Talk:Armenian genocide and the Holocaust

Quote
Nice job with this article! Now that it's on the main page, your reward is to have editors come here wanting to change things :-) I think the Hitler quote should go. Blockquoting it presents it as a verified quote, and saying it's "disputed" doesn't really convey the amount of doubt that the cited source (Ihrig) casts on its authenticity. But more to the point, by presenting the quote, we fail to present Ihrig's larger point that it doesn't matter if the quote is authentic or not. I think maybe the Hitler quote should be replaced with a quote by Ihrig that more accurately conveys the same basic aspect of this topic. Maybe something like this (from p. 349): According to Ihrig, "There can be no doubt that the Nazis had incorporated the Armenian Genocide, its 'lessons,' tactics, and 'benefits,' into their own worldview and their view of the new racial order they were building." Levivich harass/hound 06:24, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Although disputed it is famous (Hitler's Armenian reference). So I do think it's worth mentioning here. I've added the other Ihrig quote. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  10:37, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Armenian Genocide which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 20:01, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Tags added to the article
This is a section for explaining any tags added to the article, and gaining consensus that there is an actual issue meriting tagging. Note: I am not convinced that any of the tags are valid. None of the editors who looked over the article at DYK noticed problems. But, it is possible that there is some issue that has arisen since then or went unnoticed. That is why I'm asking for an explanation for all tags; otherwise, they should be removed. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  17:36, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I posted this on AE, but since this is the right place for it in case someone later tries to determine what happened... I think the quote "a great genocide debate" was a different publication Ihrig, in a chapter that was also titled "Justifying Genocide", which was published the year before in the book Rewriting German History. At least, it's the only usage of the term in relation to the Nazis that came up on Google Scholar: . --Aquillion (talk) 21:23, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The cite you added was helpful, but the phrase "great genocide debate" is also used in Ihrig 2016, specifically pages 196, 318, and 396. The first of these is in the chapter "Justifying Genocide", which covers the debate referred to in considerable detail. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  21:48, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Right. And not on page 333. All you had to do to fix the failed verification tag was change 333 to any one of those other page numbers. Instead you chose to revert and tell me I wasn't competent to assess reliable sources. The correct response would have been to simply. Telling me "good catch" would have been gracious but remains strictly optional. Elinruby (talk) 23:21, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Actually, I did change the citation as appropriate to the chapter in order to verify the content. You weren't happy about that and went to arbcom. Page 333 supports what it is cited for at the moment. The rest of your tags, as far as I can tell, are completely unfounded. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  01:49, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Well then let me finish so I can address them! I gave you some thought last night after you drove me out of Hitler's Armenian reference. Apparently the root of the problem here is that you for whatever reason do not believe me when I say I usually read and tag, then go through again for tags and references. And it's tags apparently that you object to, because that would prevent FA? And since you don't see the problems you are defensive and therefore not about to address them yourself? Let me just mention that I have been through the history of Belfast in this way with none of this drama. I am I suppose willing, since I am this far in, to modify my usual workflow, because Buidhe, without commenting on what I think of needed to do so. But I am not going to check the history of any other articles to see if they are also written by  Buidhe and require special handling  because Buidhe. As I said before, at this point the only possible outcomes seem to be edit warring with you, which I don't do and don't care enough about this article to do anyway, or I can simply DENY and avoid the time sink. Elinruby (talk) 19:35, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

unfocused essay, fails verification
I found the idea that the Armenian genocide caused the Holocaust rather surprising, but aware of my unfamiliarity with the history, was willing to be convinced. Unfortunately however the sources are poorly cited and the author of this essay had some trouble admitting that and began interfering with cleanup before I was done with the first paragraph. The remainder of the references may well convince me when I come back, but for its central tenet the essay seems to rely heavily on Ihrig, which appears to be a very fine source, if only it could be verified. In the meantime an extraordinary claim plus failed verification means that the case has not been made.

The article repeats itself a great deal and there is some mild POV-pushing. It definitely seeks to make a point, and needs a vigorous copyedit for adjectives.

