Talk:Massacres during the Greek War of Independence

Article Form
The article has not a balance. Although the facts are presented, the paragraph about mas. of Greek explains very briefly the events. On the other hand the mas. against Turks are described with every detail, exact comments from sources are stated in every single event. Comments from historians that lived 60-70 years after the end of the Greek Revolution are mentioned, and I don't see the main idea about being so detailed, considered that outdated sources are usually less reliable. According to wiki standards 'W. Alison Phillips' 1897 notes should just be part of the footnotes and not the main article. If a wikipedian disagrees, I'm open to hear. But if the outdated comments are stated with every detail on the article what should we do with statements of the same year and place of the events? Alexikoua (talk) 11:19, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Totally agree. Even if the excerpts of these two authors Phillips & St. Clair are genuine and accurate and not what some wanted them to be to serve their purposes, there are other sources more original reliable and contemporary of the events. Take for example General Makriyiannis. He too talks about the massacres of the Peloponnesian Turks and the liquidation of their assets. Maybe we can replace these with his account of the events. Beickus (talk) 02:52, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Janissaries
Exactly what does the destruction of the Janissary corps have to do with a massacre (interpreted as the slaughter of civilians)? Or with the Greek Revolution, other than chronological coincidence? It is interesting, but to my view not pertinent to the article. Regards, Cplakidas 18:14, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Again nothing but Greek nationalist POV imposition..--laertes d 20:36, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Better provide sources laertes, where they are asked, or else these particular sentences will be removed. as for the Janissary massacre, i think its notability is obvious: since the sultan did not care about the lives of his own soldiers, imagine what did he think about the lives of the Greeks... Hectorian 20:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

i provided sources as yo can see..--laertes d 21:14, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

And as another user had said janissary corps had nothing to do with this article..--laertes d 21:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Laertes stop vandalizing this article, you are really ruining it. If you want to make changes please use the talk page, and we can vote on things. 74.134.238.58 21:16, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

for heavens sake vote on what? youre deleting sourced infortmation--laertes d 21:19, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

On the structure of the article, which you keep vandalizing. You are the one deleting sourced information-- for example on the Turks slaughtering Greeks in Patras and Kalamata. This shows your inherent biases. Stop ruining this article with your trash. This is not your personal forum to slander Greece. 74.134.238.58 21:21, 11 May 2007 (UTC) im not vandalizing anything you just keep deleting my sourced information, in the lasy change i didnt remove anything..--laertes d 21:36, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

and im rewriting intro which is obviously POV..--laertes d 21:40, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Can someone please explain to me why we need all these long quotes on the massacre of Tripoli? There are three or four, I could understand having one, but as it is I think there are too many. Please give some reasons for their need, maybe we can move them to wikisource. AlexiusComnenus 01:13, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Em, to return to my original question, "since the sultan did not care about the lives of his own soldiers, imagine what did he think about the lives of the Greeks" is neither accurate nor directly relevant. The Janissaries at this point were a direct threat to the Sultan and his reformist ministers, having already thwarted Selim III's reforms. In Greece Mahmud II may be remembered as a tyrant, but it was him who also began the Ottoman Empire's long-overdue Western-style reforms. Now, one could say that the Sultan did "massacre" the Janissaries, but this has still nothing to do with the Greek Revolution. Regards, Cplakidas 06:00, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Repeated Content
A lot of content is repeated due to Laertes' edits... I see absolutely no reason to have two sections dealing with massacres in the Peloponnese, most of which have content which is copied verbatim. AlexiusComnenus 23:28, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Alexius, you seem to be trying to whitewash things, please either merge them to the section in the right way, or revert (and where the heck did we get this north to south order? it seems arbitrary, temporal/semi temporal order should be better). That massacre section was shortened without any consensus and here we have this. I am starting to loose my faith in you, I thought you were trying to do constructive edits to improve Wikipedia, but maybe you are not. Also, it is not a good practice to demand explanation for edits from some people and not demand explanations from others (including yourself) for about the same edits. As almost nobody discusses anything (or ends things with almost no discussions) I might really revert the main article (Greek war of independence) at least back to Politis' version. Anyway, I am going to sleep now. You might need to change that new section at least a bit there, try and introduce the meaning of the words earlier, and make it a subsection. The article is there for the Wikipedia readers, not for Greeks only, not for Albanians only, not for Turks only, not for scholars only. DenizTC 01:42, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Deniz, I am not trying to whitewash anything. I am only attempting the portray things in a balanced and orderly manner. Certain users (Laertes) are trying to overstate the importance of massacres of Turks in the Peloponnese, and most of my edits have been aimed at repeating duplicated information and moving repetitive quotes. No doubt these events happened, and they should be mentioned, but there exists absolutely no reason for this article to be centered around massacres of Turks in the Peloponnese. This was but one massacre amongst many that took place during the war, and it was not as influential as say for example, the massacre of Chios which great influenced European public opinion.

