Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-03-01/Mehmed Talat

'This discussion originally appeared in Talk:Mehmed Talat

Can somebody help me out with the Mehmed Talat article. Somebody made this biography about a Turkish minister and made it part of the wikiproject Armenia and gave very biased information about him with the sole purpose of creating support for the Armenian genocide accusation. Somebody put a neutrality tag on it but they removed it despite objections. After more objections from various users some changes were made but they didn't put the neutrality tag back and it is still controlled by a very pro Armenian group who keep reverting any changes they don't like. For example I wrote "alleged" in front of Armenian genocide since it is only recognized by 21 countries out of the 194 countries in the world, most of whom were at war with the Ottoman Empire at the time. The few who had no part in WWI but recognize it are catholic countries who followed the decision of Vatican city to recognize the Armenian genocide or have strong Armenian lobbies in their country. Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Sweden and the United Kingdom all rejected bills for the recognition of the Armenian genocide and Israel, Denmark and most other countries find that there isn't enough proof for genocide although they condemn the massacres. It is obvious that the Armenian genocide is disputed and not an established fact. Therefore it is acceptable that I write "alleged" in front of Armenian genocide especially since this is a biography about a Turkish minister and not the Armenian genocide article. They also wrote that Mehmed Talat is quoted as saying "Kill every Armenian man, woman, and child without concern for anything" recorded in the "The Memoirs of Naim Bey. In that article there is a section in which several European and Turkish historians dispute the authenticity of these papers so I changed it into Mehmet Talat is allegedly quoted as ordering to "Kill every Armenian man, woman, and child without concern for anything" recorded in the "Andonian Telegrams" which is disputed for it's authenticity. . They reverted these changes without discussion on the talk page so I changed it back and this went on a couple of time until one of them "Kansas Bear" reported me to an administrator and I got blocked. I am new and didn't know about the 3RR rule. And Kansas Bear broke the 3RR rule himself as you will see if you look at the history. I pointed that out to the administrators but they didn't do anything and didn't even read my objections but strictly followed 3RR rules without looking who was right. You can see that on my talk page. They were not so strict towards Kansas Bear despite him breaking the 3RR rules too. But other than that they reverted my changes again, and NOW they want to discuss it AFTER I got blocked. I have given my reasons again why I made these changes but am afraid to change them back. Can somebody who is experienced come and look at this article and read the talk page and help me out? Ibrahim4048 (talk) 19:43, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Since Kansas Bear reverted my changes again without discussing it on the talk page I changed it back. I think I have given enough good reasons for my changes and I don't understand what the big deal is about my giving a reference to what is actually said in the article. My putting "alleged" in front of Armenian genocide is also not out of order because this is not an article about proving the Armenian genocide but about a biographhy of a Turkish minister. The persons who made this article didn't even put it in WikiProject Turkey but only put it in WikiProject Armenia instead. Someone else had to come along and correct this. I admit that the Armenian genocide is relevant for this biography of Mehmed Talat and I don't object to it being mentioned but the way this article was put together is biased and was only created to support the Armenian genocide accusation. As long as people don't discuss things and just delete my contributions, I will put them back again. I have asked for help on my talk page, asked for mediation. I hope somebody will look into this soon. Ibrahim4048 (talk) 23:32, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

17:07, 2 March 2009 The Myotis (Talk | contribs) (18,469 bytes) ('alleged' gives WP:UNDUE to minority POV, contradicting main AG article.) (undo)

First of all only 21 of 194 countries in the world recognized the armenian genocide during 90 years of armenian lobbying, that makes your view the minority POV and would even give me according to your rules the right to delete the accusations altogether. If I understand this WP:UNDUE thing it is about minority versus majority on the subject of the article itself. My view that there is no conclusive proof of the armenian genocide which is shared by lots of respectable historians and saying that this article shouldn't be about genocide accusations is not the same thing as claiming the idiotic notion that the earth is flat on earth article itself. This is not the Armenian Genocide article first of all and what the majority of the users in the talk page there have somehow bullied others into accepting doesn't make it the majority view in the world and it doesn't apply here. Ibrahim4048 (talk) 18:05, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

It is very easy for you guys to win. First The Myotis will revert then I will revert back, then Kansas Bear and I will revert back again, and then The Myotis again and if I revert again I break the 3RR rule and get blocked. Very nice.Ibrahim4048 (talk) 18:17, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello, I'm going to be mediating the dispute from here on out. This can be a fairly sensitive issue, so let's all try to focus on Wikipedian policy. I hope we can come to a compromise quickly and easily. From what I can tell, Ibrahim is looking to preserve neutrality with regard to WP:BIO, though Myotis makes a respectable point about undue weight. The genocide itself is not hotly disputed, but the quotation, apparently, is not necessarily reliable. I would propose the following compromise: which initiated the large scale genocide of the Ottoman Armenians. He is quoted in the "The Memoirs of Naim Bey" as saying, "Kill every Armenian man, woman, and child without concern for anything," though the authenticity of the papers has been disputed. I hope that this can satisfy both parties. What this form does is to acknowledge the genocide's authenticity, which is not disputed, and to say clearly that he was supposed to have said something, but it is disputed as to whether he did or did not. Does any party object to this? Or, perhaps someone has another idea for a compromise. Tealwisp (talk) 17:11, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I would have no objection to that. Also, thank you for your attention. The Myotis (talk) 17:32, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. You can ask me directly if you ever need a third opinion.  Is this compromise acceptable for Kansas and Ibrahim?  Tealwisp (talk) 17:47, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Call me, KB. I have no objections. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:19, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Very well, then, we just need Ibrahim's opinion. Tealwisp (talk) 18:42, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The problem is not the part "and is allegedly quoted as saying "Kill every Armenian man, woman, and child without concern for anything" recorded in the "The Memoirs of Naim Bey", though their authenticity has been disputed ." which has not been changed in the last reverts but the word "alleged" in front of "large scale genocide". The problem is that I am challenging the genocide's authenticity. The fact that the autheniticity of the memoirs of naim bey is challenged has already been accepted by everyone since no one reverted that part in the last reverts, eventually they even accepted my reference since it would be absurd to accept the part "though their authenticity has been disputed" without allowing me to make a reference to where it is disputed. Your proposition is not a compromise but is a paraphrasing of exactly what kansas bear and the myotis wanted and even deletes the reference I made. Off Course they wouldn't have objections to that. There is no compromise possible since the discussion is basically about the word "alleged" in front of large scale genocide and that depends on accepting the armenian genocide or denying it or (like me) objecting to the acceptance of the genocide as a fact because there is no absolute proof for either acceptation or denial.


 * I mean come on, there are so many respected scholars who question the genocide as an attempt to exterminate the armenians. Why then the idea that it is universally accepted? There is a big difference between germany who accepts the genocide themselves and for which there is no doubt they tried to exterminate the jews and turkey who denies it and there is proof the ottoman government had no intention of exterminating all armenians since no proof is found of such a ideology and there were large armenian populations in Istanbul, Izmir and Aleppo who were not deported. Some of those armenians even fought in the ottoman army and their communities were not touched. Has Hitler left for example the jewish population of berlin alone because they were loyal citizens? Was germany threatened in any way by the jews? Turks were not nazi's and armenians were not as innocent as the jews. The armenian separatist groups of the east were the reason why the ottomans decided to deport the armenians. These separatist groups posed a threat to the ottomans because they had contacts with the russian army (with 150.000 armenian soldiers) and had attacked the ottoman empire from within. The ottomans had the choice between deporting them or letting them stay and face destruction/genocide of themselves. What would you have chosen? Maybe it would have been better if the ottoman empire was completely destroyed and turks would have been exterminated/subjugated by the europeans, russians and armenians? I mean that was the goal of the attack of the europeans and russians on the weakened ottoman empire was it not? To conquer the ottoman empire and divide it between them. The ottoman empire tried to stay neutral when that was not possible and the germans threatened to either join them or be attacked they tried to join the allies but russia didn't accept (they wanted ottoman lands) so they had to join germany for any chance of survival. The difficult decision of deportation of the armenians and the resistance of the ottomans saved them and is the only reason turkey exists today. Without it I would probably not exist since my ancestors would have been killed or I would live as a minority in armenia/russia. I also don't understand why turkey and turks alone are targeted for this blame. Everybody knows the ottoman empire consisted of many peoples and the attacks on armenians were not committed by ottoman troops but mostly by local kurdish (and arab) militia's. . Why then blame only the turks and turkey? The turks don't deny the deportation and the deaths caused by the deportation but they do deny responsibility on the attacks on armenian villages or on the armenians while they were being deported. The ottoman empire was very weak in that part of the empire and should have punished these militia's who attacked the armenians but couldn't afford to make new enemies who could possibly join the russians. This is not the same thing as what the germans did to the jews and it shouldn't be considered a genocide unless actual proof is brought forward that the ottoman government did order attacks on armenian civilians. For now every ottoman document speaks about armenian rebels and not about civilians, they give good reasons for their decision for deportation. You might agree or not agree with the reasons for deportation but it is clear nobody speaks in a racist/denigrating way about armenians the way the nazi's did.


 * If you deny discussion of the armenian genocide but accept it as a fact and even make laws against denying it you are being a fascist. Why blame turkey for having laws against propagating the armenian genocide while for example france has exactly the opposite law which punishes denying the armenian genocide. Isn't it the same thing? You are denying people to have an opinion on something which is debatable because there is no hard proof. As long as there is no proof for the ottoman government ordering to kill armenian civilians the discussion should stay open. Without disrespect, Tealwisp, but it seems to me you are not very impartial by just accepting the armenian genocide as "the truth". What authority do you have by the way to mediate? Ibrahim4048 (talk) 14:33, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Straight from the top, Ibrahim, I have the authority that YOU gave me to mediate when you requested mediation. I misunderstood the conflict, it seems, and I removed the citation links only for the sake of clarity and simplicity.  If you wish to have alleged included in front of the genocide mentioning, you'd need a citation, which you could get, but then KB and Myotis could get a counter-citation, and that would get us no where.  Let's avoid discussion of the genocide itself for now, as it has gotten the rest of the world to no single conclusion.  And by the way, there are Holocaust deniers.


 * In light of your clarified opinion, I propose the following compromise:
 * "which initiated the large scale genocide of the Ottoman Armenians. He is quoted in the 'The Memoirs of Naim Bey' as saying, 'Kill every Armenian man, woman, and child without concern for anything,' though the authenticity of the papers, and even the genocide itself, has been disputed."
 * A link to Denial of the Armenian Genocide would be included in the last few words. Is that objectionable to anyone?  Tealwisp (talk) 18:15, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

The meaning of the word "alleged" is according to the merriam-webster dictionary 1. "asserted to be true or to exist", 2. "questionably true", 3. "accused but not proven or convicted", it doesn't mean untruth, lie or something like that. For example if someone is accused of theft he is called the "alleged" thief because thief would already condemn him even before the trial. Alleged is the neutral point in a disputed concept, it simply means that something is not resolved, proven although there are accusations. Why the objections to the neutral word alleged then? Only reason to object to "alleged" is to violate neutrality and force a certain opinion over another. The fact that I can get a citation from various respected (western and turkish) scholars and that many countries such as the United Kingdom, Denmark, Sweden, Azerbaijan and others have rejected bills for recognition of the armenian genocide (173 of 194 countries do not recognize it), already should give me the right to use the term "alleged" since it proves there are different opinions. That Kansas Bear and The Myotis can give opposite citations only strengthens my claim for the use of "alleged" because it makes even clearer that the armenian genocide is disputed. Many neutral countries use the term "alleged" when armenian genocide is mentioned, even the United Kingdom who was a participant in the war against the ottoman empire does so. I see no reason for a compromise since the use of the word "alleged" is completely justifiable in this context. Why should I bow down for someone who wants to force his opinion on me? Your compromise does at least acknowledge the fact that the armenian genocide is disputed, but why then object to the term "alleged"? I also object to this part "even the genocide itself". The word "even" in this context gives the impression that something is outside of what you are supposed to do or accept and has a negative connotation to it 2b. Like "Dude, that guy was so hungry that he even ate the wrapper the hamburger was wrapped in".

