Jump to content

Talk:Taner Akçam/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

New Book

A new book by Taner Akcam and Umit Kurt has been released by Iletisim Yayinlari. (In Turkish) Kanunlarin Ruhu - Emval-i Metruke Kanunlarinda Soykirimin Izini Surmek http://www.iletisim.com.tr/kitap/kanunların-ruhu-1918.aspx — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.96.199.250 (talk) 03:12, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Deletion

This deleted part just shows how biased the article and all articles related to armenian genocide has become. It shows it as he got a 10 year prison sentence just for the statements on Kurds. Add this back please,you can find all the necessary citations in google.

[uncited content removed by Andjam] 07:11, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment

PLEASE SOURCE ALL CONTENTIOUS CLAIMS BOTH IN THE ARTICLE AND ON THIS TALK PAGE. UNSOURCED ALLEGATIONS WILL BE DELETED. SEE WP:BLP.

Copyvio

Source is armeniapedia.org - not really a problem, as it's editor is likely to make it PD upon request (example). However, armeniapedia.org contains this at the bottom of the page: "This article contains text from a source with a copyright" followed by detailing blurb. --tickle me 03:37, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

What are you talking about, Taner Akcam is Turkish, he has nothing to do with ArmeniaPedia, so why would you take their source? That would just be biased. Executex 23:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Sources for new version

version of 02:58, 11 January 2006:

All edited/rewritten by --tickle me 03:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Wow

Can someone please explain to me why this page remained blanked for 3 days? Khoikhoi 03:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Technically, it wasn't blank :) but anyway you are right, someone should have noticed it. deniz 05:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, if the article contained unsourced negative material, blanking is a legitimate option. Andjam 21:54, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Detention in Montreal

Is the information that his detention was because of edits on this article on Wikipedia linking him with terrorism relevent to be added? Fad (ix) 14:24, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes. :-) — Omegatron 18:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Would a link to the archived version of the article that got him detained there be at all relevant? I think it may be this one. --Anna512 (talk • contribs)

I wonder why this matter waited until April to be reported in the Signpost? Or why Omegatron waited until April to raise this question? Michael Hardy 17:02, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
From what I can tell, this matter came to head when the Robert Fisk article appears in the Independent on April 22. Nil Einne 03:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


Persecution not a neutral word???

I would like to know why persecution is not a neutral word. Its not like we have a gray area here.

Specifically what if someone has been persecuted? Should one not use the word persecuted even thought its accurate? Taner Akcman was persecuted, so why not say so:

def of persecution according to Merriam-Webster dictionary:

  • 1 : to harass or punish in a manner designed to injure, grieve, or afflict; specifically : to cause to suffer because of belief
  • 2 : to annoy with persistent or urgent approaches (as attacks, pleas, or importunities) : PESTER

I would like to know what is wrong with this word here. Isn't it true to say that he was persecuted? Custodiet ipsos custodes talk 06:23, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

account in Chronicle of Higher Education

"he says that he has also received many death threats and has been subjected to online harassment, for example through false entries in his online Wikipedia biography." from Chronicle of Higher Education News blog. [1]. (I added the link to the article) DGG (talk) 23:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Stealth reverting

User:Vonones did two edits in two minutes. The first edit was trivial changes in language. The second was a deep revert back to this version: 

19:26, 30 July 2007 Vonones (Talk | contribs) (9,593 bytes)
19:25, 30 July 2007 Vonones (Talk | contribs) (10,471 bytes) (pov)

he, without comment, reverted back to this version: 

01:49, 19 July 2007 John Broughton (Talk | contribs) m (9,593 bytes) (→Detainment - Adding cite; minor copyediting)

That was very sneaky. It also undid my WORK to get the TITLES of the articles linked to onto THIS page. My edits did not change the text, just the quality of the citations.--SallyForth123 07:25, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Murad Gümen

Should there be some note referencing Murad Gumen, the New York City-based propagandist behind Tale Armenian Tale? Many of the fabrications regarding Akcam, particularly those that appeared on Wikipedia (eg [2]), seem to lead back to Tale Armenian Tale's anonymous author, who had been using the pseudonym Holdwater. Citing the increased intensity of threats on his life, and an incident of physical assault, Akcam exposed Gumen himself.[3] See also: “Murad Gümen: The Mysterious American Who Drives the Armenians Mad” 24.161.9.247 14:10, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

