Wikipedia

Template:Did you know nominations/Press coverage of the Armenian Genocide

< Template:Did you know nominations
The following discussion 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: rejected by Allen3 talk 11:04, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
Withdrawn by nominator

DYK toolbox

Press coverage of the Armenian Genocide edit

(
)

December 15, 1915 New York Times article headline

  • Reviewed: Hammet Street, Taunton
  • Comment: Article moved to Wikipedia database from Yerevanci's userspace on July 12

Created by Yerevanci (talk). Nominated by Proudbolsahye at 03:55, 16 July 2013 (UTC).

  • Reviewed and good 2 go. Length, prose, sources all check out. Good work.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:08, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I have returned this one from prep per this discussion. Gatoclass (talk) 13:41, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
The date of article creation, expansion for this July 16 nomation:
  • Article created by Yerevanci in their user page on July 1, 2013 and by July 2 had 317 characters of readable prose. It was a list of articles, a few bare URLs, and a one-sentence lead.
  • A July 12 expansion by Yerevanci and Proudbolsahye expanded the list, cleared up the bare URLs and brought the (lead) article to 391 characters of readable prose. Article was moved to mainspace on this date.
  • Expansion July 13 through July 18 by Yerevanci and Proudbolsahye brought the readable prose to 2674 characters of readable prose.
Although recent DYK discussions of Newness criteria mention it is possible for noms older than 5 days to be accepted, the history should be listed here. — Maile (talk) 14:08, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
DYKcheck shows 5x expansion began on July 16. --Orlady (talk) 14:16, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

This nomination could easily be changed to 5x expanded rather than created. SL93 (talk) 14:30, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand why the July 13 edit would be included. It was only adding wikimarkup. SL93 (talk) 14:38, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Article was moved from Yerevancis user page to the mainspace on July 16. Its a new article. Proudbolsahye (talk) 14:41, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
The above diff on July 16 was a move within mainspace, to a more appropriate name for the article. The history says it was moved from userspace on July 12, but I'm sorry I didn't catch that when I posted above. I've changed my first posting to include this. — Maile (talk) 17:29, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Oh, that's great to know. Even if it wasn't moved to mainspace on that day, this could still be promoted considering July 14 was adding wikimarkup and July 15 was removing wikimarkup. SL93 (talk) 14:45, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I am going to recommend rejection of this one. Per my comments at WT:DYK, I just don't see how a list of newspaper articles can be of encyclopaedic value, and a list of this type is almost certain to remain POV due to cherry picking. Gatoclass (talk) 15:06, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Alright, but it should be just that, a recommendation. SL93 (talk) 15:08, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
  • The general consensus presents the Armenian Genocide as fact and not a two sided story Gatoclass may presume. Above all, the denial of the Armenian Genocide is a phenomenon that occurred decades after the event occurred as a sort of retaliatory measure against overwhelming claims of Genocide by the Armenian and international communities at large. More importantly, Turkey is actually the first country to recognize the massacres as a state sponsored program in 1920 with a verdict issued against the perpetrators that condemned them to death (See: Verdict and indictment). With most of the press articles alluding to the systematic nature of the massacres and with a brief description about that in the lead, I do not see any POV issues with this article. If for any reason Wikipedian users feel compelled to create