The close paraphrase is Ihrig 333 and the sentence in front of it. If this is the only such instance we are probably within the bounds of fair use, but rather than edit war over whether it is ok to perform source verification I tagged it as suspicious and reported the behavior. I will be back to assess these tags, hopefully without ugliness this time, and will remove those that no longer apply or are determined to be unfounded. This is not a driveby tagging event ;) Elinruby (talk) 23:40, 22 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Hello,
 * Since I follow this page and am quite active in the French Wikipedia and the English Wikipedia on subjects ranging from Muslim history in the beginning of the XXth century to Genocides (Holocaust and Armenian genocide mainly), I added something like 10 sources, that you can consult (most of them are freely available, except 1 or 2) this night.
 * I agree that the article was in a somewhat poor shape ; but now, it should be clearly better, and I hope Wikipedists can continue to contribute to improve it even more.
 * Cordially, AgisdeSparte (talk) 01:09, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @Elinruby However, I mainly worked on the causality part ; the following parts should be reworked, in my opinion, because they repeat themselves in some points.
 * Also, there should be clear parts speaking about similarities and differencies in the genocidal processes, as similarities in genocidal processes, it would be interesting to note the similar discourses regarding the idea of an internal conspiracy within the State aiming to destroy it. The control of the movements of the targeted population could also be mentioned in both cases, with significant demographic control.
 * As notable differences to mention, the Armenian Genocide is marked by the massive participation of civilian populations who become perpetrators, as well as the delegation of the genocide by the Ottoman state to auxiliary forces (such as Kurdish militias armed by the Ottoman Empire, etc.), whereas in the context of the Holocaust, the genocide is primarily carried out in closed settings (ghettos, concentration camps, extermination camps) by specific troops, with the invention of precise technical processes to exterminate the populations more efficiently and rapidly. Obviously, these similarities and differences should be nuanced, but it would be interesting to create sections that could address these points.
 * What I mean by this is that causality, which is not really in question since the majority of historians dealing with this issue acknowledge it, is just one aspect that this article could encompass. A comparison of genocidal processes could be very interesting, but one could also consider other interesting topics to address. In any case, the article seems entirely legitimate to me because it has the potential to be comprehensive and thus highly informative on numerous points.
 * (I also tag @Aquillion and @Buidhe, since they are important contributors to the article) AgisdeSparte (talk) 01:26, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm interested to see any examples of alleged failed verification issues beyond the one thing that has been fixed and the one thing that has been repeatedly debunked.
 * If tags cannot be substantiated by specific examples they will have to be removed. Claims of POV-pushing, essay-like nature, close paraphrasing, or factual accuracy cannot be made without citing specific examples of what is wrong and in the case of POV issues finding sources that would support a different viewpoint. These vague allegations are totally unhelpful for actually improving the article. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  01:53, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Buidhe, you appear to be unaware that I have been through this process with dozens of articles. Hundreds, if we aren;t just talking about WW2. This one doesn't get to be different because you authored it. I am mainly concerned with the referencing since I got here researching WW2 in Eastern Europe and that is what I am here for, but I generally take a swipe at any tone or language problems as I go. We are at AE because you started reverting with the first tag. The way to deal with a tag is to address it. Normally I do this myself, although there may be something I don't have the knowledge to fix, in which case there will believe me be copious questions on the talk page. Also, please AGF and stop assuming I am here to break things. You really should know better, but I guess you weren't following the case? Nothing "will have to be removed" until it is addressed. I would have been done and finished last night if you hadn't started reverting tags. Tonight I am not available except for checking on this.
 * Wait -- debunked? no... you waved your hand and told me he said it. Sure. Not on page 333 though. This as not been "debunked" and since you are now accusing me of falsehood, I suggest you strike that. I really must insist that you dial down the nastiness. References must be verifiable. It worries me that you don't seem to believe that. Elinruby (talk) 08:54, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it worries me that you keep doubling down on your absurd misrepresentation of a source despite no support for your position. Competence is required . (t &#183; c)  buidhe  17:49, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Hehe. That doesn't work when you aren't talking to new editors, Buidhe. Please specify what source I am misrepresenting and how, or strike your aspersions. Elinruby (talk) 22:42, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * AgisdeSparte, my apologies; I saw the unpopulated talk page and thought the article abandoned, which is usually the case with this type of essay. I accept that there is a link between the two genocides that I was unaware of -- I accept that there are many things that I do not know :) That is why I was here in the first place. Je veux bien, voyez-vous, mais tant que je suis là...on vient de découvrir pas mal de problèmes de longue durée içi en ce qui est de la seconde guerre. Anyway. Please prepare for some more tagging as I normally go through several times, flagging things on the first pass for attention on the second and third. I will since you are here working keep you apprised. You don't have to impress me with your credentials, but I believe you of course. So you fixed that page number problem? Not pinging, as you say you watch the page, and clearly Buidhe watches the page very very closely. I am not going to wok on this tonight, but I thank you for the referencing and I am sure it will be quite fine. I will however verify it given the response I have gotten here from the very defensive author. I am interested in your analysis and would like to come back to it seems adjacent to some of my observations about the Axis co-opting freedom fighters. However just now I am just checking for messages from the complaint I had to file because I was being prevented from proceeding here. 08:45, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of sources
, it is not accurate to say that Guttstadt makes any link or comparison between the Armenian genocide and the Holocaust. In the paper cited it is mentioned once in passing during background information on Turkish history. La période qui alla de 1911 à 1922 fut une phase de guerres presque ininterrompue, pendant laquelle l’empire perdit à peu près la moitié de son ancien territoire, tandis que des centaines de milliers de réfugiés musulmans provenant des Balkans et du Caucase arrivaient en Anatolie. Ces années sont également marquées par l’expulsion violente des Grecs anatoliens et par le génocide des Arméniens et des Assyriens such a link is not present in her book either. Thus it is original research and should be removed. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  19:46, 23 May 2023 (UTC)


