Talk:Greek War of Independence/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Psara poem

The epigram on the Psara massacre had countless spelling and other errors, which I corrected, along with improving the English translation. The poem may seem like folk poetry but is by Dionysios Solomos, who also wrote the Hymn to Liberty, the first two stanzas of which became the Greek national anthem. Yp57 14:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

1828

The following events were in the 1828 article. Since they are not mentioned here, I'm moving them out. If they are indeed correct then they should be described here:

• April 26 - Greek War of Independence: Russia declares war on Turkey, in support of the Greek struggle for independence.
• August 9 - The Egyptians evacuate Greece, practically ending hostilities there.
• August 27 - The Russians defeat the Turks at Akhaltzikke.

Turkish Genocide in Peloponnese: Consider for Deletion

Greeks attacked not only turkish military officials but also civilians, a matter which caused a terrible massacre. Main article: see (Turkish Genocide in Peloponnese)

The Ottomans retaliated violently in parts of Greece to the massacre of thousands of Muslims by the Greek insurgents, and uprisings were suppressed by the Ottoman government, massacring in retalliation the Greek population of Chios and other towns. These incidents, however, drew sympathy for the Greek cause in western Europe—although the British and French governments suspected that the uprising was a Russian plot to seize Greece and possibly Constantinople from the Ottomans.

The above statements in this article are unsupported by references and have quite a revisionist history slant. The article "Turkish Genocide on Peleponese" to which a link is established from this article is being considered for deletion from Wikipedia also for having a revisionist history slant. The above statement should either be substantiated with proper scholarly references, or be deleted.

I think not. Just as they might be unreferenced (but definitely not unsupported, as I myself support it), your comment is also unreferenced, and by the looks of it, unsupported. I invite you to sign your signatures next time with four ~ and please try to give more reason to your posts. -- WiiVolve 12:38, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

(This user looks up to the Ottoman Empire as the best example of a good nation). It's from your personal page WiiVolve. I reckon it's you who should provide references to this utterly unsubstantiated claim. Kalambaki2 00:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

What about the other battles?

As I was reading the article, I noticed there were some battles that were not even mentioned - indeed, there were many more than the four depicted in the article.

I was wondering if anyone had any information about the Battle of Valtetsi, Agrinion (?), Gravia Inn (hani ths gravias), Turkish surrender at Palamidi (in Nafplio), naval battle at the Alexandria port and the liberation of Tripoli? (or any other ones) It would be much appreciated if articles could be added regarding these battles of the revolution. IMHO I believe the battles currently depicted focus too much on the successes of the Great Powers (France, Britain, Russia) and on the defeats of the Greek Revolutionaries, which discredits the true efforts made by the Greeks to gain their independence.

This website gives some info: http://www.agiasofia.com/1821/fort1821/struggle.html

It would be better for the people to know the whole truth (even all the 'minor' conflicts), and to acknowledge the true effort and sacrifice of the Hellenic people. Thanks.

GreekFreedom 05:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I am planning on fixing this article soon. As you said there are many significant article which have not yet been written. When I get around to working on this article I shall fix them. Thanks. Kyriakos 11:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

i think there has to be a section focusing on the massacres that took place during the rebellion, somehow the extent of them are greatly downplayed. As user "GreekFreedom" said himself, we have to "know the whole truth" about what happened..--laertes d 17:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

After reading your comment [1] and seeing your edits [2] in Chios massacre, after seeing your edits in Kurdish people [3] and your comment in Talk:Armenian Genocide [4], and after seeing that u "want" credible sources, but at the same time u quote a site named "greekmurderers", i find it difficult to press myself not to revert your edits. Hectorian 22:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Hector what is wrong with my edit may i ask? You deleted the entire article just because it offends your greek pride. I used one Greek site and one jewish site for the massacres that took place in pellopennese. Then i made a quotation from greek murderers net although i know that site is far from being objective. Quotation comes from a foreigner historian not written by turks.

The same goes with Chios page, i took as my reference a greek site and the section of smyrna from an absolutely indepedent site..

For God's sake you simple cant delete articles just because you dont like them...

Im going to put them again now if you have any problems with them then find impartial sources disproving mine..--laertes d 23:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Im now asking again why my post is being deleted?. If you dont want hector, i may not use greekmurderers net.-i actually only made a quotation from there- But the massacres of peleponnese is a reality, thousands of turks, albanians and jews were killed.. --laertes d 00:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

No one is disputing that. It will be included in a more NPOV manner (i.e. compared and contrasted with the atrocities committed against the Greeks). Thulium 00:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I can provide some non-turkish sources which says the number of deaths in Chios were either 20.000 or 25.000.The number 42.000 might be an exaggeration..

Refferin to the painting of Delacroix

"The Massacre at Chios With great vividness of color and strong emotion it pictured an incident in which 20,000 Greeks were killed by Turks on the island of Chios."

http://www.cs.wayne.edu/~zhw/csc691/tour1pic4detail.html

or

"On the island of Chios 25,000 Greeks are killed while in the Peloponessos the Greeks kill 15,000 of the 40,000 Turks living there"

http://www.ahistoryofgreece.com/revolution.htm --laertes d 00:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Or, we can rephrase and say that 100,000 Greeks perished in Chios (including those massacred, those died of diseases shortly after and those who were sold as slaves, and are unaccounted for ever since...). Hectorian 00:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that section is redundant in this article, but if you have your hearts set on it, so be it. It if it saying though it will have to be balanced (within the full meaning of the word). Thulium 01:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Paparrigopoulos (History of Greek Nation, Volume 6), speaks of 40,000 deaths on the island, while a total of 70,000 souls "perished". I don't think the current section is inaccurate.--Yannismarou 16:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

And please, laertes, do not present uncited sites and "Greek Tourist Guides" (?!!) as reliable history sources!!!--Yannismarou 16:58, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

And yanni im sure Paparrigopoulos, a greek historian, is the most objective and reliable source on the issue..Anyway, i didnt touch to that section. --laertes d 17:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

by the way, by pure chance, in many other sites i came across the number of casualties are listed as 20.000 or 25.000..Anyway..--laertes d 17:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Stop talking me about sites and start mentioning verifiable and reliable sources. If you do not know what is that, check this.--Yannismarou 18:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Then again we are assuming Paparrigopoulos is "the" reliable source..--laertes d

Constantine Paparrigopoulos is a very respected historian. He is the historian who has thoroughly examined the Greek War of Independence from every aspect. Could u point out a Turkish historian of the same importance who has written about the Chios massacre? or this event (as well as many other) are of no existence for Turkish historiography? Hectorian 21:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Peter Paroulakis fives the causualties as 100,000 people including the dead, captured and those who died from diseases. Kyriakos 05:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Casualities

As a source for the casualties on the Ottoman side, there is a web site listed. It claims that the Ottomans lost 15,000 men and the Egyptians lost 5,000. I don't think that that site is accurate. During the Egyptian Invasion of Mani, the Egyptians lost 4,400. If we include Missolonghi, Maniaki, Navarino and all the other battles and skirmishes that the Egyptians fought in, I doubt they would have only lost about 600 men.

In the article it say that the Ottomans lost 115,000 men while in the web site it say only 15,000. I also doubt that the Ottomans only lost 15,000 and then again I also think that 115,000 might be a bit to high. Kyriakos 05:14, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

The Egyptian casualties were limited to military personnel. I do not know what their exact number may be. The Ottoman casualties also included civilians, although the number of the Muslims was never particularly high in southern Greece. also, their is no number for the English-French-Russian casualties; apart from the volunteers, they also lost soldiers in Navarino. The respective article says 181 dead, but i do not know if it is correct. Hectorian 09:21, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, from the top of my head, 181 sounds right. Kyriakos 09:54, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I think so too. I added it. Hectorian 10:00, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

People who were killed in peleponnese had been murdered because of their ethnicity, labeling ottomans is wrong beacuse literary speaking Greek rebels themselves were also Ottomans. im changing the word ottomans with "turks" . And please do not change the content of the text without notification--laertes d 12:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Most of those "Turks" were Albanian speaking. Call them "Muslims" at best. Thulium 13:02, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, in that section we're discussing all dead, not just the Muslims. Thulium 13:04, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Anyway thulium, then use the same labeling for greek deads as well. Call them "ottomans" and say 42.000 ottomans in chios were killed..If youre not going to do that then please dont change "Turks" to ottomans as well.. there were albanians who were killed by Greeks, thats true but many people who were living there were ethnic turks..--laertes d 13:16, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

The term "turk" at that time meant "ottoman muslim". if u call these people "ethnic turks", u are falling into the trap of anachronism. u do not know how many were the muslim albanians and how many the turks (in the sense u use the term) there! apropos, in most of the historical recordsa of the time, the most commonly name to refer to them was 'τουρκαλβανοί', id est 'turkalbanians'. Hectorian 14:36, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

then i repeat my Hectorine, the term Greek applied to the greek speaking christian ottomans at the time therefore we have to say ottomans were killed in Chios.

And the most funny thing about your reasoning is that, just one ligne after it writes: "Turkish soldiers began the massacre of thousands of Greeks.. "

I guess even you can understand the stupidity in here, when ethnic turks are being killed it is ottomans and when ottoman soldiers are killing you call it turks..

Point here, eventhough such a division was not that much importan for the people in that period doesnt change the fact many people who are killed at that time were ethnic turks..--laertes d 15:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it has been explained to u that u should use reliable sources. Linking to tourist guides is not much of a source. Also, read again what u edit: On April 26th 1981 for example, the Greeks attack Athens... 1981?!huh? Citation for what u've asked will be provided shortly. do the same for what i've asked, or else it will be removed. Do not expect another reply from me if u do not spell my username correctly. Hectorian 17:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Thats the problem, i dont want any reply from you, just dont distrupt my posts for gods sake, and you did it again. It was a greek site and much more credible a source that what you learn from your high school..--laertes d 17:29, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

If a greek site claims it then you have to show up something which contradicts if you want to delete it..--laertes d 17:31, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I think wikipedia should give me money instead of blocking me for the time i spent arguing with you..--laertes d 17:37, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Although I am "honored" that u consider every Greek site reliable, u have to learn what the words "academic source" stand for. U were blocked for violating specific rules; also, have in mind that Wikipedia is non-profit... don't expect money... LOL Hectorian 17:49, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Yannismaoru, where are you now to warn your co-patriot for his continuing violation of the rules of wikipedia?

Rules for reversion:

Dont's Do not simply revert changes that are made as part of a dispute. Be respectful to other editors, their contributions and their points of view. Do not revert good faith edits. In other words, try to consider the editor "on the other end." If what one is attempting is a positive contribution to Wikipedia, a revert of those contributions is inappropriate unless, and only unless, you as an editor possess firm, substantive, and objective proof to the contrary. Mere disagreement is not such proof.

