Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:08, 19 March 2005

Archives
Please do not edit archived pages. If you want to react to a statement made in a archived discussion, please make a new header on THIS page. -- Mgm| 09:20, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)

Fadix Analysis:
This section exist to answer Torque claims and is kept up to date (new materials posted as well as new answers). (VERY LONG PAGE)
Archive 1:
Hitler's quote and Holocaust, The rest of discussion, Strong bias, Events of Musa Mountain, Musa Mountain, Move Musa Dagh.
Archive 2:
Examining chiefly Turk-unsympathetic sources for the "Armenian Genocide" article, Response to Raffi Kojian, Continuing our Discussion, Reference and link titles, Is Raffi Responding Roughly?, Let us recap the foregoing discussion.
Archive 3:
Raffi, I thought you were "finished"!, 80.177.169.33, Do these people have scruples?, The original article is back, Armenian Genocide, The Vandal Speaks.
Archive 4:
Professional Denier Speaks, Denying is a Two-Way Street, Jewish lobby groups, Another Partisan at work, What does it mean when a nation recognizes the "genocide"?
Archive 5:
Need Link, The "Vigilante" has a name, History is written by winners.
Archive 6:
Disputing the Article, Fresh Overhaul, Fresh Overhaul -- Dialogue Continues. (LONG PAGE)
Archive 7:
Archive 8:
Archive 9:
Archive 10:

FYI

Definition of NPOV is that both views have equal grounds, thats the wikipedia way. See how Ranks and Insignia of Starfleet was developed. I knew a lot regarding the matter so was my co-aurthor. We edited, and rechecked eachothers work, now the article was not contriverisal so its easy, you chose a very difficult and conriversial article to start your wiki career. --Cool Cat 15:00, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

FYI: 2+2 can equal 5 in complex math.

I have commented out several sections of the article which in my opinion are not neutral, they will not be visible to regular people viewing th article untill the comment tags <!-- --> are removed. Please make them neutral and remove the tags. I have made several sections neutral for you. Again neutral means the article does not favor neither side while taking into account the views of all parties regarding the matter. Words like "most of scholars" are not neutral, there is no widely accepted concensus from a scientific(history) convention that you can put here. Even if that would be the case you would add that to the recent history category while keeping the article neutral. You may not like it, I may not like it, but thats how wikipedia runs. Do not remove my entries, instead try rewriting them in a neutral tone. --Cool Cat 16:16, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The book links belong to external link category as they are one sided view I believe. --Cool Cat 22:06, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Onlu by placing Justin McCarthys book at the section supporting the genocide theses, you just have shown that you have absolutly no clue of what you are talking about. McCarthy is the only major Western Historian claiming there was no genocide. Anyone ignoring this should even not debate.Fadix 18:13, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well, my bad. I'll recategorise it and tone down your language when you are talking to me. You cannot tell me to shut up. I am not telling you to shut up. I am telling you to "TALK" neutral. If I made an error in categorising things you put it to the "another view" actegory instead of hissing me. --Cool Cat 22:06, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It wasn't just a mistake, you did that mistake more than once because you obviously ignore who McCarthy is. Can you be kind to present the books you have read about the topic please? Fadix 22:19, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Dear sir. I am not knowlegable in the Armenian Genocide article enough to comment. I am merely folowing wikipedia NPOV article. I lack a hidden agenda. I dont purposly make mistakes. Now when you have someone who insist on reverting your edits without reading them its hard to focus. --Cool Cat 22:32, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You are not following Misplaced Pages policy, and if you have no knowledge of the subject, you can not introduce claims which are erronous, you are not neutralising the article, you are injecting in it claims you make yourself... Misplaced Pages present positions recognised and NOT your position, and that is what you are doing right now. And a last thing, you obviously do have an agenda, you live in Turkey(which libraries only contain one biased version of history), and do inject your biases in every Misplaced Pages articles which involve Turkey. And above all, you can't hide behind the claim that you are not Turk and that you only live in Turkey, unlike you, I do not hide my ethnicity because I believe that this is irrelevent and I support the position that one is credible for what he says and not based on the social construct called ethnicity he belongs to. The next time you would want to pass as a neutral individual, don't use the word "Armanian" repeatadly exposing that it is not only a mistake, but rather the Semitic(Arab/Hebrew) or Turkish pronounciation as in "Ermen" or "Arman." Now I commited a mistake, I should not have writen this I admit, but you provoked me by claiming you have no agenda which is obvious wrong.Fadix 22:44, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You are constantly accusing me of a hidden agenda, accusing Turkey of a massacre and acusing a lot of people with things and claiming you are staying neutral. I dont hide my ethnicity. I have no reason to advertise it either. In english Armenian refers to the people living in Armenia proper spelling requires that and I am not a spelling genius. The word has 2 a's and one e. I am not Turkish. I lived in Turkey for quite some time due to my asignment. I am not making claims, I am rewording your claims. You cant quite see it as you arent reading, merely pasting/typing... Armenian Genocide did not happen as far as most of the world nations are concerned, since they have not recognised it. The Turks claim it wasn't a massacre. No mather HOW much stuff you throw at me that will not change the fact that Tuks claim otherwise. Not only that but you remove lots of productive edits (like spelling fixes) by other people. You declare that majority thinks this. While I am trying to keep this at EQUAL ground. Please GRAB a dictionary and READ WTF "Neutral" means ALSO read Misplaced Pages:Neutral Point of View. --Cool Cat 22:56, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

