Talk:Van cat/Archive 2

Endangered breed
I have no information on who had written in the article the following: "In any case, the Armenians were not the majority in Van in 1914, a year before the deportations began in 1915. Furthermore, while virtually all Armenians will self-report as Christians, not all Kurds are Muslims (some Kurds are Christian), so the concept of an Armenian majority in the early 1900s is usually only espoused by Armenian radical nationalists. As such, usually on debate of the topic, only Kurdish and Turkish views are involved".

I would not offer to discuss here the history of the region and the political interests of the ethnic groups, residing here or the ancestors of whom had been residing here. I would not also offer you to discuss here the knowledge of the history of the writer and his or her moral standards. The Turkish authorities did give the answer to the question, what ethnicity was the autochthonic in the region, and continue to do it. You will ask how? Just in the Turkish way: they ruined and continue to ruin, what this autochthonic ethnicity created within the ages. They are even afraid of the letters and symbols that are on the walls.

But this article is about a domestic cat population and its origin, as well as the cat breed that was created on the base of the cats, exported from the territories around Lake Van, and its name. One may have its own opinion reflecting the interests of an ethnic group or a group of breeders having their own commercial interests. But among all this scuffle these groups forget about the interests of the cat breed, its health and welfare. All know that the breed is endangered, and it would be better that we discuss the interests of the breed and what makes it an endangered breed.--Zara-arush (talk) 19:13, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, I would argue that, yes, it IS a political article. If this was still part of the other article, the argument of excluding it would be rather weight-y, but...

Anyhow, I believe it IS sourced... --Yalens (talk) 19:42, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * erh, never mind, I misunderstood. I am now deleting it. --Yalens (talk) 19:42, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply and deleting some sentenses. But, when you replied fro the 2nd time, I thought you will delete the complete part on the results of Turkish census. Do we write here about a cat breed that had originated several millenia ago, or do we count here Armenians in Western Armenia at the begining of the 20th century? I hope you realize that the cat domestication and the appearance of white spotting that is one of the main traits of the phenotype of TUVs are not the processes that happened just some several centuries ago, when wandering tribes of new ethnic groups poured in the territory. Of course, they may have their own point of view on the breed, but why should we listen again for their insinuations that the cats were brought in the region on the saddle of brave warriors or together with nomadic sheep breeders? Then, why are the references on scientific articles in this article?--Zara-arush (talk) 22:51, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I edited the section, titled "Armenian Views" to present the Armenian point of view on the origin of the Van cat to avoid the biassed presentation of the breed, as well as to neglact the right of the Armenians to express their understanding of the breed.--Zara-arush (talk) 12:00, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Dear Yalens, when you asked, if it will be good to create an article that will represent Kurdish point of view on the breed, I guessed you will write about the phenotype, as the Kurdish people understand it, as well as their legends and may eb something else that will make the difference among the Turkish, Kurdish and Armenian approaches to the breed.--Zara-arush (talk) 21:18, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * How on earth did this OR get to be an article? At best, it should be a subsection on an article's talk page. Meowy 21:41, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for editing, but why are you so much frigtened of the Armenian origin of Van cat, as well as of the nativeness of the Armenian ethnicity in the region and their direct origin of the proto-Indoeuropean tribes that went out of so-named Eastern Anatolia, first to Cyprus, where the oldest cat skeleton had been digged out, and then to any other directions?--Zara-arush (talk) 11:24, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You don't seem to understand what the problem is. Meowy 17:07, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not frightened. Its just that the sentence was a little... too assertive. The genetic analyses never prove anything to be "Armenian", and on that note, genetically, the Armenians are highly similar to both Kurds; as for the cats DNA, note that Kurds and Armenians have lived in pretty much similar areas for all their known history... It's just that its a little... too sure. Like, let the readers decide for themselves, this is not a propaganda site, I'd say. I view the Kurdish and Armenian viewpoints equally, for that point (as for the Turkish viewpoint that the thing came from Mongolia, however... we all agree and that, I hope...)

And, Meowy, really, either work on the article, explain your complaints to me or be quiet. Is the problem that YOU don't the article shouldn't exist, that's all, because of your own biases? Seeing as you stated that we "don't understand the problem" and then failed to explain it and simply went ahead to try to delete it without any negotiation, I am under the impression that you are not acting with good faith. Feel free to prove me wrong by actually explaining your complaints, however. --Yalens (talk) 19:22, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks Elen, I will wait for the replies of other Users involved. I added several references and sources. I hope you are satisfied, if not write me and give time for I may insert other links. It is too hot in Yerevan not, so I may do research only at nights, when it is a little cooler. --Zara-arush (talk) 12:41, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Endangered article
To see what might be salvaged before this content fork gets deleted, I have cut the article back to sourced content only Zara-arush - I hope the one sentence still remaining about the Armenians is correct. If you have access to the full genetic study (all I can see is the abstract), you might add some data in, as the abstract does seem to suggest that the cats were domesticated and selectively bred from the Stone Age, which does rather knock the current squabble on the head.Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:37, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Offer to discuss
As I see the last three days, the largest portion of the discussion around Van cat had been carried by 3-4 participants. I offer to discuss here the approaches of each. If we decide that this small article shall be deleted, it will be deleted together with our discussion. What I mean?

Here is my understanding of what the Van cat is, and why these cats are endangered.

When 5 daughters of 1 cat (I hope I did not mix it with the number of mtch Eve's daughters) produced several generations (more than 35, as it was in Russian experiment with foxes, because the artificial selection in case of cats had been less pointed and had no scientific bacjground), the white spotting reached to some indefinite degree. These processes could have taken rather long period of time. Then, the van pattern expressed itself, because the cats became domesticated at higher degree. It also took 1-2 millenia. Then the first luxory mutations appeared, such as O (red color) and l (long hair). And a Van cat was created. And again several millenia passed. 10,000 years ago, when the cat was first domesticated, it had been taken to any direction, where the earliest proto-Indoeuropeans went from Eastern Anatolia - the cradle of civilazation. Later their offsprings settled Europe and India and South Asia. They all were living settled life and they were in crop farming, so they needed cats. But the mother group of these cats stayed with those proto-Indoeuropean tribes, who remained in the territory of Eastern Anatolia. These tribes were in crop-farming, so they worshiped Sun god or better to say the Allmighty Sun God. When the marks in van pattern of SLH cat became red, because of red color gene O appearance, these tribes considered that Sun blessed the cat that was swimming in the lake Van. The oldest epics that preserved of these times is a small piece of poetry in ancient Armenian that is named now as "The birth of Vahagn". The present science do not admit that the nations/nationalities existed in that times, because it understands a nationality as a state. But such ancient nations as the Jews, the Armenians and you better know, who else, consider that their ancestors were of the same ethnicity as they are. It may be considered as unrealizable for a representative of a European or American nation, but the memory of the ancient nations keeps the events and persons that are their ancestry. I do not know, besides the Armenians, any other living nation in the territory of the Armenian Uplands that settled here for several millenia and constructed here material monuments and created the spiritual and cultural values, including the breed of cats, named at present Turkish Van cat.

I proved, what I had written above with several written and published sources. But unfortunately, you do not want to see the links and references. I do not insist on putting all the references into the text of the article, because first of all we shall think about the Van cats and the preservation of the breed. And the other reason is that it is as obvious for me, as well as for any educated Armenian than Vana katu is an Armenian breed, and Ani had been constructed by the Armenians, as well as Akhtamar monastery and the Church of Holy Cross, and thousands of thousands of other arcitectural monuments that are still may be found in Western Armenia. Yes, Western Armenia. Because there is the nation that considers itself Western Armenians, though they do not have state, but they preserved their language and culture. To make it more clear: will you ask any time for the link, when I mention that we breeth with air, and drink water to slake the thirst?

Can any of you write about your understanding and view of the breed? I am not expecting your criticism, I just want to understand, who are the people, who try to make me change my mind. I shall clear up, if it is a really friendly attitude and invitation for collegiate work or it is a psychologic attack for "cicking me out" the article, as according your legend Noah cicked out Van cat that made much noise and disturbed him. --Zara-arush (talk) 00:25, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, let's take this slowly. We are having difficulties communicating, but as I don't speak Turkish, Armenian or whatever your first language is (in fact, being dreadfully English I don't speak any foreign languages, which is nothing to be proud of), we are stuck communicating in English, and sometimes I have trouble understanding what you mean.


 * To make it more clear: will you ask any time for the link, when I mention that we breeth with air, and drink water to slake the thirst? To make it more clear, yes, in a Wikipedia article, another editor can ask you to provide a source for anything you say. This is not because they want to make you change your mind, but because everything on Wikipedia must be verifiable - it must already have been said by someone else in a published source.

''I proved, what I had written above with several written and published sources. But unfortunately, you do not want to see the links and references.'' You have said this several times now, and I don't understand why you are saying it. I do very much want to see your references. The only reference I was asking from you was one which confirmed that the Turkish Government was only recognising the white variant as true Van cats. I have, in the article, quoted a Turkish Government source which says that Van cats come in white and colours, and all are protected. I'm not trying to change your opinion, just find out where you got your information from. If it is a better and more reliable source than my information, we should change the article to reflect it.

This is what I mean by a collegiate process. We compare the evidence, decide on which is the correct information or, if there is doubt, how we should express the differing opinions in the article. This is why I am asking for opinions on the name. Meowy is right, the modern Western show breed is not exactly the same as the native cat. For one thing, it seems to be twice the size, and for another, the breed standard has formalised the markings. However, I think that the correct answer is to make the article about all Van cats - the local cats, the Van Kedis, the Western breed cats - because somehow they are all related to each other. If you disagree, you can give the reasons you disagreee, and what your preferred solution would be. Then we can see if there is a consensus (we all agree) or if some compromise outcome would keep us all happy.Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:08, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks Elen, I will wait for the replies of other Users involved. I added several references and sources. I hope you are satisfied, if not write me and give time for I may insert other links. It is too hot in Yerevan now, so I may do research only at nights, when it is a little cooler. --Zara-arush (talk) 12:42, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Besides Elen that looks like still unhealthy nobody wanted to discuss the origin of Van cats. And this article is getting smaller and shorter, like shagreen leather. I do not remember the story, but the shagreen leather has the trait to disappear one day. --Zara-arush (talk) 18:02, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I've reverted the article to the way it was before the Meowy edits. Meowy's user page pretty much shows that we aren't the only ones who think Meowy is frankly just annoying. Meowy will not negotiate, and simply pushes, tries to delete, or whatever to get their way. And I fail to see why using a blog as a source is bad when the topic of discussion involves Kurdish internet blogs in the first place, which is where a lot of the arguing about the breed's nature takes place. I also fail to see how a magazine that dedicates itself to cat breeds is not a good source too. Judging from Meowy's past behavior, it seems to me that Meowy is simply now trying to effectively delete the article by removing sources and information. There was no consensus from the discussion, meaning the article can't be deleted- even by that method. Thus, I say we should either complain to moderators or simply revert Meowy's destructive "edits", seeing as Meowy has been unwilling to talk and negotiate unless its about deleting the article...

