User talk:Awiseman/Archive/Jan2007

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Sadly 2 Urban Prairie 3 military brat 4 Go Go 5 Ataturk 6 Akon Language 7 Leader of Motherland Party 8 comment 9 Please unblock me 10 Re: Ataturk and genocide 11 you seem to... 12 Being civil. 13 Reply 14 Military Brat- Pop Culture 15 MKA 16 Thanks for the block 17 Goryeo-Khitan Wars 18 Atatürk 19 You are right 20 Libby Copeland - Borf connection 21 Akon issue 22 signature button. 23 Military Brat 24 Re:Maps 25 Civility on Talk:Pontian Greek genocide 26 Joel Spingarn

[edit] Sadly

Sadly, I am not an adminstrator, otherwise I would have taken stronger action regarding that edit summary. I read your not on ANI and took the strongest action I could. JBKramer 16:09, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, thanks --AW 16:10, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Urban Prairie

If you don't have Google Earth on your computer, download it. You can get some great views of neighborhoods in both Chicago and Youngstown where there is an overabundance of vacant lots.

Thanks Airmandan35 03:55, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] military brat

Thanks for your help with military brat. This article is in desperate need of help and there is only so much that I can do. I spent a lot of time over the past two nites trying to get it to reputability, but that will take a while (I stopped editing at 2:30am and didn't have time or energy to proof what I had written.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Balloonman (talk • contribs)

Sure thing! --AW 22:07, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Now that I'm essentially finished with my major rewriting of this article, what do you think of it? I know it needs to be cleaned up/wikified/etc, but what are your thoughts on where I've taken this article?Balloonman 16:00, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Go Go

I don't really have a lot of money to spend on cds so I can't really answer your questions on its position or on Volume One. Nor am I from DC. But I do know something about music. The fact that it and Volume I are the only things that Tower Records brings up at Search:go go means something to me. If it turns out that it isn't an important go go record then the article should be changed. ------- Go go is unerrepresented on the Wikipedia and I assume the music industry professionals who buy records for Tower know what they are doing. Tell me I'm not wrong. --McTrixie 20:19, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually I changed "influential" to "early", it's a good edit. But I am pretty sure this record qualifies as influential, esp. outside of DC, and when I read some documentation I will try to return to prop up the article. THX --McTrixie 20:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Just one comment - I worked at Tower for a while, and I can't quite find a delicate way of phrasing the state of their catalogue. I'm not a huge listener of Go Go (beyond Chuck Brown), but I did work in one of the few stores with an actual "Go Go" section, featuring all of ten CDs. A lot of Go Go music would probably be catalogued as Hiphop, Reggae, or Pop/Rock, since these sections are (were) included in pretty much every Tower Records store. --Gigantic Killerdong 18:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Early is good, thanks. --Awiseman 20:26, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't write a lot of music articles; I should be more careful when I do so. THX --McTrixie 20:33, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

No problem, thanks for the help! --Awiseman 20:46, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ataturk

Thank you for the message. As you might have noticed the editor inserting the POV edit has made several personal attacks on me; so I do regret if I have turned a bit too touchy. Bertilvidet 15:50, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

What is he talking about? Please see the article and violation of 3RR rule 5 times over (that is only in this article, let alone some other ones on Turkey or Turkish people)in the last couple of days. Can you help and not let get away with every manupulation. Thank you. Please see our prior discussion with him on National Security Council (Turkey) talk page for reference. Thanks again.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.79.139.10 (talk • contribs)

[edit] Akon Language

He sings one song wit the monseiur riders (some french rapper group). I forget what it is called. But at the beginning he is clearly heard speaking fluent french. So we know he knows french. the wolof i doubt because it is more of a spoken language in gambia. And he is from dakar....which is metropolitan. Wolof would be more of a village sort of thing from my understanding. So lets just stick with french nowww.
P.S. Did u get Konvicted? IT IS SWEET....Thank You —The preceding unsigned comment was added by R-HIT (talk • contribs) 23:38, 15 November 2006.

