Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Armenian Genocide denial/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 13 May 2021 [1].

Armenian Genocide denial

edit
Nominator(s): (t · c) buidhe 15:01, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about "perhaps the most successful example of how the well-organized, deliberate, and systematic spreading of falsehoods can play an important role in the field of public debate". Despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, the state of Turkey continues to reject the change of genocide against its predecessor, the Ottoman Empire, and the ruling Committee of Union and Progress. Perhaps even more reprehensible than claiming that the events never occurred at all, as is typical of Holocaust deniers, it is often claimed that the destruction of the Ottoman Armenians was the "result of a reasonable and understandable response of a government to a rebellious and seditious population".

I would like to thank Sturmvogel and Twofingered Typist for reviewing and copyediting the article respectively. (t · c) buidhe 15:01, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Ovinus

edit

I'll take this one on, though I've got quite a bit on my on- and off-wiki plate, so expect a full review by next Sunday. Thank you for working on such an important topic. For an idea of where I'm coming from: I know of the Armenian Genocide but little of its details, and nothing about its denial. Very interested to know more. I'll read up on it after I read this lead, but apologies if I ask strange—or insensitive—questions. Things I'll pay particular attention to include WP:FRINGE information, dispassionate but accurate WP:NPOV, and broad understandability.

(reviewing moved to talk per SandyGeorgia's advice)

Image review
edit

I know this is kind of your specialty here at FAC so this might be a sort of image review review on your part ;)

  • Is there a reason the caption quote from Ambassador Morgenthau's Story has weird margins? It feels out of place and more importantly is hard to read.
    • I had a blockquote using {{quote}}. But I restyled it to avoid the margin; let me know if you think that is better.
      • Ohhhhh got it. I think it looks fine now.
  • commons:File:Armenian monastery of s apostles in moush How do we know this is PD in Turkey? (no author date information)
    • It doesn't seem that the photographer is disclosed in the source so it should be PD in Turkey (anonymous publication + 70years). Updated image description accordingly.
      • Epic.
  • commons:File:Trends in official and quasi-official publications on the Armenian question, 1950–2005.jpg is good, definitely below the TOO when compared to, say, these
  • All images freely licensed and with alt text. Corrected a couple typos.
  • One alt text specifically cites "women and children" as the depicted victims, while the article text doesn't. Probably should have them be the same? Ambivalent on whether it's neutral to have it in, leaning towards it being fine, esp. given that it gives an example of the emotional appeal of the book.
    • That was actually incorrect alt text since there's no reliable source for what exactly the image depicts; corrected accordingly.
      • Awesome.

Otherwise looks good. Best wishes, Ovinus (talk) 19:58, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by Kaiser matias

