loyal to the government, (although they feuded with each other) were – comma looks misplaced (should be behind the gloss?)
Rephrased
I wonder if "intertribal warfare" really needs a redlink. Is this term really well-defined or would it be an article about everything and nothing?
Removed
There were no missionaries in Salmas valley to protect Christians; although some local Muslims attempted to do so. – I think the ; should be a ,
Done
In April, Halil Kut arrived with reinforcements following a forced march from Rowanduz. – I don't follow, forced by what, and to where?
These are Ottoman troops, their commanders are the ones forcing them to march. Rephrased for clarity.
There were several other massacres killing hundreds of Christians – that sentence could have appeared in any of the sections; can this be more specific?
Clarified that this refers to Persian Azerbaijan in early 1915
appease German an Austrian – and?
Fixed
Major points
There is nothing on the lead on motives, and the role of the Ottoman government; should there?
Added a bit on the Ottoman government's role and possible motives for the genocide.
While reading, I was quite confused about your use of synonyms:
You seem to interchangeably use "Assyrian", "Syriac Christian", etc. as synonyms (?). I know that this is discussed in the terminology section, but it would really help and avoid confusion if you stick with one term if you refer to the same thing.
I try to use Syriac for those affected in Diyarbekir (who are mostly followers of the Syriac Orthodox or Syriac Catholic Church) vs. Assyrian for Hakkari/Persia. That is what many sources use and some descendants prefer.
However, that was not clear to me while I read, and these differences do not seem to be mentioned in the "terminology" section. I fear that the average reader might be like me and gets confused. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:58, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Added (t · c) buidhe 02:04, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
is Iranian Aserbaidschan = Urmia? Again, restricting to one term will help.
Done, now uses Persian Azerbaijan and Urmia only for the city itself. Technically the Ottomans only occupied the western part of Persian Azerbaijan but I think it is more clear than using Urmia both for a poorly defined region and the city.
same with Iran / Persia
Done (now uses Persia)
I recommend to introduce new names, e.g. "Ottoman commander Halil Kut". I was wondering if the latter is Russian or whatever side, and needed to click on the article to find out.
Done
I had problems follow the events discussed in the article both geographically and temporally.
Whenever you introduce geographical names, it would help to briefly state where those are (e.g., "Further in the south, in Bashkale", or "In Bashkale, in the north of Hakkari,"; I invented the locations).
I've attempted to do this. There are a few locations, such as Midan (somewhere in northern Iraq) and Sahin Ghal'e (apparently a mountain pass in Western Iran) where I cannot pin down where they are.
Optional: The maps are very prominent in the article but I didn't find them of much use with understanding the article. It is very difficult to find mentioned geographical names in the maps. The big map reads "Hakkari is the mountains to the center-right of the map", but in fact the whole map is mountain, and I can't find the name "Hakkari" anywhere. I know that this is not a GA matter, but should you bring it to FA, you could consider having custom made maps that show 1) all geographical names mentioned, and 2) people and army movements. If that map gets too full, maybe you could use the same map for the two years, showing only the movements relevant for the respective year. I can imagine that such a map would really help a lot.
Unfortunately the only Wikipedian made map is not entirely accurate, so I don't think it can be used. The big map might not have "Hakkari" labeled, but I've added the location more precisely in the caption. It does show where many points of interest such as Qudshanis, Bashkale, Tyari etc. are.
What confused me the most is the lack of chronology. I think this makes it really hard for the reader. It starts with "Ottoman occupation of Urmia (January to May 1915)", but the next section "Ethnic cleansing of Hakkari" is about 1914. Similar in the following sections. Placing everything in chronological order would really help, as time is an important red thread a reader can follow. Alternatively, an overview paragraph might be a possibility that gives the reader the necessary orientation.
I can see that the organization is a challenge. Unfortunately, although the Assyrian genocide is usually treated as one event with one name, it is far from clear that it's one event. The Ottomans did not perceive the different Syriac confessions to be one group and did not target them together. It does not seem to be the case that the Syriac Orthodox in Diyarbekir were killed for the same reason as Hakkari Assyrians, for example. Separating by region is what most of the sources do. I did change the order so Hakkari goes before Persian Azerbaijan.
This is a long and complicated article, so I would like to read a second time once the above are addressed, when I also will put a stronger focus on the Aftermath and Legacy sections. Thanks, --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:17, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much for your review! I am still working on answering some other ones so it may take me a few days to get to your comments. (t · c) buidhe 22:06, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Jens Lallensack I have either addressed everything or left comments above. Thanks again for your review! (t · c) buidhe 04:29, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Assyrians recalled being promised an independent country by the British if they held out against Ottoman attacks. – Comes a bit out of nothing, and the connection to the paragraph is not clear to me. Did the British promise this or did the Assyrians only claim it?
I moved this sentence and added information. Basically, it is disputed if this was ever made but the Assyrians believed it was.
The Christian militias in Persian Azerbaijan proved no match for the organized Ottoman army in 1918 – I am confused why this isn't included in the section "Ethnic violence in Persia"; I thought that section would cover Persia completely as the section title would indicate.
The Christian militias in Persian Azerbaijan proved no match for the organized Ottoman army in 1918 – I lost orientation here; how does this connect to the previous paragraph (about the same region if I understand correctly?). Did the Ottoman army attack after Russians withdrew? There could be more context here. (Edit: I see, this becomes a bit clearer with the following sentences, but succession of information could still be improved).
Reordered
Ethnic violence in Persia – Should that section be named "Ethnic violence in Persian Azerbaijan"?
Done
The Persian government refused to allow the return of Assyrians who had fled as requested by the United Kingdom – is this out of chronology? Following the text, they are still in the process of fleeing.
Reordered
Sorry for the delay and slow progress, I'm a bit busy in real life. One reply for an older issue and a few new comments above; will try to get to the rest soonish. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:58, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No worries! I appreciate your comments :) (t · c) buidhe 02:04, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
and Mustafa Kemal – he is best known under Atatürk, maybe add that name? Or introduce?
Rephrased to avoid mentioning him
Although in most places where they were targeted, Christians were killed without resistance, when they resisted, the Ottoman authorities at the highest level directly ordered attacks on Syriac Christians. – That sentence is difficult to read and does not seem to be ideal: It says that when Christians resisted, Syriac Christians get attacked? Even when these resisting Christians are not Syriac Christians?
I ended up removing this sentence. Gaunt is making a point about the sources available, which go into more detail on cases where there was armed resistance. These records weren't created when the central government was not involved in the killing.
The Sayfo is mentioned to be a political genocide, but the broader context, motivation of the Ottomans, and the role of nationalism does not become very clear, I feel this is still a bit of a weak spot of the article.
I've expanded a bit in the World War I section, but I 'm not sure there's more to say in reliable sources. There is a ton written about the causes of the Armenian genocide but the literature on the Sayfo is much more thin and I don't think it would be appropriate to simply port over that information without a reliable source that ties it directly to the Sayfo.
"several MPs" – can you link that?
Done
That's everything from me – and sorry again for the delay. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:02, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the fixes, promoting now! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:16, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]