Talk:Armenian genocide denial/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Reversal by Gazifikator

user:Gazifikator please explain how you justify the comment in the edit history of the article "rv revisionist view" when you made "this reversal of the following text:

The Armenian Genocide is widely acknowledged outside Turkey to have been one of the first modern, systematic genocides,^[1] as many Western sources point to the sheer scale of the death toll as evidence for a systematic, organized plan to eliminate the Armenians.^[2]

• Cite 1:
  • Ferguson, Niall. The War of the World: Twentieth-Century Conflict and the Descent of the West. New York: Penguin Press, 2006 p. 177 ISBN 1-5942-0100-5.
  • A Letter from The International Association of Genocide Scholars June 13, 2005)
• Cite 2: "Senate Resolution 106 - - Calling on the President to ensure that the foreign policy of the United States reflects appropriate understanding and sensitivity concerning issues related to Human Rights, Ethnic Cleansing, and Genocide Documented in the United States Record relating to the Armenian Genocide". Library of Congress.

--Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 11:17, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I have just realised that you reverted all of my edits what was revisionist about the new section "===Genocide convention==="[1] or the paragraph

Under international law, ethnic cleansing of itself is not enough to show that genocide has taken place as it must be accompanied by the biological destruction of the group.^[1]

• citation 1: ECHR Jorgic v. Germany Judgment, July 12 2007. § 42 citing Prosecutor v. Krstic, IT-98-33-T, judgment of 2 August 2001, § 43 citing the judgment of 19 April 2004 rendered by the Appeals Chamber of the ICTY, IT-98-33-A §§ 25,33, 47, 190,580)

--Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 19:21, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

user:Gazifikator I have reverted your reversions of my edits as you have not commented here. I have also reverted your reversion of my page move from "Armenian genocide debate" back to "Denial of the Armenian Genocide". Your reason for doing this in the edit history was "moved Armenian genocide debate to Denial of the Armenian Genocide over redirect: removing as per other cases of genocides". Yet there AFAICT are no other articles entitled "Denial of the XYZ Genocide". There is an article entitled Holocaust Denial but there is also Holodomor genocide question and History wars and sections in articles such as 1971 Bangladesh atrocities#Genocide debate. If you look at the Genocide denial article and the Genocides in history there are many many accusations of Genocide and refutations, and we do not have a Genocide denial article for each accusation of genocide.

In the version you reverted to the very first citation was to a page by the BBC called Q&A: Armenian genocide dispute not "Q&A: Denial of the Armenian Genocide". In my opinion as Turkish government denies that a genocide took place, the better to follow the lead of the BBC, to have a neutral title and let the facts speak for themselves. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 10:57, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

This move of yours as well as the accompanying edits are unacceptable. Prior to making such controversial changes you must first achieave a consensus. This is not the place the be bold. -- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 12:13, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted your cut and past move. Cut and past moves are not acceptable as they destroy the history of an article that is needed for copy right reasons.(see: Help:Moving a page). I am willing to discuss the changes. But to date no one has replied on the talk page with a comment as to why they object to the changes. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 12:40, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

How convenient for you. You're willing to discuss the unilateral changes and the undiscussed move which you applied to an article you very well know is going to create problems? 1RR needs to be applied to this article immediately.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 12:42, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I am more than willing to discuss both the changes to the article that I made and the move. Please explain what you objections are. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 12:51, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

My advice is that the above editor should not be engaged with, it is pointless to discuss this subject with a genocide denier. The title he proposes is invalid. There is no "debate", only "denial" and "acceptance", so his posts here are off-topic and should be removed from this talk page for the same reason that postings made on the Armenian Genocide entry are removed if their sole purpose is to deny the Armenian Genocide. If he persists in this obnoxious POV warring, I suggest reporting his actions. Meowy 16:14, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Meowy to whom are you referring when you say "genocide denier". If it is to me where have I written anything that denies that there was a genocide and before making such postings again I would suggest that you read WP:CIVIL. If as you say there is no debate would the wording used in the BBC article mentioned above "Armenian genocide dispute" be more acceptable? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 17:14, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Can't you understand what I wrote? I said "the above editor", so it was obvious it was you I was referring to. Admittedly, your ability to see the obvious is in question given your contributions here so far. Meowy 18:17, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

This is the Wikipedia not the BBC. There is no dispute or debate. You either deny or accept. -- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 17:20, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

When you write "you" do you mean "one"? I will assume the latter but please correct me if I am wrong on this. Are you absolutely sure that all people either a deny or accept? That may be true that for a minority of readers of Wikipedia , but most come here to be informed, so they may next to know of the events that occurred. So from their perspective the information presented is that of a debate and having read all the information on Wikipedia they may not have made up their minds. If I follow your logic are you suggesting that there should be two articles one that proposes that a genocide took place and another that denies that a genocide took place, with not contradictions to those two approaches on either page. In which case wouldn't these two articles be a point of view (POV) fork? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 17:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

The above (yes, I mean you, Philip Baird Shearer) editor arrives out of the blue and makes a series of controversial and POV-ridden edits without discussing anything beforehand, then he changes the entry title to suit his POV, again doing it without any discussion. It seems he is displaying an unusually precocious case of WP:OWN, together with a contempt for any editor who has previously worked on this article. That contempt includes not bothering to read past contributions to this talk page. Changing the title of this entry has twice before been formally proposed: changing "Denial of the Armenian Genocide" to "Rejection of the Armenian Genocide Allegations, and to "Denial of the Armenian Genocide Allegations". Both those proposed changes were proposed in advance, discussed in some detail, and in the end comprehensively rejected. Philip Baird Shearer appears to want to circumvent accepted Wikipedia procedures. For these reasons alone he is not deserving of normal considerations. Meowy 18:29, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

<--(Out dent)User:Meowy which part of my edit "was controversial and POV-ridden". --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 18:54, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Everything you have done here has been controversial and POV-ridden. But don't just take my word for it. Read WP:RM. It says, on moving an article from one title to another, "If there has been any past debate about the best title for the page, or if anyone could honestly disagree with the move, then treat it as controversial". In the Requesting potentially controversial moves section, it says, "Please follow all three steps listed below when requesting a move", the first two steps being to "add move template to talk page" and then "Create a place for discussion on the article’s talk page". There have in the past been two formal proposals to rename this article, therefore any further page moves are controversial and you should have followed those set procedures – instead you chose to ignore them. Meowy 19:07, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I can assure you that I do not have contempt for any editor. I happen to think that the current name has nothing to do with the previous requested moves, which were in my opinion not sensible names as they carried POV implications. The section of WP:RM is for requesting non controversial moves I did not make such a request. But let us set that aside for the moment. You write "Everything you have done here has been controversial" which does not really get us any further so let us salami slice it. Please explain to me what in your opinion (other than the page move) was the most "controversial and POV-ridden" edit that I made to this page? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 19:26, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I've said it before, I do not intend to engage with the above editor. Ignorance of Wikipedia procedures is not an excuse for breaking them - neither is thinking (as in "I happen to think" and "in my opinion") you are above them. If the above editor wishes to start following the proper procedures for conducting or proposing controversial edits then he may get a more active response. He can start by placing the appropriate move template into this talk page, make a new section to contain any discussions and then say why he is proposing a name change for the article. Meowy 19:44, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Philip Baird Shearer, reliable sources do not negate the existance of the Armenian Genocide and its occurance, so accordingly, Wikipedia has no obligation to appease the unreliable ones which do. So the article prior to your unilateral changes against Wiki consensus and following edit warring was not one-sided as you claimed. The views of the ignorant liars and false scholars are presented. Armenian Genocide denial pertains to those whose only efforts in 'debates' actually constitutes deliberate dishonesty. You can call it what you like, but it is not "neutrality" it's fraud. This discussion is over.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 19:45, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Eupator, you wrote "following edit warring was not one-sided as you claimed" where did I claim that there was edit warring let alone one sided edit warring? AFAICT I have not added any to this article so too which unreliable sources are you referring? If you think I have added any unreliable sources then what are they?--Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 14:20, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I suggest we all don't discuss anything more with him until he places the tags I requested, making a formal proposal for changing the title. As it is now, the old title will return once the move protection is lifted, so there is no need to waste time on this unless he makes that formal proposal. Meowy 19:48, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Meowy why not put in a WP:RM request to move the article to "denial of the Armenian Genocide" and give your reasons why that is the best name? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 12:12, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Your point-blank refusal to follow Wikipedia procedures is astonishing. This article has been frozen in order that the changes you made to it (the title change and page move) can be discussed, yet you refuse to start the necessary actions to initiate that discussion! Meowy 13:54, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Meowy, the article has been protected because of cut and past moves. I have initiated a discussion (I started this section), but to date despite my request to you and others to discuss my edits you have not done so. Indeed to my request "Please explain to me what in your opinion (other than the page move) was the most "controversial and POV-ridden" edit that I made to this page?" you wrote "I've said it before, I do not intend to engage with the above editor." so, can you now please reply a little more detail so that we can have a discussion about the edits I made to the article. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 14:20, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

How many times do I have to repeat myself before you understand! You changed the title of this entry without any prior discussion. You did not follow the procedures that are required for changing the titles of contentious articles. And don't dare tell me you didn't think the title change was contentuous - you archived the talk page so you must have seen the two previous discussions about title changes. And you are still refusing to follow the proper procedures by refusing to insert the move template and subsection into this talk page! If this behaviour were from a new editor then it might be understandable, but from an administrator it is astonishing. Meowy 14:58, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Moving, redirecting and cut-and-pasting...

See WP:ANI#Armenian genocide debate

...will stop. I have protected the wrong version for three days to allow you people to talk and come to a consensus. You may like to seek a third opinion or dispute resolution, but disputes like these need to be played out on the talk page, not in the mainspace. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ will never be anybody's hero now 18:44, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure you understand but this is not a "dispute". I will refer the matter to Moreschi.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 19:46, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

True. It can't be disputed that Philip Baird Shearer ignored normal procedures when making the page move, so the move was always invalid and should always have been reverted. Meowy 19:53, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Not only is he not a new user but he has admin privileges as well. Surely he must have been aware that he can't just go ahead and move the page.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 20:00, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

That's a clear case of an admin's abuse of his tools, on top. He deleted the former "Armenian genocide debate" in order to prepare the ground for this move. Sardur (talk) 22:24, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

See this and the relevant summary. Sardur (talk) 23:35, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I think that was just the old redirect he was erasing, he had to do that before changing "Denial of the Armenian Genocide" back to "Armenian genocide debate". Perhaps more significant is that he archived all the old talk page discussions. And that he posted comments on the talk pages of everyone who objected to his POV editing or reverted his title changes. That could be taken as bullying by an administrator. Meowy 01:39, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

You don't need to be admin in order to archive, but you have to in order to delete. This plus the summary shows clearly an admin misuse. That's what caused my revert. Sardur (talk) 02:12, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Sardur you linked to a summary yes, but not a full summary. I moved the page from denial of the Armenian Genocide to Armenian genocide debate. At the time no such page existed (red link) so there was no problem moving this page to that name. Gazifikator moved it back to denial of the Armenian Genocide and then about an hour later at 13:04, 1 October 2008 , added {{rfd}} to the redirect page with the comment "represents a commonly criticized, revisionist view" but did not add any comment to the page Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion. On the 2nd October I removed the {{rfd}} as it had not been completed properly. At about the same time I added a to this talk page asking Gazifikator to debate the changes. I waited a day (actually 23 hours -- I got mixed up on GMT) and then moved the page again and reverted his revert of my edits. As there was only a redirect on the target page name and no one had commented on the talk page, I see no problem with that move. The page could have been moved back to denial of the Armenian Genocide after my move (as there was only a redirect on it) by simply using the move tag button, but instead user:Eupator chose to move it with a cut and past move, something that you repeated at 17:22, 3 October 2008,(See help:move# Wikipedia-specific help for reasons why cut and paste moves are not allowed). Once a page is moved using cut and past then non admin users for technical reasons can not move it and need to place a request to move the page. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 13:54, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

