Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Armenian genocide/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 4 July 2021 [1].

Armenian genocide

[edit]
Nominator(s): (t · c) buidhe 07:28, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article has gone through GAN and ACR reviews with some final tweaks to make it ready for FAC; my thanks to the many reviewers who gave helpful feedback and to Ovinus who copyedited the article. The article already received a thorough image review at the ACR by Nikkimaria so it shouldn't need another one, as no images have been changed since then. (t · c) buidhe 07:28, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for the all the comments that have been posted so far. I am working through them but it may take a while to fully address all the points that have been raised. (t · c) buidhe 00:06, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wretchskull

[edit]
  • The Armenian genocide (also known by other names)[...] You could perhaps replace the parenthesis with a note mentioning the terminology, but that could just be personal preference. Example: The '''Armenian genocide'''{{refn|group=n|Example text}}.
Buidhe Sorry, I think I didn't explain properly. I meant that you can have a note that says something along the lines of "For other names, see (link)" instead of having it within parenthesis. Wretchskull (talk) 09:20, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done (t · c) buidhe 09:25, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • With the destruction and expulsion of Syriac and Greek Orthodox Christians, it enabled the creation of an ethnonational Turkish state. Remove "with" and ", it" for conciseness.
    • "With" and "it" include the Armenian genocide. It could be rephrased to list all three but that wouldn't be more concise.
  • Turkey denies that the deportation of Armenians was a genocide or wrongful act. Remove "a", as "Genocide" is an uncountable noun (plus it is in definitive form). After that, "a" must also be added after "or" because "act" is countable.
    • Done
  • Although Armenians had been called the "loyal millet" in contrast to Greeks and others who had previously challenged Ottoman rule, after 1878 Armenians became perceived as subversive and ungrateful. The comma after "rule" is correct, but to keep it without causing a grammatical error, a comma must also be added after "1878" or else the subordinate clause before the first comma would be awkwardly woven with the main clause.
    • Rephrased
  • [...]where a series of transit camps were set up to control flow of victims to the killing site[...] Add "the" after "control" as it is in definitive form.
    • Done
  • The first arrivals in mid-1915 were accommodated in Aleppo, but from mid-November the convoys[...] Add a comma after "mid-November" to correct the main-subordinate-main clause sentence.
    • Split into two sentences
  • In some cases local officials gave Armenians food, and in others they were able to bribe officials for food and water. Add a comma after "cases" and "others", same reason as above.
    • Rephrased to "Some local officials gave Armenians food, while others took bribes..."
  • [...]Talaat Pasha ordered a second wave of massacres in early 1916. I understand what you mean with "a second wave of massacres", but "the second wave of massacres" fulfils definitive form in the past tense, and states Pasha's massacres specifically. Your version is still grammatically correct though, so it is up to you.
    • I think it reads better with indefinite article because the reader hasn't heard about this second wave yet.
  • [...]resulting in the displacement of more than a half million people. What about "[...]resulting in the displacement of more than half a million people."?
    • Done
  • Lemkin recognized the fate of the Armenians as one of the main cases of genocide in the twentieth century. "one of the main cases of genocide" is perfectly fine, but what about "one of the most significant genocides"? Readers may confuse "main cases" as a typo for "main causes".
    • Done
  • I understand if some of those comma-suggestions feel like "comma-soup" (a common complaint), but they are 100% necessary grammatically. Spoken language has corrupted their proper usage.

That's all I have for today. I have seen some confusing sentences here and there, but I'll dig into that later. Buidhe, your impressive article rewrites never disappoint me! Wretchskull (talk) 14:25, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Shooterwalker

[edit]

I don't know a lot about this topic except that it's tricky, and you're a strong soul for working on this. Going to work through the prose as much as possible and see how far I get. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:56, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Armenians in the Ottoman Empire
  • "supremacy" is sort of a vague term. Is there something that makes this more clear?
    • I don't want to elaborate because I am trying to keep this article barebones and concise. This should be discussed in a separate article, but Suny mentions various things both symbolic (non-Muslims had to dismount from horses if a Muslim approached) and substantive (i.e. Ottoman courts favored Muslims, it could be very difficult to punish a Muslim for crimes against non-Muslims).
  • Honestly, so far the prose is excellent. No run-on sentences, and lots of clear language.
Land conflict and reforms
  • "semi-feudal conditions" -- is this in addition to, or in summary of their forced labor? If the former, I might want to understand more clearly what semi-feudal means, especially as it compares to the rest of the empire. If the latter, you might say "semi-feudal conditions such as..."
    • Basically for the reasons mentioned, in that they had to pay tax and/or forced labor to the lord in exchange for "protection". Suny states, "Travelers and diplomats reported that in Van, Bitlis, Diyarbakır, and elsewhere the Kurds held the Armenians in a kind of semi-feudal servitude. Not only did Armenian villagers pay taxes in kind and money to the Kurdish chieftains, but they were also obligated to work a set number of days for the Kurds and to board and feed them in Armenian villages during the winter months. In some areas Kurdish lords bought and sold Armenians like sheep or cattle and seized their land, homes, and women."
  • "when Abdul Hamid II came to power," -> I'm intelligent enough to infer that he came to power as the head of the Turkish state, but you could make this clearer. "became Sultan of Turkey", for example.
    • Clarified that he was the sultan
  • "Abdul Hamid suspended the 1876 Constitution of the Ottoman Empire the following year after parliamentarians criticized his handling of the Russo-Turkish War of 1877–1878." -> the sequence of this sentence leaves the timeline feeling a little unclear. Maybe invert it: "Parliamentarians criticized Abdul Hamid after the Russo-Turkish War of 1877-1878, leading Abdul Hamid to suspend the Constitution of the Ottoman Empire."
    • It's not really important to this article why he suspended the constitution, so I deleted it and moved the information on the constitution to the beginning of the Young Turk Revolution section.
  • "Armenians were for the first time used to interfere in Ottoman politics" -> the meaning of the word "interfere" is unclear here, and maybe there's a better word choice.
    • I'm not sure what wording would be clearer? The point is that other countries were using the Armenian issue in order to pry into what was considered Ottoman domestic politics.
  • "by Ottoman soldiers, crowds incited to violence, and Kurdish tribes" -> "by Ottoman soldiers, Kurdish tribes, and mobs incited to violence."
    • Done
  • "Armenian villages were forcibly converted" -> "Armenians were forcibly converted" (people convert to religion, not places)
    • the point is that Armenians didn't convert individually, but en masse, as explained here, for example.
  • "unquestioningly accept Muslim supremacy" -> this is again unclear, and if there's now a big old revolt and an "Armenian question", the word "unquestioningly" is confusing here.
    • The sentence refers to the "previous social order", rather than the present one in which indeed some Armenians did not unquestioningly accept their inferiority.
Young Turk Revolution
  • This section is very well-written and I'd be nitpicking. Great job.
Balkan Wars
  • "The 1912 First Balkan War resulted in the loss of almost all of the empire's European territory[65] and the mass expulsion of Muslims from the Balkans.[66]" -> "In the 1912 First Balkan War, the Ottoman empire lost almost all of its European territory, leading to the mass expulsion of Muslims from the Balkans."
