Talk:Armenian genocide/GA2

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

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

Comments
Thank you for your time! I am by no means the primary article contributor here but became involved after I worked intensively in June last year on trying to counter the revisionism in Armenian Genocide denial (it was bad; see before and after). I was pleasantly surprised to see that the main article on the genocide was actually in a very good state. Plenty of references and little edit wars due to the page's semi-protection. It's been three years since the failed GAN and editors have worked tirelessly on improving it. Calling first on those users who have contributed the most over the last 1-2 years - (seems to be blocked for a few more days),,. I'd also like to notify and  but I'm not sure they'll be able to join the discussion as their last contributions were already a while ago. I'll be available pretty much every day myself. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 15:20, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes. It seems to have fallen off my radar since the big POV-push in 2016. I have heavyweight commitments IRL, and have been overstepping the limits of wiki time, but I'd be glad to pitch in. Could you ping me again in a few days as a reminder? Cheers for now! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:16, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure, I'll give a shout. Would highly value an experienced user's attention. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 15:22, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't see a very significant change between the article as it is now and the article as assessed in the last GA review. Yes, a lot of content issues have been addressed and improved, but I think the article still falls short of being a correct and understandable account of the Armenian Genocide: it is still very badly structured, it (despite its length) still misses out much vital content, and it still includes a large amount of material that would be better placed in fork articles. Last year I gave the opinion in the Talk page that "Barely 20% of this article's content details the event itself, and we are 20% into the article's body before that small amount of content even starts, and the bulk (60% or more) of the article's content is aftermath-related material. I believe that this article is in urgent need of massive deletions and a lot of forking of content off into other articles. This article, titled as it is "Armenian Genocide", should be primarily concerned with giving an account of the Armenian Genocide as it happened, of what it consisted of, and not about what peoples, countries, organisations, or individuals have, post-event, done with the history of, or legacy of, the Armenian Genocide." . I think it currently does not make the best of attribute 3a, though maybe enough to pass, but that it fails attribute 3b, and (mainly in the images section) possibly 6b too. I also worry if the article does attain GA status now, that status may be presented in the future as a reason not to make major changes to the article (since I think major changes are needed). Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:42, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * But Tiptoethrutheminefield, one must consider if this is a problem regarding the article or regarding the sources we have. The truth is that it's still a big thing today, and it has played a huge role in political discourse. Unlike the Holocaust, which was extensively documented and never really disputed outside of the fringes, the Armenian Genocide had less (though still plenty) documentation at the time and wasn't a focus of historians until more recently. I think the timeline and events themselves are quite well described. Do you want more attention to detail on the way the genocide was executed and organized, or perhaps the actions of those involved in it? Let's see what thinks. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 11:12, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * You nominated this article for GA. I have yet seen you do some work to achieve it that status. Why nominate an article for GA if you're not going to work on it? Étienne Dolet (talk) 18:57, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I had been cleaning the article shortly before submitting it. Since then, I haven't had the time for any extensive editing at all and see little point in quick visits and drive-by advice. Besides that, the reactions were somewhat negative from the start. People who I thought might agree on its quality said it likely wasn't ready. The process of evaluation itself also took a while, understandably, so the amount of free time I thought I would've had at the start quickly made way for a busy end of the year. And I nominated it because I found it to be a good article. I've said from the start that I haven't been the primary editor and the problems largely regard areas where a someone well-read on the subject (or a very experienced editor) would be more helpful. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 18:51, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Part of that delay is solely my fault. It is such a heart-wrenching topic, I cannot work steadily on it, I have to come back to it in bits and pieces.  This is a century ago, and so, so important to have the story told well... but I can only read it for a while at a time. So I do not mind going slow and taking the time to do it right. Jclemens (talk) 20:34, 2 July 2017 (UTC)


 * FYI, I would welcome responses to my ongoing (albeit slow) commentary. I welcome asynchronous work: you can clean up sections I've reviewed, while I'm still reviewing later sections of the article.  Jclemens (talk) 18:27, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Lead

