Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Armenian allegations
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 of the debate was Sppedy Delete, blatant copyright infringement pschemp | talk 18:42, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Armenian allegations
Seems to be a long-winded, one-sided Turkish nationalist apologetics on quite what I can't easily figure. Breaks WP:NPOV and probably most of the WP:NOTs, epseically WP:NOT a soapbox and no doubt others not thought of yet. If the subject is encyclopedic, (Turkish-Armenian relations perhaps?) this isn't going to help one jot, and it would be better to start off from scratch. There are also copyright issues here and strange assertions on copyright. — Dunc|☺ 13:02, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep: First of all this article is not copyrighted (if you could read the first sentence) and is rather promoted by a governmental institution to be published anywhere. If you think this article is biased, then it should also be illogical for the Wikipedia to have an article named "armenian genocide" online, since even the United Nations approve the fact that it cannot be named as "genocide" and therefore should be regarded as "allegations" only. Millions of people from tens of countries oppose the idea of so-called Armenian genocide by Ottomans. Also looking at the issue from a different point of view, half a million Muslim Ottoman citizens were also murdered by Armenians (not Russian, Italian, British or other forces in a war) and if there has been an Armenian genocide, then there surely is a Turkish Genocide by the Armenians. This article reflects the views of millions of Turks, including many Armenians of Turkish descent living freely and happily in Turkey. Its objectivity comes from the extensive proof and facts from the archives of tens of organizations and countries. Therefore, deleting this article does not improve Wikipedia's credibility, but only diminishes its objective and neutral attitude. It is also a major offense for the memories of hundreds of thousands of Muslims, who have been murdered by Armenian terrorists 1914-1922, and their relatives. Having a debatable topic like "Armenian Genocide" but not allowing people to edit it is unbearable since some of that article is based on the fake documents and some doesn't even have a basis. Now, deleting this article for it opposes a debatable topic is neither a wiki-style nor a democratic/historical approach. I believe that people should read both articles and then freely decide on their points of view. --Kayaakyuz 13:23, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, has problems with WP:NOT & WP:NPOV. Also if the content is from the Ministry of Tourism and Culture of the Republic of Turkey it seems to fall under Wikipedia:Don't include copies of primary sources, but if that is the case and copyright sorted out it could be transwikied to wikisource if suitable.--blue520 14:01, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. I thought the Armenian genocide was well-established, to the extent that Turkey has a law against mentioning it, recently applied to one of their notable authors whose name alas escapes me. Hence Armenian genocide. Midgley 14:10, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
- You mean Orhan Pamuk. As you can read there, the case went nowhere. If you are interested in such things, here is an interesting interview with the author: [1]. LambiamTalk 14:48, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep, but perhaps call it Armenian Genocide, Official position of Turkey. I was going to say: Merge with Armenian Genocide and position of Turkey, but that article has mysteriously disappeared, even though the debate on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Armenian Genocide and position of Turkey was closed on 10 March 2006 with speedy keep. The article needs to be turned into something readable, which is a tough and thankless editorial job, but it is important to present the official position of Turkey (in an NPOV way) on Wikipedia. LambiamTalk 14:48, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
- delete I am surprised there isn't an article on the Armenian question. A good article can incorporate the positions of both parties. But poor articles like this written as strong POV from either side are not useful. Montco 15:46, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, title is POV, topic already covered in Armenian genocide. No need for ethnic clashes to spill over onto Wikipedia. —Cuiviénen, Sunday, 16 April 2006 @ 16:22 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete and suggest final warning to users. I believe the Armenian Genocide article is a good Wikipedia article as it stands. It links to the disputant sources in the Turkish Government already and has taken viewpoints of Turkish historians into account, so copying statements from the wholesale is unnecessary as well as being a major faux pas. One might consider renaming that article to Armenian Massacre so as not to arouse a minority, but even the word 'massacre' is apparently disputed by one of the users involved in the edit war there, so it's best to draw a line in the sand to avoid editorial creep. Whatever the Armenians did to the Turks is covered elsewhere I'm sure, and does not detract from the reality of histoical events. Just because there are more Turks than Armenians doesn't mean they get to rewrite historiography! As a neutral European (with friends of Armenian and Turkish descent), I believe that nearly a century has passed, and these issues will be acknowledged by the Turks sooner or later. And even if that weren't such a huge inflammatory NPOV question, the article is also appallingly badly translated, has not been through the usual Wikipedia creation process, and the people who uploaded it don't seem to understand the GFDL. Are they in fact the copyright holders? Because if not, they cannot declare it GFDL, nor if it is public domain. You can hand out leaflets, but they have to understand that you cannot do this on Wikipedia. --Cedders 16:42, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
