The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 5 February 2022 [1].

---

Armenian genocide[edit]

Nominator(s): (t · c) buidhe 10:13, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

After a bit of a delay, I think it's time for this level-4 vital article to come back to FAC. I really appreciate the feedback I received on the last nomination, which I did my best to address, and am looking forward to additional comments. (t · c) buidhe 10:13, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Super Dromaeosaurus[edit]

Hello. As on the last FA review, I am here just to note some minor details and will not engage in full review.

• Check duplicated links, there's a few of them.
  • Mostly fixed. I left a couple in where there's a large gap.
• The only note on the article, "Also known by other names", should have its own section and not be included within the references one in my opinion. A period could also be added. It is pretty short anyway so we perhaps could just remove it.
  • Added period, but an additional section would add too much page clutter (including table of contents) to be worthwhile imo.
• Article uses both "Armenian Question" (twice, excluding references) and "Armenian question" (once). It'd be better to have consistency.
  • Per MOS:Caps, this phrase is not consistently capitalized in reliable sources so it should not generally be capitalized. However in direct quotes original capitalization is preserved.
• Could we add the Armenian name of the event in the lead? I imagine this probably has been discussed before and not just not considered at this point, my apologies if so.
  • I don't think so. The entire reason for creating the terminology article was to move the details on alternate names somewhere other than the first sentence of the lead where they're UNDUE (in my opinion).
• It could be stated that the Armenian genocide is part of the Late Ottoman genocides and not just of WW1 in the infobox. Super Ψ Dro 21:53, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is discussed in the article, but I'm concerned that it would add too much clutter to the infobox, which we've tried to keep simple, as well as not necessarily being understood by the average reader.
  • Thanks for your comments. (t · c) buidhe 22:12, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass[edit]

Will take this up. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 16:44, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• de Waal, Thomas (2015) WorldCat relates that the 2015 edition is a PHD dissertation, you may wish to make note of this.
  • The ISBN is correct, I copied it from the title page of the (PDF) version I cited. It is not a dissertation.
• Kévorkian, Raymond (2011) while Bloomsbury Publishing does currently own I.B. Tauris, it was I.B. Tauris themselves that published this before being bought seven years later, you may wish to specify the publisher to them.
• Suciyan, Talin (2015) same here, may wish to specify to I.B. Tauris.
  • Done both.
• Ahmed, Ali (2006) the linked ISBN (9781135205089) seems to lead to a 2013 edition per WorldCat; suggest 9781579583880 as used for 2006 edition. If you used the 2013 edition, you may wish to simply insert an orig-year of 2005 (the earliest I can find it). If you used a paper copy of 2006 with the linked ISBN, disregard this.
  • The version I used says it is from 2006 but the ISBN is 978-1-57958-388-0 so I changed to that.
• Anderson, Margaret Lavinia (2011) listed ISBN of 9780199792764 brings up an error on WorldCat; 9780195393743 seems to be a common ISBN for the 2011 edition. If the listed ISBN is from a paper 2011 copy, disregard this.
• Ditto Astourian, Stephan (2011), Göçek, Fatma Müge (2011) Zürcher, Erik Jan (2011), and Dündar, Fuat (2011).
  • Replaced with 978-0-19-539374-3 the ISBN from the edition I used.
• Kévorkian, Raymond (2020 WorldCat seems to have a lot of 2021 editions compared to 2020, double-check that 2020 is the correct year; ISBN is appropriate for both, but 9781789204506 is more commonly used for 2021 editions.
  • I used the Google Book version, which has that ISBN and is from 2020.
• Mouradian, Khatchig (2018) per WorldCat the current ISBN is somewhat rare for the 2018 edition, may wish to double-check/change to the more commonly used 9780415787444, but default to used copy.
  • Double checked this one and the pdf copy I used says its ISBN is 978-1-315-22591-3.
• @Buidhe: That is all, no objection to the inclusion of any sources. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 17:36, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notes (non-issues)

• Bloxham, Donald (2005) the ISBN (9780199226887) links only to 2009 WorldCat editions, but subsequent searches in the 2005 editions reveal the ISBN as valid for 2005 editions, presume failure of WorldCat.
• de Waal, Thomas (2015) ISBN provided (978-0-19-935069-8) links to a 2019 edition, but WorldCat confirms valid for 2015 edition.
• Bloxham, Donald; Göçek, Fatma Müge (2008) WorldCat has no 2008 entry but Google Books and Springer confirm it.
• Leonard, Thomas C. (2004) no WorldCat entry for this date, confirmed in other locations.

• Thanks so much for checking these ISBNs, it's always something I am lazy about although I know that different editions can have slightly different content or pagination. (t · c) buidhe 22:36, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Article passes source review. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 00:33, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by a455bcd9[edit]

Thanks for working on this important article. A few remarks:

Lead[edit]

• The Armenian genocide was the systematic mass murder of [...] Armenians [...] it was accomplished primarily through mass executions, death marches leading to the Syrian Desert, and the forced Islamization of Armenian women and children.: I don't understand why forced Islamization is mentioned here, because from what I understand people who converted to Islam under duress survived. I think this may be more correct: "it was accomplished primarily through mass executions and death marches leading to the Syrian Desert. Many Armenian women and children were also subject to forced Islamization." (as it is written in the third paragraph: "Around 100,000 to 200,000 Armenian women and children were forcibly converted to Islam and integrated into Muslim households.")
  • I think it is a misconception to assume that genocide is just killing people. Indeed both the Genocide Convention and reliable sources cited in this article use a more broad definition that considers such actions as kidnapping children, forced conversion, economic dispossession etc. as aspects of a genocide. See for example Akcam and Kurt 2015, pp. 4–6: "Genocide does not just mean physical annihilation. Going even further, physical annihilation is only one detail of the process. How many Armenians died during the course of the deportations or destruction, or how many remained alive—as important as this is on the human level—is just a secondary issue from a definitional point of view; what is important is the complete erasure of the traces of the Armenians in their ancient homeland." The sources cited definitely consider Islamization as a structural element of the genocide.
    • I agree with this definition but what is weird is the current construction: "The Armenian genocide was the systematic mass murder of [...] Armenians [...] it was accomplished primarily through". This could be solved this way (a bit heavy...): "The Armenian genocide[a] was the complete erasure of ethnic Armenians in the Ottoman Empire during World War I. Spearheaded by the ruling Committee of Union and Progress (CUP), it was accomplished primarily through the systematic mass murder of around one million ethnic Armenians in mass executions and death marches leading to the Syrian Desert and the forced Islamization of Armenian women and children." A455bcd9 (talk) 13:50, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Revised
• Prior to World War I, Armenians were concentrated in the Armenian highlands and occupied a protected, but subordinate, place in Ottoman society.: would be great to add the number of Armenians before the Genocide + the % of the total population. Also it should be mentioned that many Armenians lived in Constantinople, in addition to rural areas in the east. Otherwise we don't understand the roundup in Constantinople on April 24 1915.
  • More details on this are given in the body. I get your point that adding more background information could be helpful, but I don't think there's space to expand the lead.
• Should it be "the empire" or "the Empire" for the Ottoman Empire?
  • I believe "the empire" is correct per MOS:CAPS.
• to permanently forestall the possibility of Armenian autonomy or independence. => I think it should be mentioned in the introduction that there was an Armenian national liberation movement. For instance after "Large-scale massacres of Armenians occurred in the 1890s and 1909." something like "In reaction to these massacre..." Otherwise the reader doesn't understand why "the possibility of Armenian autonomy or independence" is mentioned and why there was "fear among CUP leaders that the Armenians [...] would also attempt to break free of the empire."
  • It is actually a really complex question the extent to which these fears were "real". It's true that Armenian revolutionary groups existed, however, their goal was reform not secession in most cases. Secession was a fringe position for Ottoman Armenians until after 1915 (see) More widely accepted scholarly explanations focus on how the Armenian question was manipulated in diplomacy and how the loss of Macedonia warped CUP leaders' perception of the Armenian provinces. But, although I agree that you might add something there for balance, I'm struggling to think of any way to explain these factors in a couple sentences (I wrote an entire article Causes of the Armenian genocide).
    • Maybe something like this: "Prior to World War I, Armenians were concentrated in the Armenian highlands and occupied a protected, but subordinate, place in Ottoman society. Secession was a fringe position for Ottoman Armenians and most wanted to reform their status. Large-scale massacres of Armenians occurred in the 1890s and 1909." A455bcd9 (talk) 14:04, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Armenian soldiers in the Ottoman Army were disarmed pursuant to a February order and were later killed.: how many of them? what was their representation in the Army as a whole?
  • Despite looking, I am not aware of any figures on this.
    • In that case, I'm not sure this should be mentioned in the lead. Especially given the other important things that could be mentioned. A455bcd9 (talk) 14:04, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Removed. (t · c) buidhe 15:25, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The Turkish government maintains that the deportation of Armenians was a legitimate action that cannot be described as a genocide. I think something like this would be more neutral and would be a better representation of the official Turkish stance (and of Genocide denial in Turkey in general): "The Turkish government describes the "events of 1915"[Could add a footnote: "In 2006, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan ordered government officials to say "the events of 1915" instead of "so-called Armenian genocide", cf. Terminology of the Armenian genocide] as a "tragedy" that resulted in "the loss of many innocent lives" but that cannot be described as a genocide as it maintains that the deportation of Armenians was a legitimate action under war-time conditions." (source 1, source 2)
  • This sentence has been discussed on the talk page. I'd agree that your longer version of the sentence does do a better job of conveying the nuances in Turkey's current official position. However, there are a couple reasons to prefer the current version: 1) it is more concise, and maintaining conciseness in the lead is very important and 2) it is accurate over Turkey's entire history, whereas the proposed version is accurate only during the last few years. (t · c) buidhe 13:23, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I understand. I still think this sentence could be improved for instance to distinguish the position of the Turkish Republic from the one of the late Ottoman Empire: "Although after the genocide the Ottoman Empire publicly recognized that 800,000 Ottoman citizens of Armenian origin had died as a result of state policy, the Turkish government has maintained since 1923 that the deportation of Armenians was a legitimate action that cannot be described as a genocide." A455bcd9 (talk) 17:33, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

      I think it's important not to give too much weight to the post-Mudros Ottoman government, which existed for only a few years and had little sway outside the capital. (t · c) buidhe 15:24, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[I'll check the rest later]

• A455bcd9 (talk) 10:35, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your comments. (t · c) buidhe 13:23, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• The lead should reflect the content of the article. In particular the "Aftermath" section and the trials should be mentioned (currently, only the Turkish War of Independence is mentioned).

