![]() | 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 |
changing the holocaust denier as (so called) armenian genocide denier is just ridiculous . there is nothing similar between the two and many scholars still debate if there was a genocide or not. Malta trials shows that there was no armenia genocide but nuremberg trials proves that there was genocide of jews . this article is total BS
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
I would second this. The whole article is almost unreadable. It's a complete basket case. It would be great if someone knowledgeable and reasonably impartial could organise and edit it into some kind of coherent shape. Max sang ( talk) 11:58, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Note: Perincek vs Switzerland Trials at European Court of Human Rights clearly tells: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/pages/search.aspx?i=001-139724
Also "Dashnak Party Has Nothing to Do" by Hovhannes Kachaznuni — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.123.128.176 ( talk) 17:14, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was as no consensus to move at this time. I've delinked the move request and merge rfc. After reading the various discussions, I think both sides have valid points. PBS is right that having two articles, one on denial and another on recognition, is a content fork that is both unnecessary as well as renders each article incomplete. However, the other side is valid too. Having one article on the Armenian genocide and another labeled dispute does imply that the genocide itself is disputed (my understanding - mostly from lay knowledge and from reading the discussion - is that it is the recognition that is the focus of dispute not the genocide itself. I suggest that the merge rfc occur independently for the time being - it won't be resolved in a hurry - and that the discussion include a suitable title for a merged article (if there is consensus for a merge). -- RegentsPark ( sticks and stones) 16:48, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Denial of the Armenian Genocide → Armenian genocide dispute — I suggest that we follow the lead of the BBC and move this article to Armenian genocide dispute and merge into it the article called recognition of the Armenian Genocide PBS ( talk) 10:10, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
To remove the POV fork, I suggest that we follow the lead of the BBC and move this article to Armenian genocide dispute and merge into it the article called recognition of the Armenian Genocide PBS ( talk) 19:06, 5 October 2009 (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). 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." This position does not deny that the events took place but it does deny that the events constituted a genocide because the intent to destroy a group requirement of the Genocide Convention has not been proven. The British Government may or may not be correct, but the current content forking of these two article makes it difficult to present all views in a WP:NPOV.
As this covers more than one process I am going to advertise it in several places. -- PBS ( talk) 10:10, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
See also Talk:Denial of the Armenian Genocide/Archive 2#RFC: Merge "recognition of the Armenian Genocide" into this article -- PBS ( talk) 10:10, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
To the closing administrator. Please look at the arguments carefully and decide the issue on policy and guidelines not by counting the number of opinions expressed here. -- PBS ( talk) 10:10, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
- Sometimes the article title itself may be a source of contention and polarization. This is especially true for descriptive titles that suggest a viewpoint either "for" or "against" any given issue. A neutral article title is very important because it ensures that the article topic is placed in the proper context. Therefore, encyclopedic article titles are expected to exhibit the highest degree of neutrality. The article might cover the same material but with less emotive words, or might cover broader material which helps ensure a neutral view (for example, renaming "Criticisms of drugs" to "Societal views on drugs"). Neutral titles encourage multiple viewpoints and responsible article writing.
The problems with the current structure does not allow articles like this one by Associated Press " Obama Brands Armenian Killings 'Great Atrocities'" (published by ABC April 24, 2009) or this one by Ron Synovitz " Pitfalls Remain As Turkey, Armenia Move Toward Reconciliation" (Radio Free Europe, September 1, 2009)into either of the two articles, which if there was one article would be much easier. -- PBS ( talk) 10:34, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
A quote from page 5 of a " press release by the Swiss Federal Department of Foreign Affairs, the Ministry of Foreign of the Republic of Armenia and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Turkey" 31 August 2009:
the sub-commission on the historical dimension to implement a dialogue with the aim to restore mutual confidence between the two nations, including an impartial scientific examination of the historical records and archives to define existing problems and formulate recommendations, in which Armenian , Turkish as well as Swiss and other international experts shall take part.
Here is a follow up article on this with the text of the September 1 initiative " Turkey, Armenia to launch talks on diplomatic ties" , Today's Zaman, Sepember 1 2009. This is again an example of how having two different articles that are a POV fork, it is difficult to structure them in such a way that developments like this are reported and given their proper weight. -- PBS ( talk) 10:53, 21 September 2009 (UTC) -- PBS ( talk) 10:53, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
new suggestion a trimmed version of the "recognition" article should be merged into this one, as its basically a list of countries that have recognized it. alternately, the recognition page could be summarized and linked to as a space saver, instead of just a see also ... on second thought, wow, this article is long - definitely a short summary and link to 'recognition' article. untwirl( talk) 07:26, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Why are there continuing votes anyway? This particular issue has been settled for now. We are not voting on a new proposal. The PBS "move this article to Armenian genocide dispute and merge into it the article called recognition of the Armenian Genocide" proposal was made on the 5th september, and ended with a "no consensus to move" result on the 15th September. I am removing the "mergeto" tag from the article because it refers to a proposal that was made, that has been discussed, and that was rejected. PBS reinserted the tag on the 25th September, incorrectly claiming that "The merge discussion is still open with no decision made". The merge discussion is actually closed, and the decision was "no consensus to move". Meowy 23:46, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
The result of the [proposed page move] was as no consensus to move at this time. I've delinked the move request and merge rfc. After reading the various discussions, I think both sides have valid points. PBS is right that having two articles, one on denial and another on recognition, is a content fork that is both unnecessary as well as renders each article incomplete. However, the other side is valid too. Having one article on the Armenian genocide and another labeled dispute does imply that the genocide itself is disputed (my understanding - mostly from lay knowledge and from reading the discussion - is that it is the recognition that is the focus of dispute not the genocide itself. I suggest that the merge rfc occur independently for the time being - it won't be resolved in a hurry - and that the discussion include a suitable title for a merged article (if there is consensus for a merge).
