![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
Archive 20 | ← | Archive 24 | Archive 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | Archive 28 | → | Archive 30 |
The Armenian massacres enjoys a vast array of research which is not monolithic, and at least the lead has to display that. Lets not turn this into the puritanism Holocaust scholarship suffers from. Yaḥyā ( talk) 02:51, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
To Dolet, Your accusation of revert warring doesn't stick scrutiny! Where did I ever write anything about if it was a genocide? I above avoided (and only in the talkpage) the term, because this term is a construct coined for ideological reasons attributed to an author (who holds authority on the word) to be used by authors and jurists, while massacre is an universally known word not attributed to someone and known in every language and nation. I won't take part in this word game which is devoid of any true meaning! But you again failed to tell me where in the wording (you reverted) there is an error! Yaḥyā ( talk) 06:12, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
To Iryna, please show me what is the advocacy in question, and where in my above comment, there is any indication that I am using this talkpage as a soapbox, again your reply is irrelevant to the comment it was meant to answer. I am done (made my point)... this alone shows who is the activist. An activist has an ideology to defend, and will never be the one to drop the sword. Actions speak louder than words.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Yahya Talatin ( talk • contribs) 13:33, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi Armen,
One sober estimate (just a proposition, as there could be other sober estimates too) would be to take the highest estimate the Turkish side is willing to concede as minima and then the lowest the Armenian side is willing to concede. And present this as probably if it happens that the real number lies outside of the range, we won't make a mistake, because we wrote probably.
Checking the articles on the subject published on Wikipedia (in different languages) and their talkpage... here is what we find.
The highest figure I found from the other side were suggested by Justin McCarthy, I chose it because it is published by The Turkish Historical Society For The Council Of Culture, Arts (Publications Of The Grand National Assembly Of Turkey.
It was an estimate by Justin McCarthy based on figures drawn by the parishes, he claims that if the parishes records are genuine, that he would have to raise his previous numbers with 250,000 more deaths (total: over 800,000 deaths). Given that those estimates appeared in a publication of The Grand National Assembly Of Turkey, I guess we can assume that it is the highest figures the Turkish side is ready to concede. From what can be found on Wikipedia, those are similar to the highest figures the Ottoman Empire (and newly created republic of Turkey) were ready to concede (800,000) back then, so they correspond.
Now, coming to the lowest figures the Armenian side is ready to concede. What I found are those which circulate in France (drafted by the Armenian community), which is 1,2 million. This figure is also what appears in the lede of the French article about the event on Wikipedia.
One is close to a million, the other is over a million.
In this case, it would be something like (feel free to find a better wording) probably close to or over a million or something like that... by excluding any numerals we subject the article to even less controversy. Any estimates out of the range would be included, but not in the lede.
Again, those are just my propositions, since I have never gone so far to explain the rational behind my position. This kind of estimate is more stable, because it generally takes the most reasonable figures from either sides. There will be several other estimates, but the maximum one side is ready to concede and the minimum to other side is ready to concede are less likely to change. They are also coming from official organs from both sides. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yahya Talatin ( talk • contribs) 01:11, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
To incite editors to take a more sober stance, just reminding them that if they make the effort with the reasonable concessions, the article could become a good article and later even a featured. Note that the last time I have checked, there are no genocide article meeting the good article criteria (not even the Holocaust). This might be the first. Yaḥyā ( talk) 03:33, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
The reference to it from the article has to be removed. Britannica does not refer to it anymore, the material was removed from its page. [4] This is an example of what I was referring to, it was too far from the mean, didn't resist. I just want users to trust me that I will not mislead anyone. There is currently a shift in the way the Turkish population is perceiving this event; here is the time to invite Turkish editors to contribute and provide their feedback. This article internal structure is to be drafted anew. There just are too much arbitrary divisions and inclusions and exclusions, just one example is why this [5] goes just after the Russian military, and why the Russian military goes there and not elsewhere. Yaḥyā ( talk) 23:44, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
But the thing is that I am not disagreeing with you, I am just disagreeing with your exclusion of some parameters to draw your conclusions.
For instance, Britannica is a very reputable encyclopedia with hight standards. While in the past it had changed its figures of losses to more conservative numbers reportedly because of pressures from the Turkish diplomacy, it was later compensated with it's French encyclopedia Universalis. It has taken the approach to use both figures to convey the less popular number for both sides (million).
It can be considered as established that we can not just use plurality of published secondary sources to compute means. Thousands might be using the same source and have therefor to be rejected to avoid redundancy. More importantly is that most reference works do have ranges closer to a million. Those are generally never used by those who defend or reject the term genocide, because it satisfies neither sides (too low for one, too high for the other). See how when searching Armenian massacres million on google book [6]. All results on top are directly related with the subject of defending the thesis of genocide, and therefor provide the highest ranges (it's selection bias). See Taner Akcam estimates with the others here [7], footnote 35. While Lewy figures there are further from the range (expected, Ottoman books are generally biased toward the other side so they will tend to include the low estimates), Taner Akcam endorses the mean (800,000 to a million, because of the original Turkish figures), even Vahakn Dadrian doesn't provide explicit figures! Also in the list you will find Fuat Dundar (he has works published in the European Journal of Turkish studies) estimates of 664,000, he was the author of Crime of Numbers: The Role of Statistics in the Armenian Question (1878-1918). Why he is relevant is that here we have a Turkish scholar who use the official Ottoman records and statistics to compute data and finds a number above the 600,000 range. Quite obviously things seem to revolve around a same mean, one way or another. Yaḥyā ( talk) 23:17, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
My reason to invite Turkish editors is because they will be more critical and they will be the first to point out which wordings are problematic.
Lastly, what I am doing isn't OR (I am not editing mainspace), I am using three different methods which are being used to compute and treat data, and am finding the same results and this systematically and then compare them with tertiary sources to see if they confirm the results, and they do. While any selection process to choose 1,5 million is either entirely undisclosed or rely on incomplete ways of choosing and polling the data. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yahya Talatin ( talk • contribs) 21:44, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
I changed it, because he applied the undercounting reported by Talaat, the figures used there in the black book (particularly the undercounting) are nothing new, see here [8] Justin McCarthy had used similar correction values then. Yaḥyā ( talk) 01:37, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
The edit summary here [9] is weird, the author of this comment should explain his rational to justify it. Why is this man opinion even relevant? An opinion which we don't even know he still maintain, or why it should make any differences if he does. Will it still remain there after Obama was replaced? Yaḥyā ( talk) 19:18, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
Diranakir, please stop pushing the envelope on goading and drop the stick. Your arguments have ceased to be coherent. Take some time to cool your heels. -- Iryna Harpy ( talk) 22:28, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
"But the argumentation is manipulative and he thus avoids admitting it de jure...". You've just contradicted what you're trying to prove in one fell swoop. Could you please try to come up with an RS that doesn't defy your own logic? -- Iryna Harpy ( talk) 23:57, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Armenian Genocide. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:22, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Can someone please explain why we should have Note 4 when we already have Note 2? It needlessly clutters the first sentence of the article. Étienne Dolet ( talk) 16:49, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
The lede sentence contains two very striking errors.
In the first place the historic homeland of Armenia is not contained within the borders of modern day Turkey (possibly an irredentist claim?) The historic homelands of the Armenians comprise the eastern regions of Turkey as well as all of present day Armenia and parts of Azerbaijan and Georgia. About half the historic homeland is contained within Turkey.
Secondly the figure of 1,500,000 fatalities is not confined to Ottoman-Armenians living within the Ottoman empire, but include some 400,000 fatalities suffered post-1916 by Armenians living outside the Ottoman empire during attempts by the Ottomans to expand their empire.
