Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oba massacre


 * 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. Ironholds (talk) 07:16, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Oba massacre

 * – ( View AfD View log )

After scouring through Google, as well as Google Books, it appears that references to this alleged massacre are by and large found on websites related to the denial of the Armenian Genocide. The two sources cited in the article make this clear enough. The first one, whose title in Turkish translates to Armenian Issue, is an un-academic website whose sole objective is to refute the factual nature of the Armenian Genocide. Going against scholarly consensus, it alleges that the Armenian people massacred Turks during the World War I years; those massacres were consequently followed up by the deportation of the Armenian people from the Ottoman Empire. In much the same vein, this website and now this article puts forward the allegation that the Turks living in the village were subjected to massacres by the hands of the Armenians. But because of its dubious nature, and because scholars have recognized a pattern in which the actual perpetrators of the crime portray themselves as the victims and label the latter as the true culprits, it seems to me that this website cannot at all be regarded as a reliable source.

Indeed, the cited link here makes it clear that the monument built by the municipal authorities of Igdir was designed specifically "to give a similar answer to those declaring the 24th April as the genocide day and to the monuments erected in many places of the world for the genocide alleged to have been perpetrated against the Armenians." On the Igdir article, in the section devoted to the genocide monument, there are several sources which make it clear the monument was erected to commemorate the perpetrators themselves. That is, in order to give an absolve the Turkish state of any responsibility for the Armenian Genocide, they have decided to turn the tables on the victims. If anything, the general region of Igdir was where thousands of Armenians perished during the winter of 1918-19 and during the Turkish invasion of 1920, when it was part of the Republic of Armenia (see this contemporary article written by a journalist for National Geographic in 1919 for more).

All of which brings us back to Oba. There certainly was a village or town by the name near Igdir back in 1919 but very little information exists on it. The second source only speaks about a film crew from al Jazeera going to record a documentary on the event. While this is a slightly improved source, it still poses new questions regarding neutrality, even more so since it is coming from a Turkish newspaper which always refer to the Armenian Genocide as an alleged event. Al Jazeera in the past has also picked up on this denial line and I think, in this case, its sole presence here would be very problematic. If this article is to be maintained, we need to find sources written by third-party sources or authors who have a more or less dispassionate interest in the matter. This necessarily means that we exclude sources from the Ottoman Empire and its successor the modern Turkish Republic, since they are ideologically bent to deny that no Armenians died from any state-devised policy and, if anything, the Armenians were responsible for their own destruction and culpable of crimes committed agains the native Muslim peoples. A light skim through the Armenian Genocide and Denial of the Armenian Genocide articles are, therefore, necessary for understanding the situation and evaluating what sources are acceptable and those which are not.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 19:04, 12 February 2011 (UTC)


 * You can find more information in Turkish here .Al Jazerra also displayed pro-genocide programs about Armenian Genocide in the past. Therefore it can be considered as third-party source.--Abbatai 20:51, 12 February 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abbatai (talk • contribs)


 * Yes, but given the sensitive subject matter and the Turkey's ideological arguments which negate and deny the Armenian Genocide, I think we are going to need something far more compelling. Contemporary sources would be nice, but the opinion of third-party or peer-reviewed scholars would be preferable.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 20:54, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes Turkey oficially denies Armenian Genocide but that does not mean all turkish sources about this are unreliable.--Abbatai 21:15, 12 February 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abbatai (talk • contribs)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 15 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete There are no reliable independent sources. The government of Turkey's official line on the genocide of 1.5 million Armenians is that it never happened (even though the Armenian genocide is formally recognised by many nations and many scholars all over the world). If this massacre of 97 Turks happened then it needs to be backed up by independent sources outside of Turkey and the Turkish media and ideally by historians, who are not sponsored by the government of Turkey, who are experts in what happened in Asia Minor between 1915 and 1923. And no, that is not too much to ask. At the very least it should be backed up by scholarly references that are independent of Turkey and its sphere of influence.  Nipson anomhmata   (Talk) 01:44, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per Nipsonamomhmata. - Fedayee (talk) 03:08, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per Nipsonamomhmata. walk victor falktalk 05:48, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete 2 of the "references" are .gov.tr, which are clearly non-neutral sources. "www.ermenisorunu.gen.tr" is a anti-Armenian site, which is not neutral. The mention of Al-jazeera is rather odd since a search of said site results in nothing(along with the fact that the related link is undated). The "www.hurriyet.com.tr/gundem", should we believe that Dr. Erol Kürkçüoğlu, is a neutral participant? Try googling his name and you will find he is a stauch denialist. Therefore, none of the "sources" presented are neutral. --Kansas Bear (talk) 05:49, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * KeepYour arguments are totally based on denial of Armenian Genocide. However according to many historians such as Taner Akcam and Guenter Lewy Muslim people were killed by Armenians in eastern Anatolia near Erzurum, Mus, Karz, Erzincan and Igdir. All Armenian or pro-Armenian users here just dramatize the topic with regard to Armenian genocide.--Abbatai 11:25, 15 February 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abbatai (talk • contribs)


