as much patience as I had here.

No, no 'Turkish Casualties in Eastern Anatolia in 1915,' and the reason is obvious, very obvious. You can attempt to build a parallel page to this, it won't make it much encyclopedic. Why? Here some reasons why, the Ottoman records were dumping the entire Muslim population, no separation between the groups, in the East, the Kurds, the Circassians, etc... were the majority Muslim population, besides maybe Erzerum or some other places, whos majority Muslim population were Turk I think. Many Muslims died during WWI(millions of Germans died in World War II), but most of Muslim casulties happened starting with mid 1916, when already over 800,000 Armenians have died. Besides, there has been a war between the Arabs and Turks, between Kurdish revolutionaries and Turks, there has been Envers megalomany sending his army on the front to freeze in Winter, or the starving army in the East, and this as a result of the ministry of the war evacuation of the Armenians which deprived the East and amputating the food supply.

So, you see why you can't have a Turkish casulties page? Because Turks were not separated from other Muslims. Also, there was very few Turkish civilian casulties in 1915, Muslim casulties jumped upward in 1916, during which time the Eastern zones Armenian population was gone.

Does the Turkish government section not give enought space for your second proposition? Don't forget that when I have proposed this, there wasn't much space for the Turkish position, you don't expect to have nearly half of the spaces in the main article and another full for the Turkish position, do you? Fad (ix) 19:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[comment moved to argument page. - FrancisTyers 20:52, 29 March 2006 (UTC)]

hateful genociders

you are so biased that you do not hesitate to use such terms against people who does not think lilke you.--Hattusili 10:16, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Armenian Genocide

[section moved to arguments page. - FrancisTyers 01:36, 2 April 2006 (UTC)]

Vandalised page

I think it was rovoam who vandalised this page. If he gets blocked he comes back on another IP address and these are the type of pages he vandalises. Be careful of him as he's the most dangerous and persistent vandal in all of wikipedia.

Thank you.

Micoolio101 07:21, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Armenians

Are they not as important as the Jewish so their deaths are called a genocide instead of an holocaust? Or is the word holocaust used only for what happened to the Jews between 1939 - 1945?

Rastishka

The term holocaust means burning by fire, it was indeed used during the period to discribe what happened, but the first time it was used to refer to Armenian sufferings was the burning of the Armenian town in Adana, in which thousands of Armenians were consumed by fire in April 1909. The term Holocaust with a capital 'H' is used to refer to NAZI war crimes in Europe (in the ghettos and the concentration camps), mostly Jews, it also refers to other groups like the Gypsies, it is not much of the appropriation of the term than rather the capitalisation. Also, the term genocide isen't to be taken more lightly than holocaust, while what happened in Adana in 1909 was a holocaust, the restrictive term for genocide would somehow excludes to its qualification as such(genocide). Holocaust with a capital 'H' doesn't mean exactly the same thing as 'h,' the capitalisation refers to a specific event and this doesn't mean in anyway that Armenian deaths are less important. Bernard Lewis before his departement was founded by Turkish institutions himself has used the words 'Armenian Holocaust' to refer to those deaths and this term is still used quite frequently but not as frequently as the most used term 'Armenian Genocide' which is official and should remain as such. Fad (ix) 01:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

yes, hmmm, lets see which term has the greatest impact, we need to feed our propaganda machine! And lets also try to link the Armenian massacres to the Holocaust of the Jews, like that we may just get their support on this matter! 85.1.33.43 05:27, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Anonymous, you are hardly credible in your role as an Armenian. With what new trick you will come up with? :) Fad (ix) 06:00, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Its called sarcasm my dear Fadix, I am surprised you didnt catch that! 81.213.178.166 06:06, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

???

[discussion moved to arguments page. - FrancisTyers 11:56, 6 April 2006 (UTC)]

Armenian Genocide photos

You can see the photos here I will be adding them to the article when the page gets unprotected--CltFn 05:05, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

No you are not. The copyright status of those images are highly disputed. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 09:26, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

They are in the public domain. That is an easy one.Public Domain Chart--CltFn 11:38, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

This discussion, as well as this topic on Wikipedia have become ridiculous

Where is the moderation? Where is the logic? The way this article has been presented and discussed transcends personal biases, and is primarily meant to instill propaganda for both ends.The historical relevance of this article is horrendous, furthermore it does not provide the reader with the opportunity to gain a logical understanding on the Armenian or Turkish claims.Propaganda techniques, such as association (comparing the Holocaust to the Armenian Genocide claims) ruin any validity this article can have, and until this article is cleaned up it will remain a stain on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blasphemy (talk • contribs)

Scholars should be cautioned against accepting this page as reliable citation

I am compelled to agree with the above. This is an affront to anything remotely scholarly or historical. It is time you all accepted that the Armenian Genocide page on Wikipedia is a failed project, scrap it entirely and leave it to better qualified people to start again.

In a recent unrelated debate concerning the dispute between Britannica and a research group that stated Wikipedia is just as accurate, I challenged my opponent to present, following his claim that Wiki was full of nonsense, an article that was indeed full of nonsense. He directed me here and I promptly conceded defeat.

"the forced mass evacuation and related deaths"

This statement is the intro is horseradish. Makes it seem like the Ottoman's were so kind as to "evacuate" the Armenians , for their own protection no doubt , and how unfortunate that the Armenians accidentaly died in the process.--CltFn 04:38, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I think forced evacuation is a good term, it took a while to find a good term. Forced evacuation is one of the most efficient way of extermination. The Germans used it against the Herreros at the beggining of the last century, the Turks with the Armenians, NAZI Germany did the same with the Jews, Gypsies and other groups, Khmer Rouge regime attempted it etc. The words forced evacuation doesn't cover what happened to those evacuated, but those things are covered in the article. Fad (ix) 16:16, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Protection

Folks, please discuss changes. Please also let me know when everyone has calmed down. (Be aware that the protection is not an endorsement of the current version.) --Nlu (talk) 05:28, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

This article should always be partially blocked in my opinion. Fad (ix) 16:18, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there has been little discussion in this article for most of April...so hash it out here and not on each others talk pages. I have to agree with the use of the word "deaths" over massacre but only because it is better English.--MONGO 05:37, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

From CltFn's talk page

NPOV means taking all sides of an issue into consideration, no matter how accurate you see one side to be. Let me give you a good example of this - check out the Adana massacre page. It gives both the Armenian and the Turkish side. We may not see one side as the "truth", but that's not what NPOV is about, it's about neutrality. Calling the events of the Armenian Genocide "massacres" is POV. I really hope you understand what I'm saying. —Khoikhoi 04:23, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

A massacre is defined as The act or an instance of killing a large number of human beings indiscriminately. And that is exactly what happened . --CltFn 04:33, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

That's the Armenian side. NPOV means including all sides. —Khoikhoi 04:34, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Not quite right, the Turkish government position does not exclude massacres, a term can be used if it is a majority view and its oposition is a fringe. I haven't placed massacre there simply because 'death' is better English and not because massacre is not NPOV, it actually is according to Wikipedia policies, Turkish intellectuals dispute the number and accuse Kurds of having been the responsable of those massacres but does not dispute that there actually was massacres. Death is a good term, because it includes any type of deaths (massacre, starvation etc.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fadix (talk • contribs) 16:10, 16 April 2006.

[Referring to CltFn's comment] This is POV because the intentions /motives are disputed. KSK 04:39, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Massacre does not imply a motive, does it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fadix (talk • contribs) 16:10, 16 April 2006.

Massacres were but one tactic used in perpetuating the Armenian Genocide. We need to describe the sort of massacres that occured as well as detail the other methods (CUP Ottoman Turkish directed forces) used for MASS KILLING of Armenians. --THOTH 17:00, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Permanent partial block

Any comment? Fad (ix) 16:10, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

What is this - I don't understand?--THOTH 16:57, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

My suggestion is a permanent partial block of the article. Those who are not registered and new users restriction to edit it. Fad (ix) 18:11, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

??? Fad (ix) 01:38, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Important Interview with Andrew Goldberg - producer of documentary The Armenian Genocide

[moved to arguments page. - FrancisTyers 08:26, 18 April 2006 (UTC)]

Genocide Denial - links and information

I think the following links must be included in the article and the denial of the Armenian Genocide - includign attempts by Turks and such here to do so - must be presented in their proper light - as genocide denial and nothing more. --THOTH 17:13, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Some links -

http://www.csuchico.edu/mjs/center/teaching_resources/armenia/articles/George_Aghjayan/4a%20-%20Genocide%20Denial%20-%20A%20Comparison.pdf

http://www.ideajournal.com/articles.php?id=27

http://users.ids.net/~gregan/ethics.html

http://ermeni.org/english/cleansingarchives.htm

http://www.gendercide.org/case_armenia.html

http://www.theforgotten.org/denial/

This link actually concerns Turkish affirmation of the Armenian Genocide (which also needs to be presented more comprehesively in the articel itself) -

http://www.csuchico.edu/mjs/center/teaching_resources/armenia/articles/Associated_Press/Turkish%20Affirmation%20of%20the%20Armenian%20Genocide.pdf

--THOTH 17:13, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

THOTH, you sick man, stop using propaganda and leave it where it belongs -> the deep end of the rubbish heap 83.76.143.246 18:53, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Links to non-credible sites of disputable neutrality(shear sarcasm here)

See for yourselves http://www.theforgotten.org/denial2005/slide.asp?image=4 85.101.153.17 23:50, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Technical Fixes

The article says that "The majority of the camps were situated near the Iraqi and Syrian frontiers", but neither "Iraq" nor "Syria" existed at this time (it should be something like "situated near what is now the Iraqi and Syrian frontiers"). Also, Dayr az-Zawr is on the "Euphrates" river, not the "europhites". The footnotes should be fixed as well to go to the correct number. Makgraf 03:23, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

You are right. As for the footnotes, it was all scrapped when Tommils started 'reorganizing' the article. Fad (ix) 04:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

There is no 'Turkish affirmation of the Armenian genocide'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.173.184.62 (talk • contribs) diff

POV forks

Just to mention that there are at least two controversial POV pages on the same topic, Armenian Genocide and Turkish National Movement (apparently written by an Armenian nationalist) and Armenian allegations (a text dump from a government website cited here, by a Turkish nationalist). Both are badly written and I suggest merging any useful content into section 4 and 5 before they are removed, and maybe creating a new section to describe Armenians seeking acknowledgement/redress.

It may be necessary to go a bit deeper into the concept of genocide in general in order to justify the title to a more inclusive group. The genocide article refers to the definition in the 1946 Convention and the quote by Raphael Lemkin that also appears in Genocide (1981) by Leo Kuper. --Cedders 11:51, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this issue. Both articles have been created by a Turkish nationalist, not an Armenian involved there. The first ones content has nothing to do with the title and I still don't see the relevency of its existence, it is just a dumping of some unrelated stuff.

You are right about the second point, I did already in the past suggested creating an article about the concept of genocide and the Armenian cases.

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

Lemkin started his works concerning “Crimes against Humanity,” a term first used in this context during WWI when discribing the Armenian massacres. Lemkin claims that this was one of the major reasons he decided to become a lawyer. He also gave as reference the Armenian case in his work “Genocide” whose aim was to describe what a genocide is.

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

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

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

Months before the introduction of this word in 1948 by the UN, on the date of May 28, 1948, on which date the United Nations war crimes commission released a report concerning the mass slaughter of the Armenians in World War I, followed by, the same year, on the date of December 9, 1948, the publication of the Genocide Convention by the United Nations High Commission for Human Rights. Obviously, the United Nations report released on May 28 was part of their study that permitted them to release, months later, what would become their official definition of the word genocide. Later in 1973, a reference in one of the United States papers concerning the Armenian genocide resulted on the part of Turkey to pressure the United Nations to withdraw the case of the Armenian genocide from the list. Due to the intensification of these pressures, the case of the Armenian genocide was redrawn in 1978, until another extensive study was to be conducted, thanks to Turkey the ressources and researchs in what had to become the official UN report in genocide ended up to be a failure. Turkey killed the UN official report on genocide and Jurisprudences just because of one cases it could not permit. I will be created in Summer an article about the UN report of the 70s on genocide and how Turkey killed it.

Here, a quote from Lemkins unofficial biography

"In 1915 the Germans occupied the city of W. and the entire area. I used this time to read more history, to study and to watch whether national, religious, or racial groups are being destroyed. The truth came out only after the war. In Turkey, more than 1,200,000 Armenians were put to death for no other reason than they were Christians ... This is nothing but personal opinionAfter the end of the war, some 150 Turkish war criminals were arrested and interned by the British Government on the island of Malta.And what happened in Malta? - the British had failed to prove the guilt of the accused at Malta, and your reference still calls them a criminal, that's bias certainly The Armenians sent a delegation to the peace conference in Versailles. They were demanding justice. Then one day, the delegation read in the newspapers that all Turkish war criminals were released. I was shocked. A nation was killed and the guilty persons were set free. Why is a man punished when he kills another man? Why is the killing of a million a lesser crime than the killing of a single individual?

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

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

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

There is much to be said about the applicability of the term genocide and the Armenian cases, my answer is just an introduction to show you that it is a subject in itself and would require its own entry. But maybe including a section with a resume in this main article would be relevent. Fad (ix) 18:10, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone check these references? I found this article from Oxford Journals, "Turkish Military Tribunal’s Prosecution of the Authors of the Armenian Genocide: Four Major Court-Martial Series, Genocide Study Project,Spring 1997" Paper itself says they never saw the actual documents quoting from the paper "the actual transcripts still are not available to scholars" and it continues "relying upon other sources". This paper is about trial proceedings. If you don't have access to proceedings what is the basis for this theory? How can you refer to something as a proof which itself couldn't refer to any actual document? You're not allowed to post stuff that starts with 'it is believed that...' but people actually refer to some papers that has claims based on 'it is believed that's.

Either you haven't read it carefully or you have quoted selectivly on purpouses, but for the sake of it, I will assume good faith.

This paper actually say from where it has been taken, let quote: The juridical proceedings and findings of the Turkish Military Tribunal as recorded in Takvimi Vekâyi, the official gazette of the Ottoman government, whose supplements (ilâve) served as the judicial journal of the Tribunnal, form the basis of this article. The "Key," or main, Indicment and the "Key Verdict," as well as other subsidiary indicments and verdicts were based on primarily official and authenticated documents (a practice followed later at Nuremberg as well). As far as is known, outside Turkey only the Jerusalem Armenian Patriarchate Archive and the Nubar Library in Paris own the originals of these "supplements" issues. The official published transcripts of the debates in the Ottoman Parliament's Lower House (Meclisi Mebusan) and Upper House (Meclisi Ayan) in November and December 1918 have also been utilized. The Turkish daily press has been consulted for some of the details of testimony given by defendants and witnesses in pre-trial interrogations and various sittings of the court.

The auxiliary sources reinforce the findings of the Military Tribunal. ... (pp. 31-32) Not to mention that the paper contains 7 pages of footnotes, which is well source considering that it is only a paper.

