Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ottoman Muslim casualties

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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The result was Withdrawn at no consensus. - Francis Tyers · 15:34, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ottoman Muslim casualties

Ottoman Muslim casualties (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here. It is important that everyone be civil, especially in heated debate.

While there were indeed Ottoman Muslim casualties during World War I, I don't think that it would warrant an entire article as if to imply that it was a massacre or genocide. The claim or implication that something such as this happened was created by the government of Turkey as a propaganda tool to promote denial of the Armenian Genocide. The Turkish government is attempting to paint a "new version" of history in which the Turk is the victim of the Armenian (even though Armenians were considered to be a minority in the Ottoman Empire and that they were not in control of the Ottoman government or military at the time). Also note that all of the article's information comes exclusively from Turkish sources. -- Clevelander 21:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I have decided to withdraw my nomination for deletion of this article. -- Clevelander 15:25, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. The article is POV and poorly written but these two things alone do not qualify it for deletion. I would recommend a merge to Middle Eastern theatre of World War I but I'm not sure that its info is tranferable without better citations and sources. NeoFreak 21:25, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. The ottoman statistics was based on Millet (Ottoman Empire)s. Muslims were a millet, like Armenian Millet, Greek millet. The Ottoman Empire statistics were based on its view and hardly a propaganda tool. NeoFreak should not be Freaked out as this was how things were. --OttomanReference 01:07, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Completely ignoring your POV concerns, still, why are Ottoman Muslim casualties in World War I notable enough for their own article? -Amarkov blahedits 21:32, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Why wouldn't they be notable? Is the life of a Turk worth less than of another nationality? Hey! I saw that "oh, yes!" smirk in some people's faces :))))) Baristarim 01:17, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Since when are the deaths of Turks and Kurds not notable?? Just because they were Muslim.. Please.. Baristarim 11:28, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment. Justin McCarthy is anything but a neutral or credible source. He has long been associated with the government of Turkey and has aided the country in its campaign to deny the Armenian Genocide. Documents recently released even point to this. -- Clevelander 00:45, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Could be, but not neccessarily since many Ottoman Muslims also died during the First WW. Look man, these will be talked about sooner or later, all the nations of Eastern Medi have this victimization sentiment, but none of them are clean either. Some might be dirtier than the rest, but if someone can come up to me and tell me with a straight face (or hand :)) that no Turk was every killed by an Armenian or a Greek, they should go back to the primary school. So let's just work to make the article NPOV and sourced. That's all. Baristarim 01:15, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm not denying that there were Greeks or Armenians who killed Turks, but all I'm saying is that creation of an article such as this seems to imply that there was some sort of great massacre or genocide against the Turks when there clearly wasn't. Again, this whole idea was the concept of the Turkish government in order to prevent recognition of the Armenian Genocide. -- Clevelander 01:26, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Look.. I know people in the city I am living in France whose grandparents in Kars told them how Armenian gangs killed Turks in their villages. My family is from Istanbul, so I cannot confirm or deny, but brushing aside their stories as fables of the Turkish government is neither fair nor balanced. There is no implication from the title that they were massacres or genocides, where did that come from? It is clearly titled "Ottoman Muslim casualties", hell, they could even be wartime casualties. It is not titled "Turkish genocide by Armenians". There have been Ottoman Muslim casualties, and Wiki doesn't have a policy against the exploration of such a subject, even though it might put some people at unease. You know, maybe some people should get used to the idea that Turks and Kurds were also killed during the First World War. They were not "untouchables" :)) So the best way forward is not the deletion of the article, but efforts to keep it NPOV and scientific. Baristarim 11:35, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - The information is very vital to understand of the situation during World War One. Elimination of this article will be a POV activity, where other millets have their own articles.