Talk:Edward J. Erickson

Untitled

I know the article is not finished and important things are missing but I wrote an email to Edward J. Erickson and hope to get him on board. Please be patient. --Tubesship (talk) 15:31, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Category

The article states that Erickson "claims that the Armenian Genocide was a result of a military decision process". I will remove the category of "Armenian genocide deniers" as not meeting WP:CATDEF. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:21, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

That's an oversimplification. He always avoids the word genocide (the article is wrong), so the article does meet the definition. --92slim (talk) 03:59, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Changing Stance on Armenian Genocide

The page currently states at two points that "His more recent works recognize the events as genocide" and "In Erickson's more recent work The Turkish War of Independence (2021), he acknowledges that the deportation policies of the 1914–1918 period is recognized as genocide by many, including himself". The first statement is arguable at best and the second statement is factually incorrect.

The referenced statement in 'The Turkish War of Independence' is not written by Erickson. It is in the appendix to the book, written and credited to Konstantinos Travlos. A plain reading of 'himself' refers to Travlos, not Erickson. As such, the second quoted line above is factually incorrect. The only reference Erickson makes is to "massacres perpetrated against Ottoman Armenians during the wartime relocations" which would seem to be in line with his previous writings which deny that the killings qualify as genocide. The first line is unsourced, but would seem to be referring to this as well. Arguably, on a technicality, 'the work' does 'recognize the events as genocide', but only in words by others, not by Erickson, so technically correct but quite misleading.

I made an edit to this effect, but it was removed for being 'original research'. I'm unclear on how this qualifies, as all I did was check the citation, find that it was wrong, and edit that section to more accurately reflect the contents of the book and what the cited page actually says. If that counts as 'original research', then the only alternative would be to strike the entire line, as again, it is not accurate, and a correction seems to be disallowed. If there is a third option here, I'm all ears, but it is rather unfortunate to see an edit rejected in favor of objectively wrong information that can be verified by checking the citation on the page. 96.241.153.144 (talk) 16:04, 30 July 2022 (UTC)