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 no consensus. Although there's a "keep" majority, there's no consensus; much of the discussion was superficial or was sidetracked by a renaming proposal. Editors are encouraged to work on possible editorial solutions such as splitting, merging or renaming before renominating this article for deletion. Sandstein 08:45, 14 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Persecution of Muslims during Ottoman contraction

Persecution of Muslims during Ottoman contraction (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

Per WP:SYNTH, WP:FRINGE, WP:CHERRY, WP:POV. Article is an arbitrary unification of various, diverse and mostly unconnected events that affected Muslim people in the various former territories of the Ottoman Empire into one giant WP:SYNTH. Events as unconnected as the Great Turkish War of the 17th century and the Italo-Turkish War of the 20th century are all lumped together into great one giant victimological narrative. Mainstream scholarship does not lump all these events together, except for WP:FRINGE pro-Turkish writers such Justin McCarthy (on whom the article is mostly based on). And even McCarthy's work is much narrower in scope than the article, which has grown as activist editors have each added their favorite persecution episode. Article is also hopelessly POV (by its very nature). The various events are presented without any context to create a highly POV article. Each of the events included in this article has its own article, so there is simply no need for this article. Lastly, the article was created by a sock of a banned user DragonTiger23 ( talk · contribs), who was banned long ago for highly disruptive behavior. Khirurg ( talk) 07:27, 30 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Keep. Long standing articles of the sort exist on Persecution of Christians, Persecution of Christians in the modern era, Persecution of Jews, Persecution of Buddhists, Persecution of Bahá'ís, Persecution of Hindus, Persecution of Muslims, etc which also contain events that some sections lead to other articles that have expanded content on a particular event. Those articles have similar layout structures and deal with content akin to the Persecution of Muslims during Ottoman contraction page. In instances (nearly all of those articles) where deletion tags were applied, those were all declined as per wp:SNOW: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. The above editor's reasons sound more on the wp:idontlikeit side (like refering to "activist editors", "giant victimological narrative" and "POV by its very nature" -how so and what is meant by vague terms like nature?) then anything else. On mainstream scholarship, the topic of Ottoman Muslim casualties and expulsions has only become a recent field of scholarly interest [8] and has treated issues such as casualties in a more holistic fashion giving similar numbers to McCarthy [9], [10] etc or the expulsions of Ottoman Muslim refugees from the Balkans (Isa Blumi's detailed work, 2011 [11] and Dawn Chatty & Philip Marfleet 2013 [12], [13]) that shows the topic is notable in recent scholarship. In regards to McCarthy, the main part in the article that deals with him is in the Total casualties section. His study was the first to look at these numbers hence cited, and even academics (Genocide scholars, other historians) who disagree and criticized him on his views on the Armenian Genocide, have analyzed and acknowledged his work on Ottoman Muslim civil casualties and expulsions to be of merit [14], [15], [16], [17]. That's only one source, there are more than 100 references in the article from 19 other sources on the page and the filing editor does not express any issue with those. Wiki guidelines on articles created by a sock and issues of deletion [18] suggest that not all articles are deleted and at times judged on a case by case basis. I should note that this article has existed now for a number of years with many editors contributing over the years. Best. Resnjari ( talk) 09:28, 30 January 2018 (UTC) reply

None of the sources in the article (except McCarthy), or the ones name dropped above, link the various disparate events mentioned in the article. This is the very definition of WP:SYNTH, of which you seem to be unaware. Do Chatty and Marfleet link the Great Turkish War, Greek War of Independence (1821-1829) to the Greco-Turkish War (1919-1922) as one single instance of ethnic cleansing? Does Blumi? No, they don't. So quit cluttering this page with irrelevant stuff. As far as the article "existing for many years", it has existed exclusively as a POV battleground of the lowest quality. Time for it to go. Khirurg ( talk) 23:58, 30 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Additional comment:I have concerns with the filing party's motives, and knowledge (or lack thereof) of the facts in this nomination. First, they brought the article for deletion, claiming among other things that there were no reliable sources, besides McCarthy. Around one hour later, the filing party realized that the article had 110 references from more than 20 reliable sources, and they took to WP:RS the Middle East Quarterly, just one of the sources. In doing so, they first show that they are not prepared to sustain their position in this AFD, as they still don't know well the sources used. Second, the filing party also breached WP:CANVASS, by going to another forum and getting attention there for this article which they had brought to AFD an hour before. Resnjari ( talk) 18:43, 30 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Response to "additional comment". The reason I sent this for deletion is because none of the "110 sources" link these unrelated events, except McCarthy. Each of these events has its own article. Doesn't matter if you add another 110 sources, if they don't link the events together they are useless. Regarding the Middle East Quarterly, that is a highly partisan, non-peer reviewed source. Rather than trying to leverage that in this debate, the onus is on you to avoid such sources in the future. The accusations of WP:CANVASS are grotesque and reveal a lack of knowledge of policy and/or good faith. When the arguments run out, it's time for aspersions. I also note it is extremely poor form, and intellectually dishonest of you, to try to defend this article so passionately while at the same time engaging in behavior such as this [19] (the tired old "my persecution is persecution, but your persecution is not persecution" racket). Khirurg ( talk) 23:58, 30 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Response:Well apart from your attempted character assassination of me being disingenuous and offensive to say the least, but anyway there is more then enough scholarship covering events and Blumi does and so do Chatty and Marfleet etc that treat this topic holistically. The onus is on you to go and read the books, journal articles etc as they are cited. Again your wp:idontlikeit views are that. Also if your issue was the Middle East Quarterly (which you regard as "highly partisan" -though it is run by conservative historian David Pipes and its content is considered by its critics as being not friendly to Islam related issues), you ought to have opened a discussion in the talkpage or the RS (to maintain good faith), not place a deletion tag for this whole page (and then additionally go to a RS) because there are one or two sources which once again you don't like. These articles Persecution of Christians, Persecution of Christians in the modern era, Persecution of Jews, Persecution of Buddhists, Persecution of Bahá'ís, Persecution of Hindus, Persecution of Muslims also contain scholarship which at certain points link events and others that treat events separately. Similar arguments were made by some editors who called for their deletion and the end result was keep as per wp:snow. As my editing is refered to I have edited this article because i have access to scholarship and read up on this topic, due to my background having done postgraduate studies in history at university. Resnjari ( talk) 06:41, 31 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Pretty rich of you to talk about "character assassination" when you started this whole screed about "the filing party's intentions" (also interesting you just can never bring yourself to refer to me by my username - why is that?) and the ridiculous accusations of WP:CANVASS. Just like it's pretty rich of you to try and keep this article by any means necessary while at the same time edit-warring to suppress material you don't like at Persecution of Christians. If you don't want to be accused of dishonesty, don't engage in it. About your postgraduate studies, that's great, however, please familiarize yourself with wikipedia policy. For example, the other "persecution" articles you keep referring to were not subject to AfD, but to WP:PROD, which is something entirely different. Your repetition of is WP:SNOW is nonsensical and shows a lack of understanding of wikipedia policy. Khirurg ( talk) 05:37, 1 February 2018 (UTC) reply

As the filing party other editors who place a vote here are going to take into consideration your reasons and your comments, as you are the initiator of this process. My concerns about your intentions for deletion are raised because you made the following comments "as activist editors have each added their favorite persecution episode", "giant victimological narrative", "POV by its very nature", "textbook example of Oppression Olympics", "It could as easily be renamed Laundry List of bad things done to Muslims 1600s to 1923" etc." You may not support the existence of this article, but the events contained within the article are sourced from credible scholarship and they happened (separate to your objections to McCarthy -1 source on casualties). So from that yes your intentions are going to be brought up. As for other articles, other editors asked others to go to the talkpage, as per WP:BRD. I never disagreed with the content and nor did i agree, just following wiki guidelines. On wiki policy all those article deletions where declined with a keep and wp:snow was used for the others as a keep [20]. No dishonesty, just facts. Resnjari ( talk) 14:50, 1 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Your "concerns" are just mudslinging and character assasination. And then you have the nerve to complain. And you're not "following wikiedpia guidelines", you are edit-warring. BRD only applies to the first revert in a series, not the 3rd or 4th. But you're repeating yourself. Instead, please explain the difference between WP:PROD and WP:AfD. Khirurg ( talk) 06:33, 2 February 2018 (UTC) reply

"edit warring". How so ? Or is it your "mudslinging" interpretation with these comments about deleting this article like "as activist editors have each added their favorite persecution episode", "giant victimological narrative", "POV by its very nature", "textbook example of Oppression Olympics", "It could as easily be renamed Laundry List of bad things done to Muslims 1600s to 1923" etc.". Evidence speaks for itself. This deletion thread initiated by you is based on wp:idontlikeit reasons. Resnjari ( talk) 13:09, 2 February 2018 (UTC) reply

You still haven't explained the difference between WP:PROD and WP:AFD. Let's hear it. Khirurg ( talk) 18:00, 3 February 2018 (UTC) reply

To the filling party, I have explained my reasons for keep and am aware of Wikipedia policy. How you wish to interpret them is your deal not mine. Best. Resnjari ( talk) 19:11, 3 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. ^{Baby miss fortune} 12:40, 30 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ^{Baby miss fortune} 12:41, 30 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. ^{Baby miss fortune} 12:41, 30 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. ^{Baby miss fortune} 12:41, 30 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete: A wide collection of unconnected events in terms of time and space. No wonder this article was created by an aggressive national advocative (and permanently blocked) editor. Off course the specific article is not about persecution of a specific religious group but about vaguely-defined ethno-religious subdivisions inside the Ottoman and Turkish society. Alexikoua ( talk) 14:40, 30 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Similar comments were made by editors in past deletion discussions (literally a decade ago) of the other religion based Persecution of pages, and these were declined in the end and kept, as per wp:SNOW. On the comment of "vaguely-defined ethno-religious subdivisions inside the Ottoman and Turkish society", Islam was quite well defined in the Ottoman world, especially within the context of the millet system. Resnjari ( talk) 15:10, 30 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Keep and reform. Sure, this page has problems-- if McCarthy is here, he should go. If it is written from a Turkish perspective then NPOV should be enforced (for example one can mention that Christians suffered in the same period, and that in Greece, Serbia etc attacking Muslims was seen as "retaliation" for 400 years of slavery etc etc). But these are not "unconnected" events at all, and their connection is made exceedingly clear in the literature -- as Christian states ended up ruling former Ottoman territories, Muslims, whether of native or colonial origins, were viewed as "Ottoman leftovers" and/or potential fifth columns, and more often than not they ended up facing expulsion or in some cases massacre. This is a systematic phenomenon with a common cause that is not OR. In some cases one episode by one Christian state would inspire imitation in another. If that is not made clear enough on the page itself, it should be. If there are scholars who dispute this narrative, then their views should also be included in a section titled "Analysis" or "Dispute of Concept" etc, for NPOV. And I'm not saying WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS but really in this case, other crap exists and is found all over Wikipedia with pages like this (too bad there is not a WP:ANALOGOUSCRAPISREALLYEFFINGCOMMON link...). Short version, the page's problems can be fixed without deletion and it is notable. -- Calthinus 15:18, 30 January 2018 (UTC) reply

