From: Erhan Akan Sent: Friday, March 28, 2008 8:17 PM To: wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Armenian Genocide
Hi wikipedia! We think your "Armenian Genocide" document is not neutral. Please make it editable.
Erhan Akan wrote:
Hi wikipedia! We think your "Armenian Genocide" document is not neutral. Please make it editable.
1. It is editable. (However, you need to be a registered user.)
2. I fear I'll regret saying this, but: he's right. Other than knowing it's among Wikipedia's most highly-contested articles, I'd never paid much attention to it. Skimming it now, however, I see that the opposing POV is given *very* short shrift. There isn't even a "Controversy" section. The only place I can find mention of the opposing POV is in the "Republic of Turkey and the Armenian Genocide" section, and even there, most of the text consists of fairly blunt denial of the non-genocide claim.
On 29/03/2008, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
Erhan Akan wrote:
Hi wikipedia! We think your "Armenian Genocide" document is not neutral. Please make it editable.
It is editable. (However, you need to be a registered user.)
I fear I'll regret saying this, but: he's right. Other than
knowing it's among Wikipedia's most highly-contested articles, I'd never paid much attention to it. Skimming it now, however, I see that the opposing POV is given *very* short shrift. There isn't even a "Controversy" section. The only place I can find mention of the opposing POV is in the "Republic of Turkey and the Armenian Genocide" section, and even there, most of the text consists of fairly blunt denial of the non-genocide claim.
Per minority viewpoints that would be correct yes. And even Turkish denial is starting to slip.
We are not discussing if the viewpoints are right or wrong. We are discussing that both parties should have the same rights to express their viewpoints. The contradicting idea to this article is not a minority point of view by the way. It seems like a minority point of view, because of the unfair practice of protecting armenian sided views without giving the turkish side the chance to express.
Cihan
geni geniice@gmail.com wrote: On 29/03/2008, Steve Summit wrote:
Erhan Akan wrote:
Hi wikipedia! We think your "Armenian Genocide" document is not neutral. Please make it editable.
It is editable. (However, you need to be a registered user.)
I fear I'll regret saying this, but: he's right. Other than
knowing it's among Wikipedia's most highly-contested articles, I'd never paid much attention to it. Skimming it now, however, I see that the opposing POV is given *very* short shrift. There isn't even a "Controversy" section. The only place I can find mention of the opposing POV is in the "Republic of Turkey and the Armenian Genocide" section, and even there, most of the text consists of fairly blunt denial of the non-genocide claim.
Per minority viewpoints that would be correct yes. And even Turkish denial is starting to slip.
On 29/03/2008, cihan dinçer cihan_dincer@yahoo.com wrote:
We
I'm rejecting further entreaties on this topic as what's evidently an email campaign.
- d.
On 29/03/2008, cihan dinçer cihan_dincer@yahoo.com wrote:
We are not discussing if the viewpoints are right or wrong. We are discussing that both >parties should have the same rights to express their viewpoints. The contradicting idea to this >article is not a minority point of view by the way. It seems like a minority point of view, >because of the unfair practice of protecting armenian sided views without giving the turkish >side the chance to express.
The Turkish side consists of some of turkey. The other side appears to consist of everyone else. see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV#Undue_weight
On 29/03/2008, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 29/03/2008, cihan dinçer cihan_dincer@yahoo.com wrote:
We are not discussing if the viewpoints are right or wrong. We are discussing that both >parties should have the same rights to express their viewpoints. The contradicting idea to this >article is not a minority point of view by the way. It seems like a minority point of view, >because of the unfair practice of protecting armenian sided views without giving the turkish >side the chance to express.
The Turkish side consists of some of turkey. The other side appears to consist of everyone else. see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV#Undue_weight
Cihan emailed me to say he was wanting people to have a look at the article itself, so if you feel inclined to respond here please instead respond on [[Talk:Armenian Genocide]], so that more people are drawn to the discussion.
- d.
You know such statements aren't helping.
On Sat, Mar 29, 2008 at 4:42 PM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 29/03/2008, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
Erhan Akan wrote:
Hi wikipedia! We think your "Armenian Genocide" document is not
neutral.
Please make it editable.
It is editable. (However, you need to be a registered user.)
I fear I'll regret saying this, but: he's right. Other than
knowing it's among Wikipedia's most highly-contested articles, I'd never paid much attention to it. Skimming it now, however, I see that the opposing POV is given *very* short shrift. There isn't even a "Controversy" section. The only place I can find mention of the opposing POV is in the "Republic of Turkey and the Armenian Genocide" section, and even there, most of the text consists of fairly blunt denial of the non-genocide claim.
Per minority viewpoints that would be correct yes. And even Turkish denial is starting to slip.
-- geni
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Sat, Mar 29, 2008 at 9:05 AM, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
Erhan Akan wrote:
Hi wikipedia! We think your "Armenian Genocide" document is not neutral. Please make it editable.
It is editable. (However, you need to be a registered user.)
I fear I'll regret saying this, but: he's right. Other than
knowing it's among Wikipedia's most highly-contested articles, I'd never paid much attention to it. Skimming it now, however, I see that the opposing POV is given *very* short shrift. There isn't even a "Controversy" section. The only place I can find mention of the opposing POV is in the "Republic of Turkey and the Armenian Genocide" section, and even there, most of the text consists of fairly blunt denial of the non-genocide claim.
This "point" really needs refuted several times over. This is not a "two sided" issue, this is a "one sided" issue with an extreme minority opposition (roughly "Official Turkish Position").
Make no mistake - the Armenian Genocide happened, and (at least roughly) it happened the way we describe it. Contemporary sources (of which there are many) report it this way, modern sources describe it this way. Although one is normally loath to compare things to the Holocaust, the comparison is apt - a genocide of similar proportions (~1.5 million killed), very limited denial, no credible scholars engaging in the denial, et cetera. Undue Weight isn't Equal Weight, and Armenian Genocide is one that always needs eyes, because the POV pushing is much worse than articles where it doesn't matter so much (like whether Norwegians invented paperclips).
If you're interested in denial of the Armenian Genocide, we have a fairly decent article on the subject http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denial_of_the_Armenian_Genocide
If you're interested in why we only present the "Armenain" point of view, maybe see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recognition_of_the_Armenian_Genocide maybe focussing on
"Several international organizations, conducting studies of the events, have determined that the term "genocide" aptly describes "the Ottoman massacre of Armenians in 1915–1916."[1] Among the organizations asserting this conclusion are the International Center for Transitional Justice, the International Association of Genocide Scholars,[2] and the United Nations' Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities.[1][3]
In 2007, The Elie Wiesel Foundation for Humanity produced a letter signed by 53 Nobel Laureates re-affirming the Genocide Scholars' conclusion that the 1915 killings of Armenians constituted genocide."