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

Background

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

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


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

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


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

Prelude to the Genocide

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

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


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

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


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

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

World War I
✅ Étienne Dolet (talk) 19:51, 24 June 2017 (UTC) I'm afraid there's nothing I can do about that for now. The map needs to say Constantinople with (ISTANBUL) underneath or something. Étienne Dolet (talk) 19:51, 24 June 2017 (UTC) ✅ Étienne Dolet (talk) 19:51, 24 June 2017 (UTC) ✅ Étienne Dolet (talk) 19:51, 24 June 2017 (UTC) Yes, it is because the relief organization was based in the USA. Étienne Dolet (talk) 19:51, 24 June 2017 (UTC) That's a good point. I thought about removing it. Maybe we could reword it somehow? I still think it should remain because the Einsatzgruppen is far more well-known in the academic world than the Special Organization. I think it'll help our readers to give them an example in history that as to how it operates and its role in the event. Étienne Dolet (talk) 19:51, 24 June 2017 (UTC) ✅ Étienne Dolet (talk) 19:51, 24 June 2017 (UTC) I'm going to have to look into this and get back to you. Étienne Dolet (talk) 19:51, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * "this was later used as a factor to involve radical masses" involve seems a peculiar verb here.  Incite, perhaps? Provoke?
 * The text refers to Constantinople, but on the nearby map of massacre locations it is labeled Istanbul.
 * The first full text paragraph in Deportations is uncited.
 * Shouldn't "western world" be capitalized?
 * "A relief organization for refugees in the Middle East helped donate over $102 million (budget $117,000,000) [1930 value of dollar] to Armenians both during and after the war." The current and/or historical value of this donated amount is unclear.  Is this in U.S. dollars?
 * "This organization adopted its name in 1913 and functioned like a special forces outfit, and it has been compared by some scholars to the Nazi Einsatzgruppen" I would think the comparison would be the other way around, since the Special Organization came first chronologically. "You look just like your grandson" would be an odd compliment.
 * "According to the Mazhar commissions attached to the tribunal as soon as November 1914," Cite this sentence, please.
 * "Admiral Sir Somerset Gough-Calthorpe was in charge of the operation, together with Lord Curzon; they did so owing to the lack of transparency of the Turkish courts-martial" The lack of transparency is mentioned multiple times, but never adequately explained, and in this instance is not cited.
 * Overall, this section is huge, with lots of subsections. I'm not sure it's properly named, as the vast majority of the Armenian deaths are discussed here.  I have no particular better organizational suggestion, but note that this one seems awkward to me as an outsider. Jclemens (talk) 04:43, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Armenian population, deaths, survivors, 1914 to 1923
✅ Yeah, I don't get how that number got there. Étienne Dolet (talk) 20:15, 24 June 2017 (UTC) ✅ Étienne Dolet (talk) 20:15, 24 June 2017 (UTC) ✅ Added a source. Étienne Dolet (talk) 20:15, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * If the estimates range from 800k to 1.5m, then saying greater than 500k died seems an understatement.
 * Explain who McCarthy is in the process of giving us his statistics, please.
 * "...and some modern scholars estimate over 2 million." Needs a citation and more specificity. Jclemens (talk) 23:16, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Reports and Reactions
✅ Étienne Dolet (talk) 19:11, 1 July 2017 (UTC) ✅ Étienne Dolet (talk) 19:11, 1 July 2017 (UTC) Citation is at the end of the paragraph. Étienne Dolet (talk) 19:11, 1 July 2017 (UTC) ✅ Étienne Dolet (talk) 19:11, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * "This was to give justification for the deportation of Armenians, which is still argued by genocide deniers to this day." Needs a cite.
 * "Richter admits the deportations were intentionally meant to cover up the slaughter of Armenians:" Admits is a curious word to use, and likely suboptimal in this case.
 * "One photograph shows two unidentified German army officers, in company of three Turkish soldiers and a Kurdish man, standing amidst human remains." Cite, please.
 * The section on Bodil Biørn needs to be condensed and may need additional citations. Jclemens (talk) 23:16, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * "Hundreds of eyewitnesses, including the neutral United States and the Ottoman Empire's own allies, Germany and Austria-Hungary, ..." Nations are not eyewitnesses.  Rephrase, please. Jclemens (talk) 06:43, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Studies on the Genocide

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

Recognition of the Genocide
✅ I removed one of the sentences. Added a citation on the other. Étienne Dolet (talk) 19:04, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * "However, the fact that the charges had been brought at all was still a matter of contention for European politicians." ... "Kerinçsiz, the leading lawyer behind the prosecutions, has been accused of plotting to overthrow the government as a member of the alleged Ergenekon network." Needs citations, as do several other uncited sentences.