So you don't have any hidden agenda right? So, maybe you can all tell us why you only play this hijacking game in entries involving Turkey? And you are lying here, the Armenian genocide is not denied by most countries... not recognizing something by a government is not denying a genocide. Most US states have passed bills recognizing it, Canada did the same, France as well, Germany is thinking doing the same etc. and this even after the Turkish republic continual threats. It is as well a fact that most states have not passed bills recognizing the Shoah, according to you it would mean it did not happen. And only your above claims show that you are lying when you say you are neutral. You have admitted not knowing the subject, yet you claim it did not happen. How can one admit not knowing the subject at the same time having a position? This is called a preconceived belief. You can not participate in this article, because you have no knowledge of the event, and that you have a preconceived belief.

As for the spelling, you did that continuously, not only with the word Armenia but as well with the word Armenians... I won't call this a mistake at all, a mistake is something that is done once, twice etc. and not repeated after it is shown to you...

Again, NEUTRAL... presenting every sides.

International Community(UN etc.) answer. Genocide

Western Academia and even many Arabic and Iranian. Genocide

Turkish human right organization. Genocide

Some Turkish Academics. Genocide

Armenians position. Genocide

Even in Iran a bill was to be passed, prevented by Turkeys pressure, when did Iran ever considered passing such bill to recognize the Shoah?

There is this, against the Turkish government official version, there is no way that you will take those sides and present them with the Turkish government official version as equal, if you do that, you automatically give each opposing side to your claim less place than the official Turkish government version, and this is not neutral.

But this is not all, you make up things such as “Relocation camps,” that's completely ridiculous, you just made it up, you can not just invent expressions like this. A relocation camp does not make any sense... maybe it is time for you to check what a concentration camp mean. You have done many mistakes like this. And besides, you can not just shoot the 200,000-1,5 million, without indicating the sources... there are many such things that you have purposely deleted, and even some that are not denied by the official Turkish government diplomat publications, which mean that you just have made up things.Fadix 23:17, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Relocation camp is the neutral word for "concentration" which assumes a genocide has happened. Its a more neutral word. If you have a better word edit accordingly.

I dispute the way you say it not what you say. I am not in the position to dispute what you say, not my major. You refuse to comprihend this. I am knowlegable to know that the issue is disputed. "hijacking game". Sorces for 1.5 million is your sorces. sorces for 200,000 is official Turkish data according to you. I did not delete them, I commented them out so you and other mods can review them and make them neutral. AS I explained before thats how we do things in wikipedia. You are claiming by making this article pro genocide you are being neutral. I think you should cut back on crack. --Cool Cat 00:36, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Concentration camp mean a camp where people are concentrated, I haven't seen any works even those not supporting my position which claim such a concentration did not happen. That was the official name given by officials, including German officials. It is neutral, while you introduce an expression that does not make sense at all. As for “Turkish data,” they vary a lot, ATAA, the largest Turkish American organization, has even an article claiming 700,000 Armenians died... the official Ottoman statistics are of 800,000 killed(not casualties, but KILLED)... you can not present this as if from 200,000 to 1.5 million died, without including those facts, because you are are doing is misleading people. Even Turkish historians like Fikret Adanir who do not entirely support the official Western version, recognize that possibly over a million may have perished. All major German official records vary from 1.2-1.5 million, this is from where the Armenian figures of 1.5 million comes from. You can NOT just claim that from 200,000 to 1.5 million perished without noting the sources. The reader has the right to know those informations, but you are purposely deleting them. If you want to edit the article as I repeated, I am ready to make compromises, but I am not ready to delete important informations,or misleading with erronous clames that you just make up, when the edition will mislead the reader... and that is what you are after. Oh and, are you suggesting that I am on drug? Cut the crap please.Fadix 00:46, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