At the core of this article lies the Armenian thesis that the Denial of the Armenian Genocide (which I also dispute the title, because it is itself is biased towards Armenian thesis) is a policy of the Turkish and Azeri goverments with no support from historians, and scholars. Turkey was not a colonised country, thus all her archives were written in Ottoman Turkish. A scholar being an expert on genocide can not be accepted as an authority without being specialised in Turkish history. Do not forget; those who claim it was genocide should find that evidence in the Ottoman archives, no where else. You can prove the cruelty even inhumanity by showing photographs, witnesses and other resources, however the systematic killings to exterminate a nation requires a proof of such order. My point is this article is biased because it totally neglects of the opinions of the historians against the general public opinion that A.G. is a fact, and indisputable. Even talking about scholars who thinks it happened should be in this article, yet alone interestingly even the historian who do not accept it as a genocide are not cited at the core of the article at the beginning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.109.98.30 ( talk) 08:11, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
My other point is, logically speaking, if one version of the article suggests there are 21 countries recognising the A.G., it should be added to this article that (195-21=) 174 countries are not recognising it as a genocide, including British government who were the super power of those times.
Hope this adds value to this article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.109.98.30 ( talk) 08:09, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Firstly, I had a hard time understanding the relevance of freedom of press in Turkey and the Ottoman archives. For decades, all we heard was that archives should be opened and there we were to find the irrefutable evidence of intent and plan of genocide. Well.. they still have not found it. Ironically Turkey is the only place where this topic can be actually discussed and debated freely. Try discussing this in Armenia! Yes, there are laws in Turkey against insulting symbols of religion and national pride. Many countries have them. Yes, ultra nationalists try to exploit it. Shame on them. At the end though we are left with the fact that there is nothing in the official recorded history that supports any of the genocide claims pushed on the world public for decades. Well, truth is the best cure, is it not? You bet there is a dispute. One can not deny something that is not.-- Murat ( talk) 04:48, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
I do not have time to make an undo fight with people here. If the Armenian government itself accepts to establish a commission to investigate the 1915 events, you should accept that there is some dispute instead of a mere denial. Secondly, if there are 20 or so countries calling it a genocide, it should be noted in the article that 174 other countries do not choose to do so; not only Azerbaijan. Otherwise, this is propaganda and it sounds like these two countries oppose to use the genocide because they are guilty. I can name at least my country, UK that doesn't use the term genocide to call the events. Thirdly, the same POV is neglecting the fact that it is not only Turkish government that deny ? AG, but there are historians who strongly oppose to call it genocide. It would be enough to read the discussion pages and how the concerns of supposedly Turkish people's opinions and references are ignored. I strongly urge my Turkish friends to form a team of people to correct this one-sided propaganda in wiki. Lastly, The genocide scholars are generally not historians, many have backgrounds in international law. European Council report (recognition) is signed by a certain number of people, etc. There are so many flaws in the entire document.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.109.98.30 ( talk) 15:04, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Pelin Batu does not recognize the Armenian genocide. Kavas ( talk) 22:24, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Wow Aregakn, you sound like you have been in Turkey for many years.First of all just because three people got attacked or whatever doesn't allow you to generalise everything about Turkey and its citizens. As a turkish citizen myself, I know a lot of people who says there is a genocide of armenians. And these people are very much alive. I read almost every wiki discussions about this issue and I think that especially some armenians(no offense to other people) are very close-minded. Especially the armenians in america are brainwashed and they don't listen to other side of the event. As a proof to the close-minded armenians I can show you recent Kobe Bryant example. Just because he signed a contract with the Turkish Airlines, people are threating him or protecting him. All I can say is that (again not to everyone) please grow-up and be open-minded. I agree the first commenter's idea. Finally if you want to contribute to wiki, please don't the these issues personal. Its not like you have been to this event — Preceding unsigned comment added by 0Alpha0 ( talk • contribs) 16:59, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
I would like to suggest to move the article (change the title) to Armenian Genocide denial. It projects the whole concept and is much better for search in English. Aregakn ( talk) 13:51, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Look into Holocaust Denial then. Aregakn ( talk) 10:24, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
PBS yet against? Aregakn ( talk) 19:56, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
For nobody to be able to claim the procedure was not correct I'll open the discussion below. Aregakn ( talk) 20:29, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: We seem to have a consensus for a capital G but a lowercase d. — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 21:28, 18 June 2010 (UTC) — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 21:28, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Denial of the Armenian Genocide →
Armenian Genocide Denial —
It projects the whole concept and is much better for search in English. It describes the variety of issues connected to the subject better and is more professional for an encyclopedia. Aregakn ( talk) 20:36, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
However, what of the POV fork matter, because that is a sticky one there?