edit

I'll review this in the next day or two, and add some comments. Please ping me if I don't follow up in due course. Kaiser matias (talk) 16:50, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, see some comments below:
  • I'd suggest adding that the Armenian Revolutionary Federation is also known as the Dashnaktsutyun; I'd argue they are more well-known under their Armenian name, or even just as the "Dashnaks".
    • Done
  • "In the meantime, the Ottoman Empire lost almost all of its European territory in the Balkan Wars..." They also lost Libya in a separate war, which was also a big issue for them, being their last African-controlled territory (Egypt notwithstanding).
    • I'm aware of this but most books I've read on the Armenian Genocide barely mention Libya if at all, while focusing on the Balkan Wars as an important precipitating event. I just checked two of them (They Can Live in the Desert but Nowhere Else and Denial of Violence); the former only mentions Libya once while spending several pages on the Balkan Wars, the latter does not mention Libya at all but does extensively cover the Balkan Wars. I believe this is because 1) many/most CUP leaders came from the Balkans and 2) there was a large number of atrocities committed against Balkan Muslims and consequently inflow of refugees to Anatolia; I have not heard about a large number of Ottoman civilians forced to leave Libya.
Fair enough, works for me then.
  • "Armenian soldiers and officers were removed from their posts pursuant to a 25 February order." Was this a political or military order? I think it would be prudent to clarify, and if I'm recalling correctly, it did stem from the government.
    • The order was issued by Enver, added to article.
  • The photo from the book The Armenian Aspirations and Revolutionary Movements says the photo is "claimed to depict Armenian atrocities against Muslims"; was this claim true, or is it a distortion?
    • It's not clear. Most sources cite this book as a work of government propaganda and genocide denial, i.e. not a reliable source. But, it is true that some atrocities were committed by Armenians against Muslims and it is possible that this photograph indeed depicts what it claims to. I can't access the page in Dündar right now but IIRC he does not address the question of whether the photographs are genuine.
Thanks for checking. Best to leave it then; ideally there would be some clarity, but can only work with what we have.
  • "Following the genocide, many survivors sought an Armenian state in eastern Anatolia..." I wonder if it's worth noting that the Treaty of Sevres called for such a state, and that the Turkish War of Independence put an end to that. What do you think?
    • Added
  • "Denial was consolidated during the early republican era." This sentence leaves me wondering what else was done, and really I think it would serve better to be moved to become the first sentence of the next section (ie. starting the "Causes" section that goes on to describe early republican activities. If so, I think the quote by Zurcher could be moved there too, but I'm not sure the best place yet; I'll wait for your reply and look at it some more.
    • As far as I can tell there was not active denial apart from strict censorship (briefly mentioned in "Destruction and concealment of evidence") done right in the 1920s as the issue appeared to vanish and only reappeared in 1965. Neither of the two sources cited give details.
  • Is "Behramzade Nusret" the correct name order? As far as I know Nusret is a given name and Behramzade looks like a Persian/Azerbaijani surname. I'm not familiar with the individual so could be off, but it just caught my eye.
    • Yes, this is confirmed by Judgment at Istanbul page 195. Before the surname law most Turkish Muslims did not have a surname, so this individual probably had two given names, Behramzade and Nusret.
Good, thanks for checking.
  • "On 11 January 1916, socialist deputy Karl Liebknecht the Armenian Genocide in the Reichstag..." Liebkhnecht did what? It looks like a verb is missing.
    • Fixed
  • Also regarding Germany during the genocide itself: Hovhannisian has noted elsewhere (in his 1969 Armenia on the Road to Independence, 1918) that by 1918 the Germans were getting annoyed with continued Ottoman massacres of Christians, and the public's reaction to these reports, and that it was a factor in Germany's intervention in the Caucasus in May 1918. He doesn't explicitly mention the Armenians and so I don't know how relevant it is here, but it could be further show the shifting perspective in Germany between 1916 and 1921.
Like I said it was really more an off-hand remark in his book and not really expanded on, so not anything pressing here. Just thought I'd mention it anyways.
  • Further on the German side of things, I wonder if it's worth noting the high number of people in Germany with Turkish heritage here; I get it strays from the overall message, and there is a related article already linked, but I'm curious if there's anything on how that impacted the German decision to recognize the genocide.
    • Added
  • Regarding the US: "Each year, the president issues a commemorative message on 24 April." Is there a date that started?
    • It appears that this has been going on at least since 1994:[2]. Added to article
  • Also, there is a mention of Turkey allowing use of air bases, but I also think noting the NATO connection here is worth doing; it is arguably a major reason why the US has not officially recognized the genocide.
    • Added
  • ICTY should be spelled out.
    • Done
  • The Khojaly massacre is noted, and I wonder if it would be worth mentioning here that Azerbaijan considers it a genocide, which is arguably in response to the Armenian genocide. Not an important detail, but it does show an effort to downplay things.
    • It did say that in the previous version, but I have expanded on it a bit to make it more clear
  • I didn't see any mention of Hrant Dink in the article. His death was a major event and gave widespread coverage of both the Armenian genocide and the Turkish denial of it (and has it's own article: Assassination of Hrant Dink). I'd encourage trying to find a way to mention him in there, as that was a key event in this story.
    • Added
  • A look through the sources shows that the major scholars on the topic are included, both on the Armenian and Turkish side, which is good to see. Aside from Hrant Dink (noted above) I don't see anyone major missing.
  • This is obviously a contentious article, and one that attracts a lot of attention. As it is something I'm quite familiar with and have studied, I focused on the content rather than the writing, which I'll leave to better-qualified individuals. I found it to be well-done and given the type of coverage a topic like this deserves, and look forward to seeing it promoted. Kaiser matias (talk) 22:17, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nice, I'm happy to add my support to a well-done article. Kaiser matias (talk) 22:50, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by MaranoFan

