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 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | → | Archive 14 |
in Yazılar village of West Pontus.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bG4Q3dS9LeU&eurl=http://pontosworld.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=614&Itemid=1&limit=1&limitstart=1 -- Eagle of Pontus ( talk) 18:41, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Same news in Greek http://www.alphatv.gr/index.asp?a_id=90&news_id=28823 http://www.alphatv.gr/index.asp?a_id=90&news_id=28843
and Turkish http://haber.mynet.com/sayfali/guncel/Samsun-da-toplu-mezar-bulundu/22Mart2008/A2203050/3
Apparently the Turkish article refers to the find as a Christian graveyard that somehow got mixed up and moved, and does not refer to it as a mass grave. How surprising...this isn't. Xenovatis ( talk) 12:56, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
See Talk:Greek genocide/Archive 7#A modest proposal for an earlier discussion
Apart from insisting on putting over a point of view that "Between 1914–1923 the Ottoman government conducted a campaign against the Greek population/communities of Pontus (and Anatolia) [that was a genocide]." [Xenovatis ] You still have no explained what you object to in my suggested wording of a first sentence. Why is it necessary to put the word genocide in the first sentence of the article? -- Philip Baird Shearer ( talk) 22:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Historians, perhaps concerned not to magnify these events by comparison with those of 1915-16, tend to avoid the term genocide to describe them. In my formulation, however, these events would constitute partial genocide
How about this:
It explains what happened (at leas as far as is currently mentioned in the article) and it mentions the three major POVs. -- Philip Baird Shearer ( talk) 11:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Because they have an interest in pushing this particular pov Phillip. I know WP:Civility says we should not accuse people of pov pushing, but come on, this is getting ridicolous now. Xenovatis's idea of compromise is to widen the scope of this article to encompass all Greeks and elevate their plight to that of the Armenians based on a single resolution. -- A.Garnet ( talk) 09:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
The question has still not been answered by either AGarnet or PBS of what criteria exactly the events should meet to fulfil their definition of genocide if the statement of the organization of scholars on genocide fails to meet them. It might be useful to address this issue since neither PBS nor AGarnet consider the Armenian Genocide to fulfil these criteria even while it is recognized by the majority of scholars. AGarnet has been very active in the Armenian Genocide talk pages promoting a "sympathetic tone" for the Turkish government's genocide denial Talk:Armenian_genocide/Archive_5#Turkish_government_position_-_lack_of_sympathetic_tone.3F (and he has been active with many comments on many of the other 18 archived talk pages) while PBS [4] has referred to the AG as the aledged genocide. Clearly there is a difference in the criteria employed by the discussants and from the above it would seem more likely that one side is using very strict criteria rather than other using very loose. This should probably be resolved and some common ground established in order for consensus to be achieved. Xenovatis ( talk) 09:46, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
This conversation should be on your user pages. It has no direct relevance to the development of the article. -- Philip Baird Shearer ( talk) 10:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
The talk page was active and you archived it without consulting anyone. Please restore to previous version with several debates active and important information presented. THis is the second time you archive without consulting and I would appreciate it if you did us the courtesy of discussing in the future. Archive 7 is not half as long as the other pages. Thanks. Xenovatis ( talk) 10:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
There is an exhibit on the Greek Genocide at the New Mexico Holocaust and Intolerance Museum http://www.nmholocaustmuseum.org/exhibits.html#Greek A reference could be included in the article. Xenovatis ( talk) 13:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
In addition to the several memorials in Greece there are two in the US, one in Canada, one in Germany and one in Kazakhstan. These should also be included in a memorial section on the main article. Xenovatis ( talk) 13:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
This is about turkish denialism of the Armenian Genocide but it might be worth a mention on the section discussing the Turkish government's record of genocide denial.
The Chronicle of Higher Education August 18, 2000 (page 20)
The Other Side of Genocide:
Covering up genocide is a tricky business. Probably the best place to start is with the word itself. Coined in 1944 to describe Nazi Germany's systematic murder of millions, it's since been disputed in nearly every other usage, from the U.S. government's early waffling on whether Rwanda's Hutu annihilation of the Tutsis qualified, to the Turkish government's continuing campaign to convince the world that several hundred thousand starved Armenians does not a genocide make.
That's where Microsoft's Encarta comes in. Helen Fein, executive Director of the Institute for the Study of Genocide, says the online encyclopedia almost helped deny the genocide.
In 1996, Encarta asked Ms. Fein to write an entry on genocide. Her short essay, which included a brief mention of the murder or deportation of at least 1.1 million Armenians by the Turkish Ottoman government during World War I, was accepted and published.
