Wikipedia

Talk:Armenian genocide/Archive 22

< Talk:Armenian genocide
Latest comment: 9 years ago by C1cada in topic Bibliography
Archive 15←Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22Archive 23Archive 24Archive 25

Proposal: Massacres after World War I

Latest comment: 9 years ago12 comments2 people in discussion

The most obvious defect in the article is the lack of discussion of the post World War I massacres. This is contrary to MOS requirements in so far that they are mentioned in the lede. I propose a new section titled "Massacres after World War I" to be placed after the "Armenian population, deaths, survivors, 1914 to 1918" section. I really don't see why a WP:BOLD edit could not have been made without first seeking consensus from the management here (have we abandoned WP:EDITCONSENSUS? I mean I've always added to articles in small doses so that other editors can adjust as they see fit). But I suppose it amounts to the same thing. I propose the following wording as a start. The section should provide the historical backdrop and give due weight to opinions that CUP policy was an extension of the Ottoman genocidal policy as well as denialist accounts that revenge massacres somehow justified the genocide (the deep time travel thing you sometimes see alluded to in these pages). I also included a remark from Dadrian that these massacres constituted a miniature genocide (managing to slip that in past the management without triggering a consensus alert).

Mass killings continued during the Turkish Invasion of Armenia phase of the Turkish War of Independence.<ref>{{cite book|author=Christopher J. Walker|title=Armenia, the Survival of a Nation|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=KNEOAAAAQAAJ|year=1980|publisher=St. Martin's Press|isbn=978-0-312-04944-7}}</ref>{{sfn|Akçam (2007)|p= 327}}
One and three quarter million Armenians lived in the Caucasus region across the border of the Ottoman Empire. From 1878 to 1915 this region had been under Russian control. Several hundred thousand Armenian refugees from the Ottoman Empire fled into the region during the war. Following the Bolshevik revolution, the Ottoman Empire regained control of the territory they had governed before 1878. The First Republic of Armenia was established in May 1918 in the area around Yerevan and lasted for two years. When the Ottoman Empire collapsed in 1918, the British took control of parts of the region. Subsequently the Turkish army, with Bolshevik assistance, retook the territory. All this created great tension, resulting ultimately in massacres.{{sfn|Akçam (2007)|pp= 323-4}}{{sfn|Hovannisian (1986)|p= 32}}
The first wave of massacres took place in 1918. The Committee of Union and Progress (CUP) resolved to further its Pan-Turanianism ambition by extending Turkish territory towards the East. The CUP warned Armenian leaders that they must stand aside. By 20 July 1918, some six hundred thousand Armenians from the Caucasus had fled before the advancing Turkish army. The ensuing massacres continued throughout the summer and autumn of 1919. The American High Commisioner for Armenia, William N. Haskell, was so shocked by the massacres that he sent a warning to the United States President Woodrow Wilson that he should withdraw the Twelfth Article (regarding Turkey) of his Fourteen Points Peace Declaration unless Turkish officials took effective measures to stop the massacres.{{sfn|Akçam (2007)|pp= 324-5}}
The massacres resumed in 1920 to 1921. Akçam notes that these can be regarded as a continuation of Ottoman policy, as the sources suggest that the government understood their Armenian policy as an attempt to continue that policy. There was also a significant continuity regarding the officers who conducted the massacres in the two periods 1915-17 and 1919-21. The massacres were accompanied by revenge massacres committed against Muslims. These revenge massacres have led to some Turkish historians excusing the Armenian genocide on the basis that Muslims were also massacred. Dadrian estimated the total number of Muslim victims at between 5,000 and 5,500.{{sfn|Akçam (2007)|p= 325-30}}
The Turkish army is estimated to have killed some 60,000 to 98,000 Armenian civilians.<ref name="Dad360-361">These are according to the figures provided by [[Aleksandr Myasnikyan|Alexander Miasnikyan]], the President of the Council of People's Commissars of Soviet Armenia, in a telegram he sent to the Soviet Foreign Minister [[Georgy Chicherin]] in 1921. Miasnikyan's figures were broken down as follows: of the approximately 60,000 Armenians who were killed by the Turkish armies, 30,000 were men, 15,000 women, 5,000 children, and 10,000 young girls. Of the 38,000 who were wounded, 20,000 were men, 10,000 women, 5,000 young girls, and 3,000 children. Instances of mass rape, murder and violence were also reported against the Armenian populace of Kars and Alexandropol: see [[Vahakn N. Dadrian]]. (2003). ''The History of the Armenian Genocide: Ethnic Conflict from the Balkans to Anatolia to the Caucasus''. New York: Berghahn Books, [http://books.google.com/books?id=ZCVJMAVoMM0C&pg=PA360 pp. 360–361]. ISBN 1-57181-666-6.</ref> Some estimates put the total number of Armenians massacred in the hundreds of thousands.<ref>Armenia : The Survival of a Nation, Christopher Walker, 1980.</ref><ref name="Akçam" />{{rp |327}} Dadrian characterized the massacres in the Caucasus as a "miniature genocide".<ref name="Dadrian"/>{{rp|360}}

The last paragraph of the present "Armenian population, deaths, survivors, 1914 to 1918" section should be deleted as it is now incorporated in the new section.

c1cada (talk) 13:23, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't see any dissent here, surprising really concerning the vehemence with my edit was reverted. I don't think I have anything more to add here presently. I have ordered a copy of Dadrian and will read it over the summer and may well be able to expand significantly when I return. I should think 24 hours is sufficient notice to give for editors to record their dissent. Thus, tomorrow evening, if I don't see any disagreements about the content, I shall move the edit into the article per WP:EDITCONSENSUS in the usual way. c1cada (talk) 22:25, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
You need to provide a source that support your claim of the Armenian Genocide ending with the termination of the Tehcir law. Otherwise, it would be WP:OR. Étienne Dolet (talk) 00:35, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
There is nothing in this proposal that refers to the Tehcir law or makes any claim about when the genocide ended, Étienne.
Once again you confuse the Genocide with genocide. I am perfectly happy with dating the Genocide as 1915 to 1923, as indeed I do in my lede proposal. I have confided to you that in fact I would prefer to see the dates 1894 to 1923. So what is with all these denialist issues you raise all the time with me? Read my lips, already.
Regarding the duration of the genocide, I happen not to think it ended with the repeal of Tehcir law, nor have I claimed that anywhere. Although I don't have any detailed knowledge of the period (I shall read Dadrian over the summer), I am aware the atrocities didn't end immediately with their repeal. But what is so, is that acknowledgement of the genocide is confined to the dates 1915-1916. Even yesterday the German parliament, in their historic centennial recognition, referred to events that took place in the middle of Wordl War I. Nevertheless I accept that subsequent post World War I massacres were genocidal in their nature, both as to continuity of policy and the actors involved. I reference that clearly in the proposal above. (Personal attack removed)?
{{rpae}}. (Personal attack removed). It is not as if the problem is that you are perhaps dyslexic or educationally disadvantaged; I have no problem at all with those contributing to Wikipedia and I don't feel a pressing need to correct their copy unless I am sure they will accept it as a courtesy. (Personal attack removed). I thought it so telling yesterday when you reverted a copy edit of mine where I had deleted the second of two duplicate dates in consecutive sentences. That is an entirely natural thing to do for literate English readers accustomed to skimming copy, duplicating the date a vexatious distraction. But not so if you lack skimming skills, which are typically poorly developed in second langauages. I read a number of second languages very comfortably indeed. But when it comes to quickly skimming through copy I always opt for a machine translation to skim through in the first place. I'm not convinced that when you reverted that original edit of mine above as WP:NOCONSENSUS, that you in fact had taken the trouble to study it, as you do need to.
I'm not prepared to accept this intervention of your as demonstrating a lack of consensus. I ask you to stop these pointy semi-literate interventions of yours. c1cada (talk) 08:28, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

This is the relevant section in the Russian wikipedia Османская империя и Республика Армения в 1918—1923 годах (The Ottoman Empire and the Republic of Armenia in 1918-1923). It gives a figure (citing Hovannisian) of 200,000 dead. c1cada (talk) 18:57, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

The Armenian wiki (which is a Good Article we should perhaps take as standard) has essentially the same section, quoting the same figure. c1cada (talk) 19:08, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Just because the Russian Wikipedia has a different layout, does not mean we should abide by their standards. Étienne Dolet (talk) 19:22, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Your edit downplays the Armenian Genocide by grating the events after WW1 as merely massacres. There needs to be at least a label stating that the policy of genocide continued. Étienne Dolet (talk) 20:19, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
I can't construe "grating". The section clearly cites a noted contemporary Turkish historian as follows:
"Akçam notes that these can be regarded as a continuation of Ottoman policy, as the sources suggest that the government understood their Armenian policy as an attempt to continue that policy. There was also a significant continuity regarding the officers who conducted the massacres in the two periods 1915-17 and 1919-21."
Akçam doesn't use the word "genocidal" but of course that's understood. That's how I've described it in the rather frequent notes I'm obliged to make over what really should be a straightforward and uncontroversial edit. I can point out that you had the opportunity to make this comment when we were reaching consensus before. If there are no dissenting opinions, then must be assumed by any definition that consensus has been reached. Your only remark concerned the Tehcir law which is not the subject of the section since these events took place after the 1915-1916 deportations and a claim I have never made anywhere, let alone in this edit we are concerned with.
However I have no difficulty in qualifying "Ottoman policy" as you wish, thus "Ottoman genocidal policy", because that's the clear implication of the whole paragraph. There is in fact a passage in Akçam describing a parliamentary debate which makes that very clear. You are welcome to include that. This should address your issue satisfactorily. If you wish to go further and describe it as genocide, then you go further than the sources I know permit. There are straightforward reasons I believe for not characterising these massacres as a genocide in the strict legal sense If you know sources that do that, you are welcome to cite them with due regard to WP:WEIGHT. I certainly shan't take issue, providing they are cited from reliable sources. I think it's quite likely a group of editors will attempt to describe these as massacres as genocide, and equally a group anxious not to have them so described. All I venture here for my own part is what my sources permit, and that is "genocidal". If you really want to quibble over a distinction between "genocide" and "genocidal", so be it. So long as the constraints of WP:VERIFY are met, that's fine with me.
At any rate this is a process that can certainly take place within WP:EDITCONSENSUS and should, because editors by and large don't interest themselves in Talk Pages. c1cada (talk) 21:01, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
I'll write up my own draft over the weekend, and we can perhaps go ahead with a compromise version. My worries is that it'll be long, and this article is already excessively long. Étienne Dolet (talk) 20:42, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Just edit the section as you wish. Please allow other editors the same opportunity. There is no reason why WP:EDITCONSENSUS shouldn't be the mechanis. We differ on a syllable. c1cada (talk) 21:09, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Incidentally I take issue with "excessively long". As is frequently observed, there are no space constrictions at Wikipedia. In fact this is one of its strengths. There is a navigation menu in the lede. Providing the article is satisfactorily indexed, the length of the article should be irrelevant. c1cada (talk) 07:22, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Armenian woman kneeling beside dead child in field.png to appear as POTD

Latest comment: 9 years ago123 comments9 people in discussion

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Armenian woman kneeling beside dead child in field.png will be appearing as picture of the day on April 24, 2015. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2015-04-24. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:40, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

