![]() | 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 5 | ← | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 |
An editor rm new material saying that he couldn't see them justified in the source. The material was:
"The Allies condemned the deaths (called a "massacre" at the time) of the Armenians in 1915. The Ottoman Empire officially agreed, in the Treaty of Sevres that the reason for moving the Armenians, had been illegal. The Allies stated their belief that this had been a crime prior to this time.(ref) http://alfreddezayas.com/Law_history/armlegopi.shtml (endref)"
See " It is worth remembering that U.S. Ambassador Henry Morgenthau, Sr., had called the massacres “race murder” and that on 10 July 1915"
and
See "Pursuant to article 230 of the Treaty of Sèvres:
“The Turkish Government undertakes to hand over to the Allied Powers the persons whose surrender may be required by the latter as being responsible for the massacres committed during the continuance of the state of war on territory which formed part of the Turkish Empire on the 1 st August 1914. The Allied Powers reserve to themselves the right to designate the Tribunal which shall try the persons so accused and the Turkish Government undertakes to recognise such Tribunal….”(4)" (footnote theirs)
and
" on 28 May 1915, the Governments of France, Great Britain and Russia had issued a joint declaration denouncing the Ottoman Government's massacre of the Armenians as constituting “crimes against humanity and civilization." In fact, the new Turkish government convicted Enver and others, using the term 'crims against humanity and civilization."
and
"“The Turkish Government recognises the injustice of the law of 1915 relating to Abandoned Properties (Emval-I-Metroukeh), and of the supplementary provisions thereof, and declares them to be null and void, in the past as in the future.
“The Turkish Government solemnly undertakes to facilitate to the greatest possible extent the return to their homes and re-establishment in their businesses of the Turkish subjects of non-Turkish race who have been forcibly driven from their homes by fear of massacre or any other form of pressure since January 1, 1914. It recognises that any immovable or movable property of the said Turkish subjects or of the communities to which they belong, which can be recovered, must be restored to them as soon as possible, in whatever hands it may be found…. The Turkish Government agrees that arbitral commissions shall be appointed by the Council of the League of Nations wherever found necessary. .. These arbitral commissions shall hear all claims covered by this Article and decide them by summary procedure.”(5)" [footnote theirs]
(continuation of paragraph) "It became important to establish this as an existing internationally-recognized crime preliminary to the
Nuremberg Trials in 1948 so those responsible for the
Holocaust could be legally tried.(ref)
http://groong.usc.edu/dezayas-memorandum.html (endref)"
See "the provisions of Article 230 of the Peace Treaty of Sèvres were obviously intended to cover, in conformity with the Allied note of 1915 ... offences which had been committed on Turkish territory against persons of Turkish citizenship, though of Armenian... race. This article constitutes, therefore, a precedent for Articles 6 c) and 5 c) of the Nuremberg and Tokyo Charters, and offers an example of one of the categories of 'crimes against humanity' as understood by these enactments."17"
The term genocide itself was officially used in the indictment of 18 October 1945," For the first time the word "genocide" was formally used in a legal document.
See prior ref "74. In his opening Statement at the International Military Tribunal, the British Chief Prosecutor Lord Hartley Shawcross stated: “There is thus no substantial retroactivity in the provisions of the Charter. It merely fixes the responsibility for a crime already clearly established as such by positive law upon its actual perpetrators. It fills a gap in international criminal procedure. There is all the difference between saying to a man, ‘You will now be punished for what was not a crime at all at the time you committed it,', and in saying to him ‘You will now pay the penalty for conduct which was contrary to law and a crime when you executed it, although, owing to the imperfection of the international machinery, there was at that time no court competent to pronounce judgement against you.'”
