![]() | 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 4 | Archive 5 |
user:Gazifikator please explain how you justify the comment in the edit history of the article "rv revisionist view" when you made " this reversal of the following text:
The Armenian Genocide is widely acknowledged outside Turkey to have been one of the first modern, systematic genocides,[1] as many Western sources point to the sheer scale of the death toll as evidence for a systematic, organized plan to eliminate the Armenians.[2]
- Cite 1:
- Ferguson, Niall. The War of the World: Twentieth-Century Conflict and the Descent of the West. New York: Penguin Press, 2006 p. 177 ISBN 1-5942-0100-5.
- A Letter from The International Association of Genocide Scholars June 13, 2005)
- Cite 2: "Senate Resolution 106 - - Calling on the President to ensure that the foreign policy of the United States reflects appropriate understanding and sensitivity concerning issues related to Human Rights, Ethnic Cleansing, and Genocide Documented in the United States Record relating to the Armenian Genocide". Library of Congress.
-- Philip Baird Shearer ( talk) 11:17, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
I have just realised that you reverted all of my edits what was revisionist about the new section "===Genocide convention===" [1] or the paragraph
Under international law, ethnic cleansing of itself is not enough to show that genocide has taken place as it must be accompanied by the biological destruction of the group.[1]
-- Philip Baird Shearer ( talk) 19:21, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
user:Gazifikator I have reverted your reversions of my edits as you have not commented here. I have also reverted your reversion of my page move from "Armenian genocide debate" back to "Denial of the Armenian Genocide". Your reason for doing this in the edit history was "moved Armenian genocide debate to Denial of the Armenian Genocide over redirect: removing as per other cases of genocides". Yet there AFAICT are no other articles entitled "Denial of the XYZ Genocide". There is an article entitled Holocaust Denial but there is also Holodomor genocide question and History wars and sections in articles such as 1971 Bangladesh atrocities#Genocide debate. If you look at the Genocide denial article and the Genocides in history there are many many accusations of Genocide and refutations, and we do not have a Genocide denial article for each accusation of genocide.
In the version you reverted to the very first citation was to a page by the BBC called Q&A: Armenian genocide dispute not "Q&A: Denial of the Armenian Genocide". In my opinion as Turkish government denies that a genocide took place, the better to follow the lead of the BBC, to have a neutral title and let the facts speak for themselves. -- Philip Baird Shearer ( talk) 10:57, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
<--(Out dent) User:Meowy which part of my edit "was controversial and POV-ridden". -- Philip Baird Shearer ( talk) 18:54, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Philip Baird Shearer, reliable sources do not negate the existance of the Armenian Genocide and its occurance, so accordingly, Wikipedia has no obligation to appease the unreliable ones which do. So the article prior to your unilateral changes against Wiki consensus and following edit warring was not one-sided as you claimed. The views of the ignorant liars and false scholars are presented. Armenian Genocide denial pertains to those whose only efforts in 'debates' actually constitutes deliberate dishonesty. You can call it what you like, but it is not "neutrality" it's fraud. This discussion is over.-- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 19:45, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
...will stop. I have protected the wrong version for three days to allow you people to talk and come to a consensus. You may like to seek a third opinion or dispute resolution, but disputes like these need to be played out on the talk page, not in the mainspace. ➨ ❝ ЯEDVERS❞ will never be anybody's hero now 18:44, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
At the moment there are three articles. One which concentrates on the events themselves and is called the Armenian Genocide and two more articles called recognition of the Armenian Genocide (RAG) and the other was called denial of the Armenian Genocide (DAG) until I renamed it "Armenian genocide debate" which cover the opinions if a genocide took place. I my opinion the two article construct of recognition and denial are a clear example of a point of view (POV) fork:
A content fork is usually an unintentional creation of several separate articles all treating the same subject. A point of view (POV) fork is a content fork deliberately created to avoid neutral point of view guidelines, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. Both content forks and POV forks are undesirable on Wikipedia, as they avoid consensus building and therefore violate one of our most important policies.
and this is a problem because the article names imply that there are only two positions—either the events took place and they were a genocide or they did not and no genocide took place. However there are shades of opinion that range between these two positions which means that either these in between views have to be repeated in both articles or they are marginalized in one or both articles.
For example the BBC article, mentioned in this article called " Q&A: Armenian genocide dispute", makes the point that "The UK, US and Israel are among those that use different terminology to describe the events." yet there is no mention of this in this article and the UK's position is mentioned in one sentence in the RAG article. In 2001 the BBC reported that the British government's position is "The Foreign Office accepts that the massacres [of Armenian civilians] took place, but insists that they do not qualify as genocide." Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale made the British Governments position clear in a statement in Parliament in 1999 ( Lords Hansard text for 14 Apr 1999 (190414-09) Column 826: 6.43 pm):
The position of Her Majesty's Government, which the noble Baroness has asked us to review, is, I believe, well known and understood, but it certainly bears repeating here tonight. The British Government condemned the massacres of 1915-16 at the time and viewed the sufferings of the Armenian people then as a tragedy of historic proportions. The British Government of today, like their predecessors, in no way dissent in any form from that view. Nor do we seek to deny or to play down the extent of that tragedy. It was a gruesome, horrifying tragedy, as the noble Earl, Lord Shannon, and other noble Lords have echoed tonight. I assure them that we are in no way dissenting from that analysis of what happened, but in the absence of unequivocal evidence to show that the Ottoman administration took a specific decision to eliminate the Armenians under their control at the time, British governments have not recognised the events of 1915 and 1916 as "genocide".
This is a view that was reiterated outside Parliament by the British Government on 7 December 2007.
If the two articles (DAG and RAG) are merged into one article (called Armenian genocide debate or the Armenian genocide dispute) it would be possible to give a more balanced view to all opinions about the events without giving undue weight to any of them (in the same was as the BBC does in its article " Q&A: Armenian genocide dispute" published 10 July 2008). At the moment the POV fork created by having to articles about the same subject is a breach of Wikipedia's WP:NPOV policy. -- Philip Baird Shearer ( talk) 13:09, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi Philip, I disagree with your proposal and your hostile takeover of this article. (I'll expect that WP:CIVIL warning within the hour). Hakob ( talk) 17:34, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
The previous version of the article was clearly a POV fork. This is a policy violation. Does anybody have any better ideas to resolve it? -- Adoniscik( t, c) 18:11, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
... on 29 September 1915, Turkish minister of the interior, Talat Pasha conveyed to the Governor of Aleppo '.... All of the Armenians living in Turkey are to be destroyed and annihilated ... Without taking into consideration the fact that they are women and children and disabled, their very existence will be ended ...
