![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 29 April 2010 (UTC). The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
![]() | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
|
I had a look at the provided reference, which was link to google books: p.xii. Unfortunately the reference is only a partial section: "Roumelian Turkish refugees (migrants) in utter misery took refuge in Anatolia, and tens of thousands died like flies in exodus". It is clear that tens of thousands died during the exodus but this figure does not indicate the total death toll or the scale of the refugee wave caused by the Russian invasion of Rumelia. The removal was necessary since in its phrasing it indicated that only tens of thousands died as a result of the Russo-Turkish War. Kostja do you have access to the whole book or more than the partial section? Şimşir is an interesting author born in Bulgaria himself. Hittit ( talk) 20:23, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
I understand, I appreciate your participation in this topic. Hittit ( talk) 20:57, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
What is the point of this map? If you want to show how the population of the Turks in Bulgaria declined, you need another ethnographic map of the post-1878 map situation. Of course it's possible you're going to add it soon but even then this map is poor for comparison as the author regards great areas as "mixed" which is a very ambiguous term. Kostja ( talk) 18:22, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Do you have a proposition? Hittit ( talk) 18:26, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
What can be considered a neutral point of view when talking of ethnograhpic maps, whithout having a dozen of them? Hittit ( talk) 18:32, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
What basis of neutrality have you used when applying ethnographic maps in other articles? Hittit ( talk) 18:40, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
I have removed the maps until a concenssus is reached. Hittit ( talk) 18:50, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Following the rather weak and pathetic decision (and the amusing excuses that accompanied it) to actually keep this sorry excuse for an article, the most logical solution now seems to me to move this to its most relevant page: Persecution of Muslims. Clearly, it is simply a cruel hoax that the article's creator has unilaterally asserted that the Balkan nations, Western Europe, and Russia conspired together to commit a genocide against the Turks and other Muslims. That they suffered due to the exigencies of war is one thing; that they were part of a systematic plan to eliminate them in their entirety is just myth. Listing a series of events and then grouping them all together under a single title has been demonstrated to be a clear violation of WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:OR on the part of the creator himself. While I think the Persecution of Muslims page seems to be the most relevant article where the reliable material can be moved, other relevant pages ( Anti-Turkism?) may be available as well. For that matter, I suggest that the material on this page be merged on to their respective pages and that we delete this article by itself without creating a redirect, lest we start deluding ourselves and begin giving legitimacy to positions pushed only by fringe, non-academic scholars who have a track record for distortion and falsification.-- Marshal Bagramyan ( talk) 04:46, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Thirteen people called for this article to be deleted; three or four others didn't. To me, it appears like the overwhelming majority was ruled over by what looks like an absurd technicality, so that does not vindicate any of your claims. So yes, this is the next best solution having it merged and deleted seems wise. Over a week has passed and you still have been unable to muster a single source to back up this article's thesis that a genocide(s) took place. I think a better case cannot be made.-- Marshal Bagramyan ( talk) 05:10, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
This is preposterous, not only you disregard admin decision but also admit disruptive behaviour, you think the rules do not apply to you? Hittit ( talk) 05:17, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Using the same logic we can just as easily propose the article Armenian Genocide to be merged with Persecution of Christians or Anti-Armenianism. Your argument for the use of the word "genocide" is not valid either since this can be easily adjusted to accommodate your objections (N.B. the sources speak clearly of the nature of the acts). Alternate renaming options are listed. The events in questions are very much interlinked, documented and recognised. -- Hittit ( talk) 20:28, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
I had in mind something like Persecution of Turks 1887-1920 as the defensible article, And I would absolutely avoid the word genocide in this context. What I hope to avoid is this sort of attack on each other. I was thinking of also saying, all the revisions should be done by others than the editors already over-involved in this, and it might still be necessary to say that.
DGG (
talk )
10:51, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Good lord, what a work of art, the footnotes are used out of context and manipulated. For example, can someone provide me the edition of Mark Levene work, since those two pages are footnote pages. Zpaven ( talk) 14:31, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
More: 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.[23] Hupchick estimates that nearly 1,5 million Muslims died and 400,000 became refugees as a result of the Balkan Wars.[24]
In the report the word Armenian or Armenians is mentioned only twice, and in those context:
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.
The town was without a regular government from July 22, and much robbery took place; but he had previously taken the precaution of sending the Armenian hamals, who were always a troublesome element, out of the town.