McCarthy is only cited in the area of numbers, other scholars from Genocide studies, historiography though noting his issues over the Armenian Genocide, have viewed his numbers being of merit and they come up regarding this topic in academia -its unavoidable. Nonetheless there are other scholars who give similar numbers such as Biondich [21]. As with other articles relating to religions and Persecution of, editors were told to improve the content of the article, but overall the decision was keep as per wp:snow. Resnjari ( talk) 15:32, 30 January 2018 (UTC) reply

@Calthinus: This is precisely the problem, the article by its very nature is impossible to redeem. It was, is and always will be a perpetual POV battleground. First of all, what is the scope of the article? The 19th century? The 19th and early 20th? The 17th to the early 20th? The only one that links these events together is Justin McCarthy, in the period 1821 to 1922. Fine then, let's include this in the Justin McCarthy article, that's what it's for. This article is simply what I call a "counter-genocide" article, created by the banned DragonTiger23 ( talk · contribs), a Turkish atrocity mongerer. His mentality, reflected in this article is "If you have your genocide, why can't we have ours?". Another issue is balance. By its very nature, this article highlights the plight of various Ottoman Muslim populations, while completely ignoring atrocities by these same populations. For example, in the most violent period, 1912-1923, Ottoman Muslims basically wiped out the entire Christian population of Anatolia, an estimated 3 million deaths. In that period Anatolia went from 27% Christian to 0%. How do you include this in this article? You can't. Any such discussion will be marred by the usual sabotage and filibuster so familiar to those editing these topics. Another example: The article links the Greek War of Independence (1821-1829), with the Greco-Turkish War that took place 100 years later, as if they were part of the same plan. Yet, except a short war in 1897, the period between 1829 and 1912 is the longest period of peace in Greco-Turkish relations. Yes, there were wars, and massacres and expulsions on all sides. But there was no grand plan, and these events were not linked. A far better use of the community's time would to work on improving the various individual articles mentioned in this article, and where the deportations and massacres suffered by the Ottoman Muslim populations can and should be mentioned (e.g. as in Greco-Turkish War. Khirurg ( talk) 00:11, 31 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Well DragonTiger23 seems to be banned and despite a past socking episode is uninvolved in this current dispute. This page has been changed by plenty of other people since then, most of whom appear to be unaware of this discussion. We could have "Sectarian persecution during Ottoman contraction" but that would be very long and I'm afraid it would come off as cheapening the genocide that happened to the Armenians. Plenty of people write about generalized "persecution of Muslims" as the Ottoman Empire collapsed -- if I recall Misha Glenny does in The Balkans and Charles King does in Ghost of Freedom-- indeed he has a page or so on how the suffering of Christians and Muslims was connected and advises readers against "comparative victimology". Plenty of others do, you could find a reading list for the next two years ("orgies of cultural destruction", etc etc...). I don't think this page is engaging in some sort of Oppression Olympics still, even if that may have been its original purpose. It doesn't mention Christians, it doesn't mention the fact that Ottoman contraction was associated with suffering not only for the Muslim population but Jews as well who were also targeted by Christian mobs. That's because it's about what happened to the Muslims. But I really don't think you'd find much opposition if you try to include references to what happened to Christians as it is relevant -- i.e. a spiraling of retaliatory violence due to the mixing sectarian identities and conflicting nationalisms with territorial conflicts, escalating into its climax in the devastation of Western Armenia in the shadow of World War I. I'd say it's relevant.-- Calthinus ( talk) 01:35, 31 January 2018 (UTC) reply

The article is actually a textbook example of Oppression Olympics if you ask me. It could as easily be renamed "Laundry List of bad things done to Muslims 1600s to 1923". That was indeed the article creator's original intention and the article is still pretty much the same (albeit expanded). Regarding your last point about mentioning what happened to Christians, if the article is kept, that's a must, however I do expect significant opposition. In any case, these things should be discussed on a case by case basis on the individual articles. This article is basically nothing more than a list of little encyclopedicity or utility. Khirurg ( talk) 05:35, 31 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete Wikipedia is WP:NOTDIRECTORY. The article is made up of a bunch of irrelevant events under the presumption that they fit some sort of common narrative. Most of the sources used for these random events do not even place them under the theme of "Persecution of Muslims during Ottoman contraction". The conclusion drawn from this would make it WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Per WP:SYNTH: "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article. If a single source says "A" in one context, and "B" in another, without connecting them, and does not provide an argument of "therefore C", then "therefore C" cannot be used in any article. Wikipedia is not a place to create or write our own narratives, it's a place where we quote existing ones based on WP:RS and WP:NOTSYNTH. Étienne Dolet ( talk) 18:18, 30 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Similar arguments for deletion were made for Persecution of Christians, Persecution of Christians in the modern era, Persecution of Jews, Persecution of Buddhists, Persecution of Bahá'ís, Persecution of Hindus, Persecution of Muslims with the end result still being keep, as per wp:snow. Resnjari ( talk) 18:31, 30 January 2018 (UTC) reply

I could easily just copy this entire article, paste it in the Persecution of Muslims article, and it really won't change much. Hence why this article should really not be a stand-alone article. It's just a bunch of random events being placed under the guise of "Persecution of Muslims during Ottoman contraction" when the content and the sources within the article neither presents itself as persecution per se and neither does it talk about the contraction of the OE. Étienne Dolet ( talk) 18:44, 31 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Nah, because there is heaps more room for expansion as this is an expanding field of study in scholarship. Christianity has two articles, a general one and one that deals with the modern period. On persecution of Muslims, there is a general one, quite full already and this one dealing with the Ottoman topic. Resnjari ( talk) 18:56, 31 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Maybe the modern period Christianity article needs to get deleted. Who knows? And quite frankly, that's not the discussion we should be having. In other words, I don't need to know what there are on other articles. That's WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST as noted by others. Étienne Dolet ( talk) 18:59, 31 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Thing is its deletion was prevented, and though you cite OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST's, wp:snow was invoked on discussion had regarding other Persecution of articles that prevented its deletion and the end result was keep. If you want to place a delete tag, its your call. All other Persecution of articles in relation to adherents of a particular religion have gone through this process of challenge and all have been kept thus far. Resnjari ( talk) 19:06, 31 January 2018 (UTC) reply

It wasn't "prevented" per se, it was contested. More important, that was a PROD, this is an AfD. And even if it were an AfD, you can nominate the article several times for AfD. I've seen articles get nominated to AfD four times. But no one argues SNOW on each and every one of them. Étienne Dolet ( talk) 19:16, 31 January 2018 (UTC) reply

That's the reason invoked that kept one article and it was applied to the others too, not only that all those articles were listed after one was listed due to a few of them having separate deletion discussions. Since your suggesting that an article can be put up for deletion time and time again, why don't we make all those articles part of this deletion listing as was done in times past [22] (as those articles are all very similar to this one)? Resnjari ( talk) 20:00, 31 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Please familiarize yourself with WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. The fact that those other articles were kept does not in any way mean we should keep this one. Khirurg ( talk) 00:18, 31 January 2018 (UTC) reply

The filing party keeps showing that the main motivation for tagging this article with a deletion tag is due to wp:idontlikeit. This is shown through comments like refering to "activist editors", "giant victimological narrative", "POV by its very nature", "textbook example of Oppression Olympics", "It could as easily be renamed Laundry List of bad things done to Muslims 1600s to 1923" etc. Precedents on religion and Persecution of articles such as Persecution of Christians, Persecution of Christians in the modern era, Persecution of Jews, Persecution of Buddhists, Persecution of Bahá'ís, Persecution of Hindus, Persecution of Muslims being keep, as per wp:snow exist and this article belongs in that category of articles. Resnjari ( talk) 06:41, 31 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Keep As per wp:snow.—- Liridon ( talk) 07:55, 31 January 2018 (UTC) reply

"per wp:snow" is really not a reason for deletion. Étienne Dolet ( talk) 18:40, 31 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Yes it is, as per reasons outlined in comments here in relation to other Persecution of articles of which that reason was given for them being a keep. Resnjari ( talk) 19:02, 31 January 2018 (UTC) reply

However, that was a PROD, this is an AfD. Étienne Dolet ( talk) 19:16, 31 January 2018 (UTC) reply

@Liridon: Hi there, I don't think we've met. I'm just a little bit curious as to how you found out about this discussion? Thanks, Khirurg ( talk) 05:39, 1 February 2018 (UTC) reply

@ Khirurg:, we haven't. Just happen to be in my watching list, since the time when I was translating articles related to Ottoman Empire into Albanian.-- Liridon ( talk) 15:51, 1 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Nice to meet you then. But what's really strange is that this particular article hasn't been translated into Albanian. So how did you become aware of this discussion. Were you contacted by any chance? Thanks, Khirurg ( talk) 06:35, 2 February 2018 (UTC) reply

I didn't say that I translated, I said "since the time when I was translating articles related to Ottoman Empire...." ;). -- Liridon ( talk) 10:30, 5 February 2018 (UTC) reply

That still doesn't explain how you found out about this AfD, considering you are not very active on en.wiki. Khirurg ( talk) 02:19, 13 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Keep First of all WP:CHERRY and WP:POV are not criteria for deletion. I advise the nominator to read Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. The sentence Lastly, the article was created by a sock of a banned user DragonTiger23 (talk · contribs), who was banned long ago for highly disruptive behavior. is almoast same as the example Delete Creator has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia in the Arguments to the person section. And other arguments:

• POV by its very nature
• textbook example of Oppression Olympics
• It could as easily be renamed Laundry List of bad things done to Muslims 1600s to 1923

are clear indication of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Article has some issues for sure, better keep it and discuss the things to improve on the talk page, Wikipedia has no deadline.-- Abbatai 08:54, 31 January 2018 (UTC) reply

