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 keep. Article requires clean-up, to be certain. However, sources indicate notability, and AFD is not for clean-up.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:16, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Zilan 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 references is not reliable sources and are described Ağrı revolts in this article. WP:NOR Nihan (talk) 01:14, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep This article has a huge number of independent sources, and I easily found many more[1],[2],[3]. This article clearly meets Wikipedia's event notability guideline. Please note that journalists in Turkey have been jailed for trying to investigate the Zilan Massacre[4], and I see the proposed deletion of this article as potentialy a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, or worse yet WP:CENSOR. NJ Wine (talk) 03:15, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Azadiya Welat, Yeni Özgür Politika, HABER DIYARBAKIR, Nasname, Gündem, Med yayınları, Pêrî are biased publications. If Al Shabab says "100 000 civilians killed by U.S.", can we assume impartiality of this resource ? other references explains Ağrı revolts. There is a better source for journalists in jail. But this is not related to the subject. Please read WP:POINT--Nihan (talk) 12:35, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nihan, You have made the claim that this article is original research. Even if your claim is true that some of the sources are biased, that doesn't make this original research. It just means that the article should be editted, not deleted. Original research is defines as: "material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist." In my post above, I mention 4 additional references that I was able to find online, which include independent sources such as newspapers and journal articles. NJ Wine (talk) 13:33, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The Berliner Tageblatt was a reliable source, for example, and when something gets coverage on other continents over most of a century, we have no reason to call it non-notable. Nyttend (talk) 03:34, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Passes WP:GNG and there are quite a number of reliable sources. Dipankan ^{(Have a chat?)} 06:35, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Obviously delete or Partly merge to Ararat rebellion. The page "Zilan massacre" is an original research and the sources mostly not reliable sources --Kmoksy (talk) 08:09, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• What causes you to say that these sources are unreliable? Do you doubt that this event actually happened? If the whole thing were a fabrication, why would Ercan Öksüz and Oktay Candemir have risked prison time to speak with a hoaxer? Nyttend (talk) 13:20, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where historians? Please, see original research OK! --Kmoksy (talk) 14:00, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kmoksy, Please read my posts above. There may be issues with the article, but it is not original research. NJ Wine (talk) 15:13, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This image is "partly", but that image is "full". Where Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Where? Please --Kmoksy (talk) 15:36, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cumhuriyet appears to be one of your country's leading publications. Why do you believe that it's not a reliable source? Nyttend (talk) 16:21, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Cumhuriyet newspaper is "main" and "mono" source for Zilan rebellion (: "Zeylân hâdisesi" in the Cumhuriyet) (not "massacre"). The image on the page is "partly". Why partly? Why not full? Because intentional! --Kmoksy (talk) 16:37, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So...you do believe that it happened, that it's not necessarily original research, and that we do have reliable sources here. Please don't say that we're intentionally hiding an important part of the newspaper. If you look at the image from their archive, you'll see that it's so small that we can't read anything smaller than "başladı" — it's simply too small to be useful, while the other image is large enough