Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Massacre of Hormova

Add links
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 delete. There are some questions of verifiability -- that rumors of a massacre were in circulation is not in doubt, but the (unsubstantiated) sources of those rumors are not consistent. Furthermore, the point that there's been no scholarly discussion of such an event is compelling. Shimeru (talk) 23:54, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Massacre of Hormova[edit]

Massacre of Hormova (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

wp:or & lacks wp:verify Alexikoua (talk) 19:45, 23 May 2010 (UTC) The events described, aren't supported by a single wp:rs. The existing 3 'references' [[1]][[2]][[3]], are based on articles of 2 newspapers and report (by whom?) of that period (1914-1915) and we don't even know if these newspapers and reports confirm this events because the context is missing on each. To sum up we have:[reply]

  • snippet abuse.
  • complete lack of secondaries&tertiary sources.
  • clear wp:battle activity by the author,
  • events that don't meet even wp:verify.

I'm sure that only some specific extreme povish pro-Albanian stuff like Jaqcues mention such events.Alexikoua (talk) 18:50, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete, I took the information from official reports of the house of commons, general de meer and the commission of control.--KëngaJonë 19:02, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You should read wp:rs, can you support this events or at least part of them with reliable material that meets wp:verify?Alexikoua (talk) 19:30, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Classic POV, BATTLEground piece, not supported by any reliable sources whatsoever. Snippet abuse at its worst. Athenean (talk) 19:35, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it is a real event, though non sourced properly by the author. E.g. [4] this reference is left out, as well as others. I will try to rewritte it.Balkanian`s word (talk) 20:03, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: No wonder the events are confirmed 'only' by the Dutch officers of the Albanian gendarmerie [[5]]. I'm sure nothing else ever confirmed this stuff until today.Alexikoua (talk) 20:17, 23 May 2010 (UTC)pro[reply]
I guess you are aware that only the Dutch gandarmarine was responsible about Albania during the reign of Princ William Weid. Either they, or the Greek Army would have confirmed that (I suppose you are waiting the second).Balkanian`s word (talk) 20:28, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, it seems that this report wasn't believable by anyone else, apart from some officers fighting for the Albanian side: just a propaganda report by army/gendarmerie officers of the one side. Greek army or any other army report is irrelevant here, we just need wp:rs that confirm these events, not just saying that some officers saw attrocities in battle that can't be confirmed...Alexikoua (talk) 20:43, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I can't believe author was given an award for this poorly sourced pov article. --Local hero talk 20:55, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep very notable event, but needs to be moved to Massacre of Kodra. Alexikoua, it seems that it has been reported by Austria, the USA, the Dutch army, the House of Commons of the United Kingdom and the International Commission of Control. Sources to verify WP:NN: [6][7][8][9][10][11]--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 20:57, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What's this? More snippet abuse? This is getting ridiculous. Athenean (talk) 21:03, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
More snippet abuse? There isn't much to abuse since the text needed to verify the notability of the subject is visible. Nonetheless even if these didn't exist Pearson's book brought by BW is more than enough to verify notability [12].--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 21:07, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: No context, no wp:verify, just as I've expected: a event completely non-existent by mainstream bibliography, without a single secondary&tertiary source confirming it. The Alpbanophile author Pearson doesn't confirm this event too, he is clear that this is claimed by the Dutch officers of the Albanian gendarmerie. Alexikoua (talk) 21:07, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All these are secondary/tertiary sources, unless you consider even Pearson who published his book in 2006 a primary source. Even if these all were primary sources they would still be used to verify WP:NN which is the object of this discussion.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 21:13, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete.This article does not live up to requisites.Megistias (talk) 21:23, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless better sourcing from reputable modern secondary literature, i.e. academic historians, can be provided. What we have now is unaccounted-for google books snippets from contemporary newspapers, which appear to be presenting hearsay accounts only. Given the fact that falsified propaganda accounts of enemy atrocities were rampant in all war theatres during that time, we should not rely on such contemporary accounts unless they are filtered through responsible modern historiography. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:12, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I've now become convinced the number and prominence of primary sources is sufficient to establish notability, and thus a legitimate need for some kind of coverage. The grave problem remains that we still have no reliable WP:Secondary sources allowing us to add non-trivial depth to this coverage, and that the artice in its present state displays a bad example of dangerously naive treatment of sources combined with POV-pushing agendas. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:52, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If it was a propagandist report it wouldn't be disseminated by all major factions. Apart from the official state reports, all major newspapers of the time have reported the event: the NY Times, London Times, The Independent.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 08:49, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh Zjarri. please stop this obsessive misinformation campaign here too, there are 'no' official state reports, only some wrongly used snippets we don't even know what their context was. You have already been warned not disrupting any procesedure possible.Alexikoua (talk) 12:36, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For the record when a text is published by the House of Commons and House of Lords and is titled The parliamentary debates (official report).: House of Lords it is an official state document containing reports and bringing sources is the opposite of disruption.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 13:44, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you mean this [[13]]. I have to disagree completely. We have an unknown report that is 'briefly read', typical snippet abuse case. By the way 'Massacre of Hormova' googlebooks hit is '1', and the book is written in 1919 by an active Albanian nationalist, that hardly meets wp:rs. Alexikoua (talk) 14:00, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep a notable event reported by reliables sources, such as New York Times and London Times. Cheers. kedadial 13:52, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I moved the article to Massacre of Kodra as most sources name the village Kodra not Hormova(alternative name). It seems that even Blackwood's Magazine had reported the massacre of Kodra or Hormova.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 14:20, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Zjarri: Can you explain me why you blindly reverted all the tag: npov & 'budious' tags using wrong edit summaries and pretending that there'snt discussion on the way? [[14]][[15]][[16]]Alexikoua (talk) 14:43, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alexikoua, I added all the sources needed to verify it so the citation needed/dubious tags should have been removed. If you dispute the neutrality of the article start a discussion and then add a tag. So far you're disputing the event itself and not even acknowledging its notability.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 14:49, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's really weird you claim that there isn't a discussion in the article's talkpage.Alexikoua (talk) 15:10, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I welcome FPS's suggestion to delete unless properly sourced. Now it is properly sourced, and we can keep the article. --Gollomboc (talk) 14:35, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@Gollomboc: User:Sulmues welcome back.Alexikoua (talk) 14:49, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: According to new information provided by User:Damac talk:Massacre of Kodra #UK parliament. The so-called 'official report' was nothing more than a statement by a confirmed Albanian nationalist sympathiser. To sum up apart from some specific Albanian nationlist figures & Dutch officers of the Albanian gendarmerie this seems to be unconfirmed.Alexikoua (talk) 17:24, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The official report is that of lieutenant-general De Weer, head of the Dutch mission in Albania. You are confusing Herbert with de Weer. The report was filed by the lieutenent-general. The speech was held by Herbert in the House of Commons and, according to Robert Elsie (that you Greeks love), "Western public opinion had had enough of Balkan atrocities and there was little reaction". [17]. None of the two people were Albanians, so you can't call them "Albanian nationalist figures" because they weren't even Albanian. In addition, Herbert had photos on him when he was presenting the case, available upon request. He added that there were many massacres in other villages and that they were common knowledge. He mentions similar massacres in many villages, so that wasn't even an isolated fact but the tip of the iceberg. --Gollomboc (talk) 18:25, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Off course I'm not comfusing him. According to the link you gave it is clear that De Waal, commanded units of the Albanian gendarmerie, actually he participated in the fights: "De Waal himself tried to storm Gjirokastra on 12 May with the help of a volunteer corps under Sali Butka (1857-1938), but was cut off by Greek troops under General Papoulias." I've asked for at least one desent secondary or tertiary source, but it seems clear that there is hardly to find something on this.Alexikoua (talk) 19:33, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, So far all we have unsubstantiated reports from primary sources. Athenean (talk) 19:42, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, we have very good reliable sources. According to this, pages 11-12, it's widely described in Tajar Zavalani's book "History of Albania" published in 1998. @Alexikoua, de Weer witnessed the massacre first hand and according to Noli he should have done it along with a representative of the Zographos government as had been agreed between Zographos' govt and the International Commission here in p206. However Zographos did not keep to that committment. --Gollomboc (talk) 19:55, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"This" is some self-published essay, and Tajar Who? Also, English language sources, please. Athenean (talk) 