• Keep. The topic of persecution/de-islamization/whatever of the Muslim population in lands held by the former Ottoman Empire in Europe (broadly construed) is a notable topic. If there are POV and sourcing issues in the article they should be cleaned up. Icewhiz ( talk) 09:23, 31 January 2018 (UTC) Supporting split proposal below. Icewhiz ( talk) 20:53, 7 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete I myself have refrained from tackling this article all together, as the numerous POV issues left me unwilling to clean up the mess myself. It seems a Herculean task to clean it and bring the article in line with Wikipedia's core policies such as WP:NPOV. While POV issues cannot be a reason for deleting an article, it is the nature of that POV the reason it has to be deleted: the population casualties and deaths during the Ottoman wars, are not exclusive to the Muslim populations but also to the Jewish, Christian and other populations. However, the way the information is picked from the Ottoman wars while leaving completely out what casualties the other populations in the Ottoman territories had, is a blatant case of cherrypicking and gives the false impressions to the readers that somehow the entire world went against the Muslims of the Ottoman territories even though this is not true at all. I highly recommend that the casualties of the Ottoman wars are added to their relevant article pages so the readers can have the complete image of all the groups that have suffered. The article should be deleted, or follow the same rationale that has been followed for Jewish and Christian population casualties in the wars of other European empires (i.e. Byzantine Empire). To follow double standards here for Muslims of Ottoman wars that are not followed elsewhere, not even for the Christian population casualties of the Byzantine wars, is finding myself vehemently opposing. -- ❤ SILENT RESIDENT ❤ 14:46, 31 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Editing an article is optional. If there were issues as you say, there is the talkpage, which to date you have raised no issues or left comments about an issue. wp:idontlikeit reasons like "gives the false impressions to the readers that somehow the entire world went against the Muslims of the Ottoman territories" are not sufficient for a article being deleted. The same could be said for any number of these articles: Persecution of Christians, Persecution of Christians in the modern era, Persecution of Jews, Persecution of Buddhists, Persecution of Bahá'ís, Persecution of Hindus, Persecution of Muslims if the word Muslim is substituted for with the other religions. The issue of casualties is only one section which some now here have issue with, that still is not a rationale to delete a whole article such as this. I don't see double standards considering that other Persecution of articles cater for multiple religions and events that happened to their adherents with even Christianity having two pages, the second dealing specifically with the modern era. Resnjari ( talk) 15:30, 31 January 2018 (UTC) reply

SilentResident We don't have an article about Christian casualties of the "Byzantine wars" but that's not because of a double standard, it is because of either lack of scholarship or lack of initiative from interested editors. If you know a lot about that topic, I really doubt that anyone here would you stop you from making an article. This is an "OTHER CRAP DOESN'T YET EXIST" argument with little bearing on this page. -- Calthinus ( talk) 15:35, 31 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Actually, you are suggesting that CRAP EXISTS, SO LETS CREATE MORE OF IT which again is not something I am agreeing. To create an article about Christian casualties in Byzantine wars (sources exist for them, and there are editors willing to create the article) is very problematic approach to the events of these wars and still will be finding me opposing. No matter what you may believe, you can't just take a certain information from the whole, from wars unrelated to each other, and give it more spotlight than anything else due to religion. Sorry but no matter how you see it, this stinks. Both Jews, Christians and Muslims have been killed in many imperial wars, but to pick selectively from the population on religious grounds, isn't helping Wikipedia, it may only help certain interests that have religious agendas. I am very saddened, Calthinus, because this is not a step towards the right direction for the project. -- ❤ SILENT RESIDENT ❤ 21:23, 31 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Well if, as you said, sources exist for them, and there are editors willing to create the article is true, it would appear (news to me) that Christians were for some reason systematically targeted during the "Byzantine wars" (not sure which ones you're referring to). I'm not an expert at Byzantine history, but this would seem to make it notable.

As the majority of participants here agree on, this page has problems in that it doesn't clearly tie together the unifying themes and the connections between these events, except for one citation by Hall. There are plenty of books that do discuss these events collectively, touching on their common causes, common features and etc, as I've already elaborated, and they were absolutely not unrelated as they were all driven by the Ottoman decline and the view that Muslims were Ottoman leftovers and/or a fifth column (not to mention in many cases one event led to another). And there is also relevance to the suffering of Christians during the same time period, as plenty of authors draw connections (Henze, Glenny, King, etc etc etc etc... some of these analyses are actually on Wikipedia already anyways), so it would not be hard to include some discussion of those as well since Khirurg brought up that. -- Calthinus ( talk) 02:00, 1 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete Per nominator.-- Marshal Bagramyan ( talk) 18:27, 31 January 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete per WP:COATRACK. I would support keeping the article, however, if the scope was narrowed to the end of the 19th century and beginning of the 20th. 23 editor ( talk) 18:36, 31 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Even if this long term (Persecution of religion X in country Y during time period Z...) can be sourced as having been used occasionally for each of the unrelated historical situations treated in this article, combining them into a single article would still constitute illegitimate OR – a classical WP:SYNTH case. The act of spinning these historical episodes into a single historical "thread" is precisely the kind of "novel narrative" that our WP:OR policy is meant to prevent. Alexikoua ( talk) 20:24, 31 January 2018 (UTC) reply

These articles Persecution of Christians, Persecution of Christians in the modern era, Persecution of Jews, Persecution of Buddhists, Persecution of Bahá'ís, Persecution of Hindus, Persecution of Muslims are structured in very similar ways to this one. Most of those were created around or just over a decade ago. All their deletion requests where turned down, with wp:snow being invoked. This article was created about nearly half a decade ago and overall follows those articles layout structures etc. Resnjari ( talk) 20:30, 31 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Resnjari, persecution articles on religion are ok as everyone will be telling you here. But persecution articles on religion on empirical wars, is not ok I am afraid. The purpose of a persecution article is to help the readers understand the problems of persecution these groups face, unlike this article here which is trying to pick from various past wars that happened centuries ago just to illustrate a case about a certain religious group which isn't really the case about these wars, and normally couldn't be given more spotlight than it was done for the other religious groups that lived in the same areas at that time and which too have had suffered casualties in these wars. The same is true not only about the Ottoman times, but about the other empires, their regions and their religious groups which lived at them. You are welcome to create a Persecution of Muslims in the modern era if you want, but not an article like this one here. -- ❤ SILENT RESIDENT ❤ 21:43, 31 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Christianity has two articles on Persecution that cater to its topical parameters, a generic one and one on the modern era, of which both are ever expanding (and there may be more in future once those reach their 10, 000 word limit with article splits etc). Point is there is a generic one also for Persecution of Muslims and a specific one for Muslims during the era of Ottoman contraction. This article has been expanded over time and continues to be enlarged as editors add content etc. Regarding wars, all the Persecution of articles deal with war, conflcits and associated events to those adherents centuries ago, hence the persecution. This article does not just cover casualties, as that is just one section, but overall covers events, as do all the other Persectuion of articles. Resnjari ( talk) 14:32, 1 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Keep but improve it a little. First of all let me say that I am an atheist and I couldn't care less about any religion (no offense meant for everyone). My vote is mostly based on two arguments. Number one is standards. If similar articles exists as some editors above have already stated I see no reason why this particular one should be deleted. Either we get rid of all them (except persecution of Jews, which is somehow different from other x, y, z etc..religion persecution) or we keep them all. I don't want any religious war here or another article titled Wikipedia double standards on Muslims. It sounds funny but it's not, neither in current situation nor in the future multicultural society. We want to have a collaborative environment within all Wikipedia community and I care about everyone sentiments. The second argument is about the historical process. This persecution happened and left big scars within communities scars which are felt up to these days and have created big problems and even wars. If this persecution happened as a religious reprisal, nationalist ideology, or just a lack of state power, this is something which should be improved in the article. Aigest ( talk) 22:03, 31 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Hi Aigest, I'm really curious about how you found out so quickly about this discussion even though you hadn't edited since mid-December of last year. Let's hear it. Khirurg ( talk) 05:41, 1 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Hi Khirurg. Articles for deletion are on my watch list. If I see there something interesting I say my opinion. As for the frequency of my edits those are depending on my free time and interest I may have on editing. One of the reasons I am filled up with editing are the editors with your kind of attitude. If you have something about my arguments respond to them please. Personal attacks are one of the main reasons experienced editors (me including as I've been around wiki from 2007) leave wiki for good. Right now you are just damaging wiki with your attitude Aigest ( talk) 09:46, 1 February 2018 (UTC) reply

AFD is on your watchlist then? That's weird, because the last time you participated in an Afd was in...2013 [23] unless I am mistaken. There is no need to get snippy by the way ("editors with your kind of attitude"), I just asked you a simple question. It's interesting you got so defensive though, no? As for your arguments, I would respond if they were policy based, but, well...they aren't. Khirurg ( talk) 06:44, 2 February 2018 (UTC) reply

So first you place wp:idontlikeit reasons and now your accusing editors who vote keep of being "snippy". What next ? Resnjari ( talk) 14:00, 2 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Going through the edit histories of others who placed a delete vote many of them have not participated in a AFD in a long while. Odd that. Should one make more of it or is it pure coincidence. More mudslinging of editors i take it ? Not surprised. Resnjari ( talk) 14:00, 2 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Delete per WP is WP:NOTDIRECTORY. We could point out to the relevant topics but keeping a directory is not aligned according to WP praxis. Othon I ( talk) 15:01, 1 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Note to closing admin: Two of the "keep" votes are from users that edit the English wikipedia very infrequently (Liridon [24], Aigest [25]), and one from an account with only 20 contribs (Tiimii [26]). I also speculate that it is not a coincidence, as these users have a great deal in common (a specific ethnic background) with the user that is most strenuously contesting this discussion, as evidenced from their contribs log. This isn't the first time this happens, either [27]. Khirurg ( talk) 05:45, 1 February 2018 (UTC) reply

WP:ADHOM-- Abbatai 06:42, 1 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Not at all. Just pointing out some unusual coincidences, that's all

Yes it is. "A deletion discussion is about the article in question itself. Though the suitability of other related articles may be mentioned during the discussion, and some deletions are bundled with other articles, the debate is not about the creator or any other editors of the article, nor is it about the AfD nominator or anyone who has commented on the AfD." We simply should focus on what issues article has to improve. As far I see most of them pointed out here are content issues and need to be discussed on article's talk page not on AfD. Thanks. -- Abbatai 07:17, 2 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Pointing out suspicious editing patterns that point to off-wiki coordination is not an ad hominem. On the other hand, something like this [28] is very much an ad hominem, since you want to discuss this. As are several other comments, all by editors that voted "keep". Khirurg ( talk) 07:25, 2 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Just reread my previous comment. Thanks.-- Abbatai 07:32, 2 February 2018 (UTC) reply

@ Abbatai:, i find it odd that the filling editor would continue to cast aspersions on keep votes (mudslinging ?) while seeming to not to take into account that this discussion was placed on four wikiprojects for wider discussion some days ago. Looks like every keep vote gets more colourful commentary from the filling editor who already expressed his wp:idontlikeit reasons for the article. I expected more from such an editor who has been on wikipedia now for many years. The behavior of the editor just shows the lengths he would go to by placing a thread where he made such allegations years ago and were dismissed. Really disappointing. Resnjari ( talk) 14:00, 2 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Not mud slinging, just pointing out some fishy goings-on, for example, this account, that showed up here with only 20 contribs [29]. Almost certainly a sock or meat puppet that was contacted off-wiki. And it's not the first time this happens: [30]. It's also interesting you are reacting so defensively and intensely. I wonder why. Khirurg ( talk) 18:10, 3 February 2018 (UTC) reply