And ? Your first move was undiscussed and unjustified, you didn't have to remove again and to use your admin tools in order to be able to do that. Clear abuse. Sardur (talk) 17:28, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

When this page is unprotected in a few hours, don't move the page back to the old title using the "history" tab, use the "move" tab - that's what it's for. Meowy 15:59, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

In order to do that, I'm quite sure Denial of the Armenian Genocide as it stands right now has to be deleted first... Sardur (talk) 16:37, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I think you just first delete the redirect that currently redirects "Denial of the Armenian Genocide" to "Armenian genocide debate", then do a normal move since there is no "Denial of the Armenian Genocide" article. ButI haven't done that sort of thing before, so I might be wrong. Meowy 18:13, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

That won't work without the history of "Denial of the Armenian Genocide" being deleted, and for that, you need to be an admin, like Mr-I-move-and-then-you-discuss. Sardur (talk) 18:51, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that seems to be what we need to do. I just tried unsuccessfully to rename it myself after first erasing the redirect on the Denial of the Armenian Genocide page. Meowy 19:45, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Are we all agreed that the move back to "Denial of the Armenian Genocide" would be uncontroversial, given that the move to "Armenian genocide debate" was not discussed before that move was made and that there is clearly no concensus for that move to remain the current title. Meowy 20:03, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I think that goes without saying, but evidently that requires admin intervention.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 20:05, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Ditto. Sardur (talk) 20:16, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I've requested (by adding the appropriate template to the page) that the now empty article titled "Denial of the Armenian Genocide" should be deleted. Once it is gone, I think we can make the page move. Meowy 00:15, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

RFC: Merge "recognition of the Armenian Genocide" into this article

At the moment there are three articles. One which concentrates on the events themselves and is called the Armenian Genocide and two more articles called recognition of the Armenian Genocide (RAG) and the other was called denial of the Armenian Genocide (DAG) until I renamed it "Armenian genocide debate" which cover the opinions if a genocide took place. I my opinion the two article construct of recognition and denial are a clear example of a point of view (POV) fork:

A content fork is usually an unintentional creation of several separate articles all treating the same subject. A point of view (POV) fork is a content fork deliberately created to avoid neutral point of view guidelines, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. Both content forks and POV forks are undesirable on Wikipedia, as they avoid consensus building and therefore violate one of our most important policies.

and this is a problem because the article names imply that there are only two positions—either the events took place and they were a genocide or they did not and no genocide took place. However there are shades of opinion that range between these two positions which means that either these in between views have to be repeated in both articles or they are marginalized in one or both articles.

For example the BBC article, mentioned in this article called "Q&A: Armenian genocide dispute", makes the point that "The UK, US and Israel are among those that use different terminology to describe the events." yet there is no mention of this in this article and the UK's position is mentioned in one sentence in the RAG article. In 2001 the BBC reported that the British government's position is "The Foreign Office accepts that the massacres [of Armenian civilians] took place, but insists that they do not qualify as genocide." Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale made the British Governments position clear in a statement in Parliament in 1999 (Lords Hansard text for 14 Apr 1999 (190414-09) Column 826: 6.43 pm):

The position of Her Majesty's Government, which the noble Baroness has asked us to review, is, I believe, well known and understood, but it certainly bears repeating here tonight. The British Government condemned the massacres of 1915-16 at the time and viewed the sufferings of the Armenian people then as a tragedy of historic proportions. The British Government of today, like their predecessors, in no way dissent in any form from that view. Nor do we seek to deny or to play down the extent of that tragedy. It was a gruesome, horrifying tragedy, as the noble Earl, Lord Shannon, and other noble Lords have echoed tonight. I assure them that we are in no way dissenting from that analysis of what happened, but in the absence of unequivocal evidence to show that the Ottoman administration took a specific decision to eliminate the Armenians under their control at the time, British governments have not recognised the events of 1915 and 1916 as "genocide".

This is a view that was reiterated outside Parliament by the British Government on 7 December 2007.

If the two articles (DAG and RAG) are merged into one article (called Armenian genocide debate or the Armenian genocide dispute) it would be possible to give a more balanced view to all opinions about the events without giving undue weight to any of them (in the same was as the BBC does in its article "Q&A: Armenian genocide dispute" published 10 July 2008). At the moment the POV fork created by having to articles about the same subject is a breach of Wikipedia's WP:NPOV policy. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 13:09, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Very good. I support your reasoning. Fold in Kurdish recognition of the Armenian genocide while you are at it. --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 13:35, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

This proposal is a POV fork invented by Philip Baird Shearer to distract attention from his previous invalid actions. In that light, the only answer to this proposal can be no. I only wish Philip Baird Shearer's liking for inserting templates hither and tither would extend to him inserting the template he should have used before making undiscussed page moves. Meowy 15:22, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Please assume good faith and assume that my motives for requesting this merger is to improve Wikipedia. If you will assume good faith, then please comment of the pros and cons of such a merger from the point of view of improvements to Wikipedia.--Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 18:19, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Quote, (and I'm sure you know it): "this guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of contrary evidence". And I'm sure I'm not alone in getting tired of most of your posts containing links to Wikipedia policy pages we all know about. Meowy 18:50, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

His purpose here and intentions are becoming more clear. His so called proposal (POST FACT mind you) is absolutly unacceptable. By changing the title he has changed the subject of the article itself. This article was created for the purpose of presenting the subject of negation. Debate implies covering a subject where two positions are in conflict. So he killed an article by replacing its subject with another one. His unilateral actions are unacceptable, unjustifiable and unexcusable. In fact he has unexcusibly changed the entire subject of the article to include a section about the genocide convention. What would normally be considered as irrelevent was made relevent by changing the subject. How convenient, everyone should do that for their pov, when they wish to add sections but the subject itself won't allow that. In fact, you have made those changes before moving the article. So your action was clearly premeditated, you added that section with the intend of killing the article to replace it with another one by changing the subject which it is supposed to cover. The plot thickens... As for his reverts. Philip Baird Shearer, should know that this article is under the umbrella of discretionary sanctions Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 15:32, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out the page Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2. I read the sub-section on Principles with interest, and hope that we can all abide by them. I also await with interest your discussion of the issue of whether there should be two articles or one. If you think two articles are better then how do we address the point of view (POV) fork. For example into which article should the views such as those expressed by HMG be included? Also if there are to be two articles into which article you think an explanation be put about what is a genocide and why HMG takes the position they do. The section I introduced into this article Armenian genocide debate#Genocide convention, but if there are to be two article (RAG & DAG) then where should such an explanation go. Should it for example be included in the main article Armenian Genocide? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 18:19, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I have no intention to discuss any of the above with you when you ignored this page prior to making the move with additonal undiscussed and controversial changes. Then you reverted multiple times back your malicious version, if your only concern was that the move back wasn't done properly and you weren't simply engaged in move warring as you have in the past on other articles than you could have moved the article back to its original stable state. Once you or someone else corrects your mistake then, and only then can we proceed and discuss your concerns.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 18:29, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Philip, I disagree with your proposal and your hostile takeover of this article. (I'll expect that WP:CIVIL warning within the hour). Hakob (talk) 17:34, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Please could you explain why you think two articles are better than one, and how do you propose to address the issue of my concerns about the two articles being a point of view (POV) fork. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 18:19, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

The previous version of the article was clearly a POV fork. This is a policy violation. Does anybody have any better ideas to resolve it? --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 18:11, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

It clearly was "pov" for genocide deniers. Phillip's edits are unequivocally unacceptable, and even moreso when he did not even seek a consensus to his edits but brazenly changed the wording to his unilateral liking. We're not in any way obliged to use the obfuscated wording of BBC or the British government just because they word it like so. We're basing our wording based on the majority of genocide scholars and historians who agree that 1) the Armenian Genocide occurred and 2) that, most prominently, the Turkish government as well as other states engage in the systematic denial of its occurrence, 3)thereby signifying that there is no actual debate among scholars on whether or not the genocide occurred but rather an attempt by some to deliberately negate it as a historical notion. Some sort of reprimand should be in order here, considering that Phillip has clearly overstepped his bounds and abused his admin. privileges to suit an article to his personal disposition.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 19:53, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: first things first: Denial of the Armenian Genocide gives you 176 :returns at google books

and 117 at google scholar versus Armenian genocide debate that gives you 2 returns @ google books and 4 @ google scholar

Considering the evidence of notability: Denial of the Armenian Genocide is a subject of study and a title that deserves an article on WP, and in case necessary any relevant debates regarding the subject should be part of the content, not the title.

The second question: merging recognition of the Armenian Genocide into Denial of the Armenian Genocide could be reasonable only in case the article is not going to be just way too long. In case this might be the case, there should be an article about the 'Denial of the Armenian Genocide' and the debate-recognition issues can be covered more closely in the current "recognition of" article.

The bottom line, renaming the title of this article and enforcing the move by edit warring has not improved WP in any way. The renaming should be reverted ASAP.--Termer (talk) 07:17, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

PS. after looking at the length of this article, merging another related subject into this-one is clearly not justified. What this article should have though, a clear section looking at the debate-recognition issues that would also direct the reader to an appropriate {{main| article. Thanks!--Termer (talk) 07:35, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

The use of a phrase does not in itself mean that it is necessarily a desirable name for an article, particularly if that name leads to a POV fork. Take for example one of the articles returned by the scholar search. It is in fact a book and not an article and some of the book is viewable. It is entitled "The Criminal Law of Genocide" and is edited by Ralph Henham, and Paul Behrens. The first chapter in it entitled "The Armenian Genocide: A contextual view of the crime and a Politics of Denial" by Raffi Sarkissan Page 1. As can be seen by the name, the chapter examines both facets of the issue. The editors have not chosen to divide the two vies into two chapters. If there is one Wikipedia article then things like the statement by Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale's in the House of Lords "but in the absence of unequivocal evidence to show that the Ottoman administration took a specific decision to eliminate the Armenians under their control at the time, British governments have not recognised the events of 1915 and 1916 as 'genocide'" can be contrasted with Raffi Sarkissan's statement

... on 29 September 1915, Turkish minister of the interior, Talat Pasha conveyed to the Governor of Aleppo '.... All of the Armenians living in Turkey are to be destroyed and annihilated ... Without taking into consideration the fact that they are women and children and disabled, their very existence will be ended ...