Now associated this Armenian word with the second phrase totally unconnected: Hupchick estimates that nearly 1,5 million Muslims died and 400,000 became refugees as a result of the Balkan Wars.[24]
Do I need to continue and show how sources have been manipulated? Zpaven ( talk) 15:00, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for clarifying all these points Zpaven. It looks like we got a good working consensus to merge the material to another/other articles. Changing the name of the article appears to be superfluous; taking in to account that virtually all the material is simply a synthesis and that an event that took place in a localized region in Greece bears little to no connection to what was taking place in the Russian Empire, the idea of even expanding it is unnecessary. One can obviously stack this article with event after event but it would just make this a bigger FORK (of Persecution of Muslims and Anti-Turkism) than it already is.
It seems that the most relevant pages to add this material, provided that better sources are used and not works produced by pseudo scholars like McCarthy and Shaw, are those most closely tied to the events: if the Greek or Serb rebellions led to a massacre or exodus of Muslims, and the most than can be said about it is a couple of sentences in this article, what better reason to not add it there? The 1877-78 Russo-Turkish War article has a section titled Conclusion, which harmoniously goes into further detail on the suffering of Christians and Muslims, country by country. That way, at least the unsuspecting reader has some context to look into and, unlike here, is not ceaselessly bombarded by information which fails to contextualize the reading and gives a sensationally garbled account of the events.-- Marshal Bagramyan ( talk) 16:25, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Per above, I've went ahead with the merge. None of the material has not been lost, as a quick check search through its history will allow editors to incorporate whatever pertinent material there is to the relevant article(s). To emphasize, while a few bits of information of this article had reliable sources, in its current state, it could not be left like this. Individual instances of violence did take place but none of these events can be classified as the definition "genocide" defined in the 1948 UN Convention. Can cooler heads please help in transitioning the relevant information from this page to other Wikipedia-related articles?-- Marshal Bagramyan ( talk) 02:49, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Certain Wikipedia editors who attempted to deleted this article via AfD without reaching their goal have taken-up on them selves to instigate and initiate the unsanctioned redirect of this article. There is no consensus on such action and this does not follow WP:MERGE guidelines:
Merging should not be considered if:
This article is being worked on; respect your fellow editors even if you do not wish to contribute. -- Hittit ( talk) 04:58, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
To view the article see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Persecution_of_Ottoman_Muslims_and_Turks_1821-1922&oldid=360959487 -- Hittit ( talk) 21:03, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
As per the AfD discussion there was an agreement to change the article title to “Persecution of Ottoman Muslims and Turks”. This change was even executed by GregorB, however it was reverted by Big Bird for debate purposes. As already suggested by DGG a rename to “Persecution of Turks 1887-1920” is also a good option, however since the period is 1821 – 1922 and the Ottoman State categorized its subjects to Millets the term Ottoman Muslims needs to be included since no segregation was made on their ethnicity (N.B: nationalist ideology arrived much later among Ottoman Muslims than the e.g., Balkan Christian peoples). Furthermore, Ottoman Muslims in general were on the receiving side of the conflicts without much being discriminated on their ethnic denomination (e.g. Bosnian, Albanian, Pomak, Tatar. Turk or Greek speaking Muslim were put under the same denominator). The subject covers areas from where Ottoman Muslims were expelled: Balkans and the Caucaus in general. The propositions:
Since "Persecution of Ottoman Muslims and Turks" was already once implemented and this option is inline with the context, it would seem as a course to go ahead with the renaming. Hittit ( talk) 15:38, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Zapaven, you seem a new contributor to Wikipedia, I appreciate that you have decided to join this debate on the same date as you have created your Wikipedia account. Welcome! -- Hittit ( talk) 15:52, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
As you can see the reference list covers all statements (easily verifiable to read direct sources), in case you would like to change something or you do not agree with the wording or rephrasing please provide your alternatives. Do you need help or links to Wikepdia policies and editing? I propse to take one point at a time starting with renaming and moving forward on other improvements. -- Hittit ( talk) 16:00, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
That's the problem, it does not! Those were already discussed, there have been other instances of the creation of similar articles, two examples, here and here. They were always deleted. There is nothing salvageable in this article. 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. There are no connection. Besides, if you're going to cover the persecution of the Muslims, you ought to also cover those of the Christians, far worst.
Note also, that each unconnected cases have been developped in other articles. The one during the Greek revolution here and there is even an entire article about it here. The Russo-Turkish War, check here. The Balkan Wars article can be improved and the partitioning of the Ottoman Empire has its own article here.
The closing admin did not know what he was closing, and his proposition in this talkpage further proves that.