Generally there are misconceptions that problematic sections of an article or recent changes are the reasons for reverting or deletion. If they contain valid information, these texts should simply be edited and improved accordingly. Reverting is not a decision which should be taken lightly.

Do not revert changes simply because someone makes an edit you consider problematic, biased, or inaccurate. Improve the edit, rather than reverting it. --laertes d 18:06, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I do not see any problem with what Hectorian has done. And I very much doubt that many Albanians were killed as most of the Turko-Albanians had been murdered by Hassan Pasha in 1777. Kyriakos 07:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, it looks like someone has altered the numbers of each combatant and the casualties...and had the nerve to say that there were fewer Turkish soldiers and greater Greek casualties...common sense and basic knowledge of this war dictates that this is completely and utterly false, however to confirm that this is indeed BS, the guy hasn't provided any references to the strength, nor casualties. According to his edit, there were only 30,000 Ottomans in the war...however, in reality, there were over 30,000 (36,000 infantry and cavalry) Ottomans at the Battle at Dervenakia alone. This guy has also said that 15,000 Ottomans were killed (compared to 25,000 Greeks) when over 15,000 Ottomans were killed at Dervenakia alone (where Dramali was crushed and his men either killed or routed). 220.239.137.45 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 11:43, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Yataghans into sheaths

I think it time we place our swords and yataghans into their sheaths and we work on glorifing and fixing this article. I think that if Greeks, Turks and Wikipedians of other nationalities collaborate on this article we can have success and bring this article to FA. Kyriakos 07:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

to say "many jews who are traditionally on the ottomans side" is a clear usage of POV..--laertes d 18:21, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Domitius, read and impose your nationalist history telling within the boundaries of your own country, not in an international forum. Youre damaging the article without providing any source..--laertes d 20:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Massive Renovations

I am planning of re writing the whole article very soon in a manner that will hopeful please everyone. Before I start I need some sources. So if anyone knows any good books in English or Greek it would be useful. Thanks. Kyriakos 00:10, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• Jelavich, Barbara (1983). History of the Balkans, 18th and 19th Centuries. New York: Cambridge University Press - this goes into some detail about the Greek revolution
• Kasaba, Reşat (1988). The Ottoman Empire and the World Economy. SUNY Press - has info about the economic status of the Greek community in the OE, immediately prior to the revolution. --Free smyrnan 08:36, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I will help you during your rewriting, Kyriakos. I have:

• Paparrigopoulos (commented by Carolides),
• the "Helios" articles about the Revolution,
• soon I'll also have the articles and analyses from "Papyrus-Larousse-Britannica (2006)",
• I also have the relevant article from Britannica (2002),
• The memoirs of Kolokotronis,
• The memoirs of Makrygiannis.
• A collection of works by Solomos that could also be useful.

In general, my message is clear: don't worry! Sources is going to be the least of your problems! You'll have so many that you'll not be able to put them in the right order (kidding!). But, indeed, if we have sources like the ones Free smyrnan proposes (from the Turkish prespective), we can make this article not just FA, but one of the very few in all the encyclopedias of the world (and I am not kidding now!).--Yannismarou 10:01, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Jewish deaths during the war and other things - disappointment :-(

These tragedies were not motivated by anti-semitism. The killings of many Jews, who lived in urban centers with Turks, were more a side-effect of the killings of the Turks of Tripolis, the last Ottoman stronghold in the South where the Jews had taken refuge from the fighting, than a specific action against Jews per se. In general, Jews within Greece and throughout Europe were supporters of the Greek revolt, using their wealth (such as the Rothschilds) as well as their political and public influence. The Greek state also attracted many Jewish immigrants from the Ottoman Empire following its establishment, as in the Ottoman Empire Jews, like Christians, were second class citizens and had to wear distinctive clothing, could not testify in court and were required to pay higher taxes.[11] Furthermore, Greece was one of the first countries in the world to grant legal equality to Jews.

I find the above apologist to say the least. Am I the only one to think so? The Rothschilds supporting Greek independence is not proof that Greeks loved Ottoman Jews. As for second class citizenship, don't forget that we are talking about the period after tanzimat, when the OE moved to equal rights for all subjects, quoting 16-17th century rules on distinctive clothing for all (Turks were not allowed to dress as they pleased either you know) distorts the topic. Again, on the subject of higher taxes, we are talking about an extra 10% tax levied on non-Muslims, abolished permanently in 1856. Again, testifying in court, Hanafi jurists did not accept testimony of a non-Muslim against a Muslim, a much earlier period, without mentioning the non-Muslim courts at the same period, or protectorate of foreign powers that came later, or the legal reforms of Tanzimat which unified the system of legal recourse for all subjects of the OE. Greeks granting equal rights to Jews... This is not even worth a comment for encylopedic treatment of the topic.

Another contention: The Revolution breaking out in Morea and the revolutionaries actions against Muslims of the area has not been removed, but moved to later and preceded with a sentence that reads: Almost as soon as the revolution began, there were large scale massacres of civilians by both the Greek revolutionaries and the Ottoman authorities. The Greek revolutionaries massacred many Muslims inhabiting the Peleponnesos and Attica where Greek forces were dominant, whereas the Turks massacred many Greeks especially in Ionia (Asia Minor) and the islands where the revolutionary forces were weaker.

Fine, but revolution breaks out in March 1821, Chios massacres take place in 1822. What is so impossible about stating that Muslims were massacred first, and Greeks were massacred later?

I could go on... If the idea is to collect relevant facts and present them dispassionately (as we are encouraged to do whenever similar white washing takes place in Turkey related topics), I would like to collaborate. But, I do not have the energy to guard against this sort of editing and will bow out if this is to be considered normal and leave Greek editors to write their version of history in peace, rather than have it be assumed that the resulting mess also incorporates Turkish historiography. Regards --Free smyrnan 08:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Concur... I didn't understand the point of the latest expansion and re-ordering of some info, either.. I am not Jewish, but I found it a bit weird that bit jumping through hoops to say that Jews simply happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time... I don't know if anti-semitism were a factor or not, but that bit is odd... Baristarim 08:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I reverted back to the pre-ordering version for the massacres section. All those additions about how Jews were accidentally killed by mobs who were actually trying to kill Turks (?! - not even quality apologetic at that :)) didn't sit right.. + the bit about how Jews fled Ottoman Empire because they couldn't testify in court etc was also not right and was simply a dirt-throwing contest. On an irrelevant note, the serious anti-semitism has always taken place in Christian lands by the way ever since Spanish Reconquista - food for thought.. The other reordering and the moving up of the "movement for independence" section is ok, I just took back that section... Baristarim 09:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

No, I do not consider it OK. The first atrocity in the revolution was not the murder of the Patriarch. As long as I do not see a non-Turk also step up and revert/edit/correct this kind of editing, I am without hope with regards to this article. Collaboration is a different animal than reluctant compromise. --Free smyrnan 11:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

As unfortunate as the Greek Revolution was for the Turks, you'll find that presenting it as little more than a Muslim-slaughtering exercise misses the point vis-à-vis its historical significance and is unlikely to find favour with Greek editors. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 11:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Trying to present the Revolution as a slaughter of Muslims is not something I tried to do or would do. White-washing the revolution in glorious terms, sweeping all of the unfortunate events done by the Greeks under the rug while magnifying everything that was done by the Muslims is the main tone of this article, which is what I am pointing out. And no, I do not consider the Greek revolution unfortunate at all. It was a very auspicious event, bringing some peace of mind by giving the Greeks someone other than the Turks to blame for every blight in history that ever occurred to them. This article is off my watch-list. Thank you and good bye. --Free smyrnan 11:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that the entire paragraph dedicated to the Muslim casualties quite constitutes sweeping the matter under the rug. On the other hand, the atrocities committed by the Ottomans are well-documented and cannot be ignored. Attempting to present them as just punishment or mere retaliation for the acts of the unruly Greeks is not a neutral assessment either. But rest assured, the Greeks have such a long history that it would be neither fair nor possible to blame the Turks for more than a small fraction of their travails. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 17:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Everything mentioned is factual. True, Chios was in 1822, but the murder of the Patriarch preempted any Greek massacres of Muslims, and was the reason for driving Greeks into a frenzy. Also the massacres in Asia Minor happened soon after the outbreak of the revolution.

The part about the Jews being killed as collateral damage is cited in an academic source and a url is provided, read the paper rather than reverting to the old version which portrays the revolution as a Turkish POV massacre. -Manolis

I didnt delete anything necessary if you look at my edits domitius. many jews might be the supporters of the revolt outside greece but it has no value in the section where we are mentioning about the massacres that took place in Greece..

Plus the book in my hand says a different story about the hanging of Patriarch, he was not saved by Greek sailors, he cant be since he was long dead.--laertes d 19:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Yet a further point, please dont change the content of citations since they can be considered "citations" as long as they remain the same as they were written.--laertes d 19:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Laertes, read more carefully. His CORPSE was saved by Greek sailors for a proper Christian burial.

I changed the term "unarmed Ottoman settlements" to "Turkish civilians. There are a large number of reasons for doing this. First, most of these places were not "Ottoman settlements," for example Tripoli, where the largest massacre took place, dates to classical times despite a large number of Turks living there during the revolution. Furthermore, many of these settlements were civilians were massacred were quite well armed, again Tripoli is an example of this. Thus I feel that Turkish civilians is a much better term, and Jelavich does not use the term "unarmed Ottoman settlements."

Sigh, why to revert now? Everything i deleted were unsourced data and everything you reverted was the sourced information from credible books Alexius..--laertes d 19:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

For instance, the beginning part has no source whatsoever and the last paragraph is totally unneeded for..massacres started in pellopennese not in Chios.--laertes d 19:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

The introduction is necessary to maintain a more balanced POV and show that both sides committed massacres. It just briefly summarizes what is said in the other two paragraphs, which is all sourced. At least one thesis sentence is needed saying in effect "both sides killed a lot of civilians. Odd, I thought I had sourced the part on the Jews in Greece, but anyway the source is there now. --AlexiusComnenus 19:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

And alexius why we need this infformation about the jews?

The article itself doesnt need that intro because both sides killed civilians thats true but before these edits there wasa alreaddy a part about ottomans killing civilians--laertes d 19:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Why not have the information on Jews? They were a present minority community and what happened to them should be explained.

