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)

No reference to the highly significant report of the first prime minister of Armenia in the article

In a report entitled "Dashnaktsutyun Has Nothing More to Do", which discusses but is not limited to the subject and was addressed to his political party, The Armenian Revolutionary Federation (Dashnagtzoutiun or Dashnaktsutyun), Armenia's first prime minister Hovhannes Katchaznouni defines the events as one would define a war.

He criticizes the aspect of the Armenian side, stating that "We overestimated the ability of the Armenian people, its political and military power, and overvalued the extent and significance of the services our people rendered to the Russians. And by overestimating our very humble worth and merit we were naturally exaggerating our hopes and expectations."

He also states that "The Turks knew what they were doing and have no reason to regret it today. It was the most definite technique to resolve the Armenian Question." These statements are consistent with defining the events as war which included bilateral slaughters, but not genocide.

As a result, it may be concluded that it is obvious that many people lost their lives from both opposed sides. It can be more on one side and less on the other, depending on their military and political powers.

But to define the events as genocide is not fair; and highly reduces the credibility of wikipedia.

94.121.70.191 (talk) 08:12, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Since the creator of the present topic seems to know so much about Katchaznouni's thinking, I'd like to ask him what he thinks Katchaznouni meant by "It" in the sentence, "It was the most definite technique to resolve the Armenian Question". Diranakir (talk) 23:47, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

That "it" may refer to any action that can take place in war; but it does not refer to "genocide". As I mentioned above, during this war, numerous upsetting events took place effecting both opposite sides; as it would be, and as it is, in any war. 94.121.66.31 (talk) 20:35, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

The origin of the word genocide.

94.121.66.31 (talk · contribs) Are you trying to be funny? The term "genocide" was invented in 1943 by Raphael Lemkin and therefore it was not used till then. Nevertheless, the systematic massacres and deportations of Armenians in 1915 fits perfectly into the definition of genocide. In fact, Lemkin used the Armenian Genocide as a reference and a primary example of this new word. You can watch the video I provided or just take a glance at "Raphael Lemkin's Dossier on the Armenian Genocide" (ISBN:0977715345) for more information.

So you really don't want to provide the definition of "it"? No worries, I can provide it for you. But out of curiosity, have you even read Khatchaznouni's report? You've picked out one sentence from the report and excluded all the ones referring to the mass extermination of the Armenians. Nice try buddy. Yet, even with such a bad translation by Mehmet Perinçek, a convicted criminal and a member of the ultra-nationalist Ergenekon organization, what Khatchaznouni said was clear:

The mass exiles, deportations, and massacres that took place during the summer and autumn of 1915 were fatal blows to the Armenian Cause. Half of historical Armenia - the same half where the fundamentals of our independence would be laid according to the traditions inherited by European diplomacy - that half was deprived of Armenians. In the Armenian provinces of Turkey there were no Armenians. The Turks knew what they were doing and have no reason to regret it today. It was the most definite technique to resolve the Armenian Question.

Khatchaznouni continues to describe the intentions of the Turkish government to destroy and exterminate his Armenian population in the very same report:

The proof is, however – and this is crucial – that the struggle began decades ago against which the Turkish government brought about the deportation or extermination of the Armenian people in Turkey and the desolation of Turkish Armenia.

This was the terrible fact.

Civilized humanity might very well be shaken with rage in the face of this horrifying crime. Statesmen might utter menacing words against criminal Turkey. “Blue”, “yellow”, “orange” books and papers might be published accusing them. Divine punishment against the criminals might be invoked in churches by clergymen of all denominations. The press of all countries might be filled with horrifying descriptions and details and the evidence of eye-witnesses...Let them say this or that, but the work was already done and words would not revive the corpses fallen in the Arabian deserts, restore the ruined hearths, repopulate the country now become desolate. The Turks knew what they ought to do and did it.

Khatchaznouni's report does not depict the Armenian Genocide as merely a war fought in between Armenians and Turksh. That's a huge mistake made by unprofessional Armenian Genocide denialists who are now embarrassed for even uttering such a claim. In fact, denialists don't even use this report anymore as an attempt of debunking the Armenian Genocide. They've been embarrassed way too many times. I suggest you don't try to continue or revive that mistake either. Simply because Khatchaznouni makes it clear that what happened to the Armenians in 1915 was a "horrifying crime" which consisted of "mass exiles, deportations, and massacres" which ultimately resulted with the Turkish government bringing about "the deportation or extermination of the Armenian people in Turkey." Étienne Dolet (talk) 23:22, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Claiming that he is trying to uphold Wikipedia's credibility, the initiator of the present topic is avoiding a legitimate discussion by ignoring the ordinary meaning of words and then hiding behind the results. "It was the most definite technique" does not equal "any action that can take place in war", or "numerous upsetting events". That is as clear as the nose on one's face. Diranakir (talk) 20:21, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for kind replies. I will be re-presenting my thoughts and opinions about the subjects that have been mentioned. But first, I have to inform you that I will expand this thread further later, as I do not have enough time for this right now. So, please keep in touch.

