Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 81.214.107.89 (talk) at 22:03, 29 July 2023 (→Reply: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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)

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

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)

In fact, only a handful non-Turkish historians accept the Turkish view of history on the issue of Armenian Genocide. Lewis is one of those few. Armenian Genocide is not “a highly disputed subject” but an established fact that gains more recognition in both academic and political circles throughout the world. What “talks” can there be if the perpetrator nation denies guilt? What, in the course of one or two years a whole population of some 2.2 million Armenians have just evaporated? All you do in these pages is finding silly justifications for this or that or undermining facts that have been established by specialists in the field. Now you undermine the decisions of the 1919 courts martial. What “Armenian diaspora” back in 1919? Are you hallucinating? Then you go on to undermine your most honest intellectuals, whether they are historians or not, communists or not—doesn’t matter, those who raised their voice for the historical truth, for the honor of your nation. You know, I happened to be familiar with Üngör’s works, he’s one of those who admits genocide had happened, his passages of Armenians killing the Turks refer to the last year of the war and the post-war period. These are largely accepted as revenge killings or retaliation killings. You conveniently disregard the reason-consequence link because stating the primary reason for the Armenian post-genocide behavior towards the Turks doesn’t fit your, yes, denialist narrative. What would you expect the remnants of mass exterminated Armenians to do? Why don’t you speak about Turkish barbarism in 1915 against Armenian men, women, children, the infirm, and even the unborn who were cut from their mothers’ wombs as the primary reason? Were all of these innocent people revolutionaries? Stop playing dumb please. Or, even better, end this useless discussion.73.173.64.115 (talk) 20:43, 29 July 2023 (UTC)Davidian

Okay. I will cite you a section from one of Üngör's book. Even though Üngör is closer to the Armenian perspective, he contradicts you on some points:

...the Armenian paramilitary units would not take Kurdish and Turkish prisoners. This was an ethnic war of annihilation. The young writer Viktor Borisovich Shklovskii (1893-1984) wrote that Armenian units went into battle ‘already hating the Kurds’ and that this ‘deprived the peaceful Kurds, and even their children, of the protection afforded by the laws of war’. Turkish and Kurdish villages were pillaged, emptied, and burnt to the ground. Shklovskii added: ‘ I have seen Galicia, and I have seen Poland—but that was all paradise compared to Kurdistan.’ He gave the example of a massacre in a Kurdish village, where Kurdish tribesmen had killed three soldiers who were foraging for booty. The punitive detachment that was dispatched retaliated mercilessly by slaughtering 200 Kurds, ‘without regard to age or gender.

— Uğur Ümit Üngör, War in Peace, p. 177

Of course, there were incidents of assaults against Armenian civilians too. But there were no orders for this by the Turkish government. In fact during the war, the government punished around 1500 Turkish soldiers for the bad treatment of Armenians. 81.214.107.89 (talk) 22:03, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

This is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address. (WHOIS  Geolocate  Proxy Checker Current blocks XTools Global contributions) (RIRs: Africa America Asia-Pacific Europe Latin America/Caribbean)