User talk:THOTH

Welcome!

Hello, THOTH, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  Alai 17:33, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

User:Coolcat

Hi, I've read all of you posts re Armenian Genocide and feel that you have best articulated what is wrong with User:Coolcat's approach and conduct related to this article. I'd like to point you at another page where a post from you would be very effective: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#User:Fadix vs User:Coolcat; you may also be interested in these: User:Davenbelle/Evidence re User:Coolcat, various posts on my talk page, User:Fadix/Evidence, User:Blankfaze/CoolcatDAO, as well as: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rankings and a vote being conducted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rankings. Thanks for your time. — Davenbelle 19:03, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

I looked it over and I really couldn't figure out where to put any response from my part. I'm also not sure what position to take as I don't understand all of this Wikipedia stuff to be honest. All I know is that Coolcat needs to accept that those who understand this issue should be allowed to write it. I know that I could do a great job with it (though not sure if I the time to do such - I haven't been able to work on modifying my outline as much as I would like for instance). Fadix is highly knowledgeable on this subject - perhaps supremely so - but he gets caught up in tangents IMO and his (English) writing ability is not so great (but has improved greatly since I first came across him in 1999). Coolcat and the other Turks will never be satisfied with an article that affirms the Genocide - regardless of historical accuracy. But to present an article that says anything but this is IMO both inaccurate and a great disservice to Armenians and humanity. I am not sure if the Wikipedia approach will be able to resolve this matter but I don't truly understand it enough to know for sure. I will have more time next week to contribute in a meaningful way. I don't care to focus on Coolcat - he is a distraction. I wish to make this article better. --THOTH 21:18, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I understand your wanting to focus on the article and I will not try and drag you into the Cc case any further. I may refer people to your posts and would like to know if you have any objection. From here on, I don't think Cc will get away with (or even attempt) near what he has tried earlier; many, many people are aware of this all now and this issue will be well watched. I look forward to reading future versions of the article. Best, Davenbelle 22:18, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

Agreed and thank you. I have no objection at all. I only wish I had more time to work on this - but I am hopeful I can have some form of annotated outline out for discussion later this week. The current article is most unsatisfying. I envision a more telling portryal of what occured - pulling no punches - it must be this way. I also think we ought to include a chronology and a section where we list examples of statements of eywitnesses from the time as well as from prominent people afterwords (like Kemal's statment). I think we also need to directly bring forth and address the Tuskish counter-charges - but in a section on denial - not in the main body itself - though presenting that the Turks attempted cover-up and excuses even at the time is important. Additionally we should creat a list of methods of killing - with examples from specific places - etc. Again I am new to Wikipedia - I was appauled when I witnessed the vandalism of Torque and then Ccs obstrification. I am hopeful but uncertain that we can pull off an accurate and hard hitting presentation as this deserves - but we must try our best. --THOTH 14:33, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I discourage you to discuss "me" on any articles talk page. This conflicts with wikipedias Wikipedia:No Personal Attacks article. You are encouraged to respond to my suggestions, you are discouraged to talk about me. Cat ^chi? 03:02, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Not talking about you - talking about my reaction to and analysis of the situation (of which you are clearly a mojor part - in obstructing truth and progress). Again is it a question of your lack of intelligence to understand the difference or are you (again) up to something? You are the biggest whiner I've ever come accross on the net. There is no attack whatsoever in this - however I percieve this post of yours on my talk page as a threat aimed to discourage my participation in this issue and I see that you wish to attempt to make a case/issue against me. It is you who is trying to make this personal - my input and commentary speaks for itself. I would prefer that you not talk to me as I percieve your opinions to be (obviously) worthless. You have nothing to say that I can imagine to be of any value to me or this issue whatsoever. I see through you. You are a schemer and manipulator. You are up to no good. Please go away and get a life. You waste all of our time - and that is your intent. How much do "they" pay you for this? --THOTH 14:29, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

User:Coolcat's True Colours

I thought I'd point out that UserCoolcat deleted a post of yours from Talk:Armenian Genocide. I have added this fact to the wp:rfar page. — Davenbelle 00:04, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

Armen.Genocide Time line

Hi Thoth, Given how much I value your contributions, I thought I might have a chat with you here if that's OK. After seeing your addition to the Armen.Gen. time line, I just wanted to say that how incredibly frustrating things might be, shouting and name calling can only be counter productive to WP's goal. Getting yourself in a tangle with POV problems by lashing out would be a terrible waste of time (remember other contributors' woes): the facts, and time are on your side. Archives are opening up - a close friend of mine (a lawyer) has consulted the French archives, and they, too, speak for themselves, sadly. And should Turkey enter the European Union as it hopes, it will not be able to hold its current policy for long: even if the official line remains for a while, things will change from the bottom up, through better education and more international integration. Besides, WP can only reflect what is happening in the world, it is not the place for shaping it.... -- Sincerely, House of Shin 16:41, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

I was just reaction to the BS posted there and the continual pettiness of most of the Turkish counters. Though in fact - what I posted on the timeline really is deserving to be there and in all seriousness as it perfectly describes the problem and what has occured and is occuring. I wish I had more time to develop my proposal properly - I have notes and notes and have a great many sources (though not such a compilation as I know Fadix has). I will eventually get it together as well as post pieces of the article as I would like to see it. I think I understand Wiki - and can post in the style if I wish - however I believe that the Armenain Genocide article should look much the same as the Holocaust article - with more explanation and background of course - as most are not familar with the issue. Perhaps we will get there - and thatks for the support. --THOTH 04:03, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Thoth, face it, the Armenian genocide article can not look like the Holocaust article, just recently, while the French entry was in peace, revisionists have lunched a "war" there. I have no time participating in both languages... but just to tell you that since the Armenian genocide is denied very vocally, there should be no arguments left in the hand of deniers to edit the article, and the only way of doing that is to keep the genocide article in the highest standard of neutrality, and even as going as far as using NPOV standards more than any other articles. The article should be "depersonalized," and present the parts agreed by both sides as having accured, and present the rest as arguments by presenting who says what. I feel again repeating myself.