The Page move was incorrect but you should just follow the wording that the holocaust of the jews page currently holds. That has been uncontended for quite a while and seems to show its not a debate as it did happen. The page move is now correct, talk page should be continued if further debates are to be on going on the now original page. The links within the main topic of armenian genocide need to be changed also for people to be directly correctly. Also just for addition, Mr Phil Baird Shearer has been editing and archiving a lot of articles such as Liancourt Rocks, again a dispute hotly contended. [J.Webster 7th October 07:28UTC+08:05UTC] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.239.159.6 ( talk) 06:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
User:Meowy you wrote above "Turkey is denying it committed genocide, but this article is about the denial of the Armenian Genocide. It's the denial of a historical event that is widely described using the term "Armenian Genocide", so I think it should be capitalised." into which article do you think that the views of individuals and organisations like the British Government should go where they recognise the events as crimes against humanity "but in the absence of unequivocal evidence to show that the Ottoman administration took a specific decision to eliminate the Armenians under their control at the time", do "not recognised the events of 1915 and 1916 as 'genocide'"? -- Philip Baird Shearer ( talk) 13:56, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
<--- outdent. Is that not an indication that these two articles (RAG & DAG) are a point of view (POV) fork? -- Philip Baird Shearer ( talk) 18:27, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
When we speake about a denial, no "both" sides exist. this view is condemned by respected scolars as a part of denial itself:
"When it comes to the historical reality of the Armenian genocide, there is no “Armenian” or “Turkish” side of the “question,” any more than there is a “Jewish” or a “German” side of the historical reality of the Holocaust: There is a scientific side, and an unscientific side acknowledgment or denial. In the case of the denial of the Armenian genocide, it is even founded on a massive effort of falsification, distortion, cleansing of archives, and direct threats initiated or supported by the Turkish state, making any “dialogue” with Turkish deniers highly problematic." Genocide Denial in the state of Denmark. Open letter by Torben Jorgensen and Matthias Bjornlund, World Association of International Studies, Stanford University, California. Gazifikator ( talk) 07:26, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
See the sources: there is no Armenian and Turkish views, there is a commonly-accepted view and a mostly criticized politically biased denialist view. FYI well-known scolar Taner Akcam is also a Turkish, and Israel Charny, f.e., is not an Armenian. Gazifikator ( talk) 08:16, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
i dont know if the denialist view is a corner or not, but the only thing I know there are not both sides and reliable, third-pary sources prove it. Gazifikator ( talk) 08:45, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Investigate the reliability of your sources such as "Taner Akcam". It is widely known that Taner Akçam is a person not only opposing Turkey's arguments on this issue but also has both intellectual and physical relations with illegal groups actively working against Turkish state , resulting innocent deaths in Turkey. [GA] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.226.22.222 ( talk) 14:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
In the light of recent contributions to the article, which I think mostly amounted to original research, it could be useful to start thinking about what this article should and should not contain. I think that the content has to be based only on material that is derived from:
1/ Sources that seek to deny the Armenian Genocide.
2/ Sources that are commenting on the above sources, and on the aims and beliefs of those producing them.
3/ Reported events connected to, or resulting from, that denial, or from the act of commenting on that denial or on the denialist sources.
If we go beyond that, then we are just presenting our own opinions, which would be classed as original research.
Thoughts?
Meowy 15:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Any article on WP should be based on secondary third-party published sources. see WP:Sources It can't be simpler than that. Any views on the subject have to be cited not by Turks or Armenians but by third-parties. And it has nothing do with Sources that seek to deny the Armenian Genocide or Sources that are commenting on the above sources, and on the aims and beliefs of those producing them. etc.-- Termer ( talk) 04:52, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Is there a reason why this article is constantly vandalized by users who sides with Armenian position? The problem with the injection Armenian views, which are stated mainly as "opinions", are they are original research when compared to "denial position". The main article is full with Armenian POV, and Turkish position is constantly deleted from the main article. If Armenians delete these positions from this article, than what is the meaning of having this article? -- Kemalist ( talk) 07:23, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Just that Majority and minority views are NOT subjective terms but guidelines for editing WP according to WP:UNDUE-- Termer ( talk) 05:07, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Kemalist what are you expecting from this guys? Their history is based on this lies and propaganda so of course they won't except the reality and will still try to sell their lost independce war as a genocide. They invest millions of dollars in their propaganda so it is self-evident that they will get some results of that. Or they make it just in the Internet (like here on Wikipedia) where they can do it for less money or even for free. It's always the same with this nationalistic guys ... especially the ones living in the Diaspora. The two words they use are genocide and denial and they are always the same guys investing their whole time for spreading their Propaganda. There was never a genocide and will never be one made by Turks. A normal person not brainwashed by this kind of propaganda won't talk about anything like a genocide in this case. Comparisons to something like Holocaust where a genocide happened is a piece of impudence.
Kemalist you have to understand that their religion and culture is based on compassion if you watch at the history of the Christians you will see it everywhere. One of there weapons in this way was always their propaganda made by them own and this kind of weapon won't change in the future. It is a fact that they think that their culture is like the one of others. They always make the same mistake. They think when they kill people just because of their religion or their nationality others would have make it like they did. But there isn't anything like that as you won't find anything like that in Turkish history. They should stop to compare their own culture with their pathetic and pitiful Propaganda with some other cultures or nations. Why do they always have to do this in a extreme? So you don't have to wonder why some Assyrians and Pontic Greeks are talking about the same funny things as they have the same culture and religion and of course live with the same complexes about that issue. I said it once before maybe the Turks should also get something in here on Wikipedia and try to sell this kind of propaganda as a Turkish genocide made by Armenians. And of course the ones who will be against it are the one crying here that it was a genocide. Hundred thousands of Turks died in the same way Armenians died. But you won't find any Turk who will make the causes and some crimes of the Armenians a genocide. If that what Armenians and others here are claming and categorizing to be a genocide than you can say the same about what happened to the Turks. It's just that easy.
You can't except a neutral position which is based on a lie. Most of the world doesn't see it as a genocide and where it is accepted it was a job by the Armenian lobby or some other Christian propaganda making persons. Look just at the countries who and when the few countries so called recognise it and you will understand it. No serious court has made a judgment about it so what are the guys here talking about? The only widely acceptance is in some dream worlds and dreams but not in the reality.
Just because you Armenians and some of your Christian friends like for example some nationalistic Greeks are repeating your lies again and again your myth won't get true.
