Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Armenian rebellions
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 was no consensus, keep. Nishkid64 21:07, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article reflects an extremely pro-Turkish point of view and uses no verifable sources at all. Clevelander 00:38, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per reasons above. -- Clevelander 00:38, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weakkeep I can't really see the "extremely pro-Turkish POV" in the article (it is even categorized with the Armenian Genocide, which is something not very pro-Turkish). Anyway I can't speak Turkish so I can't verify the sources provided.--Húsönd 00:56, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]- Delete. Biased in a sense. Don't need a new article for this also, as majority of the related information is probably mentioned in the Armenian article. AQu01rius (User | Talk | Websites) 00:57, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Which article? - Lex 03:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for reasons mentioned above Fedayee 01:29, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as the article is on a subject of merit. I say edit it for POV instead of deleting. Green hornet 03:07, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Unfortunately there has never been an organized Armenian rebellion in the Ottoman Empire. What little information is on this article is cited by a pov Turkish source:Taha Niyazi KARACA. "Ermeni sorununun gelişim sürecinde yozgat'ta türk ermeni ilişkileri" Dizi-Sayı 107--Eupator 03:33, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: There was at least one such rebellion: Van Resistance. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 09:38, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: That's not a rebellion but a retaliation.--Eupator 15:04, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, that, of course, is in the eye of the beholder, besides, even the Van Resistance article itself calls it also the Van Rebellion. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 15:23, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Yes but in that the Armenians of Van were resisting being killed off by the Ottoman Turks. They did the same thing at Musa Dagh and their actions of self-defense during the Armenian Genocide are, in my opinion, comparable to those of the Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto. The events at Van were not an open rebellion of the Armenians against the Ottoman government as this article might imply. It should also be noted that, aside from the Turkish POV source provided in the article, none of these rebellions from 1780, 1782, 1786, 1808, 1818, 1820, 1825, 1829, 1831, 1835, 1836, 1840, 1842, 1843, 1850, 1852, 1853, 1854, 1857, 1860, 1861, 1862, 1865, 1868, 1873, 1875, 1876, 1877, 1878, 1879, 1893, 1895, or 1914 can really be verified by independent sources. -- Clevelander 10:38, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: That's not a rebellion but a retaliation.--Eupator 15:04, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: There was at least one such rebellion: Van Resistance. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 09:38, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing adminReporting canvass here by user Clevelander--Húsönd 03:37, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]- Comment. I was asking that user if he had seen that article and I wanted to see what he thought. This was before I even decided to nominate it for deletion. I also sent this message to User:MarshallBagramyan who recommended deletion of the article to me. I wasn't on a "campaign" to get people to vote to delete this article. -- Clevelander 10:05, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Cancelling canvass report, assuming good faith.--Húsönd 11:57, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I was asking that user if he had seen that article and I wanted to see what he thought. This was before I even decided to nominate it for deletion. I also sent this message to User:MarshallBagramyan who recommended deletion of the article to me. I wasn't on a "campaign" to get people to vote to delete this article. -- Clevelander 10:05, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, a cleaned up version of this article could have some value to document better the events prior and leading to the Armenian Genocide. A good description of those events appears not to be present in any of the current articles. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 09:38, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment At this point I did a rewrite of the article, as I honestly believe this might grow into something useful. Neutral sources are difficult to find, so I tried to balance between an apparently reasonably neutral Turkish source and an apparently reasonably neutral Armenian source for now. The diff for the nominated version and my version: [1]. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 12:19, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep useful. Also, when someone complains that an editor has notified others about the debate I am immediately suspicious of why the complainer doesn't want a more inclusive debate. These AfD's are routinely posted on "info boards" to allow editors who may be interested to know about them. Not all subjects have info boards, however, and unless the editor who has been notified complains, I see no reason for others to do so: the fact that someone tracked down the other person's edits is further indicatiion of the weakness of the tracker's position. Carlossuarez46 16:59, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I believe that you are referring to me. Firstly, detecting canvass is not an uncommon procedure and it's essential to ensure that there is no interference in consensus building. Then, if I complain about canvass that's because I think it is something to be promptly frown upon, not because I want to stall incoming opposition to my stance on a discussion (in fact, in at least one occasion I have reported canvass carried by users that shared my view). The canvass situation that occurred here was more like a friendly notice which can be accepted if performed in a very limited number. In fact, user Clevelander contacted me and expressed that there was no intention to canvass, for which I assumed good faith and retreated the canvass acusation as you can see above. Your argument about posting on info boards is unrelated. Advertising AfD's on info boards is acceptable, for such procedure is prone to attract both supporters and opponents. Now, when you select specific users and coax them to participate, then that's canvassing and I will always have a firm stand against it. Last but not least, you should have assumed good faith as well before attacking me for ensuring that a clean discussion may take place here.