Armenians in the Ottoman Empire[edit]

• The presence of Armenians in Anatolia has been documented since the sixth century BCE, more than a millennium before the Turkish incursion.: this is not directly related to this article but the map in the Anatolia article shows only the Western part and yet here we mostly talk about Armenians living in the east so I think the reader who clinks on this blue link may be confused. Should we change that map?
  • There are different definitions of "Anatolia". But the one used in this article and the cited sources puts the eastern edge of Anatolia approximately equivalent to Turkey's eastern border.
• The Ottoman millet system offered non-Muslims a subordinate but protected place in society. we could add "(Christians and Jews)" after "non-Muslims" to make it clearer. Or just replace "non-Muslims" by "Christians and Jews".
  • I think "non-Muslim" is better because it's the language used in the sources and included other groups such as Samaritans and Mandaeans. I don't see how it's unclear because this policy actually applied to the non-Muslims in the empire.
• Around two million Armenians lived in the Ottoman Empire on the eve of World War I: what was the total population of the empire and/or the share of Armenians among the total population?
  • Added the total population of Anatolia
• This section only mentions Armenians in the Armenian Highlands but there were also many Armenians in other parts of present-day Turkey (especially Constantinople) and in other parts of the empire. Because they're not mentioned it's unclear whether they were also killed or not. (Which is by the way a common theme in the Armenian genocide denial: "Look at all the Armenian restaurants, churches, and schools in Istanbul!")
  • I had previously given a figure for Armenian urban population ("According to the Patriarchate's figure, 215,131 Armenians lived in urban areas, especially Constantinople, Smyrna, and Eastern Thrace."^[1]), but I don't see how that helps. We already give the main Armenian population (peasants in the east), and the implication is that the other Armenians lived elsewhere. Then, the partial killing of Armenian urban population is discussed later in the article.
    • I think this sentence about Armenians in urban areas would help. Yes, the reader can currently infer that some Armenians lived elsewhere but it's unclear 1/ whether these Armenians lived in cities or villages and 2/ whether that population outside the Armenian Highlands was significant or not. Here we have a reliable figure (which seems quite rare in this subject!) so it would be a pity not to mention it I think. A455bcd9 (talk) 12:01, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Added
• Also, don't we have a better map? Or could we make one? I'm colorblind and the current one is hard to read.
  • There are several maps in Armenians in the Ottoman Empire with the % of Armenians by locality before the Genocide. New SVG versions should be created (for instance of this one). General maps delineating the Armenian population in 1915 are also good, see: DW (at the end of the article) and AFP. An even better map would also feature Greek populations (example) A455bcd9 (talk) 21:44, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The issues with making a new map is that there are no generally accepted figures for the pre-1915 Armenian population. The 1914 Ottoman census is generally considered to significantly undercount Armenians as well as Syriacs/Assyrians, but it is disputed how much. So you could make a map with the figures for the census, but it would not be reliable in terms of the actual Armenian population. A less specific map highlighting Armenian populated areas is possible, however the reality is that Armenians were living in greater or lesser numbers in pretty much every vilayet in Anatolia, and sufficiently precise and accurate statistics for a detailed map just don't exist. (t · c) buidhe 13:11, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

      Got it. But why should we keep the current map that is probably not more accurate than the 1914 Ottoman census or a less specific map highlighting Armenian populated areas + that is hard to read (at least for me) + that is not in SVG? And what about these maps (that could be remade in SVG, provided they are based on reliable sources)? File:Armenia between russian and ottoman empires.png, File:Six armenian provinces.png, File:Six Vilayets ethnic groups.png? A455bcd9 (talk) 14:39, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

      The first two maps are ok since no one disputes which vilayets were designated as "Armenian". (Although this designation does not help much in showing where Armenians in the empire actually lived). The factual accuracy of the third one looks highly questionable to me, the numbers for Diyarbekir do not look realistic at all. Would this map be any better than the current one? I'm not sure about the sourcing but it seems to be a decent rough approximation of where Armenians lived. (t · c) buidhe 15:05, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

      That map is indeed quite nice! If the source is reliable it can definitely replace the current one.

      An alternative is this map which has many advantages:

      • focuses on Armenians only,
      • in shades of blue (no issue for colorblind people),
      • shows both the Armenian populations in both the Ottoman Empire and the Russian Empire,
      • shows the vilayets and oblasts' borders,
      • the sourcing is sure as it's a scan of an existing map,
      • it's more recent (1896 vs 1870s).

      Someone "modernized" it (here and there), I'm not convinced by the result but we could either use the original one or ask someone else in the illustration workshop to SVGize the old version. A455bcd9 (talk) 15:28, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

      I've put in Armenian population map 1896.jpg for now. (t · c) buidhe 15:38, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

      What about this one? It was published in 1917 but based on the figures (in the original map: 2m Armenians in Turkey, ~10% of the population) and the geographic distribution I guess it shows the situation just before the genocide. It is easy to read (at least for me) and it also shows that Constantinople was about 50% Turk, 25% Armenian and 25% Greek which seems in line with File:Ethno religious groups Istanbul.png. A455bcd9 (talk) 17:00, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

      This map is not very accurate, it suggests that a large area around Lake Van was mostly Armenian which is not the case. (t · c) buidhe 17:03, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

      Too bad :( (btw this map is actually from 1916 and it's interesting because it surprisingly comes "from the Allies' peace terms as stated in their reply to President Wilson's note of 19th Dec. 1916"!) A455bcd9 (talk) 17:17, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Should "Greek Orthodox" link to Greeks in the Ottoman Empire or Rum Millet? I read in "Rum Millet" that: "Its name was derived from the former Eastern Roman (a.k.a. Byzantine) subjects of the Ottoman Empire, but all Orthodox Greeks, Bulgarians, Albanians, Aromanians, Megleno-Romanians and Serbs, as well as Georgians and Middle Eastern Christians, were considered part of the same millet in spite of their differences in ethnicity and language."
  • I think the link is appropriate as those who were living next to Armenians would have not necessarily been Greek-speaking, but they belonged to the church that is called Greek Orthodox (as opposed to Bulgarian Orthodox Church, a separate millet) and were treated as Greeks during the population exchange. (t · c) buidhe 13:11, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Land conflict and reforms[edit]

• The nineteenth-century Tanzimat reforms abolished the protections that members of the Armenian millet had previously enjoyed, but did not change the popular perception that they were different and inferior.: I don't understand, what were these protections? And how are the two part of the sentence related: how abolishing protections could/should "change the popular perception that they were different and inferior"?
  • Rewrote
• It's unclear to me whether most Armenians were landowners when I read: The Ottoman Land Code of 1858 disadvantaged Armenians and many now had to pay double taxation both to Kurdish landlords and the Ottoman government. and Armenians faced large-scale land usurpation as a consequence of the sedentarization of Kurdish tribes and the state began to confiscate Armenian-owned land in the eastern provinces.
  • OK, so Ottoman landholding is very complicated. In principle the land was supposed to belong to those who cultivated it, but the wealthy and powerful (in this case rural notables who had previously earned a living from tax farming) had an advantage in the 1858 land reform because they could register land in their own name, then charge rents. It seems to me that some Armenians owned their own land (although land ownership was often gray/disputed as well). "Land usurpation" is described by Suny as de facto violent seizure of land occupied by one family by others seeking control of the land, although the usurpers would often register the property and claim ownership under the 1858 land code.
• Also: who were these "Kurdish landlords" Armenians paid taxes to?
• Do these two sentences refer to the same events? From the mid-nineteenth century, Armenians faced large-scale land usurpation as a consequence of the sedentarization of Kurdish tribes and the arrival of Muslim refugees and immigrants (mainly Circassians) following the Russo-Circassian War. and In 1876, when Sultan Abdul Hamid II came to power, the state began to confiscate Armenian-owned land in the eastern provinces and give it to Muslim immigrants as part of a systematic policy to reduce the Armenian population of these areas. Because I read regarding the Russo-Circassian War that: "Circassian resistance continued in the mountainous regions until the 1870s, but the war was officially over by 1864"
  • The source states that land usurpation against Armenians was occurring before the reign of Abdul Hamid II, but under his watch it was legalized and facilitated by the state in order to settle Muslims from Caucasus/Balkans. It's true that the Circassian war was the previous decade but the Great Eastern Crisis, which resulted in another round of Ottoman territorial losses, was ongoing at this point.
• 300,000 Armenians emigrated in the decades leading up to World War I: did they emigrate to other parts of the Ottoman Empire or outside the empire?
  • The definition of "emigration" is moving to another country. Rephrased to "left the empire"
• Where Dashnaktsutyun is mentioned, the Armenian national liberation movement could be mentioned and the fact that "Secession was a fringe position for Ottoman Armenians".
  • Linked the first, the second is already implied by existing wording
• This marked the emergence of the Armenian question in international diplomacy as Armenians were for the first time used to interfere in Ottoman politics.: used by whom?
  • Foreign powers, added
• Although Armenians had been called the "loyal millet" in contrast to Greeks and others who had previously challenged Ottoman rule, Armenians became perceived as subversive and ungrateful after 1878.: do we know why this shift happened? Also, who called Armenians the "loyal millet"?
  • The Ottoman authorities considered Armenians the "loyal millet" because they hadn't rebelled. This perception was challenged by the Congress of Berlin due to fear of European intervention justified as being on behalf of the Armenians. Reworded to make it more clear, but I don't want to repeat "Congress of Berlin" in three sentences.
• mobs incited to violence: incited by whom? local Ottoman officials?
  • The source states that most violence was not spontaneous and that in some areas, Ottoman officials did not permit killing. Reworded
• Many Armenian villages were forcibly converted to Islam.: do we know how many? do we have examples?
  • Source doesn't specify how many. This paper goes into more detail but doesn't give an estimate either. I think examples would be more relevant for the Hamidian massacres article
• whose purpose was violently restoring the previous social order in which Christians would unquestioningly accept Muslim supremacy: this is the first mention of "Christian" in the body of the article: it should probably be mentioned somewhere that Armenians were not the only non-Muslims and not the only Christians. This term could also be linked to Christianity in the Ottoman Empire.
  • Christianity is discussed in the "Armenians in the Ottoman Empire" section. I don't see why Christianity in the Ottoman Empire should be linked, as it doesn't cover anything that's not already in the Millet or Armenians in the Ottoman Empire articles.

Young Turk Revolution[edit]

• A link to Abdul Hamid II on the first mention of "Hamidian" may be useful (took me a few seconds to understand...) or replace "leading Hamidian officials" => "leading government officials"?
  • Done
• Should the link to Macedonia (region) be replaced by North Macedonia under the Ottoman Empire?
  • The region of Ottoman Macedonia was not the same extent as today's country of North Macedonia
• When news of the countercoup reached Adana, armed Muslims attacked the Armenian quarter and Armenians returned fire.: do we know why? Were the Armenians accused of being behind the countercoup?
  • Both CUP and anti-CUP supporters were involved in the Adana massacre, which started as a generic riot but escalated into violent attacks on Armenians.
• Unlike the Hamidian massacres: there should be a like to Hamidian massacres. Also this is the first time the term "Hamidian massacres" is used but it is not defined and the use of "Unlike" seems to imply that the reader should already know what these massacres are.
  • Replaced with "1890s massacres"
• putting the Hamidiye in reserve: adding "regiments" after Hamidiye would make the sentence clearer.
  • Done
• CUP leaders feared these reforms would lead to partition and cited them as a reason for the elimination of the Armenian population in 1915.: I don't understand (but not sure the CUP logic was understandable and/or made sense). They "feared these reforms would lead to partition" and in any case these reforms were not implemented. So how did they justify the genocide based on these unimplemented reforms? Is it that they feared that the implementation of these reforms would lead to partition and in that case thought that the total elimination of the Armenian population was a better solution? If so maybe I suggest we change the sentence to: CUP leaders feared that, if implemented, these reforms could lead to partition and cited them as a reason for the elimination of the Armenian population in 1915.
  • Done. For more on this, see Causes of the Armenian genocide#Armenian question. Many historians believe that the CUP's fears were overblown, given that none of the other states involved, not even Russia, wanted to separate the eastern provinces from the Ottoman Empire, and Ottoman Armenians would have been happy with a reform agreement that protected their lives and property. However, in the past, other agreements had led to territorial secessions in the Balkans.