You won't find anything like this in a serious encyclopedia but unfortunately this article will be soonest deleted when a joint commission of historians will tell the world that this was not and will never be a genocide. But I'm not wondering that even this kind of commision is avoided by the Armenian Diaspora ... maybe the truth would come out! Even if the truth (for the ones who still believe it was a genocide) comes out I'm sure they have their excuses ready. So my advice for you Kemalist don't take this guys so serious as every troll (like before on this issue) on Wikipedia can write something. Just look at the rules of Wikipedia and what you can get through. Unfortunately also some Admins have taken position so you have no other way than that or you have to invest time in endless discussions which have no meaning.
You will see that some of this guys who jump from one to another article about this so called genocide issues will give an irrelevant and unsubstantial reply to my answer just like in the issues about the two fictive genocide issues about Assyrians and Pontic Greeks before. P223 ( talk) 15:10, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
I think the same. He must feel great right know just like the Armenians when they talk about this kind of issues. Why I'm not wondering that you are the one replying?
And your two other friends will follow soon ... Thank you! :) -- P223 ( talk) 21:49, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
What is the difference between Hitler burning books and Armenian editors deleting the references (associated as burning electronic books) given in this article.-- Domino Theories ( talk) 14:51, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Only after having read the introduction I already felt that this article was suffering from some serious NPOV issues. It seems awfully biased towards the whole "It was genocide. End of." view, when there isn't even any consensus on the events. Runningfridgesrule ( talk) 23:01, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
I have removed the following fraudulent quote from the article.
Caucasian Battlefields
W.E.D.Allen and Paul Muratoff
...the irregular bands operating on either side had begun the work which famine and epidemics had completed. The remnants of the Armenian population had fled into Russian territory or had been deported by the Young Turk administration; the Moslems, scarcely more fortunate, had suffered equally from Armenian Atrocities: famine, epidemics and irregular slaughter, and the survivors had dispersed with what remained of their livestock into the interior of Asia Minor.
The quote on page 368 of the book actually says "the Muslims, scarcely more fortunate, had suffered equally from famine, epidemics and irregular slaughter, and the survivors had dispersed with what remained of their livestock into the interior of Asia Minor". Meowy 00:29, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Meowy 00:37, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Caught red-handed, deliberately falsifying data. How low will the deniers sink? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.100.208.82 ( talk) 19:36, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
[An RfCbio tag was here but is no longer needed.]
[An RfCLang tag was here but is no longer needed.]
Was Bernard Lewis "condemned" in a French court, or did he "receive an adverse civil judgment"?
diff
I have made a few tweaks, improving the text of the footnotes. I must insist, however, that "condamné" not be translated as "condemned", which is simply wrong. (Ask any French-to-English translator.) When the judgment says,
LE TRIBUNAL,
Déclare l'action recevable
Condamne Bernard LEWIS à payer à chaque demandeur, le FORUM DES ASSO- CIATIONS ARMENIENNES DE FRANCE, d'une part, et la LIGUE INTERNATIONALE CONTRE LE RACISMEET L'ANTISEMITISME, d'autre part, la somme de UN FRANC à titre de dommages-intérêts ;
the word "condamne" MUST NOT be translated as "condemns". No civil court in any English-speaking country "condemns" people to anything.
And in fact, the English translation of the judgment to which you link does get it right:
The Court;
Declares the action to be admissible;
Adjudges Bernard Lewis liable to pay to each plaintiff, the FRENCH FORUM OF ARMENIAN ASSOCIATIONS, and to the INTERNATIONAL LEAGUE AGAINST RACISM AND ANTISEMITISM the sum of one franc in damages;
.
Thank you.-- Goodmorningworld ( talk) 01:17, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
*condemn, reprobate, decry, objurgate, excoriate (express strong disapproval of) "We condemn the racism in South Africa"; "These ideas were reprobated"
*condemn (declare or judge unfit for use or habitation) "The building was condemned by the inspector"
*condemn (compel or force into a particular state or activity) "His devotion to his sick wife condemned him to a lonely existence"
*condemn (demonstrate the guilt of (someone)) "Her strange behavior condemned her"
*sentence, condemn, doom (pronounce a sentence on (somebody) in a court of law) "He was condemned to ten years in prison"
*condemn (appropriate (property) for public use) "the county condemned the land to build a highway"
More on condamner in French civil jurisprudence: dictionnaire.sensagent.com gives for condamner as a locution (commonly used phrase): condamner à une amende, and for amende gives: "1. (Droit): peine pécuniaire, en matière civile, pénale, fiscale" ((monetary) fine, in a civil, criminal, or tax proceeding.)" Therefore, condamner quelqu'un à une amende can simply be translated as "to fine someone". This goes both for the judgment and the newspaper article reporting on the judgment. The element of moral outrage or criminality that "French court condemns Lewis" carries is completely absent from both.-- Goodmorningworld ( talk) 00:23, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Third party opinion per RfC - Just because French and English sometimes look the same and have lots of words with the same root doesn't mean that condamner automatically translates into to condemn or demander into to demand etc... Similarly choosing Latinate words over Germanic ones in the English translation, just because Latinate words appear in the original language version, is lazy and a common mistake made by non-native translators.
