Talk:Armenian genocide

I could not find in the article information related to a most important trial concerning the subject

In the article, I could not find any information or reference to a not-so-recent-now trial concerning the subject. The trial is shortly known as Perincek vs Switzerland trial; which took place in the European Court of Human Rights.

As a summary, in Switzerland, Dogu Perincek, leader of the Workers' Party (Turkey), publicly defined Armenian Genocide as an international and imperialist lie. He said what had happened was no genocide, but war. People from both opposite sides had lost their lives. He did this action to protest the law in Switzerland that defined denying Armenian Genocide as a crime. He was found guilty in the trials at the Federal Court of Switzerland. Perincek appealed to European Court of Human Rights, where he was found "had not committed an abuse of his rights within the meaning of Article 17 of the Convention." The verdict can be found on this link.

An excerpt from the verdict of the European Court of Human Rights, about genocides in general is also significant: "The Court also pointed out that it was not called upon to rule on the legal characterisation of the Armenian genocide. The existence of a “genocide”, which was a precisely defined legal concept, was not easy to prove. The Court doubted that there could be a general consensus as to events such as those at issue, given that historical research was by definition open to discussion and a matter of debate, without necessarily giving rise to final conclusions or to the assertion of objective and absolute truths."

The Wiki article on the trial is also insufficient on terms of technical information.

94.121.70.191 (talk) 08:11, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

The article is ongoing. Editors are awaiting the judgment of the Grand Chamber on Switzerland's appeal. There hearings are not for the public record, so it's not surprising there's presently a hiatus. The passage from the Press Release you quote is presently incorporated. An editor did also contribute a whole wall of text from the original judgment, but that was primary source which had to be deleted as Wikipedia is about recording secondary sources. If you know a good secondary source which comments on the original verdict, perhaps you could incorporate it. I'll look again today later in the day, but I didn't find anything worth adding when I last looked. c1cada (talk) 09:19, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

"The Court doubted that there could be a general consensus as to events such as those at issue, given that historical research was by definition open to discussion and a matter of debate, without necessarily giving rise to final conclusions or to the assertion of objective and absolute truths." Seems like what this opinion says, in a roundabout way, is that due to the difficulty of proving genocide as a crime under int'l law, that if a general consensus exists about the nature of the historical events in question, that consensus represents a final conclusion about the events. Because the topic is so tricky, and there are ample opportunities for discussion, a general scholarly concensus can be viewed as settling the question conclusively, as a concensus would not be possible in a weak case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.15.0.104 (talk) 17:26, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Exactly. For more information as to why Dogu Perincek had the typical excuse to further his own imperialist propaganda, look at here. --92slim (talk) 17:25, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

When I tried to provide a URL for for the ECHR Press Release, I discovered that Wikipedia had blacklisted it (go figure). You can locate the PDF by searching on the terms <Criminal conviction for denial that the atrocities perpetrated against the Armenian people in 1915 and years after constituted genocide was unjustified ECHR>. The context of the remark quoted above is as follows:

The Court underlined that the free exercise of the right to openly discuss questions of a sensitive and controversial nature was one of the fundamental aspects of freedom of expression and distinguished a tolerant and pluralistic democratic society from a totalitarian or dictatorial regime. The Court also pointed out that it was not called upon to rule on the legal characterisation of the Armenian genocide. The existence of a “genocide”, which was a precisely defined legal concept, was not easy to prove. The Court doubted that there could be a general consensus as to events such as those at issue, given that historical research was by definition open to discussion and a matter of debate, without necessarily giving rise to final conclusions or to the assertion of objective and absolute truths. Lastly, the Court observed that those States which had officially recognised the Armenian genocide had not found it necessary to enact laws imposing criminal sanctions on individuals questioning the official view, being mindful that one of the main goals of freedom of expression was to protect minority views capable of contributing to a debate on questions of general interest which were not fully settled.

I simply allowed the edit that had been made to stand, though I think it's misleading. There was no secondary source I could find that commented in detail on the judgment, and it would have been OR for me to make any remarks. c1cada (talk) 02:00, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 April 2015

In reference to note 147, it is quoted a sentence from Ataturk saying

[...] the millions of our Christian subjects who were ruthlessly driven en masse from their homes and massacred, have been restive under the Republican rule

While the actual statement from Ataturk was

These left-overs from the former Young Turk Party, who should have been made to account for the millions of our Christian subjects who were ruthlessly driven en masse from their homes and massacred, have been restive under the Republican rule

As you can check in the document linked by the note itself. There is a big difference between the two as in the first case the subject seems to be the "Millions of Christians" while in fact it was the Young Turk Party.

I therefore request to quote the sentence in its whole integrity

http://www.zoryaninstitute.org/docs/Kemal%20Ataturk%20Admits%20Reality.pdf

46.107.74.116 (talk) 11:18, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Done Thank you. I've (hopefully) corrected it but haven't copied the quote in full, as the remainder of it seemed out of place. Alakzi (talk) 16:31, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Very good catch, 46.107.74.116 Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 03:22, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Armenian Genocide

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Armenian Genocide's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "akcam":

• From Turkification: Akcam, Taner. A Shameful Act. 2006, page 88.
• From Witnesses and testimonies of the Armenian Genocide: Akcam, Taner (2007). A shameful act: the Armenian genocide and the question of Turkish responsibility (1st Holt pbk. ed.). New York, NY: Metropolitan Books/Holt. ISBN 0-8050-8665-X.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 15:19, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Armenian woman kneeling beside dead child in field.png to appear as POTD

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Armenian woman kneeling beside dead child in field.png will be appearing as picture of the day on April 24, 2015. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2015-04-24. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:40, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Picture of the day

An Armenian woman kneeling beside a dead child in a field during the Armenian Genocide, conducted by the government of the Ottoman Empire. The genocide is conventionally held to have begun on 24 April 1915, when Ottoman authorities arrested and later executed some 250 Armenian intellectuals and community leaders. Much of the remaining Armenian population were deported into the deserts of Syria, where most died from starvation, exhaustion, and systematic massacres. The total number of people killed has been estimated at between 1 and 1.5 million. Though the events are widely recognized as a genocide by historians, the Turkish government rejects such a description.Photograph: American Committee for Relief in the Near East; restoration: MjolnirPants

CLARIFICATION FOR FUTURE READERS - the following discussion was initiated when the proposed featured picture of the day was different, when it was this map [1]. As a result of the discussion, another image was proposed, with that image being the image that was finally used. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:45, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

"If this article needs any attention or maintenance" .... well that just says it all! This article needs a complete rewrite from the ground up. Though maybe the choice of that image for the day that marks the commemoration of the 100th anniversary is appropriate for Wikipedia, given the abysmal state of this article. This "routes of deportations" map, and its many variations, has long been discredited as a usable document, and it is considered to be an historical artifact (it has been described as an "icon") rather than a modern scholarly work. If you really are set on having it, use the original from 1920 which is probably well out of copyright by now. Here is an earlier English-language version [2] Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 02:49, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

The history of this map was covered in an article by Ara Sarafian in the periodical Armenian Forum 2, no. 3. He was very critical of the continued use of this map in AG literature produced by Armenian organisations, and pointed out its inaccuracies, generalizations, omissions, and falsehoods. The magazine used to be available online, but is no longer. However the article, and responses to it published in the same magazine, can be viewed here: http://armenians-1915.blogspot.com/2014/03/3448-1915-armenian-genocide-in-turkish.html. It is often the case that amateurish or outdated or unprovable or false or faked Armenian material relating to the Armenian Genocide is taken up and used by Turkish apologists to deny that the Genocide happened, and articles about them are used as a substitute for the complete lack of credible material to support that denial. This is why it is both wrong and insulting to have this outdated and inaccurate map used as a featured picture on the day that commemorates the 100th anniversary of the Armenian Genocide. In the words of Ara Sarafian, the continued reliance on this map with its "errors and ambiguities", its "erroneously drawn circles and tracks", "erodes the credibility of Armenian Genocide studies and opens people to ridicule when they repeat its claims". Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 02:58, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

The original map in French, from 1920, https://www.pinterest.com/pin/279575089343170176/ and http://www.gomidas.org/books/show/66 - it is by the cartographer Zadig Khanzadian, born 1886, died 1980 (so it is probably not out of copyright). Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:22, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

If this map is so problematic, why is it used in the article? Alakzi (talk) 02:24, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

It is used because the whole article is an embarrassment, an amateurish and probably unsalvageable mess. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 02:32, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

OK. Pinging Crisco 1492, EtienneDolet and GGT to take a look. Alakzi (talk) 02:41, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

The critique in that article is concerning. I also think that the comments I left in Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Armenian Genocide remain relevant - the details of the map are quite confusing. I remember being surprised at this passing its FPC (though I was the only oppose vote) Nick-D (talk) 07:23, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

I would have opposed its proposed FP status too, if I had been around then and known about it. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:11, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

• Alternatives for the anniversary (this is not an anniversary we should miss) include File:Armenian woman kneeling beside dead child in field.png and File:Roman East 50-en.svg.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:41, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

@Crisco 1492: I'm fine with File:Armenian woman kneeling beside dead child in field.png since it's more relevant. However, we must work on the blurb quickly since time is limited.

The trouble with that particular photograph is the vagueness about its details. Taken "between 1915 and 1919". Why is something as specific as the location known, while the date it was taken is not known. We need an image that is powerful, that serves the purpose of summing up the Genocide in a single image, and which is not going to suffer from suspicions of being faked or of being a set-up image or a reconstruction or taken at a different period of time than the genocide or (in this case, I think) a genuine image that might have been given an exaggerated caption by NER for fundraising purposes. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:07, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Quite a few of the supposed AG images that are available are actually not genuine. Some are faked, some are reconstructions, some are taken from film stills, some are from earlier periods. Many more are genuine images that are without accurate information, or have been given faked captions. We see this even on the Wikipedia article. "Turkish soldiers posing with Armenian dead" - I doubt that is correct, they look like Russian soldiers to me. "Armenians ordered by the authorities to gather in the main square of the city to be deported and eventually massacred." - the "main square" actually looks like a railway station. "After the 1918 Armistice, Armenians massacred in Aleppo...." - caption suggests that these are Armenians killed before the armistice, when actually they were killed in a post-WW1 massacre of Armenians by Muslims. "Deportations of Armenians. The man in the foreground is a gendarme who has stolen carpets from the deportees." - is this actually a film still? "Armenian monastery of Bitlis with severed heads and corpses in the foreground" - this is not the caption used in the Russian book that first published this image, in that book it is described as a bridge in Bitlis. "Soldiers playing with the skulls of Armenian victims of the Armenian Genocide" - again these are Russian soldiers who encountered the remains of the massacred during their advance west, and "playing" is clearly pov. "Armenian refugee children in Aleppo, Syria" - this photo is actually still in copyright - it was taken in 1940 by Robert Jebejain who died in the late 1990s and is published in his 1986 book "The Armenian Refugee Camp in Aleppo". Maybe some might claim that all this is just nit-picking, pointing out errors that are not worthy of concern - but it is lazy mistakes like these that provide crucial support to Armenian Genocide denial. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 17:00, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Correction - the "Armenian refugee children in Aleppo, Syria" photograph was taken by Vartan Derounian. Robert Jebejain wrote the 1986 book in which it appeared. Jebejian says that Derounian "left Aleppo" in 1947. So, even though the photographer is probably now dead, the photograph is still under copyright unless Derounian released it into the public domain. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:51, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Regardless of the fact that you may have a personal dissatisfaction with the image, or any other Armenian Genocide photograph for that matter, we go by the EV of the photograph, and what RS sources have to say about it. Calling it "propaganda", "a set-up", "a fake", and/or continuing this with lengthy personal observations about any other photograph related to the Armenian Genocide shouldn't be taken into consideration, unless you have reliable sources that prove these photographs should be labeled as such. Even then, I think that this picture accurately describes, in all its emotive power, the event in one photograph. It's an iconic photograph used over and over again in various sources just for that fact. Major news media outlets have all used it which includes: Business Insider, FrontPage Mag, and even Haaretz. Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) uses it on their website: [3], so does Stanford University: [4]. Its recognizable presence in many of these sources only shows the . But it appears that Tiptoethrutheminefield doesn't like it. The user has obstructed Armenian related nominations in the past ([5][6][7]), and has been blocked for doing so. I kindly advise the user from refraining to do so again. Étienne Dolet (talk) 17:32, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

The main reason words like "alleged" and "Armenian allegations" are always attached to the words "Armenian Genocide", and the main reason this article is in such a mess (see this article's recent GA appraisal for example) is because of exactly the sort of attitudes expressed by Étienne Dolet. It is not surprising that denialist Turks can drive a truck through the holes in so much Armenian-produce Armenian Genocide literature because that literature is full of old lies, propaganda, and over simplifications (such as this map). I hope other editors have higher standards, and higher aspirations for this article, than "unconcerned" Étienne Dolet. He/she uses the word "iconic" to describe that photo. Ara Sarafian also used the word "iconic" to describe the map that started this discussion - but he, as a proper academic, and unlike Étienne Dolet, did not use that "iconic" status to blind himself to the obvious inaccuracies and failings in that "icon". An unattributed photograph taken at an unknown date under unknown circumstances cannot be held up as the ideal image to represent the Armenian Genocide anniversary on Wikipedia. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 18:53, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

The FP map is from Robert Hewsen's book Armenia: A Historical Atlas, University of Chicago Press, it is not derived from the Armenian National Institute (ANI). Ara Sarafian's review, in his own self-published Armenian Forum, does not criticize this map in particular, it criticizes another map in its entirety. In fact, the word Hewsen is not mentioned at all in his review. For example:

1. Sarafian's review is critical of ANI's use of the railways. Hewsen's map doesn't have railways.
2. Sarafian's review is critical of ANI's map containing circles of just one color, red. Hewsen solves that by differentiating extermination centers (black) from deportation areas (red).
3. Sarafian's review is critical of a map that doesn't have the rebellions of Armenians. Hewsen's map has those rebellions.

To reiterate: we're talking about two different maps here. Sarafian's review is strictly towards the discrepancies he has found with the Khanzadian map and with the map at the ANI website. I have yet to here any criticisms of Hewsen's book. In fact, its used widely in peer-reviewed articles, academia, and throughout Wikipedia.

Also, please remain WP:CIVIL during this discussion. The bad faith assumptions of blinding myself, or that I have an "attitude" that caused some sort of mess to an article is irrelevant to this discussion. Étienne Dolet (talk) 19:10, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

The map is a reworking of the 1920 map - that cannot seriously be questioned. The map contains the same sizes of circles as the 1920 map (and the same vagueness about what those sizes represent) and the same directional arrows as the 1920 map (simplified into straight lines). In particular it has exactly the same number of arrows pointing seaward along the Black sea coast. A major point in Sarafian's critique of the 1920 map is that this allegation, that large numbers of Armenians were taken out to sea and drowned, was false and that it is recognized to be false in modern sources. The map in Hewsen's atlas , Map 224, is titled "The Armenian Genocide (after J. Naslian and B. H. Harutunian)" The caption that accompanies the map make explicit its connection to the original 1920 Khanzadian map. It mentions that Khanzadian's map was "republished in an adapted form" by Naslian in 1951. So this is the same map that the Hewsen's map acknowledges in its title as its source. I cannot locate any 1951 publication by Naslian - but I think it reasonable to assume that this "adaptation" was simply its translation into English (if it were more than that, the word "adaptation" would not have been used by the atlas). As for bad faith - it is YOU who filled your post with attacks against me rather than answering any of the points I had raised or any of the points raised by Sarafian's article. And what, if not blindness, made you assume that this article could ever get GA status [[8]] - you initiated that GA review, remember. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:48, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Again, Hewsen's map is not the same map that Khazadian has published, or the Armenian National Institute for that matter. Hewsen's map, which was published in 2001, has made his own alterations, which appears to have been in light of Sarafian's 1998 critique. The deportation routes are changed. The colors of the map are different. Even the sizes of the red/black circles are different (Sarafian's critique of the sizes was due to the fact that the circles on ANI's map was of one color). At this point, you'll have to come up with a critique of this map in particular so as to substantiate your claims. Until then, we'll be going around in circles talking about an entirely different map.

And no, I've made no attacks against you. I've done nothing but respond to the points raised here. Étienne Dolet (talk) 20:02, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Hewsen's atlas was decades in the making and was ready for publication before Sarafian's critique was published. Its long gestation period is detailed in the atlas's introductory sections. I have already explained why they are essentially the same maps, and the Hewsen map's title acknowledges it. It contains the same errors as the 1920 original that are exposed by Sarafian (such as exactly the same number of arrows pointing into the Black Sea) and has the same ambiguities exposed by Sarafian (such as does the size of the circle indicate the number killed in that location, or the number of killed who originated in that location but who died elsewhere?). Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:33, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Again, you're missing the point. Sarafian's critique is not for Hewsen's map, and I have yet to have uncovered one review that finds it counter-factual. Consequently, you'll have to have a convincing argument as to why you think Hewsen's book is unreliable, since that is most relevant to this particular map. As for the Trabzon drownings, I find Sarafian's claim premature since Dadrian made a big breakthrough regarding that point when he uncovered that several Turkish eyewitness accounts by Turkish politicians (i.e. Hafiz Mehmet) stated that they saw mass drownings off the Black Sea coast, 5 years after this particular review. Étienne Dolet (talk) 20:41, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

The original map, the Hewsen map, AND the nominated map all have a circle in the Black Sea that is almost as big as the circle used for Trebizond. So all the maps are indicating that the majority of the Armenian population of Trebizond was drowned at sea. Such a claim is supported by nobody and it is a major error to have in the map, not some minor mistake. Sarafian explains that some small numbers were drowned this way (mostly important individuals), but nothing like as many as indicated in this map. Modern scholarship holds that the vast majority of Trebizond's Armenian population was massacred inland.Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:58, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

I see many scholarly works against that notion. Armenians may have been deported and massacred inland, but there's dozens of eye-witness accounts, including Giacomo Gorrini and Hafiz Mehmet, that point to the fact that Armenians in Trabzon ended up in the Black Sea. Étienne Dolet (talk) 21:11, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Nobody is disputing that some Armenians from Trebizond were killed by drowning in the Black Sea. The map is erroneously indicating that 80% to 90% of the Armenians of Trebizond were killed by drowning in the Black Sea and that NONE were deported inland (there are no arrows pointing inland from Trebizond - even the original 1920 map has an arrow pointing inland). That is not supported by any scholarly works. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:25, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

You call me "blind" because I nominated this article for GA? I made that nomination in the good faith assumption that the community can be more involved towards the betterment of this article. And indeed, I've tried to garner support for this by incorporating more users to help out in that regard Talk:Armenian_Genocide/Archive_21#Issues_with_refs. I myself have done a lot to sort out technical matters with the refs (i.e. dead links, formatting) for quite some time now. These bad faith remarks towards me needs to stop. Étienne Dolet (talk) 20:30, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

You nominated an article for GA status that was nowhere close to being a GA. I put that down to you being blind to the article's failings. I don't see how that equates to accusing you of bad faith. If you saw its failings, why did you nominate it? If you did not see its failings, it is correct to say you were blind to them. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:41, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

I nominate articles believing that the article has a potential of being a Good Article.I never said that I knew it would be one beforehand. That's not for me to decide. Good Article nominations are a working progress in which GA reviewers often times point out issues concerning the article in which the nominee or other users can fix or improve. Étienne Dolet (talk) 21:11, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

As for the accusations brought forth here, I don't find them concerning. I will give my reasons why after I sort out the blurb of the replaced photograph. Étienne Dolet (talk) 08:22, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

• Once we've got a consensus for it, I can change the image. There's not all that big of a rush (we've got almost two weeks). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:36, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

• Has the Nazi Holocuast ever made it to POTD? A quick search suggests not. This image of dead bodies in a concentration camp was passed over because it was too graphic, and in connection with the map image discussed above I notice that this recently nominated image Map of the Holocaust in Europe did not achieve Featured Picture status. Why not, one can reasonably enquire as it's an exceptionally fine graphic with obvious educational value.

As for the image now suggested for the Armenian genocide, that was originally passed over when first nominated for Featured Picture status. What really changed? The process seems somewhat arbitrary to me, the forum perhaps too small and isolated.

I would prefer to see an image that remembers the victims, rather than one that graphically depicts their suffering. There is a memorial to the Armenian genocide at Tsitsernakaberd. There are plenty of good images of this memorial and no copyright issues because Freedom of Panorama is recognised in Armenia. Or perhaps one of Wikipedia's featured photographers could provide a really outstanding image, which would be more in keeping with the Wikipedia ethos I feel. c1cada (talk) 18:41, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

I was thinking of suggesting the image of the first ever memorial monument to be erected [9] but I have some doubts about its attribution too - is it really a photo of the monument or is it an artist's drawing of the design of the monument? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:02, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, a technically accomplished photograph of that memorial would be good. c1cada (talk) 19:08, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

@C1cada: I agree. The map is still a fine graphic that has a striking EV. I also stated why the review above has nothing to do with this map in particular above. I still think the map is a good bet. Étienne Dolet (talk) 19:14, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

@EtienneDolet: Yes, certainly about the Holocaust map. I would be curious to know why it wasn't Featured. As for the Armenia map, I'm not qualified to comment. That debate should have been held at the time when it went up for nomination. I edit at Perinçek v. Switzerland. If the European Court of Human Rights uphold Switzerland's appeal, then perhaps it would be appropriate to POTD an image that reinforces the reality of the Armenian Genocide (now capitalising the 'g'). Otherwise for the memorial day, I do think it would be more appropriate to show a memorial. c1cada (talk) 19:34, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

But not Tsitsernakaberd please. That's now so common it has become a clichéd image. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:45, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

The photographs must be in FP in order to qualify for the main page. Étienne Dolet (talk) 21:11, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

That limits things :( - the 1919 monument picture would not get FP status because it is cropped at the bottom and slanting to the left. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 23:14, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

• Re: Holocaust image: The file File:Rows of bodies of dead inmates fill the yard of Lager Nordhausen, a Gestapo concentration camp.jpg was put on the Unused list by the former POTD coordinator. I've been planning on including it for Holocaust Memorial Day. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:24, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

I would suggest that the fact that only a small minority of those dead inmates were Jews might put a stop to that. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 23:33, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

• "The Holocaust ... was a genocide in which approximately six million Jews were killed by the Nazi regime and its collaborators. Many historians use a definition of the Holocaust that includes the additional five million non-Jewish victims of Nazi mass murders, bringing the total to approximately eleven million." (emphasis mine). Furthermore, the article includes much information about non-Jewish victims of the Holocaust. Your statement (even if it could be sourced) would not affect any decision. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:42, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

The associated article makes it clear that the % of Jews in that camp was small in relation to everyone else, and that they were late arrivals compared to the rest of its unfortunate inmates (which means that the % of Jews who died there be small compared to the rest of its population unless the Germans were going around selectively killing or starving to death only the camp's Jewish inmates). And Holocaust Memorial Day is (to put it crudely) a commemorate-dead-Jews-only thing (intertwined with pro-Israel propaganda) as far as the UK is concerned, which is why it is treated with a lot of contempt (and the fact that it was a pet project of the discredited and widely disliked Tony Blair does not help). I can't say anything about other countries Holocaust Memorial Days, but I would be surprised if they were that different. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 00:00, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

• As for what's going to be on the MP for the anniversary: it's far too late to try and find a new image. The FP selection process takes eleven days. Even if we were to find a good image of a memorial, it wouldn't be FP in time for the main page. There are two choices, period.
• As for the image being passed over the first time: that's neither here nor there. FAs and FLs often have multiple nominations, and that doesn't affect the final product. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:30, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

There's two pics we can choose from: the File:Armenian woman kneeling beside dead child in field.png, or the Kingdom of Armenia one File:Roman East 50-en.svg. I think the woman kneeling would be the best bet for now considering that it is the only other genocide related option. It's relevance to the genocide is without question. If not, we'll just have to go with the Kingdom of Armenia. All others should cast their vote for whichever they support after this comment. Étienne Dolet (talk) 23:35, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

If the choice was only an inaccurate map that will bring ridicule or having nothing, I would choose nothing. I am really angry to discover that Étienne Dolet was the person responsible for setting that discredited map up to be almost the only available picture to represent on Wikipedia the 100th anniversary of the Genocide. Though the blame is not his alone. Didn't anyone else think of finding a suitable picture of the day for this important date? I admit I did not think of it. Everyone should feel embarrassed - if they do not feel it already. To me, this amateurishness and lack of care and planning sums up many of the activities associated with the anniversary. It looks like "Armenian woman kneeling beside dead child in field" is the only option. Could it be cropped, I wonder, to make it more visually effective. The lack of suitable background info about its creation means it really is just a symbolic image of the event. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 23:47, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Please remain WP:CIVIL and stop expressing your anger towards me. If this continues, I may have to raise these concerns to WP:ANI. Besides, if it weren't for my good faith efforts to have this map dedicated to the centennial, we wouldn't even have a discussion to have this photograph, or any other alternate photograph for that matter, be featured on the main page for the centennial. I've had this map set to appear on the main page two years ago, and that's how long ago I prepared for the centennial. But that also means you had two years to express your concerns regarding the map. And even if you find the map not credible, your remarks appear as though I knew beforehand of Sarafian's criticisms at the time of the nomination, and that I remained ostensibly oblivious towards my knowledge of it. I've had enough responding to these accusations of bad faith over my career as an editor, especially when there's so little time left for the centennial. If this is an issue concerning my editing pattern, please come and speak to me on my talk page. At any rate, I'm glad we are inching towards a broader consensus. Étienne Dolet (talk) 02:14, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

You have said that you did not know about Sarafian's criticism. At no point did I say or suggest that you did know. I am saying that you should have shown due diligence and investigated the correctness of this map before you proposed it for the POTD to mark the anniversary. An investigation would have discovered the Sarafian article and revealed how unsuitable the map was. We are where we are now partly because of your actions two years ago, and partly because no other editor (myself included) since then had the sense or the foresight to think of having a POTD for the anniversary. Nothing in that is assuming bad faith was behind any of your actions, or anyone elses actions or inactions. I am not accusing you of bad faith so please stop suggesting otherwise, and stop being angry at me and accusing me of bad faith for being the one who pointed out the errors in and criticism of the map. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 17:05, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

I did investigate, into Hewsen's book and its map. I don't want to talk about something that I personally have done two years ago at this forum. We'd be digressing. Again, if you find problems with my editing abilities, please come to my talk page and we'll talk about it. I am also not mad at you, I just pointed out that you shouldn't be angry, as you openly said you were. As for this POTD, it looks like we have four users in support of including the kneeling woman photograph. I think this case should move on in that light. Étienne Dolet (talk) 18:56, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

I think we can rule out the map. Not only because of the issues highlighted above, but because a photograph can do much a better job in conveying an event. I would nominate the photo of the woman kneeling down if no other suitable photo can be proffered before then. It seems to capture the emotion, hardship, tragedy, and experience Armenians went through in 1915.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 02:57, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with Marshall though I should have much preferred to have seen an image of a memorial (cliché or not). I can't say I'm impressed with POTD on the basis of the above. I sympathise with Tiptoe's remarks. I should still like to see an explanation of why the Holocaust map didn't make it to Featured. Can I suggest the accompanying text of the Armenian genocide POTD avoids the use of the word genocide? Pope Francis yesterday talked about the capacity of humanity to systematically plan the annihilation of their brothers without using the word genocide. Whether that annihilation in the case of the Armenian refugees constitutes a 'genocide' is still a sensitive issue for the Turkish people and in Europe, presently at any rate, the right of freedom of expression so championed by Jimbo Wales protects those who wish to deny it: in Mr. Perinçek's immortal words, "I have not denied genocide because there was no genocide." Wikipedia is an international project and should reflect the whole international community, not just that very small subset of it which edits Wikipedia, and still less what seems to me to be a small and local community within it not even capable of agreeing amongst themselves which images Wikipedia should Feature when it comes to the Holocaust, agreed by all to be a uniquely evil genocide and where those so disposed in Europe are not free to deny it took place. c1cada (talk) 04:35, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Since when is the Pope an authority on the Armenian Genocide? As far as I'm aware, this is the common term, and I imagine that that has been thrashed out previously here. Anyway, the Pope used the term today [10] Nick-D (talk) 10:56, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

You are wrong to say it is the common term. It is referred to as "the events of 1915" in Turkey. The Pope used the word "genocide" in the context of referring to it as "widely considered 'the first genocide of the 20th century'" and while addressing an Armenian audience. The Pope is no more an authority on the Armenian genocide than the European Court of Human Rights is, or for that matter POTD. Both the former are however obliged to pronounce on it, as does the latter choose to. My point is that this latter ought to be both more informed and more sensitive in its dealing.

