Talk:Armenian genocide denial/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

This Article is Bull SHT

changing the holocaust denier as (so called) armenian genocide denier is just ridiculous . there is nothing similar between the two and many scholars still debate if there was a genocide or not. Malta trials shows that there was no armenia genocide but nuremberg trials proves that there was genocide of jews . this article is total BS

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

I would second this. The whole article is almost unreadable. It's a complete basket case. It would be great if someone knowledgeable and reasonably impartial could organise and edit it into some kind of coherent shape.Max sang (talk) 11:58, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Note: Perincek vs Switzerland Trials at European Court of Human Rights clearly tells: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/pages/search.aspx?i=001-139724

Also "Dashnak Party Has Nothing to Do" by Hovhannes Kachaznuni — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.123.128.176 (talk) 17:14, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Requested move September 2009

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

The result of the proposal was as no consensus to move at this time. I've delinked the move request and merge rfc. After reading the various discussions, I think both sides have valid points. PBS is right that having two articles, one on denial and another on recognition, is a content fork that is both unnecessary as well as renders each article incomplete. However, the other side is valid too. Having one article on the Armenian genocide and another labeled dispute does imply that the genocide itself is disputed (my understanding - mostly from lay knowledge and from reading the discussion - is that it is the recognition that is the focus of dispute not the genocide itself. I suggest that the merge rfc occur independently for the time being - it won't be resolved in a hurry - and that the discussion include a suitable title for a merged article (if there is consensus for a merge). --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 16:48, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Denial of the Armenian Genocide → Armenian genocide dispute — I suggest that we follow the lead of the BBC and move this article to Armenian genocide dispute and merge into it the article called recognition of the Armenian Genocide PBS (talk) 10:10, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

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

Move to "Armenian genocide dispute" and merge in "recognition of the Armenian Genocide"

To remove the POV fork, I suggest that we follow the lead of the BBC and move this article to Armenian genocide dispute and merge into it the article called recognition of the Armenian Genocide PBS (talk) 19:06, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

At the moment there are three articles. One which concentrates on the events themselves and is called the Armenian Genocide and two more articles called recognition of the Armenian Genocide (RAG) and the other was called denial of the Armenian Genocide (DAG). I my opinion the two article construct of recognition and denial are a clear example of a point of view (POV) fork:

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

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

For example the BBC article, mentioned in this article called "Q&A: Armenian genocide dispute", makes the point that "The UK, US and Israel are among those that use different terminology to describe the events." yet there is no mention of this in this article and the UK's position is mentioned in one sentence in the RAG article. In 2001 the BBC reported that the British government's position is "The Foreign Office accepts that the massacres [of Armenian civilians] took place, but insists that they do not qualify as genocide." This position does not deny that the events took place but it does deny that the events constituted a genocide because the intent to destroy a group requirement of the Genocide Convention has not been proven. The British Government may or may not be correct, but the current content forking of these two article makes it difficult to present all views in a WP:NPOV.

As this covers more than one process I am going to advertise it in several places. -- PBS (talk) 10:10, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

See also Talk:Denial of the Armenian Genocide/Archive 2#RFC: Merge "recognition of the Armenian Genocide" into this article --PBS (talk) 10:10, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

To the closing administrator. Please look at the arguments carefully and decide the issue on policy and guidelines not by counting the number of opinions expressed here. --PBS (talk) 10:10, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

The closing administrator must also look very carefully at Talk:Denial_of_the_Armenian_Genocide/Archive_1#Requested_move (in which it was proposed that the article title be changed from "Denial of the Armenian Genocide" to "Rejection of the Armenian Genocide") and Talk:Denial_of_the_Armenian_Genocide/Archive_1#Second_requested_move (in which it was proposed that the article title be changed from "Denial of the Armenian Genocide" to "Denial of the Armenian Genocide Allegations").
The closing administrator should also consider the discussions at Talk:Denial_of_the_Armenian_Genocide/Archive_2#Reversal_by_Gazifikator, and at Talk:Denial_of_the_Armenian_Genocide/Archive_2#Moving.2C_redirecting_and_cut-and-pasting.... Those two discussions arose as a result of PBS ignoring policy and guidelines and unilaterally moving the article title to "Armenian genocide dispute". 93.97.143.19 (talk) 20:02, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

93.97.143.19 do you edit under any login id? Which policies and guidelines do you think were were breached. If you are in favour of using the policies and guidelines, does that mean you are in favour of this move? --PBS (talk) 07:26, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

• Support as nominator. --PBS (talk) 10:10, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I know of at least one regular contributor to this article who is temporarily blocked. Should we suspend the RfC until they return? --Goodmorningworld (talk) 10:18, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Others may be on holiday, etc, etc. Who is the regular contributor, and how long have they been blocked for? --PBS (talk) 10:22, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Meowy, 1 month.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 12:25, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I suggest that the closing admin read Talk:Denial of the Armenian Genocide/Archive 2#RFC: Merge "recognition of the Armenian Genocide" into this article as Meowy contributed significantly to the last debate so his/her points of view can be considered. -- PBS (talk) 15:02, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

• Support Definitely a reasonable idea, but a heck of a deal to accomplish. I suggest you guys reserve a special place for your coffeemakers and cans of RedBull^(R). (People who are temporarily blocked must've been blocked for some reason (no?) and being on vacation is an excuse similar to "I ran out of RedBull^(R)"...) Seb az86556 (talk) 12:18, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose Is this some sort of joke? There is no "dispute" about the Armenian Genocide (certainly none among any serious historians) asides from the imaginary one the Republic of Turkey and its cohorts have created. Just because Turkey is still desperately attempting to quash any wider efforts of recognition doesn't mean we have to kowtow their political line as well. This is a completely unacceptable measure to even be proposed and its ill-faith nomination and unabashedly POV name is another low by PBS. Almost 100 years have passed and it's a total copout to pretend that the jury is still out after all this time. The word asinine hardly begins to describes the nature of this proposal.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 18:25, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

What you say may be true, but a reliable source uses this title and there is no getting away from the fact that we have Wikipedia:Content forking policy that says "A content fork is usually an unintentional creation of several separate articles all treating the same subject. A point of view (POV) fork is a content fork deliberately created to avoid neutral point of view guidelines, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. Both content forks and POV forks are undesirable on Wikipedia, as they avoid consensus building and therefore violate one of our most important policies." -- PBS (talk) 20:58, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

The above is a good point to make. Come to think of it, I don't think there's an article "Holocaust dispute"... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 00:56, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

We do not have an article about "recognition of the Holocaust" we only have Holocaust denial. The article Criticism of Holocaust denial, it could be argued should be wound back into the main article but as it is a subsidiary article of Holocaust denial#Examination of claims (see Wikipedia:summary article) and the size of the two articles make that difficult. It could also be argued that Denial of the Armenian Genocide and Recognition of the Armenian Genocide are subsidiary articles of Armenian Genocide, but although they are they could also exist as one article because the main article is structured differently. But it could be also be argued that the current structure of the Armenian Genocide article does not follow the advise in the pro and con lists guideline, placing the two article into one would allow this to be done. If we were to follow the advise of the Wikipedia:summary article then this article (denial) ought to be titled "Republic of Turkey and the Armenian Genocide" --PBS (talk) 09:21, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. I'm tired of these denialist-motivated 'merges'. It is not the first time we're closing a discussion on the same topic. How many times we need to discuss it? Andranikpasha (talk) 14:52, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
• Support This material should all be in the same place. For me, there is no "dispute" but there is a controversy. To me, "dispute" implies that there is a valid denial side, which I don't think exists, but controversy is the activity of those who deny the genocide, whether they are right, or not. Please put all this in the same place. --DThomsen8 (talk) 15:11, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
• Strong, strong, strong Oppose Two points: If an editor suggested changing Holocaust to Holocaust dispute they would be promptly warned and if they persisted, blocked. I feel the same way about those other lesser known genocides. Second point: I can't stand how editors attempt to water down article names to somehow lesson the horrors of the massacres. Several CIA and US military articles come immediately to mind: Torture manuals, the No Gun Ri Korean war incident, and American terrorism. It is like a minor form of holocaust denial when editors do this, in this case, it is a major one. Ikip (talk) 15:38, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
• Strong oppose. "denial of the Armenian Genocide" is an appropriate title for the same reason that "Holocaust denial" is, to summarise: a "point of view" is something based on fact. The Armenian Genocide is considered a fact by almost all of academia; claiming that it never happened is therefore essentially bullshit, and if not bullshit then incredibly unlikely bullshit. We don't include the "the genocide never happened" point of view in our thinking when picking appropriate titles for the same reason that we don't consider the theory that the missing Armenians actually decided to form a human peace-chain around the pacific ocean and were gobbled by sharks; it's bullshit. Ironholds (talk) 09:14, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