In English 'condemn when used in legal contexts is associated with criminal law and typically jail time. My Oxford English dictionary lists being found guilty, begin found convicted and being sentenced to prison, within the definition of condemn. My American Oxford Dictionary defines it as "find (someone) guilty of a criminal act or wrong". Blue-Haired Lawyer 18:40, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
How reliable is this website;
http://www.armeniangenocidedebate.com/dr-hilmar-kaiser#toc12. When it uses TallArmenianTale as references itself? If this information;
..had his lecture tour canceled by Dennis R. Papazian (of the same university) after questioning Armenian scholarship
is true, then it should be available from more reliable sources than something referenced by TallArmenianTale!! -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 06:12, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
FYI; The reference that states that Kaiser's lecture tour was cancelled is incorrect. He did lecture at Villanova [6], and here [7]. Is there a reliable source for the statement:
....had his lecture tour canceled by Dennis R. Papazian (of the same university) after questioning Armenian scholarship
Isn't it time for wikipedia editors to use REAL references, instead of some priority driven website [8]? -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 07:04, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
I removed POV by user Adonisick for the following reasons:
Adoniscik! the wikipedia is not a chatroom, and we have no enough time to discuss things that do not exist. We have a site, and we have "Robert Aram and Marianne Kaloosdian and Stephen and Marion Mugar" words on it. and what you put in the article is someting different, an original research or something else, but the text you claim is a quotation from nowhere. read this, for example. if you have a source that claims your text, then let us discuss it, but the words "Robert Aram and Marianne Kaloosdian and Stephen and Marion Mugar" realy mean nothing. Gazifikator ( talk) 13:04, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
if you believe it is related then stop pov-pushing and go to Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment Gazifikator ( talk) 05:37, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Until you have no any direct sources on your claims you will be reverted per wp:syn. read it to not ask more questions to me. Gazifikator ( talk) 05:29, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Akçam, a leading international authority on the Armenian genocide, was marked for death by Turkish ultranationalists following the November 2006 publication of his book, A Shameful Act: The Armenian Genocide and The Question of Turkish Responsibility. The book is a definitive history based in large part on official documents from Turkish government archives. [12] Gazifikator ( talk) 13:08, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
And about the Armenian diaspora (you're free to use this reliable information!): "Dink's friend and ideological ally Taner Akçam, a distinguished Turkish historian and sociologist on the faculty of the University of Minnesota's Center for Holocaust and Genocide Studies, attended Dink's funeral in Turkey, despite the considerable risk to his own life." [13] Gazifikator ( talk) 13:10, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Dear User, See Talk:Denial_of_the_Armenian_Genocide#Acceptable_content_for_this_article. Please use appropriate articles for representing your position. The behavior is a considered WP:Vandalism. -- Kemalist ( talk) 07:08, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
You are talking nonsense: "(rv. Jews funding scolars are not the same neonazis funding denialist 'foundations'. go to talk)"
Armenian donations have just as many strings as Turkish donations. This line of defense is easy to refute. And who are these "neonazis" you speak of?
P.S. It's spelled "scholars". -- Adoniscik( t, c) 21:06, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Do not remove relevant, sourced content. If you keep this up, I will report you for incivility and vandalism. Also, I'm still waiting for an explanation of who these "neonazis" are what this "Jews funding scolars" business" is. -- Adoniscik( t, c) 14:08, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Please don't engage in intellectual dishonesty. I lined the article with sources to show that he had Armenian funding. You deleted it all. You said you moved it elsewhere, which you shouldn't have done, and you didn't even do that. Kindly stop it. -- Adoniscik( t, c) 13:15, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Assertion of Turks (what you mean, the whole nation, or any scholar?) on Akcam's funding is irrelevant here. this article is dedicated to the denial of AG, Hurriyet is a supporter of that denial. Gazifikator ( talk) 17:48, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
For the anon, who is incapable of understand exactly WHO is a historian and WHO isn't. Also, there needs to be a reference for Lewis AND McCarthy using Ottoman records. -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 20:58, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
I have moved this paragraph here for further discussion
This was put into the article as a balance for the British Governments position. However the British Government does not disagree, that a crime against humanity took place, and Churchill's words do not contradict that position. Further it is not clear from the quote if he was speaking as a member of the British Government or while he was in opposition. So I think to include it without further information, (when he said it) and an reliable source to explain exactly what he meant, it is misleading to include it. -- PBS ( talk) 19:19, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
www.armenian-genocide.org/churchill.html has published an extract from Churchill's "The World Crisis, vol. 5, "The Aftermath" (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1929)." The larger part of the quote used in this article is in the third paragraph of the extract, and seems to support the British Government's position as "The World Crisis" was published before the crime of genocide was defined but after the British issued their WWI statement that the Turkish government was committing crimes against humanity and specifically states "There is no reasonable doubt that this crime [general massacre and deportation of Armenians in Asia Minor] was planned and executed for political reasons." presumably the "this crime" relates to the WWI statement by the Allied powers of which Britain was one "In view of these new crimes of Turkey against humanity and civilization, the Allied Governments announce publicly to the Sublime Porte that they will hold personally responsible for these crimes all members of the Ottoman Government, as well as those of their agents who are implicated in such massacres." Now it may be that Churchill if asked after 1951 might of taken a position that it was a genocide (and for all I know he may have made such a statement) but the Churchill paragraph as it is currently phrased in the article, (starting with however) is misleading as it can not be assumed from a book published in 1929 that Churchill's position on the issue was significantly different from that of the British Government. -- PBS ( talk) 21:56, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
If I understand part of PBS' argument right, then there is a problem with the relationships between
Armenian Genocide and its sub-articles
Denial of the Armenian Genocide and
Recognition of the Armenian Genocide. Namely, that when someone is quoted in the "Denial" article denying the genocide, it would not do simply to let that stand without comment, otherwise the article would turn into a POV fork of the worst kind. But when wrong statements are countered, this reduplicates material already in the "Recognition" article. Yet when you keep the information out of the "Denial" article because it belongs in the "Recognition" article, you are back at square one.
Hence it would make sense to abolish the "Recognition" article entirely. And also because there is no need to have it since the consensus of historians is already settled. If that is PBS' argument, then I think I agree with it.--
Goodmorningworld (
talk)
19:19, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
I changed "The Armenian Genocide is widely acknowledged outside Turkey to have been one of the first modern, systematic ..." to The Armenian Genocide is widely acknowledged by genocide scholars to have been one of the first modern,
When I made the change I noted in the history of the article:
User:COYW quoted the above and placed it onto my talk page with the following comment:
I made the change because the first statement is not quantifiable. For example has there been a UN general resolution that has been passed which says that it was. In which case we could state something like: "On December 16, 1982, the United Nations General Assembly declared it to be an act of genocide." Have the results of an international survey that polled peoples opinion of whether they think there was a genocide been published? But even if there was and the majority did not agree would that make the opinions expressed in that poll authoritative?
Unless there is some sort of yardstick to measure opinion by, then the current sentence is not a valid statement (as we have no way of saying whether it is true or false). However we do know that the majority of genocide scholars acknowledge it as a genocide and we have a source that backs it up.
Not only is the statement closer to the truth, and has a source to back it up (although who has defined modern (as the IAGS did not)?), it is also more authoritative, because the opinion of experts in a field of research should and does carry more weight than the opinions of laymen. -- PBS ( talk) 10:13, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
As no source has been provided to justify the statement "The Armenian Genocide is widely acknowledged outside Turkey ..." I have reverted it to "The Armenian Genocide is widely acknowledged by genocide scholars" which is sourced. -- PBS ( talk) 12:07, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Trying to get through this entry, I repeatedly came across ungrammatical sentences, perhaps written by non-native English speakers. Someone with a good command of the English language needs to go through this whole entry and clean it up. 75.42.222.134 ( talk) 07:24, 5 September 2009 (UTC)Mark P
![]() | 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. |
![]() | 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 4 | Archive 5 |
user:Gazifikator please explain how you justify the comment in the edit history of the article "rv revisionist view" when you made " this reversal of the following text:
The Armenian Genocide is widely acknowledged outside Turkey to have been one of the first modern, systematic genocides,[1] as many Western sources point to the sheer scale of the death toll as evidence for a systematic, organized plan to eliminate the Armenians.[2]
- Cite 1:
- Ferguson, Niall. The War of the World: Twentieth-Century Conflict and the Descent of the West. New York: Penguin Press, 2006 p. 177 ISBN 1-5942-0100-5.
