Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Armenian Genocide denial/archive1

TFA blurb review
Armenian genocide denial is the claim that the Ottoman Empire did not commit genocide against its Armenian citizens during World War I—a crime widely documented and affirmed by the vast majority of scholars. The perpetrators denied the genocide as they carried it out, and incriminating documents were systematically destroyed. Denial has been the policy of every government of the Republic of Turkey, and rests on the assumption that the "relocation" of Armenians was a legitimate state action, not deliberate extermination. Deniers claim the death toll is exaggerated or attribute the deaths to other factors. Historian Ronald Grigor Suny states that the main argument is "There was no genocide, and the Armenians were to blame for it." An important reason for this denial is that the genocide enabled the establishment of a Turkish nation-state; recognition would contradict Turkey's founding myths. The century-long denial of the genocide by the Turkish state sets it apart from other cases of genocide.

1,025 characters, including spaces.

Hi and congratulations. A draft blurb for this article is above. Thoughts, comments and edits from you or from anyone else interested are welcome. In particular I was torn between the current last sentence and a mention of Azerbaijan, see what you think. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:54, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm happy with it. Thanks so much for the blurb! (t &#183; c)  buidhe  17:39, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Ovinus
More to follow. Sincerely, Ovinus (talk) 02:43, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * In the first sentence: can we clarify that the CUP was led by Turks? With that information I think even someone unfamiliar with the genocide could grasp the lead.
 * The CUP was a party in the Ottoman Empire (Republic of Turkey only being founded in 1923), and many leading CUP members had non-Turkish origins such as Balkan Muslims, Circassians, etc. I have however rephrased to make it more clear that the genocide was orchestrated by the Ottoman state and its ruling party.
 * Thank you for that context, both in the article and for me.
 * Cites [2] and [3] are to be reckoned with... that's good, but I'm wondering whether a few of the super long quotes in cites are approaching a violation of WP:NFCC #3. I understand that the information cited is often annoyingly controversial and calls for direct quotes, but I've never seen so much long-form quoting in an article.
 * Before nominating, I tried to trim quotes as much as possible without removing essential information. I'm happy to trim more if that's deemed useful, but it would help to point to specific ones that could be reduced. I don't think the use of quotes currently violates NFCC.
 * I think I was being overly harsh, and looking closer, you're right. Thank you
 * Denial was an integral part of the killings, carried out under the guise of resettlement. Can we be more specific? Maybe Turkish officials ... etc. denied undertaking these killings, which were carried out under the guise of resettlement.
 * I'm not sure that's more specific, the key point that I am trying to make here is that, as one source states, "Denial of the Armenian Genocide began concurrently with and was a part of the Committee of Union and Progress’s (CUP) execution of it." (emph. added) We already said that CUP is the perpetrator of the genocide and denial was part of that perpetration.
 * Hm... the phrasing is a bit confusing imo. I imagined "Armenian Genocide denial" as a post-event phenomenon, and I now see that the point of this sentence is to note that it 1. began during the atrocity and 2. greatly helped the CUP commit it. I didn't get (1) and only kind of got (2). I think a similar phrasing to the source is actually better here: "Denial began during the killings, which were carried out under the guise of resettlement, and proved integral to their success/completion/efficacy." Something like that... it also shows a clearer connection as to why denial in particular helped their cause. Thoughts?
 * OK, I have rewritten it hopefully to be more clear. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  02:13, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Is there a reason why we use killing instead of murder in the article?
 * Both are used interchangeably in the sources, however, I think that sometimes "killing" helps maintain a more objective and WP:IMPARTIAL tone.
 * Got it, I generally agree? In The Holocaust "murder" is used sometimes, including in the first paragraph. Is this because of the Nuremberg trials and conviction of many Nazi leaders?
 * Well, I don't really object to the term murder (and it is accurate as de jure murder was never legalized in the Ottoman Empire and a few perpetrators were indeed convicted of murder) but going through the article I can't see anywhere that would be an improvement to use it rather than "killings".
 * Sounds good.
 * even any mention I think "any" can be removed here
 * Done
 * Turkish citizens who ... "insulting Turkishness" should probably insert a "some" in the front.
 * Done
 * The denial of the genocide is hypothesized to contribute to Is this really a hypothesis? This seems like something that could be pretty incontrovertible.
 * OK, removed the hedge
 * Otherwise, a great and succinct lead.
 * I appreciate your feedback! (t &#183; c)  buidhe  15:00, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Background
 * Hi, just a reminder. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:10, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the reminder, and apologies buidhe for disappearing. Ovinus (talk) 00:26, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * No problem, figured you were busy with IRL stuff. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  01:18, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * before the Turkish presence in the area Maybe just before Turkish presence in the area
 * Done
 * During its invasion of Russian and Persian territory, Ottoman paramilitaries massacred local Armenians What it "its"? Do you mean "their"
 * Reworded, technically it was the army that invaded.
 * Armenians barricaded themselves in Van to protect themselves from being massacred I think you can remove "from being massacred" or even "to protect ... massacred"
 * Removed, this seems clear from context
 * The vast majority of scholars outside of Turkey Maybe just non-Turkish scholars?
 * Done
 * Tried to simplify a sentence, but revert if you disagree. I think splitting the sentence would also work.

