Talk:Deportation of the Meskhetian Turks/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Catrìona (talk · contribs) 16:15, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please reply individually under each of my comments and mark with Done, Fixed, Added, Not done, Doing..., or Removed, followed by any comment you'd like to make. Catrìona (talk) 16:15, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@3E1I5S8B9RF7: I'm sorry it's taken me so long to get to this. Some preliminary comments follow. Catrìona (talk) 16:34, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No problem.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 08:00, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lede

Around 32,000 people, mostly Armenians, were settled by the Soviets in these cleared areas. Is that referring to the Meskhetian Turk areas, or all areas from which Soviet ethnic minorities were deported?

Done To the Meskhetian territories. Corrected to be absolutely clear.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 08:00, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

by the Soviets also somewhat vague, can you be more specific about the specific organizations/individuals responsible? Catrìona (talk) 06:27, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The source did not provide more detail. It just said it was done by the Soviet government.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 08:26, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

remained unknown outside the country for a long time vague, can you give a specific time interval?

Done Several sources indicate that the question of the Meskhetian Turks gained widespread attention in the West after the 1989 riots in Uzbekistan. Corrected.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 08:00, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deportation

Recommending putting the quote in a left aligned quote box; it would help break up the text, and the quote isn't deeply attached to the text.

Done --3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 08:56, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

adopted the decree N 942 rs which provided 857 t of flour and 213 t of cereals to the settlers from the Georgian SSR use Template:convert or some other way of converting these units to something which is more familiar. I'm also not sure what "the decree N 942 rs" means; perhaps explain it in a note?

Done Converted tonne to kg and pounds. As for the decree, it was just the official naming code, which cannot be translated.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 08:56, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Separate a "Special settlements" section from the "Deportations" section.

Done--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 08:56, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The NKVD forces only gave a short notification to the population Does this mean a brief message, or were they expected to leave on short notice?

The NKVD agents arrived at their homes, knocked on their doors and told them that they are to be deported.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 16:09, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Modern interpretations/Aftermath

Recommend moving this section to after "Aftermath and legacy" section, in order to maintain the continuity of discussing the fate of the Meskhetian Turks. Also, rename that section to just "Aftermath".

Done--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 08:56, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One Meskhetian Turk described the lament of his people with these words: Non encyclopedic language. Suggest "(name), a Meskhetian Turk, said:" You might also consider a quote box for this quote.

Done It was placed in a quote box. The source did not give any name, the quote was attributed to a "surgeon from Kazakhstan" to protect his anonymity from potential threat of a backlash in that reagion.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 08:56, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

General

~~It seems like this article has significant prose issues. Would you be willing to pause the review while I put this up for Guild of Copy Editors copyediting?~~

I hereby give my consent.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 08:00, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest moving the "Possible reasons" section to just after "Background" because it describes what the Soviet leaders may have been thinking before they ordered the deportation. Catrìona (talk) 07:22, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would rather put the "Possible reasons" later on, after the "Deportation", since it makes more sense considering that the territorial claims against Turkey were raised a year later.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 15:10, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Recommend combining the first two paragraphs in "Background", the last two paragraphs in "Possible reasons", and the last two paragraphs in "Aftermath".

Can you clarify? So all these six paragraphs should go where? To the "Background" or the "Aftermath"? --3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 15:07, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I meant combining them (ie deleting the line break between the first two paragraphs in "Background") to avoid short paragraphs. But if you prefer to leave them as is, that's also okay. Catrìona (talk) 09:06, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Placed Polian's view in the "Aftermath". I hope the issue is now settled.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 16:15, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The harsh living conditions in the Uzbek Soviet Republic, including bad food, a lack of medicine, the process of adapating to the new climate this sentence appears to be closely paraphrased from the source

Done

The Meskhetian Turks were one of the six ethnic groups from the Caucasus who were deported in 1943 and 1944 in their entirety by the Soviet secret police—the other five were the Chechens, the Ingush, the Balkars, the Karachays and the Kalmyks this statement is cited to the entire page range of a research paper. It should list more specific page/pages for better verifiability

Done

The expulsion was executed by NKVD chief Lavrentiy Beria. It was ordered by the Soviet Premier Joseph Stalin. This statement also needs the specific page number

Done

The citation to Pohl also needs a specific page number

Done

Modern interpretations view this as a pretext by Stalin to remove the potentially unloyal, pro-Turkish group from the Turkish border area, thereby extending his power in this region. This is original research since the only source cited for this sweeping statement is a single newspaper article. Also, it's closely paraphrased.

Done

The purpose of these settlements was to act as a source of cheap labor for the development of remote parts of the Soviet Union. closely paraphrased from [1]

Done

Aydingun 2002 also needs a specific page number

Done

Even in the books about Soviet deportations by historians Alexander Nekrich and Robert Conquest the Meskhetian Turks were given much less space than the other resettled ethnic groups. verbatim copyvio

Done - Changed.

