Talk:Guenter Lewy

With regards to: # Vahakn Dadrian responds to Guenther Lewy about his denial of the Armenian Genocide

If we are going to start going down the road of calling the works of a historian clearly better qualified than anyone editing these pages an exercise in denial rather than an exercise in the study of history then this page will soon become yet another Armenia based wikipedia nonsense. By all means we can provide substantiated criticisms of the author, but such authoratitive proclaimations as if the topic is subject to empirical fact will only invalidate the page. I appreciate some of you will have a hard time realising your own ideas are not emperical fact but please come to terms with those issues. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.145.232.205 (talk • contribs)

I assume you are refering to the link. This is not part of the wikipage.Travb 23:59, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Apocolocynthosis: What kind of an edit summary is this User:82.145.232.205? Please go read WP:CIVIL and refrain from engaging in such racist attacks against Armenians!!!Apocolocynthosis 20:52, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Criticism

Deleted section:

A careful reading of Lewy's America in Vietnam reveals that it is often a relatively honest account of a brutal U.S. military attack on a defenseless rural peasant population, but that everything is then "explained away." It is the "explained away" rhetoric that is quoted by other U.S. apologists for the war -- e.g. Norman Podhoretz in his book Why we were in Vietnam (Simon and Schuster, 1982). For example, at one point Lewy quotes Noam Chomsky that "these are war crimes, in the layman's sense of the term" and then goes on for twenty or more pages attempting to convince the reader that the Law of War is really a highly technical subject and so things are not as they obviously appear. See Chomsky's scathing review of America in Vietnam titled "On the aggression of South Vietnamese peasants against the United States" collected in his book Towards a New Cold War, (New York: Pantheon/Random House, 1982).

I will keep this section deleted because it is not quoted, and seems to be someone's opinion, not a quote from another historian. I will restore the Chomsky's review of America in Vietnam somewhere in the text.

Signed: Travb (talk) 21:07, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

source for "pretending"

A scientist does not research for years in an area to publish his researches to make a pretence. he - from his own point of view - wants to clarify something. though it is possible that he pretends something. but this opinion must be given by another source, for instance by another scientist. if this is the private opinion of User:Apocolocynthosis, then it should be changed. which sources have been used for "pretending" while making this assumption? until the sources are delivered, this word should be avoided (I hope for a better argument than "bok yemenin arapcasi")--Moorudd 22:54, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Book title and section titles

There has been a silly revert war going on in place of discussion, over the titles to use for article sections. Rather than do that, express an opinion on this talk page.

Travb apparently wishes to use the exact titles of Lewy's books as section titles; an anonymous editor wishes to use slightly more general paraphrases that describe the topic of each book (as well as, perhaps, including the debates by others around the same concepts).

My personal inclination would be to go with the neutral paraphrases. That feels better in keeping with other WP biographies which are more conceptual than bibliographic. LotLE×talk 16:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

This is basically what I was expressing in the edit summaries. This user has developed a habit of confounding some of my edits which are mostly routine and certainly harmless. Whether this reflects behavior towards others as well I can not say, though I am not particularly interested in it. 129.71.73.248 02:20, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Please don't express opinions in edit summaries. Do it on the talk page. Edit wars are harmful. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 14:01, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Rationales for edits are commonly given precisely in that box. If Travb were interested in compromise and collegiality (rather than explicitly announcing his intention to ignore anything I say), that would indeed be a productive route to take. 129.71.73.248 21:47, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

If the recent Alliance for Progress edit war was also your "productive route", I am really afraid to see your unproductive one. I havent bothered to speak with you because my recent experience has shown that there is no compromise or collegiality in your edits.Travb (talk) 22:40, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

You bring up an example that only further demonstrates your own obstinacy, not misbehavior on my part. I attempted to generate better, more precise content whereas you threw a tantrum. And now you wish to carry this juvenility over to this article to dispute such a minor stylistic change simply because I did it, and despite apparently being in the minority? Why? Who am I to generate such fits over banal matters? 129.71.73.248 23:54, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

English translation for source #25

Can we get that citation in English or translated? Thank you. --70.109.223.188 (talk) 18:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

genocide denial

Regarding recent edit and the revert.

I just had a brief look at the sources. Turkish Zaman is not a reliable source, since its someone else interpreting what Lewy said. The second source concerning the Native American genocide is a valid and strong source. Its Lewy denying the Native American genocide in his own words. And his words can be attributed to him.

