![]() | 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 |
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Armenian Genocide denial. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 22:02, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
"as many sources point to the sheer scale of the death toll as evidence for a systematic, organized plan to eliminate the Armenians." As a matter of fact, many sources point out there is NO evidence for a systematic, organized plan to eliminate the Armenians. Just one example of a scholar pointing this out: http://www.ataa.org/reference/pdf/lewis.pdf .-- Behzat ( talk) 22:40, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
It does not matter how many countries have recognized on the genocide - here on Wikipedia we treat it as incontrovertible fact.
Maxime Gauin is in the minority. I have read some of his works and they just plainly rehash the arguments of the old denialists, perhaps in a little more refined manner but lacking quality and innovation all the same. The number of scholars outside Turkey who seriously doubt the Armenian Genocide having taken place can be counted literally on two hands - and many of those are from the generation of Bernard Lewis and Norman Stone. The newest generation of historians recognize and properly describe the genocide for what it is. And just because some do not read and employ Ottoman Turkish sources does not necessarily mean that the value of their works is compromised. Taner Akcam reads Ottoman Turkish and we all know what his position on the genocide is. So does Umit Ungor. In fact, much of the important work on the study of the genocide is being carried out by Turkish, not Armenian, historians. It certainly does not help that the Turkish government for decades has limited access to perusing the sources at the archives. But if anything, the Ottoman-era archives only reinforce the notion that a genocide occurred and Akcam has shown us how the "dual track" mechanism of communication (official and unofficial telegrams) operated at the time.-- Marshal Bagramyan ( talk) 17:53, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
I hope that if the statement about Australia entering the war in 25 April 2015 is reinstated, they correct it to 25 April 1915... unless they're bizarrely prescient. Jsharpminor ( talk) 01:50, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
I am a scholar working on legal ground of Armenian Genocide allegations. I can read Ottoman Turkish and I have been working in Ottoman archives. I could not find any document that proves systematic killings were ordered by the government. There is NO evidence of it in archives.
By the way, You can go to archives and search the author Taner Akçam and you will see that a person with that name has never been to archives :) Taner Akçam does not use documents. He simlpy lie. E3.akpinar ( talk) 11:17, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
References
I write this as someone who actually doesn't know much about the subject and has turned to Wikipedia for information. The section "Denialism by academia" begins with the sentence: "On 19 May 1985, The New York Times and The Washington Post ran an advertisement in which a group of 69 American historians called on Congress not to adopt the resolution on the Armenian Genocide". What is "the resolution" mentioned here? I cannot find it (easily, if at all) in the article. Some introduction should be provided here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.190.253.150 ( talk) 21:23, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
I found a trend among these articles that trivialized and "softened" the subject of the Armenian Genocide. This is in total contrast to the Armenian Genocide article that portrays it accurately. IP users alter words and cast doubt where there is none, or simply editorialize and rewrite entire sections to twist its meaning. I've completely rewritten the lead of the article to get rid of this crypto-denialism. If anyone objects to what I've done, we can discuss it here, but I strongly feel that this was necessary. These types of articles are often at risk of slowly being revised and manipulated resulting in completely different views than those intended by the sources. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) ( talk) 13:50, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
This is an response to the user removing the similarity to holocaust denial. Both acts were mass killings of people so of course holocaust denial is very similar to Armenian Genocide denial.c ( talk) 15:35, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Comparison with holocaust denial should be deleted for following reasons:
"Turkey and Azerbaijan who's governments consider acknowledging the genocide illegal." Are you sure about that? Because it is certainly not illegal in Turkey to acknowledge Armenian "genocide" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.242.221.248 ( talk) 10:16, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
It is clear that you added the comparison with holocaust denial to introduction to misrepresent the debate as denial of mass killings and deportations, in fact it is a debate about classification as a genocide. I don't really care so good luck. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unbiasedsource ( talk • contribs) 15:06, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
I've trimmed the article dramatically but now the issue of structuring remains.
Thoughts? Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) ( talk) 21:08, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
"Turkish scholars and other denialists reject the academic consensus of up to 1,5 million Armenian deaths attributed to the genocide." you mean 1.5 not 1,5? Alexis Ivanov ( talk) 06:04, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
The Advertisement/Time DVD incident section/subsection (it's both!) is simply incomprehensible. I'd try to fix it but I can't even make out what it's trying to say. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 06:02, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Armenian Genocide denial. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:33, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
there is no academic consensus. there are no sources to it being an academic consensus. it is an accusation because armenia rejects all proposals to create an international committee to investigate.
the assumption of genocide serves as blackmail.
also if the massacre is proven to be a genocide it must be attributed to ottoman empire.
also kurds who supported the alleged genocide are lacking from this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.55.133.135 ( talk) 19:29, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
The Armenian Genocide is corroborated by the international scholarly, legal, and human rights community:
1) Polish jurist Raphael Lemkin, when he coined the term genocide in 1944, cited the Turkish extermination of the Armenians and the Nazi extermination of the Jews as defining examples of what he meant by genocide.