    • Not done, I don't think that the loss of territory automatically leads to mass expulsion. It wouldn't have if the Balkan League states had pursued different policies.
  • "pursued a policy of changing the demographic balance of border areas" -> "pursued its demographic goals" or "tried to transform the population of border areas". Trying for something less wordy here.
    • Reworded along the lines of your suggestions
  • "When parts of Eastern Thrace were reoccupied by the Ottoman Empire during the Second Balkan War in mid-1913, local Greeks, and Armenians—who had not fought against the empire—were subjected to looting and intimidation." -> this one is a tough read. I understand you're trying to pack in a lot of information.
    • Simplified
Entry into World War I
  • Perhaps "Start of World War I" or "Onset of World War I" is a better title, since this article isn't about a single actor
  • "Wartime requisitions, often corrupt and arbitrary, were used to target Greeks and Armenians in particular." -> "Wartime requisitions were often corrupt and arbitrary, and frequently targeted Greeks and Armenians."
    • Done
  • ", of all ethnicities and religions," might remove these commas, but I usually see the benefit for sentence flow.
    • Done
  • "and met a favorable response already before 1915" -> this feels tacked on. I feel like it could be dropped, but if it's important, maybe there's a clearer rephrase.
    • The point is that anti-Armenian policies were already escalating even before the Battle of Sarikamish, often seen a turning point. Akcam states, "In this event, the December decisions of both the Erzurum Central Committee and the Istanbul government can be seen as important intermediate steps toward the final government decision to exterminate the empire’s Armenian population... it remains significant that these earlier local decisions were taken in a period before the empire had experienced serious military setbacks and faced the prospect of actually losing the war."
Onset of genocide
  • "Returning to Constantinople, Enver Pasha publicly blamed his defeat on Armenians in the region, saying they had actively sided with the Russians, which became a consensus among CUP leaders" -> the three commas kind of break this up awkwardly, and might be better if you can eliminate one sub-clause, or just break it into two sentences.
    • Rewrote
  • The interpretations of Akcam and Grigor might be better paired back to back. As is, it sort of interrupts the tone of the rest of the prose.
    • Reworked
  • "ethnically cleansed" -> probably worth at least a wikilink. I know it's linked in the lead, but worth linking in the body too. Ideally, more clarification of what this term means.
    • Removed this sentence
  • "During the night of 23–24 April 1915, at the orders of Talaat Pasha, hundreds of Armenian political activists, intellectuals, and community leaders—including many of Talaat's former political allies—were rounded up in Constantinople and across the empire." -> this sentence makes my head spin a bit. Could we break it up or re-organize it somehow?
    • Done
  • "eventually" -> "eventual"

We'll pause there. The prose is excellent, these comments aside. Generally the goal of these suggestions is to improve clarity, and remove confusing phrasings. If you think they take you in the wrong direction, feel free to push back a little. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:40, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Going to keep going with this.
  • So far...
  • Won't dig in too hard on anything so far, except that I think the suspension of the constitution is important in its chronological context. I would strongly suggest re-adding it, just because there is a subtext here of "what were the major turning points that took the conflict closer to genocide". My suggestion was more that the phrasing of why it was suspended felt a little confusing, and you might not even need to get into it, as readers can always follow a blue link to understand more. The suspension of legal processes is always a major turning point, IMO.
  • Except that it doesn't really. That was back in 1878 and the constitution was restored again during the Second Constitutional Era, so the constitution doesn't really have anything to do with the genocide.
  • I might also suggest renaming the section "Ottoman entry into WW1" for clarity.
  • Done
  • Systematic deportations
  • There is some overlap between the end of the last section here, but I think it's worth starting with the deportations themselves, as the section makes it sound like he is reacting to deportations that haven't happened yet.
  • ? There are some deportations mentioned in the last section, but it's only at this point that they become truly systematic across the empire.
  • "Deportation amounted to a death sentence" -> I think you need to give a little more context here. I'm trying to infer that maybe this is because they were sent to the Syrian desert? In which case, this goes back to my previous point of adding that to this section, as I think it adds more clarity than redundancy.
  • This sentence is primarily aimed at those who say that the Ottoman government just tried to relocate the Armenians and if they died, it was due to factors out of its control. I could add that they were deliberately sent into places incompatible with their continued life.
  • "sources of deportation" sounds confusing and could be rephrased. "Targeted areas," maybe?
  • I don't think that makes it more clear. "Targeted" in what way?
  • "these deportees were often allowed to travel by rail" this fragment kind of floats in the middle. If the means of deportation is important, it's worth rephrasing and adding more context. As is, it seems less relevant and I'd consider cutting it.
  • Moved
  • "Overall, national, regional, and local levels of governance, as well as power-brokers in the party, government, and army, cooperated willingly in the perpetration of genocide" -> "Numerous actors willingly cooperated in the perpetration of genocide, including the military, the [X] party, and government at the local, regional, and national levels." (trying to get the list of actors to flow better)
  • Reworded
  • "Some Ottoman politicians opposed the genocide; they faced dismissal or assassination" -> I think there's a better connector here than a semi colon. "But" would be fine.
  • Done
  • Death marches
  • "Although the majority of able-bodied men" -> Armenian men I'm guessing? I'm learning a lot as I go so it helps to make it clear for readers.
    • Done
  • "remained if they were too old or young, had deserted, or had paid the exemption tax" -> "deserted, paid the exemption task, or fell outside practical age range." (flow of the list)
    • Reworded
  • "during the first few days" -> could probably strike this and improve flow, without losing much clarity
    • I think it is worthwhile to establish the time frame.
  • "The convoys would stop at a nearby transit camp and the escorts would demand a ransom from the Armenians; those who were unable to pay were murdered." -> "The convoys would stop at a nearby transit camp, where the escorts would demand a ransom from the Armenians. Those who were unable to pay were murdered."
    • Done
  • "the majority of those deported from Erzerum and Trebizond, as well as many from Sivas" -> "most from Erzerum, Trebizond, and Sivas" (shorter. don't need to say deported deportees.)
    • Reworded a bit, but mostly not done as "most" would misrepresent the quantities according to the source.
  • "where a series of transit camps were set up to control the flow of victims to the killing site" -> "where a series of camps were positioned to steer victims to the killing site" (trying to make this less wordy)
    • That isn't the correct meaning here, I believe. The purpose of the camps were to hold people temporarily so that the executioners got a consistent and steady flow of victims rather than more than they could handle at a time.
  • "off the cliffs into valleys from which the only escape was into the lake" -> the geography is confusing here.
    • Reworded
  • "having passed through the plain and approaching the Kahta highlands" -> "having passed through the plain to approach the Kahta highlands"
  • Done
  • "in one of the deadliest areas during the genocide" -> maybe attach this to the previous sentence for flow. "More than 500,000 Armenians passed through the Firincilar plain south of Malatya, in what would become one of the deadliest areas during the genocide."
  • Done
  • "Many others were trapped in valleys of tributaries of the Tigris, Euphrates, or Murat River by members of the Special Organization; their bodies were thrown into the river." -> "Many others were trapped in valleys of tributaries of the Tigris, Euphrates, or Murat River, killed and thrown in the river by members of the Special Organization." (flow)
  • Reworded
  • "These corpses arrived in Upper Mesopotamia before the first of the living deportees" -> "before the first" makes it sound like a time thing, when I suspect you mean that the living deportees literally saw them.