Balkan Wars[edit]

• This map could be used and/or a link to Territorial_evolution_of_the_Ottoman_Empire#1913 on "almost all of the empire's European territory" and/or adding the list of regions after "empire's European territory" (Balkans, etc.) otherwise the reader may not understand "the mass expulsion of Muslims from the Balkans".
  • Added link
• It is widely accepted that: I think (or hope) most of what is in the article is "widely accepted", so why is it mentioned here? It could probably be removed.
  • Removed
• Instead, the CUP turned to an increasingly radical ideology of Turkish nationalism to preserve the empire. add link to Turkish nationalism?
  • It's already linked above
• CUP leaders such as Talaat and Enver Pasha came to blame non-Muslim population concentrations in strategic areas for many of the empire's problems, concluding by mid-1914 that they were "internal tumors" to be excised.: do we know which problems in particular?
  • The source doesn't specify
• After the coup, the CUP shifted the demography of border areas by resettling Muslim immigrants while coercing Christians to leave: Muslim immigrants from the Balkans? Where Christians coerced to leave the empire or to leave these areas for other areas?
  • Changed to "emigrate" and "Balkan Muslims" for more specificity.
• Also, what were these "border areas"? Only in the east of Anatolia or all around the Ottoman territory?
  • Both east and western Anatolia. But mainly the border areas.
• "Aegean littoral": link to Aegean Sea?
  • Done
• I don't understand Turkish/Muslim bandits in the description of the image. Why not just "Muslim" as in the text? Were all Çetes Turkish? I see in "The Armenian Genocide: A Complete History", Kévorkian, 2011: "There they were shut up in a stable belonging to the mufti, Kuruca Koruğ, where a squadron of Turkish and Kurdish çetes stripped them of their belongings." so I guess some Çetes were Kurdish?
  • In this case, they may or may not have been Turkish and also included recent immigrants from the Balkans. So I removed the word Turkish from the caption (t · c) buidhe 15:56, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ottoman entry into World War I[edit]

• The same month, CUP representatives went to a Dashnak conference: I guess Dashnak is the adjective related to Dashnaktsutyun? But the term does not even appear in Armenian congress at Erzurum. It would be more clear to have "The same month, CUP representatives went to the 8th World Congress of the Armenian Revolutionary Federation"
  • I don't see how that would be clear? The sources I checked don't even mention which ARF/Dashnak conference it is, they identify it by the location and date.
• The same month, CUP representatives went to a Dashnak conference demanding that, in the event of war with Russia, the Dashnaktsutyun incite Russian Armenians to intervene on the Ottoman side.: the reader discovers at this point that there were ethnic Armenians outside the Ottoman Empire: how many of them? What were their links (if any) with Ottoman Armenians? I think this point is important and the historic distribution of Armenians in the region (including outside the Ottoman Empire) should be mentioned in the "Background" section.
• Wartime requisitions were often corrupt and arbitrary, and frequently targeted Greeks and Armenians.: what were these requisitions?
  • As with most requisitions it seems to be anything the army needed or wanted, including livestock, vehicles, goods, etc.
• Armenian leaders urged young men to accept conscription into the army the link to Seferberlik does not mention Armenian but "the forced conscription of Lebanese, Palestinian, Syrian, and Kurdish men". So is it correct to have this link here?
  • Seferberlik refers to the entire Ottoman war mobilization, not just specific ethnic groups
• "Revenge", an Ottoman map published during World War I. Territory lost during and after the Balkan Wars highlighted in black.: maybe add the Ottoman Turkish word انتقام?
  • Done
• The Armenian soldiers in labor battalions were systematically executed: would be great to have more data on that. Especially, how many Armenian soldiers were there in the Ottoman Empire army? I found this source (no idea how reliable it is): "At the outbreak of World War I some 60,000 Armenians between the ages of 18-45 were conscripted into the Ottoman Army. [...] What followed was the directive of Enver Pasha, Minister of War, to exterminate all Armenian soldiers in the army. More than 60,000 Armenian soldiers were brutally killed on the rear lines." and this one: "On August 1, 1914 World War I started. All the men in the Empire from 18 to 45 were conscripted to the army, among them also 60 thousand Armenian men, who joined those already serving in the Ottoman army. [...] The defeat at Sarikamish became a pretext to blame Armenian soldiers for treachery. On February 12, 1915 by the order of the same Enver pasha the disarmament of the Armenian soldiers of Ottoman army started, then amele taburi-es (labor battalions) and hamal taburi-es (cargo transportation battalions) were formed with the involvement of disarmed Armenian soldiers. At the same time the isolation and arrest of Armenian officers started. This was followed by the order of Enver, Military (War) minister, about the annihilation of Armenian soldiers serving in the Ottoman army. Thousands of Armenian soldiers and army suppliers were cruelly killed by their Turkish companions-in-arms." Also, looking for source I found this one mentioning that: "While many Armenian men served in the Ottoman Army, some crossed the border to join the Russian Army, and others formed guerrilla bands to fight Ottoman forces behind the front lines." As it is a common theme in Turkish genocide denial that Armenians helped the Russians I think it should be mentioned that most young Armenian Ottomans joined the Ottoman Army. I haven't read this but it may be a good source as well.
  • I'm hesitant to include this 60,000 figure since I can't find out where it comes from and it doesn't seem to be mentioned in any of the scholarly sources about the genocide (I looked on Google Scholar and the only one I found was "Approx. 60,000 Ottoman-Armenian soldiers took part in the Ottoman military campaign in the Caucasus in 1914." a footnote in Religious Minorities in Turkey, no source is given) this does not inspire confidence.
  • I don't know if it's accurate that most Armenians joined the army. Suny states that most Greeks got exempted and that Armenian community leaders encouraged recruitment but for Armenians as with other Ottoman communities there were issues with draft evasion and desertion. However, the Armenian units in the Russian Army were mostly made up of Russian and diaspora Armenians, and Armenian guerrilla activity in the empire was relatively minor and/or provoked. However, I wouldn't say the purpose of this article is to debunk Turkish claims but rather concisely summarize what it says in reliable sources.
    • Yes, the purpose isn't to debunk all Turkish claims. However, this is the main one. For instance, all Anadolu Agency's articles about the genocide end with: "Turkey's position on the events of 1915 is that the deaths of Armenians in eastern Anatolia took place when some sided with invading Russians and revolted against Ottoman forces. A subsequent relocation of Armenians resulted in numerous casualties." (example). According to the current version (in "Onset of genocide"): Enver publicly blamed his defeat on Armenians who he claimed had actively sided with the Russians, a theory that became a consensus among CUP leaders. [...] Historian Taner Akçam concludes that "the allegations of an Armenian revolt in the documents ... have no basis in reality but were deliberately fabricated". So I understand that there was no Armenian revolt, but did some Ottoman Armenians join the Russian forces? In Armenian volunteer units, one can read: "its ranks were primarily made up of Armenians from the Russian Empire, though there were also a number of Armenians from the Ottoman Empire." (not sourced) Reading that article, I discovered the Armenian fedayi, they may be mentioned as well, as: "Some fedayi groups joined the Ottoman army after the Ottoman government passed a new law to support the war effort that required all enabled adult males up to the age of 45 to either be recruited in the Ottoman army or to pay special fees (which would be used in the war effort) to be excluded from service. The Genocide, committed during World War I by the Ottoman Empire, gave way to the return of the fedayis, who reorganised themselves once again inside the borders of the Ottoman Empire. In turn, tens of thousands of Armenians volunteered to be drafted in several different armies. These Armenian volunteer units were formed inside the Russian army to fight against the Ottoman Empire." (again, not sourced) The French Armenian Legion is also interesting because it apparently included "Armenian exiles and refugees from the Ottoman Empire" but it was formed on November 15th, 1916 so after the beginning of the genocide and when it was almost completed (Based on contemporary estimates, Akçam figured that by late 1916, only 200,000 deported Armenians were still alive.). Were these units used as a retroactive justification for the genocide? This reminds me this other sentence in the article: From 1918 to 1920, Armenian militants committed revenge killings of at most 40,000 to 60,000 Muslims, providing a retroactive excuse for genocide. If there are reliable academic sources about the involvement of Ottoman Armenians in foreign armies (esp. Russian), in terms of both numbers and timing (before or after 1915/1916?), it would be amazing. A455bcd9 (talk) 10:38, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, one of the main Turkish arguments in genocide denial claims that the ARF was trying to stage a general rebellion in Ottoman Armenia while simultaneously have Armenians defect from the Ottoman Army (see this paper). According to this argument, the mass deportations were enacted in order to prevent this revolt from succeeding. Akcam and many others say there is no evidence for this theory.
      • I've looked through various sources on the Armenian volunteer units. There were some high profile Ottoman Armenian defectors (eg. Armen Garo) and Akcam in his 2012 book discusses recruitment of diaspora Armenians born in the Ottoman Empire into Russian volunteer units. I also found this (not a reliable source) stating "Deserters from the Turkish army as well as surrendered Armenians were included into formation of Armenian units." But I can't find any statistics on the exact scale of this phenomenon. As far as retroactive excuses goes, pretty much any anti-Ottoman activity by Armenians can be cited for the ultimate disloyalty and untrustworthiness of all Ottoman Armenians. (t · c) buidhe 14:35, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

        Thanks for checking. Too bad we don't have good sources for that... I just had a look at Kaligian 2014. It just says that "some" Ottoman Armenians joined the Russians: "Lewy, who writes, “Most of the volunteers were Russian subjects, exempt from military service; but some of them came from as far as America and Western Europe, and Turkish Armenians, too, began to cross the border to join these units.” Uras and the other denialist authors do make a valid point concerning the role played by Armen Garo as a commander in one of the volunteer regiments. To have such a high-profile ARF member and deputy cross the border could legitimately be seen by the CUP as a betrayal. But the actions of one individual cannot be generalized to an entire political party, much less an entire people, as these authors are wont to do." I wonder if it could be interesting to cite the example of Armen Garo and to mention that otherwise the Armenian volunteers in the Russian army were mostly Russian subjects and that only "some" Ottoman Armenians joined them. A455bcd9 (talk) 15:19, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

        I added more info to this section about the volunteer units and Ottoman Armenian attitudes towards the war. (t · c) buidhe 06:57, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Onset of genocide[edit]

• Same remark regarding "Dashnak" here, it's unclear for a non-expert that this is a short-term for "Dashnaktsutyun". By the way, Dashnaktsutyun may be replaced everywhere in the article by "Armenian Revolutionary Federation" as I think non-Armenian speakers struggle to read and understand "Dashnaktsutyun", and the Wikipedia article's title is "Armenian Revolutionary Federation" and not "Dashnaktsutyun".
  • Done

Systematic deportations: Aims[edit]

• Ottoman records show the government aimed to reduce the population of Armenians to no more than 5 percent in the sources of deportation and 10 percent in the destination areas.: cf. my previous remark, would be great to know before the genocide the % of Armenians by locality.
  • I'll reply to that above.
• Some areas with a very low Armenian population and some cities were partially spared from deportation.: what about Constantinople? What explains the current presence of Armenians there? According to the Armenian National Institute (here): "The majority of the Armenians in Constantinople, the capital city, were spared deportation." and before the genocide there were many Armenians in Istanbul. Would be worth mentioning, for instance: "Some areas with a very low Armenian population and some cities, such as Constantinople, were partially spared from deportation."
  • OK, added mention of Constantinople
• Map of the Armenian genocide in 1915:
  • What are the dots in the sea (from İzmir, Trabzon, Rize, etc.)? People killed at sea? The legend says "Deportation control centre", it's weird. This should be clarified. And because it is on the map the Armenian genocide in Trebizond may be mentioned: "The method employed to kill was mainly by mass drowning, resulting in estimated deaths of 50,000 Armenians."
  • I'm colorblind and I can't see any difference between "Deportation routes" and "Armenians and Assyrians escape routes"
    • Yes, I agree that there is room for improvement with this map. Unfortunately, it's beyond my ability to fix. (t · c) buidhe 10:27, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • The map used to be a featured picture and was delisted in 2019. We could ask graphists of the Illustration workshop (on Wikipedia and/or on Commons) to improve it. What do you think? A455bcd9 (talk) 11:36, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

        Yes, hopefully we can find someone willing to improve the map. Another issue I see is that it does not show Assyrian escape routes despite the claim. Ideally a map would show railways and rivers as this one does since these were used for transport and disposal of bodies. (t · c) buidhe 13:32, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Administrative organization[edit]

