Talk:Armenian genocide/Archive 28

Typhoid/typhus confusion?
I question whether there is some confusion between typhoid and typhus in this article: "Typhoid inoculation: The Ottoman surgeon, Dr. Haydar Cemal wrote 'on the order of the Chief Sanitation Office of the Third Army in January 1916, when the spread of typhus was an acute problem, innocent Armenians slated for deportation at Erzincan were inoculated with the blood of typhoid fever patients...." Whilst it is possible this account is correct, it seems highly likely that two completely different diseases have been confused with each other. The Wikipedia pages for each make clear the difference.

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

This confusion seems to be a holdover from the original article/source. From pg 178, as part of an extended block quote: "On the order of the Chief Sanitation Office of the IIIrd Army in January 1916, when the spread of typhus was an acute problem, innocent Armenians slated for deportation at Erzincan were inoculated with the blood of typhoid fever patients without rendering that blood 'inactive.'" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.174.182.22 (talk) 18:03, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

I too noticed this discrepancy. I do not see sources as being behind paywalls. In fact the source listed makes no mention about typhoid or typhus but mentions steaming babies. We have been treated to stories of monstrous behavior towards babies before. During the period when support for the first Gulf War was being mustered, there were false reports of Kuwaiti babies slaughtered by Iraqi personnel entering hospitals. These reports were later proven false. I have trouble believing that any doctor would intentionally infect with typhoid without significant quarantine procedures as typhoid is highly contagious and can kill large populations very quickly...including medical staff. This section of the article needs to be reviewed and improved as it serves more to undermine rather than support the disputed issue.2600:1700:6D90:79B0:84CB:B589:8187:AB84 (talk) 23:39, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

merge from White_Genocide
I propose to delete the article White_Genocide, and include a section on that in this article instead. White genocide is a term used by Armenians to refer to the percieved genocide through assimilation happening when Armenians in diaspora assimilate to the culture of the country they emigrated to.As it says on the article, they see it as an aftermath/extension of the armenian genocide. Quanstizium (talk) 09:21, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * It seems the template has already been deleted. Also it would be great with some sources to support this meaning of the word.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 09:22, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, which template? Quanstizium (talk) 09:32, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Propose a merger but the redirect should go to White genocide conspiracy theory since that's what most people searching for the term are looking for ... Seraphim System  ( talk ) 22:19, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * "Red Genocide" is genocide through the killing of victims; "White genocide" is genocide through other means such as deliberately creating conditions that encourage assimilation or migration of a particular ethnic group. It is not a specifically Armenian-related term. Of course there are always simpletons out there who will think "red" = communist or "white" = white/Caucasian race, but why should fringe or incorrect things be given the redirects? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.26.123.167 (talk) 02:32, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Possible off-topic map?
I noticed a recent revert reverted a recent edit  that attempted to remove a recently inserted map. I think this map is off topic. Illustrations in an article should be there to serve that article's content "by directly depicting people, things, activities, and concepts described in the article": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#Image_content][. There is no content anywhere in the article about percentages of Muslims versus percentages of Armenians so why is the map here? There is no indication in the text beside the map why its data is connected to the Armenian Genocide at all. 92.17.53.10 (talk) 15:55, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:37, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Карта распределения армянского населения в Турецкой Армении и Курдистане с пояснительною запискою, 1895.jpg

Semi-protected edit request on 31 January 2020
It should be kept in mind, Bernard Lewis, greatest Middle-East historian of 20th Century, an Imperial Britain citizen, who had gone into Ottoman Archives and translated the documents, said the mass killings were tried to be averted by Ottoman government. He says these killings were done by local Turkish villagers who were responding to the atrocities that were done to them.

It seems quite lacking that greatest encyclopedia on Earth doesn't have anything regarding greatest Middle Eastern historian of 20th Century. Bernard Lewis' researches' results should be at least mentioned. Hardrias (talk) 00:10, 31 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose inclusion: Contains WP:PUFF, WP:FRINGE, no WP:RS cited, no WP:CON.  // Timothy ::  talk  00:20, 31 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 04:23, 31 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Bernard Lewis was a well known Armenian Genocide denialist. His opinion carries no weight here. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:33, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * oppose inclusion, per Someguy1221 Paradise Chronicle (talk) 07:37, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Source's protection is against the Freedom of Speech as it's only one sided, it should be allowed to edit.

 * Armenian Genocide (by Ottoman Empire, Kurds )


 * Persecution of Muslims during Ottoman contraction (by Armenia, Greece, Bulgaria, Serbia, Russian Empire, Austrian Empire)
 * Khojaly Genocide (by Armenia, Republic of Artsakh, Soviet Union)


 * French conquest of Algeria (by France)
 * Indo-Chinese Genocide (by France)
 * Atrocities in the Congo Free State (by Belgium)
 * Mechiya oasis massacre (by Kingdom of Italy)
 * (by Kingdom of Italy)
 * Bengali Genocide (by British Empire)
 * Indonesian Genocide (by Netherlands)
 * Srebrenica Genocide (by Republika Srpska supporting Serbia governed Yugoslavia against Muslim minority)
 * List of Indian massacres (by United States of America, British Empire, France)
 * Spanish colonization of the Americas (by Spain and Portugal)
 * Mỹ Trạch massacre (by France)
 * Deir Yassin massacre (by Israel)
 * List of massacres of Indigenous Australians (by Australia, New Zealand)

As well as these genocides don't be informed via Wikipedia, it will never be activated again in Turkey as it's blocked. There won't be any possibility for Turkey's focusing on this genocide and block subjects, I heard that Wikipedia copes with economical problems, sincerely.
 * All you've done here is demonstrate how debased and propagandized the word "genocide" has become. And note the propagandized piping to Khojaly massacre. Why is that allowable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.3.118.48 (talk) 14:56, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

John Oliver
Just a head's up that vandalizing this article on Wikipedia was mentioned (in jest) in last night's major skit on Last Week Tonight. The article is already semi-protected so I doubt much will come of it, but a copycat or two might slip through. -- sarysa (talk) 10:40, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

von Scheubner-Richter
I happened to spot check this entry also, and found numerous problems. The claim that he "wrote that fewer than 100,000 Armenians survived the genocide" is an outright falsification. The other section devoted to him is misleading and the quotation (though faithfully following Charney) is not what he actually said. http://www.armenocide.net/armenocide/armgende.nsf/f3270a99893c568ec12578970031ac16/3ae55a79b55f09b4c12568f30059b2be!OpenDocument Mcdruid (talk) 21:21, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Kress von Kressenstein
Mcdruid, I think the argument if he said it about 1918 or 1915 is irrelevant for a removal, but this argument could be used to move it to an other section. Kress von Kressenstein was long enough in the Ottoman Army to be able to have had said this. In the source you shared in the removal Kress von Kressenstein also speaks about how the Turks left the Armenian agricultural areas abandoned. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 11:12, 7 April 2020 (UTC)


 * So move it to another section. It clearly does not belong where it is, and I doubt it belongs on this page at all. Mcdruid (talk) 10:54, 8 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Kress ... is pro-turkish in his report, but also emphasizes that the Turks should not be given the Armenian agricultural areas because the Turks seem to be economically incompetent and therefore Germany would loose the access to the products of the Armenian agricultural areas. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 11:17, 7 April 2020 (UTC)


 * This last sentence has no bearing on the subject of this article. Mcdruid (talk) 10:54, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I mean to say that your last sentence has no bearing on the subject of this article. Mcdruid (talk) 07:24, 10 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Why do you think the phrase does not belong there? The section where the Kress Kressenstein is mentioned, is about the death marches. The First paragraph is about 1915, and the paragraph after the Kress von Kressenstein phrase about 1918. So chronologically, it is in order with your argument that he said it about 1918. And the source you provided is also about the hunger of the Armenian fugitives. I found a second cable from Kress where he is also concerned for the Armenians. So he was really 8at least emotionally) involved in the happenings, and he could have said it. The phrase is sourced with a historian focused on the Armenian genocide and the leading contributor to this article who has shown a lot of interest to improve the article, has reverted you in the first place. I at least for now don't see a reason that the phrase should be removed or moved to an other section.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 12:45, 8 April 2020 (UTC)


 * No, it is in quite the wrong place. To argue that the chronology is so screwed up that it doesn't matter is an argument for rewriting the whole damn thing. The whole of Kress' telegram is about 1918, EXCEPT for one line where he says " I was forced to point out the serious guilt that the Turkish Armenians incurred through their treacherous behavior against the Turks.” By placing it where it is, without any indication of the date, implies that it is a quote from 1915 (as it was, no doubt, intended). And the next paragraph does rely on a statement of Franz Gunther's IS from 1915. So unless you want to rewrite this article so that it is accurate and NOT misleading, this quote should be dropped. Mcdruid (talk) 07:12, 10 April 2020 (UTC)


 * The 1918 campaign and forceful starvation of Armenian civilians by the Turkish forces is almost always mentioned in Armenian Genocide studies as part and parcel of the Armenian Genocide. Scholars such as Dadrian have dedicated entire sections of this event as part of their studies. In essence, it was a continuation of the genocidal campaign that started in 1915 and had, by 1918, exceeded well outside of the Ottoman Empire's borders. Kressenstein's very own comment is proof of such intentions because what Turkish forces were doing to the Armenian civilians was well beyond acceptable practices of warfare regulations at the time. To simply dismiss this as war is misleading at best, if not that, genocide denial at its worst. Étienne Dolet (talk) 07:37, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Most historians at least put it in chronological order. The events of 1918 are different than 1915, but there is no explanation of that. Kress' statement is still placed under the heading of "Death Marches" – where it certainly does not belong. Mcdruid (talk) 21:16, 10 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Okay then. That’s a cause for discussion rather than outright removal. Étienne Dolet (talk) 00:03, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Francois Hollande
please change ((Francois Hollande)) to ((François Hollande)) 98.239.227.65 (talk) 16:58, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done &#8209;&#8209; El Hef  ( Meep? ) 17:02, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 July 2020
Add in infobox in "motive" armenian collaboration with russia Peacetowikied (talk) 19:51, 28 July 2020 (UTC)


 * ❌ Given the nature of this article, it is necessary for you to have multiple sources that are detailed to uphold your claims. Thanks, P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 18:37, 29 July 2020 (UTC).

