An attempt was made in June 2000 by Microsoft management to revise articles in Encarta, their CD-ROM encyclopedia, written in 1996 by Helen Fein on genocide and by Ronald Grigor Suny [University of Chicago] on Armenia in order to cast doubt on their previous factual acknowledgment of the Armenian genocide. This attempt was foiled by the resistance of these authors and some editors at Encarta. Chronicles of Higher Education ("Hot Type: The Other Side of Genocide", August 18, 2000), "Moneyline" on CNN (August 21, 2000) and Pacifica Radio (Democracy NOW! on August 24) have reported some aspects of this based on interviews with Fein and Suny, the Editor of Encarta, and the Turkish Embassy.

The subject editors called Fein and Suny in response to a decision by management to change these articles (included in Encarta since 1996) after their in-house investigation, allegedly in response to "customer complaints." The authors were told their names would be taken off these articles if they did not accept the main points of the suggested revisions which presented a counter- narrative incorporating the Turkish story propagated to combat recognition of the Armenian genocide. A check of their contracts revealed that Microsoft owned the articles and could remove their names. Further inside information corroborated the surmise of Fein and Suny that the complaints were by the Government of Turkey.

Suny charged on CNN that Turkey had threatened Microsoft with both boycott of its products and arrest of its representatives. A Turkish Embassy spokesman said that there were no threats but "acknowledges that the embassy wrote at least two letters to Microsoft urging it to remove the term 'genocide' from the two entries, and to cite Armenian rebellion as the cause of any suffering" (Chronicles, August 18).

I sent a long letter to the editor who had contacted me in response to the in-house Microsoft memorandum of their research and decision-making. In this letter, I said that they were making a major mistake, their logic was faulty, no contradictory evidence was presented by critics cited, and (lastly) it would be against Microsoft's interest in freedom of information to yield to such pressure. Both Suny and I made minor revisions (such as correcting labelling of the Ottoman Empire in 1915 as Turkey, a mistake of the editors in 1996) but refused to incorporate the Turkish counter-narrative. When there was further pressure from the editors to do so and omit relevant information (in my article) about the extent of international recognition of the Armenian genocide, I said that I was withdrawing my name from the revised article.

I said (in a letter to the editor concerned re the changes): "The changes requested can only be explained by the concerted campaign by the Government of Turkey to deny the Armenian genocide by converting it into a debate. I will not participate further in a distorted process dictated (directly or indirectly) by the political and economic interests of the Government of Turkey and Microsoft respectively. To play-act our respective roles in this charade is like tip-toeing around a grizzly bear. Given our mutual interests in freedom of information (which means the freedom to judge information), it is regrettable that Microsoft has chosen to appease the bear."

Much to my surprise, the editor replied that no decision had been made previously. "I should reemphasize that we will not make changes to the article that are unacceptable to you or that compromise the editorial integrity of the encyclopedia. Your comments have been convincing and unequivocal and have carried much weight."

Suny had spoken to another editor about how counter-productive it would be to compromise the editorial integrity of Encarta. He believes that we instigated a mid-level professional revolt among Encarta editors against dictates from Microsoft. The editor-in- chief of Encarta, Gary Alt, said on CNN that there was nothing unusual about the process on this issue; they had worked the text out with their "content experts" (Fein and Suny).

The ordinary process at Encarta evidently does not entail responsibility for internal intellectual consistency. For there is a contradiction between the Encarta article on "Turkey" with Encarta's articles on "genocide" and "Armenia." Encarta's unsigned article on Turkey fails to acknowledge genocide occurred there and attributes all destruction during World War I directly or indirectly to the invading Russians.

The "bottom line," according to Moneyline, is that historical revisionism is bad business. From our point of view, the bottom line is: how can and should academics relate to big business control of information media? We can speak truth to power but we must keep on communicating, whether or not we anticipate success. This experience shows that we can win despite the fact we had no sanctions -- economic boycott and force threats -- such as Turkey had.