Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Malta Tribunals

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, with a strong suggestion for the parties involved here to utilize mediation rather than AfD. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Malta Tribunals

Malta Tribunals (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

The name of Malta Tribunals is renamed to ->> "Inter-allied tribunal attempt"

This article is being nominated for deletion because it speculates on a set of trials that were to occur but in fact, never did. This sort of speculative and conjectural kinds of hypotheses clearly fall under Wikipedia's No Original Research guidelines where the formulations of theories on how something would have occurred even though it has not taken place. This is akin to creating an article on who the combatants are going to be and weapons are to be used in the World War III article or something even more far-fetched, such as the Disintegration of the United States or the Impeachment of President George W. Bush. The Malta Tribunals never took place and any information over here can more than easily be integrated into it's parent article, Malta exiles since it lacks in content. Creating an article on something that was about to happen doesn't but this fails to hold water.--MarshallBagramyan 01:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I think an analogous example is Treaty of Sèvres, a treaty that was never ratified. We have it, we also have many of its spawns, like Occupation of Izmir, Wilsonian Armenia, etc. (this one is also one) Deniz^T_C 12:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

The Treaty of Sevres was actually produced and written down - it is an actual document and there is a great deal of history and ancillerary information surrounding such. Turksih prisoners were held on Malta - they were exchanged for British prisoners - that is about all we can factually say about what occured on Malta. And as there were no "International Tribunals" of any kind after WWI - we cannot make an article with that name claiming that there were. Its not just that there were no verdicts oir sentances - there were no judges, juries, prosecutors, charges filed or even an legal process started whatsoever - thus no such thing. SO no - it is not analogous to the Treaty of Sevres - an actual real thing. --THOTH 14:01, 5 May 2007 (UTC)\

And the people were actually exiled to be later tried. A 'treaty' not ratified is not a treaty imo. We might even need to change its title, but we would keep it as it is how the 'treaty' is referred to as. Deniz^T_C 15:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

If you fallow THOTH; these people are illegally detained, illegally exiled. He rejects all the legal justifications brought forward. He is defending his point beyond the boundaries of logic. For THOTH Allies were acting on illegal terms as he rejects the idea there was an agreement among allies to bring these people in to justice. He even argues against an international text, Treaty of Sevres. He rejects the Article 230 of Treaty of Sevres which demands a from of "international justice". He says, "where is the text for actual trials held on Malta" (see [1]) No Malta in the text, So no resolution to bring the war criminals to justice. If you follow his logic that an international peace treaty can not be put forward to prove allied resolution (it is not a "plan" for him) to bring justice for war criminals. With his words "no such trials were ever planned or executed." He says there is no plan and execution so "the article should be deleted." It is really impossible to bring a better proof than a "peace treaty" for the existence of a plan. It is really hard to talk with a person, who does not seek the truth but fight for a cause. Note: article is not telling about a fictitious trial. It is telling about why there was not a trial, even though there was a resolution to have a trial. --OttomanReference 23:31, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

IN fact both the Ottoman Authorities as well as the nationalists were absolutely furious when the British seized the first group of Turks from the Istanbul "prison" and took them to Mudros - later to be transfered to Malta. They saw this as an absolute breech of Ottoman sovereignty and a breech of a defacto agreement whereby the Ottomans would try these criminals under ottoman law and authority. As for the rest of your paragrapgh I have no idea what it is you are trying to say. And I am not advocating anything but sticking to the facts. I may talk about and do nothign but think about hitting you - but if I never actually do anything to find about about where you are - to get within arms reach of you - well you can't really say I have planned to hit you...and you certainly cannot say that I have hit you. Calling somethng that never occured "Malta Tribunals" is exactly that. And even if they ever contemplated trials of any kind it never got nearly far enough along to actually say they had planned anything and certainly there is no evidence that trials were "planned" to be held on Malta (if so please tell me where on Malta was the courtroom they were "planning" to use - etc? So malta cannot be considered as the location for any tribunals that did not exist - we can only talk about the British detaining people there. I mean would it be legitimate to start an article concernign the torture of Turkish prisoners on Malta. Do we have any evidence of such torture? Well no...did some British major somewhere sometime sugest he'd like to torture the bastards? Well maybe so...but one cannot then say it occured if this is all you have to go on. And maybe even if he was "planning" to torture some Turks (who were being held at Malta) - maybe he was going to transporrt them to Crete first. Anyway we really don't know - because again it never happened - so it is just all speculation. --THOTH 02:51, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Defense: Article clearly states in the introduction paragraph that the trials never reach to prosecution stage. The importance of the article is based on the historical events which explains what happened and why it failed. These are significant information. The information in the article comes from respected journals and respected Armenian historians which their views (cited information) can not be a speculative analysis. The stated objection is based on the title without reading the content. The content explains (a) legal bases (uses "Crimes Against Humanity in International Criminal Law" as a source) (b) the processes related to detantion (uses Vahakn N. Dadrian "The History of the Armenian Genocide: Ethnic Conflict from the Balkans to Anatolia to the Caucasus" as the source). (c) the collection of evidence (uses Vahakn N. Dadrian as the source) (d) the reasons for the failure of prosecution (uses Minister Lord Curzon's citation regarding the failure). The credible sources (referee journals and books by historians) in the article clearly falsifies the No Original Research argument. Also MarshallBagramyan claims that the article Malta exiles lacks in content. However Malta exiles is a label which has been used to refer people who were detained in Malta. Malta exiles collect personal information, who, where and why they were detained. On the other hand the article Malta Tribunals has a different content which covers the legal and political consequences generated when the article 230 of Treaty of Sèvres demanded prosecution. -- OttomanReference 02:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Dadrian's chapter and the various quotes refer to the concept of retributive Justice in the case of the Armenian Genocide. Numerous ideas for punishment of the Turks and of the Ottoman Empire are discussed. Also discussed is the specific failure to bring the detainees the British held on Malta to justice and the consternation of many that such persons were simply allowed to go free WITHOUT ANY KIND OF TRIAL. At no point in the chapter are the words "Malta Tribunal(s)" used - as in fact there were no tribunals held on Malta nor is there any evidence whatsoever that there were ever any plans to hold tribunals on Malta. Dadrian does reference that International Tribunals were contemplated and the chapter discusses the great many difficulties entailed to accomplish such and the fact that such never occured. Again - do we write an article on the "Guantanamo Tribunals" when such things have not occured? Prisoners were detained on Malta then released in a prisoner exchange and nothing more. The issue of prosecuting Ottoman perpetrators of the Armenian Genocide can and is discussed within the Armenian genocide article itself.--THOTH 15:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Support of keeping: The article tries to bring the credible sources which are very important to wikipedians. The topic has been discussed many times but never formed a coherent wiki article. Even the MarshallBagramyan claims that the content of the article has been discussed in two instances First discussion thread and there is another discussion after user:FADIX develops an position article named The_Real_Malta_Tribunal. Before the article created there was a new discussion thread about the prisoners in Malta jails. As far as I can see the main objection of MarshallBagramyan is based on the Title, (however he corrects the title as The Real Malta Tribunals) which he claims that it is misinforming as the prosecution never happened. I believe the correct path is not "delete" the article but find a title that is not misinformation. Because the content is relevant and cited information. I advise this path to MarshallBagramyan which the discussion thread is already opened under the talk page with the Name of the article subsection. Also User THOTH claims that in his edit "trying to work Armenian Genocide denial without actually having to falsify" I believe THOTH's point can not be reached by deletion as the removal of the information presented in the article will be an action against the Genocide. The opposite of THOTH's proposal which is keeping all the information in the public domain is the correct way. Thanks OttomanReference 02:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

