Talk:Armenian genocide denial/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 → Archive 5

POV fork?

Of what page? This is a sub-article of the main Armenian Genocide article due to the fact that it was getting too long. —Khoikhoi 00:37, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure he really understands what pov forks means.--Eupator 02:12, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Remove biased image

That picture is biased twoards the Armenian perspective and rather offensive to boot. Please take your propaganda elsewhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alphros (talk • contribs) 08:59, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

As I said on my talk page, Alphros, please sign posts with ~~~~. The NPOV policies that we respect when editing text don't directly apply to images. The image is certainly PoV, however it is presented as such, and therefore NPOV is respected. For example, see Stalin. yandman 09:11, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

The first thing one sees on the Stalin page is a neutral portrait of him. It's hardly appropriate to have a strongly POV image first thing in this article--particularly when it represents "An advertisement for the Armenian Genocide Commemoration" on a page that should be dealing with the refutation of that claim.
Alphros 21:34, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how it could be considered offensive.I agree that it is PoV (not very strong though), but presented as such, so not a big problem in my opinion. However, if we can find a denial propaganda poster, we could put that up as first picture (I'm thinking of the "holocaust denial" article, where the first pic is of a denial book). And the image is relevant in that it conveys the popular reaction to denial of the genocide. yandman 07:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Very well, I'll try to find something. I never questioned the relevance of the image--I questioned its appropriateness given the setting. It is still a hotly contested claim, and as such, people should be sensitive to even the slightest hint of bias favouring one position or the other. Alphros 02:35, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, your definition of hotly contested is different from mine player. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.214.240.61 (talk) 08:17, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

On apology

There seems to be a desire to have the Turkish government apologize - did Turkey even exist at this time, I thought the entire region was the Ottoman Empire - which is no longer around. It seems more logical to blame Moslems or Turks ( ethnic ) - Armenia doesn't exist as a country never did, this appears to be a local tribal war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.105.80.92 (talk • contribs) 10:57, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Talk pages are for discussing the article, not the subject. I think the common desire is for the Turkish government to stop denying that it happened, not for it to apologise. yandman 14:20, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

To be clear, Turkey was born out of the greater part of Ottoman Empire and they share a common culture, history, and ethnicity. And local tribal war as far as the holocaust can be considered a war where a few million civilians were killed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.214.240.61 (talk) 08:19, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Photo

Hattusili, I think it would be better if the photo were added to Ottoman Muslim casualties...it doesn't make much sense to add it here. Khoikhoi 02:51, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Done. yandman 07:39, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
You are right, thank you both.--Hattusili 11:27, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was No move Duja► 08:28, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Denial of the Armenian Genocide → Refusal of the Armenian Genocide — because denial is used for the objection of solid truth but since armenian genocide is such a controversial topic,i think refusal will be much more appropriate. Metb82 01:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add  * '''Support'''  or  * '''Oppose'''  on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.
  • Oppose. Denial is the proper English term. Refusal doesn't make any sense. Maybe there's a better term than denial, but it isn't refusal. Gene Nygaard 06:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. As Gene said, "denial" is the proper English term. See Genocide denial. yandman 08:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
So is also Germany a "filthy genocide-denying shithole?" (see my comment below) and stop citing that article, it has a NPOV tag on top of it and lacks the level of references that its title would require. Baristarim 12:09, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose - same (or near same) meaning, but refusal just sounds awkward. I think yandman is right. Patstuarttalk|edits 14:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose, wiktionary lists a definition for denial as "An assertion of untruth" which fits in this case. Voretustalk 20:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Gene Nygaard. -- Clevelander 22:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose per all above. - Evv 14:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per all.--Eupator 15:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose It is ridiculous to even have a survey about this. - Fedayee 15:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose It does not make any sense to say "Refusal". Turkey is dening the Genocide. Rufusal is compleyely different. ROOB323 20:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Refusal can sound awkward, so I will go through my Webster thesaurus to find the word that will grasp the meaning of the subject matter. You should do your homework as well. Turkey isn't "denying" in the way you put it to be. It is refusing the application of the g-word. In the same way that Germany refused to use the word genocide in its resolution to describe the events. Please go to Germany article and add what a "genocide-denying country" it is. Good luck :)) Baristarim 12:09, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose The word "refusal" doesn't really make any sense in the title. Dragomiloff 11:33, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Germany and Bulgaria also refused, when they could have easily used it like France. Baristarim 12:09, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose nonsensical proposal //Dirak 11:34, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Couldn't stop myself from writing at least something in this debate. So having fun? :)) By the way, don't forget to add to this article: Bulgaria, who actively refused to pass a resolution calling it a genocide, and Germany, who refused to use the word genocide in its resolution (doesn't matter what they wrote in the resolution, they didn't use the G-word, and they could have easily done so like France. They didn't and that is also called genocide denial, right?? ::)). Those damn "denialist pigs"!!!! :)) Come on, I really would like any of the voters above to explain to me using the basic rules of logic as to why what Germany did is not genocide-denial, come on yandman, particularly "you" since you are bringing up the "English" word most appropriate thingy. Some people should learn that others have the legitimate right to wonder if the allmighty "g-word" applies to this, however you try to make them look like some common Nazis. You can be aware that many people died but still wonder if the G-word applies. On an irrelevant sidenote, also keep in mind that "denial" doesn't cover all aspects of this. I know people whose grandparents from Kars et al told them how Armenian gangs killed and raped etc, so most of them see what happened as a normal reaction, whether the G-word applies or not. So, trying to denigrate the Turks and their position simply blocks dialogue. Keep that in mind. Baristarim 11:54, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
    • In fact, a proposed amendment to include the word genocide was defeated right before the vote in the Bundestag.Baristarim 12:14, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
No, there's a difference. Many countries, such as Germany, choose not to take any opinion on the matter. And quite right they are. History is for historians, not politicians. This is not at all the same as actively denying the genocide, which is a position only taken by Turkey. Turkey uses the word "relocation" and denies that the deaths are the results of an intention from Ottoman authorities (or those in charge during the war) to eliminate in whole or in part the Armenian people indiscriminately. No other country has stated that they believe this. There's a difference between sitting on the fence and this. On another note, can I remind everyone that civility is a good thing? Thanks. yandman 10:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
If history is for historians why is the Armenian diaspora community spending millions of dollars every year advertising the so-called genocide and/or influencing Western politicians? Of course in the case of politicians, as long as they have an interest they'll take action; that's why France recognized it and that's exactly why USA doesn't yet.--Doktor Gonzo 15:44, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Denial is the word that describes better a refusal for a documented fact. NikoSilver 11:32, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
It is not a documented fact. If I spent as much money and effort as the Armenian diaspora I'd make the West believe Osama has one testicle. Genocide claimers I've come across generally use the "the bandwagon", by listing the 25 (1/8 of the number of countries in the world and nearly all of them has an economically and politically active Armenian community) or so countries who recognized the so-called Armenian genocide you are expected to jump in the recognition wagon. And not suprisingly the wagon has done well in the West: Biased Western publications during 1910s + Christian pact + Anti-Turkish sentiments of certain people, groups and countries + Political and economical interests + the efforts of the Armenian diaspora and here we are today. Even this article we have here serves them, the mistake we Turks did throughout decades was to turn a blind eye to all this propaganda for years, now the emerging Turkish middle class are raising their voice and some are deeply disturbed by this.--Doktor Gonzo 15:38, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Abstain/Comment:Since Refusal makes no sense in English, I propose Rejection or Repudiation as alternatives. I do not yet have an opinion on this vote, just wanted to eliminate language as an issue. Sopholatre 11:37, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
I moved this comment out of the discussion for the following reason: It has been closed for almost a year. VartanM 17:16, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


Discussion

Add any additional comments:
  1. Denial of X, has a self meaning that;
    1. X is correct
    2. X is not accepted.
so, we need a proper name for article, may be this one "Denial of the Armenian genocide allege" is more proper.

