Talk:Persecution of Muslims during the Ottoman contraction

Important points

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)

Thanks and congrats for the article. Although you have a number of sources you have cited only one in the article. Maybe you should use more inline citations. I hope to read more of your articles and your user page. Cheers. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 12:11, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

If you ruined another article why would you expect yours not to be destroyed? "Don't do to others what you don't want them to do to you." Take care. --212.174.190.23 (talk) 07:56, 3 March 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)

{{u|2003:CF:734:1001:1164:8541:52FD:29F4|2003:CF:734:1001:1164:8541:52FD:29F4|| The title is actually "during Ottoman contraction", not "during Ottoman rule", and your comparison to the French (pied-noirs) is actually a very good comparison as there are a very large number of parallels between French rule in Algeria and Ottoman rule in the Balkans, and the French were persecuted at the end of their rule by the natives, causing a mass exodus of not only the Christian population but the Jewish population which had been there before French colonization began, to France. Again-- a lot like the Balkans.--Calthinus (talk) 16:04, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Merge?

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)

"Massacres against Muslims during the Dissolution of the Ottoman Empire" was created last week and both articles can be considered to be created concurrently. But the scope of this article is wider and it almost includes everything the other article has except for citing some Balkan Muslims and an opinion on McCarthy's impartiality. Thus if merged (not essential) this article should be kept and two sentences from the other article can be carried here. Of course the editor of the other article (User:DanielDemaret) has to be persuaded. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 19:32, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Support merge - Agree with Nedim on his points as well; the other article's title is also extremely clumsy. Ithinkicahn (talk) 06:57, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Support merge - This is user:DanielDemaret. No need to persuade me. Thank you for helping. I was despairing over the article I started, really. Star Lord - 星王 (talk) 10:32, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I would suggest to redirect the other article towards this. The other article has almost no content and this one has a better title. There were not only massacres but also mass population movements. Bangyulol (talk) 14:59, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that is right. I will perform merger shortly and redirect the other article here.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:54, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Support merge - I agree with this. Much of the information between these two articles are identical. I also have a hard time trying to find a definitive understanding of when the "Dissolution of the Ottoman Empire" began. I do feel that this is a topic that many Ottoman and Middle-Eastern historians tend to have disagreements over. I think this needs to be highlighted in this page. Étienne Dolet (talk) 08:06, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

POV in the Turkish-Armenian war section

I find this section in particular leaning towards the POV side. Unsourced claims of:

1. "During these times persecution of Muslims increased."
2. "During an Armenian revolt in Van most of the Muslims were killed..."
3. "Armenians committed large scale atrocities..."
4. "In the same time Armenian atrocities took place against the Muslims of Armenia proper..." Étienne Dolet (talk) 08:03, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Documents

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)

Dirsuptive reverts

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)

Per this unexplained edit summary [[5]] (now claims that the Oxford University Press is an unreliable source, ybut yet refuses to comment here) editor leaves me no choice but to report his long term dirsuption.Alexikoua (talk) 11:47, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Bangyulol obvious pov pushing

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)

(ignore trolling). Unfortunately personal opinion doesn't count here. By the way the above dif you point [[8]] equals disruption, since a sourced part of the article was removed without the slightest explanation in order to present MacCarthy's view as a neutral one (i.e. pov pushing per edit summary).Alexikoua (talk) 19:49, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

According to this [[9]], I'll focus on Gingeras' work (it has been also strangely removed as non-rs by Ithincan [[10]], without explanation too):

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)

Dear Alexikoua and other users, I repeat that I (Bangyulol) was not the one who removed the "McCarthy is unreliable" [15] part neither did I remove "total 35 victims". That means I was not "pushing pov" or being disruptive. I find it very impolite of still being blamed of these edits I did not make. Unfortunately it is still not corrected by Alexikoua. Sadly this unconstructive behavior continues with describing my reply as "trolling". The sentences should be correctly cited from their sources. If there is still disagreement between users I suggest they should use WP:DISPUTE. Thanks, bye. Bangyulol (talk) 13:43, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

I can't see any alternative proposal so far, apart from commnenting on editors but not on content. The above table makes clear that the word "only" (highlighted) was intentionally put on a wrong position in order to manipulate the meaning.Alexikoua (talk) 14:29, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Dear readers, I have to disagree again with "to manipulate". The first addition by Alexikoua was incomplete and misleading because it didn't mention that it was based on 177 survivors. I think I have clarified this, please look at the above table. Bangyulol (talk) 12:58, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Obviously the final version mentions this number, per above table. I'm also not against the new adjustments in this part, which by the way, don't change the meaning.Alexikoua (talk) 15:13, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Reliability of J.Maccarthy

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)

I agree that work of this author should be used with high precaution in this article. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:29, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

This source should be sent to WP:RSN. Étienne Dolet (talk) 20:29, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Probably would not work. McCarthy is like someone who indulges in unspeakable perversions in secret but lead a highly respectable life in public. McCarthy's career as a genocide denier and professional liar, producing propaganda works for use by the Turkish state, runs parallel to his career as a legitimate academic producing works that are used by and cited by legitimate scholars. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 00:19, 3 April 2014 (UTC) Blocked sock:Meowy.

McCarthy is not a reliable source, more of a crank, POV-pusher - with tenure. Editors are well-advised avoid citing him and find reliable sources instead. Or to cite him only with a caveat.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:55, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Mc Carthy is an issue when it comes to Armenian related matters. Academics such as Donald Beachler and Daniel Pipes who have noted his pro-Turkish line and denial of the Armenian Genocide have still vouched for the research and numbers Mc Carthy has concluded regarding the death toll of Balkan Muslims in the 19th and early 20th centuries. This article is about Persecution of Ottoman Muslims after all and numbers pertianign to that should be cited if other academics of good repute and standing have interpreted that they are of merit. See Beachler for more: [19].Resnjari (talk) 14:25, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Unexplained rvs

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)

Abandoned monuments related to persecution

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)

Agreed. If there was any sort of systematic neglect towards this particular mosque, we need to have that source. Otherwise, it is WP:OR. Étienne Dolet (talk) 17:38, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

My feeling is that in a normal, non-propaganda filled article, (which this article currently is not). such photos could be used as a general illustration that certain Muslim communities have vanished from certain areas. And couldbe there even if they were ruined in the course of time due to abandonment. But until this article is brought back from the brink, I think such photos will only be misused if they are there. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 23:56, 2 April 2014 (UTC) Blocked sock:Meowy.

Reading through the article, I wonder if maybe the best thing would be to try to be rid of it. It duplicates much of what is in Persecution of Muslims and it probably only exists for genocide denial purposes. Persecution of Muslims is as full of it as this article is, but dealing with one failed article is easier than dealing with two. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 00:12, 3 April 2014 (UTC) Blocked sock:Meowy.

Appeal

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)

Impact on Europe section

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.

Sorry I have to disagree, this sounds like your personal opinion, also Armenian Genocide is linked two times in the article. Bangyulol (talk) 12:39, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

An inability or unwillingness to respond to any of the points I made, makes your "I have to disagree" opinion meaningless and worthless. And there is also that little matter of you being a sockpuppet of a blocked user. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 18:52, 20 August 2014 (UTC) Blocked sock:Meowy.

I don't see how WP:UNDUE is relevant. And your points really seem to stem from the fact that you just don't like the section. It is a statement about the sentiment of the British public press and public. I don't see the point of asking "what Christians" and "what Muslims". Christians and Muslims butchered each other in various places, the sentence does not refer to a single massacre (although any knowledgeable reader would remember that the most prominent outcry by the "Victorian public" during 1870s was due to April Uprising). And frankly, your tone is not very different from that of a Turkish nationalist, who only wants his suffering to be recognized and the other side's disregarded. The fact that innocent Muslims also suffered does not diminish the suffering of Christians. And it does not make Armenian genocide less real or more justifiable, unless you believe some Christians killing some innocent Muslims justify other Muslims killing other innocent Christians. (If you do, you have something in common with ultra Turkish nationalists.) I am removing the template.--Cfsenel (talk) 03:29, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Motives for Armenian Genocide

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)

Support This was definitively an element that led to the Armenian genocide. --82.75.32.124 (talk) 16:29, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Oppose without explanation I'm not sure what you're saying. If you're saying the 'persecution' of Muslims led to the Armenian Genocide as some sort of revenge killing, that's wrong. The main motives for the Armenian genocide were to have a scapegoat for military failures, to rob Christian civilians because the Ottoman government was bankrupt, and to start building a Turkic empire towards the east. However, if you want to write in a section that the series of unrelated Muslim killings were a response to organized Christian killings, than that would be something I support. The Armenian, Greek, Assyrian Genocides, Hamidian massacres, Adana massacre, Constantinople massacre of 1821, Chios massacre, Destruction of Psara, Batak massacre, etc. all should be listed here. --Steverci (talk) 02:19, 20 January 2015 (UTC) Blocked sock:Steverci.

Legitimacy of article

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.

Please explain why you deleted, "The invading armies and Christian insurgents committed a wide range of atrocities upon the Muslim population." --Ahrens, Geert-Hinrich, Diplomacy on the Edge: Containment of Ethnic Conflict and the Minorities Working Group of the Conferences on Yugoslavia, Woodrow Wilson Center Press, 2007, page 291.

Explain why you removed, "... many atrocities were carried out against the local Turks and Kurds by the Russian army and Armenian volunteers." --Horne,John, War in Peace, Oxford University Press 2013, page 173–177. --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:52, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

As I just stated, both are extremely POV and vague. What are a 'wide arrange of atrocities'? This statement leaves it to the imagination and makes accusations that are very likely untrue. Opinion is POV. If the sources don't say what these "atrocities" and "persecutions" are, then they aren't encyclopedic material. --Steverci (talk) 02:59, 13 January 2015 (UTC) Blocked sock:Steverci.