There is a big difference with holocaust deniers and armenian genocide deniers by the way. The nazi's had an obvious racist anti-semitic doctrine. There are hundreds of documents which portray the germanic race as superior and other (jewish) races as inferior, there are also hundreds of documents which prove that the germans intended to exterminate the jewish race (orders for the murders, building of gaschambers/furnaces etc) and most importantly the germans don't deny the holocaust themselves. Therefore you can't use "alleged in combination with holocaust because that violates the proven fact that germany (nazi's) was responsible for the holocaust. Among various proof is the most important proof of confession of the germans themselves. That makes holocaust deniers crazy, liars or racist people. Armenian genocide deniers on the other hand have a strong case because the young turks were co-founded by among others armenians (who were not touched by the deportation). There is no proof of a racist/religious (they were secular) doctrine. There are no proven documents for orders to murder armenian civilians like there was with the nazi's, instead there are only documents which mention targeting and arresting the separatist groups and besides deporting armenian civilians for security reasons these documents don't mention murdering or harming them. Off course the deportation itself is not something to be proud of and should not have been carried out if our own safety was not at risk. No matter how you turn it, the armenian genocide is just not comparable to the holocaust. I understand that most europeans and americans have been brought up with a certain (christian) view of the armenian genocide and were exposed to only one side of the story (armenians have been lobbying ever since WWI) but please try to disregard all the information you have been brought up with and just look at the facts that are given.

But all of this is not even important in this dispute. The only thing that is important is that there should be no objection to the word "alleged" since it is a neutral word and it should be used whenever something is disputed like you say it yourself in this sentence "as it has gotten the rest of the world to no single conclusion". Ibrahim4048 (talk) 13:11, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Ibrahim, I encourage you to yield a little rather than stand stalwart for the sake of diction. The Armenian genocide has been fairly well supported, and it is only out of desire for harmony and acknowledgment of all viewpoints that I have tried to introduce compromise.  WP:UNDUE could easily be used to remove "alleged" or any disqualification of the genocide in context such as this.  I am trying to satisfy you by adding a link to the denial page, and satisfy KB and myotis by removing the "alleged."  In this context, the "even phrase" actually conveys the idea that the denial should be considered.  Furthermore, the simple fact that a minority of countries acknowledge the genocide doesn't make it false.  Taiwan (Republic of China) is recognised as independent by only around 25 countries, yet it operates independently and meets every criterion of independence aside from international recognition.  You asked me to mediate, not simply to side with you.  I am trying to bring all parties to an amicable compromise that satisfies said parties, and if you don't like that, you could try going through the formal process, which would most likely pick a side in a seemingly small issue as this, and there would be someone (likely you, because of WP:UNDUE) dissatisfied.  So again, I encourage you to compromise, and please do not try to drag me into a debate over the genocide, as A) that's not what I'm here for, and B) I am one of the best debaters in the state of Michigan, from one of the best teams, so you'd have a hard time defeating me.  Also, I'd like KB and Myotis to weigh in on the proposed compromise.  Tealwisp (talk) 04:48, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

After all the arguments I gave, you still object to word alleged? If you use "alleged" you ARE acknowledging all viewpoints and it is the most harmonious solution. The word "alleged" neither denies nor accepts the genocide as fact, it is neutral. I can't believe we are still discussing this after all the arguments I gave. You did acknowledge yourself that the genocide is disputed "as it has gotten the rest of the world to no single conclusion", so what are your reasons to delete the word "alleged". Explain that to me first. I also don't like the way you are positioning yourself against me instead of being neutral. What do you mean by "I am one of the best debaters in the state of Michigan, from one of the best teams, so you'd have a hard time defeating me". That's just hostile. Are you trying to bully me? I am not trying to debate with you about the armenian genocide. I tried to explain why "alleged" is not wrong in this context. You brought up the holocaust denial in comparison of armenian genocide denial subject yourself, I simply answered and gave arguments why this is not comparable and using "alleged" in front of holocaust is not the same as using "alleged" in front of armenian genocide. It doesn't matter how well supported the armenian genocide is or how well supported denial of the armenian genocide is. What matters is that it is seriously disputed by various scholars and countries are divided on this subject. It seems to me you don't really understand the meaning of alleged or of the meaning of disqualification  since you somehow seem to think that the word alleged disqualifies the genocide when it just says it is disputed without taking sides. Removing it means that you as a mediator take sides on this subject. You should give a valid reason first for why to remove it. You didn't give a valid reason and even seem to agree that the genocide is disputed since you agree that "it has gotten the rest of the world to no single conclusion" so again why remove this completely justifiable word? Forget about the genocide (simply call it disputed subject) and explain your objection to the use of alleged in context with a disputed subject. WP:UNDUE doesn't apply here since rejecting the genocide as proven fact and staying neutral on the subject or denying the genocide alltogether is not a small minority at all. Like I said before there are many scholars who argue the armenian genocides and most countries either reject the armenian genocide as fact or stay neutral on the subject. In the WP:UNDUE article the example of the view of flat earth proponents is given, how do you compare scholars who question the armenian genocide as fact and universities that published these books with flat earth propononents? You are not neutral my friend and I don't accept your mediation. Do whatever you like, delete the word "alleged" if you want but leave this section so that people can see how wikipedia (mediators) works. Ibrahim4048 (talk) 12:52, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * In the eternal words of Darth Vader, "I find your lack of faith disturbing." I apologize if you think I'm against you; I am far from it.  The reason I'm trying to convince you to compromise is to stabilise the edit war and satisfy both you and your opponents.  That is what mediation is for.  I am not bullying you, either; in fact, you may have crossed the line on personal attacks, but I won't pursue the idea.  Also, acknowledging dispute of one thing does not endorse any side or deny endorsement, as the holocaust is technically disputed, even if not by scholars (though last time I checked, I think there was one).  Furthermore, I have no personal objection to using "alleged," but KB and Myotis do, and I am trying to bring the three of you to a median standpoint.  I want to reiterate that states' recognition of certain things often has more to do with diplomacy and politics than real fact.  Purely from a curiosity standpoint, may I ask why you prefer "alleged?"


 * To KB and Myotis: I guess we can assume that Ibrahim has yielded the discussion, but I would appreciate it if you would try to compromise still. Tealwisp (talk) 06:44, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

First of all I am not yielding, I just say that I am powerless if you (as a wikipedia mediator) take sides with myotis and Kansas bear since I am neither mediator nor administrator and have no power on wikipedia. Secondly, my lack of good faith in your intentions (and mediation) comes forth from the very first compromise you proposed (and some comments you made) where you obviously did not read my comments and didn't realize (or ignored) that the discussion was about the use of "alleged" in front of "large scale genocide". Your first compromise was exactly what myotis and Kansas Bear wanted and was no compromise at all because it deleted "alleged" and even deleted the reference I made for the dispute of the memoirs. Off course myotis and Kansas bear had no objections to your first compromise.


 * which initiated the large scale genocide of the Ottoman Armenians. He is quoted in the "The Memoirs of Naim Bey" as saying, "Kill every Armenian man, woman, and child without concern for anything," though the authenticity of the papers has been disputed.


 * I hope that this can satisfy both parties. What this form does is to acknowledge the genocide's authenticity, which is not disputed, and to say clearly that he was supposed to have said something, but it is disputed as to whether he did or did not. Does any party object to this? Or, perhaps someone has another idea for a compromise. Tealwisp (talk) 17:11, 4 March 2009

The second proposal also is not acceptable (tough an improvement on the first one) because you should first give a valid reason to delete “alleged” and besides the proposal still isn’t completely neutral. Your proposal first presents the genocide as fact and only in the last part it tones the accusation down by saying that the memoirs of naim bey and even the genocide itself has been disputed.


 * which initiated the large scale genocide of the Ottoman Armenians. He is quoted in the "The Memoirs of Naim Bey" as saying, "Kill every Armenian man, woman, and child without concern for anything," though the authenticity of the papers, and even the genocide itself, has been disputed.

If you accept the fact that the genocide is disputed what is the problem then with inserting the word “alleged” in front of “large scale genocide” and “allegedly” in front of “quoted in the memoirs of naim bey”. This way you don’t have the imbalance of first stating something as true and then expressing doubt of what you stated as true a sentence before.

Let me explain my point to you again, since you don’t seem to understand why I prefer “alleged”.

1. Alleged has according to the Merriam Webster dictionary the meaning of 1. "asserted to be true or to exist", 2. "questionably true", 3. "accused but not proven or convicted",, it doesn't mean untruth, lie or any sort of disqualification. For example if someone is accused of theft he is called the "alleged" thief because thief would already condemn him even before the trial. Alleged is the neutral point in a disputed concept, it simply means that something is not resolved, proven although there are accusations.

2. The Armenian genocide is disputed as you seem to agree because you said yourself that "it has gotten the rest of the world to no single conclusion" and you acknowledge that fact that by including in your second compromise that even the genocide itself is disputed and you propose to make a link to the Armenian genocide denial article there.

So basically we have this (simplified) construction. Some "disputed event" “allegedly” happened. To remove allegedly you should either deny that allegedly has the meaning which I gave but means something like “blatant lie” or deny the fact that the Armenian genocide is disputed which is impossible because it is a fact that neither academics/historians nor countries/ politicians agree on this subject.

You say that “recognition of certain things often has more to do with diplomacy and politics than real fact” and probably you are right but that applies just as much on recognizers as on deniers. Therefore this statement is pretty much a non-argument and only useful to discredit a historian, country or whoever from the opposite side you’re on. It doesn’t prove recognition (or denial of) the genocide as fact and doesn’t justify the deletion of “alleged”. You also say that just like there are Armenian genocide deniers there are also holocaust deniers and indirectly imply that putting "alleged” in front of “Armenian genocide” is the same as putting “alleged” in front of “holocaust”. It's completely different. Apart from some racists and crazy people there are no academic historians who dispute the holocaust (except perhaps one, but he only disputes the amount of victims not the event itself) and even if there were historians who did, anything they said would be nullified by the fact that Germany itself accepts the holocaust. There simply isn’t a serious dispute on the holocaust like there is a serious dispute of the Armenian genocide with valid arguments on both sides.

If you wonder why I don’t accept your mediation, I can give some of my reasons if you like.


 * You did a bad job with your first compromise proposal, you hadn’t even read my comments and understood what the discussion was about and you already came with a proposition (which betrayed your personal view by the way).


 * The fact that you have or could have a personal view would not have been a problem if you had stayed neutral and hadn’t taken part in the genocide discussion itself (on the side of myotis and Kansas bear). You have given several (bad) arguments for accepting recognition of the genocide and deleting “alleged” while you should have stayed neutral. Like the argument that “recognition of certain things often has more to do with diplomacy and politics than real fact”  or the argument that putting "alleged” in front of “Armenian genocide” would be just as right as putting “alleged” in front of “holocaust”.


 * You have shown hostility/opposition (lack of neutrality) towards me by saying that you are “one of the best debaters in the state of Michigan, from one of the best teams, so I would have a hard time defeating you” if I discussed the armenian genocide with you. With all the arguments you gave against me, we might as well have had that discussion.


 * You focused on me only and have not even asked myotis or Kansas bear why they objected to “alleged” since it doesn’t deny the genocide nor recognizes it, the reason for this is probably because you already agreed with them from the beginning? Several times I asked why you would delete “alleged” since that word itself is a compromise but you gave no proper answer.

