Talk:Genocide denial

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Siemaszko[edit]

Their claims are quite controversial; including their claims on this article is non-nuetral POV: [1].Faustian (talk) 02:17, 9 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I dont find any controversial claims in your source about Siemaszko--Paweł5586 (talk) 06:49, 9 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

Read this from begining. Ukrainian nacionalist sources are lying. Now in Poland even Motyka claims that was a genocide. Read Igor Iljuszyn book Ak and UPA, Struggle in West Ukraine. I dont have many English sources, but trust me in Volhynia and Estern Galicia UPA, OUN, and SB made many massacres on Poles, Ukrainian. Polish revenge was made mainly by Shutzman battalions, Istrebietylnyje batalions. AK didnt participate in massacres, it was rarely. Ukrainians has died about 10-20 th. Poles 80-120 th. --Paweł5586 (talk) 19:44, 9 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And now Ukrainian goverment and Juszczenko denies Ukrainian responsibility for that genocide. Poland is supporting Ukraine, needed distorting the crime isn't --Paweł5586 (talk) 19:49, 9 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • R: Siemaszko's - Ludobojstwa ... (1939-1945) vol 1 an 2 (2000)
  • Ukrainian scholars criticize much of Siemaszko's work, in particular the population statistic which are often inaccurate and the inclusion of known forged document, and the avoidance of particular documents that would set a framework to particular facts. The attacks by Polish groups are given with very sparse details and without statistics. Despite the fact that he collected a massive number of eye witness accounts much of the value of his work is diluted by his poor scholarship and his tendencial use of sources. Bandurist (talk) 22:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
Filar belongs to the same circle as Siemaszko: [2]. 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)Reply[reply]

This Wnuks's text is not actual, now most of Polish historiagraphy are claiming it is genocide, e.g. Motyka. Only Misiło and Drozd are trying to to justify UPA--Paweł5586 (talk) 20:19, 11 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
If only it were that easy! See the dispute at talk:Genocides in history#Azerbaijani Khojaly --PBS (talk) 08:24, 12 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Read this.15th July 2009 Sejm of the Republic of Poland adopted a resolution unanimously about celebrating the tragic fate of Poles on the Eastern borderlands. In the resolution they reminded that in July he was passing 66. anniversary "of beginning the II Republic of so-called anti-Polish actions on lines by the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists and the Ukrainian Insurgent Army - of mass murders about character of the ethnic cleansing and genocidal birthmarks".--Paweł5586 (talk) 11:25, 15 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What is a "genocidal birthmark?" Is it as bad as genocidal psoriasis?Faustian (talk) 13:33, 15 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Seriously, though, the Polish parliament didn't declare it to be genocide. The relevant sentence [3]: "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)Reply[reply]

Yes your translation is correct. Last words means - genocidal accidents. It is the same.--Paweł5586 (talk) 17:10, 15 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

Didnot becouse of Ukrainian ambassador protest. But word genocide is used.--Paweł5586 (talk) 06:55, 16 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

subsectioning "Notable genocide denials by governments"[edit]

I reverted the revert of sub sectioning. I understand the reason for the revert, but I disagree. In choosing the names of the subsections I specifically avoided using the word genocide for that very reason. If you think the main section header is the problem, I didn't choose "Notable genocide denials by governments" and I'm not objecting to it being changed. As for the {{main}} tag, I was simply linking to the name of the articles. If you think the article names are poorly chosen because they imply the genocides actually took place, that's fine, go to those articles and suggest a rename. I won't object, I just think this article should point directly to whatever those articles are named. If this is almost, but not quite, enough of an argument, the manual of style prefers paragraphs to bulleted lists. Vicarious (talk) 00:31, 11 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article name would imply that these are genocides, so the section heading matters little. I think it is the presentation that matters. The paragraphs are a more balanced way to present this information, even more so for the Holodomor than the Armenian case as it falsely presents the information as if most agree that it was a genocide and only a few do not. BTW I do object to the term "Denial of the Armenian Genocide" see the talk page where I explain that I think it should be combined with the article "Recognition of the Armenian Genocide and called "Armenian genocide debate" or Armenian genocide dispute" (as it is by the BBC). --PBS (talk) 13:02, 11 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've tried what I think might be an acceptable compromise. I removed the 'main' from the start of each section. If you find this acceptable, my only request is that you find a place in the Holodomor section to link to Denial of the Holodomor. Vicarious (talk) 19:19, 11 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So what is the issue here? Is it that a dispute about whether a link to Armenian Genocide should be called Armenian Genocide? With the article as it is, I would say "yes". If you want to start putting the other side and saying it wasn't a genocide, the best place to put your case is in the article itself (and on its talk page). If successful, you could get the article renamed and then have a link from here in its new name. Once you have done that, you could try changing this article so that it does not come down quite so hard on the side of "Genocide deniers are always lying". You will have a fight on your hands if you want to do any of that. Your best bet would be to be as reasonable as possible and try to make people see your point of view, rather than having a rant in capital letters, as I have noticed some people have already on talk:Armenian Genocide.
Oh, one last thing. You may find some help at Wikipedia:WikiProject Alternative Views
Yaris678 (talk) 17:57, 15 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rwandan genocide[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