So you have no idea what the sources state and are removing what you don't like. I notice you also removed categories from the Siege of Tripolitsa[21] and Category:Persecution of Ottoman Muslims[22]. This all looks like personal opinion being used to justify this type of editing. --Kansas Bear (talk) 03:06, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Tell us that how we should make this article look less of a exaggerated piece of propaganda. Bladesmulti (talk) 05:03, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I remove what goes against the rules. The first removal was about a battle, and the second had not categories with anything to do with Armenia, Russia, Georgia, or Serbia, so I removed them. If you're going to advocate sentences like "became minorities in their homeland" (because apparently Bulgaria/Romania/Greece/etc. are Turkish territory), then you yourself are playing self interest. As I said before, we cannot just say 'committed atrocities'. What constitutes an atrocity is opinion and says absolutely nothing. --Steverci (talk) 23:42, 13 January 2015 (UTC) Blocked sock:Steverci.

Your accusational statement, "If you're going to advocate sentences like "became minorities in their homeland" (because apparently Bulgaria/Romania/Greece/etc. are Turkish territory), then you yourself are playing self interest.", has nothing to do with the article and is directed at me, which is a clear violation of the "rules" you supposedly follow(see comment on content not the editor). You have not proven either source is unreliable or that they do not reflect the sentence they are referencing. And instead your response is to hurl an accusation of me "advocating" something? LMAO! --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:01, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I was throwing your own logic back at you when you accused me (not my edit) of POV. Nevertheless, quit stalling and justify why we should keep unsourced controversial claims and vague POV phrases or let me remove them. I'd also like you to point out where I called the source unreliable. When you accuse someone of atrocities you could accuse them of murder, rape, mutilation, cannibalism, etc.. Do you see how useless this phrase is on its own? Give details or nothing. --Steverci (talk) 02:28, 14 January 2015 (UTC) Blocked sock:Steverci.

"My logic"? This was my first post, since you are having problems keeping track.

"Please explain why you deleted, "The invading armies and Christian insurgents committed a wide range of atrocities upon the Muslim population." --Ahrens, Geert-Hinrich, Diplomacy on the Edge: Containment of Ethnic Conflict and the Minorities Working Group of the Conferences on Yugoslavia, Woodrow Wilson Center Press, 2007, page 291. Explain why you removed, "... many atrocities were carried out against the local Turks and Kurds by the Russian army and Armenian volunteers." --Horne,John, War in Peace, Oxford University Press 2013, page 173–177."

Your response was entirely your opinion(ie. your POV), "As I just stated, both are extremely POV and vague.". Which you have not proven. Simply stating something is not proving it.

The only one "stalling" is you. You want these sources removed, you have to prove these sources do not support the sentences in question or are not reliable sources. --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:06, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Since you once again didn't give an argument for the unsourced parts, I'll assume you don't have one and don't object to ~90% of my edit. I'm also fine using your source if we cite the author and put parenthesis in his words. However I will cite the Turkish historian that Horne cited instead of Horne himself. I have strong doubts about the credibility of him because he claims in the book that innocent Armenians were killed in Operation Nemesis, which is completely untrue, and inserts his POV that it was just as bad as the Armenian Genocide, but this isn't the place to discuss his credibility so I won't press that. Can we reach a compromise on the version I just put up? --Steverci (talk) 02:11, 15 January 2015 (UTC) Blocked sock:Steverci.

Works for me. FYI, War in Peace: Paramilitary Violence in Europe After the Great War, is not my source and Uğur Ümit Üngör should have been cited initially since he was the one that wrote that section in Horne and Gerwarth's book. Also, his Wikipedia article calls him Dutch, not Turkish. We might want to avoid trying to make a point of his ethnicity, since I believe he recognizes the Armenian Genocide.[23] You might ping Bladesmulti to get his input. --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:55, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

There are editors here who don't like the content of this article as it unsettles them for whatever reason (one wonders nationalistic)? and so on. Kansas Bear, i am glad you are taking a interest in this article and would urge others who come to this page to do so as well. Steverci deleted a large chunk of my edits regarding this article on the basis because they were not sourced or POV. I did not follow it up as i was not here for a while, but have since restored them and made very sure that they are sourced. There is much that this article needs done to. The information is out there, and those who have some kind of expertise or interest in a certain part of it should edit. There are numerous resources on google books and google scholar that have links to free academic material. This is an important article. And as for Steverci and others, i work by Wikipedia policy also. Resnjari (talk) 09:00, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Turkish genocide redirect page

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))

"Ottoman genocide"

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.

@Zoupan: Nonetheless, there still are several redirect pages that label it as a genocide, such as "Ottoman genocide" and "Genocides in Turkey". Should these pages be re-targeted to the Turkish genocide disambiguation page? Jarble (talk) 17:56, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I have deleted that redirect. It is unjustified: there is no phrase "Ottoman genocide" used in the article, and "genocide" where it does appear is used for the Armenian Genocide. At the moment "Turkish genocide" is a disambiguation page linked to Armenian Genocide (but is currently under AfD discussion). Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 02:35, 10 May 2016 (UTC) Blocked sock:Meowy.

@Tiptoethrutheminefield: Nonetheless, Genocides in Turkey still redirects to Persecution of Ottoman Muslims. Its original target was Turkish genocide, but that page was deleted recently. Is there any suitable target for this redirect page? Jarble (talk) 23:56, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

It appears that someone has reused that "Turkish genocide" as a redirect to this article after it was delinked as a redirect to the Armenian Genocide article. Such a pov title is inappropriate for this article and I have removed it. There is no need for every phrase under the sun to be used on Wikipedia as a redirect to something or other. Especially in this case when it is a phrase that is heavily propagandistic and is Armenian genocide denialist in origin. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:51, 29 July 2016 (UTC) Blocked sock:Meowy.

@Tiptoethrutheminefield: The redirect pages to this article have not yet been changed: Ottoman genocide still redirects to Persecution of Ottoman Muslims instead of Genocides_in_history#Ottoman_Empire/Turkey. This redirect page appears misleading, so it might be necessary to edit it again. Jarble (talk) 23:32, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

I've corrected it and changed the redirect to the genocides in history subsection. "Turkish Genocide" still remains as a stub though, and should probably be deleted since it is not a term for anything. I think that was the decision after the AfD but I can't seem to find that AfD thread. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 14:33, 31 July 2016 (UTC) Blocked sock:Meowy.

Here is the AfD, genocide with a small "g". [24] Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 14:36, 31 July 2016 (UTC) Blocked sock:Meowy.

Infobox

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)

Is Wikipedia racist?

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)

There are several redirect pages that describe the persecution of Ottoman Muslims as a genocide, such as Ottoman Genocide, Turkish genocide, etc. There are several ongoing discussions about this issue on this talk page, and these redirect pages appear to be controversial. Jarble (talk) 21:49, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

More recently, someone edited this article's lead section so that it now describes the persecution of Ottoman Muslims as a genocide. Jarble (talk) 17:42, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Massacres of Tatars (Azerbaijanis) by Armenains

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)

There must be something SERIOUSLY amiss with the Baku article then. It has no mention at all of its control by the Ottoman empire. You are going to rush over to fix it, I suppose. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 14:25, 10 May 2016 (UTC) Blocked sock:Meowy.

I don't see how Azeris could be considered Ottoman. This is WP:OR. Étienne Dolet (talk) 18:26, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

The only bit about Azeris possibly going into this article relates to the 19th century and the endless Russo-Turkish conflicts, when some Azeris sought refugee in the Empire and settled around the Kars area. But you would need wp:reliable and wp:secondary for that. As for the events of 1918, Ottomans were only for a very short period of time in Baku and did not annex or attain international recognition that they had sovereignty in the area. So yeah as some editors have expressed that stuff does not belong in this article. Best.Resnjari (talk) 23:18, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

They were Ottoman subjects see Islamic Army of the Caucasus. Abbatai 12:22, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

It is fact that the Ottoman Empire had troops and controlled such territory during that small brief period of time. Nonetheless they did not annex the area and nor did international powers recognised de jure Ottoman sovereignty. The situation on the ground was in flux and Azerbaijani revolutionaries were also declaring their own sovereignty. Azeris do not fit the bill as Ottoman Muslims in this instance. Best.Resnjari (talk) 08:31, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong but this article doesn't seem to specify that these are massacres that occurred within the Ottoman Empire but rather ones that occurred during the Ottoman Empire's collapse. So wouldn't the March Days indeed be relevant if this article is just referring to a point in time and not a specific location?76.184.196.142 (talk) 14:06, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Turkish Genocides

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)

The victims of these events were not only Turks. Ottoman Muslims yes, but not ethnic Turks. Over the course of the century, Albanians, Bosnians and many other ethnicities were killed in these massacres and so on. To call this page "Turkish genocide" is to be factually incorrect.Resnjari (talk) 14:55, 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)

