![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 30 January 2018. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Persecution of Muslims during the Ottoman contraction article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This page was
proposed for deletion by
Lkahd (
talk ·
contribs) in the past. It was contested by Xoloz ( talk · contribs) |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
After years of neglectence on Wikipedia I have made a long research and created this article I hope it will not be ruined like the others. So that is why I want to list some points.
1. Present article is not perfect it should be expanded and improved.
2. No nationalist users should be allowed to edit on this page or to make pointless discussions.
3. Neutral, not related ethnicity and non partisan users should edit this article in good faith.
4. This is the article of Muslim suffering so no other info about others suffering should be added. In no Greek or Armenian article are mentions of killed Muslims, they all have their own and this is the Muslim one.
5. Good admins and the community should work together to protect this article, protection is needed.
I hope that this article is not going to be ruined, thanks. Bangyulol ( talk) 16:07, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
6. I find the title itself, "Persecution of Muslims" during Ottoman rule, as being fake and deceving. What would you think if you read a title like "Persecution of the English in India" or "Persecution of the French in Algeria". Ridiculous, right!? Although towards the end of colonial rule, there certainly were victims on the side of the colonial powers too. I cannot approve with this article. 2003:CF:734:1001:1164:8541:52FD:29F4 ( talk) 15:47, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
Massacres against Muslims during the Dissolution of the Ottoman Empire was created before this article and should be probably merged into it. Anybody against it?-- Antidiskriminator ( talk) 15:41, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
I find this section in particular leaning towards the POV side. Unsourced claims of:
There are so many Ottoman documents on atrocities committed on Muslims (Turks and Kurds) by Armenians transliterated to Latin letters. Like this one and this other one. They are two official Ottoman writs on Muslims killed, tortured, raped and abducted by Armenians in the villages of Van, dated 4 and 15 March 1915 respectively. In other words, more than one month before the legislation on the displacement of Ottoman Armenians was adopted and of course even more before the exodus, or tehcir began. There are, I am sure (because I have seen them using sources in Turkish in Wikipedia) among your Armenian editors who understand very well these texts. They could translate you some information from these pages; some of the scenes are too horrific for me to do so. -- 212.174.190.23 ( talk) 08:34, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
I wonder what's the meaning was this unexplained revert [ [1]]. In case no decent explanation is given (multiple wp:or issues, wp:pov lead image, massive removals of sourced content & unencyclopedic pov descriptions lacking references) someone can easily assume that this equals wp:vandalism. Alexikoua ( talk) 21:11, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Although editors have been invited to participate, the page is still subject to vandalism [ [2]] (massive removals with wrong edit summaries), perhaps another - more straight - way is needed to settle this. Alexikoua ( talk) 11:43, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
To sum up, I don't see a reason to remove sources such as this one [ [3]] and this [ [4]]. Morevoer Cn taggs have been added in various parts where ref is needed and the pov tag needs to stay until the pov issues (pov claims included in the unreferenced parts) are addressed. Alexikoua ( talk) 12:21, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Also, the lede map, needs to be verified. Off course if McCarthy, who is highly unreliable, is indeed the only source this needs to go. Alexikoua ( talk) 12:27, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Dear Alexikoua and other readers, I (Bangyulol) am very sorry but I find this edit summary very impolite "Bangyulol obvious pov pushing" [6] as you may have realized that I was not the one who removed the "McCarthy is unreliable" and "in total 35 victims were reported" sentence. Neither was I obviously pushing pov or removing something. Also I sadly saw that Alexikoua did not correct this when he asked for page protection, I hope this behavior will not continue it is very unconstructive.
However after Alexikoua added the sentence " However, only 35 victims were reported in total" [7]I did add the missing rest of the sentence. That 35 victims were reported out of "177 refugees" as without the full citation it could lead to wrong conclusions.
Thanks, bye. Bangyulol ( talk) 15:55, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Source[ [11] | Alexikoua's first version [12] | Banyulol's version[ [13] | Alexikoua's second version[ [14] | |
---|---|---|---|---|
"Statements gathered by Ottoman officials reveal, somewhat strangely, a fairly low number of casualties in this campaign of destruction. Of the 177 people responding, only twenty-eight individuals responded that they had family member harmed during the Greek occupation. In total only thirty-five were reported to have been killed, wounded, beaten, or missing. This is in line with the observations of Arnold Toynbee, who declared that one to two murders were sufficient to drive away the population of a village." | However, only 35 victims were reported in total. | An Ottoman enquiry to which only 177 survivors responded, stated that they had only 35 victims in total. | However, statements gathered by Ottoman official, reveal a relatevely low number of causalties: based on the Ottoman enquiry to which 177 survivors responded, only 35 were reported as killed, wounded or beaten or missing. This is also in accordance with Toynbee's accounts. |
It seems clear that the author isn't surprised by the low number of the ones that responded to the questionnaire, but by the low number of the casaulties ("only" isn't placed for the 177 survivors in source, but for the 35 victims). Not to mention that this is in aggrement with Toynbee's accounts. Alexikoua ( talk) 20:05, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
By doing a quich check in mainstream bibliography it appears that the specific author is the epitomy of pov ("the leading pro-Turkish scholar & genocide denialist"). To name a few examples: [ [16]][ [17]][ [18]]. Off course such 'scholars' can't pass wp:rs and should be treated with high precaution here. Alexikoua ( talk) 19:30, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Per this [ [20]] an unlogged user insists that the participants of the Greek Revolution should be termed 'rebels'. However, per simple English the participants of a revolution should be called same way (revolution->revolutionaries). In case there is a decent argument against this I invite everyone to propose an adjustment in the lead of the correspodent article (i.e. to Greek Revolution -> Greek Rebellion). Alexikoua ( talk) 14:11, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
In general pictures of abandoned monuments/building are not necessary connected with campaigns of persecution or vandalism. A reference is needed here that points that a specific building was damaged as a result of this and not ruined in the course of time due to abandonment. Alexikoua ( talk) 17:15, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Please, do not make unnecessary disputes/edit wars about the smallest dispute possible, mere words or pictures are not worth this. It would be more useful to add content and sources. Bangyulol ( talk) 12:59, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
I have added an undue weight tag. The content is single-sourced, contentious, and very one-sided in tone. And very vague - "Massacres and expulsions" of what Christians, and were? "Massacres and expulsions of" what Muslims and where? And what has any alleged knowledge or lack of knowledge by the "Victorian public" about something (undefined) somewhere (undefined) got to do with the subject of this article anyway? The Ottoman empire was a large political unit - so of course news about its particular actions were widely reported and given prominance. The rulers of that "Victorian public" strived to prop up the Ottoman Empire for most of the 19thC, Queen Victoria was an avid supporter of Turkey, agitating for Britain to fight on its behalf in the 1870s (as it had done in the 1850s), and the Treaty of Berlin restored much lost territory to the Ottoman Empire. I already mentioned that I feel the tone and purpose of this article is propagandistic. Part of the wording of this section could be a verbatim quote from typical Turkish genocide denialist propaganda: "atrocities were committed by all sides". And does the existence of this section admit to the creation of a parallel section "Impact on Ottoman empire" that would detail the various massacres, oppressions, and expulsions the Ottoman authorites committed on its Christian subjects to terrorised them into submission lest they take the same route as the Balkan nations and fight and gain their freedom.
