Talk:Armenian Genocide

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former featured article candidate Armenian 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.


Denialist literature and talking points[edit]

I must say, Iryna Harpy, that I'm quite disappointed in your recent revert. There has been a long-standing consensus to remove denialist talking points from this article. Michael Gunter is a well-known denialist. The stuff on Seljuk Turks is bizarre, even under denialist standards. I've also never heard a denialist ever say that the reason why the AG didn't happen was because Armenians lived well under the Seljuks. That's just apples and oranges. All denialist sources and talking points should be dumped in the Denial of the Armenian Genocide article. Étienne Dolet (talk) 02:50, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

@EtienneDolet:, that was a Facepalm moment when I realised what I'd reverted to, however I don't think that this is the appropriate venue in which to berate me. Nevertheless, given that there's been no discussion of the recent string of edits introducing Gunter, I do feel that it's a good idea to use this as an opportunity to have it on record on this talk page that Gunter is not good coin for this article, therefore any attempts to reintroduce his arguments need to be understood as being off-bounds. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:11, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Reading helps. --92slim (talk) 03:24, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
That's fine. I do believe your edit was in good-faith. But I was pretty shocked that you reverted to reinsert into the Further reading section a source entitled: "A Study of Contemporary Armenian Terrorism". I mean, there's really nothing to discuss here. In general, when it comes to denialist sources, we simply remove them outright, especially in areas like the Further reading section. I don't know precisely what 92slim's reasons were, but we should all keep this in mind. Étienne Dolet (talk) 03:28, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Oh, and apologies to you, too, 92slim. Frankly, I was hit with a virus a couple of days ago, and one shouldn't edit when one has vertigo... It's an impoverished excuse, but I've probably gone trigger-happy with twinkle. The fact that I restored such blatant WP:FRINGE acts as both an indictment, and as a timely reminder that I should rest and leave well enough alone until I know the difference between my feet and my ears. Consider me humbled and chastised for editing while incompetent. I'm dragging my sorry tail to bed to rest up until I'm certain that I'm alert. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:15, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Don't worry about it. I've so gotten used to so many editors adding revisionist information that I can't distinguish impartial editors from clear revisionists anymore. Get better soon :) --92slim (talk) 04:19, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

If you're removing it then put it on the denial page BM Tornado (talk) 10:24, 6 December 2016 (UTC) BM Tornado (talk) 10:24, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

It's already there wise guy. Étienne Dolet (talk) 04:54, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Étienne Dolet, your edit to (correctly) remove an unsuitable further reading title (the Michael Gunter book) removed much more: [[1]]. Turks saving the Armenians from the nasty Byzantine Empire is a claim straight out of a typical Turkish genocide-denialist's playbook, so arguably has a valid place here. If you have really never come across this claim before, you can't have looked at many such works. Its "bizarreness" is irrelevant, almost everything in denialist literature is bizarre or ludicrous - all that matters is that it is being presented as a reason why the AG didn't happen. So the argument for it being here or not should be based on whether it is significant enough in the context of denialist claims to be here in this article or to be on the main article (Armenian Genocide denial). If it is already there on the main article, would you tell me where, because I don't see it. I disagree with your "all denialist sources and talking points should be dumped in the Denial of the Armenian Genocide article" assertion. There must be some sort of summary of them here. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 17:37, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Tiptoe, I was talking about more notable denialist talking points being added to this article (i.e. the Armenians died of hunger, died of disease, etc. etc.) The Seljuq/Byzantine stuff is just out of the ordinary and not a denialist argument. Obviously, we can't just add every denialist argument here. We need to be very precise as to what we should add. And yes, not all denialist sources and talking points should be dumped there. I agree that I went a little overboard there. But most of them should with the exception of the notable ones. Étienne Dolet (talk) 17:58, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying that. I was worried you were advocating for the removal of ALL such stuff. I do actually think that particular "claim" is a bit too marginal to be included here - though it should have a place somewhere on the denial article. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:19, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Would a link to the movie "Denial" not be appropriate? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denial_(2016_film) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wellsdm (talkcontribs) 18:46, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Armenian[edit]

change ((Armenian)) to ((Armenia))n — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:541:4305:c70:e99d:bade:9a88:a4d9 (talk) 14:27, 30 April 2017‎ (UTC)

Done Please be more specific with your requests, to let us know exactly where in the article a change should be made. I found an instance of "Armenian Christians" at the top of the article, and changed that one from the Armenian disambiguation page to Armenian. If there is something else needing attention, please identify it. Thanks. Murph9000 (talk) 15:00, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Just FYI, I scanned the article for every instance of "Armenian" that was incorrect and could find none. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 13:39, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Inaccurate total number of countries that have recognized Armenian Genocide[edit]

I don't think the "To date, 29 countries have officially recognized the mass killings as genocide,[28]" part is accurate, it uses a source from 2015, and http://asbarez.com/162565/czech-republic-parliament-recognizes-armenian-genocide/ just happened a few days ago for example. I don't know what the current total is but it's obviously more than 29. I don't have a Wikipedia account so can't edit this page but hopefully someone else will. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.54.107.200 (talk) 18:08, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

The source is indeed outdated (it claims only 22) but the number of 29 is correct: see Armenian Genocide recognition. I have removed the source as the article it links to is fully referenced. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 13:37, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Armenian Genocide/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jclemens (talk · contribs) 02:33, 4 May 2017 (UTC)


Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well written:
1a. the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct.
1b. it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
2b. all in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines.
2c. it contains no original research.
2d. it contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism. Everything seen on Earwig's tool appears to be appropriate quotations (them by us with attribution, us by them, or both of a common historical source)
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. I don't have to go beyond the skimming stage to see that this is not an issue here. The next (focus) will be the more challenging to evaluate.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. No current edit wars. I get that this is an historically contentious topic in certain corners of the globe, but do not intend to hold that against the editors working to improve the article.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by images:
6a. images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content. Only one fair use image noted, rationale appears appropriate, but will evaluate it in-context later.
6b. images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. There are plenty of historical images. I suspect the gallery at the end overdoes it. These are clearly historic and important images, but a gallery with captions deprives them of their respective historical context. Might a smaller, more focused number of images work as well for this article?
7. Overall assessment.
Jclemens' Good Article Review expectations for Vital Articles.
  • This is a vital article. As such, it requires an appropriate amount of scrutiny, because being wrong is just that much worse, so being right is just that much more important.
  • This is a collaborative process. I offer suggestions, which editors are free to implement, ignore, reject, or propose counter-suggestions. If there's simply no meeting of the minds, there will be no GA pass from me, but please feel free to tell me to take a flying leap if I propose something stupid or counterproductive.
  • I do not quick fail vital article GA reviews. In general, even if there is no clear path to meet all the GA criteria, working with conscientious editors is almost always going to improve the article and benefit our readers--just not to the extent all of us had hoped.
  • This is not a quick process. Estimate a month, depending on my availability and the responsiveness of the nominator and other editors collaborating on the process.
  • I am not a content expert. I generally have a reasonable background in the topic under consideration, often at the college undergraduate/survey level, or else I wouldn't have volunteered to review it. Thus, I depend on the content experts to help focus the article appropriately.
  • The more the merrier. While many unimportant GA articles can be adequately reviewed by a single nominator and a single reviewer, Vital Article GA's can use more eyes, based on their increased importance. I always welcome other editors to jump in with suggestions and constructive criticisms.

Comments[edit]

Thank you for your time! I am by no means the primary article contributor here but became involved after I worked intensively in June last year on trying to counter the revisionism in Armenian Genocide denial (it was bad; see before and after). I was pleasantly surprised to see that the main article on the genocide was actually in a very good state. Plenty of references and little edit wars due to the page's semi-protection. It's been three years since the failed GAN and editors have worked tirelessly on improving it. Calling first on those users who have contributed the most over the last 1-2 years - @Tiptoethrutheminefield: (seems to be blocked for a few more days), @EtienneDolet:, @Iryna Harpy:. I'd also like to notify @Diranakir: and @Armen Ohanian: but I'm not sure they'll be able to join the discussion as their last contributions were already a while ago. I'll be available pretty much every day myself. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 15:20, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Ah, yes. It seems to have fallen off my radar since the big POV-push in 2016. I have heavyweight commitments IRL, and have been overstepping the limits of wiki time, but I'd be glad to pitch in. Could you ping me again in a few days as a reminder? Cheers for now! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:16, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
Sure, I'll give a shout. Would highly value an experienced user's attention. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 15:22, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't see a very significant change between the article as it is now and the article as assessed in the last GA review. Yes, a lot of content issues have been addressed and improved, but I think the article still falls short of being a correct and understandable account of the Armenian Genocide: it is still very badly structured, it (despite its length) still misses out much vital content, and it still includes a large amount of material that would be better placed in fork articles. Last year I gave the opinion in the Talk page that "Barely 20% of this article's content details the event itself, and we are 20% into the article's body before that small amount of content even starts, and the bulk (60% or more) of the article's content is aftermath-related material. I believe that this article is in urgent need of massive deletions and a lot of forking of content off into other articles. This article, titled as it is "Armenian Genocide", should be primarily concerned with giving an account of the Armenian Genocide as it happened, of what it consisted of, and not about what peoples, countries, organisations, or individuals have, post-event, done with the history of, or legacy of, the Armenian Genocide." [2]. I think it currently does not make the best of attribute 3a, though maybe enough to pass, but that it fails attribute 3b, and (mainly in the images section) possibly 6b too. I also worry if the article does attain GA status now, that status may be presented in the future as a reason not to make major changes to the article (since I think major changes are needed). Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:42, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

But Tiptoethrutheminefield, one must consider if this is a problem regarding the article or regarding the sources we have. The truth is that it's still a big thing today, and it has played a huge role in political discourse. Unlike the Holocaust, which was extensively documented and never really disputed outside of the fringes, the Armenian Genocide had less (though still plenty) documentation at the time and wasn't a focus of historians until more recently. I think the timeline and events themselves are quite well described. Do you want more attention to detail on the way the genocide was executed and organized, or perhaps the actions of those involved in it? Let's see what @Iryna Harpy: thinks. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 11:12, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
@Prinsgezinde: You nominated this article for GA. I have yet seen you do some work to achieve it that status. Why nominate an article for GA if you're not going to work on it? Étienne Dolet (talk) 18:57, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
I had been cleaning the article shortly before submitting it. Since then, I haven't had the time for any extensive editing at all and see little point in quick visits and drive-by advice. Besides that, the reactions were somewhat negative from the start. People who I thought might agree on its quality said it likely wasn't ready. The process of evaluation itself also took a while, understandably, so the amount of free time I thought I would've had at the start quickly made way for a busy end of the year. And I nominated it because I found it to be a good article. I've said from the start that I haven't been the primary editor and the problems largely regard areas where a someone well-read on the subject (or a very experienced editor) would be more helpful. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 18:51, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
Part of that delay is solely my fault. It is such a heart-wrenching topic, I cannot work steadily on it, I have to come back to it in bits and pieces. This is a century ago, and so, so important to have the story told well... but I can only read it for a while at a time. So I do not mind going slow and taking the time to do it right. Jclemens (talk) 20:34, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
  • FYI, I would welcome responses to my ongoing (albeit slow) commentary. I welcome asynchronous work: you can clean up sections I've reviewed, while I'm still reviewing later sections of the article. Jclemens (talk) 18:27, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

First Read Through[edit]

Lead[edit]