It is true that the original transcripts of the tribunal are not available, and it would be naive to expect that the Turkish government will make them available, including to Turkish historians close to the government, but they have been published in the Takvimi Vekâyi as stated in the article. Fad (ix) 02:25, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Fadix Maybe Turkish sources are naive. Because they are actually available at Directorate General of State Archives of the Prime Ministry National Archives. You can even reach digitized documents from after 1900 using State Archives website. You can see hard copies on site.

You don't even need that much of a literature survey. If you Google it you can find current and previous prime ministers' invitations to Armenian scholars to examine archives and discuss the issues. But Armenian side (Kocharian and Balakian) everytime comes up with 'there's no discussion, you'll accept it approach'. Recently Radik Matrosian and Dennis Papazian were invited to a Symposium (December 15 2005) but they decided not to discuss the matters. A lot of people on Wikipedia defend the Armenian thesis, can anybody tell me why everybody avoids discussions or try to stop Turkish point of view from being heard? If that's as ridiculous as you think, let other people see it for themselves without your interferance. Why Armenian scholars and experts refrain from discussing it and miss such a great chance of proving the other side wrong? Why do people refer to opposing idea as 'in denial'? Don't you know that Turks also call this a tragedy and wish it never happened? There are many interesting facts that are often used for support arguments. Especially the Hitler quote. Source of this quote is a newspaper article in Times on November 24, 1945, London not Nuremberg Tribunal. Nobody denies that this quote was never in Nuremberg Tribunal. They just forget to mention it. Everyone also skips the the fact that his talk was about invasion of Poland not the Holocaust. After all this embellishment (by the newspaper) and failing to mention what the talk was about, this speech is used to justify the link between Hitler's stance and Armenian Genocide issue.

We are here to write an encyclopedic article, and personally I have no time to waste on what both sides recycle from nationalist articles as you do, I limit myself on peer reviewed materials. An example of such nationalistic trash, is your claim of the Turkish government 'invitation.' This has been recycled again and again. But little is said about the actual letter of Kocharian as answer, which was acceptation but with a condition of relations between both republics. Turkey still has a closed border with Armenia, the losses are estimated in the tens of millions per year because of that blockage, yet Turkey while denies any relation with Armenia request such investigation. It is like Israel accepting Iran's offer of investigating the Holocaust. They didn't accepted it and for a reason, Iran doesn't have any relations with Israel and still maintains a xenophobic attitude, in such conditions there is no country in the world that will accept. Second of all, it is true that Armenian intellectuals don't participate in such discussions, because they are not discussions but monologues in which both parties discuss and neither are there to come up with a solution but rather sell their products. The Turkish government request for investigation and themselves have proposed it, was not to discuss but to 'prove' that the genocide did not happen, they have shown no inclination to change their position but 'prove it'... so many questions the value of such discussions and here not only Armenian scholars have refused such invitations for those reasons.

Comming to the claim that the archives are open, where are the transcripts of the court martial? Where are they? They are nowhere to be found. I have documented here from Turkish sources, that there were specific orders to destroy records regarding the decisions that concern the Armenians. Just recently Hilmar Kaiser the German historian who was finally given back access to Ottoman recirds claims to have uncovered two archival records very similar to two of the Andonians. As for Hitlers quote, it isen't in this article, please discuss about what is in this specific article. Fad (ix) 18:30, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Fadix let's talk about your peer reviewed stuff. I'll start with making some statements that no Armenian will disagree. First let's talk about The Treatment of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire, 1915–1916 by Bryce and Toynbee (1915). Quoting from gomidas.org "In 1916 the British Parliament published a "Blue Book" that identified the events of 1915–16 as a systematic effort to exterminate the Armenian people. The Blue Book has been one of the most solid and influential sources on the Armenian Genocide." This book is one of the most referenced in your peer-reviewed articles. Ara Sarafian also has many publications that rely on historical records "United States Official Documents on the Armenian Genocide (Archival Collections on the Armenian Genocide)" of 5 volumes. Another major source of Armenian allegations come from Aram Andonian whose work is called forgery by many authors, to name one Erich Feigl in "The Myth of Terror."

You are simply making this up, the Blue Book is not one of the most referenced in peer-reviewed articles, for the simple reason that peer-reviewed articles most of the time are new interpretations or new studies, while the Blue Book stend by itself and has done its time. How many paper can you cite in which the Blue Book is one of the most referenced. And no, there is no much author that call the Blue Book as forgery, and that you haven't found better than Feigl to make your point is an evidences of that. Feigl wrote that book adviced by those close to the Turkish ambassy after that his close friend a Turkish ambassador was killed by ASALA terrorists. His book was written before the uncensured version with the identification of the reporters has been published. Feigl shut the Blue Book without knowing such a thing as the key of names of the authors every existed in British records. Edgar Hilsenrath in his book: Das Marchen vom letzten Gedanken. Munich and Zurich: R. Piper, 1989 covers Feigl book as something that is so misleading that it is worthless. Also, the British government just recently confirmed the autenticity of the Blue Book, Toybee one of its author wrote decades after the book was written a confirmation of its autenticity and in his autobiography repeated its conclusions and discribing the event by using the word genocide.

Fad (ix) 15:00, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Fadix, Toynbee died 31 years ago, he can't recently confirm anything and he didn't write an autobiography. Somebody else wrote his biography. And I don't think you understand how this referencing thing works. If I write something today about physics, I don't have to refer to Isaac Newton. But at some point my reference's reference's reference will lead to his papers.

I know when Toynbee died, The Blue Book was published in 1916, his 24 acquaintances recorded memoirs in his Acquaintances in an partial autobiographical fashion book was published in 1967. thosefor decades after the Blue Book was published. He writes in that book published in 1967:

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

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

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

But please ignore this comment for the moment and keep reading. Aram Andonian published his book in 1920.

Are you trying to intimidate me intellectually? Fad (ix) 15:00, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

In January 1919, 140 high-ranked Turkish government officials were taken into custody because of allegations about them on Armenian Genocide. They were taken to Malta. Things I'll mention are referred to as Malta Tribunal. Investigation ended in November 2, 1921. All of them were released due to lack of evidence. All the aforementioned documents were available before November 2, 1921. Toynbee and Bryce's book was even published by British government who did the investigation. At the time Ottoman archives were in Istanbul which was under British occupation. American archives were also examined. “There are in hands of Majesty’s government at Malta a number of Turks arrested for alleged complicity in the Armenian massacres. There are considerable difficulty in establishing proofs of guilt. Please ascertain if the United States government is in possession of any evidence that would be of value for the purpose of prosecution.” BritishArchives. PRO—F. 0. 371/6500/ E.3552, Curzon to Geddes Telegram No 176, dated March 31,1921.

"I regret to inform your Lordship that there was nothing therein which could be used as evidence against the Turks who are being detained for trial in Malta. The reports seen made mention of only two names of the Turkish officials in question—those of Sabit bey and Suleyman Faik Pasha — and even in these cases the accounts given were confined to the personal opinions of the writers; no concrete facts being given which could constitute satisfactory incriminating evidence." British Archives: PRO—F. 0. 371/6504/E.8515 R.C. Craigie, British Charge d’Affairs at Washington, to Lord Curzon, Telegram No 722 of July 13, 1921. Andonian's documents were offered to the court also during Soghomon Tehlirian trial but once again this time another court didn't consider it an evidence.

Had you actually read the archive of this talk page, maybe you would see this has bee covered and being a pure fabrication.

The Malta Tribunal that never existed. The revisionists often fabricate a Malta tribunal that actually never took place.

Actually, there was only one Turkish searcher that really adventured in this subject. He published various works (Turkish and English(mostly the translation and reedition of the Turkish versions) about this topic, and it is Bilal N. Simsir. I will just quote the last words from his work: “The Deportees of Malta and the Armenian Question.”

“As a result, all detainees at Malta were released and repatriated without being brought before a Tribunal.”

Even he admit there was not Malta tribunal.

Denialists of the Armenian genocide often claim that a “Malta tribunal” was conducted by the British, and after investigations and prosecutions, the prisoners were released because of lack of “proof.” But according to historical records there never was any Malta tribunal; such lies are meant to fool the innocent reader into believing that the extermination of the Ottoman Armenians never occurred and in the same time to divert the attention from a real tribunal which concluded that, in reality, the Armenians were victims of extermination. In fact, the Turkish military tribunal brought evidence from Ottoman high officials that the Armenians were victim of a premeditated plan to annihilate them. The apologists of the genocide claim that the tribunal in question was set by the Allies and therefore not credible. Such denialists don’t realise that such a claim would just as well discredit the Nuremberg Tribunal that brought NAZI war criminals to be judged; because the Nuremberg Tribunal was conducted by the Allies, while the military tribunal was a Turkish tribunal, so, if a "Turkish" tribunal was controlled by the "invaders," so was the Nuremberg. And if, in fact, the documents presented during the Turkish tribunal were forged, one wonders why the Turkish government until today forbids access to them. If they are forged???, why the fear of making them public?

Additionally, what denialists fail to mention is that many of the prisoners of Malta were handed to the British officials after being convicted as guilty by the Turkish military tribunal; in fact, there was supposed to be two tribunals, the first one being a Turkish one to judge and send to Malta those being charged, and after the end of the same tribunal to provide to the British officials the documents that allowed them to charge the criminals sent to Malta.

The claim that Malta prisoners were taken without any selections is groundless when reviewing the files attached to each prisoner. One example here is the one of Mustafa Abdul Halik Bey.

Mustafa Abdul Halik Bey Malta No. 2800 Interned 7.6.20

Appointments:

“Vali of Bitlis, March 1914 to September 1915. Under Secretary of State, Ministry of the Interior. Vali of Aleppo October 1915 to April 1917 Brother in law of Talaat.

Lists:

His name appears on Lists VI and VII ( List VII is the F.O. List).

Arrests:

A. He was arrested by the Turkish Government on 9 March, 1919, not upon our suggestion. The charge was murder. On the Turkish prison list of 7 February, 1920, he is stated to have been released on bail; date not provided (probably some time between 20.9.19 and 7.2.20).

B. He was again arrested by the British Military Authorities on or about the 14 May, 1920.

Petitions: None to date, 25.2.21

Accusations:

5027/A/20. Through Mr. Ryan on 19th September 1919. Mustafa Abdul Halik, Vali of Bitlis, took part in the councils held at Erzurum to decide on the deportations and massacres of Armenians. These councils were presided over by Dr. Behaeddin Shakir, delegate of the Central C.U.P. (one of the Principal Eight); other members were Tashin Bey (a deportee), Vali of Erzurum; Muammer (a deportee), Vali of Sivas; and Djevdet (a deportee), Vali of Van.

5030/B/10. On September 26, 1919, Mrs. Sophie Varjabedian, a Bitlis refugee then at Haidar Pasha, c./o. Rev. B. Bedrossian, Bible House, Constantinople, writes accusing Mustafa Abdul Halik, Vali of Bitlis, of having carried away under his personal superintendence the safe from the American Mission in Bitlis. The safe contained her money and jewellery. Miss Chane, now at Erivan, reported this to Mrs. Varjabedian. She asks for the restoration of her property and gives a list.

Assistant High Commissioner approved the suggestion of making inquires at the United States Embassy but there is no record as to whether any action was taken.

5031/A/6. Name merely appears on a Bureau d'Information Armenien list of 30. 12.18, as the Vali of Aleppo, in connection with Marash massacres.

5035/C/178. On June 7th, 1919, Mrs. Ahisag Ahet Ahlahadian writes, through the A.C.R.N.E (American Committee, Relief in the Near East), saying that she is a Protestant Syrian of Bitlis and that all her relatives had been massacred in 1915 in Bitlis in spite of the fact that she had paid the Vali, Mustafa Abdul Halik, to the extent of LT 541 gold.

5036/48. A. Account by Sympat Kerkoyan of crimes committed by Mustafa Abdul Halik at Bitlis in 1915. Starving prisoners; massacring 200 to 300 at a time outside the town; ravishing and massacring the women; extorting and looting of Armenian property. The stench from putrefying bodies was so bad that Buheddin, Director of Health, Bitlis, received orders to have the bodies incinerated. Buheddin was in Aleppo in 1918. B. Also murder of Djerdjis Kerkoyan, brother of Sympat after Mustafa Abdul Halik had extorted his fortune on promising to spare his life. C. Mustafa Abdul Halik replaced Bekir Sami Bey (the "good" Vali, now a prominent Nationalist) at Aleppo on 4.10.15. There he gave orders for the deportation and killing of Sympat Kerkoyan. Thanks to Hadji Yehia Galib Bey, the defterdar (now the defterdar of Kastambol), Sympat reached Mossul alive. The above per Mr. Rizzo on 16.10.19.

5030/A/21. Statement by Sympat Kerkoyan, merchant of Bitlis dated 19.5.20. Bitlis May 1915 atrocities. Massacre of Kerkoyan's family; wife and three children; three brothers and their families. Kerkoyan's deportation to Mossul by the Vali of Aleppo; Mustafa Abdul Halik.

…”

This prisoner (Abdul Halik Bey) was not arrested without reason; from British archival records it is evident that Abdul Halik was present at the Council held in Erzurum to put in application the extermination measures. From the same British archival records, Cevdet the governor of Van, Tashin, Muammer, and Dr. Sakir were also present during that Council. The group was even called “all the very worst of criminals.” (Source: Report of September 19, 1919, Andrew Ryan, BFO 371/6501, pg 4, folder 540/40)

The British had even selected some of the prisoners that should, under no circumstances, be released, and about the four governors that planned and executed the eradication of the Armenians in Eastern Ottoman, after documenting their guilt they concluded, “whom we propose to retain to the last they are gravely implicated in the crimes of massacre.” (Source: BFO 371/6504, folders 136, 146. As well, BFO 371/6504/E10023)

But later the War Office implored Foreign Secretary Curzon to release the group in order to exchange them with the two British prisoners that the Kemalists took, Rawlinson and Campell.(Source: BFO 371/6504, E10411) By doing such Mustafa Kemal (Ataturk) refused to honour the Exchange Agreement of March 16, 1921 that was excluding in the exchanges several Ittihadists that had a key role in the Armenian genocide. (Source: FO 371/6500/E3375 (folio 284/15)) In fact the new Foreign Minister Youssouf Kemal asked for the “all for all” exchange. (Source: FO 371/6509(folio 47)) But the British had still tried to impose the agreement and the promises given by Mustafa Kemal himself, more particularly regarding about 20 of the most criminals among them. First, Cevdet the governor of Van with another (they and some others were called “the most notorious members of the group”) escaped (source: FO 371/5091/E16080 (folio 85)); upon finding out about the escape the British Foreign Office responded that the two prisoners “have broken parole.” On September 6, 1921, 16 other Ittihadists excluded from the exchange as well were able to escape. Angry, the Foreign Office remarked, “how little Turkish sense of honor can be relied on.” (Source: FO 3071/6509/E10662 (folio 159))

The Turkish sociologist and publicist Yalman, who had secret discussions with many of the Ittihadists, has been himself detained at Malta and has stated that the anti-Armenian measures reflected a "policy of general extermination" to remove "the danger" to Turkey of "a dense Armenian population in the Eastern Provinces." (Source: A. E. Yalman, Turkey in the World War (New Haven, 1930), 220.