The behavior of the editor just shows the lengths he would go to by placing a thread where he made such allegations years ago and were dismissed. Really disappointing. I expect nothing else from the filling party and such rhetoric. I looked into the filling party's claims and the editor in question has made more than 3,000 contributions on the whole Wikipedia project [31]. To the filling editor, i remind them of issues of wp:harassment. This kind of behavior of the filling editor has been noted last year by an administrator [32] and by other editors of the filling party having contacted via email other editors in an attempt to have sanctions thrown at another editor [33]. That some number of editors here who voted delete here have a history of interacting with the filling editor and that votes occured for RFC's have also been noted [34]. Apart from wp:idontlikeit reasons i am really not surprised here. Resnjari ( talk) 19:46, 3 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Stop pretending, will you? Half the "keep" votes are from users who share the same ethnicity as you, even this article is not particularly related. So I will ask you point blank: Did you contact people off-wiki, and if so, how many? Khirurg ( talk) 03:08, 4 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Note to closing admin:Its disappointing that the filling party, (apart from their wp:idontlikeit comments so far of the article) has now resorted to questioning the good faith of editors and their vote (considering that this deletion discussion was posted by @ Babymissfortune: on four wiki projects , [35], [36], [37] some days ago regarding proposed article deletions for further discussion by other editors interested in the topic). Resnjari ( talk) 14:24, 1 February 2018 (UTC) reply

You don't find it strange that editors that haven't edited in over a month and a half suddenly show up to vote here (and all vote "keep" of course)? Khirurg ( talk) 06:48, 2 February 2018 (UTC) reply

If one went through the editing histories of editors who have cast a delete vote, someone could also make these kinds of claims as at most times they have crossed paths with you on articles with an editor drawing a conclusion that your suggesting of other editors. To the filling party, i would like to remind them that the article has been listed on four wikiprojects to have wider comment from more editors (take it up with the editor if you did not want this to happen -but its within rules) and as such there might be more delete votes as well as keep votes. @ Khirug:, however if you really think that your claims are real and not just mudslinging on your part you can always initiate through the proper channels a thread at one of the forums. Resnjari ( talk) 14:00, 2 February 2018 (UTC) reply

The difference, of course, is that the "Delete" votes are all from regular contributors, who probably followed the contribs of you or me. This is in contrast to many of the "keep" votes, that are from users who very seldom edit en.wiki (Liridon, Aigest), or from accounts with very few contribs [38]. It's also not the first time things like this happen in votes where you are involved [39]. Khirurg ( talk) 18:04, 3 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Really? That's odd then because when i went through the editing history of this article apart from 3 or so editors who voted delete others have not edited it at all [40] or never participated in talkpage discussions. Define "regular contributors" here as i find interesting that most of these editors of whom i have not crossed paths (only around three for the delete votes) before on articles would be following me (as suggested by your comments) out of the blue. So your saying they are all following you, "probably". Its interesting that you claim that for the delete votes, but equally claim that most keep votes are part of some coordination. You keep recycling allegations made once in the past which were dismissed. Disappointing considering that you are the one who has been noted by other editors for having actually engaged in that kind of behavior (as noted in my above comments above). Resnjari ( talk) 18:50, 5 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Note to closing admin:What does the filling party mean by "I also speculate that it is not a coincidence, as these users have a great deal in common (a specific ethnic background) with the user that is most strenuously contesting this discussion"? How does he know the ethnic background of editors ( WP:OUTING and WP:NDP) or is this just more mudslinging ( WP:PERSONAL)? Resnjari ( talk) 18:50, 5 February 2018 (UTC) reply

I'll tell you what the "filling party" (sic) means: It is plainly obvious that we are dealing with co-ordinated ethnic bloc voting. Half the "keep" votes are from people from the same ethnic background as you, including several who are not regularly active on en.wiki, but active on sq.wiki. It's obvious as the sky is blue, and it's not the first time this happens in voting discussions where you are involved. Khirurg ( talk) 03:12, 4 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Thank you for informing me. You keep bringing up editors' ethnicity, or claim to know it ( WP:OUTING?) but editors have not disclosed information here on Wikipedia. So its more mudslinging here. I would like to remind the filling editor that last year an administrator noted this behavior currently undertaken by the editor [41] and by other editors of the filling party having contacted via email other editors in an attempt to have sanctions thrown at another editor [42]. That some number of editors who voted delete here have a history of interacting with the filling editor and that votes occurred for RFC's have also been noted [43]. The behavior of the editor just shows the lengths he would go to by by recycling previous mudslinging from years ago when he made such allegations and were dismissed. Resnjari ( talk) 18:50, 5 February 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete per WP:COATRACK. the events covered in the article are unrelated to one another. A lot of these details can be merged with the Persecution of Muslims article. -- Երևանցի ^talk 09:37, 2 February 2018 (UTC) reply

These concerns should have been brought to article's talk page not to AfD. WP:COATRACK is not a reason to delete articles in most cases. Regards.-- Abbatai 10:33, 2 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Agreed. Resnjari ( talk) 14:00, 2 February 2018 (UTC) reply

The article in question is nothing more than a weird collection of unrelated events in terms of time and space & can't be compared in structure with articles that are related to persecutions of specific religious groups (of Christians, of Jews, of Buddhists, of Muslims etc as unsuccessfully claimed above). No wonder we have no similar article to compare with. Alexikoua ( talk) 14:23, 2 February 2018 (UTC) reply

• Keep. There is a notable topic here, but the article as it stands is coatrack-y. I have pruned some. It is certainly not a TNT case as of now, but if it continues to have SYNTH problems and act as a grab-bag, I could perhaps be persuaded in a subsequent AFD. Ultimately, reliable sources exist for a (somewhat narrower) topic and AFD is not cleanup. Srnec ( talk) 05:09, 3 February 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep The article is of much importance and must be kept. It needs some improvements because it describes only some of the massacres and its background section is a bit vague and confusing. The described massacres have strong connections between them, and in some cases were products of each other. WP:COATRACK does not apply here and some editors ought to disclude nationalist perspectives from their arguments. Tiimiii ( talk) 13:45, 3 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: Account has only 25 contribs on the English wikipedia [44] (but many contribs on the Albanian wikipedia). Khirurg ( talk) 18:10, 3 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Note:I looked into the filling party's claims and the editor in question has made more than 3,000 contributions on the whole Wikipedia project [45]. Resnjari ( talk) 21:11, 3 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Note However, the user is blocked indefinitely in Wikimedia Commons after ignoring warnings from the admins and consistently violating copyrights. Have a look here [46]. Othon I ( talk) 18:29, 4 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Note Wikipedia Commons is not this Wikipedia project. Some editors who have made delete votes here are blocked from other Wikipedia projects from making contributions [47]. Resnjari ( talk) 18:55, 4 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Note Pardon me but you are wrong, I can’t see anywhere in the report here [48] indicating that Alexikoua is blocked in from my understanding Albanian WP? Please refrain from false accusations. Also, please be aware that the link that you kindly placed here is in Albanian so I cannot understand what it includes, I only see a placement of Spyromilios as a person from Himara which I can’t find were is the problem. Othon I ( talk) 19:51, 4 February 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete per WP:SYNTH, for lack of academic sources (other than Justin McCarthy) that discuss this topic as a topic. Incidents such as the massacres during the Greek war of Independence and the Italo-Turkish War are so different from one another in every way (one an uprising of Ottoman subjects demanding independence, the other undertaken by the invading Army of an expanding empire,) that they cannot be grouped together, and neither can be defined as "persecution" - not ever massacre is a persecution. this is born out by the fact that the only source that links the two is Justin McCarthy - no reputable historian would discuss the events in this COATRACK in the same paper, and none has. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 15:00, 3 February 2018 (UTC) reply

The things brought up by editors as issues regarding the page are a first for those who have edited the page over the years because these things where not raised or discussed on the talkpage, only here. There are sources, it just requires time to do edits for the article of this calabre. As i pointed out reputable scholars are treating this topic in a holistic manner such as Isa Blumi's in depth study Ottoman Refugees, 1878-1939: Migration in a Post-Imperial World (2013) [49] etc. Resnjari ( talk) 21:18, 3 February 2018 (UTC) reply

• Keep but fix it since the topic important. The article has many problems and seems to me over all the place, but with effort and work it can be cleaned up to be more in line with Wikipedia rules. Vargmali ( talk) 19:02, 3 February 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep The article is very important. It does not make sense to delete it. Ktrimi991 ( talk) 00:25, 4 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Proposal However I agree with Srnec that we need to narrow the scope of the article, and I agree with 23 editor that it should be narrowed to the 19th and early 20th century. E.M.Gregory There is literature about the persecution, and yes, it is considered to have been persecution [50]. But not every massacre described in the article was part of the persecution relating directly to the period of Ottoman contraction. Some of the massacres were very related to each other, as they were done with the same goal (creation of ethnically "pure" countries), in the same way and nearly in the same time (19th to early 20th century). I am talking about all massacres during that period of time, except of [51] and [52]. Those massacres were outcome of centuries-long conflicts and produced a handful of other important event such as [53] and [54]. The massacres, when analyzed together explain many things, and give a better understanding of the time when they happened. Scholars have produced a lot of good works on them, their reasons and their aftermath [55], [56], [57], [58], [59], [60]. The article should be enriched, and include all acceptable points of views. There were many Muslim victims but there were many Jewish and Christian victims as well. The article, to be balanced and to sustain itself, needs to be enriched, and I think there are good editors who want to do so. Ktrimi991 ( talk) 00:25, 4 February 2018 (UTC) reply

I support this compromise proposal by Ktrimi991 (and thanks a ton for the sources, the page needs these) -- Calthinus ( talk) 04:22, 4 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Actually, none of the sources above call it "persecution" or anything similar. They mostly talk about migration, e.g. "X numbers of Muslims migrated from the Balkans to Anatolia in the period XXXX to YYYY". Of the sources above, the only one that speaks of persecution, is in reference to...Armenians [61]. I could support a drastic narrowing of the scope of the article and renaming it to "migration of Ottoman Muslims 1878-1923", but "persecution is just way over the top. True there were many deaths, but the vast majority of these were to disease and famine. That's not "persecution". The migration of Ottoman muslims in the period 1878-1923 is a notable topic. The "persecution" is not. Khirurg ( talk) 04:32, 4 February 2018 (UTC) reply