  • No, the source talks about the time interpretation and doesn't mention deportees seeing them.
  • "Arab populations" -> just Arabs? Thus far this has hit the Persian gulf, under Ottoman/Turkish rule, with lots of other ethnic minorities, so just want to be sure this isn't a mistake.
    • It's what the source says. The lower regions of the Tigris and Euphrates are overwhelmingly populated by Arabs.
  • "the Ottoman government also wanted the corpses cleared to prevent photographic documentation. The Ottoman government ordered the corpses to be cleared as soon as possible, which was not uniformly followed" -> "The Ottoman government also wanted the corpses cleared to prevent photographic documentation, ordering the corpses to be cleared as soon as possible, though this was not always followed."
    • I separated this into one sentence talking about motive for the orders and another discussing the order with regards to corpses and how it applied in practice. I don't think it helps to recombine them as you suggest especially it seems to create a bit of a run-on.
  • "and those from farther west, who made up most of those surviving to reach Syria" -> "and those from farther west who survived to reach Syria" or "those from father west who were more likely to reach Syria".
    • Disagree, this change alters the meaning.
Pausing again here. The suggestions are mostly around structure, clarity and flow, so focus more on the spirit of the suggestions than the exact letter. We'll knock this out soon at the rate we're going. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:04, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Found some time to keep going:

  • Islamization
  • "Islamized" and "Islamization" are both WP:neologisms that lack clarity. If it's just conversations to Islam under duress, then say that.
  • That's the main term used in the sources, along with "assimilation". I don't think it's a neologism or a particularly technical term as it just means making something Islamic, similar to Christianization.
  • "and was as integral to genocide as killing" this is a big equivalency. Not to negate the horrors of forced / blackmailed conversion, but this goes under one of those extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary backing. If you're making the point that forcing someone to change their language and culture is itself a form of genocide, then that bears worth stating clearly and factually.
  • That's what the sources say: "assimilation was as much a structural element of genocide as physical destruction". "Religious conversion and forced assimilation of Armenian women and children into Muslim households were two of the most significant structural components of the 1915 Armenian Genocide. In other words, Islamization of Armenian women and children – as well as imposition of Muslim culture, education, and traditions upon them – was one of the most significant aspects of the Armenian Genocide." (Other sources say the same thing). Note, they do not say that forced conversion is equivalent to killing, and neither does this article.
  • I have felt this only a few times while reading, but I'd recommend reading the essay Wikipedia:Let the reader decide. This is clearly a horrific event, and the more I read the more I understand the challenge and importance of healing from such a systemic . Phrases like the last one add a lot of editorial color without adding any real information. You can trust that a reader will form an intelligent opinion about conversions under the threat of deportation and/or death. It's a good essay to bear in mind for a few moments in an otherwise excellent article.
  • "physical destruction" -> if we mean death, just say death. If we're talking about destroying property, we can clarify that too.
  • I don't know. It doesn't read right with death to me. The source says "physical annihilation".
  • "Although the first and most important step was conversion to Islam, the process also required the eradication of Armenian names, language, and culture, and for women, immediate marriage to a Muslim man" -> "After the conversion to Islam, many/most/all were forced to give up their Armenian names, language, and culture. Women were required to marry a Muslim man."
  • Not done, this loses information and I don't think it is an improvement
  • The article is unclear on what language they would then speak. Did they speak Turkish? Arabic? Were they effectively Turks now? The actual language and culture of the converts is an important fact that is missing.
    • They would have had to learn the language of their captors, most likely Turkish, Kurdish, or Arabic. Some, especially younger children, effectively blended in with their assumed identity.
  • "permitted marriage of Armenian females into Muslim households, as these women were forced to convert to Islam" -> these two subphrases are confusing, mainly the inconsistency between "permitted" and "forced"
  • Reworded
  • Less so than "islamization", "rape" is another word where "sexual assault" would be the more accurate term. (Where you already state "sexual abuse", this is preferred.)
  • I don't see why the term "rape" is inaccurate or should be disallowed especially if it's used in the sources.
  • "Although Armenian women tried various means of avoiding sexual violence, often suicide was the only available means of escape" -> "Although Armenian women tried to avoid sexual violence, suicide was often the only alternative." (shorter and better flow)
  • Done
  • Several aspects of the last paragraph feel disconnected from the section, which was set up to be about forced conversion. You raise some aspects about what happened to the deportees in the next section about "destination", and perhaps it would be more at home there.
  • I can see how it might seem that way, but these aspects are discussed in the chapters of the sources dealing with "assimilation" or "Islamization".
  • Destination
  • "Childless Turks, Arabs, and Jews would come to the camps to buy Armenian children from their parents; thousands of children were sold in this manner" -> "Thousands of Armenian children were sold to childless Turks, Arabs, and Jews, who would come to the camps to buy them from their parents."
  • Done
  • "Armenian ability to adapt and survive was greater than the perpetrators expected" -> "The Armenian people proved more adaptable than their oppressors expected."
    • I don't think this is an improvement, because both sources note the larger number of Armenians surviving than envisioned and the POV overtones of "oppressors".
  • "After hearing from Matthias Erzberger that Germany expected surviving Armenians to be allowed to return home after the war, Talaat Pasha ordered a second wave of massacres in early 1916" -> "German politician Matthias Erzberger expected their Ottoman allies to allow Armenians to return home after the war. Upon hearing this, Talaat Pasha ordered a second wave of massacres in early 1916." (making this more clear and flow better. "expected" might not be the right word, if it was a command, or a communication, or what.)
    • Rewrote this sentence.
  • "to kill" -> can strike this without losing meaning.
    • Done
  • On the whole, this section is really well written. Great job.
  • Confiscation of property
  • "A secondary motivation for genocide was the destruction of the Armenian middle class to make room for a Turkish and Muslim bourgeoisie" -> "A secondary motivation for genocide was to make room for a Turkish and Muslim bourgeoisie, by destroying the Armenian middle class" or even "by confiscating Armenian property". (to make the connection clearer)
  • The statement asking them to employ Muslims is confusing next to the statement where Muslims took over the business. It's missing a very important event in the middle.
  • Reworded
  • "Republic of Turkey" is a new political state at this point, and readers will need some context about when the transformation took place.
  • Added
  • "many lower-class Turks (i.e. peasantry, soldiers, and laborers)" -> "Many Turkish soldiers and laborers"
  • I can't access this source so I'm not confident rewording it in a way that changes the meaning.
  • The "statist national economy" doesn't square up with verifiable statements about market economy of Turkey, and might just need more context since we're talking about a state with 100 years of history now.
  • It can be statist and still partly market based—see mixed market economy. Since the 1980s, the Turkish economy was reformed to be much more market based than it was previously.
  • "All traces of Armenian existence, including churches and monasteries, libraries, archaeological sites, khachkars, and animal and place names, were systematically erased" -> "All traces of Armenian existence were systematically erased, including churches, monasteries, libraries, archaeological sites, khachkars, and Armenian names for animals and places."