An Armenian woman kneeling beside a dead child in a field during the Armenian Genocide, conducted by the government of the Ottoman Empire. The genocide is conventionally held to have begun on 24 April 1915, when Ottoman authorities arrested and later executed some 250 Armenian intellectuals and community leaders. Much of the remaining Armenian population were deported into the deserts of Syria, where most died from starvation, exhaustion, and systematic massacres. The total number of people killed has been estimated at between 1 and 1.5 million. Though the events are widely recognized as a genocide by historians, the Turkish government rejects such a description.Photograph: American Committee for Relief in the Near East; restoration: MjolnirPants
Archive – More featured pictures...
CLARIFICATION FOR FUTURE READERS - the following discussion was initiated when the proposed featured picture of the day was different, when it was this map [1]. As a result of the discussion, another image was proposed, with that image being the image that was finally used. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:45, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
"If this article needs any attention or maintenance" .... well that just says it all! This article needs a complete rewrite from the ground up. Though maybe the choice of that image for the day that marks the commemoration of the 100th anniversary is appropriate for Wikipedia, given the abysmal state of this article. This "routes of deportations" map, and its many variations, has long been discredited as a usable document, and it is considered to be an historical artifact (it has been described as an "icon") rather than a modern scholarly work. If you really are set on having it, use the original from 1920 which is probably well out of copyright by now. Here is an earlier English-language version [2] Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 02:49, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
The history of this map was covered in an article by Ara Sarafian in the periodical Armenian Forum 2, no. 3. He was very critical of the continued use of this map in AG literature produced by Armenian organisations, and pointed out its inaccuracies, generalizations, omissions, and falsehoods. The magazine used to be available online, but is no longer. However the article, and responses to it published in the same magazine, can be viewed here: http://armenians-1915.blogspot.com/2014/03/3448-1915-armenian-genocide-in-turkish.html. It is often the case that amateurish or outdated or unprovable or false or faked Armenian material relating to the Armenian Genocide is taken up and used by Turkish apologists to deny that the Genocide happened, and articles about them are used as a substitute for the complete lack of credible material to support that denial. This is why it is both wrong and insulting to have this outdated and inaccurate map used as a featured picture on the day that commemorates the 100th anniversary of the Armenian Genocide. In the words of Ara Sarafian, the continued reliance on this map with its "errors and ambiguities", its "erroneously drawn circles and tracks", "erodes the credibility of Armenian Genocide studies and opens people to ridicule when they repeat its claims". Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 02:58, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
The original map in French, from 1920, https://www.pinterest.com/pin/279575089343170176/ and http://www.gomidas.org/books/show/66 - it is by the cartographer Zadig Khanzadian, born 1886, died 1980 (so it is probably not out of copyright). Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:22, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
If this map is so problematic, why is it used in the article? Alakzi (talk) 02:24, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
It is used because the whole article is an embarrassment, an amateurish and probably unsalvageable mess. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 02:32, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
OK. Pinging Crisco 1492, EtienneDolet and GGT to take a look. Alakzi (talk) 02:41, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
The critique in that article is concerning. I also think that the comments I left in Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Armenian Genocide remain relevant - the details of the map are quite confusing. I remember being surprised at this passing its FPC (though I was the only oppose vote) Nick-D (talk) 07:23, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
I would have opposed its proposed FP status too, if I had been around then and known about it. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:11, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
@Crisco 1492: I'm fine with File:Armenian woman kneeling beside dead child in field.png since it's more relevant. However, we must work on the blurb quickly since time is limited.
The trouble with that particular photograph is the vagueness about its details. Taken "between 1915 and 1919". Why is something as specific as the location known, while the date it was taken is not known. We need an image that is powerful, that serves the purpose of summing up the Genocide in a single image, and which is not going to suffer from suspicions of being faked or of being a set-up image or a reconstruction or taken at a different period of time than the genocide or (in this case, I think) a genuine image that might have been given an exaggerated caption by NER for fundraising purposes. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:07, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Quite a few of the supposed AG images that are available are actually not genuine. Some are faked, some are reconstructions, some are taken from film stills, some are from earlier periods. Many more are genuine images that are without accurate information, or have been given faked captions. We see this even on the Wikipedia article. "Turkish soldiers posing with Armenian dead" - I doubt that is correct, they look like Russian soldiers to me. "Armenians ordered by the authorities to gather in the main square of the city to be deported and eventually massacred." - the "main square" actually looks like a railway station. "After the 1918 Armistice, Armenians massacred in Aleppo...." - caption suggests that these are Armenians killed before the armistice, when actually they were killed in a post-WW1 massacre of Armenians by Muslims. "Deportations of Armenians. The man in the foreground is a gendarme who has stolen carpets from the deportees." - is this actually a film still? "Armenian monastery of Bitlis with severed heads and corpses in the foreground" - this is not the caption used in the Russian book that first published this image, in that book it is described as a bridge in Bitlis. "Soldiers playing with the skulls of Armenian victims of the Armenian Genocide" - again these are Russian soldiers who encountered the remains of the massacred during their advance west, and "playing" is clearly pov. "Armenian refugee children in Aleppo, Syria" - this photo is actually still in copyright - it was taken in 1940 by Robert Jebejain who died in the late 1990s and is published in his 1986 book "The Armenian Refugee Camp in Aleppo". Maybe some might claim that all this is just nit-picking, pointing out errors that are not worthy of concern - but it is lazy mistakes like these that provide crucial support to Armenian Genocide denial. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 17:00, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Correction - the "Armenian refugee children in Aleppo, Syria" photograph was taken by Vartan Derounian. Robert Jebejain wrote the 1986 book in which it appeared. Jebejian says that Derounian "left Aleppo" in 1947. So, even though the photographer is probably now dead, the photograph is still under copyright unless Derounian released it into the public domain. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:51, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Regardless of the fact that you may have a personal dissatisfaction with the image, or any other Armenian Genocide photograph for that matter, we go by the EV of the photograph, and what RS sources have to say about it. Calling it "propaganda", "a set-up", "a fake", and/or continuing this with lengthy personal observations about any other photograph related to the Armenian Genocide shouldn't be taken into consideration, unless you have reliable sources that prove these photographs should be labeled as such. Even then, I think that this picture accurately describes, in all its emotive power, the event in one photograph. It's an iconic photograph used over and over again in various sources just for that fact. Major news media outlets have all used it which includes: Business Insider, FrontPage Mag, and even Haaretz. Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) uses it on their website: [3], so does Stanford University: [4]. Its recognizable presence in many of these sources only shows the . But it appears that Tiptoethrutheminefield doesn't like it. The user has obstructed Armenian related nominations in the past ([5][6][7]), and has been blocked for doing so. I kindly advise the user from refraining to do so again. Étienne Dolet (talk) 17:32, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
The main reason words like "alleged" and "Armenian allegations" are always attached to the words "Armenian Genocide", and the main reason this article is in such a mess (see this article's recent GA appraisal for example) is because of exactly the sort of attitudes expressed by Étienne Dolet. It is not surprising that denialist Turks can drive a truck through the holes in so much Armenian-produce Armenian Genocide literature because that literature is full of old lies, propaganda, and over simplifications (such as this map). I hope other editors have higher standards, and higher aspirations for this article, than "unconcerned" Étienne Dolet. He/she uses the word "iconic" to describe that photo. Ara Sarafian also used the word "iconic" to describe the map that started this discussion - but he, as a proper academic, and unlike Étienne Dolet, did not use that "iconic" status to blind himself to the obvious inaccuracies and failings in that "icon". An unattributed photograph taken at an unknown date under unknown circumstances cannot be held up as the ideal image to represent the Armenian Genocide anniversary on Wikipedia. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 18:53, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
The FP map is from Robert Hewsen's book Armenia: A Historical Atlas, University of Chicago Press, it is not derived from the Armenian National Institute (ANI). Ara Sarafian's review, in his own self-published Armenian Forum, does not criticize this map in particular, it criticizes another map in its entirety. In fact, the word Hewsen is not mentioned at all in his review. For example:
  1. Sarafian's review is critical of ANI's use of the railways. Hewsen's map doesn't have railways.
  2. Sarafian's review is critical of ANI's map containing circles of just one color, red. Hewsen solves that by differentiating extermination centers (black) from deportation areas (red).
  3. Sarafian's review is critical of a map that doesn't have the rebellions of Armenians. Hewsen's map has those rebellions.
To reiterate: we're talking about two different maps here. Sarafian's review is strictly towards the discrepancies he has found with the Khanzadian map and with the map at the ANI website. I have yet to here any criticisms of Hewsen's book. In fact, its used widely in peer-reviewed articles, academia, and throughout Wikipedia.
Also, please remain WP:CIVIL during this discussion. The bad faith assumptions of blinding myself, or that I have an "attitude" that caused some sort of mess to an article is irrelevant to this discussion. Étienne Dolet (talk) 19:10, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
The map is a reworking of the 1920 map - that cannot seriously be questioned. The map contains the same sizes of circles as the 1920 map (and the same vagueness about what those sizes represent) and the same directional arrows as the 1920 map (simplified into straight lines). In particular it has exactly the same number of arrows pointing seaward along the Black sea coast. A major point in Sarafian's critique of the 1920 map is that this allegation, that large numbers of Armenians were taken out to sea and drowned, was false and that it is recognized to be false in modern sources. The map in Hewsen's atlas , Map 224, is titled "The Armenian Genocide (after J. Naslian and B. H. Harutunian)" The caption that accompanies the map make explicit its connection to the original 1920 Khanzadian map. It mentions that Khanzadian's map was "republished in an adapted form" by Naslian in 1951. So this is the same map that the Hewsen's map acknowledges in its title as its source. I cannot locate any 1951 publication by Naslian - but I think it reasonable to assume that this "adaptation" was simply its translation into English (if it were more than that, the word "adaptation" would not have been used by the atlas). As for bad faith - it is YOU who filled your post with attacks against me rather than answering any of the points I had raised or any of the points raised by Sarafian's article. And what, if not blindness, made you assume that this article could ever get GA status [[8]] - you initiated that GA review, remember. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:48, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Again, Hewsen's map is not the same map that Khazadian has published, or the Armenian National Institute for that matter. Hewsen's map, which was published in 2001, has made his own alterations, which appears to have been in light of Sarafian's 1998 critique. The deportation routes are changed. The colors of the map are different. Even the sizes of the red/black circles are different (Sarafian's critique of the sizes was due to the fact that the circles on ANI's map was of one color). At this point, you'll have to come up with a critique of this map in particular so as to substantiate your claims. Until then, we'll be going around in circles talking about an entirely different map.
And no, I've made no attacks against you. I've done nothing but respond to the points raised here. Étienne Dolet (talk) 20:02, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Hewsen's atlas was decades in the making and was ready for publication before Sarafian's critique was published. Its long gestation period is detailed in the atlas's introductory sections. I have already explained why they are essentially the same maps, and the Hewsen map's title acknowledges it. It contains the same errors as the 1920 original that are exposed by Sarafian (such as exactly the same number of arrows pointing into the Black Sea) and has the same ambiguities exposed by Sarafian (such as does the size of the circle indicate the number killed in that location, or the number of killed who originated in that location but who died elsewhere?). Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:33, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Again, you're missing the point. Sarafian's critique is not for Hewsen's map, and I have yet to have uncovered one review that finds it counter-factual. Consequently, you'll have to have a convincing argument as to why you think Hewsen's book is unreliable, since that is most relevant to this particular map. As for the Trabzon drownings, I find Sarafian's claim premature since Dadrian made a big breakthrough regarding that point when he uncovered that several Turkish eyewitness accounts by Turkish politicians (i.e. Hafiz Mehmet) stated that they saw mass drownings off the Black Sea coast, 5 years after this particular review. Étienne Dolet (talk) 20:41, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
The original map, the Hewsen map, AND the nominated map all have a circle in the Black Sea that is almost as big as the circle used for Trebizond. So all the maps are indicating that the majority of the Armenian population of Trebizond was drowned at sea. Such a claim is supported by nobody and it is a major error to have in the map, not some minor mistake. Sarafian explains that some small numbers were drowned this way (mostly important individuals), but nothing like as many as indicated in this map. Modern scholarship holds that the vast majority of Trebizond's Armenian population was massacred inland.Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:58, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
I see many scholarly works against that notion. Armenians may have been deported and massacred inland, but there's dozens of eye-witness accounts, including Giacomo Gorrini and Hafiz Mehmet, that point to the fact that Armenians in Trabzon ended up in the Black Sea. Étienne Dolet (talk) 21:11, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Nobody is disputing that some Armenians from Trebizond were killed by drowning in the Black Sea. The map is erroneously indicating that 80% to 90% of the Armenians of Trebizond were killed by drowning in the Black Sea and that NONE were deported inland (there are no arrows pointing inland from Trebizond - even the original 1920 map has an arrow pointing inland). That is not supported by any scholarly works. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:25, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
You call me "blind" because I nominated this article for GA? I made that nomination in the good faith assumption that the community can be more involved towards the betterment of this article. And indeed, I've tried to garner support for this by incorporating more users to help out in that regard Talk:Armenian_Genocide/Archive_21#Issues_with_refs. I myself have done a lot to sort out technical matters with the refs (i.e. dead links, formatting) for quite some time now. These bad faith remarks towards me needs to stop. Étienne Dolet (talk) 20:30, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
You nominated an article for GA status that was nowhere close to being a GA. I put that down to you being blind to the article's failings. I don't see how that equates to accusing you of bad faith. If you saw its failings, why did you nominate it? If you did not see its failings, it is correct to say you were blind to them. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:41, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
I nominate articles believing that the article has a potential of being a Good Article.I never said that I knew it would be one beforehand. That's not for me to decide. Good Article nominations are a working progress in which GA reviewers often times point out issues concerning the article in which the nominee or other users can fix or improve. Étienne Dolet (talk) 21:11, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
As for the accusations brought forth here, I don't find them concerning. I will give my reasons why after I sort out the blurb of the replaced photograph. Étienne Dolet (talk) 08:22, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Has the Nazi Holocuast ever made it to POTD? A quick search suggests not. This image of dead bodies in a concentration camp was passed over because it was too graphic, and in connection with the map image discussed above I notice that this recently nominated image Map of the Holocaust in Europe did not achieve Featured Picture status. Why not, one can reasonably enquire as it's an exceptionally fine graphic with obvious educational value.
As for the image now suggested for the Armenian genocide, that was originally passed over when first nominated for Featured Picture status. What really changed? The process seems somewhat arbitrary to me, the forum perhaps too small and isolated.
I would prefer to see an image that remembers the victims, rather than one that graphically depicts their suffering. There is a memorial to the Armenian genocide at Tsitsernakaberd. There are plenty of good images of this memorial and no copyright issues because Freedom of Panorama is recognised in Armenia. Or perhaps one of Wikipedia's featured photographers could provide a really outstanding image, which would be more in keeping with the Wikipedia ethos I feel. c1cada (talk) 18:41, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
I was thinking of suggesting the image of the first ever memorial monument to be erected [9] but I have some doubts about its attribution too - is it really a photo of the monument or is it an artist's drawing of the design of the monument? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:02, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, a technically accomplished photograph of that memorial would be good. c1cada (talk) 19:08, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
@C1cada: I agree. The map is still a fine graphic that has a striking EV. I also stated why the review above has nothing to do with this map in particular above. I still think the map is a good bet. Étienne Dolet (talk) 19:14, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
@EtienneDolet: Yes, certainly about the Holocaust map. I would be curious to know why it wasn't Featured. As for the Armenia map, I'm not qualified to comment. That debate should have been held at the time when it went up for nomination. I edit at Perinçek v. Switzerland. If the European Court of Human Rights uphold Switzerland's appeal, then perhaps it would be appropriate to POTD an image that reinforces the reality of the Armenian Genocide (now capitalising the 'g'). Otherwise for the memorial day, I do think it would be more appropriate to show a memorial. c1cada (talk) 19:34, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
But not Tsitsernakaberd please. That's now so common it has become a clichéd image. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:45, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

