User talk:Calthinus/Archive 2

Happy New Year! And if you celebrate it, Merry Christmas! With best wishes, --Zara-arush (talk) 19:31, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. In the last years I got used to more tolerant attitude to one another, and I always managed to find people, who are educated and polite enough to communicate with. I will not say the same about my experience with Azeri users in Russian Wiki. Lack of knowledge, lack of logic, lack of self-respect, only some PCs programmed on anti-Armenian propaganda. Very unpleasant feeling. They reminded me the Turks some 100 years ago. Luck, --Zara-arush (talk) 01:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings brother. I'm very happy that writing in here. I read that you interested in learning Chechen, and ready to help you with everything. By the way "De dika xuilda san Vash" is "Day good to be my Brother" or Greetings bro =) Nakh 05:26, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Yalens. The right one is Barkall =) at least on mine Aqqi dialect. I would like to ask for your help checking some of the following articles Nakh peoples, Vainakh medieval towers, vainakh mythology and Pkharmat we also need to add some info according to Jamoukha s book. Märşa 1oyla. Nakh 04:38, 1 February 2010 (UTC) 14:05, 30 January 2010[reply]

Dear Yalens, Deila reza xuilda! You did great job.. Feel free making any changes, you improved the page really to much. Hope we make any of Vainakh related pages starred. By the way, a friend of mine told me the structure of nakh society reminded him democracy. I thought how to note it on wiki and make people discuss it. Do have any idea? Nakh 04:38, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have probably already seen this, but, yeah, I put a section up for democracy... I am sure it will only be a matter of time before people put a "neutrality" tag on the page, but I feel its at least somewhat neutral. Yes, it notes the democratic nature of the teip system, which is of course exactly what the West likes to see and Russia would rather them not see, and people will call it "biased" for that, but I think, if they do, we should rebut it by saying that its simply the truth, whether the truth leans towards more legitimacy towards the Noxchi view of the war or not. Also-I have made a page, awhile ago, because I felt wikipedia lacked it, about Circassian nationalism (i.e., wanting independence from Russia). I was wondering how much you knew about the the topic and if you could help me with the page.

Yepp Yalens i've seen it and was very happy, also added some links in the topic. Its ok if someone thinks that the things we wrote not neutral enough. So we can discuss with them and improve it according to our discussion. It only takes us one step further. Circassian issue is very important for all Caucasus. About the Circassian Genocide and else I've just read on Turkish and Russian forums. Maybe in the forums will be able to find some links on good sources for citation. After analysing the topic Circassian Nationalism maybe I will be able to add something. Nakh 04:43, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yalens, your help needed in page Attacks on humanitarian corridors in Chechnya.They want to delete it.. Nakh 04:58, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Va jaleykum assalam!

I totally support your offer to create Nakh Peoples project. It would unite Chechen and Ingush Users. We lack of users in here thats one of the problems, also believe that some people from Georgia project would be happy to be involved.

Related Dvals, Kakhs, Tsanars, Gligvs, Tabels, Tibarens and so on, except Gligs I'm not sure, who they are in reality. There is a lot of low-quality information on web concerning these names. Some times I start to believe that its some bad malevolent persons which specially inventing false information. Or maybe they are our dumb nationalists, I don't know. By these reasons we must be really careful while adding something related these. Not even a word without reference to some reliable source, otherwise we'll get another Armenian History. Anyway I will work on these topics carefully.

Concerning Urartu, this is most dangerous. Almost everyone tries to say something about Urartu and Hurrians. This topic is some kind of orphan in ancient history, which everyone tries to adopt. In reality, they are not direct ancestral to Armenians neither Nakhs. According to official version by Diakonov Starostin Mechaninov and so on, Nakh-Daghs and Hurro-Urartuans had common ancestor some 5000 BC. Armenians came to the zone after the fall of this nation (circa. 590 BC.) and assimilated a part of them. So really need to be careful and no persistent, on this issue. Already working on it.

Concerning Alania, it seems that western Nakhs were in Alliance with Alanians. But never been former part of it or rulers. So in objective view we can abandon this article. Because Alania is not well investigated, and Nakh's role in this kingdom is unknown. (The only sources I can find are nationalistic magazines in Chechen and Russian lang. But I really not eager to cite them. Because they sometimes publish nonsense claims like Noah was Chechen or Chechen language is the only not changing language and its totally the same with what it was 7.000 yrs ago. It's not academic, so sad.)

Maybe it would be good if we create also Nakh history Navigation template. In which we make a topic, Related people, for Urartu, Hurrians, and Etruscans (it is also offered by some Russian, Ukrainian and Eu scholars. I can find reliable sources. But they are really only at Theory or hypothese stage yet)

Another important Issue is In my opinion Savage Divison, we could improve this topic.

Laramca Nakh 06:50, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yalens, I shifted your edit to the bottom of the page. It is very informative but long, I you wish feel free reverting it. Laramca Nakh 04:43, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yalens: I suppose I should clarify on the "bad faith" note. The bad faith was more "I think Yalens is the webmaster of the site and is promoting a hoax," and I do authentically doubt that.

But... I just don't get why you think this movement qualifies for Wikipedia (and saying others agree is, as noted on the talk page, already out of date- they were assuming that it was a "real" group and hadn't done the research that I and others have which showed just how marginal they are). There are no serious sources whatsoever, and so it should be aggressively deleted from everywhere until it has any. That's really all there is to say about them, and I don't understand why you wouldn't agree. To reiterate what I said on my talk page, with just a website it really could be just a hoax. I mean, fringe parties do exist like the Southern Mongolian Democratic Alliance but there are credible sources that talk about them. Do you have any kind of source that shows that the Manchurian royalists really exist? Because they sound like a parody to me (who wants to put the hated monarchy back in power?!), or at best the political equivalent of one of those 10-member religions that has a single church and that's it. Tiny microreligions don't have Wikipedia articles either, unless they're exceptionally notable ones with third party coverage. SnowFire (talk) 00:04, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yalens: Me again. To respond, copied from my talk page:

Yes, I agree, chances are, the movement leads nowhere.