  • I get this is a controversial topic, but it strikes me that there are a lot of references in the lead. Do we really need so many in the lead itself?
    • No, probably not. Only the notes are kind of useful. I'll check which refs are repeated in the article and if they aren't, if they could be moved.
  • The lead is short; only three paragraphs, which is not enough given the size and scope of the article.
  • Thankfully, there's many different sections in the article outline that are not represented in the lead at all. Thus, the simple correction is to expand the lead by mentioning things (e.g., background, memorials) covered in the article body but not in the lead.
    • Will work on that.
  • "officially recognized the mass killings as genocide" seems to be a quite long piped link. Maybe cut the wikilink down to 'officially recognized' while preserving the text? Jclemens (talk) 05:18, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
    • I think the key there was that even Turkey recognizes the event as well as that "many people died" but doesn't call it a genocide, which is what's perhaps the most important detail of such recognition. Could still tone it down. Would "recognize it as a genocide" work? Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 11:07, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Background[edit]

  • "Ottoman census figures clash with the statistics collected by the Armenian Patriarchate." The article goes on to elaborate on the latter, but not the former.
  • "Although there were no law mandating religious ghettos" laws?

 Done Fixed. Étienne Dolet (talk) 05:34, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

  • There are too few references in the "Reform implementation, 1840s–80s" section, specifically towards the end.
  • "whose influence was limited to Van" Van? The Turkish province? Should be Wikilinked here, rather than in the "Hamidian massacres, 1894–96" section, below.

 Done Étienne Dolet (talk) 05:34, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Actually, the inline referencing for this entire section seems light. Let's pick apart the last sentence: "While the Great Powers vowed to take action and enforce new reforms,{{cn}} these never came to fruition{{cn}} due to conflicting political and economic interests.{{cn}}" I added the CN tags to this copy to show what I would expect for this sentence: there are three separate assertions: vow, inefficacy, and underlying cause. If one reference includes all these things, great, add it at the end of the sentence. Jclemens (talk) 05:38, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Prelude to the Genocide[edit]

  • "On 24 July 1908, Armenians' hopes for equality in the empire brightened once more when a coup d'état ..." When did they previously brighten?

 Done Removed "once more" Étienne Dolet (talk) 05:29, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

  • "That the Armenian population formed a significant minority in this region later figured prominently in the calculations of the Three Pashas, who carried out the Armenian Genocide." That parses correctly, but as someone not intimately familiar with the topic, I am not sure what it means.

 Done Not sure what that means either, so I removed it. Étienne Dolet (talk) 05:29, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

  • "As many as 850,000 of these refugees were settled in areas where the Armenians were resident from the period of 1878–1904." Misplaced modifier: I'm sure the Armenians lived in these areas longer. Jclemens (talk) 03:22, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

 Done Yeah, not need for those years. Étienne Dolet (talk) 05:29, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

World War I[edit]

  • "this was later used as a factor to involve radical masses" involve seems a peculiar verb here. Incite, perhaps? Provoke?

 Done Étienne Dolet (talk) 19:51, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

  • The text refers to Constantinople, but on the nearby map of massacre locations it is labeled Istanbul.

I'm afraid there's nothing I can do about that for now. The map needs to say Constantinople with (ISTANBUL) underneath or something. Étienne Dolet (talk) 19:51, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

  • The first full text paragraph in Deportations is uncited.

 Done Étienne Dolet (talk) 19:51, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Shouldn't "western world" be capitalized?

 Done Étienne Dolet (talk) 19:51, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

  • "A relief organization for refugees in the Middle East helped donate over $102 million (budget $117,000,000) [1930 value of dollar] to Armenians both during and after the war." The current and/or historical value of this donated amount is unclear. Is this in U.S. dollars?

Yes, it is because the relief organization was based in the USA. Étienne Dolet (talk) 19:51, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

  • "This organization adopted its name in 1913 and functioned like a special forces outfit, and it has been compared by some scholars to the Nazi Einsatzgruppen" I would think the comparison would be the other way around, since the Special Organization came first chronologically. "You look just like your grandson" would be an odd compliment.

That's a good point. I thought about removing it. Maybe we could reword it somehow? I still think it should remain because the Einsatzgruppen is far more well-known in the academic world than the Special Organization. I think it'll help our readers to give them an example in history that as to how it operates and its role in the event. Étienne Dolet (talk) 19:51, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

  • "According to the Mazhar commissions attached to the tribunal as soon as November 1914," Cite this sentence, please.

 Done Étienne Dolet (talk) 19:51, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

  • "Admiral Sir Somerset Gough-Calthorpe was in charge of the operation, together with Lord Curzon; they did so owing to the lack of transparency of the Turkish courts-martial" The lack of transparency is mentioned multiple times, but never adequately explained, and in this instance is not cited.

I'm going to have to look into this and get back to you. Étienne Dolet (talk) 19:51, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Overall, this section is huge, with lots of subsections. I'm not sure it's properly named, as the vast majority of the Armenian deaths are discussed here. I have no particular better organizational suggestion, but note that this one seems awkward to me as an outsider. Jclemens (talk) 04:43, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Armenian population, deaths, survivors, 1914 to 1923[edit]

  • If the estimates range from 800k to 1.5m, then saying greater than 500k died seems an understatement.

 Done Yeah, I don't get how that number got there. Étienne Dolet (talk) 20:15, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Explain who McCarthy is in the process of giving us his statistics, please.

 Done Étienne Dolet (talk) 20:15, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

  • "...and some modern scholars estimate over 2 million." Needs a citation and more specificity. Jclemens (talk) 23:16, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

 Done Added a source. Étienne Dolet (talk) 20:15, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Reports and Reactions[edit]

  • "This was to give justification for the deportation of Armenians, which is still argued by genocide deniers to this day." Needs a cite.

 Done Étienne Dolet (talk) 19:11, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

  • "Richter admits the deportations were intentionally meant to cover up the slaughter of Armenians:" Admits is a curious word to use, and likely suboptimal in this case.