"There was probably no general understanding of the act of genocide prior to the early 19th century.(ref) http://hnn.us/article/7302 (endref)
See (after detailed analysis of the accusations) "in the end, the sad fate of America's Indians represents not a crime but a tragedy, involving an irreconcilable collision of cultures and values. Despite the efforts of well-meaning people in both camps, there existed no good solution to this clash. The Indians were not prepared to give up the nomadic life of the hunter for the sedentary life of the farmer. The new Americans, convinced of their cultural and racial superiority, were unwilling to grant the original inhabitants of the continent the vast preserve of land required by the Indians’ way of life. The consequence was a conflict in which there were few heroes, but which was far from a simple tale of hapless victims and merciless aggressors. To fling the charge of genocide at an entire society serves neither the interests of the Indians nor those of history."
There are a number of these historical analyses on the web. It is apparent that, judged by the standards of their own time, which is the only real standard to which they can be held, they weren't doing anything particularly wrong. Student7 ( talk) 15:13, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Could the IP editor please explain why he is currently going through a great many articles on genocides and blanking content from them? Darkness Shines ( talk) 20:47, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Please do not insert WP:FRINGE or otherwise revisionist material into these articles. GregJackP Boomer! 18:39, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
How is Guenter Lewy fringe. Stannard and Churchill both controversial sources to. This source is used on Genocides of Indigenous Peoples. The section needs a differing opinion just like every other controversial genocide. There should be counter opinions instead of just quotes supporting the genocide label. Tjis is the case with most of other genocides. 88.104.219.76 ( talk) 18:55, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
I would keep him. He is still a notable scholar and there needs to be a counter claim. I don't think the objection of these scholars is enough to not make him RS. Stannard, Churchill and Casarini's claims are also controversial. 88.104.219.76 ( talk) 20:09, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
And Lewy is hardly a genocide denier in the traditional sense of the word merely on the aplicabilty to certain cases. 88.104.219.76 ( talk) 20:12, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
OK, let's look at these comments on Lewy:
It is fairly clear cut that he is a denier and fringe. GregJackP Boomer! 21:42, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
There is no edit war currently. Why would I drop the stick considering Darkness Shines agreed to have a counter argument. I am also clearly not trolling or being tendentious considering it is pretty reasonable and common to have counter claims on controversial topics. I'm pretty sure Stannard and Ward Churchill are far more fringe than Lewy, but if Gunter Lewy is not used then someone else can be used as a counter point. 88.104.219.76 ( talk) 11:05, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
I guess I could look for another quote from someone everyone will accept. You say Stannard is mainstream, but Gunter Lewy is as well. 88.104.219.76 ( talk) 15:16, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Student7, every time you reinsert fringe / undue material, you will be reverted. Lewy is clearly fringe and a genocide denier. The other material is from an individuals own website and is not necessarily reliable. If your position is on solid ground, it should be easy to find real academic sources for it. GregJackP Boomer! 00:25, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
WP:FRINGE does not necessarily label a historian who is outvoted by his peers. It would mean Velikovsky, Jack Chick, that sort of thing.
A person with recognized credentials who has published in peer-reviewed articles may be in the minority, but that does not, by itself, make him "fringe."
I edit a number of religious articles. Most historians do not credit the Jewish-Christian scripture with much relevance to actual history. However, there are some international scholars who see some relevance, if not 100%. Their remarks are credited alongside the others though in proportion to their numbers and contributions. Some steles, for example, seems to support some biblical references. Or not. Both sides are listed. The article states that the preponderance of historians don't base history on.., but some do. They aren't automatically thrown into the trash in favor of a coherent single story that Wikipedia editors have "voted" on.
Any more than we would vote that Bush is a monster/hero or Obama is a monster/hero. Alternate views are permitted if they are made by qualified, published scholars.
