This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Cavarrone (talk | contribs) at 05:14, 19 July 2014 (→Izmit massacre: k). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 05:14, 19 July 2014 by Cavarrone (talk | contribs) (→Izmit massacre: k)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)Izmit massacre
- Izmit massacre (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 was subject to heavy POV-pushing from both pro-Greek and pro-Turkish editors. Created by a sock of a blocked user, it misrepresented sources and cited disputed or even discredited scholarship (see Footnote 36). In particular, there was no source for the number of 300 dead (as opposed to "missing"). Then it was turned into an article on Turkish atrocities in the same district, again misrepresenting sources, this time turning 12,000 to 15,000 "Christian refugees" into "massacred local civilians". In short, neither version contained evidence that a massacre of the claimed scale happened in Izmit. Without evidence that a massacre happened, we should not have an article about it. Huon (talk) 22:54, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
- Keep: The current version of the article is cited by reliable references (at least about the 12,000 local civilians massacred), per ] the claim that 12,000 inhabitants were massacred in Izmit peninsula is generally accepted by an Allied commission that invaetigated the case. Also per ] the massacre is confirmed by an Allied commission (attrocities happenned from both sides as the conclusion describes, with the one side being more violent). As for the previous versions, there were heavy pov issues to fix indeed (pov, or etc) thus most part of it had to be removed, not the mention the general disruption caused by the creator of the article. Alexikoua (talk) 12:54, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
- Comment: About the nom. there is a claim about 12,000-15,000 Christian refugees indeed, in p. 10, but in p. 11] (section: Excesses committed by the Turks) gives both the claimed number of refugees and deaths: "more than 12,000 persons massacred, 2,500 missing, and the remainder of the population *more than 15,000) living as refugees in Ismit".Alexikoua (talk) 14:13, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
- Keep -overall these kind of articles always gets questioned by users on different "sides of the dispute" but we go after reliable sources on Misplaced Pages. And this article has reliable sourcing.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:55, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
- Delete - No indication that there was an event to be called a massacre, or even who committed it, and all of the sources vary so much to be useless and not up to standards for an article. Since it is not even expressed who was responsible for massacres; this seems to be a generic title for both the Turkish and the Greek sides to throw out a name for a supposed massacre they have allegedly committed towards each other. A lot of the regional events are already covered under the Yalova Peninsula Massacres (1920–21) article. Ithinkicahn (talk) 18:04, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
- Keep: After careful examination and various copy-edits, I think this should be a keep. The sources are from notable authors and historians and they're as reliable as it can get. The usage of both primary sources and contemporary sources in this article signify the notability of this event. I also think much of the problems over POV have been solved, but that is not to be discussed here. Étienne Dolet (talk) 04:21, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
- Note - the lead paragraph, after all the copy-editing, still makes no sense. Bearian (talk) 16:52, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
- Keep multiple RS make this event notable and AfD is not cleanup. Cavarrone 05:14, 19 July 2014 (UTC)