Talk:Armenian genocide denial

Reasons for denial

Re this edit, and the question in the edit reason. 6 sources are given for that text - all of them support that "The genocide enabled the establishment of a Turkish nation-state", ie a largely ethnically based state. They pretty consistently describe the genocide (and sometimes related events such as the killing of Greeks or other Christian minorites) as key enabling events. Only one of the 6 says that the 'key event status' is a primary motive for denial: “We are of the firm opinion, … that the single most important reason for this inability to accept culpability is the centrality of the Armenian massacres for the formation of the Turkish nation-state … any move toward acknowledging culpability will put the very foundations of the Turkish nation-state at risk ”.

That was the reason for my edit - though I am happy to admit that I don't have detailed knowledge either of the genocide, nor its denial, nor the sources. It simply seemed a clearer summary of the 6 sources and I'm not wholly persuaded that I was wrong. Pincrete (talk) 18:30, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

"Founding myth"

Archives908 and Buidhe have recently restored the following sentence to the lead [1]: "Recognition would contradict Turkey's founding myths." While there is a citation at the end of that sentence, none of it discusses a founding "myth", and it would seem strange to use that term here in this type of context. False information, "foundational crime", "genocide denial" and similar concepts have a relation to the concept of a "founding myth", but they are not the same, and I am not able to find any sources that talk about genocide denial as part of the "founding myth" of Turkey or even explaining what that would mean. There are some sources that use the phrase in relation to old myths, such as Ergenekon, and some more metaphorical use relating to the 2016 coup that I found. While Archives908 left no edit summary, Buidhe said in their edit summary that the use of the phrase was "entirely sourced". Could someone please point out where they are seeing the support for this in the sourcing? The material quoted in the current citation seems to clearly support the immediately preceding, currently unsourced sentence: One of the most important reasons for this denial is that the genocide enabled the establishment of a Turkish nation-state. However, I am not seeing where the support for the use of the phrase "founding myth" comes from, or how that sentence adds anything useful to the preceding sentence, especially since it is not discussed or even used anywhere else in the article (which is also a problem because everything in the lead is supposed to be repeated in the main body of the article as well). Indeed, Buidhe was actually the one to insert the phrase into the lead in January 2021 [2], after previously inserting it into the body [3] [4]. I also was not able to find the use of the phrase "founding myth" in the sources cited for those edits. I think it would be appropriate for Buidhe to revert their change until consensus is reached on the talk page, as per the additional Arbirtation Committee rules for editing the page, especially since its content the was added directly by them in the past. In any case, there needs to be support for the actual term "founding myth", or else this seems to be WP:OR. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 02:42, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm convinced that the meaning of the addition is supported by the article and the cited sources. For example see Gürpınar 2013, p. 420. "...the official narrative on the Armenian massacres constituted one of the principal pillars of the regime of truth of the Turkish state. Culpability for these massacres would incur enormous moral liability; tarnish the self-styled claim to national innocence, benevolence and self-reputation of the Turkish state and the Turkish people; and blemish the course of Turkish history. Apparently, this would also be tantamount to casting doubt on the credibility of the foundational axioms of Kemalism and the Turkish nation-state." This is already quoted in the footnotes, so I'm not sure why you think there is OR. Please feel free to propose a different word choice if you think there is another word that summarizes the sources better. (t · c) buidhe 02:59, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

I think the material better summarized in the preceding sentence, but honestly this is not a big deal, and you wrote so much of the article and improved it a lot. I don't object to the content anymore, and I apologize for wasting your time. Thanks for the work you have done. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 04:41, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Is Turkey the only state to deny genocide?

I deleted that part because that's obviously not true, but that was reverted and I was told to start a discussion. 31.223.65.10 (talk) 07:35, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

It is the state that spends the most time and effort denying genocide. (t · c) buidhe 07:38, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

>"The century-long effort by the Turkish state to deny the genocide sets it apart from other cases of genocide in history."

It doesn't say that Turkey is the only state. ~~lol1VNIO (I made a mistake? talk to me) 10:20, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Also Azerbaijan? 149.20.252.132 (talk) 12:24, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

There's no source for Azerbaijan, you're welcome to find one if it has actually denied it for a century? Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 13:08, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

There are numerous sources for Azerbaijan's denial of the genocide in this article (look in the "International relations" paragraph). Black Kite (talk) 13:14, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

I said they haven't denied it for a whole century, not that they never denied it. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 06:59, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

What is with Pakistan? It is not mentioned at all; meanwhile the sister article Armenian genocide recognition lists it along Turkey and Azerbaijan from a position in 2021. ...GELongstreet (talk) 18:32, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

'besides'

in the 2nd paragraph of 'denialism in academia' a sentence includes '...none of the original signitories besides Justin Mcarthy...'. would that read better if 'besides' were replaced with 'except'? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Potholehotline (talk • contribs) 21:22, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

"Besides" is grammatically correct, but I'll let others weigh in on whether "except" reads better. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:44, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

"Deny the Armenain genocide" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Deny the Armenain genocide has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 January 4 § Deny the Armenain genocide until a consensus is reached. — kashmīrī ^TALK 11:37, 4 January 2024 (UTC)