This is an archive of past discussions about Armenian genocide. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Latest comment: 6 years ago16 comments4 people in discussion
a b 1.5 million is the most published number,[1] however, estimates vary from 800,000 to 1,800,000[2][3][4][5]
This is innacurate, most published depends on what type of publication... and the claimed range is arbitrarly set by the editor who added it. I have stated earlier any ranges are arbitrary because including them would require a selection of what sources to use or include and entirely relies on one editor judgement.
Like I have stated the only way to settle this is to use means, medians etc... close to a million (more or less) is what every figure revolves around. Besides 800,000 to 1,800,000 is severly biased, this affects the credibility of the article.
If editors insist that 1,5 million has to remain there, for it to be accurate we have to relable what it represents. To push the mean to that number we have to add assimilation (orphans for instance), conversion... and the vicinities such as Kars etc. In this context, 1,5 million Armenians would represent identitary death and not necessarly physical. But then, the physical death has to be included.
If we use this number and relable it, to be fair Turkish authorities figures have to be relabled too... the 200,000-300,000 figure would be relabled as directly accountable massacres (which they are ready to take responsability for), most of it Armenian conscripts (in fact those figures match with the estimates of the conscripts) who were soon disarmed and killed because from the point of view of the government, they paused a direct threat.
Then if we do this, we have to relable what 600,000 figure represents... those were originally British figures, mostly losses during the process of deportation (mostly famine, diseases such as typhus, direct or indirect massacres).
Even Taner Akçam (estimates between 800,000 to a million), using statistics claimed that physical loss can not have been over a million.
It's not awkward or unfair. The difference in numbers largely depends on when it was said. Original numbers should obviously not be given the same weight because they didn't have as many resources available yet. Numbers that are most often cited nowadays form a certain consensus, much like the Holocaust's 6 million (I'm not trying to compare them by the way). Prinsgezinde (talk) 23:34, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
Much like the 6 million figure, it's biased..., alas with the numbers for Rwanda, etc... We've had a good representation with Kossovo, numbers estimated first and later what they were able to confirm (check the ratio). Wikipedia has to choose, either institutionalized or decentralized knowledge! As evidenced, the comparison with the Holocaust always emerge when the numbers used are questioned. As if one wrong justify another one. Yaḥyā (talk) 00:44, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
I didn't say it was unfair, it is awkward phrasing. Something like "Most scholars believe around 1.5 million Armenians were killed" would be less awkward phrasing. Alternately we can provide a range, which we do for the Holocaust. Seraphim System(talk)23:59, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
Aside from the number, the background section also needs to be condensed considerably to follow sources. None of the sources I have been reading, which are very high quality academic sources, are making an argument that this was a "jihad" or that it was connected to the 'dhimmi' system. These sections are WP:UNDUE and some parts are WP:OR. Peter Balakian is heavily cited for this, but he is not a historian or expert on the Armenian Genocide, beyond being an Armenian-American poet. The majority of expert historian sources like Ryan Gingeras have a different analysis - Ryan Gingeras does not seem to be cited at all, despite being a recognized expert on this subject. Seraphim System(talk)00:13, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
I'm spinning out discussion of this last point into a separate section below.
It is clear that 1.5 million is the broad consensus. Why is it then necessary to settle on some other figure (always less)? In justification of a 'range' figure, Seraphim System says 'Alternately we can provide a range, which we do for the Holocaust.' [23:59, 25 Nov.] For the Holocaust? Where? If someone can give me the citation I would appreciate it. The Holocaust article says 'some 6 million', or 'around 6 million'. Why should the AG article not be allowed the same usage? Diranakir (talk) 20:46, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
Well estimates of the Holocaust vary by a lot especially since there is not one definition. We have the ranges on the list of genocides by death toll - Ealdgyth wanted to work on the lede last, so we kind of left it there, but the main article should reflect the range in the lede once the article revisions are complete. If there is similar sourcing here, this article should and one editor (not me) mentioned Akcam - Akcam is a major source, so there is an argument to justify inclusion of his estimate. Seraphim System(talk)21:10, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
I do not detect the answer to my question in your response. You must have had a basis for saying 'a range which we do provide'. You have not provided the citation. Until we can be more clear and specific on predicates laid out in support of revisions in the lede, I think it would be best to put on the brakes and get more input from involved users. Diranakir (talk) 21:52, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
In general, I agree with Ealdgyth's approach to the Holocaust article, the lede should come last. This article has several problems, and the lede is not the first issue. The sources are available if you look for them. I'm rather suspicious of strong insistence on either number, whether higher or lower, and I think a range is best.
You have still not answered my fundamental question. You say 'we' provide. Who is 'we'? Where do 'you' provide a range for the Holocaust? It is not found in the Holocaust article. And your 'source' is not a source at all. A plain answer is in order. Diranakir (talk) 22:30, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
Hi Diranakir, I don't think it is relevant to refer to the Holocaust. Reason is that if you poll historians and guaranty them anonymity, their versions (of the Holocaust) will significantly variate from the official history of the event. This has been documented with polls from the general population. I am not taking position about those events of WWII, I am just stating that there are obvious selection bias (not only because of laws and regulations). The case of the Armenian massacres is particular, because not only the victors version is considered and included. We should use this in our advantage to write an article which is more whole. And relabeling numbers is a viable solution... also encapsulating the majority position inside the minority has proven to work elsewhere too. Yaḥyā (talk) 04:59, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
Please follow WP:INDENT. I fixed the page number, but you can look up the sources yourself too, there are plenty of sources. Generally, I only ask for sources when editors are making complex arguments that involve multiple points and interpretation/analysis, and this is to WP:V whether those positions are in fact supported by WP:RS or WP:OR - it's not necessary to repeatedly ask for sources for basic facts where I can easily look up the sources myself. Just to be clear, this is only where the sources I am already reading don't jive with the claims editors are making on talk. This is so I can take their sources into consideration, as well as the sources I am already working with, when editing the article. The purpose is not giving other editors a hard time. Yaḥyā said in his first post that the source is Taner Akcam - one of the most widely cited scholars on the subeject and I repeated that in my reply. My answer was plain the first time, instead of repeating yourself, read the discussion or check WP:RSbefore debating with other editors. Seraphim System(talk)22:51, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
Regarding ranges: It was suggested above to use ranges. Who decides the maximum and the minimum of the range? One solution is using some mathematical values as divisions... Fibonacci sequence for example: 1,2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21..., then the closest to academic publications would be 500,000 to 1,3 million... some would argue that most sources variate from 600,000 to 1,5 million... the former mean is 900,000 and the later mean is 1,050,000... interestingly, the median in both case remains about the same at close to a million. So a combination of Fibonacci with a median approximation algorithm is solid (other methods all give similar results). Here we have a dead solid figure which will almost be stable in time. Those variations aren't any more significant then say the variation of the Sun position caused by the planets orbiting... the position of celestial objects are not man made, or author specific... we can even use the gravity constant (which slightly changes by years, because of labs etc...) as a correction value each year. This can be generalized to be used on all other articles involving ranges. This way we will have a non-arbitrary figures... we set rules which are generalizable and not based on authors who are changed regularly. Yaḥyā (talk) 19:00, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
Readers can accuse me of original research for writing the above. But if I provide the figure approximated by Fibonacci + the median of close to a million, without disclosing how I came to those figures but rather arbitrarily find sources for the close to a million, no one will accuse me of OR, because it is sourced. But since the way of choosing which sources or range to use is solely based on the judgment of each editor, there will be others who will want it to be changed, because their judgment can obviously be different. Generally in selection of sources something remains undisclosed, a generalizable reason why an editor chose a source and not the hundreds other. In what I propose, there is nothing undisclosed, as every rules set (as the one I have proposed) should be generalizable to other articles. Yaḥyā (talk) 20:36, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
More confirmation for the close to a million
Justin McCarthy has provided the most complete set of demographical data and which has the potential to confirm Taner Akcam numbers. After checking the references of the child article (about the Armenian losses), there is this paper: Justin McCarthy, The Population of the Ottoman Armenians, in The Armenians in the Late Ottoman Period, The Turkish Historical Society For The Council Of Culture, Arts And Publications Of The Grand National Assembly Of Turkey, Ankara, 2001, pp. 65-86. The main unknown parameter in converting Ottoman records is how much 1 Ottoman Unit makes of individual; McCarthy provided Armenian source does confirm that for Western Ottoman, the 1/1 conversion could be valid after correcting (only diverging significantly for the East). His adding up of his previous number (of close to 600,000) of only 250,000 corroborate Taner Akcam estimates (totaling to over 800,000). The claim of Taner Akcam, that no more than a million could be said confirmed.
Mostly the problem is labeling, such as genocide victims, it is known in research that labeling brings selection bias, and the only satisfying way of correcting it is to compare it with unlabeled data. See [this paper http://www.gatsby.ucl.ac.uk/~gretton/papers/HuaSmoGreBorSch07.pdf] for instance. Problem is that all data are labeled, according the the affiliation of each authors. Labeling also effect the figures of Armenian population,... such as population movement within regions with no clearly definable (meaning less control by governments) frontiers. Particularly when there was reported significant population movement (from both sides) during the period. So it is better to claim that Armenians were involved and mostly from the Ottoman region.
Labeling is necessary sometimes... but we can do what was done in that paper and other similar. We label it and then use the unlabeled data, to know what the labeled data actually mean. So by doing that, we relabel each figure to come to what I have proposed above. Yaḥyā (talk) 16:33, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 30 November 2017
Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
This edit request to Armenian Genocide has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Change "To date, 29 countries and 47 U.S. states have officially recognized the mass killings as genocide, as have most genocide scholars and historians.[19][20][21]"
To "To date, 29 countries and 48 U.S. states have officially recognized the mass killings as genocide, as have most genocide scholars and historians.[19][20][21]"
Latest comment: 6 years ago14 comments4 people in discussion
I don’t think the recognition by US states belongs in the lead.
First, the sourcing for the claim is weak. For example this article says Indiana is both the 28th and 48th US state to recognize the genocide.
The count in the lead is inconsistent with the count in the body, which states 47 US states recognize the genocide.
Second, the number of US states is only mentioned briefly in the body of the article. If the fact only deserves one sentence in the article, it does not belong in the lead per MOS:LEAD
Third, the relevance of recognition of the genocide by US states is questionable and represents a US centric bias. Why should only the recognition by US states be included in the lead? Why not also mention the number of Australian States that recognize the genocide?
In regards to your first concern, I think that's a simple typo on the article itself. And I agree, the body needs to be updated.