a "Press coverage of Armenian Genocide denial" or "Press coverage of massacres of Turks" etc. etc. article(s), they may feel free to do so. However, I highly doubt it will remain an article for the reasons mentioned above. Proudbolsahye (talk) 15:59, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Time to suspend discussion. The article is now at AFD. --Orlady (talk) 17:26, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Okay, but I think it should be emphasized that AFD only determines whether a topic is suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia, it rarely draws conclusions about content, so a pass at AFD in no way translates to a pass at DYK. The content of this article looks far from NPOV to me and seems unlikely to achieve it any time soon, in which case I would have to maintain my opposition to promotion. Gatoclass (talk) 15:55, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
The article is in line with the general consensus of Wikipedia which presents the Armenian Genocide as fact. Just like any other story, there may be two-sides, however, the side that presents it as fact has been the one adopted by the Wikipedia community through a consensus, while the other side, a minority position pushed by the Government of Turkey, has not. Take a glance at the article Armenian Genocide for example, it is not called the "So-called Armenian Genocide" or "Armenian Genocide allegations" and etc. All denialist articles and opinons are held seperate from any article related to the Genocide and that ANY denialist source is considered unreliable. More importantly however, this article is special in regards of portraying the intent of exterminating the Armenian population in Turkey and the international communities media coverage during the time it was happening. There is no conceivable doubt that these articles did exist and published what is stated. Might I also add that up until 1923, the Turkish government itself acknowledged the Armenian Genocide (See: Verdict and indictment) becoming the first country in the world to do so. Denialist literature came decades after any one of the listed newspaper articles, but that shouldn't matter anyways. As Taner Akcam said, "It may look amazing, but the reality that what happened in 1915 was a mass murder that was accepted by everybody having lived in that period, and was never the object of an argument." Therefore, I highly doubt there is any argument DURING the time-span of the media coverage that presents these newspaper articles as "lies", "unreliable" and having never been published. Even if there is such argument, the source will come from a later time-period and very likely be deemed unreliable. With that said, the article is NPOV and will remain as is until anyone can come and present a reliable third-party source during the time of the media coverage (1890-1922) that states the all international media is unreliable and that there is another side of an argument. Even if such articles are presented, I highly doubt that the information and factual basis of the source will be in anyway reliable. Proudbolsahye (talk) 17:23, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Article is kept. Proudbolsahye (talk) 07:40, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Okay, since I've had some more time to think about this nomination, I have decided to modify my position to some degree. I previously recommended rejection, but I might be persuaded to change my mind providing two conditions are met. Firstly, the list of newspaper articles/links would have to go because IMO it can never be anything other than a cherry-picked list. Secondly, the prose portion of the article would have to be expanded because it is currently too insubstantial and too off-topic. Whatever remains would then of course have to meet all the usual content policies. Gatoclass (talk) 07:54, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
There is no cherry-picking involved since there is no "two-sides" of the story when it comes to the Armenian Genocide due to the general consensus of Wikipedia as stated in the AfD by myself and others. I shall place what I have wrote in the discussion at AfD here:

Introducing "two-sides" of the story goes against the general consensus of Wikipedia and the arbitrary regulations under WP:ARBAA2. The side that presents the genocide as fact has been the one adopted by the Wikipedia community through a consensus, while the other side, a minority position pushed by the Government of Turkey, has not. More importantly, this article isn't about massacres...it's about a genocide or in other words, the systematic and purposeful massacre of a race. The race in this case is the Armenian race. Current Wikipedia consensus does not allow us to present any the other "side of the argument" and present it as fact. In fact, if that happens, the user may be risk being banned from editing any articles related to Armenia under WP:ARBAA2.

and added...

Denialist literature, whether it be the Holocaust or the Armenian Genocide, is always held separate from Armenian Genocide/Holocaust related articles. In fact, denialist sources and references are considered unreliable and thus unacceptable in terms of Wikipedia WP:RS requirements. Denialist sources and information can all go into the Denial of Armenian Genocide article but never into Armenian Genocide/Holocaust related articles. Yes, Arbcom takes the position seriously, see Admin Sandstein's remark here and here. The user was formally warned for his constant assertion of denialist information and sources and as of this point may be banned if he/she continues.

Therefore, there is no "cherry-picking" involved here. I am warning any user here, that if for any reason, a user presents a "two-sided" story to this article or other Armenian Genocide/Holocaust related articles, I will proceed with further action of that user under Arbcom. Proudbolsahye (talk) 08:03, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Your commentary is irrelevant. The core issue here is that every article has to be based on reliable sources about the topic, and this article has to be based on what reliable secondary sources have said, specifically, about press coverage of the Armenian genocide. Okay, you appear to have some commentary there about the topic, which is fine. In relation to the list however, what reliable sources have endorsed it as a representative sample of press coverage of the Armenian genocide? The answer, apparently, is none. The list was compiled by wikipedians, with a particular POV. It's WP:OR. It's a WP:CHERRY-picked list, and it will always, inevitably, be a cherry-picked list unless it is based tightly on a range of reliable secondary sources, which is not something we are likely to see any time soon, if ever. So again, if the nominators insist on retaining the list in the article, I will have to recommend rejection. Gatoclass (talk) 09:09, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
  • To reiterate what the issue is: I would have no problem with the list if it was based on a reputable source, someone saying "These articles were really pivotal in getting people aware of the problem" or "These articles were controversial because they depict Turkish people as subhuman." These are what need to be the basis of the list of articles, not using Google News archives to pick articles and removing certain articles because they don't fit your POV (in between "denialist" and "Armenian Genocide happened" positions--there are thousands of articles in the grey area which could easily be included in the list--but once again, I question the point of the list at all if it is not to be comprehensive). Remove the list, and I have no problem with the article getting DYK (even if the content misses studies which do not deny the Armenian genocide but which discuss the orientalist politics of news production at the time). Keep the list, and the page should be rejected as both OR and not NPOV (and not abiding by other DYK guidelines- D2, D3, and possibly D7). Finally, no one is suggesting including denialist "scholarship" of the topic, so maybe we can move beyond fighting windmills and focus on the actual questions: 1. Is the list complete? No. 2. OK, is it based on reputable secondary sources showing why those news articles are included on the list and not others? No. One of those answers needs to be 'Yes' in order to justify the list. Peace. AbstractIllusions (talk) 13:50, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Sources I have used to create the list to this article:

It is for this reason I couldn't find French, German, Russian, and other newspaper articles pertaining to the Armenian Genocide since I was limited in researching these publications. Anyhow, I will add these sources the article shortly. I think its best I do it in the form of a note before presenting the list. Proudbolsahye (talk) 16:04, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I already looked through all the sources. Some of them don't look reliable. Others contain a small handful of headlines, but I really don't know where you got the bulk of your headlines from since you haven't sourced them in the article.
However, the topic here is press coverage of the Armenian genocide, it isn't Newspaper headlines about the Armenian genocide. "Press coverage" includes far more than just headlines, but the focus of this article is the list of headlines and the space devoted to them far outweighs the portion devoted to discussion and analysis of the press coverage. Gatoclass (talk) 03:30, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Dear Gatoclass, correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm getting the impression that you want to simply stop this article from getting promoted. What exactly doesn't look reliable? The New York Times articles links to which are available online? Links to all these headlines were initially given, however, they were removed per the AfD. --Երևանցի talk 05:00, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Groong doesn't look reliable - it's a newslist. Other sources look as if they haven't been published, unpublished papers by academics are also of dubious reliability. The article currently has almost 200 newspaper headlines, completely overwhelming the four paragraphs of (somewhat padded) text. In response to your bad faith suggestion that I "simply want to stop this article from getting promoted" - I've already said I would be prepared to drop my opposition if appropriate changes are made. Gatoclass (talk) 05:49, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
All the headlines in this article are supported by secondary sources. We can discuss the reliability of each source separately. My "bad faith suggestion" might be based on your, possibly, not good behavior, my friend. All these headlines are available online. What makes them unreliable? Or you need sources to prove that the New York Times had articles about the massacres? --Երևանցի talk 06:11, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
It is no surprise that the WP:RS excuse has finally arrived after I provided the sources I have used for listing these articles. Let alone the fact that ALL of these newspaper, magazine, and other articles can be verified through secondary/primary sources (i.e. http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov, https://news.google.com/, https://query.nytimes.com/, etc. etc.) and regardless of the fact that each and every one of the sources I have listed above are verifiable with one another and used as references for other scholarly material...these sources are somehow not reliable. Since you pointed out Groong, let us start with it. Groong is a publication of the University of Southern California and is considered a reliable news source when it comes to Armenia and Armenian related articles (Groong is referenced in scholarly material such as 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, etc. etc.). Above all, Katia Peltekian, the writer of the article I have provided, is a respected professional in Armenian research and a scholar in her own right (i.e. Heralding of the Armenian genocide: reports in The Halifax Herald, 1894-1922 and I can also provide many newspaper articles that appreciate her scholarship upon request). The article itself refers to sources that can be verifiable with Kloian's work and ultimately the New York Times, Washington Post, and other archives themselves. Since you pointed out Groong in particular, I was compelled to describe its notability and significance in relation to the academic world at large. Unless you can show inconsistencies and unverifiable content in any of the mentioned sources and other sources presented within each and every one of these articles, I'm afraid that your assumptions are entirely groundless and cannot be substantiated. Proudbolsahye (talk) 11:37, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Okay, I have asked for some additional input on this debate at the reliable sources noticeboard. Gatoclass (talk) 14:35, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