2) The killings of the Armenians is genocide as defined by the 1948 United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.
3) In 1997 the International Association of Genocide Scholars, an organization of the world’s foremost experts on genocide, unanimously passed a formal resolution affirming the Armenian Genocide.
4) 126 leading scholars of the Holocaust including Elie Wiesel and Yehuda Bauer placed a statement in the New York Times in June 2000 declaring the “incontestable fact of the Armenian Genocide” and urging western democracies to acknowledge it.
5) The Institute on the Holocaust and Genocide (Jerusalem), and the Institute for the Study of Genocide (NYC) have affirmed the historical fact of the Armenian Genocide.
6) Leading texts in the international law of genocide such as William A. Schabas’s Genocide in International Law (Cambridge University Press, 2000) cite the Armenian Genocide as a precursor to the Holocaust and as a precedent for the law on crimes against humanity."
The quote saying the Israeli president rejected the similarities of genocide is not true.
Although Peres himself did not retract the statement, the Israeli Foreign Ministry later issued a cable to its missions which stated that "The minister absolutely did not say, as the Turkish news agency alleged, 'What the Armenians underwent was a tragedy, not a genocide.
Yair, Auron (2003). "Chapter 5 – The Armenian Genocide's Recognition by States: The Israeli Aspect". The Banality of Denial: Israel and the Armenian Genocide (1st ed.). New Brunswick (U.S.A.): Transaction Publishers. p. 127. ISBN 0-7658-0191-4. Nocturnal781 ( talk) 18:58, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Books written by 3rd party authors can't be presented as official statements of the government.I don't think you understand who wrote the book. Yair Auron is a genocide scholar, a recognised expert and a far better source than the nationalist-COI-ridden Hurriyet. Your POV that he is just a
3rd party authoris unsustainable.
As I said, Peres was President of Israel, and if there was an official denial of his words then it should be available on the Israeli Foreign Ministry and news websites.Yair Auron explains that the Israeli Foreign Ministry is not in the habit of issuing official denials.
Moreover, the author of that book admits that officials didn't issue a denial to the Turkish news agency and Peres didn't retract his statement.That's your POV take of what Auron writes in that reliable source. You have run out of arguments and you have broken the one-revert rule imposed by the Arbitration Committee on this article. I advise you to rethink your tactics. Dr. K. 20:17, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Yair Auron is a great scholar, and yet he is not a representative of Israeli government and can't make statements on behalf of Israeli government.If that's what you understood from the page I linked to, then, perhaps, you need to read it again.
Besides, in that book that you linked he clearly says that Israeli officials didn't issue a denial to the Turkish news agency and Peres didn't retract his statement.Cherrypicking two sentences out of context from the whole page, and trying to make a point out of that, is the very definition of WP:UNDUE and WP:POV. Anyone who read the whole page, and understood it, would not even come close to making the points you are attempting to make. Dr. K. 06:05, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Yalens. Dr. K. 20:58, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
To summarize points from this discussion:
1) There is no official Israeli government source that denies Shimon Peres's statement "What the Armenians underwent was a tragedy, not a genocide."
2) When Israeli government denies incorrect statements, there is at least one news article about it. For example:
"President Shimon Peres called Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas on Sunday and denied a report in Ha'aretz in which he was quoted as saying a peace agreement with the Palestinians was not possible in the foreseeable future" http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Abbas-Peres-denied-saying-that-a-peace-agreement-was-impossible
"The office of Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman Tuesday night denied a report quoting him as saying that Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas wrecked a deal to free kidnapped soldier" http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/134343
I couldn't find any news about denial of Shimon Peres's statement by Israeli officials.
3) A book by Yair Auron states that Israeli Foreign Ministry issued a cable to its missions with denial of Peres's statement, but doesn't give any sources or names.
4) On the same page the author says that officials didn't issue a denial to the Turkish news agency and Peres didn't retract his statement.
5) A year after the release of the book, Yair Auron, gives an interview where he reaffirms Peres's statement:
"Shimon Peres, the former foreign minister, before an official visit to Turkey, said that what happened was not a genocide. This was active denial. Until then, we did not say it was a genocide but we did not say it was not a genocide. But then we said it was not a genocide-it was a tragedy, but not a genocide." https://web.archive.org/web/20081223161200/http://www.thinking-east.net/index0c56.html?option=com_content&task=view&id=130&Itemid=56
Boaqua ( talk) 17:28, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
1) Shimon Peres was an Israeli Foreign Minister and then President of Israel, so when talking about Israeli stance his statements about Armenian genocide are important.
2) There is not one single official source where it is stated that Israel denied Peres's statement.
On the other hand, you couldn't come up with any objective reason why Peres's statement shouldn't added.
