Talk:Genocide denial

message: Their claims are quite controversial; including their claims on this article is non-nuetral POV: .Faustian (talk) 02:17, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The source clearly states that Siemaszko represents just one trend in Polish historiography concerning the events in Volhynia (the trend that represents the interests of the Communist-era Polish state).  Another Polish trend does not consider it genocide.  Nor is the murders of Poles in Volyn internationally recognized as genocide.  This article ought not be a soapbox for one particular trend in Polish historiography.  Władysław Siemaszko himself was a veteran of AK which as Yale historian Timothy Snyder notes engaged in retaliatory massacres of Ukrainian women and children.  He is about as nuetral of a source as would be a vetran of UPA writing about the same events.Faustian (talk) 13:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Piotrowski relies on discreditted spurces such as Korman and is not a historian but a sociologist.  More importantly, no country - not even Poland - has declared this to be a genocide.  Nobody denies that 10,000s to 100,000s of innocent Poles were murdered in cold blood.  But this article is about genocide.  So far, only one group of Polish historians (and probably some Russian ones too) believe it to be genocide.Faustian (talk) 22:44, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You got not actual news from Poland, there were new conferences about genocide and new books. For example - W. Filar, What happens in Volhnia, 2008. In this book are many new documents - most Ukrainians with UPA orders. Look here, in Polish. --Paweł5586 (talk) 20:22, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Filar belongs to the same circle as Siemaszko: .  This article is about genocides which are being denied.  Not about mass murder that a small group label a genocide.  So far we have one school of Polish historiagraphy claiming it is a genocide, another school of Polish historiography claiming it is not a genocide, and no country in the world having officially declared it to be a genocide.  Otherwise you will have to include the Polish state itself as denying this "genocide" of Poles.Faustian (talk) 21:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

text: First - claiming that UPA's action is not genocide is not the same thing as "justifying UPA."  Second - refrences for your claims, please.  Third, still no country has recognized it as genocide.  Fourth - what do you mean Wnuk's article isn't "actual?" Again, this article is not about a list of mass murders that may/may not be genocides.  It is about clearly recognized genocides that are denied by some.  It's a big difference.Faustian (talk) 22:44, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that apart from the Holocaust no genocide is universally recognised as genocide, where does one draw the line, at denial of the Holocaust, the Armenian massacres, the Holodomor. ... ? -- PBS (talk) 22:57, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That's an excellent point.  Surely a minimal standard (and maybe even too low) would be if at least one country declared it to be a genocide.  With respect to the massacre of Poles in western Ukraine, no one doubts that 10,000s or 100,000s were killed and that ethnic cleansing occurred.  But even Polish historians themselves are divided on the issue of genocide and no country, including Poland, has declared it to be a genocide.  Wherever that line is drawn, the example of Volyn seems to be, so far, not genocide.Faustian (talk) 23:17, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If only it were that easy! See the dispute at talk:Genocides in history#Azerbaijani Khojaly --PBS (talk) 08:24, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

text: What is a "genocidal birthmark?"  Is it as bad as genocidal psoriasis?Faustian (talk) 13:33, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Seriously, though, the Polish parliament didn't declare it to be genocide.  The relevant sentence : "antypolskich akcji - masowych mordów o charakterze czystki etnicznej i znamionach ludobójczych".  My rough translation - "mass murder with the characteristics of ethnic cleansing and the marks of genocide."  Not very direct.Faustian (talk) 13:37, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

text: If the Polish parliament meant "genocide" they would have stated so.  But they did not.  They called it mass murder with the characteristics of ethnic cleansing and the marks of genocide.  That's not genocide.Faustian (talk) 17:19, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

text: Whatever the reason it did not use the word genocide but "marks of genocide".  If the mass murder in Volyn is considered genocide than you will have to state that all governments in the world - including that of Poland, most historians, a portion of even Polish historians (!), are denying this "genocide" which would be absurd.Faustian (talk) 03:21, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Siemaszko

message: In the bibliography of the Rwandan Genocide, the Vatican newspaper L'Osservatore Romano has been cited as a likely source of soft-core genocide denial, by having publicly evoked the theory of the double genocide in several articles published in the period of 1994-1999. (War crimes: confronting atrocity in the modern world (p. 85) by David Chuter) ADM (talk) 00:36, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That is an interesting source (particularly for what David Chuter say about the international tribunals and Bosnia), but I do not think one can argue from that source that Vatican newspaper L'Osservatore Romano has been cited as a likely source genocide denial. -- PBS (talk) 08:55, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Rwandan genocide