edit
  • Linking civil war on its first usage might be helpful to some readers.
    • Done
  • "By the 1890s, Armenians faced forced conversions" -- Was this conversion to Islam? This could be mentioned more explicitly.
    • Done
  • Shouldn't the caption for the Ambassador Morgenthau's Story image demonstrate what is happening in it more clearly?
    • OK, I have swapped the caption.
  • "The Ottoman government replied, denying that massacres of Armenians had occurred, claiming that Armenians colluded with the enemy, alleging Armenian massacres of Muslims,[56] arguing that national sovereignty justified Ottoman policies towards Armenians,[56] and making counter-accusations of Allied war crimes." -- This sentence could benefit from being split.
    • Done
  • Is the full form of ASİMKK available?
    • Yes, it's Asılsız Soykırım İddiaları ile Mücadele Koordinasyon Kurulu. Added to the link.
The article is very informative and appears to be well-researched. I will be glad to support once these are addressed.--NØ 12:03, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Are you going to respond to these soon, buidhe?--NØ 06:49, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your feedback and the ping. I must have too many things on my watchlist, I managed to miss your comment earlier. (t · c) buidhe 12:26, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I finally got the time to read the remaining sections. Here are the comments:
  • "One factor in explaining denial is Sèvres Syndrome, a narrative that portrays Turkey as besieged by implacable enemies" -- "Narrative" is too ambiguous, would it be fine to describe it as a "popular belief" like the article does instead?
    • Done
  • "Acknowledgement of the genocide is perceived as a threat to Turkey's national security" -- by whom, civilians, scholars or the government?
    • The last one, clarified
  • Taner Akçam is linked and introduced in the Causes section, then only referred to by last name in Destruction and concealment of evidence, then referred to by full name again in Turkish historiography. I would suggest being consistent.
    • Done
  • Two people named Kemal are included in the article, Mustafa and Mehmet, so it is a bit unclear which one is being referred to in the Turkish historiography section. Also, is there a reason "Atatürk" is being omitted from the former's name here?
    • I added the forename to the reference in Turkish historiography section. "Ataturk" was not his name until 1934, after the events described in this article.
  • "Most recently, textbooks have accused Armenians of perpetrating genocide against Turkish Muslims" -- More specificity would be better. Maybe "Early-mid 2010s textbooks"?
    • Added date
  • "In a 1995 civil proceeding brought by three Armenian Genocide survivors, a French court censured his remarks" -- Mention that they were "Lewis's remarks" here, I generally think it is best to not use "he/his" two sentences in a row. You could opt for "he" in the sentence after this one instead.
    • Done
I stand by my assessment that the article is very informative. I will note that I don't have access to any of the print media used, so I will leave the verification of that to the source reviewer. I do have an FAC open at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/All About That Bass/archive2 which is also a pretty lengthy article, in case you feel interested to offer any feedback there. Thanks.--NØ 06:37, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your review! (t · c) buidhe 07:50, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass

edit
  • Is there a reason why several works listed in "Citations" are not in "References"?
    • I put the full citation in citations if I only used the source once, in references if I needed more than one page. I believe that's the way Jo-Jo Eumerus does it.
This doesn't answer the question: your first sentence says what you do; your second notes that another editor also does it. My question is why do you do it? (And referencing Jo-Jo doesn't help your case, I once source reviewed one of their FACs!)
I think it works best with the number of direct quotes required. (t · c) buidhe 21:36, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strictly in my personal opinion the splitting of works into three sections and then not even including some could be designed to make life difficult for a reader wishing to confirm a claim. It certainly did for me. However, the FAC criteria give a lot of leeway in this respect, so I will leave it at my personal preference.
  • There are some p./pp. errors. Eg cites 123, 125.
    • Fixed
  • Add the ISSN to Della Morte.
    • Done
  • And the DOI to Belavusau (2015).
    • Done
  • Why is Asbarez.com high quality?
    • This is an interview with Taner Akçam used for claims that he made.
Why does what you are using the source for excuse you from the FAC criterion "claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources"?
I would argue that Akçam is a high quality source as he is probably the single most well known and well regarded historian of the Armenian Genocide. (t · c) buidhe 21:36, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure that this addresses the point. By that logic if Akcam were quoted in a blacklisted periodical notorious for fabricating quotes it would somehow become high quality. However, given who the interviewer is and that he is reporting on a public lecture, I think that we can accept that in this particular case the source is high quality.
  • Add the ISSN to Charny.
    • Done
  • Why is CivilNet high quality?
    • Also an interview Akçam, not used for any extraordinary claims.
The criterion in question does not allow for low quality RSs if the claims are not "extraordinary". (I am not claiming that Akcam CivilNet is low quality, just explaining that it seems - to me - straight forward that the criteria require all sources to be "high-quality".)
Civilnet.am is a well-respected Armenian news outlet and is cited in various academic papers such as [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] so I don't think it makes things up.
Fair enough.