✅ Against, per sources. Étienne Dolet (talk) 19:04, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * "The rhetoric leading up to the onset of the conflict, which unfolded in the context of several pogroms of Armenians" BY Armenians or AGAINST Armenians? Of is ambiguous. Jclemens (talk) 06:43, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Cultural Loss

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

Reparations to the victims
This is hard for me to break up actually. Or, do you have any suggestions? Étienne Dolet (talk) 21:05, 3 July 2017 (UTC) ✅ Étienne Dolet (talk) 21:05, 3 July 2017 (UTC) ✅ Étienne Dolet (talk) 21:05, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * "The United Nations Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations of Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law provide in part, that reparation may be claimed individually and where appropriate collectively, by the direct victims of violations of human rights and international humanitarian law, the immediate family, dependants or other persons or groups of persons closely connected with the direct victims." Yes, it's a legal sentence.  No, it's not a good idea.  Break it up, please.
 * This first few paragraphs appears to be an essay on why Turkey should pay Armenians, rather than relying on what RS'es have said about it.
 * We don't need de Zayas' CV inline.
 * The Sevres Treaty? What's that? Seriously, it needs a wikilink for the non-specialist.
 * The lawsuit for life insurance needs to be fleshed out: dates, court dockets, etc. It's probably the only thing in this entire sections that should be expanded. Jclemens (talk) 06:59, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Commemoration
✅ I removed the bit about the bombing one. That memorial shouldn't get singled out just cause of a bombing. I also reorganized the paragraph so that it flows better by combining two paragraphs that are related to one another. Étienne Dolet (talk) 22:28, 22 July 2017 (UTC) ✅ Combined some paragraphs. Removed some non-notable stuff. Provided introductory sentences before the start of some paragraph to lessen the incoherence. Étienne Dolet (talk) 23:27, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * In Memorials, it looks like an article on the Museum was merged into the third paragraph. Ditto the second paragraph about the bombing.  The section could flow more smoothly and logically.
 * Many of the 'portrayal in the media' examples are uncited. Regardless, they're just plopped in without coherent organization.

