Template talk:Genocide denial

Franjo Tuđman
Does the template justify including Franjo Tuđman under the Serbian Genocide denial section? While he did advocate smaller numbers than official estimates, can we claim that he denied that genocide was perpretrated? He did not deny that mass murders happened. He also claimed that smaller numbers of Bosniaks were killed in the Bosnian War than the 250,000 figure presented during the 1990s, but would that also mean that he denied the Bosnian Genocide? Sources are needed for this claim or it should be deleted.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 12:55, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The debate is over. Tuđman actually confirmed that genocide happened. He should therefor be removed from the template., page 105.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 09:41, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Cenk Uygur
Likewise, Cenk Uygur has rescinded the views he inevitably acquired as a child growing up in Turkey about the Armenian Genocide. See Cenk Uygur. --Epipelagic (talk) 12:37, 11 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Only when it was politically convenient for him to do so and not in a noteworthy way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:8389:4120:1EC:A21A:BE6C:CD4B (talk) 17:25, 11 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Whether or not you doubt his sincerity is not our concern here. He has gone on record and the information is properly sourced.  General Ization  Talk  17:28, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

If he is willing to drop out of the Justice Democrats over saying then reversing claims that were FAR LESS offensive, then why should it not be noted that he is also a noteworthy Armenian Genocide denier. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:8389:4120:1EC:A21A:BE6C:CD4B (talk) 17:30, 11 January 2018 (UTC)


 * The IP has now for edit warring, having exceeded 3 reverts on this template in 24 hours.  General Ization  Talk  18:21, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I think that there are possible WP:BLP issues with the template's section "Individuals who have denied, or been accused of denying, mass killings" but I don't think that, according to the template's current wording, the inclusion of Uygur is completely unwarranted. It doesn't specify whether or not the denialism has been reversed, which indicates to me there should be a clear section within the template for blatant deniers vs. more minor deniers. Because of Uygur's special case—in that he is no longer a denier, in accordance with reliable sources at his article—I support the removal of him from this template, or the total removal of that section, until this can be ironed out further.
 * IP user, if you continue to make reversions, following my warning on your talk page, I or another editor will likely report you to WP:AN/EW for edit warring, or to WP:ANI for continuing to disregard Wikipedia's policies on biographies of living persons. This must be discussed on talk pages and on other venues for dispute resolution, which I don't think are completely necessary at this point as there are three editors disagreeing with the inclusion of the template at Cenk Uygur due to the article's content. Rhinopias (talk) 18:37, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Except for that he didnt change positions, he flip flopped when it became politically convenient for him to do so. This is Not like the statments he made that got him booted from the Justice Democrats movement which he not only contradicts in his current positions daily, but also has publically apologized for said statements before leaving the movement. Yet when it comes to the Armenian Genocide the only example you get is when it is politcally inconveninet for him to talk about the Myanmar Killings without looking like a MASSIVE hypocrite, and has since then AVOIDED the topic. No apology was issued, and to this day his news network keeps the name of the people who carried out the Armenian Genocide. Because of that his name should remain on the template until such a time he issues such an apology and/or changes the name of his network. Though considering the biases of this website it is hard for me not to believe that this is not a case of whether or not hes a Armenian Genocide denier, rather that this is a case of special protections for someone with a coincidental political view to the majority of those who edit here on this sight, which frankly if it is the case (and it very likely might be), is a disgusting showing of favoritism towards ones political allies that would not be given to a similar public figure whos views slant to the right of Mao Zedong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:8389:4120:1EC:A21A:BE6C:CD4B (talk) 21:04, 11 January 2018 (UTC)


 * This reads like an emotive eruption of wild judgements, fantasies and personal projections. Can you verify your views with reliable sources? If you can't, then you are engaged in some form of original research. That's not how Wikipedia works. Also, your comments include personal attacks on other editors here. Another account associated with you has already been warned for making personal attacks. --Epipelagic (talk) 23:28, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Genocide of Croats and Bosniaks

