Jump to content

Talk:Armenian genocide denial/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

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:

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

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 22:02, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

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[1]. 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.[2]
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

  1. ^ http://armeniantitanic.blogspot.nl/2012/05/ugur-umit-ungor-de-terroristenmaatje.html
  2. ^ http://www.allesinperspectief.nl/Nederland/plagiaat-van-uur-uemit-uengoer.html

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)

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)

"Turkey and Azerbaijan who's governments consider acknowledging the genocide illegal." Are you sure about that? Because it is certainly not illegal in Turkey to acknowledge Armenian "genocide" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.242.221.248 (talk) 10:16, 6 June 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)
I don't think the "illegality" is that specific. Plenty of Turkish academics and others have publically acknowledged the AG. Turkey takes the Wikipedia approach to that sort of "illegality". For example, there is no law on Wikipedia that actually prevents the paying for and publishing on Wikipedia a painting of Jimmy Wales painted using a penis [2], but there are plenty of other ways of getting rid of the editor having the temerity to have done it. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 14:02, 6 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)
I believe only Holocaust denial is outlawed in Italy, but I can't read Italian so the sources I can use are limited. This source makes no mention of Armenian Genocide denial being criminalized, and this source only mentions Holocaust denial. However, this source implies it is the case with all genocides that are officially acknowledged. This source from May 2015 again hints at it not being criminalized. I'm leaning towards there not being enough unambiguous proof yet. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 08:48, 5 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)

Yes. In Dutch, we use the dots and commas the other way around. Fixed, thanks. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 08:35, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

WP:COMPETENCE

The Advertisement/Time DVD incident section/subsection (it's both!) is simply incomprehensible. I'd try to fix it but I can't even make out what it's trying to say.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:02, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

There will be plenty of material about the incident from when it happened (including those that did describe it as a propaganda dvd). I hope to expand that section to include genocide denialist books and such like. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:38, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Armenian Genocide denial. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:33, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

consensus is a bit ostentatious, don't you think?

there is no academic consensus. there are no sources to it being an academic consensus. it is an accusation because armenia rejects all proposals to create an international committee to investigate.

the assumption of genocide serves as blackmail.

also if the massacre is proven to be a genocide it must be attributed to ottoman empire.

also kurds who supported the alleged genocide are lacking from this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.55.133.135 (talk) 19:29, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

It is attributed to the Ottoman Empire, of which Kurds were also citizens. As for the consensus:[1]

The Armenian Genocide is corroborated by the international scholarly, legal, and human rights community:

1) Polish jurist Raphael Lemkin, when he coined the term genocide in 1944, cited the Turkish extermination of the Armenians and the Nazi extermination of the Jews as defining examples of what he meant by genocide.
2) The killings of the Armenians is genocide as defined by the 1948 United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.
3) In 1997 the International Association of Genocide Scholars, an organization of the world’s foremost experts on genocide, unanimously passed a formal resolution affirming the Armenian Genocide.
4) 126 leading scholars of the Holocaust including Elie Wiesel and Yehuda Bauer placed a statement in the New York Times in June 2000 declaring the “incontestable fact of the Armenian Genocide” and urging western democracies to acknowledge it.
5) The Institute on the Holocaust and Genocide (Jerusalem), and the Institute for the Study of Genocide (NYC) have affirmed the historical fact of the Armenian Genocide.
6) Leading texts in the international law of genocide such as William A. Schabas’s Genocide in International Law (Cambridge University Press, 2000) cite the Armenian Genocide as a precursor to the Holocaust and as a precedent for the law on crimes against humanity."

Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 22:43, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Israeli president Peres

The quote saying the Israeli president rejected the similarities of genocide is not true.

Although Peres himself did not retract the statement, the Israeli Foreign Ministry later issued a cable to its missions which stated that "The minister absolutely did not say, as the Turkish news agency alleged, 'What the Armenians underwent was a tragedy, not a genocide.

