Wikipedia:Peer review/Armenian Genocide/archive1

Armenian Genocide

I am having difficulty convincing people I am dealing with me to discuss things.

• They claim lots of baseless things.
• Personal attacks directed towards me (hidden agenda, being a revisionsist(whatever that is) being a troll (whatever that is as well, vandalist, and others).
• I have no success in editing the article. I had no success adding, modifying anything in the article, at a point even spelling corrections were reverted (claimed was vandalising)
• I had no success making them talk. They opose anything that puts a level of uncertainty to their version of the article.
• Article is currently not neutral enough.

Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 01:26, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Coolcat want the article to present the two sides as equaly valid, he want the article to suggest this, and claims that this is what neutrality is. Coolcat introduce himself iv every articles involving turkey, directly or indiractly and inject his POV in them claiming that he is actualy neutralising them. Coolcat has never proposed to discuss the issue, but rather requested the article to present two views 50-50. He'd want to delete who says what, he want to delete the fact that most academics support one position against the others etc. Coolcat has even deleted an entry that is recognised by both parties under the pretext of neutralising the article, while he himself admitted not knowing much about the topic. Coolcat has even started a war in two other genocide related entries because they include the Armenian cases. I have proposed to present two views, one under the turkish government banner, it did not satify him and he actualy was the one deleting it, because he don't want to present who believes what, but rather want to present to views as equaly valid, which in fact is a suggestion of equality and is POV.

I have asked him countless numbers of times, if he was ready to drop his request to present to different but equaly valid propositions, he refused to answer, diverting and diverting. The only reason why the article is still stuck in non-progress is because of Coolcat. Fadix 01:43, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I was the one who added the banner, I was the one who removed it. I was the one constantly trying to start a discussin, you were the one who declared I had a hidden agenda and you will ignore me. Cat ^chi? 01:55, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

That's untrue. You've been the one allerting over 10 members, lying about me, because you were not interested in the discussion. When people were hijacking the article, and even deleting Armenian genocide links, you had no problem with it. But when the article quality has augmented, it was not pro Turkish government as you would like it to be. You started editing the article without discussing. You did that over and over again and you've gone as far as posting in peoples talk pages, one after the other, countless numbers of people lying about me. I requested you to discuss about the issue in the talk page, but you did not want to hear about it. You wanted 50-50, a presentation of two positions as equaly valid, and deleting any indications regarding the fact that most academics support one position against the other. Now that others became involved and have seen your clear biases. You've started again lying an even as going as far as suggesting that we are all the same person. You are a troll, sorry, you don't help your cases here. You have admitted not knowing the subject, you have even admitted denying the Holocaust, you got involved in every entries indirectly or directly involving Turkey, you have even participated in editing references regarding the Armenian genocide in other Wikipedia enteries. You are a troll, nothing more Coolcat. Wait till other members see into your games. And now exposed you try fooling other members into believing that you've been trying to discuss about the issue, and that the other party is just one person behind multiple aliases. But by believing that others might believe this, you are actualy underestimating the readers intelligence, and those readers might just not like that. Fadix 02:10, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps you want Wikipedia:Requests for comment? 119 01:39, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I am working on it. Cat ^chi? 01:55, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

User:Coolcat is not the only one considering Wikipedia:Requests for comment; I welcome review of the article by a wider audience and comments on User:Coolcat's conduct on the talk page. — Davenbelle 02:16, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

I would like to say that I am relatively new to this discussion (and to Wikipedia) and other then scanning some of the history to see what has been going on I have had no vested interest or involvement. Upon review of the article and the related discussions -what immediatly became obvious - was the insistance of this (admitedly ignorant on the subject matter) Coolcat person to present questionable material and spurious claims that are not generally supported or believed - as equal to the material that reflects the common understanding of events and which also represents the accepted positions and beliefs that are overwhelmingly held by recognized academics and historians. Is this the proper apprach for an Encyclopedia whose mission it is to present facts and a clear summary of the issue? When Coolcat has been confronted in great detail by several parties - including myself - that there is a grave problem with his suggested approach - he immediatly claims that we are attempting to curtail free speech and now is (falsely) claiming that we are all the same person. This seems to me to be utter paranoia and fanatical commitment to presenting only ones own agenda. He refuses to accept the viewpoints of any others on this issue. And what he is attempting to do in regards to the Armenian Genocide presentation is equivilant to Holocaust deniers being given equal time in presenting material that attempts to disparage the Jews to either deny or justify the Holocaust. How - I ask - is such an approach legitimate in regards to the Armenian Genocide? - where it would be considered practically criminal - and certainly not at all accurate or acceptable in any other like presentation? --THOTH 21:03, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• please have a look at how Bombing of Dresden in World War II has been improved by providing full and detailed references for facts down to the page level (you could even consider paragraph). It's very valuable to be totally clear about who are the sources for pieces of information. IMHO the best system currently available for this is Wikipedia:Footnote3. It makes things clearer when we have a comparision between "the UN commission for genocide in it's document of 20th Jan 1973 stated that" and "a guy called Jeff I met in a bar last night" for different facts which contradict each other. See also Wikipedia:Cite your sourcesMozzerati 20:32, 2005 Apr 3 (UTC)