 Done Étienne Dolet (talk) 19:11, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

  • "One photograph shows two unidentified German army officers, in company of three Turkish soldiers and a Kurdish man, standing amidst human remains." Cite, please.

Citation is at the end of the paragraph. Étienne Dolet (talk) 19:11, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

  • The section on Bodil Biørn needs to be condensed and may need additional citations. Jclemens (talk) 23:16, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
  • "Hundreds of eyewitnesses, including the neutral United States and the Ottoman Empire's own allies, Germany and Austria-Hungary, ..." Nations are not eyewitnesses. Rephrase, please. Jclemens (talk) 06:43, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

 Done Étienne Dolet (talk) 19:11, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Studies on the Genocide[edit]

  • No issues noted. Jclemens (talk) 06:43, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Recognition of the Genocide[edit]

  • "However, the fact that the charges had been brought at all was still a matter of contention for European politicians." ... "Kerinçsiz, the leading lawyer behind the prosecutions, has been accused of plotting to overthrow the government as a member of the alleged Ergenekon network." Needs citations, as do several other uncited sentences.

 Done I removed one of the sentences. Added a citation on the other. Étienne Dolet (talk) 19:04, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

  • "The rhetoric leading up to the onset of the conflict, which unfolded in the context of several pogroms of Armenians" BY Armenians or AGAINST Armenians? Of is ambiguous. Jclemens (talk) 06:43, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

 Done Against, per sources. Étienne Dolet (talk) 19:04, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Cultural Loss[edit]

  • No issues noted. Jclemens (talk) 06:43, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Reparations to the victims[edit]

  • "The United Nations Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations of Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law provide in part, that reparation may be claimed individually and where appropriate collectively, by the direct victims of violations of human rights and international humanitarian law, the immediate family, dependants or other persons or groups of persons closely connected with the direct victims." Yes, it's a legal sentence. No, it's not a good idea. Break it up, please.

This is hard for me to break up actually. Or, do you have any suggestions? Étienne Dolet (talk) 21:05, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

  • This first few paragraphs appears to be an essay on why Turkey should pay Armenians, rather than relying on what RS'es have said about it.
  • We don't need de Zayas' CV inline.

 Done Étienne Dolet (talk) 21:05, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

  • The Sevres Treaty? What's that? Seriously, it needs a wikilink for the non-specialist.

 Done Étienne Dolet (talk) 21:05, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

  • The lawsuit for life insurance needs to be fleshed out: dates, court dockets, etc. It's probably the only thing in this entire sections that should be expanded. Jclemens (talk) 06:59, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Commemoration[edit]

  • In Memorials, it looks like an article on the Museum was merged into the third paragraph. Ditto the second paragraph about the bombing. The section could flow more smoothly and logically.

 Done I removed the bit about the bombing one. That memorial shouldn't get singled out just cause of a bombing. I also reorganized the paragraph so that it flows better by combining two paragraphs that are related to one another. Étienne Dolet (talk) 22:28, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Many of the 'portrayal in the media' examples are uncited. Regardless, they're just plopped in without coherent organization.

 Done Combined some paragraphs. Removed some non-notable stuff. Provided introductory sentences before the start of some paragraph to lessen the incoherence. Étienne Dolet (talk) 23:27, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Jclemens (talk) 06:59, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Images[edit]

  • This is not appropriate in its current form. Might I suggest a link to a Commons category? Jclemens (talk) 06:59, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Stability[edit]

Looking at the recent history of the article, and the comments here, I don't think the article is yet stable, and therefore is not ready for GA. Even if there is no current edit war, most likely there are long-standing controversies that are still unresolved - edit summaries like "please stop adding muslim/christian qualifiers" and "many left voluntarily" - multiple recent edits and reversions from recent editors removing "Islamic" or "muslim' etc. Seraphim System (talk) 22:29, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

It's unfortunate, since this subject (and Armenian history in general) is one of the few which was both written by both the victors and those who were defeated. The potential with some concessions for this article to be an archetype is there. Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 00:33, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
I haven't really been following the current editing of the article, just going through and looking at it a section at a time. I fear unless there's a concerted effort to address the areas I've already outlined, this isn't going to make GA status, which I agree is unfortunate, because this story is important and needs to be told. Jclemens (talk) 05:42, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Honestly though, things such as that are easily undone. I don't think that would qualify as unstable. But I'm going to address the concerns now and will ping @Iryna Harpy:. Even if it doesn't make GA, it still deserves attention and improvement. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 10:19, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
I agree wholeheartedly. It's one of the cornerstone articles for the subject of genocide as there are no ambiguities about intent and methods deployed. I doubt that it's ever going to be understood as 'stable'... but how many GA status articles from the past have been trashed, and how many merely created the illusion of being worthy, but were based on poor scholarship, synth, and every other kind of sin against encyclopaedic content? Controversial, emotive subject matter is always going to teeter on the edge so long as this remains an active, ongoing project. For me, GA status is a bit of a means-to-an-end aspiration: editors are more vigilant as to content changes once the 'yeah, that's where it should be at' benchmark has been set. Perhaps that's a mercenary position to adopt, but this genocide is virtually an unknown quantity in the footnotes of the Anglophone world's comprehension of history. That's a sad state of affairs for an horrific event which was so vital to the formation of the moral codes of the contemporary world. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:18, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
@Iryna Harpy: I respectfully disagree that this article is unstable. And to all the users involved in this GA nomination, I'd like to emphasize that just because some drive-by account shows up to needlessly change a few words they see fit doesn't make it unstable. The AG is the most researched genocide after the Holocaust so there's going to be a few "know-it-all" accounts here and there that are going to add in their own understanding of the event into the article. That's totally fine. But I can assure you, I have edited this article for almost a decade and can safely say that there's never been massive changes. The consensus on this article is quite strong, especially when it comes to the lead. It's for this reason why the lead hasn't changed much over the years. I can also add that it's technically impossible for a 1RR article to be unstable. One revert a day is easily manageable and the disputes on this article almost always ends up at the TP and is subsequently resolved there. Étienne Dolet (talk) 05:08, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
@EtienneDolet: You make a good point. Occasional outbreaks in POV editing have probably created an illusion of instability rather any form of changes in consensus. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:47, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