Notable genocide apologist[edit]

I reverted out a series of edit by user:Santasa99 because this is an article on genocide denial and the sources need to be reliable sources. For example WP:PROVEIT mean that if someone makes a comment on a blog page unless a reliable source quotes the blog and accuses the person of genocide denial we should not list it here. Further this article is about genocide denial, it is not about people who justify a genocide (odious as those views are). -- PBS (talk) 12:15, 25 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Well it is interesting that you reverted all of my contributions with only one explanation !? - I am not stupid, so I think that your explanation should be a bit more genuine. I listed all kinds of sources and refeerences for persons and institutions that I mentioned (What is your explanation for those institutes and organizations that are completely dedicated to the work of the Srebrenica genocide denial ?!). I did not cite blogs (in each and every case) dealing with comments, rumors, gossips and second hand informations , but only those where the authors have written many articles in which loudly and clearly deny or justify genocide and with certain publicity too. Further, what you mean "not about people who justify a genocide" - what are you talking about ??? What is justifing if not an apologetic manner of denial ?! If one say: "jews deserved gas chambers because ... whatever", for you that is justification not denial ? Or: "serbs had to revenge their forefathers" and slaughtered thousand in Srebrenica and around Bosnia, that is justification not denial ?

Well I am realy stunned and horrified with your removal and explanation of all those people and institutions with this petty explanation , so I think that others need to give their opinion about my contributions, but only after careful consideration of what I wrote.--Santasa99 (talk) 02:37, 16 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please see WP:OR and WP:V and most importantly WP:BLP. If you would like to discuss specific cases, then please lets go through them one by one. --PBS (talk)
The first one in you list you write "DT is infamous by his notorious" -- who says he is notable, who says he is infamous? How is www.newscloud.com a Wikipedia reliable source? -- PBS (talk) 16:15, 16 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For the second one "DJ", in you list has an article on Wikipedia so we can take notability as given. But you have not produced one reliable source that says that she did or did not say that a genocide took place, so it fall foul of WP:BLP. We can go through the rest of the list once we have agree on wording/sources for these two. -- PBS (talk) 16:15, 16 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You didn't explain the rest, before you deleted all of the inputs (on institutes, organizations). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Santasa99 (talkcontribs) 16:39, 24 October 2009
I thought it best to go through them one or two at a time, (and so picked the first two), because AFAICT all the entries suffered from the same sorts of problems. Is there any of the additions that you added to the page that you think does not suffer from these problems I highlighted, we could discuss that one first. -- PBS (talk) 17:20, 24 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In a few moments you will be able to "rewiev" new input on Trifunović with all reliable sources (and notable too), rest - later. (Sorry I forgot signature)--Santasa99 (talk) 20:20, 24 October 2009 (UTC) May I continue with my entries--Santasa99 (talk) 20:24, 24 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The sentence that needs a citation is "The report denied that there had been a genocide and accused the International Committee of the Red Cross of having "fabricated" its findings on the killings." as the given sources do not say that the report denies a genocide, or that the ICRC fabricated its findings. What the current sources say is that they estimate the number massacred as far less than the ICTY. One can easily infer from that that the report's authors dispute that the genocide took place, but that is not what the current sources say. -- PBS (talk) 17:35, 25 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What you mean "given sources do not say that the report denies a genocide, or that the ICRC fabricated its findings", what you exactly want ??? I really don't know what you want from me, I provided more sources then all others together , stop harsing me. It can't be more clear that he wrote a official report (government document) that provoked worldwide outage and that report was attempt to denied genocid. You asking me to provide evidences for somerhing that is evidence for itself. Do you making a joke with me ??? Should I read a report to you or you can read for yourself? Shoud I find someone to say or write " yah, that is exactly what the report state, denial of genocid, if you READ Report." Stop asking proves or evidences for evidence, thats unnecesary and often impossible !