Anyhow (forgot to say this earlier), how should we present the article? Frankly, to me, the show breed and the ancient breed not being -exactly- the same is hardly an issue. Even if they are barely even related, they are still descendents to some degree, and its more the cultural value that this article is disputing, rather than the actual cats themselves (i.e., was it Armenians, Kurds or Turks that were actually involved in the development from the ancient breed into the modern Van cat as well as the standardisted show Van). Furthermore, we should present each argument with its own subsection, so that the article represents each of the three perspectives and their way of looking at it. That is, Turks preaching pretty much Meowy's rhetoric, that the show breed has nothing to do with the ancient one and that its really only Turks who have been involved in the modern development; whereas Kurds and Armenians mostly talking about historical and cultural issues (and more radical Turks saying the cat is... Central Asian...). We can, if necessary to compromise with Meowy, add in the stuff Meowy says, as a sort of out-party perspective, that the current debate between Kurds and Turks is irrelevant (similar to how the article about the Ryukyuuans deals with that sort of viewpoint), that is, if Meowy will ever come and talk rather than just revert, revert, revert and delete, delete, delete. Yalens (talk) 21:55, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Dear Yalens, when you write about Kurdish cat breed, please specify, what Kurds participated in the breeding of ancient cats. I mean that there were two branches of the Kurds: those, who carried on settled life and those, who were sheep-breeders, i.e were carring on nomadic style of life. There is nothing offensive in these differences. The cat entered into people's houses (dwellings or households) and hearts. It is OK, if we writing cat fancy article. But when we use cat breed for supporting political issues, the cat became the apple of discord. The cat and its health and preservation is pushed backward, and the people enter into fights. Please, remember, do not pour out the baby together with water. The cat breed article shall discuss the problems, relating to breed breeding, health, etc, not politics. I support the Armenian tradition and write about legends to protect van-patterned cats and show that there had been different tradition that is much earlier than the penetration of the nomadic Turkish and Kurdish tribes to the Armenian Highlands (plato or Uplands), because the latter two groups deny van-patterned cats and introduce all-white gene (W-) into the lines that will endanger the health of the formed and recognized breed, etc.. --Zara-arush (talk) 12:01, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

It would be rather difficult to specify, as individual Kurdish families have switched from the nomadic pastoral Kurds to the urban Kurds and back again frequently, you know... It's kind of like modern countries, ish. There are urban people and rural people, and sometimes people switch back and forth, and its all really part of the same indivisible ethnic group. If one of them had the cat, they'd take the cat along with them when they switched urban->rural or vice versa, so I don't really see why it matters.

And as for the politics, we must keep in mind that while this is a cat fancy article, it is also, as clearly stated by the title, a political article as well, so its only natural that we bring up the politics. In fact, its our job to do so. The cat being a sort of apple of discord, as you say, is what the article talks about (though, in my opinion, the cat controversy is more of an effect of already existing hatred between Turks and Kurds as well as Turks and Armenians, and to a much lesser extent, Kurds and Armenians; rather than a cause (the real cause would be the general oppressive nature of Turkey towards Kurdistan and Armenia)).---Yalens (talk) 17:09, 25 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I will be re-nominating this article for deletion. It is nothing more than a pinboard for Yalens to stick his inane content on, content that is completely unsuitable for any Wikipedia article. There is no indication that Yalens is working towards a merge as suggested in the RfD advice, and, anyway, there is no content suitable for merging with another article. Information derived from a blog is not valid content. A cat fanzine is not a suitable source for allegations about "wiping out a culture". Speculations about the origin of the domestication of cats has nothing to do with an alleged "naming controversy". Take them away and there is nothing left in the article - which is why Yalens has reverted my removal of them without giving any valid reasons. Meowy  17:30, 25 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Meowy, I will have to thank you for actually coming to the discussion. Then, I will have to reiterate...

1) You seem to misunderstand the topic of the article. It is NOT solely about the cat in the first place and never was. Thus, the point of the article is to portray the three different viewpoints, NOT to give factual information about the cat.

2) As for "wiping out a culture", while the quote is, yes, assertive, the article under my revision does NOT state it without quotes, and as thus, no one but Meowy fails to understand that it is only reproducing the viewpoint of the individual magazine on the dispute for consideration.

3) Judging as the subject of the article is the Kurdish nationalist community, nationalistic blogs are excellent sources of such viewpoints to portray as the Kurdish nationalist viewpoint and are thus welcome in the article so long as they are not stated as facts or anything but Kurdish nationalist viewpoints.

The article does not state that Turkey has intentions of wiping out Armenian or Kurdish culture and that the cat is in any way linked to this, rather, it only quotes other sources saying so. If you think the Turkish viewpoint is underrepresented, it would be much represented if you added stuff to the article rather than deleting or trying to delete the article. It would be much appreciated and beneficial for both of us if you would try to work with us, Meowy, rather than against us. --Yalens (talk) 20:43, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Next steps
I cannot recommend the Swine Flu at all guys. Don't get it, whatever you do. Anyway, I wouldn't say I'm back to health, but I thought I'd drop a note in here. I won't do anything unless at least Yalens and Zara-arush agree. As Meowy I haven't figured out where you is coming from, I don't know if this will fly with you, but I hope you'll be able to agree that this is better than attempting to shoehorn this material into Turkish Van or seeing what I believe was a genuine attempt by you to create an article on the native Van cat being overrun by the ongoing fallout from the Ottoman Empire.

Here's what I propose
 * Rename Turkish Van to Van (cat)
 * Make it clear that the cat has a long history that it continuing today, and which includes
 * the cat's origins from the Stone Age - for which there does seem to be some genetic information, also some archaeological information which is frequently referred to (roman statues etc) for which I have been unable to locate any sources (don't answer me here, put evidence in the article)
 * what makes the Van cat different from the Angora. I see someone has added to the talk page that the Van kedi and the Ankara kedi are the same cat.  Well, are they or aren't they (don't answer me here, put evidence in the article)
 * the modern western breed standard - history, info on standard etc
 * what is currently happening to the cat in the Van region - including whether an all white breed standard is being developed, and whether this poses a risk to the native cat. If anyone looked at the links to people's holiday snaps that I posted on the talk page, I found three "all white" cats snapped on the streets of Van that plainly had pale reddish brown marks on them - as if someone had dripped coffee on the cat.  Are kittens like these at risk of being drowned because they dont' meet the standard?  (as before, don't answer me .....)
 * the way the cat has become a political symbol
 * the cat in literature, art etc.

This article, Turkish Vankedisi and Van Kedisi should all be merged there. It's only one cat, it doesn't need four articles.

Other conditions.
 * We all agree to leave any element of national/ethnic hatred outside the encyclopaedia - I know the area has a lot of bad history, and feelings run high, but we agree to try to stay civil and NPOV (neutral point of view) and avoid rhetoric by sticking to fact
 * We all agree to put no unsourced or irrelevant material in the article.  If there is any doubt as to whether something is irrelevant, we agree to discuss it in a civil manner. without reference to lies, conspiracies or 10ft high lizards          Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:25, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Replies
Too difficult to find the begining, so I divided the last part.--Zara-arush (talk) 23:37, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Dear participants of these debatres, though the article has nothing to do with the article about cat breed, I guess it is better to discuss here, what is interesting for us only, before its deletion, as it does not add more info to the main artilce. Now I will read, what you replied, and explain, what I consider is wrong. 1) Yalens had written: If one of them had the cat, they'd take the cat along with them when they switched urban->rural or vice versa, so I don't really see why it matters. I do not speak about rural and urban Kurds. Both rural and urban population may have cats, but not nomadic sheep breeders, who wandered along the territory from Caucasus to Persia, Iraq and Taurus mountains, etc.  There are historic facts, what type of Kurds had been in the territories around lake Van.  You should realize that it is very painful theme for all parties of our dispute.  But it is our common history.  The nomadic sheep-breeders could not have any cats, just because domestic cats do not have a habit to wander.--Zara-arush (talk) 21:40, 25 July 2009 (UTC) 2) "the cat controversy is more of an effect of already existing hatred" - If you want to discuss the origins of hatred, it is better to start a special article on the common history and discuss it there, but not in a cat fancy article, if such an article will not violate Wikipedia rules!--Zara-arush (talk) 21:55, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

3) Meow had written: "Take them away and there is nothing left in the article". In general, my ideas are contrary to Mr/Ms Meow, but really, besides the denial of the participation of the Armenians in the creation of the ancient stock of van-patterned red-and-white cats of Van, as well as the naming of the Armenians nationalists that had been in minority in their own land, according to Turkish official census before 1915, there was nothing.  I added the name of Van cat in Kurdish to the main article, as they live there in present and have their own name for the local type of cats.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zara-arush (talk • contribs) 22:01, 25 July 2009 (UTC) --Zara-arush (talk) 22:08, 25 July 2009 (UTC) 4) Yalens: The article does not state that Turkey has intentions of wiping out Armenian or Kurdish culture and that the cat is in any way linked to this.
 * But Turkish authorities did it and do it. And the whole rush around Van cat is the continuation of this politics. If we say the cat is van-patterned, they say it it is all-white.  In case we would say it is all-white, they would invent some other coloration.--Zara-arush (talk) 22:08, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

5) Yalens: It would be much appreciated and beneficial for both of us if you would try to work with us, Meowy, rather than against us.
 * Then, invent other theme, for instance, "who are the aboriginal population in Eastern Anatolia", and discuss it there. The cats shall not become the victims of Turkish "whitening" of its bloody history.--Zara-arush (talk) 22:12, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

6) Elen wrote: I cannot recommend the Swine Flu at all guys. Don't get it, whatever you do.
 * The same to you, Elen! I wrote you my "recommendations", your reply shows, you get some complications, and I how, it was not, what you written.--Zara-arush (talk) 22:15, 25 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Two things to reply to...