20:00, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Gollo/Sulmues: Please provide at least one clear wp:rs material, this nationalist Vatra stuff is far from being considered rs.Alexikoua (talk) 20:14, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't my fault why Zavalani hasn't been scanned in google books. This is all I can provide. The Greek Army committed genocide against the Albanian population after having lost the war against Prince Wied Albanian and Dutch forces. What else can I say. Selam Musai was injured in Hormove and after the Albanians lost the Hormove battle, a genocide was committed on the Muslim Albanian population. It was a religious genocide. And why should I provide all the sources btw? Why don't you Greeks bring your Greek sources and tell us why the Greek Army was defeated in Albania? --Gollomboc (talk) 20:29, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The book is offline. What do you mean? I would apprecitate if you avoid this highly nationalist declerations. Alexikoua (talk) 20:42, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I know it is offline. Not everything can be found in google books, but Zavalani is a secondary source. And reliable as he is distant from the events. The first edition of his "History of Albania" was published in the 1960s. What I mean: These massacres in Hormove, Lekel, and many Kolonje villages were typical of the andartis' soldiers who as soon as they would realize that they would not win the battle, they would commit atrocities. Why don't you start an article on the "andartis" forces to explain who they really were? Or do I have to do it? Kengajone opened this article and he is not prepared well to substantiate it, but this article is improperly in AfD today. These articles have to be started and written by seasoned wikipedians, as they are extremely controversial. However bringing them to AfD is another way of edit-warring them. I am sure that there are sources in Greek about this. I would be surprized if there weren't. Why don't you bring your own sources and we compare notes? Are you suggesting that there is nothing said in Greek history about paramilitary forces? --Gollomboc (talk) 20:50, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand what you mean (there are neither in English nor in Greek as far I know), the article is a combination of wp:or, wp:battle, excessive snippet abuse, as I've explained. Thanks to User:Damac Talk:Massacre_of_Hormova we learned that the snippets that were supposed to confirm this 'massacre' are just propaganda reports by nationalist elements. I kindly ask you to respect this proccess.21:04, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
I asked you if you have ever HEARD of the "andartis" para-militaries. Can you please tell me what you know about them? Are you telling me that there is nothing in the Greek history about the "andartis" troops who terrorized the whole southern Albania in 1913-1914? Are you telling me that this is all made up? That the andartis don't exist? That they have never gone into a war? What are you telling me? I am respecting this process and in my opinion the sources are sufficient. User:Damac just digged the dialogue in the House of Commmons between the Foreign Secretary and an MP. He said that the MP was interested to the throne of Albania, but he never accepted it. The fact that he was fond of Albania means nothing as to how reliable he was. He was a British MP and a very respected one and to me his bringing the issue to the House of Commons was a very important political factor. The Great Britain parliament had a lot of issues in 1914 to waist time on the Greek andartis who would go to Albania to commit their holy war after the Greek government was told several times to retire from Albania. In relation to the WP:Battle mentality that you claim the author of the article has: Everything that Kengajone claims in the article is well supported. Actually the sources go even further to describe atrocities. I really think we should reword many of the pieces of the article, and please feel free to do so, I have witnessed that you have good talent at that, but let's not say that we have no sources, because we do. --Gollomboc (talk) 21:10, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Plaese, calm down and avoid irrelevant questions.Alexikoua (talk) 21:24, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The first book is by Edwin Jacques, a known pro-Albanian charlatan. The other two sources speak of allegations by Albanians. This is something that is alleged to have occured almost a hundred years ago, and all we have are reports in newspapers about allegations by Albanians. There is no proof in scholarly historical sources anywhere that this occured. Plenty has been written about WW I in the Balkans, yet no historian worth his salt has confirmed this atrocity. Massacres may be notable. Unsubstantiated allegations of massacres are not. Athenean (talk) 22:13, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The House of Lords, the International Commission of Control, the Dutch reports, the Austrian and American reports, Pearson, Blackwood's Magazine etc. aren't Albanian.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 22:20, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And they all speak of nothing but allegations. A confirmation of this event simply does not exist in the historical literature. Athenean (talk) 22:27, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@Zjarri: I'd kindly asked you to avoid this campaign of misinformation and to apologize about the excessive snippet abuse [[19]], about the so called 'official report', this was nothing more than claims by a nationalist sympathizer, as Danac informed you Talk:Massacre_of_Hormova. Alexikoua (talk) 22:31, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Allegations are notable if they are verifiable and widely disseminated. We don't evaluate truth WP:V first sentence: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth Also the term "snippet abuse" that you keep using as if referring to some sort of policy does not exist in any guideline that I can find and using it as such is misrepresentative of current guidelines.