[edit] Leader of Motherland Party

Hello ! I closed the Leader of Motherland Party AfD, so you can go ahead an merge it whenever you want. Best wishes, Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate it. --AW 20:28, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] comment

I am not trying to be rude or anything, but i just came back to Wiki after a leave of a month because of i was getting tired ot POV pushing. Sorry if you took it that way, i was not trying to be rude. But you should also know that there is a lot of hot rhetoric flying in some articles, and unless you belong to an ethnicity concerned, it might be hard to understand why. :)) Back to the sections in question. That's exactly the problem: what are you trying to balance in the first place?? It is a bio article, not the article about the armenian genocide or some other article. There is no rule that every info has to be mentioned in every article, meaning that the addition has to be relevant to ATATURK, not something else. Did u see what I wrote on the talk page??? "He would be behind bars today for things he said back than"???? How is that relevant to Ataturk?? That is a criticisim (misplaced btw) of Turkey TODAY. Sourced doesn't cut it, I am sorry. It has to be balanced, true, but that's only if what we are discussing is relevant in the first place. You see what I mean? I have been absent for a while, so if you have been really acting in good faith, i appreciate it, but I still think that that addition in its current state is a joke coz it is not relevant. Please, don't ask me to explain why, if you are not from the Eastern Mediterranean, you wouldn't understand, sadly :))))) cheers! Baristarim 21:50, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Many people on the talk have said that article is overly positive - there are almost no criticisms. How is it relavent to Ataturk? It's things people said he did and didn't do. That's about him. And anyway, you completely missed the point of that quote! They were saying that he said the Armenian deaths were bad, which if he said that today would be illegal in Turkey. Furthermore, saying "you wouldn't understand because you're not from there" is completely against the ideals of Wikipedia. So only people from New York can edit the New York article? Only people who are professional soccer players can edit article about soccer? That makes no sense whatsoever. --AW 21:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Look man, you took too seriously my poor attempt at humor I think. I was just trying to say that if u are not from the Eastern Mediterranean, the underlying reasons of the dispute might be hard to fathom. It is true for every local and ethnic disagreement in the world. Have some sense of humor dude :)) On the other hand, there is some truth to this, since I cannot go to an article about one of NY's districts and pretend to know what a seemingly small dispute is about a local sports club.. That's all what I was trying to say. Just as an advice, before saying that something doesn't make sense, try to see if you were able to understand the humor or etc behind it. :)) cheers Baristarim 02:24, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please unblock me

--AW 14:28, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Over the course of about 28 hours, you have reinserted a section after its removal, let's see... 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 times. I'm not sure why A. Garnet wasn't blocked for this same behavior; I'll check with Centrx about that. Because of the edit war over this issue, the article has had to be protected, so when you come back you won't have any choice but to discuss things until it's resolved. But your edit warring was clearly disruptive here, so the block (which is only 24 hours btw) seems legit to me. Mangojuice^talk 17:05, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. Maybe my math is wrong or I don't understand the rule, but when I look at it, there are never more than 3 reverts of the section in a 24 hour period. Maybe 6 over two days is too many, but I tried to follow that 3 in 24 rule, and after the 3rd I stopped until the next day. I guess the discussion got to me, as the other users were calling my edits a joke and ridiculous and such, but I should have remained calm and stopped after the first 3. I do appreciate you checking about A.Garnet however. Also, is there supposed to be a warning or something? I would have stopped if somebody had said "your edits are bordering on edit warring, if you do not stop you'll be blocked." This is my first block, it's new to me. --AW 17:20, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Your math isn't wrong, but you're trying to game the system. Obviously, you knew about the WP:3RR, or you wouldn't have just barely avoided 3 reverts in 24 hours. The 3-revert rule says that if you revert more than three times in 24 hours, you should be blocked. It doesn't say that if you revert less than that, it's okay. As a matter of fact, it's very clearly NOT okay, and the WP:3RR page does explicitly address people trying to "just barely" follow the 3RR. The 3RR is written as it is to make sure that there's a point beyond which edit warring is unambiguous, and to forbid that, but really, edit warring (specifically revert warring) in general is the kind of activity that's frowned on. See WP:3RR#Intent of the policy. Mangojuice^talk 18:17, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to do anything sinister, and I thought I was following the rule by not doing more than 3 in 24. I apologize. But like I said, I'm fine with this, but are there usually warnings about it? I don't even see when the block started. --AW 18:31, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, you clearly didn't need a warning since you knew about the 3RR. But actually, looking back, you did technically violate it: [1] makes 4 reverts on the 15th. The 3RR refers to any reverts in whole or in part, not just reverts that are all the same. Mangojuice^talk 14:28, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I knew the 3RR existed but I obviously didn't know the ins and outs of it. But anyway, block's over. --AW 01:53, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Ataturk and genocide