Regarding Featured Pictures in general, it seems to me its rationale should be re-examined. Why for example should Wikipedia Feature an image of the Mona Lisa simply because of its technical excellence and its obvious educational value when Wikipedia has in fact nothing to do with the genesis of the image? It seems to me that the kind of images that ought to be featured are the ones provided by Wikipedia editors, their own photographs or graphics, their gifts of family photographs of historical interest, the unearthing of significant images not previously published, and so on. In short, images Wikipedia has actually had some hand in producing. Last here. I shall look out for the April 24 POTD with interest. c1cada (talk) 12:20, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Isn't the legitimate authority on the Armenian Genocide legitimate scholars. It is they who "widely consider" it to be a Genocide and who have expressed that opinion in the sort of books, articles, lectures and statements that are used as references in this article. Anyone, even Popes, has the right to assume that the opinions of legitimate scholars and other experts are correct enough to be repeated. We don't have to be an authority ourselves before being able to believe or repeat the opinion of an authority - that is the whole point of a culture amassing over time a body of accessible knowledge. It is the point of Wikipedia too, isn't it! Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:08, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, that's right about scholars. But Pope Francis took care to express their view and not his. My point. I don't mind calling it small 'g' genocide, but big 'G' genocide is another matter. The fact is the Turkish government doesn't recognise the Armenian Genocide. They called in the Vatican ambassador today to clarify just that. I thought your comments interesting. Thank you. c1cada (talk) 15:19, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

I think it should be capitalized Armenian Genocide because that seems the correct way to write it in English. It is a distinct event, just like the capitalized French Revolution, or the Renaissance, or the First World War. For the word genocide by itself, even if it is the words "the genocide" used in the context of a named genocide, I don't have a strong opinion. Maybe a small g for that. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:44, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

c1cada, first and foremost: FPC and POTD are separate processes. Please don't conflate the two. Second, the simple answer is that nobody voted. Why? Maybe because it was nominated in January, which tends to be a slow month (school starting up, and similar things), or maybe because the map is PNG when SVG is now generally expected for maps, or maybe because it's below the size threshold (not a factor if SVG, but a problem with PNG) of 1500px on each side... or maybe because it's cited to Wikipedia. There's a lot of innocuous reasons. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:58, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, that's the point: no-one voted. However this is not an issue I want to go more with. c1cada (talk) 12:20, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

I am opposed to excluding the word genocide from the statement. This photo is being nominated for April 24 because it commemorates an event and process that inaugurated the complete destruction of Armenian civilization and expunging from their native homeland. I understand that this word is still sensitive to many, but scholarship has made great strides since I first began editing here (2005). We are no longer trying to prove a genocide occurred, as the first pages in this archive will show editors attempting to do. We know that it did and are now trying to comprehend how it took place. This photo will invite viewers to visit this article, however imperfect, view and read its contents and perhaps plant the seed for a better understanding of what took place 100 years ago.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 17:10, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Agreed with MarshallBagramyan. Also, this article is basically the consensus of how Wikipedia and the consensus derived from its users views the events of 1915. That is to say, if you want to see what Wikipedia thinks about the event, and not Erdogan or Pope Francis, you'd have to look here. Until it has been decided otherwise, then that is when the POTD picture should change its wording to reflect the article. Étienne Dolet (talk) 18:56, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

First of all to restore my good faith here (not that it hasn't been assumed I'm sure) please check this edit out at Perinçek v. Switzerland where I restored the word genocide as used by the European Court of Human Rights in its judgment. Of course it's not practical, and doesn't make sense, to keep referring to the genocide as the "events" or the "massacres" or whatever. Nevertheless in using that word, the Court was not making a judgment on whether a genocide actually occurred or not. The Court took pains to point out it was not called upon to do that. This Wikipedia article entitled Armenian Genocide unambiguously characterises it as a genocide, while at the same time giving due weight to the Turkish government's insistence it was not. I don't find fault with that either. What worries me is that on 24 April 2015, what is essentially an Armenian Remembrance day (albeit one recognised by the California State Assembly as it happens) is going to be picked up by Wikipedia and made an international one. This if you please, if I understand POTD correctly, on the say of a single Wikipedia administrator after a process of consultation with a forum whose decisions on these Featured Picture nominations involving genocides are baffingly inconsistent to say the least. I congratulate them on their sense of entitlement, but join with the fat geek in not envying their folly... I don't think it practical not to use the phrase Armenian Genocide Remembrance Day, but after that I do countenance diplomacy. c1cada (talk) 20:09, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

2015 is the 100th anniversary of the Armenian Genocide starting - it is an important historical event that had and still has far-reaching consequences so a POTD is appropriate. That anniversary is what is being recognized by the POTD: the whole year is the anniversary but we are taking 24th April as the most suitable day to mark that anniversary with a POTD because that day is the yearly date Armenians use as a remembrance day. It is unfortunate that some simplistic Armenian literature produced for non-Armenians claims that the specific day April 24th 1915 is the day the genocide actually started - I hope we can avoid that in the POTD wording (it was there in the map caption, alas), but the wording also cannot become a discussion containing an increasingly (even inside Turkey) marginal opinion. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:43, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Just try not to get Wikipedia banned in Turkey, Tiptoe . Good luck. I do wish this had been planned a little better. c1cada (talk) 21:49, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

I think the kneeling woman is a near-perfect replacement for the map. The photo is suitable and indeed relevant for the centennial. It's a very emotional depiction of the genocide. --Երևանցի ^talk 03:42, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

@Crisco 1492:: regarding your deleted query whether it would be a good idea to include Turkey's denial of a genocide, I think that would be a very good idea if you propose to persist with the wording "The rest of the Armenian population were deported into the deserts of Syria and subsequently massacred." I suggest you replace that with "The rest of the Armenian population were deported into the deserts of Syria without adequate provisioning, the greater number subsequently dying of starvation and other privations." Something like that. Otherwise I think the wording's fine. Providing the wording is an accurate reflection of the article, I don't see why Turkey's denialist stance needs to be mentioned. c1cada (talk) 13:49, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

• If we've got a way to keep the character count down, there's no problem with reworking the blurb. The suggested phrasing is a bit wordy, though. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:09, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

• @Crisco 1492:: You have to lose that "massacre" word Crisco. You'll be taken to the cleaners if you keep it. Of course I accept that essentially they were massacred by being forced into the desert in this way, but that's not normally how we use the word. "The rest of the Armenian population were deported into the deserts of Syria, where most died" if you are really short on word count. Also get a historian to check on "the rest of ...", though as far as I know that was more or less so. I do suggest you take the wording of this seriously. c1cada (talk) 07:48, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

@C1cada: I don't understand why you're so inclined to incorporate the Turkish denialist view into the blurb of this photograph. At least three users above declined including or excluding terminology that would befit such a viewpoint. And to reiterate: you would be pushing a minority viewpoint, and giving it way too much consideration than it should deserve. The word massacre should remain because that's exactly what happened. There were massacres of Armenians before and after they reached the Syrian desert. Please read the article, the blurb does nothing but reflect the information contained within it. Étienne Dolet (talk) 08:08, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

• (ec) I did. EtienneDolet reinserted it with this edit. The new suggested wording is okay with me; current version. Please Etienne, can we discuss things before hand before changing the blurb yet again. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:12, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

@Crisco 1492: Yes, I am willing to discuss of course, and I apologize if I had edited it without discussion. Crisco, there's a stark difference between dying and being killed. During the Armenian Genocide, both happened. Some were killed, some died, and some survived. We should incorporate it all, or else it would do a grave disservice to our readership. But more importantly, it would not properly reflect the article. The lead makes it clear that these people not only died because of starvation and exhaustion, but killed as a result of massacres as well. Étienne Dolet (talk) 08:20, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

• And y'all need to work out a proper wording here. Otherwise we end up with edit warring over something that's gonna be on the main page, and that's never good. I've given it my go as a non-subject matter expert; if there are refinements which can be agreed upon by people more familiar with the subject, that's good. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:45, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Warmly support Crico's wording, which is excellent and just the thing I think. Étienne stop patronising me. Do you think I'm stupid? This a memorial, about commemorating and not soapboxing. c1cada (talk) 08:51, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I am not patronizing you, and I never insinuated that you're 'stupid'. But the wording you support does not reflect the article. At least three users have declined your proposition, yet you insist on having it. By excluding the term massacre, you're befitting the denialist point of view which claims that the deportees just happened to have died in the desert. Though that's partly true, it is not entirely true. The blurb needs to state that these deportees were subject to massacre as well. Again, it should be done so because it not only properly reflects the article, but indeed the scholarly and academic views which the Wikipedia community has adopted through consensus as well. Étienne Dolet (talk) 09:07, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

That last sentence "Though the events are widely recognized by historians, the Turkish government has refused the classification of events as a genocide" would read better as "Though the events are widely recognized by historians as a genocide, the Turkish government continues to deny it was" or something of the sort. The editors here should ensure the description is historically accurate with regard to "much of" and "most of". As Crisco points out he's given it his best shot as far as the wording goes, but he's not an expert and it's up to the editors here to ensure Wikipedia doesn't give a wrong account of the events in the POTD. Don't feel you need to address me again, Étienne. Thank you. c1cada (talk) 09:44, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

• c1cada - How's this? I'm not keen to end a sentence with "was". — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:52, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

• Don't see why not. It's not as if it's a preposition we're ending it with. Main thing is to find is to find a form of words that avoids suggesting that historian widely recognise that "events" took place which the Turkish government refuses to accept, "events", after all, being their own euphemism.c1cada (talk) 12:17, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

• I also changed the phrasing of the first part of the sentence, to avoid that issue: "Though the events are widely recognized as a genocide (added) by historians, the Turkish government has refused such a classification." — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:27, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

• "always rejected" rather than "refused"? It's not as if a demand is being made on them. However, do what you ever think best. I have enough problems keeping my own copy in order. I do think the wording in general cuts it. The main thing surely is to be mindful that this POTD will be looked at closely. I do think the emphasis should be on commemoration. Looks good to me and it's true it's an iconic photograph.c1cada (talk) 13:12, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
• and "description" rather than "classification"? c1cada (talk) 13:16, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

• Agree on both counts. Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:39, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

@C1cada: I don't see how the massacres of Armenians during the genocide is a less historically accurate portrayal of what happened. By adding the word massacre, we're also refining the wording to the way Crisco sees fit. That is to say an user, such as myself, who has worked for eight years now in Armenian Genocide related topics, is providing wording that more accurately describes what happened to the Armenians in 1915. I say it be best to go to a vote. Étienne Dolet (talk) 16:04, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

• @EtienneDolet: (Personal attack removed) I ask in all seriousness because "massacre" is not normally the word that would be used in English to describe the indiscriminate slaughter of a civilian population herded into a desert and left to starve. In a technical sense it is of course exactly that, but nevertheless in English it suggests violence and carnage in a way that starvation does not, a still more hideous death that might be. It's precisely for this reason, I suppose, that Lemkin was moved to coin the term genocide. He was specifically addressing the Armenian genocide, although the term was immediately used in the Nuremberg indictments:

"1945 Sunday Times 21 Oct. 7 The United Nations' indictment of the 24 Nazi leaders has brought a new word into the language—genocide. It occurs in Count 3, where it is stated that all the defendants ‘conducted deliberate and systematic genocide—namely, the extermination of racial and national groups.’" (OED).

The Armenian Genocide is not listed as a massacre at List of events named massacres, although the Adana massacre is. I would be grateful if you would let me off this now, Étienne. I really don't have more to contribute here. c1cada (talk) 16:42, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

@C1cada: I never suggested that the Armenian Genocide was nothing but a massacre. However, it was partly so. To ignore the fact that the Armenians were killed by firearm, in large numbers, not only in their destination of arrival, but in the vicinity of their own homes, is to go against the historical accurateness of the events. As I have already said, the Armenians didn't just die because of starvation and exhaustion, they were also killed en masse by the sword. The Armenian Genocide is not included in the List of events named massacres simply because it wasn't a massacre in of and itself, it was a genocide. But that is also not to say that Armenians were never massacred in the process of eight years of genocide. Étienne Dolet (talk) 16:53, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

• We little people who don't edit Wikipedia articles for eight year stretches and know better than everyone else for it are nevertheless sufficiently educated to know that the Armenian Genocide was especially horrible for the way in which a helpless people were herded into the desert and left callously to die without adequate provisions. That is a massacre by any stretch of the word. It just happens that massacre is not the word that has come to describe it. I don't doubt that over and above those events, massacres of a more conventional kind occurred as well, but it detracts from the bigger picture (and what in fact the POTD image depicts), the genocide of a helpless people locked out of their homeland and the key thrown away. Enough already. Off my watchlist. c1cada (talk) 17:20, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Armenians commemorate not only a human tragedy, but a genocide. In other words, they commemorate and mourn not only those who died during deportations, but the extermination of their people as well. Saying that they merely died in the desert doesn't properly describe the extermination campaign they had to face. Dying can happen even accidentally, massacre means to be slaughtered or killed deliberately. The 'dying' bit is wording that has always been suitable for denialists to shift the blame from themselves, to those who died because they couldn't physically handle a 'relocation'. Étienne Dolet (talk) 20:31, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

• What was responsible for the Armenian Genocide was the decision to deport the entire Armenian population of some 1,750,000 souls to Syria and Iraq without regard for their safety or welfare in circumstances that were bound to lead to the extermination of the greater part of them. This is what in essence is denied by the Turkish government. Only today Erdogan once again insisted the events were the consequence of civil war. He's not saying the Armenians couldn't handle a relocation. He's saying shit (massacres) happens in civil wars. So you could argue that insisting on the word massacre is also a denialist gambit. The POTD blurb (would that be the word you were looking for? it's not really very suitable) is limited in its extent. Keep the message simple is my advice. We all know it was the deportations, the death marches, that was responsible for most of the deaths. If we need re-education, perhaps you and your editors could make that a little clearer in the article. Meanwhile let's just remember the genocide, the forced marches that led to the death of the child in the POTD image, on 24 April. c1cada (talk) 22:27, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

The Armenian Genocide did not consist merely of deportations, it also consisted of systematic massacres. Accounts from across the Ottoman Empire, including the ones in Der Zor, Syria, where most deportees were deported, describe that the local government condoned and carried out massacres of those who survived the deportations. To clarify that massacre wasn't an accident, we can simply say "...died due to starvation, exhaustion, and systematic massacre." And no, we're not trying to convey the photograph in the blurb in and of itself, the first sentence of the blurb does that for us. We are to convey the event in which this photograph portrays. That means say yes, people died from exhaustion and starvation, but others were killed due to massacre. In other words, the photograph shouldn't be dictating what the blurb should say, rather the blurb should dictate what the photograph is there to represent, and to provide a proper and more accurate understanding of the Armenian Genocide as concise as possible. Étienne Dolet (talk) 23:57, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

• N'importe quoi. c1cada (talk) 00:31, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Vote

Which wording more accurately describes the events?

1. - Much of the remaining Armenian population were deported into the deserts of Syria, where most died.
2. - The rest of the Armenian population were deported into the deserts of Syria and died due to starvation, exhaustion, and massacre.

Please cast votes in Support of which version will suit the blurb best. Étienne Dolet (talk) 16:08, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

• Comment I'll vote what suits the blurp (sic) best if the question is changed to "What wording commemorates the Armenian Genocide best". c1cada (talk) 17:01, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
• Support #2 The deaths of Armenians is better elaborated that way. --Երևանցի ^talk 20:18, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
• Comment - I would ammend the second one to make clear that most died during the deportation. Fixed the orthography as well - The rest of the Armenian population was deported to the deserts of Syria. The majority of the victims died during the state imposed exile due to starvation, exhaustion, and massacre.--92slim (talk) 21:03, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

@92slim: Although your wording accurately describes the events, I think it's best to shorten it to the proposed wording #2. We're trying to make the blurb (caption) as short as possible. Your wording could be best summed up with #2. Also, we don't have much time to create new proposals every time. It's best to work with proposals we have already to manage our time better. Étienne Dolet (talk) 21:19, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Ok, then. Support #2. --92slim (talk) 00:16, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

• Support #1 It better commemorates the Armenian Genocide arising from the Tehcir Law. If you are to use #2, you need to put it in good English and make it compatible with fact (that not all were deported and not all died). I suggest #2 - Much of the remaining Armenian population were deported into the deserts of Syria, where most died from starvation, exhaustion, or massacres. c1cada (talk) 09:39, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

@C1cada: I'm glad to say that we have a consensus. I'm okay with wording #2 with your proposal. I'm not too sure about the pogroms bit though. The genocide is hardly regarded as a pogrom. Its best to just leave it: The total number of people killed in eight years of genocide has been estimated at between 1 and 1.5 million. It's shorter that way as well. Étienne Dolet (talk) 10:05, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

• I made the following WP:BOLD tweaks to the template (mainly I stress the original Armenian intellectuals were not only arrested but executed, and I introduce the term progrom in place of massacre)

An Armenian woman kneeling beside a dead child in a field during the Armenian Genocide, conducted by the government of the Ottoman Empire. The genocide is conventionally held to have begun on 24 April 1915, when Ottoman authorities arrested and executed some 250 Armenian intellectuals and community leaders in Constantinople. Much of the Armenian population were subsequently deported into the deserts of Syria, where most died. The total number of people killed in eight years of genocide and pogroms has been estimated at between 1 and 1.5 million. Though the events are widely recognized as a genocide by historians, the Turkish government rejects such a description.

c1cada (talk) 10:11, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

@EtienneDolet: Hi Étienne. I'm glad we're moving to consensus. Your remark about pogroms perhaps a second language thing? It's essentially understood in English as systematic killings, a better word I think than your massacre, and the context is not to replace the genocide (which is usually understood to refer to the deportations) but to stress that the killings continued over eight years past the deportations into the early 1920s. c1cada (talk) 10:20, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

@C1cada: The problem with pogroms is that such a term is hardly used to describe what happened to the Armenians. It's mostly used to refer to a group of rioters harassing some minority in a violent way. Also, it is never used in this article. I think it's best to leave it as before. If users at the talk page disagree with its removal, we'll just put it back. It's shorter that way too, which is a big plus. I want to reiterate that I'm fine with your proposal: Much of the remaining Armenian population were deported into the deserts of Syria, where most died from starvation, exhaustion, or massacres. If we could have that wording, and remove the word pogroms until users here state that they would like it to remain, the POTD will be ready once and for all. Étienne Dolet (talk) 10:27, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

• (Personal attack removed) The word pogrom is understood and used way stronger than you suggest. The Wikipedia lede for pogrom starts: "A pogrom is a violent riot aimed at massacre or persecution of an ethnic or religious group, particularly one aimed at Jews". It's in fact used several times in Armenian Genocide, first in the section describing the Adana massacre. c1cada (talk) 10:40, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

@C1cada: But the Adana massacre and the Armenian Genocide are two separate and very different events. The Adana massacre can be considered a pogrom, but the Armenian Genocide could hardly be considered "a violent riot". It was a preplanned and well organized attempt by a government to exterminate the Armenians, not a consequence of some violent disorder. Étienne Dolet (talk) 10:46, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

To repeat I'm using the word in addition to genocide to describe the organised killings that took place over and above the deportations. Really I'm trying (very hard, Étienne) to address your issue with massacre without using a word that generally is not understood in English as necessarily implying systematic killings. You're very coy on the question of whether English is your first language. Incidentally, researching via Google this morning, I found reference that the collocation "Armenian Genocide" was first used by the New York Times in 2004. Is that really so? c1cada (talk) 11:02, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

You are the only user here that wants the term massacre excluded. I see at least three users here that are in favor of including the term. Even when you provided a suggestion yourself above. So, either we use your proposal, or adopt proposal #2 which is favored by the majority. Also, my English language capabilities should not be of your concern, nor is it relevant to this discussion. Étienne Dolet (talk) 11:20, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

No. I merely suggested that if you use #2, you need to put it in good English and make it compatible with the facts. I make it a dead heat on your vote (presumably you exclude yourself from the count). It is an issue for us at English Wikipedia if your command of English is not sufficient to understand its nuances adequately and it's common for editors to volunteer their level of achievement in the language on their User page. Feel free to replace pogroms by massacres in the template. I won't revert you. I understand your issue. But massacre is something of a portmaneau word in English and you are in danger of being misunderstood precisely on the issue I take it you are most anxious to advance, that these killings were planned. c1cada (talk) 12:16, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

@C1cada: has a point. I would prefer either declaring it a planned systematic killing or a planned extermination. I would rather that instead of massacres or pogroms (which might be planned, but not systematic), it would highlight the extermination process to which the victims were inflicted upon (directly through planned military killings and the State providing arms to bandits and indirectly through starvation, that is dehydration and famine, and wholesale banditry and massacres along the way). The whole point of the so-called deportation law was to exterminate the population and bury them in the Syrian desert forever; I think that is already well established beyond a shadow of a doubt. --92slim (talk) 00:29, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

@92slim: I don't mind adding the word systematic next to massacres. I already proposed that above. So we can have something like this: Much of the remaining Armenian population were deported into the deserts of Syria, where most died from starvation, exhaustion, or systematic massacres. This wording should resolve all differences. Étienne Dolet (talk) 00:43, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

@EtienneDolet:I would say "exhaustion and systematic massacres" instead of "or", because the frequencies of either cause are not exactly specified; also, maybe change "died" for "ended up dead", although this is a minor detail. Sorry, I think this is definitely sound still. --92slim (talk) 00:56, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

@92slim: I think it be best to hold off on the ended up dead bit. Died means the same thing, and we'd be lengthening the template a little bit to convey the same message. Also, ended up isn't suggested term usage under WP:MOS and WP:EUPHEMISM. It doesn't sound encyclopedic, and it is considered a verbose softener. For example, instead of saying started up, we say started; instead of conjured up, we say conjured, and etc. I'm okay with changing it to "and systematic massacres" to provide additional clarification for the reader. Étienne Dolet (talk) 03:35, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

• Agree about "ended up"; shouldn't use it. I don't mind "systematic". — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:15, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

• "Systematic massacres" fine with me too, though I'm going to wikilink to pogrom because that is precisely the word now used to describe these:c.f. the Goggle definition "an organized massacre of a particular ethnic group, in particular that of Jews in Russia or eastern Europe". Other than that I don't propose to intervene again at the Template. It looks excellent to me. I think the Armenian Genocide article rather good BTW. It doesn't personally bother me that it currently doesn't reach Good Article status. I would remark one thing however, that the frequent use of direct quotation is very lazy and an alarm bell ringer-offer for POV editing. You should try and avoid that. Perhaps we can now try for a POTD some time commemorating the Jewish Holocaust? c1cada (talk) 10:42, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

@Crisco 1492: Can you please remind C1cada not to make unilateral edits to the POTD template without consensus. This is the third time s/he has done so ([11][12][13]). Pogrom is a term no one has yet agreed upon on the TP, yet the user still continues to add it to the template page. In fact, several users have already stated they prefer to describe it as 'systematic massacre' ([14][15][16]). No one has even proposed to have 'systematic massacre' linked with 'pogrom'. Étienne Dolet (talk) 11:33, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Hey Étienne, can you remind yourself as well in that case ((added blurp) and seven others)? That template would have been a total mess left in your hands but for my interventions, and that last edit of mine was a straightforward wikilink. As courtesy I always WP:BOLD any possibly contentious edit I make anywhere in Wikipedia as I did twice in the Template. You are welcome to follow the process that implies. Here is OED b. on pogrom ((Personal attack removed)):

b. In general use: an organized, officially tolerated, attack on any community or group. Also fig.