Tiptoethrutheminefield (
talk) 16:49, 3 April 2014 (UTC) Blocked sock:
Meowy.
Can I add a section highlighting the persecution, deportation and massacres of 19th Century Ottoman-muslims as a significant element in build up of bad blood between Christians and Muslims, that would then subsequent influence the Armenian Genocide? Oxr033 ( talk) 21:11, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Every event this article cites involves Christians, who were themselves being persecuted, fighting for self determination, which the article leaves out entirely. How ridiculous would a "Persecution of British" article look that lists events like the American/Scottish Independence Wars or Indian independence movement? This article is more or less an over exaggerated piece of propaganda. --
Steverci (
talk) 23:42, 12 January 2015 (UTC) Blocked sock:
Steverci.
Turkish genocide used to be a disambiguation page for the Armenian, Greek, and Assyrian genocides, but it now redirects to this article instead. There are several other pages that now redirect here, including Ottoman genocide and Genocides in Turkey.
Should we re-create this disambiguation page to avoid confusion between these topics? Jarble ( talk) 22:21, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Probably, as the term could be interpreted both as "genocides suffered by the Turks" and "genocides caused by the Turks". Dimadick ( talk) 22:51, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Since Armenian Genocide redirects to the page about the genocide Armenians suffered, Turkish genocide should redirect to this page, unsurprisingly. ( Vezir59 ( talk) 21:02, 24 November 2020 (UTC))
Is there any good reason to why the introduction and infobox uses "Ottoman genocide"? This term is only applied to the Ottoman-launched genocide campaigns, and not perseuction of Ottoman Muslims. I am boldly removing the term.--
Zoupan 20:27, 14 January 2016 (UTC) Blocked sock:
Ajdebre.
Any reason why an "civilian attack infobox" is used for this article? The subject of the article is very wide, made up of various events, not to be combined into one infobox.--
Zoupan 20:33, 14 January 2016 (UTC) Blocked sock:
Ajdebre.
@
Khirurg: The articles on other events such as the Armenian, Assyrian, and Greek genocides also feature a wide variety of massacres and events yet they feature infoboxes - and rightly so, I believe. An infobox would simply present the information already found in this article in a format that would make the page more consistent with other entries.
--
Junk2711 (
talk) 04:03, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
When Greeks or Armenians were killed, the topic is "Armenian Genocide or Greek Genocide" even the truth is contradictory and not formal.
So why do not we have a topic called Turkish genocide?
When Turks are killed is not that a genocide? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.98.171.192 ( talk) 16:14, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello, As most of the Caucasus was part of Ottoman Empire once, massacres of Azerbaijanis should be added to article. See March Days Thanks -- Abbatai 12:06, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
They were Ottoman subjects see Islamic Army of the Caucasus. Abbatai 12:22, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
The article should refer to genocide as all those killings were infact genocides.
The topic of "Persecution of Ottoman Muslims" is totally wrong and racist.
1- In Greece, not only the Muslims, but the Jews were also killed. 2- Not all of the Turks are Muslim, but they were killed too. 3- If we name "Armenians Genocide, Greek Genocide", than we call this topic is also as "Turkish genocide" 4- The Ottoman Muslims name is nonsense, since nearly no Arabic or Persian Muslim killed by Christian minorities.
So, we will see if Wikipedia is a racist garbage or a modern website. We will se if this topic is changed as Turkish Genocides. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.174.119.254 ( talk) 08:02, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Can there be different articles about Greece, Serbia etc. dealing with those persecutions? Anyone who doesn't know the subject would just guess from the title that the Ottoman was a Christian Empire persecuting its Muslim minority. We should be finding a more appropriate term for the name of the articles, or else there will be no rest. This goes also for the Armenian Genocide, Greek genocide terms as name of the articles, etc... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yahya Talatin ( talk • contribs) 19:06, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
Yahya Talatin, its hard to come up with an alternative short and all encompassing title for this topic as these events were separate and at times interrelated due to their unique social and geo-political contexts. This article's title i think does cover it though. It states that it is a persecution of Ottoman Muslims. As for the Genocide articles, those events have attained that name through scholarship and in part by those societies of whom it happened too as well. Its convention like the Holocaust etc. Best. Resnjari ( talk) 20:36, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
So someone created an article about persecution of Muslims in a Muslim-ruled empire (the Caliphate). Not persecution of Muslims because they were Ahmadiyya, not persecution of Muslims because they spoke Kurdish, not persecution of Muslims because they were not Communists. So by analogy, would we also need to articles entitled "Persecution of Austro-Hungarian Christians"? The Austro-Hungarian Empire was a Christian state, and some of its institutions and laws reflected this. Yet numerous Christians were persecuted on various grounds (gender, social class, ancestry, language, political affiliations, guild membership....). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.169.40.10 ( talk) 12:34, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
I removed a big blurb about the Circassian events, because aside from a few Soviet scholars and maybe a Turk or two, nobody really says that Circassia (save like two coastal fortresses) was ruled by the Ottomans. But topically it is still related to other stuff on this page as it happened at similar times and at least one scholar thinks the Circassian events may have inspired imitations in the Balkans. One way to deal with this is to rename the page: Persecution of Muslims in Eastern Europe. Or "in Eastern Europe and the Balkans" if necessary. Then of course the stuff I deleted should be restored. This also fixes other cases where the "Ottomanness" of the victims is dubious. Thoughts? -- Yalens ( talk) 00:11, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
I placed tags because article is way too out of focus. For example, Circassia was not in the Ottoman Empire but it’s still mentioned. Also, we have no information on the Armenian Genocide. There appears no attempt at a balancing act here. Such material make it very problematic when it comes to this article neutrality. Étienne Dolet ( talk) 16:16, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
I think the issue is that the article describes the victims too broadly as many different ethnicities (Albanians, Bosniaks, Serbs, etc.) while they should probably be described by something more precise like Ottoman Turks (different than just ethnic Turks). This is because these people were targeted for being Ottoman Turks and not simply for being Muslim, as not all of the victims were Muslims. Since not all Ottoman Turks were Muslim, I think this is an important distinction. Junk2711 ( talk) 00:32, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
By the end of the catastrophic Balkan Wars of 1912-1913, all but a small sliver of "Turkey in Europe" was lost, accompanied by enormous loss of life, mutual ethnic cleansings... by Riva Kastoryano, publisher:Routledge
important advances in the understanding of events central to the genocide studies field — such as the process of Ottoman imperial dissolution, reciprocal genocidal killing (during the "Unweaving" in the Balkans) and complex international jockeying that factored into the massive anti-Christian slaughters in Anatolia in 1915 ... by Adam Jones, publisher:Routledge
As a consequence of the Balkan Wars of 1912 and 1913, in particular, entire city neighborhoods were razed, names of villages changed, their inhabitants expelled, or more dramatically still, collectively "converted". To many, the problem was that the beginning of World War I left these states not enough time to complete the ugly task of erasing the Ottoman Empire from "Christendom" by Isa Blumi, published by Bloomsbury
Seraphim System ( talk) 04:52, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
NOTE: Struckthrough bludgeoning — not really bludgeoning — Reviewing the conversation, there are questions from multiple editors that were ignored, but he responded aggressively to my comment — I don't know if that's called anything but this is right after another lengthy discussion. I really don't like ignoring questions from editors, but I think I may have to try non-engagement or maybe some form of moderated discussion in the future, to see if that helps improve discussions.(Anyway, editors can second a question if they really want to, and I will respond.) Seraphim System ( talk) 15:41, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
"I think you have to propose this on the article talk page..."Maaz said:
"per User:Seraphim System, why is this discussion taking place here. Shouldn't it be mentioned on talk page."GGT said:
"Firstly, this discussion should really be taking place in the article's talk page."Resnjari:
"but any rename discussion should be done outside of an AfD."By the way, Liridon never participated in that discussion. Étienne Dolet ( talk) 16:27, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
The 1914 report of the Carnegie International Commission on the Balkan Wars documents cruelties that were echoed only too clearly in the atrocities of the 1990s. On the Thracian front, for example, retreating Ottoman troops exacted a terrible revenge for their defeat in the First Balkan War. In village after village, Turkish soldiers, irregulars, and even ordinary Muslims exacted their pound of flesh. In the village of Haskovo, 450 of 700 male Bulgarians were led into a gorge and executed.
