![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
Of what page? This is a sub-article of the main Armenian Genocide article due to the fact that it was getting too long. — Khoi khoi 00:37, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
That picture is biased twoards the Armenian perspective and rather offensive to boot. Please take your propaganda elsewhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alphros ( talk • contribs) 08:59, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
The first thing one sees on the Stalin page is a neutral portrait of him. It's hardly appropriate to have a strongly POV image first thing in this article--particularly when it represents "An advertisement for the Armenian Genocide Commemoration" on a page that should be dealing with the refutation of that claim.
Alphros
21:34, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Very well, I'll try to find something. I never questioned the relevance of the image--I questioned its appropriateness given the setting. It is still a hotly contested claim, and as such, people should be sensitive to even the slightest hint of bias favouring one position or the other. Alphros 02:35, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, your definition of hotly contested is different from mine player. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.214.240.61 ( talk) 08:17, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
There seems to be a desire to have the Turkish government apologize - did Turkey even exist at this time, I thought the entire region was the Ottoman Empire - which is no longer around. It seems more logical to blame Moslems or Turks ( ethnic ) - Armenia doesn't exist as a country never did, this appears to be a local tribal war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.105.80.92 ( talk • contribs) 10:57, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
To be clear, Turkey was born out of the greater part of Ottoman Empire and they share a common culture, history, and ethnicity. And local tribal war as far as the holocaust can be considered a war where a few million civilians were killed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.214.240.61 ( talk) 08:19, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Hattusili, I think it would be better if the photo were added to Ottoman Muslim casualties...it doesn't make much sense to add it here. Khoi khoi 02:51, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
The result of the debate was No move Duja ► 08:28, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Denial of the Armenian Genocide → Refusal of the Armenian Genocide — because denial is used for the objection of solid truth but since armenian genocide is such a controversial topic,i think refusal will be much more appropriate. Metb82 01:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Must TC 21:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
"Genocide denial occurs when an otherwise accepted act of genocide is met with attempts to deny the occurance and minimize the scale or death toll". And the Armenian genocide, be it true or not, is "otherwise accepted" (i.e. by everyone except the Turkish government). yandman 08:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Assume good faith, please. The BBC, my first source on the penal code statement:
The Guardian, my second source:
A New York Times editorial, my third source:
That's the "big three". yandman 18:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
We really need another image for the top of the article. This one is good, but we need a denialist image for the head. Has anyone got a pamphlet/poster they can scan and translate into english? Or even a book cover? Fair use would adequately cover the copyright issues. Thanks. yandman 17:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
You need to crop the image to hide the windows stuff, and use the "fair use shot of a website" copyright description, or else this image won't stand a cat in hell's chance of staying. yandman 18:47, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Think of the word "deny" denotes in common english: From a Christian to an Athiest: Why do you deny the divinity of Jesus? From a Athiest to a Christian: I reject the alleged divinization of Jesus. The Article title is "Denial of the Armenian Genocide" I believe it would be more precise and NPOV along the lines of "Rejection of the Armenian Genocide Allegations"
I've lodged a request to move the article to "Denial of the Armenian Genocide", Baris lost a "the" when reverting a move, and someone edited the original, so I can't do it. yandman 07:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