Of course these errors should be corrected. Awen23 ( talk) 19:21, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
The issue of the inaccurate (or at the very least, misleading) "historic homeland" lede content has been raised in the past. However, expect a conflict at least as long as the recent Medz Yeghern thing to get rid of it. The victim total should be for the entire period of the Armenian Genocide because this is the subject of the article. So it necessarily will include deaths inside Russian territory and Persian territory and deaths that happened after the year 1918, as long as the events are considered to be part of the Armenian Genocide. Tiptoethrutheminefield ( talk) 16:55, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
References
Re lede error correction: For a while I thought my "expect a conflict at least as long as the recent Medz Yeghern thing to get rid of it" prediction was going to be surprisingly (but pleasantly) wrong. But now the usual suspect has arrived [16]. Tiptoethrutheminefield ( talk) 19:15, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
( edit conflict) I'm at a loss over how to explain this any any further. I've been through multiple sources looking for whether 'subject' is appropriate in context: no, it is not; and neither is suggesting that the genocide stopped when the Ottoman Empire collapsed. I'm not claiming that there's an easy way of conveying the complexities of the period for the purposes of the lead, but creating SYNTH out of the scope it should cover is antithetical to what needs to be included in the lead. Did the persecution suddenly stop with the birth of the new nation-state known as Turkey? If that is the case, please provide the RS for this being the case and I will be more than happy for your version to be reintroduced. A million? I see, we need to change the current estimates to a million and exclude all of the sources for post-1915. Well, if that's the compromise you're willing to make. -- Iryna Harpy ( talk) 05:26, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
"The Armenian Genocide, also known as the Armenian Holocaust, was the Ottoman government's systematic extermination of 1.5 million Armenians, most of them subjects of the Ottoman Empire."means if not a WP:SYNTH rendition of a longer term genocide that covers a period of turmoil in the structure of political entities at the end of days of empires as sovereign states? I don't know how many more times you need your rendition to be quoted here by editors before you get it. Your change to the content is seriously flawed, and all you're able to muster as an argument in defence of a flawed description is angry accusations levelled at anyone who gets in the way of your winning an indefensible piece of lack-of-description. -- Iryna Harpy ( talk) 04:04, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
The source for "equal citizens without distinction of race or religion" is not "an anonymous Ottoman spokesman", it is Anahide Ter Minassian, chapter titled "Van 1915", page 211, in "Armenian Van / Vaspurakan", edited by Richard Hovhannisian. The same information can be found in many sources. Before the 1908 constitution all inhabitants of the Ottoman Empire were "subject" to an individual (the sultan), so were "subjects", after 1908 the Sultan lost that status and the inhabitants (foreign nationals excepted) became citizens who were protected by the same laws regardless of race or religion. This of course made the resulting genocide even more monstrous - it was not the whim of a medieval-era despot but the product of a modernizing empire purporting to follow enlightenment ideas of liberty and democracy and the rule of law (just as its successor state, Turkey, continues to claim to follow despite all the evidence that it does not).
Tiptoethrutheminefield (
talk)
15:37, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Would both of you agree to avoid either terms? Both terms are are state imposed and therefor legal binding, and therefore subject to be disputed in the future. A less controversial term would be its Armenian population or its Armenian inhabitants or something of the sort. Both of you have to discuss about this without me though, I return to my long pause. Yaḥyā ( talk) 00:59, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Just a last clarification, I was not discussing which of both terms is more appropriate, because to me this is irrelevant. Neither of you two is disagreeing in essence. Reason is that both subject and citizen in this particular case convey about the same message (that Armenians were members of the Ottoman family, by force or not), both words mostly diverge on forms only. The concepts of citizenship or subject aren't necessarily exclusive. This means that just because it is sourced that they were subjects does not mean they were not citizens and vis versa. There is no explicit set of unmovable rules to place them as either exclusively one or the other. Because what is a citizen or subject is decided by authors and relies on some set of changing parameters. The controversy exist mostly because after 1908 it was still an Empire, which assumes that there was a group (Muslim-Turks) ruling on others. I think both of you should be presenting what you are willing to concede and someone else has to cut in the middle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yahya Talatin ( talk • contribs) 17:00, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi, Yahya Talatin. Thanks for the link. I've only just taken a quick glimpse at it, but it looks like an interesting read. I'll get to it as I have to head out for a couple of hours. What is evident is that you're reading my use of 'other' too literally as being a postmodern 'self' and 'other' argument. I used the term simplistically to reflect my position on the context in the lead. 'Otherness' can be applied broadly to the non-ruling ethnic groups living under empires/nation-states, etc. in any epoch. In terms of the construct of the lead, such application suggests to the reader that Armenians were an enclave living outside of the laws of the OE and Turkey: that they possibly even were privy to self-governance in some form. I know it would be nice to find a less clumsy way of conveying their status, but I believe that your suggested compromise takes us further away from a satisfactory resolution. -- Iryna Harpy ( talk) 01:46, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Fairchia ( talk) 00:21, 2 November 2016 (UTC) This article as a whole is solid, with a multitude of unbiased viewpoints and facts backed by sources on multiple aspects of the genocide. Even the pictures provided assisted in providing a visual aid to the atrocities committed during this time period. An improvement could be to add a segment on Turkey's thought process on being able to commit these crimes under the falsehood of war. Turkey believed that it was justified in the genocide not only in ethical considerations but also that it was war, and certain occurrences happen. Another improvement could be to provide a generalized timeline to put in to reference the major historical events that occurred.
Could anyone supply sources for the dates mentioned in the infobox? Is there any particular reason for us to prefer the time-span 1915-23 in the infobox (and not 1918, for example); is this the most widely accepted timespan in the literature or the one accepted by influential scholars in the field? If not so, should we not reflect this in our presentation rather than present it as if it is the most widely accepted timespan (indeed we do this with the number of deaths but that the figure of 1.5 million is the most published is supported by sources)? Is there any literature evaluating these alternative timespans? If not, is the figure 1923 substantiated by the sources using it, by which I mean, is there any specific incident cited as genocidal activity that took place in 1923? Apologies if I am asking too many questions, I am aware that many here will be much more familiar with the literature than me and will hopefully be able to provide an insight on the issue of the start and end dates and settle it. -- GGT ( talk) 00:09, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
I must say, Iryna Harpy, that I'm quite disappointed in your recent revert. There has been a long-standing consensus to remove denialist talking points from this article. Michael Gunter is a well-known denialist. The stuff on Seljuk Turks is bizarre, even under denialist standards. I've also never heard a denialist ever say that the reason why the AG didn't happen was because Armenians lived well under the Seljuks. That's just apples and oranges. All denialist sources and talking points should be dumped in the Denial of the Armenian Genocide article. Étienne Dolet ( talk) 02:50, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
If you're removing it then put it on the denial page BM Tornado ( talk) 10:24, 6 December 2016 (UTC) BM Tornado ( talk) 10:24, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Would a link to the movie "Denial" not be appropriate? /info/en/?search=Denial_(2016_film) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wellsdm ( talk • contribs) 18:46, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
I don't think the "To date, 29 countries have officially recognized the mass killings as genocide,[28]" part is accurate, it uses a source from 2015, and http://asbarez.com/162565/czech-republic-parliament-recognizes-armenian-genocide/ just happened a few days ago for example. I don't know what the current total is but it's obviously more than 29. I don't have a Wikipedia account so can't edit this page but hopefully someone else will. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.54.107.200 ( talk) 18:08, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Jclemens ( talk · contribs) 02:33, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
![]() |
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | Improved markedly during the course of the review, could still stand more work throughout. |
![]() |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | Lead section is too short and doesn't adequately summarize the article. |
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
![]() |
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | |
![]() |
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | No issues noted |
![]() |
2c. it contains no original research. | No issues noted |
![]() |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | Everything seen on Earwig's tool appears to be appropriate quotations (them by us with attribution, us by them, or both of a common historical source) |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
![]() |
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | I don't have to go beyond the skimming stage to see that this is not an issue here. The next (focus) will be the more challenging to evaluate. |
![]() |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | Still very detailed, but it is an important topic and Summary style is in use. |
![]() |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | Not bad for how emotionally charged a topic this is, but likely still some room for improvement. |
![]() |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | No current edit wars. I get that this is an historically contentious topic in certain corners of the globe, but do not intend to hold that against the editors working to improve the article. |
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
![]() |
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | Only one fair use image noted, rationale appears appropriate, but will evaluate it in-context later. |
![]() |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | There are plenty of historical images. I suspect the gallery at the end overdoes it. These are clearly historic and important images, but a gallery with captions deprives them of their respective historical context. Might a smaller, more focused number of images work as well for this article? |
![]() |
7. Overall assessment. |
Thank you for your time! I am by no means the primary article contributor here but became involved after I worked intensively in June last year on trying to counter the revisionism in Armenian Genocide denial (it was bad; see before and after). I was pleasantly surprised to see that the main article on the genocide was actually in a very good state. Plenty of references and little edit wars due to the page's semi-protection. It's been three years since the failed GAN and editors have worked tirelessly on improving it. Calling first on those users who have contributed the most over the last 1-2 years - @ Tiptoethrutheminefield: (seems to be blocked for a few more days), @ EtienneDolet:, @ Iryna Harpy:. I'd also like to notify @ Diranakir: and @ Armen Ohanian: but I'm not sure they'll be able to join the discussion as their last contributions were already a while ago. I'll be available pretty much every day myself. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) ( talk) 15:20, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Honestly, I don't see a very significant change between the article as it is now and the article as assessed in the last GA review. Yes, a lot of content issues have been addressed and improved, but I think the article still falls short of being a correct and understandable account of the Armenian Genocide: it is still very badly structured, it (despite its length) still misses out much vital content, and it still includes a large amount of material that would be better placed in fork articles. Last year I gave the opinion in the Talk page that "Barely 20% of this article's content details the event itself, and we are 20% into the article's body before that small amount of content even starts, and the bulk (60% or more) of the article's content is aftermath-related material. I believe that this article is in urgent need of massive deletions and a lot of forking of content off into other articles. This article, titled as it is "Armenian Genocide", should be primarily concerned with giving an account of the Armenian Genocide as it happened, of what it consisted of, and not about what peoples, countries, organisations, or individuals have, post-event, done with the history of, or legacy of, the Armenian Genocide." [21]. I think it currently does not make the best of attribute 3a, though maybe enough to pass, but that it fails attribute 3b, and (mainly in the images section) possibly 6b too. I also worry if the article does attain GA status now, that status may be presented in the future as a reason not to make major changes to the article (since I think major changes are needed). Tiptoethrutheminefield ( talk) 15:42, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Done Fixed.