I've always wondered why an article about a political figure of the past has no criticism in it... It is so sad, as if people who took part in wars and were politically active (id est 'liars') are portrayed as if they "lived a peacefull and sinless" life! i agree with u in the inclusion of these facts and i have reverted the article. on the other hand, i sense that the turkish users will do everything they can to remove sourced and balanced info they do not like... Maybe admins and more people with good knowledge of history and (preferably, for obvious reasons) non-Greeks, non-Armenians, non-Kurds, non...-non(?) should take a look at the article. Regards Hectorian 00:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

What i dont understand AW, is that in believing the article needs to be more critical, why you would take it upon yourself to devote a section to the most extreme and unfounded criticism possible. Whats more, a criticism that is not even included in the main articles to which you refer to, and furthermore a criticism that rests on giving a degree of legitimacy to the Pontian Greek genocide article which itself is still in dispute. If there is to be any criticism of Ataturk, it would be his policy on Islam and the Kurds, these are the most verifiable criticisms seen throughout his biographys and countless articles on the influence of his policy on Turkey today. But yet you chose to pander to the most extreme allegations made possible against a man, that he was responsible for a genocide.

Your section doesnt even have any substance to it, it is just a recount of extreme allegations made against him i.e. "Greeks say this, Armenians say this, Turks say this". On the one hand you say he is accused of being responsbile for a genocide, on the other you say there may have been no genocide, and on the other that he would placed in jail for criticising the gneocide. It makes no sense, it is to me just an effort to appease the most extreme views against Ataturk. You say you have no view on the events, but obviously you have some view if you see it fit to include such a section, even before the most commonn criticisms which refer to his policy on Kurds and Islam. I dont mean to be aggresive in my attitude AW, i am just surpised a supposed impartial user would jump in at the deep end and create a such a controversial section without consulting anyone. And whats more, rather than try to reach an understanding, you inform someone (Hectorian) who you know will be sympathetic to your edit so he can carry on reverting it. Anyway, i hope we will sort this out somehow. --A.Garnet 16:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