• the Directorate for the Settlement of Tribes and Immigrants (IAMM): what does IAMM stand for? I found "İskan-ı Aşair ve Muhacirîn Müdüriyeti". Maybe good to add it otherwise we don't understand why "IAMM" is used (instead of DSTI)
  • There are different ways to romanize the Ottoman Turkish name, but all English-language sources consulted abbreviate it as IAMM, not DSTI. I don't think writing out the full name is helpful to readers.
• Link to Eastern Anatolia Region could be added?
  • No, that's a modern administrative jurisdiction that is not synonymous with the geographic meaning of "eastern Anatolia"
• Many perpetrators came from the Caucasus (Chechens and Circassians), who identified the Armenians with their Russian oppressors.: is this sentence also sourced by Kévorkian 2011, p. 810.? Also, instead of "Caucasus" it could be more explicit to write Caucasus Viceroyalty or at least to link to it so that the reader understand that the region was ruled by the Russian Empire, which explains "Russian oppressors". Also, is "Russian oppressors" a neutral term?
  • Yes, both sentences are supported by the same source. I'm concerned it would be original research since the source does not state the Russian administrative jurisdiction. I also replaced "Russian oppressors" with "Russian conquerors".
• Some Ottoman politicians opposed the genocide, but they faced dismissal or assassination.: some => who? Witnesses and testimonies of the Armenian genocide cites a few, could be good to add "such as X, Y, and Z" with links. And also to add "and government officials" after "Ottoman politicians"
• The government decreed that any Muslim who harbored an Armenian against the will of the authorities would be executed.: should it be mentioned that some Muslims helped Armenians? (cf. Mehmet Celal Bey, the "Turkish Oskar Schindler", source)
  • Their opposition is mentioned in the previous sentence. I expanded to "and officials" but don't think it makes sense to mention individuals, because then there would be a question of which ones to mention. I also haven't mentioned/linked individual perpetrators or victims as examples, so it doesn't make sense to have special treatment of dissenting officials. I don't think appellations like "Turkish Oskar Schindler" are really all that meaningful.

Islamization[edit]

• "Islamized Armenians who were "rescued from Arabs" after the war": shouldn't this legend be changed? + a link to Vorpahavak added?
  • The caption can't be original research so I relied on the Library of Congress caption.

Destination[edit]

• No link to Deir ez-Zor?
  • Added link
• In the territory of the Ottoman Fourth Army: what was this territory?
  • Clarified that this was the western Levant
• All traces of Armenian existence, including churches and monasteries, libraries, archaeological sites, khachkars, and animal and place names, were systematically erased.: This statement is I think factually wrong. There are still several Armenian churches, cemeteries (cf. Şişli Armenian Cemetery), and schools in Turkey so I guess some were not "systematically erased" (cf. Armenian cultural heritage in Turkey) Some were also converted (such as Cathedral of Kars). Some were kept but unused and renovated decades later St. Giragos Armenian Church or Cathedral of the Holy Cross, Aghtamar. Providing numbers could help: "Most traces of Armenian existence were erased: X animal names were changed, Y Armenian places were renamed, out of Z churches before the war only ZZ were still intact after the genocide, etc."
  • Also, what were these Armenian "archaeological sites" in Turkey?
  • Reworded the sentence to avoid the implication that "all" was successfully destroyed. I don't think it's accurate to say that this destruction wasn't systematic but it was selective, since it was focused on the Armenian highlands and wasn't applied at all in Istanbul. (See Suciyan's book) I also deleted "archaeological sites", I believe it's from the Cheterian ref but I'm too lazy to look it up right now. (t · c) buidhe 06:32, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Perfect, thanks! A455bcd9 (talk) 11:59, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• This map could be added. It shows how the Armenian presence before the genocide and it seems based on a reliable source.
  • I don't think there's space to add that image unless another were removed.

Death toll[edit]

• The genocide reduced the Armenian population of the Ottoman Empire by 90 percent.: does this include both people exterminated and people who left (during and after the genocide)? Would be better to be more precise because if we know exactly by how much ("90 percent") the Armenian population declined then we should deduce (based on pre-War Armenian population) the number of people who died I guess. But the next sentence says The exact number of Armenians who died is not known and is impossible to determine.
  • The first figure must be the number of killed + exiled, although the source doesn't say so explicitly. As for the second statement, because of uncertainty over the prewar population as well as the postwar population, the exact number of deaths cannot be pinned down with any amount of precision. I ended up removing it as it's not like we'll ever know the exact number of deaths in the Holocaust or Rwandan genocide. (t · c) buidhe 21:05, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

International reaction[edit]

• The German Empire is mentioned, what about other Central Powers? (Austria-Hungary & Bulgaria)
  • I don't think it's WP:DUE. Almost all coverage is about Germany, mainly because its presence in the Ottoman Empire vastly exceeded other Central powers.

Aftermath[edit]

• Add link to Levant?
  • Already linked above
• Armenians organized a coordinated effort known as vorpahavak (lit. 'the gathering of orphans') to reclaim kidnapped Armenian women and children.: were these efforts successful? Do we know how many kidnapped Armenians were reclaimed? (dozens, hundreds, thousands?)
  • Thousands.
• Although the postwar Ottoman government passed laws mandating the return of stolen Armenian property, in practice, 90 percent of Armenians were barred from returning to their homes, especially in eastern Anatolia.: when were these laws passed? The armistice was signed on 31 October 1918 and the Republic of Turkey was formally declared on 29 October 1923. Were these laws "kept" by the Republic of Turkey? Also: were did these 90% of Armenians go instead?
  • The laws were passed by the postwar Ottoman government based in Istanbul. The issue of Armenian property laws is incredibly complex. But in general the Turkish government have not allowed Armenians to reclaim their properties, although in principle they are entitled to them. As for where the Armenians went instead, see the last paragraph before the "legacy" section. (t · c) buidhe 21:44, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Trials[edit]

• Grand Vizier Damat Ferid Pasha publicly recognized that 800,000 Ottoman citizens of Armenian origin had died as a result of state policy: there could be a note here that the Grand Vizier did not and could not recognize the events as a genocide because the term was only coined later.
  • I think that is already clear enough.
• Historian Hans-Lukas Kieser concludes that by agreeing to the treaty, the international community implicitly sanctioned the Armenian genocide.: I'm not a native speaker and for me "to sanction" means both "to give official permission or approval for (an action)." and "to impose a sanction or penalty on." (Oxford Languages). In this case I guess it's "to give official permission or approval for (an action)." but it's not obvious so I would avoid using the word "sanctioned". Also, I don't understand how by agreeing to the treaty, the international community approved the genocide.

• • OK, I removed the sentence. I think what is usually meant by this criticism of the treaty is it basically confirmed that "genocide works" and enabled Turkey to maintain all of the "advantages" that they got from genocide. Also there are some sources that argue that Germany was inspired by the Turkish example during wwii.

Turkish War of Independence[edit]

• Armenian survivors were left mainly in three locations. In the Republic of Turkey, about 100,000 Armenians lived in Constantinople and another 200,000 lived in the provinces, largely women who had been forcibly converted or married and adopted children.: What are these three locations: Constantinople, and?
  • The three locations are supposed to be Turkey, Soviet Armenia, and the Middle East. I reordered the paragraph to make this clear
• We can read in Armenian diaspora that: "the modern Armenian diaspora was largely formed as a result of World War I, when the Armenian genocide committed by the Ottoman Empire forced Armenians living in their homeland to flee or risk being killed." And yet the Armenian diaspora is only mentioned in the Legacy & "International recognition" part. I think the diaspora and the thousands of Armenians who fled to the US, France, Syria & Lebanon under French mandate, etc. should be mentioned (could be just in one sentence) here.
  • The Armenian diaspora article does say that but I don't know if it's accurate. We already mention Armenians in the Middle East, and many fewer Armenians went to US or France in the immediate aftermath of the genocide compared to the already mentioned areas so I'm not sure about WP:DUE.
    • According to the Armenian gov: "As a result of the Armenian Genocide, hundreds of thousands of survivors found refuge in various parts of the world, forming what is known today as the "traditional Armenian Diaspora." The Diaspora further expanded due to the collapse of the Soviet Union, and the ensuing economic and regional turmoil." I didn't download the whole book but based on Google Books preview I can read in The Armenian Genocide Legacy (by Alexis Demirdjian), p. 55 (by Pr Lorne Shirinian): "They had lost their Western Armenian homeland. The modern Armenian Diaspora had begun. Armenian orphans including those in Canada would remain in exile." and p. 85 (Dr. Susan L. Karamanian): "Armenian property was confiscated; Armenians were killed or deported; and those that survived traveled mainly by foot through the desert to Syria. An Armenian diaspora would make its way around the world". In The Armenian Genocide by Frank Chalk, Martin W. Lewis (senior lecturer in international history at Stanford) wrote a chapter "The Armenian Diaspora Is An Ongoing Phenomenon" where he argues that the Armenian diaspora started before the genocide and continues to this day but he still maintains that (bold mine): "Today, only about a third of their population lives in Armenia with the rest spread over a wide area... This pattern largely reflects the movements caused by deadly mass expulsions of the early 20th century that most scholars call the Armenian Genocide. As a result, standard reference sources on the "Armenian Diaspora" focus on the deadly Ottoman deportations in the Levant and the subsequent relocation of survivors to the far reaches of the world." So I think that the sentence in Armenian diaspora ("the modern Armenian diaspora was largely formed as a result of World War I, when the Armenian genocide committed by the Ottoman Empire forced Armenians living in their homeland to flee or risk being killed.") is correct and that such a sentence could be added to the article. For instance: "The modern Armenian diaspora largely reflects the movements caused by deportations and the subsequent relocation of survivors around the world."
      • OK, but most books on the Armenian genocide don't mention the diaspora outside of the Middle East (I checked) so the concern about due weight remains. From what I read there are several waves of Armenian migration into diaspora in modern times, some larger than post-1915: for example the 300,000 who left the Ottoman Empire prior to WWI or the even larger number (c. 1 million) who left Republic of Armenia since 1990. I did add an explicit mention and link to the Armenian diaspora. (t · c) buidhe 07:02, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Legacy[edit]

• according to Ihrig: first mention, there should be a link to Stefan Ihrig and maybe the full name => "according to historian Stefan Ihrig"?
  • Done

Turkey[edit]

• The nuances in Turkey's current official position should be indicated.
• Especially, since 2014, Erdoğan has every year, on April 24th, officially sent a message to the Armenian Patriarchate of Constantinople to offer his condolences to Armenians for the "events of 1915". (source 1, source 2, source 3)
  • This may be something that is pushed by the Turkish media but after thinking about it, I think it would be undue weight to include in this article. Most sources on modern Turkey's handling of the genocide barely mention this at all. It is touched on briefly at Armenian genocide denial#Politics, but the reliable sources that discuss it consider it an extension of denialism in slightly different rhetoric. You can ask how much of a change it really is. For example Galip states that since 2016 several people have been arrested in Turkey for discussing the genocide or peacefully commemorating it, and in 2019 Erdogan essentially said that the deported Armenians deserved it.
    • Yes I understand that Erdoğan's position is probably mostly marketing but at least at that time his declaration was noticed in the media, for instance: "It is the first time a Turkish leader has formally offered condolences for the mass killings." (Turkey offers condolences to Armenia over WWI killings. Armenian sources also report Erdoğan's declaration every year (example). If well-sourced, it could be interesting to add something like: "Turkish genocide denialism has evolved over time and in 2014 for the first time a Turkish leader formally offered condolences for the Armenians who died during WWI. However, Turkey still maintains that the deportations were legitimate." A455bcd9 (talk) 17:36, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  OK, I've rewritten the section, let me know what you think (t · c) buidhe 12:41, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Looks good to me! A455bcd9 (talk) 15:48, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The position of the Turkish society/public opinion should also be mentioned (cf. Armenian_genocide_recognition#Position_of_Turkey), for instance:
  • "In a 2015 poll for the Foundation for the Memory of Shoah and Fondapol, 33% of people between the ages of 16 and 29 living in Turkey surveyed answered in the affirmative to the question: "In your view, can we talk about genocide in relation to the massacre of the Armenians, by the Turks, in 1915?".[5]"
  • "2014 poll for The Centre for Economics and Foreign Policy Studies (EDAM), a Turkish think-tank:" "34.2% [consider that] "Turkey should apologize" or "express its regret over the Armenians that lost their lives in 1915"
    • The public opinion is already mentioned, noting that a majority of Turkish citizens (though not all) support the government's position.
• If relevant and well-sourced, the view of the Armenian community in Turkey could be mentioned as well.
  • I'm not aware of any quantitative studies on this. From Galip, I read that it is not a priority for some/many Turkish Armenians compared to other issues. However, I think that discussion of the different factions among Istanbul Armenians is beyond the scope of this article. (t · c) buidhe 09:20, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