Boaqua ( talk) 23:29, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Your call. Dr. K. 04:33, 3 May 2017 (UTC)Consensus required: All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion). If in doubt, don't make the edit.
Added viewpoints of Shimon Peres and Bernard Lewis to the relevant section.
Shimon Peres was an Israeli Foreign Minister and then President of Israel, so when talking about Israeli stance his statements about Armenian genocide are important.
Bernard Lewis is a British American historian specializing in Middle Eastern History, so it makes sense to include his comparisons of Armenian genocide with Holocaust as well. Boaqua ( talk) 11:00, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Armenian Genocide denial. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:51, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Given reference doesn't include such a sentence, and the wording is not correct. The book doesn't include the original copies of telegrams, it is "mentioned" that there are such telegrams sent by Talat Pasha, but anyways this is a claim. So it should be mentioned like: writer-of-the-book "claimed" that.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:EA:273B:B400:D82B:8558:1DF5:7889 ( talk) 15:50, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
VahagnAvedian - The line mentions France, which is incorrect. The French National Assembly did vote for making the denial illegal, but the resolution was challenged in the Constitutional Court which ruled against it. Thus, currently it would be incorrect to say that France has "officially" banned the denial of the Armenian Genocide. As for Swiss, there are no laws explicitly about the Armenian Genocide. However, the legal grounds which e.g. Dogu Perincek was convicted with, was about federal laws regarding genocide denial in general which of course then applies to the Armenian case as well. While the France reference should be deleted, the Swiss mentioning might need explanation. 13:36, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi All, not sure why the below sourced content was recently removed? If it was inappropriate to keep in a certain section, then it could have been removed and placed elsewhere. No valid reason was provided for its complete removal. Seeking some clarification please. Archives908 ( talk) 13:51, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
References
Alexis Demirdjian states that Turkey's genocide denial is "similar to what one would expect of a defendant in the court when confronted with hardly refutable evidence of massive wrongdoing". [1] ( t · c) buidhe 23:37, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
He has a party about maoism and manipulater wiki says 'nationalist'. Ignorants — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.190.20.91 ( talk) 13:48, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
Recently, buidhe removed mention of the United States from the lead. When I restored it, they reverted. I think the US position deserves to be given a sentence in the lead. The position of Azerbaijan is already mentioned. The positions of other countries should be mentioned too. The article gives multiple sections to other countries' actions in this regard and the body of the article should be reflected in the lead. VR talk 21:49, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 22:25, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Sturmvogel 66 ( talk · contribs) 18:10, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
I'll get to this shortly--
Sturmvogel 66 (
talk)
18:10, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
The first sentence can now be read to mean there was wide support for the idea that the Ottoman Armenians were not victims of a genocide. Maybe replace 'as' with 'a crime'? Or find another way to make the sentence easier with fewer commas. (Impressive and important work btw!) Femke Nijsse ( talk) 21:30, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
The result was: promoted by
SL93 (
talk)
13:16, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
Improved to Good Article status by Buidhe ( talk). Self-nominated at 03:53, 12 February 2021 (UTC).
Visnelma I searched, and could not find, any reliable source listing which countries have such laws that are currently in effect. There is some news articles about individual countries passing laws, but it tends not to get reported in high-profile international news outlets, meaning that it's not WP:DUE. Furthermore, one researcher (discussing the French law, the only one that has received significant coverage—although not currently in effect) points out that such laws are mostly symbolic and should be considered an enhanced form of Armenian genocide recognition, making them somewhat out of scope for this page. [5] ( t · c) buidhe 22:55, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi Visnelma, I noticed you added a bunch of "which" tags to the article. I agree that it's often best to be specific about what we're talking about, but in these cases that you've picked out naming specific entities is not necessarily possible or appropriate.
some which? Turkish citizens who acknowledge the genocide have faced prosecution for " insulting Turkishness"The names of citizens who have been prosecuted is definitely WP:UNDUE in the lead of the article.
some which? Muslims, who had previously felt ashamed over the crimes against Armenians, changed their mind in response to propaganda about Armenian atrocitiesThis is about a general attitude held by many, not a specific opinion of certain individuals (who are not named in the source)
Some which? textbooks admit that deportations occurred and Armenians died,I am not sure what is expected here, the names of particular (non-notable) textbooks, which are anyway not mentioned in the source?
Some which? admit that massacres occurred but blame them on Armenian treacheryAgain, this is about a general attitude held by many, not a specific opinion of certain individuals (who are not named in the source)
( t · c) buidhe 21:24, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
In the section Foreign Relations of Turkey under United Kingdom, the sentence "Although FCO representatives have not used this argument since 2009, the Turkish government highlights it on its website as if it represents the current position of the British government" cites "Armenia and the G-word: The Law and the Politics".