To ElenoftheRoads: mmm... I would really prefer to keep the article separate, because it isn't really (at least, not my idea when I started the article) only about cats. Rather, its 50% cat fancy, and 50% nationalism/politics. So I wouldn't really back a merge unless the only other option is complete deletion. And if it is to be included in a separate article, it's important to keep the feeling of political dispute, as its more of a cultural border issue really. Or I suppose you could make a section of the Van Cat page "Political disputes related to the Van Cat" and include this there. I wouldn't really be against that.

But let's remember to emphasize that the Angora is completely different from the Angora, and has mostly been treated as such.

As for ethnic/national hatreds, judging from the political nature of the article, you can't really just censor them all out. Yes, feelings are involved. But, like it or not, it's out there, and its a central part of the history of the cat. Obviously, we should work for a NEUTRAL, NON-BIASED article by always portraying such statements in quotes and emphasizing that none is by any means an accepted viewpoint. But the fact is that the cat has been heavily affected by the conflicts between Turks and Kurds as well Turks and Armenians, and this has a lot to do with its population issues. Furthermore, as a side affect, "ownership" over the breed is disputed.

@Zara-Arush:

Not that the rest of us are free of bias, but I mean, that's a pretty overwhelmingly pro-Armenian viewpoint there. The generalization of all Kurds as pastoral nomads has never been historically correct, and the fact is that Kurds have switched from settled to nomadic throughout history as well, as have many Northern Middle Eastern people, also including ancient Armenians. As for the cat, it would probably just stay in the Van and surrounding lakes region, which has always been an area of mixed Kurdish and Armenian heritage. Where the two cultures shade into each other. Of course, the cat has been around since before the ethnogenesis of either group, so it is probably actually a result of Hurrian and Utartian developments or that of their predecessors. The antiquity of Utartians and Hurrians is a thing that is part of both Armenian and Kurdish heritage, as a sort of common ancestral group to both (further backing my own opinion that the cat can be called both Armenian and Kurdish, being right on the halfway line between the two, which practically goes through Van).

Anyhow, regardless of either of our personal opinions, we should just portray the three viewpoints equally so we have a neutral article, that being...

TURKISH: The cat breed is a modern development and it was standardized as a breed by Turks, so there's nothing wrong with calling it Turkish. Furthermore, Kurds and Armenians are hardly culturally related to their ancient ancestors, and it was the Turks that *biasalert* picked up the cat breeding torch in the modern day.

RADICAL TURKISH VIEWPOINT: The cat comes from Central Asia, just like the Turks. MY NOTE: Of course, genetic studies of both the human Turks and the Van cats instantly disprove this...

KURDISH: The cat is Kurdish, as the informal breed was developed by Kurds, who have inhabited the region for many millenia, sometimes under different names. The Kurdish culture has always been very fond of cats (as is generally agreed upon by cultural studiers), and the Van cat is a result of this ancient antiquity. However, the alien/invader *biasalert* Turks more or less kidnapped the breed at the final stage of its ancient development and then standardized it, taking all the credit for themselves. The cat can be called Kurdish, as it was Kurds (ME THINKING: and what about Armenians) who contributed historically to its development. Kurds may be dismissive of Armenian claims to the breed.

ARMENIAN: (pretty much similar to the Kurdish viewpoint, except wherever you see "Kurd", insert "Armenian"). In addition, Armenians view the Turkish "kidnapping" of the breed as partly symbolic of the genocide and the attempts to erase all traces of Armenians on their beloved ancestral lands, which also impacted the cat. Furthermore, some Armenians view the cat as more likely to be Armenian as Kurds are stereotypically viewed as nomadic pastoralists.

And, we should make note of all three/four, no? --Yalens (talk) 22:17, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

New portion of replies
7) Elen wrote: Rename Turkish Van to Van (cat) Why? There is a category in Cat portal project, relating to various cat breeds, recongnized by international orhanizations.  I inserted the data on Armenian origin of van-patterned red-and-white Van cats to avoid the on-sided representation of the breed origin, nothing else.  I made this addition as short as possible.  My own articles on the breed are much longer than our discussion even.--Zara-arush (talk) 22:24, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

8) Elen: also some archaeological information which is frequently referred to (roman statues etc)
 * What roman statues you mean? And what archeological information? Don't you know that any material evidence of the presence of the Armenians earlier than the 18th c., is "whitened" in Turkey? You will not find anything found in the last 70 years, or you should go there and dig out yourself, if they did not manage to crush it before you come there.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zara-arush (talk • contribs) 22:31, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

@Zara-Arush (sorry, editing conflicts didn't give me time to discuss your other posts):

First of all, you stated... ''4) Yalens: The article does not state that Turkey has intentions of wiping out Armenian or Kurdish culture and that the cat is in any way linked to this.
 * But Turkish authorities did it and do it. And the whole rush around Van cat is the continuation of this politics. If we say the cat is van-patterned, they say it it is all-white.  In case we would say it is all-white, they would invent some other coloration.--Zara-arush (talk) 22:08, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

5) Yalens: It would be much appreciated and beneficial for both of us if you would try to work with us, Meowy, rather than against us.
 * Then, invent other theme, for instance, "who are the aboriginal population in Eastern Anatolia", and discuss it there. The cats shall not become the victims of Turkish "whitening" of its bloody history.--Zara-arush (talk) 22:12, 25 July 2009 (UTC)''

As an Armenian cat fancier yourself, this is a perfect example of the Armenian opinion. So simply put it in the article, but WITH QUOTES. '''I understand your frustration. However, we NEED to have an unbiased article. So we must state that as a Kurdish and Armenian view of the conflict, but not as universal truth, however much we may think it is. Its better than having no article at all, anyhow. So please understand. I'm only trying to preserve the article.''' I'm not trying to help the country of Turkey maintain any more of its historical revisionist whitewashing. So please just put whatever you feel about Turkey IN QUOTES as the Armenian viewpoint saying "some Armenians think... is another example of Turkish historical whitewashing", etc, and preferrably find some other website on line that shares the opinion (which, judging from all the other Armenians I've talked to, is pretty much a national consensus in Armenia as well as among the diaspora). Please. --Yalens (talk) 22:33, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

From Elen, Re point 7 - I meant renaming Turkish Van as Van (cat). This matches Persian (cat) and Siamese (cat) which are other ancient breeds. Alternatively, we could leave it as Turkish Van, but then it would have to match Turkish Angora and contain the whole story of the cat, not just the story of the cat breed (something Meowy has previously objected to with bad words)

Re point 8 - remember what I said - no ethnic rhetoric. I am not talking about Armenian artefacts - the Roman Empire did a tour of the area around Lake Van, same as it did a tour of where I live, and where the Romans went, there they left a huge mass of archaeology. In this case, I have seen in articles on websites of van cat breeders, mention of their being a Roman statue or statues, or carvings, or other evidence of Van cats as recorded by the Roman Empire. I have never seen anything that said "this statue is in this museum here" or "a photograph of this statue is in that book there" or even "this statue was blown up by the Turks, but Lord Byron made a drawing of it". Hence, I don't know if this statue is a myth like the one about the lion sneezing out cats, or whether this statue exists somewhere.

@Yalens: the only way to do an article or section of a larger article on controversy will be to give some details of all sides, without giving undue weight to that section of the article. I think this article by itself cannot survive - it would have been deleted if the closing admin had not had the offer of somewhere to merge it to.Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:49, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

9) what makes the Van cat different from the Angora."
 * Don't you know that, if you mate a white cat with any other color, 1-3 kittens of 5-6 will be all-white, and if the cat will be homozygous in WW, that all the kittens will be all-white? If you do it in several generations, the number of all-white will increase.  To introduce all-white, they took all-white Angoras.  In Europe (Holland and Germany, and USA as well) they made a mix of all the cats, imported from Turkey. Why?  Becuase it is prohibited to mate two all-whites in all the cat breeds.  I know the cats of several Van Kedisi breeders, just because before they took offensive of my participation in protecting the traditional TUVs, they were in pen-pall relations wit me.  The same cats participated in all they breeding programs: TUVs, Anatoli, Vans. If you mate TUV with all-white odd-eyed Angora, in several generations, you will het some quantity of all-white cats that resemble witened Vans.  But what about the others? And you will get a mixture of Angora-Van and having unhealthy genes, joined with W-gene.  The morphologic traits of cats are regulated by polygenes and it is much more difficult in cats than in dogs, for instance.  That is why, there are less body size and structure types in cats than in dogs. And it has nothing to do with dog's domestication loger period and their utility purposes.--Zara-arush (talk) 22:50, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, are they or aren't they (don't answer me here, put evidence in the article)

The TUV and TUA are 2 different breeds with their haplotypes - the genetic signatures. It is from the published results of geneticists' research. None offered the geneticists to compare Van Kedisi and TUVs. But, most of TUV breederts know well one another, and what cats they have and what they mate. There had been special genetic investigation for TUAs and TUVs, the results were submitted to CFA and TICA corresponding clubs and breeders had been notified individually of the genotypes of their cats, if there were out of the main haplotype of TUVs, and used imports of mix origin. You also should realize that an international cat fancier organization will not enter into politics and ethnic conflicts. To understand, what I write about and my worries about TUVs, you should read all scientific research piblished results of the last 5-10 years. Nothing good is expected of the introduction of W- into the breeding of van-patterned TUVs.--Zara-arush (talk) 23:33, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Elen: what is currently happening to the cat in the Van region. I had never happened to see any standard. Just all-white and odd-eyed, both SLH and SH variants. You may see cats resembling what we imagine about Angora, Van (both European and US), old-type Perisian, Siberian, Anatoli, etc. Who knows, what they do with not-all-whites! You may learn, if you offer your routine volunteer assistance to the Van House. All cats that are not all-white and odd-eyed may be named "sokak kedi" - "street cat".--Zara-arush (talk) 23:46, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Elen: "the way the cat has become a political symbol the cat in literature, art etc. "
 * It starts from Ata Turk and his prediction. If you know some Turkish people, try to ask them, what does it means: to bite a person at his/her ancle?

The examples is literature and art are inserted in short in the main article.