1906 Tribune 16 June 7/2 This was the immediate signal for a pogrom, or organized riot. 1920 H. J. C. Grierson in Proc. Brit. Acad. 1919–1920 433 Only Henley refused to take part in the ‘pogrom’; and he alas! died before completing his work as champion, critic, and editor of Byron. 1928 ‘S. S. Van Dine’ Greene Murder Case i. 13, I note that our upliftin' Press bedecked its front pages this morning with headlines about a pogrom at the old Greene mansion last night. 1936 H. A. L. Fisher Hist. Europe i. xviii. 232 The Greek Empire+had disgraced itself by a pogrom against the French and Italian colony in Constantinople. 1964 New Statesman 13 Mar. 405/1 On 20 March 1914 58 British cavalry officers, stationed in Ireland, announced that they would not obey the orders of their lawful superiors.+ The cry of ‘mutiny’ was answered by the charge that there had been a plot—a ‘pogrom’ in the contemporary phrase—to crush Ulster's resistance to Home Rule by force of arms. 1967 T. Gunn Touch 27 Am I Your mother or The nearest human being to Hold on to in a Dreamed pogrom. 1971 Sunday Times 13 June 12/4 The army units, after clearing out the rebels, pursued the pogrom in the towns and villages. 1975 R. Browning Emperor Julian iii. 51 Hannibalianus had been killed in 337 in the pogrom of his relations engineered by Constantius.

c1cada (talk) 12:31, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

I suggest you stop trying to undermine the Ottoman government's preplanned policy of genocide by employing the term 'pogrom' instead. There's not one article in Wikipedia that describes the Armenian Genocide as a pogrom, let alone the fact that there is hardly any academic or scholarly work that would describe it as such as well. The Pogrom article doesn't even mention the word Armenian Genocide, neither does the Armenian Genocide article refer to the genocide as a pogrom. Besides, no one has agreed to include the term 'progrom' in any shape or form into the template but you. It doesn't take a professor of law to know that a pogrom or a riot can be organized, but it does not necessarily have to be systematic. A pogrom can even happen by accident, as it has happened many times before. Denialists may use the term pogrom to claim that rioters or brigands did the killing, so as to conceal the systematic nature of the massacre and disassociate themselves from the responsibility of genocide. In light of all this, your recent unilateral edit to the template will have to be reverted if you do not garner consensus here at this talk page to have it remain. Étienne Dolet (talk) 12:54, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

• "Undermine" is an attack. Also weird as it happens (or at the very least rather deep, involving time travel). I suggested the word in addition to genocide to assimilate your issue with massacre. For the rest of it, once again (wearily) ... n'importe quoi. Et quoi le baiser c'est cette :Please Etienne, can we discuss things before hand before changing the blurb yet again ...., Étienne? Parlez debout la marmite nomme le bouilloire noir ... merde, un blurp vraiment. c1cada (talk) 13:13, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't think pogrom is related in this aspect - pogroms were not systematic. I think that linking it to extermination or genocide is more appropiate. If in doubt, please look at the definition of genocide: "the systematic destruction of a group". Personally, I think to settle the matter for once, we should change it to systematic slaughter, although the current wording works well. It is the traditional word used for the Genocide in the media outlets of the time. Please revert the wikilink if this is not correct (I strongly doubt it). --92slim (talk) 13:40, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

OED 2 b. includes (as does Google) organised, synonymous here for systematic (indeed it would be the better word). I thus cordially decline your invitation to de-link. Amongst the accepted collocations of pogrom are the Ukraine massacres during the Russian Civil War of 1917-22. Are you saying these were not systematic? Is your problem here perhaps that 'pogrom' is a word that in the past was normally reserved for massacres of Jews? Relax, we've moved on. I've even collected it describing the massacre of Shia muslims and Christians in Iraq.

This POTD commemorates the Armenian Genocide with an image of a child who has died from her privations in the Syrian desert. The general public associate the Armenian Genocide especially with the deportations, which in fact lasted less than year as far as the relevant legislation is concerned. However, in fact the genocide lasted a full eight years, as Étienne's blurp takes good care to assert, and it was to cater for the implicit lacuna that I introduced, in addition to genocide, the word pogrom. c1cada (talk) 14:23, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't think we need a Wikilink for it at any rate. There's a Wikilink to the Genocide article elsewhere in the template anyways. Systematic massacres can stand alone. Étienne Dolet (talk) 14:02, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Beg to diifer. The purpose of a wikilink is to enrich the graph and to provide educational value. We can see the latter already here, from the editors who didn't know what the word pogrom means. c1cada (talk) 14:29, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Pogrom is different from systematic massacre and I don't think we should conflate the two. Organized mobs and rioters may be organized, but that doesn't mean their acts are part of a systematic extermination campaign. So I agree that it's best to delink it. --Երևանցի ^talk 15:12, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

@92slim: Would you be okay to delink 'systematic massacre' as well? Étienne Dolet (talk) 15:25, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

This is a contemporary source for the use of the word pogrom in a collocation with "Armenian Genocide":The Armenian Genocide -The Marxist Nazi Ottoman Islamist ISIS Pogrom Against Christianity Continues to This Day. The word pogrom is multiply sourced to describe the first 1894-96 massacres leading up to the genocide, for example here: Between 1894 and 1896, this “box on the ear” took the form of a state-sanctioned pogrom .... The objections raised here simply are not valid. It's a link and it's been used in addition to genocide for the reasons I have stated at least twice. Étienne's objections are neither reasonable nor informed. c1cada (talk) 16:22, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

@C1cada: To be fair, that link you provided is not adequate. Marxist Islamist? I regard pogroms as what they really were - spontaneous decisions (keyword - not always organised, although I'm not well informed about those events you mentioned. By the way, let's not forget today is Yom Hashoah. We will never forget the victims.) to slaughter the innocent Jews by the bigoted Eastern Europeans. During the Genocide, the Armenians were slaughtered according to a plan drawn up by the Special Organisation, the precursor of the MIT. Delinking is fine but it's not necessary. Least but not last, the Armenians were killed during the death marches, at their homes and everywhere else. --92slim (talk) 17:32, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

@92slim: Yes, thank you, I didn't know today was Yom Hashoa. In the European Union, Holocaust Day is the 27th January and I observe it annually on my own personal blog. As for the link I provided, it's one of several I could provide for contemporary collocations of pogrom with the Armenian Genocide. I agree this one is a ludicrous conflation of several historical movements ('Marxist Islamists' would be the original Iranian revolution I take it), but that's not the point, as I'm only concerned (here) with idiomatic usage. I can add that when new pogroms (as they are described) take place against Armenians, comparisons invariably are made with the Genocide. The Russian Wikipedia uses "massacres and pogroms", referring to the events of the Genocide (which it acknowledges) in its discussion of the aftermath, making the distinction I sought between a riotous act and a planned act. I agree, am very aware, that there is a legalistic sense in which pogroms, even a series of them, are distinct from genocide, which is not only about the state-sanctioned murder of an ethnic group, but above all a deliberate attempt to wipe them out of history, as unquestionably did happen in the Armenian genocide and the Holocaust. But we're concerned here with commemorating the victims, and in any case, from the point of view of resolving "never again, not in my name", there scarcely seems to be any distinction worth maintaining in a commemoration lamenting "the banality of evil", as Hannah Arendt so famously put it. c1cada (talk) 18:34, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Per the votes above, it looks like we're okay with delinking it. The current Wikilink, Genocide, is used twice already. If there's a consensus to replace it with something else, we can go about doing so. Étienne Dolet (talk) 18:26, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

In that case you probably need to do something about "eight years of genocide". That's not in the article either. c1cada (talk) 19:13, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Neurath

I removed the paragraph concerning Konstantin von Neurath and was summarily reverted by 92slim (talk · contribs) without a real explanation, so I'm starting a discussion here. I had two reasons for this edit, and I mentioned these in the summary:

1. The paragraph, as written, is almost word-for-word from the Independent story it referenced [17]. If nothing else, it needs to be substantially written because it's a copyright violation.
2. The referenced story does not actually place Neurath at the massacres. It simply notes that Neurath was attached to the Turkish 4th Army during the massacres with a monitoring role, and that Neurath later held high office in the Third Reich.

This paragraph argues by insinuation, as does the story. Neurath, while convinced of war crimes at Nuremburg, isn't considered a major figure in the Holocaust. He's not a major figure in the linked story, especially as none of the Germans in the photograph have been identified. Rudolf Hoess, who is a major figure in the Holocaust, is also mentioned but only that he served in Turkey in 1916. The article doesn't say in what capacity. There's not much to go on. Mackensen (talk) 14:05, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

@Mackensen (talk · contribs) I had edited Neurath out of the section. The paragraph that I edited stated that German officials commited massacres. It's not insinuation; it's written by Robert Fisk. Please, read before making an unjustified removal of information. --92slim (talk) 15:21, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree, it should go. As well as having undue weight issues, it is mostly a weasily-worded insinuation used as a substitution for presenting actual facts. Robert Fisk, regardless of his many good points, has a bad habit of doing this - writing about one thing simply as an excuse to attack a different thing, with generally that different thing being one of his personal bugbears. It is lazy and unprofessional writing, imho. Just because it is Fisk's opinion does not make it fit for inclusion into this article. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:26, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

"It is lazy and unprofessional writing" - I am not sure if that forwards your argument. Specially when talking about Robert Fisk. --92slim (talk) 15:31, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Saying it is not an insinuation when written by Robert Fisk does not advance your argument by much either. I have read the article and it is full of weasily-worded insinuations. The weasily-worded insinuation that some random unnamed soldiers photographed standing bedside some skulls are "just like those pictures the Nazis took of their soldiers posing before Jewish Holocaust victims a quarter of a century later" because some of them are Germans (or rather, might be Germans). The weasily-worded insinuation that because some of them are German this means that Germans participated in the mass killing of Armenians in 1915. The weasily-worded fake "Did the Germans participate in the mass killing of Christian Armenians in 1915?" question posed to readers, when Fisk's predetermined agenda already makes that question answered, regardless of the lack of evidence, regardless of even his own "Germans have been largely absolved of crimes against humanity" statement. And they are "Christian Armenians". Did the "non Christian Armenians" live happily ever after? Fisk goes on to mention Russian archives, and Russian photographs, neatly avoiding mentioning that those photographs are full of Russian soldiers standing next to the skulls of dead Armenians since they too must be "atrocity snapshots" according to his definition. And then he weasily cherry-picks out three names name from the roll of the tens of thousands of German soldiers who served in the territory of the Ottoman Empire because those 3 became notable for their criminal actions in WW2. The connection between that and the Armenian Genocide is never explained. He never makes any actual allegations - it is all just vague insinuation. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:48, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

"regardless of the lack of evidence" There is no lack of evidence. Sorry. "neatly avoiding mentioning that those photographs are full of Russian soldiers standing next to the skulls of dead Armenians" What are you talking about? This is not a discussion forum. There are blogs for that, perhaps. --92slim (talk) 17:51, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

It seems clear you know little about the subject. But even an ignorant person might think to go to the website of the organization mention in Fisk's article to see the photos and newspapers Fisk talks about, and notice that they are full of Russians standing next to the remains of the genocide victims they have come across during their advance against the Ottoman armies. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 18:44, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Speak for yourself. We are not here to send each other personal attacks on stupidity. Also, provide sources for your unfounded claims. --92slim (talk) 18:49, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

You are the one making the claims that are in the article. What evidence do you extract from Fisk's piece to support the claim that states Germans participated in the mass killing"? So what if some of those who were part of German forces operating inside the Ottoman empire during WW1 also participated in Nazi German forces during WW2? That is pointless and off-topic for this article. And please indent your posts in relation to what is above them if you are replying to what is above them - it is used to indicate which post you are replying to. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 18:53, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

I see that Хаченци (talk · contribs) has restored the contested section concerning Neurath; I don't see any consensus here to do that and, again, it's essentially a copyright violation as written. Furthermore, as I said above, it's argument by insinuation (by Fisk). The fact presented in Fisk's article is a photograph which shows German army officers at the site of a massacre. He acknowledges that we don't know who they are, not even what unit they were attached to. This photograph has nothing to do with Neurath, or Hoess, or anyone else. Mackensen (talk) 01:44, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Fisk's account of Neurath's involvement is also difficult to square with Isabel V. Hull's account in Absolute Destruction, which depicts him as a fairly minor diplomat and not complicit in genocide (see [18]). It's been years since I read Hull but I recall it being quite negative toward the Imperial German military establishment and it's already referenced once in this article. Mackensen (talk) 02:00, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

The statement about Neurath does not say he was guilty of Armenian or Jewish holocausts, it simply says he "played a role in the Nazi regime", which is obviously true. Neurath (together with Schulenburg) is often mentioned in the academical articles and books about AG. You can find more about his role here. If you think this is a copyright violation, we can of course change the statement slightly, but I can't see any reason we shouldn't mention him. --Хаченци (talk) 08:28, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

The paragraph is about German involvement in the genocide. Is he involved? How? The implication of the paragraph is that Neurath was involved, thus setting a pattern for his involvement in Nazi terror in Czechoslovakia and elsewhere. If that's the claim then a better source is needed. I've scanned through Gust and there's nothing in there that I saw to justify Fisk's charge, although perhaps I overlooked something. Mackensen (talk) 12:30, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it's a copyvio. The phrase "was attached to the Turkish 4th Army in 1915 with instructions to monitor "operations" against the Armenians" is lifted wholesale. Again, what does Fisk mean by this? Mackensen (talk) 12:34, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

You scanned Gust, but didn't see how Neurath was involved? Hmmm,,, Nothing on pages 86-91?

I'm not Mr. Fisk and can't answer what he means. In any case, if it is a copyvio, we can simply rewrite the text, to make it clear this is a verbatim phrase from Fisk. The pragaraph would look then like this

Photographs exist that may suggest the Germans participated in the mass killing. One photograph shows two unidentified German army officers standing amidst human remains. The discovery of this photograph prompted English journalist Robert Fisk to draw a direct line from the Armenian Genocide to the Holocaust. Fisk noted that some of the German witnesses to the Armenian holocaust would later go on to play a role in the Nazi regime. He writes, in particular, «Konstantin Freiherr von Neurath, for example, was attached to the Turkish 4th Army in 1915 with instructions to monitor "operations" against the Armenians; he later became Hitler's foreign minister and "Protector of Bohemia and Moravia" during Reinhard Heydrich's terror in Czechoslovakia. Friedrich Werner von der Schulenburg was consul at Erzerum from 1915-16 and later Hitler's ambassador to Moscow.». Хаченци (talk) 13:06, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

To be clear, when I use the word involved, I'm referring to the actual murder of Armenians. My problem with this whole paragraph is that it's a non-sequitur. It starts with a paragraph showing German army officers at the scene of a massacre, with the implication that they were involved in killing, although Fisk acknowledges there's no proof of that either. It then mentions Neurath, a consular official who was apparently attached to a Turkish formation at some point, and notes Neurath's later involvement in the Third Reich. Probably thousands of Germans were both in Turkey in 1915-1918 and then filled a role in the Third Reich. That's not a revelation. I could see mentioning Neurath in a paragraph discussing the foreign office, but in its current location it's very misleading. Mackensen (talk) 13:50, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Bad grammar.

"...systematic extermination of its minority Armenian subjects from their historic homeland..." The word "exterminate" is not used with "from".

Mr Anon, I'd be more concerned with "from their historic homeland". It is a bit of a pov phrase anyway, but if it means the area of historical Armenia and of Armenian Cilicia, "historic homeland" excludes the parts of the Ottoman empire where most of its Armenian population lived and where most of the Armenian Genocide's victims came from. Such as Sivas. Kayseri, Diyarbekir, Silvan, Harput, Mezirfon, Samsun, Malatya, Ankara, Konya, etc. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 17:27, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

""historic homeland" excludes the parts of the Ottoman empire where most of its Armenian" No, it doesn't. As I referenced above, this is not a discussion forum. --92slim (talk) 17:51, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes it does. Ankara was never part of historical Armenia, Sivas was never part of historical Armenia, Konya was never a part of historical Armenia, Malatya was never part of historical Armenia, etc., yet all suffered massacres of its Armenian populations. Nor can the Ottoman Empire taken as a whole be described as the "historic homeland" of Armenians. This phrase is one of the many examples of lazy inaccuracy in language and content found in the article. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 18:39, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

"Malatya was not part""Sivas was not part" Alright Sir. Proven wrong again. From the article of Malatya:

It was a major center in Lesser Armenia (P'ok'r Hayk'), remaining so until the end of the fourth century A.D. Emperor Theodosius I divided the region into two provinces: First Armenia (Hayk'), with its capital at Sebasteia (modern Sivas); and Second Armenia, with its capital at Melitene.

--92slim (talk) 18:46, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

You are confusing the geographical term "Armenia" as used by the Roman Empire with the area actually lived in by Armenians. Consult suitable sources and you will find they say the majority population of "lesser Armenia", or its administrative subsections 1st / 2md / 3rd / 4th Armenia, was not actually Armenian. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 18:57, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

92slim needs reminding that Wikipedia is not a source and that quoting unreferenced content taken from Wikipedia articles is not something that gains respect in a discussion. The amount of Armenia-related crap and misinformation on Wikipedia is unbelievable. Time to fact tag the unreferenced stuff in those articles with a view to eventually deleting some of the rubbish. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:01, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Nice personal attacks. So you claim that Roman Armenia was not Armenia, and there were no Armenians there, because Roman sources are not suitable. Yawn. --92slim (talk) 19:07, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Sigh. There were a variety of Roman and Byzantine provinces with the name Armenia in them - that word "Armenia" is a geographical term, not an ethnic term. Your understanding seems at the same level as that of the ignorant Turkish nationalists who ban maps with the names of Roman provinces on them because they think they are irredentist Armenian propaganda (see p86 in Dalrymple's "From the Holy Mountain"). Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:28, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

"that word "Armenia" is a geographical term, not an ethnic term" Wrong. Come again. I am truly waiting to see the oncoming explanation for your claim that the Armenians are not Armenians. --92slim (talk) 21:36, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

But a literate person stops reading when the author displays illiteracy. Would you say, "John Doe was killed from his city"? You can say "banished from", "expelled from", "ejected from", but you can't say "killed from", "murdered from", "exterminated from". I have no interest in the content of a phrase embedded in sentence with a glaring grammatical mistake. When the sentence is made readable, then I might care about what it says. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.147.135.3 (talk) 17:26, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Exactly. --92slim (talk) 17:51, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

"Definition of the word genocide"

Strangely, the section with the title "Definition of the word genocide" does not contain a definition of the word "genocide". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.147.135.3 (talk • contribs) 6 November 2024

I can't think of a good reason why the article should contain such a section anyway - this isn't a dictionary, and even it was, the definition would go in the genocide article, not here. And renaming the section 'origins of the word genocide' doesn't particularly solve the problem. Clearly there is a debate as to whether the events described in the article meet specific definitions of 'genocide' - maybe the section title should be 'applicability of the term genocide', though even that doesn't really fit what the section is discussing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:29, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

"Clearly there is a debate as to whether the events described in the article meet specific definitions of 'genocide'" - Ok, from the beginning. A Polish man named Raphael Lemkin invented a word called genocide. He claims he invented it to describe what happened to the Armenians in the Ottoman Empire, in a live television interview. Please, read the section - you'll understand the futility of arguing here. --92slim (talk) 18:41, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

@92slim: and AndyTheGrump (talk · contribs) I appreciate your good faith efforts in improving this article. Personally, I think this article needs to be shortened. I'm fine with trimming that section the IP talks about here. After all, we don't need a a 1000+ word section on just a word. Much of that information can be merged into the Genocide article. Also, I'd rather delete paragraphs from that section and add more on the section pertaining to Witnesses. That's much important into the study in this particular genocide, rather than a investigation into the origin of the word genocide itself. Étienne Dolet (talk) 19:02, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Also, I'd like to say that I am myself to blame for expanding this article. But my expansion was to something I think is very important, especially in recent Armenian Genocide scholarship: the witnesses and testimonies of Turkish politicians and public figures. That section was really small, it needed serious expansion. Étienne Dolet (talk) 19:06, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

You have a point in your argument, in that this particular section (about the actual word) has too many unrelated details. I support the trimming as well. --92slim (talk) 19:12, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

The origin of the word genocide.

I'm going to begin the trimming process. You're welcome to trim as well, or provide any additional input. Étienne Dolet (talk) 19:46, 12 April 2015 (UTC)\

@92slim: and @AndyTheGrump:...should we add this video to that section? What you think? Étienne Dolet (talk) 19:52, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, @EtienneDolet:. I support adding the video, as the section was neither clear nor concise. The information needs to be shortened and clear to the reader. --92slim (talk) 21:06, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Oppose, there is far far too much in the article already. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 22:42, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

What do you mean by there is far far too much in the article already? --92slim (talk) 00:58, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

We're in the process of trimming it down so I don't think that'll be a problem, at least not so much of a problem. Étienne Dolet (talk) 05:22, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Britannica

Britannica changed "In response, the Turkish government ordered the deportation of about 1,750,000 Armenians to Syria and Mesopotamia. In the course of this forced exodus, about 600,000 Armenians died of starvation or were killed by Turkish soldiers and police while en route in the desert. (See Researcher's Note: Armenian massacres.) Hundreds of thousands more were forced into exile." to "In the course of that forced exodus, hundreds of thousands of Armenians died of starvation or were killed by soldiers and police while en route in the desert. Estimates of the total death toll generally range from 600,000 to 1,500,000. (See also Researcher’s Note.) Hundreds of thousands more were forced into exile."

The article "Armenian massacres" was rename to "Armenian Genocide" - [19]. Divot (talk) 23:23, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Reverting edits on the grounds they aren't very informative

Étienne (Personal attack removed) has taken to trimming his edits on the grounds that common folk might find them too hard to understand: "though important, this sentence is too long and might be too technical for a common reader". When I obliged by simplifying the sentence, making it comprehensible even to total dooshes like the rest of us always assuming of course we have a basic grasp of the lingo in the first place, Étienne still didn't care for that service either. It seems that what was bothering him all along was that quoting articles of the Ottoman Criminal Code is not something common folk need bother their arses about: "citing sections of the Ottoman Code of Criminal Procedure is too technical for the common readership and doesn't provide much vital info either".

Well of course that's all very hurtful indeed. I laboured long and hard to make this edit available to the common masses. Still, "win some, lose some" eh Étienne?

But yet ... why in that case did Étienne make exactly this edit at Turkish courts-martial of 1919–20 two days ago, sections of criminal code and all: "added information about the mazhar commission"?

If someone can explain this conundrum to me satisfactorily, i.e is why I should pay the slightest bit of attention to this nonsense at all, I shall be happy to removes the offending articles of the Ottoman Criminal Code when I restore the edit tomorrow evening. Otherwise I shall retain them. c1cada (talk) 20:44, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

I added that information myself back when I thought it be necessary to highlight the Ottoman government's view of the events. However, seeing that this article has been getting longer and longer, it's best to trim the more detailed parts down. The Ottoman Code of Criminal Procedure, and its specific sections (47, 75, and 87), is not really necessary information for an article about the Armenian Genocide in general. It may be important, but it's too technical. The masses who come to this article would like to learn about the Armenian Genocide in general. So it's best to trim the technical details and retain the more important parts. I don't regret adding it to the Turkish courts-martial of 1919–20 article because technical matters concerning the trials is more relevant there. It also appears that you didn't labour "long and hard". Your edit didn't even change a word: ([20] to [21]).

Also, please stop poking fun of my English. It's irrelevant to the betterment of the article. Thanks! Étienne Dolet (talk) 23:21, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

When you edit at Wikipedia you "irrevocably release your contribution". In simple English, you no longer own it. Your reversion of my copy edit (it was a copy edit - I split the sentence and did other stuff) is unwarranted and I propose to restore it. You will simply make yourself more ridiculous reverting an edit you essentially made yourself in two separate articles. There is no reasons why articles of the Ottoman Criminal Code shouldn't be quoted. Articles in other bodies of laws are frequently quoted in Wikipeda, for example the American Constitution and European Law. c1cada (talk) 23:47, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

I restored it and Dr.K. then kindly brought it to a state of doosh perfection by cutting out the pedantry. I also restored another revert which had the effect of deleting the article's only link to Grace Knapp. The issue was the length of the caption in an image and that was easily dealt with by citing her as the eyewitness. c1cada (talk) 23:57, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't wish to be a desperate pedant (flip no), but when Dr.K. rewrote the section header "grounds of" rather than "ground of" I originally had, that wasn't really a grammatical slip (I had "grounds" in the body). It's used in legal documents when referring to a single ground and it was just a slip on my part, though you do sometimes see it outside its strictly legal usage: for example Ethel Rosenberg used the phrase "I refuse to answer on the ground that this might be incriminating" in her trial for espionage. Just mentioning. c1cada (talk) 00:14, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Dr.K.'s edit addresses my concerns regarding the sections. C1cada's proposal, unfortunately, does not. Therefore, I am in support of Dr.K.'s modification. Also, please stop the edit-warring. It's a 1RR article, and you may get blocked. Étienne Dolet (talk) 00:18, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

You're being rather humourless about this. I restored that edit of yours in the first place because I thought it was valuable (really). It did however need a copy edit (as so much of this article does). When a sentence is too long, as you initially complained, the answer is to split it and that's what I did. I took the Ottoman Criminal Code on good faith, but Dr. K. is quite right - it's very obscure, although Ottoman law does have its points of interest. Another revert I restored was to keep Grace Knapp (and the accompanying valuable citations which much have taken a certain amount of trouble to provide) in the article: a moment's thought showed how to do that without unnecessarily lengthening an image caption. That's not edit warring. c1cada (talk) 00:46, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you guys. I'm glad we were able to find common ground. Best regards. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 00:53, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

And you Dr. K. An admirer. c1cada (talk) 00:59, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Again, C1cada, your edit did not resolve the concerns I have raised here regarding the sections 47, 75, and 87. Your supposed copy-edited version was nothing but repackaged version of the initial version that still retained the concerns I've raised. My complaint about the sentence was that the sections of the Ottoman Code of Criminal Procedure were too technical, and that other matters related to that tidbit of information may have been incomprehensible for an average reader. But you insisted to maintain the sections of the Ottoman Code of Criminal Procedure, and therefore, your proposal was still problematic to that effect. In other words, it's either Dr.K.'s modification for me, or nothing at all. There's no need to talk about this anymore. Étienne Dolet (talk) 01:05, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Etienne, I think c1cada has agreed to the copyedit I made. I don't think they insist on enumerating the numbered sections any longer. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 01:20, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @c1cada: Thank you very much c1cada for the courtesy and very nice compliment, although I'm afraid you have set the bar (no pun intended) rather high. :) Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 01:20, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes Doctor, that's what I've been saying from the beginning. But those sections kept returning over and over again with supposed modified editions. Oh well, I guess that's old news now. Étienne Dolet (talk) 01:23, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Étienne, the edit you are complaining about was originally made by you [22]. It was very badly written and all I was doing was rescuing it. c1cada (talk) 01:40, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

"There is no reasons why articles of the Ottoman Criminal Code shouldn't be quoted." - C1cada Étienne Dolet (talk) 01:57, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I think this is the first time I see editors arguing about edits they both essentially agree with or at least they agreed with at some time. Perhaps it is time we just agreed to agree, at least on moving on? Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 03:04, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but the underlying issue issue here is the pressing need for copy editing at this article. Copy editing a Wikipedia article would be extremely high on the list of 100 things I don't plan to do before I die, but I'm willing to do my bit. On the other hand, if editors are going to be reverted and harassed every time they attempt a copy edit, then I can't see that this article is ever going to reach good article status. I repeat, of the two reverts I made at this article, one was to rescue this edit of Étienne's and the other was to restore an interesting and valuable link to Grace Knapp. That's not edit warring and to be threatened with a block by Étienne is outrageous. As for the Ottoman Criminal Code introduced by Étienne (which I see he's restored at the courts-martial article), I took it on good faith that the relevant articles were in fact readily available for inspection on the web. It turns they are not. If they were, there would be absolutely no reason why they shouldn't be quoted. I for one find that kind of thing exceptionally interesting. c1cada (talk) 07:59, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

@Dr.K.: And in fact Étienne has once again removed the link to Grace Knapp with it's valuable citations [23]. That's wilfully gratuitous because what was at issue apparently was the length of the caption in a thumbnail (no longer as it happens then many others in the article), yet my restoration shortened the existing caption. It's frankly too unpleasant to continue here. I shall take the Grace Knapp citations to her article. c1cada (talk) 08:14, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

To illustrate the scale of copy editing required at this article, readers might care to glance at this copy edit I've just made. That was in a single paragraph visited by an editor here correcting grammar shortly before. c1cada (talk) 08:55, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Re Grace Knapp: WP:OWNERSHIP issues?

