User:RafaëllaMES/Choose an Article

Article Selection
Please list articles that you're considering for your Wikipedia assignment below. Begin to critique these articles and find relevant sources.

Option 1

 * Article title: Damascus Affair
 * Article Evaluation (See my evaluation of this article)
 * See my evaluation under the exercise 'Evaluate' Wikipedia. Although giving a good introduction of the affair, this article could benefit hugely from a more detailed background section (especially with a focus on interreligious relations and the relation between Jews and Christians in particular). Moreover, there is one big passage (in the main section) in which a reference is clearly missing. Lastly, more sources could be added and perhaps a subsection on how this blood libel myth is sometimes seen as the starting point of antisemitism.


 * Sources
 * (As already mentioned in my 'Evaluate Wikipedia' assignment)
 * Tsur, Y. (2020). Who Introduced Liberalism into the Damascus Affair (1840)? Center, Periphery and Networks in the Jewish Response to the Blood Libel. In Jews, Liberalism, Antisemitism (pp. 263-287). Palgrave Macmillan, Cham.
 * Calabrese, J. (2005). Blood Libel: The Damascus Affair of 1840. The Middle East Journal, 59(3), 518.
 * Gerber, N. S. (2020). Can Damascus 1840 be Re-oriented? From Shami historical memory to Sephardi and Mizrahi agency. Journal of Modern Jewish Studies, 1-22.
 * Elger, Ralf. (2017). Damascus Affairs. Egyptian Rule in Syria through the Eyes of an Anonymous Damascene Chronicler, 1831-1841, written by Johann Büssow and Khaled Safi, 2013. Welt Des Islams, 57(1), 104-107.
 * Green, Abigail. (2015). The Damascus Affair. In Moses Montefiore (pp. 133-157). Cambridge, MA and London, England: Harvard University Press.

Option 2

 * Article title: 1860 Mount Lebanon Civil War - and then on the subentry of the Damascus Massacre of Christians
 * Article Evaluation
 * The content of this article is relevant to the topic (1860 Mount Lebanon Civil War), with both a background and leadup to the war and a description of the 1860 Mount Lebanon Civil War. After this description, the article turns to 'Spread of the conflict' in which other violent incidients (outside of Mount Lebanon) are listed including the 1860 Damascus Massacre. If possible, I would like to focus on this subentry and expand it.
 * This subentry does not contain the same kind of structure that is given to the 1860 Mount Lebanon Civil war. This subsection is only two paragraphs long and does not contain any information on the background or leadup to the massacre. The way it is presented now the Damascus Massacre is a consequence of the 1860 Mount Lebanon Conflcit and the subentry does not take into consideration pre-1860 Damascus and the tensions between interreligious communitites (See for example the Damascus affair above). This article could therefore benefit from a more detailed description (especially in regards to the background of this conflict).
 * This subentry does not contain any citations, but does include references that point mostly point towards (academic) books. The subentry also contains a relevant painting (which shows Abdelkader El Djezairi saving Christians during the Druze–Christian strife) and this painting is accompanied by the most important information (artist, when it was created and the license that this painting is now in the public domain), however I would also like to know here the painting is now (which museum?).
 * Moreover, it should be noted that this article (the complete article) is overly reliant on Fawaz (1994) and in the 'Bibliography' only two publications are mentioned. This article could therefore hugely benefit from additional literature. The article is of interest to five different Wikipedia projects with all different rating. Within the WikiProject Syria this article is rated as B-class.
 * On the talk page of this article there is a long discussion about the title of this article (whether or not to use the term Civil war instead of Conflict). More interesting to my focus is a comment posted by a Wikipedia user about the Damscus Massacre. He writes that he already started a draft on the Damscus massacre which looks already quite elaborate. However it is completely reliant on Fawaz (1994) and does not use references to any other sources. It might therefore be a good idea to support this Wikipedia user to expand his article. If possible, (the layout of) the article could also be improved by the insertion of pictures (for example of newspapers) or paintings.
 * However, personally I am not yet sure whether the Dmascus Massacre should have a separate article of just a subentry on this article on the Mount Lebanon Conflict (especially considering the number of victims). This question is also debated on the talk page, but so far the Damscus massacre remains a subentry in this larger article.
 * Sources
 * Baron, S. (1932). The Jews and the Syrian Massacres of 1860. Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research, 4, 3-31.
 * Rogan, Eugene. (2004). Sectarianism and Social Conflict in Damascus: The 1860 Events Reconsidered. Arabica, 51(4), 493-511.
 * Al-Qattan, Najwa. (2002). Litigants and Neighbors: The Communal Topography of Ottoman Damascus. Comparative Studies in Society and History, 44(3), 511-533.
 * Khoury, Philip S. (1983). The political configuration of Damascus in 1860. In Urban Notables and Arab Nationalism (pp. 8-25). Cambridge University Press.
 * Forster, John, Hunt, Leigh, Fonblanque, Albany William. (1860). THE MASSACRES IN SYRIA. Examiner (London, England : 1808), (2739), 472.
 * Forster, John, Hunt, Leigh, Fonblanque, Albany William. (1860). THE MASSACRES IN SYRIA. Examiner (London, England : 1808), (2739), 472.

