Wikipedia

Talk:Circassian genocide/Archive 1

< Talk:Circassian genocide
Latest comment: 7 years ago by Resnjari in topic Other useful places for future expansion
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Flaw

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There is a flaw with in this formulation: "in particular several minority languages obtained official status." Officially there are three minorities in Turkey. One can say that there are others, but that remains the internationally recognized official context. The official context is still more relevant here since the phrase refers to it. We can mention TV broadcasts, education and cultural developments, but this is not what official status is about, this is acknowledgement of their existence. Cretanforever 18:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Circassian ethnic cleansing

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hey, I did an article about it. Everyone's welcome to add something to or correct the article, incorporate it into existing ones, and also to protect it from overzealous Russian nationalistic editor(s). Thanks! --HanzoHattori 23:01, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Title

Latest comment: 14 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion

Can anyone point out to reliable scholarly sources using the title muhajir to describe the emigration of Muslims from the Caucasus to the Ottoman Empire? In Arabic muhajir means "emigrant", i.e. a person, so this term cannot be applied to an event. Beit Or 10:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Where in the article do you see the term "muhajir" applied to an event? Mukadderat 02:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
The article is about an event (emigration), and yet it's titled "Muhajir" (person). Also, notice the inconsistency: the title is "Muhajir (Caucasus)", but the article starts with the word "muhajirism". Beit Or 18:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
I followed the suit in the disambiguation page Muhajir. I created the page after noticing the link to the word Mujahir in Caucasian context points to dismbiguation page. If you think that the title is not good, please suggest a better one. Mukadderat 04:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Neither We(Caucasian Exiles), nor Turks here use this term on Us or Georgians, it is strictly used for Turkish nationals from Balkanian countries(including Greek Macedonia and Crete excluding for Greece Proper), this page is fishy and has to be replaced with Circassian Genocide.

In Russian historiography the term is being used as "muhajiristvo". so it is reasonable to argue that the term is widely used for circassian/caucassian exiles.


Hmm, how did the immediately preceding comment get by without a time stamp? Anyway, it is UNREASONABLE to argue so: just because Russian language history has some term doesn't mean English has that same term. Muhajirism is not a valid word in English. And so far, there is no comparable word that differs just by using a different word forming suffix (e.g., muhajirage matching pilgrimage). You mean to say exodus. The verb root of muhajiir in Arabic simply means "depart". Muhammad's hijra was simply his departure for Mecca. Of course, his purpose in departing was flight. Now, in history the words hijra and muhajiir have acquired *connotation* of "flee" on top of "depart". As the Wikipedia disambiguation page shows, there are many historical situations in which Muslims made an exodus (literally, going out of someplace) to escape persecution. "Flee, flight" is a frequently *historical connotation* of English exodus, just as it is of Arabaic hijrah. So exodus is the proper word. Hurmata (talk) 05:03, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Of course, "exodus" isn't quite accurate -- this was an expulsion. Hurmata (talk) 18:49, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Until finding this article and the associated disambiguation page, the only use of muhajir I was aware of was in Pakistan history. All the exoduses on the disambiguation page are by Muslims. Thus there is the implication that there exists in the Muslim world a conception, a viewpoint, by which special recognition is given to Muslim exoduses, and some people keep a list of these exoduses. I question whether this is true, or least I question whether this was true before, say 1950. I wonder whether this notion of memorializing Muslims exoduses is an item in some recent ideological agenda. If it *is* a valid historiographic category, then you should call it "Muslim exoduses" and not "muhajirism", which in English is a phony word and is not the best application of the suffix -ism. Hurmata (talk) 04:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The title "Muhajir" is absolutely ridiculous! Circassian Ethnic Cleansing, Circassian Genocide, Expulsion of Circassian People... There are a dozen valid tittles why invent a weird new tittle that is not even English? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nesij (talk • contribs) 17:50, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Category dispute

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

user:Ghirlandajo finds the category:Ethnic cleansing inflammatory. I find it rather more exact. I think category:Forced migration is vague. "Ethnic cleansing" narrows down this subcategory: forced migration (and other means) with the specific purpose: eliminate a certain ethnicity in the area. If colleague Ghirtlandajo can demonstrate that this was not the goal of Russian Empire, I will gladly agree for the removal of the cathegory. Meanwhile I would kindly ask the colleague to avoid inflammatory edit summaries. I am still waiting for an apology for the edit summary: 10:12, 5 December 2006 Ghirlandajo (Talk | contribs) m (rmv trolling) Mukadderat 05:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


I think Circassian Ethnic Cleansing or Circassian Genocide would be more appropriate as a title for this article...

Not all Circassians were Muslim.

More Importantly:

Russia didn't commit this genocide because Circassians were Muslim! Basically The Russian leadership wanted to gain the Black sea Coast and Circassians were on the way, and they were a problem, so they had to be removed (in other words killed or exiled).

There is big difference between kill, exile and migrate. The article is about mass forced migration and not about mass murder (cleansing).93.129.196.69 (talk) 21:48, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

References

Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Almost all the references are untracable. Those that are deal with such general topics like Russia that make it useless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reargun (talk • contribs) 03:47, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

The references are untraceable, the title is inappropriate and the article is not comprehensiveNettieoneg (talk) 19:41, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Apologies for not being able to respond sooner. Here is some particularly germane scholarship on the topic, The Northwest Caucasus: Past, Present, Future, by Walter Richmond. I haven't seen it referenced anywhere. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 04:32, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Disputed redirect of Circassian Genocide

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The redirect at Circassian Genocide is under discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 October 21 Andy Dingley (talk) 10:56, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Rename to Circassian Genocide

Latest comment: 13 years ago47 comments10 people in discussion

Discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 October 21#Circassian Genocide suggests that an article rename to Circassian Genocide may be in order. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:24, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

The articles, Circassian Genocide and Muhajir (Caucasus) should not be linked to each other. In addition to many other reasons, one reason is that Muhajir is an Arabic word and Circassians are not Arabic. This implies some sort of religious reasoning behind the genocide, when it had nothing to do with religion. There are a million reasons to take the redirect away and/or rename the article and allow for editing.Nettieoneg (talk) 19:48, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Editing has been allowed for as long as this article has existed. Why haven't you fixed it yet? Andy Dingley (talk) 20:21, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Good point, Andy :P I am going to get started on it. Who will make the final decision on whether it gets renamed or not? Thanks again for your help.Nettieoneg (talk) 21:08, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I wish you'd discussed this rename before proceeding with it. This is for two reasons:
  • Firstly this was undiscussed. Now I would probably support it (It's still arguable whether Circassian Genocide is better or Genocide and Deportation of Circassians), because there's a good case for using one of these and including the term "Genocide" rather than "Muhajir". However when it's made by one editor without obvious discussion and WP:CONSENSUS beforehand, it's too easy for another editor (non-Circassian and terribly biased) to claim that this rename was unjustified. Then it goes off to WP:ANI and the choice of name becomes a matter for voting between ignorant American teenagers (see WP:RANDY) who base their knowledge entirely on whether something has ever appeared in a video game.
Clear consensus decisions are robust, and not susceptible to being reversed by a biased whim later.
Andy Dingley (talk) 10:29, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Andy-

I'm sorry that I jumped the gun... I changed the case of deportation to match the naming policy. As far as the ANI goes, is there anything that can be done now or will it just automatically jump to that vote?Nettieoneg (talk) 12:56, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the rename. Another reason to try to get things right before changing anything is to avoid creating double redirects, i.e. Circassian Genocide was still pointing to "Deportation", not "deportation". I've now fixed these, there were already half-a-dozen of them. Seven! Missed one.
As to possible future argument, then I think we're OK, it's just a worst-case scenario (look at the fighting over the Balkan and Armenian articles). If anyone does have an issue with this rename though, I'd ask them to plase speak up, do it soon and do it here first. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:35, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I've added move protection after a request on RfPP. That doesn't mean the current title is favoured, so please hold a requested move discussion to determine consensus, then ping an admin to move it again if that's the outcome. The default position is the title before the current series of moves began, i.e. Muhajir (Caucasus), so there has to be a consensus of established editors, not including new or occasional accounts, to move it elsewhere. Without that consensus it will probably be moved back. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 10:14, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

No basis for genocide claim? "The genocide committed against the Circassian nation by Czarist Russia in the 1800s was the biggest genocide of the nineteenth century. Yet it has been almost entirely forgotten by later history, while everyone knows the later Jewish Holocaust and many have heard about the Armenian genocide." This was a calculated plan by Czarist Russia to massacre millions of people for the sole purpose of imperialism. You cannot deny these facts if you do research into the history of these people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.109.212.61 (talk) 17:51, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Response to Petri: Petri, to say there is no basis is too much. If you Google "Circassian Genocide" you will see hundreds of thousands of works by experts, scholars, and historians. I don't know who or what you are, but I am not sure if you can contest these thousands of academic works. Can you prove that there is no grounds for a genocide claim? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bjarkasi (talk • contribs) 18:03, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I do not doubt that you can find "sources" making the genocide allegation. False claims of genocide is a very effective and popular form of hate speech. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 06:31, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Point by point discussion

I am unfamiliar with this issue, so please forgive me if I try and break it down into smaller pieces. I see the following points as potentially contentious and relevant to the issue of naming. What evidence do we have for each of them? Andy Dingley (talk) 21:12, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

"Circassian" as an identifiable grouping of people

Pro
Contra

Arabic terms such as "Muhajir" (or others) being linguistically appropriate

NB - Implications of the meaning of such terms is not the issue here - see below.

Pro
Contra
  • The Circassians were no part of the Ottoman empire before this and certainly not Arabs. Some influence of Islam long pre-dates these events, although even that might be largely an influence after these (clarification welcome). Islam implies some knowledge of Arabic amongst the Imams at least, but even that is no evidence for its use as a widespread language of everyday conversation or identity. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:23, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I see no proof that Circassians use or ever did use the Arabic term, except maybe in the diaspora in Arabia (and even there it's doubtful...). --Yalens (talk) 03:21, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

The semantics of "Muhajir" (i.e. "traveller") being an accurate description

NB - Implications of expressing this with an Arabic term are not the issue here, see above.

