This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Turkey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Turkey and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TurkeyWikipedia:WikiProject TurkeyTemplate:WikiProject TurkeyTurkey articles
I had a look at the provided reference, which was link to google books:p.xii. Unfortunately the reference is only a partial section: "Roumelian Turkish refugees (migrants) in utter misery took refuge in Anatolia, and tens of thousands died like flies in exodus". It is clear that tens of thousands died during the exodus but this figure does not indicate the total death toll or the scale of the refugee wave caused by the Russian invasion of Rumelia. The removal was necessary since in its phrasing it indicated that only tens of thousands died as a result of the Russo-Turkish War. Kostja do you have access to the whole book or more than the partial section? Şimşir is an interesting author born in Bulgaria himself.Hittit (talk) 20:23, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, I would have provided a better reference if I had one, but most books on the topic provide only a snippet view, if that. Kostja (talk) 20:45, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I understand, I appreciate your participation in this topic. Hittit (talk) 20:57, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What is the point of this map? If you want to show how the population of the Turks in Bulgaria declined, you need another ethnographic map of the post-1878 map situation. Of course it's possible you're going to add it soon but even then this map is poor for comparison as the author regards great areas as "mixed" which is a very ambiguous term. Kostja (talk) 18:22, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see that you've added another map but it's unclear what criteria this one uses so a comparison between the two could amount to original research. Kostja (talk) 18:24, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a proposition? Hittit (talk) 18:26, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really think that ethnographic maps, made decades apart by authors who were often biased (for example, Karl Sax was an Austrian consul in Adrianople at a time when Austria supported the Ottoman Empire while Cvijic was a Serbian nationalist author whose maps are often accused of minimizing the Muslim population in Yugoslavia) are a good idea for such an article. Kostja (talk) 18:31, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What can be considered a neutral point of view when talking of ethnograhpic maps, whithout having a dozen of them? Hittit (talk) 18:32, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly because there can't be such a view there shouldn't be such maps in this article. Kostja (talk) 18:38, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What basis of neutrality have you used when applying ethnographic maps in other articles? Hittit (talk) 18:40, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I stated recently that only maps about ethic groups or demographics should have such maps and this is not really such a case. Basically by the usage of two maps like this you're making a conclusion not contained by either of the map, which is original research. Kostja (talk) 18:49, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the maps until a concenssus is reached.Hittit (talk) 18:50, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Following the rather weak and pathetic decision (and the amusing excuses that accompanied it) to actually keep this sorry excuse for an article, the most logical solution now seems to me to move this to its most relevant page: Persecution of Muslims. Clearly, it is simply a cruel hoax that the article's creator has unilaterally asserted that the Balkan nations, Western Europe, and Russia conspired together to commit a genocide against the Turks and other Muslims. That they suffered due to the exigencies of war is one thing; that they were part of a systematic plan to eliminate them in their entirety is just myth. Listing a series of events and then grouping them all together under a single title has been demonstrated to be a clear violation of WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:OR on the part of the creator himself. While I think the Persecution of Muslims page seems to be the most relevant article where the reliable material can be moved, other relevant pages (Anti-Turkism?) may be available as well. For that matter, I suggest that the material on this page be merged on to their respective pages and that we delete this article by itself without creating a redirect, lest we start deluding ourselves and begin giving legitimacy to positions pushed only by fringe, non-academic scholars who have a track record for distortion and falsification.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 04:46, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Marshal I have warned you on your talk page, respect the outcome of the AfD. I will report you to admin for disruptive behaviour. Hittit (talk) 04:49, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Threatening me only works to your detriment. I have initiated a discussion; if you have nothing to add to it, move on.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 04:59, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You intiated this hoax discussion after you tagged the article for merge without having any respect towards the outcome of the AfD discussion and admin decision. Since you were unable to delete the article via AfD this is your "next best move"? I see you have also deleted in haste my warning on your talk page along with a whole section. Nevertheless you have been warned. Hittit (talk) 05:05, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thirteen people called for this article to be deleted; three or four others didn't. To me, it appears like the overwhelming majority was ruled over by what looks like an absurd technicality, so that does not vindicate any of your claims. So yes, this is the next best solution having it merged and deleted seems wise. Over a week has passed and you still have been unable to muster a single source to back up this article's thesis that a genocide(s) took place. I think a better case cannot be made.