Étienne Dolet (
talk)
05:34, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
Done
Étienne Dolet (
talk)
05:34, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
Done Removed "once more"
Étienne Dolet (
talk)
05:29, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
Done Not sure what that means either, so I removed it.
Étienne Dolet (
talk)
05:29, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
Done Yeah, not need for those years.
Étienne Dolet (
talk)
05:29, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
Done
Étienne Dolet (
talk)
19:51, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
I'm afraid there's nothing I can do about that for now. The map needs to say Constantinople with (ISTANBUL) underneath or something. Étienne Dolet ( talk) 19:51, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Done
Étienne Dolet (
talk)
19:51, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Done
Étienne Dolet (
talk)
19:51, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Yes, it is because the relief organization was based in the USA. Étienne Dolet ( talk) 19:51, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
That's a good point. I thought about removing it. Maybe we could reword it somehow? I still think it should remain because the Einsatzgruppen is far more well-known in the academic world than the Special Organization. I think it'll help our readers to give them an example in history that as to how it operates and its role in the event. Étienne Dolet ( talk) 19:51, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Done
Étienne Dolet (
talk)
19:51, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
I'm going to have to look into this and get back to you. Étienne Dolet ( talk) 19:51, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Done Yeah, I don't get how that number got there.
Étienne Dolet (
talk)
20:15, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Done
Étienne Dolet (
talk)
20:15, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Done Added a source.
Étienne Dolet (
talk)
20:15, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Done
Étienne Dolet (
talk)
19:11, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
Done
Étienne Dolet (
talk)
19:11, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
Citation is at the end of the paragraph. Étienne Dolet ( talk) 19:11, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
Done
Étienne Dolet (
talk)
19:11, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
Done I removed one of the sentences. Added a citation on the other.
Étienne Dolet (
talk)
19:04, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
Done Against, per sources.
Étienne Dolet (
talk)
19:04, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
This is hard for me to break up actually. Or, do you have any suggestions? Étienne Dolet ( talk) 21:05, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
Done
Étienne Dolet (
talk)
21:05, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
Done
Étienne Dolet (
talk)
21:05, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
Done I removed the bit about the bombing one. That memorial shouldn't get singled out just cause of a bombing. I also reorganized the paragraph so that it flows better by combining two paragraphs that are related to one another.
Étienne Dolet (
talk)
22:28, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
Done Combined some paragraphs. Removed some non-notable stuff. Provided introductory sentences before the start of some paragraph to lessen the incoherence.
Étienne Dolet (
talk)
23:27, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
Jclemens ( talk) 06:59, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Looking at the recent history of the article, and the comments here, I don't think the article is yet stable, and therefore is not ready for GA. Even if there is no current edit war, most likely there are long-standing controversies that are still unresolved - edit summaries like "please stop adding muslim/christian qualifiers" and "many left voluntarily" - multiple recent edits and reversions from recent editors removing "Islamic" or "muslim' etc. Seraphim System ( talk) 22:29, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
I am going to take a break from editing, so I wanted to leave a message to have at least this addressed while I am not here. I already brought this in the talkpage of the article. As a reference one might use the German and French versions (both are featured articles). The estimate of victims on English Wikipedia takes the highest range of estimates in the lead (1.5 million) without providing the lower ones. The French version takes 1.2 million and the German version from 300,000 to 1.5 million. I have already addressed this here [22] (See my answer starting with Hi Armen). The only answer I have received which directly answer the figures I have provided was that the date of the tragedy would extend to 1923. But most victims can be recorded prior to 1918 (according to most sources). If Wikipedia holds a position which is significantly far from means or medians (if the mean is imposed by exterior factors) extra energy will be required to maintain this position as things always regress to its most stable form. There are many other issues with the article, but this at least should be addressed if this article is going to be promoted. The most reasonable wording without including ranges or long sentences would be approximatively a million and I welcome everyone to read that link (starting from Hi Armen) and answer if I have dismissed or forgotten any sources there. I can now take my break, bye. Yaḥyā ( talk) 19:24, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Where are we now? Jclemens ( talk) 07:12, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
Images are typically interspersed individually throughout an article near the relevant text (see WP:MOSIMAGES). However, the use of a gallery section may be appropriate in some Wikipedia articles if a collection of images can illustrate aspects of a subject that cannot be easily or adequately described by text or individual images. About 2% of articles at the English Wikipedia use galleries. The images in the gallery collectively must have encyclopedic value and add to the reader's understanding of the subject. Images in a gallery should be suitably captioned to explain their relevance both to the article subject and to the theme of the gallery, and the gallery should be appropriately titled (unless the theme of the gallery is clear from the context of the article).
Given the recent round of nonsense accusatory reverts over improving duplicate poorly written information and cleaning up excessive citation and the amount of work that still has to be done concerning the article length (which is over twice what our guidelines suggest) - not to mention the review has been open since May and still not closed, I am wondering if there are any plans to close this? I've also had to template the article for NPOV, because the issues are considerable - following the standard "if you can tell what the position of the authors are from reading it, it fails NPOV" standard this article clearly fails. It's not easy to adhere to NPOV on controversial topics - I'm not very emotional about this one (or any history articles in general) - I'm glad to see it's been nominated in the appropriate section, but since recent attempts to improve the quality of the article have been reverted, and several times I have seen the word "denialist" used by the nominator and other editors here (including in reverts), I'm not very hopeful. I think this review should be closed without prejudice to renomination when these issues are resolved.
Seraphim System (
talk)
12:56, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
I don't think this article is ready and of GA quality yet, and I don't think it should be passed until it is. Seraphim System ( talk) 23:45, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Jclemens, there has been no progress here in well over a month, and there is apparently some sort of unresolved content dispute going on as well. I think it's clear that this review has to be failed. Pinging the nominator, Prinsgezinde. Display name 99 ( talk) 13:17, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
According to Article 1 of the Council of the European Union Framework Decision 2008/913/JHA of 28 November 2008 on combating certain forms and expressions of racism and xenophobia by means of criminal law, each Member State shall take the measures necessary to ensure that publicly condoning, denying or grossly trivialising crimes of genocide is punishable, at least when the crimes has been established by a final decision of a national court of this Member State and/or an international court, or by a final decision of an international court only. In the Order of the Court of First instance of the European Union of 17 December 2003 in Case T-346/03, about compensation for the non-material damage suffered by the violation of the resolution of the European Parliament of 18 June 1987 on a political solution to the Armenian question, that Court considered : “In this case, it appears from the arguments put forward by the applicants that the alleged non-material damage is the result of the refusal by the Turkish Government to acknowledge the genocide in question (Armenian genocide) rather than of the conduct of the defendant institutions complained of”. The Court of First instance didn’t write : “the refusal by the Turkish Government to acknowledge the “ ‘ ‘ alledged ‘ ‘ ” genocide in question”.