You can not say, in the article: "Turks are denying the Armenian genocide." It is to the reader to decide if there is a genocide, and not to you to say to them there was a genocide. Obviously, since the arguments are stronger in one side, most readers will tend to believe the genocide did happen. But this decision is for them to make, and not to you to tell them what to believe. I will work on the Ottoman Armenian population and finish the footnoting and place a table of Armenian populatio, to finaly start working and concluding with the Ottoman Armenian casulties entry. Fadix 22:26, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Fadix - I fully understand what you are contending - but I cannot agree entirely. The relevant facts must be presnted and they must be supported. And this includes a presentation of Genocide denial itself - as this is a crucial aspect to the Genocide and an ongoing and entirely relevant issue. And you very much so cna say "Turks are denying the Armenian Genocide"! There are certainly ways to say this that are entirely unassalable - if it comes to this. (and do not underestimate me as a writer! lol) I do understand your points concerning tone - and beyond this - that we present what is contended by what sourse and such. It is a difficult way to proceed - and I see minefields - but I think we can accomplish a powerful - truthfull article not entirely unlike the Holocaust article - and then we will just weather the storms. I would love to see some concensus with the more reasonable Turks - don't know if its entirely possible - but one never knows. However I cannot condone the sacrifices that you essentially propose (essentially stripping any coherence or meaning from the presentation IMO) - its like self-censoring (the truth) and I can't go along with this. If this is what we are working toward then I have no desire to waste my effort. I would just as soon let the worst Turkish denialist write the article and let people figure it out for themelves - I mean really - think about it. --THOTH 16:16, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

OK, to move ahead on this issue I've added a very NPOV sentence to the Timeline, as you have seen - I hope you and Fadix (at least!) agree with its wording. It still can be fleshed out. I am refraining from modifying the rest of the text further, since I am expecting your outline, Thoth... am I right to? --House of Shin 17:30, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes I will provide an outline. You have to understand though I am married with kids - my wife has been travelling some recently for her job (meaning i have total parential and household duties) and we have had other events and activities keeping us busy. I am not one to just throw up something unless I feel it is accurate and more or less complete (as complete as I can make it). Currently I am working on essentially 2 outlines that I wish to merge together. I also have been using brainstorming techniques to just make various (handwritten) lists of relevant ideas, facts, quotes, citations and so on and so forth. Each outline also has notes. etc etc - and yeah - its a bit of a mess at the current time. So it could still be a week or more away - considering I only get a good block of time to work on it perhaps twice in a week. - sorry. I'll check your addition now. --THOTH 18:21, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't want to seem pushy, just trying to avoid wasting my (and your) time (we all have a life) - I posted this before reading your comments to on the article talk page. --House of Shin 19:15, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Yeah that edit was real PC of you HoS (and I can't say I like it or that I think it provides any value - sorry - but there are so many problems with the article itself in its current state and that silly timeline....wait to you see mine! ha! - items such as Telherian's trial, Heath Lowery affair, Benard Lewis trial in France, supposed opening of Ottoman Archives in 1985 [and what was found], and so on and so forth...). I assume you saw my first post on the timeline eh? Not the edited down one - as the other was taken off twise? Let me see if I can find a copy to post here...--THOTH 18:33, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Heh, yeah, real PC! Isn't that what NPOV means??! You and Fadix are right, that timeline is not much good. But the rest of the article is no better anyway. Messy, patchy, badly written and boring. It hurts when I read it, that's why I inquired 'impatiently' about your progress... --House of Shin 19:15, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes to all of those things - I completly agree - messy, patchy, badly written and boring - that is what i have been saying all along. The reader must be given a sense of what occured as dynamic history and come away with a clear understanding of the issues - and what is most relevant. It also must be put into context - and I will recommend linking with a large variety of articles (I am developing a list...and it takes time to reserach and check this too - the exsistance and status of such articles in WIkipedia and where some may need to be written....etc) --THOTH 19:22, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

posted here for the record

This was posted by me into the Armenian Genocide article post event timeline in response to the previous silly timeline additions such as opening of Talaats diaries (that prooved certian figures regaurding numbers) or some such and the bit about Turksy offering - again - for historians to get together and investigate the Genocide (which has been "accepted" by Armenia BTW...though I don't see how it is the purvue of any government to speak on behalf of researchers or historians etc or that Armenia proper is necessarily offical point for Genocide issue - etc

anyway -

Not "anyway," you just touched a central point here, in what regards denial. Turkey has lost the "war" of historians, and recently the government declared that the matter should not be left on the hand of historians anymore. This move of asking an investigation, is just a sign that this policy is the new Turkish government step. They know they can't deel with historians, so now it becomes entirly a political move for them. Fadix 16:23, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

1923,to present: (and continuing) The Turkish government, many Turkish (so-called) scholars and most Turks (declared and otherwise) who contribute to Wikipedia (and other such public web sites), and in the media (print and over the air), continue their cowardly and shameful denial of the Genocide that is otherwise known to the world through numerous eyewitness accounts, from an extensive historical documentary record, from the obvious absence of an Armenian cultural presence in the heartland of Anatolia (where it had flourished for thousands of years), and in the face of scholarly evidence and affirmation and political affirmation (including United Nations decrees). Instead the Turks of today attempt to divert the primary issue by repeating racist exaggerated or untrue and out of context Ottoman and Turkish wartime propaganda very similar to that used by Turks at the time in justifying their crimes (against humanity) of Genocide against the Armenian and other Christians of their empire. Instead of apology they attack and blame the victims using concepts and language that are eerily parallel to that used by Holocaust deniers. Armenians meanwhile hold out no immediate hope for recognition and justice but would be appreciative if the average educated Turks who might happen upon a web site such as this and deem to comment might just express a little remorse for the destruction of the Armenian people that was so obviously caused by the Turkish nation and people and not instead attempt to sidestep the issue and focus on trivia (was it 1,2050,000 victims or 998,000 victims etc) and distortions (Armenians were "backstabbers who betrayed the Turks!...oh I'm sorry that was an exact quote that several German leaders made concerning the Jews between the wars....how could that have gotten here). By the way - the preceding is a very serious commentary that is most relevant and should be included (until otherwise rectified) in this recent history section of the presentation of the Armenian Genocide on Wikipedia. --THOTH 18:40, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Assyrian Genocide or Assyrian Massacres?

Yesterday Coolcat unilaterally moved the 'Assyrian Genocide' article to a new title 'Assyrian Massacres'. I thought that maybe you would like to consider the vote here: [1] on moving the article back to its original title? Stereotek 05:32, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Here If You Need Me

I was reading your arguments on the Armenian Genocide discussion page and was impressed. I know what it feels like trying to convince certain people who think they know history but just blurt out facts which they can't fully comprehend. In short I'm offering my assitance to you if you would like it. From what I read, I think we both share a lot of the same views. Please get back to me, thanks!--Moosh88 20:05, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thank you Moosh. I believe that the record of what occured is quite clear - That based on a great deal of corroborated and documented evidence we can clearly know and understand the circumstances and events that built to the point where the CUP leadership made and executed the fateful decision and that the progress of execution of that decision - to in effect commit a genocide of the Armenian and other Christian peoples in Anatolia occured. Obviously we need to understand these events from all perspectives and there is a legitimate Turkish perspective surrounding the desinigration of Empire that includes the many fateful self-interested actions on the part of the European powers and even faulty moves on the part of certain Armenians that could be seen to play into the paranoia and can be said to have provoked the extreme Turkish reaction (though I would argue that the actions of other minorities that had previously broke away fed these paranoid attitudes more then the actual threat from the pitifly weak, disorganized, inefective and non-representative actions on the part of the few Armenians with dreams of independence). The key is really the process and fact of violent revolutionary hyper-nationalistic thought and extremism on the part of the CUP leadership who had come to briefy run the Empire and who played upon the fears of the disenfranchised Turkish majority to ultimatly enact the unthinkable. For the most part the Armenian people got caught up in a nightmare not of their own making - just as the Jews in Europe suffered through such a mear 25 years later. While I think we can understand what drove the Turks to what they did - we can still never excuse it - it was inhuman, brutal and cruel - an example of the worst sort of man's inhumanity to other men.

