Talk:Erich Feigl

Rename of Category
Some of you may wish to participate in the discussion on renaming the category Armenian Genocide deniers to Armenian Genocide skeptics. The discussion is here. --Anthon.Eff (talk) 18:15, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Keeping the article neutral
critic and skeptical would be in keeping with wikipedia's principles and policies than by using loaded and assumptious words like denial and denier. The subject has been disputed since it was alleged to happen and as yet hasnt been satisfactorily resolved. Adopting words that imply the factuality of a subject that is disputed (that many people died on both sides is factual, that one part was orchestrated genocide is, as yet, not) and insisting that only those specific words should be used can only be considered POV pushing. For those who disagree that skeptical and critic should be used do you have any ideas that would be satisfactory and remain neutral? Xaghan (talk) 21:40, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Regarding your attempt at introducing words like "skeptic" into this article, I suggest you consult the discussion at the link given in the Rename of Category post by Anthon.ef. Meowy 16:14, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

So looks like its your turn to make the reverts now. Seeing how users Eupator, Kansas Bear, and yourself are all active in pushing a pro armenian POV throughout wikipedia this appears to be a collaborated action. I hope i am wrong, i dont know what checks wikipedia has in place to prevent such action but if it is then its an abuse of the principles of Wikipedia. My original points still stand. Unless you can give a good reason why those specific loaded words that push a POV have to be used or are unwilling to discuss this here and reach an acceptable compromise then i feel i have no other option than to take this further. I would much prefer we could resolve this issue here in a mature fashion. I may be a new user but I have read the policies, principles and the guidlines for Wikipedia and know my position is consistent with them. Xaghan (talk) 02:24, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, OK you are a new user, but your position is not consistent with this verdict: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_May_1#Category:Armenian_Genocide_deniers Meowy 19:20, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your reply and i apologise for the late response. I am sure you are aware of the reasons why.  There are two things wrong with that discussion.  First it was a discussion on the naming of a category, not of Wikipedia content policy.  Secondly, as far as that particular category is concerned, no consensus was reached.  That discussion can not be used as a reason to push specific views on these unresolved allegations. Xaghan (talk) 16:42, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Article VI of the Genocide Convention states that Just by being charged with a crime does not make the accused guilty of that crime unless the charge is proven in a court of law. Even more so if the makers of the charge are unwilling to have the charge tried before a tribunal with proper jurisdiction. If the accusers are unwilling to prosecute criminal proceedings then how can the accused pursue their own defense? Xaghan (talk) 18:09, 27 May 2009 (UTC) OK, nearly three months now and yet no responses. It is unusual that a few editors who are active in this article are unwilling to discuss in the Talk page editorial content. I am assuming their lack of participation is an indication of their consent? If there is opposition i don't believe avoiding discussion and sneakily reverting edits is an acceptable mode of conduct. Xaghan (talk) 16:50, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Persons charged with genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in Article III shall be tried by a competent tribunal of the State in the territory of which the act was committed, or by such international penal tribunal as may have jurisdiction with respect to those Contracting Parties which shall have accepted its jurisdiction.
 * "Seeing how users Eupator, Kansas Bear, and yourself are all active in pushing a pro armenian POV throughout wikipedia...". Is a violation of WP:AGF. Any changes concerning the "Denial of the Armenian Genocide", will be reverted. Continued personal attacks will be reported. And instead of making sweeping derogatory statements regarding my edits, I'd suggest you get educated, or you simply end up looking the fool. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:08, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Is that it? Repeating the same tired excuses and again not debating the issue but resorting to ad hominem attacks?  Have you got anything useful to add to the discussion other than your own holier than thou attitude?  Perhaps you should take a look at you and your buddies contributions in wikipedia which will show my claim is justified. Xaghan (talk) 17:20, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * "Is that it?" As usual, the typical nationalist attitude, bringing to question the Armenian Genocide on every article. I have primary sources from non-Armenian sources, what do you have? As for my editing, IF you weren't so wrapped up in your own nationalistic nonsense, you'd realize I edit articles ranging from French royalty to Single malt scotch, therefore your derogatory statement, as I stated before, makes you look foolish. Unlike you, I'm not a SPA! --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:20, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You dont know one single thing about me. And FYI I am not from Turkey, wasn't born there, i'm not a Turkish national, havent set foot in Turkey for over 10 years now,nor do I live in a Turkish community so don't even start with throwing the nationalist charge at me.  I am not a supporter of the Turkish state nor do I have any sort of allegiance to her state institutions.  But would it even matter?  You seem to already made your mind up.  I ask a valid question, unsurprisingly noone wants to answer or discuss it.  Instead you seem to want to degrade the discussion to a slanging match.  Grow up and quoting rules and so on doesn't make your position any more valid.
 * "I have primary sources from non-Armenian sources" Primary sources for what?  You dont seem to understand what the discussion is about do you?  Theres plenty of sources that can be used to argue this or that, what matters is if the evidence has been scrutinised before relevant authorities and the evidence meets the charge.  According to the UN's own convention on Genocide a charge of genocide isn't proven until the charge has been "tried by a competent tribunal" which in this case it has not.  If we were talking about a person it would be considered libelous.  So it doesn't make me a fool just because we don't share the same opinion.  The ad hominem attacks are unappreciated.
 * "I edit articles ranging from French royalty to Single malt scotch, therefore your derogatory statement, as I stated before, makes you look foolish." And if one takes a closer look at your obssesive edits that relate to Turkey and Turks we find they are negative and involve reverts or deleting Turkish names from Turkish articles.  Oh wait, "Unlike you, I'm not a SPA!" was it you who tried to get me banned by the unfounded allegations of sockpuppetry and SPA?  This style of discussion is counterproductive and a weakness in your conduct.