Not to memtioned that I provided 10 time more evidences and sources for every entries I made, than you see in all other cases together in this section, but you keep deleting my inputs anyway, I am sick of it ! Maybe, you should honestly state your position on these contributions on Bosnia and Srebrenica genocid denial, so that we can ask for arbitration, if your position is unclear on this (Srebrenica genocid denial) issue.--Santasa99 (talk) 04:21, 26 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am not harassing you, you have not provided "10 time more evidences and sources", and for those were you have provided sources, I have not deleted the text.
Please see Genocides in history#Brazil, in the Helmet Massacre four people died, nineteen were wounded, and ten disappeared -- with only 14 killed it was a genocide -- so just because the authors of the Report about Case Srebrenica query the number killed does not mean that they query whether a genocide took place, or that they specifically query the ICRC numbers. If we are going to include that sentence then we need a reliable secondary source to back up the sentence, or a direct quote from the primary source (Report about Case Srebrenica) that backs up the assertion. -- PBS (talk) 11:41, 26 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You don't harassing me, its looks like you just don't want Bosnian genocid deniers on this list ! Why don't you read Report, and then you will maybe stop doing this !? You will find that sentence backed with primary source - the Report ! What is the primary source for Report if not Report it self ???? Rest of the qouts are actualy secondary sources. What is that you want, exactly ? It is needless to say that what happened in Bosnia isn't a same as what hapened in Brazil and Helmet M. Your comparison of these cases is offensive, atleast. You questioning what hapened in Bosnia and what the author had meant is maybe something else - not what international community (ITCY, UN, OHR etc.) said it si, denial of genocid ! You constantly deleting other geniocid deniers because, its seems to me, thay denying Bosnian genocid, and not because I did not provide reliable source ! Don't do that, thats really bad thing to do ! (talk) 17:41, 26 October 2009 (UTC) I am changing my response for the fourth time because I really don't understand what do you saying ! I don't want to accuse you, or anybody elese for that matter, for the same view on Bosnian genocid as people who denied genocid, but what Brazil and 14 deaths in the Helmet M. have to do with a case of Bosnian genocid deniers and this report.--Santasa99 (talk) 22:09, 26 October 2009 (UTC) Report consist exactly what that sentence summarizing - do you understand that ? If you read the report, or anyone who want to read it, you will find out for yourself.--Santasa99 (talk) 22:16, 26 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In case of the Report, author didn't denied just numbers, he denied everything - numbers, means, orders, all the facts. Finaly he denied genocid ever happened (not just in my mind if you afraid of me creating myth or personal interpretation).--Santasa99 (talk) 22:55, 26 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

All you have to do to include this in the article is either quote the summary of the report (see WP:PSTS), or find a reliable secondary source that draws that conclusion, but without either it is an unsupported POV and banned by WP:BLP. -- PBS (talk) 08:27, 27 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Diana Johnston published book (alongside with published articles in a far left media outlets) denying genocid in Bosnia (in the same fashon as the Report: numbers, means, orders, places, everything), after she provoked a great deal of anger in Sweden, where she try to publish her book on the first place. Swedish publishing companies refused to publish that garbage, after she explained what the book is about, in a few interviews given in Swedish and UK newspapers. I am trying to find more reliable sources (although I believe I already did !), more suitable to your interpretations of Wikipedia rules, for her denial (not just in that book). I really want to avoid draging this indefinitely because I don't have time nor nerves - I am too close to the suffering and prolonged genocid (denial is a yet another stage in committing genocid), physically and emotionally, but I also believe that people should be exposed where and when ever one can.--Santasa99 (talk) 23:15, 26 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See Talk:Srebrenica massacre/Archive 14#Diana Johnstone (You may find the section before it "Talk:Srebrenica massacre/Archive 14#Living Marxism" interesting as well). -- PBS (talk) 08:44, 27 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you very much for clearing this up, and pardon my naiveness. I thought your perspective in this matter is neutral, so I would probably continuously try to debate with you - an Administrator, and try to find out from where these double standards coming from and when will it stop and where your appreciation for consistency begins.--Santasa99 (talk) 19:40, 27 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I read the primary source reference you added to the article and as far as I can tell there is no mention in the source on whether a genocide took pace. Also as the article seems to rely on some of the statistics of the ICRC I am not sure how you sum it up as "The report denied that there had been a genocide and accused the International Committee of the Red Cross of having "fabricated" its findings on the killings" do you have a reliable secondary source for this summary sentence? -- PBS (talk) 17:31, 30 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Denial and Dispute[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