I suggest to create a different article for this topic as it doesnt fit into topic of denial. Andranikpasha ( talk) 05:32, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
This sentence... The denial of the Armenian Genocide is often identified by genocide scholars and historians as a crucial symbolic and ideological process which follows every genocide and which is intended to desensitize and to make possible the emergence of new forms of genocidal violence in the future.
No, I don't think the goal of those deniers of the Armenian Genocide is to make possible genocidal violence. Their "goals" or otherwise motives for denial include Turkish nationalism, a different interpretation of events, anti-Armenian sentiment, a backlash against what some perceive as persecution of Turks (not referring to the Armenian Genocide issue, but to the treatment of Turks in Europe), etc... None of these reasons are legitimate. However, the goal is not to make possible future genocides. That is simply incorrect. -- Yalens ( talk) 01:24, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
The denial of the Armenian Genocide is often identified by genocide scholars and historians as a crucial symbolic and ideological process which follows every genocide and which is intended to desensitize and to make possible the emergence of new forms of genocidal violence in the future.[7]
First of all, this sentence doesn't make any sense, because the original source text was modified. The original reads: "We must fight denials because the denial of genocide is a crucial symbolic and ideological process which not only follows every genocide after it has taken place, but is a process which is intended to desensitize and make possible the emergence of new forms of genocidal violence to peoples in the future (see Charny, 1992a, 1999)." Now some enthusiasts changed this general statement about genocides into a specific statement about the Armenian genocide. Unfortunately, now it makes no sense: the phrase claims that every genocide is followed by the denial of the Armenian genocide. I would suggest restoring the original form and moving this general statement to Genocide denial (if necessary there; otherwise delete). -- Max Shakhray ( talk) 10:09, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Is the commission of Armenian genocide established by an international court? -- Max Shakhray ( talk) 20:46, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
The scope of the law also does not cover other historical events, like the massacre of Armenians during the First World War by Ottoman Turks, which Armenians call a genocide. Instead, the legislation recognized only genocides that fall under the statutes of the International Criminal Court in The Hague, like the mass killing of Jews during World War II and the massacre in Rwanda in 1994.
There's been news from 2005 about an initiative in the Belgian Parlament to criminalise the AGD [4]. Has something happenned since then? -- Max Shakhray ( talk) 13:15, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
The text reads: "have adopted laws that punish genocide denial". Either the word "Armenian" is missing or the phrase belongs to the general article about genocide. -- Max Shakhray ( talk) 10:50, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
This article is full to the brim with many loaded words such as "claims" the use of such words and phrases are strongly discouraged by wikipedia as it does not fit in with the encyclopedic context of the website. It does not promote one of wikipedias most important rules which is nuetrality, not only does it not do this, but it also downgrades it. Therefore within one week I shall be removing such words. If anyone objects please state why. Regards, Tugrulirmak ( talk) 20:27, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
I belive this is a very broadly encompassing term which should be lessened to some degree. For example, depending upon the subject at hand we may add Some historians belive or most Historians belive. By having it like it is now we create the illusion that all Historians support a given notions when most of the tim, this cleary is not the case.
Comments like the above can just be simply ignored. It's understandable to have an editor come and offer constructive criticism and offer new viewpoints. But to challenge the very premise of the article on such a disingenuous basis (as, e.g., saying that there is an ongoing "dispute" regarding the Holocaust) is unacceptable. We have numerous sources which say that most reputable scholars believe that a genocide took place. There is an ideological underpinning to many of the editors who seriously try to introduce such changes and thus much of they have to offer is based on a very skewed version of events which they have been brought up with, which explains why they are so surprised to see the "wrong" version represented on Wikipedia.The patience of good faith editors can last only so long.-- Marshal Bagramyan ( talk) 04:35, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Dear editors,
This page is titled: Armenian Genocide Denial. It is intended to explain the other side of the argument, which is being heavily debated. So, I would like to invite you to common decency and ask that you please stop trying to make this page a second version of the "Armenian Genocide" page, which already discusses the sources that support the claim. I am trying to put information on this page that discusses what the counterargument is, relying on the principle that both sides should get their fair opportunity to present their arguments. But there is a constant attempt to make this page a support source for the "Armenian Genocide" page. Please respect the principles of civilized discourse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Realityvstruth ( talk • contribs) 04:16, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
This edit has been attempted to be added multiple times;
Large numbers of Armenians living in Turkey joined Russian forces invading Turkey. They captured the city of Van and held it with the intention of handing it over to the Russians. It was after this that the Ottoman Government decided to deport the Armenians, in an effort to repel the guerrillas.<ref>Bernard Lewis Conference. National Press Club, Washington DC. 3/25/2002</ref>
Aside for the fact that it is the personal opinion of a single historian, Bernard Lewis, it is also open-ended, in that it does not clarify how it is related to the denial of Armenian Genocide. It also speaks in Wikipedia's voice, as if the facts it asserts are undeniable. But these facts are not universally accepted and should be attributed to those who propagate them. I tried to fix this problem but I got reverted by a single-purpose account who so far has only edited this article trying to add this information in one form or another by edit-warring. Opinions of uninvolved editors are welcome. Δρ.Κ. λόγος πράξις 21:38, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Lewis has credibility regarding his past career, not in genocide studies but in history around the areas of the world. Although later he was criticized for his views on the Armenian Genocide (and tooken to court in France for his views), and I believe he had ties to the Turkish government, but put all things aside, that paragraph really doesn't belong there its a counterargument to the Armenian Genocide. Nocturnal781 ( talk) 03:29, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Exactly! Nocturnal781 ( talk) 03:56, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
What I take issue with is that this page, and especially the introductory paragraph, is preemptively designed to lead readers to think that the denial of the Armenian Genocide is absurd and is limited to the Turkish government's denial. Even titling this page as "denial" is inappropriate, but I know that issue is being discussed in another talk section. The introduction does not convey the essential counterargument, which is that a portion of the Armenian population revolted and armed themselves against the Ottomans, siding with the invading Russians, and thereby creating an atmosphere of war. This is the crux of the argument and is history, not opinion. But when I try to add this information, I'm first asked by a certain editor to mention the name of the historian who states this (which is similar to asking someone to state the name of the historian who states that the American Revolution was fought against the British). And then, when I do mention the name of the historian, that same editor argues by saying we shouldn't mention the name of that historian. Asking for decency.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Realityvstruth ( talk • contribs) 02:47, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
There is a strong emphasis on this issue. "Who denied the so-called Armenian genocide all are paid by Turks."