Two things: One, is it possible to cite the Turkish government website referred to? If it can't be found/cited, it would then make the statement technically incorrect or at least outdated. Two, "the Turkish government highlights it on its website as if it represents the current position of the British government". The use of the words "as if" implies that the Turkish government are incorrectly citing this as the British government's current stance on the issue. However, the article makes no mention of the British government's current stance on the genocide. I would like for information to be added that shows the British government's current stance or at least an example of a more recent discussion of the genocide.
Edit: Is this the website mentioned http://www.mfa.gov.tr/official-position-of-the-british-government-on-armenian-allegations.en.mfa ?
KieranStanley ( talk) 05:43, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
@ Buidhe:, i would like to indicate that the Armenian Secret Army for the Liberation of Armenia was designated as a terrorist group by the United States Department of State, while the Justice Commandos of the Armenian Genocide were not and are generally considered a militant group (supported by consensus and half a dozen references on that article) is there any way to indicate the difference without messing the paragraph? Because per the current revision both are described as terrorists. - Kevo327 ( talk) 23:58, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
The article claims that Talat Pasha is regarded as a hero in Turkey, which is subjective, let alone largely incorrect. Ataturk himself disapproved of Talat and Enver, barring them from entering the country, while the Turkish populous sees them as responsible for the loss of WW1 and deaths of many citizens of the Empire as mentioned in several other Wikipedia articles. The transferring of his remains to Turkey for burial does not give any insight about the popular view of him. Furthermore, I cannot find any schools, mosques, etc with a name referencing Talat or Enver. I suggest the claim be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Borab00 ( talk • contribs) 00:50, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
What reliable sources? I can say that claiming Kieser to be a reliable source is also a personal insight. I cannot find any schools, mosques, etc with a name referencing Talat or Enver contrary to this guy's claim. Let's say there were though; how would that show that he is a hero in Turkey? Maybe you could say he is not looked down upon in Turkey (which is still a bold claim to make just based on the fact that there are a few schools/roads named for him) but claiming that he is a hero is absurd. If we can freely use Keiser as a "reliable" source (even though his evidence here is very shabby), why don't we fill Wikipedia articles with words from Justin McCarthy, who holds his alma matter from UCLA? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Borab00 ( talk • contribs) 00:10, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
As I said earlier, the transferring of his remains to Turkey for burial does not give any insight about the popular view of him. First of all, the monument is notable for commemorating the failure of the 1909 Ottoman countercoup, not Talat pasha in specific. We also have statues of Andrew Jackson (who did the trail of tears) and Thomas Jefferson (notorious owner of slaves) in the United States while I don't see Wikipedia calling him a "national hero". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Borab00 ( talk • contribs) 00:10, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Any evidence that 'most' people celebrated his return? Even if Inonu and Saracoglu attended his funeral, that doesn't make him a hero. After all, Donald Trump hung a portrait of Andrew Jackson next to his desk in the White House, yet nobody would agree that Andrew Jackson is a "hero" in the USA. Borab00 ( talk) 19:02, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
For someone to be considered as a national hero, that person has to be liked by the majority of the country's population. This simply isn't the case for Turkey. Many people don't even know who he is. He was a statesman and had important contributions to the Turkish-German alliance at WW1, thus statesmen of the time attended to his funeral. I couldn't see the point of discussing this, and insisting on citing a very unreliable source as evidence. Aloisnebegn ( talk) 00:31, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
I find the sentence on genocide denial being grounds for anti-Turkish sentiment in the West in the "consequences" section very problematic. The sentence currently reads "The persistent denial of the genocide is one reason why many people, especially in Western Europe, have a negative view of Turkish people." and is referenced to Fatma Müge Göçek's Denial of Violence. This is quite an extraordinary statement to make and it requires WP:EXTRAORDINARY sources, as it borders on almost justifying a xenophobic attitude towards Turkish migrants with this particular Turkish state policy. Upon reading the whole section from the cited text, I don't think that Göçek's work appropriately supports this sentence as: 1) Göçek is merely offering her personal insight on this, and as such nothing more than anecdotal evidence. 2) This is a testable hypothesis that would merit its own place in an empirical/theoretical study of the roots of anti-Turkish sentiment in Western Europe. Not only is Göçek not testing this statement empirically, she is not even theorising on this statement, or even expanding on this statement at all. In fact, this is nothing more than a passing comment in her introduction, which happens to have been unduly incorporated into this article. 3) This would be a statement that is best studied within the field of migration studies and Göçek does not have the sort of authority or past research profile in this field that could -maybe- justify us taking her passing comment as an authoritative source. As such, I am removing this sentence, and I don't think it should be reinstated unless reliable sources that go beyond anecdotal evidence and speculation can be used to back this up. -- GGT ( talk) 11:08, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Elenazadoyan.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 14:43, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Armenian Genocide denial has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change Sumagit to Sumgait in Consequences>International relations. Spelling error is repeated twice. 37.162.184.78 ( talk) 06:39, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Armenian Genocide which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 20:00, 15 May 2021 (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 |
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Armenian Genocide denial. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 22:02, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
"as many sources point to the sheer scale of the death toll as evidence for a systematic, organized plan to eliminate the Armenians." As a matter of fact, many sources point out there is NO evidence for a systematic, organized plan to eliminate the Armenians. Just one example of a scholar pointing this out: http://www.ataa.org/reference/pdf/lewis.pdf .-- Behzat ( talk) 22:40, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
It does not matter how many countries have recognized on the genocide - here on Wikipedia we treat it as incontrovertible fact.
