Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 June 2

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
1915 insurgency in the Ottoman Empire (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

1915 insurgency in the Ottoman Empire is an article about the armed conflicts “behind” the war zone in the 3nd Army and 4rd Army operational areas in Anatolia between the Ottoman military and special units against the Armenian militia – historically the Armenian fedayi – of the Armenian national movement. Ottoman army at this period was five main campaigns: the Sinai and Palestine Campaign, the Mesopotamian Campaign, the Caucasus Campaign, the Persian Campaign, and the final stages of Gallipoli Campaign and two minor campaigns, wikipedia do not have an article for armed conflicts behind these Campaigns. There are many historians that study Ottoman history, and all of them recognize the armed struggle Armenians against Ottomans including 1915 conflicts behind the war zone. However there a small group of historians that specialize the year “1915.” The article is based on their published research.
(a) | Ottomans and Armenians: A Study in Counterinsurgency (published 1913 and since cited 17 times and reviewed 4 times in a refereed journals. The author is Edward J. Erickson [over 200 refereed articles]
(b) | "Shattering Empires: The Clash and Collapse of the Ottoman and Russian Empires 1908–1918" is cited 59 times in academic journals. The Author [Reynolds over 200 refereed articles].
(c) | The Russian Origins of the First World War published by Harvard Press. The author | Sean McMeekin has 30 publications.

(d) | A Shameful Act The author does not have publications on refereed journals.

Admin presented deletion summary on 1915 insurgency in the Ottoman Empire as (a) the neutral point of view policy, the (b) content forking guideline and (b) undue weight.

(a) the neutral point of view policy. I believe the article currently deleted had a strict “intellectual standard.” Removal of a published content from these authors bring interesting positions on application of verifiability on wikipedia. The main idea behind this position in the deletion process was represented by [|this remark]. In the discussions, credibility of [Erikson] [| Reynolds] and [| McMeekin] questioned and these authors were libeled as Genocide deniers. The deletion of this article is a removal of the content contributed through these publications. The Scientific misconduct is very important issue and there are very clear rules for ethical behavior and performing historical research. There is no judicial decisions or retractions on these publications. Deletion of the content represented by these historians based on alleged “Genocide-deniers” argument is very polemic in the absence of these evidence. Enforcing a decision to delete a content of these authors based on the label Category:Armenian Genocide deniers by wiki participants rather than the source is problematic. The existence of such a category in the absence of judicial decision is also problematic. The article also includes information from Taner Akçam and Donald Bloxham to every fact presented.

(b) content forking guideline During discussions participants stated: The content being part of a military campaign Caucasian Campaign. The position is clarified with the re-write including a summary table showing the insurgency locations beyond the Caucasian campaign. The second position was article should be merged with Genocide Article. Academic study of this period includes both “Genocide” and “insurgency of 1915.” They do not negate each other. Insurgency of 1915 is not antithesis of Genocide in the literature. Insurgency of 1915, which is armed conflicts behind the war zone inside the Ottoman empire is no original research or synthesis, or part of other conflicts occurred during the period. The editors which hold the position “delete” rejected the merging based on the idea that armed conflict waged was not part of Genocide by building the link to Jewish fighters. The decision that insurgency in 1915 is a Point of view (POV) forks is controversial. It is obvious that 1915 is very special year. But hardly unique article. First point. Armed activities of Armenians, insurgency, in the Ottoman Empire between 1860 to 1920 (1915 is included) represented in Wikipedia. Armed activities, insurgency, of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire during 1914-1918 (1915 is included) also exists. The leaders of insurgent activities have their own pages which their activities in 1915 exists. These articles are not perceived as POV fork of Armenian Genocide. The article 1915 insurgency in the Ottoman Empire is unique because collects all information distributed among many articles for the year 1915. It is 35 pages. It also included information missing from the wikipedia. Second point: Armenian Genocide is a complex issue and not limited to “insurgency in 1915.” Template:Armenian Genocide Armenian Genocide have sections mentioning the “insurgency in 1915,” but Article is not limited with this concept, such as all the articles in the Template Armenian Genocide. Equating 1915 insurgency to Armenian Genocide is problematic. Caucuses Campaign (limited with the war zone) already includes all the major elements (April 24, Tehcir Law, deportations, Civilian casualties, etc) in this armed conflict. Are we to delete the Caucuses Campaign (war zone) like 1915 insurgency (behind the war zone)? I believe such a decision is arbitrary. Point three: There was no single objection voiced in the deletion discussions for the facts presented in the article. Article contains all the positions, which one user pledged to remove the positions which makes the article NPOV (this).