As for temporal or semi-temporal order, please refer to the talk archives on the "Greek Revolution" page. There is a vast debate on this, and it caused quite a bit of confusion. Also, it creates many problems-- for example, the Turkish razing of Patras occurred in April, 1821, but the Greek massacre at Tripoli occurred in 1822. The massacre of Chios occurred in between these events. To a reader unacquainted with Greek geography, things will be quite confusing. Also, where do we place the events for which we do not have dates? The confusion between Gregorian and Julian dates only adds to the problems of a chronological system as many historians do not specify which types of dates they are using. Finlay, for example, uses Julian dates largely despite being an Englishman.

Let's all try and use the talk page before we make any edits other than fixing typos etc. so we can try and reach a consensus. Cheers, AlexiusComnenus 20:00, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Alexius, these so called administrators may not be dealing with your vandalisms and nationalist point of view impositions but that doesnt mean your acts are not vandalism, im reverting the section to its previous order in which you didnt delete sourced materials..--laertes d 22:30, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

And im going to rewrite this POV impositions intro..--laertes d 22:32, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

And i put Delacroix's painting about the Chios massacres near Chios massacre section..--laertes d 22:41, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

for gods sake use serious sources for the massacres, Putham home encyclopeia is certainly does not fit in the category..--laertes d 22:46, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Really Laertes, for Christ's sake, you just got banned for this nonsense. Please stop vandalizing this article, and use the talk page. AlexiusComnenus 01:56, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

What do you feel is POV and nationalistic? Please mention specifics. I think that the article is great in its current form, so lets use it as a template and debate specific things that you want changed. Let's discuss in a rational way, not just edit and revert which is pointless.

Also, please, lets be civil. Name calling and reverting accomplishes nothing. As I said, I think you are giving unfair attention to massacres of Turks in the Peloponnese given that they were part of a larger whole.

I am only attempting the portray things in a balanced and orderly manner. You are trying to overstate the importance of massacres of Turks in the Peloponnese, and most of my edits have been aimed at repeating duplicated information and moving repetitive quotes. No doubt these events happened, and they should be mentioned, but there exists absolutely no reason for this article to be centered around massacres of Turks in the Peloponnese. This was but one massacre amongst many that took place during the war, and it was not as influential as say for example, the massacre of Chios which great influenced European public opinion. AlexiusComnenus 02:42, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

At leaast this section has top deal with the massacres in Peloponnese in a decent way, stop your cheap little games nobody is buying them, only because these so called administrators dont do anything about you, thats the problem..--85.100.197.27 10:28, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

According all the historians massacres in Peloponnese started with the outbreak of the revolt and all the quotations that i have been using is coming from credible and often from the sources who has no such a great sympathy for turks, stop deleting sourced materials in the article..i am not touching at all to parts where massacres by Ottoman was being talked..--laertes d 12:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Plutarchos you should give your reasons to delete sourced information, intro is clearly POV imposition, instead of keep reverting the articel first make proposals about the changes that i made..--85.100.197.27 15:27, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Please, no personal attacks.

Your statement that all historians claim that massacres started with the outbreak is patently false, Brewer and Booras disagree with this statement for example.

Anyway, the way the article is currently organized we are managing things geographically. Would you like to put it to a vote whether or not we should organize things geographically or chronologically? I prefer the former for the reasons mentioned above. AlexiusComnenus 16:13, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I think there has to be only two sections in the article one for Turkish the other for greek massacres, otherwise i can open sevral other sections for greek massacres as well, Masssacre in Navarino, massacre in Missolonghi, massacre in Athes,etc..--laertes d 10:13, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Except that those places are already covered in the various other regions... please do not ruin this article as you have ruined so may others. Currently it is a good article.

You shouldn't change the title of the section as it covers ALL massacres in the Peloponnese, including those of Turks butchered Greeks such as in Patras and Kalamata. AlexiusComnenus 18:52, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Alexius it is nothing but another example of your POV imposition, i want a decent mention about the turks massacred in the region there is nothing wrong with that. do i change anything about the massacres Ottomans committed? no. The only thing that disturbs you with my edits is that i change the name of the section to "Massacres of turks" thus making the massacres committed against turks visible..you want them to be invisible, thats the problem we are having..--laertes d 19:59, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

My edits have nothing to do with POV or my wish for invisibility, rather they have to do with fairness and Wikipedia policy. There are two problems with why I do not want the name changed: 1) In every other section, we are not saying "Massacres of Greeks in Constantinople" or "Massacres of Greeks in Smyrna, Crete, etc." Do you think we should do this? 2) The massacres in the Peloponnesos were not only of Turks. For example, in 1821 the Turks ravaged Patras, and a few years later Ibrahim Pasha burned Kalamata to the ground. There were many Turks, Greeks, Albanians, Jews etc. killed in the Peloponnesos, as well as the rest of Greek inhabited Ottoman Empire during the time period.

For these reasons, I am reverting the name change. Please keep in mind that if you revert again, you will be over the 3RR.