Yair, Auron (2003). "Chapter 5 – The Armenian Genocide's Recognition by States: The Israeli Aspect". The Banality of Denial: Israel and the Armenian Genocide (1st ed.). New Brunswick (U.S.A.): Transaction Publishers. p. 127. ISBN 0-7658-0191-4. Nocturnal781 (talk) 18:58, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Peres was President of Israel, if he didn't said such statement there should be official denial of it issued publicly, either by him or his officials. I challenge you to find any official source. Boaqua (talk) 13:59, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
The Google book is a more reliable source and it specifically states that there was an official Israeli denial which strongly refuted the Turkish allegations: click on this link. This article is under 1RR restriction and you just broke it to impose your POV. Dr. K. 18:54, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Books written by 3rd party authors can't be presented as official statements of the government. As I said, Peres was President of Israel, and if there was an official denial of his words then it should be available on the Israeli Foreign Ministry and news websites. Boaqua (talk) 20:03, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Moreover, the author of that book admits that officials didn't issue a denial to the Turkish news agency and Peres didn't retract his statement. Boaqua (talk) 20:04, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Books written by 3rd party authors can't be presented as official statements of the government. I don't think you understand who wrote the book. Yair Auron is a genocide scholar, a recognised expert and a far better source than the nationalist-COI-ridden Hurriyet. Your POV that he is just a 3rd party author is unsustainable. As I said, Peres was President of Israel, and if there was an official denial of his words then it should be available on the Israeli Foreign Ministry and news websites. Yair Auron explains that the Israeli Foreign Ministry is not in the habit of issuing official denials. Moreover, the author of that book admits that officials didn't issue a denial to the Turkish news agency and Peres didn't retract his statement. That's your POV take of what Auron writes in that reliable source. You have run out of arguments and you have broken the one-revert rule imposed by the Arbitration Committee on this article. I advise you to rethink your tactics. Dr. K. 20:17, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Yair Auron is not a government official of Israel and he is not in position to issue statements on behalf of Israeli government. Please provide official source which denies Peres's statement. Boaqua (talk) 21:16, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
In Wikipedia we go be scholarship and WP:RELIABLESOURCES. Not by original research, POV and edit-warring. You are in no position to ignore and dismiss the findings of a distinguished Genocide scholar. Just that act, betrays the size of your POV. You stalling tactics are noted but they are not persuasive. Dr. K. 21:33, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Yair Auron is a great scholar, and yet he is not a representative of Israeli government and can't make statements on behalf of Israeli government. Besides, in that book that you linked he clearly says that Israeli officials didn't issue a denial to the Turkish news agency and Peres didn't retract his statement. Boaqua (talk) 22:56, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Yair Auron is a great scholar, and yet he is not a representative of Israeli government and can't make statements on behalf of Israeli government. If that's what you understood from the page I linked to, then, perhaps, you need to read it again. Besides, in that book that you linked he clearly says that Israeli officials didn't issue a denial to the Turkish news agency and Peres didn't retract his statement. Cherrypicking two sentences out of context from the whole page, and trying to make a point out of that, is the very definition of WP:UNDUE and WP:POV. Anyone who read the whole page, and understood it, would not even come close to making the points you are attempting to make. Dr. K. 06:05, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
I think that if there is doubt that he actually said this, it should not be there as a quote. Whether we have in the article content about the statement and the denial by others that the statement was made, depends on its notability. If it is only in the hurriyet daily news, that does not suggest notability. However, if the alleged statement made a big impact then I think there is a place for this content. Even if Perez did not personally say it, or it is a distortion of what he actually said. the use of the statement and purpose of distorting it (If that is what happened) is still part of genocide denial. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 14:54, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Here is an interview with Yair Auron from 2005 where he confirms that Peres said "It is a tragedy what the Armenians went through but not a genocide." https://web.archive.org/web/20081223161200/http://www.thinking-east.net/index0c56.html?option=com_content&task=view&id=130&Itemid=56 Auron says: "Shimon Peres, the former foreign minister, before an official visit to Turkey, said that what happened was not a genocide. This was active denial. Until then, we did not say it was a genocide but we did not say it was not a genocide. But then we said it was not a genocide-it was a tragedy, but not a genocide." Boaqua (talk) 15:22, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Also I didn't find any credible sources that would deny Peres's statement. Israeli officials and Peres didn't issue official statement of denial for sure. Boaqua (talk) 15:29, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
According to reliable sources, there is a dispute as to the actual circumstances and actions surrounding the statement attributed to Peres. You cannot attribute this to Peres the way you do, only quoting cherrypicked sources and ignoring other events and sources quoting contradicting statements. Your edit is POV and you currently have no consensus to reinstate this material. Same goes for your formulation of the Bernard Lewis statement which is WP:UNDUE and contains original research WP:OR. This article is under active arbitration remedies. According to the notice at the top of this page, do not reinstate any part of your edit without obtaining prior consensus on this talkpage. Otherwise you will be reported. Dr. K. 19:13, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
I asked you multiple times to provide any official source where Israel is denying that President Peres's statement, as you depict. But you failed to do so. Boaqua (talk) 19:47, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Boaqua, it's pretty dubious how relevant a big quote from Peres is here. As it stands the Israeli/Holocaust section is a bit big, giving the impression that Wikipedia is asserting that Israeli government officials get some important say on the matter simply for being Israeli (false), and their views shouldn't take the place of those of actual experts. It's also misleading. Peres said that in 2001, and Israeli opinion has changed since then with many people souring on Turkey in general due to Erdogan. Peres also is (*was, sadly) quite a controversial guy in Israel despite being quite beloved outside of it.--Yalens (talk) 19:53, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Shimon Peres was an Israeli Foreign Minister and then President of Israel till 2014. His perspective represents the Israeli stance on the issue. Therefore, it is important to include his statements. Boaqua (talk) 20:07, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Not in an enormous block quote.--Yalens (talk) 20:16, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Enormous block quote is justified as the statement has a big significance: it was the first time when Israeli senior government official denied Armenian genocide publicly. Boaqua (talk) 20:31, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Yalens. Dr. K. 20:58, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