This sub-section includes three links: "Anti-Armenianism", "Historical revisionism (negationism)", "Holocaust denial".. These 3 links show the article as if this article (and others) opposing the Armenian genocide are in an Anti-Armenian perspective, and they do historical revisionism similar to Holocaust Denial. Thus, they suggest that the article is actually biased. First of all, I want to point out an important fact: This issue is not accepted as a genocide according to international law, the International Court of Justice or another widely-accepted international court (which is an authority). The countries which accept or reject the genocide claims do so on a political basis. Thus, the genocide argument can and must have two opposing sides, and Wikipedia, as its NPOV suggests, must provide both sides of the argument as a democratic environment which enables criticism on such a controversial matter. As I explain my point, the denial of the Armenian genocide cannot be considered, or is not the same as Holocaust Denial for the reasons I explained above. The articles and the people who oppose the claims do not do it in the sense of Anti-Armenianism. Instead, they do it with certain reliable documents, references and proof, as can be seen in this article. Hence, Armenian genocide is not a certain fact in history, and the article opposing the Armenian genocide thesis cannot be considered as doing historical revisionism. I know that most Armenians see the genocide subject as part of their national identity. However, writing and relating events in a nationalistic perspective does not lead to an objective result. Thus, putting the above three See Also links into this article is done in a nationalistic point of view rather than objective. The article is about explaining the theses opposing the Armenian genocide, benefiting from documents and sources. Hence, I recommend that the three links, which suggest that this article is biased, should be removed immediately. Kalkim 14:38, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
I have no qualms about the links to the Turkish websites but just like the Holocaust denial page, it should be balanced out by pages that refute Turkish claims. Otherwise, that incapacitates neutral users to gaining a full understanding from the article. -- MarshallBagramyan 00:58, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
The external link section shouldn't get too crowded, if the same info is found in five sites, there is no need for the four of them. By the way, the section title "justifications brought forward" sounds a bit weird to me, what do others think? It is fairly short for the moment, but I am afraid that this article might somehow start forking the AG article...
Baristarim
01:08, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was no move. --Akhilleus ( talk) 04:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Denial of the Armenian Genocide → Denial of the Armenian Genocide allegations — The title of this article is contradictory of the article itself since the information in the article suggests that the alleged genocide did not take place whereas the name accepts the existence of such a genocide. Scientia Potentia 15:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't see how Denial of the Armenian Genocide is not the assertion that the Armenian Genocide did not occur. I fail to understand how this might be seen as POV. It's pretty straightforward. User:Makalp could you explain your edits, please before reverting? -- Aivazovsky 14:06, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
I have blocked ArmenianJoe ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for edit warring. Edit warring by reversion is a blockable offense even if he didn't violate the letter of the 3RR rule, and the fact that no one has discussed these edits on the talk page only makes it worse. Now, Joe was the worst at the moment, but OttomanReference ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Baristarim ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are next on the list. Stop reverting and please discuss your concerns on the article talk page. Thatcher131 00:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
I have revised the opening line from "rejects the applicability of the concept of state organized genocide to the events April 24, 1915 and the Tehcir Law of May 1915 in the Ottoman Empire" to "rejects the concept that there was an Armenian Genocide." We shouldn't dance around the issue. Denial of the Armenian Genocide is what it is, plain and simple. -- Aivazovsky 12:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Can the editors reverting my recent edits to the intro sections please explain their reasons why here? -- Karl Meier 22:47, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Why does the information included here from the Turkish ministry of culture and tourism separate Jewish scholars from those of other nationalities? Judaism is a religion, not a country. Augustgrahl 21:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Table deleted accordingly. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.154.142.114 ( talk) 05:51, August 23, 2007 (UTC)
I find the title is not neutral. Probably "Turkish POV of the Armenian Genocide" would be more neutral? or "Armenian Genocide didn't Happen" Since I find that the article Armenian Genocide is from Armenian POV. Suggestion? Rad vsovereign 18:02, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
