Talk:Justin McCarthy (American historian)

Misleading modifier concerning Hovanissian
can you provide the source that specifically refers to Hovanissian as merely an Armenian genocide historian? Étienne Dolet (talk) 01:32, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Nowhere is stated that he is "merely an Armenian genocide historian", and we don't require reference for statement on obvious fact, phenomenons, itd - you, know, like saying that Armenian is, hm, Armenuan.-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  09:41, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, maybe now it's a matter of consensus, now that User:TU-nor showed up. We can now obscure from view such en elemental background info, because it gives a little wider angle in the perspective from which one evaluate.-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  10:01, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Beside consensus, there is also the question of relevance. In the same section, there are a lot of "historian X says", "historian Y says" etc. You will have to explain why it should be necessary to include a background modifier especially for this historian. The elemental background info is, of course, relevant in the article about Hovannisian, but I cannot see how it is relevant here. It certainly give the impression of poisoning the well. Perhaps you would also want to give similar "elemental info" about Auron, Imber and Mazower? --T*U (talk) 10:35, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm curious, T*U, are you really convinced that the "Poisoning the Well" argument could somehow apply here - I'm curious and saying this because I remember you making some very sensible and levelheaded comments in cases where I was involved (admittedly, I may be a little bit biased here, when I say your comments were sensible because you gave them in favor of my own stance). Anyhow, the "Poisoning" argument is not a WP policy nor guideline, it's something editors use to repel attacks based on the argument that others using unscientific, fringe theories, and that their attitude has ulterior motives based on conspiracy, etc - so, in other words, facts (especially with refs), background or any other variety, cannot poison anything, only baseless accusations in an attempt to discredit fellow editor can! So, instated of article on this particular idiom used for naming strain of "informal fallacy", I would rather suggest this essay. Anyone who thinks that such basic facts about the subject, not an irrelevant adverse info, can poison an entire article and/or discredit person and his line, tells us more about editor who cry foul in the first place as well as subject and his work, than about the editor who tries to insert those facts and his intention to do so. As for the other scholars in this article, I have no obligation or need to write and add info about them. I am only interested in this particular character and the fact that his works have been widely used for referencing entire series on the Armenian Genocide. Not to mention whether this one is really fitting for use in controversial content, where he could be perceived as in conflict of interest. Entire subject of Armenian genocide will always be within the domain of scholarship and politics only; there are no judicial processes nor judicial verdicts to refer to, only research and researchers politics - with that in mind, the man is Armenian, and not only is he from a family that has survived persecution and ethnic cleansing, but he has devoted his entire career to the study of modern Armenian history and that with an emphasis on persecution and genocide. This isn't damning by itself, he could well be neutral, but it is damning that he is a political activist, that he is engaged in Armenian politics and elections as an activist, that his son is an Armenian politician who is a member of parliament and who ran for president, and whose party is conspicuously named "Heritage," which has been in coalition with ultra-nationalists for years, and whose political platform is based on the use of history and genocide for political purposes and to win votes, as well as strong anti-Turkish and anti-Azerbaijani rhetoric. And then my four or five words are subject of contention, even though these are literally elementary facts!?-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  17:18, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The definition of well poisoning is something like presenting irrelevant information about a person in order to discredit what that person says. When you state that you have no interest in adding similar "background information" about other historians mentioned, but are only interested in this particular character, you strengthen my feeling that you want to add it in order to do exactly that, discredit or at least weaken what he says.