Second concern, I disagree. We can't pile on details upon details of information regarding the recognition of the genocide, even when it comes to foreign states. It should be short and brief. This article has had some trouble being excessively long. Me and a couple of other editors worked hard to make it shorter. Being concise and straight to the point is what is needed. We also have a main article, Armenian Genocide recognition, which is conveniently linked to at the top of the section just in case our readers want to know more details.
Third concern, I wouldn't say it's centric bias, but rather a matter of notability. The US, being a very powerful country, certainly deserves mention, even at state level. 48/50 states is pretty significant in and of itself, never mind the fact that many of these states have economies larger than most nations on earth. Which leads me to my next point: America is more influenced by Turkey on a federal level. This leads to readers thinking that America, in its entirety, denies the Armenian Genocide (something the Federal government doesn't do either, but it's construed that way). However, the American public has very different notions about the issue. I think highlighting that fact is helpful for our readers to understand that America by and large acknowledges the Armenian Genocide and its recognition should not be limited to some politically motivated statement a president says once a year. Étienne Dolet (talk) 05:22, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for updating the figures in the body of the article. Could you also update the citation in the body of the article?
With respect to your reply to my second point, I think your argument about excessive detail supports removing the number of US States from the lead. The key fact is that most scholars and many nation-states recognize the genocide, despite Turkey's attempts at revising history. Adding details about the subnational politics of country in another hemisphere distracts readers from that fact.
For the third point, my reply is that US federal government position on the Armenian genocide reperesents a complex balance between the realpolitik of the US alliance with Turkey and the political influence of the Armenian diaspora in the United States. While this is an interesting topic, I don't think the details belong in the lead. If anything, the lead should mention that some nations (US, UK) have avoided using the term "genocide" due to pressure from the Turkish goverment.
In your reply to my third point, you also expressed a concern that ommiting the numbers could give readers the impression that the US denies the genocide. However, if number of US states were removed, the lead would say nothing about the US postion and thus give no such impression to to readers.
I'll update the citation. I'll have to use the Armenian Weekly source.
Nation-states are not the only entities that are notable in recognizing a historical fact. States of major countries have been instrumental in spreading the recognition of the AG throughout all sectors of their respective societies. Its influence cannot be under. California currently mandates the AG to be taught in schools, as do other states. That's a big deal considering that some of these states are more influential in global society than many nation-states. By adding the fact that 48 states recognize the AG doesn't distract readers from Turkey's revisionism, it further convinces them that such revisionism is a far-fetched minority view.
Yes, but not if the recognition of 48 states is significant in and of itself, which is what I'm arguing here. There's more to the US than its federal government. The question isn't whether the US federal government denies the veracity of the events, it is compelled to not recognize it due to international pressure. That can't be said for the states who, almost unanimously, have recognized the genocide as fact. That's an astounding feat and should be noted so as to not give our readers the impression that the USA, one of the most influential, if not the most influential countries in the world has not made any sort of effort concerning the AG's recognition at any level in society. Étienne Dolet (talk) 07:35, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
I agree with you that getting 48 states to recognize the genocide is an impressive feat for the ANCA and the Armenian lobby, but MOS:INTRO says that the lead should serve as concise version of the article. To meet that requirement, we must either (A) add more details about the recognition by US states to the body of the article, or (B) remove the statement about recognition by US states from the lead.
Furthermore, MOS:LEAD also requires that the lead reflect the coverage of the topic in reliable sources. Can you identify any reliable sources that both focus on the Armenian genocide and emphasize its recognition by individual US states? Billhpike (talk) 09:06, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
This is actually fairly simple: the lede is supposed to summarize the main points in the body of the article. As it currently stands, the bit about the U.S. states is certainly not a main point of the article. It could become a main point, if it were significantly expanded, with good sourcing. I'm not sure, but I suspect such sourcing may be hard to come by. Here's why:
With a few exceptions, U.S. state legislatures are motley collections of partisan lightweights with neither any personal understanding of complex international topics nor the budget to hire staff to do research and provide them with that understanding. Indeed, they have no constitutional duty to pursue such understanding, since state governments cannot conduct foreign affairs. In any event, most state legislators couldn't even begin to find Armenia on a map or identify the century in which the genocide occurred if their lives depended on it. Every session, they're quick to "recognize" anything and everything, and half the time they don't have the slightest idea what they're voting on; they just vote the way their party whip or their friend in the next seat tells them to. Recognizing things is very popular because it looks very official and meaningful but, unlike passing legislation, there are no financial costs involved and, if the topic is sufficiently arcane, it creates few angry constituents. RivertorchFIREWATER17:01, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
I looked through several scholarly databases for information recognition of the Armenian Genocide by individual US States. None of the sources I reviewed that focussed on the genocide discussed the subnational politics of the US. Some of the sources that focused on the general concept of genocide had a few sentences discussing recognition by US states.[1][2] The only significant scholarly coverage of the recognition of the genocide by US states was in sources that focussed on the political influence of the Armenian Diaspora in the US.[3][4][5]
Per MOS:LEAD, emphasis given to material should reflect its relative importance to the subject, according to published reliable sources. Unless someone can provide a source that emphasizes the recognition of the genocide by US states, I'm going to remove any reference to it from the lead.
Though I agree with many of the concerns raised here regarding the relative insignificance of what US states say on international matters, it is still significant in many aspects. The US is arguably the country, whose recognition is given the topmost importance by many Armenians. Though state recognition is secondary, it paves the way for recognition by the federal government and also (usually) promotes education of the subject in public schools of those states. --Երևանցիtalk08:11, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
Our job is summarize what reliable sources say about the topic. If, as you argue, this is significant aspect of the Armenian Genocide, you need to identify reliable sources that support your view. Billhpike (talk) 15:29, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
For one, I don't understand this "expanding" the state recognition part is all about. The recognition of 48 states is a simple-matter-of-fact. Much like the recognition of the AG by 29 countries. What is it that has to be expanded? Should we add the names of each and every state? Add their governors? Discuss whether political parties voted along party lines? It all seems silly to me. The most we can do is add this map, but that's far that it can come by. So again, I don't see how a simple matter of fact can be expanded to that end. Much like how a simple matter of fact concerning the recognition of the AG at nation-state level can't be expanded either.
And the recognition of the AG obviously has never been a "significant aspect of the Armenian Genocide" itself. It's merely the recognition of it decades, if not centuries later. You obviously won't find a legitimate historical source concerning the AG, especially within the ones the ones you provide, that would even bother talking about the AG's recognition. Why would it? The study of the AG is nothing more and nothing less than a study into the event itself. So would any historian bother looking into whether or not any state, or even nation-state, has recognized the AG. What needs to be understood is whether or not the recognition of 48 states meets Wikipedia's general notability guidelines (WP:GNG) and more specifically, whether the recognition by 48 states, or even individual states, is covered by English language sources. There are dozens, if not hundreds, of sources that you can easily find with a simple Google search that highlights this. It's on every Armenian Genocide advocacy page [2][3][4]. It's found in numerous congressional bills [5][6][7]. Academic journals [8]. Scholarly publications [9][10][11] Newspaper articles [12][13][14]. It's mentioned in many many places. So yes, it's a notability is without question. However, as a compromise, I'm willing to head towards your suggestion of adding a bit about other provincial governments. We can highlight the 48 U.S. States bit, but also add that it has been recognized by many other provincial, municipalities, and international organizations worldwide.
To answer your first question, the article could be expanded to include coverage of the tatics used by the Armenian lobby to secure recognition. Such an expansion would likely violate WP:COAT.
I'm not questioning the fact that 48 US states recognize the Armenian Genocide. Wikipedia's rules require that the content of articles reflect the content of secondary sources about the topic. Since, as you concede, few secondary sources on the AG mention recognition by US states, MOS:LEAD requires that we remove the fact from the lead.
I'm not sure why you linked to WP:GNG? As that policy notes Notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article and Content coverage within a given article or list is governed by the principle of due weight
Why would we discuss the tactics of the Armenian lobby in this article? And if it would likely violate WP:COAT, why then bring it up? So again, there's really nothing more to expand than a simple matter of fact. Unless you want to add a map or a graph or something. You can expand on the ANCA's tactics and etc. on other articles (i.e. Armenian Genocide recognition, Armenian lobby, etc.).
MOS:LEAD doesn't "require" anything. MOS is merely helpful suggestions, but not policy. And yes, when it comes to Armenian Genocide studies, from foremost genocide scholars like Akcam, Kevorkian, Dadrian, Kaiser, and etc., they do not elaborate on the recognition of the AG because it's not their task to do so. This doesn't mean that the recognition of the AG isn't an important fact that shouldn't be considered in the article. If we were to take up your argument on that note, we'd have to remove the recognition of nation-states as well since they're not mentioned in the most renowned scholarly publications concerning the AG itself. They are, however, mentioned in many publications that deal with the recognition of the AG and its standing in contemporary world affairs. Hence, important.
Yes, I meant WP:DUE. So what we'll have to seek consensus on this TP over its inclusion based on WP:RSs.