Maxime Gauin is in the minority. I have read some of his works and they just plainly rehash the arguments of the old denialists, perhaps in a little more refined manner but lacking quality and innovation all the same. The number of scholars outside Turkey who seriously doubt the Armenian Genocide having taken place can be counted literally on two hands - and many of those are from the generation of Bernard Lewis and Norman Stone. The newest generation of historians recognize and properly describe the genocide for what it is. And just because some do not read and employ Ottoman Turkish sources does not necessarily mean that the value of their works is compromised. Taner Akcam reads Ottoman Turkish and we all know what his position on the genocide is. So does Umit Ungor. In fact, much of the important work on the study of the genocide is being carried out by Turkish, not Armenian, historians. It certainly does not help that the Turkish government for decades has limited access to perusing the sources at the archives. But if anything, the Ottoman-era archives only reinforce the notion that a genocide occurred and Akcam has shown us how the "dual track" mechanism of communication (official and unofficial telegrams) operated at the time.-- Marshal Bagramyan ( talk) 17:53, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
I hope that if the statement about Australia entering the war in 25 April 2015 is reinstated, they correct it to 25 April 1915... unless they're bizarrely prescient. Jsharpminor ( talk) 01:50, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
I am a scholar working on legal ground of Armenian Genocide allegations. I can read Ottoman Turkish and I have been working in Ottoman archives. I could not find any document that proves systematic killings were ordered by the government. There is NO evidence of it in archives.
By the way, You can go to archives and search the author Taner Akçam and you will see that a person with that name has never been to archives :) Taner Akçam does not use documents. He simlpy lie. E3.akpinar ( talk) 11:17, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
References
I write this as someone who actually doesn't know much about the subject and has turned to Wikipedia for information. The section "Denialism by academia" begins with the sentence: "On 19 May 1985, The New York Times and The Washington Post ran an advertisement in which a group of 69 American historians called on Congress not to adopt the resolution on the Armenian Genocide". What is "the resolution" mentioned here? I cannot find it (easily, if at all) in the article. Some introduction should be provided here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.190.253.150 ( talk) 21:23, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
I found a trend among these articles that trivialized and "softened" the subject of the Armenian Genocide. This is in total contrast to the Armenian Genocide article that portrays it accurately. IP users alter words and cast doubt where there is none, or simply editorialize and rewrite entire sections to twist its meaning. I've completely rewritten the lead of the article to get rid of this crypto-denialism. If anyone objects to what I've done, we can discuss it here, but I strongly feel that this was necessary. These types of articles are often at risk of slowly being revised and manipulated resulting in completely different views than those intended by the sources. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) ( talk) 13:50, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
This is an response to the user removing the similarity to holocaust denial. Both acts were mass killings of people so of course holocaust denial is very similar to Armenian Genocide denial.c ( talk) 15:35, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Comparison with holocaust denial should be deleted for following reasons:
"Turkey and Azerbaijan who's governments consider acknowledging the genocide illegal." Are you sure about that? Because it is certainly not illegal in Turkey to acknowledge Armenian "genocide" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.242.221.248 ( talk) 10:16, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
It is clear that you added the comparison with holocaust denial to introduction to misrepresent the debate as denial of mass killings and deportations, in fact it is a debate about classification as a genocide. I don't really care so good luck. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unbiasedsource ( talk • contribs) 15:06, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
I've trimmed the article dramatically but now the issue of structuring remains.
Thoughts? Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) ( talk) 21:08, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
"Turkish scholars and other denialists reject the academic consensus of up to 1,5 million Armenian deaths attributed to the genocide." you mean 1.5 not 1,5? Alexis Ivanov ( talk) 06:04, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
The Advertisement/Time DVD incident section/subsection (it's both!) is simply incomprehensible. I'd try to fix it but I can't even make out what it's trying to say. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 06:02, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Armenian Genocide denial. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:33, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
there is no academic consensus. there are no sources to it being an academic consensus. it is an accusation because armenia rejects all proposals to create an international committee to investigate.
the assumption of genocide serves as blackmail.
also if the massacre is proven to be a genocide it must be attributed to ottoman empire.
also kurds who supported the alleged genocide are lacking from this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.55.133.135 ( talk) 19:29, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
The Armenian Genocide is corroborated by the international scholarly, legal, and human rights community:
1) Polish jurist Raphael Lemkin, when he coined the term genocide in 1944, cited the Turkish extermination of the Armenians and the Nazi extermination of the Jews as defining examples of what he meant by genocide.
