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. The most compelling guideline and policy-based arguments are the neutral point of view policy, the content forking guideline (apparently mislinked by several editors in the discussion as WP:FORK, which is actually about forking Wikipedia), and undue weight. slakr^\ talk / 03:11, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1915 insurgency in the Ottoman Empire[edit]

1915 insurgency in the Ottoman Empire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is overall a copy of info from Armenian Genocide, Armenian resistance during the Armenian Genocide, Armenian national liberation movement, Middle Eastern theatre of World War I, Caucasus Campaign, probably more, etc.. The article doesn't add anything except try to portray the Armenian Genocide as a rebellion, a common narrative in Armenian Genocide denial. The article title isn't even correct because the genocide took place from 1915 to 1923.

This article is POV is because it portrays the genocide as some kind of counter-insurgency. There was no insurgency, this what Ottoman propaganda to cover up and justify the genocide, strongly explained in the articles Armenian Genocide and Armenian Genocide denial. This article expands no nothing from the 5 above mentioned articles except adding lot of WP:UNDUE content that isn't allowed on Wikipedia, primarily cited from Armenian Genocide denier Edward J. Erickson. So because the only addition is POV and UNDUE content, any kind of merger would go against Wikipedia guidelines and the only solution is to delete this article.

Delete - As nominator. --Steverci (talk) 15:10, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This article is not a copy from any of the cited articles. The Middle Eastern theatre of World War I and Caucasus Campaign are military articles which are limited with the conflict zone. Insurgency in the Ottoman Empire is explaining the conflicts in the Ottoman controlled lands behind the Russian and Ottoman Armies. Armenian national liberation movement (1860-1922), and Armenian resistance during the Armenian Genocide is from 1915 to 1923. These are wider isses, both in years and content (as not limited with insurgency). Article has a limited scope. "1915 insurgency in the Ottoman Empire" explains a missing events related to unconventional warfare of Ottomans and Ottoman counter-insurgency warfare within specific dates. This content is academic. The article is well sourced. The content is clearly defined. Removing this content would create a gap in the history which is not explained in any other cited Wikipedia sources. --SelimAnkara1993 (talk) 15:27, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a WP:FORK - there was no insurgency in 1915; the WWI was started in 1914 by Germany and followed by the Ottoman Empire on November the 4th, around the Black Sea, against the Russian Empire. The conflict is commonly referred to as the Caucasus Campaign. As it can be seen, it is a word for word copy of a book by E.J. Erickson. Any areas which are not covered in the main article should be covered. --92slim (talk) 18:21, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete POV WP:FORK. This article presents a denialist point of view as fact. This can be easily merged with the Denial of the Armenian Genocide article. Étienne Dolet (talk) 18:29, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:This article is well written and it is quite well sourced (English books) The nominator claims that it is copied from some other articles. I compared them. The articles although related are not copies of each other. The nominator also claims that it portrays the Armenian Genocide as a rebellion. But since it is documented there is no room for portraying anything and it is not a personal interpretation. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 19:48, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article is not well sourced, 56 of the 83 references come from Armenian Genocide deniers Erickson and Michael A. Reynolds.[1][2] The remaining are of unproven credibility. If you look again, I said the events are covered in other articles; the only difference here is UNDUE content that violates the guidelines. --Steverci (talk) 20:00, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Both of these authors are well respected and well published authors. You libel these authors. Your libel is not a position in Wikipedia. Rule state "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective.". They are required to be published. [Reynolds publications, over 200 refereed articles] The | "Shattering Empires: The Clash and Collapse of the Ottoman and Russian Empires 1908–1918]" is cited 59 times. [Erickson publications, over 200 refereed articles] the | Ottomans and Armenians: A Study in Counterinsurgency (published 1913) cited 17 times in the last year and reviewed 4 times in a refereed journals These numbers not the opinion pages per your link. SelimAnkara1993 (talk) 21:00, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

However if the claims made in a published source are so outlandishly different from the consensus of scholarly opinion found in other published sources then that source and its claims can be considered to be fringe material. We can't have an article made entirely out of fringe material because it gives undue weight to opinions expressed by almost nobody. BTW, I don't know if it is due to your rewriting of material in the Erickson source, or it is the "source" itself - but there are many blatant lies expressed in this article that have Erickson as the given source. Such content actually goes far beyond the "cherry-picked incidents and weasel-words" I gave as my reason to delete. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:25, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - it seems there was an insurgency; see this book The Criminal Law of Genocide: International, Comparative and Contextual Aspects; edited by Dr Paul Behrens, Professor Ralph Henham. I don't think these guys are also genocide deniers. In briefly looking at Erickson I don't know why he is labeled a genocide denier, as he seems quite well respected. I have not really researched this though; if the same info is already in other articles, I don't see know it's needed. —Мандичка^YO 😜 21:13, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - User:Wikimandia The only event I see called an insurgency was the Defense of Van (1915), in which case this article is a complete FORK, with UNDUE content. This article tries to include some kind of Sasun and Sivas insurgency as well, yet Sasun is only mentioned once in the template and the only mentions of Sivas are 'reports' of Armenian weapons in the regions.