Ah, but that's not quite what I said. Both immediately above and on the talk page of the recognition of Kosovo, I said that there are no serious secondary sources and I am not sure this movement *exists*. If the movement does exist, then I'd agree it's likely not getting very far, but that's skimming over the two much bigger problems that have not been addressed!

2) Even if we have no news sources, as I hinted at before, this is not a legitimate argument.

But it is! Or, to rephrase, it's outside of Wikipedia's scope. A foundational policy of WP is Wikipedia:No original research, that if it's not in the newspapers / journals / tv shows, Wikipedia doesn't cover it. Does this make Wikipedia an echo of the "establishment," which as you correctly point out in China's case will willingly ignore some minorities? Yes. But then the fault lies with the establishment, not Wikipedia, at least. Nevertheless, that was the decision made - if this movement is notable, then somebody else will publish on them, and Wikipedia can cite the other, impartial source. This ties into Wikipedia:Verifiability as well - "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material," and it needs to be a *third party source*, not the movement's own website.

Basically, if, and that is a big if, these Manchurian royalists really do exist, and are notable enough to be covered by the media, then sure, they should be on a list of secessionist movements. The problem is that I don't see any evidence that they do. If you can find evidence that this is a notable movement, I would be more than happy to add them back to the list myself, but nobody's found any as it stands. SnowFire (talk) 04:41, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

-- I understand what you're saying, I think, in that obviously not every unreferenced item should be removed immediately, and what people think is likely true (but currently unreferenced) should be left in. Problem is you seem to be the only person who thinks that the Manchurian independence movement is notable at all *and* that it exists. Practically every other poster has agreed that the Manchurians should be left out when confronted with the complete dearth of credible sources. At some point you have to accept that the consensus is that this is, at the very least, challenged material, and then - I'm repeating myself here - the WP:BURDEN of evidence is on you to find a source. Because that's how Wikipedia works. "I just don't think that media alone should be the only arbiter of existence" is a fine attitude elsewhere but not on Wikipedia, which has very consciously chosen to only summarize what others have deemed important. It's not that it's not important, it's that it outside Wikipedia's scope. And yes, as a side effect, Wikipedia does only cover what reliable secondary sources ("the media," but also academics and journal) have covered.

You talk a lot about other shaky independence movements. If any of them are as shaky as the Manchurian royalists are they should be removed immediately as well. Maybe I'll give that a look later but like I said before, these guys are on a *whole different plane* of problems than most of the others. Cascadia has no realistic chance of forming but there are genuine academics who have talked about them and a short-lived political party affiliated with the idea. Manchuria is literally just a website, and again to repeat myself, just a website is worthless. I could make the New Jersey separatists website tomorrow, etc. SnowFire (talk) 04:42, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to improve article Borozdinovskaya operation, you should not describe the entire history of Chechnya:

"Early in the 1990s, the situation for minorities in Chechnya had been relatively good (compared to later as well as in other areas), largely due to the policy of separatist president Dzhokar Dudayev. Dudayev was an ardent Chechen nationalist, but at the same time was regarded as being largely sympathetic to plight of minorities. He spoke Russian, Estonian (from his time in Estonia) and Chechen fluently; and his wife was an ethnic Russian. During his reign (1990-1995), Dudayev preached that Chechnya should be a republic tolerant of minorities, citing the importance of Chechen hospitality..."

This may or may not be true, but this is not really related to Borozdinovskaya operation. This may belong to Dzhokar Dudayev or History of Chechnya. Sorry for commenting on this. Regards, Biophys (talk) 23:32, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The main reason I'm putting that there is because whenever we have an event such as this, its good to understand the history behind it. Until we have an Avar-Chechen relations page, I think it has to be there. I don't mind you commenting though. I will try to filter out unnecessary material. --Yalens (talk) 23:44, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for being critical here, but I am looking at your article LGBT rights in Chechnya ... It tells: "The Chechen Republic of Ichkeria, currently headed by Achmed Zakayev does not include allowance for implementation of sharia law code...". Do you mean Akhmed Zakayev? Do you think he is really the head of the "Republic"? Do you think he controls the "implementation of sharia law code"? Do you know that he actually was convicted to death by that very "sharia court" in Chechnya? Well, I suppose to fix myself all such problems, but unfortunately I would not, after being labeled a "terrorist supporter" on my talk page.Biophys (talk) 00:36, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, I don't really think he could really be called the ruler or president or whatever of physical Ichkeria, and I don't really think that he could dare try to control the implementation of any law whatsoever in Chechnya. But does the government claim legitimacy over the territory? Yes. That's not much less than the other two, though. --Yalens (talk) 00:42, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you have advice on how I could fix problems with any article, I am willing to hear (read). --Yalens (talk) 00:42, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I will comment later. Note that we have Operation Lentil. Biophys (talk) 01:33, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Genocides in History

Hi Yalens I undid your comments on the Tibet section although they weren't bad comments. There are already citations so there was no need to state "acording to these academics" but you are right there are only estimates of life expectancy under the lamas (although all estimates are very low)so I'll change it and state this. As for the education you are partly right on this one. Tibatan children are taught in Tibetan in all subjects in primary school but only 10% graduated to secondary school in 2000 (not sure about now) as they fail the Chinese language part of the exam required to graduate to junior high school. Then although in junior high they have the option of taking exams in Tibetan few take up the option both because Chinese is more useful for prospects and there is a very limited number of degree subjects available to Tibetans (because of the low numbers of students). Source: The politics, policies, and practices in linguistic minority education in the People's Republic of China: the case of Tibet Bonnie Johnson International Journal of Educational Research 33 (2000) 593-600.

The problem partly stems from poorly qualified teachers. If the teaching were improved (and the government in trying to tackle this issue)then greater numbers would reach junior high and go on to do degrees. This should increase the number of topics available in Tibetan also. Naturally though Mandarin Chinese is always going to be important even if Tibet were independent (English too though). This is reflected in the fact that Tibetan exiles are taught in English as English is the important language for them in India for jobs, university etc. Its becoming increasingly difficult to preserve minority language in the face of globalisation. The French government even perceive French to be under threat. Best regards 188.222.59.18 (talk) 00:20, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for starting a discussion about this. However, I have numerous issues with your message. I'll start from the bottom:

1) France doesn't actually consider French to be endangered. Rather, it is afraid of an influx of words from English. That is, no doubt, a concern for Tibetan nationalists as well, but there is absolutely no one who thinks that French is in danger of inexistance in any time in the near future.