This article is representing the POV of Turkish government and scolars (surely not the all of them). We need to write in description that its criticized by the great majority of scolars in the world. Also the Ministry of Culture and Turism is obviously not reliable source to ask how many Armenian and foreign scolars used its archives etc., as we can find many reliable sources asking that Turkish archives on Armenian Genocide issues are closed for Armenian (what they mean by Armenian- f.e. is the Roland Suny an Armenian, or American scolar for the Turkish ministry?, or they mean the citizenship?) and foreign researchers. Andranikpasha 15:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Im adding a NPOV tag before the marked points of neutrality will be keeped (especially in the description). Andranikpasha 19:03, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Its dubious! Any serious researcher can look for thousands of materials to return again especially for them (he write he will), or to ask someone to send him these materials. I dont think anyone else than a serious researcher will need 11.000 doc-s:) A musicologist friend last time in a foreign country copied 30 kilograms of archival materilas... so I think it is possible. Andranikpasha 17:48, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
It serves no purpose and is off topic. The "Denial of the Armenian Genocide" cannot pre-date 1915. If there is any valid content in the "Pre-1915" section, it should be contained in the "Arguments brought forward" section, under whatever particular "argument" is most appropriate. I propose deleting the "Pre-1915" section unless there is a convincing argument against it. Meowy 01:05, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
This a discussion page and removing a comment is the biggest vandalism you can ever make.-- Obsteel 00:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure how widespread the scholarship on this issue is, but I wonder if there should be a note speaking to Armenian children who were raised as Turkish Muslims by Turkish families that saved or adopted them. If I understand rightly, there's at least one documentary film on the subject by Turkish filmmaker Berke Bas, whose family raised seven Armenian children itself. [1]
In any case, the subject seemed like it might be significant to the genesis of concealing (or minimizing) the 1915 killings. For all of the political disunion in modern Turkey, it does maintain a fierce sense of identity such that the idiosyncratic term "Turkishness" even finds its way into English.
Is this orphan issue a tiny issue? I can't grasp the scope of it from what I've read. [2] Though I've encountered in textbooks (eg Turkey Unveiled) allusions to how some Turkish people will privately admit to having Armenian ancestors. If there are Turkish nationals who are completely unaware of this phenomenon, please feel free to chime in, because I don't have any sense of the scope of the phenomenon. Cheers, DBaba 05:39, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
I do not know of any other county in the World that denies the Armenian Genocide other then the Republic of Turkey. As such, if I am correct, then shouldn`t the title be "Turkish Denial of the Armenian Genocide" or "Denial of the Armenian Genocide by Turkey". AdrianCo ( talk) 23:26, 19 January 2008 (UTC)AdrianCo
Actually over 170 countries have not recognized this as genocide and only 20 or so countries did. So you are wrong my friend --ProudTurk
This article is not about denying the Armenian genocide, it is about the denial of the Armenian genocide. That denial is propagated by individuals as well as states (though the only other state is Azerbaijan), and a number of the key individuals are not Turkish, so I think the title is correct. Meowy 18:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
This article has to include Turkish genocide which was commited by Armenians during the WW1 era.Every day Turkish graves found. I will be watching this article.-- Kafkasmurat ( talk) 16:05, 10 February 2008 (UTC) Um, so you're saying that there was a genocide of the Turks? What is your evidence, that there are no longer many Turks in Turkey? You are confusing isolated killings, which may have taken place, and may have even been defensive killings, with genocide. Not the same thing. There was no Turkish genocide. There was an Armenian genocide. How could a minority population like the Armenians have systematically wiped out the much larger Turkish population? When you make such fantastic claims, you only hurt you argument about Armenian genocide denial because people no longer take you seriously. According to your logic, because the Jews in the Warsaw ghetto killed a few Germans, there was a Germen genocide propagated by the Jews. Silly indeed. RockStarSheister ( talk) 22:15, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
With the latest modifications of the User:Andranikpasha, the article moved beyond what the title intents. It is not a position article anymore. It become the major content, an analysis article, related the genocide position. Moving a major content, an analysis, out of the genocide article is POV position, and a possible fork. If this continuous, this article needs to be merged to the main article. -- Anglepush ( talk) 15:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
This page was recently moved from Denial of the Armenian Genocide to Arguments against the Armenian Genocide theory. I have reversed this pagemove. Not only is the latter title ambiguous (there is more than one theory about the Armenian Genocide, and not all speculation about the genocide should be classified as "theory" - a concept which has a specific social scientific definition), it also contravene's Wikipedia's naming convention that articles should use the most common, recognisable title.