---

Keep or Rename : For the reasons explained in the introduction section. OttomanReference 02:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

There were no such trials - pure and simple. The British detained a number of Turkish criminals - most of whom were previously held in Ottoman detention - but had been escaping at alarming rates - primariy for the purpose of ensuring that they would not get away and totally evade justice. There was a general interest (among the Entente powers) in trying many of these individuals for "crimes against humanity" - an entirely new concept that had never been tried before - but there was absolutly no action taken to initiate any kind of trials. Turkish deniers of the Armenian genocide attempt to twist the known facts of this episode to suggest that the fact that there were no trials that this proves their innocence. It is a ploy. And in fact there were trials held within the purview of ottoman Law (held at various places in Anatolia - and none at Malta) that resulted in convictions and sentencing yet these same people want to ignore or discount these very real events. This article is clearly a fork on the part of Armenian genocide deniers to make spurious non-historical claims. There were never any International or British concieved trials - nor even any pre-trial proceedings. In fact there was never any court established nor even any framework agreed upon for such a body. This article concerns something entirely ficticious. Do we produce an article about Albanians walking on the moon just because some Albanians once said that they would like to go there sometime? That is about all the relevance to reality that this article has. Any real issues regarding Turkish detainees at Malta, or any attempt from the Entente powers to prosecute and or punish Ottoman Turks because of war crimes or crimes against humanity that occured during WWI can and should be covered within the framework of WWI articles and/or the Armenain genocide article respectively. This should be clear to anyone examining the facts of this issue.--THOTH 02:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The article covers the topic along the same ideas of THOTH says "There were no such trials - pure and simple." Simply: Article takes the topic from where THOTH left and states (1) it was demanded by Treaty of Sèvres (2) there were people detained (3) evidence collected SO lets see what historians say about the failed (or so called as you said/edited with this edit)" Malta Tribunals. The article does tell about how and why did not reach "prosecution" stage with collection of cited information. If this information was not important historians did not spend time and collect evidence or Lawyers try to understand the context of failed Malta Tribunals. That should clearly answer your question. Thanks --OttomanReference 03:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Um, the title "The Real Malta Tribunal" was not by Fadix's choosing - he was replying back to user Torque who had titled it in that way, hence, the "Re:" as in reply. --MarshallBagramyan 04:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

It only shows that the terminology "Malta Tribunal" is an active terminology which has a meaning to both sides. The word has a shared understanding, which one sides (YOU) disagrees. I'm saying that disagree does not give the person right of "deletion." You and your friends did the same thing before. Remember, the titles really are a pointer to an event. have dictionaries or in our case "lead sections" to give the real meaning. Titles point something relevant which can have a extensive meaning, sometimes they include "irony", or "points to an event which did not happened but people wanted it to happen." We "Malta Tribunal" as a title is doing its job. Thanks OttomanReference 12:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Well my understanding of the term "Malta Tribunal" is that of a ficticious claim on the part of deniers of the Armenian Genocide. Perhaps I ought to develop an article titled: "The claims concerning the ficticious Malta Tribunals that never were" - such an article will contain more actual facts then and article devoted to hypothetical tribunals that never occured. I supose that Holocaust deniers would be justified in creating an article titled: "The Jewish de-licing program" describing in great detail the Nazi plans to free their Jewish poulation of lice - and oh BTW - any claim to the contrary - that such a program was entirely ficticious and a cover up could be explained away by the fact that people are familiar with such claims by Holocaust denials (as we are familiar with the term "Malta Tribunal") even though such a thing never occured... --THOTH 15:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Please THOTH keep focus on the cited info; The content is not based on what THOTH understands about the failure of the process but it is based on what "historians" and/or "lawyers" (SOURCED) claims about the period and the events to the failure of prosecution. --OttomanReference 15:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete - see above. There were no such thing as "Malta Tribunals" - the only tribunals held for Ottoman war criminals and perpetrators of the Armenian Genocide are the Post War Ottoman Military Tribunals already discussed in the Armenian Genocide article. The "Malta Tribunals" are an entirely ficticious concept.--THOTH 15:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

