Talk:Justin McCarthy (American historian)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Clean up

Greetings, sorry to intrude on this, but some of the info was rather off so I had to go through and correct it. The Books in "other" where all written before Dr. McCarthy was ever born, so shouldn't be there unless this article is aiming for the fiction section. Also, the rumor that his wife is Turkish is rather silly if you've ever seen her, as she's a blue eyed, red headed British American. I have to say I'm a bit disappointed in that there's so little information here, and half of it seems to be based on a PBS show that wasn't broadcast in many states and the person who added info about it hasn't seen it. Hopefully a more factually accurate article can be added here at a later time. --NMcCarthy 00:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Justin McCarthy's wife

What's the name of Justin McCarthy's wife? --deniz 20:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

anti Armenian and historical revisionist ???

Why is that? I am going to remove them. deniz^T_C 18:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

arguing ppl

I'm sorry, but I think it's a little inaccurate to state that:

"McCarthy is known for his controversial challenge of the view that there was an Armenian Genocide."

This makes it seem as though he is denying the actual events of 1915. If one reads his books, one will see that he is not challenging the events, but rather the interpretation. He takes care to note that he is not, in any way, questioning the massacres of 1915, their scale, or their consequences. He does, however, claim that the term "genocide" does not apply. By using the phrase "that there was," the author of the article almost makes it seems as though McCarthy is treating the events of 1915 as some kind of myth.

I think it would be more accurate to word that sentence as:

"McCarthy is known for his controversial challenge of the view that the massacres of Ottoman Armenians during the empire's decline constituted (a) genocide."

I am not including "during the empire's decline" to excuse or justify the massacres in any way, or even to put them in context. Rather, I think it's necessary to say "during the empire's decline" because it is the massacres of a specific time period that are considered to constitute genocide (while massacres of earlier days are not). Also, the date of 1915 is somewhat arbitrary since the expulsion and mass killing of Ottoman Armenians was a hundred-year process that crescendoed, instensifying exponentially in the second decade of the 20th century. April 24th, 1915 is the anniversary of the execution of a particular group of Armenian community members, and the designation of that date as the anniversary of the aforementioned process is an idea set forth by their companions. The killings had been going on before and after that date, and whether or not that date was a turning point more significant than any other turning points is up to argument.

He's a denier. Read an example of his work (with no citations) http://www.turkishweekly.net/articles.php?id=113 76.227.116.11 00:57, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Chillinchillin 08:11, 27 January 2007 (UTC)chillinchillin

I would say that both sentences equate to the same thing. When those who support the truth of the Armenian genocide say that somebody is denying the Armenian genocide, it usually means that they do not call the events genocide. I don't think any serious academic would argue that a large number of Armenian deaths did not occur. -- Augustgrahl 14:50, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

POV reversion

This phrase was a major red flag: "Throughout the discussion he behaved himself in a defensive and condescending manner." Obvious, right? It was enough for me to revert the whole lot. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 23:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

It would have been more appropriate if you simply removed the more directly confrontational phrases and those lacking a citation. To be sure, McCarthy does deny that genocide occured, and has been widely criticized for it by various institutions. Most Historians who engage in similar actions receive similar criticism. See David Irving, his position as a historian is discredited in the second paragraph due to his controversial stance on a Historical event. At the very least, he deserves a section in which to describe the wide range of criticism that he has attracted. The Myotis 00:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

If referenced, NPOV content is added back, I won't revert it. WP:BLP demanded that I take immediate action, and it would have taken too long to figure out what to keep and what not to keep. My response was entirely appropriate. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 00:10, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Everything I said has been quoted, vast majority by non-Armenians, some even Turks.Hetoum I 02:08, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, it looked mostly good this time, but there were still a few POV issues, and I attempted to clean them up. Thanks! Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 16:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I checked out all the sources cited for many of the sections in the article and most of them are simply not relevant to what the article said. For instance, the source cited as calling Armenians liars was a speech he gave where the only iteration of "liar" is when he says, "They might sometimes have been mistaken, but they were never liars." The interview in which the article sited him as comparing "the Armenian genocide to an act of adultery of an unfaithful husband" was also false. He never mentions anything about adultery. I thus reverted the article to a July 17th version that was neutral rather than falsely defaming. --Tronk 06:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'll keep a more watchful eye in the future. I should have known all the add-ons were bunk by the re-insertion of the opinion: "Throughout the discussion he behaved himself in a defensive and condescending manner." Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 13:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

? How is it irrelevant? Criticism of his work? His life information? Your edit is considered wholesale vandalism. Please refrain from that.Hetoum I 00:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Hetoum, I advise you to loosen the horse glasses and read/listen to the refs given on the main page. What the heck. You will soon make this guy a cockroach just because he denies Armenian Genocide. Stewie, if you have time, I advise you to listen to the youtube video given as a ref on the main page [1]. Also search for liar, on the transcript [2]. It says "[Ottomans] might be mistaken but they were not liars". That is the only occurrence of the word 'liar'. There is also mention of the fake telegraphs, which are fake. Deniz^T_C 03:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure what to say to you Deniz. This individual is a racist, and calls Armenians liars on more than one occasion, see the link you so faithfully used - armenians are liars, they spread lies, etc ... Racists are indeed cockroaches - I don't know if it is ok for you to call Armenian people or others liars, but in most societies it is considered racism. Furthermore, the interview I cited is in 3 parts, watch all of them. Again stop providing links citing him as an expert - they guy is an old buddy of his - not neutral nor reliable. Academic reviews of his work unrelated to the Armenian genocide call him a joke. He cannot even spell place-names correctly.Hetoum I 20:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Hetoum, I still cannot see where he said liars on that transcript. Are you talking about this:

"Why rely on Ottoman archival accounts to write history? Because they are the sort of solid data that is the basis of all good history. The Ottomans did not write propaganda for today's media. The reports of Ottoman soldiers and officials were not political documents or public relations exercises. They were secret internal reports in which responsible men relayed what they believed to be true to their government. They might sometimes have been mistaken, but they were never liars. There is no record of deliberate deception in Ottoman documents. Compare this to the dismal history of Armenian Nationalist deceptions: fake statistics on population, fake statements attributed to Mustafa Kemal, fake telegrams of Talat Paşa." ?

Same is true with the youtube videos. Please specify which parts were anti-Armenian. Also I used the ref that you used for something else. It cannot be reliable once and not reliable another time. Also, according to our argument we will have to erase a lot of things from wikipedia, declare some academics/non-academics enemy, some friend. Regarding the review, there is one review for one of his works like that. Also why do we make him non-expert for some possible typos, who are we anyway? Deniz^T_C 23:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I do not know anything about McCarthy, and very little about recent Turkish and Armenian history. I am judging only on the texts both of you are quoting here. It seems to me that saying that somebody was guilty of "deceptions" and of "fake statistics", "fake statements" and so on is very akin to say that they are liars. Perhaps it would be more correct to say something along the lines of "He criticizes Armenian people, including calling them fakers"? Bye, Goochelaar 23:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Please see Aram Andonian and especially the talkpage, Talk: Aram Andonian. We may need to rephrase the sentence there, give a mention to those telegraphs (that were amazingly found to be lost when they were needed) that were suggested to be fake not just by McCarthy, but also by other historians like Lewy, Zürcher, and Mango. Anyway, as far as I can see what he says that there are Armenian nationalist deceptions. What we can derive from the statement, is that he calls a 'few' Armenian nationalists liars/deceptionists, one being Andonian. Still even one is too many, when calling someone a 'faker', if not proven. I suggest to apply this to this article as well. Deniz^T_C 00:56, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, regarding footnote 8, I have JSTOR access, and here are the what we have on pages 525-529 of The American Historical Review, Vol. 101, No. 2, Apr. 1996 (check this if you have JSTOR access):

Reviews of

1. The Landed Estates of the Esterházy Princes: Hungary during the Reforms of Maria Theresia and Joseph II.
2. T. G. Masaryk: Against the Current, 1882-1914
3. A History of the Russian Church to 1448
4. Two Histories of Rus' in the Fifteenth Century: Early and Late, Independent and Official Chronicles of the Formation of the Muscovite State
5. The Russian Far East: A History
6. Government, Industry and Rearmament in Russia, 1900-1914: The Last Argument of Tsarism

None of them about a work of McCarthy. I made two searches. First is just for "Justin McCarthy". Found many results, checked the first few reviews, nothing bad about McCarthy. Then I made the search of '"Justin McCarthy" liar', found only two results. They werenot even on the same page in any of them. Deniz^T_C 01:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh lordy, how many times do I have to explain, his peace corps buddy is not someone to judge his expertise on history, neither is he impartial.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GRGUVLMSbrw&mode=related&search=

Watch the end of his interview for his racist rhetoric – ppl lie to their wives, ppl lie to their nations.

http://homepages.cae.wisc.edu/~dwilson/Armenia/justin.html

The historian studies. The ideologue wages a political war. From the start the Armenian Question has been a political campaign. Materials that have been used to write the long-accepted and false history of the Armenian Question were written as political documents. They were written for political effect. Whether they were articles in the Dashnak newspaper or false documents produced by the British Propaganda Office, they were propaganda, not sources of accurate history. Historians have examined and rejected all these so-called "historical sources." Yet the same falsehoods continually appear as "proof" that there was an Armenian Genocide. The lies have existed for so long, the lies have been repeated so many times, that those who do not know the real history assume that the lies are true.