1 - My primary motivation to start this discussion is to point out that, a highly significant report of the first prime minister of Armenia is not -and should be- referred in the article, if it is intended to make the article comprehensive. About the report, I also would be happy to hear your opinions about why the report "Dashnaktsutyun Has Nothing More to Do", by the first prime minister of Armenia, had been removed from libraries and banned in Armenia.

2 - As for the "anachronism" claim about the term genocide; I do not think I have made any imply that the term genocide had already been coined in 1915 (to be more clear: in my initial message by saying ""but it does not refer to "genocide"", I mean it does not refer to "genocide" (one should not take he message that it means genocide)); which means I am not trying to be funny.

3 - I hope you are a little bit outdated in the Ergenekon; otherwise what you stated would be a pure intentional denigration. The Ergenekon trial -after over 6 years - is proven to be a coup against people who are -after all these years they were sentenced- declared as not guilty, including Mehmet Perincek. All so-called convicted persons are acquitted, by the verdict of the Constitutional Court (highest court) of Turkey. You can check out the list of illegality examples in Ergenekon trials. As a matter of fact, the famous prosecutor of the trial, Zekeriya Oz, and judges, president of the court Hasan Hüseyin Özese, and member judges Sedat Sami Haşıloğlu and Hüsnü Çalmuk are now being prosecuted; for the faults in the Ergenekon trials. They are believed to be connected to the Fethullah Gülen (so called religious) order.

4 - I refuse the term "denialist", since one can only deny a truth. One can not deny the ambiguous outcomes of a controversial discussion, however these can be agreed or disagreed.

5 - There are many former "denialists" of Armenian origin, but one of the last of them was Hrant Dink, an iconic person of the Armenian community in Turkey, the editor of the Agos magazine, who was murdered in 2007. He interpreted the 1915 events with courage, Hrant Dink. Dink claimed that the Kurds were now falling in for the traps that the Armenians fell in the past. He says in his last speech in Malatya Business Peoples Association: "English, Russian, German, and French are playing the same game again in this land. In the past, the Armenian people trusted them, thought they would rescue them from the cruelity of the Ottoman. But they were wrong, because they finished their business and they left. And they left brothers of this land as enemies". He claimed that the US is now playing the same game, and this time Kurds are falling for it. He said "That is America. Comes, minds its own business, and when he is done, leaves. And then people here, scuffle within themselves". Before you accuse the imaginary Ergenekon organisation, let me add that the chief of police in Trabzon, Ramazan Akyürek, who condoned the murder to happen, had officially been filed as being a member of the Fethullah Gülen so-called religious order.

6 - Raphael Lemkin may be an innovative person, and like any person, he may be wrong, or deceived, or ignorant. If he chose 1915 events as an example, I believe that was his mistake. Please check the European Council of Human Rights report mentioned in the above topic The controversy about the 1915 events may only be ended by an objective, unbiased and thorough study by a council of scientists, not by talented individuals. I believe one day, these studies will be made and the fact that the events were "carnage made by both sides and effecting both sides", but not an "unilateral genocide", will be revealed.

7 - Being ignorant is not as difficult as knowing. But pretending not to know is even harder. I hope our children will meet, and be "brothers" as Dink would say, in a world where blood group is more important than ethnical identities.

Best regards, 94.121.64.98 (talk) 12:27, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

References

1.) 94.121.66.31 (talk · contribs) Okay, this is becoming a comedy. Banned in Armenia? Who ever told you that? I know the Turkish lobby and Armenian Genocide deniers have been repeating that garbage for quite some time now. But it's another embarrassing claim. Kachaznouni's Dashnaktsutyun Has Nothing More to Do is available in the National Library Armenia in several languages. The book has been republished several times in Armenia and is widely read. Have you even bothered looking for the book at the library catalog of the National Library of Armenia? If not, here's the link [1]. I've spotted at least a dozen copies of the book available in almost all branches of the National Library located throughout Armenia. So please, do yourself a favor and research this a little more before coming back here.

2.) How do you expect someone to use a certain word that hasn't even been invented yet? Regardless of what you may think, Kachaznouni stated that the "Turkish government brought about the deportation or extermination of the Armenian people in Turkey and the desolation of Turkish Armenia." The extermination of a people due to their race (in this case Armenian) is by definition a genocide.

3.) I do follow the news. We can't just abruptly consider this guys work to be reliable just because he was acquitted from trial in Turkey. How reliable is Turkey's justice system anyways? The very fact that they had arrested this guy under suspicion for plotting an overthrow of an elected government to reinstate an ultra-nationalist order leaves me to believe that his research is politically motivated and therefore not reliable. Perinçek studied in Russia for 1.5 years and was assigned by the Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs to conduct research. He was the mouthpiece of the Turkish government during those years and his research was politically motivated. Upon returning to his country, he spent two years in prison in his own country and was sentenced an additional six years in the summary judgement of the trial. He was fired from his academic duties at the University of Istanbul and had his doctoral thesis was revoked. His attempt at establishing an "academic" career turned out to be a disaster. Because of this, we as Wikipedia users cannot incorporate such rubbish into the project.