MustTC 21:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe Support of genocide in Armenia? 65.118.187.102 21:11, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

"Genocide denial occurs when an otherwise accepted act of genocide is met with attempts to deny the occurance and minimize the scale or death toll". And the Armenian genocide, be it true or not, is "otherwise accepted" (i.e. by everyone except the Turkish government). yandman 08:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Utter falsehood. Bulgaria and Germany refused in the last years to use the word "genocide" to describe the events. See their resolutions. Doesn't matter what it said in the German resolution, they could have easily used the word genocide like France, but they didn't. In fact, a proposed amendment to include the word genocide was defeated right before the vote. Do your homework and please go to Germany article and add "Germany is also a genocide-denying shithole". Good luck :)) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Baristarim (talk • contribs) 12:12, 16 December 2006 (UTC).
Accepted by everyone except the Turkish goverment? By everyone do you mean all 25 of them? Which is almost 1/8 of the number of countries in the world? And not suprisingly most of which are countries in which Armenians are politically and economically active?--Doktor Gonzo 21:46, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Apples and oranges. There is a difference between not wanting to take an active position for the use of the word genocide and actively taking a position against it. Anyway, this has got nothing to do with countries: We need the consensus among historians. The overwhelming consensus among historians is that this is genocide. End of story. By the way, can we all try and stay civil, please? yandman 10:33, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Why would 7/8 of the world bother to take position against it? You are not making sense.--Doktor Gonzo 16:14, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
They haven't. A few countries have taken an active position against denial of the armenian genocide. Most countries have, quite rightly, not taken any position on the matter.One country has a penal code that makes calling "for the recognition of the Armenian genocide" illegal. yandman 17:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Yandman, you are asking me to be civil, however it is very hard to do so in the light of such groundless statements coming from people who are basing their information solely on what they hear on France 2. Would you do us the favor of showing someone who actually went to jail/sentenced for calling for "the recognition of the AG"? There haven't been anyone, and there are books in Turkish bookstores advocating the genocide thesis. So, please do your homework. I don't want to shout, but you should also not make such large claims. Your above post is so off-base and borderline bad-faith. There is no such penal code, such articles exist in many countries, and recently, in France, a poster depicting women during the last supper of Jesus was banned by French courts based on similar articles. You should know this if you are living in France. The same poster was also banned in Italy. How about that? I know the jurisprudence very well yandman, please do not say such stuff!! Filing a private complaint is not the same as sentencing someone!! I will reply to your other argument later.. Baristarim 17:27, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Assume good faith, please. The BBC, my first source on the penal code statement:

"In Turkey, the penal code makes calling for the recognition of the Armenian genocide illegal. Writers and translators have been prosecuted for attempting to stimulate debate on the subject."

The Guardian, my second source:

"Although Pamuk was acquitted, the notorious article of the penal code remains, and dozens of less well-known writers and journalists are being prosecuted in the clampdown on freedom of expression."

A New York Times editorial, my third source:

"But the Turkish government considers even discussion of the issue to be a grave national insult, and reacts to it with hysteria."

That's the "big three". yandman 18:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah it is not a clampdown on freedom of expression when Switzerland and France prosecutes those who talks against the genocide. This means I can't express my opinion in France. Viva la Morality of the French. Anyway we don't have a law that prohibits talking pro-genocide, and that was your initial accusation. 301th law is about offending Turks and Turkish identity and why should we get rid of it? A Turk won a Nobel partly thanks to it, looking forward to the Oscars.!--Doktor Gonzo 18:16, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Yandman, you are doing the Chewbacca defense. Why would any of the 175 countries take position against the genocide accusations, Turks are the accused. I actually want to know why did the 25 (don't know the exact number) recognize it, most after more than 60-70-80 years. Why does the Armenian diaspora have to work so hard to get governments to recognize it?--Doktor Gonzo 18:16, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Because it happened and the diasporans are the descendants of those Armenians that survived the genocide. The ones who, as your government puts it, were deported (escorted?) to Syria, thereafter settling in Lebanon, Egypt, Palestine, Europe, America, etc. Turks are politically active in Bulgaria and Germany by the way. Hakob 01:58, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Image

We really need another image for the top of the article. This one is good, but we need a denialist image for the head. Has anyone got a pamphlet/poster they can scan and translate into english? Or even a book cover? Fair use would adequately cover the copyright issues. Thanks. yandman 17:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Why? I was under the impression that that picture was printed by Armenian diaspora organizations as an advertisement in major newspapers. Yeah, I will go out now and look for a "denialist image" :)) I mean.. Well.. Ok, I will try to keep it civil. What kind of a "denialist image" are you looking for? Maybe we should put forth the German resolution. You argument about Germany was not correct yandman. So you are basically telling me that history is for historians, and that's why they didn't use the g-word? WHY THE HELL ON EARTH DID THEY PASS SUCH A RESOLUTION IN THAT CASE? If history is for historians, they shouldn't even have passed such a resolution. Stop jumping through hoops to prove to me that Germany didn't make a point by not using the g-word. So u r telling me that no country "denies" the g-word until they have passed a resolution doing so? Well, if history is for historians, then that corresponds directly with the position of the TR govt. So following your logic, there should never be a resolution from the TR parliament about the AG? Well, that's perfect, since that is also the official position of the TR govt and won't happen either way following the logic of history belonging to historians.
All I am saying is that, the scope of this article also includes the thesis of those who question whether the G-word applies to this, and calling them "denialists" is nothing but denigration. I mean, is this so hard to understand? Your argument about Germany was completely unconvincing and flawed. If they didn't use the g-word, they are refusing a key part of the events: its qualification as genocide. They passed a resolution, so they BROKE the "history for historians concept, AND didn't use the g-word. That's denial. So I am still waiting for an explanation using the basic rules of logic as to why what Germany did was not "genocide-denial". Refusing its designation as "genocide" also fits well with the definition that you gave earlier. Baristarim 18:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
How about the entire website of Tall Armenian Tale? -- Clevelander 18:18, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
He is asking for an image.--Doktor Gonzo 18:21, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
I know and that's why I provided a screenshot of Tall Armenian Tale's front page. -- Clevelander 18:36, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
I've personally never come across a denialist image by Turks but seen plenty Armenian ones accusing Turks of denialism.--Doktor Gonzo 17:51, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