"True there were many deaths, but the vast majority of these were to disease and famine." Sounds like Turkish official position to deny Armenian Genocide.-- Abbatai 08:29, 4 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Are you equating these events with the Armenian Genocide? And are you saying that the Turkish position on the Armenian Genocide is bunk? Khirurg ( talk) 18:30, 4 February 2018 (UTC) reply

I support the proposal as well.-- Abbatai 08:29, 4 February 2018 (UTC) reply

I support the proposal outlined by @ Ktrimi991: of covering the 19th century and early 20th century. In relation to the filling party's comments that the issue refers just to "migration" omits that those same scholars refer to civilian casualties of Muslims due to wars and the then contemporary views of those states and their uneasiness with having Muslim populations that places into context events of the forced and involuntary migration etc. The filling party needs to consult and read in depth scholarship around those issues as it is a complex subject. Resnjari ( talk) 11:02, 4 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: I removed the strikes on Abbatai's votes as although the justification given was socking, it appears that the SPI that was filed did not come to that (or any) conclusion. The whole situation regarding this seems quite perturbing actually-- what on earth happened??-- Calthinus ( talk) 19:54, 7 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Exactly: the migration is a notable topic and its already covered in another article. However, the persecution in this case fails to meet any notability criteria. Alexikoua ( talk) 12:24, 4 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Nope, subject matter is notable and should be covered separately, as per increasing scholarship on this topic. Resnjari ( talk) 14:27, 4 February 2018 (UTC) reply

• Alternate proposal: Rename article to Migration of Ottoman Muslims during Ottoman contraction (1878-1923). Keep all the info on massacres, destruction of heritage etc...Basically, change the title and narrow the scope of the article to make it less POV and SYNTH, and to be in line with the literature, which mostly speaks of "migration" [62] [63] [64] [65] and less of "persecution" (only one hit [66]). Khirurg ( talk) 18:59, 4 February 2018 (UTC) reply

The proposal looks good. Although I'm not aware of any migrations/emigrations of Muslims in and around 1878. Could be wrong though. But at any rate, that can be further analyzed through discussion. Étienne Dolet ( talk) 20:48, 4 February 2018 (UTC) reply

I would support that title as long as it has the word persecution in it and with a few changes to read something like Persecution and Migration of Ottoman Muslims during Ottoman contraction (19th century-1923) so as to encompass as you say the "massacres, destruction of heritage etc". Scholarship refers to massacres, destruction, wars, forced migration etc -these are persecution. Resnjari ( talk) 19:05, 4 February 2018 (UTC) reply

The scope of the article should be 1878-1923, because that's the period most of the literature focuses on. The earlier 19th century is a completely different era, and only McCarthy goes as far back as 1821, for POV reasons. The Ottoman "contraction" didn't really get under war until the 1870's and there was also a long period of relative calm between the 1820s and 1878. As for "persecution", the literature does not really use that term, so it is WP:UNDUE. Perhaps something like "Expulsion" or "Forced migration", but "Persecution" is too strong a term. Khirurg ( talk) 20:36, 4 February 2018 (UTC) reply

@ Khirurg: You can make a proposal for renaming the article after this AfD. I could support your proposal. You are correct that the sources do not confirm persecution of Muslims at that period, so I can't see why couldn't this proposal of yours gain any support for title change. -- ❤ SILENT RESIDENT ❤ 22:40, 4 February 2018 (UTC) reply

The filling party made references to "info on massacres, destruction of heritage etc". If he wants to include those words (of which the sources do use and refer to) as opposed to Persecution fine. But if those words are not going to be in the pagename, Persecution more than fits the bill akin to the other Persecution of articles. Resnjari ( talk) 22:49, 4 February 2018 (UTC) reply

See the comment your making now is something that could have been done in the talkpage. However since you have now initiated this process, its important to see where this goes. Not all scholarship gives 1878 as the starting point, but the 19th century as a whole. Your comment about not using the term persecution for this article would then sideline the events of massacres, wars, forced migration etc that occurred. Other Persecution of articles have the term Persecution as it is the best word to encompasses events and actions of massacres, wars, forced migration etc. Otherwise we can always have the topic called Massacres, expulsions and forced migration of Muslims due to wars, nationalism and Balkan state formation during Ottoman contraction if you want to encompass the sources in full. I can support that. Best. Resnjari ( talk) 20:56, 4 February 2018 (UTC) reply

"Migration" is the title that is in accordance with wikipedia naming policies. "Persecution" is not, and is very POV. I hope you also realize that the article will have to include information on massacres by Ottoman Muslims, which, by the way, dwarf the massacres committed against Ottoman Muslims in size, scope, and intensity. So the title you are proposing is a bit strange and extreme, to say the least. Khirurg ( talk) 21:24, 4 February 2018 (UTC) reply

No not strange or extreme, you say you want a the page name to encompass the sources to a word, without using the word Persecution. So i suggested one that encompasses the sources to a word. What is strange though is that you say this article will "include information on massacres by Ottoman Muslims". The article's focus is on Muslims, not other communities. The numbers of Muslims who underwent those experiences whether one accepts them or not are large, very large that are in the millions and that is fact. Other Persecution of articles focus on a particular community like says Chrsitians, Jews Buddhists etc and they don't have information about persecution of say Jains etc. Resnjari ( talk) 21:39, 4 February 2018 (UTC) reply

I'm trying to find some common ground here. I really have no time for this kind of extremism. We're not just going to present to our readers an out-of-context List of massacres of Ottoman Muslims. Context is essential. Your uncompromising attitude is actually a very good one reason the article should be deleted. Khirurg ( talk) 21:49, 4 February 2018 (UTC) reply

See thing is you refer to "extremism" of others, while in the same token have made all these comments: "as activist editors have each added their favorite persecution episode", "giant victimological narrative", "POV by its very nature", "textbook example of Oppression Olympics", "It could as easily be renamed Laundry List of bad things done to Muslims 1600s to 1923" etc." Just reflect for a moment, what if someone else made such comments here, but the word Muslim was replaced with Christians, Jews, Buddhists, or let’s say Armenians or Greeks. How do you think that would come off in a discussion with other editors, how would they interpret it? Anyway at least its good your now trying to find common ground. True, context is essential, but the article is about Muslims, that's its main focus. There is the Armenian Genocide and Greek Genocide pages. The focus on those communities and with the first for example there are scholars like Henze (p.111 [67]) that say that the Circassian Genocide influenced the events that happened with the Armenians later etc, etc. But in the end the focus is Armenians, not other communities. The intention of this article is not to present our readers with a list. This article is about the contraction process of the Ottoman Empire and its affects and impacts on Ottoman Muslims. Thing is some of the stuff said here would have been better said on the talkpage instead of going through this process. We are all here, so now the issue is about the very existence of this article. Resnjari ( talk) 22:45, 4 February 2018 (UTC) reply

I stand by my comments regarding this article. From its inception it has been a magnet for POV warriors (starting with its creator) and the situation has not improved. Now, I'm not saying to give equal weight to the massacres by Ottoman muslims, but, context is necessary. For example, it's not ok to present desperate acts by Armenians on the receiving end of genocide as "Persecution of Ottoman Muslims", out of the blue and without the necessary context. Ditto with the national uprisings in the Balkans, etc...Also keep in mind that many of the Ottoman Muslim deaths were military, or individuals complicit in atrocities. That's not "persecution". By the way, can you please properly indent your comments ( WP:INDENT). Khirurg ( talk) 23:13, 4 February 2018 (UTC) reply

• This article covers the Circassian Genocide also. All this unsourced rhetoric needs to be toned down, the Armenians suffered during WWI but they are not the only people who suffered. Most WP:RS say Ottoman Muslims felt threatened after what they have experienced and I guess there is no way to know in hindsight if it would have escalated to genocide or persecution? So that is what all of this means - having a POV is ok, every editor is entitled to theirs, but collaboratively editing with editors who have a different POV to produce neutral well-sourced articles is really a necessary part of how Wikipedia articles are improved, imo.
• Some scholars have said all of this goes to the Ottoman's genocidal intent - but genocidal intent is extremely complex, and non-expert sources can and should be discounted for this. Beyond that, none of this battleground stuff is helping improve these articles. Seraphim System ^{( talk)} 11:40, 5 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Aaaaaaaand cue the Armenian genocide denial talking points. I was wondering why it took so long. Which brings us to the real reason behind some of the "keep" votes: The purpose of this article, from its inception, has been to serve as an equivocation for the Armenian genocide. A way to cloud the waters by saying "The Ottoman Muslims suffered genocide too", or, the best defense is offense, so to speak. This is a perennial talking point of the genocide deniers (starting with who else, Justin McCarthy). It's amazing how in this topic area, just about everything revolves around the Armenian genocide and its denial. It always comes back to that. Khirurg ( talk) 16:38, 5 February 2018 (UTC) reply

@ Khirurg: - I request you strike this comment. I voted keep, was not canvassed off wiki, and do not deny the Armenian genocide. As for diminishing the Armenian genocide - this article can have a clear lede stating both how Muslims came to be in southern Europe and a more specific estimate of how Muslims communities contracted (by converting (in most cases back) to the local religion and by migrating). Icewhiz ( talk) 16:45, 5 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Well, I wasn't meaning you, Icewhiz (or Calthinus for that matter). But some of the other comments are textbook genocide denial, straight out of the McCarthy playbook. Khirurg ( talk) 16:51, 5 February 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete - As 23 editor noticed and other editors acknowledged, this article has serious COATRACK and SYNTH issues. The issues are impossible to be resolved by simply narrowing the timeline. -- Antidiskriminator ( talk) 11:50, 4 February 2018 (UTC)? reply
• Keep - per above. 174.92.70.237 ( talk) 15:34, 4 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Question to administrators: Are IPs allowed to participate at AfDs (especially when there has been a problem with vote canvassing and vote stacking)? Khirurg ( talk) 18:31, 4 February 2018 (UTC) reply

@ Khirurg: They are, unless the IP happens to be a blocked/banned user, which doesn't appear to be the case for the IP above. AfDs, and all discussions for that matter, are not "votes", and IPs aren't prohibited from participating simply because they're an IP. Sky Warrior 18:52, 4 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Ok, thanks. Khirurg ( talk) 18:59, 4 February 2018 (UTC) reply

• Keep No actual argument for deletion has been made by nomination. WP:SYNTH, WP:FRINGE, WP:CHERRY, WP:POV, and even WP:COATRACK are all content issues, not notability issues. There is no doubt that persecution of Muslims did exist in the Balkan successor states and that this is a topic of scholarly notice. See, e.g., Poulton, The Muslim Experience in the Balkan states, 1919‐1991, Nationalities Papers, 28(1)45:19 Aug 2010 or Bieber, Muslim Identity in the Balkans Before the Establishment of Nation States, Nationalities Papers, 28(1)1:13:19 Aug 2010 or Mourelos, The 1914 Persecutions and the first Attempt at an Exchange of Minorities between Greece and Turkey, Balkan Studies, 26(2)389:1 Jan 1985. WP:Deletion is not cleanup and clearly notable topics are not deleted just because they are poorly-written. This article hardly rises to the level where WP:TNT is required. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:11, 4 February 2018 (UTC) reply