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 05:10, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I support the merge; after the AfD, it's quite obvious it's the most logical solution. Sardur (talk) 05:14, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is preposterous, not only you disregard admin decision but also admit disruptive behaviour, you think the rules do not apply to you? Hittit (talk) 05:17, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Grouping all these separate and unrelated events together and calling it a genocide (taking into consideration all the meanings of that word) does not make sense, nor does the outcome of the AfD. The use of the word genocide is not to be taken lightly. Good idea to merge it with Persecution of MuslimsorAnti-Turkism. --Davo88 (talk) 05:47, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is already a section about the Balkans in the Persecution of muslims page so this content should go there in an abridged form and after having been npoved.--Anothroskon (talk) 06:22, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Using the same logic we can just as easily propose the article Armenian Genocide to be merged with Persecution of ChristiansorAnti-Armenianism. Your argument for the use of the word "genocide" is not valid either since this can be easily adjusted to accommodate your objections (N.B. the sources speak clearly of the nature of the acts). Alternate renaming options are listed. The events in questions are very much interlinked, documented and recognised. --Hittit (talk) 20:28, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed as per synth and OR of directly irrelevant events. Of course with clear-up of the OR of the editor(s). Aregakn (talk) 10:50, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I had in mind something like Persecution of Turks 1887-1920 as the defensible article, And I would absolutely avoid the word genocide in this context. What I hope to avoid is this sort of attack on each other. I was thinking of also saying, all the revisions should be done by others than the editors already over-involved in this, and it might still be necessary to say that. DGG ( talk ) 10:51, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Defensible article is your opinion. I wonder why no one brought the fact that the article with a similar titling which make a synthesis was already deleted in the past, and this more than once. What constitute a concensus, not a strong majority with policy driven arguments?
This closure should be reevaluated ASAP or a new AfD should be submitted. Since the actual result is nonesense. Also, DGG now has gone by a new titling Persecution of Turks 1887-1920. This from his part shows an ignorance of the subject. The article was based on a book by McCarthy, which included all Muslims together, for example, after the Ottoman lost the Balkans, the Turkish population was about 6 million, more than that for the Arab population, more than a million for the Kurds and several nomad tribs. This does not include the non-Turkish Muslim population of the Balkan, such as the Albanian Muslim population. Neither does it include the initially non-Ottoman Muslim population which McCarthy include, such as the Circassians evicted by the Russians.
Again, Persecution of Turks 1887-1920? How many rules you've left down to come up with such a title? Even McCarthy's book lumped all Muslims, with several unrelated wars, conflicts and events. The creation of this sort of article comes around 24 April each year. What's new this year? Tell us DGG? Just not so long ago an article on an Azeri genocide was also deleted for the same arguments.
Merging? Merging to what, to better articles which already include what is relevant? Zpaven (talk) 14:16, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good lord, what a work of art, the footnotes are used out of context and manipulated. For example, can someone provide me the edition of Mark Levene work, since those two pages are footnote pages. Zpaven (talk) 14:31, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
More: Massacres against Turks and Muslims during the Balkan Wars in the hands of Bulgarians, Greeks and Armenians are described in detail in the 1912 Carnegie Endowment report.[23] Hupchick estimates that nearly 1,5 million Muslims died and 400,000 became refugees as a result of the Balkan Wars.[24]
In the report the word Armenian or Armenians is mentioned only twice, and in those context:
This witness confirmed Lieutenant Fisher's account, believed that not more than twenty Turks were killed in the massacre, and insisted that the local Armenian porters (hamels) had taken the chief part in the disturbances.
The town was without a regular government from July 22, and much robbery took place; but he had previously taken the precaution of sending the Armenian hamals, who were always a troublesome element, out of the town.
Now associated this Armenian word with the second phrase totally unconnected: Hupchick estimates that nearly 1,5 million Muslims died and 400,000 became refugees as a result of the Balkan Wars.[24]
Do I need to continue and show how sources have been manipulated? Zpaven (talk) 15:00, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for clarifying all these points Zpaven. It looks like we got a good working consensus to merge the material to another/other articles. Changing the name of the article appears to be superfluous; taking in to account that virtually all the material is simply a synthesis and that an event that took place in a localized region in Greece bears little to no connection to what was taking place in the Russian Empire, the idea of even expanding it is unnecessary. One can obviously stack this article with event after event but it would just make this a bigger FORK (ofPersecution of Muslims and Anti-Turkism) than it already is.