Ibrahim4048 (talk) 13:53, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You gave me the incorrect information that WP:UNDUE could easily be used to remove "alleged" or any disqualification of the genocide in this context (and probably try to bully me into accepting your compromise). I hope you realize now that WP:UNDUE does not apply in this case. If you don’t remember read my comment on 12:52, 7 March 2009.
 * What I think you may be missing, Ibrahim, is the connotations. As modern history and media see the Great Calamity, it is all but proven, with only a handful of scholars (almost all Turkish) casting doubt as to it, and they are generally not taken very seriously. You can challenge that, if you want, but you will not get very far. The word "Allegedly" in modern English, connotates that there is a serious debate; that the two sides are on roughly equal standing or even that the claims are likely unfounded (of course, not applicable for this situation). The word 'disputed' does this also, but the degree to which doubt is cast is far less severe. Generally I would consider noting that people dispute the genocide in the summary as excessive, but I will agree to it if in this case if it will end this dispute.
 * The question, Ibrahim, is whether you simply did not understand the not-so-subtle connotations of the words, or whether you actually beleive the two sides to be on equal standing. If the latter, I can only urge you to recognize the truth of the matter.
 * The Myotis (talk) 18:22, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Ibrahim, I understand why you prefer "alleged," but I am trying to satisfy both parties, as that is my role as mediator. I have no power to enforce any decision I make, that's why my objective is to satisfy everyone, so that there is no "enforcement" necessary.  As for my initial mistake, I am offended that you think I was so irresponsible as to not inform myself with regards to the dispute; I simply misunderstood it because there was a lot of talk about both uses of alleged at the same time, and I didn't know which diff to check.  Myotis and KB, please weigh in with your opinions on hte newly proposed compromise.  Tealwisp (talk) 01:19, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * If this is your proposal, Tealwisp;
 * "which initiated the large scale genocide of the Ottoman Armenians. He is quoted in the 'The Memoirs of Naim Bey' as saying, 'Kill every Armenian man, woman, and child without concern for anything,' though the authenticity of the papers, and even the genocide itself, has been disputed."
 * I do not accept it. This whole article and what has transpired here needs to be placed before some admins and a certain individual permanently banned for violating WP:Civility. I've been the victim of incivility, threats, personal insults, seen the mediator verbally assaulted(after Ibrahim found out the mediator wasn't just going to come in and accept Ibrahim's personal opinion as god-given-fact), watch Ibrahim violate 3RR(after unable to gain consensus), and after reading this, The ottoman empire tried to stay neutral when that was not possible and the germans threatened to either join them or be attacked they tried to join the allies...., I know historical merde when I read it. All this has done has given Ibrahim a platform in violation of WP:NOTSOAPBOX. This individual has done nothing but revert an article based on his personal beliefs. As Efraim Karsh stated,
 * Whether or not there was a premeditated genocidal master plan, something that contemporary Ottoman leaders and latter-day Turkish politicians and acedemics would persistantly deny, is immaterial. It must have occurred to the Ottoman leadership that the destruction of such a pervasive nationalist movement would inevitably entail suffering on an enormous scale, and that the forceful relocation of almost an entire people to a remote, alien, and hostile environment amid a general war was tantamount to a collective death sentence. In the end, whatever their intention, the Ottoman actions constituted nothing short of genocide.


 * --Islamic Imperialism, p.115. --Kansas Bear (talk) 03:06, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Don't accept it then Kansas Bear. I already knew you wouldn't. From the start you saw my contribution/opinion as vandalism and didn't even take the effort to argue with me but just reverted it and called it "RV Vandalism". I don't accept it either in this form. Maybe I could accept another form which is impartial from the start or another neutral word instead of alleged but not the way it is now. Place this discussion before the admins and try to get me permanently banned if you want. You might even succeed since in some european countries (france for example) you can get sentenced up to 1 year to prison for either denying the armenian genocide or not accepting it as a proven fact, maybe (if you lobby enough for it) a similar rule will be made on wikipedia where you get a permanent ban when you deny/doubt the armenian genocide. This will teach turks or other genocide deniers/doubters to dare to participate on wikipedia and have their own opinion. They even call turkey fascist for exactly the same (opposite) mistake. I might have been a bit passionate in criticizing you and made the mistake of criticizing you personally and called you nationalist once and ridiculously biased towards Turks instead of calling the article itself biased or nationalistic. That's the closest thing to an insult I ever got and I realized my mistake (after Otebig warned me and deleted my comment) and rewrote my comment about your article. You have been just as insulting yourself by the way. You called my contribution (adding alleged and the reference) vandalism and reverted it without discussion even tough I offered to talk about it on the talk page, so why accuse me of violating 3RR without getting consensus when you didn't even want to discuss it with me. You also used terms like self-inflated opinion, resorting to any tactic to push his/her nationalistic agenda, accused me of threatening you (you feel threatened when somebody disagrees with you?) and warned everybody that i might threaten them as well, like i am some mad terrorist. This is not very civil either, but I will apologize for calling you a nationalist (even tough you called me a nationalist too) and accusing you personally for being biased instead of calling your article biased. I am new to wikipedia and there should be room to make these beginner mistakes. I didn't know about the 3RR rule when I broke it, it was very clever by the way how you avoided breaking that rule by ganging up on me with myotis and amethystus. Everyone would have broken the rule in those circumstances if they didn't know about it. Myotis was the only one who warned me but it was too late because you had already reported me and had gotten me banned. When have I threatened you by the way? Do you mean this part "The way you are creating articles and manipulating others's can hardly be called constructive. You are on a crusade my friend. One day you will be caught tough."? I meant administrators will eventually catch on on how you are targeting certain nationalities and do something about it. What is the threat in that? You must be a very fearful person if you feel threatened so easily. You are yourself threatening me now with a permanent ban by the way. Try to get me banned on wikipedia if you like. I don't care that much. In my country (the netherlands) they already want to take measures against immigrants (even if they have been in holland for three generations they are still called immigrants) and try to change the constitution  (right of freedom of religion, discrimination law) so that the koran and islam will be forbidden, immigration and immigrant rights will be limited. Anyone with a second nationality who commits a crime will be thrown out of the netherlands even if they were born in the netherlands and have never been in their (grand)parents country. As an immigrant (even if you're not a muslim) you are discriminated against in a lot of subtle and not so subtle ways like having to produce ID when the police asks or being denied entrance to your university without student card, employment etc. So I face much bigger problems in real life than getting banned on wikipedia. I am not very scared of getting banned since I have dynamic IP and know how to use proxy's or VPN software. I have made my point clear about this subject and can't waste too much time on it. I don't accept this compromise and do not agree with myotis that the opinions of turkish scholars don't count while those of armenian/western do count, that denial/doubts about the genocide is a small minority view (to remove "alleged" you must be beyond doubt as well)or that alleged suggests anything other than that something is disputed. Ibrahim4048 (talk) 19:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Ibrahim, no one has threatened you with a ban, at least in this thread, but I will warn you now: you are breaching civility norms, and if you continue, I will ask an administrator to intervene as best they see fit. Furthermore, with your last comment, I will make a note (if I need to take action) for administrators to watch for IP edits on this page.  No one is even trying to get you banned, as it is quite a hassle to report something on WP:ANI.  I will allow you one last chance, as you seem fairly new to wikipedia based on the date of your contributions.


 * At this point, it seems that you are disinclined to compromise at all. Is there anything you are willing to do aside from using "alleged?"  We can try one last time to compromise.  Tealwisp (talk) 22:16, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

You seem to have problems processing the information you read or you don't read the comments (carefully) at all. Kansas Bear has requested administrators to ban me several times (and succeeded though only for a short time) and even in this thread has threatened me with a permanent ban. What do you think he meant by the following part? Who is the certain individual he talks about?


 * I do not accept it. This whole article and what has transpired here needs to be placed before some admins and a certain individual :permanently banned for violating WP:Civility[9]. I've been the victim of incivility, threats, personal insults, seen the mediator :verbally assaulted(after Ibrahim found out the mediator wasn't just going to come in and accept Ibrahim's personal opinion as :god-given-fact)

What about breaching civility norms towards me by the way? The moment I made a contribution Kansas bear called it vandalism and reverted without accepting my offer to discuss it on the talk page. Was that not the first breach of civility? He also talked about me in a derogative way and used terms like "self-inflated opinion", "resorting to any tactic to push his/her nationalistic agenda" and several times warned other users, administrators that I might threaten them and thus tried cleverly to antagonize them towards me. You also ignore the fact that Kansas Bear refuses any compromise at all and you focus only on me while I clearly said that "maybe I could accept another form which is impartial from the start or another neutral word instead of alleged but not the way it is now". If you want to mediate you have to be neutral, you have not been neutral until now. Come up with another compromise which I might accept or go ahead and ask an administrator to intervene and ban me. There is nothing you can do by the way if I wanted to change my IP (matter of unplugging the modem for a couple of hours) and opened a new wikipedia account. If I was banned I would probably not even take the effort to change my IP or use a proxy to stay here because I would not believe in wikipedia anymore and would try report wikipedia to any authority willing to listen. Ibrahim4048 (talk) 13:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Tealwisp, this relevant information needs to be added to the article;
 * "According to some newly discovered documents that belonged to the interior minister of the Ottoman Empire, over 970,000 Ottoman Armenians disappeared from official population records from 1915 through 1916. These documents have been published in a recent book titled The Remaining Documents of Talat Pasha written by the Turkish historian Murat Bardakçı. The book is a collection of documents and records that once belonged to Mehmed Talat, known as Talat Pasha, the primary architect of the Armenian deportations. The documents were given to Mr. Bardakçi by Mr. Talat’s widow, Hayriye, in 1983. According to the documents, the number of Armenians living in the Ottoman Empire before 1915 stood at 1,256,000. The number plunged to 284,157 two years later in 1917"
 * This document is a primary source that illustrates Talat Pasha's knowledge of the extermination of nearly 1 million Armenians from 1915-1916. If Myotis agrees(with a re-write), this primary source should be mentioned before the "The Memoirs of Naim Bey".
 * "Mehmed Talat was the interior minister who ordered the arrest of Armenian leaders with a order on April 24, 1915 and sent a request for the Tehcir Law on May 29, 1915. This initiated the large scale genocide of the Ottoman Armenians, which was recorded in Talat Pasha's official documents showing the extermination of 970,000 Armenians from 1915-1916. He is allegedly quoted as saying 'Kill every Armenian man, woman, and child without concern for anything' [2] recorded in the 'The Memoirs of Naim Bey', though their authenticity has been disputed."
 * If Myotis agrees with this edit. --Kansas Bear (talk) 15:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Kansas Bear since you are a more senior contributor to wikipedia than I am, you should know about the wikipedia rule that new comments should be placed under the older ones. So assuming you made a mistake, I put your comment in the right place (under mine). Ibrahim4048 (talk) 17:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

"Be so kind as to leave other people's comments alone. Learn some civility[1]. --Kansas Bear (talk) 05:23, 11 March 2009 (UTC)" (posted on my talk page)