RFC on inclusion of recognition by US States in Lead
Latest comment: 6 years ago27 comments15 people in discussion
The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Support its inclusion. You don't have to be a nation-state to recognize a historical event. California's recognition, for example, was highly impactful in educating its citizens about the Armenian Genocide, going so far as to mandate it to be taught in high schools and also creating a week long commemoration of the AG in that particular state. At any rate, as I've noted above, there's a plethora of sources that discuss U.S. states' recognition of the Armenian Genocide. There are dozens, if not hundreds, of sources that you can easily find with a simple Google search that highlights this. It's on every Armenian Genocide advocacy page [15][16][17]. It's found in numerous congressional bills [18][19][20]. Academic journals [21]. Books and scholarly publications [22][23][24][25][26]. Newspaper articles [27][28][29][30]. Hence, WP:DUE. The recognition of the AG isn't elaborated on within studies of the AG itself, but neither is the fact that 29 nation-states have recognized it either. The notion that scholarly publications that focus just on the AG (i.e. deportations, massacres, forced assimilation, etc.) should step aside and talk about how many or which of the nation-states or provincial governments have recognized the AG or what its standing is like in global or local politics is not the task of a historian or a genocide scholar, therefore it shouldn't be used as an argument for excluding anything related to the recognition of the AG. On the other hand, most sources that talk about the recognition of the AG and the denial of it for that matter do include this fact. These efforts of recognition have served the American public for decades when it comes to educating its citizens about this event, and has also led to more fervent discussion and interest in the topic. I will concede, however, to add a caveat that says it has also been recognized by many provincial, municipalities, and international organizations worldwide. Étienne Dolet (talk) 01:14, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Support its inclusion in the lead. There's no reason to only mention countries, and since this is the English Wikipedia (with a large American readership) and the US as a nation has not formally recognized the genocide but 48 out of 50 states have, it's entirely relevant to our readers to mention that fact. It's also mentioned in the lead of Armenian Genocide recognition. nagualdesign04:54, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
Oppose : No reliable sources that focus on genocide also discuss recognition by US states in detail, so MOS:LEADREL requires us to exclude this fact from the lead. Billhpike (talk) 00:34, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Why would that matter? Do you have to have an international standing to recognize, educate, and further spread the word? If you were to ask me, the recognition of the AG by 48 American states has made more of an impact to that end then say Luxembourg recognizing it. Étienne Dolet (talk) 01:17, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Well, why stop at US states? Why not include cities or towns? In fact, I'm not even sure nations should be mentioned in the lede. This is primarily a history topic, not a political one. Why should I care about what politicians think? History is not their field of expertise. When it comes to history, I want to hear what actual historians say, not politicians. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:23, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Sure, as I've said I'm willing to concede that we can add a caveat on how it has also been recognized by provincial and municipal governments worldwide. So why should you care about what politicians think? Well, this genocide is different from many other due to the simple fact that it's being denied by its perpetrator, Turkey. If we are to add any ounce of information about this genocide's denial into the lead (in which we have), it should be counter-balanced (per WP:BALASP) by saying it has been widely recognized throughout the world by numerous nation-states, states, and provinces, and yes, even local governments. And let's not forget that politics and history (and historiography) are often intertwined in more ways than you'd think, and there's numerous examples of this. The recognition of the AG by California, for example, has paved the way for the AG to be taught in that state's school curriculum, and has allowed for not only genocide remembrance days, but genocide remembrance weeks and been a focal point in the state's genocide awareness programs. And that's just one state. Without such initiatives, the minority denialist argument would gain much more favor and the AG would be lost into the dustbins of history. Étienne Dolet (talk) 02:03, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
I agree that this article should not be advocacy for genocide recognition, as such this has limited usefulness for the lede here - it is already in the lede for Armenian Genocide recognition. This article should really be focused on being a history article. It is missing quite a bit of significant content - ICTY prosecutor Alexis Demirdjian recently edited an interdisciplinary volume which is one of the strongest sources for the subject, but it has not been consulted at all for this article whereas Peter Balakian (a poet) is cited 15 times, Turgut Ozal is not mentioned, Hrant Dink is mentioned only briefly. I don't want to give up on this article, but it is not going to improve as long as editors continue to treat at as a forum to advocate against Turkish nationalism or promote recognition. Every article on Wikipedia does not need to turn into a polemic about this, and it really wears out editors who are more interested in creating a useful article than being assaulted by the personal opinions of a small group of editors.Seraphim System(talk)21:12, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Oppose. Summarizing my comments in the thread above: the lede should summarize the main points in the body of the article, but US states' "recognition" isn't a main point. With significant expansion, back by reliable sourcing, it could become one, but this is unlikely to happen. RivertorchFIREWATER17:54, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Oppose: Nations like US states decisions are very volatile, a mention that it enjoys significant endorsement that it constitute genocide and adding all those volatile details in the notes (like number of states) would be a good move. Also seriously consider changing words like recognition, most if not all nations (including Turkey) recognize the events were tragic, what is disputed is the terming and details, some constants are invariably recognized. But for those fixes to be possible, juridical terms (such as Genocide) should be forbidden in article titles for historic events. This way, we get rid of biased terms such as denial.Yaḥyā (talk) 15:33, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
And what did you expect? As you know, the Armenian Genocide is being denied by some fringe minority, so the more recognition we add to the article the better. The less, well, that makes denialists all the more happy. Somewhere out there, I would imagine that Turkish nationalists are rejoicing at this and are further emboldened. Some can even get a sense of that on this project already. Étienne Dolet (talk) 19:10, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
You got that right, genocide is rejected by some, like behaviorism is rejected as a model which could alone explain the learning process. The learning process will never be adequately explained by terms such as behaviorism, those were modeled in a controlled institutional environment (via social roles, psychologists, jurists, etc.) they mean nothing for Joe or Bob! Those push for recognition served their time, because institutions only see the world through polarities, acknowledgement, denial, etc. but the essential was immortalized through the process and that's all what matters. By placing all those stuff about recognition in the lede you make it seem as if the word is all what matters and there is no event independently from models constructed by institutions. Yaḥyā (talk) 20:08, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
I would believe that movies like Ararat, paintings, songs about the event would be more relevant than states opinions in the lede. Just think about that. Yaḥyā (talk) 20:13, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
I am merely stating that by using terms such as recognition we mislead readers to believe that there is a denial of the tragedy; just because there are some rejection of some legal terms cooked in the isolated environment of institutions. The tragedy existed long before the model of genocide, and will be recorded long after the initial model mutate to become something else. Institutions (such as governments) opinions of those concepts (devoid of any true meaning) have little relevance: because the essential of the tragedy transcend those models. The event has an autonomous existence independently from terms like Genocide.Yaḥyā (talk) 17:40, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Well, I'll call bullshit on that. There is indeed denial of the tragedy, and the tragedy was a genocide, which is much more than a legal term. Wikipedia is not here to right great wrongs, however, and even if it were, noting that a bunch of state legislators had voted yea on "recognition" wouldn't help matters. RivertorchFIREWATER04:00, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
and the tragedy was a genocide, that sentence proves my point. It is the tragedy which is genocide, not the other way around. And no, there is actually no one seriously questioning that it was a tragedy. Not even the lawyer of the Assembly of Turkish American association (who would obviously reject the term genocide). [31] See my point? Legal concepts and premeditation at state level are marginal details which interest bureaucrats (or else they'd be jobless). For the commoner, those are mostly irrelevant, what matters is the human tragedy; those commoners are what the world is made of (and not the minority of bureaucrats). Yaḥyā (talk) 14:55, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
oppose Having read the article, and initially supporting, I now oppose the addition. Plainly, it doesn't read right, in this beautiful article. You have 29 countries, who are national bodies and 48 states who are sub national bodies, in the same sentence. I know it's perhaps an important step in recognizing genocide. Perhaps a new section is needed. scope_creep (talk) 10:23, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Oppose. The recognition by sovereign states is relevant and notable enough, but I do not think that the listing of similar decisions made by lower administrative units provide relevant information. Borsoka (talk) 04:40, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
Oppose. In my opinion, this is not what this article is focussed on, so should not be in the lead. It also appears US-centric to me. Perhaps better suited to the lead of the specific recognition article. Thanks, GreyGreenWhy (talk) 20:53, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Oppose As detailed above, this is too US-centric (supporters have talked about these contributing to the "education of the American public" and English Wikipedia having a large American readership, exactly illustrating the point) and recognition by US states has no international standing. And that is something that matters. Arguments that claim otherwise seem to approach the issue from a recognition-advocacy viewpoint. --GGT (talk) 16:58, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Oppose for reasons given by others, the article isn't about US formal recognition and individual states' recognition is a 'sideshow' - much more significant is that the majority of historians accept the term (otherwise we wouldn't use that name for the article). It is certainly not lead-worthy. Pincrete (talk) 18:43, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
Threaded discussion
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Concentration camp photos
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The (external) link {{Worldcat subject|lccn-n98-68823|Hayotsʻ Tsʻeghaspanutʻyan Tʻangaran-Institut}} should be moved to Wikidata, so that it appears correctly in this article's Authority Control template—how do I do that? —DocWatson42 (talk) 12:59, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
No. That is the WorldCat identifier for the Armenian Genocide Museum-Institute (see Tsitsernakaberd), not for the Armenian Genocide in general. A specific institute's publications may make a valid external link but shouldn't become the Authority Control entry for the subject as a whole. In general, follow the "Wikidata item" link in the toolbox to the left of the article to find the Wikidata item; choose "add statement" at the bottom of the "Identifiers" section to add a new one. Huon (talk) 18:56, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
@Huon: Oops. I've added the Wikidata link to the Sister project links template (which in my opinion is more prominent than the sidebar) and a clarification to the WorldCat link. However, I'm afraid that, while I've looked at Wikidata, I don't understand your instruction "choose 'add statement' at the bottom of the "Identifiers' section to add a new one". Would you please be so kind as to clarify that? —DocWatson42 (talk) 01:28, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
This is the Wikidata item for the Armenian Genocide. It has some general introduction at the very top, then a section entitled "Statements" with entries such as "instance of", "part of", "image" and so on, then a section entitled "Identifiers" with entries such as "Freebase ID", "GND ID", "Library of Congress authority ID" and so on, and then some tables of links to various kinds of WMF projects - Wikipedias in multiple languages, Wikibooks, Wikiquote and so on. At the bottom of the "Identifiers" section, right above the WMF project links, there is a link entitled "add statement". Clicking that link will bring up a form for a new identifier that you can fill out and save. So if we had a WorldCat ID for the Armenian Genocide, that's how we'd add it to the Wikidata item. Huon (talk) 18:09, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
@Huon: Thank you. ^_^ Where can I find instructions on migrating Wikipedia interlanguage links to Wikidata? (I recently ran across one ([[de:[something]]], though I forget where.) —DocWatson42 (talk) 16:50, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
Requested move 3 February 2018
Latest comment: 6 years ago6 comments6 people in discussion
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Oppose capitalization as proper name is acceptable per sources [32][33][34], though not universal, but title is stable and not in violations of our principles of common name, preciseness, conciseness, etc. As for consistency, other articles may not be using proper names, or they too might need an RM. Ribbet32 (talk) 02:30, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
Oppose on basis of Ribbet32's well-considered points. Armenian Genocide (all caps) predominates in the literature and has over the years effectively become a proper name, both in popular and scholarly spheres. Lower-casing it at this point is uncalled for. Diranakir (talk) 04:52, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
BLP Violations in article
Latest comment: 6 years ago10 comments4 people in discussion
An unsourced defamatory statement that was removed as a BLP violation has been restored without the inline citations required by policy. WP:BLPREMOVE - I don't want to revert a second time, but the statement should promptly be sourced or removed until it is sourced. It should not have been restored to the article without an inline citation.Seraphim System(talk)16:55, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
We don’t need a source for it since his article has full of sources already. But I can add it regardless. The fact is finding a source that says Justin McCarthy denies the genocide should be as easy as finding a source that says Akçam is an AG historian. There’s really no debate here. You could find such sources with your eyes closed if you really wanted to Seraphim. So I really hope no user here is trying to make an effort to give denialists the same level of academic and scholarly respect as any other historian. I mean, one can only hope. Étienne Dolet (talk) 17:08, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
I don't have to find sources for it, but any editor who wants to restore is does before reverting.We don’t need a source for it since his article has full of sources already. - that is not how BLP works. Not only do you need to add sources before restoring, but it needs to be an inline citation, in this article. There is no exemption to the BLP policy which is the same for every living person.Seraphim System(talk)17:23, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Again, have you bothered looking at his article as I’ve suggested? There are sources there. Tons. Just pick one and WP:DOITYOURSELF. The fact that you didn’t do this is worrisome. Again, we wouldn’t want to make our readership infer that McCarthy is just like any other historian. Would we? Étienne Dolet (talk) 17:43, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
This is not about my personal views or opinion, and I really don't want to get attacked again or called a genocide denier - why is it worrisome? No editor is required to source something for you.