Grace Knapp is a notable figure in the history of the Armenian Genocide. She wrote two eyewitness account of the genocides and her account of the massacres at Bitlis is one of the few available.

This article used to have a link to her as part of a caption in an image of the Varagavank monastery in the " Cultural loss" section. She was an eyewitness to its destruction. With that link came two valuable citations. It was plainly an edit of considerable educational value (EV).

It was reverted by an editor here with the edit summary "though important, this sentence is too long and might be too technical for a common reader". The caption was now prefaced with "According to eyewitness accounts ..." and reference to Grace Knapp and its citations deleted.

I restored the edit on the grounds it was better before. That was reverted a few hours later on the grounds "Best to keep captions short". After posting on this page above on another issue involving copy-editing, and after waiting response and observing a time period of some 36 hours so that the one revert per day rule was comfortably observed, I restored the wikilink to Grace Knapp and its citations with an edit that in fact reduced the caption length. This, however, was reverted by Étienne Dolet, less than six hours later with the edit summary "Grace Knapp wasn't the only one who witnessed this event. If we name everyone who did, it'll be considerably long". At the same time the editor threatened me with a block for edit warring: "... please stop the edit-warring. It's a 1RR article, and you may get blocked."

Of course there's no reason at all why that caption shouldn't link an eyewitness account from a figure as notable as Grace Knapp, and every reason to do it (EV, the graph).

I pose the question: is there a WP:OWNERSHIP issue here?

It does seem to me to be a question, because the original editor supplying the image and the caption wikilinking Grace Knapp was in fact Étienne, and for good measure he subsequently shortened the caption by a word or two, presumably to his satisfaction. It's hard not to get the impression that he regards the article as his personal fiefdom, to be tweaked and bettered (or not) as he pleases, no intrusions brooked.

I shall wait 72 hours for input here, and then I propose to restore (if it has not already been restored) Étienne's valuable and useful edit. Frankly, I think I deserve an apology. c1cada (talk) 14:12, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Again, you have not attempted to respond to my edit-summary. Grace Knapp was not the only person to witness that particular incident. There's no reason why her account should be singled out as if it's the only account that matters. Étienne Dolet (talk) 15:05, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

The additional info does not seem especially needed to me, not even as a reference for the caption. The best place to have it would be in the Varagavank article to which the caption is wikilinked. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:58, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Concerning this obvious systemic bias of the article !

I myself look at this article as a most clear example of what a "systemic bias" could be. Since the article is heavily propagating the claims that an "Armenian Genocide" has occurred and under-representing the counterarguments which falsify these claims, I myself was going to tag the article with Template:Systemic bias such as the following: Template:Systemic bias The number of Muslim Turks who were massacred because of their faith by Armenian-Russian-Greek gangs in late 19th & early 20th exceed 5 millions for sure. Total Muslim deaths and refugees during these centuries are estimated to be several millions. It is estimated that during the last decade of the Ottoman Empire (1912-1922) when the Balkan wars, WWI and war of Independence took place, close to 2 million Muslims, civilian and military, died in the area of modern Turkey. According to the American historian Justin McCarthy, between the years 1821–1922, from the beginning of the Greek War of Independence to the end of the Ottoman Empire, five million Muslims were driven from their lands and another five and one-half million died, some of them killed in wars, others perishing as refugees from starvation or disease. In the discussion about the Armenian Genocide, McCarthy denies the genocide and is considered as the leading pro-Turkish scholar.--95.141.20.198 (talk) 21:20, 20 April 2015 (UTC) Just because the Turks are Muslims while the Armenians are not, doesn't give a reason to ignore the millions of the Turks who were killed in the same period of time.--95.141.20.198 (talk) 21:29, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello IP and welcome on behalf of the little people also editing at Armenian Genocide. I understand your issues, but I'm afraid with the best of good faith this is an article on the Armenian Genocide and, frankly, a systemic bias is inevitable. But I'll check those references of yours and perhaps edit elsewhere about the issues you raise. c1cada (talk) 21:48, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

There is no systemic bias. You have answered the concerns with your post. I will help; you have stated that "It is estimated that during the last decade of the Ottoman Empire (1912-1922) when the Balkan wars, WWI and war of Independence (NOTE: Refers to the Turkish War of Independence, not the Greek one), close to 2 million Muslims, civilian and military, died in the area of modern Turkey" "According to the American historian Justin McCarthy, between the years 1821–1922, from the beginning of the Greek War of Independence to the end of the Ottoman Empire, five million Muslims were driven from their lands and another five and one-half million died, some of them killed in wars, others perishing as refugees from starvation or disease." During the Balkan Wars and the Population exchange between Greece and Turkey, Muslims were killed. It's unrelated to the Armenian Genocide, as Ottoman Armenians didn't actively participate in WWI; they were discharged from the Ottoman Army. Concerning the numbers: you said in the beginning "the number of Muslim Turks who were massacred because of their faith by Armenian-Russian-Greek gangs in late 19th & early 20th exceed 5 millions for sure.". I will kindly add that this is unsupported by reliable sources. Owen said 2 million. And that is during the span of 10 years (1912-1922). McCarthy said 10 million. And that is...between the years 1821–1922 (100 years - you have stated it), from the beginning of the Greek War of Independence to the end of the Ottoman Empire; that means you just made a POV claim. The numbers used by McCarthy refer to Muslims (Ottoman Muslim subjects) massacred at wars with Russia, Persia, Greece, Serbia, and countries that broke away from the Ottoman Empire, definitely not "Armenian-Russian-Greek gangs". Note that the Genocide took place in 1 year. Spare the rest; the POV tag is definitely an insult to the victims. --92slim (talk) 23:41, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

The history of human aggression against other humans is lamentable, but it is not unanalyzable. The word "genocide" does not simply mean "someone killing someone else because of his or her ethnic group." Deaths which result from wars between (say) Serbian Christians and Muslim Turks, which have been ongoing for over a thousand years, are not necessarily genocidal, even if ethnically based, or even if at particular moments individual campaigns have been genocidal. "Genocide" has a definition, which most scholars say fits what happened to the Armenians in Anatolia 100 years ago. If you want to claim that what you talk about was also "genocide", fine, find a scholarly source, and go to the article Genocide and add it there. The Armenians would be the first to admit that theirs was not the only genocide that ever occurred. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richardson mcphillips (talk • contribs) 18:29, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Which victims are you concerned about? The 10 million Turks (mostly unarmed civilians) who were either massacred or deported because of their faith & ethnicity or the 500,000-1 million Armenians who were simply deported (without any act of massacring)?--95.141.20.198 (talk) 19:35, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I am concerned about all victims. I hope that if there are no Wiki articles for genocides that you are aware of, that you will go and start them. That would be a good thing. I also encourage you to initiate a section in this current article called "denial of genocide" or some such thing, with good sources. But be sure to go to the Wiki article Genocide and read that - perhaps that is where your fundamental disagreement is. Richardson mcphillips (talk) 20:27, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Nice propaganda there. 10 million Turks massacred "between 1821-1922" and 1 million Armenians massacred (not simply deported) in 1915 alone is a big proportional difference, as a matter of fact. --92slim (talk) 23:28, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I propose that this entire section should be deleted as off-topic. The OP created it as a substitute for his/her inability to place the Systematic Bias tag in the article, and as a substitute to placing valid justifications for that tag. This already over-extended talk page is not a suitable forum for other articles / other subjects discussions, and the OP has read the advice given so there is no reason to keep it. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:08, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Not bothered one way or the other. Loads of space on the servers and it is not emitting CO₂... well the recording of it anyway, though I can imagine the creation of it might well have been accompanied by copious venting of the stuff. c1cada (talk) 21:33, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

1920-1923 reprise

It's common ground that there was a reprise in the massacres in the period 1920-1923. Yet I can find no mention of these in the article, certainly not given the prominence one would expect with an article of this scope..

However that poses a problem with the lede where it says:

The genocide was carried out during and after World War I and implemented in two phases: the wholesale killing of the able-bodied male population through massacre and subjection of army conscripts to forced labour, followed by the deportation of women, children, the elderly and infirm on death marches leading to the Syrian desert.

By convention the lede introduces material dealt with in the body of the article, but as I say there seems to be no significant mention, if any mention at all, of the massacres known to have occurred after the end of World War I. Moreover the lede must be understood as saying that the massacres after the end of World War were also implemented in two phases, but I don't believe that is so. Moreover if the massacres that occurred in the reprise 1920-1923 are to be characterised as a genocide in its legal sense as a systematic state-planned attempt to exterminate the entire Armenian population, then that needs to be cited from good quality secondary sources.

Inevitably this article will be consulted during the upcoming 24th April commemoration. I do feel this lacuna needs filling before then. I have to say that, whereas I would be normally happy to give of my considerable expertise and my time, I'm not prepared to do so until the pecking order is sorted out here. c1cada (talk) 21:35, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I deleted "and after" from the lede. I should be happy to contribute to a "1920-1923 reprise" section, but I'm not prepared to give more of time until the ownership issue I allude to above has been resolved and I receive an apology for my treatment here (threat of a block). c1cada (talk) 09:58, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry for your experience here, it could be a misunderstanding. The reprise is considered by many historians to be part of the Genocide, and to remove it from the article would be an insult to the victims. --92slim (talk) 11:16, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Most historians consider the reprise part of the Armenian Genocide. If you're interested in my own private views, I happen to consider all the massacres 1894-1923 to be part of the Armenian Genocide.

Regarding the lede, material there should be addressed in the article body. Your recent citations that you placed in the lede were reverted precisely for that reason - that they were better placed in the main body of the article. Presently the reprise is not addressed in the article and that is why I deleted "and after" [World War I], especially as it suggests the genocide (in its legal sense) continued past 1916.

This needs to be sorted before the commemoration. Because of the revert rules and the threat of a block made against me, I'm not prepared to intervene immediately. But if this issue is not sorted adequately by 23 April at the end of the 72 hour period I mention above, I shall intervene again.

I don't believe I'm labouring under any misunderstanding regarding the single purpose editing and ownership issues here. If they continue to imping on me, then I really don't see I have any alternative but to seek oversight. c1cada (talk) 12:00, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

It's not my goal to patronize you. This is just a wrong impression of yours. Understand that I'm not against your edit, you can revert this phrase as far as I'm concerned. But I'm not sure if it's the best idea to modify it, because, as you've rightly pointed out, it did last after the WWI. To which extent, I'm not sure; it could be corroborated by other sources. --92slim (talk) 14:46, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Please don't bring our Talk page interactions here. Please familiarize yourself with the Wikipedia edit issue at stake. The "and after" phrase in the lede should certainly be deleted in the present state of the article (this evening I shall research how it first appeared). I can't do that because in the first place that would be edit warring, and secondly because I'm threatened with a block from a long-standing editor here who appears to have administrator approval. The least you could do, and I assume it will not be much of a task for you given your evident expertise, is to provide a section about the 1920-1923 reprise and then edit the lede so that it doesn't suggest the forced marches continued past the First World War (it's another defect of the article that it doesn't make clear when the deportations ceased), and above all that it doesn't suggest the genocide (in the legal sense) continued after 1916 past the end of the First World War. If you can't do that, then I suggest you self-revert your edit. c1cada (talk) 15:13, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

The relevant section of the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section is as follows:

Apart from trivial basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article.

That the massacres continued after the end of Word War I is not a trivial fact and that these latter massacres also constitute a genocide in its legal sense is not acknowledged.

Please don't leave this matter unattended. c1cada (talk) 17:51, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Please see the "Mass killings continued under the Republic of Turkey during the Turkish–Armenian War phase of Turkish War of Independence." bit. I do believe that's suffice to say that massacres continued after WW1. Étienne Dolet (talk) 19:43, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

No it's not sufficient, Étienne. It's in a section "Armenian population, deaths, survivors, 1914 to 1918" but we are concerned with events afer 1918. It doesn't address the question of deportations and genocide implied after the end of World War I (surely your comprehension skills are adequate to see that) and there's not sufficient weight to justify the mention in the lede. In short the reader is misled. Once again I wonder whether you indeed really do think me stupid. This needs sorting, Étienne. c1cada (talk) 20:55, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the origin of the edit "The genocide was carried out during and after World War I ...", originally the copy read "just after the end" and referred to "systematic killings". Thus 10 July 2012 revision is typical:

• The Armenian Genocide was the systematic killing of the Armenian population of the Ottoman Empire during and just after World War I.

However neither of the citations provided (IAGS 1997, UN Whitaker 1982) record the genocide as continuing until just after the end of World War I.

This edit on 17 July 2012 ("To tighten focus and add specificity") deleted the qualifier "just" so that the copy now read "It took place during and after World War I ..." and now referred to "systematic extermination" rather than "systematic killing".

On 17 August 2012, an editor attempted to restore the previous lede ("Restoring the original, reasonably well-crafted introduction that had been mangled and propagandised by <redacted>)". This was reverted within the hour by <redacted> "because of no basis in discussion for replacement with earlier version". This in turn was reverted back 22 August 2012 "Revert to restore cited content and remove inaccurate content that had been given fake citations. See "Disruptive edits by <redacted>" in the talk page". Two hours later we get "Reversion of erroneous, unsupported edit ..." from <redacted>, and this won the day as far as the edit we are concerned with here.

Finally, on 2 June 2014 an editor replaced the pronoun "it" by "genocide" ("To refine logical order in the initial paragraph") so that the edit read:

• ... was the Ottoman government's systematic extermination of its minority Armenian subjects from their historic homeland in the territory constituting the present-day Republic of Turkey during and after World War I. The starting date of the genocide is conventionally held to be 24 April 1915, the day Ottoman authorities rounded up and arrested some 250 Armenian intellectuals and community leaders in Constantinople. The genocide was implemented in two phases ...

This last edit is in conformity with the facts and what is acknowledged regarding the genocide (note it's not saying the genocide continued after World War I).

Unfortunately the same editor the following day refined his edit ("To refine the use of "genocide" and other style issues in the initial paragraph") to arrive at

• The genocide was carried out during and after World War I and implemented in two phases ...

which is not in conformity with the facts nor acknowledged regarding the claim of genocide after the end of World War I.

I would say there are two factors at work here, inadequate language skills and sloppy oversight.

Will the world pay any attention to Wikipedia's showcase Armenian Genocide article on 24 April? Frankly I wonder, but in case it does I cordially countenance my esteemed colleagues to do something about this before then. I can't because Étienne will block me. c1cada (talk) 20:55, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

After reading your 4,000+ character response, I've realized that much of it is irrelevant to this discussion. Please, let's keep things short. As for the issue in question, I must remind you that the Turkish War of Independence occurred after World War 1, and so did the massacres that accompanied that war. Therefore, we can't simply say that WW1 was the only period in which systematic massacres took place. That'll be contrary to what the academic community supports in that regard. Étienne Dolet (talk) 05:52, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Wait until you see the 400,000 word book, Étienne ... . Meanwhile you are not addressing the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section issue I highlight. That "The genocide was carried out during and after World War I and implemented in two phases ..." edit seriously misleads the reader (I dare say it was responsible for the "eight years of genocide" that crept into the POTD caption, which you defended at the POTD Template Talk page with an OR wall of text certainly exceeding 4,000+ characters). Fix it before tomorrow afternoon, or I will. c1cada (talk) 10:29, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Done. c1cada (talk) 14:47, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, had to revert. There was no WP:CONSENSUS to that wording. Propose the wording first, then we'll see what the community says. Étienne Dolet (talk) 16:13, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Your edits of good faith regarding the Turkish Republic needs to be discussed. The Turkish nationalist forces actually had a government in Ankara by the time of the Turkish-Armenian War. This government was replete with cabinet ministers and a president. So it wasn't just an army. Étienne Dolet (talk) 16:58, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Good faith eh? Nothing needs to be discussed about a republic that didn't exist at the time. c1cada (talk) 17:11, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

And you also reverted me on "historic homeland". What did you mean in your edit summary by "Also, 'historic homeland' can be outside Western Armenia too". That is exactly the point, Étienne. There wwas an Eastern part, the Caucasus, which the Turkish army tried to appropriate post Word War I. But that Eastern part does not lie within Turkey's present day borders as the article claims. Left unsaid, but I'll say it now, that it is of course laughable that such an elementary error of fact in the very first sentence of the lede survived for so long. One has to wonder why that might be. Do we really have to get your permission here to distinguish East from West, Étienne. c1cada (talk) 17:23, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Historical homeland refers to the homeland that Armenians lived historically. This doesn't have to be Western Armenia. It can be Izmir, Sivas, and Ankara as well, which were all outside the territorial integrity of Western Armenia. Étienne Dolet (talk) 17:28, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

600,000+ Armenians lived in their historical homeland in Western Armenia in the Caucasus, of which at least 60,000 were subsequently massacred during the Armenian Genocide. Which bits of the Cauacasus lie in present day Turkey? (Personal attack removed) Anyway I'm off to watch a bit of Game of Thrones now. For strictly financial reasons I have to watch all 50+ episodes before the end of the month, which as it turns out is quite a pleasant task. I'm surprised because usually I glaze over after a couple of episodes in a box set. The sex is absolutely dreadful of course and I fast forward there as much as I can, but the violence is totally brilliant. Back later. Ciao (whatever). c1cada (talk) 17:48, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

No you didn't have to revert, Étienne. I clearly explained the issue (it is essentially a copy edit issue and a Wikipedia MOS edit issue regarding the lead). I explained I was unwilling to spend the time to deal with it myself, especially considering the very discourteous manner I have been dealt with you in the matter of reverts and so on. I gave the editors time here to make the necessary adjustments, and when they didn't I stepped in, spending time (and money) on providing the edit. As it now stand, this article will enter the centenary commemoration with fundamental flaws of both copy and fact in its lead, and lacking an adequate description of the massacres after the end of World War I, and that is entirely your doing. It is not even as if my edits deny the genocide (you have accused me of being complicit in the Armenian genocide) you are so anxious to champion. My edit concerning the massacres after World War I came as close as the sources allow to describe those also as genocide. There was no need to seek a consensus about the wording as there had not previously been an edit provided about the massacres after the end of World War I, except for a single sentence misplaced in the wrong section and containing a laughable error of historical fact. You should regard my edit about the massacres after the end of World War I as WP:BOLD. You are entitled to revert if you take exception to details in it, but I don't see that here. What is your problem with the edit? As for the lead edit I made, that is essentially a copy edit and a Wikipedia MOS issue as detailed closely above and I don't require consensus to act there either. c1cada (talk) 17:11, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Under that logic, we shouldn't be accusing the Turkish government of genocide today because the Republic didn't exist at that time.

Would you care to clarify on that Étienne? You have already accused me of complicity in the genocide. Now it seems that the present day Turkish government is enaged in an ongoing genocide as well?

Later tonight I will restore your excellent Grace Knapp edit (which you made without consensus ...). Perhaps you would care to do me the same service?

How nice it would be on the commemoration day for Wikipedia to showcase an article demonstrating its strengths. c1cada (talk) 17:31, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I never accused you of complicity in genocide. The Armenian Genocide lasted until 1923, with the establishment of a Republic. But the Turkish government, as we know of it today, was well intact before then. To merely say that the mass killings were under an irregular army, and not under an army operating under a government, is to misrepresent sources, and mislead readers. Étienne Dolet (talk) 17:35, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

But it wasn't a republic. You said it. And I didn't say the massacres were committed by an irregular army. I used the phrase "Turkish army" per my source. Straw man. c1cada (talk) 17:54, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

You didn't propose your edit. You merely went ahead and unilaterally edited it to your liking. I still suggest you propose it first, then we can make arrangements through WP:CONSENSUS. Remember, this article is under discretionary sanctions and 1RR restrictions. It's unlike most articles in Wikipedia. In other words, we should be careful about what we add here.

As for that discussion above, there was no definitive conclusion to it. In fact, it appears that more users wanted to have the current wording remain as such. Étienne Dolet (talk) 17:22, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Figure of Four Million

My heart and respect goes out to the victims as the 100th anniversary approaches. Having done more research online, I notice a partial discrepancy between several wikipedia pages. The file [[24]] is a poster stating, "The frank story of Aurora Mardiganian who survived while four millions [sic] perished" The image file appears in Ravished_Armenia which is her book, but it appears to possibly be not a cover of her book but a poster for an American film Ravished_Armenia_(film) based on it. It seems to be there are at least these two possibilities:

• If the figure of 4 million is credible or at least plausible (meaning, not 100% certain but not ruled out) then it seems that it should, at the very least, be included in this article on the Armenian Genocide, rather than only "The total number of people killed during the genocide has been estimated at between 1 and 1.5" million

• On the other hand, it appears not to be a figure given in that poster but not in her book. If it is not accurate, then it should be made very clear to readers (so that it is not used to attack the entire idea of the Armenian Genocide) in that case, that the mistakenly large figure came from an American film, and not from this Armenian woman. That this might be the case is suggested by searching books.google.com [25] for the book and then searching within it for the word "million" A few pages matching that word are not displaying so I cannot see them, but those that I do see numbers that agree with the present article, things like "Title: The last survivor of a million Christian girls" and "it is estimated that there were some two million Armenians living in Turkey as of 1915. Half of them were killed.." indicating an estimate of 1 million and thus within the range the opening of this article gives. In this case it should be clarified that there was an inaccuracy coming from (probably well intentioned) Hollywood, that is, that this error did not come from this Armenian woman's book but from the film.

For those who may feel this can be ignored by the article, I disagree for several reasons. First, it is a notable film. Second, it was released in restored version in 2009 -- Ravished_Armenia_(film)#Reception -- and apparently a copy is on youtube (though I need to look at it).

Thirdly, I can't be the only person who investigates on wikipedia, and finds is confusing and troubling that there is one article (maybe more) with a prominent poster stating "4 million" while another, the main one, gives a different figure. For these reasons something should be put in or the contradiction addressed in some other way.

This will need to be done delicately so as not to give ammunition to those who deny the whole thing, but ignoring it only gives them far more ammunition (you can think of examples yourself of other historical crimes) where they leap on one single exaggerated number from one source and point at it over and over again, claiming (falsely) that it came from the main scholars, rather than (as appears to be the case here) from a film. Having alerted those who frequent this page, I will leave it to them to find consensus. Harelx (talk) 04:52, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

@Harelx: I appreciate your good faith effort to help better this article. The four million figure from the Ravished Armenia poster can hardly be taken seriously. The number of Armenians living in the Ottoman Empire was at most 2 million. I'd say that poster is nothing more than an advertising gimmick to draw in more interest. On the other hand, we use the estimations provided by the academic and scholarly community, as is recommended by Wikipedia guidelines. Étienne Dolet (talk) 05:49, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

@Harelx: Hi Harelx and welcome to Armenian Genocide from the little folk who also edit there. There's a still from Ravaged Armenia in the section Portrayal in the media. If that's right about a figure of four million fatalities given by the film, then I see no reason why that shouldn't be mentioned in the blurp. If Étienne gives you grief over it, let me know! c1cada (talk) 13:15, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

If one includes the contemporaneous Greek and Assyrian genocides, they get another million to million and a half deaths. If the best modern estimates are two to three million total killed in the genocides, that a 1919 estimate, made while much of the region was still a warzone, is four million, well, that's a very good estimate. WilyD 13:38, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that might well be so. The International Association of Genocide Scholars (IAGS] extended the genocide to include Armenians, Assyrians, and Pontian and Anatolian Greeks, and dates these genocides to 1914 - 1923 in their 13 July 2007 resolution. That may very well bring the total to four million. Note, however, that on the issue of the Armenian genocide, IAGS continues to acknowledge genocide only in the years 1915-1916, the year of the death marches. The historical record is that the massacres continued until shortly after the end of the First Word War and then broke out again in 1920-1923, but these are not acknowledged as genocide proper. c1cada (talk) 14:35, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

@C1cada: (I hope I typed that in correctly by hand, I don't have fancy tools to ping people), thanks. What I am suggesting is one of two things (I tried to use numbered list with # sign but both showed "1" instead of "1" and "2" so I used the asterisk symbol as two bullet points) but there are the two possible cases.