True, but before it was just a laundry list of X killed Y at location Z. I think the new version gives much more information and also has the benefit of being summarized for those who just glace over the article. --AlexiusComnenus 20:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Laertes, please stop pushing a POV. Referring to the killing of Patriarch Gregory (a civilian) "Turkish counter-terror" is not only clearly a POV phrase, it is quite offensive to me and any other Orthodox Christian who would read this. It is also just plain bad English, not one would use the phrase "counter-terror" to talk about the Greek revolution. --AlexiusComnenus 20:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

then you should buy the book written by Wiiliam St. Clair, how can it be POV pushing when im making a reference to a book--laertes d 20:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Are there any non-greek moderator who can evaluate the situation here, why my edits are constantly vandalized by some Greek users here..--laertes d 20:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't have the book, but I can almost guarantee that St. Clair does not use the phrase "counter-terror." It is just not good English, counter-terror refers to the SAS and FBI and the like countering terrorist operations. That is really the only context in which it is used.

I'm fine with you new edit, with the St. Clair quote. I think it is quite just, accusing both sides of terror which is in fact what happened. "Fighting terror with terror" implies parity, whereas "counter-terror" implies imparity, I think our problems were largely of language rather than intent. I apologize if I accused you of pushing a POV. --AlexiusComnenus 20:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

i guess labeling "counter-terror" was also used to signify parity, not in a sense of claiming countering the terror activity but to say "reply with the terror". Anyway im also okay with it now..--laertes d 21:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

One more thing, massacres started in Peleponnese chronologically and before the edit race of the last two days the section of massacres were starting with the Greek massacres in there, i dont see why it should be changed therefore i am rearranging it..--laertes d 06:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

What you are saying is totally false. Tripoli fell in September, whereas the Patriarch was killed on Easter (which is in the springtime always) and Greeks were massacred in Ionia in June several months before any major massacres took place in the Peleponnesus. Thus we should keep the current organization. --AlexiusComnenus 10:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

What i say is totally true Alexius, as you can see yourself various historians agree on the fact that first Greek actions were taken against Ottoman civilians and actually within the first weeks of the revolt there was not left any turk..Massacres towards Turks took place in the spring of 1821. Massacres in the peleponnese predates both tha hanging of Patriarch and the massacre in Ionia.

"Turks of Greece left few traces. They diassapeared suddenly and finally in the spring of 1821.."

William St. Clair

--laertes d 20:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

And what is this thing about calling everything with " according to" when it comes to the massacres committed by Greeks..--laertes d 20:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

"Furthermore, many Jews within Greece and throughout Europe were supporters of the Greek revolt, using their wealth (as in the case of the Rothschilds) as well as their political and public influence to assist the Greek cause. The Greek state also attracted many Jewish immigrants from the Ottoman Empire following its establishment, being one of the first countries in the world to grant legal equality to Jews."

This same paragraph is being used two times in the article both in the Philhellenism and the massacre section, therefore if you excuse me im going to delete it Domitius, you might not be noticed it but Alexius made a new heading and carried that passage to there as it makes more sense outside the massacre section..--laertes d 21:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

You deleted a lot of stuff I had added on Rigas! If you claim that any massacres took place before the hanging of Patriarch Gregory, prove it. Give the names of villages and dates of massacres. Also what is the page of the St. Claire quote? -AlexiusComnenus

1-What i did delete?

2- im repeating, this same passage is being used two times in the same article, chose one and delete the other..

3-Various historians says the same thing that some of the first Greek actions were taken against the ottoman civilians and within few weeks Turkish civilians almost ceased to exist..Hanging of the Patriarch was a response to the outbreak of the revolt therefore by the usage of simple logic it took place after the beginnings of massacres in Peleponnese.. And check this:

"The Ottoman Government in Constantinople, faced with violent revolutions in different parts of the Empire, decided to answer terror with terror... On Easter Sunday, the reigning Patriarch, Gregorios, was formally accused of being implicated in the Greek rebellion and was summarily hanged. His body remained for three days suspended from the gate of Patriarchate, and was draged through the streets and thrown into the sea.."

St.Clair p.3

"..Turkish terror which began with the hanging of the Patriarch at Constantinople on Easter day, started before the Ottoman government realized full extent of what was happening in the Peloponnese, but soon it was in full swing."( i said terror instead of counter terror, that also means massacres wsa already taking place before the hanging of patriarch)

p.12

4-That quotation you ask is also from the 13th page, i might erase it if you want though since it might be considered, lets say, too "suggestive" --laertes d 23:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Yet from another source i didnt put in the article,

In the Month of April 1821, a muslim population, amounting upwards of twenty thousand souls, was living, dispersed in Greece, employed in agriculture. Before two months had elapsed the greater part was slain-men, women, children were murdered without mercy or remorse.."

George Finlay, History of Greek Revolution, London, 1861, p.172

"26 March to 22 April 1921, 10-15.000 muslims killed.."

George Finlay, p.152

George Finlay also says as you can see, massacres started just with the outbreak of revolt..--laertes d 00:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Your quote just confirmed exactly what I was saying:

"..'Turkish terror' which began with the hanging of the Patriarch at Constantinople on Easter day, 'started before the Ottoman government realized full extent of what was happening in the Peloponnese', but soon it was in full swing."( i said terror instead of counter terror, that also means massacres wsa already taking place before the hanging of patriarch)

In the Month of April 1821, a muslim population, amounting upwards of twenty thousand souls, was living, dispersed in Greece, employed in agriculture. 'Before two months' had elapsed the greater part was slain-men, women, children were murdered without mercy or remorse.."

Again, please name any massacre that happened before April 10, 1821 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_10). The Turks hung Patriarch Gregory 16 days after the revolution. He was killed in retaliation for the revolution, not for any alleged massacres of civilians. The main massacre committed by Greek rebels happened in Tripoli months after the Patriarch was killed.

Unless you can prove that there was some massacre of Muslim civilians that happened before April 10, and that news of it travelled to Constantinople, I must be forced to agree with St. Clair that "Turkish terror... started before the Ottoman government realized full the full extent of what was happening in the Peloponnese." --AlexiusComnenus 00:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Alexius you turned this thing into a child game, i showed at least 4 historians say the massacres started with the outbreak of revolution since firrt Greek actions were taken against Ottoman civilians, George Finlay says massacres started on the 26 March, St. Clair and others say within three weeks there wasnt left any Turk and you still keep asking to me to show if there is a massacre before 10 april..By the april 10, that makes 2 weeks after the beginning of revolt, a considerable turkish population was already buthcered..

If one day you will write a history of greek revolution you can put things the way you want but this article is not your personal belonging stop vandalising it please..--laertes d 07:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

alexius, as you may have noticed i have enough document in my hand about Greek atrocities and i can also make this article hell long but i dont use them in order for the section to be short and concise, you dont have to put everything you know in the article what this poem is needed for, for heaven's sake?--laertes d 07:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I did not intervene in this "tit for tat" editing about who did first what, but I really don't like editors to remove material (any material!) without first discussing it here. Laertes d, the article does not belong to you, so if you want to remove material, any material, bring the issue here, present your arguments, and then we'll see. First discussion; then decisions.--Yannismarou 08:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh yannısmarou here you are again, thanks for joinıng us. I guess ı presented my argument ın here, poetry does only make artıcle longer and serve no purpose other than dısguısıng the massacres commıtted by Greeks and obvıously that ıs what ıs ıntented by Alexıus. Anyway ı dont care ıf you want ıt to remain let ıt remaın, just keep ıt ın mind ıf youre goıng to contınue expandıng the massacre section ım going to do the same, ı have more valuable materials whıch ı dıdnt ınclude so far consıderıng ıt an unneceassary burden to article..--laertes d 11:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

And Alexıus cıte your sources properly you cant just write "Davıd Brewer the greek war of ındependence", at least say from what page you got that one, we all know you have such a bad habit of modifying the references and quotatıons..--laertes d 11:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Gorram, you two can't you contain this discussion in the relevant section? You don't need to mess up the whole talk page! Please, there are other things about the article being discussed!!!! --Michalis Famelis (talk) 15:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Look, Finlay just says Muslims killed in the quote that you offerred. He does nots specifically say civilians, most of the Turks in the Peleponnesus were part of the military garrison.

I have mentioned a specific event, the killing of Patriarch Gregory on April 10. Please find a specific event that happened before this. If you cannot, the hanging of the patriarch must be mentioned first.

It is totally ridiculous to mention the fall of Tripoli before the hanging of Gregory, don't you agree? -Alexius Comnenus

Alexius- "Look, Finlay just says Muslims killed in the quote that you offerred. He does nots specifically say civilians"

youre kidding right? "men, women, children were murdered without mercy or remorse.." Finlay

Alexius-"It is totally ridiculous to mention the fall of Tripoli before the hanging of Gregory, don't you agree?"

It is totally, completely, unbelivably ridiculous to mention about Ottoman massacres or hanging of Gregory first eventhough almost every single non greek non turk historian says that first massacres conducted in Peleponnese, dont you agree? (just because you want to make massacres committed by Greeks less visible in the article, thats why you keep opening new headings and hijack massacre section with unrelated so called poetry, with translations :) )

And what specific massacre are you asking for?, Jelavich and others say first Greek actions were directed toward Ottoman civilians and Turkish population ceased to exist within few weeks of the revolt..St. Clair mentions from the hanging of the Patriarch as " Turkish counter terror", how clear can any expression be?--laertes d 20:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

He does not call it counter-terror, this are you own words and furthermore poor English. His words are "The Ottoman Government in Constantinople, faced with violent revolutions in different parts of the Empire, decided to answer terror with terror... On Easter Sunday, the reigning Patriarch, Gregorios, was formally accused of being implicated in the Greek rebellion and was summarily hanged."

Obviously, St. Clair is referring to terror as the rebellion in general, not massacres of civilians.

Anyway, as I have said many times, if there was a massacre that happened before April 10, which is when the Patriarch was hanged, it should be quite easy to mention it, right?

What I will do now is suggest a compromise. Rather than have two sections Greek and Turkish massacres, let us order 'specific' things totally chronologically. The following chronology is accurate for the article, to the best of my knowledge:

1) April 10, 1821, the hanging of Patriarch Gregory. 2) June, 1821 massacres of Greek civilians in Ionia 3) 11 September, 1821 fall of Tripoli and massacre of Turks there 4) 1822 Greeks massaced in Chios 5) 1824 Greeks massacred in Psara

Tripoli is the only place where you have mentioned a specific massacre, and this is the only massacre of Turkish civilians that I am familiar with, although there could very well be other masscres that I know nothing about. In order to deal with the disputed chronology, we must mention 'dates' and 'places' of any massacre. In my view, this is the only way we can agree. If you can find a specific massacre before April 10, please do mention it.