It seems that the most relevant pages to add this material, provided that better sources are used and not works produced by pseudo scholars like McCarthy and Shaw, are those most closely tied to the events: if the Greek or Serb rebellions led to a massacre or exodus of Muslims, and the most than can be said about it is a couple of sentences in this article, what better reason to not add it there? The 1877-78 Russo-Turkish War article has a section titled Conclusion, which harmoniously goes into further detail on the suffering of Christians and Muslims, country by country. That way, at least the unsuspecting reader has some context to look into and, unlike here, is not ceaselessly bombarded by information which fails to contextualize the reading and gives a sensationally garbled account of the events.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 16:25, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am happy, that Zpaven too noticed the assumptions made by Hittit I mentioned to GregorB in the deletion discussion (to underline the article being created as a propaganda material). I am also thankful to him to have regarded it in more details. I hope these comments will not again slip from the sight of participating editors. Aregakn (talk) 21:06, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As nobody raised substantial (i.e. not personal) arguments against the merge, I would suggest to go on. Sardur (talk) 21:21, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per above, I've went ahead with the merge. None of the material has not been lost, as a quick check search through its history will allow editors to incorporate whatever pertinent material there is to the relevant article(s). To emphasize, while a few bits of information of this article had reliable sources, in its current state, it could not be left like this. Individual instances of violence did take place but none of these events can be classified as the definition "genocide" defined in the 1948 UN Convention. Can cooler heads please help in transitioning the relevant information from this page to other Wikipedia-related articles?--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 02:49, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Certain Wikipedia editors who attempted to deleted this article via AfD without reaching their goal have taken-up on them selves to instigate and initiate the unsanctioned redirect of this article. There is no consensus on such action and this does not follow WP:MERGE guidelines:
Merging should not be considered if:
The resulting article is too long or "clunky"
The separate topics could be expanded into longer standalone (but cross linked) articles
The topics are discrete subjects and deserve their own articles even though they may be short
This article is being worked on; respect your fellow editors even if you do not wish to contribute. --Hittit (talk) 04:58, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am happy with the merged article. Obviously it should still be worked on to achieve NPOV but it's a good start.--Anothroskon (talk) 12:58, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think the article should be renamed to reflect the academic view. Brandmeister[t] 21:01, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I do not think that there should be a merge. The 1821-1922 events are extremely significant, even today; especially for Turkish minorities in Bulgaria, Cyprus, Georgia, Greece, and Yugoslavia. Ottoman Turks living outside of Anatolia experienced large amounts of discrimination and deportation towards the end of the empire which was mainly due to the opposing ethnic groups trying to create their own republics. Trying to put all this information into one article-which is about all Muslims in the world- would be very complicated and would almost certainly make the article way too long. I think the current article has a lot of potential and I am willing to help improve it. Merging these significant events is likely to limit the amount of information which could potentially be put into the article.Turco85 (Talk) 23:22, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As per the AfD discussion there was an agreement to change the article title to “Persecution of Ottoman Muslims and Turks”. This change was even executed by GregorB, however it was reverted by Big Bird for debate purposes. As already suggested by DGG a rename to “Persecution of Turks 1887-1920” is also a good option, however since the period is 1821 – 1922 and the Ottoman State categorized its subjects to Millets the term Ottoman Muslims needs to be included since no segregation was made on their ethnicity (N.B: nationalist ideology arrived much later among Ottoman Muslims than the e.g., Balkan Christian peoples). Furthermore, Ottoman Muslims in general were on the receiving side of the conflicts without much being discriminated on their ethnic denomination (e.g. Bosnian, Albanian, Pomak, Tatar. Turk or Greek speaking Muslim were put under the same denominator). The subject covers areas from where Ottoman Muslims were expelled: Balkans and the Caucaus in general.
The propositions:
Persecution of Ottoman Muslims and Turks
Persecution of Turks 1887-1922
Persecution of Ottoman Muslims 1821-1922
Persecution of Ottoman Muslims and Turks 1821-1922
Ethnic cleansing of Ottoman Muslims, 1821-1922
Since "Persecution of Ottoman Muslims and Turks" was already once implemented and this option is inline with the context, it would seem as a course to go ahead with the renaming. Hittit (talk) 15:38, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This should go at the administartors noticeboard, there was delete concensus which was misinterpreted by an administrator. Also, it would be nice if you address what I have discribed above, that you have misused references. Thanks. Zpaven (talk) 15:43, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Zapaven, you seem a new contributor to Wikipedia, I appreciate that you have decided to join this debate on the same date as you have created your Wikipedia account. Welcome! --Hittit (talk) 15:52, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the welcome, I appreciate you reply above on the reasons why you have misused sources to the point of making them say what they don't say. Thanks. Zpaven (talk) 15:54, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As you can see the reference list covers all statements (easily verifiable to read direct sources), in case you would like to change something or you do not agree with the wording or rephrasing please provide your alternatives. Do you need help or links to Wikepdia policies and editing? I propse to take one point at a time starting with renaming and moving forward on other improvements. --Hittit (talk) 16:00, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's the problem, it does not! Those were already discussed, there have been other instances of the creation of similar articles, two examples, here and here. They were always deleted. There is nothing salvageable in this article. What is for instance the connection between the Greek Revolution and Russo-Turkish War or the Balkan Wars or the paritioning of the Ottoman Empire. There are no connection. Besides, if you're going to cover the persecution of the Muslims, you ought to also cover those of the Christians, far worst.