As for your claim that all the statments are sourced, that's a work of art actually, you have misused the sources and I started documenting that above, which you have not addressed, if you want me to go on it point by point, I will. But there will remain nothing of this article. Zpaven ( talk) 16:32, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
As per the above discussion where it was clear that an WP:OR had taken place at least about the "deaths of Turks at the hands of Armenians" and also all suplimentary discussions at AE etc., considering also the usage of several national sources not responding to wp:reliable sources and the violation of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 by those, I am willing to:
1) delete the accusations of Armenians (made to seem as a nation),
2) change the wording in that paragraph not to be looking as racist (that accuse the nations)
3) delete the 2 "further reading" sources:
I want to see comments and as all these contributions are made by Hittit, I'd like to read his reaction too.
Aregakn (
talk)
Dear Aregakn, you spent 369 words above. Most of the answers you will find in the final conclusion of the AfD by the admin. No point going around in circles. Any concrete suggestions for editing? You can’t be bi-polar regarding accusation of “nations” accusing Turks in a book by Armenian is according to you fine…the article being discussus does not accuse nations but merely lists the guilty of crimes. This can be easily corrected by using the exact denominations in the Carnegie Report. -- Hittit ( talk) 19:10, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Comment article should not be merged as it shows true realities of Armenian genocide and gives to the article both views. Turkish people have every right to have separate article like armenians, who also did suffer not less by them. In fact, there are a lot of evidence in internet from neutral sources which will help to develop article properly.-- NovaSkola ( talk) 21:54, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Since the merge discussion has got very disorganized: Please add if you are for or against the merge under the below designated section. I have specified the votes based on the above discussion. Feel free to make corrections if Your name is in the wrong section.
-- Hittit ( talk) 16:10, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Discussion is not over, your opinion has been noted please do not mess up this section. -- Hittit ( talk) 07:17, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Against If allowed, I believe that "Persecution of Ottoman Muslims and Turks 1821-1922" may develop into a well-written and well-sourced article. Currently, it is being directed to "Persecution of Muslims" entry which is developing to be too big and also all over the place. After this article gets developed, we can add a summary and link from "Persecution of Muslims" entry. Robert Willie ( talk) 07:16, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 29 April 2010 (UTC). The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
![]() | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
|
I had a look at the provided reference, which was link to google books: p.xii. Unfortunately the reference is only a partial section: "Roumelian Turkish refugees (migrants) in utter misery took refuge in Anatolia, and tens of thousands died like flies in exodus". It is clear that tens of thousands died during the exodus but this figure does not indicate the total death toll or the scale of the refugee wave caused by the Russian invasion of Rumelia. The removal was necessary since in its phrasing it indicated that only tens of thousands died as a result of the Russo-Turkish War. Kostja do you have access to the whole book or more than the partial section? Şimşir is an interesting author born in Bulgaria himself. Hittit ( talk) 20:23, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
I understand, I appreciate your participation in this topic. Hittit ( talk) 20:57, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
What is the point of this map? If you want to show how the population of the Turks in Bulgaria declined, you need another ethnographic map of the post-1878 map situation. Of course it's possible you're going to add it soon but even then this map is poor for comparison as the author regards great areas as "mixed" which is a very ambiguous term. Kostja ( talk) 18:22, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Do you have a proposition? Hittit ( talk) 18:26, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
What can be considered a neutral point of view when talking of ethnograhpic maps, whithout having a dozen of them? Hittit ( talk) 18:32, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
What basis of neutrality have you used when applying ethnographic maps in other articles? Hittit ( talk) 18:40, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
I have removed the maps until a concenssus is reached. Hittit ( talk) 18:50, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Following the rather weak and pathetic decision (and the amusing excuses that accompanied it) to actually keep this sorry excuse for an article, the most logical solution now seems to me to move this to its most relevant page: Persecution of Muslims. Clearly, it is simply a cruel hoax that the article's creator has unilaterally asserted that the Balkan nations, Western Europe, and Russia conspired together to commit a genocide against the Turks and other Muslims. That they suffered due to the exigencies of war is one thing; that they were part of a systematic plan to eliminate them in their entirety is just myth. Listing a series of events and then grouping them all together under a single title has been demonstrated to be a clear violation of WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:OR on the part of the creator himself. While I think the Persecution of Muslims page seems to be the most relevant article where the reliable material can be moved, other relevant pages ( Anti-Turkism?) may be available as well. For that matter, I suggest that the material on this page be merged on to their respective pages and that we delete this article by itself without creating a redirect, lest we start deluding ourselves and begin giving legitimacy to positions pushed only by fringe, non-academic scholars who have a track record for distortion and falsification.