Hi Resnjari, I see your point, but some may cite historical records and ask what Circassian immigrants for instance who escaped Russian persecutions would have to do with the persecutions in the Balkan during the rise of nationalism in Serbia or Greece? Muslim is too large as a term and it perpetuate those countless name fights (of the sort, Ottoman Christian persecution). Several of the Muslim persecutions within the empire have nothing to do with each other (so many may find it arbitrary to combine them). I don't have a proposition for now, but it seems that the current guidelines are inadequate on this matter. As for Genocide, it is a legal juridical term to qualify an event, it is a construct which address a specific aspect of an event, not the event as a whole. It might be considered as a form of elitism to constrain events with constructs which are attributable to jurists and scholars, because here we rely entirely on institutions which might just as well change definitions. Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 20:59, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Yahya Talatin, i know where coming from. Soe of these events of mass violence have attained certain names due in part to convention (societal, political etc) which sometimes is outside the realm of judicial contexts. Getting change for those would be very, very hard if at all. This article though is somewhat very complicated. The persecution affected numerous Muslim peoples who had various socio-linguistic identities (and this article covers geographies of the Ottoman Empire where it happened (Balkans and other places)). However they also had a common Ottoman identity and considered themselves to belong to a wider Ummah, its partially for that reason that this article has the title it has as they where after all Ottoman Muslims. And many of these peoples fought died in the armies of the Ottoman state also so many experienced and also saw other Ottoman Muslims undergo similar fates of ethnic cleansing etc. The Circassians are unique. The Ottomans had coastal territory of the region and some Circassian clan chiefs acknowledged either the Ottoman Sultan as their suzerain or the Crimean Tatar ruler as their suzerain from times to time while living a independent existence. For this article their inclusion is warranted due in part to those reasons. The Russians too considered them as having some kinds of socio-political links with the Ottomans. I would not agree to combine various sections as that would undermine the ability for certain sections to be expanded as this article offers space for citing such events. Best.Resnjari (talk) 07:27, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Unusual topic: persecution of a X religion in a state with X as its state religion

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)

Please read in depth the article thus far. In no way does it refer to persecution by the Ottoman state of Muslims. Quite the contrary, it refers to Persecution of Muslims by Christian states and their peoples. As for other editors if they so wish to create articles about the Austro-Hungarian empire and such matters, it up to them. Best.Resnjari (talk) 13:04, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

This is due to the propaganda nature of the subject, originating as it does in Turkish-produced material seeking to deny the Armenian Genocide. What we are really talking about here is the fate of colonial communities or communities whose primary allegiance for various reasons is (or is perceived to be) to the colonial Power (in this case the Ottoman Empire) when the subjected country obtains independence from that colonial Power. I think it would be far better to deal with this on an country by country basis in articles that detail the history of each of the countries. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:28, 24 August 2016 (UTC) Blocked sock:Meowy.

The assessment that scholarship into the the destruction of indigenous Muslim communities of various ethno-linguistic communities is motivated by "Turkish propaganda" to counter the Armenian Genocide is problematic for a number of reasons. This is due to most of the events that happened being in the Balkans (an area outside the traditional Armenian homeland) or the north Caucuses (the Circassian region had few Armenians) etc. The bulk of these communities were not destroyed for their supposed allegiances, but for simply being Muslim as has been outlined in the article many times. This article is about the ethnic cleansings and destruction of many of these communties by various Christian powers of the day to suit their various geo-strategic aims. Between 10-15 million people in Turkey are descendants of Ottoman Muslims and alongside the Balkan Muslims the topic is generating much interest especially in recent times as taboos over talking about these issues have broken down. This article is arranged this way because these events are interrelated and for the Ottoman Empire it was a core issue that was part of the state disintegration process in the 19th century (treating each event separately in an article is fine, with an overview article like this one connecting them all). As for the Ottoman state being regarded as "colonial", this view has been formed in mainly contemporary nationalist historiographies for various state building measures with the othering of Muslims and the Ottomans as alien, foreign, even 'evil' which in recent times has come under heavy critique (interestingly from Western scholarship). Amongst the Muslim world the view of Ottomans as "colonial" is disputed as its Muslim peoples of the day did not feel that to be the case with belonging being constructed on the concept of the umma, a community based on Muslim belonging that transcended ethnic and linguistic complexities. This article is fine the way its structured, as scholarship increases this article will develop.Resnjari (talk) 17:40, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

The arbitrary unifying of various diverse and mostly unconnected events that affected Muslim people in the various former territories of the Ottoman Empire (be they either descendants of Muslims brought in as colonizers after a native population had been conquered by the Ottoman Empire or Islamized elements of that native population) into one "Persecution of Ottoman Muslims" subject is an artificial synthesis initially created by Turkey for the purpose of denying the Armenian Genocide through minimization and distraction. Justin McCarthy has been the principle propagator of it in the West, though a newer generation of more obvious pseudo-historians is now emerging to replace him. It was actually little taken up inside Turkey until recent years, but has recently been popularized on a mass scale by the AKP which has, for its own interests, as well as sexing-up Turkey's Ottoman past to encourage its restored caliphate end goal (contrasting with the Ataturk secularist concentration on Turkey's Seljuk past), has played up the Muslim "victimhood" thing and propagated the idea that any criticism of Turkey is part of a Christian / Jewish plot to destroy Turkey because it is powerful Muslim country, and that the "plot" is just a continuation of the same "plot" that destroyed the Ottoman Empire. You seem to be a believer in this same fringe fantasy (based on your "various Christian powers of the day to suit their various geo-strategic aims" words). This article is an example of synthesis for pov effect. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:28, 25 August 2016 (UTC) Blocked sock:Meowy.

Also, I am quite aware of the EU-emanating propaganda (that "Western scholarship" you mention) that ludicrously attempts to present the Ottoman Empire as a sort of benign proto-EU in which everyone lived in multicultural harmony until it was destroyed by the "evil" of nation states. It has within it the little-disguised subtext that the Armenian Genocide was basically the fault of Armenians who irrationally had persisted in wanting to remain Armenian (again a ludicrous concept given that it was the Empire itself that had countless laws to maintain and enforce religious differences in every aspect of life, even to the extent of forbidding that Christian-owned houses should be built taller than Muslim owned ones). Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:32, 25 August 2016 (UTC) Blocked sock:Meowy.

These events were diverse, though they were connected. An example of this is what happened in 1878 in the Balkans. During the Russo-Ottoman war, Turks and Pomaks fled during the conflict and in the Serbian-Ottoman theater, the Serbian army (who fought as an ally of Russia during the war) deliberately expelled the Muslim Albanian population from the Toplica region that eventually became part of its territory. Two events, one big wide war encompassing multiple geographies. And i can go on here. This article is an overview of multiple and inter-related events that cannot be divorced from time and place and is not a synthesis. Moreover though McCarthy's research in relation to the Armenians is biased without question, his research on Muslim civilian casualties in the Balkans and so on have been considered to be of merit even by many of his critics in the scholarly community. You may interpret research on these topics that have a focus on Muslims as being driven by the AKP or other forces and that is your personal view. Again i can cite the example of research of what happened in Toplica (1878) that does not support that. Academic Sabit Uka (an Albanian) did his research during the Yugoslav era, Milos Jagodic (a Serb) did his during and after the Milosevic era without funding from Turkey and both their research compliment each other in the historical gaps they cover. One of the biggest reasons why scholarship on these matters has been neglected is that there was a lack of academics who had an interest in this subject matter (especially in the West) in contrast to Armenian and Greek related topics. This is changing now. Many governments fund research otherwise there is no way that universities would exist (the EU, Armenia, Turkey, whoever). The issue has always been for scholarship in general about whether states allow scholars to do their work unimpeded or interfere with that process. Researching what happened to Ottoman Muslims of various ethnic and linguistic backgrounds is not trivial. This article, using the scholarship that is emerging on that subject matter exists to cover that, not the social and religious status or relations between Ottoman subjects. There are other articles that deal with such things on Wikipedia. The scholarship should guide whether a article should exist alongside Wikipedia policies, not personal opinions. Otherwise there are editors out there who oppose articles pertaining to the Armenian Genocide for similar reasons (i.e referring to agendas, funding issues from Western sources etc) that you have outlined. Best.Resnjari (talk) 22:26, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

You wrote "This article is an overview of multiple and inter-related events that cannot be divorced from time and place" - but that is an indication that the article is synthesis. It is separating multiple events from their individual times and places and circumstances and then collecting them together as if they were a single connected event. This is indicated by the unusually large the number of categories this article is included in. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 22:04, 26 August 2016 (UTC) Blocked sock:Meowy.

I know what i wrote. The article is divided into the events that happened. Some events for now don't have enough material to warrant a separate article and never will. If you interpret that to be a synthesis, that is your view. You already have expressed other views about the existence of this article and the scholarship around it that are beyond "synthesis" issues. There are multiple examples on Wikipedia where articles are structured in such complex ways. For example the article Partitioning of the Ottoman Empire is the same like this article in its scope of being an overview that has links to multiple Wikipedia articles that explain certain things more in depth. The article German war crimes has the same layout. So, unless you can make the case how those article should not also exist, i still fail to see why this article should be done away with. This article needs much more work and that is it. I have done my part in the area that i could do for the moment. Other editors need to do their part over time. The disintegration of the Ottoman Empire was a single and prolonged event and these events of violence against Muslims were part of it as well. This article exists to cater for that aspect. Best.Resnjari (talk) 08:26, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Propose name: Persecution of Muslims in Eastern Europe

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)

The Circassian bit warrants removal. Probably a sentence or two about it with a link to the Circassian Genocide, if need. The Ottomans did claim some kind of sovereignty as treaties with the Russians made it "relinquish" sovereignty over the area that it never exercised apart from the few coastal outposts. Its better to keep this current title though, as it covers the whole Ottoman Empire, and intercommunual violence did break out in the Middle East from time to time so bits and pieces can be covered about issues of persecution from there in this article.Resnjari (talk) 05:17, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough. It's as a see also. But there may also be a similar issue with the inclusion of Crimea then.--Yalens (talk) 06:46, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

