Thanks for reiterating those points, Wiley and Christiano.
Let me take one more stab at making mine.
(I'll rehash the disclaimers, just in case: I do understand that
this genocide really did happen, and that the magnitudes of the
horror and the death toll were as described. I am not trying to
apologize for the Turkish government, or condone its revisionism
and denial. I do understand the Undue Weight clause of our NPOV
policy.)
I believe that the best way of dealing with a minority and wrong
viewpoint, and the way mandated by our NPOV policy, is to present
it simply and factually, more or less as its proponents would
wish (if they could ever limit themselves to simple, allegedly-
factual statements). I believe, as WP:NPOV says, that the (true)
facts will speak for themselves. I don't believe that the
minority view's statements need to be relentlessly challenged
and contradicted right in the very same sentences where they're
presented. I don't believe that by presenting a contrary opinion
in this way (in a *non* forked article which also presents the
majority opinion duly forcefully) that we are condoning the
contrary opinion, or risking being seen as arguing in favor
of it in the eyes of any reader who's undecided.
There is, to be sure, the question of when a minority opinion
becomes so very fringe that it deserves no mention at all. But
when the opinion is one which is (a) eminently sourceable and
(b) supported by a major government, I don't think we can sweep
it under the rug, no matter how wrong it or its sponsor is.
To try to is to invite (as Christiano observes) a depressingly
large, fairly steady stream of POV-pushers arguing with us.
Now, with all of that said, I don't actually expect the tone of
our Armenian Genocide article to change; it will almost certainly
continue to ridicule the Turkish government position more than
a strict reading of WP:NPOV might condone. The issue, of course,
is that there are so very many people who believe pretty strongly
that to allow a contrary opinion to be stated at all, without
disclaimers and counterarguments inserted between every clause,
is to run the risk of seeming to condone it. As someone pointed
out on [[Talk:Armenian Genocide]], our [[Holocaust]] article
does not mention Holocaust denial at all, and by analogy, our
[[Armenian Genocide]] article shouldn't, either. So mine is
mostly an academic argument.
Christiano Moreschi wrote:
Aye. The Armenian Genocide really is universally
acknowledged as such, with
the exception of the Turkish government (who get a lot of stick for this),
and maybe a few Azeris. Turkish POV-pushers on this set of articles are a
lot more trouble than they're worth, and we get a depressingly large number
of them in a fairly steady stream.
CM
> Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2008 10:10:34 -0400
> From: wilydoppelganger(a)gmail.com
> To: wikien-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Armenian Genocide
>
> On Sat, Mar 29, 2008 at 9:05 AM, Steve Summit <scs(a)eskimo.com> wrote:
>> 1. It is editable. (However, you need to be a registered user.)
>>
>> 2. I fear I'll regret saying this, but: he's right. Other than
>> knowing it's among Wikipedia's most highly-contested articles,
>> I'd never paid much attention to it. Skimming it now, however,
>> I see that the opposing POV is given *very* short shrift.
>> There isn't even a "Controversy" section. The only place I
>> can find mention of the opposing POV is in the "Republic of
>> Turkey and the Armenian Genocide" section, and even there,
>> most of the text consists of fairly blunt denial of the
>> non-genocide claim.
>
> This "point" really needs refuted several times over. This is not a
> "two sided" issue, this is a "one sided" issue with an extreme
> minority opposition (roughly "Official Turkish Position").
>
> Make no mistake - the Armenian Genocide happened, and (at least
> roughly) it happened the way we describe it. Contemporary sources (of
> which there are many) report it this way, modern sources describe it
> this way. Although one is normally loath to compare things to the
> Holocaust, the comparison is apt - a genocide of similar proportions
> (~1.5 million killed), very limited denial, no credible scholars
> engaging in the denial, et cetera. Undue Weight isn't Equal Weight,
> and Armenian Genocide is one that always needs eyes, because the POV
> pushing is much worse than articles where it doesn't matter so much
> (like whether Norwegians invented paperclips).
>
> If you're interested in denial of the Armenian Genocide, we have a
> fairly decent article on the subject
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denial_of_the_Armenian_Genocide
>
> If you're interested in why we only present the "Armenain" point of
> view, maybe see
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recognition_of_the_Armenian_Genocide
> maybe focussing on
>
> "Several international organizations, conducting studies of the
> events, have determined that the term "genocide" aptly describes "the
> Ottoman massacre of Armenians in 1915-1916."[1] Among the
> organizations asserting this conclusion are the International Center
> for Transitional Justice, the International Association of Genocide
> Scholars,[2] and the United Nations' Sub-Commission on Prevention of
> Discrimination and Protection of Minorities.[1][3]
>
> In 2007, The Elie Wiesel Foundation for Humanity produced a letter
> signed by 53 Nobel Laureates re-affirming the Genocide Scholars'
> conclusion that the 1915 killings of Armenians constituted genocide."
>
> Cheers
> WilyD