--OttomanReference 01:06, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I will disagree with Clevelander in the sense that, the question of if there were Ottoman Muslim deaths is not relevant to the Armenian Genocide. The existence or non-existence of Armenian Genocide have nothing do with this, since Ottoman Muslims could have died any Armenian casualties not withstanding. Look, I don't want to offense anyone but, the better course would be to check the article for POV and source it rather than delete it. In any case, it is common knowledge that many Ottoman Muslims also died, what is wrong with exploring that? We should be inclusive and not exclusive. That's all I am saying. You have an extremely inflammatory tone, exploration of the issue of Ottoman Muslim casualties has nothing to do with denial or "Turkish excuses". Please refrain from such blanket accusations, neither of us were alive back then, so let's just chill and relax. I had read a very interesting exchange between you and marshallbagramyan about how you would like to convert people in Eastern Turkey back to Christianity by Armenian missionaries and not American ones since they don't seem to work and what pieces of Turkish land you would like to have the most, a conversation that I had found extremely racist, nationalist, ignorant, orientalist, living-in-the-past and unhelpful. So I would really appreaciate it if some people would show a real constructive approach to matters at hand. People living in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. So the article should stay, and if people here, especially Armenians and Turks, are interested even a bit in any sort of reconciliation, they should work together with a constructive approach since it is also common knowledge that many Ottoman Muslims died in Eastern Turkey during First World War. I hope that nobody is "denying" those either. Right? Baristarim 01:15, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment. I'm perfectly calm, my friend. It is you who seems to be the one who needs to "chill and relax" (and why are you parousing my talk page archives to dig up dirt on me in order to detract from the issue?). Again, I don't deny that there were Ottoman Muslim casualties, but I don't think that it would warrant an entire article as if to imply that it was a massacre or genocide. -- Clevelander 01:20, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
I wasn't perusing since I didn't give a precise link. I just remember seeing it more than a month ago and I had only seen it because I was leaving a message to marshall. I was not stalking :)) I have some friends over so, I will reply later, but just think how you would have felt if I was talking with an other Turkish editor how best to convert Armenians to Islam or to atheism or etc and if Turkish or American missionaries were the best for the job, see what I mean? Cheers! Baristarim 02:02, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
And how do you know that there weren't any massacres? I don't understand why you are taking such an offence at this. I know people from Kars, Turks, who tell me that their grandparents saw Turks getting killed by Armenian gangs. But my family has been living in Istanbul for generations, so I am not in a position to pass a judgement on that one, but I wouldn't dare call their grandparents liars just because I feel like it. AND if you cannot admit the fact that conversing with someone about how best to convert people in Turkey to Christianity is racist and orientalist, don't expect others to assume good faith. Not even Grey Wolves have conversations on how to best convert Armenians, so I find it appaling that you and Marshall were able to talk in such a nationalist, racist and condescending way about people that you don't even know about and passing judgements about how to "show them the light". If you cannot tell all the other contributors here that that conversation was wrong by nature, than I will bring it up all the time, and I will assume that this is a bad faith nomination. As simple as that. Baristarim 03:43, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Great. But do you even know which minority we were discussing? The Hamshenis - Black Sea Christian Armenians who were forced to accept Islam (or to "show them the light" as you would say) under the Ottoman Empire. Like it or not, they exist and they're still there. The concept of re-Christianization is not a new thing, my friend. It's occuring in Georgia with the Muslim Georgians of Adjara (who too who forced to convert under the Ottomans). Please don't act as if you're appalled or as if you have a reason to be appalled. My great-grandfather was in the Armenian Genocide, so please, spare me. By the way, nice try on steering this discussion off-course. -- Clevelander 03:50, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
So that gives you the right to propose that people you don't even know about should be converted to a particular religion?? An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind my friend, just because your great-grandfather was in the genocide, that doesn't give you the right to treat people you have not even met with such a condescending attitude today. So please spare me this condescending and racist attitude by which you even dare to propose that you can even propose that a group of people should be "re-converted" to any religion.Baristarim 04:04, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
I probably know more about the Hamshenis and their origins than you do. I have never treated anyone condescendingly nor have I ever expressed any sort of racist sentiment (the way you use the term racist it almost sounds as though you don't even know what it means). Never call me a racist. I hate racism. It was racism that a few months back, triggered neo-Nazis in Russia to launch attacks on innocent Armenian civilians. -- Clevelander 04:13, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
I am not steering the discussion off-course, since I have replied as to why this article can be useful.
You have attempted to steer it off-course by bringing in personal Wikipedia talk page discussions that hold little relevance to the topic just to make me look bad. -- Clevelander 04:13, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
But it is also important that people who come here to voice their opinions know that this nomination was made by someone who would dare to suggest that a particular group of people should be converted to a religion just because it is better.
