Jump to content

Talk:Chios massacre

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Sources

[edit]

Here are 3 sources: one from the Chian Federation of America [1] which say 80-90,000.one from a non greek site ,that claims nearly 100,000 [2] and one from Chios island,not a historic one,but a commercial one that talks about 100,000 [3].i am giving the last link,not that i consider it reliable,but for the only reason that Inanna also based her number in a commercial site. (message by Hectorian)

Interesting links. But I must confess I have big difficulties with the numbers: summing all, we get a population for Chios in 1822 of about 117.000, while in 2005 Chios plus Psara have 53,817. And what's more its modern density (59.5/km²) is perfectly in line with the nearby islands, Lesbos (51.2/km²) and Samos (56.7/km²), so it can't be called underpopulated. In my opinion, it is difficult to believe that such a small island could support even 50,000 in the early 19th century, let alone about 117,000. Aldux 19:27, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I provided these links as a balance to the underestimations that 'tortured' this article for quite a long time by Inanna.the most reliable source for the Chian massacre is Frangomichalos,whose number is the one incuded in the current version of Khoikhoi.The links i have given here are most propably refering to the total fatalities,including those who were taken as slaves,and those who perished after the massacre,but as a result of the massacre.Frangomichalos' number is the number of the massacre itself,and i think that this one should remain in the article.u are right,the Psara massacre happened in 1824,as a punishment for the Psarians who had a very powereful fleet during the Greek war of independance.it happened for another reason and on another year,and u are right again in listing it seperately,relying also on reliable sources.

Just to tell u some things about the greek islands;-)all the greek islands nowadays are underpopulated.only in summer their population rises by far!Chios had 120,000 in the XIX century and all the nearby islands that u mentioned had more or less a same population density.shipping and trade had made them very rich during the Byzantine,Genoese and Ottoman periods,and capable of supporting a large population.immigration,mainly to athens,and to australia and the united states has reduced their population by far.--Hectorian 19:50, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

None of the pages you posted show sources. You can't use a page that doesn't show a source as a source. 2 pages are pro-Greek and one is an edu page. Here is all that writes in that page about Chios:
"Massacre at Chios, Turks slaughtered nearly 100,000 Greeks."
Anyone can create a page on a university's server, it doesn't make it credible a research, it doesn't show any genuine sources.--Kagan the Barbarian 13:13, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I said above why i provided these links and that they are not talking about the massacre as an event,but also include its effects.therefore,they cannot be used here,and this is why i said that Frangomichalos is the most reliable and an expert on the subject.so,the number of this historian is used in the article.--Hectorian 13:36, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hahhahahahahah, have you ever looked at the picture, of course to Ottoman rider ? Was he an Ottoman rider ? Secondly, a picture cannot be sources for your claim. First sentence is realy stupid, after beginning of war, then I can say ' Hey, it was a war, people die at war.' please be a resonable people. come onnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn--TuzsuzDeliBekir 20:51, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is a painting of Eugène Delacroix,one of the most famous European painters (in case u do not know him).the painting shows how much shocked were the Europeans cause of the Chios massacre,and it is not used here as a source.Lastly,i hope that u are aware of the differences bewtween war,massacre and genocide...cause if u are not,i can give u some examples...--Hectorian 02:17, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In here there is another opinion [4] Mfyuce 13:12, 26 September 2006 (UTC)mfyuce[reply]

I deleted some parts of the article since they lack credibility and writtten by greek nationalist sites which are far from being objective.. Instead i put references to another greek site.--laertes d 12:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"when Turkish soldiers began the massacre of thousands of Greeks around the Ottoman Empire. In one of the most notorious occurrences, the Chios Massacre during 1822, about 42,000 Greek islanders of Chios were hanged, butchered, starved or tortured to death;"

When did Ottomans kill thousands of Greeks in 1821?This sentence looks like written by a kid.Except fighting against the Greece, can you show me which Greek populations were killed at those years?--Jagatai Khan 13:39, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