Pro
Contra
  • This term infers Circassians left their land voluntarily for religious purposes. The term Muhajir is a term that described Prophet Muhammad's travel to Mecca. Surely we cannot compare Prophet Muhammad's travel of religious enlightenment to the slaughter and expulsion of Circassians.
  • Also, I'd like to add that Arabic is not well translated into the Latin alphabet. Muhajir can easily be changed to another word with a whole different meaning if you change the pronunciation of one vowel. This is grammatical mechanics in Arabic; conjugations, past tenses, male/female possession require different cases and they only require single letters to be changed/switched to mean different things. It makes sense in the Arabic alphabet, but in the Latin alphabet it does not translate well. This is also very misleading. (98.109.212.61)

The use of "Genocide" as an appropriate term

Pro
  • Boris Yeltsin (and I'm working from a translation here, so may be inaccurate) has apparently denied Tsarist (and by implication, Modern Russian) responsibility for this genocide. Yet himself used the term "genocide" to do so. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:25, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
  • There is an abundance of material online and published that calls the Circassian case a genocide, by Circassians and non-Circassians alike. However, there is little material that is non-Russian that says otherwise, and even so they generally admit the murderous acts.--Bjarkasi (talk) 07:15, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
  • The first results on Google when you type "The Circassian", the first result refers to the genocide, as opposed to the deportation, expulsion, or any other word with similar meaning.--Bjarkasi (talk) 07:15, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
  • As a response to jlgrock's comment about the Olympics campaign: As Dingley said, the issue dates before that; furthermore, I don't see why the involvement of this issue makes the thing somehow sinister. How is that worse than Russian editors opposing the move in relation to the Sochi issue? --Yalens (talk) 03:21, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
  • In a sense, the Circassian Genocide if it is to be called that... is more complete than that of Jews and Armenians. Nowadays, no one knows what a Circassian is (and they used to, 150 years ago! It even landed itself in well-known commercial products!); they truly have been wiped off the map. Thus, the final stage of genocide is almost completed. --Yalens (talk) 03:21, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Russians found Circassians to be “barbaric” and uncontrollable, so their cooperation with Tsarist forces was not expected. The only way for Russians to deal with Circassians would be the total extermination of them. Grand Duke Michael: “We wouldn’t leave our duties thinking that Mountaineers are not surrendering. To wipe out the half, the other half needed to be destroyed.” Since it was stereotypical for Circassians to be perceived this way by Russians, the reason to murder Circassians was simply because they were Circassians, barbaric by nature as popularly perceived; it was believed nothing could help them because all Circassians were this way. --Bjarkasi (talk) 17:04, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Contra
I don't know when the Olympics were allocated, or when the anti-Olympics campaign began, but nosochi2014.com was registered in Jan 2010. Circassian genocide dates from 2006 and Circassian Genocide from 2008. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:30, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

The Olympics were allocated in 2007, whereas several resolutions for recognition of this genocide had been appealed in the past 15 or so years to Russian federal bodies. The issue of the genocide predates the issue of the Sochi Olympics... there is no convenience to the timing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.109.212.61 (talk) 23:47, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


While personally I agree that it was genocide, not only against Circassians, but against all the affected Caucasian groups in general for the reasons I mentioned above... somehow I think it might not be helpful to put such a controversial title up right now. --Yalens (talk) 03:21, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
You might consider "ethic cleansing," it clearly fits. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 03:53, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
The Olympics were allocated in 2007, but Olympic bids were submitted few years before. The timing prefectly coincides with the new rise of genocide recognition campaign. GreyHood Talk 13:48, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Yeltsin didn't use the term genocide. Apparently this false information comes from such sources as this one:
Former Russian President Boris Yeltsin's May 1994 statement admitted that North Caucasian resistance to the tsarist forces was legitimate, but the current appeal notes that he did not recognize "the guilt of the tsarist government for the genocide committed against the peoples of the North Caucasus." [2]
So the term genocide was used in the appeal, not by Yeltsin. Here is more detailed Russian source, which directly tells that Yeltsin recognised that Circassians had the right for resistance and for fight for freedom, but didn't recognised genocide [3]. Here is the original of Yeltsin's statement [4]. It doesn't use the term genocide. GreyHood Talk 13:11, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Also, it is important to note, that while in the 1990s Adygeya, Abhazia, and Kabardino-Balkaria officially requested to recognise the term "genocide" and Russian responsibility for what is supposed to be denoted by the term, these requests and pushing the terminology were abandoned long ago, and nothing happened on official level of federal and republican governments for the last 15 years. Present governments of Adygeya, Abhazia, and Kabardino-Balkaria don't support the campaign for "genocide" term. So basically, in terms of internal affairs of Russia the question rised in the early 1990s but died out after that. GreyHood Talk 13:38, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Another thing to note is that there is no official position of Turkey regarding the question of genocide, and Turkey is the country with the largest population of Circassians. So basically, modern campaign for "genocide" recognition is not officially supported by main involved countries. GreyHood Talk 13:38, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
While this debate is not productive in my opinion, I'd have to rebut a number of misplaced points by Greyhood. First of all, that the current governments of Adygea, Abkhazia, Kabardino-Balkaria and Karacheyo-Cherkessia have stopped campaigning for genocide recognition (which isn't 100% true of Adygea and Kabardino-Balkaria as they float it now and then) does not reflect a change in position. Rather, it reflects the fact that all the governments of all of them except Abkhazia are quite literally put in place by Moscow and not by the people they are supposed to represent. Their "presidents" are even appointed by Putin. Abkhazia, meanwhile, is politically and economically dependent on Russia, placing its government in a similar position. If governments that were so dependent on the Kremlin DID campaign for genocide recognition, it would be rather abnormal; that they don't is not surprising considering who put them there in the first place.
Likewise, Turkey. Turkey does not represent Circassians or North Caucasians simply because a number of them live there. Neither does any other country. Turkey represents its nominal majority, the Anatolian "Turks". Furthermore, Turkey (right now, at least) would rather the Circassians in Turkey think of themselves as Turks rather than Circassians, and definitely would not encourage non-Turkish nationalism. Thus, both of the two points are rather irrelevant.--Yalens (talk) 20:19, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
While your reply may be quite sensible, you haven't rebutted the main point of my comment: there is no official support and campaigning for the Circassian genocide recognition nor in contemporary Russia and Abkhazia, neither in Turkey. And it is is quite important thing. All support comes from the Circassian organisations and some Western authors and media. All this is important, but what is much more important is the official stances of the involved states and the usage of the term in the scholarly sources. GreyHood Talk 16:12, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Relevant Considerations

I'd like to clearly mention that there are other issues to be considered in supporting the case of genocide. Genocide comes in many forms: the destruction of cultural symbols (statues, official buildings), the destruction of historically significant information (national archives, as done to the Circassians), genocide by starvation (burning crops, killing cattle), cultural genocide (depriving groups of practicing culture, forcing foreign names on ethnic groups), linguistic genocide (not allowing groups to speak their own languages). Circassians satisfy many of these conditions, as they do the condition of intentional murder.

The use of "Deportation" as an appropriate term

Pro
  • There appears to be good historical evidence for this, on three grounds:
    • A pre-existing plan to clear Circassians from these lands, and to re-settle them within the Ottoman Empire.
    • Military actions to clear settlements within these lands.
    • Forced embarkation onto ships.
Andy Dingley (talk) 21:27, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
  • More evidence, Andy
    • Roughly 90 percent, or 6-7 million Circassians now find their homes outside of their motherland. The diaspora is spread across the world with members living in Jordan, Syria, Turkey, the United States and other regions. The 700,000 remaining Circassians in the North Caucasus only make up the majority in one of the 3 republics in which they live (Karbardino-Balkaria).
    • Sergei Markedonov, who is a Russian commentator on the North Caucasus, has said that while he "does not believe" that Russia purposefully wiped out the Circassians, he does believe that 90 percent of Circassians "left" their homeland.
    • If needed I can cite these sources, I was just not sure how to do it on this talk page

Nettieoneg (talk) 23:53, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

With respect, neither of these are evidence for deportation, rather than voluntary muhajir. The evidence for forced deportation (which I agree, is strong) has to be based on the evidence that is clearly for deportation and forced deportation alone as a cause. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:13, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Okay, Andy... you do your job properly and I respect that :) Here is another shot:
    • "Russia 's war campaigns concentrated in the Circassian lands of the Northwest Caucasus and the Black Sea coast. To oppress the Circassians, Russia ended up in a solution that was to have sinister historical significance: All the historical territory of the Circassians, the Kuban plains and the Black Sea coast, were to be cleansed of the original population. The Circassians were given two choices: they could move to the interior parts of the Empire, or flee to Turkey. Most Circassians chose Turkey. Mass deportations were started in 1860, and the consequences were catastrophic. A humanitarian disaster followed, and the Circassians immediately organized armed resistance, and made Sochi their capital, appealing for Turkey and the Western states to recognize independent Circassia. Their appeals were ignored. In 1862, Russia again started violent deportations, and by May 1864, the Circassian resistance had been crushed. The deportation did not take place without major violence, but the Russian imperial troops committed horrible massacres, and besides, thousands of people starved to death."---- excerpt from an Anssi Kullberg article in The Eurasian Politician from 10/2003

Nettieoneg (talk) 10:29, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I want to draw attention that there seems to be a tendency to inflate the numbers of Circassians living abroad. If you make a sum of figures used in the infobox of Adyghe people you'll get just 3 million, both in Russia and abroad. Russian sources tells about "hundreds of thousands" in Russia, and 3 million abroad[5]. Where are the supposed additional 3-4 millions? How does the figure of 6-7 million comply with the data by country, that indicates to twice as low total figure? GreyHood Talk 13:19, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Contra


It is essential that the word genocide is in the title. While it may not fit your legal definition of genocide, which doesn't matter considering there are many varying terms to define genocide, many scholars certainly consider the acts genocidal. On top of this, to just put deportation is unfair; this would infer that Circassians were not murdered on their own land and that this was an attempt to ONLY DEPORT. This is in fact untrue. Circassians were not only deported, but they were murdered in mass, in their homeland. It is essential to have the word genocide in the title. --Bjarkasi (talk) 07:12, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

reply- We can still have it in the lead without having a title that will make the page a lightningrod, can't we?--Yalens (talk) 03:21, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Contemporary Western news / propaganda gives no support for the genocide claim. (see http://www.circassian-genocide.info/ ) In fact, it is even difficult to find support for a "deportation" claim. The proper title for the article would be Circassian exodus. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 19:51, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Lack of proof in a single source (which I'd note is itself named "Circassian Genocide") is no disproof! Andy Dingley (talk) 22:07, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Canvassing on OWWR radio in New York