There is another position held by the British Government which has held the position since n May 24, 1915, that the events that happened were crimes against humanity. They still hold that position, because in the opinion of successive British governments, the evidence is not sufficiently unequivocal to persuade them that these events should be characterised as genocide under the 1948 UN convention on genocide. This contrasts with the International Association of Genocide Scholars (IAGS) which considers "the mass murder of over a million Armenians in Turkey in 1915 is a case of genocide which conforms to the statutes of the United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide." Since the IAGS there has been considerable advance in the legal understanding of what a genocide is, and an important part of that is the intent of the perpetrators (see the Bosnian Genocide article for details of these developments. Now it may be that there is enough evidence to conclude that it was a genocide, and that successive British Governments are wrong, but it is not up to us to make that judgment call it is up to us to present the information and all significant points of view in a non biased way. From what you say aboveIronholds, you agree with the IAGS and not with the point of view of the British Government, but can you not see that by having two similar articles with polarized names it is not possible to present the information by comparing and contrast the information (as I have done in this paragraph in a NPOV way), unless the two articles duplicate much of the same information. What we have ended up with are two Wikinfo forked POV articles not one Wikipedia NPOV article. --PBS (talk) 18:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Or, what is more likely, the British government doesn't wish to damage their relations with the Republic of Turkey and instead employs the canard of "insufficient evidence" as an excuse to preserve its economic and military ties, and hence British interests, with it. A simple look at the Armenian Genocide page and its 150 or so citations demolishes the above argument. Perhaps the most damning evidence we can introduce is David Lloyd George's own comments: "It was the actions of the British government that led...worst of all, [to] the Holocaust of 1915. Yet the British Government has failed, and still is failing in addressing their role in these wrongs." Thankfully, historians and scholars have absolutely no obligation toe the line set by politicians, whether they're British MPs, the Prime Minister, or the President of the United States.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 23:10, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Your arguments may well be valid, and I am sure that reliable sources can be found to substantiate such views, but the current structure of having two separate articles, inhibits such points of view being presented in a NOV way. -- PBS (talk) 10:07, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• Note. I do not have a strong opinion on this either way. However, I do not perceive the proposal by PBS to be motivated by a denialist agenda. Goodmorningworld (talk) 15:46, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - Per MarshallBagramyan. Let's call things the way they are. A genocide occurred and the party responsible denies it happened. The only controversy is this. - Fedayee (talk) 04:20, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I notice that your edit history entry for this opinion is "vote" this is not a vote. It is your opinion that a genocide took place and that "the party responsible denies it happened" yet the party responsible no longer exists. Further the British government was not a party to the events (quite the opposite), yet they claim it was not a genocide but a crime against humanity. Do you have any comments to make on the Wikipedia policy issue of POV forks and these two articles? --PBS (talk) 10:06, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Isn't this the third or fourth time Philip has attempted to pull this off? TA-ME (talk) 11:19, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

No. --PBS (talk) 13:25, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

You should take a look at what is considered a reliable source. Political sources are plainly included and it is advised better sources should be used. UK has billions of dollars worth of military contracts with the republic of Turkey. So the British government is more than a party in this case. - Fedayee (talk) 22:51, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

If all that is true, and I am not saying that it is not, then isn't the current structure which is against Wikipedia policy (Wikipedia:Content forking) hindering the development of an article that allows a balanced article with all POVs to be presented? --PBS (talk) 08:49, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

• Support - Wikipedia strives for a neutral point of view, no matter how much we may agree or disagree with the viewpoint. The only reason I would not recommend the same for Holocaust denial is that it, well, is the common term for it. Also, as a side note, I have seen no arguments against the move other than "it happened so we should keep it here" - which is precisely the wrong argument, given the nature of the controversy. Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:05, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
• oppose - The only reason anyone would have for merging these pages is for denialists to group everything together to lessen any difference. I think it is important for quick navigation and clear points of view relating to what you are looking for to be available. But if we lump it all in it becomes harder to find information, and even harder to find the information you are looking for. (Echos Oki) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Echos Oki (talk • contribs) 03:16, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

That is the Wikinfo way, it is not Wikipedia way. The NPOV policy states in section "Article naming:

Sometimes the article title itself may be a source of contention and polarization. This is especially true for descriptive titles that suggest a viewpoint either "for" or "against" any given issue. A neutral article title is very important because it ensures that the article topic is placed in the proper context. Therefore, encyclopedic article titles are expected to exhibit the highest degree of neutrality. The article might cover the same material but with less emotive words, or might cover broader material which helps ensure a neutral view (for example, renaming "Criticisms of drugs" to "Societal views on drugs"). Neutral titles encourage multiple viewpoints and responsible article writing.

--PBS (talk) 13:21, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

The problems with the current structure does not allow articles like this one by Associated Press "Obama Brands Armenian Killings 'Great Atrocities'" (published by ABC April 24, 2009) or this one by Ron Synovitz "Pitfalls Remain As Turkey, Armenia Move Toward Reconciliation" (Radio Free Europe, September 1, 2009)into either of the two articles, which if there was one article would be much easier. -- PBS (talk) 10:34, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

A quote from page 5 of a "press release by the Swiss Federal Department of Foreign Affairs, the Ministry of Foreign of the Republic of Armenia and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Turkey" 31 August 2009:

the sub-commission on the historical dimension to implement a dialogue with the aim to restore mutual confidence between the two nations, including an impartial scientific examination of the historical records and archives to define existing problems and formulate recommendations, in which Armenian , Turkish as well as Swiss and other international experts shall take part.

Here is a follow up article on this with the text of the September 1 initiative "Turkey, Armenia to launch talks on diplomatic ties" , Today's Zaman, Sepember 1 2009. This is again an example of how having two different articles that are a POV fork, it is difficult to structure them in such a way that developments like this are reported and given their proper weight. -- PBS (talk) 10:53, 21 September 2009 (UTC) --PBS (talk) 10:53, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• Support. I agree that this article is a fork, and its title is not in line with NPOV. The issue can be covered in the main article. Grandmaster 05:30, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose. what's not neutral here? Just compare the usage of 'denial' vs 'despute' in academic publications. It is 62 [1] vs 5 ([2] 'voices' from Turkey). Gazifikator (talk) 06:07, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support the merge per proposer. And can we please leave out the ad hominem attacks, such as the suggestion that the proposal is denialist-motivated? I see no validity in the arguments for having a content fork here.  --Lambiam 20:12, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

new suggestion a trimmed version of the "recognition" article should be merged into this one, as its basically a list of countries that have recognized it. alternately, the recognition page could be summarized and linked to as a space saver, instead of just a see also ... on second thought, wow, this article is long - definitely a short summary and link to 'recognition' article. untwirl(talk) 07:26, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose Mainstream opinion is firmly that the genocide happened, and the dispute is only carried onwards due to ideological motivations. Thus, the term "denial" is precise and correct, as evidenced by its common usage in both academic and popular publications. Ray^Talk 13:37, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose Under no circumstances should we disguise politically motivated denial as a legitimate historical debate. I won't allege bad faith, but I will say that this merger is a very, very bad idea. Lampman (talk) 04:58, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
• Strong Support The heading "denial" is stronly biased, pre-supposes that the subject of the very dispute is moot. If there is no dispute, why is there one? I say reduce the number of soap boxes!--Murat (talk) 03:00, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose per Lampman. This is becoming ridiculous; Wikipedia is not beholden to the policies of governments and the media. Academics consistently use the word "denial" to describe the Turkish government's attempts to cover up history. This is hardly a "soap box". We've already voted on this (I'm unsure if PBS has raised this issue in the past) before. Would anyone support an article on Holocaust dispute just because a fringe minority doubt its historical veracity? We should be very careful to not legitimize the Turkish denialist position, which is precisely what PBS's proposal will do if passed. --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 03:36, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