2) "It's becoming increasingly difficult... in the face of globalisation" is also covering up the fact that the problem has to do more with nationalization than "globalization". In any case, simple cultural organizations for non-Chinese are denounced as separatist, so its not as if China is all sympathetic. Rather, on the other hand, there is a conscious policy, which the Chinese government itself has announced numerous times to "Sinify" so-called "Western China". This is accomplished with an influx of Han immigrants paired with the stigmatization and suppression of non-Han culture. This is a policy China, like France and Russia and many others before it, consciously subscribes to. Is it cultural genocide? Why yes, and China itself has more or less admitted to it. The difference is viewpoint: China views Han culture - the culture of zhong guo, the middle kingdom- as being more civilized, so they are somehow helping non-Hans by brainwashing them. But that doesn't change the fact that, since we are using a word that is a western word to begin with, from the point of view of the word, yes, it is the systematic elimination of a culture- ethnocide, or as some call it, cultural genocide.

3) Tibetans learning English in India is also not an argument. The problem is not Tibetans learning Chinese or learning any language other than Tibetan at all (though it is true that many Tibetan nationalists may be rather disturbed by the notion of the loss of linguistic purity). The issue is not learning Tibetan. India, unlike China, doesn't send hundreds of thousands of non-Tibetans in an attempt to squash any possible independence and dilute the culture. India allows cultural organizations to thrive and doesn't shut them down. This applies to all ethnic minorities in India, and very few if any in China.

4) Improving the teaching may do some, but it, along with other statements, ignores the rift of distrust and hatred between Tibetans and Chinese. Visitors to Lhasa have noted this: the Tibetans vandalize Chinese shops and say the Chinese are invaders. The Chinese distrust the Tibetans and think of them as vulgar and suspect them easily for crimes. Often on the street, Tibetans will avert their eyes rather than look at the Chinese and vice versa. This isn't a new thing: Tibet and China, back in the day when Tibet was independent (before it was conquered by the Manchu) , were rival powers (dislike between the peoples, though, is unattested). On top of that, China, you know, invaded Tibet, numerous times, going around raping and pillaging and all the things good civilized countries like China thinks of itself as do. The minorities, Tibetans included, have a strong reason to resent the Chinese given the economic dominance and government control, but on top of this, the Tibetans have over a thousand years of conflict with China. One could make a comparison, for example, with the Hungarians in Slovakia, or other such groups. Learning Slovak was seen as submission, and the Hungarians detested what they viewed as an illegitimate aggressor (whether this is actually true or not is debatable). The same goes for Estonians in the Soviet Union, Koreans under Japanese rule, Natives under the domain of the US, and so on. Minorities tend not to be in love with majorities, especially if those majorities have little respect for their culture.

6) I don't really trust estimates, and I don't trust China's census info either.

I hope we can discuss these in length and find an appropriate course of action we can agree upon. Best regards to you too. --Yalens (talk) 23:55, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you possibly explain User:Yalens/Info, in particular "This user's account used to belong to a separate user, but has been "loaned", per se, permanently, to his friend." This would indicate to an average user that "his friend" could possibly be a user who is currently under a WP:BAN. Please refer to WP:SHARE for further information. A response would be appreciated. --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 15:13, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, no, no... I have NO other account whatsoever. Earlier, my brother, who usually edits anime and whatnot, wanted to have an account, so I made an account for him, this account, and used my email for it. He doesn't edit anymore, and I decided, instead, that I wanted to edit stuff, make articles, you know, but I already had this account with my email. Thus, I use this account. There are no WP:sock puppets or anything of that sort.--Yalens (talk) 15:18, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I put it up there mainly because I find some of the edits he made (about 3-4 years ago)... a bit embarassing. Like the one on the Fire Emblem game? I didn't want people to think that was me, even though I'm using this account because it has my email. Would you think it would be better if I just removed it?--Yalens (talk) 15:21, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Balkar and Karachai nationalism - I have removed the empty sections from the article for time being. Because there is no content, there is no point in having the sections there. If the article is not yet ready for mainspace, you may wish to work on it at Special:MyPage/Balkar and Karachai nationalism until it is ready to be moved into mainspace. Also, I have removed a link to the windoweast.blogspot.com website as it does not comply with our external links policy.

Okay, I see your point with regard to the sections (though I have seen plenty of pages with a number of blank sections). As for Window-on-Eurasia, does the External Links policy not state that

Links to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority. (This exception is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for biographies.)

... considering that Window-on-Eurasia is written by an assortment of political analysts with PhD's, is that not to be considered a recognized authority, even if they happen to use a blog? Nonetheless, I will try now to get the information in non-blog form...--Yalens (talk) 20:14, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://windoweast.blogspot.com/2006_01_01_archive.html does not seem to be the publication in question. It is a blog run by Henry, who is married to Tanya from Krasnodar. Whilst we should be happy about that, this in itself does not make Henry an authority in terms of WP:RS. If the article you have linked to is from a news source, linking to it is likely a WP:COPYVIO/WP:LINKVIO. --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 20:22, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I haven't restored the entry. Alas, Henry also has his " B.A. thesis on background to Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict. M.A. thesis on societal consequences of the Aral basins desiccation. Work with civil-military relations for the Folke Bernadotte Academy." Political analysis is his job- which is why I am trying to find if the article is noted on Jamestown or something of the like, as Window-on-Eurasia (both the blog and site) occasionally are. Until I run into it, I won't be putting it back on the article, which means it probably never will be restored. --Yalens (talk) 20:30, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Checheno-Estonian relations - I have removed Category:Estonia and Category:Russia as both categories will be found via Category:Foreign relations of Estonia and Category:Chechnya. Category:Russia, for example, should be empty of pages, except for those articles already found in it; all other articles are found via categorisation. Take note of the notice on the category which states "Due to the scope of this category, it should only contain subcategories and possibly a limited number of directly related pages." Please refer to WP:CAT for further information on how categories work. Additionally, the article has quite a few problems which are noted by way of templates at the top of the article; specific problems are also indicated inline throughout the article. Editorialisation and editorial observations are not allowed within our articles; everything which is in our articles must be published by a reliable source. Therefore, where you see things such as {{fact}}, etc please do not remove them from the article, as it is indicating that a source for the statement is required; otherwise is it eligible to be removed from the article. It is the burden of any editor including information into articles to ensure that the information is sourced to a reliable source, otherwise it can be removed as original research.