End while Chios's population is 53.000 even today, how can you claim 120.000 people were massacred?--Jagatai Khan 13:46, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is good that you notice this remarkable fact-- every Greek schoolchild learns that the population of Chios has not recovered to its pre-revolution amount!!! AlexiusComnenus 23:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What "every Greek schoolchild learns" is an interesting study in cultural politics, but does not constitute a WP:Reliable source; please find better sources. See Yannis Hamilakis's article "'Learn History!': Antiquity, National Narrative, and History in Greek Educational Textbooks" (in K.S.Brown and Yannis Hamilakis, The Usable Past: Greek Metahistories) for an interesting discussion. --Macrakis 19:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This sucks..when Turkish soldiers began the massacre of thousands of Greeks around the Ottoman Empire..I have a guess about your age now.Don't put your own dramatic imaginations to wikipedia--Jagatai Khan 13:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It sucks indeed, mainly because it sounds like a piece of plagiarism from somewhere. Can somebody do a clean rewrite from scratch? Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If we were to listen to the Turks, it would be as if they had never committed a massacre of any kind, and that they are the world's eternal victims.--NeroDrusus 20:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just like how Greeks never committed a massacre in Tripoli and how the Israeli did not kill any civilians in Gaza flotilla attack? You don't have the right to just ignore all the atrocities committed against Turks just because you are white and Christian. Mintalcup (talk) 10:28, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can we remove the POV tag? Could someone make some concrete suggestions as to what is not POV? AlexiusComnenus 20:19, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well if you clear the article from provocative statements, POV tag can be removed.(like refers to when Turkish soldiers began the massacre of thousands of Greeks around the Ottoman Empire.)--Jagatai Khan 15:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That statement is hardly POV-- it is attested in numerous sourced, see this article Massacres during the Greek Revolution. Greek civilians were killed in Constantinople, Crete, Smyrna, Cyprus, the Aegean, the Peloponnese... pretty much everywhere they lived. This is well attested by the sources. AlexiusComnenus 19:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~ The massacre of chios was well documented. If you are trying to revert history and are claiming it didn't happen or only happened in an environment of war, well you're not going to be successful. The chiotes did nothing to instigate the attack. The fact that the Turks were neither peaceful nor merciful is blatantly obvious since they conquered and enslaved people that never asked to be enslaved. The fact that the Greek fought hard for their freedom and were victims to mistreatment, has also been documented by historians and third part witnesses. It was not the first time the natives suffered at the hands of the invading Turks. by ApplesnPeaches ~~

What does it mean `nope` Kekrops? Have you ever heard that when you want to delete something you have to provide a pretext for it? And nope is definitely not one..Plus, you seem to still not realize the purpuse of having citations, they are not to be changed according to POV of some editors, do not modify them the way you want..im going to rewrite that intro a bit..--laertes d 18:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The St. Clair (mis)quote, replete with spelling and grammatical errors, is only there to push your specific Turkish POV, namely that the Greeks were better off under the Turks. It is hardly likely that the inhabitants of Chios were motivated by any such political considerations, other than their own security and prosperity. All the rest regarding "Europeanizing Greeks and undisciplined Moreotes [sic]" and what not is blatantly POV and cannot be presented as indisputable fact. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 09:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is POV but it is not my Turkish POV, it is William St. Clair`s POV, who happen to be non-pro turkish writer who write on the subject of greek revolt..There wasnt any misquotation, it is just what he wrote..Im going to reput them kekrops, youre not here a censure committe to decide what is appropriate or not..--laertes d 14:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And what would a "pro-Turkish" writer have written in your view, if St. Clair doesn't fit the bill? That the Turks had a moral duty to slaughter every Greek on the island? Please. Regardless, his POV is no more valid than any other author's. And it definitely should not be presented as fact. A simple reference should suffice; quoting him verbatim (well, you try) to push your own POV is a violation of WP:UNDUE. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 14:28, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kekrops, he is a notable historian and his expertise is about greek history not Turkish one..He uses as his references not Turkish sources but Greek and European ones..Is it enough i guess for labeling him as non-pro Turkish...Problem here is, you yourself dont want to see in these articles anyting that is in conflcit with your POV. In the absence of anything else, a non-pro turkish academical source is certainly going to be cited..--laertes d 14:42, 21 September 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Cited, not quoted. Selective quoting to promote a particular POV is against policy and will not be tolerated. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 14:48, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

there isnt any `selective quotation` Kekrops, read for yourself:

St. Clair p. 79

File:Chioss.jpg

So the "atrocities" committed against the Turks were nothing more than the destruction of a few mosques? OK, I'll restore that bit. Also, care to scan the pages where St. Clair describes the massacre? ·ΚέκρωΨ· 15:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems they couldnt find much Turk in Chios, unfortenetly that wasn`t the case in other places where Greeks had the control of the area..Still, as you can see there isnt any misquotation..--laertes d 15:25, 21 September 2007 (UTC) I can later add some data about it, i dont have the necessary pages now..--laertes d 15:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I bet you don't. Your book has pages missing, does it? ·ΚέκρωΨ· 15:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i dont have the book right now with me, thats the problem..As you may notice the page that i scanned is actually a photocopy of the book..--laertes d 15:35, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that you planned on editing an article on the massacre itself, it is intriguing to say the least that you photocopied only those pages relating to the prior events. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 15:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i photocopied these pages months ago, when i hadnt any plan to edit this article, but while working on the atrocities committed against Turks..Anyway all this thing is beside the argument we`re having..If you really want so much i can add some data about the massacres later..--laertes d 15:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

