Contents

Talk:Hrant Dink

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Hrant Dink article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2

	Hrant Dink has been listed as one of the good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassessit.
Article milestones Date Process Result February 14, 2007 Good article nominee Listed February 16, 2007 WikiProject peer review Reviewed
Current status: Good article

This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography GA‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles GA This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This article is currently undergoingapeer review.

To-do list for Hrant Dink: edit · history · watch · refresh · Updated 2007-04-05 Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Copyedit : *General copyedit for syntax, grammar and typos remove merge or expand the one sentence paragraphs the references [4][2][5] should be [2][4][5] as goes the same for all grouped references  Done add references for the citation needed tags Done Citation formatting - needed with use of Wikipedia:Citation templates Done empty references need to be fixed  Done Peer reviewed by Yannismarou: Need to address issues raised

After doing a few minor cleanup tasks, I'm passing this. Sorry that I don't have anything really constructive to say-- my reccomendation is to take it to WP:FAC. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 23:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, archive the talk page. It's getting kinda long. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 23:10, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Archived the talk page. Thanks! --Free smyrnan 05:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am rather a newbie, so any suggestions from more experienced editors? What next, WP:PRorWP:FAC? The only problem I have with FAC is the quality of the prose (needs copyedit, but I have read the article so many times I have developed a blindness to it). Should we go for it? --Free smyrnan 05:22, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Still needs work, remove merge or expand the one sentence paragraphs - the references [4][2][5] should be [2][4][5] as goes the same for all grouped references - add references for the citation needed tags. M3tal H3ad 10:44, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At this stage it will need some further work, otherwise FAC won't be smooth. Personally I think that FACs should be simple "stamp of approval" processes after all the work has been done - otherwise the FACs can become really complicated. + from what I could observe over time I know that there is a very tough group of reviewers (some perfectionists :)) at FACs, so better be safe than sorry. Therefore we might go with the peer review. I will also try to do some cleanup and proofreading this week. Btw good job with the GA! Baristarim 10:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

M3tal H3ad and Baris, thx for excellent feedback on what to do next. I have added these to the to-dos and will try to do them over the next few days. In the meantime, the article is submitted for WP:WPBIO Peer Review, we are waiting. --Free smyrnan 06:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A very informative peer review done by Yannismarou. Thanks to Yanni! I have linked the peer review to the to-do list and I call for all editors to step in and start addressing these items. --Free smyrnan 13:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have problems with this sentence and I would like to open it up for discussion and consensus:

He was best known for his open and critical approach, in public statements and writings, to the issues of Armenian identity and the official Turkish version of the 1915-17 massacres of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire which he referred to as genocide.

1. Sentence is awkward prose.
2. Much more important than above, I don't think this truly reflects what Dink's work emphasized. I used to read his articles before his death and I would not have summarized his work in this fashion. IMO, he was primarily concerned with demos vs. ethnos and with reconciliation between Turkish and Armenian societies. The events of 1915 he did not shirk from discussing, but all of his writings point out that he'd rather concentrate on "getting relations out of a 1915 meters deep well".

Therefore I propose this sentence instead:

He was best known for his opinions on methods towards a Turkish-Armenian reconciliation and on human and minority rights in Turkey with a special emphasis on the rights of the Armenian minority in Turkey.

That he stated that the events of 1915 were a genocide can be (and is, I believe) mentioned further down in the article, but this is not what he wrote and spoke about for 11 years. --Free smyrnan 21:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I thougt that the last sentence in the intro was approaching the reactions afterward his death in a very one-sided way. So initially I thought of removing it, since it was mentioned later in the article, but I was afraid to be misunderstood. So I added a few sentences about his funeral. If it was for me I'd cut it from the sentece beginning "While Samast...". Not that I am just "another bloody nationalist Turk" trying to cover up for the guys treating him as a hero, but because I don't think how his killer is treated in custody is an intro-worth part in Hrant Dink article.Ombudsee 23:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]