The British plan to send to justice more criminals was becoming more problematic by the end of September, 1919, when Sultan Damad Ferid's Cabinet was being dissolved slowly in the profit of the Kemalism. On November 17, 1919, the new High Commissioner Admiral de Robeck, told Curzon that

“…the present Turkish Government...[is] so dependent on the toleration of the organisers of the [Kemalist] National Movement that I feel it would be futile to ask for the arrest of any Turk accused of offences against Christians, even though he may be living openly in Constantinople...I do not consider it politically advisable to deport [to Malta] any more prisoners.”

(Source: BFO 371/4174/15672 1 (folios 523-24))

And later also noted:

“…the question of retribution for the deportations and massacres will be an element of venomous trouble in the life of each of the countries concerned.”

(Source: BFO 371/4174/136069 (folio 470))

During the 20’s, Lamb, the political-legal officer of the British High Commission at Istanbul, understanding the non-seriousness in the judging of the criminals detained in Malta, warned his superiors:

“Unless there is whole-hearted co-operation and will to act among the Allies, the trials will fall to the ground and the direct and indirect massacres of about one million Christians will get off unscathed.”

(Source: FO 371/6500/, W. 2178, appendix A( folio 385-118, 386-119), Aug. 11, 1920.)

One must not ignore that in addition to the fact that the prisoners were released because they were exchanged with British prisoners, as well the fact that it was advised to release them because the imperial government favored good relations with the Kemalists. Another major reason was responsible of the release of the prisoners, a reason that apologists have tried to keep under the carpet. On March 10, 1921, Ankara's Foreign Minister Bekir Sami assured the British that the prisoners being released would be judged in a court. Later officially on June 11, 1921, the Ankara government informed the British that when the Malta prisoners will be released in exchange of British prisoners:

“…those accused of crimes would be put on impartial trial at Ankara in the same way as German prisoners were being tried in Germany.”

(Source: FO 371/6499/E3110, p. 190; see also FO 371/5049/E6376, folio 187; A. Yalman, Turkey in My Time ( Norman, OK, 1956), 106.)

The British at the end had no reason to keep the prisoners anymore. By releasing them they scored many points. Firstly, the British prisoners would be released in exchange. Secondly they would not have to deal with what they viewed as “venomous trouble.” Thirdly, in the eyes of the Kemalists they would gain some respect which as a result would open the roads of economic exchanges. Lastly, why keep those prisoners and go through the trouble of judging them, when the Kemalists promised that those prisoners would be judged in Ankara?

It is true that many Ittihadist high ranked were judged by judicial proceedings in Izmir and Ankara. Among them were Halis Turgut who had escaped the prosecutions of the Turkish military tribunal previously, Ahmed Shükrü, Ismail Canbolat (the right hand of Talaat), Dr. Nazim, Yenibahçeli Nail, and Filibeli Hilmi (Dr. Shakir’s right hand). Some of the killed/condemned to death were brigands and military officials and soldiers used by the Ittihadists. One of those, Yahya Kaptan, was killed in July 1922 by unknown assassins. The rumour was that he had threatened Turkish officials with releasing state secrets if they were to carry investigations on him (he had a major role on the drowning into the sea of thousands of women and children). Topal Osman was killed by a military unit trying to capture him in March 1923. Halit (Deli) was killed in the Turkish parliament on February 9, 1925.

Even after those trials, the honesty of the Kemalist government could still be questioned, since many influential figures in the Young Turk government as well as pan-Turkists and Turanists were later introduced in the Kemalist administration. The Young Turk ex-minister of finances, Djavid Bey, was the nearest collaborator of Bekir Sami during the London Conferences. Yunus Nadi Bey, who was as well in the Turkish delegation in London was deputy of Smyrna; he was the leader of the “Yeni Gün” that was the principal Kemalist organ. Doctor Ziya Nur, considered by some the father of the neo-Turkism, was the private advisor of Youssouf Kemal (he himself found a place in the Kemalist administration), the then-minister of foreign affairs. Ahmed Nessimi Bey, the minister of foreign affairs under Talaat’s government, had leading roles in the administration. Sami Bey was placed at the head of the postal and telegraphic services at Ankara. Furthermore many pan-Turkists like Youssouf Aktchoura, Aghaoghlou Ahmed, Husseinzade Ali, Ziya Gökalp, Köprülüzade Fuat, Mehmet Emin, Hamdullah Suphi, Ali Haidar, Halide Edip, Celal Nuri, Falih Rifki, and Yacub Kadri, among others, were introduced in the Kemalist administration.

The two district governors that had a leading role in the genocide, Kemal and Nusret who were executed by the Kemalist government, were considered as “national martyrs” their families received large sums of money. Nusret got a region, a school, and a street in Urfa in his name; in Bogazliyan, Kemal was honoured with the erection of his statue in the public square. Ankara’s government also allocated pensions for the families of those executed by Armenian “avengers,” such as the families of Talaat and Dr. Behaeddin Shakir.

Now, back to Malta, Simsir in his work about Malta, with the aim of supporting his claim that the prisoners were released because there was no evidence, has referred to Curzon, but what Simsir ignores in his work is that Curzon later calls this decision a "great mistake," and he even admits that the rationale had been to support the release of the prisoners.

“The less we say about these people [the Turks detained at Malta] the better...I had to explain why we released the Turkish deportees from Malta skating over thin ice as quickly as I could. There would have been a row I think...The staunch belief among members [of Parliament is] that one British prisoner is worth a shipload of Turks, and so the exchange was excused.”

British Foreign Office Archives, FO 371/7882/E4425, folio 182

Curzon’s claims that they were released because there was no evidence, from his own admission, were just a reason among many to justify the decision (release of the prisoners), when in fact there was no justification whatsoever.

The claim that there was no evidence in US archives falls short when referring to the British ambassador in Washington, D.C., on June 1, 1921, when he declared,

“The U.S. archives contain a large number of documents on Armenian deportations and massacres.”

FO 371/6503/E6311, folio 34

There never was any prosecution, pre-trial investigation, or interrogatory. So how is anyone to claim that any tribunal “proved” them not guilty, when there was no Malta tribunal in the first place? The Turkish military tribunal on the other hand had charged many prisoners as guilty before sending them to Malta. This is why many were sent there. The Ottomans were supposed to send the documents supporting their guilt. No document was ever sent, however; the Kemalists dissolved the tribunal and the files were stolen.

Another interesting point is how Simsir uses in his article Undersecretary W.S. Edmond’s quotations, when the individual in question was one of those recognising that the documents giving accounts of the guilt of the prisoners were in Istanbul. He was troubled by the fact that Turks would react very badly if criminals were hung because of their participations in the massacres of Armenians. He himself declared even at an early stages:

“Not one Turk in a thousand will think that any other Turk deserves to be hanged for massacring Christians.”

(Source: FO 371/4173/61185, folio 1270/278. Minutes recorded on April 22, 1919)

The British judge Lindsey Smith August 10 1921 declared:

"…a considerable amount of incriminating evidence was collected by the Turkish government but it is idle to expect to get it. The only alternative is therefore to retain them as hostages only and release them against British prisoners."

(Source: FO 371/6509/E10023 (folios 100-01))

Now, it is important to ask the question, “Where were those documents?” since it is often claimed by denialists that the allies had the capital under control and that after searching they had found no evidence. It is even more important to know where the documents are, since the Turkish military tribunal brought to light that such documents in the form of “secret orders” did exist:

“The massacre and destruction (taktil ve ifna) of the Armenians was executed through secret orders by men who ostensibly had the assignment to implement the law of deportation. (zahiren tehcir kanununu tatbik etmek). “

Source: Published on August 6, 1919 in "Takvimi Vekâyi" No. 3616, p.1, Trabzon Verdict, 22 May 1919

This reference in the military tribunal refers to secret orders; references about those signed orders are abundant in the transcripts of the military tribunal published in the Ottoman Law gazette "Takvimi Vekâyi"

“The documents, personally signed by the defendants, confirm the fact that the gendarmes escorted the deportee convoys for purpose of massacre. There can be no doubt and hesitation about this. (maksadi ... taktili oldugundan süphe ve tereddüt birakmadigindan). “

Source: Published on August 7, 1919 in "Takvimi Vekâyi" No. 3617, p.2, Yozgat Verdict, 8 April 1919

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.

Tunaya relying on Ittihad's Secretary-General Midhat's testimony writes:

“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]

From these Turkish and British evidences, the present Turkish documents relating to the Armenian massacres are either forged or manipulated, because the Turkish authorities, in an attempt to deny the Armenian genocide, use documents that according to their own sources should have been destroyed. If in fact they were destroyed, then the documents the Turkish government presents are "reconstitutions" and more probably "forged," invalid in court of law.

Raphael Lemkin, Lawyer, and the inventor of the word “Genocide,” refers to the prisoners of Malta in one of his writings.

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

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

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

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

After this basic attempt to analyse the Malta cases, one can find surprising the fact that any denialist could still claim that there was a Malta tribunal, or that prisoners were released because of lack of evidence or, even worse, that the allies had access to every document yet had found nothing. Because even after all the precaution the Turks took to hide the fact of the Armenian genocide, if one were to research this case honestly and without bias and compare it with, for instance, the Nuremberg tribunal, the researcher would quickly realise that even with all those forgeries from the part of the Turkish republic, after all those manipulations, and after all the destruction of files, one can still find that the evidence found in the official Ottoman Law gazette will without doubt show us that what the Ottoman Armenians have gone through was in fact an extermination, and those evidences by their quality show the intent more so than those used during the Nuremberg tribunal used to charge NAZI criminals.

One still wonders, and will keep wondering. Why going at these lengths to destroy those documents? Why did the Ottoman refuse to hand them to the British as promised? Why would the Kemalist government dissolve the tribunal? What were they hiding?

So let us ask this question again: Was there a Malta tribunal? No! There never was any Malta tribunal! Were the prisoners of Malta released because of lack of evidences? No! They were not, for Curzon’s admission shows us that this was not the case. Had the Allies access to every document they wanted when they were “occupying” the capital? No! Not only that was not the case, but even when using Ottoman Turkish documents, we have to conclude that even such documents show us that the Allies were unable to have access to such documents.

This peripheral analysis of historical records points us to a fact, the fact being that there never was any Malta tribunal and not only this but that the prisoners kept in Malta were not released because of lack of “proof.” This short essay shows us that the prisoners were released to be exchanged with British prisoners, as well as to not obfuscate the new nationalist power in place. And, finally, the British released those prisoners after having the guarantee that they would be put on trial in Ankara. Furthermore, not all prisoners were released. The British refused to release about 20 among them; as a result they succeeded in escaping by the help of the Kemalist. The use of the Malta case by apologists of the Armenian genocide is one more example of the apologist’s paradox. On the one hand the denialists reject the Turkish military tribunal, because they claim that it was a kangaroo tribunal set by the Allies; on the other hand they use the release of Turkish prisoners by the Allies as evidence that there was no genocide. If Malta prisoners were to be charged, the denialists will claim that the court charging them was set by the Allies, therefore not credible, whereas on the other hand, if the court in question were to release them, the same denialists will use this release as a “proof” that there was no genocide. In this case, there never was any Malta tribunal in the first place, so the denialist’s selective portrayal makes us believe there was one. The entire denialist methodology uses the apologist paradox. The heart of this paradox works like this:

Case A, Evidence A forgery Case B, Evidence A not forgery

Let us examine case A. If evidence A is forgery, it is not an evidence. No further examination is necessary.

Let us now examine case B. If Evidence A is not forgery, it does not support the theses of genocide, so it isn’t an evidence to support the genocide. Therefore there is no evidence at all.

Those few lines are at the heart of the denialist methodology whereby they will first try to reject an evidence by trying to show it as forgery. If they are able, they will therefore conclude that this evidence is not an evidence. If on the other hand they are not able to show the evidence as forgery, they will try to give another meaning to the evidence, do everything to twist it, and finally conclude that even if it is not forgery, it does not support anything, therefore it is not an evidence. From this paradox, there can not be any evidence supporting the genocide, because the two theses lead to the same conclusion. No genocide. Fad (ix) 15:34, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

To sum up, Fadix I'd understand if you denied all these references, because they conflict with your claims. I'm also skeptical about all the references but there's a fact that after a 30 month investigation, Malta case dropped because there was nothing that can be considered evidence in a court of law. The fact that nothing was found in American archives discredits Ara Sarafian's referenced work and authors that refer to them. The government who published Blue Book admitted that it was no evidence. Aram Andonian's work claims to show telegrams by Talat Pasha ordering a genocide. But court finds no evidence against Talat Pasha. In what position does this put all your peer-reviewed publications that refer to these sources as solid proof of what happened?

As I have documented above, there was no such thing as a Malta tribunal, this is a total fabrication, and the only Turkish author you really researched the matter also confirms there was no such a thing. Denying you say? This article is meant to be an encyclopedic article, which should be documented based on published works and not some fabrications found in sites such as tallarmeniantale. Sorry. Fad (ix) 15:00, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Fadix you claim to document everything very well. In our hands all references have little meaning to you while your side is always very well documented!!. You can claim that Malta Tribunal never existed but also sources that support your idea tell that "After the end of the war, some 150 Turkish war criminals were arrested and interned by the British Government on the island of Malta" and released including one of the sources you quoted. (Rare Books and Manuscripts Division, New York Public Library, Astor, Lenox and Tilden Foundations.) without referring to something called Malta Tribunal. So let's called it something else not Malta Tribunal if it's going to make you happy. Also check "Special Collections of the John Vigen Der Manuelian Research Library, Genocide Oral History and Photo Archives, and Digital Collections of the Center for Armenian Research and Publication at The University of Michigan-Dearborn" They claim to have

"British Foreign Office Dossiers on Turkish War Criminals, a collection of British documents published by Vartkes Yeghiayan on various perpetrators and agents of the Armenian Genocide who were rounded up by the British and interned on the island of Malta pending trial. Finally, we also have the actual microfilm copies of the British records on the Malta internments. " Still claiming it never existed? I'm sure you documented it very well. Let's say I don't prefer your approach. I'd assume that you know that Dennis R. Papazian is the Director of the Armenian Research Center: University of Michigan-Dearborn. He's an Armenian Scholar. So it is not something you can try to coverup by saying 'It is some Turkish author's claim'.