By Order of the Court of Justice of the European Union the appeal against the Order of the Court of First instance of the European Union of 17 December 2003 was rejected. The question is if publicly condoning, denying or grossly trivialising the Armenian genocide should be a crime in a Member State of the European Union where the publicly condoning, denying or grossly trivialising a genocide is a crime when that genocide is established by a final decision of an international court. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LucLamineRot ( talk • contribs) 16:40, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Armenian Genocide has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
change ((Armenian)) to ((Armenia))n — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:541:4305:c70:e99d:bade:9a88:a4d9 ( talk) 14:27, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
Done Please be more specific with your requests, to let us know exactly where in the article a change should be made. I found an instance of "Armenian Christians" at the top of the article, and changed that one from the
Armenian disambiguation page to
Armenian. If there is something else needing attention, please identify it. Thanks.
Murph9000 (
talk)
15:00, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
Why is the "Armenians under Ottoman rule" section featuring a presentation of earlier history taken from a 19th century source, which is not only outdated but also written by a non-specialist? Among modern history texts discussing pre-reform times (which is what much of this section seems to be about, for unclear reasons), there are some that place more emphasis on injustices suffered by Ottoman Christian subjects and their discrimination in absolute terms and some that place more emphasis on peaceful coexistence and tolerance relative to those times, but this inflammatory rhetoric falls far beyond the limits of mainstream historical writing. Eperoton ( talk) 15:28, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Here's a passage I propose to use as replacement for that Ramsay quote: "Muslims as well as non-Muslims lived without the predictability of enforced laws. Their property and person were subject to the arbitrary and unchecked power of state officials and local lords, but non-Muslims bore the additional indignities of being infidels." (from "Reading Genocide" by Ronald Grigor Suny, in A Question of Genocide, 2011 OUP, p. 25). This is about as negative a generalization about Ottoman rule as I've seen in a recent book from a major university press. On the other hand, it provides a bit of corrective to the impression one gets from this article that it was only non-Muslims who suffered abuses. Eperoton ( talk) 04:00, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
A British consul, who like many of his European colleagues took a special interest in the Armenians, reported in the 1870s, “The people in the Armenian provinces suffer under the following provincial evils: Firstly, robbery, exaction, and oppression at the hands of the Kurds. In some parts nomad Kurds make raids on villages, carrying off flocks and herds and other plunder, and sometimes burning what they cannot carry away. In other parts influential Kurdish families parcel out the villages (especially Christian) in their neighborhood among their various members, and regard them as their property. The inhabitants have to pay them black-mail, cultivate their lands, pasture their flocks, and give and do for them anything they may demand.” Suny, Ronald Grigor. "They Can Live in the Desert but Nowhere Else": A History of the Armenian Genocide (Human Rights and Crimes against Humanity) (p. 19). Princeton University Press. Kindle Edition.
![]() | This
edit request to
Armenian Genocide has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Texas has recognized the Armenian Genocide, making a total of 46 US states the recognize the genocide, not 25 as stated on the current page. Here is the link to a source: http://asbarez.com/163544/texas-becomes-46th-u-s-state-to-recognize-armenian-genocide/ Konoisia ( talk) 18:46, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
@ Rivertorch: That's a good point and I presume it does. We've had a similar concern when Brazil recognized it. It was decided that since one part of their legislature recognized it would mean that it is recognized at a federal level. Same in this case. To simply say it hasn't been recognized at all would be a disservice to our readers, even if it's just one body of a bicameral legislature. Besides, we should use the language sources use. We shouldn't be dismissing what the sources are saying due to what we think recognition at a local, state, and federal level looks like. Étienne Dolet ( talk) 16:26, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 8 external links on Armenian Genocide. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:13, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Yerevantsi, Kurd and Azeri militias were involved, especially Kurdish ones. The Ottoman state could not have carried out the extent that it these events without their assistance, as was done with Hamidan Kurdish cavalry some decades prior in the massacres of the Armenians. Removal of content even though it is cited in scholarship removes key players that were involved in those events. The.Ottoman state gave the orders though these units were autonomous and could have refused and they did not. On another issue, you wrote the Turkish state [23], during these events Turkey did not exist until 1923 and after the events. It was under the Ottoman Empire that events transpired. Its important to be precise here. Resnjari ( talk) 18:10, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Two problems with inclusion of Kurdish and Azeri militias to the infobox:
I consider Tiptoethrutheminefield's recent of GF an improvement from the previous wording which I had removed. The most important part about a genocide is intent. We shouldn't imply that the Ottoman government had an intent to annihilate the Armenians of territories it occupied outside of the OE. That would confuse matters for our readers. The article can provide information on how massacres have spread, but to conflate genocide with unintentional spread of state-sponsored massacre is something that needs to be thoroughly discussed. Nevertheless, I can see why someone would want it added to the infobox. So instead of going back and forth, we should start an RFC? Étienne Dolet ( talk) 23:15, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
It is arbitrary to believe that the policies weren't to push away|get rid of the Armenians as far as the expansion could reach. To claim otherwise is to claim that the Ottoman behaved differently than any other Empire in history. The onus to provide material is therefor on the side which claims a version which is so unnatural to the documented history of Empires in general. On the other hand, just a reminder that the machine of state is devoid of any intentionality, it just react. Claiming that the Ottoman Empire had an intention to do X or Y is to attribute to machines things which are human. Yaḥyā ( talk) 15:55, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Armenian Genocide. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://matrix.msu.edu/hst/fisher/HST150/unit6/mod/young_turk_revolution.html{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.edu.documents/37940061/Gutman_Armenian_Genocide_Review_ArticleProof.pdf?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAIWOWYYGZ2Y53UL3A&Expires=1494808894&Signature=1pH5IXJjy0HBuHuvdlyy%20MTOp7A%3D&response-content-disposition=inline%3B%20filename%3DOttoman_Historiography_and_the_End_of_th.pdfWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:12, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
I don't know if editors here are deliberately trying to sabotage GA review by removing citation needed tags - reverts of the type I have seen here stall article improvement. I removed Ba'at Yeor because it is in the wrong section entirely and a GA article should be well organized. Probably be terminology section should be moved somewhere to the beginning of the article, and additional sources should be added to justify inclusion of Ba'at Yeor's theory that this was jihad, which is rather an interesting and extraordinary hypothesis. If it is going to be ibcluded it should be explained. You can't edit war away the considerable problems with this article, which is a long way off from GA (and twice the recommended length according to our guidelines, though Hrant Dink is only peripherally mentioned) - it is sad that an article of this importance is being held back from reaching GA, and that editors are quick to blame those trying to improve the article as being "denialist" - really sad. Seraphim System ( talk) 01:39, 14 October 2017 (UTC) Seraphim System ( talk) 01:39, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
Seraphim System brought up the subject of the background section in the preceding talk section. I'll develop this discussion under this new section for clarity. It continues an unfinished discussion we've had above at Talk:Armenian_Genocide#Ramsay (that section may be about to be archived). I've been distracted and then too busy to pick it up, but I'll try to find the time to do so now, as I think our current treatment is quite problematic. As I wrote above, there are in fact authors who present the dhimma system and the Pact of Umar as background for the processes that influenced the AG, as does for instance Akcam in the chapter I quoted there ("... The non-Muslims’ demands for equality in the nineteenth century were indeed seen as a violation of the agreement, and the Muslim communities of the Ottoman Empire had no intention of acquiescing. This cultural-legal framework, forming as it did the basis for the separation of Muslims and non-Muslims, would prove decisive in the clashes between Armenians and Muslims at the end of the nineteenth century.") The problem with our background section is that instead of presenting this argument of influence, it simply conflates the pre-modern dhimma system with the socio-economic developments of the late 19th century. These developments were quite complex and had significant regional variation. There are authors who describe them in detail (e.g., Suny in his book), but this is a distinct subject which should be presented the way it's presented in RSs (though more concisely) and not be mixed up ahistorically with the Pact of Umar. Finally, regarding Seraphim System's mention of jihad, there are indeed some issues with how the term is treated in the article, but it doesn't appear in the background section, and this would be a separate discussion. Eperoton ( talk) 03:30, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
Archive 20 | ← | Archive 24 | Archive 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | Archive 28 | → | Archive 30 |
The Armenian massacres enjoys a vast array of research which is not monolithic, and at least the lead has to display that. Lets not turn this into the puritanism Holocaust scholarship suffers from. Yaḥyā ( talk) 02:51, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
To Dolet, Your accusation of revert warring doesn't stick scrutiny! Where did I ever write anything about if it was a genocide? I above avoided (and only in the talkpage) the term, because this term is a construct coined for ideological reasons attributed to an author (who holds authority on the word) to be used by authors and jurists, while massacre is an universally known word not attributed to someone and known in every language and nation. I won't take part in this word game which is devoid of any true meaning! But you again failed to tell me where in the wording (you reverted) there is an error! Yaḥyā ( talk) 06:12, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
To Iryna, please show me what is the advocacy in question, and where in my above comment, there is any indication that I am using this talkpage as a soapbox, again your reply is irrelevant to the comment it was meant to answer. I am done (made my point)... this alone shows who is the activist. An activist has an ideology to defend, and will never be the one to drop the sword. Actions speak louder than words.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Yahya Talatin ( talk • contribs) 13:33, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi Armen,
One sober estimate (just a proposition, as there could be other sober estimates too) would be to take the highest estimate the Turkish side is willing to concede as minima and then the lowest the Armenian side is willing to concede. And present this as probably if it happens that the real number lies outside of the range, we won't make a mistake, because we wrote probably.
