Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/International Conference on the Holocaust and Genocide/archive1

International Conference on the Holocaust and Genocide

 * Nominator(s): (t &#183; c)  buidhe  23:52, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

This article is about a 1982 conference in Israel, the first major conference in the field of genocide studies, and attempts to cancel it by the Turkish government. Their objection? Scholars of the Armenian genocide were invited, a crime that is strenuously denied by Turkey to this day. Turkish diplomats blackmailed Israel by threatening the lives of Jewish refugees, but the organizers persevered and managed to hold it anyway. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  23:52, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Image is appropriately licensed, but are there any images from the conference itself? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:08, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I could not find any. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  02:41, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Support from Gog the Mild
Recusing to review.


 * "The conference's mission was to further the understanding and prevention of all genocides." It may be a US/UK English thing, but it reads oddly to me that a conference should have a "mission" rather than an 'objective'.
 * Changed to "objective"
 * "However, the organizations refused". Which organizations? (The Institute?)
 * Changed to "organizers".
 * "faced criticism for their efforts to cancel the conference in contrast to the value of academic freedom". I know what you are getting at, but I am not sure this works as a sentence.
 * Rewrote
 * "a "determination to deny the Armenian genocide by acknowledging the Holocaust"" I am unsure what this means, and so cannot see how it is demonstrated by "prevent[ing] Jews from learning about the Armenian genocide".
 * I realized that this sentence is not necessary for reader understanding, so I removed it.
 * "appeared in the domestic public debate in Israel". Perhaps "was debated in public in Israel" would be more accessible?
 * Done
 * "in their refusal to remove the Armenians". Is it known who they were? Are their views known? It seems odd that they are first named several sections later.
 * I'm not quite sure what you're asking, the sources specify that Wiesel and Charny agreed that they shouldn't under any circumstances exclude the Armenian participants from the conference. Details on the Armenians who presented at the conference are given later in the "Conference" section; I don't think that should be altered because RS don't describe them doing anything noteworthy related to the attempted cancellation, and I prefer to list all the participants in the same place. The Boghosian article states that, at the conference, several Armenian participants expressed gratitude to the organizers for not bowing to pressure; I could add it, but I thought that it was perhaps too obvious.
 * Hmm. OK. Optional: "Armenians" → "Armenian speakers".
 * Done (t &#183; c)  buidhe  01:12, 24 January 2021 (UTC)


 * "which is a top priority of the Israeli foreign ministry" Maybe "is" → 'was'?
 * Well, according to the source, it was then and still is a top priority (as of 2015); "was" would imply that isn't anymore.
 * "that they ensured no official Israeli participation" → 'that they ensured there was no official Israeli participation'.
 * Done
 * "proposed to delay it" → 'proposed delaying it'.
 * Done
 * "AJC". "When an abbreviation will be used in an article, first introduce it using the full expression".
 * It is introduced earlier in the sentence but I clarified what the abbreviation refers to.
 * "withdrew at the last minute". Perhaps → 'also withdrew at the last minute'?
 * Done
 * "the conference represented the shift from", Suggestion only "represented" → marked' seems, to me, to better reflect the source.
 * Done
 * "Armenian–Armenian"?
 * Corrected to Armenian-American
 * "for Armenian Genocide recognition and academic freedom". If that is meant to be two separate things, I suggest a second 'for' before "academic".
 * Added
 * "examining the Holodomor, Tibet, Gulag, the Romani genocide, and the Cambodian genocide". This reads oddly to me. "Tibet to an extent, "Gulag" more so. "examining ... Gulag"? Perhaps 'the Gulag'? Although personally I would explain both Tibet and the Gulag a little more fully. (And in English.)
 * Added explanation
 * "Army Radio". A brief explanation (an Israeli Defence Force operated radio station[?]) linked to Army Radio would be more comprehensible.
 * Added explanation
 * Page range for Charny 1998?
 * Added

Impressive, as usual. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:27, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much for your comments! (t &#183; c)  buidhe  05:00, 21 January 2021 (UTC)