Interestingly, this is on the Van article:

Historian Erickson concluded that "before the war began, indicators of potentially violent intent accumulated, as the authorities found bombs and weapons hidden in Armenian homes". On the other hand, Nogales witnessed Ottoman army units photographing their own weapons, claiming they had been found in Armenian houses and churches.

So no, he is not quite respectable at all. He labels the Armenian Genocide in quotes. The Defense of Van page provides plenty of sources that plans to slaughter Armenian civilians were made well in advance and were the first actions taken. Erickson tries to paint the Armenian Genocide as a rebellion, thus his work is UNDUE. Take a look at the editorial and customer Amazon reviews, the only people who respect him are Armenian Genocide deniers.

Take a look at this, from the Armenian Genocide denial article:

Turkish sources state: "the measures adopted regarding the Armenians in Eastern Anatolia were merely a replacement in another region within the Empire for security reasons".

Now look at Erickson's book:

The Armenian insurrection was a genuine security imperative requiring an immediate solution, and it was an existential threat to the survival of the empire’s armies.[3] --Steverci (talk) 22:49, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I scrolled through his first few Amazon reviews and they didn't seem whacko (although Amazon reviews mean nothing, since they can be faked pro or against an author). Erickson is published by a very respectable publisher, Palgrave MacMillan, which writes that he is "widely recognized as one of the foremost experts on the Ottoman Army during the First World War." Are they lying? If he's a complete loon denialist who ignores all evidence in order to push an agenda, why is he a professor at Quantico? Putting "Armenian genocide" in quotes doesn't mean much to me when he goes on in the next page to write that the book would not attempt to label it as a genocide or not a genocide. That does not make him a denier in any way. It seems to me the disagreement is over whether or not it was technically a genocide, and I'm thinking that is the point he is making; IMO you can disagree about how to define the massacre so long as you don't attempt to deny it ever took place, because there is plenty of evidence and proof it did, which Erickson clearly supports as far as I can tell.

He goes on to write that it is an enormously charged argument (as evidenced here). I'm not quite sure why it is controversial to say there was an "insurgency" by the Armenians or that they had weapons... I would certainly hope they had partisan fighters attacking/defending themselves from the Ottomans (invaders) in attempts to kick them out!! Insurgency in some cases is justified. I don't see that the quote by Erickson supports the Turkish denial claims; these are two separate things: "The Armenian insurrection was a genuine security imperative requiring an immediate solution, and it was an existential threat to the survival of the empire’s armies" - This is a neutral statement. Of course the Turks saw it this way. They didn't massacre the Armenians because they were bored or because they wanted "racial purity" like the Nazis; they did it because they were posing a very real, very imminent threat to their crumbling empire. He's not saying what they did was right, he just saying why they did it.

Anyway, to sum up, it's troubling that Erickson is being called a denialist, but I agree this appears to be a fork of the Defense of Van (1915) article, so please count my vote as Delete/redirect. It is sufficient to describe the Ottoman's retaliation/counterinsurgency in that article. —Мандичка^YO 😜 00:14, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think anyone (Talat Bey included), anytime (beginning 1915) denied the massacres. The conflict on Erikson is not that he is so called denier. He objectively produced around 100+ pages in detail of day to day activities on what happened in 1915 behind the lines. His summary is so good organized conceptually that produces a challenge. He states in the VOA Armenian presentation "My Iraq deployment gave me unique chance to understand inner workings of this type of warfare." This is history. It is here for us to learn. If Ericson's book was published in 2003 and was part of our experience, would the military planners in Iraq wait three years to develop their counter-insurgency plan? The insurgency creates a responsibility on people who wage insurgency. If you put people's life and well being beyond everything else (revolution (Armenian Revolutionary Party), nation or religion) there is a responsibility. The hars reaction against Erikson in these pages proves it. According to my girlfriend's criticism (new-follower); Insurgency brings sharing of the responsibility. What a "shame-full act" to share. There is no insurgency-there is no responsibility. Erikson's addition to military history is that he united the accounts spread in different sources-inquiries in to a single coherent meaningful line of thought. His arguments are backed by multiple sources, rather than separate concepts and events patched together. I just got shameful-act. I will compare these. If not deleted, I will share with other Wikipedia on this page. This story of "1915 insurgency" is academic. It is at least as meaningful as the wedding dress of Diana. It is not a POV to be deleted. By the way the insurgents in Van is around 1000-1500 from Terminissians account. Musa Dag was 1800-2500 (from the Musa Dag account) and Musa Dag preparations began 1914 August along the Bogus Nubar and scrapped Alexandria Lending. In Sivas, Murad had 800-1200 insurgents. Sasun is another article like Van. Total # of insurgency cells is more than all the fighters in Iraq-Syria in 2014. What a bad story is Iraq-Syria. My point is. In Van the Armenian national movement achieved, so we can keep that article. Ottoman's defeated them in the rest. There is no Article telling what happened in the rest of the country. That is what is in the deletion now. SelimAnkara1993 (talk) 12:50, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"My Iraq deployment" - ahh, now I get it. I was wondering about Erikson's agenda. From a perversion of truth comes more perversions. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:31, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Revision | edits: I would like to thank for every feedback. I corrected the issues in the article as much as possible. This is my summary. Hope it will help you making your final decisions.
