Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ottoman Muslim casualties of World War I


 * 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. Majorly (talk) 00:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Ottoman Muslim casualties of World War I


This article is a FORK created in parallel to the Ottoman Armenian casualties article. It also lacks references, is poorly written, and has very few links outside of discussion and user talk pages. This article was nominated for deletion earlier with a conclusion of no concensus. -- Aivazovsky 14:08, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete for reason above. -- Aivazovsky 23:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Rename to "Ottoman casualties of World War I" or merge into World War I casualties. -- Aivazovsky 23:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I am sorry Aivazovsky, but are you making fun of other editors or something? First you nominate it for deletion, then you say rename, then you say that you withdraw your nomination, then you go back to rename. You also nominated this article for AfD and withdrew the last time. What is going on? Baristarim 13:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Difference in Terminologies
The article is an historical article, using an historical terminology (MILLET), which developed and used for centuries, however disbanded with the Empire's partitioning. The terminology is significant, as not just many articles but also books published. It is impossible to explain a period without "first" grasping the realities of the period. It is advisable for all sides to consider (before developing tharguments) if the words (are using words) in their arguments which are based on current (modern nationalistic) concepts or if they are using how they were developed in its time. There is a section to clarify the issue in the article. --OttomanReference 17:48, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Keep we have been over this already in the last AfD that you had proposed and withdrew. It is a valid topic, and it is true that it lacks certain references, but that's not a criteria for deletion. Many articles lack references, and this one has "expand" tags all over it. The reason why it is titled "Muslim" is because Ottoman census figures only took into account religious affiliation, which means we cannot have any "Ottoman Turkish" or "Ottoman Kurdish" articles. Just give it some time and contact the creator of the page to see if he can further help the article out. As for copy-edit, raise the points in the talk page. And the reason why it didn't have so many links at the time of the nomination is because you took them out of related articles, , , :) Not a good sign :) I mean, we have many articles about fictional Star Wars and Pokemon characters and planets, why not give an opportunity to this article to develop? Please see systemic bias about this. Baristarim 14:35, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment regarding the links. There were very few article links to the article to begin with.  I just merely finished off the remaining four article links (most of which - with the possible exception of World War I casualties - were irrelevant to the article). In any case, Baristarim reverted my actions and I don't see a point in pursuing an edit-war with him on this until the status of this article is determined. -- Aivazovsky 14:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment Aivazovsky, please do not take the links out of relevant articles. It doesn't look like a good faith move. I reverted your deletions and you reverted back again. If the regular contributors to those articles have refrained from taking those links out, you should too as the AfD nominator.
 * Comment Going back to the topic :) The question is: Have there been Ottoman citizens of the Muslim faith who died during the World War I? Yes, and many. By famine, war etc etc. If the answer is yes, then there is no reason why the article should be deleted. Again, please see systemic bias about this. Cheers! Baristarim 14:48, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep The Ottoman Armenian and Muslims are two different group. One is Christian and other is Muslim. The content is significant as both of these populations were involvedly in World War One. OttomanReference 14:44, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Muslims were the ruling majority and the ones waging a war in WWI. We have no article for British casualties of WWI do we?--  Ευπάτωρ   Talk!! 00:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep There is nothing here to indicate a POV fork. It is a completely separate topic. --A.Garnet 14:50, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep &mdash; The topic seems reasonably encyclopedic. &mdash; RJH (talk) 18:28, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Would you agree with British casualties of WWI? Or German casualties of WWI?--  Ευπάτωρ   Talk!! 00:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Absolutely yes. The casualty count was sufficiently horrific that it had definite political and other effects in the aftermath of the war. &mdash; RJH (talk) 18:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Eupator did not put it right. Would you agree on Christian Brits casulties? Jews, Alawis, Christians, Muslims all served and died in that war. Fad (ix) 01:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * This has also been explained, and the article also explains this in its first section: Ottoman censi grouped together Muslims under one heading. If someone can propose a way for us to distinguish who was a Turk, Kurd, Azeri etc from that population - then go ahead. There is also a fundamental difference between that example: religion was an important factor in many casualties of the Ottoman Empire; which was not the case for the British for example. British were fighting Germans, also Christians: therefore such a categorization would be redundant. But it was not the same thing for the Ottoman Empire, therefore the religious angle makes sense. But in any case the main thing is still the fact that Ottoman censi grouped together all Muslims, which means there is no other way to talk about them. That's all. Baristarim 11:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment I'm less than happy with over specific lists. 'Ottoman casualties' is fine, but why limit it to muslims? Are the Christian and Jewish subjects of the Ottomon Empire to be given a separate list? I know what the reaction would be to British Christian casualties of World War I - we'd disallow it as a weasel way of needlessly excluding minorities that will be too minor to mention elsewhere. Unless a very good reason is forthcoming then rename to Ottoman casualties of World War I. I find the reason so far unconvincing: the difficulty of sourcing minority casualties is not a reason to exclude them per se. We should simply leave the list open, so that if sources are forthcoming at a later stage, then other casualties can be added.--Docg 19:34, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * As explained in the article, there is a specific reason: Ottoman census figures were done upon religious affiliation (the Millet system) - that's the only reason: It is not possible to have "Ottoman Turkish casualties" or "Ottoman Kurdish casualties" etc. This is about a specific topic among the casualties. There would be no problem developing another article for the overview for the global Ottoman casualties, nor about specific articles about Ottoman casualties for Jews or Bulgarians etc. Baristarim 19:42, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * This isn't just about Kurds and Bulgars, much of this article refers to Syrian and Anatolian civilian casualties - not all of whom would have been muslim. I now say strong rename to remove 'Muslim' - if there is, as you say, muslim specific data, then there is no reason that cannot be contained within a broader article.--Docg 20:17, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Not neccessarily.. The article is being worked on anyways.. Please have a look at Millet (Ottoman Empire) for the specific demographic situation of the Ottoman Empire. In the Ottoman census, all the Muslims were grouped together, and the non-Muslims were seperate. That's why we cannot have anything other "Ottoman Muslim". But there is no reason why we can't have a specific article about the Muslim casualties - it is a valid topic. In any case - this is the deletion discussion, as I suggested before any other suggestions about references, clean-up or even possible renaming should be discussed in the talk pages of the article. As of now, no Wiki policies to merit deletion are violated, and the topic is a valid one. Did Muslim citizens of the Ottoman Empire die during World War I? Yes. That's all.Baristarim 20:30, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Your argument is bogus. Just because that source keep muslims separate, doesn't mean we need to. Much of this article is relevant to casualties in Anatolia of whatever religious persuasion. As to the notion this has noting to do with AfD, that's also spurious, because if there is not an agreement to remove the intrinsic and unnecessary religious exclusivity of this article, then I say strong delete. --Docg 20:42, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Not quite, it is common knowledge that Kurds, Turks, Azeris etc are Muslims. It is also a fact that many wars and ethnic strife happened along religious lines. Baristarim 11:03, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I was wondering, if Doc can find any citations for us. What is he referring to by saying Ottoman? Traditionally Ottoman was a term referred to the Ottoman Dynasty, are we going to give statistics on how many princes and princesses died? Is he going to claim the same argument with Ottoman Armenian casualties! I belive there is a very big misconception on Doc's part on how Ottoman empire was organized. Besides I would like to see him explaining his argument to WikiProject Armenia--OttomanReference 20:38, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Do the sections on civilian casualties in Syria and Anatolia not also equally apply to Christians and Jews living who were resident in that area at the time? There was a particularly large Greek contingent of Ottoman subjects in the area at that time. Did the hostilities miss them?--Docg 20:46, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I really welcome you to bring your citations, THAT is why we are here! If you can substantiate your arguments we can included them in the article. Thanks. --OttomanReference 20:49, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) No, not at all. There are specific articles that cover casualties for other groups as well :) I still can't see why this discussion is relevant to the AfD: The references, clean-up and possible renaming belong to the talk pages of that article, not an AfD. AfD is to delete articles that violate Wiki policies. Were there Muslim Ottoman citizens who dies during the WWI? yes. That's all - the topic is valid. There are expand tags all throughout the article, there is not much we can do if there are no editors who are working on the article 24h a day :) Ottoman, it doesn't matter. Those issues belong to the article's talk pages. Baristarim 20:53, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