I am going to take a break from editing, so I wanted to leave a message to have at least this addressed while I am not here. I already brought this in the talkpage of the article. As a reference one might use the German and French versions (both are featured articles). The estimate of victims on English Wikipedia takes the highest range of estimates in the lead (1.5 million) without providing the lower ones. The French version takes 1.2 million and the German version from 300,000 to 1.5 million. I have already addressed this here [3] (See my answer starting with Hi Armen). The only answer I have received which directly answer the figures I have provided was that the date of the tragedy would extend to 1923. But most victims can be recorded prior to 1918 (according to most sources). If Wikipedia holds a position which is significantly far from means or medians (if the mean is imposed by exterior factors) extra energy will be required to maintain this position as things always regress to its most stable form. There are many other issues with the article, but this at least should be addressed if this article is going to be promoted. The most reasonable wording without including ranges or long sentences would be approximatively a million and I welcome everyone to read that link (starting from Hi Armen) and answer if I have dismissed or forgotten any sources there. I can now take my break, bye. Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 19:24, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Status Check[edit]

Where are we now? Jclemens (talk) 07:12, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

EtienneDolet, Prinsgezinde? Jclemens (talk) 03:55, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
@Jclemens: I say we clear out all the stuff that's been handled and leave the stuff that still needs to be handled to make it easier for everyone involved. Étienne Dolet (talk) 04:16, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Feel free to collapse/hat anything you consider done. Jclemens (talk) 04:20, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
@Jclemens: I've already added Done tags to everything I've completed. Did you want me to collapse the sections? Étienne Dolet (talk) 06:42, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Ramsay[edit]

Why is the "Armenians under Ottoman rule" section featuring a presentation of earlier history taken from a 19th century source, which is not only outdated but also written by a non-specialist? Among modern history texts discussing pre-reform times (which is what much of this section seems to be about, for unclear reasons), there are some that place more emphasis on injustices suffered by Ottoman Christian subjects and their discrimination in absolute terms and some that place more emphasis on peaceful coexistence and tolerance relative to those times, but this inflammatory rhetoric falls far beyond the limits of mainstream historical writing. Eperoton (talk) 15:28, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Here's a passage I propose to use as replacement for that Ramsay quote: "Muslims as well as non-Muslims lived without the predictability of enforced laws. Their property and person were subject to the arbitrary and unchecked power of state officials and local lords, but non-Muslims bore the additional indignities of being infidels." (from "Reading Genocide" by Ronald Grigor Suny, in A Question of Genocide, 2011 OUP, p. 25). This is about as negative a generalization about Ottoman rule as I've seen in a recent book from a major university press. On the other hand, it provides a bit of corrective to the impression one gets from this article that it was only non-Muslims who suffered abuses. Eperoton (talk) 04:00, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