--Húsönd 17:53, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I dispute your premise that exclusion of people interested makes the consensus or discussion "clean". A spam-blast of everybody is uncalled-for, selected notices to people who may not have been paying attention is fine. You can call it canvassing, but as you know, these discussions are not votes, so if the "canvassee" only contributes a "keep" or "delete" it won't carry much weight. However, some canvasees can put forward an argument missed by other editors or put an argument in a more cohesive and pithy way. And why would that be wrong? Consensus shouldn't be sought to the exclusion of editors' opinions. I have had friendly messages removed from my talk page by editors who think that such removal is warranted. I assume good faith, but recognize that you are just doing what you're doing because of the weakness of your position. Carlossuarez46 16:59, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Again the "weakness of my position"? I apologize but I will reply to your comment no further.--Húsönd 18:26, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Your apology is accepted. Carlossuarez46 21:26, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Again the "weakness of my position"? I apologize but I will reply to your comment no further.--Húsönd 18:26, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I dispute your premise that exclusion of people interested makes the consensus or discussion "clean". A spam-blast of everybody is uncalled-for, selected notices to people who may not have been paying attention is fine. You can call it canvassing, but as you know, these discussions are not votes, so if the "canvassee" only contributes a "keep" or "delete" it won't carry much weight. However, some canvasees can put forward an argument missed by other editors or put an argument in a more cohesive and pithy way. And why would that be wrong? Consensus shouldn't be sought to the exclusion of editors' opinions. I have had friendly messages removed from my talk page by editors who think that such removal is warranted. I assume good faith, but recognize that you are just doing what you're doing because of the weakness of your position. Carlossuarez46 16:59, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I believe that you are referring to me. Firstly, detecting canvass is not an uncommon procedure and it's essential to ensure that there is no interference in consensus building. Then, if I complain about canvass that's because I think it is something to be promptly frown upon, not because I want to stall incoming opposition to my stance on a discussion (in fact, in at least one occasion I have reported canvass carried by users that shared my view). The canvass situation that occurred here was more like a friendly notice which can be accepted if performed in a very limited number. In fact, user Clevelander contacted me and expressed that there was no intention to canvass, for which I assumed good faith and retreated the canvass acusation as you can see above. Your argument about posting on info boards is unrelated. Advertising AfD's on info boards is acceptable, for such procedure is prone to attract both supporters and opponents. Now, when you select specific users and coax them to participate, then that's canvassing and I will always have a firm stand against it. Last but not least, you should have assumed good faith as well before attacking me for ensuring that a clean discussion may take place here.--Húsönd 17:53, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - seems like a useful page; perhaps could be rewritten to be more NPOV. -Patstuart 21:37, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete As much as I wish it was so, there were no armed Armenian uprisings during those dates. There were Turkish-invoked provocations authorized by the government, but solitary cases of Armenian resistance was always reactionary and in most cases futile. --MarshallBagramyan 04:26, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete extremely pro-Turkish --Davo88 00:00, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and NPOV/source where required. Armenian and Turkish partisans seem to dispute whether there were any Armenian uprisings, how large they were, how to characterise them etc. This controversy, at least, seems to be worthy of a mention in an encyclopedia. I'm not sure if it warrants an article of its own; possibly merge to an appropriate section of Armenian Genocide. Sandstein 07:46, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete the results for "armenian rebellions" on Google books show just what an artificial concept this is: Russian Civil War; Medieval Cilicia; Armenian Genocide; Van; Heraclius ... Angus McLellan (Talk) 08:51, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete--Tekleni 09:54, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It seems a useful page. The article may be improved in the future, if well-sourced why don't we have such an article? E104421 15:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment General comment concerning the above keep's. Most of you want the article kept provided it's sourced properly. The problem is that it can never be sourced properly as there have never been any Armenian rebellions in the Ottoman Empire. Attempts were made at various times by Armenians outside the Ottoman Empire such as Joseph Emin or Israel Ori to organize such rebellions but none ever came to fruition as a result of the isolation and distance of the Armenian population in the East from the major European powers. This was clearly not the case with Bulgarians, Greeks or Serbs who had easy access to European powers.