• Merge/Redirect into Malta exiles. The information contained in the article appears historically very relevant and should be kept. It is a fact however that the tribunals were never instituted. Moreover a websearch appears to indicate that Malta tribunals is a codeword used mainly by Turkish negationists. Stammer 15:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The article as currently written contains manipulation of quoted sources to have them refering to "Malta Tribunals" and other things that never existed. It is entirely a manipulated presentation aimed at denial of the Armenian genocide. The relevancy of this issue is entirely a subset of the concept of attempts to punish Ottoman Turkish criminals for the Armenian genocide. It cannot be dealt with in islation and neither is it right to make assertions about ficticious events.--THOTH 16:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

You appear to have missed the fact that I suggested to merge the article. That's the exact opposite of of dealing with it in isolation. Please read what I write, if you are interested in a meaningful exchange. The article contains valuable information, mostly drawn from Vahakn Dadrian' work. I hope we agree that Dadrian is not a negationist. The various quotes, such "The allied powers reserve to themselves the right to designate the tribunal which shall try the persons so accused, and The Turkish Government undertakes to recognize such "Tribunal" ", from the treaty of Sèveres, Curzon's " the less we say about these people [the Turks detained at Malta] the better...I had to explain why we released the Turkish deportees from Malta skating over thin ice as quickly as I could. There would have been a row I think...The staunch belief among members [of Parliament is] that one British prisoner is worth a shipload of Turks, and so the exchange was excused" and the British Foreign Office memoranda give a vivid insight into Allied attitudes on the issue, at various levels. That kind of information should be preserved. Stammer 17:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

It is my contention that the entire "Malta Tribunal" article is misleading and is based upon an improper manipulation of quotes and information. As such I think its value is quite minimal. IMO Dadrian's analysis is best presented (in proper context) within the Armenian Genocide article itself or perhaps in a directly related article specifically dealing with attempts to punish Turks and the Ottomans for crimes cimmited against the Ottoman Armenians. The whole peace process and plans for partioning of the Ottoman Empire are relevant to this issue (and would certainly be worthy of an article substrated to the Armenian Genocide article and/or an article concerning WWI and specifically attempts to punish those accused of war crimes and/or crimes against humanity) - however these are much larger issues and the issues directly pertaining to the Turks detained at Malta is only (a minor) part of the picture. It is false to claim that there was any real attempt by the British or anyone else toward actual trial of these individuals or that any real attempt was made to establish a legal case against them or that any attempt was actually made to set up courts or tribunals (in never got nearly this far) and furthmore any claim of innocence derived by their detainment and ultimate release in a prisoner exchange is entirely spurious and based upon numerous false assumptions and are a clear manipulation of the historical record. (perhaps something that in itslef could be presented in an article concerning Turkish denial of the Armenian Genocide)--THOTH 17:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore would it be correct to Merge/redirect the contents of my ficticious article concerning Nazi Jewish de-licing program into an article concerning Jewish concentration camp issues if in fact the de-licing program never existed or was presented in clearly a faulty, spurious and manipulated manner (and as an attempt to conduct original research to counter gas chamber (execution)evidence? This is exactly how I see this suggestion to incorporate faulty and ficticious information into some other article.--THOTH 18:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

THOTH, good to see you here, please do not bring up Holocaust each and every time, it does not really help Deniz^T_C 12:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

• Merge/Redirect into the Malta exiles, as this article may be otherwise considered a fork. It is significant to note the British did not punish those responsible, but this suggests that this was due to lack of evidence, rather than desire for a prisoner exchange. In any case, we don't need an article about something that never happened. The Myotis 16:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. The topic is clearly encyclopaedic, your objection is to the name. Move if necessary. Hornplease 09:16, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - this user has a history of writing unsourced materials and original research. Hetoum I 19:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Please do not attack people and vote based on the creator of the article. The article has many sources almost all of them being Armenian or third party. Attacking people when you have this on a user page is quite weird I'd say: "Welcome to my userpage. Unfortunately, I have been blocked out of this account, so it is derelict. See my new username here: User: Hetoum I" I am happy that you have kept your promise to User:Nlu not to vandalize in your first five days here with this new username. Deniz^T_C 12:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