But this past June, Encarta called Ms. Fein and asked her to revise her entry, in response to "customer complaints." She learned that Ronald Grigor Suny, a political scientist at the University of Chicago and the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor, had been asked to revise his entry on Armenia as well.
Ms. Fein says Encarta wanted her to include a few lines on the "other side of the story" - the Turkish government's side, that is. Mr. Suny says an Encarta editor named Frank Manning explained to him that the revision would leave the facts in place, but remove the word "genocide."
"Their proposed changes suggested that all narratives are equal, that we can't know for sure whether or not the Armenians brought the massacres on themselves," says Ms. Fein.
According to Mr. Suny, Mr. Manning told him that the Turkish government had threatened to arrest local Microsoft officials and ban Microsoft products unless the who, what, and why of the massacres were presented as topics open to debate. Microsoft representatives would neither confirm nor deny the threats, but Namik Tan, a spokesman for the Turkish Embassy called the charge "so ridiculous I cannot speak." He acknowledged that the embassy wrote at least two letters to Microsoft urging it to remove the term "genocide" from the two entries, and to cite Armenian rebellion as the cause of any suffering, but he insists that the Turkish government "does not make threats."
When Ms. Fein and Mr. Suny threatened to remove their names from the article and to publicize Microsoft's censorship, however, Encarta editors backed down. Ms. Fein and Mr. Suny agreed to add that the Turkish government denies the genocide, but held firm to the facts of its occurrence.
When the Chronicle attempted to reach Encarta's editors, a publicist from the company said they were all on vacation. A second publicist added that every story has two sides, even one about genocide.
Indeed, Ms. Fein notes that the Encarta entry on Turkey, which is unsigned, still does not mention the Armenian genocide at all.
Xenovatis ( talk) 17:02, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
After a couple of months off from Wikipedia, I still see that this article suffers from a broadening of the genocide. Many statements here reflect the overall genocide in Anatolia rather than the specific one in the Pontic region, which is the sole reason for differentiating it from other genocide articles. I would have hoped that all of these total numbers would have been replaced by actual numbers in Pontus alone. Does anyone else not understand this I guess? Monsieurdl mon talk- mon contribs 13:05, 24 April 2008 (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 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | → | Archive 14 |
in Yazılar village of West Pontus.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bG4Q3dS9LeU&eurl=http://pontosworld.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=614&Itemid=1&limit=1&limitstart=1 -- Eagle of Pontus ( talk) 18:41, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Same news in Greek http://www.alphatv.gr/index.asp?a_id=90&news_id=28823 http://www.alphatv.gr/index.asp?a_id=90&news_id=28843
and Turkish http://haber.mynet.com/sayfali/guncel/Samsun-da-toplu-mezar-bulundu/22Mart2008/A2203050/3
Apparently the Turkish article refers to the find as a Christian graveyard that somehow got mixed up and moved, and does not refer to it as a mass grave. How surprising...this isn't. Xenovatis ( talk) 12:56, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
See Talk:Greek genocide/Archive 7#A modest proposal for an earlier discussion
Apart from insisting on putting over a point of view that "Between 1914–1923 the Ottoman government conducted a campaign against the Greek population/communities of Pontus (and Anatolia) [that was a genocide]." [Xenovatis ] You still have no explained what you object to in my suggested wording of a first sentence. Why is it necessary to put the word genocide in the first sentence of the article? -- Philip Baird Shearer ( talk) 22:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Historians, perhaps concerned not to magnify these events by comparison with those of 1915-16, tend to avoid the term genocide to describe them. In my formulation, however, these events would constitute partial genocide
How about this:
It explains what happened (at leas as far as is currently mentioned in the article) and it mentions the three major POVs. -- Philip Baird Shearer ( talk) 11:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Because they have an interest in pushing this particular pov Phillip. I know WP:Civility says we should not accuse people of pov pushing, but come on, this is getting ridicolous now. Xenovatis's idea of compromise is to widen the scope of this article to encompass all Greeks and elevate their plight to that of the Armenians based on a single resolution. -- A.Garnet ( talk) 09:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
The question has still not been answered by either AGarnet or PBS of what criteria exactly the events should meet to fulfil their definition of genocide if the statement of the organization of scholars on genocide fails to meet them. It might be useful to address this issue since neither PBS nor AGarnet consider the Armenian Genocide to fulfil these criteria even while it is recognized by the majority of scholars. AGarnet has been very active in the Armenian Genocide talk pages promoting a "sympathetic tone" for the Turkish government's genocide denial Talk:Armenian_genocide/Archive_5#Turkish_government_position_-_lack_of_sympathetic_tone.3F (and he has been active with many comments on many of the other 18 archived talk pages) while PBS [4] has referred to the AG as the aledged genocide. Clearly there is a difference in the criteria employed by the discussants and from the above it would seem more likely that one side is using very strict criteria rather than other using very loose. This should probably be resolved and some common ground established in order for consensus to be achieved. Xenovatis ( talk) 09:46, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
