Talk:Ottoman casualties of World War I

Title
Let's try to come up with a suitable title by consensus this time. People are welcome to add suggestions below. Khoikhoi 19:52, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * How about we move it to Ottoman Muslim casualties of World War I? -- Aivazovsky 20:39, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


 * That sounds good to me. Khoikhoi 20:40, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Should I move it now or should we wait and see what OttomanReference thinks? -- Aivazovsky 20:42, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


 * We should probably wait. Khoikhoi 20:42, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Eh, I say we move it now and get it over with. I think OttomanReference can agree on this title. -- Aivazovsky 03:11, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

McCarthy and Lewy
These aren't...errr..the best sources we could be using here. Both are relatively controversial individuals. When sources aren't neutral, we should attribute them properly. For example, we can have something like, "most historians say..." and then in the next sentence state, "however, a minority of historians claim that..." Khoikhoi 20:42, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Does anybody have any statistics from neutral sources? I'm sure that there are some out there. -- Aivazovsky 20:45, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd really like better sources than Justin McCarthy. Khoikhoi 03:28, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Let's agree that any information attributed to Justin McCarthy and Guenter Lewy should not be included in this article. McCarthy especially is extremely bias when it comes to the Armenians.  All one needs to do is watch the discussion on the Armenian Genocide that followed the PBS documentary to see what I mean. -- Aivazovsky 23:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * "McCarthy especially is extremely bias" is trashing an established historian. The wikipedia does not owned by Armenian ideology. To be respectful to the Armenian genocide, we can establish his position, but wikipedia does not have policy for the value judgements on the established historians. Besides his sentence is a historical fact; that many people moved to Anatolia from the war zone. OttomanReference 23:14, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It's the truth, though. McCarthy is notoriously biased and very controversial.  The New York Times even agrees with this notion. -- Aivazovsky 23:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * This is about history; if the statement is wrong (not historical fact) you can demand to be eliminated. (With the citations that proves it is wrong) I would support you till the end. Do see anyone going after Peter Balakian and deleting every citations coming from burning tigress? OttomanReference 23:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * If you think the source is not neutral we can clearly established his position in the text. --OttomanReference 23:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Article
This article has no sources, and is extremely badly written. I can't even understand enough of the "Why Ottoman" chapter to correct it... From what I understand, there are two sources giving different results (the Ottoman Archives and the Europeans), and this article seems to present the former as being "The Truth". Could someone knowledgeable about this issue shed some light on this, and maybe give more reliable sources. Isn't there a single mainstream history book talking about this? yandman 09:57, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Here we go again :)) please read the AfD of this article that was closed couple of days ago. The article might be short, but there are some editors who I know will be having a look at it. There are thousands of articles in Wiki who are composed of two sentences and it is also simple logic that Ottoman Muslims died during the World War, so I fail to see why this article wouldn't exist. You are more than welcome to contribute to keeping it NPOV.. However, don't forget that one of the main reasons it is titled "Ottoman Muslim" is because of the fact that back than people were grouped primarily under religion. Please let's not precipitate over this, give it time.. There is nothing in there that says "yes, the AG was so totally justified dude!!".. As for concerns over the level of English of the article, they could be corrected.. Are there history books? Yes there are my friend, there are thousands of books written about Gallipoli for example, in which more than 300,000 Ottoman soldiers along with a lot of civilians, nearly all Muslim, died. If you want, there is even a Mel Gibson film that touches on it :))) Baristarim 04:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Both of us know that this article is a FORK created in parallel to the Ottoman Armenian casulties page. No one has ever refused to let you creat an article about Ottoman casulties in WWI, but limiting this to Muslims is a FORK. The Armenian casulties entry is under the context of the genocide which has its article, while in the context of World War I there could be an article regarding the Ottoman casulties to be created, but this article given that it restrict itself to the Muslims is a FORK and RfD we all know isen't any justification in most cases when there is a heated debate behind it going on since this doesn't change the fact that it is a FORK. Just for example in Gallipoli, countless numbers of Ottoman Christians and Jews who died dragged on the first front and as labour batallions, this is covered in Gilberts work on WWI. Fad (ix) 03:27, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * You might feel that way, however you have to accept that it is impossible to treat "Ottoman Turkish casualties" or "Ottoman Kurdish casualties" seperately since there are no census figures from that period because of the way censi were conducted in accordance with the Ottoman system of grouping all Muslims under one heading for census purposes. If there is an "Ottoman Armenian casualties", and therefore the fact that we can have another article entitled "Ottoman Turkish .." or "Ottoman Kurdish ..." articles as sub-articles to "Ottoman casualties" (as the main article), how we are supposed to proceed to differenciate who was Kurdish, Turkish or Albanian since there are no seperate census figures? That is also not possible, and therefore the best we can do is group them under "Muslim" just like Ottomans did. It is as simple as that. We can also have "Ottoman Christian casualties" or "Ottoman Jewish casualties" articles, nobody is stopping anybody here, feel free to start them. There is no reason why we cannot have a "Ottoman Muslim casualties", "Ottoman Jewish casualties" etc articles under a main article "Ottoman casualties ..." since there are many shorter articles out there about fictional Star Wars planets. As I said, everyone is free to contribute to this article and make sure that it is NPOV. If you can suggest on what census figures we can base "Ottoman Turkish ..." and "Ottoman Kurdish ..." articles, then we can create those articles instead and move the stuff found in this article to them. Baristarim 13:18, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think you understand what FORK means. Ottoman Muslim casulties is a FORK, created in parallel to the Ottoman Armenian casulties. The Ottoman Armenian casulties is not a FORK, for the simple reason that the Armenian Genocide article is not a FORK, it is created under this context and was created so that the debate over the number of losses doesn't take half of the Armenian Genocide page. Ottoman Muslim casulties of World War I justify its own existance by its own existance, its specificity and selectivity is not justified by any events which could have its own article. The Ottoman participation in the war (WWI) all can have their own articles, but they will justify an article regarding the losses of Ottoman subjects, not Ottoman Muslims specifically. This includes various Ottoman subjects, not only Muslims. Was there any single event involving only Muslims? The answer is simply no, even in Gallipoli countless numbers of Ottoman Christian and Jews were killed taken under fire, it was a very heavy loss and is covered in works such as those of Gilbert. Fad (ix) 18:27, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Ottoman Muslim casualties were enormous during WWI, it definitely deserves its own article.--Doktor Gonzo 13:55, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Either you have not read my above point, either I was not being clear, if the first, read it, if the second, request clarification and be specific. Fad (ix) 23:27, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree, they were enormous, just like the [Nazi] German casualties during World War II. Hakob 01:03, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * An ignorant statement.--Doktor Gonzo 14:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Move
I've repaired the cut-and-paste move that was the result of the short move war between NikoSilver and Baristarim this morning. As a result, the article is again where it was before, at Ottoman Muslim casualties of World War I. That said, I would personally support the move proposed by Niko. Hadn't there been some kind of rapprochement over that question during the AfD? What happened to that? Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Update. I've reviewed the votes on the AfD again, and I find that the voices advocating either a renaming or a merger into an article with a wider scope than just "Muslim" were in such a strong majority that performing this move now as a result of the AfD is justified. I've therefore moved again to Ottoman casualties of World War I. Here's a summary of the opinions expressed:

I admit some of these categorisations are a bit uncertain, since a couple of votes were somewhat ambiguous. Basically, the only voices that strongly and persistently argued for an explicit keep under the current name were Baristarim and OttomanReference.
 * 1) The following editors argued to keep the material but either to merge it into a larger article or to rename it to widen its scope into something larger (either all casualties of WWI or "Ottoman casualties", regardless of religion):
 * 2) Aivazovsky
 * 3) Fadix
 * 4) Doc
 * 5) Bless sins
 * 6) Eupator
 * 7) MarshallBagramyan
 * 8) Ldingley
 * 9) Fut.Perf.
 * 10) Kober
 * 11) NikoSilver
 * 12) Dacy69
 * 13) Woogie10w
 * 14) Dirak
 * 15) Hectorian
 * 16) FunkyFly
 * 17) Yannismarou
 * 18) Davo88
 * 19) Free smyrnan
 * 20) The following editors explicitly argued to keep it under the current title, with its narrow scope on only Muslim casualties:
 * 21) Baristarim
 * 22) OttomanReference
 * 23) Okan
 * 24) Caglarkoca
 * 25) The following editors voted "keep" without explicitly commenting on the possibilities of a renaming or merge:
 * 26) A. Garnet
 * 27) RJH
 * 28) Grandmaster
 * 29) Ulvi I.
 * 30) AdilBaguirov
 * 31) E104421
 * 32) Cretanforever
 * 33) Mustafa Akalp
 * 34) Tabib
 * 35) Trichnosis
 * 36) Doktor Gonzo
 * 37) Deliogul
 * 38) The following editors voted "delete" without explicitly commenting on the possibility of a renaming or merge:
 * 39) Narekim
 * 40) Fedayee
 * 41) Delete
 * 42) Politis
 * 43) FHen
 * 44) hayk
 * 45) Avetik
 * 46) Aristovou0s