*Strong delete What is the logic behind this topic? Are there Russian casualties during WWI? Should there be a casualties article for all the major warring factions of WWI?--  Ευπάτωρ   Talk!! 00:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC) --  Ευπάτωρ   Talk!! 00:50, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - the subject this article covers seems NPOV. Perhaps this article could be merged with Ottoman Armenian casualties to create another one named: "Ottoman causalties of World War I".Bless sins 23:57, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge into World War I casualties''', Seems like the only logical thing to do here.
 * We don't have .... article is not a good excuse. It doesn't state whether the topic is encyclopedic or not. Here, we will keep encyclopedic articles and delete the others. If we lack .... article, then why don't we just create them rather than deleting the existing ones? Caglarkoca 13:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment: I very much fail to see why there couldn't, in principle. If there's enough verifiable material, of course. Casualties of WWI must be an important enough topic for the demographic history of every country involved that there's likely to be some amount of research on estimates and such. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - Lacks info, no outside links what so ever doesn't seem notable. Nareklm 01:34, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - lack of outside links has never been a relevant criterion for deletion, and the suggestion that the losses sustained by any of the combatant countries of WWI might be "not notable" (to whom???) is simply absurd. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * DeleteArticle remains an obvious fork to the Armenian casualties page which was created in regards to the Armenian Genocide. The information here can easily summarized into a little footnote and be merged into the World War I casualties page.--MarshallBagramyan 17:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Does MarshallBagramyan want to integrate Ottoman Muslim casualties into Ottoman Armenian casualties, as he says "fork to the Armenian casualties"? From his reasoning, information contained in the article is meaningful, but needs to be integrated into an single article. Does he want to see all the Ottoman millets side by side? I personally thing that is a can of worms, and only an Armenian can handle such a thing. I was surprised that it is coming from a MarshallBagramyan. I do not believe it is a fork, but if MarshallBagramyan wants to turn into a good process, just for the end result, I would like to see how he is going to handle it. --OttomanReference 18:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Only an Armenian can handle such a thing? No what I was advocating that on the WWI Casualties page you can easily insert a footnote that states that X amount of the troops killed were Muslims. Anything else that you could have surmised from my comments is on the bounds of your imagination.--MarshallBagramyan 19:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Sincerely, I do not understand! Do you personally think that the casualties on the rest of the empire is so insignificant that it only deserves a footnote. Are you going to use the same argument for the Ottoman Armenian casualties, are we going to summarize them as a footnote. Also, does your statement "X amount of the troops killed were Muslims" assumes all the Muslims were troops, and no civilians? Why do you think that there should not be an article summarizing this side of the issue? If you help us, we do not have to "as you say imagine" on the duality of your thinking (Ottoman Armenians deserve - but other millets do not). I believe, WWI was hard on anyone. This does not come out of you. OttomanReference 19:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not talking about the value of a human being here and the cost of war. The Ottoman Armenian casualties article is strictly talking about those who perished during the Genocide. What's so hard to understand about that? Its the exact reason why they are no Jewish casualties and no Greek casualties of World War I articles. There's no special preference to one millet or the other but its specifically talking about the Genocide, which thus makes it relevant. This not even mentioning the fact that most of the sources on this page lack credibility and are unreliable (Zurcher? McCarthy?) because they not only deny the Genocide but claim that the most of the internal deaths of the Muslims were at the hands of Armenians.--MarshallBagramyan 20:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * This article is just plain ridiculous. To put it in perspective think of an article titled British Christian casualties of WWI. How stupid is that? This is just a silly pov fork. The Armenian casualties article directly deals with the Armenian Genocide!--  Ευπάτωρ   Talk!! 21:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * This has also been explained, and the article also explains this in its first section: Ottoman censi grouped together Muslims under one heading. If someone can propose a way for us to distinguish who was a Turk, Kurd, Azeri etc from that population - then go ahead. There is also a fundamental difference between that example: religion was an important factor in many casualties of the Ottoman Empire; which was not the case for the British for example. British were fighting Germans, also Christians: therefore such a categorization would be redundant. But it was not the same thing for the Ottoman Empire, therefore the religious angle makes sense. But in any case the main thing is still the fact that Ottoman censi grouped together all Muslims, which means there is no other way to talk about them. That's all. Baristarim 17:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Right -- perhaps we should consider splitting the page into separate pages such as: "Turkish Casualties of WWI", "Kurdish Casualties of WWI" and "Azerbaijani Casualties of WWI"? --AdilBaguirov 14:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The Armenian casualties article, is a block box study (1914 population-1918 population) covers all the Armenians including the French Armenian Legion. I hope you really know the difference. OttomanReference 04:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Shouting over and over again that you find the idea stupid doesn't make it so. Knock it off already. Let's keep some style in this AfD. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per MarshallBagramyan and  Ευπάτωρ   Talk!! -- Fedayee 22:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge as per Aivazovsky and Ευπάτωρ Ldingley 23:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge to Middle Eastern theatre of World War I, the main article about that part of WWI. We don't currently have separate casualties articles on the other combatant nations. Sure, that alone doesn't mean there couldn't be any; it is in principle a valid topic and might warrant a sub-article of its own if there's enough good material. However, right now the article is so poor in structure, sourcing and balance that it just fails to demonstrate that need. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Hakob 01:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Reorganize and Merge to Middle Eastern theatre of World War I per Fut.Perf.. Once there are sufficient information and sources, I would alternatively suggest having a separate article on the Ottoman army casualties that would not include civilians so as to avoid the religious exclusivity of the content. Ordered to Die: a history of the Ottoman army in the first World War By Edward J. Erickson (ISBN 0313315167) can be one possible source. I don’t know much about the neutrality of this book, but Appendix F on p. 237 contains a lot of info on the Ottoman army casualties organized in tables. --Kober 06:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete and merge (see below) whatever salvageable non-WP:OR content to Middle Eastern theatre of World War I per Fut.Perf. I am also concerned about Doc's observation that the title and focus is on a particular cross-correlation of a religious group and an ethnic group, which is not uncommon per se, but it forces exclusion of material that could help in NPOVing. NikoSilver 10:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This user was specifically contacted by the nominator of this AfD here: . Baristarim 10:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. Niko cited my action and I apologized for doing it.  I didn't realize that it was against Wikipedian policy. -- Aivazovsky 11:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Are you sure that "You didn't realize that.."? Must TC 17:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Not quite. This article already has references, and an editor has been working on it for some time. The article is already long, and there is no reason why there can't be such an article: Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, there are no limits as to what can be written. What Wiki policies this article's title breaks has not yet been shown. It has been explained why "Muslim" has been used, and considering the religious nature of many conflicts, it makes it an even more valid topic. There is no reason why we can't have a Ottoman Jewish casualties during World War I either. I sense that people are assuming bad faith on the parts of the editors who created this article, and that's not helpful either. Have there been Ottoman citizens of the Muslim faith who died during World War I? Yes. The article's title is valid. The article also has many sources, it is long, and has expand tags where need be. Clean-up etc can be addressed in the article's talk page. Baristarim 10:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Baris, I still feel that the cross-correlation of the religious group "Muslims" with the ethnic group "Ottomans" forces exclusion of material that could WP:NPOV the article, and that a whole article on this segment of the populations affected is WP:NPOV, given the existing relative articles for much greater scale of casualties. As I said, I want the salvageable content retained; but under a significantly larger umbrella (such as Middle Eastern theatre of World War I, Middle Eastern casualties of World War I, or even Casualties of World War I to begin with!) IMO, there is no need to create summary style articles, when you do not have a main article (or main section) in the first place! NikoSilver 13:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * World War I casualties already exists. I am sorry, but the fact that someone hasn't created another article doesn't mean we can't have a seperate article for this. Nobody is stopping someone from creating Ottoman Jewish casualties during World War I, either. that's all. However, please keep an eye on this article for NPOV that might develop - that's not only legitimate, but common sense. Baristarim 16:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Perfect! Include it there! I'm leaving a note in that article's talk; and I refer you to the hidden note which says: "&lt;!--Please do not change any casualty numbers until it has been suggested/discussed on the talk page. Sources should also be stated.--&gt;" NikoSilver 16:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Uh.. Why does it have to be merged there? This article is quite long already. If any thing, a section should be created in that article and give a seealso to this article. What is your main argument as to why this topic cannot have its own article? Because deaths of X are not notable enough? The FORK argument still hasn't been explained, either. How is "Muslim" a fork of "Armenian"???? Are we clear on the definition of "Fork"?? If anything, it can be a "parallel" article, and parallel articles are more than legitimate to explore a topic further (WWI casualties in this case).. Nikos, still no argument as to why this article doesn't merit its existance has been demonstrated, nor has it been shown what Wikipedia policy this breaks, except a few allegations of "non-notability", which can be considerd, at worst, as racist. This AfD is better, but in the last one nearly all the arguments said "non-notable"... People cannot AfD this article until they get the result they want, every single time pulling new arguments as if haggling for a carpet. Have there been Muslim citizens of the Ottoman Empire that died? Yes, and many. Is the article only a paragraph? No, it is longer than half the articles on Wikipedia. Why should it be deleted or merged? Baristarim 17:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict)Again, the "Muslim" thing has been explained... There are no figures as to the ethnic repartition of the Muslim Millet of the Ottoman Empire. How are we supposed to talk about the casualties of Muslims in that case? Lots of conflict happened along religious lines. Religion has practically been the only source of conflict in the Middle East for millenia, that's why it is relevant. There is no cross-correlation by the way, "Ottoman Muslim" means Muslim citizens of the Ottoman Empire, it doesn't imply that all Ottomans were Muslims.
 * Undue weight argument doesn't make sense either. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, there is no limit to what can be written, as lons as no Wiki policies are violated. You are saying that this article cannot exist because there is no Ottoman Jewish casualties during World War I, or that similar articles are shorter. I am sorry, but that's not valid - pls create such an article. Nobody is stopping the expansion of other articles either, right? All casualties are notable, nobody can say "because X casualties article is shorter, Y casualties article must be deleted" - particularly when Wikipedia contains much longer articles about fictional Pokemon characters or Star Wars planets. Why can't real world deaths of numerous people have its own article? It still has not been explained why this topic is not notable or POV. It is a perfectly legitimate topic. Baristarim 17:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * There is no need for a merge, you should ask them to expand that article. Baristarim 17:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Changing my vote accordingly: Either rename to allow addition of the other POV's material; or merge into World War I casualties. Don't delete content. NikoSilver 17:52, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I see no reason to delete this article. Grandmaster 11:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