Also can we have input from other people? Do they think that this is fair? -Alexius Comnenus

If you can find a specific

about the template

It would be probably best to discuss this at Template talk:Greek War of Independence, but I think it could reflect on the main article as well, so I post it here. I've made a few changes at the template. Namely, I changed England to UK, Russia to Russian Empire, added a few important Brits and the Sultan Mahmud II. I don't think anyone would object to these. However I'd like to change a few other things. That is, the names of two of the Ottoman generals: Omer Vryonis and Dramalis. These names are clearly the Greek transliteration of their ottoman turkish names. I only know of them from greek language textbooks, so I don't really know their real names. Is there anyone knowledgeable enough to provide these guys real names? They could also be named in the main article (I haven't checked), so it would also matter there. --Michalis Famelis (talk) 18:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Let us Expand the Center

We need more about the Greeks driving the Turks out pre-1824, infighting amonsts the Greeks, and then Ibrahim's invasion. These parts of the revolution are quite poorly covered in the article.

--AlexiusComnenus 8:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Wow I also realized that Ypsilanti and the sacred battalion are not even mentioned! This article really needs some work! Ade paidia, grapse! --AlexiusComnenus 8:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Egyptian Flag in Template

The Egyptian flag is incorrect-- Egypt under Mohammed Ali used the similar but different flag below:

According to Flag of Egypt, the flag currently used in the template and the article is correct. The one you pointed to was used from 1922 to 1952, again according to the same article. --Michalis Famelis (talk) 15:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

We should read the page again, as I understand the green flag was used in Egypt from 1922 to 1952. I think it says Mohammed Ali adopted the flag with three crescents in 1805, meaning that the Egyptians would have been using his flag during the revolution. AlexiusComnenus 20:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

You are right, I was mistaken:

To signify his autonomy from the Ottoman Porte, and his own grandiose ambitions of challenging the Sultan for control of the Ottoman Empire itself, Muhammad Ali introduced a flag highly reminiscent of the Ottoman flag, with three white crescents and three stars on a red field.

Thanks for pointing that out! :-) --Michalis Famelis (talk) 20:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Fixed the template with both the flag and the "khedivate" thing. --Michalis Famelis (talk) 20:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Laertes' "Source"

Apparently all the quotations Laertes is using come from the same souce www.greekmurderers.net where there is an article written by a Turkish-Cypriot. Given the content of this website, and the general tone of article, I am quite disinclined to believe that all the citations are genuine. Regardless, even on that site, all of the alleged "massacres" save the one in Kalamata (where only men were killed, so I am inclined to believe this was a garrisson) took place in August or later.

This website also, quite hilariously claims that the Chios massacre (which is tremendously well documented) was committed by Greeks against Turks!!! Given this information I do not think that we can trust the content of the website at all.

Furthermore, according to the site, St. Clair agrees that the Greek massacres were committed in retaliation to something (which I assume is the killing of Gregory): "the savage passion for 'revenge' soon degenerated into a frenzied delight in killing and horror for their own sakes".

Now the question is, should we trust a website called "Greek Murderers" which was created to slander Greeks? -AlexiusComnenus

I can access a review of the St. Clair book tomorrow at the library, but I find it somewhat doubtful that thsoe quotes are genuine. From what I can find the St. Clair book is about philhellene volunteers that went to fight for the Greek cause, so most of these quotes seem a bit strange given the source...

I think for now all that we can do is use 'direct' chronology when we know a specific action at a date and place. -Alexius Comnenus

Alexius none of my edits are coming from greekmurderersnet and i have the book of St.Clair in may hands im actually holding it now, you can always buy and see for yourself--laertes d 21:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Alexius-"He does not call it counter-terror, this are you own words and furthermore poor English."

thats how exactly he called it, not my wording..belive it or not thats your problem

Alexius-"Tripoli is the only place where you have mentioned a specific massacre, and this is the only massacre of Turkish civilians that I am familiar with, although there could very well be other masscres that I know nothing about."

All the historians i mentioned about gives specific location and time for massacres, that is pelloponnese and the first weeks of the revolt.. That is a point of consensus for all the historians mentioned and they also say some of the first greek actions were directed towards civilians.. What you keep doing is nothing but vandalizing the article--laertes d 21:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Alexius-"Furthermore, according to the site, St. Clair agrees that the Greek massacres were committed in retaliation to something (which I assume is the killing of Gregory): "the savage passion for 'revenge' soon degenerated into a frenzied delight in killing and horror for their own sakes"."

Wrong, let me quote it to you from the book

"..The Greeks who were party to the conspiracy proclaimed a revolution and began to murder the turkish population.Once the first blood was shed there was no going back. The revolutionaries believed that only by ruthlesness could they preserve their safety in the long run, once the murdering began half measures would be fatal..The bishops and priests exhorted their parishioners to exterminate the infidel moslems. The klephts and armatoli came down form the mountains and ravaged the Turkish settlements.The Turks of Greece paid the price for centuries of wrongs, real or imagined, and for their inherited religious beliefs. But the savage passion for revenge soon degenareted into a frenzied delight in killing and horror for their own sakes."

St. Clair --laertes d 21:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Alexius i think im absolutely right on the issue and im going to ask for a non greek moderator attention or may be for protection..Youre vandalizing the article.--laertes d 22:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• I* am vandalizing the article??? Please give me a break laertes. I have written half of this article, expaning areas on the Sacred Battalion, Ibrahim's Invasion, Philhellenism, Psara and other things, whereas you have done absolutely nothing but whine about the chronology of a the massacres in the Peleponnesus, an extremely minor part of the revolution. Lets put things in context here. Lets ask for a non-Greek, as well as non-Turkish moderator here.

Hmmm, right you have the book right in your hands. 'I assume that it is only coincidence that you chose to replicate the exact same quote as in www.greekmurderers.net.' Again, give me a break. I highly doubt that you in fact have the book.

Laertes, you just claimed: All the historians i mentioned about gives specific location and time for massacres, that is pelloponnese and the first weeks of the revolt..

If this is true: THEN PLEASE REPRODUCE THESE SPECIFIC TIMES AND LOCATIONS AS I HAVE DONE FOR WHAT I HAVE WRITTEN ABOUT AND AS I HAVE BEEN ASKING YOU TO DO FROM THE BEGINNING!!! Here are the dates I have found quite simply from wikipedia:

1) April 10, 1821, the hanging of Patriarch Gregory.
2) June, 1821 massacres of Greek civilians in Ionia
3) 11 September, 1821 fall of Tripoli and massacre of Turks there
4) 1822 Greeks massaced in Chios
5) 1824 Greeks massacred in Psara

If you have found a massacre from before April 10, and a valid source, please do cite it.

As for the "counter-terror" phrase, you have not produced the quote and context and I highly doubt that you will for two reasons:

1) Using this phrase is not correct English in common usage for this context and would certainly not make it into publication 2) The phrase is not in a St. Clair quote from www.greek-murderers.net, where all of your prior quotes have been from.

Thus I highly doubt that you will provide said quote in context.

We must agree on a logical system to determine the chronology. Other than mentioning specific events with specific dates, at this stage I do not see any other way of managing things. Please do not revert again unless you find a 'specific event' that occurred before April 10. -AlexiusComnenus

Alexius- "If you have found a massacre from before April 10, and a valid source, please do cite it."

Every single of the sources already say that..

whatever answer i give to you you keep repeating the same things although many times proven wrong, what is the purpose of this discussion?

"As for the "counter-terror" phrase, you have not produced the quote and context.. I highly doubt that you in fact have the book."

I repeat, BUY or BORROW the book and open the page 12.. --laertes d 23:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Or I could just go to www.greekmurderers.net and find the exact same quotations that you have provided... funny how these things work.

'I would like to note that you have failed to provide a specific name and date of any massacre preceding April 10, 1821.'

Trying to discuss with you is a waste of my time. I have provided a chronology, but you are reverting all of my attempts to create a correct chronology in this article and childishly calling them vandalism. I agree with your suggestion that we find a non-Greek non-Turkish moderator to arbitrate this as you are incapable of accepting a correct chronology. AlexiusComnenus 23:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Try Wikipedia:Mediation Baristarim 00:06, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

The events at Vrachori (Agrinio) could not have taken place before the 11th of June, which was when the city was liberated. Does anyone know when Messolonghi and Pylos were liberated?

Dont delete any sourced material. --laertes d 08:53, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

And Alexius, patriarch is not hanged on 10 April, he was hanged at Easter Sunday and that makes 22 April in the year 1821. --laertes d 08:58, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

This is ridiculous, we only have the author's word that this is an attributed quote from a 'scholarly' source. I will remove Laertes vandalism in due time.--86.138.232.97 15:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

The hanging of the Patriarch was on April 10, in the Julian calendar, and on April 22 in the Gregorian calendar. The Greek revolution starts on the 25th of March, Julian, or the 6th of April, Gregorian. We can use either Julian or Gregorian dates, the only difference is that we add 12 days.

Anyway, please provide dates for those alleged massacres. Also the massacres section is getting way too long, we may want to consider creating a seperate article. There is also a lot of repitition, there are four or five quotes saying basically the same thing, that Greeks killed people in Peleponnesos during the first days of the revolution. None of these quotes give any specifics, so I think that all but one should be deleted to avoid repetetiveness. AlexiusComnenus 19:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Alexius-"Also the massacres section is getting way too long,"

That really make much sense when the guy who is adding up poetry to the massacre section says that..--laertes d 21:09, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the poetry adds quite a lot actually. The massacre section shouldn't just be a laundry list of x killed y here during z. It should explain why the massacres were important, and in my humble view, they were important for two reasons:

• Their effects on the Greek national psyche, which is evidenced by the poetry which is taught in Greek schools today.
• Their impact on European public opinion, which caused the UK, France and Russia to intervene, which is evidenced by the Delacroix painting.

This is why we include these two artistics works. On the other hand, I don't think it adds very much to say 5 times in poor English: "Greek insurgent kill Turk baby it very bad one historyian say FGAFGF other say SADFAR" and spend two paragraphs on the subject. If you want to add new information, that's great but it is pointless to say the exact same thing repeated over and over again. I have not seen you provide any other information other than:

"During the opening months of the revolution, Greek rebels killed many Turkish and Muslim civilians in various cities including Tripoli, Agrinio, Messolonghi and Monemvasia."

What I have summarized in one sentence, it has taken you probably 10 in the article, which in my view is nothing more than a waste of space. AlexiusComnenus 00:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, I would like to add that it "really make much sence when" [sic] the guy who is writing on the English Wikipedia "say that..." [sic]. AlexiusComnenus 00:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Mediation on Massacres

Okay, can I formally request mediation? From his discussion page it appears that Laertes was banned for three days for his reversions of this article, and after those three days he just came back and was up to the same nonsense. I think quite clearly from his history, Laertes cares nothing for the topic at hand and he just wants to ruin the article to make Greece and Greeks look bad. Any attempts at providing a correct chronology have been stymied by Laertes and given his propensity to just revert to however he wants the article. Right now I have two main problems with the subsection--

• The incorrect chronology.
• The unnecessary repition of the same facts.