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:31, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • The sources used all appear to me to be reliable. The sources referred to seem to support the text cited, insofar as I have checked them. I found no unattributed close paraphrasing. I consider the sources to be current, as these things go. A reasonable mix of perspectives are represented. Everything that I would expect to be cited, is. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:02, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note -- looking good but for a subject such as this I'd like to see another comprehensive review if possible, Gog how would you feel about doing that on top of your source review? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:57, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tks Gog and TRM, I'll take another look at this soon. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:31, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

edit

Recusing to review.

  • "the main argument is that "There was no genocide, and the Armenians were to blame for it. Denial is usually accompanied by "rhetoric of Armenian treachery, aggression, criminality, and territorial ambition". The MoS requires that "The source must be named in article text if the quotation is an opinion". Emphasis in original, one of hte few parts of the MoS emphasised.
    • OK, both of these are attributed in the main text. I would say the second one isn't an opinion, but a factual description of denial discourse. I can attribute the first one in the lead if necessary.
If a quotation is an opinion, the MoS requires in line attribution, no matter where in the text it is.
Done
  • "One of the most important reasons for this denial is that the genocide enabled the establishment of a Turkish nation-state; recognition would contradict Turkey's founding myths." It is not clear how, if at all the two parts are linked, possibly explain this instead of the semi colon?
    • I separated into two sentences. I am not sure how to explain concisely in the lead, but in effect "Turkey's founding myths" include claims such as: "The foundation of Turkey did not involve genocide".
  • "in foreign countries". This reads a little oddly to me. There is some other sort?
    • Changed to "other countries" if you think it reads better. Sources distinguish Turkey's efforts with regard to other countries to its domestic policy.
  • "and launched another coup in 1913." I don't see mention of an earlier coup (or coups). If they were in power, why did they need to launch a coup?
    • The Young Turk Revolution was also a military coup, and there was also the anti-CUP 1912 Ottoman coup d'état which installed an opposing party in power. Anyway I reworded for clarity.
  • "the Young Turks blamed"< Who were the Young Turks?
    • Reword for greater precision
  • "During the Ottoman invasion of Russian and Persian territory". When did this happen?
    • Add time frame
  • "following the catastrophic defeat in the Battle of Sarikamish". The defeat of whom by whom?
    • Added
  • "isolated indications of Armenian resistance". Suggest "indications" → 'incidents'.
    • Done
  • " According to historian Ronald Grigor Suny, deportations of Armenians". This mention of deportations seems to spring from nowhere. Could it be introduced and any background to it given. When did they start, how common were they, from where to where, how humanely, were other groups deported.?
    • This paragraph is trying to explain why and how the deportations/genocide began. Details on how this was executed are given in the next paragraph. I have reworded a bit.
  • "Armenians barricaded themselves in Van". Perhaps, 'the eastern-Turkish city of Van'?
    • Well, it wasn't part of Turkey until 1923. But maybe it would be helpful to put a map (such as this one) to help the reader understand the geography?
Good point. And yes, I think that would be very helpful.
Added
