Erhan Akan wrote: 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.

We

On 29/03/2008, cihan dinçer <cihan_dincer(a)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

Erhan Akan wrote: 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.

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(a)gmail.com > To: wikien-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Armenian Genocide > > On Sat, Mar 29, 2008 at 9:05 AM, Steve Summit <scs(a)eskimo.com> wrote: >> 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. > > 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

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.

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(a)eskimo.com> wrote: _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)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(a)gmail.com> wrote: _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)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(a)gmail.com> wrote: _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)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(a)gmail.com> wrote: _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)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(a)gmail.com> wrote: _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)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(a)gmail.com> wrote: 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 9:11 PM, Wily D <wilydoppelganger(a)gmail.com> wrote: Then why wont you support an independent review without declaring a conclusion? - White Cat

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(a)gmail.com

On 04/04/2008, White Cat <wikipedia.kawaii.neko(a)gmail.com> wrote: sourced 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(a)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=5… On Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 1:37 AM, White Cat &lt;wikipedia.kawaii.neko(a)gmail.com wrote: the 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 &lt;ansell.peter(a)gmail.com&gt; > wrote: > > On 04/04/2008, White Cat &lt;wikipedia.kawaii.neko(a)gmail.com&gt; 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 <https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l>