You're kidding right? It's neither extreme nor unfounded, the allegations and arguments against them appear in magazines and all over the internet. If I were a biased editor, as you suggest, I wouldn't have put in the other side of the argument, which I did - both Turkish and German sources, which say he spoke out against the Armenian genocide. It's a balanced, sourced section! And furthermore, I asked User:Khoikhoi to look at it too who seems to be pretty knowledgable and neutral on this sort of thing. I don't appreciate your accusations. --AW 19:38, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, you have no source implicating him in the a genocide of Pontians, no doubt since there are barely any credible sources which talk of a Pontian "genocide" at all. Second, your source for his role in the Armenian genocide comes form the Armenian National Institute, third, we will talk about those criticisms (which as a matter of fact i have added before to the article) when you agree that this section is completely unnaceptable, not because of some Turkish pride which i'm sure is what you believe, but because it is a misrepresentaion of academic opinion surrounding Ataturk. --A.Garnet 21:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and one of the sources supporting him comes from Ataturk.com. --AW 21:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Just a comment cause my name was mentioned above: many users left me messanges about recent changes, so it is unfair for anyone to accuse Awiseman for also having done this. apropos, even if he had not left me a notice, i would have seen the new section and i would not have behaved elsehow. in addition, it is only natural to have a criticism section for a political figure, and thus i cannot understand what the whole mess is about (or i can, but i do not want to think that this is because of some Turkish pride). since we are talking about criticism in general, and since A.Garnet talked about the Pontian Genocide, which is still "disputed" (do i have to remind that the 'request for mediation', that some users finally agreed in, is still pending?), i could highlight another side of criticism, to which, no serious user would object: according to the turkish law 1151 of 1927 the Greek schools on Imbros and Tenedos were abolished, in a clear violation of the Treaty of Lausanne, that Ataturk himself signed. Ataturk was then President of Turkey then. the President of Turkey was and still is the one directly responsible for education affairs, right? so, wasn't he responsible for this violation? Hectorian 00:33, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey Andrew. I didn't really think people weren't going to have objections when you added that paragraph, and in it's current state I think there is an area for improvement. For example, perhaps you could change the heading to "Criticism" rather than "Opinions on genocide". It's just that you won't find a section with a similar title in that many other articles, but having a criticism section is a lot more common on WP, see Elie Wiesel and Bernard Lewis. Another concern of mine is that I noticed some weasel words in the section. For example, "some have said he was involved with the Armenian Genocide". What I want to know is who specifically says this—remember to cite reliable sources. If the source is not neutral, attribute it properly like "the Armenian National Institute claims that...". Lastly, you said, "some Turks either claim the deaths were exaggerated or the result of war, or that they were committed by the Young Turks". You should probably have it say, "Ataturk.com states that..." Overall, I hope that some compromise can be reached, and that the protection can eventually be lifted. Cheers, Khoikhoi 01:35, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate your help. I've been blocked from editing after that, which I disagree with, but I think those are great suggestions and I would appreciate it if you said the same at the Ataturk talk page. I think whatever I add now would be disagreed with. I knew they were not neutral sources, but I figured other people would realize that - I should have stated that outright like you said. --AW 14:40, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

No problem. BTW, if you think blocks are big deal, check this out. ;-) Khoikhoi 22:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