The reason I didn't source it is because this is not how McCarthy is discussed in the best quality WP:RS - and I have read the main article - it doesn't attach any objective labels to him. He is highly cited and his work is discussed as legitimate scholarship by very high quality WP:RS.
This is a good example of what this content would look like if it was neutral [35] - calls him an apologist, describes neutrally the scholarship and disagreement without taking a side, etc.
a detailed discussion in Demirdjian [37] - so this is how academic sources discuss McCarthy without name-calling and my view is that this article should not be so radically different or less serious than the available scholarship.Seraphim System(talk)18:02, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Ohhhh so now the true colors come out. I really don’t think you cared about the BLP now that you confessed to this. It seems that you are trying to prop up an Armenin Genocide denier to the level of all other distinguished historians by calling him a respectable scholar or what not, which is what I was worried about from the start. You realize that nothing you said so far concerning “estimates” and other scholars taking him seriously negate the fact that he denies the AG, right? And no matter how much you’d like to see him at the same playing field as all other distinguished scholars and academics, it will not happen. He is a denier of the AG and to minimize that fact is to head down a very risky path. Remember, this is WP:AA2 territory. Étienne Dolet (talk) 18:23, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
No, that he says it was not genocide is patently clear - what is not clear is what that has to do with his estimates - most scholars seem to distinguish between his apologist analysis and the estimates themsleves. Your personal attacks are completely out of line. It makes it impossible for editors to have consensus discussions. I am trying to discuss what is in WP:RS and you are making it into personal attacks. What is in WP:RS has nothing to do with my personal opinion.:
And no matter how much you’d like to see him at the same playing field as all other distinguished scholars and academics, it will not happen. - this comment is completely unacceptable.
You realize that nothing you said so far concerning “estimates” and other scholars taking him seriously negate the fact that he denies the AG, right? - the issue is that the statement is tacked on to a long discussion about the estimates, and the majority of WP:RS discussing his estimates do not match the POV tone of the current article.
It seems that you are trying to prop up an Armenin Genocide denier to the level of all other distinguished historians by calling him a respectable scholar please post the diff where I called him a "respectable scholar".
I really don’t think you cared about the BLP now that you confessed to this. Excuse me, now that I confessed to what exactly? I saw an unambigious BLP violation and I removed it, which I would have done even if I had wanted it in the article, which I don't, because I think it is poor writing that doesn't add anything to the article. I have posted several excellent examples of how this issue can be discussed without compromising encyclopedic tone and quality. Seraphim System(talk)18:38, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Yeah removing is the best thing to do. I don't get why some users are so keen on using authors who are well known for holding fringe views. Use them on articles specifically meant for them (i.e. Armenian Genocide denial). - LouisAragon (talk) 18:12, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Henry Theriault
Latest comment: 6 years ago15 comments4 people in discussion
I looked up the Theriault article in Hein and it has 0 cites in other papers. This statement is not even sourced to the journal article, but to an opinion piece he wrote in Armenian Weekly:
According to Henry Theriault, while current members of Turkish society cannot be blamed morally for the destruction of Armenians, present-day Republic of Turkey, as successor state to the Ottoman Empire and as beneficiary of the wealth and land expropriations brought forth through the genocide, is responsible for reparations.
So you are attempting to prop up Armenian Genocide denialists while simultaneously advocating that a perfectly reasonable statement from the President of the International Association of Genocide Scholars is undue. I’m baffled. Étienne Dolet (talk) 20:26, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
No, I am trying to improve an article and help it pass GA, because I really want it to pass, but not in this condition. An opinion article in Armenian Weekly is not WP:RS. If a primary novel theory does not have any additional sources to support it, then it is undue. The fact that you think it is a Perfectly reasonable statement is your personal opinion, not a justification for inclusion. If you are going to participate in the discussion, I would really prefer it if you could stick to policy and source based discussion. Seraphim System(talk)21:02, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Additionally there may be WP:OR in the section - Particularly important are Principles 9 and 12 is sourced to two primary sources. Neither of them singles anything out as "particularly important". This [38][39] needs to be discussed and there is an additional cite to the Armenian weekly opinion for a legal argument about the applicability of the Sevres treaty.Seraphim System(talk)21:02, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
The Armenian Genocide has been extensively written about in scholarly sources, so we should avoid citing newspaper articles when possible. For this sentence, I would suggest citing Üngör & Polatel[1], which has been cited extensively by scholars.[2] One bibliography gave a summary of Üngör & Polatel that is nearly identical to the above sentence.[3]
Can you please explain how you think these sources address the above issues? One is a book on WorldCat, the other is a list of articles on Google Scholar, and the other has some short summaries of various papers - how are these relevant to the discussion?Seraphim System(talk)22:27, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
I think changing the section heading might be a good idea - just having one section called reparations. And then using Üngör. The Statute of Limitations part should be removed entirely and the short sections should be merged. There are too many of those as it is.Seraphim System(talk)23:00, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Nope, the Statute of Limitations is pretty relevant when it comes to Armenian Genocide reparations. It should stay. As for the Armenian Weekly, you still haven't shown us why you think the statement by the President of the International Association of Genocide Scholars is WP:UNDUE and why is it that the Armenian Weekly is not an RS. Waving a wand and saying "this shall not be RS" isn't really much of an argument (smells like WP:JDLI to me). If you do have a problem with the AW, take it to the WP:RSN or else it's RS until proven otherwise. Étienne Dolet (talk) 00:52, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
The Armenian Weekly is a reliable source. However, it is also a primary source, and Wikipedia prefers scholarly secondary sources when they are available (see WP:SCHOLARSHIP). Fortunately, the AG has been extensively covered in academic sources, so it should easy to find additional citations to supplement anything currently cited to the Armenian Weekly. BillHPike (talk, contribs) 01:32, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
I agree to that and would prefer a secondary source. Your argument, which is correct, is different than: "An opinion article in Armenian Weekly is not WP:RS." The argument should be much more consistent with what sources we prefer (which is the argument you're making) as opposed to outright refusal to call it an RS. Étienne Dolet (talk) 01:54, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
We don't generally use opinion pieces as WP:RS - while they may be WP:RS only for the fact that someone, in this case Theriault, made a statement, that does not mean it needs to be included. Something that is only citable to Armenian Weekly is mostly likely undue for inclusion, if it hasn't been discussed anywhere else, there is no shortage of academic sources for this topic.
Thierault is a philosophy professor - he is not a particularly strong or important source for technical arguments about international law. He is not just the President of IAGS - he is the head of the The Armenian Genocide Reparations Study Group - secondary source discussion about Thierault should be included in this section, but he should not just be quoted without any background about his work or who he is, and WP:UNDUE primary quotations should not be included at all.
I personally don't use a lot of quotes in general because I think articles are more engaging without them. Editors have mixed feelings on this, and it is largely a style preference, but well-written articles don't have a lot of blockquotes. I see several in this article that don't add anything to the article and duplicate content that is already adequately discussed. This type of repetition should generally be condensed, and organized coherently.
At 232,309 bytes, the article is way, way over what is recommended WP:LENGTH. At 50 kB and above it may be beneficial to move some sections to other articles and replace them with summaries per Wikipedia:Summary style
What would improve this article is summarzing the majority view of the best available academic sources. Where academic sources are available, they should be preferred. If it's not discussed in any of those sources, it is undue, at least for this article.
The statute of limitations clauses are not "particularly important" - there is no secondary source, and your opinion that the Statute of Limitations is pretty relevant when it comes to Armenian Genocide reparations is not a substitute for a secondary source. This article does not need to cover every detail.
Retroactivity is actually discussed by numerous secondary sources but not mentioned in the article.
Another issue is the Table of Contents which needs to be better organized and streamlined as there are too many short sections that can be consolidated.
Thierault's statement in the Armenian Weekly can be used if there's important (i.e. "key") information in it. He's an important figure vis-à-vis Armenian Genocide studies in contemporary times. So, as long as he's cited appropriately (because it indeed appears to be an opinion piece), I don't see any reason to object to the inclusion of the material. Perhaps like this; "(Professor in philosphy) Henry C. Theriault, chairman of the Armenian Genocide Reparations Study Group, co-editor of the (peer-reviewed) Genocide Studies International, and President of the International Association of Genocide Scholars stated in Armenian Weekly that (...)".
But I will leave that to others. Billhpike mentions that the material can also be found in several secondary sources. That would be even better. But disregarding the material just because its a WP:PRIMARY...not a strong argument in this case, IMO.
"If a primary novel theory does not have any additional sources to support it, then it is undue."
An advocate's primary opinion is not key information - it is one person's opinion. An argument that it should be kept in the articles because some editors think his opinion is important is why we have a strong preference against primary. Why are there no secondary sources that have cited it, if it is key information? It's also in the wrong section - the section is about international law. It's inclusion in a section that is supposedly about international law is an inappropriate use of primary. Reading more carefully, I'm also not 100% sure what he is saying: "is responsible for reparations" - morally or legally? No court is ever going to touch the issue of whether Ottoman land deeds are still valid today - I wish it were different, but isn't that the issue? So I think he means morally that there should be a settlement/agreement - not as a point of law. It's definitely WP:OR to put this primary quote in a section that is developing a WP:OR argument about "international law". The section doesn't even cite which law it is talking about, or any secondary sources that support its application to this issue - it just mentions "clause 9 and 12" — clause 9 and 12 of what? Where is a secondary source saying this is relevant for this issue? It's inappropriate use of primary because it requires an editor's interpretation of sources about which editors might reasonably disagree - these aren't basic facts. There should be secondary sources available for all of this. My strong advice is to merge all these sections in a general and brief discussion of reparations that follows secondary sources, and to save the detailed legal arguments—which is a technical and specialized topic—for a less general article.Seraphim System(talk)06:32, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
Regarding clause 9 and 12 specifically as far as I can tell its some kind of advisory guideline for the Commission on Human Rights Resolution 1998/43 - and I can't find any secondary sources that discuss it directly in the context of how it could apply to the Armenian Genocide. Seraphim System(talk)08:42, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
Article Length
Latest comment: 6 years ago19 comments4 people in discussion
@Seraphim System: You placed a {{very long}} tag on this article. I agree the article is long, but the prose is about 115 kB, whereas the wikitext is over 230 kB. Per WP:SIZERULE, articles should generally be less than 100 kB of readable prose. This articles only slightly above that limit, so this is not a serious issue.