Just to clarify my position here. Wikipedia has a standard that keeps it encyclopedic and neutral. Using loaded and sympathetic words towards an open charge goes against that. As for the allegations itself, I dont hold a view either way, right now its a charge that has yet to be tested. When a trial for the charge takes place and if it finds the charge lawful then i would agree that it should be respected by everyone. It's nothing to me either way. However if not then we should all respect that too, but whats important is that its an allegation at this stage and so long as the accusers continue to refuse to take it to a tribunal it will remain that way and wikipedia should not be used as a vehicle to pass judgment. Xaghan (talk) 23:30, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Were you banned for sockpuppetry? News to me. If you are so enlightened you will know that I don't waste my time with the administrative part of wikipedia. So yet again, another blind accusation by you, backed by no evidence.
 * I have nothing against Turks or anyone else. I've seen your type of insecurity from Serbs, Kurds, Iranians, and Turks. And oddly from you with your "I am not from Turkey, wasn't born there, i'm not a Turkish national, havent set foot in Turkey for over 10 years now,nor do I live in a Turkish community", rant.
 * I'm "obsessive"?? LMAO. I'm interested in only one thing. Facts, which you would know if you knew as much as you continue to say you do. As you so aptly stated, "Wikipedia has a standard that keeps it encyclopedic and neutral.". Yet you are quick to ATTACK anyone with an opinion different than yours(another trait so reminiscient of some others I've encountered). All of which has brought about these responses.
 * None of your assertions change the fact of "Denial of the Armenian Genocide", regardless of any of your opinions. So continue your rant how "everyone else" is biased and your opinion is so pure,LMAO.
 * So enjoy your stalking of me to the Battle of Ankara article..... LMAO!! --Kansas Bear (talk) 03:51, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

"I have nothing against Turks or anyone else. I've seen your type of insecurity from Serbs, Kurds, Iranians, and Turks. And oddly from 'you' with your "I am not from Turkey, wasn't born there, i'm not a Turkish national, havent set foot in Turkey for over 10 years now,nor do I live in a Turkish community", rant." I was countering your allegations of nationalism proving you wrong once again. The only "insecurities" articles and discussions like these show are Armenian insecurities which explain your dogmatic use of wording. "Were you banned for sockpuppetry? News to me. If you are 'so' enlightened you will know that I don't waste my time with the administrative part of wikipedia. So yet again, another blind accusation by you, backed by no evidence." The false accusation was made on your talk page with another user involved. Interestingly it was not mentioned on any notice boards for admins, so unless someone accused me on IRC, which i'm sure there must be a record, the only likely option is it was done outside of wikipedia which i doubt follows accepted practise. "I'm "obsessive"?? LMAO. I'm interested in only one thing. Facts..." Truth is subjective, wikipedia only aims to be neutral and encyclopedic. Your obsessive approach towards these articles involving this subject goes against even respectable newspapers which point out the alleged nature of the allegation and thus you can only be considered POV pushing. "So enjoy your stalking of me to the Battle of Ankara article..... LMAO!!" This isnt about you and that comment only shows your head is firmly wedged up your arse. These edits   have nothing do to with stalking you, get a life. "I have nothing against Turks or anyone else." Your aggressive and hasty responses in this discussion is a reflection of your self evident bigotry. The fact your completely unwilling to discuss the discussion topic shows you have an issue here. If you have nothing to add to the discussion please refrain from going off topic and encouraging slanging matches. It only exposes your true nature. I started this discussion to enter into a productive discussion on improving the article. I have to admit the resistance i've encountered is kinda shocking, but when people hold deep ethnic prejudices and dogmatic povs its hardly surprising. Its quite clear after 3 months since this started i'm not going to get a constructive discussion. Xaghan (talk) 22:33, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Awards
de:Erich Feigl lists a few awards:
 * Österreichisches Ehrenzeichen für Wissenschaft und Kunst
 * Goldene Verdienstabzeichen des Landes Wien (mentioned Jan 24, 2007, before his death)
 * Träger diverser Auszeichnungen des Lazarus Ritterordens