Adding that information to the lead may not be timely since the body of the article is missing that information. I suggest creating a section about his denial in the body and then adding it to the lead. After all Lewy became notable mainly due to his denial of the various genocides. VartanM (talk) 05:56, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

"Genocide denial" is hardly NPOV. Furthermore, Lewy's conception of the North American die-off is scholarly consensus, not even close to controversial.Verklempt (talk) 19:09, 19 March 2008 (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) 18:07, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Page protection and surrounding issues

Given that the page is protected now, I hope we have a good opportunity to discuss things. I'll first note that if something is in doubt, it is always best to leave it out of the article and discuss - instead of revert to include information that really should be better sourced.

This was the only sentence that we have an issue with. If this is true, we need to source it, reliably, with multiple sources. Potentially negative information should not be included in a BLP unless it is sourced using multiple verifiable sources. This is not the case for that sentence. Until that changes, it should remain out of the article. If you have other verifiable sources confirming it, we should add them and I'll have no issue with it. - Rjd0060 (talk) 20:20, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

One more thing - a mistake on my end - as pointed out above, only one sentence is questionable here. If another admin can go to this version, and remove the sentence "Lewy later said that he could not recall if he had actually seen the alleged report or simply been told of its contents., re-add the protection tag and save, that would be good. Lets wait for User:Xenophrenic to confirm that the rest is not a part of the dispute first, however. - Rjd0060 (talk) 20:34, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

There are presently 4 sources to confirm that Lewy doesn't have that investigation report, and doesn't recall if he saw it or was told about its contents. The Baltimore Sun and Chicago Tribune articles (news, not opinion) qualify as reliable. The Media Matters source, I believe, tends to be partisan but reliable for some uses (here they simply quote the newspapers), and the book published by Princeton University Press ... I've never read it, but cursory research on the author suggests it looks reliable. How many sources are we shooting for? Xenophrenic (talk) 21:02, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I've reviewed the other stuff (sources) I missed when reverting. They seem fine. I'm fine with those being re-added. If you'll agree to that, we're set here. With my apologies. - Rjd0060 (talk) 21:13, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. I'll continue to look for additional sources as well. Apologies accepted without hesitation. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:24, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll do the same. I've asked the admin to unprotect the article. - Rjd0060 (talk) 21:34, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Links with Turkey

Lewy's relationship with the Turkish state, financial, political, and personal needs to be explored further and outlined in a separate section. The article could also use subsections dealing with Israeli support for Turkey's positions and Lewy's involvement in them. A link can be created to an article outlining Armenian Jewish political conflict over the issue of the Armenian Genocide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.12.203.101 (talk) 10:20, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

       See D. Holthouse, “State of Denial: Turkey spends Millions to cover up Armenian Genocide”. on Lewy's connections with Turkey. Holthouse argues that Lewy is getting paid (very well) to deny the Armenian Genocide  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.145.137.200 (talk) 17:55, 22 March 2010 (UTC) 

Religion and Revolution

This book was a finalist for the 1974 U.S. National Book Award in the short-lived category Philosophy and Religion. ("National Book Awards – 1974")

Working on our list of award finalists (still in User space) I noticed that this one is not mentioned here, although this is a substantial biography. That is unusual, but no longer strictly true, as i have added it to the footer "Published works", with data from the Library of Congress. See {{Authority control}} now also in the footer. --P64 (talk) 18:02, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

RfC

BAn RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 16:45, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Guidelines on Wikipedia content

Read this carefully: Wikipedia:Fringe_theories#Coverage_in_Wikipedia. --92slim (talk) 09:34, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

I have read it carefully. You deleted parts of the article that relate to Lewy's work. These articles complicated and Lewy is quoted in addition to others who support and do not support his work (like Akcam who you also deleted). All things are given as the article is about Lewy. We went through with other editors in the past. I suggest you look at the page history of this article.Resnjari (talk) 10:03, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

"Denier" label

@92slim: Lewy acknowledges the scale of the tragedy that befell hundreds of thousands of Armenians in the former Ottoman Empire; he merely disputes the "genocide" label, arguing there is insufficient evidence that the deaths were the intentional result of centralized orders from the top of the Ottoman regime. "Denier" is a needlessly loaded and immflamtory term for a WP:BLP, and you have produced no sources that support it. In fact, you have merely revised sourced content in a way that appears to attribute the "denier" label to Lewy's own work! (For the record, even actual genocide deniers rarely identify as such.) Unless you can demonstrate that an overwhelming preponderance of reliable sources call Lewy a "denier," this smear should be kept out of the article.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:35, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

