Talk:Armenian genocide/Archive 32

Archive 25

←

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

About aftermath

The Turkish Independence War sub-section is especially written with cherry-picked sources. For example, Kévorkian references cannot be accepted as unbiased and neutral, hence also not as reliable. I do not want to make edits without a proper discussion however aftermath section should be revised immediately, due to the FA status of the article. — 07 ● 💬 18:47, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Why do you consider Kévorkian biased? What sources do you think should be cited instead? (t · c) buidhe 19:05, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

@Buidhe How unbiased can a member of NASRA be? I would say it is not really reliable to give references to neither Armenian nor Turkish historians nor historians publicly supported by sides such as McCarthy in this issue. Furthermore, apart from his ethnicity, Kévorkian's allegations are not accepted by a vast majority of historians, unlike the genocide itself in 1915-1918. As it could be seen in the references here, Mustafa Kemâl's uncertainty/opposition against the massacres/genocide is supported by primary source (Orbay), as well as historians such as Akçam or Dadrian. At least Kévorkian's allegations should be called as "allegations" or "claims" within the sub-section, however it can be given as exact truth in no circumstance. — 07 ● 💬 17:49, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

"Allegations" and "claims" should be avoided per MOS:CLAIM. What "sides" are you referring to?

As for Kemal, I believe that this is the mainstream view, because evidence supports it to a much greater extent. It's pretty hard to argue that a man who said:

Whatever has befallen the non-Muslim elements living in our country, is the result of the policies of separatism they pursued in a savage manner, when they allowed themselves to be made tools of foreign intrigues and abused their privileges. There are probably many reasons and excuses for the undesired events that have taken place in Turkey. And I want definitely to say that these events are on a level far removed from the many forms of oppression which are committed in the states of Europe without any excuse.

really opposed the Armenian genocide, based on what he allegedly told a foreign audience years later. Especially when you consider how Armenians actually lived in the Turkish Republic, where expulsions continued until the late 1920s... (t · c) buidhe 18:27, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

@Buidhe I meant the historians openly supported by the states of Turkey and Armenia as sides. In Mustafa Kemâl's case, again you are making assumptions due to the Turkification policies of early Republicans but as I stated, there is no widely accepted opinion among historians unlike 1915-1918, while Kemâl's stance is totally uncertain. Furthermore, sentences such as the war of independence were "intended to complete the genocide by finally eradicating Armenian, Greek, and Syriac survivors". is totally leaning on the assumptions of Kévorkian, denying the uncertainty of the situation and giving the final judgement of Republicans unconditionally supporting Young Turks' genocide, and showing this as a fact.

I understand your point however I have still concerns about this hypotetical judgement, especially in an article with FA status. — 07 ● 💬 13:46, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

??? Wikipedia is based on what reliable sources say. Which historians are allegedly "openly supported" by different governments is pretty much irrelevant. (t · c) buidhe 15:53, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Exactly, as buidhe said. And I can repeat there once more what I said below: to challenge a scholar, it is not editorial opinions that are needed here. Is another scholar challenging their work in an academic and professional way. In simple words: it will require really strong sources. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 19:15, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

• Just a note to @07: for stating that "cannot be accepted as unbiased and neutral, hence also not as reliable". In fact, reliability is independent of bias. One shouldnt be confused with another. Had this been the case, then content from roughly 80% of Wikipedia's Project - that is millions of articles - would have been removed as biased. Please familiarize yourself with WP:BIASED. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 11:53, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

  @SilentResident We are ought to use partisan sources only with mentioning counter-arguments upon it, but assumptions of Kévorkian such as the war of independence was "intended to complete the genocide by finally eradicating Armenian, Greek, and Syriac survivors". For instance, aforementioned sentence is not even fact or data but a relatively biased assumption, and in my opinion it should be discussed upon. — 07 ● 💬 13:33, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

I am reading again and again this (small) discussion you had there with Buidhe but How unbiased can a member of NASRA be? I would say it is not really reliable to give references to neither Armenian nor Turkish historians nor historians publicly supported by sides such as McCarthy in this issue. is an argument not reflecting the way Wikipedia works on politically sensitive topics I am afraid; there will always be an editor who may find this or that biased. It would be impossible to start removing sources just because an author is member of NASRA. Per WP:PARTISAN, both Turkey's views that the events didn't constitute a genocide, nor that there was any intend to exterminate certain populaces in the region, and the views of those who disagree with Turkey, have been documented and covered already. And I am sure you have noticed that, and this is something that cannot be challenged just like that; what you need, as an editor, is to provide strong and reliable sources discrediting Kevorkian's work, and present them here for us the rest of the community to evaluate, and only then we may start a proper discussion on how to address any issues that may emerge and see what may need to be changed in line with Wikipedia's standards, provided that they are found to be violated.

As for Mustafa Kemal and the War of Independence, I am afraid the majority of the international genocide scholars do consider both as having contributed to the genocide instead of preventing it. Considering this, a visit to the article Turkish War of Independence couldn't surprise me, especially the lead section which notes that: "Mustafa Kemal became an enabler and eventually leader of Turkish nationalist resistance against the Ottoman government, Allied powers, and Christian minorities". Good day. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 14:53, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Article's stance on the legal qualification of the Events of 1915

(Original title: "Why does this article take any stance on the legal qualification of the Events of 1915, let alone such an ambiguous and awkward one?")

Whether the Events of 1915 qualifies as genocide is still debated among historians, lawyers, diplomats, and politicians. This page reads more like a polemic arguing Turkish version events was fabricated rather than an article that represents perspectives from both sides in a neutral way. In doing so, it cherry-picks its references and attempts to discredit credible historians, who present a different narrative to the events, or plays down any evidence that supports Turkish version of the events, such military reasons for the deportations (a fact even acknowledged by Taner Akçam, The Young Turks Crime Against Humanity, pp. 55-58). Secondly, a strong word such as 'genocide' should be used sparingly; however, this article uses that word 129 times almost five times more than the page Holocaust (28 times). It is also concerning 90% of this article is written by only one user.

For the reasons stated above, this article should be tagged as biased.--176.219.213.111 (talk) 16:22, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

You posted from Turkey, where your statement might hold true. Scholars in the rest of the world are generally in consensus that the killings of 1915 were genocide. These scholars are more neutral, and they define the topic. Binksternet (talk) 17:17, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

If I showed you many scholarly works that do not qualify the Events of 1915 as such, would you add them to the article? 176.219.152.112 (talk) 17:27, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

You'd need multiple reliable, peer-reviewed scholarly sources which say the genocide label is disputed, so that it can be proven that there's due weight for this qualification relative to all the sources which say the label is widely accepted. If you can provide such sources then yes, they'd be added. However, I find it very unlikely they exist, as the article has already undergone a thorough peer review and a lot of research has gone into it. Jr8825 • Talk 18:38, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

History is a science, not policy or its tool. Posting from anywhere is counting for nothing, the most important thing is searching neutrally historical documents. This article is partisan because of unneutral resources. I wish it was scientific and academic but naming this article is problem and far away from scientific approach. Different claims (both sides) should be shown in this article. Documents between both sides should be regarded. In addition, genocide term was formed (invented) after WW2 as a term of law, as you know according to universal law, the law cannot be performed retrospectively. What have been done in this article that is unfair. -Historianengineer (talk) 22:46, 14 June 2022 (UTC)-

You are calling for a false balance, with "both sides" given equal footing. However, global scholars have already considered the issues, given the proper weight to the various pieces of evidence, and have published their conclusions. They found that a genocide occurred. It doesn't matter when the word "genocide" was coined, it still has meaning across all history, independent of law. Binksternet (talk) 23:20, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Aftermath

This section now starts with two sentences, the second of which the most respectable editors of Wikipedia chose to begin with the following: “Both contemporaries and later historians have estimated that around 1 million Armenians died during the genocide”. But, dearest most knowledgeable editors, in the references that follow this sentence you cite only 3 (three!) cherrypicked later historians: Morris & Ze’evi (counting these co-authors as one), Kévorkian, and de Waal, and no contemporaries at all. But how about those massive cohorts of later historians who have estimated that 1.5 million Armenians died during the genocide? Why isn’t at least one of them referenced? Worse yet, of the three later historians you chose to reference, Tom de Waal is as far from being a historian as Karl Marx from being a gynaecologist. Also, nowhere in Kévorkian (2011), especially on p. 271, does this author state that he had estimated around 1 million Armenians to have died during the genocide. Stop spewing nonsense. The 1 million Armenian dead on p. 721 refers to a “five-point request by 14 deputies [of the Ottoman Parliament], including two surviving Armenians and two Greeks”, which bore “on acts committed during the war by the Ottoman government, and evoked, notably, the liquidation of 1 million Armenian subjects of the empire.” In other words, Kévorkian refers to a parliamentary notion by a group of Ottoman MPs, and not to his own estimation of around 1 million Armenian dead. Will this and other distoritions ever end?98.231.157.169 (talk) 18:35, 12 May 2022 (UTC)Davidian

The IP Davidian made more than 250 edits only on the talk page of the Armenian Genocide and as to my knowledge refuses to edit (except for one edit) in the Armenian area themselves. I again invite them to create an account or else begin to edit in the Armenian area.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 20:44, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

May I know which particular Wikipedia WP:PG limits the number of edits on a talk page for a single contributor? Curious to know. And, since you’ve troubled yourself with counting my edits, next time be so kind as to count how many of these edits were implemented by your BFF editors, okay? Please check the archives for this discussion and let your readers, contributors, as well as your all-knowing editors, know how many of my RS-based edits were embedded in the text of this article. I can hardly wait.98.231.157.169 (talk) 15:50, 13 May 2022 (UTC)Davidian

@Paradise Chronicle And if you wish to know why THE (?! – what was your grade in English?) IP Davidian made so many edits only on one talk page, please know that IP Davidian suspects that editors of this page are involved in the diminishment of the significance of the Armenian Genocide as (a) first genocide of the 20th century; (b) a mass atrocity which the Allied Powers qualified as “crime against humanity”; (c) a mass atrocity significant enough so the term “genocide” was coined bearing the Armenian experience in mind; and (d) a mass annihilation of people which served as the progenitor of Jewish Holocaust. Why THE (?!) IP Davidian has such suspicions? Because editors of this page refuse to implement vast majority of RS-based edits that could potentially alter the nonsense we see in the article regarding the range of the Armenian dead, the size of Armenian populations inhabiting the Ottoman Empire, the historical place of habitat of the Armenians, the duration of mass killings of the Armenians, and other important points. Even the term “Genocide” in the title now figures with a lowercase “g”.98.231.157.169 (talk) 23:23, 14 May 2022 (UTC)Davidian

Davidian's editing history is concerning - about 99% of it just on this talk page, and there is not a single article edit in his entire edit history. There may be nothing against it in the rules, but I doubt it makes an editor into a better editor. This has nothing to do with his arguments/issues presented here, which I generally agree with. 92.14.223.30 (talk) 02:33, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

There is not a single article edit in my entire edit history? Oh, okay. I’ll go ahead and make my first edit in the second sentence of the Aftermath section of this inimitable article containing rounded figures: “Both contemporaries and later historians have estimated that around 1 million Armenians died during the genocide,[3][247][248] with figures ranging from 600,000 to 1.5 million deaths.[3]” Let’s all see how Wikipedia editors will react to this first edit of mine. My edit reads as follows: “Both contemporaries [references needed] and later historians [3] [more references needed] have estimated that from 600,000 to 1.5 million Armenians died during the genocide.”[3] In this edit, I’ve removed “around 1 million”, because, according to Wikipedia:Conflicting sources, it is not the task of Wikipedia editors to choose for the readers and that Wikipedia editors must include all significant points of view with appropriate attributions. Further, I’ve removed references [247] and [248]. Ref. 247 has nothing to do with Kévorkian estimating around 1 million Armenians dead. The 1 million Armenian dead appearing on p. 721 in his work refers to a “five-point request by 14 deputies [of the Ottoman Parliament], including two surviving Armenians and two Greeks”, which bore “on acts committed during the war by the Ottoman government, and evoked, notably, the liquidation of 1 million Armenian subjects of the empire.” In other words, Kévorkian refers to a parliamentary notion by a group of Ottoman MPs, and not to his own estimation of “around 1 million Armenian dead”. Ref. 248 was removed for the simple reason, of which Wikipedia editors must have long been aware, that Tom de Waal is not, and has never been, an historian. Tom de Waal is a journalist. Therefore, to say that “later historians have estimated that around 1 million Armenians died” with journalist de Waal hovering in a reference as a “later historian”, is either utter nonsense or an elaborate subterfuge.98.231.157.169 (talk) 19:12, 26 June 2022 (UTC)Davidian