--Ulvi I. 14:04, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Ottoman Empire was one of the major parties to the WWI, how can one deny its losses?


 * I don't think you understand what the problem is here. I was one of the first defending an article on Ottoman casulties. This article single out Muslims, all the point raised in the article also includes the Alawis, the Jews, the Christians etc., not only Muslims. Other groups are humans too, and they too conscripted in the army, they too starved during the war. Are you denying their losses? This article existance is justified as a FORK of the Armenian genocide article, OttomanRefference who is the major contributor confirmed this by his attempts on the Ottoman Armenian casulties page. Fad (ix) 02:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * This has also been explained, and the article also explains this in its first section: Ottoman censi grouped together Muslims under one heading. If someone can propose a way for us to distinguish who was a Turk, Kurd, Azeri etc from that population - then go ahead. There is also a fundamental difference between that example: religion was an important factor in many casualties of the Ottoman Empire; which was not the case for the British for example. British were fighting Germans, also Christians: therefore such a categorization would be redundant. But it was not the same thing for the Ottoman Empire, therefore the religious angle makes sense. But in any case the main thing is still the fact that Ottoman censi grouped together all Muslims, which means there is no other way to talk about them. That's all. That user has been editing many Ottoman history related articles, so it is normal that he is editing related articles. Nevertheless, per WP:OWN, nobody owns an article, therefore the supposed initial intent of an article's creator is not relevant since the article is free to be edited by anyone, and as such the only thing we have to decide is if the topic is valid or not. Baristarim 11:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Nobody is stopping anyone from creating a Ottoman Jewish casualties of World War I, nor the expansion of other articles. This is a subarticle of World War I casualties, that's all... Baristarim 11:23, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep It's scholarly and practical value in the study of that period of region's history is invaluable. --AdilBaguirov 14:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep baristarim made ggod argument. And if Wikipedia has article the Ottoman Armenian casualties why can't be this. We either remove all and merge it in one with some neutral title or we can have several.--Dacy69 15:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep per Barış. The article is on a valid topic and will be expanded in the future. E104421 15:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Cretanforever 17:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep I do not believe the article should be deleted but cleaned up. There were huge losses in the Ottoman Empire during WW1. The article is biased because it ignores the massacres of Armenians and other Christians that ended in 1923. The Allied blockade caused food shortages and famine plus the Spanish Flu caused additional losses. The numbers of dead are difficult to determine and are a topic of intense debate. What is need is a person who is familiar with the literature on this topic to step in and clean it up to eliminate the one sided POV that deals only with Muslim losses. The section on military casualties was relevant to the WW1 Casualties article so I included the link.--Woogie10w 17:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep  Must TC  17:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - inexistance of orange does not legitimize the deletion of apple given that articles dealing with 'fruits' do not violate principles. No need also to rename it since particular meaning of the title in the Ottoman context is explained in the article. Apart from these, what remains is the accusation of Ευπάτωρ that 'it's stupid, silly, etc.', which is far from constituting a substantiative argument for deletion. Okan 19:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete POV fork. You can merge anything adequately sourced into World War I casualties. //Dirak 22:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge into World War I casualties, the causes for the Muslims' deaths apply also to non-Muslims. (eg. famine, epidemics etc). //Dirak 00:38, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Pff.. We went over this already: how is "Ottoman Muslim" a fork? Of what precisely? This article is long enough, and the topic is more than valid, as pointed out above numerous times. There is no reason why there can't be a seperate article as pointed out above by many users, and it still has not been shown what Wiki policy this breaks. The choice of the title was also talked about many times. It is really sad that how there is this insistance on doing everything possible to not to have an article about this when there are thousands of articles about even fictional Pokemon characters. I really fail to understand.. Nobody is stopping the creation of Ottoman Jewish casualties during World War I or "Ottoman X casualties during World War I". All of them are legitimate encyclopedic topics. Particularly since religion was such an important factor in the wars et al in that part of the world, the title is more than valid. In fact, seeing the size of this article, a seperate section should be created in World War I casualties and give this article as main. As pointed very well above by Okan, inexistance of orange does not legitimize the deletion of apple given that articles dealing with 'fruits' do not violate principles. Nobody is stopping the expansion of other articles, their supposed shortness is not a reason why this article should be deleted. If anyone thinks that other articles need an expansion, please expand them - Wikipedia would appreciate it. Baristarim 22:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * So basically what you are saying is that the war only affected the Muslims, the famine only affected the Muslims, and death targeted Muslims. Not only per population more Christians died, but even on absolute figures as much Christians died.
 * Pff.. Nobody is stopping the creation of Ottoman Jewish casualties during World War I or asking the deletion of other articles, nor stopping their expansion. The article's title is valid, and what you are basically saying is that X casualties article should be deleted because Y casualties article is shorter - it contains the assumption that X is less important Y. Expand the relevant articles, it is not a "either/or" situation. Baristarim 11:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * On Dardanelle, Jews and Christians were dragged in a labour battalion composed of non-Muslims where the casualty was reported very high (See Gilbert book on WWI). Every point raised on that article, other groups have faced. It is claimed that unlike Christians and Jews the Muslims did not get missionary Hospitals help. As I am sure you are well aware of the Red Crescent camps, how many were they? Did they have any of the restrictions imposed on the missionary hospitals? While the Red Crescent camps would only receive Christians after treating Muslims, the missionary hospitals would receive on the spot, read Ussher memoirs. In the East they were requisitioned by the army after the departure of the Armenians and would only receive the remaining, that is the Muslims. Some of the relief camps were even attacked by the Ottoman army, the Red Cross mission on Van for instance.
 * This article contains such irrelevancies, that cleaning them will place it in a shape that its title would have to be changed for Ottoman Casualties’, but since you claim alone it could and should survive, I have no other option than opposing. Fad (ix) 02:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I am sorry, but I can't quite get how casualties and related events can be irrelevant.. In any case, it has also been explained why it is used as "Muslim" - if someone has a way of splitting them into Turkish, Azeri etc, then go ahead - but do not forget to mention how we are supposed to know who was Kurdish, Turkish etc since the Ottoman censi figures only took into account religious affiliation and categorized them as such. Baristarim 10:35, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * To quote you from another case "are you having fun up there?" NikoSilver 22:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * :) Baristarim 22:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Very strong Delete We have here another example of a RfD which abuses the system and uses targeted interest to pass an unencyclopedic article as valid. This article is indeed a FORK, as I have explained previously on its talk page. We are not talking here about if an article regarding Ottoman Empires casulties of WWI should be created, because that could be justified, we are debating here on whetever or not this article is a FORK yes or not. It is indeed one. Singling a population based on its religion in an event having affected the entire Ottoman Empire is clearly a FORK. This article has been created as a parallel to the Ottoman Armenian casulties page and seems to be indeed a diverted gimmik to be a "counter answer" to it. I already explained why the Ottoman Armenian casulties article is not a FORK while this one is, but I will once more explain it. Ottoman Empire was at war, any article about Ottoman Empires casulties of WWI accademically speaking will be in that context. There aren't any article on Ottoman casulties and we realise that one about Muslims is created. Baristarim justification doesn't make sense because no, Ottoman Jewish casulties during WWI can not be created in that context without being a FORK. For that to happen, there must be an encyclopedic justification of its existance, such article about casulties can not be an end. We can creat an article about Accadians casulties in the context of the Accadian deportation, this is not a FORK, because such an article will not be an end by itself. On the other hand, we can not creat an article about ethnically 'anglo-saxon' losses of life in the American army in the last years of the second world war at the door of Berlin. That would clearly be a FORK, unless so conscription system has been imposed on place founding a unite on ones anglo-saxonism to then sent on the front. In the context of war, and the context of the article, it would be like creating an article on the casulties of people with blue eyes during the American war of independence. Having said that, I don't think it is difficult to understand why the Ottoman Armenian casulties is not a FORK, it is because there were measures imposed against the Armenians which led to those casulties. The Christians and Jews were conscripted in the Ottoman army as well as the Alawis etc., the situation of war as justification, creating an article and singling the Muslims is definitly FORK. I don't expect my words to change anything, since I am convinced that those having voted keep for the