Checking the articles on the subject published on Wikipedia (in different languages) and their talkpage... here is what we find.
The highest figure I found from the other side were suggested by Justin McCarthy, I chose it because it is published by The Turkish Historical Society For The Council Of Culture, Arts (Publications Of The Grand National Assembly Of Turkey.
It was an estimate by Justin McCarthy based on figures drawn by the parishes, he claims that if the parishes records are genuine, that he would have to raise his previous numbers with 250,000 more deaths (total: over 800,000 deaths). Given that those estimates appeared in a publication of The Grand National Assembly Of Turkey, I guess we can assume that it is the highest figures the Turkish side is ready to concede. From what can be found on Wikipedia, those are similar to the highest figures the Ottoman Empire (and newly created republic of Turkey) were ready to concede (800,000) back then, so they correspond.
Now, coming to the lowest figures the Armenian side is ready to concede. What I found are those which circulate in France (drafted by the Armenian community), which is 1,2 million. This figure is also what appears in the lede of the French article about the event on Wikipedia.
One is close to a million, the other is over a million.
In this case, it would be something like (feel free to find a better wording) probably close to or over a million or something like that... by excluding any numerals we subject the article to even less controversy. Any estimates out of the range would be included, but not in the lede.
Again, those are just my propositions, since I have never gone so far to explain the rational behind my position. This kind of estimate is more stable, because it generally takes the most reasonable figures from either sides. There will be several other estimates, but the maximum one side is ready to concede and the minimum to other side is ready to concede are less likely to change. They are also coming from official organs from both sides. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yahya Talatin ( talk • contribs) 01:11, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
To incite editors to take a more sober stance, just reminding them that if they make the effort with the reasonable concessions, the article could become a good article and later even a featured. Note that the last time I have checked, there are no genocide article meeting the good article criteria (not even the Holocaust). This might be the first. Yaḥyā ( talk) 03:33, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
The reference to it from the article has to be removed. Britannica does not refer to it anymore, the material was removed from its page. [4] This is an example of what I was referring to, it was too far from the mean, didn't resist. I just want users to trust me that I will not mislead anyone. There is currently a shift in the way the Turkish population is perceiving this event; here is the time to invite Turkish editors to contribute and provide their feedback. This article internal structure is to be drafted anew. There just are too much arbitrary divisions and inclusions and exclusions, just one example is why this [5] goes just after the Russian military, and why the Russian military goes there and not elsewhere. Yaḥyā ( talk) 23:44, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
But the thing is that I am not disagreeing with you, I am just disagreeing with your exclusion of some parameters to draw your conclusions.
For instance, Britannica is a very reputable encyclopedia with hight standards. While in the past it had changed its figures of losses to more conservative numbers reportedly because of pressures from the Turkish diplomacy, it was later compensated with it's French encyclopedia Universalis. It has taken the approach to use both figures to convey the less popular number for both sides (million).
It can be considered as established that we can not just use plurality of published secondary sources to compute means. Thousands might be using the same source and have therefor to be rejected to avoid redundancy. More importantly is that most reference works do have ranges closer to a million. Those are generally never used by those who defend or reject the term genocide, because it satisfies neither sides (too low for one, too high for the other). See how when searching Armenian massacres million on google book [6]. All results on top are directly related with the subject of defending the thesis of genocide, and therefor provide the highest ranges (it's selection bias). See Taner Akcam estimates with the others here [7], footnote 35. While Lewy figures there are further from the range (expected, Ottoman books are generally biased toward the other side so they will tend to include the low estimates), Taner Akcam endorses the mean (800,000 to a million, because of the original Turkish figures), even Vahakn Dadrian doesn't provide explicit figures! Also in the list you will find Fuat Dundar (he has works published in the European Journal of Turkish studies) estimates of 664,000, he was the author of Crime of Numbers: The Role of Statistics in the Armenian Question (1878-1918). Why he is relevant is that here we have a Turkish scholar who use the official Ottoman records and statistics to compute data and finds a number above the 600,000 range. Quite obviously things seem to revolve around a same mean, one way or another. Yaḥyā ( talk) 23:17, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
My reason to invite Turkish editors is because they will be more critical and they will be the first to point out which wordings are problematic.
Lastly, what I am doing isn't OR (I am not editing mainspace), I am using three different methods which are being used to compute and treat data, and am finding the same results and this systematically and then compare them with tertiary sources to see if they confirm the results, and they do. While any selection process to choose 1,5 million is either entirely undisclosed or rely on incomplete ways of choosing and polling the data. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yahya Talatin ( talk • contribs) 21:44, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
I changed it, because he applied the undercounting reported by Talaat, the figures used there in the black book (particularly the undercounting) are nothing new, see here [8] Justin McCarthy had used similar correction values then. Yaḥyā ( talk) 01:37, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
The edit summary here [9] is weird, the author of this comment should explain his rational to justify it. Why is this man opinion even relevant? An opinion which we don't even know he still maintain, or why it should make any differences if he does. Will it still remain there after Obama was replaced? Yaḥyā ( talk) 19:18, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
Diranakir, please stop pushing the envelope on goading and drop the stick. Your arguments have ceased to be coherent. Take some time to cool your heels. -- Iryna Harpy ( talk) 22:28, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
"But the argumentation is manipulative and he thus avoids admitting it de jure...". You've just contradicted what you're trying to prove in one fell swoop. Could you please try to come up with an RS that doesn't defy your own logic? -- Iryna Harpy ( talk) 23:57, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Armenian Genocide. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:22, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Can someone please explain why we should have Note 4 when we already have Note 2? It needlessly clutters the first sentence of the article. Étienne Dolet ( talk) 16:49, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
The lede sentence contains two very striking errors.
In the first place the historic homeland of Armenia is not contained within the borders of modern day Turkey (possibly an irredentist claim?) The historic homelands of the Armenians comprise the eastern regions of Turkey as well as all of present day Armenia and parts of Azerbaijan and Georgia. About half the historic homeland is contained within Turkey.
Secondly the figure of 1,500,000 fatalities is not confined to Ottoman-Armenians living within the Ottoman empire, but include some 400,000 fatalities suffered post-1916 by Armenians living outside the Ottoman empire during attempts by the Ottomans to expand their empire.