message: Having just come from the heavily biased Armenian Genocide article I think there should be a section here on the difference between dispute and denial as genocide despute is very different from genocide denial.  Denial is claiming an event didn't happen or attemping to revise history to suit personal opinion, while dispute (of a genocide) can range from whether the events in question where a "technical genocide" or not, usually whether or not a group of mass killings are pre-meditated with the final goal of eradicaton, to whether the disputed genocide actually did occur in the manner suggested by historians, which can sometimes lean to denial if deliberatly innacurate historical analysis is used to come to such conclusions.
A good example are various British-Irish incidents from 1550's to 1990's, which some will claim were acts of attempted genocide from the English/British governemt throughout this period, especially from Oliver Cromwell, while others will claim if that is true then so is the deliberate targetting of early protestant settelers in Ireland by the Catholic population and such arguments go in circles and will never be resolved.  Genocide is an unusual and difficult issue, like rape or capital punishment, where what seems clear cut actually becomes blurred when you look at events more closely.212.183.140.19 (talk) 15:31, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: False claims of genocide is an effective form of hate speech. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 06:04, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Denial and Dispute 

message: American far-right blogger and conspiracy theorist, Pamela Geller, has denied the existence of concentration camps in Serbia during the regime of Slobodan Milosevic, whom she has defended.
I have no idea who this person is, but can someone tell me the names or locations of those "concentration camps in Serbia during the regime of Slobodan Milosevic"?
--Faveladweller (talk) 17:31, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed the bullet point. It is one step removed from genocide denial because no explanation from a reliable source is given for which genocide and the specific linkage between denial of the existence of concentration camps and denial of the unspecified genocide. -- PBS (talk) 12:01, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pamela Geller 

message: Genocide Denial about Srebrenica?
Many people have found evidence from independent investigators that some of the eyewitness testimony was unreliable, like Dragan Erdemovic and that many of the people killed at Srebrenica were soldiers of the Muslim army and many dispute if Srebrenica was genocide. A massacre is not genocide because genocide is systematic, and massacres are isolated that happen in one place and the smearing of those who disagree with Srebrenica as genocide denial. Makes no mention of Edward S. Herman or Noam Chomsky who both deny that anything happened and there were Serbs killed around Srebrenica by Naser Oric and his band of warlords, several cleansed Serbian villages.
Some of the eyewitness testimony was unreliable and some Srebrenica victims listed as dead were later found to be alive in other places and Srebrenica is also a problem to criticize people's criticisms of it as genocide denial is ridiculous because there is no difference between legitimate criticism and denial of it and Srebrenica body counts messed up certain details and Serbs were killed around the area. Most of the dead were soldiers, as identified by investigators. Srebrenica was largely a massacre of civilians. One report says over 6 years, 6,500 bodies were found. Srebrenica was used as victimization by Bosnian Muslims as extreme ultranationalist anti-Serbian propaganda and the enshrinement was by many, considered ridiculous and many say so. Srebrenica many Muslims escaped the area by bus to Tuzla. Many survived. No matter how many times you say it, a massacre is not genocide! 
Genocide denial is LARGELY A MATTER OF OPINION! THIS ARTICLE IS ABOUT FORCING OPINIONS AND I FIND A PROBLEM WITH THAT!
02:07, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: srebrenica, was not a genocide. it was a tragic isolated incident, genocide is systemic 142.54.9.83 (talk) 15:33, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Srebrenica Denial? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Genocide denial. 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/20100407080251/http://centers.law.nyu.edu:80/jeanmonnet/papers/09/091001.html to http://centers.law.nyu.edu/jeanmonnet/papers/09/091001.html
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) 08:07, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Prizewinning Holocaust scholar Philippe Sands pointed out that the UN Convention on Genocide and most of the world's governments are tardy in recognising every aspect of genocide, in an historical presentation at Conway Hall Ethical Society yesterday. He states that, of world governments, only Brazil recognises genocide towards homosexuals in law, and that none of the world's governments currently recognises the victimhood of political groups in genocide, in clear contravention of the relevant histories.--5.150.92.174 (talk) 13:58, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Genocide denial not just the province of the extreme  

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Genocide denial. 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/20100206044153/http://www.hlrecord.org/opinion/release-of-rwanda-s-mastermind-of-death-promotes-genocide-denial-1.951557 to http://www.hlrecord.org/opinion/release-of-rwanda-s-mastermind-of-death-promotes-genocide-denial-1.951557
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120426074152/http://www.instituteforthestudyofgenocide.org/events/2005iagsconference/abstracts/IAGS%202005.proposal.doc to http://www.instituteforthestudyofgenocide.org/events/2005iagsconference/abstracts/IAGS%202005.proposal.doc
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://centers.law.nyu.edu/jeanmonnet/papers/09/091001.html
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) 21:23, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Said section makes eight extremely bold claims in the form of a bulleted list with one citation to share between claims. I don't doubt the veracity or the importance of the section, but both citations and general expansion/explanation is needed. 198.27.250.176 (talk) 11:53, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Harms of Denial needs expansion 

message: Should there not be pages in the infobox, top-right, of the denial of Indigenous genocides? Like, there is denial right and left of any genocide against Mi'kmaq, Inuit, Cherokee, Lenape, any of the Haudenosaunee nations, Kalapuya and, well, literally every Indigenous nation in what is now the United States, Canada and Australia.
Danachos (talk) 00:03, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know much about this area, but my knee-jerk reaction is that the infobox should probably mention these. See e.g.,  List of Indian massacres and , List of massacres of Indigenous Australians and . Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:16, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Various Indigenous genocides 