that we can read everything. Nyttend (talk) 17:58, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where true historians? No!, The page of newspaper should be fully. The "only source" and "main source" is the news for Zeylân in the Cumhuriyet newspaper : 1 (mid-upper column) Hükûmetin tebliği [«the notification of government»]; 2 (right column) Şark'taki hadise ve İran! [«The Event in the East and Iran»]; 3 (top left of the column) Zeylân hâdisesi / İbrahim Tali Bey bir beyanname neşretti [«Zeylân event / Mr. İbrahim Tali declaration issued»]; 4 (lower-middle column) Temizlik başladı / Zeylân deresindekiler tamamen imha edildi [«Cleaning started / The Rebels at Zeylân valley were completely annihilated»]. The news of Cumhuriyet for "Zeylân rebellion" (a part of Ararat rebellion. See "history" section of "template of Ararat rebellin") and is not "massacre". Why partly image of newspaper? This image is not "Wikipedia:Neutral point of view". --Kmoksy (talk) 18:27, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Images don't need to be neutral; we use them neutrally, but they don't have to be neutral by themselves. Otherwise, we'd have to delete nearly all of the images used in the Advertising article, for example. And I told you — the image of the entire article is too small to be useful. If displayed at this resolution, an image of the entire newspaper page would overwhelm the page. Nyttend (talk) 21:06, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The translation from Cumhuriyet news "Temizlik başladı / Zeylân deresindekiler tamamen imha edildi" as Cleaning started, people at Zeylân valley were completely annihilated is mistranslation. Because, Turkish "Zeylân deresindekiler" is not "people at Zeylân valley"; true translation is "the ones at Zeylân valley" = "The Rebels at Zeylân valley". The Cumhuriyet news are for the Zeylan rebellion section of Ararat rebellion. Please --Kmoksy (talk) 00:11, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Closing admin, note that the nominator here has also nominated it for deletion at tr:wp. Nyttend (talk) 18:02, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I have no idea about whether this article is notable, but this is currently a hot debate on Turkish Wikipedia, and the discussion does not seem to be centered on POV-pushing or censorship efforts (at least I can say that the users voting for its deletion are not necessarily POV-pushers, I am pretty sure about that as tr.wiki is a small community), but the sources are examined one by one (although there is nothing about e.g. Berliner Tageblatt). I am aware that Google Translate does not work very well when it comes to Turkish, but still, this could give an idea. --Seksen (talk) 20:10, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To summarize, what they are saying is that this event is not covered in any academical research published later (Christopher Houston is said to be unreliable and Ayşe Hür talks about a "claim", she does not present it as a solid fact) and that the sources about this event are either biased Kurdish sources or they all cite the Cumhuriyet article, and there is no source other than contemporary newspaper articles, and that the other reliable sources are about the Ağrı rebellion. On the other hand, the Berliner Tageblatt and the UK Foreign Office are not mentioned. --Seksen (talk) 20:18, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A quick JSTOR search revealed this article, which both discusses the event and also refers to multiple published books that devote substantial attention to it. Note that JSTOR says that it was published in "a journal unrivalled by any other in its field"; this is definitely solid research. Regardless of the content currently in the article, solid scholarly research into this subject has been published. Nyttend (talk) 21:06, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Very important sentences There is another recently published work containing documents purportedly from the Turkish War Ministry's Historical Archivesdescribing TAF activities during the Mt. Ararat revolt.34 The section of the book dealing with the Ararat revolt is divided into several sections. The first discusses the Zeylan rebellion and its suppression from 20 July to the first part of September.

