Talk:Murad Gumen

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Tall Armenian Tale is no hate site, and Murad Gumen is no Anti-Armenian. Labeling the events of 1915 as a massacre, not a genocide does not mean being racist. If so, we would have to label Gordon Brown, Tony Blair, Jimmy Carter and Per Stig Moeller as anti-armenian racists. This is absurd. XmuratX (talk) 09:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Murad has hateful comments towards Armenians on the site. --Namsos (talk) 00:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

It does not matter what he thinks about a certain race, it is pointless trivia. --Thetruthonly (talk) 17:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

His hate site against Armenians (to whom he often calls rats) is enough proof to categorize Gumen under "Anti-Armenianism". -- Davo88 (talk) 04:42, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

wikipedia is not a site to identify who dislikes who, if anything it is anti-turks who are writing negative trivia which is not even sufficent evidence 19:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.156.48.91 (talk)

wow that is just great.I really love wikipedia's hypocrachy. When it comes to terrorist organizations like PKK which is excepted as a terrorist organization by almost all goverments and global organizations, you can not identify PKK as terrorist because it is against (perfect and undeniably just!!!!)neutrality of wikipedia but when it comes to labeling individuals as racist or worse just because they disagreee on some issues, then it is perfectly acceptable!!!!! Great work guys!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.102.187.67 (talk) 14:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Do not include Tall Armenian Tale information in this article.

Rumors about Murad Gumen being a writer of Tall Armenian Tale is simply that, rumors. It is not proven nor verifiable, simply claimed by people who despise the website. In addition, Tall Armenian Tale is not a hate site, I searched for derogatory terms on the site or anything that proves that TAT site is a hate site against Armenians; I have found nothing.

If anyone continues this type of POV-pushing and tabloid-like article-writing, you will be reported to administrators for trying to attack an innocent person and violating WP:BLP. — ^talk § _Arsenic99_ 04:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Equating Armenians to Lemings is considered hateful by Armenians thus making it a Hatesite, this can easily be found in TAT. Moreover calling Akcam a propogandist is a POV, therefore denigrating his work on this basis is against Wikipedia rules, so go ahead and report it. While I am adamant that the TAT section stay I propose a compromise to the sentence describing him as the master mind, how about "...he is believed to be the webmaster of..."E10ddie (talk) 04:48, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Arsenic please do not blank out sections consider talking it out before you do such a change of that kind. --Namsos (talk) 20:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with E10ddie's proposed change, though "creator of" would be better than "webmaster of". Meowy 03:27, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Let me remind you that this "theory" that TAT's site owner is somehow Murad Gumen, is simply POV and speculation based on one person's article to attack the website because the website called that one person a propagandist. Calling someone a propagandist is not a crime. "Equating Armenians to Lemings is considered hateful by Armenians", not really, I just checked some pages that contain the word lemmings to see if you're right about TAT being a hate site, if it is I agree it should be told as such...

I found that TAT uses a source to someone else that talks about some Armenian propagandists being like "lemmings", but there is no instance of hate against Armenians and TAT explains that some Armenians believe that their version of history is the truth while other versions are simply lies. This is simply speculation, but isn't a "speech of hate" and anyone who thinks so, is just trying to stretch the truth to label it a hate site. TAT labels Peter Balakian as a Lemming but that is not because he is Armenian but based on what he says in his books, and thus it isn't a hate speech either. So I still fail to see any full HATE by TAT against Armenians. In fact, if you look in the About section of the site it mentions a disclaimer where it says we should NOT generalize Armenians in one way or another. This doesn't seem to me like a hate site, if it does to you, then you've never witnessed hate speeches or visited any REAL hate sites. I've seen some anti-Armenian websites, they are abominations; however, calling TAT a hate site, I think is just a scheme to block it out of wikipedia as a reliable source because some people disagree with TAT's opinions.

Again I ask someone who is honest and following Wikipedia's policies of WP:BLP and WP:NPOV to delete the propaganda section about TAT site. Doesn't that also give more hits to TAT site anyway, so I fail to see how I'm even helping TAT at all. I'm simply saying it's wrong to blame Murad Gumen for something that is simply speculation and POV.