To summarize points from this discussion:

1) There is no official Israeli government source that denies Shimon Peres's statement "What the Armenians underwent was a tragedy, not a genocide."

2) When Israeli government denies incorrect statements, there is at least one news article about it. For example:

"President Shimon Peres called Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas on Sunday and denied a report in Ha'aretz in which he was quoted as saying a peace agreement with the Palestinians was not possible in the foreseeable future" http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Abbas-Peres-denied-saying-that-a-peace-agreement-was-impossible

"The office of Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman Tuesday night denied a report quoting him as saying that Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas wrecked a deal to free kidnapped soldier" http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/134343

I couldn't find any news about denial of Shimon Peres's statement by Israeli officials.

3) A book by Yair Auron states that Israeli Foreign Ministry issued a cable to its missions with denial of Peres's statement, but doesn't give any sources or names.

4) On the same page the author says that officials didn't issue a denial to the Turkish news agency and Peres didn't retract his statement.

5) A year after the release of the book, Yair Auron, gives an interview where he reaffirms Peres's statement:

"Shimon Peres, the former foreign minister, before an official visit to Turkey, said that what happened was not a genocide. This was active denial. Until then, we did not say it was a genocide but we did not say it was not a genocide. But then we said it was not a genocide-it was a tragedy, but not a genocide." https://web.archive.org/web/20081223161200/http://www.thinking-east.net/index0c56.html?option=com_content&task=view&id=130&Itemid=56

Boaqua (talk) 17:28, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

You are talking about a statement Peres made a decade and a half ago, and trying to place an enormous block quote in a section that is already too long. IF (big if here) no one can find an Israeli statement denying it (I'm quite busy at the moment), the most that would be reasonable to place on the page would be a short statement like "In 2001, President Peres issued a denial saying the events were a "tragedy" but not "genocide"." and then end. stuff. A statement from a controversial (but likeable in my opinion) dead dude from 16 years ago should not get a block quote, and shouldn't get more than one line. Why not? Because the Israeli stance, both in public opinion and in state position is extremely complicated (Israeli scholarship is less complicated and tends to back the view that it was indeed a genocide, which has been to some degree covered on this page), and yet at the same time the page is not about Israel, so we can't go into full detail because it would take up a very disproportionate amount of space. Just because Jews and some people who later became prominent Israelis were affected by the Holocaust does not make them or their descendants the ultimate arbiters of the validity of Holocaust comparisons, because that will always be subjective. Their views also aren't more relevant than the views of Germans, Georgians, Kurds, Armenians, Turks, etc. On the condition that we can't find an RS that the statement was retracted (it's very possible it was, I haven't looked at it thoroughly yet), I could accept a compromise with a single sentence like the example I gave above. Note that I also can't speak for other people involved in the discussion here like Dr.K and others (who may know more about this specific incident than myself). --Yalens (talk) 18:22, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Nope, wait, the statement was clearly retracted: "After a lot of protests poured into Israeli embassies... Peres claimed (through his officials) to have been misquoted... in the Turkish press." It then said that what Peres actually said was that it should be left to historians not politicians, that Israel doesn't like the Holocaust comparison, that Israel takes no sense and that The minister did not say, as the Turkish news agency alleged, "What happened to the Armenians was a genocide, not a tragedy". As usual, Israel is being complicated. In short, it doesn't belong on the page at all. Even if Auron seems to believe that Peres did in fact say that (which I haven't checked...), this does not change the murkiness. Our choices are to either portray the episode as the murky and complicated incident that it was (rather than cherrypicking), or omit it entirely. Given that making the Israel section larger is massively undue, you know where I stand. --Yalens (talk) 18:33, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Thank you very much Yalens. Your points are very well taken and they reflect my thoughts perfectly. Thank you for saving me the time to type an almost identical response to yours. :) Dr. K. 20:11, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
So you didn't even bother reading what I supplied, answering with "statement was retracted"? Ok. Please provide official/direct source backing that. Boaqua (talk) 20:51, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
He doesn't have to provide anything. Yalens has explained in detail, as have I, why your edit is unacceptable. Now it is time to stop this disruption and walk away from this discussion. Dr. K. 21:45, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
I'll repeat myself:

1) Shimon Peres was an Israeli Foreign Minister and then President of Israel, so when talking about Israeli stance his statements about Armenian genocide are important.