AW - I think that your understanding of Ataturk's role in the ethnic cleansing of Armenians from Anatolia is not entirely accurate. You are misinterpreting the word/concept to "consumate" the Armenians Genocide as used by ANI. This absolutly does not imply that Ataturk had a role in what we know as the Armenian Genocide period (during WWI). He was not politically involved with the CUP on any functional level during this period and he shoudl be seen as striclty a military figure who - as much as is known - had no role whatsover in these events (against Armenian civilians). When ANI presents this ida that Ataturk consumated the Genocide what they are trying to convey (IMO) and what is accurate (IMO) is that Ataturk's policy and efforts at establishing a Turkish state in Anatolia based on Turkish nationalistic and ethnic lines included as a fundemental concept the elimination (primarily through forced expulsions - but also massacres which were used to stir fear and cause Armenians and other Chrisitans to flee) etc Thus Ataturk can indeed be seen as "finishing the job" as envisioned and begun by the CUP - and if one views the entire period of the mid 19th century into the mid twentieth century as one large continum of effort on the part of (various) Turks to decimate (not just 10% but all) the Armenian presence in Anatolia then he rightly deserves his place for directing/approving the final blows to ensure that this occured. However in the stricter sense of the concept of the Armenian Genocide proper I do not think it is appropriate to include Ataturk as an actor or in any way directly connected with the ruling CUP during this time or concerning the enaction of their genocidal policies. I'm sorry for rambling on - but does this make sense? --THOTH 18:48, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the reasonable comments. I'm used to getting attacked over this. Anyway, that's an interesting point and one I had not heard before. Maybe I will soften the section? Maybe I could change "carried out" to "consummated" like the ANI page says? Or how would you write it? The paragraph you wrote above seems to me like a good start. I think it's important to include criticisms, and that was my goal with that section, put some of the criticisms in. --AW 19:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Your Welcome. I sympathyze with your interest in a more accurate (warts and all) picture of Ataturk (as opposed to the mythical version that most Turks know/believe) however I would caution against undue emphasis on the Armenian Genocide in regards to Ataturk even if it is - of course - a primary perspective of Armenians concerning Ataturk and even if - as my first comments on the Ataturk talk page suggest - that the Genocide was a fundemental event (of wide historical applicability)that impacted everything from that point foreward for Turkey/Turks and the region as a whole. However the tying of Ataturk to the Genocide proper is a no-go IMO as there is no concrete evidence or analysis that he had any direct role in such and quite the opposite - he did not see eye to eye with the main CUP perpetrators during that time and was not in any policy role (they even attmpted to supress his military role as he was seen as a potential political rival and were fearful that his military sucesses might translate into popular support and influence). Thus I see little value in any atttempt to directly connect Ataturk with the Genocide. What should be emphasised is Ataturk's role and promotion of the concept of Anatolia/Turkey for the Turks and his understanding (and promotion of the concept of) the Christian minorities as enemies of the Turks - through rival nationalist aspirations and due to their recent and past mistreatment, Ataturk understood what was at stake - that Turks needed to rally around this idea of their Turkishness above all else and needed to forcefully push their claims on Anatolia at the exclusion of all others (and concern for all others). This led him to advocate and pursue very brutal policies towards the remaining Christians of Anatolia that ultimatly led to massacres of estimated 400,000 more Armenians and the completion of cleanising of Armenians from Anatolia. It is important to note that Ataturk used the hatred of the Christian minoriites as a critical rallying point for the Turks - without which they may not have unified and risen up in such force to establish the nation of Turkey. That this unity was short lived - as can be seen by the Kurdish reistance later and that many of the forces oposing Ataturk (and his Westernizing policies) came from traditional Muslim tribal elements (such as the Kurds who were still major players politically and militarily at the time). Ataturk then took it upon himself to crush these "reactionary" elements - including former CUP memebers whom he needed for organization (overt and covert...ie assasinations, murders and other dirty deeds..) and money (that they had - largely as the result of appropriation from the Christians of the Empire. Ataturk founded the Republic on these forces but later acted against them in order to solidify his power and influence and to shape Turkey into the (Authoritarian) Western mode that he felt was necessary for its survival and prosperity. If he can be ctritiscized it is for the ruthless zeal and authoritarian way he crushed these "enemies" and how he molded the Turkish nation building myth to suit his needs - rallying around opposition to external and internal "foes" while preaching peace, Democracy and Wesern ways. Is this critiscim? Well for a Turk it is perhaps treason...ol... but for those who understand the history it is just the facts. (so read up...I suggest Taner Akcam's prvious book - From Empire to Republic as well as Hugh Pultons Top Hat, Grey Wolf and Crecent (a must) for some insites into these issues. You should also be familiar with Mango and Kinross's biographys - even though both fall far short of truly objective treatments of the man. Other sources that might be useful are The Peace to End All Peace and other studies of the post WWI peace process - specifically ones dealing with the breakup of the ottoman Empire and the establishment of the Republic of Turkey. I've even read one book dealing with the Turkish Revolution (covering the pre/early CUP period through to after establishment of the Republic...that had some great insights - but I have forgotton the name of the book (and its been 20+ years since I read it...--THOTH 20:11, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Wow! Maybe I should defer to you on this. All of that seems like it would be worth adding, but I don't think I know enough to put it in, or defend it if I were argued against, which I'm sure I would be. --AW 20:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Well I see my "job" in Wikipedia - where it concerns the issue of the Armenian Genocide (primarily) - which is so contested (and vandalized) by certain Turks who buy into their slanted and distorted versions of things - to set some things straight - ie to not allow the inaccurate tangents and misrepresentations to rule the day. I am hoping that by providing proper argument and presentation of facts that I can influence the articel to at least not go too far astray. I am however a Wiki novice who is not sure just how involved I actually want to get into edit wars and the like - and I also am a bit of a perfectionaist who sees things certain (wholistic and interconnected ways) where I find it difficult to just jump in and edit in part. If I were to do an article I would practically have to start from scratch...its a defect I know - but its just how I operate. In regards to the Ataturk article - I checked it out because of your comming to the AG talk page and I immediatly sensed that you were somewhat off the mark and I wanted to make sure you/we were approaching this correctly. I did likewise see (as I expected to see) that the Turks who hold the myth of Ataturk the God hold sway on the articel and would be reluctant to budge on it. So we have a dilema. I think that it is important that we get it right and that our input is appropriate. I personally have no "grudge" per se concerning Ataturk (in fact I have long greatly admired the man) - though I am very aware/acknowledge that he was far from being a friend to Armenians in post-war Anatolia. So this history should be accuratly conveyed and included - as appropriate - but not out of some vendetta against the man...who after all was human eh? So I intend to monitor the article/talk page and will contribute as I see I can so that hopefull a slightly more accurate version of certain events might be presented. And who knows I may even offer up some actual article edits...though I see my role in educating contributors (such as yourself) as equally valuable (and what I do best).--THOTH 21:01, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] you seem to...