Option 3

 * Article title: Sectarianism and minorities in the Syrian Civil War
 * Article Evaluation
 * Interestingly this article starts with a firm claim: The Syrian Civil War is an intensely sectarian conflict. Personally I think it would have been better to start with a more nuances sentence and also a more elaborate sentence, so that newcomers to the page get a better introduction to the article's theme instead of immediately the statement that the Syrian Civil War is an intensely sectarian conflict (what does the author mean with intensely here? Are there no other factors at play?). Another thing that I found really striking is that in the first paragraph it is said: "Others, such as the blogger Neil Clarke, identify it as the secular Syrian government". Who is Neil Clarke? What is his authority? This is left too vague right now. Morover, a reference to this idea attributed (amongst others) to Neil Clarke is missing. The article then also immediately (quite rigorously) disagrees with Neil Clarke's opinion. So, already the first paragraph makes me wonder how neutral this article is written. Moreover, the wording in this article sometimes sounds overly conficent (in making a statement) or informal. For example, "Discrimination of the Alawite sect accused of being kuffar by Islamists has a long tradition, and present-day Salafists still like to refer to fatwas like that of Ibn Taymiyyah (1268-1328) who considered Alawites more infidel than Christians or Jews." (In my opinion, a reference should also be added to this sentence).
 * The subentry on the 'Druzes' is also labelled with a warning saying this subentry is disputed. But there seems to be no discussion on the Druzes and this subentry on the talk page.
 * The article is divided into subsections which each discuss the sectarian groups in Syria (and therefore addresses Wikipedia equity gaps). The first subsection, however, is a background section. Unfortunately this section is incredibly short and should be expanded. Now this subestion is based on two pages of academic literature (Peter Mansfield, A History of the Middle east, p.476-477). Much more literature could be added. Also the difference between the 'Background' section and the subsequent 'General issues' section is somewhat eluding me. Moreover, the 'History' section starts in 2012. Perhaphs it would be better to create a 'Lead up to the conflict' section and add a separate history section on the interreligious relationships in Syria until 2000.
 * Another section that needs expansion is 'International positions' in the subentry 'General issues'. Now this paragraph, which is titled international positions, only focuses (very briefly) on the USA (when Hillary Clinton was secretary of state), Turkey and Saudi Arabia. Where is the discussion of the UN, European Nation-states, Russia?
 * I would also argue that the subentry 'Uyghurs' needs more expansion. This is now dealt with briefly but more could be said about Assad's ties with China and the Uyghur population in China and Syria. Especially considering the suppression of Uyghurs in China right now, it would be worth giving this minority group more space in this article.
 * Lastly, I would argue that a Bibliography should be added with the most relevant literature for anyone who wants to learn more about this topic.
 * There are also many grammatical/spelling errors and I think this article could be improved is a Wikipedia user read this article only focusing on grammatical or spelling errors in order to correct them. There are many grammatical errors which makes it hindering to read this article. Additionally, some hyperlinks to other Wikipedia pagaes could be added to certain terms.
 * Concerning the media: this article contains relevant pictures which makes the article look good. However, the picture with two women (on the subentry Shia) does not have a good subscript/description. This should be corrected.
 * The talk page is really active with lively debates going on. Especially about the reliabilty of sources, which I think is really good. There seems to be a lot of disagreements how to write this article neutrally. Unfortuantely, some debates turned rather personal and no consensus is reached.
 * The talk page is really active with lively debates going on. Especially about the reliabilty of sources, which I think is really good. There seems to be a lot of disagreements how to write this article neutrally. Unfortuantely, some debates turned rather personal and no consensus is reached.


 * Sources
 * This article already contains many different sources. Potentially add:
 * White, B. (2011). The emergence of minorities in the Middle East the politics of community in French mandate Syria. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
 * Zabad, I. (2017). Middle Eastern minorities : The impact of the Arab Spring. Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon ; New York, NY : Routledge
 * Dam, N. Van. (1981). The Struggle for Power in Syria : Sectarianism, Regionalism and Tribalism in Politics, 1961-1980. 2nd ed. London: Croon, Helm.
 * Hinnebusch, Raymond. (2020). Identity and state formation in multi‐sectarian societies: Between nationalism and sectarianism in Syria. Nations and Nationalism, 26(1), 138-154.
 * Phillips, Christopher. (2015). Sectarianism and conflict in Syria. Third World Quarterly, 36(2), 357-376.