Incomplete Lead

I found the lead unclear. It says the genocide "was implemented primarily through the mass murder of around one million Armenians during death marches to the Syrian Desert and the forced Islamization of Armenian women and children." But this is not what the article says later. It says that men (and boys over the age of 12) were first separated from the women and youngest children and told that if they resisted the others would be hurt. They were then executed on mass. It also says that many able bodied men were forcibly conscripted into the Turkish military, which is a similar tactic used in other genocides. None of this is the the lead, which does not mention men at all, and also fails to mention that boys over 12, although children, were executed as men. Finally, "mass murder during" a march isn't clear either. It should be something like "the mass murder of around one million Armenians. Men and boys over 12 were executed or deported via conscription while many women, girls, and boys under 12 were murdered via death marches. Those who survived were subjected to forced Islamization..." It's an important distinction because genocides can be perpetrated against one sex or age group and not another, so the lead should make it clear what happened. 193.27.45.80 (talk) 21:42, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

“Unclear”?... You’re doing the Wikipedia editors a big favor by using such a mild word. Tons of edits have been suggested (check the Archives), including the one you now chose to bring up, namely that forced Islamization of Armenian males was also widespread. The most egregious blunder is the “around one million” part, of course, where editors choose for their readers by using a rounded figure, and not the range of the mass murdered people found in various RS—Turkish, Armenian and non-Armenian alike—in sheer violation of their own Wikipedia:Conflicting sources. Another glaring blunder is the clause “the ruling Committee of Union and Progress (CUP)”. Imagine a lay person reading this inimitable Encyclopedia. I suppose, most likely than not, it’ll make him or her wonder: “what ruling committee”?? Several times it’s been suggested to call things by their proper names and specify that the “ruling committee” was, in fact, the ruling political party and the wartime government of the Ottoman Empire. Why the editors of this article prefer to leave things as they are? Because the most essential edits just don’t suit their preferred narrative.98.231.157.169 (talk) 15:54, 5 July 2022 (UTC)Davidian

Why all sources belong to one point of view?

In whole article I almost only see Taner Akçam and other Armenian historians' citations, while there are differing views about this genocide. Aloisnebegn (talk) 20:31, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

If you open your eyes wider, you will also see Bozarslan, Göçek, Üngör, Kurt, Ekmekçioğlu, Dündar, Ahmed, Morris & Ze’evi, Bloxham, Kieser, Bjørnlund, Ihrig, Gingeras, Rogan, Cora, Watenpaugh, Leonard, Tusan, Anderson, Zürcher, Galip, Ben Aharon, Koinova among others.98.231.157.169 (talk) 00:45, 24 July 2022 (UTC)Davidian

Ekmekçioğlu is actually a Turkish Armenian, so I guess her research doesn't count according to this poster. (t · c) buidhe 03:11, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

I know personally who Ekmekçioğlu is. And, yes, only Turkish official historians and a handful of apologists for the Turkish view of history should count according to this poster.98.231.157.169 (talk) 17:39, 24 July 2022 (UTC)Davidian

nice self-own. See WP:GEVAL (t · c) buidhe 03:12, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Massacres perpetrated by Armenians against Muslims and Turks (1914-1919)

Writing history is as important as creating history. If writers of history do not stand by the creators of history, the reality can mislead the humanity.

— Mustafa Kemal Atatürk

The following data is a short summary of massacres committed by Armenian forces against Muslim and Turkish civilians during World War I in Eastern Anatolia. The massacres were so horrendous that scholars classify some of them as genocide. The information about the atrocities harkens back to eyewitness and government reports. Those reports has been translated by scholars from Ottoman Turkish to modern Turkish and English, which have been compiled into a secondary source published by State Archives of the Republic of Turkey. If Wikipedia claims to be a neutral source, it should add these instances of war crimes to its article on the Event of 1915.

• On February 21 1914 Armenians killed Muslim men in Kars and Ardahan, death toll amounts to 30,000.
• In April 1915 Armenians killed 10,000 Muslims in Muradiye.
• In May 1915 Armenians assaulted border villages in Bitlis death toll amounts to 40,000.
• In May 1916 Russian and Armenian forces massacred people in Van, death toll exceeds 100,000.
• In May 1916 Armenians killed people 20,000 people in Malazgird.
• In May 1916 Armenians killed 15,000 people in a massacre in Edremid.
• In 1916 Armenians killed 14,000 Muslim civilians in Bayezid.
• In 1919 Armenians killed 4,000 people in Nakhchivan.
• Along with numerous other smaller and medium scale mass killings, Muslim death toll amounts to 363,000.

Reference: Sarınay, Yusuf et al. (2001). "Documents on Massacres Perpetrated by Armenians". State Archives of the Republic of Turkey. Department of Ottoman Archives. Ankara. ISBN 975-19-2655-6

--176.219.214.7 (talk) 18:09, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Not a high-quality reliable source so has no business being cited in a featured article (t · c) buidhe 19:35, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

This is a high quality source. If you claim otherwise you must prove it with evidence. My suggestion to you: read the book first before making erroneous assumptions about a scholarly work. 176.219.154.48 (talk) 19:42, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Official != reliable. The Turkish government is known not to be reliable on this subject. (t · c) buidhe 22:25, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

You are wrong because you are trying to determine a work's reliability solely on its affilation rather than authentic documentary evidence it contains. If you read the book, you will see that Armenian war crimes are clearly recorded in archival material. 176.219.154.48 (talk) 05:52, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not based on primary sources, and such sources are often inaccurate. Alot of the death counts above are plainly unrealistic and impossible (see WP:Exceptional). How did Armenians manage to kill 30,000 people before the war even started, when the Muslim dominated Ottoman authorities were still in charge? If true this would be a larger massacre than the Adana massacre. Where is the independent corroboration? There were no border villages in Bitlis vilayet which did not border either on Russia or Persia. (t · c) buidhe 07:37, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

I have just finished a book about this by Armenian authors. This books says in the end in somber tone it was genocide. This tone I understand from the honest and complete history they record There were steps made to peace but the history was long and the words that were said outlived their context. The violence in that region around Kars was long unstable. Certain people were targeted early in the campaigns who were propagandists calling for years for the destruction of Turkey. Everything is documented. It is a long history that should not be used to argue genocide is not committed. Many people died unable to defend themselves. Authors are clear about this. There are three or four good books I read so far. One is by Grigoris Balakian, an Orthodox priest who fled from Anatolia. I have read his book where he curses the Church for what they did. He is more reliable than some government figures. But I don't know what happened in Bitlis. They are just numbers. Your doubt is for good reasons, it was far from the unstable region. There is too great difficulty presented by interpreting raw numbers from a belligerent government. Does this help buidhe? Gwynhaas (talk) 15:20, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't see how any of these arguments is relevant or supported by what Wikipedia would consider reliable sources. While no doubt there were Armenians who opposed the Ottoman Empire, this was not a realistic threat either in 1914 or 1915, (see Suny 2015 for instance). (t · c) buidhe 15:34, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Oh yes, Suny was one of the books I read. They weren't "a realistic threat" by 1915. There was agreed upon reduction in their "readiness" so to speak. They adopted officially a completely different philosophy politically. And then they were slaughtered. Something terrible happened there to those people. I'm sorry if you feel the sources I am using are not reliable. I won't be adding them to the article. I just wanted you to know I agree with your decision not to use these numbers in the article. I don't understand why this has upset you. It's not what this article is about. I was hoping that having another voice in the discussion would be a benefit, to you, or maybe to someone other than you. Gwynhaas (talk) 18:29, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

If you aren't seeking a change in the article, your comment is by definition off topic, see Wp:Notforum . (t · c) buidhe 22:38, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

What I wrote wasn't an interpretation of a primary source on my part. It was the evaluation of the historians who analyzed those documents and published their findings. Those findings are considered to be accurate by historians. Tolga Başak (2018, p. 30) and Güzin Çaykıran (2021, p. 126) both concur that Armenians killed 363,000 Muslims between 1914 and 1919. Lastly, I didn't say Bitlis vilayet was on Russian or Persian border but I said Armenians attacked border (hudud) villages in Bitlis.

Başak, T. (2018). Doğu Anadolu ve Kafkasya’da Ermeniler Tarafından Türklere Karşı Yapılan Etnik Temizlik Hareketlerinin İngiliz Belgelerine Yansıyan Yüzü (1918-1919) / Ethnic Cleansing of the Turks by the Armanian in Eastern Anatolia and the Caucasus as Depicted in English Documents (1918-1919. Atatürk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 10 (45), 29-65 . Retrieved from https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/ataunisosbd/issue/36408/411762

Çaykıran, G. (2021). Bi̇ri̇nci̇ Dünya Savaşinda Osmanli Ordusundaki̇ Ermeni̇ Askerler ile Anadolu’nun İşgali̇nde Yardımcı Kuvvetler: Ermeni̇ Gönüllü Bi̇rli̇kleri̇ Ve Doğu Lejyonu (1914-1922). Ermeni Araştırmaları, 0 (70), 107-140. Retrieved from https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/erma/issue/66203/959128 176.219.154.181 (talk) 09:13, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Also remember that classifying an article as featured does not give you a free-passage to cheerypick your sources. 176.219.154.48 (talk) 19:46, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

The government of the Republic of Turkey has been noted to have misinterpretations of World War I, so your source is not high quality. ZetaFive (talk) 18:39, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

How to make edits if this article is semi-protected?

I went ahead to edit this article only to find out that the page is semi-protected for vandalism and cannot be edited by unregistered users. Please advise how can readers and contributors make edits if Wikipedia decided to ban access, also because there were some irritated types here indicating that IP Davidian refuses (what an idiotic word) to edit and that there is no single article edit in my entire edit history. Okay, I now carved out time to make edits starting with Aftermath section, as promised, in which Wikipedia editors, in violation of their own policies Wikipedia:Conflicting sources choose for readers by rounding up fatality figures found in conflicting RS and continue to retain references 247 and 248, although I’ve shown this unyielding editor (t · c) buidhe that Kévorkian (2011) has never estimated that “around 1 million Armenians died during the genocide”. But nothing was changed. Okay, you think you are stubborn, huh? Well, I’m stubborn too. As a first step, I'll go ahead and let Raymond know that his texts are being distorted here. Next, I will ask Tom de Waal to post his bio to demonstrate, once again, that he is not, and has never been, a historian. Therefore, to have Tom as a “later historian” (ref. 248) is a sheer distortion of his own biography by the editors. Enough already.98.231.157.169 (talk) 18:29, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Davidian

The answer to your question is read at Wikipedia:Confirmed. It seems once you created an account you can edit the page rather soon. All you need to do is create an account, make 10 edits and wait for 4 days. And I am sorry not to have told you before, as I thought the bar was considerably higher. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 22:14, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with how the Kévorkian source is used. It's supporting, along with other sources, the sentence "Both contemporaries and later historians have estimated that around 1 million Armenians died during the genocide". You've clearly read the source and (I can see from your comment further up this talk page) know that it's discussing a contemporary estimate made in the Ottoman parliament in October 1918. Therefore this particular citation is providing evidence of the "contemporaries" who made an estimate of 1 million, not the "later historians" (presumably that's supported by the other 2 cites provided). Jr8825 • Talk 22:23, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Here’s what Kévorkian wrote on p. 721:

“In fact, the Ottoman parliament had been in session since 10 October 1918, yet no steps had been taken in the three weeks preceding the departure of the Young Turk leaders. The president of the assembly, Halil Bey [Menteşe], an eminent member of the Young Turk Central Committee and a former foreign minister, saw to that. Apart from Fuad’s motion, he had to deal with the five-point request endorsed by 14 deputies, including two surviving Armenians and two Greeks. It bore on acts committed during the war by the Ottoman government, and evoked, notably, the liquidation of 1 million Armenian subjects of the empire, the expulsion of 250,000 Greeks and the wartime seizure of their assets, the massacre of 550,000 Greeks from the Pontus at war’s end, and the 1915 murder of deputies such as Krikor Zohrab and Vartkes Seringiulian.”