Do you have some comprehention problems? Did you actually read what I wrote above?(not the one following your answer, but the long text above) If you haven't you should. No one denies there was Malta prisoners, you claimed there was a Tribunal, which isen't true, you claimed people were released because there was no evidence of perpetrated massacres, and I have provided various British sources above as well as Turkish which contradict this claims. Read what others have written before pressing on edit. Fad (ix) 19:22, 20 April 2006 (UTC) Fadix British occupied Istanbul and arrested 144 high ranked officers. You're claiming that they couldn't walk into a room (archives) and read documents.

Certainly not. First of all you're not pointing to any resources for several paragraphs above. But for the moment I'll assume they're right and move on. You claim that these people were released because Turkish government promised a trial, or for exchange. Many of the released people visited other countries. If your claim had been true they would have been arrested and put to trial for war crimes in a foreign country. I think one example suffices for this, Talat Pasha was not assasinated on Turkish soil.Also just think about how law system works before doing copy-paste jobs from several weblogs to document your claims without any basis.

1. Accusations lead to arrests, and detention if necessary for the sake on investigation. Of course accusation is not enough to find defendant guilty, thus

2. Prosecution puts together documents to prove defendant guilty in a court of law.

3. Sometimes there's not enough proof for a trial which leads to the end of a trial before it starts.

Try to fit your story into these facts.

1. People were accused and they were taken into custody in Malta.

2. Something happened for 30 months, British goverment prepared documents against people in custody

3. They were released.

Even if I buy your claim for part 3 your statement "There never was any prosecution, pre-trial investigation, or interrogatory" is not justifiable. What happened in almost 3 years? Why did British put together those documents that are also available in University of Michigan? For the fun of it? If there was no pre-trial investigation why were these guys in detention. You referred to documents saying "it is evident that...", "it is obvious that..." and referring to other Telegrams. So lovely.. Talat Pasha was in Malta for almost 3 years. What was wrong with Andonian's telegrams? If they had been authentic why would nobody use it as evidence against Talat Pasha and prosecute him before Turkish government started bargaining about prisoner exchange?? What could have made a better case against him then orders given by himself? There was never a case because there was no serious evidence. Otherwise there would be a trial in Malta or those people would be arrested in a foreign country and prosecuted for war criminal charges against them. I refrained from giving references in this document on purpose because especially on a website it is not possible to verify the authenticity of referenced documents.

Talat Pasha was never held in Malta by the British - he fled directly to Germany two or three days after the Mudros Armistice. He was never held by the British. Neither did the British ever make any attempt to prosecute those that were held in Malta. There had been a great deal of debate on what to do about the Turks responsible for the Armenian Genocide. While there was consensus that they must be tried for their crimes there was no historical precident to do so. The Ottomans made it clear that they wished to prosecute the Turkish perpetrators under Ottoman Law and Ottoman Parlimentary inquiries were begun which eventually led to the Ottoman Military Tribunals. By this time the Allies were divided amongst themselves on a great number of issues and cold come up with nothing better then allowing the Turks to prosecute their own (and with Talat, Enver and Jemal already fled to Germany the idea of an international trial (also never having been done before) had lost some of its luster). The Brits became apauled at the high rate of escapism from the Ottoman jails where security was quite lax and where those guarding the prisoners were sympathetic to them. All kinds of laxity and abuses prevailed. In a surprise move the British siezed the prisoners and transfered them to Malta - primarily just to prevent them all from escaping. There was never any actual attempt made on the part of the British or any ally to try and prosecute these people. --THOTH 15:07, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

This is turning into word games. The source I mentioned above is an Armenian source even it calls it a pending trial. These guys were interned for 30 months and British collected evidence against them during this period. Even your references name them British Foreign Office Dossiers on Turkish War Criminals prepared during Malta internments. This kind of internments are to prevent people from escaping so they can be taken to trial. You said yourself it was to prevent them all from escaping. Because people think they would escape from prosecution. If no trial was being planned what did the British government think these guys would escape from? What was the goal to keep them under custody? To take them to a court of law. To collect evidence and prosecute them and making sure that they don't escape during this period. If not what? To give them food and shelter for 30 months??? And 30 months is a lot of time to put together a case. If you still can't, you turn it into a political issue in the future. Compare it with any trial or anything that couldn't lead to trial due to lack of evidence even in today's law. You write to a book and name it Malta .... Refrain from using the word court, trial, tribunal etc. but give the meaning that there was an accusation, plaintiff (armenian and british side bringing charges), defendant(144 ottoman officials), internment and release. And last, this is even in wikipedia, Talaat Pasha, assassinated by Soghomon Tehlirian on March 15, 1921. He was released with a 'not guilty' verdict by the German Court in June 1921 .

Fadix when it comes to discrediting references, I'm amazed by your talent. I'm telling you that Turkish archives are accessible, and it doesn't take half an hour for you to claim that some document was not available. Website and documents are either Turkish translations or in Arabic letters and archive holds millions of documents. Text search is basic and not good to pinpoint what you're looking for. Also not all the documents are available online. So be reasonable... At least wait a week or so before you claim something is not among the documents to be more plausible.

Dont bother, Fadix and his sidekick THOTH are highly biased on this issue, trying to convince them of facts that dont suit their agenda is like talking to a wall. Unlike yourself, they dont approach this subject in good faith and so my advice is to not bother wasting your time! 85.1.201.43 05:29, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Here's some proceedings that are easily accessible from many sources including Armenian sources. Soghomon Tehlirian trial

DISTRICT ATTORNEY — The defendant testified that the massacres took place just outside the city limits of Erzinga. I am informed that, after the caravan had gone quite a distance from Erzinga, armed Kurdish bandits attacked the caravan in a pass and even many Turkish gendarmes were killed trying to protect the caravan. Would the defendant please answer whether or not they were attacked by Kurdish bandits?

DEFENDANT — I was told that it was the Turkish gendarmes who opened fire on us.

ASST. D.A. — You were "told"??

earlier in the trial --------

DEFENDANT — As soon as the order was issued, on the outskirts of the city, they divided the people into groups and marched them off in caravans.

PRESIDING JUSTICE — Who accompanied the caravans?

DEFENDANT — Gendarmes, cavalry, and other soldiers.

PRESIDING JUSTICE — How did your parents, brothers and sisters die?

DEFENDANT — As soon as the group had gone a little distance from the city, it was stopped. The gendarmes began to rob us. They wanted to take our money and anything else of value that we had.

PRESIDING JUSTICE — Therefore, even the soldiers were robbing the deportees?

DEFENDANT — Yes.

DEFENDANT — While we were being plundered, they started firing on us from the front of the caravan.

--- So earlier in the trial defendant is quite sure that it was accompanying Turkish soldiers who killed his family and gives all the details but the very same day, during cross examination he confesses that "he was told that they were Turks". When he stumbles over the question and contradicts with himself defense attorney comes with the help and speaks on defendant's behalf,

NIEMEYER (DEFENSE ATTORNEY) — I believe we can resolve the question of the Kurds this way. The principal modus operandi of the Turkish massacres was to arm the mountainous Kurds, the arch-enemies of the Armenians, as gendarmes to watch over the Armenians.

I don't understand what you are trying to say here. Clarify Fad (ix) 18:30, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Clarification with another example, defendant testifies, me and my friend were walking on the street. 1 guy approached us and beat my friend, hit him in the head with a baseball bat. Defense Attorney asks - What did the guy look like? Defendant - He was a tall guy with blue eyes and black hair, well built and he had a mustache, he was about 6'. 10 minutes later District Attorney starts cross examination by asking "Was this a man who did these to your friend". Defendant says - I was told that he was a man. District Attorney rests.

You are twisting things up. don't make me quote the sentences in which Tehilirian refers to how he considered Talaat as being responsable of the massacres. Shall I? Fad (ix) 15:00, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Fadix please quote. What I quoted is actually there and there's a conflict. Because he tells every detail about soldiers and things that he claims to have seen at close proximity. Then he says "he was told".

FIRST OF, the Tehlirian trial isen't mentioned in the article as evidence, so you bringing it up here has nothing to do with the article. Second, your analogy doesn't make sense as I have stated. Here is how Tehlirian knew about Talaat involvement as he says during the first day of the trial:

PRESIDING JUSTICE — Who was considered responsible for these barbaric acts?

DEFENDANT — I found out who the authors of these acts were from the newspapers, while I was in Constantinople.

Tehlirian is mixing informations which is something quite common when interrogating a victim. The newspapers in question are those covering the Military court in Constantinople while he was there during its precedings.

Here, he r4econfirm what he said:

PRESIDING JUSTICE — Then did you come to the conclusion that Talaat Pasha was the author of the massacres?

DEFENDANT — When I was in Constantinople, I became convinced that he was the person responsible from reading the newspapers.

He reconfirm again:

DEFENSE ATTORNEY VON GORDON: — I would also like to ask the defendant whether or not he had read in the newspapers that Talaat Pasha had been condemned to death for these massacres by the Court Martial in Constantinople?

DEFENDANT — Yes, I had read that. I was also in Constantinople when Kemal, one of the authors of the massacres, was hanged. On that occasion, it was written in the papers that Talaat and Enver were also condemned to death.

The, 'I was told' is not some rumors, it wasn't clear for him who exactly killed his entire family when it happened, it is obvious, from his testimony, he say he list consciousness after being hit. This 'I was told' in no way has any relevency here, since Tehlirian isen't even used as evidences in this article, neither the 'I was told' discredit his own testimony. The guy in his two month stays in Constantinople as he says, read the newspapers, and those newspapers covered cases in which the gendarms under the pretext of protection escorted the convoys to commit robery and killings. This 'I was told' could have very well been what he read in thos newspapers, what the hell does it change to the fact that he was the only survivor of his family and one of the few of his hometown? Again, I don't see the relevency of your point. If you are trying to imply something which you think is relevent to the article, don't implky say it directly. Fad (ix) 19:22, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Fadix documents say that Defense Attorney used insanity defense. Thus proceedings are not good sources for anything. I found the insanity defense issue recently which undermines both of our claims. I didn't mention this in any way related to the article. Because I'm sure you've heard about assasination of the Mayor of Van (Bedros Capamajian) by Karakin of Tashnak committees and the path that leads to it. I can cite sources which you would not believe, so I'm not even going to bother. These documents claim that Armenians were also harmed by Armenian bandits to frame Turks and cause aggression to start a revolt. "I was told" part might have been related to something like this.

I will stop there. You still weren't able to convince me that this 'debate' had anything to do with the article. Secondly, you are mixing 1915 with the Hamidian era, thirdly, what claim did I make which was undermined here? Forthly, are you actually claiming that Armenian 'revolutionaries' were the ones having destroyed his hometown? If so, don't even bother answering because you will be ignored. Fiftly, I have above documented the Malta cases by using records from Turkish and British sources, yet you have claimed I did not document, don't waste my time and don't pull my legs. And finally, that you believe that Talaat was detained in Malta is an indication that you have no clue of what you are talking about, read the issue, concentrate on what there is in this article which you think should not be there, or what you think should be added then come back. Good day. Fad (ix) 02:51, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

My point was there's something fishy about this your claim was no, there isn't he hears about even Talaat Pasha being executed on a newspaper, so he can be misinformed. My response is He can be misinformed about Talaat Pasha but how can he be "told" what he claims to have seen with his own eyes later I concluded that there's no need to debate this because looking for a clue in this is (no matter what the claim is) pointless if there's an insanity defense.

His testimony was clear, he never says about who exactlly killed those people, but that they were actually killed, he was hit without knowing who hit him and lost consciousness and his body was found with the body of deaths, he later regained consciousness. Those are clear in the testimony. The insanity defense was build around the thesis that he became insane after what happened to him and all the blooed he saw and his entire family with the very large majority of his town being killed. I really don't see what is your point, and I don't see what is fishy there. His testimony doesn't have much contradications given that the guy lost his entire family and ended up on the floor left to be death with the bodies of people. Fad (ix) 18:35, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Fadix also don't twist what I meant. I said when I document things you say 'there's no such thing' in that case I can use the same argument against you to be fair. In the end you copy-paste paragraphs from various websites and they refer to some British documents which neither one of us saw and you accuse me of doing the same thing using some other websites which conflict with the ones you use. So we both say that we documented things but they don't make any of the claims proven. Also there's no need to go back to 1894-1897 period. This whole issue is initiated by Armenian Revolutionaries in a hope to establish an Armenian state in eastern Turkey.

What have I copypasted, the thing I copypasted was something I myself wrote, the reference provided in that material, I took them from published materials. Your last point, I won't answer. You aren't saying anything having relevency with the article. Fad (ix) 18:35, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Their bandits and support for Russian army led to deportations. You need to be put your bias aside and be fair. Read about the other side of the story a little bit from the sources of the other side.

What is the relevency of your beliefs here? The article contains a large section regarding the Turkish government position. Fad (ix) 18:35, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Make your own judgement. There are a lot of people who didn't suffer from this, I personally had 3 Armenian classmates in college in Istanbul.

I made my judgement, you can hardly find any Diasporan Armenian that hasn't lost a close relative, so ' a lot' is your interpretation and has no relevency here. Fad (ix) 18:35, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

When people revolt, it is hard to identify who does that. Measures are taken against everyone. Imagine a curfew. It is for the entire population in the area, not revolutionaries only. Deportations were necessary. Consequences were sad.

Who cares what you believe, and what is the relevency of your belief with the article?

Wikipedia needs some of the pages changed especially the ones that try to claim that Russian-Armenian alliance never existed.

Try to claim? I repeat, there is a large section exposing the Turkish government position. Fad (ix) 18:35, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Quoting "Unlike the Armenians, the Jewish population of Germany and Europe did not agitate for separation. Armenian scholars reply that Holocaust deniers make similar false claims, namely the Jews agitated to destroy Germany by allying with the Soviet Union to bring Bolshevism into Germany." Turkish claim is not a claim, it is a proven fact. Even Armenian sources don't deny."The Armenians under the Russian control devised a national congress at October of 1917.

That's what various scholars reply(who changed it to 'Armenian'?). A Claim is a position, a position is a position, claiming it more is simply unencyclopedic. Fad (ix) 18:35, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

The convention in Tiflis was concluded in September of 1917 with delagates from former Romanov realm (203), which 103 belonged to the Armenian Revolutionary Federation-Dashnaktsutyun."

In 1917, most of Anatolian Armenian population has been killed and the rest being chassed away. What is the relevency here regarding what Russian Armenians who fought for their Tsar has anything to do here? Fad (ix) 18:35, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

read the rest on The First Armenian Republic Page. Here's another pointless sentence "Ottoman Empire troops under the 4th Army, which Mustafa Kemal had commanded the same army between 1916—1917, crossed the border in May 1918 and attacked Alexandropol" What does this mean? Yes, he was the commander of that army 1 year before. Why mention? What's the relevance? In another article by Armenian sources it is claimed that Mustafa Kemal was the commander while in reality Kazim Karabekir was the commander. Lots of things in Wikipedia about Armenian issues not just genocide are pure bias/distortion with intent to blame people who were even unrelated to what happened and they belong in POV forks at best.