A woman . . . described how her little child was thrown up into the air by a Turkish soldier who caught it on the point of his bayonet. Other women told how three young girls threw themselves into a well after their nances were shot. At Varna about twenty women living together confirmed this story, and added that the Turkish soldiers went down into the well and dragged the girls out. Two of them were dead; the third had a broken leg; despite her agony she was outraged by two Turks. Other women of Varna saw the soldier who had transfixed the baby on his bayonet carrying it in triumph across the village. The outraged women felt shame at telling their misfortunes.
The Carnegie Report is very useful in highlighting the complexities of a war which left no Balkan people unscathed, including the warring nation-states' majority groups. In the mayhem of the Balkan Wars initially the victims of abuse and murder were predominantly Muslim. The allied Christian Greeks, Serbs, Montenegrins, and Bulgarians were slaughtering Muslims and ravaging their towns and villages almost in common agreement, but when the Second Balkan War began, the former allies became enemies and their respective populations turned on each other.
Since it seems some people are not aware (or pretending to) of the reasons for the POV tag, let me re-iterate:
For these reasons, the POV tag should stay until the issues are resolved. Khirurg ( talk) 20:50, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
@ Ödegay31: and @ Khirurg: have been reverting each other. The latest reverts concern a quote, and the dispute seems to be linked with WP:QUOTEFARM. I suggest (and so does @ Drmies: too) that these are solved here through discussion rather than reverts. Ktrimi991 ( talk) 00:42, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
This series of edits [
[31]], which have been edit-warred into the article without consensus
[32]
[33], are problematic and unsuitable for a number of reasons. First, the use of quotes is entirely unnecessary and undue. Per
WP:QUOTEFARM, quotations embody the breezy, emotive style common in fiction and some journalism, which is generally not suited to encyclopedic writing.
. Also per
WP:QUOTEFARM, quotes are being misused when:
a quotation is used without pertinence: it is presented visually on the page but its relevance is not explained anywhere;
quotations are used to explain a point that can be paraphrased;
the quotations dominate the article or section.
Using too many quotations is incompatible with the encyclopedic writing style.
Quotations shouldn't replace plain, concise text. Intersperse quotations with original prose that comments on those quotations instead of constructing articles using quotations with little or no original prose.
For these reasons, I am against including quotes from
WP:PRIMARY sourced from over 100 years ago. Even worse, the claim of "genocide" in the lede is highly inflammatory, and totally unfounded. There is no scholarly consensus whatsoever that the events described in the article consist anything resembling genocide. Even
Justin McCarthy stops short of calling it genocide. Unsourced and unfounded claims of "genocide" have no place in a neutral encyclopedia. Lastly, the edit A British Officer noted that before any turkish resistance was formed the Greek army started their oppresion by burning villages, killing of turks,rape and killing of women.
is written in a highly inflammatory POV tone unsuitable for an encyclopedia (let alone ungrammatical). Frankly, these edits carry a whiff of
WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS.
Khirurg (
talk) 05:05, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
some of the events were genocidal", then this will have to be clarified accordingly and with the necessary sources provided instead of placing the word "genocide" on the lede as describing the whole case as being a genocide. Note that primary sources by themselves are generally avoided; Wikipedia reflects mainly on independent academic scholarship on the matter, not just isolated primary sources. Good day. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ( talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 10:06, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Atrocity was answered by atrocity as Greeks and Turks struck mercilessly at their defenceless neighbours. The orgy of genocide exhausted itself in the Peloponnese only when there were no more Turks lo kill. The "orgy of genocide" which the author uses to describes the killings, applies to both sides, and describes the lack of respect for civilian life and the retaliatory nature of the massacres that both sides in the war have shown. In Wikipedia, the article Massacres during the Greek War of Independence was created where the full picture of the war is provided to the readers:
The war was characterized by a lack of respect for civilian life, and prisoners of war on both sides of the conflict. Massacres of Greeks took place especially in Ionia, Crete, Constantinople, Macedonia and the Aegean islands. Turkish, Albanian, Greeks, and Jewish populations, who were identified with the Ottomans inhabiting the Peloponnese, suffered massacres, particularly where Greek forces were dominant. Settled Greek communities in the Aegean Sea, Crete, Central and Southern Greece were wiped out, and settled Turkish, Albanian, Greeks, and smaller Jewish communities in the Peloponnese were destroyed.. The source you provided may in no way be used to misrepresent here in Wikipedia the massacres by both sides as meaning that it constituted a genocide against a particular group specifically. To use the author's choice of words this way, as is the case of your additions to the article, constitutes one-sided POV because it frames out the Muslim casualties in the war and ignores everything else that happened in that war, just to prove a point not supported by the international academic community. Like I said, you will need strong and substantial sources to prove that the massacres (which occurred for all sides of the war of independence) are in fact an organized genocide against the Muslims specifically. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ( talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 11:28, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
some of the events were genocidal" and one of the sources you provided is about the Greek War of Independence. So I assumed it is the event you wanted to refer to it as the "Genocide" on the lede per WP:LEDE. However, like I explained above, there is no academic consensus to describe the Greek War of Independence as a genocide. To claim so, is a very big move which I am afraid will require very strong and substantial sources and is a view adhered by the majority of the academic scholars worldwide. But isn't the case here. I shall note however, that the present article is already describing killings that occurred by both sides in the Greek War of Independence as genocidal: [ [35]] (albeit here only the Muslim side - which is the focus of this article anyways - is mentioned as the victim of genocidal progress, the other side which too suffered being omitted from any mention here, unlike in Massacres during the Greek War of Independence which is more balanced since it mentions both sides). And that's as much as it can get without strong sources and an academic consensus.
