Talk:Armenian genocide

Merge proposal from "Rescue of Armenians during the Genocide"

I propose merging the information from Rescue of Armenians during the Genocide to this page.

I think the content in other page is highly relevant but also so short that it might as well just be included here. That work might need to occur alongside analysis of the source problem flags that exist on the "rescue of..." page. Armeym (talk) 01:43, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Oppose This is a featured article, it already contains all the content that it should. A better solution would be expanding the rescue article. I recommend Mouradian's The Resistance Network as a source. (t · c) buidhe 01:56, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Oppose However it must be merged into Rescue of Armenians during the Armenian genocide, since they deal with the same topic.--RekishiEJ (talk) 02:23, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Armenian Genocide death toll infobox

@Buidhe I saw you put the range, but I put "around 1 million" to similarly match the one for the Holocaust. A book by historian [[Richard G. Hovannisian]] puts the toll between 600,000 to 2 million, with a United Nations report putting it at around 1 million. Should the whole range be put or an approximate value? Reaper1945 (talk) 03:19, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

We had discussion about this a while back, and there was consensus to put the 600,000 to 1.5 million range in the infobox if one was included. 2 million is not credible according to recent scholarship (although 1.5 isn't well supported either). (t · c) buidhe 03:21, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Got it, I'll check for any recent clarifications of the death toll if there have been any made in the 2020s, if not, the 2019 source you provided seems best then. The source by Richard G. Hovannisian is from 1999, though may have some relatively good information. Reaper1945 (talk) 03:24, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

• The truth is that 1.5 million (or up to 1.5 million, for instance 1.2 million, 1.3 million) is very well supported (see Archives for this talk containing a myriad of RSs supporting these figures) and are widely used among genocide scholars, politicians, legislators, human rights activists, international lawyers, etc. Your lousy “around one million” is not well supported. Proof? There is no single reference in the opening para supporting that figure. Would you stop misleading your readers and insulting the professionalism of specialists in this subject area, please?73.173.64.115 (talk) 20:47, 29 April 2024 (UTC)Davidian

This editor (t · c) buidhe, for years now, stubbornly refuses (as if she owns the article, which is against Wikipedia's rules and regulations) to place the death toll range in the opening sentence. Many "battles" were fought on these Talk pages to remind her, over and over again, that in order to maintain a neutral point of view, Wikipedia editors MUST include ALL significant points of view with appropriate attributions. See: WP:CONFLICTING. It's to no avail. It's like spitting into the wind...73.173.64.115 (talk) 22:11, 2 May 2024 (UTC)Davidian

Berliner Tageblatt, 4 May 1915 Newspaper Source

When I checked the newspaper source mentioned in the article and book, I do not see anything related to this topic in both morning and evening editions dated 4 May 1915. So, this source should be removed.

Here are links of those editions, you can check:

1, Morning: https://www.deutsche-digitale-bibliothek.de/newspaper/item/SXUBVSELYJ6H5T7YE27H43WICSTZQOSZ?issuepage=1

2, Evening: https://www.deutsche-digitale-bibliothek.de/newspaper/item/G3BAA2LRGIH2UGC3ROEJKCI3MR4DH36F?issuepage=1 Spiny14 (talk) 17:10, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

The quote is real as you can easily verify with Google, it's even the title of of a Swedish book. It's possible that the date is wrong (t · c) buidhe 18:32, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

According to Ihrig, the quote is from "Wilhelm Feldmann, “Unterredung mit Talaat Bei: Die Völker des türkischen Reiches im Kriege,” Berliner Tageblatt, 4 May 1915."

