Talk:Armenian Genocide

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Former featured article candidateArmenian Genocide is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
On this day... Article milestones
October 27, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
November 7, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
April 4, 2008Featured article candidateNot promoted
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on April 24, 2008, April 24, 2009, April 24, 2010, and April 24, 2011.
Current status: Former featured article candidate

NPOV template[edit]

Kurdish tribes have once again been removed from the infobox. The many other POV problems have not been fixed and there is tag team edit warring to preserve the POV slant of the article. Discussions with the regular editors are unproductive due to personal attacks.I think the template should be left in place to alert new editors who might be interested in working on the article. For example, reviewing the previous discussion about Kurdish tribes:

  • "The Croatians, or the Kurds and Arabs in this case, were not involved in the systematic annihilation of the Armenians which is what genocide actually means."
  • "So you can't put Kurds and the Turkish state in the same basket."
  • "There were some circumstantial incidents, such as rape, robbery, and killings, that may have not been under command of the Ottoman government, but that was just because they were opportunists."
  • "The fact of the matter is there's a difference between those who perpetrate genocide and those who are ordered to perpetrate massacre."
  • "The Kurdish militias did not have a plan of systematic extermination of Armenians, unlike the Ottoman government."
  • "Of course individuals through their actions can commit acts of genocide. But that's not what you edit-warred into the article."

Much of this is wrong and directly contradicts any reasonable reading of the reliable sources. These comments reflect the personal opinions of a few editors about how to draw distinctions between who is guilty of genocide and who is not. They also show that editors personally attribute responsibility to the Turkish State, and not the Committee of Union and Progress. There are copious other POV issues that have been discussed elsewhere, but this is just the most recent one. This is tiresome, and unlikely to improve with substantial involvement from new editors. Seraphim System (talk) 19:12, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

