Talk:Genocide denial/Archive 2

Armenian Genocide
I find it very biased to imply that it definitely happened considering the fact that it's not universally recognized. I will include the words "alleged" in the part detailing the alleged Armenian Genocide. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.129.70.29 (talk) 18:47, 6 April 2007 (UTC).
 * None of these genocides are universally recognized, hence 'Genocide denial'. Arguably none of these genocides happened, but as most modern Historians (in virtually all present cases) believe they did happen, revisionist attempts are considered denial. There is nothing that makes AG any less thoroughly proven then any other genocide, so if you want to add ‘allegedly’, you will have to add it to all of them.The Myotis 02:30, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Genocides found to be such in a court of law are very different from alleged and genocides. Just as there is a major difference between someone accused of murder and someone found guilty of murder in a court of law. --Philip Baird Shearer 00:00, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Very different? By lot logic, if the term 'genocide' had never appeared in the Numberg trials (and, if I remember, it was only mentioned once) then is would be perfectly appropriate to call holocaust denial 'genocide denial'. The decisions (or lack thereof) of an international court are meaningless, this is Wikipedia, and Wikipedia uses the academic work, not international law, for its definitions.The Myotis 03:23, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Is this page written by an anarchist Armenian? All names given under genocide deniers 90% denying Armenian "genocide". These historians are made targets of Armenian brutality by such postings. And the history is being re-written. Maybe there should be an article on Genocide CREATORS. This article is very biased and has no academic content. I would have no problem by using the terminology of "alleged". This is a serious web-site, not a kindergarden. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.148.202.106 (talk) 05:08, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, If your problem is the percentage, then I am certain we can add a few more historical revisionists of other topics. As for your thoughts on the event as a whole, you should discuss them here as wikipedia does not contradict itself, and as far as wikipedia is concerned the Calamity was definitely genocide, with what I understand to be your opinion falling under a minority point of view. The Myotis (talk) 08:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * My problem is the types of individuals like yourself having a radical point of view and either being funded by Armenian institutions or personally satisfying your internal selves, trying to re-write history and continueing Crusades in 21st Century, creating an enemy which actually does not exist, turning this serious Wikipedia project into a circus.What do you think is minority and what is majority? Have you made a world-wide poll? Have you asked 2.5 billion Chinese and Indians for example? Do majority of states agree with you? Why does Armenia run away from courts or historical evaluations? Why have Armenians numerous times created falsified documents? Are you aware how much Armenian diaspora live outside of Armenia? Where did these people come from? Did you expect that, when all major powers of the world were going to attack a country, and 4 million Turks had to be replaced, and 2.5 million Turks had died in conflicts, when Turkey and Armenia had wars for 4 years officially, Armenians would suffer no casualties? Behave!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.148.202.106 (talk) 10:18, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Very funny. Why dont you try reading what NPOV means rather than making up your own definition of 'Majority' and 'minority' POV. "Majority" and "Minority" POV is defined in respect to academic mainstream and the viewpoints of most historians who have studied the topic.  As for 're-writing' history, the Calamity has been a Genocide since Raphael Lemkin coined the word (he specifically cited it as an example), people who state otherwise are the 're-writers'. And to say that Armenia was 'at war' with Turkey is and outright fabrication. Armenia was not a country during nor prior to the extermination, so there could have been no wars, officially or otherwise, between them. Though I suppose the Ottoman Empire might have declared war against a nonexistent country, I sincerely doubt it. I am not even going to address the rest of the vague accusations you make, as I am certain they have no direct evidence to back them up, even if they were in any way coherent. Also, it would greatly behoove you to avoid making personal attacks, as wikipedia moderators tend to block those who argue ad hominem. The Myotis (talk) 16:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

VATG's Edits
I have posted the following message on VATG's User Page: I can appreciate it that you have a personal point of view about using the term Armenian genocide. However, outside of Turkey and some smally dennier communities, the Armenian genocide is widely accepted as a term referring to events in Turkey during WWI. Your single minded attempt to remove any reference to Armenia and the Armenians from the Genocide page and Genocide denial page is not helpful and should be stopped. It not, I will proceed with the next steps for stopping such practice. Joel Mc 09:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC) I would appreciate any suggestions re: next steps Joel Mc 09:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, people can always watch the page and revert as is done quite frequently, or use the talk pages for debates - people having different views is a content dispute.. Baristarim 09:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Anyways, this article has bigger problems, the whole article needs to be cleaned up. Particularly as it relates to events that have happened in lesser-known countries in Africa, Asia et al. Baristarim 09:31, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

POV
The reference web page about Franjo Tuđman being genocide denier starts with "The Nazi collaborator Archbishop Stepinac". So much about NPOV... Deleted.