CheersAlexiusComnenus 01:08, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

What i suggest is quite clear, separete the article in two section one deals with the massacres of greeks the other with the Turks..--laertes d 07:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

This makes absolutely no sense, Turks were only massacred in a small region of the Peloponnese. Furthermore, you include Jews and Greek prisoners of wars in your section on massacres of Turks in the Peloponnese. You know very little on the subject, and are completely ruining this article, please desist from your edits. AlexiusComnenus 20:25, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually no, according to main body of scholarship Turks were massacred in Navarino, Missolonghi, Tripolitza, Athens, Vrachori, Monemvasia and elsewhere..I think there has to be a separete section ffor each of these massacres as there is one for turkish massacres..--laertes d 20:41, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Great, I'm glad we have an expert on Greek geography here.

All of those places are in the Peloponnese except for Athens and Messolonghi, which are in Central Greece. Put information in the correct geographical area. How can you call the section on the Peloponnese "Massacres of Turks" when it includes Ibrahim Pasha burning Kalamata to the ground and slaughtering the Greeks there?

Stop trying to ruin this article! You are over the 3RR. AlexiusComnenus 17:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

The St. Clair quote on Turks, Albanians and Jews ceasing to exists as settled communities in the Peloponnese is false and it contradicts other sources. There were Jews and Albanians (Arvanites) left in the Peloponnese after the revolution. St. Clair is not an expert on his subject, his book is on Philhellenes and hences he should not be trusted as an authoritative source on all aspects of the Greek revolution, just Philhellenism. AlexiusComnenus 19:14, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

He is an expert in greek history, especially in the 19th century, and what he says is supported by the jewish virtual library and also other main works of scholarship on the Greek revolution..The geography lesson you provided gave me a good idea about the situation in Athens and Messolonghi, i guess it can be opened separete sections for them.. --laertes d 19:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

We have reached an impasse-- I like the older system or organization, and you seem to prefer the newer version. Should we have a vote or something? I really think we should have the article organized by region, not by ethnicity, because it was not only Turks that were massacred in the Peloponnese. AlexiusComnenus 22:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

You want what you always wanted and that is to amke massacres commited by Greeks as invisible as possible, section is cool without you touching it..--laertes d 22:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Alexius, i'd like to know by what standards St. Clair, a historian, is not an authoratative source for this article, but the Belfast Times, The Scotsman, Christian Science Monitor etc are authoratative sources on the Greco-Turkish war? For the record, I really am sick of all these massacre articles, but you are clearly applying one rule for your own edits, and another for Laertes. --A.Garnet 09:43, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Alexius we discussed this issue innumerable times, article has to have at least two separete sections about the massacres committed during this period, one for Greeks and the other for Turks..what`s your problem with it? Plus you now deleted a large properly sourced content from the article..If you continue in arguing that massacres committed against Turks were somehow were less bad or there were less casualites, keep in mind that it is your private opinion which is not shared by the historians of the Greek revolt..--laertes d 21:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

You are applying a double standard. Whereas the massacres of Greeks cover large regions of Greece, other than Constantinople, a major city, you are creating large sections for massacres the occurred in villages. It is simply a matter of parity. Sorry if I deleted sourced content, I will look over it tomorrow. AlexiusComnenus 21:35, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Major works of historians, like history of greek revolution written by George finlay, Alison Phillips, William St. Clair, all of them talk about these separate massacres in separate headings..Problem here is, as has always been, you dont want the massacres committed by greek revolutionnaries to be seen..Youre against creating a separate section, thats the problem not anything else..--laertes d 21:40, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay fine, but we can't have separate headers for each village in which Turks were killed, without having separate headers for each village, town, city etc. in which Greeks were killed. This is why I have merged the sections.

Think rationally, can you really justify having separate headers for Vrachori and Navarino, which were villages, whereas we don't have separate headers for massacres on a much larger scale committed in Chios, Psara, Patras, Smyrna, Missolonghi, Kalamata etc., all of which are islands or cities. We need to have parity, and your solution would just make the article a collection of headers with sentences. AlexiusComnenus 22:02, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

they were not in a larger scale, and there were massacres against Turks in Patras, Missolonghi, Kalamata and elsewhere, and we also dont have a section about these massacres.. --laertes d 19:41, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

suggestions
We should get rid of the blockquotes (laertes, please) and I don't like the separation into 'massacres of greeks' and 'massacres of turks'. We should remove those section titles, and then increase heading level for each subsection. I don't know whether the order of sections will be good. I did not check the content very well, either. DenizTC 16:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Denizz, sorry i dont agree, we need these separations in order for this article not to turn into a battleground of who massacred worst and most..you may have noticed that each and every citations and blockquote that i used in this article are from the works of historians who had written the history of the greek revolt..They basically based their writings on Greek and European sources without any contribution from Turkish ones..The fact of the matter is Turkish civilian population was massacred to the point of extinction during these massacres, so it has to be clearly pointed out..Alexius` claims that they were some small villages, and more greeks than Turks were massacred are simply not true according to various sources used in the work..Athene is not a village alexius, right? --laertes d 19:35, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

They most certainly were on a larger scale, although numbers are hard to obtain exactly Chios was 30-80,000 according to the various sources, and Psara was 8-20,000 (look at the sources.) In Asia Minor 25,000 perished, and in Constantinople 30,000 and in Cyprus 10,000. On the other hand, the only massacre of Turks which numbered in the thousands was at Tripoli (between 15-30,000). Please explain to me how you think it is acceptable that there is one section for the Aegean islands, where on only two islands between 38-100,000 Greeks were killed, while we have seperate sections for Vrachori and the Acropolis where, according to your sources, less than 2,000 Turks were killed. This is just not parity, it is Turkish nationalism.

