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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

"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)

@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)

@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)

@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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)