Of course these errors should be corrected. Awen23 ( talk) 19:21, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
The issue of the inaccurate (or at the very least, misleading) "historic homeland" lede content has been raised in the past. However, expect a conflict at least as long as the recent Medz Yeghern thing to get rid of it. The victim total should be for the entire period of the Armenian Genocide because this is the subject of the article. So it necessarily will include deaths inside Russian territory and Persian territory and deaths that happened after the year 1918, as long as the events are considered to be part of the Armenian Genocide. Tiptoethrutheminefield ( talk) 16:55, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
References
Re lede error correction: For a while I thought my "expect a conflict at least as long as the recent Medz Yeghern thing to get rid of it" prediction was going to be surprisingly (but pleasantly) wrong. But now the usual suspect has arrived [16]. Tiptoethrutheminefield ( talk) 19:15, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
( edit conflict) I'm at a loss over how to explain this any any further. I've been through multiple sources looking for whether 'subject' is appropriate in context: no, it is not; and neither is suggesting that the genocide stopped when the Ottoman Empire collapsed. I'm not claiming that there's an easy way of conveying the complexities of the period for the purposes of the lead, but creating SYNTH out of the scope it should cover is antithetical to what needs to be included in the lead. Did the persecution suddenly stop with the birth of the new nation-state known as Turkey? If that is the case, please provide the RS for this being the case and I will be more than happy for your version to be reintroduced. A million? I see, we need to change the current estimates to a million and exclude all of the sources for post-1915. Well, if that's the compromise you're willing to make. -- Iryna Harpy ( talk) 05:26, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
"The Armenian Genocide, also known as the Armenian Holocaust, was the Ottoman government's systematic extermination of 1.5 million Armenians, most of them subjects of the Ottoman Empire."means if not a WP:SYNTH rendition of a longer term genocide that covers a period of turmoil in the structure of political entities at the end of days of empires as sovereign states? I don't know how many more times you need your rendition to be quoted here by editors before you get it. Your change to the content is seriously flawed, and all you're able to muster as an argument in defence of a flawed description is angry accusations levelled at anyone who gets in the way of your winning an indefensible piece of lack-of-description. -- Iryna Harpy ( talk) 04:04, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
The source for "equal citizens without distinction of race or religion" is not "an anonymous Ottoman spokesman", it is Anahide Ter Minassian, chapter titled "Van 1915", page 211, in "Armenian Van / Vaspurakan", edited by Richard Hovhannisian. The same information can be found in many sources. Before the 1908 constitution all inhabitants of the Ottoman Empire were "subject" to an individual (the sultan), so were "subjects", after 1908 the Sultan lost that status and the inhabitants (foreign nationals excepted) became citizens who were protected by the same laws regardless of race or religion. This of course made the resulting genocide even more monstrous - it was not the whim of a medieval-era despot but the product of a modernizing empire purporting to follow enlightenment ideas of liberty and democracy and the rule of law (just as its successor state, Turkey, continues to claim to follow despite all the evidence that it does not).
Tiptoethrutheminefield (
talk)
15:37, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Would both of you agree to avoid either terms? Both terms are are state imposed and therefor legal binding, and therefore subject to be disputed in the future. A less controversial term would be its Armenian population or its Armenian inhabitants or something of the sort. Both of you have to discuss about this without me though, I return to my long pause. Yaḥyā ( talk) 00:59, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Just a last clarification, I was not discussing which of both terms is more appropriate, because to me this is irrelevant. Neither of you two is disagreeing in essence. Reason is that both subject and citizen in this particular case convey about the same message (that Armenians were members of the Ottoman family, by force or not), both words mostly diverge on forms only. The concepts of citizenship or subject aren't necessarily exclusive. This means that just because it is sourced that they were subjects does not mean they were not citizens and vis versa. There is no explicit set of unmovable rules to place them as either exclusively one or the other. Because what is a citizen or subject is decided by authors and relies on some set of changing parameters. The controversy exist mostly because after 1908 it was still an Empire, which assumes that there was a group (Muslim-Turks) ruling on others. I think both of you should be presenting what you are willing to concede and someone else has to cut in the middle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yahya Talatin ( talk • contribs) 17:00, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi, Yahya Talatin. Thanks for the link. I've only just taken a quick glimpse at it, but it looks like an interesting read. I'll get to it as I have to head out for a couple of hours. What is evident is that you're reading my use of 'other' too literally as being a postmodern 'self' and 'other' argument. I used the term simplistically to reflect my position on the context in the lead. 'Otherness' can be applied broadly to the non-ruling ethnic groups living under empires/nation-states, etc. in any epoch. In terms of the construct of the lead, such application suggests to the reader that Armenians were an enclave living outside of the laws of the OE and Turkey: that they possibly even were privy to self-governance in some form. I know it would be nice to find a less clumsy way of conveying their status, but I believe that your suggested compromise takes us further away from a satisfactory resolution. -- Iryna Harpy ( talk) 01:46, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Fairchia ( talk) 00:21, 2 November 2016 (UTC) This article as a whole is solid, with a multitude of unbiased viewpoints and facts backed by sources on multiple aspects of the genocide. Even the pictures provided assisted in providing a visual aid to the atrocities committed during this time period. An improvement could be to add a segment on Turkey's thought process on being able to commit these crimes under the falsehood of war. Turkey believed that it was justified in the genocide not only in ethical considerations but also that it was war, and certain occurrences happen. Another improvement could be to provide a generalized timeline to put in to reference the major historical events that occurred.
Could anyone supply sources for the dates mentioned in the infobox? Is there any particular reason for us to prefer the time-span 1915-23 in the infobox (and not 1918, for example); is this the most widely accepted timespan in the literature or the one accepted by influential scholars in the field? If not so, should we not reflect this in our presentation rather than present it as if it is the most widely accepted timespan (indeed we do this with the number of deaths but that the figure of 1.5 million is the most published is supported by sources)? Is there any literature evaluating these alternative timespans? If not, is the figure 1923 substantiated by the sources using it, by which I mean, is there any specific incident cited as genocidal activity that took place in 1923? Apologies if I am asking too many questions, I am aware that many here will be much more familiar with the literature than me and will hopefully be able to provide an insight on the issue of the start and end dates and settle it. -- GGT ( talk) 00:09, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
I must say, Iryna Harpy, that I'm quite disappointed in your recent revert. There has been a long-standing consensus to remove denialist talking points from this article. Michael Gunter is a well-known denialist. The stuff on Seljuk Turks is bizarre, even under denialist standards. I've also never heard a denialist ever say that the reason why the AG didn't happen was because Armenians lived well under the Seljuks. That's just apples and oranges. All denialist sources and talking points should be dumped in the Denial of the Armenian Genocide article. Étienne Dolet ( talk) 02:50, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
If you're removing it then put it on the denial page BM Tornado ( talk) 10:24, 6 December 2016 (UTC) BM Tornado ( talk) 10:24, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Would a link to the movie "Denial" not be appropriate? /info/en/?search=Denial_(2016_film) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wellsdm ( talk • contribs) 18:46, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
I don't think the "To date, 29 countries have officially recognized the mass killings as genocide,[28]" part is accurate, it uses a source from 2015, and http://asbarez.com/162565/czech-republic-parliament-recognizes-armenian-genocide/ just happened a few days ago for example. I don't know what the current total is but it's obviously more than 29. I don't have a Wikipedia account so can't edit this page but hopefully someone else will. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.54.107.200 ( talk) 18:08, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Jclemens ( talk · contribs) 02:33, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
![]() |
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | Improved markedly during the course of the review, could still stand more work throughout. |
![]() |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | Lead section is too short and doesn't adequately summarize the article. |
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
![]() |
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | |
![]() |
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | No issues noted |
![]() |
2c. it contains no original research. | No issues noted |
![]() |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | Everything seen on Earwig's tool appears to be appropriate quotations (them by us with attribution, us by them, or both of a common historical source) |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
![]() |
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | I don't have to go beyond the skimming stage to see that this is not an issue here. The next (focus) will be the more challenging to evaluate. |
![]() |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | Still very detailed, but it is an important topic and Summary style is in use. |
![]() |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | Not bad for how emotionally charged a topic this is, but likely still some room for improvement. |
![]() |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | No current edit wars. I get that this is an historically contentious topic in certain corners of the globe, but do not intend to hold that against the editors working to improve the article. |
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
![]() |
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | Only one fair use image noted, rationale appears appropriate, but will evaluate it in-context later. |
![]() |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | There are plenty of historical images. I suspect the gallery at the end overdoes it. These are clearly historic and important images, but a gallery with captions deprives them of their respective historical context. Might a smaller, more focused number of images work as well for this article? |
![]() |
7. Overall assessment. |
Thank you for your time! I am by no means the primary article contributor here but became involved after I worked intensively in June last year on trying to counter the revisionism in Armenian Genocide denial (it was bad; see before and after). I was pleasantly surprised to see that the main article on the genocide was actually in a very good state. Plenty of references and little edit wars due to the page's semi-protection. It's been three years since the failed GAN and editors have worked tirelessly on improving it. Calling first on those users who have contributed the most over the last 1-2 years - @ Tiptoethrutheminefield: (seems to be blocked for a few more days), @ EtienneDolet:, @ Iryna Harpy:. I'd also like to notify @ Diranakir: and @ Armen Ohanian: but I'm not sure they'll be able to join the discussion as their last contributions were already a while ago. I'll be available pretty much every day myself. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) ( talk) 15:20, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Honestly, I don't see a very significant change between the article as it is now and the article as assessed in the last GA review. Yes, a lot of content issues have been addressed and improved, but I think the article still falls short of being a correct and understandable account of the Armenian Genocide: it is still very badly structured, it (despite its length) still misses out much vital content, and it still includes a large amount of material that would be better placed in fork articles. Last year I gave the opinion in the Talk page that "Barely 20% of this article's content details the event itself, and we are 20% into the article's body before that small amount of content even starts, and the bulk (60% or more) of the article's content is aftermath-related material. I believe that this article is in urgent need of massive deletions and a lot of forking of content off into other articles. This article, titled as it is "Armenian Genocide", should be primarily concerned with giving an account of the Armenian Genocide as it happened, of what it consisted of, and not about what peoples, countries, organisations, or individuals have, post-event, done with the history of, or legacy of, the Armenian Genocide." [21]. I think it currently does not make the best of attribute 3a, though maybe enough to pass, but that it fails attribute 3b, and (mainly in the images section) possibly 6b too. I also worry if the article does attain GA status now, that status may be presented in the future as a reason not to make major changes to the article (since I think major changes are needed). Tiptoethrutheminefield ( talk) 15:42, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Done Fixed.
