Talk:Siege of Tripolitsa

Comments

Info@kafalas.com (talk) 20:14, 16 June 2013 (UTC)This is not helpful. I'm an American descendent of the brother of Gen. Kefalas (or Kephalas in the photo caption), and as you can imagine, in our family, he is a tremendous source of pride, being a hero of the Greek revolution, etc. Frankly, I never gave much thought to the idea that there might be another side to it until recently, when I decided it was time to read some of the primary sources from that period. Come to find out, he's not a hero, he's a butcher. Or, no, he's still a hero, because despite the excessive killings at Tripolitsa, the Turks killed a lot more people over the previous ~400 years. Or, how can you equate a few wartime excesses of violence with centuries of Turkish oppression and atrocities? Look: None of us was present at the event. At this point, all that matters is to identify what happened and why. According to Howe's rather dry discussion of the taking of Tripolitsa, a huge number of people were killed; he attributes a lot of it to rage over events of 1821 such as the execution of Gregory V and its aftermath, and a lot of it just to angry soldiers who wanted to steal anything of value from the city. Howe moves right along; In the context of the war, he feels, it was only one of many important military turning points, some of which involved mass killings of innocent (and guilty) people. At this point, making biased edits to the article, either to justify the killings, deny that they happened... or, on the other hand, to say they were unjustified acts of pointless slaughter, does not help readers who are trying to understand the events and their context in history. What would be more helpful would be to add references to more primary sources, so readers can read and decide for themselves.

User:Greek1232 15 ,August 2012 18:00 Hmm..I would say that the article is not close to the truth...i was not present at Tripolitsa but two of my ancestors were there and the stories i have heard are really different from arms and legs cutting...If the writer-composer of this article does not agree with the stories i know its ok..But he must know more about the historians he trust in order to tell somehting close to the historical truth(which nobody knows by the way)...But first let me tell you that general Theodoros Kolokotronis who was present at Tripoli i9n the siege and the "massacre" does not say in any spot of his memoirs about tortures and arms-legs cutting...I keep telling that because it seems silly a thing like that to vbe written cause this is a way the Turks used to execute many of Greeks in the past as well as the Romans did..Never heard however something like that in the modern Greek history...By the way Thomas Slavos was executed this way and some others too...To continue you refer to things said or written by6 foreign generals present...Where exactly did you read that foreign generals where to a secondary Ottoman city in the event of the siege by the Greeks in 1821??You may have read that in the historians you refer to in the comments...Just know that we cannot ,as writers ,compose articles and demand from the others to respect them when they lean on three writers or more for whom the two live almost one century away frtom what they describe and not give attention to the things written from both sides , even if things are written only by Greeks about that.. Finally its absolutely in human nature to commit thing like some of the ones described with the specific backstage of this epoc...If some invaders kill your mother, you father, your childer your wife,rape your mother yopur wife ecven your children, if yopu are not allowed to educate your children and not freely believe in any religion you want,if your kids are kidnapped and converted to sworn enemies of you and all these toprtures happen for 4 centuries then yes....its in human nature to commit massacres. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greek1232 (talk • contribs) 15:46, 15 August 2012 (UTC) ·ΚέκρωΨ· 00:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Kekrops the aim of this article is to talk about the massacre not about the siege of the city as it is opened in relation with the massacres that occured following the outbreak of the greek revolt..Stop changing its name then..I dont go and say Siege of Chıos, right? And by any respect sıege was not an important success as there wasnt any significant ottoman military within the city they were mostly mere civilians..--laertes d 14:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Let me explain it again,

article is opened as a part of the massacres that occurred following the outbreak of greek revolt..It was opened in relaton with the massacres..

Siege of tripoli is an insignificant act in history but not the massacres that occured after the surrender..

i am not changing the chios massacre article to "siege of chios"..

Clear enough? --laertes d 23:15, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

There is no source for your proposed title, whereas "Fall of Tripolitsa" is the most common term in Greek historiography. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 00:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Kekrops, first do not change the content, for instance do not erase the sentences that i completed about the massacres even though you dont agree with the title..

W. Alison Phillips, William St. Clair, George Finlay all these historians who wrote the history of the greek revolution uses the term "tripoli massacre" in their writings..

what matters here is not what is most common in Greek histiography, which doesnt even mention about the occurence of the massacre, but what is historically important about that event, which is the massacre of up to 30.000 people..--laertes d 03:09, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually that is incorrect that Greek historiography does not mention the massacre-- I have been the Tripoli museum which has a plaque about the massacres of civilians there. What is historically significant about the Fall of Tripoli is not that civilians were killed (this had no bearing on the outcome of the war) but that the last and most important Turkish stronghold was in Greek hands.

Please, author of the article make a proper list of sources or delete the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stamatisg (talk • contribs) 00:01, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Siege of Tripolitsa

Should this article be called Siege of Tripolitsa is instead of the Fall of Tripolitsa and include the battles anf the siege? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kyriakos (talk • contribs) 10:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Plan of the Siege of Tripolitsa. The detachments of Kolokotronis' division, which have surrounded the town are symbolized by the letter "O".

Might consider appending:

Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 22:02, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

---

Peculiar Excerpt of Painting

The excerpt of the primary painting designed to draw the reader's attention to a detail of this painting appears like sheer editorializing, and adds no new or compelling information, or, to my taste, emphasis to the article so far. Indeed, it is condescending, presuming, as it does, that the reader did not already notice the destruction thus summarized in the text. A guide in a museum might do that to a busload of overwhelmed tourists, but the point is evident upon arrival to the article page. Slapping on visual chartjunk does little to encourage the thoughtful reader to understand and appreciate the primary sources quoted in that section, and explain to him/herself what actually happened. I should propose to delete it. Cuzkatzimhut (talk) 20:20, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more. It is pure tendentious editing. I removed it several times, but the user who added it edit-warred to put it back (incidentally he has now been reported at WP:AN3). Athenean (talk) 20:30, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Agree 200%. Why don't we add "in case you didn't notice it in the infobox image, here is a reminder that Greeks are barbarians" as an image caption while we're at it? This is simply unacceptable. Constantine ✍ 21:18, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Massacres by Ibrahim

I've added the 1828 massacre perpertrated by Ibrahim, based on: Arnakis, George G. (1969). The Ottoman Empire and the Balkan States to 1900. Vol. 1, The Near East in Modern Times. The Pemberton Press,. p. 163. "Several towns, of which Tripolitsa was the most important, were destroyed by Ibrahim's forces, and the people were massacred or sold as slaves.". In case a couple of 1821 era memoirs didn't mention this specific event this can't mean that it didn't happen. As far as I know Arnakis is a well established academic.Alexikoua (talk) 09:14, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Arnakis is a well established historian, of which you interpret an elusive sentence in a book not focussing on the war of independance, and whose purpose is not to give a precise description of the event in early 1825. Other RS focussing on the history of the war (Douglas Dakin, David Brewer etc) with text dealing precisely to the events of 1825 say that Tripolitsa was evacuated before it as taken by Ibrahim and that the Greek burned it in order to deprive the Egyptians from a shelter in central Peloponnese. It is not relevant in Arnakis to make a detailed description of what happened where, because in the whole no one disagrees with the fact that during the war Ibrahim destroyed several towns and enslaved or massacred many inhabitants of the Peloponnese ; but this sentence is a generalization, a sum-up of the events, it is not intended to describe precisely what happened in Tripolitsa in June 1825.--Phso2 (talk) 09:41, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I've checked the correspodent volume of Ekdotike Athenon. It appears that the city was evacuated and its walls destroyed.Alexikoua (talk) 11:25, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

OK then.--Phso2 (talk) 12:06, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Supposed massacre of Albanians in Tripolitsa

I can only assume that the recent edits were part of typical national-pov editting. The fate of the Muslim Albanian garrison is well described in the article and it's well sourced: The city was taken before the 2,500 Albanian had departed, but still they had a safe passage out of the Peloponnese a few days after the fall. On the other hand the inlines provided here [[1]] claim nothing about Albanians massacred in Tripolitsa and the editor in question is welcomed to provide an explanation about this.Alexikoua (talk) 17:02, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

There is also an account by Leake, which confirms Kolokotronis' successful negotiations to save the Muslim Albanian garisson (Turco-Albanians in contemporary sources):

"The Albanian inhabitants of Tripolis — Leake says one fifth of the population of Greece was Albanian — were escorted by Kolokotronis's men to the other side of the Gulf of Corinth where, once free, they committed atrocities.