I understand what your saying, though some of your tags don't really make sense. Generally, diplomatic offices are considered to be de facto recognition, for one (I can clarify this in the article if you like) and that the name "Chechnya" is a Russian loan is not, I believe, needing a citation, as we all know its true. References to "Chechenia" and "Ichkeria" come about because physical "Chechnya" refers to Chechenia-within-Russia, while Chechenia refers to the nation of Chechens (as Russia is the nation of Russians), and Ichkeria refers usually to the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria (i.e. when referring to politics, it is not Russia, it is the Russian Federation, etc.). The three aren't equivalent, which is why I made the note. --Yalens (talk) 20:14, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hope this helps you understand my edits to those two articles. --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 19:33, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, student! How are you? So much time have passed and many events happened! I hope you are OK. I could not "cure" the ref mark in Controversy article first sentence. Please, do it yourself. Do you want to see an example of tricky propaganda? You understand what a faraway point on the map I mean. The article is in Russian and Azerbaijani, but I guess they will soon make it in English. Do you know French? If yes, I will ask you to translate a sentence, and I will appreciate your opinion. It may be interesting for having chance to study the events from the third point of view. --Zara-arush (talk) 01:54, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, hello, I haven't heard from you in awhile (but could you please just call me Yalens?). Actually, spring holidays just ended last week for me, but oh well...you mean the Van Cat Naming Controversy, right? I'll deal with it momentarily...--Yalens (talk) 00:19, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As for the propaganda... Russian is often a problem as my comp (even if I could read it, I will be taking Russian class next year hopefully though). has on-and-off character registration issues- sometimes, Cyrillic shows up as boxes, I keep redownloading the character pack, and somehow it doesn't work when Hebrew, Arabic, Georgian, Armenian, Japanese, Greek, Indian and Chinese all do (Korean doesn't though). My French is... not that good, but I might do okay with the help of my dictionary. But I'll try (there's also Google Translate, but that can be fuzzy at places)... could you give me the link? --Yalens (talk) 00:19, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Yalens. It is spring, and the time of renovation, recover and other re-s. But unfortunately there are lots of deadly things, too sad. Here is the outer link to the file:

[1] It is good that you do not know Russian much and will not see their translation. Please try to translate the French language writing at the right hand corner. Whe finish, I would like to know, what you will get, and write you how it is translated in Russian comments in the article. Thanks, Be well, Luck, --Zara-arush (talk) 02:05, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that's easy. Translated, roughly, its: "The murderous Muslims at Baku and the consul who comes to see the corpses."...

One note, though, assassines (there should be an accent on the last e) I translated as "murderous", but its more... sinister than that? You know what I mean? Assassines usually means the person IS a murderer, i.e. that they have already murdered plenty of people...this is propaganda against the Azeris, right? At least, the French title makes it sound like that...--Yalens (talk) 15:38, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Yalens, thanks fro your help. Your translation shows that it is not all clear with the photograph. The Azeris translated the French writing as: «Истребление мусульман в городе Баку и иранский консул, стоящий над их телами». That is translated as: "The extermination (slaughter) of Muslims in the city of Baku and Iranian Consul, standing at their bodies (corpses)". And it was used as the illustration of what they name "the genocide of the Azeris in March 1918 in Baku that was committed by the Bolsheviks and Armenians". But after your translation I think the answer may be found in the correct dating of the photographs. You translation may mean 1) it was photographed after the massacre that the Muslims committed in Baku, and the Consul came to see the corpses of the victims, or 2) The consul came to see the corpses of the Muslims who were killed because they were killers themselves and participated in one of the massacres (pogroms). And it is not the propaganda against the Azeris, it is their propaganda against the Armenians. They used the photograph in their own propaganda. Just compare your translation and what they declare as the true translation of the French inscription. Thank you very much for your help. PS: I would not pay attention at the inscription, if the wrons construction of the Russian sentense. Best wishes, --Zara-arush (talk) 16:00, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Yalens. How are you? I noticed you do your best to protect the article. Someone even tried to delete my article in Armenian Wiki, placing in several places "delete|no content". I do not know, but it may relate to my new article on Van cat, this time published in Armenian and in Yerevan. Best wishes, --Zara-arush (talk) 23:13, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I do not know much about the Chechens and Noah, and the Chechens and Urartu. But the worst thing is that the semistudied history and origin of Urartu people made it very attractive target for numerous speculations and myths. Please, do not go on with this temptation. Noah is the Jewish name for some ever living person, who survived after the Flood, and his name had the equivalents in other languages, including the languages of ever existing states and tribes, and the tribes that still are at the same prehistoric level of civilization. The Jews had written down this old knowledge and they preserved it for others. And it is not a small contribution. I appreciate much Jewish sacred books and if you did not read any of them yet, you may be offered this knowledge later, when you be more mature. All our civilization is based on this knowledge and I am sure there is nothing that was invented without the knowledge of these books.--Zara-arush (talk) 00:05, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The name of the person, whom the Jews name Noah, may be any other that is also found in Sumer cuniform inscriptions and in Oceania and South America. It may only mean that the story is too old to belong just to only one modern nation, and it originated, when there were all one. The same like the symbol of adjacent triangles or a cross-swastiks.--Zara-arush (talk) 01:40, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is a fairly important criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia - entries on a list aren't held to the same standard as whole articles, but they do need to be verifiable at least. My recent deletion of an entry was because the associated Wikipedia article was deleted, mainly because of a lack of secondary sources. The daydream of a laughable nitwit isn't really a good reason to conclude that an active movement exists. Orpheus (talk) 20:18, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You need to use RfD, not speedy, what you said is not a valid criterion for speedy-deleting a redirect--see WP:CSD DGG ( talk ) 04:05, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I just would like to remind you that we should move pages to new titles rather than creating new pages with old content, so the edit history is conserved. I have now asked for admins merging the histories of the two pages, but as I said, please consider moving the page next time you'd like to change a title. Regards, De728631 (talk) 21:14, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I came here to make the same comment - to Move a page, you use the drop-down menu to the left of the search box, and click on "Move". Then type the name of the page it is to move to, and an explanation for the move, in the appropriate boxes. If the move can't be made imediately (usually because the target page is already in use for something other than a redirect from there to the existing page with no edit history), the message which is shown will point you to the procedure for making it. Hope that helps! PamD (talk) 22:06, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