The photographs must be in FP in order to qualify for the main page. Étienne Dolet (talk) 21:11, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

That limits things :( - the 1919 monument picture would not get FP status because it is cropped at the bottom and slanting to the left. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 23:14, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
I would suggest that the fact that only a small minority of those dead inmates were Jews might put a stop to that. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 23:33, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
  • "The Holocaust ... was a genocide in which approximately six million Jews were killed by the Nazi regime and its collaborators. Many historians use a definition of the Holocaust that includes the additional five million non-Jewish victims of Nazi mass murders, bringing the total to approximately eleven million." (emphasis mine). Furthermore, the article includes much information about non-Jewish victims of the Holocaust. Your statement (even if it could be sourced) would not affect any decision. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:42, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
The associated article makes it clear that the % of Jews in that camp was small in relation to everyone else, and that they were late arrivals compared to the rest of its unfortunate inmates (which means that the % of Jews who died there be small compared to the rest of its population unless the Germans were going around selectively killing or starving to death only the camp's Jewish inmates). And Holocaust Memorial Day is (to put it crudely) a commemorate-dead-Jews-only thing (intertwined with pro-Israel propaganda) as far as the UK is concerned, which is why it is treated with a lot of contempt (and the fact that it was a pet project of the discredited and widely disliked Tony Blair does not help). I can't say anything about other countries Holocaust Memorial Days, but I would be surprised if they were that different. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 00:00, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
  • As for what's going to be on the MP for the anniversary: it's far too late to try and find a new image. The FP selection process takes eleven days. Even if we were to find a good image of a memorial, it wouldn't be FP in time for the main page. There are two choices, period.
  • As for the image being passed over the first time: that's neither here nor there. FAs and FLs often have multiple nominations, and that doesn't affect the final product. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:30, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
There's two pics we can choose from: the File:Armenian woman kneeling beside dead child in field.png, or the Kingdom of Armenia one File:Roman East 50-en.svg. I think the woman kneeling would be the best bet for now considering that it is the only other genocide related option. It's relevance to the genocide is without question. If not, we'll just have to go with the Kingdom of Armenia. All others should cast their vote for whichever they support after this comment. Étienne Dolet (talk) 23:35, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
If the choice was only an inaccurate map that will bring ridicule or having nothing, I would choose nothing. I am really angry to discover that Étienne Dolet was the person responsible for setting that discredited map up to be almost the only available picture to represent on Wikipedia the 100th anniversary of the Genocide. Though the blame is not his alone. Didn't anyone else think of finding a suitable picture of the day for this important date? I admit I did not think of it. Everyone should feel embarrassed - if they do not feel it already. To me, this amateurishness and lack of care and planning sums up many of the activities associated with the anniversary. It looks like "Armenian woman kneeling beside dead child in field" is the only option. Could it be cropped, I wonder, to make it more visually effective. The lack of suitable background info about its creation means it really is just a symbolic image of the event. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 23:47, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Please remain WP:CIVIL and stop expressing your anger towards me. If this continues, I may have to raise these concerns to WP:ANI. Besides, if it weren't for my good faith efforts to have this map dedicated to the centennial, we wouldn't even have a discussion to have this photograph, or any other alternate photograph for that matter, be featured on the main page for the centennial. I've had this map set to appear on the main page two years ago, and that's how long ago I prepared for the centennial. But that also means you had two years to express your concerns regarding the map. And even if you find the map not credible, your remarks appear as though I knew beforehand of Sarafian's criticisms at the time of the nomination, and that I remained ostensibly oblivious towards my knowledge of it. I've had enough responding to these accusations of bad faith over my career as an editor, especially when there's so little time left for the centennial. If this is an issue concerning my editing pattern, please come and speak to me on my talk page. At any rate, I'm glad we are inching towards a broader consensus. Étienne Dolet (talk) 02:14, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
You have said that you did not know about Sarafian's criticism. At no point did I say or suggest that you did know. I am saying that you should have shown due diligence and investigated the correctness of this map before you proposed it for the POTD to mark the anniversary. An investigation would have discovered the Sarafian article and revealed how unsuitable the map was. We are where we are now partly because of your actions two years ago, and partly because no other editor (myself included) since then had the sense or the foresight to think of having a POTD for the anniversary. Nothing in that is assuming bad faith was behind any of your actions, or anyone elses actions or inactions. I am not accusing you of bad faith so please stop suggesting otherwise, and stop being angry at me and accusing me of bad faith for being the one who pointed out the errors in and criticism of the map. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 17:05, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
I did investigate, into Hewsen's book and its map. I don't want to talk about something that I personally have done two years ago at this forum. We'd be digressing. Again, if you find problems with my editing abilities, please come to my talk page and we'll talk about it. I am also not mad at you, I just pointed out that you shouldn't be angry, as you openly said you were. As for this POTD, it looks like we have four users in support of including the kneeling woman photograph. I think this case should move on in that light. Étienne Dolet (talk) 18:56, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

I think we can rule out the map. Not only because of the issues highlighted above, but because a photograph can do much a better job in conveying an event. I would nominate the photo of the woman kneeling down if no other suitable photo can be proffered before then. It seems to capture the emotion, hardship, tragedy, and experience Armenians went through in 1915.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 02:57, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with Marshall though I should have much preferred to have seen an image of a memorial (cliché or not). I can't say I'm impressed with POTD on the basis of the above. I sympathise with Tiptoe's remarks. I should still like to see an explanation of why the Holocaust map didn't make it to Featured. Can I suggest the accompanying text of the Armenian genocide POTD avoids the use of the word genocide? Pope Francis yesterday talked about the capacity of humanity to systematically plan the annihilation of their brothers without using the word genocide. Whether that annihilation in the case of the Armenian refugees constitutes a 'genocide' is still a sensitive issue for the Turkish people and in Europe, presently at any rate, the right of freedom of expression so championed by Jimbo Wales protects those who wish to deny it: in Mr. Perinçek's immortal words, "I have not denied genocide because there was no genocide." Wikipedia is an international project and should reflect the whole international community, not just that very small subset of it which edits Wikipedia, and still less what seems to me to be a small and local community within it not even capable of agreeing amongst themselves which images Wikipedia should Feature when it comes to the Holocaust, agreed by all to be a uniquely evil genocide and where those so disposed in Europe are not free to deny it took place. c1cada (talk) 04:35, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Since when is the Pope an authority on the Armenian Genocide? As far as I'm aware, this is the common term, and I imagine that that has been thrashed out previously here. Anyway, the Pope used the term today [10] Nick-D (talk) 10:56, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
You are wrong to say it is the common term. It is referred to as "the events of 1915" in Turkey. The Pope used the word "genocide" in the context of referring to it as "widely considered 'the first genocide of the 20th century'" and while addressing an Armenian audience. The Pope is no more an authority on the Armenian genocide than the European Court of Human Rights is, or for that matter POTD. Both the former are however obliged to pronounce on it, as does the latter choose to. My point is that this latter ought to be both more informed and more sensitive in its dealing.
Regarding Featured Pictures in general, it seems to me its rationale should be re-examined. Why for example should Wikipedia Feature an image of the Mona Lisa simply because of its technical excellence and its obvious educational value when Wikipedia has in fact nothing to do with the genesis of the image? It seems to me that the kind of images that ought to be featured are the ones provided by Wikipedia editors, their own photographs or graphics, their gifts of family photographs of historical interest, the unearthing of significant images not previously published, and so on. In short, images Wikipedia has actually had some hand in producing. Last here. I shall look out for the April 24 POTD with interest. c1cada (talk) 12:20, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Isn't the legitimate authority on the Armenian Genocide legitimate scholars. It is they who "widely consider" it to be a Genocide and who have expressed that opinion in the sort of books, articles, lectures and statements that are used as references in this article. Anyone, even Popes, has the right to assume that the opinions of legitimate scholars and other experts are correct enough to be repeated. We don't have to be an authority ourselves before being able to believe or repeat the opinion of an authority - that is the whole point of a culture amassing over time a body of accessible knowledge. It is the point of Wikipedia too, isn't it! Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:08, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Well, that's right about scholars. But Pope Francis took care to express their view and not his. My point. I don't mind calling it small 'g' genocide, but big 'G' genocide is another matter. The fact is the Turkish government doesn't recognise the Armenian Genocide. They called in the Vatican ambassador today to clarify just that. I thought your comments interesting. Thank you. c1cada (talk) 15:19, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
I think it should be capitalized Armenian Genocide because that seems the correct way to write it in English. It is a distinct event, just like the capitalized French Revolution, or the Renaissance, or the First World War. For the word genocide by itself, even if it is the words "the genocide" used in the context of a named genocide, I don't have a strong opinion. Maybe a small g for that. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:44, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
c1cada, first and foremost: FPC and POTD are separate processes. Please don't conflate the two. Second, the simple answer is that nobody voted. Why? Maybe because it was nominated in January, which tends to be a slow month (school starting up, and similar things), or maybe because the map is PNG when SVG is now generally expected for maps, or maybe because it's below the size threshold (not a factor if SVG, but a problem with PNG) of 1500px on each side... or maybe because it's cited to Wikipedia. There's a lot of innocuous reasons. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:58, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Well, that's the point: no-one voted. However this is not an issue I want to go more with. c1cada (talk) 12:20, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

