Talk:Armenian genocide denial

Evidence? Please show us, the sources are not direct sources

"as many sources point to the sheer scale of the death toll as evidence for a systematic, organized plan to eliminate the Armenians." As a matter of fact, many sources point out there is NO evidence for a systematic, organized plan to eliminate the Armenians. Just one example of a scholar pointing this out: http://www.ataa.org/reference/pdf/lewis.pdf .--Behzat (talk) 22:40, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

The version you're trying to put into this article is in fact a minority position maintained and promoted solely by Turkish and Azerbaijani governments. The evidence is overwhelming and it's only a matter of time before the Turkish government itself realizes that. In fact, Turkey has lost the battle of truth. Denialists, such as yourself, are gradually disappearing. Although you have a right to your own opinion, your personal opinion shouldn't be a guiding force to edits on such articles as this. Introducing "two-sides" of the story goes against the general consensus of Wikipedia and the arbitrary regulations under WP:ARBAA2. The side that presents the genocide as fact has been the one adopted by the Wikipedia community through a consensus, while the other side, a minority position pushed by the Government of Turkey, has not. If you continue to push such a minority position in articles related to the Armenian Genocide, you may face sanctions under WP:AE. You cannot try to discredit any notion that the Armenian Genocide occurred in this article. Arbcom takes the position seriously, see Admin Sandstein's remark here and here. The user was formally warned for his constant assertion of denialist information and sources and as of this point may be banned if he/she continues. Étienne Dolet (talk) 23:23, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

That is your personal opinion. What you are stating here appears to be a clear case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Anything I add is sourced, and viewing the other side of the story is a MUST for the material to be called objective. What you are stating here is the purest form of proof that this article is currently biased. I am a scholar working on this subject, just as many more are currently, I have examined many documents in the Ottoman, French, and British archives and came to the conclusion that the treatment of Armenians under Turkish rule was no different than Turks under foreign rule. Loads of other scholars, known as well as unknown, did so as well. Therefore I find it personally interesting to say "denialists" are disappearing. Unfortunately for non-Ottoman speakers who haven't studied the Ottoman archives, we are getting more and more. May I ask approximately how many documents you have viewed in the Ottoman archives yourself that you are implying I might receive a ban purely because of WP:IDONTLIKEIT?

Allowing properly sourced information to be added to an encyclopaedia is a fundamental essence to be considered non-propaganda. Currently as you state yourself, this article is a biased article in which any arguments and sources going against this bias are not permitted.--Behzat (talk) 02:56, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

It is an accepted view on Wikipedia that the Armenian Genocide is a fact, much as a fact as the Holocaust. The rest is irrelevant. It doesn't matter how impressive Stone's or Lewis' credentials are - their positions make them denialists and those are conscious decisions they adhere to, for good or worse. We editors simply report the facts.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 04:13, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Marshal Bagramyan your remark is a classic case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Wikipedia is a place that supports scholarship. Scholarship does not assume one bias and reject all the evidence that proves otherwise than that bias. Especially if the reason is WP:IDONTLIKEIT. This article is filled with inductive fallacies and cherry picking which are a major sin in the world of scholarship. Furthermore, it is not only those two scholars you mention, there are thousands of scholars that do not support the thesis in this article. And even if it was only two scholars supporting it, an argumentum ad populum is not a valid argument to forbid to publish the results of decent scholarship.--Behzat (talk) 06:32, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

"We editors simply report the facts." So why does it bother you so much when I report facts?--Behzat (talk) 06:36, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

What facts are those? The entire world, save two particular countries and their partisans, recognizes the Armenian Genocide for what it is. This isn't 1980 or 2005 - we have long surpassed the point where we're trying to "prove" that the genocide occurred. Scholarship has advanced remarkably and is now trying to understand how it unfolded in all its various aspects. There is no disputing this, no matter how many times you wikilink "IDONTLIKEIT".--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 07:23, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

First of all, this is not a discussion whether the Genocide occurred in this manner or not. Although I would recommend you to study some work of Ottoman-speaking third country scholars such as this work of Maxime Gauin, instead of your pre-biased Armenian-affiliated historians on this subject that don't even speak Ottoman, journalists, and politicians. This is a discussion on whether sourced information that goes against the bias is allowed or not. Regarding your first remark, that statement is false and reflects the mentality this Wikipedia article is written in. A majority of the countries does NOT recognise the genocide, including the USA. There are also certain countries that explicitly reject the Armenian Genocide, such as Australia. This was in 2014, not 1980 or 2005.