All of the places you just mentioned are in the Peloponnese or Central Greece. Feel free to include whatever you like, as long as it is verifiable, about them in the relevant sections, but I do not see any justification to have a separate section for every village. It just makes the article look ridiculous and detracts from a neutral point of view.

For the reasons above, I will revert, and let me remind you that you are over your one revert rule. AlexiusComnenus 15:21, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I generally agree with Deniz. AlexiusComnenus 15:22, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


 * My dear Commenus, youre like the last person on earth to speak about the evils of `nationalism`..Tell me which reliale source states that 30.000 Greeks were killed in Istanbul?..According to Putham`s home encyclopedia?..It is true that there was a massacre in chios, but it was the largest of them..In Psara the entie population as i said was about 7.000...Plus, in Navarino, Athens, Missolonghi or elsewhere massacre of Turks reached thousands according to sources i cited(All of them being based on Greek and European sources, without any contribution from the Tukish ones)--laertes d 16:52, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, Chios was certainly the almost certainly largest massacre perpetrated by either side during the Greek Revolution. I'm glad we can agree on something :)


 * The sources for the massacre of about 30,000 Greeks in Constantinople are as follows (you could have easily checked this yourself, by the way):


 * -The British and Foreign Review: Or, European Quarterly Journal, The late Revolution in Greece, p.244
 * -Fisher, A History of Europe, pg. 882 (which states that the entire male population of the Greek quarter was exterminated, although he does not give a precise number this must have been in the tens of thousands)
 * In Athens, according to your sources, the death toll was about 1,150 (some of them soldiers), in Navarino, 3,000 according to your sources. There is no sourced content about Turks killed in Messolonghi in this article, is you have it, add it. Missolonghi is in Central Greece, you can add any information in that section. Tripoli was a more general massacre as was stated above, but it is in the Peloponnese as part of a general pattern so it can just be written about in that section. I
 * If you combine the events at Athens, Navarino, Vrachori, and Monemvasia there are less than 5,000 casualties, which is about a sixth the minimum Greek death toll of Chios, or the death toll at Constantinople. Yet the Chios massacre does not have it's own header, while you insist on a header for Vrachori, which was a small village in which the death toll was little over a hundred.
 * It is a simple historical fact that the Ottomans butchered far more civilians than the Greek revolutionaries did during the conflict, please do not distort history.AlexiusComnenus 21:45, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I disliked the last comments of both of you, you should try and behave in a better way against each other. Anyway, the number of people killed does matter on separating into sections but not entirely. I see that we even have long articles on those 'village' massacres. Those definitely don't deserve their own section less than any other massacre mentioned. I am for having those sections and maining to to their articles with small summary. Alexius, you started this article, and you should be more open to suggestions on things like arrangement of sections. Laertes, you should be more careful while putting your suggestions.. Anyway Alexius can you please comment on the number of people on that place being less than the ones being massacred. I did not see your answer to that, and that is a crucial thing. Also Laertes said that "The fact of the matter is Turkish civilian population was massacred to the point of extinction during these massacres", that is an important point as well Lets try and use : before the paragraphs for indentation. It is quite hard for me to read these in this way.DenizTC 23:30, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Which place are you talking about? What is the crucial thing? For me the crucial thing for defining headers is region, as that is how we have been doing it for some time. In my opinion, headers should be reserved for regions not individual villages, islands, etc. as it would just be too ridiculous to have a header for every village or island. The exception to this rule in my organization was Constantinople, as to my knowledge it was the only city in the region (Thrace) where massacres were carried out.
 * I think the current format is pretty much fine. Sure, it is true that Turks and other Muslims were driven out of the territory held by Greek rebels (Peleponnese and Central Greece.) This is mentioned in the article, as it should be. I fail to see the point.

