Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Human rights of Kurdish people in Turkey: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 11:43, 20 December 2006

Kurdish Genocide (Turkey)

This article seems to be about the historical opinions of one lecturer. "Desmond Fernandes" isn't a major historian, and the article treats what he says as consensus. It is my opinion that this article (whose title misleads as to the consensus around this issue) will never be able to avoid being either a soapbox or a PoV-fork, and is in any case a non-notable term for the event. I know this doesn't mean much, but searching for the "Kurdish Genocide" on google gives 50k links (compared to about 1 million for "armenian genocide" and a whopping 40 million for "Holocaust"), nearly all of which talk about Saddam's, not this. The accepted content (i.e. people died and it wasn't by accident) is already in the relevant articles. Otherwise, take your pick between deleting, merging, redirecting and keeping the article... yandman 15:14, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No. The impression is given that the genocide is accepted fact, and this one scholar is only breaking it down in a certain way. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 15:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable topic and give it a chance to expand. //Dirak 17:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And shall we also give a chance for votestacking Dirak? Is votestacking also notable? Baristarim 07:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per above. --A.Garnet 17:34, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Added several references. There is a wealth of published material on this topic, and the article can be further improved beyond the comments of one lecturer. The topic is very important: Turkey genocide Kurd gets 24 articles in the New York Times alone, and I see 21 more in Proquest. Naturally some say the actions arre genocide and others say they are justified. The article should perhaps be retitled Alleged Kurdish genocide (Turkey) since the other side says the villages were bombed to get rid of guerillas. Deleting it because the Holocaust get more Google hits does not make a lot of sense. Any genocide is notable, and the stats might reflect the relative paucity of Kurds with blogs. Edison 19:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That is an excellent point.
In WW2 some say the German bombing of London and Allied bombing of Berlin were justified. I'd be uncomfortable calling it "genocide" because some don't feel it was justified.
The United States assimilates (naturalizes) any immigrant. They too 'genocide' Kurds and others as they immigrate. I'd be uncomfortable renaming the US naturalization process as a genocide.
The original source is the 'Armenian Forum'. I do not see it as a neutral source. Article talks about a 'violent repression of any Kurdish resistance'. That Kurdish resistance is considered as terrorist attacks by the NATO and EU nations as well as others. Just trying to put things to perspective in the light of WP:NPOV. I cannot comment on the NYT links since I can't access them.
This article is a pov fork of Human rights in Turkey article.
--Cat out 23:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep There may or may not be many references on this topic but between the Kurds who live in the Anatolia the Kurdish genocide and political restrictions are common sense. Ozgur Gerilla 22:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- No. We can't just throw out WP:V because you think it's common sense that it's genocide, heck, we can't throw out WP:V no matter what. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 22:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Actualy it is also a WP:NPOV violation. Your comment is a WP:OR violation should you put that common sense to the article.--Cat out 23:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Excuse my strong language, but what the hell are you talking about? -Amarkov ^blah_edits 23:52, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - My response was to Ozgur Gerilla, I am in agreement with you. Article in its current state is a NPOV violation. --Cat out 00:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I meant if you was to do a research on people's experiences who lived in Anatolia they'll be more than happy to tell you their stories and academics who do the research and became the "reliable sources" do not do much more work then what I've mentioned; but of course "any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source". I know such research hasn't been done but the results are obvious to me because I've interviewed many people in many Kurdish communities on the same matter for various projects and non of them contradicted the issue so I didn't hesitate to say it in my previous post. Once again thanks for the uninformative, ugly and senselessly contradicting advice coolcat (I hope you don't take this as a personal attack:). Ozgur Gerilla 01:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - It does not matter if the results are obvious to you. Obviousness is completely irrelevant. You must have reliable sources, because the standard for inclusion is verifiability, not truth. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 02:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - I think I haven't said anything different to what you're saying in my previous post. Ozgur Gerilla 12:53, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Seems like, if Saddam tries to eliminate the Kurds, it is genocide and BAD. If Turkey, a "Democracy" and NATO member and European Union candidate, uses the same tactics to eliminate the Kurds, it is GOOD. Seems nonsensical. Edison 05:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you ever find a source of chemical weapons being used against Kurds in Turkey, pls bring them in and share them with us. Otherwise this is your POV and violates WP:OR.Baristarim 05:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be a confusion as to the meaning of the word genocide. Take for example, the German occupation of France. Lots of French people were killed. A few were guerillas, but most were not. Entire villages were burnt to the ground. Torture