If the Governments of the two largest English speaking governments refused to recognise the Holocaust as a genocide, then your comparison would have some validity. With the current structure we can not easily discuss issues as raised in recent articles such as this and [3] -- PBS (talk) 11:10, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey, is it not better to leave other users to discuss and to not press the same pov to everyone? Your proposal is quite weak, and two largest English speaking governments have completely no relations with it. Gazifikator (talk) 12:06, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support The tone of this article is biased. FallenMorgan (talk) 19:57, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose as per Lampman. American (neutral), German (allied to Turkey) and other contemporary accounts, as well as research since, confirm the events occurred, and that disputing this is indeed 'denial'. --Hayaman 11:05, 3 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hayaman (talk • contribs)

• See my comment above to Ironholds's opinon -- PBS (talk) 10:31, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose Everything that should be said has already been said, and has been said several times. This is just a continuing example of PBS's inability to take "no" for an answer. Meowy 03:06, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

  Meowy, please note that rather more than just PBS have expressed support for merging the two articles! Rather than just attacking another editors opinion, why not address the issues raised, that the two articles are point of view (POV) fork? -- PBS (talk) 10:31, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

  I'd like to agree with Meowy, and express my views on this too. Sorry but there is a great part of demagogy in this repeated nomination, and I have the feeling that it is influenced by denialist view of Turkish government, nothing more... Gazifikator (talk) 11:09, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Why are there continuing votes anyway? This particular issue has been settled for now. We are not voting on a new proposal. The PBS "move this article to Armenian genocide dispute and merge into it the article called recognition of the Armenian Genocide" proposal was made on the 5th september, and ended with a "no consensus to move" result on the 15th September. I am removing the "mergeto" tag from the article because it refers to a proposal that was made, that has been discussed, and that was rejected. PBS reinserted the tag on the 25th September, incorrectly claiming that "The merge discussion is still open with no decision made". The merge discussion is actually closed, and the decision was "no consensus to move". Meowy 23:46, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I think you are confused. This was never a vote it is a discussion on how best to comply with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. To date you have not suggested any solution to this problem. Further from the comment above you seemed to have miss the comment by RegentsPark when he closed the requested move on 15 September 2009 here it is in full:

The result of the [proposed page move] was as no consensus to move at this time. I've delinked the move request and merge rfc. After reading the various discussions, I think both sides have valid points. PBS is right that having two articles, one on denial and another on recognition, is a content fork that is both unnecessary as well as renders each article incomplete. However, the other side is valid too. Having one article on the Armenian genocide and another labeled dispute does imply that the genocide itself is disputed (my understanding - mostly from lay knowledge and from reading the discussion - is that it is the recognition that is the focus of dispute not the genocide itself. I suggest that the merge rfc occur independently for the time being - it won't be resolved in a hurry - and that the discussion include a suitable title for a merged article (if there is consensus for a merge).

There is absolutly no reason why it should not stay open until a consensus is reached. Do you have any constructive suggestions on how we can come to a consensus? -- PBS (talk) 18:16, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Your repeated and neverending attempts to turn this article into what it is not, indicates you are not interested in consensus. Your edits have all but ruined the actual article. The most constructive route is to oppose whatever you propose. Meowy 20:33, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I have worked with PBS on the Greek genocide article and while he can be tenacious at times he is not as some users here have malliciously argued a denialist or partial to either side in this dispute. He has worked dilligently to bring said article to a consensus form and I believe that he will do so here as well. It goes without saying that "opposing what he proposes" for that reason alone is not in the least bit constructive. I will read the above cited discussions carefully before taking a position on the matter however.--Anothroskon (talk) 18:06, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose Why does this have to be considered as an either/or issue? "Recognition and Denials of the Armenian Genocide". Good title? From the encyclopedia's point of view, it makes sense to merge. Content-wise, well... the denials are riDONKulous! Yet, we must cater to ALL readers. Long is the way, and hard, that out of darkness leads up to light. COYW (talk) 03:35, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

• Strong support It's totally based on information. There is no unique content to be seperated. For better understanding, they must be together. See Wikipedia Handbook for strutctural matters. Think about a bioghraphy. We can't write new articles for each section. --Kafkasmurat (talk) 21:53, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

The issue of recognition versus denial

At the core of this article lies the Armenian thesis that the Denial of the Armenian Genocide (which I also dispute the title, because it is itself is biased towards Armenian thesis) is a policy of the Turkish and Azeri goverments with no support from historians, and scholars. Turkey was not a colonised country, thus all her archives were written in Ottoman Turkish. A scholar being an expert on genocide can not be accepted as an authority without being specialised in Turkish history. Do not forget; those who claim it was genocide should find that evidence in the Ottoman archives, no where else. You can prove the cruelty even inhumanity by showing photographs, witnesses and other resources, however the systematic killings to exterminate a nation requires a proof of such order. My point is this article is biased because it totally neglects of the opinions of the historians against the general public opinion that A.G. is a fact, and indisputable. Even talking about scholars who thinks it happened should be in this article, yet alone interestingly even the historian who do not accept it as a genocide are not cited at the core of the article at the beginning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.109.98.30 (talk) 08:11, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

My other point is, logically speaking, if one version of the article suggests there are 21 countries recognising the A.G., it should be added to this article that (195-21=) 174 countries are not recognising it as a genocide, including British government who were the super power of those times.

I would take silence to mean nothing in particular... certainly not "not recognising" as their considered opinion on the matter. Logically speaking here, too. And supported by Venn diagrammes. COYW (talk) 03:42, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Hope this adds value to this article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.109.98.30 (talk) 08:09, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

No it won't. First of all, any advantages Turkish scholars may have in terms of proximity to the sources is greatly outweighed by the fact that there is no freedom of speech in the country, as expressed in Article 301 of the Turkish Penal Code, which makes it illegal to insult Turkey, the Turkish ethnicity, or Turkish government institutions.

Secondly, we never have, and never will allow politicians to dictate content on Wikipedia. WP:RS clearly defines reliable sources as academic sources, not political statements. The genocide denial of the British and other governments is politically motivated, and only differs from that of the Turkish government in degrees. Academically speaking, denial of the Armenian Genocide falls into the same category as denial of evolution, global warming or The Holocaust: while there may be dissenters within the academic community, these are not significant enough to constitute a challenge to the ruling consensus.