Cheers WilyD
Aye. The Armenian Genocide really is universally acknowledged as such, with the exception of the Turkish government (who get a lot of stick for this), and maybe a few Azeris. Turkish POV-pushers on this set of articles are a lot more trouble than they're worth, and we get a depressingly large number of them in a fairly steady stream.
CM
Odi profanum vulgus et arceo.
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2008 10:10:34 -0400 From: wilydoppelganger@gmail.com To: wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Armenian Genocide
On Sat, Mar 29, 2008 at 9:05 AM, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
It is editable. (However, you need to be a registered user.)
I fear I'll regret saying this, but: he's right. Other than
knowing it's among Wikipedia's most highly-contested articles, I'd never paid much attention to it. Skimming it now, however, I see that the opposing POV is given *very* short shrift. There isn't even a "Controversy" section. The only place I can find mention of the opposing POV is in the "Republic of Turkey and the Armenian Genocide" section, and even there, most of the text consists of fairly blunt denial of the non-genocide claim.
This "point" really needs refuted several times over. This is not a "two sided" issue, this is a "one sided" issue with an extreme minority opposition (roughly "Official Turkish Position").
Make no mistake - the Armenian Genocide happened, and (at least roughly) it happened the way we describe it. Contemporary sources (of which there are many) report it this way, modern sources describe it this way. Although one is normally loath to compare things to the Holocaust, the comparison is apt - a genocide of similar proportions (~1.5 million killed), very limited denial, no credible scholars engaging in the denial, et cetera. Undue Weight isn't Equal Weight, and Armenian Genocide is one that always needs eyes, because the POV pushing is much worse than articles where it doesn't matter so much (like whether Norwegians invented paperclips).
If you're interested in denial of the Armenian Genocide, we have a fairly decent article on the subject http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denial_of_the_Armenian_Genocide
If you're interested in why we only present the "Armenain" point of view, maybe see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recognition_of_the_Armenian_Genocide maybe focussing on
"Several international organizations, conducting studies of the events, have determined that the term "genocide" aptly describes "the Ottoman massacre of Armenians in 1915–1916."[1] Among the organizations asserting this conclusion are the International Center for Transitional Justice, the International Association of Genocide Scholars,[2] and the United Nations' Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities.[1][3]
In 2007, The Elie Wiesel Foundation for Humanity produced a letter signed by 53 Nobel Laureates re-affirming the Genocide Scholars' conclusion that the 1915 killings of Armenians constituted genocide."
Cheers WilyD
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
_________________________________________________________________ Welcome to the next generation of Windows Live http://www.windowslive.co.uk/get-live
Thanks for reiterating those points, Wiley and Christiano. Let me take one more stab at making mine.
(I'll rehash the disclaimers, just in case: I do understand that this genocide really did happen, and that the magnitudes of the horror and the death toll were as described. I am not trying to apologize for the Turkish government, or condone its revisionism and denial. I do understand the Undue Weight clause of our NPOV policy.)
I believe that the best way of dealing with a minority and wrong viewpoint, and the way mandated by our NPOV policy, is to present it simply and factually, more or less as its proponents would wish (if they could ever limit themselves to simple, allegedly- factual statements). I believe, as WP:NPOV says, that the (true) facts will speak for themselves. I don't believe that the minority view's statements need to be relentlessly challenged and contradicted right in the very same sentences where they're presented. I don't believe that by presenting a contrary opinion in this way (in a *non* forked article which also presents the majority opinion duly forcefully) that we are condoning the contrary opinion, or risking being seen as arguing in favor of it in the eyes of any reader who's undecided.
There is, to be sure, the question of when a minority opinion becomes so very fringe that it deserves no mention at all. But when the opinion is one which is (a) eminently sourceable and (b) supported by a major government, I don't think we can sweep it under the rug, no matter how wrong it or its sponsor is. To try to is to invite (as Christiano observes) a depressingly large, fairly steady stream of POV-pushers arguing with us.
Now, with all of that said, I don't actually expect the tone of our Armenian Genocide article to change; it will almost certainly continue to ridicule the Turkish government position more than a strict reading of WP:NPOV might condone. The issue, of course, is that there are so very many people who believe pretty strongly that to allow a contrary opinion to be stated at all, without disclaimers and counterarguments inserted between every clause, is to run the risk of seeming to condone it. As someone pointed out on [[Talk:Armenian Genocide]], our [[Holocaust]] article does not mention Holocaust denial at all, and by analogy, our [[Armenian Genocide]] article shouldn't, either. So mine is mostly an academic argument.
Christiano Moreschi wrote:
Aye. The Armenian Genocide really is universally acknowledged as such, with the exception of the Turkish government (who get a lot of stick for this), and maybe a few Azeris. Turkish POV-pushers on this set of articles are a lot more trouble than they're worth, and we get a depressingly large number of them in a fairly steady stream.
CM
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2008 10:10:34 -0400 From: wilydoppelganger@gmail.com To: wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Armenian Genocide
On Sat, Mar 29, 2008 at 9:05 AM, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
It is editable. (However, you need to be a registered user.)
I fear I'll regret saying this, but: he's right. Other than
knowing it's among Wikipedia's most highly-contested articles, I'd never paid much attention to it. Skimming it now, however, I see that the opposing POV is given *very* short shrift. There isn't even a "Controversy" section. The only place I can find mention of the opposing POV is in the "Republic of Turkey and the Armenian Genocide" section, and even there, most of the text consists of fairly blunt denial of the non-genocide claim.
This "point" really needs refuted several times over. This is not a "two sided" issue, this is a "one sided" issue with an extreme minority opposition (roughly "Official Turkish Position").
Make no mistake - the Armenian Genocide happened, and (at least roughly) it happened the way we describe it. Contemporary sources (of which there are many) report it this way, modern sources describe it this way. Although one is normally loath to compare things to the Holocaust, the comparison is apt - a genocide of similar proportions (~1.5 million killed), very limited denial, no credible scholars engaging in the denial, et cetera. Undue Weight isn't Equal Weight, and Armenian Genocide is one that always needs eyes, because the POV pushing is much worse than articles where it doesn't matter so much (like whether Norwegians invented paperclips).
If you're interested in denial of the Armenian Genocide, we have a fairly decent article on the subject http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denial_of_the_Armenian_Genocide
If you're interested in why we only present the "Armenain" point of view, maybe see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recognition_of_the_Armenian_Genocide maybe focussing on
"Several international organizations, conducting studies of the events, have determined that the term "genocide" aptly describes "the Ottoman massacre of Armenians in 1915-1916."[1] Among the organizations asserting this conclusion are the International Center for Transitional Justice, the International Association of Genocide Scholars,[2] and the United Nations' Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities.[1][3]
In 2007, The Elie Wiesel Foundation for Humanity produced a letter signed by 53 Nobel Laureates re-affirming the Genocide Scholars' conclusion that the 1915 killings of Armenians constituted genocide."