True, and this is what I did here Ottoman_Armenian_Population. But the same can not be done in the Armenian genocide entry, until people stop with their vandalism. Do you expect me to spent hours and hours of footnoting and documentations, when I know nationalists will vandalize the article? I want you to honestly answer this. Fadix 21:50, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

---

In response to Cool Cat's original post on this page - I just want to say he has no room to say that article is not neutral enough! He has a "feeling" it isn't, but he admits he has read very little on the topic, he has not even bothered to educate himself before going on a massive crusade to "neutralize" the article. But, in the case of genocide, there is no "two sides" to the story. There are reasons why they take place - usually nationalism, religious fanaticism (many Armenians were given the option to convert to Islam rather than die), fear, jealousy... but that doesn't excuse it or make it two sided. I think Cool Cat needs to do a lot more reading before he can decide what is and isn't a neutral, factual article. Certainly he can contribute in the meantime, but he seems to be on a massive mission to monitor all Armenia - Turkey articles and make sure Turkey looks good no matter what, at least that's how it appears on the surface. I find it incredible that he feels justified in asking that we prove the entire genocide to him, when he hasn't bothered to read up on it himself. Imagine him doing that on the Holocaust article! --RaffiKojian 05:37, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I think RaffiKojian is clearly right: genocide is not a topic where are "two sides with two opinions". This is reason why Holocaust revisionism is prosecuted in several European countries. When genocide occurs there are organisers of terror and their victims. And genocide always finishes with total denial that genocide was performed (see genocide watch). Look at some neonazis who denies Holocaust now. I think it is reason why standard Wikipedia rules can not be used here, because of POVing of history here looks like POVing of murder (One POV: murder of kids is bad. Other POV: murder of kids is good. What do you think? Both sides should be presented equally?). (Sorry, I have not registered yet) --213.197.128.150 16:59, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Like I said, people want to push their views. There is me alone oposing them as people who think it wasnt genocide were scared away. I admit I knew less before I made some reserch, my original ideal was making fadix reword things, but he instead reverted parts I commented out for his review. And was down hill from there. The very clasification of genocide is disputed. Turks claim it was a consequence of war, I believe. Armenians declare it as state-sponsored exterimination plan. Users so far failed to properly discuss anything. This is a request for peer review. Meaning I want a neutral aproach. If you cant prove your case how do I know you arent making it up? Cat ^chi? 10:50, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Please imagine that you know almost nothing about Holocaust. And you read article about Holocaust and try to POVize it by questioning Holocaust at all. So, what kind of reaction will you have? And what will you say about users who will resist to your POVizations? Will you say that those users "want to push their views"? And will you try saying that irvingianists proved that holocaust may be hoax, so there should be different opinions presented? I think you are not right in this case, because all the thing seems to be clearly provided by Fadix, who is citing not only armenian, but turkish side too. Genocide is the thing where POVization should not be easily wellcomed, simply because of victims allways lack power to rise the truth. For example, compare Turkian possibilities to deny genocide to Armenian possibilities to rise this question? They even are not comparable. And please, let me give you peace of advice: such moderations in such sensitive questions as genocide are really insulting to people who are somehow related to victims, and even when you simply do not know some facts and simply want to get proof of them, it can be insulting. This does not mean that there is no need to have facts, but please try to understand others and try to search for information by yourself, instead of simply denying. --Gvorl 12:56, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You claimed recently that you knew more about the event that you wanted to picture it up, make your mind please. So you recently researched about it. OK then, please provide me the books you have read, I can provide here over a hundred book, and countless numbers of essays I did read about genocides. This is not about “proving” as you've said before(you were never consistent with your own words in the first place.), it is about writing a neutral article, nothing more, nothing less.