some of the events were genocidal" quote are the genocidal ones listed in the article, which would justify the mention of "genocides" on the article's lede (as in that edit of yours which was reverted). I read in your latest reply now, I see that you are referring (and provided sources) about a much wider range of events which took place at different time periods, including the Balkan Wars and the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire which occurred much later than the Greek War of Independence - about 100 years or so. The sources do appear to mention the word genocide either in quotes or footnotes, but again I fail to understand which ones of the events particularly you refer as being the genocidal events you spoke about. Can you become more specific? Please remember that we gotta be careful and descriptive here, because the article covers a very wide range of events of different time periods, from 1600s to 1900s - and if any of them, be it the Greek War of Independence, the Russian War, the Balkan Campaign, the French war, the Serbian war, the Croatian war, etc, etc, have to be summarized as genocide in the article's lede per WP:LEAD, then you gotta 1) clarify which ones you are talking about as being the genocides, prove strong evidence that these were genocidal events, and 3) also present evidence that the int. community regards them as such. Wikipedia reflects on the international scholarly community's views, not what individual scholars may write about them. Only then we can tell that indeed the present article also lists genocides and the lede indeed will be in need for a update to reflect on it accordingly (per WP:LEAD). Sorry if my response here is lacking, as I myself am feeling abit confused with which events are the genocides you are talking about. Good day. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ( talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 16:57, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
I agree with Ktrimi991, what happened to Turks, Bosniaks and Muslim Albanians/Bulgarians/etc was bad, but you cannot lump it with what happened in the 1860s Caucasus to Circassians. The latter is given a separate and different treatment in genocide studies. I also think it's a misguided idea/approach to present things as "reciprocal". There were certainly episodes of tit-for-tat killings here and there pre-1910 (by ethnonationalist groups and political entities that is, not between "nations"), but you cannot compare anything on the 'other' side to the Armenian Genocide -- and further, one has to take care to prevent the text from being interpreted that way. -- Calthinus ( talk) 06:39, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Comment: I just had to revert the editor Ödegay31 from listing the
Tripolitsa Massacre to the list of
Genocides in history (before World War I). Historical revisionist attempts such as baptizing massacres as genocides and adding them to the Wikipedia's list of Genocides without providing strong sources to support such an edit, without consulting with other editors, nor reflecting on the international scholarly community, etc, simply is not an improvement, and certainly not how Wikipedia works. I just reverted the editor's contentious edits
[36].
It came to my notice that this coincides with various
state-controlled or state-sponsored publications in Turkey
[37], which focus on the Tripolitsa Massacre and other massacres by distorting them events to promote the nationalist Turkish government's revisionist narrative that they constituted a genocide. This from the same government which
denies that the Armenian Genocide ever happened. The articles in Wikipedia will have to be protected from historical revisionist attempts such as this by Ödegay31 and any debates must be careful as to avoid direct or indirect
WP:COIs. IMO, political agendas must be kept away from sensitive topics such as genocides. ---
❖ SilentResident ❖ (
talk ✉ |
contribs ✎) 16:47, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
The label of "genocidal process" (regarding Muslims -- or just non-Christians -- in the Pelopponese) is the view of St Clair. I've attributed it to him. We shouldn't state such views in Wikivoice (i.e. without attribution) unless the scholarly consensus has substantially shifted on that matter; as far as I know, it has not. -- Calthinus ( talk) 22:51, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
@ Kansas Bear: Not only is there no mention of ethnic cleansing on page 13 that was referenced, there is no mention of M. H. Gulesian (not Gulerian) being either an Armenian nationalist or a veteran of the Balkan Wars in service to Bulgaria. M. H. Gulesian was an Armenian-American financier, who emigrated to the U.S. 35 years before this hearing took place. Demetrios1993 ( talk) 13:38, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
He says that no Turk can live in a Christian State and that Turks would migrate out of Armenia - And gives the mass exodus of muslims in the Caucasus and Balkans during the Russo-Turkish and Balkan wars that happened in the last decades..He gives that as an example for Armenia...But I guess it doesn't belong in the article since it's an orginal research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.206.159.195 ( talk) 13:11, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
Technically the circassia was not apart of the Ottoman Empire so I don’t think they should be talked about here 2A02:C7C:507D:0:A875:1CD2:F276:8F66 ( talk) 21:07, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
The claim that these events constituted "Genocide" that is being aggressively being pushed by some accounts is actually unsourced. These events are far too disparate and this is why they are not described as "genocide" in the literature. The source that is being used to add "genocide" to the infobox
[40] is actually misused, as the author does not describe the events of the article as genocide. Rather, when Adam Jones is referring to the Incorporating a global-comparative perspective on the genocide of the last half-millenium has enabled important advances in the understanding of events central to the genocide studies field
, he is referring to the various genocides of the past 500 years, not to a specific genocide, and certainly not the events described in this article.
Khirurg (
talk) 04:32, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
This article uses Matthew Gibney work with the reference "Immigration and asylum : from 1900 to the present : Gibney, Matthew J : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive" but if you read it you will see he is not talking only about the ottoman empire but also about russia, india, pakistan up until 1947. Therefore saying Matthew Gibney said millions died during the exchange is false information and an exageration. 2A01:E34:EC95:6010:F51D:5425:B996:D233 ( talk) 09:19, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
Crimes against humanity is a specific legal concept. In order to be included in the category, the event (s) must have been prosecuted as a crime against humanity, or at a bare minimum be described as such by most reliable sources. Most of the articles that were formerly in this category did not mention crimes against humanity at all, and the inclusion of the category was purely original research. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 07:49, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
the same page when translated to Turkish refers to the persecution which took place as massacres (within the context of a genocide) and such a title should be also reflected upon the English version of the page as to respect Wikipedia’s commitment of being non partisan. Whereas the current title raises severe questions regarding said commitment. Furthermore despite extensive covering of violence perpetrated against Armenians and Greeks Wikipedia fails to show even a fraction of the commitment and care for these events upon the what does qualify as genocide against the Muslim population of the balkans, despite the number of fatalities being according to some accounts more than double those of the Armenians and Greeks combined.Glossing over and even outright failing to mention massacres which took place such as the massacre of Muslims and Jews when Thessaloniki was taken by Greek forces or the war crimes committed against captured pows such as when pows had crosses scored across their foreheads by Bulgarian forces or even the massacres of Muslims upon the island of Crete which had a high Muslims population. presents itself as a quite frankly disgusting and dishonest representation of history and feeds into nationalist narratives that massacres against Muslims and Jewish populations were limited and ignores the reality of events. The state of this Wikipedia article especially when the violence perpetrated against Greeks and Armenians is so extensively covered is shameful and may raise questions regarding antisemitism and Islamophobia within the ranks of Wikipedia editors. This article is in need of urgent attention and needs at least the same attention which pages upon the killings of other ethnic groups as it will provide much needed prelude and context into the actions of the committee of union and progress aswell as addressing the realities of history. 92.40.197.50 ( talk) 19:34, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
literally every other language version of this page does not state the death toll is “up to 2 million” even in the section regarding casualties it states that it is not that low. Furthermore the edit of “up to 2 million” was made in response to someone changing the death toll to 5.5 million rather than up to 5.5 million. Such an edit of two million was made by a Wikipedia account titled “neo wikipedist” and referred to the edit as “some muslimz” and furthermore went into use the skull emoji. I heavily advise that someone change the death toll to what it previously once was 148.252.146.29 ( talk) 01:42, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
The following is a translated extract from the Arabic version of the same page: Michael Mann stated in the 1914 Carnegie Foundation report that those acts were described as widespread murderous ethnic cleansing unprecedented in Europe.It is estimated that 4.4 million Muslims lived in the Ottoman-controlled areas of the Balkans at the turn of the 20th century.According to Maria Todorova, more than a million Muslims left the Balkans in the last 30 years of the 19th century.Between 1912 and 1926 nearly 2.9 million Muslims were killed or forced to immigrate to Turkey.It is estimated that 2.5 million Muslims died in Anatolia during World War I and the Turkish War of Independence. 148.252.146.29 ( talk) 01:44, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 30 January 2018. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Persecution of Muslims during the Ottoman contraction article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This page was
proposed for deletion by
Lkahd (
talk ·
contribs) in the past. It was contested by Xoloz ( talk · contribs) |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
After years of neglectence on Wikipedia I have made a long research and created this article I hope it will not be ruined like the others. So that is why I want to list some points.
