This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

The "m" edit of the article is an interesting compromise, and a practical demonstration of what is needed in the larger picture, i.e., the global conflict between East and West. Thanks go to whomever used it.

Well, I'm confused. What did it do? What is metapedia? -- Zoe

Metapedia is where essays are posted and where Wikipedians discuss Wikipedia. --Anon

Although there's no dispute here yet there seemed to be some on the article this content was moved from ( Holocaust denial) so I assumed the POV template. Vicarious 08:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

There were some weird and unilateral ideas about "so-called" Armenian Genocide. The events called as armenian genocide is a large uprising against Ottoman empire, which caused the death of 350.000 armenians and 400.000 Turks. Also between 1918 and 1922 French supported armenian troops killed over 100.000 people in Antep, southeastern anatolia. Identification of genocide does not include two sided battles. 85.103.34.9 16:05, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah - here we have an example of genocide denial in action - with many of the main components including calling it "so-called" (and it is characterized as "alleged" in the article itself - which is insult to truth enough - and then the (false) depiction of this genoicde as a large uprising against the Ottoman Empire and as a two sided battle (it was no such thing...this would be like denying the Holocaust of WWII because of the presence of Jewish fighters in the armies of the allies - or due to the Warsaw Ghetto uprising etc) and then the (totally unsupportable...[Turkish wartime propoganda sources don't count BTW...]) counter claims that Armenians somehow killed a sunstansial number of Turks...(again this is similar to claims by Holocaust deniers of Jewish sedition and post-war violence against Germans. It is most sad to see such here uncountered. BTW I am going to eliminate alleged in regards to the Armenian Genocide and the related Assyrian and Anatolian Greek genocides. Unless all known/accepted genocides (such as these are) are likewise considered as alleged. -- THOTH 15:47, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

--- A couple of points: 1) Any facts and (especially) figures should have references to allow independent analysis as is the tradition in academia and the Wikipedia project. 2) I would say 'genocide' or 'attempted genocide' could indeed include two (or more) sided battles as the term merely means a deliberate and conscious attempt to eliminate a race or culture (or, generally, a collection of people with some arbitrary properties in common like religion). It doesn't matter if the subjects of (attempted) genocide fought back. If victims become perpetrators both sides are guilty of genocidal behavior. Genocidal behavior is ANY deliberate conscious attempt to eliminate a set of people as described above. The word is unlikely to be applicable to conflicts where the aim is to acquire land or resources. Of course, conflicts usually see a mixture of goals but it's important such technical details don't confuse or obfuscate conclusions as to crimes committed. 124.177.183.166 14:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

This article is giving me an anxiety attack, so flawed in so many ways listing and explaining them will take forever. I'm going to be bold and see what happens if I redirect the article to the source of the fork. 172 | Talk 22:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The Holocaust denial article directs 'Denial of other genocides' here, and it would be silly to have an article direct to itself, just as it would be silly to leave only a short paragraph in that article to describe denial of all the other Genocides that have occurred. True, the article could use a lot of work (sourcing, organizing and formatting), but these are issues and problems that could hardly be solved through deletion and redirection. Your contributions are welcome, of course, assuming they don't involve deleting large blocks of text. The Myotis 02:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

There is an assumption here that any one who disagrees with any person who lables an event a genocide is a genocide denier. What needs to be mentioned is that a genocide denier is a person who denies a genocide when the over-riding academic and world opinion is that an event was a genocide. But the first thing that needs to be done is to find a reliable source (like a dictionary) that lists the phrase -- and there is no such phrase in the OED - otherwise it is a neologism -- Philip Baird Shearer 17:09, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Only supporter of "Pontic" related matter is Greece. So it denied internationally.

Who support,Who deny the "Assyrian" related matter.?

Please calm. regards Mustafa Akalp ^TC 17:11, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

See Pontic Greek Genocide#Recognition. Also, this is to do with people's claims - the article mentions "alleged" genocides.-- Tekleni 17:13, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

First genocide in 20th century is the Bulgarian genocide - greeks killing or assimilating bulgarian people in Aegean Macedonia.

I think this is an overall good article. However, the article currently reads:

The Bosnian Genocide by Bosnian Serbs is still denied by most Serbs and others although it has gained acceptance at the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) through the court case entitled Prosecutor vs. Krstic (see Srebrenica Massacre).