You need to crop the image to hide the windows stuff, and use the "fair use shot of a website" copyright description, or else this image won't stand a cat in hell's chance of staying. yandman 18:47, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I decided to remove this image for now. Too many copyright issues. -- Clevelander 18:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

"Denial"

Think of the word "deny" denotes in common english: From a Christian to an Athiest: Why do you deny the divinity of Jesus? From a Athiest to a Christian: I reject the alleged divinization of Jesus. The Article title is "Denial of the Armenian Genocide" I believe it would be more precise and NPOV along the lines of "Rejection of the Armenian Genocide Allegations"

Well, that would imply that the Armenian genocide is a mere allegation. Besides, recently recorded historical events aren't comparable to the debate about Jesus Christ, who lived 2000 years ago. History isn't exactly the same as religion in most cases. -- Davo88 06:48, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Name problem

I've lodged a request to move the article to "Denial of the Armenian Genocide", Baris lost a "the" when reverting a move, and someone edited the original, so I can't do it. yandman 07:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. Khoikhoi 08:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll go and remove it from the list. yandman 08:31, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

"See Also" sub-section

This sub-section includes three links: "Anti-Armenianism", "Historical revisionism (negationism)", "Holocaust denial".. These 3 links show the article as if this article (and others) opposing the Armenian genocide are in an Anti-Armenian perspective, and they do historical revisionism similar to Holocaust Denial. Thus, they suggest that the article is actually biased. First of all, I want to point out an important fact: This issue is not accepted as a genocide according to international law, the International Court of Justice or another widely-accepted international court (which is an authority). The countries which accept or reject the genocide claims do so on a political basis. Thus, the genocide argument can and must have two opposing sides, and Wikipedia, as its NPOV suggests, must provide both sides of the argument as a democratic environment which enables criticism on such a controversial matter. As I explain my point, the denial of the Armenian genocide cannot be considered, or is not the same as Holocaust Denial for the reasons I explained above. The articles and the people who oppose the claims do not do it in the sense of Anti-Armenianism. Instead, they do it with certain reliable documents, references and proof, as can be seen in this article. Hence, Armenian genocide is not a certain fact in history, and the article opposing the Armenian genocide thesis cannot be considered as doing historical revisionism. I know that most Armenians see the genocide subject as part of their national identity. However, writing and relating events in a nationalistic perspective does not lead to an objective result. Thus, putting the above three See Also links into this article is done in a nationalistic point of view rather than objective. The article is about explaining the theses opposing the Armenian genocide, benefiting from documents and sources. Hence, I recommend that the three links, which suggest that this article is biased, should be removed immediately. Kalkim 14:38, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Links

I have no qualms about the links to the Turkish websites but just like the Holocaust denial page, it should be balanced out by pages that refute Turkish claims. Otherwise, that incapacitates neutral users to gaining a full understanding from the article. --MarshallBagramyan 00:58, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

The external link section shouldn't get too crowded, if the same info is found in five sites, there is no need for the four of them. By the way, the section title "justifications brought forward" sounds a bit weird to me, what do others think? It is fairly short for the moment, but I am afraid that this article might somehow start forking the AG article... Baristarim 01:08, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no move. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Second requested move

Denial of the Armenian Genocide → Denial of the Armenian Genocide allegations — The title of this article is contradictory of the article itself since the information in the article suggests that the alleged genocide did not take place whereas the name accepts the existence of such a genocide. Scientia Potentia 15:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Add  # '''Support'''  or  # '''Oppose'''  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~. Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.

Survey - in support of the move

  1. Support the reason is quite obvious. The contradiction in the title and in the article is very clear. Also, voters should bear in mind that this article is in no way related to the Armenian Genocide article. Changing the name is necessary to remove the contradiction. Thanks Caglarkoca 23:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Survey - in opposition to the move

  1. Errabee 16:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC). The article on the event itself is Armenian Genocide. I can't see any reason at all why the title of this page should include allegations. The article should of course be checked for inconsistensies with Armenian Genocide.
  2. Oppose. This is utter tosh and pathetic; most Western historians and scholars accept and classify this as a genocide and most reject Turkish contentions and refute the charges about the Armenian Genocide. We don't have a paged called Holocaust allegations denial but have examples of Holocaust denial such as literary work and websites. This article is just incomplete because there is no refutation of Turkish charges since most scholars disregard them from having any true basis. But of course, we have to maintain the same Turkish government mantra that "there is always to two sides to every story".--MarshallBagramyan 16:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
  3. AW 20:28, 2 April 2007 (UTC) - the fact that there is some denial is enough to eliminate the need for "allegations" in the title of the article.
  4. Oppose. For the same reasons listed by MarshallBagramyan. No more appropriate than moving the Armenian Genocide article to "So-called Armenian Genocide." -- Augustgrahl 22:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
  5. Oppose. Such a change amounts to a POV editorial comment on the factuality of the Armenian Genocide, unless "alleged" is added in front of every single other factual assertion in Wikipedia. "the information in the article suggests that the alleged genocide did not take place" -- if it does then it needs to be rewritten, since the article is about the fact of denial, not a forum for the deniers to make their case (that would make it a POV fork). These attempts to rewrite, or unwrite, history by a political faction are tiresome, and I do wish they would focus on making Wikipedia better, not worse. -- Jibal 01:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  6. Strong oppose per all that will oppose. These kinds of moves leave bad tastes in mouths. - Fedayee 04:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  7. Oppose - The Armenian Genocide is accepted as such by the International Association of Genocide Scholars, the only scholarly organization fit to assess the validity of Genocide... And their assessment is unanimous, it WAS Genocide... HyeProfile 20:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  8. Oppose - There is no point changing the name of the article to a POV name. The current name, which in it says "denial" shows what the content of the article will be, but by adding "alleged" makes it POV. ROOB323 20:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  9. Oppose The PoV here is in the nominator's head. We can have Denial of phlogiston - even, Disproof of phlogiston - without in any way implying phlogiston is real. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  10. Oppose as per MarshallBagramyan. Also, the new title is POV as it implies that the event did not occur. --Kimontalk 23:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  11. Oppose. I can only repeat what has already been said: a) Genocide is the mainstream interpretation of these events. b) The addition of "alleged" would give undue weight to a minority viewpoint. c) As Septentrionalis states above, it is always possible to deny something that isn't real. - Ev 04:19, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  12. Oppose per MarshallBagramyan. -- Aivazovsky 15:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  13. Oppose, Artaxiad 17:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  14. Oppose -- Davo88 00:51, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments:
  • Please note that the requester contacted 16 individual users moments after suggesting this move. This might unbalance the results. Errabee 16:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
My aim was to inform people who edited this article or the Armenian genocide article that such a change was proposed. I don't think this is against any wikipedia policy and that this would affect the results negatively. If not informed, how may people find out about this?--Scientia Potentia 16:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Oh, the other way people might find out is by placing a comment on the talk page of WikiProject Turkey and WikiProject Armenia (and this last one I will do myself). Errabee 18:58, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Dear Errabee, contacting peoples for discussion is not wrong.Please note that there is no any oppinion of nominator for vote to "support", in these posts.Must.T C 17:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, for me it seems awfully close to votestacking. I didn't want to mention that at first because I assumed good faith, but as the requester contacted 7 more editors after I wrote my previous message, it becomes even more close. An inspection of the 23 editors contacted reveals that at least 19 identify themselves as Turkish or affiliated with Turkey on their user page, 2 others haven't edited for a long time, 1 other identifies as supporting the Turkish POV on his talk page, and only the last I can't make out. This seems pretty selective to me. Errabee 17:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Per all guidelines of Wikipedia, this is not a process of voting, and it's not the number of comments under support / oppose headings that will determine the outcome (please see Meta:Don't vote on everything and Wikipedia:Consensus). So you don't need to worry about that. There is nothing wrong with informing people who might have an opinion to share about this discussion, and ask for their input. Armenian and Turkish wikipedians can naturally be informed about this move request, because the subject most probably concerns their areas of interest / expertise. Regards, Atilim Gunes Baydin 18:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
If the number of support and oppose comments didn't matter, there wouldn't be a need to set up this procedure. Just a simple exchange of comments would be sufficient. So, technically you are correct, but in practice, if there is a large majority for one choice it will take a lot from an administrator to decide otherwise. Errabee 18:58, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
The numbers really do not matter, and personally, I'm persuaded that way from my prior experience with similar surveys. This is, exactly like you said, just a simple exchange of comments for a proposed move, only in a more structured way. The fact that fanatic editors could go out and call in hordes of users just for voting, that new user accounts could be created in seconds, and that there is really no way of trusting anyone's identity in this Wiki project, are precisely the reasons why we do not hold votes in Wikipedia. And I believe that's a very good thing. I think you also agree. These are all covered in the links I've provided above. Sincerely, Atilim Gunes Baydin 19:21, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
I might be for a rename but not this one. I don't have another title in my head that I can suggest atm. I feel like this voting will not be good, it might soon stop being just be a simple exchange of comments, but let's not loose our hopes, yet. Besides, what does allegations refer to, to the word 'denial' or to the content, I think the content is pretty much well referenced being referenced by the archives, not just some hearsay. denizTC 21:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
I think the exchange of opinions are very well organized in this matter. But saying Oppose per... is not the point in such an exchange. So contributers must recognize that this is not a formal procedure. If you have nothing to add, you don't need to post your vote; because it means that your opinion is already expressed.Caglarkoca 00:03, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Denial of the Armenian Genocide