1. Present article is not perfect it should be expanded and improved.
2. No nationalist users should be allowed to edit on this page or to make pointless discussions.
3. Neutral, not related ethnicity and non partisan users should edit this article in good faith.
4. This is the article of Muslim suffering so no other info about others suffering should be added. In no Greek or Armenian article are mentions of killed Muslims, they all have their own and this is the Muslim one.
5. Good admins and the community should work together to protect this article, protection is needed.
I hope that this article is not going to be ruined, thanks. Bangyulol ( talk) 16:07, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
6. I find the title itself, "Persecution of Muslims" during Ottoman rule, as being fake and deceving. What would you think if you read a title like "Persecution of the English in India" or "Persecution of the French in Algeria". Ridiculous, right!? Although towards the end of colonial rule, there certainly were victims on the side of the colonial powers too. I cannot approve with this article. 2003:CF:734:1001:1164:8541:52FD:29F4 ( talk) 15:47, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
Massacres against Muslims during the Dissolution of the Ottoman Empire was created before this article and should be probably merged into it. Anybody against it?-- Antidiskriminator ( talk) 15:41, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
I find this section in particular leaning towards the POV side. Unsourced claims of:
There are so many Ottoman documents on atrocities committed on Muslims (Turks and Kurds) by Armenians transliterated to Latin letters. Like this one and this other one. They are two official Ottoman writs on Muslims killed, tortured, raped and abducted by Armenians in the villages of Van, dated 4 and 15 March 1915 respectively. In other words, more than one month before the legislation on the displacement of Ottoman Armenians was adopted and of course even more before the exodus, or tehcir began. There are, I am sure (because I have seen them using sources in Turkish in Wikipedia) among your Armenian editors who understand very well these texts. They could translate you some information from these pages; some of the scenes are too horrific for me to do so. -- 212.174.190.23 ( talk) 08:34, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
I wonder what's the meaning was this unexplained revert [ [1]]. In case no decent explanation is given (multiple wp:or issues, wp:pov lead image, massive removals of sourced content & unencyclopedic pov descriptions lacking references) someone can easily assume that this equals wp:vandalism. Alexikoua ( talk) 21:11, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Although editors have been invited to participate, the page is still subject to vandalism [ [2]] (massive removals with wrong edit summaries), perhaps another - more straight - way is needed to settle this. Alexikoua ( talk) 11:43, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
To sum up, I don't see a reason to remove sources such as this one [ [3]] and this [ [4]]. Morevoer Cn taggs have been added in various parts where ref is needed and the pov tag needs to stay until the pov issues (pov claims included in the unreferenced parts) are addressed. Alexikoua ( talk) 12:21, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Also, the lede map, needs to be verified. Off course if McCarthy, who is highly unreliable, is indeed the only source this needs to go. Alexikoua ( talk) 12:27, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Dear Alexikoua and other readers, I (Bangyulol) am very sorry but I find this edit summary very impolite "Bangyulol obvious pov pushing" [6] as you may have realized that I was not the one who removed the "McCarthy is unreliable" and "in total 35 victims were reported" sentence. Neither was I obviously pushing pov or removing something. Also I sadly saw that Alexikoua did not correct this when he asked for page protection, I hope this behavior will not continue it is very unconstructive.
However after Alexikoua added the sentence " However, only 35 victims were reported in total" [7]I did add the missing rest of the sentence. That 35 victims were reported out of "177 refugees" as without the full citation it could lead to wrong conclusions.
Thanks, bye. Bangyulol ( talk) 15:55, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Source[ [11] | Alexikoua's first version [12] | Banyulol's version[ [13] | Alexikoua's second version[ [14] | |
---|---|---|---|---|
"Statements gathered by Ottoman officials reveal, somewhat strangely, a fairly low number of casualties in this campaign of destruction. Of the 177 people responding, only twenty-eight individuals responded that they had family member harmed during the Greek occupation. In total only thirty-five were reported to have been killed, wounded, beaten, or missing. This is in line with the observations of Arnold Toynbee, who declared that one to two murders were sufficient to drive away the population of a village." | However, only 35 victims were reported in total. | An Ottoman enquiry to which only 177 survivors responded, stated that they had only 35 victims in total. | However, statements gathered by Ottoman official, reveal a relatevely low number of causalties: based on the Ottoman enquiry to which 177 survivors responded, only 35 were reported as killed, wounded or beaten or missing. This is also in accordance with Toynbee's accounts. |
It seems clear that the author isn't surprised by the low number of the ones that responded to the questionnaire, but by the low number of the casaulties ("only" isn't placed for the 177 survivors in source, but for the 35 victims). Not to mention that this is in aggrement with Toynbee's accounts. Alexikoua ( talk) 20:05, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
By doing a quich check in mainstream bibliography it appears that the specific author is the epitomy of pov ("the leading pro-Turkish scholar & genocide denialist"). To name a few examples: [ [16]][ [17]][ [18]]. Off course such 'scholars' can't pass wp:rs and should be treated with high precaution here. Alexikoua ( talk) 19:30, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Per this [ [20]] an unlogged user insists that the participants of the Greek Revolution should be termed 'rebels'. However, per simple English the participants of a revolution should be called same way (revolution->revolutionaries). In case there is a decent argument against this I invite everyone to propose an adjustment in the lead of the correspodent article (i.e. to Greek Revolution -> Greek Rebellion). Alexikoua ( talk) 14:11, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
In general pictures of abandoned monuments/building are not necessary connected with campaigns of persecution or vandalism. A reference is needed here that points that a specific building was damaged as a result of this and not ruined in the course of time due to abandonment. Alexikoua ( talk) 17:15, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Please, do not make unnecessary disputes/edit wars about the smallest dispute possible, mere words or pictures are not worth this. It would be more useful to add content and sources. Bangyulol ( talk) 12:59, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
I have added an undue weight tag. The content is single-sourced, contentious, and very one-sided in tone. And very vague - "Massacres and expulsions" of what Christians, and were? "Massacres and expulsions of" what Muslims and where? And what has any alleged knowledge or lack of knowledge by the "Victorian public" about something (undefined) somewhere (undefined) got to do with the subject of this article anyway? The Ottoman empire was a large political unit - so of course news about its particular actions were widely reported and given prominance. The rulers of that "Victorian public" strived to prop up the Ottoman Empire for most of the 19thC, Queen Victoria was an avid supporter of Turkey, agitating for Britain to fight on its behalf in the 1870s (as it had done in the 1850s), and the Treaty of Berlin restored much lost territory to the Ottoman Empire. I already mentioned that I feel the tone and purpose of this article is propagandistic. Part of the wording of this section could be a verbatim quote from typical Turkish genocide denialist propaganda: "atrocities were committed by all sides". And does the existence of this section admit to the creation of a parallel section "Impact on Ottoman empire" that would detail the various massacres, oppressions, and expulsions the Ottoman authorites committed on its Christian subjects to terrorised them into submission lest they take the same route as the Balkan nations and fight and gain their freedom.