I have been reticent at developing the outline however that I had promissed a month ago. In fact I am very close to completing somthing that I wish to present - but in matters such as this I get anal and perfectionist - so you must excuse me - but I see this as my one shot here to do this right. So bear with me. And if indeed you are of like mind and have the knowledge and access to proper (legitimate) sources of analysis and information I would appreciate all the assistance I can get when it comes time to actualy prepare and write the artical - and of course to critique and assist in modifying my eventual outline. I assure you though - that what I produce will be quite thorough - obviously nothing short of a major tome can do this issue justice as there are a great many factors that come to play - however I do intend to do this issue justice to the best of my ability (and with assistance of others - and obviously I am hoping for Fadix's input at the very least) - and believe that if I had the time I could write the story of the Genocide as well as or better then it has ever been written before and in a manner as unassailable as it possibly can be (of course actual performance of such is different then the calim to be able to do so on my part...and time of course is always a factor). (and in fact I am working on an outline for a screenplay of a dramatic movie based around these events simulataneously - and my exitement for this later project far exeeds even my enthusiasm for the Wikipedia article).

But - all that being said - if other parties have not the capability or true concern to actually attempt to understand this history - they wil continue with their knee jerk comic book level counters and we will never get to the point of presenting and understanding this very crucial history - as painful as it may be to some. I welcome any and all help and in my mind I truly wish for enlightened Turkish participation in this process. It is crucial for them and I think for us as well. As thoroughly as I feel I do understand the (various) Turkish perspective(s) (then and now) there is always room to learn and of course I am limited by lack of (capability to understand and) access non-English sources - and here I mean specifically Turkish language sources. Anyway please share with us your perspectives and knowledge on the talk page - and hopefully I will be able to post an outline shortly and we can figure out how to modify the page itself to acheive the best and most informative presentation of the genocide history possible. I have been evolving my thinking concerning the presentation and now believe that a somewhat more concise (but still sufficiently explanatory) main body is required with numerous sub pages or referenced pages - some of which already exist - but require modification and expansion. (I think that we also need a solid timeline - pre- during and post). Other pages I think we must write from scratch. And perhaps we can figure a division of labor to accomplish this. I even look foreward to Turkish participants drafting some of these sections. Take care. --THOTH 02:13, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Being an Armenian I am very proud of my people and our history/culture. So this is an issue of great importance to me. I will help you in any way that I can, so ask me if you need assistance. If you need help with translating Armenian sources I can help with that, since you said that you're limited to English. Also if you run across Russian sources (uncommon but do exist) please let me know, as I can help with that too. And any historical information that you may need feel free to ask me as that is my area of expertise. By the way are you Armenian, just wondering you don't have to answer if you don't want to.--Moosh88 18:52, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Moosh - my mother's family is from Istanbul and Divrick in Anatolia however I am essentially a 100% assimilated (1/2) Armenian-American. My interest in the Genocide and in Armenian things in general was more spurred by my (totally non-Armenian) father who was fascinated by history in general and the Armenian experience specifically - then by the Armenian side of my family - who rarely - if ever - talked about the genocide itself (even though my great grand parents on my grandmother's side could be said to have played a heroic role in saving Armenians at the time) - and particularly my mother - who valued and still values being an American over any Armenian connection (though she still can speak Armenian). We did not grow up around Armenians. I have a very interesting (Armenian) and otherwise family history and I am in the process of developing a movie screenplay - based in part - on some of this history. What about yourself - do you actually live in Russia, Armenia proper, Europe, the States, elsewhere? I know that there are perhaps sources in Armenian and Russian that may be useful - but I will have to leave it for yourself and others to attempt to incorporate such as relevant. And of course I welcome participation of any reasonable and knowledgeable people in developing this article - regardless of nationality or ethnicity. I would love to write this whole thing myself - but unfortunaty I haven't the time...--THOTH 23:25, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Interesting, I figured you had to have some kind of Armenian connection. What did your great grandparents do during the Genocide? That is too bad that your mom doesn't value her Armenian indentity very much, but I'm sure she has her reasons. I live in the U.S. but I was born in Yerevan, Armenia. My family and I moved her when I was young, but all of our extended family lives back in Armenia, with a few living in various European countries. My mothers side of the family is orginally from Van and my fathers is originally from Moosh (thus my username). I am fluent in Armenian, English and know Russian pretty well, plus a little German. Does your movie have a working title yet? --Moosh88 02:52, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes its "April 24 1915" - more then that I'm not willing to discuss at the moment. I feel that it has the potential to be our "Schindlers list" (but even better of course) - and it will be both factually accurate and leave no doubts - if you understand my meaning - it is going to be very powerful and moving and with interesting and real historical characters (that many of us are already familiar with) - I am so exited about it I am waking up from dreams with ideas and it is all comming together.

About my great-granparents - you will find out in the movie! ...I will say that I once attended a reunion of sorts when I was a child where survivors who had been saved by my family wept at and kissed my Grandmothers feet for what seemed like hours - I still cry myself when i think of how I felt seeing this and understanding what had occured - how they had been saved.

My mother has her own way at looking at things - her own rationalizations - and she experinced some severe discrimination at various times in her life - so who is to say she is wrong - but I do feel that without the language and much of the (my?) culture imprinted on me I have missed out....