I don't see how Denial of the Armenian Genocide is not the assertion that the Armenian Genocide did not occur. I fail to understand how this might be seen as POV. It's pretty straightforward. User:Makalp could you explain your edits, please before reverting? -- Aivazovsky 14:06, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring

I have blocked ArmenianJoe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for edit warring. Edit warring by reversion is a blockable offense even if he didn't violate the letter of the 3RR rule, and the fact that no one has discussed these edits on the talk page only makes it worse. Now, Joe was the worst at the moment, but OttomanReference (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Baristarim (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are next on the list. Stop reverting and please discuss your concerns on the article talk page. Thatcher131 00:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Revised opening line

I have revised the opening line from "rejects the applicability of the concept of state organized genocide to the events April 24, 1915 and the Tehcir Law of May 1915 in the Ottoman Empire" to "rejects the concept that there was an Armenian Genocide." We shouldn't dance around the issue. Denial of the Armenian Genocide is what it is, plain and simple. -- Aivazovsky 12:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Before the discussion gets into the specifics, I just would like to point out that the lead was actually sourced. :) In fact, the whole intro is (was now) sourced. That BBC article gives a pretty good overview of the issue, and what the Turkish position is/was/has been. I will get back to this later though.. Baristarim 13:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
What is "Denied" has to be specified in the beginning sentence. Turkish authorities do not reject all the arguments of the Armenian Genocide. There are facts which are agreed by both sides. "Some" critical facts are (their interpretation) are problematic. There are many issues within the Armenian genocide as a concept. Even the Armenian sources have issues with the extend of activities which is covered (they all agree there is a genocide) in this area. "Denial" is not total rejection (or different interpretation) of the events happened during the WWI. I believe first, Aivazovsky should develop a "section" on the "Armenian Genocide" page defining the Armenian position of which "activities of the ottoman state constitutes" this "state organized genocide" concept. Armenian editors has to understand that Turkish or Turkey sources are not against all the events. They are against what Baristarim brought into the introduction by what he said "the lead was actually sourced" The lead is sourced, it has to be, we do not want to find ourself interpreting (in this case extending) what "Turkish sources" want to say. Lets, summarize 1) introduction has to define what denial is against. 2) As the denial is not total rejection of the period, but rejection of some assumptions, It is a position. It is a position against another position. Positions has to be sourced to be fair of the people who take those positions. 3) Genocide is a serious concept. It is not an abstract concept. It is not enough to say "genocide" is a "genocide." (or Denail of Armenian Genocide rejects the concept that there was an Armenian Genocide. "A Circular argumentation) Genocide is a crime. The events (a trail of crimes) should be traced back to the planners of these crimes. Document by document. Event by event. Instead of removing the contents (making a circular argument) of the denial section; it is better to bring more support to Genocide page so that people who read the denial page can say "arguments of deniers are dubious" or in this case "a circular argument". Thanks.--OttomanReference 16:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
It is clear that the removal of sourced and reviewed content is intentional. Please take a look at the opening of Armenian Genocide article: The Armenian Genocide (Armenian: Հայոց Ցեղասպանութիւն ("Hayoc' c'ejaspanut'iwn"), Turkish: Ermeni Soykırımı) — also known as the Armenian Holocaust, Great Calamity (Մեծ Եղեռն "Mec Ejer'n" ) or the Armenian Massacre — refers to the slaughter[1] and fatal deportation of hundreds of thousands to over a million Armenians as well as intentional and irreversible ruination of their economic and cultural life environments during the government of the Young Turks from 1915 to 1917 in the Ottoman Empire.[2] According to Ferguson, it is now widely acknowledged to have been the first true genocide, [3] and Western sources point to the sheer scale of the death toll as evidence for a systematic, organized plan to eliminate the Armenians.[4] The event is also said to be the second-most studied case of genocide.[5] To date twenty-one countries have officially recognized it as genocide. The Republic of Turkey on the other side rejects the applicability of the concept of state organized genocide to the events April 24, 1915 and the Tehcir Law of May 1915 in the Ottoman Empire.[6] The Turkish government also does not accept the deaths were the results of an intention from Ottoman authorities to eliminate Armenian people indiscriminately.[7]
Two paragraphs, with numerous details. In fact there are more details about the denial of the Armenian allegations in that article than in this one. That is why, I have reverted the article's lead to normal. My suggestion to editors, who are insisting on a lead of one sentence, is to edit Armenian Genocide article's lead and then come back.--Scientia Potentia 07:49, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
User Scientia says "removal of sourced and reviewed content is intentional." I do not get the logic of "removing" of this sourced and reviewed content. Wikipedia demands a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the higher level of detail in the subsequent sections. User Scientia says "bout the denial of the Armenian allegations in that article than in this one" It is normal to have a concise heading in ARMENIAN GENOCIDE article, which the properties of that introduction (lead section) should not be discussed here. It only improves that articles quality. However on the other hand, this is about denial and It is obvious that One sentence lead section is beyond any comprehension. This is nothing but a clear cut vandalism on a lead section of this article. It does not tell the leader about what s/he should be expecting from the article. There is really nothing to it. --OttomanReference 12:50, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
According to WP:LS as typical lead is two paragraphs and between 15000-30000. The current lead is the shortest (I don't know why it is being shortened without a basis and against wikipedia policies) possible to to provide an overall view to the article.Lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article (e.g. when a related article gives a brief overview of the topic in question) according to WP:LS. --Scientia Potentia 08:08, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

