Talk:Justin McCarthy (American historian): Difference between revisions

Article much too negative about an academic

We have a policy Wikipedia:Criticism#Avoid_sections_and_articles_focusing_on_criticisms_or_controversies that says "Best practice is to incorporate positive and negative material into the same section."--Anthon.Eff (talk) 03:37, 13 November 2022 (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)

POV issues

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)

A page about a historian isn't meant to be 80% filled with criticisms of him is what I am saying.--Moshe Avigdor (talk) 22:51, 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:

• Auron, Yair, not Armenian
• Charny, Israel W., not Armenian

Both are used as sources for the sentence Moshe has changed. As I said before POV editing.

Also included in the Armenian Scholars section:

• Churchill, Ward
• John A. Drobnicki
• Richard Asaro
• Samuel Totten,
• Paul Robert Bartrop
• Steven L. Jacobs
• Mark Mazower
• Colin Imber
• Edward Tabor Linenthal
• Michael Mann

The POV and wrongly labled section "Armenian Scholars" should be removed and the article restored to pre-editwarring status.--Kansas Bear (talk) 02:25, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Reverted, pure POV pushing.

Misleading modifier concerning Hovanissian

Santasa99 can you provide the source that specifically refers to Hovanissian as merely an Armenian genocide historian? Étienne Dolet (talk) 01:32, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Nowhere is stated that he is "merely an Armenian genocide historian", and we don't require reference for statement on obvious fact, phenomenons, itd - you, know, like saying that Armenian is, hm, Armenuan.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 09:41, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, maybe now it's a matter of consensus, now that User:TU-nor showed up. We can now obscure from view such en elemental background info, because it gives a little wider angle in the perspective from which one evaluate.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 10:01, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Beside consensus, there is also the question of relevance. In the same section, there are a lot of "historian X says", "historian Y says" etc. You will have to explain why it should be necessary to include a background modifier especially for this historian. The elemental background info is, of course, relevant in the article about Hovannisian, but I cannot see how it is relevant here. It certainly give the impression of poisoning the well. Perhaps you would also want to give similar "elemental info" about Auron, Imber and Mazower? --T*U (talk) 10:35, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm curious, T*U, are you really convinced that the "Poisoning the Well" argument could somehow apply here - I'm curious and saying this because I remember you making some very sensible and levelheaded comments in cases where I was involved (admittedly, I may be a little bit biased here, when I say your comments were sensible because you gave them in favor of my own stance). Anyhow, the "Poisoning" argument is not a WP policy nor guideline, it's something editors use to repel attacks based on the argument that others using unscientific, fringe theories, and that their attitude has ulterior motives based on conspiracy, etc - so, in other words, facts (especially with refs), background or any other variety, cannot poison anything, only baseless accusations in an attempt to discredit fellow editor can! So, instated of article on this particular idiom used for naming strain of "informal fallacy", I would rather suggest this essay. Anyone who thinks that such basic facts about the subject, not an irrelevant adverse info, can poison an entire article and/or discredit person and his line, tells us more about editor who cry foul in the first place as well as subject and his work, than about the editor who tries to insert those facts and his intention to do so. As for the other scholars in this article, I have no obligation or need to write and add info about them. I am only interested in this particular character and the fact that his works have been widely used for referencing entire series on the Armenian Genocide. Not to mention whether this one is really fitting for use in controversial content, where he could be perceived as in conflict of interest. Entire subject of Armenian genocide will always be within the domain of scholarship and politics only; there are no judicial processes nor judicial verdicts to refer to, only research and researchers politics - with that in mind, the man is Armenian, and not only is he from a family that has survived persecution and ethnic cleansing, but he has devoted his entire career to the study of modern Armenian history and that with an emphasis on persecution and genocide. This isn't damning by itself, he could well be neutral, but it is damning that he is a political activist, that he is engaged in Armenian politics and elections as an activist, that his son is an Armenian politician who is a member of parliament and who ran for president, and whose party is conspicuously named "Heritage," which has been in coalition with ultra-nationalists for years, and whose political platform is based on the use of history and genocide for political purposes and to win votes, as well as strong anti-Turkish and anti-Azerbaijani rhetoric. And then my four or five words are subject of contention, even though these are literally elementary facts!?--౪ Santa ౪^99° 17:18, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