Latest comment: 13 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

There is an interesting report on the merge and move discussion of the Wikipedia article Circassian genocide on the show An Hour in the Caucasus broadcast on OWWR radio on 88.9 MHz in New York on October 25, 2010. The show is available as a podcast here: An Hour in the Caucasus 10-25-10 -- Petri Krohn (talk) 18:35, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Petri Krohn, I find your accusations funny, especially when it is apparent that you have your nose in a bunch of Russian Wikipedia articles. Perhaps you are an employee of the Russian propaganda machine. Regardless, the accusation is preposterous considering your stance on all things Russian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bjarkasi (talk • contribs) 16:55, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

As host and founder of An Hour in the Caucasus, I urge you to speak about the show in context (ie. do not listen to one clip of a show that was posted on a Juha Molari forum, but instead listen to other episodes). I also do not think the term "canvassing" is appropriate, considering that I am not Circassian myself nor am I a politician or member of any organization. I see no profit from any work I do in regard to the Caucasus and if you knew me personally, my extraordinary lack of wealth would make this obvious to you ;-) Nettieoneg (talk) 21:43, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Personally, there's no editor here that is reputably advocating for milquetoast ("exodus") as title, et al. Personally, we should go ahead with the rename to indicate "ethnic cleansing" post-haste if there are no historically responsible objections. Certainly I haven't seen any raised, and the more I read particularly from contemporary accounts, the more appalled I am. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 03:20, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Per various discussions over the last month and more, I have put in a move request to rename to "Ethnic cleansing of Circassians". There is no doubt in either current scholarship or contemporary accounts of the time that the objective was, indeed, to cleanse the Circassian homeland of all Circassians. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 03:46, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Not the only case of extreme brutality, suggestion on rename

Latest comment: 13 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

The dispassionate question to ask, was there a concerted effort to wipe out the Circassians? I expect there to be some debate on that despite estimates (based on census and other records) that at the end of this catastrophe more than half of all Circassians who once inhabited their ancestral lands were dead. In the meantime, however, the policy of burning every village, relocating and deporting Circassians with no concern for their survival, let alone well-being, certainly overwhelmingly warrants renaming the article to "Ethnic cleansing of Circassia" or the currently redirected "Circassian ethnic cleansing." Contemporary sources speak of the Circassian homelands turned into a barren wasteland. "Deportation" is clearly a wholly insufficient term to appropriately describe what occurred. "Ethnic cleansing" applies completely. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 04:26, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Assuming the article is renamed, as it clearly needs to be to appropriately reflect the event, is there support for either variant of "ethnic cleansing" title versus the "genocide" version?
I would also observe that given the policy of ethnic cleansing and clear delight in the death of Circassians en route to exile and the death of over half the Circassian population, I personally don't see any impediment to the "genocide" title—simply suggesting we move the debate forward. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 04:37, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
I actually completely agree. The explicit goal of the Tsarist government, as Dmitry Miliutin planned, was "eliminating the Circassians was to be an end in itself- to cleanse the land of hostile elements" (as Charles King puts it). There is no debate that it was ethnic cleansing, and the term is milder than genocide. How about a title of "Ethnic cleansing of Circassians"? --Yalens (talk) 15:48, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Per my note above, move request filed as move page is currently disabled. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 03:47, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Not only deportation - subtopic

The page does not mention much about the tribes that were simply massacred en masse... I have some references to that in Ghost of Freedom if you guys want, but I'm putting it here first. The ships that didn't sink were called "floating graveyards" by the Turks, because they were made intentionally bad by the Russians. It is not just "accidental ship sinking" as Petri Krohn implies, rather they were packed in inhuman conditions (much like the later Operation Lentil, done to the Chechens and others). People were made to sit literally on top of each other and the ships were filled far beyond their capacity. There wasn't nearly enough food, water, etc... Russia was perfectly capable of providing good conditions for the exiles, with all its grain exports (the largest grain exporter IN THE WORLD at the time! Yet they somehow couldn't spare any for the Circassians?) and its vast assortment of naval ships. It simply chose not to. There were some cases where they were indeed slaughtered on the spot. So deportation ALONE does not fully describe what happened. --Yalens (talk) 16:38, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I would recommend an initial step of renaming to ethnic cleansing as you suggest above. I personally think the circumstances merit genocide, but we need to line up sources which talk about it in that fashion; the challenge here is that "genocide" is a recent construct and earlier sources talk about events in a way which confirms genocide but didn't use that term because it was not yet coined. I wholly reject attempts to make milquetoast of the title, e.g., "Circassian exodus"—rather implies they left of their own free will and desire. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 02:09, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Move?

Latest comment: 13 years ago31 comments12 people in discussion
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved  Ronhjones  (Talk) 21:49, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Deportation of Circassians → ? —

  • In response to Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky): The "arguable" means of genocide doesn't mean that it was not genocide; it simply means that there are some who argue that it was not a genocide, the same way certain people think the Holocaust was not a genocide. Anything is arguable, so the focus on the one word, when there is historical proofs to be considered, is not relevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.235.217.30 (talk) 22:08, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Everything is arguable alright, but not everything is arguable to the same degree. This genocide/deportation/cleansing/whatchamacallit is not nearly on the same level as the Holocaust or even the Holodomor. The neutrality concerns are much stronger here, and should be carefully considered when choosing a title for this article.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); February 4, 2011; 15:28 (UTC)
  • I would support moving to "Ethnic cleansing", though "Deportation" isn't necessarily bad. "Genocide" would cause a controversy bomb though, so I say "Ethnic Cleansing" is best. Admittedly though, Ethnic Cleansing of Circassians doesn't have the ring that Circassian Genocide has though...... --Yalens (talk) 21:24, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
  • The change to "ethnic cleansing" is appropriate for now. When that article is established, we can continue the discussion of whether or not to move "ethnic cleansing" to "genocide". We've provided more evidence that that what happened to the Circassians was murder because they were Circassians and that they suffered seriously from this "cleansing". The argument of whether or not these events qualify as genocide can be discussed after the move. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.235.217.30 (talk) 22:12, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose move. "Genocide" od "ethnic cleaning" means systematic killing of some ethnical group. Exile to Turkey, involuntary or voluntary, don't equal systematic killing. --DonaldDuck (talk) 04:20, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Comment As you may note, a major reason for the suggested move to Ethnic Cleansing is that it did NOT only include deportation and DID include much massacre- both direct and indirect (i.e. indirect being, for example, intentionally not supplying any significant amount of food to the tiny ships when Russia was the world's greatest grain producer). And on a side note, even forced deportation has been designated as a form of genocide in 1948 by the UN General Assembly.--Yalens (talk) 12:31, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
      This ships were mostly privately-owned Turkish ships. Turkish captains operated for profit and put as much men as possible on ships, to get more money from exiles. Black Sea is not an ocean and can be crossed by sail in 1-2 days. Russians were not suppying this ships, and were in no way responsible for the conditions on ships. --DonaldDuck (talk) 02:55, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
      • That the ships were not Russian owned (when Russia prefers to claim that it had intended for the affair to run smoothly), and that Russia failed to provide supplies for the people it exiled without their consent... only makes it all the more ethnic cleansing or even intentional genocide. What would have happened if it weren't for the kindness of those sympathetic"privately-owned Turkish ships". Would the Circassians just have "mysteriously" dissapeared, with nowhere to go? In any case, it was Russia that ordered the exile, so no matter who carried it out, they were responsible for the bad conditions that ensued, when they had a whole IMPERIAL NAVY that they could use, and the world's best supply of grain. There is no getting around it. --Yalens (talk) 14:40, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Comment Please read the rest of the discussion. There is plenty of historical records and academic works that show the murder of this nation. Circassians are listed as possibly having the largest Diaspora, with numbers from 70-90% living outside of their homeland. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.109.212.61 (talk) 12:46, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support "ethnic cleansing" per my move request. I can understand the issues using the term "genocide" as sources prior to the coining of that term would use other terminology and it is up to editors to tie older sources via more recent ones to that term. The term cleansing is frequently used, and the brutality--indeed barbarity--and death toll of the "cleansing" of the Circassians from their homeland (per contemporary sources using that word to describe nothing left, no people, no dwellings; women and children shot for sport,...) appears in multiple sources. This was in no way merely an involuntary resettlement or expulsion. As I recall, more than half the Circassian nation was lost. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 15:30, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


Some Circassians considered themselves subjects of Sultan. Some were devout Muslims and were not willing to live in non-Muslim country. Deportation of Circassians to Tukrey was result of the agreement by both sides to end the war and it was, to some extent, voluntary decision by Circassians.--DonaldDuck (talk) 07:18, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Now that we have a Russian source stating the decision was to "cleanse"

I believe I've dealt with some of the concerns regarding the lead, including the "arguably genocide" part. The action has been described as a decision to "cleanse" the territory of Circassians. Not to mention the atrocities of women and children shot for sport, et al. I believe the article is ready for the rename to "Ethnic cleansing of Circassians". PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 18:45, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Just go ahead with the move

I would say go ahead, perform the move. The discussion could have been closed 7 days after it was started, it is now 12 days after it was started, and There is a clear majority of users who prefer "Ethnic Cleansing of Circassians" (or the alternate version, as Andy Dingley suggested "Deportation and Genocide of Circassians", though he said he'd also support Ethnic Cleansing for the name). With the new source, the discussion shifts even more in favor of at least "Ethnic Cleansing of Circassians for the title.

To make it clear... Users who said they would support "Ethnic Cleansing of Circassians" (8 users): Andy Dingley, Yalens, (IP)98.109.212.61, Vecrumba, Nettieoneg, (IP) 173.251.33.91, victor falk,128.235.217.30 (and many of these, myself included, would move to genocide if it weren't for the fact that it is a rather dangerous term on wikipedia...)