My edits to the intro section

Can the editors reverting my recent edits to the intro sections please explain their reasons why here? -- Karl Meier 22:47, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Please; the thread "Revised opening line" (just one up in this page) has been an ongoing discussion, which is related your new edits. Do not generate a new thread covering the same arguments. Thanks. --OttomanReference 23:29, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
According to Wikipeida guidelines the lead section is supposed to be a concise summary of the whole article, and it is not to include any original material not present elsewhere in the article. Another thing is taht the material violate NPOV because the denialist position of current Turkish regime is being presented there unopposed. That is unacceptable, like it is also unacceptable to let for example the opinions of Ahmadinejad stand alone without any responses in the article regarding holocaust denial. -- Karl Meier 13:49, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Karl Meier says "presented there unopposed." That is not really True, as the main article ARMENIAN GENOCIDE (main article) has the sections which covers the same topics precisely and extensively, even using quotations. If Karl Meier, observes a fallacy (a missing position) in ARMENIAN GENOCIDE article, I believe it in his capacity to bring the main article to perfection. However, "Denial" of the Armenian Genocide, as represented in the title, already limits the content with expressing the "Denial" of the Armenian Genocide. "Denial" is a point view. Obviously not shared by Karl Meier. However I do not really believe that Karl Meier is even proposing to remove the content regarding the denail point of view. It deserves to be explained, so that people would know what is denial. And the title already informs the readers that it is a "Denial", so it is not the main Article, but a sub article concentrating on a position. The history of the article had many oppositions regarding the title (check the previous headings in this page), however it is kept in this limited version with the Armenian votes. As Armenian people, I also believe that "Denial" is a valid point of view, which should be covered. One of the problems with Karl Meier's understanding is that the title of the article is not "Turkish views" but the "Denial." I believe Karl Meier should present his POV in the main article to bring it into perfection, instead of trying to bring the "Denial" into perfection. I do not see any effectiveness of this activity, as he is not the person who denies the genocide. The arguments presented is also accepted by many Western and with a growing number of Eastern historians. Thanks . --OttomanReference 15:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
That an article with the title Armenian genocide for obvious reasons exist, doesn't mean that we should forget about policy and turn this article into a soapbox for denialist nonsens that Turkish David Irvin's and Ahmadinejad's promote. NPOV and all other policies apply to this article as well as all others. Another thing is that fact is that what you call the "arguments" that the denialists present to us, is not anywhere near being accepted or considered by mainstream experts in the field. -- Karl Meier 18:01, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Karl Meir! It is enough that you use the Holocaust to promote your ideas. Your ignorance of history of Jewish nation does not give you the right to compare the loss of six million lives with propaganda of some people, in support of the murders of Ottoman Jews and Muslims of Anatolia. Holocaust is the greatest human catastrophe ever and nothing can be compared to it. We (as the humanity) all hope and are obliged to ensure that such an event will never take place, again. I suggest you not to use the Holocaust and if possible not to insult the Jewish nation with your illusions and hatred against Turkish people. With your ignorance, you are just another Ahmedinejad, no more, no less. --Scientia Potentia 18:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
No personal attacks please. I don't see why it should somehow be controversial to compare a genocide against 1.5 million Armenians and at the same time hundred of thousands of other non-Turks to the killings of 6 millions Jews and 6 million others? As previously mentioned the mass killings and the racist reasons for the mass killings was the same. -- Karl Meier 05:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
This is not a personal attack, considering the insults of yours against Judaism and Jewry. You are comparing a disputed event to the greatest tragedy of humanity. No, reasons weren't the same; Jews were slaughtered for just being Jewish and believing in G-d. Armenians were killed in a war between their co-nationals, against whom they started a war. In any case, you cannot compare the Holocaust to any tragedy. This is as disgusting as saying that the Holocaust did not happen.--Scientia Potentia 07:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Karl Meier Says "soapbox for denialist nonsens"; if you really believe that this is a soapbox; what are you reverting the "position" page which even the title says its is a "denial. You are giving credibility to the arguments. I think people are clever enough to read the Armenian genocide page and form a judgment. The question is; if there are things that bothers Karl Meier in denialists position, Karl Meier should develop the Armenian Genocide page such that "denialists" becomes a joke. Why to remove an article which explains an position, however it may or may not be wrong. After reading Armenian Genocide, people come to this "position" page and say "what a stupid position." People are clever enough to separate joke and reality. Look at the "Holocost page." They do not left a single position not-answered. Instead of attacking other people and denounce opposing values, they develop their history. They have the answeres of basic questions, who-whom-where-how-why. If you feel there is something which is not-answered at the Armenian Genocide page, the responsibility is on Karl Meier's shoulder to fill that position. At the end; "Denial" only presents a view (a "position") and it is not the main page, as the title implies. Thaks--OttomanReference 18:43, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
As I have already mentioned NPOV apply to all articles and it will not be possible for me to solve the serious issues that this article has, by editing another article. -- Karl Meier 05:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
You propose to try to develop main the content (the support of Armenian Genocide) in a page that covers "Denial". If you believe that anything that is missing in the main page regarding the content of the Armenian Genocide; the development of the missing arguments should be in the main page. This is a position page, and it is a sub page. If you are sensitive to the issue, and believe that Armenian Genocide page is missing information, you are free to develop it. One more time. You perceive this page as the main Armenian genocide page that covers the who-whom-where-how-why (real history), which is not. As the title implies this is the position of "Denial". The content is limited what "denials" are proposing. Your NPOV argument does not hold, as this is the "DENIAL" article and try to reflect the arguments of "Denial" position as a sub article to Armenian genocide. If you believe, for some reason, that these arguments are valid than you are welcome to extend the content of the main page. Let the readers of the Armenian Genocide page to be informed about what deniars say. If you feel that Armenian Genocide page is missing some evidence regarding the "Denial" position, you are welcome to cover it where it belongs. Again, you take this "denail" as the main article, and try to develop it. That is not true. Thanks.--OttomanReference 06:54, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
To let the Turkish government and their denialist point of view regarding the genocide stand alone in the intro section is not acceptable. Not here and not anywhere. Please read NPOV. -- Karl Meier 09:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
This is not a war, please do not take it personal. Please be civil, and build your correspondence within the boundaries. This article as its name implies; "Denial". There are western historians, eastern historians and Republic of Turkey which takes this position. The content is cited. It is a "position" article that explains a specific "position" of Denial. If you want to develop the history and arguments of the Armenian Genocide; the appropriate place is the main article. If you read the previous correspondence directed to you; this article is not Armenian Genocide article and it is within the limits of its title. It only represents the "Denial" view, as the title claims. It has a NPOV as it is covers the "Denial" point of view (hopefully not missing anything). You are welcome to develop your arguments at the main article where the main content (history of the events, proof regarding criminals, etc) is developed. One more time; this is not the main article where the content of Armenian Genocide is developed. Thanks. --OttomanReference 15:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Jew historians?