I've been to Van - but it is really "new Van" - the old city was totally destroyed. Acktamar Island, the lake itself, and the sourounding hills are most beautiful. You can still feel the Armenian presence (and absence) very strongly. I want to (one day...soon?) visit Armenia - but with Armenians with local connections so I can get the true flavor...I do have to say though that my heart and my heritage lies in Anatolia. I feel that all of the Ottoman, Byzantine, Armenian and otherwise history of Anatolia is my heritage - and that land is also part of me...--THOTH 01:42, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Looking forward to your movie! You should go to Armenia, it's a beautiful country. I myself would like to visit Van and other former Armenian communities. It isn't suprising to me that you feel a connection with Anatolia, the eastern part of it is the true home of all Armenians. Armenia was and is on a cross road of East and West. Unfortunately that has been the reason why Armenia was never able to stay very powerful for long; too many invaders from all sides. It wouldn't suprise me if modern Armenians have small traces of all of these other people, but yet we still have managed to stay uniquely Armenian and thus perserve our identity. I think that is something to be proud of, because so many other peoples would have and have been assimilated and disappeared from history.--Moosh88 04:38, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes I agree - it is a very special and unique thing. No amount of various spurious Turkish claims that Armenians were never a people with a land of their own (or that they had not had a kingdom in hundreds of years and such) is suficient to discredit our claim as a nation of people who prospered and have a rightful heritage and place in Anatolia (and who made it what it is today). Our existance there and perpetuation of our culture there - despite being at the crossroads of invasion and territorial periferies and disputes of Empires is a testment to our strength, independence, craft and endurance - it is nothing to be ashamed of - in fact it has honed us as a people to be as capable, adaptive and individually powerful as we are. Our families are our nation as is our bond to our fellow Armenians. We have no personal need for a state to be who we are. Our identity is strong and resolute and has transcencded time and Empires. This is entirely a good and I think a special and very powerful thing in the environment of the world ahead. I think there are aspects to us as a people that position us to flourish and prosper and continue just as Saroyan understood and expressed. And the Turks should fear us if we remain forever perturbed and unsaitiated regarding their wrongs towards us. One day - if not mollyfied - our vengence will come home to roost on them - as it were. In the meantime I think it important that we outreach with Turks and emphasise our common heritage and work to put aside differences. I have no problem with Turks - in fact quite the opposite - I very much like Turks. So I hope that our problems will be resolved - but I cannot just let them sweep away the knowledge of what their nation did to us - as my debt to my fallen forefathers obligates me to never forget and to not waiver in pursuit of justice for them so they might rest in peace in a manner that they were brutally deprived of in life. I see this as an obligation for all humanity as well.--THOTH 12:38, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Armenian People

If you didn't notice it already, I think you might be interested in what Coolcat are doing regarding the Armenian Genocide on the Armenian People article these days. -- Stereotek.

Hey

Just wanted to say Hi and see how things were going with you.--Moosh88 00:09, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

I wondered what had happened to you Moosh - I've been away on vacation - have been dealing with stuff surounding a hospitalized friend (who gave up a kidney for her brother...) and am preparing for a huge blow out party this weekend...perhaps next week I will have some time to devote to things - however I have to say the interest in what I posted as an outline at least fora background piece on the genocide created no interest whatsoever and I'm very busy otherwise - so who knows..also will be travelling again shortly...but thanks for asking...--THOTH 03:59, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

I've been doing a little traveling myself, 2 weeks ago I was Miami, I had a great time. Hope your friend recovers soon, if not already. As for people not showing an interest in your outline, I say who cares, if you want to do it, then go for it.--Moosh88 19:39, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Please do not engage Coolcat

There is as we speak, an arbitration cases, Coolcat aim is to drag us in worthless unconstructive discussions that are useless for the article. Fadix 19:37, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Assume good faith with Cansin

His questions were innocent, any member has the right to request sources and doubt materials in an article. Your answers had little to do with his requests. When someone request refferences, you should point to sources(authors, books, articles, essays etc.). I will remind you again, that what we believe is irrelevant, what authors believe is relevant. Fadix 22:01, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Well what can I say - I have read a great deal on this issue - as you have - and I'm sure you appreciate that - but I don't have a catelogue of online or scanned references and such - but I have read enough on this issue to seperate the facts from the tangental (or in some cases baseless) accusations - perhaps I am losing patience with these rather dubious counter claims - regardless of the integrity of the source - as I have seen too many willing to question some very basic facts - backed up by countless observations, reports, accepted scholarly analysis and so forth - becuase of essentially an adhernce to a nationalistic dogma that refuses to accept the obvious and instead grasps at dubious straws in an attempt to discredit what in in fact are basic truths that are not going away - just because it makes the memebers of certain nationalities uncomfortable. When these individulas can instead start being honest with us - and perhaps with thmeselves - then perhaps we can discuss the particulars without such perhaps defensive or emotional responses. Until then I cannot condone the BS - I'm sorry - there is scholarship and there is real history - then there are these political positions. Lets examne this history with a proper understanding of the environment, the players, their motivations - and an understanding of what really was occuring - lets accept the scoundrals for what they were - then perhaps we can examine the mistakes of various other players - but not until we establish the truth of the true major forces at work and accept and understand what really occured. Until then - no - I can't accpet the BS - however - perhaps - good intentioned. --THOTH 01:24, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi! I saw You made some changes!

I was wondering if you can discuss regarding when "Armenians had begun advocating an independent state". I could not prevent myself noticing you have deleted that section from the article. Some say it goes back to Hamidian massacres. The underground Armenian activity should be very strong even before 1914. I heard they have assassinated an Ottoman PM at the turn of the century. What do you think?--OttomanReference 23:25, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I deleated the reference to both a non-existant and misleading sounding reference as well as the inaccurate text regarding "Armenians" advocating for an independent state. This is a false statement in whatever context as it is untrue and could only be true if it is specifically applied (to those who may have been advocating such) and a proper description as to why and in what context (what prompted such calls) and it needs to be clearly distinguished that in no way did these views catch on among the Armenian population of Anatolia at large - in fact quite the opposite. Additionally, outside of some rather localized (though highly publiscized high profile)incidents that were used as propoganda against Armenians later - I would be hard pressed to categorize any Armenian statehood activities as being "very strong" before 1914 - this is simply untrue. In fact most such things had entirely died out by 1910 with the integration of the Dashnak political platform under the CUP constitutionalist coalition. The only real Armenian anti-government activities were protests (in some cases along with witholding of taxes) from communities who were being harrassed and double taxed by Kurds (and there were some self defense activities in this regard as well as the armed Kurds had long preyed upon defeseless Armenian communities in Eastern Anatolia). The bottom line is that the section I removed was entirely false and misleading as presented. And don't get me started on the "Turkish view" section - as written it should be removed in its entirety. Read it - it is so poor to be an utter embarassment to all things Wiki. I am tempted to to pen in a correct and accurate response to each unsupported and pathetically written paragraph presented. --THOTH 09:40, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I get your point. Events that occurred can not be extended to the population, so they should be disregarded. During a period which all ethnic groups were rising for freedom, you can reach a conclusion that Armenians were only performing "anti-government protests", but nothing else. This brings a very interesting point, regarding the perception. If you are Armenian, you might be the proof that there is a very sharp difference between today’s Armenians and Armenians of WWI. Armenians of the WWI were very proud people. If you claim that they did not intend to have their own state, you are letting thousands, who died for the Armenian dream, die in vein. Those Armenian heros put their state on the map, which even today exists. I do not know if you can read in Armenian, but there are very detailed summaries of activities beginning with 1914, before WWI. I really do not see any reason that you can not be aware of these heroes, given the Internet under your hand. I believe, what is happening by you not recognizing their effort, you are dishonoring Armenian heroes. Today’s Armenians and old Armenians seem to be so different. --OttomanReference 15:25, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