Recent edits
Please be wary of WP:RECENTISM and Reliable sources. Since there are an abundance of scholarly sources on Turkey's century of denial I think those should be cited instead of news. dailysabah.com is definitely not a reliable source on this topic because it publishes Armenian genocide denial and characterizes recognition of the genocide as a "defamation campaign". Furthermore, the section ideally discusses all Turkish responses in their due weight, not solely the state policy. You, correctly, did not rename the Armenian section "Armenian government position" because it also includes non-government actors and the Armenian diaspora. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  15:25, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

I understand your concerns about WP:RECENTISM and Reliable sources and can agree with the removal of the terms like "government" and "official" from certain parts of that section, but I expect similar understanding about the need to reflect the recent changes and increasing diversity of public opinion on this issue in Turkey. Without such new contributions, the present text gives a one-sided and very incomplete picture about the situation in Turkey. The fact that daily Sabah (like most daily newspapers in Turkey) is on the side of genocide denial does not make it an unreliable source, especially when it merely includes some news report or a statement, including a statement by an Armenian member of parliament in Turkey from the ruling party calling 1915 a genocide. Please reconsider your reverts so as to avoid wasting our time discussing rather than improving, and also to avoid breaching a number of other Wikipedia policies regarding neutrality, monopolising attitudes etc... Veritas.vos.Liberabit.58 (talk) 15:57, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

You add massive amounts of text that just focus on the last couple of years. But the reactions section has to cover 100+ years in just a few paragraphs. Most specific details should be put on sub articles. You could create Turkish reactions to the Armenian Genocide, Aftermath of the Armenian Genocide or something to that effect and add more information there. But this is an overview article and we're short on space, per article size, SUMMARYSTYLE. I agree that the article could do a better job (briefly) explaining different opinions within Turkish society but the sources you're looking for are peer-reviewed scholarly articles, not newspapers. I maintain that any source which denies the Armenian Genocide falls under WP:FRINGE and we should avoid citing it for that reason. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  16:06, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Maybe "the last couple of years" were more important than many decades, have you considered this a bit? Armenians entering the parliament for the first time in so many decades? Talking about Armenian Genocide becoming a legitimate and legal position? Annual official statements of condolences on ever April 24? To name a few... Also, isn't it a bit bad, disrespectful attitude to delete numerous contributions of another user in one stroke instead of responding to each edit separately? For instance, what's wrong with saying "The official Turkish position is to use expressions such as "so-called Armenian genocide", "Armenian Question", or "Armenian Tragedy"..." instead of "The Turkish position is to use expressions such as "so-called Armenian genocide", "Armenian Question", or "Armenian Tragedy"..."? I think each contribution I've made deserves separate consideration, and many should be includred back again. Please kindly wait a little and show some consideration in good faith instead of instantly jumping to a conclusion... Veritas.vos.Liberabit.58 (talk) 16:17, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't object to adding "official" in that sentence.
 * If recent events are very important, you will expect them to be reflected in scholarly sources, perhaps with a 1-2 year delay. But there's no need to rush to publish, we can wait.
 * I fail to see how an Armenian being elected to parliament is at all relevant to this article. It seems like it would be worth mentioning on Armenians in Turkey, though. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  16:33, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

On Fisk
I hope you agree that 1) being a "commentator" or journalist is not synonymous with being a scholar; and 2) there are three other citations backing up this comparison, four is getting into WP:OVERCITE territory. Furthermore, the book cited was criticized for factual errors. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  22:17, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * our rule is reliable published source and Fisk qualifies .  As for the little mistakes mentioned, none deal with the topics at hand. ("Muhammad's nephew Ali was murdered in the 7th century, not the 8th century" "Dhahran, is not 'scarcely 400 miles' from Medina...it is about 700 miles. " and the reviewer himself gets Balfour wrong but his main complaint is that it's too long. Your reviewer concludes: "Vigilant editing and ruthless pruning could perhaps have made two or three good short books out of this one."  Rjensen (talk) 00:00, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * OK, so I conclude that you have no source for Fisk being a scholar and therefore the article should cease to misleadingly characterize him as one. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  00:12, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Fisk has a Ph.D. in Political Science from Trinity College, so his scholarly credentials are in order. He has published straight history books as well as this one ( In time of war: Ireland, Ulster, and the price of neutrality, 1939-45 --1983) I think Fisk is best characterized as a leading expert on the history of the Middle East. Library journal reviews "strongly recommend" this newest book for academic libraries. Rjensen (talk) 01:57, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * He didn't work as a scholar. He worked as a journalist and commentator, one who was usually characterized as controversial, because his interpretation frequently diverged from the norm. In addition, he cannot be an expert on the other side of this comparison (eg. Nazi Germany). (t &#183; c)  buidhe  02:12, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * He died a few week ago--in his life he received honorary degrees from 10 universities around the world, and in this particular case he was awarded the 2001 David Watt Prize for his articles on the 1915 Armenian Genocide. (he interviewed victims & their survivors) That is a VERY impressive record for any historian. Rjensen (talk) 02:34, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Censorship in Turkey
Reliable sources are crucial on Wikipedia. We especially discourage promotional claims by interested parties that have not been validated by fully independent, reliable sources. That's why, if you're claiming that there's been an end to Turkish censorship on this issue, you need a much better source that AK Party website and Daily Sabah. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  10:00, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

It looks like you are letting your personal opinions and feelings get in the way of following Wikipedia's editorial policies. In Wikipedia, we have to accept the facts whether we like it or not. I hope my second reference to Sabah (which I understand you dislike strongly) is enough to convince you it is a fact that Markar Esayan did define the 1915 as genocide, and it was published in daily Sabah (both English and Turkish). No one can dispute this fact. It is not reasonable to question reliability of Sabah as a source in this context. And this is an important fact, particularly considering that it is a pro-government newspaper which publishes an article in which 1915 is defined as genocide. I insist on quoting from this pro-government newspaper to support the fact that century-long censorship has recently ended in Turkey, although it may not so easy to talk about it fully and openly as such changes in social psychology do not occur so fast. Veritas.vos.Liberabit.58 (talk) 10:45, 30 November 2020 (UTC)


 * The issue is that 1) it's not about whether I like or dislike Sabah, but whether it qualifies as a reliable source (which I doubt) and 2) this article has to cover all topics with DUE weight.
 * There are a great number of scholarly articles about how the genocide has been reflected in postwar Turkey. Most of them focus more on the previous 90 years rather than a partial thaw which some sources say has occurred recently. The article needs to cover 100+ years in a short amount of space using WP:SUMMARYSTYLE, it must not give undue coverage to just 10 of them. Such content, if it can be found in reliable sources such as peer-reviewed journal articles, should be dealt with in a more specialized article as stated above. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  10:58, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Dear, I sincerely do not see any reasonable argument above against including my contribution on the end of censorship in Turkey. I show you an article where 1915 is defined as genocide; it is published in a pro-government newspaper; it is written by a prominent Armenian journalist, who later became a member of parliament and even a vice-chairperson of the ruling party. Do you have any reasonable argument against these facts? Doesn't the fact that since 2008 such articles are being published in Turkey finally, and people who write such articles are not oppressed but sometimes even promoted show that the century-old censorship has finally ended? Isn't this a noteworthy development that should be included in this article?.. For God's sake... Let's be reasonable Wikipedia editors, and let's not allow some other "considerations" get in the way of this... Let's spend more time on constructive work and less time on such "edit warring"... Veritas.vos.Liberabit.58 (talk) 11:13, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Your argument above is WP:OR. To include the claim that the censorship has ended in the article, you need to find a reliable source that is not controlled by Turkish government.
 * Also, in order to include content in an article there has to be consensus to include it. The WP:ONUS is on you to achieve such consensus. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  12:45, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, in order to include content in an article there has to be consensus to include it. The WP:ONUS is on you to achieve such consensus. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  12:45, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, in order to include content in an article there has to be consensus to include it. The WP:ONUS is on you to achieve such consensus. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  12:45, 30 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Dear, I'd like to remind you that if a Wikipedia user tries to block contributions to an article from other users without reasonable cause, this means WP:OWN. In such a case one cannot hide behind the need for consensus, otherwise we cannot make any improvements in Wikipedia articles which we all know may sometimes be very much in need of improvement, and even contain material errors, bias, lack of neutrality, etc.
 * So far you have not put forward any reasonable argument against the inclusion of the FACT that censorship on Armenian genocide no longer exits in Turkey since 2008. Markar Esayan's articles cited in this edit establish it as a FACT that it is possible to call the 1915 events as genocide in Turkey since 2008. This has nothing to do WP:OR. If you read carefully and calmly, you might be able to notice that Markar Esaylan's articles does not merely claim that the censorship has ended, they include a statement that 1915 events constitute genocide. If censorship still existed in Turkey it would not be possible to publish those articles. So any argument about the reliability of the source is totally irrelevant in this context (and this Wikipedia article contains many such sources like newspapers and magazines as well as "peer-viewed journals" of an academic nature). The question is: Has such an article where the 1915 is defined genocide been published in Turkey or not? What you think about that newspaper, magazine, journal is irrelevant. For instance, it would be a much stronger proof that such censorship no longer exists if it was published directly in the official/government newspaper called Resmi Gazzette, let alone a pro-government daily newspaper. Considering that I guess you're also an experienced Wikipedian, I can't believe that we're having this discussion really... Veritas.vos.Liberabit.58 (talk) 13:22, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * If the source doesn't explicitly say that "censorship of the Armenian genocide has ended" (and that it is banned from prosecuting anyone for comments on the genocide under the modified version of Article 301), then it is not usable for this claim. WP:OR "includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources."
 * Also, I doubt that this claim is even true. According to some definitions the Armenian genocide continued until 1923, when Mustafa Kemal Atatürk was in power. Considering that it is illegal to "insult" Atatürk, what if a Turkish person says he is guilty of genocide and finishing what the Pashas started? Will they be guaranteed to be safe from any censorship attempt? Are you allowed to say that Turkey is a state founded on genocide, ethnic cleansing, and mass murder? (t &#183; c)  buidhe  13:56, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, I doubt that this claim is even true. According to some definitions the Armenian genocide continued until 1923, when Mustafa Kemal Atatürk was in power. Considering that it is illegal to "insult" Atatürk, what if a Turkish person says he is guilty of genocide and finishing what the Pashas started? Will they be guaranteed to be safe from any censorship attempt? Are you allowed to say that Turkey is a state founded on genocide, ethnic cleansing, and mass murder? (t &#183; c)  buidhe  13:56, 30 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Dear, I'm beginning to get a bad impression of unreasonably trying to acquire WP:OWNERSHIP of this Wikipedia article, and prevent constructive contributions from other users. You have no right to take so much precious time of other Wikipedia editors and prevent them from continuing to improve Wikipedia content. This article is full of errors, flaws, shortcomings and even bias. I will now move on to other possible improvements without getting stuck in an endless and unfruitful talk which has gone beyond a reasonable exchange of information and opinions. We are talking about the claim that there is a censorship on Armenian genocide in Turkey. In fact, speaking strictly in legal terms, there was no such censorship, but only such a vague phrase as "insulting 'Turkishness'" contained in Article 301 of Turkish Penal Code was used for this purpose. This was put an end by changes made in that Article in 2008. I have given one example where an Armenian citizen of Turkey, i.e. Markar Esayan wrote in a prominent newspaper that he regards the events of 1915 as genocide. Things like "insulting Atatürk" and its possible implications "in case Ataturk is also accused of genocide" etc. are too far-fetched to insist that there is censorship on Armenian genocide at the present in Turkey where even many books on this topic has been published since, which I'd like to add as well if you kindly allow me to make further contribution to improve this Wikipedia article and stop acting like you have exclusive WP:OWNERSHIP on it (BTW Atatürk was a young, low-ranking officer in 1915 and very far from the "crime scene"). Veritas.vos.Liberabit.58 (talk) 18:24, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * If you're convinced that this isn't original research, feel free to ask at the noticeboard. In the meantime, I asked other users if Daily Sabah is reliable, here.
 * Anyway there are plenty of RS noting the presence of censorship on this issue. I will quote a couple:
 * "While Article 301 did not stand out immediately when the Turkish legislature enacted the new penal code, its far-reaching effects quickly became obvious when notable Turkish journalists and writers began to face prosecution for speaking out against sensitive topics, such as the Armenian Genocide and the denial of civil rights to Turkish-Kurds... Article 301, through the limitations it places on speech, contradicts the freedom of expression standards set forth by the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms"
 * "While Article 301 did not stand out immediately when the Turkish legislature enacted the new penal code, its far-reaching effects quickly became obvious when notable Turkish journalists and writers began to face prosecution for speaking out against sensitive topics, such as the Armenian Genocide and the denial of civil rights to Turkish-Kurds... Article 301, through the limitations it places on speech, contradicts the freedom of expression standards set forth by the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms"
 * "While Article 301 did not stand out immediately when the Turkish legislature enacted the new penal code, its far-reaching effects quickly became obvious when notable Turkish journalists and writers began to face prosecution for speaking out against sensitive topics, such as the Armenian Genocide and the denial of civil rights to Turkish-Kurds... Article 301, through the limitations it places on speech, contradicts the freedom of expression standards set forth by the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms"