This is a (infobox) content dispute. You can't just tag an entire article because of an infobox dispute. This smacks of "I can't have my way so I will tag the article in retaliation". The article does not have POV issues as a whole. By your logic, any individual or group involved in the genocide, however peripherally should be mentioned in the infobox. There are also many users who would see your edit as anti-Kurdish and as trying to smear the Kurdish people as a whole with orchestrating the genocide. Lastly, you mention "any reasonable reading of the reliable sources". Care to provide some examples of such "reasonable reading"? Khirurg (talk) 22:22, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
Why don't you back off and give new editors a chance to comment? Tagging the article is a last resort, and the many POV issues in the article have been discussed elsewhere and raised by multiple editors, and they were raised during the GA review, and the peer review. They were never fixed. Many articles across Wikipedia are tagged and I have never seen a group of regular editors treat new editors this poorly or edit war over templates this way. It took four years of discussion to remove one Ramsay quote (Wikipedia:Peer_review/Armenian_Genocide/archive3) — this template should not be removed without a consensus that includes participation from uninvolved editors.Seraphim System (talk) 22:34, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
This is tiresome, and unlikely to improve with substantial involvement from new editors. - No, what is tiresome is addressing what you believe is POV over and over again on this talk page. You're not a "new user" to this article either. Just scroll from top to bottom on this page and see how many Seraphim System comments, sections, RFCs, or whatever you come across. As you can see, I'm all for improving this article, just like I am all for improving any article, but your justifications for every tag that you've placed, along with other nitpicking of trivial matters, has been consistently met with opposition over and over again and yet you continue to be the sole user pushing for such tags each and every time. And now you're edit-warring it into the article without an edit-summary to explain your reverts. On top of that, you've made no attempt to even refute the arguments I've made while also not providing sources to substantiate your own. Can you please tell me why you've singled out Kurds as perpetrators of genocide when other Ottoman citizens belonging to various other ethnic groups, like the Circassians, Persians, Tatars, Arabs, and others have done the same? And why is it that you can equate the Kurds as perpetrators of the Armenian Genocide with that of the Ottoman government? Étienne Dolet (talk) 22:38, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
The edit to the infobox was made by an editor with just over 100 edits. I don't think continuing this repetitive discussion with you is likely to be successful or productive. I think the best thing for this article would be for both of us to allow new editors an opportunity to get involved. This could takes months or years, as many editors prefer to not jump in when there is a lot of back and forth between two editors. This is my understanding of the advice more experienced editors have given me about this. The same editors repeating themselves is not likely to be productive. There is nothing wrong with leaving a tag in place to inform new editors who might be interested in working on the article.Seraphim System (talk) 22:47, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
Why are you changing the subject? What you're saying right now is not a comment or justification that merits a tag. Placing a POV tag isn't a way for you to invite "new users". When has that ever been the case? Why should "old users" have to "go away" and new users magically step in. What kind of new rule is this? You're making some sort of general observation that has nothing to do with the matter at hand. So again, can you please tell me why you've singled out Kurds as perpetrators of genocide when other Ottoman citizens belonging to various other ethnic groups, like the Circassians, Persians, Tatars, Arabs, and others have done the same? Étienne Dolet (talk) 22:54, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
The POV tag is of merit. The article is an accumulation of POV. The first sentence gives the wrong impression that the event is also known as the "Armenian Holocaust". From a GB search, that term is not widely used in historiography, and as such does not have to stay where it is. The sections have plenty of work to do, work together to improve them. Ktrimi991 (talk) 22:52, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
Are we looking at the same Google Books? From what I see, there's plentiful uses of the term Armenian Holocaust "Armenian+holocaust". There's entire studies by Hovannisian, a leading historian of the AG, that is entitled Armenian Holocaust which has been cited by numerous publications. Étienne Dolet (talk) 22:59, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
By the way, it's interesting how you magically showed up on an article you've never edited before after Khirurg made an edit and comment on the TP. You've been at odds with him for quite some time. Should we believe that you ended up here after Khirurg made a comment by sheer coincidence? Étienne Dolet (talk) 00:20, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
Regarding the very specific issue of the presence of "Armenian Holocaust" in the lede, I agree strongly with Ktrimi991- it smacks of WP:POINT. Whenever I hear "Armenian Holocaust" I think someone is making the point it was "like the Holocaust". Well there are many opinions that can be had on that but that is not our business. It's WP:POINT and needs to go. Regarding the rest of the page, the issues don't seem bad enough to deserve a shame tag-- especially on an important and mostly well written/cited page like this. --Calthinus (talk) 23:18, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
Um, what? The term ‘’Holocaust’’ was used for the Armenians decades BEFORE the Jewish Holocaust actually happened. The Armenian Genocide is a special case when it comes to alternate names because the term ‘genocide’ was coined after WWII. So there’s a long list of different words prior to Lemkin’s coining of the term that has been used to desrcibe the event. Étienne Dolet (talk) 23:38, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
Etienne that may be true but the term acquired different meaning since that time. Debating the merits of hte term is not in anyone's interest. The fact is that how it is used in the modern day, in most peoples minds and indeed in much of scholarship the "Jewish" Holocaust is the only one with the official name. Actually in some social contexts saying "the Jewish Holocaust" instead of "the Holocaust" marks you as a likely anti-Zionist. In fact the term "Holocaust" as per Lemkin should be discussed perhaps further down-- but usage in the lede seems like POINT to me. I appreciate that it's a um... thorny issue but that is very likely where others will come from on this point. --Calthinus (talk) 23:41, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
I was just refuting your initial statement that Armenians want to be like the Jews and adopt the word 'Holocaust' when that clearly isn't the case. In fact, I'd kindly ask you to scratch that remark because some people here may find that offensive. Secondly, I need to emphasize the point that the term 'genocide' was coined in the late 1940s by Lemkin and it's for this reason alternate names are doubly important for the AG, and this is not to say we should drop such alternate names just because they took new meaning. No one holds a monopoly on words. And if we were to drop it, we'd be left with no word for our readers or scholars to look up when it comes to the plethora of contemporaneous sources, reports, and eyewitness accounts that are so crucial in understanding this event. Readers would be mislead into believing that the 'Armenian Genocide' is the only term used to describe these events when that's far from the truth. Lastly, the term Armenian Holocaust is in fact used by many Holocaust and Jewish scholars and historians. Chief among them are Yair Auron and Israel Charney, probably the most well-known and respected genocide scholars to date (here's an article by both of them). There's more I can name off the top of my head like Dennis Klein, Daniel Evans of the International Relations and Affairs Group, and Israeli professor and Holocaust survivor Shamai Davidson. In fact, I could argue that it's Holocaust scholars that use that term more than anyone else. Yair Auron points out how Jewish and Holocaust scholars are the ones that spearheaded the effort in incorporating the term Holocaust when referring to the Armenian Genocide. Étienne Dolet (talk) 00:42, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
If you see plenty of such results, yeah, we are looking at different GBs. To present sth as a Holocaust you need many established historians, not just one or two, preferably more than five. That is a strong claim. The claim of the event being a kind of Holicaust could be finely said somewhere else, but not in the first sentence. Anyways, the article in general has many problems. For example, there is an extra long (and POV) Background section followed by a minor Prelude section. At the very least, the Background section should be trimmed. That is my two cents. Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:22, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
Okay, more than five you say? How about: Israel Charney, Yair Auron, Shamai Davidson, Dennis Klein, Hovannisian, Daniel Evans, Thomas De Waal, Julia Pascal, Berman, Langford, Bernard Cook, and Fisk. You wanted five, I gave you twelve. And most of these are not just some bloggers, these are the top Holocaust and genocide scholars around. Étienne Dolet (talk) 01:37, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
Lede aside I actually support hte current version of the background -- a lot of this material is valuable. For example in genocide studies it is generally held that in order for a genocide to occur there typically is a history of hatred or views of inferiority with regard to the target group. These sections are well-cited and go a long way in explaining that, in which the social structure of the Ottoman Empire did play a relevant role. Having a tag like this on an important article is a shame for Wikipedia -- I suggest RfCs to resolve the relevant issues, and then removal of the tag with appropriate speed.--Calthinus (talk) 23:28, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
I don't understand why there is such a rush to remove the tag. It doesn't have to be today. The background section has numerous problems, but participation on RfCs is not very good, it is always the same editors and the environment is overwhelming and unwelcoming to those who may not be subject matter experts. The POV issues on this article are well-attested to in the editing history and talk page archives, and have been ongoing for years. I think everyone should just let it go for a while. Seraphim System (talk) 00:09, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
What numerous problems? Can you please specify? For one, your comments here are not constructive for its removal. The background section was not your justification of inserting the tag. In fact, you've gone so far as to say that you've added the tag to "invite new users" which is rather bizarre. That's not the purpose of a POV tag. Étienne Dolet (talk) 00:15, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
As I am watching both the articles Armenian Genocide and Greek Genocide, and so their talk pages, I used to get involved only in the discussions where there are actual POV pushing attempts because I think both articles suffered enough from these attempts in the past. If there has to be a POV tag on the article, the user should provide adequate reasons for doing so. It is against Wikipedia's WP:TAGGING policies to insert tags anywhere without pointing out to not-so-obvious issues that the tag is meant for, and it is a much more preferable solution to point out exactly where the issues are exactly in the article for the rest of the editors to be aware of the issues. Remember: that NPOV tags may not added to the article solely based on an editor's perception of what a POV is. POV tags should be reflected upon the article's compliance with Wikipedia policies and not upon an editor's concerns for POV. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 (talk ✉️) (contribs 📝) 00:27, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
POV Tag has been removed. The editor has two options if they want to reinsert the tag: 1) either list expicitly the issues here so he can work out the issues the article has with other editors, or 2) just add the tag without doing any of the work, but at least provide adequate explanation here in the talk page pointing out specifically to the problems found in the article, WITHOUT referring to past discussions and editorial opinions on the matter. This will greatly help the other editors in idendifying and dealing with the issues. So far, I see one issue explained with details and idendified: Kurds on Infobox. However does the problem with the Kurds in infobox stand out as a valid reason for tagging the entire article? Nope. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 (talk ✉️) (contribs 📝) 00:42, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
Also on the issue of Armenian Holocaust: My apologies but I never heard this term before in my life. I know these events as Armenian Genocide and Great Calamity (Meds Yeghern). The term "Armenian Holocaust" for these events is something new to me, and it seems not just me, but most people out there, since a quick google research shows that this term does not appear to be significantly used in the public (speeches, media, or whatever), besides its confirmed use in limited bibliography. If a term really belongs tothe lead section, in my opinion could be the frequently used term "Great Calamity" since the article's lead is about significant alternative names this topic may be known with, as per WP:OTHERNAMES. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 (talk ✉️) (contribs 📝) 01:03, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Maintenance tags serve the purpose of informing the broader community of outstanding issues on articles. The POV problems on this article are long term. This particular article happens to be a very important article, — it failed FA, it has failed GA twice already. Participation in this topic area is not as high as other areas, and one reason may be that we don't have as many subject matter experts. Leaving the tag on the article doesn't do any harm. It has been removed once again, on the same day it was added, without even waiting for community input.Seraphim System (talk) 00:44, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