Too many scholars, Turks and non-Turks alike, have accepted the lies of groups like the Dashnak Party and not even looked at the internal reports of the Ottomans. Scholars have the right to make mistakes,

Typical racist rhetoric.

Hetoum I 01:25, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Please Hetoum, please listen to the guy with a clear mind. Of course there are 'people that lie for their nation' (he means general). Many wiki editors did not want to accept, say, Turkish sources, what do you think the reason was? Were they just racist, or did they think that 'Turkish people might lie for their nation'? Are you claiming that a 'British Propaganda Office' does not exist? Did they not accept that Blue Book for Germany was just a propaganda? Don't we have a Blue Book for Ottomans as well, which is not (yet) accepted as propaganda? Deniz^T_C 01:45, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

JSTOR - I got wrong page, 626 and on everything else is the same. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hetoum I (talk • contribs) 01:31, August 24, 2007 (UTC).

That is a letter to the editor by a Joseph A Kechichian, whoever he is!!! No wonder i could not find it with my searches. There is also a response of McCarthy afterwards, did you read it? Deniz^T_C 01:39, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Yep, pointless reply of a liar.Hetoum I 02:05, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I am about to give up on my efforts. Anyway a letter to the editor is not 'reliable', it is just like a forum/blogi writing it as if it were a journal, gives false credibility. Also we should try and not do things that we wouldn't want others to do to us. Deniz^T_C 02:25, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

What does the Armenian Wikiproject have to do with Justin McCarthy?

Apparently, the Armenian Wikiproject has decided to "patrol" this article, by discrediting Justin McCarthy's work with their own propaganda on the Armenian genocide theory. This is unacceptable and their wikiproject should not propagandize Wikipedia by patrolling historians who counter some Armenians' views on history. This isn't objectivity, this is propaganda. Arsenic99 (talk) 23:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Justin McCarthy has voiced extremely controversial views regarding Armenians and their history, and so he has been added to the wikiproject as a significant (if revisionist and generally unsupported) Historian on Armenian history whose article may be improved in that respect. Also, you do not need to add a page to a wikiproject in order to 'patrol' it, you just have to add it to your talkpage. I have reason to believe, however, you already knew that, and are asking questions to which you already have the answer. The Myotis (talk) 03:10, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Controversial to Armenians like yourself you mean, but widely accepted by other historians of non-Armenian origin. My main problem with this is the fact that Armenians find themselves as the experts to fix this article which is clearly biased. When you say the article may be improved you're trying to just say how you are going to discredit him and make his views seem more controversial by creating conclusions for wikipedia readers. Just try it. — ^talk § Arsenic99 04:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

First off, may I remind you to that making ad-hominem attacks does nothing to support your case (e.g. who told you I was an Armenian?). Second, there is no widespread support for McCarthy within the average Historical community (unless you have a good source that says otherwise) and, in fact, I might go as far as saying McCarthy is virtually unheard of outside the Armenian (and Anti-Armenian) community. McCarthy's denial is not just a product of his historical interpretations, it is his claim to fame, probably the only reason this article is anything more than a 2-sentence stub. Also, going to any length to discredit a man who does so much to sully his own reputation would be redundant and pointless. As long as we contrast his opinions with mainstream history, this article will take care of its self. It is those with a POV that would change this article to conflict with the rest of wikipedia (and make McCarthy representative of mainstream POV). The Myotis (talk) 07:41, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

You are an Armenian with a nationalistic agenda of promoting the Armenian genocide in almost any article you edit. Your own userpage has many boxes such as "independence of kurdistan" "independence of palestine" "wikiproject armenia" "advanced Armenian" "history of armenia" "opposes denial of armenian genocide" "independence of nagorno karabakh" among others which clearly shows you are Armenian indeed, because only a propagandist such as yourself would go to such lengths to make Justin McCarthy look like "a nobody" or a "minority POV" as you so claim. If he is someone who is not known outside the "Armenian community", why are you and VartanM so involved in this article? Oh and speaking of Vartan, are you referring to me about the source? Because I didn't put that source just to let you know. So anyway, there is nothing in this article or anything I've added that tries to make Justin McCarthy seem like a representative of mainstream, but I think you guys need to back off from this article since you continuously try to enlarge or bloat the Criticism of Work section. Trust me it will get removed eventually since it's POV and against WP:BLP, unless you want me to go and add a similar section to 100s of Armenian self-proclaimed historians. — ^talk § Arsenic99 06:15, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Please stop removing referenced material. I'm not Armenian, so you have no excuse. McCarthy is a member of the board of the Institute of Turkish Studies, which does call into question his credibility in regards to the Armenian Genocide. Kansas Bear (talk) 06:30, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Since when did the personal webpage of computer programer became a reliable source?[3] I removed an unsourced BLP violation and added couple of citation tags. --VartanM (talk) 18:35, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't know what Kurdistan, Israel and Palestine have to do with being an Armenian, but I believe you are missing the point. In Wikipedia we do not assume a person is a certain ethnicity due to their opinions, nor do we assume a person is biased because of what ethnicity they are. I do not accuse you of being a biased Turk and would prefer you show other the same respect. If you cannot stop yourself from making ad hominem arguments, then I suggest you find something better to do with your time than edit wikipedia. Also, threatening to vandalize other articles will not work here, wikipedia policy is applied uniformly (e.g. a minority POV here is a minority POV everywhere, and there is no sane doubt what McCarthy represents).The Myotis (talk) 12:30, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

reads like a personal hitjob by Armenian Genocide campaigners

"Best known for denying the Armenian Genocide"???? What the?? Is it an encyclopedia or a tool of Armenian propaganda machine? This very first sentence sounds like "condemning" the man for "denying" Armenian genocide. This is a controversial issue and it is still being debated. This sentence should be corrected... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.31.0.50 (talk) 14:25, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Why is the opinion of a New York Times TV critic relevant to this page at all?

To keep some perspective on this, let we should remind ourselves of what PBS's own ombudsman, Michael Getler wrote:

"It was McCarthy basically on his own facing questions from the moderator that put him on the defensive, and accused a couple of times by Balakian of having "worked for the Turkish government to help that government deny the Armenian genocide," which McCarthy said was a lie but which ate further into his time and impact."

Perhaps the TV critic was unaware that the book Balakian authored, and based his arguments on, has been savaged by established historians including prominent Ottoman specialist Andrew Mango:

"The Burning Tigris fits in with the campaign waged by Armenian nationalists to persuade Western parliaments to recognize the Armenian genocide It is not a work of historical research, but an advocate's impassioned plea, relying at times on discredited evidence, such as the forged telegrams attributed to the Ottoman interior minister... Some of Balakian's assertions would make any serious Ottoman historian's hair stand on end. Like other similar books, it is replete with selective quotations from contemporary observers."

The continuous use of wikipedia as a campaign vehicle for the Wikiproject Armenia diminishes the integrity of the entire publication.

Setting out to destroy a mans professional credentials because one TV critic was impressed by unsubstantiated and as such rather juvenile claims of him working for the Turkish government is not what I would consider part of any encyclopaedic remit.