With Crimea its a bit different as it was conquered outright by Ottomans, considered an integral part of the Empire with the Khans allowed autonomy (due to them being Gengisids, or something along those lines) and to rule as the Sultan's representative. Egypt had a similar arrangements under the Mamluks who were conquered by the Ottomans but allowed to retain some measure of autonomy. Circassia was never conquered per se, (though the powers of the time considered the area "Ottoman" or as some Circassian princes and chieftains owed fealty to the Crimean Khans, hence making it defacto "Ottoman" apart from the few coastal outposts which were). Many Circassians and their leaders also contested that they were part of the Empire as well until the Genocide, so its a little more complicated with them. Your very well versed with these matters, so what decision you go with i'll be on board. Best.Resnjari (talk) 08:00, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm admittedly less well versed with Crimea than Circassia, but as I understand Crimea was like Wallachia and Moldavia -- autonomous. While the latter two were ruled by Phanars effectively, Crimea kept the rule of it's native khans although the Ottomans occasionally interfered (with increasing frequency toward the end of Crimea's existence), so it's better described as a satellite state in modern day terminology than a part of the Empire. I feel like calling them Ottoman is like calling Hungarians "Soviet" in 1960. Hopefully the move I'm about to do is agreeable.--Yalens (talk) 16:03, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Aricle is way too out of focused and is hence not NPOV

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)

Etienne actually the Circassian section was deleted. I mean, technically the Ottomans claimed suzerainty over Circassia and that underlines the Russian view of why they had rightful rule because the Ottomans "ceded" it -- of course Circassians dispute every iota of this saying that neither ever had rightful rule over them. However there's little dispute that what happened in Circassia was part of a broader pattern and it did actually influence later events, like what happened in Nish (see Expulsion of the Albanians 1877–1878). Generally there is no need to make a "balancing" act on pages where that would require going off topic, i.e. one does not "balance" Polish massacres of Jews with alleged Jewish Bolshevism stuff except to explain the motives of the killers where it is absolutely necessary. Anyhow, I've started the page about population movements in the Great Turkish War in my sandbox and I will also gather info to add on the simultaneous changes in the Christian population (mainly affecting Serbs and Albanians afaik), so while this is a long term project much of hte stuff that cause this article to be "unfocused" will be moved there, once I publish the page (it will take maybe half a year).--Calthinus (talk) 18:30, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Mention of Genocides that occurred later after these events involving some of these populations who were refugees (and recruited by the Ottoman state) in Anatolia can be catered for in a Legacy section -as was proposed in the recent AFD. Also a lot of academic sources which editors came across in that process and cited them in the AfD need to be incorporated into the article for information and context. Best.Resnjari (talk) 00:13, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Right I forgot, my bad. --Calthinus (talk) 03:06, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

What has the Armenian Goncide to do with this? And just calling the article "too out of focus" and deny its neutrality based on your personal POV hardly justifies the placement of a "disputed" tag on the article. Akocsg (talk) 16:15, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

So why is there still a disputed tag on the article? As Akocsg stated, there is no consensus on the article being disputed. I also think it's hypocritical of you to add a tag without discussing it first, and then blaming someone else for undoing it and telling them 'there is something called a talk page'. Calthinus has also explained that there is no need to "make a 'balancing' act on pages where that would require going (even more) off topic". Junk2711 (talk) 20:57, 2 April 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)

The page doesn't really discuss anything happening to Christian Turks (however we are defining this, I guess you mean Gagauz?). On the other hand many of the victims here did not identify with the label "Turk". --Calthinus (talk) 05:31, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

• • Most of the sources I have seen say that Muslim populations were targeted in some areas, and Christian populations in other areas of the collapsing Ottoman Empire. I can't believe how difficult something this simple has become with editors trying to erase half of this story. This is an essential and non-disputed piece of the study of genocide and ethnic cleansing during this period, according to the majority of current academic secondary sources, but the scope does not include the 17th century. Also, a ping would have been nice.Seraphim System ^(talk) 04:11, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Genocide? Um, no. Even McCarthy didn't go that far... Étienne Dolet (talk) 04:19, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Will you stop bringing up irrelevant shit? No one but you is talking about McCarthy, maybe consult some reliable sources before bludgeoning complex talk page discussions:

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)

Please, remain WP:CIVIL. There is no need for you to curse. And how's McCarthy irrelevant to this discussion? If you're the one that said this was a genocide, then please back it up with sources. Your sources don't prove that it was but Jones appears to have said: "reciprocal genocidal killings". It sounds more like tit-for-tat killings of Balkan Muslims vs. Balkan Christians but definitely doesn't seem like a large systematic campaign to kill off every Muslim in the Balkans which is really what genocide is. Do we have any sources that show that the Christian powers embarked on such a large-scale task? Étienne Dolet (talk) 05:13, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

I thought I was allowed to curse? Am I not allowed to curse? It's not like I accused you of genocide denial or anything.Seraphim System ^(talk) 05:54, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

You could curse, but be civil about it. What you said wasn't civil at all and wholly unnecessary. Étienne Dolet (talk) 05:58, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Honestly Etienne, these sources were all discussed at the AfD you participated in, and excuse me if I am a bit miffed that it is necessary to type them out here. It still doesn't seem like you read them carefully — Adam Jones is a leading expert in comparative genocide studies. Especially telling is the first part of the quote important advances in the understanding of events central to the genocide studies field — when he said genocide, he meant genocide. Goodnight Etienne. Seraphim System ^(talk) 06:05, 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)

Preliminary move discussion

This article needs a name change though. It's one of the few things that we reached consensus upon at the AfD. Étienne Dolet (talk) 16:06, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

@EtienneDolet: I'm not sure my proposal reached consensus. It had the support of myself, you, SR, Eggishorn, Khirurg, Icewhiz and Alexikoua; it was opposed by GGT, SeraphimSystem, Resnjari, Liridon, and Maaz. Doesn't look like consensus. There wasn't any opposition to splitting, however. --Calthinus (talk) 16:15, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

No, I did not mean we should change it right away. I meant there was a consensus among most users to have at least a proposal for the name change on the TP of the article. The users you cite actually supported that. Seraphim said: "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)

My bad -- fair enough. It seems this is the second time I should not have relied on memory and cursory skimming of the AfD. --Calthinus (talk) 16:29, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

The articles name should be changed to Genocide of Muslims during the Ottoman contraction or something like this.Seraphim System ^(talk) 05:17, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

• Just a note: by renaming, I by no means meant that I supported the use of anything along the lines of "refugees..." or anything that downscales the various massacres and ethnic cleansing that took place during this period. That said, I also oppose the use of anything along the lines of "genocide" - that simply does not reflect the literature that I have read and seen. --GGT (talk) 23:20, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

I know you called it "ethnic cleansing" at AfD — if there is a difference between ethnic cleansing and genocide, Max Planck and Robin Geiß can't say specifically what it is. I think it can be ethnic cleansing and genocide — ethnic cleansing w/r to the deportations, and genocide w/r to massacres, based on the language in Max Planck describing the deportation of Armenians as ethnic cleansing — once the intent argument is accepted, the casualties don't need to be high for a genocide conviction. The theory and background is complex, but once its accepted there's no complicated argument about premeditation — systematic and extermination are rather separate inquiries, and the acts get roped in. Sometimes, even ones that seem relatively minor and small in scale. But for historical matters most of this is moot. I would support either title.Seraphim System ^(talk) 23:40, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

It is erroneous to say there was a consensus on changing the name. Until sources highlighted by editors from the ADF are included in the article, its premature to propose new names. One the thing the academic literature is firm on, there was persecution in the form of ethnic cleansing, massacres etc.Resnjari (talk) 00:01, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Honest question: where are the contemporaneous reports for these “massacres” that you guys keep talking about? Where are the eyewitness accounts, fact finding missions, first hand accounts, and etc. of this “massacre”, “genocide”, “extermination policy”, and etc.? Genuinely curious here. This is not to say I deny such incidents taking place. However, I’ve come across no mention of massacres during these migrations in contemporaneous accounts and reports. By the way, I’m speaking specifically about the Balkan migrations during the 1912 war. Étienne Dolet (talk) 00:15, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

@Étienne Dolet:, here is a famous one of the time: Report of the International Commission on the Balkan Wars [25] (it gives some details about events done by all Balkan powers involved in the war and the Ottomans). Muslims of various ethnicities were not a focus of the great powers or had the sympathies of its people to elicit interest in their plight like Christian populations did. Muslim refugees also went to what became Turkey and not wider Europe. So there was no people from a diaspora by later generations entering academia to publish studies etc. While in Turkey the Ataturk government suppressed discussion about these kinds of events of the Ottoman past (see a lecture this year by Hakan Yavuz [26] on Turkish society and revival of issues Ottoman). Academics are now giving this subject the attention it needs after years of neglect. Apart from that like with Armenians, there exist family histories of ancestors who experienced certain events among descendants. Hope it assists. Best.Resnjari (talk) 01:00, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Okay, and which chapter of the report? Étienne Dolet (talk) 03:22, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

There are two contents pages at the beginning pages of the report which is subdivided into chapters with their heading being explanatory of what they contain. Consult report - i gave the link in the previous comment.Resnjari (talk) 03:30, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Okay, that's interesting because as far as the secondary sources say, it looks like the Turkish soldiers did the massacres, not the Christians. From this source:

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.

The report then continues to say:

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.

Outraged means rape, by the way. Étienne Dolet (talk) 03:36, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, i know. As i said previously the report contains details about Balkan states involved in the war and the Ottomans. Secondary sources do refer to the report and Muslims: Despot. p. 191. [27] and Myuhtar-May. p.71. [28] says

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.