The POV problems on this article are long term. - Which ones? Be specific. You're the only user that has continuously and incessantly raised "POV problems" and you almsot always follow it failed FA, it has failed GA twice already. - but that too is not a rationale for placing a POV tag. And why do you keep bringing that up? Why does that matter? It failed GA because the lead wasn't too long. What does that do with your POV tag? Participation in this topic area is not as high as other areas, and one reason may be that we don't have as many subject matter experts. - not a justification for a POV tag. Leaving the tag on the article doesn't do any harm. - not a justification for a POV tag. Just because it "doesn't do any harm" doesn't mean it should remain. Étienne Dolet (talk) 00:49, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Failure on GA or FA reviews can not be a valid argument for tagging an article. That the article does not meet FA and GA standards is different than the article meeting the criteria for tagging. Also tagging an article without a thorough explanation, actually is harmful for the reliability of Wikipedia's Tagging system itself, because if the editors start abusing the tags, the whole Tagging system could lose its reliability. We don't want that. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 (talk ✉️) (contribs 📝) 01:13, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
Étienne Dolet You removed Kurdish tribes from the infobox because, in your opinion, they are just like Ustashe, and it would be "just wrong" to say the Ustashe committed genocide paraphrased from this prior discussion. I don't even understand how you are still editing. This is one example of many. I don't need to provide a further explanation, the justification is sufficient, it is seconded, and it should not be removed without even allowing the community an opportunity to respond. You are also WP:BLUDGEONing the discussion and repeating yourself.Seraphim System (talk) 01:05, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
Ustashe? What? That's not paraphrasing, that's misrepresenting what I said. I specifically said ethnic Croatians. To clarify: I said if an ethnic Croat, Dane, or any other ethnic minority participated in massacres during the Holocaust, we would not say Danes or Croats are responsible for the mass extermination of Jews, would we? Étienne Dolet (talk) 01:51, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