Users who said they would oppose the move (1): Donald Duck

Possibly oppose, though didn't make it clear (1): Ezhiki I did not !vote; I merely commented.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); February 15, 2011; 18:20 (UTC)

So that's 8/10 supporting (80%), and all those who didn't support were Russians themselves... I don't think there is any doubt where the consensus is. --Yalens (talk) 12:36, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Explicitly excluding a point of view of a particular group does not magically make the remaining points of view neutral. Neutrality can only be reached when all valid POVs are weighed and factored.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); February 15, 2011; 18:20 (UTC)
POV names ("ethnic cleansing", "genocide") are generally inadvisable on WP and I would object to them in almost all articles. "Deportation" is a good compromise. The only reason for a rename would be to promote one POV regarding the event, but that's not something we should be engaged in here. Nanobear (talk) 18:22, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Deportation is not a compromise, it's a whitewash. As discussed at length previously, both geneocide and ethnic cleansing are entirely justified and supportable in this case. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:38, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
The question is not only about what's justified and/or supportable (and "deportation" is also supportable, by the way), but what is most neutral. I have no firm opinion about using "ethnic cleansing", but "genocide" gives undue weight to just one POV at the expense of others. Regardless of being right or wrong (and we aren't exactly in a position here to judge that anyway), the "deportation" point of view hardly qualifies as fringe to be discarded so easily.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); February 15, 2011; 19:12 (UTC)
Neutrality doesn't mean pandering to embarassed Russians at the cost of well-recorded historical fact. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:44, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
...nor does neutrality mean pandering to offended natives at the cost of a discarding a well-recorded point of view. Wikipedia does not deal in truth, it deals in verifiability.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); February 15, 2011; 20:17 (UTC)
Yeltsin used 'Genocide', in a public speech. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:55, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Source? --DonaldDuck (talk) 06:45, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
http://www.rferl.org/content/article/1341730.html

Some of this supporting IP users look like sockpuppets/meatpuppets. --DonaldDuck (talk) 06:39, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I could hardly think of an argument to construe DonaldDuck's last post as assuming good faith. I can't speak for others, but I'm not a sockpuppet, lol. And the IPs, if you use geolocate, all come from separate locations- though even without them "Ethnic Cleansing" wins. And its not excluding a point of view as that its in the minority (and not to mention that there are Russian sources themselves which refer to it as cleansing). Lastly, the reason I am proposing to end the discussion now is not that the view is fringe (and if any of you misunderstood, no one is saying we should take out any dissenting opinions on the page or anything like that...), but because the debate is over as the 7 day limit is up, and ethnic cleansing won. --Yalens (talk) 16:50, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
(for the sake of keeping my own viewpoint clear) To be honest I could live with the page saying "Deportation of...", though my opinion is that changing it to "Ethnic Cleansing" is more correct since the explicit goal of the operation for the Russian side was to cleanse a politically troublesome population from a strategic region (the exact definition of ethnic cleansing) and Russian generals were not particularly shy in stating this either. And on that note, its not like we're saying "Genocide" because that's more controversial- ethnic cleansing however fits the definition exactly.--Yalens (talk) 16:58, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Moving forward

Latest comment: 13 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

I see there's still the box regarding renaming to genocide. That's my preference; nevertheless, it might be good to table that for a while and work on the article. That would also allow for archiving much of the (mostly polarized) discussion above and discuss content instead. Thoughts? PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 03:01, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I also think it would not be incorrect to call it a genocide, however I think we should definitely move forward from discussing the name of the page... the page still lacks much info about the affair, and we are capable of adding it, given time and will. In case I become busy, I would suggest using Charles King's The Ghost of Freedom: A History of the Caucasus. Although it has only a few pages on the affair, it is good and is well-sourced, and also very neutral. I would also suggest, for more raw info, much of the sources on other related pages, and the writings of Amjad Jaimoukha (of course, there are very many other good sources as well). The naming debate absorbed much energy that could have been put elsewhere, not everyone agrees that it was a genocide, and even if we were successful in renaming it (again), it would make the page a lightning rod in the current atmosphere on wiki... We should definitely work on the page, I'd say...--Yalens (talk) 20:09, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Apologies I've been busy. I would second Charles King having read his "Moldovans", I'll look to pick up the book you mention. I've been doing some catchup reading on genocide—a vital topic, but not one that brightens your day. I trust editors will indulge me with this extended quote from a 2008 work by William Schabas:
"Debates about historic cases of genocide need to be reassessed in the light of evolving case law. In a series of recent decisions, the international criminal tribunals have broadened the reach of the 1948 definition. It has been held to apply to a somewhat more expansive category of groups than what is listed in the text of the definition. No proof of state involvement, or of a policy or plan, is necessary to establish that genocide has been committed. It may even be perpetrated by an individual, acting alone. As for those who participate in the crime of genocide, prosecutors need not establish that they actually had a genocidal intent, as long as they were in some way accomplices to the crime. Finally, and perhaps most important of nil, the concept of genocide has been extended to acts that compromise the survival of a group, such as forced displacements, even when there are doubts about the intent to physically exterminate the group."
This passage, the preeminent scholar in the field of genocide studies and law summing up the state of affairs at the end of his book (paper first presented in 2005 and 2006, as book in 2008), speaks eloquently and succinctly to the issue at hand here. There are scholarly sources which already use the term genocide with regard to our topic here. My point here and now is that we can no longer personally contend otherwise based on what the U.N. Convention says, calling use of the word "hate speech," etc.—the label of "genocide" is fully supported by current case law. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 23:00, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
P.S. I agree that for now we should focus on improving the article. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 23:04, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Georgia becomes the first nation to recognize the Circassian Genocide in May, 2011 http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/21/world/europe/21georgia.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bjarkasi (talk • contribs) 23:44, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

If it still matters I find the name Ethnic Cleansing for this article perhaps a bit anachronistic. More so than Genocide. "Genocide" was used since WWII whereas "ethnic cleansing" became popularized since the 90s. Genocide has been applied to pre-WWII events such as the Armenian Genocide, but ethnic cleansing is still rather young, and the meaning of "Ethnicy" was different in the 19th century. Perhaps a better title would be Cleansing of Circassians or Expulsion of Circassians. Circassian Genocide is also possible by strict wikipedia rules, but I personally find this too early because the events have not been studied as much as other genocides. Mash Talk 13:55, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Cleansing of Circassians is probably good to (thought hardly different from ethnic cleansing)- the reason I support (ethnic) cleansing is because the Russians at the time stated this was their goal- that "eliminating the Circassians was to be an end in itself- to cleanse the land of hostile elements."... I don't think Circassian Genocide would work, because while it may be appropriate, it will turn this page into a POV battlefield, and nobody wants that. --Yalens (talk) 14:08, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

An astonishingly badly written article

Latest comment: 10 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

The current intro is about the most blatant piece of propagandistic writing I have ever seen on Wikipedia (and I've come across some monster examples in my time). The article is such an astonishing mess it's hard to know where to begin to correct it. If any of the above editors are responsible for this state of affairs they should be ashamed. Even its most basic failings have not been addressed: there is not a word in the introduction about the reason for the migrations and expulsions (or any mention that some left willingly and others were forced to migrate) nor any historical background. Much of the content is clearly racist against Russians, seemingly suggesting that the sole purpose of Russian presence in the Caucasus was to exterminate the native population. Meowy 15:31, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

You say that the content is "suggesting that the sole purpose of Russian presence in the Caucasus was to exterminate the native population." Could you point to a specific example of where it does this?--Yalens (talk) 15:37, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Where is the specific example where it stated that it is not? The complete lack of mention of the historical context that preceeded the expulsions, and the contemporary reasoning given for them, is either due to appaulingly bad editing or because the aim of this article is propaganda against Russia. Meowy 16:48, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Or it is due to your own pro-Russian bias/POV ... Oh, I see, the user has been blocked. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 12:32, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm. Racist. At what part does it discriminate or generalize or do anything racist against Russian people? it states that the Russian government and army did horrible things as witnessed by everyone including Russian army men who said the same thing (the murdered says he was murdered, the one who saw him get murdered says he was, and the one who murdered him said he did it.) If you find it racist maybe you should read the orders to expel people for ethnic loyalty, just as it was done in Finland, Eastern Europe, and Eurasia. It is well known why, go look at the list of sources and than come back, read them all. It is not Racism if you are talking about a nation and a nation's policies towards people. Saying apartheid was bad doesn't mean you hate white or black south Africans, it means you hate the government policy, just as this article simply states facts about what a state did to a native population after conquering it, no one including I with a rational brain would think Russians were to blame. I say the Government of 1800s Russia was to blame here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.69.176.102 (talk) 05:22, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of talk page section "NATIONALISM and GOOD FAITH"

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I have deleted the stated talk page section due to its homophobic and otherwise offensive content. It does not add anything of value and ran contrary to Wikipedia:Etiquette.

If anyone wants to review and instate for any reason, please feel free to do so and state your reasons here. 81.145.162.95 (talk) 13:56, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Slanted edits

Latest comment: 10 years ago25 comments4 people in discussion

I've noticed that a lot of recent edits have been a little slanted, to state the least. It is important that a page show a balanced view of all the various perspectives in a controversial issue like this, and what has happened is far from this. As it stands now, the page more-or-less claims that anyone who doesn't agree with the current Russian position on the issue only does so because they are some sort of pro-Chechen Western propagandist. And then there's the deletion of tons of scholarly sourced material about the issue, and the removal of opposing views (views that yes, perhaps shouldn't dominate the page, but nevertheless shouldn't be eradicated from the page either for the sake of neutrality)... And also, why is there this humongous four paragraph tangent cluttering the beginning of the background section about this Mir-Fattah, who has basically nothing at all to do with the expulsions? --Yalens (talk) 00:30, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