If we were to trim the article, this is what I would suggest.:
Move most of the content in Republic of Turkey and the Genocide section into Armenian Genocide denial or a new article. Genocide denial is a fringe view and is given undue weight in this article.
Shorten the Recognition of the Genocide section and Studies on the Genocide section. Much of the content in these sections serves as a rebuttal to fringe denialist theories. Since most of the denialist content would be removed, there is less of a need to provide specific rebuttals.
Shorten and spin off some of the content about the Swedish and Persian diplomatic accounts of the genocide.
I don't suggest we remove all information about the denial. One of the many distinct characteristics about this event is that it's being denied by the perpetrator. On the other hand, this info should be limited. The best approach would be to write a limited description of how the AG is currently being denied by the Turkish government while simultaneously reducing denialist arguments and talking points and the rebuttals to them. So I agree with you that the Studies and Recognition section should be limited in scope. And yes, the Scandinavian section is long. But one thing that's important with the testimonies of the Scandinavians, Persians, and Americans (until 1917) are that they were neutral powers, so they provided vital neutral accounts. Moreover, there were the Germans and Austrians who were allied with the OE. And then, there were the Ottomans/Turks themselves. I liken the importance of these testimonies as giving a bronze medal to the Scandinavians and Americans, silver medal to the Germans/Austria-Hungarians, and gold to the Turks. This hierarchy of importance should be reflected in the article and I think it's done a pretty good job already in that sense. Étienne Dolet (talk) 02:32, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
I think denial has to be covered briefly as all major aspects have to be covered if the goal is GA. However, the problem with this article is overly detailed. I did not realize the number given in the edit history was for wikitext - just over 100k is certainly better than just over 200k. That said certain sections I think are very long and it does effect the readability of the article, in particlar the background and prelude sections. There really shouldn't be two historical background sections - these are like a separate article themselves. There are still major aspects that aren't discussed at all. I also agree with your assessment of the Studies on the Genocide section - the article should not have a lot of content making an WP:OR argument for recognition. Removing this content and replacing it with neutral summaries would be an improvement.Seraphim System(talk)06:26, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
This ABC-CLIO book seems like a fairly competant overview of Armenian genocide denial, discussing each point briefly one by one, I don't think it is necessary to discuss too many specifics - this covers the controversy about Turkish scholarship and this could be generalized with a brief discussion - additional details should go in the main article - nothing will be lost but wikilinks are so readers can learn more about the things they are specifically interested in rather than being overwhelmed by too much detail in a general article:
I removed the tag. Only one user thinks it's long. Before readding it, I suggest you look for consensus instead of just tagging this article all the time. Étienne Dolet (talk) 18:35, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
No Etienne, you need to restore those tags. We have discussed this before, you can not remove tags added by other editors without a discussion and consensus. It is not the first time you have done this.Seraphim System(talk)18:55, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
The rule applies to you as well. You're the sole user here that thinks the article is too long and your argument for it was not convincing. Hence why it had to be removed. Étienne Dolet (talk) 19:58, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
You need consensus to remove templates added by another editor over their objections. For consensus, you need to leave the discussion open for more than a few hours. In fact, I have seen RfCs for removal of these templates. The fact that you don't think it is convicing does not make it a consensus. Bill also agreed that the article was long and there is no dispute that it is over the recommended limit. This is disruptive and I am considering taking this to AE if you continue to unilaterally remove maintenance templates, and refuse to follow basic policies and procedures for collaborative editing, civility etc. - The primary source issue has not been resolved at all, it hasn't even been discussed yet. You don't WP:OWN the article. Seraphim System(talk)20:13, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
Where, when, and how did Bill ever say that this entire article is "wrong"? Bill said: "This articles only slightly above that limit, so this is not a serious issue." which is entirely the opposite than what you're saying right now. So in that regard, yes your argument for article length was not convincing and therefore the tags that you unilaterally added have to be removed since most users on this thread would agree. Sure, there's stuff to trim. Just like in any other article. But to tag this as 'too long' is wholly unnecessary. Étienne Dolet (talk) 20:23, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
This is not the first time, and you removed the primary tag also. I have asked you nicely before to please not remove maintenance tags that I add to articles. I linked you to the procedure for how this is done. Once again you removed maintenance tags without even asking me if I would agree to remove the template. The first thing you should do is discuss it with me, and if I object then you need to gain consensus. Do you understand the difference between consensus and your opinion? Seraphim System(talk)20:25, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
We have removed plenty of primary sources since you unilaterally placed that tag. To unilaterally slap on a maintenance tag and not explain exactly why you're doing this and for what specific reason on the talk page is not very helpful or constructive, in fact it's quite disruptive. It'll be much better if you'll add those tags beside each problematic primary source so we can know what you're exactly complaining about rather then placing a tag with some vague edit-summary and walking away from the issue. Étienne Dolet (talk) 20:34, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
"first thing you should do is discuss it with me, and if I object then you need to gain consensus" - I don't need to ask you anything. You need to explain it yourself (i.e. why are you adding the primary tag, for which specific citation(s), etc.). That's the job of the user that added the tag. After all, we can't read your mind. So it's up to you to provide that explanation and not wait for other users to somehow figure it out themselves. Besides, there's at least three users that oppose your arguments on this talk page. That seems to have much more weight than the complaints of a sole user who unilaterally places tags all the time and does nothing constructively about them. Étienne Dolet (talk) 20:42, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
Yeah but I haven't walked away, we are already discussing a number of open issues. If you want to open a discussion about primary now that's fine, open a discussion. Don't just remove other editors templates. Editors don't need consensus to add a template, there has to be consensus to remove it or agreement from the editor who added it. That's the rule, and it's a problem that you are refusing to follow it. Seraphim System(talk)20:41, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
In general, maintenance tags placed in good faith by clueful editors willing to discuss, as was the case here, should remain either until the alleged problem has been remedied or until there is clear consensus to remove them. This isn't an FA about to be linked from the main page or something like that, so the tag is really doing no harm by remaining for an extra day or two. Having said that, I'll also say that Étienne Dolet's argument that the article isn't long enough to merit this particular maintenance tag makes sense to me. RivertorchFIREWATER04:43, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
As I said above I think the issue is that the background section is too long, and it might make more sense to propose and discuss spinning out certain sections, but that could have resolved by discussion with me directly before removing the templates. Etienne's comment
I don't need to ask you anything. You need to explain it yourself - is not correct, not every template requires a talk place discussion. Some do - like merger. The first step that is advised is to discuss directly with the editor who added the template, and if not consensus is needed for the removal. I still the the background section is overburdening the article and too detailed relative to the "Prelude" section - it even discusses what occupations Aremnians held in the Ottoman Empire. It's not even clear how most of the content directly relates to the topic of the article. Most of the content does not seem to be about the Armenian Genocide, but taken from book length discussions with no page numbers given to verify the sources. Since the article is just a over 100k and not 200k as I thought when a I placed the template, I would have been willing to remove the template and propose a specific discussion for the background section if other editors thought that would be better. There is no excuse for unilaterally reverting templates in the middle of an open discussion. The Primary template certainly shouldn't have been removed as that discussion is still open and the issue is still being resolved. Seraphim System(talk)06:15, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
not every template requires a talk place discussion. - you know that's the definition of WP:TAGBOMBING right? Again, these tags weren't very constructive or helpful, especially when you've now confessed that you don't want to explain why you've placed them in the first place. Besides, I didn't unilaterally remove anything. There were several users who stated that your tags are unjustified. The issue regarding article length was assessed and the primary tag was placed without any rationale on the talk page. All that's needed when it comes to issues concerning primary sources are inline tags which are much more useful for the editors who actually want the article improved. Étienne Dolet (talk) 07:18, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
I disagree with your reading of TAGBOMBING but in any case it is an essay, it doesn't justify removal of templates, and there was no consensus for removal. The was discussion on talk was only open a short time when you unilaterally decided to remove the template instead of engage with the discussion. The personal attacks and aspersions here aren't helping either. What policy says templates can't be added without a talk page justification? Seraphim System(talk)07:59, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, an essay. But it does better define a certain type of disruption. By the way, WP:WIKILAWYERING the difference between essays and policy is in itself disruptive, let alone the fact that you're now completely disregarding them. But this should be discussed in another forum. Étienne Dolet (talk) 08:07, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Adding maintenance templates is not disruptive behavior. Personal attacks are disruptive behavior. Removing templates without discussion or consensus is disruptive behavior. Misrepresenting your personal opinion as consensus is disruptive behavior. Violating 1RR is disruptive behavior: [40][41]. Seraphim System(talk)08:12, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Need to supplement historic newspaper sources
Latest comment: 6 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
There are about 10 citations to historic newspaper accounts of the genocide. These citations are compelling first-hand accounts of the genocide, but are considered to be primary sources per WP:PRIMARYNEWS and need to be used with care. We need to add reliable secondary sources that comment on the events described in these news articles to ensure that we comply with policies on original research
I’m going to try to find secondary sources to supplement the news articles. I’ll try to retain the news articles, but I may replace some news articles with similar articles that are specifically cited by secondary sources. BillHPike (talk, contribs) 14:15, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
Could I ask that {{primary sources}} only be readded if each use of a primary source is tagged with {{primary source inline}}? By my count, the article now has less than 6 instances where primary sources are used without secondary sources. Since there are editors who are committed to improving this article, I feel that inline cleanup tags are more collaborative than tag bombing the entire article. BillHPike (talk, contribs) 21:00, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
I agree. As I've touched-up on in my edit-summary, it'll be much more useful and helpful for good faith copy-editors when inline tags are used rather than the tag bombing of the entire article and leaving only behind vague edit-summaries and a lack of explanations on the talk page. Étienne Dolet (talk) 21:06, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
I have no problem adding inline tags but it will clutter the article more and should not be done outside a sandbox - templates should be added when inline tags would be too numerous. For example, Morganthau, a primary source, is cited 6 times. If 6+ inline tags need to be added a template is justified for the entire article, and should be preferred, for the duration of the discussion until the problem is resolved. Experienced editors are reasonably expected to understand the difference between a primary and secondary source.Seraphim System(talk)08:25, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Map of massacre locations
Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
This is a very detailed map and it looks like a lot of work into it - I want to keep it in the article, but for GA it could be a problem that no references are given for the map, since it shows very precise locations (including several points in the sea?). Do any of the editors here know where the map came from or what sources were used to create the map and is it possible to add the source to the article?Seraphim System(talk)13:03, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
NOTE: I found out from the information on Commons that the source is a copy of an atlas by Robert Hewsen, that was available on armenica and released through OTRS. Despite the complex history, I also found out it is a featured image. It seems like the original source Hewsen is somewhat difficult to access and those voting in the featured image discussion assumed good faith on the referencing, and I don't see any problem with us doing so as well. I will additionally try to track down a copy of the source and verify it independently, but as this doesn't pose an issue in preparing this article for a GA nomination (given the featured status of the image) I am closing this thread.Seraphim System(talk)14:41, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
"Persia" subsection
Latest comment: 6 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
The "Persia" subsection looks somewhat out of place. Mainly due to the fact that NW Persia itself was hit during the AG (spillover). Should the section therefore be;[42]
a) expanded? (for example, it lacks info about the massacres in Khoy, Urmia, and Maku, as well as dates in general)
b) merged into another subsection?
c) expanded and merged into another subsection?
