":::ok Fadix says that I am loosing credibility. it seems that when ever someone comes and tells something else he looses credibility. let me introduce myself first I am new comer here and not (obviously) in any way professionaly involved in history studies (I have a PHD in Neuroscience). and not getting any money from the Turkish goverment. and I am not a Holocoust denying neo-nazi either.I just read the article because of the relatively new debate here in Germany(ok i will be honest I have a Turkish girl friend and I am interested in Turkish history. and now i am using her computer. Does that reduce my credibility, probably yes ha?). I am sory to give this description but I get the impression that i will soon be blamed of beeing a Turkish propagandist, goverment person, racist whatever. Am I too sensitive. No take a look at the discussion history and see that these accusations are there.    
 I am making clear points that any sane unbiased human cam make. First of all the article issues the Genocide as a fact! A fact but with still some discussions (most of them being from the Turkish goverment). This gives the inevitible impression that all issiue is largely accepted(final verdict). Yet it is not!!!  
 Secondly the term Genocide can only be used under certain conditions (as in the holocoust). in this case there is a real doubt if these conditions are met!!! still the article freely and carelessly uses the term just only because some people or countries recogonise it that way. Do we have the right to blame a nation with this ultimate crime just because of that??? Genocide guys this is no joke!!! tell it 100 times for 90 years and Turks are Genociders! Cool! 
 third: after building up the genocide idea The article mainly represents the opposing view as the view of the Turkish goverment as clearly described by the headings (the position of Turkey,the position of Turkish authorities, political issues) as well as the content. which inevitibly gives the impression that the opposing view is just bull S*** Turkish propaganda. But it is not! Many Prof. and researcher of the era say that it is not. (As seen in the attached letter). yet fadix wrote that these prof were actually accepting the genocide they were fooled in to this (quoting Israel Charny). this is ridiculous. I dont know who the hell is Israel Charny or he really claims something like that. But please we are not stupid people. this was a letter to the representatives and these people who signed it are Profs. for gods sake!!! also If these prof were in favor of the genocide and really fooled in this conspiracy later they would have said ""ok guys I am misslead and fooled into this"" and this would be the ultimate tool for Armenian side too ridicule and discredit the Turkish side. Is it the case? No!(so fadix what about credibility) 

 I am not bitching anyone. I am not using citations and names to blurr peoples mind. if you read my previous adds you will see that i am trying to use a carefull language. I am sorry again if I used harsh words. But after reading the long history of discussion in this page I have the impression that Fadix (who seems to be the main edittor in this page)has a certain attitude towards the issue and despite serious oppsition now and in the past he is just pushing the article his way.  

 ok Fadix I believe in your good faith. I am a dumb ass who doesnt know any thing about history .please give me answers. I am just asking plain, crystal clear questions. I dont want to hear citations, dates and historian names. just logical anwers!! Just logical answers which will show that you are unbiased!!! Or you may choose to say I believe in Armenian genocide and that is why I chose to ignore... 

 1. how can you use the nomenclature or lets say the word ""genocide"" so easily knowing that it is desribed and only can be declared by international law. also knowing that there is robust objections to the usage of this term. Are you the ultimate expert. Are you the head of an international court?(if yes where is self defence?)  ((you say Go try finding such a section in the Cambodian genocide article, the Nanking massacre article, Rwanda genocide article. I could not see a Cambodian genocide article, in Rwanda genocide: United Nations set up the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, so the guild is described by law. Nanking massacre is a perfect example!!! why is it not called a genocide but massacre? is it because the guilt is not described by law??!! and in the discussion there is no real objection to the issue accept the numbers) 

 2. why does the article present the genocide as a fact? (I hope you wont tell that it doesnt). why do you build up the article so that people are first instructed that there is indeed a genocide and only later show the objetions. 

 3. why is there no data about armenian gangs killing muslims and raiding villages before and after 191