2) There is not one single official source where it is stated that Israel denied Peres's statement.

On the other hand, you couldn't come up with any objective reason why Peres's statement shouldn't added.

Boaqua (talk) 23:29, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

You can repeat yourself as many times as you like. I will not answer any longer, because your refusal to get the point is your problem and not mine. But I remind you of two things: 1. You don't have consensus to add this edit to the article. 2. As noted above, per WP:AA2, if you try to add this to the article without consensus, you will be blocked. Best of luck. Dr. K. 23:42, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
I think that says it all. If you object against my edit but fail to backup your objections with reliable sources, any further discussion is futile. I'm restoring my edit. Boaqua (talk) 04:22, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Make no mistake. As soon as you restore your edit without consensus I will report you for an Arbitration enforcement block and you will be blocked. Read the notice at the top of this page:

Consensus required: All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion). If in doubt, don't make the edit.

Your call. Dr. K. 04:33, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Comparison with Holocaust and Israeli stance

Added viewpoints of Shimon Peres and Bernard Lewis to the relevant section.

Shimon Peres was an Israeli Foreign Minister and then President of Israel, so when talking about Israeli stance his statements about Armenian genocide are important.

Bernard Lewis is a British American historian specializing in Middle Eastern History, so it makes sense to include his comparisons of Armenian genocide with Holocaust as well. Boaqua (talk) 11:00, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Please stop your obtuse disruption. You have not addressed any of my points and you keep edit-warring your disputed material without any justification or any WP:CONSENSUS. Since you ignored my multiple warnings I will report you at WP:3RRN for edit-warring on this Arbcom DS-enforced WP:AA2 article. Dr. K. 11:18, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
All your points were completely baseless. I already explained why. Boaqua (talk) 04:25, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Armenian Genocide denial. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:51, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Wrong reference at section "Talat Pasha telegrams"

Given reference doesn't include such a sentence, and the wording is not correct. The book doesn't include the original copies of telegrams, it is "mentioned" that there are such telegrams sent by Talat Pasha, but anyways this is a claim. So it should be mentioned like: writer-of-the-book "claimed" that.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:EA:273B:B400:D82B:8558:1DF5:7889 (talk) 15:50, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

List of countries banning denial of the Armenian Genocide

VahagnAvedian - The line mentions France, which is incorrect. The French National Assembly did vote for making the denial illegal, but the resolution was challenged in the Constitutional Court which ruled against it. Thus, currently it would be incorrect to say that France has "officially" banned the denial of the Armenian Genocide. As for Swiss, there are no laws explicitly about the Armenian Genocide. However, the legal grounds which e.g. Dogu Perincek was convicted with, was about federal laws regarding genocide denial in general which of course then applies to the Armenian case as well. While the France reference should be deleted, the Swiss mentioning might need explanation. 13:36, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

removal of content deemed "irrelevant"

Hi All, not sure why the below sourced content was recently removed? If it was inappropriate to keep in a certain section, then it could have been removed and placed elsewhere. No valid reason was provided for its complete removal. Seeking some clarification please. Archives908 (talk) 13:51, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Henry Morgenthau Sr. wrote that "When the Turkish authorities gave the orders for these deportations, they were merely giving the death warrant to a whole race; they understood this well, and, in their conversations with me, they made no particular attempt to conceal the fact."[2]

References

  1. ^ [1]
  2. ^ Morgenthau, Henry (1918), Ambassador Morgenthau's Story Archived 1 May 2016 at the Wayback Machine, Garden City, New York: Doubleday, p. 309.