The primary source for the article is Dadrian whose words have been selectivey presented to portray exactly the opposite of his researched views on this subject.--THOTH 03:05, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep the preparations for the tribunals and the discussions of them happened. Without involving the turkish/Armention issues, the tribunals are important historically as the part of the background for later war crimes trials. Worth the detail of a separate article. DGG 00:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Please specify just which "tribunals" you are refering to. I'm not aware of any "tribunals" held on malta - please provide details.--THOTH 03:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep and Move to International Tribunals (Malta 1920) or something like that if necessary. Deniz^T_C 12:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Again which "Malta" or "International" tribunals are you refering to? Please provide details of such that occured on malta in 1920. If you cannot name the judges, prosecutors, dates of trials and so on and so forth - then there is no evidence of such trials. It is incorrect to refer to (and to give names for) trials or tribunals that never occured. This entire matter is a ficticious and highly misleading concept. To give credence to such fictions is equivilent to letting Holocaust deniers put up their own pages here denying gas chambers and such and claimign that just because such concepts have entered into the denialist lexicon they are "noteworthy" and legitimate - thus its OK to have an article claiming that such concepts are factual and valid when they entirely are not. This whole idea of "Malta Tribunals" is entirely false premisis. Neither Dadrian nor any other legitimate Historian or Armenian Genocide scholar ever refers to such. In the talk pages of the article I have posted exact quotes from Tanar Akcam's lates book which disprove claims that the British ever made any attempt to secure incriminating information from the Turks nor did they make anything other then a single inquiry to the US State Department to obtain any actual evidence - and this was done by the British Ambassador to the US - not by any sort of prosecution or investigative team. Neither was there any attempt to actually establish a court or tribunal of any kind - neither by the British nor by any other international body - thus we cannot legitimatly refer to "Malta" or "International" tribunals that neither existed nor were even contemplated beyond the most cursory manner. And there is no proof whatsover that anyone had any plans to hold any hearings on Malta itself. There is no valid option but to eliminate this article in its entirety. It is a work of manipulative fiction.--THOTH 13:55, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

The people were exiled to Malta, and stayed there for years, so why were they exiled, if not to be tried at these 'Malta Tribunals'? Deniz^T_C 15:28, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I could speculate many things (as you are doing). Perhaps other Turks found these individuals to be so ugly they wished them out of their sght? But there is not one single historical reference to any tribunals held or even planned to be held on Malta during this time.--THOTH 16:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

O.K. Your objection is on the title; If you reject the word "Malta" you do not need to delete the article which yourself brought some citations. Lets not use the location in the title, but say "Allied attempts of International Trials." You constantly negate to every proposal. Is there anything you can bring forward on title which this community can make you happy? Please propose something which can be a title, we are taking this seriously. This proposal you presented before is juvenile]. OttomanReference 22:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

The title is absolutly objectionable as any portrayal of fact - however it is not just the title but the entire presentation that is faulty and is based entirely on assumptions. If there were to be an article on "Allied attempts of International Trials" as you propose then the detainment of Turks on Malta would only be a minor part of it and would still have to be presented accuratly - which it is not. For the most part anything that really needs to be said about the Turkish detainees at Malta and their ultimate fate can be said within either a WWI article and/or the Armenian Genocide article itself. Even this issue of proposed?/theoretical trials for Turks responsible for the Armenian Genocide would be better as a subset of an overall presentation of the Allies desire to punsih the Ottoman Empire/Turkey/specific Turks responsible with potential trials (which were only a concept - a pipe dream at best) being only one of a number of options proposed/considered and all part of a very complex set of circumstances and manuverings of the time.--THOTH 03:05, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