You cannot expose someone who owns a domain through protected rights. That was simply propaganda Taner Akcam used to dismiss his site as propaganda. Many people believed him that he "figured it out", even though he has provided no proof. Arsenic99 18:55, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Arsenic99, I reverted your last comment because it violated WP:BLP, please read the policy before making anymore comments. Thank you. VartanM 19:14, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Vartan but it doesn't make sense it was a neutral point of view. He has arrest records in Turkey [...] he was in the newspapers in Turkey when he was arrested. Why is it so hard to believe a man [...] can escape prison and seek asylum in other countries, and then politically and historically fight his own government? This makes perfect logical sense as to why a Turkish man would work so hard to slander the Turkish government every chance he gets. Armenians [...] tell people "see, even a Turkish 'scholar' admits there was a genocide." The big problem here is, he has a deep bias for the Armenian side of the issue, and he is not a scholar, since he only studied Sociology, not History. 198.82.91.34 20:49, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Pure lies.[4] How do you people live with yourselves? Turkey: What a country! 24.161.9.247 19:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
The above comment about Turkey does not help us improve the article (which is the purpose of this talk page). I suggest that the poster removes it. Sheffield Steeltalkstalk 21:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Arsenic99, you replaced sourced text with POV and sourced with a propaganda cite. Calling someone a terrorist is against WP:BLP and WP:WTA, you bolded the detainment section header. You removed the wikilink to Armenian wikipidia [5]. All of your additions were POV, and thats why they were reverted. VartanM 21:47, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

But it is a fact that he is a [...] fugitive who did indeed escaped from prison, it isn't against the wikipedia's biography policies[...]. Simple as that, if you want to say that what I wrote is against wikipedia policies, then maybe they should erase 500 lines from Hitler's biography. The point of a biography is to know who a person is, and why does he do what he does. Taner Akcam supports the Armenian genocide claims, but not because of his research but because he has had problems with the Turkish government. Thus as a way of seeking revenge he uses his research in ways to attack the Turkish government. If someone reads the biography not knowing [...] of my fellow Americans' lives, then they will assume he is a verified historian, when he is simply a [...] sociologist. Otherwise that means wikipedia gives me the right to write about how great a person Stalin was. What I wrote wasn't POV, it was factual. POV would be if I put wikilinks to Armenian wikipedia, that's why I removed it, since that was unrelated and a POV on what he is. Arsenic99 00:38, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Look this biography of a Living Person has nothing to do with Hitler. Hitler is dead and was the leader of a fascist party and that is supported by numerous neutral sources. This article is about a living person and this encyclopedic article has real life consequences not only for Akcam but for Wikipedia itself. If you have neutral reliable sources, then provide them here and we can discuss it. Otherwise I don't see a point in continuing this any longer. VartanM 01:09, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
The reliable source is Turkish newspapers that showed articles on Taner Akcam being tried---NOT because he supposedly wrote an article about Kurds. now you come in here telling me that a whole nation is not a good source. Well then people can make wikipedia articles about Osama being a generous, kind man, who helps millions of people, since we cannot write anything bad about a living person, right? The point is, Taner Akcam is not a historian but a sociologist, and people need to know this, otherwise they will believe everything he says as the God-given-truth. he is not a scholar or an academic simply because he claims he is, or because the Armenian National Committee wants it to be so. Arsenic99 (talk) 21:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Turkish newspapers are not reliable see WP:RS and WP:V. VartanM (talk) 22:13, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes they are. Otherwise then you're saying nothing is a reliable source since every source is usually sourced by a person. Murad Gumen section should be removed as it has nothing to do with Taner Akcam's biography, but something he supposedly did. There is no proof or verification that Murad Gumen is "Holdwater" and no one can prove it since there is no evidence or way to link a person to a website without having the police visit the hosting company with a court order, considering his domain is not public information. Taner Akcam being credited as finding out the identity of HoldWater is speculation at best. Also calling TallArmenianTale.com a "hate site" without any evidence of such is just plain POV, I have read many parts of TallArmenianTale.com and haven't found a single place where Armenians are hated upon. In fact the author mentions that the purpose of the site is not to hate Armenians but represent his own point of view and research on the issue issue. Also you make a point about "You can't call a living person a terrorist" well then I guess you have to call Bin Laden a freedom-fighter?? You're being ridiculous. Arsenic99 (talk) 23:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

NOTE: the above comments have been edited to remove unsourced contentious material about a living person, in keeping with wikipedia policy. Restoration of such material, unless a reliable source is found, may result in the editor being blocked from editing. Sheffield Steeltalkstalk 19:55, 9 November 2007 (UTC) Note: the above comments made by Arsenic 99 on 21:58 30 December 2007 have been edited to remove unsourced claims about a living person, per WP:BLP. Restoration of such material, unless a reliable source is provided, may result in the editor being blocked from editing. VartanM (talk) 04:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I've added a Issue Notice on this article

  1. It needs additional references or sources for verification. Tagged since November 2007.
  2. It may contain original research or unverifiable claims. Tagged since November 2007.
  3. It may not present a worldwide view of the subject.Tagged since November 2007.

Since my edits and changes were repeatedly reverted for the simple purpose of not making Taner Akcam look bad, even though he is an escaped fugitive that uses his time to create propaganda and drive a wedge between the good people of Armenia and Turkey. I had added some of the specific details about his student movements and articles he has written and the activities he was involved in, in Turkey; these details that he purposefully fails to mention when he says how an intellectual like himself was imprisoned for eight years and 9 months (It wasn't ten years, according to Taner Akcam himself). Anyway, it needs better sources and it doesn't represent the view of everyone and to be neutral it should be flagged as an article that isn't as neutral as it seems. People have a right to know about Taner Akcam but also need to be warned about the other things he's done, not to undermine him as a person, but to understand why an intellectual would consistently write hate propaganda and criticize specifically one nation. Otherwise we would assume he is innocently attacked and his freedoms oppressed for no particular reason other than the government not liking what he wrote, which is ridiculous as to why any government at all would ever waste time prosecuting someone for something that looks so innocent when Taner Akcam writes about it. He was in these communist organizations not to just criticize government, there were many people that did that, how come all those people that criticized the Turkish government are not in jail? In fact, at this time the whole nation criticizes the Turkish government, almost every single newspaper. I criticize the Turkish government on numerous issues and no one claims I am a criminal. There is more than one side to every story and this neutral point of view must be established to be a fair article on a person so dedicated to attacking and criticizing the Turkish government using his sociology degree. I am not saying we should write terrorist all over his biography and I am not saying we should write he is a horrible person etc. He's not a horrible person, he is a sociologist who has a right to his own opinions and has a right to criticize whomever he wants; however it must be noted that he has a long-time grudge against the Turkish government and thus there is some bias in his opinions, and this is very important to know. Arsenic99 18:03, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Just to address one of the issues raised in the above post: if you think the article is incorrect about the length of the prison sentence, adding a new source to the article or discussing it here are both good approaches. Changing the article without adding a source, so that the text disagrees with the citation, just looks like a mistake. That's why I reverted your edit. Sheffield Steeltalkstalk 18:43, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Yeah you're right about that, I must have forgotten, I did add the source to my Edit Summary though but thats not enough I know. Arsenic99 21:03, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Please read the interview he gave that was published Dec 2007, whose link I recently added to the article's further reading (external links) section. Also consider why he has retirned to Turkey without being jailed and remains free in the US without being charged as a terrorist. The behavior of these governments indicates that public accusations against him are a smear campaign that that can not be validated in a court of law. WAS 4.250 (talk) 00:57, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

POVs need to be stopped.

There is a lot of weasel wording and POV editing going on in this article. I think it needs to be stopped, because some people are trying to spread their nationalistic agenda through propaganda by using Taner Akcam as the poster-boy for the Armenian genocide theory. I'm not removing cited content but I am fixing unsourced and unverifiable content to be less suggestive and more objective. Like it was written in the introduction that "Taner Akcam is one of the first Turkish academic to openly discuss the Armenian genocide", this is just POV; It has been openly discussed since the 1950s with the first books about the issue after the Armenian genocide theory began to rise once again--since being defeated at the Treaty of Lausanne-- in 1945 when the Jews got reparations from Germany.

Also the constant Armenian propaganda of trying to equate the Ottoman Empire with the Turkish government weasel words are sneaked in such as "Ottoman Turkish government" which isn't the correct terminology for the Ottoman Empire, or the Ottoman Government. This is like me instead of saying "The United States government" I say "The Anglo-Saxon Christian United States Government", it makes no sense, and it's called labeling and propaganda.