�:I think this article has enough St. Clair. He seems to be a favourite of yours. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 16:32, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Laertes uses St. Clair as some authoritative source-- he is just one anti-Greek historian! AlexiusComnenus 23:40, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, he is not anti-greek at all..He wrote the history of Grek revolt, based on Greek and European sources..If you want i can use other historians of the Greek revolt, like George Finlay or Alison Phillips..--laertes d 09:26, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kekrops tell me now what is your trouble with adding the citation, i showed you that the citation exist and there is no problem with that..--laertes d 09:28, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting tiresome. I have made it clear that selective block quoting to push your POV is unacceptable. Why quote that part of St. Clair only and none of the other sources describing the savagery of the Turks? ·ΚέκρωΨ· 23:35, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, it is not a blockquote but a mere citation..Article already mentions about the massacre, and if you want to add something then add it yourself, am i holding your hands?--laertes d 11:08, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

people of Mastichochoria and the mastic trees

[edit]

by the Genocide in the Greek island of Chios were able residents Mastichochoria in South - West Island rescued thanks to the Mastic tree crops which produced the resin Mastic was worth the weight of gold that was used by the sultan and the harem wives also served as a valuable material for export of the Empire note octet. man who was stolen the Mastic was executed by the order of the sultan. פארוק (talk) 07:33, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

remarks

[edit]

1. there is no mentioning of turkish casualties when armed greeks come to the island and "attacked" turks. 2. no mention if the turks, who were attacked initially, were unarmed and civilians. 3. "civilians" on an island belonging to an ethnic group, under the jurisdiction of an empire, does not necessarily constitute an part of the empire itself. no mention of their roles on the island but they may have been civilians. off the record: all unnecessary killing is awful.85.102.185.199 (talk) 14:21, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Started tagging article before I read these notes. The article is less than precise. This is the trouble with pov editing by one side or the other. You don't get a balanced picture.
The island was part of the Ottoman Empire whether the inhabitants liked it or not. In those days, you didn't get to vote. Sometimes, not even nowdays.
The Turks who were initially attacked were most likely civilians, or at least "non-combatants." (maybe police or bureaucrats, but this sort of thing gets out of hand fairly quickly, regardless of the aims of the perps when they first started).
Like today, it was difficult to tall the difference between Greek terrorists and "innocent" Greek civilians. Back then, they didn't much care. No "Geneva convention." Or they could have rounded up everybody, brought them to court, then executed them! It was their court, after all! A little hard measuring a different time. We are here today having learned the lessons that were taught yesterday. If they hadn't learned the hard way, we would. Better them than me.
The main thing here is to get it right. Most of the info we have is from Greek partisans. We don't need Turkish partisans to offset it. We just need clearer facts, most likely from neutral European historians. Student7 (talk) 21:30, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I let the new counts stand since they do account for "enslaved" which hadn't been done before. No reason they are more reliable, however. They appear less reliable. I also re-added the old .edu citation with a lower number. More reliable even if they don't account for enslaved. Student7 (talk) 22:56, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quality of sources

[edit]

It is sad that such an important event in the history of Greece is documented here on Wikipedia so poorly. Web sites like chioshistory.gr, christopherlong.co.uk (a personal web site), qgazette.com (a local newspaper in Queens) are not reliable sources. The Open University article is about the Delacroix painting, and not a useful source for the history of the event. The Living Age article citation is incomplete (no volume/year). --Macrakis (talk) 02:39, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Villatina Massacre which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 21:13, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Chios massacre. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:53, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chios massacre. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:59, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

blogs are not reliable-especially when unreferenced!

[edit]

www.chioshistory.gr - is not a reliable source - another editor has already tagged this - something this significant will be in standard, scholarly references - if the statement is NOT backed up by reliable historians, then it should go - any subject matter experts here with valid sources? otherwise, this must go - and very soon (a couple of days) 50.111.8.107 (talk) 00:45, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look here --> https://digitalcommons.unf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1021&context=ahis_facpub - this paper includes references; University of N. Florida 50.111.8.107 (talk) 00:58, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chios_massacre&oldid=1204121548"