Alexis Demirdjian states that Turkey's genocide denial is "similar to what one would expect of a defendant in the court when confronted with hardly refutable evidence of massive wrongdoing".[1] (t · c) buidhe 23:37, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Doğu Perinçek isn't nationalist

He has a party about maoism and manipulater wiki says 'nationalist'. Ignorants — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.190.20.91 (talk) 13:48, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Mentioning other countries in the lead

Recently, buidhe removed mention of the United States from the lead. When I restored it, they reverted. I think the US position deserves to be given a sentence in the lead. The position of Azerbaijan is already mentioned. The positions of other countries should be mentioned too. The article gives multiple sections to other countries' actions in this regard and the body of the article should be reflected in the lead.VR talk 21:49, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Azerbaijan is mentioned because it *denies* the genocide. The subject of this article is genocide denial. US has never officially denied the genocide. Of the sources I am aware of, there is actually more coverage in scholarly sources of Armenian Genocide denial in Israel (i.e. The Banality of Denial) and Germany (Justifying Genocide and other books) than the US' official position of non-recognition. So I don't see how it's WP:DUE. (t · c) buidhe 22:04, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Overall the lead can't expand too much or it violates MOS:LEAD. I don't think it's possible to fairly summarize Germany's position, over 100 years, in just a few words in the lead, same with Israel, so it's probably best to omit entirely. (t · c) buidhe 22:06, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
I disagree that large portion of the article should be omitted from the lead, especially as it is given some weight in scholarly sources. That goes against MOS:LEAD. The lead also doesn't mention that Armenian genocide denial is illegal in certain countries and that too should be included.VR talk 22:36, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
I disagree; most sources on the genocide denial focus on Turkey, since it is primarily a Turkish problem. The laws are not a major focus of coverage in sources and I do not think it's WP:DUE in the lead. If you have a proposal for adding a sentence on foreign countries in the lead, why not present it here? (t · c) buidhe 22:49, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:25, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Armenian Genocide denial/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs) 18:10, 27 January 2021 (UTC)


I'll get to this shortly--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:10, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Remaining photos are appropriately licensed
  • Link paramilitaries
    • Done
  • AK Party presented "The"
    • Done
  • Down to Denialism in academia, more later. Very impressed thus far.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:44, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Link Bernard Lewis
    • Done
  • Use the abbreviation for the European Court of Human Right at its first appearance. And why are you using the abbreviation ECtHR?
  • According to Azerbaijan, genocide has been "repeatedly committed against the Azerbaijani people", citing events such as the Treaty of Gulistan (1813), the Treaty of Turkmenchay (1828), Baku Commune, January 1990 deployment of Soviet troops to Baku, and especially the 1992 Khojali massacre. However, Armenians never suffered any mistreatment, let alone a genocide. Awkward, I'm not sure what you're trying to do here. That the Azeris believe that they're the victims of genocide, but don't believe that the Armenians have been?
    • The source discusses Azerbaijan state propaganda, without stating whether Azeris believe it. I've reworded hopefully to be more clear. (t · c) buidhe 01:45, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
      • Much better.
  • You have a mix of full and short citation formats in your citation sections. Strongly recommend that you adopt the short citation format uniformly and move the full bibliographic info to the sources section.
    • I use sfn when there are multiple pages cited in the source, full citations otherwise. It's the format used by Jo-Jo Eumerus in their FA articles, and I think it works best for this article. (t · c) buidhe 01:45, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
      • You don't need to justify it, it's just not my preferred style.
  • Having such extensive quotes in your citations is pretty unusual in my experience, but I think it works quite well here.
  • You've used both sentence and title cases in your cites and sources. Pick one or the other and be consistent across all English-language titles and subtitles for both articles and books. Your eyes will start to glaze over while doing this, if you're like me, so make a couple passes to try and catch all of them.
    • Done
      • Missed Della Morte, Tatz, and #305 in the citations
  • Pity to read about Lowry and Erickson; Lowry's quite good about the early Ottoman period and I have several of the latter's books about the Ottoman Army, but haven't gotten around to reading them yet. I'll be curious to see how he deals with Enver Pasha's failed offensive.
  • This is a serious piece of scholarship and you've done a magnificent job. Bravo!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:57, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

First sentence is ambiguous

The first sentence can now be read to mean there was wide support for the idea that the Ottoman Armenians were not victims of a genocide. Maybe replace 'as' with 'a crime'? Or find another way to make the sentence easier with fewer commas. (Impressive and important work btw!) Femke Nijsse (talk) 21:30, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Now done, thanks! (t · c) buidhe 21:44, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by SL93 (talk) 13:16, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