...turn a blind eye to others that have made comments in the recent past that are far more rude and uncivil,a perfect example of which would be someone like THOTH or Hectorian or Eupator or Clevelander or Marshallbagramyan or if you prefer, the usual suspects! Could it be due to your sympathy for the armenian/greek cause that you don't warn them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lutherian (talk • contribs)

I disagree, I warned Bertilvidet about it too. The others I haven't seen. --AW 20:33, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Being civil.

I never call users idiots. But repeat vandals with no history of good edits are not users. Period. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 20:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I still don't think you should call them idiots --AW 21:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Seconded. Am I not allowed to tell the troll who vandalizes my userpage to fuck off? No, I didn't think so either. Best, Moreschi 21:05, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say anything about your user page, Moreschi --AW 21:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I know you didn't. The point is that repeated and malicious vandals deserve the occasional insult from time to time. Writing a really vicious edit summary also occasionally allows us GOOD editors to let off steam, which is good for stress levels and the heart rate etc. Basically, there's nothing wrong with calling a repeat malicious vandalizing troll an idiot, and it is certainly not incivility. Moreschi 21:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree, but once I thanked an admin for banning a vandal and personal attacker because the guy was being a jerk, and he threatened to ban me. Don't want that to happen to somebody else --AW 21:31, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Then you were in the right, and the admin was either being a jackass or having a bad day. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 19:32, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reply

Hey. Maybe we could combine some of the stuff from your paragraph (possibly just the second half) to A.Garnet's "Effects of reforms" section? I've left a comment on the talk page. Khoikhoi 05:16, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with this approach - however the facts should be accuratly resented and sourced and presented in proper context. This is a complicated issue and some see it as black and white...they rebelled and were repressed etc - however if one studies what was going on at this time - and how Kurds/Islamists felt very thretened and betryad by Ataturk and how he and the Nationalists had planned certain cleansing and suppression (of Christians/Armenians and certain Kurds - and why - then we can come to a better understanding of motivations and events of this time. For instance this little article gives some insights into various forces/attitudes going on within the (not unified) Kurdish community during this time - worth a read - particualrly in the middle parts...http://www.ciaonet.org/conf/mei01/kih01.html The discussion concerning Kurdish views and assistance by some to Armenians is also worth reading.