My case

I presented the lowest claim and the higest claim.If 800,000 died thats between the range page gave. The current verison is more biased and makes little sense as it has been vandalised by both saides. Your version made more sense but was biased. So I had taken the time to make it neutral. I am not denying the massacre on my version nor am I supporting it. I dont care which version of the story is widely accepted. All I care is what will make it neutral. I was not done making it neutral. I comented out parts I though was biased. Its difficult to purge your views, thats quite normal. This is a contriversial topic. Its not right and impolite to acuse the other side. All I did was reword what you said and move items around in a logival order, merge/seperate categories etc... You cannot refer the camps as concentration camps, thats where people go to stay permenantly as prisoners. Your original version of the article disputes that. That would mean a genocide has happened, hence would be biased. I used the word relocation camp as that was the other word to refer to the camps in the original version of your article. If you know a better word you are welcome to change it. I can review it and comment on it. Would be much more productive than a revert. What ottoman records say is disputed so are German, UK, Russian records. When numbers are disputed you put lowest and higest numbers. The current version of the article has 200,000 as the lowest value, the higest value I have seen so far is 1.5 mil so 200K-1500K. We can be productive if you see my motives as I claim them instead of assuming/hyotosizing hidden agendas and other paranoid stuff... --Cool Cat 03:46, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Coolcat, that is the point, you did not make it more neutral, you introduced your POV in them. There is a distinction between specialists POV and an individual POV. If you want the “other side” to be included more, you have to ask me... I will include what is said from the other side, which would be different than what you do say. Another thing, as I said, you seem to intentionally introduce the other version as equal in the same text, that would work if there was a critic of a scholar made by another scholar, but not when there is a general view, and an alternative one... if you do that you go against the Neutral Point of view, because you mislead the reader. If you present the range 200,000-1.5 million, you mislead the reader. And I will explain again why, many Turks generally accept 600,000, the 200,000-300,000 is the official Turkish government version and not the “Turkish view” which mean that those figures are shared by very few people. So, don't you see why now, you can not present such a range? The thing is that official denialists use the 600,000 figure, and there are even denialists who uses the partial Ottoman statistics of 800,000... but in your edition this does not appear at all. Readers will come here, and read, they will give as much credence to the official Turkish government version as for instance, German official records range of the time(1.5 million). And as for the highest value, 1.5 million is not the highest value, specialists like Rummel, for the entire period between 1914 to 1922 give 1.8 million as figure(including Armenians outside of Ottoman borders which felt as well victim)... there are such higher figures... those are the minority, like 200,000-300,000 is a minority... so I decided to stick with the Turkish government version, present it, present what Western scholars say, and what Armenians say... this way, when people read, they will know what is what... if you delete that information, you mislead the reader.

Coming to the “controversial” point, every subject is controversial, generally when something is controversial, it is because there is two clear opposing sides fighting for a version. I mean, if we speak about Quantum mechanic, specialists in the field may disagree, and they will “fight” regarding what is the best interpretation, obviously they won't include in their discussion a Priest, an Imam, a Rabbi etc. This is about a genocide, and there are specialists in comparative genocide study, and for them, this topic is not controversial, it becomes controversial when you introduce in the discussion Ottoman historians that rely on Turkeys historiography, no one will include an Armenologist in the discussion, why would we include an Ottomanist... those two parties are biased, because their subject of study is based on the use of records, sources from biased parties. So, adding “Controversial” as message is to mislead the reader who will believe that the Armenian cases is debated among specialists in the field, which is obviously wrong,

Neutrality for Misplaced Pages means to present every considerable versions, and not to mislead the reader. For instance, I can not in a natural selection entry give as much place to the “creationist” theses. And here again, I stress out the point that the Armenian genocide is the second most studied genocide in the world, Lemkin the inventor of the term not only has he included this cases, but he used is as part of the genocide definition. Let me explain for you what it means, in international law it means that every events similar to the Armenian cases is a genocide, because the Armenian cases is included in the restrictive definition with the Shoah as an integral part of the word genocide. Now what you want to do, is the present both as equally, when the denialist theses revolve around the claim: “Armenians backstabbed us, so they were relocated because they were dangerous.” You have this position, against a a bunch of extensive studies like the concentration camps, the special organization, the Ottoman methodology etc. Not only do we have this, we have the international community, the UN cases should be presented, the Military tribunal, the Permanent Tribunal etc. Now you want me to all merge those things together, and equally present it with the Turkish government point of view? Let me clearly explain what you want to do. There are many versions supporting the theses of genocide, there is the Pan-Turkish version, there is the Pan-Turanist version, there is the Nationalization of the Economy version etc. all those versions supported by various sides... which leads to the same conclusion, and on the other side we have one version: “they backstabbed us, and were relocated.” If you want me to present every versions equally I will do, but let me tell you what happen if I do that... if I do that, the “other side” will be represented even less if we were to give each sides as much space. So, what I did was to merge the genocide “supportative” side, and then, present the revisionist version. And here again, you don't want the word revisionist to be used. “Revisionism” of history is a known phenomenon, it does not mean denial... it simply means a more recent interpretation of the events, and the denialist version is just that... there was the official version, that was accepted by the Ottoman government just when it happened, it was accepted by Ataturk the founder of the republic himself... revisionism is about going back in what is recognised by most, and reinterpret it, it does not necessarily mean denial, or is not necessarily bad. There are revisionist of the Armenian genocide who still recognise it, but reinterpret the event.