AlexiusComnenus 23:36, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I was talking about the talk page, sorry for not being clear. I would appreciate very much if you guys indented paragraphs on the talk page using ':'s, I am having problems reading them. Coming to the place of the 'crucial thing', I remember it being mentioned on this talk page (or maybe another one), but I cannot recall which place it is where the given number of massacred was supposedly bigger than the given number of total people atm, sorry. DenizTC 03:12, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Returning back to this number issue, Alexius massacres started in the countryside all over the Greece, and within weeks more than 20.000 people were already killed..The specific instances of massacres were committed against people who had takne refuge in these cities..(And They are towns not villages)..--laertes d 08:47, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Peloponnesian Turks
Laertes, can you please explain to me why you think that any of the content I moved should not be in the Peloponnese section? All of those massacres in fact took place in places in the Peloponnese. AlexiusComnenus 09:06, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay i let them in the Peloponnese section..However, there is nothing wrong with having a subsection with each separete places where the massacres occurred..In fact this is how major works of history dealed with these massacres.Finlay, Alison Phillips all have mentioned of these massacres for about one page, so it is not asking too much to have these massacres a small subsection in this article..--laertes d 10:34, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there is something wrong!!! It makes the article look ridiculous! Should we have separate subsections for every island, village etc in which Greeks were killed?

I am not disputing that any of these events occurred, what I am saying is that we should not have a separate subsection for every locale, if we did that for the massacres of Turks, we would have to do that for massacres of Greeks, so there would end up being 30 or 40 subsections in this article, which would just be totally ridiculous! AlexiusComnenus 15:02, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Interestingly enough the sources that i have been using does not say that there would be a need for that much separete sections for the massacres of Greeks as you have been claiming. Plus, neiher Vrachroi nor Navarino are villages..And i also didnt include ever single town where massacres had occured against Turks but simply have chosen some of them for this article..So stop reverting..--laertes d 18:33, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * alexius im not doing any single editing in the section about the massacres committed against Greeks even though it was largely created by some unreliable sources..I expect you to do the same, just dont touch to this section, all right? --laertes d 18:38, 7 October 2007 (UTC)-laertes d 18:37, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Please answer me this question-- how can you justify a separate section for Vrachori, when there is not a separate section for Chios? Please just explain your logic.

Vrachori is most certainly a village, when did you become an expert on Greek geography?

I will revert again because I cannot see any logic in your structure. If you rerevert you will be over the 3RR so stop edit warring. I absolutely refuse to consent to the way you want to order this article, and will gladly accept to moderation. AlexiusComnenus 15:40, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

alexius as i keep telling this is more or less the order how major works of history about the Greek revolution approched the issue of massacres committed in that period, so i absolutely see no reason why it shouldnt be adopted in this article..About your question, chios massacre has a separate article of its own, i guess that makes more than having one section..
 * Please respect my proposition and just stop editing this section of this article as i am not making any single edit about the atrocities committed by Turks..All information are factually correct and properly cited and none of the source mentioned are pro-Turkish..--laertes d 18:47, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Vrachori
Our history expert Alexius claimed that: `Vrachori is most certainly a village`

And this what a real historian who wrote the history of Greek revolution wrote: Vrachroi was the most important town of Western Hellas. It contained, besided the Christian population, some five hundred Mussulman families and about two hundred Jews.

W.Alison Phillips, The War of Greek Independence,1821 to 1833,New york,1897, p. 57

--laertes d 19:18, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Give me a break, Vrachori the most important town!!! Obviously, as any Greek person can tell you, this source must seriously lack credibility if it is claiming that Vrachori is a town, much less the most important town... The name Vra-chori even shows that this is a village, hori is village in Greek. Unless the name was changed, Vrachori cannot be an important center-- just do a google search, you will find nothing on this alleged place (I am not even sure if it exists! AlexiusComnenus 20:31, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Now you started to have arguments with academical sources Alexius, i must say it is flattering for me as it shows that i have always been on the right side... :)

Oh btw, see what i found dear expert, it seems with all your hard line nationalism and self-acclaimed expertise on history, actually you dont even know the history of your own country..


 * Agrinion is the largest city and a municipality of the Aetolia-Acarnania prefecture of Greece, with about 100,000 inhabitants (57,174 official population) home to around a quarter of the prefecture's population. The settlement dates back to ancient times. In medieval times and until 1925, the area was known as Vrachori or Vrahori (Βραχώρι).--laertes d 20:57, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh okay, sorry, I didn't know the Ottoman name for Agrinio. Agrinio is a well-known place. I apologize for not knowing the older variant of the name.

Please assume good faith and do not insult me in line with Wikipedia policies.

Congrats, though all your efforts, you have succeeded in showing that the Agrinio/Vrachori part should be in the Central Greece section rather than that of the Peloponnese :) AlexiusComnenus 14:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Sigh..No alexıus, ı actually succeded in showing that Vrachori is major greek city and that it deserves a separete place of its own in this article..Athens also is not a village, ı assume..--laertes d 15:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

No, the only major cities inhabited by Greeks at this time were Constantinople, Smyrna, Thessaloniki and Alexandria-- actually Athens was quite small during this time period, 5-10,000 people max.