I am opposed to excluding the word genocide from the statement. This photo is being nominated for April 24 because it commemorates an event and process that inaugurated the complete destruction of Armenian civilization and expunging from their native homeland. I understand that this word is still sensitive to many, but scholarship has made great strides since I first began editing here (2005). We are no longer trying to prove a genocide occurred, as the first pages in this archive will show editors attempting to do. We know that it did and are now trying to comprehend how it took place. This photo will invite viewers to visit this article, however imperfect, view and read its contents and perhaps plant the seed for a better understanding of what took place 100 years ago.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 17:10, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Agreed with MarshallBagramyan. Also, this article is basically the consensus of how Wikipedia and the consensus derived from its users views the events of 1915. That is to say, if you want to see what Wikipedia thinks about the event, and not Erdogan or Pope Francis, you'd have to look here. Until it has been decided otherwise, then that is when the POTD picture should change its wording to reflect the article. Étienne Dolet (talk) 18:56, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
First of all to restore my good faith here (not that it hasn't been assumed I'm sure) please check this edit out at Perinçek v. Switzerland where I restored the word genocide as used by the European Court of Human Rights in its judgment. Of course it's not practical, and doesn't make sense, to keep referring to the genocide as the "events" or the "massacres" or whatever. Nevertheless in using that word, the Court was not making a judgment on whether a genocide actually occurred or not. The Court took pains to point out it was not called upon to do that. This Wikipedia article entitled Armenian Genocide unambiguously characterises it as a genocide, while at the same time giving due weight to the Turkish government's insistence it was not. I don't find fault with that either. What worries me is that on 24 April 2015, what is essentially an Armenian Remembrance day (albeit one recognised by the California State Assembly as it happens) is going to be picked up by Wikipedia and made an international one. This if you please, if I understand POTD correctly, on the say of a single Wikipedia administrator after a process of consultation with a forum whose decisions on these Featured Picture nominations involving genocides are baffingly inconsistent to say the least. I congratulate them on their sense of entitlement, but join with the fat geek in not envying their folly... I don't think it practical not to use the phrase Armenian Genocide Remembrance Day, but after that I do countenance diplomacy. c1cada (talk) 20:09, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
2015 is the 100th anniversary of the Armenian Genocide starting - it is an important historical event that had and still has far-reaching consequences so a POTD is appropriate. That anniversary is what is being recognized by the POTD: the whole year is the anniversary but we are taking 24th April as the most suitable day to mark that anniversary with a POTD because that day is the yearly date Armenians use as a remembrance day. It is unfortunate that some simplistic Armenian literature produced for non-Armenians claims that the specific day April 24th 1915 is the day the genocide actually started - I hope we can avoid that in the POTD wording (it was there in the map caption, alas), but the wording also cannot become a discussion containing an increasingly (even inside Turkey) marginal opinion. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:43, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Just try not to get Wikipedia banned in Turkey, Tiptoe  . Good luck. I do wish this had been planned a little better. c1cada (talk) 21:49, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

I think the kneeling woman is a near-perfect replacement for the map. The photo is suitable and indeed relevant for the centennial. It's a very emotional depiction of the genocide. --Երևանցի talk 03:42, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

@Crisco 1492:: regarding your deleted query whether it would be a good idea to include Turkey's denial of a genocide, I think that would be a very good idea if you propose to persist with the wording "The rest of the Armenian population were deported into the deserts of Syria and subsequently massacred." I suggest you replace that with "The rest of the Armenian population were deported into the deserts of Syria without adequate provisioning, the greater number subsequently dying of starvation and other privations." Something like that. Otherwise I think the wording's fine. Providing the wording is an accurate reflection of the article, I don't see why Turkey's denialist stance needs to be mentioned. c1cada (talk) 13:49, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • @Crisco 1492:: You have to lose that "massacre" word Crisco. You'll be taken to the cleaners if you keep it. Of course I accept that essentially they were massacred by being forced into the desert in this way, but that's not normally how we use the word. "The rest of the Armenian population were deported into the deserts of Syria, where most died" if you are really short on word count. Also get a historian to check on "the rest of ...", though as far as I know that was more or less so. I do suggest you take the wording of this seriously. c1cada (talk) 07:48, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
@C1cada: I don't understand why you're so inclined to incorporate the Turkish denialist view into the blurb of this photograph. At least three users above declined including or excluding terminology that would befit such a viewpoint. And to reiterate: you would be pushing a minority viewpoint, and giving it way too much consideration than it should deserve. The word massacre should remain because that's exactly what happened. There were massacres of Armenians before and after they reached the Syrian desert. Please read the article, the blurb does nothing but reflect the information contained within it. Étienne Dolet (talk) 08:08, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
@Crisco 1492: Yes, I am willing to discuss of course, and I apologize if I had edited it without discussion. Crisco, there's a stark difference between dying and being killed. During the Armenian Genocide, both happened. Some were killed, some died, and some survived. We should incorporate it all, or else it would do a grave disservice to our readership. But more importantly, it would not properly reflect the article. The lead makes it clear that these people not only died because of starvation and exhaustion, but killed as a result of massacres as well. Étienne Dolet (talk) 08:20, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • And y'all need to work out a proper wording here. Otherwise we end up with edit warring over something that's gonna be on the main page, and that's never good. I've given it my go as a non-subject matter expert; if there are refinements which can be agreed upon by people more familiar with the subject, that's good. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:45, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Warmly support Crico's wording, which is excellent and just the thing I think. Étienne stop patronising me. Do you think I'm stupid? This a memorial, about commemorating and not soapboxing. c1cada (talk) 08:51, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
I am not patronizing you, and I never insinuated that you're 'stupid'. But the wording you support does not reflect the article. At least three users have declined your proposition, yet you insist on having it. By excluding the term massacre, you're befitting the denialist point of view which claims that the deportees just happened to have died in the desert. Though that's partly true, it is not entirely true. The blurb needs to state that these deportees were subject to massacre as well. Again, it should be done so because it not only properly reflects the article, but indeed the scholarly and academic views which the Wikipedia community has adopted through consensus as well. Étienne Dolet (talk) 09:07, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
That last sentence "Though the events are widely recognized by historians, the Turkish government has refused the classification of events as a genocide" would read better as "Though the events are widely recognized by historians as a genocide, the Turkish government continues to deny it was" or something of the sort. The editors here should ensure the description is historically accurate with regard to "much of" and "most of". As Crisco points out he's given it his best shot as far as the wording goes, but he's not an expert and it's up to the editors here to ensure Wikipedia doesn't give a wrong account of the events in the POTD. Don't feel you need to address me again, Étienne. Thank you. c1cada (talk) 09:44, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Don't see why not. It's not as if it's a preposition we're ending it with. Main thing is to find is to find a form of words that avoids suggesting that historian widely recognise that "events" took place which the Turkish government refuses to accept, "events", after all, being their own euphemism.c1cada (talk) 12:17, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I also changed the phrasing of the first part of the sentence, to avoid that issue: "Though the events are widely recognized as a genocide (added) by historians, the Turkish government has refused such a classification." — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:27, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • "always rejected" rather than "refused"? It's not as if a demand is being made on them. However, do what you ever think best. I have enough problems keeping my own copy in order. I do think the wording in general cuts it. The main thing surely is to be mindful that this POTD will be looked at closely. I do think the emphasis should be on commemoration. Looks good to me and it's true it's an iconic photograph.c1cada (talk) 13:12, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • and "description" rather than "classification"? c1cada (talk) 13:16, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

@C1cada: I don't see how the massacres of Armenians during the genocide is a less historically accurate portrayal of what happened. By adding the word massacre, we're also refining the wording to the way Crisco sees fit. That is to say an user, such as myself, who has worked for eight years now in Armenian Genocide related topics, is providing wording that more accurately describes what happened to the Armenians in 1915. I say it be best to go to a vote. Étienne Dolet (talk) 16:04, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

  • @EtienneDolet: (Personal attack removed) I ask in all seriousness because "massacre" is not normally the word that would be used in English to describe the indiscriminate slaughter of a civilian population herded into a desert and left to starve. In a technical sense it is of course exactly that, but nevertheless in English it suggests violence and carnage in a way that starvation does not, a still more hideous death that might be. It's precisely for this reason, I suppose, that Lemkin was moved to coin the term genocide. He was specifically addressing the Armenian genocide, although the term was immediately used in the Nuremberg indictments:
"1945 Sunday Times 21 Oct. 7 The United Nations' indictment of the 24 Nazi leaders has brought a new word into the language—genocide. It occurs in Count 3, where it is stated that all the defendants ‘conducted deliberate and systematic genocide—namely, the extermination of racial and national groups.’" (OED).
The Armenian Genocide is not listed as a massacre at List of events named massacres, although the Adana massacre is. I would be grateful if you would let me off this now, Étienne. I really don't have more to contribute here. c1cada (talk) 16:42, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
@C1cada: I never suggested that the Armenian Genocide was nothing but a massacre. However, it was partly so. To ignore the fact that the Armenians were killed by firearm, in large numbers, not only in their destination of arrival, but in the vicinity of their own homes, is to go against the historical accurateness of the events. As I have already said, the Armenians didn't just die because of starvation and exhaustion, they were also killed en masse by the sword. The Armenian Genocide is not included in the List of events named massacres simply because it wasn't a massacre in of and itself, it was a genocide. But that is also not to say that Armenians were never massacred in the process of eight years of genocide. Étienne Dolet (talk) 16:53, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • We little people who don't edit Wikipedia articles for eight year stretches and know better than everyone else for it are nevertheless sufficiently educated to know that the Armenian Genocide was especially horrible for the way in which a helpless people were herded into the desert and left callously to die without adequate provisions. That is a massacre by any stretch of the word. It just happens that massacre is not the word that has come to describe it. I don't doubt that over and above those events, massacres of a more conventional kind occurred as well, but it detracts from the bigger picture (and what in fact the POTD image depicts), the genocide of a helpless people locked out of their homeland and the key thrown away. Enough already. Off my watchlist. c1cada (talk) 17:20, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Armenians commemorate not only a human tragedy, but a genocide. In other words, they commemorate and mourn not only those who died during deportations, but the extermination of their people as well. Saying that they merely died in the desert doesn't properly describe the extermination campaign they had to face. Dying can happen even accidentally, massacre means to be slaughtered or killed deliberately. The 'dying' bit is wording that has always been suitable for denialists to shift the blame from themselves, to those who died because they couldn't physically handle a 'relocation'. Étienne Dolet (talk) 20:31, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • What was responsible for the Armenian Genocide was the decision to deport the entire Armenian population of some 1,750,000 souls to Syria and Iraq without regard for their safety or welfare in circumstances that were bound to lead to the extermination of the greater part of them. This is what in essence is denied by the Turkish government. Only today Erdogan once again insisted the events were the consequence of civil war. He's not saying the Armenians couldn't handle a relocation. He's saying shit (massacres) happens in civil wars. So you could argue that insisting on the word massacre is also a denialist gambit. The POTD blurb (would that be the word you were looking for? it's not really very suitable) is limited in its extent. Keep the message simple is my advice. We all know it was the deportations, the death marches, that was responsible for most of the deaths. If we need re-education, perhaps you and your editors could make that a little clearer in the article. Meanwhile let's just remember the genocide, the forced marches that led to the death of the child in the POTD image, on 24 April. c1cada (talk) 22:27, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
The Armenian Genocide did not consist merely of deportations, it also consisted of systematic massacres. Accounts from across the Ottoman Empire, including the ones in Der Zor, Syria, where most deportees were deported, describe that the local government condoned and carried out massacres of those who survived the deportations. To clarify that massacre wasn't an accident, we can simply say "...died due to starvation, exhaustion, and systematic massacre." And no, we're not trying to convey the photograph in the blurb in and of itself, the first sentence of the blurb does that for us. We are to convey the event in which this photograph portrays. That means say yes, people died from exhaustion and starvation, but others were killed due to massacre. In other words, the photograph shouldn't be dictating what the blurb should say, rather the blurb should dictate what the photograph is there to represent, and to provide a proper and more accurate understanding of the Armenian Genocide as concise as possible. Étienne Dolet (talk) 23:57, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Vote

Which wording more accurately describes the events?

  1. - Much of the remaining Armenian population were deported into the deserts of Syria, where most died.
  2. - The rest of the Armenian population were deported into the deserts of Syria and died due to starvation, exhaustion, and massacre.