"For the first twelve years of their exile, Meskhetian Turk special settlers' led lives of extreme deprivation". This is what it says in the source. If so, than it would be the sixth instance of copyvio/close paraphrasing found in this article.

Done - The sixth and last one. (See also copy edit below, if case you forgotten)

A drive by comment

Hi. I hope that the copy edit did what you wished. Any issues, please feel free to let me know. I probably pushed the bounds of what counts as "copy editing" a bit. Hopefully not unduly.

It occurred to me that if I were assessing this article, I would be unhappy with the length of the Aftermath, much of the content of which is only loosely connected to the title of the article. If I were the nominating editor I may be inclined to slide the entire Aftermath into a new article ("Meskhetian Turk Diaspora"?) with an extensive introduction summarising the top three quarters of this article, and replace it with a much briefer summary of events 1945-2018. Obviously, feel free to ignore this suggestion if it is not felt to be helpful.

The caption "Young Meskhetian Turks wearing T-shirts that read: 14 November, 1944. We have not forgotten the deportation." This is not what the info attached to it says ("We have not forgotten") and the text under the date on each tee shirt is completely different. To the extent that I strongly doubt that they both read the same. Possibly 'Young Meskhetian Turks wearing T-shirts bearing the date 14 November, 1944 and commemorating the deportation.'? Gog the Mild (talk) 10:40, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Gog the Mild, thanks so much for your helpful copyediting and comments! Sharp eyes on the image caption. I happen to agree with your suggestion, and recommend that this section be split into a separate article. I agree that Meskhetian Turk diaspora seems like it might make a good name. Catrìona (talk) 07:18, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have corrected the caption with the T-shirts. I am reluctant to slide so much of the "Aftermath" text into a new article, since this article would be severaly shortened by it. A "Meskhetian Turk diaspora" could simply be added into the already existing "Meskhetian Turks" article. Do you agree?--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 18:30, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To the contrary, the GA criteria are unrelated to the article length, provided that the article covers all necessary information and doesn't go off topic. One of my GA articles, Nordhausen concentration camp, is only half as long as this one. I think that much of the information of the Aftermath section is not really relevant since the article is just about the deportations themselves. Whether it makes sense to move the content into Meskhetian Turks or start a new article, I will leave to your discretion. Catrìona (talk) 20:42, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done - shortened.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 15:23, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Possible NPOV issue

Hello. The presumed Kipchak ancestry of the Meskhetian Muslims mentioned in the background section is a highly controversial hypothesis. In fact, no medieval source mentions where exactly David IV of Georgia settled his Kipchak mercenaries. The cited source clearly states that this is only the "Turkish view" and one "version" of the events while also discussing the opposing viewpoint. This should be clarified in the article and balanced by including the prevalent rival theory. --Kober^Talk 15:28, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Kober, thanks for the comment. I know nothing about the history of Turkic peoples and will defer to other editors' judgement on this issue. Catrìona (talk) 16:05, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done Amended. The sentence now says that this is the Turkish view of their origin.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 16:12, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not done Does not include other theories on origin, as Kober suggested. This is not the place to go into detail, but it can at least be mentioned. Catrìona (talk) 16:18, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Catrìona I am unaware of any relevant third theories of their origin. If you have any knowledge of these theories, I invite you to post the sources here, to everyone.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 17:15, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article currently states the Turkish historians' view that the Meskhetian Turks originated as Kipchak mercenaries, but does not elaborate as much on Georgian views, potentially giving undue weight to one side of a controversy. What the source actually says is that the Meskhetian Turks probably resulted from a combination of both factors, Muslim immigration and conversion to Islam. Catrìona (talk) 19:38, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is again just a repeat of the first two theories.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 09:58, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not done Catrìona (talk) 18:16, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You need to specify what seems to be the issue and what needs to be corrected. See also comments below.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 08:06, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note to second reviewer

I am listing this as 2nd opinion because the nominator has a history of failed nominations on similar topics, I think this review merits further scrutiny. In addition, the GOCE review greatly improved the prose issues but some problems remain. I've checked many of the references and they all support the content. Edit: this appears not to be the case, per the NPOV issue discussed above. I will subject sources to further scrutiny. Catrìona (talk) 09:41, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Catrìona I have addressed all the issues you brought up. I hope this meets the criteria.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 17:56, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Second reviewer comments

Hi 3E1I5S8B9RF7, Catrìona. First some trivia. 3E1I5S8B9RF7, could you:

Replace "p" in cites 33, 49, 50, 51 with "pp".

Done

"kilogrammes" and "lb" are overlinked. IMO they should not be Wikilinked at all. See MOS:OL.