-- Marshal Bagramyan ( talk) 04:46, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Thirteen people called for this article to be deleted; three or four others didn't. To me, it appears like the overwhelming majority was ruled over by what looks like an absurd technicality, so that does not vindicate any of your claims. So yes, this is the next best solution having it merged and deleted seems wise. Over a week has passed and you still have been unable to muster a single source to back up this article's thesis that a genocide(s) took place. I think a better case cannot be made.-- Marshal Bagramyan ( talk) 05:10, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
This is preposterous, not only you disregard admin decision but also admit disruptive behaviour, you think the rules do not apply to you? Hittit ( talk) 05:17, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Using the same logic we can just as easily propose the article Armenian Genocide to be merged with Persecution of Christians or Anti-Armenianism. Your argument for the use of the word "genocide" is not valid either since this can be easily adjusted to accommodate your objections (N.B. the sources speak clearly of the nature of the acts). Alternate renaming options are listed. The events in questions are very much interlinked, documented and recognised. -- Hittit ( talk) 20:28, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
I had in mind something like Persecution of Turks 1887-1920 as the defensible article, And I would absolutely avoid the word genocide in this context. What I hope to avoid is this sort of attack on each other. I was thinking of also saying, all the revisions should be done by others than the editors already over-involved in this, and it might still be necessary to say that.
DGG (
talk )
10:51, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Good lord, what a work of art, the footnotes are used out of context and manipulated. For example, can someone provide me the edition of Mark Levene work, since those two pages are footnote pages. Zpaven ( talk) 14:31, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
More: 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.[23] Hupchick estimates that nearly 1,5 million Muslims died and 400,000 became refugees as a result of the Balkan Wars.[24]
In the report the word Armenian or Armenians is mentioned only twice, and in those context:
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.
The town was without a regular government from July 22, and much robbery took place; but he had previously taken the precaution of sending the Armenian hamals, who were always a troublesome element, out of the town.
Now associated this Armenian word with the second phrase totally unconnected: Hupchick estimates that nearly 1,5 million Muslims died and 400,000 became refugees as a result of the Balkan Wars.[24]
Do I need to continue and show how sources have been manipulated? Zpaven ( talk) 15:00, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for clarifying all these points Zpaven. It looks like we got a good working consensus to merge the material to another/other articles. Changing the name of the article appears to be superfluous; taking in to account that virtually all the material is simply a synthesis and that an event that took place in a localized region in Greece bears little to no connection to what was taking place in the Russian Empire, the idea of even expanding it is unnecessary. One can obviously stack this article with event after event but it would just make this a bigger FORK (of Persecution of Muslims and Anti-Turkism) than it already is.
It seems that the most relevant pages to add this material, provided that better sources are used and not works produced by pseudo scholars like McCarthy and Shaw, are those most closely tied to the events: if the Greek or Serb rebellions led to a massacre or exodus of Muslims, and the most than can be said about it is a couple of sentences in this article, what better reason to not add it there? The 1877-78 Russo-Turkish War article has a section titled Conclusion, which harmoniously goes into further detail on the suffering of Christians and Muslims, country by country. That way, at least the unsuspecting reader has some context to look into and, unlike here, is not ceaselessly bombarded by information which fails to contextualize the reading and gives a sensationally garbled account of the events.-- Marshal Bagramyan ( talk) 16:25, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Per above, I've went ahead with the merge. None of the material has not been lost, as a quick check search through its history will allow editors to incorporate whatever pertinent material there is to the relevant article(s). To emphasize, while a few bits of information of this article had reliable sources, in its current state, it could not be left like this. Individual instances of violence did take place but none of these events can be classified as the definition "genocide" defined in the 1948 UN Convention. Can cooler heads please help in transitioning the relevant information from this page to other Wikipedia-related articles?-- Marshal Bagramyan ( talk) 02:49, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Certain Wikipedia editors who attempted to deleted this article via AfD without reaching their goal have taken-up on them selves to instigate and initiate the unsanctioned redirect of this article. There is no consensus on such action and this does not follow WP:MERGE guidelines:
Merging should not be considered if:
This article is being worked on; respect your fellow editors even if you do not wish to contribute. -- Hittit ( talk) 04:58, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
