Talk:Press coverage during the Armenian genocide
Latest comment: 11 years ago by Wbm1058 in topic Scope not in accordance with article name?
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 23 July 2013 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep. |
 | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
Scope not in accordance with article name?
editJudging from the list of news articles, shouldn't the title rather be something like International contemporary press coverage of the Armenian Genocide? Because, there do not seem to be any Turkish or Armenian examples, and for (unknown) reasons, the article list does not extent beyond 1922. Also (and I flagged the article accordingly), I do not think that a wordwide view on the subject is presented, so maybe the title should rather be Contemporary press coverage of the Armenian Genocide in the English speaking world? Another problem I can identify is that the term Armenian Genocide (at least judging from the respective Wikipedia article) is used to describe events that happened in 1915. Strictly speaking, the Hamidian massacres should be kept separate, or again the name of this article should be changed. If the name was kept, I'd come under the impression that the content was cherrypicked.--FoxyOrange (talk) 19:52, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
- Hamidian massacres will remain since, as emphasized in the lead, it has to do with a 30+ year long process of exterminating the Armenians. In response to your concern, I added French, Russian, and Italian sources. Already included in the article are sources from Britain, America, Canada, Israel, and Australia. French, Italian, Russian sources are translated because this is an English Wikipedia. Therefore, with adequate coverage from the Americas, Asia, Europe, and Middle East, I am removing the Worldview tag. Proudbolsahye (talk) 03:43, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you for your reply (I'm still not convinced that a worldwide view is adequately presented, though, because the headline listing is heavily lopsided towards US newspapers, with only very few non-English examples: especially for 1915, the year of the actual genocide). Could you also comment on why only contemporary sources were chosen? Why does the list end at 1922? Finally, I would like to thank you for your work on properly referencing that section.--FoxyOrange (talk) 07:22, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
- The list ends at 1922 because the genocide is largely associated with ending at 1922. However, there is no set date as to when the Genocide actually began or ended. Some argue 1890-1923 and others just say 1915. As for contemporaneous reports, they are notable and highly valuable in and of themselves. Contemporaneous press accounts are also very valuable because they are considered primary evidence for the event. In other words, original, first-hand evidence which is often times considered the best evidence. Modern day reporting just doesn't do that for us. Proudbolsahye (talk) 07:55, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
- Well, but then the title of the article should be changed to reflect that, which is why I've just added the "disputed title template". Judging from this discussion, I also had to reinstate the template that the article does not present a worldwide view, and also that it is POV. As I said before: The gereral title "Press coverage of the Armenian Genocide" is universal and leads to the expectations that the subject is presented from many different points of view and periods of time. Currently, this is just not the case. What is more, there seems to be a religious bias, but currently (nearly) all headlines come from Christian countries: Therefore, the question how the Armenian genocide was covered in non-Christian countries (like Turkey itself, the Balkans, the Arab world etc.) is of interest. Even if there was "no coverage" or the event was not referred to as a "genocide" or something similar, it would be of importance for this article. Plus, as stated above, I still don't think that the coverage in non-US countries is adequately presented (not only judging from the list, but also in the prose section). Finally, please refrain from removing the "dispute templates": I have made a fair point which needs to be discussed first.--FoxyOrange (talk) 08:20, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
- What other viewpoints are you talking about? There was no country in the world during the time period that did not believe the massacres were systematic. The press coverage from all these countries reflect this. In fact, the first country in the world to ever recognize the Armenian Genocide was Turkey itself (See: Verdict and indictment). They even built the first Armenian Genocide memorial. Before stating that there were various viewpoints during the time, please provide adequate sources during that time period that comply with that notion. Might I also add that since this is about the systematic murder of Armenians, the newspapers that you will add must contain some sort of viewpoint that they weren't systematic. I will have to remove the Worldview tag until adequate WP:RS sources be provided to substantiate such claims.