False claims of genocide is an effective form of hate speech. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 06:04, 16 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pamela Geller[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

Srebrenica Denial?[edit]

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) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.11.158.220 (talk)

Are you sure it's denial or an alternate viewpoint on the massacre? It only says that the RS report is flawed and poorly written, but does not state why and only forces one viewpoint on the whole massacre incident, but does not really bother to go into detail about it and the ICTY report also has flaws as well, such as bad eyewitness testimony, finding Serbs and misidentifications of Muslims as Serbs. Look it up, it's all there on the internet. Srebrenica is a controversial event, but massacres are never genocide because massacre and genocide have two different definitions,.

Genocide is systematic and widespread over a large area. Massacre is an event that takes place within a single area. This is not genocide denial at all. I feel that the whole genocide denial thing is completely ridiculous on Srebrenica, as other sources not listed on here, contradict the official story found by independent investigators from many countries on the Srebrenica case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.11.158.220 (talk) 02:15, 21 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

http://www.europeancourier.org/99.htm

02:19, 21 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.11.158.220 (talk)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jul/19/not-genocide-deniers-uncover-truth

I am aware that people like to accuse people of genocide denial for questioning Srebrenica, even though it's not genocide denial and questioning of it does not make one a genocide denier, or for that matter a bad person. How about real genocide denial? Like Holocaust Deniers and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran. Many of those that deny Srebrenica are people that want truth about the whole incident and genocide denial accusation shuts down all debate on the incident, even though much has to be discussed on the incident, such as bad eyewitness testimony, and smearing people as deniers, which I think is completely wrong because bad research was done in the incident, and ICTY made numerous mistakes.

The 8,000 number is also highly contested among academics and historians. How's that for genocide denial, eh? Did you want to smear people that have honest questions about the incident, using honest research as deniers of the incident and genocide denial?

Srebrenica Historical Project has documented researchers being accused of genocide denial. This accusation is stupid and childish. Srebrenica is still contested by academics and is considered to be theatrical by many people that nae-calling on the whole incident and protecting the incident by name calling, indicates that there is something wrong here. No more name calling. Please cite Ahmadinejad's Holocaust statements as genocide denial, instead of the contested Srebrenica Genocide thing, which is being disputed on Wikipedia and academia throughout the world. Shutting down debate by using the word genocide denial is wrong. It's not genocide denial.

Besides, it's contested whether or not Srebrenica IS or constitutes a genocide, by many experts.


02:32, 21 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.11.158.220 (talk)

http://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/reliefweb_pdf/node-105000.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.11.158.220 (talk) 02:37, 21 February 2012 (UTC) http://www.juliagorin.com/wordpress/?p=2371Reply[reply]

Calling it genocide denial, while the event is highly contested, I think is a bit premature, don't you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.11.158.220 (talk) 02:41, 21 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

Cenk Uygur[edit]

  • Cenk Uygur, host and co-founder of The Young Turks expressed denial of the Armenian Genocide in letters published by The Daily Pennsylvanian in 1991 and Salon in 1999. In the first one, titled “Historical Fact or Falsehood?”, he states "If the history of the period is examined it becomes evident that in fact no such genocide took place."[1] He repeated this view in his letter to the editor of Salon.com in 1999.[2] In 2016, Cenk rescinded his statements about the Armenian Genocide, saying he "was a 21 year-old kid, who had a lot of opinions that I have since changed" and he "does not know nearly enough" about it.[3]