(
)
The Iğdır Genocide Memorial and Museum promotes the view that Armenians committed genocide against Turks, rather than vice versa.
The Iğdır Genocide Memorial and Museum promotes the view that Armenians committed genocide against Turks, rather than vice versa.
  • ... that the central argument of Armenian Genocide denial (pictured) has been summarized as "There was no genocide, and the Armenians were to blame for it"?[3]
    • ALT1:... that one reason why Armenian Genocide denial (pictured) is still the official view of the Turkish state is that "it’s not easy for a nation to call its founding fathers murderers and thieves"?[4]
    • ALT2:... that according to historian Donald Bloxham, Armenian Genocide denial (pictured) "actually enunciates an ongoing if latent threat of Turkish 'revenge'"? Source: Bloxham 2005, p. 234.
    • ALT3:... that among the claims of Armenian Genocide denial (pictured) is that Armenians committed a genocide against Turks rather than vice versa? Source: Gürpınar 2016, p. 234.
    • ALT4:... that all major political parties in Turkey except the Peoples' Democratic Party support Armenian Genocide denial (pictured)? Source: Galip 2020, pp. 87, 163.
    • ALT5:... that Armenian Genocide denial (pictured) is based on the belief that the Armenian Genocide was a legitimate state action? Source: Akçam 2012, p. 451.
    • ALT6:... that based on the antisemitic idea of a global Jewish conspiracy, the Turkish foreign ministry has recruited Jews to promote Armenian Genocide denial (pictured)? Source: Baer 2020, pp. 21, 145.
    • ALT 7: ... that Turkish schoolchildren are taught that the Armenian Genocide never happened (pictured) and instead, Armenians committed genocide against Turks? Dixon 2010b, p. 104.

Improved to Good Article status by Buidhe (talk). Self-nominated at 03:53, 12 February 2021 (UTC).

  • This article is a newly promoted GA and meets the newness and length criteria. The image is in the public domain but the caption is rather long, and I suggest the image should not be used. The hook facts are cited inline and any of the hooks could be used, the article is neutral as far as I can see, and I detected no copyright issues. A QPQ has been done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:48, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Which countries have laws?

Visnelma I searched, and could not find, any reliable source listing which countries have such laws that are currently in effect. There is some news articles about individual countries passing laws, but it tends not to get reported in high-profile international news outlets, meaning that it's not WP:DUE. Furthermore, one researcher (discussing the French law, the only one that has received significant coverage—although not currently in effect) points out that such laws are mostly symbolic and should be considered an enhanced form of Armenian genocide recognition, making them somewhat out of scope for this page.[5] (t · c) buidhe 22:55, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

@Buidhe: Thanks for your efforts.--Visnelma (talk) 00:48, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
Maybe a map depicting legality of the denialism by country could help if it existed.--Visnelma (talk) 00:53, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Visnelma, I noticed you added a bunch of "which" tags to the article. I agree that it's often best to be specific about what we're talking about, but in these cases that you've picked out naming specific entities is not necessarily possible or appropriate.

  • some[which?] Turkish citizens who acknowledge the genocide have faced prosecution for "insulting Turkishness" The names of citizens who have been prosecuted is definitely WP:UNDUE in the lead of the article.
  • some[which?] Muslims, who had previously felt ashamed over the crimes against Armenians, changed their mind in response to propaganda about Armenian atrocities This is about a general attitude held by many, not a specific opinion of certain individuals (who are not named in the source)
  • Some[which?] textbooks admit that deportations occurred and Armenians died, I am not sure what is expected here, the names of particular (non-notable) textbooks, which are anyway not mentioned in the source?
  • Some[which?] admit that massacres occurred but blame them on Armenian treachery Again, this is about a general attitude held by many, not a specific opinion of certain individuals (who are not named in the source)

(t · c) buidhe 21:24, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Secondary reference needed?

In the section Foreign Relations of Turkey under United Kingdom, the sentence "Although FCO representatives have not used this argument since 2009, the Turkish government highlights it on its website as if it represents the current position of the British government" cites "Armenia and the G-word: The Law and the Politics".

Two things: One, is it possible to cite the Turkish government website referred to? If it can't be found/cited, it would then make the statement technically incorrect or at least outdated. Two, "the Turkish government highlights it on its website as if it represents the current position of the British government". The use of the words "as if" implies that the Turkish government are incorrectly citing this as the British government's current stance on the issue. However, the article makes no mention of the British government's current stance on the genocide. I would like for information to be added that shows the British government's current stance or at least an example of a more recent discussion of the genocide.

Edit: Is this the website mentioned http://www.mfa.gov.tr/official-position-of-the-british-government-on-armenian-allegations.en.mfa ?