  • I don't think that's an improvement
  • "second half of the twentieth century" should be more specific, as we're talking about a vague window of 50 years here
Will pause again here. This article is generally excellent, considering its density. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:36, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Coming back with additional review of the prose. I'm hoping to get through to the end, and then circle back on a few areas where some of the issues are still creating a lack of clarity. There are a few places where I understood more from your explanation on this talk page than the article itself, but we can come back to those. As always, the spirit of the suggestions is more important than the exact letter.
  • Death toll
  • " Talaat Pasha's estimates, published in 2007, gave an incomplete total of 924,158 Armenians deported; officials' notes suggest increasing this number by 30 percent. The resulting estimate of 1.2 million deported is in line with estimates by Johannes Lepsius and Arnold J. Toynbee." -> I feel like there's a better way to make this flow, but admittedly everything I come up with feels like a lateral move.
  • "Based on contemporary estimates, Akçam estimated" -> a lot of estimating. Akçam surmised? Inferred?
    • Reworded
  • "While in Bitlis and Trabizond 99% of the Armenian population vanished from the statistical record between 1915 and 1917, in Adana 38% were missing and the others survived in another province, or were not deported at all." -> "According to the statistical record between 1915 and 1917, 99% of the Armenian population vanished from Bitlis and Trabizond, while 38% went missing in Adana. Others survived in another province, or were not deported at all." (striving to make this flow better)
  • I don't think that's an improvement.
  • International reaction
  • "The Ottoman Empire tried to prevent journalists from reporting on the atrocities[206] and threatened foreigners who photographed the atrocities" -> "The Ottoman Empire tried to prevent journalists from reporting on the atrocities, and threatened foreign photographers." (shorter, less redundant)
  • Reworded
  • "The genocide was condemned by world leaders such as" -> was "genocide" in the vocabulary of Churchill and Wilson? it's important to square this with the later section that there has been a lobbying effort to recognize it as a genocide, and this wasn't resolved in the early 20th century. Here's a situation where it's better to stick close to the words of said leaders.
  • Obviously the word "genocide" was not used, as it hadn't been coined yet. I can't quote each one, which is not given in the sources and anyway would be UNDUE. So I just removed the sentence.
  • Postwar
  • "not including those forcibly converted and held captive by Arab tribes" -> "not including the converted captives of the Arab tribes." (avoids a flow-breaking conjunction for an already long sentence)
  • Reworded
  • "Following the genocide, remaining Armenians organized a coordinated effort known as vorpahavak (lit. 'the gathering of orphans') to reclaim kidnapped Armenian women and children." -> "Armenian survivors organized a campaign known as vorpahavak (lit. 'the gathering of orphans') to reclaim kidnapped Armenian women and children." (cut some redundancies)
  • Reworded
  • "The 1920 Treaty of Sèvres awarded Armenia a large area in eastern Anatolia, but was not ratified." This could use even a small elaboration. Who pushed for it. Why it wasn't ratified.
  • Aargh... this is really too complicated to deal with here without going way too long :(
  • Trials
  • Is it important to rename the link to "Istanbul trials of 1919–1920"? The actual article title is more clear to me and conveyed more information.
  • It's not a fully accurate name, as the city was still named "Constantinople" in 1920.
  • Grand Vizier Damat Ferid Pasha publicly recognized that 800,000 Ottoman citizens of Armenian origin had died as a result of state policy[224] and was a key figure and initiator of the Ottoman Special Military Tribunal.[225] -> "Grand Vizier Damat Ferid Pasha became a key figure of the Ottoman Special Military Tribunal, publicly recognizing that 800,000 Ottoman citizens of Armenian origin had died as a result of state policy." (flow / grammar)
    • Reworded
  • "The trial of his admitted killer, Soghomon Tehlirian, focused on Talaat's responsibility for genocide and became "one of the most spectacular trials of the twentieth century", according to historian Stefan Ihrig. Tehlirian was acquitted." -> The sequence of this feels off, and I feel like this could be rephrased for both flow and impact.
  • Turkish War of Independence
  • "In September 1918, recognizing that the empire had lost the war militarily, Talaat Pasha emphasized his completion of the most important war aim: "transforming Turkey to a nation-state in Anatolia"" -> "In September 1918, recognizing that the Ottomans had lost the war, Talaat Pasha focused on completing his more important aim: "transforming Turkey to a nation-state in Anatolia" (trying to be more succinct and clear)
    • No, that changes the meaning to something that is wrong. At this point he is reflecting on his "accomplishments".
  • "fight against both native Christian minorities and foreign powers" -> "fight foreign powers, as well as native Christian minorities". (for flow. "both" sort of leads to a funny meaning here.)
    • Reworded
  • "From 1918 to 1920, there were revenge killings of Muslims by Armenian militants, totaling at most 40,000 to 60,000, but providing a retroactive excuse for genocide" -> "From 1918 to 1920, Armenian militants retaliated by killing between 40,000 to 60,000 people. However, the perpetrators of the genocide used these deaths to retroactively justify their actions." (flow / clarity.)
  • Reworded
  • "third phase of genocide, this time planned by the Kemalist authorities" -> the direct quote gets in the way more than it adds, mostly because of the introduction of the opaque term "Kemalist". You'd probably be better off with a summary, and saying "the Turkish government" or even "Turkish authorities under President Kemal Atatürk."
    • Reworded
  • "In early republican Turkey, courts did not enforce the property rights that non-Muslims were granted on paper.[257]" -> this sentence is interesting, but breaks up the paragraph that seems to be about something else. It's worth keeping, but placing somewhere else. It may be enough to just switch it with the previous sentence.
    • I do agree it's worth mentioning. Gocek states "The Lausanne Treaty theoretically guaranteed the legal rights of non-Muslim minorities remaining in Turkey. Militant Turkish ethnic nationalism practiced by state authorities, as well as the local Muslims, ensured, however, that they did not have much, if any, legal protection. In addition, the inability of these non- Muslims to recover their properties left them in reduced circumstances; they were not only forced to give up their education but often ended up working as servants in Turkish households. Any transaction with the Turks carried the danger of nonpayment, forcing the withering communities to interact only with their own." Some of the examples she gives are quite shocking and there's more in Suciyan's book. I don't understand what's out of place with the sentence, the paragraph is about the conditions faced by Armenians in post-1923 Turkey.
  • Legacy
  • A full stop seems more appropriate here than a semi-colon. Admittedly, I dislike semi-colons more than most, but particularly this one.
  • Done
  • I mentioned why I think there's clearer language than Kemalist.
  • Rephrased
  • Turkey
  • "support Armenian genocide denial" -> "deny the Armenian genocide happened" (I understand you're trying to preserve the article title, but there is this awkward construction of supporting a denial.)
  • Changed to "promote". Subtle difference in meaning: these political parties don't just reject that a genocide happened but actively promote the denial ideology.
  • "Many Kurds" -> leaders? citizens? both? this is an interesting point worth elaborating even slightly.
  • Both. I don't think more elaboration would be helpful, since there's a separate article on it.