Only Croats were members of Ustaša?!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.172.43.26 (talk) 20:07, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Well he was a nazi-collaborator (well fascist at-least), thats why he got sentenced to 16 years. Paulcicero 20:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * He got sentenced to 16 years in a political trial like many other people in Yugoslavia.


 * Citations on Franjo Tuđman being a genocide denier are terrible. First citation for Tuđman says the opposite(!!!) than what is the claimed in the article. Second citation starts with "The Nazi collaborator Archbishop Stepinac", although Stepinac was sentenced in a political trial like many others in post-WW2 Yugoslavia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.0.77.162 (talk) 22:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not interested to hear comments by user without name but ... Second source is clearly speaking of 83 000 or 70 000 killed (it is writen 83 000 osoba and 70 000 ljudi) with statement that nobody has defeated this numbers. First source will now be on english so everybody will see what is writen. Rjecina 22:12, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Tuđman was just one of the many historians and statisticians involved in the debate about the number of victims in Jasenovac. The issue is still open and the numbers have varied wildly over the last fifty years. The wide scope of the debate can be seen in articles like Jasenovac concentration camp, Vladimir Žerjavić and Bogoljub Kočović. While Tuđman was among the scholars on the lower end of the number spectrum, abusing that fact to call him a holocaust denier is ridiculous. --Zmaj 20:54, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It´s proven that over 50 000 died in jasenovac, more then double of what tudjman stated. Paulcicero 13:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * So he made a wrong estimate. That doesn't make him a genocide denier. Since the other side of the spectrum of proposed victim counts for Jasenovac exceeds the wildly implausible number of 500,000, I really don't see why he should be singled out as an anomaly. In fact, he was much closer to the truth than the other side. --Zmaj 15:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * So you know the truth? Paulcicero 19:23, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I know the facts, which you stated yourself. If you don't have anything sensible to add to the discussion, please do not revert my edits. --Zmaj 20:36, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The truth is that AT LEAST 50 000 died, not 20 000 or 30 000, in Jasenovac. So if i say that 3000 or 4000 died i Srebrenica i wouldn´t be considered a genocide denier? And how do you know what the truth about how many victims there were? Paulcicero 14:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Let me start with your first question. If you were a historian and tried to find out the truth about Srebrenica, and came to 3 or 4 thousand while the number was still varying between 3.000 and 300.000, you wouldn't be a genocide denier. You would simply have made a mistake. But if you said that nobody died in Srebrenica or that the Bosniaks killed themselves, then you would be a genocide denier. It's really not that hard to understand. As for the second question, I assume you're asking it because it's still unclear what the truth is. So if the true number of victims is still unclear, how can you accuse someone of being a genocide denier for the simple fact that he wrongly calculated that number? Your very question shows the pointlessness of your accusation. --Zmaj 22:15, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The victim count of a genocie is a sensitive matter, a president of a country can´t just "guess wrong". Who will draw the line between a wrong guess and denial? Now stop vandalizing the page! Paulcicero 22:22, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * And the number haven´t varied from 20 000 and up, 50 000 is the absolute minimum! Paulcicero 22:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Since you admit you don't know where to draw the line between a wrong guess and a denial, you can't judge people about it, right? I'm removing Tuđman again. --Zmaj 20:59, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Certainly AT LEAST 50% classifies as denial Paulcicero 22:13, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Now that I've had time to actually come back, read this discussion and read some articles, I have to agree that adding this in at this point is WP:OR. While Tuđman may deny the severity of the genocide, he's not denying it entirely. To put it simply, this is a gray area and, without reliable sources to show he actively denies the genocide, adding it here is OR. We'll have to wait until some other sources come up that show more clearly his opinion on what happened. -- Kesh 15:22, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * How is it OR? Not even Zmaj denied that Tudjman wrote that 20 000 were killed, the discussion was about if his writings could be classed as genocide denial. According to the article "Genocide denial occurs when an otherwise accepted act of genocide is met with attempts to deny the occurrence and minimize the scale or death toll." That means that he doesn´t have to deny it totally for it to count as genocide denial. Paulcicero 20:34, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Please don't ignore the previous discussion. Tuđman's estimate was perfectly legitimate in the context of the broad discussion of historians and statisticians that was going on at the time. Until you provide something tangible to accuse him of genocide denial, I will be removing Tuđman from the article. I won't even waste my time replying here if you don't provide anything concrete in your comments. --Zmaj 21:20, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I believe everyone knows that Franjo Tudjman was anti-semitic and denied that the Holocaust occurred, in the first called by Goldstein "open revisionist" party of life. However, as much as he tried to undermine the Ustasha genocide and minimalize it, he was no genocide denier later - since he himself admitted for instance the Jasenovac concentration camp. As for "within" did he stay to his nationalistic beliefs to his death (as many think, though he did sometimes expose it during the war), we will never know it. So in the final terms, no, he wasn't technically a genocide denier. --PaxEquilibrium 21:38, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I don´t think it´s as easy