On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 1:05 AM, Wily D <wilydoppelganger(a)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.