Étienne Dolet (
talk)
05:34, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
Done
Étienne Dolet (
talk)
05:34, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
Done Removed "once more"
Étienne Dolet (
talk)
05:29, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
Done Not sure what that means either, so I removed it.
Étienne Dolet (
talk)
05:29, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
Done Yeah, not need for those years.
Étienne Dolet (
talk)
05:29, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
Done
Étienne Dolet (
talk)
19:51, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
I'm afraid there's nothing I can do about that for now. The map needs to say Constantinople with (ISTANBUL) underneath or something. Étienne Dolet ( talk) 19:51, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Done
Étienne Dolet (
talk)
19:51, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Done
Étienne Dolet (
talk)
19:51, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Yes, it is because the relief organization was based in the USA. Étienne Dolet ( talk) 19:51, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
That's a good point. I thought about removing it. Maybe we could reword it somehow? I still think it should remain because the Einsatzgruppen is far more well-known in the academic world than the Special Organization. I think it'll help our readers to give them an example in history that as to how it operates and its role in the event. Étienne Dolet ( talk) 19:51, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Done
Étienne Dolet (
talk)
19:51, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
I'm going to have to look into this and get back to you. Étienne Dolet ( talk) 19:51, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Done Yeah, I don't get how that number got there.
Étienne Dolet (
talk)
20:15, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Done
Étienne Dolet (
talk)
20:15, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Done Added a source.
Étienne Dolet (
talk)
20:15, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Done
Étienne Dolet (
talk)
19:11, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
Done
Étienne Dolet (
talk)
19:11, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
Citation is at the end of the paragraph. Étienne Dolet ( talk) 19:11, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
Done
Étienne Dolet (
talk)
19:11, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
Done I removed one of the sentences. Added a citation on the other.
Étienne Dolet (
talk)
19:04, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
Done Against, per sources.
Étienne Dolet (
talk)
19:04, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
This is hard for me to break up actually. Or, do you have any suggestions? Étienne Dolet ( talk) 21:05, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
Done
Étienne Dolet (
talk)
21:05, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
Done
Étienne Dolet (
talk)
21:05, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
Done I removed the bit about the bombing one. That memorial shouldn't get singled out just cause of a bombing. I also reorganized the paragraph so that it flows better by combining two paragraphs that are related to one another.
Étienne Dolet (
talk)
22:28, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
Done Combined some paragraphs. Removed some non-notable stuff. Provided introductory sentences before the start of some paragraph to lessen the incoherence.
Étienne Dolet (
talk)
23:27, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
Jclemens ( talk) 06:59, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Looking at the recent history of the article, and the comments here, I don't think the article is yet stable, and therefore is not ready for GA. Even if there is no current edit war, most likely there are long-standing controversies that are still unresolved - edit summaries like "please stop adding muslim/christian qualifiers" and "many left voluntarily" - multiple recent edits and reversions from recent editors removing "Islamic" or "muslim' etc. Seraphim System ( talk) 22:29, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
I am going to take a break from editing, so I wanted to leave a message to have at least this addressed while I am not here. I already brought this in the talkpage of the article. As a reference one might use the German and French versions (both are featured articles). The estimate of victims on English Wikipedia takes the highest range of estimates in the lead (1.5 million) without providing the lower ones. The French version takes 1.2 million and the German version from 300,000 to 1.5 million. I have already addressed this here [22] (See my answer starting with Hi Armen). The only answer I have received which directly answer the figures I have provided was that the date of the tragedy would extend to 1923. But most victims can be recorded prior to 1918 (according to most sources). If Wikipedia holds a position which is significantly far from means or medians (if the mean is imposed by exterior factors) extra energy will be required to maintain this position as things always regress to its most stable form. There are many other issues with the article, but this at least should be addressed if this article is going to be promoted. The most reasonable wording without including ranges or long sentences would be approximatively a million and I welcome everyone to read that link (starting from Hi Armen) and answer if I have dismissed or forgotten any sources there. I can now take my break, bye. Yaḥyā ( talk) 19:24, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Where are we now? Jclemens ( talk) 07:12, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
Images are typically interspersed individually throughout an article near the relevant text (see WP:MOSIMAGES). However, the use of a gallery section may be appropriate in some Wikipedia articles if a collection of images can illustrate aspects of a subject that cannot be easily or adequately described by text or individual images. About 2% of articles at the English Wikipedia use galleries. The images in the gallery collectively must have encyclopedic value and add to the reader's understanding of the subject. Images in a gallery should be suitably captioned to explain their relevance both to the article subject and to the theme of the gallery, and the gallery should be appropriately titled (unless the theme of the gallery is clear from the context of the article).
Given the recent round of nonsense accusatory reverts over improving duplicate poorly written information and cleaning up excessive citation and the amount of work that still has to be done concerning the article length (which is over twice what our guidelines suggest) - not to mention the review has been open since May and still not closed, I am wondering if there are any plans to close this? I've also had to template the article for NPOV, because the issues are considerable - following the standard "if you can tell what the position of the authors are from reading it, it fails NPOV" standard this article clearly fails. It's not easy to adhere to NPOV on controversial topics - I'm not very emotional about this one (or any history articles in general) - I'm glad to see it's been nominated in the appropriate section, but since recent attempts to improve the quality of the article have been reverted, and several times I have seen the word "denialist" used by the nominator and other editors here (including in reverts), I'm not very hopeful. I think this review should be closed without prejudice to renomination when these issues are resolved.
Seraphim System (
talk)
12:56, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
I don't think this article is ready and of GA quality yet, and I don't think it should be passed until it is. Seraphim System ( talk) 23:45, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Jclemens, there has been no progress here in well over a month, and there is apparently some sort of unresolved content dispute going on as well. I think it's clear that this review has to be failed. Pinging the nominator, Prinsgezinde. Display name 99 ( talk) 13:17, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
According to Article 1 of the Council of the European Union Framework Decision 2008/913/JHA of 28 November 2008 on combating certain forms and expressions of racism and xenophobia by means of criminal law, each Member State shall take the measures necessary to ensure that publicly condoning, denying or grossly trivialising crimes of genocide is punishable, at least when the crimes has been established by a final decision of a national court of this Member State and/or an international court, or by a final decision of an international court only. In the Order of the Court of First instance of the European Union of 17 December 2003 in Case T-346/03, about compensation for the non-material damage suffered by the violation of the resolution of the European Parliament of 18 June 1987 on a political solution to the Armenian question, that Court considered : “In this case, it appears from the arguments put forward by the applicants that the alleged non-material damage is the result of the refusal by the Turkish Government to acknowledge the genocide in question (Armenian genocide) rather than of the conduct of the defendant institutions complained of”. The Court of First instance didn’t write : “the refusal by the Turkish Government to acknowledge the “ ‘ ‘ alledged ‘ ‘ ” genocide in question”.
