|
On another issue, I deleted this article. It duplicates the content already at genocide and democide. And the whole idea of merging them was mistaken. They are separate concepts. They sometimes overlap, but at other times they don't. Putting examples of two separate concepts together in the one list just leads to confusion. -- SJK |
|
On another issue, I deleted this article. It duplicates the content already at genocide and democide. And the whole idea of merging them was mistaken. They are separate concepts. They sometimes overlap, but at other times they don't. Putting examples of two separate concepts together in the one list just leads to confusion. -- SJK Although I find our discussion satisfying, I am writing this message to answer your question. The problem is that you are always bringing proofs that will support your article and ignore the others that are against it. Please have a look at the following site: [| US Congress withdraws Armenian genocide resolution] As you may see, there does not seem to be a real agreement between different senates. So, why did the US congress refrain from even discussing this issue? Were they less eligible than other parliaments? Or were they satisfied by expert reports that these events did not really occur? Probably not. They just did not want to lose an important ally as Turkey (or perhaps not). This is my point. You can never be sure about what kind of political issues they are involved in. Knowledge and understanding are entirely different things. Many of the parliaments that you listed above may have voted for the genocide for the sake of not losing the votes of many Armenian citizens that are living in high amounts in these countries. Among these countries, USA is the only country that there are also high amounts of Turkish people. Assume that you are supposed to give a decision about the reliability of open heart surgery. Would you find yourself eligible enough to give decision about that even after listening to tens of expert reports about the advantages and disadvantages of this procedure? This is not a different situation. That is the reason why I do not find the decisions of parliaments reliable for an encyclopedia article. It is true that Turkey is the only country that disagrees with the genocide but it does agree that some bad events have occurred on this region. The question is whether this should be called as a genocide or not. Turkey is not in disagreement because it assumes that it is the continuum of Ottoman Empire. In my own belief, the relationship between Turkey and Ottoman Empire is not more than the relationship between USA and British Empire. The point is that many of those admirable parliament members are voting for the genocide after listening to the witness reports and pictures about mass murders. I am really doubtful that the pictures and reports of the Turkish people that have died in this region are ever presented to them. Turkish government is in contradiction with that hypothesis because they feel themselves compelled to listen to the voices of several Turkish citizens whose grandrelatives have been killed or died in very similar situations in the very same region and therefore are sensitive about this issue. I would like to carry my discussion to Democide and Genocide pages, if you don't mind.[ErdemTuzun] |
![[Home]](wikipedia.png)