Again, please answer me why Agrinio would deserve a separate section, while places with large populations, where more were killed, such as Chios, Missolonghi or Kalamata would not? AlexiusComnenus 19:09, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Mainly, because this is how major works of history dealt with the issue of massacres, for instance George Finlay only mentioned about the Navarino massacre in two pages, naming the section as `Navarino Massacre`.. And chios massacre has even its own article, are you resenting that it doesnt a section of its own?
 * Comnenus, most of what you wrote is poor sourcing with highly exaggerated numbers, there wasnt a massacre in Istanbul in which 30.000 people were killed, none of the serious academical sources do mention of such large scale occurence of massacre in there, but still im not changing that section..

The point is not how large these cities were but the reality of the brutal massacres which occurred there..I still cant see on on what grounds are you defending of your position that we shouldnt mention about these massacres on their subsection..Because some exaggerated numbers provided by some un-academical sources that you used dont mention as much as they do about the massacres committed against greeks?--laertes d 20:22, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

It is interesting that you consider the European Quarterly Review, a peer reviewed academic historical journal which cites the number of 30,000 Greeks killed in Constantinople, as an "unacedemical" source...

No one is disputing that these massacres took place--

The question I am asking, which I repeat, why should every city, town, village etc. where Turks were killed have a separate section, whereas every city, town, village, island where Greeks were killed should not? I think we must have one standard to which we create subsections, at to me the logical standard is by region, not my town.

Do you agree with me that we have one standard for both massacres of Greeks and massacres of Turks? AlexiusComnenus 21:05, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay Alexius, lets follow your lead then, lets make this article according to region not to the town..So far i havent done much in the section about the massacres of Greeks, but using your logic im adding Crete and Cyprus to the Aegean Islands and constantinople to asia minor sections..Crete and Cyprus are the islands in the Aegean and Istanbul is part of what is called to be Asia minor...--laertes d 20:10, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * No, they're not. Cyprus is in the Mediterranean, not Aegean, and Constantinople lay mostly in Europe. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 07:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Exactly as Kekrops said, just look at a map... AlexiusComnenus 18:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Istanbul is part of what is called to be Asia Minor, when the name was coined as such, was there a thing called Europe? Crete is an island in the Aegean and cyprus is an island in the Meditarenean..im changing the name of the section to islands in the Aegean and Meditaranean then..
 * Janissaries have no business in an article about the massacres of civilians..--laertes d 18:49, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Neither do `prisoners of war` has anything to do with this article, the entire section is unsourced, and it is another piece of cheap propaganda..Article is not about how bravely fought these near-imagery characters of yours, Athanasios Diakos or other people..Add these to the main article if you want..--laertes d 19:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there was the term Europe when the term Asia Minor was coined. These are all classical Greek terms, the Ancient Greeks divided the world into three parts, Europe, Asia and Africa. Asia Minor was the part of Asia next to Greece, also called Anatolia (which means East in Greek.) The term Asia Minor is never used to reference Europe.

The Aegean and Mediterranean seas are different bodies of water, and geographically Cyprus is pretty far from Crete.

Massacring prisoners of war is still massacring people, so it should be part of this article.

Please remember that Wikipedia is not your personal playplace, and it please discuss such changes you want to make on the talk page as these are contentious issues AlexiusComnenus 20:46, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

alexius what are you talking about, there is a sea between greece and turkey, and these massacres took place in that sea, call it whatever you want to call it..according to your own standarts, it would be enough to have one section for these events..Actaully you know what, there were massacres Greeks committed in these islands against Turks, do you want me to mention about them, since you keep adding every irrelevant thing into this article..--laertes d 20:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

alexius wrote: `Please remember that Wikipedia is not your personal playplace, and it please discuss such changes you want to make on the talk page as these are contentious issues`


 * You created this article, and if i havent done any single editing this article would be nothing but your own Greek nationalist propaganda, you seem to not understand that you shouldnt use `undo` button so easily you are supposed to improve the editings not delete them on your own..Jannissaries has no place in this article, some greek users also said at the beginning that they dont think it is appropriate to have it in this article..--laertes d 20:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

comnenus wrote: `The Aegean and Mediterranean seas are different bodies of water`

Obviously history is not the only topic you seriously lack knowledge about, Aegean is part of Mediterranean, it is not separate sea from it..The entire sea that covers the southern europe and northern africa is called Mediterranean...--laertes d 21:06, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Laertes, please speak to me in a more civil tone. I do not appreciate rudeness.

1)I'll discuss the Janissaries thing with you tomorrow or Sat when I have more time.

2)Can you agree that massacring POWs should be in this article? There are some mentions of Greeks massacring Turks who surrendered, should those be deleted as well in your view?

3)Okay, we can try to compromise about Mediterranean, would you be okay with separate sections for the Aegean and one for Crete and Cyprus?

4)And do you agree that, obviously, Constantinople is in Europe?