Tiptoethrutheminefield (
talk) 16:49, 3 April 2014 (UTC) Blocked sock:
Meowy.
Can I add a section highlighting the persecution, deportation and massacres of 19th Century Ottoman-muslims as a significant element in build up of bad blood between Christians and Muslims, that would then subsequent influence the Armenian Genocide? Oxr033 ( talk) 21:11, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Every event this article cites involves Christians, who were themselves being persecuted, fighting for self determination, which the article leaves out entirely. How ridiculous would a "Persecution of British" article look that lists events like the American/Scottish Independence Wars or Indian independence movement? This article is more or less an over exaggerated piece of propaganda. --
Steverci (
talk) 23:42, 12 January 2015 (UTC) Blocked sock:
Steverci.
Turkish genocide used to be a disambiguation page for the Armenian, Greek, and Assyrian genocides, but it now redirects to this article instead. There are several other pages that now redirect here, including Ottoman genocide and Genocides in Turkey.
Should we re-create this disambiguation page to avoid confusion between these topics? Jarble ( talk) 22:21, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Probably, as the term could be interpreted both as "genocides suffered by the Turks" and "genocides caused by the Turks". Dimadick ( talk) 22:51, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Since Armenian Genocide redirects to the page about the genocide Armenians suffered, Turkish genocide should redirect to this page, unsurprisingly. ( Vezir59 ( talk) 21:02, 24 November 2020 (UTC))
Is there any good reason to why the introduction and infobox uses "Ottoman genocide"? This term is only applied to the Ottoman-launched genocide campaigns, and not perseuction of Ottoman Muslims. I am boldly removing the term.--
Zoupan 20:27, 14 January 2016 (UTC) Blocked sock:
Ajdebre.
Any reason why an "civilian attack infobox" is used for this article? The subject of the article is very wide, made up of various events, not to be combined into one infobox.--
Zoupan 20:33, 14 January 2016 (UTC) Blocked sock:
Ajdebre.
@
Khirurg: The articles on other events such as the Armenian, Assyrian, and Greek genocides also feature a wide variety of massacres and events yet they feature infoboxes - and rightly so, I believe. An infobox would simply present the information already found in this article in a format that would make the page more consistent with other entries.
--
Junk2711 (
talk) 04:03, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
When Greeks or Armenians were killed, the topic is "Armenian Genocide or Greek Genocide" even the truth is contradictory and not formal.
So why do not we have a topic called Turkish genocide?
When Turks are killed is not that a genocide? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.98.171.192 ( talk) 16:14, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello, As most of the Caucasus was part of Ottoman Empire once, massacres of Azerbaijanis should be added to article. See March Days Thanks -- Abbatai 12:06, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
They were Ottoman subjects see Islamic Army of the Caucasus. Abbatai 12:22, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
The article should refer to genocide as all those killings were infact genocides.
The topic of "Persecution of Ottoman Muslims" is totally wrong and racist.
1- In Greece, not only the Muslims, but the Jews were also killed. 2- Not all of the Turks are Muslim, but they were killed too. 3- If we name "Armenians Genocide, Greek Genocide", than we call this topic is also as "Turkish genocide" 4- The Ottoman Muslims name is nonsense, since nearly no Arabic or Persian Muslim killed by Christian minorities.
So, we will see if Wikipedia is a racist garbage or a modern website. We will se if this topic is changed as Turkish Genocides. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.174.119.254 ( talk) 08:02, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Can there be different articles about Greece, Serbia etc. dealing with those persecutions? Anyone who doesn't know the subject would just guess from the title that the Ottoman was a Christian Empire persecuting its Muslim minority. We should be finding a more appropriate term for the name of the articles, or else there will be no rest. This goes also for the Armenian Genocide, Greek genocide terms as name of the articles, etc... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yahya Talatin ( talk • contribs) 19:06, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
Yahya Talatin, its hard to come up with an alternative short and all encompassing title for this topic as these events were separate and at times interrelated due to their unique social and geo-political contexts. This article's title i think does cover it though. It states that it is a persecution of Ottoman Muslims. As for the Genocide articles, those events have attained that name through scholarship and in part by those societies of whom it happened too as well. Its convention like the Holocaust etc. Best. Resnjari ( talk) 20:36, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
So someone created an article about persecution of Muslims in a Muslim-ruled empire (the Caliphate). Not persecution of Muslims because they were Ahmadiyya, not persecution of Muslims because they spoke Kurdish, not persecution of Muslims because they were not Communists. So by analogy, would we also need to articles entitled "Persecution of Austro-Hungarian Christians"? The Austro-Hungarian Empire was a Christian state, and some of its institutions and laws reflected this. Yet numerous Christians were persecuted on various grounds (gender, social class, ancestry, language, political affiliations, guild membership....). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.169.40.10 ( talk) 12:34, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
I removed a big blurb about the Circassian events, because aside from a few Soviet scholars and maybe a Turk or two, nobody really says that Circassia (save like two coastal fortresses) was ruled by the Ottomans. But topically it is still related to other stuff on this page as it happened at similar times and at least one scholar thinks the Circassian events may have inspired imitations in the Balkans. One way to deal with this is to rename the page: Persecution of Muslims in Eastern Europe. Or "in Eastern Europe and the Balkans" if necessary. Then of course the stuff I deleted should be restored. This also fixes other cases where the "Ottomanness" of the victims is dubious. Thoughts? -- Yalens ( talk) 00:11, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
I placed tags because article is way too out of focus. For example, Circassia was not in the Ottoman Empire but it’s still mentioned. Also, we have no information on the Armenian Genocide. There appears no attempt at a balancing act here. Such material make it very problematic when it comes to this article neutrality. Étienne Dolet ( talk) 16:16, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
I think the issue is that the article describes the victims too broadly as many different ethnicities (Albanians, Bosniaks, Serbs, etc.) while they should probably be described by something more precise like Ottoman Turks (different than just ethnic Turks). This is because these people were targeted for being Ottoman Turks and not simply for being Muslim, as not all of the victims were Muslims. Since not all Ottoman Turks were Muslim, I think this is an important distinction. Junk2711 ( talk) 00:32, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
By the end of the catastrophic Balkan Wars of 1912-1913, all but a small sliver of "Turkey in Europe" was lost, accompanied by enormous loss of life, mutual ethnic cleansings... by Riva Kastoryano, publisher:Routledge
important advances in the understanding of events central to the genocide studies field — such as the process of Ottoman imperial dissolution, reciprocal genocidal killing (during the "Unweaving" in the Balkans) and complex international jockeying that factored into the massive anti-Christian slaughters in Anatolia in 1915 ... by Adam Jones, publisher:Routledge
As a consequence of the Balkan Wars of 1912 and 1913, in particular, entire city neighborhoods were razed, names of villages changed, their inhabitants expelled, or more dramatically still, collectively "converted". To many, the problem was that the beginning of World War I left these states not enough time to complete the ugly task of erasing the Ottoman Empire from "Christendom" by Isa Blumi, published by Bloomsbury
Seraphim System ( talk) 04:52, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
NOTE: Struckthrough bludgeoning — not really bludgeoning — Reviewing the conversation, there are questions from multiple editors that were ignored, but he responded aggressively to my comment — I don't know if that's called anything but this is right after another lengthy discussion. I really don't like ignoring questions from editors, but I think I may have to try non-engagement or maybe some form of moderated discussion in the future, to see if that helps improve discussions.(Anyway, editors can second a question if they really want to, and I will respond.) Seraphim System ( talk) 15:41, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
"I think you have to propose this on the article talk page..."Maaz said:
"per User:Seraphim System, why is this discussion taking place here. Shouldn't it be mentioned on talk page."GGT said:
"Firstly, this discussion should really be taking place in the article's talk page."Resnjari:
"but any rename discussion should be done outside of an AfD."By the way, Liridon never participated in that discussion. Étienne Dolet ( talk) 16:27, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
The 1914 report of the Carnegie International Commission on the Balkan Wars documents cruelties that were echoed only too clearly in the atrocities of the 1990s. On the Thracian front, for example, retreating Ottoman troops exacted a terrible revenge for their defeat in the First Balkan War. In village after village, Turkish soldiers, irregulars, and even ordinary Muslims exacted their pound of flesh. In the village of Haskovo, 450 of 700 male Bulgarians were led into a gorge and executed.