International recognition[edit]

• As of 2021, 31 countries have recognized the genocide, along with Pope Francis and the European Parliament.: we could add the Council of Europe, to which Turkey is a member.
  • I'm trying to not to proliferate mentions of different international organizations, and the CoE is less influential than the EU.
• Germany, Austria, and Bulgaria could also be mentioned because their predecessors were allied with the Ottoman Empire and turned a blind eye on the genocide (as far as I understand)
  • There's some wisdom to that, but you can already see them on the map and it is hard to justify singling out individual countries without listing all 31.
• Map: we could add what the grey area means: "States without an official position on the recognition of the genocide", for instance?
  • I think it's already clear enough that grey means "neither"

Archives and historiography[edit]

• The genocide is extensively documented in [...] the Ottoman archives, despite systematic efforts to purge incriminating material.: what are these efforts? Destruction of archives?
  • Done
• Almost all historians and scholars outside of Turkey, and an increasing number of Turkish scholars, recognize the destruction of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire as a genocide.: would probably be better to say "outside of Turkey and Azerbaijan". Could we also provide the names of Turkish scholars who recognize the genocide?
  • Individual names are probably UNDUE and some were mentioned already (eg. Akcam, probably the most famous one). The cited sources don't mention Azerbaijan, so I think that would be original research.
• Polish-Jewish lawyer Raphael Lemkin, who coined the term genocide in 1944 vs in Terminology of the Armenian genocide (linked in the article): "The English word genocide was coined by the Polish Jewish lawyer Raphael Lemkin in 1943."
  • There are different dates given, however 1944 is more widely accepted as that was the year Lemkin's book was published.

Overall view[edit]

The article is great. I read it a few months ago and it is way better now: congrats! A455bcd9 (talk) 17:28, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Thought about this article again and realized that:
  • The lead mentions With the destruction and expulsion of Syriac and Greek Orthodox Christians, it enabled the creation of an ethnonational Turkish state. however besides one sentence (Armenians were a minority in most places where they lived, alongside Turkish, Kurdish, and Greek Orthodox neighbors.) it's unclear for the reader that before WWI the Ottoman Empire was a truly multiethnic and multireligious state. For instance the majority of Istanbul's population was non-Muslim before the genocides.
    • I don't think anyone could read this article and not figure out that Ottoman Empire is a multiethnic and multireligious state. Various religions (Syriac Orthodox, Greek Orthodox, Muslim, Jews) and ethnic groups (Kurds, Circassians, Turks, Chechens, Arabs, etc.) are discussed. It's true that this aspect isn't as explicit in the lead but the first sentence of the second paragraph already suggests this.
      • As you said it's not explicit and I think it could be. For instance: "The Ottoman Empire was a multiethnic and multireligious state, and Armenians were a minority in most places where they lived, alongside Turkish, Kurdish, and Greek Orthodox neighbors." A455bcd9 (talk) 10:39, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Done
  • Similarly, the position of the Armenian elite should be explained. Currently there's only Although most Ottoman Armenians were peasant farmers, they were overrepresented in commerce. As middleman minorities, there was a great disparity between the wealth of some Armenians and the overall political power of the group, making them especially vulnerable. This is not clear. What was the overall political power of the group? I don't understand if their political power was strong or weak, especially given that earlier it is mentioned that The Ottoman millet system offered non-Muslims a subordinate but protected place in society.. I can read in Armenians in the Ottoman Empire that: "Historian A. Tchamkerten writes "Armenian achievements in the Empire was not only in trade, however. They were involved in almost all economic sectors and held the highest levels of responsibility. In the 19th century, various Armenian families became the Sultan's goldsmiths, Sultan's architects and took over the currency reserves and the reserves of gold and silver, including customs duty. Sixteen of the eighteen most important bankers in the Ottoman Empire were Armenian"" We don't need such a long sentence but it could be useful to mention that the small Armenian elite held high level of responsibility in the Ottoman Empire and to explain what was their political power.
    • What the sentence is says is that Armenians' wealth greatly exceeded their political power. Even the richest Armenians were vulnerable to the arbitrary whim of the sultan. I've rewritten the sentence to be more straightforward.
      • Perfect, thanks! A455bcd9 (talk) 10:39, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • After reading the article, my main question is: Why? Why did the Ottoman Empire do that? The article doesn't answer this question. I know it is a complex subject but I think the lead in Causes of the Armenian genocide does a good job in explaining it: "Differing views of what caused the Armenian genocide include explanations focusing on nationalism, religion, and wartime radicalization and continue to be debated among scholars. In the twenty-first century, focus has shifted to multicausal explanations. Most historians agree that the genocide was not premeditated before World War I, but the role of contingency, ideology, and long-term structural factors in causing the genocide continues to be discussed." A similar sentence could be included somewhere in the article. It seems especially essential to me to mention that "Most historians agree that the genocide was not premeditated before World War I".
    • I'm not opposed to putting more of this in, but where do you think it should it go? The Background section already discusses the factors that historians consider to be among the short and long term causes of the genocide. I previously had more explicit language in the "onset of genocide" section that CUP leaders decided on genocide in early 1915, but switched it to a format where different developments are explained. The problem is that it's hard to pinpoint exact when genocide begins and different sources have different estimates.
      • Below "Onset of genocide" there's a link to Causes of the Armenian genocide so I think this section could start (or end) with the sentence I quoted above, as a general introduction (resp. intermediary conclusion). A455bcd9 (talk) 10:39, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've rewritten the "Aims" section to hopefully better answer the question "Why did the Ottoman Empire do that?" (t · c) buidhe 02:35, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Naming: the reader learns at the very end of the article that: Polish-Jewish lawyer Raphael Lemkin, who coined the term genocide in 1944, became interested in war crimes after reading about the 1921 trial of Soghomon Tehlirian for the assassination of Talaat Pasha. Lemkin recognized the fate of the Armenians as one of the most significant genocides in the twentieth century. But how did these events come to be known by a term coined 3 decades after they happened? A short "Naming" section at the beginning (with a link to Terminology of the Armenian genocide) could explain that. I think it's essential because one of the main arguments of genocide deniers in Turkey is that genocide is a legal term defined by the 1948 Genocide Convention and that only international courts can decide what constitutes a genocide. Whereas: 1/ even before the term "genocide" was coined, "Contemporary observers used unambiguous terminology to describe the genocide, including "the murder of a nation", "race extermination" and so forth." and 2/ even though the Convention is not retroactive, "the events of the Armenian genocide otherwise meet the legal definition of genocide."
    • I think it makes more sense to talk about what it's called after what it is. The "Legacy" section already discusses contemporary perceptions, which I've beefed up. As for "the events of the Armenian genocide otherwise meet the legal definition of genocide", that would be most historians which is already stated, but Turkey disputes it (on the ground that intent requirement is not met).
      • Got it, makes sense in "Legacy". If sourced, would be great to add to "the murder of a nation" to: It was described by contemporaries as "race extermination", "the greatest crime of the ages", and "the blackest page in modern history". As for "the events of the Armenian genocide otherwise meet the legal definition of genocide", yes historians are mentioned but it would be great to mention the 1948 Convention and the opinion of legal scholars as well, as they consider (I quote Terminology of the Armenian genocide here, assuming it is well-sourced): "Although most international law scholars agree that the 1948 Genocide Convention, which established the prohibition of genocide in international criminal law, is not retroactive, the events of the Armenian genocide otherwise meet the legal definition of genocide." It provides another academic perspective on the subject (reaching the same conclusion).
        • Partly done. I did not add the sentence from international law scholars because I could not find sources for how widespread a view this is.
  • Aftermath: I understand reading the article that the Ottoman Empire recognized the genocide: Grand Vizier Damat Ferid Pasha publicly recognized that 800,000 Ottoman citizens of Armenian origin had died as a result of state policy[241] and helped initiate the Ottoman Special Military Tribunal. [...] The court ruled that "the crime of mass murder" of Armenians was "organized and carried out by the top leaders of CUP". and Postwar Ottoman grand vizier Ferid said that "humanity, civilizations are shuddering, and forever will shudder, in face of this tragedy". But then it's unclear to me how we went from this Ottoman recognition to the current Turkish denial (which is explained in the "Turkey" subsection). The article also doesn't mention the collapse and dissolution of the Ottoman Empire and the creation of the Republic of Turkey. When I read the article I feel like "Ottoman Empire" = "Republic of Turkey".
    • Short answer, Ferid's government was trying to convince the Allies that the Armenian genocide was caused by a small number of wrongdoers (the CUP leadership) and that only they should be punished. That is why the Ottoman courts-martial tried some of the perpetrators. However, it was always more popular for Ottomans/Turks to see themselves as the victims of WWI. What limited support for Ferid evaporated after the Treaty of Sevres, which was perceived as too harsh on Ottoman Empire/Turkey. The Turkish nationalists operating at the same time were the continuation of the CUP and founded the modern Turkish republic. Therefore, you're not wrong to think "Ottoman Empire" = "Republic of Turkey". However, most of this is outside the scope of this article.
      • Couldn't this be developed a bit in the "Trials" section? For instance: "Grand Vizier Damat Ferid Pasha publicly recognized that 800,000 Ottoman citizens of Armenian origin had died as a result of state policy. His government tried to convince the Allies that the Armenian genocide was caused by a small number of wrongdoers—the CUP leadership—and helped initiate the Ottoman Special Military Tribunal."
      • The second paragraph starts with March 1923 (immunity) and ends with March 1921 (Talaat Pasha assassinated). Shouldn't it be better in chronological order? In that case the immunity + Lausanne could be mentioned in "Turkish War of Independence":
      • "Turkish War of Independence" could start with something like: "There was limited support for the Ottoman government after the Treaty of Sèvres. The nascent Turkish National Movement, opposed to the Treaty, was the continuation of the CUP. The nationalist movement depended on the support of perpetrators of the genocide and those who had profited from it." then sentences about the war. Then, maybe in a new paragraph (or even a new section "Republic of Turkey"): "On 1 November 1922, the Ottoman sultanate was abolished. on 31 March 1923, the nationalist movement passed a law granting immunity to CUP war criminals. Later that year, the Treaty of Lausanne established Turkey's current borders and provided for the Greek population's expulsion. Its minority protection provisions had no enforcement mechanism and were disregarded in practice. The ethnic cleansing of Anatolia—the Armenian genocide, Assyrian genocide and expulsion of Greeks—paved the way for the formation of an ethno-national Turkish state. On 29 October 1923, the Republic of Turkey was declared."
      • I think it would help to understand the transition and the fact that, in practice here, "Ottoman Empire" = "Republic of Turkey". Even though (I thought!) I knew some Ottoman & Turkish history, it was not obvious to me at all when I read the article.
      • Between 1922 and 1929, the Turkish authorities eliminated surviving Armenians from southern Turkey, expelling thousands to French-mandate Syria. could be moved at the end of the paragraph to respect the chronological order.
      • Side node: Turkish National Movement or Turkish nationalist movement?
      • Shouldn't the last paragraph of "Turkish War of Independence" be in a new section called "Survivors". I don't see how this paragraph (especially refugees in Russia and the Middle-East) is related to the war? We could add to this section the last paragraphs of the introduction of "Aftermath" about orphans + vorpahavak + the return of stolen Armenian property. The beginning of "Aftermath" could then be a new section "End of World War I".
      • As the British Army advanced in 1917 and 1918 northwards through the Levant, should probably in that case be moved before Ottoman troops withdrew from parts of Armenia following the October 1918 Armistice of Mudros.
      • Overall, I think the "Aftermath" section contains most relevant information but just needs to be reordered a bit. A455bcd9 (talk) 10:39, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • I believe I've done most of this. As for "Turkish nationalist movement" I've seen both in reliable sources. Also expanded on the refugee issue being a consequence of the TWOI and the rebels' refusal to allow survivors to return. (t · c) buidhe 12:40, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• A455bcd9 (talk) 09:31, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• A455bcd9, It's going to take me quite a while to respond to all these comments, but I'm sure the article will be better for them. (t · c) buidhe 10:27, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Great! It's the first time I review an article so I hope my comments were relevant for a FAC. A455bcd9 (talk) 11:29, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  A455bcd9 Sorry it's taken so long to get to all your comments. Are you happy with the changes? (t · c) buidhe 12:58, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks a lot for your hard work on this article: it's even better now! The only remaining issue for me is the "Map of the Armenian genocide in 1915" (cf. my comments above). I don't know if this is a blocking point to be a featured article. Otherwise, everything looks good to me! A455bcd9 (talk) 15:57, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild[edit]