THOTH says "entirely on assumptions" It is funny that you can bring citations (see) for all these assumptions. How can we trust to you when you add content to the article, but also claim it is "a pipe dream" and ask it to be deleted. --OttomanReference 05:24, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment In my opinion content of first para's of Malta exiles should be copied/moved here, and Malta exiles should be the 'list article' for this 'main article' Deniz^T_C 12:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. I respectfully invite the administrator that will close this discussion, as well as my fellow contributors, to weigh carefully whether the mention of a "Tribunal" in the Sèvres treaty and the detention of Turkish personalities in Malta warrant the conclusion that "Malta tribunals" have any historical reality. Such tribunals were in fact never instituted. As I wrote above, the fact that a "Tribunal" for Turkish crimes against Armenians is mentioned in Sèvres treaty, as well as the fact that Turkish personalities related to those events were detained in Malta, are historically significant and should be documented here, but one should not acknowledge a pseudo-historical construct that appears to be supported mainly, if not exclusively, by Turkish negationists. Note that Vahakn Dadrian in his book, which is widely cited in the article, explicitly denies the existence of any Malta Tribunal. (see [2], and [3]).Stammer 15:48, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Stammer says "conclusion that "Malta tribunals" happened" Is there anywhere in the article claims otherwise? How could you accuse article by claiming things that it does not say? Article says the same thing. It is not falsifying. The article only explains even though international prosecution demanded by the treaty why it did not happen? This story (collection of historical events) is a significant story lawyers and for Armenian historians. Why it is not a significant thing for wikipedia? Why cant we tell the reasons behind these failed tribunals? Why do Stammer want us to delete it?OttomanReference 22:53, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Your quotation above ("Stammer says ...") is invented. I am saying that "one should not acknowledge a pseudo-historical construct" by having an article named after it and built around it. I am not going to repeat for the third time my other previous arguments , which you are apparently unwilling or unable to grasp. Stammer 08:16, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Stammer says "one should not acknowledge a pseudo-historical construct" Sorry I just get what you are saying. Next time I saw Vahakn N. Dadrian I will tell him personally that his studies on Armenian Genocide were falsified as he studied this pseudo-historical construct... At the end what is the meaning studying this pseudo-historical construct relation to "Crimes Against Humanity in International Criminal Law." I guess these people who study this issue are "unable to grasp, too" Thanks --OttomanReference 14:17, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Besides mentioning numourous times that there were no Malta tribunals and that no International trials - Dadrian has spoken a number of times directly concering this issue and these thoughts have been documented. In one of the specific statements that Stammer has in fact linked titled "The Non-Existence of "Malta Tribunals" (but that obviously you and some others have failed to read) Dadrian states (my bolds) - the "so-called "Malta Tribunals" which in fact never existed and accordingly are nowhere in the respective literature cited. The British camp and affiliated domiciles at Malta were strictly a detention center where the Turkish suspects were being held for future prosecution on charges of crimes perpetrated against the Armenians, Ottoman citizens. The envisaged international trials on the new penal norm "crimes against humanity" never materialized, however—largely because of political expediency. The victorious Allies, lapsing into dissension and growing mutual rivalries, chose to strike separate deals with the ascendant Kemalist insurgents in Anatolia. One such deal concerned the recovery of some British subjects who were being held hostage by the Kemalists and who were to be released in exchange for the liberation of all Malta detainees. ...It is, therefore, inaccurate to state that the Turkish detainees were released because "the charges were exhaustively probed, investigated, and studied." Nothing of the sort happened. The Allies, especially the British, studiously avoided getting judicially involved at that juncture of developments. Everything was deferred for an eventual, anticipated international trial. To an incidental, single inquiry from London, Aukland Geddes, the British ambassador in Washington, D.C., on June 1, 1921 responded saying that the U.S. archives at that time already contained "a large number of documents on Armenian deportations and massacres"2 but that under existing conditions it was not possible to assign and charge specific culpabilities to the Turkish detainees at Malta as the Allies were not involved in the specific task of prosecution that would require pre-trial investigations, the administration of interrogatories, and the application of other methods of evidence gathering. Nor did the British "exhaustively search the archives of many nations," not in 1919, not in 1920, or ever! Like so many other statements noted above, these are purely fabricated declarations to confuse the issue and confound third parties." So I ask that you please refrain from invoking Dadrian here to make your case and I point out that you are incorrectly doing the exact some thing in the article itself which is based on entirely false premesis--THOTH 17:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Good comments that hit to the heart of the matter. Tribunals never exsisted. The use of Dadrian to support the contention of tribunals is false and highly misleading and in fact is exactly the opposite of his position. Facts regarding the Treaty of Sevres should be introduced within the article on the Treaty of Sevres (which BTW could use a great deal of improving as it stands) and facts (not speculations) surounding Turkish criminals held by the british on Malta should be dealt with within WWI and/or Armenian genocide article and at best warrent a brief mention. If one would contyemplate an article having to do with prosecution of Crimes Against Humanity - the experience and failure to do such after WWI would deserve mention and again the fact that these Turks on Malta were never prosecuted even though nearly everyone was certain of their guilt is again worthy of a footnote. But at no point can the phrase "Malta Tribunals" be employed because there was never such a beast and the only way one can discuss "International Tribunals" is in the context of a lot of talk during and just prior to the end of WWI regarding such but basically absolutly no effort made whatsoever to institute such after the war. This fact and all of the reasons for such (presented factually not speculatively) could warrent a decent paragragh.--THOTH 16:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Must.^{T C} 15:54, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per MarshallBagramyan and THOTH. - Fedayee 17:18, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep — possible rename.
  • The comments here, favoring deletion, seem mainly to be based on concerns over the content of the article, whether it is biased, or dishonest — not whether the topic itself merits coverage in the wikipedia. That is not what discussions on {{afd}} should be about. A perceived biased POV is not grounds for deletion.
  • Wikipedia contributors who are concerned that this current version of this article is biased, or dishonest should be expressing their concern on the article's talk page — not trying to get the article deleted. If I was weighing earlier I would have argued for a speedy-keep due to a malformed nomination.
  • I think the distortion of the {{afd}} process is sufficient for the closing admin to choose to ignore a delete, even if the preponderance of the comments appeared to favor deletion. I believe closing admins have the discretion to make that kind of judgement call, and I encourage them to consider using this authority.
  • I urge other wikipedians to be on watch for nominations, or comments, that are in violation of the deletion policy. IMO, articles that are nominated for deletion where the nomination itself is in violation of policy should all be given a speedy keep. If the concern that prompted the nomination really does hold merit, let the nominator, or someone else who agrees with them, renominate the article with a nomination that does comply with policy.
  • Cheers! Geo Swan 06:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Swan - I see that you have participated in the article concerning detainees at Guantanamo. Considering their situation - would it be appropriate to craft an article concerning trials or tribunals held for these detainees and to trumpet their innocence on the basis of trials that were never held? I would think not. The situation with the detainees on Malta is no different. There cannot be a historical article concerning events that never occured. Can't you see that the title itself - as well as the content and claims concerning such are entirely bogus. Allowing this article is identicle to allowing articles by Holocaust deniers stand and remain as historical fact. Keeping this article is both a great diservice to truth as well as a form of hate crime in itself as it directly contributes to perpetuation of genocide as part of denial of the Armenin Genocide. This cannot be allowed.--THOTH 14:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

THOTH, please just once use another type of argument. The trials were 'initiated' (the 'suspects' were declared, most were detained, rest were to be tried in absentia) but could not be finished, current title reflects that good in my opinion. Deniz^T_C 17:05, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