The International Association of Genocide Scholars clearly labels him a genocide denier here. It can't get any better than that. --92slim (talk) 00:38, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Still, history isn't an exact science, and historical consensus is often subject to change. Why should Wikipedia condemn Lewy in its own voice? No-one would object if you simply quoted the open letter of genocide scholars directly. (By way of comparison, Bernard Lewis is cautious enough to attribute the claim.)TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:43, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

It's not in its own voice obviously. No one has claimed that. The point is he does deny it was a genocide and he has been labeled a genocide denier by the IAGS. It's completely irrelevant what Lewy thinks about himself. We can attribute it to the IAGS if you like, but it has to be included yes or yes. --92slim (talk) 00:45, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

I was referring to Wikipedia's voice. I would be more comfortable not declaring Lewy's "denial" a fact.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:48, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

It's a fact that he has been labelled a genocide denier, and specially by the IAGS. --92slim (talk) 00:53, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Category

Is this category appropriate "Armenian Genocide denier"? I removed it, as the text does not define the subject in this way. The category was re-added with the preceding diff. I'd like more opinions on this. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:50, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

No. Using cats is just a roundabout way of violating BLP. Lewy is not David Irving; his nuanced views are explained in detail in the relevant section of the article.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 08:23, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

He has stated that it was not a genocide, and has written works expressing that and arguing for that position - so he is a denier of the Armenian Genocide and the category placement is thus correct. Nuances of views are irrelevant for this - every person in the category is not required to hold identical views or arguments, merely that they argue the Armenian Genocide was not a genocide. That is the basis of the category - academics who have expressed published views arguing that the Armenian Genocide was not actually a genocide. I am restoring the category to the article. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:29, 14 December 2016 (UTC) Blocked sock:Meowy.

I do not find the above argument sufficient -- Lewy is not David Irving to apply this label. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:27, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

@K.e.coffman: Lewy doesn't have to be Irving, he can still be Lewy and deny that the Armenian Genocide occurred. Does Lewy believe that the Armenian Genocide happened? No. He does not believe that the Ottoman government had such an intent. In his own words:

The three pillars of the Armenian claim to classify World War I deaths as genocide fail to substantiate the charge that the Young Turk regime intentionally organized the massacres. Other alleged evidence for a premeditated plan of annihilation fares no better.

This translates to denial of a premeditated crime against an ethnic group. In other words, he denies genocide. He has a plethora of sources that say that as well. I mean, it's pretty simple. Étienne Dolet (talk) 07:06, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

The question is, do RS describe Lewy this way? If I search for "Armenian holocaust denial" Lewy, I'm not getting any hits in Google books. One would expect to see something, no? K.e.coffman (talk) 07:18, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Search Armenian Genocide denier. The phrase Armenian Holocaust is not common. The term Holocaust is mainly reserved for what the Nazis did. Étienne Dolet (talk) 07:22, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Oops, operator error. The new search produced Responding to Modern Genocide: At the Confluence of Law and Politics, which states that Lewy "rejects the mainstream genocide assumption". I also found Identity Politics in the Age of Genocide, which describes that Lewy used a sketchy source whose author (Lewis) was indeed convicted in French court of Armenian genocide denial. But that does not necessarily mean that Lewy is a one as well. So the picture appears to be more nuanced than what the "denier" label suggests, no? K.e.coffman (talk) 07:31, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Look, genocide deniers deny for many different reasons. Of course there's going to be nuances. I've heard it all, from the Armenians died from thirst to the deportations never even taking place and other nonsense. But the key question here is whether Lewy acknowledges whether there was an intent to kill a group of people due to their ethnicity. The key word is intent. Lewy questions that notion (to say the least), so he denies genocide. But to answer your question directly: some sources that call him a denier is that IAGS one (which should be good enough), and others like: [1][2][3][4][5]. In fact, Irving and Lewy comparisons aren't uncommon either [6]. It's no wonder why this guy's treated like a hero on AG denialist websites [7]. Étienne Dolet (talk) 07:57, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

K.e.coffman - what do you think the category Armenian Genocide deniers [8] is for, and what do you consider the views required to be held to be on it are? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 17:14, 15 December 2016 (UTC) Blocked sock:Meowy.