message: I would like to fix this pace SleepyHollow4ever (talk) 03:46, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Jack Frost (talk) 04:32, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 19 February 2022 

message: Could we please highlight the current Russian government's denial and its efforts to deny the existence of the war against Ukraine?
GaryTalk to me 14:35, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Russia is not currently committing genocide against the Ukrainian people. Endwise (talk) 03:13, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Denials of the Putinist State of the War in Ukraine 

message: See Circassian genocide#Genocide classification
In my opinion even though they only seem to not acknowledge as opposed to outright denying it, I would still include it as its similar to the US government and Amerindians. 24.44.73.34 (talk) 18:13, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: That's like denial. StellarNerd (talk) 05:21, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

text: We need a source which specifically calls it genocide denial, its not up to us to decide what is and is not genocide denial. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 13:06, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Circassian Genocide denied by Russian government? 

message: * What I think should be changed: Remove the section on United States
* Why it should be changed: It's completely unsourced.
* References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button):
170.52.84.180 (talk) 20:37, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: This really should have sourcing, which will likely be attributed opinions. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:32, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on April 18, 2022 

message: As discussion above dated 17 Feb 2022 has noted, the article is facing a lot of issues, from just lack of coverage, writing style, POV pushers, and the sheer impossibility of covering all genocide denial everywhere in the world. The "by governments" section is especially conspicuous - for god's sake it included a statement by China's foreign ministry on the US, which is about the most politically POV source you can get, and the China section is blanked because everyone knows it should be there, but nobody can decide what exactly should be under it (given the apparent "we can't describe the Uyghur genocide as a genocide but clearly atrocity denial is happening but the inclusion into the article necessarily implies it is a genocide" situation). Moreover, genocide denial by individuals or political groups is also significant (e.g. Holocaust revisionism in the US, denial of WWII crimes by Japanese conservative groups, denial of indigenous genocide (Feb 28 incident) by Taiwanese groups (but not government), denial of various colonial crimes in Europe, etc etc). In addition, choosing which nation or genocide to include is a task that either necessitates undue weight or creates a very, very, very long list. I'll try to make improvements as relevant to the article based on my knowledge, but I am fully aware this will only cause the section to give undue (though hopefully of a passable quality) coverage to the genocide denials that I am personally familiar with.
I did my best to clean up the effects section, but I feel that it is still relatively disorganised and a reader will not actually have an idea on what the effects of genocide denial are. Might revisit that at a later date.
This is a fairly important article and really should be given more attention. It is definitely not normal that, for example, the Chinese foreign ministry statement has stayed up for a full month and a half. I don't know which watchlists and projects this belongs to ("alternative views" is maybe a bit too broad for that), so if anyone does know please do notify the relevant people who might be interested in improving and maintaining this article.
Also:@Magonz I note that you added the indigenous genocide article that you created to the see also section. Given that no other specific genocide is included, I am wondering if you have any special reason of adding that one. If not it is probably best to remove it for NPOV purposes.
Fermiboson (talk) 00:37, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Issues with the article 

message: I think there should be some sort of distinction made in the page that the genocide denial being talked about only refers to genocides that there is actual evidence for, such as the Holocaust and the Uyghurs, and not stuff like the "white genocide" conspiracy theory. I think this is an especially important distinction to make as this page supports the argument that genocide denial is an indicator of an actual genocide occuring, or is a common part of the process of genocide. Currently, many politicians make baseless accusations of genocide as a rhetorical point (such as Putin claiming there was an anti-Russian genocide in Dombas, or claims that the removal of a confederate flag is "southern cultural genocide"), and it should be made clear that denial of those "genocides" are not in any way indicators of an actual genocide occuring. TypeKnight03 (talk) 21:29, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Genocide denial for "genocides" that didn't actually happen 

message: Throughout the twenty-first century, genocide denial has evolved and adapted with new strategies to augment and complement established modes of denial. In addition to outright negation, denial of genocide encompasses a range of techniques, including disputes over numbers, contestation of legal definitions, blaming the victim, and various modes of intimidation, such as threats of legal action. Arguably the most effective strategy has been denial through the purposeful creation of misinformation. Denial of Genocides in the Twenty-First Century brings together leading scholars from across disciplines to add to the body of genocide scholarship that is challenged by denialist literature. By concentrating on factors such as the role of communications and news media, global and national social networks, the weaponization of information by authoritarian regimes and political parties, court cases in the United States and Europe, freedom of speech, and postmodernist thought, this volume discusses how genocide denial is becoming a fact of daily life in the twenty-first century.
DER MATOSSIAN, B. (Ed.). (2023). Denial of Genocides in the Twenty-First Century. University of Nebraska Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/jj.1507451 PhilipposK (talk) 18:17, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Denial of Genocides in the Twenty-First Century