Nor do we constantly threaten editors who try to use these authors. Nor do we remove all material, because one of the authors has been voted off the island. Student7 ( talk) 21:34, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I've read the diary of Hoss (Auschwitz commandant). The gypsies were indeed first to be just interned, and they were held at Auschwitz in the "family camp" (internally separated, whole families thogether, a very different regime than regular prisoners) for a long time, dying from diseases, but eventually a decision to kill most of them was made by Himmler and they were killed on 2 August 1944. About the extermination: http://en.auschwitz.org/m/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=447&Itemid=8 -- Niemti ( talk) 08:30, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Also there actually was an extermination of most Soviet POWs (deliberately most of all through hunger but also by a variety direct means, it was an abortive policy that was largely discontinued in 1942 but at that point already killed some 3 million or a majority of them), but there was no extermination of gays of JWs whatsoever. -- Niemti ( talk) 08:51, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Once again, as my views appear to be misrepresented, I concur with the positions of GregJackP and Darkness Shines on this matter. The material sought to be inserted if fringe and fringe material has no place on wikipedia, other than in articles on fringe theories themselves. (See Flat earth) Tendentious debate does not need to go to any more drama boards than it already has gone to. Montanabw (talk) 22:59, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Strangely, in the list of more recent genocides, this article mentions the genocides in Burundi and DRC, but not the largest one in Rwanda. The Rwandan genocide is mentioned in the discussion of courts to prosecute perpetrators, and is represented in the article's images. I can only guess the discussion on this topic got removed at some point and needs to be added back in soon. I'm planning on getting the article on the Rwandan Genocide up to FA soon so it can be featured on the main page on April 7 2014, its 20th anniversary. This article will receive plenty of hits and it will seem very strange if the Rwandan Genocide is omitted. Lemurbaby ( talk) 14:02, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Since it's obvious that without protection this dispute is going to carry on in the article. If it can't be settled within the week I'll probably extend the protection. Dougweller ( talk) 13:24, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
http://untreaty.un.org/cod/icc/statute/99_corr/cstatute.htm should be changed to http://legal.un.org/icc/statute/99_corr/cstatute.htm Munchkin2013 ( talk) 16:34, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Minority dissent is allowed in other articles. For example, there is a statement by a WP:NN (who rates an article, nevertheless, but is probably not a historian) member of the Israel parliament who says (quoted elsewhere in Wikipedia), "I find it is deeply offensive, and even blasphemous to compare the Holocaust of European Jewry during the Second World War with the mass extermination of the Armenian people during the First World War. Jews were killed because they were Jews, but Armenians provoked Turkey and should blame themselves."(ref) While I am not trying to place anything like that here (I prefer reliable material from notable sources), I think that a minority opinion could be tolerated. It is in many places in Wikipedia. Student7 ( talk) 19:16, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Darkness Shines, you know as well as I do that The British Medical Journal and The Guardian are WP:RS, and that your edit hurt the article by re-adding sources you previously agreed were dubious. Please stop blanking content and vandalizing pages to support your POV. TheTimesAreAChanging ( talk) 02:42, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
It's not even just The Guardian, it's Serajur Rahman. This stupid talk about millions dead in Bangladesh is completely ridicalous. I don't know why some people in these articles want to include the most sensationalist stuff possible. -- Niemti ( talk) 06:50, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Are you kidding? Seriously? You are aware that Croatia, Bosnia, and Serbia are on the Balkan peninsula, right? You are aware that the genocide in question crossed all of these borders during the period in question, right? That the borders were contested, as part of a civil war? Are you competent to edit in this area? Just asking. GregJackP Boomer! 20:50, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Amf once again I have to say, done with genocide deniers. The Bosnian conflict began with declarations of independence from two nations, I figure even Niemti knows those? It is obvious this is what he source refers to, so again, get a fucking source which says Payaslian is fringe or take a hike. Darkness Shines ( talk) 22:30, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