- I don't understand what is meant by "suggest final warning" above. I contest that the Armenian Genocide article is a good Wikipedia article as it stands. Confining myself to the issue at hand, the article is confused or confusing about the notion of "Turkish authorities", which are contrasted with "Turkish intellectuals". Are Turkish historians not Turkish intellectuals? Why are they lumped together with "authorities"? They may be authorities in their field of research, but that is not what you would normally understand "Turkish authorities" to mean. Why is Zeki Kuneralp quoted as an "authority", and quoted as if he spoke yesterday instead of more than 15 years ago, while the poor man, who has now been dead and buried for almost eight years, had then been retired for more than ten years? What is the subtext of the section heading "Political Arguments"? The excerpt or summary of the official position of the Republic of Turkey, although not entirely wrong, is quite incomplete. There are external links, but it is very difficult to navigate them to find reliable further details about the official position. Some people who have a strong point of view on the matter, from both sides, want to censor the presentation of some different points of view. I strongly believe that the viewpoints of all major players in this tragic, deep, and long-standing conflict should be reported accurately and comprehensively in Wikipedia. LambiamTalk 19:15, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
- They should be reflected in a neutral article, not in a series of POV forks. And the amount of coverage given to each strand should be based on its credibilty among neutral experts, not the number or the strength of the feelings of the antagonists. Hawkestone 01:09, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
- I don't understand what is meant by "suggest final warning" above. I contest that the Armenian Genocide article is a good Wikipedia article as it stands. Confining myself to the issue at hand, the article is confused or confusing about the notion of "Turkish authorities", which are contrasted with "Turkish intellectuals". Are Turkish historians not Turkish intellectuals? Why are they lumped together with "authorities"? They may be authorities in their field of research, but that is not what you would normally understand "Turkish authorities" to mean. Why is Zeki Kuneralp quoted as an "authority", and quoted as if he spoke yesterday instead of more than 15 years ago, while the poor man, who has now been dead and buried for almost eight years, had then been retired for more than ten years? What is the subtext of the section heading "Political Arguments"? The excerpt or summary of the official position of the Republic of Turkey, although not entirely wrong, is quite incomplete. There are external links, but it is very difficult to navigate them to find reliable further details about the official position. Some people who have a strong point of view on the matter, from both sides, want to censor the presentation of some different points of view. I strongly believe that the viewpoints of all major players in this tragic, deep, and long-standing conflict should be reported accurately and comprehensively in Wikipedia. LambiamTalk 19:15, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
- Strongest possible delete Nothing but a propaganda release. Hawkestone 01:01, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, historically falsifiable propaganda. Haikupoet 02:26, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
- So if I understand you guys correctly, because you don't agree with the position of the Turkish government on the issue, the information about that position should be withheld from other readers of Wikipedia. LambiamTalk 02:44, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
- Information about the position is not being withheld from readers. The identical text is linked to from Armenian Genocide#Websites opposing the genocide theses (third bullet point); there are 2000 words in section 4 alone describing the position of the Turkish authorities (that of national institutions of historians I think is hard to distinguish from that of the Government, since it is obvious that there is little academic freedom for historiographers, what with one person still on trial for this). The intention must be to produce one definitve article on the events, noting disagreements in the relevant places, in accordance with WP:NPOV. If section 4 doesn't represent the arguments in the link well, then a possible rewrite of it or new section 4.3 could be suggested at Talk:Armenian Genocide. By 'final warning to users' I meant that an admin should take this in hand and make it very clear to him that uploading 160KB of someone else's undeited inflammatory propaganda and making or repointing a dozen redirects to it (which I've now listed on RfD) is not part of editing an encyclopaedia. I don't think either holocaust denial or raising awareness of massacres should be a crime, but if the user concerned doesn't get it and continues to disrupt, should they be banned like the similar user who blanked Kurdistan? --Cedders 23:30, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