was common. But this was not genocide. There's a difference between brutal repression and genocide, and from what I've read in the various links provided and googled, the consensus on this is that it was the former, not the latter. yandman 08:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. POV or POV-title is not AfD reason. All articles start from a specific POV and end to NPOV with the intervention of other editors. Deleting it is wrong, as the particular POV is adequately sourced. We should expand it and then seek if we need to rename it. One side's POV in this cannot be punished for the lack of work from the other side (attributed IMO to the concern that it would legitimize the article). As the article stands now, content is verifiable and title is correct. I would definitely like to see those points regarding terrorist attacks etc, sourced and included in the article. Until, then... Niko Silver 10:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't clear enough. I'm not proposing deletion because the title is PoV. I'm proposing deletion because this article is about a non-notable theory backed by very few scholars. yandman 10:58, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NikoSilver, the artile itself is a pov-fork. The title is the least of the worries. Topic is almost always covered under the window of "Human Rights" and even then "human rights" organizations themselves are often criticized by themselves (there is a famous recent case but I do not want to bring content dispute to the afd). --Cat out 14:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks yandman for clearing that out. As I said, I'd like to see the scholars/countries/groups/organizations etc and their arguments that contest it. I think 40k in Google means notable enough, and the scholar sources provided are something. Don't get me wrong, I don't support the existing POV, I just find it adequately sourced. Niko Silver 11:09, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Niko, you cannot contest something which is an extreme pov. We cant create a fictitous debate on whether Kurds suffered genocide in Turkey when there is no such debate. You employed the same argument on the Pontian greek "genocide" article, it has the convenience of confirming the extreme pov as 'unchallenged' when in fact it so minority that there exists few people to counter such claims. The problem is the claim still lacks authoratitave and verifiable sources. --A.Garnet 12:29, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alf, no other view is different than minority view. It is completely legitimate to have a sourced view. You have to cite another view in order for the existing one to be minority view. Niko Silver 12:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There would be a chaos of articles if Wikipedia followed the minority view policy. The Spanish or whatever professor's opinion can be mentioned in the context of a History of Kurds in Turkey or -whatever we have- article.--Doktor Gonzo 14:32, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, those sources have to be authoratative and verifiable in the first place before you ask for counter-claims. If i created a sourced article on a genocide of Turkish Cypriots, and asked you to show me sources explicity claiming otherwise, would you be able to do this? No you would not, because there is no such academic debate, which in your view, would somehow mean my article is representative of academic consensus. --A.Garnet 13:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not let this turn into yet another regional argument. As an academic view, it should be presented. I'm just not sure that it merits an entire article. The previous gSearch was flawed, as it gave mainly links to Iraq. "kurdish genocide in turkey" gives 47 hits, all of which are dodgy (either "Desmond Fernandes" or "cultural genocide" allegations or Kurdish sources). I'd say that a redirect and a paragraph in "Human Rights abuses in Turkey" is enough, but then again maybe this academic view has more proponents than my (admittedly crude) research has shown. yandman 13:21, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree - it gets hits in Google Scholar [1], ergo as far as I'm concerned it merits an article if sources can be found. //Dirak 13:27, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It gets eight hits, half of them from the same site and two of them from this Spanish guy whose thesis is presented in this article as confirmed fact, thus breaking WP:OR Baristarim 05:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if you want a good Google search, try this one [2]. There are, after all, more ways of saying it (be creative...). According to A.Garnet however, Google searches are irrelevant (or does this only apply in selective cases?). //Dirak 13:28, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is it the amount or quality of the information that matters? Most are Kurdish operated websites, some mention some seminar given by the Fernandes person in London, some are blogs and most of the rest are nearly irrelevant that somehow have Kurds and genocide in the same page.--Doktor Gonzo 14:32, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nikos, it doesn't write "stupid on my forehead. I know exactly what this is about. I would like to inform the other readers and closing admins that this page was created by a Greek user when there was a big debate going on in Pontic Greek Genocide and that, personally, I sense some attempts per WP:POINT to deflect the attention from that debate to something else. "Getting back" if you like. Please take a look at the relevant talk pages. Most of Nikos' points clearly remind me of arguments raised in that article. Nikos, your argument that "IMO to the concern that it would legitimize the article" reflects the arguments you raised in that article's talk page. I am sorry to be digging this deep, however other editors need to know about this since it is not possible that ten Greek editors can show up in the AfD of an article, created only two days ago, in the space of a couple of hours. Really good work Nikos, thanks a lot after all that talk about cooperation, good faith after I launched the Greek and Turkish Wikipedians cooperation board. Great work and keep it up. Top class work that is.Baristarim 02:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no general acception of the term "Kurdish Genocide".