A woman . . . described how her little child was thrown up into the air by a Turkish soldier who caught it on the point of his bayonet. Other women told how three young girls threw themselves into a well after their nances were shot. At Varna about twenty women living together confirmed this story, and added that the Turkish soldiers went down into the well and dragged the girls out. Two of them were dead; the third had a broken leg; despite her agony she was outraged by two Turks. Other women of Varna saw the soldier who had transfixed the baby on his bayonet carrying it in triumph across the village. The outraged women felt shame at telling their misfortunes.
The Carnegie Report is very useful in highlighting the complexities of a war which left no Balkan people unscathed, including the warring nation-states' majority groups. In the mayhem of the Balkan Wars initially the victims of abuse and murder were predominantly Muslim. The allied Christian Greeks, Serbs, Montenegrins, and Bulgarians were slaughtering Muslims and ravaging their towns and villages almost in common agreement, but when the Second Balkan War began, the former allies became enemies and their respective populations turned on each other.
Since it seems some people are not aware (or pretending to) of the reasons for the POV tag, let me re-iterate:
For these reasons, the POV tag should stay until the issues are resolved. Khirurg ( talk) 20:50, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
@ Ödegay31: and @ Khirurg: have been reverting each other. The latest reverts concern a quote, and the dispute seems to be linked with WP:QUOTEFARM. I suggest (and so does @ Drmies: too) that these are solved here through discussion rather than reverts. Ktrimi991 ( talk) 00:42, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
This series of edits [
[31]], which have been edit-warred into the article without consensus
[32]
[33], are problematic and unsuitable for a number of reasons. First, the use of quotes is entirely unnecessary and undue. Per
WP:QUOTEFARM, quotations embody the breezy, emotive style common in fiction and some journalism, which is generally not suited to encyclopedic writing.
. Also per
WP:QUOTEFARM, quotes are being misused when:
a quotation is used without pertinence: it is presented visually on the page but its relevance is not explained anywhere;
quotations are used to explain a point that can be paraphrased;
the quotations dominate the article or section.
Using too many quotations is incompatible with the encyclopedic writing style.
Quotations shouldn't replace plain, concise text. Intersperse quotations with original prose that comments on those quotations instead of constructing articles using quotations with little or no original prose.
For these reasons, I am against including quotes from
WP:PRIMARY sourced from over 100 years ago. Even worse, the claim of "genocide" in the lede is highly inflammatory, and totally unfounded. There is no scholarly consensus whatsoever that the events described in the article consist anything resembling genocide. Even
Justin McCarthy stops short of calling it genocide. Unsourced and unfounded claims of "genocide" have no place in a neutral encyclopedia. Lastly, the edit A British Officer noted that before any turkish resistance was formed the Greek army started their oppresion by burning villages, killing of turks,rape and killing of women.
is written in a highly inflammatory POV tone unsuitable for an encyclopedia (let alone ungrammatical). Frankly, these edits carry a whiff of
WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS.
Khirurg (
talk) 05:05, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
some of the events were genocidal", then this will have to be clarified accordingly and with the necessary sources provided instead of placing the word "genocide" on the lede as describing the whole case as being a genocide. Note that primary sources by themselves are generally avoided; Wikipedia reflects mainly on independent academic scholarship on the matter, not just isolated primary sources. Good day. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ( talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 10:06, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Atrocity was answered by atrocity as Greeks and Turks struck mercilessly at their defenceless neighbours. The orgy of genocide exhausted itself in the Peloponnese only when there were no more Turks lo kill. The "orgy of genocide" which the author uses to describes the killings, applies to both sides, and describes the lack of respect for civilian life and the retaliatory nature of the massacres that both sides in the war have shown. In Wikipedia, the article Massacres during the Greek War of Independence was created where the full picture of the war is provided to the readers:
The war was characterized by a lack of respect for civilian life, and prisoners of war on both sides of the conflict. Massacres of Greeks took place especially in Ionia, Crete, Constantinople, Macedonia and the Aegean islands. Turkish, Albanian, Greeks, and Jewish populations, who were identified with the Ottomans inhabiting the Peloponnese, suffered massacres, particularly where Greek forces were dominant. Settled Greek communities in the Aegean Sea, Crete, Central and Southern Greece were wiped out, and settled Turkish, Albanian, Greeks, and smaller Jewish communities in the Peloponnese were destroyed.. The source you provided may in no way be used to misrepresent here in Wikipedia the massacres by both sides as meaning that it constituted a genocide against a particular group specifically. To use the author's choice of words this way, as is the case of your additions to the article, constitutes one-sided POV because it frames out the Muslim casualties in the war and ignores everything else that happened in that war, just to prove a point not supported by the international academic community. Like I said, you will need strong and substantial sources to prove that the massacres (which occurred for all sides of the war of independence) are in fact an organized genocide against the Muslims specifically. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ( talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 11:28, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
some of the events were genocidal" and one of the sources you provided is about the Greek War of Independence. So I assumed it is the event you wanted to refer to it as the "Genocide" on the lede per WP:LEDE. However, like I explained above, there is no academic consensus to describe the Greek War of Independence as a genocide. To claim so, is a very big move which I am afraid will require very strong and substantial sources and is a view adhered by the majority of the academic scholars worldwide. But isn't the case here. I shall note however, that the present article is already describing killings that occurred by both sides in the Greek War of Independence as genocidal: [ [35]] (albeit here only the Muslim side - which is the focus of this article anyways - is mentioned as the victim of genocidal progress, the other side which too suffered being omitted from any mention here, unlike in Massacres during the Greek War of Independence which is more balanced since it mentions both sides). And that's as much as it can get without strong sources and an academic consensus.