Done

There is other duplicate linking. Eg Volga Germans.

Done

The NPOV issue.

It is my opinion that the text as it now stands is appropriate, accurate, and gives due weight. To be clear, this is:
The Meskhetian Turks, also known as Akhiska Turks, originally lived in the Meskheti region in the south of present day Georgia. There is no consensus among historians regarding their origin. Either they are ethnic Turks or Turkicized Georgians who converted to Islam during the Ottoman rule of the region.

This, IMO, accurately reflects the reference cited, the Council of Europe working paper, which I would consider a RS. This view is reinforced, IMO, by the introduction of the coverage of the topic by the Center for Applied Linguistics which I also consider a RS:

The ethnic origins of Meskhetian Turks are the subject of a politically charged debate. The basic issue revolves around this question: Are Meskhetian Turks in fact ethnic Turks, or are they ethnic Georgians who at some stage in history converted to Islam?

It is also, IMO, a reasonable summary of the coverage of this topic in Meskhetian Turks.

The current text of the article in no way contradicts nor distorts what several other RSs say on the topic.

There is the occasional dissenting view, eg Minority Rights Group International, which states:

Most Meskhetians are ethnic Turks – of whom, according to the 2010 census, there are an additional 105,058 – whilst some are Turkified Georgians. They are Sunni Muslims.

However, I would not consider this a RS, it is a brief overview with no author nor sources given.

I also note that this is a relatively minor issue in the context of the article. There is no dispute that I could find among RSs that the Meskhetian Turks are a (persecuted,) Turkish-speaking, Muslim, ethnic minority. How this came to be, several centuries before the topic of the article, is barely germane.

Other sources.

I did some random checking and there were no instances where the text was not reasonably supported by the references given.

I hope that this helps.

Gog the Mild (talk) 21:28, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My sentiments exactly, Gog the Mild. RS claim that their origin is either A or B. This is what it says in the article, too. I do not go into speculation or details as to which theory is more or less correct, since it is off-topic for the article in question. Let it be discussed in the article "Meskhetian Turks". All this is in accordance with Wikipedia's standards. I have done everything according to the comments in the reviews. I see no further issue with this. --3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 08:12, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus to promote?

I thought I had checked the sources pretty carefully, but upon doing additional checks today I noticed a sentence that was a verbatim copyright violation, one of four instances (see above). There was also a statement that did not appear to match the source, which I removed. Since I am not able to access all sources (and neither can Earwig), personally I do not feel comfortable promoting the article. Catrìona (talk) 00:36, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Which source? I think almost every source was linked with the book or journal link. Be specific, rational, do not talk about your feelings.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 07:16, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, what is most concerning is not just the systemic copyright violations, but your cavalier attitude towards them. How am I supposed to assume good faith that there aren't any other closely paraphrased passages in the article, when you have demonstrated that you do not take the issue seriously? Catrìona (talk) 07:28, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You can assume good faith by my edits, the way I correct each and every one of the issues you brought up. Is there any issue I have not addressed? Is there any issue I have not corrected? Any close paraphrasing in the article is unintentional, a benign oversight that can be easily corrected. Unless you want to go into off-topic territory and try to hypothesize about my personality and character, which is entirely irrelevant for any GA review, the GA review process remains the same: the reviewer finds omissions in the article, the nominator corrects them and improves the article. If all the issues are corrected and the reviewer cannot find any more specific points that stops him from promoting the article, then the outcome is evident.

If you have any further specific points, I call upon you to bring them up. The GA review process needs to be transparent. I also once again call upon you to anwser my previous question: which sources are not accessible?

In case you assign a negative outcome to this GA review, I call upon you to give a detailed, comprehensive reasoning and explanation for your action. Something better than just "I do not feel comfortable", something that isn't so vague. It would be really ironic (and interesting) to hear that just when an article is cleaned of all its issues and problems, and improved so much that no further issues can be identified, it is hacked by the reviewer. One thing is when an article is bad to begin with; in that case, it is removed right from the start of the review process. But after a month of reviewing, there needs to be a really good reasoning as to what happened in the last act.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 08:25, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Because of the nominator's repeated close paraphrasing and outright copyvio from paywalled sources, and lack of understanding of the seriousness of violating Wikipedia copyright policy, I cannot be reasonably confident that this article does not contain copyright violations. Therefore, I've failed it. Catrìona (talk) 23:04, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You obviously distort and misapprehend everything I write. As to why you are so unobjective, I leave that to you. I corrected everything in the article and improved it, and then you pretend as if I haven't responded at all. You cannot name any further issues, not even clarify my previous question. You also cannot write a detailed reasoning for your negative outcome, since there is none. You instead resort to "maybe there is more copyvio" speculation, but cannot name specifics. Rest assured that I will be asking for a second review, a one that isn't so superficial.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 18:08, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]