YOU WROTE You know just as well as I do that opposition to LGBT rights is not grounded in so-called "free choice". That people have a free choice is something that BOTH sides claim to acknowledge. The debate that you are sidelining is whether it is moral to be LGBT. One side says it is immoral, largely do to Abrahamic morals (be they Christian or Islamic). The other side will argue that there is nothing immoral about it, and furthermore, specifically, not allowing it is specifically a form of oppression. --Yalens (talk) 14:01, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

RESPONSE I know full-well that opposition to LGBT rights IS entirely based on the principle of choice. You may disagree, but that does not give you the right to suppress the fact. Free choice has not been acknowledged by 'both sides' as you put it; http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2010/01/is-sexuality-immutable.html http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10180564 http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/07/15/have-scientists-found-gay-gene/ (nb amusing gene moniker…)

The foundation of LGBT rights is on sexuality being an immutable characteristic and thusly under protection of various Human rights laws. So it is contingent to that cause to have homosexuality regarded as uchangeable, genetic, permanent and crucially NOT something that one has a choice over. Of the Abrahamic faiths certainly Christianity regards free choice as fundamental to belief.

The morality of sexuality is clearly an issue for each conscience to decide, the argument here is ultimately about the battle for cognitive freedom - are we free to choose or are we merely a cause-effect continuum; a confluence of forces? Am I responsible for my actions or was i always going to do this?

So if 'one side' says that the cause of disagreement does not exist, that there is no choice, and the other that the cause of disagreement is fundamental to the disagreement (that the argument itself is about free choice), then to remove the reason for disagreement takes the former view as it removes the latter from sight; as if it does not exist.

And there is no mention of allowing or disallowing 'it'. Nor of morality, albeit ultimately a moral issue.

A SYNOPSIS OF THE OPPOSITIONS VIEW, UNDER THE HEADING OPPOSITION, IS QUITE VALID. TO REMOVE IT IS TO SUPPORT THE ORTHODOX VIEW AS ELUCIDATED IN THE REST OF THE ARTICLE. BALANCE YALENS; NEUTRALITY.

YOUR ANSWER This is not balance, it is you pushing your extremely radical views here and failing to use sources and other issues whatsoever. Furthermore, as I said before, the issue is not choice, it is morality. You are simply using choice to sideline the debate and make it seem like something it is not. In any case, supporters of LGBT rights also insist on the principle of free choice, that what one does with their own sexuality is their own choice and government has no right to infringe upon this. If you want, you can make your creationist, ultra-Christian (or Islamic? lol) online encyclopedia, and use your personal interpretation of things as a cited source and we will not interfere. Wikipedia, however, is based on verifiable, scientific information, and your ranting has no place here. --Yalens (talk) 15:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

MY RESPONSE Are you able to understand that a list of opponents does not amount to academic opposition? Try this; proposition: "Over-fishing will deplete fish stocks"; counter-argument; "Japan, St Kitts and Nevis, the Marshall Islands, Kiribati, Grenada, Republic of Guinea and Ivory Coast". DO YOU UNDERSTAND?!?! A list of entities does not constitute anything but a list of entities. Opposition is; "resistance or dissent, expressed in action OR ARGUMENT". Not a list!!!! Censorship is 'extremely radical' and i have used sources but you seem to disallow them, like someone who refuses to LISTEN TO REASON!!!! So YALENS; are you prejudiced against those who hold different opinions? If so go set up your own blah blah blah. Wikipedia however, is based on verifiable, scientific information, and your censorship has no place here. So how do we introduce content to the opposition section without it being auto-censored by you and your chums? Any CONSTRUCTIVE IDEAS???????

Re the use of 'scientifically' for Kinsey's research, and i quote; "...verifiable, scientific information..."; it clearly was not what one could in good conscience call scientific. HE WAS HAVING IT OFF WITH HIS SUBJECTS!!!!! http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/kinsey/peopleevents/e_institute.html; http://www.kinseyinstitute.org/publications/column2.html; http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Alfred+C.+Kinsey:+Sex+the+Measure+of+All+Things%3B+A+Biography.%28Review%29-a061487453 and the list goes on. Just look it up. That is not what anyone in thier right mind would describe as rational observation - science. [edit] July 2010

Nuvola apps important.svg You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Pilif12p : Yo 15:40, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Yalens, I will in due course open a discussion page which we can discuss the issues in. I do hope you will be willing to negotiate so we can construct an informative and neutrally based discussion of this topic. I have been contacted by an administrator re this 'edit-war' and have been advised to do so. ----82.111.134.82---- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.111.134.82 (talk) 16:23, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've never called you a Georgia-phobe. Nor I meant to insult you in any way. I just meant that Georgian should not be removed from the infobox just because the Abkhaz nationalists hate anything related to Georgian cultural presence in Abkhazia. "...expressing my opinions, which are based on facts" - I'm sorry but I don't see any facts in your lengthy post. Many Abkhaz living in the Gali and Ochamchire districts of Abkhazia as well as the compactly settled ethnic Abkhaz villages in Adjara know Georgian. As for the Ossetians, I've just responded to your request to correct you if you were wrong. Indeed you are wrong as most Ossetians living in South Ossetia as well as other ethnically Ossetian (albeit smaller) areas of Georgia, e.g., in the regions of Kakheti and Imereti, know Georgian. Furthermore, many Ossetians are scattered throughout Georgia, including the capital city of Tbilisi, where they, of course, are fluent in Georgian.--Kober^Talk 19:32, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am tired. Did you not say that in the edit summary? I will check. In any case, I am sorry to take up your time wiht my long blurb, it was completely unnecessary. It's my general viewpoint that language should be reserved for what is the language of the people- i.e., there are plenty of Germans living in the US who speak English, but that does not make English a language of the German people, for example. That's pretty much the line. --Yalens (talk) 19:37, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You mean German Americans, don't you? The infobox from that entry mentions both English and German as the community's languages. I understand your viewpoint, but its implementation requires a significant change of Wikipedia's approach to 'ethnic' infoboxes. You can bring it to some general discussion page then. --Kober^Talk 19:54, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.eupedia.com/europe/european_y-dna_haplogroups.shtml Modern Genetic map of Europe. There aren't modern (after 2006) genetic study which stated that hungarians contains uralic genes. Only, some older source stated it, which proved false. However, majority of slavic nations had serious finno-ugoric genes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stears555 (talk • contribs) 13:04, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at User talk:Kansas Bear. Do not make comments about other editors' alleged or actual ethnicity. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:16, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