I wanted to say the exact same thing to you. Did I or did I not post my comment before you posted yours? How do you justify then that you post your comment on top of my comment. There is this rule that newer comments should be written under older comments. By putting your new comment on top of my older comment you basically are MOVING MY comment. You try to justify this breach of etiquette by saying that your comment was directed at tealwisp but so was mine. What gives you the right to move my comment? You can't move others comments on the talk page by putting your comment on top of theirs because you think your opinion is more important. How do you accuse me of vandalism when I put your comment under mine where it should have been written in the first place. By writing your comment on top of mine, you come between tealwisp who wrote a comment adressed to me and my comment which answered his. My comment was older than yours and if you wanted to post a comment directed at tealwisp you should have put it under mine. It is like standing in cue at the supermarket. If you come last you are the last in line. You can't say "yeah but i HAVE to pay this product at the cash register". Everybody just has to stand in line. You are not a king. You also can't delete others (academically referenced) contributions and only write "RV vandalism" and reject an offer to discuss it on the talk page because you think my (and several historians) opinion is bullshit. How do you expect me to react to something like that. You called me a vandalist and dismissed my contribution as self-inflated opinion and I called you a nationalist back. Why are you complaining then about civility when you broke civility first. There are etiquette rules and you are the one who is breaking them. Not me. Ibrahim4048 (talk) 16:44, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, Mr. Ibrahim, forum etiquette as I have seen it, is to post your message under the message you are primarily responding to, with the number of colons before your message (one more than the message you are responding to) indicating which person's comment you are directing it at. This way, the talkpage forms nice easy-to-follow 'trees' of conversation, with only the starter topic against the margin, and each response going under the message it is responding to, with only previous responses and responses to those responses in between. For example, if you were to respond to this message in this way, you would put :: before your post, but only : to respond to the above post, placed below this message. Of course, if a person writes every message as a new topic, this format is hard to follow (If I am wrong on this being the preferred method of talkpage communication, please correct me, Tealwisp). Regardless, moving  or removing another person's message is seen as extremely disruptive, if not outright vandalism, and unless it is obviously off-topic or jibberish/vandalism, there is really no reason to remove another's words.
 * And yes, I do think that information should be added to the article (sans 'newly discovered' as it won't stay that way) as it seems very relevant and not related to the current dispute. The Myotis (talk) 19:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Would this be acceptable;
 * "Mehmed Talat was the interior minister who ordered the arrest of Armenian leaders with a order on April 24, 1915 and sent a request for the Tehcir Law on May 29, 1915. This initiated the large scale genocide of the Ottoman Armenians, which was recorded in Talat Pasha's official documents showing the extermination of 970,000 Armenians from 1915-1916. He is allegedly quoted as saying 'Kill every Armenian man, woman, and child without concern for anything' [2] recorded in the 'The Memoirs of Naim Bey', though their authenticity has been disputed."
 * Do you think the wording is alright? --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I would not object to the new information being included in that manner. The Myotis (talk) 21:52, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I did not move or remove anyone's comment. Kansas Bear was the one who moved my comment by putting his comment between tealwisp's comment and my response on tealwisp's comment. I merely moved my comment back to the position where I wrote it. If forum etiquette is to post your comment under the message you are responding to, what happens then if two persons respond to the same comment? If my response to tealwisp's comment (which was directed to me) was first, didn't Kansas Bear move my comment then by putting his comment between mine and tealwisp's? I don't understand your logic. Everything I do is bad etiquette but what you are doing is perfectly fine. Removing my contribution ("alleged" and reference) without even discussing it with me (despite my offer to discuss first) and just dismissing it as vandalism is not bad etiquette? Ibrahim4048 (talk) 21:21, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes you did. Unless you expect us to beleive that is not your IP address. Also, nobody can tell who you are responding to, as you do not use the colons, and no, he was not responding to you, and so you had no reason to put his comment under yours. The Myotis (talk) 21:52, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I did not deny that was my ip adres. I cleaned my history and cookies so when I edited (I was not automatically logged in as usual) it gave my ip instead of my username. You seem to miss or ignore the fact that I only moved my comment back to its original position under tealwisp's. I responded to tealwisp's comment directed at me and after I responded Kansas Bear decided to write something to tealwisp too. Instead of being civil and write his comment under mine since mine was obviously directed to tealwisp (even if I didn't use ::), he just moved my comment to the bottom and put his own comment under tealwisp's . So who moved whose comment? Ibrahim4048 (talk) 22:10, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

'We will not discuss talk page etiquette in this thread. That is final.' The way this discussion is going seems like argument for argument's sake. Everyone is right in some way. Yes, comments go chronologically, but they go chronologically underneath their parent comment. Ibrahim's move was in good faith, I am sure. From now on, I want everyone, and I mean everyone, to let go of these breaches of etiquette and threats, true or false, real or imagined, intended or miscommunicated. We are all Wikipedians here. We can, and we will, be civil. Tealwisp (talk) 22:04, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

second thread level
I have added a new header to make this easier to manage.

Now, Ibrahim, are you okay with the proposed lead, assuming that the reference to these official documents is included? Tealwisp (talk) 22:04, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Off course I am not okay with kansas bear and myotis new proposal. It is the worst proposal made till now. It leaves out "alleged", doesn't even mention that there is another view which doesn't accept the genocide and even adds something which kansas bear either read on some armenian website or made up himself. He says.


 * According to some newly discovered documents that belonged to the interior minister of the Ottoman Empire, over 970,000 Ottoman Armenians disappeared from official population records from 1915 through 1916. These documents have been published in a recent book titled The Remaining Documents of Talat Pasha written by the Turkish historian Murat Bardakçı. The book is a collection of documents and records that once belonged to Mehmed Talat, known as Talat Pasha, the primary architect of the Armenian deportations. The documents were given to Mr. Bardakçi by Mr. Talat’s widow, Hayriye, in 1983. According to the documents, the number of Armenians living in the Ottoman Empire before 1915 stood at 1,256,000. The number plunged to 284,157 two years later in 1917

Where does this passage come from? There is no reference to where this information is given. The content is also not correct. I actually have read (parts) of Talat's black book. It gives support for genocide denial instead of genocide proof (not surprising since it was written by a genocide denier). It tells about 700.000 turks who were deported from russia and the balkans. It says that not only armenians were relocated but also turks. It does acknowledge though that the number of armenians that were relocated was around 900.000 and not as turkey previously had claimed 400.000. It says nothing about extermination, it talks about the tehcir (ottoman arabic for relocation), so why write that 970.000 armenians were exterminated? Also the passage kansas bear gave says that in 1917 the numbers of armenians in the ottoman empire dropped to 284.157. Is that surprising if you take into account that the ottoman empire was greatly diminished in 1917 and was even smaller than turkey is now? The regions where the armenians traditionally lived in the ottoman empire were conquered by the russians and armenians. If the ottoman empire in 1917 did not include the regions the armenians traditionally lived in and the armenians had been relocated to regions which were conquered by the english and french, is it very surprising then that the numbers of armenians were so low in the ottoman empire? If there even is a source for these numbers, because I don't know where this passage comes from since kansas bear just gave a piece of text without reference or link. How can you guys just accept this as fact and even think about including it in the article if there is no reference and you don't know where this information comes from? Why not look what the black book actually says instead of just accepting as truth whatever kansas bear says. Ibrahim4048 (talk) 22:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Report to an administrator
I am going to report this to an administrator. Ibrahim4048 (talk) 22:14, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Report what? Tealwisp (talk) 22:31, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Report you (and kansas bear). I don't have time now, but I will report you. I don't appreciate how you took sides with kansas bear and myotis. You even dare propose this new compromise when it is not even close to a compromise. A compromise is not, giving one side what they want and even extra. A compromise is something that at least attempts to be in the middle (like your second proposal). This is not a compromise.


 * Mehmed Talat was the interior minister who ordered the arrest of Armenian leaders with a order on April 24, 1915 and sent a request for the Tehcir Law on May 29, 1915. This initiated the large scale genocide of the Ottoman Armenians, which was recorded in Talat Pasha's official documents showing the extermination of 970,000 Armenians from 1915-1916. He is allegedly quoted as saying "Kill every Armenian man, woman, and child without concern for anything" [2] recorded in the "The Memoirs of Naim Bey", though their authenticity has been disputed.


 * It is the worst compromise till now. It leaves out "alleged", doesn't even compensate leaving out alleged by mentioning that there is another view which doesn't accept the genocide and even adds something unreferenced which kansas bear either read on some armenian website or made up himself. Kansas bear wrote this.


 * According to some newly discovered documents that belonged to the interior minister of the Ottoman Empire, over 970,000 Ottoman Armenians disappeared from official population records from 1915 through 1916. These documents have been published in a recent book titled The Remaining Documents of Talat Pasha written by the Turkish historian Murat Bardakçı. The book is a collection of documents and records that once belonged to Mehmed Talat, known as Talat Pasha, the primary architect of the Armenian deportations. The documents were given to Mr. Bardakçi by Mr. Talat’s widow, Hayriye, in 1983. According to the documents, the number of Armenians living in the Ottoman Empire before 1915 stood at 1,256,000. The number plunged to 284,157 two years later in 1917


 * Where does this passage come from? There is no reference to where this information is given. The content is also not correct. I actually have read (parts) of Talat's black book. It gives support for genocide denial instead of genocide proof (not surprising since it was written by a genocide denier). It tells about 700.000 turks who were deported from russia and the balkans. It says that not only armenians were relocated but also turks. It does acknowledge though that the number of armenians that were relocated was around 900.000 and not as turkey previously had claimed 400.000. It says nothing about extermination, it talks about the tehcir (ottoman arabic for relocation), so why write that 970.000 armenians were exterminated? Also the passage kansas bear gave says that in 1917 the numbers of armenians in the ottoman empire dropped to 284.157. Is that surprising if you take into account that the ottoman empire was greatly diminished in 1917 and was even smaller than turkey is now? The regions where the armenians traditionally lived in the ottoman empire were conquered by the russians and armenians. If the ottoman empire in 1917 did not include the regions the armenians traditionally lived in and the armenians had been relocated to regions which were conquered by the english and french, is it very surprising then that the numbers of armenians were so low in the ottoman empire? If there even is a source for these numbers, because I don't know where this passage comes from since kansas bear just gave a piece of text without reference or link. How can you guys just accept this as fact and even think about including it in the article if there is no reference and you don't know where this information comes from? Why not look what the black book actually says instead of just accepting as truth whatever kansas bear says.


 * Why did you remove everything from the talat talk pageby the way . I wrote everything there so people could see it and give their opinion about (the course of) this discussion. If you move it here to a place nobody sees then you waste all my efforts. Is there a reason you don't want people to see it? If it is about the discussion of etiquette (you know I am right by the way) then you could have just removed those comments. Ibrahim4048 (talk) 23:06, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * To start, I didn't propose that new edit as a compromise; I didn't even propose it, I asked your opinion. Second, I tried a compromise, which you declined, and third, removing others' comments is a blazing affront to those who made the comment, that's why I didn't do it.  The reason I moved the discussion is that it is getting very large (62 kilobytes last time I checked) and I don't want it to take too much space on the discussion page.  If you want people to see the discussion and weigh in on where it went, you need an RFC.  Also, I did say that Myotis and KB need a reference.  Furthermore, I did not take Myotis' and KB's side at any point, you simply positioned yourself against me when I was trying to bring the three of you to a compromise, and I remind you once more, you denied that compromise, even though it had everything you want, except that single word, "alleged."  By the way, what did either of us do that you would "report...to an administrator"?  Tealwisp (talk) 23:33, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I have exams coming and I don't have any time to spend on wikipedia. Maybe I'll do this RFC thing in the future but not now. I already feel stupid for wasting so much time and effort on this article. With a single click everything I wrote is removed to this obscure page no one will ever read. I don't agree that your second compromise is totally neutral (because it first states it as fact and then tells there is "even" another view) but since I don't have time to continue arguing on this article I'll have to accept it. I'll let go of the word "alleged" in front of genocide even tough I still think it should be there. This is the form acceptable by me. I've replaced "even" with also and added the references you agreed to.