["committed+atrocities.+These+Albanian"&dq="committed+atrocities.+These+Albanian"&hl=el&sa=X&ved=0CBsQ6AEwAGoVChMIg-69-IrUyAIVxEwUCh2SNwxo]Alexikoua (talk) 17:27, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I still wonder how the following text can mean that Albanians were also among the victims in Tripolis:

On the Greek side, a case in point is the atrocious onslaught of the Greeks and Hellenised Christian Albanians against the city of Tripolitza in October 1821, which is justified by the Greeks ever since as the almost natural and predictable outcome of more than ‘400 years of slavery and dudgeon’. All the other similar atrocious acts all over Peloponnese, where apparently the whole population of Muslims (Albanian and Turkish-speakers), well over twenty thousand vanished from the face of the earth within a spat of a few months in 1821 is unsaid and forgotten, a case of ethnic cleansing through sheer slaughter (St Clair 2008: 1-9, 41-46) as are the atrocities committed in Moldavia (were the “Greek Revolution” actually started in February 1821) by prince Ypsilantis.

Actually the text doesn't claim anything about the Albanian defenders of Tripolitsa, who in fact were the only Muslims saved during the fall of the city. In general When an author states "all over Peloponesse" this doesn't necesarry mean Tripolitsa too. I can only assume that Resnari just initiated a new national & poorly cited agenda in this case.Alexikoua (talk) 17:36, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Heraclides, Alexis (2011). The essence of the Greek-Turkish rivalry: national narrative and identity. Academic Paper. The London School of Economics and Political Science. p. 15.

"On the Greek side, a case in point is the atrocious onslaught of the Greeks and Hellenised Christian Albanians against the city of Tripolitza in October 1821, which is justified by the Greeks ever since as the almost natural and predictable outcome of more than ‘400 years of slavery and dudgeon’. All the other similar atrocious acts all over Peloponnese, where apparently the whole population of Muslims (Albanian and Turkish-speakers), well over twenty thousand vanished from the face of the earth within a spat of a few months in 1821 is unsaid and forgotten, a case of ethnic cleansing through sheer slaughter (St Clair 2008: 1-9, 41-46) as are the atrocities committed in Moldavia (were the “Greek Revolution” actually started in February 1821) by prince Ypsilantis."

And also

Andromedas, John N. (1976). "Maniot folk culture and the ethnic mosaic in the southeast Peloponnese”. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. 268. (1): 200. "In 1821, then, the ethnic mosaic of the southeastern Peloponnese (the ancient Laconia and Cynouria) consisted of Christian Tsakonians and Albanians on the east, Christian Maniats and Barduniotes, and Moslem Albanian Barduniotes in the southwest, and an ordinary Greek Christian population running between them. In 1821, with a general Greek uprising impending, rumors of a “Russo-Frankish” naval bombardment caused the “Turkish” population of the southeastern Peloponnese to seek refuge in the fortresses of Monevasia, Mystra, and Tripolitza. Indeed, the Turkobarduniotes were so panic stricken that they stampeded the Moslems of Mystra along with them into headlong flight to Tripolitza. The origin of this rumor was the firing of a salute by a sea captain named Frangias in honor of a Maniat leader known as “the Russian Knight.” Some Moslems in Bardunia, and elsewhere, remained as converts to Christianity. Thus almost overnight the whole of the southeastern Peloponnese was cleared of “Turks” of whatever linguistic affiliation. This situation was sealed by the ultimate success of the Greek War for Independence. The Christian Albanians, identifying with their Orthodox coreligionists and with the new nationstate, gradually gave up the Albanian language, in some instances deliberately deciding not to pass it on to their children."

First off, not sure why you deleted the Arvanites participation in siege and events following sentence from the article. Heraclides states that bit outright and should stay. Secondly Andromedas points to Muslim Albanians from Vardhounia heading to and seeking refuge in Tripolitza in sizable numbers. Those people after all did not go anywhere unless you have a source for that and where there for the final onslaught. The Muslims of Tripolitza are idenfitied as having Muslim Albanians at that point in time. I will remove the word Turks as Heraclidies just mentions those communities massacred everywhere as opposed to Tripolitsa outright. Some more clarification is needed then about Albanian Muslim refugees fleeing to Tripolitsa then. When the city fell Muslim Albanians where present. Also the primary source below citing Kolokotronis memoirs states:

"Inside the town they had begun to massacre. ... I rushed to the palace ... "If you wish to hurt these Albanians,"

Kolokotronis, a witness to the events refers to those people as Albanians. I doubt that was in reference the Arvanites, unless there was some kind of loos in translation.Resnjari (talk) 17:46, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I wonder if you ever read the quotes you added: Both of them do not say a word about Albanian defenders being massacred in Tripolitsa. It's also weird that according to your rationale Kolokotronis claims that this so-called massacred inluded Albanians too, in fact he succeeded to save them according to his memoirs. In general you do nothing more than flooding the talkpage with quotes that do not support your point. To sum up you still need to prove that this happenned (and refute Kolokotroni who claims the contrary), instead of wp:ORing.Alexikoua (talk) 18:14, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Those massacred where not just defenders, but civilians. Before i even made additions that was outlined. Like i said all where included in that massacre. Andromedas states outright that Albanian Muslims from Vardounia fled to Tripolitsa. That is cited. I stand by that source and made changes according to that. The other stuff i was referring was already in the article which serves as corroboration since its been discussed. Kolokotronis in his memoirs in that passage does not distinguish from defenders or civilians. All were massacred. None of the sources do, so far used in the article. If you have good sources distinguishing that, use them. Go for it and put them with inline citation like i have done. I am all for it. As for "you do nothing more than flooding the talkpage", again your opinion. This is the talk page designed for discussion of issues like this. I am discussing and showing specific points relating to the matter. Wikipedia states that discussion can be had about a matter if it relates to the topic.Resnjari (talk) 18:31, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

"All were included in the massacre?" I feel you are into deep wp:OR right now. Actually you proved nothing about the fate of the Albanian mercenaries of the city, just speculations that they possibly have been massacred, nothing more the personall obsession to push a national pov. Let me help you about Kolokotronis memoirs about your fictional massacre:["I+was+faithful+to+my+word+of+honour.+I+took+Koliopoulos+from+the+Albanians,+and+gave+them+Giannaki+"&source=bl&ots=uAZYiwwCFx&sig=qhqcqFFvjUrm7qlH825TMIIKAJ8&hl=el&sa=X&ved=0CCEQ6AEwAGoVChMI-ovjmZ3UyAIVhbQUCh0jYAq8#v=onepage&q=%22I%20was%20faithful%20to%20my%20word%20of%20honour.%20I%20took%20Koliopoulos%20from%20the%20Albanians%2C%20and%20gave%20them%20Giannaki%20%22&f=false]

I rushed to the place. The affair of the Albanians had been settled in my tent three days previously. Upon reaching the fort I found that the Greeks were endeavouring to attack those Albanians. "If you wish to hurt these Albanians," I cried, "kill me rather; for whilst I am a living man, whoever first makes the attempt, him will I kill the first." I then went in front of them with my body-guard, and had a conversation with the two leaders, Veli Bey and Limas Bey, and demanded two

hostages on their side, when I gave up their property to them, which amounted to as much as thirteen animals could be laden with. The chief men among all the Greeks had joined in this treaty. I was faithful to my word of honour. I took Koliopoulos from the Albanians, and gave them Giannaki Kolokotrones, Chrystakes, and Basil Alonisthiotes as hostages in his stead.

I ordered Koliopoulos, with three hundred men, to escort them, and he accompanied them to Kalavryta and Vostitsa, and then returned.

