Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Persecution of Muslims during Ottoman contraction: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 09:47, 1 February 2018

Persecution of Muslims during Ottoman contraction

(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 theGreat 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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:40, 30 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]

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 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 [20]. 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, becuase 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 [21] (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]

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)[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. -- ❤ SILENTRESIDENT ❤ 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. -- ❤ SILENTRESIDENT ❤ 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. -- ❤ SILENTRESIDENT ❤ 21:43, 31 January 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]

Note to closing admin: I can't help but notice that so far, two users who are not frequently active on the English wikipedia showed up in relatively quick succession to vote "keep" out of nowhere. I also speculate that it is not a coincidence that these users have a great deal in common (say, a specific background) with other users that are strenuously contesting this discussion, as evidenced from their contribs log. Khirurg (talk) 05:45, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

@@ Line 59: / Line 59: @@
 :'''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. [[User:Aigest|Aigest]] ([[User talk:Aigest|talk]]) 22:03, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 ::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. [[User:Khirurg|Khirurg]] ([[User talk:Khirurg|talk]]) 05:41, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
+:::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 [[User:Aigest|Aigest]] ([[User talk:Aigest|talk]]) 09:46, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 '''Note to closing admin''': I can't help but notice that so far, two users who are not frequently active on the English wikipedia showed up in relatively quick succession to vote "keep" out of nowhere. I also speculate that it is not a coincidence that these users have a great deal in common (say, a specific background) with other users that are strenuously contesting this discussion, as evidenced from their contribs log. [[User:Khirurg|Khirurg]] ([[User talk:Khirurg|talk]]) 05:45, 1 February 2018 (UTC)