most part clearly understand why the article is FORK. Fad (ix) 00:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'm not at all certain you have understood what a "FORK" is. Fut.Perf. ☼ 00:22, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I think I do, for a user who fought against it for over a year. But I admit I wasn't clear there in that I have skipped parts above. The main being that the 'varriable' article being disputed is not raised there, the hypothetical 'varriable', call it x for all it matters, but rather a way to skip it to creat a subcathegory to not have to raise issues. Lets say someone has a problem with an article 'x', and won't be able to get what he wants in that article 'x' because concensus will never be achieved or because it will be against guidelines or policies, the person start creating segments of the subjet as article, the 'end' by itself which existance could be justified by its own existance. In short, the user tries to get away with controversies by creating a parallel article and then using the argument that it is not a FORK because no prior article covers it (simplifying there), when the subject itself could not have found its place the way it is in this article in the already existing articles without violating policies and guidelines. The failure in incorporating(in another article, in this cases either the Armenian Genocide article or the casulties page attached to it) it should not be equaled with a value the subject could have as an independent article. Fad (ix) 00:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not getting it. Why on earth would anyone want to incorporate this material in the Armenian Genocide one? Fut.Perf. ☼ 00:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Ask them, check the talkpage of the Armenian Genocide page and the numbers of time they have requested it. They want to 'balance' the Armenian genocide page, they can't, and there is the Armenian casulties page..., so the bet is to creat a parallel page, when there is even no Ottoman casulties page. 'Muslims' used in parallel to the 'Armenians.' Fad (ix) 00:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Do not use "they", and assume good faith on the part of the creators of this article. I am not one of them, but I still cannot see why it would be a FORK. You are now saying that it is a "parallel" article - well parallel articles are more than welcome in Wikipedia to analyze a issue further - that's not what a fork is. With your reasoning Islam is a fork of Christianity or Judaism since they are "parallel" articles. Inexistance/shortness of other articles do not bear on another article - nobody is stopping anyone from creating a Ottoman Jewish casualties during World War I or the expansion of other articles. However the most ludicrous assumption is the claim that "Ottoman Muslim" is a fork of "Armenian" - uh, sorry, it is not. The article also talks about the Gallipoli campaign and Syria etc. It is also true that there were huge famines etc back in the day because of the war. This is a sub-article of World War I casualties, and nobody is stopping the expansion of that, or any other, article either. Fadix, your claims are bordering on fantasy and paranoia - it still has not been explained how "Ottoman Muslim" casualties is a fork of Armenian. Are you saying that no Ottoman Muslims died in the Middle East, Gallipoli, because of famine, blockades etc?? It has also been explained that the reason why "Muslim" is used is because of the Ottoman censi, and this combined with the fact that lots of conflict happened among religious lines, it is valid. Fadix, you are trying to guess and assume bad faith on what the initial creator of the article might have thought - that is not appropriate. Baristarim 10:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * As Fadix said, the exact same reasons for the casualties applied to the whole population, regardless of religious or ethnic affiliation, while that is definitely not the case for Armenians or whatever. You can't restrict article usage to muslims. NikoSilver 11:47, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * ??? I am sorry, but nobody is stopping the creation of Ottoman Jewish casualties during World War I or any other related article. This is a direct sub-article of World War I casualties, of which similar articles are also as such. There are shorter articles in Wikipedia, even about fictional characters and planets, I do not understand why the casualties of Ottoman Muslims cannot have its own article. The choice of "Muslim" has also been explained: it is not because of religious reasons, but because Ottoman censi grouped together all Muslims together, which means we do not have reliable information in a way which would permit us to have "Ottoman Kurdish" or "Ottoman Turkish" casualty articles. The choice is not religious, and it is explained in the article's first paragraph. Nevertheless, we all know that religion has always been an important factor in the Middle East for all sorts of wars and casualties. Nikos, as I said before, people cannot AfD this article forever until they get the 'right' result, every single time pulling new arguments. What is this insistence as to why there cannot be an article about this? The topic is valid, the title is valid, the article is long, I still cannot see how "Ottoman Muslim" is a "fork" to "Armenian".. I am sorry, but such insistence is very unWikipedian: there is no reason why there can't be articles as long as a article's scope is notable enough and it doesn't violate any guidelines. People can expand other articles as they wish, that has no bearing on this article. Baristarim 12:30, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The exact same reasons for the casualties applied to the whole population, regardless of religious or ethnic affiliation, while that is definitely not the case for Armenians or whatever. You can't restrict article usage to Muslims, and Jews and the like should be allowed by the title to be added in this article because they suffered the exact same suffering for the exact same reasons. Selecting to isolate a fragment of the exact same case is WP:FORK in my book, and I would suggest you to revise your opinion. NikoSilver 13:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Not quite, since even the Martians know that religion has been a very important factor in many wars and casualties in the Middle East, just like it was during the World War in the Ottoman Empire, Balkans and the Middle East. I tried to mention this somewhere above: having "British Christian casualties during World War I" would not neccessarily make sense, since the British were fighting the Germans et al, who were also Christians - therefore such a categorization would simply be redundant. In any case, still: The choice of "Muslim" has also been explained: it is not because of religious reasons, but because Ottoman censi grouped together all Muslims together, which means we do not have reliable information in a way which would permit us to have "Ottoman Kurdish" or "Ottoman Turkish" casualty articles. If you can tell us how we are to proceed to such divisions, please say it. That's why the article is not a fork - and it is definitely not a fork of Armenian casualties article. The choice is not religious, and it is explained in the article's first paragraph. This is about the casualties of a particular Millet of the Ottoman Empire - and therefore the casualties they suffered is valid - particularly considering that the post-war partition of countries, and the foundation of many other states that arose from the remnants of the Ottoman Empire also happened along religious lines. Listen, it is common knowledge that many Muslims died, and not neccessarily for the same reasons - some of them did, some of them didn't. But again, the casualties of every ethnic and religious group had consequences for the political situations in the aftermath of the war. I said this in the last AfD: if there is anyone who can say with a straight face that no Turk/Kurd/Armenian/Greek/Sunni/Shia/Azeri etc was not killed by Turk/Kurd/Armenian/Greek/Sunni/Shia/Azeris during World War I for religious or ethnic reasons, sometimes with the involvement of many, then he should seriously get a reality check. The article explores a valid encyclopedic topic - however please keep an eye on the article for any POV issues. Baristarim 13:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The article definitely fails to illustrate how the reasons that the Muslims suffered were any different from the reasons that all other Ottomans suffered. I don't care if the Ottoman censi had data on blue-eyed tall people, as long as these fell in the same misery for the same reasons. If you find sources that discriminate casualty reasons on a religious specific nature as opposed to the rest of the Ottomans, then you'll have a point. But you don't have such sources now. The Spanish flu and the famine, did not discriminate on religion LOL!! Same didn't the Military and the others (per your sources). NikoSilver 16:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It is not just about famine. The article is trying to focus on the Muslim millet of the Ottoman Empire, and the casualties they had suffered. The article is not short, and it has expand tags all over it. What is the rush of not waiting for this article to be developed even further? Many Muslims also migrated during the World War precisely for the reasons that have to do primarily with religion/ethnic conflict, either in the Balkans, Middle East etc, and those also fall under the scope of this article. Many Turks/Kurds ended up moving from one place to the other during the war - and the reasons that caused their migrations were not always the same that caused the migration of other people. That's all.. Baristarim 16:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Well you can't focus on something whose same causalities have made more people miserable. Why do you work your way backwards? When you find such sources differentiating Muslims from non-Muslims and expand it, then you can definitely main it out of the other broader article (World War I casualties). For now it is a subheading (Ottoman) of a subheading (Ottoman and Muslim) -which is too far for the sources given! Why not first expand the existing article and then garner consensus for maining it out? I will support when I see adequate differentiated content! NikoSilver 17:23, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Caglarkoca Let's not be childish. Any page referring to the casualities would look a bit the same, wouldn't they? It doesn't mean that all cauality pages are FORKS of each other. If this informations is to be added as a footnote to the WWI casualities, then the same can be done for the Armenian casualities. We already have a Genocide article, which is far from including a tiny tiny Turkish POV section, so anything on the Armenian Casualities can be merged with it. It is a suprise to see that a lot of Wikipedians lack objectivity. If your arguments are correct, all casuality pages must be merged into a single article for each war. But I believe all such pages must be kept, because they are encyclopedic.