I see your point, Yalens. Basically, a lot sourced content has been overwritten, yet I'm unable to see any form of discussion as to major changes to the article being offered on this talk page. The entire shift is recent and quite dramatic in its momentum. I'd like to hear from those involved as, unless a rationale is provided (which did not even take place in the edit summaries), I'd be predisposed to reverting in order that other editors can engage in WP:BRD. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:56, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
I've restored some of the material that was deleted for purposes of accessibility (and, in my view at least, that it should never have been deleted this way without justification :/). I've largely refrained from outright reverts or deleting some of the interesting new material that's been added lately (such as this humongous tangent about this largely unrelated Mir-Fattah), for the sake of leaving things for discussion...--Yalens (talk) 06:32, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Cheers, Yalens. As noted, this is content to be discussed on merit and relevance, hence those who deleted the content you've restored, plus added additional content need to join us here in order to explain what their points actually are. If not, other editors will simply make decisions from here and remove redundant and tangential content. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:43, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
The most important things about this tragic event of the past is the whole background(from complete Russian domination over the regions), expulsion, resettlement, and various views. The article covers that. Please be more clear in what you would definetely like to add to the article. - Regards LouisAragon (talk) 23:18, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Did you read the discussion above? It's not what's being added it's gaps that are being restored, which were previously there before they were quite unjustifiedly deleted . If you want the explanation for my recent readditions, they largely include the following: info on the original motivations and planning by the original proposers of the expulsion (Milyutin, Yevdokimov), the approval of the plan by the imperial government, info on the various sorts of deaths before expulsion and on ship (i.e. the "floating graveyards" Charles King notes), conditions on the ships, the Georgian recognition, views other than that of the Russian government, and stats on depopulation (80% of Ingush, cited by UC Berkeley's Caucasus & Central Asia newsletter, etc.). This is all relevant and almost all of it had been previously purged from the page without much of a justification. --Yalens (talk) 23:39, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
(and then there's the issue of a fair amount of largely unrelated material, like the useless tangent about this Shiite Mir Fattah, as well as the pretty POV passage about how the only people who call it genocide are some sort of pro-Chechen Western propagandists and so on, but these are other issues we'll have to deal with)--Yalens (talk) 23:39, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
As far as I see, Milyutin's motivation has already been added; [[6]];

As early as 1857, Dmitry Milyutin remarked that "our obligations to the human kind require that we take anticipatory measures to provide for the existence of even those tribes that are hostile to us, having been ousted from their own lands on account of public necessity". Therefore, the resettlers were given some money, their passage was paid to Turkey or Iran, and provided with ships - something denied to the Empire's Christian migrants to the Americas, such as the Dukhobors.


and the same goes for Yevdokimov ; [[7]]

It was General Nikolay Yevdokimov (1804–70) who first came up with the idea of resettling mountaineers of the Western Caucasus in the Ottoman Empire. He wrote that "resettlement of intractable mountaineers" to Turkey would be the easiest way to bring the prolonged Caucasian War to an end, while giving freedom to those who "prefer death to allegiance to the Russian government".[1]

and the Tsarist gov acceptation; [[8]].

On the other hand, the Tsarist command was very much alive to the possibility of the migrants being used by Turkey to attack Christian populations during the impending Russo-Turkish War.[2] The plan for Circassian resettlement was eventually agreed upon at a meeting of the Caucasus commanders in October 1860 in Vladikavkaz and officially approved on May 10 1862 by Tsar Alexander II.[3]


The Georgian recognition has also already clearly been added [[9]],

On May 21, 2011, the Parliament of Georgia passed a resolution, stating that "pre-planned" mass killings of Circassians by Imperial Russia, accompanied by "deliberate famine and epidemics", should be recognized as "genocide" and those deported during those events from their homeland, should be recognized as "refugees". Georgia, which has poor relations with Russia, has made outreach efforts to North Caucasian ethnic groups since the 2008 Russo-Georgian War.[4] Following a consultation with academics, human rights activists and Circassian diaspora groups and parliamentary discussions in Tbilisi in 2010 and 2011, Georgia became the first country to use the word "genocide" to refer to the events.[4][5][6][7]

Also you shouldn't forget that this article is ought to discuss the whole leading to the cleansing too, and afterwards. Mir-Fatah and Paskevich's approval of him played a major role in that. It's all a chain reaction. The whole reactional idea of "expulsion" and problems in the Caucasus with ethnics didn't just get created out of the blue you know. So that part definitely has to stay.
About the "floating graveyards" (Charles King notes), and the statistics of depopulation, sure I agree, "that" there's definitely a way to re-add it but we must watch out not to make it too PoV'ish. Also, you're mentioning about that there are people who label those who recognize the cleansing/genocide as some sort of pro-Chechen Western propagandists, well the fact remains the whole "Circassian question" started to arise after the whole Chechen thing, so it's kinda expectable that people respond like that.
But even about that, I'm sure we can find a good consensus and way to portray it here. It's all minor things.
- LouisAragon (talk) 01:18, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Point-by-point response:
1. Yes, I appreciate that Georgia's recognition and the like have now been readded.
2. On Milyutin: Yes, he is currently on the page. However, the included passage doesn't discuss his motivation, and the history of his initial proposal of the expulsions, critical to the imperial government's decision to carry them out and for understanding the phenomenon. This belongs in the background section as it is leadup to the main event (where Yevdokimov also should go). (I would also note the nearby uncited comparison to Dukhobors, a WP:SYN violation as a wikipedia editor, rather than a cited author, seems to have made it).
3. Okay, I will work on ways to reincorporate it the stats and the contemporary Turkish remarkings ("graveyards") back in, watching out for POV.
4. Just because you apparently happen to find valid the view that discussion of the events as a sort of historical human rights abuse reduces down to nothing but pro-Chechen propaganda on the part of Russophobic Westerners doesn't mean wikipedia should violate NPOV by presenting this view as fact. In fact, factually there are numerous issues with it anyways- the issue first came to the forefront not during the Chechen wars but in fact earlier, discussed by Circassian nationalists during the glasnost era. It is true that Westerners have paid more attention to this issue, as well as the Caucasus region as a whole, recently, but this is due to the region being in the news frequently, not only because of the Russo-Chechen conflict and the following insurgency, but also the Karabakh conflict, the Georgian-Ossetian conflict, the Georgian-Abkhaz conflict and of course the Circassian activism leading up to the Sochi Olympics. But whatever the case, wikipedia shouldn't present any partisan POV, especially about why people argue what they do, as solid fact.
5. If Mir-Fattah's career was the two important thing leading up to the expulsions, then I would have no problem with the fact that the background section is dominated (four out of its five paragraphs) by it. However, the fact is that historically, at least in most analyses, they are little more than sideshows to the much larger (and more important) picture of a frustrating century-long struggle of the Russian Empire to integrate a restive southern borderland into its control. This, the Russo-Circassian War in fact isn't even mentioned in the background as it stands now (and mentioned only once in the page as a whole, in the lede, in a paragraph readded by myself). Then there's the motivations of the Tsarist government (i.e. Milyutin etc) which currently aren't covered in there in the appropriate section. Furthermore, in order to establish that Mir-Fattah is in fact significant enough to merit such extensive mention (80% of the section), let alone important, to the deportation of Circassians, we'd need a reliable source to say so, not a wikipedia editor. Currently, none does that is cited here. In fact, the only source used for Mir Fattah doesn't even mention the phrase "Circassians" once in its text. Until it actually is established that this Shiite from Tabriz played a such a major role in the leadup, Mir-Fattah should be cleared off the page to make way for people and events that actually are more important- Milyutin, and the stubborn Circassian resistance (which lasted all the way until 1864, well after the deportations started) that lead to frustrated Russia's desire to deport them. --Yalens (talk) 03:53, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Despite WP:TE with this edit summary, LouisAragon, I'm willing to run with AGF for the moment.

Reviewing hints of emotive arguments offered by both of you, I'm reading a couple of less than encyclopaedic interests in the content. In itself, that's hardly exceptional, but suggests two methods for improving the article:
1. Somehow integrating the POVs (both appear to be meet WP:RS) for balance without antagonism;
2. Creating sections for the Russian Empire's POV and the Circassian POV (bearing in mind that this was still the era of empires and not of nation-states).

My preference would be for integrating the material. Do either of you envisage any serious problems in the former method to create a balanced, neutral representation for the reader? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:44, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