I hope you're reading the articles you've just cited:

• The Muslim Experience in the Balkan states, 1919‐1991 - does not talk about "persecution", nor are the years 1919‐1991 relevant in terms of the contraction of the Ottoman Empire.
• Muslim Identity in the Balkans Before the Establishment of Nation States - nothing about massacres and persecution in this article either.
• The 1914 Persecutions and the first Attempt at an Exchange of Minorities between Greece and Turkey - Your inclusion of this article makes it clear that you may have just searched "Balkans", "Muslims", "Persecutions" and didn't bother reading the article. This has nothing to do with Muslims being persecuted. In fact, the "1914 Persecutions" are in reference to the Greeks, not Muslims. Étienne Dolet ( talk) 20:37, 4 February 2018 (UTC) reply

• Keep - per Eggishorn deletion votes seem to be about content disputes - proposals to move the article to a different title or to discuss the scope belong on the talk page. The only alternate I can see is to merge them into the respective articles like "Greek genocide", since some editors want to cover both topics in one article for NPOV reasons, in which case the article would prpbably need to be renamed as well. I think separate articles is ok by the way, because it is a distinction that exists in RS for analytical reasons - that does not make it POV, and it would probably be SYNTH to go beyond the sources and add our own background context to the articles. Seraphim System ^{( talk)} 22:02, 4 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Agree with Khirurg's proposal: As the only way to focus on the notable features of the article, which are about the migration. It's also important to mention that those migrations became the primary tool of the Ottoman authorities to launch genocide policies. Alexikoua ( talk) 18:14, 5 February 2018 (UTC) reply

???? How did the Ottomans use those migrations (the result of massacres, wars and discrimination etc) to launch Genocide policies. Can you elaborate? Resnjari ( talk) 18:50, 5 February 2018 (UTC) reply

I don't blame you of the fact that you ignore some basic facts about Muslim migration of that era since the current state of this article is at least unacceptable and can't provide you some decent info: Radical ideas were embraced by many migrants and they participated in numerous atrocities as well "Many of these gangs consisted of members of the SO and radicalized Muslim refugees from the Balkans or the Caucasus, the so-called muhadiirs, who plundered and murdered "as many of the hated Greeks". Thus, if a part of the present article should stay it should focus on the notable aspects of this developments. Alexikoua ( talk) 20:20, 5 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Alexikoua I was working on more coverage of this phenomenon a while ago but my work got interrupted. The reason for Caucasian "plundering" was not religious fanaticism, it was poverty, landlessness, plague and neglect, and tensions with the native populations, both the Muslim and Christian populations -- they also plundered Kurds and Turks, and actually drove the Kurds out of some ares. Most of their conflicts with Christiasn were with Armenians and Bulgarians, not Greeks; independent Greece actually contributed disproportionatelly to aid for the Caucasian refugees. There is now a growing literature on this topic thankfully, and if analogous things occurred for other refugee ethnic groups it can be added to a "Legacy" or "Consequences" section I think. -- Calthinus ( talk) 20:43, 5 February 2018 (UTC) reply

A Legacy/Consequences section would be appropriate for the article as chronologically the Genocides happened mostly after these events [71]. Good suggestion @Calthinus. Resnjari ( talk) 21:02, 5 February 2018 (UTC) reply

@Alexikoua, your referring to context. @Khirug was saying this article should have context on the later Genocides that happened. One thing that you ignore (though the scholarship covers) is that the radicalisation which you refer to occurred due to the massacres, wars, forced expulsions/migrations the Muhadzhirs (the word means refugees which is from Arabic) had underwent in the Balkans (from the new countries that had emerged) who were exploited by the Ottoman Empire for later events of Genocide and so on. So I am all for including that context in the article about those things explaining the links. As you have aroused my curiosity, where did you get that quote from. Can you cite the academic link from where its from, as i would like to explore further the source. Best. Resnjari ( talk) 20:36, 5 February 2018 (UTC) reply

I also don't think "migration" is appropriate. It's too narrow. Many -- maybe the majority--- of events described here cannot be called "migration". -- Calthinus ( talk) 19:56, 5 February 2018 (UTC) reply

"Persecution" though is too strong and not widely used. Can you suggest an alternative? Khirurg ( talk) 08:12, 6 February 2018 (UTC) reply

• Keep: It passes GNG. I founded the following sources:

• The Nation-Building Process in the Balkans: Ethnic Cleansing and Massacres of the Ottoman Muslim and Turkish Population (1912-1913)
• Greek Independence Day : The Beginning of Ethnic Cleansing in the Balkans
• What we all get wrong about Armenia, Turkey and genocide
• A History of Muslims, Christians, and Jews in the Middle East

This is not all, and more sources can be found. -- Mhhossein ^talk 19:12, 5 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Not good enough:

• The Nation-Building Process in the Balkans: Ethnic Cleansing and Massacres of the Ottoman Muslim and Turkish Population (1912-1913) - this is a conference attended by Armenian Genocide denialists including Mccarthy himself. I love how it calls the Armenian Genocide a "tragedy" and the Ottoman Muslims stuff genocide (numerous times).
• Greek Independence Day : The Beginning of Ethnic Cleansing in the Balkans - A source published by the Turkish Coalition of America? No thanks.
• What we all get wrong about Armenia, Turkey and genocide - a passing mention in some Al-Jazeera opinion piece doesn't make this topic notable.
• A History of Muslims, Christians, and Jews in the Middle East - did you read the text? No mention of anything like that. Étienne Dolet ( talk) 19:38, 5 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Academic sources like those of @Ktrimi meet guidelines and are specific to this topic showing there is increasing research in this field relevant to the subject. Not many editors here from both the keep and delete sides have edited this article and so are not familiar with the topic or its sources. Please everyone just read up and check on things. Best. Resnjari ( talk) 19:48, 5 February 2018 (UTC) reply

More sources:

• palgrave macmillan
• OUP - not McCarthy, still discusses the 1800s.
• [72] - ABCCLIO
• [73] Daniel Bloxham Oxford Handbooks "claims of long term genocidal planning appear to be untenable. Instead it has become evident that the development of the war determined the timing of deportations and massacres. Moreover, the genocide can not be separated from demographic policies that targeted other communities, like the Greeks, Nestorians, Syrian Orthodox Christians, Circassians, and Druzes." - (this article should also be about persecution of Muslims after they arrived in the Empire)..."For years the Sublime Porte had settled Muslim immigrants to strengthen control over areas feared to be threatened by foreign occupation or national movements like the Armenian Highlands. Many newcomers had survived ethnic cleansing in the Balkans, Caucasus and Aegean" (emphasis mine to put this "migration" issue to rest) Seraphim System ^{( talk)} 21:10, 5 February 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep. I saw this AfD soon after it was filed but did not have time to reply, and I am pleased to see that the discussion has evolved to encompass substantial literature in the meanwhile. For now I should just say that the sources submitted at this page indicate that whatever name we choose to use, this subject has been studied as a general phenomenon by reliable, non-denialist literature. This seems to be another one, this also talks about a "Great Unweaving" of massacres and expulsions (and not only migrations) in secessionist drives from 1821 to 1913. Akçam here gives a synopsis of the persecution and an excellent account of how this contributed to the revanchist genocidal mentality. Very importantly, it is also not merely preferable, but essential, to talk about how, as Resnjari put it, this "radicalisation [...] due to the massacres, wars, forced expulsions/migrations the Muhadzhirs (the word means refugees which is from Arabic) had underwent in the Balkans (from the new countries that had emerged) [was] exploited by the Ottoman Empire for later events of Genocide". The nominator's comments regarding "oppression Olympics", "extremism" indicates that the AfD was not filed in the spirit of an in-depth examination of literature, but frankly, just because WP:IDONTLIKEIT as many others pointed out. Accusations that others are cuing denialist arguments and equating these events with the Armenian Genocide are simply not OK and disruptive because nobody is doing those things. Otherwise those !voting delete have raised very valid arguments, but I do agree that these have to do with the scope and the content of the article and should be addressed at the talk page. Renaming the article may also be required. -- GGT ( talk) 23:37, 5 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Keep as per wp:snow and wp:cherry. -- S. Saiti ( talk) 10:27, 7 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Wow, another account with less than 100 contribs since 2015. Probably no coincidence that such users (Tiimii, Hatake) have e-mail enabled. I must say, the degree of coordination among a particular ethnic bloc of users is nothing short of impressive. !votes are not arguments though, and this is a discussion, not a vote. Khirurg ( talk) 17:37, 7 February 2018 (UTC) reply

@ Khirurg:, please stop WP:BLUDGEONING this discussion. I believe that you've made your position reasonably clear to any and all who might read this later. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:27, 7 February 2018 (UTC) reply

It's not my "position", it's a fact that needs to be pointed out. And each suspicious !vote should be pointed out. Thank you. Khirurg ( talk) 18:33, 7 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Given the huge edit notice that has already been added, there is no reason that the !votes you believe are "suspicious" need to be individually labeled as such. It polarizes the discussion and brings no benefit. Do you really believe that the closing admin will be unable these without your assistance? Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:41, 7 February 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete - At best this is original research. " Other stuff exists" is not a credible argument.-- Rpclod ( talk) 00:29, 9 February 2018 (UTC) reply
• Multiple sources mentioned. Passes WP:N and should be a keep.  M A A Z   T A L K  13:42, 9 February 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep per Resnjari.  samee  ^talk 09:02, 11 February 2018 (UTC) reply

You sure about that this time? You keep...uuuuh....changing [74]....your...uuuuuh...mind [75], witohut presenting any arguments. Khirurg ( talk) 21:00, 12 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Please stop bludgeoning the discussion and attacking editors who vote keep. Above you insist that each suspicious !vote should be pointed out. even though Eggishorn asks you to stop - in this case, clicking on those diffs shows that Samee just made a mistake thinking this nomination was made by User:DragonTiger23. Seraphim System ^{( talk)} 00:45, 13 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Please mind your own business. Khirurg ( talk) 02:19, 13 February 2018 (UTC) reply

• Keep - per WP:NEXIST. and WP:GNG. Plenty of good references anyway. BabbaQ ( talk) 23:42, 12 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Renaming proposals