4.) When it comes to the Armenian Genocide, Turkey has lost the battle of truth. Your opinion is of a minority. Denialists, such as yourself, are slowly disappearing off the face of this earth. Although you have a right to your own opinion, your personal opinion shouldn't be a guiding force to edits on such articles as this. Introducing "two-sides" of the story goes against the general consensus of Wikipedia and the arbitrary regulations under WP:ARBAA2. The side that presents the genocide as fact has been the one adopted by the Wikipedia community through a consensus, while the other side, a minority position pushed by the Government of Turkey, has not. If you continue to push such a minority position in articles related to the Armenian Genocide, you may face sanctions under WP:AE. Denialist literature, whether it be about the Holocaust or the Armenian Genocide, is always held separate from Armenian Genocide/Holocaust related articles. In fact, denialist sources and references are considered unreliable and thus unacceptable in terms of Wikipedia WP:RS requirements. Denialist sources and information can all go into the Denial of Armenian Genocide article but never into Armenian Genocide/Holocaust related articles. Arbcom takes the position seriously, see Admin Sandstein's remark here and here. The user was formally warned for his constant assertion of denialist information and sources and as of this point may be banned if he/she continues.

5.) The statement by Hrant Dink that you've provided doesn't make any sort of denialist claim. Hrant Dink never denied the Armenian Genocide. He just never dared to speak about it in public in Turkey. Considering that there were three court sentences against him and death threats being sent to him on a daily basis, that wouldn't be such a good idea. However, he was perfectly comfortable about using the word genocide when speaking in Armenian. For example, in this interview (1:34-2:10), Hrant Dink describes the moral impetus of Turks denying the Armenian Genocide. In this interview, Dink frequently uses the word genocide and scolds the Turkish academic community for teaching young children that Armenians killed Turks and that they deny genocide. Unfortunately, these are the only two interviews I found in Armenian but with English subtitles. There are many other interviews and speeches, such as this one, where he uses the word genocide frequently and expresses his admiration for genocide scholars like Vahakn Dadrian and Yves Tenon.

6.) Arguments of free speech and reports such as the one by the European Council of Human Rights do not disprove the Armenian Genocide. That's an entirely different topic of discussion. But in regards to Lemkin, you are entitled to your own opinion. However, Lemkin was far from wrong, deceived, or ignorant. He was a well-learned scholar who spent a whole lifetime researching the Armenian Genocide and has been a pioneer in that field of study ever since. His dossiers concerning the Armenian Genocide were a big breakthrough not only in the studies of the Armenian Genocide, but of all genocides. They've been recently republished by Michael Bayzler, a scholar who compiled an outstanding piece of work.

7.) I'm not "pretending" to know anything here. What I know or what you don't know won't change the fact that what happened in 1915 was a genocide.

This shall be my last response to you because it digresses from topics of discussion concerning the article itself. Étienne Dolet (talk) 03:56, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

THIS PAGE IS NOT A DISCUSSION FORUM! If any credible sources give credence to Perincek and Perincek's bizarre interpretations then that should be the basis for any discussion over content addition. But no credible sources do - so end of discussion. Something as simple and basic as this should have been said at the very start, saving everyone a lot of time. And EtienneDolet - to descend to the level of mentioning Sandstein, really! Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 03:52, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Government

I think it is important to make clear that the Genocide of 1915 was brought about by the Imperial Government (Ottoman Empire) (Three Pashas government}. It is just a fact that is not included yet, but should be replaced with the much more complex article link of Ottoman Empire for any events after 1908, as the Ottoman Empire spans many centuries and this would be too much of a distraction for the reader to get immersed into; I replaced the links I found appropiate, please do this further if necessary. --92slim (talk) 23:32, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Photo

In "Hamidian massacres" text of the photo: "Armenian massacres in E..."?! May be you want to say: Killed Armenians in E...? or Massacred Armenians in E...? 96.247.108.45 (talk) 00:12, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Changed it to make it clearer, though I don't think the old caption was that unclear. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 03:56, 28 March 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 [2]. 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 [3] 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: [4], so does Stanford University: [5]. 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 ([6][7][8]), 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 [[9]] - 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 [10] 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 [11] 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: Is English your first language, Étienne? 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)

• I have to ask you again if English is your first language, Étienne? 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 ([12][13][14]). 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' ([15][16][17]). 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 (I suspect you need to buy an adequate English dictionary):

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 [18]. 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 [19]). 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) 13 May 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" - [20]. Divot (talk) 23:23, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Reverting edits on the grounds they aren't very informative

Étienne, whose peculiar mastery of the English language I should be the first to acknowledge, 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: ([21] to [22]).

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 [23]. 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 [24]. 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 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? I'm hard put to discern what is challenging you the more here, Étienne, your knowledge of geography or your understanding of plain English. 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 [[25]] 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 [26] 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 [27] (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)

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. So WTF is your problem, Étienne?

Once again I have to raise the question of your comprehension skills in English. I do think you're being something of a pussy in your reaction to these reproaches. 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. It is simply that English is manifestly not your first language and that does put you at a disadvantage unless you are genuinely both bilingual and literate (schooled) in the language. 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 1905-1923. 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)