Now, coming to concentration camp, again, I don't see what your problem is, that was what it was called, a concentration camp doesn't necessarily mean there was a genocide, it just mean that people were sent to stay in an area, concentrated etc. There is no other word that one can use, and that was the term, what justification there is to not call it what it is? “Relocation camp” does not make sense... and is not a term used regardless.

Regarding the “hidden agenda” sorry Coolcat, I do believe you have a hidden agenda, your behavior is open for everyone to witness, you participate in Turkeys politic entries, the PKK, every such hot topics in Turkey... and always go in one side against the other, that is called hidden agenda. While I have decided to participate on this entry because I know about it... I do not participate in the Armenia entry, the Karabagh entry, I just submitted a link, which was reverted by Tabib that is using this site like Torque is using it. The Hamidian massacres, the Adana massacres are all subjects that interest me, as I will participate in a Cambodian genocide, the genocide in Rwanda, the massacres of Sierra Leone, Bosnia, if times permit me... and that is only because I am interested in war crimes studies, regardless of ethnicity. I am not the one going after every political subject involving Armenia, like you do with Turkey. Fadix 15:52, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Regarding an earlier question, I do not need to explain to you why I edited articles related to Turkey. I am knowlegable with the people as I lived around the counbtry on various locations. They are generaly a nice and helpfull group of people with some social problems some groups are makeing a big deal of. Heck Belgians have much serious issue with their social problems and France is a bomb waiting to explode, you know what I mean if you had ever been to paris Metro. So many under-payed immigrants... They aren't as discriminated as what USA but their childeren will prove to be a serious problem as they will probably have better education than their parents and threaten "Frech" jobs. Lack of jobs due to the Newcomers often lead to Ethnic hatret (Affirmative Action caused this kind of reaction esspecialy on soulthern US). This is in no way related to this article but answers a previous question. --Cool Cat 03:58, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You see, it is messages like this that gives you away, it is not only your repeated uses of “Arman,” but also, things like, “attacking a nation,””they are good people.” Those are defensive answers, and are suggestive, you raise such issues when they were even not brought. Who told you that I questioned their niceness or their helpfulness... that's besides the point. And no, you can not claim that France or such countries have more problem in term of human rights etc. read a little from info-Turk, a Turkish human right organization, you can access to their publications from the web. If you want the Turkish society to evolve, you just raise the issues and not hide them, and hidding, that's exactly what you do, and that is called a hidden agenda. Fadix 15:52, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Here is the deal

First I present the Western Academics version as it is, in its section. Then, I present the Turkish government point of view. Then, the cases of the Turkish human right organization and Turkish scholars who support the theses of genocide. Then, the various cases, Military tribunal, Permanent People tribunal. Then, the International community(recognition, UN etc.)

etc.

Every party well have its representation. So that when someone come and read, he will have a knowledge of the version of each sides.

Here is how we do it in wikipedia, we write in a neutral tone. Thats unnegotiable, you are dictating how this article should be and hissing, acusing other mods. If you cannot live with trhe wiki way you dont belong to wikipedia. I do not need to explain you why I made my edits. I am only amused by your accusations. The original version of your user talk page read: "I don't have much to say about me than maybe that I am allergic to the denial of the Armenian genocide and that I will fight it in Misplaced Pages until denialists give up.". I rest my case at this very point. I am an engineer not a Intelligence agnet. I do not have a hidden agenda, aside from talking over the world by using a stealth coffee cup.

PKK abducted foreign engineers every here an there. During my stay there PKK was never a HOT topic. They are hated by the general pblic and are declared public enemy #1. --Cool Cat 18:42, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Are you familiar with the folowing text?