--Savonneux (talk) 00:02, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Explanation: I guess the term "snippet abuse" refers to something I have repeatedly admonished people for in these recent Greek-Albanian debates: the tendency of using Google Books as a lazy substitute for actually researching the literature, and "citing" snippets found on Google without making a minimal effort at verifying their context, reliability and actual bibliographical details. Abuse of sources caused by such lazy googling has indeed been a major source of disruption in this field. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:58, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But if these allegations were notable, they would be treated by contemporary modern academic historians. So far, we have nothing but hearsay in newspaper reports from over 100 years ago, i.e. primary sources. And even back then, they were unsubstantiated runors, nothing more. If these allegations had merit, I imagine one of the many contemporary historians of the Balkans would have written something about them. So far, nothing. Athenean (talk) 00:54, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Contemporary usually means it means originating during the same time, dunno if English is first language but makes it confusing to read when it means modern and at that time... In any case, rumor/allegation etc. are all judgments of truth. It is covered in at least 3 books and multiple contemporary newspapers, all widely disseminated, and easy to find (books are all available on worldcat, and newpapers are online). That meets inclusion criteria truthyness nonwithstanding. --Savonneux (talk) 03:24, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3 books? The Jacques book at least, is nowhere near RS. As for the newspapers reports, they aren't reports of atrocities, but allegations of reports of atrocities, that reached the West second and third hand. Regarding your earlier comment about snippet abuse, there's no specific policy against that per se, but creating articles by collecting de-contextualized snippets obtained from keyword searches on Google Books is the lowest of the low forms of poor sourcing and tendentious editing. Athenean (talk) 04:58, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I still haven't seen any proper treatment by a reputable modern historian. Neither Edwin Jacques nor Owen Pearson count as such; they are both known national apologists with no academic standing. The reliance on contemporary newspaper reports is nothing short of naive. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:53, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Some things you can live with but some are outrageous. This is outrageous. One source, biased, little information or backing up material, and, most of all, no notability whatsoever. I think that this article would only occupy space in WP servers and wouldn't have any hits unless it is made a featured one, which cannot happen.--Michael X the White (talk) 08:20, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The article suffers from User:Zjarri.s' disruptive activity, who insists on restoring all this wrongly intepretted snippets, ignoring Damac's comments. On the other hand he removed parts that question this event, like: [[20]][[21]], while launching weird accusations: [[22]].Alexikoua (talk) 10:20, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note:For the record other users removed 2k of text or started editorializing. Deleting that large content without consensus is extremely disruptive and I reverted it.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 10:32, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment From the sources provided it would seem that the alleged event did receive enough coverage to satisfy WP:N. If the massacre was propaganda and did not actually happen, perhaps an article with Massacre of Kodra is claimed to have been conducted by the Greek army in 1914 in Albania, but which is suspected to be propaganda / exaggerated ... ? MKFI (talk) 15:57, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, here's my suggestion. We retain the article. We say that it is the subject of dispute. We explain what the Albanians say happened, and we explain why the Greeks say it didn't happen. We leave it to the reader to decide. How's that? DS (talk) 18:21, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me.Balkanian`s word (talk) 18:24, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Of course and I think that there are enough sources describing the Greek stance on the matter. --— ZjarriRrethues — talk 18:29, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete' A tragic but without serious bibliography story. It is certain that balkan history has plenty of such, the first victim of war is always truthMetsobon34 (talk) 18:56, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It's actually how we want a project like this. Modern history has tons of similar unconfirmed stories. Actually, in the same fashion, I can create plenty of articles about massacres committed by Albanians against Greeks in Northern Epirus. There are several Greek sources like John Cassavetis (a official report to the Paris peace conference 1919 [[23]]), K. Skenderis (a Greek MP) [[24]] or the French reporter 'Puaux, René' [[25]]. According to the same arguments we can create the 'massacre of Lunxhery', 'of Korca', 'of Moscopole (1916)' and several others 'committed by Albanians against Greeks', since we have reports by MPs, Peace conferences and reporters of that time.