Cheers WilyD
On 3/31/08, Wily D wilydoppelganger@gmail.com wrote:
this way. Although one is normally loath to compare things to the Holocaust, the comparison is apt - a genocide of similar proportions (~1.5 million killed), very limited denial,
The Armenian Genocide reminds me more of the American [[Trail of Tears]] then it does the Nazi Holocaust. Not in terms of the death count but in the method.
I want to point out the ridiculous amount of hostility surrounding topics related to Armenia/Azerbaijan. There had been multiple cases of abusive sockpuppetry and other forms of disruption. There had been two arbcom cases over the matter and the issue has been before the arbitration committee not-stop with clarifications and appeals for well over a year now. As arbcom is unable or unwilling to pass useful remedies community attention is particularly necesary. The community had been avoiding these topics like plague. The problem isn't unique to this article but to a wide range of articles no mater how vaguely related.
I do believe that the "minority opinion" clause of NPOV should be very carefully applied (if applied at all) on this issue. There is a lot of misinformation due to the highly political nature of the matter. Content of the "Armenian Genocide" article and the Holocaust article has very little in common so using Holocaust as a model may be very problematic. At its current state the article in question fails the core principle of NPOV miserably. I do not believe there is a disagreement on this.
Consider an unrelated case, the content of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasakiavoids using the words "genocide" and "massacre". Massacre is only used as a category (that category should be deleted). US willingly and intentionally incinerated 200K people on that incident according to the article. Rather than wasting time by name-calling genocide/massacre article explains "The radius of total destruction was about 1.6 km (1 mile), followed by fires across the northern portion of the city to 3.2 km (2 miles) south of the bomb" and the reader can decide weather or not that was mass murder/massacre/genocide/whatever. Facts can stand by themselves without colorful language and petty pov pounding.
Wikipedia is not in the business of passing judgement on what is a genocide, what is a massacre, what is a terrorist and so forth. Article should present sourced material and the reader can decide.
People without a conflict of interest should be working on this article which pretty much disqualifies most of the people editing or that had edited the article. I would hope to see this article as a featured one.
Oh and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate_over_the_atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_an... all about the right classification. Far from neutral but much better than the state of "Armenian Genocide" article.
On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 5:43 PM, White Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
I want to point out the ridiculous amount of hostility surrounding topics related to Armenia/Azerbaijan. There had been multiple cases of abusive sockpuppetry and other forms of disruption. There had been two arbcom cases over the matter and the issue has been before the arbitration committee not-stop with clarifications and appeals for well over a year now. As arbcom is unable or unwilling to pass useful remedies community attention is particularly necesary. The community had been avoiding these topics like plague. The problem isn't unique to this article but to a wide range of articles no mater how vaguely related.
I do believe that the "minority opinion" clause of NPOV should be very carefully applied (if applied at all) on this issue. There is a lot of misinformation due to the highly political nature of the matter. Content of the "Armenian Genocide" article and the Holocaust article has very little in common so using Holocaust as a model may be very problematic. At its current state the article in question fails the core principle of NPOV miserably. I do not believe there is a disagreement on this.
Consider an unrelated case, the content of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasakiavoids using the words "genocide" and "massacre". Massacre is only used as a category (that category should be deleted). US willingly and intentionally incinerated 200K people on that incident according to the article. Rather than wasting time by name-calling genocide/massacre article explains "The radius of total destruction was about 1.6 km (1 mile), followed by fires across the northern portion of the city to 3.2 km (2 miles) south of the bomb" and the reader can decide weather or not that was mass murder/massacre/genocide/whatever. Facts can stand by themselves without colorful language and petty pov pounding.
Wikipedia is not in the business of passing judgement on what is a genocide, what is a massacre, what is a terrorist and so forth. Article should present sourced material and the reader can decide.
People without a conflict of interest should be working on this article which pretty much disqualifies most of the people editing or that had edited the article. I would hope to see this article as a featured one.
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
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.
I'm interested in this incident, too (it was this thread that got me interested in it), but surely, this thread is not the place to debate what did or didn't happen in Armenia in 1915, or what the event should be called. Please, let's confine the debate on that issue and meta-issue to the article's talk page. If we talk about anything here on the mailing list, it should be on the meta-meta-issue of how to apply NPOV to a really contentious article when the opposing viewpoint is in the minority and almost certainly wrong, or on the meta-meta-meta-issue of how small and uninfluential a minority viewpoint has to be before it's truly "fringe" and deserving of 0% coverage. Thanks.
Per COI I would prefer not to get involved more than this discussion on the mailing list. I will say that a pre-determined approach calling one side as a minority opinion may be problematic. You may know this but both sides on such controversial issues exaggerate their claims. You even see fake/forged documents... So it is important to have an open mind and avoid pre-determined views.
No one would call the atomic bombings of Japan as a mere picnic. Likewise not everybody would call it a genocide. A balance is important.
Classification and recognition of Armenian Genocide may be a seperate article just like in the deal with atomic bombings - just an idea.
I really do not envy the task in front of you.
- White Cat
On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 1:36 AM, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
I'm interested in this incident, too (it was this thread that got me interested in it), but surely, this thread is not the place to debate what did or didn't happen in Armenia in 1915, or what the event should be called. Please, let's confine the debate on that issue and meta-issue to the article's talk page. If we talk about anything here on the mailing list, it should be on the meta-meta-issue of how to apply NPOV to a really contentious article when the opposing viewpoint is in the minority and almost certainly wrong, or on the meta-meta-meta-issue of how small and uninfluential a minority viewpoint has to be before it's truly "fringe" and deserving of 0% coverage. Thanks.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
The specific facts of the issue are key to the issue. When this specific issue is presented as "two equal sides" the article looks horrible - the same is true of [[Earth]] when we present flat-earthers and spherical earthers as two equal sides, or of anything in [[Category:Biology]] when we present Creationism and Biological science as two equal sides. If this was a case of "He said, she said" between Armenia and Turkey, the article would be horribly unbalanced. But it's not.
Overall, we know (fairly well) how to deal with this kind of thing. [[Evolution]], for instance, handles it very well. But until we clearly establish that this is "One government's official position and a few nationalists" against "Twenty two government's official positions (plus many more subnational ones) and the relevant historical and legal scholarly positions" we can't see why we have to just present the truth with a footnote about denial (actually, we've a whole article on the subject). The general principle are well established.