It seems that the Albanians you claimed as massacred have been savely accompanied out of the battlefield. I can only hope you stop whith this continuous national pov by claiming that non-existent events were history.Alexikoua (talk) 18:55, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

That's the defenders. The civilians ? Andromedas points to Muslim Albanian civilians from Vardounia ? Do you have information regarding their fate. Heraclides and Andromedas point to the violent destruction of the Muslim civilian population consisting of Turks and Albanians. What of the civilians ? Do you have a source saying they left as well ?Resnjari (talk) 19:19, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

That's the Albanians that were in Tripolis the time just before the siege sucessfully ended. By the way, when an author claims that Albanians were inside a besieged town [[2]] this does not necessary mean that they were massacred after/during the fall of the settlement.Alexikoua (talk) 19:24, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Andromedas refered to the Muslim Albanian population of Vardounia, or some number of them seeking refugee in Tripolitsa and not leaving. I am going through Kolokotronis now and he says that just the defenders are the ones left. Non-combant Muslims remained. What of the Muslim Albanaians from Vardounia. The article before i made additions does not say that anyone from the civilians where spared. If you have a source to the contrary put it up, so there is clarification. Both Andromedas and Heraclides follow on in their sentences that it was both Albanians and Turk Muslim civilians(non-combatants) that were killed throughout these massacres. Also Albanians where lumped as Turk. Andromedas does that tongue in cheek when he refers to the Muslim population as "Turkish" in parenthesis to illustrate that point.Resnjari (talk) 19:33, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Andromedas states that Albanians were inside the besieged town during the siege, but not that they died during/after the siege. Heraclides states about attrocities all over the Peloponesse without mention of Tripolis in this case. There is no claim that links the events of this siege to massacre of Albanians. Apart from Kolokotronis, there is also a British account that confirms the non-massacre: W.H. Humphrey's First journal of the Greek War of Independence:[[3]], based on eyewitness Thomas Gordon:

Towards the end of April 1821 an Albanian chief, Elmaz Bey, had been sent to the Morea to reinforce Tripolitsa with 1,700 men. They left the city during the assault and were allowed to establish their quarters in the camp previously occupied by Kolokotronis. From there they took off for Vostitsa, escorted by 500 Greeks, and then returned to Albania.

There is no claim about Albanians that did not followed their leader and insisted to stay in the besieged town.Alexikoua (talk) 19:52, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Elmaz bey, had troops with him. Where those troops from Vardounia? Unless they were, Andromedas does not refer to soldiers. He refers to civilians. What of the Muslim Albanian civilians from Vardounia ? He places them fleeing to Tripolitsa and being there during the siege. What happened to the civilians thereafter as no source presented so far says that there were Muslim civilian survivors. The sources presented so far by you just say that troops where allowed to leave. Did that deal cover Muslim Albanian civilians? Heraclides especially states that " All the other similar atrocious acts all over Peloponnese, where apparently the whole population of Muslims (Albanian and Turkish-speakers), well over twenty thousand vanished from the face of the earth within a spat of a few months in 1821". He places Muslim Albanian civilians as being victims within the violent events that followed.Resnjari (talk) 20:04, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I specifically addressed the issue about the Albanians in general and refuted your arguments about the massacre in Tripolis. Once again you continue wp:ORING by taking into account events that occurred "all over the Peloponnesee". On the other hand I'm quite precise that this ethnic group left safely the action.Alexikoua (talk) 20:33, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

No you did not. The sources refered to combatants. Andromedas refers to civilians. Big difference. What happened to the civilians ?Andromedas also makes the point to lump Albanians with Turks when he has "Turkish" in parenthesis. What happens to the civilians from Vardounia ?Resnjari (talk) 20:36, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

As scholarship does not cover the fate of the Muslim Albanian population, i will adjust for the time being and remove Albanians. Turks stay. I will also add in a sentance however that Albanian Muslims from Vardounia came to seek refuge in Tripoltisa.

Andromedas doesn't mention the Siege of Tripolis to say it with simple words. I'm afraid you can understand that there is an issue about quality of your arguments. The precise part of Andromedas:

Indeed, the Turkobarduniotes were so panic stricken that they stampeded the Moslems of Mystra along with them into headlong flight to Tripolitza. The origin of this rumor was the firing of a salute by a sea captain named Frangias in honor of a Maniat leader known as “the Russian Knight.” Some Moslems in Bardunia, and elsewhere, remained as converts to Christianity. Thus almost overnight the whole of the southeastern Peloponnese was cleared of “Turks” of whatever linguistic affiliation.

I can't see somewhere Andromedas specifically claiming something about the victims of the Siege of Tripolis. By the way, how you claim that the barduniotes were non-combatants?Alexikoua (talk) 20:52, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I fixed it. They fled there and where present during the siege. Still on a personal note, curious as to what happened to the Albanian Muslim Vardounotes population ? Resnjari (talk) 21:06, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

There is a brief account by T. Gordon about their fate specifically: "The Bardouniotes surrendered themselves en masse to the Mainatts, and hundreds of famished wretches, wandering in search of the vilest aliments, and braving every danger with desperate apathy, and were allowed to herd behind the camp." [[4]].Alexikoua (talk) 21:31, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, interesting. I was just looking before and there is no article on the region of Vardounia itself. What is the proper name of the region in Greek if times permits for writing one up as a starter for the rest to fill in. I keep seeing Bardounia and Vardounia in various Greek sources and in some both ! In Albanian they call it Bardhunj, well that's the form that Fatos Rrapaj recorded from some of their descendants that were amongst the Cham refugees strictly from the coastal villages of Arpica (now: Perdhika) and Arila (Arilas) in Thesprotia. He recalled narratives that some settled there after fleeing the Peloponnese. In songs he recorded from those villages (the refugee population from there, they are the only songs that talk about Bubulima, Ali Farmaqi, Kolokotronis etc. I have also seen conflicting information that they where either local Arvanites who went Muslim or some Muslim Albanians brought later or even a mixture of both populations.Resnjari (talk) 21:40, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

As Gordon clearly stays the Turkobardioniotes surrendered and were allowed to stay out of action. It can't be more clear that they were saved from the events of the fall of the city. In the scope of this article there was no massacre of an Albanian community thanks to Kolokotronis initiative.

However as noticed in the background section a brief explanation is need about who committed the massacre of 1770 in the same city. Any thoughts?Alexikoua (talk) 06:03, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

If you have a good source, add a sentence. Better having it water tight than not. I am going to add the bit from Gordon about the Bardouniot Muslim population.Resnjari (talk) 06:25, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

I would note though that Gordon does say that some of the civilian population that came out before Tripolitza's capture where massacred. He put that passage right after the bit about combatant Albanians leaving. While he still refers to the Turkish garrison as remaining. The matter of the ethnic identity of the Muslim population that got massacred is still open to some question and it cannot be discounted that apart from those killed being Turks that some Albanians would have been caught up in the killing. Anyway for now,the article states its Turks.

p.252. On the 7th, the Albanians, whose presence and menacing countenance began to cause disquietude, received orders from Petro Bey to depart instantly. They marched to the number of 1500, and, being furnished with provisions on the road, and escorted by 500 Greeks, traversed the Morea, and crossed over from Vostizza into Roumelia. On the same day, a sanguinary band, not yet glutted with blood, vented their fury on the families that had come out of Tripolizza before its capture; near 2000 persons, mostly women and children, were massacred in a defile of Mount Manalion. The flower of the Turkish garrison, shut up in the citadel, without food or water, surrendered on the 8th, with the single condition of their lives being spared. Colocotroni took possession of it, and is said to have found there considerable treasure.Resnjari (talk)

No wonder you are still speculating and that is defined as wp:OR and wp:SYNTH. Dreaming & edit-warring about fictional massacres can harm your future in this community.Alexikoua (talk) 08:44, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Also, you still need to explain why you assume that the Albanians from Bardunia were non-combantants.Alexikoua (talk) 09:13, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Now i am going to say to you what i have said to another editor. One refrain from language that can be interpreted as not being in going faith. Words like "dreaming" are not constructive" on the matter. Regarding "harm" veiled intimidation about pursing edits have been made to me by certain editors and here i am. If there is something to be said, say it, if you think something needs to go to arbitration, take it there and i will make my case accordingly. I have held my own so far and will do so well into the future unlike many other Albanian editors. As for Albanians from Bardounia being non-combatants, there is nothing to suggest that they were not though. Andromeos leaves it ambiguous sadly. Unless you have come across something that does day they were combatants, then that's different. Until then neither one nor the the other is ascertained.