Lastly I would like to say – while trying hard not to accuse anyone of bad faith – that those who claim that "both sides have valid points" in this debate are simply naive, and don't quite understand what's at stake here. Lampman (talk) 17:01, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, I had a hard time understanding the relevance of freedom of press in Turkey and the Ottoman archives. For decades, all we heard was that archives should be opened and there we were to find the irrefutable evidence of intent and plan of genocide. Well.. they still have not found it. Ironically Turkey is the only place where this topic can be actually discussed and debated freely. Try discussing this in Armenia! Yes, there are laws in Turkey against insulting symbols of religion and national pride. Many countries have them. Yes, ultra nationalists try to exploit it. Shame on them. At the end though we are left with the fact that there is nothing in the official recorded history that supports any of the genocide claims pushed on the world public for decades. Well, truth is the best cure, is it not? You bet there is a dispute. One can not deny something that is not.--Murat (talk) 04:48, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I do not have time to make an undo fight with people here. If the Armenian government itself accepts to establish a commission to investigate the 1915 events, you should accept that there is some dispute instead of a mere denial. Secondly, if there are 20 or so countries calling it a genocide, it should be noted in the article that 174 other countries do not choose to do so; not only Azerbaijan. Otherwise, this is propaganda and it sounds like these two countries oppose to use the genocide because they are guilty. I can name at least my country, UK that doesn't use the term genocide to call the events. Thirdly, the same POV is neglecting the fact that it is not only Turkish government that deny ? AG, but there are historians who strongly oppose to call it genocide. It would be enough to read the discussion pages and how the concerns of supposedly Turkish people's opinions and references are ignored. I strongly urge my Turkish friends to form a team of people to correct this one-sided propaganda in wiki. Lastly, The genocide scholars are generally not historians, many have backgrounds in international law. European Council report (recognition) is signed by a certain number of people, etc. There are so many flaws in the entire document.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.109.98.30 (talk) 15:04, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Under the circumstances of a blockade that is crippling the Armenian economy, I would not read much into that country's negotiating stance. COYW (talk) 03:48, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me, Murat/Hudavendigar? Tell me if you want to say, that if a person openly calls the Armenian Genocide as such in Turkey (s)he does not receive death-threats and/or get attacked directly like Hrant Dink or Orhan Pamuk or recently Pelin Batu. Now tell me a report like that with a reliable source about such case taking part in Armenia when somebody questioned the issue there. You seem to be using sophism quite well as currently the Turkish state does! The archives have never been opened except for about 7000 documents concerning the issue. Quite a big question how much of it was destroyed during the permanent millitary coups, especially the one of 1980 as well as during Yusuf Halaçoğlu work as the head of the Ottoman Archive Department at the Prime Ministry General Directorate of State Archives. Aregakn (talk) 01:21, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Pelin Batu does not recognize the Armenian genocide. Kavas (talk) 22:24, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Kavas, dear, even if she didn't pronounce it, the problem is not that. The problem is that she received harassment and threats because of whatever she said, and we had editors, tha claim it's sooo damn free and safe to discuss this issue in Turkey. Imagine if she pronounced that word, what would happen? Though I'd love to meet her in person to know myself what she really thinks, you know... Regards, Aregakn (talk) 01:12, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Wow Aregakn, you sound like you have been in Turkey for many years.First of all just because three people got attacked or whatever doesn't allow you to generalise everything about Turkey and its citizens. As a turkish citizen myself, I know a lot of people who says there is a genocide of armenians. And these people are very much alive. I read almost every wiki discussions about this issue and I think that especially some armenians(no offense to other people) are very close-minded. Especially the armenians in america are brainwashed and they don't listen to other side of the event. As a proof to the close-minded armenians I can show you recent Kobe Bryant example. Just because he signed a contract with the Turkish Airlines, people are threating him or protecting him. All I can say is that (again not to everyone) please grow-up and be open-minded. I agree the first commenter's idea. Finally if you want to contribute to wiki, please don't the these issues personal. Its not like you have been to this event — Preceding unsigned comment added by 0Alpha0 (talk • contribs) 16:59, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Move the article

I would like to suggest to move the article (change the title) to Armenian Genocide denial. It projects the whole concept and is much better for search in English. Aregakn (talk) 13:51, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Any interest to discuss or anybody opposing the case? Aregakn (talk) 11:34, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I do not think it should be moved as it is moving for movings sake. It will not make one jot of difference to searches. -- PBS (talk) 07:25, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

It will accord to other similar articles and will give more content in the title. Aregakn (talk) 20:11, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

What other similar articles? I do not understand what "will give more content in the title" means. -- PBS (talk) 21:44, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Look into Holocaust Denial then. Aregakn (talk) 10:24, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

• I agree to the move. It would be correct or both, Recognition ad denial of the Genocide. Hope more will vote. It is not a controversial move to worry about anything more than logical comments agains and I see none. IsmailAhmedov (talk) 17:19, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

PBS yet against? Aregakn (talk) 19:56, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

For nobody to be able to claim the procedure was not correct I'll open the discussion below. Aregakn (talk) 20:29, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

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

The result of the move request was: We seem to have a consensus for a capital G but a lowercase d. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:28, 18 June 2010 (UTC) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:28, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

---

Denial of the Armenian Genocide → Armenian Genocide Denial —

It projects the whole concept and is much better for search in English. It describes the variety of issues connected to the subject better and is more professional for an encyclopedia. Aregakn (talk) 20:36, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

To keep it short: the proposed name is more Easy to find, concise and consistent. Aregakn (talk) 20:57, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose: The current name is clearer that the suggested name as the suggested name does not make it clear the Armenians are victims or perpetrators of a genocide. Further putting the name "Denial" starting with a capital implies this is a proper name instead of a descriptive name. The argument that "better for search in English" is not true if Google is used to do the search on Armenian Genocide Denial the the first url returned is to this article. There is no explanation as to what it is meant to be consistent with. There is no explanation as to why it is "more professional for an encyclopedia". As all moves are disruptive there needs to be a good reason for a move and none has been provided. -- PBS (talk) 22:09, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support: the capital letter of the word "denial" (a typo in this case) is not a reason to oppose. "Armenian Genocide" is an event and "denial" can't be interpeted otherwise, than the denial of it. The phrase "Armenian genocide denial" would be what PBS notes and would be a very bad title for an article that wanted to describe the denial of genocide by Armenians. No reason to oppose in my opinion. It is also more consistent, as I mentioned, with similar content like Holocaust denial. Aregakn (talk) 07:01, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
• Comment The above support is by the the nominator. -- PBS (talk) 22:00, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

• Supprt dont see what the problem is with the move. it can even be a non controversial move. IsmailAhmedov (talk) 05:39, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support Comment, I agree about the ordering of words: this is more concise and does lead directly to the article. However, should it not be Armenian genocide denial, unless there is some legitimate reason why in this case genocide should be capitalized? Further, why should not (for examples) the articles Armenian Genocide, Assyrian Genocide, Srebrenica Genocide, Rwandan Genocide follow the same naming conventions as do Greek genocide, Dersim genocide, and Burundi genocide? I have the same question concerning titles containing the word massacre: Why Parsley Massacre but Rohingya massacre? Perhaps if such topics are considered events and as such are considered proper nouns...but I'd like to see all such titles conform across the board, to a coherently stated convention, whichever convention is supported by either clear policy or robust consensus. I haven't looked hard for it at all, but maybe someone else has: Is there any established WP policy, guideline, or village pump decision on precisely this? Also, is there any way to assess whether a google search on the new name would still lead directly to the newly named Wikipedia article, at first position, following the name change? Is that a relevant standard for assessing the appropriateness of the move? Duff (talk) 04:20, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Good points. PBS was the one to help me understand with his comments why it should be capitalised. I'll explain my vision. In the titles it is a name of an event ("Greek Genocide"), a term and not word-combination (adjective + noun) to mark the belonging of the event. The same way the terms for Cuban Missile Crisis or Caribbean Crisis and not Caribbean crisis with Caribbean as an adjective and crisis as a noun. Or the Berlin Blockade, for another example.