Why does the information included here from the Turkish ministry of culture and tourism separate Jewish scholars from those of other nationalities? Judaism is a religion, not a country. Augustgrahl 21:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Table deleted accordingly. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.154.142.114 (talk) 05:51, August 23, 2007 (UTC)

Title change?

I find the title is not neutral. Probably "Turkish POV of the Armenian Genocide" would be more neutral? or "Armenian Genocide didn't Happen" Since I find that the article Armenian Genocide is from Armenian POV. Suggestion? Rad vsovereign 18:02, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Armenian Genocide is not Armenian POV, take a look at the refrences and how many other countries have recognized it as fact. Also this article is not Turkish POV--VartanM 19:19, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

An absolute minority POV

This article is representing the POV of Turkish government and scolars (surely not the all of them). We need to write in description that its criticized by the great majority of scolars in the world. Also the Ministry of Culture and Turism is obviously not reliable source to ask how many Armenian and foreign scolars used its archives etc., as we can find many reliable sources asking that Turkish archives on Armenian Genocide issues are closed for Armenian (what they mean by Armenian- f.e. is the Roland Suny an Armenian, or American scolar for the Turkish ministry?, or they mean the citizenship?) and foreign researchers. Andranikpasha 15:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Im adding a NPOV tag before the marked points of neutrality will be keeped (especially in the description).Andranikpasha 19:03, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

About the "opened" Turkish (Ottoman) archives on Armenian Genocide (I didnt mark Armenian sources):
"Regarding Turkish membership, the real issue is not about size. It is about mentality. Specifically, the country has refused to acknowledge the genocide of 1915, when over 1 million Armenians were led to their death in the Syrian deserts or just slaughtered. The incident has been well documented and includes thousands of eyewitness accounts. Yet Turkey continues to deny it, saying a lot of people died at the time, including Turks (an argument Russia employs in regards to WWII, as Balts are well aware). The country has closed its archives and even banned use of the word genocide." Turkey Must Face The Truth (editorial) // "The Baltic Times", Riga, Dec. 15 2004.


"Turkish documents are divided into two groupings, Number 1 and Number 2. Group 1 or Section 1 e contains the documents that the central government sent out to the regional administrations. These documents are few, short and do not contain much information. The 79 documents that Gaunt was allowed to photocopy belong to this section.
The second group or section contains all documents that went from the regional administrations to the central government. According to Prof. Gaunt they are much more interesting because they are numerous, extensive, and very informative. Section 2 documents are yet not accessible to historians because they have not been catalogued and numbered.
“They have promised me that some of the uncatalogued documents will be open for me in one or two months. I have appointed a person in Istanbul who will send them to me as the archives hands them out”.
Prof. Gaunt emphasizes that if documents begin to arrive from Istanbul many scholars, Armenian and Assyrian, will be able to cooperate and work more closely on similar investigations." A Breakthrough For Sayfo Research // Zeyda magazine, 15 Feb 2006
Andranikpasha 21:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Quote "he headed for Turkey for five days". Quote "the list of eleven thousand documents he had prepared to consult was rejected by the staff working with the Ottoman Archives in Istanbul". All this is just more evidence questioning the academic seriousness of Gaunt. He is more like a self-publicist rabble-rouser than a genuine researcher. No serious scholar would ever seek to examine 11,000 documents in only 5 days (actually, was probably only 3 days unless he was heading straight to the library from the airport, and straight from the library to the airport). Nor would any archive library anywhere in the World consent to supply a researcher with 11,000 of their documents in so short a time-period. Meowy 01:20, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Its dubious! Any serious researcher can look for thousands of materials to return again especially for them (he write he will), or to ask someone to send him these materials. I dont think anyone else than a serious researcher will need 11.000 doc-s:) A musicologist friend last time in a foreign country copied 30 kilograms of archival materilas... so I think it is possible. Andranikpasha 17:48, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

That is no reason for the {{dubious}} tag. You are already affirming that that many people might have researched the archive, and there is no reason to believe otherwise. I think neither that anon's (Andranik is that you?) deletion of the table, nor tagging it inappropriately are constructive. DenizTC 02:07, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

The "Pre-1915" section should be deleted

It serves no purpose and is off topic. The "Denial of the Armenian Genocide" cannot pre-date 1915. If there is any valid content in the "Pre-1915" section, it should be contained in the "Arguments brought forward" section, under whatever particular "argument" is most appropriate. I propose deleting the "Pre-1915" section unless there is a convincing argument against it. Meowy 01:05, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

  • I agree that it should be removed. It is completely off-topic. It is attempting to dilute the reality of the Armenian Genocide by bringing in irrelevant, pre-genocide issues. That's the most that can be said for this section, since it's such a grammatical hash that it's barely coherent. Qworty 06:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Is this YAASP?

  • Comment by Obsteel removed.

This a discussion page and removing a comment is the biggest vandalism you can ever make.--Obsteel 00:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Denial of the Armenian Genocide article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject. This discussion page is not the correct place to show your pride in Turkey. May I suggest Blogger.com? VartanM 00:05, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
So this is "Yet Another Armenian Supporters Page" of the big Wikipedia Project. Go on. But I really wonder how much does it costs to buy this page from Wiki. --Obsteel 06:18, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
You're right that such comments don't belong on talk pages. Still, it's rather poor form to remove other people's comments on discussion pages simply because they don't adhere to guidelines (deleting personal attacks is a different matter). And it's often useful to leave such comments so that other editors know what they are dealing with. -- Jibal 04:32, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I followed the guideline. If you check his contributions you'd see that he had the same behavior on other articles as well. Rants about justifying or denying the Holocaust are removed immediately, why should this be any different? VartanM 06:53, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Armenians raised as Turkish Muslims

I'm not sure how widespread the scholarship on this issue is, but I wonder if there should be a note speaking to Armenian children who were raised as Turkish Muslims by Turkish families that saved or adopted them. If I understand rightly, there's at least one documentary film on the subject by Turkish filmmaker Berke Bas, whose family raised seven Armenian children itself.[1]

In any case, the subject seemed like it might be significant to the genesis of concealing (or minimizing) the 1915 killings. For all of the political disunion in modern Turkey, it does maintain a fierce sense of identity such that the idiosyncratic term "Turkishness" even finds its way into English.