And here’s what a person considering herself a Wikipedia editor wrote in the article:

“Both contemporaries and later historians have estimated that around 1 million Armenians died during the genocide […][247] (References: Kévorkian 2011, p. 721.).

My question to you, Jr8825, is as follows. From what you’ve just read from Kévorkian above, does it mean that he had estimated around 1 million Armenians dead or maybe a parliamentary motion he’s cited had made an estimate? And if a parliamentary motion has estimated, as any adequate, sober-minded person would understand, do you think editor (t · c) buidhe is correct in saying that it was later historian Kévorkian who estimated 1 million? Isn’t it obvious that reference 247 doesn’t refer to later historians but to contemporaries and needs to be placed after contemporaries? Therefore, you must see a problem, dearest Jr8825. Why is it so hard to make you understand, Wikipedia editors?98.231.157.169 (talk) 00:08, 13 August 2022 (UTC)Davidian

I'm a bit confused here Davidian, you seem to be repeating my above comment a bit here? I agreed that Kévorkian is citing a figure put forward to the Ottoman parliament, I read the source too. My point was that it's supporting part of the sentence in our article but not all of it, as it's 1 of 3 sources provided at the end of the sentence for the information it contains. Also, I encourage you to review our community policies on assuming good faith and being respectful towards others; comments such as "a person considering herself a Wikipedia editor" are rude and unconstructive, you'd do well to strike it out or remove it. Jr8825 • Talk 00:26, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

To help make things clearer, I've now moved that citation to the direct part of the sentence it supports. Does this address your concerns? Jr8825 • Talk 00:29, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. Finally... As for "rude and unconstructive", please open the Archives and have a look at how many RS-based hundreds of edits have been suggested to this editor (t · c) buidhe, but were never implemented. Who would you call "unconstructive" after this? And, next time, don't call me IP, okay? Now, that is really rude.98.231.157.169 (talk) 00:46, 13 August 2022 (UTC)Davidian

Sorry Davidian, it's a habit I fall into as few unregistered editors use a name. No editor has any special power over an article. You have three options: you can either create an account and wait a few days, after which you'll be able to make changes yourself; you can use the edit request process to make specific, non-controversial requests here on talk page, which any patrolling editor can implement; or you can continue to engage regular editors here in discussions. The first two options mean you're likely to have fewer interactions with the same editors. However, no amount of discussion or frustration justifies rudeness to another editor, and as we're all volunteers working collaboratively here, keeping things civil is something we're pretty strict on. Jr8825 • Talk 00:54, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

I understand. Sorry if I flipped out. But I think you're wrong in that no editor has any special power over an article. As far as I remember, editor (t · c) buidhe has been assigned to it.98.231.157.169 (talk) 01:00, 13 August 2022 (UTC)Davidian

That's not correct -- although buidhe has certainly done a large majority of the writing here (and consequently other editors may direct questions to her, on the assumption she has a good command of the literature), we have a policy which states that no editor, regardless of circumstances or their contributions, has the right to make exclusive decisions about content. If you think something's wrong and you can't come to an agreement, you can ask other editors here for input. If that doesn't work you can use a dispute resolution process. If you have other questions about how Wikipedia works (rather than the content of this article) a good place place to ask them is the Teahouse. Jr8825 • Talk 01:24, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for this Jr8825 • Talk, but I do remember vividly that when Wikipedia, for some thought-provoking reason, decided to republish the already existing version of the article on the Armenian Genocide, a box appearing at the top of the Talk page said that the article has been assigned to editor (t · c) buidhe. And, yes, you may be correct in saying that her having a good command of the literature might have been just an assumption.98.231.157.169 (talk) 16:41, 13 August 2022 (UTC)Davidian

I'm afraid I don't know what you're referring to. It may have been an informal editorial process (perhaps a peer review connected to its feature article candidacy?) but regardless it will have been a non-enforceable, unofficial status with no special role, rights or responsibilities. However, please keep your comments focussed on the content, not on the contributor. Jr8825 • Talk 17:06, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

But bear in mind that it is the contributor who refuses to implement comments focused on the content.98.231.157.169 (talk) 17:11, 13 August 2022 (UTC)Davidian

Wikipedia:Conflicting sources and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view as applicable to number of victims

I understand Wikipedia:Conflicting sources is an essay which contains the advice or opinions of Wikipedia contributors, as follows:

“If the conflict is about an interpretation of the facts rather than a simple matter of fact, and cannot be resolved by demonstrating some of the conflicting sources to be in error, in order to maintain a neutral point of view, include all significant points of view with appropriate attributions. In those cases, it is up to the reader to choose which source they want to believe personally and not the task of Wikipedia editors to choose for them. Instead, the article should contain a mention that different points of view exist”.

But if Wikipedia:Conflicting sources is just an essay, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view is an official Wikipedia policy which, I quote, “describes a widely accepted standard that all editors should follow". So, I guess, my question is, do the editors of this article think they follow their policy by including all significant points of view in the lead and Aftermath section regarding the number of victims? Dearest (t · c) buidhe, do you really think that “around one million” represents all significant points of view as required by your policy in order to maintain a neutral point of view?98.231.157.169 (talk) 20:11, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Davidian

Yes, because all credible estimates round to one million at one significant figure (t · c) buidhe 22:46, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Dead wrong. There are significant discrepancies in RS regarding the number of victims. And you, (t · c) buidhe, know this only too well. Therefore, you must give all significant points of view in order to maintain a neutral point of view, as required by your Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Don’t you try to wriggle out of this because, I'm sorry to say, you’re in a very unfortunate situation, dealing with a historian of the late Ottoman era. Against your every “credible estimate” of around 1 million I can put up two credible estimates ranging from 600,000 to 1.5 million. I mercifully advise you not to start the race, because you’ll be humiliated. Again, I'm sorry to say. Just include the range from 600,000 to 1.5 million in the lead and Aftermath, instead of your ridiculous round-up, and everyone will be happy.98.231.157.169 (talk) 00:52, 13 August 2022 (UTC)Davidian

I removed this comment once already, Davidian, as language such as this is completely unacceptable. I also warned you on your talk page. Please strike it through and be more respectful of your fellow editors. You'll probably be blocked the next time you're rude to buidhe. Jr8825 • Talk 01:30, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

All credible estimates do not “round to one million”. Please stop misleading other editors visiting this page who may be less knowledgeable about the subject. All credible estimates provide a wide range which I took the trouble and time to extract from RS and which are now gathering dust in the Archives, unimplemented, by your grace. Forget about the two petty sources (by petty, I mean the miniscule number of them) that you were able to dig out (Morris & Ze’evi and de Waal, who is not even a historian). What, there are no other credible estimates, except for those two (one of which is unauthoritative) that go as low as 600,000 and as high as 1.5 million? Dozens. If you ask me, I wouldn’t even consider rounded estimates as credible. How can a self-respecting historian or genocide scholar round up discordant and oftentimes conflicted fatality figures to some lousy average number? But Wikipedia editors can. It is right there in the opening paragraph: “[the genocide] was implemented primarily through the mass murder of around one million Armenians”. Which Wikipedia policy gives authority to round figures found in conflicting sources? Please direct your readers, contributors, and fellow editors to a Wikipedia policy that gives editors the right to do so. I only see in Wikipedia:Neutral point of view that in order to maintain a neutral point of view, editors should include all significant points of view with appropriate attributions. Where are those all significant points of view for fatality numbers in the lead?98.231.157.169 (talk) 22:14, 13 August 2022 (UTC)Davidian

Distortion of professional profile of a referenced individual

In sub-section “End of World War I” under “Aftermath”, in the second sentence of the first para., British journalist Thomas de Waal is quoted in reference 248 as a “later historian” who “estimated that around 1 million Armenians died during the genocide". Here’s de Waal’s biographical sketch received from the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, a Washington, DC-based think tank, where Tom works as a Senior Fellow with Carnegie Europe, specializing in Eastern Europe and the Caucasus region:

Thomas de Waal graduated from Balliol College, Oxford, with a First Class Degree in Modern Languages (Russian and Modern Greek). He is the author, most recently, of The Caucasus: An Introduction published by Oxford University Press in August 2010. In the 1990s, Mr. de Waal was a journalist in Moscow for The Moscow Times, The Times of London, and The Economist, specializing in Russian politics and events in Chechnya. Tom is co-author with Carlotta Gall of Chechnya, A Small Victorious War (Pan, 1997 and NYU Press, 1998) and sole author of the authoritative book, Black Garden: Armenia and Azerbaijan Through Peace and War (NYU Press, 2003), which has been translated into Russian, Armenian and Azeri. He has also worked as a reporter, editor and program manager for the BBC World Service and the London-based NGOs, the Institute for War and Peace Reporting and Conciliation Resources. Mr. de Waal is the author of dozens of articles for publications round the world and has made many radio programs for the BBC.

Despite the fact that twice it was brought to the attention of this editor (t · c) buidhe that de Waal is not, and has never been, a historian, he continues to figure in the article as a “historian”. Readers and contributors, beware of a deliberate distortion of de Waal’s professional profile by this editor. Besides, in a recent article de Waal refers to more than 1 million Armenians (What Next After the U.S. Recognition of the Armenian Genocide?), and not around 1 million killed. But even this corrected estimate doesn't make journalist a professional historian.98.231.157.169 (talk) 21:08, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Davidian

I have answered you above and am interested to see your own improvements to the article. Everybody is welcome to edit on wikipedia as long as they adhere to some guidelines. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 22:18, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Please don’t give me this “I’ve answered you above” answer, okay? Help:Talk pages, according to Wikipedia, are administration pages where editors can discuss improvements to articles. Why didn’t you, respected editors, make those improvements after so many edits have been discussed and suggested?98.231.157.169 (talk) 23:41, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Davidian

Unless I'm missing something, de Waal is never mentioned in the article nor is he described as a historian. All that we do is cite his book a few times. It's an adequate source for what is cited. (t · c) buidhe 22:44, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Really, (t · c) buidhe? And whose edit is this: “Both contemporaries and later historians have estimated that around 1 million Armenians died during the genocide[…][248] Reference 248. de Waal 2015, p. 20. Not yours? Martians’? Obviously, modern-day de Waal cannot be classified as a “contemporary”. Therefore, it is obvious that your “later historians” applies to him because he's cited in reference 248. Are you taking your readers and contributors, some of whom are professional historians of the late Ottoman period, for idiots? If you do, I can bite back very hard, you know?98.231.157.169 (talk) 23:29, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Davidian