To view the article see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Persecution_of_Ottoman_Muslims_and_Turks_1821-1922&oldid=360959487 -- Hittit ( talk) 21:03, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
As per the AfD discussion there was an agreement to change the article title to “Persecution of Ottoman Muslims and Turks”. This change was even executed by GregorB, however it was reverted by Big Bird for debate purposes. As already suggested by DGG a rename to “Persecution of Turks 1887-1920” is also a good option, however since the period is 1821 – 1922 and the Ottoman State categorized its subjects to Millets the term Ottoman Muslims needs to be included since no segregation was made on their ethnicity (N.B: nationalist ideology arrived much later among Ottoman Muslims than the e.g., Balkan Christian peoples). Furthermore, Ottoman Muslims in general were on the receiving side of the conflicts without much being discriminated on their ethnic denomination (e.g. Bosnian, Albanian, Pomak, Tatar. Turk or Greek speaking Muslim were put under the same denominator). The subject covers areas from where Ottoman Muslims were expelled: Balkans and the Caucaus in general. The propositions:
Since "Persecution of Ottoman Muslims and Turks" was already once implemented and this option is inline with the context, it would seem as a course to go ahead with the renaming. Hittit ( talk) 15:38, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Zapaven, you seem a new contributor to Wikipedia, I appreciate that you have decided to join this debate on the same date as you have created your Wikipedia account. Welcome! -- Hittit ( talk) 15:52, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
As you can see the reference list covers all statements (easily verifiable to read direct sources), in case you would like to change something or you do not agree with the wording or rephrasing please provide your alternatives. Do you need help or links to Wikepdia policies and editing? I propse to take one point at a time starting with renaming and moving forward on other improvements. -- Hittit ( talk) 16:00, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
That's the problem, it does not! Those were already discussed, there have been other instances of the creation of similar articles, two examples, here and here. They were always deleted. There is nothing salvageable in this article. 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. There are no connection. Besides, if you're going to cover the persecution of the Muslims, you ought to also cover those of the Christians, far worst.
Note also, that each unconnected cases have been developped in other articles. The one during the Greek revolution here and there is even an entire article about it here. The Russo-Turkish War, check here. The Balkan Wars article can be improved and the partitioning of the Ottoman Empire has its own article here.
The closing admin did not know what he was closing, and his proposition in this talkpage further proves that.
As for your claim that all the statments are sourced, that's a work of art actually, you have misused the sources and I started documenting that above, which you have not addressed, if you want me to go on it point by point, I will. But there will remain nothing of this article. Zpaven ( talk) 16:32, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
As per the above discussion where it was clear that an WP:OR had taken place at least about the "deaths of Turks at the hands of Armenians" and also all suplimentary discussions at AE etc., considering also the usage of several national sources not responding to wp:reliable sources and the violation of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 by those, I am willing to:
1) delete the accusations of Armenians (made to seem as a nation),
2) change the wording in that paragraph not to be looking as racist (that accuse the nations)
3) delete the 2 "further reading" sources:
I want to see comments and as all these contributions are made by Hittit, I'd like to read his reaction too.
Aregakn (
talk)
Dear Aregakn, you spent 369 words above. Most of the answers you will find in the final conclusion of the AfD by the admin. No point going around in circles. Any concrete suggestions for editing? You can’t be bi-polar regarding accusation of “nations” accusing Turks in a book by Armenian is according to you fine…the article being discussus does not accuse nations but merely lists the guilty of crimes. This can be easily corrected by using the exact denominations in the Carnegie Report. -- Hittit ( talk) 19:10, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Comment article should not be merged as it shows true realities of Armenian genocide and gives to the article both views. Turkish people have every right to have separate article like armenians, who also did suffer not less by them. In fact, there are a lot of evidence in internet from neutral sources which will help to develop article properly.-- NovaSkola ( talk) 21:54, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Since the merge discussion has got very disorganized: Please add if you are for or against the merge under the below designated section. I have specified the votes based on the above discussion. Feel free to make corrections if Your name is in the wrong section.
-- Hittit ( talk) 16:10, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Discussion is not over, your opinion has been noted please do not mess up this section. -- Hittit ( talk) 07:17, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Against If allowed, I believe that "Persecution of Ottoman Muslims and Turks 1821-1922" may develop into a well-written and well-sourced article. Currently, it is being directed to "Persecution of Muslims" entry which is developing to be too big and also all over the place. After this article gets developed, we can add a summary and link from "Persecution of Muslims" entry. Robert Willie ( talk) 07:16, 24 June 2010 (UTC)