  • "The leaders of the CUP, especially Talat Pasha ... ordered the deportation." I am confused. Either "The leaders" ordered the "deportation[s]" or Talat Pasha did. How can one of a group "especially" order something? Maybe "especially" → 'including'? And who was Talat Pasha?
Thanks for the introduction. "especially really doesn't work. I understand - in general terms - Talat's role in driving the deportations, but there must be plenty of other ways to express your point. "The leaders of the CUP ordered the deportations, with interior minister Talat Pasha, who knew he was sending the Armenians to their deaths, taking a leading role" for example?
OK, reworded according to the suggestion.
    • Most historians of the Holocaust agree that Hitler was the central figure in ordering the Holocaust, but that doesn't mean that Himmler, Heydrich et al. did not participate in ordering it. Likewise, Talat is seen as the central figure in ordering the Armenian Genocide but other CUP leaders both in the central government and regional governors (sometimes even exceeding his orders) also were responsible for this decision. Clarified that he was the interior minister.
  • "of which 800,000 to 1.2 million were deported". Should that be "which" → 'whom'?
    • Done
  • "Russian and Armenian forces". What Armenian forces were these?
    • The previously mentioned Armenian volunteers in the Russian army.
Then they weren't Armenian forces, they were Russian forces. A natural reading of the current text would be that forces of the (not yet extant) Armenian state were operating alongside those of Russia.
It's a bit more complicated than that since a lot of the atrocities were committed after the Russian withdrawal following the Russian revolution, not necessarily by the Armenian state but various irregular groups of Armenians that had formerly been part of the Allied forces.
  • Caption: "In the 1916 book The Armenian Aspirations and Revolutionary Movements, many photographs claimed to depict Armenian atrocities against Muslims, such as this one, were published." "claimed" → 'claiming'.
    • My reading is that the photographs don't "claim" anything, but the authors of the book claim that the photographs represent something.
Ah. OK. I missed that.
  • "producing a text that undermines reality with half-truths"> I am having to guess what this means. It seems a rhetorical flourish. Perhaps leave it out, or replace with something more encyclopedic?
  • "Turkish sociologist Fatma Müge Göçek identifies three subtypes of denial: silence, secrecy, and subversion". As you don't develop or explain this, I am not sure what its function is, at least at this point in the article.
    • Removed if you don't think this is helpful
  • "which was perpetrated under the guise of resettlement." Should this not be in the previous section, with deportations?
    • I think that it's more relevant here because it explains the origins of denial.
  • "Denial emerged because of the Ottoman desire to maintain American neutrality in the war (until 1917)". For readers unaware that the US entered WWI in 1917 this is confusing. And I am not sure what "(until 1917)" adds. Consider removing it.
    • Removed
  • "sent a diplomatic communiqué to the Sublime Porte". What is a "Sublime Porte"?
    • Reduced jargon
  • "Continuity between the Ottoman Empire and Republic of Turkey was significant" is ambiguous. Perhaps 'There was sicnificent continuity between the Ottoman Empire and Republic of Turkey'? Assuming that is the interpretation you intend.
    • Reworded
  • "Rouben Paul Adalian has argued that "Mustafa Kemal completed". And Mustafa Kemal would be?
    • Clarified
  • "The rump Ottoman state in Constantinople"? Perhaps 'The rump Ottoman state held courts-martial in Constantinople'?
    • Done
  • "Although the reality of state-sponsored mass killing was not denied, many circles of society considered it necessary and justified." Given the second half of the sentence, why does it start "Although"?
    • Done

