User talk:41.242.231.3


 * It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from . Please be careful not to remove content from Wikipedia without a valid reason, which you should specify in the edit summary or on the article's talk page. Take a look at our welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Khoikhoi 06:09, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Reply
The role of Young Turks in the Genocide is well known. Just because some historians said it didn't happen, does that mean they dictate what the world should think. McCarthy, Lewis, etc. are all a minority in saying that the events weren't a genocide. Please note that the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. For example, Britannica says here that "the first significant genocide of the 20th century was directed against the Armenian residents of Asia Minor by the Turkish government." Since Britannica is a reliable source, we can include this information on Wikipedia. If you can provide reliable sources that state otherwise, you can include them as well. Khoikhoi 06:37, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

McCarthy and Lewis and other notable historians may well be the minority. In the face of orchestrated propoganda, being a minority who doesnt succumb to the mass propoganda does not make them less correct. You say wikipedia's inclusion criteria is "verifiability and not truth"...so those are two separate things...people will testify and "verify" that something took place without it being factually accurate. Thank you for arguing my point. About Brittanica...Enc.Brittanica should call the Anglo-Boer war, where they forced many afrikaaners starvation in concentration camps the first genocide of the 20th century, but I guess that isnt in the British nationalistic interest to publish these events. I must protest this Young Turks entry is full of biased slander and there is no effort to guide readers to other sources who do not agree to the genocide allegations. You insert the genocide allegation in the precis to make it a main point which says a lot about the motive for including this propaganda statement. You also add a Greek genocide claim in the links section, which is completely false. Besides, there are other dedicated genocide pages on these topics where people have already vented their single-sided views. Thanks for your interest.


 * Hi, please see WP:NPOV, which says:


 * NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a verifiable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all (by example, the article on the Earth only very briefly refers to the Flat Earth theory, a view of a distinct minority). We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view, and views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties. This applies not only to article text, but to images, external links, categories, and all other material as well.


 * Also, as I said before, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia isn't about the truth. I don't recall most historians recognizing the Boer Genocide (correct me if I'm wrong).


 * So... how about this as a compromise? Khoikhoi 23:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi khoikhoi. Thanks for your reply. I think the inclusion of this type of sentence is a step in the right direction, but the choice of words you use immediately leads the reader to get a strong impression that it is an incorrect non-sensical altervative view held by denialist crackpots. Beign against the genocide allegations does not make one the same as a flat-earth theorist example in the NPOV wiki rules.

I think they links may also be appropriate to bring impartiality to this article. Perhaps this can be inserted at the end of that sentence, to counter the reference you have for the genocide. http://www.armenianreality.com/

If the genocide facts are indesputable, why are these historians being physically and professionally threatened and harrased. http://www.tallarmeniantale.com/bullied-historians.htm

Other ones are : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_S%C3%A8vres The treaty of Sevres is very important reason why the Young Turk movement fought against the occupation for independance.

Even though this wiki article is also not impartial, full of "they", which shows it was written by genocide theorists pointing a ridicule to those who deny it, it still at least shows the reader that the genocide allegation is not a universal fact. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denial_of_the_Armenian_Genocide

There are plenty of examples where the popular concensus view has not been the right one, in science or sociology. There are other politicical motives at play in these genocide allegation, of which you may well be a synpathiser to yourself. I hope as an editor for wiki, which many people use for information, you will be able to remain impartial.

On the topic of the Anglo-boer war, which historians formally acknowledge this as an official genocide is not an area I have researched.

http://www.geocities.com/iturks/html/engboerwar.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Boer_War#The_concentration_camps http://www.victorianstation.com/boerwar.htm

From wiki : "Of the 28,000 Boer men captured as prisoners of war, 25,630 were sent overseas. So, most Boers remaining in the local camps were women and children, but the native African ones held large numbers of men as well. Even when forcibly removed from Boer areas, the black Africans were not considered to be hostile to the British, and provided a paid labour force. " The figures quoted show that with 90 percent deportation, it was a mass purposeful ethnic cleansing. Various sources will quote different numbers of course, and the black deaths were probably not counted at all. The numbers in question are not my point however. Just because some event or opinion is not mainstream, if the facts are there to show it is took place, the it should be heard. Genocide is the defined by a purposeful intention, not the death toll.

Of course, history is kind to those who write it and the Anglo-American history which we accept as mainstream will not criticise or acknowledge incidents like the Boer concentration camps or the wiping out of the native american-indian population, even with use of what we can call early biologocial warfare, by giving the natives smallpox infected blankets, knowing that the native americans were not immune to this European disease. Not to mention the genocide of aboriginals in Australia. But in these cases the surviving victims are so few and so weak politically, that their stories are not heard in the history books. Thanks for your attention.


 * Hi again! How would you suggest we phrase the sentence? As for "armenianreality.com", I think we can find academic works that aren't hate-websites. I mean, it looks way too much like [ http://www.stormfront.org /truth_at_last/holocaust.htm this] (same with TAT). You mention the historians harassed by Armenians, what about all the Turks prosecuted/harassed for saying there was a genocide?


 * I will try to remain impartial, but you have to understand that it's our job to present the consensus view (until it changes). Whether it is correct or not is up to the readers to decide.


 * As for the Anglo-Boer War, do you have any sources that say most historians recognize the events as genocide? You've got me interested now on this subject. For the record, I am an American and I recognize what happened to the Native Americans as genocide, and I think most Americans should as well. We need to learn from the past and not repeat history.


 * Regards,
 * Khoikhoi 06:41, 11 November 2006 (UTC)