Ad for google search, to my knowledge, there is not such rule or limitation. But it might probably be a concern or desire of the community to have the article the first in the searches. And I am not familiar with any way to test a possible article title-change on google. It might also depend on redirect-articles as google, if searched for "YYY", might be bringing the article under name "XXX", if there an redirect-article "YYY". Don't know for sure but I think it's logical. Aregakn (talk) 12:06, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, but...Is your vision (and PBS's, if I understand correctly) supported by a WP policy, and if so, please point me to that policy. I studied WP:Article titles and WP:Naming conventions#Capitalization to no avail. Where is this 'an event, or series of events, is a proper noun whose terms shall be capitalized' policy, if there is one? Declaring that something is an Event (not to opine in any way that this E/event isn't one) and thus is a proper noun that should be capitalized, could be controversial to some, and might encompass different scopes for different folks, so please explain also, if you can, why (as examples--there are a vast number of 'E/events' that might have this issue) the E/events currently titled (and capitalized like this-->) Greek genocide, Dersim genocide, Burundi genocide, and Rohingya massacre should not be capitalized as you propose for the move to Armenian Genocide denial, if there is a good reason to handle each differently. Staying arbitrarily within the narrow category of death and dying-themed events only, why Moors murders and Soham murders, but Parker-Hulme Murder? (the current examples suggest, somewhat irregularly, that single death is an Event, but multiple death is an event, unless it's a whole lot of death, in which case it's an Event??) What is the WP policy, if there is one, that sets these sorts of boundaries (or not) for E/events of all flavors? Maybe km5 can help Duff (talk) 09:04, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I have stricken my support, above, for the time being, and deferred to a neutral comment, until I understand better the policies that apply. My initial support was hasty and narrowly focused, I now see, having not considered all facets of the issue, of which there are many.

For example, in addition to the questions I posed above, and possibly more importantly, how is this article's existence, titling notwithstanding, not a POV fork (and the recognition article too, the parallel RfM) from the Armenian Genocide article and why should both articles not be redirected to that article (versus renamed) where they might instead be found merged as sections therein? For that matter, why is Holocaust denial mot treated as a POV fork and merged/redirected back in also? There must be some good reasons for this. What are they? Duff (talk) 10:33, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Quite a lot of comments and I don't think it is correct to discuss all in this very move section. I do think that massacres or genocides you noted above should be capitallised. Those are events. A murder is an event, a pogrom is an event, a mass murder (massacre) is an event, a genocide is an event, but an article "Mass murders" is not an event, an article "The genocides of Europe" is not AN event or Sexual disorder is a collective word-combination and a collective article but Hypoactive Sexual Desire Disorder is a name of one disorder. the same way Greek, Assyrian or Armenian Genocides are separate events and not some variety of genocides or something. I don't even thing this was ever discussed. Just all the WP:RSs write it with a capital letter so no doubts. You can have a look in this attachment for instance. I hope this will make it clear. If not, go to the genocide page and go through the references :). Aregakn (talk) 18:32, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I know...too many words [that always happens, thank heaven for other editors. ;)] I wanted to be very clear about the point I intended to have clarified. I get (and agree with) your explanation. I share your view that those events should be capitalized, and that the Manual of Style should specify that clearly if it does not already (I couldn't find it).

However, what of the POV fork matter, because that is a sticky one there?

• Support, as to the order of words and their capitalization like this: Armenian Genocide denial, but with sincere additional reservations concerning the fact that the entire article is a POV fork that ought to be merged and redirected to Armenian Genocide as a section of appropriate weight therein (with a similar order of words and use of capitalization). Duff (talk) 03:03, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support, as it is in line with the manual of style. --km5 (talk) 16:19, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Medz Yeghern

I suggest to create a different article for this topic as it doesnt fit into topic of denial. Andranikpasha (talk) 05:32, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support I'd agree to this because the subtitle contains nothing about the denial. Andranikpasha do you think the new article content can be extended? Aregakn (talk) 22:23, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Improper Synthesis?

This sentence... The denial of the Armenian Genocide is often identified by genocide scholars and historians as a crucial symbolic and ideological process which follows every genocide and which is intended to desensitize and to make possible the emergence of new forms of genocidal violence in the future.

No, I don't think the goal of those deniers of the Armenian Genocide is to make possible genocidal violence. Their "goals" or otherwise motives for denial include Turkish nationalism, a different interpretation of events, anti-Armenian sentiment, a backlash against what some perceive as persecution of Turks (not referring to the Armenian Genocide issue, but to the treatment of Turks in Europe), etc... None of these reasons are legitimate. However, the goal is not to make possible future genocides. That is simply incorrect. --Yalens (talk) 01:24, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support I very much agree with Yalens. This faulty sentence is a perfect summarization of the overall lack of neutrality in this article. No, Turkey is not planning future genocides and denying that the Armenian Massacre was a Genocide in preparation for it. That is absolutely ridiculous. The entire article seems to be intent on persuading readers that the Armenian Massacre was a Genocide rather than informing readers about the debate which is going on about this topic. I feel that an editor with a neutral perspective on this issue needs to go through this article and comb out the bias and attempted persuasion, and make it simply informative. I would also check the neutrality and accuracy of the references which support various questionable statements riddled throughout the article. Just because an author published something somewhere does not mean that he or she did their research, or that they were impartial about their conclusions (case in point, the statement above, and the reference supporting it). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.74.86.161 (talk) 02:50, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide states that "genocide is a crime under international law, contrary to the spirit and aims of the United Nations and condemned by the civilized world", and that the purpose of the convention was "to liberate mankind from such an odious scourge". So the convention's wording makes explicit that the UN believed that the act of punishing those who commit genocide will help make genocide less likely to occur. Obviously the converse is true: the lack of punishment would make genocide more likely to occur. So, in the UN convention, it is clear that the denial of a genocide does make the occurence of further acts of genocide more likely. Would those who disagree also disagree that the purpose of the legal prohibition against murder, and the detection and punishment of murderers, is to prevent future acts of murder - and that the lack of punishment would make murder more common? The only problem with the text is that it states that those doing the denying are doing it specifically to encourage future genocides. That is incorrect. The reasons for the denial and the goal of the deniers could be many and varied, but it is the effect of the denial that encourages genocide in the future. Many who oppose those who deny the Armenian Genocide do it because they hold that the continued denial encourages future genocides.

First: sign your posts (use "--~~~~", in case you didn't know). Secondly, excuse me, but where is your backing for the assertion that "Many who oppose those who deny the Armenian Genocide do it because they hold that the continued denial encourages future genocides."? So, unless I'm misunderstanding you, the main reason they deny it is because they WANT future genocides to happen with their heart and soul or something? I'm sorry, but that is original research at best, simply preposterous at worst. The Turks who deny it deny it because they simply don't believe that it happened, because they love their country and blablabla. Its not because they are plotting another genocide. To assert that they are is simply NPOV speculation. --Yalens (talk) 00:56, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me, but your inability to read my post does not excuse your "NPOV speculation" comment. If you had properly read what I had written, you should have seen that I had said that "the reasons for the denial and the goal of the deniers could be many and varied" - so I am not speculating on any of their reasons. And neither is the article text to which you are objecting! If you had properly looked at that text, you should have realised that it is talking about what "genocide scholars and historians" think, NOT about what the actual deniers of the Armenian Genocide think. So the purpose of the text is to convey what genocide scholars and historians think are the effects of the denial - it is not about the aims of the deniers. It is important to mention what those genocide scholars think are the ongoing effects, because it indicates that the ongoing denial is not just some Turks vs Armenians historical issue. 93.97.143.19 (talk) 20:56, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I read your post. Does the last sentence not say "Many who oppose those who deny the Armenian Genocide do it because they hold that the continued denial encourages future genocides."? Am I interpreting the sentence wrong? Does it not mean that there are people who oppose...... eh, excuse me, sorry, I DID read it wrong, the double neg. screwed me up (I missed that these are the people who oppose the deniers, not the people who oppose the existence of the concept of the Armenian Genocide, i.e. the deniers themselves). In any case, regardless of how I interpreted what you typed, the page says this:

The denial of the Armenian Genocide is often identified by genocide scholars and historians as a crucial symbolic and ideological process which follows every genocide and which is intended to desensitize and to make possible the emergence of new forms of genocidal violence in the future.[7]

I.e. the page is implying that some group of people, who are unspecified because of the ambiguity of English passive verb tense, but whom I assume is the Turkish government, is denying the Genocide because they want to (and I quote) make possible the emergence of new forms of genocidal violence in the future. And that is our topic here, not the opposers of the deniers, but the deniers. --Yalens (talk) 00:57, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for re-reading my words and seeing what they actually meant. And about the signing advice. Yes I too see that there is ambiguity in the current wording, in that it could be seen to be suggesting that the deniers are doing it to encourage genocide, and I did admit earlier that there was a problem with that wording. But it is just a minor problem, a small change could remove it. The article is about the denial of the Armenian Genocide (I did prefer the former title), which would be about all aspects of it, including scholarly opinions about its effects and why the deniers should be opposed, and not just about the goals and positions of the deniers. 93.97.143.19 (talk) 02:09, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, if you can cite the opinions, go ahead; denial of genocide is, after all, the final stage of genocide. But the bolded part of the sentence in the opening of the article has to go (in fact I am taking it off right now). --Yalens (talk) 15:44, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

The introduction sections of articles do not normally need citations - they are meant to summarise what is in the body of the article, and that is where any citations should be. However, I'm not going to make any edits, small or big, to the article. I think it is beyond repair and, after reading through this talk page and looking at who has been edititing the article, I think it will remain that way if it continues to be "owned" by a Wikipedia administrator. 93.97.143.19 (talk) 02:19, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I am talking about putting it in the bulk of the article and citing it there. As for your other comment, honestly, I'm not familiar with this page, though, I can guess at what you mean.--Yalens (talk) 17:42, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Here is a recent source which seems to have some content relevant to the ongoing effects of the denial of the Armenian Genocide: http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,733447,00.html#ref=nlint "In the trilogy, Akhanli deals at length with the question of why violence, torture and despotism are still a reality in Turkey today. The author is convinced that the reasons lie in Turkey's denial and repression of the Armenian genocide." But I don't see where it, or similar relevant content, can be inserted into the article while it remains in its current confused and rambling form, with so much content devoted to a pedantic analysis of the meaning of the term "genocide". 93.97.143.19 (talk) 17:46, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, go ahead, insert any relevant material you can find, but word it in a way that is not POV (i.e. rather than stating as a fact, denial of the Genocide results in so-and-so, say some scholars -cite examples- think so-and-so). I would not, however, use that article, simply because the word "Armenian" appears a grand total of 1 time in it. --Yalens (talk) 21:04, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

First of all, this sentence doesn't make any sense, because the original source text was modified. The original reads: "We must fight denials because the denial of genocide is a crucial symbolic and ideological process which not only follows every genocide after it has taken place, but is a process which is intended to desensitize and make possible the emergence of new forms of genocidal violence to peoples in the future (see Charny, 1992a, 1999)." Now some enthusiasts changed this general statement about genocides into a specific statement about the Armenian genocide. Unfortunately, now it makes no sense: the phrase claims that every genocide is followed by the denial of the Armenian genocide. I would suggest restoring the original form and moving this general statement to Genocide denial (if necessary there; otherwise delete). --Max Shakhray (talk) 10:09, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

The sentence "...denial of genocide is a crucial symbolic and ideological process which not only follows every genocide after it has taken place..." can be proven to be false if just one genocide is not followed up with denial. Where is the denial that the Helmet Massacre of the Tikuna people was a genocide?

The problem is that the claim of genocide does not mean that genocide has taken place and so those who deny the claim are not necessarily denying that a genocide took palace just that the claim is false. If this was not true then the ICJ was guilty of genocide denial in the Bosnian Genocide Case. See the section "Prescriptive and polemic" in the denialism article for a more detailed explanation of why claims of denial by one side in a debate does not mean that a genocide took place, accusing a person of "denial" can be just as much a rhetorical tactic used by proponents of an alleged genocide as those ticks used by deniers to deny a genocide has occurred. -- PBS (talk) 10:28, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the very insightful comment. As far I can see now, not only the modified statement is false, but also the original statement can be proven false. A good reason to simply remove it from the text. --Max Shakhray (talk) 14:48, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I would (mostly) agree with Shakhray here.--Yalens (talk) 20:44, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Legislation: European Union

1. The atricle claims: "The European Union has ratified a law "banning incitement to or denial of genocide" (both the Holocaust and the Armenian Genocide)."
   The source reads: "The European Union has just ratified a law “banning incitement to or denial of genocide” (arguably including both the Holocaust and the Armenian genocide)." Some enthusiasts removed the word arguably when citing the source.
2. Let's have a look at the law itself.

• Framework decision on combating racism and xenophobia
• Official Press Release

Certain forms of conduct as outlined below, which are committed for a racist or xenophobic purpose, are punishable as criminal offences:
... public condoning, denying or grossly trivialising crimes of genocide ... as defined in the Statute of the International Criminal Court (Articles 6, 7 and 8) and crimes defined in Article 6 of the Charter of the International Military Tribunal, when the conduct is carried out in a manner likely to incite violence or hatred against such a group or a member of such a group.

Example: Somebody publicly claims that an act of genocide, the commission of which has been established as a fact by an international court, never happened and was invented by the ethnic group concerned solely for the purpose of being able to claim compensation payments. This allegation would not only deny the genocide committed against the ethnic group concerned, but would also incite hatred against this group. In the future, all Member States would be compelled to criminalise such a case.

Whether a specific historical crime falls within these definitions must be decided in each concrete case by the court which has jurisdiction. In the case of the Holocaust, for example, this was done by the Nuremberg Tribunal.

As we see, the law is restricted to cases, when:

1. the commission of genocide is established by an international court and
2. the denial is carried out in a manner likely to incite violence or hatred

Is the commission of Armenian genocide established by an international court? --Max Shakhray (talk) 20:46, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

The source is wrong (actually premature as the debate was ongoing in 2007), a compromise was reached that put is at state level not at EU level (See Swastika#European Union and Laws against Holocaust denial#European Union). Here is a quote from a the NYT a source in that LaHd article dated 19 April 2007:

The scope of the law also does not cover other historical events, like the massacre of Armenians during the First World War by Ottoman Turks, which Armenians call a genocide. Instead, the legislation recognized only genocides that fall under the statutes of the International Criminal Court in The Hague, like the mass killing of Jews during World War II and the massacre in Rwanda in 1994.

also the section "Laws against Holocaust denial#European Union" goes on to describe the Frederick Toben case, which shows that the wording of this EU directive has to all intense and purposes changed little and it is local laws Not a European wide decree which decide if denial of a genocide is a crime.

There is also the specific European, ECHR ruling in the Prussian Trust where the ECHR said that "The Court's jurisdiction ratione temporis covers only the period after the date of ratification of the Convention or its Protocols by the respondent State." (Decision as to the admissibility Application no. 47550/06 by Preussische Treuhand GMBH & CO. KG A. A. against Poland, by the European Court of Human Rights, 7 October 2008). Which would appear to close of that legal avenue for proponents of the genocide to pursue.

However there is another piece of international legislation that needs to be considered as well See Additional Protocol to the Convention on Cybercrime and how that involves historical revisionism (negationism).