The pagemove was done based on the argument that " the word 'denial' implies refusal to admit a truth." This is inaccurate; "denial" is " the act of asserting that something alleged is not true". Thus, use of the word itself makes no judgment regarding the truthfulness of the allegations. Black Falcon ( Talk) 20:13, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
The online OED contains the definition mentioned above but it is broder: "The asserting (of anything) to be untrue or untenable; contradiction of a statement or allegation as untrue or invalid; also, the denying of the existence or reality of a thing." This means that it could also imply the denial of a the reality of a thing. Which is not the same as denial of an allegation. Further the OED online has an additional newer meaning (1997) "7. Psychoanal. The suppression (usu. at an unconscious level) of a painful or unacceptable wish or of experiences of which one is ashamed. Now also in more general use, esp. in phr. in denial (orig. and chiefly U.S.)." So the use of denial can also be read as those who are deny the genocide are suppressing, possibly at an unconscious level, the painful or unacceptable truth of the genocide. -- Philip Baird Shearer ( talk) 13:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
There are "recent studies" which used to fall into "denial" that present lack of monolithic political system or non unity between Three pashas[6].
"Recent studies" uses quotation marks as an ironic device; this is inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If these recent studies are invalid or were unacademic (or carried out by nonacademics, etc.), then it should be mentioned explicitly rather than written in a sarcastic tone. Wikipedia informs and should be written impersonally. I don't have the time to check the sources on my own, but it would be good if someone would check and either remove the sentence or reword it so its more formal. - Rosywounds ( talk) 20:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
what is the problem about pictures??-- Qwl ( talk) 22:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
please show me your sources? i have good sources.-- Qwl ( talk) 15:42, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
This image you can find here [4] -- Namsos ( talk) 02:17, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Turkish Military have Ottoman Archive Documents: Now Documents are in Military Archive everyone can see that pictures. some archive documents are published. you can install all of them from the Military Site (Here:[ [5]]). The pictures are published on these academical documents. please see this document [6] page 254-255-256 you can see the original of that picture. You can understand why Armenia dont discuss these events with Turkey.-- Qwl ( talk) 22:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
your link dont have any sources. it is not academically. and that is a propaganda site under human rights-- Qwl ( talk) 22:42, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
you have point of view. you will never believe the documents.you dont have sources. how can i believe Armenian documents are not propaganda? your pictures copy of Turkish Documents. -- Qwl ( talk) 05:26, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
do you have an academical degree? do you have an academical research? you must accept this document. many douments are not confirmed with academical documents in this article.
about my reference document:
this documents are related to this article. this is point of view deniers. there are many pictures about Genocide allegation but there isnt any documents about deniers arguments. -- Qwl ( talk) 06:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I deleted some unsourced denialst OR added by an IP after the site was unprotected. More editions and cleaning of propagandist chapters are necessary. Andranikpasha ( talk) 19:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Once again: pls make any controversional deletions and changes only after a consensus at this page. Any unexplained POV-pushing will be reverted. Andranikpasha ( talk) 17:08, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
As well as these genocides don't be informed via Wikipedia, it will never be activated again in Turkey as it's blocked. There won't be any possibility for Turkey's focusing on this genocide and block subjects, I heard that Wikipedia copes with economical problems, sincerely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.209.162.141 ( talk) 14:55, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Nope, only a few thousands of Bosnians were killed during Srebrenica genocide and it's defined as genocide by United Nations which makes other similar events as well such as Indo-Chinese Genocide and Algerian genocide (over a million Algerians were murdered by France). Genocide : "the deliberate killing of a large group of people, especially those of a particular ethnic group or nation." (only one side's civilian deaths unlike counter-sided conflicts, like so-called Armenian genocide which has no any document or concrete proof, but still placed at Wikipedia) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.130.105.66 ( talk) 15:56, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
Of what page? This is a sub-article of the main Armenian Genocide article due to the fact that it was getting too long. — Khoi khoi 00:37, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
That picture is biased twoards the Armenian perspective and rather offensive to boot. Please take your propaganda elsewhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alphros ( talk • contribs) 08:59, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
The first thing one sees on the Stalin page is a neutral portrait of him. It's hardly appropriate to have a strongly POV image first thing in this article--particularly when it represents "An advertisement for the Armenian Genocide Commemoration" on a page that should be dealing with the refutation of that claim.