Give me a ping once most of A455bcd9's comments have been addressed, so I am not picking up issues that have already been raised, and I'll recuse and give this a look over. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:24, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild It looks like I've addressed A455bcd9's comments! I would really appreciate a review from you if you're still planning to provide it. (t · c) buidhe 00:30, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Recusing to review. Feel free to remind me if I have not started in two or three days. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:55, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

• "the systematic destruction of ethnic Armenians". Optional: "destruction" → 'murder'.
  • This was discussed above. The issue with "murder" is that most reliable sources agree that the genocide was broader than murder and also included forced deportation, cultural destruction, Islamization, etc.

Fine. In which case you need to change "ethnic Armenians" to whatever it is that you are saying was destroyed. Eg, 'destruction of Armenian population and culture' or 'of the Armenian people and identity' or similar.

• "during death marches leading to the Syrian Desert". Delete "leading".
• "During their invasion of Russian and Persian territory". Perhaps add 'in 19xx ...'?
• Perhaps link "deportation"?
  • I think this would be too general term to be helpful.
• "definitive solution to the Armenian Question". Personally I would remove the quote marks. This is nailed down enough that it can be stated in Wikipedia's voice.
• "death marches leading to the Syrian Desert". 1. repetition 2. suggest removing "leading".
• "another wave of massacres was ordered". Strictly, you haven't mentioned a previous wave.
  • The first wave was those that occurred further north in 1915 during the death marches. I agree that the wording might be improved but I can't think of an improvement.
• "Eastern Anatolia"; "eastern Anatolia". Which?
  • Lowercased
• "with the destruction and expulsion". Suggest "destruction" → 'murder'.

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:33, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Done everything except those mentioned above (t · c) buidhe 03:48, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Background

• "the sixth century BCE, more than a millennium before the arrival of Turkmens under the Seljuk dynasty." Without checking, I thought it quite a bit longer. What date do the sources give for the latter event? (I accept that even 1,500 years meets the criterion for "more than a millennium".
  • This is often dated to the Battle of Manzikert, although I believe there were some Turkmen incursions into present-day Turkey prior to that battle. Would it be an improvement to state "about 1,500 years"?

Yeah, that was what I immediately thought. Personally, yes, 'about 1,500 years', but it is a minor issue.

• "Following the Byzantine Empire's fall in 1453". I think "in 1453" is misleading. I wouldn't have thought that I would have difficulty finding sources dating it to the 1071 Battle of Manzikert.
  • Changed to "end of the Byzantine Empire" as it is correct that the decline of the Byzantine Empire began earlier.
• "On the eve of World War I". Perhaps date this? For the more militarily ignorant among our readers.
• "towns and villages in the empire". Suggest "empire" → 'Ottoman Empire'.
• "Conditions of the Armenian peasantry". I think that "of" → 'for'.
• "In 1876, when Sultan Abdul Hamid II came to power, the state began to confiscate Armenian-owned land in the eastern provinces and give it to Muslim immigrants as part of a systematic policy to reduce the Armenian population of these areas that lasted until World War I." This sentence is a bit long. Perhaps break "This policy lasted until WWI" or similar off hte end?
• "an opposition movement, the Young Turks, who sought to". Should "who" not be 'which'?
• "took steps to reform local gendarmes". Do you mean something like 'took steps to reform the local gendarmerie'? Or was it individual gendarmes who were reformed?
• "would turn into another Macedonia". I suspect that the reference will be missed by virtually all readers. Perhaps unpack it a little? Or rephrase?
• "by resettling Balkan Muslims". Worth explaining a little with 'by resettling Balkan Muslim refugees' or similar perhaps?
• "Around 150,000 Greek Orthodox". Is that acceptable grammar? (As opposed to 'Around 150,000 Orthodox Greeks'.)
  • This refers to followers of the Greek Orthodox Church, not all of whom spoke Greek or were citizens of Greece

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:54, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Done everything except those mentioned above (t · c) buidhe 02:16, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WWI & Onset

• "before the Ottoman Empire officially entered the war.[87] On 29 October 1914, the Ottoman Empire entered World War I". I find it a little confusing that after multiple cases of "the empire", the article suddenly starts giving the name in full. (Personally I would always give it in full, but that's your call.)
• "and therefore largely unable to organize armed resistance to deportation in 1915." I don't personally like this stepping out of chronological order and would suggest deleting this, or moving to the appropriate chronological point.
  • I thought about moving this later in the article but either way it breaks the chronology (then we would be referring to the 1914 call-up in the discussion of 1915 events)?
• "The retreating Ottoman army indiscriminately destroyed dozens of Ottoman Armenian villages". Why "indiscriminately"? It sounds as if they were discriminating - against Armenian villages.
• "and others marched away to be killed later". You have already dealt with men, women and children; who constituted these "others"?
  • Rephrased. Source states: "After the men were gathered together and shot, the women were offered to the local Kurds; those not killed or converted were marched away, usually to be murdered later."
• Maybe a more universally comprehensible word/phrase than "shuttering"?
• "diverted the Armenians who had previously been removed from Cilicia from central Anatolia". 1. "diverted" suggests that the Armenians were still in transit, were they? 2. "from Cilicia from central Anatolia": the repeated "from" had me reading this three times to understand it.
  • At the time this order was given, some Armenians were already arrived in central Anatolia and others were in transit. Rephrased to improve clarity.

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:27, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Done everything except those mentioned above (t · c) buidhe 15:32, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deportations[edit]

• " aimed to reduce the population of Armenians to no more than 5 percent". Does this mean 5% of the prior Armenian populatuin, or 5% of the resultant total population? 2. Why "5" and not 'five'?
  • Changed to "five" and "ten", clarified that this refers to the total population not the previous Armenian population.
• "an ethno-national Turkish state." I think a reader might be a bit vague about the meaning of "ethno-national". May be 'ethnically homogeneous' or similar?
  • Turkey wasn't ethnically homogenous after WWI. There were still Kurds, as well as many non-Turkish Muslims of Balkan and Caucasian origin. The difference here is that Talaat believed he had eliminated the ethnic groups who were an obstacle to building a Turkish nation-state, and that these Muslim groups could be successfully "Turkified" (which turned out only partly to be the case).
• "the most important war aim". Really? More important than winning the war? Or being overrun by Greece?
  • Kieser doesn't say that this in fact was the most important, only what Talaat claimed upon realizing that he had lost, I guess in order to put a positive spin on things. I've rephrased to avoid any confusion.
• "On 21 June, Talaat ordered the deportation of all Armenians throughout the empire, even Adrianople ... Following the completion of deportation from other areas, in August 1915, deportation was extended to western Anatolia and European Turkey" If deportation throughout the empire was ordered in June, with Adrianople in Europe picked out, how can it be "extended" to the same areas two months later?
  • Although in June the decision was made in principle to deport all Armenians throughout the empire, it took them some time to put this order into practice (for example the Armenians of Adrianople were deported partly at the end of October 1915 and partly on 17–18 February 1916). Rephrased to be more clear.
• "The IAMM, under the control of Talaat's Ministry of the Interior and the Special Organization,". Should there be a comma after "Interior"?
  • Yes, added
• Link imams.
  • Done
• "killers were entitled to a third of Armenian movable property". Does that mean a third of the property of the specific Armenian[s] they killed? If so could this be specified. If not, could whatever the mechanism was be specified.
  • Neither of the sources specifies exactly how this division was made. For example Kaiser states, "Perpetrators had been allowed to a third of plunder, while local authorities were entitled to another third, and the rest was due to be handed over to the CUP." Since the executions were done by groups of killers working together, one possibility is that after they were done killing they were supposed to add together the property they found on the victims, take one third to split between themselves, and turn the rest over.
• "The convoys would stop at a nearby transit camp". Is "nearby" necessary?
  • I think so, to state that these camps were located near the execution sites.
• "There was a distinction between the convoys from eastern Anatolia, which were eliminated almost in their entirety, and those from farther west, who made up most of those surviving to reach Syria." "... which ... who ..." I think you need to chose one. (Suggest "which".)
  • Done
• "it is estimated that as many as 2 million Turkish citizens may have at least one Armenian grandparent." Could we hava date in here? (I first thought it meant in 1915.)
  • Done
• "physical destruction". This seems an odd way of saying 'death'.
  • I kept the wording close to the source because it's not clear if it means "death" in every case or also includes for example deportation to the Syrian desert as a way of dealing with surplus Armenians.
• "Women and children who fell into Muslim hands during the journey typically ended up in Turkish or Kurdish hands". A synonym for one of the "hands"?
  • Done
• "presuming that they had ceased to exist"> Might this be clearer as 'it was presumed that they had ceased to exist'?
  • Done
• "Confiscated property was often used to". I think you mean 'The proceeds from the sale of ...'
  • Done

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:28, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• "Crimes against humanity later became a category of international criminal law after World War II". Delete "later".
• "Since 1988, Armenians and Turkic Azeris have been involved in a decades-long conflict". The use of both "Since 1988" and "decades-long" seems redundant.