And since White Cat asked: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recognition_of_the_Armenian_Genocide
Cheers, WilyD
On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 6:50 PM, White Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
Per COI I would prefer not to get involved more than this discussion on the mailing list. I will say that a pre-determined approach calling one side as a minority opinion may be problematic. You may know this but both sides on such controversial issues exaggerate their claims. You even see fake/forged documents... So it is important to have an open mind and avoid pre-determined views.
No one would call the atomic bombings of Japan as a mere picnic. Likewise not everybody would call it a genocide. A balance is important.
Classification and recognition of Armenian Genocide may be a seperate article just like in the deal with atomic bombings - just an idea.
I really do not envy the task in front of you.
- White Cat
On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 1:36 AM, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
I'm interested in this incident, too (it was this thread that got me interested in it), but surely, this thread is not the place to debate what did or didn't happen in Armenia in 1915, or what the event should be called. Please, let's confine the debate on that issue and meta-issue to the article's talk page. If we talk about anything here on the mailing list, it should be on the meta-meta-issue of how to apply NPOV to a really contentious article when the opposing viewpoint is in the minority and almost certainly wrong, or on the meta-meta-meta-issue of how small and uninfluential a minority viewpoint has to be before it's truly "fringe" and deserving of 0% coverage. Thanks.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I really think what is happening right now is a double standard per your own political views. Your examples are meaningless in the context of this discussion.
On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 4:47 PM, Wily D wilydoppelganger@gmail.com wrote:
The specific facts of the issue are key to the issue. When this specific issue is presented as "two equal sides" the article looks horrible - the same is true of [[Earth]] when we present flat-earthers and spherical earthers as two equal sides, or of anything in [[Category:Biology]] when we present Creationism and Biological science as two equal sides. If this was a case of "He said, she said" between Armenia and Turkey, the article would be horribly unbalanced. But it's not.
Overall, we know (fairly well) how to deal with this kind of thing. [[Evolution]], for instance, handles it very well. But until we clearly establish that this is "One government's official position and a few nationalists" against "Twenty two government's official positions (plus many more subnational ones) and the relevant historical and legal scholarly positions" we can't see why we have to just present the truth with a footnote about denial (actually, we've a whole article on the subject). The general principle are well established.
And since White Cat asked: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recognition_of_the_Armenian_Genocide
Cheers, WilyD
On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 6:50 PM, White Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
Per COI I would prefer not to get involved more than this discussion on
the
mailing list. I will say that a pre-determined approach calling one
side as
a minority opinion may be problematic. You may know this but both sides
on
such controversial issues exaggerate their claims. You even see
fake/forged
documents... So it is important to have an open mind and avoid pre-determined views.
No one would call the atomic bombings of Japan as a mere picnic.
Likewise
not everybody would call it a genocide. A balance is important.
Classification and recognition of Armenian Genocide may be a seperate article just like in the deal with atomic bombings - just an idea.
I really do not envy the task in front of you.
- White Cat
On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 1:36 AM, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
I'm interested in this incident, too (it was this thread that got me interested in it), but surely, this thread is not the place to debate what did or didn't happen in Armenia in 1915, or what the event should be called. Please, let's confine the debate on that issue and meta-issue to the article's talk page. If we talk about anything here on the mailing list, it should be on the meta-meta-issue of how to apply NPOV to a really contentious article when the opposing viewpoint is in the minority and almost certainly wrong, or on the meta-meta-meta-issue of how small and uninfluential a minority viewpoint has to be before it's truly "fringe" and deserving of 0% coverage. Thanks.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
My own poltical views? Ad hominims aside, I don't think they're particularly relevent At least, I wouldn't call "Not wanting to give a small number kooks and all serious scholars equal airtime in articles" a "political" view - I would suggest it's more of an "editorial" view. The Neutral Point of View's undue weight clause seems to support this view - I don't think it's excessively contraversial.
On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 10:33 AM, White Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
I really think what is happening right now is a double standard per your own political views. Your examples are meaningless in the context of this discussion.
On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 4:47 PM, Wily D wilydoppelganger@gmail.com wrote:
The specific facts of the issue are key to the issue. When this specific issue is presented as "two equal sides" the article looks horrible - the same is true of [[Earth]] when we present flat-earthers and spherical earthers as two equal sides, or of anything in [[Category:Biology]] when we present Creationism and Biological science as two equal sides. If this was a case of "He said, she said" between Armenia and Turkey, the article would be horribly unbalanced. But it's not.
Overall, we know (fairly well) how to deal with this kind of thing. [[Evolution]], for instance, handles it very well. But until we clearly establish that this is "One government's official position and a few nationalists" against "Twenty two government's official positions (plus many more subnational ones) and the relevant historical and legal scholarly positions" we can't see why we have to just present the truth with a footnote about denial (actually, we've a whole article on the subject). The general principle are well established.
And since White Cat asked: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recognition_of_the_Armenian_Genocide
Cheers, WilyD
On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 6:50 PM, White Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
Per COI I would prefer not to get involved more than this discussion on
the
mailing list. I will say that a pre-determined approach calling one
side as
a minority opinion may be problematic. You may know this but both sides
on
such controversial issues exaggerate their claims. You even see
fake/forged
documents... So it is important to have an open mind and avoid pre-determined views.
No one would call the atomic bombings of Japan as a mere picnic.
Likewise
not everybody would call it a genocide. A balance is important.
Classification and recognition of Armenian Genocide may be a seperate article just like in the deal with atomic bombings - just an idea.
I really do not envy the task in front of you.
- White Cat
On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 1:36 AM, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
I'm interested in this incident, too (it was this thread that got me interested in it), but surely, this thread is not the place to debate what did or didn't happen in Armenia in 1915, or what the event should be called. Please, let's confine the debate on that issue and meta-issue to the article's talk page. If we talk about anything here on the mailing list, it should be on the meta-meta-issue of how to apply NPOV to a really contentious article when the opposing viewpoint is in the minority and almost certainly wrong, or on the meta-meta-meta-issue of how small and uninfluential a minority viewpoint has to be before it's truly "fringe" and deserving of 0% coverage. Thanks.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
You have read every scientific journal on this? What makes you an expert to pass judgement so easily?
On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 5:47 PM, Wily D wilydoppelganger@gmail.com wrote:
My own poltical views? Ad hominims aside, I don't think they're particularly relevent At least, I wouldn't call "Not wanting to give a small number kooks and all serious scholars equal airtime in articles" a "political" view - I would suggest it's more of an "editorial" view. The Neutral Point of View's undue weight clause seems to support this view - I don't think it's excessively contraversial.