I was checking for available data about the 1770 massacre, which still needs some clarification in the background section. One academic work [5], offers some piece of info, however it doesn't clarify the ethnic boackground of the perpetrators:

Για την κατάπνιξη της επανάστασης κατήλθαν στίφη Αλβανών, τα οποία κατέλυσαν το κράτος του οθωμανικού νόμου και επέδειξαν απερίγραπτη θηριωδία. Τις ατυχείς πολεμικές επιχειρήσεις διαδέχονταν πράξεις ωμότητας και εκδίκησης εκ μέρους των μουσουλμάνων, ως συνέβη στην Τριπολιτσά, όπου τη Μ Δευτέρα 29 Μαρτίου/9 Απριλίου 1770 εσφάγησαν περίπου 2000 κάτοικοι. Μεταξύ των θυμάτων ήταν και ο μητροπολίτης Άνθιμος (Βίρβογλης) οποίος ανασκολοπίστηκε μπροστά στο σεράηι με διαταγή του μουσελίμη. Την ίδια τύχη είχε και ο ανηψιός του προεστός Γ. Βίρβογλης, ενώ τ' αδέλφια του τελευταίου Αλέξανδρος, Στέφανος και Νικόλαος απαγχονήστικαν στην αγορά της πόλης. Οι οικίες των εκτελεσθέντων στην Τριπολιτσά εκάησαν και οι περιουσίες τους δημεύτηκαν. Θύμα των Αλβανών υπήρξε το 1779 ο προεστός του Αγίου Πέτρου Ανάγν. Κοντός , παππούς του ομόνυμου απομνημονευτή της επανάστασης του 1821

Although Albanian mercenaries were the ones that created chaos and anarchy in Tripolitsa, the author uses the general term "Muslims" to define the perpetrators of the massacre of 2,000 inhabitants. Thus, it would be not appropriate to claim that Turks or Albanians were the perpetrators, a reader can easily assume that they propably committed these attroticies, but if the reference states something was done by Muslims any change is OR. Thus, you are kindly advised to avoid OR too, especially about this kind of topic.Alexikoua (talk) 09:54, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

If the background is not clarified then the sentence can only state something like the umbrella term "Ottoman forces" without mentioning ethnicity which is what they were in the end. Regarding this last bit you mention, i have made no edits to the 1770 massacre. The author uses the umbrella term term "Muslims" because in Greek sources Muslims are not often distinguished by ethnicity, all are "Turks". As for the sources i brought, within them they already claim that Albanians were in Tripolitsa seeking refugee. What happened to various segments of the population is the question. Those that where defenders of Tripolitsa left. Gordon says something similar about the Vardouniots on page 243:

"The Bardouniotes surrendered themselves en masse to the Mainatts; and hundreds of famished wretches, wandering in search of the vilest ailments, and braving every danger with desperate apathy, passed the lines of the besiegers, and were allowed to herd behind the camp. The Greek soldiers saw with indignation the conduct of their generals, and rightly conjecturing that it would defraud them of the best part of the booty, only awaited the departure of the Albanians to make an attempt upon the place, with or without their officers’ consent."

As Gordon is a primary source however, you are right in removing a small addition i made about the Vardouniots being vouched for. Question is where there any Albanian leftovers. No peer reviewed source so far can fully rule that out yet. It would have to be done through a secondary source. But regarding my edits in general, the ones i made have overall stuck. The article now has information that Avranites where at the siege and massacre, Vardouniots sought refuge there and that the people who where massacred where ethnic Turks. I have done all i can. Whoever now comes across more sources regarding the massacre, even say in Turkish or giving further information about the time of massacre can add. The dialogue undertaken here, gives enormous assistance to future editors who may come across absences that they wish to add if sources are available to them. I am content and I have done my part. As for the other comments you made, I can edit any article and all those policies which you have cited go for you too. I have come across articles where you have been in breach or overstretched at times. Bear that in mind before telling others that they cannot edit.Resnjari (talk) 00:52, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Guess you are out of arguments and you switch into trolling. (I have come across articles where you have been in breach or overstretched at times.). If you have something decent about this article you are free to participate, but edit-warring about fictional massacres reveals an aggresive nature.Alexikoua (talk) 13:14, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Your opinion. I see that your resorting to accusations once again. Words such as "aggresive nature" and "trolling" indicate this. That's ok and thank you. Like i said my edits have stuck and there are examples of what i have said regarding yourself and if the time come will name name in the appropriate settings if need be. If there are any issues of which you think need to be addressed at arbitration please initiate proceedings. Otherwise its just your opinion and commentary once agian.Resnjari (talk) 13:22, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

(on topic) I've checked additional bibliography on the issue. This one [[6]] offers valuable descriptions about the city and Ottoman Peloponnes in general. In p. 359 the author mentions something about the fate of the non-combatant population of Vardounia, that fled to Tripolitsa. (Tel fut aussi le sort de plusieurs individus, surtout de femmes et d'enfants, originaires des contrées de Mystra et de Vardounia, qui au début de la guerre s'étaient réfugiés à Tripolitsa. Après la prise de la ville, ils furent emmenés à nouveau dans la contrée où ils avaient vu le jour, mais pas forcément dans les mêmes villages. Selon toute vraisemblance, plusieurs néophytes, surtout des femmes, se sont déplacés en raison de leur mariage.) My French isn't good, but doesn't appear as a massacre to me.Alexikoua (talk) 13:50, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

That's good. Add it then. Since you came across it, come up with a sentence and put it into the article. Like i have said make this very water tight. Also add a sentence on the 1780s massacre as you came across stuff regarding context. In general to all editors out there though and as i have said in the past i am not doing all the work. Whoever comes across a piece of information that one thinks is in need of addition, they do the bulk of the work with input (if need be from other editors). But its good, as Gordon wont do regarding where i made the edits about Varduniots due to him being a primary source. So in the end the massacre was just of a Muslim Turkish speaking population. PS: In Greek is the region known as Vardounia or Bardounia ? I have seen multiple versions of the regional place name in Greek sources and its confusing as to which is which.Resnjari (talk) 14:09, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

My French is at an elementary level, but it seems that the non-combatant Vardouniotes were assimilated into the local society. As for the 1770 events, the same work (p. 180) offers some detail about the origin of the perpetrators.Alexikoua (talk) 20:30, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to get someone to do me a small favour and do a translation of the Vardouniots thing as for me that edit is important before i make the addition at the end of the week. Regarding the 1770 one, i will leave it to you.Resnjari (talk) 01:10, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Number of civilian casualties

@Leonidas30000: I tried including the link in my rv reason but it was altogether too long and was excluded. Let me include all of it here. Again, per WP:NOTYOUTUBE such lengthy YouTube videos are not appropriate for Wikipedia. Regardless, the segment you forwarded me to refers to the memoirs of Kolokotronis who does indeed mention 32,000 as a number, but this is deemed an exaggeration by both contemporary scholars of his, as well as modern ones. For example, Philemon, Simopoulos, Trikoupis, and Stathakopoulos among others actually consider 10,000 more close to the truth. There is actually a very elaborate article by Stathakopoulos which explains in detail what happened to the non-Christian populations of Tripolitsa. You can read it here, https://www.huffingtonpost.gr/entry/ti-eyinan-oi-moesoelmanoi-sten-ellada-meta-to-1821_gr_5c937c98e4b0d952b22401e5 Demetrios1993 (talk) 21:27, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Ok. Thank you very much for your time and thank you for your information! Ευχαριστώ πολύ!

So-called stable version

Funny how the claimed stable version appears to be mostly the same disputed edit made by a sockpuppet, and certainly was never stable since it was immediately reverted. FDW777 (talk) 18:29, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Massacre of Tripolitsa

@0IAlIOIIAI0: Neither of the two cited sources say anything of Christians being massacred inside Tripoli. You (and whoever wrote it in the first place) probably misunderstood what Andromedas (1976) wrote about the Muslims from Bardunia:

• Some Muslims in Bardunia, and elsewhere, remained as converts to Christianity.

This quote refers to the Christianization of the Muslim Barduniotes that chose to remain. I don't see any quote that refers to a massacre of Christians inside Tripoli. Also, you reverted the reuse of Bowman's reference that i did, which by the way requires an archived URL, since the current link is dead. Please revert yourself. Demetrios1993 (talk) 15:26, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

@Demetrios1993: What you write is not clear. Your edit history and comments (mostly reverts) in the article are also puzzling.

In its current version, the wikipedia text says:

"In the three days following the city's capture, Muslims (Turks and other Muslims) alongside Jewish and Christian supporters of the Ottoman regime, inhabitants of Tripolitsa, were exterminated".

The source says:

"Thus almost overnight, the Greeks cleared the whole of southeastern Peloponnese of "Turks", regardless of linguistic affiliation."

The source's says "Turk" (including the quotes) and also clarifies "regardless of the linguistic affiliation". "Turk" can mean any language speaking supporter of the Ottoman empire without any specific religious context (any religion). The author of the source could have just written "muslim", if desired.

