Talk:The Making of Modern Turkey

Did you know nomination

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

The result was: promoted by MeegsC (talk) 15:04, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that Uğur Ümit Üngör argues that the Armenian Genocide was crucial to The Making of Modern Turkey? Source: Danforth's review, the chapter "Genocide of Christians, 1915–16"

• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/By The Time I Get To Arizona ‎

Created by Buidhe (talk). Self-nominated at 12:37, 14 March 2021 (UTC).

• This article is new enough and long enough. The article is neutral, and I detected no copyright issues. A QPQ has been done. @Buidhe: Which sentence in the article do you consider backs up the hook? The Genocide may be clearly crucial in the book, but it also needs to be clearly crucial in the article. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:54, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

• Cwmhiraeth Thanks for the review. I think it is already in the article, in at least 3 places: 1) The cover of the book 2) one of the five chapters in the book being titled "Genocide of Christians, 1915–16" and 3) The statement in the book quoted in the article "The genocide heralded the coming of a new era and stipulated the parameters of a formative Turkish nation state, or an empire with a dominant Sunni Turkish core and a marginalized periphery." (t · c) buidhe 09:59, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

• @Buidhe: Well, I disagree and don't find any of these sufficient. Daffodils could be said to herald the arrival of spring, but that does not mean they are crucial to its arrival! If you add the fact to the article, I will be able to approve the nomination. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:16, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

• @Cwmhiraeth: May I jump in and ask whether I understood correctly, and your issue lies only with the word "crucial"? If so, there might be several alternatives available. Both "heralded" and "stipulated the parameters" are quoted in the article. My English isn't good enough here I think; @Cwmhiraeth, how would you interpret or paraphrase "stipulated the parameters"? What does that mean? --LordPeterII (talk) 20:52, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

• @LordPeterII: Indeed, it's the "crucial" that is unclear to me (someone very ignorant of the period and the issues involved). If you, or @Buidhe: takes an interesting fact from the article, something actually included in the text, and suggests a new hook, I should be able to approve it. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:07, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

• @Cwmhiraeth: I have thought about it, and I think I understand what you mean. "Crucial" is a word that implies a very strong connection, which can not be derived from the article. As far as I understand the primary quote here (as written above by Buidhe), the Armenian genocide was a factor that influenced the creation of modern Turkey, but just one factor among many others. Calling it "crucial" would be an exaggeration. However, what about something like "contributed to" or "played a role in"? I feel like these would make the original hook sound less extreme, while still drawing the connection. --LordPeterII (talk) 10:37, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

• @LordPeterII and Buidhe: I would like to approve this nomination because it has been hanging around for six weeks already. The hook does not have to explain the concept behind the book, but needs to contain one or more facts which are actually in the article, a quote from a reviewer perhaps. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:34, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

• @Cwmhiraeth: Okay, then I might not understand your concern after all. The hook is, in my opinion, an exaggerated paraphrasing of the sentence Buidhe cited above, which is in the article within the Content section: "The genocide heralded the coming of a new era and stipulated the parameters of a formative Turkish nation state, or an empire with a dominant Sunni Turkish core and a marginalized periphery." That's a statement made by the book's author within the book. And putting that in the form of a hook, like

• ALT1: ... that Uğur Ümit Üngör argues that the Armenian Genocide contributed to The Making of Modern Turkey?

does seem to be an acceptable hook to me. The original hook might have been to extreme, but I believe this one (or a similar one) would work. The book is about the formation process of modern Turkey, and the hook neatly weaves together part of its content (that the genocide contributed) with the book's title, which is basically a different wording of "the formation of modern Turkey". --LordPeterII (talk) 20:59, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

• Oh wait, maybe I understand now: Do you mean that the hook might be confusing to readers, because it uses the title of the book not as an identifier, but in place of its content (not sure how to word that in English)? I mean, written out in long (non-hooky) form it would read

• ALT2: ... that Uğur Ümit Üngör argues that the Armenian Genocide contributed to the formation of the modern Turkish state in the book The Making of Modern Turkey?

That could not be misread, but it's much more wordy and just reads awkward imo. I do feel the ALT1 hook is simply catchier, even if it is embedding the book title a bit creatively. --LordPeterII (talk) 21:07, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

• ALT1a: ... that in his book, Uğur Ümit Üngör argues that the Armenian Genocide contributed to The Making of Modern Turkey?

• Thank you. Approving ALT1 and ALT1a. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:11, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

• Nice! Just wanted to say that I very much like ALT1a, as that gets any vagueness out of the way without sounding weird. --LordPeterII (talk) 07:22, 28 April 2021 (UTC)