 * "Freedom to publish on the World War I massacre of Turkish Armenians is fragile and threatened... publishers feel they need to be careful about the Armenian issue, and Ragıp Zarakolu, a writer, publisher and activist who has been targeted in Turkey for publishing books on minority and human rights, is aware of the remaining restrictions. “Nowadays, it is easier to study and publish on the issue,” he told Index. “Article 301 is no longer used, but it remains in the penal code and is the major legal threat on the issue.”"
 * "Freedom to publish on the World War I massacre of Turkish Armenians is fragile and threatened... publishers feel they need to be careful about the Armenian issue, and Ragıp Zarakolu, a writer, publisher and activist who has been targeted in Turkey for publishing books on minority and human rights, is aware of the remaining restrictions. “Nowadays, it is easier to study and publish on the issue,” he told Index. “Article 301 is no longer used, but it remains in the penal code and is the major legal threat on the issue.”"


 * "Many of Turkey's most controversial debates thus concern the issue of Turkey’s identity: its founding by Atatürk, the role of minorities in society (mostly focused on Kurdish Turks and the outlawed Kurdish Workers Party, PKK) and the massacre of Armenians in the period preceding the founding of modern Turkey, around 1915. These issues provoke most of the political censorship. Some Kurdish newspapers are forbidden, due to alleged PKK links. As stated earlier, mentions of the "Armenian genocide" has led to incidences of censorship and court cases. These trends are also reflected in Internet censorship."
 * "Many of Turkey's most controversial debates thus concern the issue of Turkey’s identity: its founding by Atatürk, the role of minorities in society (mostly focused on Kurdish Turks and the outlawed Kurdish Workers Party, PKK) and the massacre of Armenians in the period preceding the founding of modern Turkey, around 1915. These issues provoke most of the political censorship. Some Kurdish newspapers are forbidden, due to alleged PKK links. As stated earlier, mentions of the "Armenian genocide" has led to incidences of censorship and court cases. These trends are also reflected in Internet censorship."


 * "Internal resistances to knowing otherwise (epistemic vices) and external resistances (e.g., the limits of collective social imagination, censorship and criminalization) prevent ‘Turkish’ society from taking steps towards the recognition of the Armenian genocide. These reasons can also account for the slow pace of genocide recognition among ‘Turkish’ individuals.2"
 * "Internal resistances to knowing otherwise (epistemic vices) and external resistances (e.g., the limits of collective social imagination, censorship and criminalization) prevent ‘Turkish’ society from taking steps towards the recognition of the Armenian genocide. These reasons can also account for the slow pace of genocide recognition among ‘Turkish’ individuals.2"

- 2020 research paper (Oranlı, I. (2020). Epistemic Injustice from Afar: Rethinking the Denial of Armenian Genocide. Social Epistemology, 1–13. doi:10.1080/02691728.2020.1839593 )


 * If there is still in 2018 a "legal threat" on those who publish on such topics, and publishers feel pressure to self-censor, we cannot speak of an end of censorship. Furthermore, Turkey is widely known to practice international censorship, attempting to coerce foreign governments not to say things it doesn't like (t &#183; c)  buidhe  23:50, 30 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Dear, just to save time, I withdraw the phrase about "the end of censorship" (I won't waste my time with some scholastic debate about "censorship"), and I hope you will also respect the Wikipedia policy on WP:OWNERSHIP and stop acting as if you are the exclusive owner of this Wikipedia article. I'm merely trying to improve this article's section on "Censorship in Turkey" with some important FACTS that were missing, without which the readers are given a very one-sided picture (everything is black or white), in addition to correcting some errors and shortcomings, a point which you seem to be missing... Veritas.vos.Liberabit.58 (talk) 11:54, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Ultimately, we have to cover 100+ years of events in a very short amount of space. The postwar section is probably already longer than it should be for balance. Please read about WP:RECENTISM and WP:SUMMARYSTYLE and get consensus on the talk page before adding content that you know is likely to be disputed. I think it would be great to have an article on Aftermath of the Armenian Genocide in Turkey, the content you are adding is much more suited to such a more focused article. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  12:00, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Of course we should take into account of WP:RECENTISM and WP:SUMMARYSTYLE as well. Maybe we can even consider moving the whole section 9 on "Commemoration and denial" (maybe except the sub-section on international recognition) to an article on its own, but some subsections here like this "Censorship in Turkey" are very far from giving a full and balanced picture, as shown by this lengthy discussion here (otherwise I wouldn't bother so much). And sincerely, I don't think I'm trying to add anything that can be reasonably disputed, well, maybe save WP:SUMMARYSTYLE.
 * However, if we don't add these additional FACTS, then I think this section will be in breach of other equally or even more important Wikipedia editorial policies like WP:NEUTRAL.
 * In conclusion, I kindly suggest that we reach an amicable agreement to leave aside WP:SUMMARYSTYLE at least temporarily (I have no intention of - and time for - going into too much detail about recent developments in breach of WP:RECENTISM), and let me make some improvements and updates based on my better knowledge of the recent developments in Turkey on this topic, and then talk what might be the best way to go about WP:SUMMARYSTYLE... Veritas.vos.Liberabit.58 (talk) 12:46, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * We're writing the longue durée history of post-genocide in Turkey, the place to look is not recent news articles but scholarly works which give the long-term perspective. And the censorship is not a new phenomenon! Maybe start with these sources instead.
 * Maybe even  (t &#183; c)  buidhe  13:13, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Of course I know this, I've experienced all this (and was in exile during the entire 1980s), and I'm not denying what has been happening until the 1990s and 2000s at all here! What I'm saying is: there are also these importants FACTS that have been happening (maybe beginning with the first Armenian genocide book published in 1993), which are of historical importance, without which this sub-section on "Censorship on Turkey" becomes both outdated and in breach of WP:NEUTRAL. I really don't understand how come you seem to miss this point... Veritas.vos.Liberabit.58 (talk) 13:21, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Censorship started in 1920s, according to this academic article. Our censorship section starts in 1993. How is that not skewed towards recent events? I don't think more than 1-2 paragraphs are WP:DUE here, so it's clear that much of the content currently in that section needs to be split into some sub-article. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  13:42, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I never said it was (not) skewed towards this or that period. I'm talking about the state of this (undeclared) censorship, and I'm emphasizing that after almost a century of denial, suppression of facts, and total silence achieved by successive governments in this way, there has been a recent change (beginning in 1993, and especially after the tragic assassination of Hrant Dink in 2007) which is of historical importance that cannot be denied (or hidden) here without violating WP:NEUTRAL. Veritas.vos.Liberabit.58 (talk) 14:07, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Dear, it seems to me that this article on Armenian Genocide might look better and more coherent without the sub-sections "Turkish position", "Censorship in Turkey" and "Foreign Policy" (I mean moving them to a new article named something like "Aftermath of Armenian Genocide in Turkey" as you've suggested), and then changing the sub-section heading "Commemoration and denial" to "Commemoration" (as we already have an article on denial) with only sub-sections "Commemoration in Armenia" and "International Recognition". I have a feeling that you might like this even more than me. ;-) Veritas.vos.Liberabit.58 (talk) 14:51, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The Turkish position section should be kept, as it's relevant to summarize briefly what Turkey's position is and what their policies are. This has had a huge effect I would not object to moving both "Censorship in Turkey" and "Foreign Policy" to a new article as you suggest. I think the "Commemoration and denial" title should be kept; whether a summary article exists elsewhere has little relation to how much weight it deserves here. In addition, many of the recognition efforts are a direct reaction to Turkey's denial efforts. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  15:04, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Dear, on second thought, I agree with your last suggestion - it makes sense. Let's move censorship and foreign relations of Turkey to a new article titled "Aftermath of Armenian Genocide in Turkey" even though it might look like a draft at the beginning. As you seem to be a bit more skilled in technicalities of Wikipedia, can I leave the moving to you? Thanks also for reaching a common understanding... Veritas.vos.Liberabit.58 (talk) 15:14, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , I started a draft at Draft:Aftermath of Armenian Genocide in Turkey. Thanks for your contributions! (t &#183; c)  buidhe  15:22, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Dear, on second thought, I agree with your last suggestion - it makes sense. Let's move censorship and foreign relations of Turkey to a new article titled "Aftermath of Armenian Genocide in Turkey" even though it might look like a draft at the beginning. As you seem to be a bit more skilled in technicalities of Wikipedia, can I leave the moving to you? Thanks also for reaching a common understanding... Veritas.vos.Liberabit.58 (talk) 15:14, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , I started a draft at Draft:Aftermath of Armenian Genocide in Turkey. Thanks for your contributions! (t &#183; c)  buidhe  15:22, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Inclusion of new book: The Thirty Year Genocide?
Hello everyone!

Historian Benny Morris has recently written a new book: The Thirty Year Genocide, that uses a number of previously unused sources, including Turkish ones.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Thirty-Year_Genocide

The thesis of the book is briefly: That the Armenian genocide should be seen as not as unique, but as part of a larger Turkish campaign of genocide, that also included the Greek genocide, as well as other less well known crimes against humanity.