That's all I can see. A fine piece of work. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:07, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Done both. Many thanks for your review! (t · c) buidhe 17:06, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Well up to your usual standards. Happy to support. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:22, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Buidhe, a couple of afterthoughts added above for your consideration. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:33, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done both, thanks again for your review! (t · c) buidhe 12:41, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Jr8825[edit]

I hope to give this a read through and provide some feedback. Jr8825 • Talk 14:17, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Is Sedentarization of Kurdish tribes an article that's likely to be created in the future (no other articles point towards it)? I see you argued it should be kept as a redlink back in March, but it seems to me like a topic that might be adequately covered at Kurds#Ottoman period? (In which case we could follow the style used in the lead of Deportations of Kurds and link it as "sedentarization of Kurdish tribes", which seems more helpful to me. Further comments to come as I work through the article. Jr8825 • Talk 17:04, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think this topic was covered anywhere else on Wikipedia, so I stubbed it. (t · c) buidhe 21:23, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Buidhe: apologies for taking so long to come back to this. I read through the remainder of the article today. I made a few minor tweaks mostly for style, feel free to undo any of them if you think they're not an improvement. I also have a few more nit-picks/comments for your consideration:

• "These pressures played a key role in the intensification of Armenian persecution, endorsed by the central government already before 1915" – this leaves me wondering what "endorsed by the central government" entailed in the early stages of the genocide's development. Secretly official policy from the top? Openly unofficial policy? Tolerance/acceptance of actions initially developing without official authorisation, even if instigated by senior leaders in government? Or actively encouraged, but not mandated? Are the sources more detailed/explicit about this? More precision/nuance here would be appreciated.
  • Right, this is an analysis of secret cables requesting permission for various anti-Armenian persecutions on a local level, or suggesting empire-wide policies against Armenians. I have rephrased hopefully to be more clear.
• "Historian Taner Akçam concludes that "the allegations of an Armenian revolt ... have no basis in reality but were deliberately fabricated" – my understanding is that this is the predominant view among historians/widely accepted. (And that the contrary view is central to denialism and rejected by scholars). I'm aware Taner Akçam is highly regarded in this field, by might attributing this point to a single historian (who readers may not know) risk understating/downplaying it somewhat? Perhaps it can be written in wikivoice first (e.g. something along the lines of "historians agree"/"most historians say"), if the academic consensus is as strong as I expect it is? Then Akçam's quote can be used to illustrate this.
  • I totally agree with you about the widespread nature of this viewpoint, but it may be difficult to find a source that supports the kind of statement you are suggesting. Will look and see what I can find.
    • OK, I rephrased so it does not use a direct quote and does not need attribution. Are you happy with this, or I could spend more time looking for a source that explicitly discusses academic consensus on this subject.
      • I think the new wording is much better, and it conveys the paranoia (and its roots) more clearly. Given that those sentences are now based on factual narrative (rather than a historian's statement) and backed by two sources, I don't think we need to delve further into historiography there. Jr8825 • Talk 11:20, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Caption "Armenians gathered in a city prior to deportation. They were murdered outside the city" – the caption here doesn't quite match the caption on the file page ("to be deported and eventually massacred."). It suggests to me those photographed may have died shortly afterwards in the immediate environs, whereas the caption on the file page implies more that the location of their deaths is unknown/may have varied/been far away. I don't have access to the ebook to verify what the original caption is. It'd also be good to know which city the photograph was taken in, if known.
  • The original caption was "Armenians of a prosperous city assembled in front of a government building, by order of the authorities. They are waiting to be deported. Just outside the city they were massacred." I think my caption is a reasonable paraphrase of that. Original caption now quoted and linked in the image description.
• "Many others were trapped in valleys of tributaries of the Tigris..." – a bit wordy. Perhaps "held" instead of "trapped"? Perhaps shorten to "tributary valleys"?
  • Done
• "Women and children who fell into Muslim hands during the journey typically ended up in Turkish or Kurdish households, unlike those captured in Syria by Arabs and Bedouins" – I find this paragraph confusing. If "fell into Muslim hands" is referring to the previous two paragraphs (Islamisation, slave labour and forced marriage) I suggest this is made explicit (e.g. "fell into Muslim hands due to Islamization, forced labour or marriage,"). It seems self-explanatory that those captured by Arabs and Bedouins wouldn't end up in Turkish or Kurdish households, so what point is the sentence trying to make, and can it say this more clearly? I think the paragraph's gist is that those who didn't end up in domestic service in Turkey, but still survived, often ended up as slaves, but slavery isn't mentioned until later in the paragraph. The first sentence should explain/summarise this. Is the whole paragraph discussing Armenians captured in Syria, or are the "military commanders" mentioned in the first half Ottoman officers on the journey? (And are we discussing military soldiers or gendarmes here?) I'm not sure how much the sentence on military rape ties in with the rest of the discussion on slavery in Syria; perhaps only the last sentence, about slaves being sold in Arabian slave markets, is about those captured by Arabs and Bedouins? I think a connective (e.g. "Conversely,") would help to distinguish what's being discussed in each part of the paragraph. Also, how exactly were Armenians "captured" in Syria? Were they mostly sold?
  • The point is that the Islamization by coerced integration into Muslim households took place wherever the Armenians were. Whether they became Arabs, Turks, or Kurds all suited the CUP's agenda. I've tried to rephrase to be more clear and altered the paragraphing.
    • Yes I think this is clearer. Jr8825 • Talk 11:20, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• "a hundred thousand Armenians protested in Yerevan" – better as 100,000? Jr8825 • Talk 11:00, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done
    • I'm happy your changes have addressed my concerns. This is an excellent article, and I'm particularly impressed by its concision and readability, which make it very accessible. I think there's scope for further development in the future – perfectibility on a topic such as this is implausible – but I believe it passes the FA criteria and I'm glad to support it. Jr8825 • Talk 11:20, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Brief comment from Aza24[edit]

Though the Cultural depictions has "Armenian genocide in culture" listed as the main article of the section, it doesn't seem to cover the full scope. Essentially the section focuses solely on literature and one film. The biggest omission is Arshile Gorky, who is a hugely important artist and seemingly directly impacted by this event. I feel that at least the fact that music have been created as a reaction to the genocide should be included. Something like "numerous works of music have been created in response to the genocide including pieces by [insert a few of the most notable names here]". Looking at the musicians, I know that Komitas, Khachaturian and Hovhaness are very important composers. Considering how many films have been made, it might be worth noting that as well. Again, not looking for a major expansion of this section, just something like 2–3 more lines; at least one for Gorky and 1–2 for music/film, otherwise, the sole inclusion of literature and a single film doesn't make sense. Aza24 (talk) 09:27, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi Aza, this is a good point and another area where it's hard to assess due weight because the art/culture (except Musa Dagh) is rarely discussed in general works on the subject. I had a sentence on Gorky, I'll add it back and see what to do about music/film. (t · c) buidhe 19:43, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aza24, I've expanded the section accordingly. However, I do believe that Werfel's book—because of its high popularity over a long period of time, and high influence—as well as Ravished Armenia due to its impact on fundraising and influencing Western views on the genocide at an early date are arguably the two most important works to be mentioned in this section. I am not finding as many sources that connect music to the Armenian genocide as with film or other cultural products so I didn't add a sentence on that. (t · c) buidhe 12:53, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, no worries! I trust your judgement, and am happy to see Gorky be included, as his art seems to directly tied that it would be an omission not to mention him. Aza24 (talk) 23:35, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by John the Janitor[edit]

Is there a reason that article prefers Erzerum instead of Erzurum? Also, I think archive and historiography part could contain a see also link to Kemalist historiography article.--John the Janitor (talk) 21:40, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I attempt to consistently use the most common Ottoman Turkish romanization. As you can see from this NGRAM, the spelling "Erzurum" only came into use in English because it's the modern Turkish spelling, during the era of the Ottoman Empire it was romanized as "Erzerum". Added a link to Kemalist historiography. Thanks for your work expanding that article! (t · c) buidhe 21:48, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for linking the article. However, I think sticking to the more recent spelling would be better as it seems to be more common since last 40 years, unless Wikipedia has a guideline urging to use the old versions in historical context. Best regards.--John the Janitor (talk) 21:58, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I do believe that the general practice is to use the historically accurate English language name. See for example discussion on Constantinople/Istanbul. This is also followed for respellings such as Kiev/Kyiv and Danzig/Gdánsk. (t · c) buidhe 22:10, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Then, I support the article to become a featured one. Best regards. --John the Janitor (talk) 22:15, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cartography[edit]

I am willing to make or remake some maps for this article, just let me know what you need --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 12:53, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

All images look reasonably sourced and placed to me. Most images lack ALT text however. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:44, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HF - support[edit]

Will take a look at this one. Hog Farm _Talk 03:36, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• "As of 2021, 31 countries have recognized the events as genocide, as do the vast majority of historians." - are we sure this is the right number? Our article at Armenian genocide recognition with the Vatican but not Denmark while File:States recognising the Armenian Genocide.svg has 33 including Denmark but not the Vatican (although Denmark doesn't seem to be highlighted on the map). I imagine the other one that is different is Latvia, who recognized the genocide this May
  • Well, it depends on exactly how you count. For the article statement, I went with what at least one source says about the number of countries, although it doesn't quite match the map. (Otherwise I would have to individually cite each country). Fixed the map to include Denmark.
    • Digging into the source, it looks like part of the difference is that Armenia isn't counted in the 31, which makes sense again. Although I do notice that the map caption states that the countries that deny are Turkey and Azerbaijan, but Pakistan is now in red, as well. Hog Farm _Talk 14:33, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • There's a source cited for Pakistan in the image description. (t · c) buidhe 15:16, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• "the allegations of an Armenian revolt in the documents" - it is unclear what these documents are. Propaganda? Internal CUP memoranda?
  • Akcam considers a bunch of documents, mostly related to the Ottoman military, that have been cited for the claims of revolt, then states"Unfortunately, the allegations of an Armenian revolt in the documents above have no basis in reality but were deliberately fabricated". I've removed the reference to "documents" as I agree it raises the question what these documents are.
• File:Armenian Genocide Map-en.svg - is there a way to make it clearer in the caption that, based on the Commons file description, that the different colors of crossed swords are what indicate greater/lesser resistance, rather than size which might be a reasonable assumption?
  • To be honest, I don't think that either the color or the size of the swords on this map correlates very well with the actual size / significance of the resistance. ~
• "Following the elimination of the Armenian population in eastern Anatolia from other areas, in August 1915, the Armenians of western Anatolia and European Turkey were targeted for deportation" - Maybe I'm misreading this, but I'm struggling to see how the clause "from other areas" fits in here
  • Removed
• "paid the exemption task" - Should this be tax instead of task?
  • Fixed typo
• "that around 1 million Armenians died during the genocide" - linking only the word died is a little MOS:EGG-y here, maybe have the piped link be for "died during the genocide"?
  • Done

Good work here on a very difficult topic, I think that's all from me. Hog Farm _Talk 04:46, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Hog Farm Thanks for your review! (t · c) buidhe 05:45, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by Borsoka[edit]

• ...about 1,500 years before the arrival of Turkmens under the Seljuk dynasty. Do the cited works verify this statement? Is the statement necessary?
  • 1) Yes, and 2) it's emphasized especially by Suny so I think it's relevant to include.
• ...its millet system offered non-Muslims..., ...freedom of worship to non-Muslims... Factually wrong. Christians and Jews were protected and enjoyed the freedom of worship.
  • Well, it reflects the cited source, so I believe the wording is appropriate. Also, tolerated non-Muslims in the Ottoman Empire included other groups such as Samaritans and Mandaeans.
• ...Kurdish landlords... What about Turkish landlords? Perhaps landlords/Muslim landlords?
  • The source is discussing the parts of the country that had previously been under the rule of Kurdish principalities and uses the wording "Kurdish landlords".
• Conditions for the Armenian peasantry in the eastern provinces regressed from 1860 onwards. Is this sentence necessary? It contains no actual information, but contradicts the previous sentence (about the 1850s) and the following sentence (about the mid-19th century).
  • I don't see any contradiction, but removed anyway.