 * I also don't like the classification of Muslim. But it is explained clearly, in that period religion constituted the identity of the people instead of nationality. I would prefer an article with the name Turkish casualities of the WWI, rather than Muslim casualities. But he problem is, we do not have any sources on the nationality of the casualities. So it must stay so.


 * Baristarim explained it very clearly, we have many Pokemon articles which even become featured, Harry Potter character articles, a great deal of plot spoilers; so why do you focus on this article instead of trying to clear wikipedia from such articles? Caglarkoca 13:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. I looked through the list at all the users who voted "delete" and with much certainty I can say that all of them are either ethnic Armenians and a few Greeks. With all respect to these two nations, I do not think these editors assumed good faith when they voted for deletion. The entry name is legitimate and this issue deserves separate consideration. The Armenian side of the story has at least three similar entries - Ottoman Armenian casualties, Armenian casualties during World War I, Armenian casualties of deportations, not mentioning the entry called "Armenian Genocide". Why Turks can't have one entry acknoledging their losses?.. --Tabib 14:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * And I looked through the list of keep, and mostly they were Turks and Azerbaijani's. What is the point? Fad (ix) 17:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Fadix, concentrate on the Armenian losses articles (three significantly on losses) rather than the nationality of the voters. Tabib is quite right. Why don't you merge all the three articles to Armenian losses on the WWI. (Keep two articles: One is genocide, one is losses) Caglarkoca 19:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Caglarkoca, I don’t care on the nationalities of the voters, Tabib brought it out, as usual his prejudicial remarks directed at Armenians. Simplistic comment answered in kind. I forgot to answer though that the two other Armenian casualties’ pages are delete materials and OttomanReference was responsible of their creation, he created those to justify the keeping of the Muslim losses entry. Britannica had an entry on Armenian population and losses an any works covering the genocide at least cover a chapter on such issues. Fad (ix) 00:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Fadix, I don't get why Armenians and Greeks want this article to be deleted. Since this article is on the Ottoman Muslim casualities, Ottoman Muslims (i.e Turks, Azerbaijanis, Kurds and Arabs who were Ottoman Muslims) would like to protect the article from deletion. If someone tries to delete the article Armenia, mostly Armenian poeple would oppose deletion. It is the same for the article Turkey or any articles related to Turkey. But I do not really get why Armenians and Greeks try to delete this encyclopedic article. Caglarkoca 10:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) Not quite, there have been many votes from many other nationalities with different degrees of support or opposition. Nevertheless, let's try to keep some style in this AfD at least and let's avoid such categorization (of either way), unless we want this to go the way of the previous AfD which was nothing but a mess and thus had to be withdrawn. In any case, I still fail to see why "Muslim" is somehow the opposite of "Armenian". Baristarim 19:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Baritarism, this article was created before any articles on Ottoman casulties, wich I would have supported and even contributed in. Pay attention to the justifications for keeping it and you will see that my claim of the article used as opposition to the 'Armenian.' Muslims died too. They talk about of Christian losses. etc. (I am paraphrasing) It is clear in the mind of those wanting the keep, at least the majority that this page is used advocating the Muslims died too. (a wording coined by McCarthy himself), it is a promossion. We are not debating here on Ottoman casualties. Fad (ix) 00:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. POV-fork, references are missing and for reasons mentioned above. Anything valuable can be merged in World War I casualties. Btw, WWI was not a religious war, so there is no need for such articles. Hectorian 14:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The choice of "Muslim" has also been explained: it is not because of religious reasons, but because Ottoman censi grouped all Muslims together, which means we do not have reliable information in a way which would permit us to have "Ottoman Kurdish" or "Ottoman Turkish" casualty articles. If you can tell us how we are to proceed to such divisions, please say it. That's why the article is not a fork. The choice is not religious, and it is explained in the article's first paragraph. This is about the casualties of a particular Millet of the Ottoman Empire - and therefore the casualties they suffered is valid. There are references, and there is no rule against having casualties articles. In fact, another section should be created in World War I casualties and give this article as main, if anything. Baristarim 14:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but i still consider it a fork... Just as i would consider a fork a possible article about "Greek Orthodox casualties" (still a millet). Hectorian 16:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I see your point, however "Greek Orthodox" would simply be redundant since "Greek" is already an ethnicity, whereas "Ottoman" is not - it is just a nationality status. How can we create "Ottoma Turkish" or "Ottoman Kurdish" casualties if there are no reliable figures at all for the ethnic repartition of the Muslim Millet? I would also be ok with Ottoman Turkish et al casualties - but, as things stand, this is the only way. "Muslim" here is not a religious classification per se, it is a demographic classification used in Ottoman censi.
 * As for the other point, it wouldn't be fork and it could be a valid article. Wikipedia doesn't have a limit on what articles we can have as long as the topic is notable, and if the subject matter is valid. People are welcome to keep an eye on this for POV, but I cannot understand why it is not notable enough that it cannot exist among +1,5m articles in Wikipedia. But it is ok if you consider it a fork, and you are more than welcome to keep an eye on the article to make sure that it focuses on topic and doesn't stray from NPOV. Baristarim 16:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Greek Orthodox is not exactly "Greek" in the sense of an ethnicity... And surely, was not considered as such in the Ottoman times (e.g. in early times, this millet included the Serbs and Bulgarians). Merging this article in World War I casualties, or, even better, in Middle Eastern theatre of World War I (as Fut.Perf. proposed) would be the best, IMO. Hectorian 16:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I would also like to be able to find a way to split this article into "Ottoman Turkish" "Ottoman Azeri", but it is not possible since there is no way of determining who is of what ethnicity among the Muslim Millet - not to mention the fact that ethnic identification was quite blurry to begin with. Why not create a section in that article and give this as main? This article is longer than half the articles on Wikipedia anyways. If it were a paragraph, I could understand... Baristarim 16:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep There is no reason to delete articleTrichnosis 15:23, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge and then Delete, with Casualties of World War I. It is poorly sourced and POV.   /FunkyFly.talk_  16:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * "Merge" and then "delete" is not technically a valid option, for GFDL reasons. If things are merged, a redirect remains. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The article is being worked on, and the article already has references. Lack of references is not a reason why it cannot be a seperate article, however.. Baristarim 16:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Subject matter deserves its own article. I'll be able to help Baris in citing sources next week, currently not much time in my hand. Regards.--Doktor Gonzo 17:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC).
 * Delete. The article is (inadvertantly) an insult to the Ottoman Empire and to the human losses it suffered. The military and civilian casualties were Ottoman Muslims who were native speakers of Arabic/Albanian/Greek/Kurdish/Laz/etc... as well as of Turkish. There were also Ottoman Christians casualties who even spoke Turkish. Thousands of those casualties or commrades in arms often lived in mixed regions. How dare we impose on those victims a post-modern, pseudo-nationalistic segregation? After the Young Turk revolution, all Ottoman citizens were equal. Indeed, there was no 'purefied' ethnic or linguistic unity - just Ottoman citizens. Likewise, I would ask for the deletion of an article on 'Greek Orthodox casualties of WWI' or whatever. Politis 17:22, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The choice of "Muslim" has also been explained: it is not because of religious reasons, but because Ottoman censi grouped all Muslims together, which means we do not have reliable information in a way which would permit us to have "Ottoman Kurdish" or "Ottoman Turkish" casualty articles. If you can tell us how we are to proceed to such divisions, please say it. That's why the article is not a fork. The choice is not religious, and it is explained in the article's first paragraph. This is about the casualties of a particular Millet of the Ottoman Empire - and therefore the casualties they suffered is valid. Baristarim 14:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. If there is a war going on and you are losing it (actually you don't have to loose it, remember the fall of Britain after WW II), you will probably have really big problems to support your citizens because you have to give all your sources to military. Problems in health care, food supply etc. will cause huge civilian deaths. The situation in the Ottoman Empire wasn't different. Deliogul 17:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * So there was only Muslims in the empire. Right? Fad (ix) 17:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It is time we show some focus on the Ottoman Muslim casualties which has always been neglected. I don't think we can say that for the Christian subjects of the empire, can we Fadix? I'll support Baris with sources from the university library next week --Doktor Gonzo 18:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment Baristarim. You are pulling my leg again. I never said casualties related articles are irrelevant, what I pointed to is the irrelevancy of singling Muslims when none of the cases provided single Muslims. We do not create ‘anglo-saxon’ American casualties’ of the Vietnam War, can we create such articles? We could if there were some policies back then, which would only send ‘anglo-saxon white Americans to Vietnam, if no such policies existed singling them would even be prejudicial.