And yes I also support changing the wording to "claim" because, Murad Gumen being the author is simply a claim, which I don't think deserves any merit, but yet some people seem to be religious about Taner Akcam's claims.

I've edited the article to be NPOV and also made sure that his response to the accusation is also linked and that we understand that this is a claim by someone and not a fact. — ^talk § _Arsenic99_

It is not POV to state in the article that Murat Gumen is claimed to be the creator of the website TAT. It is claimed by a verifiable source and the claim is backed up by evidence. Also, "Holdwater" has never denied that he is Murat Gumen, and in the long and tediously ramblings at http://www.tallarmeniantale.com/holdwater-message.htm he all but admits he is Murat Gumen, quote: "Akcam won a victory with this linkage to my identity" and, quote: "Taner Akcam’s mischief came at a bad time for me; “real life” headaches happened to take unusual priority, and this baggage hit hard". If Akcam's identification was incorrect, why would that false identification hit "Holdwater" hard? And TAT is clearly a hate site, it goes far beyond merely presenting genocide-denialist propaganda. Meowy 19:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tall Armenian Tale does not belong on this page

It is all right to claim that Gumen is claimed to be the creator of the TAT site since this gossip has become very prevalent, but that's it. It is not all right to make this bio page about the TAT site. I have read the message page that Meowy has provided above, and what Holdwater is telling us is that the reason why he chose to hide his identity is precisely to avoid smear attacks such as being a "racist," and to concentrate on the issues. He does not want to emphasize the identity aspect, as he feels it's a distraction from the genocide discussion. (And rightly so, since the discussion diverts to the messenger, as he puts it, when it should be about the message.) The writer above may choose to read into the statements made, but it is perfectly logical to write that Akcam won a victory with this linkage, because Akcam did find a linkage: a letter written many years ago that his friend Gumen provided, and that Holdwater presented as a letter he had written, to protect Gumen from the attacks he is suffering at the hands of POV-supporting people who are in control of controversial topics at Wikipedia. Naturally, this revelation would have caused Holdwater headaches, and actually would have "hit him hard," aware as he was that he had a responsibility to protect Gumen from such attacks.

There is absolutely nothing hateful about the TAT site; it is telling us, by utilizing sources that are primarily not Turkish, that the events of WWI could not be classified as a genocide. Calling someone who is attempting to defend the truth a "racist" is a horrible thing to do. For example, Davo88 has written above that "His hate site against Armenians (to whom he often calls rats) is enough proof to categorize Gumen under 'Anti-Armenianism'." Now, of course, the writer of the TAT site has never called Armenians "rats"; the reason why this rumor has spread is because Taner Akcam, a "verifiable source" in the opinion of Meowrry (Akcam is being paid off by Armenian organizations and foundations, verified by University of Minnesota personnel as may be read on a recent TAT page about the university) unethically claimed that Holdwater has called Armenians "rodents." The only link to this word was on a "psychology" page explaining why emotional Armenians are irrational when it comes to the genocide topic, refusing even the most obvious facts when they go against their deep beliefs that they have been taught since childhood, and Holdwater came up with an amusing term "Armeni-Lemmings" because there is an actual psychological term called "The Lemming Effect," in the field of psychology. (And Holdwater says if anyone disagrees, they would be welcome to point to Armenians who publicly oppose the genocide conclusion.) This has nothing to do with racism, yet it won't stop those as E10ddie (see above) from irresponsibly writing that using the word "lemmings" is hateful. (Once again: "The Lemming Effect" is a bonafide psychological term, and practically every single Armenian who dares to make their views public accepts these events as a genocide, regardless of the non-propagandistic historical evidence. It is simply terrible of those such as E10ddie to libel people and hurt their reputations, while E10ddie safely hides behind a pseudonym.)

