• Delete as per Clevelander and Ευπάτωρ Ldingley 23:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• Delete. Hakob 01:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
  • Note: This user was specifically contacted by the nominator of this AfD here: [5]. Baristarim 10:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Niko cited my action and I apologized for doing it. I didn't realize that it was against Wikipedian policy. -- Clevelander 11:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Are you sure that "You didn't realize that.."?Must^TC 17:43, 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. Baristarim 10:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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#Undue weight, 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)[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. Baristarim 16:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Perfect! Include it there! I'm leaving a note in that article's talk; and I refer you to the hidden note which says: "<!--Please do not change any casualty numbers until it has been suggested/discussed on the talk page. Sources should also be stated.-->" NikoSilver 16:45, 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? Baristarim 17:20, 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. Baristarim 17:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • There is no need for a merge, you should ask them to expand that article. Baristarim 17:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • 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)[reply]
• Keep I see no reason to delete this article. Grandmaster 11:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Ottoman Empire was one of the major parties to the WWI, how can one deny its losses?

--Ulvi I. 14:04, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • 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)[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. Baristarim 11:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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

• Keep Cretanforever 17:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• Keep Must^TC 17:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• Delete POV fork. You can merge anything adequately sourced into World War I casualties. //Dirak 22:13, 16 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. Baristarim 22:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[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. Baristarim 10:35, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • To quote you from another case "are you having fun up there?" NikoSilver 22:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • :) Baristarim 22:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

Comment. I'm not at all certain you have understood what a "FORK" is. Fut.Perf. ☼ 00:22, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[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. Baristarim 10:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[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. Baristarim 12:30, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[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. Baristarim 13:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]