The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Delete ~ Amory (u • t • c) 04:15, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Clement , 1st Earl Attlee of Walthamstow, Viscount Prestwood Attlee → Clement Attlee (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Propose deletion. Useless redirect with typo (extra space before comma) so vanishingly unlikely ever to be used. If the version without the bad space were ever required (it does not currently exist) then, sure, it could be created (if it is indeed correct; I don't know), but currently we do not seem to be overwhelmed with demand for this usage and this one is just simply wrong. Thanks & best wishes DBaK (talk) 18:27, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - unlikely typo and not widely picked up by the mirrors. Bridgeplayer (talk) 22:29, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Keep ~ Amory (u • t • c) 04:15, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Genocide of Ottoman Turks and Muslims → Persecution of Muslims (links to redirect • history • stats) 

The consensus at the AfD was that no reliable sources call this a genocide. While the closing admin wanted some of the page contents preserved, the redirect is POV, and unwarranted. Note that the history of the article originally nominated for deletion is now preserved at Persecution of Ottoman Muslims and Turks 1821-1922. Pcap ping 02:53, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I consider this a perfectly reasonable redirect. I was the one who closed the AfD, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Genocide of Ottoman Turks and Muslims but I closed it as no consensus. There was not really consensus at the afd for anything at all, certainly not for the proposition that no genocide occurred; my own personal view, and that of some others, was that the chronological scope of the article was not fully supported by the sources. DGG ( talk ) 03:10, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • How so? The expression doesn't appear in the target article, and it's an unlikely search term chosen by an editor who found himself under WP:AE sanctions shotly thereafter (check his talk page). Furhter, it can be confused for Bosnian genocide, which addresses different events, and has its own article. Pcap ping 03:19, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the redirect. It's a messy article and the only hope for it is to salvage its useful material and to add it to its respective articles. The article was a huge FORK and a violation of WP:SYNTHESIS. There's also reason to believe that its creator created the article to retaliate for inserting his unsupported POV in the Armenian Genocide article. I don't think anyone will be confusing it with the massacres in Bosnia. --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 03:42, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The history of the article that was at AfD is not stored under this redirect. It's stored at Persecution of Ottoman Muslims and Turks 1821-1922 now; it was moved there by User:Hittit himself, the creator of the AfD'd article! Pcap ping 04:18, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget My opinion is to move the page to Persecution of Ottoman Muslims and Turks. Everyone here agree that the content of Persecution of Ottoman Muslims and Turks should be included in the Wikipedia. But to where? If the content of the article is longer than a small part that can be kept at Persecution of Muslims page, then we should move it to a new page, Persecution of Ottoman Muslims and Turks. As I said, the important thing is the length of the article. The article's length should be longer, since there is a great amount of material in this topic.

For example, a page is created for Expulsion of Moriscos: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expulsion_of_the_Moriscos. The content of the article should be improved in time, but here we should decide this is a noteworthy event or not. I think the persecution of Ottoman Muslims is as noteworthy as the Expulsion of Moriscos. Kavas (talk) 06:50, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The redirect will be found even if the exact term is not used in the search box, and will help users find what they are looking for. I tried "Muslim Genocide" and got a video game and "Persecution of Muslims" at the top of the list, which seems reasonable. "Turk genocide" gave "Persecution of Muslims" and "Armenian genocide", also reasonable. "Ottoman genocide" redirects to "Armenian genocide" - not sure if this is correct, or if it should be a disambiguation page. That is a different question. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:32, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Whilst some of the material may have been usefull do we need a redirct (after all if the term does not exist it is hardley likly to crop up in a seach) or just copy any usefull material into other pages (if that material doe not already exsist). A such I suppose I am saying Yes/NO save the usefull material but not the redirct.Slatersteven (talk) 13:54, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, some have claimed that if the material is useful, the article should be redirected on persecution of Ottoman Muslims and Turks. Everything useful already are included in other articles and they are of better quality. Lets see:
  • The persecutions during the the Greek revolution has a section here and there is even an entire article dedicated to it here.
  • The persecution during the Russo-Turkish War already include here.
  • The Balkan Wars article can be improved.
  • The partitioning of the Ottoman Empire has its own article here.
• It is also POV to include only the Ottoman Muslims and Turks, when Ottoman Christians were also victim of persecution during the same period.

• If we check other articles, we see for example this, note that if we check its talkpage, we see that there was a concensus between both side, to redirect it to an article which provides the casualties regardless of the religious affiliation. And that was what was done.