Alphros
21:34, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Very well, I'll try to find something. I never questioned the relevance of the image--I questioned its appropriateness given the setting. It is still a hotly contested claim, and as such, people should be sensitive to even the slightest hint of bias favouring one position or the other. Alphros 02:35, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, your definition of hotly contested is different from mine player. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.214.240.61 ( talk) 08:17, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
There seems to be a desire to have the Turkish government apologize - did Turkey even exist at this time, I thought the entire region was the Ottoman Empire - which is no longer around. It seems more logical to blame Moslems or Turks ( ethnic ) - Armenia doesn't exist as a country never did, this appears to be a local tribal war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.105.80.92 ( talk • contribs) 10:57, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
To be clear, Turkey was born out of the greater part of Ottoman Empire and they share a common culture, history, and ethnicity. And local tribal war as far as the holocaust can be considered a war where a few million civilians were killed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.214.240.61 ( talk) 08:19, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Hattusili, I think it would be better if the photo were added to Ottoman Muslim casualties...it doesn't make much sense to add it here. Khoi khoi 02:51, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
The result of the debate was No move Duja ► 08:28, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Denial of the Armenian Genocide → Refusal of the Armenian Genocide — because denial is used for the objection of solid truth but since armenian genocide is such a controversial topic,i think refusal will be much more appropriate. Metb82 01:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Must TC 21:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
"Genocide denial occurs when an otherwise accepted act of genocide is met with attempts to deny the occurance and minimize the scale or death toll". And the Armenian genocide, be it true or not, is "otherwise accepted" (i.e. by everyone except the Turkish government). yandman 08:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Assume good faith, please. The BBC, my first source on the penal code statement:
The Guardian, my second source:
A New York Times editorial, my third source:
That's the "big three". yandman 18:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
We really need another image for the top of the article. This one is good, but we need a denialist image for the head. Has anyone got a pamphlet/poster they can scan and translate into english? Or even a book cover? Fair use would adequately cover the copyright issues. Thanks. yandman 17:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
You need to crop the image to hide the windows stuff, and use the "fair use shot of a website" copyright description, or else this image won't stand a cat in hell's chance of staying. yandman 18:47, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Think of the word "deny" denotes in common english: From a Christian to an Athiest: Why do you deny the divinity of Jesus? From a Athiest to a Christian: I reject the alleged divinization of Jesus. The Article title is "Denial of the Armenian Genocide" I believe it would be more precise and NPOV along the lines of "Rejection of the Armenian Genocide Allegations"
I've lodged a request to move the article to "Denial of the Armenian Genocide", Baris lost a "the" when reverting a move, and someone edited the original, so I can't do it. yandman 07:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
This sub-section includes three links: "Anti-Armenianism", "Historical revisionism (negationism)", "Holocaust denial".. These 3 links show the article as if this article (and others) opposing the Armenian genocide are in an Anti-Armenian perspective, and they do historical revisionism similar to Holocaust Denial. Thus, they suggest that the article is actually biased. First of all, I want to point out an important fact: This issue is not accepted as a genocide according to international law, the International Court of Justice or another widely-accepted international court (which is an authority). The countries which accept or reject the genocide claims do so on a political basis. Thus, the genocide argument can and must have two opposing sides, and Wikipedia, as its NPOV suggests, must provide both sides of the argument as a democratic environment which enables criticism on such a controversial matter. As I explain my point, the denial of the Armenian genocide cannot be considered, or is not the same as Holocaust Denial for the reasons I explained above. The articles and the people who oppose the claims do not do it in the sense of Anti-Armenianism. Instead, they do it with certain