...more to come... Borsoka (talk) 04:05, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Consider introducing Djemal Pasha.
  • Done
• Ottoman politicians and officials who opposed the genocide were dismissed or assassinated. Perhaps some examples?
  • I don't think this would be helpful as they aren't otherwise mentioned in the article or significant to the article topic
• ...Hamidian massacres... Perhaps Hamidiye massacres or massacres by the Hamidiye regiments? (The adjective "Hamidian" is newly introduced in the text).
  • Reworded
• ...the Tigris, Euphrates, or Murat River... Is this grammatically correct? Three rivers are listed.
  • Reworded
• ... the Ottoman government also wanted the corpses cleared to prevent photographic documentation. The Ottoman government ordered the corpses to be cleared as soon as possible, which was not uniformly followed. Consider consolidating the two phrases to avoid repetition.
  • Rephrased
• There was a distinction between the convoys from eastern Anatolia, which were eliminated almost in their entirety, and those from farther west, which made up most of those surviving to reach Syria. For example, around 99% of Armenians deported from Erzerum did not reach their destination. Do we have an example of the survival rate of those who were deported from western Anatolia? Perhaps an average ratio could also be mentioned, because in section Destination 870,000 deportees are mentioned as reaching Syria and Upper Mesopotamia in October 1915.
  • I'm not aware of figures for this. A complication is that some Armenians in Western Anatolia were not deported at all.
    • I think the two figures (99% dead toll during the transport and 870,000 deportees reaching Syria and Upper Mesopotamia) are obviously contradictory, but I think this is not a major issue.
• ..., providing a retroactive excuse for genocide Definitely not. To whom?
  • Reworded, the sources don't specify exactly who is doing this, but anyone making this argument is trying to deny or justify the genocide (by definition) and it's a fairly common argument in Armenian genocide denial
• Eighteen perpetrators were sentenced to death, of whom only three were ultimately executed as the remainder had fled and were tried in absentia. Could some of them be listed?
  • The only significant figures to be convicted were the top CUP leaders (Talat, Enver, Djemal, Nazim and a few others), who were in exile, while those executed were fairly insignificant. I,ve mentioned the first three as they're already discussed in the article
• ...as well as intimidation and threats Perhaps some examples?
  • The details are in the Armenian genocide denial article. A well known example is the attempt to cancel the 1982 International Conference on the Holocaust and Genocide.

Thank you for this thoroughly researched and exceptionally well written article. I hope many people will read it. Borsoka (talk) 06:55, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All my concerns but one were addressed. I support this nomination. Borsoka (talk) 14:06, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note[edit]

Just noting, particularly for the benefit of fellow coords Buidhe, Gog and Hog Farm, that I'm aware a process of elimination gives me sole responsibility for closing this, and I'll soon be walking through to see where we stand... :-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:04, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Ian Rose Hi Ian, we now have two more supports than when you left your comment and it's now the oldest FAC. Perhaps you could take another look? Thanks, (t · c) buidhe 21:20, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Noted, just had an extremely busy few days... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:44, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Checking now that the latest reviews seem to have wound up, the origin/attribution of a few quotes are unclear to me:

• "internal tumors"
• "liberate Turkish Armenia"
• "do to them whatever you wish"

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 20:22, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks Ian Rose, I ended up removing all of them. (t · c) buidhe 00:29, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cool. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:30, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: , permission to nominate another article while Ian looks at this one? Thanks, (t · c) buidhe 03:55, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Granted. Hog Farm _Talk 04:15, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Grapple X[edit]

Had initially started looking at this a few weeks ago before an unfortunate laptop droppage left me working off a phone for a while, so I'm only getting back to leave some comments now. By an large a very thorough and clear article so I don't have much to quibble about but here are my concerns:

• Most images have no alt text, even a brief description would be welcome for those without
  • I'm really bad at alt text, but I made an attempt
    • That works. There might be some room to offer a summary of the wide map rather than simply mentioning it, but the question would be what to focus on, but as it stands I'm happy enough with them.
• "Some Ottoman politicians and officials opposed the genocide, but they faced dismissal or assassination"—I'm wondering can we elaborate on this a little. I take it this threat of death didn't come from the state, or it would be deemed "execution", as it is in the following sentence (if I'm wrong here this could be clarified). However I'm not sure if the threat of assassination was in the form of death threats or if there were assassinations carried out, in which case this could be mentioned.
  • OK, after checking the sources I realized that none of them used the word "assassination". There were several officials killed unofficially by Mehmed Reshid's death squads and possibly other CUP hardliners also killed subordinate officials who refused to play along. (Bozarslan et al states: "On sait aussi que ces représentants faisaient immédiatement destituer les fonctionnaires qui rechignaient à appliquer les ordres de déportation venus du centre. Certains l’ont payé de leur vie.") Although Reshid was not prosecuted for these murders, he had no authorization to do so from the central government and the killings were equally extrajudicial as were the murder of Armenians by the same death squads. Do you think "murder" is better?
    • It's less a matter of the terminology (I think either "murder" or "assassination" would work) and more of how they "faced" assassination; explicitly mentioning these deaths as having occurred is what I'd like to see.
      • Rephrased
• "unfree laborers" feels a little euphemistic, is this the term the source uses? Our article on forced labour covers a few exceptions whereby unfree labour is not considered forced and I don't believe this falls under one of them.
  • I don't really see a difference between "unfree" and "forced" but changed if you think the latter is better.
    • While it wasn't technically the case at the time there's a legal distinction between the two now so I think it does behove us to use what would be the correct term today.
      • Done
• "Outside of Istanbul, the traces of Armenian existence, including churches and monasteries, libraries, khachkars, and animal and place names, were systematically erased." The egg link to Animal name changes in Turkey seems to cover changes made in the 21st century; what was changed in the 1910s?
  • The cited source does not go into detail about the dates on this but regardless of whether it happened in 1917 or 2017 it is still part of the consequences of the genocide
    • True, but the implication with "were" is one of relative immediacy, maybe a rephrasing is in order to convey that this has been an ongoing process since the event.
      • Changed to "have been"
• Under "International recognition", I feel the prose should make explicit mention of some of the information currently only present in the map caption, namely that Pakistan also denies the genocide (the other two nations denying it are covered). It would also help alleviate the brevity of that paragraph.
  • Well, the two main sources are https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20210426-pakistan-backs-turkey-on-armenia-genocide-claims/ and https://ahvalnews.com/armenian-genocidde/pakistan-says-us-recognition-armenian-genocide-one-sided-political . I'm not sure whether either of these qualify as high-quality RS and Pakistan's position has not received anything close to the same attention as Turkey or Azerbaijan, raising issues of WP:UNDUE. (It seems to give excessive weight to the red side of the column since many countries' official genocide recognitions have received vastly more RS coverage than Pakistan's support for Turkey).
    • If it's worth including in a caption, I feel it's worth including in the text; I don't feel a brief mention in that section would be undue but I would defer to your judgement on whether those sources are reliable enough to support it. If we can't support mention of it in prose I'm not keen to see it in a caption, personally I would say it's both or neither really.
      • Removed from the caption

That's it for me—not too many points and hopefully all can be addressed or responded to. Good work. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 14:36, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the review! I hope you were able to get your laptop fixed. (t · c) buidhe 16:17, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Complete write-off, I'm afraid; you know it's a bad break when the first thing you reach for is the broom. A few responses above, if you want me to strike out anything I'm happy with let me know. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 20:46, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Everything raised has been addressed. I am happy to support this nomination at present. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 23:05, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley[edit]

• "would also attempt to break free of the empire." This implies that you have previously mentioned attempts to break free, but you have not.
  • Reworded
• "The Kingdom of Armenia". I assume that this was much larger than modern Armenia. Perhaps worth clarifying that it covered areas now in Armenia, Turkey and Iran, if that is correct.
  • Correct, the borders were very different. But I think this is already implied by discussion of Western vs. Eastern Armenia, the former of which is not at all included in the Republic of Armenia, and the map.
• "In the mid-nineteenth century, the Ottoman government instituted the Tanzimat, a series of reforms to equalize the status of Ottoman subjects regardless of religion. This goal was strongly opposed by Islamic clergy and Muslims in general and remained mostly theoretical.[16][17][18] Nevertheless, some Islamists believed that by seeking equality, non-Muslims lost the protection to which they were entitled under sharia law.[19] The Ottoman Land Code of 1858 disadvantaged Armenians" I am not clear what you are saying here. First you say it was a top down reform which was a dead letter, then imply that it was bottom up from non-Muslims. What is meant by them losing protection by seeking equality - that Islamists argued that they lost the moral right to protection by illegitimate demands? When did the reforms start and did the Land Code bring an end to them?
  • There are various points and I'd agree that not all of them are being communicated well:
    • The Tanzimat reforms that promised legal equality of non-Muslims remained in large part a paper exercise, especially outside of Istanbul
    • The condition of Armenians in the east worsened during the Tanzimat era, which was partly due to direct and indirect effects the reforms themselves and partly for unrelated reasons
    • Islamists indeed "argued that [Armenians] lost the moral right to protection by illegitimate demands"
    • The 1858 land code disadvantaged peasants compared to large landowners. Peasants, both non-Muslim and Muslim, were the losers in this reform, especially in eastern Anatolia, but the landowner class was entirely Muslim because it had been illegal for non-Muslims to take on that role.
    • Conflict over land, which took on ethnic dimensions, was one of the most important factors leading to the 1915 genocide.
  • Let me think about how to better communicate this.

• Have you thought? Dudley Miles (talk) 21:20, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Dudley Miles I made some changes in response to your comments. I'm not sure if it entirely addresses your concerns. (t · c) buidhe 09:15, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, I made some changes, but I'm not sure if you think it addresses your concerns. (t · c) buidhe 21:43, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "At least 10 percent of Ottoman Armenians were mobilized, leaving their communities bereft of fighting-age men and therefore largely unable to organize armed resistance to deportation in 1915." 10% seems low. Presumably it was the proportion of young men that mattered?
  • Keeping in mind that the population was pre-demographic transition and therefore a very high proportion were children, 10% probably represented the bulk of young men of military age. I can't find any more detailed figures.
• More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:57, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "Akçam and Ümit Kurt". You should give Akçam's full name and say that they are modern historians.
  • Done
• "Outside of Istanbul, the traces of Armenian existence, including churches and monasteries, libraries, khachkars, and animal and place names, have been systematically erased." Was this done during WWWI? What happened in areas which were not part of Turkey after the war.
  • Clarified that this only applies to modern day Turkey and that it began during WWI and continued afterward
• "Witness testimony was published in books such as The Treatment of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire (1916) and Ambassador Morgenthau's Story (1918), which raised public awareness about the genocide." I think you should name the authors.
  • The first of these did not have a single author, although it was compiled by Arnold Toynbee. The second names the author already in the title.
• "While Armenians in the capital faced discrimination". Presumably Constantinople was still then the capital, but this should be clarified. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:20, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reworded.

• Sorry I missed your reply on Tanzimat. Just one more query: "many now had to pay double taxation: both to Kurdish landlords and the Ottoman government." Surely payments to a landlord are rent and other charges, but not tax? Dudley Miles (talk) 22:15, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, Dudley Miles, thanks for your helpful comments. Before the mid-nineteenth century, many Armenians paid taxes only to Kurdish rulers; because of imperial centralization they now owed taxes to the central government but the Kurdish chieftains still expected "protection" money and collected it using illegal, violent methods. Clarified with the addition of a new source. (t · c) buidhe 23:09, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Looks fine now. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:00, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by from CPA[edit]

• There are some MOS:SANDWICH issues in the article. Please remove them. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 14:11, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's not particularly helpful, I can't fix them without knowing where they are showing up. Besides, no one has highlighted any image placement issues so it may be a matter of idiosyncratic display settings. (t · c) buidhe 08:02, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    FWIW I did not spot any SANDWICH issues, though I would suggest moving most images to the right as per MOS:IMAGELOCATION.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 11:23, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Just to clarify, there is no MOS:SANDWICH issue: it turns out that CPA-5's monitors are bizarre. See [2], and note amusing mail box comparison image. Nothing to see here, move along please, move along. SN54129 11:35, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the ((featured article candidates)) template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 10:30, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.