I wonder, if this same principle will be applied to the scholars who believe in the so-called Armenian genocide?
This article is currently using this style: "paid by", "from Ankara", "from Turkey", "members of the Institute of Turkish Studies"... These expressions are used for people who reports that there was no genocide to label them. Opinions of scholars who reports that there was no genocide are labeled.
What are the labels of scholars who believe in the so-called Armenian genocide? And why are they not mentioned in article for sake of NPOV?-- 98.196.232.128 ( talk) 06:18, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
An RfC:
Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the
Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. –
MrX
16:25, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
I reverted this edit, and I thought I should leave a note here as to why. Times (can I call you that as an abbrevation?) says in his edit summary that the material is "pro-Ottomon propaganda". As the person who originally added it, I would say that it absolutely is not. Personally, I recognize the genocide. In a discussion about the denial of the genocide, I think its important for readers to understand the underlying reasons why Turks can't accept what their ancestors did. One of the major underlying reasons seems to be that the Turkish view of the late 19th and early 20th centuries is one of tragedy and victimhood (after all, their empire was broken apart, millions of Turks died and many more were deported to modern day Turkey from areas now outside Turkey's borders). This all leads to a response of "but we are the victims here", and I think it's helpful to understand this dynamic. It's inclusion in the page is not "pro-Ottomon propaganda"... -- Yalens ( talk) 16:49, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
The following sentence in the "Genocide convention" section is completely illogical and invalid and should therefore be deleted as falling short of encyclopedic standards: ' The Turkish and some other sources claim that the "intent to destroy," clause in the "Genocide Convention" has not been met, which means even if the "whole or in part" is met without intent it is not genocide.' The second clause in no way follows from the first. Furthermore, the "whole or in part" terminology of the Convention is strictly tied to special (genocidal) intent and cannot be used to refer to some other crime as the author of the sentence seems to think. Diranakir ( talk) 02:19, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
There is no such category of study as "Broad Genocide of Armenians". That title and construct is a complete fiction. 02:54, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
One of the first lines is "The denial of the Armenian Genocide is the assertion that the Armenian Genocide did not occur in the manner or to the extent described by scholarship." It is essential to note that there are scholars who do NOT share this view, or else it's pure propaganda leaving information out willingly, since many scholars deny it by scholarship. It would be strange to call one scholarship, and the other not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Behzat ( talk • contribs) 12:02, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
It has been adjusted. The rejection of the Armenian Genocide is supported by scholarship. In no way may this fact be left out, or insinuated that the Armenian Genocide is 100% supported by scholarship. Wikipedia is not for propaganda, both sides of the story should be openly shown. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Behzat ( talk • contribs) 20:08, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
"did not occur in the manner or to the extent described by scholarship. " is total propaganda. Many scholars proof the opposite, this should be clarified. I have edited the first lines, please discuss before reverting the edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Behzat ( talk • contribs) 21:47, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
European Court of Human Rights decision is binding in all participatory countries. I think "The denial of the Armenian Genocide is officially outlawed in Switzerland, Cyprus, Slovakia, and Greece." should be removed, because as of two days ago, these countries may not prosecute denier of the Armenian Genocide. Caglarkoca ( talk) 22:19, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
these countries may not prosecute denier of the Armenian Genocide.Do you have any reliable sources that state that Switzerland, Cyprus, Slovakia, and Greece will rescind their laws related to AG denial? Δρ.Κ. λόγος πράξις 16:15, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Why no one commented here? ECHR decided denying AG is within freedom of speech. It can no longer be outlawed within member countries of ECHR. If no one objects, I will remove that line. Caglarkoca ( talk) 15:01, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Why no one commented here?Because the matter is closed. Noone agrees to remove the information from the article and the explanations have been given before.
