Talk:Genocide denial/Archive 1

message: Although there's no dispute here yet there seemed to be some on the article this content was moved from (Holocaust denial) so I assumed the POV template. Vicarious 08:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah - here we have an example of genocide denial in action - with many of the main components including calling it "so-called" (and it is characterized as "alleged" in the article itself - which is insult to truth enough - and then the (false) depiction of this genoicde as a large uprising against the Ottoman Empire and as a two sided battle (it was no such thing...this would be like denying the Holocaust of WWII because of the presence of Jewish fighters in the armies of the allies - or due to the Warsaw Ghetto uprising etc) and then the (totally unsupportable...[Turkish wartime propoganda sources don't count BTW...]) counter claims that Armenians somehow killed a sunstansial number of Turks...(again this is similar to claims by Holocaust deniers of Jewish sedition and post-war violence against Germans. It is most sad to see such here uncountered. BTW I am going to eliminate alleged in regards to the Armenian Genocide and the related Assyrian and Anatolian Greek genocides. Unless all known/accepted genocides (such as these are) are likewise considered as alleged. --THOTH 15:47, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: POV

message: :Only supporter of "Pontic" related matter is Greece. So it denied internationally.
:Who support,Who deny the "Assyrian" related matter.?
Please calm.
regards
Mustafa AkalpTC  17:11, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  PONTIC &ASSYRIAN 

message: I think this is an overall good article. However, the article currently reads:
:The Bosnian Genocide by Bosnian Serbs is still denied by most Serbs and others although it has gained acceptance at the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) through the court case entitled Prosecutor vs. Krstic (see Srebrenica Massacre).
Some comments on this:
*It is incorrect to state that the term Bosnian Genocide has gained acceptance due to the ruling of the ICTY when the ICTY judgement only labelled the Srebrenica massacre as an "Act of Genocide". 
*Applying the label "Genocide" to the entire Bosnian War, which is what is usually meant when using the term Bosnian Genocide, is an example of the propaganda use of the term (referred to in the articles intro). 
It might sound cynical but "Genocide" has become on of the most coveted labels in the present culture of victimhood in international politics. With it you can call all opponents "Genocide deniers", with all of the sinister connotations that go with that (a bit like the term "Nazi" of "Fascist" used to be used).KarlXII 15:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bosnian Genocide 

message: I've reverted a revert back to include the Genocide & Denialism categories added by an anon user. These categories appear to be valid for this article, so per WP:AGF I reverted the change. If someone disagrees, we can discuss it here before further reverts. -- Kesh 01:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Genocide & Denial cats 

message: I believe this edit is both more neutral and worded better (with the exception of replacing "many" with "some"). The portion contained in KarlXII's parenthesis is better left to the actual Srebrenica Massacre article. Before this becomes a revert war, I think it needs to be discussed here. -- Kesh 21:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits by KarlXII 

message: This article might benefit from being re-named, something like 'Disputed Genocides'. --Apeloverage 09:45, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. The article is about confirmed genocides which some people refuse to believe occurred. There is little dispute that any of the cited killing occurred on massive scales, yet some people do not want to accept it. Denial is an appropriate term. -- Kesh 16:51, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As with most controvertial issues either way will offend some people, but I agree with kesh on this issue. I think of the holocaust as the protype for this article and I think renaming holocaust denial to the holocaust dispute would be more controversial. I could imagine a possible need for an article named 'Disputed Genocides' but I don't think it would have the same content as this page. Vicarious 05:26, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: In My Opinion

message: I've put a 'citation needed' on the accusations re Noam Chomsky. If a reference isn't provided in a reasonable time, I intend to edit this section so that these are presented as accusations against Chomsky, rather than as established facts about him, which is how it reads now. --Apeloverage 13:36, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added a citation for Chomsky's claims of media bias and influence over the Khmer Rouge genocide. However, I could not find anything to indicate he admits the events were genocide as of yet, so that line still needs a citation. -- Kesh 17:32, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

text: As a further note, that particular line does point the user to the Criticism of Noam Chomsky article, which goes further in-depth on the matter than this article would. The line regarding his admission of genocide should be cited or removed, but the link to the Critcism article should stay in for further reading, should anyone desire. -- Kesh 17:36, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Chomsky Examples