You can't even give me a single reference to support such claims. Just who has said that there was a plan to try anyone in absentia? This is the first I have ever heard of such. Likewise every real reference shoots down any claim that any international trials were ever initiated. "Inter-allied tribunal attempt"? Are you kidding me? Is this how low Wikipedia has stooped to? Well as long as you are just making things up you might as well claim that the allies planned to hold hearings at a Turkish bath - I mean be creative and at least make it interesting. --THOTH 21:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. The problem here is that, according to scholarly sources selectively cited in the article, the subject topic is non-existent. A careful reading of [4] , which I already referenced above, should be enough to clarify the issue. It's an excerpt from Dadrian's essay, "Key Elements in the Turkish Denial of the Armenian Genocide: A Case Study of Distortion and Falsification". As for the new title, Darian states that "the Allies, especially the British, studiously avoided getting judicially involved at that juncture of developments". There was no "Inter-allied tribunal attempt".Stammer 11:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Okay, suppose the argument that the article was hopelessly biased, had no merit, beyond one based on bogus, distorted references was correct, then the nominator should be able to cite specific, civil, serious attempts to address this concern, on the talk page. The nominator should have referenced their serious, specific, civil attempts to address their concern, in their initial nomination. If the nominator failed to do so, and it appears the were unwilling or unable to do so, then this nomination was in breach of the wikipedia's policies, should have been thrown out, and the nomintor, or those who agreed with them should have drafted a new nomination for deletion which did conform with the wikipedia's policies.
  • In general, the {{afd}} fora are not the appropriate place for content disputes. Geo Swan 11:37, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The call for deletion was made at my request as I did not know the proceedure so I asked that someone else do such for me. I have commented extensively on the talk page of the article to the effect that this subject is "hopelessly biased, had no merit, beyond one based on bogus, distorted references was (in) correct". And again I reiterate - how can Wikipedia have a suposedly historical article concerning something that never occured? How many times do i have to repeat this very obvious fact for people to understand. The desire for this article to be deleted is not the POV - the contention that the article concerning something factual and not just speculation and false manipulation is what is clearly POV and non-historical.--THOTH 14:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The concern here is that the subject topic of this article is historically non-existent. Non-existence is not something that can be improved. For an explanation of the purpose of such pseudo-historical constructs, read Darian's essay. The guy knows with whom he's dealing. Stammer 13:36, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The article is quite long and has 26 references so far, and it was created one week ago. Deniz^T_C 17:05, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

• Merge/Redirect into the Malta exiles, per Myotis. The little valuable information that this article has can be easily integrated into Malta exiles. Vartanm 18:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

:Vartanm says : valuable information. Which part is valuable for you? --OttomanReference 22:21, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The part where it says that instead of trials they were exchanged for British prisoners. Vartanm 17:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Cool! What about the rest of the events? Don't you like that part? If you like the exchange part (end of the article); you might be also curious about the events that cause the exchange but not the prosecution. There is more than just an end to this. I was hoping you would give another chance to keep it so other people will read this failed process. Thanks. --OttomanReference 18:04, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Thats why I'm suggesting to merge the article with Malta exiles. This way if someone is interested in the subject, they can read the whole thing in one article, instead of jumping from one article to another. Vartanm 00:46, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The Malta exiles was intended to give short personal info of these people as a list. Malta exiles is coherent in itself which do not have any changes (no edit wars etc) for a while. Also There are articles which already wikified and tells the story of these people whom were jailed for many reasons. The links intent to tell the list of exiles, but not the legal process. Such as the khilafet movement. However the current article is intended as an analysis of political and criminal perspectives. In 1921, there were less then 40 of these people left in the jails of Malta. It is not even the whole list in question of this article. These articles are separate in content. As (1) It will create an image that all the people listed in Malta exiles were treated the same, which is wrong. (2) The political and criminal perspective is which is analyzed and this can be linked to relevant issues such as "International genocide law" Don't you think keeping these two different content would be a better solution? Thanks. OttomanReference 02:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

How many times does it have to be said - there was absolutly no "legal process" regarding the Turks held by the British at Malta? To claim that there was such - as you do in the article itself - is called LYING! You reveal your whole attempt at misinformation in this response above. You are claiming that Turks held at Malta were somehow exonerated by some sort of legal process - that only exists in your head. You selectively quote from Dadrian to make it appear that he is claiming exactly the opposite as is well documented position. Again here is Dadrian's stated view on this matter - "It is, therefore, inaccurate to state that the Turkish detainees were released because "the charges were exhaustively probed, investigated, and studied." Nothing of the sort happened. The Allies, especially the British, studiously avoided getting judicially involved at that juncture of developments...the Allies were not involved in the specific task of prosecution that would require pre-trial investigations, the administration of interrogatories, and the application of other methods of evidence gathering. Nor did the British "exhaustively search the archives of many nations," not in 1919, not in 1920, or ever! Like so many other statements noted above, these are purely fabricated declarations to confuse the issue and confound third parties" So in claiming that there was some kind of legal process - trials or tribunals you are pushing an extreme POV that is not backed by any actual facts or true history. This article and the plethora of similar highly biased and untruthful articles exist only as a tapestry of genocide denial all of which I find to be most disgusting. This is why I have opposed this article and regardless of the outcome I am putting you on notice that your extreme POV actions in creating such a farce have motivated me to strongly consider dedicating myslef to weeding out each and every (Armenian Genocide denial) article of this type that has proliferated on Wikepedia. This is one of many absolute trash articles that deserve deletion. The more you lie here to save this thing the more likely it is that I will go on a crusade against such it and others like it.--THOTH 03:45, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