In the one case, if the figure is "clearly wrong" then I am urging people to a) at the very least say so in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ravished_Armenia and b) Possible state also here that there were some early inaccurate estimates (or, that it's a figure which counted things beyond the "Armenian genocide proper" as I think one editor phrased it)

Or else, in the other case, were 3-4 million is "possible" then it should be mentioned in this article.

Either of these two cases would require (at least a short one or two sentences) be mentioned here acknowledging such posters at the time as the poster shown in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ravished_Armenia (which includes the file https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ravished_Armenia.jpg ) Or, after investigation/consensus, one of these two should be stated. Right now, neither is stated; the article does not acknowledge that such posters stating "4 million" ever existed - but clearly they did.

Again I leave it to you with more expertise than me. But I searched in my browser for every single mention of the word "million" in the article, and apparently no mention is there. I am suggesting and encouraging us to mention it, somewhere. How to mention, I leave to the experts; it is one of the two above ways (or perhaps a third way more nuanced) like, either "if one includes...then the figure is 3-4 million" or else, "early contemporary estimates or movies quoted 4 million' but..." or some middle ground between those.

But right now as far as I can see it's not acknowledged at all. I hope I am being more clear; I am not suggesting "which way" to acknowledge, but to in some way acknowledge (agreeing, or disagreeing but more nuanced) with that figure that, as the poster shows, was clearly quoted by some at the time. Maybe it is a case of "If one includes the contemporaneous Greek and Assyrian genocides" or another explanation - I'm just suggesting that, in one shape or another, some reference needs to be made. Harelx (talk) 02:16, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

In honor of April 24, 1915, and the memory of the Armenian genocide, I want to say a few words, but I know the Talk page is not for that, so instead, just a link, to two relevant, important, little-known quotes by Einstein, his Message to Posterity (a time capsule from 1936, opened many years later) and his Message to Youth (especially last sentence) are only a few lines long but relevant, see [26] (no, it's not his famous answer to "what weapons do you think will be used in World War III, Dr Einstein?" where he answered "I don't know, but I know what weapons will be used in World War IV: sticks and stones" - but something more profound) Harelx (talk) 02:16, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Citation model?

What is the citation model used here. I can't distinguish references from sources. Thus, for example, I found Akçam (2007) cited within a reference citing Walker (1980) thus:

<ref>{{cite book|author=Christopher J. Walker|title=Armenia, the Survival of a Nation|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=KNEOAAAAQAAJ|year=1980|publisher=St. Martin's Press|isbn=978-0-312-04944-7}} * {{cite book| last = Akçam | first=Taner|title=A Shameful Act: The Armenian Genocide and the Question of Turkish Responsibility | year = 2007|page=327|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=E-_XTh0M4swC}}</ref>

I've never seen anything like that before and it's extremely confusing. I also find a mixture of sfn templates and ref tags. I can't make that out. Is "Further Reading" a collection of sources or a bibliography?

Presumably in some twenty pages of Talk Page discussion a citation model was agreed. @EtienneDolet: What is that, please? c1cada (talk) 12:56, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I've searched through the archives and can find no discussion, not are there any responses here. I propose therefore to adopt Wikipedia:Parenthetical referencing as used in Holocaust after my immediate edits. It may be that I can edit here after all in the following weeks, at least through May, and I shall use that time to implement it (is there an automatic script available?) c1cada (talk) 18:21, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

ANI

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I have opened an ANI discussion here that may concern editors here. c1cada (talk) 02:09, 24 April 2015 (UTC).

I compliment Etienne on the remarkable improvement in his grammar at the ANI. The fact is that POTD would have gone out with "eight years of genocide" but for my vigorous intervention. The fact is that the lede misleads the reader as to the nature of the post World War I massacres. The fact is that the post World War I massacres are not treated in the article. The fact is that there are simple errors of fact that are not being corrected in this article. So long as the present protectionist stance of the editors continue, I see no prospect at all of Armenian Genocide ever reaching Good Article status. c1cada (talk) 12:36, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Will you stop taking digs at his language already? Do it again, and I'll be the one dragging you to ANI. How many times do you need be told to stop? Alakzi (talk) 12:46, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm so sorry. It was sincerely meant. I would be the last to 'dig' at someone's language. A casual glance at my edits show how much I struggle with my own copy. The thing is, I do recognize my shortcomings and take steps to correct them. As for this article it is clear, as I demonstrated in my 4,000+ character wall of text above, that significant errors of intent can arise when language skills are not adequate. I am bilingual in four languages, but I am only literate in English and would not dream of carrying forward a complex text in one of my other languages. c1cada (talk) 13:20, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposal: Massacres after World War I

The most obvious defect in the article is the lack of discussion of the post World War I massacres. This is contrary to MOS requirements in so far that they are mentioned in the lede. I propose a new section titled "Massacres after World War I" to be placed after the "Armenian population, deaths, survivors, 1914 to 1918" section. I really don't see why a WP:BOLD edit could not have been made without first seeking consensus from the management here (have we abandoned WP:EDITCONSENSUS? I mean I've always added to articles in small doses so that other editors can adjust as they see fit). But I suppose it amounts to the same thing. I propose the following wording as a start. The section should provide the historical backdrop and give due weight to opinions that CUP policy was an extension of the Ottoman genocidal policy as well as denialist accounts that revenge massacres somehow justified the genocide (the deep time travel thing you sometimes see alluded to in these pages). I also included a remark from Dadrian that these massacres constituted a miniature genocide (managing to slip that in past the management without triggering a consensus alert).

Mass killings continued during the Turkish–Armenian War phase of the Turkish War of Independence.<ref>{{cite book|author=Christopher J. Walker|title=Armenia, the Survival of a Nation|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=KNEOAAAAQAAJ|year=1980|publisher=St. Martin's Press|isbn=978-0-312-04944-7}}</ref>{{sfn|Akçam (2007)|p= 327}}

One and three quarter million Armenians lived in the Caucasus region across the border of the Ottoman Empire. From 1878 to 1915 this region had been under Russian control. Several hundred thousand Armenian refugees from the Ottoman Empire fled into the region during the war. Following the Bolshevik revolution, the Ottoman Empire regained control of the territory they had governed before 1878. The First Republic of Armenia was established in May 1918 in the area around Yerevan and lasted for two years. When the Ottoman Empire collapsed in 1918, the British took control of parts of the region. Subsequently the Turkish army, with Bolshevik assistance, retook the territory. All this created great tension, resulting ultimately in massacres.{{sfn|Akçam (2007)|pp= 323-4}}{{sfn|Hovannisian (1986)|p= 32}}

The first wave of massacres took place in 1918. The Committee of Union and Progress (CUP) resolved to further its Pan-Turanianism ambition by extending Turkish territory towards the East. The CUP warned Armenian leaders that they must stand aside. By 20 July 1918, some six hundred thousand Armenians from the Caucasus had fled before the advancing Turkish army. The ensuing massacres continued throughout the summer and autumn of 1919. The American High Commisioner for Armenia, William N. Haskell, was so shocked by the massacres that he sent a warning to the United States President Woodrow Wilson that he should withdraw the Twelfth Article (regarding Turkey) of his Fourteen Points Peace Declaration unless Turkish officials took effective measures to stop the massacres.{{sfn|Akçam (2007)|pp= 324-5}}

The massacres resumed in 1920 to 1921. Akçam notes that these can be regarded as a continuation of Ottoman policy, as the sources suggest that the government understood their Armenian policy as an attempt to continue that policy. There was also a significant continuity regarding the officers who conducted the massacres in the two periods 1915-17 and 1919-21. The massacres were accompanied by revenge massacres committed against Muslims. These revenge massacres have led to some Turkish historians excusing the Armenian genocide on the basis that Muslims were also massacred. Dadrian estimated the total number of Muslim victims at between 5,000 and 5,500.{{sfn|Akçam (2007)|p= 325-30}}

The Turkish army is estimated to have killed some 60,000 to 98,000 Armenian civilians.<ref name="Dad360-361">These are according to the figures provided by [[Aleksandr Myasnikyan|Alexander Miasnikyan]], the President of the Council of People's Commissars of Soviet Armenia, in a telegram he sent to the Soviet Foreign Minister [[Georgy Chicherin]] in 1921. Miasnikyan's figures were broken down as follows: of the approximately 60,000 Armenians who were killed by the Turkish armies, 30,000 were men, 15,000 women, 5,000 children, and 10,000 young girls. Of the 38,000 who were wounded, 20,000 were men, 10,000 women, 5,000 young girls, and 3,000 children. Instances of mass rape, murder and violence were also reported against the Armenian populace of Kars and Alexandropol: see [[Vahakn N. Dadrian]]. (2003). ''The History of the Armenian Genocide: Ethnic Conflict from the Balkans to Anatolia to the Caucasus''. New York: Berghahn Books, [http://books.google.com/books?id=ZCVJMAVoMM0C&pg=PA360 pp. 360–361]. ISBN 1-57181-666-6.</ref> Some estimates put the total number of Armenians massacred in the hundreds of thousands.<ref>Armenia : The Survival of a Nation, Christopher Walker, 1980.</ref><ref name="Akçam" />{{rp |327}} Dadrian characterized the massacres in the Caucasus as a "miniature genocide".<ref name="Dadrian"/>{{rp|360}}

The last paragraph of the present "Armenian population, deaths, survivors, 1914 to 1918" section should be deleted as it is now incorporated in the new section.

c1cada (talk) 13:23, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't see any dissent here, surprising really concerning the vehemence with my edit was reverted. I don't think I have anything more to add here presently. I have ordered a copy of Dadrian and will read it over the summer and may well be able to expand significantly when I return. I should think 24 hours is sufficient notice to give for editors to record their dissent. Thus, tomorrow evening, if I don't see any disagreements about the content, I shall move the edit into the article per WP:EDITCONSENSUS in the usual way. c1cada (talk) 22:25, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

You need to provide a source that support your claim of the Armenian Genocide ending with the termination of the Tehcir law. Otherwise, it would be WP:OR. Étienne Dolet (talk) 00:35, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

There is nothing in this proposal that refers to the Tehcir law or makes any claim about when the genocide ended, Étienne.

Once again you confuse the Genocide with genocide. I am perfectly happy with dating the Genocide as 1915 to 1923, as indeed I do in my lede proposal. I have confided to you that in fact I would prefer to see the dates 1894 to 1923. So what is with all these denialist issues you raise all the time with me? Read my lips, already.

Regarding the duration of the genocide, I happen not to think it ended with the repeal of Tehcir law, nor have I claimed that anywhere. Although I don't have any detailed knowledge of the period (I shall read Dadrian over the summer), I am aware the atrocities didn't end immediately with their repeal. But what is so, is that acknowledgement of the genocide is confined to the dates 1915-1916. Even yesterday the German parliament, in their historic centennial recognition, referred to events that took place in the middle of Wordl War I. Nevertheless I accept that subsequent post World War I massacres were genocidal in their nature, both as to continuity of policy and the actors involved. I reference that clearly in the proposal above. (Personal attack removed)?

Template:Rpae. (Personal attack removed). It is not as if the problem is that you are perhaps dyslexic or educationally disadvantaged; I have no problem at all with those contributing to Wikipedia and I don't feel a pressing need to correct their copy unless I am sure they will accept it as a courtesy. (Personal attack removed). I thought it so telling yesterday when you reverted a copy edit of mine where I had deleted the second of two duplicate dates in consecutive sentences. That is an entirely natural thing to do for literate English readers accustomed to skimming copy, duplicating the date a vexatious distraction. But not so if you lack skimming skills, which are typically poorly developed in second langauages. I read a number of second languages very comfortably indeed. But when it comes to quickly skimming through copy I always opt for a machine translation to skim through in the first place. I'm not convinced that when you reverted that original edit of mine above as WP:NOCONSENSUS, that you in fact had taken the trouble to study it, as you do need to.

I'm not prepared to accept this intervention of your as demonstrating a lack of consensus. I ask you to stop these pointy semi-literate interventions of yours. c1cada (talk) 08:28, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

This is the relevant section in the Russian wikipedia Османская империя и Республика Армения в 1918—1923 годах (The Ottoman Empire and the Republic of Armenia in 1918-1923). It gives a figure (citing Hovannisian) of 200,000 dead. c1cada (talk) 18:57, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

The Armenian wiki (which is a Good Article we should perhaps take as standard) has essentially the same section, quoting the same figure. c1cada (talk) 19:08, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Just because the Russian Wikipedia has a different layout, does not mean we should abide by their standards. Étienne Dolet (talk) 19:22, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Your edit downplays the Armenian Genocide by grating the events after WW1 as merely massacres. There needs to be at least a label stating that the policy of genocide continued. Étienne Dolet (talk) 20:19, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I can't construe "grating". The section clearly cites a noted contemporary Turkish historian as follows:

"Akçam notes that these can be regarded as a continuation of Ottoman policy, as the sources suggest that the government understood their Armenian policy as an attempt to continue that policy. There was also a significant continuity regarding the officers who conducted the massacres in the two periods 1915-17 and 1919-21."

Akçam doesn't use the word "genocidal" but of course that's understood. That's how I've described it in the rather frequent notes I'm obliged to make over what really should be a straightforward and uncontroversial edit. I can point out that you had the opportunity to make this comment when we were reaching consensus before. If there are no dissenting opinions, then must be assumed by any definition that consensus has been reached. Your only remark concerned the Tehcir law which is not the subject of the section since these events took place after the 1915-1916 deportations and a claim I have never made anywhere, let alone in this edit we are concerned with.

However I have no difficulty in qualifying "Ottoman policy" as you wish, thus "Ottoman genocidal policy", because that's the clear implication of the whole paragraph. There is in fact a passage in Akçam describing a parliamentary debate which makes that very clear. You are welcome to include that. This should address your issue satisfactorily. If you wish to go further and describe it as genocide, then you go further than the sources I know permit. There are straightforward reasons I believe for not characterising these massacres as a genocide in the strict legal sense If you know sources that do that, you are welcome to cite them with due regard to WP:WEIGHT. I certainly shan't take issue, providing they are cited from reliable sources. I think it's quite likely a group of editors will attempt to describe these as massacres as genocide, and equally a group anxious not to have them so described. All I venture here for my own part is what my sources permit, and that is "genocidal". If you really want to quibble over a distinction between "genocide" and "genocidal", so be it. So long as the constraints of WP:VERIFY are met, that's fine with me.

At any rate this is a process that can certainly take place within WP:EDITCONSENSUS and should, because editors by and large don't interest themselves in Talk Pages. c1cada (talk) 21:01, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I'll write up my own draft over the weekend, and we can perhaps go ahead with a compromise version. My worries is that it'll be long, and this article is already excessively long. Étienne Dolet (talk) 20:42, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Just edit the section as you wish. Please allow other editors the same opportunity. There is no reason why WP:EDITCONSENSUS shouldn't be the mechanis. We differ on a syllable. c1cada (talk) 21:09, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Incidentally I take issue with "excessively long". As is frequently observed, there are no space constrictions at Wikipedia. In fact this is one of its strengths. There is a navigation menu in the lede. Providing the article is satisfactorily indexed, the length of the article should be irrelevant. c1cada (talk) 07:22, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Proposal: Modifications to the lede

As I have remarked elsewhere, the lede presently misleads the reader regarding the nature of the post World War I massacres. These are not recognised as a genocide (although modern historians and contemporary accounts describe them as genocidal in nature) and they were not implemented in two phases, as can only be construed from the copy at present. As I have demonstrated above, this is essentially a copy edit issue. I'm not aware that a copy edit requires consensus, but the management insists it seems. I did manage however, to slip in the bit about "subsequently executed" without triggering a consensus alert. Obliged.

At present the relevant sections of the lede reads:

The total number of people killed as a result has been estimated at between 1 and 1.5 million. The starting date is conventionally held to be 24 April 1915, the day Ottoman authorities rounded up and arrested, subsequently executing, some 250 Armenian intellectuals and community leaders in Constantinople. The genocide was carried out during and after World War I and implemented in two phases

I propose this is replaced by:

The total number of people killed as a result has been estimated at between 1 and 1.5 million. These killings took place over an eight year period from 1915 to 1923, during and after World War I. The atrocities committed between 1915 and 1916 are recognised as a genocide. The starting date of the genocide is conventionally held to be 24 April 1915, the day Ottoman authorities rounded up and arrested, subsequently executing, some 250 Armenian intellectuals and community leaders in Constantinople. The genocide was implemented in two phases ....

c1cada (talk) 14:04, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't see any dissent here, surprising really concerning the vehemence with my edit was reverted. I should think 24 hours is sufficient notice to give for editors to record their dissent. Thus, tomorrow evening, if I don't see any disagreements about the content, I shall move the edit into the article per WP:EDITCONSENSUS in the usual way. c1cada (talk) 22:28, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

@C1cada: The point is not disagreement. It's just, you need to provide sources to back up these claims. It may be true, it may not. But it must be written by a reliable third party who has a knowledge on the subject. If you can find one, we can discuss this passage. --92slim (talk) 15:28, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

First of all, regarding citations in the lede, you've been there before. They are discouraged, because the relevant material should be addressed in the article. When I return this to the ordinary WP:EDITCONSENSUS process, you will have the opportunity to dispute or ask for clarification/citation. Regarding the date 1915-1923 I give for the genocide, there is pretty well consensus for those dates for the Armenian Genocide. For example this from The National Academy of Sciences of the Republic of Armenia:

"The extermination of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire and the surrounding regions during 1915-1923 is called the Armenian Genocide."

Note that this also supports my "historic homelands" proposal i.e. to say it recognises there were massacres outside the Ottoman Empire, the Caucasus massacres of 1918-1922. It is truly bizarre that these have never been addressed in this article and (frankly) quite extraordinary that when I put together a very careful edit about them, after due notice and inviting you to contribute it, they were immediately reverted by the management here. That's not the Wikipedia "anyone can edit" I champion.

For the rest the modification is essentially a copy edit. As it stands the lede suggests there was a genocide post World War I and that it too was implemented in two stages (i.e. conscription and deportation). But the massacres 1918-1922 in the Caucasus were of an entirely different character, perpetrated by an invading army, and while undoubtedly genocidal in nature as my "massacres" edit cites, are nevertheless not acknowledged as a genocide because in point of fact they lack features which establish them as a genocide in a legal sense. All that is cited in the "massacres" section I propose and doesn't need citing in the lede.

If you have some significant issue you dissent over which can best be constructively debated here, please indicate it in the next few hours. c1cada (talk) 16:03, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't see dissenting voices here. I propose WP:BOLD moving the edit into the main article for WP:EDITCONSENSUS this evening (12 hours hence) if there are no objections. I shall cite the Academy for the dates in the edit. c1cada (talk) 08:09, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

The Armenian Genocide lasted until 1923. This is supported by the most important sources in this field. I'm also not the only one who objects to this proposal. Étienne Dolet (talk) 08:24, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Can you clarify what you are saying here, please? It's a little hard to construe because the edit does after all date the Armenian Genocide as 1915-1923. If you are saying that genocide in the legal sense continued throughout the eight year period, that is not acknowledged. Genocide (I mean the crime "genocide") is precisely defined in international law. It is only the period 1915-1916 that is acknowledged as genocide in this precise legal sense, for example by the German parliament only a couple of days ago in its historic centennial acknowledgement. The edit incorporates this international acknowledgement. The problem with the existing edit is that it can only be construed as saying that (a) the post war massacres are acknowledged as genocide and (b) that they too were implemented in two stages i.e. as conscription and deportations. Neither is so. I'm busy this morning and afternoon, but will return this evening. Unless you can provide citations to support (a) and (b), I will put the edit forward for WP:EDITCONSENSUS as proposed.

That the massacres 1918-1923 were genocidal in character is adequately referenced in the the new section "Massacres after World War I". You are quibbling over a single syllable, and I don't think that's an adequate enough issue to claim there is no consensus.c1cada (talk) 09:19, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

The burden lies on you to provide a source that says the genocide in a legal sense is limited to 1915-6. Étienne Dolet (talk) 15:04, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

An editor is wrong to say the burden lies on me to say that the genocide in a legal sense is limited to 1915-1916. That's because the proposed modification doesn't say that. Rather, it says that the events of 1915-1916 are acknowledged as genocide. The existing lede (how many times do I have to say this to an editor? how can I possibly make this clearer to an editor?) implies that the post war massacres were a genocide. But that is not acknowledged. Of the citations presently provided in the lede, the Fisk piece refers to a 1915 genocide, not a 1915-1923 genocide, the Matiossian piece doesn't refer to a genocide, but does make an incidental reference to the "1915 annihilation", while the note immediately following Armenian Genocide in the opening definition references the International Association of Genocide Scholars' (IAGS) declaration that the mass murder of Armenians in 1915 was a genocide (incidentally that note is misplaced there as the Armenian Genocide is more than just the 1915 genocide).

I know that an editor passionately believes that the genocide was conducted over an eight year period. But that's not acknowledged by historians or the various bodies, organisations and states that recognise the genocide. They all refer to a 1915-1916 genocide, including the prestigious IAGS and UN Whitaker reports.

There's no problem with affirming the post World War I massacres as genocidal in character, because sources can be sited (such as the one I did cite) which indeed affirm just that. But there aren't any sources that acknowledge the genocide proper (i.e. as an international crime) as extending over the eight year period. All historians and legislative bodies are very careful to rigorously maintain the precise legal description of genocide and Wikipedia should do the same.

I'm not prepared to accept this is a consensus issue. It concerns matters of fact which are not open to dispute. An editor needs to let this go. c1cada (talk) 15:52, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

We'd need a source that explicitly says that the only the events of 1915-16 are acknowledged as genocide. Showing a couple of reports and resolutions from institutions and governments cannot prove that. I could provide dozens, if not hundreds of resolutions and reports from around the world that say the Armenian Genocide lasted until 1923. But that's not the case here. Étienne Dolet (talk) 18:16, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

No, we should not because the proposed modification does not say that only the events of 1915-1916 are acknowledged as genocide. The situation is the same as at the POTD when an editor's persistent insistence that the genocide lasted over eight years was resolved simply by deleting any mention of the time span. We are not concerned with "proving" anything here per WP:VERIFY.

Regarding the Armenian Genocide, I too could provide numerous citations giving its dates as 1915-1923. The second paragraph of the Armenia wiki offers 1894 to 1923, my own preferred dates. But there are no significant historians, bodies or nation states which affirm the genocide proper (i.e. as an international crime) lasted over an eight year period.

As I've stressed before, we differ from an editor only over a syllable - the distinction between "genocide" and "genocidal". It hardly seems to matter, but because there is a very precise definition in international law of what constitutes "genocide", we should be careful to maintain it.

In the 28 January 2015 submissions in Perinçek v. Switzerland reference was only made to the 1915 events as actus reus. As I remarked to an editor right at the outset, we shouldn't offer the denialists ammunition with larger claims that in fact can't be substantiated within the strict parameters of the definition of genocide.

I'm content to let the discussion roll on another day. c1cada (talk) 19:01, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

The Armenian Genocide does not have a start date or end date. It has a start year: 1915. The April 24 start date is a lazy lie that Armenians tell odars. Earlier pre-WW1 events might have similar characteristics to the AG, or be part of a progression of events leading to it and enabling it, but they are not the same event. The massacres in 1918 inside formerly Russian territory and the massacres undertaken by Republican forces in the 1920s are counted as part of the Genocide in sources that cover this period. Contemporary reports also considered those renewed massacres as just a Turkish business-as-usual continuation of what went before. Also, plenty of sources consider the state-enforced Kemalist-era deportations of Turkey's Armenian citizens that went on into the 1930s as an official continuation of the Genocide. Similarly, authors have written that the Turkish policy of wiping out all traces of the region's Armenian past amounted to a continuation of the genocide, and some have written that the continuing denial of the Armenia Genocide by the Turkish state amounts to a continuation of the genocide. The wording needs to express that, so an "events of 1915-1916" wording would not be accurate and would not agree with what sources state. There seems to be enough sources and content in the body of the article to support a 1923 date, with mention of later events (including the ongoing denial) being considered as a continuation of it. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:45, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Both the existing and proposed copy stress the start date is conventionally held to be 24 April 2015. Wikipedia has a WP:VERIFY policy. I provide what surely must be an impeccable source for the 1915-1923 dating of the Armenian Genocide, not withstanding that the Academy is one of those authorities that consider denial of the genocide a continuation of the genocide. What is at stake here is the question of the criminal act of genocide, which is acknowledged by the IAGS as occurring 1915-1916. Do you know reliable sources of similar standing that affirm the genocide continued past 1918 i.e. the massacres committed outside the Ottoman Empire by a conquering Turkish army were not only genocidal in nature, but actually constituted a genocide in its precisely defined legal sense we should adhere to. What features of those 1918-1923 massacres fit the various criteria laid down for a genocide. And incidentally, helpful if you could indicate an opinion on an editor's position that these massacres were committed by the Republic of Turkey : until recently the article contained:

Mass killings continued under the Republic of Turkey during the Turkish–Armenian War phase of Turkish War of Independence ...

c1cada (talk) 21:25, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Regarding an editor's suggestion that we need a source (except we don't really), how about this document from the Armenian National Committee of America which seems to be a pretty comprehensive collection of acknowledgements of the genocide (understood as an international crime against humanity)? The Committeee itself acknowledges it as committed in 1915. The famous Lipstadt et al 24 April 1998 letter, signed by more than 150 distinguished academics and writers, cited in the document affirms:

We urge our government officials, scholars and the media to refrain from using evasive or euphemistic terminology to appease the Turkish government; we ask them to refer to the 1915 annihilation of the Armenians as genocide.

Amongst the signatories are Richard G. Hovannisian, Peter Balakian, Robert Melson, Israel Charny and the writers D. M. Thomas, Kurt Vonnegut, John Updike. Of those I know D. M. Thomas as an exceptionally fine translator of Anna Akhmatova's poetry, of which so much was a brave stand against Stalin's insane purges. If I am ever released from this purgatory here I might just seek some relief expanding a little on his article.