The entire article is pre-biased. Look at the first line:

"The denial of the Armenian Genocide is the assertion that the Armenian Genocide did not occur in the manner or to the extent described by scholarship. "

Is the article I have linked earlier, of Maxime Gauin not scholarship? There are works of thousands of scholars that do NOT follow the thesis in this article, especially the Armenian Genocide article. It needs to be clear that it is merely some scholarship that accepts the Armenian Genocide to have occurred in the manner of Armenian Genocide, and explicitely stated that there is some scholarship that rejects the Armenian Genocide to have occurred in the manner described in the Armenian Genocide article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Behzat (talk • contribs) 17:19, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

It does not matter how many countries have recognized on the genocide - here on Wikipedia we treat it as incontrovertible fact.

Maxime Gauin is in the minority. I have read some of his works and they just plainly rehash the arguments of the old denialists, perhaps in a little more refined manner but lacking quality and innovation all the same. The number of scholars outside Turkey who seriously doubt the Armenian Genocide having taken place can be counted literally on two hands - and many of those are from the generation of Bernard Lewis and Norman Stone. The newest generation of historians recognize and properly describe the genocide for what it is. And just because some do not read and employ Ottoman Turkish sources does not necessarily mean that the value of their works is compromised. Taner Akcam reads Ottoman Turkish and we all know what his position on the genocide is. So does Umit Ungor. In fact, much of the important work on the study of the genocide is being carried out by Turkish, not Armenian, historians. It certainly does not help that the Turkish government for decades has limited access to perusing the sources at the archives. But if anything, the Ottoman-era archives only reinforce the notion that a genocide occurred and Akcam has shown us how the "dual track" mechanism of communication (official and unofficial telegrams) operated at the time.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 17:53, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Interesting names you mention there. Taner Akçam and Umit Ungor are not third parties. Taner Akçam was part of Dev-Genç, a terrorist organisation in Turkey that for example put US Ambassador Robert Komer's car on fire. Taner Akçam is convicted for being part of a terrorist organisation. He escaped from jail by using the leg of an iron stove to dig a hole, and immediately fled the country. After that he wrote a book stating he is a Turk acknowledging the 1915 genocide, and his book became a best seller among the Armenian community. In Turkey he was not an historian. Umit Ungor is from the country where I live, the Netherlands, and is DEFINITIVELY not a third party. Umut Ungor is a Kurd who is affiliated with the PKK. His articles are popular on Dutch neonazi websites. Furthermore he has hit the news because many of his article contained plagiarism, including an article that was published in 2004 by the Moroccan Marion Ould Fatima, which he literally copied, only placing his own name under it, and 'republished' in 2012.

QUOTE: "The entire world, save two particular countries and their partisans, recognizes the Armenian Genocide for what it is. This isn't 1980 or 2005 - we have long surpassed the point where we're trying to "prove" that the genocide occurred."

QUOTE: "It does not matter how many countries have recognized on the genocide - here on Wikipedia we treat it as incontrovertible fact."

Both quotes are from you :-) --Behzat (talk) 20:32, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I hope that if the statement about Australia entering the war in 25 April 2015 is reinstated, they correct it to 25 April 1915... unless they're bizarrely prescient. Jsharpminor (talk) 01:50, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I am a scholar working on legal ground of Armenian Genocide allegations. I can read Ottoman Turkish and I have been working in Ottoman archives. I could not find any document that proves systematic killings were ordered by the government. There is NO evidence of it in archives.

By the way, You can go to archives and search the author Taner Akçam and you will see that a person with that name has never been to archives :) Taner Akçam does not use documents. He simlpy lie. E3.akpinar (talk) 11:17, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Hitler also destroyed any incriminating documents. Btw, you're also a lier; you're not a scholar and can't read anything so go away. 92slim (talk) 13:54, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Armenian Genocide denial. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070810091849/http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/02/26/international/i033600S38.DTL&type=politics to http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/02/26/international/i033600S38.DTL&type=politics
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20121014215243/http://www.todayszaman.com/columnists-32983-historians-warn-french-parliament-do-not-censor-history.html to http://www.todayszaman.com/columnists-32983-historians-warn-french-parliament-do-not-censor-history.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true oder failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:02, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Holocaust denial

This is an response to the user removing the similarity to holocaust denial. Both acts were mass killings of people so of course holocaust denial is very similar to Armenian Genocide denial.c (talk) 15:35, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Comparison with holocaust denial should be deleted for following reasons:

• There is no denial of mass killings occurred in the Armenian Massacres. The classification as genocide is debated by serious historians.
• No reputable historian supports holocaust denial. There are leading historians who does not agree with the classification of genocide such as İlber Ortaylı
• This comparison, even if there are some people agree, has no place in the introduction statement as it portrays a serious debate as a crazy belief. People that have no idea about the events can read the introduction statement and think that this is some crazy idea that should be discarded immediately. If you must compare with another event please change it as: "similar to Paris massacre of 1961" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unbiasedsource (talk • contribs)

There is no current academic debate on the Armenian genocide outside of Turkey and Azerbaijan who's governments consider acknowledging the genocide illegal. Those who disagree are given the opportunity to make their case in the article, which they have done, but their view is given the appropriate weight as determined by reliable sources, which is the genocide denial view is fringe like the holocaust denial crowd. We have a whole section with prominent historians using comparisons to the holocaust. I doubt you are going to get it removed from the lead, I would move along. "Hebrew University scholar Yehuda Bauer suggests of the Armenian Genocide, "This is the closest parallel to the Holocaust".[106]" Lipsquid (talk) 15:29, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Many people don't realize that it is simply racist to discard statements the one of the world's leading Ottoman era historian just because his nationality. Your remarks like "fringe" and "you should move along" clearly indicated you are too much emotionally invested in this issue. If it is related, i have no objection to classification as genocide, i simply don't care. But i am fed up with biased articles in wikipedia. There is already a section comparison with Holocaust. Why are you insisting that it should be in the introduction statement? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.191.25.94 (talk • contribs) IP 78.191.25.94 is a suspected sockpuppet of Unbiasedsource

I don't know anything about the issue other than what reliable sources have to say and even then, I don't know much about the topic. I am sorry that Wikipedia is frustrating, I often feel the same way. The lead is supposed to be a synopsis of the article, which it is in this case. People are going to discard the statements of an academic when his government will put him in prison for disagreeing, how could we not discount his statements and opinions? His answers may be only scholarly, but they could be political. There really isn't much debate on this topic in academia. Lipsquid (talk) 17:56, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

If you have any evidence that İlber Ortaylı's statements may be political then please present here. If you don't have please don't question a person's honesty and integrity without any information at all.

It is clear that you added the comparison with holocaust denial to introduction to misrepresent the debate as denial of mass killings and deportations, in fact it is a debate about classification as a genocide. I don't really care so good luck. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unbiasedsource (talk • contribs) 15:06, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Acknowledging the Armenian genocide is illegal in Turkey, Ortayli is Turkish, his commentary must be discounted as non-neutral. That is all the proof one needs. Lipsquid (talk) 17:38, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Denialism by academia: context lacking

I write this as someone who actually doesn't know much about the subject and has turned to Wikipedia for information. The section "Denialism by academia" begins with the sentence: "On 19 May 1985, The New York Times and The Washington Post ran an advertisement in which a group of 69 American historians called on Congress not to adopt the resolution on the Armenian Genocide". What is "the resolution" mentioned here? I cannot find it (easily, if at all) in the article. Some introduction should be provided here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.190.253.150 (talk) 21:23, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

As far as I know, every year (or some other time period), a law is proposed to the US congress that symbolically recognizes the Armenian Genocide as "genocide". This is thwarted every year by (primarily Turkish) lobbies. That's what happened here. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 23:45, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Major rewrite

I found a trend among these articles that trivialized and "softened" the subject of the Armenian Genocide. This is in total contrast to the Armenian Genocide article that portrays it accurately. IP users alter words and cast doubt where there is none, or simply editorialize and rewrite entire sections to twist its meaning. I've completely rewritten the lead of the article to get rid of this crypto-denialism. If anyone objects to what I've done, we can discuss it here, but I strongly feel that this was necessary. These types of articles are often at risk of slowly being revised and manipulated resulting in completely different views than those intended by the sources. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 13:50, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Christ, this is more work than I thought. It seems someone or some people wrote most of this since over half of it is a combination of WP:OR, WP:SYNTHESIS and straight up unsourced commentary. It reads entirely like an apologist essay and I'm going to trim it dramatically. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 20:39, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

One sided article.

Who came up with a number of 1,5 mil? who counted the deaths? Ottoman empire had no machinery or gas chambers. to kill 1,5 mil armenians is to kill 5 armenian every single hour 24/7 for 35 years.

"Armenian Genocide denial is the act of denying the planned systematic genocide of 1.5 million Armenians during World War I, conducted by the Ottoman government. As a form of denialism, it can be compared to similar negationist historical revisionisms like Holocaust denial and Nanking Massacre denial."