As for the term ‘they’, ‘they’ refer to the active contributors, it wasn’t used in a pejorative way. As for the main contributor, no, I do no assume good faith, he already admitted his intentions when he tried modifying the Armenian casualties’ entry to fit the purposes of existence the Muslim casualties’ page.

Now coming to Judaism, Islam and Christianity articles. Look, you are an intelligent person, so please don’t include comparisons you know don’t fit in. The Torah is not the Koran, those elements differentiating them each justify them. Check all the factors presented in the Muslim casualties’ page, which one was specifically proper to Muslim? The answer is none, there is no specificity justifying it, I don’t say had their been an Ottoman casualties’ page and that in such a page the specificity of the Muslim deaths would have taken too much space, a page on excess deaths could not have been created, but you know that is not the cases. So for those reasons, I think you pretty much understand why this article is a FORK, I don’t need to tell you that the major contributor is the same contributor who toyed with the Armenian genocide page as well as the Armenian casualties’ page, the same contributor who added irrelevancies attempting to dump the Ottoman Muslims and will find himself now working on a Muslim article. That’s the FORK.

Lastly, I never said there were no Muslim casualties’, I do believe that there were heavy losses. But none of the cases mentioned would justify singling them when other Ottoman subjects were also victim, the excess Christian mortality reached per population as much in some region as over the 4:1, and I was the one opposing the creation of a Christian casualties’ page. If you want to create an Ottoman casualties’ page including all the groups go ahead, very good idea. But you will not make me believe that this article is not a FORK to the Armenian articles when there is even no page on Ottoman casualties’ of WWI, and then one on the Muslims pop-up, and this worked by the same person having disrupted both Armenian articles. Fad (ix) 17:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, my example with the religion was an exagerration and some lame straw man, and I also can see your point about the tensions that might have existed before with some other editors. However, I really would like, somehow, to find some sort of working ground where we can encyclopedically cover many aspects of this part of history. I also disagree that "Muslim" is somehow the opposite of "Armenian". In any case, I said before that, per WP:OWN, any editor can edit any article, and the supposed initial intent of the creators of an article do not have much bearing on the validity of an article. Listen, unfortunately I have never had enough time to get involved with many related articles, and I know that there is a lot of work to be done.. I just think that we should give an opportunity for this article to develop and that any editor can keep an eye on the article for NPOV. I know that there are always some POV games going on in many Wiki articles, but at least let's try to marginalize such games and try to concentrate on content. Baristarim 19:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Baris, i'm still not buying that this article has any other purpose other than to pursue denialist arguments of the Armenian Genocide. I want you here on record saying that you have absolutely no problem with an article like Russian Christian casualties of World War I ? AFter all Tasrist Russia had many Muslim subjects just like the Ottman Empire ha Christians. So your argument of British vs Germans wont fly here...--  Ευπάτωρ   Talk!! 23:42, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep, but with reservations. I am not per deletion; the article IMO can stay, because it offers useful info, but I have a huge problem with the article's quality. For instance, claims such as "Ottoman Empire's casualties can be certified to have been enormous regardless of the method used in the calculations." definitely need citing. And something ever more important: I admit I read the article quickly, but, nevertheless, from this reading I got the impression that the article does not adequately explains me what caused these casualties? How was exactly Ottoman Empire and Ottoman muslims involved in the war? I think some clarifications should be offered. I must also say that I would prefer a more general title like Ottoman population casualties of World War I or Ottoman citizens casualties of World War I, because I do not like the discrimination between Ottoman muslims and Ottoman christians. But I suppose a possible renaming or merge of more articles in one should be the subject of another discussion.--Yannismarou 18:05, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * We'll improve the article, Yannis. --Doktor Gonzo 18:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Will second that. Baristarim 21:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete! per MarshallBagramyan and Eupator--FHen(ru) 20:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per MarshallBagramyan and Eupator. --hayk 20:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I am sorry, but two editors from another wiki turning up seven minutes from each other and voting exactly the same way is way too suspicious. In any case, this is not a vote - please keep that in mind. There have been extensive discussions above. Baristarim 21:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * On 16 January, within 7 hours, 9 users voted in a row with no difference on their vote (at least two of them have no other contributions on that date). This also seems too suspicious to me... Hectorian 21:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * True.. In any case, with these kind of AfDs word gets around pretty fast, especially if people are checking each others contributions.. Baristarim 21:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't understand, whats a problem. Is the any rule according which this votes can't be considerated? Can you point it to me? And what kind of suspicious do you have? --FHen(ru) 21:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, first of all: this is not a vote. Baristarim 22:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that Baristarim and I have come to an (admitedly rare) understanding in my talkpage. I suggest interested readers to give it a look here. I'd post it here too, but I hate flooding. NikoSilver 21:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It was basically the points I brough. Fad (ix) 00:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete for sure!.. If it smells like gas, chances are it can blow. Lack of quality and reliability of Wikipedia articles will eventually damage its prestige as a useful information source. Let's not turn it into a garbage can. Let's be positive, objective, friendly and more perfect!.. Avetik 21:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * An article about the Ottoman Muslim casualties is not a "garbage can". I also would like to know how come three Armenian editors from the Russian wiki turned up here in the space of 1.5 hour. At least if they were primarily around English Wiki I can understand that they ran into it, either because of their watchlists or because they were checking into each other's contributions list, but not when people start showing up en masse from other wikis. Baristarim 22:02, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * In any case, let's still try to keep some style in this AfD. However, at least let's make sure that no-one solicits the involvement of editors from other wikis. This is really not a gang war. In any case, I am still not getting why this has become a Turkish-Armenian thing in the first place: how is "Muslim" the opposite of Armenian??? Oh well, better not to delve too much into this :) Baristarim 22:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Interesting, I was wondering how several Azeri Turkish users with accounts in the Russian Wikipedia and who haven't been active in months all of a sudden popped up in this AFD to vote...--  Ευπάτωρ   Talk!! 23:30, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * ...and within or around the same time as each other too... -- Aivazovsky 23:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * How do you guys do it? Mondays for Greeks, Tuesdays for Armenians? We still learn from you...--Doktor Gonzo 07:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Important note: I just today from Tabib reference have seen that OttomanReference has acted in bad faith. Three Armenian casulties pages exist, two of them Ottoman Reference is responsable of the existance off, one those, the Armenian casualties of World War I. When one was redirected, he had cut the redirect to created an independent article and created another one to justify the existance of those two articles which I STRONGLY OPPOSE their existance. Let me reinterate, the page which I have created long time ago on the Ottoman Armenian casualties deals with figures and inspired by the Researchers Note on Armenian population and losses, an encyclopedic article on Britannica. It's existance is in regard to the controversies in the accademia, and one reading the article like the one on the Ottoman Armenian population will clearly view the differences. Those two articles(Armenian casualties and population) were created because they would have taken half of the Armenian Genocide page put together. I am hating OttomanReferance way of working, he had in the past a history of using socks to implament his edits, and now had used a cheap tactic to creat two other Armenian casulties pages to justify this article. I welcome anyone in creating an Ottoman casualties page as it is the only way to stop this unti-Wikipedian way OttomanReference has to implament what he wants here. Fad (ix) 00:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge into World War I casualties in order to be put in context, but the Armenian genocide should also be described there... -- Davo88 00:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * There is no need for a merge if the article is long enough. I am still not getting how "Muslim" is somehow the opposite of "Armenian". There is no rule that says any particular casualties cannot be talked about. The article is longer than half the articles on Wikipedia, and the topic is valid. What is the reason that it cannot exist seperately? If anything, a paragraph should be created in that article and give this as main.. Baristarim 00:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * This article as it stands now is not encyclopedic. No matter how many times you mention the concept of the millet as an excuse. Ottoman casualties is a valid topic within the context of WWI casualties but alone it doesn't justify the existence of this article. You didn't answer whether you think Russian Christian casualties of World War I requires a separate article and that WWI casualties isn't enough to cover that topic?--  Ευπάτωρ   Talk!! 00:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Let then creat anglo-saxon white American losses during WWI. Fad (ix) 00:45, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I see what you are trying to say Eupator.. It is true that it is a fine line. But the main thing is still not religion: "Muslim" is not there for religious categorization - think of it like "Ottoman Turkish, Kurdish and Azeri" casualties.. Pff.. I know that there is a mess to be cleaned up and probably a higher "Ottoman casualties during World War I" needs to be created, along with probably sections for military and civilian casualties. Listen, I have listened to so many arguments from all sides that I don't know what to think any more :) I seriously have to get some sleep.. Baristarim 01:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Do the Hemshens qualify as Muslim or Armenian? Many have found refuge in the mountains during WWI, what about the Alawis? What about Christian Albanians? etc. :) Fad (ix) 01:18, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep!!! OMG, this article is soooo informative.--71.107.167.245 01:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep, Rename, and Expand I support renaming the article to take out Muslim and also expanding the article to reflect the changing demographics of the OE over the preceding 50 years or so.