So I pose the question: in the face of all this expertise, why should we afford the slightest weight to an editor's insistence that the genocide (in its legal sense as an international crime against humanity) took place over the whole 1915-1923 period? To repeat, the Armenian Genocide, referring to all the events 1915-1923, is given those dates, but the crime of genocide is acknowledged 1915-1916. No doubt later events can be called genocidal, in the same way as we can say an individual's acts might be "murderous", but that is not to say the later events were a genocide, any more than to say a murderous individual necessarily committed a murder. c1cada (talk) 23:08, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Considering Tiptoe's remarks, I suggest the following, which I indeed very much prefer myself regarding my own understanding of the Genocide:

The total number of people killed as a result has been estimated at between 0.8 and 1.5 million. These killings, genocidal in nature, took place over an eight year period during and after World War I. The atrocities committed between 1915 and 1916 are recognised as genocide in international law. The starting date of the genocide is conventionally held to be 24 April 1915, the day Ottoman authorities rounded up and arrested, subsequently torturing and executing, some 250 Armenian intellectuals and community leaders in Constantinople. The genocide was implemented in two phases ...

Unless their are significant dissenting voices, this is what I shall move into the article tomorrow evening for WP:EDITCONSENSUS along with the definition from the National Academy of Sciences of the Republic of Armenia we discuss below. c1cada (talk 10:11, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

"Genocidal in nature" with regard to the 1918-1922 massacres is confirmed by Dadrian (1996), my copy of which I have just received, where at p. 348 he uses the phrase "genocidal thrust of the invasion by the Turkish armies" and in subsequent pages develops that theme already cited in my post World War I massacres. But at no point does Dadrian go so far as to characterise these later events as genocide, as can also be surmised from the Lipstadt letter I quote above. Dadrian is accepted as the foremost authority on the Genocide. It's hard to understand on what basis an editor continues to insist, against all the sources, that the genocide (i.e. as an international crime against humanity) was carried on throughout the entire eight year period, but it's abundantly clear there is no due weight WP:VERIFY basis for the claim. c1cada (talk) 15:42, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Per Tiptoe, in the penultimate sentence of the final paragraph of the lede I shall insert (or to the effect):

A number of authorities consider the denial of genocide to be a continuation of it

citing the National Academy of Sciences of the Republic of Armenia. Again if there are dissenting voices please make yourself heard before tomorrow evening. c1cada (talk) 18:01, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Whereas I understand the points made by both sides of the dispute at hand, I have a problem with the declaration I'm not prepared to accept this is a consensus issue. It concerns matters of fact which are not open to dispute.. In Wikipedia WP:CONSENSUS is a policy which forms part of the project DNA. I am not ready to agree to the highlighted statement for that reason. I also don't like ultimata or deadlines. This is a very delicate and nuanced concept which deserves further unhurried discussion without ultimata in order to achieve WP:CONSENSUS. Any other approach is just a de facto invitation to edit-war which for this article, under an 1RR restriction, should be avoided at all costs. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 22:55, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I went to the trouble of digging out the archaeology of the lede in my 4,000+ character wall of text above. The lede has always been been (relatively) cordially WP:EDITCONSENSUS thrashed out before. In fact there has been no significant edit warring over it, unless of course you consider any reversion to be edit warring, in which case an editor here is much more culpable in that regard than I am. What has happened unfortunately is that what I can only surmise as a lack of copy skills (and fit for purpose oversight) has led to an unfortunate situation regarding the crime of genocide. Historians are very careful to protect this concept and so should Wikipedia.

There is a sense in which it is valid to say that there are matters of fact that are not open to "consensus" concerning their veracity. See Evans at Irving v Penguin Books Ltd for what has become the classic exposition of that point of view. Of course the Holocaust is the canonical example, and this case we have another example although curiously reversed because what is disputed here is that (so far) only the 1915-1916 genocide has been acknowledged as genocide.

I have said we differ only on a syllable, between "genocide" and "genocidal". It's important, but not significant enough for this modification not to go forward for WP:EDITCONSENSUS. I remind this forum that a perfectly uncontroversial edit "Massacres after World War I" detailing the experience of the Russian Armenians, which had never been addressed before in the article and yet their experience is more than half the Genocide's duration, was immediately reverted by an editor here. When I took it to the Talk page for consensus, absolutely nothing of import was advanced by way of dissent. I don't call that a delicate and nuanced response. c1cada (talk) 00:30, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately every time we talk about "veracity" echoes of WP:TRUTH come to mind. This is not such a clear-cut case and the proposed phrasing does not help. First, the sentence The atrocities committed between 1915 and 1916 are recognised as a genocide. is vague. It does not state by whom it is recognised and under what conditions, legal, academic or political or any combination thereof. Second, by stating a strict time limit it automatically invalidates any other mention of the term "genocide" outside the 1915-1916 limit. I'm sure we can come up with some idea substantially better than that. But the first thing that must be done is the waiver of the imposition of the ultimatum. It is not conducive to a fair and balanced discussion without artificial pressure or threats of edit-warring against consensus. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 02:20, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Amongst all the verbiage here, and that is not my fault if we abandon WP:EDITCONSENSUS, I did present a revised version of the proposed modification a few paragraphs above following a constructive contribution from Tiptoe. What I suggest now for the relevant sentence is

The atrocities committed between 1915 and 1916 are recognised as genocide in international law.

and that is to be cited by the note referring the IAGS declaration regarding the 1915 genocide presently found in the definition (first sentence, which I pointed out is presently misplaced because the Armenian Genocide is more than just the 1915 genocide; another five years more in fact if we include the experience of the Russian Armenians that was so long omitted from the article and which an editor is apparently anxious to suppress). Nothing vague about that, and in addition in the previous sentence I have added "genocidal in nature", which is as much as historians and authorities presently can offer, at least until the archives are opened:

These killings, genocidal in nature, took place over an eight year period during and after World War I.

That really ought to address the wishes (I frankly hesitate to use the conventional word "concerns" with its generally implied collocation of "legitimate" - one of those subtle nuances of yours) of an editor here. Once again I stress that is all the sources offer. That's the fact of the case. That really isn't up for consensus.

Do try to keep up BTW .

Can't help with "truth" I'm afraid. Philology and not philosophy my forte, though one does rather know one's Heidegger for strictly professional reasons. All that stuff about ἀλήθεια, fascinating (not).

Q: How goes it with the wiki?

A: The wiki is wiki_ing it.

Apologies, my camp followers expect it.

Platon on the other hand makes me faint. From what I can discern of it, I doubt he would have been greatly taken by WP:VERIFY.

Concerning your "ultimatum" etc: that would be just a teensy weensy petitio principiiish, would it not? The issue here it seems to me is to get this back for WP:EDITCONSENSUS so everyone can have a go and not just the erudite great and small consenters that so happily gather here, we few, we band of brothers, an editors and all, pet cats and dogs included of course.

My involvement here centers around two matters. Firstly I came here via Perinçek v. Switzerland over the genocide issue. I am very anxious to protect the precise usage of that word, especially as used in relation to the Armenian Genocide. But secondly there arises an issue as a hobbyist Wikipedian, and that is that this article presently is not very developed. I did expect to see something at least approaching the standard set by Holocaust. Nothing of the sort, and that surprised me very much in the Genocide's centennial year. I do feel moved to help, but what to do in the face of protectionism?

I am going to go ahead with putting the proposed modification forward for WP:EDITCONSENSUS this evening. This Talk page is edited and oversighted very actively indeed. There's been plenty of time for contributors to make their views known. I stress once again that it essentially a copy edit issue at stake. Literate native speakers of English have no difficulty in discerning the defects of the present copy relating to what the lede implies about the post World War I massacres. c1cada (talk) 09:56, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Literate native speakers of English have no difficulty in discerning the defects of the present copy relating to what the lede implies about the post World War I massacres. This statement is simply wrong because it is based on the false premise that literate people speaking a language have to be also native speakers to fully understand it, which is simply nonsense. It is also a not so subtle form of attempted intimidation which does not belong in a civilised discussion and which I reject. The concepts involved in this discussion are not difficult to understand. That we disagree about your methodology does not mean that your understanding of the issues involved is superior. This logic is rather self-serving. I also think you have a flawed understanding of WP:EDITCONSENSUS. The way you are using it is similar to a declaration of an edit-war. You don't have consensus currently and if you make your proposed changes you will be trying to impose your POV against current consensus. This is the very definition of an edit-war. It is also rather ironic that you invoke WP:EDITCONSENSUS which is a method for achieving WP:CONSENSUS while at the same time declaring I'm not prepared to accept this is a consensus issue. It concerns matters of fact which are not open to dispute. I repeat my argument that in an article subject to discretionary sanctions and to 1RR such editing methods are unproductive. Your proposed edit is flawed and you have not addressed my concerns or the concerns of the other participants. So please no more ultimata or arguments about WP:EDITCONSENSUS, not to mention misguided aggrandisement of native speakers of English. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 12:04, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

First of all I had addressed already the first issue you originally raised

It does not state by whom it [the genocide] is recognised and under what conditions, legal, academic or political or any combination thereof ...

because it qualifies with "in international law" and the existing citation to the IAGS' recognition of the 1915 genocide, misplaced at present, will be used to cite it.

Secondly your point about time limits is redundant because it doesn't affirm that genocide was limited to 1915-1916 but simply records that the 1915 atrocities are acknowledged as genocide. As I have made clear to an editor here, that if you can find a institution or authority of equal weight, or at least of international standing, then by all means record it. As for the better idea you wanted, that was taken care of by the introduction of "genocidal in nature" referring to the killings throughout. How much of a better idea do we have to provide that doesn't concede that the entire period is affirmed by historians and authorities to be a genocide? That simply isn't true. We differ on a syllable, that is the long and (very) short of it, and I don't think that's sufficient to deny my edit its day in WP:EDITCONSENSUS court, or for that matter deny other editors the right to improve it.

You now seize on my "literate native Engish speaker" remark, wholly misrepresenting its import. It not that "literate people speaking a language have to be also native speakers to fully understand it" (did I say that?) but that to write literately in another language requires considerably more productive skills than the merely passive skill of understanding it. The situation that had arisen in the article was that the 1918-1923 post World War I massacres had never been addressed. Now that they have (and strictly speaking before it), the lede needs adjusting because it suggests they too are acknowledged as a genocide (but they are not) and that they too took place in two stages, i.e. as conscription or deportation, but they did not.

As for the rest of it, I'm sure you better know the normative values of the community than I. But I am just anyone editing Wikipedia and I am satisifed that there is no substantive reason within Wikipedia's avowed traditions not to put the edit forward for WP:EDITCONSENSUS. If an editor subsequently reverts it, so be it, but it should be as part of the WP:BRD cycle. I should hope to see new arguments in that case and will continue to defend my edit.

I point out that my "Massacres after World War I" edit was reverted (twice), but would seem relatively stable now with the qualifier "genocidal" added (that was always plainly implicit anyway). Yesterday I took the trouble to cite Dadrian's "genocidal thrust" on the massacres. Now that the lede also incorporates, per Tiptoe's valuable and constructive contribution, the same qualifier "genocidal", I can't see what the issue really can be. It's a two cent syllable that splits us. c1cada (talk) 15:20, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

because it qualifies with "in international law" and the existing citation to the IAGS' recognition of the 1915 genocide, misplaced at present, will be used to cite it. Mea culpa regarding "international law" because I was looking at your first proposal in your original posting, before you modified it. But I am still concerned because IAGS is not a body of law but rather an organisation of academics and their citation cannot be used as legal validation. In addition the recognition of the AG is not confined only to international law. It is also academic and political, so the qualification "in international law" is an unnecessarily restrictive interpretation.

Secondly your point about time limits is redundant because it doesn't affirm that genocide was limited to 1915-1916 but simply records that the 1915 atrocities are acknowledged as genocide. It definitely is not redundant. As soon as you state that the events of 1915-1916 were recognised by international law as genocide, you automatically exclude all other events outside that strict limit from recognition in international law. This casts a doubt over the nature of the rest of the events, notwithstanding your reassurances about affirmation of the limits of genocide.

As far as the "native speaker" issue, you had written that Literate native speakers of English have no difficulty in discerning the defects of the present copy relating to what the lede implies about the post World War I massacres. now you claim you meant It sic not that "literate people speaking a language have to be also native speakers to fully understand it" (did I say that?)but that to write literately in another language requires considerably more productive skills than the merely passive skill of understanding it. The first quote is about discerning the defects of the present copy i.e. "reading", the second comment is about "writing", i.e. your reply is not consistent with what you wrote initially, but let's leave it at that.

If an editor subsequently reverts it, so be it, but it should be as part of the WP:BRD cycle. This is wrong. Because we are still at the "D" phase of the cycle and the "D" phase is not over yet because no WP:CONSENSUS has been achieved. To jump to "B" without finishing the "D" step is a mathematically certain initiation of an edit-war on an article protected by discretionary sanctions. As I said before this is not a good idea. But what concerns me most is your flawed interpretation of EDITCONSENSUS which leads you to unilaterally impose ultimata while declaring that the discussion is not subject to consensus. This is disruptive because it undermines the primary WP:CONSENSUS mechanism which is discussion and leads your interlocutors to believe that, irrespectively of any points they raise, you will implement your pre-announced edit. This is the very definition of WP:WASTEOFTIME and I strongly object to such discussion tactics. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 17:26, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

First of let's not allow you your point about the "literate native speaker" remark. It wasn't saying that only such could understand the passage (on the contrary any reasonably advanced student of the language can understand the passage; the complaint is that it's misleading). It's saying that any literate native speaker of English can recognise it's badly written. Feel free to bang on about it a bit more if it's still not clear.

Your first point on the qualifier. I think it's pedantic. But obviously editors can change it to things like "The atrocities committed between 1915 and 1916 are recognised by numerous historians, commentators and nation states as genocide as defined in international law". That strikes me as something that can be refined in the usual way in WP:EDITCONSENSUS. If you were to constructively suggest a modification, I should be happy to incorporate it. Otherwise I shall just let what I have go forward; deep time travel may possibly be one of my far-flung powers, but telepathy is definitely not one of them.

Your second point. Are you saying the copy can never affirm that the 1915 atrocities are recognised as genocide because that excludes the possibility of other events at other dates being recognised as genocides? Novel. How to deal with it ... hmhh ...how about "The atrocities committed between 1915 and 1916 (at least) are recognised by numerous historians, commentators and nation states as genocide as defined in international law"? Feel free to insert that as well. I shan't revert (but I shall roll my eyes). And of course understood if editors can find other events with other dates recognised as genocide by bodies as prestigious as the IAGS or Armenia Genocide Museum, then of course go ahead and cite them.

I now don't have the time to send this over tonight. I've analysed the evolution of the lede elsewhere. It was never the subject of excessive edit warring. Presumably you recognise (at least) that it needs a copy edit to correct the implication that the post war massacres were implemented in two phases. The edit template refers to "contentious" edits as requiring consensus on the Talk page. So what is contentious here? Certainly not "recognised as", because that's a statement of fact verified by citations. Even denialist states such as Turkey can't contend that. "Genocidal in nature"? Well that is contentious because I expect Turkey denies that. Underwhelmed moi. But it's possible that other editors will want that modified. Perhaps you can suggest something. Feel free anyway to make constructive suggestions before tomorrow. Out of curiosity what was contentious about the original "Massacres after World War I" addition I made? So I know next time. And sic away my friend. I've given generously of my time here, but perfect copy doesn't come with the package. c1cada (talk) 19:30, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

It's saying that any literate native speaker of English can recognise it's badly written. Exactly my point. You keep insisting that only the "native speakers" can have the aesthetic understanding of the laguage which will enable them to understand it is badly written. The mere paupers, non-native, literate speakers are unable to rise to such rarefied aesthetic linguistic heights poor linguistic plebs that they are. Are you saying the copy can never affirm that the 1915 atrocities are recognised as genocide because that excludes the possibility of other events at other dates being recognised as genocides? Novel. That's an interesting interpretation but I didn't say that. I said that by confining international legal recognition within strict time limits events not inside these limits are automatically rendered outside international legal recognition and are put on a different legal tier at present. Out of curiosity what was contentious about the original "Massacres after World War I" addition I made? So I know next time. I am here to pinpoint aspects in your methodology which are in my view ill-advised and contrary to consensus-building. I am not here to assist in copyediting under the spectre of reversions and ultimata. If/when things calm down I will be glad to assist. By the way I have no problem with most of your edits. My objections are confined to this specific process about rewriting the lead. And sic away my friend. I've given generously of my time here, but perfect copy doesn't come with the package. I was debating if I had to add "sic" to my transcription, since I knew you were such a meticulous writer and a stickler about language. In the end I chose to include it lest someone carelessly thought I did it due to the fact I am not a "native speaker". Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 22:30, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Interesting Featured Article today about the Cretan War. I shall have a read at that before I go to bed.

Out of curiosity I checked through what you actually wrote about "native speaker". You will forgive me I'm sure when I confide that I skimmed through all that first time round. Naturally I'm flattered you paid such close attention to my remarks. I can't see that my explanation was all that exactly your point, but there you go . Definitely barquing up the wrong trireme a couple of oars short the full deck over "stickler", old bean. Anything but. I have real difficulty writing copy for Wikipedia. I find it rather tedious.

What to do about this? The errors of fact concerning "historic homeland" I mention in my third proposal ought to be corrected. Concerning this proposal here, at least the issue concerning the misrepresentation of the 1918-1923 massacres should be addressed. I'll try and do something about that tomorrow in some way. For the rest of it I'll put it on hold. Sod it for a game of hoplites I say. Pretty sure I shall be back on the issue. c1cada (talk) 00:43, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I'll make sure to check Cretan War. Thank you for leting me know. As far as checking your remarks, I always find them scholarly and challenging, so you are right, I pay attention to them because I enjoy reading them even if I disagree with some of them, or at least with the process followed. I'm also glad to verify that you have a great sense of humour; what with all these remarks about linguistic plebs and no negative reaction to them. I was tempted to add <humour> tags to delineate them as such but I rejected the idea trusting my instinct. :) I haven't checked your third proposal regarding the historic homeland but I have no doubt that you make great and valid points. I look forward to more proposals you may have regarding the lead. In any case, I'll follow your lead regarding a game of hoplites. That sounds like a great idea. Take care. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 01:23, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Proposal: "historic homelands"

Presently the article contains two elementary error of fact when it says:

The Armenian Genocide ... was the Ottoman government's systematic extermination of its minority Armenian subjects inside their historic homeland, which lies within the territory constituting the present-day Republic of Turkey

The first is that the Armenian Genocide was confined to its minority Armenian subjects. But that is not so because the post war massacres involved the Armenian (majority?) population in Eastern Armenia outside the control of the Ottoman Empire since 1878, and the second of course is that Eastern Armenia (i.e. the Caucasus region) does not lie within the present day Republic of Turkey, but outside it (for help with the terms "inside" and "outside", see the Jordan Curve Theorem: I can add an elegant little note about that should the management desire).

I'm not aware that consensus is needed to correct simple errors of fact, however the management insist. I suggest the copy is replaced with:

The Armenian Genocide ... was the Ottoman government's systematic extermination of the Armenian people within their historic homeland, the western reaches of which lie within the territory constituting the present-day Republic of Turkey.

I frankly question what the purpose can be at this stage to introduce the Republic of Turkey. Why so?

The Ottoman Empire remained in place until the abolition of the sultanate 17 November 1922, so there is no need to introduce the Republic of Turkey regarding the post war massacres. An elementary error of fact in the section "Armenian population, deaths, survivors, 1914 to 1918" should also be corrected: "Mass killings continued under the Republic of Turkey during the Turkish–Armenian War phase of Turkish War of Independence" should be replaced by "Mass killings continued during the Turkish–Armenian War phase of the Turkish War of Independence". This is by far the most serious error of fact in the article. I cannot imagine why the management persist in defending it.

I trust the management will find these three proposals of mine constructive. I am extremely busy in May and June and early July, but propose to return after that to help bring this article to Good Article status and trust we can meet on good terms then. c1cada (talk) 14:46, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

That can't be done. Western Armenia is an irredentist claim, and as such wouldn't be neutral. --92slim (talk) 19:41, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Eh? Can't really follow that. I gather there's an 1992-1994 irredentism claim from Armenia but I can't see what that has to do with this. The most noticeable thing about this article is that it doesn't address the post war massacres referenced in the lede. But those massacres were committed in the Caucasus, not within the territory of the Ottoman Empire and the Eastern Armenian people were not subjects of the Ottoman Empire. Are you saying there are no errors of fact here. How so? At least 60,000 people were massacred, possibly hundreds of thousands. It's worth getting it right I think, if only out of respect to the victims. c1cada (talk) 20:06, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Any other opinions? If it's just 92slim dissenting, we can take this to a Wikipedia:Third opinion. The question we can ask is whether there are errors of fact as I describe and if so whether "Western Armenia" being an irredentist claim (it would help if this was clarified a bit as I really don't understand the issue) means that the article is bound not to correct the errors of fact in the way I indicate. c1cada (talk) 22:15, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

The irredentist issue has nothing to do with the issue here. At that time there was a Western Armenia located in the Ottoman Empire and an Eastern Armenia located outside the Ottoman Empire (and present day Turkey). I propose to incorporate my edit in the article in the usual WP:EDITCONSENSUS way later this evening if I see no dissent. c1cada (talk) 13:13, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm rather taken by the definition I found in the above section from The National Academy of Sciences of the Republic of Armenia:

"The extermination of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire and the surrounding regions during 1915-1923 is called the Armenian Genocide."

That does deal with the issue I cited very well and of course the source is entirely impeccable. So I propose the following:

The Armenian Genocide ... was the extermination of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire and the surrounding regions during 1915-1923.<ref>{{cite web|title=Armenian Genocide|url=http://www.genocide-museum.am/eng/armenian_genocide.php|website=genocide-museum.am|publisher=[[Armenian National Academy of Sciences | National Academy of Sciences of the Republic of Armenia]]}}</ref>

where the opening sentence thus gets an authoritative citation for both the nature of the Genocide and its dates, dealing once and for all with the issues debated here so frequently concerning the Genocide and its dates.

This Talk page is presently edited quite actively, so I suggest a three day period (72 hours) for achieving consensus here. I stress the need for a modification arises from the presently matter of fact incorrect definition, which describes the Genocide as the extermination of the Ottoman Empire's minority Armenian subjects within its borders.

Needless to say, if there are no dissenting voices here then we must assume consensus has been reached. c1cada (talk) 08:01, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

The wording should include the fact that the Armenians were uprooted from their historical homelands. Étienne Dolet (talk) 08:20, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Can you clarify please? The existing edit doesn't make any mention of uprooting. The genocide (in a legal sense) of the Armenian subjects of the Ottoman Empire springs especially from "deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part" i.e. the death marches, but these were not a feature of the extermination in the surrounding regions. Are you saying that National Academy of Sciences of the Republic of Armenia is dissimulating here? c1cada (talk) 09:33, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Western Armenia is not an irredentist term, it defines specific regions of Armenia during specific periods of its history and is used by legitimate historians. "Historic homelands" IS an irredentist term, as well as being vague, emotive, and pov. You will not find it used by legitimate historians. Armenian irredentist propaganda (and also Turkish propaganda, but for different reasons) wants to represent all the victims of the Genocide as living in their "historic homelands", i.e. in territory that comprised historical Armenia. However, the majority of the victims did not live in historical Armenia. The Armenian Genocide was not limited to the territory comprising "Western Armenia", and it was not limited to the territory of the Ottoman Empire. The Ottoman Empire exterminated Armenians wherever it found them - when its forces entered Persia, it continued the genocide there, when its forces entered the territory of the Russian empire it continued the genocide there. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 17:19, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, thank you for that. I think that's quite correct and that we can ignore the issue of irredentism and "historic homelands". The virtue of the National Academy of Armenia's definition of the Genocide is that it evades all those POV issue while at the same time accurately defining its nature and giving dates for it, and of course the authority of the source is impeccable. Tomorrow evening I shall move it into the article for WP:EDITCONSENSUS. At the same time I shall make the lede modifications I propose above, what I stress are essentially copy edit adjustments. Presently the lede misleadingly describes the nature of the post world war I massacres, their single mention as it happened until I provided the edit that was immediately reverted by an editor (for no good reason whatsoever as it turned out when it was returned here for consensus). Finally the citation and note in the lede need to be relocated into the body of the article per MOS requirements I think; certainly the note about the IAGS's acknowledgement of the 1915 genocide, which is presently misplaced.

I shan't be able to edit Wikipedia much over the summer, and such time as I can offer I should prefer to offer elsewhere in the project. But I shall keep this article on my watchlist and intervene vigorously on behalf of the anglophone community as I think necessary. Come fall, I may start some systematic attempts at improving the article. I'm not really bothered by the article's Good Article status. However it's certainly true that substantial parts of it need attention. I trust that our guest editors outside English Wikipedia will then condescend to allow me WP:EDITCONSENSUS rights, without the need for all these time wasting and tedious proposals on the Talk page. c1cada (talk) 09:37, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Do you even know what irredentism means? Western Armenia is an irredentist term. --92slim (talk) 23:30, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I had to look it up. I made no reference to "Western Armenia" in my edit. The fact of the matter is that the Armenian Genocide was not confined to the Ottoman Empire's minority subjects living inside what is present day Turkey, as the article says. The period 1919-1923 involved Russian Armenians and refugees living outside its borders in what is today Armenia. Do you and your fellow editors dispute that? Why do you persist in reverting perfectly non-contentious edits clarifying that? c1cada (talk) 15:39, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Tittle suggestion: Why this is considered as Genocide?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tehcir_Law

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_cleansing#Ethnic_cleansing_vs._genocide

According to wikipedia, this should be considered as Ethnic cleansing, not genocide.