My question is: should we unbury all this so-called 'official' reports of the past and create several articles of the same style? In my opinion wikipedia is not the right place. I know that some Albanian contributors want this article to stay but how they would feel if they see similar Greek reports in the same fashion? I suggest to leave these questionable events were they belong... deep buried in some old libraries, and create real encyclopedic articles.Alexikoua (talk) 19:59, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment You are casting everyone as some sort of partisan. I know I really don't care about the Balkans. Add whatever articles you like and they will be evaluated on the same criteria. Relative truth value has no bearing on the inclusion criteria. Something either has coverage, or it doesnt, full stop.--Savonneux (talk) 21:05, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To D.S.: I'm not sure the description as a "dispute" fits the bill here. From what I've seen so far, the problem is not so much that there is a dispute (with a Greek side "claiming it didn't happen"). The problem is there is no modern coverage at all, except in partisan literature uncritically rehashing the contemporary reports. A "Greek side" to the story, if one exists, hasn't been cited yet, unless I missed something. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:45, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Still judgements of

  • Delete there is no proof that this event ever happened. A story reported in a newspaper a hundred years ago is not a reliable source, plenty of stories are invented or exaggerated. It seems too that the most recent book, which was not written by a scholar, but by an Albanian nationalist, may have used these reports as sources. TFD (talk) 23:53, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There doesn't need to be proof that this ever happened. It needs to be verifiable that it happened. I consider the New York Times, even 100 years ago, to be a reliable source. Buddy431 (talk) 01:31, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not in times of WW-I-era war propaganda. Taking any kind of contemporary report at face value in such contexts is just dangerously naive. Fut.Perf. ☼ 04:59, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think Greece and USA were aleats in the WWI war. [26]Stupidus Maximus (talk) 11:46, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and that makes no judgment on the event having occurred. Even if it's propaganda, from the multitude of sources cited, it seems to be notable propaganda. We have articles on notable incidents used as propaganda whether or not they happened to be real or embellished: Gleiwitz incident, Jessica Lynch, Muhammad al-Durrah incident ... --GRuban (talk) 12:51, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    As I see the above mentioned events have plenty of bibliography to offer, while on the contrary, the specific, has virtually nothing (Pearson who's the only contemporary is far from neutral as stated in the article).Alexikoua (talk) 13:10, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. as per Future Perfect and Alexikaua. Guys, this article really cannot stay in an encyclopedia in this manner. It is already understandable from the 1st sentence, that it is more a description of some phrase, rather than an event. I see almost all the above mentioned by FutPer. and Alex. this article lacking. Propaganda and anything else that an encyclopedia is not for should not be on Wiki and there surely is a lack of RS here with Notability etc. Aregakn (talk) 13:28, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. And whoever proposes a merge in their comments are wrongly voting keep, by the way. Aregakn (talk) 13:28, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I wonder if it was noticed, but 3 out of 4 sources provided were published at the period, and qualify as a primary sources. Only one source is secondary and most of the description is attributed to him. It is not relevant if the event happened or not, but if the reported even is notable. If we scratch history we will find thousands of massacres, particularly aborigenes in America, Australia etc., we can go on villages by villages including them, but many of those purported massacres are in the shadow of history. For me, that 3 out of 4 references provided are primary and published at the time, only means that the purported event had slight notability in the said period and have pratically none now. If we rely on only one secondary source, we're writting the thesis of the author of this one single secondary source, this borders promotion. Ionidasz (talk) 17:00, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Extraordinary claims need extraordinary reliable sources according to Wikipedia. I think it's enough. NY Times is good even during the WWI if supported by sufficient number of other Wikipedia:RS. Emilio1974 (talk) 17:02, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is virtually no mention of "Massacre of Hormova" or "Massacre of Kodra" outside of Wikipedia, and these few sources. That, to me, calls in the question the reliability of these sources. Such an article would