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

Images

 * This is not appropriate in its current form. Might I suggest a link to a Commons category? Jclemens (talk) 06:59, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ Merged with Հայոց Ցեղասպանութիւն BillHPike (talk, contribs) 07:26, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Stability
Looking at the recent history of the article, and the comments here, I don't think the article is yet stable, and therefore is not ready for GA. Even if there is no current edit war, most likely there are long-standing controversies that are still unresolved - edit summaries like "please stop adding muslim/christian qualifiers" and "many left voluntarily" - multiple recent edits and reversions from recent editors removing "Islamic" or "muslim' etc. Seraphim System  ( talk ) 22:29, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It's unfortunate, since this subject (and Armenian history in general) is one of the few which was both written by both the victors and those who were defeated. The potential with some concessions for this article to be an archetype is there. Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 00:33, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I haven't really been following the current editing of the article, just going through and looking at it a section at a time. I fear unless there's a concerted effort to address the areas I've already outlined, this isn't going to make GA status, which I agree is unfortunate, because this story is important and needs to be told. Jclemens (talk) 05:42, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Honestly though, things such as that are easily undone. I don't think that would qualify as unstable. But I'm going to address the concerns now and will ping . Even if it doesn't make GA, it still deserves attention and improvement. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 10:19, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree wholeheartedly. It's one of the cornerstone articles for the subject of genocide as there are no ambiguities about intent and methods deployed. I doubt that it's ever going to be understood as 'stable'... but how many GA status articles from the past have been trashed, and how many merely created the illusion of being worthy, but were based on poor scholarship, synth, and every other kind of sin against encyclopaedic content? Controversial, emotive subject matter is always going to teeter on the edge so long as this remains an active, ongoing project. For me, GA status is a bit of a means-to-an-end aspiration: editors are more vigilant as to content changes once the 'yeah, that's where it should be at' benchmark has been set. Perhaps that's a mercenary position to adopt, but this genocide is virtually an unknown quantity in the footnotes of the Anglophone world's comprehension of history. That's a sad state of affairs for an horrific event which was so vital to the formation of the moral codes of the contemporary world. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:18, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I respectfully disagree that this article is unstable. And to all the users involved in this GA nomination, I'd like to emphasize that just because some drive-by account shows up to needlessly change a few words they see fit doesn't make it unstable. The AG is the most researched genocide after the Holocaust so there's going to be a few "know-it-all" accounts here and there that are going to add in their own understanding of the event into the article. That's totally fine. But I can assure you, I have edited this article for almost a decade and can safely say that there's never been massive changes. The consensus on this article is quite strong, especially when it comes to the lead. It's for this reason why the lead hasn't changed much over the years. I can also add that it's technically impossible for a 1RR article to be unstable. One revert a day is easily manageable and the disputes on this article almost always ends up at the TP and is subsequently resolved there. Étienne Dolet (talk) 05:08, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * You make a good point. Occasional outbreaks in POV editing have probably created an illusion of instability rather any form of changes in consensus. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:47, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

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

Status Check
Where are we now? Jclemens (talk) 07:12, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
 * , ? Jclemens (talk) 03:55, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I say we clear out all the stuff that's been handled and leave the stuff that still needs to be handled to make it easier for everyone involved. Étienne Dolet (talk) 04:16, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Feel free to collapse/hat anything you consider done. Jclemens (talk) 04:20, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I've already added Done tags to everything I've completed. Did you want me to collapse the sections? Étienne Dolet (talk) 06:42, 17 August 2017 (UTC)


 * and, any chance you could either finish up the review process or close this thing down? From what I see, there have been no posts in over 2 weeks. Display name 99 (talk) 5:43, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I've been dragging my feet on this. Sorry, I find it emotionally taxing to work in the topic. Jclemens (talk) 18:22, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Where we are now

 * The Lead still needs to be expanded and reorganized. (GA criterion 1.b.)
 * The text is in much better condition. A couple of the above notes still should be dispositioned, and more copyediting would be welcome, but not essential.
 * The image gallery still needs to be dispositioned. (GA criterion 6.b.)
 * Overall, this is much closer than it was, and has been getting better, but the lead and image gallery are the things that keep me from awarding GA status. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 19:29, 4 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Must the gallery really go though? I think the proposal for its removal should be at least suggested in the talk page. The gallery has been part of this article for a long time and is essential for our readership to attain a visual grasp of the subject. I also don't think that a gallery goes against GA guidelines. Étienne Dolet (talk) 20:57, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The general rule I've seen applied for GA is that every picture must have a specific encyclopedic purpose--individual commentary as in "This is a picture of X, as authors Y and Z talked about". I'm perfectly happy to ask on WT:GAN, as I agree that the visual evidence of the genocide is appropriate. Jclemens (talk) 22:29, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * In any other case, I would agree with you. But the gallery is important in this case, especially considering the controversial subject matter and the importance of photographic and visual evidence when it comes to genocide. I looked into the gallery guidelines under Wikipedia and stumbled upon this (Image_use_policy):