THOTH; Could you give the exact Dadrian's paragraph where he says, not just the single sentence,: "It is, therefore, inaccurate to state that the Turkish detainees were released because "the charges were exhaustively probed, investigated, and studied." Please also full citation, ISBN number, page number, book or article name also full author name. Thanks. --OttomanReference 04:40, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Quote is from Dadrian - Key Elements in the Turkish Denial of the Armenian Genocide: A Case Study of Distortion and Falsification already linked by (and quoted by) Stammer above in his May 7 comment - [5] and in several other places. Are you now trying to claim that this is not Dadrian's position and that he feels that there is legitimacy in referencing Malta or International tribunals which never took place? --THOTH 06:57, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Here is it on Amazon. Excerpts from the essay, including the one being discussed ([[6]), are available online from [7]. I already provided these links in one of my previous messages. It has also been posted at [8]. Stammer 10:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The position brought forward is integrated into the article with this edit Thanks. OttomanReference 12:56, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The sourced position brought forward (again and again) states that the unsourced claim around which the article is built is false. There were no "Malta tribunals" and no "Inter-allied tribunal attempt", no matter how you try to rename it. Read above about pseudo-historical constructs. Stammer 14:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Have you ever heard the phrase can't make a silk purse from a sows (pigs) ear? Well this is what you are trying to do here. Let me ask you and the others interested here - would it make things right if in my theoretical article concerning the Nazi Jewish de-licing program mentioned above - if I added a line deep down in the article from a noted Holocaust scholar saying that the premis of the de-licing program is totally false - but otherwise kept the article intact speculating about such a program and otherwise presenting manipulated "facts" and observations that still left the false impression to the reader that such aprogram did in fact exist? Well, again this is what you are doing here. Let me give another example even more analagous to the subject matter. Consider the fate of Lee harvey Oswald who shot and killed President Kennedy. He certainly violated both US Federal as well as Texas State law against murder and the (US) Feds were certainly anticipating trying him for the murder...but alas...Jack Ruby beat them to the punch and killed Oswald before any actual trial could be initiated. So would it be appropriate for there to be an article in Wikipedia concerning the "Dallas Trials of Lee Harvey Oswald" or even concerning the "Federal effort to try Lee Harvey Oswald for the Murder of JFK" etc - I would think not - as there would be very little of substance to report...just as there is very little of actual substance in this little article of yours...manipulated quotes and pure speculation aside of course...I also should add that there was no actual established International law or process or proceedure at the time to in fact try Turkish war criminals...unlike today with the concept of genocide (which didn't exist at the time) and the Haugue court etc. Even the concept of "Crimes Against Humanity" was a new one that had only been mentioned in statements by various Allies - it had not been codefied in any way. Thus discussion of possible or even desired International trials was as I said earlier - a "pipe dream" - purely a theoretical concept. And if I haven't actually hit you - but only mentioned my desire to do so (but essentially did nothing more - made no real attempt that can be considered as preparing to do such) - one cannot develop an article describing my attempt(s) to hit you - such would be pure speculation --THOTH 14:42, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

One more time; "No one including the article does not claim there was an international prosecution". You need to move forward. The article explains WHY there was not one. It is using citations (along with) your arguments. Even the Armenia dedicated a page to it, and you want to get rid of this one. armenia foreignministry You guys are being unreasonable. All of your arguments are included in the article. This is not a war, and you need to stop seeing it that way. Thanks --OttomanReference 15:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

As has been stated here numorous times - Dadrian in this section on that site as well as elsewhere specifically states - "the Allies were not involved in the specific task of prosecution that would require pre-trial investigations, the administration of interrogatories, and the application of other methods of evidence gathering. Nor did the British "exhaustively search the archives of many nations," not in 1919, not in 1920, or ever! Like so many other statements noted above, these are purely fabricated declarations to confuse the issue and confound third parties" - and the page is itself titled "The non-existance of Malta Tribunals" - thus you are portraying the fact that there are researched arguments refuting the existance of the very subject of your article as proof that such a thing is historical fact - when the truth is that Dadrian and that site are saying exactly the opposite of what you are claiming - this is the point. The page is dedicated to refuting the very claim you are trying to make - and you are asking that we be reasonable? I mean if someone were to write an article disproving the contention that Albanians had walked on the moon - does it support the creatin of an article on the Albanian moonwalk attempt that never occured? Remember the scholarly research and the real history are clear - there has never been any attempt by Albania/Albanians to walk on the moon. Ok, a group of Albanian garbage collectors discussed among themselves how cool it might be to actually walk on the moon...if they only had access to a spaceship and spacesuits and all of that sort of stuff necessary for such a thing to even be possible...but of course that is as far as it got...so would it be appropriate for an article in Wikipedia to be created concerning the "Albanian Moonwalk Attempts" describing all of the potential difficulties for accomplishing such a thing? I mean when will it end? Is this waste of time really necessary? Your trying to push an unsupportable POV - that the Albanians were failures in their "moonwalk attempt" and thus this proves the impossibility of walking on the moon...Earth to Ottoman Reference...perhaps I should pen an article for Wikipedia on "Ottoman Reference's failed attempt at deception in claiming that non-existant tribunals on Malta exonerates Turkish criminals responsible for the Armenian Genocide" - I could reference your quotes concerning how you never attempted to claim any such thing as proof that such a thing occured whether it did or not - doesn't matter - because by your logic the denial of something automatically makes it true!--THOTH 15:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Your perspective is represented in the article. What else can be done? If anything that is not represented in the article and if you can source them, you are always welcomed. This is not a war. Do not take it that way. Thanks --OttomanReference 16:04, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