The only "heros" I can think of in this regard are a few who acted just as the Sultan & CUP wished - providing an easy excuse for them to exterminate our people. And you would consider these naive, misguided and manipulated dreamers as heros? To me they share - at least in part - the blame for the murder of our families and the destruction of our nation. Noble in idea some of these men may have been - but their actions brought only destruction upon us - and horrible torture and death to 1.5 million who otherwise might have lived. The Armenian state was a pipe dream considering the circumstances and anyone who could understand such would know that to pursue it during these times meant only destruction and death. While I find the ideal a noble one - and understand the suffering Armenians were put through prior to this time - I don't at all credit those who strove for independence during (mostly prior to) these times as being heros. Heros are not party to bringing about the slaughter and genocide of ones nation. Heros are about actually accomplishing something - not being pawns - not being used as an excuse to slaughter and destroy. you have it all wrong IMO. --THOTH 16:46, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Your words are noble, if they could have exist in vacuum. However, reality is that these heroes (or anti-heroes) did exist. They do exist today as grandchildren, leaders, and soldiers of the Armenia. Also their dream; The Republic of Armenia does exist, which only can be attributed to the blood of these people. The blood from armed struggle; the blood from starvation; the blood of nation building. It is your own decision to ignore a nation building activity and categorize it as an anti-hero. Turks have to learn to live with Enver Pasha, which is the anti-hero of Mustafa Kemal. You have to learn to live with the consequences of your decision in ignoring a group of people who build the Armenia. It was nice to talk to you. I do recognize your situation. If you can not make peace with these people; you can not make peace with Armenian Genocide article, as they do exist.--OttomanReference 18:12, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

The fact that there were a few who had such ambitions means little in the grand scheme of things. These people were largely inefective and in fact inactive - at least their actiuons had no real military bearing - and as far as political bearing they totally failed to win over the Armenian people at the time - because they were dreamers not realists and they offered no real hope for everyday Armenians who were more practicle in outlook. At best they offered an excuse to the CUP to say "see Armenians are just like Serbians and Bulgarians and Greeks" etc - however this in fact was not true. Remember it was the Ottomans who coined the term "loyal nation" in regards to the Armenians - and the Armenians understood that theur geographic position and population spread (widely over Eastern Anatolia intermixed with Turks, Kurds and others) made it (statehood) an impossible dream. The Armenian political movement was one for reform within the Ottoman Sysytem - and failing that some sort of limited autonomy or self-rule - at the very least some relief from the repression (from the Kurds) and (at best) indifference from the Sultan/Ottoman Government. It is you who fail to understand reality and instead are making up a history which is unsupportable by (non-exaggerated) fact. I am very much aware of the realities and history in this region and of this period. Learn to live with (and admit about) Talat (and the support he recieved from many/most all?) Turks of the time) is what you Turks have not managed yet. When you do so then we can discuss the minor sidebar of Armenian Revolutionaries - mostly a pathetic bunch - at best idealistic and naive - with heart in the right place and perhaps we could call them brave - but wise - no, heros, no...foolhardy yes...however you cannot (accuratly) make generic claims of "Armenians this" and "Armenians that" based on the actions of these few. --THOTH 18:53, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

"Mostly a pathetic bunch!" Fine if you do not want to perceive these people as heroes. But there is another history that has as much suffering as Armenian history. This "mostly a pathetic bunch" managed to perform destruction so big that it generated a proverb which symbolized the feelings against the every Armenian. 1 in every 20 person, after WWI, had a family member killed by this "mostly a pathetic bunch" at their home. This number gets higher if you only count Anatolian born, by excluding the ones forced to migrate from Caucasus to Anatolia. I guess, your noble feelings do not cover such sufferings. When you talk about towns being destroyed after the war, you do not count the Turks living in those towns obviously. On the other side of the history "mostly a pathetic bunch" used blood to draw the maps. I got your sentiments. I see your points. Hope I managed to tell the other side. The other side will try to tell that story, which began way earlier than your story. I am very interesting to see how will deal with that, claiming coming from a suffering side.--OttomanReference 19:55, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

1 in 20 you say - prove it. You claim that 1 in every 20 Turks have had a family memeber killed by Armenians. And that this "story" began before the plights of the Armenians - well this is rich. I don't suppose the term 'family" includes cousins thrice removed and such or rumours of relations or such things. Your "other side" is an outright lie. It is propoganda that is unsupportable. And it has no business being in an article concerning the Armenian Genocide anymore then a claim on the part of germans that Jews started WWII and were responsible for deaths of 1 in every 20 Germans or such. I have written concerning Turkish suffering already in the past - some is in the archives of the Genocide Talk page - but no with the likes of you and your anonymous alter ego I have no time for sympathy for Turks - not when your misguided hatred of Armenians is being pushed on us so. And unless it is proven and accepted by scholars and historians and unless it concerns the Armenian Genocide - it has no place in the Genocide article. You can take your (made up and otherwise) sob stories and your hatred of Armenians elsewhere. --THOTH 20:18, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