What de Waal actually says: "During World War I, observers estimated that one million Armenians had been killed." and "This figure of around one million dead is used by many historians." You do not have to assume that de Waal is one of the historians. We could not use this statement if not explicitly supported by a reliable source, because that would be original research. (t · c) buidhe 03:09, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Then be so kind to single out the opinion of journalist de Waal, which seems to be very close to your heart (at least it looks like it), into a separate, detached sentence or clause. Journalist de Waal’s misleading statement to the effect that “around one million dead is used by many (?!) historians” cannot figure in conjunction with a sentence that reads “[…] later historians have estimated that around 1 million Armenians died during the genocide”. For two simple reasons. First, because, as we all know, de Waal is not a historian, never was. And second, because for uninformed readers, the above clause supported by ref 249, creates an impression as if many historians indeed think that around one million died. Whereas in reality, it is a single opinion of a mere journalist, not even a historian or genocide scholar, and most other credible estimates made by professional historians and genocide scholars, as you're well aware, RANGE from 600,000 to 1.5 million. For everyone here to know: I’ve offered tons of proofs and scores of reliable sources—now in the Archives—all testifying to the fact that professional historians and genocide scholars differ significantly on the number of victims during the Armenian Genocide, and that it is sheer dilettantism and incompetence to say that “around one million dead is used by many historians”, with you, (t · c) buidhe, relying on a single unprofessional statement made by a cherrypicked journalist. Why? Because it fits the Wikipedia editors' preferred narrative for this revised article. Again, and I'm sorry to remind, your own Wikipedia:Neutral point of view requires compliance on the part of the editors to the policy which calls for all significant points of view to be represented in order to maintain a neutral point of view.98.231.157.169 (talk) 18:07, 13 August 2022 (UTC)Davidian

de Waal is not used by his own, he is used in conjunction with multiple other sources, as has been pointed out several times already. The other source for "later historians" is written by Benny Morris and Dror Ze'evi, who state: "Most Western scholarship on the subject has concluded that the Ottoman Empire ... carried out a genocidal campaign that resulted in a million or so Armenian dead." Perhaps you could check the sources yourself, instead of demanding other volunteers give up our time to verify each source when there is no issue. Jr8825 • Talk 18:27, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

No, from how the clause reads, a lay reader understands that: (a) journalist de Waal is a later historian; and (b) journalist de Waal has estimated that around 1 million Armenians died during the genocide, because ref 249, with de Waal 2015, p. 35 mentioned in it, immediately follows the clause. I don’t care if Wikipedia editors assign such an important role to a mere journalist in an article that deals with history and genocide studies, but his name in conjunction with that particular clause is absurd. Especially as in his 2015 work he doesn’t support his claim that “historians have estimated that around 1 million Armenians died during the genocide” with any sources. Just an unfounded statement. What would one expect from a journalist after all? Morris and Ze’evi are historians, no objection here. But their statement to the effect that “most Western scholarship on the subject has concluded that the Ottoman Empire ... carried out a genocidal campaign that resulted in a million or so Armenian dead” is only one out of many other estimates made by other historians and genocide scholars, that typically RANGE from 600,000 to 1.5 million. Did I make myself understood? All sources supporting the range are in the Archives. Sorry, I also cannot give up my time to make contributions over and over again. At the time they were made they were not implemented by your fellow editors. Well, now you give up your time.98.231.157.169 (talk) 18:53, 13 August 2022 (UTC)Davidian

I'm a lay reader. I wouldn't assume that de Waal is a historian. I would just assume he's written something that supports the preceding statement. Looks like he has, so I'm good with it. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:56, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Really? “[…] later historians have estimated that around 1 million Armenians died during the genocide” with de Waal immediately following this clause doesn’t give you the impression that he is a historian? I hope you’re not trying to insult your lay readers’ intellect. Or especially the professionals in the field for that matter. And, you don’t have to assume, journalist de Waal indeed has written “something” (you hit the bull’s eye) which “supports” the preceding statement only as an unfounded statement, not supported by any sources. This is what journalist de Waal writes on p. 35:

This figure of around one million dead is used by many historians. Armenians officially cite the number of 1.5 million—a figure that includes Armenian deaths up until 1923.

Mind you, there is no reference whatsoever after this clause and, subsequently, zero cited sources, in the original text. And the respected Wikipedia editors take this unfounded statement as “something” that “supports” the preceding statement? Wow…98.231.157.169 (talk) 19:23, 13 August 2022 (UTC)Davidian

And, by the way, Morris & Ze’evi (2019) too do not support their statement re: fatality figures with any data sources. Here’s what they write on p. 1:

“Most Western scholarship on the subject has concluded that the Ottoman Empire, exploiting the fog and exigencies of war, carried out a genocidal campaign that resulted in a million or so Armenian dead”.

But this statement is not substantiated by any reference, on p. 1 or elsewhere in the text, which would clarify who in Western scholarship constitute the majority that concluded that a million or so Armenians died? But somehow both unsubstantiated statements made by Morris & Ze’evi and de Waal are given utmost importance in this article. Why? Perhaps because both mention the beloved rounded figure?98.231.157.169 (talk) 23:05, 13 August 2022 (UTC)Davidian

My edit was not about citing de Waal's book a few times or whether it was an adequate or inadequate source. My edit was about (mis)placing a reference to his work at the end of the sentence that reads: "[...] later historians have estimated that around 1 million Armenians died during the genocide".[249, de Waal 2015, p. 35.] I invited your attention several times in a constructive manner (this is specially for you, Jr8825 • Talk) to the fact that Tom de Waal was not, and has never been, an historian. But the reference was never removed. In fact, it is still there. Even as Wikipedia's own article states that Thomas de Waal is a journalist. Now, such attitude is not rude, but getting irritated by neglect is rude. Right, Jr8825 • Talk? 98.231.157.169 (talk) 03:57, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a source to be used on wikipedia. I again invite to edit yourself, Davidian. I have taken several hours to respond your questions and they were all not really useful suggestions, because they were either already included in the article or did not make sense according to the Wikipedia guidelines. Why I answer you is to save the eventual editors time that will also take hours to respond you, only to find out what you want does not make any sense.06:39, 13 August 2022 (UTC) Paradise Chronicle (talk) 06:39, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

This is simply not true. I didn't suggest to use Wikipedia as a source to be used on Wikipedia. That's why, in case you didn't notice, I requested and posted Tom de Waal's bio from Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. And please check the Archives for tons of useful RS-based suggestions from a professional in the field like me. And, by the way, I'm also wasting my time on many text passages generated by your "eventual" editors, some of which not only make no sense, but are ridiculously dilettante.98.231.157.169 (talk) 15:54, 13 August 2022 (UTC)Davidian

If we all would not assume good faith for your concern dear Davidian, we could just go with your accusations of rude, ridiculously dilettante etc. to the ANI and editors have been blocked for less. You take the time of valuable editors with better things to do than reading and replying to your concerns which when double checked, turn out to be wrong. And this is not in your interest which appears to be raising awareness on the Armenian Genocide. Your persistent critiiscm was helpful in double checking and assuring the veracity of the content, thanks. If you want to have anything changed I repeat that you can create an account and begin to edit yourself.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 16:36, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

And, as a kind reminder to you and other “eventual” editors—in case you’ve forgotten because of your busy time from which you’re spending hours to respond to me—editors, according to official Wikipedia policy Wikipedia:Ownership of content, do not own the article. Cheers98.231.157.169 (talk) 16:29, 13 August 2022 (UTC)Davidian

Yes you are right, you can also edit. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 16:36, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

I’m sorry to have to give an English Grammar 101 lesson to the most knowledgeable editors of Wikipedia, but in order that your lay readers distinguish that individuals mentioned in references 3 and 249 are not exactly those “later historians” who figure in the preceding clause, the clause must begin with something like: “According to Morris & Ze’evi and de Waal, later historians have estimated that around 1 million Armenians died during the genocide”. Almost same goes with Kévorkian in ref. 247: “A group of contemporaries mentioned in Kévorkian have estimated that around 1 million Armenians died during the genocide”. But even if editors of Wikipedia, who are known as being most receptive to edits and contributions, eventually make these amendments, they in no way support the statement that “around 1 million Armenians died during the genocide”, a rounded figure so close to some editors’ heart, because both Morris & Ze’evi and de Waal make totally unfounded, unsubstantiated allegations not susceptible of proof. Why? Because there is no single “later historian” figuring in their works on whose estimates they’d based their irresponsible statements. As for Kévorkian, as I’ve noted already, he brings forth a single case of just one group of 14 Ottoman MPs who in 1918 endorsed a request to the National Assembly which “evoked the liquidation of 1 million Armenian subjects of the empire”. I’m not well familiar with the logic employed by some editors here, but somehow the common sense tells me that one parliamentary motion, in which the figure of 1 million Armenians killed was mentioned, cannot serve as a basis for the editors to state that “[…] contemporaries (?!) have estimated that around 1 million Armenians died during the genocide”. Again, can one (ONE) small group of people represent “contemporaries”?98.231.157.169 (talk) 16:16, 16 August 2022 (UTC)Davidian

The full range of estimates is provided in the lead and infobox in a clear, accessible and adequate manner. We also have multiple reliable sources that say modern historians' estimates can be roughly approximated with the statement "around 1 million people died" and therefore we say this too. If multiple reliable sources (there's no indication these sources are not reliable) say something, and it's not disputed by other reliable sources, then it's unnecessary to provide in-text attribution; see WP:INTEXT. (Note that in this case, a historian saying 1.3 million people died does not automatically contradict the claim that the common benchmark lies around 1 million.) You're telling us the "historians' estimates are usually around 1 million" statement is disputed and unsubstantiated. That doesn't help us, we can't go off your authority. You need to provide a reliable, published source that says these things. Otherwise, we'd be casting undue doubt on the basis of editors' analysis. Jr8825 • Talk 17:02, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

In the infobox, yes. In the lead, no. And, no, your readers don’t see “the full range of estimates” in the lead. I’m surprised how you see something that doesn’t exist. Do you see any range in the lead? Other editors, do you see a range in the lead? Dearest Jr8825 • Talk, from what we, the contributors, understand from your own Wikipedia:Neutral point of view which, I quote, “describes a widely accepted standard that all editors should follow", you don’t seem to have any right or authority to “roughly approximate” estimates. This policy specifically states that in order to maintain a neutral point of view, editors must include ALL significant points of view with appropriate attributions. “Around 1 million” is only one (ONE) of many other estimates which are also not disputed by other reliable sources. For example, 800,000 or 1.3 million or 1.5 million. But why don’t your readers see other estimates, or the range covering them to be exact, in the lead? Why? And no, 1.3 million is just another estimate in the range of estimates and, no matter how hard you try, is nowhere near the benchmark lying around 1 million. 300,000 thousand over 1 million is substantial enough a figure so that you, editors, don’t round it up to a lousy 1 million. And I’m not telling you the “historians’ estimates are usually around 1 million” statement is disputed and unsubstantiated. Don’t you put words in my mouth that I’ve never said. I keep saying that approximation of various estimates found in various RS is a sheer violation of your own neutral point of view policy and that “around 1 million” represents only one (ONE) fragment of the wide range of credible estimates. But for some reason this figure, taken singly, is very dear to some of your BFF editors’ heart. But you are supposed to be neutral, aren’t ya? Jr8825 • Talk, do you think you are neutral?98.231.157.169 (talk) 18:03, 16 August 2022 (UTC)Davidian

Although Davidian has been temporarily blocked, I want to acknowledge my mistake in stating that the range is included in the lead. It is only in the infobox and body. I stand by the rest of my comment. I'm not against revisiting this in a future discussion led by a source review, although for the reasons given by editors in past discussions (e.g. strong sourcing, precision impractical) I don't think it's a critical issue. Jr8825 • Talk 19:50, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

A range is given for death marches, and other deaths, adoptions etc. are described also in further phrases of the lead. The death toll does not include the deadly casualties of the Turkish war of independence which are also mentioned in the lead. The around a million concerns the deaths between 1915 and 1917. What was before and after will sure ad up to a higher number. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 20:06, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Terminology

Terminology should be included in this article as the Armenian genocide played a major role when the term genocide was first coined. My previous revision including terminology translated from Turkish wiki:https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1100654348 Hank the Sniper (talk) 04:49, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that the actual content in this diff originates from the enwiki article terminology of the Armenian genocide, which was translated in to Turkish. It is already covered in a sub article and does not need to be added here. (t · c) buidhe 04:54, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

The origin does not appear to be the same and although there is some overlap the turkish wiki's version is cited better and is included in the armenian genocide article, also the terminology plays a major role in the denial of the armenian genocide and is for some reason left out of the Armenian genocide denial article. It would be very usefel to have it adjecent to or included in the denial section of this article Hank the Sniper (talk) 05:31, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

As I thought more about it would be best if we put it into it's legacy since the term genocide quite possibly would not exist if history were to turn out diffrently Hank the Sniper (talk) 05:40, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

The sources that you added are: nytimes, yenisafak.com (Turkish newspaper closely associated with the government), and aa.com.tr (Turkish state sponsored newspaper). None of them are peer-reviewed scholarly sources and #2 and #3 clearly fail the high quality RS test required for use in featured articles. (t · c) buidhe 05:46, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Those two(yenisafak.com and aa.com.tr) are not really sources there per se, they are instances of the terms being used Hank the Sniper (talk) 06:24, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

But I can find a better source instead of the new york times article Hank the Sniper (talk) 06:25, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Waal, Thomas de. "The G-word: The Armenian massacre and the politics of genocide." Foreign Aff. 94 (2015): 136. can be cited instead I guess. Is it really neceserry here since it is a direct quote from a documentary? Hank the Sniper (talk) 06:40, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Those two(yenisafak.com and aa.com.tr) are not really sources there per se, they are instances of the terms being used

For this alone you should be banned from this article for WP:CIR. Say Turkey publishes dozens of sources using your "Armenian theses, Armenian claims" terminology, should we include it overlooking majority WP:RS? No ofcourse not, and I explained why when I reverted your edit, it's WP:UNDUE. What part of UNDUE you didn't understand that you keep wasting everyone's time here? ZaniGiovanni (talk) 12:07, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

The issue you are reffering to here is :

"Raphael Lemkin coined the term "genocide" in 1943 by combining the Greek words genos meaning "race" and cide meaning "slaughter" in Latin, and brought the Armenian massacres to the agenda with the following words: "I became interested in the [concept] of genocide. , because it happened many times. First it happened to the Armenians, then Hitler took action."