This is incorrect. My perspective and I think that supported by actual schoalrly analysis is that this article is a travesty of the truth and that no such article merits inclusion in Wikipedia. For instance lets say I felt that the Holocaust scholar who claims the Gas chambers were for executions and not delicing gets a mention in the article concerning "Nazi de-licing of Jewish camp internees" - yet the thrust of the overall article strongly suggests that the intention was for de-licing and that the Holocaust researcher's quotes were being used to support such a contention several other places in the article - would this mean that I should be satisfied with such an article? Would this mean that such an article is factual and deserves to be included in WIkipedia?--THOTH 16:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Please THOTH keep focus on the cited info; The content is not based on what THOTH understands. Except your personal additions, all the information in the article is sourced. I see no objection for including all the missing cited info, if you are willing to bring them forward. However, if you delete this article, you will be deleting all the citations you brought. It seems your citations, which cover this topic, do not have any value to you. You brought an Armenian, a Turkish and an Armenian state web side into this article. When you remove this article; your cited information will also be removed. Isn't it better to have an article with the sourced info. Than not having any article at all!!--OttomanReference 17:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I have to give you credit here - this argument of yours is rich. However much as you attribute to me the introduction of some of these citations (that absolutly contradict your claims) here in this talk page concerning deletion of this article - you likewise misatribute (at least the intentions) of sources for qoutes in the article itself. Some tactic of yours I must say. But no...apeal to my vanity all you want - it is irrelevant and its not about me at all nor is it about my feeling of accomplishment at having provided article content or sources etc - its about the truth - and this article is quite lacking in it.--THOTH 17:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I daresay there is a great deal more scholarly research concerning the supposed Nazi delousing campaign - backed by all sorts of scientific analysis - for instance http://vho.org/GB/Books/trr/5.html#5.2.2. - then their is of any specific analysis of your claimed actual efforts by the Allied powers to prosocute Turks held at Malta who were part of carrying out the Armenian genocide. Aside from a few oblique quotes that you misude what do you got? So why isn't there an article on this fascinating subject concerning how th Nazis dealt with their concentration camp lice problems...hardly recieves any mention at all - surely it is worthy of an article if this equally denying and twisting of the truth article of your is...--THOTH 17:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Please THOTH "NO-ONE" owns articles in wikipedia. Your citations are included in this article. Is there any other way we can help you? I can not help you with WWII issues, it may be better if you seek help somewhere else for the WWII lice problems. Thanks. --OttomanReference 17:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete or Merge/Redirect into the Malta exiles, I don't think the topic merits an article of its own.--Mardavich 03:36, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - AfD shall be removed. If some party is not satisfied with neutrality of this article, this article supposed to be prodded with a template "Neautrality of this article is disputed", not with an "AfD" - it borders on vandalism. Turkey, Ottoman Empire, Ormian holocaust etc, was always a controversial subject as much as in Europe as it is in America.

Just one reminder: Turkey as the only one country on this planet never recognized Poland's conquest (rozbiory) by its three bandit scavenging neighbor's - Austria, Russia and Germany - neither in 1773, nor 123 years after. greg park avenue 20:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

• keep - I gather this is related to the Armenian Genocide? If so, AfD's probably not where you're going to get any sort of consensus. BTW, I added a cleanup tag, it would be nice if someone who is good in the English language cleans up this article. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 03:16, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

As the one who initially nominated this for an AFD, I am following this and have wholly refrained from intervening as it grows out of proportion at times; however, claiming that my action borders on vandalism is something I find reprehensible and offennsive. I cannot understand yours nor Geo Swan's reason for a keep. There was no Malta Tribunal in the first place; it is not even controversial, there is no notable scholar who mentions a Malta tribunal, this claim was brought forward by internet newsgroups or racist personal websites like tallarmeniantale.com.

It is not the first time Ottomanreference's articles were voted for AfD: he creates one FORK article after another that I have, quite frankly lost count of all of them. The Malta exiles has its own article, the material about the prisoners of Malta goes there. But this article is original research, how much of it is sourced does not change this fact at all. The article is patched with references, it is original research. The best evidence? Try finding a name, when the unencyclopedic value of the name was brought, its author changed it and it became "Inter-allied tribunal attempt", it is a fabricated title; check on google book, or anywhere to find anything with such an obscure name.

The article should be about something; what is this article about?The prisoners of Malta which were supposed to be put on trial? There should be an article about that, but there already is an article about that. It is called the Malta exiles. If there is any relevant materials in this article, it should be present on the Malta exiles. This article is a FORK, it was first supposed to be on a tribunal, which did not exist, and then when this was brought forth, the function of the article was changed to become a FORK of the Malta exiles.

So, before accusing me of vandalism, or criticizing and questioning my motives, ask for clarification on my reasoning. This article obviously satifies the grounds for being nominated for an AfD, and I don't see any rational reason to keep it. I can create an article called the Recciyp Erdogan killing of Hrant Dink and I will be sourcing it with a hundred or so notes, but we should not lose sight that the subject of the article is central, the article can be neutral, non neutral, accurate, inaccurate, just like the materials I could provide for such a phony article yet it willnot change that the subject which in and by itself is unencyclopedic.--MarshallBagramyan 05:18, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

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.