So, who thinks Darkness Shines should be, or should be not, topic banned? -- Niemti ( talk) 13:13, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Why not just answer his question? People were indicted for acts of genocide from 1991. The war started in 1991. See the following:
I don't think we should be wasting our time and energy dealing with genocide deniers who have a propensity towards fringe sources. GregJackP Boomer! 21:06, 30 October 2013 (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 5 | ← | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 |
An editor rm new material saying that he couldn't see them justified in the source. The material was:
"The Allies condemned the deaths (called a "massacre" at the time) of the Armenians in 1915. The Ottoman Empire officially agreed, in the Treaty of Sevres that the reason for moving the Armenians, had been illegal. The Allies stated their belief that this had been a crime prior to this time.(ref) http://alfreddezayas.com/Law_history/armlegopi.shtml (endref)"
See " It is worth remembering that U.S. Ambassador Henry Morgenthau, Sr., had called the massacres “race murder” and that on 10 July 1915"
and
See "Pursuant to article 230 of the Treaty of Sèvres:
“The Turkish Government undertakes to hand over to the Allied Powers the persons whose surrender may be required by the latter as being responsible for the massacres committed during the continuance of the state of war on territory which formed part of the Turkish Empire on the 1 st August 1914. The Allied Powers reserve to themselves the right to designate the Tribunal which shall try the persons so accused and the Turkish Government undertakes to recognise such Tribunal….”(4)" (footnote theirs)
and
" on 28 May 1915, the Governments of France, Great Britain and Russia had issued a joint declaration denouncing the Ottoman Government's massacre of the Armenians as constituting “crimes against humanity and civilization." In fact, the new Turkish government convicted Enver and others, using the term 'crims against humanity and civilization."
and
"“The Turkish Government recognises the injustice of the law of 1915 relating to Abandoned Properties (Emval-I-Metroukeh), and of the supplementary provisions thereof, and declares them to be null and void, in the past as in the future.
“The Turkish Government solemnly undertakes to facilitate to the greatest possible extent the return to their homes and re-establishment in their businesses of the Turkish subjects of non-Turkish race who have been forcibly driven from their homes by fear of massacre or any other form of pressure since January 1, 1914. It recognises that any immovable or movable property of the said Turkish subjects or of the communities to which they belong, which can be recovered, must be restored to them as soon as possible, in whatever hands it may be found…. The Turkish Government agrees that arbitral commissions shall be appointed by the Council of the League of Nations wherever found necessary. .. These arbitral commissions shall hear all claims covered by this Article and decide them by summary procedure.”(5)" [footnote theirs]
(continuation of paragraph) "It became important to establish this as an existing internationally-recognized crime preliminary to the
Nuremberg Trials in 1948 so those responsible for the
Holocaust could be legally tried.(ref)
http://groong.usc.edu/dezayas-memorandum.html (endref)"
See "the provisions of Article 230 of the Peace Treaty of Sèvres were obviously intended to cover, in conformity with the Allied note of 1915 ... offences which had been committed on Turkish territory against persons of Turkish citizenship, though of Armenian... race. This article constitutes, therefore, a precedent for Articles 6 c) and 5 c) of the Nuremberg and Tokyo Charters, and offers an example of one of the categories of 'crimes against humanity' as understood by these enactments."17"
The term genocide itself was officially used in the indictment of 18 October 1945," For the first time the word "genocide" was formally used in a legal document.
See prior ref "74. In his opening Statement at the International Military Tribunal, the British Chief Prosecutor Lord Hartley Shawcross stated: “There is thus no substantial retroactivity in the provisions of the Charter. It merely fixes the responsibility for a crime already clearly established as such by positive law upon its actual perpetrators. It fills a gap in international criminal procedure. There is all the difference between saying to a man, ‘You will now be punished for what was not a crime at all at the time you committed it,', and in saying to him ‘You will now pay the penalty for conduct which was contrary to law and a crime when you executed it, although, owing to the imperfection of the international machinery, there was at that time no court competent to pronounce judgement against you.'”