With two articles one that emphasises recognition and the other denial this type of NPOV comparison is difficult unless large amount of information is to be duplicated in two articles. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 09:37, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

That quote by Ramsay that you keep posting, is worthless as its coming from someone who is quite insignificant. Nevermind the obvious political implications behind it. For a British view, the Winston Churchill quote in the main article is more than enough.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 15:16, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

She was stating the current British Government's position (and the politics are of course relevant -- and it is not necessarily just to appease Turkey as the UK has its own concerns about its own predecessors actions being examined by other states and found wanting). When did Churchill write his words about an "administrative holocaust"? Was it in the 1931 edition of the World Crisis, 1911–1918 or after the coining of the term genocide and the signing of the Genocide Convention? If he was writing in 1931 (the publication of the first edition) it was during his time in the wilderness so he was expressing a personal view not one held by of the British Government. However even if he was writing in 1931 and expressing his own personal opinion, then his position and the current British Government's are not so far apart as both consider the massacres of Armenian were a "crime against humanity" a view first expressed by a British Government in 1915 while Churchill was a member of that government. Crimes against humanity are "odious offences in that they constitute a serious attack on human dignity or grave humiliation or a degradation of one or more human beings; they are not isolated or sporadic events" (from the commentary on the Rome Statute, Article 7 - Crimes against humanity) and "Genocide and crimes against humanity are of equal gravity" (comment by Larissa van den Herik). So the British Governments position is not one that refutes the gravity of the offences committed against the Armenian people, it is that the crime is one that is clearly provable and over which there is little dispute other than by those who deny that the events took place. This is clearly a position between those who deny that systematic atrocities were committed and the majority of genocide scholars in North America and Europe who think that there is enough evidence to prove that the the atrocities were a genocide. Two polarised articles makes it difficult to present the spectrum of views that exist on this issue, and to present the arguments, put forward to support those views (without of course giving any view undue weight), so that the reader can decide for themselves which point of view best describes the facts (Let the facts speak for themselves). --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 06:40, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Well Philip Baird Shearer, I think you're entering a dangerous territory here. First of all please take a look at Genocide definitions. The fact that the UK, US and Israel are among those that use different terminology to describe the events in Armenia is not a reason good enough to justify your actions. Also, following your arguments, it may open up the Pandora's box on WP including that Holocaust is not recognized as an act of genocide in certain countries. Therefore please do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point! thanks! --Termer (talk) 18:12, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

He seems to have tried to do the same thing for the Pontic Greek Genocide article: first get it renamed (removing the word genocide from the title), then get it merged into an article dealing with the Greek-Turkish war. He did manage to get the "G" changed to "g" - presumably because "Genocide" implies a specific event, but "genocide" is just a word, an allegation for debate. Meowy 21:29, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Termer please what I have written in this article "Agreement among scholars on whether a genocide took place is further complicated because not all scholars use the the Genocide Convention as a definition of what constitutes genocide (see genocide definitions),...". User:Meowy please show where I have suggested "merging [the article] into Greek-Turkish war". --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 06:40, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, to be more exact I should have wrote "subsumed inside a larger article" rather than "merged into". You wrote: "how about moving it to a name that encompasses the Ottoman and Turkish governments campaign against the Greek population in the territories of what is today the Republic of Turkey.", and about that name you wrote "it should have a neutral descriptive name" (i.e. not one containing the word "Genocide"). Subsumption is also what you want to happen to this article. Meowy 15:09, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

If you want to be so politically correct about it, I don't have problems with if the article would be called Denial of the Armenian genocide.--Termer (talk) 14:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

The small-case "g" issue would seem, on the surface, not worth arguing about. But it does make a difference. We don't talk about the Italian renaissance, we call it the Italian Renaissance. As I had said a bit earlier, the use of a small-case "g" changes the subject from being a specific event into one that is just an allegation for debate. Meowy 15:13, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, there is a difference between Armenian Genocide and the denial of it. Denial of the Armenian Genocide can refer to the denial of something that is universally recognized as an act of Genocide according to the international law, meaning in theory someone would need to take Turkey to the International Court of Justice to settle the issues. Until this has not happened, we can't really speak about the denial of Genocide but the denial of genocide. I'd suggest going for a compromise since WP is not really a place to debate the issues, and therefore, to get a WP:consensus I'd rename the article to Denial of the Armenian genocide--Termer (talk) 15:47, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

PS. and in fact actually Turkey [2] [3] has taken steps to get the question settled by the IOJ if it was a Genocide according to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide or a genocide according to the definitions of a number of scholars.--Termer (talk) 16:07, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Turkey is denying it committed genocide, but this article is about the denial of the Armenian Genocide. It's the denial of a historical event that is widely described using the term "Armenian Genocide", so I think it should be capitalised. The Armenian Genocide article is also capitalised, so I'm sure this has been discussed before on that article's talk page (probably on numerous occasions). If the main article is capitalised, then it should be capitalised here. And it shouldn't be changed here until an agreement is made to change the Armenian Genocide article, given that it is the main one on the subject (change it there and the change will flow downwards through all the related articles, but a change can't usually flow upwards from a side-article to the main one). So really there is no point in raising this issue here - go to the main article and raise it there. Meowy 16:16, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

BTW, those articles cited are wrong, Turkey has made no approach to the International Court of Justice. But did you notice that even in those articles, written from a Turkish-state POV, they use "Armenian Genocide". Meowy 16:33, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

If Turkey could find some wording to bring a case in front of the ICJ, it cold help clarify the point about if there is enough evidence for a court of law to decide if there was an "intent to destroy" the Armenian people. But User talk:Termer it is not quite that simple, because a genocide is not only a Genocide because it is recognised as such by an international court of law for several reasons. The first is is that some genocides have been recognised as such under municipal laws that incorporate the Genocide Convention. Secondly just like municipal law there is a different level of proof required for a criminal conviction in a criminal case and that in a civil compensation case (see O. J. Simpson) so there is a difference in the proof required in a court of law and an academic opinion that the weight of evidence favours an interpretation that the events were a genocide. No one can be tried under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court the ICC has no retrospective jurisdiction (Ex post facto law) and can only prosecute crimes that have been committed after the Rome Statute entered into force. This is the norm for international law and was a point brought up by some of the defendants at the Nuremberg Trials (Nullum crimen, nulla poena sine praevia lege poenali) although it was argued by the prosecution that all the prosecutions brought under the London Charter were covered by specific treaties (such as Kellogg-Briand Pact) or more general clauses such as the Martens Clause in the Hague Conventions. It should also be born in mind that the Nuremberg Prosecutors did not prosecute members of the Nazi regime for crimes committed against German citizens, as at the time the more recent concept of an international "responsibility to protect" did not exist but not interfering in a state's internal affairs (and included as Article 2.7 of the UN Charter). Because the crime of genocide did not exist during the period of the Nuremberg Trials, no one was convicted of genocide for actions carried out during WWII even if they participated in genocide -- they were found guilty of other crimes such as war crimes and crimes against humanity -- however few in North America or Europe would argue that just because there were no prosecutions for genocide that the of the Holocaust was not a genocide (although as the Wikipedia article makes clear many scholars do not include the actions by the Nazis against Gypsies as part of the Holocaust which presumably means that they do not consider the killing of Gypsies a genocide, although they would not dispute that many Gypsies were systematically murdered). --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 13:56, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

This article is about the denial of the Armenian Genocide; it's talk page is not a soapbox for you to inform the World your opinion of what should or should not be called "genocide". Cite me works produced in which those that deny the Armenian Genocide have used your reasoning to deny it. If you can't, all your words here are just original research - though they might be useful if you are wishing to gain work in one of the numerous PR agencies and lobbyist organisations employed by Turkey. Meowy 14:39, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

• The unilateral page move was awful, and the page should be moved back to Denial of the Armenian Genocide (or a similar title) as soon as feasable. There is simply no debate about whether there was a genocide or not among academic historians, and those are the sources that we should be using for a topic like this. The British government's statements are clearly conditioned by its desire to maintain good relations with Turkey, but there's no reason for political niceties to dictate the title or content of Wikipedia articles. --Akhilleus (talk) 13:17, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

The Page move was incorrect but you should just follow the wording that the holocaust of the jews page currently holds. That has been uncontended for quite a while and seems to show its not a debate as it did happen. The page move is now correct, talk page should be continued if further debates are to be on going on the now original page. The links within the main topic of armenian genocide need to be changed also for people to be directly correctly. Also just for addition, Mr Phil Baird Shearer has been editing and archiving a lot of articles such as Liancourt Rocks, again a dispute hotly contended. [J.Webster 7th October 07:28UTC+08:05UTC] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.239.159.6 (talk) 06:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Meowy you wrote above "Turkey is denying it committed genocide, but this article is about the denial of the Armenian Genocide. It's the denial of a historical event that is widely described using the term "Armenian Genocide", so I think it should be capitalised." into which article do you think that the views of individuals and organisations like the British Government should go where they recognise the events as crimes against humanity "but in the absence of unequivocal evidence to show that the Ottoman administration took a specific decision to eliminate the Armenians under their control at the time", do "not recognised the events of 1915 and 1916 as 'genocide'"? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 13:56, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

You just used the phrase "British Government" not "British government", 'nuf said. Meowy 14:27, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

If there are two articles (as there are at the moment) which article should views such as the British Government go? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk)

The main one I suppose. I would not equate non-recognition solely for political reasons with denial. It could go in the recognition article as well quite frankly since the main one is already very bloated.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 17:40, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be better here (if by "main one" you mean Armenian Genocide. However, and this has been discussed before (on the main page I think), not saying something happened is not the same as saying it didn't happen. Meowy 18:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

BTW, just to put a final nail in the coffin of this RfC merge - there is another "Denial of" article being discussed on the reliable sources notice board Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Denial_of_the_Holodomor, with the concern there being that denial of the Holodomor is not a notable phenomenon when compared to Holocaust denial. As the Google search quoted earlier showed, and as proven by the extensive literature on the subject, "denial of the Armenian Genocide" is also a notable phenomenon and thus worthy of an article on Wikipedia. Meowy 19:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Meowy The British Government recognise that the incidents took place but they choose to describe them as crimes against humanity not genocide so why do you think they should be in the denial article rather than the recognition article? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 09:00, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Because the Armenian Genocide is a controversial subject only because the Turkish state denies it happened. That continuing denial is the only reason certain groups persist in asking the opinion of politicians about it. Meowy 22:58, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Your answer does not answer the question of why you think the British Government's position should be in the DAG and not the RAG article. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 09:29, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I suppose it could be in both articles. Governments are mostly being asked to comment by those wanting official statements of recognition. However, if it were not for the continuing denial by Turkey, not only would the British government cease to use diplomatic niceties in its language, there would be no need for anyone to be asking the British government about the issue. Meowy 23:38, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

<--- outdent. Is that not an indication that these two articles (RAG & DAG) are a point of view (POV) fork? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 18:27, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is. There should be a grand total of one article on this topic. --ClarkLewis (talk) 20:49, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

About the "both sides" term

When we speake about a denial, no "both" sides exist. this view is condemned by respected scolars as a part of denial itself:

"When it comes to the historical reality of the Armenian genocide, there is no “Armenian” or “Turkish” side of the “question,” any more than there is a “Jewish” or a “German” side of the historical reality of the Holocaust: There is a scientific side, and an unscientific side acknowledgment or denial. In the case of the denial of the Armenian genocide, it is even founded on a massive effort of falsification, distortion, cleansing of archives, and direct threats initiated or supported by the Turkish state, making any “dialogue” with Turkish deniers highly problematic." Genocide Denial in the state of Denmark. Open letter by Torben Jorgensen and Matthias Bjornlund, World Association of International Studies, Stanford University, California. Gazifikator (talk) 07:26, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Both sides in those statements; refers to "Armenian defenders" and "Turkish deniers" (in your response "with Turkish deniers highly problematic") This is dual concept, like black and white, one does not exist without the other. The problem here is not if there is a third position or if "Turkish deniers" do not have anything factual to say; it is your own constant rewording of what is stated in the cited Turkish sources. It is like, you are saying "No Turk's can not say it that way, I will tell you what you can say..." --Kemalist (talk) 07:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

By the way, there are sides. If it was really on the issue of facts, "terminology" would not be a problem. Armenians say "deportation." Turks say "relocation." If it was only factual, all the regions Armenians relocated were inside Ottoman Empire. Check the map. Does Armenians fix their terminology? Can you, in your power, fix this in the main Article? There are sides. One side say "deportation" other side say "relocation." It is not as simple as you want to believe. --Kemalist (talk) 07:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

See the sources: there is no Armenian and Turkish views, there is a commonly-accepted view and a mostly criticized politically biased denialist view. FYI well-known scolar Taner Akcam is also a Turkish, and Israel Charny, f.e., is not an Armenian.Gazifikator (talk) 08:16, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

So you are saying you do not have tolerance "to criticized politically biased" views of Turks and they should be reworded by the way you accept-understand. And "the biased denialist view" you say is not a side, so what it is, a corner? Also what do you say about the "deportation," "relocation" controversy? If there is no side, same people who use totally different words for the same event? Hey Gazi....! Do you have any relationship with Gazi Mustafa? By the way, side topic, How is the weather in Turkey :-) --Kemalist (talk) 08:38, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

i dont know if the denialist view is a corner or not, but the only thing I know there are not both sides and reliable, third-pary sources prove it. Gazifikator (talk) 08:45, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Investigate the reliability of your sources such as "Taner Akcam". It is widely known that Taner Akçam is a person not only opposing Turkey's arguments on this issue but also has both intellectual and physical relations with illegal groups actively working against Turkish state , resulting innocent deaths in Turkey. [GA] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.226.22.222 (talk) 14:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Acceptable content for this article

In the light of recent contributions to the article, which I think mostly amounted to original research, it could be useful to start thinking about what this article should and should not contain. I think that the content has to be based only on material that is derived from:
1/ Sources that seek to deny the Armenian Genocide.
2/ Sources that are commenting on the above sources, and on the aims and beliefs of those producing them.
3/ Reported events connected to, or resulting from, that denial, or from the act of commenting on that denial or on the denialist sources.
If we go beyond that, then we are just presenting our own opinions, which would be classed as original research.

