GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
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." [1]. 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 [2] (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)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
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." [1]. 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 [2] (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)