Those who constantly attempt to advocate their views on politically charged topics, and who seem not to care about whether other points of view are represented fairly, are violating the non-bias policy ("write unbiasedly"). But the policy also entails that it is our job to speak for the other side, and not just avoid advocating our own views. If we don't commit ourselves to doing that, Misplaced Pages will be weaker for it. We should all be engaged in explaining each other's points of view as sympathetically as possible.
In saying this, we are spelling out what might have been obvious from an initial reading of the policy. If each of us is permitted to contribute biased stuff, then how is it possible that the policy is ever violated? The policy says, "Go thou and write unbiasedly". If that doesn't entail that each of us should fairly represent views with which we disagree, then what does it mean? Maybe you think it means, "Represent your own view fairly, and let others have a say." But consider, if we each take responsibility for the entire article when we hit "save", then when we make a change that represents our own views but not contrary views, or represents contrary views unfairly or incompletely, surely we are adding bias to Misplaced Pages. Does it make sense not to take responsibility for the entire article? Does it make sense to take sentences and say, "These are mine"? Perhaps, but in a project that is so strongly and explicitly committed to neutrality, that attitude seems out of place.
The other side might very well find your attempts to characterize their views substandard, but it's the thought that counts. In resolving disputes over neutrality issues, it's far better that we acknowledge that all sides must be presented fairly, and make at least a college try at presenting the other sides fairly. That will be appreciated much more than not trying at all.
"Writing for the enemy" might make it seem as if we were adding deliberately flawed arguments to Misplaced Pages, which would be a very strange thing to do. But it's better to view this (otherwise puzzling) behavior as adding the best (published) arguments of the opposition, citing some prominent person who has actually made the argument in the form in which you present it, and stating them as sympathetically as possible. Academics, e.g., philosophers, do this all the time. Always cite your sources, and make sure your sources are reputable, and you won't go far wrong.

Yes, to the contrary, you ought to justify your edits...

I will quote here the rules, because you ARE NOT respecting them.

“Ideally, presenting all points of view also gives a great deal of background on who believes that p and q and why, and which view is more popular (being careful not to associate popularity with correctness). Detailed articles might also contain the mutual evaluations of the p-ists and the q-ists, allowing each side to give its "best shot" at the other, but studiously refraining from saying who won the exchange.”

Let me explain what this mean, you OUGHT to say who's view it is, and who's view it isn't. And this is what you are trying to hijack with your hidden agenda. My version of articles and attempts is to say who's view IT IS, and who's view it ISN'T, and my future editions will lead to that. Your critics of my article are not about Misplaced Pages, you clearly delete informations, if you were to neutralize my article, you would say who's position it is. And this is not what you are after, but to present the two sides 50-50, but without saying who's view it is.

Let quote again from the rules again.

“Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views. We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by only a small minority of people deserved as much attention as a majority view. That may be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. If we are to represent the dispute fairly, we should present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties. None of this, however, is to say that minority views cannot receive as much attention as we can possibly give them on pages specifically devoted to those views. There is no size limit to Misplaced Pages. But even on such pages, though a view is spelled out possibly in great detail, we still make sure that the view is not represented as the truth.”

“From Jimbo Wales, September 2003, on the mailing list:

• If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
• If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
• If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Misplaced Pages (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.”

Let me explain what this means. Ideally you should NOT present ranges of figures etc. without specifying who's view it is, and who's view it isn't. You can not present them equally, when they are NOT shared equally. And again, in the same rules: “The neutral point of view is not a "separate but equal" policy.” You CAN NOT invent terms which are not used, those are not point of views, but things which you make up, YOUR point of views, which is in the third category which says: “If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Misplaced Pages (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.” Do you know what this means? The word concentration camp is the name given, was given by the officials, including German officials, you change that by an expression used for the Japanese Americans and such instances, but IS NOT used to refer to the Armenian cases. If something was called a concentration camp, the words should be given as is, if you don't do that, you are introducing your interpretations regarding the topic. There is no opponent I know of having another point of view for that. Now I see that you have changed it for “camps.” But here again, there is two type of camps, the transit camps and the concentration camps, if you forbidden the uses of concentration camps, how will I even be able to write an article differentiating both?