- Well, but then the title of the article should be changed to reflect that, which is why I've just added the "disputed title template". Judging from this discussion, I also had to reinstate the template that the article does not present a worldwide view, and also that it is POV. As I said before: The gereral title "Press coverage of the Armenian Genocide" is universal and leads to the expectations that the subject is presented from many different points of view and periods of time. Currently, this is just not the case. What is more, there seems to be a religious bias, but currently (nearly) all headlines come from Christian countries: Therefore, the question how the Armenian genocide was covered in non-Christian countries (like Turkey itself, the Balkans, the Arab world etc.) is of interest. Even if there was "no coverage" or the event was not referred to as a "genocide" or something similar, it would be of importance for this article. Plus, as stated above, I still don't think that the coverage in non-US countries is adequately presented (not only judging from the list, but also in the prose section). Finally, please refrain from removing the "dispute templates": I have made a fair point which needs to be discussed first.--FoxyOrange (talk) 08:20, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
- The list ends at 1922 because the genocide is largely associated with ending at 1922. However, there is no set date as to when the Genocide actually began or ended. Some argue 1890-1923 and others just say 1915. As for contemporaneous reports, they are notable and highly valuable in and of themselves. Contemporaneous press accounts are also very valuable because they are considered primary evidence for the event. In other words, original, first-hand evidence which is often times considered the best evidence. Modern day reporting just doesn't do that for us. Proudbolsahye (talk) 07:55, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you for your reply (I'm still not convinced that a worldwide view is adequately presented, though, because the headline listing is heavily lopsided towards US newspapers, with only very few non-English examples: especially for 1915, the year of the actual genocide). Could you also comment on why only contemporary sources were chosen? Why does the list end at 1922? Finally, I would like to thank you for your work on properly referencing that section.--FoxyOrange (talk) 07:22, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
- In terms of Muslim countries, there are many. I have found Syrian sources that talk about the Armenian Genocide but much to my detriment, none of the sources provided contain headlines. The footnotes at this moment are offline and therefore I hadn't had the opportunity to add it. I have added it in the External Links section. I can might as well add Turkish sources as well. Turkish sources are very important in Armenian Genocide and some, like the Takvim-i Vekayi, published cross examinations of the Turkish Courts-Martial of 1919–1920 (In case you don't know, the court martials condemned Talat, Enver, Cemal, and others to death for their role in the Armenian Genocide). There's this source I would love to add but unfortunately, it's in snippets. I'll add it to the external links with my next edit. Proudbolsahye (talk) 08:48, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
- First of all, I greatly appreciate your effort to add more sources to this article. Then, I would like to point out that when I was speaking of different points of view, I was referring to geographic or religious positions, not about the event itself (Questions like "How were Turkish newspapers reporting the events?" or "What about newspapers run by Armenians"?). Finally, I think it's not sufficient to just add some headlines to foster the "worldwide view" position (so just because a source does not contain a headline, it should not be considered "detrimental"). The prose section also must reflect this (currently, an undue weight is put on the coverage by US papers). Lastly, please note that I launched an RFC on that matter.--FoxyOrange (talk) 09:32, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
- I meant that headlines are important in adding the source to the list. However, you are correct I may need to expand the lead incorporating a broader spectrum of viewpoints. I do see the fact that it talks about English speaking news sources a lot. It doesn't hurt to broaden the spectrum. Not easy though. Much of the literature and research out there regarding press coverage of the Armenian Genocide mainly focuses on third-party sources and partisans of World War I. China didn't cover much of the Armenian Genocide due to the fact that it didn't have any ambassadors or missionaries stationed in Turkey during the time. As mentioned in the lead, that is very important in getting the word out about the events happening in Ottoman Turkey. Proudbolsahye (talk) 17:02, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
- I have also placed such articles as the Terrible Turk under the context of stereotypes. I also showed that they are considered Anti-Turkish. The article is NPOV for now. I shall remove the tag. Proudbolsahye (talk) 00:12, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
- I meant that headlines are important in adding the source to the list. However, you are correct I may need to expand the lead incorporating a broader spectrum of viewpoints. I do see the fact that it talks about English speaking news sources a lot. It doesn't hurt to broaden the spectrum. Not easy though. Much of the literature and research out there regarding press coverage of the Armenian Genocide mainly focuses on third-party sources and partisans of World War I. China didn't cover much of the Armenian Genocide due to the fact that it didn't have any ambassadors or missionaries stationed in Turkey during the time. As mentioned in the lead, that is very important in getting the word out about the events happening in Ottoman Turkey. Proudbolsahye (talk) 17:02, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
- First of all, I greatly appreciate your effort to add more sources to this article. Then, I would like to point out that when I was speaking of different points of view, I was referring to geographic or religious positions, not about the event itself (Questions like "How were Turkish newspapers reporting the events?" or "What about newspapers run by Armenians"?). Finally, I think it's not sufficient to just add some headlines to foster the "worldwide view" position (so just because a source does not contain a headline, it should not be considered "detrimental"). The prose section also must reflect this (currently, an undue weight is put on the coverage by US papers). Lastly, please note that I launched an RFC on that matter.--FoxyOrange (talk) 09:32, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
- In terms of Muslim countries, there are many. I have found Syrian sources that talk about the Armenian Genocide but much to my detriment, none of the sources provided contain headlines. The footnotes at this moment are offline and therefore I hadn't had the opportunity to add it. I have added it in the External Links section. I can might as well add Turkish sources as well. Turkish sources are very important in Armenian Genocide and some, like the Takvim-i Vekayi, published cross examinations of the Turkish Courts-Martial of 1919–1920 (In case you don't know, the court martials condemned Talat, Enver, Cemal, and others to death for their role in the Armenian Genocide). There's this source I would love to add but unfortunately, it's in snippets. I'll add it to the external links with my next edit. Proudbolsahye (talk) 08:48, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Non-English language newspapers?
editIn this "headlines list", there are four newspapers with French names: Le Petit Journal and Le Petit Parisien seem to be French newspapers, but the headlines are in English. No idea what La Rire Rouge is and where it is/was printed, though. Are those headlines translations? On the other hand, the headline of a Le Feu article seems to be the only non-English one. Also, I would like to delete the "Jerusalem News" line, because the headline "Reuters Telegrams" is not a reference to the Armenian Genocide.--FoxyOrange (talk) 21:44, 3 August 2013 (UTC)