2) The killings of the Armenians is genocide as defined by the 1948 United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.
3) In 1997 the International Association of Genocide Scholars, an organization of the world’s foremost experts on genocide, unanimously passed a formal resolution affirming the Armenian Genocide.
4) 126 leading scholars of the Holocaust including Elie Wiesel and Yehuda Bauer placed a statement in the New York Times in June 2000 declaring the “incontestable fact of the Armenian Genocide” and urging western democracies to acknowledge it.
5) The Institute on the Holocaust and Genocide (Jerusalem), and the Institute for the Study of Genocide (NYC) have affirmed the historical fact of the Armenian Genocide.
6) Leading texts in the international law of genocide such as William A. Schabas’s Genocide in International Law (Cambridge University Press, 2000) cite the Armenian Genocide as a precursor to the Holocaust and as a precedent for the law on crimes against humanity."
The quote saying the Israeli president rejected the similarities of genocide is not true.
Although Peres himself did not retract the statement, the Israeli Foreign Ministry later issued a cable to its missions which stated that "The minister absolutely did not say, as the Turkish news agency alleged, 'What the Armenians underwent was a tragedy, not a genocide.
Yair, Auron (2003). "Chapter 5 – The Armenian Genocide's Recognition by States: The Israeli Aspect". The Banality of Denial: Israel and the Armenian Genocide (1st ed.). New Brunswick (U.S.A.): Transaction Publishers. p. 127. ISBN 0-7658-0191-4. Nocturnal781 ( talk) 18:58, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Books written by 3rd party authors can't be presented as official statements of the government.I don't think you understand who wrote the book. Yair Auron is a genocide scholar, a recognised expert and a far better source than the nationalist-COI-ridden Hurriyet. Your POV that he is just a
3rd party authoris unsustainable.
As I said, Peres was President of Israel, and if there was an official denial of his words then it should be available on the Israeli Foreign Ministry and news websites.Yair Auron explains that the Israeli Foreign Ministry is not in the habit of issuing official denials.
Moreover, the author of that book admits that officials didn't issue a denial to the Turkish news agency and Peres didn't retract his statement.That's your POV take of what Auron writes in that reliable source. You have run out of arguments and you have broken the one-revert rule imposed by the Arbitration Committee on this article. I advise you to rethink your tactics. Dr. K. 20:17, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Yair Auron is a great scholar, and yet he is not a representative of Israeli government and can't make statements on behalf of Israeli government.If that's what you understood from the page I linked to, then, perhaps, you need to read it again.
Besides, in that book that you linked he clearly says that Israeli officials didn't issue a denial to the Turkish news agency and Peres didn't retract his statement.Cherrypicking two sentences out of context from the whole page, and trying to make a point out of that, is the very definition of WP:UNDUE and WP:POV. Anyone who read the whole page, and understood it, would not even come close to making the points you are attempting to make. Dr. K. 06:05, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Yalens. Dr. K. 20:58, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
To summarize points from this discussion:
1) There is no official Israeli government source that denies Shimon Peres's statement "What the Armenians underwent was a tragedy, not a genocide."
2) When Israeli government denies incorrect statements, there is at least one news article about it. For example:
"President Shimon Peres called Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas on Sunday and denied a report in Ha'aretz in which he was quoted as saying a peace agreement with the Palestinians was not possible in the foreseeable future" http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Abbas-Peres-denied-saying-that-a-peace-agreement-was-impossible
"The office of Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman Tuesday night denied a report quoting him as saying that Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas wrecked a deal to free kidnapped soldier" http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/134343
I couldn't find any news about denial of Shimon Peres's statement by Israeli officials.
3) A book by Yair Auron states that Israeli Foreign Ministry issued a cable to its missions with denial of Peres's statement, but doesn't give any sources or names.
4) On the same page the author says that officials didn't issue a denial to the Turkish news agency and Peres didn't retract his statement.
5) A year after the release of the book, Yair Auron, gives an interview where he reaffirms Peres's statement:
"Shimon Peres, the former foreign minister, before an official visit to Turkey, said that what happened was not a genocide. This was active denial. Until then, we did not say it was a genocide but we did not say it was not a genocide. But then we said it was not a genocide-it was a tragedy, but not a genocide." https://web.archive.org/web/20081223161200/http://www.thinking-east.net/index0c56.html?option=com_content&task=view&id=130&Itemid=56
Boaqua ( talk) 17:28, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
1) Shimon Peres was an Israeli Foreign Minister and then President of Israel, so when talking about Israeli stance his statements about Armenian genocide are important.
2) There is not one single official source where it is stated that Israel denied Peres's statement.
On the other hand, you couldn't come up with any objective reason why Peres's statement shouldn't added.