Err, in the case the scholars of the subject made a collective statement that it was a genocide, rather than individually. You can read their statement http://www.genocidewatch.org/TurkishPMIAGSOpenLetterreArmenia6-13-05.htm here if you're so inclined.
But I've done some research myself, specifically since I got involved in the article by sourcing various claims (which is really my editing strength), and it's not particularly contraversial academically - I'll refer this statement by historians Torben Jorgensen and Matthias Bjornlund
When it comes to the historical reality of the Armenian genocide, there is no "Armenian" or "Turkish" side of the "question," any more than there is a "Jewish" or a "German" side of the historical reality of the Holocaust: There is a scientific side, and an unscientific side acknowledgment or denial. In the case of the denial of the Armenian genocide, it is even founded on a massive effort of falsification, distortion, cleansing of archives, and direct threats initiated or supported by the Turkish state, making any "dialogue" with Turkish deniers highly problematic."
Feel free to research the matter yourself, more constructive comments can be made by someone who's well informed than someone who's ill-informed.
Cheers WilyD
On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 11:19 AM, White Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
You have read every scientific journal on this? What makes you an expert to pass judgement so easily?
On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 5:47 PM, Wily D wilydoppelganger@gmail.com wrote:
My own poltical views? Ad hominims aside, I don't think they're particularly relevent At least, I wouldn't call "Not wanting to give a small number kooks and all serious scholars equal airtime in articles" a "political" view - I would suggest it's more of an "editorial" view. The Neutral Point of View's undue weight clause seems to support this view - I don't think it's excessively contraversial.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
It isn't unheard of for people to completely disregard the views of the other side on controversial topics which seems to be what is happening here...
I don't know about the alleged threats of the Turkish Government... If such exists I am sure it can be easily sourced - would make a fine article.
What I do know about is attacks by ASALA which committed various acts of assassinations and bombings throughout Europe, the US and Middle East. If one side is going as far as bombing civilians and assassinating diplomats and their families to get their case accepted, I am sure they would have also engaged in misinformation. Of course ASALA is not mentioned once in the article. Can we completely disregard ASALA activity as a minority opinion?
Wikipedia does not pass judgement on history. We write about what is sourced not what is *right*. I see the constant revival of the holocaust as a sign of Godwin's law at work.
Here I was talking about getting uninvolved people reviewing the topic... Thank you for verifying such a need. Article is in serious need of independent review.
- White Cat
On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 6:38 PM, Wily D wilydoppelganger@gmail.com wrote:
Err, in the case the scholars of the subject made a collective statement that it was a genocide, rather than individually. You can read their statement http://www.genocidewatch.org/TurkishPMIAGSOpenLetterreArmenia6-13-05.htm here if you're so inclined.
But I've done some research myself, specifically since I got involved in the article by sourcing various claims (which is really my editing strength), and it's not particularly contraversial academically - I'll refer this statement by historians Torben Jorgensen and Matthias Bjornlund
When it comes to the historical reality of the Armenian genocide, there is no "Armenian" or "Turkish" side of the "question," any more than there is a "Jewish" or a "German" side of the historical reality of the Holocaust: There is a scientific side, and an unscientific side acknowledgment or denial. In the case of the denial of the Armenian genocide, it is even founded on a massive effort of falsification, distortion, cleansing of archives, and direct threats initiated or supported by the Turkish state, making any "dialogue" with Turkish deniers highly problematic."
Feel free to research the matter yourself, more constructive comments can be made by someone who's well informed than someone who's ill-informed.
Cheers WilyD
Independant from what? It's certainly true I have a scholarly/academic bias, but this is why we use "reliable sources". "Alleged threats of the Turkish government"? I've no idea what this refers to. Something like what http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hrant_Dink this guy went through? If you're interested in the Armenian Secret Army for the Liberation of Armenia, there's already an article on it - I suppose that the genocide spawned this is probably worth mentioning, but the article's not topshape (a common problem in articles plagued by POV warriors). Of course, ASALA is linked to in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-Armenian_Genocide_timeline which may well be a more appropriate place to discuss it. Not surprisingly what's probably the second most studied genocide in history has a lot of daughter articles.
We're not talking about passing judgement on history. We're talking about accurately reporting the facts as they're currently understood by the experts on the subject. The holocaust gets mentioned because it's the closest historical parallel - a state organised genocide with near universal recognition as such.
Unless by "independant review" you mean "review by people who're uninformed on the subject" independant review will come to the same conclusion. The number of people pushing the fringe position is small, and the literature on the subject is unambigious.
In any event, although it's clear that White Cat's opinion is already chisel'd in stone, I'd urge any spectators to review the source material before forming any conclusions.
Cheers WilyD
On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 12:03 PM, White Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
It isn't unheard of for people to completely disregard the views of the other side on controversial topics which seems to be what is happening here...
I don't know about the alleged threats of the Turkish Government... If such exists I am sure it can be easily sourced - would make a fine article.
What I do know about is attacks by ASALA which committed various acts of assassinations and bombings throughout Europe, the US and Middle East. If one side is going as far as bombing civilians and assassinating diplomats and their families to get their case accepted, I am sure they would have also engaged in misinformation. Of course ASALA is not mentioned once in the article. Can we completely disregard ASALA activity as a minority opinion?
Wikipedia does not pass judgement on history. We write about what is sourced not what is *right*. I see the constant revival of the holocaust as a sign of Godwin's law at work.
Here I was talking about getting uninvolved people reviewing the topic... Thank you for verifying such a need. Article is in serious need of independent review.
- White CatOn Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 6:38 PM, Wily D wilydoppelganger@gmail.com wrote:
Err, in the case the scholars of the subject made a collective statement that it was a genocide, rather than individually. You can read their statement http://www.genocidewatch.org/TurkishPMIAGSOpenLetterreArmenia6-13-05.htm here if you're so inclined.
But I've done some research myself, specifically since I got involved in the article by sourcing various claims (which is really my editing strength), and it's not particularly contraversial academically - I'll refer this statement by historians Torben Jorgensen and Matthias Bjornlund
When it comes to the historical reality of the Armenian genocide, there is no "Armenian" or "Turkish" side of the "question," any more than there is a "Jewish" or a "German" side of the historical reality of the Holocaust: There is a scientific side, and an unscientific side acknowledgment or denial. In the case of the denial of the Armenian genocide, it is even founded on a massive effort of falsification, distortion, cleansing of archives, and direct threats initiated or supported by the Turkish state, making any "dialogue" with Turkish deniers highly problematic."
Feel free to research the matter yourself, more constructive comments can be made by someone who's well informed than someone who's ill-informed.
Cheers WilyD
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I have no idea why are you bringing up Hrant Dink case.
On wikipedia when we mean independent review we refer to uninvolved editors or in other words people without a conflict of interest.