I could go for integrating it. The only problem I see is with labeling the POVs, as it simplifies matters somewhat. In essence, there is the POV which boils down to "it is horrible what the Russian government did" (often going further to apply modern day term human rights violation terms) and then there's the one of "it wasn't so bad". The first tends to be held by Circassians, the latter by Russians, (probably then as much as now) but it's effectively SYN for us to label it as such. But in principle I'm very much in favor of presenting the various viewpoints of what happened next to each other, equally, without deleting any of them. So for example, with the previously discussed (probably Russian, judging from the source) viewpoint that the only reason people discuss it is sympathy for modern day Chechen aspirations, I wouldn't necessarily delete this but rather attribute to its source, i.e. "Russian scholar/historian so-and-so believes that blabalbla pro-Chechen et cetera", rather than presenting his/her views as fact. And the same goes for people on the other side, like Tanner or Ohtov.--Yalens (talk) 05:15, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
That's also my take on it, Yalens. I think that attribution is the way to go... as well as making it clear that the Russian Empire and current day Russians are not one and the same thing. I've spent more time on trying to keep a check on Ukrainian and Russian articles this year than I have actual editing. Unfortunately, the recent media attention has driven so much new POV traffic to anything that even mentions Russians, Ukrainians, cossacks, etc. that it's become a nightmare to stay on top of. We're dealing with encyclopaedic, historical subject matter here, therefore it must adhere to RS in the form of scholars in the field, and avoiding terminology explicitly aimed at creating a propaganda war. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:08, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
User:Yalens, I fully agree with you about point 2 and 4. About point 4, I think you misunderstood me badly, as it's not my PoV, but rather a globally widespread one. (And with widespread I mean, the average common Joe who just hears about the subject for the first time) About your stance considering the representation of the views; we're on the same track.
About Mir-Fatah, as I told before, it's not that he precisely was bounded with the Circassians and their, but he played a major role during the Caucasian War, of wich the Circassian War itself is a part of, and the whole leadup and continuation in wich he in particular starred from 1828 till 1841. The whole problem with the Circassians, their cleansing, the Russo-Caucasian War/Circassian war didn't start all of a sudden. Right now, yes, a major part of the background section composes of information about him. What my suggestion is about the next version we'll create, is that Mir-Fatah's role should stay where it is; as a part of the introduction, in wich it eventually, but also quickly leads to the decising moments, namely the change of the Caucasian commands, Milyutin, and the stubborn Circassian resistance, and wich leads to frustrated Russia's desire to deport/expel them. This whole, from 1828 till their mass expulsion in 1864 is a timespan of less than 40 years. I'm sure we can all combine it with some teamwork. Oh yeah, and definetely aspects of Iryna's last comment too. Also very important. It's indeed the sad but hard truth. Do you agree with me about all these points? Btw, are you perhaps already working in a sandbox about that? If you need any help feel especially free to write me. Regards - LouisAragon (talk) 23:16, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
On point 4: About the "they're just pro-Chechen propagandists" POV, I don't think one can just assume it's a "globally widespread one". The average Joe doesn't know anything about teh Caucasus. Nevertheless, if I understand correctly, you consent to editing it so that the POV is not portrayed as fact?
On Mir-Fatah: Okay. Personally I would like to see someone who's not a wikipedia editor saying he's important to events in the Northwest Caucasus because as far as I can tell it seems he's mainly related to the Northeast. For now I'll keep him in, but can we work on trimming it down? As for a sandbox, sure we could do that, but I'm not sure is htat really more efficient than just keeping all the discussion here, perhaps with proposed paragraphs in quote blocks?--Yalens (talk) 02:04, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Also, I'm deleting the whole adage about scratching a Turk to find a Circassian (a play off of scratching a Russian to find a Tatar?). It's mildly interesting but really I don't think it's important at all. I mentioned this before but I think people might have not responded because it was lost in all the textblocks here. If anyone has issue with this, let me know.--Yalens (talk) 02:06, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Update: having checked all the sources in the paragraph with the statement about pro-Chechen Westerners, none of them make this insinuation. Thus, I can't attribute it to a source (as we all agreed it should be, right?), and worse, that makes it a WP:SYN violation, so I'm removing it outright and replacing it with the fact that discussion has merely emerged in the modern day, without insinuating any underlying motivation.--Yalens (talk) 02:25, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Also, a question: I just wanted to make sure so I don't do something beyond consensus. Louis, when you said you agreed to all of point 2, does that include the WP:SYN Dukhobor comparison?--Yalens (talk) 02:39, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
IMHO, portrating the PoV as fact is the first main objective, but surely other PoV's also have to be added. It's def a must. Yeah, it's a good thing you deleted the part about the scratching off a Turk. Completely unnecessary. Yeah I agree about the Dukhobor comparison. I think it's a perfect example of a different circumstance that fits well here.
As far as everything else aforementioned, we're completely on the same track. ;-) PS: Yalens, what do you think about what I wrote on your talk page? Perhaps revert it back with the additions of the last version as of this one? [[10]] I think there's less to fix about if we follow that one, than the current version as of now. Regards - LouisAragon (talk) 13:29, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
That a POV exists is a fact and indeed a noteworthy fact, but portraying the facts of reality with the frame of that point of view accepted as truth isn't necessary or justified. But yes it seems we agree on most counts. Given that, why do you want to revert to the old version? What more do we gain that way, rather than working together to edit this version to closer to where you'd like it to be?--Yalens (talk) 14:25, 29 May 2014 (UTC) (PS Sorry I didn't reply to that, I meant to yesterday but I got distracted with life and making a few more maps for religion in Albania) --Yalens (talk) 15:05, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Well, I proposed the old version as it already had many things we wanted. It would be more efficient working from there. No probs for that, I'll wait for your reply on this one mate, and then I'll start working on it too right away. - bests LouisAragon (talk) 23:28, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Hmm, okay, well I think I'm going to work first on the background. First I'll put in info about the Russo-Circassian War (I have King's book on hand right now), and then maybe we'll discuss appropriate ways to trim things down if necessary?--Yalens (talk) 16:36, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Well now I'm done and the background section is probably too big, so I'll be working on variously trimming it and moving the material (either to other sections of this page or other pages). Perhaps we should discuss (in addition to this) how to trim, and fit in, the stuff about Mir-Fattah? --Yalens (talk) 22:23, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Just checked it. Yeah, it encompasses good important chunks of info but it indeed needs to be trimmed down correctly. Maybe more subsections could help with that. I just made a start of getting the introduction fixed correctly. - LouisAragon (talk) 17:21, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
Well more subsections is indeed an interesting idea. Hmm. So you think we should divide up the background section, as we trim it?--Yalens (talk) 22:16, 4 June 2014 (UTC)


I've been extremely busy on other projects, but when I went to cite this article to someone several weeks ago, I was taken aback that even then official Russia's own reference to the events documented here as a "cleansing" had been removed. To Yalens, my many and sincere thanks to you for your diligent work here restoring objectivity and scholarship. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 17:08, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Берже А. П. Выселение горцев с Кавказа // Русская старина. СПб. 1882. Кн. 2. Стр. 342-343.
  2. ^ Кокиев Г. Военно-колонизационная политика на Северном Кавказе. // Революция и горец. 1929. № 6. С. 32.
  3. ^ Defeat and Deportation University of Southern California, 1994
  4. ^ a b Georgia Says Russia Committed Genocide in 19th Century. New York Times. May 20, 2011
  5. ^ Hildebrandt, Amber (2012-08-14). "Russia's Sochi Olympics awakens Circassian anger". CBC News. Retrieved 2012-08-15.
  6. ^ Georgia Recognizes ‘Circassian Genocide’. Civil Georgia. May 20, 2011
  7. ^ Recognizes Russian 'Genocide' Of Ethnic Circassians. Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty. May 20, 2011

Dagestan and Iran

Latest comment: 10 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

I notice that on this page a lot of the material is of questionable relevance as it pertains only to Dagestan, i.e. the very existence of a significant number of Shias, people fleeing to Iran... all of this applies only to Dagestan and not Circassia. This conflates the two conflicts as equivalent as one, a gross simplification. Yes, they were related but they weren't the same fight. The Russo-Circassian war was based on the refusal of the Circassian tribes to be incorporated into Russia. This does get easily confused with Dagestani events because the Chechens, who were in fact tied up with Muridism but were also engaged in a similar struggle not to be incorporated into Russia. However, this was not actually the main fight of the Murids. Dagestan had already been incorporated into Russia with the explicit permission of its rulers. The Murids fought to "purify" Islamic practice, which of course some of Dagestan's corrupt wealthy rulers opposed (i.e. because the whole thing's populist appeal was based on criticism of their corrupt practices), as did those who preferred to maintain traditional local codes of conduct (adat). A lot of the fighting was between Dagestanis. Yes, sometimes Dagestani nobles (in Avaristan and Lakia) supported the Murids, but they gave and withdrew support as it suited their narrow interests. It's a big long complicated story but (outside of Chechnya) it's not the same thing as what was going on to the west. Shamil tried to link up with the Circassians, but (except for a few in Kabarda) they weren't interested.

It also overstates the number of Circassians, by saying Circassians and actually meaning "all North/Muslim Caucasians". Yes, it's true foreigners to the region sometimes clumsily apply Circassian to people who aren't Circassian. It's not clear whether Abazins are Circassian, some people say Abkhaz are, and a clumsy Turk or Westerner might call Ingush "Circassians", but really I've never heard of Lezgins getting called Circassians, let alone Muslim Georgians or Azeris. In fact, the historical tendency was actually to generalize Lezgins to mean any Dagestani or Lezgic-speaking person in Azerbaijan. And yes, I see this source about Charkas from Encyclopedia Iranica, but just because Farsi-speakers apply this doesn't mean we should... And I'm not sure if Lezgins are even included as "beyond Derbend" could refer to the emirate which historically ruled over most of Lezgia, not just the city...

I seriously question the relevance of some of the material on this page in that light. This would apply to hte Mir-Fattah thing too. There were no virtually Shias in Circassia, and the Circassian resistance wasn't even based on religion (unlike that of Imam Shamil), so what relevance does hte appointment of him as a spiritual leader in the Caucasus have? Yes, I admit there is a small relevance as it might have (arguably) annoyed the highlanders further because of the appointment of an outsider, but surely this is just one annoyance... and with people who went to Iran, unless it is demonstrated that actual Circassians (i.e. not Lezgins, Tabarasarans and Laks) went to Iran, it really shouldn't be mentioned more than once I think...--Yalens (talk) 23:48, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Also, as of yet the only reference we have for Circassians (specifically Kabardins?) going to Iran is a website by the Joshua Project, which is a missionary project to convert everyone to evangelical Christianity. Not really a reliable source. --Yalens (talk) 00:07, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
I agree, well what happened in Dagestan needs for sure to be linked to this as well. It's indeed not the same fight, but the conflict ongoing there had certain strong links with the Russo-Circassian conflict too. Turks and Iranians often lumped many North Caucasians together as Circassians, but the Lezgins, etc were definetely known as being a different group from early times, so we can fix that. (though I know some Turks who still call Lezgins as Laz lol)
The only Shia's in Circassia were Kabardins and Abzakh, as the region of nowadays Kabardino-Balkaria and wider had been annexed several times by various Iranian Shia empires, and there were quite a few known notable Shia Kabardins. Kabards and to a lesser extent Abzakh were the main type of Circassians the Iranians had extensive contact with, deported en masse, imported, moved, traded etc. The converted all of them to Shi'ism on arrival in Iran, or directly in the Caucasus in their controlled area's. When we're talking about Circassians and Iran, it's virtually only about masses of Kabardins and Abzakh. Shapsugs, Ubykh's etc were all pred Sunni and didn't have real contact with the Iranian empires from the time of the Safavids till the Qajars, as they were more distantly located.


