| Revision as of 20:01, 29 July 2023 edit81.214.107.89 (talk) →Reply← Previous edit | Revision as of 20:06, 29 July 2023 edit undo81.214.107.89 (talk) →ReplyNext edit → | ||
| Line 33: | Line 33: | ||
| :::::There is no such a thing as “Armenian perspective” that’s been recognized in most of the world. The prevailing majority of genocide scholars, historians, international lawyers, etc., accepting the Turkish premeditation in wiping out the Armenians from their historical habitat, are non-Armenians. And there is no distinction between the Diaspora Armenians and Armenians living in the Republic when it comes to the genocide issue: almost every other Armenian worldwide has lost a relative to the Turkish crime. If the Diaspora (a monolithic entity? all of it, really?) were against the joint study, Sarafian wouldn’t even get to accept Halaçoğlu’s suggestion in the first place. After all, he is part of the Gomidas Institute, not an independent academic. What legitimization of the “Turkish perspective” to the Western public are you talking about? For the mass destruction of the Armenians of Harput, the main organizer, mass murderer Bahaeddin Şakir, was sentenced to death in absentia at the Ottoman courts martial conducted in 1919. What danger of a “Turkish perspective” could there be if the main perpetrator was found guilty by Turkish own courts? And one of the reasons Turkey is isolated in her historical view is because you Turks have no balls to accept guilt and apologize. With a few exceptions (Akçam, Göçek, Pamuk, Üngör et al), you can only deny.] (]) 19:12, 29 July 2023 (UTC)Davidian | :::::There is no such a thing as “Armenian perspective” that’s been recognized in most of the world. The prevailing majority of genocide scholars, historians, international lawyers, etc., accepting the Turkish premeditation in wiping out the Armenians from their historical habitat, are non-Armenians. And there is no distinction between the Diaspora Armenians and Armenians living in the Republic when it comes to the genocide issue: almost every other Armenian worldwide has lost a relative to the Turkish crime. If the Diaspora (a monolithic entity? all of it, really?) were against the joint study, Sarafian wouldn’t even get to accept Halaçoğlu’s suggestion in the first place. After all, he is part of the Gomidas Institute, not an independent academic. What legitimization of the “Turkish perspective” to the Western public are you talking about? For the mass destruction of the Armenians of Harput, the main organizer, mass murderer Bahaeddin Şakir, was sentenced to death in absentia at the Ottoman courts martial conducted in 1919. What danger of a “Turkish perspective” could there be if the main perpetrator was found guilty by Turkish own courts? And one of the reasons Turkey is isolated in her historical view is because you Turks have no balls to accept guilt and apologize. With a few exceptions (Akçam, Göçek, Pamuk, Üngör et al), you can only deny.] (]) 19:12, 29 July 2023 (UTC)Davidian | ||
| ::::::There are a lot of non-Turkish historians accepting the Turkish perspective, for example Jewish academicians like Bernard Lewis. This is a highly disputed subject but instead of engaging in talks, Armenians are more interested in labeling different opinions 'denialist'. | ::::::There are a lot of non-Turkish historians accepting the Turkish perspective, for example Jewish academicians like Bernard Lewis. This is a highly disputed subject but instead of engaging in talks, Armenians are more interested in labeling different opinions 'denialist'. | ||
| ::::::1919 Court martial was conducted by the Ottoman government to appease the Allied states, who were in turn were pressured by the Armenian diaspora to purse this issue. The Ottoman government tried to put all the blame on the Unionist to shift the resposbility for the war. But the defendants were not offered a fair judicial process. ], who opposed the CUP, stated the execution of ] was decided before his trial. Orhan Pamuk is not |
::::::1919 Court martial was conducted by the Ottoman government to appease the Allied states, who were in turn were pressured by the Armenian diaspora to purse this issue. The Ottoman government tried to put all the blame on the Unionist to shift the resposbility for the war. But the defendants were not offered a fair judicial process. ], who opposed the CUP, stated the execution of ] was decided before his trial. Orhan Pamuk is not a historian. Göçek is not a historian. She is a sociologist and cannot read Ottoman Turkish. Akçam was member of a far-left militant organization called DEV-GENÇ and had been convicted for communist and separatist propaganda by a court. His work is found to contain mistakes and translation errors of Ottoman documents. Üngör, on the other hand, mentions in his works that Armenians massacred thousands of Turks. ] (]) 19:58, 29 July 2023 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 20:06, 29 July 2023
Talk pages
Hi Davidian, I would like to apologize for the last block. Anyway, you still get a reply because you sign with Davidian, which was sort or a corporate signature of an IP that merits some credit from my part.