This conversation should be on your user pages. It has no direct relevance to the development of the article. -- Philip Baird Shearer ( talk) 10:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
The talk page was active and you archived it without consulting anyone. Please restore to previous version with several debates active and important information presented. THis is the second time you archive without consulting and I would appreciate it if you did us the courtesy of discussing in the future. Archive 7 is not half as long as the other pages. Thanks. Xenovatis ( talk) 10:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
There is an exhibit on the Greek Genocide at the New Mexico Holocaust and Intolerance Museum http://www.nmholocaustmuseum.org/exhibits.html#Greek A reference could be included in the article. Xenovatis ( talk) 13:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
In addition to the several memorials in Greece there are two in the US, one in Canada, one in Germany and one in Kazakhstan. These should also be included in a memorial section on the main article. Xenovatis ( talk) 13:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
This is about turkish denialism of the Armenian Genocide but it might be worth a mention on the section discussing the Turkish government's record of genocide denial.
The Chronicle of Higher Education August 18, 2000 (page 20)
The Other Side of Genocide:
Covering up genocide is a tricky business. Probably the best place to start is with the word itself. Coined in 1944 to describe Nazi Germany's systematic murder of millions, it's since been disputed in nearly every other usage, from the U.S. government's early waffling on whether Rwanda's Hutu annihilation of the Tutsis qualified, to the Turkish government's continuing campaign to convince the world that several hundred thousand starved Armenians does not a genocide make.
That's where Microsoft's Encarta comes in. Helen Fein, executive Director of the Institute for the Study of Genocide, says the online encyclopedia almost helped deny the genocide.
In 1996, Encarta asked Ms. Fein to write an entry on genocide. Her short essay, which included a brief mention of the murder or deportation of at least 1.1 million Armenians by the Turkish Ottoman government during World War I, was accepted and published.
But this past June, Encarta called Ms. Fein and asked her to revise her entry, in response to "customer complaints." She learned that Ronald Grigor Suny, a political scientist at the University of Chicago and the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor, had been asked to revise his entry on Armenia as well.
Ms. Fein says Encarta wanted her to include a few lines on the "other side of the story" - the Turkish government's side, that is. Mr. Suny says an Encarta editor named Frank Manning explained to him that the revision would leave the facts in place, but remove the word "genocide."
"Their proposed changes suggested that all narratives are equal, that we can't know for sure whether or not the Armenians brought the massacres on themselves," says Ms. Fein.
According to Mr. Suny, Mr. Manning told him that the Turkish government had threatened to arrest local Microsoft officials and ban Microsoft products unless the who, what, and why of the massacres were presented as topics open to debate. Microsoft representatives would neither confirm nor deny the threats, but Namik Tan, a spokesman for the Turkish Embassy called the charge "so ridiculous I cannot speak." He acknowledged that the embassy wrote at least two letters to Microsoft urging it to remove the term "genocide" from the two entries, and to cite Armenian rebellion as the cause of any suffering, but he insists that the Turkish government "does not make threats."
When Ms. Fein and Mr. Suny threatened to remove their names from the article and to publicize Microsoft's censorship, however, Encarta editors backed down. Ms. Fein and Mr. Suny agreed to add that the Turkish government denies the genocide, but held firm to the facts of its occurrence.
When the Chronicle attempted to reach Encarta's editors, a publicist from the company said they were all on vacation. A second publicist added that every story has two sides, even one about genocide.
Indeed, Ms. Fein notes that the Encarta entry on Turkey, which is unsigned, still does not mention the Armenian genocide at all.
Xenovatis ( talk) 17:02, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
After a couple of months off from Wikipedia, I still see that this article suffers from a broadening of the genocide. Many statements here reflect the overall genocide in Anatolia rather than the specific one in the Pontic region, which is the sole reason for differentiating it from other genocide articles. I would have hoped that all of these total numbers would have been replaced by actual numbers in Pontus alone. Does anyone else not understand this I guess? Monsieurdl mon talk- mon contribs 13:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)