 * The question of interest for us here is not who he is (and certainly not who his son is), but whether his book is a reliable source. If you want to contest that, please raise your concern here or at WP:RSN, but not by indirectly targeting his credibility in the article text. --T*U (talk) 20:56, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Your link gives a very nice and precise definition, which is not what you say it is. Your feeling about my choice is beside the point, and if four words line about the fact that he is Armenian historian with knack for writing on Armenian genocide, is discrediting for him, in any editor's view, well that's too bad for him, and anyone seeing it that way. Although it's also beside the point, I am not afraid expressing my dismay for the fact that "community" has no objection using Armenian historian whose work maybe/is probably tainted with ideology and nationalism (which tells nothing on my opinion and perspective toward the historical events - the rest is just your "feeling"), however, I have no intention of questioning his neutrality nor his reliability, and certainly I have never tried it in the first place (here too is just your feeling). However, I find interesting how standards within "community" vary from case to case on reliability, notability and consensus, in this and related topics, namely histories of Balkan conflicts and genocides, with many illuminating examples - Hovanissian, McCarthy, Malcolm are but a few.-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  23:43, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Repetitive Sections
Why are there numerous paragraphs and sections dedicated to the same narrow topic? Why not collect all academic and literary criticism into one section? It should be titles as such also. It is noteworthy that there are only a few lines on the man himself, his life and work and career but repetitive sections and paragraphs on critics It does not serve the reader or the article and gives the impression of an agenda. Murat (talk) 21:08, 18 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Justin McCarthy seems to be mostly about the Armenian/Greek/Assyrian genocide. He supports the denialist view of the Turkish government. It is an interesting case since it is one of the rare cases of someone who is not a turk and supports the denialist view of the turks. It would be interesting to know how he ended up with that view. He is 76 y old now. It would be interesting to know if anything changed. I wouldn’t be surprised if his work was funded by Turkey. It is the same case with Michael Gunter. He is funded as well. There was a case where Turkey was bribing some politicians, according to one FBI informant. Well, the reality is that people need money to live comfortably. No professional historian is accusing him of that, but I will, and I’m not a historian. There must be some who are willing to exchange their morals for money. If there is anything interesting he has said, maybe on some other topic, go ahead and add a section. You are free to tell me your side of the story. I want to hear it. Vmelkon (talk) 02:05, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I have actually a number of his books in my library. He is a true scholar and uses very quantitative analysis. It is very hard to argue against the facts he has quantified and presented within context. He has found a rich vein since so many scholars and institutions are so intimidated by the AG industry and this very article and the comments I had made above is the proof. As far as I know, the facts and basis of his research have never been challenged. It would be wrong to define (and defame) him simply as a AG historian and a "denier". The very adjective is used to implicate and to silence any opposing views and thus related and contradictory facts. He is the preeminent authority on Middle East and Balkan populations and movements. A historian does not need much funds as you imply in a seeming effort to de-legitimize him, all he needs is open archives and a university chair. As far as my side of the story, there is one of course, a personal one, as my grandfather was from Bitlis and had first hand experience in the events of the era, but this is not about personal histories, however relevant. Just sticking to facts is all I wish from Wiki. Murat (talk) 14:19, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * You said “so many scholars and institutions are so intimidated by the AG industry”. Is this true? How is the AG industry doing this? You said “As far as I know, the facts and basis of his research have never been challenged.” I don’t know if that is true or whether he is taken seriously by genocide scholars. I don’t know enough about that to make a comment. As far as denial goes, there is a page
 * The article on the AG says “The genocide is extensively documented in the archives of Germany, Austria, the United States, Russia, France, and the United Kingdom,[337] as well as the Ottoman archives, despite systematic purges of incriminating documents by Turkey.[338] There are also thousands of eyewitness accounts from Western missionaries and Armenian survivors.[339][340][341] Polish-Jewish lawyer Raphael Lemkin, who coined the term genocide in 1944, became interested in war crimes after reading about the 1921 trial of Soghomon Tehlirian for the assassination of Talaat Pasha. Lemkin recognized the fate of the Armenians as one of the most significant genocides in the twentieth century.[342][343] Almost all historians and scholars outside Turkey, and an increasing number of Turkish scholars, recognize the destruction of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire as genocide.” ===But how is it that so many people, different sources, are mistaken? The AG industry payed them or threatened the missionaries? Genocide denial has its own page on wikipedia. That is what it needs to be called. The facts? That is interesting. I check out the talk pages on the AG, on greek vs turkish issues and assyrian vs turkish issues and there is a LOT of back and forth and arguing. I don’t know if Justin McCarthy took bribes. There is no evidence to support that but I was giving an example of the turkish anti-denial industry and their tactics. Vmelkon (talk) 02:54, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Article much too negative about an academic
We have a policy Criticism that says "Best practice is to incorporate positive and negative material into the same section." --Anthon.Eff (talk) 03:37, 13 November 2022 (UTC)


 * I thought all did was to add some sentences to point out opposing views. I did not remove anything just to be fair. Nevertheless, the edit was quickly reverted without any explanation or justification. The user who reverted it is Firefangledfeathers. A simple click: undo. Why? Well, we don’t know. Who is Firefangledfeathers? Why is he more authoritative than I am? We don’t know. S/he just is and we are supposed to accept it.