─────── Etienne, maybe you would not make these types of mistakes, if you would just follow the analysis of reliable secondary sources during discussions with other editors, instead of pushing "creative" arguments in every discussion. Croats did kill Jews during the Holocaust in Croatia, and based on a quick review of sources, the argument you are making right now is FRINGE.Seraphim System (talk) 02:13, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Again, you're misrepresenting what I said. I am not denying that various people with different ethnic backgrounds participated in the Holocaust. However, I have yet to have seen any substantive arguments that would delegate all responsibility to a certain group of people just because some people with a certain ethnicity carried out their duties to the state. And you actually think I won't find a source that says the "Ottoman Empire is responsible for the Armenian Genocide"? Because that's really all I'm arguing here. If you want to know who did the genocide, it doesn't take much to find out. However, if you claim that there's more than one perpetrator, i.e. an entity that devised and planned to deport, massacre, and exterminate the Armenians in a planned and systematic effort (which is what the AG essentially was), by all means please provide the sources. But do keep in mind that just because someone happened to be an ethnic Kurd does not mean Kurds by and large were perpetrators of that very same systematic policy of the Ottoman government. The equate the two would be to mislead our readers. These people, whether Circassian, Arab, Kurds, Turks, and etc. were merely citizens of the Ottoman Empire. And just like any other citizen, they were fulfilling their civic duty to carry out orders of the Ottoman generals, gendarmes, and etc. There's really nothing to debate here. Étienne Dolet (talk) 02:30, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
Seraphim, is that the issue? [1] --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 (talk ✉️) (contribs 📝) 01:16, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
Seraphim, the way I see the issue is that while mentioning the Kurdish perpetrators isn't a bad idea itself, it only raises more problems than resolves. To single out the Ottoman Kurds and separate them as perpetrators from the rest of the Ottomans is to give impression that they were a separate force within the Empire's territory that acted on their own and independently of the Ottoman policy makers which in my opinion is rather problematic. Everyone knows and none denies that the genocide policy was instigated by the high-ranked Ottoman officials and was carried out by Ottoman subjects, including Kurds. To list the Kurds as a separate force carrying out genocidal campaigns, you will need strong sources confirming 1) independent Kurdish policy making, and 2) Kurds not acting on behalf of their Ottoman rulers. This is very very difficult to prove, as far as I am aware. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 (talk ✉️) (contribs 📝) 01:29, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
This is not one isolated issue — Peter Balakian is a poet, he is cited 15 times. (This was the source of the Ramsay quote that needed four years of discussion for a removal). Alexis Demirdjian's work is not discussed at all. There are numerous problems in the background section. Some editors review the maintenance categories, and they don't necessarily keep up with drama — those editors won't be able to find the article if the template keeps being removed by edit warring.Seraphim System (talk) 01:48, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
Why are you changing the subject? For one, Balakian is not just "a poet", he's also an academic and historian whose work is cited by 333 publications and academic works: [2]. Two, Alexis Demirdjian's work is not discussed at all. - ...and? How's that a justification for a POV tag again? There are numerous problems in the background section. - Again, specify. Étienne Dolet (talk) 01:54, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
For example the statement in the article: "[The Special Organization] has been compared by some scholars to the Nazi Einsatzgruppen" is cited only to Balakian.Seraphim System (talk) 02:51, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
Um, okay? And how’s that a POV issue? Étienne Dolet (talk) 03:49, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
@ED, pages and quotes? Ktrimi991 (talk) 09:08, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
EtienneDolet Pages and quotes for those books you provided? Ktrimi991 (talk) 12:47, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
It sounds like you didn't even click on the links I provided because the links actually direct you right onto the page where the term 'Armenian Holocaust' is employed. There are some publications with snippet views so you'd have to search "Armenian Holocaust" and it should come up. Étienne Dolet (talk) 04:13, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
I've restored the template. It was edit warred out of the article even though there was no consensus to remove it and none of the issues were addressed, including the Armenian Holocaust label (which several editors commented on during the discussion). Seraphim System (talk) 19:57, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