Biographies of living persons and all Wikipedia articles need to present facts and NPOV statements and declarations of verifiable information. Refer to WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. I'm not going to call Taner Akcam an ex-terrorist or ex-communist, but that does make it awkward that people call Bin Laden a terrorist on wikipedia even though he's a living person right? One of the biggest problems with Taner Akcam's biography is that there are very few sources of information, and most of them are politically motivated. Really, most of the information we have on Taner Akcam is from Armenian sources, Taner Akcam himself, his friends, or Turks, but of course, the Turks are immediately labeled as biased because of Taner Akcam's beliefs and points of view.Arsenic99 (talk) 00:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

We have semi-biased sources and well-meaning wikipedians that only know what those sources say. If you have expertise enough to make this article more neutral, then please help. Wikipedia needs help. It's a long way from being everything we want it to be. WAS 4.250 (talk) 20:41, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Detainment dispute.

http://comite-soutien.taner-akcam.over-blog.org/article-11616989.html This source says that his sentencing was because he was publishing journals on behalf of Devrimci Gençlik Dergisi (Revolutionary Youth Journal), but the details of what he wrote are unknown, Taner Akcam says in some occasions "I was arrested for saying the Kurds exist" and other times saying "I was arrested for saying the Kurdish minority in Turkey were mistreated", but there was no mistreatment, I think if he really did get arrested for that it could be because he said that the Kurds did not have the right to speak their language in government institutions or perhaps because they did not have the right to own their own Kurdish TV station. Another article says: "Became the executive editor of the periodical "DEV-GENC" (DEV-GENC later on had fractured into DEV-SOL and DEV-YOL. DEV-YOL believed in accomplishing the revolution by peace and education while DEV-SOL believed in terrorism. It's interesting to note that Akcam became part of DEV-SOL.)" [1] http://media.www.mcgilltribune.com/media/storage/paper234/news/2007/02/13/News/Speakers.On.Campus.Cutting.The.IstanBull-2714530.shtml This article also doesn't mention the details of why he was arrested. The point is, there is obvious speculation and unverifiable sources all over the place about the details of why he was imprisoned, so I don't think we should really even mention what he wrote, but that he was imprisoned for writing in a journal that the government had laws about, I think that would be more of a NPOV. Assumptions should not be made about why he was imprisoned which are all based on either what Taner Akcam says and what Turks say. I'll try and find a verifiable source as to why he was imprisoned, not like a newspaper article but more like an official document.Arsenic99 (talk) 01:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Chief, you do not speak for "Turks". There is not a single view, "what Turks think". This backwardness of yours, this is what completely undermines all of your perception. Because of this, almost every edit you make is incorrect, a lie, a slander, or just sad confusion.
I wish you could understand that the views of Guenter Lewy and Bernard Lewis are very important to understanding the whole of the scholarship on the Armenian Genocide. But you cannot just pick your favorite two papers and quotations (or misquotations, which still appear uncorrected in many Turkish newspapers and magazines) to make the case you like. Ernst Nolte believes that Germany Must Perish! evidences Jewish aggression against Germany, to suggest that "Jews weren't angels" (to borrow the Turkish propaganda phrase); while this is controversial, it does not create a debate about the genocide, just a debate about that reconceptualization of the events... And a debate about bigotry, for implying that the killing of an Armenian or Jewish child who has done nothing is justifiable, because the child was Armenian or Jewish.
The real debate about the Armenian Genocide is whether governments should formally recognize it, in the interest of justice. No one doubts the reality of the crime. You can't change that, all you can do is continually debase yourself by harassing historians and scheming cruelly.
It's quite amazing to hear you suggest that "there was no mistreatment of Kurds", in the same context of these other evils. How phenomenal, that such views still persist! DBaba (talk) 18:34, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia policy is that we do not decide the truth, then publish that. What we do instead is find reliable published sources and repeat what they say. In this case that means saying things like: "The New York Times reports that Taner Akçam said "I was imprisoned for distributing leaflets even though I had a permit." or whatever. (I think I remember reading that he had said that) If several different sources say several different things then we repeat the most reliable ones using our best judgement. What he claims happened to him is important. What needs to be reliable is that he said something, not that what he said is true. We leave that determination to the reader. WAS 4.250 (talk) 20:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
And I ask again, what makes your sources any more reliable than the sources I listed above? Why are we forced to only hear Armenian-sided (like the many sources) or Taner Akcam's own views on himself? This seems like a deliberate work of propaganda to push an Armenian POV on Taner Akcam's biography when he is in fact a fugitive, though the details of why he was imprisoned is very difficult to determine, since you guys feel that Turkish sources are biased but Armenian sources are perfectly reliable sources. If you're not here to decide the truth, then why not include both sources of Turks and Armenians, since we should be letting the reader decide on conclusions about Taner Akcam not Armenian articles or interviews, right?
And I'm not even going to respond to a propagandist like DBaba, with the many lies, slandering, and distortion of facts he just said in the talk page. He seems to think I or Turks somehow justify killings, and that only shows how little DBaba knows about the world and about history. He also concludes that Kurds were mistreated; Kurds were mistreated, quite a few times in history, but never by the Turkish government, and with the amount of Kurdish friends I have, there is no question of this, could they have been mistreated by Turks who take laws into their own hands in rural areas? Perhaps, but to think that the Turkish nation has given Kurds passports and citizenship, and allowed them all the freedoms of Turks, and there are still extremist views such as yours who think they were mistreated, you probably never even been anywhere near a Kurd or a Turk.
And for next time, do not revert my changes and re-add your POV opinions into this article, I simply fixed the article to represent facts and when there is a POV I declared who's POV it is, to please some of you nationalists. I didn't add POV edits to the article, or unverifiable information about Taner Akcam or anything to violate WP:BLP. — talk § Arsenic99 05:21, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Changing "Armenian Genocide" to "Armenian Genocide theory" is certainly POV-pushing. Please don't do it again.
If you think that something in the "Detainment" section is under dispute, please provide some sources that back up your position.
In addition, please do not use this page for soapboxing about Turkish politics. Please keep your edits limited to improving the article. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:39, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Although it is still an unproven theory/allegation, I will try not to make such an edit in order to please Armenian nationalists who are seeking undisputed recognition for a genocide which they have so far provided no proof of intent. I'm also not pushing a Turkish POV, which would be to declare something like "Armenians never died in 1915" or "Taner Akcam is a terro*****", I was simply trying to fix a few Armenian POVs that were used in this article, and you know that's a rampant problem in pages related to Armenians in history. Calling a spade a spade, or an allegation an allegation or theory, is not pushing POV, if you think it is pushing POV please correct me and explain to me how it is POV so that I may correct myself in the future. — talk § _Arsenic99_ 05:13, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I'll give you a clue: stop talking like a genocide denialist. That's POV by definition. Accusing others of being "Armenian nationalists" is also a red flag. Continue in this vein and you may find yourself blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://indybuzz.blogspot.com/2007/01/february-21-listen-to-taner-akam-turk.html