 * which initiated the large scale genocide of the Ottoman Armenians. He is quoted in the "The Memoirs of Naim Bey" as saying, "Kill every Armenian man, woman, and child without concern for anything," though the authenticity of the papers, and also of the genocide itself , has been disputed. Ibrahim4048 (talk) 01:17, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * KB already declined the compromise, Myotis? Tealwisp (talk) 01:28, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Tealwisp, I believe this should be the revision in question:
 * "Mehmed Talat was the interior minister who ordered the arrest of Armenian leaders with a order on April 24, 1915 and sent a request for the Tehcir Law on May 29, 1915. This initiated the large scale genocide of the Ottoman Armenians, which was recorded in Talat Pasha's official documents showing the extermination of 970,000 Armenians from 1915-1916. He is allegedly quoted as saying 'Kill every Armenian man, woman, and child without concern for anything' [2] recorded in the 'The Memoirs of Naim Bey', though their authenticity has been disputed"
 * Here is where the NY Times reported it, written by a Turkish author, Murat Bardakci. --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:57, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I have read the NY article and as I said Kansas Bear abused the facts in the article (which was written pro-recognition anyway) to claim his own opinion as fact. The numbers in the black book are about 900.000 armenians who were relocated alongside with 700.000 turks . The writer of the article who is in favor of recognition of the genocide uses parts of the black book selectively (leaves out turkish deportees) to support his opinion that more than a million armenians were exterminated during 1915 to 1918. The black book itself is compiled by Bardakci who used it to deny the genocide and the only part which is useful for genocide recognizers is that the numbers for armenians relocated in the black book is 900.000 instead of the official number of 400.000 recognized by turkey. Why didn't Kansas Bear mention this part from the same NY Times article by the way?


 * ''Mr. Bardakci subscribes to that view. The figures, he said, do not indicate the number of dead, only a result of the decline in the Armenian population after deportation. He strongly disagrees that the massacres amounted to a genocide, and he says Turkey was obliged to take action against Armenians because they were openly supporting Russia in its war against the Ottoman Empire.


 * “It was not a Nazi policy or a Holocaust,” he said. “These were very dark times. It was a very difficult decision. But deportation was the outcome of some very bloody events. It was necessary for the government to deport the Armenian population.”''


 * If you leave out the part above, do not mention the turkish deportees and claim that the black book shows the extermination (instead of relocation) of 970.000 armenians you are telling lies. Ibrahim4048 (talk) 10:05, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * "According to a long-hidden document that belonged to the interior minister of the Ottoman Empire, 972,000 Ottoman Armenians disappeared from official population records from 1915 through 1916. The documents, given to Bardakci by Talat's widow, Hayriye, before she died in 1983, include lists of population figures. Before 1915, 1,256,000 Armenians lived in the Ottoman Empire, according to the documents. The number plunged to 284,157 two years later, Bardakci said. Hilmar Kaiser, a historian and expert on the Armenian genocide, said the records published in the book were conclusive proof from the Ottoman authority itself that it had pursued a calculated policy to eliminate the Armenians. 'You have suddenly on one page confirmation of the numbers,' he said. 'It was like someone hit you over the head with a club.' Kaiser said the before-and-after figures amounted to 'a death record.' 'There is no other way of viewing this document,' he said. 'You can't just hide a million people.'"
 * This is a primary document that states that nearly 1 million Armenians were murdered from 1915-1916 through the actions of the Ottoman Empire's deportation program. Just like the source I posted earlier;
 * "Whether or not there was a premeditated genocidal master plan, something that contemporary Ottoman leaders and latter-day Turkish politicians and academics would persistantly deny, is immaterial. It must have occurred to the Ottoman leadership that the destruction of such a pervasive nationalist movement would inevitably entail suffering on an enormous scale, and that the forceful relocation of almost an entire people to a remote, alien, and hostile environment amid a general war was tantamount to a collective death sentence. In the end, whatever their intention, the Ottoman actions constituted nothing short of genocide. --Islamic Imperialism, p.115."
 * I won't post personal insults like someone else, I'll let the facts do my talking. --Kansas Bear (talk) 13:57, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

In the words of German Turkophile Ernst Jackh: Talat clearly saw the annihilation of the Armenian people as easing the political situation. -- A Shameful Act, p.122 A.Nuri, who was stationed in Aleppo, reported that Talat Pasa said: The intention of the deportations is annihilation. -- A Shameful Act, p.167-168"
 * Tealwisp, just to clarify that Mehmed Talat(Talat Pasa) was completely aware of the situation;
 * "Initially, German and Austrian officials wanted to believe that the Armenian deportations were limited to only the war zones. They consequently adopted positions in line with and even supportive of this view. But as the deportations began to exceed the consuls' original assessments, their position become more complicated and their disapproval more explicit. Their reports included eyewitness accounts of the horrors in the provinces, as well as telling comments from the capital, such as the following from Talat Pasa; What we are dealing with here.....is the annihilation of the Armenians. -- A Shameful Act, by Taner Akcam, p 6."
 * More evidence;
 * "In his memo, Talat claimed that the war had given the Turks a great opportunity to solve the Armenian problem, and added that the work that is to be done must be done now; after the war it will be too late. -- A Shameful Act, p.121
 * --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:39, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * More evidence;
 * "Turkey is taking advantage of the war in order to thoroughly liquidate its internal foes, the indigenous Christians, without being thereby disturbed by foreign intervention. -Talat Pasha, The Evil 100, by Martin Wolcott, p35."
 * --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:51, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * You moved my comment again kansas bear and put your own comment on top of mine. Is it because I didn't put :: in front of my comment? If that's the reason it is unfair to just move my comment because I didn't know that and it is pretty obvious my comment was a response to your bardakci comment. I will add :: and put it back in its original place if that was the reason. It is typical that you give text from efraim karsh's book islamic imperialism. It is seen by most academics as a polemical book full of falsifications of historical facts. It claims that islam competes with western civilisation and wants to take it over. It denies that british and french meddling with the middle east is the cause of it's present problems but lays all the blame on islam. Islam is an evil expansionist imperialistic religion according to him. Unbelievable that you take text from that book. I reccomend you to read noam chomsky's work for the true reason for the middle eastern problems and terrorism. How you copied part (and left out very important parts like deportation of 700.000 turks, genocide denial) of what bardakci said and pasted Hilmer Kaisers text behind it, suggests that bardakci claimed 900.000 armenians were exterminated. He actually said the opposite of that, it's in the same article . Here is it again.


 * ''Mr. Bardakci subscribes to that view. The figures, he said, do not indicate the number of dead, only a result of the decline in the Armenian population after deportation. He strongly disagrees that the massacres amounted to a genocide, and he says Turkey was obliged to take action against Armenians because they were openly supporting Russia in its war against the Ottoman Empire.


 * “It was not a Nazi policy or a Holocaust,” he said. “These were very dark times. It was a very difficult decision. But deportation was the outcome of some very bloody events. It was necessary for the government to deport the Armenian population.”''


 * Don't talk about insults to me. You have insulted me first and still continue to insult me by calling my comments garbage . If I made the mistake of not putting :: in front of my comment, you could also help a newbie out and put it there for him or explain it (myotis explained it) instead of moving his comment to the bottom. You have from the start tried to deny my rights of having my own opinion and posting contributions so I suppose that would be too much to ask from you. 24.132.135.53 (talk) 17:23, 12 March 2009 (UTC)(Ibrahim4048, I forgot to log in again)


 * Both of you, avoid saying anything that could be construed as insulting. I will ask for a third opinion from someone who is not involved in any article or project concerned with the genocide.  If you want, I can ask three.  Would all of you be willing to go with their decision?  Tealwisp (talk) 23:10, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I have been trying to avoid it all along but there is something called action - reaction. What am I supposed to do when I am attacked and denigrated. Off course I would rather talk in a civilized way and just discuss the facts but what if someone avoids discussing the facts with me but just removes my contribution, calls it vandalism, rejects my offer to discuss it on the talk page and insults me? I don't agree with myotis too but at least we have been discussing in a more or less civilized way. I accept your offer to get a third opinion, preferably three (more chance for neutrality, more knowledge), because we aren't getting anywhere with this discussion. Ibrahim4048 (talk) 08:50, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