Yes, and "they" probably didn't bother to quote the NY Times review of the Burning Tigris anywhere on Wikipedia, and would scoff at doing so anywhere on Wiki, despite the fact that they readily use the Times when doing so tends to support their contentions.

And what does working for the Turkish government even mean? Does he receive a salary from them? No. Did he get some honors because of his work on an issue, work which tends to support the Turkish government's position? Yes. And he deserved it -- if for no reason other than the fact that his work is done sincerely and honestly (whether or not you think he's correct), and that has become dangerous to do in a world where Bernard Lewis could be brough to criminal court in France for making statements that also support the Turkish government, in good faith.

Historical scholarship done in good faith is never a crime, and never deserves a smear, even if you disagree.

On the other hand, historical scholarship done in bad faith, such as scholarship that uses faked documents as evidence -- and does everything to make it look as if it's not fake (see Andonian on wiki) -- deserves a smear. Unfortunately, on wiki such scholarship is glorified, and held up as valid, because it tends to support the correct position. (They actually make it sound like Andonian did something good, even if they were faked!) Why would it be good? Because it supports the right side. But who says it's right, when the evidence is fake, weak, or part of a conflicted pool of evidence? Idiots and nationalists who wish to perpetuate old wars into new conflicts and land grabs (that will never happen).

--24.5.70.65 19:14, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Justin McCarthy as a Wikipedia Source

There are two articles here in which Justin A. McCarthy is used as a source for information. He doesn't seem like a reliable or unbiased source to me. My arguement is that someone who denies something as undisputable as the Armenian Genocide is no longer reliable. Maybe someone here with more knowlege about him can argue that his writings aren't suitable to be used as sole sources for controversial information.

These are the articles I have seen him referenced in:

Russo-Turkish War (1877–1878)

Turks in Bulgaria —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.61.66.205 (talk) 10:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I've left two references that show McCarthy's bias in regards to matters regarding Turkey. His affiliation with the Institute of Turkish Studies further lessens his credibility in matters regarding the Armenian Genocide.Kansas Bear (talk) 19:09, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

His objectivity on this subject could be called into question, but the same could be said of other historians on other subjects. Arguing that he should be classed as an "unreliable" source and expunged from all academic referencing sounds positively Soviet to my ears. Surely there is room for balanced debate and dissenting views. As for "indisputable", the fact that massacres occurred is indisputable, but the context and precise mechanics of that process is always open to debate.

Also, are non-English language references really OK in en.wikipedia? Mathewannis (talk) 14:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

It is somewhat unfortunate that this article is concentrating so much on McCarthy as genocide-denier and as proxy-propagandist for the Turkish State. I know from experience that this dark side of McCarthy's character is little known about (or is conveniently ignored) by those who use and quote from his books on more mainstream academic subjects. As it stands at the moment, by not mentioning McCarthy's more mainstream contributions the article appears one-sided and not credible. Meowy 20:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

In response to the initial point, one must conclude that scholars like Bernard Lewis and Gilles Veinstein, among other noted historians, are also unreliable for their views on this subject - and that, in fact, the Encyclopedia of History and Historians is unreliable because it holds these scholars up to be the most respected in the field of Ottoman history. Given how silly the metholodogy of excluding scholarship on this basis starts to sound, perhaps proponents of it should examine their own credibility and stop editing articles while they ponder on it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.135.28.86 (talk) 13:33, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Then YOU accept all first-hand eyewitness accounts including Armenian? What about the German officers and missionaries stationed throughout the Ottoman Empire? Apparently McCarthy and these "other" historians don't! So while you vilify my methodology, you should take a long hard look at McCarthy's, Lewis', and Veinstein's 'methodology' and political motivation for starters. For, unlike them, I'm not affiliated or PAID by any government for my historical research, therefore, I research the evidence and follow it where it takes me, without the influence of a government hostile to the subject in question! Kansas Bear (talk) 14:57, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

We have left reality and objectivity behind a long time ago on these pages. We are in the zone of alternate reality, where those who scream "deniers" are busy denying the facts they know to be true. The aggressive manner they deny freedom of information and even speech here is a clear sign of their awareness of the reality behind the elaborate myth. Unlike other fake historians, McCarthy has produced works dripping with scholarship and reseasrch. To be frank, it was not that hard, since all the information is there in the archives, you know the ones for years Armenians asked to be open. Well, they are and McCarthy and others are writing what they see in them. There is a reason why Russian and Armenian archives are not open. Let's get real.--Murat (talk) 21:06, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Murat I don't see a justification for the removal of the source, and do you actually believe in this "ethnically cleansed Ottoman lands in Eastern Anatolia" ? VartanM (talk) 22:08, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

A strange question while you wholsale revert an edit. The source is simply inserted to push a POV. What exactly is the criteria for a "genocide" denier? Made up lables do not belong here. I have read many of his work and never came across a "denial" of any kind. Only denial I observe is the Armenians denying the deeds of their revolutionaries. You do not think it should be public knowledge that Turks suffered immeasurably also? Thats is McCarthy's sin I guess. Greater Armenia was to be established on the ethnically cleansed lands of course. How else could it happen? These are in the proclamations of Dashnaks and Hinchaks, you should learn more about your history, and maybe look up Wilson's principles too.--Murat (talk) 04:56, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Someone who denies that genocide took place, when the academic and historical majority agrees that it has, is a genocide denier. A very straightforward definition that has been in use for some time. And what happened to Ottoman soldiers while fighting Allied forces, or Balkans rebels, is unrelated to the topic. As for learning history, Hud, I would recommend you look at versions of history other than those edited and approved by the Turkish Government. Conventional history makes no mention of such 'rebellions'. The Myotis (talk) 22:52, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Conventional history? You can not possibly mean the one that is built on house of cards, right? False mythology and false reality. History is not about votes or opinions or interperatations; there is one reality. No matter how much you bully everyone who does not sing praise to your "conventional" history, the facts remain. That is mostly what McCarthy has written, what is in the archives and what the eye witnesses have observed. He has focused on the deeds of the revolutionaries and the suffering of the Turks and Muslims in his works mostly and for that the ultra nationalists have been trying to crucify him. As if shutting him up or having Erich Feigl deleted from these pages would change facts. There must be a reason for all this fear of truth. I gave a long explanation of what a rebellion is, you know the "conventional" meaning of the word, as it is explained in a dictionary. Look it up in Van talk page. I doubt if it will penetrate. Power of myth is beyond words and logic.--Murat (talk) 02:35, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Hudavendigar/Murat, there are two impartial sources backing the assertion of his deep ties with the Turkish government. Please explain how it's unsubstantiated?-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 16:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Then list them. Hopefully there some receipts for a contract to push a "governments position" among them.--Murat (talk) 00:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Is this a joke? They are listed: Imber, Colin (1999)Book Review, British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies, Vol 26, No. 2. and Edward Tabor Linenthal (2001)Preserving Memory: The Struggle to Create America's Holocaust Museum. -- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 00:32, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Criticism of his work

Criticism is well and good, but we have to keep it informative - be specific about what is deficient - and remember that we are criticising the work, not the man. --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 17:56, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

We are doing neither. We are using sources. Those sources may be critical of the work, and they may also be critical of the man. Meowy 00:47, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

No, that's not what we are doing, either. We are using sources that criticize his work. Ad hominem attacks will be snipped. --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 01:08, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Then find sources that praise his work. You will be hard-pressed to find any for his genocide-denial tracts, but his other work will certainly have some. Meowy 17:45, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Ew! Horrible edit!