--Doktor Gonzo 14:32, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per aboveMust^TC 14:45, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per NikoSilver. /FunkyFly.talk_ 16:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hesitant keep to neutral. 'Hesitant' because more information is needed. 'Keep' because for over 20 years there has been constant criticism in the media about the fate of the Kurds in Turkey. There are reports that over 3,000(!) villages have been emptied, of armed campaigns by the Turkish army, pictures of Kurdish refugees fleeing, cross-border attacks against refugee camps in Iraq, etc. 'Neutral' because the term genocide seems to be evolving; also, because there seems to be a cross-over between understandable Kurdish resistance and outright Kurdish terrorism (against innocent Turks and tourists) that has to be rooted out. So... Politis 17:25, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
So human rights issue. There is an article for it. A Kurdish terrorism article would be a pov fork when we have PKK and etc. --Cat out 17:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is in need of expansion, not deletion. I'd like to see more about what others, including Turkey, have to say about it. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 20:45, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, first find the reliable sources and any mention or recognition of this by a sovereign, US state, then the article can come back up..Baristarim 00:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. POV is not a reason for deletion. If you regard it as POV, improve its content or propose a change of title. But the article is indeed notable.--Yannismarou 21:45, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It is. That's why the article Native American genocide REDIRECTS TO SOMETHING ELSE.Baristarim 00:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Then change the title and expand the article about the history and general status of the Kurds' human rights violations in Turkey. Redirect or not a seperate article is needed, and the current article is a good basis for that.--Yannismarou 09:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The problem here is mainly WP:V, not NPOV. As noted by yandman, an article about an actual genocide (as opposed to the more common phenomena of large-scale oppression, murder etc.) needs a lot more reliable sources than the work of one academic. Sandstein 22:30, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is no problem with verifiability because one can find literature in newspapers and periodicals. Many villages have been destroyed by the Turkish army for what purpose? Please stop the genocide denying.(UNFanatic 22:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC))[reply]
- And you better watch for civility and stop accusing others of being some sort of Nazis. Closing admins should remember that nearly all the keep votes are coming from editors who have been edit-warring over Turkish related articles for ages, not from impartial editors. WP:POINT? Baristarim 00:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not denying any genocide that I, in fact, know nothing about. What I know is that there are no reliable sources being cited in this article that do call these killings a genocide, apart from the writings of one single academic. There may or may not have been genocidal intentions behind these actions, but we really need very good sources on this before writing an article with this title. Sandstein 23:08, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sandstein this is not just a rename poll. It is a wipe out of the face of the planet at all costs poll. Niko Silver 23:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, since half the article is a POV FORK of the Human Rights in Turkey article. There are no mentions of this by any reliable news organizations, except from some extremely biased sites that "claim" that there has been such thing. Where are the strong sources to support the gravity of this article's title? Baristarim 02:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but include more verifiable sources or we will be back here in a month Alf photoman 22:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, with more sources--Kalogeropoulos 23:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Important note: This is this user's contributions list [3] He has not made any edits since November 11. I put a note on his talk page when I launched the Greek and Turkish Wikipedians cooperation board on November 26, he added his name on December 14 and, except those, his only edit since November 11 has been his vote in this AfD. He should explain how he learned of this AfD, considering that this article was only created three days ago.Baristarim 07:32, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the very reason that this is a balanced poll shows it is an issue with strong supporters either way, hence worth mentioning in Wikipedia.-- Avg 23:28, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- WRONG. Wikipedia is not a gang. Just because, "somehow", ten Greek editors turned up in here in the space of couple of hours to vote keep is not a sign of "strong support" from both sides.Baristarim 02:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What is the basis for this article? There has never been any referrance to this "genocide". Are you crazy? There are millions of Kurds who live in Turkey, when did this genocide happen??!! Turkification, yes. Not genocide. Can you show me one reliable news organization that has referred to as so? One country? One measely US state? There are none! There are more referrances to Native American genocide, however that's not what the article's place is. I would like to remind the closing admin that all the keep votes seem to be coming from Greeks, and I am utterly disappointed and disgusted after all that talk of goodwill and good faith. Whatever...Baristarim 00:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OR is clearly an issue here. The gravity of the subject matter implies that it will be able to provide