The thing with Mir-Fattah is, it really only applies to the start and acceleration of the Caucasian War of wich the Circassian War itself is a part of. He went away, things got more fucked up there for the natives in a chain of events, and following the switch of the Caucasian commanders of the whole Caucasus region. That part functions well to give a good introduction about why and how things got worse, how fast etc; it's all closely linked. Also the Russians directly blamed the sole reason why types like Imam Shamil got created, was because of the corrupt rule of the khans the Qajars and their predecessors had appointed in their whole territory of the Caucasus. (of wich Dagestan and the eastern parts of Circassia were also a part of and it was related to the Russo-Circassian War too)
Also, the major thing with the Circassians in Iran is, that 90% of them had been moved/deported en masse since the time of the Safavids all the way up to the Qajars (roughly till the early 19th century). Most of them who still live in Iran are descendants of these groups. The vast amount of Muslims that moved to Iran between 1813-1870 were Transcaucasian and North Caucasian Muslims from their controlled territories (Azeri's, Muslims Georgians, Kabardins, Laks, Lezgins etc). The Circassians that moved during this period is far smaller than the amount that were deported or moved in three centuries (hundreds of thousands). Still, some of these Circassians that moved between 1860-1870 managed however to get high ranks in Iran, such as in the Persian Cossack Brigade. (and we got this already covered in the article I think)

[[11]] [[12]]

Between the Safavid (16th cent) and early 19th century Qajar era, some 250,000+ Georgians, 150,000-200,000 Circassians, 300,000-400,000 Armenians and many more people from controlled regions in the Caucasus (such as the Laks, Lezgians, Tabasaran), were only deported. During and after the Caucasian War, it were virtually only Muslim Georgians, Laks, Azeri's (really much), Lezgins, and Kabardins. This is what we have to put in the article (and I think it's already put like that) There's a clear distinction between the Caucasians that were moved or deported prior to the Caucasian War, and those during/after it, but we have that covered I think. - LouisAragon (talk) 18:09, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
The somewhat difficulty with the article is that it zooms in on a certain happening of a far, far wider historical happening. That's why we often get parts or have to insert parts that are not 100% directly related to it, but lead up to it. Anyway, I think our main thing right now is to trim the information down and fix the layout. The information that is inserted right now looks quite good, just some adjustments. Btw mate, what do you think about the current introduction? - LouisAragon (talk) 18:09, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
Confusing Laks and Lezgins (who are "Lazgi/Lazki" sometimes) and Laz is actually fairly common among people who don't know the Caucasus, regardless of their ethnicity I think... If you want, we could make a page about emigrations of Dagestani peoples and Azerbaijanis to Iran, and just mention the thing (with a hyperlink to that article) here once or so. It is related, sure, but so are a lot of things that shouldn't take up large chunks of the page. And we can mention that some Circassians were deported to Iran instead of Turkey, sure.
As for Mir-Fattah, did he even administrate over Circassia? Large areas of Circassia completely eluded any control by the Russian government (hence what drove it to deport people). I'd at least like to see a source about this issue that considers Mir-Fattah important to what happened in the west. No one disputes that teh Circassian resistance against Russian rule was related to the struggle of the Murids against the local nobility and Russia, but they were two separate henomena, at least in what I've read it, and what happened after, the emigrations of Dagestanis, just like the deportation of Crimean Tatars, is again related but separate from the deportation of Circassians. If we're going to talk a ton about Dagestan, wouldn't we also have to mention Crimea a ton, as that was also fairly related (Circassians participating in the Crimean war, for example, as well as similar phenomenon...).
As for the introduction, I think it looks good :). --Yalens (talk) 22:47, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Karemzadeh

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hey, LouisAragon, I saw that you removed info from Karemzadeh from the lede. I haven't read this source exactly, but it actually does have an importance as I see it, in that it says Turkey provided ships, and it discusses Russia's goals (if it says what it cites. As I said I haven't read it). Why did you delete it?--Yalens (talk) 23:07, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

"Muslim Abkhazians (especially Sadz branch)"

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I am an Abkhaz in Turkey. There are about 10 Abkhaz villages around the town i live in. Only a single one speaks Sadz dialect. All of the rest are Tsabalan refugees, all villages (safe for one among them) are founded by a Marshan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.172.85.146 (talk) 06:09, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

A new war in the Caucasus?

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi @Ghirlandajo:,

Is this reference speaking of the article "A new war in the Caucasus?" in this case the author is Charles King or is the book "Bourdieu’s Secret Admirer in the Caucasus" in this case why linking to the article? --Dom (talk) 14:00, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Is Wikipedia racist?

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The same strategy had been done to Armenians and Circassians by Russian and Ottoman Empires.

We call Armenian genocide but not Circassian genocide? It is because Circassians are mostly Muslim? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.174.119.254 (talk) 08:11, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

distraction?

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The ethnic cleansing of Circassians refers to the massive annihilation, displacement,[1] distraction and expulsion of the majority of the indigenous Circassians 81.11.218.194 (talk) 08:34, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Fixed the typo distraction to destruction in the lede. Best.Resnjari (talk) 09:17, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Ethnic cleansing of Circassians. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:48, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:01, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Rename

Latest comment: 7 years ago11 comments3 people in discussion

Ethnic Cleansing is a too modern name that doesn't quite fit an event from the 19th century. Perhaps Expulsion of the Circassians is a better option? It has a lot more hits on Google Books too. Machinarium (talk) 13:07, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Seems fair enough to me. (Mil(i/y)utin did say "to clean" I believe but that was not in English anyways)--Yalens (talk) 18:08, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
The term Genocide was coined by Lemkin more than two decades after the events happened to the Armenians, yet the term is used, as could be seen as retrospective. Scholars in particular to this event on the Circassians are beginning to use the term Genocide [13]. Using the term Expulsion for these events kind of minimizes things. Ethnic cleansing at least encompasses much of what occurred. Just sayin'.Resnjari (talk) 18:22, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Two decades is a much shorter timespan, but I get your point. Nevertheless, I find that the title 'ethnic cleansing' actually silently suggests that these event were not genocide, because real genocides are seldom referred to as just 'ethnic cleansing' Machinarium (talk) 23:17, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Same could be said for "expulsion" -- i.e. see Turkey's claim that Armenians were simply deported and not killed. --Yalens (talk) 00:13, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Agreed.Resnjari (talk) 07:47, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
The difference is that ethnic cleansing, like genocide, is a legal term, whereas expulsion is not. To say that the Armenians were expelled by the ottomans is factually true, and the legal term for this event is generally considered a genocide. To say that the Circassians were expelled is also factually true, but if you choose ethnic cleansing as the legal term for this event then it seems like you've decided that the events were not a genocide. Get what I mean? Machinarium (talk) 13:11, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Maybe another option is Deportation of the Circassians Machinarium (talk) 13:15, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Deportation sort of sits within the scope of expulsion. Its more of the action of expulsion. Much more happened by Russian authorities toward the Circassians here apart from deportation. Ethnic cleansing may not be the perfect word, but it encompasses much of the severity of events. As Yalens pointed out, Russians of the time were also refering to it as cleansing.Resnjari (talk) 13:27, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
I do not remember the days of talk page warring about the name fondly :(. You read that whole discussion above, right? Wikipedia article titles are not necessary "legal terms", in this case it just represents the best compromise. --Yalens (talk) 19:16, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Really there's no perfect solution. "Expulsion" is most common in English, but there were also episodes of mass killing (not to the same degree as happened in Armenia), and obviously "expulsion" doesn't cover that. "Genocide" is more popular among Circassians than either "Ethnic cleansing" or "Expulsion", but there has been considerable controversy over the name of this page in the past and that name is probably an edit war magnet. "Ethnic cleansing" is a modern concept too like you say Mach, and it's the least used for this one, but at least it doesn't have the two aforementioned problems(technically it was "cleansing" as said in 1860 but that sounds kinda cringey). Another problem is that it wasn't just "Circassians" that were affected-- all Muslim peoples of the North Caucasus plus some Georgians and plenty Abkhaz were affected except in interior Dagestan. At the moment the current name ("Ethnic cleansing") seems like the least bad option (sorry for switching my position Mach) . --Yalens (talk) 18:35, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 28 May 2017

Latest comment: 7 years ago15 comments10 people in discussion
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved as clear consensus has been established. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 talk 05:21, 12 June 2017 (UTC)


Ethnic cleansing of Circassians → Circassian genocide – academic sources support title Circassian genocide Seraphim System (talk) 07:42, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

I saw that, it is about Deporation vs. Ethnic Cleansing. The sources I have on Questia, including full books, use the term genocide. The argument seems to be "well, now we can move it to cleansing because Russia has acknowledged that it is cleansing" - now, I think we should move it to genocide, because academic secondary sources call it genocide. Seraphim System (talk) 05:54, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
In addition to academic publications, here are a ton of news articles using the word genocide - this makes it recognizable - it was the first thing I searched for. You can find them by searching Google. Seraphim System (talk) 06:09, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Seraphim System. Its a matter worth returning too. Academia examining the issue is referring to these events as Genocide. A prominent and recent example in Western academia is the work by Walter Richmond titled The Circassian Genocide (2013): [14].Resnjari (talk) 06:33, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
Support; Kadir Natho also has a nice and detailed work which supports the classification : [[15]]--Yalens (talk) 03:39, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
There are a couple of more substantive ones. A early one in Western academia dates from 1999 by Stephen Shenfield who wrote a chapter titled The Circassians: A forgotten Genocide? [16] in the book The Massacre in History. This chapter is of interest as it discusses the events and whether they constitute as being genocide. Worth looking into for those wanting further information and for the purposes of the discussion. Walter Richmond who has looked at these events extensively also discusses the neglect in scholarship of these events (he refers to them as genocide) in an information dense chapter titled Circassia. A small nation lost to the great game [17] in the book Hidden Genocides: Power, Knowledge, Memory (2013). Looking at the previous move discussions scholarly sources were not taken into account (some also did not exist at the time of discussion). Instead the issue was about whether the term can or cannot be applied retrospectively, what term were the Russians of the day using etc, have modern day Russians acknowledged these events as genocide etc. On the retrospective aspect, the term genocide was coined by Lemkin some two decades after the mass violence committed by the Ottomans against Armenians. During that time the events were known as the massacres of the Armenians and so on. Yet the word genocide is applied retrospectively and is still viewed as controversial by some. Lemkin in his works also applied the term genocide to events such as the British war against Aboriginal Australians in Tasmania etc etc (Read Lemkin's works if interested for more), a event not acknowledged by the Australian government with that name etc . Often its wp:reliable and wp:secondary scholarship that makes these determinations. Regarding countries and recognition these types of events are rarely acknowledged (i.e Germany: Holocaust, the Herero Genocide) by perpetrator states or their successors as constituting genocide due to the geopolitical ramifications.Resnjari (talk) 16:37, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
This discussion has been going on forever with essentially no disagreement. Will some admin just move it already? --Yalens (talk) 20:09, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Scope