There is more like the examples you provided in Myuhtar-May till page 75 taken from the Carnegie report though relating to Muslims.Resnjari (talk) 04:02, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I am looking at page 75 of the report right now. It says Turkish soldiers were killed. Soldiers, not civilians. Also, in Igor's work, he says 80 percent of Muslim villages were wiped out according the page 71 of the report. But the report doesn't say anything like that. Étienne Dolet (talk) 04:07, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

page 75 of Myuhtar-May citing content from the report, not page 75 of the Carnegie report. You have to read the whole report which is a publication unto itself.Resnjari (talk) 04:18, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

The report is not the only source on information. I mentioned it because it is the most prominent on these events at the time of their happening. Scholars are looking at these things these days, such as Despot and Myuhtar-May and a whole hosts of others which were mentioned by editors during the ADF.Resnjari (talk) 04:20, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Oh, okay. I'll look into that later. But check out page 191 Igor's work. He claims that the report states that 80% of Muslim villages were wiped out. He cites it to citation 734 which is page 71 of the report. However, the report doesn't say anything like that. In fact, it merely talks about how Turkish authorities massacred Bulgarians. Étienne Dolet (talk) 04:21, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

The 80% figure about villages being burned is on page 72 of the report. The number in the report is attributed to the British Macedonian Relief Fund which was a humanitarian organisation working in the area during the time with people that had undergone these events. Have a read the whole report.Resnjari (talk) 04:36, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Oh, alright. However, it says "In the Province of Manastir..." It's 80% of the villages in that province alone. Étienne Dolet (talk) 04:41, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that's why there are other scholars for this topic. You were part of the ADF and saw the multiple sources cited. Adding all of that requires time. The POV tag can stay until those become part of the article. If other editors want they can add it and would do much for the Wikipedia community and this article.Resnjari (talk) 05:37, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Note: Genocide studies is a different field from history. Most of the sources I am relying on are specialists in genocide studies (or comparative genocide studies), I haven't been relying on many Greek/Turkish/Armenian historians.Seraphim System ^(talk) 04:40, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Arbitrary Break

@Calthinus: Are there any sources we could use to discuss how the victims identified as Turks or not? I've read that except for those such as Kurds, Armenians, Greeks, most others identified as Turks. Again, I don't mean being an ethnic Turk - I mean how these people identified. Junk2711 (talk) 21:11, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

The problem is we dont actually know as the sourcing isnt sufficient. Turkish writers will argue they all identified as Turks, others (usually Western) argue ethnic identity "didnt exist", Albanian and Bosniak writers will claim their own identities for relevant Muslim populations (sometimes even arguing with each other), and then there are a whole range of other identities that have been attested (Pomak, Gorani, Bulgarian, Bulgarian Muslim, specific town identities, Torbesh, Serb Muslim, Croat Muslim, etc...). And then that is only the Balkans-- from the Caucasus we have Laz, Georgians and if theyre to be included, Circassian, Abkhaz, Chechen, Ingush, Arshtin, Abazin, Lezgin, Avar, Balkar. Et cetera. And then there were of course divisions within populations over whether they identify as "Turks" (which is to be fair the most common). There is no non-POV way to simplify this, sadly. --Calthinus (talk) 23:07, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

@Junk2711:, this topic is a new area of study for academics for at least the past two decades. With the populations from the Balkans, no not all were Turks, many that underwent these experiences were Muslim Albanians, Bosniaks, Bulgarian speaking Pomaks, Muslim Macedonians (Torbeš), Grecophone Muslims, Muslim Aromanians and Muslim Romani. There was a recent discussion [29] about this article's future. In there is a whole host of sources that editors came across for this article to be greatly expanded. Thing is time. I hope to add those some time this year. Your welcome to expand the article yourself or anyone else if you have time based on those sources. Best.Resnjari (talk) 12:03, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Reasons for POV-tag

Since it seems some people are not aware (or pretending to) of the reasons for the POV tag, let me re-iterate:

• Title of the article is POV.
• Inclusion of areas beyond the scope of the article (e.g. Circassia)
• Glaring POV omissions. Events are presented without any context (e.g. Armenian Genocide, etc...)
• Over-reliance on hyper-partisan, genocide denialist sources (e.g. Justin McCarthy)
• Lack of non-partisan sources that present these disparate events as a unified topic.
• Article tone.

For these reasons, the POV tag should stay until the issues are resolved. Khirurg (talk) 20:50, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

These "reasons" are based on your own biased POV, thus having no base. You can't just decide by yourself that this article is POV since you don't like it, which was evidenced by your baseless proposal for deletion of this very article before. Akocsg (talk) 22:46, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

@Khirurg: This is your opinion, the majority has disagreed. You have essentially reiterated what was claimed in the first section, and the majority did not agree. You may think this way but most others disagreed. You cannot just place a tag because you feel like it and disagree with others. I will still answer you here:

• Title is in no way POV, literally as non-POV as it can possibly be. How is persecution POV, seriously?
• Scope is another issue with a separate tag already in place. Regardless of your view, that is an entirely separate case so is invalid in this argument.
• See previous section,

@Calthinus: "Generally there is no need to make a "balancing" act on pages where that would require going off topic, i.e. one does not "balance" Polish massacres of Jews with alleged Jewish Bolshevism stuff except to explain the motives of the killers where it is absolutely necessary."
This is an encyclopedia, there is no requirement to balance every article.

• Whether you agree or disagree with him, McCarthy is a historian. Him being labeled a denialist by some does not mean he is one - that is their opinion on him. If not enough historians have worked on this issue, then of course McCarthy will need to be used.
• This is your view on scope again. How about you offer 'non-partisan' sources then?
• Separate tag and really vague explanation from you here.

Like Akocsg said, you are the one denying the articles neutrality based on your own opinions. --Junk2711 (talk) 23:00, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

@Junk2711:, read the following discussion in full: [30]. In that discussion many editors brought up a whole host of academic sources which are strong and relevant to the article. Make sentences based on those and do correct referencing if you want to make this article academically firm going into the future. You will do a great service to the Wikipedia community if you do instead of wasting precious time like this on the talkpage when it could go into content additions for the article. Best.Resnjari (talk) 23:25, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

The majority?? What majority? Don't make up fictitious "majorities" (off-wiki recruited meatpuppets don't count anyway). Second, though you have been editing here for quite some time, it's not too late to familiarize yourself with WP:DEMOCRACY. Wikipedia is NOT a democracy. We do not decide things by majority (especially fictitious/doctored "majorities" like the one you refer to). My points all stand. The fact that you and several others don't like them does not mean the tag is unwarranted. As for the incredible "there is no requirement to balance every article", well, yes there is absolutely a need to balance every article. It's called NPOV, and it's non-negotiable. Like it or not, there IS a NPOV dispute regarding this article, and the tag stays until it has been resolved. Khirurg (talk) 00:30, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

One single user inserted this tag exactly because of not liking it. If there is unbalance and POV, you have to proof it, and point out which part is causing the perceived unbalance in the first place, not the other way around.Akocsg (talk) 22:46, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Junk2711 the tag does not say the page is not neutral, it says there is a neutrality dispute. As you can clearly see from everything Khirurg says there is clearly a neutrality dispute, and I am quite certain there are others who agree with him. As Resnjari noted, you have much better things to do in your life than argue about a tag at the top of this page. A lot of Turkish topics are undercovered; if you want to help, you should expand those instead.--Calthinus (talk) 01:11, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

First of all @Khirurg: the title of the article IS in fact NPOV, it is NOT in fact POV, because it factually describes what are historically documented and widely acknowledged - in academic, diplomatic, and journalistic sources - persecutions, of Muslims, in the Ottoman empire and general sphere of influence, during the historically known period of Ottoman contraction. The inclusion of the term "persecution" to describe persecutions is fairly non controversial, and can be seen in articles like:

• https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Persecution_of_Christians_in_the_Roman_Empire

'Persecution of Christians in the Roman Empire'

Here we have an almost identical naming formula, "persecution" of "religious group" (here Christians instead of Muslims) in "Name of Civilization and Period" (Here being Rome in its Imperial phase, where Roman Empire is conventionally used not just to describe a geo-political state in antiquity, but also to describe a distinct phase and period, in contradistinction to 'Roman Republic' for example.

• https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Persecution_of_Christians

'Persecution of Christians'

Here describing broadly historically acknowledged and documented persecutions of a population, Christians in general.

• https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Diocletianic_Persecution

'Diocletianic Persecution'

To beat a dead horse, I'll just quote the leading paragraph:

"The Diocletianic or Great Persecution was the last and most severe persecution of Christians in the Roman Empire.[1] In 303, the Emperors Diocletian, Maximian, Galerius, and Constantius issued a series of edicts rescinding Christians' legal rights and demanding that they comply with traditional religious practices"

• https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Persecution_of_Muslims

'Persecution of Muslims'

See 'Persecution of Christians' above, to quote from the leading paragraph:

"Persecution of Muslims is the religious persecution which is inflicted upon followers of the Islamic faith. This page lists incidents in both medieval and modern history in which Muslim populations have been targeted for persecution by non-Muslim groups. "

• https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Persecution_of_Jews

'Persecution of Jews'

To wit; "Persecution of Jews has been a major part of Jewish history, prompting shifting waves of refugees throughout the diaspora communities. "

The point has been made.