 * McCarthy’s main thesis is that all sides suffered, all sides can be held responsible for the atrocities, and he does not support any of them. It is that simple. He may very well be wrong but, the article is not about the Armenian question, it is about a person.
 * In the article, they blatantly accuse McCarthy of being guilty of supporting Turkish atrocities. Nothing could be further from the truth. Where is the proof? They present quotes from others as if opinions constitute proofs. Nevertheless, the quotes in Wikipedia, regardless how questionable, serve as nice justifications to otherwise vile articles. This is the power of publication. If you publish sufficiently many articles about a non-sense it becomes a “fact”. The latest proof is the ChatGPT. It is programmed to compose things based on what is written already. It is not artificial intelligence: it is the real idiocy. I say this as someone who has done research in the area of artificial intelligence. And, yes, I conversed with ChatGPT: it is stupid!
 * I attended one of the seminars he gave, in Hilton Hotel in Taksim square, Istanbul. He was tired, without much hope or conviction. But he was still trying. An aspiring and young historian asked “Would you recommend this (the supposed Armenian Genocide) as a topic to pursue academically?” He replied: “No! Not if you are leaning towards refuting it. Because, you will go nowhere. Your will not get any funding. You will be ostracized. Such is the situation even in US, the land of the free.” I am paraphrasing, of course: it was many years ago, more than a decade, and I didn’t think I would have to remember those moments.
 * The user Firefangledfeathers quickly, too quickly, added the topic to the “contentious topics” category, in less than a day, as if he was acutely monitoring the topic: a supposed biography of an academician. The article wasn’t in the category for a long time. Now, when they see the danger of it being refuted, they take all possible precautions they could think of.
 * The article as it stands it is not a biography, it is a piece of propaganda, as some critics in the talk expressed explicitly, to no avail. They simply don’t count. This change of category also conveniently excludes me from making any further edits to the topic. I will not try to undo it since I feel that it would simply be futile and I don’t have either the time or the stamina, or the stomach. I hope someone with “power” out there would do something.
 * The situation is always similar when the topic is connected to Turks. I am waiting to see a Kurdish Genocide to appear soon. Very recently, Shah Ismail was suddenly made a Kurd. Previously he was a Turk, in the same Wikipedia article, that is. A false history is being written using tools such as Wikipedia. The focal point is the hatred towards Turks. Almost all the articles are “contentious”, yet almost always they are in favor of the anti-Turkish flavor, whatever it may be. I hear the foot steps of a new kind of cultural fascism approaching.
 * I regularly read a lot of mathematics, physics, and engineering topics in Wikipedia. I have contributed to the scientific topics, though under different usernames. Yet, I have never come across this much controversy, bias, and non-sense in scientific topics as I did in social “sciences”. If Wikipedia continues this line of growing in areas of social topics, which admittedly seem to be more “important” to the masses than the scientific ones, then it runs the danger of becoming the epicenter of post-truth “contentious topics”. In the end, I think it will die a nostalgic death. NCiblak (talk) 23:51, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

POV
A lot of sources which discredit him are Armenian or people who have ties to the Armenian side.

This is not a neutral article about McCarthy. It discredits an academic historian with sources which use emotions, not with proven facts. CptBearguy (talk) 23:50, 24 November 2023 (UTC)