"There was probably no general understanding of the act of genocide prior to the early 19th century.(ref) http://hnn.us/article/7302 (endref)
See (after detailed analysis of the accusations) "in the end, the sad fate of America's Indians represents not a crime but a tragedy, involving an irreconcilable collision of cultures and values. Despite the efforts of well-meaning people in both camps, there existed no good solution to this clash. The Indians were not prepared to give up the nomadic life of the hunter for the sedentary life of the farmer. The new Americans, convinced of their cultural and racial superiority, were unwilling to grant the original inhabitants of the continent the vast preserve of land required by the Indians’ way of life. The consequence was a conflict in which there were few heroes, but which was far from a simple tale of hapless victims and merciless aggressors. To fling the charge of genocide at an entire society serves neither the interests of the Indians nor those of history."
There are a number of these historical analyses on the web. It is apparent that, judged by the standards of their own time, which is the only real standard to which they can be held, they weren't doing anything particularly wrong. Student7 ( talk) 15:13, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Could the IP editor please explain why he is currently going through a great many articles on genocides and blanking content from them? Darkness Shines ( talk) 20:47, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Please do not insert WP:FRINGE or otherwise revisionist material into these articles. GregJackP Boomer! 18:39, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
How is Guenter Lewy fringe. Stannard and Churchill both controversial sources to. This source is used on Genocides of Indigenous Peoples. The section needs a differing opinion just like every other controversial genocide. There should be counter opinions instead of just quotes supporting the genocide label. Tjis is the case with most of other genocides. 88.104.219.76 ( talk) 18:55, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
I would keep him. He is still a notable scholar and there needs to be a counter claim. I don't think the objection of these scholars is enough to not make him RS. Stannard, Churchill and Casarini's claims are also controversial. 88.104.219.76 ( talk) 20:09, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
And Lewy is hardly a genocide denier in the traditional sense of the word merely on the aplicabilty to certain cases. 88.104.219.76 ( talk) 20:12, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
OK, let's look at these comments on Lewy:
It is fairly clear cut that he is a denier and fringe. GregJackP Boomer! 21:42, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
There is no edit war currently. Why would I drop the stick considering Darkness Shines agreed to have a counter argument. I am also clearly not trolling or being tendentious considering it is pretty reasonable and common to have counter claims on controversial topics. I'm pretty sure Stannard and Ward Churchill are far more fringe than Lewy, but if Gunter Lewy is not used then someone else can be used as a counter point. 88.104.219.76 ( talk) 11:05, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
I guess I could look for another quote from someone everyone will accept. You say Stannard is mainstream, but Gunter Lewy is as well. 88.104.219.76 ( talk) 15:16, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Student7, every time you reinsert fringe / undue material, you will be reverted. Lewy is clearly fringe and a genocide denier. The other material is from an individuals own website and is not necessarily reliable. If your position is on solid ground, it should be easy to find real academic sources for it. GregJackP Boomer! 00:25, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
WP:FRINGE does not necessarily label a historian who is outvoted by his peers. It would mean Velikovsky, Jack Chick, that sort of thing.
A person with recognized credentials who has published in peer-reviewed articles may be in the minority, but that does not, by itself, make him "fringe."
I edit a number of religious articles. Most historians do not credit the Jewish-Christian scripture with much relevance to actual history. However, there are some international scholars who see some relevance, if not 100%. Their remarks are credited alongside the others though in proportion to their numbers and contributions. Some steles, for example, seems to support some biblical references. Or not. Both sides are listed. The article states that the preponderance of historians don't base history on.., but some do. They aren't automatically thrown into the trash in favor of a coherent single story that Wikipedia editors have "voted" on.
Any more than we would vote that Bush is a monster/hero or Obama is a monster/hero. Alternate views are permitted if they are made by qualified, published scholars.