(c) undue weight: viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public.

procedurally wrong decision: I believe this “deletion” process does require a strict “intellectual standards,” because a) the content falls into a long lasting controversial topic between Armenian and Turkish editors. b) the voting process is riddled with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way, rather than the arguments related with the content (the issues regarding Stealth canvassing, sock puppets and other issues reported to Admin [this]) c) there is a clear Wikipedia policy that these [deletion] processes is not decided on a head count, but on the strength of the arguments presented and on the formation of consensus. Controversial topics, if substantiated (verifiability), should not be deleted by voting. Failing to enforce WP:Verifiability created a POV sensitization process across many articles. In fact, the removal of 1915 insurgency in the Ottoman Empire is created an extremest position (| this link] on the armed conflicts at Middle Eastern theatre of World War I) which same authors also | pledged to remove Armenian national movement and removal of conflicts in [1916, 1917, 1918 from history of ottoman empire during WWI], [| Removal of Armenian national movement from defeat and dissolution of the Ottoman Empire], initiate removal of Resistance during 14-18 (this [1]). If Wikipedia enforces the idea that there is "No" Armenian-Ottoman conflicts behind the war-zone in 1915, the removal of armed conflicts involved Armenian national movement (many articles, many years) would be expected. I ask the reversal of the deletion, based on “intellectual standards.” Thank you. SelimAnkara1993 (talk) 15:15, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse. DRV is not AFD round 2 — we focus here on failure to follow deletion process rather than an appeal and full rehearing because you just disagree with the deletion outcome. Stifle (talk) 16:23, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. There was a clear consensus to delete. Difficult to see how the AfD could have been closed any other way. The DRV nominator is a WP:SPA who has edited exclusively articles related to this subject, and created the article in question. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:16, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - The consensus of the AfD was that the content was a genocide denialist's content fork of existing, neutrally-presented content. The closing admin correctly affirmed said consensus and closed the discussion in favor of deletion. Tarc (talk) 18:01, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse the arguments for deletion were that the article's existence relied on a handful of sources adhering to a fringe viewpoint, and that there are other more balanced articles on the same topics. That view wasn't effectively rebutted during the discussion, it looks solid to me, and it's an entirely valid reason to delete an article. There were no procedural irregularities. I don't see how a closing admin could have done anything else. Hut 8.5 21:57, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. It is very unusual to see a page deletion due to WP:UNDUE, and so it is no surprise that someone finds the procedure looking unfamiliar. Unusual, but certainly not improper. The forking of content is never a good idea, and forking with an alternate POV is particularly not OK and should be deleted. The AfD demonstrated a clear consensus. The nominator here appears to have a strongly entrenched POV, and an appropriate thing to do is to refer him to Wikipedia:Alternative outlets. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:48, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A proposal for consencus, if we can find one who pays attention to reality

Okurogluselo: Really I cannot believe that such a content deleted in wiki. Did everybody lose the sanity? Or is everybody poisoned by fanatics, who cannot bear any reality they dont like? This is an encyclopedia. Nobody denies civil Armenians deported and killed in masses, bu also nobody could deny that Armenians had been armed and fought against Turkish Army or police forces, beginning from 1860. During 1915, well equipped by Russia, about 25.000 Armenians attacked to Ottoman forces, and also to Turkish villages which supplied support and privates to the army. The enrolled Armenian men increased and it was a civil war obviously. And the real scene was World War I. Who can deny a civil war occurred? These all were real, and yes, of course we can cite tens of reliable references including German and Russian army logs. Such attemps to erase the facts from wikipedia are censorship, nothing other than this.

I offer to change the headline of the article or writing it from beginning. How about, "Civil War in Eastern Anatolia in WWI"? We may not use the date 1915 at the headline or the term insurgency. Also the article may contain Assyrian armed rebellion during the same period, and nearly in the same region. Assyrians approve they attacked to the Turkish Army, however they claimed it was a reaction. Then they have their own claims about Assyrian Genocide. In fact some Armenians confirm that thay fought against the empire, however like Assyrians, they assume it was self defense. The article I propose may include all the aspects claimed by sides. Okurogluselo : Blah 18:12, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]


The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.