The section for "Tall Armenian Tale" does not belong on this bio page; I removed it days ago, and E10ddie has undone the revision. E10ddie, if you are so obsessed with this web site, you are welcome to create a Wiki page devoted to it, assuming one does not already exist. Yet there is no valid evidence pointing to who "Holdwater" is, and this bio page of Murad Gumen cannot in good conscience say anything more than the simple statement that he has been alleged to be the creator of this site. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons, which some of the pro-Armenians is charge of Wikipedia have made sure to put up at Taner Akcam's whitewashed Wikipedia [talk] page, which states: "This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard." (I am new at Wikipedia and am not technically aware; one who is would do well to put up the same notice at this page.) If anyone removes this comment or goes beyond the rules of Wikipedia by making this bio page a page about Tall Armenian Tale, an allegation which is "unsourced or poorly sourced" (and given the political atmosphere where people quickly accept genocide conclusions, and are quick to brand those who disagree with being hateful, it can certainly be "libelous") you will definitely be reported. Featurer (talk) 23:21, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I am tired of people trying to eliminate the TAT topic, solely because they are sympathetic with the web-site's "assertions," by making the nonsensical argument that even though Gumen did not openly claim to be the webmaster, the website isn't racist anyway, because being called a lemming isn't as bad as being called a rat, and that TAT is a victim of an Armenian conspiracy. Therefore, I suggest that this item of contention be brought to mediation. The subject is valid for a bio, because in the bios of most prominent individuals, not only are the events in their life included, but also their inventions and institutions they founded. See, for example, David Duke and "My Awakening."

The link between Gumen and TAT is not poorly sourced, it contains evidence from the US holocaust museum, a government institution, and is published at a major university, University of Minnesota, if this is not a legitimate source, then there is no such thing, which is in stark contrast to the assertions made in wikipedia that Akcam was a terrorist; most sources coming from TAT, which had no citations except Turkish nationalist polemics, and obviously had no peer review. Moreover, the section in question states that most Armenians feels that TAT is racist, which is obvious if you were to ask any Armenian organization, therefore this is not a contentious view. If you think that they are wrong in thinking this, that is another topic altogether and goes into the deeper and convoluted issue of who has the authority to label someone a racist: the alleged victim, the alleged perpetrator, or a third party. In short, I strongly feel that this section must remain unless there is mediation, or wikipedia administrators say otherwise, something which you, Featurer, are free to pursue. You even have the liberty to report me. E10ddie (talk) 03:49, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Featurer, you say you are inexperienced with Wikipedia, so I should warn you that making legal threats regarding libel are considered to be extremely bad form and can get you banned from Wikipedia for life. Also, where does it say on TAT that Gunmen is a "friend" of Holdwater and a contributor of information to TAT? Meowy 17:21, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

BTW, I would have no objection to the sentence "Most Armenians consider the site to be racist because there are passages that describe Armenians as lemmings" being removed. It is not really needed because I think people can judge for themselves the character of TAT from the words and aims of the website, and the way the sentence is written makes it just an opinion. But if some source has specifically used the words "hate-site" (or similar) to describe it, then that should be included in a description of the site. Meowy 17:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't seem possible to drum reason into either of the respondents above, or to others like them who have taken over Wikipedia to spread their one-sided Armenian genocide message; they are too emotional about the topic, and are either incapable of thinking objectively, or the genocide cause is too precious for them to want to think objectively.

For the record (at least for others who will be reading, and who can maintain reason), that's what the term "lemming" was getting at. The connotation has nothing to do with the cute creatures, but with what lemmings are famous for, and this has become a term that has entered the psychological lexicon. In other words, "mindless follower." Since the genocide message has been drummed into too many Armenians since childhood, you are wired with what you perceive as a genocide reality, and this belief runs far too deep. So it's not going to matter if the most irrefutable facts are brought up to you, as Boghos Nubar's statement that the Armenians served as belligerents, that Armen Garo wrote no Armenian would have been exposed to the possibility of massacres had the Armenians remained loyal, and that the Armenian Patriarch felt over 600,000 Armenians remained in the Ottoman Empire of 1921 (having that many left under Ottoman control would be inconceivable if there were an actual extermination plan), with Armenian professors like Richard Hovannisian vouching for another half million having gone off to other lands, on their own, lands that were not under Ottoman control. Armenians and their supporters will still insist a million to a million and a half were "exterminated," much as a million and a half was the original population, and everyone agrees at least a million has survived, and most of the ones who died lost their lives not from massacres, but from non-murderous causes as famine and disease, just as most of the nearly three million other Ottomans who lost their lives, as even Ambassador Morgenthau had corroborated.