Some comments on this:

• It is incorrect to state that the term Bosnian Genocide has gained acceptance due to the ruling of the ICTY when the ICTY judgement only labelled the Srebrenica massacre as an "Act of Genocide".
• Applying the label "Genocide" to the entire Bosnian War, which is what is usually meant when using the term Bosnian Genocide, is an example of the propaganda use of the term (referred to in the articles intro).

It might sound cynical but "Genocide" has become on of the most coveted labels in the present culture of victimhood in international politics. With it you can call all opponents "Genocide deniers", with all of the sinister connotations that go with that (a bit like the term "Nazi" of "Fascist" used to be used). KarlXII 15:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted a revert back to include the Genocide & Denialism categories added by an anon user. These categories appear to be valid for this article, so per WP:AGF I reverted the change. If someone disagrees, we can discuss it here before further reverts. -- Kesh 01:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I believe this edit is both more neutral and worded better (with the exception of replacing "many" with "some"). The portion contained in KarlXII's parenthesis is better left to the actual Srebrenica Massacre article. Before this becomes a revert war, I think it needs to be discussed here. -- Kesh 21:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

This article might benefit from being re-named, something like 'Disputed Genocides'. -- Apeloverage 09:45, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. The article is about confirmed genocides which some people refuse to believe occurred. There is little dispute that any of the cited killing occurred on massive scales, yet some people do not want to accept it. Denial is an appropriate term. -- Kesh 16:51, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

As with most controvertial issues either way will offend some people, but I agree with kesh on this issue. I think of the holocaust as the protype for this article and I think renaming holocaust denial to the holocaust dispute would be more controversial. I could imagine a possible need for an article named 'Disputed Genocides' but I don't think it would have the same content as this page. Vicarious 05:26, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I've put a 'citation needed' on the accusations re Noam Chomsky. If a reference isn't provided in a reasonable time, I intend to edit this section so that these are presented as accusations against Chomsky, rather than as established facts about him, which is how it reads now. -- Apeloverage 13:36, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I've added a citation for Chomsky's claims of media bias and influence over the Khmer Rouge genocide. However, I could not find anything to indicate he admits the events were genocide as of yet, so that line still needs a citation. -- Kesh 17:32, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

As a further note, that particular line does point the user to the Criticism of Noam Chomsky article, which goes further in-depth on the matter than this article would. The line regarding his admission of genocide should be cited or removed, but the link to the Critcism article should stay in for further reading, should anyone desire. -- Kesh 17:36, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

As I said above, I've removed the claim that wasn't cited, and left in the two that were. I've left the link to 'Criticism of Noam Chomsky' as you suggested. I've also added a link to some articles that claim that he didn't say what he's accused of saying. -- Apeloverage 04:59, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted the section added about the bombings of Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Dresden. As the very first sentence of the article states, this article is about "...when an otherwise accepted act of genocide is met with attempts to deny the occurance and minimize the scale or death toll." Given the worldwide debates over the use of nuclear weapons in Japan and the firebombing of Dresden, combined with the fact that these acts were not conducted to decimate a group or race purely on the grounds of their race (see Genocide article), it does not seem relevant to this article. Further, the paragraph itself was not neutral as written.

I know this is going to be a contentious issue for people, so I want to proceed carefully with this one. If someone can provide a citation for claiming these acts as genocide, I'm willing to work with them to add it in the article. -- Kesh 14:44, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Many of the acts cited here weren't based on race, for example those of the Khmer Rouge, Stalin, and even a lot of the Nazis (eg the persecution of left-wingers and homosexuals). -- Apeloverage 17:16, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

My comments regarding race were because those acts could only be construed as genocide if they were targeted specifically towards wiping out members of a race or ethnicity. Note that it's not simply race: a group can be targeted for genocide. As you pointed out, homosexuals were targeted for genocide by the Nazis. Regarding the edit in question, neither the nuclear bombings of Japan nor the Firebombing of Dresden were aimed at wiping out a particular group or ethnicity. Though controversial as to their military necessity, they were targeted efforts of warfare, not simply attempts to wipe out the Japanese or Germans on mass scale.

By the way, nice edit on Writing On Genocide Denial in General. Makes the section much easier to read. -- Kesh 17:35, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! -- Apeloverage 05:00, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, this article needs to be cleaned up. It is, and most probably will be, one of those articles that will attract all sorts of edit-wars, just like those traps that use scents to attract mosquitos. It is good that someone is actually trying to clean it up, seriously... Baristarim 08:14, 27 December 2006 (UTC)