Thoughts?

Meowy 15:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Any article on WP should be based on secondary third-party published sources. see WP:Sources It can't be simpler than that. Any views on the subject have to be cited not by Turks or Armenians but by third-parties. And it has nothing do with Sources that seek to deny the Armenian Genocide or Sources that are commenting on the above sources, and on the aims and beliefs of those producing them. etc.--Termer (talk) 04:52, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

If you are saying that Turkish or Armenian sources can't be cited just because they are Turkish or Armenian, then that is nothing more than racism. Go over to the Holocaust article and eliminate all the material derived from Jewish authors, and see what happens! And, as Gazifikator wrote earlier, there are "no Armenian and Turkish views, there is a commonly-accepted view and a mostly criticized politically-biased denialist view". If you say the article can have "nothing to do with sources that are commenting on the above sources, and on the aims and beliefs of those producing them" then the article cannot mention the prosecution of authors/publishers in Turkey for talkng or writing about the genocide or publishing AG-related books that the state consider to be anti-Turkish, or commentators (mostly Turkish) who have written about the cultural reasons behind the continuing denial. Meowy 19:05, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Incapable of toleration of other views

Is there a reason why this article is constantly vandalized by users who sides with Armenian position? The problem with the injection Armenian views, which are stated mainly as "opinions", are they are original research when compared to "denial position". The main article is full with Armenian POV, and Turkish position is constantly deleted from the main article. If Armenians delete these positions from this article, than what is the meaning of having this article? --Kemalist (talk) 07:23, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Read WP:NPOV. the turkish official view is nothing than a denialist, politically-biased and non-historical view, which can't be represented here as we're not going to represent hitler's views on Jews and Slavions just because of "toleration". be neutral, not radical, if even you're representing a radical view. Gazifikator (talk) 08:12, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

So you are saying; Turkish view should be removed from Wikipedia, because you believe Turks and Hitler are same and whatever Turks say sounds like propagation of hate speech to you!By the way, why doesn't Armenian Government open up the archives of her, or try to find other sources that are a bit better than those derived from the propogandas of British and French Intelligence Agencies of the time? --Kemalist (talk) 08:47, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Having two articles, denial of the Armenian Genocide and recognition of the Armenian Genocide force statements into both that are just a bias truism for example "The term "Genocide" has itself been subject to critical consideration by deniers." Well yes it has but it has also been subject to critical consideration by accusers as well. It would be more inclusive and accurate to write "The term "Genocide" has been subject to critical consideration.". To facilitate such language it would be better if both articles were merged into one article with a non bias name. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 18:05, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Give it a rest. This article is going to remain, its title is going to remain the same, the subject matter of its content is going to remain the same, it is not going to be merged with any other article. Meowy 23:01, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Given that you do not think the articles will be merger how do you suggest that the issue of non neutral language is addressed given that this is article is a POV fork? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 09:50, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

It would only make sense to merge an article called Non recognition of the Armenian Genocide into this one. And the fact that some governments don't recognize the events as legally genocide according to the international law doesn't make them automatically genocide deniers. So once you apply less personal bias to these articles, the articles become having non biased names just fine.--Termer (talk) 04:44, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that Non recognition of the Armenian Genocide is a sensible title. Why not have one article called Armenian genocide dispute, Armenian genocide debate, and merge the contents of the denial of the Armenian Genocide and recognition of the Armenian Genocide? Having two articles rather than one polarise the debate/dispute, they are a POV fork and lead to NPOV content. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 09:37, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Philip Baird Shearer, if you are still wanting the title changed to Armenian genocide dispute, would you either put up or shut up. By put up, I mean put up the appropriate tags that are needed to initiate a proper proposal and a proper discussion. I repeatedly asked you to do this after your earlier renaming edit war. If you are not interested in doing this, then really you are just wasting your time repeatedly mentioning it. Meowy 19:18, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

My perception is that: Philip Baird Shearer could not find enough votes. He could not even passed the value of his argument to Meowy. There are thousands of Meowy which will vote to keep the title as "denial." In the reality, the term "denial," is a POV word, which should not be used. If you look at the history of the article same issue seems to be raised every couple years. As long as Meowy perceive this as a quest of a national war, rather than an quest to search for the truth of his past; the word "debate" is unacceptable. "Debate" implies there is a question regarding his genocide.--Kemalist (talk) 19:44, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Seems that Kemalist likes my user name! Philip Baird Shearer got no votes because he did not ask for any, he has refused to insert the proper move proposing template that would enable him to get votes. Meowy 01:40, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Can you answer one question, why don't we do the same with the Holocaust related articles then? Are you saying that in the case of the Holocaust there are only those who either deny it or recognize it and that no individual or state has a position which recognizes the crimes of the Holocaust but not state intent of genocide? Isn't that your argument here?-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 15:22, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

In "Holocaust," the questions Who, Whom, Where, How, Why are clearly defined. In Armenian genocide, if you look at the wikipedia article, these terms do not have clear answers. The basic issue regarding why there is this debate (you call it as denial): "No one questions if the Ottoman Empire passed the Tehcir Law, but "How" they were moved, "Where" were they moved, "How" many of them moved." All these questions have clear answers in the Holocaust question. Jews use Hitlers archives. They do not need to invent numbers and cases. Why there are no answers in Armenian case? This is clearly a good question. Why do not accept the records at Ottoman Empire Archive? Why keeping it under shadow? Armenian sources do not even accept the ottoman census values. If we look at Ottoman Archives, we would also see how much destruction Armenian's inflicted in the region. Without recognition of the total destruction, it is easy to blame the opposite. It is easy to close your eyes and say "Intent was extermination of Armenians" rather than use other more plausible explanations --Kemalist (talk) 19:29, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

The total destruction was recognized even by Bundestag in Germany. We do not need to do original research here. The Armenian Genocide is a widely accepted fact. Gazifikator (talk) 04:18, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

widely accepted doesn't mean correct. With both sides denying eachother this will remain a political conflict rather than a historical one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.99.135.63 (talk) 17:52, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

There is not a "both sides", there is accepted history and there is a minority view that conflicts with the majority view; the minority view is held by groups and individuals who contest that accepted history. Of course it is not a "historical" conflict in the sense that it is still on-going, but it is a conflict over historical events. Meowy 23:46, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Accepted history doesn't mean correct either. Majority and minority are subjective terms. Also if it was accepted history there would be no other side, definitely it is not accepted history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.99.135.63 (talk) 19:59, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Just that Majority and minority views are NOT subjective terms but guidelines for editing WP according to WP:UNDUE--Termer (talk) 05:07, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

[[User:Meowy] If there are not two sides then why do you support having two article "recognition of the Armenian Genocide" (RAG) and "denial of the Armenian Genocide" (DAG)? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 18:24, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Kemalist what are you expecting from this guys? Their history is based on this lies and propaganda so of course they won't except the reality and will still try to sell their lost independce war as a genocide. They invest millions of dollars in their propaganda so it is self-evident that they will get some results of that. Or they make it just in the Internet (like here on Wikipedia) where they can do it for less money or even for free. It's always the same with this nationalistic guys ... especially the ones living in the Diaspora. The two words they use are genocide and denial and they are always the same guys investing their whole time for spreading their Propaganda. There was never a genocide and will never be one made by Turks. A normal person not brainwashed by this kind of propaganda won't talk about anything like a genocide in this case. Comparisons to something like Holocaust where a genocide happened is a piece of impudence.

Kemalist you have to understand that their religion and culture is based on compassion if you watch at the history of the Christians you will see it everywhere. One of there weapons in this way was always their propaganda made by them own and this kind of weapon won't change in the future. It is a fact that they think that their culture is like the one of others. They always make the same mistake. They think when they kill people just because of their religion or their nationality others would have make it like they did. But there isn't anything like that as you won't find anything like that in Turkish history. They should stop to compare their own culture with their pathetic and pitiful Propaganda with some other cultures or nations. Why do they always have to do this in a extreme? So you don't have to wonder why some Assyrians and Pontic Greeks are talking about the same funny things as they have the same culture and religion and of course live with the same complexes about that issue. I said it once before maybe the Turks should also get something in here on Wikipedia and try to sell this kind of propaganda as a Turkish genocide made by Armenians. And of course the ones who will be against it are the one crying here that it was a genocide. Hundred thousands of Turks died in the same way Armenians died. But you won't find any Turk who will make the causes and some crimes of the Armenians a genocide. If that what Armenians and others here are claming and categorizing to be a genocide than you can say the same about what happened to the Turks. It's just that easy.

You can't except a neutral position which is based on a lie. Most of the world doesn't see it as a genocide and where it is accepted it was a job by the Armenian lobby or some other Christian propaganda making persons. Look just at the countries who and when the few countries so called recognise it and you will understand it. No serious court has made a judgment about it so what are the guys here talking about? The only widely acceptance is in some dream worlds and dreams but not in the reality.

Just because you Armenians and some of your Christian friends like for example some nationalistic Greeks are repeating your lies again and again your myth won't get true.

You won't find anything like this in a serious encyclopedia but unfortunately this article will be soonest deleted when a joint commission of historians will tell the world that this was not and will never be a genocide. But I'm not wondering that even this kind of commision is avoided by the Armenian Diaspora ... maybe the truth would come out! Even if the truth (for the ones who still believe it was a genocide) comes out I'm sure they have their excuses ready. So my advice for you Kemalist don't take this guys so serious as every troll (like before on this issue) on Wikipedia can write something. Just look at the rules of Wikipedia and what you can get through. Unfortunately also some Admins have taken position so you have no other way than that or you have to invest time in endless discussions which have no meaning.

You will see that some of this guys who jump from one to another article about this so called genocide issues will give an irrelevant and unsubstantial reply to my answer just like in the issues about the two fictive genocide issues about Assyrians and Pontic Greeks before. P223 (talk) 15:10, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I bet P223 feels much better now after getting all that off his chest. Meowy 20:34, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I think the same. He must feel great right know just like the Armenians when they talk about this kind of issues. Why I'm not wondering that you are the one replying?