This document says (partially translated):

Recipient of Österreichischen Ehrenkreuzes für Wissenschaft und Kunst, Goldenen Verdienstzeichens des Landes Wien, Medal for Progress of the Republic of Azerbaijan, and numerous Austrian and international awards, Knight and Grand Cross of Order of Saint Lazarus, Knight of the Order of Constantine

I have translated de:Österreichisches Ehrenzeichen für Wissenschaft und Kunst to Austrian Decoration of Honour for Science and Art, and his name doesnt appear there. However that list is unreferenced, and may be missing items.

I've cobbled together Tereggi Medal (Progress Award), which looks like it isnt a very important honour. And no verification that this is the award.

It does look like he was associated with the Order of Saint Lazarus; see. The Austrian Grand Priory has a website at http://www.lazarus-orden.at/, and Feigl is mentioned here. They have a contact address listed:  There is also another website (http://www.st-lazarus-orden.at/) which is devoid of any content.

Order of Constantine redirects to Angelici, which is an ancient order; is there a modern version? Very odd. John Vandenberg (chat) 06:29, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

other details
There are others details in Google News.

According to this was an honorary member of board of the Congress of Azerbaijanis of Europe, and the honorable president of the “Azerbaijan Academic Association” in Austria.

According to this, he met with the President Ilham Aliyev on 6 June 2005, which might be when he received the Medal. John Vandenberg (chat) 07:21, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

professor and historian
Gazifikator claims that no RS have referred to him as a professor or historian. Well that isnt strictly true. Most are Turkish and Azeri literature (ASAM often uses both); e.g. here is one for "historian":

In the article Azeri leader, Austrian historian discuss Karabakh, distributed by BBC Monitoring Central Asia; London Jun 7, 2005 p. 1 (source: Azad Azarbaycan TV, Baku, in Azeri 15:30 GMT, 6 Jun 05) it says

Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev received Austrian historian Erich Feigl today [6 June]. The Austrian professor promised to do his best to contribute to the liberation of the occupied territories of Azerbaijan and the return of refugees and displaced persons to their homes.

However there are also independent reliable sources, such as this.

In the article, and its abstract, the article Heart of empress will be removed for Hapsburg shrine, Toronto Star; Toronto, Ont. Mar 15, 1989 p. D11, it says

Professor Erich Feigl, official biographer of the Habsburg family, said today that Zita's heart would be removed in Chur, Switzerland, near her exile home.

At this stage I dont mind if it is included or not, but we do need to avoid aggressive edits accompanied with provably false edit summaries. John Vandenberg (chat) 16:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, this sums it up nicely -- he was indeed a professor since 1984, and he was a historian. --Goldorack (talk) 10:54, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Only reliable source we have on him, is that Feigl was a denier and revisionist. Gazifikator (talk) 10:58, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * to begin with, that has nothing to do with him being a historian and professor. Finally, he "revised" and "denied" something, which is not a universally established or proven beyond any reasonable doubt fact. It is your and some others' POV. --Goldorack (talk) 11:18, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

A source is needed to support this "professor" claim -the current "The Prof. title was conferred on him in 1984" is unsustainable without it. What was he a professor of, where and by whom was it "conferred" to him? Goldorack - take your POV warring elsewhere. "Criticism of the claims of Armenian Genocide" is not valid terminology. It has all been argued about before by similar POV warriors who came, fought, and were vanquished. If you want to try out your arguments for such fundamental changes you need to take them to the "parent" articles, such as Armenian Genocide or Denial of the Armenian Genocide. BTW, based on the chapter titles Armenian Mythomania seems to be just a reissue of his ''A Myth of Terror" book under a different title. Meowy 16:22, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * BTW2 - can the http://armenians-1915.blogspot.com/2007/06/1755-free-e-book-armenian-mythomania.html page be seen by other editors?