You are the one seemingly claiming the article is w/o problems. If that is the case why is this article not featured?
- White Cat
On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 7:31 PM, Wily D wilydoppelganger@gmail.com wrote:
Independant from what? It's certainly true I have a scholarly/academic bias, but this is why we use "reliable sources". "Alleged threats of the Turkish government"? I've no idea what this refers to. Something like what http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hrant_Dink this guy went through? If you're interested in the Armenian Secret Army for the Liberation of Armenia, there's already an article on it - I suppose that the genocide spawned this is probably worth mentioning, but the article's not topshape (a common problem in articles plagued by POV warriors). Of course, ASALA is linked to in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-Armenian_Genocide_timeline which may well be a more appropriate place to discuss it. Not surprisingly what's probably the second most studied genocide in history has a lot of daughter articles.
We're not talking about passing judgement on history. We're talking about accurately reporting the facts as they're currently understood by the experts on the subject. The holocaust gets mentioned because it's the closest historical parallel - a state organised genocide with near universal recognition as such.
Unless by "independant review" you mean "review by people who're uninformed on the subject" independant review will come to the same conclusion. The number of people pushing the fringe position is small, and the literature on the subject is unambigious.
In any event, although it's clear that White Cat's opinion is already chisel'd in stone, I'd urge any spectators to review the source material before forming any conclusions.
Cheers WilyD
On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 1:21 PM, White Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
I have no idea why are you bringing up Hrant Dink case.
"I don't know about the alleged threats of the Turkish Government... If such exists I am sure it can be easily sourced - would make a fine article."
Such articles do already exist, and are already sourced ... Again, this discussion would be easier if you familiarised yourself with the topic before commenting.
On wikipedia when we mean independent review we refer to uninvolved editors or in other words people without a conflict of interest.
A conflict of interest? I think I can easily assure you I've no conflict of interest on an article about something that was over before my grandfathers were born and now concerns the politics of countries half a world away.
I myself was not involved in the genocide in any way, either as a victim or a perpatraitor. Nor (to my knowledge) was anyone I have or have had any personal or professional relationship with. I'm hard pressed to imagine a topic on which I have less of a conflict of interest.
You are the one seemingly claiming the article is w/o problems. If that is the case why is this article not featured?
- White Cat
Err, I claimed no such thing. I've only claimed that the failure to showcase a fringe position fron and centre is not a problem. Writing and organisation remain a problem, probably stability, sourcing of some bits can use work. Beyond that, lots of articles with no problems aren't featured, and probably never will be. Being featured correlates with quality, not being featured doesn't anti-correlate though.
Cheers WilyD
On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 7:31 PM, Wily D wilydoppelganger@gmail.com wrote:
Independant from what? It's certainly true I have a scholarly/academic bias, but this is why we use "reliable sources". "Alleged threats of the Turkish government"? I've no idea what this refers to. Something like what http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hrant_Dink this guy went through? If you're interested in the Armenian Secret Army for the Liberation of Armenia, there's already an article on it - I suppose that the genocide spawned this is probably worth mentioning, but the article's not topshape (a common problem in articles plagued by POV warriors). Of course, ASALA is linked to in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-Armenian_Genocide_timeline which may well be a more appropriate place to discuss it. Not surprisingly what's probably the second most studied genocide in history has a lot of daughter articles.
We're not talking about passing judgement on history. We're talking about accurately reporting the facts as they're currently understood by the experts on the subject. The holocaust gets mentioned because it's the closest historical parallel - a state organised genocide with near universal recognition as such.
Unless by "independant review" you mean "review by people who're uninformed on the subject" independant review will come to the same conclusion. The number of people pushing the fringe position is small, and the literature on the subject is unambigious.
In any event, although it's clear that White Cat's opinion is already chisel'd in stone, I'd urge any spectators to review the source material before forming any conclusions.
Cheers WilyD
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 8:45 PM, Wily D wilydoppelganger@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 1:21 PM, White Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
I have no idea why are you bringing up Hrant Dink case.
"I don't know about the alleged threats of the Turkish Government... If such exists I am sure it can be easily sourced - would make a fine article."
Such articles do already exist, and are already sourced ... Again, this discussion would be easier if you familiarised yourself with the topic before commenting.
On wikipedia when we mean independent review we refer to uninvolved
editors
or in other words people without a conflict of interest.
A conflict of interest? I think I can easily assure you I've no conflict of interest on an article about something that was over before my grandfathers were born and now concerns the politics of countries half a world away.
I myself was not involved in the genocide in any way, either as a victim or a perpatraitor. Nor (to my knowledge) was anyone I have or have had any personal or professional relationship with. I'm hard pressed to imagine a topic on which I have less of a conflict of interest.
You are the one seemingly claiming the article is w/o problems. If that
is
the case why is this article not featured?
- White Cat
Err, I claimed no such thing. I've only claimed that the failure to showcase a fringe position fron and centre is not a problem. Writing and organisation remain a problem, probably stability, sourcing of some bits can use work. Beyond that, lots of articles with no problems aren't featured, and probably never will be. Being featured correlates with quality, not being featured doesn't anti-correlate though.
Cheers WilyD
On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 7:31 PM, Wily D wilydoppelganger@gmail.com
wrote:
Independant from what? It's certainly true I have a scholarly/academic bias, but this is why we use "reliable sources". "Alleged threats of the Turkish government"? I've no idea what this refers to. Something like what http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hrant_Dink this guy went through? If you're interested in the Armenian Secret Army for the Liberation of Armenia, there's already an article on it - I suppose that the genocide spawned this is probably worth mentioning, but the article's not topshape (a common problem in articles plagued by POV warriors). Of course, ASALA is linked to in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-Armenian_Genocide_timeline which
may
well be a more appropriate place to discuss it. Not surprisingly what's probably the second most studied genocide in history has a lot of daughter articles.
We're not talking about passing judgement on history. We're talking about accurately reporting the facts as they're currently understood by the experts on the subject. The holocaust gets mentioned because it's the closest historical parallel - a state organised genocide
with
near universal recognition as such.
Unless by "independant review" you mean "review by people who're uninformed on the subject" independant review will come to the same conclusion. The number of people pushing the fringe position is small, and the literature on the subject is unambigious.
In any event, although it's clear that White Cat's opinion is already chisel'd in stone, I'd urge any spectators to review the source material before forming any conclusions.
Cheers WilyD
Seems like you will not listen to anything I say. I already stated that I will NOT get involved in the article per COI. A dew posts ago you stated that you had a level of bias, now you claim you are without bias on the matter.
- White Cat
On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 2:03 PM, White Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 8:45 PM, Wily D wilydoppelganger@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 1:21 PM, White Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
I have no idea why are you bringing up Hrant Dink case.