merge from White_Genocide[edit]

I propose to delete the article White_Genocide, and include a section on that in this article instead. White genocide is a term used by Armenians to refer to the percieved genocide through assimilation happening when Armenians in diaspora assimilate to the culture of the country they emigrated to.As it says on the article, they see it as an aftermath/extension of the armenian genocide. Quanstizium (talk) 09:21, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

It seems the template has already been deleted. Also it would be great with some sources to support this meaning of the word.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 09:22, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, which template? Quanstizium (talk) 09:32, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Propose a merger but the redirect should go to White genocide conspiracy theory since that's what most people searching for the term are looking for ... Seraphim System (talk) 22:19, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Typhoid/typhus confusion?[edit]

I question whether there is some confusion between typhoid and typhus in this article:

Typhoid inoculation: The Ottoman surgeon, Dr. Haydar Cemal wrote "on the order of the Chief Sanitation Office of the Third Army in January 1916, when the spread of typhus was an acute problem, innocent Armenians slated for deportation at Erzincan were inoculated with the blood of typhoid fever patients....

Whilst it is possible this account is correct, it seems highly likely that two completely different diseases have been confused with each other. The Wikipedia pages for each make clear the difference.

The reference for this part of the article is behind a paywall - can someone please check what it actually says?
ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 21:13, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

This confusion seems to be a holdover from the original article/source. From pg 178, as part of an extended block quote: "On the order of the Chief Sanitation Office of the IIIrd Army in January 1916, when the spread of typhus was an acute problem, innocent Armenians slated for deportation at Erzincan were inoculated with the blood of typhoid fever patients without rendering that blood 'inactive.'" — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:03, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Image from this article to appear as POTD soon[edit]

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Armenian Genocide Map-en.svg will be appearing as picture of the day on 24 April 2019. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2019-04-24. 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  — Amakuru (talk) 12:49, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Armenian Genocide


I have to object to the restoration of this content. If EtienneDolet were not an experienced editor I would revert this as (subtle) vandalism. As it stands, I will leave an explanation of why this content can't stay in the article as it is.

