Talk:Guenter Lewy

message: If we are going to start going down the road of calling the works of a historian clearly better qualified than anyone editing these pages an exercise in denial rather than an exercise in the study of history then this page will soon become yet another Armenia based wikipedia nonsense. By all means we can provide substantiated criticisms of the author, but such authoratitive proclaimations as if the topic is subject to empirical fact will only invalidate the page. I appreciate some of you will have a hard time realising your own ideas are not emperical fact but please come to terms with those issues. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.145.232.205  (talk • contribs) 
:I assume you are refering to the link.  This is not part of the wikipage.Travb 23:59, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Apocolocynthosis: What kind of an edit summary is this User:82.145.232.205? Please go read WP:CIVIL and refrain from engaging in such racist attacks against Armenians!!!Apocolocynthosis 20:52, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  With regards to: # Vahakn Dadrian responds to Guenther Lewy about his denial of the Armenian Genocide 

message: Deleted section:
A careful reading of Lewy's America in Vietnam reveals that it is often a relatively honest account of a brutal U.S. military attack on a defenseless rural peasant population, but that everything is then "explained away."  It is the "explained away" rhetoric that is quoted by other U.S. apologists for the war -- e.g. Norman Podhoretz in his book Why we were in Vietnam (Simon and Schuster, 1982).  For example, at one point Lewy quotes Noam Chomsky that
"these are war crimes, in the layman's sense of the term" and then goes on for twenty or more pages attempting to convince the reader that the Law of War is really a highly technical subject and so things are not as they obviously appear.  See Chomsky's scathing review of 
America in Vietnam titled "On the aggression of South Vietnamese peasants against the
United States" collected in his book Towards a New Cold War, (New York: Pantheon/Random House, 1982).''
I will keep this section deleted because it is not quoted, and seems to be someone's opinion, not a quote from another historian.  I will restore the Chomsky's review of 
America in Vietnam somewhere in the text.
Signed: Travb (talk) 21:07, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism

message: A scientist does not research for years in an area to publish his researches to make a pretence. he - from his own point of view - wants to clarify something. though it is possible that he pretends something. but this opinion must be given by another source, for instance
by another scientist. if this is the private opinion of User:Apocolocynthosis, then it should be changed. which sources have been used for "pretending" while making this assumption? until the sources are delivered, this word should be avoided (I hope for a better argument than "bok yemenin arapcasi")--Moorudd 22:54, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  source for "pretending" 

message: There has been a silly revert war going on in place of discussion, over the titles to use for article sections.  Rather than do that, express an opinion on this talk page.
Travb apparently wishes to use the exact titles of Lewy's books as section titles; an anonymous editor wishes to use slightly more general paraphrases that describe the topic of each book (as well as, perhaps, including the debates by others around the same concepts).  
My personal inclination would be to go with the neutral paraphrases.  That feels better in keeping with other WP biographies which are more conceptual than bibliographic. LotLE×talk 16:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is basically what I was expressing in the edit summaries.  This user has developed a habit of confounding some of my edits which are mostly routine and certainly harmless.  Whether this reflects behavior towards others as well I can not say, though I am not particularly interested in it.  129.71.73.248 02:20, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't express opinions in edit summaries. Do it on the talk page. Edit wars are harmful. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 14:01, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

text: If the recent Alliance for Progress edit war was also your "productive route", I am really afraid to see your unproductive one. I havent bothered to speak with you because my recent experience has shown that there is no compromise or collegiality in your edits.Travb (talk) 22:40, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You bring up an example that only further demonstrates your own obstinacy, not misbehavior on my part.  I attempted to generate better, more precise content whereas you threw a tantrum.  And now you wish to carry this juvenility over to this article to dispute such a minor stylistic change simply because I did it, and despite apparently being in the minority?  Why?  Who am I to generate such fits over banal matters?  129.71.73.248 23:54, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Book title and section titles 

message: Can we get that citation in English or translated? Thank you. --70.109.223.188 (talk) 18:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: English translation for source #25

message: Regarding recent edit and the revert. 
I just had a brief look at the sources. Turkish Zaman is not a reliable source, since its someone else interpreting what Lewy said. The second source concerning the Native American genocide is a valid and strong source. Its Lewy denying the Native American genocide in his own words. And his words can be attributed to him. 
Adding that information to the lead may not be timely since the body of the article is missing that information. I suggest creating a section about his denial in the body and then adding it to the lead. After all Lewy became notable mainly due to his denial of the various genocides. VartanM (talk) 05:56, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "Genocide denial" is hardly NPOV. Furthermore, Lewy's conception of the North American die-off is scholarly consensus, not even close to controversial.Verklempt (talk) 19:09, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  genocide denial 

message: 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) 18:07, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Rename of Category