Dear Elen, if we add all these in one article, it will be so long that none will understand, what this article is about. The main article shall be like it is at present: Turkish Van + some issues about the genetic differences of solid white and van pattern, with their relations to health matters. Another article may be Van Kedisi, and Turkish Van Kedisi, because there are several organizations that revognized under different names and on different conditions. If someone want to create special article about Turkish point of view or Kurdish point of view or Armenian point of view on the original stock and national traditions they may enlarge the shorter infos in the main article. Wikipedia is an electronic book and we may enjoy the chances that Wiki software may give us.--Zara-arush (talk) 23:57, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

<!-- == OK, lets discuss the Kurds (but only for ourselves) == To explain, what I ment, I opened again my favorite Wikipedia - article Kurdish people: "The term Kurd in historical times certainly had a socio-economic rather than ethnic meaning until the 19th century.[25]

This term was used of nomads on the western edge of the Iranian plateau and probably also of the tribes that acknowledged the Sassanians in Mesopotamia, many of which must have been Semitic in origin.[25]" --Zara-arush (talk) 00:24, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Then, in History of Kurdish people: "The term "Kurd" is first encountered in Arabic sources of the first century of the Islamic era[3]. The term seems to refer to variety of pastoral nomadism and possibly a set of politcal units, rather than linguistic group[3]". --Zara-arush (talk) 00:29, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


 * What you speak of is only the definition of "Kurd" as historically known to not-so-Kurd-friendly Arabs and Turks (ironic for an Armenian to spout similar viewpoints to the dreaded Turks, if you ask me, but oh well). It really says nothing about Kurds as an ethnic group. The fact is that there has been a pattern of dominant ethnic groups historically inhabiting the same area. Originally, Kurdistan and Armenia were inhabited by teh brother ethnic groups Hurrians and Utartians respectively (who both have ethnolinguistic links to the Northeast Caucasus, who's proto-language suggests that its speakers were originally probably native to the fertile crescent, as stated by Johanna Nichols and others). After the invasion of Indo-European tribes, both Utartians and Hurrians were Iranified, but to differing degrees. The Hurrians became the Medes and later Cyrti (Kurds), and their language became extremely close to Persian, and their DNA was also heavily influenced, causing them to be genetically extremely European-like. This happened with the Utartians (who became the Armenians) as well, but to a lesser degree, and thus the Armenians are genetically close to their more indigenous Caucasian ancestors-- Avars, Lezgins, Chechens, Georgians, Azeris (i.e., Turkified Udi), etc-- while still being somewhat genetically and linguistically Iranified. The Armenian language is much more unique than Kurdish, but Kurdish is usually referred to being the closest major Indo-European langauge to Armenian, lexically and gramattically, though Kurdish is probably closer to Persian than Armenian due to Persian have much greater contact and influence due to history (especially the Islamic religion shared by Persians and Kurds, but not Armenians).

Whatever the case, ethnic groups do not maintain overwhelming majorities over areas as huge as Kurdistan by being only pastoral nomads, you are aware of that, right. Whatever stereotypes Arabs or Turks or whoever may fling at the Kurds by some sort of historical definition, its not the first time that ethnic groups have been confuzed by dominating powers. The fact is that there has been a Kurdish entity in existence, just like that of Armenians, Persians, Assyrians, etc, since ancient times. By that definition, Christian Armenians and Assyrians, who have frequently -also- been pastoral nomads, are Kurds. If you are fine being called a Kurd, fine by me. I don't think so, though. I refer to them as "Kurds" from a Western, modern perspective, as an ethnolinguistic group, rather than a lifestyle. There are Persian herders, Kurdish herders, Armenian herders, and there have always been. Just because there are a lot of Kurdish herders doesn't change the fact that there has always also been an urban Kurdish elite, and it has been that elite that has produced the oh-so-numerous examples of Kurdish literature. Pastoral nomads -don't- produce literature.

Anyhow, this is off-topic. The fact is that Kurds are just as much of an urban, cat-breeding-capable ethnic group as Turks, Armenians or whoever, as is proven by the historical proof of an urban Kurdish elite that produces literature and occasionally plenty of harem girls for Ottomon rulers on top of other things as well. Now, can we move on? --Yalens (talk) 02:50, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


 * "Where the two cultures shade into each other."

Please, give examples of these shades. Do you know any?--Zara-arush (talk) 10:05, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Though I am not a historian and I do not study ancient languages. Anyhow you had written: "Originally, Kurdistan and Armenia were inhabited by teh brother ethnic groups Hurrians and Utartians respectively" Both the names are not the self names of the named ancient ethnic groups. But even in this case these two names indicate one and the same ur-ar root, as well as har-hay. They indicate the same ethnic group. The only relation that the Kurds have to the Armenians is their origin of proto-Indo-European tribes. Speaking some dialect or a kind of dialect does not mean that they have the same ethnicity. What I mean. I know both Polish and Russian. Owing to this I understand rather well Ukrainian, Belorussian, Chekh, Slovak, Bulgarian, etc. The differences among them are about the same degree (a little less) than between English and French. But it does not mean these languages are spoken by the same ethnicity. The same with the Kurds: Muslim Kurds and Yezidis speak the same language, but are they the same? Where is the difference that makes them even enemies?

It is not by chance that the present science tries to pass by such notions as nationalities without state structures. And it is not just Turkish invention to "whiten" their history.--Zara-arush (talk) 10:20, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

"thus the Armenians are genetically close to their more indigenous Caucasian ancestors-- Avars, Lezgins, Chechens, Georgians, Azeris (i.e., Turkified Udi), etc-- while still being somewhat genetically and linguistically Iranified." Where did you found this nonsense? Try to find better sources for your mental construction. Sorry, but it will be too difficult to go on in our discussion, if you base your arguments on the "air-palaces", constructed by some propagandistic historical falsifications.--Zara-arush (talk) 10:25, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Yalens had written: "and preferrably find some other website on line that shares the opinion" I am sure, it will be the best way out for the censors of Turkish Van article. And it was the main purpose (to make a van-patterned TUV fancier to sut up and let them to continue their "whitening" without waste of their precious time and moneys. This discussion is the best way to unmask the real interests of the involved parties.  You do your best to involve me in political like discussions and to forget my main intentions to protect the formed healthy cat breed from the further "whitening".  OK, I think we have clreared up our points of view here.  And the naming controversy article has nothing to do with cat fancy article and cats.  So, I will ask Meow to delete all this nonsense completely. The only one thins that we may do before it, we shall come to agreement that the main article shall be about the recognized in international cat fancy breed - Turkish Van cat - that had been created on the cats, imported from Lake Van region, and that cats are the offsprings of ancient breed-like groups that were created by several millenea ago by the settled tribes of proto-Indo-Europeans. The legends reflect the existance of ancient cults, so the parts of the article such as 1) its initial sentense, 2) the legends, shall remain in the same form as they are already written. The all-white cats' tradition had been adopted by the Turks from the population of ancient Ankira that exported white wool of several domestic animals since the times of Ankuvash.

The main body shall contain: separate chapters about the history of recognition of the breed in the West, the standards and appearance, character, etc. I am sure it is not the worst article even in the form it exists at present. But we shall add also some info about the differences in genetics of pie-bold and solid white and health aspects (in short with links to correspondent articles in Wikipedia and outer sources). You should remember that the largest cat fancy organizations denied to recognize all-whites, because they did not meet the requirements to any breed and color.

And my best wishes to Helen and Yalens: better have van-patterned Turksh Van, and you will understand, why I spent so much time trying to protect them.--Zara-arush (talk) 10:56, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, as for where the "propagandistic information" comes from, it comes from many places, but according to even wikipedia "Y-chromosome haplogroups indicate that Indo-European-speaking Armenians and Turkic-speaking Azerbaijanians from the republic are genetically more closely related to their geographic neighbors in the Caucasus than to their linguistic neighbors elsewhere.". There are plenty of other such statements around wikipedia, but the point is that three non-Caucasian linguistically major ethnic groups, mainly, Armenians, Azeris and Kurds have shown large genetic affinity to the Caucasus. Armenians most of all, then Azeris and finally Kurds. Armenians and Azeris are genetically mostly Caucasian, though supposedly, Azeris are noticeably more mixed with other groups than Armenians, and Kurds are heavily mixed with Caucasian DNA playing a large role in the mix.

Anyhow, I am a little bit shocked that that should come as that much of a surprise. What did you think, that Armenians were an extra speshul group of people with absolutely no genetic affinity to anyone at all? Such things do not exist. Linguistic isolates are rare and controversial, and genetic isolates are far rarer, and impossible in such a region as the South Caucasus.

As for the Kurds, differences in religion and lifestyle are present with most ethnic groups. It doesn't change the fact that, from a modern, Western way of looking at things, Kurds as a distinct ethnic group with a distinct language and distinct culture and whatnot, exist and have existed. Whether it was the Muslim ones or the Yezidis or the Yarsans or the Alevis or the Jewish Kurds or the Christian ones hardly matters, it was probably all of them. Just like lifestyle, Kurds have switched back and forth with religions. Its like trying to make a difference between the Catholic Armenians and the Apostolic ones. It just doesn't work. Of course there are cultural differences between them, but they are ALL Kurds.

Let's forget this disagreement, though, until we can be sure that this information is here to stay. We must put aside our disagreements and cultural misunderstandings so we can ensure our common interest of the preservation of the display of this info is achieved. Please understand. I know you feel strongly about wanting to preserve the information as well, right Zara-Arush?--Yalens (talk) 16:09, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Whatever, you are right, we cannot discuss this. We must put aside our nationalistic differences and work towards our common goal, preservation of the display of this important information.

My reply to Yalens
Here is what is written in Wiki about the genetics of the Armenians: Genetic relations The geographical distribution of the R1b haplotype is such that it is shared by Armenians and two other populations from the Caucasus.[23] Moreover, it is lacking in most other populations from the Caucasus, as well as in the other populations from further east. On the other hand, it is more frequently found in Europe, where, as we know, haplogroup R1b tends to have higher frequencies as well.

“ The Armenian modal haplotype is also the modal R1b3 haplotype observed by Cinnioglu in Anatolia. According to him, apparently it entered Anatolia from Europe in Paleolithic times, and diffused again from Anatolia in the Late Upper Paleolithic.

It would be better not to trust to any source. The haplogroup of the largest number of the Armenians was studied by Cavalli-Sforca (I do not remember now the spelling of the name, I will check it later) several years ago, and h made the map where each haplogroup is located. --Zara-arush (talk) 19:28, 26 July 2009 (UTC)--Zara-arush (talk) 20:46, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


 * How about quoting the page on the origin of the Azeris... A 2003 study found that: "Y-chromosome haplogroups indicate that Indo-European-speaking Armenians and Turkic-speaking [Azeris] from the republic are genetically more closely related to their geographic neighbors in the Caucasus than to their linguistic neighbors elsewhere." among other things.

