Talk:FactCheckArmenia.com

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Yoninah (talk) 23:28, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that FactCheckArmenia.com falsely claimed that "No Armenians were harmed" during the deportation of Armenian intellectuals on 24 April 1915? Source: https://www.poynter.org/fact-checking/2017/these-fake-fact-checkers-are-peddling-lies-about-genocide-and-censorship-in-turkey/

• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Donat Henchy O'Brien

Created by Buidhe (talk). Self-nominated at 11:39, 20 November 2020 (UTC).

• : hook fact is interesting, verified. Article is neutral, referenced to reliable sources, free of copyvio, new and long enough. I've checked some of the references, and they line up. QPQ is fine. LGTM, nice work! Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:59, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

• Hi, I came by to promote this, but the article seems terribly one-sided. Often we have to encourage editors to look for something bad to say about a subject, but here I wonder if there's anything good to say to balance out the presentation? Otherwise it seems sort of a public-service announcement to stay away from this organization. Yoninah (talk) 22:19, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

• There are some things that I'd say there really aren't two sides to and in looking at the sourcing it seems like this is one of them. All reliable gsearch results are controversies about the organisation engaging genocide denial and the like. I'll of course wait to hear buidhe's thoughts, but I really couldn't see a way to present the organisation in a better light than the article does (which is to say, there isn't much good to say). Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:27, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
• (ec) Well, that's the issue. I literally couldn't find any reliable sources that portray this website positively. I just went through Google results and added a couple of books, but both didn't have any praise for the website. (t · c) buidhe 22:56, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

• OK, thanks. It does read dispassionately. Restoring tick per Eddie891's review. Yoninah (talk) 23:26, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

NPOV

Hello @Buidhe:

Can you please tell me what is NPOV about this edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=FactCheckArmenia.com&oldid=1061665094 ?

I had already removed the section headings. I realized that was over the top. But the rest is just the same content better expressed.

Thank you for your opinion, I hope to hear it.

Thanks--217.149.166.11 (talk) 03:42, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't see it as an improvement. With controversial organizations it's often preferred to start with the stated purpose and then move on to independent evaluations. We can't say that the website is Turkish since the sources just say it has connections to the Turkish government. Your version uses "scare quotes" which are to be avoided in encyclopedic style. Also "Ermeni Kırımı" is not the Turkish for "Armenian genocide" (that would be Ermeni soykırımı). And there's no need for phrases like "virtually all historical research and scholarship" that exaggerate and aren't supported by the cited sources. (t · c) buidhe 08:20, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Am I still allowed to make paragraph breaks and so on tho? I dont think the current version is readible217.149.166.11 (talk) 09:12, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Alright, I allowed myself to modify the page very slightly, with breaks added and repeated sources deleted. Let me know your thoughts--217.149.166.11 (talk) 09:17, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

These edits are fine. (t · c) buidhe 09:25, 23 December 2021 (UTC)