And your two other friends will follow soon ... Thank you! :) --P223 (talk) 21:49, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism of Bibliography

What is the difference between Hitler burning books and Armenian editors deleting the references (associated as burning electronic books) given in this article.--Domino Theories (talk) 14:51, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

why to not try to stop this cheap sentiments and write your texts for the denialist forums not Wikipedia? btw can you show me a fact when an "Armenian editor deleted any references in this article"? in contrary, its you who delete the list of bibliography, are you an Armenian?Gazifikator (talk) 12:58, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Statements like "TaleArmTale" is a position which questions the reliability of the person giving the facts is as important as the facts themselves. This is a WP:POV act. Renaming bibliography (references) as TaleArmTale and creating a non-standard section "Denialist propaganda" by replacing standard WP:style section is not an appropriate behavior. I 'm sure this point was missed by you, and you won't be objecting the correction of the section titles according to the appropriate "headings." I hope there is no objection of removing wordings that violates WP:NPOV.--Domino Theories (talk) 13:42, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

NPOV issues

Only after having read the introduction I already felt that this article was suffering from some serious NPOV issues. It seems awfully biased towards the whole "It was genocide. End of." view, when there isn't even any consensus on the events. Runningfridgesrule (talk) 23:01, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Is there, like, some factory in Turkey that just churns out you denialists like candy bars, hands you a computer, and tells you to go on Wikipedia?--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 23:31, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you Armenians actually provide evidence of consensus before making such stupid remarks. Runningfridgesrule (talk) 11:23, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you get over your racial bigotry and quit generalizing everyone that disagrees with you as "Armenian". --Kansas Bear (talk) 14:53, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you shut your face and end your double standards, considering that what Marshal Bagramyan said was ten times worse. Anyway, enough of the bitching, let's actually get back to the point. Runningfridgesrule (talk) 15:50, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Typical childish insults. --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:32, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh the irony... Anyway, if you want to be a dick then please take you and your big mouth somewhere else, because I actually want to discuss things that really matter rather than having the subject changed all because someone has too much time on their hands and has nothing better to do than disrupt any NPOV-related issues on Armenia-related articles (unfortunately this isn't the only time I've had the pleasure of dealing with you). Runningfridgesrule (talk) 17:33, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Runningfridgesrule, pls read WP:NPOV at first to close this discussion: Minority views can receive attention on pages specifically devoted to them—Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. But on such pages, though a view may be described, the article should make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite majority-view content strictly from the perspective of the minority view. So what you mean by a consensus? Do I need to wait for a consensus between the humanity and nazis or any other highest rank politician on Holocaust, or make a consensus with some communists (do you need famous names) if stalinism was really bad? So we cant discuss this aspect of topic, a minority radical view is not equal to a commonly accepted and recognized view.Andranikpasha (talk) 05:50, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh so when an Armenian says that it's genocide it's fine, but when a Turk says it isn't genocide it's "denial" or "revisionism" or "minority radical" or any of that crap. You don't get it, do you? The Armenian view isn't the majority just because you say it is, it is just the view that has been asserted more on this encyclopedia. But outside Wikipedia is there any evidence of these views as consensus? If so, show me. Considering that the Holocaust already has overwhelming recognition as a genocide and the view that it isn't a genocide is shared only with Neo-Nazis who don't number highly, that means that there's already consensus about the Holocaust and therefore you can't compare that with this particular case that we're dealing with right now. In contrast to a mere bunch of Neo-Nazis, hundreds of historians from around the world, both Western and Turkish (quite frankly a Turkish historian is just as reliable as an Armenian one), don't see these events as genocide, and these historians tend to be of the highest calibre and repute. I can name you a couple off the top of my head right now as I'm writing this: Justin McCarthy, Andrew Mango, Bernard Lewis to name just a few, and there's plenty more where that came from; if you're unconvinced then I honestly wouldn't mind carrying on. Runningfridgesrule (talk) 17:33, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

FYI, Andrew Mango is NOT a historian. Justin McCarthy and Bernard Lewis are directly linked to the Turkish government[4], so their objectivity is seriously questioned. So much for ...and these historians tend to be of the highest calibre and repute. No doubt you must be a dick, else you'd know all this. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:10, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

FYI, considering that he studied history at Oxford and he's written many books on history, that would technically make him a historian. As for the other ones, if you really don't find them to be objective, then there's plenty more: David Fromkin, Guenther Lewy, Norman Stone... I could go on... Runningfridgesrule (talk) 11:17, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

David Fromkin,"...there can be no disputing the result: Turkish Armenia was destroyed and about half its people perished. There are historians today who continue to support the claim of Enver and Talaat that the Ottoman rulers acted only after Armenia had risen against them. But observers at the time who were by no means anti-Turk agreed that this was not the case. German officers stationed there agreed that the area was quiet until the deportations began."

Norman Stone, head of the department of International Relations at Bilkent University, Ankara. I'm quite sure his job is dependent on his objectivity of the Armenian Genocide.

Guenter Lewy, his book is a poor attempt at trying to sanitize the Armenian Genocide. As soon as he can explain why they(Ottomans) were deporting Armenian women and children from Smyrna(which incurred the wrath of Liman von Sanders), I'll actually believe he's trying to write an honest interpretation of what happened. "..inquiries revealed that the deportation had been carried out by the police in the most brutal manner and that even old women and children had not been spared. Liman von Sanders thereupon sent a message to the vali that demanded the immediate end of such relocations. In the event the vali failed to obey, Liman von Sanders was prepared to use troops under his command to prevent further deportations."—Preceding unsigned comment added by Kansas Bear (talk • contribs) 15:47, 27 October 2008

Why should Norman Stone's job be dependent on his objectivity? He could easily go teach somewhere else if he felt that his views were being supressed, it's not like he has to be stuck in the same place for the rest of his life and I'm sure he's intelligent enough to figure that out. You haven't objected to Andrew Mango, therefore I will assume that he's perfectly O.K. with you. Anyway, it's perfectly fine to criticise the views of certain historians, but it is irrelevant in this case because the whole point of this debate is to find out whether the view that the events of 1915 constituted genocide is consensus, and criticising historians isn't the way to do that. You could criticise the findings of some Holocaust historians but the fact that the Holocaust constituting genocide is consensus still won't change. What I'm trying to say in the Armenian case is that there isn't any consensus on the events and that views are a lot more mixed. Runningfridgesrule (talk) 17:48, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Apparently the "Mango is NOT a Historian..." didn't sink in. Instead of you listing reputable scholars, why not answer, "why Donald Quataert was asked to leave the Board for the Institute of Turkish Studies?" Why UCLA returned the money to create a Chair of Ottoman/Turkish History? Then the true picture of what is really going on is revealed. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:22, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Apparently the "considering that he studied history at Oxford and he's written many books on history, that would technically make him a historian." hasn't sunken in. All of this talk of funding and all that jazz is completely off-topic, even though you could clearly argue that Taner Akçam is funded by the Zoryan Institute and the Cafesjian Family Foundation[5], that the Armenian government rejected a request by the Turkish Prime Minister to form an international historic commission which would use archives from various countries including Turkey and Armenia. At the end of the day, there are controversies on both sides of the coin, but that is irrelevant because it has nothing to do with consensus. Runningfridgesrule (talk) 16:31, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Thats how you answer questions? With some weak-minded self opinionated blog? Strangely enough, there wasn't an Armenia funding Dr. Ussher! And your buddy Mango is just an ex-BBC journalist hired by the Turkish government to write a sanitized version of Ataturk's life. Amazing how all roads lead to the Turkish government. Kansas Bear (talk) 20:12, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

FYI, In August 1988 Akçam began work as a research scientist at the Hamburg Foundation for the Advancement of Research and Culture. Akçam earned his doctorate from the University of Hannover with a dissertation on The Turkish National Movement and the Armenian Genocide Against the Background of the Military Tribunals in Istanbul Between 1919 and 1922. That pathetic little blog is nearly 20 yrs late. He was writing about the Armenian Genocide since before 1990!! LOL Kansas Bear (talk) 00:32, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Who the heck's Dr Ussher? Anyway, whatever the hell you say doesn't change the authenticity of that letter. At the end of the day it's a fact that Akçam is funded by the aforementioned Armenian organisations.

Oh, and what evidence do you have for the claims that you made apart from some random Armenian-American journalists lobbying for genocide recognition? Some people would call that being self-opinionated. Quite frankly an Armenian journalist is just as reliable as a Turkish one. I clearly wasn't answering any questions if that's what you were thinking, I was simply stating that there are controversies on both sides of the coin.

And just because Mango was an ex-BBC journalist that doesn't stop him from being a historian. A lot of historians have gone into journalism. And you have no evidence to back up your claims about him being tied to the Turkish Government, either. Next time could you please back up all of your claims with evidence, please? I don't know where you're getting any of your claims from.

Do I have to assert myself YET AGAIN about the fact that all of this is totally irrelevant to the actual topic? Anyway, none of this has anything to do with consensus. You still haven't shown me evidence of any. Runningfridgesrule (talk) 21:00, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Your ignorance of Dr. Ussher, shows just how little you know of the events that transpired. Evidence?? Like your pathetic blog link on Akcam? LMAO. Instead of reading the propaganda(McCarthy, Shaw, Mango, etc) and sanitized version(Lewy) of events, try reading about Von Sanders and why he threatened to use his troops to stop the relocating of Armenian women and children from SMYRNA! All it takes is the ability to comprehend that what was happening in Smyrna, Van, Bitlis, Erzurum, etc, was happening throughout the Ottoman Empire and was being reported by Austrian and German officers(Von Sanders), German missionaries(Lepsius)/(Möhring), American missionaries(Ussher) to their ambassadors--Pallavicini(Austria-Hungary), Wangenheim/Metternich(Germany), Morgenthau(U.S.). Not to mention a certain writer, Seyed Mohamad Ali Jamalzadeh, that witnessed the events first hand. Now if you wish to believe in some puerile mentality, that this was all just some grand propaganda against the Ottoman Empire, then you have a seriously problem comprehending the shear enormity of this event. Evidence?? I have a plethora of evidence! --Kansas Bear (talk) 15:41, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Fake quote

I have removed the following fraudulent quote from the article.

Caucasian Battlefields
W.E.D.Allen and Paul Muratoff
...the irregular bands operating on either side had begun the work which famine and epidemics had completed. The remnants of the Armenian population had fled into Russian territory or had been deported by the Young Turk administration; the Moslems, scarcely more fortunate, had suffered equally from Armenian Atrocities: famine, epidemics and irregular slaughter, and the survivors had dispersed with what remained of their livestock into the interior of Asia Minor.

The quote on page 368 of the book actually says "the Muslims, scarcely more fortunate, had suffered equally from famine, epidemics and irregular slaughter, and the survivors had dispersed with what remained of their livestock into the interior of Asia Minor". Meowy 00:29, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

BTW, the fake quote was placed there by Anglepush on 2 november 2007. http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Denial_of_the_Armenian_Genocide&diff=168685399&oldid=168647944

Meowy 00:37, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Caught red-handed, deliberately falsifying data. How low will the deniers sink? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.100.208.82 (talk) 19:36, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Issues regarding deniers

[An RfCbio tag was here but is no longer needed.]
[An RfCLang tag was here but is no longer needed.]
Was Bernard Lewis "condemned" in a French court, or did he "receive an adverse civil judgment"?
diff

Resolved

---

I have made a few tweaks, improving the text of the footnotes. I must insist, however, that "condamné" not be translated as "condemned", which is simply wrong. (Ask any French-to-English translator.) When the judgment says,

LE TRIBUNAL,
Déclare l'action recevable
Condamne Bernard LEWIS à payer à chaque demandeur, le FORUM DES ASSO- CIATIONS ARMENIENNES DE FRANCE, d'une part, et la LIGUE INTERNATIONALE CONTRE LE RACISME

ET L'ANTISEMITISME, d'autre part, la somme de UN FRANC à titre de dommages-intérêts ;

the word "condamne" MUST NOT be translated as "condemns". No civil court in any English-speaking country "condemns" people to anything.

And in fact, the English translation of the judgment to which you link does get it right:

The Court;

Declares the action to be admissible;

Adjudges Bernard Lewis liable to pay to each plaintiff, the FRENCH FORUM OF ARMENIAN ASSOCIATIONS, and to the INTERNATIONAL LEAGUE AGAINST RACISM AND ANTISEMITISM the sum of one franc in damages;

.