Whatever, this is pointless. With your permission, may I delete any references to this disagreement, on both of our sides?--Yalens (talk) 00:35, 27 July 2009 (UTC) -->

No consensus to merge
It would appear from the whole of the above discussion that there is no consensus to merge this article into any article on the Van cat. Meowy, I believe the correct course should you still believe this article should be deleted would be to relist it at AfD, making reference to this discussion. Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:01, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I have confirmed with the closing admin that in the case of failure to agree a merge, it would be acceptable to relist after even a short time if someone still feels that the article should be deleted, pointing out in his/her nom that the previous AfD ended with a proposal to merge which cannot be carried through.  I'm not proposing that anyone does this, just pointing out the consequence of not merging.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:11, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Is it even possible to consider, from your (Elen of the Roads)' point of view that we could have an independent page if we just worked on it enough.

Ah, well, though, it seems I was mistaken about Zara-Arush's ideas when the two of us originally made this page, and the two of us have gotten into somewhat of a minor conflict over how the politics is going to be portrayed on the page, though I won't go there, and she still hasn't responded to my attempt at reconciliation (lame one at that, but still).

If there is really such a time limit, I suppose I have no choice but to accept a merge. But I'd rather not. Frankly, while it was part of the other page, there were constant attempts to delete it. I don't trust Meowy at all (why would I). As soon as the information is more vulnerable as it is not its own page anymore, they'll talk about "oh, no politics in a cat fancy article" again, and it'll just get deleted. That's why I haven't been all that enthusiastic for the merge... but...if its the only option, then... I'll have to wait for Zara-Arush to get back to me...--Yalens (talk) 00:06, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, I am not going to nominate this for deletion. But I'm not going to merge it either, as I don't have any consensus to do so - and I can't explain anything to Zara-Arush, he (she?) either ignores me or doesn't understand a word I say (not bothered which, just find it too hard to deal with).  I also think you are right, Meowy may well just delete it if it is merged.  But the AfD ended with a recommendation to merge, so there is nothing to stop it being relisted for deletion as the merge attempt has stalled.  Basically, I'm walking away at this point, so that others may continue to take the project forward as they wish.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Dear Elen (let's also check, if you are she or he, because, judging of your nick you are she), I thought it will not be too difficult to understand that I am "she". Were my answers too mannish? Anyhow, you may be more used to other derivative of the same name: Zarah. Well, let's be back to our "cats". I do not know, why you decided that I do not understand, what you write about. The difference is not in the languages, but in our mentalities. Would you like, if I start to explain you how you must cook your favourite cherry sponge pudding that, to tell the truth, I had never saw in my life?

So, I write once more that this article has very little to do with cat fancy. I will not object, if it will be deleted. --Zara-arush (talk) 17:55, 29 July 2009 (UTC)--Zara-arush (talk) 17:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

My last editing of this article
I just edited the text on the article page and renamed it. There is the truth, what happened, how and why, and we should not hide our heads into the sand, pretending we are tolerant. Tolerant to what?

Anyhow you made to change the cat fancy discussion into political and relating to ethnic difficulties. If you like it, then the truth shall be reflected. Best wishes, --Zara-arush (talk) 21:54, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi, the group! It looks like you got too tired of the discussion. Please, look at the page of the discussion of Van Kedisi: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Van_Kedisi#References_for_the_Van_kedisi What do you think? I offer to edit in the part of legends, that the 1-st mentioned legend was preserved by the Kurds (instead of the Turks). I hope you will not object to it. Love and Peace, --Zara-arush (talk) 00:04, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Doing so would be much appreciated, it is good to see that you are working hard for the sake of the wiki, Zara-Arush... I have no objections, except that if you do do it, try to make it sound at least somewhat neutral, or else you'll only get opposition (i.e. say, it is believed by some people or whatnot, since its not universally agreed upon, mostly because the Turks are rather stuck up in their belief that Anatolia was uninhabited prior to their arrival, ignorant of the fact that they aren't really from Central Asia in the first place as their genes prove, that they are simply a ton of Turkified Armenians, Greeks and Kurds)--Yalens (talk) 00:29, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Yalens, I made this editing in the min article. Please, look at and write your comments, if it is OK from your point of view. I guess, it really explains, why the Turks oppose van-patterned cats in general. As for the Turks' genes, they are not as you write, "Turkified Armenians, Greeks and Kurds". A Turkified still remains what he/she is: Armenian, Greek and Kurd. How to find out if the person in fron of you is Armenia? Just look into the eyes. Usually, it helped me to understand the situation. I managed to identify a person out of 30-40 people. And, if we take Indo-Europeans (including ancient Egypt) we are of Eastern Anatolia, aka Atmenian Plato, if we take all the mankind, we all are "out of Africa". The time is a relative concept as in genetics, the same is for the Lord.

And I just noticed the following explanation in the discussion page of the main article that explains much about the breed: "It needs to be clear that this is about the BREED known as the Turkish Van cat. Breeds are cats intentionally bred to certain standards and are recognizable on sight for what they are. The 'breed' known as the Turkish Van was established using van patterned cats from Turkey that bred true (producing offspring that looks like the parents) with the intent of them being a distinctive stand alone breed. A breed does not nor should it represent all of the cats that occur in the country of origin. Look at the cats from the zoos in Turkey that work with all white cats and you will see that they are not bred to a standard, they all look different from each other with respect to body structure and coat length and the only defining characteristic is the color of the cat (white). This does not make a breed. Years ago breeders selectively bred those all white cats from Turkey to establish the Turkish Angora (using white cats from the Ankara Zoo) as a breed which is now recognized around the world. To call all of the white cats in Turkey a breed is nonsensical. And to consider that both breeds that have the word Turkish as a prefix should be all white makes no sense either. Understanding how the Turkish Van was named sheds light on the subject and given the geopolitical aspects should be changed rather than to try to change a breed that was established based on specific criteria. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dvancat (talk • contribs) 16:37, 25 July 2009 (UTC)" Love and Peace,--Zara-arush (talk) 02:16, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Another comment for Yalens, relating to her comment: "the Turks are rather stuck up in their belief that Anatolia was uninhabited prior to their arrival". Who know the Turks better than the Armenians? --Zara-arush (talk) 02:19, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

And what comes out of the discussion and my editing of legends. The legend on "Allakh's" thumbprint had been told by the Kurds and the Kurds believe (or believed some 10-20 years ago yet) that Van cat was van patterned and red and white. Thatis why these cats had been poisoned and now substituted with solid whites. Dear Yalens, please, write, what you think.--Zara-arush (talk) 02:29, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Heh. First of all, Yalens is a male, and should not be referred to as a "her". Of course, in my non-internet life, I have gotten mistaken for a female many times, so you'd think I'd be used to it, and sometimes I don't mind, but still... I am male. So its "...Yalens, relating to his comment".


 * Anyhow. (Indo-Europeans in Ancient Egypt... what...? I've heard of Circassians there, but...) To be honest, I know pretty little about the Ankara. As in, my cat breed book has a page on it, but I really never got interested in it. But it doesn't change the fact that it isn't the first time something like what you describe (grabbing a ton of cats with a certain pattern or whatnot all living around the same place and collectively calling them a "breed") hasn't only occurred with regards to the Ankara/Angora. Many other breeds, including the Egyptian Mau, the Manx and plenty of others, are actually a result of the same practice, as flawed as it is. So saying that can't be called a breed also delegitimizes plenty of other breeds, so I doubt many people will back that viewpoint. I'm neutral, I simply don't know enough about the Angora/Ankara to take a stance. Of course, I agree with you about the fallacious use of the word "breed" there... sort of... (well, for me it has a lot to do also with the fact that the Turkish language and culture are not native to the region, so you can't call anything from the region, you know, Turkish... its like calling something from the America's "English" or "Spanish"; it's even somewhat incorrect to call the people Turks, even though they call themselves Turks, their genes prove otherwise, that they aren't at all from Central Asia)


 * With regards to the legends, largely due to that, I just refer to the standardized breed as the Standard Van, the red-marked one as Kurdish, though I have some doubts that that's even the right way to refer to it. I haven't really heard the Armenian viewpoint, since they're voices or somewhat muffled by Armenia's relative unimportance and focus on Nagorno-Karabakh for its nationalistic rhetoric (whereas, Kurds are very focused on the Van region, which was once inhabited by a considerable amount of Armenians, becoming part of an independent Kurdistan or Neo-Media as some want to call it). The legend is quite touching, whatnot, and obviously the Turkish stance, that somehow the past can be just erased and ignored, holds no weight in my mind. The ultranationalistic viewpoint that somehow, the cats came from... Central Asia... also strikes me as ridiculous. But there's never been anything to disprove the Armenian viewpoint or anything to disprove the Kurdish viewpoint- as I said before, in my view, just because some people misused "Kurd" to imply nomadism, it doesn't change the fact that there has definitely an elite, settled, urban Kurdish contingent, the one that has produced plenty of literature in a language that has been traced at each stage as it evolved into modern Kurdish. So there has always definitely been an urban settled elite speaking that language, so they could definitely be capable breeding cats, or atleast domesticating them. The possibility of Armenians, who are also settled, and have had writing and whatnot since ancient times, goes without saying. And furthermore, who knows that the original people who domesticated the cat in the region into the modern Van couldn't be some ancient ethnic group that are now completely gone from the pages of history? Either way, it's probably likely that both Armenians and Kurds probably would have adopted the breed, of sorts, so they have done the most recent significant contributions to its development. Thus, in all likelihood, the breed could be considered both Armenian and Kurdish. As for the Turks, in my opinion, invading peoples can't claim cultural ownership over things that have obviously been there long before the Turkish culture, alien, appeared on the region. But of course, this only my opinion, not a universal truth.

A pretty much back your viewpoint that with regard to the "Turkish" Van, the fact that its supposed to represent both the Van region and Turks is wrong. It's not Turkish, and it can't represent the region, precisely for the reasons you describe.

It's not only that. They try to erase the Kurdish claims to the cat by getting rid of the ones with red markings, and then vehemently deny that they are trying to poison the breed. Of course, they aren't really lying, since by their definition, the breed can't have anything Kurdish or Armenian in it. This just another example of Turkey trying to pretend that the non-Turks who have lived in regions claimed by Turkey for millenia simply do not exist, or otherwise are "Mountain Turks" (what nonsense).

But even this doesn't change the fact that even the all-white ones are the result of domestication and breeding by NON-TURKS, so even they can't reasonably be called Turkish.

So, that's pretty much my own thoughts on the matter, if you want to know...

--Yalens (talk) 18:11, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Some Replies to Yalens
What I ment, when mentioned Egypt: "Testament to full domestication comes from a much later period. A nearly 3,700-year-old ivory cat [c. 1700 BCE] statuette from Israel suggests the cat was a common sight around homes and villages in the Fertile Crescent before its introduction to Egypt. [Baloney!] This scenario makes sense, given that all the other domestic animals (except the donkey) and plants were introduced to the Nile Valley from the Fertile Crescent. " It's nice, that you are he, but try to read more. (And why "Yalens"? In all the sources, it is a female name.  I will not be surprised then, if Ellen in the roads, one day write, that she is not she also).