as that, his opinions had severe consequences to the war. As it is written in my first source: "But these changes do not and cannot mitigate the consequences of Tudjman’s revisionism. Many of his followers among Croatian journalists and publicists in the 1990s routinely adopted his views from the first editions of The Horrors of War, making abundant use of them in their defence of the Ustasha NDH." Therefore I tink it´s very important to put Tudjman in the article. Besides, he actually DID deny it at some point, everyone can change their opinions on the deathbeds. Paulcicero 21:56, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * In the last added sources, one mentions "the genocidal nature of the Croatian people" and the other says that "contemporary Croatia had been a Nazi puppet state". Sources with this kind of bias have no place anywhere in Wikipedia. --Zmaj 08:27, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Please stop it, you are just grasping at straws. And don´t lie about my references, the original sentence was "Tudjman, the first president of contemporary Croatia, which had been a Nazi puppet state" Which is true, Croatia had been a Nazi puppet state. Please stop it with the accusations, it´s not OR, it´s not biased sources, it is just you who can´t admit that Tudjman denied genocide. Paulcicero 10:05, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Contemporary Croatia has nothing to do with NDH. If you think differently, you're biased or should update your knowledge of history by some fifty years. As for Tuđman, you just keep on claiming he denied a genocide, but you never provided an actual quote of him denying it. Since all his works and statements are available to the public, there can be only one reason why you didn't provide such a quote: there isn't any. Secondary "sources" trying to smear his name won't work here. --Zmaj 17:06, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * "Croatia HAD BEEN a nazi puppet state" stop making up stuff and admit he was a genocide denier Paulcicero 17:20, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Provide a citation. -- Kesh 21:17, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Well Kesh, if you would tell me how I should find early editions of his "mein-kampf" I would gladly provide a citation. But since his book is unavailable in all libraries in my town, it´s gonna be kind of hard. I thought that 4 non-serb sources, including the Wiesenthal center and Searchlight magazine would be good enough. Paulcicero 22:26, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You might try an inter-library loan. Many libraries have an agreement to loan books to one another on request. Do a search on their catalog system, or ask a librarian for help to see if the book is available at any affiliated libraries, and request it.
 * Also, if you want to make URL links here for your web sources, I'll look those over myself when I get the chance. I'd rather not go through the History of the article to pick out the 4 you're referring to at the moment. I may have been looking at different links than the ones you're referring to, so I'd like to see which ones you they are. -- Kesh 22:37, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Searchlight magazine here
 * Simon_Wiesenthal center here
 * Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs here
 * University of New Brunswick school paper article here
 * Also I found severeal Serb sources for the claim but i didn´t even bother including them. And Diana Johnstone (who is also on the list) accuses him of genocide denial and cites his book. Paulcicero 09:48, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Let's see what your sources say...
 * Searchlight magazine here - The article is constantly insinuating that contemporary Croatia is not a modern, democratic state, but a revival of a Nazi puppet state. It is full of unjustified (and, needless to say, unreferenced) claims: continuity with the NDH, the genocidal nature of the Croatian people, the Croatian "general public" which doesn't understand who was on the right side and who was on the wrong side in the Second World War, the many Croatian journalists' defence of the Ustasha NDH (their names are never mentioned, of course), Croatian revisionists such as Tudjman developed a number of theses etc. etc. I don't see how such a biased article could be a valid reference. ::Simon_Wiesenthal center here - They accuse Tuđman of denying genocide in the same sentence in which they say: contemporary Croatia, which had been a Nazi puppet state. As I already said, such extreme bias, which IDENTIFIES a contemporary democratic EU candidate country with a Nazi creation, is inexcusable. It not only totally discredits the source, but makes it liable for prosecution for defamation of a country.
 * Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs here - If the Tuđman quote is true (the footnote points to another book which is still NOT Tuđman's alleged source), it shows only that Tuđman had a very low opinion of Jews. While such opinion is blameful, it has nothing to do with genocide denial.
 * University of New Brunswick school paper article here - A school paper article, which includes no references or literature, cannot be used as a reference in such a serious matter.
 * I hope I have clearly shown the inadequacy or downright invalidity of the mentioned sources. I'm removing Tuđman from the article. --Zmaj 13:00, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * No you haven´t shown the inadequacy of the sources, but your own opinions and views about them. Paulcicero 13:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Berlusconi
The article says Silvio Berlusconi is a "genocide denier" because he said that Mussolini didn't kill anyone. One question: what genocide is Berlusconi denying?--NetProfit 21:26, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Well around 8,000 of Italy's 45,000 Jews were murdered, some of them in Italy but most of them by being deported to German extermination camps. About 30,000 Ethiopians was killed during Italian occupation of Ethiopia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.227.182.96 (talk) 00:25, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Mussolini engaged in unprovoked wars of aggression against Ethiopia, Greece etc, but that's not the same as genocide. Berlusconi's comment was dumb, but essentially he is denying that Mussolini was personally responsible for genocide, not that genocide (i.e. the holocaust) occurred. It's responsibility that's being denied, not the events. Paul B 14:05, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