It can no longer be outlawed within member countries of ECHR.As I told you multiple times before please supply reliable sources to support your statement. Until such time as you supply them you cannot remove the information from this article. Δρ.Κ. λόγος πράξις 15:12, 21 October 2015 (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 4 | Archive 5 |
changing the holocaust denier as (so called) armenian genocide denier is just ridiculous . there is nothing similar between the two and many scholars still debate if there was a genocide or not. Malta trials shows that there was no armenia genocide but nuremberg trials proves that there was genocide of jews . this article is total BS
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
I would second this. The whole article is almost unreadable. It's a complete basket case. It would be great if someone knowledgeable and reasonably impartial could organise and edit it into some kind of coherent shape. Max sang ( talk) 11:58, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Note: Perincek vs Switzerland Trials at European Court of Human Rights clearly tells: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/pages/search.aspx?i=001-139724
Also "Dashnak Party Has Nothing to Do" by Hovhannes Kachaznuni — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.123.128.176 ( talk) 17:14, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was as no consensus to move at this time. I've delinked the move request and merge rfc. After reading the various discussions, I think both sides have valid points. PBS is right that having two articles, one on denial and another on recognition, is a content fork that is both unnecessary as well as renders each article incomplete. However, the other side is valid too. Having one article on the Armenian genocide and another labeled dispute does imply that the genocide itself is disputed (my understanding - mostly from lay knowledge and from reading the discussion - is that it is the recognition that is the focus of dispute not the genocide itself. I suggest that the merge rfc occur independently for the time being - it won't be resolved in a hurry - and that the discussion include a suitable title for a merged article (if there is consensus for a merge). -- RegentsPark ( sticks and stones) 16:48, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Denial of the Armenian Genocide → Armenian genocide dispute — I suggest that we follow the lead of the BBC and move this article to Armenian genocide dispute and merge into it the article called recognition of the Armenian Genocide PBS ( talk) 10:10, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
To remove the POV fork, I suggest that we follow the lead of the BBC and move this article to Armenian genocide dispute and merge into it the article called recognition of the Armenian Genocide PBS ( talk) 19:06, 5 October 2009 (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). 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." This position does not deny that the events took place but it does deny that the events constituted a genocide because the intent to destroy a group requirement of the Genocide Convention has not been proven. The British Government may or may not be correct, but the current content forking of these two article makes it difficult to present all views in a WP:NPOV.
As this covers more than one process I am going to advertise it in several places. -- PBS ( talk) 10:10, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
See also Talk:Denial of the Armenian Genocide/Archive 2#RFC: Merge "recognition of the Armenian Genocide" into this article -- PBS ( talk) 10:10, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
To the closing administrator. Please look at the arguments carefully and decide the issue on policy and guidelines not by counting the number of opinions expressed here. -- PBS ( talk) 10:10, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
- Sometimes the article title itself may be a source of contention and polarization. This is especially true for descriptive titles that suggest a viewpoint either "for" or "against" any given issue. A neutral article title is very important because it ensures that the article topic is placed in the proper context. Therefore, encyclopedic article titles are expected to exhibit the highest degree of neutrality. The article might cover the same material but with less emotive words, or might cover broader material which helps ensure a neutral view (for example, renaming "Criticisms of drugs" to "Societal views on drugs"). Neutral titles encourage multiple viewpoints and responsible article writing.
The problems with the current structure does not allow articles like this one by Associated Press " Obama Brands Armenian Killings 'Great Atrocities'" (published by ABC April 24, 2009) or this one by Ron Synovitz " Pitfalls Remain As Turkey, Armenia Move Toward Reconciliation" (Radio Free Europe, September 1, 2009)into either of the two articles, which if there was one article would be much easier. -- PBS ( talk) 10:34, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
A quote from page 5 of a " press release by the Swiss Federal Department of Foreign Affairs, the Ministry of Foreign of the Republic of Armenia and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Turkey" 31 August 2009:
the sub-commission on the historical dimension to implement a dialogue with the aim to restore mutual confidence between the two nations, including an impartial scientific examination of the historical records and archives to define existing problems and formulate recommendations, in which Armenian , Turkish as well as Swiss and other international experts shall take part.
Here is a follow up article on this with the text of the September 1 initiative " Turkey, Armenia to launch talks on diplomatic ties" , Today's Zaman, Sepember 1 2009. This is again an example of how having two different articles that are a POV fork, it is difficult to structure them in such a way that developments like this are reported and given their proper weight. -- PBS ( talk) 10:53, 21 September 2009 (UTC) -- PBS ( talk) 10:53, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
new suggestion a trimmed version of the "recognition" article should be merged into this one, as its basically a list of countries that have recognized it. alternately, the recognition page could be summarized and linked to as a space saver, instead of just a see also ... on second thought, wow, this article is long - definitely a short summary and link to 'recognition' article. untwirl( talk) 07:26, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Why are there continuing votes anyway? This particular issue has been settled for now. We are not voting on a new proposal. The PBS "move this article to Armenian genocide dispute and merge into it the article called recognition of the Armenian Genocide" proposal was made on the 5th september, and ended with a "no consensus to move" result on the 15th September. I am removing the "mergeto" tag from the article because it refers to a proposal that was made, that has been discussed, and that was rejected. PBS reinserted the tag on the 25th September, incorrectly claiming that "The merge discussion is still open with no decision made". The merge discussion is actually closed, and the decision was "no consensus to move". Meowy 23:46, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
The result of the [proposed page move] was as no consensus to move at this time. I've delinked the move request and merge rfc. After reading the various discussions, I think both sides have valid points. PBS is right that having two articles, one on denial and another on recognition, is a content fork that is both unnecessary as well as renders each article incomplete. However, the other side is valid too. Having one article on the Armenian genocide and another labeled dispute does imply that the genocide itself is disputed (my understanding - mostly from lay knowledge and from reading the discussion - is that it is the recognition that is the focus of dispute not the genocide itself. I suggest that the merge rfc occur independently for the time being - it won't be resolved in a hurry - and that the discussion include a suitable title for a merged article (if there is consensus for a merge).