  • "Historian Donald Bloxham recognizes that since "denial has always been accompanied by rhetoric of Armenian treachery, aggression, criminality, and territorial ambition, it actually enunciates an ongoing if latent threat of Turkish 'revenge'", threatening the security of Armenia" -> the quote makes for a run-on sentence here. If you really want to keep it, I might suggest breaking this into two sentences: the conclusion, and the quote that led him there.
  • Reworded
  • Armenia and Azerbaijan
  • The first sentence is quite complicated in its construction and could be rephrased, or broken into two sentences.
  • Reworded
  • "Azerbaijan also joined the Turkish effort to deny the 1915 genocide" -> was this in response to the conflict? It's worth making this connection. Or if not, then placing it in its chronological context.
  • Position of this statement in the paragraph about the conflict is intended to convey this impression. Azerbaijan was not an independent country before the conflict. For more details, see the section about Azerbaijan in Armenian genocide denial.
  • International recognition
  • No comments here. Reads very well.
  • Cultural depictions
  • Same thing. By the way, the connections here are fascinating and chilling.
  • Archives and historiography
  • The parenthetical part is important enough to not be in parentheses. Take two sentences, if you need it.
    • Done
  • This is otherwise very well written.
  • While not strictly needed for a featured-article, as a reader I find myself wondering how much of the slow recognition of genocide has been due to the semantics that the word "genocide" was coined more than 25 years after it happened. It would be worth a paragraph, IMO, but you've painstakingly covered a lot of ground as is.
Let's pause there and circle back on any outstanding stuff once you get through it. Thanks for your hard work. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:26, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wrap-Up
[edit]
I greatly appreciate the work that has been done on this important article. With some self-awareness, I've been using my post-graduate education on articles about entertainment, and I'm now evaluating something much more vital to human knowledge. But this subject is so important and so difficult that it does need the highest scrutiny to be featured, to communicate the subject clearly to readers. With that, I've been able to evaluate the lead, before circling back to some other unresolved issues from my prior comments. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:09, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead
  • The first sentence in the lead is overly complex and tries to pack a lot of information into one shot. If it cannot be simplified, it might be better to break this into two sentences. The first sentence is meant to give readers an entry point, and it's really important that it is the most readable. Consider whether you need to name the specific regions, the political party, and the timing, all in the first sentence. (e.g.: could you just say Armenians in the Ottoman Empire during World War I, and cover the rest after?)
  • I suggested some possible alternatives below, search "ALT1".
  • The article is pretty dense, but I'm not remembering this as fear of Armenian "attempt to break free of the empire" (in the lead), and more as they "joined revolutionary political parties" for "improved conditions" (in the article). I'd generalize the lead to match the article. Or, if you have the steam, you could tweak the article to talk about Armenian efforts towards independence. This sentence (first one in the second paragraph) is also pretty long and complex, and worth rephrasing.
  • The point isn't that Armenians were killed because they tried to break free of the empire (which was not popular among Armenians until after the genocide), but because the CUP thought they might. This is the most important reason for committing the genocide so I don't think it can be omitted.
  • "series of concentration camps; in early 1916" --> a full-stop is more appropriate here.
  • "With the destruction and expulsion of Syriac and Greek Orthodox Christians" -> having read the article, I know what you mean, but there might be a phrasing that more clearly connects the Armenian genocide to the other two acts of ethnic cleansing, in terms of the overall goal / outcome.
  • The rest of the lead reads very well, and I'd reiterate the importance of getting the first couple sentences to that level of readability.
  • Background pt. 2
  • You article inspired me to read outside the lines, including Ottoman_Empire#Decline_and_modernisation_(1828–1908), The Forty Days of Musa Dagh, and numerous others that filled in some important gaps for me as a reader. I understand the "background" section can't cover everything, but I believe there are some omissions that are essential to understanding this subject.
  • It was a mistake to take the constitutional struggles out of the "Land conflict and reforms" section, and if anything, the first constitutional era should be more clearly noted.
  • I don't think so. I'm not aware of sources that highlight the first constitutional era in the context of the Armenian genocide.
  • The fact that the Armenian middle class grew substantially in the 19th century seems like an omission, as it would provide essential context, particularly to some of the confiscation that comes up later.
  • This is mentioned at the end of "Armenians in the Ottoman Empire" section. Although Armenians made up a significant part of the Ottoman bourgeoisie, "middle class" has the potential to be misleading as the vast majority of Armenians were poor peasant farmers.
  • For more context, the article should name some of the recent territorial losses for the Ottomans, such as Serbia and others. This might also tie into an earlier comment about the lead, with fears of a (perceived or real) Armenian independence movement.
  • Serbia is one of the countries that annexed Ottoman territories following the Balkan Wars. I don't see a reason to single it out.
  • The background section should at least mention the obvious, that the Ottoman Empire was in decline. (The "sick man of Europe".)
  • I mean, what is decline? It's a vague concept and in some ways the empire continued to grow and develop up to the start of WWI. The section already discusses territorial losses which sources directly tie to the genocide.
  • "Sharia law encoded Islamic supremacy but guaranteed property rights and freedom of worship to non-Muslims (dhimmis) in exchange for a special tax." -> I maintain that the chosen phrasing of "supremacy" is sort of an empty term, as it could imply any number of social structures, from slavery, to serfdom, to suzerainty, to segregation. There are innumerable phrasings that would paint a clearer picture for the reader, even just "more legal rights for Muslim subjects".
  • The rest of the sentence explains the status more concretely. We can't go on endlessly about the exact status because it varied. I don't agree that your suggestion is more clear because slavery is also a state where the slaveholder has more legal rights than the slave.
  • "the previous social order in which Christians would unquestioningly accept Muslim supremacy" -> likewise, I appreciate your clarification on the talk page, but the article remains unclear. I would try to explain the previous social order in more clear terms, or if it's easier, just say "previous social order" and leave it to readers to recall what the article already stated.
  • I think from the context it should be as clear as it can be... Armenians make no more demands for reform and quietly accept whatever treatment is meted out to them.
  • To be clear, none of these issues require a lot more writing. Some of it can be done by using clearer language, clearer sequencing, or an additional sentence or two.
  • Remaining issues
  • On the whole, the article reads better, and it already read quite well considering its density.
  • "These pressures played a key role in the intensification of anti-Armenian persecution and met a favorable response already before 1915." -> this remains unclear in the article
  • When you introduce Akçam, you should explain who he is. E.g.: Turkish historian
  • Done
  • "The first deportations of Armenians were proposed by Djemal Pasha in February 1915 and targeted Armenians in Cilicia—specifically Alexandretta, Dörtyol, Adana, Hadjin, Zeytun, and Sis—who were relocated to the area around Konya in central Anatolia" -> I'd still say this could be rephrased for readability.
  • "these deportees were often allowed to travel by rail" -> I'm still unclear on the significance of this, and it needs more context.
  • "off the cliffs into valleys from which the only escape was into the lake" -> this is still confusing. I'm imagining being pushed off a cliff would be certain death, so it's hard to understand how they're escaping valleys into a lake. I'm sure you can rephrase it to make it more understandable.
  • Reworded
  • "These corpses arrived in Upper Mesopotamia before the first of the living deportees" -> the meaning of "before" is still ambiguous here and this could be phrased in a clearer way
  • Removed
  • "Islamization" should be rephrased, primarily for clarity. The lead says "forcibly converted". The sources say "religious conversion" and "forced assimilation". These are all more clear.