On your point "Inclusion of areas beyond the scope of the article (e.g. Circassia)" this is not even cogent. The Ottomans were parties in the Russo-Circassian War (see https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Russo-Circassian_War), and the Ottoman Empire accepted 75% of the total Muslim population that Russia expelled. Thus the persecutions of Circassian most definitely was part of the general 19th century waves of Muslim persecutions that affected Ottoman subjects/civilians, or the Ottoman government. KJS ml343x (talk) 01:36, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Before making emphatic comments such as First of all.., the point has been made, etc., perhaps you should read the previous discussions that have occurred (see above)? The article name is indeed problematic, and many editors have raised this issue. Khirurg (talk) 01:54, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Also "Over-reliance on hyper-partisan, genocide denialist sources (e.g. Justin McCarthy)"

I don't think the point here made is not true, the Wikipedia article has 102 different references.

"Glaring POV omissions. Events are presented without any context"

Well, you don't need to contextualize the persecution of Christians by Persecution done by Christians..And the Armenian genocide has almost NO context to this, since the vast majority of it except the Caucasus Campaign and the Greco-Turkish war was done before it...maybe the Campaign during the 1918-1922 which happened in eastern Turkey and Azerbaijan...but it's not even mentioned in the article. Ödegay31 (talk) 14:07, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Of course there needs to be context. The events in the article are presented as if they occurred out of the blue. Perhaps that suits a particular agenda, but it is not how one builds a neutral encyclopedia. Khirurg (talk) 01:43, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Revert after revert

@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)

Overuse of quotes, unfounded claims of "genocide"

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)

Khirurg, you made some valid points here. I shall add that the international community and the International Association of Genocide Scholars do not regard it as such, either. Wikipedia, as the world's encyclopedia, ought to reflect carefully the world's contemporary academic consensus on this rather than take isolated WP:PRIMARY sources and quotes from 100 years ago and misrepresent them as indisputable facts. Serious claims such as this will require strong and substantial sources. The edits have been reverted: [34]. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 09:59, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Some of the events were genocidal.Genocide studies like Adam Jones, Umit Ungör call it genocide. Justin McCarthy is irrelevant to this topic though.... Ödegay31 (talk) 10:01, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

If "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)

"The Turks of Greece left few traces. They disappeared suddenly and finally.." "The orgy of genocide in the Peleponnes stopped when there were no more Turks to kill"....

-> St. Clair, William (1972). That Greece Might Still be Free: The Philhellenes in the War of Independence. p. 12. Ödegay31 (talk) 10:41, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

In the page you pointed, the source specifically says: 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)

"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"

"The human toll of this Great "Unweaving" from Greece's independence war in the early 19th century to the Balkan war was enourmous.... Hundread Thousands of Ottoman Muslims were killed in the secessionist drive.. Hundread of thousands were more expelled as refugees.... "

" in periods of severe political crisis, genocides can be reciprocal (pp.135-6), but Travis’ chapter also omits the expulsion and massacre of Muslims in the Balkans during the twin wars of 1912-1913, and the Greek massacres against Turks during their military occupation of Anatolia"

As I said Adam Jones "Genocide:A Comprehensive Indroduction" calls it as such. Umit Ungör, also agrees with him and calls it as such and has published an article in the "International Association of Genocide Scholar". There is a newly released book about those events which calls it explicity as genocide. I'll add them later on as source.

Also about the "constitutes one-sided POV because it frames out the Muslim casualties in the war and ignores everything else that happened in that war," the same could be said about the Greek genocide, since the Balkan wars the violence was reciprocal. Heck even in that page mentions it as such. Look here

Also Williams calls the events that led to the extermination of the Turks in the newly Hellenic Republic as genocide and it is footnoted as such in the page 407 and 414.

Jones, Adam. Genocide:A Comprehensive Introduction. p. 65.

Jones, Adam. Genocide:A Comprehensive Introduction. p. 152.

Ungör, Umit. Genocide Studies and Prevention, Issue 8.3 (2014) (PDF). International Association of Genocide Scholar. p. 102.

Ödegay31 (talk) 10:41, 23 February 2021 (UTC) Ödegay31 (talk) 14:03, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

First of all, to make clear: you said "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.

Still, I am trying to figure out which events in your "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)

Some were ethnic cleansing( he expulsion of the Albanians from Nish). Some were genocidal acts (General Liakhov ordering to kill every muslim and destory every mosque during the Caucasus Campaign for example).This article is summarisation of the massacres,expulsion and ethnic cleansing that happened during the dissolution/contraction of the Ottoman Empire. Some of the events were genocidal as you can see from the extermination of the Peleponesse Turk. So it's "genocide or ethnic cleansing"Ödegay31 (talk) 17:27, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Adam Jones does not refer specifically to that the Muslims of the Ottoman Empire underwent as "genocide". The "genocide of the last half millenium" he refers to is the entire set of genocidal events perpetrated all over the world (many of them in fact perpetrated by Turks, e.g. the Armenian Genocide, Assyrian Genocide, Greek Genocide). This is a misuse of a source to make a claim not actually backed by the source. Khirurg (talk) 17:48, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

"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"

He mentions that genocidal killing during the "Unweaving" in the Balkans. He later says "The human toll of this Great "Unweaving" from Greece's independence war in the early 19th century to the Balkan war was enourmous.... Hundread Thousands of Ottoman Muslims were killed in the secessionist drive.. Hundread of thousands were more expelled as refugees....

he quotes that upto WW1 majority of the victims during the dissolution were muslims, he says that the term "Unweaving" is the turkish term for the atrocities and expulsions towards muslims. He explicity mentions it.

Don't know if you even read it. Anyway I'll have another source for later on. Ödegay31 (talk) 18:25, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Anyway I see you wanted to delete this article years ago. Seems like you don't like any of the content but still watching the page every day since years :/. More sources to come there are out there :/ Ödegay31 (talk) 18:39, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Did you notice the part where he says "reciprocal genocidal killing"? A big problem with the article is that it portrays the events without any context or background. The killings during the 1919-1922 are portrayed as coming out of the blue, as are most of the events in the article. Doubtless some people prefer it that way, but it's no way to write an encyclopedia. Khirurg (talk) 19:34, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I'll add later better detailed sources about it(when I finish the book I read). Don't mind if you remove it now....but what has 1919-1922( I think you refer to the Greco-Turkish war?) to do with it... As I mentioned it refers to Pre-WW1 expulsion. For example Many Turks and Albanians were massacred during the Balkan wars, their villages burned down to ground by Greeks and Serbians...tby 1913 200k people were living in tents in Selanik vilayet in 1913...you don't contextualize the expulsion of the Greeks in the aegean through this in the other wikipedia sites about Greek genocide victim site...Since in that period all the massacres, expulsion, deportation, forced work were done by both sides, if you read up enough literature about this topic you would know by now... you seeem to want to ignore the other part of it.... Ödegay31 (talk) 19:43, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

• Ödegay31, AFAIK, the only relevant event that is widely known as a case of genocide is the Circassian genocide. The article should specify it, as currently it makes it look like all events described in the article were genocide. Hey @Calthinus: you might have sth to say here. Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:23, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

  The Ottoman Empire gave up the territory to the Russians but the Circassians didn't saw it as such and fought against the Russians for decades. On a side note it's "ethnic cleansing or genocide", someone earlier on this talk page said "ethnic cleansing w/r to the deportations, and genocide w/r to massacres, based on the language in Max Planck describing the deportation of Armenians as ethnic cleansing — once the intent argument is accepted, the casualties don't need to be high for a genocide conviction" Ödegay31 (talk) 18:51, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

  On a sidenote this site for example considers the Hamidian and Chios massacre as genocide: https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Genocides_in_history_(before_World_War_I), and theres no objection of you for that on that page....Khirurg, it seems like an issue for you when the other side gets mentioned... Ödegay31 (talk) 20:21, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

• On the quotes, I agree with this edit by SilentResident. Quotes may be relevant and helpful, but what do they add here? On top of that, they are apparently the words of a US official, who may or may not have been an authority and who may or may not have had a good overview--we don't know. The source is primary (US government records), with no benefit of editorial oversight. I may add that the problem of "the observer on the spot" is well-recognized and for that reason we should, in historic events, not rely on eyewitness testimony and not give it too much weight. (Look at John M. Bacon, where the paper reported he got killed in battle, or the NYT report on the sinking of the SS Sirio (see note 4), which got facts wrong and managed to get in a few racist stabs. Drmies (talk) 20:42, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Agree with this entirely. --Calthinus (talk) 06:44, 24 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)

(edit conflict) Calthinus, I agree here about Circasians and the Armenian Genocide. Drmies, thanks. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 06:47, 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 article has the Chios massacre and Batak massacre, Hamidian massacre as genocide ??? Did you also remove those parts? Either remove them all, or leave that also up. " Is there a international scholarly community for that? And it has nothing to do with this page.What has the turkish goverment to do with this? Ödegay31 (talk) 17:05, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

The article is titled Genocides in history (before World War I). Responding to a mistake with a mistake isn't helpful. If you spotted a massacre listed as genocide, then correct it. Update: I removed the Batak massacre myself [38]. However, using CTRL+F didn't land me to any "Chios massacre" being listed in the Genocides list. Can you be more specific? --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 17:47, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Many scholar consider the Hamidian massacres the first step of the Armenian genocide, so of course it should be included in that article. But that is a separate discussion. Khirurg (talk) 01:47, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, agree with you, Khirurg. Thanks for reverting Ödegay31's disruptive attempt to remove the Armenian Genocide from the list of Genocides. The editor appeared unable to be reasoned with and the Admins blocked them for 72-hours. [39]. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 09:14, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Wikivoice

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)

Agreed. St. Clair is moreover a little long in the tooth (1972), not sure if he should be used at all for something like that. Khirurg (talk) 01:40, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Calthinus. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 09:16, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

St Clair should probably be juxtaposed with other views on the matter. Unweaving and the slow "legitimization" of ethnic cleansing as a process has certainly been discussed in scholarship, but my read is that St Clair is not representative.--Calthinus (talk) 17:49, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Personally, I would never add St. Clair without adding the other views as well for wp:neutrality reasons. However I myself refrained from touching this sourced information yet since I haven't checked the history log to see who/why added it in the first place, and it appears to legitimately relate to the Persecution the present article is about. Do you guys have any sources regarding these other views on the matter? I myself don't, hence my lack of contributions on both the present article and the Massacres during the Greek War of Independence article. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 03:51, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Not on hand at the moment, no. I wouldn't be against removing it for the time being, pending further discussion.--Calthinus (talk) 09:34, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Maintenance of peace in Armenia - Hearings before a subcommittee of the Committee on Foreign Relations, United States Senate

@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)

Considering user:Atabegli has edited for two days and is using complex references in their edits, it is quite clear Atabegli is not a new user. It would probably be wise to check the sources as to verify what they say and ensure no original research. --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:33, 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)

Nothing on page 13 supports;

• "...gave as example the ethnic cleansing done in the Balkan and Russo-Turkish wars..."

