Talk:Daron Acemoglu

How is this a GA? It is not really an article about Daron Acemoglu, more like "Daron Acemoglu's political views." Three-quarters of it is about his personal political views and less than one-quarter is about his actual career and life's work. He has published five books and hundreds of journal articles, yet most of this content is from random news articles and interviews. Looking at the GA criteria, it seems to fail at least numbers three and four. Can I challenge this listing? Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 02:23, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

In Wikipedia "Armenian American" is used to describe somebody of Armenian descent, as almost nobody designated as such is born on the territory of independent Armenian state, but is rather of Armenian descent. Daron Acemoglu is completely of Armenian descent, and, therefore, could be called "Armenian American" as well. I see no legitimate reason to include "Turkish American", but exclude "Armenian American". Shouldn't be the wiki section for Armenian Americans completely empty? Therefore, I propose to either keep both "Turkish American" and "Armenian American", or just omit this part whatsoever. I am more inclined to the first part Athoremmes (talk) 20:29, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Fixed 207.161.210.19 (talk) 22:01, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

• Support for including Armenian ethnicity in the lead: I know the MOS does not recommend including ethnicity in the lead, but this is a good case for an exception, similar to Pervin Chakar or Komitas. His ethnicity has received significant coverage, and even one of the official Nobel Prize interviews included a question about it. - TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 05:37, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

@TheJoyfulTentmaker: While his ethnicity has received significant coverage, MOS:ETHNICITY says "Ethnicity, religion, or sexuality should generally not be in the lead unless relevant to the subject's notability." Given the subject's notability does not rely on his ethnicity, there's no reason it should be in the lead. His notability relies on his work in economics and awards for that. --Greens vs. Blacks (talk) 15:04, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Then how can we use "Turkish American" if it designates an ancestry within the USA? Therefore, we should use just "American" and omit the other part whatsoever. It is also notable, since it is a first time a turk of Armenian descent has such award and it already caused some discussion in the media. Therefore, I am reverting it to OG until somebody mentions how can we frame it or till we reach the general consensus Athoremmes (talk) 17:07, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

@Greens vs. Blacks My reading of the MOS is this:

• If relevant to notability: include
• If not relevant to notability: generally don't include

So it is not a hard rule. Here, it does not feel right if we exclude it, per @Athoremmes and partly due to NPOV, which requires a longer discussion. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 17:36, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

But it isn't relevant to the notability because he'd be notable with or without that ethnicity. --Greens vs. Blacks (talk) 20:58, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Again, generally means, even if the notability is not related to the ethnicity, it can still be used in the lead in some cases. See this RfC for instance, about regional identities. Being Armenian in Turkey is similar in some sense to having a Spanish regional identity, which also indicates ethnicity. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 23:15, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

If the ethnicity isn't related to notability, then there's no reason to put it in the lead. The lead is for a summarization of important, notable points. Most every single person on earth is a blend of ethnicities, yet we so rarely include that in the lead because it's not notable and clutters the intro. It belongs in the "early life" section. --Greens vs. Blacks (talk) 13:29, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

And this is this rare case we should include it, because, like Missak Manouchian, Daron Acemoglu is also notable as an example of Armenian in Turkish community going through discrimination and his Armenian experienced shaped his life in Turkey Athoremmes (talk) 16:25, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Can you articulate why you think that should be in the lead vs. the "early life" section? Everyone's past has shaped them. I still haven't heard a cogent argument for why his ethnicity is lead-worthy and would override the MOS. --Greens vs. Blacks (talk) 22:02, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

It is not an override, we are complying with the manual. It is simply that, in our judgement, this case is comparable to the exceptions mentioned in footnotes [a] and [b] of MOS:ETHNICITY. The full arguments would really require a longer discussion, probably as long as the RfC that is associated with footnote [b]. But briefly, I believe the ethnicity information for groups such as Armenians (in Turkey and the Ottoman Empire), Kurds (in Turkey, Iraq, Iran and Syria), Basques and Catalans (in Spain and France) and Palestinians (in Israel and Lebanon) could be included in the lead if the subject self-identifies and the sources generally use it. It can be considered to be comparable and complementary to the nationality information in such cases. Also, if you read the intro of the Turkish Americans article, it describes them to be ethnic Turks. The readers can make similar assumptions here if we omit the ethnicity. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 02:36, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

• Remove. MOS:ETHNICITY is clear on this, and just because other stuff exists doesn't mean this article needs ethnicity mentioned in the lead as well. --Greens vs. Blacks (talk) 15:01, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

  I kindly disagree, and those examples are not "other stuff". Anyone familiar with the context would agree that mentioning their ethnicity in the lead is the right way for those two examples. To put it in another way regarding the MOS, the following two do not mean the same thing:

  • Ethnicity, religion, or sexuality should generally not be in the lead unless relevant to the subject's notability.
  • Ethnicity, religion, or sexuality should not be in the lead unless relevant to the subject's notability.

  We have the first bullet in the guideline, but you are reading it as if it is the second bullet. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 19:11, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

  The other examples are the definition of "other stuff" because they're, well, other stuff. You can find an example of almost any kind of LEAD on WP; that doesn't mean it's adhering to MOS. (So that we're not having the same convo on two threads re: ethnicity notability, I've responded beneath your post on your thread above. Just responded about the otherstuff thing here.) --Greens vs. Blacks (talk) 21:00, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

  Well, we have the following here:

  • Wording. Wording in sense of “He is Turkish American” will be incomplete, because he is equally Armenian American as well. So it should be either completely excluded or mention this part.
  • On a page of Missak Manouchian his ethnicity is irrelevant as well in his accomplishments, and yet it is still mentioned due to the impact of Armenian ethnicity on his daily life. Same with Acemoglu, who studied in Armenian school, faced discrimination because of that and even advised Armenia on that basis.
  • Most Armenian Americans are born outside of any Armenian state, should then the category be abolished whatsoever?

  Athoremmes (talk) 21:28, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

  For your second bullet, again, review other stuff exists. For your third, see red herring. No one is discussing the category here. If you want to, there's a talk page on that category for that. --Greens vs. Blacks (talk) 13:33, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

  • I have described to you why it is done there, which is the same reason as for why it should be done there
  • This is the topic we are discussing here, the category of Armenian Americans exists because it is equivalent to the category of “Turkish Americans” and stating that it is not and using it there is contradictory and biasedAthoremmes (talk) 16:22, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

    No, we are discussing the subject of this article. We are not discussing the WP cat for Armenian Americans. That belongs in an entirely different discussion, and if that's something you'd like to open on the Armenian American talk page I encourage you to do so. --Greens vs. Blacks (talk) 22:01, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

• Remove mention of his ethnicity in opening sentence per MOS:ETHNICITY. He is notable for being a famous academic economist, with global (not local or communal) audience and reach. His ethnicity is therefore not related to the things that make him a notable individual. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 04:55, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Support MOS:ETHNICITY says generally ethnicity shouldn't be in the lead unless it's relevant to the subject notability. Given the wording of this policy being not strictly enforce and Daron Acemoglu Armenian ethnicity influencing his life growing up and him self-identifying as Armenian, I say we should keep it. Vanezi (talk) 09:35, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Shouldn't the title of the article be "Daron Acemoğlu" instead of "Daron Acemoglu"? Pedian4169 (talk) 16:31, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

He uses this name in his professional life (including his books), so the title should be unchanged. The official Turkish name with accents is already included at the start of the article. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 20:24, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

It has been a little bit since this article was reviewed, so I took a look and noticed the following:

• The "Research and publications" section relies upon primary sources and should instead use secondary sources to explain his research to avoid WP:OR
• The article suffers from MOS:OVERSECTION, with each publication getting a paragraph of information. This article should focus on the most important aspects and merge sections together.

Should this article go to WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 02:33, 13 April 2026 (UTC)