"I don't know about the alleged threats of the Turkish Government... If such exists I am sure it can be easily sourced - would make a fine article."
Such articles do already exist, and are already sourced ... Again, this discussion would be easier if you familiarised yourself with the topic before commenting.
On wikipedia when we mean independent review we refer to uninvolved
editors
or in other words people without a conflict of interest.
A conflict of interest? I think I can easily assure you I've no conflict of interest on an article about something that was over before my grandfathers were born and now concerns the politics of countries half a world away.
I myself was not involved in the genocide in any way, either as a victim or a perpatraitor. Nor (to my knowledge) was anyone I have or have had any personal or professional relationship with. I'm hard pressed to imagine a topic on which I have less of a conflict of interest.
You are the one seemingly claiming the article is w/o problems. If that
is
the case why is this article not featured?
- White Cat
Err, I claimed no such thing. I've only claimed that the failure to showcase a fringe position fron and centre is not a problem. Writing and organisation remain a problem, probably stability, sourcing of some bits can use work. Beyond that, lots of articles with no problems aren't featured, and probably never will be. Being featured correlates with quality, not being featured doesn't anti-correlate though.
Cheers WilyD
On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 7:31 PM, Wily D wilydoppelganger@gmail.com
wrote:
Independant from what? It's certainly true I have a scholarly/academic bias, but this is why we use "reliable sources". "Alleged threats of the Turkish government"? I've no idea what this refers to. Something like what http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hrant_Dink this guy went through? If you're interested in the Armenian Secret Army for the Liberation of Armenia, there's already an article on it - I suppose that the genocide spawned this is probably worth mentioning, but the article's not topshape (a common problem in articles plagued by POV warriors). Of course, ASALA is linked to in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-Armenian_Genocide_timeline which
may
well be a more appropriate place to discuss it. Not surprisingly what's probably the second most studied genocide in history has a lot of daughter articles.
We're not talking about passing judgement on history. We're talking about accurately reporting the facts as they're currently understood by the experts on the subject. The holocaust gets mentioned because it's the closest historical parallel - a state organised genocide
with
near universal recognition as such.
Unless by "independant review" you mean "review by people who're uninformed on the subject" independant review will come to the same conclusion. The number of people pushing the fringe position is small, and the literature on the subject is unambigious.
In any event, although it's clear that White Cat's opinion is already chisel'd in stone, I'd urge any spectators to review the source material before forming any conclusions.
Cheers WilyD
Seems like you will not listen to anything I say. I already stated that I will NOT get involved in the article per COI. A dew posts ago you stated that you had a level of bias, now you claim you are without bias on the matter.
- White Cat
Err, I'm biased towards "scholarly treatments" over "official treatments", but uniformly everyone, not particularly with respect to the Armenian Genocide. This probably comes with doing hard science for a career. Beyond that, everything I know about it I learnt while researching sources to supply citations to the article. I have no connection to the Armenian Genocide that I'm aware of, so I don't have any conflict of interest. Seperate issues.
Cheers WilyD
On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 9:11 PM, Wily D wilydoppelganger@gmail.com wrote:
Err, I'm biased towards "scholarly treatments" over "official treatments", but uniformly everyone, not particularly with respect to the Armenian Genocide. This probably comes with doing hard science for a career. Beyond that, everything I know about it I learnt while researching sources to supply citations to the article. I have no connection to the Armenian Genocide that I'm aware of, so I don't have any conflict of interest. Seperate issues.
Cheers WilyD
Then why wont you support an independent review without declaring a conclusion?
- White Cat
On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 2:17 PM, White Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 9:11 PM, Wily D wilydoppelganger@gmail.com wrote:
Err, I'm biased towards "scholarly treatments" over "official treatments", but uniformly everyone, not particularly with respect to the Armenian Genocide. This probably comes with doing hard science for a career. Beyond that, everything I know about it I learnt while researching sources to supply citations to the article. I have no connection to the Armenian Genocide that I'm aware of, so I don't have any conflict of interest. Seperate issues.
Cheers WilyD
Then why wont you support an independent review without declaring a conclusion?
- White Cat
Anyone and everyone is welcome to review this article for any issue, just as any other article on Wikipedia. I approached the article this way, knowing very little, then doing a bunch of research to get up to speed (almost all the work I've done on it is sourcing). You could accurately say I gave it an independant review and found that the conclusion had already been reached by those who study the subject and have access to all the necessary primary materials. That there was a consensus among historians what'd happened. That there was a consensus among legal scholars what it means under the applicable international treaties.
But it's plainly obvious that any even remotely unbiased observer will come to the conclusion that whatever problems the article has, presenting a fringe minority position as such isn't one of them. Sometimes when you're informed and honest, certain conclusions are unavoidable.
Cheers WilyD
Sometimes informed, honest people
On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 10:21 AM, White Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
I have no idea why are you bringing up Hrant Dink case.
On wikipedia when we mean independent review we refer to uninvolved editors or in other words people without a conflict of interest.
You are the one seemingly claiming the article is w/o problems. If that is the case why is this article not featured?
I don't think the article is without problems. But I believe that the collective set of articles on the Armenian Genocide present the consensus (was Genocide) and minority (was forced relocations which incidentally killed a fair number of people) opinions reasonably.
Moderate Turks - one of whom I worked with rather closely for several years, and several more of whom I know - agree that at the very least the situation is pretty close to what the Armenians and international experts have claimed based on the bulk of research and information. They blame Turkish domestic politics for the denialism, and think that absent the rather bizarre military / western / "western liberal" vs civil islamic dynamic that Turkey would come to grips with the history and admit it openly.
On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 8:56 PM, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
I don't think the article is without problems. But I believe that the collective set of articles on the Armenian Genocide present the consensus (was Genocide) and minority (was forced relocations which incidentally killed a fair number of people) opinions reasonably.
Moderate Turks - one of whom I worked with rather closely for several years, and several more of whom I know - agree that at the very least the situation is pretty close to what the Armenians and international experts have claimed based on the bulk of research and information. They blame Turkish domestic politics for the denialism, and think that absent the rather bizarre military / western / "western liberal" vs civil islamic dynamic that Turkey would come to grips with the history and admit it openly.
-- -george william herbert george.herbert@gmail.com
A key problem is the disruptive editing in the article. That needs to be addressed first.
- White Cat
On 04/04/2008, White Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
Wikipedia does not pass judgement on history. We write about what is sourced not what is *right*.
Wikipedia does editorial work to determine a collaborative consensus for the NPOV based on external research. In a way it is passing judgement, but no more than its sources accommodate for. There is no particular reason why both sides of an argument should be represented equally, NPOV#Undue weight might be an interesting read here.