  • "was as integral to genocide as killing" -> the language in the sources is clearer here, too. The sources describe this as a "structural element", "structural component", or "significant aspect".
  • Reworded
  • "eradication of Armenian names, language, and culture," -> you introduce the idea of language here but don't really elaborate on what that linguistic transformation is. If there's no appropriate way to elaborate, you could probably just say "eradication of Armenian culture", which preserves most of the meaningg, without raising loose threads for the reader.
  • I maintain that "sexual abuse", "sexual assault", and "sexual violence" are clearer and more academic language than "rape", but I do understand that older references use this term.
  • I reiterate that the statement asking minorities to employ Muslims is confusing next to the statement where Muslims took over the business. If they're employing them, how would the Muslims take over? I'm not sure if there's a missing piece of information, or if this is just in need of rephrasing.
  • I also reiterate, the "statist national economy" doesn't square up with verifiable statements about market economy of Turkey, and needs some sort of clarification.
  • "Confiscation of Armenian assets continued into the second half of the twentieth century" -> some specificity would be helpful here. But having followed some blue links, I can see how this does have to stay general, given the complexity.
  • "While in Bitlis and Trabizond 99% of the Armenian population vanished from the statistical record between 1915 and 1917, in Adana 38% were missing and the others survived in another province, or were not deported at all" -> this sentences remains awkwardly constructed
    • Removed as this is displayed on the map.
  • * The comment about Churchill and Wilson is important enough that it shouldn't have been removed. Just if they didn't actually call it a genocide, you could simply say they condemned the atrocities, or the violence, or the events.
  • "In September 1918, recognizing that the empire had lost the war militarily, Talaat Pasha emphasized his completion of the most important war aim: "transforming Turkey to a nation-state in Anatolia" -> this one too. If he's reflecting on his accomplishments, that could be made more clear, as the meaning is ambiguous here.
  • Reworded
  • "both native Christian minorities" -> also creates a funny meaning. You could probably drop "both" and improve clarity by subtraction.
  • "From 1918 to 1920, there were revenge killings of Muslims by Armenian militants, totaling at most 40,000 to 60,000, but providing a retroactive excuse for genocide" -> this one is also awkwardly constructed, and probably stems from the passive voice used in the middle of it.
  • Reworded
  • "In early republican Turkey, courts did not enforce the property rights that non-Muslims were granted on paper." -> this is out of place in a paragraph mainly about the where the survivors ended up. While there's no obvious place for it, I suggest putting it before the part that says "While Armenians in the capital faced discrimination", as those thoughts do connect better.
  • "Most Turkish citizens[268][269] and all major political parties in Turkey except the Peoples' Democratic Party promote Armenian genocide denial.[270]" -> "With the exception of the Peoples' Democratic Party, all major political parties in Turkey promote an ideology of Armenian genocide denial, which is reflected among Turkish citizens." (The word promote is better here, and it's worth re-sequencing to see the citizens as targets of those promotions.)
  • Rewrote
  • "Many Kurds" -> the link refers to political parties, NGOs, and newspapers
  • The cited sources also discuss the attitude of Kurdish population.
  • "Azerbaijan also joined the Turkish effort to deny the 1915 genocide" -> I think the 1915 is what's confusing the timeline here, and could probably be removed without losing any clarity. I'm open to other phrasings too.
  • Rephrased.
  • The first sentence in the "archives" section should just be broken into two, for readability.
  • Reworded
Once again, I empathize with the painstaking effort that goes into a topic this challenging. I can imagine these last efforts become tiring, but these are necessary for a subject of this importance. So much of the article is excellent, and my hope is to iron out these last few issues so that the article is ready to be featured. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:09, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to pick this one back up. Hoping we can wrap this up. Some issues are less important than others, so I've tried to focus on the pieces that would be essential for a featured article.

Lead: I like "ALT3" – introducing the basic idea in one sentence, and elaborating in the second. The lead otherwise reads better now, and the phrasing is clearer that the Ottomans feared an exaggerated threat of independence, which is more consistent with the article.
Background: I really do insist that some context is missing, or unclear from the phrasing you've chosen. Not that we want to completely re-duplicate the causes of the Armenian genocide article, but I'd cite a few examples of enormously illuminating context that is missing or obscure. Quoting from that article:
  • "Traditionally the Ottoman millet system offered non-Muslims a subordinate but protected place in society. The nineteenth-century Tanzimat reforms abolished the protections that members of the Armenian millet had previously enjoyed, but did not change the popular perception that they were different and inferior." (The phrasing from the causes article of "subordinate but protected" helps explain the status of Armenians, along with the juxtaposition of abolishing the millet system without addressing their perceived inferiority.)
  • Done
  • "It is widely accepted that the Balkan Wars put an end to Ottomanism, the movement for pluralism and coexistence within the empire. Instead, the CUP turned to an increasingly radical ideology of Turkish nationalism to preserve the empire. Analogies with the Balkans led to an increasing anti-Armenian positioning within the CUP around 1913, as ethnic and religious pluralism was increasingly viewed as a dangerous liability." (This is such a clear and succinct summary about the political currents in the Ottoman empire – both successful and failed. Even without naming specific reforms or policies, it addresses it. Again, I consider it a mistake that you removed the constitutional changes from their proper place in the chronology. But these quotes from the "causes" article at least provide some sort of overview.)
  • Done
  • "Although most Armenians in the Ottoman Empire were peasant farmers, they were overrepresented in commerce. As middleman minorities, there was a great disparity between wealth of some Armenians and the overall political power of the group, making them especially vulnerable." (You briefly mention the economic status of a few Armenians, but even your explanation on the talk page paints a clearer picture. These two sentences from the "causes" article are very clear.
  • Done
  • Even comparing the "causes" article, I feel this article could be a lot more clear that the CUP first came to power in a 1908 revolution. The current article seems to bury it.
  • Add clarification that the CUP came to power in 1908.
  • "In his memoirs, United States ambassador Henry Morgenthau, Sr. states that the Turks had expelled the Greeks so successfully that they had decided to apply the same method to all the other races in the empire. Historian Matthias Bjørnlund states that the perceived "success" of the Greek deportation meant that even more radical measures could be seen as not only possible, but as yet another extension of a policy of social engineering through Turkification." (These are both clearer statements on the comparison between the ethnic cleansing of the Greeks and the Armeninans. You likely wouldn't need both sentences, if you summarized them together, or slightly tweaked the language of what you already have in this article. This would inform how the Greeks are compared to the Armenians in the lead)
  • Done
  • This also seems like an important omission about the question of Armenian independence: "While the Dashnaks sought improved conditions within the empire, the rival and less influential Hntchaks proposed an independent state in eastern Anatolia"
  • Done
  • The causes article isn't as well-written from a prose standpoint, but I find it covers some essential aspects of the topic more clearly – often in fewer words. There are instances where your phrasing on this talk page are more clear than the article: "that Armenians make no more demands for reform" is clear, where "restoring the previous social order in which Christians would unquestioningly accept Muslim supremacy" raises contradictions that are left unexplained. I know you've worked hard on this FA, but the background of the genocide needs to be as clear as possible to do right by our readers.
