On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 1:05 AM, Wily D wilydoppelganger@gmail.com wrote:
This really isn't true. The "Turkish Nationalist" POV doesn't just dispute the "use" of the word genocide, it disputes that it was a genocide under the usual English language meaning of the word. It generally disputes that the documented intential mass killings of Armenians (and the related Pontiac Greek and Assyrian ones) took place at all, that the number of deaths was much smaller, that the deaths were combat deaths rather than the massacres and death marches and what have you that actually took place, that the documented organisation of the effort took place, et cetera.
To go back to Hiroshima, if extreme American Nationals started claiming that only 10 000 died in the accident at Hiroshima, we'd tell them to take a long walk off a short pier. The same principle applies here.
At some point, explanations just need to use the appropriate words to convey meaning. We call World War II as such, not "Military Actions from 1937 - 1945" because it was a war, and is agreed upon as such by everyone who knows what they're talking about. We call apples fruit because they are fruit, and everyone who knows what they're talking about agrees as such. We call the Armenian Genocide a genocide because it was a genocide and eveyone who knows what they're talking about agrees as such.
The principle of Undue is that sometimes we just need to be honest and present true information even when some minority opinion disagrees, and just note that they're doing so. If we have any hope of credibility, we simply can't present thoroughly discredited positions as though they're legitimate. There's a reason pedophilia advocates are cracked down on harder than animal rights advocates. Those who deny genocides are far closer to the former than the latter.
Cheers WilyD
I am no expert on the matter and if what you are saying is true the article needs a serious rewrite. I believe the Ottoman Empire ordered the "forced relocations" as a war-time measure. Turkey disputes weather or not the event itself qualifies as a Genocide. Just like the case of atomic bombings of Japan.
If a valid document comes up stating 10,000 deaths, we are obligated to use it. What you and I personally believe in has no weight on the issue. Only sources talk.
Like I said people without a COI should rewrite the article unless you are arguing that this article is completely problem free.