This is not "my hatred" against Armenians, cool down. I do not feel any hate against anyone. I do not recall any of my family member that was killed directly by an Armenian. If so, what can I do "those were really bad times". I'm telling this very sincerely. Other side of the story is not "outright lie". Yes, Enver was an idiot, his decisions were disaster (all of his decisions were not just this). Forget about moving miles a away; if you take a group in 1915 to picnic, you would have lost 15% of the group. I had many stories in my mothers town that they tried to help Armenians. The basic attitude was summarized with these words "IDIOT ENVER". He got that position without deserving. But in 1924, this attitude changed very drastically. I'm not talking about Ottomans, these are people living in small towns, doing farming. These farmers come up with the proverb. You claim Turks killed Armenians, but that is not true, and funny thing is that the opposite is true. You are performing a Historical revisionism (negationism). Turks (farmers) did not had any reason before the WWI to perform anything against the Armenians. However, this "mostly a pathetic bunch" had reasons. When it is 1924, through out the years, "mostly a pathetic bunch" managed a big-big destruction that ended with the proverb against the Armenians. "Mostly a pathetic bunch" began to work their way before WWI. They managed to have their Armenia, when the Ottoman Empire crumbled to pieces. They wrote that map with blood.--OttomanReference 20:54, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Your joking with me now again aren't you? You are contending that Turks never killed Armenians - that it never happened - and that it was only Armenian actions which occured in 1924 that caused Turks to hate Armenians (as Armenians had killed 1 in 20) - now this is really something. That you actually believe this is a tribute to your stellar educational system I imagine. Your statements here are so lacking in actual true historical context that they even make normal Turkish propoganda look vauguely historical. Please do go on - you are amusing me. --THOTH 21:03, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm happy that you are reading. For a person, who deals with pain and suffering, you seem to be very insensitive about other people, but ability to read is going on for you. We all have families which tell us more than an educational system can tell. We have friends that they tell us their own experiences. What I'm telling you is real life, not education. Obviously you are educated enough to know the “proverb” for the Armenians. But you have never questioned why such a thing can come to saying. I just told you the reality behind the proverb that is shared by many people. That is the reason why the specific “proverb” stuck among people. Do not forget, even if you deny, such as you denied the "mostly a pathetic bunch", it is an Armenian history. "Mostly a pathetic bunch" wrote it for Armenians. Hope you will check these reports from 1914-1917. These are colection of ottoman reports written by branches. They were like monthly criminal reports. Hope they will bring a different perspective to your views of the period ottoman archives --OttomanReference 21:41, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I doubt that I will waste my time reading propoganda reports produced by the CUP intelligence service to slander Armenians - just as you do by mention of some "proverb" (that i have no idea what you are talking about) - except that it is clearly racist ion nature and that you clearly are condoneing this view of Armenians. And you think to question my objectivity. Your lack of such becaome clearly with every post - as does your lack of grip on reality. --THOTH 21:55, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Thinking some Ottoman Goverment agency lied based on thinking that a century later THOTH would be reading them, is out there idea. CUP was so out there, they did not feel the need to lie. The graves that were opened couple of years ago were located from these reports. I also have friends that tell such things happened to their families. When it comes to race, Armenians are not a race, besides the black, white and asian. Also there are 180,000 proud Armenian Turkish citizens living in Turkey. Their life is safe. They perform their religious activities. Is my life safe around you? It was not a century ago. --OttomanReference 22:09, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes it all stacks up so neatly. Places where Armenians were utterly and entirely wiped out are now the supposed locations of Armenians massacres of Turks. Mass graves of Armenians are now being portrayed as mass graves of Turks - how totally pathetic. Let some impartial scientists do a little DNA analysis on the remians before you make those bogus claims. Well It is telling that you are so ready to believe these CUP claims out of hand without knowing the real history of it. Shakir and his special organization units were implicated by the Ottoman 3rd Army in commiting massacres against both Armenians and Turks in this region (and they attempted to court martial him for such). Shakir attempted to claim that these massacres were the fault of Armenians and he then brought these doctored reports back to Constantinople both to protest his innocence and blame the hated Armenians for use as justification in the murderous campaign the CUP had already dreamed up. The Germans certainly doubted the truth of these reports and refused to stand by them. Instead they reported (secretly to Berlin so that the llies wouldnot have even more negativity concerning the Turks) that all was quiet from the Armenians until and in many cases even after they were provoked by the Turks. This is what the facts and evidence shows. These Turkish reports are not worth the weight of the paper they were written on. Even if a few of the cases may have been true - the overall impression is one of a desperate CUP party to justify its actions that it was in fact already undertaking - round ups of Armenians and Armenian weaponry under the pretext of subversive activities - with little or no proof - and special organization "chettes" already massacring at will - both within Anatolia and in the Caucuses. These facts can be corroborated from multitudes of eyewitness reports - again unlike the Turkish claims which are never corroborated by any others without Turkish/Ottoman connections and which in fact are primarily untrue. --THOTH 22:33, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

At least we agree on the fact that those were very bad times. No one is stopping you to write an article on Teskilat-i Mahsusa. But if all your claims were true, Ottoman Empire would have extended to 20 century. It did not, right? By the way "chette" is not a special organization. Köroğlu had a chette. You begin to work in the outer limits. It is very interesting that when it comes to Armenian population everyone uses the ottoman archives, but for other things they are untrustworthy.--OttomanReference 22:55, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikiproject: Armenia

Hakob and I, decided to make a Wikiproject for Armenia. We hope that you and other Armenian wikipedia editors, will take the time to expand Armenian related articles and create new articles on topics currently without one. Please feel free to share your thoughts on the project and have fun! Here is the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Armenia--Moosh88 05:18, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Armenian Genocide

When you start contributing to the page instead of just pasting line after line of stuff irrelevant to the discussion of how to improve the article then I'll stop moving your posts. You'll note that I'm not doing it unilaterally, I'm leaving posts you make that contribute to the page, see Talk:Armenian Genocide#Genocide Denial - links and information for example. I'm quite open to discuss this, but seeing as you've already made it quite clear that you have no intention of contributing to the page, I think you need to relax your accusations. Your anti-Armenian comment was hilarious, side-splitting, I almost fell off my seat.

PS. If you think something needs to be removed from the page, just ask me. The chances are they I've missed it, I'm not on Wikipedia 24/7 even though it may seem like it :)

PPS. To be unpopular with both sides at the same time is probably the best pointer to the fact that one is performing one's duties correctly and with impartiality.

FrancisTyers 08:29, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

You may think that this issue is funny - I do not. I repeat - everything i post is directly related to article content or to comments and such others have posted related to the article. To not respond to misleading false garbage posts is to allow others to assume that there might be truth in them - next thing you find this trash in the article itself - as we have already seen with the "Turkish view" on the Armenian Genocide. Again - I think that if this "Turkish view" is allowed to stand as it then the Holocaust article should have its denial likewise presented as just another oposing view. --THOTH 21:42, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Please remember WP:AGF and WP:NPA, don't throw phrases like holocaust denial around on a whim because you cheapen them by doing so, and don't give up your day job in favour of a career in mindreading. Lastly, don't feed the trolls. You must be aware that many of the throwaways and anons are nyms of User:-Inanna-. Why flatter then with a response ? You'd be better to devote your efforts to having Inanna's menagerie of puppets blocked than to reply to them. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:20, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Bullshit. You have no clue. Why is denial of the AG any different then Holocaust denial? If you do one you are as reprehensible as if you do another. I am tired of this Wiki bullshit. Soon I will begin reporting Wikipedia as a hate site - because the way this is going that is exactly what it is becomming. --THOTH 18:03, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

That's not BS, he is perfectly right, each articles have their contributors, the last time I have checked you haven't contributed to the Holocaust article. Fad (ix) 18:27, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

There is no real academic debate about whether what is referred to as the Holocaust was a genocide, but there is a real academic debate as to whether what is often referred to as the Armenian Genocide was a "genocide".