some of the events were genocidal" quote are the genocidal ones listed in the article, which would justify the mention of "genocides" on the article's lede (as in that edit of yours which was reverted). I read in your latest reply now, I see that you are referring (and provided sources) about a much wider range of events which took place at different time periods, including the Balkan Wars and the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire which occurred much later than the Greek War of Independence - about 100 years or so. The sources do appear to mention the word genocide either in quotes or footnotes, but again I fail to understand which ones of the events particularly you refer as being the genocidal events you spoke about. Can you become more specific? Please remember that we gotta be careful and descriptive here, because the article covers a very wide range of events of different time periods, from 1600s to 1900s - and if any of them, be it the Greek War of Independence, the Russian War, the Balkan Campaign, the French war, the Serbian war, the Croatian war, etc, etc, have to be summarized as genocide in the article's lede per WP:LEAD, then you gotta 1) clarify which ones you are talking about as being the genocides, prove strong evidence that these were genocidal events, and 3) also present evidence that the int. community regards them as such. Wikipedia reflects on the international scholarly community's views, not what individual scholars may write about them. Only then we can tell that indeed the present article also lists genocides and the lede indeed will be in need for a update to reflect on it accordingly (per WP:LEAD). Sorry if my response here is lacking, as I myself am feeling abit confused with which events are the genocides you are talking about. Good day. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ( talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 16:57, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
I agree with Ktrimi991, what happened to Turks, Bosniaks and Muslim Albanians/Bulgarians/etc was bad, but you cannot lump it with what happened in the 1860s Caucasus to Circassians. The latter is given a separate and different treatment in genocide studies. I also think it's a misguided idea/approach to present things as "reciprocal". There were certainly episodes of tit-for-tat killings here and there pre-1910 (by ethnonationalist groups and political entities that is, not between "nations"), but you cannot compare anything on the 'other' side to the Armenian Genocide -- and further, one has to take care to prevent the text from being interpreted that way. -- Calthinus ( talk) 06:39, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Comment: I just had to revert the editor Ödegay31 from listing the
Tripolitsa Massacre to the list of
Genocides in history (before World War I). Historical revisionist attempts such as baptizing massacres as genocides and adding them to the Wikipedia's list of Genocides without providing strong sources to support such an edit, without consulting with other editors, nor reflecting on the international scholarly community, etc, simply is not an improvement, and certainly not how Wikipedia works. I just reverted the editor's contentious edits
[36].
It came to my notice that this coincides with various
state-controlled or state-sponsored publications in Turkey
[37], which focus on the Tripolitsa Massacre and other massacres by distorting them events to promote the nationalist Turkish government's revisionist narrative that they constituted a genocide. This from the same government which
denies that the Armenian Genocide ever happened. The articles in Wikipedia will have to be protected from historical revisionist attempts such as this by Ödegay31 and any debates must be careful as to avoid direct or indirect
WP:COIs. IMO, political agendas must be kept away from sensitive topics such as genocides. ---
❖ SilentResident ❖ (
talk ✉ |
contribs ✎) 16:47, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
The label of "genocidal process" (regarding Muslims -- or just non-Christians -- in the Pelopponese) is the view of St Clair. I've attributed it to him. We shouldn't state such views in Wikivoice (i.e. without attribution) unless the scholarly consensus has substantially shifted on that matter; as far as I know, it has not. -- Calthinus ( talk) 22:51, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
@ Kansas Bear: Not only is there no mention of ethnic cleansing on page 13 that was referenced, there is no mention of M. H. Gulesian (not Gulerian) being either an Armenian nationalist or a veteran of the Balkan Wars in service to Bulgaria. M. H. Gulesian was an Armenian-American financier, who emigrated to the U.S. 35 years before this hearing took place. Demetrios1993 ( talk) 13:38, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
He says that no Turk can live in a Christian State and that Turks would migrate out of Armenia - And gives the mass exodus of muslims in the Caucasus and Balkans during the Russo-Turkish and Balkan wars that happened in the last decades..He gives that as an example for Armenia...But I guess it doesn't belong in the article since it's an orginal research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.206.159.195 ( talk) 13:11, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
Technically the circassia was not apart of the Ottoman Empire so I don’t think they should be talked about here 2A02:C7C:507D:0:A875:1CD2:F276:8F66 ( talk) 21:07, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
The claim that these events constituted "Genocide" that is being aggressively being pushed by some accounts is actually unsourced. These events are far too disparate and this is why they are not described as "genocide" in the literature. The source that is being used to add "genocide" to the infobox
[40] is actually misused, as the author does not describe the events of the article as genocide. Rather, when Adam Jones is referring to the Incorporating a global-comparative perspective on the genocide of the last half-millenium has enabled important advances in the understanding of events central to the genocide studies field
, he is referring to the various genocides of the past 500 years, not to a specific genocide, and certainly not the events described in this article.
Khirurg (
talk) 04:32, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
This article uses Matthew Gibney work with the reference "Immigration and asylum : from 1900 to the present : Gibney, Matthew J : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive" but if you read it you will see he is not talking only about the ottoman empire but also about russia, india, pakistan up until 1947. Therefore saying Matthew Gibney said millions died during the exchange is false information and an exageration. 2A01:E34:EC95:6010:F51D:5425:B996:D233 ( talk) 09:19, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
Crimes against humanity is a specific legal concept. In order to be included in the category, the event (s) must have been prosecuted as a crime against humanity, or at a bare minimum be described as such by most reliable sources. Most of the articles that were formerly in this category did not mention crimes against humanity at all, and the inclusion of the category was purely original research. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 07:49, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
the same page when translated to Turkish refers to the persecution which took place as massacres (within the context of a genocide) and such a title should be also reflected upon the English version of the page as to respect Wikipedia’s commitment of being non partisan. Whereas the current title raises severe questions regarding said commitment. Furthermore despite extensive covering of violence perpetrated against Armenians and Greeks Wikipedia fails to show even a fraction of the commitment and care for these events upon the what does qualify as genocide against the Muslim population of the balkans, despite the number of fatalities being according to some accounts more than double those of the Armenians and Greeks combined.Glossing over and even outright failing to mention massacres which took place such as the massacre of Muslims and Jews when Thessaloniki was taken by Greek forces or the war crimes committed against captured pows such as when pows had crosses scored across their foreheads by Bulgarian forces or even the massacres of Muslims upon the island of Crete which had a high Muslims population. presents itself as a quite frankly disgusting and dishonest representation of history and feeds into nationalist narratives that massacres against Muslims and Jewish populations were limited and ignores the reality of events. The state of this Wikipedia article especially when the violence perpetrated against Greeks and Armenians is so extensively covered is shameful and may raise questions regarding antisemitism and Islamophobia within the ranks of Wikipedia editors. This article is in need of urgent attention and needs at least the same attention which pages upon the killings of other ethnic groups as it will provide much needed prelude and context into the actions of the committee of union and progress aswell as addressing the realities of history. 92.40.197.50 ( talk) 19:34, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
literally every other language version of this page does not state the death toll is “up to 2 million” even in the section regarding casualties it states that it is not that low. Furthermore the edit of “up to 2 million” was made in response to someone changing the death toll to 5.5 million rather than up to 5.5 million. Such an edit of two million was made by a Wikipedia account titled “neo wikipedist” and referred to the edit as “some muslimz” and furthermore went into use the skull emoji. I heavily advise that someone change the death toll to what it previously once was 148.252.146.29 ( talk) 01:42, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
The following is a translated extract from the Arabic version of the same page: Michael Mann stated in the 1914 Carnegie Foundation report that those acts were described as widespread murderous ethnic cleansing unprecedented in Europe.It is estimated that 4.4 million Muslims lived in the Ottoman-controlled areas of the Balkans at the turn of the 20th century.According to Maria Todorova, more than a million Muslims left the Balkans in the last 30 years of the 19th century.Between 1912 and 1926 nearly 2.9 million Muslims were killed or forced to immigrate to Turkey.It is estimated that 2.5 million Muslims died in Anatolia during World War I and the Turkish War of Independence. 148.252.146.29 ( talk) 01:44, 26 April 2024 (UTC)