I'd like to point out that to start huge discussions over terms, like ruled the empire as a one-party state or being the "government of the empire" might not yield success as later in the lead it is described fairly extensively how it seized power over the Empire. Then again, you were addressing the wrong talk page, the one not responsible for the CUP. I recommend to add some sourced phrases that complement the article.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 18:56, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
- It's the wrong talk page. And give it a more conciliate tone. Bring the sources and add it to the article. Do not make unsourced additions. And an IPs edits, specially of a disruptive one, are likely to be scrutinized.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 20:53, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
- Bring the sources and add it to the article?? Paradise Chronicle (talk), do you have the slightest idea how many tons of sources I've brought to this article to make sourced additions? None was implemented, and, I'm sorry to have to say this, in sheer violation of your own Misplaced Pages:NPOV. Will you be around when I'll be making an addition to Committee of Union and Progress? Well, then you'll witness the attitude of your fellow editors.73.173.64.115 (talk) 21:10, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Davidian
- I have watchlisted the article and will be around. Good luck.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 21:36, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
- Bring the sources and add it to the article?? Paradise Chronicle (talk), do you have the slightest idea how many tons of sources I've brought to this article to make sourced additions? None was implemented, and, I'm sorry to have to say this, in sheer violation of your own Misplaced Pages:NPOV. Will you be around when I'll be making an addition to Committee of Union and Progress? Well, then you'll witness the attitude of your fellow editors.73.173.64.115 (talk) 21:10, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Davidian
- I'm confused. I haven't intentionally evaded a block. Is this a mistake?73.173.64.115 (talk) 21:55, 24 April 2023 (UTC)Davidian
- It was a mistake. I apologize. You are unblocked. Daniel Case (talk) 03:41, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
July 2023
Please refrain from using talk pages such as Talk:Armenian genocide for general discussion of this or other topics. They are for discussion related to improving the article in specific ways, based on reliable sources and the project policies and guidelines; they are not for use as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See the talk page guidelines for more information. Thank you. — Czello 23:21, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
- Please note that the general discussion was started by an unidentified IP, presumably from Turkey, and not by me. I hope you saw that several times I invited his/her attention to the fact that this discussion is about improving the article, particularly, the date of the genocide mentioned in the infobox. So, please redirect your warning to the one who started the general discussion irrelevant to the topic. Thank you.73.173.64.115 (talk) 23:32, 28 July 2023 (UTC)Davidian
- I've warned them also and collapsed the discussion. — Czello 23:34, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
- Okay, thanks. But please avoid juxtaposition of guilt.73.173.64.115 (talk) 23:38, 28 July 2023 (UTC)Davidian
- I've warned them also and collapsed the discussion. — Czello 23:34, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
Reply
This and tons of similar stories are mentioned in witness accounts of the genocide survivors, as well as in the testimonies of the U.S. Vice-Consul in Aleppo Jesse B. Jackson. But continue to conjure up Turkish make-believe stories. It looks like they provide comfort to the denialists of the crime. 73.173.64.115 (talk) 17:40, 29 July 2023 (UTC)Davidian
- In 1915, the US sought a casus belli to enter the war and shift the public opinion in favor of the Allied Powers. For this purpose, American diplomats in Turkey sent telegrams containing exaggerated or fabricated stories regarding the Armenians. It was an organized propaganda campaign directed by the US government. Historian Heath Lowry revealed this with documents in the US archives. He published his research in the book The Story Behind Ambassador Morgenthau's Story
81.214.107.89 (talk) 17:58, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
- So, it looks like Ara Sarafian's and Hans-Lukas Kieser's visiting ATASE was an example of traditional Turkish lies, huh? For more detail and Halaçoğlu's untruthfulness, go read the text under Research sub-heading of Misplaced Pages's article Ara Sarafian.73.173.64.115 (talk) 18:01, 29 July 2023 (UTC)Davidian
- That info is sourced to Turkish journalist Mehmet Ali Birand's column, of which a copy is available here. Birand had accepted Sarafyan's claims that the archives were not opened at first. But in a later column, Birand said Halaçoğlu shared with himself his email exchange with Sarafyan, which showed that the meeting was actually cancelled due to pressure from the Armenian diaspora. Birand apologized to Halaçoğlu for his mistake. You can check here for the source. 81.214.107.89 (talk) 18:13, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
- Birand writes that “according to Halaçoğlu, the main reason for Ara Sarafyan’s refusal to meet is the Armenian Diaspora’s reaction to such a study”. The key phrase here, as I understand it, is “according to Halaçoğlu”. Having learnt from Sarafian’s statement how untruthful Halaçoğlu was, it wouldn't surprise me if the latter might as well made the whole thing up. Why would the Armenian Diaspora (all of it? really?) be against a joint study of the massacres in Harput and the number of Armenian deaths it had produced? Doesn’t make any sense at all.73.173.64.115 (talk) 18:28, 29 July 2023 (UTC)Davidian
- Because the Armenian perspective is already recognized in most of the world. I think the diaspora thought that Sarafyan conducting research together with Halaçoğlu could legitimize the Turkish perspective to the Western public. They naturally did not want this. In contrast, Turkey is pretty much isolated in its historical view. Had a Turkish scholar researched the archives together with an Armenian scholar, it would be more advantageous to Turkey than it would be to Armenia. Think about it: most Europeans view the Turkish claims as 'denialist'. The public would question why an Armenian would work together with someone whom most Armenians and Europeans call denialist. 81.214.107.89 (talk) 18:43, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
- There is no such a thing as “Armenian perspective” that’s been recognized in most of the world. The prevailing majority of genocide scholars, historians, international lawyers, etc., accepting the Turkish premeditation in wiping out the Armenians from their historical habitat, are non-Armenians. And there is no distinction between the Diaspora Armenians and Armenians living in the Republic when it comes to the genocide issue: almost every other Armenian worldwide has lost a relative to the Turkish crime. If the Diaspora (a monolithic entity? all of it, really?) were against the joint study, Sarafian wouldn’t even get to accept Halaçoğlu’s suggestion in the first place. After all, he is part of the Gomidas Institute, not an independent academic. What legitimization of the “Turkish perspective” to the Western public are you talking about? For the mass destruction of the Armenians of Harput, the main organizer, mass murderer Bahaeddin Şakir, was sentenced to death in absentia at the Ottoman courts martial conducted in 1919. What danger of a “Turkish perspective” could there be if the main perpetrator was found guilty by Turkish own courts? And one of the reasons Turkey is isolated in her historical view is because you Turks have no balls to accept guilt and apologize. With a few exceptions (Akçam, Göçek, Pamuk, Üngör et al), you can only deny.73.173.64.115 (talk) 19:12, 29 July 2023 (UTC)Davidian
- There are a lot of non-Turkish historians accepting the Turkish perspective, for example Jewish academicians like Bernard Lewis. This is a highly disputed subject but instead of engaging in talks, Armenians are more interested in labeling different opinions 'denialist'.