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:48, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • "their families were rewarded by the state using confiscated Armenian properties." Optional: "using" → 'with'.
    • Done
  • "and national security establishment as a threat to Turkey's national security". Is it possible to avoid using "national security" twice in one clause? (It may not be.)
    • I removed the mention of national security establishment as it has close ties to the state and is already implied.
  • "Mass graves of genocide victims have also been destroyed". Is "destroyed" the best word? I mean, how does one destroy a mass grave?
    • In a variety of ways. The cited source discusses graves being "destroyed by the Turkish army and gendarme forces", but there are also ones that are destroyed in other ways such as being flooded by a dam[9] or gradually by farming over them due to lack of legal protection.
OK. Optional: Consider mentioning one or two of these to give a reader an idea of what this meant in practice.
  • "and represented the bridge between wartime denial and the "official narrative" on the genocide developed in the 1980s." Picky point: I think you can have 'represented a bridge' or 'was a bridge', but not "represented the bridge".
    • Reworded
  • "following Armenian efforts for recognition". Recognition of what?
    • Clarified
  • has been instrumental in cementing "an alternative, 'national' scholarship with its own reference system". The quote needs in line attribution.
    • Done
  • "the Kemalist official producer of nationalist historical narratives" - likewise.
    • Reworded
  • "private universities began to be established". In Turkey?
    • Clarified
  • "the conference was cancelled ... but eventually held". That doesn't sound like "cancelled". Maybe something like "... but rearranged and eventually held... "?
    • Reworded
  • "The conference represented the first major public challenge to Turkey's founding myths". At all, anywhere, or just within Turkey?
    • Reworded
  • "by elite academics". PoV?
    • I initially had this as "select intellectuals" but changed because Ovinus thought this wording is better (see the FAC's talk page). It refers to a relatively small group of academics at the top ranked universities in the country.
OK. I don't personally like it, but I see the dilemma.
  • "allege that the Armenians themselves committed treason or presented a threat." Delete "themselves". (Who else would they be?)
    • Done
  • "Turkish–Armenian journalist Hrant Dink was outspoken in his advocacy for facing historical truths to achieve a better society and reconciliation between ethnic groups. He was prosecuted for "insulting Turkishness" and was assassinated in 2007 by a Turkish ultranationalist." This would fit better towards the end of the following paragraph.
    • moved
This is as far as I have reviewed your responses. I hope to wrap up tomorrow. Various comments from me above. If I have not commented you can assume that I am content with your response and/or explanation. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:24, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Foreign relations
edit
  • "Turkey's century-long effort to deny the Armenian Genocide sets it apart from other genocides in history." What "it" refers to is ambiguous. Perhaps something like 'Turkey's century-long effort to deny the Armenian Genocide sets it apart from other genocide perpetrators in history.' or 'Turkey's century-long effort to deny the Armenian Genocide sets this genocide apart from others in history.'?
    • Done
  • "and membership in NATO." "in" → 'of'?
    • Done
  • "foreign ministry established a dedicated office (İAGM)". In full at first mention?
    • The institution was called İstihbarat ve Araştırma Genel Müdürlüğü ("Directorate General of Intelligence and Research" in English) neither of which seems any more informative than the acronym.
Ho hum. OK, let's IAR.
  • "the foreign ministry established a dedicated office (İAGM) specifically to promote Turkey's view of the "Armenian question".[189] In 2001, a further centralization created the Committee to Coordinate the Struggle with the Baseless Genocide Claims (ASİMKK). The Institute for Armenian Research, a think tank which focuses exclusively on the Armenian issue, was created in 2001". Why the scare quotes around "Armenian question" and not "Armenian issue". (There are other instances.)
    • Ok, I have reworded to reduce the use of euphemistic language and therefore the call for quotation marks. In other cases "Armenian question" is in quote marks to distinguish use of the phrase to mean "Armenian Genocide" from the Armenian Question, and this formulation is only used when rewording to Armenian Genocide wouldn't work.
  • "ASİMKK disappeared"! 'was disbanded' or similar maybe?
    • Done
  • "Turkish Jewish leaders helped defeat resolutions recognizing the genocide". Resolutions by whom?
    • The supporting paragraph states "The Turkish Jewish community leadership, especially Jak Kamhi and Bensiyon Pinto, regularly boasts that it has acted as a special interest group working hand in hand with Turkish presidents, prime ministers, and foreign ministers successfully lobbying foreign Jews to influence their governments to side with Turkey by defeating resolutions to recognize the Armenian genocide..." In the chapter focusing on this issue, various cases are mentioned, most prominently US but also European Parliament.