require much better sources. Prodego talk 19:10, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's more than that actually, with the internet today, it is easy to find materials published about a century ago. Having sources alone is not enough, if all we have are sources of over 70 years ago, it may show events had some notability near a centry ago, but it says nothing about the current notability. Ionidasz (talk) 19:58, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Those sources are very iffy, and I've found practically nothing else other than those sources. The Thing That Should Not Be (talk) 19:19, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If its a hoax, its a notable hoax. It was certainly talked about and at the very least is part of Albanian perceived history. Allegations of bias and truth can certainly be addressed in the article. Also, a reference to a denial would be helpful. I haven't seen one yet.Lateg (talk) 22:14, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's perhaps true, but sources are lacking to write anything significantly long to make it more than a stub. For a historical events, alleged or true, Jstor and others seems to remain silent. Ionidasz (talk) 02:05, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really know if it happened or not but the article cannot exist however it is. Restating some short news of papers is what the observation news-agencies do, but not encyclopedia. If it took place, reliable researches on the event are needed to address this issue here. The article doesn't seem to have the capacity to be improved on this level of source-references. Aregakn (talk) 03:58, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Need a rewrite before considering keep. A massacre article based purely on "according to the pro-Albanian author...alleged atrocity...unconfirmed report" just screams nobody was even sure if the Greeks had ever set foot in Hormova in the first place. Can someone at least confirm/verify the basic facts that the Greek had occupied Hormova, and that somebody died afterward? If not, then I just don't see the event to be notable as a stand alone "masscare", maybe as a small footnote in the article Greek-Albanian relations. Jim101 (talk) 04:52, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question: did anyone actually tried to establish notability by using both Greek and Albainian sources? if both Greek and Albainian sources confirmed that some sort of casualties did occur and caused significantly fallouts between the two countries, then this event could be notable (abit with a name change like "Hormova controversy" or something). Jim101 (talk) 01:40, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It lacks notability, it is based on few scattered snippets (mainly phrases), it's one of these articles that their authors try so hard to create from nowhere. Every single village, rock or tree on Earth has something to tell, but it doesn't mean that it deserves anything more than a simple reference in a wider article, let alone its own history-related article in an encyclopedia, which can easily be interpeted as propaganda or one-sided, especially when you cannot provide a proper account of context and there's a lack of reliable and diverse sources, like in this one. - Sthenel (talk) 08:16, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This event has no modern bibliography, it seems that was far forgotten some 100-90 year ago. It might happened but no real book supports even a supposed massacre like this. Balkan history is full of massacre reports that were soon forgotten by everyone, like this one.Villick (talk) 14:58, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sufficient secondary sources to demonstrate notability of the subject. (Whether it was true does not affect notability - see The Crucified Soldier) Article also needs work - it claims sources accepting the incident as true are pro-Albanian, yet provides no evidence of actual bias on the part of those sources. Edward321 (talk) 20:21, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually all of the existing metarial is biased as per discussion page. Suppose the misundestanding is because the snippets alone don't help much. On the contrary, 'The Crucified Soldier', has enough after 1920, published material.Alexikoua (talk) 20:28, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This article is based on some highly non-neutral reports of that time. I have checked the web but I can't see one book that mentions this. Some rumors that occured at 1914 are imposible to become a serious article.CrazyMartini (talk) 20:46, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

French, english[edit]

  • Quel fut le résultat des mouvements et des opérations de la troupe de Zographos, cette soi-disant armée de l'Epire du Nord? Ils ont incendié trois cents villages albanais, massacré totalement les habitants de cinq villages, à savoir: les villages de Hormovo, Panariti, Patzomiti, Jeppovo et Messaria… In, Permanent Court of International Justice: Minority schools in Albania: Advisory opinion of April 6th, 1935. Page 172 [27]