Under these circumstances, it seems to me that, by default of a new decision, the article should now be kept at the new name.

Note that this is not an "administrative decision" on my part. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:40, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you FP. All of you here should know that there is NONE non-WP:COI-vote against the move that I (rightfully) made. You should also know that ALL 6 non-WP:COI-votes suggested merger/rename to remove what was regarded as an unsourced over-segmentation of the population ("Muslim"). For more details with diffs and quotes, see my talk (here). I also note that I would have NEVER done anything to abuse my user status (as my block-log proves), so I think I deserve some more WP:AGF for my actions in the future, especially after consultation with the closing admin (here). NikoSilver 18:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Nikos, I am really having a hard time following your reasoning. What is the deal with COI?? Ok then, I suppose that we can apply the same principal here since the exact same argument can be made there about COI and that very lame "poll". FPaS, I really would like to tell me if it can't be done? Why aren't you moving the page there in that case? I really would like to know, since if votes and debates can be overrriden simply because of the "COI" of the editors involved, then I will be moving that article citing the exact same comments that Nikos just made above - I am seriously waiting clarification here, otherwise I will be moving that page to PGM. We all know that nearly all third-party editors have expressed discontentment with that title. (What conflict of interest by the way???? Are you joking? COI doesn't mention anything about the ethnicity of the users: it talks about other things. Conflict of interest? With what? Are you trying to imply that users are the secret agents of the state in which they hold a citizenship? Really amazing)
 * What 6 non-COI votes Nikos???? Three of the users also fall under COI, unless you haven't checked - which leaves us with 3 users "non-COI", and that is not enough to warrant such a move. Nikos, I would be having a lot more AGF if you weren't actingly just the opposite in the PGG article - AGF doesn't mean forget about what you have been observing about someone. You very well knew what the argument was in that AfD, and the statement of the admin "well, you can move it if there is concensus, just use the mive button" is not enough to warrant such a move - it only shows that the admin just let go off the ball of his hand and said: "take care of it yourselves". Such unilateral moves by "COI" users who had been involved waist down in the issue without trying to seek concensus in the talk pages or without debate right after an AfD had been closed is completely against the wikiprocess and very disrespectful to others who spent hours trying to discuss the issues. Be bold doesn't mean just cut loose the ropes and gallop in to the sunset. Baristarim 19:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

In fact you are right. The latest title can stay, but I hope that you guys will stick behind your reasoning and back me up when I will have moved the other article very soon since the same exact thing can be said of that poll and discussion and "COI". Thanks Baristarim 19:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh yeah, they sure will--Doktor Gonzo 19:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * You would have spared us reading all this diatrebe had you checked my comment along with it's references (as usual). In PGG there was 1 or 2 vs 0 or 1. That is hardly a 'consensus'. My "unilateral" move was after consultation with the closing admin. Also I don't like "sneak back" and other slurs in my talk, and I suggest you behave more, and write less. More than half of the size of that AfD is because you fail to follow the instructions that you yourself endorsed in a TfD. NikoSilver 19:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * (sorry for the two threads, from Nikos' talk page) I was just trying to point out the same reasoning can apply there. In fact, now that I have checked, five of the six definitely fall into one of the categories you described in your post to that admin's page, and all have edited extensively directly related articles for a long time. Which leaves us with "one" shaky neutral vote - that doesn't warrant such a unilateral vote. AfD is part of the wikiprocess, and you cannot simply change it just like that.
 * Please read Conflict of interest again, there is nothing in there that warrants the reasoning you used in your post to that admin.
 * I am sorry but expressions like ~" we shouldn't reward them for flooding the pages" is also not civil and very disrespectful to the contributions of other editors.
 * As for the PGG... Nearly every impartial editor that came by the page voiced concerns over the title - even in the first RfC of the article. There is no such thing as COI in these cases, nor is there no. X v. no. Y excluding COI

From WP:COI:

"[edit] Conflict of interest in point of view disputes Another case is within disputes relating to non-neutral points of view, where underlying conflicts of interest may aggravate editorial disagreements. In this scenario, it may be easy to make claims about conflict of interest. Don't do it. The existence of conflicts of interest does not mean that assume good faith is forgotten. Quite the opposite. Remember the basic rule: discuss the article, not the editor."