Wouldn’t it be an idea to include at least some of Morris’s book in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.38.140.138 (talk) 20:56, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Copyright concerns though. A Tree In A Box (talk) 16:24, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Extended Protection?
I of course do not know about any attempted vandalism which may or may not have occurred. However, given that denial of the Armenian Genocide (or atleast on the systematic aspect of it) is very popular amongst Turkish nationalist groups, and even the position of the Turkish Government (to an extent), wouldn't it make sense to make this article extended protected? After all, the article on the Holocaust is protected against white supremacist groups launching vandalism attempts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Azaan Habib (talk • contribs) 16:18, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

I am aware of that, I had to restore sourced information about the Armenian Genocide that got deleted, see the page of Halil Menteşe, we still have a long way to go, every page connected to the Armenian Genocide and Holocaust should be protected because vandalism on Wikipedia is stronger than ever, kind regards. Redman19 (talk) 17:55, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 September 2020
Please stop calling this genocide as Turkish government and Turkish people do not call it genocide and it makes this biased on the Armanian and not true 64.222.180.90 (talk) 18:45, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 20:37, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 September 2020
I would like to update the references list on Armenian Genocide and Memory Studies with the following work:

David Leupold. Embattled Dreamlands. The Politics of Contesting Armenian, Turkish and Kurdish Memory (New York: Routledge). Starekeshin (talk) 09:35, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
 * There are already far too many works there, we should only include a handful. – Thjarkur (talk) 10:57, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Talk page misuse
An active discussion with subject "Bernard Lewis wrote and spoke about this topic" is promoting a youtube video about an opinion somewhat related to this articles topic as propaganda. This is against WP:NOTPROMOTION. I suggest that someone more experienced than me removes it. Kevo327 (talk) 14:09, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Removed it due to it breaching WP:NOTPROMOTION and WP:NOTFORUM Kevo327 (talk) 17:37, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

The decision of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR)
I added: In 15 October, 2015, The European Court of Human Rights made a distinction between "Armenian Genocide" and The Holocaust, and punished Switzerland who attempted to make a trial against Dogu Perincek, who said "Armenian Genocide is an international lie". My edit was reverted by claiming a misinterpretation:

Misinterpretation of Source Material
Your recent edits on Armenian Genocide and on the talk page of 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh conflict is a misinterpretation of source material. The reason the ECtHR ruled in favor of Doğu Perinçek was because Switzerland's conviction of him for denying the genocide was a violation of his right to free speech not because the ECtHR supported his statements on the genocide. Flalf Talk 13:15, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Fullscaledx's response
I did not state that the ECtHR supported Perincek's statements on the so-called genocide. There is a decision of the European Court of Human Rights that respects the freedom of speech for both acceptance/denial of the so-called "Armenian genocide". There is no such freedom of speech for the Holocaust. The denial of the Holocaust is punished. There is a difference between the Holocaust and the so-called "Armenian genocide". And, the ECtHR made that difference. So, I did not misinterpret the ECtHR's decision.Fullscaledx (talk) 13:54, 22 October 2020 (UTC) Fullscaledx (talk) 14:06, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The reason denial of the holocaust isn't allowed is because there are state level laws in most European countries against it, there is no such law about the Armenian Genocide which is why is why the conviction was denied. This does not mean that the ECtHR doesn't acknowledge the Armenian Genocide. Your statements here claim that the genocide never happened. Flalf Talk 15:04, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I am preparing a better edit. While I finalize, wait. I will alert you when finished.

The beginning of the text to be added: In 15 October, 2015, The European Court of Human Rights made a distinction between "Armenian Genocide" and The Holocaust, and stated that Switzerland interfered Doğu Perinçek's right to freedom of expression (paragraph 140), and decided that Switzerland violated the Article 10 ("Freedom of expression: Everyone has the right to freedom of expression") of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) as Switzerland attempted to make a trial against Perinçek, who said "Armenian Genocide is an international lie" (Decision section; the 2nd decision). The end of the text to be added. So, Flalf , is there any objection you make to the above addition, if so, what?Fullscaledx (talk) 18:17, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * That edit isn't an improvement in any way. If you think Perinçek v. Switzerland should be linked from the main article, please establish consensus for that, but including an entire paragraph on a relatively obscure question of European law seems excessive to me. Eelworm (talk) 18:22, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Per Eelworm not only is it unnecessary, it shouldn't be in the terminology section, and how it's written is ambiguous. Flalf Talk 18:25, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Missing comma under terminology
Please change:

Raphael Lemkin coined "genocide" in 1943, with the fate of the Armenians in mind; he later explained that: "it happened so many times ... It happened to the Armenians, then after the Armenians Hitler took action."

to

Raphael Lemkin coined "genocide" in 1943, with the fate of the Armenians in mind; he later explained that: "it happened so many times ... It happened to the Armenians, then after the Armenians, Hitler took action."

Cnich43 (talk) 17:28, 9 November 2020 (UTC)


 * ✅. ◢  Ganbaruby!   (Say hi!) 03:27, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Wrong attribution Dutch recognition
This page, the detail page on the Recognition, and the world-map illustrating the recognition, have a factual inaccuracy: The Netherlands has played a political curve-ball where the parliament has recognized the genocide, but the government has not. The sited reason is, that "We must not make quick judgements that could anger allies in the region". Detailed (sadly, Dutch) article on the topic: https://www.ewmagazine.nl/nederland/achtergrond/2018/02/kabinet-laat-wens-kamer-links-liggen-erkent-armeense-genocide-niet-589339/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:985:13a3:1:e520:889:5f13:ec37  (talk • contribs) 02:34, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 December 2020 (2)
Yollug tigin (talk) 19:15, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

"Total Catholic and Orthodox Armenian population in the 1914 Ottoman Empire census data was around 1.1-1.2 million, yet, most of the resources put forward the argument of the systematic extermination of 1-1.5 million Armenians within the Empire. The denial of Armenian side to make the archives fully acccessible, raises the thoughts of the possibility of that incident to be used as a political trump against Turkey."

The text above must be added to this paragraph:"Raphael Lemkin was inspired by the annihilation of the Armenians to define the crime of systematic extermination of a people, which he called genocide, in 1943. The Armenian Genocide is the second-most-studied case of genocide after the Holocaust. In contrast to the vast majority of genocide scholars and historians, Turkey denies that the word genocide is an accurate term for these crimes. As of 2019, governments and parliaments of 32 countries, including the United States, Russia, and Germany, have recognized the events as a genocide."

reference:https://www.aa.com.tr/en/world/armenians-keep-their-archives-on-1915-events-closed/1468955 reference:http://www.mfa.gov.tr/the-armenian-allegation-of-genocide-the-issue-and-the-facts.en.mfa reference:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1914_population_statistics_for_the_Ottoman_Empire
 * ❌ Wikipedia, the Turkish government and its official news agency are not reliable sources for this topic. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  19:39, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Genocide Denial Ideas
"Hey there people, I'm here to talk about that genocide denial issue. I think you saw people who thinks armenian genocide wasnt a genocide in real, but I sure most of you does not know exactly about what is people trying to say when they are denying the genocide; to be clear, I'm here to show you a video which says how there was not a genocide and why genocide denials thinking this is a big lie. I know this video is not an exact proof to change idea, but I believe this video could make you people have more idea. If you did not found this video trustable (even if this video is made by one of the most rooted and one of the less for-profit channels of Turkey) you can ask me to show more sturdy articles or another source whichever says there was not a genocide in Eastern Anatolia at 1915: The video I told you"İsmail Kendir (talk) 20:25, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The Armenian Genocide is a matter of absolute, indisputable, objective historical fact. Wikipedia is not a platform for nationalist historical revisionism. You are in the wrong place. Jonmaxras (talk) 22:42, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Then why you try to serve this historical revolt like holocaust with propaganda? Is Justin McCarthy, Bernard Lewis, Norman Stone seems like Turkish or Turkish nationalist to you? When western media see a objective and real historians they give a name of 'deniar'. We can see wikipedias so called objectivity from this example. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.190.5.250 (talk) 17:50, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

New Infobox
I feel that this article would benefit greatly from an infobox, giving it a more polished and presentable look and concisely summarizing key details of the genocide. Included here is my rough draft. The details I am unsure of are the death toll, timeline, and motive. Sources I've seen on the death toll range quite significantly; the American Holocaust Museum states it is between 664,000 and 1.2 million, the History Channel range is even wider at 600,000-1.5 million. . The Armenian National Institute stands firmly at 1.5 million. Obviously an exact death toll is impossible to calculate for an event such as this, however, I am wondering if we can find a consensus on a good range to include. Additionally, the timeline is difficult to define. The vast majority of sources define April 24, 1915 as the beginning, however, various sources say the genocide ended in 1916, 1918, and 1923 (the Wikipedia sidebar on Armenian history, shown on this page, claims 1909-1918, and I cannot find any support for the 1909 date). As far as motive, racism and religious persecution seem to be it, but it's not definitively stated in a lot of sources (unlike say the Holocaust; you could absolutely pinpoint antisemitism as the motive).

I am relatively unfamiliar with the details of this genocide as I'm still learning more about it. But I'd still like to see the inclusion of an infobox in this article as most other notable historical events have one. If you have more info to provide than I can find, please feel free to include/edit it to be more accurate. And this should go without saying but I will not tolerate any genocide denial in this discussion. If that's your intent, you are in the wrong place. Jonmaxras (talk) 02:55, 11 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I do support there being an infobox but I think there should be significant user collaboration and review on it before it goes on the actual page. All of the information here is highly sensitive and disputed. There was an infobox which was removed in November due to containing disputed information which wasn't all too helpful. I think could help more than I could, as they removed it initially and also have done wonders on this page.  Flalf Talk  03:59, 11 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the response! I tried searching the talk page archive but I must have missed any conversation relating to this. And yes, I understand that this is a highly contentious subject so there is not always scholarly consensus on details., any assistance or feedback you can provide would be greatly appreciated. Feel free to edit my rough draft infobox if you see any room for improvement. Jonmaxras (talk) 04:15, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

(t &#183; c)  buidhe  10:41, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I am not convinced that an infobox helps, mostly because there are divergent opinions on what the genocide was and what it includes. If we're going to include it, we should make sure that it reflects the consensus of academic sources.
 * Dates: There is no consensus on the end date, some sources are just looking at 1915–1916, some say the end of the war, others are looking at the entire period 1915–1923. But if I had to pick one, Suny states (p. 330) "The Genocide of the Armenians can be said to have ended by late January 1917. Mass starvation continued, as well as sporadic killing. Refugees died, and fighting between Armenians, Turks, and Kurds went on until the early 1920s, but the intentional massacre of Armenians and Assyrians by the Ottoman state gradually ceased."
 * Death toll: This is obviously dependent on what dates are used. But 600,000 is lower than most estimates and 1.5 million is too high (see the quote from Morris & Ze'evi above). I'm inclined to split the difference and go with "about one million"
 * Motive: There are two schools of thought on this. The majority view is that the Young Turks were not proto-Turkish-nationalists, but instead acted in response to a (greatly exaggerated) perception of threat. Another school of thought emphasizes the goal of Turkish nationalism/Turkification and stresses similarities between 1915–1916 and the postwar years, classifying both as part of the genocide. But the view that "religion and/or ethnicity were the underlying causes of the killings" is mostly rejected (Suny p. xiii)
 * Perpetrator: the Committee of Union and Progress was the main perpetrator, often bypassing the official government and bureaucracy
 * Trials: Essentially the only trials that were held were the Turkish courts-martial of 1919–1920
 * Edit: the other reason that I am not convinced that infobox helps is that the lead is already supposed to contain the most important information, and well-written text is often better at conveying nuances, differing definitions, and disagreements among reliable sources. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  11:19, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * User:Jonmaxras Interested to hear your thoughts. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  00:56, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I would support adding an infobox, but only if we can first reach consensus on what values should be listed. As noted in the edit summary when removing the infobox Almost all fields in it [the infobox] are disputed, for example the idea of "Late Ottoman genocides", death toll, dates, motive, etc. Special:diff/989472112  — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 02:18, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * My apologies for the delay, I've been busy with work and some very active talk pages. I haven't abandoned this thread; I'll be able to look at this tomorrow. Jonmaxras (talk)