The facts simply don't matter. And obviously the two of you did not read my comment carefully, as the meaning of the "Lemming Effect" was clearly described. Anyone who twists this and makes it into a racist matter is engaging in a cruel diversionary tactic. If anyone does not feel Armenians don't exhibit this mindless "follow the leader" tendency when it comes to the genocide topic (if you visit the TAT psychology page mentioned earlier, we can find Armenian writers who basically say the same thing; read "The Burden of Memory," where an Armenian scholar has been quoted as describing the phenomenon as ""the fetish-culture of diasporan Armenians," which the article's Armenian writer clarifies as meaning, "In this culture, many diaspora Armenians are reared to hate Turkey with a fervor..." Are these authors being "anti-Armenian," or are they honestly telling us a fact we all know so well already?), you are free to take Holdwater's test and point to at least a few Armenians who publicly disagree with the genocide thesis from the seven million Armenians worldwide. (The late Edward Tashji was one. There is one more. Who else?)

The writer near the top of this page, Davo88, who charged that this bio page's subject called Armenians "rats" -- that is a terribly serious charge. Davo88 simply read the charge, or a variation, somewhere after Taner Akcam had exhibited his usual dishonesty by saying Holdwater had described Armenians as "rodents," and Davo88 simply repeated the charge without caring to investigate, because it made him feel good to do so, since TAT threatens his deeply instilled genocide beliefs. Davo88 is a perfect example of one who suffers from the Lemming Effect, whether he is an Armenian or not. We are not engaging in hatred against Davo88, much as he has demonstrated such a lack of ethics; we are just stating a plain fact: he plays "follow the leader," and cannot drum up independent thought on the genocide issue. If Armenians find this reality hateful, they are welcome to point to Armenians who publicly disagree with them. If they can't, then they should not blame others who point out such a fact; it is not an honorable way of handling the matter, and simply because these Armenians cannot come to terms with their genocide-irrationality does not mean their charge of "hatred" or "racism" is correct.

When TAT disputes that what happened to the Armenians was a genocide, backed up by solid sources mainly known for defending Armenians, that has nothing to do with racism. (Can we believe that E10ddie wrote, "most sources coming from TAT, which had no citations except Turkish nationalist polemics"? Has E10ddie ever visited the TAT site, which makes a point of listing its sources, and of largely avoiding Turkish sources? How can E10ddie say such an untrue thing like that -- don't the facts matter to people like E10ddie at all?) When dishonorable parties make such conclusions as "racism" because they can't counter the facts, we all are aware of what they are trying to do, and that is to fudge the truth.

But when you do that with a name that isn't even known to be directly involved with TAT, and call that person "hateful," then you are certainly running into libelous territory, particularly if you call that person a "racist," and even (in today's genocide atmosphere where people in general accept what they are told, in similar lemming fashion, feeling that we all must be against this crime of crimes) a "denier." (Which is why genocide advocates use that inflammatory word, as we all know.) "The link between Gumen and TAT is not poorly sourced, it contains evidence from the US holocaust museum, a government institution," writes E10ddie; that does not prove Gumen is behind TAT, as has been explained clearly in my comment above, and as others earlier on this page have logically explained; Gumen contributed a letter from some thirty years ago, and whoever is behind TAT was obligated to protect Gumen's identity when this letter was decided to be put up, so as to spare his friend from the kind of vicious attacks we are seeing here. (This information, was from Holdwater's message page referenced above, since Meowy asked on March 17. But this has been already spelled out, and the page in question has been provided by none other than Meowy himself, on March 6. Do people read? And even if they can, with such an emotional topic for them, would it matter?)