As you wanting a neutral approach, why do you still claim this up, when you know that there is hardly anyone that believes this anymore, and when you know they don't? Fadix 03:18, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Fadix your fanatic aproach does not help. You created an aurora of a domminant unquestionable fact. Its not as widely accepted as you think it is. You constantly talk about me. Tell me what was the motive of Turks while "massacring" Armenians? What? you never answered. SUCH a fundemental question. Cat ^chi? 12:04, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Fanatic approach" is what you have displayed Coolcat, don't mistake your behavour with those of others. As for my answers, there has been countless answers, you've archived one of those hours after I've posted it to hide it under the carpet. Fadix 01:49, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have not yet got involved in this discussion. However there is no reason why we have to have a 50/50 view. Most wiki articles that deal with massacres, atrocities, etc DO actually go down one side. Do you think we should have a 50/50 view of the Holocaust? Absolutely not. We can discuss the Turkish arguments, but it is insane to insist that the Turkish view be given just as much room as the Armenian one. Do we let the neo-Nazis and anti-Semites have their 50% say over the Holocaust? Look, just accept that Turkey did bad things. Did the ENTIRE Armenian people rise up? No, only some were involved with the Allies. Greedy and intolerant people used that as an excuse to rob and hurt Armenians who didn't do anything wrong. John Smith's 12:26, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

John your points are well taken. In fact however you might be suprised at the degree to which the Armenians were not a threat - were not taking any seditious action and in fact did very little or nothing to warrent any type of violent acts against them. Let me leave you with this exeprt from a report made by the German Ambasador during this period back to his government - it is quite enlightening concerning the situation that existed at this time and I think completely disarms any of the current Turkish claims (which mirror the propoganda at the time being used to justify and obscure the barbaric actions being taken against the Armenain people at the time...and the parallels with the jewish situation in WW2 are really overwhelming):

exerpts from German Ambassador Von Wangenheim's April 15 1915 report back to Germany:

German archives # DE/PA-AA/R14085

"Pera, 15 April 1915 From the news from East Anatolia it is obvious that the relations between the Turkish Muslim population and the Armenians, which were already tense beforehand, have worsened even more in the course of the past few months. The mutual mistrust is growing and dominating the people and official circles, both in the interior as well as in the capital.

The complaints about the alleged and actual persecution which the Armenians are suffering as a result of the war are increasing in number and volume; on the other hand, they are being accused of sympathising with the Empire's enemies...

Each side is revoking the accusations of the other party as unfounded, or the blame for such events is being put on the others. There only seems to be agreement on one point: that the Armenians have given up their ideas of a revolution since the introduction of the Constitution and that there is no organisation for such a revolt.

Without doubt, excesses and acts of terror have taken place against the Armenians in eastern Anatolia and, in general, the events have probably been related correctly by the Armenian side, even if they were somewhat exaggerated.

For the events in these areas, the following are being made responsible by the Armenian side:

1. The irregulars and bands of marauders organised in military fashion and bearing the title Militia; these are being blamed for numerous plunders, murders, for robbery and other acts committed against the Armenian population of the country.

2. The clubs affiliated with the Comité Union et Progrès, in which many dishonest elements are said to be present. It is said that these clubs, in particular the one in Erzerum, have set up formal proscription lists, and a series of political murders which were committed on various respected Armenians since December of last year are attributed to their activities. It is added that the Ministry of the Interior is said to have been warned some time ago by the Armenians about the activities of these clubs which have already played a disastrous role during the events at Adana in 1909.

3. Various civil servants, in particular the governor of Musch (Vilayet Bitlis) and the Vali of Van. It is stated amongst other things that some 2000 Muslim families from the Russian occupied district of Alaschgerd, who are hardly in a position to pay for their own keep, have been accommodated in the Armenian villages of Musch; the Armenian farmers were being used like draft animals to transport ammunition and provisions and many of them died from this inhumane treatment; the least of them, it is said hardly a quarter, returned to their villages. [B]'In two districts of Van formal butcheries took place under the connivance of the Kaymakams'[/B].

it is emphasised that the Armenians – a fact which, one might note, is contested by the Turks - despite all the suffering they have been subjected to, are behaving loyally and correctly, but at least passively. However, under a continued, systematic persecution it can be feared that this peaceful attitude may take a turn to the contrary; the parties loyal to the government, such as the Daschnakzutiun, would no longer be able to hold back the masses and there would be a danger that, if the Russians advanced, not only the Armenians in the invaded area would go over to the side of the enemy, but also possible insurrections would be aroused behind the backs of the Turkish Army.