The reason some academics, as you put it, "deny" the Armenian Genocide, is because there are real reasons for intelligent people to hold that point of view. (I tend to agree with them, and like those academics, I still condemn what happened as terrible and unjustifiable.)

Are you really suggesting that all of the academics that "deny" the "Armenian Genocide" are committing a hate crime, when they discuss the terrible toll paid by all the ethnic groups in the Ottoman Empire at the time, and conclude that although damnable, what happened shouldn't be called genocide?

How can legitimate academic work done in good faith by people who do not themselves hate be called a "hate crime"??

Not everyone who disagrees with the characterization of the Armenian Genocide as genocide is hatefully deluding themselves or pretending to fail to see the truth of your way of seeing things out of spite. There are intelligent people who disagree whose views would be presented on other topics on Wikipedia without any trouble because of their credentials as legitimate academics.

A historian who debates the label that is put on an event may do so in good faith, and that is never committing a hate crime.

As I've emphasized recently: including the views of the so-called academic "deniers" is required of a page on an important and academically and politically contentious issue, and in no way constitutes a hate crime, nor does it constitute an action which would turn Wikipedia into a "hate site".

One more time, just so this soaks in, THOTH: there is no academic debate about the characterization of the Holocaust as genocide, but there is one regarding whether the "Armenian Genocide" should be characterized as genocide, and the reasons for and against such.

Therefore, including the "opposing" view is incumbent upon those who edit this article, and is impossible for those who edit the Holocaust article. Get it?

Obviously other editors have recognized this, because they chose a small amount of "denialist" work to, unfortunately, present in an unflattering and biased light. (It's also not as large as I think it should be in this article, but in any case it's not done right.) If this section was merely done properly, much of the bias would fade.

Why? Because perhaps the worst piece of bias is the concealment of real arguments against the majority characterization of events. Obviously, you don't agree they're significant or sufficiently significant enough to make a difference in your view of what happened as a genocide. But an issue like this, where an academic debate exists, and its importance magnified by a politicization of history, the minority view, if held by legitimate scholars, must be presented without bias or editorializing.

Remedying problem of the bias manifest in this page should start with a fair presentation of the existence of legitimate dissent and its form. (Whenever I said "this page", I meant the "Armenian Genocide" page.)

--24.5.70.65 19:12, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:RFAR

The RFAR would be rejected if it concerned content. However, a semi-protect would be a reasonable thing to ask for, as well as User:Lutherian's head on a pole. For content, it needs to be a WP:RFC. However, one could ask for elucidation as to whether shouting loudly, whether on WP or in the world at large, is relevant to WP:V and WP:NPOV issues. But in general, RFC for content, RFAR for behaviour. I will make up an RFC now. I have no great expectations from it. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:44, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for you(attempt at an) explanation - however all your Wiki talk has my head spinning...though I think that I get the jist - something to do with restricting editing/vandalising. etc --THOTH 14:17, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

FYI

[2] Deepblue06 19:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks alot

It helps to know that I should never trust you, you just randered worthless one of the ways I have to accumulate evidences. I hope one day you will learn that your ego isen't the only thing that matter. Fad (ix) 22:41, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I have done what? I hope other Armenians and other Wikipedians of conciensce have witnesed both my contributions and your continued snipes at me (and your attempts to diminish the truth by giving credence to denial - and for what?)...as well as your inclusion of me in your little complaint. Who is it that has been personal here? Who is it that has ego issues? Who has inititated this thing? Leave me be. And the Armenian Genocide article is not yours alone...capiche? And neither are your opinions the barometor of truth in this matter. You've got some real issues - and you really have some nerve dragging me into all of this...I seriously question your motivation in this mattter. And again I warn you not to mess with me - you are seriously out of your league.--THOTH 05:03, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

You are simply a backstabber, I was to defend you during the RfAr. While multiple socks and contributors discuss with eachothers privatly, you backstab me by cheap threats when I never did such things to you, but of course such contributors will never be threatned by backstabbers like this. I have from the beginning tried to help you, I have even proposed to boost your credibility by neutralising your propositions, I have emailed you works and proposed you to help me, and at the first occasion you backstab me for a single citation about NPOV and you. You could have requested explainations, you decided to threaten me. And true, other Armenians have indeed witnessed all this affair. Fad (ix) 06:10, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

If you want to troll on talk pages, that's fine, but don't expect anyone to be impressed. And stop the personal attacks and threats like this and this. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:38, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

All I have done is asked to be left out of this issue with the Turkish sockpuppets. Including me in such is in very bad faith IMO and is personal - it is driven by personal animosity towards me. I am not related to them or their actions whatsoever. I refuse to be the scapegoat in this one and I have stated numerous times my complete non-interest in being involved in these interpersonal fueds and such. I have enough to deal with of substance regarding the articel and in preventing extreme minority view POV vandalism. I am very aware of historical facts, issues and perspectives regarding the Armenian Genocide and I wish the article to represent such in the best possible way and to be of no less quality then similar article - such as trhe Holocaust article. An examination of my contributions should make this clear. And as i said before I had some very high hopes for your involvement in this article and process...but like many - the Turkish hyper-nationalists seem to drive you away - thats too bad - I thought you brought a very good (new) perspective that we could use and I'm frustrated by the lack of quality participation in the article. --THOTH 15:30, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Civility

Regarding edits such as this: Please do not make personal attacks on other people. Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks. In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be blocked from editing by admins or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please resolve disputes appropriately. Thank you. --InShaneee 18:40, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I understand. However, I find it odd that I would be singled out when there has been a plethora of worse comments directed at me and others who are posting referenced supported scholarly and eyewitness positions to back up salient points in regards to article content - where the responses to such have been name calling and disparagement of myself and others as well as personal ad homenim attacks against the scholars themselves. When I critique referrenced contributions by others I address the facts and issues - and I don't make irrelavent personal attacks. I don't feel that I made a personal attack in this case - but I admit to at times posting flippantly out of frustration - but only in response to commentary that I think is without merit and fully deserving of such. Anyway - yes of course - I will try to be (more) civil - however I think the context of my comments (and the sockpuppetry and extreme POV vadalism we are dealing with in thus article) and the quality of my overall contributions needs to be taken into account. --THOTH 23:29, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Word of advice

I suggest you stop answering Lutherian's pointless questions at Talk:Armenian Genocide. Instead, I recommend that you take the time to read this. Just simply ignore him, you're letting him get what he wants by giving him attention. It's obvious he's going to stick to his own naive views on the subject, so what's the point anyways? Why make him happy? —Khoikhoi 00:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