First position was WP:UNDUE. The facts in the article by Erickson and Reynolds compared to opposing positions presented by "Akcam, Taner (2007). A Shameful Act: The Armenian Genocide and the Question of Turkish Responsibility." The "information" presented on Erickson and Reynolds were not fringe facts. These cases were also presented by Akcam. Regarding the conclusions of Erickson and Reynolds. That is their conclusion looking at the same events from their own expertise. I do not know how to defend against "genocide denier," which makes analysis irrelevant. I do not believe wikipedia should label people without judicial decision. Another position was on the insurrection. The term 'self defense' is argued. I sympathize with the idea. I looked for specific cases in Akcam that fall into this category and added to the article. You will notice that Erikson already presented them. I also carried Erikson's conclusions regarding ottoman army and civilian life. I also carried Erikson's conclusion on deportee attacks. These are major positions that Erikson clearly points to the guilty party. The concept of 'insurrection' is an active term 1,042 different articles and books used this term in analyzing this concept. It is true the document structure is from Erikson, but even before this nomination, I was using two major sources. The third one is aded. Three WP:FORK ideas presented. (1) Caucasus Campaign (2) Defense of Van (1915). I created a summary section. Summary The table clearly shows conflict regions were beyond these articles. The summary also includes why this is a separate article. In the summer of 1915 %7 combatant activities performed in under the "general counterinsurgency campaign." In 7 campaign middle eastern theater %7 is a major activity. It should have it's page. There is much more information between May-September in Erikson, but article is already had more than 70K (copy edited on 32 pages). If we moved this under (1) and (2) other editors, right fully, delete them. (1) and (2) have clear cut zones that these conflicts are not included. The third WP:FORK idea was to move under Armenian Genocide denial. This idea seems to be what wikipedia is doing on this issue. It looks like Armenian genocide article carried all the “opposing” ideas to denial article. I do not think this article is a "denial article." Crimes are not hidden. Massacres are not falsified. It was argued that military defense justifies things, but there is a limit to military defense idea. It is not a shield for everything. This article does a great job explaining one critical dimension of this period. I do not want this article “to be deleted.” The “major” information in this article is not expressed in any other article as argued. The information is factual, structure of the article fits to publicly available publications and everyone can read and compare the presented information from the publications. Thank you. SelimAnkara1993 (talk) 21:49, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Completely one-sided representation of the events. The use of the term "insurgency" is only promoted by the Turkish government and denialist pseudo-scholars.--Երևանցի ^talk 19:59, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The article is a pov fork crafted out of cherry-picked incidents and weasely-worded non-mainstream claims. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:08, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: If the article lacks sources than we can delete it. But we are not in the position to classify the sources as being bad or good depending on our POV . That's highly unencyclopedic. The sources are OK and the "one-sided representation of the events" accusation is rootless. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 19:30, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We are in a position to classify an opinion in a source as marginal, in this case very marginal. The bulk of the article is derived from claims made in a single source, the terminology used in the article title is derived from just two sources. No other sources use "1915 insurgency in the Ottoman Empire" terminology to describe a theatre of war in WW1, and the author of the main source used, Erickson, has been described as an Armenian Genocide denier in several sources. Wikipedia articles do not exist to act as a platform for extreme marginal views that run contrary to what is widely accepted by academics. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:42, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(a) "insurgency" and "Ottoman Empire" and "1915" search in google published sources gives plenty of literature. (b) Tiptoethrutheminefield also not right on his point that the so-called genocide-denier literature is using the "Insurgency" as their term. The correct term is REBELLION. He should try "WW1" and "ARMENIAN" and "REBELLION," "Rebellion" would give what him that part of the literature. Erikson clearly points out that he does not believe in "REBELLION," except the "Van Rebellion." This article presents his postion on rebellion. (c) This article do not include a single sentence that reject any massacres, any crimes, any deportation, etc. The depiction of this article as a genocide-denier is not true. I have not seen any sentence pointed out to me that denies the genocide in this article. (d) The facts in the article also collaborated with Akcam (I guess his credibility is not also on the line) in this area (Akcam uses "gangs" for "Armenian volunteers"; Akcam uses "uprising" for what Erikson uses "Insurgency"). I already carried many of Akcam's positions on this specific period and context. Article has not two (as claimed), but three major scientific sources and couple supporting sources. The # sources can be increased to reach a better quality. There are many articles in Wikipedia that uses single source, but we keep them for other editors to improve. SelimAnkara1993 (talk) 22:49, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is you who are in error. A google search for the specific term "1915 insurgency in the Ottoman Empire" gets 101 hits, and ALL of them are Wikipedia related or Wikipedia clones. "insurgency in the Ottoman Empire" 1915 gets even less, strangely, but again they are all Wikipedia or clones. Google Scholar finds nothing. If you are seriously claiming this as part of the Middle Eastern theatre of World War I (the article has an infobox claiming it as such) then it must be referred to using those words in multiple sources if it is to be considered genuine. It clearly is not a genuine campaign given the lack of sources, but is simply one obscure author's extremist fringe opinion (he himself terms it a "thesis") and so is not deserving of an article. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 23:32, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Tiptoethrutheminefield. The term is published as a book. [4] The term is also "refereed" in a journal. [5]. This article in 'name' quoted "Cited by 15." That is only a year of the original article's existence. Were there other people used the term in their articles and publications? That is also true. insurgency 1915 ottoman. 1040 times. Was this analyzed by important journals and important scholars That is also true, such as VN Dadrian and Journal of Genocide Research were among that list (1040 publications, not web pages). Thank you for your interest. --SelimAnkara1993 (talk) 00:21, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. The term is used in a single book, nowhere else, so it is a term coined by an obscure author holding extreme fringe opinions that do no agree with established academic viewpoints. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 02:16, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Tiptoethrutheminefield. (Please scroll through the 1040 publications insurgency 1915 ottoman at the third and fourth page you will begin to see VN Dadrian and Journal of Genocide Research using the terminology. These are not obscure publications or their remarks on the subject can be called "extreme fringe opinions." The terminology is widely used in the academia. By the way if you help me to locate the rule which demands "be referred to using exactly those words." If an article uses "WWI" rather than 1915, does that make it a different era? Or instead of Ottoman Empire, Empire of Ottomans, or Devleti Aliye. My point is that article in itself clearly proves (including Akcam references) the activities fit to the definition of insurgency. "An insurgency is a armed opposition against a constituted authority." There is also enough reference in the article to the presented facts that this insurgency had an external dimension as Armenians born in Russia, fought along other "Armenian militia" against the Empire. Article also included external financial, and military support to this insurgency. There is a [:Category:Armenian revolutionaries] (revolutionary leaders who were in armed conflict since 1880s) which majority of these people (if not dead by the time) were leaders at this period. The facts presented in the article are collaborated from different sources. You are not challenging them. Your semantic argumentation proves that the material is significant, and adds to the value of the article. I respect your position. You can add your position with an appropriate reference. That is how wikipedia works. Collaboration. Hope you can change your deletion request. Thanks for your remarks.--SelimAnkara1993 (talk) 02:54, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per SelimAnkara1993. From what I can see, Edward J. Erickson's book received good reviews from scholars and it's very hard to see how we can call him fringe. According to the Middle East Journal, Erickson's book is "an illuminating study... based on Turkish documents and articles often ignored or simply unavailable in this hoary debate..." According to the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs, Erickson's book "is an ambitious and highly readable study. Acclaimed by senior scholars in the field, and deservedly so, it is well written, immensely learned, convincing in argument, and innovative in approach." Though some Wikipedia users are dismissing him as a "denier", most scholars don't seem to be nearly so dismissive. At any rate, Erickson certainly doesn't deny the atrocities perpetrated by the Ottoman government over the course its counterinsurgency campaign. The information from this Wikipedia article and the sources it cites make it clear to me that SelimAnkara1993 is quite right to call the counterinsurgency operation of 1915 distinct from the Caucasus Campaign and other contemporaneous military operations.CurtisNaito (talk) 05:57, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. He denied the Armenian Genocide here and was accused of denial by other scholars here. He is the only scholar who calls the Caucasus Campaign of the WWI a "counter-insurgency campaign". --92slim (talk) 13:36, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If it is not fringe, then why do no other suitable sources use the phrase "insurgency in the Ottoman Empire"? They don't because there was no such historical event. Erikson is an Armenian Genocide denier (there are sources that explicitly state this: for example "Erickson categorically dismissed the claims of genocide perpetrated against the Armenians" [6]) and his non-existent "insurgency" is taken straight from the Turkish state's denialist rhetoric ("The Armenian Genocide: A New Brand of Denial by the Turkish General Staff - by Proxy" [7]). Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:05, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, it is both deceptive, and I think rather disgusting, that Taner Akcam is being used in citations as if to support the claims made in this article. Let's be explicit about what Akcam has actually written about this so-called "insurgency". He examines these Turkish allegations on p196-204 of his 2006 book "A shameful Act". He writes that some supposed attacks attributed to Armenians were actually carried out by Kurdish Hamidiye units and later blamed on Armenians in order to provoke reprisal attacks by Muslims. He states that events such as "Armenian uprisings" and "weapon seizures" cited in Turkish sources to justify the deportations "were simply fabrications". He explains that Talat Pasha had issued an order for the deportation of all Armenians from Erzurum on the grounds that "an uprising was in the works", but that Talat Pasha already knew that this was a fiction since the governor of Erzurum had, 4 days before the deportation order was issued, cabled him, saying that no bombs or weapons had been found and an uprising was, in the governor's words, "improbable". Akcam records that during the Yozgat trial, claims of Armenian uprisings were repeated many times by the defendants, but evidence was produced discounting them all. For example, The Lieutenant Governor of Yozgat, when investigating one such "uprising" found out that it consisted of just a few Armenian deserters hiding out in their houses. Another claimed uprising was shown to be false when a telegram sent at the time to the 5th Army HQ in Ankara was produced that stated "there is no evidence of a rebellion in the district of Bogazliyan". Akcam goes on to state "The same is true for all the Armenian 'uprisings' in Anatolia cited in Turkish sources to defend the deportations". He also discounts the Turkish propaganda (repeated verbatim by Erickson) that the deportations were done from military necessity, writing "the critical point is that people were not just deported from military sensitive areas but from the entire empire. This nullifies the argument of military necessity". He then goes on to explain that although this Armenian insurgency and evacuation for a war zone narrative is provably false, "most Turkish work on the subject sticks to the official story", reproducing a paragraph of Uras's 1960s book "Armenian History" as an example of it. Reproducing a paragraph or two of Erickson's book, if it had been around at the time, could also have served as an example of it. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:29, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, per Nedim Erdoga. Justttt (talk) 19:22, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please justify your opinion or it is a pointless opinion. Do you think it is "well written" per Nedim Erdoga? Why? Do you think it is "quite well sourced" per Nedim Erdoga? If so, how do you counter that many other editors have said that it is not well sourced at all - and that, in fact, it is based on a single source and one that, moreover, expresses an opinion that is entirely contrary to all other sources dealing with this this period. Please give me some examples of these sources that you are claiming make the article "well sourced"? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:19, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Justttt has yet to reply, but I'll make a start at going through the "sources" anyway. The article purports to represent an actual campaign that took place during WW1. It has a military conflict infobox that states it was part of the Middle Eastern theatre of WW1, with even a start and end date and "commanders and leaders". Yet there is but a single source in the article for all of this - Edward J. Erickson's 2013 "Ottomans and Armenians: A Study in Counterinsurgency". To contrast this, we have multiple sources that state without equivocation that this whole idea of an Armenian "insurgency" requiring (and excusing) a Turkish "counterinsurgency" response (that, rather than genocide, was a justifiable military action that got a little bit out of hand here and there due to wartime conditions) is simply false Turkish propaganda. Some of that propaganda was produced during WW1, most of it was produced post-WW1, the aim of all of it is to deny the Armenian Genocide. Everything in the article is just standard Armenian-genocide denialist material [8]. So this article is nothing more than a pov fork of Denial of the Armenian Genocide. The article tries to imply that there are other sources that support the "insurgency" claim by citing lots of sources throughout the article (this is a methodology widespread amongst Turkish denialist works) - but a closer look at these sources shows that they are either invalid, misused, misquoted, quoted out of context, or say the exact opposite (like Akcam who, in the quote I reproduced earlier, has written that there were no Armenian "insurgencies" ANYWHERE. For invalid sources, I'll start with the Nicholas A. Warndorf one. This is actually a 2013 student thesis submitted in part for a degree of Master of Arts from the University of Louisville. Guess who its author's thesis advisor was - Justin McCarthy, a recognised and notorious Armenian Genocide denier. It is an unacceptable source for Wikipedia anyway because Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, states "Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence". I'll go through the rest of the "sources" at a later time. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 02:21, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - This article is based on fringe scholarship and should be deleted; the author is completely one-sided. --Vitilsky (talk) 18:22, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment- May I kindly ask with which authority a source is classified as "fringe" ? Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 18:32, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is not the source we consider to be fringe - it is the opinions expressed in that source. Fringe opinions go against mainstream established scholarly opinions and are opposed by mainstream established scholarly opinions and so should not be presented as if they are accepted and proven opinions. We have an article on the Armenian Genocide, we have an article on Armenian Genocide Denial - this article is a pov fork of the latter. It is a fork because its subject is covered by Armenian Genocide Denial, it is a pov fork because the subject is being incorrectly presented as if it were accepted as correct by mainstream established scholarly opinions. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 01:59, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Pure denialist propaganda. Might as well give an article to the Flat Earth Society. The great problem here is that the article has a strong POV, a POV taught for generations in Turkish schools, i.e., that the Armenians were a rebel insurgency and deserved extermination (which, according to this view, they exaggerate). This is not to deny that there had been some hopes or Armenian independence, or that a tiny number of Armenians were in contact with Russian forces. But the insurgency exists largely in the Turkish imagination, in 1915 and ever since. A comparable article might be written about the Jewish partisans who hid in Polish forests and actually managed to score once or twice against the Nazis. But back to the article at hand. it cites some excellent sources, such as Taner Akçam but it truncates, misquotes, or misstates his work to make it seem that Akçam supports a narrative of Armenian insurgency. No reputable historian outside of Turkey does. Actually , no reputable historian inside Turkey supports such a narrative either. Turkey has some very, very fine historians. They keep their mouths shut or write about other topics. E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:20, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you can't be objective, maybe you should also learn to keep your mouth shut. One of the "finest" Turkish historians, İlber Ortaylı (strangely no-one yet dared accusing him of being a "denialist") wrote very well about how the armed rebellion came before the "tehcir"; try to learn Turkish -if you already don't know- to understand the Turkish affairs. Take care. --176.239.82.139 (talk) 21:52, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He's clearly a denialist based on the content of your link - probably not the "finest" one though, it's just standard Turkish fare. But anyone who can seriously write "discrimination did not exist in Ottoman-Turkish culture" might be either the "finest" cretin or the "finest" self-delusionist. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 02:13, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Source Addition | edits: I would like to inform that these edits are from | The Russian Origins of the First World War published by Harvard and the author is Sean McMeekin. Sean McMeekin has | 817 publications. In this book, Sean McMeekin used Russian archives [not ottoman archives] for this period. Russian intelligence told the same story. Erikson, Reynolds and Sean produced detailed accounts of this period. The events which they base their analysis is also reported by Taner Akçam. If there is a discrepancy from Akcam's reporting, anyone is free too contribute. If "[Erickson], [Reynolds] and Sean" had false claims, where to reflect on these issues but this article. SelimAnkara1993 (talk) 21:46, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sean McMeekin - Yet another neocon fascist, searching through history's past evils and rewriting those inconvenient evils out of history in order to deny, minimise, disguise, or justify his country's present-day evil actions. If anyone knows of more of these, please let me know. I hadn't realised how widespread these sort of works had become. They justify my longstanding contempt for those Armenians who are constantly going on about 100 year old crimes committed by Turkey while remaining deliberately silent about the ongoing ones committed by America. The main purpose in us recognising and fully understanding past crimes is to help us recognize, oppose, and prevent similar crimes being repeated in the present. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 02:36, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an excellent dissection of McMeekin's propaganda work that condemns every aspect of it [[9]], it also covers McMeekin's role as an Armenian Genocide denialist: "McMeekin’s bias on this issue is breathtaking". Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 02:48, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Tiptoethrutheminefield. Do you have any source (as you sufficiently informed us about your POV) which disproves the report (the copy of the archival document presented in the book) by Sean McMeekin [10]. Russian military plan to run Armenian sabotage operations through the Russian subsidized insurgency cells. Another point, the activities of these cells were also reported by Ottomans (Erikson). I'm trying to say, you have to prtesent a source that "disprove" not only the Russian archives but also the Ottoman archives on this ""specific case"". SelimAnkara1993 (talk) 14:36, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The book review I cited dismisses such claims comprehensively - it says there is no evidence of such things actually happening: "...identifying this aspiration is a long way from proving either that the Russians actively fostered uprisings before the war or that the Armenians took part in them". It is all just the standard Turkish genocide denialist propaganda that has been around since 1915: "McMeekin seems to think it necessary to take the official Turkish line on the Armenian genocide". Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:06, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The review, an opinion page, did not present any "fact" beyond personal dismissal in dis-proving the Russian military plan to support operations or nearly (~15,000 east ~25,000 south) 40-50,000 insurgents behind the ""Russian-Ottoman war zone"". Also your quote did not produce any facts that I can go and check. You should know, I would be pleased to add such a fact into this article. I guess that is the crack of the problem. If all these sources (a year long events, agreements, arrangements and finally conflicts quoted from multiple sources) were false, you would be introducing these facts (with the sources) and explaining why Erikson, Reynolds and Sean's cited facts are a sham. SelimAnkara1993 (talk) 13:08, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The book review is clear in its condemnation of McMeekin's methodology and aims - it even suggests that McMeekin should not be considered as an historian at all, because his methods are so flawed. It states that McMeekin's book presents no evidence that there were any actual "operations" or "insurgents" - and in this the review's author is in 100% agreement with EVERY source that holds that the Armenian Genocide happened. ONLY sources that seek to deny the existence of the Armenians Genocide propagate this "insurgency" myth. This is why this article is nothing more than a pov fork of Denial of the Armenian Genocide. I am not interested in adding facts to an article grounded on a lie - it is a standard methodology in Turkish-produced or Turkish sponsored Armenian Genocide denialist material to sprinkle accepted facts and acceptable sources amongst the bigger lie in an attempt to disguise the fraud from casual readers. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:28, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If your sources could not present "facts" to prove a documented history (Sean) is false, how will we know Sean is false? Or how we know your "informed" vote (based on factual history) to delete this article has a merit. Sean explained one "dimension" of very complex period based on facts. It is published by Harvard University Press. You are also tarnishing Harvard University Press. My last word to you; No one denies that (a) there was a war, (b) there was an insurgency [Armenian independent state/Armenian autonomous something/uprising/rebelling/plain cooperation with Russia/... (summed to armed opposition to Ottoman Military)], (c) there was massacres, (d) there was war crimes, and (e) Most of the historians agree that there was a genocide. You do not have to delete (b) to prove (e). It is evident that you feel that you need to delete (b) to prove (e). But (b) is history. It does not go away, even if this article is deleted. Thanks for your interest. SelimAnkara1993 (talk) 21:11, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are being deceptive. There are no credible sources that state there was an Armenian "insurgency" (or any of your other somethings). The insurgency claim is derived IN ITS ENTIRITY from Turkish denial of the Armenian Genocide. The Armenian Genocide is an accepted fact amongst most historians - so any source alleging an "insurgeny" is by definition an Armenian genocide denialist source and is thus an extreme fringe opinion. I will repeat what I said in bold earlier because it is the irrefutable argument for why this article is a pov fork of Armenian Genocide Denial: only sources that seek to deny the existence of the Armenians Genocide propagate this "insurgency" myth. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:22, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article is a fork that covers the events of several other pages, yet is a misrepresentation of history by so-called historians, as well as distortion and nick picking from others. It's not a matter of who edits what kinds of issues, it's a matter of being a flat out violation of several guidelines. --Hyrudagon (talk) 15:29, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A time consuming discussion. I am sure that the proposers are well aware of the Wikipedia:Deletion policy. There are 14 reasons none of which apply to this case. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 13:39, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It could be deleted for reason 3 (patent nonsense intended to disparage a real subject, the Armenian Genocide), or 5 (is a pov fork of Denial of the Armenian Genocide and Defense of Van), or 6 (is a hoax event which all credible sources have dismissed), or 7 (no reliable sources - the sources found are merely repeating the standard Turkish State's genocide denial line), or 13 (misuse of a conflict infobox since this supposed "insurgency" campaign is not mentioned in any military history of WW1), or 14 (an encyclopedia should not have articles in which lies and propaganda propagated by a fringe of extremist sources are presented as if they were accepted and uncontested truth). Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:53, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Utter nonsense, per WP:FRINGE and other policies. Turkish propaganda circulated to counter the 100th anniversary of the Armenian Genocide. Snap. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 13:05, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Armenian Genocide. Even if the material is "fringe", which I am not fully convinced it is, it represents a detailed depiction of the Genocide from a modern historian who does not seem to have a political agenda. Dimadick (talk) 10:00, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quotes from [11]: "McMeekin seems to think it necessary to take the official Turkish line on the Armenian genocide"; "McMeekin’s bias on this issue is breathtaking"; "he is far too prone to see conspiracies and plots everywhere, especially where there were none"; "He writes not like a historian but like a prosecutor in a criminal court". Is this what you think a modern historian who does not seem to have a political agenda does? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 14:56, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment After all that has been cited for this article being built on the sources of pseudo historians that have known Turkish affiliations and openly deny the Armenian Genocide, I do not see how anyone can come to the conclusion they don't have a political agenda. Please elaborate. --Steverci (talk) 16:47, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

These quotes are about McMeekin alone and he is far from the only source on the article. Dimadick (talk) 04:50, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Far from the only source? What do you mean? The article has only two sources: McMeekin and Erickson. All the other sources used are being misrepresented. For example, there are numerous references to Akcam, Taner (2007). A Shameful Act: The Armenian Genocide and the Question of Turkish Responsibility. How can this book be used to justify an article titled "1915 insurgency in the Ottoman Empire" when the content of this book clearly states that there were no insurgencies anywhere, and all claims that there were are "simply fabrications" produced to deny the genocide? This must mean one of two things - either the editors who have written this article have knowingly engaged in OR and Synthesis, or the persons actually citing Akcam are either McMeekin or Erickson, in which case all the Akcam citations should actually be McMeekin or Erickson citations. Same for the rest of the supposed "sources" - how many of these sources accept this "1915 Armenian insurgency" claim? If they do not accept it, then their content is being misused in this article. I chose quotes about McMeekin because Erickson seems even less of an historian than McMeekin. Nobody notable has bothered reviewing his book. Richard Hovannisian defines him as an Armenian Genocide denier here [12] and Dadrian in a Journal of Political and Military Sociology review of an earlier Erickson work [13] criticized his methodological bias, and his inability to read original Ottoman documents and having to rely on translators from the Turkish military to do it and to select the documents. He also mentions Erickson ignoring the many sources that have written about the often inaccurate and ambiguous nature of those original Turkish documents. Erickson responds [14], in an letter that is understandably not published by the journal, in a bizarre and rambling way, alleging libel for Dadrian making the "assumption" that he, Erickson, cannot read Ottoman Turkish, while never actually expelling that "assumption" by stating that he CAN read Ottoman Turkish. Steverci, I believe the political agenda of the authors is not really that of Turkey, it is that of a section of America - the aim of these books is to make American crimes seem acceptable behavior, both recent ones (such as in Iraq) and historical ones (such as in the Philippines), by making even greater historical ones by Turkey seem acceptable behavior. Erickson's connection with the US military establishment is clear, and he was part of the US invasion of Iraq. McMeekin's agenda is to produce rabid anti-Russia propaganda. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 12:46, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No Merge There can only be a merge if this would be an acceptable alternate title, which it is not. Would you describe the Holocaust as "1939 Jew uprising in Nazi Germany"? --Steverci (talk) 02:46, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The Jews were unarmed. The Armenians were armed up to their teeth. No, we wouldn't describe the two tragedies with a same name. --176.239.5.199 (talk) 04:47, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply see Jewish resistance under Nazi rule --Steverci (talk) 19:42, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the misused / misrepresented referenced content that is not by McMeekin and Erickson might be suitable for inclusion into the AG article - but that does not equate to a merge, and I suspect that much of it might be there already in some form or another. And it could only be added by someone who has access to the actual sources so that we know what is really being said and in what context it is being said. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 12:52, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is not "be fringe (Revision as of 16:25, 12 May 2015 )" if it is as you say "I suspect that much of it might be there already in some form or another. (Revision as of 12:53, 26 May 2015)" I appreciate your (Tiptoethrutheminefield) change of position regarding the Armenian insurgency. SelimAnkara1993 (talk) 13:52, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is not what I said, and you know it. McMeekin and Erickson are fringe-viewpoint Armenian Genocide deniers and the article is a fraud, full of fake references. As the article's creator, you can answer my question about where this faking of the sources came from. By faking, I mean the misrepresentation of sources to make them appear to support the article's position when, in reality, those sources are either silent on that position (because the source is about a different subject) or (like the Akcam source) entirely oppose that position. Are all the non McMeekin and Erickson "sources" actually derived from the McMeekin and Erickson's books? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:19, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is obvious that your are passionate on this subject. Only way to persuade a passionate person like yourself is read them. You can buy (even rent for as much as a McDonald's meal) very cheap. | The Russian Origins of the First World War and | Ottomans and Armenians: A Study in Counterinsurgency. Sean and Erikson!, you should also add Reynolds to your list. There is plenty references from Reynolds in this article. When you buy or rent Shattering Empires look into the section "Square pegs into round holds." You will find another another historian to be passionate about. | Shattering Empires]. You will notice that these books are all complimentary to each other. SelimAnkara1993 (talk) 17:06, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is obvious that your are avoiding answering my question! How can a source like Akcam's "A Shameful Act" be used to support an article titled "1915 insurgency in the Ottoman Empire" when that source states explicitly [15] that these claims of Armenian insurrections were, quote from page 199, "simply fabrications" produced to excuse or deny the Armenian genocide? Is this source being used in the article because it is actually McMeekin or Erickson who have been deceptively using Akcam as a source to support their pov? If it is this, then all the Akcam citations should be changed to McMeekin or Erickson citations because it is their pov interpretations of the Akcam source. Or is it because you have been engaging in OR and have been misusing sources and cherry-picking quotes to suit your OR POV? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:15, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Response I'm not oviding per your claim. Answers to your questions are already in the article. You should read the 1915 insurgency in the Ottoman Empire. I don't think this is Good Faith. It is obvious that you do not have any of these sources (including Akcam), which you object (Erikson, Sean, Reynolds) passionately. All this without any substance (You didn't read any of these sources!). You are free to verify all the information presented in the article. All the information (including Akcam references) has a page number. You are free to go and check. You are free to add sourced information. However, for the positions you presented (A) From your link: "He writes that some supposed attacks attributed to Armenians were actually carried out by Kurdish Hamidiye units and later blamed on Armenians in order to provoke reprisal attacks by Muslims." That "Kurdish Hamidiye units" (a special military cavalry force) is in the article. You present "blamed on Armenians" statement without a page number. But even so this statement is very much false. | Akcam should have known that the Kurdish Hamdiye regiments had been disbanded in 1908 following the Young Turk Revolution agreement between ARF and CUP (put in force 1909), and all units were returned to their tribes by August 17, 1910. (B) From your link: "weapon seizures" cited in Turkish sources to justify the deportations "were simply fabrications"" The capture of these weapons are cited in the article. |However, Russia had a secret budget to arm the Armenian insurgents and smuggled weapons. (weapon seizures!) The article represents all these arguments. Thanks for your interest. SelimAnkara1993 (talk) 21:58, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And thank you for supplying yet more reasons for deletion. I'll take your lack of an answer as an indication that all the Akcam "citations" should be removed as false since it is actually Erikson or McMeekin who are citing him in their books and producing their own interpretations of that source. The same is probably true for all of the other supposed sources. I'm puzzled why you constantly refer to McMeekin as "Sean" - are you on first name terms with him? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 23:00, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are listing Akcam among the Erikson, Sean, Reynolds who can't contribute "facts" to this article. You are proposing this idea, because you think Akcam was cited by Erikson, Sean, or Reynolds. Let me get it correctly "If Erikson, Sean, or Reynolds cite Akcam, the source (that is Akcam) can not be used in this article." You aligned Akcam among the historians that are "as you put it, fringe" because he reported the same content. If you go with this speed, you will burn out all the historians. SelimAnkara1993 (talk) 23:41, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will be examining all your editing activities on Wikipedia. Only someone whose editing aims are absolutely corrupt and deceitful could fail to accept that they cannot use sources to support an article titled "1915 insurgency in the Ottoman Empire" when those same sources state explicitly that no such event happened. As well as your deceitful use of Akcam as a source, you are also deceitfully using Donald Bloxham. Here is what Bloxham says about your fake "insurgency" in his 2005 book "The Great Game of Genocide": Bloxham calls it Perpetrator Ideology and writes, on page 18, "It is essential not to further the claims made by apologists for the Ottoman state ever since 1915 that external actions caused upheavals in which the Armenians inevitably perished, that Britain and Russia stimulated Armenian revolt by their interventions and thus left the state no choice but to remove the Armenians for its own security". Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 02:32, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• comment Editors newly come to this topic may be unaware that for close to a century the government of Turkey has sponsored an enormous disinformation campaign. It includes not merely the destruction and falsification of the historical record, and the appointment of faculty at Turkish universities whose life's work it is to falsify not only the genocide, but the history of government-backed the pogroms and ethnic cleanings that preceded it. It also includes courting non-Turkish scholars, whose genocide denial can bring them prizes and grant funding, including funded opportunities to travel in Turkey while researching other projects. Just so you are aware.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:31, 27 May 2015 (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.