One option may be to create an entirely new article for various massacres during the Greek revolution. AlexiusComnenus 07:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

They are direct quotations from the books, i advise yo to contact with the authors themsevles. btw, any citation or quotation must be verifiable according to the rules of wikipedia thats something lacking in your quoations, i warned you of that if you remember. i seriously want a decent quotation, especially for the quotation number 34, from David Brewer. You cant just write "David Brewer, Greek war of Independence", please specify from what page you got that one, you know you have a bad reputation about these quotations, you keep modifying them the way you want..--laertes d 07:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I made recent edits because of the simple fact that you cant accept that first massacres committed by Greeks in peleponnese, and you continue in denying it still, although i provided a number of reliable sources for that. What you keep saying about "correct chronology" is nothing but you POV pushing. And actually i still have materials in hand that i didnt include, i dont have any such aim to make the article huge but i only added materials which prove you wrong in your claims of correct chronology..--laertes d 07:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

'I would like to note again that you have failed to provide me with the dates of any massacres.'

I have located a copy of the St. Clair book in a local library. I will go get it the day after tomorrow due to the fact that it is Holy Week and I am quite busy. I am looking forward to seeing if an Oxford professor uses such incorrect phrases as "counter-terror," this should prove to be quite interest. AlexiusComnenus 19:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Good, open the page 12 directly and look to the line 12 from the top --laertes d 20:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I will, and I will also scan it in and post it if there is any disagreement. I would like to note that the first time you posted that quote, you said "Turkish terror" and not "counter-terror." We will see which is written (and I know which one is correct English.) Also more of your bs, the three towns you mentioned, Missolonghi, Agrinio and Pylos all fell in May of 1821, well after the Patriarch was killed. (www.1911encyclopedia.org/War_Of_Greek_Independence) (http://www2.fhw.gr/chronos/12/en/1821_1833/enarxi/09.html) Consequently I am moving these things to the appropriate area of the chronology, please do not revert them. AlexiusComnenus 20:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

First time i wrote it, i worte it as "counter-terror" and you reacted to it and deleted if you remember..--laertes d 20:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

dont delete anything, they were already written as "followed by", they were not the initial massacres..im certainly reverting them--laertes d 20:14, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Which greek claim it, you? Sorry but we dont count you as an authoritative source in the matter..--laertes d 20:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

LAERTES STOP REVERTING!!! ALL OF THOSE EVENTS SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED WERE IN MAY!!! MISSOLONGHI< PYLOS AND AGRINIO WERE IN TURKISH HANDS BEFORE MAY! IT MAKES NO SENSE FOR EVENTS IN MAY TO BE MENTIONED BEFORE EVENTS IN APRIL!!!

Do you deny writing the following? 'I' am the one who added the quote in the article (please check the history) and I copied it directly from the quote that you offered on the discussion page. Anyway, this will all be laid to rest when I get the source. Either way, you have misquoted at least once as you have written both "terror" and "counter-terror."

'"..Turkish terror which began with the hanging of the Patriarch at Constantinople on Easter day, started before the Ottoman government realized full extent of what was happening in the Peloponnese, but soon it was in full swing."( i said terror instead of counter terror, that also means massacres wsa already taking place before the hanging of patriarch)

p.12

4-That quotation you ask is also from the 13th page, i might erase it if you want though since it might be considered, lets say, too "suggestive" --laertes d 23:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)' AlexiusComnenus 22:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the article should be locked until someone can scan in the relevant pages so they can be seen. I am offering to do it by Thursday, my library has access to the book. AlexiusComnenus 22:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

alexius, you really turned this thing into a parody, i openly challenged you, go get the source and if i am misquoting it then come and talk, i am reverting it..btw, the important part with George Finlay's quote is the date he prounounced for the massacres and you deleted it..--laertes d 00:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I deleted nothing, I only moved things to reflect accurate chronology.

I'm not sure about Finlay's dates, was he in Greece at the time? Orthodox and Catholic/Protestant Easter are at different times, you do know that right?

You have still failed to provide any specific massacre before the 10th of April (Julian Calendar.) AlexiusComnenus 01:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Let's stop reverting. I'm fine with the current version until I can access the sources and we can reach a consensus on length or whether or not we should create a new article. If anything is added it should be specific since we don't need more quotes saying the exact same thing. AlexiusComnenus 01:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Articles are not written here for you Alexius, whether or not you access them or not is not my problem, by your "logic" we have to delete entire Wikipedia until you access the sources.. --laertes d 04:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Well the fact that you:

• have a repeated history of being blocked from Wikipedia for vandalizing various articles related to Greece,
• you just fabricated a long quote from Finley by stringing various other quotes together without using "..." to indicate that these were not part of the same sentence,
• and the fact that you have provided the same quote twice, in one verious using "terror" and the other "counter-terror"

makes me, and any other rational person, quite unsure of whether or not to trust you. The fact of the matter is that you have a history of vandalism and anti-Greek behavior on Wikipedia and consequently anything you write pertaining to Greece and Greeks should be scrutinized under the most severe lense. -AlexiusComnenus

bla bla bla... Quote is not fabricated, how did you decide it to be a fabrication? youre not authorized to make decisions in the name of "community"..--laertes d 08:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

The fact that different parts of the same sentence were cited on different pages gave me an indication of this. -AlexiusComnenus

Alexius, youre a genius, you got me.

oh btw, here have the scaned version of the p.12 from St. Clair, i hope you stop whining..(cheap scanning but still useful)--laertes d 20:22, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

File:St.clair.jpg

Alexius, thats enough, stop adding your personal comments in the article, if youre going to add the quotation youre taking from St. clair, add the whole of it, do not make half quotation--laertes d 09:01, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Domitius you said source removal?, alright lets add the source in its entirety then..--laertes d 10:33, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Proposal

I think it would be better to create a new article named "Massacres during the Greek Revolution" and move all the relevant info there. the article is already long enough and the existing sources are to many if someone decides to use many of them. Apropos, i believe it would be more interesting to analyse the events in detail, so as to avoid misunderstandings. Hectorian 21:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

The issue is already discussed and settled, i dont think we need another round of it. Massacre section is too long because you guys keep adding unnecessary details to it and i told previously that i can also do the same thing but i'm refraining from doing it..Chronologically speaking massacres started with the outbreak of revolt, virtually every single non-greek historian put it that way.

If there would be a new article, it would be an article solely dealing with the massacres committed by greeks as there is already an article named "Chios massacre" dealing with the massacres of Turks. (I can do it when i have some free time) Meanwhile, masssacres in Peleponnese has to be mentioned in the main article..Now if you excuse me im putting the section at its right order as has been decided earlier..Regards--laertes d 22:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Tripolis fell in September. The massacre of the Greeks in Constantinople occurred in April. I'll rv back, if u revert now. everything i've put is sourced. also, unnecessary details are the quotes posted in the "Tripolis massacre". Chios Massacre was just one of the many massacres committed against the Greeks. Soon, i will create article about every single of these massacres. Saying that the issue is over because of the existence of the Chios article, is simply lack of historical knowledge. Hectorian 22:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Who is talking about Tripolis? Tripolis was only one place where massacres took place but they initially started with the otbreak. Im bored of it, just read my discussions with Alexius, all debate is already over with it..--laertes d 22:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it is over for u, but it is not for me. U have to provide sources about the actual events. not generalizations. the same way, i can say that the massacres against the Greeks never stopped those 400 years of ottoman rule, so any massacre the Greeks did was just a response to one committed by the Turks... so, we go back to 1071... Guess who started it... Hectorian 22:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Allright fellows, as you wish, when i have some free time im going to create a new article about the Peleponnese massacres and i can assure you it would be well sourced and quite long with every detail mentioned that i didn't put up here..Lets look up the dates together meanwhile, im posting again St. Clair quotation..--laertes d 22:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Be sure to use third party sources, cause if u won't, by using greek sources i can create a gazillion articles about massacres against the Greeks. Hectorian 22:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Have this to begin with, thats something i already posted in here but got erased in time, i can provide more and more such quotations from different books(third party sources as requested)..

File:St.clair12.jpg

St. Clair and the rest of the historians make it quite clear that massacres started with the outbreak of the revolt before any other massacres that can be named as committed by turks--laertes d 22:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)..

The dates talk themselves. I cannot bother more to prove that April precedes September... It is just impossible. as for quotations... I can find many; if u want to fill the article with quotes, i may be willing to follow u... Hectorian 22:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes they do indeed and they say massacres started in Peleponnese..Are you unable to read what is written above?--laertes d 22:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Or are you unable to read this in the article:

"From the 26th of March until Easter Sunday, it is supposed that fifteen thousand Mussulman souls perished in cold blood and that about three thousand farmhouses or Turkish dwellings were laid waste"

George Finlay, History of Greek Revolution, London, 1861, p. 187. --laertes d 22:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

15,000 in March, u already posted 60,000 in Tripoli on September... LOL, how much population do u think the Peloponnese hand afterall? do u think it had the density of Hong Kong or something? LOL The Muslims of the Peloponnese did not exceed the 30,000, and most of them fled. Hectorian 23:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Argue this with Finlay not with me, different estimates of numbers exist for the massacres but their actual occuring is not an issue of debate..--laertes d 23:06, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Agree. But neither the dates are an issue of debate. Hectorian 23:08, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

All the historians say that massacres started with the outbreak of the revolt, Finlay gives a specific date and say that from 26th march to the hanging of Patriarh 15.000 muslims were killed, St. Clair says Turkish "counter terror" for the hanging of patriarch and youre still talking about dates..--laertes d 23:14, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I do not dispute that massacres started with the outbreak of the revolt, i dispute who started them. Hectorian 23:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

What should one understand from the wording "turkish counter terror which began with the hanging of the Patriarch.." And finlay says 15.000 turks was already killed until the hanging of the patriarch--laertes d 23:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

These are as ridiculous as anything can be, the sources used for newer edits are "Putnam's Home Cyclopedia, G.P. Putnam & Co, p.343 ", "The British and Foreign Review: Or, European Quarterly Journal, The late Revolution in Greece, p.244 " Kind of sources that no body on earth can look for its verifiability, no book whatsoever mentions any such occurence of a specific massacre as "constantinople massacre", the entire population of Psara according to George Finlay was about 7.000, how could it be possible that 17.000 were killed in the island? Main massacre was in Chios and Phillips say 27.000 people were killed there..--laertes d 10:16, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

no book whatsoever mentions any such occurence of a specific massacre as "constantinople massacre"