 * For god sake!!!! Not the same as genocide?


 * The 30,000 pepole I was talking about was not killed in war but executions, that included "about half of the younger, educated Ethiopian population."


 * One third of the Jews in Italy was killed by the fascists, a couple of hundred in italy but most of them indirectly by being sent to Germany, Mussolini was not unaware of what would happen to them in Germany.


 * >>he is denying that Mussolini was personally responsible for genocide


 * Berlusconi did in fact says that;


 * "Mussolini never killed anyone. Mussolini used to send people on vacation in internal exile".


 * I can't see that he is doing anything but denying a genocide, not just Mussolini's role in it.


 * I'm no apologist for Mussolini, but the fact remains that killing lots of people is not the same as genocide, no matter how many exclamation marks you put at the end of your sentence. Everyone who starts a war, even a brutal one, is not committing genocide. Berlusconi was not denying that a genocide (ie the Holocaust) occurred. He was denying that Mussolini was responsible. It does not matter whether he was right or wrong, what matters is that he is not denying the existence of a genocide. OK?!!!!!!! Paul B 18:29, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * No I am not accusing you of being an apologist for Mussolini. I do however accuse you of not reading what I have been writing, as you make compleatly irellevant comments like "wars of aggression .. is not the same as genoide", and that he was "...denying that Mussolini was personally responsible for genocide, not that genocide ...occurred".


 * I might not have been all clear on the matter so I will try to be clearer this time.


 * You are basically saying that when Berlusconi was saying that "Mussolini never killed anyone", what he actually meant was that "Mussolini never killed anyone except for the soldiers and collateral damage from the wars he started". Well I think that you are right, that's probably what he meant. Berlusconi is quite an impulsive guy and often says things without thinking that much of how he says them.


 * I also agree with you that killing people in a war is not necesaryly a genocide (unless it is an extreme case like eg. precission bombing villages or something like that).


 * But none of my examples were about collatteral damage in Mussolini's wars.


 * 1. Executing 30,000 people in Ethiopian is a genocide, thats more than 3 times as many as in the Srebrenica Massacre wich is considered a genocide, these were not killed in a bloody war but executed.


 * 2. 8,000 of Italy's 45,000 Jews were murdered, some of them in Italy but most of them by being deported to German extermination camps


 * Both of these events are as far as I know established facts, and when Berlusconi said that saying that "Mussolini never killed anyone", he was denying those facts.


 * This assumes that Berlusconi actualy said that ofcource, and it is possible that Berlusconi was somehow misstranslated or missunderstood, but I have found no evidence of that.

Article for deletion
This article should be deleted. It starts from the premise that anyone who denies any alleged genocide should be tared with the same brush as a person who engages in Holocaust denial. While there are a few genocides which have been proven to be such in a court of law, where one can query the motives for denying that such a genocide took place, there are many many other accusations of genocide that are just that, unproven accusations. One only has to look at the article genocides in history to see that some alleged genocides have greater international acceptance as genocides than others. To try to imply that all people who deny that a particular event is a genocide are somehow no more credible than a person who engages in Holocaust denial is a nonsense.

The danger with this type of article is that it give succor to those who deny the Holocaust (or any other genocide found to be so in an international court of law), because it allows them to argue that their denial just the same as that of any academic who queries any claim that an event was a genocide no matter how weak and portly researched any particular claim is.