At the core of this article lies the Armenian thesis that the Denial of the Armenian Genocide (which I also dispute the title, because it is itself is biased towards Armenian thesis) is a policy of the Turkish and Azeri goverments with no support from historians, and scholars. Turkey was not a colonised country, thus all her archives were written in Ottoman Turkish. A scholar being an expert on genocide can not be accepted as an authority without being specialised in Turkish history. Do not forget; those who claim it was genocide should find that evidence in the Ottoman archives, no where else. You can prove the cruelty even inhumanity by showing photographs, witnesses and other resources, however the systematic killings to exterminate a nation requires a proof of such order. My point is this article is biased because it totally neglects of the opinions of the historians against the general public opinion that A.G. is a fact, and indisputable. Even talking about scholars who thinks it happened should be in this article, yet alone interestingly even the historian who do not accept it as a genocide are not cited at the core of the article at the beginning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.109.98.30 ( talk) 08:11, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
My other point is, logically speaking, if one version of the article suggests there are 21 countries recognising the A.G., it should be added to this article that (195-21=) 174 countries are not recognising it as a genocide, including British government who were the super power of those times.
Hope this adds value to this article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.109.98.30 ( talk) 08:09, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Firstly, I had a hard time understanding the relevance of freedom of press in Turkey and the Ottoman archives. For decades, all we heard was that archives should be opened and there we were to find the irrefutable evidence of intent and plan of genocide. Well.. they still have not found it. Ironically Turkey is the only place where this topic can be actually discussed and debated freely. Try discussing this in Armenia! Yes, there are laws in Turkey against insulting symbols of religion and national pride. Many countries have them. Yes, ultra nationalists try to exploit it. Shame on them. At the end though we are left with the fact that there is nothing in the official recorded history that supports any of the genocide claims pushed on the world public for decades. Well, truth is the best cure, is it not? You bet there is a dispute. One can not deny something that is not.-- Murat ( talk) 04:48, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
I do not have time to make an undo fight with people here. If the Armenian government itself accepts to establish a commission to investigate the 1915 events, you should accept that there is some dispute instead of a mere denial. Secondly, if there are 20 or so countries calling it a genocide, it should be noted in the article that 174 other countries do not choose to do so; not only Azerbaijan. Otherwise, this is propaganda and it sounds like these two countries oppose to use the genocide because they are guilty. I can name at least my country, UK that doesn't use the term genocide to call the events. Thirdly, the same POV is neglecting the fact that it is not only Turkish government that deny ? AG, but there are historians who strongly oppose to call it genocide. It would be enough to read the discussion pages and how the concerns of supposedly Turkish people's opinions and references are ignored. I strongly urge my Turkish friends to form a team of people to correct this one-sided propaganda in wiki. Lastly, The genocide scholars are generally not historians, many have backgrounds in international law. European Council report (recognition) is signed by a certain number of people, etc. There are so many flaws in the entire document.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.109.98.30 ( talk) 15:04, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Pelin Batu does not recognize the Armenian genocide. Kavas ( talk) 22:24, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Wow Aregakn, you sound like you have been in Turkey for many years.First of all just because three people got attacked or whatever doesn't allow you to generalise everything about Turkey and its citizens. As a turkish citizen myself, I know a lot of people who says there is a genocide of armenians. And these people are very much alive. I read almost every wiki discussions about this issue and I think that especially some armenians(no offense to other people) are very close-minded. Especially the armenians in america are brainwashed and they don't listen to other side of the event. As a proof to the close-minded armenians I can show you recent Kobe Bryant example. Just because he signed a contract with the Turkish Airlines, people are threating him or protecting him. All I can say is that (again not to everyone) please grow-up and be open-minded. I agree the first commenter's idea. Finally if you want to contribute to wiki, please don't the these issues personal. Its not like you have been to this event — Preceding unsigned comment added by 0Alpha0 ( talk • contribs) 16:59, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
I would like to suggest to move the article (change the title) to Armenian Genocide denial. It projects the whole concept and is much better for search in English. Aregakn ( talk) 13:51, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Look into Holocaust Denial then. Aregakn ( talk) 10:24, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
PBS yet against? Aregakn ( talk) 19:56, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
For nobody to be able to claim the procedure was not correct I'll open the discussion below. Aregakn ( talk) 20:29, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: We seem to have a consensus for a capital G but a lowercase d. — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 21:28, 18 June 2010 (UTC) — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 21:28, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Denial of the Armenian Genocide →
Armenian Genocide Denial —
It projects the whole concept and is much better for search in English. It describes the variety of issues connected to the subject better and is more professional for an encyclopedia. Aregakn ( talk) 20:36, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
However, what of the POV fork matter, because that is a sticky one there?