 * A minor suggestion above, otherwise this looks very good. Supporting. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:25, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Side note (just passing through) per MOS:ALLCAPS, titles of articles should not be in all capitals. Please fix. Ealdgyth (talk) 18:00, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * For articles I try to use the same capitalization as used by the source. For example, this article is capitalized in the same way in the article as in the source. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  20:05, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * "Reduce ... titles from all caps to title case – or to sentence case if required by the citation style established in the article." Gog the Mild (talk) 21:38, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah, sorry, looks like you have already sorted it. There are a couple of sources with no cites pointing to them. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:40, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Good catch, now removed! (t &#183; c)  buidhe  02:49, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Accessibility review

 * The image is missing alt text. Heartfox (talk) 02:04, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Added (t &#183; c)  buidhe  17:29, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Vanamonde
Thanks for bringing this here. As always, feel free to revert or discuss any copyedits I make. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:34, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I was somewhat unfavorably struck by the position of the paragraph about the Armenian genocide. I agree that that content belongs in the article, as the controversy about the conference isn't comprehensible without it; but I would strongly prefer to see it folded into the preparation section, which may need to be retitled; as things stand, the body of the article begins with content seemingly tangential, whose connection has yet to be established. Similarly, I would prefer if you could establish the relevance of that paragraph for any nitpickers by additionally citing any sources that discuss the armenian genocide in relation to the conference.
 * Integrated into the preparation section. Problem is that the sources that specifically focus on the conference simply assume that the genocide is a reality without going into detail, Auron and Baer books talk about the genocide at the very beginning of the book and the conference in a different section. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  19:58, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I think this flows much better. I think my initial concern with the Chorbaijan source was valid, because unless I'm mistaken it doesn't mention the conference; but I think the necessity for background about the Armenian genocide is made clear by the rest of the sources. I am okay with this, but I think it worth mentioning, because other reviewers have opposed on similar points before. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:13, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * "on 20 April 1982 (Yom HaShoah)." Is the fact that this occurred on Yom HaShoah significant in any way? If so, I would suggest at the very least translating that term, and incorporating it into the sentence, rather than placing it in parentheses; to someone who doesn't know the term refers to a day, it's confusing.
 * Removed
 * "Jak Veissid, the president of the Turkish Jewish community" surely he was president of an organization seeking to represent the community; an ethnic community doesn't usually have a president, does it?
 * His proper name is Yako Veissid, he was a lawyer ("advocat") and counselor to the Chief Rabbi of Turkey. The best expression for his position would be "Lay Council Chair" (See footnote 57, p. 221 of Bali's (2012) "Model Citizens of the State".)--Goldsztajn (talk) 22:21, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The majority of English language sources spell his name Jak Veissid (cited ones, as well as various news articles: etc.) I had changed to "the chairman of the board of the Turkish Jewish Community" based on the cited sources. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  22:28, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Adding "board" here seems to only continue the problem, most readers unfamiliar with community practices (ie lay vs religious structures) will not necessarily understand the distinction (especially if there is no possibility to link to an equivalent of the [[Board of Deputies of British Jews|

Board of Deputies]]). "Lay Council Chairman" is the term used in Rifat Bali's text. Is there a reason to prefer news coverage over that of an academic specialist of Turkey's Jewish community? --Goldsztajn (talk) 23:47, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I changed to "lay council" since you think it's a better term. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  23:53, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

