Talk:Ottoman casualties of World War I

message: Let's try to come up with a suitable title by consensus this time. People are welcome to add suggestions below. Khoikhoi 19:52, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about we move it to Ottoman Muslim casualties of World War I? -- Aivazovsky 20:39, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds good to me. Khoikhoi 20:40, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Should I move it now or should we wait and see what OttomanReference thinks? -- Aivazovsky 20:42, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We should probably wait. Khoikhoi 20:42, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Eh, I say we move it now and get it over with.  I think OttomanReference can agree on this title. -- Aivazovsky 03:11, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title 

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

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

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

message: This article has no sources, and is extremely badly written. I can't even understand enough of the "Why Ottoman" chapter to correct it... From what I understand, there are two sources giving different results (the Ottoman Archives and the Europeans), and this article seems to present the former as being "The Truth". Could someone knowledgeable about this issue shed some light on this, and maybe give more reliable sources. Isn't there a single mainstream history book talking about this? yandman 09:57, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here we go again :)) please read the AfD of this article that was closed couple of days ago. The article might be short, but there are some editors who I know will be having a look at it. There are thousands of articles in Wiki who are composed of two sentences and it is also simple logic that Ottoman Muslims died during the World War, so I fail to see why this article wouldn't exist. You are more than welcome to contribute to keeping it NPOV.. However, don't forget that one of the main reasons it is titled "Ottoman Muslim" is because of the fact that back than people were grouped primarily under religion. Please let's not precipitate over this, give it time.. There is nothing in there that says "yes, the AG was so totally justified dude!!".. As for concerns over the level of English of the article, they could be corrected.. Are there history books? Yes there are my friend, there are thousands of books written about Gallipoli for example, in which more than 300,000 Ottoman soldiers along with a lot of civilians, nearly all Muslim, died. If you want, there is even a Mel Gibson film that touches on it :))) Baristarim 04:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Both of us know that this article is a FORK created in parallel to the Ottoman Armenian casulties page. No one has ever refused to let you creat an article about Ottoman casulties in WWI, but limiting this to Muslims is a FORK. The Armenian casulties entry is under the context of the genocide which has its article, while in the context of World War I there could be an article regarding the Ottoman casulties to be created, but this article given that it restrict itself to the Muslims is a FORK and RfD we all know isen't any justification in most cases when there is a heated debate behind it going on since this doesn't change the fact that it is a FORK. Just for example in Gallipoli, countless numbers of Ottoman Christians and Jews who died dragged on the first front and as labour batallions, this is covered in Gilberts work on WWI. Fad (ix) 03:27, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You might feel that way, however you have to accept that it is impossible to treat "Ottoman Turkish casualties" or "Ottoman Kurdish casualties" seperately since there are no census figures from that period because of the way censi were conducted in accordance with the Ottoman system of grouping all Muslims under one heading for census purposes. If there is an "Ottoman Armenian casualties", and therefore the fact that we can have another article entitled "Ottoman Turkish .." or "Ottoman Kurdish ..." articles as sub-articles to "Ottoman casualties" (as the main article), how we are supposed to proceed to differenciate who was Kurdish, Turkish or Albanian since there are no seperate census figures? That is also not possible, and therefore the best we can do is group them under "Muslim" just like Ottomans did. It is as simple as that. We can also have "Ottoman Christian casualties" or "Ottoman Jewish casualties" articles, nobody is stopping anybody here, feel free to start them. There is no reason why we cannot have a "Ottoman Muslim casualties", "Ottoman Jewish casualties" etc articles under a main article "Ottoman casualties ..." since there are many shorter articles out there about fictional Star Wars planets. As I said, everyone is free to contribute to this article and make sure that it is NPOV. If you can suggest on what census figures we can base "Ottoman Turkish ..." and "Ottoman Kurdish ..." articles, then we can create those articles instead and move the stuff found in this article to them. Baristarim 13:18, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think you understand what FORK means. Ottoman Muslim casulties is a FORK, created in parallel to the Ottoman Armenian casulties. The Ottoman Armenian casulties is not a FORK, for the simple reason that the Armenian Genocide article is not a FORK, it is created under this context and was created so that the debate over the number of losses doesn't take half of the Armenian Genocide page. Ottoman Muslim casulties of World War I justify its own existance by its own existance, its specificity and selectivity is not justified by any events which could have its own article. The Ottoman participation in the war (WWI) all can have their own articles, but they will justify an article regarding the losses of Ottoman subjects, not Ottoman Muslims specifically. This includes various Ottoman subjects, not only Muslims. Was there any single event involving only Muslims? The answer is simply no, even in Gallipoli countless numbers of Ottoman Christian and Jews were killed taken under fire, it was a very heavy loss and is covered in works such as those of Gilbert. Fad (ix) 18:27, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ottoman Muslim casualties were enormous during WWI, it definitely deserves its own article.--Doktor Gonzo 13:55, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Either you have not read my above point, either I was not being clear, if the first, read it, if the second, request clarification and be specific. Fad (ix) 23:27, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, they were enormous, just like the [Nazi] German casualties during World War II. Hakob 01:03, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: An ignorant statement.--Doktor Gonzo 14:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article 