References

  1. ^ Uygur, Cenk (1991-11-20). "Historical Fact or Falsehood?"http://www.webcitation.org/68YqvmgSY. The Daily Pennsylvanian. Archived from the original on 2012-06-20. Retrieved 2012-06-20.
  2. ^ Uygur, Cenk (1999-6-9). "Letters to the Editor". Salon. http://www.salon.com/1999/06/16/punk_2/
  3. ^ https://www.tytnetwork.com/2016/04/22/rescinding-daily-pennsylvanian-article/

This bullet point is being removed without valid reason. The user responsible, User:Cmeiqnj removed it saying, "No secondary source provided = serious BLP concerns". There are no such issues. The person himself has written letters to the editor to two publications in the 1990s stating there was no genocide, which were published. Therefore we can use that as a basis of including this public figure in the list of genocide deniers. This user is on a campaign to remove any association between Cenk and genocide denial, thus whitewashing his Wikipedia presence. That is not appropriate. There are published examples of this person's genocide denial, he himself wrote them, and has addressed the fact recently, and it should be included here. Once again, if there is a genuine reason it should not be included in the article, it should be explained. Otherwise, it goes in and it stays. End of whitewash. --RaffiKojian (talk) 10:17, 6 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

can't without a reliable secondary source stating it.
  • who says it was a genocide?
  • letter presumably says it was not
putting those together (one a primary source) violates. WP:PSTS and WP:SYN. A reliable source that joins the dots is needed so it can be stated "that XYZ has stated that Uygur had denied that that the massacre of Arminians was a genocide." -- PBS (talk) 10:45, 6 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
See Talk:Cenk Uygur, where there is an ongoing discussion about this. It has been going on for two months now. Cmeiqnj (talk) 11:08, 6 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:07, 9 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Genocide denial not just the province of the extreme[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:23, 12 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Harms of Denial needs expansion[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

Oh, also, given the subject (denial), it is very important to have extensive citations.198.27.250.176 (talk) 11:59, 20 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

VahagnAvedian (talk) 12:37, 14 November 2018 (UTC) Replaced the existing bullet-form factors with a text which I hope covers all those pointed out in the bullets. If there is a need for complementing the text with aspects which are missing in the current text, bring them up here and we'll add those to the text. (talk) 13:36, 14 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Various Indigenous genocides[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

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 Whitt, Laurelyn; Clarke, Alan W. (2019), "North American Genocide Denial", North American Genocides, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 9781108425506, List of massacres of Indigenous Australians and Moses, A. Dirk (2004), "Genocide and Settler Society in Australian History", Genocide and Settler Society, Berghahn Books, ISBN 9781571814111. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:16, 23 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

POV pushing[edit]