I would support the removal of this controversial and misleading paragraph. -- PBS (talk) 02:03, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Could you please also comment on the topic directly above this one? --Max Shakhray (talk) 06:06, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Legislation: Belgium

There's been news from 2005 about an initiative in the Belgian Parlament to criminalise the AGD [4]. Has something happenned since then? --Max Shakhray (talk) 13:15, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Legislation: Argentina, Switzerland and Uruguay

The text reads: "have adopted laws that punish genocide denial". Either the word "Armenian" is missing or the phrase belongs to the general article about genocide. --Max Shakhray (talk) 10:50, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Loaded words e.g. "claims"

This article is full to the brim with many loaded words such as "claims" the use of such words and phrases are strongly discouraged by wikipedia as it does not fit in with the encyclopedic context of the website. It does not promote one of wikipedias most important rules which is nuetrality, not only does it not do this, but it also downgrades it. Therefore within one week I shall be removing such words. If anyone objects please state why. Regards, Tugrulirmak (talk) 20:27, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I, for one, object to the statement that "claims" is a biased word. A claim can be true or false, the word itself points neither way necessarily, unless it is paired with certain adjectives. As a fluent speaker of English, I see no stigma or bias in the word whatsoever. (edit: on the other hand, I also see nothing wrong with "states"(the verb), looking at the edit history here)--Yalens (talk) 17:06, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I hold your belief to high regard however the word claims is indeed a rhetoric. It sheds doubt on the credibility of what is said. The word claims ( as well as deny for that matter) fall under the category of synonims for said which do not oblige with wikipedia guidlines. Please see WP:CLAIM. Regards, Tugrulirmak (talk) 17:13, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, you have there a list of some of the most commonly used words on wikipedia (claim, deny, admit, etc.). I don't see anything wrong with changing it to states, though. --Yalens (talk) 17:19, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your understanding. It is up to us, as editors to try to remove these common words. I too; see no problem with inert words.Tugrulirmak (talk) 17:22, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Article has many phrases like "Historians believe"

I belive this is a very broadly encompassing term which should be lessened to some degree. For example, depending upon the subject at hand we may add Some historians belive or most Historians belive. By having it like it is now we create the illusion that all Historians support a given notions when most of the tim, this cleary is not the case.

In addtion to the the subject article should be changed to Dispute. To reasoning behind this offer is that Denial in itself means rejecting the truth. This title serves the Armenian purpose whereas it should reflect the thoughts and beliefs of other parties about the events, parties who do not accept the term genocide and thus cannot be deniers. The title is not nuetral. This also applies to use of Deniers within the body of the article. Regards, Tugrulirmak (talk) 17:04, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Comments like the above can just be simply ignored. It's understandable to have an editor come and offer constructive criticism and offer new viewpoints. But to challenge the very premise of the article on such a disingenuous basis (as, e.g., saying that there is an ongoing "dispute" regarding the Holocaust) is unacceptable. We have numerous sources which say that most reputable scholars believe that a genocide took place. There is an ideological underpinning to many of the editors who seriously try to introduce such changes and thus much of they have to offer is based on a very skewed version of events which they have been brought up with, which explains why they are so surprised to see the "wrong" version represented on Wikipedia.The patience of good faith editors can last only so long.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 04:35, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I would support changing it to "most non-Turkish or Azeri historians" (or non-Turcophile, etc.), as that is really the case nowadays.--Yalens (talk) 16:39, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Saying that there is an ongoing "dispute" regarding the Holocaust is unacceptable since Ahmedinejad's conspiracy theories are universally condemned. However, you have to see historians like Guenter Lewy does not accept the Genocide hypothesis. Moreover, 172 (or 170 I don't know the exact number) countries does not recognize the Genocide. If you read introductory sources other than Wikipedia (like BBC: [5], Citizendium, Britannica), you'll see that they say there is a debate. The only reason why Wikipedian democracy does not say is maybe because most editors here don't want it. Kavas (talk) 20:57, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Content of this page

Dear editors,

This page is titled: Armenian Genocide Denial. It is intended to explain the other side of the argument, which is being heavily debated. So, I would like to invite you to common decency and ask that you please stop trying to make this page a second version of the "Armenian Genocide" page, which already discusses the sources that support the claim. I am trying to put information on this page that discusses what the counterargument is, relying on the principle that both sides should get their fair opportunity to present their arguments. But there is a constant attempt to make this page a support source for the "Armenian Genocide" page. Please respect the principles of civilized discourse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Realityvstruth (talk • contribs) 04:16, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Addition of Lewis opinions

This edit has been attempted to be added multiple times;

Large numbers of Armenians living in Turkey joined Russian forces invading Turkey. They captured the city of Van and held it with the intention of handing it over to the Russians. It was after this that the Ottoman Government decided to deport the Armenians, in an effort to repel the guerrillas.<ref>Bernard Lewis Conference. National Press Club, Washington DC. 3/25/2002</ref>

Aside for the fact that it is the personal opinion of a single historian, Bernard Lewis, it is also open-ended, in that it does not clarify how it is related to the denial of Armenian Genocide. It also speaks in Wikipedia's voice, as if the facts it asserts are undeniable. But these facts are not universally accepted and should be attributed to those who propagate them. I tried to fix this problem but I got reverted by a single-purpose account who so far has only edited this article trying to add this information in one form or another by edit-warring. Opinions of uninvolved editors are welcome. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 21:38, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Adding Bernard Lewis's opinion to the head of a page called, "Armenian Genocide denial" is irrelevant, the article is about denying the Armenian Genocide than a opinion of one person ? It doesn't make sense to leave it there, and he is also criticized for his opinions. I see no reason to keep him in the header, maybe in a section where its more relevant but other than that it has no business in the head paragraph. It kind of pops in and misleads the whole article.Nocturnal781 (talk) 02:08, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm good either way. What I cannot approve of is the disjointed array of facts that pre-existed my copyedit and which did not make clear its connection to the Genocide. I'm sure you can check the history and see what I mean. And unless Lewis is a leading and noted critic of the Genocide, of which I am not sure, I think your suggestion of adding his analysis somewhere else other than the lead is acceptable. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 02:19, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Lewis has credibility regarding his past career, not in genocide studies but in history around the areas of the world. Although later he was criticized for his views on the Armenian Genocide (and tooken to court in France for his views), and I believe he had ties to the Turkish government, but put all things aside, that paragraph really doesn't belong there its a counterargument to the Armenian Genocide. Nocturnal781 (talk) 03:29, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

This being the article for such denial theories, Lewis' theory could go in the lead if it were a leading denial theory. But is it? Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 03:44, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Exactly! Nocturnal781 (talk) 03:56, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

What I take issue with is that this page, and especially the introductory paragraph, is preemptively designed to lead readers to think that the denial of the Armenian Genocide is absurd and is limited to the Turkish government's denial. Even titling this page as "denial" is inappropriate, but I know that issue is being discussed in another talk section. The introduction does not convey the essential counterargument, which is that a portion of the Armenian population revolted and armed themselves against the Ottomans, siding with the invading Russians, and thereby creating an atmosphere of war. This is the crux of the argument and is history, not opinion. But when I try to add this information, I'm first asked by a certain editor to mention the name of the historian who states this (which is similar to asking someone to state the name of the historian who states that the American Revolution was fought against the British). And then, when I do mention the name of the historian, that same editor argues by saying we shouldn't mention the name of that historian. Asking for decency.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Realityvstruth (talk • contribs) 02:47, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Paid by Turks

There is a strong emphasis on this issue. "Who denied the so-called Armenian genocide all are paid by Turks."

I wonder, if this same principle will be applied to the scholars who believe in the so-called Armenian genocide?

• Believers of the so-called Armenian genocide who are Armenian
• Believers of the so-called Armenian genocide who are paid by Armenians

This article is currently using this style: "paid by", "from Ankara", "from Turkey", "members of the Institute of Turkish Studies"... These expressions are used for people who reports that there was no genocide to label them. Opinions of scholars who reports that there was no genocide are labeled.