extensive sources and reliable and serious research to back up the large claims of the article's title. Baristarim 00:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Some Turkification circumstances, sadly, imply a genocide like those events in maras, sivas, diyarbakir, hakkari. These things happend ask people and you'd find out; labeling Kurdish people's doors to killing them in groups. Turkey did a good job in hiding its dark sides but we need to present this information to the future specially when we have enough reliable sources. Ozgur Gerilla 01:32, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Just to add a few notes. Baristarim there are some references on this issue, some which are already in the article, some which are not and are waiting to be added and for you to note that no huge research has been done mainly because of the corruption of Turkey's higher education system. You say there's millions of Kurds still living in the Turkey, as if how could this be, after a genocide; well look at Germany there's still millions of Jewish people living there after the Holocaust. I also find it ignorant for you to mention some voters ethnicities and say that it reflects their opinion on the matter. Please let's remember Wikipedia does rely on realible sources and books but we write those books and it's time to understand that this issue has been restricted long enough, let's be open about it. Ozgur Gerilla 01:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Forget it Baris, no matter how good your intentions, you just cannot reason with these people. --A.Garnet 02:05, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Ozgur, of course I will mention the ethnicities, since it seems to me quite interesting that ten Greek editors turned up here, in the AfD of a page created two days ago, in the space of a couple of hours. It doesn't write "Stupid" on my head, if I didn't mention it, then I would be really ignorant as you claimed. And you are wrong again Ozgur, there are not millions of Jewish people living in Germany after the Holocaust!!! Are you OUT OF YOUR MIND? Did you just take that number out of the air or do actual research on this? And your claims about the lack of research is completely off the charts. Where were the Europeans? They could have done research.. Half the article is a POV FORK of Human rights in Turkey in any case. You are confusing the meaning of genocide with something else. Turkification does not imply genocide, I am afraid. Ozgur, you are living in a completely dream world! What genocide? Do you even know what that word means? The whole article is riddled with Wp:V, WP:FORK and WP:OR issues.Baristarim 02:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - That some events imply genocide is your personal POV btw. This is not a forum, we cannot create articles based on the POVs of their editors.Baristarim 02:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Baristarim, if we was to decide these things depending on peoples ethnicities then we couldn't decide anything because we will be stereotyping; which means that we nor the greek nor the turks nor kurds could give an opinion on this matter. You're complaining about the amount of greeks voting for an article considered for deletion which is completely not logical when we think about the amount of turks that have voted here, how about them? is the turksish opinions always right ha? is this what you're going to say next? Check on your sources again there's millions of jews in germany and EU. Of course we aren't a forum but we are here to discuss matters and decide and stop accusing me of not knowing the meaning of words please. I'm here to do research and put some useful information backed with reliable sources on an issue that has, in my opinion, happend, with many Kurds backing it. You have your opinions I have mine, here's the arena, let's prove it with academic sources if we can't, don't be angry and sad about it we'll be here in one month. Ozgur Gerilla 02:35, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        What non sense. This AfD was proposed by an Englishman, and there have been editors of other nationalities that have voted for delete. Take a look at the votes a second time please. There are not millions of Jews in Germany, that is FALSE. You don't seem to have an adequate grasp of the subject matter, therefore I see no reason to continue my debate with you. This is not about our opiniong my dear fellow. So don't you feel even a bit used considering the fact that this page was created in the midst of an edit-war and dispute at another article between Turkish and Greek editors per WP:POINT? Yani ben olsam kendimi gerçekten kullanilmis hissederdim. Onlarin Kurtlere deger verdiklerini mi zannediyorsun Ozgur? How can you think this?! Cok yanlis dusunuyorsun.. Baristarim 02:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Ozgur, I agree with Baris. The turkish editors vote here because Turkey is a side in this genocide allegations, therefore they are voting for it. It is probable that Turkish writers have a better understanding of the issue. For you, due to your ethnicity, you are also at a side and you have a greater knowledge on the issue, therefore you vote in this discussion. Greek writers are not directly related with the topic, but interestingly numerous editors from Greece vote here. I do not want to conspire on the issue, both Baris and me might be wrong, but the ethnicity of the voters seem funny to me. Caglarkoca 03:21, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Deleteper Baristarim. It may be called Turkification, but genocide has a completely different meaning. Caglarkoca 02:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per yandman. --Free smyrnan 05:38, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This should be a redirect to Human Rights in Turkey article, with any reliable and salvagable information merged into it, with appropriate interpretation of sources after discussion in the talk page. This is truly a Fork of that article. Baristarim 06:00, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per Baristarim. This article is an original research done by Desmond Fernandes. He is not a well-known historian, and the article focuses only of his claims and treats all these as a world-wide consensus. The title is also gives the impression of an internationally accepted case which in fact misleads the general user. On the other hand, there is a wikipedia article Casualties of the Turkish-Kurdish conflict which reflects the issue. E104421 08:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge - basically a POV fork of Kurds in Turkey, Turkish Kurdistan, and Casualties of the Turkish-Kurdish conflict, and Baristarim's suspicion of a POINT motivation with respect to Pontic Greek genocide is, unfortunately, not quite baseless either. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:31, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - reads like an essay, poorly referenced POV essay at that, even the title has implied POV, Wikipedia is not for things your lecturer at University told you one day. Moreschi ^Deletion! 10:36, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Despicable tactics and votestacking by the "so-called" "pseudo"-members of the cooperation board

I am not stupid, neither are other people. I know exactly what went down with the article that Dirak created, and most importantly, also know why it was created. It was created two days ago, it was AfDed by an Englishman, with even a Swiss editor voting for delete, and BOUM ten Greek editors show out of nowhere one after another and vote keep. There is no way that so many Greek editors would be aware of that page since it was created only three days ago. That's not possible. This is despicable. I would kindly request that all those editors strike their names out of the cooperation board participants list. There is no need for editors who engage in such charades for such blatant attempts at disruption of Wikipedia to use that board as a smokescreen. That's not why it exists. It is not the roll call of every Greek and Turkish editor on Wikipedia, it was created for a purpose. I am sure that those with self-respect and dignity will heed my call. What is even more disturbing is the reason for the creation of the article in question. It is blatantly obvious: The debate in the PGG article has been heating up for the last week after a two month sleeping period and BOUM this article comes. Real class. We are not at a carpet store: if there are those who envy carpet-selling techniques, they can open a carpet store. When the AfD is completed, you can be sure that there will be a report filed at ANI, and a probable RfC. Baristarim 07:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ten Greek users appear from nowhere?!!! Hmmmm ... Well, for about a year (speaking for myself) I'm somewhere in Wikipedia. So, I return to you expressions like despicable, and I express my sorrow for your improper and insulting comments. Try to respect other people's opinion.--Yannismarou 08:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When I said "out of nowhere", I meant to this AfD, out of nowhere. I know very well that all the contributors to this AfD have been in Wikipedia for a long time. Baristarim 09:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then try not to slander or islult other people and not to make assuptions.--Yannismarou 09:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I was not referring to anyone in particular. I cannot change your opinions, but if a simiar thing had happenned with Turkish editors, ie if a Turkish had created a Albanian genocide article, then ten Turkish editors who had signed up to the coop board jumped in (some who had not even edited since November 11 [4], then I am sure that you would have felt the same way. Especially, if the article in question was created per WP:POINT because of a dispute in another turco-greek page. Of course you have the right to browse any page you want in Wiki, but it might be nice if you explained how you actually learned of this AfD. I really would like to know what you would have felt if the situation was inversed between Greeks and Turks. Have any Turkish coop board members created an Albanian genocide article, emailed each other and all showed up in the space of ten hours to vote keep? Are you honestly telling me that there isn't anything fishy? How did all those users learn of this so quickly? Personally, I was contacted by a non-Turk over this after ten Greek editors suddenly showed up and voted keep. This user emailed me because I was at the coop board and also because he thought that there was something "extremely fishy" going on (his words). Baristarim 09:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat that I decline to answer to your unfortunate assumptions.--Yannismarou 10:25, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then my "assumptions" are the best guess out there. Particularly this [5], so there is definitely one incidence of emails being sent to unrelated users. If it has been done once, then the common sense rule is that, it would have been done again. It doesn't make sense that whoever woke this user from his sleep of 1.5 months would only email him, now does it? I already explained how I learned of this, and the history of the article will show when I joined in the debate.Baristarim 10:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But let's call it off. This issue has been extensively talked about, there is no need to delve into it anymore. Baristarim 10:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree.--Yannismarou 11:09, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, let's cool it

Could everyone calm down, please? The main argument here seems to be that most people think that the content of the article is important and needs to be discussed. Well, to be honest, the main argument seems to be about Greco-Turkish relations, but let's pretend it's not, mmmmokay? I've merged the article here, and I propose redirecting this page to that specific chapter. Does anyone have a valid argument against this (i.e. a BBC article calling it a "genocide", or a Nobel Prize given to this Fernandes guy, etc... not an article talking about Fernandes' views or Kurdish sources)? Thanks. yandman 07:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Concur Baristarim 08:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm strongly opposing the merger. Why not a seperate article, which will include:

The present status of the human rights of Kurds.