I'm concerned about this page being used to push the POV, in Wikivoice, that certain events are genocides. This appears to be the case with the "Uyghur genocide" section. An RfC at the main article, Uyghur genocide, resulted in a consensus last year that the article could not state in Wikivoice that there is a genocide against the Uyghurs. Some of the same editors involved in that article, who most be aware of that consensus, have now inserted a section here on "Uyghur genocide", strongly implying in Wikivoice that there is a genocide. This is just an end-run around the consensus at "Uyghur genocide", and appears to be an attempt to insert the same extreme POV that was rejected at that article here. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:31, 17 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Implying and stating aren't the same thing, do you have a real issue you would like to bring up? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:50, 17 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Implying and stating aren't the same thing: This is supposed to make it better? We cannot imply or state in Wikivoice that there is a genocide against the Uyghurs when that assertion is extremely questionable and widely disputed. The "China" section here takes the POV that there is a genocide, and labels people who dispute that assertion deniers. This is obviously a POV issue, and an extremely serious one at that. -Thucydides411 (talk) 08:21, 18 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Your argument appears to be circular. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:39, 18 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is no such scholarly consensus that a genocide is taking place in China, and there is consensus (on Wikipedia) against describing it as such. It does not make sense to include it here, just as it would not make sense to include the French government's denial of the white genocide conspiracy theory. Endwise (talk) 03:12, 28 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is not consensus on Wikipedia that there is no genocide in Xinjiang; that is simply a misreading of the discussion on the Uyghur genocide page that applied to how we were supposed to begin the article. — Mhawk10 (talk) 04:16, 28 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's not what I said. I said there is consensus on Wikipedia that there is no scholarly consensus that it is genocide and that we can label it as such. Have you read the closure of the discussion? There exists a serious debate in reliable sources as to whether the events/actions are a genocide. The events/actions may not be labelled as a genocide in wikivoice, that is, as an uncontested fact. There is in fact consensus that we cannot describe it as a genocide.
It is fairly ridiculous to include a (in fact probably the) mainstream scholarly opinion on an article about "genocide denial". Just as it would be ridiculous to include people denying that the Holodomor was a genocide, or for a more hyperbolic example including people denying that Jews are genociding white Europeans through non-white immigration. Endwise (talk) 06:29, 28 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have added a thread to the NPOV noticeboard to hopefully get more opinions on the matter: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#"Genocide denial" and Uyghurs. Endwise (talk) 06:34, 28 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I posted this in the RSN thread, but I don't think the current sources are appropriate for this. "Genocide denial" has a fairly specific meaning, particularly in terms of asserting that it's denying a definite genocide (and is an exceptional / shocking claim, so we should be very careful about where we cite it to.) I don't think it's appropriate for us to build a section out of news sources in which a government simply says a genocide isn't taking place, especially when many of those are cautiously-worded in other ways - I'm seeing a lot of "allegations" and similar hedging in those sources, say. Turning eg. a CNN source which says China denies allegations into outright genocide denial is misusing it as a source given how the term is normally used in academia. Inclusion on this page should rely on scholarly / academic sources specifically saying that this is genocide denial (or words that clearly have the same meaning), and should probably attribute to those unless the consensus about what's happening is overwhelming, which I don't think it is. If those sources can't be found then it shouldn't be mentioned at all; the current formulation strikes me as WP:OR. --Aquillion (talk) 16:44, 28 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

IMO this whole article shouldn't exist. Per the definition of the lead, it only applies to when a genocide has taken place so mere presence in the article is essentially a statement, in the voice of Wikipedia that what occurred / is occurring is a genocide. And "genocide" has many widely varying meanings varying from worst possible (deliberate extermination via mass murder) to rebranding of events which are normally not considered to be genocide as "genocide" for political type purposes. And so the article is primarily a coatrack for claiming something is a genocide. And th ostensible topic (denials of such) really isn't a distinct topic. North8000 (talk) 17:07, 28 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article should talk about what reliable sources say, how they say it. And I doubt it’s going anywhere as a level 4 vital article. Dronebogus (talk) 05:02, 29 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • At the very least, genocide denial is a reasonably common and well-defined term in academic literature, so it's reasonable to have an article for it. But given that it is also a very heavy term, I feel we should limit sourcing to ones that use the term genocide denial specifically, and examples to ones where the term is used unambiguously in high-quality sources. Honestly though I feel like the people who want a paragraph here should search for those sources first and put together a new sentence using them, with attribution, if they exist. (A quick Google Scholar search is surprisingly sparse - moreso than I expected, with the few results I glanced over not being relevant - so it is possible the sources actually do not exist. But I didn't search very hard.) --Aquillion (talk) 09:44, 1 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This article primarily serves as a notion for political point of view pushing and point scoring, which means it's a constant tug of war on who should and should not be included. Whilst it is true that genocide denial is a real phenomenon covered by scholarship, it is otherwise used as a moral pejorative to shut down disputed issues where there is no clarity on whether it constitutes genocide or not Sunderland Renaissance (talk) 00:45, 5 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 19 February 2022[edit]

I would like to fix this pace SleepyHollow4ever (talk) 03:46, 19 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 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)Reply[reply]

Denials of the Putinist State of the War in Ukraine[edit]

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) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antalope (talkcontribs)

Russia is not currently committing genocide against the Ukrainian people. Endwise (talk) 03:13, 28 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Circassian Genocide denied by Russian government?[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

That's like denial. StellarNerd (talk) 05:21, 8 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on April 18, 2022[edit]


  • 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)Reply[reply]

References

 Done This really should have sourcing, which will likely be attributed opinions. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:32, 18 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Issues with the article[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