Oh my gosh! The new section "Studies>On Ottoman Empire" looks like it was written by a drunk person! The grammar and flow is terrible, and close to incomprehensible! And reference [11] is cited after every sentence! Ewww! Does someone want to clean this up, or should I do it? Greg (theytsejam) (talk) 07:24, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

You are under the impression that "clenliness" or relevance has anything to to do with this or many other articles which even remotely touch upon Armenians. This is just a nother soap box, another opportunity to insert genocide mythology into wikipedia, a lynching party for yet another scholar who contradicted the well developed Armenian genocide mythology. You can put lipstick on a pig, but it will still be a pig. I rather like it this way, exposes the ill intentions of the mob of attackers to those who are not even familiar the topic.--Murat (talk) 18:09, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Biased

This article is exceedingly biased. For example, it states that during a debate McCarthy behaved in a "defense and condescending" matter without mentioning that this is the opinion of New York Times writer Alessandra Stanley. The article frequently presents criticisms as facts when it should be specifying the critical parties. (For example, "New York Times write Alessandra Stanley described McCarthy as 'defensive and condescending.'") I wouldn't go to Joe Stalin's Wikipedia page, for example, and insert the following "fact": "Joe Stalin was an a--hole" just because many people felt he was one and I can find citations for this. When mentioning opinions it is important to include references to those holding them even if it's sometimes put in generic terms like "many critics felt that McCarthy behaved in a defensive and condescending manner during the debate." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.113.82.222 (talk) 03:18, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

This whole wikipedia website is completely worthless. It is just full of childish bickering unsupported rubbish passed off as 'fact' because it links to some website of dubious authenticity. No wonder kids are growing up lacking in even the most basic knowledge. This page is a perfect example. I just opened it looking for a biography of a historian and just found a childish rant. The discussion page is nothing more than further Pro V anti Turkish-Armenian rubbish.

Worst thing about all this is some may (and I have seen it more than once) assume that what is said on this worthless website is actually as factual as what you would find in any book or University!

Sooner this worthless website is taken down and people actually start picking up books the better! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.204.191.184 (talk) 21:29, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I fixed some POV issues in this article that were claiming that criticism of his work was factual, although no proof was provided. However, Armenian nationalists that edit this page continuously add more propaganda to this page in order to attack Justin McCarthy's credibility. This page should be locked. Arsenic99 22:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Arsenic99, it is very good to try fixing POV issues, but it seems that in doing so you inadvertently introduced some other POV points. I have now tried to find a middle view. Do you find that acceptable? --Goochelaar 22:20, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I checked your edit, and put back the changes that you made back on the page. I am trying to make sure that no POV exists in this article. Except the views of the historian. I am still unsure as to whether there needs to be a Criticism of his work section. I mean Justin McCarthy and other historians criticize Peter Balakian's work, but why doesn't Peter Balakian have a section for "criticism"? Is this even allowed by WP:BLP? Arsenic99 (talk) 20:50, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Please notice that other editors have modified the article after me. I am not satisfied of the general tone of the article, but I am not an expert in this subject, so I tagged it for other editors to peruse it. Neither do I know anything about Peter Balakian: if you feel that the article about him is missing something, please go ahead and improve it. Happy editing, Goochelaar (talk) 21:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that the whole criticism section except the first sentence is violating WP:BLP. Deniz^T_C 17:59, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

The chgs link is still not working. Deniz^T_C 03:27, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

The following point is extremely naive: "McCarthy is a member of, and has received grants from, the Institute of Turkish Studies, which calls into question his credibility as an unbaised source." Most historians are members of institutes and research groups and the lucky ones receive grants from governments, institutions, foundations of all kinds. This is the way historiography works nowadays. McCarthy is most certainly biased (as all historians are). It is not, however, his membership of the Institute of Turkish Studies that makes him so. He'd hardly be taken seriously in his field if he wasn't a member. There is also an implicit criticism of the Institute here. Are all members to be considered genocide deniers? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.226.244.25 (talk) 00:56, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

McCarthy has written books about the Balkans, Balkan history, the Middle East, and Middle Eastern history

The only books that I have seen he has written were the ones about Turks and Ottomans. Unless somebody can present to me that he has written any other books, apart from the ones included in the article, then we have to change that sentence and write that he has written books on the Denial of the Armenian Genocide, and on the alleged Turkish Genocide (¿¿¿if there ever was one???)

Arab World, Turkey, and the Balkans, 1878-1914: A Handbook of Historical Statistics'' ISBN-13: 978-0816181643

he who searches finds —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.226.244.25 (talk) 01:00, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Depends what you call genocide, no;)--Murat (talk) 05:11, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Nobody provided me with the information I have asked so why has my change been reverted!!!

The only books that I have seen he has written were the ones about Turks and Ottomans. Unless somebody can present to me that he has written any other books, apart from the ones included in the article, then we have to change that sentence and write that he has written books on the Denial of the Armenian Genocide, and on the alleged Turkish Genocide (¿¿¿if there ever was one???)

That was my original comment, and still people have not answered this question! So WHY was my change REVERTED!!! It is supported by the list of books he has written, none about Balkan history, or any of that other crap so cut out the freaking nonsense and don't put a lock on this article because you guys are afraid of de-crediting the strongest voice of anti-Armenianusm and the Denial of the Armenian Genocide.

-Youre right when you say his work is almost always about Ottomans...the Balkans, Caucasus, and Middle East were all part of the Ottoman Empire. His books often talk more about the Balkans, Caucasus, and Middle East than they do about Anatolia (present-day Turkey). So to say he writes books about those places is quite accurate. That last sentence there is also very subjective and reads like demagoguery. Chillinchillin (talk) 19:33, 31 January 2008 (UTC)ChillinChillin

Why should people present to you that he has written other books? Google him or check amazon yourself instead of ranting.

Arab World, Turkey, and the Balkans, 1878-1914: A Handbook of Historical Statistics ISBN-13: 978-0816181643

The Population of Palestine: Population History and Statistics of the Late Ottoman Period and the Mandate ISBN-13: 978-0231071109

Took me less than a minute. Have a go yourself. You might learn something.--82.226.244.25 (talk) 01:08, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Disputed Objectivity

This article, like many others, have been turned into a an Armenian propaganda piece. It is hard for a casual reader to realize that this is actually Turkish city, with a thousand year Seljuk-Ottoman-Turkish history. Mostly Armenian history and heritage has been included and all attempts to balance it have been thwarted by POV editors. Various discussions above attest to this. In addition, the tag idenfying the disputed nature of the article have been blatantly removed, though a statement that clearly forbids such removal without a resolution is part of the tag removed.--Murat (talk) 02:06, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I request that you provide a more detailed explanation with specific excerpts of the text that demonstrate the onesidedness of this article. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 02:26, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

"Most genocide scholars and Western historians label these massacres as genocide,..." is pure pov and incorrect. Including McCarthy, numerous Western(!?) historians question the genocide label and have proven many Armenian allegations false.--Murat (talk) 03:37, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

"Most genocide scholars and Western historians label these massacres as genocide,.." When a scholar investigates a topic, and lists and explains the facts, it is called scholarly work, apparently not if a scholar comes up with facts that contradict the Armenian mythology...--Murat (talk) 03:44, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

4/5 of the introductory paragraph is filled with how McCarthy has challenged the Armenian propaganda and his credentials as a genocide-denier. This is an article about McCarthy and his work and life, not about Armenian genocide myth-busters, which may merit an article of its own. Why are there lengthy excerpts from other hisotrians who may share or not his views? It seems like the pov editors have chosen this article to put "McCarthy" in his place. Objective transfer of information hardly seems to be intent.--Murat (talk) 03:51, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you Murat, this article has been too much shaped by people who dislike McCarthy. It does not present him in a fair light. It might be best to push the critical material to a specific section (it already exists) and devote the rest of the article to explaining who McCarthy is and what exactly his work says. Words like "controversial" don't really belong here, and should be removed.--Anthon.Eff (talk) 04:19, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Gentlemen, may I remind you that the only reason McCarthy is notable enough to have a wikipedia article is because of his denial of the Armenian Genocide? And any attempt to whitewash that notability is unacceptable. VartanM (talk) 06:30, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

This POV tag should be removed because its useage here is invalid. Murat has been spamming this tag over multiple articles and has been inserting identical "Disputed Objectivity" sections in their talk pages, all containing identical text (for example, see [4] and [5] - they contain the same text that he posted on this page [6]). Given that the "Disputed Objectivity" text placed here is obviously off-topic (Justin McCarthy is not a "Turkish city, with a thousand year Seljuk-Ottoman-Turkish history"), and it has been reproduced unchanged in multiple talk pages (making it impossible to know which article he is actually referring to), the insertion of the POV tag did not follow Wikipedia guidelines on POV tag placement and it should be removed. Meowy 03:41, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Why hide behind technicalities? Is there any doubt that the objectivity of this article is disputed? The answer is yes or no.--Murat (talk) 03:56, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

