Talk:Justin McCarthy (American historian)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Armenia Portal Justin McCarthy (American historian) is within the scope of WikiProject Armenia, an attempt to better improve and organize information in articles related or pertaining to Armenia and Armenians. If you would like to contribute or collaborate, you could edit the article attached to this page or visit the project page for further information.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale.

	Louisville Portal Justin McCarthy (American historian) is within the scope of WikiProject Louisville, an open collaborative effort to coordinate work for and sustain comprehensive coverage of metropolitan Louisville, Kentucky and related subjects in the Wikipedia. Template Usage • Change Patrol • Articles Requested! • Become a Member • Project Talk
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the Project's importance scale.
	Please explain ratings on the ratings summary page.
	This article has been marked as needing immediate attention.

	Turkey Portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Turkey, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Turkey-related topics. Please visit the the participants page if you would like to get involved. Happy editing!
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	edit · history · watch · refresh To-do list for Justin McCarthy (American historian):
No to-do list assigned; you can help us in improving the articles in the same category

Contents 1 reads like a personal hitjob by Armenian Genocide campaigners 2 arguing ppl 3 Clean up 4 Justin McCarthy's wife 5 anti Armenian and historical revisionist ??? 6 POV reversion 7 Biased 8 McCarthy has written books about the Balkans, Balkan history, the Middle East, and Middle Eastern history 9 Nobody provided me with the information I have asked so why has my change been reverted!!! 10 What does the Armenian Wikiproject have to do with Justin McCarthy? 11 Justin McCarthy as a Wikipedia Source

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Justin McCarthy's wife

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

[edit] anti Armenian and historical revisionist ???

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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???)

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)