--88.252.211.58 (talk) 16:20, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello IP. A warm welcome to Armenian Genocide from the little consenters also editing here. Genocide is a precisely defined term in international law you can read about here. The essential distinction between ethic cleansing and genocide is explained in the second link you provide. In this case the deportation orders of 1915-1916 and the massacres that ensued during the marches are plainly genocide, while the subsequent massacres in later years after the end of World War I were at the very least genocidal in character since a continuity in both policy and in parties to the massacres can be demonstrated. c1cada (talk) 16:43, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Two words: Raphael Lemkin. And please, this question has been asked a gazillion times already; remember, this is NOT a forum. --92slim (talk) 19:42, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Raphael Lemkin did not provide the legal definition of "genocide", and now that we have moved away from WP:EDITCONSENSUS inevitably the Talk Page will become more discursive. What do the big consenters incidentally think of my three proposals? I was really hoping you would take over the post World War I massacres section, showing me how as it were. What do you think of my modest effort so far? I'm sure there's loads of stuff you know to better it.c1cada (talk) 19:51, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I think this section should have been erased as off-topic. Wikipedia is not a source, so the anon's suggestion had no validity. A short reply like that, if erasure was not the answer, is all that was needed to be said, not three separate posts. This talk page with its archives is already impossibly long so I think editors need to take more responsibility for controlling what gets onto it. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:35, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

We chirp. I think if the Talk page get a lot of these sort of things, then we're justified in dealing with them brusquely. So far, I'm content to answer them as they come. Wikipedia is currently in crisis so some say, no longer the encyclopaedia anyone can edit, because amongst other things we are not welcoming enough. Apparently the rot set in about eight years ago. Just doing my bit for the new order. But right, Tiptoe, if it irritates you, tell me straight out in no uncertain terms. I can handle it, honest. No shrinking violet me. Thanks for your post on irredentism. c1cada (talk) 21:00, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Just got round to reading that article on Wikipedia. Maybe one day maybe I'll see an article written by someone who actually knows Wikipedia. "The loose collective running the site today" - come on, the reality is the exact opposite! A system where only administrators propose and appoint administrators produces a very close-knit and hive-minded cult of administrators, not a loose collective. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 23:17, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

As long as you kill the people who are victims of ethnic cleansing, it is genocide. Of course ethnic cleansing can also mean that you force people to leave a particular area. --Vitzque (talk) 18:49, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

A notice concerning these pictures

I have a notice concerning these pictures that are commonly used by the propagandists of the so-called "Armenian Genocide":

1. "The picture of the mother and her child": the Library of Congress state on its website (see the link) that the: "Title and other information transcribed from unverified, old caption card data and item." This testifies that the description given to the picture is Not Reliable. There is no single evidence that the ethnicity of the pictured woman is Armenian. She could be Arab, Turk, or Armenian. However, given the notice that Armenian women don't wear "the Hijab" that this woman is wearing, the possibility of her being Arab or Turkish is higher.

1. Concerning "this picture": These soldiers are definitely Russian (wearing the Russian uniform: light colored coat, belt on the waist, dark colored trousers, and most important of all, "caps" (hat) worn by the ranked officers at the left and right ends of the frame. The victims are definitely Muslim villagers (not Armenian).--95.141.20.198 (talk) 20:28, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

It's not for the editors here to make judgements on the veracity of the images they cite. All they can do is accurately cite what actually is recorded for these images. If you have a differing expert opinion, as you indeed seem to have for the second image, then I suggest you take it directly to the archive involved, which you should find recorded in the Commons description of the file. c1cada (talk) 21:08, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

"Armenians don't "the Hijab"" No, they don't. And she does neither. Stop with the nonsense. As for the soldiers, you can't verify this as you are just a random IP address with no credibility whatsoever. --92slim (talk) 13:28, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Earlier I've pointed out the obvious inaccuracy of many of the image captions and the completely unverified nature of many of the photographs used in this article, and how it opens the article up to ridicule and dismissal and provides an open door to "so called genocide" advocates like the above anon. But some editors just don't want to listen or understand. The first photo is probably a NER fundraising photo, probably not posed, but given a caption that better suited its function. The second photo is probably Russian soldiers who have arrived at a massacre site during their advance west. Its poor resolution suggests a newspaper as the source. De Nogales mentions passing similar scenes during his retreat in advance of those Russians - piles of bodies of murdered Armenians or Syrian Christians, stripped of all clothing. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:30, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

"completely unverified nature of many of the photographs used in this article" along with no reliable sources to back up your claims. Sorry, that's WP:OR unless backed by sources. I doubt you can find such sources anywhere. --92slim (talk) 23:51, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Full Protection

I have changed the protection of the page to full, this is only for the next 2 days to let the high traffic of the page to cool off. Afte that the article should return to smei protected. Thanks. Rhumidian (talk) 23:02, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

you have done no such thing. Only administrators can protect articles. If you wish for the page to be protected, ask at WP:RFPP. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:06, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

To whom it may concern:

Please correct the article "is" to "as" in this, the first sentence of the fourth paragraph of the article: "Turkey, the successor state of the Ottoman Empire, denies the word genocide is an accurate term for the mass killings of Armenians that began under Ottoman rule in 1915."

Thanks... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mery George (talk • contribs) 00:11, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I thinks it's "rejects ... as " or "denies ... is". As the collocations in the corpus are overwhelmingly "denies", I think we should stay as we are. But I do appreciate the distinction you make. c1cada (talk) 08:41, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 April 2015

I will add some novel information. Mehmet256 (talk) 07:30, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

 Not done No specific request made. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 07:32, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I had added the resourse from internet, but it was delated. I don't understand why?--Gaamagre (talk) 10:55, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

If that was the link to the 2005 McCarthy speech, the reverter explained it clearly enough. What you did was link a passage about Pope Francis' recognition of the genocide to this speech of McCarthy's. But that has no educational value as it belongs to the relevant Armenian Genocide denial, possibly the relevant section in the article if it accompanies a description of McCarthy's position. You were using it essentially to make an editorial comment on Pope Francis' decision and that's, for lack of better description, "Original Research". If you can find a source, I mean a newspaper report or something, that disputes Francis' acknowledgement, then you can cite that. Of course Erdogan disputed it, and that's recorded in the article.c1cada (talk) 13:57, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

What I did, it was, that I added the link to the McCarthy speech, because it is one of the relevant views of the theme of the article, but it was deleted and nobody explained it to me in any form... It was not a passage about Pope Francis' recognition of the genocide to this speech of McCarthy's. I did not use the link to make an editorial comment on Pope Francis' decision, as this link has nothing to do with Pope Francis' decision.The link shows McCarthy's position and it is one of the relevant positions. I added this link to this article's main links and I think, that the article must have a links to show all of the relevant views about the theme and it has a great educational value.--Gaamagre (talk) 19:53, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I beg your pardon. I didn't see you had added it into "External links" When editing Wikipedia it is a real courtesy to other editors as far as possible to edit sections rather than the whole article, so we can see what has been added more easily.

I'm afraid I'm going to revert the edit as "good faith" but not External Links compliant. Even if McCarthy wasn't mentioned in the article, it would still need to go as McCarthy is controversial. The original reverter was quite right to say it should go in the denial article. But in this case, McCarthy is discussed in the article, so the external link should go as inline citation at that discussion. It is, however, a primary source, i.e. a lecture by McCarthy rather than commentary on a lecture by McCarthy. It's quite possible another editor might revert it if they felt it didn't provide value. c1cada (talk) 20:26, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't know, who decided, that it was a link on commentary on a lecture by McCarthy, I hope people who use Wikipedia are able to read.... I don't think, that another editor will revert your edit, so I will try the same 24 hours later... I think, the articles shouldn't be divided in the "pros" and "cons", the article must include all sources and the results of all scientific researches about the theme. If anybody wants to know about Armenian Genocide, he won't look for controversial articles...--Gaamagre (talk) 21:42, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree with c1cada that the link is a WP:PRIMARYSOURCE which should not be used in the article. Further the link is hosted from the personal webpage of someone named D Wilson. This is an entirely inappropriate use of the external links function of Wikipedia. Further declarations like I don't think, that another editor will revert your edit, so I will try the same 24 hours later... look like intent to edit-war. I advise strongly against that. Please do not reinsert this link into the article. Thank you. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 22:03, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

German film from 2010

There is the very good german film from 2010 that should be mentioned under 'Portrayal in the media': https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aghet_%E2%80%93_Ein_V%C3%B6lkermord

WaldeBeck (talk) 16:59, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks WaldeBeck. Ill check it out. c1cada (talk) 18:34, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

@WaldeBeck: Haven't forgotten this, Waldebeck. However 'Portrayal in the media' seems to me to be a section about creative works of art, while your film is a documentary history. I managed to grab a copy that fell off the back of a passing Google van and I'll have a look at it, check out what sort of educational value it has and how best to link it into the graph. Give you a ping when I'm done. It already has an article I see. Thanks for mentioning it. Looks good and I look forward to watching it. c1cada (talk) 22:26, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Hallo Clada, in my opinion the film itself will declare everything. And why do'nt you believe in its english wikipedia-page?

WaldeBeck (talk) 02:13, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

It's just that it's a documentary, and those don't seem to be addressed in the article section. c1cada (talk) 14:41, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

small typo to correct

Hi, the page is locked so I can't just go in and fix it, but there's a small typo: "this meant that their testimony could only be conaidered in commercial cases." should be "considered", not "conaidered". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.23.40.34 (talk)

Fixed, thanks. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:02, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Bibliography

The Bibilography is presently subdivided into various categories. That's quite enterprising, but I don't think it's standard and there are some disadvantages. In the first place a particular resource might fit several categories and be overlooked because the wrong category was examined, and more importantly it's correspondingly harder to see what contributionss have been made by a single author: for example Dadrian appears in several categories.

I propose this should be fixed by separating Sources from Further Reading. This can be achieved on a step by step basis by opening a section titled Sources and transferring the {{refbegin|30em}} and {{refend}} tabs. The resources actually used in the article can then be transferred into a single ordered list by author/date. This can be done at our leisure over a period of a few days. Finally the remaining Bibliography can be renamed Further Reading, retaining its useful categories.

Unless I see cogent objections, I propose to start implementing this after the weekend. c1cada (talk) 11:50, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Studies on the Genocide

I'm not really able to discern the purpose of the section Studies on the Genocide. In what way is the section different from the following section Recognition of the Genocide? After all much of it is concerned with resolutions by various bodies acknowledging the 1915 genocide. Surely those should be incorporated in the next section?

What in fact is meant by the opening sentence "The Armenian Genocide is widely corroborated by international genocide scholars"? A literate native speaker of English has difficulty construing this sentence. "Corroborate" means to support or affirm an opinion and it has a specific legal meaning in that context. But the term "Armenian Genocide" is not an account or a theory. It is just the name given to the totality of events 1915 to 1923. You might as well say the Turkish Government "corroborates" it, as it certainly recognises a series of events 1915-1923.

What presumably was intended is that international genocide scholars widely affirm the Armenian Genocide was a genocide. The extent it was a genocide, pace recent material on this Talk page I don't propose to revisit, is plainly contentious. I do think, however, some reference should be made to all that without dissimulating on the issue.

Why does the following sentence cite the 2007 IAGS resolution affirming a wider genocide conducted by the Ottoman Empire against Christians? The proper resolution to cite is the 1997 resolution entitled "Armenian Genocide" which is cited immediately in the introductory definition of the article, but which is in fact misplaced there because it refers specifically to the 1915 genocide and not the the whole Armenian Genocide over the period 1915-1923.

The sub-section " Origins of the word genocide", which incidentally I would be prepared to properly expand somewhat if I felt confident that it wouldn't be subjected to yet more wearying Talk Page warring, is plainly not about the origin of the word for the most part (and incidentally that image of Lemkin accompanying the audio clip is so unflattering that really I wonder if it is valuable). Most of that section needs to be relocated, leaving rather small beer I'm not prepared to fill if I don't see some acknowledgement by the management here that my efforts are valued.

Other language Wikipedias, notably the French one, have excellent sections on the recognition of the genocide. I can't offer the time for that. I can spend some time standardising the citations offered in the article, and that would be a good way of familiarising myself with an article I propose to copy edit and expand appreciably come fall, but I can't commit to cataloguing the various resolutions of recognition. However the section does need an immediate copy edit regarding the issues I highlight.

I should like to see some response, especially perhaps from new editors. Otherwise starting next week I intend to make a series of edits in the usual WP:EDITCONSENSUS way addressing the issues, which are not properly contentious and don't need consensus from the Talk Page, though naturally I shall take account of any input here. c1cada (talk) 22:56, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

This article is in no need of an expansion. It's already long enough (see: WP:Article length). This is a general article of the Armenian Genocide, we don't need to go into specifics. We have sub-articles for that. Your recent additions, consisting of thousands of characters, should be revised as well. A couple of sentences is enough for highlight the fact that the Armenian Genocide continued after WW1. Also, please don't change 'killed' into 'perished' without consulting the talk page. Étienne Dolet (talk) 23:07, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Regarding perished versus were killed, it's primarily a question of an active versus a passive construction. Active constructions aid legibility, while passive constructions tend not to. As for the choice of the word perish, that's appropriate since it has the connotation of death of a nation (deriving from the Bible OED 2.) I see someone revised it at WP:EDITCONSENSUS. IDC (though I would note it should be either "800,000 to 1,500,000" or "0.8 to 1.5 million" and not a mixture of both). If it's all the same to an editor, I shall continue to choose my own words at edit without referring to the management here.

Regarding the length of the article, presently Armenian Genocide is a 427 Kb unicode file, while Holocaust is a 548 Kb unicode file. This suggests that Armenian Genocide can be expanded some 30% to match its canonical counterpart.

Regarding WP:Article length note WP:HASTE. An editor is entitled to their opinion as to whether the extent of the genocide is a "specific". I happen not to be of the opinion that it's ... erm, how to put this? ... un point de detail.

I see an editor has removed a personal attack. Of course one is very sorry about that. I took a hit for the team over all this. I don't mind that and perhaps it was deserved. It should be evens now. At any rate, I'm here to stay and if may offer some friendly advice to an editor, WP:Wikilawyering me and correcting my vocab is probably not the soundest strategy for seeking an accommodation. I'm beyond indignant this article is so poor in the centennial year of the genocide it treats, and I do mean to improve it. c1cada (talk)

The wording in this article cannot be to your liking. It needs to be discussed at least once. By not discussing, the article is being subjugated to an edit-war. 'Perished', for example, was never discussed. The idea of having passive words such as that to describe the event is considered WP:EUPHEMISM. Also, I will continue to remove personal attacks made towards me. It's not right to have these attacks linger around in this talk page. I don't believe they're well-deserved either. Étienne Dolet (talk) 15:55, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Rubbish (the first remarks I mean). Of course perish isn't a euphemism. OED 1 is:

1. a. intr. To come to a violent, sudden, or untimely end; to suffer destruction; to lose its life, cease to exist, be cut off. (Chiefly of living beings.)

If I have time this evening, I shall consult the corpus concerning its collocations with genocide but via Google I see this: "Shall Armenia Perish and this, including a poster of the time "Give or we perish. As for WP:EUPHEMISM it countenances avoiding terms such as "ethnic cleansing" and "mass murder" for genocide.

An editor needs to do a lot better than this to accommodate me. c1cada (talk) 16:25, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't believe users here should be accommodating you. See: WP:DIVA. But what I do believe is that the word 'perish' is rather passive and dismisses the systematic notion of the Armenian Genocide. The wording was revised recently. Perhaps, the discussion concerning that word is not very useful. Also, I'd say 'killings' is a euphemism for genocide. After all, denalists love that terminology. They use it to say gangs or brigands did the 'killings' and that it wasn't a preplanned policy of genocide. Étienne Dolet (talk) 16:36, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Not a diva. Know a few. Know the difference. Using accommodate in sense OED 2. i.e. in the sense of arriving at WP:CONSENSUS an editor champions so much. Interesting I'm sure an editor's beliefs about the true meaning of perish. Why does an editor think he's entitled to impose his beliefs on the article? There's no verb in the English language for committing genocide. That is something indulged by governments or by individuals who plan and act for the government. The act of killing, murdering, or slaughtering an individual or individuals can certainly be genocidal in nature when committed as part of a genocidal policy of extermination, but it is nevertheless not committing genocide in itself. Committing genocide involves something more than merely slaughtering someone. c1cada (talk) 19:20, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

'Perished' can mean an untimely or sudden death. That's far from what happens during systematic genocides. Étienne Dolet (talk) 19:37, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Perished is the right word, supported by the corpus (for example it occurs in the Nuremberg indictments). I see you have referred me yet again to Arbcom. c1cada (talk) 13:29, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

c1cada, I support your aims in rewording and reworking parts of this article, I support your aims in merging together similar content, I support your aims at cleaning up untidy and badly-worded or badly phrased sentences, and I agree with your point made about the use of the word "corroborate". A big problem with the article is that much of it seems to have been written just as a response to Armenian genocide-denialists. So the Studies on the Genocide section exists to tell those denialists that lots and lots of books have been written proving the genocide. And the off-topic parts of the origins of the word section informs the Jewish allies of denialist Turkey that they are being very naughty Jews (with that old Jewish anti-Arab "dhimmitude" thesis thrown in to help them). Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 02:32, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes. I absolutely agree and you put it splendidly. I had certainly reflected as much regarding your denialist remarks. Right on the money. I shall do such editing here as I can manage next week, but without fit for purpose oversight I'm not confident that they will be stable. c1cada (talk) 13:07, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I've now found the origin of "The Armenian Genocide is widely corroborated by international genocide scholars": it's a copy-paste from [http://www.genocidescholars.org/sites/default/files/document%09%5Bcurrent-page%3A1%5D/documents/Scholars%20Denying%20Armenian%20Genocide--.pdf An Open Letter Concerning Historians Who Deny the Armenian Genocide October 1, 2006]:

The Armenian Genocide is corroborated by the international scholarly, legal, and human rights community ...

The letter is quoted extensively in the following sentences.

In the first place the letter is about the denial of the genocide, but more importantly the passage conceals that the the authors are talking about the genocide that took place within the Ottoman Empire:

Scholars who dispute that what happened to the Armenians in the Ottoman Empire in 1915 constitutes genocide blatantly ignore the overwhelming historical and scholarly evidence.

The paragraph immediately before the "corroboration" sentence runs as follows:

On April 24, 1915, under cover of World War I, the Young Turk government of the Ottoman Empire began a systematic, well-planned and organized genocide of its Armenian citizens – an unarmed Christian minority population. More than a million Armenians were exterminated through direct killing, starvation, torture, and forced death marches. The rest of the Armenian population fled into permanent exile. Thus an ancient civilization was expunged from its homeland of 2,500 years.

and the overall context of the letter makes it clear that the substantive "Armenian Genocide" here refers to just the genocide of World War I and not the totality of events 1915-1923 as in the article.

I shall clarify all that when I come to edit at the section. c1cada (talk) 13:37, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

'Initial genocide'

'Initial genocide' is not a term recognized in scholarship on the subject. Its use falls into the category of OR and has no place, certainly, in the lead paragraph. Diranakir (talk) 22:29, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

 Fixed. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 22:55, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

In fact the choice of phrasing "initial genocide" or "the genocide commencing 1915" (perfectly ordinary English incidentally) was designed to leave open that later attacks were genocide as well. Only the 1915-16 atrocities were committed in the two stages described. I'm quite happy to leave it out, and shall do so my next effort at achieving WP:EDITCONSENSUS

As for "genocidal attacks" referring to the attacks on Russian Armenians, that is precisely the terminology used by historians such as Dadrian and Akçam. Yerevantsi is quite wrong to say 'genocidal attacks' is advocated only by me. For example at page 348 of Dadrian 1994 we see the sentence "This is the backdrop against which the genocidal thrust of the invasion by the Turkish armies ... must be examined and assessed". In subsequent paragraphs Dadrian is at pains to show that the attacks were genocidal in nature. However he never describes the attacks as genocide, because as of yet the sources are insufficient to support the charge in its precise legal sense. My section start Massacres after World War I makes all that quite clear.

Incidentally I'm advocating absolutely nothing here. All I'm doing is record the sources. I have made it abundantly clear that my private view is that there was an ongoing genocide lasting from 1894 to 1923.

It would he helpful if editors refrained from using the blunt tool of edit reverts so indiscriminately. Presumably editors sophisticated enough to appraise international scholarship on the subject are able to make a straightforward adjustment to copy, without reverting it all. c1cada (talk) 13:15, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Dadrian refers only to the Turkish armies thrust into the Caucasus as genocidal. He does not say the entire episode, let alone everything that comes after 1916, be termed as such. In fact, Dadrian is quite clear in his opinion that the entire Russian Armenian episode is a recurrence of the genocidal policies of 1915. Étienne Dolet (talk) 15:30, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

An editor is quite correct to affirm that Dadrian considers the entire Russian Armenian to be a reprise of Ottoman genocidal policy, as my reverted edit implied (although an editor previously ascribed the reprise to be Republic of Turkey policy). An editor is silent on the question whether Dadrian ever declares it was a genocide. I have the book (1995). If an editor would care to quote a passage affirming that, then this whole huge dispute over a syllable, is over. I shall happily cite such an eminent authority and let the copy suggest that the genocide, in its legal sense, continued after 1918. Meanwhile, I can only commit to the sources as I find them. c1cada (talk) 15:49, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

You can start by reading the introduction. Dadrian refers to these episodes as not only genocide, but an extension of it. Étienne Dolet (talk) 16:00, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

An editor need not have directed me to the introduction. I had already read it. The first paragraph begins by recording the genocide of World War I. It then goes on to discuss the "Turkish attempt to extend the genocide" to the Russian Armenians, the subject of my section start "Massacres after World War I" immediately reverted by an editor in full not once but twice and which always acknowledged in some detail the genocidal nature of these massacres. In the following sentence Dadrian uses the term "mass murder" (one of the euphemisms WP:EUPHEMISM deplores). He then quotes various resolutions acknowledging the genocide, all of which refer 1915-1916 only. In the final reference (penultimate paragraph) he refers to the "World War I cataclysm of genocide". None of this describes the post World War I massacres as a genocide, for reasons I shall repeat once again, that present sources don't allow that precisely defined characterization. Nevertheless no one, but denialists, doubts the genocidal nature of the post World War I massacres. Why did an editor revert me twice there, incidentally? Why in eight years of editing at this article did an editor never think of recording the Russian Armenians experience? Genocidal, genocide, or not? c1cada (talk) 16:56, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

None of those resolutions refer to 1915-16. They refer to 1915 as the start date. This article shouldn't really address every single episode and instance of the Armenian Genocide. We have sub-articles for that (i.e. Turkish-Armenian War). This article should be concise and straight to the point because it provides a general overview of the Armenian Genocide. A simple sentence or two regarding the Turkish-Armenian war was and still is good enough. As long as it's reliably sourced, I don't see why it's so problematic. Genocidal nature is different from genocide. You shouldn't advocate the use of the former over the latter. What most historians argue, including Dadrian, is that the episodes of post WW1 massacres were a recurrence of a genocide that started in 1915. Étienne Dolet (talk) 17:06, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Dadrian mentions three resolutions: the 1984 "People's Tribunal", the 1985 UN Subcommissiomn report (Whitaker), and the 1987 European Parliament resolution.

• Concerning the People's Tribunal, its terms of reference in respect of the genocide were the massacres of the Armenian people within the Ottoman Empire (i.e. not the post World War I massacres), it heard evidence on the Armenian genocide 1915 to 1916, it determined that the deportations and massacres of 1915-1916 constitued a genocide, and it blamed the Young Turk government of 1917 to 1918 for the genocide.

It follows that an editor is wrong to assert the People's Tribunal did not refer to 1915-1916

• Concerning the August 1985 UN Subcommision, this is the Whitaker report and it specifically refers to the "Ottoman massacres of Armenians in 1915-1916".

It follows that an editor is wrong to assert the 1985 UN Subcommission did not refer to 1915-1916.

• Concerning the June 1987 resolution by the European Parliament, Dadrian notes that it declared the Turkish massacres of World War I to be a genocide. The resolution itself refers to the "tragic events in1915-1917 as constitutung genocide".

It follows that an editor is wrong to assert the 1987 European Parliament resolution did not refer to 1915-1916.

Of course the Armenian Genocide article should address the question of the massacres of the Russian Armenians and refugees outside the Ottoman Empire between 1918 to 1923. In time terms, it comprises more than half the duration of the Armenian Genocide. While the scale of fatalities does not approach that of the 1915 genocide, they are still very significant and scarcely un point de detail. The Turkish-Armenian War does not once mention these massacres. A day before the April 24 centennial of the Armenian Genocide, I added a brief account of their experience in the article. An editor immediately reverted it and as a result the centenary passed without Wikipedia remembering their history: "Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it."

I might be able to edit a little later this evening. I do so hope I shall be able to edit constructively at the article and not have to deal once again with these sort interventions by an editor. c1cada (talk) 18:49, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

When have I ever said the UN subcommision report did not refer to those dates? I have said several times already that such reports cannot be the framework for an entire article. We can refer to these reports in the article, but they can't be used as a source and a basis to our entire understanding of the AG. There's in fact hundreds of similar reports by various international governments and agencies that provide different dates to the Armenian Genocide. However, we need scholarly and academic inquiry into these matters. And it is quite clear by the current academic community that the Armenian Genocide continued after 1916. Dadrian may refer to those reports in his book, but there's no indication in his entire book as to whether he adopted the specifications of those reports as a framework to his academic work. Dadrian is quite clear on page 358 that after WW1, the "recurrence of the World War I Ittihadist pattern of genocide is evident." Étienne Dolet (talk) 19:18, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

An editor said it when they said "None of those resolutions refer to 1915-16. They refer to 1915 as the start date.". An editor can't unsay that and an editor was wrong to say it. Regarding an editor's p 358 quote of Dadrian's, that's quite correct. The entire purpose of the chapter "The Kemalist Thrust against Russian Armenia" is to underline it was a continuation of Ottoman (genocidal) policy. Nevertheless he doesn't call it genocide because the sources aren't adequate at the moment and in the sentence before, necessary to set the context and which you omit, he refers to the "established genocidal policy".