WP:CATDEF states:

A central concept used in categorising articles is that of the defining characteristics of a subject of the article. A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having—such as nationality or notable profession (in the case of people), type of location or region (in the case of places), etc. For example, here: "Caravaggio, an Italian artist of the Baroque movement ...", Italian, artist, and Baroque may all be considered to be defining characteristics of the subject Caravaggio.

I don't see such "common and consistent" definition of Lewy in the article. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:15, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

The most important defining characteristic of an academic are the views he espouses in print and in lectures. You do agree that Lewy has produced works about, and expressed opinions on, specifically, the Armenian Genocide? That means he passes the basic requirement for possible inclusion into a category dealing with Armenian Genocide scholarship. That possible inclusion will become an actual valid inclusion based on either his own words or the words of others made in response to his own words. Enough of those own words and third party opinions exist to show he does deny the Armenian Genocide was a genocide. He has published a book and written articles on the subject. His views are notable enough for other genocide deniers to have cited his works to support their own positions, or to have praised his works, and other genocide scholars have considered his views to be notable enough to have criticized them. Can you cite me some sources which discuss Lewy's work or statements regarding the Armenian Genocide in which Guenter Lewy views are NOT described as or presented as views denying / opposing the validity of the term genocide to characterize the Armenian Genocide? Can you cite me some paragraphs in his work where he says the Armenian Genocide happened? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 22:04, 16 December 2016 (UTC) Blocked sock:Meowy.

I also think the purpose of having categories has been forgotten in this discussion. They are particular to Wikipedia, so are not dependent on external sources. They are there to group similar things together, or related things together, not necessarily identical things, and their purpose is to let user's find and explore links to those things, links that may not be revealed as wikilinks within the article's content. So Caravaggio is in the Italian Baroque painters category, but not every artist in the Italian Baroque painters category painted like Caravaggio or are wikilinked within the Caravaggio article or are mentioned in the Italian Baroque Art article. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 03:47, 17 December 2016 (UTC) Blocked sock:Meowy.

That categories are "not dependent on external sources" is not my reading of WP:CATDEF: "...A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject...". This is very much about sources. PS -- I reached out to BLPN for more feedback: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Category:_Armenian_genocide_denier_in_Guenter_Lewy. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:54, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, what I meant was that a source does not have to be explicit in stating that Lewy is one of a category of persons who deny the Armenian Genocide for Lewy to be in a Wikipedia category titled Armenian Genocide deniers because the category itself is a Wikipedia invention. What we need are sources (either third party or the words of the subject himself) that reveal that Lewy has denied that the Armenian Genocide was an actual genocide, and for that opinion by Levy on the Armenian Genocide to have been expressed and advanced in the context of Levy's academic output, that it defines part of that output (i.e., it was expressed in the context of him advancing his academic views rather than just a casual remark or off-the-cuff statement of support). Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:51, 17 December 2016 (UTC) Blocked sock:Meowy.

This is again not convincing: a source does not have to be explicit in stating that Lewy is one of a category of persons who deny the Armenian Genocide. WP:CATDEF is quite clear: "...A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject..." How can the above position be reconciled with the requirements in CATDEF? K.e.coffman (talk) 05:06, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Any feedback on the above? K.e.coffman (talk) 03:28, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

@Tiptoethrutheminefield: per BRD, please advise. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:40, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

I think I have added all I need to. Lewy has produced works (note the plural) intended to advance his viewpoint that the Armenian Genocide was not a genocide, and there exists a category called Armenian Genocide deniers which contains a list of individuals, mostly historians, who profess to also hold that opinion. Levy's own works related to the Armenian Genocide, and opinions by others about his opinions regarding the Armenian Genocide, reveal that the defining characteristic of Levy's coverage of that subject is that he denies the Armenian Genocide qualifies as being called a genocide. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 00:32, 23 December 2016 (UTC) Blocked sock:Meowy.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Guenter Lewy. 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/20110604153327/http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/HistoryWorld/European/Germany/?view=usa&ci=9780195142402 to http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/HistoryWorld/European/Germany/?view=usa&ci=9780195142402

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) 01:47, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE issue

An unschooled reader could read this article and take away the idea that Armenian Genocide is a debateable position, rather than the reality that a vast majority of historians accept it as a fact. (t · c) buidhe 04:40, 19 November 2020 (UTC)