If the Hamsheni Armenians were Christians once, then what's the harm of bringing them back into the Apostolic Church?
It is one thing to scientifically criticize religion, but it is one thing to just assume that followers of other faiths are inferior just for no reason like some sort of Nazi assuming that people who are not Aryans are inferior to Aryans. Baristarim 04:04, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Whoa. I did not accuse any group of being inferior because they followed a certain relion. I have at least ten friends who are Arabs and devout Muslims as well as friends who are Jewish. In fact, I'm really close to most of them and I accept their beliefs and even have learned about them. Its interesting you bring up the Nazis in this and their pure-Aryan ideology. The Grey Wolves preach the same thing - of a purely Turkic Turkey. No Kurds, no Armenians, no Greeks, no Jews, no Zazas, no Laz, no Georgians, no Assyrians, no Arabs, no Bulgarians, no Serbs. Just Turks. Phase one of the "great plan" has already been executed. The near-annhilation of the Armenian race (what was termed in the Ottoman Empire as the "Armenian Question" - sort of like the "Jewish Question," eh, Baristarim?). You say its a crime for Armenians to re-Christianize fellow Armenians from Islam, but yet your government puts pressure on Christians to convert to Islam (AND to adopt the Turkish language) all the time. -- Clevelander 04:13, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Just a quick reply: Anyone forcing anybody else to accept a religion is wrong. And if you have any evidence that the Turkish government is forcing people to accept Islam, please take it to the appropriate page. But also keep in mind that more churches have been built in Turkey in the last ten years that mosques in Armenia since 1920. In my native district in Istanbul, a protestant church just opened up a few months ago. So, in today's Turkey, nobody is forcing anyone to accept a religion, that's all I am saying. Baristarim 07:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Going from your example, just to clear something up about Turkey being the big daddy of nationalism and putting through the sword all non-Turks (!), please have a look at this report by a Kurd that has fled Armenia because of racism and the acts of nationalistic and racist gangs, supported by the government, whose missions was to create an Armenia for Armenians and who killed and pillaged non-Armenians to achieve that as recently as ten years ago [1]. So, there is enough mud to go around. Please let's not have this attitude that Armenia (or any country) is at the helm of some coalition of the "just and righteous". In the light of this article, I think that we can assume that there is a good probability that this article can explore many serious and academic issues of Ottoman Muslim (Kurdish and Turkish) casualties. A much more constructive approach would be to work together to make this article NPOV, instead of simply deleting it. Baristarim 07:52, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Clearly a POVfork. Hectorian 02:03, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Why is it a POV fork? I am telling u again, I am not at all knowledgable about the subject, but it is common knowledge that many Ottoman Muslims died, and I don't understand why the exploration of that area of history is so offensive to some people. Baristarim 03:43, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not really notable during WW1. Fedayee 02:41, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Why are they not "notable"? Just because they were Turks? All I am saying is let's just keep the article, and try to make it NPOV. Baristarim 03:43, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge any well-referenced material to World War I casualties, which could really use some content beyond the tables and pictures it has now. Kirill Lokshin 04:39, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment Do you have the same position (Merging) regarding Ottoman Armenian casualties, as you did not ask to improve the article? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by OttomanReference (talk • contribs).