Reading through the page I think that this page is way open to WP:BIO problems. If a person is accused of "Genocide denial" on their biography page or is quoted on a genocide page or an alleged genocide genocide page then it is likely that any mistakes will be picked up quickly and fixed. But on a general page like this were less experts on a particular issue are likely to watch it is less likely that any libel will be noticed -- This is another reason for deleting this page -- or at the very least rephrasing the "Notable genocide deniers" section along the lines of "XYZ claims that ABC is a ...". --Philip Baird Shearer 00:13, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

To take an example from a minority view point to make the point. This web site claims that the "Namibian Seal Cull is - Now Officially - a Seal Genocide". If anyone argues that the use of the term genocide for an animal cull is inappropriate, is that person committing genocide denial? If not then where does one draw the line? --Philip Baird Shearer 00:28, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that is a very heavy-handed response to a minor and easily fixable problem. The article only defines the term and gives examples of its uses. The article, as far as I can tell, does not imply anything As for your frequent use of the word 'alleged', I do not see it used in any case in the article where it would obviously not apply. Also, if you would like to read this article, it states very clearly "circumstances where the event in dispute is not seen to constitute genocide by the majority of scholars, the use of the term may be instead considered propaganda"  in the articles introduction, and your seal article would certainly apply. It is a fairly commonly-used term, and people should have an article to describe its meaning and uses and. In any case, even if a genocide denial accusation is baseless, the word should still be defined. Now, would you do me a favor and specify where exactly you fell a POV is being expressed, so that we may address the problem more directly. Could you maybe give us an example where the Genocide denial article was cited inappropriately on a bio, or what specific statement you find to imply that all the genocides that can be denied are proven. The Myotis 02:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Examples are the major problems with the built in bias of this article. The title of the article predisposes that to any alleged genocide mentioned on this page is a genocide, if it were not a genocide then to refute it would not be genocide denial but some other action. There is no entry for genocide denial in the OED because the phrase means what its says, nothing more or less. If you really think that the phrase is notable I suggest it is moved to Wiktionary as ""Genocide denier" one who denies that a genocide occurred", because the more general concept of Historical revisionism (negationism) already has an article and the more specific denial of genocides such as Holocaust denial have their own articles. --Philip Baird Shearer 09:32, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Examples are fundamental to wikipedia, as a wikitionary page would give denotative, rather than connotative language. Without examples and a full page, a reader would not understand that the term 'Genocide denial' does not always refer to outright denial of the event, but also to minimization or definition-dodging, or that the phrase is also used to describe various war crimes and massacres that may not be typically not referred to as a genocide. As you mentioned, several examples listed fall under that category. Indeed, it would certainly be appropriate to mention that these are not typically defined as genocides, and only fall under the category 'genocide denial' in terms of connotative speaking. And if your really feel that those three violate the continuity of the article, remove them. The Myotis 23:09, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The article does not take the stance that the genocides were, in fact, genocides. However, it does point out that the general scholarly consensus is that they were genocides. Therefore, those who deny them are genocide deniers. Second, you're arguing to delete an article on a specific form of revisionism because the general article exists. That would be like deleting Oxygen because we have an article on Molecules. -- Kesh 22:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

To show you how bias this article is take this sentence which appears in the second paragraph "Most instances of genocide denial are usually considered a form of Historical revisionism." But if one is refuting an accusation that something was a genocide when the majority of historians do not accept that it was one how can such a denial be called historical revisionism?

Further where is the "the general scholarly consensus is that [these are] genocides"? All three taken from the list word for word. I could have taken more but they do to prove the point. For which of the genocides listed on this page can you find any reliable third party source that states that the "general scholarly consensus" is that it was a genocide. If one can not find such a source then mentioning an event as a genocide on this page is original research. --Philip Baird Shearer 12:33, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The Nanjing Massacre (1937) by the Japanese army has been denied by many Japanese politicians, such as Shintaro Ishihara, and mainstream historians;
 * The Holodomor famine in Ukraine in 1932-33 killed at least 3 million victims after agricultural produce has been confiscated from peasants by the communist authorities of the Soviet Union. Its existence was denied by the Soviet authorities up until the late 1980s, whilst the actual genocidal character, still in question, is officially denied by several authorities, including those of Russia and many researchers worldwide.
 * The genocide of Bengali Hindus and some Muslims in the 1971 Bangladesh atrocities is denied by Pakistan, whose military perpetrated the acts when they were in control of the East Pakistan region.