 * I would support the addition of an infobox, but I am concerned that the "motive" section oversimplifies the situation. It neglects to mention the context of the event was World War I, unlike the infobox in The Holocaust which mentions the context as World War II. It also fails to mention that the event was part of the period known as the Dissolution of the Ottoman Empire (1908–1922), a period characterized by political instability, a series of coups, and loss of territory. Dimadick (talk) 19:58, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , Both proposed infoboxes include World War I. Mentioning the Dissolution of the Ottoman Empire isn't a bad idea either but IDK where I'd put it. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  20:09, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * In the "part of" section. I tried adding it, mostly to see how it looks. Dimadick (talk) 20:13, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I am not sure if that is quite accurate. From the perspective of the CUP, it was an effort to *resist* further dissolution, not part of the dissolution. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  21:20, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Alright, so I'm wondering if just removing the motive section from the infobox altogether would be better, since there's a lot that goes into it and it's difficult to summarize in a couple of words. The Dzungar genocide infobox is formatted that way. And changing the date to say 1915-disputed, that way it acknowledges that scholarly sources vary in defining the timeline. I'm indifferent to including Dissolution of the Ottoman Empire next to WWI, it's of course important but again takes a bit longer to explain how it's relevant. Thoughts? Jonmaxras (talk) 06:37, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Edit could motive be worded as 'Anti-Armenian sentiment'? Or is that an oversimplification? Jonmaxras (talk) 06:44, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, there's no doubt that CUP leadership had highly negative views of Armenians, but according to reliable sources that doesn't really explain their motivation for ordering the genocide. I think that is easier to explain in prose than in an infobox. Therefore, I think your version is acceptable, although IMO it doesn't add anything to the article beyond what's already in the lead. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  06:50, 14 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Infobox was removed from the Holocaust in Slovakia article when it became featured—we decided that it was not adding any information. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  06:52, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much for your help with this. I'm definitely partial to infoboxes; especially having ADHD, for me it makes an article easier to read. I can see how they're not always helpful, and I agree that one isn't necessary for the Holocaust in Slovakia. Are you fine if I add this to the main page? Or should we wait for more of a consensus here? Jonmaxras (talk) 03:42, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , I wouldn't object if you added it, since it does seem that a majority of users favor the inclusion of an infobox of some sort. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  03:49, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

4/24 redirect
Hi. 4/24 currently redirects here, but I doubt whether it should. While April 24 is the commonly accepted starting date of the Armenian Genocide, I wonder whether anyone intending to read about it would search for "4/24". April 24 is also the Armenian Genocide Remembrance Day, so that article would probably already be a more suitable target than this one. But even then, I wonder whether redirecting a variation of a date to a specific observance on that date instead of to the date itself is justified. It should also be noted that 24/4 redirects to April 24. Lennart97 (talk) 17:04, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , I would agree that April 24 is probably a better redirect because other events also happened that day. You can boldly retarget yourself or else try WP:RfD if it's contested. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  17:14, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I see you've already retargeted, thanks! I figured it would be an uncontroversial retarget, but that if there were any serious argument against it, this would be the place to find out. Seems there isn't :) Lennart97 (talk) 21:28, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Concern about Article's Quality
It seems that over the past month or so User:Buidhe has done a massive, and frankly questionable overhaul of this article, removing a lot of information. His edits have gone mostly unquestioned, and I am concerned that his edits, in what essentially amount to mass deletion and rewriting, have had no oversight. I was wondering if anyone else noticed this issue. It's like someone's taken a hatchet to the article out of personal spite. Not to assume bad faith, however. 2601:85:C101:C9D0:5489:B4D0:54:EC11 (talk) 22:14, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I think Buidhe has been doing a pretty good job at improving the article recently. Maybe you could point to some specific edits that you disagree with? Lennart97 (talk) 22:19, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The Demographic losses section has been halved. Perhaps I missed his explanation, but I see no reason for the removal of all that text. Not to sound combative, but was there a reason for that removal? 2601:85:C101:C9D0:5489:B4D0:54:EC11 (talk) 22:36, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * When I started editing the article in early November last year, (old revision) the section in question cited questionable sources such as those from more than 1 century ago and news articles about political resolutions, which are not reliable sources for historical events. It also gave undue weight to one source, the "Talat Pasha's Black Book", when there are many sources historians use to calculate these figures. (There was also original research, with claims of academic consensus that were not found in the cited sources.)
 * I have rewritten the section based on recent scholarship and to follow WP:SUMMARYSTYLE (i.e. the details of what these estimates are based on belong in the dedicated sub-article, Casualties of the Armenian Genocide) (t &#183; c)  buidhe  23:18, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I see, and so far your work has been good. But I would disagree with your removal of the Pasha book and the accompanying text. Not only did you remove it from this article, but it is nowhere to be found on the casualties page. The sources used in that paragraph are from the NYT and an Armenian research foundation studying the genocide. They don't seem unreliable to me. And there is also no issue with presenting a primary source about a historical event. This text should have been kept too: "While Ottoman censuses claimed an Armenian population of 1.2 million, Fa'iz El-Ghusein (the Kaimakam of Kharpout) wrote that there were about 1.9 million Armenians in the Ottoman Empire,[156] and some modern scholars estimate over 2 million.[157]" I also couldn't find any OR in the two middle paragraphs that you deleted from Demographic losses. At a minimum, retain this information in the casualties page. 2601:85:C101:C9D0:5489:B4D0:54:EC11 (talk) 23:44, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I see, and so far your work has been good. But I would disagree with your removal of the Pasha book and the accompanying text. Not only did you remove it from this article, but it is nowhere to be found on the casualties page. The sources used in that paragraph are from the NYT and an Armenian research foundation studying the genocide. They don't seem unreliable to me. And there is also no issue with presenting a primary source about a historical event. This text should have been kept too: "While Ottoman censuses claimed an Armenian population of 1.2 million, Fa'iz El-Ghusein (the Kaimakam of Kharpout) wrote that there were about 1.9 million Armenians in the Ottoman Empire,[156] and some modern scholars estimate over 2 million.[157]" I also couldn't find any OR in the two middle paragraphs that you deleted from Demographic losses. At a minimum, retain this information in the casualties page. 2601:85:C101:C9D0:5489:B4D0:54:EC11 (talk) 23:44, 14 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I have also noted that Buidhe made some improvements, and usually they are pretty impressive and rather well sourced to describe it modestly. If what you claim is based on recent scholarship, you can just add it if the source is reliable.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 23:58, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed about Buidhe, and I would have added them back (as the sources are reliable), but unfortunately I cannot. I am a dynamic IP (I have personal reasons for not creating an account), and this article is locked, so I am unable to edit. 2601:85:C101:C9D0:5489:B4D0:54:EC11 (talk) 00:00, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * OK, I've moved the content on the Black Book to the Casualties of the Armenian Genocide as well as added a section for prewar population estimates. The issue is that this article is supposed to be concise. Its current length, 8792 words, is about the recommended WP:Article size so one should be careful about adding more information that may not be necessary for the reader to understand the overall topic. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  00:03, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * You can also request edit on protected articles using Edit requests. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  00:06, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you! And keep up the good work! 2601:85:C101:C9D0:5489:B4D0:54:EC11 (talk) 03:15, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Plans for improving the article
OK, just to clarify what I am trying to do in the long run for the interest of transparency: If these things can be accomplished the article will be close to WP:Good article status. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  02:54, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) Improve sourcing There has been a lot of recent scholarship on the genocide so there's no reason to cite older or non-scholarly works, especially since they aren't necessarily in line with the current academic consensus. There should be a focus on books that are widely cited and represent mainstream interpretations, such as The Young Turks' Crime against Humanity, They Can Live in the Desert but Nowhere Else, The Armenian Genocide: A Complete History, or Talaat Pasha: Father of Modern Turkey, Architect of Genocide. If information is not covered in recent academic sources (last 10–15 years), it is likely WP:UNDUE.
 * 2) Improve comprehensiveness without increasing length the aim is to keep the article about the same length as it is now (below 10,000 words). This will involve trimming in some areas as well as expansion to other topics not currently discussed. For example, right now the details of how deportation was carried out are kind of sketchy, as is what happened to Armenians in the camps in the Syrian Desert. What happened to the survivors after the genocide (as discussed by Keith David Watenpaugh among others) is hardly mentioned at all.
 * 3) Focus on analysis, rather than primary source evidence the purpose of an encyclopedia article is to explain the subject, not prove it. Therefore, the focus should be on what historians know and not how they know it. Primary source quotes can be deployed occasionally but the focus needs to be more on a coherent sequence of events according to reliable sources.

Topics whose coverage needs to be added or improved
(t &#183; c)  buidhe  08:24, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * 1914 Armenian reforms
 * 1914 Greek deportations
 * Effect on Germany/Nazism
 * Legacy of the genocide in Turkey, effect on political culture, later repressions, etc.
 * CUP ideology
 * How did the CUP go from cooperating with Armenian politicians to considering them the greatest danger?
 * Sounds good! I was actually very surprised to find out just now that Hitler's Armenian reference isn't mentioned anywhere. Keep up the good work! Lennart97 (talk) 11:19, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Bodil Biørn's photograph
It's a striking photograph. There doesn't seem to be a date, but given that the individual in the image is looking at decomposed bodies and bones, it most probably was taken not long after the war and thus sometime when Dayr al-Zur was incorporated into French Mandate Syria. It's not entirely implausible that that is Vahan Papazian in the photograph (the only "Armenian leader" I can think of that Bjorn would be referring to). Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 16:03, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Marshal Bagramyan Perhaps he was, but "Papazian" is a common enough Armenian surname that I worry that we might be going into OR by trying to identify who it is without a reliable source that states so clearly. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  16:04, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * That's a shame. Wish we could learn more about that photo. Thanks, by the way, for your recent edits to this article. It's been in want of thorough editing and trimming for more than a decade and it's good to see it shaping up along proper form. Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 16:53, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 March 2021
Change "about 1 million" to "1.5 million." This page has historically reflected the fact that 1.5 million died. That number is the consensus among respectable historians, and rounding the number down is an insult to the memory of my ancestors and an act of complicity in the denial of this genocide. AerialIncrease (talk) 03:03, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * ❌ Please see above discussions where editors decided to use a figure of 1 million based on recent, scholarly sources. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  04:03, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Popular support and participation
Are there any sources saying that genocide was generally popular among average Ottoman subjects? (t &#183; c)  buidhe  21:15, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Akçam 2018 says: "The lack of an ideological mass-movement to provide popular support within Ottoman society for a genocidal policy seems to be another reason [for denial]." (p. 3) In the footnote, he adds: "As Mahmut Kamil Pasha’s telegram below shows, there was considerable popular disagreement with the government’s treatment of the Armenians. On this topic see George N. Shirinian, “Turks Who Saved Armenians: Righteous Muslims during the Armenian Genocide,” Genocide Studies International, 9, no. 2 (2015): 208–227; and Burçin Gerçek, Akıntıya Karşı: Ermeni Soykırımında Emirlere karşı Gelenler, Kurtaranlar, Direnenler (Istanbul: Iletişim, 2016)."
 * Suny 2015 says: "The decisions, permission, and encouragement of a few in power provoked and stoked emotional resonance below. It turns out that a few killers can cause enormous destruction. Thugs, sadists, fanatics, and opportunists can with modern weaponry (or even with axes, clubs, and daggers) slaughter thousands with little more than acquiescence from the surrounding population. They in turn can inspire or let loose the rage of thousands of others who will carry out even greater destruction. Genocide in particular is an event of mass killing, with massive numbers of victims but not necessarily of massive numbers of killers."
 * Ungor 2016 emphasizes the role of paramilitaries (rather than ordinary people) as killers. "In studies of the Armenian Genocide and accounts of the killings, the perpetrators, from the organizing elites to the rank-and-file executioners, have figured as evil faceless killers, undifferentiated and unexplained. The paramilitaries and tribesmen appear in the killing fields of Anatolia ex nihilo and murder people for no apparent reason other than intrinsic (Turkish or Islamic) cruelty and malignance. This chapter has challenged this essentialist convention by arguing that the involvement of seasoned criminals and militiamen hardened in years of (low-intensity) conflict in the Balkans, accounts for the cruelty of the genocide."