 * I, along with other editors, reverted the editor's addition. See diff. I copied the first paragraph below from my talk page. -- Timeshifter (talk) 05:51, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Denial of Mass Killings. Not sure what was unclear. I linked directly to the part of the Chetnik Article dealing with mass murder and genocide denial. The Genocide of Serbs link, links to the Genocide of Serbs page. It does not even link to a denial section. Was it sourcing citation that I was missing? Thanks 74.101.190.2 (talk) 22:42, 16 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I could not find what you are talking about. I looked in Chetniks which is what you linked to in the template. Please copy a few of the relevant parts of the article section, and place them here. -- Timeshifter (talk) 05:46, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * There is no denial of massacres committed by the Yugoslav army in WW2. Those are mostly isolated instances or a minority of authors who pushed their POV, but in the end were rejected and their works condemned - such as various textbooks mentioned in the paragraph. I see no big argument for inclusion of this section. 12:34, 17 January 2020 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sadko (talk • contribs) 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Some examples I have come across are Dubravka Stojanović, a Serbian historian talks about the effort to portray Chetniks who engaged in murder as "renegades" to distance them from the Chetnik name. Also to deny crimes committed against the Croatian and Bosnian populations in Croatia and Bosnia. . Bosnian Professor Edina Bećirević claimed that the crimes committed by Chetniks against Croats and Muslims in Serbian historiography are overall "cloaked in silence". . There is also the rehabilitation of Chetnik leaders as absolved from crimes against civilian populations. The Legacy and Contemporary Period sections of the Chetnik page talk about this as well. Again, this is what I have seen so far. Was not aware that these authors' works were "condemned". Is there source for that? Also the Genocide of Serbs link redirects to its main article instead of a denial page. So I didn't think a denial page was require but that a section would do as well. 74.101.190.2 (talk) 21:02, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Dubravka's work is not RS as she is not an expert on that part of Yugoslav/Serbian history and her views were challenged by other historians. "Cloaked in silence" is no argument as it could mean several things. Rehabilitation does not mean that those people were declared Saints or "not guilty", as you would like to portrait it. It has more to do with the way they were proclaimed guilty, which was not in accordance with any sort of democracy or rule of law. This is an absurd situation, you pushed the info. as a part of this template (and your edit was reverted a number of time by several editors), and somehow we are supposed to have a debate over it? Bold edits should and MUST have prior consensus.  Sadkσ  (talk is cheap)  00:12, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Uyghurs
Certain editors are attempting to place the Uyghur Genocide into this template. As there are no reports of "mass killings" in Xinjiang, as well as the consensus on "genocide" being disputed due to the politicisation of the issue. This was inappropriate to be included- --Sunderland Renaissance (talk) 03:51, 7 May 2021 (UTC)


 * There have been numerous reports of widespread organ harvesting, infanticide, and summary execution in Xinjiang. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 06:07, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Half of those have the US state Department as their source... 5.151.21.128 (talk) 02:14, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Even if all these reports are true (which they have not been sufficiently proven to be), they have not met the bar of mass killings. If you would like to say that this does reach the bar of mass killings, the evidence must be a lot more rigorous than internet articles, three of which cite the same person. Cycw (talk) 05:23, 6 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Well that's an amusing bit of irony. That said, this is a template about the denial of genocide, and the Uyghur link on the template box simply links to the article on the Uyghur genocide itself, unlike the other links in its heading, and I do not see a subsection on that page for denial nor a separate article on the topic, so its inclusion is still questionable. -Coreydragon (talk) 11:43, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * There's a bit of that in the section on the Chinese propaganda campaign and it's more interspersed throughout; I understand the concern though. There is a section on the Genocide denial page that deals with this, so it might be reasonable to retarget the link to that section. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 06:32, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Formatting
Some of the links in the instances section have genocide capitalised, whereas others do not. Surely it should be all or none, non? Is there some nuance there I'm missing? -Coreydragon (talk) 11:46, 9 May 2021 (UTC)