Latest comment: 7 years ago15 comments3 people in discussion

This page is called "Ethnic Cleansing of Circassians" but also includes information on expulsions and/or emigration of Georgians, Ossetes, Balkars, Karachays, Ingush, Chechens, Laks, Lezgins, Laz, Abkhaz and Abaza. While the latter two groups are occasionally considered "Circassian" on ethno-linguistic grounds (they speak Northwest Caucasian languages) as are the Ubykhs more typically, all the others certainly are not. Additionally, some time ago, the scope of this page was also expanded from the traditional consideration of only those that went to Ottoman lands, so that it also included those that went to Persia. In all these cases the circumstances were different. While in some cases people were actually expelled by the military similarly to Circassia, in some of the other cases mentioned it was very different - I'm talking especially about the Iranian cases, where as far as I know we've had Georgians and Laks and Lezgins and yes a few Kabardins but not that many getting offered lucrative grazing lands if they settle in Iran, which valued their military prowess. There is a world of difference between that and getting driven by the Russian military into tiny Turkish fishing ships where you typically either starve, die of plague or get forced into the homes of evicted Bulgarian peasants who now understandably hate your guts. I'd argue this page doesn't need to be diluted by vaguely related tangents of "who also left" when what happened wasn't the same, and the Iranian exiles can get their own page if it's notable enough. If there's no objections, I will be removing the tangents (those that went to Iran, and the Kartvelians that left a decade and a half later).--Yalens (talk) 04:58, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

When i made some recent edits that thought did come up for me an i agree. The wp:reliable and wp:secondary academic sources that refer to the Circassian genocide only refer to Circassians (the tribes etc). We may need to split part of this article for the other Caucasus ethnicites who were expelled/ethnically cleansed etc during the time but from the outcome/aftermaths of different conflicts, i.e Shamil's rebellion etc (although for them a new article might not carry the title of genocide due to scholarship not having made that conclusion apart from ethnic cleansing/s). A case in point would be the Armenian genocide being a page on its own in Wikipedia with the Assyrian/Syriac genocide having its own page though both events were committed by the same perpetrators and extensions of the same contexts and events during World War One. Your thoughts Yalens? Best.13:42, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Although common title tells "Circassians" (a name frequently used in Russia for many different ethnicities), this is not about any specific ethnicities, but about specific campaign(s) by Russia/Russian army. So, one should probably clarify the time frame for the page and the set of specific campaigns by Russian Army. The Shamil's rebellion definitely should be noted here, although making a separate sub-page is a good idea. My very best wishes (talk) 14:02, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
My very best wishes, lack of scholarship kind of added to the poverty of information in the article. They exist now due to attention being paid by scholars of genocide, so hopefully much can be done to remedy the matter. A discussion on which parts to separate/transfer to other articles will need to be had, but after the outcome of the move so things don't get muddled. Best.Resnjari (talk) 15:00, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
This an overlapped subject with Caucasian War. Both pages should improved in coordination. Of course if something was already completely described in "Caucasian War", it may not be necessarily repeated here, but "Caucasian War" is in a poor condition right now.My very best wishes (talk) 15:13, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Yep, agreed.Resnjari (talk) 15:28, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
I went and deleted the stuff -- here's what I deleted, in case we want to incorporate it elsewhere: [[18]]. I left the stuff pertaining to the Ingush, Chechens, Ossetians, Arshtins and the "few Lezgins that were swept up". Some authors seem to include them at least vaguely in the deportation operation. For the Chechens and Ingush, Natkho considers the deportations as having been 1858-1865 groups together the Chechen and Kabardin movements (p387), while Jaimoukha, a Circassian author, while writing about the history of Chechens, includes their (and the Ingush's) deportations as part of larger Circassian deportations (pp51-52). For the Ossetes and "swept up" Lezgins I wasn't sure if those were the same phenomenon so I thought best to leave them for now. Any thoughts? --Yalens (talk) 23:15, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
Looks logical to me. Of course Abazins must be noted and linked to this page. They were completely exterminated or evicted and replaced by other settlers in places like Pskhu. Interestingly, some of these new settlers (e.g. Greeks) were deported again in the next century by Stalin. My very best wishes (talk) 00:53, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
I know we have a page on repression of Greeks but do we have a page specifically on their deportation? Curious. If we do it might be notable to put a link to it in see also or make some reference to it in the consequences or a legacy section (if we do that of course we could also mention the later movements of Kartvelians in the same place-- and the second deportation of Circassians, from Bulgaria). --Yalens (talk) 05:06, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
I say work out which other non-Circassian peoples other scholars also attribute along with these events within the scope of the term genocide. The thing is though, when scholars label an event of often state perpetuated violence against a people as genocide, the key determining factor is intent, in particular to exterminate (Shenfield covers this regarding Circassians -ranging from the Abkhaz all the way to the northern tribes). Though the other peoples were ethnically cleansed and expelled alongside the Circassians -due to the outcome of the war with Shamil etc-, was there a Russian intent to exterminate Chechens, Laks, Avars, etc and others during this period as well ? That's why having extensive info on them in this article may make things muddled as scholars who use the term Circassian genocide are quite precise toward which peoples. Some contents such as that we may need to create a different article called maybe Ethnic cleansing of [Eastern?] Caucasus peoples (1850s-1860s), Expulsion of [Eastern?] Caucasus peoples (1850s-1860s) with a disclaimer that the article covers the process of expulsion/deportation/ethnic cleansing separate to the events of the Circassians. Best.Resnjari (talk) 12:21, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
One problem is that a lot of Russians actually couldn't tell the difference between proper Circassians (Adygha) and Central Caucasian peoples like Ossetes, Ingush, Chechens and even Avars at times. Afaik they didn't typically do this with other non-Turkic Dagestani mountainous peoples-- they called all the rest "Lezgins" even of course when they (Laks, Dargins, Tabasarans, Rutuls...) weren't. Let alone Abazas, Ubykhs and Abkhaz who are actually similar (nowadays Ubykhs are typically included though then again they barely really exist; Abazas sometimes, Abkhaz rarely if ever). In the case of the Abkhaz, things were also more similar to what happened in Chechnya, Ingushetia and Ossetia (and Kabarda), in that large numbers of Abkhaz remained despite large-scale evictions (comparison is mine, we can't put this in the page).
Haven't read Shenfield; Richmond's argument is not that Russians aimed to exterminate Circassians from the world (he specifically disputes this), but rather that it viewed their presence on a certain set of lands as a "pestilence" to remove. The evictions of Chechens, Ingush and (maybe?) Ossetes also occurred years after Shamil surrendered (whereas Dagestanis were never evicted afaik so it would be "Central" not "Eastern"). On Ossetes, I haven't read much that specifically covers events in Ossetia, and I doubt much is or will be published in English any time soon for unfortunate political reasons. My very best wishes, do you know of anything in Russian? Turkish could also be a guess.
As for the Ingush and Chechens, there is stuff written (Jaimoukha, Anchabadze, etc...) but even though Chechens/Ingush are the topic, they discuss their evictions in the context of the Circassian events. I've never seen a source that discusses them separately (perhaps Moshe Gammer or John Dunlop maybe??) and there isn't a source I know of that specifically discusses Nakh evictions except in a broader historical context. There are sources on the Circassian events (Richmond for one) that don't mention Chechens/Ingush. I worry it might be some sort of OR or SYN for us to make a separate page when they don't separate it (yet?). Resnjari perhaps the best thing to do might be a little side section noting effects on Ingush/Chechens/Arshtins while noting that while some authors do discuss them as part of the expulsions (Jaimoukha, Natkho tangentially), others don't (Richmond, check Shenfield?). Additionally if we do so, we should probably note the Nogais too, as per Natkho (also, Rosser-Owen's paper mentions Nogais but not Vainakh, but she considers the expulsion of Nogays as starting simultaneously with the Crimeans). --Yalens (talk) 20:18, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Another important and related issue -- who counts also pertains to the numbers, because some of the lower estimates which take into account Ottoman figures of arrivals and Russian figures of departures don't take into account the ethnicity of those concerned, so they likely include Abkhaz, Abaza, Chechens, Ubykhs, Arshtins, Ingush, Ossetes, and Nogai. Although Abazas, Ubykhs and Arshtins were decimated, these are small groups and the presence of larger groups probably drives the percentage down. On the other hand, Richmond only considers the posterior population calculated by the Russians to be remaining in Circassia as per Berzhe (meaning he's not counting all the others) and he gets 95-97%, the highest estimate. The problem is, I can't find a way to say this without violating WP:SYN, and I'm not sure there is one. But I think it's important to note as we expand the page. --Yalens (talk) 21:19, 8 June 2017 (UTC) Self-edit: actually , the 94% comes from Narochnitskiy who likely used the same number, and Rosser-Owen notes Shenfield has a number for just Circassians and Abkhaz that is slightly over 90%, though I don't have access to his work at the moment. I can't seem to find where the 90% came from at the moment as one of the two links is broken (though the other has it as sourced in the Geoorgian resolution, which used Russian archives stored in Tbilisi) --Yalens (talk) 21:41, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
You obviously know a lot about this. I can't be of much help here, sorry. There will be definitely something in Russian. The notion about foreigners not being able to distinguish these peoples is obviously correct. My very best wishes (talk) 03:52, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
It's all good. My apologies for spamming the talk page with an enormous text block that to be honest didn't really need to be posted. --Yalens (talk) 04:04, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
Ok, i agree Yalens with the proposals for a side section (and others too for additional improvements). That takes care of issues being muddled up. Richmond's assignment on removal is a factor of genocide is apt. There were many factors which fit the stages of genocide, as genocide scholars examine these events in full. I haven't looked at the article in a few days until now and the restructure is quite impressive Yalens. A second article wont be needed then as its specified that other groups in the end were also caught up in the events toward the Circassians. I'll add some info as well.Resnjari (talk) 08:11, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Other useful places for future expansion

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I gotta take a break from wiki and return to having a life a for a bit but aside from Natkho, Shenfield, Richmond, Jaimoukha (if I can ever get my hands on his book), Rosser-Owen and so on, I thought it might be helpful to note that some of the other wikis are more advanced than ours on this page and have some good info we currently lack, and which is often not found in English sources. I just got the info on Ossetes from Turkish wiki and some tribal stats from the Ukrainian one. For further expansion, I think Russian wiki is good for grabbing info on current events (especially regional government declarations on the matter, which are notable), Hebrew wiki (though could use a lot more in-line citation) has a really good summary of various events and also goes into much more detail than the others about aspects of the expulsion and then what happened in the exile (using a mix of Shenfield/Richmond and Russian sources), and then Turkish wiki (while kinda disorganized) has a lot more info than we do currently on what happened to the Abkhaz, and it also does a much better job than most of the others at charting where different ethnic groups ended up settling (with sources in many cases). Cheers. --Yalens (talk) 20:34, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

I have access to Jaimoukha. I'll get in a week or two. Not at university at the moment.Resnjari (talk) 10:14, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Circassian_genocide/Archive_1&oldid=1151049869"