 * There is a major encyclopedic topic buried in all this hate-mongering:


 * The Ottomans had been in non-stop war-fare and military actions for far earlier. The result is that the stub of the OE left at the time of WWI is already filled with refugees, war-time orphans and a dearth of men of military age. This is the background against which the OE participates in WWI, not in isolation. The change in numbers due to the previous several decades is significant enough to change the demographics of the Ottoman lands, let alone the social and economic fabric of the land. Any discussion of the casualties of the WWI does not make sense without this background of a country with most of its strength already sapped.


 * WWI is a time of great divisiveness in the OE - when the Millet system collapsed etc. I think this is the reason why the name of the article is "Ottoman Muslim Casualties". But, few as they may be, some actually believed in a different reality and died for it. This article totally neglects the existence of hundreds of non-Muslim officers who participated in the war, on the Ottoman side and lie, buried with their Muslim brethren in "şehitlik"s. Mostly military doctors, a few combat positions, but they are there, along with common infantry, who can also be traced. The OE may not have been successful in its attempt to forge a nation-state, but it does not mean these people did not exist and die for it. And I, for one, consider ignoring them to be deeply irrespectful of their memory. Aside from the respect issue, this is also significant since the inclusion of non-Muslims in the Ottoman armies was a relatively recent reform (I believe 1908) and is part of the reform attempts of the early parliamentary monarchy period.


 * Gallipoli.... What a human story and one that does not get mentioned at all in this article. How can you have an article about Ottoman casualties of WWI and not mention that the 1919 graduating class of Galatasaray does not exist due to Gallipoli? Again, put it into context and show that an entire nation's intelligentsia perished in the war. 1,000,000 or so casualties in the WWI when the newly founded Republic of Turkey had 13 million total population is what puts the meaning of WWI into context.


 * To wrap up... This is a major topic. An article about the Ottoman casualties of WWI should exist. It should have the proper context showing the change in the demographics of the land due to the previous several decades of constant warfare and military action. It should not be about Muslims only and should not trample upon the memories of the few that actually did believe in a multi-national OE, but should be about all that fought on the Ottoman side. It should also show, rather than just numbers, the meaning and context of the numbers. -- only then you can put it into context of what a total annihilation has been lived through in these lands. Best regards. --Free smyrnan 06:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Free smyrnan; The problem is that article is using “ottoman statistics” to bring validity. Even in this form there are a lot of people (read the discussions) who want to delete it. They do not want to see the existence of the terminology. Even in this limited form, it generates hate and raises the guard of (“defenders”) to what they are protecting. When you move from ottoman realm to what you are talking about, you will loose the ground that Ottoman Empire build with its own documents, reports and etc. You have to remember, Ottoman classification is not based on true devotion to a religion, it was based on ones affiliation to a community. British documents of its time classified Turkish Revolutionaries as Muslim millet of Anatolia. Turkish Revolutionaries end up abolishing the Caliphate. If you want to tell your story, dissolution of the Ottoman Empire has a lot of free space for you develop that idea, and you do not need to rename this article. Besides who is going to deal with Armenian casualties (deal with the "defenders", by the way I'm not a "denier" so take me out of that list), if you want to have a document that covers all the sides.OttomanReference 06:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * True, there was a definite distinction between the Muslim and Christian subjects of the Ottoman empire. There has to be seperate article covering the Muslim casualties. Besides even the "deletists" here prefer to distinct the Christian casualties.--Doktor Gonzo 06:50, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Guys, I am against re-writing history to make it black/white and to make the distinction of religion synonymous with distinction of side. As for statistics, for example you can refer to the statistics of Tıbbiye - Istanbul School of Medicine, which has published books about army doctor casualties of WWI. For example, in 1917, they held a memorial service to 215 of their graduates who had recently fell in war - 75 of these were non-Muslim. I, for one, am firmly within the Ottoman realm, how about you? --Free smyrnan 08:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think you are. As OttomanReference pointed out, Ottomans made distinctions by religion so we have to study in that sense.--Doktor Gonzo 08:15, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not keeping anyone doing what they want to do. If Free smyrnan wants to develop a the concept (what he is talking about), he should go along with it. Does he have to do it by deforming an original valid concept, do you? However, one note for Free smyrnan; there are reasons behind this article, and they are sound reasons. You do not have to accept and live with it, but unedrstand and respect to it (I woud like to see even if you can add one or two points). I belive the term muslim millet was used as a community and did not have the same contenation of our times (Free smyrnan wording in the message does not reflect this difference). By the way ottoman casualties are close to 5,000,000 (? Armenians, 500,000 in Syria (as an ottoman region) and it continuous... ) and tibbiye is only 215 (lets double it 500, not even 1% of the story). OttomanReference 08:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It is she, not he. The point I am making, and I see that it is not understood at all, is that there were two sides -- Ottoman and non-Ottoman. Name the article thus, and of course, the majority of Ottoman casualties is Muslim and you have the statistics. You are then also free of accusations of racism, religious bias and what have you. --Free smyrnan 09:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The other point, which is also not well understood, is the significance of the casualties among the intelligentsia. A human life is of course a human life. But in this war, the OE lost the majority of its very few well educated people. --Free smyrnan 09:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment If this article is to be renamed as Ottoman Casualities in WWI, then the article Ottoman Armenian Casualities and any article regarding to the losses of Armenians in the alleged genocide and WWI must be included in that article rather than staying as independent articles, because they can also be classified as Ottoman casualities. Any article related to the alleged genocide except the main article Armenian genocide is to be merged into this article or to be deleted. This wouldn't be helpful, because all the non-Christian casualities would be presented as Muslim casualities, due to the fact that there is no source for the casualities of Turkish, Azerbaijani, Kurdish or Arabic casualities other than the Muslim casualities. Such a page would most probably have four subtitles: Armenian Losses, Greek Losses, Assyrian Losses and Muslim Losses. Why do we try to make things more complex? It is quite simple and understandable now. Caglarkoca 10:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Ottoman casualties -- those who died from the Ottoman side. This does not include (e.g.) an Ottoman born Greek who fought in the Greek army. There were two sides to this war - those who would have liked to see the Ottoman state continue and those that did not. --Free smyrnan 13:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Nobody is saying that we shouldn't create a Ottoman casualties during World War I article, however as it has been pointed above, the inexistance of orange doesn't mean we cannot have apple. There were definitely more than two sides, by the way. Smyrnan, I think you are missing something: we are not neccessarily talking about only military casualties, ie soldiers who died in combat. Baristarim 13:23, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I am aware of that. I see that the only way to navigate the murky waters of intracine warfare is to make the separation at "those for and against the OE". --Free smyrnan 14:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment I think that users from both sides (and numerous third parties) have expressed agreement in either renaming it to Ottoman casualties of World War I or merging into World War I casualties as the most sensible solutions. Notably from the Turkish users, User:Baristarim (in my talk) and User:Free smyrnan here above. It seems that this solution would allow the subject to evolve to the possible state of being capable to become mained out into a separate academic article. I propose we start working constructively towards that direction now, and stop all other displays of passion. A number of users, including myself, will support a separate article when sources presenting different causes for Muslim deaths (vs non-Muslim deaths) are brought forward. NikoSilver 12:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Nikosilver, by saying that users from both sides agree on renaming the article, you most probably mention of me. I haven't said that we should rename it. I used that argument to say that it would be more than disfunctional to rename the article in that way. Please read properly before writing about a comment by someone else. Also we don't have two sides here. Here is a big group trying to improve wikipedia. Caglarkoca 19:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't mention you, so "please read properly before writing about a comment by someone else" too. NikoSilver 19:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * What I don't understand however is why we can't create that article, move some stuff from here to that article and keep this. In that case let's merge the Ottoman Armenian casualties to Ottoman casualties during World War I, since another article at Armenian Genocide also exists; then divide that article to military and civilian casualties etc. I am still too suspicious of a possible rename. My point to you earlier was the fact that we had an awkward situation because a sub-article was started before another possible main article was created. In any case, this article is still a sub of World War I casualties, and it is too long to be simply merged. However, that awkward situation notwithstanding, I still think that there can be a seperate article. The article is being worked on, at least let's give it some time. Nevertheless there should be another article for Ottoman casualties anyways.. Baristarim 13:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The Ottoman Muslim casualties’ page is very, very different than the original Armenian casualties’ pages. The Armenian page does NOT concentrate on the reasons of the death, it relate to a controversies and in a cold way relate to the different statistics, much like the Ottoman Armenian population page. The reason of the death could go in the Armenian genocide page or a page on WWI and a page on the Ottoman in WWI. The page created about Muslim casualty is not the same sort of article, it is not an encyclopaedic article on losses, it is an article regarding the condition of Ottoman Muslims which led to their deaths. I did need to create a page on population statistics controversies and casualties controversies, because both put together would have taken half of the main Armenian genocide page. There are no real controversies and debates on Muslim casualties, the figures could be presented in one paragraph, placing figures. But there clearly are controversies and different positions on the Armenian population and Ottoman Armenian casualties, each position should have been explained. So in no way could the Muslim casualties be compared with the Armenian casualties’ page, the Muslim casualties could rather be compared to the Armenian Genocide main page. If the article should cover the Ottoman situation during war, civilian losses etc, OK, this could be legitimate. Fad (ix) 18:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * My prediction is that this poll will close with no consensus. Anyway ... Some thoughts just in case! Ottoman Armenian casualties refers to a period broader than the World War I; I am not sure if it should be merged into an article named Ottoman casualties during World War I. IMO Ottoman casualties during World War I is a better title for the article in discussion here, because it passes over the discrimination between Muslim and Christian Ottoman citizens. After all, they were all equal citizens of the same state, and they all suffered dring World War I: I suppose suffering was not limited to one religion. And even with a different title, the emphasis of the article will be inevitably on the muslim citizens, because they were the most populous in the empire. But in order to adopt the title Ottoman casualties during World War I the scope of the current article should be expanded and cover the other religions as well. Are the editors of the article willing to expand its scope? Would they accept collaboration by other editors (not me, because my program is a mess right now!) to expand it.