I suggest to create a different article for this topic as it doesnt fit into topic of denial. Andranikpasha ( talk) 05:32, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
This sentence... The denial of the Armenian Genocide is often identified by genocide scholars and historians as a crucial symbolic and ideological process which follows every genocide and which is intended to desensitize and to make possible the emergence of new forms of genocidal violence in the future.
No, I don't think the goal of those deniers of the Armenian Genocide is to make possible genocidal violence. Their "goals" or otherwise motives for denial include Turkish nationalism, a different interpretation of events, anti-Armenian sentiment, a backlash against what some perceive as persecution of Turks (not referring to the Armenian Genocide issue, but to the treatment of Turks in Europe), etc... None of these reasons are legitimate. However, the goal is not to make possible future genocides. That is simply incorrect. -- Yalens ( talk) 01:24, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
The denial of the Armenian Genocide is often identified by genocide scholars and historians as a crucial symbolic and ideological process which follows every genocide and which is intended to desensitize and to make possible the emergence of new forms of genocidal violence in the future.[7]
First of all, this sentence doesn't make any sense, because the original source text was modified. The original reads: "We must fight denials because the denial of genocide is a crucial symbolic and ideological process which not only follows every genocide after it has taken place, but is a process which is intended to desensitize and make possible the emergence of new forms of genocidal violence to peoples in the future (see Charny, 1992a, 1999)." Now some enthusiasts changed this general statement about genocides into a specific statement about the Armenian genocide. Unfortunately, now it makes no sense: the phrase claims that every genocide is followed by the denial of the Armenian genocide. I would suggest restoring the original form and moving this general statement to Genocide denial (if necessary there; otherwise delete). -- Max Shakhray ( talk) 10:09, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Is the commission of Armenian genocide established by an international court? -- Max Shakhray ( talk) 20:46, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
The scope of the law also does not cover other historical events, like the massacre of Armenians during the First World War by Ottoman Turks, which Armenians call a genocide. Instead, the legislation recognized only genocides that fall under the statutes of the International Criminal Court in The Hague, like the mass killing of Jews during World War II and the massacre in Rwanda in 1994.
There's been news from 2005 about an initiative in the Belgian Parlament to criminalise the AGD [4]. Has something happenned since then? -- Max Shakhray ( talk) 13:15, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
The text reads: "have adopted laws that punish genocide denial". Either the word "Armenian" is missing or the phrase belongs to the general article about genocide. -- Max Shakhray ( talk) 10:50, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
This article is full to the brim with many loaded words such as "claims" the use of such words and phrases are strongly discouraged by wikipedia as it does not fit in with the encyclopedic context of the website. It does not promote one of wikipedias most important rules which is nuetrality, not only does it not do this, but it also downgrades it. Therefore within one week I shall be removing such words. If anyone objects please state why. Regards, Tugrulirmak ( talk) 20:27, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
I belive this is a very broadly encompassing term which should be lessened to some degree. For example, depending upon the subject at hand we may add Some historians belive or most Historians belive. By having it like it is now we create the illusion that all Historians support a given notions when most of the tim, this cleary is not the case.
Comments like the above can just be simply ignored. It's understandable to have an editor come and offer constructive criticism and offer new viewpoints. But to challenge the very premise of the article on such a disingenuous basis (as, e.g., saying that there is an ongoing "dispute" regarding the Holocaust) is unacceptable. We have numerous sources which say that most reputable scholars believe that a genocide took place. There is an ideological underpinning to many of the editors who seriously try to introduce such changes and thus much of they have to offer is based on a very skewed version of events which they have been brought up with, which explains why they are so surprised to see the "wrong" version represented on Wikipedia.The patience of good faith editors can last only so long.-- Marshal Bagramyan ( talk) 04:35, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Dear editors,
This page is titled: Armenian Genocide Denial. It is intended to explain the other side of the argument, which is being heavily debated. So, I would like to invite you to common decency and ask that you please stop trying to make this page a second version of the "Armenian Genocide" page, which already discusses the sources that support the claim. I am trying to put information on this page that discusses what the counterargument is, relying on the principle that both sides should get their fair opportunity to present their arguments. But there is a constant attempt to make this page a support source for the "Armenian Genocide" page. Please respect the principles of civilized discourse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Realityvstruth ( talk • contribs) 04:16, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
This edit has been attempted to be added multiple times;
Large numbers of Armenians living in Turkey joined Russian forces invading Turkey. They captured the city of Van and held it with the intention of handing it over to the Russians. It was after this that the Ottoman Government decided to deport the Armenians, in an effort to repel the guerrillas.<ref>Bernard Lewis Conference. National Press Club, Washington DC. 3/25/2002</ref>
Aside for the fact that it is the personal opinion of a single historian, Bernard Lewis, it is also open-ended, in that it does not clarify how it is related to the denial of Armenian Genocide. It also speaks in Wikipedia's voice, as if the facts it asserts are undeniable. But these facts are not universally accepted and should be attributed to those who propagate them. I tried to fix this problem but I got reverted by a single-purpose account who so far has only edited this article trying to add this information in one form or another by edit-warring. Opinions of uninvolved editors are welcome. Δρ.Κ. λόγος πράξις 21:38, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Lewis has credibility regarding his past career, not in genocide studies but in history around the areas of the world. Although later he was criticized for his views on the Armenian Genocide (and tooken to court in France for his views), and I believe he had ties to the Turkish government, but put all things aside, that paragraph really doesn't belong there its a counterargument to the Armenian Genocide. Nocturnal781 ( talk) 03:29, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Exactly! Nocturnal781 ( talk) 03:56, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
What I take issue with is that this page, and especially the introductory paragraph, is preemptively designed to lead readers to think that the denial of the Armenian Genocide is absurd and is limited to the Turkish government's denial. Even titling this page as "denial" is inappropriate, but I know that issue is being discussed in another talk section. The introduction does not convey the essential counterargument, which is that a portion of the Armenian population revolted and armed themselves against the Ottomans, siding with the invading Russians, and thereby creating an atmosphere of war. This is the crux of the argument and is history, not opinion. But when I try to add this information, I'm first asked by a certain editor to mention the name of the historian who states this (which is similar to asking someone to state the name of the historian who states that the American Revolution was fought against the British). And then, when I do mention the name of the historian, that same editor argues by saying we shouldn't mention the name of that historian. Asking for decency.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Realityvstruth ( talk • contribs) 02:47, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
There is a strong emphasis on this issue. "Who denied the so-called Armenian genocide all are paid by Turks."