What we discuss here is too complicated, one-sidedness may crush what we managed to achieve. The same about te ethnic groups that inhabited Van and other parts of Armenian Highlands. These people were living in different times, and they even might name themselves differently, but they were descendants of the same root and spoke the same language that passed numerous stages in its development. The same was with their appearance. We should realize that when we speak about ancient mutations in cats or dogs, we speak about times really immemorial, earlier than pre-historic. The time lines may confirm only that before 2000-1500 BCE when the cats were brought to Egypt, there had been only red cats with some white spots. Van pattern could appear later or it appeared just in Van area, where the cats were in the temples. These people could be the ancestors of Armenians, in any case they were proto-Indo-Europeans and nothing else. There had been unique Indo-European language, and when the people increased in number some families left to new lands, sutable for farming. It was a long and continueous process. The evidence is the colonization of Cyprus. The next - "colonization" of Egypt (as I already mentioned. I am not a scientist, so I may say something, before they will prove it.  Even having the proves they will hazitate long, before they will publish it.  The Armenians had never enter in the discussions about the cats, because we had more vital problems to solve.  As for me, I am far away from the politics.  Too much politics around.  I need some rest, and the cats render it.  I may not understand your interest in the Kurds and Turks, and why you support so much what you know of what they say.  You do not believe the Turks, but you do not believe to the Armenians.  You call us nationalists (and not the first time).  At the same time you support the Kurds, as if they are not nationalists.  What is bad in the term nationalist, if it is a person, who protects the life of his wife and children?  You wrote about the Russians that destroyed Grozny and did bad things with the Chechens. But you forget, what bad things the Azeris did starting from Sumgait, if we forget the earlier times, when they had been inspired with the heroic deeds of their Turkish brethren. And why you forget not less heroic behaviour of the Kurds, when they were inspired by their elder again Turkish brothers at the begining of the 20th century.

On this background, I hope you are to appreciate my good will to pass by the contradictions in editing.--Zara-arush (talk) 00:47, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Haha. As for my username, "Yalens" really doesn't mean anything to me, its just, you know, a connection of syllables that sounds nice. I would never use any thing like my real name (though I actually have three middle names, so it wouldn't be hard, but still, real names feel lame online).

I believe you've misunderstood me, at least somewhat. Nationalism present in Armenia no doubt, but I never said I think all Armenians are nationalists. I also never said nationalism was necessarily good or bad, really it can be either, and usually its both. I could probably classify as a Chechen nationalist, even if I'm only 25% Chechen (ah well, even Dudayev actually had a Russian wife, as ironic as that is).

Furthermore, I have nothing against Armenians, or the Armenian viewpoint with regards to the Van. Did I not state that I view the Kurdish and Armenian viewpoints as equal? Well, in case that didn't come off completely, I repeat it now. And furthermore, for the record, I completely side wiht Armenia in the Nagorno-Karabakh war, as Armenia is on the side of self-determination, which is a sacred principle. The people of Karabakh want to be part of Armenia, let them be part of Armenia. Azerbaijan has no right to hold the place hostage.

Anyhow, I would be a little bit hesitant to take far-back historical interpretations as necessarily complete truth. For example, there are many proposed origins for the Indo-European languages, or urheimat hypotheses. The hypothesis that it originates in Armenia or Anatolia is only one. There is also one that says that it originates in the Balkans, in Ukraine and in India. The one that they come from Ukraine is generally the one that gets the most scholarly support.

Anyhow, I will be adding more to this message, but I desperately want to go to sleep right now (I'm literally falling asleep while typing)... please don't reply yet... *yawn* --Yalens (talk) 20:08, 1 August 2009 (UTC) (forgot to sign last time, I was quite sleepy...)

Yalens: "Nationalism present in Armenia no doubt, but I never said I think all Armenians are nationalists." Again, it is very primitive way to stick a label of nationalist, when there are no arguments against the facts. The reality is that there had been a territory, where the ancient peoole could reside and develope and this territory could not be in any other place, besides a zone, where there had not been glacier. The people settled along this zone, where it was possible to carry on animal breeding (medows and grass) and later crop groving. There is nothing offensive in this fact. Even the subterranian cyvilization could develop in the same zone, because there are the mountains in this zone with the largest caves. We should not get surprized, if such a cave cyvilization will be found one day. These people had caranaries and excess food, thus they were considered wealthy, so their neighbours, who were less wealthy also wanted to have this wealth. And it has been going on til the present time. Nothing changes. Why to work hard, if it is possible to steal? The only way to escape of being robbed and killed for the "farmers" was to find new places, and the younger members of the families of the "farmers" went away to find better places for life and work. It is the most logical theory, that I had read about. How could they develop farming in Ukraine, if it was unser gracier? They could only go hunting there. When the ice started to melt, the hunters remained without food. But the younger generations of "farmers" came and the crop agriculture started there also. It is the simplest explanation. All other theories are just speculations and nationalism, yes, it is nationalism, and depending of the situation, this type of naitonalism is threatening, as well as the Turkish and Azeri nationalism, who only this way may explain their bloody business and terrorism against the original inhabitants of the region, the "farmers", and the builders of all these monumets, and the creators of the culture that is unique, because it is based on the traditions coming from their ancestors.--Zara-arush (talk) 11:37, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Farming isn't the only facilitator of linguistic expansion. The first chariots show up in Ukraine, and the horse's domestication, as pointed out by Jared Diamond in GGS, could easily allow for the horse-domesticators to easily overpower other people's unable to ride horses into battle, as seen in Spain's new world conquests. This could be one of many ways Ukrainian-sourced language speakers could easily spread their languages. And furthermore, the Armenia/Anatolia hypotheses fails, as usually, the pattern has been spreading from the Fertile Crescent, which pretty much has all the advantages of Armenia and more, to the South Caucasus and Anatolia (Armenia falling under both). Whereas, it wouldn't have been the only time that peoples from Ukraine greatly conquered vast territories outside Ukraine (it was repeated again with the Scythians, who developed a better way of riding the horse, and then with the Slavs, who conquered huge areas in Eastern and Central Europe, and later Asia, just originating from the Slavic homeland of Ukraine). Furthermore, the Indo-European root language has a word for horse, which means they at least had them. Horses, you know, aren't really native to Armenia. Cats, maybe, horses, no. And furthermore, it means that the root Indo-European language split not long before/after the domestication of horses, so it can't really be a 10000 year old language family. Anyhow, if you want to discuss the urheimat hypotheses for Indo-European languages, it might be better to do it on the talk pages rather than a discussion about the cultural ownership of the Van cat. The Hungarians were originally Magyars from Northern Central Asia, that's pretty cold, and not very suitable for farming. Their closest ethnic brothers, the Mansi, are nomads, so they were probably something of the like before they were influenced by Turkic-speaking tribes and conquered what became Hungary, became Christian and became civilized and whatnot, and became Hungarians. And Ukraine can actually be pretty good farmland, especially if you compare it to where the Mansi live. --Yalens (talk) 20:08, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Dear Mr Yalens, we are not discussing here Indo-European languages, we discuss here, if you remember, the apolitical controversy around Van cat, because I do not like entering into politics. The Armenian Plato starts there, where Fertile Crescent (in its narrow understanding) finishes. The glacier started to melt in the territories above 30 degree to the North not long ago (try to check the dates yorself, please). The genetic research of the domestic animals did its first steps, and the cat genome research was the last in this range (I guess that is why it shall be the most accurate). There is too much that shall be found. There are numerous theories, but most of them just remain hypothesis. The Madyars have the same root as Finnish and Karelian people. And not only language and genetics decide the ethnicity. What I mean? Genetically the closest ethnic groups to the Armenians are the Greeks and Ashkenazi (Jerusalem) Jews. But are we the same? The Persians and Kurds are also very close, and again they differ in many traits (especially Yezidi). And because we discuss the controversy of Van cat name, I said that the Armenians did not come to the territory of Lake Van, they originated in the region by the early division from other proto-Indo-Europeans. --Zara-arush (talk) 23:44, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Seeing as you find it imperative to continue this discussion, I will continue it on the talk page. However, here, discussion about Indo-European language family, genetics of Armenians, and mixing up Ashkenazi Jews with Mizrahis (Jews from the Middle East are MIZRAHI, not Ashkenazi!), are off topic.

With regards to the cat.

So, as for the page...:

1) There is a dispute between the Turks and the non-Turks over what the Van cat is supposed to look like. Turks prefer solid white coats, Kurds and Armenians prefer the traditional white cat with red or brown markings in certain areas, etc, and refer to ethnic traditions (in the case of Kurds) of legends revolving around these markings.

2) Should we make a reference to above mentioned legends, or should we only discuss those on the Turkish Van page

and 3) Merge or not merge

Please give me your opinions on these three decisions.

and PS, don't call me Mr. It feels funny. --Yalens (talk) 16:39, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Dear Mr Yalens, let me repeat again. I am not a historian, a populational geneticist, ethnograph or linguist studying history and origin of languages. I use the data of professional researchers. If you want I may download somewhere the map of men haplotypes of the corresponding published article that is well known. Other replies: 1 - We should discuss the cats here, first of all. It is very curious for me that the legends created such an objection rush. It is admited in cat fancy to mention legends and proverbs about the breed under discussion. The traditions also shall be mentioned. 2 - The legends are already discussed on the main article page and talk page there. 3 - if other users will decide to merge this small article with the main article, I will not object, if there will be no politics in the text. If this paragraph will again defend only one parties' ambitions, I will support the appraoch of deleting it from Wikipedia. The main article is about the cat breed that is endangered. I do all to protect it from making it unhealthy mix of any type of mixes that we may see on the pics of Van Kedisi provided by their breeders. These cats are beautiful like any cat, but are they Van cats? The phenotype resembles all, but not a Van cat: solid white Angora, Anatoli, Siberian, etc.

