Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:24, 7 December 2020

Historiography of the Armenian Genocide

New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Historiography of the Armenian Genocide (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Essentially everything on this article is a violation of WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV. Everyone who says it was a genocide is an Armenian nationalist, discredited Turkish sources and genocide deniers like Shaw and McCarthy are portrayed as legitimate sources, and "the west" has been brainwashed by these Armenian nationalists.

Most citations are of a paper written by David Gutman (on which 4/6 sources are by genocide deniers and there is a section titled "Countering the Genocide Narrative") and a book by Gwynne Dyer, who is an open genocide denier. --Steverci (talk) 16:16, 26 November 2020 (UTC) Steverci (talk) 16:16, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:42, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:42, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:42, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:42, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

• Keep all seems fine to me. Mccapra (talk) 16:42, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
• Delete Seems like a POV FORK to me.★Trekker (talk) 19:29, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

FORK of what? Mccapra (talk) 22:46, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Opinions of genocide deniers.★Trekker (talk) 23:33, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

• Comment This AfD nom is a POV response by one editor to a POV article by another. Which POV is more 'correct', and whether two wrongs make a right, I don't know, and it's not something I particularly want to wade into. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:37, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Adhering to the guidelines is POV? --Steverci (talk) 14:41, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

• Weak keep I don't think this article needed to be created, the subject could have been covered in the main Armenian Genocide article; not as extensively as here, but then this is IMO too extensive for the subject, anyway. But now that the article exists, I don't see a compelling reason to delete it - even if it were condensed and merged into the main article, the POV would need to be edited out, so might as well keep this article and edit it out. Until then, appropriate health warning tags need to be added. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:47, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

This article serves no purpose other than to host genocidal denial that would've been deleted on the main genocide article, for being views only held by a discredited few. --Steverci (talk) 14:41, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

There's nothing inherently genocide-denial'y in the article name "Historiography of the Armenian Genocide", and content under that title could (in theory, at least) be written in any manner, including neutral. Therefore yours seems to me an argument for de-POV'ing the article, rather than necessarily deleting it. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:41, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

The article premise is trying to portray genocide deniers as having equal credibility to real historians. It's inherently undue and POV, and cannot be salvaged. The whole article is basically a POV fork created and mainly edited by one user, which has gone largely unnoticed, and would've been instantly reverted if the content was put on the Armenian Genocide article. --Steverci (talk) 16:21, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

• Delete Per WP:UNDUE and WP:POVFORK. This article will literally only serve as a host/means to fuel revisionist genocide denial, and, indeed, to portray genocide deniers as having equal credibility to the majority, real historians. Anyone who has actively worked within the Armenia-Azerbaijan-Turkey-Iran-Caucasus topic area knows what I'm talking about. - LouisAragon (talk) 20:43, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
• Keep -- With the Turks denying that there was a genocide, it is probably better to have an article dealing with the controversy, providing a venue for the deniers to vent their theories, in the hope that the main article can be kept clear of such stuff. This is an article about POVs held about the issue. That is quite different from having an article pushing a controversial POV (which is not allowed). Peterkingiron (talk) 15:12, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

@Peterkingiron: We already have Armenian Genocide denial. - LouisAragon (talk) 17:38, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

• Delete as a WP:POVFORK that fails to establish that there is a legitimate academic debate sufficiently substantial to warrant an article, rather than an Intelligent Design-style attempt to dress denial up as academic. XOR'easter (talk) 17:43, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
• Keep: Article meets GNG and has SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. The article is in rough shape, but this isn't a reason for deletion. Here are a few sources (JSTOR + other journal databases have more): , , , , , , , .   // Timothy :: talk  20:42, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

@TimothyBlue: Gutman and Dyer are genocide deniers. According to that article by Matossian: "One of the outstanding issues in Armenian Genocide historiography has been the inability of historians to come to a consensus regarding the causes, the aim of the perpetrators, and the process of the genocide...These approaches range from arguing that religion and/or nationalism were the main factors leading to the Armenian Genocide, to the argument that the genocide was a contingent event that took place during World War I, represented by a rapid radicalization of the government’s policy toward the Armenians." This article abuses the definition of historiography to portray the genocide as a debatable subject. While it could be a proper article, it would need to be entirely rewritten from its current state, which is why it should be deleted and then possibly remade. --Steverci (talk) 15:58, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

• Keep: seems okay. This request is WP:JDLI. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 17:30, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Surely you can address WP:NPOV concerns better than dismissing them as personal preference? If you think the content is neutral, make an argument to that effect instead. TompaDompa (talk) 19:24, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

• AfD debates (Society topics)
• AfD debates
• Relisted AfD debates