- 1919 Court martial was conducted by the Ottoman government to appease the Allied states, who were in turn were pressured by the Armenian diaspora to purse this issue. The Ottoman government tried to put all the blame on the Unionist to shift the resposbility for the war. But the defendants were not offered a fair judicial process. Refik Halit Karay, who opposed the CUP, stated the execution of Falih Rıfkı Atay was decided before his trial. Orhan Pamuk is not a historian. Göçek is not a historian. She is a sociologist and cannot read Ottoman Turkish. Akçam was member of a far-left militant organization called DEV-GENÇ and had been convicted for communist and separatist propaganda by a court. His work is found to contain mistakes and translation errors of Ottoman documents. Üngör, on the other hand, mentions in his works that Armenians massacred thousands of Turks. 81.214.107.89 (talk) 19:58, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
- There is no such a thing as “Armenian perspective” that’s been recognized in most of the world. The prevailing majority of genocide scholars, historians, international lawyers, etc., accepting the Turkish premeditation in wiping out the Armenians from their historical habitat, are non-Armenians. And there is no distinction between the Diaspora Armenians and Armenians living in the Republic when it comes to the genocide issue: almost every other Armenian worldwide has lost a relative to the Turkish crime. If the Diaspora (a monolithic entity? all of it, really?) were against the joint study, Sarafian wouldn’t even get to accept Halaçoğlu’s suggestion in the first place. After all, he is part of the Gomidas Institute, not an independent academic. What legitimization of the “Turkish perspective” to the Western public are you talking about? For the mass destruction of the Armenians of Harput, the main organizer, mass murderer Bahaeddin Şakir, was sentenced to death in absentia at the Ottoman courts martial conducted in 1919. What danger of a “Turkish perspective” could there be if the main perpetrator was found guilty by Turkish own courts? And one of the reasons Turkey is isolated in her historical view is because you Turks have no balls to accept guilt and apologize. With a few exceptions (Akçam, Göçek, Pamuk, Üngör et al), you can only deny.73.173.64.115 (talk) 19:12, 29 July 2023 (UTC)Davidian
- Because the Armenian perspective is already recognized in most of the world. I think the diaspora thought that Sarafyan conducting research together with Halaçoğlu could legitimize the Turkish perspective to the Western public. They naturally did not want this. In contrast, Turkey is pretty much isolated in its historical view. Had a Turkish scholar researched the archives together with an Armenian scholar, it would be more advantageous to Turkey than it would be to Armenia. Think about it: most Europeans view the Turkish claims as 'denialist'. The public would question why an Armenian would work together with someone whom most Armenians and Europeans call denialist. 81.214.107.89 (talk) 18:43, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
- Birand writes that “according to Halaçoğlu, the main reason for Ara Sarafyan’s refusal to meet is the Armenian Diaspora’s reaction to such a study”. The key phrase here, as I understand it, is “according to Halaçoğlu”. Having learnt from Sarafian’s statement how untruthful Halaçoğlu was, it wouldn't surprise me if the latter might as well made the whole thing up. Why would the Armenian Diaspora (all of it? really?) be against a joint study of the massacres in Harput and the number of Armenian deaths it had produced? Doesn’t make any sense at all.73.173.64.115 (talk) 18:28, 29 July 2023 (UTC)Davidian
- That info is sourced to Turkish journalist Mehmet Ali Birand's column, of which a copy is available here. Birand had accepted Sarafyan's claims that the archives were not opened at first. But in a later column, Birand said Halaçoğlu shared with himself his email exchange with Sarafyan, which showed that the meeting was actually cancelled due to pressure from the Armenian diaspora. Birand apologized to Halaçoğlu for his mistake. You can check here for the source. 81.214.107.89 (talk) 18:13, 29 July 2023 (UTC)