Talk:Circassian genocide/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Claim not in cited sources

The quote "Russia, however, actively denies the Circassian genocide, and classifies the events as a simple migration of "undeveloped barbaric peoples"." That appears in the opening doesn't appear in either of the sources cited. (searched for "undeveloped" in both, neither turned up the quote. A quick read also didn't turn it up. Since the quote doesn't come from either citation, either it should be removed or a "not in citation" tag applied. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:184:4780:4490:4c54:d30d:48fc:7799 (talk) 04:02, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

The information cited as footnote 47 is not in the cited material. Baddeley does not say this on p. 73, or anywhere else that I can find. Sgsnow (talk) 17:44, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Other wikipedias

This topic does not seem too small, but nevertheless, there are not too many other-language-wikipedias who cover it. Why not? Could it be useful, if anyone pushed some articles in the other languages? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.144.210.216 (talk) 09:01, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Biased article

The article is biased. The historical background makes no mention of the raids endured by Russia by its neighbors and the aggressive designs of the Ottoman Empire+allies against Russia. For example, in 1771 Sokur Arslanbek Aji on the Don village of Romanovskaya carried out a raid that killed half the population and captured the rest for slavery to Turkey. [1]

The sources used in the article are sketchy. For example:

• Kadir I. Natho was born, in 1927, in Hatramtook, Caucasus, one of the eleven children of Ishaq and Goshmafa Natkho—his Circassian (Adygha) parents. - who is this guy and what are his academic qualifications?[2]

And then there's literally an organ of the Georgian Sakashvili regime cited in the article: "*Mikhail Nikolaevich to Novikov, September 20 (OS), 1867, Georgian State Archive (Tbilisi), f. 416, op. 3, doc. 160, 2." Which is bizarre, as given the political context Georgian sources have an obvious axe to grind.

Walter Richmond dominates this article, but he doesn't possess the necessary academic qualifications. Richmond teaches Russian language, literature, art, and culture. His scholarly interests also include the history and culture of the Caucasus and Central Asia.[https://www.oxy.edu/faculty/walter-richmond ] - Richmond is an expert on the Russian language and Russian literature but is not a historian. He delivered a statement to the European Parliament, which many people believe as anti-Russia tendencies for the so-called "Seventh Circassian Day" [3] - this can be construed as political activity.

The idea that there was a genocide is controversial and does not represent a global consensus. Virtually all Russians refute the allegations:

• "The theme of the Circassian genocide is intensively cultivated by foreign organizations with very specific reputations and connections. In addition to the already mentioned Jamestown Foundation, the American agency STRATFOR, the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), the Circassian Cultural Center in Georgia, the Institute of Eastern Partnership from Israel , Amnesty International, Turkish organizations, etc. , are fighting for "independence of the Circassian people"[4] - I'm curious as to whether this article is a product of or has been influenced by those forces?
• "the problem of the mass exodus of hundreds of thousands of Circassians to the Ottoman Empire is often politicized, including for anti-Russian purposes."[5]
• "From my inherent modesty, I call such a thing a myth. In fact, it has an adequate name: False. Lying, purposeful, conscious juggling of materials, manipulation of public opinion, fooling their own people and an attempt to bild on all this a political platform...IT is necessary to understand that in the last 10-15 years, the Adyghe historical science has not actually been scientific in regard to genocide. What it does is not science, but politics and opportunism...Russia did not set itself the goal ofdestroying all Adyghes. It quite clearly divided them into peaceful and non-peaceful.*[6]
• "Any state was formed at the expense of joining a strong people acquiring neighboring tribes and lands. Russia is no exception. History knows many cases when conquered peoples were simply destroyed. Russia did not do this. Russian citizenship was granted and opportunity was given to move to fertile lands, andthose who wished could be allowed to to travel across the country that promised them shelte...There's definitely no need to talk about genocide."[7]
• "The third thesis of this myth that this was the result of "aggression and seizure of land." In fact, there was a military response to constant raids, killings, and robberies. And Russia tried to avoid it. In fact, it was a counter-terrorist operation. And most importantly - the main supporters of its conduct were Adyghes themselves, more precisely the part of them that was tired of living in conditions of permanent feudal lawlessness...The tsarist government saw no sense in change in change of culture or religion. It only sought peaceful coexistence."[8]

And then there is this excellent academic paper by Dana Sherry - she does not subscribe to the genocide stuff either:

• I argue that, on the contrary, the Caucasus administration pursued a civilizing mission that aimed at transforming the peoples under its rule. Social engineering remained beyond its reach, and with its limited ability to mold the local population in new directions, Tiflis relied on theoretical calculations that I term “social alchemy.” These formulas reflected current ideas of social science, drawing on knowledge of ethnicity in the abstract and given ethnic groups in particular, and it promised to deliver marvelous results in transforming imperfect social elements into an ideal society. As practiced along the Black Sea coast, this alchemy involved two key steps. First, officials aimed to refine the indigenous population, removing elements deemed fanatical, relocating those who could accept Russian rule to the more accessible lowlands along the Kuban River, and subjecting those who remained to close administration. Western Circassians, once brought under control, would help provide the manpower to develop the resources of the Kuban lowlands.[9]76.168.99.248 (talk) 18:52, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Look, this article is not about denial of the Circassian genocide on wp:idontlikeit reasons or about WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. For example you call into question Walter Richmond's scholarly credentials. But in the same link you cite, it clearly states that his academic area of research interest is on the Caucasus in addition to many things Russian. More than qualified. Richmond dominates because he has looked at the archive and wider research on the topic and published much. You placed a whole host of Russian media articles that challenge views of these events being a Genocide, thing is the are not academic sources. There are many articles from Turkish media that pursue a similar line for the Armenian Genocide, thing is they are not given priority on Wikipedia when it comes to writing up the article on the Armenian Genocide. On Sherry's study (and the quote you gave above) where does she state that this event was not a Genocide ?Resnjari (talk) 19:18, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

To start a sentence with "look" is rude and I'm requesting that you not do it again. And for you to write about "denial of the Circassian genocide" as though there is an equivalence with the Holocaust or Armenian Genocide, two events for which there is a scholarly consensus, is fringe and out of touch. Taking into account Russian sources, it seems that there is a consensus against the theory of a Circassian genocide and the equivalence of Turkish lies on the Armenian Genocide is a false one, as Armenians were not raiding, massacring, and capturing Turks to be taken as slaves the way Circassians did against Russians. Richmond is not a trained historian and his speech to the European Parliament can only be construed as political activity. Not only is he not a trained historian, his book comes across as polemical. You asked about Sherry's article, and my reply is that nowhere does she argue that a genocide occurred but that there was a completely different process. 76.168.99.248 (talk) 19:29, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Well look, the word "look" is not rude last one checked a English dictionary. Anyway, within the non-Russian scholarly community, those academics who study this event have classified it as Genocide. Whether you like this or not is not an issue here. As i said with the Armenian Genocide, some Turks, their media and academics produce a line on events that is 'alternative' to the rest of academia which classifies it as Genocide. In the same token therefore that Turkish scholarship is treated with much caution on that event, why should Russian scholarship much under the thumb of the state and Russian media which overwhelmingly is state run be regarded as the first port of call for information on this event above others? Also on Richmond, he can speak to whatever audience he likes i.e the European Parliament and that does not disqualify him for doing so. Also he is an academic who specializes in Russian and Caucasus research. Sherry highlights other aspects of Russia's imperial policy in the area about the civilising mission -common with colonial powers around the world of the time. Nonetheless, with Sherry where does she say that these events are not a Genocide ?Resnjari (talk) 19:46, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

I have no knowledge of this topic. However, I agree that the unregistred editor should present some reliable sources for these strong claims. Genocides/persecutions/massacres are a hard topic, and editors should be careful with their statements. Ktrimi991 (talk) 19:40, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Ktrimi991, this is a hard topic, but furthermore it is hard for me to justify talking to someone who uses racist language like "civilizing mission". --Calthinus (talk) 19:57, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

What Sherry is refering to is the concept of mission civilisatrice (civilising mission), this aspect being a product of imperialism and colonialism which involved much violence etc and not using it in a racist way. That said the IP still has not shown where Sherry has stated that this event is not a Genocide.Resnjari (talk) 20:35, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

It's not a hard topic at all, at least for me. The sources I cited are very clear about the topic.

Are you for real, Caltinus? You called Dana Sherry a racist because you don't like what she said? That's meme-worthy.

Resnjari, is English your first language? Beginning a sentence with words and phrases like "look", "like I said", "obviously", "just so you know" are rude and have no place in a formal discussion. I ask that you refrain from rude language and be more civil.