In the same way the source uses the word "Greek", without quotes to refer to the Greek and Albanian speaking anti-ottoman side.

In this context, the current article text, mentioning all potential religious affiliations together with the "supporters of the Ottoman regime" does not contradict this source.

Especially when numerical estimations of victims by religious affiliation is directly provided in the same article.

Nope, the current version says the following:

• In the three days following the city's capture, the Muslims (Turks and others) and the Jewish inhabitants of Tripolitsa were exterminated.

This is according to the cited sources. More specifically on Andromedas (1976) that you mentioned, the use of "Turk" in the quote Thus almost overnight, the Greeks cleared the whole of southeastern Peloponnese of "Turks", regardless of linguistic affiliation, is obviously used in the context of religious affiliation; hence why the quote says regardless of linguistic affiliation. The term "Turk", has been commonly used by non-Muslim Balkan people (which includes the author) to denote all Muslims in the region, regardless of their ethno-linguistic background (not regardless of religious affiliation as you claimed). Furthermore, the use of "Greek" by the author, is written in two obvious contexts; an ethnic one as he describes the demography of the Peloponnese at the time, and a unitary revolutionary one (regardless of ethnicity) as he refers to the instigators of the massacre.

Your assumption that the author might have also referred to Christians falls under WP:OR. Demetrios1993 (talk) 14:43, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

The wider and broader meaning, that appears in the same reference in the wikipedia source to support your assumption has been emphatically ignored. Specifically the same page also mentions {{Turk}}. The term "Turk" has been widely used in the past to refer to the Turkish_Empire which has also been called Turkish_Empire. The fact that the URL Turkish_Empire redirects to the Turkish_Empire strongly supports this. The source comes from a time (1976) where the term was still used, hence the term "Turks" can mean the subjects of the Turkish Empire. In the context, it can mean the supporters or authority holders of the Ottoman empires.

Even if the word "Turk" was used like that, it could have an informal and pejorative meaning, it would be an Ethnic_slur. A use very unlikely to be found in an academic source in English and very old one. Seeing that a similar term was used from 1715 , in particular Turco-Albanians it really evident that this is an old meaning, perhaps only applicable in the context of the Ottoman Empire. The spelling is different too.

Picking this particularly specific meaning over the wider, more formal meaning can only be WP:OR, assumption, or personal preference. In any case, assuming that the word is used as Turk is broader and hence more accurate. Finally, the most precise description and formal approach would be to use the broader possible references in the opening sentence to mention the event and then present the information about the victims. This is because the article is about the siege of tripolitsa. So the first information piece should be that there was a massacre, then present the information on the victims. I would advise that this approach is followed, since you are vigorously patrolling any changes to this article.

First of all, please try and reply properly, per WP:TALKPAGE. Second, the fact that the term "Turk" is used in the context of religious affiliation by the author, is not an assumption of mine. He first presents the demographics of southeastern Peloponnese in 1821.

• In 1821, then, the ethnic mosaic of the southeastern Peloponnese (the ancient Laconia and Cynouria) consisted of Christian Tsakonians and Albanians on the east, Christian Maniats and Barduniotes, and Moslem Albanian Barduniotes in the southwest, and an ordinary Greek Christian population running between them.

Then he speaks of the "Turkish" population of the southeastern Peloponnese seeking refuge in the fortresses of Monemvasia, Mystra, and Tripolitsa. We don't have to guess what he means by "Turkish", since he elaborates in the following sentence of his. He refers to the Turko-barduniotes, which is a reference to the Muslim Albanian Barduniotes that were aforementioned (see here), and adds that they stampeded along with the Muslims of Mystra towards Tripolitsa. So you see, in this instance the term is used exclusively to denote Muslims, which is quite common for non-Muslim Balkanites such as the author (Andromedas).

• In 1821, with a general Greek uprising impending, rumors of a "Russo-Frankish" naval bombardment caused the "Turkish" population of the southeastern Peloponnese to seek refuge in the fortresses of Monemvasia, Mystra, and Tripolitza. Indeed, the Turkobarduniotes were so panic-stricken that they stampeded the Moslems of Mystra along with them into headlong flight to Tripolitza.

We later read that some of those Turko-barduniotes remained as converts to Christianity, and thus the southeastern Peloponnese was cleared entirely of any "Turks"; this is clearly used in a religious context per what was described above.

• Some Moslems in Bardunia, and elsewhere, remained as converts to Christianity. Thus almost overnight, the Greeks cleared the whole of southeastern Peloponnese of "Turks", regardless of linguistic affiliation.

And by the way, it isn't only Andromedas. We have a number of other citations in the section that compliment him. On the other hand, there is not a single citation that describes a massacre of Christians inside Tripolitsa; this is indeed an assumption of yours. If not, find me a source that clearly speaks of Christians being massacred inside Tripolitsa. Last, as you might have guessed already, i don't agree with the proposed change in the lede. Demetrios1993 (talk) 17:18, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

The author has used the word "Turk" in his text and used quotes. Reading between the lines and infering a particularly specific narrow word meaning is by a definition a semantic attribution assumption. Mentioning similar words to support your assumption does not change the meaning of words and is WP:OR, as what you assume is not explicitly written. In any case, assuming that the word is used as Turk is broader and hence more accurate.

What I do suggest is improving the article and looking up sources yourself.

Currently the article is in a bad state and of poor quality. It includes first person narrations and sources quoted in the description and over emphasized religious attributions, while the historical context of the events is poorly described. Detailed ethnographic information available in the sources are not yet part of the article. For instance Christian Tsakonians and Albanians on the east, Christian Maniats and Barduniotes, and Moslem Albanian Barduniotes in the southwest, and an ordinary Greek Christian population running between them.,. 0IAlIOIIAI0 (talk) 07:41, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Even though you got the signature right this time, you still got your indentation wrong by forgetting to add all the necessary initial colons (:); WP:TALKREPLY.

The author used scare quotes, while it is easy for someone to understand he is referring to Muslims based on the description he gives. I am not going to repeat myself on this one. Furthermore, even if someone used "Turks" and "Turkish" in the context of the Ottoman Empire's citizens, we wouldn't be adopting its use in the article per MOS:PROPERNAME; according to which we use proper names that are most familiar to readers of English, and this is already established in the respective article Ottoman Empire, per WP:COMMONNAME. In addition to that, the use of "Turkey", "Turks", and "Turkish" to denote the Ottoman Empire or the Ottomans in general, is outdated, as we read in "Ottoman Maritime Wars, 1416–1700" (2015) by Svat Soucek.

• The scholarly community specializing in Ottoman studies has of late virtually banned the use of "Turkey", "Turks", and "Turkish" from acceptable vocabulary, declaring "Ottoman" and its expanded use mandatory and permitting its "Turkish" rival only in linguistic and philological contexts.

Detailed ethnographic information such as the one quoted above, is irrelevant and out the scope of this article. The scope of this article is the siege of Tripolitsa (Tripoli) and the subsequent massacre of its Muslim and Jewish inhabitants. The aforementioned quote describes the demographic situation of southeastern Peloponnese, which doesn't even include Tripolitsa (located at the center of the Peloponnese).

Again, bibliography is very clear on the fact that non-Christian groups, such as Muslims and Jews, were targeted. This isn't limited to the single source we have discussed, but throughout other citations already present in the article. Another recent source, which for the time being isn't included in the article, is the following, "Islam and Nationalism in Modern Greece, 1821-1940" (2021) by Stefanos Katsikas.

• One of the worst atrocities, in terms of ferocity and number of victims, took place after the fall of Tripolitsa in September 1821. In the words of Alison Phillips: "the other atrocities of the Greeks paled before the awful scenes which followed the storming of Tripolitsa." In the heart of Morea, home to the Ottoman pasha (governor) of the region, Tripolitsa was estimated to have a population of 15,000 people before the Greek revolution that included 7,000 Muslims and 1,000 Greek-speaking (Romaniote) Jews. With the start of the revolution most of the Orthodox Christians fled the town, and the Muslims of the surrounding regions of Mistras, Bardounia, Leondari and Fanari, along with 9,000 Muslim troops, sought protection inside the walls of the citadel. It is estimated that approximately 25,000 souls were inside the citadel in the summer of 1821. Famine, disease, and fighting had thinned the population, yet it is believed that approximately 8,000 Muslims of every age and sex, but mostly women and children, perished when the Greeks sacked the citadel.