Which makes that sentence, original research. --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:09, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Agree. Also, probably doesn't need to be said, but I'm not thrilled with the idea of relying on [McCarthy]. --Calthinus (talk) 15:20, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Circassians

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)

Claims of "genocide"

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)

I don’t really understand what you’re trying to say here, I think the source I used makes it very clear what he was referring to, that is, although he covered a wide range of persecution of Ottoman Muslims as genocide, the 1912-13 Balkan War era was most definitely included in it. I’m almost certain there are a couple other sources that describe the events as genocide, which I will do my best to locate if you just give me some more time. If not though, I stand corrected and we can revert it to “mass murder”/“massacre” in the info box rather than genocide SamuelLion1877 (talk) 05:17, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

The Circassian genocide is within the scope of this article, therefore genocide did occur during this period. Yung Doohickey (talk) 20:35, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Matthew Gibney work on muslim forced migration

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)

I will delete it since it has nothing to do here and can only lead to mistake while bringing nothing but approximations. 2A01:E34:EC95:6010:F51D:5425:B996:D233 (talk) 09:24, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Crimes against humanity category removal

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)

Then Greek and Armenian genocides was not crimes against humanity too. 37.155.44.152 (talk) 17:11, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

The term persecution is inaccurate and fails to reflect the severity of events

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)

And why do you think that killings are not part of persecution? Dimadick (talk) 23:49, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Then by that logic the Armenian and Greek genocide articles should be retitled to the persecution of ottoman greeks/ Armenians. I hope you do understand that my only complaint isn’t about the title of said article however it does at least in part serve to tone down the severity of the events which took place 92.40.197.55 (talk) 23:58, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Then by that logic the Armenian and Greek genocide articles should be retitled to the persecution of ottoman greeks/ Armenians. I hope you do understand that my only complaint isn’t about the title of said article however it does at least in part serve to tone down the severity of the events which took place 92.40.197.55 (talk) 23:58, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

The fact that yourself and other Wikipedia moderators have failed to address such concerns nor engage with me in a proper manner really speaks for itself 92.40.197.222 (talk) 21:02, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Please may someone change the death toll back to how it was before

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)

Death toll and casualty figures:

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)

Those figure makes no sense. Michael Mann did not write the 1914 Carnegie Foundation report, he wrote "The Dark Side of Democracy Explaining Ethnic Cleansing" (2005), he acknowledges the bad source but uses it. The only source used in the article for the death toll of the whole period is McCarthy who as you can read denies the Armenian genocide and probably exaggerated:

"Justin McCarthy is an apologist for the Turkish state and supports the official version of history, which denies the Armenian genocide. He thus might have exaggerated the number of Muslim victims in the Balkans in order to underplay the number of Armenian victims in Anatolia. However, Michael Mann argues that, even if these numbers were reduced by 50%, the number of Muslim victims in the Balkan “would still horrify”."-A Companion to the Anthropology of the Middle East (2015) Edited By Soraya Altorki (The Chapter is Rethinking the “Post‐Ottoman”: Anatolian Armenians as an Ethnographic Perspective By Hakem Al‐Rustom.), page 474.

"Roger Owen and Şevket Pamuk estimate that during the last decade of the Ottoman Empire (1912–1922) when the Balkan Wars, the First World War and the War of Independence took place in areas later to become part of Turkey "Total casualties, military and civilian, of Muslims during this decade are estimated as close to two million. The historian Mark Biondich estimates that from 1878 to 1912 up to two million Muslims left the Balkans either voluntarily or involuntarily, and when adding Muslims casualties in the Balkans in 1912 and 1923 within the context of those killed or expelled the total figure far exceeded some three million."

In fact these two sources are problematic as the first source includes military as well as civilian casualties and indeed includes casualties not just deaths in addition to it's exclusive focus on Anatolia, future Turkish territory (This source is especially problematic as it is not clear that all of the deaths in these casualties are murders (I include death induced by deportation and the like.) or death by disease and starvation and the like which may be the case as the blockade of Germany and Austria-Hungary was very effective for example. Furthermore it is unclear who murdered them. In the subsequent figures I just assume all deaths are murders by non-muslim forces.). Assuming more civilian casualties resulted then 1,500,000 civilian casualties and assuming more wounded than death then perhaps between 675,000 and 700,000. The second has exclusive focus on the Balkans and the three million figure includes the two million voluntarily or otherwise leaving and of course includes those expelled between 1912 and 1923. If you use your brain then the figure between 1912 and 1923 would be around 1,300,000. Again not all of these were killed (I cannot evaluate how many.) and on the assumption that more people are expelled than killed then 600,000-650,000 would appropriate. Thus the appropriate figure between 1912 and 1923 is between 1,275,000 and 1,350,000.

In the fair assumption that McCarthy is exaggerating then take 75% (Much more than Mann's proposal.) of the 5,000,000 figure which gives 3,750,000. Subtract the 1912-1923 figures and you get between 2,400,000 and 2,475,000. That is between 1821 and 1923 between 2,400,000 and 2,475,000 muslims were murdered.

If you take Mann's proposal of 50% of 5,000.000 it results in 2,500,000. Subtract the 1912-1923 figures and you get between 1,115,000 and 1,225,000. That is between 1821 and 1923 between 1,115,000 and 1,225,000 were murdered.

As a conclusion then people really need to properly read the sources. It is full of exaggeration and arguably downplaying or denying Christian genocides and massacres. For example, muslim society may have been incensed against Armenians because of the Balkan Wars but Armenians were being massacred for decades by this point (See Hamidian massacres (1894-1896).) and that model of governance was promoted since the 1690s (See War, State and the Privatisation of Violence in the Ottoman Empire (2020) By Tolga U. Esmer.). This is not at all to condone any of this however the article seems more than a bit myopic. John Not Real Name (talk) 20:13, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

I want to amend my statements. "That is between 1821 and 1923 between 2,400,000 and 2,475,000 muslims were murdered." should be That is between 1821 and 1912 between 2,400,000 and 2,475,000 muslims were murdered.

"That is between 1821 and 1923 between 1,115,000 and 1,225,000 were murdered." should be That is between 1821 and 1912 between 1,115,000 and 1,225,000 were murdered. John Not Real Name (talk) 20:31, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

The blockade parts must be mentioned if you have a source for it. Theofunny (talk) 06:00, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I misunderstood your comment I thought you were asking me to prove a blockade was in place which I thought was a bit absurd. There was a blockade and I would recommend this article: ( Great Famine of Mount Lebanon ). Although it is NOT accepted as a genocide by any government, it is being pushed for as the ottoman government was directing grain shipments away from the people. Lebanon was the most affected of course but I would not be surprised if it affected Anatolia given the starvation levels amongst all the Central Powers. It is odd that no-one seems to mention it when half of the Pre-War Maronite population was decimated during the War. John Not Real Name (talk) 16:39, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Discussion clearly dead and going nowhere, I suppose the article is ok and should be left alone as it is

Arbitrary break

Casualties mean deaths. Biondich talks about how he arrived at that number, not that casualties include those that are expelled. Biondich’s numbers also have a more limited time frame. Owen's book also have a more limited time frame. It says "during this decade". Kaser's numbers are from 1820 to 1920. I'm restoring the previous version. Bogazicili (talk) 11:05, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Theofunny, you have cited an entire book for the sentence you added: However, others have accused McCarthy of exaggerating the number of Muslim victims in the Balkans. [41] Can you provide a page number for this claim? Bogazicili (talk) 11:18, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

"Justin McCarthy is an apologist for the Turkish state and supports the official version of history, which denies the Armenian genocide. He thus might have exaggerated the number of Muslim victims in the Balkans in order to underplay the number of Armenian victims in Anatolia. However, Michael Mann argues that, even if these numbers were reduced by 50%, the number of Muslim victims in the Balkan “would still horrify” (Mann 2005: 113). I advocate the centrality of juxtaposing the ethnic cleansing of Balkan Muslims with the Armenian genocide as an intertwined history of the two victim populations; the occurrence of one should be taken as denying the other." Page 474, by Hakem Al Rustom Theofunny (talk) 11:57, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

I read this source a long time back and didn't exactly remember the page, but it was shoddy work from me. Theofunny (talk) 11:58, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

As the quote you added shows, there's no evidence of exaggeration. It's the speculation of Hakem Al Rustom. Bogazicili (talk) 13:31, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

"In the period between 1878 and 1912, as many as two million Muslims emigrated voluntarily or involuntarily from the Balkans. When one adds those who were killed or expelled between 1912 and 1923, the number of Muslim casualties from the Balkan far exceeds three million. By 1923 fewer than one million remained in the Balkans."