--Eupator 19:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- At risk of not assuming good faith here, I unfortunately have to note that most keep votes are from people of Turkish origin and almost every delete vote from someone of Armenian origin. As I also stated above, it is difficult to find independent sources for stuff like this. I based my keep vote and subsequent rewrite largely on this Armenian source: [2], which also states that The 20s and the 30s of the 19th century were marked by a series of revolts of the non-Turkish peoples throughout the Ottoman Empire. ... The Serbs, Bulgarians, Albanians and Armenians were about to throw off the Turkish sway. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 19:41, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually I had noticed the wide Armenian presence in this discussion, but I see only one person with clear Turkish origin here.--Húsönd 21:12, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I have to wonder, there's gotta be a way to reword this article to make it good. It's definiely an important subject: maybe we could do something with it like Category:Irish_rebellion, where it's actually a category. I haven't read it, but if the Turks are supporting it and the Armenians not, then there must be something going on here that I don't understand. Normally, I'd think it the other way around, (e.g., with the Irish example, the english would be annoyed, and the Irish proud), especially with words like "Armenian genocide" which usually offend the Turks. Any takes on possibly moving it to a category? -Patstuart 21:20, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd nominate a Category:Armenian rebellion for deletion without a second thought as it would be a wholly artificial and indiscriminate collection of material and probably original research. Category:Irish rebellion is rather dubious come to that: what does the 1798 rebellion have in common with the Real Irish Republican Army ? Original research: Just Say No. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:22, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- At risk of not assuming good faith here, I unfortunately have to note that most keep votes are from people of Turkish origin and almost every delete vote from someone of Armenian origin. As I also stated above, it is difficult to find independent sources for stuff like this. I based my keep vote and subsequent rewrite largely on this Armenian source: [2], which also states that The 20s and the 30s of the 19th century were marked by a series of revolts of the non-Turkish peoples throughout the Ottoman Empire. ... The Serbs, Bulgarians, Albanians and Armenians were about to throw off the Turkish sway. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 19:41, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- All this discussion is irrelevant until you cite at least ONE instance of an organzied Armenian rebellion? The article says: "Starting around 1780", well lets start with that, why don't you tell me about that Armenian rebellion in 1780?--Eupator 22:28, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete or keep with a rename This RFD is problematic, because it seems as a borderline cases at first (but which isen't) and for this reason is more open to results which might be influenced by bias from both sides. One of the problems I believe is that for some the term rebellion has negative conotations, it does not necessarly have such negative conotation (see for example what led to the American war for independence). I do believe the potential of such an article, but the title is problematic and does not respect the majority position to term those incidents, each of the reported rebellions from the Ottoman Empire have found echo in the west as a massacre of Armenians, one of those pre 1870's was what was termed the Tigris massacre in 1867. So in this cases, we need to find a more encyclopedic title for such an article, which I believe has real potentials. Then why so my 'weak delete'? Well, because there isen't much valuable content as of now in that article(properly sourced that is), and the title is difficult to handle, as in the majority of the cases if not all that term is the minority position, since those incidences are more properly termed 'Armenian massacres,' and the direction this article could take would be FORK if worked as is. Thosefor, I don't see a loss of deleting an article which neither right now has the content neither the title to be kept. And without those two there is not justification to keep. Fad (ix) 22:45, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and NPOV/source where required. All other ethnic groups rebelled against the Ottoman Empire, but some claim that (by eliminating this article) only Armenians demanded to be subjects of the Ottomans Empire. Claims that Armenians were leaving happily everafter under the Ottoman Empire is funny. All ethnic groups rebelled and so Armenians.--OttomanReference 23:52, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Lets see, Greeks... Greece, Serbs... Serbia, Croats... Croatia, Albanians... Albania, Bulgarians... Bulgaria, Arabs... all the current Arabic states etc. Armenians? Armenia is carved on a part of 'Russian Armenia'..., the only other exceptions are Nestrogian, Syriacs etc., of course the Kurds, but a considerable portion of Eastern Turkey are still Kurds. I don't see this analogy with 'other ethnic groups.' I also fail to see why the article should be titled with a term which is considered the minority view, you propose a FORK. Fad (ix) 03:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Article isn't well sourced, and its subject can be covered in other articles. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Hakob 03:47, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - as Akhilleus noted, the subject is better covered elsewhere, and its hard to see what these several distinct event have in common, except for the Armenians, and this appears a bit too little to me.--Aldux 14:49, 12 October 2006 (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.