If anything, the above source can be used to support both the demographics of the actual city, and the fact that the massacre was focused on its Muslim inhabitants. Demetrios1993 (talk) 16:37, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

You repeat yourself on the topic, but I will try to add clarity and be succinct. The author used a speicific word to refer to Turko-barduniotes. And uses a different, wider term that you particularly assume to have a specific meaning, of your preference. In addition to that, the use of "Turkey", "Turks", and "Turkish" to denote the Ottoman Empire or the Ottomans in general, is outdated, as we read in "Ottoman Maritime Wars, 1416–1700" (2015) by Svat Soucek. If you see the date it says 2015, while the source is 1976. That is arround 40 years earlier. And while the this use is not academic, the use of the word as you assume can be considered informal and pejorative meaning, or an Ethnic_slur. The above are all included in the Turks_(term_for_Muslims).

You repeat and emphasize the religion of the majority of the victims. There is no dissagreement or argument againist that. I had already mentioned that the information concerning the victims should be included. I disagree with what you say that the "The scope of this article is the siege of Tripolitsa (Tripoli) and the subsequent massacre of its Muslim and Jewish inhabitants.". In fact the article is about the Siege of Tripolitsa, which, unfortunately resulted in a Massacre of the People living in Tripolitsa. These unfortunate Tripolitsa inhabitants, were the victims. And information about them can be provided on various aspects. From a religious aspect, from an ethnic aspect from the aspect of their Ottoman Empire or Revolution affiliation, from the aspect of the language that they used and so on. The context of the events is in a multinational, multilingual, multireligious and turbolent environment before Nation_state were established in the area. So giving such an analysisis very suited for this article. Both the current article, your understanding and your response are subjectively focused on the religious aspect of the victims and for some reason you assume that all readers interests will be limited to the religious aspect primarily and only. What is more you assume that all other aspects and categorizations of the population are out of the scope of this article.

I could not disagree more. The article should be well-rounded and cover different aspects. This is why I mention that the quality is low, and needs to be improved. This is why I insist, again that at least in the lead and in the first sentence of the massacre, religious description should be ommited, as they contribute a this subjective aspect.

The article would be improved if anything, if more information about the ethnic, lingual, social, financial or other background of the victims was given on top of the existing facts concerning religion.

It is worth noting for example that the Greek and Albanian speaking side of the revolution killed Greek and Albanian speaking people as well, and it would be highly suprising if in such a massacre no people self-identifying as Christians died. Even if they were not advocates of the revolution. In fact, in such a conflict it would be much easier to identify who is oposing the rebels and who is not, from identifying a person's religion. It would be more objective to assume that all Ottoman supporters were targeted. This is why I insist that adding the information that all Ottoman supporters would be targeted, would be more objective. It would be more objective to simple refer to victims as "Tripolitsa inhabitans" or "Ottoman Supporters of Tripolitsa" and add details later in the article with more analysis on the victims' identity. Exactly because this is an article about the "Siege of Tripolitsa" and not about any particular religion or religiously related, partial and subjective view. Why for example not add the language of the victims and their ethnic details also in the lede? Why their religion is more important? In fact, since the majority of the Ottoman Empire population followed a Muslim religion, the religion of the victims should be of no surprise and provides little information.

Hence I do repeat, that the article is of all quality, and does not equally describe all aspects of the subject. The part describing the actual siege is very small and the tragedy of the massacre over-emphasizes the religious aspect of the victims. In such a large empire with so many languages and heterogenous population and mostly common religion. This subjective presentation is at least partial.

Furthermore, I could not help noticing that you contradict yourself saying that "Detailed ethnographic information such as the one quoted above, is irrelevant and out the scope of this article" and that "The aforementioned quote describes the demographic situation of southeastern Peloponnese, which doesn't even include Tripolitsa (located at the center of the Peloponnese)." while at the same time, a few lines before, you have used the same quote yourself to falsely support your assumption that the author gives a related ethnographic description in this region, so you can furher support your assumption about the word "Turk". This again supports the view that the author could, in fact mean that all Ottoman supporters died regardless of their language (as he says) and their religion, that is not explicitly excluded.

Please note, that this is a separate and different point from the above, calling for more details on the article.

0IAlIOIIAI0 (talk) 15:24, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

You are repeating yourself, thus making me address the same things all over again, which is a waste of time; we are moving in circles. Regarding Soucek (2015), just because he writes in 2015 that the use of "Turkey", "Turk", and "Turkish" to denote the Ottoman Empire/Ottomans, is as of late virtually banned among the scholarly community specializing in Ottoman studies, it doesn't mean that these terms were the main terms even decades ago, let alone the real meaning behind Andromedas words. And just to end it here with Andromedas (1976), regardless of what's your opinion on the meaning of the terms "Turkish" and "Turks" in his quote, it is irrelevant, because in the end he doesn't directly discuss the victims of Tripolitsa, but of southeastern Peloponnese.

The cited sources repeat and emphasize the religions of the victims, not me. Furthermore, you may disagree all you want about the scope of the article; the sources are very clear. Namely, the Muslim and the Jewish inhabitants were the ones targeted. Why didn't you touch upon Katsikas (2021) that i shared above? He actually talks about the massacre of Tripolitsa and the identity of its victims; it is believed that approximately 8,000 Muslims of every age and sex, but mostly women and children, perished when the Greeks sacked the citadel. He doesn't say anything about a massacre of Ottoman Christians, nor does any other source in the article; this is purely an assumption of yours. If not, then show me a reliable source that says that Ottoman Christians were targeted as well during the sack of Tripolitsa. There is nothing subjective in stating the obvious fact that Muslims were targeted because they were Muslims. We have a whole article about the persecution of Muslims during the Ottoman contraction. Here is another source talking about the identity of the victims; namely "Terrible Fate: Ethnic Cleansing in the Making of Modern Europe" (2013) by Benjamin Lieberman; page 9:

• The fall of the Turkish fortress of Tripolitsa in the central Morea on October 5, 1821, brought the single worst massacre of the war. ... At least 8,000 Muslims and Jews died at Tripolitsa alone.

Yet you insist that in the lead and in the first sentence of the massacre section, any mention of religion should be excluded? Give me a break.

You also say, that the Greek revolutionary forces killed Greek-speaking and Albanian-speaking people. Which citation in the article says that Greek-speaking people were killed by the Greek revolutionary forces?

I contradict myself? I merely discussed the use of "Turkish" and "Turks" by Andromedas, who is already cited in the article. I didn't add Andromedas, and to be honest, this citation doesn't directly pertain to the victims of the massacre inside Tripolitsa. In fact, this citation has to be replaced by something that does pertain directly to the massacre of Tripolitsa, such as the two recent sources mentioned above; Lieberman (2013) and Katsikas (2021). Even the quote of Heraclides (2011) is problematic and needs to be cropped, since only half of it is relevant to what is being discussed. I will fix these tomorrow. Last, even though the article has some issues, such as typos and the need for more citations (there are multiple {{Citation needed}} tags in the article), it is still mostly ok. For example, you addressed a need for additional aspects that have to be mentioned. These aspects are already mentioned under the Background section; there is nothing more to add in that regard. Demetrios1993 (talk) 23:29, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

You repeat yourself and add/include a lot of citations, completely out of the context of what I discuss.

Subject: Usage and meaning of the word "Turks". You contradict yourself when you assume at first that the same sentence is applicable to the context so you can support your assumption and at the same time you suggesst that the same sentence is not applicable to describe the ethnic mosaic of Tripolitsa because the author does not refer to the region.

Even the headline of this discussion you entered is about Christians? Please read more carefully and focus on what is being written than your assumptions.

You are moving in circles, repeating yourself providing some "citations" with no point. Why on earth do all these citations about justify the need to view everything from a religious point of view? Again, what you say is above *There is nothing subjective in stating the obvious fact that Muslims were targeted because they were Muslims. Is particularly wrong. The majority of the victims were Muslims, however your assumption that the reason of the siege and conflict was the religion of the inhabitants of Tripolitsa is completely wrong and misleading. The whole article is written in a similar, religious centric, tone that is far from accurate and neutral.