Origins
 * Made some hands-on changes, please check them (in particular, I changed "later" to "post-war")
 * Thanks for the copyedit!
 * Although often called the last stage of genocide, denial was present This first phrase is really striking, but a bit too abstract. It made me pause and think, "The last step of the act of genocide is denying it ever happened. Damn." But then I tripped up. I think separating it into two sentences would be appropriate: Denial is often called the "last stage of genocide", ... brief explanation .... But during the Armenian Genocide, denial was present .... Alternatively you could be a bit more direct and boring: Although denial usually begins after a genocide, during the Armenian Genocide, denial was ...
 * The stages statement comes from the model Eight stages of genocide, of which the eighth and last is denial. However, I don't think any of the alternative formulations is possible to use because in fact, many genocides are denied while carrying them out. For example, the Nazis told Jews that they were being resettled somewhere else rather than sent to extermination camps. I've just removed this clause as unnecessary.
 * Thinking about the ordered list from the Ottoman government. Is there a benefit to this "five characteristics" layout, rather than one or two sentences of prose?
 * Prosified
 * which rejected the charge that the Ottoman government tried to exterminate the Armenian people Can probably just say which rejected the charge of intentional/systematic extermination. If you don't think that's clear enough, could also do denying they had tried to exterminate the Armenian people
 * Done
 * Having read this subsection, I'm not sure about the relevance of the sentence She states that, "The most ... events."
 * Removed
 * Continuity between the Ottoman Empire and Republic of Turkey was significant Could we be specific, like "political continuity"
 * Well, "political continuity" is misleading because there was continuity on many other levels, i.e. geographic, demographic, cultural, religious, economic, ideological etc. (minus Greeks, Armenians, and Assyrians, of course).
 * Although everyone at the time acknowledged Who is everyone? I think "everyone" is a bit too informal/imprecise in this case
 * Reworded
 * Denial was consolidated during the early republican era What do you mean by consolidated? Like, there were a bunch of different patterns of denial that grew into one?
 * Quoting from the sources cited, "The fabrications were institutionalized in Turkey by Mustafa Kemal as the official narrative of denial about the Armenians" "Denial also emerged with the genocide itself, and was entrenched in the early years of the republic," I changed it to "entrenched" to be more clear.