No relevency. Discuss about the article please. Fad (ix) 18:35, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Pardon the interruption, LINK of this article to Turkey Article

Hello, I am sure this has been disussed ad nausem but here it is again. I wanted to insert ANY link into the Turkey article regarding the Armenian Genocide. I put it into the section "See Also" but its become an edit war, I know, big surprise. Is there a link to the ongoing contraversy regarding Armenian Genocide recognition (if not, can one be created)and would it be appropriate in the article on Turkey? Please don't rip me with that belongs on that talk page because I do think its a relevant discussion in here. Cheers!Tom 14:39, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the articles are linked - but they certainly should be. I have no doubt that Turks and Turkish sympathysers in the Turkey article don't want this piece of Turkish history to be noted...hopefully more rational folks can get involved...thanks for letting us know...--THOTH 02:30, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

It seems obvious to me that they wouldnt want to include any fictious rubbish to be included in the article on Turkey!

Mesrob II's statements in Erciyes University

Mesrob II was the honour guest in the conference in Erciyes University. His statements about the massacras may show us the right way in this discussion. As the religious leader of Armenians in Turkey he stated that both Armenians and Turks (in addition to foreign countries)were responsible in the events. I will provide the English text of his speech soon.--Hattusili 17:09, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeh! the same sort of religious figure as those fanatic Rabbis who also blame the Jews for their unfidelity to Yaveh and which according to them was punished through the Holocaust, or the Armenian Priest who claims that Armenians could have sperred themselves the fate of the genocide had they been more fidel to the Church. I spare you the rest of the story, or how much the Armenians have waited before obtaining the financing to build the church destroyed by the Earthquake in Turkey and how much @ kissing it took. But if indeed a religious figure's word are relevent to a historic article, I should find a Turkish card reader who recognize the genocide too. :) Fad (ix) 17:11, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Mesrob II is nothing but a political lackey of the turkish government. He has no credibility. 30-40,000 quasi-Armenians do not need a Patriarchate anyhow, it should be abolished...Here's a good article written by the most uber liberal Armenian party: http://lalettre.hayway.org/protected/en/communique00010111.html --Eupator 15:32, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Do you guys really do this distinction between armenians in diaspora and armenians in Turkey? why is that? --Gokhan 17:00, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

As you see I did not mention anything about his religious position because it means nothing to me but he is an important figure for Armenians living in Türkiye. In addition he said nothing about infedility. I do not understand why you are so biased even against Armenians.--Hattusili 17:38, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

These people are more Turkish than Armenian. I mean they are as much Armenian as your average Turk in Western Anatolia is Greek...--Eupator 17:56, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

"However, since Ataturk's Europeanization drive, the traditional Turkish scimitar has been replaced by more sophisticated methods with the very same ultimate goal - to drive the original inhabitants of the land into oblivion." And this is Armenians most liberal party? --A.Garnet 18:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Turkification - FrancisTyers 10:53, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I dont see what purpose that links serves. Is it meant to prove Turks drive "original inhabitants of the land into oblivion"? --A.Garnet 18:57, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Genocide denial

I just reverted a very rude genocide denial attempt, the umpteenth of the denial attempts, that rewrote the intro and deleted all the photographs. Lately I have been busy with the minimization of another genocide, but I will get back to this very important history article in the future. gidonb 18:36, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Welcome - I am looking foreward to your contributions here...--THOTH 02:13, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Orhan Pamuk

Charges against Orhan Pamuk were not brought by the government, they were brought by the Turkish Attorney General which is independent of government. I tried to revise it, but my changes were later removed.

Things may work differently in Turkey, but I know in the US the Attorney General is appointed by the President and prosecutes and functions as part of the executive branch. Fightindaman

In Turkey judicial system is independent of goverment as in most European Countries (Turkey's judicial system has been based on the Swiss Civil Code). Charges brought against Orhan Pamuk is not in the control of government, it's solely the decision of independent prosecutors. As it stands, what's written in the article with regard to Orhan Pamuk is factually wrong.

So how does one become Attorney General in Turkey? If one is either elected or appointed by an elected official then I would say that it is still acting as part of the government. It enforces the law of the government, it is PART of the government. It may be given considerable freedom from the other branches, but it is still part of the government. Also, please sign your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~) at the end. Thanks. Fightindaman 17:36, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Charges against Orhan Pamuk were brought by "Hukukçular Birliği"(Jurists Association). It is a NGO and its leader is Kemal Kerinçsiz a right-wing activist. --Hattusili 02:14, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

TAT link

Why do you keep removing TAT link? Why are you afraid of it so much?

Because the guy has been exposed as a falsifier and a liar. Why do you persist on keeping such a link?--MarshallBagramyan 01:56, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Why are you afraid of letting others decide it themselves? Truth hurts: TAT exposes the tall Armenian tale.

Really? So here's a quote I plucked from his website:

"Wholly opportunistic the Armenians have been variously pro-Nazi, pro-Russia, pro-Soviet Armenia, pro-Arab, pro-Jewish, as well as anti-Jewish, anti-Zionist, anti-Communist, and anti-Soviet - whichever was expedient." John Roy Carlson (Arthur Derounian), "Cairo to Damascus" Alfred A. Knopf, New York, 1951, p. 438

Here's the real quote that Mr. Holdwater, as he is known, altered to his liking:

"Wholly opportunistic, Dashnag politics have been variously pro-Nazi, pro-Russia, pro-Soviet Armenia, pro-Arab, pro-Jewish, as well as anti-Jewish, anti-Zionist, anti-Communist, and anti-Soviet--whichever was expedient."

The Dashnak party is the one that has problems with being consistent, not Armenians but the author of this website sees it more fit to demonize them as a whole, falsify work, use terms such as 'Soviet' in an era where it didn't exist, etc. whatever floats the boat. Or how he uses people such as (*EDIT*) von Bronsart, a German general in Turkey at the time. I think got confused by the statements since they start out with the with same analogy and make similar claims.

"Namely, the Armenian is just like the Jew, a parasite outside the confines of his homeland, sucking off the marrow of the people of the host country. Year after year, they abandon their native land like the Polish Jews who migrate to Germany to engage in usurious activities. Hence the hatred which, in a medieval form, has unleashed itself against them as an unpleasant people, entailing their murder."

Yes, that's right we're scared of a liar. Do you still think we should include the website?--MarshallBagramyan 23:27, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Holdwater AKA Torque still hasn't removed it after I have pointed to him the substitution of the word dashnak politics. Now he claims that there are two versions after I have repeated him repeatdly that it is indeed 'dashnak politic.' BTW, those are not Bristol's words, those are Bronsart words. That's what Bristol said: "The Armenians are a race like the Jews; they have little or no national feeling and have poor moral character." This is nothing compared to what else he said. Fad (ix) 23:07, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello there, I read the article and I believe that it is very biased against the Turks. I am not an expert on the subject but I know enough about the subject to know that the two strongest supporters of the so called genocide (British "Blue Book" and Ambassador Morgenthau's memoirs) have been rebuffed. I seriously think that this should be taken into consideration before producing an anti-Turkish article. --85.103.194.83 14:19, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. It might be worth noting that you are in Turkey, and likely a Turk. - FrancisTyers 16:48, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Francis, I dom't think in this cases it makes any differences. It makes a differences if he is this anonymous user that keep coming back and disturb the place. BTW, is it really necessary to have all the US states that recognize it by their names? Just why not to say, 39 of them? Fad (ix) 17:09, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

You got to be a bit more specific. Morgenthau's memoirs and the Blue Book testimonials have been challenged and attempted to be debunked. The former is claimed to be written by ghostwriters and the latter on the premise that since Lord Bryce's account of German atrocities against Belgians was error-ridden, then so would the Blue Book. But from what I've heard, those claims have been have been rebuffed by other scholars. I really don't see anything anti-Turkish in the article, bias maybe, but claims that this article is a rant against Turks are not well grounded and often made only by the Turks themselves. Are you Turkish?MarshallBagramyan 16:53, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

NPOV Please!

I'm sorry but you cannot accuse everyone as nationalists who doesn't admit armenian genocide and you cannot praise anyone as intellectual who admits.Everyone has thinking freedom.So that must be removed.This article already includes too much propaganda facts.--Karaman 23:24, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Karaman, I guess you are talking about the term 'Turkish intellectuals' used. But this is not about praising, the reason why they are included is because intellectuals publish, and published works make their position as encyclopedically relevent. Those that do not support the thesis of genocide too are reffered to as intellectual. Fad (ix) 23:03, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Just what might it be that you have against the truth? --THOTH 20:02, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Western Scholars opposing genocide claims

The Position of Turkey should have a subsection listing Western Historians opposing genocide claims like Bernard Lewis (Princeton University), Roderic Davison (Central European University), J.C. Hurewitz (Columbia University), Guenter Lewy (University of Massachusetts), Justin McCarthy (University of Louisville), Stanford Shaw (retired UCLA Professor)...

Did you read the work of any of those people? Roderic Davison can not be really qualified as someone denying the Armenian genocide, I know Lewy suggest this, but here too he twist things up. While Davison is one of those having signed the advertisement and has recieved ARIT grants(Turkish government founded), in his cases it is very difficult to say who's position he maintains. Read for instance 'The Armenian crises 1912-1914,' we really don't know where he stand. Lewy should go there, but it should also be added that he denies that the Gypsies faced genocide in second World War, he denied that American Indians faced genocide, and has even gone as far as to say what they faced wasn't criminal, and finally was one of those few accademics who loadly denied US war crimes in Vietnam. Hurewitz recieved at least 10 ITS grants according to the list, and doesn't have much of anything published particularly about the event. Shaw has been accused of plagiating his major work on a Turkish scholar. Bernard Lewis before the introduction in his departement of the Ottoman history chairs, wrote in his major work 'Armenian Holocaust' before doing a 180 degree turn. Sure, they should be included, but Davison definitly doesn't go there as it is difficult to classify him, about Lewy, his previous position should also be mentioned. Of course, they all should be added, afteral it is not like there are hundreds, it is acceptable when a position is a minority the name of its supporters could be mentioned. Fad (ix) 02:42, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

The fact is that these scholars oppose genocide claims. As an anonymous person with no revealed credentials, your discrediting of these respected Princeton and Columbia professors has no bearing at all. You can question their motives all you want in another section but please don't twist the facts. Trying to discredit these respected individuals based on their grants is only a personal attack, it has no value. One should question quality of their work and this can be done only by other respected historians.

And how am I twisting the facts? Has Lewy not denied pratically all other genocides beside the Holocaust? He is on the restrictive list of those that still believe that the Holocaust is the only event that really qualify as genocide. This is relevent to the article, since the article is about a genocide. Lewis mention should also indicate that in his major book he uses the term 'Armenian Holocaust' before changing his opinion. Those are not twisting, those are not POV, I haven't writen Lewis book, he wrote it. Also the controversy about Shaw major book being a plagiate is also relevent. Fad (ix) 17:42, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

The above list is not exhaustive. Let me add a few more from that declaration: John Masson Smith, Jr. (UC Berkeley), James Stewart-Robinson (University of Michigan), Alan Fisher (Michigan Stale University), Thomas Naff (University of Pennsylvania), Rhoads Murphey (University of Birmingham). By the way, I want to point that these are all history professors unlike many so-called 'intellectuals' listed in the article.

No, adding the names from the declaration is not valide, because an important part of those there don't even deny the Armenian genocide, many have confirmed. And most of them have no publication about the issue in which they take any stance. The declaration goal was that research was needed about the issue and that archives should be opened. ATAA later has used it as a list of scholars who deny the genocide, when many were disturbed to learn that this declaration was to be published. Fad (ix) 17:42, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

What a ridiculous logic again. The fact is simple: If someone asks for an investigation then it means that they are not convinced that a genocide happened based on the evidence available. These scholars don't accept Armenian genocide claims, as simple as this.

These are brave scholars, they stand up and tell the truth in the face of powerful Armenian lobby. This requires courage. We all remember what happened to Stanford Shaw at UCLA. Armenian students burned his house threating his life. We all remember what happened to Heath Lowry at Princeton. Genocide obsessed Armenian lobby forced him to step down from his post through continuous harrasment.

By the way, where can I find the list historians supporting genocide claims excluding ethnic Armenians and the ones who work for Armenian funded institutions? I'm really curious. Can you give me a few names? I know Israel Charny. I want to read what others have to say.

You are a funny one. Search google book the term 'Armenian genocide' and 'Armenian massacre' search oxford journals databases, search Jstor databases etc. and compare those with the little fringe in the West who denies the Armenian genocide. The list is so exostive that I won't start giving names. There has been at least two petitions published as well. Fad (ix) 17:42, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Look who's talking. I was respectful so far in this conversation, but I understand that does not go a long way with you. Why don't you give a few names from that never ending list? Who's the top gun? The matter of the fact is, respected historians are against your thesis and the truth will stand.