 * @Buidhe Good evening, sorry for not responding sooner, but I have been tied up with family and personal obligations. I will probably be less active tomorrow and the day after, but I will see how it goes and assess my commitments.
 * I have added this link about the Holocaust in Turkey with the intention of opening a new section similar to the ones I mentioned yesterday; that is, avenues that could help make the article more comprehensive. It is commonly accepted that the Armenian genocide is not a monolithic genocide; it overlaps with other genocides (such as the Assyrian and Pontic Greek genocides) in what Umit Ungor theorizes as the "Late Ottoman genocides." The Kemalists, while not directly affiliated with the Young Turks, adopted the Young Turk narrative (along with numerous members of that party who later became part of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk's inner circle and his direct successor). This connection is made by C. Guttstadt, who discusses the establishment of the Republic of Turkey as seeking an increasing Turkification of the populations under its control, whether they were Armenians, Assyrians, Greeks, Kurds, or Jews. This is the meaning of her footnote number 2, but in reality, it applies to the entire first section (and subsequent ones) that precisely link the fate suffered by Jews to the Armenian Genocide (referring to the total extermination of Jewish communities in western Anatolia during the period of the Armenian genocide) and the fate of Armenians, Assyrians, etc. Furthermore, there was a clear connection to be drawn between Hitler and Atatürk, as Hofmann suggests in a passage mentioned earlier but that could be relocated to this subsection, given that Hitler admired the policies pursued by Mustafa Kemal Atatürk in Turkey. It should be noted that the Armenian Genocide continued under Atatürk, at least during the early years of his rule, particularly through the massacres in Adana, Karahanmarash, and the Armenian population that had survived in Cilicia from the first part of the genocide.
 * Therefore, I find it interesting to keep this section because it shows that the discourse present in Nazi Germany found resonance in Turkey, with a certain degree of complicity (to put it mildly) from the Kemalist elites towards the Holocaust, partly due to the Armenian Genocide but not limited to it. The Kemalists also participated in significant and state-organized massacres of the Jewish population starting from 1934 (when Ibrahim Tali was stationed in Thrace, where he organized pogroms), preceding the genocide of Jews by Nazi Germany. As is often the case in historical relations, inspirations and connections flow in both directions and are not one-sided. It is to support this idea that this section seems interesting to me because the same individuals responsible and the same ideologies (to some extent) that led to the Late Ottoman Genocides were involved in the massive persecution suffered not only by Turkish Jews but also by Holocaust refugees. There is no reason, in principle, to only discuss the Nazis' connections with the perpetrators of the Armenian Genocide and not address the links between the perpetrators of the Armenian genocide or their successors, who attempted to conceal, hide, or justify the Armenian genocide, and the Holocaust. Of course, this is still a draft, like the entire article, and we need to consider how to present it, but the citation, for example, demonstrates a significant ideological affinity between these successors and Nazi ideology, including a developed genocidal discourse towards Jews inherited from Pan-Turkism, etc.
 * However, we need to be cautious that this does not completely overlap with the specific article on "Turkey and the Holocaust," but I believe it is interesting to include this section. Of course, this is subject to appreciation of the contributors, and if it seems outside the scope of this page, it must be removed. However, as I said yesterday night, I found the page to be legitimate because it allowed for a comprehensive and large explanations of the links ; between the Armenian genocide and The Holocaust (but these links go both ways).
 * Cordially, AgisdeSparte (talk) 00:41, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * PS : The fact that Hitler admired Atatürk is also to be found in here : https://www.meforum.org/3434/armenian-genocide-hitler
 * "Hitler and other contemporary European leaders admired Mustafa Kemal Atatürk as a national leader who won for the Turkish people the living space it needed from the Slavs and the British. Speaking in 1925, Hitler "dwelt at length on patriotism and national pride and quoted approvingly the role of Kemal Atatürk of Turkey and the example of Mussolini, who had marched on Rome" a few weeks prior. The parallels between Hitler and Atatürk were also noted at the time. The influential Foreign Affairs journal published an article in the 1930s stating, "Just as in Italy since 1922, and as in Germany since early in the present year, the conduct of political affairs in Turkey rests today on the personality of a leader. … By means of a clever scheme … the President, while constitutionally without undue influence, becomes the real autocrat.'" It argued that with the end of foreign "influence," Turkey "had become an almost homogeneous state" in "national and religious" terms, so that its "Christian minorities hardly existed any longer."[34] In early 1939, the German socialists had also pointed out the similarity between the Nazis and past leaders of Turkey.[35] Three days after the speech reported by Canaris, Hitler wrote to Mussolini that he hoped that the Turks could be persuaded to join Italy, Japan, and Russia in an anti-British coalition.[36] He planned to hand over parts of the southern Soviet Union to Turkey in due time.[37]" AgisdeSparte (talk) 00:59, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi, it's certainly the case that Hitler admired Ataturk and in fact Ihrig wrote an entire book about it.
 * I do think that the content about Turkey and the Holocaust may be relevant to include here. However, in order to avoid original research we would need a source that connects it to the Armenian genocide. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  01:30, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

