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 [1], then you go back to rename. You also nominated this article for AfD and withdrew the last time. What is going on? Baristarim13:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 [2], [3], [4], [5] :) 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. Baristarim14:35, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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! Baristarim14:48, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. Baristarim11:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. Baristarim19:42, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.Baristarim20:30, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. Baristarim11:03, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(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. Baristarim20:53, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. Baristarim17:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. Baristarim10:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. Baristarim16:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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? Baristarim17:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(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. Baristarim17:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. Baristarim11:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. Baristarim22:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. Baristarim11:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. Baristarim10:35, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. Baristarim10:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
??? 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. Baristarim12:30, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. Baristarim13:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.. Baristarim16:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(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". Baristarim19:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. Baristarim14:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. Baristarim16:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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... Baristarim16:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.. Baristarim16:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. Baristarim14:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. Baristarim19:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. Baristarim21:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
True.. In any case, with these kind of AfDs word gets around pretty fast, especially if people are checking each others contributions.. Baristarim21:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. Baristarim22:02, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 :) Baristarim22:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.. Baristarim00:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.. Baristarim01:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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. Baristarim13:23, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.. Baristarim13:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