Talking now about me, no one will accept your arrogant tone of “do this or get hell of of here...” continue like this and you will have many good possible participants not daring to come here. And I can again stress out to the fact that you ARE NOT neutral, the articles you have participated in, you have all introduced biases in them. PKK or the Kurdish issue is an example, I don't remember any explanations regarding the above 3000 Kurdish villages destroyed and over 2 million “relocated” by the government repressive answer. Had you been really for neutrality, you would have really presented both sides. You present the PKK as an exclusive armed organization, when it has and its notion was founded on a worker party with socialist ideologies. You claim that states recognize it as terrorist so it is a terrorist organization. It is good to see how you twist neutrality everytime it fits you. In one side, when states recognize and the majority recognize it it became a fact, but when the same thing is also true in the Armenian genocide cases, you want it to get it neutralized. And sorry to say that your claims of why you hate PKK makes no sense at all, you even participate with the ASALA article, an organization that doesn't even exist anymore and that for over decade. You cover every Turkish government political sphere and introduce your biases in them. You are using your “veteran” position to do just that, and I find it unfair that people judge members on their state of veteran vs newbie, had you been a newbie, people would have been more careful if the same charges I make here were made by a veteran and would have read and pied attention to your participation. Another thing, it is amazing that you had no problem at the beginning reverting my text with a version, who's most of the links supporting the Armenian genocide were deleted(leaving only two)... and when I deleted just one link from the other side(because it had materials that do not exist, and is racist), you introduced it. Talking of neutrality, yeh right.

Another thing I find amazing, you quote my personal pages to make your position, but sorry to deceive you, I don't see anything wrong in it, nowhere it is written that I am against the neutral position, and I can as well quote what you have yourself written which by its tone isn't more “neutral.” Do you want me to give a trial here? My personal page was as an answer to Torque who is the author of a racist site comparing Armenians as the lowest form of life, who participate in boards with multiple aliases by even using terms such “cockroaches” to qualify them. I think my answer was rather moderate considering the person with whom I was dealing with. You were the one starting this “accusation” game by writing to administrators and other members accusing me, contrary to you, my position I defend it by answering the person with whom I discuss with... and if the person in question has critics I will listen... you were the side that was closed to any negotiation, you refused to participate in the talk page, you haven't even written something on the mediation section, your attitude is against mediation, you close the door and entirely tell me the fk of in a more polite form. This is immature, I am not a donkey, I can understand, you didn't needed to start this campaign of trowing mud on me by alerting members when you knew that what I was asking you was to at least justify your edits, and until now, you haven't even done that... And I repeat again and again, there is a clear distinction between neutralizing an article, and deleting informations which are important... your war, and my critic is about just that.

As for your profession, your profession is of no consequences, I as well am in a scientific discipline, have as well studied for over 5 year war crimes... and I do expect to discuss with someone that know of what he is talking about, you obviously are not that person. I may sound biased, but this is a non-issue, at least I do not hide anything from me like you do... I do not claim to neutralize an article when I do not do it... and above all, I justify my edits... something you don't do. And if you want to know more about me. I never has set a foot in Armenia, I live in Canada, and have graduated my primary school, high school college(bust still studying) in French Canadian schools. I have many Turkish friends on the web, who will defend me before defending people like Torque... I don't think if I was the donkey you try to picture me to be, they would do that. Fadix 20:12, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

4 suggestions, 2 comment for now.

• Learn to summerise your cases.
• Don't ask me to leave
• Stop accusing me of a hidden agenda.
• Learn to focus. This is Talk: Armenian Genocide not Talk: Kurdistan Workers Party. This is not a forum either. We are discussing Armenian Genocide not me.

• I asked people to tell me if I were biased. Those people have the identical capability as I do as far as wiki-power is concerned.
• You suggest Armenian Genocide happened and that its a fact. I suggest we dont know if it was a state organised extermination plan or just WW1 fatalities. NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW dictates thats the proper corse of action regarding this matter.

--Cool Cat 22:06, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Here we go again at square one.

I have to conclude you do it on purposes. Let me repeat for the 100nt time. My problem IS NOT about representing the other side, MY PROBLEM is about introducing misleading and erroneous informations. You have first edited and claimed this was about Armenia and Turkey opposing eachothers, when another member has obviously seen your clear biases, he reverted it to a conflict between the international community and Turkey. Misplaced Pages clearly stat that this is not about presenting both positions as equally valid, it is about presenting both positions. There are some informations that have nothing to do with positions, example... that this is an opposition between Turkey and the international community... and they should be presented. Your deletion is beyond neutralization.

You as well purposely manipulate the entry and clam: “Some Armenian and Western and some Turkish scholars believe that a state-sponsored extermination plan, while some Turkish and some Western scholars that a clashes between the two-sides, and causes such as famine and disease claiming the lives of all Ottomans.” This is entirely sabotaging the article. I will tell you why, the ratio of Western scholars recognizing the genocide vs not recognizing it is about something like hundreds or thousands to one... And this is waiting the: “If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Misplaced Pages (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.” And I still included it even if I didn't need to do so. Your version is misleading it has nothing to do with neutralizing, you try to fool the reader to believe that this is 50-50 debated among Western scholars, which IS NOT the cases at all, so your changes are beyond neutralizing.