The history of violations of their human rights.
The alleged genocide.

I think that this is a very important issue, deserving a seperate aricle (maybe under a less POV title).But merger as a sub-sub-sub section?!!! No!--Yannismarou 09:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That article already exists: Kurds in Turkey. Maybe a merge to there would be better? yandman 09:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No! This is about Kurds in general. I propose an article orientated towards the human rights status of Kurds in Turkey with a title like Human rights of Kurdish people in Turkey. I think this article deserves a seperate article, since the human rights status of Kurds in Turkey is a major issue towards Turkey's accession in EU. The current article we discuss could be renamed as I propose and expanded, inlcluding the 3 bullets above I mentioned. The section Human_rights_in_Turkey#Kurdish_people could link to this article like that:. Since you volunteered to intervene, would you like to initiate that, if we achive a consensus here?--

Yannismarou 10:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, half the article already falls into the scope of the Human rights in Turkey, and such allegations of genocide etc are always talked about in the human rights sections of countries. "History of human rights abuses also falls into the scope of that article. Human Rights in Turkey article is not even a "long" article, you cannot expect another article to be created that incorporates two paragraphs of a Spanish guy's thesis. As for the current status of Kurds in Turkey, there is an article at Kurds in Turkey. Huamn rights of Kurds is not a major issue in TR-EU accession, have you been following the subject closely? There are already four articles: HR in TR, Kurds in Turkey, Turkish Kurdistan, Casualties of the Turkish-Kurdish conflict, why do we need a fifth article except for POV:FORK? Are these articles filled to the brim already? Baristarim 10:09, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, my friend. It is a major issue for EU and for Wikipedia, unless you close your eyes to the violent manifestations in Turkish Kurdistan concerning the human rights violations of the local population, the manifestations against Erdogan, the incident in the local police station involving the current chief of staff of the Turkish armed forces, the restrictions concerning the use of Kurdish language in Turkey. These issues definitely deserve a seperate article, including also:

The history of violations of their human rights.
The alleged genocide.

If these issues don't cover the criterion of notability, then no article in Wikipedia fulfils this criterion.--Yannismarou 10:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need to mention every single event, Wiki is not a newspaper. Can I add all sorts of incidents to the HR in GR article? EU doesn't care at all about the situation of Kurds in Turkey, you should check that again per realpolitik. The restrictions on teaching another language as a first language other than the official one is also banned in many EU countries, and the HR in TR article also covers this issue, and I was the only one who actually dug up the references and rewrote the section, btw. There is no need to move it to somewhere else, since it is only two concise paragraphs to begin with. There is no such official thing as Turkish Kurdistan, so cut down on the political overtones. There are already four articles that relate to this, what is the fifth one for? The other articles are not even half-Long. If you were so interested in this, then why am I am the only one practically to have edited the HR in TR article in the last two months? I have never seen any of the voters above to have actually matched their statements of "i think this is important!" with any sort of act on the ground, so why should I believe that this is not just an attempt to create a bastard POV fork that will lay there for ages right after the AfD has closed? Am I wrong? There is no such thing as alleged genocide. Does the article Cyprus include "Turkish cypriot genocide allegations"? Baristarim 10:27, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Only an editor of an article has the right to be interested in it? Of course not! The fact that there is a section somewhere else does not mean that we cannot add another article providing further analysis. You argument does not outdo notability. And, in order to prove my interest in this topic, I can be the one who will create this article. And, say if I'm wrong, but the problem with the Turkish language is not just teaching, but also use of language in public places.--Yannismarou 10:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