- A Letter from The International Association of Genocide Scholars June 13, 2005)
- Cite 2: "Senate Resolution 106 - - Calling on the President to ensure that the foreign policy of the United States reflects appropriate understanding and sensitivity concerning issues related to Human Rights, Ethnic Cleansing, and Genocide Documented in the United States Record relating to the Armenian Genocide". Library of Congress.
-- Philip Baird Shearer ( talk) 11:17, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
I have just realised that you reverted all of my edits what was revisionist about the new section "===Genocide convention===" [1] or the paragraph
Under international law, ethnic cleansing of itself is not enough to show that genocide has taken place as it must be accompanied by the biological destruction of the group.[1]
-- Philip Baird Shearer ( talk) 19:21, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
user:Gazifikator I have reverted your reversions of my edits as you have not commented here. I have also reverted your reversion of my page move from "Armenian genocide debate" back to "Denial of the Armenian Genocide". Your reason for doing this in the edit history was "moved Armenian genocide debate to Denial of the Armenian Genocide over redirect: removing as per other cases of genocides". Yet there AFAICT are no other articles entitled "Denial of the XYZ Genocide". There is an article entitled Holocaust Denial but there is also Holodomor genocide question and History wars and sections in articles such as 1971 Bangladesh atrocities#Genocide debate. If you look at the Genocide denial article and the Genocides in history there are many many accusations of Genocide and refutations, and we do not have a Genocide denial article for each accusation of genocide.
In the version you reverted to the very first citation was to a page by the BBC called Q&A: Armenian genocide dispute not "Q&A: Denial of the Armenian Genocide". In my opinion as Turkish government denies that a genocide took place, the better to follow the lead of the BBC, to have a neutral title and let the facts speak for themselves. -- Philip Baird Shearer ( talk) 10:57, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
<--(Out dent) User:Meowy which part of my edit "was controversial and POV-ridden". -- Philip Baird Shearer ( talk) 18:54, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Philip Baird Shearer, reliable sources do not negate the existance of the Armenian Genocide and its occurance, so accordingly, Wikipedia has no obligation to appease the unreliable ones which do. So the article prior to your unilateral changes against Wiki consensus and following edit warring was not one-sided as you claimed. The views of the ignorant liars and false scholars are presented. Armenian Genocide denial pertains to those whose only efforts in 'debates' actually constitutes deliberate dishonesty. You can call it what you like, but it is not "neutrality" it's fraud. This discussion is over.-- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 19:45, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
...will stop. I have protected the wrong version for three days to allow you people to talk and come to a consensus. You may like to seek a third opinion or dispute resolution, but disputes like these need to be played out on the talk page, not in the mainspace. ➨ ❝ ЯEDVERS❞ will never be anybody's hero now 18:44, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
At the moment there are three articles. One which concentrates on the events themselves and is called the Armenian Genocide and two more articles called recognition of the Armenian Genocide (RAG) and the other was called denial of the Armenian Genocide (DAG) until I renamed it "Armenian genocide debate" which cover the opinions if a genocide took place. I my opinion the two article construct of recognition and denial are a clear example of a point of view (POV) fork:
A content fork is usually an unintentional creation of several separate articles all treating the same subject. A point of view (POV) fork is a content fork deliberately created to avoid neutral point of view guidelines, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. Both content forks and POV forks are undesirable on Wikipedia, as they avoid consensus building and therefore violate one of our most important policies.
and this is a problem because the article names imply that there are only two positions—either the events took place and they were a genocide or they did not and no genocide took place. However there are shades of opinion that range between these two positions which means that either these in between views have to be repeated in both articles or they are marginalized in one or both articles.
For example the BBC article, mentioned in this article called " Q&A: Armenian genocide dispute", makes the point that "The UK, US and Israel are among those that use different terminology to describe the events." yet there is no mention of this in this article and the UK's position is mentioned in one sentence in the RAG article. In 2001 the BBC reported that the British government's position is "The Foreign Office accepts that the massacres [of Armenian civilians] took place, but insists that they do not qualify as genocide." Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale made the British Governments position clear in a statement in Parliament in 1999 ( Lords Hansard text for 14 Apr 1999 (190414-09) Column 826: 6.43 pm):
The position of Her Majesty's Government, which the noble Baroness has asked us to review, is, I believe, well known and understood, but it certainly bears repeating here tonight. The British Government condemned the massacres of 1915-16 at the time and viewed the sufferings of the Armenian people then as a tragedy of historic proportions. The British Government of today, like their predecessors, in no way dissent in any form from that view. Nor do we seek to deny or to play down the extent of that tragedy. It was a gruesome, horrifying tragedy, as the noble Earl, Lord Shannon, and other noble Lords have echoed tonight. I assure them that we are in no way dissenting from that analysis of what happened, but in the absence of unequivocal evidence to show that the Ottoman administration took a specific decision to eliminate the Armenians under their control at the time, British governments have not recognised the events of 1915 and 1916 as "genocide".
This is a view that was reiterated outside Parliament by the British Government on 7 December 2007.
If the two articles (DAG and RAG) are merged into one article (called Armenian genocide debate or the Armenian genocide dispute) it would be possible to give a more balanced view to all opinions about the events without giving undue weight to any of them (in the same was as the BBC does in its article " Q&A: Armenian genocide dispute" published 10 July 2008). At the moment the POV fork created by having to articles about the same subject is a breach of Wikipedia's WP:NPOV policy. -- Philip Baird Shearer ( talk) 13:09, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi Philip, I disagree with your proposal and your hostile takeover of this article. (I'll expect that WP:CIVIL warning within the hour). Hakob ( talk) 17:34, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
The previous version of the article was clearly a POV fork. This is a policy violation. Does anybody have any better ideas to resolve it? -- Adoniscik( t, c) 18:11, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
... on 29 September 1915, Turkish minister of the interior, Talat Pasha conveyed to the Governor of Aleppo '.... All of the Armenians living in Turkey are to be destroyed and annihilated ... Without taking into consideration the fact that they are women and children and disabled, their very existence will be ended ...