Now the most obvious cases of of manipulation, is when you introduce the word “alleged” before “deportation and murder.” Are you supposing that the fact that Armenians were deported and that there were many that were murdered is debated? This clear example of misleading show that you are not neutralizing the article. The question is not about if Armenians were deported and murdered, because no one deny that, the question is about if the Ottoman government ordered the destruction of the Armenian population.

Coming to the four points. First of, I am summerising my cases as much as it is possible, you don't expect me to write few lines to cover your biases here?

Second, I did not ask you to leave, I asked you to mind about things you know about rather than getting involved in things you ignore. If you have interpreted this as me asking you to leave, it further justify my request, since that by interpreting this as if I ask you to leave, you admit your ignorance, and still request to edit by introducing erroneous informations.

I will not stop “accusing” you to have a hidden agenda because I am not accusing, I am just pointing to the fact that you do have a hidden agenda, I do not need to accuse you, your editions clearly show it.

Fourth, I am focusing, your “neutrality” is a very important issue, because you want to present yourself as a moderator. My complaints are really relevent.

And lastly, believe me, as time passes by in this discussion, it will become clear that you are biased.

“You suggest Armenian Genocide happened and that its a fact. I suggest we dont know if it was a state organised extermination plan or just WW1 fatalities. NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW dictates thats the proper corse of action regarding this matter.”

Again, I repeat, your editions have nothing to do with Neutral point of view, your editions delete accurate informations. If I claim most western scholars, that is a fact, a ratio which can not be debated, if I say that this is a problem between the International community and Turkey, this as well is a recorded fact which can not be debated... those have nothing to do with POV or NPOV.Fadix 00:39, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

United States

Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Idaho Illinois Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina Tennessee Utah Vermont Virgina Washington Wisconsin

Doesn't this constitute majority?

If you use word murder you are forcing the reader to accept genocide. If you use the words like most, majority you are still forcing the reader to asume the genocide. You are a moderator and so am I. You cannopt prove genocide on wikipedia. Thats against NPOV. Sweeden currently does not recognise the genocide according to this article hence the <s></s>. The ratio of the scholars is irrelevant ant this point, "Some Armenian and Western and some Turkish scholars believe that a state-sponsored extermination plan, while some Turkish and some Western scholars that a clashes between the two-sides, and causes such as famine and disease claiming the lives of all Ottomans." is a very confusing statement. If you realy want to talk about neutrality you have to accept a contaverisal topic as this one requires 50:50 ratio on all issues. When you use the statement. You cannot force this matter untill other mods give up. That is definatly not the way we do things here. I did not delete that statement. I commented out for someone to reword it. you have no idea what commenting out means you have no idea what the tag does, and you claim things. You are neutral and I am not, thats your suggestion. Yout Truth is based on facts only I got a bunch of lies. Is that what you suggest? I am not accusing you of things why are you constantly acusimg me. This can be considered a personal attack you know. --Cool Cat 20:14, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

NPOV suggests that both sides have equal say regarding all items. When you use the words most, many, majority, you breat that balance. This article tells us currently that most western scholars think genocide did happen while a minority claims it didnt. The views of any non western scholars are irrelevant hence we dont mention them. You are not making a stronger case by insisting on keeping an extremely confusing sentence as "Some Armenian and Western and some Turkish scholars believe that a state-sponsored extermination plan, while some Turkish and some Western scholars that a clashes between the two-sides, and causes such as famine and disease claiming the lives of all Ottomans." . I merely want to simplify it to "Scholars". --Cool Cat 20:14, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• You will stop acusing me. I am starting to get annoyed. --Cool Cat 20:13, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• In wikipedia when a mod edits something we give them about 30 - 60 minutes before working on our edits for them to clarify their case. Please folow this civilised attitude. If you continue to revert all my edits on this article. Ill handle YOU diferently. --Cool Cat 20:18, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If you use word murder you are forcing the reader to accept genocide. If you use the words like most, majority you are still forcing the reader to asume the genocide.

Those have nothing to do with POV or NPOV, no one deny that Armenians were murdered, what is denied by Turkey is if the Government ordered those murders. “Most” “Majority” are true informations, they are not POV, if you delete that you mislead the reader.

You are a moderator and so am I. You cannopt prove genocide on wikipedia. Thats against NPOV.

Misplaced Pages rules are clear, I have posted them for you... I present the cases without suggesting, it isn't my fault that most, or majority are true informations... and Misplaced Pages is clear about that, this is not about supporting both cases as equally valid, read, or perhaps do you need that I post them again for you?