Dev Sol

Why are you trying to hide that he was a member of Dev Sol, a marxist-leninist youth organization, that was initially formed by some students at Middle East Technical University in Ankara. These were the same students that bombed the car of the-then ambassador of United States, Mr. Robert Komer in 1969 in the campus of that university. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.234.11.212 (talk) 14:55, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Without knowing the details, I can make an educated guess at what might have happened: Since this is a biography of a living person, Wikipedia policy requires us to cite any material, particularly material that might be seen as contentious or defamatory, to a reliable source. It also says that unsourced material should be removed from the article immediately. Do you have a reliable source for this claim? If so, please provide it, and the information can be added to the article. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 17:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Problems with Turkish version

The Turkish version of the article, Tr:Taner Akçam, seems to have some problems. There's not a single inline citation, and it accuses him of being a communist and a socialist. Andjam (talk) 22:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Intro

First off, great work on this article Adoniscik. My only question is concerning the introduction. It was changed from "He is one of the first Turkish academics to acknowledge and openly discuss the Armenian Genocide by the Ottoman government in 1915" to "He is one of the first Turkish academics to openly characterize the events leading to the death of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire in 1915 as a genocide." First off, since the article is titled Armenian Genocide, I don't see any reason why we should pipe link to it. Secondly, an important factor is WP:NPOV, but an equally important factor in this case is WP:NPOV#Undue weight. If 50% of scholars didn't recognize the events as a genocide and 50% did, it would make sense to have the sentence like this. However, this is not the case. The majority of scholars and historians recognize it as a genocide, and it is treated as the majority opinion the in main article. Finally, the source cited says “Dr. Akçam is one of the first Turkish academics to acknowledge and discuss openly the genocide of the Armenians by the Ottoman Turkish government in 1915.” Because of all this, I think that it should be changed back to its original wording. However, I am wondering what other users think and will wait awhile before I make the change. Khoikhoi 04:52, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