... I seriously fail to see how they are racist (and I don't think calling them such is very productive either). I won't make them if its such a big deal, but its not "racist" (for noting that people who actually have a stronger sense of a connection to the issue that I've talked to get less openly emotional when debating about it? How is that generalizing people negatively by race exactly?). I have never wanted a confrontation here, as you can see if you read the discussion. I feel that he is overly emotional about it, and he previously called me "impudent" (see the talk page, I can grab edit summary I suppose later), claimed that I was trying to rationalize a genocide (which is completely untrue, as I have noted numerous times), among other things... I do not feel like I (the "impudent" person who supposedly is trying to "mitigate" and to "rationalize the genocide") am the one trying to be insulting here... I would much rather simply be able to work stuff out, and am completely willing. --Yalens (talk) 22:42, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hope we have a misunderstanding, as [edit] is a little troublesome. You have DELETED my quotation saying the following- Quote on page 238 "Turks who were unable to escape the oncoming army were subject to similar Bulgarian retribution. Mosques, razed to the ground by dynamite or fire, became a familiar sight in the wake of the Bulgarian advance." in Glenny's book, and replaced it with a quotation needed again. I will assume that this is an accident, because I have no other way to explain it except bad faith otherwise. Why did you delete the quote? --Yalens (talk) 18:50, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ALSO: Stop requesting quotation for the Trotsky. It is quoted in Glenny on page 234, and that exact quote is right there on the page ("the horrors..... killed in battle") in a text block. It is very difficult for me to imagine that you cannot see that. I do hope you just reverted and didn't realizing you were reverting that as well. --Yalens (talk) 18:54, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any requests for quotes should be placed on the talk page and discussed.

Here are the sentences that are in question:

• contributing vastly to the 1 million killed from 1912-1918 <refGlenny, Misha. The Balkans. Page 238-9ref>^{[need quotation to verify]}
• Turks claim that since no country recognizes this behavior as genocide (well over 1 million Turks were killed during the Balkan Wars and World War I <refKing, Charles. The Ghost of Freedom: A History of the Caucasus. Page 158ref>^{[need quotation to verify]})
• It is notable that not only Turks but also Kurds (as well as, in cases, Circassians) were murdered and expelled in sensitive regions in the Northern Middle East and the Balkans, on the grounds of their Islam and relative loyalty to the Porte (though in the case of the Kurds, this loyalty was entering its last years as it dissipated when Kurds realized their lack of rights in an explicitly Turkish state). <refKing, Charles. The Ghost of Freedom: A History of the Caucasus. Page 158-9ref>^{[need quotation to verify]}
• Albanians, too, who were not universally Muslim, nor were they loyal to the Empire, were subjected to a number of organized cleansing operations in the form of massacres at the hands of the Balkan pact members, especially the Serbs <refGlenny, Misha. The Balkans. Pages 233 and 234ref>^{[need quotation to verify]}

Also, this sentence, "...it is absurd to call what happened to the Armenians in Anatolia (with similar proportions) genocide, and that the genocide claim is just being used against the losing side in the First World War.", is also contentious, unsubstantiated and needs a reference.

Since, none of your quotes support anything they are referencing, I will be placing a Wikipedia:Original Research tag on that section. --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:10, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know this. You are sidestepping the topic at hand. I am interested in knowing why you deleted the quote that I already gave at your request.

But since you also want to discuss this, we shall. (however, I am still very perturbed at why you DELETED my QUOTE; I do sincerely hope it was a mistake).

And in the case of the contributing vastly, that was incorrect synthesis actually. I thought it meant Balkan Wars and World War I, but it only meant World War I, so I have now changed it.

I have given the quote for 1 million already on the page, and I have now bolded it since you seem to miss it.--Yalens (talk) 13:41, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since you have problems understanding English, I will walk you through this.

1. "Turks claim that since no country recognizes this behavior as genocide (well over 1 million Turks were killed during the Balkan Wars and World War I." Which you have provided this source...Throughout the empire and its borderlands Muslims, too, suffered at the hands of both the Ottomon State and its wartime enemies. Kurds, formerly employed by the Ottomon authorities as irregular troops, were also deported from sensitive borderlands or simply slaugthered. Muslims were attacked, killed, moved about, and killed by Christian states in both the Balkans and in the north and south Caucasus. In round figures, the regions were emptied of more than a million Muslims during the First World War alone, not to mention the previous century of removals and atrocities by the Balkan states and the Russian empire."

Nowhere within your "source" does it say "Turks claim.....", "genocide", or "well over 1 million Turks were killed". Therefore, this is original research. "Even with well-sourced material, if you use it out of context or to advance a position not directly and explicitly supported by the source, you are engaging in original research."[2]

2."It is notable that not only Turks but also Kurds (as well as, in cases, Circassians) were murdered and expelled in sensitive regions in the Northern Middle East and the Balkans, on the grounds of their Islam and relative loyalty to the Porte (though in the case of the Kurds, this loyalty was entering its last years as it dissipated when Kurds realized their lack of rights in an explicitly Turkish state)", has nothing to do with the Armenian Genocide, undoubtedly more rationalization.