tags removed again
Buidhe there is an entire talk page section on those tags, so your edit summary saying that there isn't is misleading. See "Unfocused essay, fails verification" above. I am not restoring those tags at the moment, though, because I see has since then done some extensive work that may well be better than what I would have been able to do. I won't have time to evaluate that until sometime tonight at least. (Tuesday PST) Meanwhile, you are repeating a behavior that is being complained of at arbitration enforcement, you realize that right? What would you as a new page patroller do if a new editor removed your AfD tags? Please think about this. I think it would be better if you simply allowed the article improvement to proceed, and ok, if you have issues of content you want to discuss then fine. Agis seems well able to discuss those will you. Meanwhile I will play my role of fresh eyes -- someone who does not know the topic but would like to. I know you are having trouble assuming good faith here for whatever reason but I just want to improve your article, believe it or not. I will be focusing on verification and any content questions that may arise as I read through. Sometimes there are things that are blindingly obvious to the author that are not to the casual wikipedia clicker. For example, can you please state your objection to including the Assyrians? I saw where you went through this with someone else before. À priori and without trying to judge the historiographical merits, the text Agis quotes in his edit summary completely supports putting them in the same category. Elinruby (talk) 22:01, 23 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Please give concrete examples. If the article is an essay, for example, you would need to cite instances of essay-like tone. Ditto for POV and close paraphrasing issues. Even if you were right about these issues, there is no way to fix them without being specific about what the problem is. If there is not consensus for the tags (which no other editors seem to agree with), then they do not belong.
 * What do Assyrians have to do with this article? It's not within the scope. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  01:28, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It's more like AE thinks that you should grow up and I should move on. We are however talking about the Holocaust here so it's not like we are squabbling over setlists for an obscure concert. Actually, I am trying pretty hard not to squabble at all, but you don't make that easy. Your beviour here is unproductive and I suggest to you that this sort of sniping only wastes your time and mine. Kindly point to a policy that says that if it is Buidhe's article I need her consent (which clearly is not about to be forthcoming) to point out problems and areas for improvement?? I am noting that you refuse to strike your clearly false ad hominem attacks. and am going to just DENY henceforth, as I refuse to fish you out a diff of a section on which you have commented.
 * There also seems to be credible historiography that says that the Assyrians are not out of scope at all, actually. Why do you think they are? Let's start there. Still reading. Elinruby (talk) 02:58, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Questions