I wonder, if this same principle will be applied to the scholars who believe in the so-called Armenian genocide?
This article is currently using this style: "paid by", "from Ankara", "from Turkey", "members of the Institute of Turkish Studies"... These expressions are used for people who reports that there was no genocide to label them. Opinions of scholars who reports that there was no genocide are labeled.
What are the labels of scholars who believe in the so-called Armenian genocide? And why are they not mentioned in article for sake of NPOV?-- 98.196.232.128 ( talk) 06:18, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
An RfC:
Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the
Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. –
MrX
16:25, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
I reverted this edit, and I thought I should leave a note here as to why. Times (can I call you that as an abbrevation?) says in his edit summary that the material is "pro-Ottomon propaganda". As the person who originally added it, I would say that it absolutely is not. Personally, I recognize the genocide. In a discussion about the denial of the genocide, I think its important for readers to understand the underlying reasons why Turks can't accept what their ancestors did. One of the major underlying reasons seems to be that the Turkish view of the late 19th and early 20th centuries is one of tragedy and victimhood (after all, their empire was broken apart, millions of Turks died and many more were deported to modern day Turkey from areas now outside Turkey's borders). This all leads to a response of "but we are the victims here", and I think it's helpful to understand this dynamic. It's inclusion in the page is not "pro-Ottomon propaganda"... -- Yalens ( talk) 16:49, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
The following sentence in the "Genocide convention" section is completely illogical and invalid and should therefore be deleted as falling short of encyclopedic standards: ' The Turkish and some other sources claim that the "intent to destroy," clause in the "Genocide Convention" has not been met, which means even if the "whole or in part" is met without intent it is not genocide.' The second clause in no way follows from the first. Furthermore, the "whole or in part" terminology of the Convention is strictly tied to special (genocidal) intent and cannot be used to refer to some other crime as the author of the sentence seems to think. Diranakir ( talk) 02:19, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
There is no such category of study as "Broad Genocide of Armenians". That title and construct is a complete fiction. 02:54, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
One of the first lines is "The denial of the Armenian Genocide is the assertion that the Armenian Genocide did not occur in the manner or to the extent described by scholarship." It is essential to note that there are scholars who do NOT share this view, or else it's pure propaganda leaving information out willingly, since many scholars deny it by scholarship. It would be strange to call one scholarship, and the other not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Behzat ( talk • contribs) 12:02, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
It has been adjusted. The rejection of the Armenian Genocide is supported by scholarship. In no way may this fact be left out, or insinuated that the Armenian Genocide is 100% supported by scholarship. Wikipedia is not for propaganda, both sides of the story should be openly shown. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Behzat ( talk • contribs) 20:08, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
"did not occur in the manner or to the extent described by scholarship. " is total propaganda. Many scholars proof the opposite, this should be clarified. I have edited the first lines, please discuss before reverting the edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Behzat ( talk • contribs) 21:47, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
European Court of Human Rights decision is binding in all participatory countries. I think "The denial of the Armenian Genocide is officially outlawed in Switzerland, Cyprus, Slovakia, and Greece." should be removed, because as of two days ago, these countries may not prosecute denier of the Armenian Genocide. Caglarkoca ( talk) 22:19, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
these countries may not prosecute denier of the Armenian Genocide.Do you have any reliable sources that state that Switzerland, Cyprus, Slovakia, and Greece will rescind their laws related to AG denial? Δρ.Κ. λόγος πράξις 16:15, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Why no one commented here? ECHR decided denying AG is within freedom of speech. It can no longer be outlawed within member countries of ECHR. If no one objects, I will remove that line. Caglarkoca ( talk) 15:01, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Why no one commented here?Because the matter is closed. Noone agrees to remove the information from the article and the explanations have been given before.
It can no longer be outlawed within member countries of ECHR.As I told you multiple times before please supply reliable sources to support your statement. Until such time as you supply them you cannot remove the information from this article. Δρ.Κ. λόγος πράξις 15:12, 21 October 2015 (UTC)