The Page move was incorrect but you should just follow the wording that the holocaust of the jews page currently holds. That has been uncontended for quite a while and seems to show its not a debate as it did happen. The page move is now correct, talk page should be continued if further debates are to be on going on the now original page. The links within the main topic of armenian genocide need to be changed also for people to be directly correctly. Also just for addition, Mr Phil Baird Shearer has been editing and archiving a lot of articles such as Liancourt Rocks, again a dispute hotly contended. [J.Webster 7th October 07:28UTC+08:05UTC] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.239.159.6 ( talk) 06:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
User:Meowy you wrote above "Turkey is denying it committed genocide, but this article is about the denial of the Armenian Genocide. It's the denial of a historical event that is widely described using the term "Armenian Genocide", so I think it should be capitalised." into which article do you think that the views of individuals and organisations like the British Government should go where they recognise the events as crimes against humanity "but in the absence of unequivocal evidence to show that the Ottoman administration took a specific decision to eliminate the Armenians under their control at the time", do "not recognised the events of 1915 and 1916 as 'genocide'"? -- Philip Baird Shearer ( talk) 13:56, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
<--- outdent. Is that not an indication that these two articles (RAG & DAG) are a point of view (POV) fork? -- Philip Baird Shearer ( talk) 18:27, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
When we speake about a denial, no "both" sides exist. this view is condemned by respected scolars as a part of denial itself:
"When it comes to the historical reality of the Armenian genocide, there is no “Armenian” or “Turkish” side of the “question,” any more than there is a “Jewish” or a “German” side of the historical reality of the Holocaust: There is a scientific side, and an unscientific side acknowledgment or denial. In the case of the denial of the Armenian genocide, it is even founded on a massive effort of falsification, distortion, cleansing of archives, and direct threats initiated or supported by the Turkish state, making any “dialogue” with Turkish deniers highly problematic." Genocide Denial in the state of Denmark. Open letter by Torben Jorgensen and Matthias Bjornlund, World Association of International Studies, Stanford University, California. Gazifikator ( talk) 07:26, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
See the sources: there is no Armenian and Turkish views, there is a commonly-accepted view and a mostly criticized politically biased denialist view. FYI well-known scolar Taner Akcam is also a Turkish, and Israel Charny, f.e., is not an Armenian. Gazifikator ( talk) 08:16, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
i dont know if the denialist view is a corner or not, but the only thing I know there are not both sides and reliable, third-pary sources prove it. Gazifikator ( talk) 08:45, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Investigate the reliability of your sources such as "Taner Akcam". It is widely known that Taner Akçam is a person not only opposing Turkey's arguments on this issue but also has both intellectual and physical relations with illegal groups actively working against Turkish state , resulting innocent deaths in Turkey. [GA] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.226.22.222 ( talk) 14:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
In the light of recent contributions to the article, which I think mostly amounted to original research, it could be useful to start thinking about what this article should and should not contain. I think that the content has to be based only on material that is derived from:
1/ Sources that seek to deny the Armenian Genocide.
2/ Sources that are commenting on the above sources, and on the aims and beliefs of those producing them.
3/ Reported events connected to, or resulting from, that denial, or from the act of commenting on that denial or on the denialist sources.
If we go beyond that, then we are just presenting our own opinions, which would be classed as original research.
Thoughts?
Meowy 15:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Any article on WP should be based on secondary third-party published sources. see WP:Sources It can't be simpler than that. Any views on the subject have to be cited not by Turks or Armenians but by third-parties. And it has nothing do with Sources that seek to deny the Armenian Genocide or Sources that are commenting on the above sources, and on the aims and beliefs of those producing them. etc.-- Termer ( talk) 04:52, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Is there a reason why this article is constantly vandalized by users who sides with Armenian position? The problem with the injection Armenian views, which are stated mainly as "opinions", are they are original research when compared to "denial position". The main article is full with Armenian POV, and Turkish position is constantly deleted from the main article. If Armenians delete these positions from this article, than what is the meaning of having this article? -- Kemalist ( talk) 07:23, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Just that Majority and minority views are NOT subjective terms but guidelines for editing WP according to WP:UNDUE-- Termer ( talk) 05:07, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Kemalist what are you expecting from this guys? Their history is based on this lies and propaganda so of course they won't except the reality and will still try to sell their lost independce war as a genocide. They invest millions of dollars in their propaganda so it is self-evident that they will get some results of that. Or they make it just in the Internet (like here on Wikipedia) where they can do it for less money or even for free. It's always the same with this nationalistic guys ... especially the ones living in the Diaspora. The two words they use are genocide and denial and they are always the same guys investing their whole time for spreading their Propaganda. There was never a genocide and will never be one made by Turks. A normal person not brainwashed by this kind of propaganda won't talk about anything like a genocide in this case. Comparisons to something like Holocaust where a genocide happened is a piece of impudence.
Kemalist you have to understand that their religion and culture is based on compassion if you watch at the history of the Christians you will see it everywhere. One of there weapons in this way was always their propaganda made by them own and this kind of weapon won't change in the future. It is a fact that they think that their culture is like the one of others. They always make the same mistake. They think when they kill people just because of their religion or their nationality others would have make it like they did. But there isn't anything like that as you won't find anything like that in Turkish history. They should stop to compare their own culture with their pathetic and pitiful Propaganda with some other cultures or nations. Why do they always have to do this in a extreme? So you don't have to wonder why some Assyrians and Pontic Greeks are talking about the same funny things as they have the same culture and religion and of course live with the same complexes about that issue. I said it once before maybe the Turks should also get something in here on Wikipedia and try to sell this kind of propaganda as a Turkish genocide made by Armenians. And of course the ones who will be against it are the one crying here that it was a genocide. Hundred thousands of Turks died in the same way Armenians died. But you won't find any Turk who will make the causes and some crimes of the Armenians a genocide. If that what Armenians and others here are claming and categorizing to be a genocide than you can say the same about what happened to the Turks. It's just that easy.
You can't except a neutral position which is based on a lie. Most of the world doesn't see it as a genocide and where it is accepted it was a job by the Armenian lobby or some other Christian propaganda making persons. Look just at the countries who and when the few countries so called recognise it and you will understand it. No serious court has made a judgment about it so what are the guys here talking about? The only widely acceptance is in some dream worlds and dreams but not in the reality.
Just because you Armenians and some of your Christian friends like for example some nationalistic Greeks are repeating your lies again and again your myth won't get true.