@User:AbstractIllusions, what "thousands of articles in the grey area" are you talking about here? 1.) First off, you have already pulled off this from the prep and followed a discussion where Proudbolsahye and myself weren't invited to... which ultimately ended in an AfD. 2.) During the AfD, Proudbolsahye already outlined how unnecessary the AfD was and pointed out that the external links issue was not a reason the send to AfD. In fact, certain users were too lazy to remove the external links and wanted to delete the entire article!. The issue was resolved in a matter of 5 minutes. 3.) Others commented saying it wasn't significant or notable enough even when I and Proudbolsahye added many sources in the lead to confirm its notability. 4.) Now that the AfD is done, you are still talk about some "grey" areas. LOL The grey area of what? The Armenian genocide was a planned systematic extermination of the Armenians in the Ottoman Empire by its government. This is a fact and is the opinion of the majority of scholars. What grey are are you talking about?

I wonder what WP:RS calls those "grey" articles that you mention "grey" areas? Or is that WP:OR on your behalf? The very same accusation you are bringing forth against Proudbolsahye? Battering this article over and over again has not worked and will not work. In fact, the article itself hasn't changed much since it was sent to AfD thus proving my point. --Երևանցի talk 18:58, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

  • OK, let's see if some creative thought can highlight the problem. Let's say I make an article about "Press Coverage of Slavery in the U.S." In 2013, there is a factual and moral position that slavery was brutal, violent, and immoral. But at the time, reputable newspapers published hundreds of articles justifying slavery, defending it, and downplaying its violence. NPOV editing of the topic could include a good lead which puts the topic into context and then a small sampled list of important articles from across the spectrum of the issue. It would be POV editing, to take my 2013 morality and factual knowledge and deny the bad reporting that occurred at the time. The actual press coverage of slavery in the U.S. included good articles, bad articles, and ugly articles. It is POV editing to whitewash history and only focus on the ones that prove what we know now with better hindsight. Now, the same applies to this case, where the editors are selecting news articles based upon 2013 factual knowledge; that is distorting the actual historical record of the topic. It is great that all of us agree that the Armenian Genocide was a horrible event and that there is little grey area in 2013...but reporters at the time did not have the hindsight clarity that we have today. They did some good reporting, some bad reporting, and some ugly reporting. If there is insistence on the list (which is not necessary for the article, by the way), it needs A. a better lead which puts racist titles like "The Terrible Turk" in context (how anyone thinks including this title from a small local newspaper with no possible import and no context is NPOV is beyond me), and B. to include news articles not just because they exist and push our 2013 view, but because they were important in shaping public opinion at the time. Or you can remove the list and I'll remove my objections (I have zero objections to the topic--which is why I didn't participate in the AfD). AbstractIllusions (talk) 14:08, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Calling these "bad", "ugly", "racist", "grey areas" or other adjectives/modifiers for that matter only leads us to WP:OR UNTIL we have sources that can called them as such. As of this point, whether the articles are considered bad or ugly is none other than an opinion that you or many other Wikipedians such as myself can hold. As far as I can tell, the article doesn't and shouldn't state that these are or aren't racist. Above all, we all know Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED and opinions of such material can be only held to oneself. If there are various websites that categorize these articles as the good, the bad, and the ugly, I would love to use them in the article. However, I have not run into any source that says so or anything you have presented either. All I can see is that here, you cherry-picked newspaper articles stating that Armenians somehow massacred Turks or didn't get massacred in Constantinople (sidenote: No one denies that Armenians didn't get massacred in Constantinople) which demonstrates that you have violated the very WP:OR conduct you accuse me of by picking headlines to your liking only to show or prove to some extent that a certain POV, which at this point only you hold, exists. You have not provided ONE source stating that there were "grey area" or any context other than that. Even if that were the case, due to the fact that Armenian Genocide denial began decades after the 1920s, it will be very hard for you to even find any article during the press coverage of the time (1894-1922) that alludes to the fact that the Genocide didn't occur and it will be even HARDER to place those articles under the context of it never happening. We need a third-party opinion stating that press coverage during that time frame also included such material that contradict the main theme and thesis this article and other sources presents. Even if such a source is provided, this will inevitably complicate things much further since most of those sources that do assert this are considered unreliable in WP:RS standards, as mentioned in my above edits. Proudbolsahye (talk) 16:40, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
I would just like to state that this comment by AbstractIllusions (talk · contribs) is one of the finest I've ever read at Wikipedia. It's a great summary of what WP:NPOV means.--FoxyOrange (talk) 16:04, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
See WP:OTHERSTUFF, before praising him --Երևանցի talk 18:16, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

@AbstractIllusions Hey, maybe you should enlighten yourself about WP:OTHERSTUFF? I honestly don't see the connection of the slavery example you gave and the Armenian Genocide. You still did NOT answer my question about the so-called "grey areas". What grey areas? In this particular point of the history, Turks systematically killed the Armenians. If you don't agree with this fact go do some research on the Armenian Genocide first, I would suggest. If you don't think that the Armenian Genocide ever happened you will probably be welcomed by the Turkish government and be encouraged to continue your behavior. By the way, do you see "grey areas" in the Holocaust too? --Երևանցի talk 18:16, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Because (as far as I can see) the hook is unreferenced. The article claims that the headline "Turks Boiled Baby Alive. Made Armenian Mother Heat Water, Bound Her and Took Child's Life." is supposed to have occurred in a newspaper called The Daily Star on October 22, 1915. There are several newspapers of that name (Arizona, Toronto, and maybe others without Wikipedia articles); and I can't find this claim backed by any of the given sources. Please correct me if this assertion should be wrong; I'm a bit uneasy because the very first one to reply to this nomination, BabbaQ (talk · contribs) had stated that the "sources all check out."--FoxyOrange (talk) 22:36, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