That's everything from me; comments mostly have to do with organization. If you feel so inclined, one of my FACs is languishing for lack of participation, and comments would be welcome; no pressure, of course. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:34, 9 February 2021 (UTC) Marginally hesitant support; all my comments have been addressed to my satisfaction, but I think this is on the lower end of the spectrum of detail that is workable for an FA. This isn't on you, Buidhe, so far as I can tell, but some subjects are always going to be borderline, given the state of the source material. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:50, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The "Attempted cancellation" section leaves me a little confused; I'll lay out my concerns, which I suspect may be addressed by slight reordering:
 * We learn that the Turkish authorities learned of the conference, but the Turkish actions are not directly referred to until much later in the section
 * Reordered
 * Arazi's "our" seems to include Veissid; but Veissid was a Turkish subject (right?) and Arazi was an Israeli official; why would they be making the same effort?
 * The source doesn't shed light on this question (I interpret him referring only to Israeli efforts). Any attempt to clarify would be WP:OR.
 * "At the time, spokesmen for the Israeli foreign ministry" at what time?
 * Removed
 * It's implied, but never stated, that the Turkish government pressured the Israeli government into trying to cancel the conference. Can we say this directly at the outset, perhaps?
 * Directly stated, following the discussion of Turkish pressure on Israel.
 * "used it to convince Charny and his other partners to cancel the conference" they didn't cancel, though; so this quote is a bit confusing...I would slightly prefer to see it paraphrased, thereby avoiding ambiguity.
 * Removed this part of the quote
 * This section is much better, but a few more thoughts:
 * I think the first paragraph needs to be reworked such that the content about Veissid being sent by the Turkish government is in the second sentence. It is the necessary context for the rest of that paragraph.
 * I would suggest switching paragraphs two and three. At the moment, Azari's comments are analytical, but say very little about what actually happened; that is clarified in para 3, where you say that the Israeli government tried to cancel the conference. Analysis seems to precede description. Switching would also address the issue with the "our" in Azari's quote, because that is implicitly the Israeli government.
 * Done both. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  01:42, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * "Charny refused" is repeated twice in two sentences.
 * Reworded
 * Dershowitz is surely best known as a lawyer, rather than a scholar?
 * Done.
 * "preventing any notices that it had not been cancelled from being printed in newspapers" how does the Israeli government have the power to do this? Is the Israeli press censored? Not meant as a challenge, genuinely curious.
 * Auron states that "There was a crucial period of eight days preceding the conference when the organizers could not get a news story into any paper to announce that the conference was taking place." and the Israeli government "controlling the press go[es] beyond the legitimate exercise of government power in a realistic conflict of interests with a group of academics." Israel does have freedom of the press in general, but on the other hand there is nothing preventing the government for asking (probably giving a weighty reason such as "national security") and the papers complying. (My WP:OR interpretation).
 * "...most science, which aims to be objective and value-free" surely there is not consensus on this among the social and historical sciences...
 * The source states, "According to the standard view, science should be free from religious or moral values. Scientists may, as human beings, condemn genocide and revere its victims. But these attitudes should not intrude upon their scientific work." I've changed it to "in contrast to the view that science should be objective and value-free".
 * The statement about the invasion of Lebanon strikes me as a bit out of place, though I can't come up with a much better location; perhaps in "Preparation", though, given that it is before the conference?
 * Done
 * "condemned the behavior of Yad Vashem and Israel's refusal to recognize the Armenian Genocide" this is the first time Israel's refusal has been mentioned; it belongs also with the content about Turkish denial, surely?
 * Added mention of this into the preparation section
 * "Although Balkan denied this, Turkish interference in the museum and threats to Jews have been documented in other sources" I'd suggest restructuring this to avoid implying that Balkan is fibbing, unless the sources explicitly state this; perhaps include the denial with the previous sentence? After all, the second piece does not directly affect the veracity of Balkan's denial.
 * Auron states that Freeman "said he had been warned then that, if the Armenian issue was to be part of the museum, the safety of Jews in Turkey would be threatened and Turkey might pull out of NATO. The Turkish diplomat, Mithat Balkan, an embassy counselor in Washington, denied the accusations. Turkish interference in the program of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum is witnessed by other sources", citing Linethal.
 * In that case, I would suggest clarifying what exactly Balkan is denying; perhaps "denied any such threats", or equivalent. At the moment, the logical interpretation is that he denied telling Freedman anything. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:30, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The article strikes me as somewhat short. I did a sweep for sources myself, and came up with nothing new, so I cannot really take issue with this; but I am also not an expert here.
 * I added a bit more info in the Boghossian article about fringe events There is also some details about specific funders that didn't make it into the article, but I'm concerned about keeping the article concise and on topic.
 * I think the new content is good, but I was hoping more for content about the conference's impact. If it doesn't exist, it doesn't exist, nothing to be done. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:30, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Nope, couldn't find any despite searching through several pages of Google Scholar results. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  01:42, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much for your feedback! I wasn't aware you had a FAC open, which is it? (t &#183; c)  buidhe  23:51, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Drive-by comments from Goldsztajn