 * I tend to agree with Philip here. This article is fundamentally a mess. The main section on the supposed techniques of genocide denial is just pure OR and totally unreferenced. The list of genocide deniers is ridiculous. Gunther Lewy and Bernard Lewis, both distinguished scholars, are listed as "genocide deniers" simply because they legitimately argue that the murders of Armenians were not genocide as such - because there was no plan to obliterate the Armenian people. We don't have to agree with their view to accept that it's an argument that can be made. They are not denying the events, just the application of the term 'genocide'. Paul B 20:08, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Bernard Lewis and Gunther Lewy's denial goes beyond just the definition of genocide, Gunther Lewy's numbers for people killed in the Armenian genocide is less than half of the cosensus among historians, he has also been citizised shaply by Gregory H. Stanton, the founder and president of Genocide Watch, Bernard Lewis on the other hand was convicted in France for genocide denial. It is true however that they are usualy considered to be distinguished scholarls in there respective fields, but in the case of Bernard Lewis he is not even in his field when he is talking about the Armenians, he is an expert of the history of Islam and the Ottoman empire, and have never published any study on the Armenian genocide.


 * All the relevant content should be merged into Historical revisionism (negationism). Negationism is precisely denying genocides and other crimes against humanity (but puts a special emphasis on genocide denial). It is contrasted to Holocaust denial which is specifically concerned with... the Holocaust. Holocaust denial is a specific case of negationism. Tazmaniacs 18:20, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not a fan of Gunther Lewy, whose book on the Nazi Persecution of Gypsies I read last year. Its bias is obvious. He is very clearly a proponent of Jewish exceptionalism. Bernard Lewis was technically convicted and required to pay one frank (or one euro or something - I forget which). That's a good argument against having laws on 'genocide denial'. They are inevitably going to become politicised. Lewis is not a specialist in the Armenian massacre as such, but he is a specialist, as you say, on the history of Islam and the Ottoman empire. Since these events occured in the Ottoman empire, it hardly seems outside his area of expertise. The point is that neither writer is engaged in outright denial of events, they are interpreting them in their own ways within the legitimate limits of scholarly debate. Having them on a list of genocide deniers creates a very misleading impression - it confuses two separate issues: denying that an event was a genocide and denying that it happened. Paul B 11:01, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not sure how familiar you actually are with genocide denial, but you should keep in mind that almost all forms of Holocaust denial could be filed as 'not outright denial' - after all, virtually all people who have been labeled as 'Holocaust deniers' do not deny events, but rather estimate a far lower death toll, or that the deaths of prisoners was not always intentional, or that there was no official policy of killing prisoners, that war records of the Holocaust were part of allied propaganda, things which are consistently labeled holocaust denial, but, by your definition, would not even fit under the definition 'genocide denial'. They call themselves 'Holocaust revisionists' for a reason. Very few holocaust deniers actually claim that no Jews died, but instead argue that the events are extremely exaggerated and probably would not qualify as genocide. Also, this article makes it clear that, true to the precedent, that genocide denial also includes excessive minimization or skepticism of the traditionally defined event, so nobody who reads the article should be confused. If you feel strongly about that particular list, however, we can specify exactly what each person's claims are. The Myotis 01:08, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I am extremely familiar with the subject thank you, and there is an overwhelming difference between holocaust deniers and many of the real scholars listed here. It's almost impossible to find Holocaust deniers who are university affiliated scholars or who are not clearly motivated by antisemitist or neo-Nazi ideology. There is also a big difference between scholars who argue - for example - that there some numbers have been exaggerated or are inaccurate, and those who asrgue that there was not any systematic campaign by the Nazis to eliminate Jews. This page is clearly an attempt to equate peole who question the extent of the Armenian genocide, or the applicability of the term, with holocaust deniers. There is no reason to uniquely stress Armenia either. Other events are mentioned this page but they are minimised. There are books that claim that Native American people were subject to genocide; the Africans were; that Aboriginal Australians were; or that the Irish were. Is any scholar who dispiutes these claims or questions the figure of those who make them a "genocide denier" simply because Holcaust deniers also dispute claims and reduce figures? This is the fundamental problem. Paul B 06:00, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Extremely familiar? Really? Now tell me, where exactly is the 'obvious antisemitism' of James J. Martin, Paul Rassinier, Arthur Butz, and Harry Elmer Barnes, aside from their negationist stance on the Holocaust? These are the people who founded Holocaust denial, but there biases are not more evident than Lewey or McCarthy. They are all 'scholars' in the technical manner of speaking, they hold degrees from Universities. And there level of denial also varies, Barnes never actually argued against or for anything, he simply questioned aspects of the event, whereas Butz asserted that the events were entirely Hoaxed. But they are both Holocaust deniers. Wether a scholar is a genocide denier depends on how far they depart from the mainstream views, rather than the subject they are disputing.The Myotis 11:12, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Utter baloney. Only one of these guys is clearly a holocaust denier and he is not an academic in a relevant discipline. The reality is that holocaust denial is inseparable from the history of pro-Nazi thought. It began in fact long before these historians, among surviving Nazi supporters who refused to accept allied claims after the end of the war, considering them to be propaganda. There were many such persons. See, for example, Sigfrid Gauch's book Vaterspuren, about his father. The fact that some historians - for various reasons - have questioned figures and "official" histories would not be a significant issue were it not for the fact that the real deniers - antisemites and neo-Nazis - will pick on any expressions of scepticism by any legitimate historian to support their claims and to give it mainstream credibility. The problem is creating a fantasised monolith