Rest of article: The article on the whole reads a lot better, but there are some statements that seem like pivotal facts, where more clarity is needed:
  • "and met a favorable response already before 1915" doesn't have a clear meaning in the article. Most of all, who was responding favorably. Let alone what specific events before 1915 were receiving that response.
  • "before the first of the living deportees" was more clearly explained on this talk page than in the article.
  • Removed as this isn't really important.
  • "Islamization" is an opaque term, like many neologisms. The lead says "forcibly converted". The sources say "religious conversion" and "forced assimilation". Even your blue link for "forced islamization" is such a specific and opaque re-naming of real article name, hidden Armenians, which refers Armenians "who converted to Islam to escape". All of these are more clear than what's in this section.
  • I'm struggling to understand what makes these terms more understandable than the present one. The sources do prominently use Islamization along with other terms. Religious conversion doesn't say what religion. Forced assimilation doesn't say what they assimilated to. I'm open to changing this but only if there is some alternate terminology that can convey the right meaning. Saying that Armenians "converted to Islam to escape" is partly true, but makes it sound like an individual decision rather than a structural aspect of the genocide and systematic state policy.
  • "eradication of Armenian names, language, and culture," -> you introduce the idea of language here but don't really elaborate on what language they took. You elaborated on it on this talk page, but if it's not relevant enough to cover properly, then just say "eradication of Armenian culture". That conveys essentially the same meaning without raising the same loose threads.
  • For the CUP, it was most important that Armenians abandon their original identity in all its aspects. It wasn't considered as important whether they subsequently became Turks, Kurds, or Arabs.
  • "In September 1918, recognizing that the empire had lost the war militarily, Talaat Pasha emphasized his completion of the most important war aim: transforming Turkey to a nation-state in Anatolia" -> this is confusing the way it's written. My best try: "In September 1918, Talaat Pasha recognized that the empire had lost the war, but emphasized his success on a more important goal: ..." If I'm wrong in my phrasing, it's because I don't understand what the sentence is trying to say, and it should be clarified either way.
  • I would still re-add the Churchill and Wilson comments acknowledging the atrocities, just without any anachronistic language from the benefit of hindsight.
You've put in a lot of excellent work so far, and hoping we can get this across the finish line. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:09, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much for these comments! Especially comparing with the causes article (which I wrote later) I can see that there are some things that were better explained over there, and I've brought them back here. I apologize that it's taking me quite a while to get through them all. (t · c) buidhe 03:00, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support and outstanding issues
Life got busy, but I came back to support this article, given all the hard work and continued improvements. The "causes" section paints a much clearer picture now, and the article is excellent overall, with an important contribution to human knowledge. That said, this is an important topic and I wanted to give you a few outstanding notes. I hope you consider them, particularly if other reviewers start poking in the same direction.
  • In general, watch for long sentences with multiple clauses, joined by multiple commas, semicolons, or dashes. Two simple sentences are better than one complicated one.
  • "Islamization" is still WP:JARGONy and a bit of a WP:NEOLOGISM. Elsewhere, you use plain language to convey a clearer meaning (e.g.: "conversion", "forced conversion", etc.), and that is more consistent with the sources. It's better form to use plain words in place of 5-syllable words.
  • For opposite reasons, I'd suggest replacing "rape" with "sexual assault", "sexual abuse", etc.
  • The chronology of the suspension of the constitution is important enough that it should be mentioned under "land and reforms", as it was in this version (before my review).[2]
  • "These pressures played a key role in the intensification of anti-Armenian persecution and met a favorable response already before 1915" -> this remains unclear, perhaps due to the grammar. Aside from who is giving this a favorable response, it makes it sound like it is a response to "these pressures".
  • The "eradication of Armenian names, language, and culture," remains unclear, and could likely be changed to just "culture" with no loss in meaning.
  • "Akçam and Ümit Kurt argue that The Republic of Turkey and its legal system were built, in a sense, on the seizure of Armenian cultural, social, and economic wealth, and on the removal of the Armenian presence." -> as this refers to two commentators looking back from 2015, this might fit better at the end of the paragraph
  • I disagree with removing the reactions of Churchill and Wilson, from this version.[3] It could be re-added without the anachronistic "genocide" terminology, reflecting their reaction at the time.
  • "The Turkish state perceives discussion of the genocide to threaten national security" -> there is probably a more grammatical way to say this
  • "The genocide is extensively documented in the Ottoman archives, despite systematic efforts to purge incriminating material,[304] and those of Germany, Austria, the United States, Russia, France, and the United Kingdom.[305]" -> this too
None of these are so crucial as to keep this from being promoted to Featured Article status, but do consider them on the merits of making this important topic more clear and readable. Once again, excellent work, and happy editing. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:09, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Nick-D

[edit]

It's always good to see a top-tier importance article like this at FAC. I'd like to offer the following comments:

  • "mass murder and ethnic cleansing of around one million ethnic Armenians from Anatolia" - this figure seems to differ from the 'Death toll' section, which says that around 1 million are believed to have died and "between 800,000 to 1.2 million Armenians were deported" which forms part of the ethnic cleansing noted here.
  • The lead should note the discrimination and violence Armenians experienced before the genocide
  • "Until 1908, non-Muslims in the empire were forbidden to carry arms, leaving them unable to defend themselves" - this seems to repeat toxic American pro-gun ideology (which also crops up in the context of the Holocaust - e.g. Nazi gun control argument). Given that the empire was disintegrating with groups leaving it for decades beforehand (e.g. Greece) I'm sceptical about the significance of this point. There are also obviously other ways which individuals and groups can defend themselves other than with guns, especially against mob violence. The article also later notes multiple occasions where Armenians were armed. As the attacks were also driven by the Ottoman state, it is unlikely that armed resistance by untrained civilians would have achieved much. Does this reflect a consensus in the literature on the causes of the genocide?
    • The claim isn't that Armenians could defend themselves from a state-sponsored genocide but that other types of crimes against them were facilitated by unequal access to weapons based on religion. The Ottoman east had very low levels of law enforcement compared to Europe. However, Suny doesn't emphasize this point so I've taken it out.
  • "Russia's decisive victory" - the context here (e.g. the war?) isn't clear.
    • Oops, I forgot to mention the war. Now added.
  • "has been described by historian Taner Akçam as "a trial run for the Armenian genocide"" - what does this mean? Was this literally a trial to prepare for the genocide (which implies years of pre-planning), or is he being loose with words here? If it's the latter, I'd suggest replacing the quote with a summary of the argument.
    • I see how this could be misleading, so removed it. Neither Akcam nor most other historians are suggesting that the Armenian genocide was planned prior to World War I, but they have argued that the Ottoman state was already considering radical measures to deal with the perceived problem of its minority populations, including the Armenians.
  • "the Ottoman Empire entered World War I on the side of the Central Powers by launching a surprise attack on Russian ports in the Black Sea." - this is a bit simplistic: the Black Sea Raid article states that the Ottoman leader hoped to provoke a naval battle, but the commander of the two German ships who had been transferred to the Ottoman Navy bombarded the ports instead.