  • Intérieur de l'Eglise de KODRA (massacres et destructions par les Grecs. en 1914) Veuves et orphelins du Village HORMOVO. In, Justin Godart: L'Albanie en 1921. 1922 [28] Stupidus Maximus (talk) 13:47, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • An Albanian letter, by Sadik Hito, Italian Library of Information, New York. 1941. Page 31. [29]
  • It seems the greek soldiers liked to burn people alive, before too. See: da parte dei greci, nelle regioni di Koritza ed Argirokastro, atrocità di cui non c'è esempio nella storia di molti popoli (donne, bambini e vecchi venivano riuniti nelle moschee a cui i greci appicavano il fuoco)... I documenti diplomatici italiani: Serie. 8 gennaio 1861-20 settembre 1870. 1967. Page 55. [30]Stupidus Maximus (talk) 19:21, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • nuove spaventose atrocità elleniche in danno degli Albanesi... in, Emanuele Grazzi: Il principio della fine (l'impresa di Grecia), 1945. Page 163. [31]
  • The Albanians: an ethnic history from prehistoric times to the present, by Edwin E. Jacques. Page 348 [32]
  • A massacre of a hundred or two Muhammedan Albanians in the church of Kodra by Greek troops had been publicly stated by the Commission of International Control... The Near East, Volume 18. 1920. Page 13. [33]Stupidus Maximus (talk) 21:38, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Albania's struggle for independence, by Abdul B. Sula. 1967, page 65:[34] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stupidus Maximus (talk • contribs) 21:42, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@Stupidus Maximus: It seems that this misinformation campaign using 'snippets' that noone knows who wrote them (maybe some Albanian nationalist 100 years before) is your typical strategy, as already performed in[[35]] talk:Thanasis Vagias (trying there to prove that one of the Karagiozis shadow puppet character is really him...).Alexikoua (talk) 14:02, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, such citations are worthless without a proper account of the context. The printed sources evidently don't represent the original authors of the relevant reports, but are in turn quoting something or somebody. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:14, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@Stupidus: Your list is very similar with this [[36]].Alexikoua (talk) 21:41, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "According to the same arguments we can create the 'massacre of Lunxhery', 'of Korca', 'of Moscopole (1916)' and several others 'committed by Albanians against Greeks', since we have reports by MPs, Peace conferences and reporters of that time." To this, I say: Sure. Go ahead. List 'em all. Give the claims of both sides (that it was a terrible atrocity, vs that it never happened and that it's more damn propaganda), name the external entities which mention the incident, include 'snippets' if need be. Whether the incident "actually occurred" is no longer the issue. The issue is whether the incident was reported to have occurred. If a British MP known to be a Gorplakian sympathizer reports an atrocity committed against Gorplakians by Frobeepians, does that mean it's necessarily false? Was he lying, were his informants lying, or did Frobeepian troops genuinely massacre 600 Gorplakian children at East Horse Nostril and the MP is terribly concerned that no one cares about Gorplakians? It doesn't matter. What matters is that the British MP reported it. What about the massacre of 600 Frobeepian children by Gorplakian troops at West Horse Nostril? Answer: same criteria apply. It's true that war uses propaganda, and that reports of atrocities during war have been fabricated. It would be shameful to accept such reports unquestioningly. But it would be equally shameful to reject such reports unquestioningly, because atrocities do happen. Especially in war. Over the centuries, Gorplakians have butchered Frobeepians and Frobeepians have butchered Gorplakians, and both have butchered, and been butchered by, the Voggybloops. And all three have made up lies about each other. If an incident -- particularly one from early last century -- has been widely reported, then we at Wikipedia do not judge whether or not it happened. We report what the incident was claimed to have been. And we report the possible flaws in those claims. And we let the reader decide. DS (talk) 14:32, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • That a British MP mentioned in over 80 years ago, means that over 80 years ago it had some notability. Showing that notability existed 80 years ago does not show the required notability still exist now. Ionidasz (talk) 17:09, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Except that's not the only place it was mentioned. DS (talk) 18:29, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • WP:NTEMP Notability is not temporary: a topic needs to have had sufficient coverage in reliable sources to meet the general notability guideline, but it does not need to have ongoing coverage.