message: Given that the page is protected now, I hope we have a good opportunity to discuss things.  I'll first note that if something is in doubt, it is always best to leave it out of the article and discuss - instead of revert to include information that really should be better sourced.
This was the only sentence that we have an issue with.  If this is true, we need to source it, reliably, with multiple sources.  Potentially negative information should not be included in a BLP unless it is sourced using multiple verifiable sources.  This is not the case for that sentence.  Until that changes, it should remain out of the article.  If you have other verifiable sources confirming it, we should add them and I'll have no issue with it.  - Rjd0060 (talk) 20:20, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There are presently 4 sources to confirm that Lewy doesn't have that investigation report, and doesn't recall if he saw it or was told about its contents.  The Baltimore Sun and Chicago Tribune articles (news, not opinion) qualify as reliable.  The Media Matters source, I believe, tends to be partisan but reliable for some uses (here they simply quote the newspapers), and the book published by Princeton University Press ... I've never read it, but cursory research on the author suggests it looks reliable. How many sources are we shooting for? Xenophrenic (talk) 21:02, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've reviewed the other stuff (sources) I missed when reverting.  They seem fine.  I'm fine with those being re-added.  If you'll agree to that, we're set here.  With my apologies. - Rjd0060 (talk) 21:13, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good.  I'll continue to look for additional sources as well.  Apologies accepted without hesitation. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:24, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll do the same.  I've asked the admin to unprotect the article. - Rjd0060 (talk) 21:34, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page protection and surrounding issues 

message: Lewy's relationship with the Turkish state, financial, political, and personal needs to be explored further and outlined in a separate section.  The article could also use subsections dealing with Israeli support for Turkey's positions and Lewy's involvement in them.  A link can be created to an article outlining Armenian Jewish political conflict over the issue of the Armenian Genocide.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.12.203.101 (talk) 10:20, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links with Turkey 

message: This book was a finalist for the 1974 U.S. National Book Award in the short-lived category Philosophy and Religion. ("National Book Awards – 1974")
Working on our list of award finalists (still in User space) I noticed that this one is not mentioned here, although this is a substantial biography. That is unusual, but no longer strictly true, as i have added it to the footer "Published works", with data from the Library of Congress. See  now also in the footer. --P64 (talk) 18:02, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religion and Revolution 

message: An RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 16:45, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC 

message: Read this carefully: Wikipedia:Fringe_theories#Coverage_in_Wikipedia. --92slim (talk) 09:34, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I have read it carefully. You deleted parts of the article that relate to Lewy's work. These articles complicated and Lewy is quoted in addition to others who support and do not support his work (like Akcam who you also deleted). All things are given as the article is about Lewy. We went through with other editors in the past. I suggest you look at the page history of this article.Resnjari (talk) 10:03, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Guidelines on Wikipedia content 

message: Lewy acknowledges the scale of the tragedy that befell hundreds of thousands of Armenians in the former Ottoman Empire; he merely disputes the "genocide" label, arguing there is insufficient evidence that the deaths were the intentional result of centralized orders from the top of the Ottoman regime. "Denier" is a needlessly loaded and immflamtory term for a WP:BLP, and you have produced no sources that support it. In fact, you have merely revised sourced content in a way that appears to attribute the "denier" label to Lewy's own work! (For the record, even actual genocide deniers rarely identify as such.) Unless you can demonstrate that an overwhelming preponderance of reliable sources call Lewy a "denier," this smear should be kept out of the article.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:35, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The International Association of Genocide Scholars clearly labels him a genocide denier here. It can't get any better than that. --92slim (talk) 00:38, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Still, history isn't an exact science, and historical consensus is often subject to change. Why should Wikipedia condemn Lewy in its own voice? No-one would object if you simply quoted the open letter of genocide scholars directly. (By way of comparison, Bernard Lewis is cautious enough to attribute the claim.)TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:43, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not in its own voice obviously. No one has claimed that. The point is he does deny it was a genocide and he has been labeled a genocide denier by the IAGS. It's completely irrelevant what Lewy thinks about himself. We can attribute it to the IAGS if you like, but it has to be included yes or yes. --92slim (talk) 00:45, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I was referring to Wikipedia's voice. I would be more comfortable not declaring Lewy's "denial" a fact.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:48, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a fact that he has been labelled a genocide denier, and specially by the IAGS. --92slim (talk) 00:53, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Denier" label 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Guenter Lewy. 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/20110604153327/http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/HistoryWorld/European/Germany/?view=usa&ci=9780195142402 to http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/HistoryWorld/European/Germany/?view=usa&ci=9780195142402
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) 01:47, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: An unschooled reader could read this article and take away the idea that Armenian Genocide is a debateable position, rather than the reality that a vast majority of historians accept it as a fact. (t · c) buidhe 04:40, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP:FRINGE issue