reliable documents, references and proof, as can be seen in this article. Hence, Armenian genocide is not a certain fact in history, and the article opposing the Armenian genocide thesis cannot be considered as doing historical revisionism. I know that most Armenians see the genocide subject as part of their national identity. However, writing and relating events in a nationalistic perspective does not lead to an objective result. Thus, putting the above three See Also links into this article is done in a nationalistic point of view rather than objective. The article is about explaining the theses opposing the Armenian genocide, benefiting from documents and sources. Hence, I recommend that the three links, which suggest that this article is biased, should be removed immediately. Kalkim 14:38, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
I have no qualms about the links to the Turkish websites but just like the Holocaust denial page, it should be balanced out by pages that refute Turkish claims. Otherwise, that incapacitates neutral users to gaining a full understanding from the article. -- MarshallBagramyan 00:58, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
The external link section shouldn't get too crowded, if the same info is found in five sites, there is no need for the four of them. By the way, the section title "justifications brought forward" sounds a bit weird to me, what do others think? It is fairly short for the moment, but I am afraid that this article might somehow start forking the AG article...
Baristarim
01:08, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was no move. --Akhilleus ( talk) 04:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Denial of the Armenian Genocide → Denial of the Armenian Genocide allegations — The title of this article is contradictory of the article itself since the information in the article suggests that the alleged genocide did not take place whereas the name accepts the existence of such a genocide. Scientia Potentia 15:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't see how Denial of the Armenian Genocide is not the assertion that the Armenian Genocide did not occur. I fail to understand how this might be seen as POV. It's pretty straightforward. User:Makalp could you explain your edits, please before reverting? -- Aivazovsky 14:06, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
I have blocked ArmenianJoe ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for edit warring. Edit warring by reversion is a blockable offense even if he didn't violate the letter of the 3RR rule, and the fact that no one has discussed these edits on the talk page only makes it worse. Now, Joe was the worst at the moment, but OttomanReference ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Baristarim ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are next on the list. Stop reverting and please discuss your concerns on the article talk page. Thatcher131 00:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
I have revised the opening line from "rejects the applicability of the concept of state organized genocide to the events April 24, 1915 and the Tehcir Law of May 1915 in the Ottoman Empire" to "rejects the concept that there was an Armenian Genocide." We shouldn't dance around the issue. Denial of the Armenian Genocide is what it is, plain and simple. -- Aivazovsky 12:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Can the editors reverting my recent edits to the intro sections please explain their reasons why here? -- Karl Meier 22:47, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Why does the information included here from the Turkish ministry of culture and tourism separate Jewish scholars from those of other nationalities? Judaism is a religion, not a country. Augustgrahl 21:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Table deleted accordingly. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.154.142.114 ( talk) 05:51, August 23, 2007 (UTC)
I find the title is not neutral. Probably "Turkish POV of the Armenian Genocide" would be more neutral? or "Armenian Genocide didn't Happen" Since I find that the article Armenian Genocide is from Armenian POV. Suggestion? Rad vsovereign 18:02, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
This article is representing the POV of Turkish government and scolars (surely not the all of them). We need to write in description that its criticized by the great majority of scolars in the world. Also the Ministry of Culture and Turism is obviously not reliable source to ask how many Armenian and foreign scolars used its archives etc., as we can find many reliable sources asking that Turkish archives on Armenian Genocide issues are closed for Armenian (what they mean by Armenian- f.e. is the Roland Suny an Armenian, or American scolar for the Turkish ministry?, or they mean the citizenship?) and foreign researchers. Andranikpasha 15:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Im adding a NPOV tag before the marked points of neutrality will be keeped (especially in the description). Andranikpasha 19:03, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Its dubious! Any serious researcher can look for thousands of materials to return again especially for them (he write he will), or to ask someone to send him these materials. I dont think anyone else than a serious researcher will need 11.000 doc-s:) A musicologist friend last time in a foreign country copied 30 kilograms of archival materilas... so I think it is possible. Andranikpasha 17:48, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