Boaqua ( talk) 23:29, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Your call. Dr. K. 04:33, 3 May 2017 (UTC)Consensus required: All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion). If in doubt, don't make the edit.
Added viewpoints of Shimon Peres and Bernard Lewis to the relevant section.
Shimon Peres was an Israeli Foreign Minister and then President of Israel, so when talking about Israeli stance his statements about Armenian genocide are important.
Bernard Lewis is a British American historian specializing in Middle Eastern History, so it makes sense to include his comparisons of Armenian genocide with Holocaust as well. Boaqua ( talk) 11:00, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Armenian Genocide denial. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:51, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Given reference doesn't include such a sentence, and the wording is not correct. The book doesn't include the original copies of telegrams, it is "mentioned" that there are such telegrams sent by Talat Pasha, but anyways this is a claim. So it should be mentioned like: writer-of-the-book "claimed" that.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:EA:273B:B400:D82B:8558:1DF5:7889 ( talk) 15:50, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
VahagnAvedian - The line mentions France, which is incorrect. The French National Assembly did vote for making the denial illegal, but the resolution was challenged in the Constitutional Court which ruled against it. Thus, currently it would be incorrect to say that France has "officially" banned the denial of the Armenian Genocide. As for Swiss, there are no laws explicitly about the Armenian Genocide. However, the legal grounds which e.g. Dogu Perincek was convicted with, was about federal laws regarding genocide denial in general which of course then applies to the Armenian case as well. While the France reference should be deleted, the Swiss mentioning might need explanation. 13:36, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi All, not sure why the below sourced content was recently removed? If it was inappropriate to keep in a certain section, then it could have been removed and placed elsewhere. No valid reason was provided for its complete removal. Seeking some clarification please. Archives908 ( talk) 13:51, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
References
Alexis Demirdjian states that Turkey's genocide denial is "similar to what one would expect of a defendant in the court when confronted with hardly refutable evidence of massive wrongdoing". [1] ( t · c) buidhe 23:37, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
He has a party about maoism and manipulater wiki says 'nationalist'. Ignorants — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.190.20.91 ( talk) 13:48, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
Recently, buidhe removed mention of the United States from the lead. When I restored it, they reverted. I think the US position deserves to be given a sentence in the lead. The position of Azerbaijan is already mentioned. The positions of other countries should be mentioned too. The article gives multiple sections to other countries' actions in this regard and the body of the article should be reflected in the lead. VR talk 21:49, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 22:25, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Sturmvogel 66 ( talk · contribs) 18:10, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
I'll get to this shortly--
Sturmvogel 66 (
talk)
18:10, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
The first sentence can now be read to mean there was wide support for the idea that the Ottoman Armenians were not victims of a genocide. Maybe replace 'as' with 'a crime'? Or find another way to make the sentence easier with fewer commas. (Impressive and important work btw!) Femke Nijsse ( talk) 21:30, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
The result was: promoted by
SL93 (
talk)
13:16, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
Improved to Good Article status by Buidhe ( talk). Self-nominated at 03:53, 12 February 2021 (UTC).
Visnelma I searched, and could not find, any reliable source listing which countries have such laws that are currently in effect. There is some news articles about individual countries passing laws, but it tends not to get reported in high-profile international news outlets, meaning that it's not WP:DUE. Furthermore, one researcher (discussing the French law, the only one that has received significant coverage—although not currently in effect) points out that such laws are mostly symbolic and should be considered an enhanced form of Armenian genocide recognition, making them somewhat out of scope for this page. [5] ( t · c) buidhe 22:55, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi Visnelma, I noticed you added a bunch of "which" tags to the article. I agree that it's often best to be specific about what we're talking about, but in these cases that you've picked out naming specific entities is not necessarily possible or appropriate.
some which? Turkish citizens who acknowledge the genocide have faced prosecution for " insulting Turkishness"The names of citizens who have been prosecuted is definitely WP:UNDUE in the lead of the article.
some which? Muslims, who had previously felt ashamed over the crimes against Armenians, changed their mind in response to propaganda about Armenian atrocitiesThis is about a general attitude held by many, not a specific opinion of certain individuals (who are not named in the source)
Some which? textbooks admit that deportations occurred and Armenians died,I am not sure what is expected here, the names of particular (non-notable) textbooks, which are anyway not mentioned in the source?
Some which? admit that massacres occurred but blame them on Armenian treacheryAgain, this is about a general attitude held by many, not a specific opinion of certain individuals (who are not named in the source)
( t · c) buidhe 21:24, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
In the section Foreign Relations of Turkey under United Kingdom, the sentence "Although FCO representatives have not used this argument since 2009, the Turkish government highlights it on its website as if it represents the current position of the British government" cites "Armenia and the G-word: The Law and the Politics".