Hey Fadix, your sidekick THOTH was salivating on a controversial documentary piece by Goldberg on the so called genocide. What he failed to mention was that most of the funding came form private Armenians and Armenian related organizations. Another big farce just like most of the pro Armenian scholars Lutherian 18:38, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

What I do of my money is my business, fund raising isen't an issue here, getting financed by a government is. But besides, I am not much requesting this to be included in the article. What should be included though is that Lewy also denies the Gypsies genocide, the American Indian genocide as well as the war crime against the Vietnamese. Those are relevent. Fad (ix) 19:10, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

No one who would term the Armenian Genocide as "so-called" has any business what so ever editing or really even being involved in this discussion. There is nothing "so-called" about it (and we have been over this a great many times before) - not only does it clearly meet every qualification for being considered as a genocide - but it is well documented that Ralph Lemkin - the inventer of the word - specifically has created the word to describe specifically what occured to the Armenians - as no such word existed before. He used the Armenian case as the pre-eminent example of such a thing as genocide. So considering this and considering that it meets each and every definition of such - UN, scholarly, and pretty much any other - there is and should be no question concerning categorization of these events as genocide - and the title of the article is consistent with the internationaly acceptance of such usage. Ther eis no debate - there is no argument - unless of course one would say that there is a debate whether or not the Holocaust occured - and bestow legitimacy on those who deny this genocide as well...other then this it is a non-issue or perhaps a "so-called" issue --THOTH 22:33, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Checkuser has already shown that Lutherian is the multiple IP user. But he has my respect when at least he sign with a login. He do have the right to call it 'so-called.' Fad (ix) 22:55, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Certainly he has every right to believe in and speak about any fiction he so desires - with his buddies while playing backgammon and smoking his hooka at some sidewalk cafe along the Bosophorus...however we have more important things to concern ourselves with then responding to the tantrums of 5 year olds or their equivilant. I guess I have every right to go on an Astronomy page concerning the moon and claim that it is made of cheese or go on a geography page and claim that the earth is flat...or to contest that Hitler and his cronies killed 6 million Jews - I'm sure you would agree eh? --THOTH 01:56, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Well it's forbidden and even legally punishable to oppose the genocide in switzerland, I heard they're discussing similar thing in france. So in the near future that "little fringe in the West" opposing the "so exostive" list will be even smaller :) --Gokhan 17:57, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

From what I understand, the Armenian Genocide itself is not a subject of such laws. They only cover Holocaust denial. If the Armenian Genocide is ruled to apply to this, that is because the courts deem it falls within the perameters of the law - it is not because the law itself says that the Armenian Genocide cannot be denied. John Smith's 18:20, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Ottoman defeat against the Russians

I remember seeing on the PBS documentary that a contingent of Ottoman Armenians had defected to the Russian side, and Enver (rightly or wrongly) held them responsible for the defeat, should this not be highlighted as an important precursor? --A.Garnet 20:27, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

No, not unless someone has a reliable source that matches your recollection. A PBS documentary, given the contentious nature of the subject, isn't that. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:34, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps some of the more knowledgable editors can clarify this. It should definitely be included when talking about the Battle of Sarikamis. --A.Garnet 22:12, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I'll help you out anyway. I have a reliable source which says no such things. Huw Strachan has a six page account of the campaign in To Arms, pp. 722–729. The only Armenians mentioned by Strachan are those of Russian Armenia. And the only partisans are the Adzharis of the Çoruh valley, who suffered a great deal from Russian reprisals as a result. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:34, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Having re-watched the documentary, it states the Russian army consisted of an Russian Armenian division, within which there was a number of Ottoman Armenian defectors. --A.Garnet 22:48, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

There definitly is something to add about that, more in the context of the fear following the defeat in Sarikamis. I will see to that. Fad (ix) 22:57, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

The only relevance of any of this is in presenting the fact that the CUP used any and every act of defiance by any Armenian as ammunition in its hate campaign against Armenains as a whole - as a people. Any excuse - no matter how fictional - would do - to justify their pre-planned actions to ethnically cleans Anatolia of those whom they thought were a thorn in the side of the Turks - who were constantly apealing to outside (Christian) powers for relief from Ottoman Tyranny - whom stood in the way of their Pan-Turkick designs...what would be mor eimportant would be to include a whole list of quotes from leading CUP thinkers and leaders concerning their beliefs on how Armenians were parasitic and/or tuberculor bodies bringing down the Turkish purity...and other racist denigrating viewpoints...all the while they scapegoated the problems of the Empire - their failure to properly govern, to right the economy as promissed and so on and so forth - all the while as they conspired to deprive Anatolia of its Armenians and steal their wealth...this is more relevant and factual...if Enver's deranged claims are to be included they should be included in the context that they were made...as ammunition - right or wrong - but just another excuse to justify the evil that they had already put into motion...--THOTH 02:05, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Who talked about justifying anything? The defeat on Sarikamis is as important as the German winter defeat in the Soviet front after which the concentration camps were transformed into killing factories. Sarikamis defeat is really relevant and important. About the CUP beliefs, there are various theories about the factors, reasons and the circumtances that lead to the genocide, and the racial theory isen't much developped in notable publications. When I am talking about racial I mean not in the ethnic sense of the term but racism as it was seen in Europe. Even Dadrian in his paper on Turkish physicians implication in the genocide say that a differences with the Holocaust is that the Armenian genocide was absent of racism, since the Armenians were Turkified and many Armenian women were forcedly transfered in another group, the original theories of racism are uncompatible there. The work from a Turkish scholar I sent you, supporting the racial thesis on the genocide, while interesting is still not what most who support the thesis of genocide adhere too. I for one, don't see how a racial theory was necessary for the genocide to happen it could have helped but it doesn't provide anything not explained by the more notable thesis, the Armenians were there, they were problematic, and their presence was a major problem uncompatible with every major plans set by the Young Turk regime. There nationalisation of the economy was impossible, Armenians were controling the economy on the East. Armenians were a distinct group with a distinct language and religion and 'unturkifiable,' they were the pretext of continuous foreign intervention. They were a threat (not in the sense of attacks, but their existance in Anatolia) by their existance as being the Turks competitors for the same homeland..., those factors and many others coupled with Envers megalomanic ambitions and those amplified by the defeat in Sarikamis the Turkish autorities turned back against the Armenians and gained public support in doing so. Those are factors supported by most, racial theories on the other hand can not be presented equaly, but rather as a suggestion by some authors. But we've been already there. The point here is not what you believe being the cause of the genocide, but rather each different positions, and which position is maintained by most which should be highlined. Armenians were indeed called parasits, tuberculosis..., but thise hasn't prevented those same autorities to forcedly transfering women and dividing in the orphanged who were too young to remember (having killed the rest) and distributing them to Turkish families. Fad (ix) 04:00, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Facts

WWI started at 1914
Armenians rebel at 1915
Ottoman Empire deported Armenians
Armenian Genocide was claimed
Ottoman Military Court tried Armenian Genocide
British Court tried Armenian Genocide
Both courts couldn't find any evidence
The Repuclic of Turkey was founded
Turkey offered to make an Armenian-Turk comisson which will look at archives for the claim of Armenian Genocide
The Repuclic of Armenia didn't accept it
US Congress recognized the Armenian Genocide in a suspicious way without showing any evidence

Archive facts:
There wasn't any systematical murder of Armenians
1.3 million of the "death" 1.5 million Armenians were alive and the rest died because of famine and diseases and some of them were killed whent they fighting at war

So?..
--Lonewolf94 (talk) 16:24, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

It's a shame that your knowledge of facts does not match with the reallity of their existance. In addition you lack references always!

You may discuss, argue, try to convince yourselves in anything that the Turkish official podition says but here are some relevant facts for you:

1) The issue of the connection to the war; citation from IAGS (I'd recommend you read who they are):

On April 24, 1915, under cover of World War I, the Young Turk government of the Ottoman Empire began a systematic genocide of its Armenian citizens – an unarmed Christian minority population.

2) This was also an answer to your claim of "rebellion".

3) For your use of the word claim; citation from IAGS:

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

4) For your falcification of what courts found; citation from IAGS:

The Armenian Genocide is abundantly documented by thousands of official records of the United States and nations around the world including Turkey’s wartime allies Germany, Austria and Hungary, by Ottoman court-martial records, by eyewitness accounts of missionaries and diplomats, by the testimony of survivors, and by decades of historical scholarship.

These citations are from the Open Letter of the most reputable assotiation for genocide scholars ("The International Association of Genocide Scholars") to the Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan as an answer to his letter to the same association. Here is the main body of the letter:

Dear Prime Minister Erdogan:
We are writing you this open letter in response to your call for an “impartial study by historians” concerning the fate of the Armenian people in the Ottoman Empire during World War I. We represent the major body of scholars who study genocide in North America and Europe. We are concerned that in calling for an impartial study of the Armenian Genocide you may not be fully aware of the extent of the scholarly and intellectual record on the Armenian Genocide and how this event conforms to the definition of the United Nations Genocide Convention. We want to underscore that it is not just Armenians who are affirming the Armenian Genocide but it is the overwhelming opinion of scholars who study genocide: hundreds of independent scholars, who have no affiliations with governments, and whose work spans many countries and nationalities and the course of decades. The scholarly evidence reveals the following:
On April 24, 1915, under cover of World War I, the Young Turk government of the Ottoman Empire began a systematic genocide of its Armenian citizens – an unarmed Christian minority population. More than a million Armenians were exterminated through direct killing, starvation, torture, and forced death marches. The rest of the Armenian population fled into permanent exile. Thus an ancient civilization was expunged from its homeland of 2,500 years.
The Armenian Genocide was the most well-known human rights issue of its time and was reported regularly in newspapers across the United States and Europe. The Armenian Genocide is abundantly documented by thousands of official records of the United States and nations around the world including Turkey’s wartime allies Germany, Austria and Hungary, by Ottoman court-martial records, by eyewitness accounts of missionaries and diplomats, by the testimony of survivors, and by decades of historical scholarship.
[....] We note that there may be differing interpretations of genocide—how and why the Armenian Genocide happened, but to deny its factual and moral reality as genocide is not to engage in scholarship but in propaganda and efforts to absolve the perpetrator, blame the victims, and erase the ethical meaning of this history.
We would also note that scholars who advise your government and who are affiliated in other ways with your state-controlled institutions are not impartial. Such so-called “scholars” work to serve the agenda of historical and moral obfuscation when they advise you and the Turkish Parliament on how to deny the Armenian Genocide. In preventing a conference on the Armenian Genocide from taking place at Bogacizi University in Istanbul on May 25, your government revealed its aversion to academic and intellectual freedom—a fundamental condition of democratic society.
[....]

The details anybody may find at http://www.genocidescholars.org under the link [4].

5) To answer your lack of knowledge that it was Armenia offering dialogues and Turkey refusing I'll bring one example in relevance to the very issue you claim (though I can bring more, if you are interested). Armenia did not reject the offer but proposed a more broad committee, dearest Lonewolf94. Underlining the importance for cooperation of 2 neighboring states and solving the existing problems as did Erdogan in his letter to the Armenian President, Robert Kocharyan answers to the offer; citation from the answering letter to Erdogan for creating of a joint group of historians:

Your suggestion to address the past cannot be effective if it deflects from addressing the present and the future. In order to engage in a useful dialog, we need to create the appropriate and conductive political environment. It is the responsibility of governments to develop bilateral relations and we do not have the right to delegate that responsibility to historians. That is why we have proposed and propose again that, without pre-conditions, we establish normal relations between our two countries. In that context, an intergovernmental commission can meet to discuss any and all outstanding issues between our two nations, with the aim of resolving them and coming to an understanding.

You can find both of the documents here [5]. If you do not believe ("your eyes"), you may need to see a Turkish website for it to check, if you wish. maybe http://www.tesev.org.tr has the answer letter but I couldn't search for it.

6) Do you at least know how the US congress works and what was this issue? DO you know that this was one of the 3 similar cases of the US Congressional Committee? And what is "suspicious" for you? That nobody said a word agains the fact that it was a genocide (you can watch the records)? Or that those, who wanted to vote for the bill were called to the White House for a very long time so they couldn't vote for the bill? Or anything else? If you doubt any of these, just watch the record of the discussion.

Good luck in your researches Aregakn (talk) 01:41, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

FYI about how interested the Turkish government is in discussing this issue openly you can read this from the American Historical Association:

Dear Prime Minister Erdogan,

At its meeting last week, the Council of the American

Historical Association asked me to express to you its grave concern about the cancellation of the conference on “Ottoman Armenians during the Decline of the Empire: Issues of Scientific Responsibility and Democracy,” which was to be held at Bosphorus University on 25-27 May 2005.

As I am sure you are aware, this conference was to

bring together Turkish scholars from several disciplines in order to discuss the fate of the Armenian minority in the last years of the Ottoman Empire. The conference was called off following a number of attacks by leading politicians, including Cemil Cicek, the Minister of Justice. So intense and inflammatory were these criticisms that the conference organizers were justifiably concerned about the security of the participants.

The American Historical Association is the leading

organization of historians in the United States, with over 13,000 members, including a number of prominent scholars interested in Turkish and Ottoman history. Needless to say, the Association does not have a position on the fate of the Armenians, but it is deeply committed to free and open inquiry about historical issues, and especially about those issues that have been charged with political and ideological animosities. The May Conference was to have been a forum in which a variety of voices could have been heard. It is a grave misfortune, both for Turkey and for the world of historical scholarship, that political
pressures silenced these voices.

Full letter at [6] Aregakn (talk) 02:17, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit Request for the Introduction and Casulty Figures Section

{{editsemiprotected}}

The first part of the request is about the addition of the word "claim" to the initial paragraph:

The Armenian Genocide (Armenian: Հայոց Ցեղասպանություն, translit.: Hayoc’ C’eġaspanowt’yown; Turkish: Ermeni Soykırımı) – also known as the Armenian Holocaust, the Armenian Massacres and, by Armenians, as the Great Calamity (Մեծ Եղեռն, Meç Eġeṙn, Armenian pronunciation: [mɛts jɛˈʁɛrn]) – refers to the deliberate and systematic destruction (genocide) of the Armenian population of the Ottoman Empire during and just after World War I.[1] It was characterized by the use of massacres, and the use of deportations involving forced marches under conditions designed to lead to the death of the deportees, with the total number of Armenian deaths generally held to have been between one and one and a half million.[2][3][4][5][6] Other ethnic groups were similarly attacked by the Ottoman Empire during this period, including Assyrians and Greeks, and some scholars consider those events to be part of the same policy of extermination.[7][8][9]

Added version:

The Armenian Genocide (Armenian: Հայոց Ցեղասպանություն, translit.: Hayoc’ C’eġaspanowt’yown; Turkish: Ermeni Soykırımı) – also known as the Armenian Holocaust, the Armenian Massacres and, by Armenians, as the Great Calamity (Մեծ Եղեռն, Meç Eġeṙn, Armenian pronunciation: [mɛts jɛˈʁɛrn]) – refers to the claim of deliberate and systematic destruction (genocide) of the Armenian population of the Ottoman Empire during and just after World War I.[1] It was characterized by the use of massacres, and the use of deportations involving forced marches under conditions designed to lead to the death of the deportees, with the total number of Armenian deaths generally held to have been between one and one and a half million.[2][3][4][5][6] Other ethnic groups were similarly attacked by the Ottoman Empire during this period, including Assyrians and Greeks, and some scholars consider those events to be part of the same policy of extermination.[7][8][9]

As can be seen from this link [7] too that there is no consensus on the issue. It has been proposed in the reliable source noticeboard that BBC is a completely reliable source concerning the nature of a issue. I propose the use of either "claim of" or "dispute of" in the introduction to make the article little bit more neutral.

The second request is concerning the claim that Western scholars put the number at 1.5 million:

While there is no consensus as to how many Armenians lost their lives during the Armenian Genocide, there is general agreement among western scholars that over 500,000 Armenians died between 1914 and 1918. Estimates vary between 600,000 (per the modern Turkish state) to 1,500,000 (per Western scholars)[92] Argentina,[93] and other states). Encyclopædia Britannica references the research of Arnold J. Toynbee, an intelligence officer of the British Foreign Office, who estimated that 600,000 Armenians "died or were massacred during deportation" in the years 1915–1916.[94][95]

The reference used for 1.5 million figure which is numbered 92 in no way supports this. [8] What the source say is:

Armenia says Ottoman Turks killed 1.5 million people systematically in 1915 - a claim strongly denied by Turkey.