Just as those who completely ignore the existence of the aforementioned mass murders, those who argue that "genocide" is not the right word to describe these massacres also reject the political legitimacy of the term. Those representing the first group prefer names such as "Armenian theses", "Armenian claims" and "Armenian lies"."

I'm discussing this in the talk page in goodwill it may very well be undue but I'm trying to get concensus here now, because I don't think it is undue, the sole reason why this is a controversial topic is because there is opposition to it, although the opposing side has weak claims I think this would be a fine addition to the legacy section. If you think the second part is undue alright I'll try to improve it but it won't be included if there is no consensus. The same goes for the first part.

Now saying I should be banned is taking it too far in my opinion. WP:NOBITING

I really would love some constuctive feedback here like "yeah hank! that other ref is good" or like "IDK hank, maybe you can find a better source for that" at the very least please dont bite. Hank the Sniper (talk) 12:47, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

What I was referring to is called a WP:PBLOCK and I believe you would benefit from it in the long run. You should familiarize yourself with Wikipedia and its policies/guidelines before engaging in several discussions on this talk page. If you aren't capable of this, then a p-block may be an option until you learn. Your edit (2nd part) is WP:UNDUE, end of story. Those 2 sources aren't even WP:RS, but even if they were, it would still be WP:UNDUE because majority WP:RS don't describe the genocide as "Armenian claims" or "Armenian lies". ZaniGiovanni (talk) 13:10, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

I have informed HTS that I will block them if they tag-bomb the lead paragraph again. I am also considering protecting the article if this continues. Black Kite (talk) 13:53, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Those two(yenisafak.com and aa.com.tr) are not really sources there per se, they are instances of the terms being used I did not claim these were reputable sources but I'm having trouble expressing myself I guess. The sentences I suggested are directly taken from the Turkis Wiki, I only tranlated them. those who completely ignore the existence of the aforementioned mass murders do call it "Armenian lies" the article refrenced is and example of those representing the first group The burden of proof here is on me I guess so here is an independent source saying "The rejection of ‘Armenian lies,’ as the Armenian genocide is called among local right-wing groups, is slowly becoming a part of modern Turkish identity"

I did only put this in the article once, I did not spam it. Please do not threaten me with a block. I am not distrupting the talk page and as for the article I tagged it in complience of requests in the discussion naming specific reasons which I mentioned beforehand. Hank the Sniper (talk) 14:07, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

I believe the spamming was regarding these, clearly you didn't do it just "once", [1], [2], [3].

Regarding your source, firstly, the quote doesn't seem to be in it. Secondly, it would still be extremely WP:UNDUE to add "Armenian lies" based on a single source (because of majority WP:RS), I just told you this in my last comment. Even your source attributes it to a "local right-wing" viewpoint (assuming the quote is in the source). Keep this propaganda talk out of here. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 14:31, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Yeah I did put those more than one since noone is replying to my specific points requiring citations, I therefore assumed consensus. Regarding the quote, someone with complete disregard for copyright posted the entire source on this site: https://pastebin.pl/view/ac058a68 as for the basis of a single source, I can give more sources for this, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminology_of_the_Armenian_genocide article has refrenced this source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminology_of_the_Armenian_genocide#cite_note-19 for "Armenian Lies" And I again ask you to assume good faith as I do not understand how you consider what I'm saying propaganda. This content is not my writing I translated it from Turkish wiki and the point you are refuting is included in the Terminology of the Armenian genocide article. Hank the Sniper (talk) 15:16, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Look, I have not taken any of your concerns seriously until now, but now I have and as for me you have just wasted my time. The 31 countries, the Pope and the European Parliament are sourced and the 1909 massacres are sourced as well. I assume good faith as long at is constructive but this is rather counterproductive. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 18:36, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Look If you tried to read my comments and tags more carefully you can see that I never crtiticized The 31 countries, the Pope an the European Parliament it having it own article and all and as for the 1909 massacres I never even tagged that I just asked about it in the talk page and already have a satisfying answer for it. Please reconsider the rest of my arguement. Hank the Sniper (talk) 04:29, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

References

Looking for citations

The source cited for As of 2022, 33 countries have recognized the events as genocide, as do the vast majority of historians. can not prove the vast majority of historians.(Also not quite important but the referenced author used the word "scholar" instead of "historian".) I think the article should also include references for the lede since the first few paragraphs have confusing inconsistencies with the rest of the article such as: (Large-scale massacres of Armenians occurred in the 1890s and 1909.) which is inconsistent with Date 1915-1917 Hank the Sniper (talk) 22:03, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

A full list of refs that could support the "vast majority of historians" can be found in the second footnote on the Armenian genocide denial article and could be brought over if deemed necessary. Although I prefer to avoid citing an entire source for just one claim.

The other sentence refers to Armenian massacres that occurred prior to the Armenian genocide. (t · c) buidhe 22:33, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

The statement "vast majority of historians" is certainly too hyperbolic to state in a Wikipedia article and definitely does not have a neutral tone to it, unless a survey for historians (or scholars as the author put it) on the subject can be cited the statement should certainly be rephrased or removed. The Armenian genocide resulted in the destruction of more than two millennia of Armenian civilization also lacks the neutral tone, I checked the ledes of articles on other genocides and they certainly are more detached: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holocaust https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circassian_genocide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rwandan_genocide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodian_genocide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uyghur_genocide The ledes in these articles are consistent in their tone with the rest of the article. All of them have many references included in their ledes. Therefore I think the lede of this article should be revised to be more neutral, which can be very well observed in other articles on similar topics and in the rest of the article as well. Hank the Sniper (talk) 05:19, 26 August 2022 (UTC):

I hope you don't mind if I comment here more broadly concerning the "neutral tone". First I want to comment on Hank the Sniper's specific point about the lede. The tone is colloquial and a "more detatched" tone would be enough of a fix here without delving into deeper matters. Absolutely it is true that the "Vast majority of historians" believe this was genocide, not only Western historians, but Israeli historians like Benny Morris (who is so controversial as a historian it probably isn't helpful). I don't agree with the Turkish government's position of denial, but Western historians (if we are to call them that), even acting as a "vast majority", can not simply override the denial of a nation state. This is why recognition or non-recognition remains the critical issue in this field, not one that has simply been done away with by the agreement of a "vast majority" of Western historians. This denial comes from a nation state. That remains significant per se to some who would never give an anti-government movement like Boogaloo movement the same weight or legitimacy. Once the state recognizes the genocide, the deniers become a sort of Boogaloo. Until then, we are forced into a position of asserting "our scholars are better than their scholars". Even though it's true, the United States has generally preferred avoidance, but has often been pressured into "taking a side". If i had to make a call, I don't think neutrality was the principle guiding the authors of this. I would encourage caution to make sure we've not gone beyond vetted sources that I think is generally a good idea as the antidote here. Gwynhaas (talk) 07:33, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Welcome to the Armenian Genocide article editors Hank the Sniper and Gwynhaas. I suggest you edit yourself and make the adaptions according to your preferences and only if reverted come to the talk page.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 07:55, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Neutral tone is a core principle of Wikipedia an is non-negtiable https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Impartial_tone Hank the Sniper (talk) 08:44, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

There is no rule that Wikipedia must show deference to the stated views of any government (no matter how discredited the view is?) when reliable sources don't agree. For example, the Indian government has a ministry for Ayurveda but that doesn't mean that we can call it safe, effective or scientific. (t · c) buidhe 16:01, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Who has said anything about showing deference to any government's views? C'mon, these insinuations are disingenuous. A government level position or denial is a virtual guarantee that some reliable sources will be found about it in Western publishing. There are only two cases I know where a mainstream narrative is fully unchallenged: The Holocaust and The Civil War. This was accomplished by very dedicated consensus building on the part of the scholars and the enforcement of full blown legal restrictions on free speech. In Armenian genocide studies, we are, plainly speaking, stuck with major seminal works that are denialist. By seminal, I only mean that they formed the initial academic foundation that all the subsequent studies are built upon. Hugely influential works that later became the basis of critical currents and trends. Only recognition would create a new foundation where that can be set aside with finality. The tone that Turkish historians and scholars aren't important is plainly out of sync with the reliable sources which all consider Turkish recognition of tremendous importance. The article content is even worse: Almost all historians and scholars outside of Turkey, and an increasing number of Turkish scholars, recognize the destruction of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire as genocide. Historians and scholars of what? Physics? World War I? Genocide? I don't think it can be stated as such. Take the Yehuda Bauer example: Let me state my biases. I think that the planned total murder of a people was an unprecedented catastrophe in human civilization, referring to his well known thesis that the Holocaust is unprecedented. In my sincere experiences I have not seen the unquestionable levels of broad scholarly consensus implied by your strongly worded claims. Maybe it can be changed as historians and scholars of the Armenian genocide, in which case Turkey is at a certain disadvantage as the department is probably not well funded in that country. I don't know how to fix it when every change I make is reverted by buidhe but I am absolutely rejecting that this is a factual statement, or even a coherent one. Maybe others can improve on it because I am not free of time these days to engage such discussions at great lengths. I'm only offering some basic input that I don't think buidhe is very interested in receiving and I'll not impose any longer. Thank you for you time and replies buidhe.Gwynhaas (talk) 21:33, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

So since "16:42, 23 August 2022‎ Firefangledfeathers talk contribs‎ 89,081 bytes −188‎ Undid revision 1106168108 by Hank the Sniper (talk) - see WP:LEADCITE. If you find that any of this content is not mentioned and cited in the body of the article, please mention it at talk or tag again." All of it should be cited on such matters as WP:LEADCITE refers to vague and undisputable ledes "The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and direct quotations, should be supported by an inline citation. Any statements about living persons that are challenged or likely to be challenged must have an inline citation every time they are mentioned, including within the lead." this lede has no citations. "Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations" this subject is complex and controversial and again the lede has no citations. As I mentioned before other wikipedia articles on genocides have well cited ledes and so should this one.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Responsibility_for_providing_citations "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material" so this means whoever wrote it should source it, if it does not get the necesarry citations then I can rewrite it I guess but I would rather have it cited first and then get to tone fixing. Hank the Sniper (talk) 09:19, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

You appear not to understand how this works. For example, you added a {{cn}} tag to the sentence "As of 2022, 33 countries have recognized the events as genocide, as do many historians". Both clauses of this sentence are sourced in the body of the article, in the sections "International recognition" and "Archives and historiography". Therefore the tag is invalid here. If you believe that any part of the lead paragraph is badly or insufficiently cited, you need to explain that in detail here for discussion before tag bombing the page of what is after all a Featured Article. Please also be aware of the 1RR restriction mentioned above. Please note that the requirement for LEADCITEs, as you have actually posted above, only applies to BLPs ("Any statements about living persons that are challenged or likely to be challenged must have an inline citation every time they are mentioned, including within the lead."). Black Kite (talk) 09:30, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