Erm, yes they do.... It's a well known fact.--NeroDrusus 00:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Umm, Laertes the sources just mentioned can be accessed online in PDF format. Most Academic Journals are online (you have to pay though if you aren't affiliated with a university. I agree that the section on massacres is WAY too long and most of the quotes you added are generalizations that do not provide specific information. If you have specific information, it would be great to add. Otherwise, I think we should shorten the section on massacres and just have some specific. There should be three paragraphs at most like the other sections, and links. AlexiusComnenus 01:41, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Should we vote on Hectorian's proposal? Does anyone object to shortening the massacres section? AlexiusComnenus 01:26, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

No, not yet, nobody answered laertes above. The discussion is going on. Deniz^T_C 13:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I do not know what should I answer to laertes... he said the entire population of Psara according to George Finlay was about 7.000, how could it be possible that 17.000 were killed in the island?. it is evident (and i know this from other disputes with him as well), that he is taking Finlay as the "supreme" and "indisputable" source, while at the same time he denies any other source that does not fit his pov. I would be in favor of a voting process; the Massacres during the revolution section is long enough (and can be expanded more) in order to form a separate article. If we are about to include such sections in "Wars of Independence" articles, i will not hesitate to create such a section here, and i expect from the "inclusionists" to back me up. Hectorian 13:43, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Julian Calendar

Should we make some kind of not about the discrepancy of dates between the Julian and Gregorian calendars? The Revolution actually broke out in April according the Western calendar, as March 25th is the Julian date. I think we should use Julian dates for everything, since this is the norm in most scholarship, which is based largely on sources which used the Julian calendar (even most Western Europeans writing at the time used the Julian Calendar.) AlexiusComnenus 23:20, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The article should primarily use the Julian dates, as these are most pertinent and established in both popular and scholarly use. A note to that effect could be added at the beginning, e.g. "All dates, unless otherwise noted, are Old Style." Regards, Cplakidas 07:52, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Massacres... Once Again

Before starting it, just one word from Napoleon: Isn't history a tale that we all agree? That's actually what you agree, but Turks used to not agree. Think about Turks as mass murderers, they think the same against you! Can't you see that digging up the genocide matters make the tension grow between the civilized countires of 21st century? Please, I'm offering all of the massacre and genocide matters to be put aside and to be expelled from Wikipedia, so people with greeedy and greasy hands won't profit over those again and again —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.154.56.99 (talk) 18:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey everybody, I created a new article for massacres during the rev. and moved most of the stuff there, drastically shortening the article on this page. I think that there was widespread consensus that the section was getting way too long. Rather than starting an edit war lets all discuss whether we like the new or old system better. I think this system gives better and easier access to information, and avoids clutter. AlexiusComnenus 17:41, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Sure no doubt other than you impose your own point of view starting from the intro. It gives better and easier access to your nationalist point of view only, you deleted many things said in your brilliant, new article..--laertes d 20:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Denizz, I disagree with your reversion of the article, specifically the fact that is states that massacres began in the Peloponnese at the outbreak of the revolution. Booras and Brewer both claim that the massacres were caused by the hanging of the Patriarch, whereas St. Clair and Finley claim that the hanging was in retort to massacres of Turks.

Hence we must state that there is a dispute, and not paint things as black and white. AlexiusComnenus 23:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Why did you delete the stub on Klephts and Armatoloi!!! I was planning on filling this in! Use the tolk page!!! AlexiusComnenus 23:36, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Alexius im bored and disgusted with the kinds of editings that you have been doing in this article, you should thank to these so called administrators who do nothing about you.. there isnt a dispute, George Finlay, Alison Philips, William St. clair, Barbara Jelavich all the historians say it..And you counter it whit Greek and pro greek fellows whi try to whitewash the massacres--88.243.44.228 17:08, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

There is a dispute as Booras and Brewer claim the opposite, hence there is disagreement. Furthermore no one has yet managed to provide a concrete date of a massacre perpetrated by Greeks before the hanging of Patriarch Gregory. Wikipedia is not a forum to push anti-Greek POVs. All of the edits I have made have been to serve the purpose of balance and fairness.

If you disagree with any of what is written in the massacres section, please state specifics. AlexiusComnenus 19:51, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Alexius stop your little games, it is not that you really convince people with such bubble, but because they already dont want the massacres being mentioned and thats because nobody is dealing with you..You asked specifics right, here have some..

Various acts of brigandage were committed, in the confidence that impunity would soon be be secured...The first insurrectional movements took place at the end of MArch 1821. Many Musslumans were attacked nad murdered in the mountains of Achaia on the 28th.

George Finlay, History of the Greek Revolution, p.146

Murad, a Mussulman on friendly terms with Christians, was the first who departed with all his family. He was stopped on the road by Niketas and slain. This happended on the 2nd of April, and served as a signal for general rising of the Christians in Messenia. Before many hours elapsed a number of Turkish families were suprised and murdered.

George Finlay, History of the Greek Revolution, p.149

On the 3rd of April 1821, the Mussulmas of Kalavryta surrendered, on receivin g a promise of security. That premise soon violated.

George Finlay, History of the Greek Revolution, p.147--laertes d 22:22, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

i guess there is not much thing to discuss, i provided specific instances of masssacres before the hanging of Patriarch and basically all historians says that massacres in Peloponnese started before that, therefore beofre keep revrting the article first make propsals about it, now i am putting the article in a more appropriate order..--85.100.197.27 15:19, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Previous section of the page was saying that both sides was claiming massacres started by the other, this is simply not true since i am not using any Turkish source but basic historical accounts about the Greek war of independence. They are not to be equated by some few pro greek and greek sources..--85.100.197.27 15:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Poisoning the well again I see.--NeroDrusus 10:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Images of revolutionaries

I checked the images now, unfortunately there are some issues with the images. We might need to replace them, or replace the tags if we may. The sources of some images are themselves!

• We cannot use Image:Theodoros Kolokotronis.jpg here, b/c of the fair use rationale there, as this article is not about the person. Let's try to replace it.
• the source of Image:Manto Mavrogenous2.jpg is a fortunecity site, probably the site is not the owner. We need to find the author. The author probably died enough many years ago, so no need to replace the tag. Also, someone please contact the uploader User talk:Mallaccaos. The uploader's talk page is filled with image problem messages. I might try and contact him, but it might be better to have an experienced and Greek speaking editor contact him (maybe in Greek). The uploader is a native English and Greek speaker. It might be better to move the image to Commons as well.
• The source of Image:Androutsos.jpg is itself! The tag should be replaced as well. If you know French, please contact O Kolymbitès, the uploader.
• the same is true for Image:Karaiskakis.jpg
• Image:Petrobey-Mavromihalis.jpg needs a source and author. Also it might be better to move the image to Commons.

I can try to fix some of these later contacting the uploaders. Deniz^T_C 02:42, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Birth of a nation

Phrases such as "The fall of Constantinople in 1453 and the subsequent fall of Trebizond and Mystras in 1461 marked the end of Greek sovereignty for almost four centuries" and "After the conquest of Greece by the Ottomans in the 15th century" in the "Background" chapter seem to miss an important point: There was no "Greece" as such before the fall of Constantinople. There was a greek-speaking empire, the Byzantine, which however was as much an empire as any, it was not a "nation". The Greek state and the Greek identity are products of the Greek revolution, the same way that the Turkish state and identity did not surface until a century later with Kemal Ataturk. The pre-revolutionary greek speakers did not call themselves "greeks" (hellenes) but "romioi" (romans) refering to the East Roman empire. It might seem insignificant as a point, but phrasing these paragraphs in a different way might help the reader understand that with the Greek revolution we have a nation-building and identity-building process: The birth of a nation. Remember that 18th and 19th century Europe saw the birth of many other nations (France, Germany, Italy, etc) What are your opinions on this? Schizophonix 07:18, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

This is debatable, definitely there was a concept of Greekness that dates back to antiquity. Greeks certainly had a distinct identity based on culture, language and religion. No doubt the idea of the Greek nation changed greatly following the revolution, but there was still a Greek national before. And the perception in Greek historiography generally paints the picture mentioned in the article, so certainly it should be mentioned. AlexiusComnenus 21:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Combatants

Is a little misleading adding 3 powers in the box without the note that their only contribution was the naval battle of Navarino which actually happened due to a mistake.It's not that they contributed in any battle (as Russians in 1877-78 was for example) and in fact before the revolution gained a foothold -after initial wins- they were in fact hostile to it. Eagle of Pontus (talk) 22:05, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Title of the article in Ottoman Turkish

I permitted myself to correct 'isyani' by replacing hamza and, sin with ayn and sad; 'yunan' by removing the hamza on the vav. Ottoman orthography has been true to original in the use of arabic words to avoid ambiguity. Dmermerci (talk) 06:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Rich Greeks & Scholars, Ali Pasha

I think this article does not really cover the backround of the Revolution and its preparation. Except Dionysius, Feraios and the Filiki Etairia, there are not significant references to some important scholars, preparing the people. I think there should be an entire section devoted to them and their great work (i.e. we should give more weight to people like Kosmas o Aitolos, Methodius Anthrakites, Neofytos Doukas). Also, many rich Greeks that funded the Revolution (Demetrios Basileiou, Constantine Radus, L.Plakidas, Manthos Oikonomou, etc.) and we should refer to them seperatly. Also, the situation inside the Empire should be given more weight (ie, Vizier Ali Pasha's revolution that aided the Greeks greatly should be given more weight- Ali Pasha taught many Greeks in his military Academy, like Adroutsos, and was said to be Filikos). So, I propose to keep the section "Background" (to cover the historical Background) and create a new section like "Preparation of the Revolution" or so, with 4 sub-sections. In it, we could include "Armatoloi" and "Filiki Etairia", the second being much more focused in Filiki Etairia than it is now. The two new sections can be "Spiritual and Economical preparation" (or so) and "The situation in the Empire" (or so). That is a plan-starting proposal, that I believe should be reasonably discussed. What say you? --Michael X the White (talk) 17:25, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Provided some sources are given for it this could be useful. Note that Kosmas is covered in the article Cosmas of Aetolia and his article could also use expansion. Dimadick (talk) 07:35, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Overreliance on Paroulakis book

If this article is to reach FA status, then it's going to have to incorporate the most recent scholarly historical research on the Greek War of Independence. As it stands, there is a huge over reliance on the work of Peter H. Paroulakis. Paroulakis is not a professional historian. He is a graduate in Law from the University of Melbourne.--Damac (talk) 19:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Unsourced quote:

"The Greeks never lost their desire to escape from the heavy hand of the Turks, bad government, the impressment of their children, the increasingly heavy taxation, and the sundry caprices of the conqueror. Indeed, anyone studying the last two centuries of Byzantine rule cannot help being struck by the propensity of the Greeks to flee misfortune. The routes they chiefly took were: first, to the predominantly Greek territories, which were either still free or Frankish-controlled (that is to say, the Venetian fortresses in the Despotate of Morea, as well as in the Aegean and Ionian Islands) or else to Italy and the West generally; second, to remote mountain districts in the interior where the conqueror's yoke was not yet felt."