 * On a different note, I agree with Baris that "we had an awkward situation because a sub-article was started before another possible main article was created". This is the real problem here! If we had the broader article Ottoman casualties during World War I ready, then Ottoman Muslim casualties of World War I could be a sub-article of it per WP:SS, and other articles could be created such as Ottoman Christian casualties of World War I or Ottoman Greek casualties of World War I or Ottoman Armenian casualties of World War I or Ottoman Maronites casualties of World War I etc. Is anybody willing to create this article umbrella Ottoman casualties of World War I, whose Ottoman Muslim casualties of World War I would be a sub-article? Do you get me or did I confuse you more?!--Yannismarou 15:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The thing is that while the Ottoman Armenians have mostly died from 1915 to 1916. Most Muslims died from mid 1916 to 1922(Muslim death were also very heavy after WWI). There are many events which are problematic. Excess mortality during the Arabo-Turkic wars, the Kurdish rebellions etc. There are also the fact that the east was starved to death after the eviction of the Armenians. Fad (ix) 18:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Save yourself doing a POV talk. Why don't you give us references, so that we can check your claims. Better!; instead of talking at Aft page, put it in the article. Than, we will decide the article name based on what you will put into it. That sounds good to me. But the chance that would happen, I do not bet on it.--OttomanReference 19:57, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Which claims you're talking about? After this is closed, I am saying you before I do it, I will be putting the two articles on Armenin casualties you have created for deletion. Fad (ix) 20:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Claims regarding "Muslims died from mid 1916 to 1922", where did they die? How did they die? why don't you tell us? 2) "Armenin casualties you for deletion", Only a person who has something to hide wants to delete basic concepts. The Armenian casualties during World War I, died in Ottoman Empire+Russian Empire+Persia during WWI also in the European battle fields; Armenian caulties during WWI is a valid topic. How are you going to explain that Ottoman Armenian casualties exist, but the rest of the Armenian casualties does not. We have an article about Ottoman Armenian casualties, but we can not have an article on how the "Armenian casualties of deportations" performed. We are not going to tell the techir, if we obey your logic. That is good! I personally belive Tehcir Law was a "bad thing", thousands died. It deserves its own article to explain how it happaned, and I am not an "Armenian" to belive that. Only YOU fadix, you dare to remove these concepts. Only you think this is the best way to represent Armenian cause or "Defend the genocide". Do it, if you think this is the best way of being an Armenian. Keeping the history real and truthful. Get rid of "Ottoman Muslim casualties". It will help you in your cause. OttomanReference 21:02, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * How many times were the articles you have created placed for deletion? Do you damn know what an encyclopaedic article is? I have already explained why that particular article about Armenian casualties’ exist. Since you seem to either not understand or don’t want to understand, let me capitalise that: IT IS BECAUSE THERE ARE DIFFERENT POSITIONS ON THE NUMBER OF OTTOMAN ARMENIANS HAVING DIED, IT COULD NOT HAVE BEEN COVERED IN ONE PARAGRAPH, THAT ARTICLE ONLY PROVIDE STATISTICS FROM ALL THE MAJOR PARTIES CONCERNED. That article should have been part of the Armenian genocide page but since it would have taken too much space it was created. The two articles you have created about Armenian casualties have no justification to exist, neither the one on the deportation, and we have Tehcir, with don’t need a thousand of articles created on the same issue, I have really tried in vein explaining you, but you refuse to understand. The Armenian deportation is already covered in the Armenian genocide page, the article on Armenia, World War I article too and many others. You have created multiple articles and are being disruptive such behaviour is the sort that endanger the integrity of Wikipedia. I have kindly asked you on various occasions to stop this disruptive behaviour and what best you have found to do is accusing me to hide the ‘facts.’ What facts? That Muslim suffered? Where have I ever tried denying that? Where were you when I have said in the WWI that the Ottoman casualties presented there were too low? Does it seem that I am hiding anything at all? What I ask, is to respect few simple things. Check how many articles you have created about the Armenian cases, the executioners, the lists you had created in the past, two involving the deportation, 2 on the casualties. All disorganised, with no rational reason for their existence. Many Turks who voted here were quick on the gun believing that this was about erasing the history of the Muslim suffering, but I am confident that if they take time to understand the issues I have raised, they will see that what I am opposing is not that, but rather opposing to your irrational way of 'founding' articles.


 * Now, tell me since you opened the subject yourself, why could Russian Armenian casualties of WWI and what followed should not be included in the Armenian republics history section? And what about the other Armenian casualties’ page you have created? What about the deportation page, the Tehcir page? In this case, the easier way is to create an Ottoman casualties page, since it will be a way to stop your disruption, and I will even accept the Armenian casualties’ page to be merged there if it could help fighting against your disruptions. I think I have made my point very clear and need nothing to add more in this page. And about the Muslim deaths, check professor Panzac review of McCarthy's work which I have previously refered to. This was one example I brought. Fad (ix) 21:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * You are swimming in a different place. You can create an Ottoman casualties of WWI, and begin to work on it, I will help you as much as I can. There are Armenians who are not Ottoman; they were also died; they were even forced migrationed in the Soviet Republic, they are called Armenian casualties during World War I. So if you take the risk of creating and keeping it without POV tags and edit wars go head with the Ottoman casualties of WWI, we will put a link to your article. If you also take the risk of Ottoman casualties of WWI, we can put a link from Ottoman Muslim casualties of World War I and summarize this content in your article. None of these are reasons to get rid of a VALID concepts, such as Ottoman Muslim casualties of World War I. Instead of spending your time here; begin to work, we will catch you up. Otherwise, "Ottoman Muslim Millet" is not something that I come up with, you and Armenians can delete this from this place, by voting! But it exists, what can I say more about this issue, and other concepts, too. (PS:for the personal trashing that you always do; my silence does not mean accepting or understanding, but I can't help you. Good luck with your life) --OttomanReference 22:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * You argue thus that neither the "of World War I" part of the article's title is accurate?--Yannismarou 18:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is also what I am arguing. Fad (ix) 20:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete This revisionism must end. World War 1 was not a religious war. Aristovoul0s 18:31, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * If Aristovoul0s can provide us reliable sources stating the number of casualities of Turkish, Kurdish, Arabic, vs casualities, then we can rename it as Ottoman Turkish, Ottoman Kurdish vs casualities. And I didn't get the revisionism part. Can you explain us more clearly? Caglarkoca 19:40, 19 January 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.