Ideally C, but realistically B. For one, there's not a lot of eyewitness testimony when it comes to the AG from the Persians. On the other hand, their testimony is really important because they were a neutral power. But I can't seem to find a subsection we can merge/expand into. Any thoughts? Étienne Dolet (talk) 02:40, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
I think that entire Reports and reactions section should be condensed and summarized - I'm not sure what benefit there is in having so many short sections like Persia and Russian military - This section could be retitled "Historiography" and just include a brief summary of what the primary sources are and links to the main articles. It is right now largely overburdening the article and it is difficult to extract the essential information from it. Seraphim System(talk)11:45, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
Latest comment: 6 years ago8 comments2 people in discussion
This was added by a new editor Heizellshock here [43]. EtienneDolet reverted it as "unsourced" without any further explanation (it would be better to cite to the policy when reverting a new editor, or to start a talk page discussion and ping them).
I restored it because it seems to be adequately sourced in the article, but User:Yerevantsi has accused me of trying to shift the blame. It turns out to be fairly trivial to find additional sources supporting this, including Hovannisian who discusses Kurdish participation in detail, and quotes primary testimony from survivors. Removing this from the infobox is very concerning, and the personal attacks in no way mitigate that. Could Yerevantsi please link to the talk page discussion he refers to in his edit summary so new editors like myself can familiarize ourselves with it before we continue? Seraphim System(talk)21:29, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
No, adding it is concerning. For one, you claim there's sources to show that Kurds committed genocide in the article (participating in massacres is different than committing genocide). Where in the article is it? Étienne Dolet (talk) 21:57, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
Participating in massacres is different than committing genocides — I appreciate how concerned you and other editors are about "denialist POV", but please link to the previous discussion mentioned in the revert edit summary, I would like to review any prior discussion about WP:RS for this before continuing.Seraphim System(talk)01:13, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
You can search the archives. But more importantly, you should provide a justification for your edit. Can you please point to where it says in the article that Kurds committed genocide? Étienne Dolet (talk) 04:40, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
The discussion is in the archives. Go to Archive 26. This was discussed at length. But again, and more importantly, your justification for your edit is what's problematic here. You say that this sentence: the convoys will be attacked and exterminated by Kurdish and Turkish brigands, and in part by gendarmes, who will be instigated for that purpose by Ittihad somehow proves that ethnic Kurds committed genocide when it says nothing like that. Same with this: These Kurds were called gendarmes, but in reality mere butchers. There's a difference between participating in massacre and committing genocide. Ethnic Kurds, like ethnic Turks, Arabs, Circassians, and others all participated in massacre, but it was the Ottoman government that perpetrated genocide. After all, ethnic Kurds, Arabs, Turks, Circassians, and etc. were all Ottoman citizens and fulfilled their duties to the state by carrying out state-sponsored massacre. We don't blame the Danish government just because of couple of ethnic Danes participated in the Holocaust, would we? Étienne Dolet (talk) 05:43, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
In cases involved individuals who actually carried out the killing, yes we do. There is no recognized distinction between participating in the massacre and "committing genocide", the participation is the actus reus for genocide.Seraphim System(talk)05:59, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
Of course individuals through their actions can commit acts of genocide. But that's not what you edit-warred into the article. Étienne Dolet (talk) 18:15, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
Human rights expert needed + POV
Latest comment: 6 years ago9 comments4 people in discussion
This is the first time on an article that I have seen a WP:NPOV template challenged this way, but a similar discussion involved the same editors is also happening here Persecution of Muslims during Ottoman contraction where editors who reverted the template here, added it there. I think attention from a subject matter expert will be more helpful to resolve the issues with the background section, so I'm not sure whether I will restore the POV template or request subject matter expertise. But I will provide a detailed explanation. In addition to the issues raised above about the infobox, and the term Armenian Holocaust:
The background section has a lot of content that may or may not be relevant to the discussion of genocide — and a subject matter expert is needed.
The background section does not accurately reflect current sources in genocide studies — the millet system is not entirely irrelevant, but the detail about the 16th-18th centuries is excessive. The first time I read this article, I ended up extremely confused about why the genocide did not occur until 1915 — because the emphasis is so much on the millet system, but when I checked academic sources there was a significant difference between this article and those sources.
The section about 19th century reforms needs improvement. The section seems to be obfuscating what sources call in more plain terms the "intensification of ethnic and nationalist sentiment".Routledge. This is the critical part of the background section, and it is extremely ineffective.
Why is Armenian national liberation movement set off in its own short one paragraph section, while the crucial parts of the background are all jumbled together in an incoherent mess?
This article's background section should hone in on content that is essential to understanding the genocide, in a concise summary, without wearing out the readers attention span before they reach the real background section, currently called "Prelude"
Question: did you just search for POV stuff only after placing the tag and receiving a barrage of criticism for it or did you think about all these things before placing the tag? Because it certainly sounds like the former rather than the latter. Étienne Dolet (talk) 18:52, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
The article can certainly be improved in a variety of ways, but none of the above are a reason for a POV tag. With the reasoning used above, every article in wikipedia deserves a POV tag. Obvious nonsense. It seems more like an attempt to justify a POV tag after the fact. Khirurg (talk) 23:25, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
For example, I just read the death marches section and most of it is sourced to the NY Times 1916. I don't know why anyone would prefer that source when there must be at least a hundred full length academic books written about this. It would be easier to list the sections that dont have a POV issue.Seraphim System(talk)09:19, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
I don't think The Turk in America: The Creation of an Enduring Prejudice is a good source for this — we don't use Justin McCarthy for anything else. For example the secondary source cited Encyclopedia of War Crimes and Genocide uses the term "forced deportations" and says the NY Times article used the headline "exterminated". At first I took editors at their word that this article was well-sourced, but when these sources are not faithfully represented, or distorted to fit the expressed POV of the editors defending the articles POV, I'm beginning to have my doubts.Seraphim System(talk)07:12, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
This is possibly the most contentious part of the entire article. It should be carefully and impeccably sourced, and explained very clearly. The current organization into 'Deporations' and 'Death Marches' is a problem - the entire issue of massacres and deportations would be organized into one coherent, chronological section. The Encyclopedia is a good source, but it wasn't followed when writing this article.
I will point out one more issue — the article says Talaat Pasha and Djemal Pasha were completely aware that by abandoning the Armenian deportees in the desert they were condemning them to certain death. — any claim asserting objectively in Wikivoice what historic figures were aware of or state of mind, is poor historic writing.
Third, the Encyclopedia notes that a government which is unable even to feed its own troops" — this has been left out. It appears as though the high quality sources have been picked to support the POV of the editors. Seraphim System(talk)07:38, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
French quote
Latest comment: 6 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
Regarding this addition by Diranakir "Djemal Pacha avait parfaitement conscience qu’abandonner les Arméniens dans le désert signifiait les condamner à une mort assurée." - as a quote to verify Talaat Pasha and Djemal Pasha were completely aware that by abandoning the Armenian deportees in the desert they were condemning them to certain death. for a contentious topic with so many English language sources available, English language sources would be preferred unless there is a compelling reason to use a french language source. In any case, it would be better rephrase this as "were most likely aware" - the current language is too strong for good historical writing.Seraphim System(talk)14:22, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
The meaning of the French is quite available and accessible to anyone with a modicum of contacts in the world of 'good historical writing'. There is nothing obscure about it. And I challenge you to indicate which French words say "were most likely aware". They are not there. That is pure fabrication–proof that you have no idea of or commitment to "good historical writing" but only deploy the term to counter points you strongly disagree with.Diranakir (talk) 03:47, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
No, because that would be WP:OR and WP:POV. “Most likely” is one of those terms that can easily be construed as not representative of the reliably sourced fact. At any rate, this sentence seems to have been bugging you for quite some time already. Maybe you should just WP:DROPTHESTICK? Étienne Dolet (talk) 06:41, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
If you can't keep your comments directed exclusively, and I mean exclusively and solely on the content, I think the next step is dispute resolution. You are unreasonably demanding that every basic citation needed, primary or additional sources tag be discussed on talk. I've never seen anything like it. I am planning to add actual content to this article, but it seems all you want to discuss is whether the sentence is bugging me, and not the problems with the article, so something is going to have to change about the discussion style here.Seraphim System(talk)07:09, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Medz Yeghern
Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
The Armenian Genocide is also known as the Medz Yeghern. Why is this not stated? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.140.208.59 (talk) 01:44, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
：Well, it's stated - but not in the lede, and in the past the lede contained the fact that this genocide is also known as the Medz Yeghern [44], however later the fact was removed there (but the terminology subsection still contains it). This is acceptable since from the subsection I clearly know that Aghed was the most commonly used term in Armenian literature to refer to the genocide, and Medz Yeghern was not the only most commonly used term which survivors refer to the tragedy.--RekishiEJ (talk) 06:10, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
Aghed, according to one author, was the most used term in Armenian literature (namely, by writers), which does not mean that it was most commonly used by survivors. For instance, you won't find a single mention of Aghed in hundreds of memorials throughout the world built since the 1920s, while you will find dozens of mentions of Medz Yeghern. Additionally, you won't find a single mention of Aghed in any advertisement for the commemoration published in newspapers throughout the world. Armen Ohanian (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:52, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Additional information on Medz Yeghern: In a book consisting of a collection of articles written over the course of his career by Antranik L. Poladian, a prominent Armenian editor and cultural leader associated with the AGBU, the term 'Yeghern' is used at least 16 times in the period from the 1950s to 1980s as the proper name designating the 1915 genocide, whereas the term 'aghed' is never so used. In the majority of instances, 'Yeghern' appears as 'Medz Yeghern' (The Great Yeghern) and in most of the remaining instances as 'Abrilian Yeghern' (The April Yeghern). Poladian's book, called in English Toil and Earnings, was published in New Jersey in 2002 by the Tekeyan Cultural Association. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diranakir (talk • contribs) 05:32, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Faizan
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 6 years ago38 comments6 people in discussion
Kurdish tribes have once again been removed from the infobox. The many other POV problems have not been fixed and there is tag team edit warring to preserve the POV slant of the article. Discussions with the regular editors are unproductive due to personal attacks.I think the template should be left in place to alert new editors who might be interested in working on the article. For example, reviewing the previous discussion about Kurdish tribes:
"The Croatians, or the Kurds and Arabs in this case, were not involved in the systematic annihilation of the Armenians which is what genocide actually means."