Are you still going to blame others for being a bit sceptical? I don't mean any offense, but it seems like you made statements about "COI" without reading the policy itself. I don't think that it was your intention and you tried to convey the msg that there was some sort of POV dispute because of nationality or religion, but that was not appropriate. There was no "consultation with the admin" a) he is not the ArbCom b) he practically said "take care of it yourself" - his comment that "use the move button" was, IMO, a bit sarcastic to begin with! If you got the impression that I was being uncivil, I apologize, but what just went down was a bit disturbing. Baristarim 20:25, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

So what are we going to do? There will need to have a Ottoman casualties of World War I at one point, but this article seems more appropriate for the Ottoman Muslim casualties page. Why don't we move this page back (to keep its history), break the redirect from the "Ottoman casualties", move the relevant stuff from the Ottoman Muslim casualties article to here, and expand and cleanup both articles? We need to straighten this out. FP, what do you think? I would like there to be a seperate "Ottoman casualties" article, but why move the other one like this? Baristarim 22:00, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I must confess I'm not getting what you are proposing. What is each of the two articles going to contain? Given the fact that Greek and Armenian casualties have their own articles anyway, and those two groups are rarely subsumed under "Ottoman" for obvious reasons, 95% of what the "Ottoman casualties" article can possibly deal with is in fact about Ottoman muslims. What am I missing? Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:09, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Fut.Perf. > If ""Ottoman casualties" article can possibly deal with is in fact about Ottoman muslims"; Why not use the correct title? What is the thing about the tile of "Ottoman Muslims" you do reject. It is one thing to promote an article that unites all the variables of Ottoman Empire, it is another thing to "get rid of" one side of the equation. --OttomanReference 22:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Just make an Ottoman casualties of WWI and leave this sub-page alone. Ottomans segmented its subjects by religion, this article is very much legitimate, it is just the title that bothers some people, not even the content, which we can improve.--Doktor Gonzo 10:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It's unfortunate the name of the article got changed right after it passed the AfD vote. Didn't get a chance to vote myself, but I think you made a very strong argument for why the article was about Ottoman Muslims.  I'm guessing most of those voting to keep under the third category above did so for that specific title. Lima6 22:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Concur with Doktor. All I was trying to say was that this page be moved back, and another article be created by editors who would like to. FP, I agree with Lima6 on this: most keep voters knew what they were voting for. I will be moving it back very soon, but I would prefer that you do it simply because I don't want to have to cut-and-paste again if there is a problem with the move. People should feel free to break the redirect and start a new page at "Ottoman casualties". So FP, what do you think? Baristarim 16:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I moved the page back to its original state. Anyone can start a new article at the redirect, but such a move was not appropriate since this was practically the issue raised in the AfD. All I am saying is that the article should go back to status quo ante, and any potential changes be discussed afterwards - not the other way around. I would like this article and co to be cleaned up and reoriented if need be, extended etc., but it shouldn't have been done in that way. Baristarim 16:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I have to say i do not like this unilateral move. An afd is to decide whether the article should be deleted, discussion within that afd should not determine a rename without further discussion on the talk page. I certainly did not show any support for a rename within that afd. --A.Garnet 18:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I am going to write this in Turkish, I can give a translatin to those who wish.