In reality it is not disputed as there is no any serious basis for it, Murat. You can dispute everything in Wikipedia, but you must represent serious reasons, not only a simple opposition to facts. Gazifikator (talk) 07:57, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Gazi, as you can see above, and not just my comments, there are plenty of people who think this article is rather biased. I should also add that, I am glad to see the attention this page is getting, which could only help balance it.--Murat (talk) 01:28, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I've seen this quote used to characterise McCarthy's work "Junk food, junk bonds and now junk history ... This is a cruel description, but one which is perfectly appropriate for a book which is carelessly written, is often misinformed, and shamelessly follows a Turkish nationalist agenda." It is said to come from the British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies, Vol. 26, No. 2, Nov 1999 as part of a book review (?) by Colin Imber. What book is being reviewed, is the quote accurate, and if it is what is the page number for the quote? Meowy 00:12, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

The book reviewed is: The Ottoman Turks: An Introductionary History, the page of the quote is 307. If you want a copy of the review in pdf format, just ask. The review does not really do justice to history by skipping several more important errors and mistakes, but the reviewer does not deny that the review just gives few limited examples and even finish by the following remarks: The two short extracts examined above are not aberrations, but typofy the whole book. This does at least make it possible to come to a definitive judgement on the volume: Give it a miss. BTW, the mistakes are not limited to the Armenian question, in fact, most of the basic mistakes have little to do with that subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Singleansweraccount (talk • contribs) 00:55, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank's - it's all the better if the review does not deal only with "Armenian issue" things, some peer-review opinions of McCarthy's work in other areas are needed in the article. You could send the pdf to stuffthatcouldbespam@yahoo.com. Meowy 03:03, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

What's especially funny about you guys is that you don't hide what you are doing: trolling for the worst things you can say about Justin McCarthy. There's plenty of "peer-review opinions of McCarthy's work" by people who really know Ottoman history (people like Bernard Lewis). Why aren't you eagerly hunting for that? --Anthon.Eff (talk) 18:52, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

The British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies is written by and written for "people who really know Ottoman history". Meowy 21:32, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Rename of Category

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) 18:19, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Original research

This sentence:

"McCarthy's view is representative of that found among most Turkish historians of the Ottoman period,[3] and is similar to the conclusions drawn by a few Western scholars such as Bernard Lewis[4] and Guenter Lewy."

is Original Research and can't be accepted without citations. Citing the books of a Turkish historian and Lewis won't do, it is necessary to cite a reliable source that makes the comparison between them and McCarthy. That's what the rules say. I don't believe the first claim is even correct. After a while I will come back and delete the sentence if it is still uncited. Zero^talk 00:58, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

True. This is not information but subjective opining. The editor had no basis for this useless and forced additions. Most Turkish historians of Ottoman period are not even necessarily Armenian Tehcir experts. Why classify Historian as Turkish and Armenians etc, is this a soccer game? Is this about numbers, as in a democracy? Bernard Lewis certainly carries a lot more weight than others. This article is too tainted with propaganda, but the effort and sentiment is appreciated.--Murat (talk) 05:48, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Just look at the WP articles. Not that hard: Bernard Lewis and Guenter Lewy. Both of them are attacked for denying the Armenian genocide, because both of them see no role played by the Ottoman state and both see that Armenians were actively involved as killers, not simply as victims. Obvious similarity with McCarthy's view.--Anthon.Eff (talk) 03:07, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

This is contrary to the rules. First, we aren't allowed to use Wikipedia articles as references, see WP:CIRCULAR. Second, it is just your opinion that McCarthy's views are similar to the others. There are many notions of similarity and not everyone will agree with your notion of it. Third, this is a biography of a living person so the rules are applied with particular strictness. The worst violation here is "representative of that found among most Turkish historians of the Ottoman period" which is an opinion not yet cited to anyone at all. Actually it looks like an intended slur inserted by an editor; whether that is true or not it is exactly the impression we are supposed to avoid. The way to avoid these problems is to make sure every opinion is cited to a source giving that opinion. If you find a respectable commentator who considers McCarthy's work to be like Lewis', you can add "In the opinion of SoAndSo, McCarthy's work is similar to that of Bernhard Lewis [ref to commentator]". You can't just decide for yourself that their work is similar and put your conclusion into the article. On the other hand, something more objective like "Both McCarthy and Lewis maintain that less than N people died.[McCarthy ref][Lewis ref]" would be fine since anyone can verify its truth from the sources given. (Finally, I'm here as an administrator and have no special interest in the topic.) 04:50, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

There is a category: Armenian Genocide deniers. Putting an academic in that category is someone's opinion. McCarthy, Lewy (and until recently Lewis) are in that category. All of these are living people. Seems to me that one should either tolerate an assertion that those three are similar, or get rid of the category. --Anthon.Eff (talk) 11:56, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Categories have always been a huge problem wrt BLP. I can recall dozens of arguments. My preference would be to ditch the category. Zero^talk 12:05, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

My preference too. Would have appreciated your support back when I proposed deletion.--Anthon.Eff (talk) 01:15, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality

The article is not neutral, as the current version is trying to represent him as a renowned scholar, while the most reliable sources, included the one cited, crtitcize him as Armenian Genocide denier who also received grants from the Turkish government sponsored funds. The information about latter is also deleted from the article with no explanation. A user even deleted 'Turkish order of merit' from his Awards list, that hides his honorary reception by the Turkish government, which is known for his support to Armenian genocide denial. These parts of article need to be reverted. Gazifikator (talk) 05:57, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

This article is under constant attack from militants, who appear to think that repeatedly using the label "denier" constitutes a helpful description of McCarthy's research. WP:BLP applies here--the article exists to describe McCarthy, not to slander him. McCarthy's awards from Turkish sources certainly deserve mention, since they show that he is "internationally renowned".--Anthon.Eff (talk) 11:42, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Renowned only for turkish officials and few users whose only useless purpose is to deny the Armenian Genocide and call it controversial. Unfortunately your deny will not have success. I'm just sure on it so start to do something more hopeful. Gazifikator (talk) 11:58, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Michael Mann, writting in a book published by Cambridge University Press, described Justin McCarthy as "generally considered a scholar on the Turkish side of the debate". Cat's out of the bag and all that.--Anothroskon (talk) 19:51, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Any Administrators paying attention?

Really! I'm about willing to give up on WP. Full-fledged militants, brimming with hatred for Turks and anyone who speak up for Turks, and they feel free to do whatever the heck they want, WP:BLP be darned. Don't let this happen guys. WP could be something so wonderful; don't let the organized interests take it over. --Anthon.Eff (talk) 01:46, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

The problem I see is that many editors here are simply ignorant of most of McCarthy's work. Because they are only interested in the Armenian question, they imagine that McCarthy never did anything else and come here primarily for the purpose of opposing his views (or what they imagine to be his views). Frankly, anyone who feels passionately one way or the other on the Armenian Genocide should not be editing this article due to their proven inability to write in a neutral fashion. Anthon, can I suggest you open a section at WP:BLPN? It might bring one or two neutral outsiders. Zero^talk 04:05, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

If you are that aware of most of McCarthy's work, why don't you add that content? I've found that most consumers of McCarthy's more "mainstream" works are unaware of his dark little secret life as a genocide denier. However, propaganda and, especially, distortion of figures infliltrate (like an inisdious poison) much of that mainstream work, making them inherently untrustworthy even when they contain useful and original information. He proves that is not possible to compartmentalise ones writing output to separate the propaganda from the legitimate academic research. Meowy 20:50, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I still fail to see what the paragraph about Turkish and Armenian ethnic loby groups statements are doing in an article here? Why does one of the editors keep pushing these highly subjective and non-scholarly organizations on these pages? --Murat (talk) 04:31, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

It indicates his political activities and lobbying activities - most academics would not go in for that sort of thing. Meowy 21:16, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

How is publishing and defending scholarly work a Lobbying activity? What does he have anything to do with policies and actions of ATA or ARA? Is he paid by either, or an offcier of the organization? It seems someone is more interested in discrediting this scholar than improving this article. Right? Since you made your motivations plenty clear here please stop pretending to be an objective editor and refrain from further edits--Murat (talk) 20:59, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Criticism?