What are the labels of scholars who believe in the so-called Armenian genocide? And why are they not mentioned in article for sake of NPOV?--98.196.232.128 (talk) 06:18, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

have you read anything about the Armenian Genocide, first of all?

It is a rhetoric question, though Aregakn (talk) 13:20, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

You are talking rationality on a topic which on Wikipedia has been infiltrated by a large group of editors who do not accept sourced views of the other side of the matter. Rationality is not accepted, you are ought to hate Turks and accept the fact that genocide has happened. Any other view is not accepted on Wikipedia, even if it is sourced, acknowledged by scholarship, and researched. Therefore the emphasis 'Paid by Turks' may be made, and the emphasis 'Paid by Armenians' may not be made. It is not what many people want to hear, but it is the factual situation as it is currently. --Behzat (talk) 21:23, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

RfC

BAn RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 16:25, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Turkish psychology

I reverted this edit, and I thought I should leave a note here as to why. Times (can I call you that as an abbrevation?) says in his edit summary that the material is "pro-Ottomon propaganda". As the person who originally added it, I would say that it absolutely is not. Personally, I recognize the genocide. In a discussion about the denial of the genocide, I think its important for readers to understand the underlying reasons why Turks can't accept what their ancestors did. One of the major underlying reasons seems to be that the Turkish view of the late 19th and early 20th centuries is one of tragedy and victimhood (after all, their empire was broken apart, millions of Turks died and many more were deported to modern day Turkey from areas now outside Turkey's borders). This all leads to a response of "but we are the victims here", and I think it's helpful to understand this dynamic. It's inclusion in the page is not "pro-Ottomon propaganda"... --Yalens (talk) 16:49, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

But it's too poorly worded, Yalens. I think there is great room for improvement in this article to explicate the Turkish position but the information Times (if I may address him that way, as well) removed and which I have largely rewritten or removed sounds like it's arguing for a position. It cites Misha Glenny's study on the Balkans on the suffering of Muslims during the wars when in fact it should be quoting directly from Turkish government sources and denialist historians. A number of scholars have published articles and books on the denial of the Armenian Genocide and outlined common themes and traced their formation and evolution over time. I barely see any of those sources cited and that is why some false statements are seen to prop up every once in a while (such as the myth that the Turkish government was late in responding to Armenian calls for recognition - when a perusal of a work such as Uğur Ümit Üngör's Making of Modern History [2011], chapters 4 and 5, will reveal that the Turkish government worked early on to suppress any mention of the Armenian massacres. If only we had more editors who have these sources at their disposal...--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 20:48, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, of course we can rework it. --Yalens (talk) 21:07, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Faulty sentence in section 1.1.1

The following sentence in the "Genocide convention" section is completely illogical and invalid and should therefore be deleted as falling short of encyclopedic standards: ' The Turkish and some other sources claim that the "intent to destroy," clause in the "Genocide Convention" has not been met, which means even if the "whole or in part" is met without intent it is not genocide.' The second clause in no way follows from the first. Furthermore, the "whole or in part" terminology of the Convention is strictly tied to special (genocidal) intent and cannot be used to refer to some other crime as the author of the sentence seems to think. Diranakir (talk) 02:19, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

"Broader Sense" section

There is no such category of study as "Broad Genocide of Armenians". That title and construct is a complete fiction.  02:54, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Scholars who have different views

One of the first lines is "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." It is essential to note that there are scholars who do NOT share this view, or else it's pure propaganda leaving information out willingly, since many scholars deny it by scholarship. It would be strange to call one scholarship, and the other not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Behzat (talk • contribs) 12:02, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Article already mentions what Mccarthy, Shaw and the others believe in each section of the article. For example under terminology it states what they believe, under casualties, etc. Also weems is not a scholar. Ninetoyadome (talk) 20:47, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

It has been adjusted. The rejection of the Armenian Genocide is supported by scholarship. In no way may this fact be left out, or insinuated that the Armenian Genocide is 100% supported by scholarship. Wikipedia is not for propaganda, both sides of the story should be openly shown. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Behzat (talk • contribs) 20:08, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

"did not occur in the manner or to the extent described by scholarship. " is total propaganda. Many scholars proof the opposite, this should be clarified. I have edited the first lines, please discuss before reverting the edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Behzat (talk • contribs) 21:47, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Perincek Trial

European Court of Human Rights decision is binding in all participatory countries. I think "The denial of the Armenian Genocide is officially outlawed in Switzerland, Cyprus, Slovakia, and Greece." should be removed, because as of two days ago, these countries may not prosecute denier of the Armenian Genocide. Caglarkoca (talk) 22:19, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

This has to be supported by reliable sources. Do you have any? Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 22:48, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I am not a lawyer so I cannot read into the ruling of ECHR. But I have two backing articles. [[6]], explains how ECHR operates. And here is an article of a non-Turkish, non-Swiss and non-Armenian newspaper. Caglarkoca (talk) 10:01, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

They even made a wiki page of its own. Caglarkoca (talk) 10:07, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

No, I meant your statement: these countries may not prosecute denier of the Armenian Genocide. Do you have any reliable sources that state that Switzerland, Cyprus, Slovakia, and Greece will rescind their laws related to AG denial? Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 16:15, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't think you'll find a source that will state that. Firstly, the ECHR decision clearly states that Perincek's denial of the Armenian Genocide did not amount to "hatred or discrimination" as specified in the indictment. Therefore, this does not mean the judgement considers the law itself as fundamentally flawed. It is simply put that the indictment and the spirit of the law in Switzerland do not match with what the court thought actually occurred. Étienne Dolet (talk) 17:46, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that the countries mentioned are going to rescind their AG denial laws just because of the decision by the Swiss court. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 22:13, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Per Etienne, ECHR decided that Perincek's statement is within the freedom of speech. The aforementioned statement word by word is "Let me say to European public opinion from Bern and Lausanne: the allegations of the ‘Armenian genocide’ are an international lie. Can an international lie exist? Yes, once Hitler was the master of such lies; now it’s the imperialists of the USA and EU!..." (page four of the ruling of ECHR). ECHR decisions are binding in the member countries. Countries may keep their AG laws but cannot enforce them. Caglarkoca (talk) 14:23, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Why no one commented here? ECHR decided denying AG is within freedom of speech. It can no longer be outlawed within member countries of ECHR. If no one objects, I will remove that line. Caglarkoca (talk) 15:01, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Why no one commented here? Because the matter is closed. Noone agrees to remove the information from the article and the explanations have been given before. It can no longer be outlawed within member countries of ECHR. As I told you multiple times before please supply reliable sources to support your statement. Until such time as you supply them you cannot remove the information from this article. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 15:12, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I did not do anything in that would be violating IDHT. I attempted to discuss a new information regarding AG denial. I did not edit the article even by one word. I provided wiki page on Perinçek vs Switzerland, and the court ruling, which is the most reliable source in this issue. Also, after providing a new data and did not get any response, everyone assumes they are not challenged. Even then, I did not attempt to change the page without double-checking. You, my friend, with your rude behaviour, clearly violated WP:AGF. I will request administrator attention here. Caglarkoca (talk) 15:49, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Please don't get too excited and please WP:AAGF. Etienne and I have told you multiple times already why the information is not supposed to be removed from this article but you keep insisting that it has to be removed. In any case, don't let me prevent you from seeking help from anyone. Best of luck. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 15:59, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I hope that you read the judgement in full. There's a difference between considering a law "illegal" as opposed to it being considered "inactionable". The court ruling made it clear that such laws can be actionable under certain circumstances. But Perinçek's actions simply did not amount to hate crime or a threat to violence. This means that they indeed are enforceable. That never was questioned in the judgement. Étienne Dolet (talk) 18:22, 21 October 2015 (UTC)