For instance - "The way Ankara suppressed militarily the Koçgiri movement in spring 1921 shaped the governmental behavior toward all Alevi and Kurdish autonomy claims during the 20th century: massive coercion and violence, deportation, and complete absence of political negociation. Behind closed doors, the National Assembly nevertheless discussed the atrocities commited during the campaign."

"in the summer 1919, Kurdish Alevi tribes were the first "interior enemies" to oppose Mustafa Kemal Pasha's reorganization of the power structures (congresses of Erzurum and Sivas), and to prepare the first Kurdish uprising against the Ankara government (revolt of Koçgiri-Dersim, 1920-1921)."

"As in 1915/16 the fear of extermination by the Unionist state was still very present. The new Ankara government, established in spring 1920, operated in the Eastern provincial area with precisely those forces that had already been in charge during the war."

"From the beginning of the 1930s onward the central state began to prepare the decisive attack upon Kurdish-Alevi Dersim, the last autonomous region in the eastern provinces. The disarmament and forced resettlement of tribes..."

"In the secularist understanding of the ruling positivist elite the Dersim was a "canker", a chronically "sick" member that needed to be transformed by a radical "operation" if not indeed amputated"

"Numerous Armenian survivors insured that Alevi-Armenian solidarity and the genocide remained in the consciousness."

"Seyit Riza, the most important tribal chieftain and spiritual leader of the Dersim rebellion continued to insist upon autonomy. He did this not so much for Kurdistic reasons (regular contact with the exile Kurdish-Armenian society in Syria Hoybun, founded in 1927, was not possible), but because of a desperate and partly illusory defensive position."

"there were no longer any literate missionary observers on hand as in Ottoman times to report to the outside world on the war now taking place against men, women and children, about the destruction of villages and deportations. The result of the Dersim campaign in 1937/38 was a large-scale devastation and the massacre of probably more than ten thousand people, many of them women and children."

"...the majority of the eastern Alevis distrusted Kemal's reorganization of Unionist networks and power structures."--THOTH 15:58, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Thoth. I read your stuff on the Ataturk page, seems like all good points. This would be a valuable source too. --AW 19:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Many Turks today think/assume that Ataturk was always beloved by his people - this was certainly not the case. He faced great resitance to most all of his reforms by a bunch of different groups/factions and by (many of) the Turkish people themselves - particularly - as one might expect - (non-Turkic) ethnic and religious minorities. That he was so astute in his understanding of these issues and so far sighted is quite to his credit. Perhaps history will judge if the degree of his brutality and absolutness could be justified considering the circumstances and outcome of his overall program. In any even we must give him great credit for some amazing accompliments against incredible odds and also understand that he is not alone among (those thought of as) great men in having more then a few skeletons in his closet. --THOTH 20:10, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Military Brat- Pop Culture

I added a pop culture section to military brat, let me know what you think of it. Balloonman 05:51, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MKA

Please take a look Talk:Mustafa Kemal Atatürk. Regards. Must^TC 18:32, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks --AW 04:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for the block

Thanks for blocking User:216.229.196.210. Why 39:49 though? --AW 19:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

No reason whatsoever; it's just an arbitrary length that appeared appropriate for a school IP block. -- tariqabjotu 19:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Goryeo-Khitan Wars

I tried, but it's still a mess. If you don't mind, I'm trying a complete rewrite, based on the Korean-language encyclopedias. Please let me know if you find any decent English sources for this topic, and feel free to rewrite my rewrite. Thanks.Goguryeo 21:35, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate it! --AW 21:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Atatürk

Is it okay if I unprotect the article now? Khoikhoi 02:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for asking, go for it. I'm going to defer to the mediator and User:THOTH --AW