"So you can't put Kurds and the Turkish state in the same basket."
"There were some circumstantial incidents, such as rape, robbery, and killings, that may have not been under command of the Ottoman government, but that was just because they were opportunists."
"The fact of the matter is there's a difference between those who perpetrate genocide and those who are ordered to perpetrate massacre."
"The Kurdish militias did not have a plan of systematic extermination of Armenians, unlike the Ottoman government."
"Of course individuals through their actions can commit acts of genocide. But that's not what you edit-warred into the article."
Much of this is wrong and directly contradicts any reasonable reading of the reliable sources. These comments reflect the personal opinions of a few editors about how to draw distinctions between who is guilty of genocide and who is not. They also show that editors personally attribute responsibility to the Turkish State, and not the Committee of Union and Progress. There are copious other POV issues that have been discussed elsewhere, but this is just the most recent one. This is tiresome, and unlikely to improve with substantial involvement from new editors. Seraphim System(talk)19:12, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
This is a (infobox) content dispute. You can't just tag an entire article because of an infobox dispute. This smacks of "I can't have my way so I will tag the article in retaliation". The article does not have POV issues as a whole. By your logic, any individual or group involved in the genocide, however peripherally should be mentioned in the infobox. There are also many users who would see your edit as anti-Kurdish and as trying to smear the Kurdish people as a whole with orchestrating the genocide. Lastly, you mention "any reasonable reading of the reliable sources". Care to provide some examples of such "reasonable reading"? Khirurg (talk) 22:22, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
Why don't you back off and give new editors a chance to comment? Tagging the article is a last resort, and the many POV issues in the article have been discussed elsewhere and raised by multiple editors, and they were raised during the GA review, and the peer review. They were never fixed. Many articles across Wikipedia are tagged and I have never seen a group of regular editors treat new editors this poorly or edit war over templates this way. It took four years of discussion to remove one Ramsay quote (Wikipedia:Peer_review/Armenian_Genocide/archive3) — this template should not be removed without a consensus that includes participation from uninvolved editors.Seraphim System(talk)22:34, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
This is tiresome, and unlikely to improve with substantial involvement from new editors. - No, what is tiresome is addressing what you believe is POV over and over again on this talk page. You're not a "new user" to this article either. Just scroll from top to bottom on this page and see how many Seraphim System comments, sections, RFCs, or whatever you come across. As you can see, I'm all for improving this article, just like I am all for improving any article, but your justifications for every tag that you've placed, along with other nitpicking of trivial matters, has been consistently met with opposition over and over again and yet you continue to be the sole user pushing for such tags each and every time. And now you're edit-warring it into the article without an edit-summary to explain your reverts. On top of that, you've made no attempt to even refute the arguments I've made while also not providing sources to substantiate your own. Can you please tell me why you've singled out Kurds as perpetrators of genocide when other Ottoman citizens belonging to various other ethnic groups, like the Circassians, Persians, Tatars, Arabs, and others have done the same? And why is it that you can equate the Kurds as perpetrators of the Armenian Genocide with that of the Ottoman government? Étienne Dolet (talk) 22:38, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
The edit to the infobox was made by an editor with just over 100 edits. I don't think continuing this repetitive discussion with you is likely to be successful or productive. I think the best thing for this article would be for both of us to allow new editors an opportunity to get involved. This could takes months or years, as many editors prefer to not jump in when there is a lot of back and forth between two editors. This is my understanding of the advice more experienced editors have given me about this. The same editors repeating themselves is not likely to be productive. There is nothing wrong with leaving a tag in place to inform new editors who might be interested in working on the article.Seraphim System(talk)22:47, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
Why are you changing the subject? What you're saying right now is not a comment or justification that merits a tag. Placing a POV tag isn't a way for you to invite "new users". When has that ever been the case? Why should "old users" have to "go away" and new users magically step in. What kind of new rule is this? You're making some sort of general observation that has nothing to do with the matter at hand. So again, can you please tell me why you've singled out Kurds as perpetrators of genocide when other Ottoman citizens belonging to various other ethnic groups, like the Circassians, Persians, Tatars, Arabs, and others have done the same? Étienne Dolet (talk) 22:54, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
The POV tag is of merit. The article is an accumulation of POV. The first sentence gives the wrong impression that the event is also known as the "Armenian Holocaust". From a GB search, that term is not widely used in historiography, and as such does not have to stay where it is. The sections have plenty of work to do, work together to improve them. Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:52, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
Are we looking at the same Google Books? From what I see, there's plentiful uses of the term Armenian Holocaust"Armenian+holocaust". There's entire studies by Hovannisian, a leading historian of the AG, that is entitled Armenian Holocaust which has been cited by numerous publications. Étienne Dolet (talk) 22:59, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
By the way, it's interesting how you magically showed up on an article you've never edited before after Khirurg made an edit and comment on the TP. You've been at odds with him for quite some time. Should we believe that you ended up here after Khirurg made a comment by sheer coincidence? Étienne Dolet (talk) 00:20, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
Regarding the very specific issue of the presence of "Armenian Holocaust" in the lede, I agree strongly with Ktrimi991- it smacks of WP:POINT. Whenever I hear "Armenian Holocaust" I think someone is making the point it was "like the Holocaust". Well there are many opinions that can be had on that but that is not our business. It's WP:POINT and needs to go. Regarding the rest of the page, the issues don't seem bad enough to deserve a shame tag-- especially on an important and mostly well written/cited page like this. --Calthinus (talk) 23:18, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
Um, what? The term ‘’Holocaust’’ was used for the Armenians decades BEFORE the Jewish Holocaust actually happened. The Armenian Genocide is a special case when it comes to alternate names because the term ‘genocide’ was coined after WWII. So there’s a long list of different words prior to Lemkin’s coining of the term that has been used to desrcibe the event. Étienne Dolet (talk) 23:38, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
Etienne that may be true but the term acquired different meaning since that time. Debating the merits of hte term is not in anyone's interest. The fact is that how it is used in the modern day, in most peoples minds and indeed in much of scholarship the "Jewish" Holocaust is the only one with the official name. Actually in some social contexts saying "the Jewish Holocaust" instead of "the Holocaust" marks you as a likely anti-Zionist. In fact the term "Holocaust" as per Lemkin should be discussed perhaps further down-- but usage in the lede seems like POINT to me. I appreciate that it's a um... thorny issue but that is very likely where others will come from on this point. --Calthinus (talk) 23:41, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
I was just refuting your initial statement that Armenians want to be like the Jews and adopt the word 'Holocaust' when that clearly isn't the case. In fact, I'd kindly ask you to scratch that remark because some people here may find that offensive. Secondly, I need to emphasize the point that the term 'genocide' was coined in the late 1940s by Lemkin and it's for this reason alternate names are doubly important for the AG, and this is not to say we should drop such alternate names just because they took new meaning. No one holds a monopoly on words. And if we were to drop it, we'd be left with no word for our readers or scholars to look up when it comes to the plethora of contemporaneous sources, reports, and eyewitness accounts that are so crucial in understanding this event. Readers would be mislead into believing that the 'Armenian Genocide' is the only term used to describe these events when that's far from the truth. Lastly, the term Armenian Holocaust is in fact used by many Holocaust and Jewish scholars and historians. Chief among them are Yair Auron and Israel Charney, probably the most well-known and respected genocide scholars to date (here's an article by both of them). There's more I can name off the top of my head like Dennis Klein, Daniel Evans of the International Relations and Affairs Group, and Israeli professor and Holocaust survivor Shamai Davidson. In fact, I could argue that it's Holocaust scholars that use that term more than anyone else. Yair Auron points out how Jewish and Holocaust scholars are the ones that spearheaded the effort in incorporating the term Holocaust when referring to the Armenian Genocide. Étienne Dolet (talk) 00:42, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
If you see plenty of such results, yeah, we are looking at different GBs. To present sth as a Holocaust you need many established historians, not just one or two, preferably more than five. That is a strong claim. The claim of the event being a kind of Holicaust could be finely said somewhere else, but not in the first sentence. Anyways, the article in general has many problems. For example, there is an extra long (and POV) Background section followed by a minor Prelude section. At the very least, the Background section should be trimmed. That is my two cents. Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:22, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
Lede aside I actually support hte current version of the background -- a lot of this material is valuable. For example in genocide studies it is generally held that in order for a genocide to occur there typically is a history of hatred or views of inferiority with regard to the target group. These sections are well-cited and go a long way in explaining that, in which the social structure of the Ottoman Empire did play a relevant role. Having a tag like this on an important article is a shame for Wikipedia -- I suggest RfCs to resolve the relevant issues, and then removal of the tag with appropriate speed.--Calthinus (talk) 23:28, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
I don't understand why there is such a rush to remove the tag. It doesn't have to be today. The background section has numerous problems, but participation on RfCs is not very good, it is always the same editors and the environment is overwhelming and unwelcoming to those who may not be subject matter experts. The POV issues on this article are well-attested to in the editing history and talk page archives, and have been ongoing for years. I think everyone should just let it go for a while. Seraphim System(talk)00:09, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
What numerous problems? Can you please specify? For one, your comments here are not constructive for its removal. The background section was not your justification of inserting the tag. In fact, you've gone so far as to say that you've added the tag to "invite new users" which is rather bizarre. That's not the purpose of a POV tag. Étienne Dolet (talk) 00:15, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
As I am watching both the articles Armenian Genocide and Greek Genocide, and so their talk pages, I used to get involved only in the discussions where there are actual POV pushing attempts because I think both articles suffered enough from these attempts in the past. If there has to be a POV tag on the article, the user should provide adequate reasons for doing so. It is against Wikipedia's WP:TAGGING policies to insert tags anywhere without pointing out to not-so-obvious issues that the tag is meant for, and it is a much more preferable solution to point out exactly where the issues are exactly in the article for the rest of the editors to be aware of the issues. Remember: that NPOV tags may not added to the article solely based on an editor's perception of what a POV is. POV tags should be reflected upon the article's compliance with Wikipedia policies and not upon an editor's concerns for POV. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 (talk ✉️) (contribs 📝) 00:27, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