When I resubmit an edit for the lede to correct the two errors of fact there, I shall adopt Dadrian's "attempt to extend the genocide" and omit all mention of the date 1915 in referencing the genocide, though I am afraid that latter has the potential of misleading the reader into believing that the post World War I massacres were not genocide as they didn't involve the two step process of proscription and deportation. c1cada (talk) 19:45, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Just because deportations ended in 1916, doesn't mean the Armenian Genocide ended. I don't see why Dadrian's source is not adequate enough to ascribe the view that policies of eradicating the Armenians did not end just because deportations did. Étienne Dolet (talk) 19:57, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

His sources. I'm not an expert on the Armenian genocide. I don't presume to be one and I'm editing here on happenstance. That is to say I was editing at Perinçek v. Switzerland and I came here because the POTD for 24 April 2015 affirmed eight years of genocide, which I know is not acknowledged (I mean, I think a single state in the United States actually affirms that). I'm happy to reference Dadrian. I have already. Does an editor have a problem with this for example? But Dadrian is simply one source, noted for his position on the genocide. As it happens I'm prepared to give undue weight to his opinion in the lead, because he's supported by other historians such as Akcam and commentators like Fisk. But I'm not prepared to go further than the source permits.

I'm taking time off this particular debate, because it's becoming obsessive. I shall be editing again at the lede a few days hence to clarify the matters I highlight. c1cada (talk) 20:45, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Happenstance is not a promising approach to editing this article, as reflected in the fact that C1cada tells me on May 1 that 'killings' was better than 'genocide' , but then goes along with the reversion to 'genocide' without the least objection or qualification. I would ask him to point out to me where on the Talk page he, in the first place, explained why 'killings' was better than 'genocide' and thus account for what otherwise seems an unnecessary and distracting intervention. Diranakir (talk) 05:25, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Promising or not, 'happenstance' is how I came here. I'm not a single-purpose editor of Wikipedia. I have a special interest in privacy issues, starting articles like Max Schrems and Microsoft Corporation v. United States of America. I know a certain amount of international and European Union law and edit at Perinçek v. Switzerland, where you and I had a constructive and amicable intervention here reverting together an edit that was manifestly matter-of-fact not true. As I have explained in my comment at the ongoing Arbcom hearing an editor has brought against me I am anxious to preserve the integrity of the word 'genocide' in its legal sense as a crime against humanity closely defined in international law. I came to this article (thus the 'happenstance') because the caption, blurp (sic), for the POTD of 24 April 2015 referred to "eight years of genocide", which matter of fact is not acknowledged by any historian, organisation, or nation state of note in its legal sense. That is as matter of factly so as the issue we agreed together to revert at Perinçek v. Switzerland, where an editor had claimed 'The Court also declared it is not possible to legally characterise the 1915 events as genocide.'

A glance at your 1 May edit suffices to see that in fact you were about reverting my edit modifying the lede in its entirety, and not making a constructive WP:EDITCONSENSUS modification to the copy regarding "killings". As for "killings" the issue is simply a copy issue. In the first place we need to avoid giving the impression that the genocide is acknowledged as extending over the whole eight years and in the second place we need to avoid giving the impression that the genocidal killings over the whole eight years were the results of forced conscription and deportations. In the case of the post World War I mass murder (to use Dadrian's phrase and not as a eupemism) that was not so.

I repeat that after eight years and more of active editing, this article never contained any description of the post World War I killings. When I provided a carefully researched and cited start section on these in time for the 24 April commemoration, after first offering it to established editors here, it was immediately reverted.

Reverting edits is a very blunt instrument for achieving WP:EDITCONSENSUS. I ask that you be more constructive. c1cada (talk) 10:13, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

A glance at your reply is enough to see that you did not discuss the change from genocide to killings before making it. This is at odds with your repeated reminders to seek consensus. And, putting it in ordinary English, what exactly does it mean to say the killings issue is simply a copy issue ? Diranakir (talk) 15:09, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't think my English can be said to be extraordinary. Essentially you are asking me to repeat myself. The issue concerns the sentence you restored commencing "The genocide was carried out during and after World War I and implemented in two phases ...". But this article concerns the whole period of the Armenian Genocide 1915-1923 of which the mass murder (using Dadrian's phrase) of Russian Armenians and refugees committed outside the Ottoman Empire 1918-1923 is a substantial part. For example it occupies an entire section VIII of Dadrian's standard history The History of the Armenian Genocide. However these events, certainly genocidal in nature, are nevertheless not presently acknowledged as a genocide in its legal sense: compare the title of Dadrian's part VIII The Push Beyond Domestic Genocide: The Targeting Of The Russsian Armenian (30 pages) with his part VI The Initiation and Consummation Of The Genocide Under Cover Of The First World War (100 pages). But the problem is that an ordinary reader of English will construe that sentence as implying the entire period is acknowledged as a genocide and moreover that the latter mass murder was planned and implemented in two stages as well.

So we have to find a work round that. "Killings" is a neutral word which follows on naturally from 'killed" in the previous paragraph, which has been there before I started editing. I'm surprised editors here find it contentious in the circumstances. I really don't see why a relatively non-contentious issue centering around a single word can't be thrashed out at WP:EDITCONSENSUS.

I have found a form of words (citing Dadrian) which satisfies concerns and I will WP:BOLD it at some point. There are two errors of fact in the lede that need to be corrected. c1cada (talk) 16:19, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Dadrian does not mention in any part of his book that the genocide ended in 1916. The murdering of refugees in 1918, for example, was still a large part of the policy of genocide. Also, you claim only one state users the 1915-1923. How sure are you of that? Étienne Dolet (talk) 16:44, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that's right about Dadrian and 1916. But he does make it clear that for him the genocide was conducted during the First World War and he stops short of calling the subsequent mass murder (his words) of Russian Armenians and refugees outside the Ottoman Empire a genocide. If by the murder of refugees in 1918 you mean those that took place during that latter time, then no he doesn't describe it as genocide. As for an editor's query about a state (that would be a state within the United States of America) acknowledging 1915-1923, I'm not sure. I just noted it as curious in passing as I was researching the issue of acknowledgement. Under normal circumstances I should be happy to assist an editor's curiosity, but frankly so much demand on my time is being made here that I must needs decline. However, my offer to an editor stands: if they can find a source of similar standing to Dadrian that unequivocally asserts those post-war massacres indeed were genocide, then by all means let's cite it. No-one should be more pleased than I. c1cada (talk) 17:05, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I know of not one state resolution in the United States that refers to the Armenian Genocide under the years of 1915-1916. See for yourself: [27]. Again, Dadrian makes it clear that what the Turkish government did in 1918-1920 and so forth was a recurrence of genocide. If you want a source to disprove that, believe me, Dadrian shouldn't be the one you should be using. He was a pioneer in the study of post-WW1 genocide. Étienne Dolet (talk) 17:58, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

An editor wishes me to see for myself. OK, I'll try New Jersey (where I have a home). The relevant PDF I should see for myself is here. What I see there is a resolution recognising 24 April as "Armenian Genocide Remembrance Day". That's not the same as recognising any part of it as genocide as defined in international law. It's not a resolution recognising genocide, either in law or in ordinary English for that matter. The wording is:

This joint resolution designates April 24 of each year as "Armenian Genocide Remembrance Day," in recognition of the atrocities suffered by the Armenians at the hands of the government of the Ottoman Empire from 1915 through 1923. During this period, Armenians were subject to deportation, expropriation, abduction, torture, massacre, and starvation, all of which were planned and orchestrated by the government of the Ottoman Empire. These horrific events are widely recognized today by numerous scholars, governments, and international organizations as the Armenian Genocide.

It recognise "atrocities" and not "genocide". The recent German parliament resolution does, however, unequivocally acknowledge genocide, but confines the acknowledgement to the events of World War I.

As for Dadrian, it's incumbent on an editor per WP:VERIFY to demonstrate Dadrian's unequivocal characterization of the Russian Armenian and refugee experience as genocide.

But an editor need not work with me too hard at all this because when I do return my WP:BOLD edit, it will be drafted with as much skill as the New Jersey resolution to avoid all such contentions. An editor can have the last word. c1cada (talk) 18:43, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Did you read the rest of the resolution? For example, this part: "Whereas, By 1923, the Ottoman Empire had eliminated virtually the entire Armenian demographic presence in the vast majority of the historical homeland of the Armenian people"?

Or this part; "April 24 of each year is designated as "Armenian Genocide Remembrance Day," in recognition of the atrocities faced by the Armenians at the hands of the government of the Ottoman Empire from 1915 through 1923."

Just because it says 'atrocities' doesn't mean it's not genocide. 1915-1923 specifically referenced as "Armenian Genocide Remembrance Day". If it were merely atrocities, it would be "Armenian Atrocities Remembrance Day". Étienne Dolet (talk) 18:47, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

An editor actually had two last words. I claim one right of reply against my oath. An editor might care to look at U.S. House of Representatives Joint Resolution 247 September 12, 1984. This declares 24 April 1985, as "National Day of Remembrance of Man's Inhumanity to Man", referencing "especially the one and one-half million people of Armenian ancestry who were the victims of the genocide perpetrated in Turkey between 1915 and 1923, and in whose memory this date is commemorated by all Armenians and their friends throughout the world." It is nevertheless not a recognition of the genocide. If it were, then it would be the second such recognition in history after the People's Tribunal (which recognised only the 1915-1916 genocide, contrary to what an editor averred here). Doesn't an editor think that such an acknowledgement from such an august body would have been mentioned by Dadrian? Better known?

That it is exactly as I say might be further surmised by an editor on reflecting that the real United States resolution on Armenian Genocide is still under consideration (as far as I know - I shall enquire of the next august Representative I happen to meet and report back). c1cada (talk) 20:33, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Nope (straight from the horse's mouth). Incidentally there was an earlier 1975 resolution designating April 24 "National Day of Remembrance of Man’s Inhumanity to Man" referring to the Armenian genocide. If that was recognition proper, it would be the earliest such recognition. c1cada (talk) 14:30, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Errors of fact in the lede

Two significant errors of fact in the lede remain. An attempt by me [28] to correct those in a non-contentious way, after elaborate discussion in the section Proposal: Modifications to the lede, was not only reverted by editors but referred to Arbcom as evidence of non-consensus disruptive editing.

The two errors of fact are as follows:

1. Error of fact 1: " ... was the Ottoman Empire's systematic extermination of its minority Armenian subjects living in their historic homeland within Ottoman Turkey as well as those who lived in other parts of the territory constituting the present-day Republic of Turkey." That is an error because all standard histories of the Armenian Genocide treat also the mass murder (Dadrian's phrase) of Russian Armenians and refugees living outside the Ottoman Empire in territory within the present-day Republic of Armenia.

1. Error of fact 2: "The genocide was carried out during and after World War I and implemented in two phases ..." That is an error because the mass murder (Dadrian's phrase) that occurred after World War I has yet to be characterised by historians as a genocide in its strict legal sense. It is moreover poor copy because it implies the mass murder was also implemented in two phases, but it was not.

What do editors here propose to do about these, other than reverting all my attempts to correct them?

?The diff you gave does not attempt to correct the "historic homeland" thing. Your error of fact 2 is in error: the late WW1 and post WW1 killings have been termed genocide by sources, and have not been separated from the 1915 killings as a distinct event. I think it is the "two phases" thing that is false. Don't know what Armenian vested interest or pov that serves, but surely there will be one. I've taken a tiny part of your diff changes and added them with a small variation. Will see if they remain. Plus I've changed the wording for the deportation of intellectuals bit - many survived so it is not appropriate to state they were killed or tortured and thus suggest all of them died or were tortured. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 22:52, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Ah yes, apologies about the diff. I meant my edit addressing reverting editor's concerns: "Accomodating various reverting editors' points. Editors, please try in turn to accommodate the existing copy when you make edits...". I'll clarify why I thought that non-contentious in a moment.

Regarding "genocide" my position is that we should reserve the term for the crime of genocide as defined in international law. Recognising the "Armenian Genocide" is not the same thing as recognising the fact of genocide, as a glance at United States resolutions confirm. What we need most of all for "genocide" is the opinion of recognised historians. I'm hopeful that the European Court of Human Rights will clarify as well in the Perinçek v. Switzerland appeal. In my edits I have always left open the question that the later post war massacres of Russian Armenians and refugees were a genocide and from the outset followed Dadrian and Akcam in describing these attacks as genocidal in intent.

I looked at both your edits. I thought them acute and don't dispute them. I think it's unlikely that you and I will ever come to blows over this article. I was especially glad to see that you returned my "0.8 to 1.5 million". I've noted on this page that my opponents here are best not advised to wikilawyer me or find fault with my vocab. On my maths they stand not one iota of a chance ... (the wikilink being deeper than time travel as it happens).

_{At the risk of overextending my welcome (such as it ever was), I'll give the rationale for my my edit. I started with "The Armenian Genocide ... was the Ottoman Empire's systematic extermination of Armenians in its territory and surrounding regions during 1915-1923.[10] The total number of people killed in the genocide has been estimated at between 800,000 to 1.5 million. The initial genocide, carried out during World War I, targeted the Ottoman Empire's minority Armenian subjects living in their historic homeland within territory constituting the present-day Republic of Turkey. Later genocidal attacks targeted Russian Armenians and refugees living outside the Ottoman Empire within territory constituting the present-day Republic of Armenia.". There I first repeated the Armenian Genocide Museum's (AGM) definition, but retained the original "systematic" of the article, which is not in the AGM's definition. I introduced "genocide" immediately (as it had not been subsequently) because it not disputed that genocide was committed during the period and that is the commonly understood subtsnace of "Armenian Genocide". I retained "killed" and "800,000" in place of "perished" (unquestionably the right word as ordinary readers of English will know) and "0.8" I originally supplied, because I'm not a diva who can be big-arsed (and god knows some are totally huge) about absolutely everything. The rest was simply a statement of matter of fact about the events, correcting the error of fact that the Armenia Genocide took place solely within the borders of present-day Republic of Turkey. A reverting editor was quite wrong to say that "genocidal attacks" was my OR. It explicitly repeats what Dadrian and Akcam commit to. Moreover it does not preclude characterising the attacks as a genocide later in the article (and in the Massacres after World War I section I started, twice reverted with no input of substance by an editor, I gave due weight from the outset to those historians' views). Finally, concerning my edit, I removed "The genocide was carried out during and after World War I ..." at the start of the second paragraph because that was no longer needed, and substituted "The genocide commencing 1915 was planned ..." where the "1915" so impatiently deleted by another editor, was included precisely so not to imply that the later post war massacres were not also a genocide, as an ordinary reader of English must needs infer as those massacres were of the conventional visceral sort and not implemented in two phases.}

That edit was a carefully considered edit addressing other editors' concerns that I genuinely thought was non-contentious. It was immediately reverted by an editor who took me to an Arbcom procedure with the request that I be banned, so intrusive and non-constructive thought they it.

I don't expect to have much time over the summer editing Wikipedia. But unless I am actually banned, I do propose to continue editing here. Meanwhile I shall content myself with standardising the citations until such time I hear from Arbcom as to whether they intend to chop me or not. I gather their proceedings are even more protracted than ECHR's. c1cada (talk) 16:02, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

@c1cada: 'correcting the error of fact that the Armenia Genocide took place solely within the borders of present-day Republic of Turkey'. Who said 'solely'? Looks like a straw man. Diranakir (talk) 00:14, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

@Diranakir: I don't see how I can be erecting a straw man over solely when the current definition defines the Armenian genocide as " ... the Ottoman Empire's systematic extermination of its minority Armenian subjects living in their historic homeland within Ottoman Turkey as well as those who lived in other parts of the territory constituting the present-day Republic of Turkey." It's slightly wordier than the original "the Ottoman government's systematic extermination of its minority Armenian subjects inside their historic homeland, which lies within the territory constituting the present-day Republic of Turkey", but in either case it's perfectly clear to an ordinary reader of English that it's defining the Genocide as taking place solely in territory occupied by the present-day Republic of Turkey. That's not true, and even were it true I question its relevance; strictly speaking about as relevant as saying the Holocaust took place in territory occupied by the present-day European Union. Kudos of course for knowing the "straw man" fallacy - can't say I ever did before coming to Wikipedia.

Put another way, what would your beef be with my attempt to correct it in the edit you reverted, where I inserted "and surrounding regions" per the Armenian Genocide Museum and explicitly referenced the Republic of Armenia in the same way as the Republic of Turkey was?

You reverted my entire edit, if I remember correctly, on my use of the word "killings". However, before I came to edit at this article, its sole reference to the Russian Armenians and refugees experience I wished to record in more detail was the following:

Mass killings continued under the Republic of Turkey during the Turkish–Armenian War phase of Turkish War of Independence.

Would you be ok then with my using "mass killings" when I come to WP:BOLD a new effort at correcting the lede. While you are it, I should much like to hear your comment on an editor's effort to implicate the Republic of Turkey in the Genocide. What's your take on that, please? c1cada (talk) 10:32, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

If you simply want to simply replace words "territory constituting the present-day Republic of Turkey" by "Turkey" in lede ("Ottoman Empire" is not necessarily appropriate as a historical state), that's fine. No one will probably object this. If you want to write about something, which strictly speaking does not fall under definition of Armenian genocide, that's fine too. Create another page (see this comment) and briefly reflect it in the body of this page. After that, you can try to slightly fix lede - just to make it consistent with body of page. You should realize that making changes on pages like that one is very difficult. My very best wishes (talk) 13:56, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I saw your response at the Arbcom process. I didn't respond, not because I didn't think it worth responding to, but because I'm not terribly interested in the Arbcom proceedings. Of course I'll abide by whatever decision they eventually make (obviously will have to if I'm chopped), but the norms of the community is not something that very fascinates me. For example another editor's contribution there was simply gobbledygook to me and I'm not the slightest bit curious as to what they might portend. I note however that you contributed nothing to my proposals here and I reject your slight that I'm pro-Turkey POV-pushing. As I mentioned in my submission there , by far the best lede for this article is the French one. An off the cuff translation follows:

The "Armenian Genocide" was a genocide perpetrated from April 1915 to July 1916 (considered today to have continued until 1923) [Note 1], in which two thirds of the Armenians then living in the present-day territory of Turkey perished due to deportations, famine, and large-scale massacres. It was planned and executed by the party in power at the time, the Committee of Union and Progress (CUP), better known as the "Young Turks", consisting in particular of the truimvirate of officers Talaat Pasha, Enver Pasha and Jemal Pasha, head of the Ottoman Empire then engaged in World War I as allies of the Central Powers. Considered as the first genocide of the twentieth century, it claimed the lives of about one million two hundred thousand Armenians from Anatolia and Armenia. [Note 2]

The notes are respectively:

Note 1: Recent historiography considers the genocide ended with the signing of the Lausanne Treaty of July 23, 1923, due to the massacres that took place over the period 1920-1923. Similarly, estimates of the number of victims often cover the period 1915-1923.

Note 2: This figure is generally accepted by historians of the period; but the record of the massacres and deportations of Armenians is not, however, unanimiously accepted. Anahide Ter Minassian wrote: "If no one now disputes the lethality of forced displacement or the massacres that accompanied them, the controversy has been ever since 1919 the number of victims (1,500,000 according to the Armenians, 600,000 to 800,000 according to the Turks)... [and then further quoting and citing]"

An editor might care to notice "perishes". Other good features of this lede I shall happily expand on to interested editors, but not to this editor who testified at Arbcom that I am a pro-Turkey POV-pusher. c1cada (talk) 19:19, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

It was not only me who found these your edits problematic [29] (edit summary). My very best wishes (talk) 00:43, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

@c1cada: So you have no problem with 'Armenians then living in the present-day territory of Turkey' as a geographic descriptor despite its leaving out the attacks on the Russian Armenians? Diranakir (talk) 19:52, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Revert to stable version

This article has gone through a lot this past month. A lot of information has been added without consensus mostly by a user who is now topic banned. The harvard refs done by this user is also a disaster. They're not even properly done. I propose reverting this article to a more stable version. If there is any information we'd like to add, it should be done in a constructive and consensus building manner. Étienne Dolet (talk) 09:41, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

You should specify what version you want to revert to so other editors can do a comparison. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:52, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, he means his own version of course! And since he is useing the word "disaster", it is worth remembering that the version he thinks preferable was such a disaster that it failed the GA appraisal at the first hurdle. I oppose any attempt by EtienneDolet to indulge in blind reverting. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:23, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

The version I propose to revert to is this: [30]. I don't have my own version of this article. Wikipedia doesn't work that way. On the other hand, the version we currently see is one that was heavily edited by a disruptive user who was recently topic banned under AA2. The harvard refs are a disaster. They don't include page numbers and they're not properly sorted. Huge chunks of information were added without consensus. Above all, the user was banned for doing all of this. If there is any information that should be added, it should be done so in a constructive matter. Étienne Dolet (talk) 16:34, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

By "your version" I mean the one you presented for GA assessment. It is not a valid editing act to make a blanket revert ([[31]]) of content just because that content was placed there by an editor subsequently blocked. Refs can be fixed. You need to state the specific content you would like to be removed and explain your reasons why you want it removed. Many of the differences are tiny one word changes that seem legitimate (I don't know who made them), some other bigger changes seem valid. For example, why do you not want a separate "Massacres after World War I" section? The Fatwa content also seems relevant, and again I don't know who added it. You know what I think of the "consensus" and what it has done to this article. I do not believe that this "consensus" you talk about is required to add properly referenced valid new content or to make legitimate changes to existing content. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:01, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

This version is not a GA quality article either. In fact, it's much worse. It has been heavily edited by a topic banned user who was banned for causing even more problems to this article than before. If there are any sections we should keep, it can be easily discussed here at the TP. Étienne Dolet (talk) 23:24, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Ahh, so we only need to discuss things we should keep, as opposed to discussing things we should delete? I doubt you mean that! My discussion input to start is that we should keep everything added between those two diffs unless proper arguments are presented for the removal of specific content. Please explain why do you not want a separate "Massacres after World War I" section, and so on? You cannot remove content just because it was put there by a topic-banned editor. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 23:57, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

That paragraph was unilaterally imposed by a disruptive editor who did not believe the genocide continued after 1916. The user has, for example, employed a variety of POV terms to that effect (i.e. 'Genocidal' as in genocide-like rather than 'genocide'). Étienne Dolet (talk) 13:26, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

This mess of an article needs better structuring, a chronological structuring is appropriate, so I support the retention of the "Massacres after World War I" section. The religious component of the massacres needs to be addressed, so I support the retention of the Fatwa content (it is described as a declaration of Jihad, a Holy War, in other sources). Many of the other differences are correcting typos or just tiny changes in words that seem to mostly be changes for the better - so I support those being retained too. So I oppose any revert back to any earlier version. You have not presented any argument for the removal of content. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:29, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I still feel that there must be a reversion made to reinstate a stable version. This current version, as I have already said, has many POV and referencing issues. I suggest reverting it to this version: [32]. I would also like to see some more community input on this. Étienne Dolet (talk) 18:07, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

A reliable source Wikipedians may not know

International Journal of Armenian Genocide Studies, see [33]. This journal published research papers and reviews about the Armenian Genocide and genocide studies in general. I think that Wikipedians should utilize this prestigious source to make the article better reflect the current research trend - also to make the article closer to the truth.--RekishiEJ (talk) 11:27, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Don't worry, they are using each and every Armenian source, including Mr Akçam, that support their stance, and those writers who dissent are called denialist, independently of their nationalities. --176.239.95.241 (talk) 21:47, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

To the above IP; hello! :) PS. Akcam is not Armenian :) --92slim (talk) 00:54, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Unconstructive edits

An editor, 92Slim, has repeatedly attempted to insert unreferenced and unsuitable content into the article. [34], [35], [36], [37]. In these edits he has repeatedly inserted into the lead the claim that all of the 24 April arrested notables were killed, in some edits he claims that they were all killed on 24 April. In other edits he claims that they were all executed at a later date. These claims are contrary to the referenced content on Deportation of Armenian intellectuals on 24 April 1915. In other edits he has inserted an unreferenced claim that some were saved by "Turkish intellectuals" (he has been advised by another editor that such content, even if it were to be referenced, is unsuitable for the lead [38]). He has also been inserting unreferenced content that weasely implies that these arrests were a Turkish response to the Allied landings at Gallipoli because the dates coincided. Of course the dates do not coincide, and there is no reference for content stating that they did, or content stating or implying that there was any direct connection between the two events. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 12:49, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I haven't done any of those things. The intellectuals were mainly executed per the sources (never mentioned 24th of April at all) and that some Turkish intellectuals (eg. Halide Edip) saved some of them. I smell butthurt. --92slim (talk) 14:55, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

"I haven't done any of those things" - so I suppose the cited diffs are made up and I hacked into Wikipedia's servers! Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:15, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

You're mistaken. I explained what I have done above. --92slim (talk) 16:49, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

So-called Armenian Genocide

There was a fact that happened in 24 April 1915.This fact was deportation law and 22 countries define this law as a Armenian genocide and there are a lot of misunderstanding about this fact. There were almost 1.100.000 Armenian who were living in the borders of Ottoman Empire according to Ottoman Empire archives in 1914 but some of the sources claims that there were 1.800.000 Armenian who were killed but this number is so far from truth.There are some exaggeration about this fact and I just want to share my idea. After the French Revolution between 1789-1792 there were national movement that changed the world as a result of this firstly empires was affected especially Ottoman Empire which has 72 nations in it. World War 1 between 1914-1918 the empire was facing with a lot of difficulties and Armenian was one of the nation who was using the difficulty times to do abundance.Initially some of the Armenian like Karakin Pastırmacıyan armed and founded several illegal cooperation like Taşnak Hınçak and began the join Russian army.In some cities the rebellious are held and one of them which important was Van Rebellion.After all this Ottoman's Ministry of the interior published a circular that was aim to collect the rebellion's weapon and avoid the another probable bad events in 24 April 1915.After that in Istanbul in 24-25 April night 235 rebellious arrested.After a few time that circular published the rebellious which was arrested was just reached 556.They were scientist that involved in rebellious actions and one of them was German ambassador Hengel.Of course this number increased gradually.With this this circular Ottoman Empire forced to rebellious Armenian to migration.When doing this also Ottoman Empire provided migration security,health security,settlement and all the thing to make this migration better and security.With all this precaution they prevent the probable disaster.Sometimes thousands people can be ignored to save the millions.I used Dr.Yusuf SARINAY's knowledge and Prof.Dr.Kemaleddin KUZUCU's book as a source in this talk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kamil MZN (talk • contribs) 17:23, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are based on published reliable sources, and not on the 'ideas' of contributors. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:29, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Exactly. Sources, not "beliefs". --92slim (talk) 14:58, 25 May 2015 (UTC)