 * We may want to be more exact in what precisely we mean when we write that the genocide had (or did not have) popular support. Yes, paramilitary groups, gendarmes, and bands were responsible for a great deal of the bloodletting. But in many first-person accounts, there is evidence than in the midst of the deportations many a common man and woman had a hand in the looting, and, at times, even in the violence inflicted against the civilian population. How do we gauge popularity from that feigned or provoked by authorities to those genuine feelings of enmity that some among the Muslim population felt (and which aligns with Suny's own theory on the affective dispositions of people)? That's a tough one, given the nature of the sources. But there are countervailing facts that suggest that this was not just top-down imposed violence. Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 00:02, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * That's a fair criticism. Perhaps it would be best not to mention popular support or lack thereof, since it's very difficult to measure. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  09:15, 10 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I'd be happy with a different formulation but, no doubt, studies on the Armenian Genocide are only recently acquiring a level of sophistication on par with those on the Holocaust so, hopefully, in time we will have works that address important issues such as this one. Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 16:09, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It's a very important question you have raised. Communication and hate propaganda is crucial in the study of genocides. We may have some lost information about the native language publications. Most of what we know about this genocide comes from the international observers. As User:MarshallBagramyan correctly states above, we have very sophisticated studies on the Holocaust (Der Stürmer) and Rwanda (Radio Télévision Libre des Mille Collines) but here we are in the infancy of such studies. Gators bayou (talk) 19:41, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

First arrival of Turks to Anatolia
, in his 1993 book, Suny states that Turks arrived "nearly a thousand years" after the Armenians did. The sentence in the article refers to Turkish presence as opposed to Turkish *rule* over the area. But if you can find other reliable sources that disagree with Suny's timeline, please feel free to post them here with citation and quotes. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  10:56, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , on what basis did you remove a more detailed map of the distribution of Armenians in Turkish Armenia? This article is about the Armenian genocide, the subject of the article is Armenians and not the settlements of Kurds in the Middle East. The British map doesn't show the detailed distribution of Armenians in the Armenian Highlands (for example, regions where Armenians made up 10-50% of the population), instead it shows the territory of the settlement of Kurds in the Middle East, where wherever the Kurds were at least a relative majority is colored yellow. This is a completely inaccurate and misleading map. The part of the map that shows Eastern Armenia is just a tragicomedy, as there are Russian census data that show a different picture. The German map is more detailed and shows the distribution of Armenians by region and their percentage in the population. --Rs4815 (talk) 11:52, 13 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I think that what's relevant to this article is not just where Armenians live, but also other populations, otherwise there's no context to the situation they are living in and the various land conflicts etc.. It's also preferable to use english-language maps than non-English ones, as this is English wikipedia and that makes things accessible for our readers. On the British map, if you look closer, it does make an effort to show minority populations as well and shows Armenians living in various places, hardly suggesting that "Armenians lived only in Van". Lastly, the 1910 population is more relevant to this article than the 1896 population. IDK much about the demographics of Russian Armenia, but I also don't see how that's relevant here. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  19:49, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, the killings of Armenians in the Caucasus are already discussed in the "postwar" section, which is consistent with most scholarly sources. I do not support citing Britannica as it is not a scholarly source, is no more reliable than Wikipedia according to research, and has published denialist articles about the Armenian Genocide in the past. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  02:04, 14 March 2021 (UTC)


 * "what's relevant to this article is not just where Armenians live ... also preferable to use english-language maps", no, this is exactly what is relevant for this article. The ethnic distribution map of Arabs and Kurds in Iraq and the Levant is irrelevant to this topic. And German is not so different from English that English-speaking readers would not understand the context of the map and the meaning of the words "darüber 50%" (upper/above) and "unter 10%" (under). When we have a detailed German map (which also shows not only the distribution of Armenians, but also Christians in the region) and an uninformative, inaccurate English map, giving preference to an English map, just because of the language, is not constructive.
 * "On the British map, if you look closer, it does make an effort", poorly made effort and most readers will not open the map in full size and zoom to see these little squares next to some settlements, they will just look at this yellow and brown oceans (btw why are Azeris and Turks represented by the same color?) and think that there were almost no Armenians in Western Armenia (Eastern Anatolia).
 * "the 1910 population is more relevant to this article than the 1896 population ... IDK much about the demographics of Russian Armenia, but I also don't see how that's relevant here", I showed you above, using the example of Karabakh, that this map distorts the real demographic situation in the region, not in favor of the Armenians. If the creators of this map incorrectly reflected the situation even in those regions for which we have accurate census data, then what did they do with the Armenian population of the Ottoman Empire, for which there are only estimates, the official Ottoman statistics were biased and underestimated the number of Armenians. --Rs4815 (talk) 10:54, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think that most readers understand German or could be expected to figure that out. Furthermore, even if it was useful information to have, the German map does not in fact display the Christian population in a legible way even if you zoom in.
 * If you actually look at the British map at the given size, you can easily see many green/Armenian areas besides Van. Also, to the contrary, it absolutely matters whether Turks, Kurds, or Arabs lived in a given area since that has a lot to do with what happened in 1915 and afterward. In fact there were not many Armenians in Anatolia compared to the non-Armenian population (around 10% overall). If that's what the reader takes away, that's an accurate impression.
 * Even if you're right about Eastern Armenia (you haven't cited any verifiable, reliable sources), what is most relevant to this article is the populations of Western Armenia, as close to 1914 as possible. The 1896 population is certainly inaccurate as a representation of the 1914 population. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  11:15, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * "I don't think that most readers understand German", it's ok, we will give them a short description in English - the distribution of the Armenian population in the eastern vilayets of the Ottoman Empire
 * "or could be expected to figure that out", most people have finished elementary school and understand that "%" is a percent sign.
 * "German map does not in fact display the Christian population in a legible way", that is, small squares for the Armenian population are a "legible way" of representation, but the German map is not legible? I am beginning to have doubts about your constructive attitude on this topic, sir.
 * "look at the British map at the given size", most readers will not zoom in on the map and will only see a yellow ocean with a small island near Van.
 * "it absolutely matters whether Turks, Kurds, or Arabs lived in a given area", in the article on the Armenian genocide, an accurate representation of the Armenian population is much more important than what kind of Muslims they were neighbors with, Turks, Kurds, Circassians or Arabs. The German map is specifically about the Armenians, while the English map does not set itself the goal of a correct representation of the distribution of the Armenian population in the region, as you can see from the distorted representation of the situation in Eastern Armenia.
 * "In fact there were not many Armenians in Anatolia compared to the non-Armenian population (around 10% overall)", I am not interested in Anatolia as a whole, but by claiming that Armenians constituted only 10% of the population of Eastern Anatolia (Western Armenia), you repeat the theses of the propaganda (lies) of the Turkish genocide deniers.
 * "you haven't cited any verifiable, reliable sources", so you want me to cite here sources that the Armenians constituted the majority of the population in Shushi, Hadrut, Akhaltsikh or Artvin (etc.)? 111 years have passed since 1910, do you want to say that this English map is a reliable source of information for the modern encyclopedia? How many scientific works on the Armenian genocide have been published since then? Modern historians (not Turkish) estimate the number of Armenians in the empire to be 2-2.5 million people, while official Ottoman statistics greatly underestimated the Armenian populaton. The English map could be based on Ottoman propaganda. In fact, we now have in our hands two very old maps, both of questionable reliability (since... they are old), the only difference is that we can prove, using the data of the Russian censuses of the population of Eastern Armenia, that the English map underestimates the number of the Armenian population (even when they had access to Russian census data! What can we say about Western Armenia, where there were no such accurate censuses), while the German map is less controversial. --Rs4815 (talk) 19:01, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * (t · c) Buidhe, Suny did not state that “Turks arrived nearly a thousand years after the Armenians did”. What?! Here’s what he wrote, figuratively speaking, in black ink on white paper in his 1993 book “Looking Toward Ararat: Armenia in Modern History”. On p. 30 in Chapter 1, “Armenia and its Rulers”, we read: “By this inhuman policy the Turks tried to eliminate a people who had lived in eastern Anatolia for nearly a thousand years before the Turks had arrived.” The key word is had lived, meaning, if I may elaborate, that the Armenians had been living on their lands before the Seljuk Turks "arrived" from Inner Asia and the Central Asian steppes in the 10th century AD invading most of Western Asia and the Middle East. There is no "Armenians arrived" in sight.98.231.157.169 (talk) 01:58, 25 March 2021 (UTC)Davidian
 * On the other page cited he gives the date when Armenian population is first recorded in the area, in the sixth century BCE. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  02:20, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Suny is likely referring to the Behistun Inscription Behistun_Inscription dated sixth century BC, where Armenia is recorded by order of Persian King Darius I as “Armina”, although the ethnogenesis of the Armenians well predates sixth century BC. Even if we assume, for a moment, that Seljuk Turks “arrived” a thousand years after that arbitrarily selected date, it will make their “arrival” date at sixth century AD. Well, there is no way that such a respected historian as Suny cannot know that there were no Turks in sight in Western Asia and the Middle East in the sixth century AD. All historical records indicate that Seljuk Turks invaded these regions from Inner Asia and the steppes of Central Asia beginning in the tenth to eleventh century AD.98.231.157.169 (talk) 02:37, 25 March 2021 (UTC)Davidian
 * I'm happy to change this if you can find a scholarly source that gives a different date of 1) Armenians first being recorded in Anatolia and/or 2) Turks first being recorded in Anatolia. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  03:35, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Gladly. On one "condition", so to say, that there has never been such a place name as "Anatolia" at the time when Armenians were recorded in the ancient chronicles or when new-comer Turks appeared in the indigenous habitat of the Armenians, Pontic Greeks, Assyrians, Kurds and others in eastern Asia Minor or northern sector of Western Asia. Anatolia is a relatively modern toponym purposefully introduced by the Turks to substitute any mention of Armenians in Asia Minor, such as the Armenian Plateau. "Armenians from Anatolia" in your introductory sentence is an affront to serious geographers, topographers, historians, genocide scholars, and to the memory of the millions of descendants of the genocide survivors. Consider revising. I offered several neutral variants in the "Anatolia" section above.98.231.157.169 (talk) 14:26, 25 March 2021 (UTC)Davidian
 * Also, what is meant by “arrival” of the Turks? What, the indigenous autochthonous peoples of the region had been waiting for thousands of years for the nomadic Seljuk Turk tribes to “arrive” in the 11th century AD? Oh, and they forgot to roll out the red carpet for them… It was an invasion, not arrival, from the Turks' original habitat in Inner Asia and the steppes of Central Asia. Things must be called by their true names.98.231.157.169 (talk) 14:38, 25 March 2021 (UTC)Davidian
 * Gladly. On one "condition", so to say, that there has never been such a place name as "Anatolia" at the time when Armenians were recorded in the ancient chronicles or when new-comer Turks appeared in the indigenous habitat of the Armenians, Pontic Greeks, Assyrians, Kurds and others in eastern Asia Minor or northern sector of Western Asia. Anatolia is a relatively modern toponym purposefully introduced by the Turks to substitute any mention of Armenians in Asia Minor, such as the Armenian Plateau. "Armenians from Anatolia" in your introductory sentence is an affront to serious geographers, topographers, historians, genocide scholars, and to the memory of the millions of descendants of the genocide survivors. Consider revising. I offered several neutral variants in the "Anatolia" section above.98.231.157.169 (talk) 14:26, 25 March 2021 (UTC)Davidian
 * Also, what is meant by “arrival” of the Turks? What, the indigenous autochthonous peoples of the region had been waiting for thousands of years for the nomadic Seljuk Turk tribes to “arrive” in the 11th century AD? Oh, and they forgot to roll out the red carpet for them… It was an invasion, not arrival, from the Turks' original habitat in Inner Asia and the steppes of Central Asia. Things must be called by their true names.98.231.157.169 (talk) 14:38, 25 March 2021 (UTC)Davidian