It serves no purpose and is off topic. The "Denial of the Armenian Genocide" cannot pre-date 1915. If there is any valid content in the "Pre-1915" section, it should be contained in the "Arguments brought forward" section, under whatever particular "argument" is most appropriate. I propose deleting the "Pre-1915" section unless there is a convincing argument against it. Meowy 01:05, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
This a discussion page and removing a comment is the biggest vandalism you can ever make.-- Obsteel 00:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure how widespread the scholarship on this issue is, but I wonder if there should be a note speaking to Armenian children who were raised as Turkish Muslims by Turkish families that saved or adopted them. If I understand rightly, there's at least one documentary film on the subject by Turkish filmmaker Berke Bas, whose family raised seven Armenian children itself. [1]
In any case, the subject seemed like it might be significant to the genesis of concealing (or minimizing) the 1915 killings. For all of the political disunion in modern Turkey, it does maintain a fierce sense of identity such that the idiosyncratic term "Turkishness" even finds its way into English.
Is this orphan issue a tiny issue? I can't grasp the scope of it from what I've read. [2] Though I've encountered in textbooks (eg Turkey Unveiled) allusions to how some Turkish people will privately admit to having Armenian ancestors. If there are Turkish nationals who are completely unaware of this phenomenon, please feel free to chime in, because I don't have any sense of the scope of the phenomenon. Cheers, DBaba 05:39, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
I do not know of any other county in the World that denies the Armenian Genocide other then the Republic of Turkey. As such, if I am correct, then shouldn`t the title be "Turkish Denial of the Armenian Genocide" or "Denial of the Armenian Genocide by Turkey". AdrianCo ( talk) 23:26, 19 January 2008 (UTC)AdrianCo
Actually over 170 countries have not recognized this as genocide and only 20 or so countries did. So you are wrong my friend --ProudTurk
This article is not about denying the Armenian genocide, it is about the denial of the Armenian genocide. That denial is propagated by individuals as well as states (though the only other state is Azerbaijan), and a number of the key individuals are not Turkish, so I think the title is correct. Meowy 18:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
This article has to include Turkish genocide which was commited by Armenians during the WW1 era.Every day Turkish graves found. I will be watching this article.-- Kafkasmurat ( talk) 16:05, 10 February 2008 (UTC) Um, so you're saying that there was a genocide of the Turks? What is your evidence, that there are no longer many Turks in Turkey? You are confusing isolated killings, which may have taken place, and may have even been defensive killings, with genocide. Not the same thing. There was no Turkish genocide. There was an Armenian genocide. How could a minority population like the Armenians have systematically wiped out the much larger Turkish population? When you make such fantastic claims, you only hurt you argument about Armenian genocide denial because people no longer take you seriously. According to your logic, because the Jews in the Warsaw ghetto killed a few Germans, there was a Germen genocide propagated by the Jews. Silly indeed. RockStarSheister ( talk) 22:15, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
With the latest modifications of the User:Andranikpasha, the article moved beyond what the title intents. It is not a position article anymore. It become the major content, an analysis article, related the genocide position. Moving a major content, an analysis, out of the genocide article is POV position, and a possible fork. If this continuous, this article needs to be merged to the main article. -- Anglepush ( talk) 15:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
This page was recently moved from Denial of the Armenian Genocide to Arguments against the Armenian Genocide theory. I have reversed this pagemove. Not only is the latter title ambiguous (there is more than one theory about the Armenian Genocide, and not all speculation about the genocide should be classified as "theory" - a concept which has a specific social scientific definition), it also contravene's Wikipedia's naming convention that articles should use the most common, recognisable title.
