Talk:Batak massacre/Archive 1

Archive 1

Factual problems

I've got the following problems.

1. The article defines "The Batak massacre" as "massacres of Christian civilians throughout Bulgaria". Being Bulgarian myself, I've never heard the term being used to refer to anything else than the massacre that occurred in Batak itself. The other massacres that occurred after the April uprising are not usually called that way. Maybe James Reid, whom the article cites, does use the word in this way, but if so, this is higly untypical. I can't check that, because it's not available for free online.

2. The article says the death toll was 5000, but all Bulgarian sources I've seen (Кратка българска енциклопедия, Историческа енциклопедия България, Електронна енциклопедия България (online)) say 3000.

3. I think the second paragraph of the section "The Massacre" is the result of a misunderstanding on the part of the Armenian editor who wrote it (who, BTW, has been banned for abusive behaviour). It appears to describe events that follow the ones described in the first paragraph, something like "a second round" of massacres, but in fact it is just another retelling of the story of the April uprising as a whole; the editor apparently didn't understand it was the same thing. The different numbers of casualties cited (5000, 2100) are probably due to different estimates about the same massacre, not to different massacres.

4. As for the 300 Turkish civilians massacred, I don't understand if they are supposed to have perished at Batak alone, or whether this a total estimate for Bulgaria as a whole.

The worst thing is that while I strongly suspect this article is inaccurate in more than one respect, I don't have access to the cited works, so I can't understand what they actually said, and what is mistakes on the part of the editor. I see no way to help this article out except for basically rewriting it from scrath using (Bulgarian) sources that I do have access to, making uncontroversial claims. But that would mean that I am deleting sourced info, which is wrong, too. --Anonymous44 13:08, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

See also german discussion in de:Massaker von Batak -- jlorenz1 21:28, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

The Turkish massacres is there for neutrality the start of these massacres; anyway the information is sourced. --Vonones 22:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I removed the "Disputed" tag, since the article seriously evolved since its had been put. There are no more statements to be referenced, I put a reference for the number of victims to Britannica, etc. --PetaRZ (talk) 18:35, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

My reasons for the tag were not the lack of references, see above. As far as I can see, only one problem has been addressed, namely the definition of the Batak massacre has been changed to "part of" all the massacres after the uprising. Also, Britannica 1911 is not precisely an up-to-date secondary source.--Anonymous44 (talk) 14:21, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

If I understand you well, the problem comes from the introduction, so I'll try to change it. Also, the following paragraph is moved here, unless verifiable sources are presented:

The Turkish government, meanwhile, began to implement another means of repression, by which people of other ethnicities were compulsorily transferred to Bulgaria in order to reduce the Bulgarians to a minority in their own country. The Turks even incited these immigrants to commit murder and plundering. When in 1876 the Bulgarians attempted to defend themselves against this plundering and murdering, the Turks instated a number of massacres in which 25,000 people lost their lives (in Batak alone 5,000 of the 7,000 population of the city were massacred)

--PetaRZ (talk) 21:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

But also this:

The Christian massacre of 300 Turkish villagers in Batak at the beginning of the 1876 April Uprising of Bulgarians against the rule of the Ottoman Turks produced violent reaction on the part of the local irregular Ottoman troops, who later killed 2,100 Bulgarian civilians.

--PetaRZ (talk) 23:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Anonymous44, I made an attempt to take into account your remarks, and to introduce a NPOV in the article. If you put one more time the {{disputed}} tag, I'll not remove it, since I cannot make it more neutral. Another editor is needed to review my writings. --PetaRZ (talk) 23:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I know this region pretty well, and ALL the numbers seem too big to me: The pomack army, the population of Batak, the number of victims etc. If (big if) Aga was able to recruit quickly an army of 5000 or even 4000 from the mostly small mountain villages under his control, then his army must have included a lot of teenage boys and old men. If this army was able to besiege the town of Batak, then Batak could not have been very big at the time (it isn't now). Calling the place a "city" is unwarranted. It is and was a rural town. Even allowing for the pomacks being better armed than the rebels, to have defeated them so easily and forcing their total surrender after a couple of days, the rebels must have been greatly outnumbered. It was a horrible atrocity, but the numbers certainly seem to be exaggerated. Pignut (talk) 04:38, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

References

Listing at List of events named massacres

The Batak massacre is currently included in the above list. Unfortunately, the listing does not conform to the inclusion criteria of that list... which indicate that multiple reliable sources use the word "massacre" as part of a NAME for the event (in other words, multiple reliable sources must call the event the "Batak Massacre", or some close varient thereof). At the moment the single citation provided backs the idea that the event is discribed as being a massacre, but does not indicate that it is named as such.

If the inclusion criteria are not met, we will have to remove the event from the list... which we would prefer not to have to do. Since it is likely that those who edit this page will be familiar with the sources, I ask for your help. Please pop over to the list and provide sources for the name. Thanks. Blueboar (talk) 11:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC)~

Preparation Section and Russian Involvement

The article lacks any mentioning of the extensive Russian involvement in staging the April uprising with the intent to cause severe casualties on the local Muslim population and as such justify Russian intervention. The fact is that Russian was behind the chain of events and Bulgarian agents were used, it is wrong to portray this as a spontaneous Bulgarian uprising having in mind that it was not even supported widely by the Bulgarian population it self. REF: Turkey in Europe. by Baker, James lieutenant-colonel., 1877 and Dr.Hamlin Head of the American Christian Mission in Turkey. There a lot of sources on the matter. Key point of Baker’s claim is that the so called massacres of Bulgarians which was made famous by Gladstone is perpetrated Russian agents dressed as Turks to gain pretence to start another war with the Ottoman Empire to gain territory. This discovery by Baker debunks the whole of Gladstone’s speech. Hittit (talk) 08:23, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Please don't add your rants to Wikipedia. There is no evidence that the organizers of the April uprising were Russian agents (really the idea that Russia wanted war at this moment is ridiculous, considering their financial situation at the time) apart from the writings of a few British supporters of the Ottoman Empire (and you haven't even given any sources about them, either). Kostja (talk) 11:52, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

POV classification of Sources

Kostja you have reitared in the article that Richard, Millman is pro-Turkish. I suggest we go a bit further and clarify that according to the bulk of sources MacGahan is described as extremely pro-Russian and a sensationalist (some newspapers refused to even hire him). Would you like to add this to the article or should I? It is clear that this article has many flaws, but using only pro-Bulgarian views will not bring any further objectivity to an already propagandistincally written article. And lets not forget, BATAK village = meaning "Muddy village" (in Turkish) had the estimate of over a thousand inhabitants, of which many were Muslim. We can start by first clarifiying how could have the Muslim irregulars killed 5000 people in Batak, which never had this amount of Christian population? Even today after the population of Bulgaria has grown over 100% since 1876 the population of Batak in 2009 is shown as less than 3,500. Hittit (talk) 07:38, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I have little desire to discuss your unfounded speculations with you. Why don't you add some reliable sources instead of engaging in idle talk? This is not a forum, you know. Kostja (talk) 09:25, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Objectivity?

This entry seems very emotional, one-sided, and biased to a neutral observer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CF99:2080:EC9A:412B:D163:485A (talk) 01:37, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Batak massacre. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110831064825/http://today.actualno.com/news_341548.html to http://today.actualno.com/news_341548.html

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

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

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:15, 21 March 2016 (UTC)