Mmm, that article seems to run up to 1923, though, which is well past the end of the war. I certainly think at least part of the material there could be moved to World War I casualties—which isn't nearly large enough that it needs to be split up—but I don't really know enough about the topic to come up with a good way of dividing the material cleanly among WWI and post-WWI articles. Kirill Lokshin 04:52, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Will military history take on this issue? If wikipedia leaves this issue hanging out, it will look like promoting Armenian Genocide. There would not be balance (neutrality), as one millet have its page, but the other do not. Maybe an article improvement drive for the WWI casualties? Bring all casualties into single page and see what can be done for the neutrality. Current situation is not good. Favors one side, as can be seen how protectorate that side is. Hope someone like you will take this issue on his/her shoulder! :-))) --OttomanReference 05:32, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - per clevelander Chaldean 05:23, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - per baristarim Metb82 06:51, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - A POVfork to justify the Armenian genocide. --Mardavich 07:58, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Are you denying that Ottoman Muslims also died during the First World War? Or do they not count or are they not "notable" "enough", as has been suggested, because they were Muslims? There is a clear scent of systemic bias here. This question has nothing to do with the Armenian Genocide. Death of Ottoman Muslims (Kurdish and Turkish) during WWI is a reality, and there is nothing in Wiki policies that state why this subject should not be talked about, even if it might not please some. Wikipedia has to be inclusive, not exclusive.. Baristarim 08:33, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - per OttomanReference. The connection between the two is imaginary. BTW, I have to add that I don't understand how and when casualties are distinguished as "notable". Okan 10:31, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment - could you explain why you want to keep it? -- Clevelander 12:57, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - If this passes, then their should be a page dedicated to Nazi Germans casualities during WWII Chaldean 11:35, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
So, do you mean that Ottoman Muslims in the WW1 are equivalents of the Nazis of WW2? Is it the case? What a perfect evaluation of the history, terribly fascinating and marvellous indeed! Okan 11:46, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
???? How dare you even compare the Turkish and Kurdish civilians that died during the First World War to Nazi soldiers??? The level of hate and racism is simply astounding. i know in the very city I am living in France whose grandparents told them how Armenian gangs killed Turkish civilians in their villages in Kars, even though I am not in a position to deny or confirm those stories, I wouldn't even dare compare them to Nazi soldiers. Isn't it clearly racist to equate "Ottoman Muslims" to "Nazi Germans" as you just did??? Where does this hate come from? The title of the article is clear: Ottoman Muslim casualties. We all know the definition of the words Ottoman, Muslim and casuality. This is a very valid topic even though, as witnessed by certain condescending comparisons taking place, it puts some people at unease. If there are POV issues, they can be addressed, but the idea underlying the article is completely valid and, yes, Ottoman Muslim deaths are notable as well, even though some people do not consider them to be so. Baristarim 11:51, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment I hope that independent and impartial editors who come here to vote peruse the above discussions and take note of some extremely racist, orientalist and condescending statements that have been made. Baristarim 11:57, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • KeepIt's poor article but usefull. There'a nothing discuss about the historical point of view or Wiki criteria. --Macukali 12:05, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: As an attempt to cut through some of the vitriol on both sides, may I ask those arguing for the article to be kept to explain why an article on the number of casualties of the First World War on a particular side (and bear in mind that the article title doesn't exactly say that), as against inserting a paragraph on this same fact into a broader article on the War itself is a good idea? That Ottoman Muslims died is hardly in question, but surely it would be more useful to add this to an article on the war in which they died. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 12:06, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Because casualties in WWI is a global article, its incompleteness would not stop the development of its sub-articles. Because that article covers German, Arab, Greek, Spanish etc. casualties, and as such there should be one or two sentences introducing the Ottoman Muslim casualties in that article and, hop, it should give a "see also" to this article (along with other casualties to their respective articles). That's all.. The incompleteness of the main shouldn't lead to the deletion of its subs. Baristarim 12:14, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
I can kind of see where you're coming from here, but surely the table in the main article (and the addition of a footnote or a section explaining it all) is a better way to run things right now? BigHaz - Schreit mich an 12:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, it depends on the amount of information that can be brought to the sub article. I have not written the article myself, so I cannot be an authoritative source on the (eventual) scope of this article. I also see your point, but, even in its current state, the idea of removing an article that talks about real-world Muslim casualties of the Ottoman Empire whereas much shorter articles about fictional Pokemon or Star Wars characters or planets can stay seems simply not right to me. That's all I am trying to say at the end of the day.. Baristarim 12:40, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Clevelander.--Euthymios 13:33, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
For what reasons precisely? Are you saying that Ottoman Muslim casualties not "notable enough"? Instead of deleting, why not try to make this article NPOV? For God's sake, there are even shorter articles about Pokemon characters and you want to delete a page about real-life deaths? How racist is that? Are you aware that, at the moment of closure, the number of simple votes don't matter, but it's the arguments that count? Baristarim 13:39, 18 November 2006 (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.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/r/t/Wikipedia%7EArticles_for_deletion_Ottoman_Muslim_casualties_d84d.html"