You won't find anything like this in a serious encyclopedia but unfortunately this article will be soonest deleted when a joint commission of historians will tell the world that this was not and will never be a genocide. But I'm not wondering that even this kind of commision is avoided by the Armenian Diaspora ... maybe the truth would come out! Even if the truth (for the ones who still believe it was a genocide) comes out I'm sure they have their excuses ready. So my advice for you Kemalist don't take this guys so serious as every troll (like before on this issue) on Wikipedia can write something. Just look at the rules of Wikipedia and what you can get through. Unfortunately also some Admins have taken position so you have no other way than that or you have to invest time in endless discussions which have no meaning.
You will see that some of this guys who jump from one to another article about this so called genocide issues will give an irrelevant and unsubstantial reply to my answer just like in the issues about the two fictive genocide issues about Assyrians and Pontic Greeks before. P223 ( talk) 15:10, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
I think the same. He must feel great right know just like the Armenians when they talk about this kind of issues. Why I'm not wondering that you are the one replying?
And your two other friends will follow soon ... Thank you! :) -- P223 ( talk) 21:49, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
What is the difference between Hitler burning books and Armenian editors deleting the references (associated as burning electronic books) given in this article.-- Domino Theories ( talk) 14:51, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Only after having read the introduction I already felt that this article was suffering from some serious NPOV issues. It seems awfully biased towards the whole "It was genocide. End of." view, when there isn't even any consensus on the events. Runningfridgesrule ( talk) 23:01, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
I have removed the following fraudulent quote from the article.
Caucasian Battlefields
W.E.D.Allen and Paul Muratoff
...the irregular bands operating on either side had begun the work which famine and epidemics had completed. The remnants of the Armenian population had fled into Russian territory or had been deported by the Young Turk administration; the Moslems, scarcely more fortunate, had suffered equally from Armenian Atrocities: famine, epidemics and irregular slaughter, and the survivors had dispersed with what remained of their livestock into the interior of Asia Minor.
The quote on page 368 of the book actually says "the Muslims, scarcely more fortunate, had suffered equally from famine, epidemics and irregular slaughter, and the survivors had dispersed with what remained of their livestock into the interior of Asia Minor". Meowy 00:29, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Meowy 00:37, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Caught red-handed, deliberately falsifying data. How low will the deniers sink? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.100.208.82 ( talk) 19:36, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
[An RfCbio tag was here but is no longer needed.]
[An RfCLang tag was here but is no longer needed.]
Was Bernard Lewis "condemned" in a French court, or did he "receive an adverse civil judgment"?
diff
I have made a few tweaks, improving the text of the footnotes. I must insist, however, that "condamné" not be translated as "condemned", which is simply wrong. (Ask any French-to-English translator.) When the judgment says,
LE TRIBUNAL,
Déclare l'action recevable
Condamne Bernard LEWIS à payer à chaque demandeur, le FORUM DES ASSO- CIATIONS ARMENIENNES DE FRANCE, d'une part, et la LIGUE INTERNATIONALE CONTRE LE RACISMEET L'ANTISEMITISME, d'autre part, la somme de UN FRANC à titre de dommages-intérêts ;
the word "condamne" MUST NOT be translated as "condemns". No civil court in any English-speaking country "condemns" people to anything.
And in fact, the English translation of the judgment to which you link does get it right:
The Court;
Declares the action to be admissible;
Adjudges Bernard Lewis liable to pay to each plaintiff, the FRENCH FORUM OF ARMENIAN ASSOCIATIONS, and to the INTERNATIONAL LEAGUE AGAINST RACISM AND ANTISEMITISM the sum of one franc in damages;
.
Thank you.-- Goodmorningworld ( talk) 01:17, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
*condemn, reprobate, decry, objurgate, excoriate (express strong disapproval of) "We condemn the racism in South Africa"; "These ideas were reprobated"
*condemn (declare or judge unfit for use or habitation) "The building was condemned by the inspector"
*condemn (compel or force into a particular state or activity) "His devotion to his sick wife condemned him to a lonely existence"
*condemn (demonstrate the guilt of (someone)) "Her strange behavior condemned her"
*sentence, condemn, doom (pronounce a sentence on (somebody) in a court of law) "He was condemned to ten years in prison"
*condemn (appropriate (property) for public use) "the county condemned the land to build a highway"
More on condamner in French civil jurisprudence: dictionnaire.sensagent.com gives for condamner as a locution (commonly used phrase): condamner à une amende, and for amende gives: "1. (Droit): peine pécuniaire, en matière civile, pénale, fiscale" ((monetary) fine, in a civil, criminal, or tax proceeding.)" Therefore, condamner quelqu'un à une amende can simply be translated as "to fine someone". This goes both for the judgment and the newspaper article reporting on the judgment. The element of moral outrage or criminality that "French court condemns Lewis" carries is completely absent from both.-- Goodmorningworld ( talk) 00:23, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Third party opinion per RfC - Just because French and English sometimes look the same and have lots of words with the same root doesn't mean that condamner automatically translates into to condemn or demander into to demand etc... Similarly choosing Latinate words over Germanic ones in the English translation, just because Latinate words appear in the original language version, is lazy and a common mistake made by non-native translators.