Where does this come from? Paroulakis, Vakalopoulos, somebody else? By the way, I agree with Damac's comments about Paroulakis. We need prominent scholars. I'll use some stuff from Svoronos—not that he is recent, but at least he is prominent (and interested in socio-economic factors as well)!--Yannismarou (talk) 13:46, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Blue boxes-images

Some issues with the blue boxes:

• I am the master of blue boxes, but try not to overdo it! If they have long quotes in them, they start to look ugly, and I'm afraid some of them in the article are on the verge of looking as such.
• If you have an English translation of a Greek text, mention your translator and source. Some of the blue boxes omit this info.
• Some right-aligned blue-boxes coincinde with some left-aligned images, creating the "sandwitch" effect, and making the main text almost unreadable. These problems need fixing and attention.--Yannismarou (talk) 08:13, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Macedonia section

"Mehmet Emin secured a victory at Kolindros while further north, in the vicinity of Naousa, the detachment of Karatasos, some 5,000 strong, recorded a victory but was checked by the arrival of fresh Ottoman reinforcements and then by Mehmet Emin himself who appeared with 20,000 regulars and irregulars" This phrase needs reformulating and a better choice of words in order to carify its meaning. Someone who knows the facts can help do this. Happy editing! Pel thal (talk) 14:31, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• Bad bad English indeed! When our rewriting is more advanced, I'll ask some good copy-editors and wiki-friends of mine to have a look at the article. For the time being, I'll check the sources for this particular issue you raise.--Yannismarou (talk) 08:15, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Whole section rewritten (though not one of my initial goals!). I'll report progress in the Mission's page!--Yannismarou (talk) 13:24, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Images and maps

Looking over the article, I've noticed that several of the sections are crowded with images and quote boxes and I've also noticed that gallery at the bottom. Should we keep the gallery and place the paintings of notable people there as that would help a bit with the crowding or should we get rid of the gallery all together and try and incorporate the images into the main part of the article. I also think that the article could use more maps showing the area during the war and operations during the war. Thoughts? Kyriakos (talk) 02:32, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I think there is an overuse of images. Sure they are "free" and we can use as many as we want, but that doesn't mean we should. There is limit to how many images you can have on a page before you are overwhelmed. Does the gallery add anything to the page or is it just a bunch of photos that belong on a person's biographical page? I agree with the need for maps. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 03:05, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

If you want this article to pass first through GAC and then through FAC, then the gallery should go. It is a no no! We should incorporate as many pictures as we regard as useful within the main article, and then get rid of it. I also agree with the need for maps, but who's going to make them?!--Yannismarou (talk) 12:13, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

How about using only some of the pix in the gallery when referring to a particular hero's input in the war? Pel thal (talk) 14:31, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with that, Pel thal. Currently we only on have the images of Feraios, Byron and Petros Mavromichalis in the article. The rest are in the gallery. Doesa nyone know anyone who could make some maps for us? Kyriakos (talk) 20:28, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

There was recently a discussion in Byzantine Empire and some offered in creatiing a map. I'll check it out.--Michael X the White (talk) 20:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Talessman, you mean? It was for a different issue I think (3-D animation map of the BE), but do check it out. Here, in order to create a map, we should have a source (a text offering the hints for the map or a source-map [even better!]). What is going to be our source for the map(s)? Do you have any books with military maps of the 1821 war?--Yannismarou (talk) 08:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

These are two nice maps about the insurrection in Macedonia. If there is any expert of you in maps, who can turn it into a proper wiki-map!--Yannismarou (talk) 10:07, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I think they look fine.Anyway, the discussion I mentioned didn't make any sense; we all just wanted a GIF but none knew how to make it... Meanwhile, I found two maps in the "Concise History of Greece, 1770-2000" by R.Clogg. The first, in page 30-31 shows the Greek communities in the Ottoman Empire and the second in page 68 shows the expansion of the Greek state 1832-1947. Also, I have found a map in "Atlas d'Histoire" of HAYT and "de boeck" in page 110 shoing the territorial breakdown of the Ottoman Empire between 1812-1913.I'll keep searching.--Michael X the White (talk) 10:13, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

European Intervention problematic

The section is very problematic. First of all, it gives no comprehensive account of the diplomatic background, and does not treat the reasons that led to the shift of UK's stance under Canning. It mentions the London Treaty of 1827, but not how we got to this treaty, and it continues to use non-scholar sources, such as Paroulakis.--Yannismarou (talk) 15:26, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I only rewrote the section leading up to Navarino. I'll see if I can write the bit on Britain's change of stance. I'll also try and remove Paroulakis from that section by finding alternate sources. Kyriakos (talk) 21:45, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll also look at the section, and try to add to the diplomatic background issue.--Yannismarou (talk) 10:59, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm re-reading the 'A Concise History of Greece' at the moment and it may have some useful infomation. If it does have some, I'll use it to add to the section. Kyriakos (talk) 12:32, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

This book is really very useful.In page 86 you will find a very interesting picture about the help! There is a lot of info to add in oage 63 ( I have the Greek version), explaining how we came to 1827.That's the best info concerning E. Intervention I have found.--Michael X the White (talk) 13:10, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I have the English version which I think has different page numberings. But it is a very useful book. Kyriakos (talk) 20:22, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

It's also in Google book for anybody interested in the book.--Yannismarou (talk) 10:14, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Added a paragraph to this section. However, I could not find any info on why Canning started to sympathize with the Greeks, only what happened afterwards this change of attitude. Pel thal (talk) 17:44, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

References

Is the Greek History book "Newer and Modern History"(Ιστορία Νεότερη και Σύγχρονη), Vas. Sfyroeras, Schoolbook for Triti Gymnasiou, 6th edition, Athens 1996 and distributed in Greek schools considered as a reliable source? Because a user that changed the "Klephts and Armatoloi" section called it "nationalistic myths". I was going to refer to this particular book in other contexts but in order to avoid edit wars, I think it should be clarified if it may be considered reliable. Pel thal (talk) 15:27, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd consider it to be reliable, why else would it be taught in school? Unless we teach false information lol. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 15:39, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, some people would argue that each country filters its history that is taught in schools. This is, however, not the case of this particular book but... Anyway, nice to see some logic replies once in a while:) Anyone else on this issue? Cheers! Pel thal (talk) 17:40, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't regard it as unreliable, but in an article aiming at getting the top quality status (GA or later FA) I would expect cited scholarly sources of the highest possible caliber, and not schoolbooks. Of course, such sources are better than nothing, but I would prefer to replace it some time, when a relevant specialized scholarly work is available. Recently, during Roman-Persian Wars FAC I was criticized for using Britannica ("It looks odd for a general encyclopedia to cite another general encyclopedia as a source" I was told), and not a specialized scholarly work!--Yannismarou (talk) 18:30, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Usually school history books provide a brief overview while a book by say a scholar would go into depth and interpret things. There's nothing wrong with finding additional sources though. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 19:02, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

There's a wealth of academic research out there that shows that history schoolbooks in many countries are used to justify the existence of the nation-state, legitimise its origins, sanctify its heroes and denigrate its enemies.

I can't comment on the book in question, but the issue of history books and their revision is a very contentious one in Greece, as typified by the 'history war' over a new book for the 6th primary school grade in 2007.

The safest approach is to use scholarly histories written by professional historians for an educated readership. That's the way to FA status.--Damac (talk) 19:12, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeap!--Yannismarou (talk) 19:15, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

OK! Giving a "solomonian" solution (wonder if this expression exists in English?), I propose that as long as there are no better sources, we could leave the referenced (to the history book or other controversial sources) sections and someone in possession of scholarly sources could verify these sections' content. Pel thal (talk) 19:31, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Well you were sourcing something we already had right? It wasn't like you added the information after reading the book. Do I have this right? Cause there would be a difference. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 19:34, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I only referred to the book in the section about Klephts and Armatoloi (adding a phrase that Yannis Makriyannis said about them being the "yeast of Freedom"-someone moved it to the section about central Greece I think) and today I added a brand-new paragraph to the european intervention section that some of you will write about if you find the scholarly works. Pel thal (talk) 19:41, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Which is the Greek word used: μαγιά or ζύμη?--Yannismarou (talk) 19:52, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Μαγιά. "Μαγιά της λευτεριάς" (σελ.122, ΣΤ' έκδοση) Pel thal (talk) 20:00, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

"μαγιά της λευτεριάς". Found it! We can cite Makrygiannis himself. The primary source itself. Does a second source like Sfyroeras or Kourvetaris add anything to what Makrygiannis said. If not, I do not see the need for a second source, accompanying the primary one.--Yannismarou (talk) 20:05, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Given that WP is a collaborative project, maybe we should establish the motto of this article or the WPGreece as "Είμαστε εις το εμείς και όχι εις το εγώ" that Mr. Makriyannis once wrote. One translates the texts, another wikipedian provides scholarly sources and someone else reverts the edits! (sorry, some wikihumour slipped out of me. I promise it won't happen again in this serious matter...) Pel thal (talk) 20:17, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Given that I was the user that made the edits discussed above, I think I am entitled to clarify my point. When talking about "nationalistic myths", I didn't mean to condemn Sfyroeras' book as such, but most of what was written on klephts and armatoloi (many Greeks wishing to preserve their Greek identity, Orthodox Christian religion and independence, chose the difficult but free life of a bandit, (klephts and armatoloi) began to establish relations with one another under a common ethnic identity. This collaboration was also based on mutual sentiments against foreign conquerors ), ie. Paroulakis-based info (see here). Nevertheless, I would like to stress the importance of scholarly approved sources -as Damac pointed out- especially when dealing with a rather misconceived topic, like the conditions of living of the Greek-speaking Orthodox population in the Ottoman Empire. Ashmedai 119 (talk) 21:06, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

But citing what Makriyannis said about the klephts is no "nationalistic myth".--Yannismarou (talk) 14:58, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I cannot find out where I said so or even implied something like that. Please take a look at this change. I didn't remove relevant info, but only relocated it in another section along with a request for a proper source -not a schoolbook!