Is this a book review? No it is not. Criticism of what? Not clear. Maybe "review"? If anyone is interested in writing an article "criticising" or reviewing the works of this scholar, then one should write it in a separate review article and find out if Wikipedia is the proper place for such an article. I suggest we remove this section, does not belong in a biography.Murat (talk) 22:52, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. Should factual information written by this historian's peers be suppressed due to one editor's personal animosity against some ethnic group? No. This section is well referenced and should stay. --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:52, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Criticism sections are found in many WP biographies of living persons. It's an effective way to present negative views of the person, without those negative views dominating the article. The problem for many articles, and perhaps this one, is that criticism permeates the entire article. So my vote is to keep the criticism section, but try to keep the criticism out of the rest of the article.--Anthon.Eff (talk) 02:33, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

International Association of Genocide Scholars

I've never seen this topic raised here, but it should perhaps be aired. There are a lot of differences among academics, both in intelligence and goals. Some are concerned with truth, some are concerned with their own paycheck, and some are activists. Any university department whose name ends in "Studies"--as, for example, "Department of Genocide Studies"--is invariably populated with activists. They aren't bad people, of course, but hardly the source one would turn to for the truth about the "Armenian Genocide". For the truth, one would be better advised to look at a Department of History, for someone who can read the archives in Ottoman Turkish, and who has actually read them. What makes this difficult for us at Wikipedia is that very few here are really capable of distinguishing "good" sources from "bad" on a topic like this.--Anthon.Eff (talk) 05:13, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

There are already many Turkish academicians who claim that the government of Turkey knowingly destroyed all the ottoman archives which gives a strong clue about the Armenian genocide. But some of that archives went to the international court during Malta trials hence that are used as a good evidence for Armenian genocide. You can read the works of Turkish Historian Taner Akçam. If you want to see who is concerned about their paycheck you can see this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f9FK6RtEg8I http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AVlNVrNDs6I Ali55te (talk) 12:52, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

And of course Armenian Genocide is first mentioned by Raphael Lemkin who is the inventor of the genocide word and he managed to persuade U.N. to pass the genocide convention. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uCebMq-GmH4 (you can also see in this video what happens if a Turkish historian in Turkey starts to reveal facts about the issue) This is the news about that interview if you don't believe it is correct you can find the same sentence there http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/17/arts/television/17stan.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ali55te (talk • contribs) 13:07, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, appreciate your diligent YouTube research. But the fact is, Professor McCarthy is an American, not a Turk. And in the US, those concerned with their paychecks follow the example of the IAGS cadre. McCarthy, as you must know, is stuck at a provincial school, subject to constant harassment. --Anthon.Eff (talk) 02:19, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Some comments on Anton.Eff's unexplained "minor" edits

Shaw, Lowry and McCarthy are not described as scholars by other historians but rather as pseudo-scholars (see the sources added, f.e. Prof. P. Medding). They were criticized by the great majority of historians (who ALL believe that the Ottoman Empire did in fact commit a genocide of Armenians, it is a recognized by all of them fact, nothing to clarify in this article) as genocide deniers. And previously I deleted a Wiki editor's comment - (Mazower fails to mention their names), as it is an original research and Mazower in his article was focused on genocide denial not on recognition, and no any reliable source criticizes Mazower for failing to mention the names of historians who work in this area (they are actually hundreds and thousands, it is impossible to mention their names in a research and no such a need). Gazifikator (talk) 06:54, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Ghazi: Obviously you and I will not agree on what constitutes a "scholar". So why don't we start with the edits that you reverted? Can you justify reverting them? If not, I will reintroduce them. Thanks.--Anthon.Eff (talk) 01:50, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Read the text below, it is the justification and is written specially for you. If you have another opinion on what is a scholar, then read WP:POV. It is helpful to not wast time on our personal opinions but cite reliable sources. Gazifikator (talk) 13:12, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Anthon.Eff, you did not justify your additions, additions which appear to be rather pov. Your "This has made him a target of criticism from historians and organizations who believe that the Ottoman Empire did in fact commit a genocide of Armenians" reads like an example of weasily writing (implying that there is a large body of historians and organisations who believe that the Ottoman Empire did not commit a genocide and are supporting McCarthy's position). Your added words "(Mazower fails to mention their names)" appear to be OR and off-topic. Who is saying he failed to mention their names, and who is saying that this lack of mention is significant? Your added words "the scholars" imply that it was Hovannisian who had called them that (and you are not placing the words "the scholar" in front of Hovannisian's name). Meowy 16:33, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

So you found someone to express your ideas for you Gazifikator? Come on, I'm not your enemy, you don't have to be afraid. The phrase "(Mazower fails to mention their names)" was removed by you--it had been in the article for a long time, the result of a compromise. Check it out. I inserted the word "scholars", since the original sentence was poorly written--my addition made a break between "Hovannisian" and the other names, to make it clear that he was talking about them, not that they were all talking about McCarthy. Basic clarity in writing. And of course they are scholars--they are tenured full professors at American universities, respected by other scholars. If you had Meowy's problem with that edit, you could have just stuck the word "scholar" in front of Hovannisian's name--no need for the mass reversion. As for the main point, the one which makes your blood pressure rise: there is in fact a very large body of scholars who believe that the Armenian Genocide involved killing by both sides and was a village-level affair not organized by the Ottoman state. Almost all Turkish and Arab scholars fall into that group, and a very large number of Westerners, too (including Guenter Lewy, in case you missed it). Additionally, you reverted my correction of a self-link. Do you have a good reason for that? One more thing: it's not a good idea to keep adding stuff to an article that is supposed to be under discussion. It gives the impression that you could care less about the other editor's views. Shalom.--Anthon.Eff (talk) 02:48, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

so you support the Armenian Genocide denial? Am I right?Gazifikator (talk) 03:48, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

How about responding to my explanation, about my edit? Questions about who I am are off limits, please.--Anthon.Eff (talk) 02:00, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

You're saying: "there is in fact a very large body of scholars who believe that the Armenian Genocide involved killing by both sides and was a village-level affair not organized by the Ottoman state". These people are listed at Armenian Genocide denial and their "works" were described by reliable sources as pseudo-scholarship. You say, you believe denial is not a denial, but dispute. But the common consensus at Wiki says there was Armenian Genocide as a fact (not dispute, as you and the turkish state believe) and there is a denial of Armenian Genocide, not a Scholarship on both sides killings. After this, what can I discuss? About a "consensus" on an unsourced OR posted to article: have you a link to the discussion where this "consensus" was achieved, or it is another thing you feel be true? Have a Nice Victory Day!! Gazifikator (talk) 05:42, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

You know Gazifikator, a big part of editing on WP is dealing with people who think differently than you do. This weekend, when I have a few moments, I plan to reedit the article. Why not work together with me on this, and get something that we both can agree on? In the long run, getting angry, calling me insulting names, and calling out the gang to fight me, will not get you anywhere on WP. But between us, we can write an article that does justice to both McCarthy and his critics. Peace.--Anthon.Eff (talk) 02:22, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Before reediting please be sure you're using reliable sources and discussed them at talk (I'll do my best to preview them with you). If you're going to continue your unsourced POV-pushing, read WP:OR and WP:POV for details. What mean's justice when you have no any reliable sources? Justice for whom, for turkish denialists and their supporters? In all the cases, justice is not on the side of mass murderers and their supporters. Never hope on that! Gazifikator (talk) 13:45, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

My plan is to push all of the criticism to a criticism section. This is an article about an important American academic, not about the Armenian genocide, so let's keep it focused on McCarthy, but have a bit of information about the academics who disagree with him and why. What you and others have introduced in the last few days (while the article was under discussion!) is not very informative and can be vastly condensed, which I intend to do. And really, Gazifikator, can't you tell that I'm trying hard to be nice? Why are you responding with that lecturing, condescending tone? --Anthon.Eff (talk) 01:34, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

All the pro-denialist removal of sourced material must be reverted. Gazifikator (talk) 06:23, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Didn't get time to do anything this weekend, but just so that you are prepared Gasman, when we begin to work on this, you need to keep your eye on WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT. Maybe WP:COATRACK for good measure. And remember, that just because everyone in your echo chamber agrees with you, it doesn't mean that everyone on the planet sees it just like you and your compañeros. That's why all of us have to be nice and consider the views of others. A first step in showing that you understand this would be to stop using the word "denialist". Merci! --Anthon.Eff (talk) 02:07, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Anthon, before pushing something please just check if what you claim is correct. Nor Totten (see [7]), nor Bloxham (see [8]), Jacobs or Medding (check [9]) are members of IAGS, I dont know from where you took this "info". Gazifikator (talk) 13:48, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Mann quoted in the lead