 * So I think it's just a matter of relevancy. The bottom line is that pictures can be used to portray aspects of the genocide wherein which text cannot. We can ask WP:GAN, but I don't think that should trump the consensus that this article has had for quite some time. I'd suggest getting the community involved first before making such a drastic change that appears that have not been under any such contention for the life of this article. Étienne Dolet (talk) 00:08, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I already DID ask at WT:GAN, but I agree that you've found a good argument for this use case. Since the lead still needs work, we've got time to see how other GA reviewers see things. Jclemens (talk) 00:23, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm willing to work on the lead once I have the time. Étienne Dolet (talk) 03:59, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Given the recent round of nonsense accusatory reverts over improving duplicate poorly written information and cleaning up excessive citation and the amount of work that still has to be done concerning the article length (which is over twice what our guidelines suggest) - not to mention the review has been open since May and still not closed, I am wondering if there are any plans to close this? I've also had to template the article for NPOV, because the issues are considerable - following the standard "if you can tell what the position of the authors are from reading it, it fails NPOV" standard this article clearly fails. It's not easy to adhere to NPOV on controversial topics - I'm not very emotional about this one (or any history articles in general) - I'm glad to see it's been nominated in the appropriate section, but since recent attempts to improve the quality of the article have been reverted, and several times I have seen the word "denialist" used by the nominator and other editors here (including in reverts), I'm not very hopeful. I think this review should be closed without prejudice to renomination when these issues are resolved. Seraphim System ( talk ) 12:56, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Further indication of the NPOV issue is that Hrant Dink is mentioned only in the negative context of his trials in Turkey. There is not a single mention of his message of reconciliation, though he is one of the most prominent and best known writers and thinkers on this topic. Very disappointing. Even with a 5 month allowance, this article is no where near passing GA standards. Also removal of templates and hasty edit warring (Revert says I did not justify on talk, but it was justified here in the review, one only had to check or ask.)

I don't think this article is ready and of GA quality yet, and I don't think it should be passed until it is. Seraphim System ( talk ) 23:45, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi Seraphim, regarding this: "if you can tell what the position of the authors are from reading it, it fails NPOV", I have never seen on Wikipedia any article which does not fail this. So I guess when users add the tag or remove it, they compare it with the average article. Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 19:34, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

, there has been no progress here in well over a month, and there is apparently some sort of unresolved content dispute going on as well. I think it's clear that this review has to be failed. Pinging the nominator,. Display name 99 (talk) 13:17, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed. It's an important topic, but one where I fear progress towards GA remains inexorably stalled at this point. Jclemens (talk) 01:59, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. For what it's worth, and especially towards Jclemens, I apologize for the way I handled this. I clearly misunderstood the GA nomination process, underestimated the size of such an undertaking and most of all overestimated my own free time. My studies simply wouldn't allow me to spend the time I needed on this. I'll take care not to do something like this again in the future. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 13:57, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * No apology is needed. This is an important topic, and even if the criteria are not yet fully met, I do believe the article is substantially better off than when we started working on this together. It has not been a waste of anyone's time. Jclemens (talk) 15:53, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Is condoning, denying or grossly trivialising the Armenian genocide a crime in the European Union ?
According to Article 1 of the Council of the European Union Framework Decision 2008/913/JHA of 28 November 2008 on combating certain forms and expressions of racism and xenophobia by means of criminal law, each Member State shall take the measures necessary to ensure that publicly condoning, denying or grossly trivialising crimes of genocide is punishable, at least when the crimes has been established by a final decision of a national court of this Member State and/or an international court, or by a final decision of an international court only. In the Order of the Court of First instance of the European Union of 17 December 2003 in Case T-346/03, about compensation for the non-material damage suffered by the violation of the resolution of the European Parliament of 18 June 1987 on a political solution to the Armenian question, that Court considered : “In this case, it appears from the arguments put forward by the applicants that the alleged non-material damage is the result of the refusal by the Turkish Government to acknowledge the genocide in question (Armenian genocide) rather than of the conduct of the defendant institutions complained of”. The Court of First instance didn’t write : “the refusal by the Turkish Government to acknowledge the “ ‘ ‘ alledged ‘ ‘ ” genocide in question”.

By Order of the Court of Justice of the European Union the appeal against the Order of the Court of First instance of the European Union of 17 December 2003 was rejected. The question is if publicly condoning, denying or grossly trivialising the Armenian genocide should be a crime in a Member State of the European Union where the publicly condoning, denying or grossly trivialising a genocide is a crime when that genocide is established by a final decision of an international court. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LucLamineRot (talk • contribs) 16:40, 13 September 2019 (UTC)