If it was an invasion rather than a more peaceful settlement/migration, and sources back that up, I have no objection to changing to "invasion". (t &#183; c)  buidhe  14:47, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Gladly. I'll collect data sources and revisit this thread. Fyi: Peaceful settlers/migrants do not come to foreign lands with fire and sword. See, for example, Wikipedia's own article Battle of Manzikert (talk) 15:33, 25 March 2021 (UTC)Davidian

Recent edit
Hi, first I'd like to thank for their efforts to improve the article! However, there are a few concerns I have about this edit:

Lead

 * Although a majority of historians accept the facts of the Armenian genocide I think this wording could be improved since it does not tell the reader which facts. Perhaps we could say that "Most historians acknowledge that a genocide took place"? ("Majority" would understate the support for this preposition.)
 * Turkish government denies that these events constituted a genocide. That's accurate, but it makes it sound as if the main dispute is around the use of the word "genocide". In fact, the crux of the issue according to various RS is whether the events that make up the genocide can be considered a legitimate state action in response to rebellion or a criminal act on the part of the government, intended to destroy the Armenian people.
 * ethnically homogenous state It may be misleading to imply that Turkey in 1923 was an "ethnically homogenous" country, given the many immigrants from various countries, Kurds, etc. It was however based around Turkish ethnic nationalism.

Background

 * In this section, a book from 1967 was cited. As stated in one of the sections above, I was trying to write the article based on recent scholarship only. If I were reviewing this article at FAC source review, I would question the use of a source that's so old and wonder if what's cited to it is backed up by current scholarship.
 * "Armenian Plateau" is the same place as "Armenian Highlands". I don't think it's helpful to give the name of the place in Turkish (the relevant language here would actually be Ottoman Turkish.) Both Suny and Kévorkian use the term "Armenian plateau" instead of highlands so I wouldn't be averse to changing as long as we're consistent.

Aftermath

 * I believe that the Treaty of Sevrès deserves a mention here since it is mentioned by all sources that discuss the postwar era, even Suny who doesn't go into much detail at all. Perhaps a bit more explanation of why it's significant to this article would help.
 * The section split is not very helpful IMO, you end up with several minuscule sections which is strongly discouraged by MOS, and causes some other issues:
 * Incorrectly implies that vorpahavak only took place in the Middle East, when actually it happened wherever Allies exercised some control
 * the part about blockading and invading Armenia is cut off from the discussion about the responsible party.
 * Most of the material in your "Turkish Republic" is about the time period before Turkey was founded (in 1923).

Legacy
(t &#183; c)  buidhe  22:16, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The "Turkey" section is not supposed to cover just denialism but also long term effects of genocide on Turkey's economy, politics, culture, international relations and so forth.
 * Your edit summary said you reverted all my changes 'per talk page discussion'. I restored it because you edit has undone more than what you have explained here and because your substantial changes to the article are new and don't yet have consensus. I think my changes were an improvement over the version you reverted to. You removed the sections for Soviet Armenia and Diaspora, which I have tagged for expansion based on your objection above. The content about the establishment about Soviet Armenia should not be in the section about the Turkish War of Independence, and the section being short is no excuse for that. I am going to address the rest of your objections one by one to work towards the consensus version, but please do not do these reverts of other editors work. Other editors are also allowed to contribute. Gators bayou (talk) 16:30, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * No, you should make one paragraph sections and tag them for expansion. This article needs to be kept fairly short and on-topic, not expanded with tangential subjects.
 * Yes, the establishment of Soviet Armenia is closely tied to the Turkish war of independence. As you can see by the fact that it's discussed in the chapter of books on the subject.
 * Yes, anyone can edit. However, that does not mean that you should restore changes that are disputed without even explaining why the objection is wrong. Yes, your changes do include more than is strictly discussed here, but the other changes aren't helpful either in my opinion. For example you removed mention of the Armenian Question from the lead, but this is absolutely crucial to understanding why the genocide occurred. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  20:15, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, it's bad form to change the article so it doesn't meet the Good article criteria while it's up for review. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  21:10, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, anyone can edit. However, that does not mean that you should restore changes that are disputed without even explaining why the objection is wrong. Yes, your changes do include more than is strictly discussed here, but the other changes aren't helpful either in my opinion. For example you removed mention of the Armenian Question from the lead, but this is absolutely crucial to understanding why the genocide occurred. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  20:15, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, it's bad form to change the article so it doesn't meet the Good article criteria while it's up for review. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  21:10, 17 March 2021 (UTC)


 * As someone who's been seeing these changes happen but is not directly involved with this article, I have to say I agree with Buidhe on this one. She reverted your edits only after raising specific objections to them at this talk page. It's on you to address these concerns, not to simply re-instate your edits when there's a clear lack of consensus for them. And you certainly shouldn't be going around placing tags like these without as much as an edit summary. I also agree that it's disruptive to make bold, drastic changes like these just now that the article is up for a GA review, after Buidhe has been working for months to get it up to GA status. Lennart97 (talk) 11:07, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't know what GA status is but there has been a lot of objection to Buidhe's edits on the talk page. There are multiple sections started by different editors with objections to Buidhe's edits. She is reverting everyone else's changes to the article. This includes altering the death toll to an "Estimated one million" (despite objections in other sections of this talk page, it is still in the article). I also don't know why I should not be placing tags on the article where they are needed. Why are Armenia and Azerbaijan discussed in one section? It is vague whether the sentence is talking about protests in Yerevan against the genocide or against the Nagorno-Karabagh conflict. I don't think it can attain any "GA status", whatever that is, by Buidhe reverting everyone else's changes and forcing her version through. Gators bayou (talk) 12:00, 24 March 2021 (UTC)


 * If you check closely these are editors who are not citing scholarly sources (or when they are, misrepresenting them), but instead their own unsubstantiated opinion, which doesn't count for much. In the meantime, you seem to have ignored and not even replied to what I wrote above, since you're still making the same undesirable changes: "ethnonational" -> "national" when the former is meant, unlink a notable phenomenon sedentarization of Kurdish tribes against WP:REDLINK, understate the support for this event being a "genocide"—it's an academic consensus rather than simple majority—create stub paragraphs, insert irrelevant content about Australia and Israel, and more. Since you don't seem to be familiar with what's expected of a good article, perhaps it would be a good idea to suggest changes on the talk page rather than change the article so it doesn't meet the criteria. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  13:32, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Here we go again. The source doesn't say ethnonational but it means "ethnonational" according to Buidhe and any editor who disagrees has all their contributions reverted. I am removing this unsourced content from the article. Gators bayou (talk) 11:02, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * That is untrue, I quote from Suny 2015: "The Armenian Genocide was a central event in the last stages of the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire and the foundational crime that along with the ethnic cleansing and population exchanges of the Anatolian Greeks made possible the formation of an ethnonational Turkish republic" (t &#183; c)  buidhe  11:17, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for giving us that quote. It's on page 349. The page you cited was 364. Gators bayou (talk) 11:41, 26 March 2021 (UTC)


 * FYI your edit summary, "massacres are always indiscriminate" is dead wrong. Sometimes only villages that are rebelling are massacred or only certain segments of the population are massacred, as in Srebrenica massacre. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  13:39, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * That is a good point about Srebenica. Gators bayou (talk) 11:41, 26 March 2021 (UTC)


 * FYI I find "definitions" better than "historians" for the sentence about Turkish war of independence. Historians either include or (more often) exclude this era from the "Armenian Genocide", but other people who are not professional historians may also define the "Armenian Genocide" as including this period. "Definitions" is inclusive of other people besides professional historians. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  12:13, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It makes it sound like there are different definitions of genocide. You should not be explaining this on the talk page but in the article. The only statement about this in the article says that it is the opinion of some historians, or maybe just one historian. I don't remember now. As a separate issue, I'm not sure that is due weight in the lead. Gators bayou (talk) 12:48, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , per MOS:LEAD all significant aspects of the article should be covered in the lead. Since there are "Postwar" and "Turkish war of independence" sections in the body we need to say at least something minimal about what happened after the war. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  13:05, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The article doesn't discuss definitions of genocide at all. Almost all scholars use the same definition "systematic destruction in whole or part" AFAIK. Gators bayou (talk) 13:37, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * ??? This has nothing to do with the definition of genocide but the temporal boundaries of a historical event, where different opinions exist as to start and end dates. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  14:41, 26 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Gators bayou I do not think "denies the Armenian Genocide" is a clear expression at all. What does it mean to deny the Armenian genocide? It's considerably more than rejecting the use of the word "genocide" to describe the event, but it is less than claiming the events described in this article never occurred. If you read the article on Armenian Genocide denial you can find the nuances of it, but the crux of the matter is, according to Akcam, that denial "takes as its starting point the assumption that the events of 1915 were derived from governmental actions that were, in essence, within the bounds of what are considered normal and legal actions for a state entity and cannot therefore be explained through a recourse to criminality or criminal law." (2012 p. 451) If you don't like the Bloxham quote, perhaps you could pick something from Armenian Genocide denial that you think works better? (t &#183; c)  buidhe  12:24, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * "Denies the Armenian Genocide" is a fact, it's concise and encompasses the points you raise. The linked article is the where the reader can find out more about these additional nuances. The style of linking "denies a crime was committed against the Armenian people" this change was needed because the link should not be obscured. Does this change go against the criteria? Gators bayou (talk) 12:48, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , I don't think it does. The issue is that people will be more familiar with other forms of denialism such as Holocaust denial or climate change denial, both of which assert that the event (Holocaust or manmade climate change) simply did not/is not occurring. This is not the case with Armenian Genocide denial, so "denies the Armenian Genocide" can be misleading to the average reader who is not familiar with the topic. I don't see anything in MOS:LINK that discourages such clarification. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  13:02, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I was hopeful that we would reach a compromise or consensus but you are forcing your preferences into the article and reverting without explanation. Gators bayou (talk) 13:11, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The previous version of the article before I edited it stated "Turkey denies the word genocide is an accurate term", which understates the issue but is at least less misleading than the versions you are proposing. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  14:41, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Death toll and map
I wanted to correct the article as there are lack of sources. The death toll of the armenian genocide is around 1.5 million used by common sources. The death toll ranges to 1.4-1.6 million. The map is not correct, the one I wanted to add is a map made by a German ethnographic Richard Andrée in 1914, showing areas of Armenian settlement in blue: source=https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ethnic_map_of_Asia_Minor_and_Caucasus_in_1914.jpg. Thank you for your attention — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aidepikiwmeca (talk • contribs) 12:47, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * No, most academic sources cite a somewhat lower number than that. This has been discussed above. The 1914 map is low quality and the level of detail is much lower than the British one making it not ideal. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  13:51, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * There was no consensus whatsoever, 1 million is as WP:POW estimate based on selective period of selective sources. Contemporary sources, e.g. NY Times desember 1915 issue, puts the death toll at 1 million and steadily increasing 8 month after the start of genocide Addictedtohistory (talk) 14:56, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