Except of words that McCarthy the newly added text is not related to McCarthy's bio and for sure is irrelevant to the lead section. Statistic's on Balkans are related to Balkans, while this is a lead description of s scholar who is often (means not only by Mann) viewed as a scholar on the Turkish side of the debate. Thats all about his scholarship in general. Lkahd (talk) 15:40, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

This "is often viewed as a scholar on the Turkish side of the debate" is only about the Balkan death dispute and linking this to his scholarship is an incorrect misleading sentence. This needs a full citation/clarification. The "Mann source" does not belong in the lead in the first place and should be moved to the controversy about death tolls in the Balkans.Bangyulol (talk) 12:54, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I moved it to the Critics section. Lkahd (talk) 18:20, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Praise needs to be greatly trimmed or outright removed

Norman Stone, Daniel Pipes, Andrew Mango, and Edward J. Erickson are all Armenian Genocide deniers and Turcophiles. Adding praise by them towards McCarthy at the end of his work is strongly misleading to the reader and a strong violation of WP:UNDUE. If a Holocaust denying historian had praise written from random historians who also happen to deny the Holocaust, this would give the impression of credibility to the claims being promoted by Wikipedia, which is what's happening here. The article also contradicts itself because of the large criticism section by respectable historians without political affiliations. It is simply violating WP:NPOV; why should credibility be promoted? Shouldn't only the facts be stated?

Here is a very POV unsourced line from the article:

Even his critics acknowledge that McCarthy has brought forth a valuable perspective, previously neglected in the Christian West

Basically admitting McCarthy's garbage is UNDUE. All of this needs to be cleaned up. Either remove it entirely, or condense it into a sentence or two, such as: 'McCarthy's work has mostly received praise from historians who have pro-Turkish views and/or deny the Armenian Genocide such as so-and-so.' This would probably be too much even in itself, because UNDUE views are not supposed to be mentioned at all. --Steverci (talk) 03:20, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

I was also surprised to see such large quotes of effusive praise in the article, often from people who are not worth quoting on Wikipedia as if their opinions are worthy of our consideration. --RaffiKojian (talk) 06:16, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Actually the academics who offer as some have called it "praise" on McCarthy have not denied the Genocide of Armenians and nor can they be called pro-Turkish (and no one has brought anything to fore regarding such things apart from personal opinion). Bleacher, who also cites in his work Daniel Pipes (known by some to be no friend of Turkey's and has been a harsh critic of Islam) has said that there is merit to Mc Carthy's work regarding Muslim casualties by Christian states in the course of the 19th century. I would advise editors to refrain from such words as "garbage" and to conduct themselves in a civil way (see: wp:civil in the discussion. I can add inlines from those sources who note Mc Carthy's shortcomings, but at the same time acknowledge his work on Muslim casualties. This is just as important as his views on the Armenian genocide and scholars with no axe to grind have noted this. Wholesale removal of this section (or condensation) will be just as much POV from a different angle. Those quotations regarding his work on Muslim casualties are there because scholars have found merit regarding that part of his research. Editors need to take this into consideration before labeling scholars work as "garbage". Best.Resnjari (talk) 14:32, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

I would ask you complain about the term "garbage" directly to the year old comment preceding mine.

These quotes are out out of control and ridiculous. In the Armenian Genocide section, McCarthy's views are described as "defensively pro-Turkish" by one person who disagrees with him. Three words. It is followed by 2 paragraphs of praise for McCarthy, with the first and larger paragraph having questionable relevance. This is followed by yet another two quotations of praise from a journalist who wrote a book about Ataturk and a US soldier, as if they should be quoted in a section on the Armenian Genocide. And that is followed a "congratulatory" note of praise, then I think it's another list of 5 people that "recommend" his work. So it basically comes down to three words of criticism vs 5 paragraphs of praise. Wow. This is not acceptable or NPOV. Do you want to start chopping out massive sections of effusive praise, or shall I? --RaffiKojian (talk) 06:57, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

About the comment, i said it because just in case more editors engage in the process. This topic is a sensitive one and Mc Carthy's scholarship on certain matters has merit (i.e Muslim casualties over the 19th century) while it fails on the Armenian Genocide. If we edit this article its best done in good faith to achieve a good outcome that does not leave a bitterness etc. Anyway, I agree the quotes are problematic. The section relating to his views on the Armenian Genocide needs redoing and removal of praise from non-scholarly sources unless its from something notable (organisation etc) and even then one must process with caution and explain why that so and so person etc thinks so and do they also have a checkered record. I also think there is a distortion with one of the quotes too. The Daniel Pipes comments should be in the On the Ottoman Empire section. Pipes was referring to Mc Carthy scholarship's as being informative and revealing toward events over the 19th century as a whole in relation to Muslim populations and violence and casualties related to them and not during events relating to World War per se. Pipes bit should be shifted into that section and some inlines needed for a few of those sources. Best.Resnjari (talk) 16:41, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Sounds good. --RaffiKojian (talk) 17:58, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Good edits. I did my part. Added a few inlines, fixed a few sentences regarding Beachler and Mann. BestResnjari (talk) 15:38, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

But instead we should welcome attacks on Historians? Excellent double standard from our Armenian editors? Alexis Ivanov (talk) 23:37, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Nope, what RaffiKojian meant was that non scholarly individuals who are not of widespread notability and so on should not be added for the sake of shoreing up the numbers for McCarthy's narrative regarding the Armenian Genocide here in wikipedia. The Genocide is fact. However, the causality numbers that McCarthy has done on Muslim civilian casualties and refugees have been noted by scholars as of merit (though they also note that he is pro-Turkish). Anyway the adjustments have been done by both me and Raffi. BestResnjari (talk) 15:38, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Just looks to me like disparaging a historian, pro-Turkish is a keyword to call him that he is biased. You put up praise and the next to it you disparage his name. But your vandalism is beautiful. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 19:34, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Its not vandalism. Those scholars of whom are his peers have noted he has links with Turkish institutions that espouse a certain line and he has followed it, and changed his view as the money came in to fund his research. He can take the money, but objectivity needed to remain. In that respect neutral scholars have noted serious deficiencies. Nonetheless his research on Muslim casualties and refugees are noted as being of merit and stated as such citing those same scholars. Those scholars are wp:reliable and wp:secondary. Look that the matter within that context.Resnjari (talk) 19:50, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Now you are accusing him of wanting money??? Surely every historians receives fund from various organization. This is laughable at best. You couldn't find a better article to poison than this. Who are these neutral scholars? Not sure when did you became the decider of neutrality here? Alexis Ivanov (talk) 20:09, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

The ones cited like Bleacher, Bloxham, Mann and Pipes. They don't mention McCarthy's links per se much further as that has been cited in other works of which are cited in the article. McCarthy's research into Muslim casualties and refugees stands and is academically noted, while he continues to underplay what happened to the Armenians which is also academically noted. Look, part of my ancestors literally placed the Young Turk regime in power (revolutions alwaays have a starting point). They were Muslim landowners who supported Ahmet Njazi Bey's call to arms around Resen and thought it was to save the Empire. Who would have thought that it would crumble the way it did. If anything, saying that "i am biased" does not suffice. Look at this matter within its context. McCarthy has a problematic record on the Armenian matter.Resnjari (talk) 20:18, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