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:07, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • "but argued against formal recognition to prioritize relations with Turkey". Maybe something like 'in order to maintain dood relations with'?
    • Done
  • "Publications from this point of view"; perhaps 'Publications with this point of view'?
    • To me "from" sounds more natural because you look at a building from a certain point of view, not with a certain POV.
I struggle to read it like that even now you have explained it, bur shall assume that that is just personal differences.
  • "from the CUP to the Armenians themselves". Suggest deleting "themselves".
    • Removed
  • "attribute collective guilt of all Armenians". "of" → 'to'?
    • Done
  • "300,000 or even less". "less" → 'fewer'; is "even" necessary?
    • Done
  • "The deportation of the Armenians of Smyrna and Constantinople was planned by the CUP but only partially carried out because of German pressure." This seems a bit randomly tacked on. How does it relate to the previous sentences?
    • Reworded to clarify its relevance
  • "During a visit to Sudan in 2006, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan denied there had been a Darfur genocide because "a Muslim cannot commit genocide"" Why is this under "Exaggerated claims of Ottoman and Turkish benevolence towards Jews."?
    • Reorganized this bullet point
  • "Denial of the genocide has had profound effects on Turkish society." You open a section with this statement, as a fact in Wikipedia's voice, but then don't give ant examples of such effects. The statement doesn't seem, to me, to fit comfortably with the rest of the section.
    • Removed and reorganized the paragraph
  • Link Armenian diaspora and Turkish diaspora.
    • Done
  • I have very grave doubts about the use of quotes in this article. I am not convinced, at first glance, that 91 separate quotes is compatible with the policy "While quotations are an indispensable part of Wikipedia, try not to overuse them. Using too many quotes is incompatible with an encyclopedic writing style ..." I accept that many are trivial, or arguably not "quotations" in the sense meant by the MOS, but still.
    • Hmm. Well, if there's any specific places you think they can be paraphrased I can work on that, but given that this is an article about an opinion it's going to need more quotations than articles about factual events. I've done my best to keep quotations as short as possible. (t · c) buidhe 03:29, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's it for now. I shall start working through your responses shortly. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:40, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your responses reviewed and a couple commented on. Bar the quotations. Let me read through and see if any jump out for paraphrasing. And yes, I appreciate the relative brevity of most of them. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:48, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Quotations
edit
  • I think that after the first mention in the main text - where it is linked - there is no need to put quote marks around "insulting Turkishness" on subsequent mentions.
    • Done

On a relatively swift skim, I think that the following could and should be paraphrased. I think that several would be improved, in context, by paraphrasing.

  • "rapidly radicalized monstrously into an opportunity to rid Anatolia once and for all of those peoples perceived to be an imminent existential threat to the future of the empire"
    • Removed
  • "denial, trivialization, or relativization of major war crimes played a central role"
    • Done
  • "Whatever has befallen the non-Muslim elements living in our country, is the result of the policies of separatism they pursued in a savage manner, when they allowed themselves to be made tools of foreign intrigues and abused their privileges."
  • "a serious attempt to distance the republic from the genocide could have destabilized the ruling coalition on which the state depended for its stability"
    • Done
  • "the single most important reason for this inability to accept culpability is the centrality of the Armenian massacres for the formation of the Turkish nation-state".
  • "be tantamount to casting doubt on the credibility of the foundational axioms of Kemalism and the Turkish nation-state"
    • Done
  • "one of the strategies of the successive Turkish governments' denialist policy was based on the concealment or destruction of original historic documents".
    • Removed
  • "thinking about Armenians as a fifth column continues to dominate Turkish popular national consciousness"
    • Done
  • "the Porte has been forced, due to the seditious machinations of our enemies, to transfer the Armenian population of certain areas, and to assign them new places of residence"
  • "that the book would never be made into a play or a movie because the Turkish people are particularly sensitive to this period of their history and are trying desperately to cover it up"
    • Removed
  • "the single most important factor in successfully concluding the process of normalization between Israel and Turkey"
    • Done
  • "hardly demonstrate the existence of a genuine academic dispute"
    • Done
  • "Almost all are citizens of the Turkish state or have lived and served in the Turkish Republic. The Turkish authors are all past or present officials of the Turkish foreign ministry."
    • Done
  • "part of the project of fraudulently minimizing the number of Armenians who had ever lived in the Ottoman empire, undermining Armenian claims for autonomy or independence"
    • Done
  • "the only source of reliable evidence on the topic is [deemed to be] the Prime Ministerial Ottoman Archive in Istanbul"
    • Done
  • "led to a series of other policies that perpetuated the process by liquidating their properties, silencing and marginalising the survivors, and normalising all forms of violence against them"