The siege of Tripolitsa, also called the fall of Tripolitsa (Greek: Άλωση της Τριπολιτσάς, romanized: Álosi tis Tripolitsás, Greek pronunciation: [ˈalosi tis tripoliˈt͡sas]) also known in Turkish sources as the Tripolitsa massacre (Turkish: Tripoliçe Katliamı)

The event is labelled as "Tripolitsa Fall" by the "Greek" side, and "Tripolitsa Massacre" by the "Turkish" side. So what does the author mean with "regardless of linguistic affiliation" what was the language of the victims? Why is this not included in the text? Why isn't this information on the lede? As far as, anyone with elementary knowledge of the era can tell the word "Turk" can also mean In Greece and in the Greek language, the same belief was held about Turks_(term_for_Muslims), that they had essentially "become Turks", while tourkalvanoi ("Turco-Albanians") became a common term for Muslim Albanians who had been a significant minority in the country.

The cause of the conflict was a struggle of power for dominating Tripolitsa, which was the capital of the Eyalet of Morea. This info, unfortunately is not included in the article. Assuming that the cause of the siege was the victims religious beliefs is completely absurd.

To add evidence to the fact that the article is not neutral and of low quality, while it is titled "Siege of Tripolitsa" the events of the siege take approximately 9 lines, while the massacre spans over 27 lines. Including raw sources, repetitions and is at large limited to the presentation of the victims religion.

Yoy say that:

• The scope of this article is the siege of Tripolitsa (Tripoli) and the subsequent massacre of its Muslim and Jewish inhabitants.

I disagree, you subjectively restrict the scope of the project. The scope of the article, is the events of the Siege/Massacre of Tripolitsa. And the more rounded and neutral the presentation, the better the article is. What is more you excluding other information about the victims as "off-topic" in accordance to this assumed scope and further assuming that the cause of the Siege/Massacre of Tripoli was the religion of its inhabitans. You say *There is nothing subjective in stating the obvious fact that Muslims were targeted because they were Muslims. includes assumptions on the causes of the siege. Please, take into account and keep in mind that there is no dispute regarding the religion of the majority of the victims. You keep citing resources that say that. This is known and expected for Tripolitsa, the capital of an Ottoman Eyalet of Moreas. This is why other, information regarding language, ethnicity, social status, economic status, would greatly contribute to tell the story of the victims.

However, currently as stated before, the Massacre paragraph takes up the majority of the article, thus it would be wiser to add more information to other sections first.

In any case, it would be really good if you put some effort to improve the article. Please keep in mind, that not every change increases the quality.

0IAlIOIIAI0 (talk) 10:50, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

I include citations, because what you discuss falls under WP:OR, and as editors here in Wikipedia, the content we add has to be verifiable through reliable sources. Furthermore, the title of the thread was referring to Christians, because that was the original issue, per the edits you were making (diff1, diff2).

I never claimed that the reason of the siege was the religion of the inhabitants of Tripolitsa, but that in the subsequent massacre, non-Christian groups such as Muslims (majority) and Jews (minority) were targetted; that's what i wrote above, and is supported by reliable sources. By the way, the reason of the siege was that Tripolitsa acted as the administrative centre of the Ottomans in the Peloponnese, and contrary to what you write, it is already mentioned in the article, under the "Background" section; Situated in the middle of Peloponnese, Tripolitsa was the pre-eminent town in southern Greece and the administrative centre for Ottoman rule in the Peloponnese, which made it an important target for the Greek revolutionaries. Many rich Turks and Jews lived there, together with Ottoman refugees, such as Turks and Albanians from Vardounia (Βαρδούνια), who had been driven there by the outbreak of the revolt and escaped massacres in the country's southern districts.

You also write the following, So what does the author mean with "regardless of linguistic affiliation" what was the language of the victims? Why is this not included in the text? Andromedas (1976), which is the source you refer to, doesn't describe the massacre of Tripolitsa, nor its victims; that's why it will be replaced by more relevant citations. The quote "regardless of linguistic affiliation" by Andromedas, is a reference to the Muslim refugees of southeastern Peloponnese. Again, as shown in the previous quote i shared, and contrary to what you claim, it is also already included in the article.

You write the following, the article is not neutral and of low quality. The article is fine from a WP:NPOV perspective. Furthermore, of course it isn't considered a featured article, but that doesn't make it of low quality; it is normal. I have no problem with its expansion, but personally i don't have the time to do it properly. Look for example how more detailed the respective Greek and French (happens to be a WP:FA) articles are. For now, a good remedy for this would be to add the respective translation template (Template:Expand Greek), in case someone has the time and the will to work on it.

You write that [t]he scope of the article, is the events of the Siege/Massacre of Tripolitsa; this is no different from what i wrote. Furthermore, i already told you that my reference to Muslims being targeted pertained to the massacre, not the siege. You also write, regarding the majority of the victims being Muslims, that [t]his is known and expected for Tripolitsa, the capital of an Ottoman Eyalet of Moreas. Not really, because if you look at the more detailed Greek article, it says that Muslims made up approximately 1/4-1/2 of the town's population prior of the siege, and if you look at Katsikas (2021) that i shared above, with the start of the revolution, most of the Orthodox Christians fled the town, while the Muslims of the surrounding regions of Mystras, Bardounia, Leondari and Fanari, along with 9,000 Muslim troops, sought protection inside the walls of the citadel. Demetrios1993 (talk) 13:06, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the scope of the article. If we agree that is OK, your original choice of words was different and included religious affiliations that were interpreted as filters to specific victims. After looking into the greek version, I must admit that mentioning any potential Christian minorities would not be beneficial. Even if Andromedas description does not specificly exclude any, or if his description would allow someone to infer that there may be some there, as it was previously written. However, on the other side I think that the lede and the massacre first sentences could be improved. From the greek article one can infer that the massacre was targeted againist the population left in the city. Which happened to be on the Ottoman side and from a religious perspective, mostly of Muslims and Jews.

However, some information on their language and ethnicity would help. If I find, I will add them when I have time. One example from the greek article, that could demonstrate why this was interesting is the following. δύναμη των ενόπλων ήταν 10.000 άντρες, Αλβανοί, Ασιάτες και Πελοποννήσιοι Οθωμανοί. which translates to "The armed forces (of the city) were 10.000 men, Albanians, Asians and Peloponnese Ottomans". The greek version also mentions that the leaders of the armed forces were all Peloponnesian Ottomans. To my understanding it would be more interesting to

To the causes I would add looting, and payment.(these are also mentioned in the greek version) As another cause we can identify the lack of discipline of rebels, as sources claim that all attempts of the officers in command to stop the massacre falled short. Finally it was worth noting that many of the rich citizens, managed to pay their way out of Tripolitsa.

Most of this information is missing in the english version, you are correct. But what is also correct is that the english version massacre section is currently focused on the religious aspect.

Regarding the information for Tripolitsa, it is alluded, but not explicitly mentioned that tripolitsa was capital of the Eyalet. I did see this information, but that section can definitely improved with more clarity.

I did not notice when you started this talk section and why, I noticed it when I answered and I only noticed the title today. I did, at some point noticed that you removed an older text refering to population of Christian religion. I do agree now to this removal. I though the discussion was more related to the overall massacre section and updated the title. I hope you agree, if not please feel free to change it as you see fit.

0IAlIOIIAI0 (talk) 14:39, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Let's move forward and leave Andromedas aside; he might not explicitly exclude Christians, but then again, he doesn't even refer to the victims of Tripolitsa's massacre, but the refugees of southeastern Peloponnese. Furthermore, we have sources that explicitly state that the victims of the massacre were Muslims and Jews.

I have no problem with the additions you proposed. Just share here exactly which parts you want to be added, and i will translate them myself, if they are short enough. As for the lede, ok, let's follow the example of the Greek article and include something like the following:

• Following the capture of the city by the Greek revolutionary forces, a massacre of its population occurred.

I even excluded the mention of the victims' religious affiliation, even though it is explicitly stated in the sources.

As for Tripolitsa being the administrative center of the Ottomans in the Peloponnese, i don't know what can be added to provide more clarity, other than maybe including it in the lede, at the end of the first paragraph. For example:

• Tripolitsa was an important target, because it was the administrative center of the Ottomans in the Peloponnese.

I have no problem with the change of the thread's title, since the subject of our discussion became more broader than what was originally expected. Demetrios1993 (talk) 15:10, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer. I completely agree, lets move on. There is also no dissagreement about the religion of the victims and the fact that it is cited.

I also completely agree to the change you propose to the lede regarding that part.

Regarding Tripolitsa - I agree for the lede addition,it is succinct enough. The backround could be enhanced with the following:

• Tripolitsa was the capital of the Morea_Eyalet since 1786. The Morea Eaylet was a first-level province of the Ottoman Empire, centred on the Peloponnese peninsula in southern Greece.

