A fact from FactCheckArmenia.com appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the Did you know column on 11 December 2020 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the
Internet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InternetWikipedia:WikiProject InternetTemplate:WikiProject InternetInternet articles
FactCheckArmenia.com is within the scope of WikiProject Armenia, an attempt to improve and better organize information in articles related or pertaining to
Armenia and
Armenians. If you would like to contribute or collaborate, you could edit the article attached to this page or visit the
project page for further information.ArmeniaWikipedia:WikiProject ArmeniaTemplate:WikiProject ArmeniaArmenian articles
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.
: hook fact is interesting, verified. Article is neutral, referenced to reliable sources, free of copyvio, new and long enough. I've checked some of the references, and they line up. QPQ is fine. LGTM, nice work!
Eddie891TalkWork22:59, 26 November 2020 (UTC)reply
Hi, I came by to promote this, but the article seems terribly one-sided. Often we have to encourage editors to look for something bad to say about a subject, but here I wonder if there's anything good to say to balance out the presentation? Otherwise it seems sort of a public-service announcement to stay away from this organization.
Yoninah (
talk)
22:19, 6 December 2020 (UTC)reply
There are some things that I'd say there really aren't two sides to and in looking at the sourcing it seems like this is one of them. All reliable gsearch results are controversies about the organisation engaging genocide denial and the like. I'll of course wait to hear buidhe's thoughts, but I really couldn't see a way to present the organisation in a better light than the article does (which is to say, there isn't much good to say).
Eddie891TalkWork22:27, 6 December 2020 (UTC)reply
(ec) Well, that's the issue. I literally couldn't find any reliable sources that portray this website positively. I just went through Google results and added a couple of books, but both didn't have any praise for the website. (
t ·
c) buidhe22:56, 6 December 2020 (UTC)reply
I don't see it as an improvement. With controversial organizations it's often preferred to start with the stated purpose and then move on to independent evaluations. We can't say that the website is Turkish since the sources just say it has connections to the Turkish government. Your version uses "scare quotes" which are to be avoided in encyclopedic style. Also "Ermeni Kırımı" is not the Turkish for "Armenian genocide" (that would be Ermeni soykırımı). And there's no need for phrases like "virtually all historical research and scholarship" that exaggerate and aren't supported by the cited sources. (
t ·
c) buidhe08:20, 23 December 2021 (UTC)reply