3000 extradited Armenian children were left behind for orphanage There was administration of poisonous medicine to execute children Children were drowned in the Black Sea who refuse to take poisonous medicine Use of steam baths to suffocate babies/young infants Corpses dumped in nearby sea Red Crescent Hospital in Turkey kept as “pleasure where Governor General Cemal Azmi, kept 15 young Armenian girls to be used for frequent sexual acts, and later executing them afterwards Young Turkey Party potentates had also engaged in using young Armenian girls for sexual uses, hiring dozens to provide orgies and other sexual favours for party runners. Drowning of children in the Trabzon river, Degirmendere, and the usage of the coastline of the Black Sea - Armenian women and children were loaded on barges at the port city of Ordu in Trabzon province and drowned on the high seas, this occured multiple times with the whitness of Turkish officials There occured many homozexual rapes; where young boys were kept in homes and raped under ownership of Turkish Long after mass killings stopped, the rapes and sexual violations of young boys furthered on Burning of Armenian children was another strategy of mass murder, and was a main torture method “en masse” and was economically a more friendly method of torturing Armenians, as the government did not have to spend much on recources for this kind of execution.

This paragraph doesn't use punctuation, there are several sentences without periods and other typos (homozexual might be accidental but whitness? And recources?) Seraphim System (talk) 02:15, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess you’re right. Feel free to remove it then. Étienne Dolet (talk) 13:46, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
I've reverted to a clean version before the recent additions. I'm not opposed to restoring some of the content if the quality of the prose is improved. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 17:27, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 November 2018[edit]

change homozexual rapes to homosexual rapes (Under the title Tactics of Murder on Children) Mjmuva (talk) 16:46, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Based on the discussion in the above section there seems to be agreement to remove that entire section for now. Seraphim System (talk) 17:13, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

yellow tickY Partly done Content removed per above consensus. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 17:25, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Awkward caption[edit]

Map of massacre locations and deportation and extermination centers. (Emphasis added)

I feel that this image caption is awkward English and should be rephrased. The conjunction and occurs twice in close proximity as part of separate clauses, making the sentence difficult to understand. In linguists, this is referred to as an ambiguous (nested conjunction.

I rephrased the sentence to avoid this issue, but I accidentally introduced another grammatical error and my edits were reverted by Pinkbeast. (diff) — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 07:59, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't think it's ambiguous at all because, using brackets for grouping, ((massacre locations and deportation) and (extermination centres)) makes no sense because "massacre locations and deportation" makes no sense. The only possible reading is ((massacre locations) and (deportation and extermination centres)). However, if you feel it must be rewritten surely it can be done without introducing quite so much additional verbiage as "depicting the locations of massacres and the locations of the centers for deportation and extermination" - eg "of the locations of massacres and the centres for deportation and extermination". That's still got two "and"s but I think one would be hard put to read it as ((the locations of massacres and the centres for deportation) and (extermination)). Pinkbeast (talk) 08:50, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
I don't see any extermination centers labelled on the map other then Deir ez-Zor. I'm not sure it's a good use of time arguing about the caption when the discussion in the article needs improvement, including the block quotes from a news article published in 1916. Even though secondary sources were added for the quote, the discussion in those sources has not been followed, but cherry picked for the quote. Unfortunately the map itself is based on an inaccesible source, so as far as I know no one has been able to verify it (its accuracy was taken on good faith when the image was promoted to feature image). Seraphim System (talk) 16:56, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

ADDITION: Looking more closely it seems Ras al-Ayn and Raqqah are also labelled - unfortunately I'm not able to find any information on Rasaiayn, is it possible there is an alternate spelling? The connection between the article text and this important/prominent image could be improved. I image readers will be especially curious about the extermination centers and it would help if the article discussed this more clearly.Seraphim System (talk) 17:03, 19 November 2018 (UTC)