As it is said on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section#Citations, " Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations". This alone should be enough for including citations in the lede, as the subject at hand is complex and controversial. Mention of the same sources should not be considered absurd in this case. The Armenian genocide resulted in the destruction of more than two millennia of Armenian civilization. this is a sentence which is quite hyperbolic for example, which means it should be well cited. It also disregards one of the core concepts of Wikipedia articles which is an impartial tone. As it is said on WP:EPSTYLE "The tone, however, should always remain formal, impersonal, and dispassionate." As for the other sentence discussed before which said vast majority, academic consensus alone is not a good enough reason for writing such a hyperbolic statement. Although there are instences of the same thing being said on other articles such as evolution these claims were actuallly proven with surveys and more (ex: Nearly all (around 97%) of the scientific community accepts evolution as the dominant scientific theory of biological diversity.[1] [2] Scientific associations have strongly rebutted and refuted the challenges to evolution proposed by intelligent design proponents.[3].) Furthermore the lede also mentions Ottoman leaders took isolated indications of Armenian resistance as evidence of a widespread rebellion, though no such rebellion existed. which is absent in the body(or not apperant), casesof resistance being isolated and the non-existence of reblions is never again mentioned, therefore calls for citations. Hank the Sniper (talk) 01:20, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Gwynhass, the text is unquestionably supported by reliable sources. It doesn't really matter what you think about the matter. Its true that in Turkey you can find a great deal of writings that claim there is no Armenian genocide, however these writings are totally ignored in the international academic community except as an example of denialism (this is all sourced at the Armenian genocide denial article). Turkish government recognition is considered important for reasons (mainly political) that are totally unrelated to the actual study of the Armenian genocide. (t · c) buidhe 01:26, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

The tone of the article remains a touch too zealous to be considered "supported". Your quote from Suny says is "academic historians, political scientists, and sociologists", so would it be ok with you to change it to "vast majority of sociologists"? Maybe "historians" makes it sound more important. The weight given to the consensus of historians and sociologists is extravagant. Let me tell you only that I can not currently write into an article with reliable sourcing that the "international academic community", or any such construct you've imagined, agree on a working definition of Genocide. No amount of bombastic pontificating changes that would have to occur before the same "international academic community" develops a meaningful consensus that "some particular x is genocide". So this is only a preliminary statement from a historian that there is a consensus of historians and sociologists. The studies are not yet truly interdisciplinary. It's just a product of rushing ahead of that and given too much weight. The underlying body of scholarship is a shitstorm brewing and no amount of superficial bombastic pontificating can convince a knowledgeable reader that this is not yet another case of "too far, too fast". You've even compared it to Ayurveda and medical studies, you can peddly that baloney elsewhere however. My independent faculties of reason are not suspended by protestations that Wikipedia editors' personal interpretation of hundreds of available sources from as-of-yet still poorly integrated interdisciplinary fields should be considered "unquestionable" or evaluated similarly to scientific facts. We may find more convincing attention to detail in works by Shirinian and Üngor. They are the heavy weight genocide experts with only a handful of citations allocated in this article.Gwynhaas (talk) 05:24, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

These comments do not seem to be backed up by the high-quality sources that would merit changing the article. What's the evidence that compared to other sources cited in the article, Shirinian and Ungor are "the heavy weight genocide experts"? What makes their work (and which papers/books in particular) a better source than Suny's 2015 book for example? (t · c) buidhe 06:27, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Once again, "vast majority of sociologists" is definitely more relevant than "vast majority of historians" because historians don't have expertise for definitions of genocide or anything related to it. Wikipedia does not equivocate about genocide denial but we don't need to dive head first into the kiddie pool.

For the second inquiry, books that are interdisciplinary studies of multiple contributors and produced after collaboration/conference are generally better than single historian narrative constructions. Paul Bartop, a contributor to Shirinian's volume, is recognized for expertise in genocide. He has written about Cambodia, Bosnia, the Holocaust and Armenia.

The result is that vital sections for the Armenian genocide article are bare bones: The significance and influence of the Armenian genocide in definitional and sociological studies of genocide, its recognition, denial and victim experience validation. In high-quality sources these issues are covered in at least as much detail as the religion of the perpetrators, but much more attention is devoted to the historical matters by this article. The only sentence about witness testimony is in the section "International reaction". Implication: witness testimonies are only important because they "raise public awareness". Do not seem to be backed up by high-quality sources - To verify that witness testimonies are vital historical documents, and not "public awareness" pamphlets, you can see Bartop in Shirinian. It should be in the historiography section. There are other absurdities. Genocidal ideology is afforded a brief message in the line reading Perpetrators had several motives, including ideology, revenge, desire for Armenian property, and careerism. It's in the section called Administrative organization, part of the broader section "Systematic deportations". I'm beginning to develop a migraine. Can you explain what perpetrator motives has to do with Administrative organization or at least help to organize the content? Gwynhaas (talk) 08:56, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

I suggest you add some sources to your language. What is meant with dive head first in the kiddie puddle. Its nowhere in the article and and what has diving to do with the Armenian genocide anyway? Paradise Chronicle (talk) 09:23, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm so sorry, I shouldn't be using idiomatic speech. It doesn't need sources, it's what is called an idiom. In English language it means we should not get too far ahead of ourselves, or in this case the sources. The discussion is mostly about the weight given by the article to the consensus of historians about the term genocide. Since you asked, politely or otherwise, I will proffer a source to illuminate. Chorbajian is a major sociologist authority for the study of Armenian genocide. He is a very highly cited and well respected contributor to ongoing debates about the definition of genocide, mostly occurring in the field of sociology. His views on it cuts to the heart of the matter (more idioms, I'm very sorry. If you want me to slow down or if English is a challenge, drop me a note on my talk page and we can talk in detail.) Now this is the fourth time: Suny says academic historians, political scientists, and sociologists. The article says "vast majority of historians". Why leave out sociologists? Gwynhaas (talk) 10:06, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

WRT article organization, I'm always open to suggestions of improvement. Armenian genocide recognition/denial is briefly summarized here per WP:SUMMARYSTYLE, but we can't have a spinout article for "what happened during the genocide itself", which you suggest is taking up too much space in this version. CUP ideology is covered in the background section, but you seem to be assuming that the ideology is extremely important to the motivations of the perpetrators and why the genocide took place. In fact, there are wide debates in genocide studies the extent to which ideology is important vs. other factors—it would be biased to cover ideology to a disproportionate extent than RS do. For a broader discussion of causes, see causes of the Armenian genocide.

As far as I can tell, there is no firm boundary between sociology of historical events and history — many sociologists use historical methods, whereas it is also common for historians to apply sociological approaches. I would argue it's correct to refer to someone who studies sociology of historical events as a "historian", and I've seen reliable sources do so. However, most people who are not familiar with the field assume that sociologists study current events so it could be confusing to list sociologists. I also don't think that sociologists have any kind of monopoly on the definition of genocide, which is either a legal question or opinion-based and used in various fields (t · c) buidhe 02:07, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Wasn't it you buidhe who said It doesn't really matter what you think about the matter. and These comments do not seem to be backed up by the high-quality sources that would merit changing the article. I would say the same to you. The comments made in discussion have revealed astonishing ignorance of the pertinent issues. The worst in my estimation was recognition is considered important for reasons (mainly political) that are totally unrelated to the actual study of the Armenian genocide. but it's hard to choose from so many misstatements. As you grind you heels deeper in the quality of argumentation is not improving. Why continue a discussion that will not lead to an improvement redressing the flawed circumstances of this article. Gwynhaas (talk) 07:07, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Please suggest concrete changes to the article for improvement (backed up by reliable sources) or desist from commenting on this talk page. Focus on the content, not the contributor. (t · c) buidhe 06:49, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Responding to request for "high-quality sources"

I have been asked to show evidence that my discussion comments have support in high-quality sources. The concern has been raised by two fellow editors: It doesn't really matter what you think about the matter., Do not seem to be backed up by high-quality sources and I suggest you add some sources to your language.. I am immediately going to show these sources.

• :

Most infamously applied to those discredited cranks who deny the validity of the Holocaust, revisionism has been equated with the most egregious practices of historical falsifiers. Conservatives have criticized revisionists who questioned the sanitized narratives of American history that neglected the horrors of slavery and racism...Israeli revisionist historians have been attacked for interrogating the foundational myths of how their state was established and how the indigenous Palestinians became refugees. And the Turkish state and Turkophilic historians have revised the mass deportations of Armenians in 1915 from state-initiated ethnic cleansing and massacres into a civil war between Muslims and Christians

When usable pasts and preferred realities are being proliferated, historians can take some comfort in the thought that dangers lurk when intellectual constructs stray too far from careful and accurate readings of the world.

Revision of history is constant, even essential and is especially needed in the story of the Ottoman Armenians. The conventional histories have led to two separate, contradictory nationalist narratives that appear to defy reconciliation.

Now I only ask, will this be enough? I invite questions about specific statements that may not have support in reliable sources as ParadiseChronicle did. To ensure the integrity of our discussions, if a statement I have made is shown to be lacking support in high quality and reliable sources I will retract it without hesitation and apologize. Would that be fair? Gwynhaas (talk) 11:07, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Nice that we now also know what Suny writes. Thank you.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 12:25, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Now seriously, what does this help in a discussion on the Armenian Genocide talk page? I replied to your comment in which you claimed sociologists are definitely more relevant than historians. Now in the text you claim to have from Suny, sociologists are not appearing...

For your argument on the sociologists I see the text as a no-show, but maybe Hank the sniper will be satisfied to have been shown your knowledge about what Suny has to say, as they opened the discussion under the header looking for citations.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 13:18, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

I genuinely don’t understand what he’s trying to prove or how it relates to my call for citations on the lede Hank the Sniper mobile (talk) 06:19, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

References

Archives and historiography

Almost all historians and scholars outside of Turkey...recognize the destruction of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire as genocide. can be changed with(the first one) "There is academic consensus among historians and scholars outside of Turkey recognizing the Armenian genocide}}, this would be harmonious with the last edit of buidhe , which was which is also the academic consensus in the lede. A previous citation provided also by Buidhe can be reused for it as well. Hank the Sniper (talk) 16:13, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

No. The proposed sentence is very clunky and does not meet FAC prose requirements. There is nothing wrong with the sentence as written. (t · c) buidhe 06:51, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Can you try to word it better then? I don't think saying "Almost all" is not neutral or provable. Hank the Sniper (talk) 16:31, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

References

Popular misconception on Armenian Genocide

This was Armenian Christian Genocide, true, ordered by Young Turks Triumvirate headed by Talat/Talaat Pasha, but genocide was also extermination of Assyrian and Greek Christians. Ottomans and Turks (same connotation) did not want them on their lands even though they lived there for centuries. 170.239.49.92 (talk) 06:41, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

The article already mentions this. However, since Greeks and Assyrians are not Armenians, it is mainly covered in separate Wikipedia articles. (t · c) buidhe 07:02, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Forced Islamization of Armenian women and children, again…

The editors’ attention has already been invited to the widely known fact that Armenian males were also forcibly Islamized during the Armenian Genocide. One Wikipedia editor even agreed that an addition must be made. Yet the opening clause still states that only Armenian women and children were Islamized. There are, literally, tons of reliable secondary sources, including many mentioned in Sources beneath this article, which testify to the fact that Armenian men were also subjected to forced Islamization. Please revise, as this RS-based edit was suggested a long time ago and no objection was raised against it. 68.83.217.103 (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Davidian