Please cast votes in Support of which version will suit the blurb best. Étienne Dolet (talk) 16:08, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

@92slim: Although your wording accurately describes the events, I think it's best to shorten it to the proposed wording #2. We're trying to make the blurb (caption) as short as possible. Your wording could be best summed up with #2. Also, we don't have much time to create new proposals every time. It's best to work with proposals we have already to manage our time better. Étienne Dolet (talk) 21:19, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Ok, then. Support #2. --92slim (talk) 00:16, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support #1 It better commemorates the Armenian Genocide arising from the Tehcir Law. If you are to use #2, you need to put it in good English and make it compatible with fact (that not all were deported and not all died). I suggest #2 - Much of the remaining Armenian population were deported into the deserts of Syria, where most died from starvation, exhaustion, or massacres. c1cada (talk) 09:39, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

@C1cada: I'm glad to say that we have a consensus. I'm okay with wording #2 with your proposal. I'm not too sure about the pogroms bit though. The genocide is hardly regarded as a pogrom. Its best to just leave it: The total number of people killed in eight years of genocide has been estimated at between 1 and 1.5 million. It's shorter that way as well. Étienne Dolet (talk) 10:05, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

  • I made the following WP:BOLD tweaks to the template (mainly I stress the original Armenian intellectuals were not only arrested but executed, and I introduce the term progrom in place of massacre)
An Armenian woman kneeling beside a dead child in a field during the Armenian Genocide, conducted by the government of the Ottoman Empire. The genocide is conventionally held to have begun on 24 April 1915, when Ottoman authorities arrested and executed some 250 Armenian intellectuals and community leaders in Constantinople. Much of the Armenian population were subsequently deported into the deserts of Syria, where most died. The total number of people killed in eight years of genocide and pogroms has been estimated at between 1 and 1.5 million. Though the events are widely recognized as a genocide by historians, the Turkish government rejects such a description.
c1cada (talk) 10:11, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

@EtienneDolet: Hi Étienne. I'm glad we're moving to consensus. Your remark about pogroms perhaps a second language thing? It's essentially understood in English as systematic killings, a better word I think than your massacre, and the context is not to replace the genocide (which is usually understood to refer to the deportations) but to stress that the killings continued over eight years past the deportations into the early 1920s. c1cada (talk) 10:20, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

@C1cada: The problem with pogroms is that such a term is hardly used to describe what happened to the Armenians. It's mostly used to refer to a group of rioters harassing some minority in a violent way. Also, it is never used in this article. I think it's best to leave it as before. If users at the talk page disagree with its removal, we'll just put it back. It's shorter that way too, which is a big plus. I want to reiterate that I'm fine with your proposal: Much of the remaining Armenian population were deported into the deserts of Syria, where most died from starvation, exhaustion, or massacres. If we could have that wording, and remove the word pogroms until users here state that they would like it to remain, the POTD will be ready once and for all. Étienne Dolet (talk) 10:27, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
@C1cada: But the Adana massacre and the Armenian Genocide are two separate and very different events. The Adana massacre can be considered a pogrom, but the Armenian Genocide could hardly be considered "a violent riot". It was a preplanned and well organized attempt by a government to exterminate the Armenians, not a consequence of some violent disorder. Étienne Dolet (talk) 10:46, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
To repeat I'm using the word in addition to genocide to describe the organised killings that took place over and above the deportations. Really I'm trying (very hard, Étienne) to address your issue with massacre without using a word that generally is not understood in English as necessarily implying systematic killings. You're very coy on the question of whether English is your first language. Incidentally, researching via Google this morning, I found reference that the collocation "Armenian Genocide" was first used by the New York Times in 2004. Is that really so? c1cada (talk) 11:02, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

You are the only user here that wants the term massacre excluded. I see at least three users here that are in favor of including the term. Even when you provided a suggestion yourself above. So, either we use your proposal, or adopt proposal #2 which is favored by the majority. Also, my English language capabilities should not be of your concern, nor is it relevant to this discussion. Étienne Dolet (talk) 11:20, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

No. I merely suggested that if you use #2, you need to put it in good English and make it compatible with the facts. I make it a dead heat on your vote (presumably you exclude yourself from the count). It is an issue for us at English Wikipedia if your command of English is not sufficient to understand its nuances adequately and it's common for editors to volunteer their level of achievement in the language on their User page. Feel free to replace pogroms by massacres in the template. I won't revert you. I understand your issue. But massacre is something of a portmaneau word in English and you are in danger of being misunderstood precisely on the issue I take it you are most anxious to advance, that these killings were planned. c1cada (talk) 12:16, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
@C1cada: has a point. I would prefer either declaring it a planned systematic killing or a planned extermination. I would rather that instead of massacres or pogroms (which might be planned, but not systematic), it would highlight the extermination process to which the victims were inflicted upon (directly through planned military killings and the State providing arms to bandits and indirectly through starvation, that is dehydration and famine, and wholesale banditry and massacres along the way). The whole point of the so-called deportation law was to exterminate the population and bury them in the Syrian desert forever; I think that is already well established beyond a shadow of a doubt. --92slim (talk) 00:29, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
@92slim: I don't mind adding the word systematic next to massacres. I already proposed that above. So we can have something like this: Much of the remaining Armenian population were deported into the deserts of Syria, where most died from starvation, exhaustion, or systematic massacres. This wording should resolve all differences. Étienne Dolet (talk) 00:43, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
@EtienneDolet:I would say "exhaustion and systematic massacres" instead of "or", because the frequencies of either cause are not exactly specified; also, maybe change "died" for "ended up dead", although this is a minor detail. Sorry, I think this is definitely sound still. --92slim (talk) 00:56, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
@92slim: I think it be best to hold off on the ended up dead bit. Died means the same thing, and we'd be lengthening the template a little bit to convey the same message. Also, ended up isn't suggested term usage under WP:MOS and WP:EUPHEMISM. It doesn't sound encyclopedic, and it is considered a verbose softener. For example, instead of saying started up, we say started; instead of conjured up, we say conjured, and etc. I'm okay with changing it to "and systematic massacres" to provide additional clarification for the reader. Étienne Dolet (talk) 03:35, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • "Systematic massacres" fine with me too, though I'm going to wikilink to pogrom because that is precisely the word now used to describe these:c.f. the Goggle definition "an organized massacre of a particular ethnic group, in particular that of Jews in Russia or eastern Europe". Other than that I don't propose to intervene again at the Template. It looks excellent to me. I think the Armenian Genocide article rather good BTW. It doesn't personally bother me that it currently doesn't reach Good Article status. I would remark one thing however, that the frequent use of direct quotation is very lazy and an alarm bell ringer-offer for POV editing. You should try and avoid that. Perhaps we can now try for a POTD some time commemorating the Jewish Holocaust? c1cada (talk) 10:42, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

@Crisco 1492: Can you please remind C1cada not to make unilateral edits to the POTD template without consensus. This is the third time s/he has done so ([11][12][13]). Pogrom is a term no one has yet agreed upon on the TP, yet the user still continues to add it to the template page. In fact, several users have already stated they prefer to describe it as 'systematic massacre' ([14][15][16]). No one has even proposed to have 'systematic massacre' linked with 'pogrom'. Étienne Dolet (talk) 11:33, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Hey Étienne, can you remind yourself as well in that case ((added blurp) and seven others)? That template would have been a total mess left in your hands but for my interventions, and that last edit of mine was a straightforward wikilink. As courtesy I always WP:BOLD any possibly contentious edit I make anywhere in Wikipedia as I did twice in the Template. You are welcome to follow the process that implies. Here is OED b. on pogrom ((Personal attack removed)):
b. In general use: an organized, officially tolerated, attack on any community or group. Also fig.
1906 Tribune 16 June 7/2 This was the immediate signal for a pogrom, or organized riot. 1920 H. J. C. Grierson in Proc. Brit. Acad. 1919–1920 433 Only Henley refused to take part in the ‘pogrom’; and he alas! died before completing his work as champion, critic, and editor of Byron. 1928 ‘S. S. Van Dine’ Greene Murder Case i. 13, I note that our upliftin' Press bedecked its front pages this morning with headlines about a pogrom at the old Greene mansion last night. 1936 H. A. L. Fisher Hist. Europe i. xviii. 232 The Greek Empire+had disgraced itself by a pogrom against the French and Italian colony in Constantinople. 1964 New Statesman 13 Mar. 405/1 On 20 March 1914 58 British cavalry officers, stationed in Ireland, announced that they would not obey the orders of their lawful superiors.+ The cry of ‘mutiny’ was answered by the charge that there had been a plot—a ‘pogrom’ in the contemporary phrase—to crush Ulster's resistance to Home Rule by force of arms. 1967 T. Gunn Touch 27 Am I Your mother or The nearest human being to Hold on to in a Dreamed pogrom. 1971 Sunday Times 13 June 12/4 The army units, after clearing out the rebels, pursued the pogrom in the towns and villages. 1975 R. Browning Emperor Julian iii. 51 Hannibalianus had been killed in 337 in the pogrom of his relations engineered by Constantius.
c1cada (talk) 12:31, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
I suggest you stop trying to undermine the Ottoman government's preplanned policy of genocide by employing the term 'pogrom' instead. There's not one article in Wikipedia that describes the Armenian Genocide as a pogrom, let alone the fact that there is hardly any academic or scholarly work that would describe it as such as well. The Pogrom article doesn't even mention the word Armenian Genocide, neither does the Armenian Genocide article refer to the genocide as a pogrom. Besides, no one has agreed to include the term 'progrom' in any shape or form into the template but you. It doesn't take a professor of law to know that a pogrom or a riot can be organized, but it does not necessarily have to be systematic. A pogrom can even happen by accident, as it has happened many times before. Denialists may use the term pogrom to claim that rioters or brigands did the killing, so as to conceal the systematic nature of the massacre and disassociate themselves from the responsibility of genocide. In light of all this, your recent unilateral edit to the template will have to be reverted if you do not garner consensus here at this talk page to have it remain. Étienne Dolet (talk) 12:54, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't think pogrom is related in this aspect - pogroms were not systematic. I think that linking it to extermination or genocide is more appropiate. If in doubt, please look at the definition of genocide: "the systematic destruction of a group". Personally, I think to settle the matter for once, we should change it to systematic slaughter, although the current wording works well. It is the traditional word used for the Genocide in the media outlets of the time. Please revert the wikilink if this is not correct (I strongly doubt it). --92slim (talk) 13:40, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
OED 2 b. includes (as does Google) organised, synonymous here for systematic (indeed it would be the better word). I thus cordially decline your invitation to de-link. Amongst the accepted collocations of pogrom are the Ukraine massacres during the Russian Civil War of 1917-22. Are you saying these were not systematic? Is your problem here perhaps that 'pogrom' is a word that in the past was normally reserved for massacres of Jews? Relax, we've moved on. I've even collected it describing the massacre of Shia muslims and Christians in Iraq.
This POTD commemorates the Armenian Genocide with an image of a child who has died from her privations in the Syrian desert. The general public associate the Armenian Genocide especially with the deportations, which in fact lasted less than year as far as the relevant legislation is concerned. However, in fact the genocide lasted a full eight years, as Étienne's blurp takes good care to assert, and it was to cater for the implicit lacuna that I introduced, in addition to genocide, the word pogrom. c1cada (talk) 14:23, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
I don't think we need a Wikilink for it at any rate. There's a Wikilink to the Genocide article elsewhere in the template anyways. Systematic massacres can stand alone. Étienne Dolet (talk) 14:02, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Beg to diifer. The purpose of a wikilink is to enrich the graph and to provide educational value. We can see the latter already here, from the editors who didn't know what the word pogrom means. c1cada (talk) 14:29, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Pogrom is different from systematic massacre and I don't think we should conflate the two. Organized mobs and rioters may be organized, but that doesn't mean their acts are part of a systematic extermination campaign. So I agree that it's best to delink it. --Երևանցի talk 15:12, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
@92slim: Would you be okay to delink 'systematic massacre' as well? Étienne Dolet (talk) 15:25, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
This is a contemporary source for the use of the word pogrom in a collocation with "Armenian Genocide":The Armenian Genocide -The Marxist Nazi Ottoman Islamist ISIS Pogrom Against Christianity Continues to This Day. The word pogrom is multiply sourced to describe the first 1894-96 massacres leading up to the genocide, for example here: Between 1894 and 1896, this “box on the ear” took the form of a state-sanctioned pogrom .... The objections raised here simply are not valid. It's a link and it's been used in addition to genocide for the reasons I have stated at least twice. Étienne's objections are neither reasonable nor informed. c1cada (talk) 16:22, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
@C1cada: To be fair, that link you provided is not adequate. Marxist Islamist? I regard pogroms as what they really were - spontaneous decisions (keyword - not always organised, although I'm not well informed about those events you mentioned. By the way, let's not forget today is Yom Hashoah. We will never forget the victims.) to slaughter the innocent Jews by the bigoted Eastern Europeans. During the Genocide, the Armenians were slaughtered according to a plan drawn up by the Special Organisation, the precursor of the MIT. Delinking is fine but it's not necessary. Least but not last, the Armenians were killed during the death marches, at their homes and everywhere else. --92slim (talk) 17:32, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
@92slim: Yes, thank you, I didn't know today was Yom Hashoa. In the European Union, Holocaust Day is the 27th January and I observe it annually on my own personal blog. As for the link I provided, it's one of several I could provide for contemporary collocations of pogrom with the Armenian Genocide. I agree this one is a ludicrous conflation of several historical movements ('Marxist Islamists' would be the original Iranian revolution I take it), but that's not the point, as I'm only concerned (here) with idiomatic usage. I can add that when new pogroms (as they are described) take place against Armenians, comparisons invariably are made with the Genocide. The Russian Wikipedia uses "massacres and pogroms", referring to the events of the Genocide (which it acknowledges) in its discussion of the aftermath, making the distinction I sought between a riotous act and a planned act. I agree, am very aware, that there is a legalistic sense in which pogroms, even a series of them, are distinct from genocide, which is not only about the state-sanctioned murder of an ethnic group, but above all a deliberate attempt to wipe them out of history, as unquestionably did happen in the Armenian genocide and the Holocaust. But we're concerned here with commemorating the victims, and in any case, from the point of view of resolving "never again, not in my name", there scarcely seems to be any distinction worth maintaining in a commemoration lamenting "the banality of evil", as Hannah Arendt so famously put it. c1cada (talk) 18:34, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Per the votes above, it looks like we're okay with delinking it. The current Wikilink, Genocide, is used twice already. If there's a consensus to replace it with something else, we can go about doing so. Étienne Dolet (talk) 18:26, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
In that case you probably need to do something about "eight years of genocide". That's not in the article either. c1cada (talk) 19:13, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Re Grace Knapp: WP:OWNERSHIP issues?

Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Grace Knapp is a notable figure in the history of the Armenian Genocide. She wrote two eyewitness account of the genocides and her account of the massacres at Bitlis is one of the few available.

This article used to have a link to her as part of a caption in an image of the Varagavank monastery in the " Cultural loss" section. She was an eyewitness to its destruction. With that link came two valuable citations. It was plainly an edit of considerable educational value (EV).

It was reverted by an editor here with the edit summary "though important, this sentence is too long and might be too technical for a common reader". The caption was now prefaced with "According to eyewitness accounts ..." and reference to Grace Knapp and its citations deleted.

I restored the edit on the grounds it was better before. That was reverted a few hours later on the grounds "Best to keep captions short". After posting on this page above on another issue involving copy-editing, and after waiting response and observing a time period of some 36 hours so that the one revert per day rule was comfortably observed, I restored the wikilink to Grace Knapp and its citations with an edit that in fact reduced the caption length. This, however, was reverted by Étienne Dolet, less than six hours later with the edit summary "Grace Knapp wasn't the only one who witnessed this event. If we name everyone who did, it'll be considerably long". At the same time the editor threatened me with a block for edit warring: "... please stop the edit-warring. It's a 1RR article, and you may get blocked."

Of course there's no reason at all why that caption shouldn't link an eyewitness account from a figure as notable as Grace Knapp, and every reason to do it (EV, the graph).

I pose the question: is there a WP:OWNERSHIP issue here?

It does seem to me to be a question, because the original editor supplying the image and the caption wikilinking Grace Knapp was in fact Étienne, and for good measure he subsequently shortened the caption by a word or two, presumably to his satisfaction. It's hard not to get the impression that he regards the article as his personal fiefdom, to be tweaked and bettered (or not) as he pleases, no intrusions brooked.

I shall wait 72 hours for input here, and then I propose to restore (if it has not already been restored) Étienne's valuable and useful edit. Frankly, I think I deserve an apology. c1cada (talk) 14:12, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Again, you have not attempted to respond to my edit-summary. Grace Knapp was not the only person to witness that particular incident. There's no reason why her account should be singled out as if it's the only account that matters. Étienne Dolet (talk) 15:05, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
The additional info does not seem especially needed to me, not even as a reference for the caption. The best place to have it would be in the Varagavank article to which the caption is wikilinked. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:58, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Citation model?

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

What is the citation model used here. I can't distinguish references from sources. Thus, for example, I found Akçam (2007) cited within a reference citing Walker (1980) thus:

<ref>{{cite book|author=Christopher J. Walker|title=Armenia, the Survival of a Nation|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=KNEOAAAAQAAJ|year=1980|publisher=St. Martin's Press|isbn=978-0-312-04944-7}} * {{cite book| last = Akçam | first=Taner|title=A Shameful Act: The Armenian Genocide and the Question of Turkish Responsibility | year = 2007|page=327|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=E-_XTh0M4swC}}</ref>

I've never seen anything like that before and it's extremely confusing. I also find a mixture of sfn templates and ref tags. I can't make that out. Is "Further Reading" a collection of sources or a bibliography?

Presumably in some twenty pages of Talk Page discussion a citation model was agreed. @EtienneDolet: What is that, please? c1cada (talk) 12:56, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I've searched through the archives and can find no discussion, not are there any responses here. I propose therefore to adopt Wikipedia:Parenthetical referencing as used in Holocaust after my immediate edits. It may be that I can edit here after all in the following weeks, at least through May, and I shall use that time to implement it (is there an automatic script available?) c1cada (talk) 18:21, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 April 2015

Latest comment: 9 years ago8 comments5 people in discussion

I will add some novel information. Mehmet256 (talk) 07:30, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

  Not done No specific request made. --NeilN talk to me 07:32, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I had added the resourse from internet, but it was delated. I don't understand why?--Gaamagre (talk) 10:55, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

If that was the link to the 2005 McCarthy speech, the reverter explained it clearly enough. What you did was link a passage about Pope Francis' recognition of the genocide to this speech of McCarthy's. But that has no educational value as it belongs to the relevant Armenian Genocide denial, possibly the relevant section in the article if it accompanies a description of McCarthy's position. You were using it essentially to make an editorial comment on Pope Francis' decision and that's, for lack of better description, "Original Research". If you can find a source, I mean a newspaper report or something, that disputes Francis' acknowledgement, then you can cite that. Of course Erdogan disputed it, and that's recorded in the article.c1cada (talk) 13:57, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

What I did, it was, that I added the link to the McCarthy speech, because it is one of the relevant views of the theme of the article, but it was deleted and nobody explained it to me in any form... It was not a passage about Pope Francis' recognition of the genocide to this speech of McCarthy's. I did not use the link to make an editorial comment on Pope Francis' decision, as this link has nothing to do with Pope Francis' decision.The link shows McCarthy's position and it is one of the relevant positions. I added this link to this article's main links and I think, that the article must have a links to show all of the relevant views about the theme and it has a great educational value.--Gaamagre (talk) 19:53, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I beg your pardon. I didn't see you had added it into "External links" When editing Wikipedia it is a real courtesy to other editors as far as possible to edit sections rather than the whole article, so we can see what has been added more easily.
I'm afraid I'm going to revert the edit as "good faith" but not External Links compliant. Even if McCarthy wasn't mentioned in the article, it would still need to go as McCarthy is controversial. The original reverter was quite right to say it should go in the denial article. But in this case, McCarthy is discussed in the article, so the external link should go as inline citation at that discussion. It is, however, a primary source, i.e. a lecture by McCarthy rather than commentary on a lecture by McCarthy. It's quite possible another editor might revert it if they felt it didn't provide value. c1cada (talk) 20:26, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't know, who decided, that it was a link on commentary on a lecture by McCarthy, I hope people who use Wikipedia are able to read.... I don't think, that another editor will revert your edit, so I will try the same 24 hours later... I think, the articles shouldn't be divided in the "pros" and "cons", the article must include all sources and the results of all scientific researches about the theme. If anybody wants to know about Armenian Genocide, he won't look for controversial articles...--Gaamagre (talk) 21:42, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree with c1cada that the link is a WP:PRIMARYSOURCE which should not be used in the article. Further the link is hosted from the personal webpage of someone named D Wilson. This is an entirely inappropriate use of the external links function of Wikipedia. Further declarations like I don't think, that another editor will revert your edit, so I will try the same 24 hours later... look like intent to edit-war. I advise strongly against that. Please do not reinsert this link into the article. Thank you. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 22:03, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

small typo to correct

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi, the page is locked so I can't just go in and fix it, but there's a small typo: "this meant that their testimony could only be conaidered in commercial cases." should be "considered", not "conaidered". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.23.40.34 (talk)

Fixed, thanks. --NeilN talk to me 16:02, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Proposal: Modifications to the lede

Latest comment: 9 years ago28 comments5 people in discussion

As I have remarked elsewhere, the lede presently misleads the reader regarding the nature of the post World War I massacres. These are not recognised as a genocide (although modern historians and contemporary accounts describe them as genocidal in nature) and they were not implemented in two phases, as can only be construed from the copy at present. As I have demonstrated above, this is essentially a copy edit issue. I'm not aware that a copy edit requires consensus, but the management insists it seems. I did manage however, to slip in the bit about "subsequently executed" without triggering a consensus alert. Obliged.

At present the relevant sections of the lede reads:

The total number of people killed as a result has been estimated at between 1 and 1.5 million. The starting date is conventionally held to be 24 April 1915, the day Ottoman authorities rounded up and arrested, subsequently executing, some 250 Armenian intellectuals and community leaders in Constantinople. The genocide was carried out during and after World War I and implemented in two phases

I propose this is replaced by:

The total number of people killed as a result has been estimated at between 1 and 1.5 million. These killings took place over an eight year period from 1915 to 1923, during and after World War I. The atrocities committed between 1915 and 1916 are recognised as a genocide. The starting date of the genocide is conventionally held to be 24 April 1915, the day Ottoman authorities rounded up and arrested, subsequently executing, some 250 Armenian intellectuals and community leaders in Constantinople. The genocide was implemented in two phases ....

c1cada (talk) 14:04, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't see any dissent here, surprising really concerning the vehemence with my edit was reverted. I should think 24 hours is sufficient notice to give for editors to record their dissent. Thus, tomorrow evening, if I don't see any disagreements about the content, I shall move the edit into the article per WP:EDITCONSENSUS in the usual way. c1cada (talk) 22:28, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
@C1cada: The point is not disagreement. It's just, you need to provide sources to back up these claims. It may be true, it may not. But it must be written by a reliable third party who has a knowledge on the subject. If you can find one, we can discuss this passage. --92slim (talk) 15:28, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
First of all, regarding citations in the lede, you've been there before. They are discouraged, because the relevant material should be addressed in the article. When I return this to the ordinary WP:EDITCONSENSUS process, you will have the opportunity to dispute or ask for clarification/citation. Regarding the date 1915-1923 I give for the genocide, there is pretty well consensus for those dates for the Armenian Genocide. For example this from The National Academy of Sciences of the Republic of Armenia:
"The extermination of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire and the surrounding regions during 1915-1923 is called the Armenian Genocide."
Note that this also supports my "historic homelands" proposal i.e. to say it recognises there were massacres outside the Ottoman Empire, the Caucasus massacres of 1918-1922. It is truly bizarre that these have never been addressed in this article and (frankly) quite extraordinary that when I put together a very careful edit about them, after due notice and inviting you to contribute it, they were immediately reverted by the management here. That's not the Wikipedia "anyone can edit" I champion.
For the rest the modification is essentially a copy edit. As it stands the lede suggests there was a genocide post World War I and that it too was implemented in two stages (i.e. conscription and deportation). But the massacres 1918-1922 in the Caucasus were of an entirely different character, perpetrated by an invading army, and while undoubtedly genocidal in nature as my "massacres" edit cites, are nevertheless not acknowledged as a genocide because in point of fact they lack features which establish them as a genocide in a legal sense. All that is cited in the "massacres" section I propose and doesn't need citing in the lede.
If you have some significant issue you dissent over which can best be constructively debated here, please indicate it in the next few hours. c1cada (talk) 16:03, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't see dissenting voices here. I propose WP:BOLD moving the edit into the main article for WP:EDITCONSENSUS this evening (12 hours hence) if there are no objections. I shall cite the Academy for the dates in the edit. c1cada (talk) 08:09, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