There have been times when I have not been contributing to the talk page and times I have - and I fail to see any difference in his - or like - anon or whoever - type of posts and responses from others - including Fadix BTW. While I occasionally have been frustrated - for obvious reasons - and have posted what may be considered flippantly - for the most part I feel that my posts have been adding substance for supporting important factual points which either are in the article - but are under attack - or I am providing support for material that I believe should be in the article (or is and shouldn't be) - much of which directly counters POV denialist material...can I ask what has motivated you to provide this suggestion to me at this time? Do you really object to the content (and support for content) I am providing? Do you find some particular fault with my involvement in this article and have you purused the archives to really know how I have handled myself? Do you truly believe that I (we) should just let deniers rule the day and determine the content of this article. If so - shame on you. --THOTH 01:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Jeez, calm down man. I got the idea that you were wearing down because of the trolls, but I guess not. My apologies. No, I didn't read the archives. I just wanted to let you know that the anons who sound like Lutherian and talk like Lutherian...are probably Lutherian. I mean, who else ends all of their sentences with an exclamation point? Anyways, I hope you're not mad at me. Ts'tesutyun. —Khoikhoi 01:50, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I'm sensitive because I have been drawn into these personal squabbles between Fadix and the various sockpuppet genocide denialists despite all my efforts to remain uninvolved. I first came to Wikipedia and became involved in the article at Fadix's behest - and I came to agree with him concerning the great importance of getting this article right (and at that time much of this was resisting coolcats attemtps to make the article 50-50 with equal weight to be given Turkish denialist position. However, he and I have different approaches to many things and I have never felt comfortable editing the article as it - because I find it incredibly deficient and I am a perfectionist in my serious work - so I can't just pell mell edit - I need to take it on conceptually and build it. From my very first days contributing to this process I made proposals concerning reworking the article - but Fadix was opposed and others were blase. Of course I have never wanted to just go it alone...I felt thsi needed to be a collaborative effort. My impression though is that Fadix basically wants this article all to himself. The way I see it - as it became increasingly clear to him that I had an independent voice and would not just follow his lead he has become increasingly - though subtly - hostile to me and has denigrated my contributions and involvement in this effort. And I have specifically resisted his efforts to attempt to involve me into interpersonal squabbles and back room intrigues. Heh - I don't have enough time to contribute to serious stuff to the degree I would like - I certainly don't have time or effort for that. Anyway - I'm going to be suspicious of any criticsm or wiki tactics aimed at lessening my participation in this article now because I know how he operates - behind the scenes - making deals and such. So I am of course going to be naturally suspicios of anyone who comes in now and starts taking shots at me. I guess I overeacted with you and I'm sorry. --THOTH 02:28, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

This is not true and you know it. I never opposed to your contributions, I requested that you present your propositions but the only time you came up with something it was clearly tainted with opinions. I proposed you to resubmit other propositions and that I will neutralise them for you, I even emailed works, this is evidenced from the talk page. You then claimed not having time but had all the time needed to answer others. Don't blame your lack of contribution on anyone. And do you remember when I have called you? Does Torque ring a bell? I requested few simple things from you and it was to abide by the rules, you always refused and will protest them in the talk page. If you follow the archive you will see that I too protested at the beginning but finally understood that Wikipedia is a community with specific rules which make it run and prevent it from chaos. You seem under the impression that I make the rules. Why don't you present all your propositions I was opposed to to any veterans and see if there is a single one that will find them acceptable? Your beliefs about my intentions regarding you are simply and plainly paranoia, my citation about you and NPOV had nothing to do with what you claim. I simply present the condition of the article and the people involved there, I have never started talking about your psychological states never had I slandered you, I simply said that you had still to understand NPOV, can you claim in anyway that this is not true? I have even presented my misbehaviors. But all I recieved from your part is backstabbing and threatning to present my strategies against socks which are totally unrelated and are against none of the policies and guidelines. What you did was simply cheap and you demonstrated that no one should ever trust you. Fad (ix) 04:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

This is exactly the thing I didn't want to get involved in - but I see you will force me to go through the archives and other stuff and prove everything I am saying. Is this really necessary? --THOTH 09:19, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The Britney Spears comment

THOTH, that was totally inappropriate. Yes, it's considered a personal attack, don't do it again. Just remember what InShaneee said above, "comment on content, not the contributor". Thank you. —Khoikhoi 04:40, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Dashnaks

Sarcasm. Well it beats writing "What the hell does this have to do with anything ?" Cheers ! Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:41, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I have been idadvertently blocked due to sharing an IP with some idiot it seems...please unblock - I was in the middle of posting a response to someone...thank you --THOTH 20:26, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Why thnak you! --THOTH 20:45, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Hrant Dink

FYI, Troth, shame is absolutely what I felt after reading about Hrant Dink. He was such a valuable man. I can only hope that the criminals won't hang around a long time, and I will try to attend the funeral. He was both a Turkish and an Armenian, so I share your condolescence. Caglarkoca 10:26, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

You are involved in an arbitration case

[3] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fadix (talk • contribs) 03:13, 7 April 2007 (UTC).

Apology

Hi! Quite sorry about that note. Of course the situations are comparable, I certainly agree. I guess I just meant that we wouldn't define WWI in terms of WWII.

Anyway, I feel quite bad about that wording, it's really not what I meant to say. I step into these difficult situations trying to be impartial, and maybe sometimes I err too far in one direction or the other, and for that I apologize. What I said was wrong, I've agreed with you all along, and I just misspoke.

Thanks for pointing it out, I'll benefit from that.DBaba 06:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your work and involvement in the article. The recognition section needed to be seperated out IMO and kudos to your work in doing so. IMO it allows for more focus on the historical events of the Genocide itself in the Genocide article. So I'm not being down on you. However this claim that the Ag is incomparable to the Holocaust is a rather sore point as it is a denier position and its clearly a faulty position. It has nothing to do with WWI vs WWII per se - but in the dynamics of what occured in each case - where each have incredible similarities - and this is the type of information that needs to be understood to better understand how these genocides occur and perhaps how they might be prevented in the future. It is also important - to be historically accurate - to not lend credence to the (again denier) claim that the Armenian Genocide was somehow a lesser event or of lesser severity then the Holocaust. This is patently untrue. And the perpetrators of each crime - from the instigators to the lowely killers who carried it out - are just as guilty for their crimes against humanity. And the Armenians deserve all of the recognition that the world has given the Jews for their tragedy. In nearly every respect the crimes against each group were identicle - and in so many ways the process and methods of destruction were erily parallel. What is interesting is that while each was occuring the Armenian Genocide actually had far more international recognition and attention then the Holocaust - however due to political circumstances the opposite is true today. Those who have denied the Armenian genocide all of these years should not be allowed to suceed in their minimalisation and obscurment of these crimes and of an accurate rendition of the history of this period. So be careful that you are not an unwitting part of such a thing as helping to minimize recognition and accurate portrayal of these crimes.--THOTH 01:55, 14 July 2007 (UTC)