1, 2 , 3 more times you moved my comments to the bottom and put your own comments on top. This time there was :: in front of my comments, what's your excuse now? Would you object if I put this comment on top of yours now or re-posted my previous comments on top of yours? If everybody put their comment on top of others whenever they liked you would get a mess and it would be extremely difficult to tell the chronological order. I can understand that you would put a comment under the subject/comment you are responding to, but there should be at least chronological order within these responses on the subject/comment. The way myotis explained it to me you are now violating wikipedia rules since you are moving my comment while I used ::. All the arguments you give are opinions and hearsay by the way. Not a single document exists that proves an order for the murder of armenian civilians by anyone from the ottoman government. If there was we wouldn't be having this discussion now. For example there are hundreds of documents to prove orders from the nazi's to commit the holocaust. The closest thing there is to a document that proofs the ottoman government ordered murder on armenian civilians is the memoirs of naim bey, but their authenticity is disputed by all turkish and most european (even pro-genocide recognition) historians. Somehow they were never used in court for genocide accusations and were lost despite the fact that they were in armenian, french and english hands. Since there was substantial proof they were forgeries and europeans never used them for their accusations (probably because if they did, they would have been exposed as forgeries) there must have been something wrong with them and they were lost on purpose. Why else would you not use a document in which talat pasha supposedly ordered to kill every armenian regardless whether they were women or children. Why else would such an important document be lost by the armenians, french and english? Anyway, since these documents no longer exist you can hardly use them as proof. No matter what you say, there just is no proof for the ottoman government ordering armenian civilians to be killed. I have no doubt murder of armenian civilians took place but they took place without orders from the government. They were war crimes committed by individuals or local militia's. This kind of war crimes is always committed in war because people are scared in war and all the fear (of an approaching russian/armenian army) and anger that comes with war is often released on civilian members of the enemy group/or people who resemble them. Turks have also been murdered by the greeks, russian, armenians and others. Do you think turks from the balkans or (tatar) turks from the crimea were not murdered and deported? Do you think greeks or any other group who had to live under ottoman rule for centuries and probably lost brothers, fathers or cousins during their independence war didn't rape and murder ottomans wherever they could? Isn't that also genocide against the turks? Or is it only genocide if the victims are christians/european allies? All of the casualties of ottoman subjects in WWI whether they were muslims, greeks, armenians or other groups were victims of the war. Ibrahim4048 (talk) 23:31, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Why are we giving this obnoxious, ranting, paranoid, genocide-denying individual the time of day? Tealwisp, there was no justification for the article being protected - Ibrahim4048 was vandalising it and should have been given editing restrictions - instead you have protected the article in its vandalised condition, quote: "alleged large scale genocide". You are setting a bad example here - do you think it is OK for any POV editor to accost any article about an accepted genocide by adding the word "alleged" to it, and then get that version protected while everyone has to engage in fruitless and pointless "mediation"? Kansas Bear - don't waste a single moment more of your time on this page! Meowy 03:19, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I did not protect the page, PhilKnight did. Did you think I was an administrator?  Sorry for the confusion, but I am only a mediator right now.  Phil protected the page in response to the ongoing edit war, so there was justification for it.  Remember, a protected page is not an endorsement of its current state.  Also, that was definitely a personal attack.  Tealwisp (talk) 17:58, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes I did think you were an administrator. Or, rather, I didn't think about whether you were or were not, and didn't check, but just assumed that you were. I'm sorry for directing that "you are setting a bad example" comment to the wrong person. BTW, I do not think it is appropriate for ordinary editors to be posting warnings/threats of blocks onto other editors talk pages, and not just because they will have no power to impose a block. Meowy  20:50, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I thought the insulting was going to stop? Why is it POV if genocide deniers or genocide doubters make contributions with academic references? Why are even those academic resources considered POV and not accepted? If you don't accept historians like Guenter Lewy who can you accept then? Or is the main goal just to push your own view as fact and discredit all other views? I am not a genocide denier by the way. I just don't accept the evidence brought forward thus far enough to say that the ottoman empire ordered armenian civilians to be exterminated. There are no documents that proof this, there was no racist/religious doctrine who saw armenians as sub-human beings, the young turks was co founded by armenians, armenians in istanbul and izmir were not touched by the relocations and were prosperous. All this makes me believe that the ottoman government was forced by circumstances to relocate the armenians to save their own lives. If someday serious evidence brought forward I would accept it. I just believe in the innocent till proven guilty principle and also in the reasonable doubt principle. The way the young turks was formed, embraced by armenians and greeks, and even talat himself was praised by the armenians (until the war began) proves to me that neither talat nor the rest of the young turks were anti-armenian. They were pitted against each other trough interference of the russians, missionaries and nationalist, seperatist armenian militia's and the circumstances of the war. You want me to be restricted from editing because you don't agree with my opinion but you are the one who should be restricted for personally attacking me. If I said something back now I would probably get banned for violating civility. All these rules and laws I should keep, but these rules somehow don't apply when it comes to insulting me? Ibrahim4048 (talk) 04:56, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Kansas Bear could you stop accusing me of vandalism and insulting me by calling me a childish coward. What exactly did I vandalize? You are the childish coward here by saying things about me behind my back. Wikipedia is not a medium to write insulting comments about somebody, that's not what your user page is for. I bet you wouldn't dare to insult me and call me coward in my face if I was standing in front of you, so who is the coward here. What exactly am I afraid of that you call me a coward? Do you think you are rambo or something? You have insulted me for too long and I ask for tealwisp or an administrator to do something about it. Ibrahim4048 (talk) 14:57, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I want to lay down a resolution right now: Ibrahim's edits were not vandalism, they were done in good faith. Even if they are POV, they were still in good faith.  Please stop calling Ibrahim a vandal, as a vandal would be introducing nonsensical content.  Tealwisp (talk) 17:58, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Would that be nonsensical content like "alleged Armenian Genocide"? I don't doubt we could find, from some corner of the World, an individual who would, in good faith and in total blindness to the facts, believe that the Moon is made of cheese. I wonder what would be made of a Moon-related article protected with the cheese claim included after an edit war by said good-faith cheezy-moon believer. Meowy 20:29, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Why?
Why was the article protected? And why are we spending so much time trying to satisfy demands of Ibrahim4048 that should not and cannot be met? All the edits that resulted in the protection consisted of Ibrahim4048 adding the word "alleged" in front of "Armenian Genocide". The word alleged is never going to be included in this article, or any Armenian genocide-related article, so the protection is pointless, as is this discussion. Meowy 23:53, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * As a mediator, I don't feel that I can close this case until resolution is reached, one way or another. Tealwisp (talk) 23:58, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Reading through the previous posts, what seems to have emerged is that the addition of the "alleged" word is the bottom-line demand of Ibrahim4048. Since that demand can't be met, I'd say a resolution has been reached.
 * BTW, I don't see anything wrong with the proposed "Mehmed Talat was the interior minister who ordered the arrest of Armenian leaders with a order on April 24, 1915 and sent a request for the Tehcir Law on May 29, 1915. This initiated the large scale genocide of the Ottoman Armenians, which was recorded in Talat Pasha's official documents showing the extermination of 970,000 Armenians from 1915-1916. He is allegedly quoted as saying "Kill every Armenian man, woman, and child without concern for anything" [2] recorded in the "The Memoirs of Naim Bey", though their authenticity has been disputed." Except, perhaps, that an alleged quote, even if it is probably true, should possibly not be in the introduction section. The bit about the "some newly discovered documents" (actually, they are newly published documents) would best be in the main body of the article, and should also be mentioned in the memoirs section. Meowy 03:20, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Continue discussion here
It was brought up by an editor that the quote, being disputed, should probably be left out of the lead and integrated into the main body of the article. Furthermore, is there objection to calling it a forced migration of the Armenians which caused the deaths of many of them, and include a link to the genocide article? The idea here is to avoid discussing the genocide in the lead directly, but still point to it. I don't propose this as the actual text, but as the spirit of it. Tealwisp (talk) 18:05, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Just so you all know, I am not trying to "cater" to anybody here, the idea is that this will not expressly accept or deny the genocide, only the forced migration and death of many (genocide is targeted at particular groups, so you can have large scal death, but not genocide, in a single instance). Can anyone think of a way to include a link to the denial page, without expressly denying the genocide?
 * I hope we can agree on this form, as the alternative is to remove the statement entirely, which could work, but would not likely satisfy anyone. Tealwisp (talk) 18:43, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I could accept that if along with the genocide article there is also a link to the genocide denial article. Like this. That way people who are unfamiliar with the genocide can read both articles and make up their own mind about it, instead of being lead into a certain direction by not presenting both sides. We wouldn't have to argue over the genocide ourselves then. We could just present both views and leave it up to the reader to decide which view they think is right. This way actual discussion about the genocide could be done on the armenian genocide and armenian genocide denial articles itself. We would save turkey related articles from contamination with all these accusations. Almost every turkey related article could be related to the genocide if you stretch the relation far enough and it is irritating to read about the genocide in every turkish article. Even if it is about some singer the genocide is mentioned. You can call it relocation instead of migration. Migration is too soft. Deportation could have been used also if the relocation had been to a place outside of ottoman territory. The armenians were relocated within ottoman boundaries tough. Calling it migration (connotation of voluntarily moving) doesn't cover the events, relocation is better. Ibrahim4048 (talk) 18:59, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * To respond to the fabrication/myth; armenians in istanbul and izmir were not touched by the relocations and were prosperous., made by Ibrahim, check here for Armenians "relocated" from "Istanbul", as for "Izmir"/Smyrna;
 * "As it happened, Marshal Otto Liman von Sanders, the German commander of the Turkish Fifth Army and the head of the German military mission, was in Smyrna on an inspection trip.....Subsequent inquiries revealed that the deportation had been carried out by the police in the most brutal manner and that even old women and sick children had not been spared. Liman von Sanders thereupon sent a message to the vali that demanded the immediate end of such relocations. In the event that the vali failed to obey, Liman von Sanders was prepared to use troops under his command to prevent further deporations. --'Armenian Massacres in Ottoman Turkey', by Guenter Lewy, p.204-205."
 * It's time to start using FACTS, it is quite clear that Ibrahim's knowledge of these subjects(AG & Mehmed Talat) is flawed and filled with fairy tales. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:07, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Kansas Bear, I suggested earlier that you just stop contributing to this page. In fact, it would have been better if you hadn't made a single posting here. By posting here you have, without actually agreeing to it, become part of a mediation process that gives Ibrahim4048s opinions some validity. Look at what Ibrahim4048 said after your first posting here, he wrote "I am challenging the genocide's authenticity". That is his aim here. At that you should have stopped and wrote nothing more - it was no longer a matter for mediation. Let him take his "facts" to the talk page of the Armenian Genocide article and see how far he gets. Meowy 20:36, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Meowy, If you don't wish to contribute to this discussion, do not. Mediation gives nothing validity inherently, and by your own logic, you have become part of mediation.  Please start posting only constructive comments.  Tealwisp (talk) 21:31, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * There is nothing that is not factual about the proposed compromise. It acknowledges that there was a forced migration and many deaths, both facts, without calling it genocide.  It is the narrow mid-ground of severe neutrality, acknowledging only facts, with no labels.  Even Ibrahim wants to use stronger language, which can be done.  How about this text: "Talat was the interior minister who ordered the arrest of Armenian leaders with a order on April 24, 1915 and sent a request for the Tehcir Law on 29 May 1915, which initiated the forced relocation of the Ottoman Armenians. The relocation resulted in the deaths of many thousands of Armenians, though only twenty-one countries recognize it as genocide." I don't like the way that it conveys the idea that all but 21 countries deny the genocide, but I can't think of a better way.  Can anyone else think of one?  Tealwisp (talk) 21:31, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't ask me. I think I've said all I need to say, and I do not want to become involved in this invalid "mediation" process. Meowy 21:38, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

First of all could you tone it down just a little bit more. I thought we had agreed to speak in a civil way with each other. Those "fairy tales" and "fabrications" I supposedly made up according to you are from Guenter Lewy. If you copy the text below and search it with ctrl-f in this link, you can see for yourself.


 * ''In a short article, it is impossible to put forth all of the evidence that contradicts the notion of a premeditated plan of annihilation. I do so in my book on the Armenian massacres,[9] on which my essay is based. The reports of American, German, and Austrian consular officials as well as the accounts of Western missionaries, who were on the spot in Anatolia, confirm the occurrence of large-scale killings but do not implicate the "Special Organization" or any other agency of the central government. Mr. Tavitian's allegation of "a systematic and deliberate elimination of the Armenian population" is further undercut by the exemption of the large Armenian communities of Istanbul, Izmir, and Aleppo from deportation. These exemptions are analogous to Hitler exempting the Jews of Berlin, Frankfurt, and Cologne from the final solution.

'' I got my information from the Middle East Forum who is conservative and critical of islam and if Guenter Lewy's text is published there it should be pretty reliable that it is his. It is surprising to see that you also cite Guenter Lewy to prove the opposite view that armenians were deported from istanbul and izmir. Could you give the source for your text? I mean not the guenter lewy book itself, but where you have that information from (a link), or do you actually have the book in your possession? I don't have the book in my possession and my university's (Amsterdam University library doesn't have it. Leiden University does have it though and I wil try to obtain it. It is very peculiar that Guenter Lewy would contradict himself. Since you also claimed that bardakci said 970.000 armenians were exterminated (Bardakci gave arguments for the low number of armenians, that it was not caused by genocide but by relocation and losing the territories the armenians traditionally lived in) and he actually said the opposite, I want to check it myself. I can answer your link  with the supposed deportation of armenian civilians from istanbul now if you want. Those deportations were carried out with talat's order of April 24, 1915 and totaled at most 500 deportees from istabul during the whole period of the war and the deportees where all political leaders of dashnak and hunchak parties and/or had russian nationalities. You could argue that some of them were innocent and should not have been relocated but that is another discussion. The important thing is they were not civilians or were not seen as civilians, they certainly were not women or children and were only a tiny percentage of the large armenian population of istanbul. The rest of the armenian population of istanbul (who even had soldiers/officers in the ottoman army) was not touched. Ibrahim4048 (talk) 21:45, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Should I put the above comment under Kansas bears comment (I direct it at KB) using ::: or put it under meowy's using :::: or under yours using ::::: tealwisp? I really don't know how to do this if we're not going to just use chronolgy. Could you also do that 3O thing? In a couple of days the lock will expire and I don't want to get in another edit war. Ibrahim4048 (talk) 21:57, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You should place it directly under the comment to which you are responding, in chronological order relative to the other responses to that comment. I'll post to your talk page about it.  Tealwisp (talk) 05:57, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

It's with pleasure I witness Wikipedia has remained the publisher of trash it always was. The Middle East Forum pretty reliable? This think tank does even not pocess a common accademic peer reviewing system and choose articles according the the US interest in the middle east with a Republican leaning. It's not because Guenter Lewy was backed in lobbying to make his work known that it is credible. The several reviews his work recieved were paid publicity. Michael M. Gunter submitted review in IJMES was an organized attempt to boost Lewy books rating in the accademic circle. Guenter Lewy is a known defender of the uniqueness of the Holocaust as the only true genocide and has no problem denying all the rest (including his claim that the Gypsies illtreatment in the camps in WWII, which he does not believe to be true genocide). The claim that the Armenians in the capital were untouched has been discredited years after years with the publication of several official documents. For example on December 7th, 1915, the German Ambassador Metternich informed Berlin that another group of 4,000 Armenians were just deported from the capital, and that the number of Armenians having been moved from there reached 30,000 and that the Ottoman plan to deport the remaining. In Smyrna a circular order was issued to remove the Armenian population, the Ottoman only backed when Sanders threatned with German military actions if that was to be placed in application. The Armenian quarter was burned when the mistake of leaving them there was realised. Those records are fully available and were deliberatly left down by Guenter Lewy.