  • This discussion has reached a point of ironic ridiculousness that I no longer care to perpetuate. The article is not appropriate for DYK because of severe POV problems. There is a rich scholarly debate going all the way back to the 1970s, at least, about Western media and presentations of the Turkish population during this period (maybe some actual reading on the topic, rather than just copying partial lists, would help improve the content?). Briefly: to quote Richard Hovannisian: "The image of the 'Terrible Turk' was perpetuated in Europe and America during the nineteenth century by hundreds of accounts and studies of Christian tribulations and a crusading spirit to assist these subject peoples. Although that general sentiment did not prevent the Western governments from ultimately coming to terms with the Turks in the 1920s, the unfavorable impression persisted for many years longer." Or quickly, Merril D. Peterson: "Public relations appeals stereotyped "the terrible Turk" and sentimentalized the Armenians." That the editors show no willingness to include a discussion of this literature (this is now the third or fourth time I've mentioned it, I think) -- and the insistence that stereotypical titles like "The Terrible Turk" remain in the list without such a discussion, is not adhering to NPOV editing. The page is not appropriate for DYK until A) Content more accurately reflects the historian and media-studies research on the topic (including a substantial discussion of anti-Turkish and anti-Muslim stereotypes during the time period, also anti-Armenian stereotypes should be mentioned) and B) Until the POV list is removed, or paired down to a sensible number of important articles. This page removed from my watchlist and I won't respond to anymore of the nonsense. AbstractIllusions (talk) 07:22, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
I have to add that the article has been changed since my last comment, so that now the hook is referenced and we have a scan of the whole article with the "Turks Boiled Baby" headline. But judging from this report by the Fredericksburg Daily Star, it reads like a prime example for an unconfirmed rumor: "These letters [telling of Turkish cruelties] come from a friend called Varis, who is in Paris, and the information Varis forwards comes in turn from his wife." I'm not an expert on that matter. If what AbstractIllusions (talk · contribs) says is true and indeed newspapers in the US and other Christian countries were biased towards the Armenian side, then the hook/article is still unsuitable, because it is POV and might even be called propaganda. As I have to assume good faith, it is quite difficult not to come under the impression that this DYK nomination is an attempt to place an "In-your-face-you-terrible-Turks" message on a very prominent spot at Wikipedia.--FoxyOrange (talk) 07:54, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
@Abstract. This is the FIRST time you've introduced this literature...not your third. I will gladly add stereotypes of Turks and Armenians in the press but I suggest that you be more clearer in your recommendations and provide sources BEFORE expressing your personal opinions (i.e. good reporting, bad reporting, grey areas, and etc.). That way, we can get things get done more quickly and I can have a clearer understanding as to what exactly is needed in the article.

@FoxyOrange. Just because the source talks about a story being told, doesn't mean that the article isn't about press coverage during the Armenian Genocide. Whether you believe the story or not, it is up to the reader. Our goal is not to make you believe, it is to reflect the given articles and press coverage during the Armenian Genocide. Proudbolsahye (talk) 08:03, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Funny when a user like the one above talks about "ironic ridiculousness". Very funny. I really enjoyed the show. I hope he figure out the definition of the "grey areas" of the Armenian Genocide, one of the most tragic events of the human history, so he can finally answer my question. --Երևանցի talk 07:44, 4 August 2013 (UTC) P.S. I hope the Turkish government goes easy on you the next time you protest the denial of the genocide. --Երևանցի talk 07:50, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I dont know why Armenian topics always brings out the worst in people overall. I mean why cant this ever be discussed in a non-biased sensible tone everyone.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:54, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
  • As the article has been substantially expanded since this discussion started (especially concerning the referencing) it may be time for an updated review. The prose section now is well-balanced and relies on facts, so I do not see POV issues anymore. The "headlines list", though, tells a different story. I am still not convinced that the examples are not cherrypicked. Also, the majority of the headlines is not referenced. But DYK articles do not have to be perfect. As a compromise, I would like to propose an alternate hook which does not include such n(in my opinion propagandist) "Babys were boiled alive" accusation. (Problem is, though, that the exact number of NYT articles (the Wiki article currently says "believed to be 124") does not seem to be explicitly mentioned in any of the sources given.)
ALT1:... that contemporary newspaper coverage of the Armenian Genocide was intense in the United States, including more than 100 articles by The New York Times (example pictured)?--FoxyOrange (talk) 16:56, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Im fine with ALT1. Proudbolsahye (talk) 04:07, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
The hook looks okay, but there is still the problem of the long list of headlines derived from who knows where. In fact, none of the issues I have raised with regard to this article have been addressed yet. Gatoclass (talk) 15:58, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
I am on vacation. I don't have time to work on this article. I withdraw this DYK nomination Proudbolsahye (talk) 21:55, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Apart from withdrawal, the article is plagued of unsourced quotations.--Jetstreamer Talk 11:04, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Press_coverage_of_the_Armenian_Genocide&oldid=1017737493"