 * Comment No, that is not the case. My argument is based on the fact that no Turkish source (nor any source within the sphere of influence of Turkey) is independent or can be reliable when Turkey officially continues to deny the Armenian genocide (when many countries and multiple scholars recognise the genocide) i.e. I note an important conflict of interest which makes it essential that sources must be unquestionably independent.  Nipson anomhmata   (Talk) 11:32, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Please read my previous post. We dont disscus Armenian genocide or its denial. Muslim population of anatolia also killed by Dashnaks it is a well known fact.--Abbatai 11:53, 15 February 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abbatai (talk • contribs)
 * (provisional) Delete - Since I cannot read Turkish, I am making some assumptions about some of the sources to reach my conclusion. If these assumptions are wrong, my opinion may need to change.  All articles need reliable sources.  A reliable source, among other things, is a source with a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy."  If, as users such as Kansas Bear above imply, all of the sources in this article are associated with Armenian Genocide denial, it is safe to say that they do NOT have a reputation for accuracy around these issues, and the sources cannot be used to support an article. I do not believe that this is true of any Turkish source at all, but it sounds like this is true of all the Turkish sources provided. Without reliable sources with such a reputation to base the article on, it has no place on Wikipedia. gnfnrf (talk) 17:20, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Is there significant discussion of this as an alleged instance of Turkish genocide during the period? If so, I think that there might be an argument for preserving some treatment of this topic in Wikipedia, albeit with proper acknowledgement of the controversy. This article might work, if it had links to and discussion of the status of the alleged event within the scholarly community, if it situated of allegations within the broader context of Turkey's denial policy and the controversial counter-claims of genocide. If, on the other hand, this alleged case is rarely alleged and/or presented by only one or several scholars, then I'll say Delete. Similarly, if it proves impossible to properly situate the article's claims within the context as I describe above, I'm against keeping the article. If, however, this is a recurring claim with significant and ongoing treatment in scholarly and popular media, even if only in Turkish media, that itself is sufficient for notability and I'd say Keep. Notability doesn't require that the contents of the article are dictated by the point of view of the notable treatment; the contents are dictated by reliable sources. Avram (talk) 16:14, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment There are no known significant massacres of Turks during this period. At least none that can be described as "genocide". However, it is well documented, by genocide scholars, that Turkey has committed a number of genocides against its non-muslim population which Turkey denies ever happened and has never apologised for despite extensive international recognition.  Nipson anomhmata   (Talk) 16:23, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm familiar with the topic. My point is that even controversial or non-factual claims can themselves be notable, particularly if they play a significant role in the controversy. My question is whether the Oba event plays a major role in Turkish historiography of the period-- it needn't be wholly factual or non-contested to have a place in Wikipedia, if it plays a sufficiently large role in the controversy. And by no means does this mean that this article need not recognize the controversial nature of the claims, nor indeed the motivation for certain scholars to speak of this event (assuming, of course, that this nuanced and careful treatment can be supported by appropriate reliable sources). The existence of an article such as this should not be interpreted as a denial of the Armenian genocide, per se. Avram (talk) 20:35, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * What you are saying is reasonable. If this event can be supported by appropriate reliable sources (outside the sphere of influence of Turkey) then it deserves to be kept. The event is not interpreted as a denial of the Armenian Genocide, Greek Genocide, Assyrian Genocide, or the Turkish invasion of Cyprus and subsequent ethnic and cultural cleansing even though all of these recognised and well-referenced events are denied by the Republic of Turkey. The only reason these events are mentioned is to put this article in to context.  Nipson anomhmata   (Talk) 21:08, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 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.