P.S. I hopefully plan to rewrite the "Background" section till the end of September. Ashmedai 119 (talk) 16:26, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

From a logical point of view (and taking it for granted that the above people involved in the discussion do not have any objections!), I'll move the comment about the "yeast of liberty" from the Central Greece section to the section about the "klephts", properly cited. Actually, I'll do it now... The "yeast" discussion will soon be turning into bread in this hot atmosphere:) Pel thal (talk) 16:34, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Status

I offered some comments in the WP:GREECE mission page. More to come.--Yannismarou (talk) 12:57, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Clogg's book

I have found a lot of interesting stuff in Clogg's Concise History of Greece nad I've added them here. The thing is, I have the Greek Edition and I added that remark, so that there is not a confusion with the page numberlings. Could anyone who has the English edition (Kyriakos??) fix the numberlings according to the English edition?? (So that we stick to one edition as Yannis said in the Mission Page).--Michael X the White (talk) 13:42, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I have access to these editions:

1. Clogg, Richard [1992] (reprint 1999), A Concise History of GREECE, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, ISBN 0 521 37830 3 (pbk)
2. Clogg, Richard (2002) A Concise History of GREECE: Second Edition, 2nd ed., Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, ISBN 0 521 00479 9 (pbk)
3. Clogg, Richard (1979), A Short History of Modern Greece, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, ISBN 0 521 22479 9 (hard cover). Do you have the translation of the first or the second editon? Tell me if you need anything of the above. --157.228.x.x (talk) 17:01, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I have the translation of the 2nd edition. (2 on your list,Cambridge 2002, Gr:Katoptro 2003 )Thanks,Michael X the White (talk) 18:45, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

OK I think that's all for now. Quite different page numbering between the Greek and the English editions and the same stands for the first and the second English editions. Cheers --157.228.x.x (talk) 17:30, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Well done, 157.228.x.x! I'll be again with the article during the weekend (and this is a real threat, guys!)!--Yannismarou (talk) 07:08, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment on the "Greek" identity in the history

Since there is a little controversy in the editing I thought I should explain myself here.

We should be very careful about throwing around the term Greek when discussing the history predating the modern Greek nation. Today we can use Greek in a non-ambiguous way because there is an explicit state with the name Greece. But this has not always been the case.

Some points to bear in mind:

• The Greek term was used effectively as an insult by the West in referring to the Eastern Roman (Byzantine) Empire. During the late stages of the Empire the inhabitants did began to identify with the Greek label to a degree but still viewed themselves more as Roman.
• There was not really a concept of a "Greek nation" within the Roman Empire. Greek was seen as a language of culture but the fact that somebody spoke Greek was not seen necessarily as an indication of ethnicity (in the same way that English-speaking Americans are not thought of as British).
• The people who formed the modern nation of Greece only partially thought of themselves as "Greeks" and more thought of themselves as "Romans" or "Christians" (terms which they tended to think of as synonymous). Due to the politics of the time and the evolution of thought in the Balkans during the 19th century, the people of Greece gradually eschewed their "Roman" identity and began to identify more with ancient Greece than their Roman heritage (the two are not separate, of course).
• The people who formed modern Greece were Christians but not uniformly Greek-speaking. Greek was adopted as the language of the new nation both because it was the most widely spoken language among the Ottoman Christians, other than Turkish, and perhaps more importantly, it was their liturgical language (compare this to Israel adopting Hebrew which had been a dead language before the modern state appeared; most Jews knew some Hebrew but to have described them as a Hebrew-speaking people would have been dishonest).

So trying to apply the generic label "Greek" to any group of people between Alexander the Great's conquests and the modern Greek state is, at best, problematic and, at worst, disingenious.

-- Mcorazao (talk) 23:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Be honest here, there's no "controversy" (I changed your "Byzantine" to "Greek-speaking" so it made more sense in this context); you just needed to express yourself for whatever reasons. Nonetheless, I agree with most of what you wrote (probably because it's all so well-known) but, of course, comparisons between Greek and Hebrew in that regard are "at best, problematic and, at worst, disingenious(sic)" and the specific statement "any group of people between Alexander the Great's conquests" needs no comment. 3rdAlcove (talk) 03:43, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I offered an explanation out of respect for you guys since I have not been a regular editor here. I am not sure why there is a reason to question my motives ...

-- Mcorazao (talk) 05:07, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Neither am I and I didn't question your motives; your change was fine (I didn't revert you, correct?). In any case, this will be my last comment so apologies if you were offended. 3rdAlcove (talk) 07:52, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Nation vs. state

The second paragraph currently reads:

...the Greeks thus became the first people of the Ottoman Empire's subjects to secure recognition as an independent nation by the Treaty of Constantinople...

But the Treaty of Constantinople surely did not recognize the Greeks qua people/nation/millet as "independent". Otherwise all the millet-i-Rûm (i.e. all the non-Armenian Christians), including the many million Orthodox Greek-speakers in Thessaly, Macedonia, Thrace, and Anatolia (not to mention the non-Greek speaking Christians including the Serbs, the Romanians, etc.), would have been recognized "as an independent nation". The Treaty of Constantinople recognized the Kingdom of Greece (not the Greek people) as an independent state. I would correct this directly in the article, but I thought it might be better to discuss here on Talk first.... --macrakis (talk) 21:56, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Makrinoro

I've been reading Makrygiannis' memoirs and he mentions -among other battles already presented in wiki- a battle in Lagada of Makrinoro (Λαγκάδα του Μακρυνόρου) (B page 67-68). He claims that the gate of Makryioro was a key-point and vital for the revolution. Does anyone have any info and sources about this conflict?77.83.236.182 (talk) 15:00, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Dates

Just a question: how should the dates in this article be? E.g. should we write 24 February or February 24? Different sections have different ways of writing the dates. However, I think that the article should be uniform as far as dates are concerned. Pel thal (talk) 06:57, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Killed In Action

In the campaign box I can't seem to find the battle in which Karaiskakis got killed. Despite that he's referred as KIA in this article.

He was killed during the Ottoman siege of Athens. Kyriakos (talk) 23:28, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Philhellenes

"In Europe, the Greek revolt aroused widespread sympathy among the public but was met at first with the lukewarm reception above from the Great Powers, with Britain then backing the insurrection from 1823 onward after Ottoman weakness was clear, despite the opportunities offered the occupiers by Greek civil conflict and the addition of Russian support aimed at limiting British influence over the Greeks". The meaning and formulation of this phrase is unclear. Too long, too complicated. Would somebody with some knowledge of the facts mentioned have a look at it? Because I cannot edit the phrase as I do not understand the meaning. Thanx! Pel thal (talk) 13:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I rephrased it. Hopefully it is better now. Kyriakos (talk) 20:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

"(A little known fact is that) The Greek War of Independence of 1821 (against the Ottoman Empire) inflamed the imagination of leading American political figures who caught "Greek Fever". This revolt parallels the American Revolution and brings parallels between March 25th and the Fourth of July. Thomas Jefferson , author of the Declaration of Independence, had extensive correspondence regarding the principles of democratic government with Adamantios Korais, one of the intellectual fathers of the Greek Revolution. President James Madison, major author of the American Constitution, and President James Monroe supported the (Greek) revolt in private correspondence and in public speeches. Prominent politicians such as Daniel Webster, Sam Houston, and Henry Clay championed Greece on the floor of the United States Senate. the Greek War of Independence would produce an abundance of heroes, traitors, massacres, and foreign interventions. In that regard, the Greek War of Independence again parallels the history of the American Revolution. A significant percent of American colonists remained loyal to the British monarch and lived comfortably while Washington's famished troops shivered in their winter camps. Washington himself was a target of conpiracy of other generals who wanted to replace him as commander-in-chief. Due to related quarrels with General Gates, Benedict Arnold, the leader of the American victory at the crucial battle of Saratoga, eventually deserted to the British side. The climatic battle of Yorktown was achieved only with the assistance of the French Navy.

Similar patterns formed during the Greek Revolution. At one point General Theodoros Kolokotronis was actually jailed by political rivals. Co-ordination between Greek land and sea forces was weak. Some Greeks remained loyal to the Sultan; and Greece's European Allies did not wish to see a full-fledged democracy emerge from the conflict. Thus, the revolution that began as the new cutting edge of democracy forged the spirit of the French Enlightenment ultimately was forced by Britain, France, and Russia to accept the son of a Bavarian aristocrat as its constitutional monarch. The Sultan also had powerful allies such as Ibrahim Pasha of Egypt. Pasha, in fact, would continue the fight against the Greeks after the Sultan's own forces were defeated.

The most famous American poet of the time, William Cullen Bryant, wrote on behalf of the Greeks, and hundreds of poems, editorials and news stories by less famous persons appeared throughout the national press. Cities such as Ypsilanti, Michigan, were named after heroes of the revolution, and numerous state assemblies towns, and colleges passed resolutions in support of the Greek cause. Funds were raised to aid the Greeks, and American volunteers journeyed across the Atlantic to fight alongside the Greeks. The sculptor Hiram Walker created 'The Greek Slave' a mournful marble statue that depicted a Greek woman enslaved by the Ottomans." Excerpts from an article by Dan Georgakas —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.131.20.65 (talk) 00:40, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

French Flag

Why is the France represented by a white flag? Did they actually have a plain white flag? Or is the icon just there in order to induce a doublé entendre? Because that would be sort of racist. --T.M.M. Dowd (talk) 20:06, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I think it is a mistake. I'll try to fix it right now but, since I'm not good at editing pictures etc, I may need help from more capable editors. Bonjour! Pel thal (talk) 09:18, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

No, apparently it is correct, we had an edit-war over that a while back. Check [5] and Bourbon Restoration. Regards, Constantine ✍ 09:24, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Just saw the same thing as CPlakidas. [6]. Sorry! Pel thal (talk) 09:27, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Filiki Eteria

"The Filiki Eteria rapidly expanded, gaining members in almost all regions of Greek settlement, amongst them figures who would later play a prominent role in the war, such as Theodoros Kolokotronis, Odysseas Androutsos, Papaflessas, Dimitris Plapoutas, and Laskarina Bouboulina." Could somebody offer a more reliable source for that besides Paroulakis?--Yannismarou (talk) 22:38, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

No?!--Yannismarou (talk) 23:41, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Can you think of a source? Because I have no idea. But...since I will visit some libraries in the days and weeks to come, if you come up with something please tell me and I'll fix it and mention the source. Au revoir! Pel thal (talk) 10:01, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

How about Εμμ. Ξάνθου, Απομνημονεύματα περί της Φιλικής? Found it cited in an essay about the Filiki Eteria. I'll try to search it on the web but I can't promise miracles... Pel thal (talk) 16:07, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Just found a link citing several useful sources. Pel thal (talk) 16:22, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

There's a section about Filiki Eteria concerning Crete in a chapter in this book. Νικόλαος Μ. Παναγιοτάκης, Κρήτη, Ιστορία καί Πολιτισμος, Τόμος Δεύτερος, σελιδα 365. 1. Η δραση της Φιλικης Εταιρειας στην Κρητη. Βικέλαια Δημοτική Βιβλιοθηκη, Συνδεσμος Τοπικων Ενοσεων Δημον και Κοινοτητων Κρητης. 1988. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 04:21, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

All of the references that I have spell it as "Philiki Etairia" and not "Filiki Eteria" but I guess you must have already had that discussion. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 04:38, 17 March 2010 (UTC)