I can give you the link for a better quality map: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d0/Armenians_ethnic_map_1905.png?1616162475524. Taner Akçam, an historian of turkish origin give the death toll at least of 1.3 million armenian and explains that this number is given by the telegram of Talat Pasha. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aidepikiwmeca (talk • contribs) 14:07, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * This map is low resolution and is in much less detailed than the British map, for instance there are many placenames marked on the British map and its showing of ethnic locations is more fine-grained. Also, the German map shows Armenians and Kurds in almost the same color, making it hard to get an accurate picture esp. some of our readers are color-blind.
 * Akcam found that the number of Armenians deported was 1.2 million and the number of deportees who died was less than that. See the "death toll" section. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  14:48, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Akcam found that the number of Armenians deported was 1.2 million and the number of deportees who died was less than that. See the "death toll" section. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  14:48, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

The number is completely WP:POW and contradicts the contemporary sources. NY times, December 1915 issue puts the death toll to 1 million and rising after first 8 month of the genocide. The death toll of modern historian, Akcam, is 1 million during first year of the genocide. Addictedtohistory (talk) 08:56, 23 March 2021 (UTC)


 * "Range" implies a single estimate of between 800,000 - 1.5 million. Buidhe's attempt to find the middle ground of that range obscures the scholarship. It is not a "range" but more precisely "Estimates range" and because that is how it is described by the majority of scholarly works it would be the most fitting for the infobox of Wikipedia. Gators bayou (talk) 12:39, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Nah, not really, if we were really doing a range it would start lower, since there are some noteworthy estimates around 600,000. But, since it would be difficult and perhaps impossible to find the legitimate outer points of a range (as Morris and Ze'evi state, 1.5 million is also too high an estimate for such a range, and I have not seen such a figure validated with recent estimates), I prefer to leave the detailed discussion to the "death toll" section. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  13:37, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your work on this article but I don't find it an acceptable proposal that we leave "estimated 1 million" in the infobox without citation. I fully appreciate the difficulty (impossibility?) of knowing the death toll, but you should at least have the citations to the infobox proving the word "estimated" is used by recognized scholars. This is a controversial article and it's expected that editors will make objections to these types of changes. A footnote may be one option to let readers know there is more detailed discussion in the article. Gators bayou (talk) 11:25, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Maybe something as simple as "Estimated around 1 million (see death toll)"? Lennart97 (talk) 11:56, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * This talk has not been constructive. A single wiki editor does not WP:OWN the article. The estimate of 1 million has not met consensus. I specifically referred several times above to the contemporary source, the December 15th 1915 issue of NY times, that puts the death toll at 1 million and steadily increasing 8 month through the genocide, which invalidates the estimate of 1 million. Addictedtohistory (talk) 23:19, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Israel, being one of the main Armenian Genocide denial states, has put a lot of effort, specially in US, to prevent Armenian Genocide recognition. Israeli sources for that mater, e.g. Ze'evi, are hardly considered a WP:RS source. In it, both the death toll and Armenian population census is heavily underestimated and contradicts the contemporary sources. Taner Akçam puts the death toll at 1 million during the first year of genocide, NY Times December issue put it at 1 million 8 month through the genocide. What about the years ahead? Addictedtohistory (talk) 17:22, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

✅ (t &#183; c)  buidhe  12:31, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Over 1 million vs Around 1 million
If “most” estimates are between 800,000 and over 1 million for the entire period 1915 to 1923, as arbitrarily selecting Wikipedia editors state in the Death Toll section, how did “over 1 million” metamorphose into “around 1 million” in the Introductory Section? I wonder…98.231.157.169 (talk) 16:20, 29 March 2021 (UTC)Davidian
 * First, your premise is wrong. Second, some estimates are lower, others are higher, but all scholarly estimates are in the ballpark of 1 million to one order of approximation. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  17:04, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * "Some estimates are lower, others are higher". Well, then please go ahead and mention all of them. Don't cherry pick. Next, "All scholarly estimates (what?!) are in the ballpark of 1 million". This is dead wrong. Most scholarly estimates until your current article were in the ballpark of between 800,000 and up to 1.5 million in the period from 1915 to 1923.98.231.157.169 (talk) 17:19, 29 March 2021 (UTC)Davidian
 * Perhaps you don't know the meaning of "first order of approximation". Consider looking it up. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  17:45, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you don’t know that when it comes to such a sensitive issue as the number of mass murdered people during a genocide, the most appropriate way of putting the death toll is to provide the range based on various estimates, and not to “approximate” it. Consider widening your knowledge base.98.231.157.169 (talk) 18:05, 29 March 2021 (UTC)Davidian

Introductory Sentence
The introductory sentence, as it appears in the text, is imperfect, to say the least. First, the time period is lacking, thus the duplicity with “around 1 million”. The core period was in 1915-1916, but the genocide had continued well into 1918 and on into 1922 (Great fire of Smyrna). Therefore, “around 1 million” is an incorrect way to put the approximate total number of victims. The figure of 1.5 million is generally accepted as a reasonable estimate for the whole period of genocide (1915-1923). Besides, what is counted as “around”? Is 1.5 million anywhere near “around 1 million”? I don’t think so. Next, “Armenians from Asia Minor and adjoining regions” creates an impression as if Armenians just happened to be in Asia Minor before being mass murdered. Whereas, Asia Minor and adjoining regions was Armenians’ historical habitat thousands of years before the intrusion of Seljuk Turks in 10th and 11th centuries AD. I suggest the introductory sentence be changed as follows:
 * The Armenian Genocide (other names) was the systematic mass murder and ethnic cleansing of ethnic Armenians inhabiting Asia Minor and adjoining regions by the Ottoman government during World War I and until the foundation of the Turkish Republic in 1923. According to various estimates, from 800,000 to as many as 1,500,000 Armenians were murdered.98.231.157.169 (talk) 17:53, 27 March 2021 (UTC)Davidian


 * Only a minority of scholars include the post-world war I period as part of the "Armenian Genocide", although they acknowledge that atrocities against Armenians continued during this period. Among the sources that define it to be only the World War I period include Suny (2015), Kevorkian (2011), Taner Akcam (2012), Wolfgang Gust, Donald Bloxham and others, The Oxford Handbook of Genocide Studies, Kieser in the Routledge Handbook of the Holocaust etc. There are some who do include the postwar period in "Armenian Genocide" but that's a minority view in scholarship. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  18:52, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The World War I period lasted until 1918, fyi.98.231.157.169 (talk) 19:58, 27 March 2021 (UTC)Davidian

Around a million is fine, for the date "mostly during First World War" or similar is OK. Thanks, buidhe, for the great work. Hemşinli çocuk 19:21, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * @Hemşinli çocuk. In this talk, there are several readers who suggest valuable edits. So, not only the editors, but people concerned with improving the article are doing a great work. In case you didn't notice, çocuk...98.231.157.169 (talk) 19:58, 27 March 2021 (UTC)Davidian
 * @(t · c) buidhe. Wrong. Many scholars include the post-world war I period as part of the "Armenian Genocide", not a minority. But from previous contributions I fear if I provide the extensive list, you may dismiss them, just as you dismissed several reliable sources in contradiction of [] regulations. Not a very "great" work, I'm sorry to say.98.231.157.169 (talk) 20:06, 27 March 2021 (UTC)Davidian

The figure of “around 1 million” is absolutely unacceptable, to put it mildly, because: Hope this helps.98.231.157.169 (talk) 16:28, 31 March 2021 (UTC)Davidian
 * 1) As correctly stated in the Death Toll section, “the exact number of Armenians who died is not known and impossible to determine […]”. In such cases, may it be known to Wikipedia’s editors, it is always more professional to give a range based on various estimates rather than an arbitrarily approximated number. In the Death Toll section, editors do provide a range between 800,000 and over 1 million for the period 1915 to 1923, but this range represents “most” estimates extracted from a single source that they so love to refer to throughout the text, Bijak & Lubman 2016. By doing so, editors conveniently dismiss several estimates found in Bijak & Lubman, stigmatizing them as “outliers”, which point to 1.5 million killed. Yet in no way can 1.5 million be an “outlier” because, as I’m sure the editors are well aware, this is a figure on which governments, parliaments, professional associations, academic societies, human rights groups, as well as many individual scholars draw their resolutions or base their expert recommendations. Therefore, the approximated “around 1 million” must be replaced with a more correct “between 800,000 and 1.5 million”.
 * 2) The clause “between 800,000 and over 1 million for the period 1915 to 1923” in the Death Toll section is discriminatory to the upper bound of the estimates. Why, if I may ask, is the lower bound specified (800,000) but the upper bound approximated (over 1 million)? In Bijak & Lubman you have 1.2 million, 1.5 million, etc. based on various sources. So what is the reason the editors are so uncomfortable with specifying the upper bound of the death toll? Why not consider “between 800,000 and 1.2 to as many as 1.5 million” based on Bijak & Lubman’s charts?
 * 3) The flimsy figure “around 1 million” is appearing in conjunction with “during World War I”. Sorry, but several sources that the editors cite in the article, such as Akçam, Kévorkian et al, specifically indicate that “around 1 million” refers to the core period of genocide, that is, to 1915-1916. I’m sure editors know that the war lasted until 1918, and that many scholars cited in the article point out that during the entire period of war and before the foundation of the Turkish Republic the death toll was higher than “around 1 million”. If editors, for some unknown reason, choose to stick to this flimsy approximated figure, then at the very least they must add in the introductory sentence that this figure refers to the core period of genocide in 1915-1916 and does not include killings that continued well into 1918 and 1923.
 * 4) The clause “ethnic Armenians from Asia Minor and adjoining regions” must be changed to a more correct “ethnic Armenians inhabiting Asia Minor and adjoining regions”. Otherwise, linguistically, the whole sentence makes little sense: murder and ethnic cleansing are not perpetrated against a people from Asia Minor, but against a people inhabiting Asia Minor.
 * How come that in the Death Toll section, the editors give a range indicating that “[h]istorians estimate that 1.5 to 2.5 million Armenians lived in the Ottoman Empire in 1915”, but when it comes to the introductory sentence they choose to round up the number of killed to "around 1 million" instead of providing a range found in sources? Curious to know.98.231.157.169 (talk) 16:45, 31 March 2021 (UTC)Davidian