No one should make such massive edits to this article which made sense at the beginning and now in risk of meeting the same fate that many articles here met, once the hard-core pov editors got their hands on it. If interested in specific aspects of his work, then start a new article. It works both ways. If you open the door, then someone will start adding quotes from the book and believe me, some of you will not like it at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.186.248.90 (talk) 20:10, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree that we need more evidence that he was a professor; newspapers are often wrong, especially newspapers in far away countries. However, according to the WorldCat database he is the author of a 103 p. dissertation/thesis:

A copy is held in two universities: Obtaining a copy of this will help us find details about his studies. John Vandenberg (chat) 03:33, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek (german)
 * Universität Göttingen (Germany)
 * Universiteit Utrecht (Netherlands)
 * Center for Research Libraries (USA)
 * Common-sense says that that is another "Erich Feigl". People born in 1931 and who have made a career out of producing middling documentaries and non-academic books, generally do not, in their 64th year, produce a dissertation on theoretical physics. Meowy 16:10, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I see it has been 3 months since I asked for a source for the "professor" claim, and the claim has been fact tagged for all that time. Unless I see a citation to support the claim, or some compelling reasoning why it should not be removed, I will remove the claim in few days. Meowy 19:27, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Gosh, I should have picked that up. I have removed the thesis.
 * I agree with removing "professor". I've found more Azeri and Turkish sources which assert this., but I would like to know which university before I trust them. John Vandenberg (chat) 07:49, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I've removed it. Meowy 15:07, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

editing the article
It seems too many editors want to edit according to their own views. Having an entire section devoted to "Denial of Armenian Genocide" which takes up about half the article is far too much weight given to such a controversial topic for this article, especially when most of the section is devoted to the Simon Weisenthal centers, which isn't exactly known for its objectivity or accuracy, report on him. Instead of one click reverts or using the edit history for discussion which is against WP policy, i suggest the page is protected and edits only made after coming to a consensus on this Talk Page. Xaghan (talk) 14:16, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * This person is primarily known for his denial of the Armenian Genocide and his other racist views. If it wasn't for that there wouldn't even be an article on him.--  Ευπάτωρ   Talk!! 15:40, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thats highly subjective and conveys your opinions clearly. The article is about the person.  Not one aspect of him that absorbs the views of some people. Xaghan (talk) 17:07, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The quote is salient. The quote is cited. Stop playing games. DBaba (talk) 00:35, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Let me remind you the edit history is not to be used for discussion and accusing editors of being racists and bigots to justify vandalism is very low. The discussion should stay here and remain civil.  The quote may be cited but it doesn't justify an entire section and taking up half the article. Xaghan (talk) 12:45, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The removed quote claims it is A report by the Simon Wiesenthal Center addressing Feigl's A Myth of Terror: Armenian Extremism which is misleading in itself. Follow the link and it takes you not to a report but an online magazine that's published by the SWC.  The article itself is a review on Edgar Hilsenrath by Dagmar C. G. Lorenz.  Erich Feigl is mentioned only in footnote 19.  So it is neither a report by the SWC nor is the article addressing Feigl's book.  Xaghan (talk) 13:07, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm... it's time to kick ass and chew bubble gum... and I'm all outta gum.

Firstly, Feigl's main notability was gained through his activities related to his denial of the Armenian genocide, so that section of the article should take up a substantial proportion of the whole. Thus, Xaghan's deletion of the entire "Denial of Armenian Genocide" section is completely unsuppportable.

Secondly, Feigl has not been "accused of denial of Armenian genocide" (text in version Xaghan has reversed to) - he did deny the Armenian Genocide - that was the purpose of his "Myth of Terror" book. I had cited a specific page (page 7) in that book in which Feigl makes clear what he means when he uses the word "myth" - Xaghan chose to remove the "myth" quoted word and falsify the citation to make it into a justification for the words "claims of".