KieranStanley (talk) 05:43, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

  • I've removed the second part of the sentence; the fact that it's highlighted on the website is confirmed by that source—I agree that it looks like the right website—but it could possibly be read in other ways than Robertson did. (t · c) buidhe 06:55, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
  • On second thought I deleted the entire sentence, as I don't think it's necessary. (t · c) buidhe 06:57, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

ASALA and JCAG

@Buidhe:, i would like to indicate that the Armenian Secret Army for the Liberation of Armenia was designated as a terrorist group by the United States Department of State, while the Justice Commandos of the Armenian Genocide were not and are generally considered a militant group (supported by consensus and half a dozen references on that article) is there any way to indicate the difference without messing the paragraph? Because per the current revision both are described as terrorists. - Kevo327 (talk) 23:58, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Kevo327, Thanks for your comment. As Wikipedia is an international encyclopedia, the US government's views isn't what we focus on for determining what is a terrorist group, rather the use in reliable sources is more determinative and various scholarly sources do consider JCAG a terrorist group, for example[6][7] However, on reflection WP:TERRORIST is a word that's discouraged as it's a value-laden label, so I've changed to "militant". (t · c) buidhe 00:09, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Talat is not regarded as a "hero" in Turkey

The article claims that Talat Pasha is regarded as a hero in Turkey, which is subjective, let alone largely incorrect. Ataturk himself disapproved of Talat and Enver, barring them from entering the country, while the Turkish populous sees them as responsible for the loss of WW1 and deaths of many citizens of the Empire as mentioned in several other Wikipedia articles. The transferring of his remains to Turkey for burial does not give any insight about the popular view of him. Furthermore, I cannot find any schools, mosques, etc with a name referencing Talat or Enver. I suggest the claim be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Borab00 (talk • contribs) 00:50, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

  • The current text is abundantly supported by reliable sources. I appreciate your personal insight, but Wikipedia is not based on personal insights but reliable sources. It's true that not all Turkish people have the same opinion on Talat (or anything else) but the article says no such thing. In fact, Kieser says elsewhere that Talat also has detractors in Turkey, for the reasons you state, but that's not particularly relevant to this article. (t · c) buidhe 18:22, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

What reliable sources? I can say that claiming Kieser to be a reliable source is also a personal insight. I cannot find any schools, mosques, etc with a name referencing Talat or Enver contrary to this guy's claim. Let's say there were though; how would that show that he is a hero in Turkey? Maybe you could say he is not looked down upon in Turkey (which is still a bold claim to make just based on the fact that there are a few schools/roads named for him) but claiming that he is a hero is absurd. If we can freely use Keiser as a "reliable" source (even though his evidence here is very shabby), why don't we fill Wikipedia articles with words from Justin McCarthy, who holds his alma matter from UCLA? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Borab00 (talk • contribs) 00:10, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Does his burial at the Monument of Liberty, Istanbul give you a hint?Paradise Chronicle (talk) 01:29, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

As I said earlier, the transferring of his remains to Turkey for burial does not give any insight about the popular view of him. First of all, the monument is notable for commemorating the failure of the 1909 Ottoman countercoup, not Talat pasha in specific. We also have statues of Andrew Jackson (who did the trail of tears) and Thomas Jefferson (notorious owner of slaves) in the United States while I don't see Wikipedia calling him a "national hero". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Borab00 (talk • contribs) 00:10, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Then just read this. It's a JSTOR article, and JSTOR is free to join. It is about the funeral of Talaat in Turkey, to which representatives of President Inönü and prime minister Sükrü Saracoglu as well as the German embassy also attended and the opinions of some journalists are also addressed in the article. Most celebrating his return as well his personal role in the Ottoman Empire. Besides, the article here is really well cited.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 06:44, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Any evidence that 'most' people celebrated his return? Even if Inonu and Saracoglu attended his funeral, that doesn't make him a hero. After all, Donald Trump hung a portrait of Andrew Jackson next to his desk in the White House, yet nobody would agree that Andrew Jackson is a "hero" in the USA. Borab00 (talk) 19:02, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

For someone to be considered as a national hero, that person has to be liked by the majority of the country's population. This simply isn't the case for Turkey. Many people don't even know who he is. He was a statesman and had important contributions to the Turkish-German alliance at WW1, thus statesmen of the time attended to his funeral. I couldn't see the point of discussing this, and insisting on citing a very unreliable source as evidence.Aloisnebegn (talk) 00:31, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Problematic sentence on anti-Turkish sentiment