By Order of the Court of Justice of the European Union the appeal against the Order of the Court of First instance of the European Union of 17 December 2003 was rejected. The question is if publicly condoning, denying or grossly trivialising the Armenian genocide should be a crime in a Member State of the European Union where the publicly condoning, denying or grossly trivialising a genocide is a crime when that genocide is established by a final decision of an international court. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LucLamineRot ( talk • contribs) 16:40, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Armenian Genocide has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
change ((Armenian)) to ((Armenia))n — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:541:4305:c70:e99d:bade:9a88:a4d9 ( talk) 14:27, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
Done Please be more specific with your requests, to let us know exactly where in the article a change should be made. I found an instance of "Armenian Christians" at the top of the article, and changed that one from the
Armenian disambiguation page to
Armenian. If there is something else needing attention, please identify it. Thanks.
Murph9000 (
talk)
15:00, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
Why is the "Armenians under Ottoman rule" section featuring a presentation of earlier history taken from a 19th century source, which is not only outdated but also written by a non-specialist? Among modern history texts discussing pre-reform times (which is what much of this section seems to be about, for unclear reasons), there are some that place more emphasis on injustices suffered by Ottoman Christian subjects and their discrimination in absolute terms and some that place more emphasis on peaceful coexistence and tolerance relative to those times, but this inflammatory rhetoric falls far beyond the limits of mainstream historical writing. Eperoton ( talk) 15:28, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Here's a passage I propose to use as replacement for that Ramsay quote: "Muslims as well as non-Muslims lived without the predictability of enforced laws. Their property and person were subject to the arbitrary and unchecked power of state officials and local lords, but non-Muslims bore the additional indignities of being infidels." (from "Reading Genocide" by Ronald Grigor Suny, in A Question of Genocide, 2011 OUP, p. 25). This is about as negative a generalization about Ottoman rule as I've seen in a recent book from a major university press. On the other hand, it provides a bit of corrective to the impression one gets from this article that it was only non-Muslims who suffered abuses. Eperoton ( talk) 04:00, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
A British consul, who like many of his European colleagues took a special interest in the Armenians, reported in the 1870s, “The people in the Armenian provinces suffer under the following provincial evils: Firstly, robbery, exaction, and oppression at the hands of the Kurds. In some parts nomad Kurds make raids on villages, carrying off flocks and herds and other plunder, and sometimes burning what they cannot carry away. In other parts influential Kurdish families parcel out the villages (especially Christian) in their neighborhood among their various members, and regard them as their property. The inhabitants have to pay them black-mail, cultivate their lands, pasture their flocks, and give and do for them anything they may demand.” Suny, Ronald Grigor. "They Can Live in the Desert but Nowhere Else": A History of the Armenian Genocide (Human Rights and Crimes against Humanity) (p. 19). Princeton University Press. Kindle Edition.
![]() | This
edit request to
Armenian Genocide has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Texas has recognized the Armenian Genocide, making a total of 46 US states the recognize the genocide, not 25 as stated on the current page. Here is the link to a source: http://asbarez.com/163544/texas-becomes-46th-u-s-state-to-recognize-armenian-genocide/ Konoisia ( talk) 18:46, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
@ Rivertorch: That's a good point and I presume it does. We've had a similar concern when Brazil recognized it. It was decided that since one part of their legislature recognized it would mean that it is recognized at a federal level. Same in this case. To simply say it hasn't been recognized at all would be a disservice to our readers, even if it's just one body of a bicameral legislature. Besides, we should use the language sources use. We shouldn't be dismissing what the sources are saying due to what we think recognition at a local, state, and federal level looks like. Étienne Dolet ( talk) 16:26, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 8 external links on Armenian Genocide. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:13, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Yerevantsi, Kurd and Azeri militias were involved, especially Kurdish ones. The Ottoman state could not have carried out the extent that it these events without their assistance, as was done with Hamidan Kurdish cavalry some decades prior in the massacres of the Armenians. Removal of content even though it is cited in scholarship removes key players that were involved in those events. The.Ottoman state gave the orders though these units were autonomous and could have refused and they did not. On another issue, you wrote the Turkish state [23], during these events Turkey did not exist until 1923 and after the events. It was under the Ottoman Empire that events transpired. Its important to be precise here. Resnjari ( talk) 18:10, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Two problems with inclusion of Kurdish and Azeri militias to the infobox:
I consider Tiptoethrutheminefield's recent of GF an improvement from the previous wording which I had removed. The most important part about a genocide is intent. We shouldn't imply that the Ottoman government had an intent to annihilate the Armenians of territories it occupied outside of the OE. That would confuse matters for our readers. The article can provide information on how massacres have spread, but to conflate genocide with unintentional spread of state-sponsored massacre is something that needs to be thoroughly discussed. Nevertheless, I can see why someone would want it added to the infobox. So instead of going back and forth, we should start an RFC? Étienne Dolet ( talk) 23:15, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
It is arbitrary to believe that the policies weren't to push away|get rid of the Armenians as far as the expansion could reach. To claim otherwise is to claim that the Ottoman behaved differently than any other Empire in history. The onus to provide material is therefor on the side which claims a version which is so unnatural to the documented history of Empires in general. On the other hand, just a reminder that the machine of state is devoid of any intentionality, it just react. Claiming that the Ottoman Empire had an intention to do X or Y is to attribute to machines things which are human. Yaḥyā ( talk) 15:55, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Armenian Genocide. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://matrix.msu.edu/hst/fisher/HST150/unit6/mod/young_turk_revolution.html{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.edu.documents/37940061/Gutman_Armenian_Genocide_Review_ArticleProof.pdf?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAIWOWYYGZ2Y53UL3A&Expires=1494808894&Signature=1pH5IXJjy0HBuHuvdlyy%20MTOp7A%3D&response-content-disposition=inline%3B%20filename%3DOttoman_Historiography_and_the_End_of_th.pdfWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:12, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
I don't know if editors here are deliberately trying to sabotage GA review by removing citation needed tags - reverts of the type I have seen here stall article improvement. I removed Ba'at Yeor because it is in the wrong section entirely and a GA article should be well organized. Probably be terminology section should be moved somewhere to the beginning of the article, and additional sources should be added to justify inclusion of Ba'at Yeor's theory that this was jihad, which is rather an interesting and extraordinary hypothesis. If it is going to be ibcluded it should be explained. You can't edit war away the considerable problems with this article, which is a long way off from GA (and twice the recommended length according to our guidelines, though Hrant Dink is only peripherally mentioned) - it is sad that an article of this importance is being held back from reaching GA, and that editors are quick to blame those trying to improve the article as being "denialist" - really sad. Seraphim System ( talk) 01:39, 14 October 2017 (UTC) Seraphim System ( talk) 01:39, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
Seraphim System brought up the subject of the background section in the preceding talk section. I'll develop this discussion under this new section for clarity. It continues an unfinished discussion we've had above at Talk:Armenian_Genocide#Ramsay (that section may be about to be archived). I've been distracted and then too busy to pick it up, but I'll try to find the time to do so now, as I think our current treatment is quite problematic. As I wrote above, there are in fact authors who present the dhimma system and the Pact of Umar as background for the processes that influenced the AG, as does for instance Akcam in the chapter I quoted there ("... The non-Muslims’ demands for equality in the nineteenth century were indeed seen as a violation of the agreement, and the Muslim communities of the Ottoman Empire had no intention of acquiescing. This cultural-legal framework, forming as it did the basis for the separation of Muslims and non-Muslims, would prove decisive in the clashes between Armenians and Muslims at the end of the nineteenth century.") The problem with our background section is that instead of presenting this argument of influence, it simply conflates the pre-modern dhimma system with the socio-economic developments of the late 19th century. These developments were quite complex and had significant regional variation. There are authors who describe them in detail (e.g., Suny in his book), but this is a distinct subject which should be presented the way it's presented in RSs (though more concisely) and not be mixed up ahistorically with the Pact of Umar. Finally, regarding Seraphim System's mention of jihad, there are indeed some issues with how the term is treated in the article, but it doesn't appear in the background section, and this would be a separate discussion. Eperoton ( talk) 03:30, 26 November 2017 (UTC)