- Both sides produce inflammatory propaganda, but if you call this inflammatory propaganda you haven't seen much. Personally I think we should not have the debate here, or on Talk:Armenian Genocide, but leave it to historians and record what they report. Loaded terms like "genocide" are inherently POV, and in particular terms such as "denial", implying that one side is "wrong", should be avoided. But I must confess (blush) I had overlooked the fact that that third bullet gives access to this "inflammatory propaganda", and therefore I have changed my vote to "delete". I think, however, that it is not given sufficient prominence or representation. For the record, the remaining defendant in the trial is a journalist, not a historian, and the charge, based on his criticism of a court decision, is insulting the Turkish judiciary and attempting to illegally influence a court case (where the latter carries a much higher penalty than the former). That is not to deny that such cases have a chilling effect, but I think the reason behind bringing charges has nothing to do with Armenian issues, but is really aimed at undermining the EU policy of the Turkish government. LambiamTalk 17:26, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
- Information about the position is not being withheld from readers. The identical text is linked to from Armenian Genocide#Websites opposing the genocide theses (third bullet point); there are 2000 words in section 4 alone describing the position of the Turkish authorities (that of national institutions of historians I think is hard to distinguish from that of the Government, since it is obvious that there is little academic freedom for historiographers, what with one person still on trial for this). The intention must be to produce one definitve article on the events, noting disagreements in the relevant places, in accordance with WP:NPOV. If section 4 doesn't represent the arguments in the link well, then a possible rewrite of it or new section 4.3 could be suggested at Talk:Armenian Genocide. By 'final warning to users' I meant that an admin should take this in hand and make it very clear to him that uploading 160KB of someone else's undeited inflammatory propaganda and making or repointing a dozen redirects to it (which I've now listed on RfD) is not part of editing an encyclopaedia. I don't think either holocaust denial or raising awareness of massacres should be a crime, but if the user concerned doesn't get it and continues to disrupt, should they be banned like the similar user who blanked Kurdistan? --Cedders 23:30, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
- So if I understand you guys correctly, because you don't agree with the position of the Turkish government on the issue, the information about that position should be withheld from other readers of Wikipedia. LambiamTalk 02:44, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
- I think that what folks are saying is that this piece is hopelessly POV and that relevant NPOV information should be added to the existing article on the subject. This reads like a rant.Montco 02:49, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Biased fork. ReeseM 04:15, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep it! Wikipedia should stay in the center and should not be the representative of Armenians living abroad. If they loved their country so much, they should live in Turkey with peace, instead of cutting the vessels of the country. If they hated Anatolia then they should live in Armenia now, not in the foreign countries with a big majority. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rirez (talk • contribs) 07:10, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete If an article which doesn't pretend to be anything other than government propaganda doesn't get deleted the hope that a volunteer edited encyclopedia can work will be over. Choalbaton 10:34, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep' I think the article should be kept since it reflects different opinions based on facts and proofs on a topic that is highly debatable among the historians. Showing both sides of the argument through [Armenian Genocide] and [Armenian Allegations] is necessary. Therefore the article should be kept. —Preceding unsigned comment added by anon ip (talk • contribs)
- As has been pointed out, such 'POV forks' are generally unacceptable in Wikipedia policy. By the way, do you have any evidence the claims in the plagiarised article are held by historians outside Turkey? If so, the best place for your contributions (because the fork will eventually be deleted) is Talk:Armenian_Genocide. --Cedders 23:30, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
- Comment; see [2] for very obvious sockpuppet Cemcem (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) voting 4 times. I just reverted it rather than proper commenting them out. — Dunc|☺ 16:57, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete; it appears that Serdar Argic is running amok on WP. --EngineerScotty 00:15, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. POV topic. *drew 03:38, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete It is shocking to see such a thing in an encyclopedia. Chicheley 17:36, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
- 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.