Sweeden currently does not recognise the genocide according to this article hence the . The ratio of the scholars is irrelevant ant this point,

I disagree, the article is dated December 3, the news in December 17 reported the recognition, it was passed on vote after the article.

"Some Armenian and Western and some Turkish scholars believe that a state-sponsored extermination plan, while some Turkish and some Western scholars that a clashes between the two-sides, and causes such as famine and disease claiming the lives of all Ottomans." is a very confusing statement. If you realy want to talk about neutrality you have to accept a contaverisal topic as this one requires 50:50 ratio on all issues.

No, you are misleading, you have no right to mislead people, this is beyond neutrality... if it is most, it should be indicated that it is most. And beside that, Misplaced Pages doesn't even require that I specify some Western scholars support the Turkish government theses, because it is a couple, and the ones having actually published about it, you could count them on your hands. But I did include them regardless so that you don;t start a stupid war of revert, but you you want me to do is to actually takes the thousands of thousands of Western scholars having actually referred to the event, and place it as 50-50 with the little insignificant number that it does even not worth referring to. Sorry, I will not give up on that, you are introducing biases in the article and this is against Misplaced Pages neutral point of view.

When you use the statement. You cannot force this matter untill other mods give up. That is definatly not the way we do things here. I did not delete that statement. I commented out for someone to reword it. you have no idea what commenting out means you have no idea what the tag does, and you claim things. You are neutral and I am not, thats your suggestion. Yout Truth is based on facts only I got a bunch of lies. Is that what you suggest? I am not accusing you of things why are you constantly acusimg me. This can be considered a personal attack you know. --Cool Cat My Talk 20:14, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Why don't you leave really neutral moderators to do their jobs, he was doing a good job at neutralizing the article until you came and decided to introduce your biases. I proposed mediation, and the last time I have read, you have even not defended your cases while I did, you are overusing your user privileges.

NPOV suggests that both sides have equal say regarding all items.

That is wrong, reread the rules please, that is not what it is said, it is said that the Neutral point of view is not to present both positions as equally valid, if you do that, it is a POV, if you pass two claims as 50-50 you suggest something, what you suggest is that it is 50-50, when it is not. This is introducing a biases.

When you use the words most, many, majority, you breat that balance. This article tells us currently that most western scholars think genocide did happen while a minority claims it didnt.

The reader ought to know who believe a position and who don't, you can not delete this, it is misleading the reader and is ill intend. If most believe something, it should be indicated that most believe it. If readers conclude that one position is more supported, the reader will judge. It isn't my fault that the genocide theses is the most supported.

The views of any non western scholars are irrelevant hence we dont mention them.

Arabic scholars accept the event... again, as I said, the Armenian genocide is more accepted among the Muslim than the Shoah... and here just to remind you that the Ottoman Empire was a Muslim empire. But I do not report those things, because most publications are in the west, so since most are in the west, it should be pointed out.

You are not making a stronger case by insisting on keeping an extremely confusing sentence as "Some Armenian and Western and some Turkish scholars believe that a state-sponsored extermination plan, while some Turkish and some Western scholars that a clashes between the two-sides, and causes such as famine and disease claiming the lives of all Ottomans." . I merely want to simplify it to "Scholars". --Cool Cat My Talk 20:14, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC) You will stop acusing me. I am starting to get annoyed. --Cool Cat My Talk 20:13, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC) In wikipedia when a mod edits something we give them about 30 - 60 minutes before working on our edits for them to clarify their case. Please folow this civilised attitude. If you continue to revert all my edits on this article. Ill handle YOU diferently.

You are not a moderator, a moderator can differentiate himself from his biases, you can't, I don't recognize your authority. Fadix 20:49, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

...

You are obligated to recognise my authority and the authority of all moderators and they recognise yours, you are welcome to ignore me but any more Personal Attacks from you will not be tollerated. Such attacks will result in your destruction, I do not WANT your destruction. I am warning you so that you dont get destroyed. This is neither a threat nor an attack - just a freindly warning. I am a moderator and so are you. Everyone on wikipedia is a moderator. Not everyone is an Admin. I know mods who turn down admin requests as it is a lot of hard work so dont underestimate/dismiss us mods.

• Learn to simlify your cases, your average response to 6 lines of text is a page which is excessive.
• I am not sure if all those states actualy and officialy regocnised the genocide. I would prefer you add a link to all the acceptance in the discussion page. --Cool Cat 22:08, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Since a scientific concensus have not been reached regarding the Armenian Genocide you cannot talk in the name of the scientific community. This article is more than simple history discussion but is a diplomatic dispute between Turkey and Armenia.