I am an American, and while I'm aware my country has done terrible things to its Native American population, that does not mean the U.S. government intended to exterminate the Indians, as too many have thoughtlessly concluded without investigation, only because others have told them. For that, we need proof of intent, as the 1948 U.N. Convention requires, which is exactly why the U.N. Court at the Hague recently ruled on the question of whether Serbia was guilty of genocide in Bosnia. (Which everyone commonly and thoughtlessly accepted as a genocide until recently, because that is what genocide "experts" told them.) The court ruled Serbia was not guilty of genocide. (There are other stipulations of the 1948 Convention, as political groups being disallowed. The Ottoman-Armenians joined their nation's enemies in rebellion, as direct Armenian sources prove. On that count alone, we cannot use the term "genocide.") If I don't believe my government conducted a genocide against Native Americans, that does not mean I am a "racist" against the Indians, or that I am guilty of "anti-Indianism." Nor does it mean that because the U.N. Court did what most "lemming" mentality fetish-culture Armenians and their supporters cannot stand, followed only the facts, that does that mean this court was "racist" against Bosnians, or that it showed "hatred" against Bosnians. This is a ridiculous, and highly dishonest argument, and the reason why Armenians and their supporters resort to this horrible tactic is to curtail debate, and to shift the attention away from the honest facts.

"I should warn you that making legal threats regarding libel are considered to be extremely bad form and can get you banned from Wikipedia for life." Thanks for the warning, Meowy, but if you can't comprehend that calling someone a "racist" when he clearly isn't, especially when you can't be sure of the identity of the person you are criticizing, we all know what that is, and it's spelled L-I-B-E-L. (And I don't recall making legal threats. How are we going to find out who "Meowy" or "E10ddie" are, anyway? You are both safely hiding behind usernames, while in mean and cowardly fashion, you are attacking someone on no real evidence and hurting a reputation. If you don't like the facts behind TAT, don't attack the messenger (or, worse, someone you think is the messenger); disprove the facts with better facts. Yet you don't have the facts, so character assassination is what you prefer to engage in. It's the same old story, but that doesn't make it any less regrettable.

(Most everything written above with the two responses is just so spectacularly illogical and plain silly. Here's another passage: "But if some source has specifically used the words "hate-site" (or similar) to describe it, then that should be included in a description of the site." Aside from the fact that information -- and such detailed information, more than the other aspects of this person's life -- about this site has no business being on a bio page, since we don't know who the operator behind the site really is, what source would that be? And what would be the basis for such a charge, since there is nothing hateful about the stick-to-the-facts TAT site? If there were websites saying the USA was not guilty of a genocide against Indians, without whitewashing anything (that is, without covering up the real crimes against the Indians) and by concentrating on the solid facts, if some emotional partisan were to use the term "hate site" to describe such a site, why should we listen to a dishonest source like that? Wikipedia is not supposed to be about propaganda, but about the facts.)

This is not a page to discuss genocide matters. This is a bio page that clearly violates Wikipedia's policy on bio pages (Again: "This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.") I've made the appropriate changes twice, but I can see attempting to do so again would be fruitless, because irrational Armenian genocide partisans who don't care about the facts or about Wikipedia's own rules are simply entrenched here at Wikipedia. (The problem is, there are too many of you, those as myself have better things to do, and Wikipedia's honor system does not work.) We'll see what happens. Featurer (talk) 07:49, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I suppose we will. By the way I hope you're kidding when you say the sources Gumen/holdwater uses to defame Akcam are anything other than Turkish propoganda. E10ddie (talk) 13:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Holdwater - even though you don't realise it, you are making your libel threat against Wikipedia and not against individual editors: that is why you could get banned (it could be considered to be an attack on Wikipedia). So why make such silly threats? (BTW, regardless of who else Holdwater might be, I think that, based on the style of writing and editing history, it is likely that Featurer is Holdwater!) Meowy 17:09, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

A good observation Meowy, I think it's highly probable. Funny though how someone who says he has better things to do than debate on Wikipedia goes ahead and writes a 10 page manifesto on an insidious Armenian conspiracy. Even more funny is how he feels holdwater/Gumen's character is being assassinated for the views the latter holds, kinda like how Gumen/holdwater smears Dadrian with an alleged sex scandal, as if this somehow miraculously undermines Dadrian's scholarship. E10ddie (talk) 00:14, 26 March 2008 (UTC)