 * Hani bizde bir laf vardır "Oldu bittiye getirmek", gene bunu yaşadık. "Silinsin" diyen insanlar bir anda "birleştirilsin" kategorisine dahil edildi sonuç ortada. O yüzden lütfen verdiğiniz her oya, her lafa dikkat edin, yol, su olarak size geri döner işte böyle.--Doktor Gonzo 19:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * True, bit it won't stay that way. The only reason I haven't been able to move back is because there is a technical problem. I am trying to see what I can do. Baristarim 22:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Done. Any users interested in moves/merges/creation of new articles/content transfers, please use the talk page. In any case, there will most probably another article created soon. Cheers! Baristarim 22:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I should have probably discussed my actions first (I apologize for not doing so), but I moved the article back to "Ottoman casualties of World War I". We should leave it like this until we reach a consensus. -- Aivazovsky 23:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It should be the opposite. The article was moved unilaterally right after the AfD closed as keep. The move should be discussed before in the talk pages, not after. When there is concensus for the move to "Ottaman casualties" (or its creation as a seperate article), then appropriate action could be taken. Baristarim 23:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Academic appraisal (sort of)
Change of vote?Politis 21:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Conditional keep: strictly conditional because it needs total re-writing along a non-ethnic bias and change most sources. I have read the comments.
 * The article is probably a FORK, hence biased - but also because many of its sources are the same as those used or funded by Ankara propaganda to attack the Armenian genocide accusations. ‘’’However’’’, this does not mean that the article, as expressed in the title, lacks validity – but it needs great monitoring. Here are some key points to bear in mind.
 * The topic is immensely complex and smells of gas. War and population shifts began in 1912. How do we disentangle or summarise objectively those years?
 * The Ottoman Muslims were not fighting on the same side! Thousands of Ottoman Muslims died at the hands of ‘Turks’ and vice versa. The Porte in Constantinople declared Jihad on 14 November 1914. But it did not catch on: the hereditary Ottoman ruler of Mecca, Sharif Huseyn, started an Arab war of independence from Constantinople. Other Arab separatist groups, such as al-Ahd (The Oath), under former Unionist (Young Turk) officer Aziz Ali al-Misri, continued to agitate against the Porte. In Mesopotamia, Palestine and Syria, Muslims even joined the British (Laurence of Arabia). So we even have Ottoman Muslims and Orthodox Greeks fighting against the Sultan’s armies!! As well as Ottoman Muslims, Greeks, etc fighting against the allies.
 * The name ‘Turk' as a reference to the ‘ethnic’ citizens of a nation-state emerged after 1922 and Ziya Gokalp; before then “it carried contemptuous overtones” for most Muslims (Mortimer 1982, Pope 1997.) But some ‘keep’ editors have focused on the Turkishness of the Ottoman Muslims, directly or by association. For example, by stating ‘Turkish mass of Anatolia’ and later ‘Anatolian refugees’ we are lead to think that they were all Muslims and by extension, Turks – and this despite the lip service paid in the article to the ethnicities.
 * Anatolian Muslims did prosper. War increased demand for food, traditional suppliers cut off, so Muslim Anatolian heartland producers thrived, especially those with CUP (Young Turk) patronage. The corruption in this dying empire affected food, military and armed resources and caused endless Muslim deaths (Zurcher 1993). After all, the last enemy and ultimate victor against the Ottoman hierarchy was Ataturk. The casualties and miseries advanced in the article bear no affinity to the reality.
 * 1917: saw the creation of the Republic of Transcaucasia (Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan), it refused to recognise the border of 1876 and the Ottomans invaded.
 * etc, etc, etc. Politis 21:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Move War
Okay everybody. Good morning. It's a brilliant new day, the sun is shining, and the ashes of last night's move war are still smoldering.

If this incident has resulted in one thing, it's that the page can't stay where it now is. The current title ("...of the World War 1") is ridiculously wrong English. I hope we all agree at least that far. :-(

Now, of course I know what you're all gonna say: "sure, it should be moved here!" or "sure, it should be moved here!" Now, that won't work. As long as this is protected, you won't find any admin who will move it to either of these two titles for you just because you prefer it that way. Forget about it. And don't anybody start arguing again what would be the "right" status quo in terms of the outcome of the AfD. We tried that yesterday (me included) and it didn't work.

So, we have two possibilities: My own suggestion is we toss a wiki-coin to move it provisionally back to either of the two contented but linguistically correct versions. We'll ask somebody to make some token edit at a specific time and place; if the revision number of that edit comes up even the page goes here, if it comes up odd it goes here.
 * 1) Initiate another tedious and repetitive "Requested Move" discussion that everybody is  going to hate, and hope that it will lead to something sensible. However, most likely there will be no consensus anyway, so the page will remain at its impossible title for ages.
 * 2) Agree on a tiebreaking mechanism that moves the page to some interim solution quickly, so that it will at least be correct English. And then initiate another tedious and repetitive "Requested Move" discussion to determine its final location.