In Turkey That's kinda prose/meaning stuff. I'll get to content once I finish the article. Sorry for my sluggishness. Cheers, Ovinus (talk) 18:48, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * should use "Talat" or "Talaat" consistently throughout
 * Now consistently has "Talat" except direct quotes.
 * "select intellectuals" Maybe find a better word here for neutrality, I normally wouldn't mind in this context we need to be careful
 * I am not sure there's a better way to represent the sources. Gurpinar states, the shifting of paradigms and the newly emerging critical approaches remained the preserve of academics. They remained debates within the elitist and left-liberal historiographical community, confined to the university campuses of the most prestigious universities in Istanbul and Ankara, and left-liberal intellectual milieus. and Erbal states, Most of the recent literature, including my dissertation, only takes into account a scholarly corpus produced mainly at established metropolitan universities in Turkey and the almost natural extension of those scholarly circles abroad. The work of this Istanbul- and partially Ankara-based academic establishment, which does not generally take into account the material produced elsewhere, does not undo the fact that there is a widespread denialist publishing industry within Turkey that Istanbul intellectuals have neither relation with nor power to change. Another way to phrase it would be "elite academics"—these people come from the best-ranked universities in Turkey—but I'm not sure that's an improvement.
 * I like "elite academics" better actually, it's more specific too I think. Maybe it's just me but "select intellectuals" sounds haughty
 * Done
 * made some changes, mostly prose and MOS stuff. Potentially contentious one was changing "Western scholars ignore" to "... generally ignore". I'd imagine they don't ignore it completely; while no serious scholar accepts it, they probably say that it's rubbish. but maybe you like the absolute statement. Also, I significantly changed a thing in education but I think I preserved the meaning? Damnit, I realize now that I should have done this in several commits, one for the uncontentious ones. Sorry about that; you can list the changes you want reverted and I'll do selectively undo them
 * Thanks for your copyedits! I checked them and I found them all to be improvements.
 * Awesome :)
 * "demonizing" Feels a bit too charged, maybe that's just me. Maybe "presenting Armenians as wicked enemies of the state."
 * I changed to "vilify", is that better? I am seeking a word that captures: 1) extremely negative portrayal, beyond just being opponents or competitors and 2) racist aspect, as stated in the sources.
 * Great!
 * "took an approach to history that denigrated" It's a bit vague how you "approach" history... are you saying that the AKP approached history assuming the Young Turks were bad? also "denigrate" implies unfairness which is probably not NPOV
 * Changed to "critical"
 * "approach controversial topics" Maybe just "discuss"? Or is that too definite
 * Done
 * I appreciate your comments! (t &#183; c)  buidhe  09:50, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Some more
 * "Motivated by the antisemitic idea of a global Jewish conspiracy, the Turkish foreign ministry has recruited Turkish Jews to participate in denialist efforts." Maybe just say "the idea of a global Jewish conspiracy" and wikilink the conspiracy to antisemitic canard or something like that? I think the "antisemitic" bit inline distracts from the main point, but I don't feel too strongly about it
 * Done
 * "defeat resolutions recognizing the Armenian genocide" In which countries?
 * Baer doesn't say exactly, I'm guessing that he is referring to US and possibly Israel.
 * "Turkish Jewish leaders helped defeat resolutions recognizing the genocide" may be a bit too broad; how about "Recruited leaders helped defeat..."
 * The source makes it clear that the Turkish Jewish community leadership has generally supported the Turkish state on this issue.
 * "German nationalists instead portrayed what they acknowledged as the intentional extermination of the Armenian people as justified. When the Bundestag voted to recognize the Armenian Genocide in 2016" Whoa there, we just jumped 100 years. Is there any information on the interim? otherwise, paragraph break?
 * Not really, but I did change the paragraph break and add 1 sentence.
 * Thing for you to check: I changed "key air bases in Turkey" to "key Turkish air bases", but I'm not sure whether these air bases are actually OWNED by Turkey
 * I believe that your edit is accurate.
 * "In 2019, both houses of Congress passed resolutions formally recognizing the genocide." Maybe a bit more info on this; surely this caused some Turkish uproar?
 * I double checked and can't find anything more than the usual expressions of disapproval that occur whenever any country recognizes it. (Except for one gem from the opposition Good Party: "We will retaliate against it with our decision to name our children Enver, Cemal and Talat." But this was not widely reported so I'm going to say WP:UNDUE.)
 * "Foundation for the Promotion and Recognition of Turkey Prize" Is this prize significant? Who bestowed it?
 * The implication in the source is that it was bestowed by some entity linked to the government, but I can't find more info on it (probably translated different ways, if I had to guess). I could also remove if you think that's better.
 * according to Marc Mamigonian, became "one of the key texts of modern denial" is Mamigonian referring to the singular book, or the series?
 * Clarified
 * saying he "goofed" I don't find this small direct quote necessary, seems nonneutral
 * Rephrased

The rest

I think that's it for prose nitpicking, so I'll think about organization/completeness next. Ovinus (talk) 04:34, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Until the Turkish state acknowledges genocide, "there is a potential there, always, that it can do it again" I think this needs to be attributed inline. I assumed Akçam wrote it
 * Clarified attribution
 * Meditated on this. The article is long but manageable, and seems comprehensive; I can't think of anything to add, at least. I do wonder if the "Examination of claims" section should be moved to preceding "In Turkey". I think I shall support on prose and comprehensiveness. Thx for your hard work, buidhe. Cheers, Ovinus (talk) 07:34, 4 April 2021 (UTC)