Is this orphan issue a tiny issue? I can't grasp the scope of it from what I've read.[2] Though I've encountered in textbooks (eg Turkey Unveiled) allusions to how some Turkish people will privately admit to having Armenian ancestors. If there are Turkish nationals who are completely unaware of this phenomenon, please feel free to chime in, because I don't have any sense of the scope of the phenomenon. Cheers, DBaba 05:39, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

You might be intrested on watching France24 report about Hidden Armenians in Turkey. [3]. VartanM 07:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Recently, the head of the Türk Tarih Kurumu (Turkish History Institution) made the claim that most Alevi Kurds are actually Armenian converts which raised a lot of controversy here.--Doktor Gonzo 20:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, there are many Armenians in Turkey, some were raised as Turkish Muslims, and I've met quite a few in the United States and noticed that they are not afraid to admit it to anyone, and no one holds it against them since there is no significant racism of Armenians in Turkey, which is why there is over 70,000 of them in Turkey, including a 40,000 Armenian worker migration from Armenia to Turkey in recent years. When the deportation laws were carried out in 1915, Armenian families were given the choice whether to give their children to trusted Turkish families or put them up for adoption, so that they would not have to suffer the hardships of WWI travel through the dangerous Kurdish and rural lands into Syria. It is one of the many reasons why the Armenian Genocide argument is slowly fading because of the many archives and information being uncovered by historians that show the small yet significant efforts by the Ottoman CUP government to prevent the killings and violence against Armenians and Christians alike. — talk § _Arsenic99_ 08:04, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Title

I do not know of any other county in the World that denies the Armenian Genocide other then the Republic of Turkey. As such, if I am correct, then shouldn`t the title be "Turkish Denial of the Armenian Genocide" or "Denial of the Armenian Genocide by Turkey". AdrianCo (talk) 23:26, 19 January 2008 (UTC)AdrianCo

Actually over 170 countries have not recognized this as genocide and only 20 or so countries did. So you are wrong my friend --ProudTurk

Not recognized doesn't mean denied. The actual deniers are Turks and Azeris (other Turks). Steelmate (talk) 19:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

This article is not about denying the Armenian genocide, it is about the denial of the Armenian genocide. That denial is propagated by individuals as well as states (though the only other state is Azerbaijan), and a number of the key individuals are not Turkish, so I think the title is correct. Meowy 18:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

A-ha. Thank you both! AdrianCo (talk) 19:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Here is another thought, how about creating article Non Recognition of Armenian Genocide, we can write there how countried didn't recognize the genocide yet and why (f.e. political pressure from Turkey) ? Steelmate (talk) 19:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Hm...hm...maybe...not sure...but maybe. AdrianCo (talk) 21:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
I must agree with Steelmate on this. Tell me if you want me to help you start the article. — talk § _Arsenic99_ 07:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
I do not agree with either you or Steelmate on this. "Recognition" or "non-recognition" is not the same as "denial". The article's title is fine as it is, and as appropriate as it can get. Meowy 00:49, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Turkish Genocide

This article has to include Turkish genocide which was commited by Armenians during the WW1 era.Every day Turkish graves found. I will be watching this article.--Kafkasmurat (talk) 16:05, 10 February 2008 (UTC) Um, so you're saying that there was a genocide of the Turks? What is your evidence, that there are no longer many Turks in Turkey? You are confusing isolated killings, which may have taken place, and may have even been defensive killings, with genocide. Not the same thing. There was no Turkish genocide. There was an Armenian genocide. How could a minority population like the Armenians have systematically wiped out the much larger Turkish population? When you make such fantastic claims, you only hurt you argument about Armenian genocide denial because people no longer take you seriously. According to your logic, because the Jews in the Warsaw ghetto killed a few Germans, there was a Germen genocide propagated by the Jews. Silly indeed. RockStarSheister (talk) 22:15, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Andranikpasha's attemp to convert this article into the main article

With the latest modifications of the User:Andranikpasha, the article moved beyond what the title intents. It is not a position article anymore. It become the major content, an analysis article, related the genocide position. Moving a major content, an analysis, out of the genocide article is POV position, and a possible fork. If this continuous, this article needs to be merged to the main article. --Anglepush (talk) 15:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

At first pls be correct and do not attack other users. And this article is dedicated to the denial, a mostly criticized and radical view. Read Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#Defending_interests. All the sources are usede only here and dedicated to the topic of denial, not to Armenian Genocide. Andranikpasha (talk) 16:12, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
You are adding material beyond the denial position. Article is becoming an alternative article to Armenian Genocide. This is a fork. You are forking the main article. If you believe the topics which you are covering is not covered in the main article, you should be adding them to the main article. If they are already covered in the main article, then you are performing an conscious forking. --Anglepush (talk) 19:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Denial of the Armenian Genocide is a radical (even racist), mostly criticized and condemned view (see also f.e. Holocaust Denial). So the deletion of its critics is not justified. If we have an article on Nazism, it never means we must leave that article to... nazi's to explain their view and "prove" how much they are right. It is just an anti-humnist, radical minority view and is described so. According to Wiki rules and human morality principles. Andranikpasha (talk) 17:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
No, it's not racist to deny an accusation of a crime without proof, it's simply human and since there is no proof of intent (unless you consider Vahakn Dadrian's speculation and arguments as proof), it should be denied by everyone in order to be neutral. The denial is only criticized by Armenians who believe that it is true and do not want it changed for many political reasons. Nazism is different, because denying the Armenian Genocide doesn't make you a Turk or a member of the CUP party---in fact, there is no one who is a member of CUP party anymore since the 1920s when they were tried and sentenced to death in the 1920 Turkish Court-Martials. It simply means that in your view, the genocide label may not be appropriate for the killings of Armenians since there were no government involvement or encouragements in the killings, but it was more of a local war between Christians and Muslims. This does not mean the Armenian Massacres are excusable or justified, they are NOT. It means that the context of the massacres does not automatically make it a genocide. — talk § _Arsenic99_ 07:57, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
You are using concepts that is tangential to the problem. Forking is very basic issue. I did not come up with this problem. There are previous discussions on this issue, which your edits are constantly extending it's size. One Armenian contributor specifically stated that covering the Previous->1915 And After->1917 issues would change the intent of the article. You invented a huge section that covers recent events (21 century). The section does not even once refer to historical facts (if you are explaining denial you are looking at historical facts). I sincerely (in your case this is a positive remark) believe problem is at your WP:AGF. The issues have been pointed out are basic issues. Remember, couple months ago you also claimed that "Armenian national movement" is not part of "Armenian nationalism." You managed to remove the Armenian national movement from Armenian nationalism article. You are turning this article into an alternative article. I'm hoping you can recognize the problem and fix it by yourself. For the future; if I do not engage with you, this is not because you are in accordance with fact, reason, or truth;. --Anglepush (talk) 22:55, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I have nothing to add. Some users prefer to discuss their opinions, biases, etc. (look the Armenian Natioanlism talk FYI Im not the only user who condemned your obvious POV pushing there), I prefer some sources, Wiki rules and simple logics. If something is anti-Armenian (anti-Jewish, racist, anti-humanist, etc) chauvinistic propagand it is not for Wikipedia. Andranikpasha (talk) 12:25, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Page title

This page was recently moved from Denial of the Armenian Genocide to Arguments against the Armenian Genocide theory. I have reversed this pagemove. Not only is the latter title ambiguous (there is more than one theory about the Armenian Genocide, and not all speculation about the genocide should be classified as "theory" - a concept which has a specific social scientific definition), it also contravene's Wikipedia's naming convention that articles should use the most common, recognisable title.