3."Albanians, too, who were not universally Muslim, nor were they loyal to the Empire, were subjected to a number of organized cleansing operations in the form of massacres at the hands of the Balkan pact members, especially the Serbs", more irrelevant nonsense in an attempt to mitigate the genocide of a people under the direct control of the Ottoman Empire.

4. "it is absurd to call what happened to the Armenians in Anatolia (with similar proportions) genocide, and that the genocide claim is just being used against the losing side in the First World War.", unsourced merde, used as some pathetic attempt to rationalize genocide.

5. "Muslims were attacked, killed, moved about, and killed by Christian states in both the Balkans and in the north and south Caucasus.", in another attempt at mitigating, killed has to be mentioned twice in one sentence. What impudence! --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:15, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see why you are so emotional about it. It is a heavy topic, I understand, but still- you are not even Armenian and have absolutely nothing to do with it. The only thing I'm irked about is that you deleted my quote, which you will not discuss. I gave you a link to the edit in which you deleted the quote. Did you even look at it? You are still sidestepping the discussion, and changing the topic. Other edits are off topic. I want to know why you deleted the quote- this edit [[3]] (I give you the edit changes link again). If its just an accident we are fine. If it is just a misunderstanding, I would be happy to forgive you.

This is not my opinion- and I am certainly not trying to "rationalize" the genocide as you claim. I am not Turkish, nor am I overwhelmingly sympathetic towards the Turks. Personally I think that no matter what the Turks pull, nothing can deny their country's guilt in the killing of a large number of Armenians and the near-extinction of Armenians in a considerable chunk of their former homeland.

It is funny how you say this because just the other day I was accused of being too pro-Armenian on some forum, and that I was some sort of Armenian propagandist just for voicing an opinion that the genocide occurred. But alas, everyone on either side is so incredibly emotional about the issue that it blocks out any attempt at a reasonable debate- therefore, apparently I am a Turk propagandist and Armenian propagandist at the same time.

The truth, however, is that, yes, the regions were "emptied of over a million Turks". I, personally, have heard Turks use this to say that the designation of what is and what isn't a genocide is not balanced (they will never concede that their government had a plan to wipe out the Armenians in the Ottomon Empire, so to them its pretty much the same thing). That is why it belongs in Turkish denial. I am pretty sure the opinion is in print somewhere, however I have not gone to great lengths to find it, so if you want to request a quote there that would be good.

The thing is that a lot of the reason the Turks find it difficult to admit is that they have a strong feeling of being persecuted themselves, not in the least because of these events, and it would be good for the article to include that. That's why I put it up there, not because I have some agenda to draw attention away from the killings of Armenians. Nor am I trying to rationalize genocide

The presence of the Albanian reference is because this behavior by Serbia, Greece and the rest is well-known in Turkey, and it goes under a long list of other things (including the Circassian Genocide as well) that I have heard Turks, and many other people have, say that could be recognized as genocide if you call the Armenian genocide... a genocide. Yes, I suppose you are right that that is OR- though I'm sure we could probably find at least some quote by a Turkish politician or something like that somewhere. And the reference to Kurds is that the Kurds may also use their victimization by the Russian/Armenian forces (you know, what happened to them before the Turks themselves started having issues with them) as a claim to say it was two way as well. The Kurds and Armenians, although they seem to have coinciding interests today, also have a lot of disputes- as you can see just by paying a short visit to any Kurdish forum and looking up Armenian claims to the Van region. Armenians meanwhile (including Armenians on wikipedia) often will blame Kurds for the genocide (which is not really incorrect, as they were the Ottomons' irregular troops). So that's why the Kurdish reference is there. It is not to rationalize the genocide or anything. --Yalens (talk) 19:47, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And yes, if you care, the reason I deleted the or was because the reason of your edit summary said that it was the 1 million figure, which of course, was given. Though frankly, I don't really care that much about an OR tag as it is, in a sense, OR.--Yalens (talk) 19:49, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So instead of dealing with the issues, which have been clearly explained, you continue this rant of emotional. Apparently, you are too emotional to understand how original research is a direct violation of wikipedia. As such original research should be deleted. --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:07, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikipedia does not publish original thought: all material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source. Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not clearly advanced by the sources."[4] --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:57, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why I have requested a quotation. In any case, I somehow, mysteriously, still lack an explanation for why you deleted the quote.

I am not the one who is emotional. I am not the one who called the other impudent, and accused them of ranting, and of trying to rationalize genocide (completely contrary to the truth). I would be perfectly happy to discuss this in a non-confrontational manner, one that does not involve such accusations. --Yalens (talk) 21:16, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your quote did not support what was in the sentence(as explained here earlier...[5]), is that clear enough? Technically, since what you have written is OR, I should have just deleted all of that(which I am sure you would have called "emotional"). This now has been explained, again. As for confrontational, 1)I asked for page numbers, you then stated; " I would appreciate to not be yelled at.",[6] thus trying to imply(ie. ranting) from the beginning this fantasy of yours that I am emotional. Pity you have not wasted as much time finding sources to support your Original Research. I would suggest in your case that you focus your attention to finding sources that support your "opinion" or it will be deleted. --Kansas Bear (talk) 03:46, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When I said initially that I would appreciate not to be yelled at, I was not responding to you, but to David Roman, because of this edit, where he did- [[7]]. And yes, I believe that the assumption that I am a Turkish propagandist or at least otherwise trying somehow to rationalize the genocide is emotional, not to mention that I am apparently "impudent". I have had editing conflicts with people that are actually from the Caucasus on other historical issues (Ossetians, one Armenian, etc.), but we have at least managed to keep from randomly throwing insults like "impudent" at each other, nor did they overtly assume I had some ulterior motive in editing other than to put stuff up on wikipedia. What is funny is that people like you and User:David Roman, who don't even seem to be from the Caucasus (your profile says you are a German-Scottish-English-French-somethingelse American; his name certainly sounds Western to me as well), get far more emotional, and that's odd.