This sentence is created regardless of any opposition. "It can be compared to Holocaust" This is deliberately put there to make the reader think Turkey did a holocaust. Whereas its very different, Turkey was in war and was fighting 5 countries and armenians wanted their free one, and many armenians attacked Turks, this is a fact. In germany nazis basically slaughtered jews just because they were jews. Totally different

"Currently, only the governments of Turkey and Azerbaijan deny that there was an Armenian genocide.[9][10][11] Many other countries, most controversially the United States (pressued by both the Turkish lobby and Anti-Defamation League) and Israel,[12][13][14] have deliberately avoided officially recognizing it as a genocide to avoid harming relations with Turkey.[1] The Turkish government has often threatened and intimidated other governments to prevent them from using the word genocide.[15]"

this is the worst paragraph I have seen on wiki that I have not seen in any other page. Just read, outright blaming of countries of lying because of own interests.

Also again Turkey and Azerbaijan does not deny there were deaths, but there were deaths throughout the country. So everybody just agrees on a fact that armenian people, who wanted free armenia in the wake of dying ottomans, stayed naive and did not attack turkish people whatsoever?

Another thing, most of the "sources" lead to armenian based pages. Some of them does not even work. Actually a few of them i read concluded there was violence from armenians in Turkey as well.

All in all, very one sided article. Here again we see in wikipedia, what majority thinks happened is written and accepted as a fact, not the simple truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.242.221.248 (talk) 04:14, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Nice write-up, but unfortunately we don't have a research department here at Wikipedia, so we only cite what the majority of reliable sources say about the subject in order to make a great encyclopedia. They say it was a genocide, we say it was a genocide. The majority of reliable sources say the moon is a sphere, we say the moon is a sphere. One sided? Yes, very much so. Lipsquid (talk) 05:00, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

It is complete nonsense to quote a figure of 1.5 million having in mind the Armenian population in Ottoman lands before WW1]. This topic has become simply mater of politics than historical facts. Hittit (talk) 19:58, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

It is more nonsensical to rely on Turkish sources on this subject. Turkey has throughout history been a society of repression, ask a Kurd. Lipsquid (talk) 20:37, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

I wasn't sure if I should respond to this as I feel it's very, VERY close to WP:SOAPBOX, but I'll state a few things.

• Reliable sources describe its denial as similar to Holocaust denial and both are quite possibly the most common forms of Genocide denial. It's not saying "Turkey did a holocaust" nor is it put there to compare the two. I specifically added Nanking Massacre denial to further illustrate this.
• "who counted the deaths?" No one. But scholars have compared relatively independent population statistics and based their estimates on this.
• "Also again Turkey and Azerbaijan does not deny there were deaths, but there were deaths throughout the country." This is described in both articles. They deny it by blaming it on the Armenians themselves.
• "outright blaming of countries of lying because of own interests" We are not blaming anyone. This is reported by reliable sources, and that is how we write our articles.
• "Here again we see in wikipedia, what majority thinks happened is written and accepted as a fact, not the simple truth." You are partly correct, with Verifiability, not truth, but "the majority" is inaccurate. What the majority of reliable sources "thinks what happened" is written and given due weight. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 21:33, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

The issue gets bigger when sources are produced on industrial scale supported by political lobbying and heavy finance. We have reached the point where we enter a claim in Google and accept "reliable sources" based on what word gets the most hits. The next step to completely kill historical fact finding and debate, we label counter-facts as denialists, delete any attempt of their use as POV, Fringe, Non-expert etc. Hittit (talk) 08:10, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

To do

I've trimmed the article dramatically but now the issue of structuring remains.

• Several paragraphs have been renamed (some were clearly advocating the denial), but if anyone knows better names they're welcome
• Some of the sections and subsections may be unnecessary now. "Terminology" and "Efforts at rebuttal" still contain 3 subsections that now contain little information
• I'm not a native in English and probably made some mistakes. One was already fixed here (thank you). Copyediting is welcome
• This article seems to have gotten little attention overall. Further improvements regarding thus-far undiscussed aspects of the subject or other things you believe should be mentioned can be discussed here. An expert or otherwise user very familiar with the subject would also be very welcome

Thoughts? Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 21:08, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

@Prinsgezinde: Thanks a lot for the cleanup. By the way, what does the legislature in Italy say about this? Because genocide denial is outlawed there, apparently. --92slim (talk) 23:15, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Comma instead of a dot

"Turkish scholars and other denialists reject the academic consensus of up to 1,5 million Armenian deaths attributed to the genocide." you mean 1.5 not 1,5? Alexis Ivanov (talk) 06:04, 5 June 2016 (UTC)