?Again, an insufficient grasp of the subject matter: what public places? on what are you basing this? There are tons of music stores in Turkey that sell Kurdish music, in Istanbul there are many people who speak Kurdish in cafés or in the streets! Are you joking? It seems that none of the keep voters are not even sure what the subject matter is! Ozgur, for example, tried to prove that this was a genocide by saying "there were millions of Jews in Germany after Holocaust!!" (twice), to counter what I said about there being millions of Kurds in Turkey! That statement was utterly false, the same way with the relation of "public places" in languages. The notions are so confused, I might as well be arguing that Pyramids were built by Martians. I suggest to follow Yandman's version: the relevant text of this article has already been incorporated into HR in TR, let's redirect this to that article. However, keep in mind that the inclusion of genocide thesis in any article will be carefully scrutnised by WP:V, WP:POV and WP:OR no matter what zombie article it goes into. In any case, this won't be a healthy discussion if people who are participating will not reveal how they came across this AfD. It is relevant.Baristarim 11:11, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thank yandman for his productive suggestions. I am inclined to accept Yanni's proposal. Niko Silver 11:05, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why not as part of Kurds in Turkey? To Yannismarou: contentious topic areas have an unfortunate tendency of getting ripped apart into ever more and more articles. In my view, that's a trend better to be avoided. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:15, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To Nikos: Yeah, I am inclined to expect an explanation on as to how ten Greeks suddenly showed up in this AfD. There are already four half-long articles about this, there is no need to create a fifth fork bastard.. Baristarim 11:11, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with yandman and Fut.Perf. This very brief article is basically about acts of violence apparently committed against Kurds in Turkey that one writer apparently calls a genocide. To prevent a WP:POVFORK, it's absolutely sensible to include this in another article that already deals with these subjects, such as Human_rights_in_Turkey#Kurdish_people or Kurds in Turkey. However, a redirect is pointless, as this is not a likely search term. Sandstein 11:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Deleteper Neurobio. This utter nonsence is a waste beyond comprehention. People with political agenda are endlesly creating articles against Turkey without any knowledge other than bias. Your effords to defend this article in respect to Wiki guidelines are unconvincing. Despite documentation and international concensus we dont call terorist to several organisations. But when it comes to the ultimate crime Genocide and Turkey people use it recklessly. when I see people coming up with the works of a single "scholar" and creating a Genocide article in an Encyclopedia I cant assume good faith anymore.neurobio 11:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 11:42, 20 December 2006 edit Sandstein (talk \| contribs) Autopatrolled, Administrators 187,435 edits →‎[[Kurdish Genocide (Turkey)]]: cmment, add edit point header ← Previous edit		Revision as of 11:43, 20 December 2006 edit undo Neurobio (talk \| contribs) 563 edits →‎[[Kurdish Genocide (Turkey)]] Next edit →
Line 139:		Line 139:

	* I agree with yandman and Fut.Perf. This very brief article is basically about acts of violence apparently committed against Kurds in Turkey that one writer apparently calls a genocide. To prevent a [[WP:POVFORK]], it's absolutely sensible to include this in another article that already deals with these subjects, such as [[Human_rights_in_Turkey#Kurdish_people]] or [[Kurds in Turkey]]. However, a redirect is pointless, as this is not a likely search term. [[User:Sandstein\|Sandstein]] 11:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC)		* I agree with yandman and Fut.Perf. This very brief article is basically about acts of violence apparently committed against Kurds in Turkey that one writer apparently calls a genocide. To prevent a [[WP:POVFORK]], it's absolutely sensible to include this in another article that already deals with these subjects, such as [[Human_rights_in_Turkey#Kurdish_people]] or [[Kurds in Turkey]]. However, a redirect is pointless, as this is not a likely search term. [[User:Sandstein\|Sandstein]] 11:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

			*'''Strong Delete'''per Neurobio. This utter nonsence is a waste beyond comprehention. People with political agenda are endlesly creating articles against Turkey without any knowledge other than bias. Your effords to defend this article in respect to Wiki guidelines are unconvincing. Despite documentation and international concensus we dont call terorist to several organisations. But when it comes to the ultimate crime Genocide and Turkey people use it recklessly. when I see people coming up with the works of a single "scholar" and creating a Genocide article in an Encyclopedia I cant assume good faith anymore.[[User:Neurobio\|neurobio]] 11:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)