The 1.5 million figure is the accepted population number of Armenians before the WWI. They can be seen here: [9] There are only one or two Western sources that put a number above 1.5 million where one of them includes Armenians that are not in Ottoman Empire also(National Geographic). Though the National Geographic case is rather interesting as it gives a 2 million figure after the alleged incidents happened. The rest is claimed by Armenian sources only. So my proposed edition is simply to revert MarshallBagramyan's edit:

While there is no consensus as to how many Armenians lost their lives during the Armenian Genocide, there is general agreement among western scholars that over 500,000 Armenians died between 1914 and 1918. Estimates vary between 600,000 (per the modern Turkish state) to 1,500,000 (per Armenian scholars[92], Argentina and other states[93]). Encyclopædia Britannica references the research of Arnold J. Toynbee, an intelligence officer of the British Foreign Office, who estimated that 600,000 Armenians "died or were massacred during deportation" in the years 1915–1916.[94][95]

Edited sections are in bold. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 18:54, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Can someone also tell me how to do that horizontal line after title of a section? Thank you. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 18:56, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Not done: The editsemiprotected template is intended to allow non-autoconfirmed editors a way to edit a semiprotected article using any autoconfirmed editor as a proxy. You are autoconfirmed. Please stop misusing this template. In answer to your question, that line is part of a level two section heading. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 19:06, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I must have misread it then. Thanks for explaining.

Is there a way to make those edits I mentioned in detail and not have them reverted without any feedback other than calling them "propaganda." I'm sure someone will revert it without discussing or presenting any real evidence. I don't really want to spend time on this just to see that it gets reverted 10 seconds after the edit. What would you recommend? TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 19:17, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

All edits are subject to consensus, so any edit which goes against that consensus is unlikely to survive very long. Ideally, you should engage the other editors here and try to convince them that your change is reasonable or to find a compromise which is acceptable to everyone. Failing that, you can follow the different dispute resolution paths to get other editors' opinions. If all of the cooperative dispute resolution paths fail, you can take the issue to the arbitration comittee to decide one way or the other. Remember, the burden is on you to prove that the change improves the article, not the other way around. That is where the bold-revert-discuss cycle comes from; you are welcome to be bold, someone may (and did already, in this case) revert you, then a discussion starts here to prove that the change improves the article. Good luck, Celestra (talk) 19:38, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I see. So as I understand the arbitration comittee is the last resort. Do you think the dispute resolution path already failed? Or do you think it would be better to simply wait one or two days for people to input their views on the matter? As I have described the changes I want to do in detail but of course I can't take an argument like "This is propaganda. Denialist claims will not be allowed" as an input. I'm asking you these because I want to understand the admin point of view. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 19:44, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not an admin; I'm just another editor like yourself. I don't think you have exhausted the normal paths. If I were in your shoes, I would pick one issue and reduce the question to its simplist form and try to reach an agreement here. Your position that this should be called a claim, for instance. Find all the reliable sources which call it a claim and all the reliable sources that call it a fact and weigh them against each other. If no consensus is reached on that one issue, take that one issue to some dispute resolution noticeboard. And so on. Celestra (talk) 19:58, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

That's pretty much what I'm doing above. I listed explicitly why it's more appropriate to use the word dispute or claim. There isn't really a committee to decide on historical matters but if there is no consensus between historians which I also explicitly shown before then it must be regarded as a dispute and the verdict should be left to the reader. So I actually did that only to be told that denialist claims won't be allowed. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 20:02, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I thought you were a random IP for a second. Well, I will try to be more patient. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 20:07, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

You seem to have overlooked another answer, actually: that issue has already been addressed before. Have a look at the archives of this talk page. Sardur (talk) 20:22, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Only things I found is that there is no real substance against this issue being disputed. Would you so kindly point me the direction with a link? If that discussion addresses my points than I will accept it. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 20:27, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Consensus is allowed to change. Read the previous discussions and if they leave out something you think is important, start a new discussion. Regarding the change to add 'claim' to the lede, though, you would probably need to show that a large percentage of reliable sources questioned whether the thing occurred. See WP:UNDUE for guidance. You can search the archives using the tool at the top of the page. Searching with 'claim' and 'lead' produced a lot of hits for me. Celestra (talk) 21:13, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, I did that but the word "claim" is rather broad and used for a lot of things. Though I highly doubt that there is any argument against the fact that BBC calls it disputed and that a handful number of historians who actually specialize on this issue are disputing against the claims. Though, on second thought I think adding "dispute of" suits much better. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 21:47, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

You need to use both 'claim' and 'lead' at the same time. Depending on the percentage of reliable sources which express doubt, you might consider a sentence somewhere in the article about the doubt, or a section in the body and a sentence in the lede. "Foo bar is this event. Bogoish historians dispute whether this event occured." is much more neutral than "Foo bar is the claim that this event occurred." The word claim brings along a strong sense of falseness. Read WP:NPOV#Words to avoid. Celestra (talk) 22:18, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

That's why I changed it to the word "dispute." I understand how it sounds when the word "claim" is used though in a article that takes on one side I don't really know why it's use is denied. The introduction of the article leaves no space to the fact that the genocide claim is a disputed issue. There are a lot more historians out there, non-Turkish ones, than people think that there are. The important bit is that they're actually experts on the matter with a degree on either demographics, Turkish history, Ottoman history or Middle Eastern history.(The genocide scholars are made up of lawyers, some economists and some historians) If you actually eliminate the recognition by political organizations like EU or governments there are actually a handful of historians who support the genocide claims and who argues against these claims. The latter being little fewer is mostly because people do not read publications that argue against the claim and in the 70s and 80s there have been a global threat by ASALA to silence people. You might agree with me that governments or non history organizations recognizing it as genocide is simply a political factor and that it has no weight on the whole issue as a proof of truth. The introduction simply establishes that Turkey is wrong. If I can't use the word "claim" why can the word "deny" be used? The fact that this is a highly disputed issue has to be established in the introduction.

Also, do you have any opinions on the second part of the edit request? TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 00:46, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Dark, read my latter comments to the user having opened this discussion and you shall see how many and of what kind of scholars discuss what. If I write a PHD (being of non-armenian decent) that doesn't mean it's a prove. The answer to the letter of the PM Erdogan by IAGS clearly states that what you have been convinced in is fake. Pls read it [10]. If it shows you forbidden (it sometimes happens with sensored internet) I can send it to you or you can try t cheat the system otherwise. Aregakn (talk) 01:57, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Neither such websites are are censored in Turket nor I'm in Turkey. The link simply doesn't work. Here is a working one: [11] The IAGS is a joke. It's been 16 years since it's creation and it have only issued 5 statements. 3 of them are for so-called Armenian, Greek and Assyrian genocide and the rest two are Darfur and Zimbabwe. It's such a joke that a group claiming that they represent the major body of scholars and the foremost authority on genocide have only found the time to issue statements concerning those 5 of which 3 of them being about Turks. Apparently there have been only 5 genocides so far. Just take a look at it's key members; a law professor, a theologian, an anthropologist, an biography editor, a sociologist, a historian and an other law professor. There is only Helen Fein who is an historian. You expect me to take them as an authority in genocide issues? Their letter to Erdogan ignores even the most simple facts of the events. How can I take them seriously when they can't even get simple facts right? The letter in no way shows what I've convinced to be as fake. It's not being convinced but the facts that led me to believe otherwise. If I am to reach a verdict on an issue of history, I look at people who are experts in that certain era and the experts believe otherwise. There multiple letters to Western governments with more than 60 signatures of professors on Turkish studies involving Ottoman history. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 02:47, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit request for adding the "claim" word is important for this article. Also there is something more, this article tells Denial of Armenian Genocide as something bad. Whereas it is simply a defense. There are evidences that may prove Armenian Genocide but there are also evidences that prove that it doesn't exist. And IAGS and this article doesn't care these evidences. IAGS is really pathetic, they passed a formal resolution affirming the Armenian Genocide without fully considering the evidences and they lack historians-they are very important for telling the truth about sth happened in past. Besides it is certain that they only work for West. They didn't mention genocides that are done by Western nations. I also checked that letter. That letter has already reached a verdict that Armenian Genocide happened. It doesn't give Turkey a chance to defend itself and prove that it doesn't exist with history and archives. That's why Turkey didn't cooperate. This article also lacks information about Armenian-Turk relationships in Ottoman Empire and other aspects of this subject.--Lonewolf94 (talk) 07:43, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Since it was requested I will show a reference which tells mainly everything I have written so far about the claim of Armenian Genocide. Look at it carefully, [12] --Lonewolf94 (talk) 10:28, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

@TheDarkLordSeth: If you want to improve the article, I strongly recommend focusing on a single point which you feel is not handled well currently and try to form a consensus to improve that one point. The point you started with is the handling of any doubt about these events. Enumerate the reliable sources to see how many express uncertainty. Based on that, propose the best way to express that in the article. The current consensus appears to be that the uncertainty is very small and that that viewpoint is a fringe viewpoint; hence the use of the term denial. If you want to change that consensus, present evidence that the viewpoint is more widespread. Celestra (talk) 14:54, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I have already did that. I gave a list of historians who specialize on the matter and argue against the claims. I guess I need to do that again but I do not understand you telling me to look at previous discussions on the subject while ignoring my previous posts. But here it goes:

Some historians:

Justin McCarthy - Professor of History and Demographer, Louisville University. Ph.D. in history, University of California, Los Angeles.

Andrew Mango - Researcher, author and historian, University of London. PhD in Persian Literature, School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS).

Heath W. Lowry - Mustafa Kemal Ataturk Professor of Ottoman and Modern Turkish Studies, Princeton University.

Edward J. Erickson - Researcher, Birmingham University, retired Lieutenant-Colonel, PhD in Ottoman Military History, The Leeds University.

Gwynne Dyer - Historian, military analyst and journalist, Ph.D. in Ottoman military history, The King’s College London.

Arend Jan Boekestijn - Lecturer in history of international relations, History Department at Utrecht University, Netherlands.

Jeremy Salt - Ph.D., Middle Eastern History, Melbourne University, 1980. Middle Eastern Studies.

Michael M. Gunter - Professor of political science, Tennessee Technical University, PhD in International Relations, The Kent State University.

Eberhard Jäckel - Professor Emeritus of modern world history, Stuttgart University.

Guenter Lewy - Professor Emeritus of Political Science, University of Massachusetts-Amherst.

Stanford Shaw - Professor Emeritus of History, UCLA.

Norman Stone - Former professor of Modern History at Oxford and lecturer at Cambridge, adviser to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher.

Hew Strachan - Chichele Professor of the History of War, University of Oxford.

Brian G. Williams - Associate Professor of Islamic History at the University of Massachusetts at Dartmouth, PhD in Middle Eastern and Islamic Central Asian History. University of Wisconsin, Madison.

Gilles Veinstein - Professor, Turkish and Ottoman History, Collège de France.

Robert F. Zeidner - Ph.D. in Ottoman Military history. Universiy of Utah, Middle East Center.

An article from 1923 pointing out how if all the casualty reports are added up the number goes to 35 million:

[13]

An article where even though the writer believes in the genocide claims it refers to it as disputed and alleged:

[14]

Articles from a lawyer who specializes in international law.

[15], [16], :[17]

Sworn statement of an Armenian whose mother lived through WWI:

[18]

The BBC page for the issue:

[19]

Another article:

[20]

Declaration made by American Academicians(Yes there are some Turkish-Americans in the signature list, ignore them):

[21]

Another article:

[22]

Another article:

[23]

Of course the list goes on for historians, articles and also books. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 17:54, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

It's apparent with the usual new accounts always popping in the same time each year that April 24 is near. The same list of alleged scholars claiming the event as being one big myth. :) However, there appear to be one difference this year, Erik Zurcher mysteriously disappeared from the list, God knows why. It appears that after multiple attempts by some to educate that Erik Zurcher was not a denier of the Armenian genocide, the revisionists finally removed him from the list. But this year, we have a new figure, Arend Jan Boekestijnwho suddenly becoming expert on the question, but at the same time compleatly ignoring most of the major references on the subject, present in his bibliography but his article is writen in a way as if he had no knowledge of their content. For instance, he dedicates an entire paragraph about the 'government' in the 'government' to tell us why it can be considered as a genocide, and on just the next chapter he give the reasons why this government in a government took this decision of elimination the Armenians, justifying it. The rest has been addressed on various media, scholars are placed in such a black and white list, when during the last five years a new consensus was formed, when scholars like Zurcher and even Dadrian have agreed as well as several Western scholars of Turkish descent. But what takes the prize here is probably the claim of lawyer who specializes in international law, which is about Bruice Fein, who is the lawyer of the Assembly of Turkish American Associations and is representing Gunter Lewy in the multi-million dollar lawsuit against the Southern Poverty Law Center. Bruce Fein is also Schmidt ( (R-OH)'s attorney, who is implicated in the Turkish spy scandal sparked from Sibel Edmonds testimonies. I could go on, countering every piece of distortionand falshood, but it's simply a waste of time, as all of this has little to do with the content of the article itself, which already contains the name of the proponents of the minority position, and what this position is all about. Note that even Justin McCarthy admitted that the event being a genocide is the majority position. I don't believe having anything else to add. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zigzagzag (talk • contribs) 19:24, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Of course you would pick the smallest points to cast doubt on those individuals(if they're real). That would be like me arguing against Vahakn Dadrian because he was dismissed from his university due to multiple sexual harassment cases. Such low level arguments will not be used by me.

I explicitly stated that this list is incomplete. Erik Zürcher shares the opinion that the Aram Andonian documents are fake though I wouldn't add him to the list due to his position on the overall of the issue.

It's natural that there is a majority and a minority for the issue. It happens for every dispute. It's also natural that there are more scholars who support the Armenian claims as the Armenians put a lot more amount of money, people were threatened by ASALA and the fact that your books don't get sold if you argue against the genocide claims.

If you actually look at the historians that are experts on Ottoman history, I'm not even sure if you would find more of them accepting it as a "genocide." TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 20:13, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I request a change to the following section:

"It is widely acknowledged to have been one of the first modern genocides,[10][11][12] as scholars point to the systematic, organized manner in which the killings were carried out to eliminate the Armenians,[13] and it is the second most-studied case of genocide after the Holocaust.[14] The word genocide[15] was coined in order to describe these events.[16]"

I propose the following:

"The so called Armenian genocide is widely proposed to have been one of the first modern genocides,[10][11][12] as some scholars point to the systematic, organized manner in which the killings were carried out to eliminate the Armenians,[13] and it is the second most-studied case of genocide after the Holocaust.[14]. These claims are in turn also opposed and contradicted by many historians and experts making the subject highly disputable and the target for continuous debate."

As a refernce we can start with the list provided by Mr. heDarkLordSeth and continued with the list of scholars below.

I propose the removal of the sentence: "The word genocide[15] was coined in order to describe these events.[16]" It is clearly POV and related to a different era. I doubt the Armenians were in mind when they came up with the word.