Nor do we constantly threaten editors who try to use these authors. Nor do we remove all material, because one of the authors has been voted off the island. Student7 ( talk) 21:34, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I've read the diary of Hoss (Auschwitz commandant). The gypsies were indeed first to be just interned, and they were held at Auschwitz in the "family camp" (internally separated, whole families thogether, a very different regime than regular prisoners) for a long time, dying from diseases, but eventually a decision to kill most of them was made by Himmler and they were killed on 2 August 1944. About the extermination: http://en.auschwitz.org/m/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=447&Itemid=8 -- Niemti ( talk) 08:30, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Also there actually was an extermination of most Soviet POWs (deliberately most of all through hunger but also by a variety direct means, it was an abortive policy that was largely discontinued in 1942 but at that point already killed some 3 million or a majority of them), but there was no extermination of gays of JWs whatsoever. -- Niemti ( talk) 08:51, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Once again, as my views appear to be misrepresented, I concur with the positions of GregJackP and Darkness Shines on this matter. The material sought to be inserted if fringe and fringe material has no place on wikipedia, other than in articles on fringe theories themselves. (See Flat earth) Tendentious debate does not need to go to any more drama boards than it already has gone to. Montanabw (talk) 22:59, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Strangely, in the list of more recent genocides, this article mentions the genocides in Burundi and DRC, but not the largest one in Rwanda. The Rwandan genocide is mentioned in the discussion of courts to prosecute perpetrators, and is represented in the article's images. I can only guess the discussion on this topic got removed at some point and needs to be added back in soon. I'm planning on getting the article on the Rwandan Genocide up to FA soon so it can be featured on the main page on April 7 2014, its 20th anniversary. This article will receive plenty of hits and it will seem very strange if the Rwandan Genocide is omitted. Lemurbaby ( talk) 14:02, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Since it's obvious that without protection this dispute is going to carry on in the article. If it can't be settled within the week I'll probably extend the protection. Dougweller ( talk) 13:24, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
http://untreaty.un.org/cod/icc/statute/99_corr/cstatute.htm should be changed to http://legal.un.org/icc/statute/99_corr/cstatute.htm Munchkin2013 ( talk) 16:34, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Minority dissent is allowed in other articles. For example, there is a statement by a WP:NN (who rates an article, nevertheless, but is probably not a historian) member of the Israel parliament who says (quoted elsewhere in Wikipedia), "I find it is deeply offensive, and even blasphemous to compare the Holocaust of European Jewry during the Second World War with the mass extermination of the Armenian people during the First World War. Jews were killed because they were Jews, but Armenians provoked Turkey and should blame themselves."(ref) While I am not trying to place anything like that here (I prefer reliable material from notable sources), I think that a minority opinion could be tolerated. It is in many places in Wikipedia. Student7 ( talk) 19:16, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Darkness Shines, you know as well as I do that The British Medical Journal and The Guardian are WP:RS, and that your edit hurt the article by re-adding sources you previously agreed were dubious. Please stop blanking content and vandalizing pages to support your POV. TheTimesAreAChanging ( talk) 02:42, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
It's not even just The Guardian, it's Serajur Rahman. This stupid talk about millions dead in Bangladesh is completely ridicalous. I don't know why some people in these articles want to include the most sensationalist stuff possible. -- Niemti ( talk) 06:50, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Are you kidding? Seriously? You are aware that Croatia, Bosnia, and Serbia are on the Balkan peninsula, right? You are aware that the genocide in question crossed all of these borders during the period in question, right? That the borders were contested, as part of a civil war? Are you competent to edit in this area? Just asking. GregJackP Boomer! 20:50, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Amf once again I have to say, done with genocide deniers. The Bosnian conflict began with declarations of independence from two nations, I figure even Niemti knows those? It is obvious this is what he source refers to, so again, get a fucking source which says Payaslian is fringe or take a hike. Darkness Shines ( talk) 22:30, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
So, who thinks Darkness Shines should be, or should be not, topic banned? -- Niemti ( talk) 13:13, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Why not just answer his question? People were indicted for acts of genocide from 1991. The war started in 1991. See the following:
I don't think we should be wasting our time and energy dealing with genocide deniers who have a propensity towards fringe sources. GregJackP Boomer! 21:06, 30 October 2013 (UTC)