Thank you.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 01:17, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

You are mistranslating, and thus altering the meaning of actual quotes: "la version arménienne de cette histoire" does not translate to "the Armenian side of the story", it translates to "the Armenian version of this history", and "Bernard Lewis condamné pour avoir nié la réalité du génocide arménien" does not translate to "Bernard Lewis receives adverse civil judgment for having denied the reality of the Armenian genocide", it translates to "Bernard Lewis condemned for having denied the reality of the Armenian Genocide". Meowy 02:57, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

See, you are wedded to a "literalist" approach to translation, where you see a word and think that it must be translated as the word "most resembling it" in the target language. This means you run into all kinds of problems (see also False friend). Translating "la version de l'histoire" as "the side of the story" is perfectly acceptable, as "story" in English also carries the meaning of "history". However, if it makes you happy to use "the version of history" instead then I can live with it. Unfortunately I cannot accomodate you as regards "condemns", and I cannot make it any clearer than I did above. Sleep on this and maybe tomorrow you will see your way to agreeing.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 03:12, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

We are not translating the courts decision, so arguments that there is no such thing as "condemned" in English civil law are not valid, what we are translating is a headline in Le Monde. In that context (a newspaper headline) condemned means the same in French as it does in English. And Lewis is a historian (though one with low professional standards), not a story-teller, so the word "history" is better than "story". Meowy 03:25, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The Le Monde article reports on the court's decision, and the word "condamné" carries the exact same meaning in the article as in the decision. See you tomorrow.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 03:33, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

As I said previously, I am not going to argue over side/version and story/history. That leaves the matter of "condemned". If we cannot reach agreement here on the Talk page between ourselves, the next step would be some form of dispute resolution. Ideally we would take it to the Translation Issues Noticeboard, but such a noticeboard does not exist. The second best choice, in my opinion, would be the Biographies of Living Persons (BLP) Noticeboard. Assuming that we agree on BLP as a venue, then one of us would have to start a thread there to ask for input from other editors. Would you like to start such a thread? I will wait until tomorrow.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 21:23, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

If I may (and I'm a French-speaker lawyer) : when you say "No civil court in any English-speaking country "condemns" people to anything", you're just taking it from the wrong end. We don't care whether a civil court in any English-speaking country can condemn someone or not, the case is that in France, it does condemn on such issues. Sardur (talk) 22:39, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Sardur, thanks for your input, it is appreciated. You are quite right that France need not concern itself with what civil courts in English-speaking countries may or may not do. However, the issue here is an article on the English-language Wikipedia. We write for people who expect English words to be used in standard ways. If you look at what Google's top-ranked word-definition web site has to say, there is:

*condemn, reprobate, decry, objurgate, excoriate (express strong disapproval of) "We condemn the racism in South Africa"; "These ideas were reprobated"

*condemn (declare or judge unfit for use or habitation) "The building was condemned by the inspector"

*condemn (compel or force into a particular state or activity) "His devotion to his sick wife condemned him to a lonely existence"

*condemn (demonstrate the guilt of (someone)) "Her strange behavior condemned her"

*sentence, condemn, doom (pronounce a sentence on (somebody) in a court of law) "He was condemned to ten years in prison"

*condemn (appropriate (property) for public use) "the county condemned the land to build a highway"

Of these, none is applicable to a judgment by a civil court. At least, not in the English language. Part of the confusion may arise from the fact that in some languages, French being one of them, the verb condamner does double duty in a legal context. One can say of a criminal defendant, "Il a été condamné à 4 ans d'emprisonnement," and of a defendant in a civil lawsuit, "Il a été condamné à payer une provision de XYZ dollars." Both times, condamné is used, but in the first instance, you would say in English, "He has been sentenced to a four-year prison term," and in the second, "The court fined him XYZ dollars." It becomes clearer if you remember that in French, even a corporation may be condamné in a civil proceeding.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 01:46, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

But we are not translating the legal language used in a French civil court's decision into the equivalent legal language that would be used in an English civil court's decision. We are just translating a newspaper headline. Your arguments could be applicable if there was, within the body of the article, a phrase like "Lewis was condemned by" - but there isn't. It is just a word-for-word translation of a newspaper headline that is contained in the references section. I think you are opening the door to a lot of difficultes if it is accceptable to alter such literal translations of the titles of sources. Meowy 17:25, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Meowy, thanks for your reply. I respect that you disagree with me but I think you are quite clearly wrong. In addition to the WP article False friend, you may also want to peruse Translation, especially the section labeled "Misconceptions". This discussion is now at the point where it is going around in circles, and so we must seek dispute resolution. I went to the BLP noticeboard meaning to start a thread but noticed in the instructions that it says it is for "issues requiring outside intervention". However, I do not believe administrator action is what is required here. I would prefer for this to be settled by consensus among editors. Therefore I have instead opened a thread at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Biographies. Let's see if we can resolve this dispute via this avenue.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 21:14, 14 November 2008 (UTC) UPDATE: As it turns out, although there is no Translation Issues Noticeboard, there is however the possibility to request comments on language and linguistic issues. It is a very quiet page but just in case I have also posted a RfC there.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 22:11, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

More on condamner in French civil jurisprudence: dictionnaire.sensagent.com gives for condamner as a locution (commonly used phrase): condamner à une amende, and for amende gives: "1. (Droit): peine pécuniaire, en matière civile, pénale, fiscale" ((monetary) fine, in a civil, criminal, or tax proceeding.)" Therefore, condamner quelqu'un à une amende can simply be translated as "to fine someone". This goes both for the judgment and the newspaper article reporting on the judgment. The element of moral outrage or criminality that "French court condemns Lewis" carries is completely absent from both.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 00:23, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Third party opinion per RfC - Just because French and English sometimes look the same and have lots of words with the same root doesn't mean that condamner automatically translates into to condemn or demander into to demand etc... Similarly choosing Latinate words over Germanic ones in the English translation, just because Latinate words appear in the original language version, is lazy and a common mistake made by non-native translators.

In English 'condemn when used in legal contexts is associated with criminal law and typically jail time. My Oxford English dictionary lists being found guilty, begin found convicted and being sentenced to prison, within the definition of condemn. My American Oxford Dictionary defines it as "find (someone) guilty of a criminal act or wrong".Blue-Haired Lawyer 18:40, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

But we are not talking about English law. And even to say we are talking about French law is a POV interpretation - all we can do is accurately translate the newspaper headline. There is no French word meaning "fined" in the headline, and the fact of Lewis being fined is of minor importance: it was a nominal fine. What was important was that the court decided that Lewis had conceiled historical facts that went contrary to his thesis, and had thus committed a error by failing in his duty as a historian to be objective and careful, and in making that error he had caused harm to others, making him liable under article 1382 of the civil code. That is the story the article tells. Condemned does accurately sum up the headline because Lewis had received a condemnation: he was censured by the court. Meowy 03:26, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

"not about English law": quite right, we are talking about a question of English language here. That question, if I may remind you, is how should the French headline Bernard Lewis condamné pour avoir nié la réalité du génocide arménien be translated into English. "French law" is germane to the question inasmuch as it touches on the meaning of condamné in the context of civil jurisprudence. It certainly is possible to write "Bernard Lewis Fined...", as Jonathan Mahler did in the headline of his article for The Forward in August 1995. However, my preference – which you reverted as a "mistranslation" – would be "Bernard Lewis receives adverse civil judgment," or "Bernard Lewis receives adverse civil judgment for having denied the reality of the Armenian genocide" (if you can type that much in one breath, LOL).

Your claim, if I understand you, is that while condamné does not carry a dimension of criminality here, it does carry a dimension of moral outrage. However, a careful reading of the judgment does not support your interpretation. It is a bit of a stretch to say, as you did above, that the court "censured" Lewis, but it would be acceptable. However, "condemned" (as in moral outrage) is simply not supported by the text of the judgment, which is much more nuanced. In the English translation to which you link, the judgment says, "Bernard Lewis was entitled to dispute the validity and import of such assertions," and "it is in no way established that he pursued an objective foreign to his role as historian," and "it is not disputable that he may maintain an opinion on this question different from those of the petitioning associations."

These "mitigating factors" undoubtedly explain the low amount of the fine, and they show that an element of moral condemnation is entirely absent from the judgment. (Not to mention the fact that such an element, had it been included in the judgment, would have made excellent grounds for an appeal and likely an overturning of the judgment by an appeals court.)

If you want to claim that moral outrage or criminality are absent from condamné in the judgment but not in the headline of the newspaper article reporting it, then you must show that French newspapers typically use condamné to transport such meanings. A Google search using "a été condamné" as search string (Bernard Lewis condamné is shorthand for Bernard Lewis a été condamné) yields 448 true hits, almost all of them newspaper headlines. They are split about equally between civil and criminal cases. In none of the articles on civil cases that I read was the word condamné in the headline used to convey a dimension of criminality or moral outrage.

The English translation of the article (not the translation of the judgment) is, quite simply, of poor quality. It is better than a machine translation but not by much. If it is linked from the Wikipedia article at all, we must at the same time inform readers of its poor quality.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 08:58, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

BHL, above, makes an excellent point. To translate condamner as "to condemn", here, is an error of the same quality as translating demander as "to demand", the kind of mistake made by first-year students of French who are still at the level of "la plume de ma tante est sur la table".--Goodmorningworld (talk) 10:23, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I have now altered the relevant passage in the Article to incorporate Meowy's suggestion of "censured". As the anonymous translation of Hertzberg's article on a private website is of such poor quality, it should not even be included in the Article at all, hence I have excised mention of it from the footnote. I believe this to be a reasonable compromise that takes into account Meowy's contributions while complying with the diligence that we owe our readers.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 10:39, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

P.S.: One could reasonably ask whether the Article should also mention that one criminal complaint and three civil lawsuits were brought against Lewis, and that all but this one civil proceeding were thrown out of court. I will leave this question for other editors to decide; there are only so many hours in the day.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 10:44, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

In the translation of the newspaper headline I have replaced "Receives Adverse Civil Judgment" with "Censured": it is more in keeping with a headline-type title, as well as being an equivalent single English word for the original single French word. Meowy 02:26, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

You are right of course, thank you for implementing the change. I believe we can now mark this dispute as resolved, and so I am removing the two RfC tags from the top of this section.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 17:22, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

That's OK by me, if we can agree that (in the context of a newspaper headline) "censured" is an adequate translation for "condamné". However, I have to diagree with your thought that the small nominal fine does not indicate an element of moral condemnation - to me it indicates the exact opposite. The criticism of the court addressed his failings as a scholar, as an historian (and, by implication, as a person). That was a condemnation far more severe than any fine could be. Meowy 19:31, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Website for a Reference?

How reliable is this website;http://www.armeniangenocidedebate.com/dr-hilmar-kaiser#toc12. When it uses TallArmenianTale as references itself? If this information;

..had his lecture tour canceled by Dennis R. Papazian (of the same university) after questioning Armenian scholarship

is true, then it should be available from more reliable sources than something referenced by TallArmenianTale!! --Kansas Bear (talk) 06:12, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

FYI; The reference that states that Kaiser's lecture tour was cancelled is incorrect. He did lecture at Villanova[6], and here[7]. Is there a reliable source for the statement:

....had his lecture tour canceled by Dennis R. Papazian (of the same university) after questioning Armenian scholarship

Isn't it time for wikipedia editors to use REAL references, instead of some priority driven website[8]? --Kansas Bear (talk) 07:04, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I had not considered the possibility that the email might be a forgery. Mea culpa! Who/what TAT references has no bearing on anything. It cites Akcam and Dadrian too. Are you going to stop reading them?