I now realize now that Owen's book had a more limited time frame and should not be included but why would Mark Biondich add those "killed or expelled" to those Muslims who emigrated to mean deaths. As I see it from a neutral viewpoint, he refers to the reduction of Balkan Muslims as "casualties from the Balkans".

And the estimate of deaths should be up to 5 million not around 5 million as the research has been very limited in this area. Theofunny (talk) 11:20, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Casualties mean deaths. The way I read it, he talks about how he calculated that number. If you have any further doubts, you can ask it in: Wikipedia:Teahouse or Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. You can give the source and the quote from the source, and ask what they think.

Kaser says: "estimations speak about 5 million casualties and the same number of displaced persons"

about 5 million is reworded as around 5 million. "Up to" would be WP:OR. Bogazicili (talk) 11:27, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Upto because McCarthy is an unreliable source and Kaser most probably takes the estimates from McCarthy. In my view, it should up Upto 5.5 not only 5. Theofunny (talk) 11:59, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:No original research. Wikipedia is edited by looking at reliable sources, not by assumptions or views of editors. Bogazicili (talk) 12:03, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

I do know that, but different editors will interpret the same give text differently which is what I meant by my view. Theofunny (talk) 12:08, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

This is why I suggested Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. You can also try Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard. Since you are a new editor, you can also get advice at Wikipedia:Teahouse. Bogazicili (talk) 12:13, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

I have submitted the topic at Teahouse and thanks for your advice. Theofunny (talk) 12:16, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

If it meant deaths he would indicate it was deaths. I think it is a stretch to make that claim. John Not Real Name (talk) 16:48, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Someone else has mentioned that the figure often includes dead and missing (Not necessarily the same thing. It however does make one question the results if the margin of error can be as high as 400,000.). The 5,000,000 figure is wrong for deaths at least. It is also rather hard to believe that an equal amount were killed or fled (I guess it is possible.). John Not Real Name (talk) 16:43, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

For further clarification, see: Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Confusing_language_from_a_Mark_Biondich_source_related_to_Balkans

When giving or contesting number of dead or displaced, be careful about dates and regions. Whether it's Balkans only or includes other areas. Whether from 1820 to 1920, or 1878 to 1912, or 1912 to 1923. Bogazicili (talk) 15:31, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Theofunny, the 2 million number you added into the infobox from Owen and Pamuk [42] is about 1912 to 1922 and in areas in modern-day Turkey. Bogazicili (talk) 15:48, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

I already wrote in the talk that after you pointed out, I realized that it was incorrect. Theofunny (talk) 15:50, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Oh I see it now, thanks.

I think the issues are resolved now with respect to current wording and info in the article?

The number of displaced etc can be added later. Bogazicili (talk) 15:55, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

But should it upto or about 5 million now since Mark Biondich claims otherwise? Theofunny (talk) 16:26, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Mark Biondich does not have a claim about deaths, covering around 1820 to 1920 period. Or if he does, please provide the source. Include the page number and quote please. Bogazicili (talk) 16:30, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

He has for deaths and displacement combined from 1878 to 1923.

Biondich gives same numbers and sources in

The Routledge History Handbook of Central and Eastern Europe in the Twentieth Century Volume 4: Violence

chapter

The Balkan Wars

, page 1:

The road from Berlin to Lausanne was littered with millions of casualties. Between 1878 and 1912, millions of Balkan Muslims emigrated or were forced from the region. When one adds up those who were killed or expelled between the Balkan Wars (1912–13) and Greco-Turkish War (1919–22), the number of Balkan-Muslim casualties may have exceeded three million. By 1923, fewer than one million Muslims remained in the Balkans

Theofunny (talk) 16:36, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

You can ask it in Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard.

The difference is due to different time periods and/or geographic regions. 5 million includes Crimean Khanate and Caucasus.

Biondich also doesn't give a specific number for only deaths.[43] Bogazicili (talk) 16:44, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Ohh, then I see it now. It doesn't include Circassia too. Theofunny (talk) 16:46, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

You can use it as an additional assessment for the period in question. People use Wikipedia as if the conclusion is everything but go ahead and source it for the Wars in question. John Not Real Name (talk) 16:45, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

To add to this discussion, I feel that McCarthy’s figures deserve a place in the infobox now, see here;

Death and Exile: The Ethnic Cleansing of Ottoman Muslims, 1821-1922 is a book that has gone through extensive evaluation by scholarship and by all means successfully passed the peer review process. Historian Dennis P. Hupchick generally left a positive review of the book, stating: 'the statistical data appear generally valid. McCarthy succeeds in providing factual material for bringing the European historiography of the later Ottoman Empire into more objective balance.'

Historian Michael Robert Hickock too had an overall positive view of Death and Exile despite him criticizing specific aspects of the book, particularly regarding the proving of governmental intent for the massacres that occurred. However, he agrees McCarthy undeniably proved the existence of extensive Muslim suffering in this period: 'Professor McCarthy does an excellent service to both the general reader and the scholars of the region with this survey of human suffering... Although he succeeds in recounting the plight of Muslim communities, he is less successful at demonstrating state policy or proving intent... The question of intent underlies the book's biggest flaw.”

Bulgarian Historian Georgi Zelengora accepts the book as academically reliable and cites it in his own works; he had this to say about various Bulgarian groups who criticized Death and Exile: Translated: 'Justin McCarthy's “Death and Exile”, in which [many] Bulgarian readers learned about the crimes committed against Muslims by their homeland for the first time, has been translated into Bulgarian in 2010. Patriotic organizations have declared the book anti-Bulgarian. Semi-educated journalists and third grade politicians started disputing the author's professionalism, showing they have zero knowledge on the topic of demographics.'

Historian Kemal Karpat, in his review of the book, wrote: 'This is the first well-documented and comprehensive Western account of the treatment of Ottoman Muslims from the 1820s to 1919-1922. The scope of the book, its vast documentation, and the author's efforts to remain objective and impartial in analyzing little known events that most other Western scholars have ignored are praiseworthy.'

Historian Robert Olson praised the work as well, saying: 'Justin McCarthy's solid demographic work contributes to achieving a better balance and understanding that he so ardently desires for the history of these regions and peoples.'

Historian Donald W. Bleacher, who is a critic of McCarthy's stance on the Armenian Genocide, still praised Death and Exile as a high-quality work of historiography: 'Justin McCarthy has, along with other historians, provided a necessary corrective to much of the history produced by scholars of the Armenian genocide in the United States. McCarthy demonstrates that not all of the ethnic cleansing and ethnic killing in the Ottoman Empire in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries followed the model often posited in the West, whereby all the victims were Christian and all the perpetrators were Muslim. McCarthy has shown that there were mass killings of Muslims and deportations of millions of Muslims from the Balkans and the Caucasus over the course of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.'

Historian Veselin Angelov not only praised Death and Exile but defended Justin McCarthy against critics in general.Translated(sentences might be out of order as I copied them from his interview one by one): 'I find Justin McCarthy's book valuable because it gives a different look at historical events in which there is a lot of mythology and political partisanship. It overturns long-held myths about the last 100 years of the history of the Ottoman Empire... The book is supported by quite solid and irrefutable scientific evidence... Even his critics admit that McCarthy refers to solid sources previously neglected mostly in the Christian West... In all probability, reading Justin McCarthy's book, the majority of Bulgarians will be amazed, horrified and want to throw it away. They will think that it is the product of a huge falsification and a tool of manipulation of Turkish historiography and propaganda. They will not believe anything written in it, with the idea that it is one-sided... I would advise against jumping to conclusions. There are quite a few readers of the English edition, for example, who think that McCarthy is not a "Turkish cannon", but presents a fair story. It helps to correct the injustice committed in the interpretation of history... The [negative] reaction in some Internet forums [to the book] does not surprise me. And from people who haven't read the book. I predict that with the appearance of the book, denials and incantations will multiply. These people, among them politicians, are laymen in historical knowledge, they do not understand that this is a scientific work... many historians consider him an extremely pro-Turkish American researcher, because many of his theses coincide with the views of the Turkish historiography. For me, his behavior is purely professional. It only states the specific facts. I did not get the impression that he underestimated the Christians within the empire or that he tolerated the [crimes of] Muslims. I have already mentioned that he does not omit data about murders, looting and pogroms of Turks, Kurds, Tatars and Circassians against the Christian population. As he himself says, historical correctness demands recognition. And he admits that the Christians have also suffered a great deal. A significant part of his book is devoted to the sufferings of Christians... They label him a "genocide denier", an "agent of the Turkish government" and a "revisionist". In most cases, the attacks against him are not supported by serious scientific arguments. However, there are historians who are positive about the results of McCarthy's scientific pursuits.' 165.237.199.136 (talk) 22:17, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Picture of dead "civilians"

Please, explain what exactly "civilians" were doing at Ayvaz Baba fort during the siege of Edirne. This is a massive manipulation!!! 2A01:5A8:30A:4713:51DC:26:A8EE:FDDF (talk) 03:05, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Civilians can be in forts. John Not Real Name (talk) 23:10, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

The siege of Edirne lasted 5 months and the defence was breached at Ayvaz baba. Do you think Shukri pasha sent civilians to defend the fort? Or did the Bulgarians kill civilians in the city, but then dragged the bodies in front of the fort to take a picture? 149.62.207.68 (talk) 08:54, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Civilians can’t be in besieged fortress cities? 165.237.199.136 (talk) 22:20, 13 December 2024 (UTC)