I feel that the quotes could be removed from:

  • "extermination"
  • "oppressed nation"
    • Done

Gog the Mild (talk) 19:26, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • OK, I have ditched most of these quotes. However, I'd like to keep the quotations from primary sources as I think the wording is significant enough. I'll have to think about the other three two quotes since I'm having trouble coming up with an adequate paraphrase. (t · c) buidhe 00:04, 3 May 2021 (UTC) Also I went through and paraphrased some other quotes that you didn't mention here. (t · c) buidhe 03:24, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • That all looks good to me. I tried to leave those quotes where I could see that using the original phrasing might add something for a reader. Obviously there are judgement calls on this at the margin. You have done a good job of sorting these out and I am now happy to support. Can I leave you with the thought that "receiving the reply that "the Porte has been forced ..." is not going to mean a lot to most readers. Perhaps 'receiving the reply that the Ottoman government "has been forced ...'? Gog the Mild (talk) 13:26, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Query for the coordinators

edit

Support from TRM

edit
  • Some aspects of the lead are inline linked, some are not. I understand the need to do that with quotes, but why selectively otherwise?
    • What in the lead do you think should be linked?
  • "The Ottoman Empire effectively treated Armenians..." this should be attributed.
    • This is not disputed so attributing this to a specific historian would be make it seem that it is disputed, in the same way that "According to Suny, the 1915 deportation of Armenians constituted a genocide" would be inappropriate to write.
  • Our article on Hamidian massacres has from 100,000[3] to 300,000,[4] as its range of estimated deaths (although, 200,000 to 400,000 in the infobox there). The text here says "almost 200,000". Is the source used here much more precise and definitive than the others?
    • You're right, figures vary. Changed to "at least 100,000" which is supported by Suny
  • "coups in 1908[20] and in 1913.[21]" I would comma after coups and move [20] to the end of the sentence as it looks very awkward.
    • Combined
  • "blamed Christian treachery" in what sense?
    • The Balkan nations fighting the Ottoman Empire were all Christian (Greeks, Bulgarians, Serbs, etc.) However, Ottomans ended up blaming Christians in general including Ottoman Greeks and Armenians who did not fight against the empire.
  • I would link Russia to Russian Empire or spell it out.
    • Done
  • Could the map image have a caption giving a summary of what it's showing? Is there alt text for this (and the others)?
    • Added
  • "genocide.[58][52]" order.
  • "foundation of the Turkish republic" - could you link History of the Republic of Turkey?
    • This article has serious POV issues and does not cover at all the role of genocide in foundation of Turkey.
  • "rump Ottoman state" I don't know what that means.
  • the architect of the genocide" is this standard, or should he be considered "an" architect of the genocide, per him being one of "Many of the main perpetrators"?
  • "1918 armistice" link.
    • Done
  • "officially opened in ... were opened" repetitive.
    • Reworded somewhat
  • Istiklal Avenue -> İstiklal Avenue
    • Done
  • "and Alevis.[153][55][154]" order.
  • ""to be a fifth column" what does that mean?
    • Fifth column, a subversive group that undermines the state from within
  • ""supporters... was" MOS:ELLIPSIS.
    • Done
  • "Treaty of Sevrès " wrong accent and already linked.
    • fixed
  • "A Tribute for Talat Pasha.." the clipping says Talaat (which is what our article calls him too). That caption is a fragment so no full stop.
    • OK, will spell with two "aa" since it's a direct quote, but the spelling with one "a" has become more common in English.
  • Could link Israel–Turkey relations
    • Done
  • "freedom.[256][254][251]" order.
  • "the perpetrators of the Holocaust.[323][204]" overlinked, and order.
  • Monument to Humanity our article calls it Statue of Humanity.
    • The former name is more common in RS, RM filed.
  • "period.[334][335][331] Following" order.

What an excellent article on such a vital topic. Thank you for putting in so much work. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 12:57, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent seminal piece of work. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 10:22, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Armenian_Genocide_denial/archive1&oldid=1023038202"