This article has been much too much massaged by folks with an Armenian nationalist perspective. McCarthy is an academic; he reads Ottoman Turkish; he has spent many hours in the Ottoman archives; his work has gone through peer review. No one criticizing him here meets any of these thresholds, unless I am badly mistaken. Honestly, the relentless attacks on McCarthy should be a prime issue for WP:BLP.--Anthon.Eff (talk) 02:17, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Anthon, scholars such as Bloxham, Bleacher, Pipes and Mann have noted that McCarthy has issues. Nonetheless they all agree that his research on Muslim casualties and refugee numbers are valid and stand. I made those edits so that a reader seeing this page is aware of both their critique of McCarthy and what they vouch for as being of scholarly merit on McCarthy's research. The issue with McCarthy is not that he has pointed out that some armed Armenians also killed Muslim civilians, that has been acknowledged by the some of the Armenian side too. It his ignoring the evidence out there that the Ottoman upper brass orchestrated a industrialised form of forced removal and migration with the aim of annihilating most or in whole a nation, which from the late 1940s onward such events became known as Genocide. Mc Carthy has ignored that the Ottoman Empire in the aftermath of the war prosecuted either in the flesh or sentenced in absentia a whole list of individuals who were involved in such matters. It happened the same way that Bulgarians, Serbs and Greeks ethnically cleansed Muslim populations on such a mass scale to create their own states (as McCarthy has given details, and so have other Western scholars in recent times). These Christian majority states still celebrate the figures that carried out such deeds as "heroes" and rarely if at all discuss these issues today, even recent events, i.e: denial of the Bosnian Genocide etc). At least with the Turks they are moving a step closer to discussing these events for what really happened. While whatever one thinks of Erdogan, the Turks came a step closer to that realisation when he referred to the Genocide events as massacres, one up on previous outright government denial (although they still got much more to go). This will take time, but McCarthy as a scholar is dismissive of certain evidence that came to light from even the Ottomans themselves. That matter on McCarthy's part is not scholarly and that part of the reason why he gets the label pro-Turkish, because he follows the Turkish government's line. I hope that kind of explains it. Best.Resnjari (talk) 17:43, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

UNDUE material

This version has a lot of WP:UNDUE details in it. Gunter shouldn't have an entire section to himself. If Gunter has a section, we should also have sections for Akcam, Yair Auron, or other big name scholars who have criticized his work. It just so happens that Gunter praises him. So is that why he gets a special section dedicated to himself? There's other material that is undue as well. The excessively long quote is unnecessarily verbose and doesn't bring anything new in terms of material and insight. So I reverted. Étienne Dolet (talk) 04:00, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Isn't that because of every Armenian historian want a favorable view of their country during the genocide? tens and even hundreds of Armenians historians is also UNDUE by itself. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 04:08, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Um, there are many non-ethnic Armenian historians that have criticized him as well. And even if Armenian historians have criticized him, should we not include them just because they're ethnic Armenian? That's just not how Wikipedia works. Étienne Dolet (talk) 04:14, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Its not praise that the scholars looking at Mc Carthy's work offer. They have given an unbiased assessment of his work, especially in relation to Muslim casualties. That should be included. I fail to see why they should be removed, especially that in relation his work regarding his research on Muslim casualties which McCarthy's critics have agreed is of scholarly merit. If such large removals keep on going without a proper and in depth discussion on the talkpage before such large removal actions occur, this matter will be taken to the noticeboards. Thank you.Resnjari (talk) 06:02, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Denying the Armenian Genocide is bias in itself of a small minority WP:WEIGHT. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views (such as Flat Earth). To give undue weight to the view of a significant minority, or to include that of a tiny minority, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. He is more of a conspiracy theorist than a historian, as is everyone that has praise for him. Now that you had the rules explained to you, future reverts will be treated as intentional vandalism. Thank you. --Lasort101 (talk) 02:18, 18 July 2016 (UTC) <---- CU blocked sock of Steverci

No one here is referring to denying the Armenian Genocide. I will only agree to the removal of this bit "refute the genocide hypothesis" as that is POV. Nonetheless in relation to Mc Carthy his denial is cited in the article of his critics too who acknowledge that his work on Muslim civilian casualties and ethnic cleansing is of scholarly merit. You keep deleting content that relates to Muslim casualties and their ethnic cleansing [10]. That is WP:WEIGHT. Mc Carthy is the most prominent scholar on that matter. That part stays. This assesment by you "He is more of a conspiracy theorist than a historian" is your personal opinion. The scholarly community, even Mc Carthy's detractors still recognize him as a historian and a scholar. Wikipedia is not run by such personal assessments. It why the article has other scholars cited in their assessments of Mc Carthy, you know peer reviewed. If you want to those kind of extensive changes and you know they will be somewhat contested, then discuss them at the talk page. But going in there and deleting massive portions and giving little reasons (and only in the edit summary) is more than problematic. Just use the talkpage. Thank you. Resnjari (talk) 02:33, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Guidelines on Wikipedia content

Read this carefully: Wikipedia:Fringe_theories#Coverage_in_Wikipedia. --92slim (talk) 09:28, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

I have and you are expressing a personal view. Not all of McCarthy's research is considered as fringe. You deleted peer reviewed content that related to his work on civilian Muslim casualties which a number of Western scholars who are at the same time his detractors (i.e: Daniel Pipes and others) have said is of scholarly merit. The sentence relating to Guenter Lewy which you deleted is written ok with the one on Michael M. Gunter needing a slight change. The bit which is written as: which McCarthy views as part of a civil war, triggered by World War I, in which equally large numbers of Armenians and non-Armenians died. His work has and the change for it as Because his work attempts at historical revisionism, he has often needs to be worked on in here.Resnjari (talk) 09:55, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Resnjari, you have made repeated reverts to this article over the course of several months. In your edit summaries you have also repeatedly exalted "Take it to the talk page". That is valid advice - however, in all that time you yourself have never taken it to the talk page! The result seems to be a never ending edit war - which really has to stop because it is pointless. I intend to go through what has been added and then removed, I will restore or leave out whatever I feel is suitable. I'm not going to do this en-mass but on a sentence by sentence or issue by issue basis, and I will give individual edit explanations here for each sentence or issue that I add. If you (or other editors) object to particular additions, or want content in that I felt not suitable, the proper response should be to give the objections to those additions here, on the talk page, and not to revert. Then I or other editors can respond here to those objections, and hopefully a stable version can be decided on. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 01:10, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Explanation for this edit [11]. McCarthy denies that there was an Armenian Genocide, that the events can be characterized as genocide, therefor he is a denier of the genocide and so it is correct to clearly say that in the lead - it correctly sums up his position. The linked Armenian Genocide article explains where and when it took place, so the "occurring during the waning years of the Ottoman Empire" text is not needed (and is also arguably pov wording since during the genocide neither the perpetrators or victims considered the empire was in its "waning years"). Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 01:24, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

The onus is on the person wanting to make changes to take it to the talkpage. Then others partake in the discussion. Editors know that this topic has its issues. Why have i made reverts to this article? For a number of reasons. One was that edits made by Lasort was found to be an account of Steverci, who is banned due to sock-puppetry. Two, many a time when edits occur people just delete large slabs of the article in one go. That is not editing in good faith and yes a revert will happen. For example, in this article some editors have repeatedly targeted the section relating to McCarthy's work on Muslim civilian casualties which is sourced and views of it (by his critics i might add) in the scholarly community. Thats part of McCarthy's scholarship is important in highlighting because it forms a large part of his work and is acknowledged to be of merit. His scholar on the Armenians has been shown to be flawed and biased at best and that too is highlighted. Your edits that you have done are fine and measured.Resnjari (talk) 07:03, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

He is a denialist (historical negationist) and this fact should be clearly highlighted. His merits as a historian are completely irrelevant in this case. --92slim (talk) 12:46, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

That he denies the Armenian Genocide is fact. I' am not contesting this. Nor have many other academics who have cited this and are themselves cited in this article in critiquing McCarthy. His work on Muslim civilian casualties has though been acknowledged by some number of those same scholars of be of merit. There is no need to remove that part. Moreover he still is recognised as a historian by the institutions (many in Western countries) he has worked at and in the (Western) scholarly community. Until the gets demoted somehow by them, only then can one remove from the article here that he is not a historian.Resnjari (talk) 05:33, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Justin McCarthy (American historian). 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/20081224100942/http://www.turkishstudies.org/index.php?id=3 to http://www.turkishstudies.org/index.php?id=3

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 22:54, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Section on WW1 Massacres

The work of Justin Mc Carthy encompasses more than just massacres of Armenians and therefore the title should represent all the victims, not a select few. The title should remain WW1 massacres or something along those lines. (Zerk) 22:54, 16 Sept 2017 (UTC)

I agree with this, I have restored your edit.--INDIAN REVERTER (talk) 00:12, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Donald Bloxham

Is there any source that shows that Donald Bloxham is indeed a member of the International Association of Genocide Scholars as claimed in the article?--Moshe Avigdor (talk) 18:15, 22 September 2017 (UTC)