Peter
Perhaps but collaborative consensus or collaboration in general is relatively unheard of on the article in question. Feel free to glance at the talk page(s) if you like. You will see many examples of trolling, personal attacks, abusive sockpuppetry and other forms of disruption for the past many years.
Unless this issue is addressed first, it is rather pointless to discuss anything else.
- White Cat
On Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 1:25 AM, Peter Ansell ansell.peter@gmail.com wrote:
On 04/04/2008, White Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
Wikipedia does not pass judgement on history. We write about what is
sourced
not what is *right*.
Wikipedia does editorial work to determine a collaborative consensus for the NPOV based on external research. In a way it is passing judgement, but no more than its sources accommodate for. There is no particular reason why both sides of an argument should be represented equally, NPOV#Undue weight might be an interesting read here.
Peter
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
For example consider
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=50...
On Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 1:37 AM, White Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
Perhaps but collaborative consensus or collaboration in general is relatively unheard of on the article in question. Feel free to glance at the talk page(s) if you like. You will see many examples of trolling, personal attacks, abusive sockpuppetry and other forms of disruption for the past many years.
Unless this issue is addressed first, it is rather pointless to discuss anything else.
- White Cat
On Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 1:25 AM, Peter Ansell ansell.peter@gmail.com wrote:
On 04/04/2008, White Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
Wikipedia does not pass judgement on history. We write about what is
sourced
not what is *right*.
Wikipedia does editorial work to determine a collaborative consensus for the NPOV based on external research. In a way it is passing judgement, but no more than its sources accommodate for. There is no particular reason why both sides of an argument should be represented equally, NPOV#Undue weight might be an interesting read here.
Peter
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 3:38 PM, White Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
For example consider
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=50...
On Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 1:37 AM, White Cat <wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com
wrote:
Perhaps but collaborative consensus or collaboration in general is relatively unheard of on the article in question. Feel free to glance at
the
talk page(s) if you like. You will see many examples of trolling,
personal
attacks, abusive sockpuppetry and other forms of disruption for the past many years.
Unless this issue is addressed first, it is rather pointless to discuss anything else.
- White Cat
On Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 1:25 AM, Peter Ansell ansell.peter@gmail.com wrote:
On 04/04/2008, White Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
Wikipedia does not pass judgement on history. We write about what
is
sourced
not what is *right*.
Wikipedia does editorial work to determine a collaborative consensus for the NPOV based on external research. In a way it is passing judgement, but no more than its sources accommodate for. There is no particular reason why both sides of an argument should be represented equally, NPOV#Undue weight might be an interesting read here.
There are many regrettable, and some actionable yet unactioned, abusive things in Wikipedia history logs. Attempting to track them all down and mete out preventive corrective action is an interesting idea, but impractical.
The idea that the article must be flawed because people are rude or abusive around it is not entirely novel, but I believe that having read the set of articles in depth, and being somewhat familiar outside the Internet with the state of scholarly research on the Armenian Genocides, that the articles are at a point of acceptable balance. The mainstream consensus conclusions are described in detail, and the Turkish revisionist interpretation is described fairly and accurately within the confines we use in other areas and in policy for undue weight to minority or fringe opinions.
If there are ongoing fights worth intervening in, in terms of abusive editing there, take it to ANI. I haven't got the time to sift around and see if it's worthy of admin attention to stomp on abusive editors this week. The article product is ok - if we need to deal with user behavior, please take it to ANI and provide detailed examples.
On Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 9:18 AM, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
There are many regrettable, and some actionable yet unactioned, abusive things in Wikipedia history logs. Attempting to track them all down and mete out preventive corrective action is an interesting idea, but impractical.
The idea that the article must be flawed because people are rude or abusive around it is not entirely novel, but I believe that having read the set of articles in depth, and being somewhat familiar outside the Internet with the state of scholarly research on the Armenian Genocides, that the articles are at a point of acceptable balance. The mainstream consensus conclusions are described in detail, and the Turkish revisionist interpretation is described fairly and accurately within the confines we use in other areas and in policy for undue weight to minority or fringe opinions.
If there are ongoing fights worth intervening in, in terms of abusive editing there, take it to ANI. I haven't got the time to sift around and see if it's worthy of admin attention to stomp on abusive editors this week. The article product is ok - if we need to deal with user behavior, please take it to ANI and provide detailed examples.
-- -george william herbert george.herbert@gmail.com
Oh really? It has even been in front of arbcom twice. This particular user had been on ani before. It did not do a lot of good...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Inciden...
I am sorry but whoever is going to process these abuses will have to find this evidence himself or herself. When I present the community with evidence regarding this time and after again it had been completely disregarded. Users I complained about back then are currently blocked. In addition it is rather pointless for me to collect such evidence. At 'best' I can get the abusive users blocked indefinitely. Some of these users have four or more sockpuppets.
This article is anything but balanced. Please this is obvious in the wording among other things. Let's at least acknowledge that there is such a problem.
For example at a glance I only see 4 .tr sources used of which one goes about the Dink murder, an unresolved and ongoing legal case. There is plenty of original synthesis and misrepresentation of a current issue in the 21st century where we have access to a lot of info. In that paragraph the "Later, photographs of the assassin being honored as a hero while in police custody, posing in front of the Turkish flag with grinning policemen" phrase for example is pure propaganda. A wider angled photo and video of the same scene was published later on that week/day establishing the back ground flag was in fact a poster by TEMA, a non-governmental organization that exists to combat soil erosion. The poster in question can be found nearly everywhere. You are welcome to read about it.
While I am not much knowledgeable in the historic events, I am quite up to date with current events. There is this much blant misinformation on a current event, I am more than skeptical how accurate the article is covering historic events that happened on early 20th century.
Article is very one sided, while it makes a great effort to cover the murder of Dink, various assassination of Turkish diplomats, bombing of airports by ASALA is not mentioned at all.
On a related article, I was denied to use Turkish governmental sources to cover attacks by ASALA even though the people were not disputing factual accuracy of the material covered. ASALA is an organization that engaged in assassinations and bombings in support of an "Armenian Genocide recognition" which left 46 people killed and 299 injured. People removed sources and left {{fact}} template in its place. They have campaigned to remove such sources.
Such is behaviour on a non controversial matter. No one, not even ASALA denies that these attacks happened. I cannot imagine the level of misinformation going on with controversial issues such as the ones over historic events of 1915.
- White Cat
Among the reaction I got for participating in this discussion was one from a "morally superior" person who was arrogant enough to say so.
- White Cat
On 3/28/08, Erhan Akan erhan_akan@hotmail.com wrote:
Hi wikipedia! We think your "Armenian Genocide" document is not neutral.Please make it editable.
Who is "We"?