I find the sentence on genocide denial being grounds for anti-Turkish sentiment in the West in the "consequences" section very problematic. The sentence currently reads "The persistent denial of the genocide is one reason why many people, especially in Western Europe, have a negative view of Turkish people." and is referenced to Fatma Müge Göçek's Denial of Violence. This is quite an extraordinary statement to make and it requires WP:EXTRAORDINARY sources, as it borders on almost justifying a xenophobic attitude towards Turkish migrants with this particular Turkish state policy. Upon reading the whole section from the cited text, I don't think that Göçek's work appropriately supports this sentence as: 1) Göçek is merely offering her personal insight on this, and as such nothing more than anecdotal evidence. 2) This is a testable hypothesis that would merit its own place in an empirical/theoretical study of the roots of anti-Turkish sentiment in Western Europe. Not only is Göçek not testing this statement empirically, she is not even theorising on this statement, or even expanding on this statement at all. In fact, this is nothing more than a passing comment in her introduction, which happens to have been unduly incorporated into this article. 3) This would be a statement that is best studied within the field of migration studies and Göçek does not have the sort of authority or past research profile in this field that could -maybe- justify us taking her passing comment as an authoritative source. As such, I am removing this sentence, and I don't think it should be reinstated unless reliable sources that go beyond anecdotal evidence and speculation can be used to back this up. --GGT (talk) 11:08, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

GGT, If you read the article, you would find that it is not just a Turkish state policy but also endorsed by most Turkish citizens. I am puzzled why you think it would be justifying this attitude. It's widely recognized that the Iraq War caused anti-Americanism to increase and that conflicts in the Middle East trigger hostility towards Israeli Jews that often spills over into outright antisemitism. So, I don't find this to be an extraordinary claim, but, I agree that this does not justify prejudice against any ethnic group.
I'm not sure how it could be studied empirically, and most of this article is not based on statistical research anyway. I did however think it was an interesting insight, which is why I included it in the article. Perhaps it could be attributed, something like as "According to Göçek, Armenian genocide denial is one factor in anti-Turkish sentiment, especially in Western Europe?" (t · c) buidhe 12:18, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
Please do allow me to express my thoughts without making presumptions regarding whether I've read the article.
I don't think that the link between the Iraq War and anti-Americanism is a useful parallel here. The power dynamics and the social context are not comparable with the experience of Turkish migrants in Western countries in this instance. That is besides the point anyway, as you mentioned, both of those phenomena are well-documented. This one, on the other hand, is not.
Per WP:EXTRAORDINARY, it is an "apparently important claim not covered by multiple mainstream sources", an immediate red flag. The question of the integration of and discrimination against Turkish migrants in Western Europe has been extensively studied (a relevant manuscript, recent literature is increasingly evaluating this with a critical race theory perspective, e.g. [8] [9]) and as far as I'm aware, genocide denialism hasn't really been a part of that discussion. Göçek's observation is nothing more than a personal remark based on anecdotal evidence. She has not studied anti-Turkish sentiment in Western Europe to reach this conclusion, she does not even elaborate on her observation in the text. People who have formally studied anti-Turkish sentiment in Western Europe do not appear to have discussed this as a factor, perhaps with the exception of some politicians of Turkish descent that had been inclined towards denialist rhetoric (do correct me if I'm missing out on this). It certainly is an interesting insight, in the sense that it is the sort of insight that would make for a very interesting discussion in the pub, but it is not an insight with any encyclopaedic value.
--GGT (talk) 14:52, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I think you've made a good call in removing this sentence. There's no way a general causal statement like that can be supported by an informal personal observation. MartinPoulter (talk) 15:47, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
I agree with GGT and MartinPoulter--Visnelma (talk) 22:35, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
While I admire the work Buidhe has been doing in this topic area, I agree with GGT. The statement that genocide denial is a significant cause of anti-Turkish sentiment as experienced by people of Turkish origin or even descent in other countries -- many of whom absolutely do not deny the genocide but rather publicize it -- is really wanting of the support that would be necessary for it to have a place on the page. Frankly, coming from a Jewish perspective, a possibly more accurate comparison than Iraq could be the use of criticisms of Israeli government policy, which is supported by some but certainly not all in Israel and the same outside of it, to justify antisemitism as inflicted upon diaspora Jews. The comparison does not concern any past or present action by either national government, but instead the experiences of the victims of the bigotry; in the case of Iraq and Americans, there is not (to my knowledge at least) any systematic prejudice with measurable effects against Americans abroad. --Calthinus (talk) 03:29, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Elenazadoyan.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 14:43, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 April 2021

Change Sumagit to Sumgait in Consequences>International relations. Spelling error is repeated twice. 37.162.184.78 (talk) 06:39, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

 Done. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 07:51, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Armenian Genocide which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 20:00, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

  1. ^ Demirdjian 2018, pp. 24–25.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Armenian_genocide_denial/Archive_4&oldid=1241315550"