The Armenian Genocide lasted until 1923. This is supported by the most important sources in this field. I'm also not the only one who objects to this proposal. Étienne Dolet (talk) 08:24, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Can you clarify what you are saying here, please? It's a little hard to construe because the edit does after all date the Armenian Genocide as 1915-1923. If you are saying that genocide in the legal sense continued throughout the eight year period, that is not acknowledged. Genocide (I mean the crime "genocide") is precisely defined in international law. It is only the period 1915-1916 that is acknowledged as genocide in this precise legal sense, for example by the German parliament only a couple of days ago in its historic centennial acknowledgement. The edit incorporates this international acknowledgement. The problem with the existing edit is that it can only be construed as saying that (a) the post war massacres are acknowledged as genocide and (b) that they too were implemented in two stages i.e. as conscription and deportations. Neither is so. I'm busy this morning and afternoon, but will return this evening. Unless you can provide citations to support (a) and (b), I will put the edit forward for WP:EDITCONSENSUS as proposed.
That the massacres 1918-1923 were genocidal in character is adequately referenced in the the new section "Massacres after World War I". You are quibbling over a single syllable, and I don't think that's an adequate enough issue to claim there is no consensus.c1cada (talk) 09:19, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
The burden lies on you to provide a source that says the genocide in a legal sense is limited to 1915-6. Étienne Dolet (talk) 15:04, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
An editor is wrong to say the burden lies on me to say that the genocide in a legal sense is limited to 1915-1916. That's because the proposed modification doesn't say that. Rather, it says that the events of 1915-1916 are acknowledged as genocide. The existing lede (how many times do I have to say this to an editor? how can I possibly make this clearer to an editor?) implies that the post war massacres were a genocide. But that is not acknowledged. Of the citations presently provided in the lede, the Fisk piece refers to a 1915 genocide, not a 1915-1923 genocide, the Matiossian piece doesn't refer to a genocide, but does make an incidental reference to the "1915 annihilation", while the note immediately following Armenian Genocide in the opening definition references the International Association of Genocide Scholars' (IAGS) declaration that the mass murder of Armenians in 1915 was a genocide (incidentally that note is misplaced there as the Armenian Genocide is more than just the 1915 genocide).
I know that an editor passionately believes that the genocide was conducted over an eight year period. But that's not acknowledged by historians or the various bodies, organisations and states that recognise the genocide. They all refer to a 1915-1916 genocide, including the prestigious IAGS and UN Whitaker reports.
There's no problem with affirming the post World War I massacres as genocidal in character, because sources can be sited (such as the one I did cite) which indeed affirm just that. But there aren't any sources that acknowledge the genocide proper (i.e. as an international crime) as extending over the eight year period. All historians and legislative bodies are very careful to rigorously maintain the precise legal description of genocide and Wikipedia should do the same.
I'm not prepared to accept this is a consensus issue. It concerns matters of fact which are not open to dispute. An editor needs to let this go. c1cada (talk) 15:52, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
We'd need a source that explicitly says that the only the events of 1915-16 are acknowledged as genocide. Showing a couple of reports and resolutions from institutions and governments cannot prove that. I could provide dozens, if not hundreds of resolutions and reports from around the world that say the Armenian Genocide lasted until 1923. But that's not the case here. Étienne Dolet (talk) 18:16, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
No, we should not because the proposed modification does not say that only the events of 1915-1916 are acknowledged as genocide. The situation is the same as at the POTD when an editor's persistent insistence that the genocide lasted over eight years was resolved simply by deleting any mention of the time span. We are not concerned with "proving" anything here per WP:VERIFY.
Regarding the Armenian Genocide, I too could provide numerous citations giving its dates as 1915-1923. The second paragraph of the Armenia wiki offers 1894 to 1923, my own preferred dates. But there are no significant historians, bodies or nation states which affirm the genocide proper (i.e. as an international crime) lasted over an eight year period.
As I've stressed before, we differ from an editor only over a syllable - the distinction between "genocide" and "genocidal". It hardly seems to matter, but because there is a very precise definition in international law of what constitutes "genocide", we should be careful to maintain it.
In the 28 January 2015 submissions in Perinçek v. Switzerland reference was only made to the 1915 events as actus reus. As I remarked to an editor right at the outset, we shouldn't offer the denialists ammunition with larger claims that in fact can't be substantiated within the strict parameters of the definition of genocide.
I'm content to let the discussion roll on another day. c1cada (talk) 19:01, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
The Armenian Genocide does not have a start date or end date. It has a start year: 1915. The April 24 start date is a lazy lie that Armenians tell odars. Earlier pre-WW1 events might have similar characteristics to the AG, or be part of a progression of events leading to it and enabling it, but they are not the same event. The massacres in 1918 inside formerly Russian territory and the massacres undertaken by Republican forces in the 1920s are counted as part of the Genocide in sources that cover this period. Contemporary reports also considered those renewed massacres as just a Turkish business-as-usual continuation of what went before. Also, plenty of sources consider the state-enforced Kemalist-era deportations of Turkey's Armenian citizens that went on into the 1930s as an official continuation of the Genocide. Similarly, authors have written that the Turkish policy of wiping out all traces of the region's Armenian past amounted to a continuation of the genocide, and some have written that the continuing denial of the Armenia Genocide by the Turkish state amounts to a continuation of the genocide. The wording needs to express that, so an "events of 1915-1916" wording would not be accurate and would not agree with what sources state. There seems to be enough sources and content in the body of the article to support a 1923 date, with mention of later events (including the ongoing denial) being considered as a continuation of it. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:45, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Both the existing and proposed copy stress the start date is conventionally held to be 24 April 2015. Wikipedia has a WP:VERIFY policy. I provide what surely must be an impeccable source for the 1915-1923 dating of the Armenian Genocide, not withstanding that the Academy is one of those authorities that consider denial of the genocide a continuation of the genocide. What is at stake here is the question of the criminal act of genocide, which is acknowledged by the IAGS as occurring 1915-1916. Do you know reliable sources of similar standing that affirm the genocide continued past 1918 i.e. the massacres committed outside the Ottoman Empire by a conquering Turkish army were not only genocidal in nature, but actually constituted a genocide in its precisely defined legal sense we should adhere to. What features of those 1918-1923 massacres fit the various criteria laid down for a genocide. And incidentally, helpful if you could indicate an opinion on an editor's position that these massacres were committed by the Republic of Turkey : until recently the article contained:
Mass killings continued under the Republic of Turkey during the Turkish Invasion of Armenia phase of Turkish War of Independence ...
c1cada (talk) 21:25, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Regarding an editor's suggestion that we need a source (except we don't really), how about this document from the Armenian National Committee of America which seems to be a pretty comprehensive collection of acknowledgements of the genocide (understood as an international crime against humanity)? The Committeee itself acknowledges it as committed in 1915. The famous Lipstadt et al 24 April 1998 letter, signed by more than 150 distinguished academics and writers, cited in the document affirms:

We urge our government officials, scholars and the media to refrain from using evasive or euphemistic terminology to appease the Turkish government; we ask them to refer to the 1915 annihilation of the Armenians as genocide.

Amongst the signatories are Richard G. Hovannisian, Peter Balakian, Robert Melson, Israel Charny and the writers D. M. Thomas, Kurt Vonnegut, John Updike. Of those I know D. M. Thomas as an exceptionally fine translator of Anna Akhmatova's poetry, of which so much was a brave stand against Stalin's insane purges. If I am ever released from this purgatory here I might just seek some relief expanding a little on his article.

So I pose the question: in the face of all this expertise, why should we afford the slightest weight to an editor's insistence that the genocide (in its legal sense as an international crime against humanity) took place over the whole 1915-1923 period? To repeat, the Armenian Genocide, referring to all the events 1915-1923, is given those dates, but the crime of genocide is acknowledged 1915-1916. No doubt later events can be called genocidal, in the same way as we can say an individual's acts might be "murderous", but that is not to say the later events were a genocide, any more than to say a murderous individual necessarily committed a murder. c1cada (talk) 23:08, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Considering Tiptoe's remarks, I suggest the following, which I indeed very much prefer myself regarding my own understanding of the Genocide:

The total number of people killed as a result has been estimated at between 0.8 and 1.5 million. These killings, genocidal in nature, took place over an eight year period during and after World War I. The atrocities committed between 1915 and 1916 are recognised as genocide in international law. The starting date of the genocide is conventionally held to be 24 April 1915, the day Ottoman authorities rounded up and arrested, subsequently torturing and executing, some 250 Armenian intellectuals and community leaders in Constantinople. The genocide was implemented in two phases ...

Unless their are significant dissenting voices, this is what I shall move into the article tomorrow evening for WP:EDITCONSENSUS along with the definition from the National Academy of Sciences of the Republic of Armenia we discuss below. c1cada (talk 10:11, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

"Genocidal in nature" with regard to the 1918-1922 massacres is confirmed by Dadrian (1996), my copy of which I have just received, where at p. 348 he uses the phrase "genocidal thrust of the invasion by the Turkish armies" and in subsequent pages develops that theme already cited in my post World War I massacres. But at no point does Dadrian go so far as to characterise these later events as genocide, as can also be surmised from the Lipstadt letter I quote above. Dadrian is accepted as the foremost authority on the Genocide. It's hard to understand on what basis an editor continues to insist, against all the sources, that the genocide (i.e. as an international crime against humanity) was carried on throughout the entire eight year period, but it's abundantly clear there is no due weight WP:VERIFY basis for the claim. c1cada (talk) 15:42, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Per Tiptoe, in the penultimate sentence of the final paragraph of the lede I shall insert (or to the effect):

A number of authorities consider the denial of genocide to be a continuation of it