To stop the discussion about politics and Elens editing of the legends and proverbs I added the chapter on van pattern. I hope it will be appreciated by the well-known cat writer that had published a book about TUVs, as the user claimed. Let us work on the peculiarities of van pattern in TUVs, instead of the political and ethnic controverses. If you so much eager to discuss politics and ethnic conflicts, especially with me, you may open another page in Wikipedia or any other place at your dicision. I promice to add your discussion, if it will remain cyvilized. As for Mr, I am used to address to unknown people like Mr or Ms. It is not bad in a controversy discussion: cooling the passions and reminds about etiquette. Love and Peace,--Zara-arush (talk) 22:10, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Special reply to Yalens
Dear Mr Yalens, here is the link to Wikipedia article that I read and based on the data introduced in it: Race and genetics [2] The file of Europe Map is not in its former place, but if you want I may load it in Wikipedia, if it will not violate some copyright. Or I may download it in a private link just for you. There are several methods to study human genetics, and the science started to develop not long ago. Not all the results are final. Love and Peace --Zara-arush (talk) 22:05, 5 August 2009 (UTC)--Zara-arush (talk) 22:08, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Mr Yalens, I was sure you are having your summer holidays somewhere at the see shore. Welcome to the editing !--Zara-arush (talk) 09:23, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * (don't call me mister...)

It's the sea shore, with an a at the end.

Nah, actually, I've been sitting around sleeping all the time xD.

I've reverted your last edit mostly because I already said "all non-Turkish cultures" were subject to the oppressive policy, and furthermore, starting a sentence with "Though" is a little awkward and not really grammatically correct. Is this okay or should we negotiate a compromise?

Hi, Mr,

Thank you for correcting my spelling mistake, if you check the time I mostly write, you may find out, it is late at night (usually at dawn), when I am really sleepy. But if you correct my edits, relating to the text, it is not OK. Why? The Kurds were not subjected to the genocide at the extent they managed to do it against the Armenians. That is why it is not really correct to join all together. The seperate facts of the same devouring policy shall be seperated to confirm that it happened and is going on. If you speak in general, it is not the same way persuasive. It is better to submit briefly the seperate facts. As a good expert in the cultures of Muslim non-Turks, you may comment the story of Laura Lushington. She discribed the people, who had van cats she saw in her trip in Van. What do you think? Have your read her memoirs about the trip in Van? Have good sun tan! --Zara-arush (talk) 10:25, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * (don't call me mister, I said... sheesh)

Feh. I make spelling mistakes sometimes, but I usually check over first and then again after I post it. But English is the type of language where even native speakers/writers mess up spelling a lot, so you shouldn't be so self-conscious about it (I'm not even kidding).

(I'm really more of an expert of history than cultures, and I'd be reluctant to call myself necessarily an expert in something...)

I'd have to disagree with the statement about the genocide though. The Kurds were victims of that genocide, as well as a later one in the mid 1930s. Remember that the so-called "Armenian" genocide actually wasn't directed at Armenians, but rather at Christians. The tiny amount of Muslim Armenians were spared, and Christian Turks and Christian Kurds were not spared. Of course, though, there are a lot more Christian Kurds than Christian Turks. And later, in the 1930s, there were massive massacres of Alevi, Yezidi and Yarsan Kurds, totalling in more than half a million. You can hardly say Kurds have been spared of genocide. The only difference was that when it was only hte Kurds later on, the world had learned to expect genocide from Turkey, and when there was moves against the Kurds, Turkey got warned rather threateningly (as in, this stops, or you get invaded). And Turkey more or less remembered the humiliating isolation they suffered due to killing the Armenians, so they stopped it. Not that that makes Turkey anything more than awful, but still. I think there isn't a single ethnic minority in Turkey that hasn't been subjected to some form of genocide, or at least an attempt at it. --Yalens (talk) 21:49, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Massacre of the Van cats
Dear Yalens, not Mr, as you like. If you are a historian, you may tell more about the events when about 200 van cats were poisoned as Kurdish cats. What happened at that tiem? Please tell about it. I could not find more information about it. I mean the facts: when, where, how? Was this massacre because of poisoned food or water or gas? Were th people poisoned at the same time?--Zara-arush (talk) 14:22, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Nah, I'm not a historian; I'm an amateur at best... I just like researching this sort of stuff, you know.

Generally, as I've heard it, among people who believe the Turks were trying to exterminate the Van, poison is the method. Though, sadly, I don't know much about this affair and I have some degree of scepticism about it.

The thing is that, while the Turks exterminating the Van thing is rather popular in belief, we actually don't have any proof that it happened except stories about it among the Kurds.

That leads to two possible scenarios of what happened.

Scenario A: The Turks actually did try to exterminate the Van. It may have been the government or groups independent of the government. We'd never know. Afterwards, they covered up there traces somewhat well except for the memory of the Kurdish population of Turks stealing cats and cats dead all over streets or however the story goes. I really am not an expert on this occurance, I'm only hypothesizing.

Scenario B: The Turks did not try to exterminate the Van. Rather, the massive decrease in its numbers can be attributed to warfare in the region, specifically the rampant three-way ethnic violence between Turks, Kurds and Armenians. Cats tend to not survive when whole villages are burnt down and there is fighting all over the place. In essence, the Turks still did kill the cats, but indirectly, as it is due to ethnic violence as a result of Turkish anger towards the separatist sentiment of Kurds and Armenians. In addition, there has been a long running sort of "ethnic territory border dispute" between Kurds and Armenians over guess which region- the Van Lake region. The region had always had a mixed population, however, eventually, the large amounts of Armenian converts to Islam, a seemingly extremely rare occurance, eventually became Kurds due to their isolation from the rest of the Armenian people, who felt that they couldn't except them as compatriots any more after they had converted away from the Apostolic Christian religion. As a result, Kurds with Armenian roots as well as normal Kurds soon formed the majority of the region. It would not be surprising if I learned that the Turks tried to exploit this tension over the region in order to have a "divide and rule policy". Similar to how the Hungarians had a policy of trying to create violence between the Serbs and Croats, both of which wanted independence, the Turks may have liked the prospect of making the Armenians and Kurds fight each other over the region through a series of manipulations, rather than be fighting the Turks, which is what they intended to do originally with their desire for independence... not that the Turks didn't take the largest part in the violence themselves.

That also, I think, may explain why the Kurds lashed out at Armenians in the Van region during the genocide, but outside of the Van region, they helped the Armenians and shielded them. --Yalens (talk) 15:35, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Yalens,

I have nothing against the poor Kurds, but, please do not forget that it is not easy to make executioners and robbers of several thousands of people, and it lasted within several centuries. It does not mean I apply it to the whole nation, because I am sure the people differ. Anyhow, I read the memoirs of the Itslian traveller, who introduced the long hair cats to Europe, he wrote that his wife's parents fled to Baghdad after their native city subjected to robbery and pogroms by the Kurds. It was in Shakh Abbas times. At the begining of the 20th century my grand-grand mother, who had at the time 7 children, was abducted by the Kurds, and the family had no idea, where she had been for about 20 years. The Yezidies, that I know, told that the Kurds hate them even more than the Christians, and kill them, wherever meet them. Even if we consider it is an overstatement, they had some facts that made them to say it. Do you think they had changed? We shall understand that a single man may act as a very kind person, but under the circumstances the group acts as a puppet in skilly hands. But is it possible to make a crowd with any group of people? --Zara-arush (talk) 21:42, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The Kurds of the Van region agreed to do mercenary work killing the Armenians there when the Turks asked them mainly because they had an ethnic conflict over dominance in the region for their planned future state (whenever that'll happen). The Kurds still had to be paid money. Its not that they had much hesitation in killing the Armenians, rather, they just viewed the Turks as more of an enemy, so they had to be bribed. They hate Turks more.

A long time ago, perhaps before everyone in the Ottomon Empire became nationalist, things were divided among religion rather than ethnicity. So, the Muslim Kurds hated the Yezidis and the Christian Kurds. Likewise, the Christian Armenians greatly hated the Muslim Armenians, which the country of Armenia seems so keen on denying the existence of. As in, teh Muslim Kurds accepted the Yezidis, Alevis, and Christian Kurds enough for them to still be around today, and the Jews were pretty much on equal footing with the Muslim Kurds (the Christians ate pork, so that lost them status). They still speak Kurdish. But the Muslim Armenians were all exiled from Armenian communities and ostracized, so that in a very rare occurance in history, they willingly became another ethnicity, because the Kurds opted to let them in, eventually leading to the now-dead dispute over the Van region. Though, it is quite possible that many Christian Kurds eventually became Assyrians or Armenians, its just that I've never yet heard of it occuring, whereas I have read about the Van Armenians.

Of course, when nationalism spread throughout the empire, it was also somewhat of a unifier of religious groups. For example, both the Albanians and the Kurds quickly abandoned their sectarian differences within their groups to unify under a common language. The Armenians, on the other hand, didn't have to; they were practically universally Christian. By definition, you aren't an Armenian if you aren't Christian, or at least that was the line until recently when the documents of Armenophone Muslims and these communities of Armenian-speaking Muslims in Trebizond and Kars were found. I believe I am right in thinking that even today, the Armenians define themselves, like the Serbs do, as an exclusively Christian people.

All the Kurds I've met in my life are Muslims, but they all hold Yezidis in especially high regard, because it is an exclusively Kurdish religion, and according to them, and inalienable part of Kurdish culture. There is one Kurd I know who thinks Islam is the one and only true religion, but all the rest are secular minded. One of them is even thinking of converting to Yezidism.

In the 19-teens, during the Armenian genocide, Kurds followed regional interests. Those closer to Armenia were inclined to either kill the Armenians or tolerate it happening. Generally, the farther west you go, the more universal the desire of the Kurds to shield the Armenians.

The Kurds probably had two main reasons for shielding the Armenians. The first is that they knew they were next and they were were somewhat sympathetic. The other is that they knew their main enemies were: the Turks. Thwarting the Turks is their presumed duty. The only Kurds that killed Armenians, were of course, those with grudges and something to gain from it- the ones in areas of ethnic conflict.

Of course, this only makes it more tragic. Why? Because obviously, the areas of ethnic conflict between Kurds and Armenians are the main ones where Armenians lived. The Kurds in the more western areas of Kurdistan worked to save Armenians, unlike their brethren, but sadly, there simply weren't nearly as many Armenians living there, most of the Armenians were logically in areas where the relations weren't wonderful. And then there are the areas where Armenians were the dominant majority, but by coincidence, there were almost no Kurds living in those areas (Kars, Trebizond, etc.). So, who knows how far the Western Kurds may have gone to save the Armenians had they gotten the chance to. Its just that the Armenians obviously wouldn't flee deeper into the Ottomon Empire where they lived.

It's easy, I think, to judge a whole nation by the actions of a few. Sadly, a few land-and-money hungry, bloodthirsty Kurds are painted as the majority of Kurds. That's only logical, because their actions have much more greater affects than the actions of the rest of the Kurdish nation. But that doesn't mean that they're anything less than a tiny minority, I think.