Note also, that each unconnected cases have been developped in other articles. The one during the Greek revolution here and there is even an entire article about it here. The Russo-Turkish War, check here. The Balkan Wars article can be improved and the partitioning of the Ottoman Empire has its own article here.
The closing admin did not know what he was closing, and his proposition in this talkpage further proves that.
As for your claim that all the statments are sourced, that's a work of art actually, you have misused the sources and I started documenting that above, which you have not addressed, if you want me to go on it point by point, I will. But there will remain nothing of this article. Zpaven (talk) 16:32, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As per the above discussion where it was clear that an WP:OR had taken place at least about the "deaths of Turks at the hands of Armenians" and also all suplimentary discussions at AE etc., considering also the usage of several national sources not responding to wp:reliable sources and the violation of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 by those, I am willing to:
1) delete the accusations of Armenians (made to seem as a nation),
2) change the wording in that paragraph not to be looking as racist (that accuse the nations)
3) delete the 2 "further reading" sources:
Greek Atrocities in the Vilayet of Smyrna (May to July 1919), Published by The Permanent Bureau of the Turkish Congress at Lausanne 1919
The Armenian Atrocities to the Turks in Kars:The Mass Grave Excavation of Kalo/Derecik Village, by Şenol Kantarcı, Yrd. Doç. Dr., Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi, Atatürk İlkeleri ve İnkılâp Tarihi Bölüm Başkanı
I want to see comments and as all these contributions are made by Hittit, I'd like to read his reaction too. Aregakn (talk)
Based on what you have made your conclusions that sources are unreliable? You have not given any arguments or proven contrary to source contents. Pls try to do that first before any attempts to delete. I already quoted the Carnegie Report regarding the Armenian involvment, you may reword a draft in the talk page as per the report and we can review it. None of the paragraph are racist pls provide evidence first. No deletion of sources can be made unless you prove that these are unreliable...In the Armenian Genocide article you have used all kinds of Armenian produced sources (some proven forgeries) so insinuating that Turkish sources are unreliable is not an arguyment. List them and we can discuss --Hittit (talk) 03:24, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sources must be reliable that means secondary sources from academic presses or journals which are peer-reviewed or edited. And McCarthy who according to his WP page has been described as "a scholar on the Turkish side of the debate" hardly qualifies as a reliable source.--Anothroskon (talk) 07:17, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your claim, Hittit, that I have not presented evidence is lacking a little attention to the mentioned WP:RS and Arbitration enforcement just 1 line above. read those and present your argumentation on how my mentioned rules do not match your claim, if they don't.
The racist expressions and wording are accusations of nations in killing other nations. That is: "Massacres against Turks and Muslims during the Balkan Wars in the hands of Bulgarians, Greeks and Armenians are described in detail in the 1912 Carnegie Endowment report." Your assumptions and conclusions are "naked", with no context and those are clearely to accuse those nations (Greeks, Bulgarians and Armenians as stated and linked in he text). This kind of wording maybe suits Ataturk University, the papers of which you put here for "further reading", but are neither for an encyclopedia nor for even a civilised discussion. Aregakn (talk) 08:41, 11 May 2010 (UTC)Aregakn (talk) 11:24, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Antroskop, lets not get ahead of our selves, the fact that you do not like something some one has published is no reason to claim unreliability of sources. Redirecting an article away from Wikipedia main space for the same reason is also not justifiable.
Aregakn, there is nothing in the outcome of the AE that relates to the contents of this article. If you want to talk about the AE, in which you your self is also sanctioned, please do it at proper AE discussion space. Other than that bring it up in this talk page is irrelevant and not related to the content of the article.