Cheers AlexiusComnenus 22:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Sigh..Istanbul is a city, a town, and according to your own standarts comnenus we dont have separate sections for cities but only for regions..So you have to find a region to fit that city in, and Asia Minor is the most appropriate one, since it has been part of waht is called Asia minor..
 * In my view comnenus, there shouldnt be a separete section as POW. Add what you wish in already existing sections..
 * Janissaries have no place in this article..They were ottoman soldiers not civilians...
 * No i dont agreee with separate section, there is only one sea, and it is called Meditarenean, A egean is part of it...--laertes d 08:04, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

(interfering in this debate) The Aegean Sea may be part of the Mediterranean, but historically can be considered separate (since the Cycladic culture, Aegean can be seen as separated culturally from the rest of the Mediterranean). As for the Janissaries, they may had been ottoman soldiers, but they were all but Turks in descent. They can be treated separately, since most of them were Rums, or at least Eastern Orthodox in ancestral faith origin (origins of their forefathers, if you prefer). Myrmidon7 01:16, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * That still doesnt change the fact that they were soldiers of the Ottoman Empire and not civilians..--laertes d 01:43, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Civilians turned up to be soldiers by force, do not forget that. Constantinople does not belong to Asia Minor as you proposed above. Constantinople (modern Istanbul) is, geographically speaking, European. Historically, it can be discussed separately, due to its significance. Myrmidon7 01:53, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

And that partial truth also doesnt change the fact that they were soldiers, not civilians..--laertes d 02:43, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Massacres of Turks
I think, why not renaming every article about a battle or a fall of a city into massacre? This way the article in the "see also" of the subsection of "Massacres of Turks" named "Massacre of Tripoli" would justify its name, despite the fact that it is named Fall of Tripolitsa in its respective article. If not, maybe we should rename Fall of Constantinople into Massacre of Constantinople (4 centuries before the events in Tripolitsa, and with 10 times more victims, surely justifies the "new proposed" name). In addition, the article Navarino Massacre, also linked before the said section is like coming out of a turkish schoolbook; not only no city is known as Navarino in Greece today, but Pylos (which, I think the article refers to) was not an important enough part of the Greek war of independance. If my fellow turkish users want to call "massacre" every battle or capture of city in Greece by the Greeks in 1821-1831, then, I am aloud to talk about the massacres of: Efessos, Magnesia, Smyrni, Pergamos, Trapezounta, Amissus, etc, etc, etc. Sourses exist to base arguments in similar and better ways than a supposed "Navariono massacre". Gimme the green light to create the said articles, if articles like the latter will continue to exist. Myrmidon7 01:53, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

None of these materials are coming from Turkish school books, but from basic academical works written in the English language..All these books that i`m refferring to do mention of these events as `massacre`, so there is nothing wrong with calling them as such..
 * Funny thing here is that, actually we have to call `massacre of Chios` article as `siege of chios`, since we cant name the massacre that took place in Tripolitza as a massacre, but as a `siege`..
 * Plus, in all these massacre Turkish population living in these towns were exterminated by the Greeks..Therefore all these massacres deserve to be propelry mentioned..

--laertes d 02:24, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I think this can be explained by that statement in the lead: "As a rule Ottoman actions were fully reported in Europe with all the gruesome details whereas Christian atrocities were ignored" DenizTC 13:18, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I want to insist on having a temporal order and getting rid of those massacres of Greeks/Turks section headers. Any reason to why we should not do these? DenizTC 13:18, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah-- there was a lot of fighting earlier on about this. Please read the talk page for the article Greek War of Independence where this was discussed. I think it was generally agreed that a temporal ordering was way too messy, as well as confusing since most readers aren't all that well acquainted with Greek geography. I think that a geographic ordering is the best way to go. AlexiusComnenus 18:26, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually it was not messy at all, and there isnt any agreement since you build this article on your own Alexius to push your POV and i didnt agree with it but simply i didnt want to initiate an edit war for this thing.. let me translate what Alexius meant with `messy` denizz, that means putting first the massacres committed against the Turks, since first massacres began just with the outbreak of the revolt, and our Alexius certainly doesnt want massacres of Turks to be mentioned first..Thats the whole issue..

Returning to our current dispute, let me point my reasons for deleting the Jannisaries section:
 * 1-Janissaries are not civilians
 * 2-The whole section is unsourced
 * 3-It is another piece of miracle writings of yours Alexius, written by outmost POV language, with sentences like these `By 1826, the once elite corps of Janissaries, who were descended from Christian children that were kidnapped and forced to become soldier-slaves`..

About Istanbul, you said it yourself that we should not have separete section for cities but only for regions, and Istanbul is a city but not a region, thus should be incorporated into one existing section, Asia Minor being the most appropriate one..--laertes d 20:18, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

There was a HUGE mess the last time we tried to do things chronologically, and I think that if it is tried it will make the article totally unreadable.

The Janissaries were descended from kidnapped Christian children, this is a historical fact, not a point of view. The Janissaries were massacred during the Greek revolution, I don't see why this shouldn't be mentioned. The Sultan would also massacre his own men, I don't see why you don't want this mentioned.