Two things: One, is it possible to cite the Turkish government website referred to? If it can't be found/cited, it would then make the statement technically incorrect or at least outdated. Two, "the Turkish government highlights it on its website as if it represents the current position of the British government". The use of the words "as if" implies that the Turkish government are incorrectly citing this as the British government's current stance on the issue. However, the article makes no mention of the British government's current stance on the genocide. I would like for information to be added that shows the British government's current stance or at least an example of a more recent discussion of the genocide.
Edit: Is this the website mentioned http://www.mfa.gov.tr/official-position-of-the-british-government-on-armenian-allegations.en.mfa ?
KieranStanley ( talk) 05:43, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
@ Buidhe:, i would like to indicate that the Armenian Secret Army for the Liberation of Armenia was designated as a terrorist group by the United States Department of State, while the Justice Commandos of the Armenian Genocide were not and are generally considered a militant group (supported by consensus and half a dozen references on that article) is there any way to indicate the difference without messing the paragraph? Because per the current revision both are described as terrorists. - Kevo327 ( talk) 23:58, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
The article claims that Talat Pasha is regarded as a hero in Turkey, which is subjective, let alone largely incorrect. Ataturk himself disapproved of Talat and Enver, barring them from entering the country, while the Turkish populous sees them as responsible for the loss of WW1 and deaths of many citizens of the Empire as mentioned in several other Wikipedia articles. The transferring of his remains to Turkey for burial does not give any insight about the popular view of him. Furthermore, I cannot find any schools, mosques, etc with a name referencing Talat or Enver. I suggest the claim be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Borab00 ( talk • contribs) 00:50, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
What reliable sources? I can say that claiming Kieser to be a reliable source is also a personal insight. I cannot find any schools, mosques, etc with a name referencing Talat or Enver contrary to this guy's claim. Let's say there were though; how would that show that he is a hero in Turkey? Maybe you could say he is not looked down upon in Turkey (which is still a bold claim to make just based on the fact that there are a few schools/roads named for him) but claiming that he is a hero is absurd. If we can freely use Keiser as a "reliable" source (even though his evidence here is very shabby), why don't we fill Wikipedia articles with words from Justin McCarthy, who holds his alma matter from UCLA? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Borab00 ( talk • contribs) 00:10, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
As I said earlier, the transferring of his remains to Turkey for burial does not give any insight about the popular view of him. First of all, the monument is notable for commemorating the failure of the 1909 Ottoman countercoup, not Talat pasha in specific. We also have statues of Andrew Jackson (who did the trail of tears) and Thomas Jefferson (notorious owner of slaves) in the United States while I don't see Wikipedia calling him a "national hero". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Borab00 ( talk • contribs) 00:10, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Any evidence that 'most' people celebrated his return? Even if Inonu and Saracoglu attended his funeral, that doesn't make him a hero. After all, Donald Trump hung a portrait of Andrew Jackson next to his desk in the White House, yet nobody would agree that Andrew Jackson is a "hero" in the USA. Borab00 ( talk) 19:02, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
For someone to be considered as a national hero, that person has to be liked by the majority of the country's population. This simply isn't the case for Turkey. Many people don't even know who he is. He was a statesman and had important contributions to the Turkish-German alliance at WW1, thus statesmen of the time attended to his funeral. I couldn't see the point of discussing this, and insisting on citing a very unreliable source as evidence. Aloisnebegn ( talk) 00:31, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
I find the sentence on genocide denial being grounds for anti-Turkish sentiment in the West in the "consequences" section very problematic. The sentence currently reads "The persistent denial of the genocide is one reason why many people, especially in Western Europe, have a negative view of Turkish people." and is referenced to Fatma Müge Göçek's Denial of Violence. This is quite an extraordinary statement to make and it requires WP:EXTRAORDINARY sources, as it borders on almost justifying a xenophobic attitude towards Turkish migrants with this particular Turkish state policy. Upon reading the whole section from the cited text, I don't think that Göçek's work appropriately supports this sentence as: 1) Göçek is merely offering her personal insight on this, and as such nothing more than anecdotal evidence. 2) This is a testable hypothesis that would merit its own place in an empirical/theoretical study of the roots of anti-Turkish sentiment in Western Europe. Not only is Göçek not testing this statement empirically, she is not even theorising on this statement, or even expanding on this statement at all. In fact, this is nothing more than a passing comment in her introduction, which happens to have been unduly incorporated into this article. 3) This would be a statement that is best studied within the field of migration studies and Göçek does not have the sort of authority or past research profile in this field that could -maybe- justify us taking her passing comment as an authoritative source. As such, I am removing this sentence, and I don't think it should be reinstated unless reliable sources that go beyond anecdotal evidence and speculation can be used to back this up. -- GGT ( talk) 11:08, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Elenazadoyan.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 14:43, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Armenian Genocide denial has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change Sumagit to Sumgait in Consequences>International relations. Spelling error is repeated twice. 37.162.184.78 ( talk) 06:39, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Armenian Genocide which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 20:00, 15 May 2021 (UTC)