The original wording was lifted off the Zoryan Institute, so I wrote a neutral one that would avoid copyright issues. I can't think of a less contentious wording than this. Also, I don't think anybody has made a tally of how many scholars lean one way rather than the other, so it is not possible to apply the undue weight criterion presently. If you feel otherwise, I insist you base the claim on a reliable source that documents what the majority opinion is. --Adoniscik(t, c) 14:26, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Here you goInternational Association of Genocide Scholars: Open letter to the Turkish Prime Minister concerning the Armenian Genocide, International Association of Genocide Scholars: IAGS Resolution on Genocides Against Assyrians, Greeks, Armenians, and Other Christians by the Ottoman Empire. --VartanM (talk) 02:35, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism around Christmas eve

In this revision, Adoniscik claims that the article wasn't vandalized to say he was a terrorist. Couldn't it be that such vandalism has since been oversighted? Andjam (talk) 08:38, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

It was most likely oversighted as a BLP violation. Here is a Singpost about the incident. VartanM (talk) 09:10, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Although, some BLP issues and edit summaries still remain[6]. VartanM (talk) 09:36, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I think I'm going to go ahead an delete those revisions that you've mentioned, Vartan. Khoikhoi 21:25, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

 Issue taken care of, in light of incoming information. --Adoniscik(t, c) 17:44, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

"Furthermore, in order to prevent the resurfacing of said remarks, the site's administrators have taken the exceptional measure of hiding their traces from casual view." This is incorrect, as nothing was oversighted. When something is deleted, only administrators can see it. When something is oversighted, they cannot even be seen by admins nor can they be easily restored. You can make a request at WP:RFO, but at the moment that sentence is inaccurate. Khoikhoi 19:12, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

BTW here is the deletion log: [7] Khoikhoi 19:14, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Foreign language sources

My concern with foreign language sources is mainly to do with the accusations of terrorism against Akçam. I'm also worried that some of the sources used in the article are primary rather than secondary ones. Andjam (talk) 14:55, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Can you name the footnote numbers you want augmented? Adoniscik(t, c) 16:34, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Footnotes 12 + 13 which claim he wrote for Devrimci Gençlik. Thanks, Andjam (talk) 09:37, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

 Done --Adoniscik(t, c) 20:02, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

More on Devrimci Gençlik

Some of the sources cited after the phrase Devrimci Gençlik ("Revolutionary Youth") - the Mershon Center one, and the Californian State University one - do not specifically mention that journal by name. The University of St Thomas source is only a press release. Are there any more substantive and reliable English-language sources saying that he was associated with the journal? Thanks, Andjam (talk) 11:20, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

You are being pedantic now. The sources don't have to be in English. The journal itself called Akcam its editor (footnote 18). Furthermore, being a called leftist is not a BLP violation. Many people are proud of being or having been communists. Let's think: we have firmly established that he contributed to a leftist journal. Do you honestly suppose, contrary to all these sources, he contributed a journal by some other name? If so, which one?
To satisfy your curiosity, I sourced part of an interview with him where he goes into his youth in great detail. I only used the first part, so I'll list all of them here for future use:
  1. Bir rüya gördü hapisten kaçtı (He saw a dream and escaped from prison)
  2. 12 Eylül’ü anlamadık (We didn't understand [the coup of] September 12)
  3. PKK’yla ittifak büyük hataydı (Forming an alliance with the PKK was a grave mistake)
  4. Şiddeti artık gömmeliyiz! (It's time to bury violence!)

--Adoniscik(t, c) 15:22, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

If you were just calling him a leftist, that'd be one thing, but linking him with the person who would create the PKK may be a bit of a BLP issue. Andjam (talk) 12:32, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Andjam, you need to be more clear about what you are disputing. Are we still debating that he edited Devrimci Genclik, or is that settled now? --Adoniscik(t, c) 15:23, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

We are still debating that he edited Devrimci Genclik. English language reliable sources, please. Andjam (talk) 09:26, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I find it hard to take this objection seriously. Akcam openly said he edited the paper; he knew it would get himself in trouble, but he believed it would further his cause at the time. He did in fact know Abdullah Ocalan, and in discussing his past he accused Ocalan's men of trying to have him assassinated after a falling out. Ocalan responded in another newspaper saying that it was actually Akcam's men who were after him. So it's incredibly easy to link the two figures—it's just that their relationship went sour.