• In heavy fighting from 20 June to 27 July in the Zeylan valley, he states that the Kurds shot down 8 Turkish aircraft with machine guns and rifles.

• On 13 July, Cumhuriyet declared the rebellion in Zeylan had been suppressed. The TAF squadrons composed of "10-15 aircraft" were accorded great prominence in the crushing of the revolt, although the Kurds did manage to return fire.

There are no words about the massacre. Such an identification made ​​by the author of this article and unreliable sources. This article part of the Ağrı Rebellion. The only thing is known about the event, news of the Cumhuriyet newspaper.This article must be included in Ağrı Rebellion. --Nihan (talk) 23:37, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep
• At present, I feel this is the case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Uses claims (not only here but also in DR in Turkish Wikipedia) that this article must be NOR without showing specific examples. This is worse than the case on Armenian Genocide denial. Because there is no denial theses on Zilan massacre. So users personally deny this event. I claim neither this massacre occured nor didn't occured. I only collected existing sources that I could find and I uploaded File:Zilanmassacre.jpg simply because I couldn't find other versions.
• Some users misunderstand and claims that Cumhuriyet is single source. Even in DR in Turkish Wikipedia, most of all users made a same mistake. But,

1. Not only Cumhuriyet but also Vatan newspaper (July 13, 1930) reported this massacre.
2. There are testimony of survivers. I omitted most of these sources because stories are too vivid and I feared this article might became like a splatter film. Probably this my behave was wrong, if need, you can added such information.
3. There are confession of soldiers who participated in the massacre (Malazgirtli Zazo, Mirza Efendi oğlu Hüseyin, İpek Yılmaz, Dursun Çakıroğlu etc.)
4. Secondary sources. Kemal Basoğlu, Delal: Zilan katliamı ve gerçekler, Do, Istanbul, 2010, Sedat Uluğana, Ağrı Kürt direnişi ve Zîlan katliamı, 1926-1931, Pêrî Yayınları, Istanbul, 2010, Kemal Süphandağ, Hamidiye Alayları ve Zilan Katliamı, Perî yayınları, 2012 etc.

• Although User:Nihan claims Azadiya Welat, Yeni Özgür Politika, HABER DIYARBAKIR, Nasname, Gündem, Med yayınları, Pêrî are biased publications. I think this claim is biased. User can consult at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard.
• User:Kmoksy calls repeatedly "Where historians? ". but for example Garo Sassouni was a historian. Turkish historian Mustafa Mustafa Armağan also mentions to Zilan katliamı.
• As to Zeylan rebellion, the rebellion was started by sons of Kor Hussein Pasha (Kör Hüseyin Paşa ) and of Emin Pasha at the night 19/20 June 1930. More than 100 rebels raided on the center of district of Zeylan (Zilan) and the gendarmerie station. Then they made their own tribesmen (Kor Hussein Pasha's tribesmen lived in the area) joined to their forces and marched toward Erciş. (Faik Bulut, Devletin Gözüyle Türkiye'de Kürt İsyanları "Kurdish rebellions in the point of view of the (Turkish) state" with the preface by Lieutenant-general Namık Kemal Ersun, Yön, 1991, p. 162.) Turkish General Staff calls this raid, Zeylan (Zilan) incident (Zeylan hadisesi or Zeylan olayı ). Someone call Erciç incident. Moreover, Zeylan (Zilan) rebellion covered not only Zeylan (Geliyê Zîlan) but also Patnos, Çaldıran continued till September 1930. (Faik Bulut, Devletin Gözüyle Türkiye'de Kürt İsyanları, Yön, 1991, p. 167.)

So Zeylan (Zilan) incident is not same as Zilan (Zeylan) massacre that took place in July 1930. Zeylan (Zilan) rebellion is not same as Zilan (Zeylan) massacre.

• Zilan Deresi Katliamı went to the European Court of Human Rights. Even in the document of UNHCR, the term "1930 Zilan massacre" is used.
• It's clear that the notability of this subject was established independently. So it's not nessesary to be merged. It must not be merged to other articles. As we know, Malmedy massacre was committed during the Battle of the Bulge, it must be not merged to Battle of the Bulge. Holocaust must not be merged to Second World War or Nazi Germany, the Armenian Genocide must not be merged to First World War, or Middle Eastern theatre of World War I.

Formerly I planned to create also Zeylan rebellion (or Zilan rebellion) with focusing on military conflicts between June 19 and September. But it's very complicated. Because many tribes participated in conflicts and some of them support the Turkish forces, some of them were suppressed despite they didn't participated in conflict. If users created articles such as First Ararat rebellion (tr:Birinci Ağrı Harekâtı), Second Ararat rebellion or Second Ararat operation (tr:İkinci Ağrı Harekâtı), Zeylan rebellion, Third Ararat rebellion or Third Ararat operation (tr:Üçüncü Ağrı harekâtı) in addition to this article, they will be useful for readers of English Wikipedia.

By the way, I want to know oppinions of users from Kurdish Wikipedia. I think Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Kurdistan is needed. Takabeg (talk) 15:16, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep - multiple reliable sources. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:59, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per Buckshot and others. Sourcing seems reliable. Intothatdarkness (talk) 13:48, 5 June 2012 (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.