Palestinian genocide denial[edit]

ip address 204.102.230.60 removed the inclusion of Palestinian genocide denial. I believe this removal comes from a a biased perspective. Whether you believe of deny that the Nakba and current conflict is an act of genocide, it is relevant to this article as this alleged act of genocide is disputed by the Israeli government and Zionist movement. This is further explored in Palestinian_genocide_accusation The attempted exclusion of Palestinian genocide denial from this article is itself genocide denial denial. I ask that it be retained and that any dispute be discussed here rather than engaging in an edit war. 135.180.199.26 (talk) 05:52, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Firstly, comment on the edit, not the motivation of the editor.. Secondly, you are simply not allowed, period, to make any edits related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed, until you have an account with 500 edits and 30 days of age. Fermiboson (talk) 01:05, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
While I see now that I lack those privileges without extended confirmed status and apologize, I civilly implore you to include it as the denial of the Palestinian genocide is well documented in Palestinian genocide accusation. You linked https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Civility. I do not see how my edit breaches the rules of civility. I assume good faith and emphasize my point that the removal of Palestinian genocide denial in this article is damaging to its validity and can easily be seen as collective revisionism. We risk denying the well-documented denial of the Palestinian genocide by removing it. In the spirit of cooperation, I implore you to let the reader be the judge on a contentious issue rather than exclude it altogether. 135.180.199.26 (talk) 06:20, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Firstly, thank you for engaging on the talk page. Your edits do not violate civility, but you are expected not to cast aspersions as to the motivations of other editors, as you did with I believe this removal comes from a a biased perspective and Wikipedia:UNDUE removal of this revision shows reflects bias and is ironically in itself an act of genocide denial. in your edit summary. This is, however, minor, so let's move past that onto the content question.
I have no wish to get involved into the Arab-Israeli topic area, and I am not obliged to, whether I think the content merits inclusion or not. Regarding the content itself of your edit, there has been contentious and heated argument, including I believe an RfC, about whether including a genocide on this page is equivalent to stating in wikivoice that it is a genocide, and such an argument is especially likely to arise over the issues you are trying to insert.
Dropping the masquerade of "official" wording for a moment - yes, it's fucking stupid. There are a million due weight, omissions and other major issues with this article that simply nobody has had the energy to fix, because it is exceedingly hard to fix. You can see in the talk page sections above various people, including myself, moaning about it but failing to do anything about it. I'm not entirely sure it is even possible to write this article in an NPOV manner. The way we do things on Wikipeda, however, is not just throw whatever at the article and "let the reader judge". Generally speaking, we have to obtain consensus in favour of contentious inclusions and major changes. In this context, this will likely involve 1. multiple reliable sources with a survey to determine that what is going on in Palestine is a genocide and 2. multiple reliable sources with another survey to determine that the Israeli government is denying either the existence or nature of the atrocities. I mean, good luck, I imagine the entire talk page over at 2023 Israel-Hamas war is having the exact same argument. You are welcome to attempt to do so below, but given all the historical failed attempts, I doubt you will be able to do so for any contentious inclusion, and I strongly advise you to do something less difficult instead. Fermiboson (talk) 06:55, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I concur with the 135.180.199.26 editor that the lack of a link to the Palestine article/example feels like a glaring omission--I take your point though @Fermiboson that there are many other issues with the article and that you are suggesting that the overall article be reviewed and revised more holistically. However, I still think simply linking to the other existing article at a minimum would seem to be appropriate for now for here and not a significant deviation from what is already there on the rest of the page? Perhaps also to the Nakba denial page in addition to Palestinian genocide accusation? Take the existing section on Croatia, for instance, which does not go into detail but rather directs to the other page. A simple link to the related Palestine pages at least feels appropriate for now? I also think an expansion on this topic—that is, denial—is merited on the Palestinian genocide page specifically as its own section, with a link there, too, to Nakba denial. While I don't personally have time to add all this today (perhaps tomorrow) here's a list of sources that are directly relevant:
https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/harvard-law-review-gaza-israel-genocide/
https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt18dztmq
https://www.bostonreview.net/articles/seeing-genocide/
And those are the tip of the iceberg of sources out there, from my understanding of this topic. Jackie.salzinger (talk) 21:39, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I repeat that I have no wish to get involved in ARBPIA. Feel free to add the content if you wish, as you are EC, and I won't stop you, with the same warnings I am sure you are familiar with that you are likely to get yourself a lot of unnecessary trouble. Fermiboson (talk) 22:29, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Genocide denial for "genocides" that didn't actually happen[edit]

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)Reply[reply]