So my guess of what's going to happen when I unprotect the page is that the section will be immediately deleted. I have no problem with this, but do you think this will start another edit war? Khoikhoi 06:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Hopefully not. I'm just happy there will be some kind of criticism section, and I think most people agree that it will be there. --AW 06:58, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that a "crticism" section is the proper way topresent these issues - but just to present the facts in the appropriate chronological or thematic section. However if then there is substansial disagreement of opionion (among scholers) perhaps an opposing views or different takes or what have you position can be added - but again in the appropriate section - not just out there on its own. However, if some substansial analysis can be refernced that portrays Ataturk as someone very different then that presented in the article - ie instead of strictly a savior of the Turkish nation analysis portrays him as a bloody mass murderer - and backs it up (thoroughly supports the cpontention) then perhaps it is appropriate to have an "other views" section or such. I don't think it is so clear cut that such a section is warrented and I would just perfer to see the facts of his policies against the Armenians during the Turkish War of Independence and against the Kurds - during and into the early years of the founding of the Republic (including ramifications of the policy of "Turkifying the population" presented where such commentary is accurate, appropriate and supportable.--THOTH 15:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, good point. Plus people seem to be more likely to object to a standalone section. As long as there's some criticism in there, I'm happy. --AW 16:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I noticed. I would semi-protect the page in this case but that would be considered an "abuse of admin powers", so I've asked someone else to do it. Khoikhoi 05:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] You are right

You are right.. I just had the slight impression that he was pulling our legs since I left part of the debate on the talk page when I archived :) But true, I will leave another msg to him.. Cheers!Baristarim 16:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

me too :) Baristarim 16:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Libby Copeland - Borf connection

I understand that there is a connection between Libby Copeland and Borf related to Borf-like graffiti stencils "Libby Copeland writes lies." It could be interesting, akin to "Kilroy was here" "Frodo Lives" and "Kibo" but

1) Like everything borf-related its hard to know what are facts 2) Because Libby Copeland is a real person and "writes lies" could be a real slander, I am hesistant to take on the topic.

You seem like a wise man, what happens next? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cranky1000 (talk • contribs)

Jackpot: [2]. Though there's no way to say if Borf wrote that, I think it could be included --AW 15:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

AW - Ok! Great start. Thanks for responding so quick. Cranky1000 18:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Akon issue

Sorry, when I saw this morning the page effectibly there was someone who vandalise the page, and I thought that I made a right correction. Sorry if I made a mistake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xbox6 (talk • contribs)

Sorry, that was my fault, I thought you put in the wrong name but it was a previous user --AW 16:23, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] signature button.

Hi there, thank you for your notice, but I signed my entry on this page. Armenian_Genocide#Denial_section The four ~ generated a signature but it did not generated a clickable link to my user page. Please take a look, maybe this is a temporary sitaution or maybe something is wrong with my account or its settings (if this is the case, please let me know and provide help to fix it), but my entry was signed and thanks again.  ;-) --xeryus 21:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Hm, that's odd. It's supposed to be clickable, which is why I put the notice. Maybe try the help section to see why it's not working? I've never seen that before --AW 21:50, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Military Brat

Hey there Awiseman, The military history peer review didn't like the name "Military Brat" for the article on brats, they thought that it should be changed to something more indicative of the content. They also didn't like the idea of trying to globalize it because that would 'add more bias than it eliminates.' I placed it up for FAC, and the FAC didn't like the US centricity of the article either, thus to get this passed, I changed the name to Military brat (U.S. subculture) which is what the article describes, but I'm not sure if that is the best name. Thus, I opened a discussion on the name. Is that the best name or would "U.S. Military Brat" or something else be better? I would love your input.Balloonman 22:25, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Maps

Sure, I can make those, but I would need some reference maps, preferably a high resolution. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 16:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I can't help you there, sorry. That's why I tagged them with map needed --AW 16:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Civility on Talk:Pontian Greek genocide

Thanks for your message. I have modified my Talk comment to make it clear that "we" (i.e. we the editors of Wikipedia) are responsible for ensuring that the article is not embarrassing. --Macrakis 16:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Joel Spingarn

On Joel Elias Spingarn not cofounding Harcourt, at first I thought so too, but see my entry at Talk:Joel Elias Spingarn. --Blainster 22:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)