 * The lede indicates that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs acted to shut down the conference following Turkish threats to close its borders to Jews leaving Iran or Syria. In the "Attempted cancellation" section, the text mentions Ministry attempts to stop the conference before the issue of the closing of the Turkish border is discussed. Did the Ministry intervene before (and after) the issue of Turkey closing its borders arose?  The sequencing of events here is not precise. (concur with 's points here, too)
 * Reordered and added explicit statement about Turkish pressure and the Israeli reaction
 * Preparation section: "Of three hundred planned lectures" ... conferences usually have papers, panels, presentations.
 * Two of three sources say "lectures", the other one says "papers". I went with the more common term, but am willing to change if you think that "papers" is more accurate. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  22:34, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I guess it is a matter of style; I leave for you to choose. FWIW, to my (convoluted) experience of academic English, lectures are what undergraduates attend and during which take notes, conferences are where academics give papers for comment/discussion amongst peers. To my mind a lecture is a form of hierarchical learning, a conference paper intended as peer engagement. --Goldsztajn (talk) 03:01, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Regards,--Goldsztajn (talk) 13:42, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Preparation section: "as well as one of the first conferences to deal with the Armenian Genocide" the author of both sources for this statement is "involved", so to speak. Are there any independent secondary sources to support this claim?  Is "deal" too strong a word to use in this case?  Three sentences later, the text states that only 6 of 300 contributions covered the Armenian Genocide...in the first part we have a statement emphasising the importance of the subject in the conference, in the second a statement de-emphasising its significance in order to highlight Turkish state over-reaction. Turkish state over-reaction is of course the far more notable issue and Charney's statement "the first academic conference in the world up until that time that gave recognition to the Armenian Genocide" I suspect is difficult to independently verify (I wonder if the implication here is "gave recognition" meaning something more than discuss/debate etc?).
 * Removed this claim since I was not able to find it in independent sources. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  22:35, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Last sentence: "On later occasions, Israel has also given in to Turkish demands regarding the Armenian Genocide." "Israel acceded to" rather than "given in"...adding at least one example here would be appropriate.
 * Done both.
 * I appreciate your feedback. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  00:24, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Support by Borsoka

 * The main text states that "the conference marked the shift from viewing genocide as an irrational phenomenon to one that could be studied and understood". You may want to mention it in the lead, because I understand that this was the most important scientific result of the conference. Borsoka (talk) 16:37, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Consider consolidating the lead into two paragraphs. Borsoka (talk) 16:37, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate your ability to present this highly controversial issue neutrally. I have been unable to decide what would have been your decision as an organizer. Please never reveal it. :) Thank you for this interesting and informative article. Borsoka (talk) 16:37, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I've implemented both suggestions. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  19:31, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Source review
Will do soon, might enter for 5 WikiCup points. Hog Farm Talk 16:41, 16 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Worldcat suggests that the Colwill PhD thesis as an OCLC you can add
 * Sources appear to be reliable
 * "Of three hundred planned lectures, six were devoted to the Armenian Genocide" - What do Sherman and Ben Aharon say? Auron says 150 lectures.  In fact, the 150 number is given in Auron twice.
 * Sherman gives the figure of 300; Ben Aharon states "Among numerous discussions on the Holocaust and current developments in genocide research, there would also be six lectures and panels on the Armenian genocide". I tried to confirm which number is correct in the original source, but it doesn't appear to say. The reason I though the higher figure was more reliable was that Auron also states that half of the researchers didn't attend, and he refers to an "originally expected 600 researchers", which makes the low figure seem less likely. But perhaps I should reword the sentence not to give an exact figure? (t &#183; c)  buidhe  05:59, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * My inclination would be to find a way to reference both numbers. I think having some sort of indication of total number of lectures is necessary, so the proportion of six lectures on Armenia can be determined.  At least to me, Auron's One hundred and fifty lectures were scheduled to be held, six of them dealing with the Armenian genocide on pp 217-218 and a mention later on p. 218 of As mentioned, of 150 lectures on the subject of the Holocaust and different cases of genocide, only six were scheduled to deal with the Armenian genocide is decent support for the low number.  Since the direct statements of numbers are just Auron's 150 vs Sherman's 300 right now, I'm not convinced that it's really a good idea to pick Sherman over Auron without the support of other sources.  If several other sources support the 300 total lectures, then there's a case for ignoring Auron's total or relegating it to a footnote, but I don't think that Sherman alone is that much stronger than Auron alone. Hog Farm Talk 06:14, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I was thinking something like: "Over 100 lectures(footnote) Footnote: Charny says 150, Sherman says 300." I've looked but can't immediately locate anything that would corroborate either figure. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  07:25, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * That seems reasonable to me. Hog Farm Talk 14:18, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Added! Many thanks for the source review. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  21:29, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I checked a number of references, and everything is presented fairly, without close paraphrasing, and appears to be properly supported by the source. A search for unused reliable sources didn't bring anything up that appears to be of particularly significance. Hog Farm Talk 05:11, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * pass on source reliability, text-source integrity, copyright compliance, comprehensiveness, and well-researched. Hog Farm Talk 21:57, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

