Misplaced Pages

Talk:Armenian genocide denial/Archive 1

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Talk:Armenian genocide denial

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by OttomanReference (talk | contribs) at 23:31, 21 April 2007 (→My edits to the intro section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 23:31, 21 April 2007 by OttomanReference (talk | contribs) (→My edits to the intro section)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Armenian genocide denial/Archive 1 page.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
WikiProject iconArmenia NA‑class
WikiProject iconArmenian genocide denial/Archive 1 is within the scope of WikiProject Armenia, an attempt to improve and better organize information in articles related or pertaining to Armenia and Armenians. If you would like to contribute or collaborate, you could edit the page attached to this page or visit the project page for further information.ArmeniaWikipedia:WikiProject ArmeniaTemplate:WikiProject ArmeniaArmenian
NAThis page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
WikiProject iconTurkey NA‑class
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Turkey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Turkey and related topics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TurkeyWikipedia:WikiProject TurkeyTemplate:WikiProject TurkeyTurkey
NAThis page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments and look in the archives before commenting.

POV fork?

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

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

Remove biased image

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

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

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

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

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

On apology

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

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

Photo

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

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

Requested move

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

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

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

Survey

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

Discussion

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

Must 21:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

The Guardian, my second source:

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

A New York Times editorial, my third source:

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

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

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

Image

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

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

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

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

"Denial"

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

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

Name problem

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

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

"See Also" sub-section

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

Links

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

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

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

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

Second requested move

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

Survey

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

Survey - in support of the move

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

Survey - in opposition to the move

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

Discussion

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

Denial of the Armenian Genocide

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

Edit warring

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

Revised opening line

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

Before the discussion gets into the specifics, I just would like to point out that the lead was actually sourced. :) In fact, the whole intro is (was now) sourced. That BBC article gives a pretty good overview of the issue, and what the Turkish position is/was/has been. I will get back to this later though.. Baristarim 13:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
What is "Denied" has to be specified in the beginning sentence. Turkish authorities do not reject all the arguments of the Armenian Genocide. There are facts which are agreed by both sides. "Some" critical facts are (their interpretation) are problematic. There are many issues within the Armenian genocide as a concept. Even the Armenian sources have issues with the extend of activities which is covered (they all agree there is a genocide) in this area. "Denial" is not total rejection (or different interpretation) of the events happened during the WWI. I believe first, Aivazovsky should develop a "section" on the "Armenian Genocide" page defining the Armenian position of which "activities of the ottoman state constitutes" this "state organized genocide" concept. Armenian editors has to understand that Turkish or Turkey sources are not against all the events. They are against what Baristarim brought into the introduction by what he said "the lead was actually sourced" The lead is sourced, it has to be, we do not want to find ourself interpreting (in this case extending) what "Turkish sources" want to say. Lets, summarize 1) introduction has to define what denial is against. 2) As the denial is not total rejection of the period, but rejection of some assumptions, It is a position. It is a position against another position. Positions has to be sourced to be fair of the people who take those positions. 3) Genocide is a serious concept. It is not an abstract concept. It is not enough to say "genocide" is a "genocide." (or Denail of Armenian Genocide rejects the concept that there was an Armenian Genocide. "A Circular argumentation) Genocide is a crime. The events (a trail of crimes) should be traced back to the planners of these crimes. Document by document. Event by event. Instead of removing the contents (making a circular argument) of the denial section; it is better to bring more support to Genocide page so that people who read the denial page can say "arguments of deniers are dubious" or in this case "a circular argument". Thanks.--OttomanReference 16:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

My edits to the intro section

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

Please; the thread "Revised opening line" (just one up in this page) has been an ongoing discussion, which is related your new edits. Do not generate a new thread covering the same arguments. Thanks. --OttomanReference 23:29, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Categories:
Talk:Armenian genocide denial/Archive 1 Add topic