I'll leave further fact-checking on this fairly trivial issue to someone else while I attend to other articles. The purported original was an e-mail so I can't easily trace it back. Thanks for bringing these links to my attention, and sorry for the disruption. --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 21:33, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

False source on Akcam

I removed POV by user Adonisick for the following reasons:

• the provided source is false. it represents only a list of Clark University faculty members [9] and is absolutely irrelevant to the text on funding, Turkish opinions etc. added by Adonisick,
• Taner Akcam is a person (BTW, a living person, obviously persecuted by the Turkish authorities). In all the cases he is a person, only one, and doesnt represents all the large number of Armenian Genocide scholars. There is a separate article about him.
• I dont want to repeate myself, that if even some Turkish sources attack Akcam or anyone else, its commonly accepted by the majority of scholars and historians as denialist propagand and criticized many times. Etc,etc,etc...Gazifikator (talk) 05:33, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Say what? Care to clarify your statements? Let's start with "the provided source is false". Are you saying that Clark University is lying about "Robert Aram and Marianne Kaloosdian and Stephen and Marion Mugar" funding the chair? --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 04:39, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

The problem is a misunderstanding of the purpose if this article. This article does not exist to disprove the Armenian Genocide. Neither does this article exist to disprove the denialist tracts and statements. The Armenian Genocide is a historical fact, the denial of the Armenian Genocide is specific marginal viewpoint with political, cultural and sociological significances. If important denialist sources have used the claim that Akcam has received funds from Armenian sources, then I think that is a valid piece of information for the article, if worded correctly. However TAT is not a credible source because it is anonymous, has no academic credibility, appears to be a personal work by a single individual holding extreme views that even most denialists would seek to distance themselves from, is unofficial (having no direct connection with countries and bodies that have produced denialist statements or works), and whose original content is mostly rambling, badly-written rants. Meowy 19:53, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Meowy, I don't know what you are responding to. That does not answer my question at all. I am refuting the argument that Turkish sources pay people while Armenians (+diaspora) don't. I was waiting for Gazifikator's response. --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 16:12, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Adoniscik! the wikipedia is not a chatroom, and we have no enough time to discuss things that do not exist. We have a site, and we have "Robert Aram and Marianne Kaloosdian and Stephen and Marion Mugar" words on it. and what you put in the article is someting different, an original research or something else, but the text you claim is a quotation from nowhere. read this, for example. if you have a source that claims your text, then let us discuss it, but the words "Robert Aram and Marianne Kaloosdian and Stephen and Marion Mugar" realy mean nothing. Gazifikator (talk) 13:04, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

What does not exist? You have dropped the all important word CHAIR in "Robert Aram and Marianne Kaloosdian and Stephen and Marion Mugar Chair in Armenian Genocide Studies". This means that aforementioned people are footing his salary. QED. The source does not "claim" my text. I am claiming, the source is "backing", and its meaning is pretty clear, no? --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 15:39, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

aforementioned people are NOT footing his salary. 1. because the cited source have nothing about the footing of salary, 2. lets be serious, as for example Stephen P. Mugar died in 1982, he can's foot anyone's salary posthumously. find anything else.Gazifikator (talk) 06:24, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

May I make a suggestion, since you gentlemen seem to be at an impasse? Why not simple state that Akcam was a student of Dadrian's? This is mentioned in the Taner Akcam article[10], and Akcam did write his doctorate thesis, 1992 IIRC, BEFORE his involvement with the Robert Aram and Marianne Kaloosdian and Stephen and Marion Mugar Chair in Armenian Genocide Studies. Compromise? --Kansas Bear (talk) 06:41, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Sure, that's fine by me. Thanks for mediating. --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 13:56, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Its ok, thanks! I have said it many times: we can use any personally Akcam-related info in an article dedicated to him. it have completely no relations with this topic of denial.Gazifikator (talk) 14:09, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

But it is related. We are talking about bias, stop changing the subject. --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 14:47, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

if you believe it is related then stop pov-pushing and go to Wikipedia:Requests_for_commentGazifikator (talk) 05:37, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, as it currently reads, it give the impression that Taner Akcam has only written with the backing of Armenian diaspora, which, in and of itself, is a misnomer. He wrote his doctorate thesis in 1992(IIRC), years before being affiliated with the Robert Aram and Marianne Kaloosdian and Stephen and Marion Mugar Chair in Armenian Genocide Studies. He wrote Türk Ulusal Kimligi ve Ermeni Sorunu (The Armenian Question and Turkish National Identity, Istanbul: Iletisim) in 1992, while still living in Germany. It would be prudent to show any affiliation from that time, not 16+ yrs later. Sort of putting the cart before the horse type logic. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:35, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

KB, Akcam is a disciple of Dadrian, so the connection to the diaspora was establish back in Germany. Feel free to enter that information; there are reliable sources. --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 03:14, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

On Nevember 22, 2008 Akcam became the head of "Strassler Family Center for Holocaust and Genocide Studies" in the same Clark University [11]. Adoniscik, I suggest you to find out what the diaspora Strassler represents to change your text to something like "the Jewish diaspora is funding Armenian Genocide scholars". how does it sound? Gazifikator (talk) 09:28, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

At this point I have to ask if you know the meaning of a "funded chair". Who is funding his chair? Please spell it out. --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 03:10, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Until you have no any direct sources on your claims you will be reverted per wp:syn. read it to not ask more questions to me. Gazifikator (talk) 05:29, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I gave you a very direct source saying who is behind is chair. You will be reverted for removing sourced information. I don't have anything else to ask you since you duck simple questions. May I add that you are the one who rejected a third party's offer to find a middle ground, not me, so don't talk about "reverting to the consensus". --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 16:29, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Akçam, a leading international authority on the Armenian genocide, was marked for death by Turkish ultranationalists following the November 2006 publication of his book, A Shameful Act: The Armenian Genocide and The Question of Turkish Responsibility. The book is a definitive history based in large part on official documents from Turkish government archives.[12] Gazifikator (talk) 13:08, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

And about the Armenian diaspora (you're free to use this reliable information!): "Dink's friend and ideological ally Taner Akçam, a distinguished Turkish historian and sociologist on the faculty of the University of Minnesota's Center for Holocaust and Genocide Studies, attended Dink's funeral in Turkey, despite the considerable risk to his own life."[13] Gazifikator (talk) 13:10, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Good for him and anybody else who attended Dink's funeral, but how is that in any way related to my point that Akcam has financial backing from the Armenian diaspora? And as for the Southern Poverty Law Center... I'm totally perplexed about what you think their relevance to the issue is. --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 17:21, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Acceptable_content_for_this_article

Dear User, See Talk:Denial_of_the_Armenian_Genocide#Acceptable_content_for_this_article. Please use appropriate articles for representing your position. The behavior is a considered WP:Vandalism. --Kemalist (talk) 07:08, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

No it is not a vandalism. see the explanation at the talk!Gazifikator (talk) 07:27, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

No it is vandalism because your are rewording the cited sources beyond what the source claim. --Kemalist (talk) 07:54, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Both sides in those statements; refers to "Armenian defenders" and "Turkish deniers" (in your response "with Turkish deniers highly problematic") This is dual concept, like black and white, one does not exist without the other. The problem here is your own constant rewording of what is stated in the cited Turkish sources. It is like, you are saying "No Turk's can not say it that way, I will tell you what you can say..." By the way, there are sides. If it was really on the issue of facts, "terminology" would not be a problem. Armenians say "deportation." Turks say "relocation." If it was only factual, all the regions Armenians relocated were inside Ottoman Empire. Check the map. Does Armenians fix their terminology? This fact is known for decades. Can you, in your power, fix this in the main article? Convert all deportation to relocation? There are sides. One side say "deportation" other side say "relocation." It is not as simple as you want to believe. --Kemalist (talk) 07:54, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

You are talking nonsense: "(rv. Jews funding scolars are not the same neonazis funding denialist 'foundations'. go to talk)"

Armenian donations have just as many strings as Turkish donations. This line of defense is easy to refute. And who are these "neonazis" you speak of?

P.S. It's spelled "scholars". --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 21:06, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

it is not serious! armenian "donations" have nothing common with the 'Denial of Armenian Genocide'. I think you're in a wrong place.Gazifikator (talk) 05:59, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Do not remove relevant, sourced content. If you keep this up, I will report you for incivility and vandalism. Also, I'm still waiting for an explanation of who these "neonazis" are what this "Jews funding scolars" business" is. --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 14:08, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

You're free to report my 'uncivility'. But it is a warning for the last time. stop this pov-pushing and go to the talk page of 'Armenian Genocide' or 'Denial of Armenian Genocide'.Gazifikator (talk) 14:51, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

This is your last warning. You are the one doing the pushing. I have sourced content that's relevant. You are deleting it. Who does that make the vandal? This is a talk page; state your case or desist. --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 14:55, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Go to Talk:Denial of the Armenian Genocide!Gazifikator (talk) 05:22, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I have but you didnt look. --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 16:27, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Please don't engage in intellectual dishonesty. I lined the article with sources to show that he had Armenian funding. You deleted it all. You said you moved it elsewhere, which you shouldn't have done, and you didn't even do that. Kindly stop it. --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 13:15, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

look here [14]. please stop misinterpreting tho sources. see WP:SYN for such "references". you're adding your opinion not what the sources say.Gazifikator (talk) 14:19, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

That's exactly what I'm talking about. That's not anything close to what I wrote. I specifically named the organizations he received funding from. Where did you mention them? --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 14:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

You're not a "reliable source", you can write about the funding in context of biased scholarship, if you have a source on it. WP:SYN. Gazifikator (talk) 06:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Even if published by reliable sources, material must not be connected together in such a way that it constitutes original research. If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, or if the sources cited are not directly related to the article subject, then the editor is engaged in original research. (cit. WP:SYN). Gazifikator (talk) 07:51, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. I added another source; they are easy to find. I just don't want to list any more than necessary because it looks peculiar to have ten sources to support such a well-known assertion. --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 16:24, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Are you joking... Do you really believe Turkish Hurriyet is another reliable and non-biased source for the topic of Turkish denial? if you're working to change "Denial of Armenian Genocide" title to something like "A Big Lie" you will not have supporters here. Gazifikator (talk) 17:11, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Gaz, a Turkish newspaper is a perfectly acceptable source to back the assertion that Turks consider Akcam's financial backing a potential source of bias. I think you are missing the point. Read the assertion carefully. --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 17:23, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Assertion of Turks (what you mean, the whole nation, or any scholar?) on Akcam's funding is irrelevant here. this article is dedicated to the denial of AG, Hurriyet is a supporter of that denial.Gazifikator (talk) 17:48, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

It's quite relevant, Gaz, because you were were the one who raised the issue of funding in the first place. Perhaps you forget? All I have done is to show that funding is a concern is a concern for both positions. You only mention this for Turks, and not Armenians. Hiding this would be a violation of neutrality. Akcam is not alone in this; many people have funded chairs. If you want, I can name the Armenian lobby groups behind other scholars, too. Would that make a difference to you? I'm getting the impression that you are using whatever excuse you can dish up as a pretext to remove any view you don't agree with. --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 18:09, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

It all depends on the wording used. The subject of this article is the "Denial of the Armenian Genocide", it is not "Disproving the Armenian Genocide Lies". If a particular aspect of the denial involves Turkish organisations casting sustained dispersions on historians by alleging that they wrote what they wrote because were paid by Armenians to write it, then that should be included. Meowy 20:46, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Sure! And the biased criticism of a scholar (only one!) by a town's Turkish community have nothing with "Institutional study" of "Armenian Genocide denial". This citations by Adoniscik can be added at a new section- "Curious" at Taner Akcam, if WP:BLP lets him to do it. Gazifikator (talk) 16:29, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Gaz has argued that Turkish scholarship is tainted because it has been funded. I am demonstrating that Armenians have also funded people. I named names, provided reliable sources. Akcam was but one example; I can name foundations for others, too. So yes, it is very much relevant to institutional study. What would you write under a section called "Curious" in the Akcam article? Please start writing it, I'd like to see. --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 16:36, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

You are misunderstanding a bit the purpose of this article. It does not exist to prove or to disprove the Armenian Genocide, its subject is the denial of that genocide. That subject starts from the reality of the Armenian Genocide being an accepted fact by the majority of scholars. This article should be similar to the Holocaust Denial article in theory - though, in fact, it could be far better than that rather dismal article. "Denial of the Holocaust" seems to include anything and anyone that questions any aspect, however small, of the Jewish establishment's position on it. There is no equivalent "establishment position" defending a fixed line about the Armenian Genocide, so it seems to me that the denial of it is much more of a real denial.

So, in this article we are documenting a minority position, and a position that has been widely condemned by almost all commentators. It is also a position that isn't set in stone and has a number of aspects which have changed over time. The difficulty with getting content for the article is that there are not many sources on the subject, and using the actual denialist tracts gets us close to producing original research because we are not using them as their authors intended (to disprove the AG) but are using them to illustrate the theories presented by and processes used by those advocating the denialist position. As for this "Armenian lobby groups behind scholars" claim - if it is a significant and ongoing claim that has been mentioned in a number of denialists sources, then I think it should be included. But it shouldn't be included if only one or two newspapers or unimportant individuals have mentioned it. It doesn't matter if the claim is true or not, or valid or not, what matters is that the claim should exist in citable sources and should be important enough to be mentioned. Meowy 22:16, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Lewy is NOT a Middle East historian

For the anon, who is incapable of understand exactly WHO is a historian and WHO isn't. Also, there needs to be a reference for Lewis AND McCarthy using Ottoman records. --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:58, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

However it is well known...