The pagemove was done based on the argument that " the word 'denial' implies refusal to admit a truth." This is inaccurate; "denial" is " the act of asserting that something alleged is not true". Thus, use of the word itself makes no judgment regarding the truthfulness of the allegations. Black Falcon ( Talk) 20:13, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
The online OED contains the definition mentioned above but it is broder: "The asserting (of anything) to be untrue or untenable; contradiction of a statement or allegation as untrue or invalid; also, the denying of the existence or reality of a thing." This means that it could also imply the denial of a the reality of a thing. Which is not the same as denial of an allegation. Further the OED online has an additional newer meaning (1997) "7. Psychoanal. The suppression (usu. at an unconscious level) of a painful or unacceptable wish or of experiences of which one is ashamed. Now also in more general use, esp. in phr. in denial (orig. and chiefly U.S.)." So the use of denial can also be read as those who are deny the genocide are suppressing, possibly at an unconscious level, the painful or unacceptable truth of the genocide. -- Philip Baird Shearer ( talk) 13:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
There are "recent studies" which used to fall into "denial" that present lack of monolithic political system or non unity between Three pashas[6].
"Recent studies" uses quotation marks as an ironic device; this is inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If these recent studies are invalid or were unacademic (or carried out by nonacademics, etc.), then it should be mentioned explicitly rather than written in a sarcastic tone. Wikipedia informs and should be written impersonally. I don't have the time to check the sources on my own, but it would be good if someone would check and either remove the sentence or reword it so its more formal. - Rosywounds ( talk) 20:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
what is the problem about pictures??-- Qwl ( talk) 22:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
please show me your sources? i have good sources.-- Qwl ( talk) 15:42, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
This image you can find here [4] -- Namsos ( talk) 02:17, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Turkish Military have Ottoman Archive Documents: Now Documents are in Military Archive everyone can see that pictures. some archive documents are published. you can install all of them from the Military Site (Here:[ [5]]). The pictures are published on these academical documents. please see this document [6] page 254-255-256 you can see the original of that picture. You can understand why Armenia dont discuss these events with Turkey.-- Qwl ( talk) 22:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
your link dont have any sources. it is not academically. and that is a propaganda site under human rights-- Qwl ( talk) 22:42, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
you have point of view. you will never believe the documents.you dont have sources. how can i believe Armenian documents are not propaganda? your pictures copy of Turkish Documents. -- Qwl ( talk) 05:26, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
do you have an academical degree? do you have an academical research? you must accept this document. many douments are not confirmed with academical documents in this article.
about my reference document:
this documents are related to this article. this is point of view deniers. there are many pictures about Genocide allegation but there isnt any documents about deniers arguments. -- Qwl ( talk) 06:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I deleted some unsourced denialst OR added by an IP after the site was unprotected. More editions and cleaning of propagandist chapters are necessary. Andranikpasha ( talk) 19:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Once again: pls make any controversional deletions and changes only after a consensus at this page. Any unexplained POV-pushing will be reverted. Andranikpasha ( talk) 17:08, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
As well as these genocides don't be informed via Wikipedia, it will never be activated again in Turkey as it's blocked. There won't be any possibility for Turkey's focusing on this genocide and block subjects, I heard that Wikipedia copes with economical problems, sincerely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.209.162.141 ( talk) 14:55, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Nope, only a few thousands of Bosnians were killed during Srebrenica genocide and it's defined as genocide by United Nations which makes other similar events as well such as Indo-Chinese Genocide and Algerian genocide (over a million Algerians were murdered by France). Genocide : "the deliberate killing of a large group of people, especially those of a particular ethnic group or nation." (only one side's civilian deaths unlike counter-sided conflicts, like so-called Armenian genocide which has no any document or concrete proof, but still placed at Wikipedia) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.130.105.66 ( talk) 15:56, 6 January 2020 (UTC)