Regarding your statement of racism and that it claims nations killing nations, well that is not so and plainly the result of your own interpretation. Please consult the article Armenian Genocide sectionDeath Marches; “The Turks have embarked upon the "total extermination of the Armenians in Transcaucasia….” what you think about that sourced: Vahakn Dadrian (sounds Armenian). Please comment freely on the racist nature of such statements, which you clearly approve and enjoy reading. As far as this article is concern, please provide an alternative rewording in line with the Carnegie Report contents. I am willing to discuss that. --Hittit (talk) 16:35, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the quote you are referring to is from Von Lossow, which can be found here[1]. Dadrian did not say it, he merely referenced it. This all falls back on your lack of knowledge concerning this event, since you clearly attributed the statement to Dadrian. --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:45, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2. You not attentive in reading the comments to which point of the change the above AE I wanted to apply to
3. You should also note, that if you created (at least) a SYNTH, as admitted in even the deletion ruling (of no consensus) of this article, you are not in any position to accuse other editors that they don't like what you published, because it is the braking-of-rules by the article composed by you they don't like.
Once again, it is ALSO mentioned in the ruling, not only is it the opinion of the majority of editors.
4. You are permanently trying to get away answering to what you do by bringing some irrelevant (or even if we consider them relevant) examples. This is not how cooperation and discussion is to be.
5. Be responsible for what you do, don't demand answers from me for what I didn't do.
6. You also do your best not to notice the context of what I say. As if you read some words from the discussions. Citation: "Your assumptions and conclusions are "naked", with no context and those are clearly to ..." It refers to your assumptions as a Wikipedia editor and not an author.
7. The book you mentioned had many facts and context in it with a huge chain of developments, facts and reasons for those developments. NOBODY would imagine, that telling "Turks" the book meant the nation in that huge context. So just stop playing around and get to the point!
8. You also better not have compared your WP:OR to a published reliable source.
Can anybody tell what the whole context of the mentioned source is? I cannot find it in A library.
PS. Pls refrain yourself from any comments on nationality, ethnicity, race, religion etc. This isn't the first time I am asking it. Aregakn (talk) 19:08, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Aregakn, you spent 369 words above. Most of the answers you will find in the final conclusion of the AfD by the admin. No point going around in circles. Any concrete suggestions for editing? You can’t be bi-polar regarding accusation of “nations” accusing Turks in a book by Armenian is according to you fine…the article being discussus does not accuse nations but merely lists the guilty of crimes. This can be easily corrected by using the exact denominations in the Carnegie Report. --Hittit (talk) 19:10, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You neither are discussing issues, not try to understand and almost never get to the point. I refuse discussing anything with you until I see that you have stopped repeating yourself and read what is written instead of counting theamounts of words. And read the Afd yourself to see the call for cooperating.
Anybody has the source and can poin out the context or cite it? Thanks. Aregakn (talk) 19:51, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have found myself lost in this discussion page so I will write my comment here as well:
Personally I do not think that there should be a merge. The 1821-1922 events are extremely significant, even today; especially for Turkish minorities in Bulgaria, Cyprus, Georgia, Greece, and Yugoslavia. Ottoman Turks living outside of Anatolia experienced large amounts of discrimination and deportation towards the end of the empire which was mainly due to the opposing ethnic groups trying to create their own republics. Trying to put all this information into one article-which is about all Muslims in the world- would be very complicated and would almost certainly make the article way too long. I think the current article has a lot of potential and I am willing to help improve it. Merging these significant events is likely to limit the amount of information which could potentially be put into the article.Turco85 (Talk) 23:22, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment article should not be merged as it shows true realities of Armenian genocide and gives to the article both views. Turkish people have every right to have separate article like armenians, who also did suffer not less by them. In fact, there are a lot of evidence in internet from neutral sources which will help to develop article properly.--NovaSkola (talk) 21:54, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since the merge discussion has got very disorganized:
Please add if you are fororagainst the merge under the below designated section. I have specified the votes based on the above discussion. Feel free to make corrections if Your name is in the wrong section.
The following editors are currently for keeping the merge[edit]
This discussion is long over so please stop beating this dead horse. The request to reconsider the merge was declined and it should be noted that you canvassed for votes so that people who you thought were sympathetic to your views would vote according to them. You canvassed for the three other people you mentioned in the "against" list and none of them even knew about this article until you notified them on the talk page. --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 17:14, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One more canvassing attempt of Hittit on the same issue recently [2]. I guess his attempts have gone too far now. Aregakn (talk) 01:47, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion is not over, your opinion has been noted please do not mess up this section. --Hittit (talk) 07:17, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hittit, have you already privatised the user-space of Wikipedia? For your information the opinion is not a "vote" but reasoning. Aregakn (talk) 10:49, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Against If allowed, I believe that "Persecution of Ottoman Muslims and Turks 1821-1922" may develop into a well-written and well-sourced article. Currently, it is being directed to "Persecution of Muslims" entry which is developing to be too big and also all over the place. After this article gets developed, we can add a summary and link from "Persecution of Muslims" entry. Robert Willie (talk) 07:16, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