I have not protested against you calling the opinions OR (they are not necessarily mine, mind you), and you can delete them (I assume the reader would be able to infer them anyways). You cannot, however, delete the sourced material. I am quite sure a reader can infer the importance of the effect of the Balkan Wars on the Armenian Genocide, so it is wrong to delete it. --Yalens (talk) 14:10, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your material is not sourced(Issues #1 and #4, Issues #2, #3 and #5 being irrelevant to the Armenian Genocide), hence it is OR. As for my racial background(which is irrelevant, oddly just like issues #2 and #3), is not relevant for any article I edit on wikipedia. I will ignore your racist comment. As for your continued use of "Turkish propagandist", unless you can prove I posted that(which is borderline incivility:(d) quoting another editor out of context to give the impression they hold views they do not hold, or to malign them.), I would suggest you desist in your accusations along with your little mantra of people being "emotional" and questioning the ethnic background of other editors. Your unwillingness to address your WP:OR and continued statements on my talk page of "emotional" and comments on my ethnic background is harassment. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:32, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no I do not think you ignored it (and I fail to see how that is racist either...), as you seem to have found it necessary to bring in a third party... I do not have an unwilling ness to address OR either, as I said plain and clear, it is fine by me if you delete the ones that talk about the Turkish peoples' opinion (but not the ones regarding the massacres against Kurds and Albanians, as that they are insignificant is your personal opinion, and a reader can decide that for themself), as that does, in fact need citation. In other cases I have given sources, page numbers, and quotes? Is that not addressing the need for citation? (no that is not a question).

And I would much rather be able to discuss this without being called impudent or with you trying to claim I am rationalizing genocide or whatnot (I have never, once, claimed you said "Turkish propgandist", I said that if one uses the logic which made me an "Armenian propagandist" last week, then clearly I must be a "Turkish propagandist" at hte same time, it was sarcastic). Because I do not view myself as being impudent, and I certainly am not trying to rationalize a genocide (which is a serious accusation, mind you), and I would much rather be able to discuss this without having such accusations hurled at me (now wiht the latest addition of "racist"). --Yalens (talk) 23:26, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(after deletion of reply with "nothing worth reading" as justification)

I would appreciate if you'd give the time to read my whole post here thoroughly, as I am tired of this and I also feel like much of it is do to misunderstandings as well as myself being overly defensive about the matter, nor do I want to even have it... You have deleted my reply to you, and I admit, perhaps I am being too confrontational there. I am sorry for my side of our dispute here (although I still do not take lightly incorrect accusations of me trying to rationalize genocide- i.e. the final stage of genocide- or that I am racist or "impudent"). In the future I acknowledge that I should discuss primarily the material and not the actions and rhetoric of other users, and I am wrong for doing so. I am writing now for two things- to reply to your accusation that I am racist (the one thing I feel I need to respond to) and to suggest a compromise. To deal with the first as fast as possible, I am sure you know the intent of that was to say that since you are not Armenian and I am not Turkish, there is no need to be so (what I call) emotional about this. But I apologize if it did offend you in any way. Can we please focus instead on the material? I am not the best diplomat, and I need to work on that. But I don't want to quarrel with you, I want to find a middle ground.

Basically, what I propose is such. You can delete the Turkish viewpoint stuff ("Issues" #1 and #4) but leave the rest which is sourced but you call irrelevant.

I wanted the Turkish viewpoint stuff in there so people can understand what it is that prevents the Turks from acknowledging what they did, what the psychological barrier is. But I suppose you are right in saying that it isn't sourced (even though I have personal experience hearing it plenty, that is in fact, original research as you say).

However, the suffering of Albanians (the allies of the Turks during the First Balkan War, and at least their emotional allies during the First World War) at the hands of Serbs and Greeks is not irrelevant, as it is included in a long list of things which make Turks feel as if former Ottomon Muslims are uniquely denied historical rights, and that there is a bias against them (leading to the claim that calling what happened to the Armenians is Genocide -as is in fact historically correct- is just another manifestation of this bias). In addition, the effect of the Greek-Turkish war in the early 1920s is not unimportant either. In all three of these conflicts, Great Powers (Russia and Britain as well others such as Austria, Italy or Germany, to a lesser extent) aided the Balkan states at various points in their wars where they all attacked simultaneously the Turks and their allies (the Albanians in the First Balkan War). In my opinion, it is important for someone to know that to understand why the Turks find it very difficult to admit that they committed genocide. As I am sure you probably know, Turkish narrative about the Balkan Wars and World War I will focus on how they were being attacked by multiple enemies at the same time, often focusing on the narrative of Gallipoli where so many Turks died in small areas in a small peninsula, desperately trying to protect Anatolia and Turkish Thrace from being taken over. It also, yes, focuses on the offenses by Christian states against the Turks as well as other Muslims that fell under their control. What the Turks refuse to acknowledge is that their state had a plot to wipe out all the Armenians on their lands- precisely the one difference (aside from scale) between the actions of the Christian states and the Ottomon Empire. Atrocities committed by the Serbian, Bulgarian, Greek and Montenegrin armies were tolerated by their governments and perhaps encouraged at times, but they haven't been proven (at least not yet) to be part of an organized plan to erase the presence of a people from an area. Another element, I should note, is the Circassian Genocide, which many Turks know of (Turkey was where fleeing Circassians mainly settled in, in addition to Middle Eastern and Balkan countries to a lesser extent) and many are even descended from Circassians partially. What Russia did the Circassians is similar to what the Turks did to the Armenians- huge massacres paired with massive deportations with the explicit aim of ridding an area of a problematic ethnic group threatening control of the region. The lack of recognition for the Circassian Genocide (much less than the Armenian Genocide) also encourages the xenophobic view that the world is once again, trying to gang up on Turkey by using the Armenian Genocide, and that recognizing that as a genocide is unfair given that these other offenses (some of which could legitimately called Genocide, as is the case with the Circassians by Russia; others not) are not recognized as such. I am not saying that this is rational, as it isn't really- it is based on a feeling of victimhood and xenophobia. Nothing can deny that the Turkish government tried to systematically erase the Armenian presence in Eastern Anatolia. But I just think their views are important for the topic of explaining why the issue isn't resolved. Sorry for typing all that and if you read it all, I thank you.

Would you agree to leaving the cited material (#2,3,5) but not the uncited material?--Yalens (talk) 18:56, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]