All eyewitness sources on the conditions of non-Muslims in the Ottoman Empire will be pre-WW1 sources. A specialist in that context would be someone who had traveled extensively in the Ottoman Empire and was writing as an academic - Ramsay fits that category. I see no "inflammatory rhetoric" in its content (that word reminds me of Turkish prosecutors who state that accusing Turkey of genocide is a crime because it is "inflamatory"), it is an accurate assessment. I think your alternative is far too vague. It gives no sense of what those "indignities" were. Would one of them be the indignity of being periodically and unpredictably under the risk of being massacred by your Muslim neighbors perhaps? The issue about whether that entire section should be there is, however, a legitimate question. There are some scholars on the genocide who consider the event to be strongly connected to past events and to be part of a continuous process, and there are some who do not. Of those who do, there are some who see a very strong influence from Islam in that continuous process and there are some who do not. See Explaining the Unexplainable: Recent Trends in the Armenian Genocide Historiography by Bedross Der Matossian. But please, don't try on the "peaceful coexistence and tolerance" stuff - this isn't an EU pro-migrant propaganda tract. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 17:00, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
This is not an eyewitness account. Ramsay quotes an eyewitness account before that, which we shouldn't be using per WP:PRIMARY, unless they're quoted by a RS (no more than Ramsay's "typical" examples of "the narrow, sordid, tyrannical Armenian traders" just before that). In this passage he simply shares his understanding of what life was life in earlier times and "the brutality of which Oriental nature is capable". If he was a historian of the Ottoman empire, we would be giving undue weight to an antiquated source. This quote is informal speculation about Ottoman history by a biblical scholar and so not a RS at all.
What we should be using is current scholarship on the AG. There are two topics getting mixed up both in this discussion and the section itself: background on pre-reform history and details about Armenian experience in the period preceding the genocide. Mixing these topics leads to the false suggestion that the latter was governed by the Pact of Umar. Pre-reform history is relevant because it gives background for discussion of the halting reforms and their discontents, as it is presented by Suny and others. Akcam in A Shameful Act likewise outlines the pre-reform system on pages 19-24, starting with "In addition to the general subjugation of all its subjects, the Ottoman state specifically oppressed and discriminated against non-Muslims" and ending "In sum, the pluralist Islamic model rested on both humiliation and toleration. It was expected that non-Muslims would willingly accept this status; acting otherwise was violation of the dhimma agreement. The non-Muslims’ demands for equality in the nineteenth century were indeed seen as a violation of the agreement, and the Muslim communities of the Ottoman Empire had no intention of acquiescing. This cultural-legal framework, forming as it did the basis for the separation of Muslims and non-Muslims, would prove decisive in the clashes between Armenians and Muslims at the end of the nineteenth century." These descriptions cover the various forms of discrimination and restrictions which are already described in the section. They do not include any language in Ramsay's vein.
This general discussion of dhimma is getting mixed up with specific relations in 19th century eastern Anatolia (I know you object to this term, but I'll stick with it since it's used seemingly by all the sources I have). Suny's book has a separate section on that, starting from earlier times ("Kurdish chieftains subordinated and exploited both Christian and Muslim farmers, taxing them, wintering in their houses, and stabling their flocks in their barns." p.15), moving on to the land reform of 1858 which unintentionally gave rise to a semi-feudal relationship between Armenians and Kurdish chieftains (pp. 17-19), and to further depredations at the hands of Muslim refugees (pp. 21-22) and the Hamidiye (pp. 23-24). If you want to quote a primary source, here's one we can actually use without OR, because it's quoted by Suny:
A British consul, who like many of his European colleagues took a special interest in the Armenians, reported in the 1870s, “The people in the Armenian provinces suffer under the following provincial evils: Firstly, robbery, exaction, and oppression at the hands of the Kurds. In some parts nomad Kurds make raids on villages, carrying off flocks and herds and other plunder, and sometimes burning what they cannot carry away. In other parts influential Kurdish families parcel out the villages (especially Christian) in their neighborhood among their various members, and regard them as their property. The inhabitants have to pay them black-mail, cultivate their lands, pasture their flocks, and give and do for them anything they may demand.”  Suny, Ronald Grigor. "They Can Live in the Desert but Nowhere Else": A History of the Armenian Genocide (Human Rights and Crimes against Humanity) (p. 19). Princeton University Press. Kindle Edition. 
I'm not sure why you think a non-polemical characterization of the pre-modern Ottoman empire is "propaganda". It's simply mainstream historical writing. I'm seeing the same thing in George Bournoutian's history of the Armenians: "At its best, during the Ottoman golden age, the millet system promised non-Muslims fairer treatment than conquered or non-Christian subjects enjoyed under the Europeans. At its worst, during the decline and fall of the empire, the Christian minorities were subjected to extortion and pogroms." (p. 131) Suny quotes a similar statement on p. 17. He even makes this qualification for the Kurds ("Relations between Kurds and Armenians ranged from coexistence and tolerance to the most vicious cruelty." p. 19). To be clear, I'm not proposing that we include rosy language about the Ottoman golden age here. I'm proposing chiefly that we reflect how the subject is treated in the current mainstream scholarship on the AG. Eperoton (talk) 02:48, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
The alternative quote (the British consul cited in Suny) is better in that it has some specifics (but is incomplete, what additional "evils" came after the "firstly"?). It's also overly geographically specific, concerning just "provincial evils" in the "Armenian provinces": Balik baştan kokar. I think all recent academic writing concerning Turkish history and derived from Europe is tainted to some degree by EU propaganda. The EU considers the Ottoman Empire to have been a sort of proto-EU that worked perfectly until "nationalities" reared its head. So the idea that there was always something fundamentally wrong with the Ottoman Empire is taboo (that would imply a similar flaw within the EU). This means that whatever abuses that empire committed on its people are required to be always blamed on external pressures - and those who got "tragically" murdered basically got it for not being good Ottoman citizens (in this case in persisting in being Armenian or Greek) and need to just face up to that and be reconciled (hence the EU's extensive support for the imposed-from-above concept of "Turkish Armenian reconciliation"). Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:49, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
@Tiptoethrutheminefield: I held off with my reply until I got my hands on the cited Barsoumian chapter and finished Suny's book. Before we get into discussion of other issues, I just want to make sure we now agree that the Ramsay quote doesn't belong in the article.
In terms of organization, Barsoumian also separates a general discussion of the millet system from the discussion of depredations, which is located in the section The Armenians in the Provinces, subsection The Rural Population (the urban subsection talks about the decline of traditional trades under the pressure of foreign competition). In fact, the next section begins "While such were the deplorable conditions in the provinces, in the capital the leadership of the millet was engrossed in an internal struggle, albeit a reforming one." (p. 195) I'm not insisting on using the primary source quoted in Suny, and I would personally prefer to condense more detail from secondary sources into this limited space, but this is the portion he quotes. I don't know if he stopped it where he did because the continuation wasn't relevant or because he didn't judge it to be appropriate, but we need to follow secondary sources in our treatment of primary sources. Eperoton (talk) 03:05, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 May 2017[edit]

Texas has recognized the Armenian Genocide, making a total of 46 US states the recognize the genocide, not 25 as stated on the current page. Here is the link to a source: http://asbarez.com/163544/texas-becomes-46th-u-s-state-to-recognize-armenian-genocide/ Konoisia (talk) 18:46, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Question: Does passage of a resolution by one body within a bicameral legislature constitute recognition? RivertorchFIREWATER 04:41, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

@Rivertorch: That's a good point and I presume it does. We've had a similar concern when Brazil recognized it. It was decided that since one part of their legislature recognized it would mean that it is recognized at a federal level. Same in this case. To simply say it hasn't been recognized at all would be a disservice to our readers, even if it's just one body of a bicameral legislature. Besides, we should use the language sources use. We shouldn't be dismissing what the sources are saying due to what we think recognition at a local, state, and federal level looks like. Étienne Dolet (talk) 16:26, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

As long the source meets WP:RS for its reporting on the matter, I agree with your last two sentences. RivertorchFIREWATER 05:46, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
Already done – Train2104 (t • c) 17:19, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Non state actors and their involvement in events[edit]