Laertes, Constantinople is simply not in Asia Minor. I mentioned earlier on why there should be separate section for Constantinople. If you want a regional name, should be change the header to Thrace? AlexiusComnenus 10:11, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

William St Claire & Alison Phillips?
The whole Turkish argument is based on them. Who are these people? What makes them credible? St Claire supposedly lived mostly in Iran and was born 30 years after the end of the revolution. He was no eye witness. Phillips does not even have an article on Wikipedia. Did they even exist? Seriously, people never cease to amaze me in their attempts to legitimize propaganda. Kalambaki2 (talk) 20:15, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * See Walter Alison Phillips. Moonraker2 (talk) 04:22, 27 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Constantinople Massacre of 1821 is largely based on William St Claire's book...DragonTiger23 (talk) 18:42, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Totally agree, this wikipedia article is very bad. Since it covers a crucial part of Greek history it has to be revised by those properly qualified. It is problematic, includes whole paragraphs on the massacre of Muslim Turks in Peloponnese (hundreds of victims have become tens of thousands), while affords only a sentence to the most famous throughout history Massacre of Chios and another sentence to the Massacre of Psara and another sentence to the Massacre of Cassos. This of course is a disgrace. Fortunately Delacroix and other prominent people disagreed with that point of view that wants to debase history and insult the memory of the real victims. These obviously Turkish editors are very willing to compare with the Destruction of Smyrna in 1922 and argue that the Greeks and the Armenians that were slaughtered there were just getting what they deserved for betraying Turkey. They are the same kind of people who want to rationalize the Armenian Genocide, the Greek Genocide - they all got what they deserved because they wanted to betray Turkey. Turkey is for these people the thing that can justify everything every monstrosity that can be invented. Fortunately people around the world whose mission is to ascertain what is true and discard what is false have already produced their verdict. Beickus (talk) 00:37, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

"civiian greek"
Wikipedia is quality encyclopedia (this was sarcastic, if you didn't get it). --84.234.60.154 (talk) 22:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Tripolis Massacre
How do greeks explain that to themselves: "For weeks afterwards starving Turkish children running helplessly about the ruins were being cut down and shot at by exultant Greeks"

This is definetely not the result of a sudden anger or so called turkish yoke of 400 years. It's a systematic extermination against a nation. I think we must seriously start to discuss "Turkish Genocide by Greeks in Morea". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.133.129.16 (talk) 10:35, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

You could equally start an article "Greek genocide by Turks in Smyrna in 1922". The point of wikipedia is not nationalist point-scoring.

No. Greeks of smyrna were deported because they have co-operated with invaders. In Tripolis there was a genocide even weeks after the fall of city.

Not all Muslims were turkish speakers
The article as it stood uses the tropes of Greek nationalist discourse and assumes all the Muslim inhabitants of Greece were alien invaders. This is patently false. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.232.4.204 (talk) 22:50, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Slave or murder
You can not murder all the inhabitants of a city and still get involved in slave trade. Illogical arguments seem to be rooted in usual Greek bias over this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Corlumeh (talk • contribs) 14:44, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Quotations
Per QUOTEFARM some of the quotations should be removed and the appropriate context should be added in the text.Alexikoua (talk)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Massacres during the Greek War of Independence. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090320161733/http://www.umass.edu/judaic/anniversaryvolume/articles/30-F3-Bowman.pdf to http://www.umass.edu/judaic/anniversaryvolume/articles/30-F3-Bowman.pdf

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:24, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Also an intra-Greek massacre
The article tells about "Massacres of Turks and Muslim Albanians" in Peloponnese. Certainly they were killed. But the fact is many (not all) of the Muslims from Peloponnese were Greeks, in fact --so is, Greek-speaking authoctones. Greek nationalists called Turk every Muslim, irrespective of objective language and ethnicity. We must have this in mind so to correctly reconstruct facts.Joan Rocaguinard (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:01, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, bring sources for that. Otherwise its your personal opinion that there was Grecophone Muslims and met similar fates to thier Turkish and Muslim Albanian coreligionists. Ethnic Turks and Muslim Albanians of the Peloponnese met those fates during the Greek uprising, hence why those communities did not exist thereafter.Resnjari (talk) 14:08, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Misha Glenny in The Balkans (1999) explicitly states that the majority of Muslims in the Pelopponese and the islands were "Greek" (well, he doesn't give numbers), meaning in terms of language and culture. He doesn't state they are Greek nationals or that they had a Greek national consciousness. --Calthinus (talk) 20:57, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Asia Minor
Smyrna and Aivali massacres are not mentioned. An area described as “Ionia” is the only word used in the article which might relate to Asia Minor but this is a very archaic term not in use today. Would be nice if some overall estimates of massacred were provided. And I would also mention the numbers enslaved as a reminder that except for some ransomed, the enslaved were good as lost to their compatriots and this number may have matched the number of dead. 2601:644:100:3430:4566:7D52:F822:FB81 (talk) 00:05, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Numbers of victims
No numbers are given in the section "Massacres of Greeks", while the section "Massacres of Turks" is described in full detail. Jestmoon(talk) 11:20, 24 April 2022 (UTC)