 * Hitler quote: How is it disputed and by whom? I agree with here -- the blockquote gives it a lot of prominence, and it would indeed seem definitive if it were not disputed. Why so little weight to the disputing of it if it is included merely because it is notable? I suggest making a separate section for this and expanding this further. There is no reason you could not also add some commentary in favor of its authenticity as well if this is warranted. This is a DUE WEIGHT question that should be discussed and to which I invite the attention of  as well, and anyone else editing here that I may have also overlooked.
 * Assyrians (from above) what is the objection to including mention of them?

To myself for later: Elinruby (talk) 22:56, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * (what tag) Is the strange use of the conditional tense the result of translation from a Romance language? Verify against original.
 * Trail of Tears in article history
 * Rwanda, Bosnia, scale, topography? 22:56, 23 May 2023 (UTC)


 * @Elinruby Good evening ; I believe you can find everything you need about the authenticity (or not) of this quote in the first part of this article that is quoted in the sources of the page : https://www.meforum.org/3434/armenian-genocide-hitler
 * Regarding keeping the citation, we could perhaps paraphrase like something like this : "Adolf Hitler is said to have directly referenced the Armenian Genocide in a speech that is still debated among historians."
 * For the Assyrian term, since the Assyrian genocide is clearly interlinked with the Armenian and even the Greek genocides (even for those who don't subscribe to any extant or understanding of the Late Ottoman genocides theory), it could be used ? AgisdeSparte (talk) 00:51, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, that was very helpful, thank you.


 * I think I should do some reading before attemting to discuss that. A very superficial skim of Sayfo indicates that there are parallels at least so perhaps a background section? That's a question. I'll come back with a more refined one later, maybe, or perhaps an opinion. Meanwhile, on the Hitler quote it is interesting that he said this with respect to Poland. have you ever heard of this? Offhand I would be inclined to believe an AP bureau chief, but it looks like it has been questioned by more than just the Turkish government. I don't have an opinion on that yet either. I am still reading, but the article is looking quite a bit better. Elinruby (talk) 02:33, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Have I heard of what? Hitler's Armenian reference? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 03:46, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes Elinruby (talk) 19:15, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Actually, would you mind answering that at my talk page, not here? There is some silly strife going on because Buidhe doesn't like being tagged and I don't want to suck you into it. Your thoughts on this would be more pertinent to Collaboration anyway. I just wondered since I have never heard of it, but the afaict the dispute about it seems to be over whether he said that in those words on that date, not whether it represents his thoughts on the Armenian genocide. Elinruby (talk) 19:47, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Elinruby (talk) 19:54, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Notes on verification
Elinruby (talk) 15:05, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Bjørnlund, Matthias - author seems well-qualified but the cited document is a book review and this is a very generic statement of etymology that can probably be less indirectly cited
 * Shabas: definitely expert, "intently followed attempts to prosecute the perpetration"
 * Moses: quote is verified but is a single sentence in a 325-page book. The author does elaborate on Lemkin's thinking for at least that entire page, but the two following it are missing and the author is well into another topic when the preview picks up again so one can question whether this amounts to substantive coverage.
 * USHM: This isn't specifically about Poland so this probably does qualify as a reliable source for this topic. The quote that was originally in this citation was not present on this web page but the reference does definitely support that he coined the term and says "as a law student in his twenties, Lemkin learned about the Ottoman destruction of the Armenians during World War I (known today as the Armenian Genocide)", which I will add as a quotation to the citation.
 * Jewish World Watch: Advocacy site, albeit no-profit, no indication of peer review, dead link, although archived. Emotional language ("reel", "stain", "outrage", "beyond belief"). Not the best source for the United Nations definition (the topic of this page), which would be the United Nations, no? Quote is verified however. The UN website mentions Lemkin but not Armenia, but it is at least an authoritative source for the United Nations definition of genocide.
 * On the whole, four sources for a statement of the background are too many. Also, none of them actually mention Talaat Pasha or Soghomon_Tehlirian. They do support Lemkin coining the term and feeling frustrated by the impunity for what happened in Armenia, but it may be better to add the details in a separate explanatory sentence. To be clear, I am not questioning that Lemkin coined the term, which may be something akin to common knowledge, but that should make it easy to cite.