Yerevantsi, Kurd and Azeri militias were involved, especially Kurdish ones. The Ottoman state could not have carried out the extent that it these events without their assistance, as was done with Hamidan Kurdish cavalry some decades prior in the massacres of the Armenians. Removal of content even though it is cited in scholarship removes key players that were involved in those events. The.Ottoman state gave the orders though these units were autonomous and could have refused and they did not. On another issue, you wrote the Turkish state [4], during these events Turkey did not exist until 1923 and after the events. It was under the Ottoman Empire that events transpired. Its important to be precise here.Resnjari (talk) 18:10, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

No, you're muddying the waters and shifting the blame. If ethnic Croatians, for example, were involved in living in the killing of Jews during the Holocaust, we don't say they were the perpetrators. That's just wrong. 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. And where does it stop? Obviously we have a whole list of ethnic minorities who were involved in the killings: Azeris, Arabs, Kurds, and Cherkes. You name it. In fact, there were ethnic Armenians involved in the killing of their own kinsmen (who were subsequently killed during Operation Nemesis). Should we add Armenians too? No, this is just silly. Étienne Dolet (talk) 18:38, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Unlike the other ethnicities the Kurds formed distinct cavalry units harnessed by the Ottoman Empire and of all non-state actors were most involved alongside official Ottoman troops. I am not referring to peasants who participated for their gain. At the very least, it should be cited that autonomous Kurdish cavalry units which were a prominent part of the events that occurred.Resnjari (talk) 19:01, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
No, the Hamidiye cavalry was disbanded by the time of the AG. There may have been distinct Kurdish militias, but they were almost always under the command of the local, provincial, and central Ottoman government to conduct mass killings. 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. Étienne Dolet (talk) 19:11, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Two problems with inclusion of Kurdish and Azeri militias to the infobox:

  1. Kurdish tribal militias acted upon orders and/or indifference from the Ottoman government. The Kurdish militias did not have a plan of systematic extermination of Armenians, unlike the Ottoman government.
  2. The government of the Azerbaijan Democratic Republic and Azeri militias did not operate in the Ottoman Empire, but in the Caucasus. These massacres of Armenians by Azeri government/militas are not usually considered to have been a part of the genocide. --Երևանցի talk 19:12, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
ok, fine on the Azeris. On Kurds though many of those militias were part of the Hamidiye cavalry units is what i had in my head when i wrote the comment. Still, just having the Young Turk government in the info box kind of limits the scope. At the very least there should be an addition of and its allies like with the Holocaust page (with the addition of (i.e local militias). The Ottomans were aided by non-state actors even if directed by it, as akin to WW2 with Germany directing its allies. The killings were not just done by official troops.Resnjari (talk) 20:01, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
No, we can't add Kurds as allies because Kurds were Ottoman citizens. They did not form an independent nation-state. When it comes to the Holocaust, Italy was very much perpetrator just like Nazi Germany. Germany and Italy were two independent nation-states who were allied with one another during the War. Étienne Dolet (talk) 20:06, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
The info box needs to have something more than just the CUP government. Something in brackets that includes or says alongside that :(i.e: government, troops, local militias, other civilians). Something of that kind. Its too limited the way it is now as those militias were involved, even if not specifying the their ethnicity for the sake of not muddling it up.Resnjari (talk) 20:14, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
The infobox doesn't need anything like that, especially in the perpetrators part for reasons I've aforementioned. If readers are interested in who, what, and how the killings went about, they're free to read the article. Étienne Dolet (talk) 20:21, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Ok then, its fine by me as this will form a precedent for other articles.Resnjari (talk) 20:54, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
ED, infoboxes summarize articles' content - and this article's infobox has sections for perpetrators and locations, so I think the perpetrators - including Kurds - and the locations - including territories that were part of the Russian and Persian empires - should be listed in this infobox. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 23:17, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
The Kurdish stuff? No way. They were tools and were not part of the larger scheme of annihilating the Armenians. You can hire Kurds to do the killing for you but that's just how things operated. It does not mean they were intent on destroying Armenians as a race which is what genocide means. As for the location issue, I opened up a new section. Étienne Dolet (talk) 23:21, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
If relating the actual history of the Armenian Genocide happens to complicate the simplified sound-bite press-releases of Armenian organisations in the US, so be it. If it upsets the new Kurdish best-friends of those same Armenians, so be it. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 23:24, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
To think I care whether or not I'm upsetting "Kurdish best-friends" is not only silly, it's beyond the issue. The fact of the matter is there's a difference between those who perpetrate genocide and those who are ordered to perpetrate massacre. This article is about a genocide above anything else. Therefore, placing the Kurds in the same basket would be misleading in that regard. Étienne Dolet (talk) 23:30, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Armenian Genocide. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

YesY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:13, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Recent edit regarding location[edit]

I consider Tiptoethrutheminefield's recent edit of GF an improvement from the previous wording which I had removed. The most important part about a genocide is intent. We shouldn't imply that the Ottoman government had an intent to annihilate the Armenians of territories it occupied outside of the OE. That would confuse matters for our readers. The article can provide information on how massacres have spread, but to conflate genocide with unintentional spread of state-sponsored massacre is something that needs to be thoroughly discussed. Nevertheless, I can see why someone would want it added to the infobox. So instead of going back and forth, we should start an RFC? Étienne Dolet (talk) 23:15, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