I have moved this paragraph here for further discussion

However it is well known that Winston Churchill described the Armenian massacres as an "administrative holocaust" and noted that "the clearance of race from Asia Minor was about as complete as such an act could be… There is no reason to doubt that this crime was planned and executed for political reasons. The opportunity presented itself for clearing Turkish soil of a Christian race opposed to all Turkish ambitions."

This was put into the article as a balance for the British Governments position. However the British Government does not disagree, that a crime against humanity took place, and Churchill's words do not contradict that position. Further it is not clear from the quote if he was speaking as a member of the British Government or while he was in opposition. So I think to include it without further information, (when he said it) and an reliable source to explain exactly what he meant, it is misleading to include it. --PBS (talk) 19:19, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm aware (of course) of your previous malign editing habits on this article. The paragraph you removed was in a section that you were substantially responsible for creating. It is unfortunate that no editor has bothered to properly cut out all that section, but the Churchill quote is important because it, in a small way, indicates how weasily-worded all your additions were. Meowy 01:20, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Meowy in my opinion you are being you uncivil and I would appreciate an apology. Do you have a source which claims that Churchill was speaking on behalf of the British Government. If not what is the justification for including it? --PBS (talk) 09:17, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

In a part of the speech by Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale that you have chosen to exclude, she stated "The British Government condemned the massacres of 1915-16 at the time". The Churchhill quote you wished to exclude is an example of that condemnation at the time. Maybe something more should be said in the article about the two-faced policy in the House of Lords - where government spokespersons are required to toe the party line but where an independent committee is able to produce a statement saying that the House of Lords stands by the factuality and neutrality of its 1916 Blue Book report on the Armenian massacres. Meowy 20:33, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I think you are confused as I am not clear which part you think I missed out because when I edited in the quote to this article -- as it still does -- it started with "The British Government condemned the massacres of 1915-16 at the time and viewed the sufferings of the Armenian people then as a tragedy of historic proportions." So which part do you think I missed out?--PBS (talk) 21:19, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me for not being up on every fine detail of WP:N policy, but isn't Winston Churchill notable enough in his own right for a quote from him to be included in an article?--Goodmorningworld (talk) 15:00, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

The "however" at the start of the Churchill quote implies that he is speaking as a representative of HMG if he was then there would be some justification for including it. But no source has been given to show that he was. Also the "However" at the start of the paragraph also implies that Churchill is not following the British Governmental position and that is not at all clear. If the Churchill passage was written before Holocaust became the common term from the genocide carried out by the Nazis against the Jews then it is not at all clear "administrative holocaust" means genocide and not a "crime against humanity" as is the official British government's position since WWI up to today. It is the use of the word "however" at the start of the sentence that leads one to assume that Churchill is taking a position different from the British Government.

Whether Churchill was supporting HMG or opposing their position let us suppose for moment that we take the position that User:Meowy seems to be taking and that he was disagreeing with the British Government's position, then there is a structural problem with including such statements in this article. I am in favour of merging this article with the the recognition of the Armenian Genocide to create a balanced article, but User:Meowy wishes to keep them separate, so I am surprised that (s)he now seems to be pressing for inclusion of both points of view in this article as that would imply a change of position (s)he held in the section above RFC: Merge "recognition of the Armenian Genocide" into this article. -- PBS (talk) 21:19, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought I was clear. I am pressing for the complete deletion of that entire section, which I consider to be mostly composed of weasel-worded distractions. Until that happens, I am arguing for the retention of the Churchhill quote, and the addition of new material that reveals the two-faced approach of the British Government to this issue. This two-faced approach is followed by many governments, and is distorted by denialists. To not say that something happened is not the same as saying it didn't happen. However, unless some source is calling the British Government "Armenian genocide deniers", why is any of this content in the article? This article, as I have often said in the past, does not exist to either prove or disprove the Armenian Genocide, its subject is the denial of that genocide. Meowy 22:21, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

The British Government was among the first to recognise the events as a crime against humanity but in their own words "British governments have not recognised the events of 1915 and 1916 as "genocide"." It is quite possible to recognise the events as a crime against humanity without the events been seen as a genocide (HMG explains why they come to this conclusion in the same statement). Which article should such views be included in this article or the recognition of the Armenian Genocide? Or do you suggest that such views should not be included in Wikipedia? How about having one article in which all points of view can be included, rather than the content fork we currently have?-- PBS (talk) 22:51, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Who is calling the British government "Armenian genocide deniers"? If nobody is, then why is any of this in the article? Just because you seem to be, means nothing - your "quite possibles" are just your own personal opinions of others. Meowy 23:25, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

The British Government has stated that "British governments have not recognised the events of 1915 and 1916 as "genocide"." which means that the British Government itself has stated it denies that the events were a genocide, as it has always claimed that in its view the events were a crime against humanity. Or are you using the term "genocide denier" to mean only the denial of the events?

When I asked you before if the British Government's position should be in the DAG and not the RAG article you answered "I suppose it could be in both articles. ... 09:29, 9 October 2008 (UTC)"[15] have you now changed you mind on this? --PBS (talk) 18:56, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

You are just stating your personal opinion that, because a single (unelected) member of the House of Lords has made a speech with the words British governments have not recognised the events of 1915 and 1916 as "genocide", the British government is a denier of the Armenian Genocide. Meowy 19:42, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Baroness Ramsay, was a member of the British Government (one does not have to be a member of the House of Commons to be in the British Government) when she made that statement in the house of Lords, It is an official statement of the British Government position by a member of the British Government. I have also mentioned on this talk page (see above at the start of the section #RFC: Merge "recognition of the Armenian Genocide" into this article), that "This is a view that was reiterated outside Parliament by the British Government on 7 December 2007." It is not just my interpretation of the British Governments position, see for example this article by the BBC, "The UK, US and Israel are among those that use different terminology to describe the events." --PBS (talk) 00:12, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Nothing has changed. You are going to have to find sources that state that merely using different terminology for the same events amounts to denial of the Armenian Genocide. It is just your opinion that refusing to use the word genocide amounts to genocide denial. Meowy 13:51, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

www.armenian-genocide.org/churchill.html has published an extract from Churchill's "The World Crisis, vol. 5, "The Aftermath" (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1929)." The larger part of the quote used in this article is in the third paragraph of the extract, and seems to support the British Government's position as "The World Crisis" was published before the crime of genocide was defined but after the British issued their WWI statement that the Turkish government was committing crimes against humanity and specifically states "There is no reasonable doubt that this crime [general massacre and deportation of Armenians in Asia Minor] was planned and executed for political reasons." presumably the "this crime" relates to the WWI statement by the Allied powers of which Britain was one "In view of these new crimes of Turkey against humanity and civilization, the Allied Governments announce publicly to the Sublime Porte that they will hold personally responsible for these crimes all members of the Ottoman Government, as well as those of their agents who are implicated in such massacres." Now it may be that Churchill if asked after 1951 might of taken a position that it was a genocide (and for all I know he may have made such a statement) but the Churchill paragraph as it is currently phrased in the article, (starting with however) is misleading as it can not be assumed from a book published in 1929 that Churchill's position on the issue was significantly different from that of the British Government. --PBS (talk) 21:56, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

user:Meowy, If you wish to keep the Churchill quote in the section how about removing the lead phrase "However it is well known that", from the start of the paragraph as there is no evidence from the quote that WC's position was different from that of the British Governments of the interbellum. -- PBS (talk) 22:51, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry - but no. I am not applying cosmetic makeup to "de-uglify" that section of the article when it should actually all be all removed. Keeping it ugly keeps it faults obvious to readers. Meowy 23:31, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that the paragraph is necessary and as you have rejected a compromise solution that would remove some of the misleading ambiguity, I have again removed the paragraph. --PBS (talk) 18:40, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

user:Gazifikator you reverted my deletion. please explain why you think the current Churchill paragraph should remain in the article. --PBS (talk) 10:13, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

If I understand part of PBS' argument right, then there is a problem with the relationships between Armenian Genocide and its sub-articles Denial of the Armenian Genocide and Recognition of the Armenian Genocide. Namely, that when someone is quoted in the "Denial" article denying the genocide, it would not do simply to let that stand without comment, otherwise the article would turn into a POV fork of the worst kind. But when wrong statements are countered, this reduplicates material already in the "Recognition" article. Yet when you keep the information out of the "Denial" article because it belongs in the "Recognition" article, you are back at square one.
Hence it would make sense to abolish the "Recognition" article entirely. And also because there is no need to have it since the consensus of historians is already settled. If that is PBS' argument, then I think I agree with it.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 19:19, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes I think that it would be better if there was one article and not two, as I think having two articles is a violation of the probation on WP:content forking. However on this specific issue of what Churchill said, the start of the paragraph that user:Gazifikator included, starts "However it is well known.." has a specific problem because it is not clear from what Churchill said that he did not agree with the British Government's position. It is only the interpretation by the wording "However it is well known.." that creates that impression, it does not exist in the quote provided of what Churchill wrote. --PBS (talk) 12:13, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

widely acknowledged

I changed "The Armenian Genocide is widely acknowledged outside Turkey to have been one of the first modern, systematic ..." to The Armenian Genocide is widely acknowledged by genocide scholars to have been one of the first modern,

When I made the change I noted in the history of the article:

"Added genocide scholars, as most people would not be able to find Turkey on a map and most governments do not acknowledge it as a genocide, but we have a source for genocide scholars"

User:COYW quoted the above and placed it onto my talk page with the following comment:

There are facts about Alpha Centuri, and I doubt people could find it in the sky. Governments ignore Alpha Centuri, as well. Here is the question that you might find sources for: Of all the governments that have addressed the AG-recognition question, how many have voted yes/no? You can ask the same question about individuals and the opinions they hold. Then, edit against the consensus of the page with authority! COYW (talk) 09:11, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I made the change because the first statement is not quantifiable. For example has there been a UN general resolution that has been passed which says that it was. In which case we could state something like: "On December 16, 1982, the United Nations General Assembly declared it to be an act of genocide." Have the results of an international survey that polled peoples opinion of whether they think there was a genocide been published? But even if there was and the majority did not agree would that make the opinions expressed in that poll authoritative?

Unless there is some sort of yardstick to measure opinion by, then the current sentence is not a valid statement (as we have no way of saying whether it is true or false). However we do know that the majority of genocide scholars acknowledge it as a genocide and we have a source that backs it up.

Not only is the statement closer to the truth, and has a source to back it up (although who has defined modern (as the IAGS did not)?), it is also more authoritative, because the opinion of experts in a field of research should and does carry more weight than the opinions of laymen. --PBS (talk) 10:13, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

"I made the change because the first statement is not quantifiable." Why isn't it? It surely is quantifiable and the yardstick is an opinion poll. Where is that opinion poll? It's probably in the same polling company that has "verified" that people move to the right instead of walking into each other head on (of course, in Japan, they walk slightly to the left). I imagine the Armenian Genocide is just not common knowledge with your friends that have an opinion. Okie-dokie, call 'widely' a weasel word. That is fair enough to me. By the way, you editors are making far too much of this. *All* of you editors. COYW (talk) 15:00, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

To clarify what I said, Yes if there is a source with a survey or a UN resolution, or some other quantifiable measure, then we can construct a sentence similar to one I paraphrased that is actually taken from Genocides in history#Sabra-Shatila, Lebanon which is a quantifiable and verified with a citaiton. But the sentence in this article as is stands without a source citaion is not quantifiable and is not verified. --PBS (talk) 00:24, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

As no source has been provided to justify the statement "The Armenian Genocide is widely acknowledged outside Turkey ..." I have reverted it to "The Armenian Genocide is widely acknowledged by genocide scholars" which is sourced. --PBS (talk) 12:07, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Grammar issues

Trying to get through this entry, I repeatedly came across ungrammatical sentences, perhaps written by non-native English speakers. Someone with a good command of the English language needs to go through this whole entry and clean it up. 75.42.222.134 (talk) 07:24, 5 September 2009 (UTC)Mark P

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5