Yair Auron: quote is verified, author looks expert. arbitrary break for real life --- Elinruby (talk) 16:32, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Nicosia: access problems at the moment, cite unlikely to be a problem though.

Schaller: The cited words do exist in the text but only as a passing mention with which the authors take issue to make a point about other genocides and competition among victims, whereas its placement in this article seems to be intended to support the importance of the Armentian genocide as a cause of the Holocaust. 10:50, 1 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Re: most recent insults and reverts: If Buidhe is reacting in good faith there may be an edition issue. I do not recall if the ISBN numbers match, but everything else did. Also, I used the scanned page number, not the Google page number and *that* may be the problem. It may not be possible to resolve this without Buidhe, who apparently prefers to accuse me of...something. It's a problem.


 * I will see if I can eliminate some of the possible causes of this problem, meanwhile Elinruby (talk) 14:07, 8 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Buidhe alluded to this conflict on another talk page, and I was curious enough to have a look. I believe the (or at least one) correct page number for the smoking gun quote is 334. Hope this helps you resolve this! Regards, Andreas  JN 466 20:12, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Actually, I was a bit of an idiot. While the words "smoking gun" occur on page 334 in the body text, the chapter titled "No smoking gun" does actually start on page 333, and the discussion covers both pages. --Andreas JN 466 11:17, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Intro to Technical Writing
— Assignment last updated by Jazaam02 (talk) 19:29, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Comparison
@50.48.214.219 @Buidhe @Elinruby Hello, I noticed that the structure used in the article is not very clear. Indeed, one section, called "comparison," repeats information and sources already present in sections located higher up in the article. Furthermore, it mixes the information, and I would suggest splitting it into two parts. We would retrieve what is missing from the preceding sections to add the "comparison" information to those previous parts. Then, we would keep the second part, which discusses the political/cultural recognition of the two genocides after they occurred (shifting the focus from causality to the evolution of the memory of the two genocides), in a dedicated subsection, perhaps called "aftermath." In this section, we could include both the information currently found in the second part of the existing "comparison" section, and we could also make "Denial" and "Legal issues" subsections within this larger section. This way, the article would be clearer to read, and the outline would be more effective and readable. AgisdeSparte (talk) 02:42, 11 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Why is it deemed desirable to "shift the focus from causality to the evolution of the memory of the two genocides"? Have you read the sources and do you know what they cover? (t &#183; c)  buidhe  02:50, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Background section needs editing
The text in the section is not written very well, and has some factual errors as well. For example while the legacy and members of CUP were influential on the subsequent Republic of Turkey, it's a stretch to say that the regime of CUP somehow includes the republic. I doubt CUP fought an "Armenian army" in the Balkan wars either, I think that sentence means to say that the CUP faced defeats in its wars in the Balkans, and separately, against Armenian militias? I also think the paragraph should mention the idea of "Late Ottoman genocides" and that Medz Yeghern itself was part of a period of interlinked massacres, pogroms, and other genocidal interventions that targeted ethno-religious minorities of the empire.

As for the second paragraph, from the outset, I think the description of the Holocaust there should not be limited to the Shoah, as above. It should also not present the term "Final Solution" as a neutral term, because it was a Nazi euphemism.

It would be helpful if the section was edited or rewritten by someone in the know. I didn't read the entire article, my review is restricted to the Background section. Janus the Edessan (talk) 00:50, 11 July 2024 (UTC)