The pagemove was done based on the argument that "the word 'denial' implies refusal to admit a truth." This is inaccurate; "denial" is "the act of asserting that something alleged is not true". Thus, use of the word itself makes no judgment regarding the truthfulness of the allegations. Black Falcon (Talk) 20:13, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The definition of the word "denial" fits its usage as the title of this article. Meowy 00:44, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Excellent analysis Black Falcon, but I think the reason this has been a problem for Turks is the fact that denial has a bad connotation. Which isn't fair, but you are right about the definition. 69.140.84.52 (talk) 07:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The online OED contains the definition mentioned above but it is broder: "The asserting (of anything) to be untrue or untenable; contradiction of a statement or allegation as untrue or invalid; also, the denying of the existence or reality of a thing." This means that it could also imply the denial of a the reality of a thing. Which is not the same as denial of an allegation. Further the OED online has an additional newer meaning (1997) "7. Psychoanal. The suppression (usu. at an unconscious level) of a painful or unacceptable wish or of experiences of which one is ashamed. Now also in more general use, esp. in phr. in denial (orig. and chiefly U.S.)." So the use of denial can also be read as those who are deny the genocide are suppressing, possibly at an unconscious level, the painful or unacceptable truth of the genocide. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 13:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Sentence in the "problematic usage" section

There are "recent studies" which used to fall into "denial" that present lack of monolithic political system or non unity between Three pashas[6].

"Recent studies" uses quotation marks as an ironic device; this is inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If these recent studies are invalid or were unacademic (or carried out by nonacademics, etc.), then it should be mentioned explicitly rather than written in a sarcastic tone. Wikipedia informs and should be written impersonally. I don't have the time to check the sources on my own, but it would be good if someone would check and either remove the sentence or reword it so its more formal. -Rosywounds (talk) 20:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

what is the problem about pictures??

what is the problem about pictures??--Qwl (talk) 22:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Everything is. It is propaganda, and also fake. --Namsos (talk) 18:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

please show me your sources? i have good sources.--Qwl (talk) 15:42, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

You have good sources for those images? that are third party and neutral please show me? --Namsos (talk) 02:16, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Images you claim that are Turks

This image you can find here [4] --Namsos (talk) 02:17, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, if that particular photo is used extensively by Armenian Genocide denialists and described by them as showing "Turks" killed by "Armenians", then the photo could legitimately be used in this article. Of course Qwl appears to fundamentally misunderstand the purpose of this Wikipedia article - it does not exist to disprove the reality of the Armenian genocide, its purpose is to detail the history and methodology (and so on) of the denial of the Armenian Genocide.

Turkish Military have Ottoman Archive Documents: Now Documents are in Military Archive everyone can see that pictures. some archive documents are published. you can install all of them from the Military Site (Here:[[5]]). The pictures are published on these academical documents. please see this document[6] page 254-255-256 you can see the original of that picture. You can understand why Armenia dont discuss these events with Turkey.--Qwl (talk) 22:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

your link dont have any sources. it is not academically. and that is a propaganda site under human rights--Qwl (talk) 22:42, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Your link is not reliable either, the government of Turkey is a strong denier of the Armenian Genocide thus the propaganda. --Namsos (talk) 23:19, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

you have point of view. you will never believe the documents.you dont have sources. how can i believe Armenian documents are not propaganda? your pictures copy of Turkish Documents. --Qwl (talk) 05:26, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

No those are not from Armenian archives, those images are most likely from American archives plus Russian, UK etc. --Namsos (talk) 22:32, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
American archives plus Russian, UK. how you say their documents are not biased. show me your documents about a country documents are biased. you must write really good documents with references. and here is not a court. we must write all point of view. NPOV is this.--Qwl (talk) 19:19, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Sadly I can't understand what you are saying clearly. --Namsos (talk) 19:08, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

do you have an academical degree? do you have an academical research? you must accept this document. many douments are not confirmed with academical documents in this article.

about my reference document:

INSPECTION COMMITTEE
  • Dr. Hv. Korg. Erdoğan KARAKUŞ
  • Prof.Dr. Yusuf HALAÇOĞLU
  • Prof.Dr. Hikmet ÖZDEMİR
  • Doç.Dr. Yusuf SARINAY
  • Dr.Öğ.Alb. Ahmet TETİK
Document Scanning
  • Mesut GÜVENBAŞ
  • Erhan KANDEMİR...

this documents are related to this article. this is point of view deniers. there are many pictures about Genocide allegation but there isnt any documents about deniers arguments. --Qwl (talk) 06:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

What point of view deniers? you mean these articles are about Armenian Genocide deniers? --Namsos (talk) 22:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I deleted some unsourced denialst OR added by an IP after the site was unprotected. More editions and cleaning of propagandist chapters are necessary.Andranikpasha (talk) 19:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Once again: pls make any controversional deletions and changes only after a consensus at this page. Any unexplained POV-pushing will be reverted. Andranikpasha (talk) 17:08, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

The Missing Templates of Wikipedia for the rest of other genocides unrecognized by the Western world, Wikipedia should be front voice of these crimes against humanity


As well as these genocides don't be informed via Wikipedia, it will never be activated again in Turkey as it's blocked. There won't be any possibility for Turkey's focusing on this genocide and block subjects, I heard that Wikipedia copes with economical problems, sincerely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.209.162.141 (talk) 14:55, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Only two from above provided links exist on Wikipedia as a genocide articles. The first is the Armenian one and the second is that of the Native Americans, which is unrelated to this article. The rest is only your personal point of view, that is unreliable. Jingiby (talk) 15:22, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Nope, only a few thousands of Bosnians were killed during Srebrenica genocide and it's defined as genocide by United Nations which makes other similar events as well such as Indo-Chinese Genocide and Algerian genocide (over a million Algerians were murdered by France). Genocide : "the deliberate killing of a large group of people, especially those of a particular ethnic group or nation." (only one side's civilian deaths unlike counter-sided conflicts, like so-called Armenian genocide which has no any document or concrete proof, but still placed at Wikipedia) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.130.105.66 (talk) 15:56, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

  1. ^ https://i.ibb.co/pXBnWVm/EKf-Uj-TWWw-AID3b5.jpg
  2. ^ https://i.ibb.co/C50xCx7/ELczk-Xa-Wk-AE68-LW.jpg
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Armenian_genocide_denial/Archive_1&oldid=1136530637"