--Savonneux (talk) 06:54, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • That's not the same context, also read what follows. It is a little too much than not having to have ungoing coverage, when the coverage is 80 years old and qualify as primary source. Only secondary sources show notability not primary. Ionidasz (talk) 14:17, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • And where was it? Jstor and others don't give a single result, google book does, for some snapshot and are materials from the period. One book, only one recent book is available. I agree that it happened or not is irrelevant, as even alleged events can have their article. But notability is relevant and without it, we have a problem. Ionidasz (talk) 19:53, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • I dont understand why you keep calling these stubs [37]? I can see full scanned pages. Thought that was what you were talking about since you were referring to things 80 years old. Even if they are primary they can be used for illustration purposes. It's covered in two modern books (in English) book published by McFarland, book published by IB Tauris (I used google book pages so people could see bilbio info). [Edit] also here [38] which has an earlier issue with mention of it as well, magazine haz wikipedia article The_New_Age. --Savonneux (talk) 00:33, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that both Frobeepian & Gorplakian & international bibliography has long forgotten this 100 years old alleged incident. We can't explained why, but even when some Frobeepian wikipedians recently unburried some highly questioned reports of that time, most parts of this puzzle are still missing.Alexikoua (talk) 08:51, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image[edit]

Until now I hadn't searched for the incident in Albanian-language sources. This image is a monument in the village of Kodra/Hormova in honor of the victims. If this is was an incident that wasn't notable then there shouldn't even be a monument.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 11:11, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Zjarri: Can you please focus on the topic without beeing disruptive again as you have been already instructed? Actually, this proves nothing. And how are you sure this monument is related with this alleged incident? (Lapidari ne Hormove, so what? No wonder, the incsription says nothing about it) If you can't provide a single secondary&tertiary source please stop playing with supposed 'monuments'.Alexikoua (talk) 12:34, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By the way: The village of Hormovo was the target of Ali Pasha's troops in 18th-19th century [[39]][[40]] (about the massacre of Hormovo by Ali Pasha). The attempt of ZjarriRrethues to disrupt the proccess by using pictures he found in panoriamio of unknown monuments is simply unacceptable.Alexikoua (talk) 12:42, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't been instructed by anyone for being disruptive and I don't think that bringing critical evidence is disruptive because some may not like the article. If you zoom in the monument you'll see the inscription "Lavdi Deshmoreve" (Glory to the fallen). This is an article from Shekulli mentioning the "Lapidar of Hormova" especially related to this incident[41]. Why are you mentionig Ali Pasha and an incident not even remotely related to this? That is the disruptive action here not me bringing sources that verify the notability of the subject.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 12:52, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry but you need to respect this procedure (irrelevant monuments have nothing to do with this). You have already tried to dirsupt this afd and you have been instructed (mysteriously you deny this) [[42]]. No wonder your previous disruptive comments in this page were removed.Alexikoua (talk) 13:00, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is a monument commemorating this particular incident not an irrelevant monument of an irrelevant incident. For future reference avoid wp:npa violations by labeling as instructions discussions I've had with users and not admins or highly established users or even users with a clean block log record.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 13:11, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And please don't post ultranationalistic and irrelevant articles as well as irrelevant pictures to prove a wp:point. Wikipedia doesn't need them. If you dont have secondary or tertiary sources, I suggest you leave this afd.Alexikoua (talk) 13:13, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's an article mentioning the monument of the photo in relation to the event of the AfD so why are you labeling it as irrelevant?--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 13:15, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This isnt the place for this. Mentioning photos has never been considered disruptive here to my knowledge and almost all I do is research AFDs (check my contribs). All evidence can be mentioned, it is up to other people to decide its worth. I should add there is an exhibit in a Leiden, Netherlands public library with photos as well here. The source for the images is Instituut voor Militaire Geschiedenis (Institute Military Research), The Hague.--Savonneux (talk) 22:16, 30 May 2010 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Massacre_of_Hormova&oldid=1194629962"