A more nuanced view of the events of 1915

Block evasion by User:Ungitow through the IP range Special:Contributions/176.219.128.0/17 which has been blocked four times.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
While it is entrenched in the Western mythology that Turks killed Armenians, there were at least equal amount of or more Turks who were killed during this period in Anatolia. In fact between 1914 and 1922 515,000 Turks were killed by Armenian armed bands. Another misconception is that the events started to unfold in April 24, when the ringleaders of the Armenian militants were arrested due to their rebellious activities; however, archival evidence proved this wrong; The tehcir law took place on May 27, and Armenians were given money and supplies during their journey so that they could safely reach their destination Northern Syria. They were accompanied by the gendarmerie, which protected Armenians against bandit attacks. What we are reading in this article is a reflection of the forgeries such as the Blue Book and the Andonian Documents, which were propaganda masqueraded by the Allies of WW1 as 'truth'. Those facts were uncovered thanks to rigorous research by internationally acclaimed scholars such as Yusuf Halaçoğlu, who authored the book Facts on the Relocation of Armenians (1914-1918). 176.219.154.205 (talk) 07:10, 28 December 2022 (UTC) LOL (t · c) buidhe 07:26, 28 December 2022 (UTC) Totes. 176.219.154.205 (talk) 07:41, 28 December 2022 (UTC) Complete nonsense. Binksternet (talk) 04:59, 30 December 2022 (UTC) The information is correct. It is shown in consular reports. I am amused by how historical revisionists and ex-Soviet Armenia SDHP/ARF members try to cover up and apologize for their crime of cold-blooded genocide in which they murdered 515,000 Turks. During the WWI, the most significant revolt in the Ottoman territory took place in the Van province by the Armenians militants. Armenian terrorist organizations such as Hunchak and Tashnak armed the local Armenian population against the Ottoman government. Their acts were in coordination with the Russian government who had their own designs for Eastern Anatolia—that is to annex it and make it a part of the Russian Empire. Despite all this, Russian ambassador Zinovyev describes the attitude of the Muslims against Armenians as such, "In van, two Muslims and one Armenian were elected as MPs. Muslims harbored no hatred against Armenians. Turks, especially their officers, work to establish friendly relations with the Armenians. However, Armenian revolutionaries agitate the Armenian folk and prevent them to have close relations with the Turks." The consul of the Austrian Hungarian Empire Moricz describes Russian support for the Armenian militants as such, "Russians will mobilize the Armenians. For this cause, they spend a tremendous amount of money and secretly deliver arms to the rebels. They are facilitating the outbreak of an Armenian rebellion." In turn, Ottoman government attempted to mediate and find a peaceful resolution under the guidance of Cevdet Bey, the deputy governor of Van. But Armenian militants answered by increasing the intensity of the atrocities they were committing. They mass murdered Muslims and turned prayer houses into stables. German Ambassador Wangenheim describes the invasion of Van by Russo-Armenian forces as such, "Armenians in the Van province rebelled and assaulted the Muslim villages and fortress. Turkish garrison at the fortress had 300 causalities, and after the street fighting, which lasted for days, city was overtaken by rebel forces. In May 17, 1915 Russians occupied Van, and Armenians changed sides by joining the Russians; They started massacring the Muslims. 80,000 Muslims began to escape towards Bitlis province." [1] Halaçoğlu, Yusuf. (2004). "Armenian Relocation". 176.219.152.115 (talk) 12:53, 30 December 2022 (UTC) Halaçoğlu is a racist crank. You're having laff if you think we're going to use his writings for anything. 72.213.11.193 (talk) 18:01, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

The article already has all the sources necessary to verify the content

GenoV84 please explain what your addition does to improve the article. When I wrote this FA I ensured to include the best selection of relevant sources, which the added source is not, since its subject is not the Armenian genocide. And do not continue to add anything without conforming to the article's existing style or getting consensus for material that is challenged in good faith per wp:onus. (t · c) buidhe 18:12, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

@Buidhe: This academic, reliable reference that I provided is concerned with the emergence of nationalist movements in the Middle East between the 19th and 20th centuries, especially the Young Turk revolution and the rise to power of the Committee of Union and Progress (CUP) in Ottoman Turkey, which is recognized throughout this article to be responsible for the organization and instigation of genocides against the Armenian, Greek, and Assyrian peoples as part of a broader policy of ethnic erasure during the late Ottoman period. Which means that this source is appropriate for the content of this article and can be added alongside the other references that are already cited here. GenoV84 (talk) 19:18, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Then it seems more appropriate to cite in an article such as rise of nationalism in the Ottoman Empire. This article is about the Armenian genocide, not any broader pattern or the rise of nationalism in general. (t · c) buidhe 19:32, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree about that, it would fit better in the article that you just mentioned. Nonetheless, the source explicitly refers to the systematic organization of the late Ottoman genocides by the Turkish government, including the Armenian genocide and those of Greeks and Assyrians as well as part of the CUP's broader policy of ethnic cleansing in Anatolia and the rest of Turkey. These genocides of other Christian populations that lived in the Ottoman Empire are mentioned throughout this article along with the Armenian genocide. I don't see what is the problem with the adding of this source to the article. GenoV84 (talk) 19:40, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Keeping the article short and concise without unnecessary length and complexity helps the accessibility of the article, particularly for those on slower or restricted internet connections. The longer the article, the longer the load time. Adding a source just because it exists is not justified. (t · c) buidhe 21:39, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Quite the contrary. Wikipedia's verifiability policy requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations, anywhere in the article's space. The source that I provided is reliable and appropriate for this article and its content. GenoV84 (talk) 23:19, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

The content already has inline citations sufficient to verify the content. More is not necessarily better. You have not explained how the addition improves the article. (t · c) buidhe 07:48, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes I did, I explained it above twice. Moreover, many of the statements in the article to which I provided the reference's notes didn't have any reference to support them before my addition. You cannot support your stance against the addition of this reliable source because WP policies and guidelines explicitly require editors to provide references for all the informations and content written on Wikipedia, and that's exactly what I did. GenoV84 (talk) 14:15, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

@GenoV84, the phrases to which you want to add sources are all sourced. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 01:29, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

@Paradise Chronicle: Yes they are, in fact this is not a content dispute. This discussion started because someone reverted my edits, i.e. the addition of an academic, reliable reference that meets the requirements to be added to this article alongside the other reliable sources already cited here. That's all about it. GenoV84 (talk) 01:35, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

This was an answer to your claim just above that much of the info didn't have a reference before your addition. Quote:didn't have any reference to support them before my addition Paradise Chronicle (talk) 01:43, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Because there were statements without notes before my edits (check and compare the revisions in the article's history), but I never said that the article's core content wasn't supported by the cited references. As I just said above, this is not a content dispute. Moreover, other editors throughout this discussion agreed to keep the reference that I provided and/or didn't oppose against the addition of it. GenoV84 (talk) 02:00, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

I assumed good faith double checked and in all of your additions here, here and here, all phrases are sourced. The green text is one of the phrases you want to source with a page range of 21, while it already has two much better sources at the end of the phrase. In 1908, the CUP came to power in the Young Turk Revolution, which began with a string of CUP assassinations of leading officials in Macedonia.. How does this add to quality? Should wikipedia demand of a reader to search through 21 pages if a revolution took place or 1? Then also the one who's answer you interpreted as a keep for your citation suggested you format the citation like the others which you obviously didn't. I suggest a self revert by you. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 02:52, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

I told you three times already that the pagerange of the reference can be limited to pages 221–224, which means only 4 pages to read, and some of the statements in the article lacked notes that I provided along with the source. Yes I did format the reference just like the other ones and moved it to the References section, take a look at it. I'm not going to revert anything because of your ridiculous threats; the academic reference that I provided is reliable and there's no reason to delete it from the article (without consensus, nonetheless). Other editors agreed to keep it. That's it. GenoV84 (talk) 03:41, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

References

This addition by GenoV84 seems okay to me, except we don't need the term ethnic cleansing inserted in front of mass murder—the first term is a euphemism. It's better to use the more accurate term "mass murder". Also, the cite book template needs to be reworked to fit the existing citation style of the article. Otherwise, the addition of the book source doesn't add too much, or take away focus. Binksternet (talk) 22:46, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't see the reasoning for refusing this reference. It is not trying to skew the message of the article, and it doesn't harm the focus. Binksternet (talk) 16:34, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't think references should be added just because they exist if they don't improve the article. I don't think any reasoning for why they improve the article has been provided, given that all content is already verified by existing sources. (t · c) buidhe 17:59, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

As I already said, keeping this reliable source would be an improvement not simply because "it exists", but because many of the statements in the article to which I provided the reference's notes didn't have any reference to support them before my addition. Therefore, adding this source is thoroughly justified and there's no valid reason to remove it. GenoV84 (talk) 18:15, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Could you bother to format the citation like the others if you're so insistent on it? Aza24 (talk) 00:15, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Then perhaps the entire discussion is based on a misunderstanding because any sentences in the article that are not immediately followed by a citation are supported by the next citation given, as is the usual practice on Wikipedia. (t · c) buidhe 04:24, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

I fixed the citation style to that reference as you suggested. GenoV84 (talk) 07:28, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Alleged "failed verification"

I finally managed to get a copy of the book in order to check if it fails verification. Guess what, it does. For example, the book is cited to support "Abdul Hamid's despotism prompted the formation of an opposition movement, the Young Turks,", but it does not say anything that even resembles this. Also, the page range of 21 pages provided is unacceptable at FAC; a shorter range should be provided to ensure verifiability. I know that the references already in the article verify the content because I put them there myself and double checked everything. Please be especially careful when editing featured articles that you don't cause them to become non-compliant with the featured article criteria. (t · c) buidhe 07:11, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

You failed because you refused to check the cited reference and verify it, despite the fact that I also provided the URL address to it and you can read the pages of the cited chapter by yourself. This academic reference is focused on the genocides against the Armenian, Greek, and Assyrian peoples organized and perpetrated by the Turkish government as part of a broader policy of ethnic erasure during the late Ottoman period, therefore it meets all the requirements to be added as a reliable source to this article. Moreover, other editors above have agreed to keep it in the article. GenoV84 (talk) 23:33, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Hm, well, a pagerange of 21 is really very wide much more for an FA. That you @GenoV84 believe you won the argument, makes me feel I have to weigh in. I am also not opposed to add new references, but they must make sense, and 21, hey common, please. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 23:50, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

@Paradise Chronicle: We can limit the pagerange of the source to pages 221–224, there's no problem with that. GenoV84 (talk) 00:12, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

This quote from the cited reference clearly demonstrates that you didn't even read it, and still you have the nerve to talk about a "failed verification" that doesn't exist. Unbelievable, absurd, completely dishonest behavior and ridiculous attempt on WP:OWNERSHIP of the article on your part:

In November 1914, as the CUP triumvirate brought the Ottoman Empire into the war against the Allies, the gloves came off on the domestic front as well. Within a year, the Young Turk regime had launched a carefully planned anti-Armenian ethnic-cleansing campaign that rapidly assumed genocidal qualities and proportions. Somewhere in the range of 600,000 to over a million Armenian men, women, and children were murdered or allowed to die amidst their forced transportation from eastern Anatolia to the Syrian desert. The Armenian genocide was the most extreme manifestation of an overarching effort by the CUP leadership to re-engineer the ethno-demographic structure of Anatolia along cohesive Turkish-nationalist lines.