However, there seems to be a typo as it was actually 1916:

• Bozarslan et al. says it was in "May 1916" but don't provide a date, they got it indirectly.
• Gunter Levy (not really a RS), puts it on 5 May 1916[1]
• There's another source that says 4 May 1916[2]
• Hovannisian says 1916[3]

So I will change it to say May 1916

subsequent to me writing the article, this exact quote seems to have been lifted repeatedly by various students and newspapers. I guess it was the right decision to block quote it. (t · c) buidhe 01:18, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Update:I found the interview in the Berliner Tageblatt und Handels-Zeitung, Morgen-Ausgabe Donnerstag, 04.05.1916. p. 4 (upper right corner) (t · c) buidhe 04:56, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

"Second most studied" genocide

This is indeed a very strong claim that I cannot confirm in other sources. (If you look at Google scholar results, there are significantly more for the Rwandan genocide than the Armenian genocide.) Regardless, we're going to need a stronger source than one book by Bartrop to include this claim. I wonder how he arrived at this conclusion, or if he just cites Rummel from 1998. (t · c) buidhe 04:46, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Since there is no response, I'm removing it. (t · c) buidhe 06:24, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Paul Bartrop is a legitimate source as a historian, looking on Google Scholar alone is original research in of itself to deny what something may be. Is there any actual source which states that the Rwandan genocide is studied more than the Armenian genocide? Reaper1945 (talk) 00:27, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

There are a lot of genocides in history, so the claim of "second most studied" requires more support than you have shown. WP:REDFLAG

If only one recent source says it, regardless of whether I thought it was true, I would have to argue for exclusion because of WP:UNDUE. Everything in this article could have several citations behind it! (t · c) buidhe 01:59, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 May 2024

The annotation concerning number of Armenians killed in the box on the right doesn,t prove given number. In the text it is stated: "(...) one milion or so (...)". Eleczeks (talk) 17:52, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: The source provided does support the numbers given. See Google Books EvergreenFir (talk) 18:02, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

A multitude of RSs—provided a while ago and now kept in the Archives—indicate that the number of Armenians mass murdered, according to many reputable genocide scholars, genocide prevention experts, late Ottoman era historians, leading politicians, and international lawyers, ranges from over a million to 1.5 million. This has been more than once brought to the attention of this editor (t · c) buidhe. But she continues to keep a voluntarily rounded figure of “around one million” in the opening paragraph (why voluntarily? because, for all readers to see, the figure is not supported by any reference). While other editors prefer to turn a blind eye on this sheer violation of WP:CONFLICTING.73.173.64.115 (talk) 17:02, 25 May 2024 (UTC)Davidian

some unnecessary details

I appreciate your effort to document that they came centuries before the Turks, but there is no need for this, it seems that a great deal of effort was spent to support all the claims and dilute the counter arguments, there was no need for this because no one said that the Armenians came later.

However, it may be necessary to investigate what happened to the people who lived in those lands before the Armenians after the Armenians arrived. 188.57.55.75 (talk) 00:45, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

The fact that the Armenian people have lived in the region since -600 shows that their lives continued without any serious threat for 2400 years and that the problems started to occur in the last 200 years. This may also help us establish a cause-effect relationship. 188.57.55.75 (talk) 00:49, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

No, we're not going to insert WP:NOR speculations about why the Armenian genocide happened—the article already covers the scholarly consensus. (t · c) buidhe 01:37, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

It is a pity that you see the efforts to improve the article as speculation. The only reason for this is the "consensus of historians". Locking down other additions and references by a group of historians saying "we think this way" can be a harmful action that seems beneficial from the outside.

Even though there is no cause-effect relationship, we can see different references that remind us of these. The problem is that you do not see that this desire to protect the article may hinder not only your efforts to protect it, but also its development. 77.67.227.121 (talk) 11:08, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

There's just one sentence on the pre-Turk presence of Armenians. It's hard to see that as excessive detail. I can't speak on how great the deal of effort was, but it's just two citations. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:39, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

I would like to point out that stating that the Armenian people existed before the Turks, not that the Armenian people have existed for a long time, is an attempt to support the article. The idea of ​​"we've been here before" doesn't look good in a scientific paper. There is no harm in stating the year -600.

I think that the article can be improved further if interested authors write different articles describing the socio-cultural structure of the Armenian people and their life in the region and make various references. 77.67.227.121 (talk) 11:03, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

If you read the studies in detail, you can understand how incomplete the article is. However, it may make you question whether providing only a superficial explanation of the subject and hiding behind "academic consensus" really harms the article. You don't need to do a lot of research for this. If you read one decent study, you can see that this article is not actually that good.

188.57.55.75 The conversation with the IP address belongs to me. 77.67.227.121 (talk) 11:14, 1 June 2024 (UTC)