I'm very sorry I took awhile to get back to this-- was busy. A couple days ago Khirurg asked me to suggest a renaming proposal to see if we could find some common ground there. The idea of a rename and/or rescope has also been floated by other editors -- 23 editor, Ktrimi991, GGT, SilentResident, and Srnec, hope I didn't miss anyone. . Here is my proposal, it is both a split and rename proposal. The page will be split into two pages:

• 1) Muslim refugees in the Great Turkish War -- perhaps to become just Refugees in the Great Turkish War. This should cover the earlier material, namely the flight of Croatian and Hungarian Muslims from their homelands across the Ottoman Empire's new territories (and the conversion of those who remained to Catholicism). This flight was significant and desreves its own article -- these were not few, they were as high as 1/3rd of the population in some regions such as Slavonia and Lika, and they were replaced by Orthodox populations ultimately, which had significant demographic and historical consequences. I say this may become just Refugees in the Great Turkish War because the Christian, especially Catholic though also Orthodox refugee movements were also significant -- in particular, Catholic Slavs emptied out of Western Bosnia around Bihac which became one of hte most heavily Islamicized regions of the Balkans, and there was the flight of Serb Orthodox and Albanian Catholics from the plains of Kosovo-- to Hungary, where the Albanians starved. This was followed by the settlement of mountaineer populations that were converted to Islam. Additionally, in Bosnia it appears that the arrival of radicalized Slavic and Hungarian Muslims caused the previously cordial Muslim-Christian relations in the region to erode. All of these things are notable enough for a separate page and plenty of sourced text is already present on this page and others. Long story short, this was an important phenomenon that deserves its own page, not this one.
• 2) Muslim refugees during the Ottoman decline -- with the "decline" being from the early 19th century to its replacement by the modern Republic of Turkey. The page is to make no claims that there was some conspiracy by Christian powers to drive out Islam, or -- instead, the much scholarly analysis should be cited about the effects of these movements on the rump of the Ottoman Empire (plenty of stuff on this but I'm pressed for time and some is already on this page if you look). There is plenty of scholarly work discussing how these refugee movements caused resettlement dilemmas for the Ottomans, cultural loss, conflicts between the famished refugees and the natives over resources, accelerated the erosion of communal relations and the rise of nationalist movements (especially in the Bulgarian and perhaps Armenian case), led to confessional cleansing becoming an increasingly common policy as nationalist movements competed for territory and may have led to the mentality that led to genocidal massacres and expulsions of Christians from what remained of hte Ottoman Empire, etc. This is all notable. This is a unified topic that deserves its own page.

Thoughts? -- Calthinus ( talk) 20:19, 7 February 2018 (UTC) reply

• Support split and rename per above. The topics are significant. I agree separating the 17th century fron the 19-20th makes sense - different event, scope, and locations. Icewhiz ( talk) 20:57, 7 February 2018 (UTC) reply
• Support the above proposal, both in terms of scope and article naming (with a preference for Refugees in the Great Turkish War). The way I see it however, it would be better to create two articles from scratch rather than rename the current one. Khirurg ( talk) 21:08, 7 February 2018 (UTC) reply
• Support splitting and renaming as well. Calthinu's proposal now is well-balanced and reflects better on sources without POV and offers a better reflection of the different time periods. If this was done from the start, I couldn't ever vote for its deletion at all. -- ❤ SILENT RESIDENT ❤ 21:13, 7 February 2018 (UTC) reply
• Support With the understanding that the first article would be Refugees in the Great Turkish War as the references sited above make it clear that the population disruption was multi-lateral. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:34, 7 February 2018 (UTC) reply
• Support thought I prefer Refugees in the Great Turkish War for the first split article. Étienne Dolet ( talk) 21:44, 7 February 2018 (UTC) reply

I believe if, at this point, that if Resnjari is willing to support this, consensus may be reached, and furthermore, if he did, his help on creating the two pages would be extremely beneficial as I believe they are events he has much knowledge about -- for this reason I am also interested in his views on the proposal-- Calthinus ( talk) 21:59, 7 February 2018 (UTC) reply

@ Calthinus:, it is true that Resnjari is very well familiar with the whole Ottoman and Muslim subject, but their position is clear and well-known: they will not consent to any renaming that has the word "Persecution" removed. Like with other cases in the past, a consensus without that particular editor perhaps is the only way to get things moved, even though it could have been much better if they watered down their stance and finally gave their consent and support. -- ❤ SILENT RESIDENT ❤ 02:23, 8 February 2018 (UTC) reply

I agree on principle. No editor has veto power, and no editor is indispensable. Khirurg ( talk) 02:43, 8 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Of course no one has veto power, never said anyone did, however I value the input of those who have spent time studying the topic, and furthermore, I am searching for a broad consensus here, hopefully as a step forward from the typical Wiki pattern of multilateral national filibustering. -- Calthinus ( talk) 04:08, 8 February 2018 (UTC) reply

• Oppose - The article about Muslim refugees during the Ottoman decline already exists ( Muhacir). Not a single word in this article describes Muslim refugees in the Great Turkish War so no condition for splittin is met. There is apparent consensus that it is necessary to change the topic, the name and timespan of this article. I think that it is as good as consensus to delete it.-- Antidiskriminator ( talk) 23:01, 7 February 2018 (UTC) reply

No, there was 20K plus about this when the article was listed. It was removed: [ [76]] -- Calthinus ( talk) 00:46, 8 February 2018 (UTC) reply

How about merging some of the contents of this article into Muhacirs, and create the article for Refugees of the Great Turkish War? Khirurg ( talk) 02:43, 8 February 2018 (UTC) reply

No. This is not merge or rename discussion. This is AfD discussion. Some editors here struggled to keep this POVFORK victimization OR article aimed to present 20th century migration of one (Muslim) minority from newly established European nationstates as some kind of eternal religious persecution of Ottoman Muslims. Because Muhacirs article already exists, all above !votes in "support" for split and rename are actually "delete" !votes. Reaching the consensus that the topic of this article are Muslim refugees during the Ottoman decline the editors here reached the consensus to delete this article because this topic is already covered by Muhacirs so consensus is reached that this article is its (POV)FORK and should be deleted as such. -- Antidiskriminator ( talk) 18:44, 8 February 2018 (UTC) reply

No you are being flatly manipulative with this post, whether intended or not. My vote remains a strong keep. There is no such consensus and proposals to change the scope of an article are NOT implications that the poster believes the entire page is a POVFORK and should be deleted. Please quit trying to speak for other people.-- Calthinus ( talk) 18:52, 8 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Having in mind that all above !votes in "support" for split and rename are actually "delete" !votes I here !vote in support split and rename.-- Antidiskriminator ( talk) 18:59, 8 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Imo Muhacirs should be merged into this, not the other way around. We've had the issue with the term elsewhere where it is used, because it can carry the connotation of one who has relocated out of religious convictions alone (different meanings in different languages, better to steer clear of this one). -- Calthinus ( talk) 04:08, 8 February 2018 (UTC) reply

• Comment I think you have to propose this on the article talk page, either as a move discussion or an RfC. It is complete inappropriate in the middle of an AfD. Seraphim System ^{( talk)} 03:48, 8 February 2018 (UTC) reply
  • I agree. AfD is often misused for discussions about mergers and page moves. The problem with starting such a discussion at AfD is that the AfD will be appropriately closed, but the move/split/merge discussion can continue elsewhere, creating a disjointed conversation that occurs in at least two places. Another unhelpful possibility is that the move/merge discussion might not continue elsewhere, remaining truncated and unresolved when the AfD is closed. Overall, it is better to avoid these discussions in AfD and instead direct editors to discuss in a more appropriate place. Jack N. Stock ( talk) 08:00, 8 February 2018 (UTC) reply
    • In general you are correct. However in cases in which you have a collection of topics in a single AfD, or in which the article title itself is an issue (e.g. - BIO1E articles are a clear example (if the event is notable (and doesn't have an article) - a Rename !vote is textbook)) - discussing this in the scope of the AfD makes sense - as this impacts the !votes (e.g. people ~voting on ESSAY or POVFORK grounds). Icewhiz ( talk) 08:08, 8 February 2018 (UTC) reply

• An article about the refugees is fine and we can have one but it is not this article. There is enough content that this article would be spun out eventually anyway. There are plenty of WP:RS for this article that support much stronger language than persecutions:
• anti-islam in the balkan slavonic discourse - the end of the Ottoman Empire Routledge
• It has been linked to later atrocities in the Balkans
• Genocide: A Comprehensive Introduction - reciprocal genocidal killings (emphasis in the book, not my own)
• [77] "Genocide of Armenians, Balkan Muslims" "entire city neighborhoods were razed, names of villages changed, their inhabitants expelled...collectively 'converted'...erasing the Ottoman Empire from 'Christendom'"
• routledge mutual ethnic cleansings
• [78]
• how many sources are needed to establish notability for genocides and ethnic cleansings? I think these sources are enough to show that the notability of the topic is strongly supported by academic WP:RS. Undoubtedly there are more sources available in databses that can be used to improve the article. I don't disagree that the article needs work, but the AfD nomination and the comments here have been inappropriate, for example this article is simply what I call a "counter-genocide" article, created by the banned DragonTiger23 (talk · contribs), a Turkish atrocity mongerer. - this comment from the nominator would be bad enough for civility without the wealth of WP:RS, but considered together with the majority position in WP:RS it is firmly in WP:RGW territory. Seraphim System ^{( talk)} 09:53, 8 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Oppose, I have to agree with @ Seraphim System: here. @ Jacknstock: made good points about issues of multiple discussions and agree it is inappropriate to be talking about splits and other things while the future of this very article is in question. @ Calthinus:, @ Icewhiz: I would be inclined to support a split (if this was a discussion on the article talkpage and not the AfD), but oppose part of the proposed pagename of the second article as it does not have the word Persecution. Those peoples became refugees due to Persecution. To not have the word Persecution in the title offsets or sidelines the experiences, events and scholarship that inform why millions of Muslims were civilian casualties and why millions more Muslims became refugees during Ottoman decline. Any renaming discussion should occur after the AfD so every editor knows what the purpose of the discussion is. At this point in time one does not know if this is about deleting/keeping the article anymore or that the article is now assumed as kept (???) as those editors who were calling for its deletion (such as the filling editor) are now talking about splits and renaming. @ Sandstein:, some clarity about the article's future is needed before discussing other parameters like scope, content, scholarship, and pagename. Otherwise its a time wasting exercise. Some certainty is needed first. Best. Resnjari ( talk) 16:21, 8 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Some clarity is needed regarding contents of the article - After being nommed on the 30th Jan, it had a third of its contents chopped off (82k->56k). I agree with Calthinus that the Great Turkish War is a separate topic from 19th-20th century - so a split to two separate articles - however named - is warranted (so - this is a keep*2). There are also, quite clearly, POV issues in the contents of the article, and particularly in the title and lede. If this AfD closes Keep (as it will if Calthinus's proposal is accepted) - the closing admin will probably kick the naming process to the article talk page unless there is an overwhelming consensus on the matter. Icewhiz ( talk) 16:38, 8 February 2018 (UTC) reply