GenoV84 (talk) 23:45, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

• GenoV84 How does this verify what it is cited for, namely "Abdul Hamid's despotism prompted the formation of an opposition movement, the Young Turks"? The quote doesn't say anything about why the Young Turks were formed. Additionally, why are you so insistent about adding this source? Do you have a conflict of interest? (t · c) buidhe 23:53, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

@Buidhe: Did you check the cited reference? No, you didn't. Otherwise you would know why I added a note to that statement as well; read pages from 221 to 224. GenoV84 (talk) 00:07, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

@Paradise Chronicle: Don't play games and accuse me of things that I never claimed. I just pointed out that the alleged "failed verification" never happened simply because buidhe never checked the cited reference in the first place, otherwise they would have read it, as the quote above from page 224 demonstrates. GenoV84 (talk) 23:55, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

@Buidhe: You seem to be so desperate to accuse me of conflict of interest for adding a reliable source among all other academic references already cited in this article, while simultaneously refusing to check the source and verify it, deliberately revert my edits without consensus, and attempting to own the article's content by preventing other editors to make useful edits. GenoV84 (talk) 00:01, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

A page range of 21 downgrades an already well sourced article. Adding references to half of a phrase, that already has a source at the end of the phrase...well does it not source the other half then? I do not know but why add a source with a pagerange of 21 for only half a phrase in an FA. Then providing a misleading quote not mentioning Abdul Hamid to a question mentioning Abdul Hamid isn't really raising the trust. Your behavior neither. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 00:26, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

@Paradise Chronicle: As I already said above, we can limit the pagerange of the source to pages 221–224, there's no problem with that. I can provide as many quotes as you want from the cited reference, including the one about Abdul Hamid and the Young Turk opposition, if you want. My behavior has been consistent and coherent throughout the entire discussion, I have nothing to hide. Unfortunately, the same couldn't be said about the behavior of some other users here.... GenoV84 (talk) 00:33, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

In the first decade of the twentieth century, the Committee of Union and Progress (CUP), informally known as the Young Turks, represented a much more serious and direct challenge to the authority of the sultanate. This movement, operating underground and from exile, was originally constituted in 1889 as a multi-ethnic coalition of activists who shared a common demand for the restoration of the 1876 constitution. [...] For a majority of Turkish speakers of Muslim background in the CUP, it was self-evident that Turkish identity should form the core ingredient in any Ottomanist recipe. It was this faction that refounded a fragmented CUP on its own terms in 1902 and proceeded to penetrate the Ottoman army's officer corps. This was a critical factor in the success of the Young Turks' 1908 revolution, which was followed by the restoration of the 1876 constitution and, in 1909, the suppression of a reactionary counter-coup and deposition of Sultan Abdul Hamid II in favour of a more pliant member of the ruling family.

GenoV84 (talk) 00:53, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

• Yeah it definitely does not support the content because in Roshwald's account the despotism is not mentioned as the cause of the emergence of the young turk movement. (t · c) buidhe 00:58, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

I disagree. A reactionary counter-coup attempted by the Ottoman sultan against the Turkish reformers' government is definitely a good case for despotism, considering that he was dethroned by the Young Turks after that. GenoV84 (talk) 01:40, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Please stop doubling down on your attempt to pass off bad citations into this article. There's no way any FAC source reviewer would accept the argument that this supports the content. (t · c) buidhe 04:06, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

An academic, reliable source that meets all the requirements to be added to Wikipedia is not a bad argument. You asked for evidence because you didn't even bother to check the reference, and I provided the evidence that you wanted. You still haven't read the book, didn't you? Stop with your blatant WP:OWNERSHIP of the article, it looks bad. GenoV84 (talk) 04:17, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

How about we ping the editors from the earlier discussion to see if they think if the content fails verification—keeping in mind that the sentence in the article is "Abdul Hamid's despotism prompted the formation of an opposition movement, the Young Turks" [prior to 1908]. Aza24, Binksternet, what is your opinion? (t · c) buidhe 04:23, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

They are free to participate and state their opinion if they want, but don't deny that I didn't provide the evidence directly quoted from the cited source that you desperately asked for, twice, while you just discarded the reference immediately and refused to check it by yourself because you didn't even bother to click on the URL address. Not to mention that you accused me of conflict of interest just because I added a source that you don't like or want in the article, for weird reasons which are still unknown to us. GenoV84 (talk) 04:38, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

GenoV84, the quote you provided doesn't come anywhere near verifying the article text in question. I'm reading through starting on 221 to see if there's something else that does, but you should stop pointing to that quote. It doesn't mention Abdul Hamid's despotism at all. Your point about the "reactionary counter-coup" is just OR. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:41, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

That's what the author wrote, I quoted the reference. Are there WP policies which forbid users from adding reliable references to Wikipedia? Because that's what this discussion is all about. GenoV84 (talk) 04:48, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

I understand that it's a quote. I'm saying that the quote doesn't explicitly verify "Abdul Hamid's despotism prompted the formation of an opposition movement, the Young Turks". Of the content on pages 221–224 (which I just finished reading), that quote is the most on-topic. I don't see how including anything besides 222 is helpful to the reader, should we decide to keep the citation.

Honestly, it's a great read so far. I can send a PDF copy to anyone who needs one. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:56, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

To add a source that doesn't even mention the Assyrians or the reasons for the creation of Turkey for the phrase:

The ethnic cleansing of Anatolia—the Armenian genocide, Assyrian genocide, and expulsion of Greeks after World War I—paved the way for the formation of an ethno-national Turkish state

is just not reliable. The source mentions the Treaty of Lausanne of July 1923, but not that this meant a Turkey was to be established. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 05:00, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

I concur with Buidhe. The Young Turks emerged well before the Revolution took place, much more before the counter coup in 1909. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 04:31, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Another one who didn't even bother to check the reference.... Who would have thought? The last quote that I provided from the source states that too, just read it. GenoV84 (talk) 04:40, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

I read all the 4 pages. And as to my judgement the source is good for the 1908 coup and for this we do not need an extra ref. The other phrases are:

During World War I, the CUP—whose central goal was to preserve the Ottoman Empire—came to identify Armenian civilians as an existential threat.

There is no mention of civilians in the source.

The deportation of Armenians and resettlement of Muslims in their lands was part of a broader project intended to permanently restructure the demographics of Anatolia

And that Muslims were to take the land of the deported Armenians is also not mentioned. Sure, it seems logic, but it is not mentioned. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 05:19, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Are you sure about this? Read again the first quote that I borrowed directly from the cited reference (page 224) and tell me that it has nothing to do with the Armenian genocide organized by the CUP and the deportation of Armenian civilians from Anatolia to the Syrian desert. Go on. GenoV84 (talk) 06:26, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, there is no mention of civilians much less of their identification as an existential threat. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 07:38, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Which would be easy to find as there exist numerous sources for it. Who knows, maybe the deportees were seen as members of the military a militia, armed forces? Child soldiers... so much can be interpreted there as long it doesn't mention civilians and that it were the civilians that were targeted and

this is easy to find.

And maybe Turkey wanted to create a Natural Park for Turkish Trees, and therefore depopulated the lands of Christian Armenians, who knows? It doesn't mention Muslims were settled into the lands Armenians left,

which is also easy to find. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 07:51, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

This source and the other references cited throughout the article state otherwise. Did you read the source and the article?

In November 1914, as the CUP triumvirate brought the Ottoman Empire into the war against the Allies, the gloves came off on the domestic front as well. Within a year, the Young Turk regime had launched a carefully planned anti-Armenian ethnic-cleansing campaign that rapidly assumed genocidal qualities and proportions. Somewhere in the range of 600,000 to over a million Armenian men, women, and children were murdered or allowed to die amidst their forced transportation from eastern Anatolia to the Syrian desert. The Armenian genocide was the most extreme manifestation of an overarching effort by the CUP leadership to re-engineer the ethno-demographic structure of Anatolia along cohesive Turkish-nationalist lines.

GenoV84 (talk) 09:28, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Either it mentions what is to be sourced or not. Yours does not, at least not at the section you use. But the book is good. You can use it in other articles. Just I suggest you use the page numbers one by one. You know, Turks can also claim they were deporting terrorists flashing the terrorist sign of the christian cross. This he also does not mention, but its a possibility. Similar it is with the civilians.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 15:06, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

@Paradise Chronicle: Read the cited quote above; this source meets the WP requirements for reliability and verifiability, which means that there's no reason to remove it. There are no WP policies against the addition of reliable references on Wikipedia, quite the opposite. (Personal attack removed) GenoV84 (talk) 15:51, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

I concur with GenoV84. This has gone beyond assuming good faith. This is an overt attempt at gatekeeping. There is literally no cogent reason to spend this much time and effort attempting to prevent a legitimate reference from being added just because it doesn't meet your personal feelings on length, etc. There's no issue with it, consensus is for keeping it. End of story. Move on with your lives. 12.11.127.253 (talk) 19:54, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

References

Ongoing Risk

@Buidhe Can you help me understand why this is undue? I suppose it could be relevated to a subsection of Legacy.

Four separate institutions which specialize in genocide studies have all said Armenians are at risk Humanatbest (talk) 23:32, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

What's the connection to the 1915-1917 genocide of Armenians that is the article's topic? (t · c) buidhe 01:10, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

@Buidhe The crime is identical (genocide). The victim is the same (the Armenian people). The perpetrators are very similar (partisans of the Ottoman empire: i.e. Turkey and its ally Azerbaijan). Humanatbest (talk) 15:11, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

I still don't see where reliable sources about the 1915-1917 genocide are covering these hypothetical events as closely enough related to the article's topic that a mention would be WP:DUE in this article. (t · c) buidhe 17:44, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

@Buidhe The genocide scholars specifically mention the ongoing risk in the context of the 1915 genocide. Humanatbest (talk) 11:48, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

In order to be due weight in this article it would have to be mentioned in sources that are about the article topic (the genocide between 1915 and 1917). The high quality secondary sources cited in this article do not really cover any such thing. There's a brief mention in Armenian genocide denial#Consequences, but that's all due IMO. (t · c) buidhe 18:23, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

@Buidhe thank you for your feedback. I'm wondering if you can help me understand you reasoning? I don't follow.

It sounds like you are saying that a wikipedia article about a historical event cannot be updated with sources which are generally about the same issue, but minorly divergent.

For instance, see the Holocaust article. It has plenty of sub-sections that are not specifically about the the events between 1939 and 1945 but about Trials, Reparations, Remembrance, etc.

Can you please help me understand your reasoning for removing the section

Ongoing Risk.

The crime is identical (genocide). The victim is the same (the Armenian people). The perpetrators are the partisans of the Ottoman empire: i.e. Turkey and its ally Azerbaijan. The sources I used are all from scholars specializing in genocide.

Thanks!

== Ongoing risk ==

Numerous organizations, including those which specialize in genocide studies, have reported that Armenians are at risk of being subjected to another genocide. The Lemkin Institute for Genocide Prevention considers Armenians to be "one of the most threatened identities in the world today." Since 2021, the organization has issued various "Red Flag Alerts" on Azerbaijan which the organization says poses a threat of genocide to Armenians.

In September 2022, Genocide Watch issued its own alert stating, "Due to its unprovoked attacks and genocidal rhetoric against ethnic Armenians, Genocide Watch considers Azerbaijan's assault on Armenia and Artsakh to be at Stage 4: Dehumanization, Stage 7: Preparation, Stage 8: Persecution, and Stage 10: Denial." The International Association of Genocide Scholars (IAGS) also issued a statement in October 2022, condemning Azerbaijan's September 2022 attacks on Armenia and stating "Significant genocide risk factors exist in the Nagorno-Karabakh situation concerning the Armenian population" and "dehumanizing and other [irredentist] statements [from Azerbaijani government officials] demonstrate the existence of a risk of genocide, and may amount to incitement to genocide and possibly other international crimes."

In December 2022, Azerbaijan imposed a blockade of Artsakh which the Lemkin Institute described as "a criminal act which intends to create terror and unbearable conditions of life for the population of Artsakh. These events are not isolated events; they are, instead, being committed within a larger genocidal pattern against Armenia and Armenians by the Azerbaijani regime." A coalition of various human rights organizations also issued a collective genocide warning in response to the blockade: "All 14 risk factors for atrocity crimes identified by the UN Secretary-General's Office on Genocide Prevention are now present."

Caucasus expert Laurence Broers draws parallels between "the Russian discourse about Ukraine as an artificial, fake nation, and the Azerbaijani discourse about Armenia, likewise claiming it has a fake history", thereby elevating the conflict to an "existential level". Humanatbest (talk) 15:59, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

The topic of this article is the genocide between 1915 and 1917. I have yet to see any RS that suggests the same event is continuing to the present day in Eastern Armenia. A separate article could be created about Allegations of a genocide in Armenia 2020-present or whatever, but it's not part of this article's scope (t · c) buidhe 16:49, 12 March 2023 (UTC)