The Ottoman government DID have an intent to annihilate Armenians in territories it occupied outside of the OE! The Ottoman Empire entered WW1 with the intent to expand its pre-war territory - so why would it pursue different policies in captured territory when it concerned people it wanted rid of? The Ottoman invasion of Persia in 1914-1915 was characterized by widespread genocidal massacres of its Christian population - anyone who couldn't flee was killed. Is Kars full of Armenians today? Is Igdir? Is Oltu? Is Urmia? Are we seriously going to remove the fate of the Armenian populations in these regions from the narrative of the Armenian Genocide. Plenty of sources writing about the AG do include the events in these places as part of the genocide. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 23:40, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
I'd much rather adhere to the initial intent of the AG as outlined in the Tehcir law. That is, the Armenians of the OE are to be deported, liquidated, and etc. After all, it all started from there and like I said, the most important aspect to consider in genocide is intent. Kars, Persia, Urmia, and other places weren't part of this plan. Yes, it's undeniable that the Ottoman Army was hell-bent on annihilating the Armenians outside of the OE, but then proving that as part of the initial plans of genocide is impossible. Now, there are going to be people interested in this topic that are going to think the same way you are, and I don't blame them. So I suggest a compromise. We should add the Ottoman occupied territory stuff as a note and succinctly explain that it spread to those territories as well. Is that okay? Étienne Dolet (talk) 23:54, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
I think you are actually engaging in OR. No such "Initial intent plan" evidence exists. Not a single Ottoman document exists that explicitly states an "Armenians of the OE are to be deported, liquidated, and etc." intent. The intent was revealed in the process and the end result - and we have numerous academic works on the AG that detail and have studied that process and end result and have commented on it. No RS sources exist that I know of express the opinion that you are expressing. The fate of the Armenian populations in Kars province, etc, in 1918 and in 1921, are considered part of the Armenian Genocide in all the sources I know of on the AG that cover that period. If you have sources that say they are not considered part of the Armenian Genocide, could you cite them. The infobox just summarizes article content, that content is derived from what is contained in RS sources. So you cannot remove RS sourced location information from the location field in the infobox that is specifically there to list the locations. The only way you can legitimately propose what you are wanting is to propose to have the location, date, and perpetrator fields removed completely. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 02:43, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
I'm talking about the Tehcir law wherein which the Ottoman government authorized the deportations on the only citizens they could have deported: their own. Obviously, I'm not going to use the Tehcir law as a source because of WP:PRIMARY. But there are many secondary sources that word it as such (i.e. "Under the so-called Tehcir Law of May 27, 1915, which authorized the deportation of the Ottoman Empire's Armenian population"). With that said, the massacres happened simultaneously. The people who were deported were the ones that got massacred through secret channels of communications. So the Tehcir law is the basis of the AG since it highlights the government's intent. This aspect of the genocide has nothing to do with Russia or Persia or whatever. To put them into the same category would imply that it does. So to avoid that problem, I suggest just adding the word spread as in the campaign of genocide also spread into Russia and Persia. A simple note should do the trick. Étienne Dolet (talk) 03:16, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
You are giving too much importance to the Tehcir law, which followed the institutionalized need to justify the laws regarding properties (not applicable for those outside of the Empires realm). The Tehcir in its equivalent form can be found in works treating state behaviors and their dealing with their minorities claimed goods. Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 16:33, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
Also, the infobox category is "location", it is not "originated in". An alternative could be "The Ottoman Empire and within territories under the occupation of Ottoman forces during WW1" - but I think that is too vague and it is better to be specific and just say those territories under occupation were parts of the Russian Empire and Persia. The Tecir Law was passed AFTER the massacres in Van, events which are unquestionably part of the Armenian Genocide, - so that law's passing was not plan for the simultaneous start of a genocide - it was just regularizing the property disposal aspect of something that was already ongoing and providing a baseless excuse for the already intended and already ongoing extension of the genocide to all areas of empire. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:21, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
For the record: I don't believe that the timeline of the genocide, or the start of it for that matter, should be limited in scope to the Tehcir law. I am merely pointing to the Tehcir law as an official declaration of the OE government's intent that will pinpoint which Armenians they felt the need to eliminate. Also, on a more general note regarding the Tehcir law, it was not a "baseless excuse". Rather, the Tehcir law was part and parcel of the genocide and the elimination of the Empire's Armenians couldn't have been done without it. Indeed, there were massacres prior to the Tehcir law, but there was no full-on attempt at annihilating all the Armenians of the Empire in such a comprehensive and systematic procedure (i.e. from Edirne to Aleppo). Étienne Dolet (talk) 03:09, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Etienne, do you not think that massacres committed by Ottoman forces outside the Empire indicate an informal(as far as we know) understanding that any and all Armenians were to be exterminated regardless of location? --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:30, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
Yes, of course. But my underlying argument is to highlight the intent of the OE since it is the intent that justifies genocide above anything else. The OE, upon its planning of the systematic annihilation of Armenians, did not plan to deport or kill Persian and Russian Armenians. So we must be careful in putting them in the same basket. The massacres in Russia and Persia were events that occurred outside of the OE government's initial scope of intent even though it didn't prevent it from happening. But like I said earlier, I don't mind adding a Note saying something like "the campaign of genocide also extended into Persia and Russia" next to the location bit. We should also refrain from adding to much textual information to the infobox. There's a reason why we have two notes in the infobox already. Étienne Dolet (talk) 03:20, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
Ok. Got it now. Thanks, Etienne.--Kansas Bear (talk) 03:39, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
My point remains. There is an infobox category named "Location". It is not named "initial scope of intent" or "starting point". The "Location" category is obviously there to define where in the world the genocide took place (for example, that is how "location" is used in the WW1, WW2, and Holocaust articles). No sources are presented expressing the opinion that the massacres of Armenians within territory held by the Ottoman empire that was officially part of the Russian or Persian empires were not part of that wider genocide. There is also content on the killings in those areas in the article's content. So I maintain that Russian and Persia must, under some wording, be returned to the location category in the infobox. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:28, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

It is arbitrary to believe that the policies weren't to push away|get rid of the Armenians as far as the expansion could reach. To claim otherwise is to claim that the Ottoman behaved differently than any other Empire in history. The onus to provide material is therefor on the side which claims a version which is so unnatural to the documented history of Empires in general. On the other hand, just a reminder that the machine of state is devoid of any intentionality, it just react. Claiming that the Ottoman Empire had an intention to do X or Y is to attribute to machines things which are human. Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 15:55, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Armenian Genocide. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

YesY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:12, 19 July 2017 (UTC)