of "denialism" and then pathologising it, as this article seeks to do in its initial section. A legitimate and NPOV discussion of the concept of "genocide denial" might be valuable, but it is liable to degenerate into lists, and I certainly doubt that any list of genocide deniers is at all useful. Paul B 12:57, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Baloney? All of those people are mentioned of the Holocaust denial page, Barnes is listed as one of the earliest examples, and was a mainstream historian, but he is explicitly categorized as a proponent of Holocaust denial. Martin was never believed to be an anti-semite, as was Rassinier. I ask you one question, and I hope you will give me a very specific answer, what is the difference between Holocaust-denying academics such as Barnes and Rassinier and Genocide deniers such as Lewy and McCarthy? They do not claim the events did not happen, but question the status and the death toll. They are scholars who follow minority views, but they are scholars. If it is only the lists you feel are a problem, they can be revised or removed.The Myotis 23:00, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Obviously there is more than one denier here. Who are you thinking about, Paul B? Paul Rassinier is definitely a denier, Butz' The Hoax of the Twentieth Century also appears to be one &mdash; that already makes two. Tazmaniacs 22:37, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The Myotis you still have not addressed the issue that apart from those genocides found to be so in a court of law, what are the objective criteria to decide if there is a genocide to deny? For example is anyone who questions the validity of the ALF claim that "the "Namibian Seal Cull is - Now Officially - a Seal Genocide" a genocide denier? If not why not? If you answer "the general scholarly consensus", then please provide an objective way of assessing what the general scholarly consensus is for the three genocides I highlighted at the start of this thread (indentation). --Philip Baird Shearer 08:58, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The International Association of Genocide Scholars would be as good place to gauge the opinions of the international community of experts on this subject, though a poll of people in that specific field of study, if available, would be better. There is no evidence that the opinions of a ecoterrorist group are a majority. The Myotis 11:12, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * But there in no evidence that ALF's views are not a majority. AFAICT there is no paper on the International Association of Genocide Scholars web site which list how many scholars consider any particular genocide to be a genocide. I certainly could find no mention one way or another on the "Seal Genocide". What about the other three that I highlighted at the start of this thread is there a a "poll of people in that specific field of study" for any of those genocides? For how many of the genocides listed on this page can you produced any third party evidence that states that the majority of scholars agree that it is a genocide? --Philip Baird Shearer 15:39, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * And until evidence is produced that indicates, directly or indirectly, that the views of ALF are held by the majority of any academic population, we must assume that they are not. If the term 'Genocide denial' was actually used by the ALF, it might be appropriate to include it as 'other uses' or trivia. Likewise, I have already indicated that the war crimes you listed are not genocides by consensus, but are included as an associated topic. Again, if you feel strongly about then, remove them for the good of the article. Also, the IAGS has a list of 'Resolutions and statments' which are intended to show the stances of their membership. The Myotis 22:39, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Might be no use, but I'll put my 2 pennies worth again as PBS' invited me to... Arguing about the legitimity of historical researches, and possible boundaries which must not be passed (mainly, not denying reality), is quite beside the point. Paul B may be very knowledgeable in Holocaust denial issues, but we're not arguing here if it is correct or not to claim that some are doing the same to the Armenian genocide (or whatever genocide you want) than neo-Nazis with the Holocaust. Why? Because the very expression of "Genocide denial" is a complete synonym of Historical revisionism (negationism): this is a fork, and this article merged in the later. Any content dispute can take place at Talk:Historical revisionism (negationism). Tazmaniacs 22:27, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * PS:The "Seal Genocide" example is not without some (dark) humor, but quite beside the point. This is of course a WP:FRINGE view which has no reason to be included ("Genocide is the deliberate and systematic destruction of an ethnic, religious or national group", not of a "specie"), while it is not fringe at all to assert that genocide denials (other than Holocaust denial) happens. Furthermore, judicial truth is not historical truth, and has no more objectivity than the latter (both carrying political implications) &mdash; but that's a subject we already had the opportunity to discuss with PBS :) Tazmaniacs 22:29, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I am deleting "Genocide Deniers" section and its references as they only create targets for Armenian brutality against these respected historians. Freedom of speech is only one side of it, not to mention that these are highly respected historians, who could not be "bought" to express a view in a certain way as Armenian's would prefer. In order to respect these people's rights and to secure them from Armenian brutality or agitation, I am removing this section at least. And I leave the removal of the remaining parts of this unnecessary, biased, unacademic, science-fiction article for future discussions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.148.202.106 (talk) 07:21, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Great Chinese Famine
As this is a page about genocide denial and not about genocides should the "Great Chinese Famine" realy be listed? The chinese government actualy acknowledges that it hapened so that rises the question; Who denies it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.227.182.96 (talk) 00:11, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think this is absurd and it should be removed. The Chinese government did NOT willingly "kill" that many people in the famine, so I don't think the "Great Chinese Famine" counts as a genocide. Though, of course, it is the result of some horrible mismanagement by the Chinese government. However, there is also no doubt that the natural disasters that occurred during this period contributed (to what extent is disputed) to the death toll. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.67.173.25 (talk) 01:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Biographical details of living persons
See WP:PROVEIT & Biographies of living persons