Silly, but I see no other quick fix to this. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:49, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Update: Resolution?
I notice Baristarim and OttomanReference have been busy on this page today, and its structural outline seems now to be designed to cover population groups of different millets (including a summary link to the Armenian main articles). Does that imply acceptance of a title not containing "Muslim"? If yes, we could lift the protection and move it to the corresponding linguistically correct title. This would be done on the understanding that the article should first continue to be expanded in its present structure, and then if enough material exists and it is structurally separable some things could be factored out into a Muslim-specific {main article} at a later stage. (Although, given the fact that muslims are currently covered in structurally very different places of this article, I don't currently see how that would easily work without breaking up this summary structure completely.)

Is this a deal? Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I second these remarks, and I see that now that the article has expanded its scope the title "Ottoman casualties of the World War 1" seems to be the most accurate one. If there is a consensus about this title, I think we should lift the protection. There seems to be no ground for move conflicts.--Yannismarou 22:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * With the exception that the "...of the World War 1" needs to be changed back to correct English "...of World War I", of course. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:07, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey, by the way, we could leave you the honour of doing this as your first administrative action? :-) But maybe we should give Nishkid a chance to comment first, to be on the safe side. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * We can decide by lot which one will implement the lifting of the protection! The honor is for the article that has so many highly qualified users (adm or not is a secondary issue) working on it. The most important thing is to make sure we have an agreed solution here that will stand. I informed Nishkid.--Yannismarou 08:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * So this title was actually grammatically correct? Well, that comes as a shocker to me. I thought First World War was a more appropriate title for the article. Anyway, I don't really have anything to say, but if you feel like consensus has been reached on the article name, then by all means, lift protection.  Nish kid 64  21:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the late reply on this talk page even though I had contacted FP earlier. I think the article and title is ok (except the grammatical mistake :)) - since it is a very legitimate topic and article. My only argument from the get-go from the first AfD was to have both articles, that's all. Baristarim 21:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok Baris, I agree too with FP, Yanni, and you. Let's expand this thing at hand, and then we can main out Muslims. As I said in the AfD, I'll support if the content is adequate for a separate article. I like Nishkid's consideration about 'First World War', and why not, if we were going to shorten it anyway ("I"/"1"), why not Ottoman casualties of WWI. NikoSilver 23:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Unprotected page and moved it to Ottoman casualties of World War I. I think that further changes like the one Nikos proposed can be decided within the spirit of cooperation.--Yannismarou 08:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Naaah, created a shortcut for quick typing. (here). NikoSilver 12:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Article tagged for npov
There are serious pov problems with this article. A large part of the lead is devoted to claims made by a single source. Firstly, leads are meant to sum up the content of the article and should not contain content not found in the body of the article. Secondly this source is published in Ermeni Arastirmalari, a Turkish periodical based in Ankara, financed by the Turkish State, and founded specifically to publish Armenian Genocide denialist propaganda. There is also clear bias in the body of the article: a complete absence of any details about the millions of Armenian, Assyrian, and Greek casualties, and an over stressing of Muslim casualties, complete with more use of propaganda sources. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:56, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Why din't we see you commenting like this, only a few days ago, on this page? Double standards? --78.178.63.161 (talk) 18:05, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * If the majority of the Ottoman population were Muslim, it is only natural that more Muslims perished. Arguing about this is unnecessary. Tiptoethrutheminefield should focus on articles concerned with his sphere of interest anyway. There is no such thing as "Armenian Genocide denialist propaganda". There is just "Armenian Genocide" lies. Period. -Dominator1453 (talk) 08:26, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * "If the majority of the Ottoman population were Muslim, it is only natural that more Muslims perished" That's logical fallacy unfortunately not backed by any credible sources. Ericksson is not a credible source, as he's not a historian. WWI has nothing to do with Armenians in any case, as Armenia didn't exist as a country back then. --92slim (talk) 14:28, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Add Armenian casualties
Fucking Turks 174.196.196.198 (talk) 20:22, 3 June 2024 (UTC)