Let me reiterate that we are under no obligation to provide English sources. You can associate the words "Taner Akcam" with some variant of Devrimci Genclik/Revolutionary Youth in pretty much any language. Still, if you want another first-hand confirmation, this review of Shameful Act mentions his membership in the "Revolutionary Path" (thus the link to its journal), with Taner Akcam responding:

My background as a student activist is not controversial in Turkey: many members of the "'68 Generation" (including some of my critics) now hold responsible positions in government and media, and for the last 25 years I have been recognized as a sharp critic of the Turkish Left on human-rights issues.

Okey doke?

--Adoniscik(t, c) 14:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

More interesting claims about Akcam, and yet no citations for them.
Would you be willing to engage in mediation? Thanks, Andjam (talk) 12:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure I would but it is not necessary yet. I think you just overlooked the citations given above, so I will recap:

There are several Turkish dictionaries online, if you need help. --Adoniscik(t, c) 14:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

He (assuming he made the post) didn't endorse the claims made about him either. If not refuting specific claims amount to endorsing them, would that mean that he was also guilty of "terrorist 'attacks against the United States'"? Andjam (talk) 02:06, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

How do you explain the response from Ocalan to Akcam, if Akcam's accusations are fictitious? It does not make sense, does it? Ocalan's letter alone is all the proof that is needed. Plus I'm still waiting for you to provide some reliable sources that say that the journal was something other than Devrimci Genclik. Where do you get the idea that there is even any doubt on this issue? --Adoniscik(t, c) 15:50, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

With regards to Devrimci Genclik: if Akcam were linked to the PKK (which is what you are ultimately arguing), then I'd expect that third-party mainstream sources would have reported it in English, rather than just self-published sources or Turkish-language publications. Third-party mainstream English-language sources have said that he's had false accusations of being a terrorist thrown at him, so I'd want to be pretty darn sure that the allegations that you're raising are separate from those deemed to be false by English-language reliable sources. Andjam (talk) 11:01, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I am not claiming that Akcam is linked to the PKK at all. Is the article not sufficiently clear that Akcam was part of Devrimci Sol, not the PKK? I don't see latter organization mentioned even once.

There is a very mundane reason English sources haven't picked it up: this all happened before Akcam became a controversial historian. In an case, Wikipedia's policies prohibit us from calling anybody a terrorist. I often fix Ocalan's article when people call him that (go ahead and check).

I have read allegations that Akcam participated in the bombing of the U.S. ambassador's car, but I haven't investigated the matter. Perhaps that is the source of the allegations. --Adoniscik(t, c) 00:10, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

--Adoniscik(t, c) 00:10, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

"I don't see latter organization mentioned even once." - the article mentions the PKK's founder. Andjam (talk) 03:08, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

You do know that he was involved with other organizations before the PKK existed, right? --Adoniscik(t, c) 04:45, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Humanistische Omroep Stichting

Taner Akçam#Biography mentions a documentary 'A wall of Silence' by the Netherlands' based Humanist Broadcast Foundation, and provides a retranslation of its English name to Dutch, which renders the broadcaster as Humanistische Omroep Foundation. It may well be that they present themselves under this name in English speaking countries, but Foundation translates as Stichting, and the organisation's full Dutch name is 'Humanistische Omroep Stichting' or 'Humanistische Omroep' or 'HOS' for short, as the Dutch Wikipedia article states correctly. I have corrected this in the Taner Akçam article, but thought it better to explain my edit. Bertux (talk) 15:21, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Reliable sources

The alleged funding source [8] is not documented by any reliable sources that I can find. In addition, it is irrelevant. Akçam's views on this subject pre-date the alleged funding by a long way. In view of this, even if it is true and reliable sources refer to it, it will be very easy to breach WP:NPOV in referring to the funding. Rd232 talk 23:02, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Grouping all the refs

