The article lacks any neutral opinions or praise. It's basically a propaganda piece against him. Positive and neutral sources were likely removed by extremely POV editors in the past, these should be recovered.--Moshe Avigdor (talk) 18:15, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Compared to labeling authors? Multiple "new users" making the same edits, "new users" reverting my editing at different articles (i.e. harassment). Yeah this game will be over soon enough. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:46, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Guys, in the past i have prevented the deletion of the Ottoman period section and added some more information, as to what McCarthy's critics state about that part of his research being of merit. His Armenian Genocide denial issues however do dominate other parts of his research and hence citing the critique of it by other scholars has its place in the article. Its a complicated one. If some proposed changes on that aspect as mentioned by editors are undertaken, it ought to be done here in a piece by piece way otherwise it will more than likely result in an edit war -seeing things often go with such articles. Highlight a sentence or section and then we discuss it here. Best.Resnjari (talk) 23:01, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
The bulk of the body is just criticism listed after criticism. I would think that the actual contents of his works and what he actually discusses in his works should be the main bulk of the article about him. A bit of popular criticism is fine but looking through the sources I see only sources centering around genocide recognition advocating.--Moshe Avigdor (talk) 23:11, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Are you suggesting that when a person has twisted the truth numerous times he deserves the truth to be twisted one more time in order to say he has twisted nothing? Cite sources, count them, and aggregate them. If it turns out that the praise comes from only one source although with numerous heads/mouths, and that all other sources criticise one's works, the criticism is well deserved. When discussing someone's POV one should account for his own POV, as well as for the POV of the other advocates. Does it surprise anyone that all his advocates are either Turkish or pro-Turkish? -- 80.111.182.53 (talk) 09:25, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
I mean isn't it obvious that some people don't care about building up a good article but all they care about is making sure that this page gives you the worst possible impression of the man, talking mainly about what other people said of him rather than what he said. I mean really, is this an article about him, or just a list of criticisms and misfortunes?--Moshe Avigdor (talk) 23:16, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
We can do it piece by piece, and its better that way. Some parts might or will remain as they are, others might get condensed depending on what gets proposed here and discussed. Do it that way, otherwise its easy to get into unnecessary issues. Just going by experience.Resnjari (talk) 23:32, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Ok, The most obvious issue is the formatting. There is several different sections but they are all really about the same thing. Section 2.1 and 2.2 are the about the same thing. Section 3.6 is not an evaluation and thus does not belong under section 3.--Moshe Avigdor (talk) 23:56, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Odd, how Moshe continued their edit warring, since they do not have consensus for their change(s).
The most obvious is the POV heading "Armenian Scholars", which is used to denigrate scholars based on their ethnicity. Even more obvious is the change in this sentence
"McCarthy's work has faced harsh criticism by some scholars who have characterized McCarthy's views as genocide denial."
Which Moshe has change to:
"McCarthy's work has faced harsh criticism by Armenian scholars who have characterized McCarthy's views as genocide denial."
Besides being a pathetic piece of POV editing and labeling the entire section "Armenian Scholars", Moshe has failed to check the sources covering the entire section much less this sentence since:
