The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was technically no consensus, by which I mean work on the article and relist if desired, as I am about to explain: . The present debate is too contaminated by ethnicity-based arguments, personal accounts and interpersonal conflicts, to be valid. The relevant arguments here are the somewhat dubious nature of the sources, and the SYN in conflating the events of the entire period. They're connected, because thee is no real doubt the individual events occurred--the part of the sourcing which is challenged as inaccurate is the part where some historians , particularly McCarthy, do call it a continuous series of events--and there is some doubt about his status as an unbiased expert. I do not think the article can stand as it is, but a much better case could probably be made for an article for the period from the Russo-Turkish war thru the years after WW I. This is technically a non-consensus close, but it is actually a request that the article be tightened , perhaps as I;ve suggested, that a wider range of sources be used, and then, if it still seems unsatisfactory, another AfD be held with some degree of moderation in the discussion. Emotions have been expressed sufficiently already. DGG ( talk ) 03:20, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Genocide of Ottoman Turks and Muslims (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

Where does one begin? At best, this article is a disconnected, frantic compilation of material which purports to speaks of a genocide directed against a one or two groups of people, by varying groups, over a period of about 150 years. Let alone the fact most of the sources used are by Justin McCarthy, a controversial historian and a notable denialist of the Armenian Genocide and not a reliable source by any stretch of the imagination, that it is written in a highly POV wording, this article appears to be in violation of a number of Wikipedia rules: WP:OR, WP:Synthesis as well as a possible WP:POINT. The creator of the article has most recently been arguing to insert doubt on the Armenian Genocide article and one can only speculate that this was created to invent a fictional balance between one real event (the genocide of the Armenians) and a loose series of events under the heading of a word that carries so much sentiment (genocide).

This is just a hodgepodge collection of material which no respected scholar has ever described under so singular a term as genocide. That atrocities occur in war is undeniable, but this really pushing it. That Muslims were forced to leave after these wars took place is true but that still does not even come close to meeting the definition of genocide and the fact that the creator of this article placed a tag stating that he created this article based on "good faith" is belied by simply reading this article critically. Perhaps the information can be integrated in the actual articles themselves (provided that there is some actual discussion beforehand, given how contentious the material is) but not in a single article like this one. Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 02:20, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep As you have well noted the article Genocide of Ottoman Turks and Muslims is still being put together. You reason for proposing this article for deletion is unclear and likely not related to the article content but following some other personal agenda. The initial version of the article clearly shows with what great numbers where Ottoman Muslims subjected to extermination, expulsions and ethnic cleansing. The reference list consist of well established scholars who have published their work in reputable publishing houses. The topic at hand is interesting and is a well known fact that needs to reach Wikipedia audience. There are articles of such nature in the Wikipedia domain concerning other groups and this one shows the other side of the historical coin. Deleting it would be bias. The Ottoman Empire classified its subjects to Millet (Ottoman Empire) groups therefore the Ottoman Muslims should be treated as one group in accordance with historical realities. Splitting this article to several other articles will be wrong and historically flawed. The article is focusing on the faith of the largest Ottoman Millet (Ottoman Empire) during the decline of the Empire and Turks as being the largest ethnic group. Hittit (talk) 04:56, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per MarshallBagramyan. There exists no reliable and specialised source on such a subject. Sardur (talk) 08:31, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:35, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:AGF. The article was less than 36 hours old when it went to AFD, and I can find no evidence that the nominator expressed concern over the article on its talk page, or to the primary author, before nominating. See also WP:BEFORE. If the concern is the use of the term Genocide, a move might be in order - which would not require an AFD. There might be other ways to adjust the focus of the article to make it more acceptable, following discussion. I think this article has the potential to inch into Synthesis and WP:OR, but the author has done a good job of avoiding that so far. The sources seem to be reliable, and the topic seems to be notable enough to warrant an article. I agree, though, that we should take a look at the proper title - is this article about genocide resulting in the deaths of Turks and Muslims, or genocide committeed by them? Just from the title, it's a little unclear - maybe there's something simpler that would convey more information? UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 12:40, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a caveat, I would not object to userfication, if consensus finds that the article isn't mainspace-ready yet. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 12:40, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My, as well as others', previous experience with this editor leads me to believe that this article was not built on good faith. If you simply go through his contribution list, you will see that he has been fighting tooth and nail on the Armenian Genocide page, trying to discredit respectable academics and inserting information which isn't supported by anyone with the exception of the Republic of Turkey. It is clear enough that the "of" in the article title is speaking about a "genocide" being committed against the Turks and Muslims. The sources used are not reliable. Many respected historians and scholars have criticized two of the most prominent authors used here: Justin McCarthy and Stanford Shaw, both denialists of the Armenian Genocide and both who have been condemned for their shoddy scholarship (please read the criticism sections in both articles for more specific information). And even if they were, no where in their works do they even describe the acts as genocide.

For those who still are uncertain on what this much-abused word means, it is, according to the United Nations definition, the premeditated and deliberate destruction of a group of people with intent to eliminate them, in whole or in part. The information cobbled here looks, at best, like a list of war crimes but none of them can be nor have been classified by scholars as acts of genocide. You cannot find a more appropriate example of WP:Synthesis and WP:OR than that. Like I said above, the content here does not belong under a single heading and should be merged into their respective articles. I don't see anything here that suggests a genocide against Muslims was taking place for straight over a period of 150 years. Do you?--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 16:55, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- --Darkwind (talk) 12:54, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This needs a lot of work (and may not be worth the effort) but it does seem sourced. I think that it sahould be left a week or so, and if there are no major improvements re-consider.Slatersteven (talk) 13:16, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Of course there are sources for several elements of the article, but you will find no reliable and specialised source on a "Genocide of Ottoman Turks and Muslims". Sardur (talk) 14:40, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Question for the creator: do any of the sources you have compiled and used compile the information collected into a single historical narrative and labeled these events, collectively, as "genocide" against Ottoman Turks and Muslims? If not how is this, in your mind, not a violation of the wikipedia policy on original research, specifically the portion that covers the synthesis of material? TomPointTwo (talk) 20:38, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• CommentI am not sure I understand your question, however looking at the scale of killing and ethnic cleansing supported by a long list of sources how and what would you call this article? This article was nominated for deletion the moment work started on it(without even wasting time for the normal procedure required before nomination, I was informed by a tag) indicating that this is not an issue of content but rather some other more personal reasons against the author and the subject as a whole. I hope the outcome of this discussion will be based on good faith and objectivity. Hittit (talk) 20:55, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The Austrians, Hungarians, Albanians, Serbians, Romanians, Bulgarians, Greeks, Arabs, Kurds, Iranians, Russians etc. did indeed act ruthlessly during and after the series of wars that culminated in the collapse of the Ottoman empire. There were many atrocities against the Turkish or Moslem people in the territories that had been captured or recaptured. These could reasonably be described as genocide in the articles that discuss the various wars. But lumping them together into one article with this title implies a coordinated overall campaign with the intent of destroying the Turks. I see no sources that discuss such an overall campaign or objective. Without any, this is original research that collects disjointed facts to reach a novel conclusion. If the article were to be kept, it should be expanded to cover all cases where the Ottomans lost territory and the aftermath, perhaps starting with the Mongols and the Egyptian Mamelukes. But that would be ridiculous. Aymatth2 (talk) 03:00, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the decision is to keep, the article should of course be expanded to cover a broader period of history and geography, discussing all cases where the Ottomans were driven out of territory and where those who did not escape were killed or persecuted. I could make a start, but think it would be a massive fork. Aymatth2 (talk) 03:35, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Ayamatth2, the article focuses on areas of the Ottoman Balkans and the Caucasus where Ottoman Muslims represented a significant portion of the population. The period stated is between the Greek War of Independence 1821 and 1922 before the Republic was established (end of the Ottoman Empire). As the new non-Muslim nation states started emerging these caused a welter of atrocities on the Muslim Millet with the purpose of clearing them out to seize their land and property driving hundreds of thousands as refugees to Anatolia in miserable conditions. There is no lumping as we are talking of a coherent historical group the Ottoman Muslim Millet and their nation state (the patern repeats clearly for 100 years, showing that this was not a one off event). Expansion of the article as you have suggested is not feasible and seems more sarcasm than a real propostion? Hittit (talk) 04:31, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I was being a bit sarcastic, but the article is a POV fork. Events in the Caucasus and the Balkans were unrelated except in the broadest sense of being effects of the decline in Ottoman power. There is no evidence of coordination or common interest between the Russians, Greeks, Albanians, Bulgars etc. Articles such as Muhajir (Caucasus), Turks in Bulgaria and Albanian National Awakening cover the different events in the different territories. They could be improved. There is no value in an omnibus article with a title like this which does not qualify the subject by region or historical period, but does imply a coordinated campaign. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:27, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This article is a classic example of WP:SYNTH in that it combines "material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." While it's probably not impossible to locate a source that supports a claim of a genocide of Ottoman Turks and Muslims (same as its not impossible to find sources claiming that HIV is a harmless passenger virus and that it doesn't cause AIDS), the widespread historical consensus is not that such an event exists and it does not have a commonly accepted definition (not unlike the overwhelming scientific consensus that HIV does cause AIDS). The burden of proof in this case is put squarely on the editors introducing such material and it's not enough to cite only that all of these events happened but also that they were a part of the wider event as defined by the article. It qualifies as a WP:FRINGE theory because it contains "ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field of study." Per WP:REDFLAG, "Exceptional claims in Wikipedia require high-quality sources. If such sources are not available, the material should not be included." This article does make exceptional claims and does not have exceptional sources to back up the same claims. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 16:22, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Whoever has it read can see, that the whole article is a complete Synthesis. It is a collection of publications describing wars during centuries, riots, public unrests etc. and by means of Original Research and Synthesis represents a complete bias. It is a very good example of Tendentious Editing. The biases in edits, like this whole article, are long propagated official Turkish biases not confirmed by the vastest majority (if not all) of reliable sources. Leave alone, that no research is noted in the article to confirm the main lead and the subject of the article, which is Genocide. In addition the edits of Hittit are yet always been biased on Articles concerning Balkans, Armenia, Turkey/Ottoman Empire, history etc. I have once noticed that his behavior might be considered not only disruptive but also Tendentious Editing. He often uses talk-pages as places to make announcements, propaganda for 3rd party readers to, probably, "learn". This article is one other proof of the author making Tendentious Editing. Aregakn (talk) 19:01, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Aregakn you have merely presented your true reasons for suggesting this article for deletion. You basically confirm that your attack on this article has nothing to do with its factual contents but the fact that it seems to contradict the view of your Diaspora and you feel bothered by the exposure. Regarding your comments on my editing I take it just as a personal assault on my character and not on the facts. As this is Wikipedia you should expect editing or? BTW one contributor has voted twice for deletion :). Personally I feel that since the process leading to an article being suggested for deletion has been violated and completely ignored it would not be correct to continue this discussion? Hittit (talk) 21:21, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your POV of if I presented reasons for deletion or not is of little importance when you bring no reasons. You edit not in good faith and almost all of your edits are tendentious. In addition you clearly do not differentiate personal attacks with pointing out an editors biased POV and tendentious editing or disruptive behavior. Aregakn (talk) 00:27, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The edit history of Hittit is irrelevant to this discussion which must be about the merits of the article, not about the editor who started it. We all have subjects that interest us. There is nothing wrong with that. "Tendentious" is a big word. I am not concerned about it, because the tendency will be for an article to balance out as other editors contribute. A biased article will become less biased over time. Bias is a reason for improvement, not deletion.

The question is whether there is a subject called something like "Genocide of Ottoman Turks" that has been discussed by reliable independent sources. There are books and articles that described what happened to Turks or Turkic people in the Crimea and and Caucasus as the Russian Empire expanded to the south. There are books and articles on events in the Balkan region as the Ottoman empire retreated, but the article does not cite any that pull together the experiences of the Turkish inhabitants of the region as the Balkan countries gained independence, apart from the Justin McCarthy source. Possibly there are other sources that cover the overall subject of the massacres and forcible "repatriations" of people to what is now Turkey during the 19th and early 20th century, and if so that could justify an article like this, although I question the name. But there would be huge overlap with other articles.

The only way to solve it, my view, would be to make this a strictly summary-style article reproducing the leads of other articles that deal with specific topics. I am extremely pessimistic about whether that would work. The summary-style article would quickly turn into a fork. There are far too many forks in this area as it is, see Kosovo, for example. My recommendation remains to delete this article and improve articles on specific aspects. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:06, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do believe that the same type of comments on why the article should be deleted were stated after me voting. The second part was also relevant to show the goal of the creation of such article and in this way the article and Hittit's contributions are directly connected.

As for it being a collection of cases through centuries of history and speculated by the editor and creator of the article as an act of genocide is obvious. Once again, there is no reliable source with relevant academic background cited.

The content of the article is already in various articles of WWI, Ottoman Wars in Europe, Ottoman Greece etc. It might probably be seen as adding value to them in certain cases, when based on reliable unbiased sources. However, to bring them into 1 and through OR and SYNTH make it an article referring to some genocide against Muslims is, to put it mildly, non-sense and should be unacceptable for A encyclopedia. Aregakn (talk) 01:33, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The Article also fails to comply with 2 other rules for an article to have the "right" to exist on Wikipedia. The first is WP:SOAP (where, BTW, the comment of WP:TE perfectly suits) and it doesn't constitute a WP:Notability. There are clear guidelines on articles that are WP:What Wikipedia is not and it is the deletion of such articles as stated in WP:DEL [|Reasons for Deletion]. Aregakn (talk) 02:02, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I think this discussion is getting out of hand, I encourage the participation of more objective third parties and I do appreciate the Greek and Armenian participation and their view point that an article listing the crimes committed against Ottoman Muslims has no right to exist on Wikipedia. I believe this article has a legitimate right to exist, provided that the article could be even started before it is attacked from all directions to be deleted. As all can see work is in progress, while having to create an article and at the same time forced to defend it from premature deletion in this forum divides my efforts.Hittit (talk) 07:19, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are failing to see that the article is voted for deletion for not responding to numerous rules of Wikipedia, as noted by many, and you also fail to assume good faith yourself towards those many editors. Aregakn (talk) 09:55, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. —Aregakn (talk) 10:07, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. —Aregakn (talk) 10:07, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bosnia-related deletion discussions. -- • Hittit (talk) 8:00, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Macedonia-related deletion discussions. -- • Hittit (talk) 8:00, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. -- • Hittit (talk) 8:00, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kosovo-related deletion discussions. -- • Hittit (talk) 8:00, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. -- • Hittit (talk) 8:00, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. —Aregakn (talk) 02:15, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. —Aregakn (talk) 02:15, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. —Aregakn (talk) 02:15, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. —Aregakn (talk) 02:15, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. —Aregakn (talk) 02:15, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As hoax.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 02:50, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Ridiculous wp:synt and wp:pov pushing. None of the reliable sources cited support that the loosely connected events described here constitute a genocide. In fact, one of the sources cited, says [1] "the combination did not amount to anything like genocide". This article relies heavily on the book of Justin McCarthy (American historian), who is "viewed as a scholar on the Turkish side of the debate" (Mann, p. 113—debate here meaning the Armenian genocide debate); see also the criticism section in his bio. Most other sources, like Michael Mann, report what he says, but do not endorse his viewpoint. Pcap ping 10:26, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Since the word "genocide" is not actually used anywhere in the article - in fact, it only appears in its title - would renaming to something like Persecution of Ottoman Turks and Muslims be acceptable? GregorB (talk) 10:51, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection with the suggestion if this will prevent deletion and ensure work can continue on the article Hittit (talk) 13:26, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I'll wait a bit and see if there are objections, and if not I'll rename it. IMPORTANT NOTE: this will invalidate most of the "delete" !votes in this AfD, and should lead to a procedural keep - of course, with the possibility of repeated AfD nomination. GregorB (talk) 14:01, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merging into Persecution of Muslims might also be a legitimate option. GregorB (talk) 14:07, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I feel such a merger will not work since the article is focused on a certain group, historical period and a state. It is essential that it can be worked on as an article concerning Ottoman series Hittit (talk) 14:12, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Persecution of Muslims is already compartmentalized into geographical area/historical period sections, so one more section probably wouldn't hurt. GregorB (talk) 14:47, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What you are saying is that merging the article Persecution of Ottoman Turks and Muslims under an overextended section covering the history of 1,5 billion Muslims around the globe wouldn’t hurt however e.g., merging articles such as The Destruction of Thracian Bulgarians in 1913 or Armenian Genocide or Greek Genocide or Persecution of Serbs etc.etc. under the article Persecution of Christians, which is already compartmentalized into geographical area/historical period sections would be a problem? I do not agree with this view point since it favours one religious/ethnic group and not the other. Hittit (talk) 15:06, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken. GregorB (talk) 15:28, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GregorB, as you read the comments and reasons for deletion of other editors you can see why deletion is proposed and not a merge. If you see that those are wrong, maybe you can comment on those too. Aregakn (talk) 17:30, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gregor, the most sensible thing to do would be to delete this article and, through discussing their validity, merge its contents onto their respective articles. Many of these events possibly took place but it's wrong to lump them all together, some as far as half a century apart, and place them under an umbrella title as provocative as "genocide".--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 17:40, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Virtually all comments - and the nomination itself - find fault with the "genocide" motive. Since, as I noted earlier, the article makes no mention of genocide apart from its title, it is a bit odd that nobody thought of suggesting a simple rename, which would fix this problem. For example, MarshallBagramyan, once the article is renamed, your nomination will lose its single valid point. GregorB (talk) 17:49, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GregorB, unfortunately you might not have noticed the reasoning of other editors for the article being a WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, being created as a WP:SOAP by an editor with WP:Tendentious editing behavior (not in good faith) and not constituting WP:Notability (Citaton: Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information) which all speak of a justified decision to nominate for deletion in accordance to WP:DEL. Aregakn (talk) 18:44, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SYNTH says: Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. What would that conclusion be in this article? WP:OR is defined as material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and stories—not already published by reliable sources. Could you quote any such facts or ideas? GregorB (talk) 19:06, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly! SYNTH question of yours is the attempt to present the riots, deaths and displacement during war in the war-zone as a conspiracy and genocide against Muslims and Ottomans. OR the way you wanted to know is, for instance "Massacres against Turks and Muslims during the Balkan Wars in the hands of Bulgarians, Greeks and Armenians are described in detail in the 1912 Carnegie Endowment report". First of all the Editor has described it as 3 whole nations and it is a racial/nationalistic accusation. Secondly the nations as a whole are not able to organise massacres, which the Tendentious Editor is trying to show. And thirdly, it is known and obvious to anyone that Armenians (in any form of this word) could not (as they were on the other side of the empire) and did not participate in the Balkan Wars. It is clearly an OR and SYNTH with heavy biased tendentious editing from the editor's (in this case Hittit's) side. You can see the SOAPS clearly and I hope you notice that the article is a collection of information and does not constitute an article as such. Aregakn (talk) 19:38, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Aregakn, short citation from Carnegie Report, Macedonian Muslims during the Balkan Wars, 1912.;

"No. 9. LIEUTENANT R. WADHAM FISHER [an English Volunteer in with Fifth Battalion of the Macedonian Legion]. Lieutenant Fisher explained the circumstances of the massacre which occurred at Dede- Agatch; “On November 19 the lower class Greeks and the soldiers began to pillage the town together. A certain number of the local Turks were undoubtedly killed. These excesses must be explained by the absence of any officers. No. 10. BORIS MONCHEV, [Bulgarian Mayor of Dede-Agatch].This witness confirmed Lieutenant Fisher's account, believed that not more than twenty Turks were killed in the massacre, and insisted that the local Armenian porters (hamels) had taken the chief part in the disturbances". These are just few eye witness accounts, the report goes on and on... Hittit (talk) 19:57, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, sure! The so called "eyewitnesses" smell the Armenian nationality as there is no other way they would know it. And so all the Armenians are there to fight in Balkans and kill Turks there according to you. Haha! Abandon these ridiculous attempts. Aregakn (talk) 21:02, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The information from the Carnegie Report is a source in the article and as you can see with a reason. If you regard the Carnegie Reports not be valid then I am sorry, I could not find a Christian Missionary source that was an actual eyewitness account to anything, but that does not stop you from relaying on their eyewitness stories. Your eyewitness is better than my eyewitness; your plight is greater than my plight…we get it Hittit (talk) 21:14, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I regard to your edits and claims manipulations and propaganda acompanied with racist rhetoric in the very first edit you made when creating the article [2]. Aregakn (talk) 21:55, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it obvious enough? After wasting so much time and energy trying to distort the material on the Armenian Genocide article, Hittit has decided to create a WP:POINT: alleging that if a genocide took place against Armenians, then several, decades long, genocides took place against Muslims and Turks under the hands of Christians, empires, nation-states. What he has done is that he has collected every instance of anti-Muslim violence and placed it under one heading, even though none of his sources, with perhaps the exception of fringe scholars like McCarthy and Shaw, would ever contemplate doing something so brazen. That would be similar to picking every anti-Christian event in the Balkans and Middle East over the past 150 years and lumping it all in one article under the nonacademic title of "Genocide of the Christian of the Middle East". If you can find better examples of WP:Synthesis and Original Research, we're all ears. A rename is unnecessary since this article is already a fork of Persecution of Muslims article: whatever information that is worthy of adding can be added to their respective articles and the periods in which they took place. --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 19:44, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've dealt with the "genocide" problem by renaming the article just minutes ago. Regarding the Carnegie Endowment report, it's merely a question of WP:V over WP:TRUTH. I don't think that reading of "Bulgarians, Greeks and Armenians" as "all Bulgarians, Greeks and Armenians" is reasonable either. I don't see how this article (now titled Persecution of Ottoman Turks and Muslims) is any different from "Persecution of Fooians" (insert any faith/nationality/locale), provided it is referenced, stays on topic, and does not violate WP:OR, WP:SYNTH and what have you (and you're certainly free to delete all such violations on spot). GregorB (talk) 20:05, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to think if "Bulgarians" with a direct link to "all Bulgarians" (check the link) means all or not. you just need to see how it's stated and also, to make sure, click the link and see if it is meant to be all Bulgarians. I'd suggest not to make a point of view on the exact citation of the article but to read it as is. You also did not address the issue of the WP:OR he made on participation of Armenians (in any sense of the word) in Balkan Wars! In addition you permanently fail to address WP:POINT, WP:SOAP, WP:Notability and forking with Persecution of Muslims IF you are supporting the preservation of the article under the current (changed) title. Aregakn (talk) 20:15, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the Armenians, I don't know and I don't care. The point is this: if the WP:RS supports this claim, it is not WP:OR, and if it doesn't, it should be removed on spot. I don't get the WP:POINT and WP:SOAP complaints. If the article has a point, what would that point be? That the Ottoman Turks were persecuted? Is anyone actually disputing this? As I said: it's not really different from any of the "Persecution of Fooians" article. Forking is a purely technical issue, i.e. whether it is more convenient to have a certain content here or there, and cannot be reasonably declared grounds for deletion. GregorB (talk) 20:30, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you care for, but you either have to care that you are not getting the point or something is wrong with the manner I explain, though I told the samething many times. I am showing you, that the article is created as propaganda (SOAPS) citing the racist/nationalist accusations, with false OR, and false sourcing in this case of "Armenians" participating in Balkan wars and killing Turks and Muslims there. Is the PROPAGANDA (SOAPS) difficult to understand? Should I try to explain it once again in a different way? If not and you got the point of the article is a propaganda, please recall the Wikipedia:Deletion policy that states that articles having "Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia" which is "What wikipedia is not" where on its turn it is clearly stated that "Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: commercial, political, religious, or otherwise" are Soapboxes which are to BE DELETED as said in Del. Pol.. Aregakn (talk) 20:54, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete.The article is a propaganda as it cites no academic reliable source for a genocide and similarly contradics with WP:SOAPS. Doesnt constitute a WP:Notability to be a separate article even after being renamed. IsmailAhmedov (talk) 11:27, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note I could not locate any more than one day of Wikipedia contribution for IsmailAhmedov (talk · contribs), not certain but a possible WP:SOCK|WP:SOCKS Sockpuppet? Hittit (talk) 13:53, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Answer Note. Here is a little insight and confession for you to understand why it happened so (not connected to the deetion but the comment/note):

My Mother is Jewish-Armenian, my father is a Muslim Azeri. I was born in Baku I am muslim as my dad. Due to percecutions in Azerbaijan agains Armenians our mixed-family was deprived of property, all rights and even the right to live when my mother was killed in Baku well organised pogroms. But my and my dad's livs were still indangered and we had no place to go. And you know what? The only people that came to our support were my Armenian relatives. Armenia gave me a new home and life not allowing us to be killed when your (and my) brother Azeries did their best for it to happen. Still seems unbelivable that a guy like me could have noticed your unjust actions on the Armenian Genocide page and register to comment on its talk page and after that noticed your other propaganda and wanted to tell about it? Then request an IP check! IsmailAhmedov (talk) 00:28, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Interesting story, nevertheless you have one day of Wikipedia contribution and you have spend it here? For an editor that just started to edit in Wikipedia on the 30th of April and already participated in voting for deletion on the 1st of May you sure look like a sockpuppet. Looking at what you have written your are just one vote for deletion which again is not related to the content of the article in question. You have mentioned your, mother, father and other relatives but nothing on the factuality of the article you have voted on. To conclude you have not liked something I have discussed in another article so you come here and vote to delete this one. Most of the delete votes are on the same basis so you are not alone. Hittit (talk) 06:34, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. You are lying I said nothing about the article. You are also faking where I contributed first. I wasn't trying to justify as your comment could do nothing to me. What I said was only for you. The rest I dont care for, neither will for an opinion of such a biased editor like you. IsmailAhmedov (talk) 22:36, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Genocide of Ottoman Turks and Muslims is an important article for my opinion. Although, the content of article can be weak and the name can be disputed, that does not mean that the article should be deleted, it means that the article should be expanded over time and the name can be changed. The article should document the events which resulted in decline of Turkish and Muslim population in Balkans. In addition, the mass killing of Ottoman Turks is not only a matter of history, because it stills goes on, for example srebrenitsa genocide can be seen as mass killing of one Ottoman Muslim group, namely Bosniaks. Kavas (talk) 17:25, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would like to thank User:Kansas Bear for bringing this to my attention on my talk page regarding one of the oddest lines the article's creator has inserted. In the lead, he has used Mark Levene's book to artificially buttress the weight of his argument but once again, nowhere does the author suggest that a pre-meditated plan to destroy the Muslims was ever conceived by the European powers (if anything Leven acknowledges that the Armenian Genocide took place, [Vol. 1, p. 70; Vol. 2, p.106]). That they favored it is one thing (they may have felt more secure having Christian neighbors than Muslim) but none of this still does not meet the definition of genocide, which has been defined above. His insertion of a Greek revolutionary song in the lead is not only unreferenced but is obviously not a real source that works to the benefit of this article, and I think it only speaks of his desire to create yet another WP:POINT and yet another example of bad-faith editing on the part of Hittit.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 17:40, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The map to the right shows distribution (red areas and shading) of Turks in the Balkans in the 1870s. Almost all were in what was then called Bulgaria. I found the map in Turks in Bulgaria, which mentions attacks on the Turks, migrations etc. This article is a fork of Turks in Bulgaria plus the very different subject of Muhajir (Caucasus). It is redundant. Aymatth2 (talk) 17:55, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I rewrite my comment here: You wrote "That they favored it is one thing (they may have felt more secure having Christian neighbors than Muslim) but none of this still does not meet the definition of genocide, which has been defined above." Independent of the name, the truth is Muslims are killed during the wars in Balkans. Muslim population in Balkans declined as a result of mass killings by Russians, Bulgarians, Serbs etc. The process still goes on in the Balkans, the Bosniaks, the remaints of Ottoman Empire in Bosnia faced the danger of destruction in the recent war. Unless Aliya signed the treaty, there would be no Bosniak today in Bosnia. Why the discussion on the article is on the name? If the name is not suitable, should the article be deleted? Kavas (talk) 18:07, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note to admin. I have just renamed the article to Persecution of Ottoman Turks and Muslims. This retroactively invalidates the main point of the nomination (a valid one, IMO), and also the main point of the majority of "delete" !votes. Therefore, I'm suggesting an immediate procedural keep, without prejudice regarding a possible re-nomination. GregorB (talk) 20:14, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's just barely an improvement, although it is still a FORK. We have an Anti-Turkism, where the violence against Turks can be incorporated. And we have the Persecution of Muslims article, where non-Turkish Muslim violence can be integrated. Either way this current article is just redundant.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 20:18, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This comment appears a bit disingenuous: if the article is "redundant", are you saying that the same content already exists elsewhere? If not, why did you nominate it for deletion, instead of suggesting a merge? GregorB (talk) 20:21, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GregorB, do not keep a blind eye on other reasons. Aregakn (talk) 20:25, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MarshallBagramyan, and you might consider to integrate e.g., the Armenian Genocide under Persecution of Christians or Anti-Armenianism? Or are there different standards for persecution? Ottoman Turks and Muslims are less of people therefore an article for their persecution and ethnic cleansing is redundant or needs to be swept aside and merged under a larger indistinguishable mass? This just goes to show that the whole nomination for deletion was not based so much the use of singe words in the topic or article contents, it is the sheer thinking of some that any article discussing the faith of Ottoman Turks and Muslims needs to be made redundant as a matter of personal principle. Hittit (talk) 20:35, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you continue advocating your OR and SYNTH of Genocide? Sorry to see it. I don't even want to regard your comparison. This article in no ways constitutes notability in comparison with the forked articles instead of wasting the time of all of us you could contribute to those the info you have hear. Aregakn (talk) 21:55, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment to Marshal Are you serious by claiming that this article in no way constitutes notability? This is one of the most notable cases and one of the first modern and systematic ethnic cleansings of people in Europe. How many million Ottoman Muslims needed to be killed or expelled from their homelands so that in your mind this article could constitute notability? Do you regard Ottoman Muslims as people at all? Your reasons for wanting to delete this article are sinister. BTW to all those who claim forking, have any of you even read the WP:CFORK???Hittit (talk) 06:50, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note to Admin The change of the article title does not dismiss the WP:POINT reason and the creation of the article as WP:SOAP in a WP:Tendentious editing manner. Leaving alone the WP:Notability and being a fork. Aregakn (talk) 20:25, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did you actually read WP:POINT? Can you explain in a single sentence how this article violates it? Did you notice that WP:SOAPS points to Wikipedia:WikiProject Soap Operas? GregorB (talk) 20:33, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Behaving like a "guru" is of no benefit. Sorry for the typos of WP:SOAP and WP:POINT states about the highly unfavorable disruptive editing type which is a result of "loosing" in editing/pushing a POV in one or more cases (often due to the edits' not accordance to Wiki rules). This whole article is a WP:POINT edit. You, unfortunately, paid no attention to Martial Baghramyan's attempt to clarify that point. Aregakn (talk) 21:16, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize - I didn't mean that as a put-down. I'm only trying to point out that citing policies is of no avail unless it is established how are they violated by the article. Frankly, I don't see a violation of WP:POINT. As for WP:SOAP, it's either #1 ("Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment") or #2 ("Opinion pieces") - but again, I don't think it's any of the above. GregorB (talk) 21:39, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Greg, can you please familirise yourself with the edit history of Hittit. You can at least have a look in Talk:Armenian Genocide and then you shall get the idea of the POINT editing. I wouldn't call the article as #2 but it was created with a SOAP goal. It is obvious from the manipulations in the article as I stated above including the OR and SYNTH the editor maid. Aregakn (talk) 21:55, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand and share your concern about tendentious editing; I dislike it as much as the next guy. I also understand that it is a problem even if individual edits are by themselves not problematic. (It makes it very hard to challenge, which is itself a big problem.) To some editors more familiar with goings-on around the Armenian Genocide, this article obviously appears as continuation of a pattern. But the problem - if any - essentially lies with the editor, and WP:ANI is a better place to deal with it. I still think that articles should be judged exclusively by their merit. GregorB (talk) 22:21, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• delete per Marshal. --Laveol ^T 22:32, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I moved the article back to its original title. Gregor, it's not in the best interest of the debate to use a technicality of a name change as a pretext to invalidate all !votes that made valid points and were policy based. The delete camp shouldn't be made to rehash and reiterate their points but it's very clear to me that the delete !votes—mine included—had an issue with the content of the article, not the title alone. A rename will not suffice to resolve the issue, please do not rename until the AfD has run its course. Enough editors are involved that unilateral actions like that are not necessarily productive. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 00:20, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, but the name change is anything but a "technicality" - please count how many times the word "genocide" appears in this discussion. By doing this, you've made the article worse, working directly against consensus in this discussion, which is that "genocide" is not an acceptable description of the subject. The purpose of this move was what - to make deletion easier? Also, your move was unilateral, while my wasn't: I explained what I intended to do, what are the consequences, and asked if anyone objected. GregorB (talk) 00:48, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • In this case, a "procedural keep" amounts to a disqualification of all delete rationales on a "technicality" that the article title was changed. Without restating and defending each individual delete rationale, much more was raised concerning the article's impropriety than the word "genocide" in the title. That you disagree is perfectly acceptable, an uninvolved admin will make the final decision based on all the rationales, deletes included. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 01:38, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note to admin. Regardless of the article's name, all delete arguments based on unacceptability of the word "genocide" are invalid because the only appearance of this word is in the article title, which is a problem that can be solved by a simple rename. GregorB (talk) 00:52, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Question GregorB, based on the already agreed changes do I interpret correctly that your vote would be updated to "procedural keep"? Hittit (talk) 03:53, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment A procedural keep, as Big Bird stated above, is a disingenuous way of disregarding all the arguments that have been posted here, especially since all this breath we have wasted has not been over so simple a technicality as a name in the title. We shouldn't try to skirt the issue here; it's not just the name that's the problem, it's the entire article - the unreliability of the sources used, the lack of context, the mendacious and POV wording, the attempt to tie-in events taking place on different continents (!) as a uniform policy, etc., etc. Enough editors have expressed their misgivings regarding this article, highlighting just more than the title. Were I to think that this article was created in good faith, I would never nominated it for deletion. But since I know the circumstances in which it was created, I knew that wasn't the case. Simply read the article and please tell me what you think it is trying to tell you? What is its main goal for the reader? We're supposed to educate the reader by presenting them coherent information, not lump a pile of information on them and expect them to figure everything out. What is creator's point of dropping a single verse from a Greek revolutionary song, with absolutely no context, in the lead of the article. No information is given on why these Muslims were removed in the first place, in what circumstances they were living in, with what was going on in their lives when this took place. It's just a simplified, cardboard cut-out article with black and white articles: the good, the innocent, the guilty, the ugly - one entire mess that is virtually impossible to salvage.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 06:17, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment Not all the issues of the article's invalidity have been dismissed, so the process is valid and all the votes stay. Trying to dismiss the voting through covering some of the additional comments of the vote may be viewed as an attempt to sabotate the process by those, who's votes you are trying to "neutralise". Have you informed them that their comments are "dismissed" by that change and tried to see their opinion on the voting? Your notes to admin is a POV and it seems you are trying to show it as procedural need. In addition you are not addressing the issue, that the article is a collection of information with no propper point and the Notability of the article is also questioned. If you see no SOAP by creating a new article about events not directly connected to each other taking part in a period of centuries, through means of falsifying the referenced sources and generalising ideas (SYNTH, OR) and by showing clear evidence of the Editor trying to break a POINT, collecting a bunch of info not related to one other, then I am sorry for that. But do not present it as the idea of the editors' community or try to dismiss the editors' voting through some changes in the article, that regard only the term "genocide". The voters are not able to address every single issue and sentence in the article so they concentrate their attention in their comments beside the voting to the most obvious violations and presenting the change of the title as a dismissal of their votes is unacceptable, in my oppinion. It is clear, that the synthesis and OR has been taking place in the whole article as I showed above in the example sentence, which you asked me to bring. The manner the article is written in by this very editor and the goal it has is propaganda. Quote: "Propaganda is a form of communication that is aimed at influencing the attitude of a community toward some cause or position." This is an article to be considered for deletion due to this and due to not constituting Notability as such. Please, do not make notes for admin trying to dismiss the "delete" voting as neither the Synth nor OR nor SOAP and Notability have been addressed to properly. The view of one editor (or a group) that they are dismissed doesn't mean that the whole community shares it. Aregakn (talk) 11:00, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note to admin Aregakn has made some blunt accusations, which I believe are unjust and not in the spirit of Wikipedia. If we start with the basic reasons why was this article nominated for deletion the moment work started on it and how it was done. Before an article is nominated for AfD there are 13 points than need to be followed (I have left out the last one since I feel it is irrelevant for this discussion):

1. Read and understand the Wikipedia deletion policy WP:DEL, which explains valid grounds for deletion. If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing.

- Not done by the nominator

2. Read the article and review its history to properly understand its topic. Some articles may have been harmed by vandalism or poor editing. Stubs and imperfect articles are awaiting further development, and so the potential of the topic should be considered.

- Not done by the nominator

3. If the article is not already tagged to note an existing problem, consider applying a tag, such as "notability", "hoax", "original research", "unencyclopedic", or "advert"; this ensures readers are aware of the problem and may act to remedy it.

- Not done by the nominator

4. Consider turning the page into a useful redirect or proposing it be merged. Uncontested mergers do not require an AfD.

- Not done by the nominator

5. Check the "What links here" in the article's sidebar, to see how the page is used and referenced within Wikipedia.

- Probably Not done by the nominator

6. Check any interlanguage links, also in the sidebar, which may provide additional material for translation.

- Probably Not done by the nominator

7. Read the article's talk page, which may provide reasons why the article should or should not be deleted; if there was a previous nomination, check that your objections haven't already been dealt with.

- Not done by the nominator

8. Familiarize yourself with the guidelines and policies on notability, reliable sources, and what Wikipedia is not. Related guidelines include "WP:BIO", "WP:COI", "WP:CORP", "WP:MUSIC", "WP:WEB", and, for list articles, "WP:CLN". For a list of policies and guidelines that can be useful in a deletion proposal, see Wikipedia:List of policies and guidelines to cite in deletion debates.

- Probably Not done by the nominator

9. When nominating due to sourcing or notability concerns, make a good-faith attempt to confirm that such sources don't exist.

- Not done by the nominator

10. If the article was recently created, please consider that many good articles started their Wikilife in pretty bad shape. Unless it is obviously a hopeless case, consider sharing your reservations with the article creator, an associated WikiProject, or on the article's talk page, and/or adding a cleanup tag, instead of bringing the article to AfD. If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD.

- Not done by the nominator

11. Confirm that the article does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion or proposed deletion.

- Probably Not done by the nominator

12. If you expect the AfD page will be edited by newcomers to Wikipedia (perhaps because the article is linked from some visible place outside Wikipedia), or if you notice this happening, you might want to insert the "Not a ballot" template into it.

- Not done by the nominator. Evidence, probable sockpuppet IsmailAhmedov (talk · contribs)

Furthermore none of the other accusations added after the AfD nomination hold any merit since all of them are arguable and should be discussed in the article’s talk page, AfD should not be used as a discussion forum.

P.S. "While not required, it is generally considered courteous to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the articles that you are nominating for deletion"

- Not done by the nominator

Hittit (talk) 12:52, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I pasted in some stuff from other articles. Click "[edit]" on Muhajir (Caucasus) to see a possible way to handle forking. I am extremely pessimistic about whether this works. The Balkans seem to be full of forks. Aymatth2 (talk) 03:40, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have made your statement in the form of your vote here, no need to go further and vandalise the article, contribution is welcome lets discuss it in the talk page on how we can expand Hittit (talk) 06:18, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The strategy here seems to be: create an article with innumerable problems, promise to fix one of them (the title) and, voilà, the AfD is invalid. Pcap ping 11:51, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Possible canvassing as per [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. Although editors are invited to "participate" in the article, it's reasonable to assume that the AfD notification will be one of the first things they notice on the article. Hence it seems a thinly veiled invite to !vote here. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 17:23, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Clear Canvassing BigBird with all the respect an invitation to contribute to the article cannot be seen as canvassing. However since you are due diligent you must have noticed the clear case of canvassing by Aregakn (talk · contribs) where he has made sure to inform that there is a vote for deletion and invited participants some of which have directly contributed to the delete vote [9], [10], [11], [12], [13]. Would you comment on that please? Thank you for your alertness on this matter. Hittit (talk) 17:41, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's very ironic to see that while you are accusing Aregakn of canvassing, you yourself have now just gone and done precisely the same exact thing! Regarding the litany of things that I, the nominator, forgot to do: your destructive behavior in the past month or two has persuaded me that you are not interested in creating articles with the specific goal of informing your readers.

Your activity on the Armenian Genocide article violated virtually every statute one could think of: WP:vandalism, WP:POINT, WP:SYNTHESIS, WP:FRINGE, WP:OR, etc. etc. And after being ruled out each time, you now have decided to further deceive readers by cobbling every instance of anti-Muslim violence, supported by non-reliable sources to say the least, over the past 150 years and place it all in a single article titled "genocide".

Let us just dissect the first sentence in the lead: rather than defining what exactly the "Genocide of Ottoman Turks and Muslims" was, Hittit has started off this article as if it's a college paper: "As the Ottoman Turkish Empire entered a permanent phase of decline in the late 17th century it was engaged in a protracted state of conflict loosing territories both in Europe and the Caucasus. The victors were the Christian States the old Habsburg and Romanov Empires and the new nation states of Greece, Serbia, Romania and Bulgaria." That presents the reader with absolutely no context whatsoever. Why did nations like Greece and Serbia emerge in the first place? These nations could no longer tolerate living as second-class citizens and by the 19th century, things came to the boiling point, where rebellions were launched to shake off Ottoman rule. Why do we see in the lead a Greek Revolutionary song? Where is it source? Where is the context?

The thesis of this article is untenable since virtually no scholars support it, and I am convinced that Hittit created this article only after seeing the futility of creating any doubt on the Armenian Genocide. i.e., to make a WP:POINT. His actions are highly reminiscent of what the Republic of Turkey currently does now when it wants to deny the Armenian Genocide: it says rather than the Ottoman Empire committing a genocide against its Armenian population, it was rather the defenseless, civilian Armenian population that launched a genocide against the Turks! Some attempts have been suggested to salvage this poor excuse for an article, but I don't see them as viable. There are too many problems that have been highlighted, not least because it is desperately grasping at straws (150 years of ethnic cleansing + deportations + nationalism + massacres + a Greek revolutionary song = a mess) to put together something that respectable academia clearly does not support. --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 18:18, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete (and maybe merge all salvageable content into more appropriate, existing articles) - whether we call it Genocide or ethnic cleansing or whatever other name - we should not have articles on fringe theories, that are synthesized from some isolated sources. If there is some serious debate about historians on a genocide of Ottoman turks then we might reconsider having an article, but at the moment no. Pantherskin (talk) 20:35, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. There is no such thing as a genocide of Ottoman Turks and Muslims, it is as simple as that. --Davo88 (talk) 22:23, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete People will come up with any piece of progaganda that suits their views these days. - Fedayee (talk) 11:18, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• *Strong Keep. It is obviously, most supporters of this article to be deleted is armenians. I don't see why, this article should be deleted, when there is a lot of strong evidence available in internet.--NovaSkola (talk) 22:33, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This article is hoax, so it should be deleted. --Ліонкінг (talk) 07:05, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete The final phase of genocide is denying it ever happened and blaming the victim. This is a perpetuation of the christian genocides by ottoman turkey and seeks to blame the victims of kemalist policies of genocides. In addition the article titled "Turkish Genocide" has been deleted several times already.--Anothroskon (talk) 07:44, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment With such a strong Armenian and Greek contribution for deleting articles focusing on the historical plight of Ottoman Muslims no wonder articles have been deleted (as this AfD shows). Nevertheless this is not a ballot or a football match, I have confidence the admins will take into consideration the long list of references and the systematic and planned cleansing of Ottoman Muslims during the period in question. There is a reference on each statement and multiple authors confirm the same pattern, the article clearly meets the notability guideliness. If articles such as Persecution of Serbs or e.g., the Persecution of Rastafari are eligible for the Wikipedia domain then surely the persecution of millions of Ottoman Muslims cannot be overlooked. I find claims sich as; propaganda or not supported by a respectable academia to be absurd. Armenians are mentioned with one word in the article, however looking at the comments on this page, one gets the feeling that Armenians play a greater part in the article, I do not know what to call this behaviour. For Marshal, your comment: “These nations could no longer tolerate living as second-class citizens and by the 19th century, things came to the boiling point, where rebellions were launched to shake off Ottoman rule. Why do we see in the lead a Greek Revolutionary song? Where is it source? Where is the context?” So these nations could no longer tolerate and they obliterated (justifiable to you?, the Muslims had it coming? not worth or notable for the Wikipedia space?), what you call a “shake off” many scholars identify as massacre, exodus, slaugher and ethnic cleansing. Regarding the sources let me know what you mean on the article talk page. Hittit (talk) 21:04, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. So show me one English scholarly source that states this was a "Genocide of Ottoman Turks and Muslims". What you do not realize is that by creating this article you have only given impetus to articles that DO have scholarly sources calling their events a genocide. Not to mention, other articles, such as Dersim Genocide, will also benefit from this article's creation. And since ethnic origin is SUCH a big deal with you and NovaSkola; I'm Scottish, English, French, German, and Irish. --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:33, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kansas, you might have missed the discussion above, however if it is the word “genocide” you are voting on, I have already stated that I have no objection for renaming to “Persecution of Ottoman Turks and Muslims”. This should have settled it. Would you have some other objections? Hittit (talk) 04:37, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying you created this article without one English scholarly source stating this was a "Genocide of Ottoman Turks and Muslims"? --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:57, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We already have a consensus for "persecution" instead of "genocide", and there's no mention of genocide in the article body anyway, so let's drop the "genocide" debate, no need to beat the WP:DEADHORSE. GregorB (talk) 08:39, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Genocide or persecution, there's not a single reliable source treating these various and distant events as a whole. This article, whatever its title could be, is WP:OR. Sardur (talk) 09:05, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Clearly you have not presented any links of these all being both planned and systematic acts. The wording and methods you use and rules you break (OR, Synth, etc.) are there to show why it is a SOAP (what you said seems absurd to you). Also with one word and 0 context you made all Armenians (as a nation) participating in some actions your propaganda-article wants to imply. These all (and as a prove the perception and understanding of the ideas in your article by readers and voters) confirms it to by nothing but a biased POV and SOAP with all the above-mentioned rule-violations. And once again, even in your comments, your perception of nationalities start playing good and bad roles: "With such a strong Armenian and Greek contribution.. no wonder articles have been deleted". You not only you accuse the national belongings but also the administration in supporting it (though it is the opposite). Aregakn (talk) 21:35, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aregakn to you I suggest to familiarise your self with WP:AADD. Furthermore, if you didn’t like the wording of a sentence why didn’t you attempt to present a rewording in the article, instead of a direct delete of the whole article? Hittit (talk) 04:50, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.