 * "no Turkish government has acknowledged that any crime was committed against the Armenian people;[6][7] attempts to enlist other countries in this denial date to the 1920s". Not acknowledging and denying are two different things.
 * I'm not sure what change you're looking to have made here? Virtually every reliable source, including those cited, classifies the Turkish government position as Armenian Genocide denial.
 * I am not questioning the fact, just looking for clarity of expression. You say that they did not acknowledge it, which could mean that they were sometimes non-committal. I think that the first part should be e.g. "all Turkish governments have denied that any crime was committed". Dudley Miles (talk) 23:42, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Done. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  09:39, 27 February 2021 (UTC)


 * "A few weeks before the conference opened" You have mentioned the dates in the lead, but not so far in the main text.
 * Done
 * "According to Charny, a few months before the conference, he and the other organizers began to receive requests from the Israeli foreign ministry to cancel the conference." You say that the Turks only learnt about the conference two months before it started. Did the foreign ministry act before the Turks? If so, you should say so.
 * There's no indication that "a few months" was earlier than April, or that the Israelis acted preemptively.
 * I would take a few to mean a minimum of two, not a maximum. As above, it is a matter of clarity of expression. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:42, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if there's anything I can do to clarify the time frame without WP:OR, since the source says "Israel Charny claims that a few months before the conference, he, Wiesel and Davidson started to receive implicit and explicit messages from Israel’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs encouraging them to cancel the conference."


 * "hosted a reception for some of the visitors at the Armenian Patriarchate of Jerusalem.[17] According to Armenian-American historian Richard Hovannisian, it was "crippled" but went forward "with a renewed sense of purpose"." You seem to be saying that the reception was crippled, but presumably you mean the conference.
 * Fixed
 * "Arazi told him that reason for the Israeli intervention was "our commitment to relations with Turkey"" Told who?
 * Clarified
 * " In 1983, Israeli diplomat Alon Liel [he] cited Israel's interference in the conference to appease Turkish anger over a program on the Armenian Genocide broadcast on Army Radio, the official radio station of the Israel Defense Forces, during which Yehuda Bauer had discussed similarities between the methods of extermination of the Nazis and the Young Turks." I am not sure what this sentence is saying.
 * Rephrased
 * This is an interesting article but the title is misleading as it is really about the Turkish attempt to suppress the conference. The article is thin on the conference itself. I think you either need to change the article name or have more on the conference. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:33, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, yes, it's mainly notable because of censorship (Streisand effect) but on the other hand, the article covers the entire conference as its topic. RS don't have much more to say on the conference itself but I see no reason to narrow the topic by moving to a different name. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  19:13, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * You say "it marked the shift from viewing genocide as an irrational phenomenon to one that could be studied and understood". In the long run this seems to me more important than the short term bad publicity for the Turks, and I would like to see more about this aspect if you have relevant sources. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:42, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree that it would be ideal to expand the part about impacts of the conference. Unfortunately, I couldn't find any more information on that aspect. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  09:39, 27 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Support. A first rate article. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:08, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 13:30, 28 February 2021 (UTC)