POV Tag has been removed. The editor has two options if they want to reinsert the tag: 1) either list expicitly the issues here so he can work out the issues the article has with other editors, or 2) just add the tag without doing any of the work, but at least provide adequate explanation here in the talk page pointing out specifically to the problems found in the article, WITHOUT referring to past discussions and editorial opinions on the matter. This will greatly help the other editors in idendifying and dealing with the issues. So far, I see one issue explained with details and idendified: Kurds on Infobox. However does the problem with the Kurds in infobox stand out as a valid reason for tagging the entire article? Nope. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 (talk ✉️) (contribs 📝) 00:42, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
Also on the issue of Armenian Holocaust: My apologies but I never heard this term before in my life. I know these events as Armenian Genocide and Great Calamity (Meds Yeghern). The term "Armenian Holocaust" for these events is something new to me, and it seems not just me, but most people out there, since a quick google research shows that this term does not appear to be significantly used in the public (speeches, media, or whatever), besides its confirmed use in limited bibliography. If a term really belongs tothe lead section, in my opinion could be the frequently used term "Great Calamity" since the article's lead is about significant alternative names this topic may be known with, as per WP:OTHERNAMES. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 (talk ✉️) (contribs 📝) 01:03, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
Maintenance tags serve the purpose of informing the broader community of outstanding issues on articles. The POV problems on this article are long term. This particular article happens to be a very important article, — it failed FA, it has failed GA twice already. Participation in this topic area is not as high as other areas, and one reason may be that we don't have as many subject matter experts. Leaving the tag on the article doesn't do any harm. It has been removed once again, on the same day it was added, without even waiting for community input.Seraphim System(talk)00:44, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
The POV problems on this article are long term. - Which ones? Be specific. You're the only user that has continuously and incessantly raised "POV problems" and you almsot always follow it with...it failed FA, it has failed GA twice already. - but that too is not a rationale for placing a POV tag. And why do you keep bringing that up? Why does that matter? It failed GA because the lead wasn't too long. What does that do with your POV tag? Participation in this topic area is not as high as other areas, and one reason may be that we don't have as many subject matter experts. - not a justification for a POV tag. Leaving the tag on the article doesn't do any harm. - not a justification for a POV tag. Just because it "doesn't do any harm" doesn't mean it should remain. Étienne Dolet (talk) 00:49, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Failure on GA or FA reviews can not be a valid argument for tagging an article. That the article does not meet FA and GA standards is different than the article meeting the criteria for tagging. Also tagging an article without a thorough explanation, actually is harmful for the reliability of Wikipedia's Tagging system itself, because if the editors start abusing the tags, the whole Tagging system could lose its reliability. We don't want that. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 (talk ✉️) (contribs 📝) 01:13, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
Étienne Dolet You removed Kurdish tribes from the infobox because, in your opinion, they are just like Ustashe, and it would be "just wrong" to say the Ustashe committed genocide paraphrased from this prior discussion. I don't even understand how you are still editing. This is one example of many. I don't need to provide a further explanation, the justification is sufficient, it is seconded, and it should not be removed without even allowing the community an opportunity to respond. You are also WP:BLUDGEONing the discussion and repeating yourself.Seraphim System(talk)01:05, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
Ustashe? What? That's not paraphrasing, that's misrepresenting what I said. I specifically said ethnic Croatians. To clarify: I said if an ethnic Croat, Dane, or any other ethnic minority participated in massacres during the Holocaust, we would not say Danes or Croats are responsible for the mass extermination of Jews, would we? Étienne Dolet (talk) 01:51, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
Etienne, maybe you would not make these types of mistakes, if you would just follow the analysis of reliable secondary sources during discussions with other editors, instead of pushing "creative" arguments in every discussion. Croats did kill Jews during the Holocaust in Croatia, and based on a quick review of sources, the argument you are making right now is FRINGE.Seraphim System(talk)02:13, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
Again, you're misrepresenting what I said. I am not denying that various people with different ethnic backgrounds participated in the Holocaust. However, I have yet to have seen any substantive arguments that would delegate all responsibility to a certain group of people just because some people with a certain ethnicity carried out their duties to the state. And you actually think I won't find a source that says the "Ottoman Empire is responsible for the Armenian Genocide"? Because that's really all I'm arguing here. If you want to know who did the genocide, it doesn't take much to find out. However, if you claim that there's more than one perpetrator, i.e. an entity that devised and planned to deport, massacre, and exterminate the Armenians in a planned and systematic effort (which is what the AG essentially was), by all means please provide the sources. But do keep in mind that just because someone happened to be an ethnic Kurd does not mean Kurds by and large were perpetrators of that very same systematic policy of the Ottoman government. The equate the two would be to mislead our readers. These people, whether Circassian, Arab, Kurds, Turks, and etc. were merely citizens of the Ottoman Empire. And just like any other citizen, they were fulfilling their civic duty to carry out orders of the Ottoman generals, gendarmes, and etc. There's really nothing to debate here. Étienne Dolet (talk) 02:30, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
Seraphim, the way I see the issue is that while mentioning the Kurdish perpetrators isn't a bad idea itself, it only raises more problems than resolves. To single out the Ottoman Kurds and separate them as perpetrators from the rest of the Ottomans is to give impression that they were a separate force within the Empire's territory that acted on their own and independently of the Ottoman policy makers which in my opinion is rather problematic. Everyone knows and none denies that the genocide policy was instigated by the high-ranked Ottoman officials and was carried out by Ottoman subjects, including Kurds. To list the Kurds as a separate force carrying out genocidal campaigns, you will need strong sources confirming 1) independent Kurdish policy making, and 2) Kurds not acting on behalf of their Ottoman rulers. This is very very difficult to prove, as far as I am aware. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 (talk ✉️) (contribs 📝) 01:29, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
This is not one isolated issue — Peter Balakian is a poet, he is cited 15 times. (This was the source of the Ramsay quote that needed four years of discussion for a removal). Alexis Demirdjian's work is not discussed at all. There are numerous problems in the background section. Some editors review the maintenance categories, and they don't necessarily keep up with drama — those editors won't be able to find the article if the template keeps being removed by edit warring.Seraphim System(talk)01:48, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
Why are you changing the subject? For one, Balakian is not just "a poet", he's also an academic and historian whose work is cited by 333 publications and academic works: [46]. Two, Alexis Demirdjian's work is not discussed at all. - ...and? How's that a justification for a POV tag again? There are numerous problems in the background section. - Again, specify. Étienne Dolet (talk) 01:54, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
It sounds like you didn't even click on the links I provided because the links actually direct you right onto the page where the term 'Armenian Holocaust' is employed. There are some publications with snippet views so you'd have to search "Armenian Holocaust" and it should come up. Étienne Dolet (talk) 04:13, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
I've restored the template. It was edit warred out of the article even though there was no consensus to remove it and none of the issues were addressed, including the Armenian Holocaust label (which several editors commented on during the discussion). Seraphim System(talk)19:57, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 15 November 2018
Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
This edit request to Armenian Genocide has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
I have to object to the restoration of this content. If EtienneDolet were not an experienced editor I would revert this as (subtle) vandalism. As it stands, I will leave an explanation of why this content can't stay in the article as it is.
3000 extradited Armenian children were left behind for orphanage There was administration of poisonous medicine to execute children Children were drowned in the Black Sea who refuse to take poisonous medicine Use of steam baths to suffocate babies/young infants Corpses dumped in nearby sea Red Crescent Hospital in Turkey kept as “pleasure where Governor General Cemal Azmi, kept 15 young Armenian girls to be used for frequent sexual acts, and later executing them afterwards Young Turkey Party potentates had also engaged in using young Armenian girls for sexual uses, hiring dozens to provide orgies and other sexual favours for party runners. Drowning of children in the Trabzon river, Degirmendere, and the usage of the coastline of the Black Sea - Armenian women and children were loaded on barges at the port city of Ordu in Trabzon province and drowned on the high seas, this occured multiple times with the whitness of Turkish officials There occured many homozexual rapes; where young boys were kept in homes and raped under ownership of Turkish Long after mass killings stopped, the rapes and sexual violations of young boys furthered on Burning of Armenian children was another strategy of mass murder, and was a main torture method “en masse” and was economically a more friendly method of torturing Armenians, as the government did not have to spend much on recources for this kind of execution.
This paragraph doesn't use punctuation, there are several sentences without periods and other typos (homozexual might be accidental but whitness? And recources?) Seraphim System(talk)02:15, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
I've reverted to a clean version before the recent additions. I'm not opposed to restoring some of the content if the quality of the prose is improved. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 17:27, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Awkward caption
Latest comment: 5 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
Map of massacre locations and deportation and extermination centers. (Emphasis added)
I feel that this image caption is awkward English and should be rephrased. The conjunction and occurs twice in close proximity as part of separate clauses, making the sentence difficult to understand. In linguists, this is referred to as an ambiguous (nested conjunction.
I don't think it's ambiguous at all because, using brackets for grouping, ((massacre locations and deportation) and (extermination centres)) makes no sense because "massacre locations and deportation" makes no sense. The only possible reading is ((massacre locations) and (deportation and extermination centres)). However, if you feel it must be rewritten surely it can be done without introducing quite so much additional verbiage as "depicting the locations of massacres and the locations of the centers for deportation and extermination" - eg "of the locations of massacres and the centres for deportation and extermination". That's still got two "and"s but I think one would be hard put to read it as ((the locations of massacres and the centres for deportation) and (extermination)). Pinkbeast (talk) 08:50, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
I don't see any extermination centers labelled on the map other then Deir ez-Zor. I'm not sure it's a good use of time arguing about the caption when the discussion in the article needs improvement, including the block quotes from a news article published in 1916. Even though secondary sources were added for the quote, the discussion in those sources has not been followed, but cherry picked for the quote. Unfortunately the map itself is based on an inaccesible source, so as far as I know no one has been able to verify it (its accuracy was taken on good faith when the image was promoted to feature image). Seraphim System(talk)16:56, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
ADDITION: Looking more closely it seems Ras al-Ayn and Raqqah are also labelled - unfortunately I'm not able to find any information on Rasaiayn, is it possible there is an alternate spelling? The connection between the article text and this important/prominent image could be improved. I image readers will be especially curious about the extermination centers and it would help if the article discussed this more clearly.Seraphim System(talk)17:03, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Partly done Content removed per above consensus. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 17:25, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