Thirdly, on Xaghan taking issue with the use of the Lorenz's quote taken from the Weisenthal annual. All that is needed is to replace the word "addressing" with a more specific word, perhaps something like "describing" or similar. Feigl is not "mentioned only in footnote 19". It is actually footnote 20, the longest footnote in the article, and the footnote is in a section of the article about Turkish historians revising history, with Feigl's book cited as an example of a European author supporting "Turkish cryptofascist anti- Armenian propaganda" with a book that is the equivalent to "neoconservative Holocaust revisionism". Meowy 16:29, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Xaghan, describing your reverts as undoing vandalism doesn't help your revisionist cause.--  Ευπάτωρ   Talk!! 16:44, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for spamming my talk page with the 3RR warning. If you check the edit history you will see i wasn't who removed the section and DBaba was who started the reverts without discussion and using insults to justify his reverts.  The warning states content disputes should be discussed which is exactly what i am doing, why i started this discussion topic.  Despite that DBaba continued his reverts with insults.  Very good.
 * Meowy, the claims are the allegations which he refutes. The quote is also still misleading since it is an opinion of a germanic studies professor writing in a magazine published by the SWC.  It doesn't mean the views are shared by the SWC. Xaghan (talk) 17:14, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Eupator, I dont understand why you felt i should be reminded of Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 in my talk page since it neither refers to this article nor am i involved in it. However perhaps you should review it yourself since you and meowy were both blocked as a result of it, in particular the final decision and principals secion.  Why people are continuing to edit the article despite a discussion taking place here is beyond me.  People pick and choose the rules when it suits them.  Xaghan (talk) 17:33, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It should be understand that the absolutist approach to dogmatically include the footnote as an approved condemnation from Dagmar Lorenz on behalf of the SWC can make you blind. Xaghan (talk) 18:00, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

"Armenian Mythomania-Armenian Extremism: Its Causes and Historical Context" - the online version seems to be identical to "A Myth of Terror", minus its photographs (and with the photo captions incorporated into the text). I.e., rather than it being a new book, it is merely a republishing of "A Myth of Terror" under a new title. Meowy 16:50, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * "Armenian Mythomania-Armenian Extremism" is, and it is listed as an edition of "Mythos des Terrors"; the worldcat listing says it contains more pages than the original 1986 English translation . If you can confirm it is similar to the original English, then it sounds like it is only an edition/republishing, and we should remove the sentence about finishing it before he died. John Vandenberg (chat) 02:01, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The url link in the article that led to the online version is no longer working - it was a week ago. Or has an edit to the article changed the url? When I looked at it a week ago, the text was, word-for-word, chapter-title-for-chapter-title, identical to the "Myth of Terror" book. Meowy 21:00, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Huh! It's back again - . Meowy 15:10, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Institute for Armenian Research
This is weird. It seems to be Ermeni Araştırmaları, Number 23-24, 2006, yet it is talking about Feigl's death and he didnt die until the end of January 2007 so we can only assume that it was number 24, and it was a little late. It isnt a very popular journal, so it will be hard to check.

Anyway, it says that he was on the advisory board of their magazines "Armenian Studies" and "Review of Studies of Armenia". So I went looking through the articles, and found "İnanç FEIGL, Avusturya Türk Bilim Ofisi/Austrian-Turkish Science Office, Vienna" and Erich FEIGL, Prof. Dr., Historian". John Vandenberg (chat) 13:20, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Its Olaylar ve Yorumlar section says "This article, which examines significant developments regarding the Armenian question that occurred between November 2006 and March 2007" - so the magazine must have been published after March 2007. Meowy 17:57, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Not A Book Review
As I had pleaded before, this is an article about an author and historian, not book review, or as some pov editors prefer a condemnation of his work and person. If interested in going into his works, especially the Mythomania, then start an article about the book and I promise, I will contribute profusely and generously.--Murat (talk) 03:35, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * He is well-known genocide denier and pseudohistorian. It should be mentioned in the article. Gazifikator (talk) 05:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The material Murat removed was not a "book review", it was an opinion about Feigl as an author and about the aims of one of his books. Meowy 00:42, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Opinion? Since when it is ok to submit opions here? Was it not you whining that in another article I dared to include opinions?  The paragraph has the book title.  This is obviously a book review, a very specific one.  Sometimes I wonder if people read what they write and blush.--Murat (talk) 03:52, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Therein lies your fundamental misunderstanding of what an article should and should not contain. The "opinion" is the opinion of a credible published source - it is not your opinion or my opinion! Meowy 15:18, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Erich Feigl. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110706131443/http://ru.apa.az/print.php?id=24716 to http://ru.apa.az/print.php?id=24716

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:48, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Erich Feigl. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081120085008/http://www.mns.gov.az/erix_fayql_en.html to http://www.mns.gov.az/erix_fayql_en.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:38, 22 September 2017 (UTC)