Bernard Lewis - Princeton University

Norman Itzkowitz - Princeton University

Richard Robinson - Harvard University

David Fromkin - Boston University

Avigdor Levy - Brandeis University

Pierre Oberling - Hunter College

Roderic Davison - George Washington University

Michael Radu – PhD, Foreign Policy Research Institute

Stefano Trinchese - University of Chieti

Augusto Sinagra - University of Romae-Sapienza

Norman Stone - Bilkent University

Samuel A. Weems Hittit (talk) 21:00, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Your third paragraph is not even worth replying to (fancy conspirationist theories, in the face of evidences that there is documented cases of bribing of scholars by Turkey, like in Lowry's cases), as for your last, Ottoman Departments are not apolitical, everyone knows that since Heath W. Lowry scandal. Simply put, it's like expecting any Armenologist to deny the Armenian genocide, when their work is based on Armenian texts. Take Edward J. Erickson for instance and read his aknowledgements page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zigzagzag (talk • contribs) 20:58, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

What a joke. I strongly oppose any of these proposals, which would result in some cases in a removal of reliable sources. I will only quote (but there are a lot of similar quotes):

“

There can be no doubt about the fact of [Armenian] genocide itself. In this sense, the denial of the Armenian genocide is very similar to the denial of the Holocaust of the Jews.

”

— Yair Auron, The Banality of Indifference: Zionism and the Armenian Genocide. Transaction Publishers, 2000, p. 53. ISBN 0765808811.

And on top, see WP:UNDUE: the large majority of specialised and recognised historians qualify these massacres as a genocide. Sardur (talk) 22:12, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Can you provide a link to a quote by Lemkin stating explicitly that he coined the term to the Armenian genocide claim?

Also, can you provide a link or a list of historians who specialize in Ottoman history that support the genocide claims? I assume in reality you wouldn't ask a urologist if you have an ear infection. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 22:19, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I will do so when you will provide a ref stating that the people you listed here are recognised as reliable specialists on the Armenian Genocide. Sardur (talk) 22:26, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Sure.

Justin McCarthy' is both a demographer and a historian specializing in Turkish studies. He focuses on late Ottoman history and it's population. Has multiple publications explicitly on the issue.

Andrew Mango is also an historian who focuses on early years of the republic of Turkey and it's evolution from Ottoman state. He is know for his more realistic approach.

Heath W. Lowry is the director of Turkish studies in Princeton University. He doesn't really have a focus other than the Ottoman Empire as he's involved in studies starting from the creation of the empire to it's destruction with some focus on Christian population. Has publication explicitly on the issue.

Edward J. Erickson is the foremost authority in Ottoman military. I don't think we can find anyone who focuses on Ottoman military more than him. He has many works concerning the Ottoman military of WWI. Has multiple publications on the military of Ottoman Empire concerning the WWI era.

Gwynne Dyer has a Ph.D in Middle Eastern history and a MA in military history. He doesn't necessarily focuses on a singular era but he has extensive work on Middle Eastern history of mostly late eras. Has multiple publications on the issue.

Arend Jan Boekestijn is an historian who specializes in international relations. It's one of the weaker ones in the list.

Jeremy Salt is an historian who focuses on the last years of the Ottoman Empire. Has publication on the issue.

Michael M. Gunter specializes on Kurds(who were an important part of the issue) and other Middle Eastern issues. Has multiple publications on the issue.

Eberhard Jäckel is an historian who specializes in the Holocaust. Wrote a review and approved Guenter Lewy's book. I guess another weak one but crucial for the comparison of "Armenian Genocide to the Holocaust.

Guenter Lewy specializes in the Holocaust, "Armenian Genocide" and other such issues. Has multiple publications on this issue.

Stanford Shaw was one of the most involved non-Turkish Ottoman historian. He has multiple publications on this issue.

Norman Stone used to be an adviser to Margaret Thatcher and involved in WWI studies. He has multiple publications concerning this era.

Hew Strachan almost completely focuses on WWI and late European history(with a British focus). He has multiple publications on this.

Brian G. Williams specializes in Middle Eastern and Islamic history. He also studies various genocide cases.

Gilles Veinstein specializes in Ottoman and Turkish history. Has multiple publications explicitly on the issue.

Robert F. Zeidner specializes in Ottoman military history. Has multiple publications explicitly on the issue.

As you can see almost all of them explicitly specializes on the issue. Now I'm waiting answers to two of my questions from my previous post. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 23:36, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I asked for refs, not for your comments. Sardur (talk) 09:43, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Most of these "scholars" are obscure individuals who are deeply entwined with the Turkish state and its auxiliary sham "educational" institutions. None of them are beyond criticism and notorious deniers like McCarthy, A. Mango, S. Shaw, Salt, Lewy, and Lowry all have been roundly criticized for embarrassing demonstrations of shoddy scholarship by scholars, ranging from distortion of sources to selectivity to outright fabrications of quotations, whose backgrounds are precisely related to the study of the Ottoman Empire or Genocide/Holocaust Studies: Vahakn Dadrian, Speros Vryonis Jr., Richard G. Hovannisian, Robert Jay Lifton, Donald Bloxham, Robert Melson, Samantha Power, Israel Charney, Taner Akcam, Fatma Müge Göçek, etc. Donald Quataert, himself an Ottoman historian who acknowledges that a genocide took place and the former head of the Institute of Turkish Studies, was forced to resign from his position after the Turkish government realized that he was no longer going to toe the line that it has drawn for him.

You have to realize that all your endeavors to insert doubt regarding the genocide are nonnegotiable. We may disagree on semantics or numbers or some other secondary material but what are you doing is akin to inserting a line in the Holocaust article that "many respected scholars still doubt as to whether Hitler's objective was to exterminate the Jews" and that's unacceptable. But the past few weeks of this pointless discussion has failed to demonstrate that to you and requires acceptance by your part that what took place in World War I was a systematic attempt to annihilate a people. Your ICANTHEARYOU attitude is what's at fault here, not some inherent bias in the sources or content matter. If you're unable to bring yourself to accept that such a thing took place, then you really don't have much to achieve a "consensus" on. Scholars are unanimous: a genocide took place, accept it and move on. Can it not be any clearer?--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 20:54, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Did you read Arend Jan Boekestijn text? He's using the new concensus regarding the CUP which even most Western scholars of Turkish descent support. (Which is basically Zurcher argument) He is not denying it, he is justifying it. That list is mostly based on old books which were replaced. Even Gunter Lewy thesis mostly revolve around the body of works dating back over 15 years ago, with an update only on Dadrian work regarding German sources. That's not surprising, since he wrote the body of his work, around 15 years ago.

They're hardly obscure. All of them reach to the conclusion that there is no real proof to call what happened a genocide. It's simple as that. Only 2 or 3 of them have any real ties with the Turkish government; a tie that exists for many other historians who support the genocide claims with the Armenian government and Armenian diaspora. There is not a single credible historian who denies the Holocaust. The vast amount of documents, orders, pictures, and many others from Nazis own government alone is enough to prove it. There is simply no comparison. I have many Jewish friends who take such a comparison as an insult. The argument you put forward for McCarthy. Mango, Shaw, Salt, Lewy and Lowry is so wrong that I can only say that it's completely the other way around.

For the list of historians you gave there is not a single Ottoman historian in that list. You have two Armenians and one Greek historian. I was under the impression that I also couldn't use Turkish historians. One of them is a psychiatrist and an other psychologist. Also Taner Akcam is a known communist with a known grudge and agenda against Turkish government. That leaves only 3 names. If those are your Ottoman historians who know about the era It sort of paints a very sad situation for genocide claimers. Though the controversy about the Donal Quataert is indeed a shame that has to be shed some light on.

They are not negotiable as they are facts. The amount of so-called evidence for "Armenian Genocide" is tiny to the level of atoms when compared to that of Holocaust. The behavior of yours to resort to make up arguments that are simply incorrect is understandable as you have no substance to provide. The very fact that the majority of the historians you mentioned have no expertise on Ottoman history or sometimes even a degree on history proves my argument. Scholars are not unanimous: there is no proof that a genocide took place, accept it and move on. Can it not be any clearer?

I hope that Sardur can counter my points more efficiently. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 04:11, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

What argument? Mango is a Turkish scholar, born in Turkey and a mouthpiece of the Turkish government. Shaw and his Turkish wife (the co-author of his famous revisionist work) were a mouthpiece of the Turkish government, his most known book was exposed as being a copy of a Turkish scholar, he was acting as a proxy. I don't think you really want to bring back the controversy serounding Lowry. Lewy denial is ideological in nature, as he believes only the Jews were victim of genocide. He claimed that was not true, answering the article on him here on Wikipedia, referring to Rwanda and claiming he thinks genocide, when he termed in an ethnic cleansing in his article, falling short of using the term genocide. McCarthy was brought before the Turkish Grand assembly to tell them how to deal with the Armenian question. I can go on and on..., you're reply regarding Akçam is funny..., most intellectuals in Turkey who took part of the student revolution were leftlists and harsh criticizers of the system. That's irrelevant since it has nothing to do with the subject at hand, while most of the scholars you cite those elements I bring have directly to do with the subject. There is not a single credible historian who denies the Holocaust. The vast amount of documents, orders, pictures, and many others from Nazis own government alone is enough to prove it. There is simply no comparison. That's BS, what order of extermination, neither the Armenian genocide, nor the genocide during WWII, or any major genocide for that matter are documentable because of any orders. As for you claim of 'credible', that's the whole point, since a historian will lose his credibility denying it. This does not mean anything, because the denial of the holocaust is not a multimillion dollar business financed by a state. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zigzagzag (talk • contribs) 05:31, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Dear Marshal refering to your statement: “Most of these "scholars" are obscure individuals who are deeply entwined with the Turkish state”. Currently the article relies also on 3rd party Christian Missionary sources, amateur off-hour historians, falsified documents, and people called Friends of the Armenian People + hearsay. You should have no issues accepting changes referenced by a list of distinguished scholars from institutions like Princeton, Harvard and UCLA. I have intentionally given you only foreign sources, but since this article has also used Armenian sources then we should also be able to use Turkish research. If we cannot do this then this article will remain POV and we cannot have a POV article.Hittit (talk) 08:04, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

It's again a shame, DarkLord... You fail to see that this was an answering letter to the Turkish PM's request and if it wasn't imprtant he wouldn't have applied.

Secondly you failed to notice, that who you mentioned are not the only members but only the Administrative and this is why the variety of professions are present in it. The organisation is an association, one of the most respected in such issues, with a global spread.

Unfortunately I am almost sure you understood it but because you want to represent things to the readers in your manner, you try to misslead them.

An other fact is, that you failed noting, that the conference on this ver issue planned to take place in Turkey was canceled (if one wouldn't understand prohibited) by the Turkish authorities. This clearly shows everything. Claim is that there was no genocide and this is where it has to be mentioned. All other tries to cover it, justify or soften it are crimes against humanity as the genocide is the biggest crime against humanity.

If the Turkish government was sure in what it claims and what you advocate, it'd have already applied for the international court of justice as any party involved in it can apply with a goal to confirm, deny or anything else, according to the COnvention (i remember u don't agree it constituted a genocide). Now I hope you shall use your knowledge to convince them to do it to once and for ever get rid of that problem... Or you don't think that getting rid of it is correct? Tschues! Aregakn (talk) 13:38, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I can also see, that Hittit is totally unaware of how the term was invented and hasn't read at least my conversation with Dark in other paragraphs, though he has in this. Hittit, here is the link for you to see how the person who invented the term spoke of it refering to the Armenians and then to the 3rd Reich etc [24].

I'd like all of those, who have some doubts in their mind, that the term might not be used or it can be presented as a claim to remember, that it just cannot happen, as the Armenian Genocide is called such by the first who named such actions Genocide and it is clearly stated by him, that the reason of inventing it is what happened to the Armenians, the Jews etc. You want it or not, it is directly invented to describe those very actions. Aregakn (talk) 20:29, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Some more organisations that the Turkish state-agenda advocates should confront before trying to spread it in encyclopedias including Wiki:

The International Campaign to End Genocide
1.5 million Armenians. 3 million Ukrainians. 6 million Jews. 250,000 Gypsies. 6 million Slavs. 25 million Russians. 25 million Chinese. 1 million Ibos. 1.5 million Bengalis. 200,000 Guatemalans. 1.7 million Cambodians. 500,000 Indonesians. 200,000 East Timorese. 250,000 Burundians. 500,000 Ugandans. 2 million Sudanese. 800,000 Rwandans. 2 million North Koreans. 10,000 Kosovars. Genocides and other mass murders killed more people in the twentieth century than all the wars combined.
“Never again” has turned into “Again and again.” Again and again, the response to genocide has been too little and too late.
During the Armenian genocide and the Holocaust, the world’s response was denial.
[....]

With the following prominent organisations as signatories (no doubts that they did it based on scholars, is there?):

The following organizations are members of the International Campaign to End Genocide, chaired by Genocide Watch. The Campaign was founded in 1999, and was the first international genocide prevention coalition.

The Aegis Trust - Genocide Prevention Initiative: Nottinghamshire, United Kingdom
The Anuak Justice Council: Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada; Spokane, Washington, USA
The Alliance to Abolish Genocide: New York, NY; Washington, DC; Capetown, South Africa
CALDH - centro de acción legal para los derechos humanos: Guatemala City, Guatemala
The Cambodian Genocide Group: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
The Cambodian Genocide Project, Inc.: Washington, DC, USA
Center for Holocaust and Genocide Studies, University of Minnesota: Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA
Center for Holocaust and Human Rights Studies at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, Yeshiva University: New York, New York, USA
CHAK -- The Centre of Halabja against Anfalazation and Genocide of Kurds: London, United Kingdom; Stockholm, Sweden; Washington, DC, USA; Copenhagen, Denmark; Berlin, Germany; Ottawa, Canada; Oslo, Norway, The Hague, Netherlands; Helsinki, Finland
Genocide Alert, Germany
The Genocide Intervention Network: Swarthmore College, Pennsylvania; Washington, DC, USA
Genocide Studies Program - Yale University: New Haven, Connecticut, USA
Genocide Watch: Washington, D.C., USA; Capetown, South Africa)
INDICT: Baghdad, Iraq
INFORCE: Bournemouth, UK
The Institute on the Holocaust and Genocide: Jerusalem, Israel
International Alert: London, United Kingdom
The International Crisis Group: Brussels, Belgium; New York, Washington, DC, USA; London, United Kingdom; Moscow, Russia
Minority Rights Group International: London, United Kingdom
The Montreal Institute for Genocide and Human Rights Studies: Montreal, Québec, Canada
Never Again: London, United Kingdom; Kigali, Rwanda; Canada; U.S.A.
The Plowshares Institute: Hartford, Connecticut, U.S.A., Capetown, South Africa
Prévention Génocides: Brussels, Belgium
The Remembering Rwanda Trust: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Survival International: London, UK; Milan, Italy; Madrid, Spain; Paris, France

TRIAL: Geneva, Switzerland

Ref: [25]. Anything more needed for the denialists to understand what "overwhelming" and "scholarly" is? I hope this would be accepted as a rhetoric question... Aregakn (talk) 22:33, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Ref: [26] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Montyofarabia (talk • contribs) 04:19, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Ich glaube, das ist schon alles!

I think it's time to close this discussion and this silly many-times-repeating doscussion issue. And let us hope this will be the last time one starts it. Aregakn (talk) 23:29, 14 April 2010 (UTC)