    • It's supported by the cited source: On October 29, the German admiral Wilhelm Souchon, commanding a joint German-Ottoman fleet, attacked and sank two Russian ships in the Black Sea. Without written orders from Istanbul, but with a clear understanding that leading cabinet officials approved, Souchon went on and bombarded the Russian fortress-city of Sevastopol... the attack was a deliberate move by Berlin and a small number of high officials in Istanbul—Enver, Talat, and Cemal—to start a war with Russia.
  • "On 25 February 1915, Enver Pasha ordered the removal of all non-Muslims serving in Ottoman forces from their posts" - why? Was this linked to the attempts to turn the war into a religious conflict? (e.g. by having the Muslim religious leaders declare a jihad in the hope that the Muslims in India would rise against the British?)
    • It doesn't appear so. Suny states, "In this moment of defeat and desperation, the triumvirate in Istanbul decided to demobilize the Armenian soldiers and other non-Muslims in the Ottoman army, disarm them, and move them into labor battalions". At the same time the Ottoman General Staff issued an order accusing Armenians in various places of collaborating with the enemy.
  • "Dashnak leaders attempted to keep the situation calm, warning that even justifiable self-defense could lead to escalation of killing" - the grammar is a bit off here.
  • While organisations/groups carried out the deportations noted in the 'Systematic deportations' section? Was this done by the army?
    • Kaiser says that the deportation convoys were guarded by "mostly gendarmes or local militia". Added mention in the article.
  • "Confiscated Armenian properties formed much of the basis of the Republic of Turkey's economy, endowing it with capital." - this seems both an over-statement and contradicts the previous material which notes that the genocide was an economic disaster.
    • I don't think there's any contradiction or overstatement. Aryanization was similar in that it created inefficiencies but due to the sheer amount stolen ($230 billion to $320 billion in assets) Jewish wealth also played a significant role in European economies.
  • Was the genocide used to motivate Allied troops fighting the Ottomans about the justice of their cause?
    • If so, it's not mentioned in any of the major books on the topic that I've examined.
  • The para starting with 'Relief efforts were organized in dozens of countries to raise money for Armenian survivors' seems out of place
    • Well, there have been entire books and many studies written about humanitarian responses to the Armenian genocide[4] so it would not be comprehensive to omit this aspect.
  • "Eighteen perpetrators were sentenced to death, of whom only three were ultimately executed as the remainder had fled and were tried in absentia" - were these senior government officials?
  • "Turkey's century-long effort to prevent any recognition or mention of the genocide in foreign countries " - is 'any mention' really true? I suspect that "Turkey's" should be replaced with "The Turkish Government's" as well
    • Turkey's efforts surpass simply lobbying against Armenian genocide resolutions. Turkey has taken action against private organizations (such as MGM, a US film studio that wanted to film The Forty Days of Musa Dagh), privately organized conferences (see International Conference on the Holocaust and Genocide), and the Turkish ambassador to the US even wrote a letter to Robert Jay Lifton for mentioning the Armenian genocide in his book on Nazi doctors.[5]
  • Do most Turks and political parties really see themselves as supporting "Armenian genocide denial"? It seems more likely that Turks are taught a false history in schools, and political elites actively suppress efforts to correct this/
    • Well, you could consider it both ways. Of course, Turkish schools do not teach a balanced history of Armenians (see Armenian genocide denial#Education) and people who do not admit that an Armenian genocide occurred don't consider themselves to be "denying" it. However, denial is the terminology used in many reliable sources. There's more detail in Armenian_genocide_denial#Society and #Politics. Gocek notes, "To this day, the Turkish state officially denies that what happened to the Armenians in 1915 was genocide... Such an official stand is also strongly supported by the majority of Turkish society." Galip says, "There is consensus in respect of genocide denial in all Turkish left- and right-wing parties apart from the pro-Kurdish HDP."
  • "Acknowledgment of the genocide is punishable under Article 301 of the Penal Code" - but only since 2005: why? (I presume that this is part of Turkey's decent into autocracy?)
    • Before that it was censored by other laws. For example, the one-party-era press laws criminalized publication of anything deemed at odds with state interest, including publications on the Armenian genocide. This is covered in more detail in the Armenian genocide denial article.
  • Why does the Turkey Government put so much effort into suppressing knowledge and acknowledgement of these events from so long ago?
    • There are different theories, discussed in Armenian genocide denial#Causes. Among other reasons, the genocide issue challenges core beliefs about Turkish national identity and is perceived as a threat to national security.
  • What's meant by 'recognition' in the 'International recognition' section?
    • As noted in the Armenian genocide recognition article, "formal acceptance that the systematic massacres and forced deportation of Armenians committed by the Ottoman Empire... constituted genocide".
  • A source is in fact needed for the claim in File:States recognising the Armenian Genocide.svg that the Armenian parliament has passed a resolution recognising this genocide. No source is provided for the claim that two "States ... deny there was an Armenian genocide". The caption in the article also needs the date this is as at added given that the situation has evolved and will continue to do so. Nick-D (talk) 08:19, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The detail on Armenia turns out to be incredibly difficult to source. Bizarrely, Armenia's foreign ministry doesn't count itself as one of the countries that recognizes the Armenian genocide.[6] I added a source for Turkey and Azerbaijan, and I did eventually find a source for Armenia. (t · c) buidhe 23:32, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Super Dromaeosaurus

[edit]

Hello, I am just here to mention something I had wanted to note since quite a long ago. Super Ψ Dro 20:11, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Is it possible to mention the fate of Eastern Thrace Bulgarians after the Ottoman Empire regained the area during the Second Balkan War at the Balkan Wars section? I do not mean to belittle anything but I am pretty sure the Bulgarians suffered more incidents than the Greeks and Armenians (the only mentioned peoples) in the region since, as I've heard, they were completely eradicated from there, which is most likely worth noting. There's an article about a book explaining this in Wikipedia: Destruction of the Thracian Bulgarians in 1913.
    • All I can say is that it isn't mentioned in any of the sources I consulted for this article, so I guess it isn't considered relevant to the Armenian genocide. (t · c) buidhe 20:38, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's also a link to a disambiguation to Springer at the citation of Taner Akçam's 2018 Killing Orders: Talat Pasha's Telegrams and the Armenian Genocide.
  • @FAC coordinators: I looked back at the article and there's some things I feel should be changed. Already there have been significant changes from the original version, so I think the right thing to do is to withdraw it and re-nominate in two weeks. The comments have been very helpful, so I'd like to thank everyone who commented here. (t · c) buidhe 00:37, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Buidhe, do you mean significant changes from now? It is not that uncommon for hindsight to indicate that a nomination probably wasn't ready, but by that time for the nominated article to be more or less FAC ready, thus making withdrawal/archiving moot. Not ideal, but it happens. Obviously if you wish to withdraw the nom for any reason that is your prerogative. Equally, if you feel that as the article stands now it is not FAC ready, it should be withdrawn. But don't feel a need to withdraw because issues which have since been resolved suggest that it shouldn't have been nominated in the state it was then in - sorting that sort of thing is one of the functions of FAC. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:32, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Gog the Mild, Yes I'd still like to withdraw it. Thanks. (t · c) buidhe 16:56, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Armenian_genocide/archive1&oldid=1031999670"