Recently Disembrangler moved all the biographical refs into one place to reduce the clutter when editing. Unfortunately, this is not in line with established conventions for how to use reference citations. I would suggest that they be moved back until discussions have concluded on how to address the problem through software changes. Kaldari (talk) 17:24, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to move them back, as long as you don't undo the editing the move enabled. This would be a pointless, time-consuming exercise if you ask me, but do it if you want. Personally I'd leave it and hope for a software change to enable a better resolution. Disembrangler (talk) 11:06, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

update

Seeing a recent news article, I added a decision for Akcam in a recent case. There's probably a great deal of other updating to do. DGG ( talk ) 19:24, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

A quick scan of the BBC, NYT, and Washington Post suggested that he at least hasn't broken into international news much since 2007, so if the tag's based on a "probably needs it", I'm going to go ahead and take it off for now. If you'll point me more specifically to the areas you feel aren't sufficiently covered, though, I'm happy to do it. Khazar2 (talk) 17:39, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Taner Akçam. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:18, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Arrest in Canada

I first heard of this person yesterday when I read in the Minneapolis StarTribune that he had been arrested in Canada because of allegations of terrorism found in a Wikipedia article (this one?). Michael Hardy 01:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

It's possibly a rumor, plus it says Wikipedia it doesn't say English or Turkish. Artaxiad 01:11, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
It must have been this one; Canadian security agents would normally understand French and/or English. -- Davo88 18:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Well there's nothing here obviously, this isn't the first time, others have accused him of terrorism they were Turkish nationalists who hate Taner for recognizing the genocide, it may have been in Turkish and they reported it there, who knows. If you go to the Turkish one theres alot of anon attacks or activity. Artaxiad 05:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Akcam has said that he was shown by the Canadian immigration officer an actual printout of the text and photos on the Wikipedia page about him. Has anyone searched through the history of this entry to find the date of the edit that made the "terrorist" claim? BTW, I have edited out the words in the article that seem to seek to excuse flaws in the Wikipedia concept from complicity in spreading falsehoods. The words "vandalized" and "falsely" are point-of-view words under Wikipedia's own standards. Meowy 01:02, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
I think it first started when Ahmetcoxall (talk · contribs) added ([9]) a paragraph about his "controversial background" to the article. They were full of weasel words and unsourced assertions. I reverted him, with the edit summary, says who? ([10]) The next day he continued to edit the article ([11]), but this time added "In his youth, he was a member of an extreme leftist terrorist organization" and "It is believed that, he served to German intelligence services after escaped from jail." That was when I left a note on his talk page requesting him to add reliable sources for his claims. He replied What reliable sources? Taner is pro Armenian and he is trying to keep it secret. Although this is reality, I mentioned as controversy. Please be honest. ([12]), and then left a similar comment at Talk:Taner Akçam/Comments. Although he stopped editing after that, I've seen similar claims being added to the article since then. ([13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18]) I've even seen stuff like that being added as early as April 2006. ([19]) Khoikhoi 01:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for placing those various edits in context. There may be some historical importance to all of this - it's the first time I recall someone being detained over something some anonymous person has written about them on Wikipedia. Meowy 02:02, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
No problem. It's the first time I remember something like this happening as well. The only similar incident that comes to mind is the Seigenthaler controversy. Khoikhoi 02:10, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
The Seigenthaler thing was a prank that went horribly wrong. This, on the other hand, seems to be part of a concerted smear campaign, possibly with Turkish government collusion. I had a bit of a look at Ahmetcoxall's old talk page, and it seems the person created an article about someone called Ahmet Köksal (sounds a bit similar?). According to the article for deletion page, it was a copyright violation of this page. Is Ahmet Köksal the person behind the user, or is there a very good impersonation job going on? Andjam 22:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Köksal (or an impersonator) also has a blog at [20] (it may be just posts about mountain climbing, though) and someone using his name made a comment at [21]. Andjam 23:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
88.240.40.89 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) seems to be one IP address that Ahmetcoxall used, based on the edit history of Uğur Uluocak. Andjam 01:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I have again removed the word "vandalised" that was being used to describe the Ahmetcoxall edits. "Vandalise" is a point-of-view word. It was not vandalism, it was Wikipedia being what Wikipedia is. If I had reverted Ahmetcoxall's edit and called it "reverting vandalism" I'd have probably got a block! I see all the edits listed by Khoikhoi have been deleted - Wikipedia has been doing a bit of whitewashing. Meowy 23:16, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Taner_Akçam/Archive_1&oldid=1146817417"