@ Icewhiz:, though part of its content was cut off due to content and timescale parameters, nonetheless as its still an open AfD. That issue should be resolved first before any discussion about possible pagename renaming or content issues are dealt with which of the second traditionally occur within a talkpage discussion of an article. Editors no longer know what they are commenting on here, is this still an AfD or something else. If its something else, what is the resolution of the AfD, delete or keep ? Admins need to give a clear decision of this as its already past 7 days (the time usually given for these kinds of things). Best. Resnjari ( talk) 17:13, 8 February 2018 (UTC) reply

A split is keep + spinoff (of what is split off) to a separate article. AfDs may remain open much longer than 7 days on enwiki - if there is no clear consensus AfDs may even be relisted thrice - resulting in them being open for 28 days. Icewhiz ( talk) 17:22, 8 February 2018 (UTC) reply

@ Icewhiz:, ok about relisting and article splits, but any rename discussion should be done outside of an AfD, as editors who have called for a delete, now want to rename it (?) or not (?) or still want to delete (?). Otherwise without clear parameters about what the discussion is, its delving further into becoming a farce. I think its important to know if this is still an AfD. If it is then my vote is still keep. Resnjari ( talk) 17:34, 8 February 2018 (UTC) reply

@ Resnjari: Icewhiz has already covered most of my points but I want to reiterate, both to you and to whoever may have been confused by this proposal that it is a compromise proposal which presumes a keep result as part of it (followed by split and rename). That said, I have been criticized by three different editors for muddying the situation, and perhaps I do have something to apologize for in that-- my bad. To the closing admin, I want to be clear that this proposal did not change my keep vote. -- Calthinus ( talk) 18:45, 8 February 2018 (UTC) reply

I am not against any splits, its just that the initial AfD by the filling party was about questioning the existence of the article. As this AfD is about article existence, a resolution is needed on that before the discussion you have opened up (which is warranted @ Calthinus:) but appropriate on the article's talkpage only after an AfD has been settled. Otherwise its confusing as to what is the purpose of discussion here by editors. Are we having a AfD discussion (or has that been resolved defacto?) and now we are discussing article content and pagenames? Resnjari ( talk) 18:55, 8 February 2018 (UTC) reply

The outcome of the AfD has become quite clear and you don't need an admin's help to understand that there is no consensus on its removal, but there is a clear consensus among those who voted to keep it and those who voted for its deletion, that the article currently is problematic. -- ❤ SILENT RESIDENT ❤ 02:17, 9 February 2018 (UTC) reply

No it hasn't. The original AfD was about whether this article should exist or not. This is the first aspect that needs to have a resolution. There is no point having a discussion on other things if this article does not survive. If it survives and is allowed to be around in future, the following discussions on non AfD issues then make sense in having. Resnjari ( talk) 02:26, 9 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Every AfD nomination is about whether or not articles should be kept or deleted. An AfD literally stand for Articles for Deletion. I'm sure you knew this already. But not every AfD has a yes or no answer to that question. Some may result in a merge, rename, redirect, and even userfy. It's literally the second sentence of WP:AFD: Common outcomes are that the article is kept, merged, redirected, incubated, renamed/moved to another title, userfied to a user subpage, or deleted per the deletion policy. So no, this discussion doesn't have to talk place at the talk page of the article. We're already having that discussion here. After all, that's all an AfD really is. A discussion. Nothing more, nothing less. Étienne Dolet ( talk) 06:50, 9 February 2018 (UTC) reply

@Étienne Dolet, then my response is still a keep and i oppose any renaming that removes the word Persecution, which would sideline events of forced and involuntary population movements, massacres, wars etc that led to millions of Muslims becoming civilian casualties and millions more refugees during the era of Ottoman decline. I should also note that only a few editors are having a discussion on what they would like to happen to the article (some who are in between positions of delete and what appears a keep via proposals???) and that is not a view of support expressed by everyone here. Resnjari ( talk) 23:38, 9 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Renaming is especially common as Icewhiz already mentioned for BLP1E and I have worked on some of those at AfC after they were draftify-ed. Editors sometimes name an article as a biography where it should be a case name for a legal matter, etc. But this is not one of those cases - in an Arbitration area, the issue of whether persecution should remain in the title should have never come to AfD. I really don't see any justification for the nomination under WP:DEL-REASON, as a cursory WP:BEFORE yields many sources for the article subject. Most move discussions do not belong at AfD, except in the case of something like BLP1E where the deletion would be otherwised justified under policy. Seraphim System ^{( talk)} 10:32, 9 February 2018 (UTC) reply

• Comment I proposed that the scope of this article should be narrowed. My proposal came after reading literature on the events. I might agree with splitting article, however, the name of this and the new article should not be "Refugees of...." because the term "refugee" has some other meanings that do not belong to the events of this article. Other articles, that are similar in topic and timespan, are named "Persecution of...", "Ethnic cleansing of...", "Expulsions of...". Hence, the names proposed by Calthinus are not ok. However, we should know if the article will be deleted or kept, to justify some energy that is needed for improving the article and eventually (maybe) splitting it. After the article is decided to be kept, and issues relating to its scope and content are clarified, we can hold a discussion on a new name. Ktrimi991 ( talk) 19:11, 8 February 2018 (UTC) reply
• Comment I think that the status quo in this case will have the opposite effect. I am thinking in particular the persecution of the Circassians (and some others), it would be less arbitrary to classify those alongside the persecution of some Christian communities. I personally don't like the idea of categorizing groups solely on religious grounds. In some case it could be useful, particularly during the rise of nationalism in the Balkan; but this is more limited in scope. Creating (if it does not exist) a category/template, etc. on persecutions within the Ottoman Empire, irregardless of religion (my point of view) is a better approach. The sources provided by Seraphim document that persecutions were often indiscriminate (irregardless of religion), depending on who had the upper hand..., in fact, who had the upper hand (human innate behavior) in a given situation mostly alone is the main factor, not religion. I have no proposition personally, neither a delete or keep, the information has to be here somewhere, the debate is just the format of that information. :) Yaḥyā ‎ ( talk)

@ Yahya Talatin:, heads up, you forgot to sign off on your comment. Best. Resnjari ( talk) 20:26, 8 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Tks, I often forget to sign, this is a nice read. [79] The way the subject of war crime is compared and covered (in that book or other similar ones) can be useful in this and other cases. Comparative studies are very useful when dealing with situations where many groups are involved. Yaḥyā ‎ ( talk) 21:11, 8 February 2018 (UTC) reply

@ Yahya Talatin:, your constructive comments have given much to reflect on. About this AfD, this thread has become ridiculously long and voices like yours might get lost if there is no sign off with the four tides, hence my comment. Best. Resnjari ( talk) 21:32, 8 February 2018 (UTC) reply

• Oppose. Even if the page is split into 2 or 3, atleast 1 should retain the original title, as:
  

1. It has more keep votes, i.e 16 vs 11.
2. There are other pages by the name like Persecution of Muslims, Persecution of Christians, Persecution of Muslims in Myanmar,etc.  M A A Z   T A L K  14:06, 9 February 2018 (UTC) reply

• Comment, per User:Seraphim System, why is this discussion taking place here. Shouldn't it be mentioned on talk page. It is diverting attention of the usual procedure of AFD.  M A A Z   T A L K  14:27, 9 February 2018 (UTC) reply

@ Ma'az:, i know what you mean and what @ Seraphim System: brought up as well. This AfD has now gone off into many tangents and is heading more and more into becoming a farce. I do agree with what you say about the word Persecution being retained in the pagename. Best. Resnjari ( talk) 00:28, 10 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Yes. It is becoming more complicated. I think the usual AFD procedure should be followed.  M A A Z   T A L K  08:39, 10 February 2018 (UTC) reply

• Support: per comments I've provided above. The Muhacir article should be also merged to those migration articles as Calthinus noted. The main subject of the article should be "migration", "refugees" etc, not "persecution" which is of secondary importance per available bibliography. Alexikoua ( talk) 00:03, 11 February 2018 (UTC) reply

@Alexikoua is this your edit? Please sign off with the four tides, so an administrator knows its your edit and does not mistake it as a comment or vote of some new editor. Thank you. Resnjari ( talk) 21:52, 10 February 2018 (UTC) reply

I posted this in Resnjari talkpage, but can be useful here too [80] even though I doubt anyone would accept those kind of propositions. Yaḥyā ‎ ( talk) 23:55, 10 February 2018 (UTC) reply

• Oppose the proposal per Seraphim System and Resnjari. Firstly, this discussion should really be taking place in the article's talk page. Secondly, it is clear that the scope of the article goes beyond merely the issue of refugees. Seraphim System has pointed out to sufficient literature covering this issue not simply as a matter of refugees, but as a matter of ethnic cleansing, atrocities, massacres etc as well. This is true both for specific periods of persecution that form part of the article as well as the general phenomenon right from the start of the 19th century up until the Balkan Wars, see my previous comment and the sources there. Anyone active in this area will be able to recognise the authors of some of these sources as big names that we constantly cite in our articles on late Ottoman genocides - Bloxham, Akçam, Üngör, Jones etc. I would also like to point out the scholarship produced by Mojzes on the Balkan Wars [81] [82]. I am positive that such instances of scholarship can be expanded. -- GGT ( talk) 17:05, 12 February 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep -- sufficient sources are available in the article / were presented at this AfD to meet notability requirements. The persecution did occur, so I'm not seeing unsurmountable OR issues. K.e.coffman ( talk) 00:14, 13 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Keep. The user proposing to delete it clearly is not neutral concerning the matter. A WP:IDONTLIKEIT case. All other users above already stated why it shoud stay. Akocsg ( talk) 01:57, 13 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Oh look, a revenge !vote by a wikistalker angry over an unrelated content dispute [83]. That's new, at least. Khirurg ( talk) 02:23, 13 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Seems like every user who does not suit your POV and mission is either biased, seeking revenge, a wikistalker (!) etc. Not really encylopedic and constrctive I would say. Akocsg ( talk) 02:32, 13 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Riiiiight, because even though this AfD has been open for almost 2 weeks now, you !voted right after I reverted your crude POV-pushing at Northern Cyprus [84]. Yeah, I must be crazy. Khirurg ( talk) 04:16, 13 February 2018 (UTC) reply

• Oppose as per reasons given by Ma'az & GGT. -- Liridon ( talk) 09:55, 13 February 2018 (UTC) reply
• Delete fails runs on original reseach and synthesis. The scholarship to assert this is a unified topic is lacking. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 03:20, 14 February 2018 (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.