In English 'condemn when used in legal contexts is associated with criminal law and typically jail time. My Oxford English dictionary lists being found guilty, begin found convicted and being sentenced to prison, within the definition of condemn. My American Oxford Dictionary defines it as "find (someone) guilty of a criminal act or wrong". Blue-Haired Lawyer 18:40, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
How reliable is this website;
http://www.armeniangenocidedebate.com/dr-hilmar-kaiser#toc12. When it uses TallArmenianTale as references itself? If this information;
..had his lecture tour canceled by Dennis R. Papazian (of the same university) after questioning Armenian scholarship
is true, then it should be available from more reliable sources than something referenced by TallArmenianTale!! -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 06:12, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
FYI; The reference that states that Kaiser's lecture tour was cancelled is incorrect. He did lecture at Villanova [6], and here [7]. Is there a reliable source for the statement:
....had his lecture tour canceled by Dennis R. Papazian (of the same university) after questioning Armenian scholarship
Isn't it time for wikipedia editors to use REAL references, instead of some priority driven website [8]? -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 07:04, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
I removed POV by user Adonisick for the following reasons:
Adoniscik! the wikipedia is not a chatroom, and we have no enough time to discuss things that do not exist. We have a site, and we have "Robert Aram and Marianne Kaloosdian and Stephen and Marion Mugar" words on it. and what you put in the article is someting different, an original research or something else, but the text you claim is a quotation from nowhere. read this, for example. if you have a source that claims your text, then let us discuss it, but the words "Robert Aram and Marianne Kaloosdian and Stephen and Marion Mugar" realy mean nothing. Gazifikator ( talk) 13:04, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
if you believe it is related then stop pov-pushing and go to Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment Gazifikator ( talk) 05:37, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Until you have no any direct sources on your claims you will be reverted per wp:syn. read it to not ask more questions to me. Gazifikator ( talk) 05:29, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Akçam, a leading international authority on the Armenian genocide, was marked for death by Turkish ultranationalists following the November 2006 publication of his book, A Shameful Act: The Armenian Genocide and The Question of Turkish Responsibility. The book is a definitive history based in large part on official documents from Turkish government archives. [12] Gazifikator ( talk) 13:08, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
And about the Armenian diaspora (you're free to use this reliable information!): "Dink's friend and ideological ally Taner Akçam, a distinguished Turkish historian and sociologist on the faculty of the University of Minnesota's Center for Holocaust and Genocide Studies, attended Dink's funeral in Turkey, despite the considerable risk to his own life." [13] Gazifikator ( talk) 13:10, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Dear User, See Talk:Denial_of_the_Armenian_Genocide#Acceptable_content_for_this_article. Please use appropriate articles for representing your position. The behavior is a considered WP:Vandalism. -- Kemalist ( talk) 07:08, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
You are talking nonsense: "(rv. Jews funding scolars are not the same neonazis funding denialist 'foundations'. go to talk)"
Armenian donations have just as many strings as Turkish donations. This line of defense is easy to refute. And who are these "neonazis" you speak of?
P.S. It's spelled "scholars". -- Adoniscik( t, c) 21:06, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Do not remove relevant, sourced content. If you keep this up, I will report you for incivility and vandalism. Also, I'm still waiting for an explanation of who these "neonazis" are what this "Jews funding scolars" business" is. -- Adoniscik( t, c) 14:08, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Please don't engage in intellectual dishonesty. I lined the article with sources to show that he had Armenian funding. You deleted it all. You said you moved it elsewhere, which you shouldn't have done, and you didn't even do that. Kindly stop it. -- Adoniscik( t, c) 13:15, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Assertion of Turks (what you mean, the whole nation, or any scholar?) on Akcam's funding is irrelevant here. this article is dedicated to the denial of AG, Hurriyet is a supporter of that denial. Gazifikator ( talk) 17:48, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
For the anon, who is incapable of understand exactly WHO is a historian and WHO isn't. Also, there needs to be a reference for Lewis AND McCarthy using Ottoman records. -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 20:58, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
I have moved this paragraph here for further discussion
This was put into the article as a balance for the British Governments position. However the British Government does not disagree, that a crime against humanity took place, and Churchill's words do not contradict that position. Further it is not clear from the quote if he was speaking as a member of the British Government or while he was in opposition. So I think to include it without further information, (when he said it) and an reliable source to explain exactly what he meant, it is misleading to include it. -- PBS ( talk) 19:19, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
www.armenian-genocide.org/churchill.html has published an extract from Churchill's "The World Crisis, vol. 5, "The Aftermath" (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1929)." The larger part of the quote used in this article is in the third paragraph of the extract, and seems to support the British Government's position as "The World Crisis" was published before the crime of genocide was defined but after the British issued their WWI statement that the Turkish government was committing crimes against humanity and specifically states "There is no reasonable doubt that this crime [general massacre and deportation of Armenians in Asia Minor] was planned and executed for political reasons." presumably the "this crime" relates to the WWI statement by the Allied powers of which Britain was one "In view of these new crimes of Turkey against humanity and civilization, the Allied Governments announce publicly to the Sublime Porte that they will hold personally responsible for these crimes all members of the Ottoman Government, as well as those of their agents who are implicated in such massacres." Now it may be that Churchill if asked after 1951 might of taken a position that it was a genocide (and for all I know he may have made such a statement) but the Churchill paragraph as it is currently phrased in the article, (starting with however) is misleading as it can not be assumed from a book published in 1929 that Churchill's position on the issue was significantly different from that of the British Government. -- PBS ( talk) 21:56, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
If I understand part of PBS' argument right, then there is a problem with the relationships between
Armenian Genocide and its sub-articles
Denial of the Armenian Genocide and
Recognition of the Armenian Genocide. Namely, that when someone is quoted in the "Denial" article denying the genocide, it would not do simply to let that stand without comment, otherwise the article would turn into a POV fork of the worst kind. But when wrong statements are countered, this reduplicates material already in the "Recognition" article. Yet when you keep the information out of the "Denial" article because it belongs in the "Recognition" article, you are back at square one.
Hence it would make sense to abolish the "Recognition" article entirely. And also because there is no need to have it since the consensus of historians is already settled. If that is PBS' argument, then I think I agree with it.--
Goodmorningworld (
talk)
19:19, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
I changed "The Armenian Genocide is widely acknowledged outside Turkey to have been one of the first modern, systematic ..." to The Armenian Genocide is widely acknowledged by genocide scholars to have been one of the first modern,
When I made the change I noted in the history of the article:
User:COYW quoted the above and placed it onto my talk page with the following comment:
I made the change because the first statement is not quantifiable. For example has there been a UN general resolution that has been passed which says that it was. In which case we could state something like: "On December 16, 1982, the United Nations General Assembly declared it to be an act of genocide." Have the results of an international survey that polled peoples opinion of whether they think there was a genocide been published? But even if there was and the majority did not agree would that make the opinions expressed in that poll authoritative?
Unless there is some sort of yardstick to measure opinion by, then the current sentence is not a valid statement (as we have no way of saying whether it is true or false). However we do know that the majority of genocide scholars acknowledge it as a genocide and we have a source that backs it up.
Not only is the statement closer to the truth, and has a source to back it up (although who has defined modern (as the IAGS did not)?), it is also more authoritative, because the opinion of experts in a field of research should and does carry more weight than the opinions of laymen. -- PBS ( talk) 10:13, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
As no source has been provided to justify the statement "The Armenian Genocide is widely acknowledged outside Turkey ..." I have reverted it to "The Armenian Genocide is widely acknowledged by genocide scholars" which is sourced. -- PBS ( talk) 12:07, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Trying to get through this entry, I repeatedly came across ungrammatical sentences, perhaps written by non-native English speakers. Someone with a good command of the English language needs to go through this whole entry and clean it up. 75.42.222.134 ( talk) 07:24, 5 September 2009 (UTC)Mark P
![]() | 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. |