citing the National Academy of Sciences of the Republic of Armenia. Again if there are dissenting voices please make yourself heard before tomorrow evening. c1cada (talk) 18:01, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Whereas I understand the points made by both sides of the dispute at hand, I have a problem with the declaration I'm not prepared to accept this is a consensus issue. It concerns matters of fact which are not open to dispute.. In Wikipedia WP:CONSENSUS is a policy which forms part of the project DNA. I am not ready to agree to the highlighted statement for that reason. I also don't like ultimata or deadlines. This is a very delicate and nuanced concept which deserves further unhurried discussion without ultimata in order to achieve WP:CONSENSUS. Any other approach is just a de facto invitation to edit-war which for this article, under an 1RR restriction, should be avoided at all costs. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 22:55, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
I went to the trouble of digging out the archaeology of the lede in my 4,000+ character wall of text above. The lede has always been been (relatively) cordially WP:EDITCONSENSUS thrashed out before. In fact there has been no significant edit warring over it, unless of course you consider any reversion to be edit warring, in which case an editor here is much more culpable in that regard than I am. What has happened unfortunately is that what I can only surmise as a lack of copy skills (and fit for purpose oversight) has led to an unfortunate situation regarding the crime of genocide. Historians are very careful to protect this concept and so should Wikipedia.
There is a sense in which it is valid to say that there are matters of fact that are not open to "consensus" concerning their veracity. See Evans at Irving v Penguin Books Ltd for what has become the classic exposition of that point of view. Of course the Holocaust is the canonical example, and this case we have another example although curiously reversed because what is disputed here is that (so far) only the 1915-1916 genocide has been acknowledged as genocide.
I have said we differ only on a syllable, between "genocide" and "genocidal". It's important, but not significant enough for this modification not to go forward for WP:EDITCONSENSUS. I remind this forum that a perfectly uncontroversial edit "Massacres after World War I" detailing the experience of the Russian Armenians, which had never been addressed before in the article and yet their experience is more than half the Genocide's duration, was immediately reverted by an editor here. When I took it to the Talk page for consensus, absolutely nothing of import was advanced by way of dissent. I don't call that a delicate and nuanced response. c1cada (talk) 00:30, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Unfortunately every time we talk about "veracity" echoes of WP:TRUTH come to mind. This is not such a clear-cut case and the proposed phrasing does not help. First, the sentence The atrocities committed between 1915 and 1916 are recognised as a genocide. is vague. It does not state by whom it is recognised and under what conditions, legal, academic or political or any combination thereof. Second, by stating a strict time limit it automatically invalidates any other mention of the term "genocide" outside the 1915-1916 limit. I'm sure we can come up with some idea substantially better than that. But the first thing that must be done is the waiver of the imposition of the ultimatum. It is not conducive to a fair and balanced discussion without artificial pressure or threats of edit-warring against consensus. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 02:20, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Amongst all the verbiage here, and that is not my fault if we abandon WP:EDITCONSENSUS, I did present a revised version of the proposed modification a few paragraphs above following a constructive contribution from Tiptoe. What I suggest now for the relevant sentence is
The atrocities committed between 1915 and 1916 are recognised as genocide in international law.
and that is to be cited by the note referring the IAGS declaration regarding the 1915 genocide presently found in the definition (first sentence, which I pointed out is presently misplaced because the Armenian Genocide is more than just the 1915 genocide; another five years more in fact if we include the experience of the Russian Armenians that was so long omitted from the article and which an editor is apparently anxious to suppress). Nothing vague about that, and in addition in the previous sentence I have added "genocidal in nature", which is as much as historians and authorities presently can offer, at least until the archives are opened:
These killings, genocidal in nature, took place over an eight year period during and after World War I.
That really ought to address the wishes (I frankly hesitate to use the conventional word "concerns" with its generally implied collocation of "legitimate" - one of those subtle nuances of yours) of an editor here. Once again I stress that is all the sources offer. That's the fact of the case. That really isn't up for consensus.
Do try to keep up BTW  .
Can't help with "truth" I'm afraid. Philology and not philosophy my forte, though one does rather know one's Heidegger for strictly professional reasons. All that stuff about ἀλήθεια, fascinating (not).
Q: How goes it with the wiki?
A: The wiki is wiki_ing it.
Apologies, my camp followers expect it.
Platon on the other hand makes me faint. From what I can discern of it, I doubt he would have been greatly taken by WP:VERIFY.
Concerning your "ultimatum" etc: that would be just a teensy weensy petitio principiiish, would it not? The issue here it seems to me is to get this back for WP:EDITCONSENSUS so everyone can have a go and not just the erudite great and small consenters that so happily gather here, we few, we band of brothers, an editors and all, pet cats and dogs included of course.
My involvement here centers around two matters. Firstly I came here via Perinçek v. Switzerland over the genocide issue. I am very anxious to protect the precise usage of that word, especially as used in relation to the Armenian Genocide. But secondly there arises an issue as a hobbyist Wikipedian, and that is that this article presently is not very developed. I did expect to see something at least approaching the standard set by Holocaust. Nothing of the sort, and that surprised me very much in the Genocide's centennial year. I do feel moved to help, but what to do in the face of protectionism?
I am going to go ahead with putting the proposed modification forward for WP:EDITCONSENSUS this evening. This Talk page is edited and oversighted very actively indeed. There's been plenty of time for contributors to make their views known. I stress once again that it essentially a copy edit issue at stake. Literate native speakers of English have no difficulty in discerning the defects of the present copy relating to what the lede implies about the post World War I massacres. c1cada (talk) 09:56, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Literate native speakers of English have no difficulty in discerning the defects of the present copy relating to what the lede implies about the post World War I massacres. This statement is simply wrong because it is based on the false premise that literate people speaking a language have to be also native speakers to fully understand it, which is simply nonsense. It is also a not so subtle form of attempted intimidation which does not belong in a civilised discussion and which I reject. The concepts involved in this discussion are not difficult to understand. That we disagree about your methodology does not mean that your understanding of the issues involved is superior. This logic is rather self-serving. I also think you have a flawed understanding of WP:EDITCONSENSUS. The way you are using it is similar to a declaration of an edit-war. You don't have consensus currently and if you make your proposed changes you will be trying to impose your POV against current consensus. This is the very definition of an edit-war. It is also rather ironic that you invoke WP:EDITCONSENSUS which is a method for achieving WP:CONSENSUS while at the same time declaring I'm not prepared to accept this is a consensus issue. It concerns matters of fact which are not open to dispute. I repeat my argument that in an article subject to discretionary sanctions and to 1RR such editing methods are unproductive. Your proposed edit is flawed and you have not addressed my concerns or the concerns of the other participants. So please no more ultimata or arguments about WP:EDITCONSENSUS, not to mention misguided aggrandisement of native speakers of English. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 12:04, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
First of all I had addressed already the first issue you originally raised
It does not state by whom it [the genocide] is recognised and under what conditions, legal, academic or political or any combination thereof ...
because it qualifies with "in international law" and the existing citation to the IAGS' recognition of the 1915 genocide, misplaced at present, will be used to cite it.
Secondly your point about time limits is redundant because it doesn't affirm that genocide was limited to 1915-1916 but simply records that the 1915 atrocities are acknowledged as genocide. As I have made clear to an editor here, that if you can find a institution or authority of equal weight, or at least of international standing, then by all means record it. As for the better idea you wanted, that was taken care of by the introduction of "genocidal in nature" referring to the killings throughout. How much of a better idea do we have to provide that doesn't concede that the entire period is affirmed by historians and authorities to be a genocide? That simply isn't true. We differ on a syllable, that is the long and (very) short of it, and I don't think that's sufficient to deny my edit its day in WP:EDITCONSENSUS court, or for that matter deny other editors the right to improve it.
You now seize on my "literate native Engish speaker" remark, wholly misrepresenting its import. It not that "literate people speaking a language have to be also native speakers to fully understand it" (did I say that?) but that to write literately in another language requires considerably more productive skills than the merely passive skill of understanding it. The situation that had arisen in the article was that the 1918-1923 post World War I massacres had never been addressed. Now that they have (and strictly speaking before it), the lede needs adjusting because it suggests they too are acknowledged as a genocide (but they are not) and that they too took place in two stages, i.e. as conscription or deportation, but they did not.
As for the rest of it, I'm sure you better know the normative values of the community than I. But I am just anyone editing Wikipedia and I am satisifed that there is no substantive reason within Wikipedia's avowed traditions not to put the edit forward for WP:EDITCONSENSUS. If an editor subsequently reverts it, so be it, but it should be as part of the WP:BRD cycle. I should hope to see new arguments in that case and will continue to defend my edit.
I point out that my "Massacres after World War I" edit was reverted (twice), but would seem relatively stable now with the qualifier "genocidal" added (that was always plainly implicit anyway). Yesterday I took the trouble to cite Dadrian's "genocidal thrust" on the massacres. Now that the lede also incorporates, per Tiptoe's valuable and constructive contribution, the same qualifier "genocidal", I can't see what the issue really can be. It's a two cent syllable that splits us. c1cada (talk) 15:20, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
because it qualifies with "in international law" and the existing citation to the IAGS' recognition of the 1915 genocide, misplaced at present, will be used to cite it. Mea culpa regarding "international law" because I was looking at your first proposal in your original posting, before you modified it. But I am still concerned because IAGS is not a body of law but rather an organisation of academics and their citation cannot be used as legal validation. In addition the recognition of the AG is not confined only to international law. It is also academic and political, so the qualification "in international law" is an unnecessarily restrictive interpretation.
Secondly your point about time limits is redundant because it doesn't affirm that genocide was limited to 1915-1916 but simply records that the 1915 atrocities are acknowledged as genocide. It definitely is not redundant. As soon as you state that the events of 1915-1916 were recognised by international law as genocide, you automatically exclude all other events outside that strict limit from recognition in international law. This casts a doubt over the nature of the rest of the events, notwithstanding your reassurances about affirmation of the limits of genocide.
As far as the "native speaker" issue, you had written that Literate native speakers of English have no difficulty in discerning the defects of the present copy relating to what the lede implies about the post World War I massacres. now you claim you meant It sic not that "literate people speaking a language have to be also native speakers to fully understand it" (did I say that?)but that to write literately in another language requires considerably more productive skills than the merely passive skill of understanding it. The first quote is about discerning the defects of the present copy i.e. "reading", the second comment is about "writing", i.e. your reply is not consistent with what you wrote initially, but let's leave it at that.
If an editor subsequently reverts it, so be it, but it should be as part of the WP:BRD cycle. This is wrong. Because we are still at the "D" phase of the cycle and the "D" phase is not over yet because no WP:CONSENSUS has been achieved. To jump to "B" without finishing the "D" step is a mathematically certain initiation of an edit-war on an article protected by discretionary sanctions. As I said before this is not a good idea. But what concerns me most is your flawed interpretation of EDITCONSENSUS which leads you to unilaterally impose ultimata while declaring that the discussion is not subject to consensus. This is disruptive because it undermines the primary WP:CONSENSUS mechanism which is discussion and leads your interlocutors to believe that, irrespectively of any points they raise, you will implement your pre-announced edit. This is the very definition of WP:WASTEOFTIME and I strongly object to such discussion tactics. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 17:26, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
First of let's not allow you your point about the "literate native speaker" remark. It wasn't saying that only such could understand the passage (on the contrary any reasonably advanced student of the language can understand the passage; the complaint is that it's misleading). It's saying that any literate native speaker of English can recognise it's badly written. Feel free to bang on about it a bit more if it's still not clear.
Your first point on the qualifier. I think it's pedantic. But obviously editors can change it to things like "The atrocities committed between 1915 and 1916 are recognised by numerous historians, commentators and nation states as genocide as defined in international law". That strikes me as something that can be refined in the usual way in WP:EDITCONSENSUS. If you were to constructively suggest a modification, I should be happy to incorporate it. Otherwise I shall just let what I have go forward; deep time travel may possibly be one of my far-flung powers, but telepathy is definitely not one of them.
Your second point. Are you saying the copy can never affirm that the 1915 atrocities are recognised as genocide because that excludes the possibility of other events at other dates being recognised as genocides? Novel. How to deal with it ... hmhh ...how about "The atrocities committed between 1915 and 1916 (at least) are recognised by numerous historians, commentators and nation states as genocide as defined in international law"? Feel free to insert that as well. I shan't revert (but I shall roll my eyes). And of course understood if editors can find other events with other dates recognised as genocide by bodies as prestigious as the IAGS or Armenia Genocide Museum, then of course go ahead and cite them.
I now don't have the time to send this over tonight. I've analysed the evolution of the lede elsewhere. It was never the subject of excessive edit warring. Presumably you recognise (at least) that it needs a copy edit to correct the implication that the post war massacres were implemented in two phases. The edit template refers to "contentious" edits as requiring consensus on the Talk page. So what is contentious here? Certainly not "recognised as", because that's a statement of fact verified by citations. Even denialist states such as Turkey can't contend that. "Genocidal in nature"? Well that is contentious because I expect Turkey denies that. Underwhelmed moi. But it's possible that other editors will want that modified. Perhaps you can suggest something. Feel free anyway to make constructive suggestions before tomorrow. Out of curiosity what was contentious about the original "Massacres after World War I" addition I made? So I know next time. And sic away my friend. I've given generously of my time here, but perfect copy doesn't come with the package. c1cada (talk) 19:30, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

It's saying that any literate native speaker of English can recognise it's badly written. Exactly my point. You keep insisting that only the "native speakers" can have the aesthetic understanding of the laguage which will enable them to understand it is badly written. The mere paupers, non-native, literate speakers are unable to rise to such rarefied aesthetic linguistic heights poor linguistic plebs that they are. Are you saying the copy can never affirm that the 1915 atrocities are recognised as genocide because that excludes the possibility of other events at other dates being recognised as genocides? Novel. That's an interesting interpretation but I didn't say that. I said that by confining international legal recognition within strict time limits events not inside these limits are automatically rendered outside international legal recognition and are put on a different legal tier at present. Out of curiosity what was contentious about the original "Massacres after World War I" addition I made? So I know next time. I am here to pinpoint aspects in your methodology which are in my view ill-advised and contrary to consensus-building. I am not here to assist in copyediting under the spectre of reversions and ultimata. If/when things calm down I will be glad to assist. By the way I have no problem with most of your edits. My objections are confined to this specific process about rewriting the lead. And sic away my friend. I've given generously of my time here, but perfect copy doesn't come with the package. I was debating if I had to add "sic" to my transcription, since I knew you were such a meticulous writer and a stickler about language. In the end I chose to include it lest someone carelessly thought I did it due to the fact I am not a "native speaker". Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 22:30, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Interesting Featured Article today about the Cretan War. I shall have a read at that before I go to bed.
Out of curiosity I checked through what you actually wrote about "native speaker". You will forgive me I'm sure when I confide that I skimmed through all that first time round. Naturally I'm flattered you paid such close attention to my remarks. I can't see that my explanation was all that exactly your point, but there you go . Definitely barquing up the wrong trireme a couple of oars short the full deck over "stickler", old bean. Anything but. I have real difficulty writing copy for Wikipedia. I find it rather tedious.
What to do about this? The errors of fact concerning "historic homeland" I mention in my third proposal ought to be corrected. Concerning this proposal here, at least the issue concerning the misrepresentation of the 1918-1923 massacres should be addressed. I'll try and do something about that tomorrow in some way. For the rest of it I'll put it on hold. Sod it for a game of hoplites I say. Pretty sure I shall be back on the issue. c1cada (talk) 00:43, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
I'll make sure to check Cretan War. Thank you for leting me know. As far as checking your remarks, I always find them scholarly and challenging, so you are right, I pay attention to them because I enjoy reading them even if I disagree with some of them, or at least with the process followed. I'm also glad to verify that you have a great sense of humour; what with all these remarks about linguistic plebs and no negative reaction to them. I was tempted to add <humour> tags to delineate them as such but I rejected the idea trusting my instinct. :) I haven't checked your third proposal regarding the historic homeland but I have no doubt that you make great and valid points. I look forward to more proposals you may have regarding the lead. In any case, I'll follow your lead regarding a game of hoplites. That sounds like a great idea. Take care. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 01:23, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Bibliography

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Bibilography is presently subdivided into various categories. That's quite enterprising, but I don't think it's standard and there are some disadvantages. In the first place a particular resource might fit several categories and be overlooked because the wrong category was examined, and more importantly it's correspondingly harder to see what contributionss have been made by a single author: for example Dadrian appears in several categories.

I propose this should be fixed by separating Sources from Further Reading. This can be achieved on a step by step basis by opening a section titled Sources and transferring the {{refbegin|30em}} and {{refend}} tabs. The resources actually used in the article can then be transferred into a single ordered list by author/date. This can be done at our leisure over a period of a few days. Finally the remaining Bibliography can be renamed Further Reading, retaining its useful categories.

Unless I see cogent objections, I propose to start implementing this after the weekend. c1cada (talk) 11:50, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Armenian_genocide/Archive_22&oldid=1136530558"