message: Okay everybody. Good morning. It's a brilliant new day, the sun is shining, and the ashes of last night's move war are still smoldering.
If this incident has resulted in one thing, it's that the page can't stay where it now is. The current title ("...of the World War 1") is ridiculously wrong English. I hope we all agree at least that far. :-(
Now, of course I know what you're all gonna say: "sure, it should be moved here!" or "sure, it should be moved here!" Now, that won't work. As long as this is protected, you won't find any admin who will move it to either of these two titles for you just because you prefer it that way. Forget about it. And don't anybody start arguing again what would be the "right" status quo in terms of the outcome of the AfD. We tried that yesterday (me included) and it didn't work.
So, we have two possibilities:
# Initiate another tedious and repetitive "Requested Move" discussion that everybody is  going to hate, and hope that it will lead to something sensible. However, most likely there will be no consensus anyway, so the page will remain at its impossible title for ages.
# Agree on a tiebreaking mechanism that moves the page to some interim solution quickly, so that it will at least be correct English. And then initiate another tedious and repetitive "Requested Move" discussion to determine its final location.
My own suggestion is we toss a wiki-coin to move it provisionally back to either of the two contented but linguistically correct versions. We'll ask somebody to make some token edit at a specific time and place; if the revision number of that edit comes up even the page goes here, if it comes up odd it goes here.
Silly, but I see no other quick fix to this. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:49, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move War 

message: I notice Baristarim and OttomanReference have been busy on this page today, and its structural outline seems now to be designed to cover population groups of different millets (including a summary link to the Armenian main articles). Does that imply acceptance of a title not containing "Muslim"? If yes, we could lift the protection and move it to the corresponding linguistically correct title. This would be done on the understanding that the article should first continue to be expanded in its present structure, and then if enough material exists and it is structurally separable some things could be factored out into a Muslim-specific {main article} at a later stage. (Although, given the fact that muslims are currently covered in structurally very different places of this article, I don't currently see how that would easily work without breaking up this summary structure completely.) 
Is this a deal? Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I second these remarks, and I see that now that the article has expanded its scope the title "Ottoman casualties of the World War 1" seems to be the most accurate one. If there is a consensus about this title, I think we should lift the protection. There seems to be no ground for move conflicts.--Yannismarou 22:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: With the exception that the "...of the World War 1" needs to be changed back to correct English "...of World War I", of course. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:07, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Hey, by the way, we could leave you the honour of doing this as your first administrative action? :-) But maybe we should give Nishkid a chance to comment first, to be on the safe side. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We can decide by lot which one will implement the lifting of the protection! The honor is for the article that has so many highly qualified users (adm or not is a secondary issue) working on it. The most important thing is to make sure we have an agreed solution here that will stand. I informed Nishkid.--Yannismarou 08:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So this title was actually grammatically correct? Well, that comes as a shocker to me. I thought First World War was a more appropriate title for the article. Anyway, I don't really have anything to say, but if you feel like consensus has been reached on the article name, then by all means, lift protection. Nishkid64 21:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry for the late reply on this talk page even though I had contacted FP earlier. I think the article and title is ok (except the grammatical mistake :)) - since it is a very legitimate topic and article. My only argument from the get-go from the first AfD was to have both articles, that's all. Baristarim 21:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Naaah, created a shortcut for quick typing. (here). NikoSilver 12:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update: Resolution? 

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

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