The definition of well poisoning is something like presenting irrelevant information about a person in order to discredit what that person says. When you state that you have no interest in adding similar "background information" about other historians mentioned, but are only interested in this particular character, you strengthen my feeling that you want to add it in order to do exactly that, discredit or at least weaken what he says.

The question of interest for us here is not who he is (and certainly not who his son is), but whether his book is a reliable source. If you want to contest that, please raise your concern here or at WP:RSN, but not by indirectly targeting his credibility in the article text. --T*U (talk) 20:56, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Your link gives a very nice and precise definition, which is not what you say it is. Your feeling about my choice is beside the point, and if four words line about the fact that he is Armenian historian with knack for writing on Armenian genocide, is discrediting for him, in any editor's view, well that's too bad for him, and anyone seeing it that way. Although it's also beside the point, I am not afraid expressing my dismay for the fact that "community" has no objection using Armenian historian whose work maybe/is probably tainted with ideology and nationalism (which tells nothing on my opinion and perspective toward the historical events - the rest is just your "feeling"), however, I have no intention of questioning his neutrality nor his reliability, and certainly I have never tried it in the first place (here too is just your feeling). However, I find interesting how standards within "community" vary from case to case on reliability, notability and consensus, in this and related topics, namely histories of Balkan conflicts and genocides, with many illuminating examples - Hovanissian, McCarthy, Malcolm are but a few.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 23:43, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Repetitive Sections

Why are there numerous paragraphs and sections dedicated to the same narrow topic? Why not collect all academic and literary criticism into one section? It should be titles as such also. It is noteworthy that there are only a few lines on the man himself, his life and work and career but repetitive sections and paragraphs on critics It does not serve the reader or the article and gives the impression of an agenda. Murat (talk) 21:08, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Justin McCarthy seems to be mostly about the Armenian/Greek/Assyrian genocide. He supports the denialist view of the Turkish government. It is an interesting case since it is one of the rare cases of someone who is not a turk and supports the denialist view of the turks. It would be interesting to know how he ended up with that view. He is 76 y old now. It would be interesting to know if anything changed. I wouldn’t be surprised if his work was funded by Turkey. It is the same case with Michael Gunter. He is funded as well. There was a case where Turkey was bribing some politicians, according to one FBI informant. Well, the reality is that people need money to live comfortably. No professional historian is accusing him of that, but I will, and I’m not a historian. There must be some who are willing to exchange their morals for money. If there is anything interesting he has said, maybe on some other topic, go ahead and add a section. You are free to tell me your side of the story. I want to hear it. Vmelkon (talk) 02:05, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

I have actually a number of his books in my library. He is a true scholar and uses very quantitative analysis. It is very hard to argue against the facts he has quantified and presented within context. He has found a rich vein since so many scholars and institutions are so intimidated by the AG industry and this very article and the comments I had made above is the proof. As far as I know, the facts and basis of his research have never been challenged. It would be wrong to define (and defame) him simply as a AG historian and a "denier". The very adjective is used to implicate and to silence any opposing views and thus related and contradictory facts. He is the preeminent authority on Middle East and Balkan populations and movements. A historian does not need much funds as you imply in a seeming effort to de-legitimize him, all he needs is open archives and a university chair. As far as my side of the story, there is one of course, a personal one, as my grandfather was from Bitlis and had first hand experience in the events of the era, but this is not about personal histories, however relevant. Just sticking to facts is all I wish from Wiki. Murat (talk) 14:19, 11 November 2022 (UTC)