This is to give some information, on why the Tripolitsa importance. After the first sentence of the backround, that describe Tripolitsa as an "administrative center". Which is correct, more generic and easier to understand by the reader.

Regarding the parts of the greek article that could be prioritized for this article. A first candidate could be the first part of "Πολιορκία" which translates to "Siege". I copy hereafter, hope this is OK. They are relevant since they describe the siege itself, which is really fitted for the title and give some quantitative and qualitative properties of the parties involved in the event. It also provides some insight on sequence of the events regarding the siege. This is not a small part, and it also has the extra challenge of non english sources.

Τέσσερα μεγάλα σώματα πολιορκητών σχημάτιζαν ημικύκλιο γύρω από την Τριπολιτσά. Το αριστερό κατείχε ο Κολοκοτρώνης με 2.500 άντρες, το δεξιό ο Γιατράκος με 1.500, το κέντρο με 1.000 ο Αναγνωσταράς και πίσω από το δεξιό και το κέντρο βρισκόταν ο Πετρόμπεης Μαυρομιχάλης με 1.500 άντρες. Οι δρόμοι προς Άργος και Λεοντάρι φυλάγονταν από 150 και τριακόσιους άντρες αντίστοιχα.[30] Αρχιστράτηγος ανακηρύχθηκε ο Πετρόμπεης[23] υπό την υπέρτατη ηγεσία του Δημητρίου Υψηλάντη, αλλά πραγματικός αρχηγός ήταν ο Κολοκοτρώνης.[31]

Μέχρι τον Αύγουστο λάμβαναν χώρα ακροβολισμοί μεταξύ των εμπολέμων, στους οποίους υπερτερούσαν οι Έλληνες όταν είχαν ν’ αντιμετωπίσουν το πεζικό των Τούρκων. Αλλά κι όταν επετίθετο το ιππικό τους, αποσύρονταν στους πρόποδες των βουνών και πάλι προξενούσαν βλάβη στους Τούρκους προστατευμένοι από την μορφολογία του εδάφους.[32]

Τον Αύγουστο μαθεύτηκε ότι ο Κιαμήλμπεης θα μετέφερε ενισχύσεις και πολεμοφόδια στην επίσης πολιορκούμενη Κόρινθο. Ο Κολοκοτρώνης διέταξε κι ανοίχθηκε τάφρος (γράνα) πάνω στον δρόμο που θ’ ακολουθούσαν οι Τούρκοι, αλλά ο Κιαμήλμπεης δεν βγήκε τελικά. Βγήκαν όμως στις 10 Αυγούστου πάνω από τέσσερις χιλιάδες Τούρκοι και συγκέντρωσαν άφθονα τρόφιμα από τα γύρω χωριά. Στην επιστροφή τους προσβλήθηκαν από τους ενεδρεύοντες στην τάφρο Έλληνες, υπέστησαν βαριές απώλειες και όλες οι τροφές και τα ζώα έπεσαν στα χέρια των πολιορκητών. Η μάχη αυτή, της Γράνας λεγόμενη, έφερε σε απόγνωση τους πεινασμένους ήδη Τούρκους.[33]

Τέλη Αυγούστου έφτασε από την Μασσαλία με πλοίο του ο Σκώτος φιλέλληνας Τόμας Γκόρντον, με Έλληνες και φιλέλληνες εθελοντές, τρία πυροβόλα και εξακόσια τουφέκια. Αλλά το πυροβολικό των Ελλήνων πολύ μικρή ζημιά μπόρεσε να προκαλέσει στον εχθρό, παρά τις προσπάθειες των ξένων εθελοντών, μεταξύ των οποίων και ο Ρεϊμπώ.[34]

Τότε ο Υψηλάντης, και ενώ είχαν ήδη εκδηλωθεί επιδημίες στην πόλη, πρότεινε παράδοση της πόλης υπό ευνοϊκούς όρους, αλλά αυτή απερρίφθη υπεροπτικά από τους Τούρκους.[35]

Στις 26 Αυγούστου διαδόθηκε η φήμη ότι ο τουρκικός στόλος έφερνε στην Πάτρα 10.000 στρατιώτες για απόβαση, ενώ στην πραγματικότητα είχε μόνο 1.000 Αλβανούς.[36] Δεδομένου ότι υπήρχε φόβος ότι τα στρατεύματα αυτά θα ενίσχυαν την πολιορκούμενη Τριπολιτσά, ο Υψηλάντης εξεστράτευσε στον Κορινθιακό κόλπο με 500 άντρες του Κολοκοτρώνη, μεταξύ των οποίων ο ανιψιός του Αποστόλης και οι γιοι του Πάνος και Γενναίος. Ο Οθωμανικός στόλος αγκυροβόλησε στη Ζάκυνθο, εφοδιάστηκε από τις ουδέτερες Αρχές του νησιού και στις 7 Σεπτεμβρίου κατέπλευσε στην Πάτρα. Περί τα μέσα Σεπτεμβρίου έγινε απόβαση 700 Αλβανών του στόλου, οι οποίοι μπήκαν στο εγκαταλελειμμένο Αίγιο και το κατέκαψαν, ενώ διασκορπίστηκαν σε όλη την επαρχία λαφυραγωγούντες. Στις 19 Σεπτεμβρίου ο τουρκικός στόλος έπλευσε προς το Γαλαξίδι, όπου αιχμαλώτισε 34 πλοία, κατέστρεψε τα υπόλοιπα, έσφαξε λίγους γέροντες που είχαν μείνει στην πόλη και την έκαψε. Τελικά όμως ο στόλος δεν ανακούφισε τους πολιορκημένους της Τριπολιτσάς. Σκοπός του ήταν να διευκολύνει την μετάβαση στρατευμάτων προς την Πελοπόννησο αλλά η εκστρατεία αυτή απέτυχε λόγω της ήττας των Τούρκων στην μάχη των Βασιλικών.[37] Εν τω μεταξύ παραδόθηκαν στους Έλληνες τα φρούρια της Μονεμβασιάς και του Ναβαρίνου.

Δεδομένου ότι «η εκ περάτων της Πελοποννήσου υπερσωρευθείσα πληθύς ηπείλει διαρπαγήν γενικήν» κατά Φιλήμονα, αποφασίστηκε ότι οι στρατιώτες, οι οποίοι δεν είχαν πληρωθεί από την αρχή της πολιορκίας, θα λάμβαναν τα δύο τρίτα της λείας ενώ το υπόλοιπο ένα τρίτο θα πήγαινε στο Εθνικό Θησαυροφυλάκιο.[38] Η μοιρασιά μεταξύ των ανδρών θα ήταν ισότιμη: η οπισθοφυλακή θα λάμβανε όσα και η εμπροσθοφυλακή. Μερίδια είχαν προβλεφθεί ακόμα και για τις οικογένειες των νεκρών κατά τη διάρκεια της μάχης. Παράλληλα θεσπίστηκαν ειδικές αμοιβές για κάθε αιχμάλωτο Τούρκο,[39] ενώ μέχρι τότε πληρώνονταν μόνο για τα κομμένα κεφάλια που έφερναν στο στρατόπεδο (τρεις πιάστρες). Οι Κεχαγιάμπεης, Κιαμήλμπεης και άλλοι επίσημοι Τούρκοι επικηρύχθηκαν.[38] 0IAlIOIIAI0 (talk) 14:46, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

I will add the proposed changes to the lede and the "Background" section. As for the part from the Greek Wikipedia that you shared above, it is rather long and incomplete in terms of the "siege"; in reality it also includes the subsections "Οι Τούρκοι σε απόγνωση", "Οι όμηροι", "Οι επίσημες διαπραγματεύσεις", and "Οι ιδιωτικές συμφωνίες". Thus, despite the fact that i don't have time to make a translation of the above text right now, it would also leave the narrative of the "siege" incomplete. Demetrios1993 (talk) 01:28, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for making the edits. I agree, the more information added to the siege, the more complete it would be. It might also be OK to start with some content and increase gradually. The content is not small. 0IAlIOIIAI0 (talk) 12:20, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Siege

I believe that more details must be given for the siege (that is the title of the article) .The massacre must be described in a diferrent article. Jestmoon(talk) 16:49, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

calendar

I suspect that 23.09 is on the julian calendar, since I have two books with the dates 23.09 and 05.10. pietro 151.29.78.113 (talk) 19:13, 18 March 2024 (UTC)