Why bother, lets give Ibrahim4048 platform here, afteral there is no peer reviewing on Wikipedia, there are mediators who have neither the knowledge of the subject they are mediating, neither the discipline to weight things. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Onlyoneanswer (talk • contribs) 23:11, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * There is peer review on Wikipedia, as a matter of fact. one can go for a formal peer review, or one can consider consensus and editors as a form of peer review.  Furthermore, do not make personal attacks, and tread lightly, as your behavior (this is your only edit, you appear to know quite a bit about WP policies, plus you act as though you have been on the project a while [your first statement], and you have a negative opinion of wikipedia as a whole, raising question as to why you might have an account, except to post here) stinks a little bit.  Please don't take this offensively, and I am going to assume good faith for know, but my eyes are on you.
 * Also, I would ask you to remain civil in your postings, and be constructive. Tealwisp (talk) 05:57, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no peer review in the sense it is used in the accademia. Sure there are peers, since ignorants in a given subjet are the peers of those who know. You take the definition of peer review in such a broader sense that you loose the essence and the purpouse of peer reviewing. As the mediator your are facing a challenge which makes your involvement totally worthless. First, this editor admitted explicitly he will try to prove, which means he is not here for any form of compromise (he is therefor against mediation). So, basically, you are not mediating here but attempting to do so, when neither party are requesting any mediation (by words they may claim they want, but what they want is not called mediation). Second, since you are not mediating you should be present as someone who know the suject at hand to be useful here. You don't know the subject at hand. Those two points make your presence compleatly worthless (maybe useless is a better term). Of course you are only with good intentions, but this is not enough. All what your are doing is giving a POV warrior a platform. You will do yourself a favior if you give your time to help those who really want mediation. And for your information, I don't take this offensively and I won't engage in any debate, this is my last comment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Onlyoneanswer (talk • contribs) 08:43, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

As no one has objected, I'm going to assume that there is no problem with the latest compromise. Thank you, Ibrahim, for not letting another edit war begin. Also, I'll add "officially recognise" into the text to make it a little more neutral. Tealwisp (talk) 08:00, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I want to talk things out. I have a right for a platform to discuss my contributions, people can't just delete my contributions and call it vandalism without discussing it. I don't like how the users here warn each other on their talk pages that giving me a platform to discuss my contribution gives my arguments legitimacy . How can they accuse me that my sole aim is to deny the armenian genocide. I have said several times that I am not a genocide denier but a doubter, I only think that there is no conclusive proof for an ottoman order to exterminate armenian civilians. All the documents I read spoke of separatists not civilians. They did relocate the armenian civilians (for security reasons) and with the relocation and attacks on armenian civilians by local militia's a lot of armenians died. I don't deny that. All I am saying is that if you accuse someone for premeditated murder (genocide) and there is no proof for premeditation (documents), no racist/religious motives, the person accused was in the heat of a fight (world war I) and even someone else (arab, turkish, kurdish militia's) confesses to the murder, then there is enough proof to at least doubt whether that person is guilty. Even if you believe the ottoman government did commit genocide (I am not so sure myself), you should accept the fact that there is no conclusive proof and accept the existence and expression of other views. I don't want to push my opinion, I just want that it is clear that the genocide committed by the ottoman government is not an established fact and that there are other opinions that have strong arguments against the genocide committed by the ottoman government. As I said before I would even be glad if some document was produced that would give conclusive proof for the armenian genocide. It would at least stop the feeling of being wronged the turks have everytime turkey is accused of the genocide. Of course I would be even gladder if there was conclusive proof the ottoman government didn't order the massacre of armenian civilians and that any war crime against armenians was a result of the disobedience of indivduals/militia's. Either way, conclusive recognition proof or denial proof are both better than this current accusation and representation as established fact of the armenian genocide when there is no actual proof. I think that the others here are the ones conspiring and working together for their aim for recognition of the genocide. I can almost hear Machiavelli talking when they warn each other to not give me a platform and other tactical advise. I have again been reported by Kansas Bear to an administrator  for 3RR violation and verbally assaulting you. They are trying to abuse their numerical power to trick me into breaking the 3RR rule again. I can't believe the administrator actually gave me a warning  and denies my right for defending my contribution (edit: misunderstanding  ). How should I not see this as siding with Kansas Bear and the other pro-recognition users. On the armenian genocide article itself they are also using this kind of tactics to achieve their goal of recognition of the armenian genocide. First they established a pro-recognition view on the armenian genocide article and then they use the armenian genocide article as a base for expanding the recognition to all other related articles.


 * As I have said, we cannot contradict other articles, and the opinion presented on the main article (edit by ibrahim: he means armenian genocide article) is the majority POV. Where in that introduction, on in that entire article (and don't try an argue that it is just wrong, if you want to do that, go to their talkpage) do you see justification for adding "allegedly"? Please point it out, I just don't see it. The Myotis (talk) 20:41, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The only place where they allow denial/doubt material is on the denial page. They simply revert contributions made by genocide deniers/doubters on all other articles. They created a sort of POV_fork by not allowing genocide denial/doubt material on the armenian genocide article and banishing everything to the genocide denial article (which also is critical about the denial and doesn't mention some of the arguments given by genocide deniers/doubters). This is a violation of wikipedia rules. Wikipedia is a encyclopedia and should give both sides of an argument/subject in an article and shouldn't be written to represent a certain view about a subject. It would be ok to have a separate denial page of course but only to expand on the denial section (that should be) in the genocide article itself.


 * A POV fork is an attempt to evade NPOV policy by creating a new article about a certain subject that is already treated in an article, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. This is generally considered unacceptable. The generally accepted policy is that all facts and major Points of View on a certain subject are treated in one article.


 * Unless someone can show me that the armenian genocide is considered fact by wikipedia, I should have the right for a platform to discuss my contributions.


 * I am alright with your compromise but I would make some differences in the way the armenian genocide and denial pages are incorporated into the text. I would just give two links after "forced relocation"  or some other construction like this "forced relocation" (Armenian Genocide and Armenian Genocide Denial). If the armenian genocide article itself wasn't so single sided we wouldn't even have to make a separate link for the denial article. Just having to make this extra link alone shows that the armenian genocide article is incomplete/biased. In the part "only twenty-one countries officially recognize it as genocide" I would link then to the recognition of the armenian genocide article instead of the denial article. That way it would be more informative. "Officially" also implies that there are also unofficial recognitions by countries. I don't think countries can make unofficial recognitions and that such unofficial recognitions exist but I am willing to let that slip by just for the sake of compromise.


 * You also said there was something like 3O or some other way to find a solution for this genocide recognition problem. I would like to bring this under the attention of the administrators or some group who has the authority to take a decision on the subject and who represents wikipedia. Since it appears Kansas Bear has found a supporting administrator (User:J.delanoy) (edit: misunderstanding  ), I would like to have a final answer from wikipedia itself. Is there a board of administrators or something like that? Ibrahim4048 (talk) 13:45, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * About a board, I would say that it would include the mediation committee or the arbitration committee. I don't think we need to go that route, and they don't "represent Wikiedia," per se.  Only an RfC would produce an answer "from Wikipedia" simply because wikipdia is a community, not an entity.  About having both links present in your proposed fashion, I think it conflicts with the Manual of Style.  I wanted to link to the recognition article, but I couldn't think of how to do so without just listing links.  A superscript might work...


 * You may also have a good point about the POV fork. I will check into other articles and see if there is a fork, then we may want to have an RfC on the subject, as it is certainly of concern, to decide whether effort should be made to reintegrate information.  Myotis, KB, I would still like to hear your thoughts on this proposed compromise.  Especially if you can think of a way to incorporate a link to all three articles.  Tealwisp (talk) 01:02, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I've yet to see any evidence that backs Ibrahim4048's assertion. Simply mentioning a book and a "supposed" excerpt from a book do not qualify as a | reliable source. As Meowy has stated, if this is about the Armenian Genocide let Ibrahim4048 take his "evidence" there. Why continue to let this individual play word games like, "it doesn't say that 970,000 Armenian were exterminated", undoubtedly this "person" thinks that nearly 1 million Armenians simply vanished into thin air during their forced relocation during 1915-1916. As it stands, this compromise is not acceptable to me. Evidence has proven that Talat knew Armenians had died during this forced relocation as stated by the reference I posted. Continued | soapboxing by Ibrahim4048 and his continued mentioning of the black book does not change this fact. I understand your situation Tealwisp, but I believe this needs to go before a higher power. Continued violations of civility, threats, personal attacks, have proven this "person" only believes what spews from his own mouth. --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:42, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Kansas Bear try to take some time off or something because I think you are seriously losing it. Calm down, don't use words as "plays word games", "this person", "spew" and don't make all these accusations of violation of civility, threats, personal attacks. If you don't talk in a respectful way to me I can't talk in a respectful way back. That's the mistake you made from the beginning when you called my very first contribution vandalism and reverted without discussing it with me. The bad blood between us started there. Try to control what you "spew" from your mouth first before you comment on what comes out of mine. I am warning you for the last time. I even apologized to you for calling you a nationalist (even tough I wasn't the one who started it) but you didn't apologize back for calling me a vandalist, nationalist, self-inflated opinion and calling my contributions garbage etc.


 * First of all you are the ones bringing the armenian genocide to the talat article (it was even created as an wiki-armenia article), you also have pretty much taken control over the armenian genocide article and now try to use that article to spread your views to this article because according to you "a smaller article (talat) may not contradict the main article (AG)". If you don't allow contributions to be made to the AG main article it is very easy and convenient to use that article as a base to deny representation of genocide denial/doubt views on all other articles except the denial page. I have given links to websites where you can find letter by letter every argument I made. I did not simply mention books, you were actually the one who didn't give links at first and I had to ask for it several times.


 * I caught you at giving wrong information when you said that bardakci's black book showed the genocide of 970.000 armenians and you tried to make it seem bardakci supported genocide recognition when he actually is a genocide denier. You are right that 970.000 armenians didn't simply vanish into thin air, that's why bardakci explained in his black book and the article you gave what was the cause between the significant difference of armenians in pre-war ottoman empire and post war-ottoman empire. 1) armenians were relocated to regions within the ottoman empire that were conquered by the french and british, 2) traditional homeland of the armenians were conquered by the russians and armenians and the mini ottoman empire was 60% of size turkey is now. With the armenians relocated and many of the north eastern provinces of turkey in armenian/russian hands it is not that strange the remnants of the ottoman empire had much fewer armenians than before.


 * I don't understand why you complain about my continued mentioning of the black book. You were the one who introduced it into the discussion and claimed it showed the extermination of 970.000 armenians. I simply read the link you gave and did some research on the internet, read parts of the black book and came to the conclusion that what you said was incorrect. I will in a similar way check the text you gave from guenter lewy's book. Like what you claimed with the black book, this text of yours also contradicts my text in which lewy argues istanbul and izmir were not touched by the ottomans. One of the texts must be wrong. Since my text came from the middle east quarterly website and you reference your text as coming from lewy's book itself your text must be right. Off course if I can't find the text on the page you gave or in the rest of the book, I will report you to an administrator for a permanent block for falsifying information since it would be the second (first is black book) time you did it.


 * Bring this to a higher power. If they take the time to carefully read trough the comments/arguments, they should agree with the fact that the armenian genocide is disputed and that whenever something is disputed, using "alleged" is appropriate. After all, the armenian genocide is an allegation (belongs with alleged), not a fact like the holocaust for which sufficient proof has been given, the germans accept it and the nuremberg trials convicted the nazi's of their crime's. If they take a look at the armenian genocide article they should also see how single sided the article is. None of the points/arguments made by denial/doubt scholars are mentioned. There isn't even a denial section. If the denial scholars are mentioned at all, it is just to say they deny the genocide despite this and that. Actual genocide content is carefully avoided. Compare it with the encyclopedia britannica page if you want. Even though I don't agree with it completely it is much better than the wikipedia article.