The appeal to the nobile officium of the German representation in Turkey is understandable following the development of the Armenian question, but especially now when, as a result of the war, the Triple Entente is eliminated as protectors. But an attempt at complying with this appeal and taking on the role that England after the Berlin Congress, and most recently Russia, have played as protector of the Armenians, would be regarded by the Porte as an unjustified and annoying intervention in their internal political affairs. The moment is even less suitable since the Porte has just made the effort to eliminate the protective rights, which other foreign powers have exercised over Turkish subjects. The Porte must also have respect for the national awareness of the Turkish elements, which has drastically increased over the past few years.

As far as the considerations otherwise presented by the Armenian side are concerned, they deserve serious attention.

I also believe that the increase in the number of German consulates in the so-called Armenian provinces, initiated in this connection, would not fulfil its purpose. It is probable that the Porte would see in this the attempt on our part to have their own authorities supervised...a procedure of this kind would have the consequence of setting the authorities against the Armenians even worse than ever and, therefore, of achieving results of just the opposite kind."

So from the above one can see that violent actions are already occuring against the Armenians (as we know by centrally directed Special Organization irregular units as part of a grand plan) with no mention of the reverse (Armenians are amazingly docile and quite considering - with individuals fleeing and deserting to the other side only) - which surely would have been mentioned by Turkey's ally it would seem. Also there is concern that the Turkish population and leadership is increasingly anti-Armenian and prone to take violent anti-Armenian action - because of the perception of foreign Armenians fighting with the Russians and the potential that Ottoman Armenians would show sympathy to the Russians if Russia were to acheive victory. And as an added note I will say that we do later see this in addition to Armenian, Cossak and Russian units commiting atrocites against Muslim civilians in areas that come under there control - however - prior to the decision of deportation and genocide and prior to the CUP organizing the special organization to sen dout irregulars (released from jails, and from the Muslim refugee and Kurdish populations) - we see no appreciable Armenian violence against Turks and certainly no armed rebellion of any kind. --THOTH 00:45, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Why 50-50 Does Not Work

I can understand why a 50-50 unbiased approach makes sense. But, the concept is inherently flawed. Many things cannot be proven as undisputable fact, yet there is usually a more probable case. For instance, the THEORY of evolution. It is only a theory. It has not been proven. But, there is significant evidence supporting it. So much, in fact, that for academics to suggest that other possibilities should be equally weighted is absurd. The same may be said of any number of things. Einstein's theory of relativity, for instance, would never be discussed as equally likely as some other solution. Technology such as satellites that use the equations he derived do not have two programs, one which uses Einsteinian theories and a second that does not.

A neutral perspective is always needed, however one cannot believe that the term "neutral" is interchangable with 50-50. This is because presenting a concept such as this with both beliefs weighted equally suggests that they are equally valid. However, it is absolutely clear and indisputable that most members of academia believe these events to be considered genocide. Therefore, for an article to present each idea as equally valid is actually misleading readers because it causes them to believe that equal numbers of people believe that the events were/were not genocide.

It is for this reason that I argue that a 50-50 explanation would actually be deceiving and therefore NOT neutral.

Dear Sir,

It is the first time I intrude in Wikipedia's article editing. Instead of editing I will addmy comments. 50-50 isjust here. Why ?

1) Because there is an Armenian Deportation not Armenian Genocide. Even the terminology can not be decided on.

2) For a "genocide" to happen it should conform to a current "genocide" definition. There is none whatsoever for the so called Armenian Genocide.

3) Armenians constantly escape from examining the Ottoman Archives open to all. So they are biased.

4) In the article, The atrocities commiitted by Armenians , and their collaboration with the Allied Powers in WW1 are conspicousby their absence.

5) Hundreds of thosusands of Tuks were murdered by Armenians and there is no mention of them. And there is no mention of Turkish Genocide. Only 10 years before Azeri Turks were butchered by Armenians and there is no mention of Azeri Genocide.

Still you are talking there is no need for 50-50.

Halim Sibay Tugsavul

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.215.16.198 (talk • contribs)