No one ought to edit into Wikipedia allegations about living people that could damage their reputations unless the information is backed up with reliable verifiable sources. Saying someone is a genocide denier for a genocide that is widely recognised as a genocide is IMHO damaging to their reputations and a breach of policy unless they have made such statements and it can be proven that they have. As Biographies of living persons

Or as WP:PROVEIT say: Do not leave unsourced information that may damage the reputation of living persons or organisations in articles (See Biographies of living persons for details of this policy). As Jimmy Wales has put it:

Because this is not a biography on a specific person it is very easy for us to get it wrong as this article is not a likely to get the same level of scrutiny by Wikipeida experts on the person's biography page, So I suggest that any information about anyone accused of genocide denial in this article is done either by stating that they were found guilty in a court of law of that offence or the information is provided as a quotation. I.E. XYZ said "ABC".

Here is an example:

One other point see Biographies of living persons, the information must have verifiable reliable sources, not blog pages, and not unpublished primary sources from unreliable URLs like this one http://www.ids.net/~gregan/dec_eng.html (because it is not published by a reliable source). However although this website is not a reliable one http://www.virtual-security.net the author of the piece David Campbell is a reliable source for this information. It would of course be better if the quote came from an academic journal ... --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 21:07, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong agree. Labelling people "deniers" is legally problematical unless they've been convicted. It's not clear we may label them as such even then - see this exchange. The RS basis of the claim made there is not in doubt, it comes from a very well-cited book, "The Holocaust Industry" which states that one particular, legally tested and proved, denial of the AG is "Holocaust Denial" (it's on p.69 in the much enlarged 2003 Second Edition). But many people (now including myself) might prefer not to use that quote when they know the circumstances. (Labelling people "deniers" may be morally questionable too, given the massive abuse of such smears. I've not thought the implications of that one through properly).
 * There are other significant changes needed to that section, the Armenian examples could do with breaking out. This will make the unkind imbalance against the Turks even more evident, but it looks as if we'll be saved as the Ukrainian Holodomor gets more and more coverage. There are bound to be many cases of people denying (or "DENYING") that too.
 * Lastly, there are other examples which must look perilously close to denial - it's difficult to imagine that claims made in this republished 1962 leaflet (?) are taken very seriously by anyone who know anything of this case. PRtalk 09:22, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Techniques used by illegitimate historical revisionists
I have changed the section header from "Techniques used by genocide deniers" to the title "Techniques used by illegitimate historical revisionists"

The reason for this is that anyone can claim that a genocide took place. For example the Government of Bosnia and Herzegovina accused Serbia and Montenegro, the successor state to Yugoslavia of complicity to commit a wide spread genocide in Bosnia. While recognising that a genocide took place at Srebrenica, the ICJ President Rosalyn Higgins noted that there is a lot of evidence to prove that crimes against humanity and war crimes had been committed in Bosnia and Herzegovina such as widespread killings, the siege of towns, mass rapes, torture, deportation to camps and detention centres, but the International Court of Justice did not have jurisdiction over these crimes, because the case in front of the ICJ dealt "exclusively with genocide in a limited legal sense and not in the broader sense sometimes given to this term".

No one would accuse the ICJ of using the techniques described in this articles paragraph under discussion here, even though they found that Serbia was not involved in a wide spread genocide and as such could be seen as genocide deniers as a minority of legal scholars had suggested before the trial that ethnic cleansing was a for of genocide, something that the court rejected unless other factors (such as biological destruction of part of the protected group) were present. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 18:02, 5 August 2008 (UTC)