 * Notice how they mention armenian attacks by rebellious separatist groups and russian interference since these factors played a big role in the ottoman decision for relocation. It tells how the armenians were treated by the ottomans and why they would like to revolt and join the russians. It just gives all nuances and viewpoints of the events that lead to the armenian genocide. They don't just say turks or armenians are evil. Ibrahim4048 (talk) 09:15, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think Kansas Bear is interested in talking this out. He just wants me to be permanently blocked so I can't contribute my filthy lies. He was warned by meowy not to give me a platform since that would give my arguments legitimacy, so I don't think he will take part in this discusiion anymore. Best to ignore me and just revert everything. They have numerical superiority anyway, why waste time and effort with mediation/discussion. If I break the 3RR rule I might even get blocked permanently. What happened to myotis, I don't know. Perhaps he is the wisest of all and just walked away from the stress and waste of time this discussion brought us.

I think we are past the point of mediation. You proposed a compromise several times but it was rejected either by me or by kansas bear and myotis. Even though I accept the last compromise you made, I don't see how we can keep it. VartanM who didn't know of this endless discussion/mediation of ours came along and just reverted it. He said we can't delete referenced material/information and he is right, even though he is wrong. You know what I mean? Maybe we could put the compromise back and move the "kill every man, woman etc" part to the armenian genocide section.

But I don't think that is the real problem we have here. The real problem is that wikipedia just has to take a decision on this subject. We need to know whether we are going to represent the genocide as an established fact on wikipedia or that we acknowledge that is disputed and thus have to represent both views and as a consequence have to use words like "alleged" or other words/constructions to imply that it is disputed and there are more sides to the story. Ibrahim4048 (talk) 01:33, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Hold on, your edits, mostly reverts, have almost all consisted of inserting the word "alleged" where it does not belong. If you continue to do this, you will not only get edit restrictions, you will deserve it (actually you have passed the point of deserving it; I'm surprised you are still able to edit the article - if it were a more notable article I'm sure you would have already been stopped). I've already said I think the "kill every man...." quote is out of place in the article's intro. Now that more material has been added, I think it is probably out of place in the whole article. We do not need "alleged" material in a properly written article. Meowy 03:05, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Now that more material has been added that the memoirs of naim bey were forgeries, you don't want them in the article anymore. I can understand that. Most scholars don't accept them as proof, even the genocide recognition scholars. Except Dadrian of course. It is strange though that they are just now removed since the last few weeks when I added the references to claims/proof they were forgeries. I don't agree with you that alleged doesn't belong in front of armenian genocide since there never has been a court verdict against turkey or the ottoman empire for the genocide. The Permanent Court of International Justice which was the predecessor of the ICJ didn't take action against turkey in 1923 when both turkey (1923) and the PCIJ (1922) were formed. Any accusations and/or conviction of a genocide should have been made then. They did handle the lotus case so why not the armenian genocide? Now the PCIJ has been replaced by the ICJ and the opportunity has passed, since the ICJ doesn't take cases before 1945. Most countries do not recognize the genocide and several countries such as UK, sweden, denmark, israel, bulgaria and azerbaijan actively rejected genocide recognition bills and many scholars dispute the genocide. This means that the armenian genocide has never gotten past the allegation/accusation stage. Therefore alleged is totally in its place.

I don't think you are the one who should talk about edit restrictions since you are a notoriously uncivil user who has had many warnings, editing blocks and restrictions, , , , , , and have even made some racist remarks. I am surprised that you haven't had a permanent ban for all these violations.

Comments you make about nationalist turks, turkish propaganda, worthless turkish academics like "And several sentences written by Neil Ascherson have more credibility than the combined writings of 1000 Turkish "professor doctors” or "I commented on how, in the real world, the public perception of his writings would compare to the perception of writings produced by academics in Turkey, who seem to regularly prostitute themselves and their profession"  are bordering racism, even crossing the border in some comments. One only needs to look in your contribution history that you are extremely preoccupied with the nagorno-karabakh and armenian genocide topics. It is ok to have an interest/opinion about these topics but the tactics you use are unacceptable. You have been in various edit wars and have had several blocks, edit restrictions as a consequence. You basically wanted to sabotage this mediation by warning others not to participate. That way you could keep using superior numbers instead of superior arguments/references.

You are also violating etiquette rules by removing my comments on the talk page. Since Kansas Vear used the IAGS to back up his revert of my contribution, I have the right/obligation to respond to him and explain why the IAGS has no authority and only the ICJ has the authority to give the genocide verdict. Everytime you make a revert to what is not obvious vandalism without content, you must explain on the talk page. When I do this, you can't remove the explanations because you don't like them. Ibrahim4048 (talk) 10:36, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for reminding me of some of the clever, witty, things I have said in the past - I think I should collect them all and place them on my talk page. BTW, off-topic material can and should be removed from talk pages. Meowy 15:46, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

If the armenian genocide is off topic on the talat article, why do you guys mention it? Why mention the IAGS when it is off topic? Why use IAGS to remove my contribution when it is off topic? Or is it only off topic when I say something? So you think insults and racism is clever and witty. Ibrahim4048 (talk) 16:15, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * *facepalm*
 * Alright, discussion of how the genocide reltates to Talat (and his responsipility for it) is related to him. Discussion of who recognizes and denies it should be put on the Ag article itself. This is not be a new concept in our discussion. The Myotis (talk) 04:16, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Exactly, discussion on the Armenian Genocide belongs in the AG talk page. That's what I have been saying all along. As long as there is no verdict on the genocide from the world Court, no conclusive proof that will make disputing the genocide impossible or as long as wikipedia doesn't take a stand in the dispute by establishing the genocide as FACT (or not), the discussion will go on. That's why it bothers me that the talat article represents the facts as if the genocide, and talat's part in it, is an established fact and not disputed. You are basically bringing the genocide discussion there because you don't remain neutral by using "alleged" but just say that talat ordered the genocide. If you represent the genocide as an established fact in armenia/turkey related articles without meeting these requirements (ICJ verdict, wikipedia fact), you will get people who will discuss it and try to put alleged in front of it, or some will remove the genocide accusations completely if they think it is not relevant in the article. This will result in edit wars all over wikipedia since somehow the armenian genocide is incorporated in a lot of turkey related articles (let me remind you that this article was created as part of wiki armenia). I mean if an article about a province/city of turkey tells about the touristic places in that city you don't have to tell about the genocide/relocation in that article. Just make a list of cities from which armenians were relocated in the AG article and don't poison turkish articles with negativity. You could relate everything in turkey to the genocide if you really wanted. The (rail)roads, towns, singers/people whose grandfathers served in the army and many more.


 * The reason why I discussed the armenian genocide in the talat article is because I encountered it there, simple as that. I am willing to continue discussing it on the mediation page or on the armenian genocide talk page. I already posted some comments there but have midterms now and don't have time for wikipedia. I also ask from Tealwisp if he can put this in front of a board or something like that. I don't know how to do it. Because as long as there is no decision made about the armenian genocide this discussion will continue, at the very least there should be a wikipedia verdict whether there should be "alleged" in front of armenian genocide or another construction that tells it is disputed, in articles where the genocide is mentioned. I understand making a decision on the genocide is pretty much impossible since, like tealwisp already said, no one has been able to solve it but at least we could decide whether we put alleged/disputed in front of genocide. Either you accept that it is disputed (alleged) and represent both views or you will have to proof it either happened or not.


 * What is *facepalm*? Expression of despair? Ibrahim4048 (talk) 19:16, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Do you at least agree to the fact that the genocide is disputed and that this dispute should be represented instead of just saying talat pasha started the genocide? If you don't like the word alleged you can propose another construction that represents both views. I still think "alleged" is the best word since it is neutral and the word which is used when someone/something is accused but there is no verdict yet. I won't even ask Kansas Bear to compromise since he is off the opinion that the armenian genocide is an established fact and that it should be represented as an established fact on all related articles. Ibrahim4048 (talk) 19:34, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It is disputed, yes, by a small and often ill-regarded of academics. Obviously, this should be noted on the main AG article, and probably get is own page (though it should not represented as fact). We have similar minorities of varying percentage who dispute evolutionary biology, 9/11's actual origins, and that the center of the earth is filled with molten rock. We acknowledge that such people exist, and usually give them a section of the article and a separate subpage where their beliefs are detailed. But we do not add 'alleged' to articles referencing 9/11, we do not say that the earth's core is 'supposedly' made of molten minerals, and we do not put 'disputed' in front of every link to Evolution. And *facepalm* is a generic gesture used to indicate that a person is disappointed and frustrated by another's perceived inabilities.  The Myotis (talk) 21:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Just for the record, evolution is disputed by a greater minority than the Armenian genocide, and also has a number of theories poised against it; however, that is science, subject to scrutiny-of-reality, and as such, anti-evolutuion theory has been disproven even by the likes of high school students through simple math. A genocide is often a matter of, basically speaking, opinion.  Those who decide to recognise genocide or not consider whether it was a target against specific groups, or whether prevalence of a group as victims is coincidence.  That is why deniers and skeptics may point out that not only Armenians died.  You do have a point, however.  We can't entertain every fringe theory.  Tealwisp (talk) 00:19, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Further discussion

 * I would still like everyone to consider the possibility of removing the genocide label completely. Like the word "alleged," "genocide" has associated connotations.  I suggest you consider representing only the facts (many deaths, relocation, etc.), the likes of which Ibrahim has not disputed, and of which even encouraged representation, without calling it genocide.  I think it's a good middle ground that all of you can tolerate.  Ibrahim would have the article avoid affirming the genocide, and there is nothing to imply that the genocide is false.  Tealwisp (talk) 00:19, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think you really understand the concept of mediation. As I said earlier about middle ground, compromise is not something that says "2+2=5", or says "2+2 allegedly makes 4", or decides that the subject of what 2+2 equals should not be mentioned in an article concerning arithmetic. Meowy 03:27, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You want to remove a factual statament and replace it with a minority, fringe view in order to appease an spa's pov? Mind boggling.--  Ευπάτωρ   Talk!! 03:32, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the time has come that you should excuse yourself in this matter, Tealwisp. It's clear that you are way out of your depth and have absolutely no grasp on Ibrahim's true intentions. His sole objective in this circular game has been to deny that a Genocide occurred – when the majority of scholarly community disagrees with him. Quite frankly, it's rather sickening how you are advocating inserting the usage of equivocal terms to describe the Armenian Genocide, as if the jury is still out after 94 years. All I can do is recommend that you take some time off editing and "mediating" and to watch this documentary produced by PBS to see what you're dealing with .--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 03:37, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

The whole arguement
Hello, I've seen this whole arguement has been turned to another topic, rather than just the Mehmed Talat topic. I'd like to make a fair proposition to both sides. Those who make a claim of genocide have the link Armenian Genocide and those who challenge this claim have the link Denial of the Armenian Genocide. To make it fair to both parties and have them voice their opinions they can edit these articles (as they have been already) but in a neutral standpoint, where they don't make conflicting edits, such as preventing the posting of information that would dispute the views of those who believe it was a genocide in the Armenian Genocide link and vice versa where there wouldn't be conflicting information with regards to the Denial of the Armenian Genocide in its own link. At the very end of each article for the sake of neutrality, both links can link to each other in a brief sentence or two saying there are different views than what is expressed and that it can be referred to from the link posted.

Hope that seems feasible to all sides. I'm fairly interested in the researching of crimes against humanity as a science myself but all these heated and aggressive debates divert the attention of outsiders and make it extremely difficult to study when it's very disorganised and you have all sorts of different viewpoints that change from one sentence to another.

Kind regards. Joebobby1985 (talk) 21:24, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Articles don't exist to give editors the chance to voice their opinions or give undue weight to marginal viewponts. Meowy 16:16, 7 May 2009 (UTC)