• But this can not apply here, because several period are included; what is for instance the connection between the Greek Revolution and Russo-Turkish War or the Balkan Wars or the paritioning of the Ottoman Empire? This connection is the creation of the article author. So, even an undescriminate article can not survive as the article will still remain a synthesis of different unconnected events. Zpaven (talk) 14:38, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget I think Turks like Armenians deserve fair article as both nations been victim of genocide. Another good case for support of this article could be that Azerbaijani genocide articles like Khojaly massacre is not redirected, it seen as separate articles. Same things could be applid in this case --NovaSkola (talk) 15:45, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarger Retarget to Persecution of Ottoman Muslims and Turks 1821-1922 --Hittit (talk) 16:00, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Persecution of Ottoman Muslims and Turks 1821-1922 is itself a redirect which would make Genocide of Ottoman Turks and Muslims a double redirect. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 16:31, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Persecution of Ottoman Muslims and Turks 1821-1922 was redirected despite of objections by the same people who could not manage to delete it via AfD. There is no valid reason to redirect, however I cannot engage in an edit war with a people with gang-like mentality. I trust non-involved editors will soon correct this in due time. If necessary, and talk page discussion does not yield results, next step will be to seek conflict resolution. --Hittit (talk) 17:12, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Read the comment of the closing admin here, on the deleted article Turkish Massacres, also, a similarly written synthesis article was deleted called Azerbaijani genocide here. I see above someone making a comparaison with the Bosnian Genocide, which is not valide, those involve events having happened from 1992-95,and are particular, not some time period of 100 years all merged to form a sythesis of several unconnected events. Besides, the Ottoman Empire was an Empire with several different subjects, after the fall, there were at least as many Arabs in the empire, and what about the Christian population? How was the purge against the maronits any different for example? I did not even include the manipulation of sources, two examples I have provided which you never replied to begin with. Replying with people with gang-like mentality is not very civil either. Zpaven (talk) 17:33, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Bosnian genocide is a continuation of Muslim massacres in the Balkans. The Serbs' slogans were "Turks, go home!" although the Bosniaks are not Turkic people, Serbs see them as Turk. Kavas (talk) 18:01, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hard to reconcile this with several other war crimes such as Vukovar massacre, Baćin_massacre, Bruška massacre, Dalj massacre, Saborsko massacre, Lovas massacre, Široka Kula massacre, Škabrnja massacre, Voćin massacre not particularly involving Muslims. So in short the massacre in Bosnia refers to a period of about four years, not a hundred year. Zpaven (talk) 18:07, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The Bosnian problem triggered the World War I, there was peace for 70 years not because of peace loving people but because of the world politics, however after the finish of the Cold War, it started again. Kavas (talk) 18:15, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see where you're going, intro of the article Bosnian Genocide: The term Bosnian Genocide is used to refer either to the genocide committed by Bosnian Serb forces in Srebrenica in 1995, or to ethnic cleansing that took place during the 1992-1995 Bosnian War. There is no synthesis. You're discussing on why synthesis would be allowed in another case, to justify synthesis here. The fact is that such a synthesis does not exist for the other case to begin with. Zpaven (talk) 18:52, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The subject is a collection of not relevant cases to each other. It covers such broad variety of cases that are not relevant, that cannot be included neither in a separate article, nor in others than the Persecution of Muslims. For instance I don't see what relevance do Muslims have with Ottoman Turks in this case. it is obvious, that the article speaks ONLY of people of Muslim religion. Whether or not they were of Ottoman, Albanian, Serbian or any other ethnic group it has nothing to do with the ethnicity, but the religion. If the Turk was Christian was he persecuted? Of course not. This perfectly and only suits to Persecutions of Muslims. Maybe it can be a separate paragraph there connected to the persecution of Muslims in Balkans during that period, if there is anything else than the time-period that connects these actions together.Aregakn (talk) 20:57, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The article speaks only about a Muslims. The article is about persecutions of Muslim, not anybody else. --Ліонкінг (talk) 22:24, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We are not discussing the article, just the redirect. If someone wants to start a new article on the subject, perhaps with a less controversial title, that is a different issue. But the question is whether someone entering this title or something similar should be guided to Persecution of Muslims, or to some other page, perhaps to a disambiguation page? Or should the redirect term be purged from Wikipedia? The search feature on Wikipedia is not great, and redirects help users find what they are looking for. I have trouble seeing any reason to delete redirects unless they break the law. Better to just point them to the most appropriate article. Am I missing the point? Aymatth2 (talk) 01:16, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the redirect Surely the article refers to issues of Islam and has nothing to do with ethnic belonging. Telling "ethnic cleansings" of several ethnic groups refer to some other issue in this context, than Islam would not be serious. The redirect of such search to Persecution of Muslims seems more than relevant. Khojaly or others is not a collection of irrelevant t each other cases and is on ethnic bases and this is why not offered to be in Persecutions of Muslims. IsmailAhmedov (talk) 12:50, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep I've seen no arguments for deletion of the redirect. POV issues does not apply to redirects. And the word genocide gets severly overused. That said the conjuction makes this a rather unlikely search term. genocide of muslims,genocide of Turks or genocide of Ottoman Turks are what I would expect readers to search for. Taemyr (talk) 17:03, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.