Of course, as a result of these episodes of conflict due to a couple of bloodthirsty Kurds or a couple of bloodthirsty Armenians, we end up with Kurds and Armenians forgetting that the Turks are the real oppressors, and obviously, as I draw parallels to the situation in teh North Caucasus, this was part of the plan of the Turks to keep them down and the Ottomon Empire or later, Turkey, up.

Though, it seems that Turkey may be on the road to finally conceding the Kurds' right to their own state soon with much US pressure. They are now, surprise, surprise, negotiating with the Kurdish rebels. I think this is a step, don't you? Perhaps they will also eventually come to see their guilt in their atrocities against the Armenian and Assyrian people. I think it would be nice if everyone could get along for once, though I say the first step to that is letting everyone have a country, within reason (as in, not areas completely surrounded by one country).

(sorry for the loong message) Of course, the current Turkish government is probably far from sincere, but with enough pressure, maybe they will come to see that they have been in the wrong all along, and concede back lands, etc. The difference between Turks and Russians is that Turks will negotiate, though usually nothing comes from it. Russians, on the other hand, will kill you as soon as you sit down at the negotiating table simply for not being Christian and Slavic like they are. Killing Maskhadov as he went to negotiate was unforgiveable...

I am on a diagression now. I wish you a nice day. Love and peace. --Yalens (talk) 23:05, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi, You wrote: I have read about the Van Armenians. Too interesting what you have read. The Armenians do live in Muslim surrounding and in Muslim countries. They have good relations with their non-Christian neighbours. I do not know where you get the ideas of the hatred toward non-Christians. I guess it is your own speculation. We do not hate anybody, based on religious or ethnic principles. Why do you envent the hatred where it does not exist? Are you a Turkish expert on originating ethnic and religious conflicts? I may not speculate about the relations of the Chechens and Russians. Too complicated to understand, what is it going there. Anyhow, the terrorism may not produce peace. And any nation needs peace. All the conflicts in the post-Soviet territory bursted in Gorbachev period. After Stalin's "engineering", there had been a several decades period of peace, when the minorities developed their living conditions and culture. They were not "free" at 100 %, of course and were eager for better conditions, more for self-respect. But in general, there had not been the hatred among the nationalities and there were not acts of violation and massacres. Any empire is subject to collapse, but under the ruins the people are killed. What is better for a nationality and what is better for an individual person? The countries, where there are no nationalities and their conflicts, gain. How much did Turkey gain of killing its citizens? They got the territory and stayed at the level of mentality close to 18-19th century. It will go on, until they will be under some richer and highly developed country. It all depends on the further developments in the world.--Zara-arush (talk) 14:55, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * What the Christian Armenians supposedly had for the Muslim ones wasn't really hatred, I don't think. Just disownership. They simply didn't view Muslims as being "Armenian", and they were socially shunned in Armenian communities, so eventually, so it says, they became Kurds. I find that pretty believable. Wikipedia also says this.

People who tried to convert Christian Armenians were hated, for trying to turn Armenians away from the Christian religion, and the ones that did convert, as most of hte other nationalities in the Middle East opted to, were shunned as non-Armenians. I wouldn't assume it is just a "coincidence" that the Armenians, after more than a whole millenia of being almost completely surrounded by Muslims and ruled by them, would remain so universally Christian as they are. It's simply just that, as is the case with the Serbs, the ones that abandoned Christianity were shunned from their communities and developed alternative identities over time. Over thousands of years, this causes a demographic shift in favor the the ethnic group that absorbed them, namely, the Kurds. Keep in mind that these are not modern Armenians we are talking about, but rather, a heavily religious-identified, Medieval people. And I wouldn't be quick to assume that one people are more inclined to hatred than another. Things fluctuate with time and area, and with individuals. Some people hate, some don't. That is true of all ethnic groups. Of course, history has something to do with it: thanks to Turkey's treatment of Armenia, an overwhelming majority of Armenians have very negative attitudes, often hatred, though not always, for Turkey, paired with a desire to retrieve lost lands. I don't think Armenia will be giving Turkey any Eurovision points any time soon. And the tiny one point they've ever given Azerbaijan in all hte history of the thing was probably a miracle. If you're a Turk living in Armenia, life is probably not great, everyone will shun you, discriminate, etc.

On the other hand, things, from over here, look at least somewhat good for the Armenian Kurds right now, though, and that's a plus. Even if probably the main reason is that nearly every male Kurd in Armenia made a contribution to the war effort in defending Nagorno-Karabakh, due to the Kurds' military-mercenary history and their dislike for Turkish speaking peoples. Of course, Armenia, despite giving the Kurds a radio station and schools as a reward, seems to like to deny their contributions to the war. Of course, that doesn't go to mention that tons of Muslim Kurds were forced to flee Armenia due to an explosion of discrimination against Muslims in wake of the war, and the Yezidis still there are supposedly subject to much discrimination and suppression, and are mocked for their language, according to the Human Rights Watch. Of course, this doesn't take away from the fact that of all Middle Eastern countries, Armenia is the second nicest to Kurds, first being Israel. Not that that says much, when Syria and Turkey refuse to even recognize their existence.

Anyhow, in response to the nationalities and genocide comment. What did the Turks gain? A lot of land. I don't necessarily think that aside from not having Armenians to be separatist anymore and screw their economy as such, they gained anything. The Eastern parts of Turkey are, after all, the least developed, and Turkey would be fine, perhaps even more modernized and better off without them. And, now this is the modern day, where human rights get some showing. So what does Turkey and the Turkish nation lose from the genocide? A lot of respect. Because, now, when a lot of people think of Turkey, one of the things that comes to their head is genocide (most annoyingly, while Russia should fall under that label, due to the world's non-interested attitude towards acknowledging the evil acts by the Russian people...). --Yalens (talk) 01:36, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Let's return to our "cats"
Hi,

I do not know, if you recognize the proverb, but I am not an expert in politics. Really. I passed some time studying cats, and have too little time to study humans. I guess, the politics may not become a hobby. It needs a profound study. Just reading newspaper articles is not enough to discuss the state of Kurdish minority and Muslim Turks in Armenia or Muslim Armenains in Turkey. So, let's return to cats. Of course, there might be other members who are eager to discuss it. I would like only to say that any mockery may be insulting, but it is not the same as "pogroms" and massacres. --Zara-arush (talk) 20:41, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

You do understand, though, why I occasionally feel the need to continue discussion about statements you made about politics, though, right? The point I was trying to imply was that you, as an Armenian, look at things from an Armenian point of view: that being, Armenians are always the victims, and etc, etc. While that is hte consensus in Armenia, and while for the most part I agree with it, the problem is that it is not a universally accepted truth outside of Armenia, and people in the future will only look upon you as a bigot, even though you are not, if you allow that opinion to influence your editing. So just use caution.

And, sometimes, I feel compelled to reply. Like, when we were talking about who massacred the cats, you suddenly posted a response to my post about pondering the two possible scenarios (A and B) with one entirely about how Kurds have robberies and pogroms against Armenians and even fellow Kurds. I mean, you can hardly blame me for the political discussion starting after that in that individual instance... THis was your post, let me remind you...

Hi Yalens, ''I have nothing against the poor Kurds, but, please do not forget that it is not easy to make executioners and robbers of several thousands of people, and it lasted within several centuries. It does not mean I apply it to the whole nation, because I am sure the people differ. Anyhow, I read the memoirs of the Itslian traveller, who introduced the long hair cats to Europe, he wrote that his wife's parents fled to Baghdad after their native city subjected to robbery and pogroms by the Kurds. It was in Shakh Abbas times. At the begining of the 20th century my grand-grand mother, who had at the time 7 children, was abducted by the Kurds, and the family had no idea, where she had been for about 20 years. The Yezidies, that I know, told that the Kurds hate them even more than the Christians, and kill them, wherever meet them. Even if we consider it is an overstatement, they had some facts that made them to say it. Do you think they had changed? We shall understand that a single man may act as a very kind person, but under the circumstances the group acts as a puppet in skilly hands. But is it possible to make a crowd with any group of people? '' --Zarah

I mean, there's nothing wrong with what you said, but that post was completely political. If you don't want the discussion to be political, don't post things like that. Of course, I'm largely at fault too, and I will try to stay away form only-politics posts.

Shall we delete the section though, as there seems no point of having it here as it is off-topic? My statements and your statements, both, on the "massacres" section.

So, anyhow...

I would personally like to redivide the page into sections for the three different viewpoints, that way, Zarah, you can express your Armenian views on the page without having to worry about a bias censor (just put "Armenians think" or et cetera in front of each statement and you should be fine, just don't state "Armenians are the only natives in the region and the cats are definitely originally bred by Armenians for sure", because that is unverified info from a wikipedia point of view). Furthermore, I feel kind of like we could get in trouble because of the lack of elaboration on the viewpoints, and particularly the lack of representation of the Turkish viewpoint.

What do you think? Should we redivide it into viewpoints, or...? --Yalens (talk) 23:36, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Yalens,

I am sorry that I was envolved in the political debates that I tried to avoid. But in case you are not a Kurd (Yezidi) by origin you are not aware of the problem, and even if you are you may not stay impartial. Of course, the same relates to me, as I am an Armenian, though I may not represent all the Armenians, because we differ as any other ethnic group. There are numerous political parties and social groups with their own interests, as well as there are grand-grand children of those, who passed through the genocide, and only they may decide. As much as I know I am not among them. When writing about cats, I found such an enormous material that may explain, what backgrounds of the present events that I started to study it with more attention. The early stages of cat domestication are related to various fields of human history and scientific research. I am more interested in the origin of human cyvilization, ancient migration processes, ancient linguistics, etc. I read about it the way, I would read the best detective story. It does not mean that I am in the past. I just want to understand, what happened and why? You may ask about the future. I know the future, though the further future. The state of things in the world will change, but not as early, as I would like. I hope I will see the begining, otherwise, how I may find out if my ideas are not my imagination. I am a little busy just now to decide, what to do with all this correspondence about controversies. But I am really amazed, why are you so much keen about the Kurdish interests in the region, if you are not a Kurd. None will make harm to the Kurds, besides themselves. They prepare something, but they will fail to get benefits from it. I am even afraid, they will spoil, what they achieved. Let's see.--Zara-arush (talk) 00:35, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * That's okay. I will respond to this on your talk page, if you don't mind (will be doing that momentarily). Just so we keep talking about cats rather than Kurds here, please tell me what you think of reintroducing the viewpoints...?--Yalens (talk) 15:55, 24 August 2009 (UTC)