And there is no discussion about genocide in the historiography about this topic - see Sherry's article where summarizes the work of western-based authors - there is simply no debate about a genocide. The genocide stuff is relatively new, recent stuff cooked up by some Circassian activists and reflected in Walter Richmond's work. The global consensus is represented by Russian sources which dominate historiography, but the absence of this historiography in this article means that it violates NPOV. For example, see University of Stavropol's Северный Кавказ в Российской империи: народы, миграции, территории[10] . The article in its current state is horribly biased. 76.168.99.248 (talk) 20:34, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, English is a first language. I also speak Slavic languages and read Cyrillic. The term "global consensus" here, means Russia? As i was saying before, same with the Armenian Genocide, many Turkish scholars have published their 'views'. So as caution is taken with those, caution is taken with Russian sources. Scholars who are outside of Russia and have looked at the archive, primary and secondary documentation of the age + much scholarship on the issue have concluded that this event is Genocide.Resnjari (talk) 20:40, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Your sources are very clear and very unreliable, Sherry put aside. Sherry himself might be reliable as far as I can see but he does not dismiss that the concerned events were genocidial. If you do not have some reliable sources for your statements, I do not see any reason why other editors should continue this discussion. The current name of the article is an outcome of a legitimate process like a move request rather than a personal choice. Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:49, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

The sources I cited are reliable and even Walter Richmond put them in his bibliography, particularly Epifantsev. The current name of the article, its contents, and the sources it employs are biased and distorted. There are glaring omissions and a failure to reflect much of the scholarship on the topic. The equivalence to the Armenian Genocide is a false one, as Armenians were not raiding and enslaving Turks but it was the other way around. There is also a failure to comprehend that the historiography in western-based sources do not even consider genocide, but rather debate whether there was an expulsion or emigration of Circassians to the Ottoman Empire.

The migration of Circassians to the Ottoman Empire was to some extent analagous to how 45,000 Armenians migrated from Persia and 100,000 from the Ottoman Empire migrated to Russia in the 1820s, with the key difference that the Russians did not employ Armenians to terrorize local Muslims the way the Ottoman Empire used Circassians for massacres and genocide against its Christian subjects. Armenians, by the way, actually endured genocide in 1915-1922 unlike Circassians. International Association of Genocide Scholars finds that there was a genocide against Armenians. Not so for Circassians. Armenian Genocide is recognized by Russia, Germany, France, the Vatican. Not so far Circassians. So please, just stop equating Armenian Genocide with the history of Circassians.

There is also this book published by University of Stavropol.[11] There simply is no consensus that a genocide occurred, as shown by Zarema Kipkeyeva, who is "doctor of historical sciences, the author of more than 50 scientific publications on the history of the North Caucasus, including monographs: the Karachaevo-Balkarian Diaspora in Turkey (Stavropol, 2000), the Russian factor in migrations and settlements of the 16th-century Auberas villages (Armavir, 2002), Abasins of the North Caucasus: internal and external migrations in the XVIII - XIX centuries (Stavropol, 2005), Peoples of the North-West and Central Caucasus: migration and resettlement. 60-s of the XVIII century. - 60th years of XIX century. (Moscow, 2006)."[12] - it's safe to say that based on her non-Slavic ethnic origins and credentials that Kipkeyeva possesses the best qualifications and utmost impartiality on this topic. She write:

After the rehabilitation of the deported peoples and their return to their homelands, many of the already false concepts and conclusions were not revised. This bad practice led to the fact that as soon as the power structures weakened censorship after the collapse of the Soviet Union, there was a tendency not only to mythologize and idealize one's own history but also demonize the role of Russia, reducing it to "genocide" of the peoples of the North Caucasus...Historians should foresee possible distortions in these questions and to bear in mind the attempts of individual extremist groups to redraw the map of the North Caucasus, create a union of kindred peoples in damage to the interests of other peoples, claiming the role of a hegemon, etc...Emigration to the Ottoman Empire had particularly tragic consequences and some authors on this topic strenuously introduce the idea of genocide of the Adegyean peoples on the part of Russia. Mass movements of peoples along frontiers were widely practiced in the history of both Russia and other empires to ensure their reliability of the state in case of external wars. For all the tragedies the local peoples endured, it's absolutely unacceptable to present to the modern reader that there was a policy of the Russian authorities of an evil intent against certain ethnic groups or genocide, since the question of their complete destruction had never been raised.76.168.99.248 (talk) 21:08, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Well I misunderstood and thought the IP himself was using "civilizing mission" (to be fair, it was not placed in a quote). It's a racist term and if anyone was published saying it I really do hope they made it clear they do not share the viewpoint the term implies. Now regarding Armenians, it's rather pointless to compare the suffering of two different peoples as it gets us nowhere and just offends people on both sides. However, between the Turkish and Russian government positions there is much to compare-- as is also the case in other topics such as Holodomor and so forth. The fact is that the Russian government has habitually urged both government and academic publications to "counter the attempts to "falsify" history to the detriment of Russia" -- as you can see here, just like with Turkey, the goal is not academic inquiry but national interest. Furthermore, freedom of the press in Russia is an effing joke. On top of that, especially during the Soviet period, Russian "scholarship" on the Caucasus has been found to have simply fabricated crap on more than one occasion, and often the "pravda" narratives from that time have still been continuously maintained in Russian academia even after the fall of communism. Regardless of whether Armenians were afflicted with the same tragedy as Circassians, the same standard should apply to Turkish and Russian sources as the RS-related issues are the same in both cases -- they can be used for illustrating the Russian/Turkish position, and nothing else. But some of the sources you posted could actually be useful for that end, so I will incorporate them. Regarding Sherry, give me some time to read that and I'll see what can be done.--Calthinus (talk) 23:26, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Work from the Anglosphere concerning Russia is tainted with bias which is not surprising given the competition between Russia and the countries belonging to the Anglosphere in the 19th and 20th centuries. They employ an orientalist framework that views Russia is a dark, backwards place and its leaders as uniquely despotic. In my opinion, these sources are not reliable and are politically motivated, seeking to portray the country in a negative light. Regarding freedom of the press, what about the western media's coverage about the Middle East, for example? Russian bombs deliberately target hospitals in Syria according to British+American media but British+American bombs in Mosul do no damage[13]. You speak negatively about the Russian media and of course it is biased but what makes western-based media any better? And someone like Walter Richmond based in California, who by the way is not a trained historian but is a professor of Russian-related culture, does not possess the same expertise and access to sources about this topic as a historian from a Russian university. Zarema Kipkeyeva is described as "doctor of historical sciences, the author of more than 50 scientific publications on the history of the North Caucasus, including monographs: the Karachaevo-Balkarian Diaspora in Turkey (Stavropol, 2000), the Russian factor in migrations and settlements of the 16th-century Auberas villages (Armavir, 2002), Abasins of the North Caucasus: internal and external migrations in the XVIII - XIX centuries (Stavropol, 2005), Peoples of the North-West and Central Caucasus: migration and resettlement. 60-s of the XVIII century. - 60th years of XIX century. (Moscow, 2006)."[14] . Caltinus, how are you qualified to describe her scholarship as "fabricated crap"? You implied in a previous edit that her work is a product of Russian censorship, but what evidence do you have for that? There is extensive scholarship done about Turkish denial about the Armenian Genocide, such as this University-published book written by a Turk[15]. Turkish work on the Armenian Genocide is flat-out garbage with the exception of one or two dissidents and should never be used. Do you have anything comparable characterizing Russian shcolarship on the Caucasus as analagous to Turkish denial of the Armenian genocide? For one, there is no consensus even among historians from the Anglosphere that there was a genocide in the Caucasus War. The only ones that subscribe to this genocide stuff are a few Yeltsin-era Caucasus-based nationalist-revisionists, Sakashvili's Georgian regime, and a random professor of literature named Walter Richmond who regurgitates their stuff.

I checked the sources cited in this article and used by Walter Richmond. This article through Richmond heavily quotes a random Russian officer named Ivan Drozdov. His words seem to be cherry-picked by Richmond in order to portray the Russians in the worst possible light. Caltinus, you insist that censorship be practiced in this article by excluding Russian sources. But the author that you've heavily cited in this article, Walter Richmond, extensively uses Drozdov in his book. Basically, it's okay to use Russian sources when they portray the Russians in a negative light and not okay to portray them in any other way?76.168.99.248 (talk) 00:15, 25 February 2018 (UTC)::::::::::::::::No I am not "censoring", constructive conversation ended with that accusation. It's bizarre -- on the one hand you accuse Western scholars of simply echoing local "national-revisionists" but then you implicitly undermine your argument, by going into how Walter Richmond did his own research by investigating primary sources (i.e., a not-so-random in fact eyewitness Russian officer who was named Ivan Drozdov). The fact is that not only Richmond support the classification, but also others do such as Shenfield, while the Yeltsin era in Russia was perhaps the one time in modern Russian history when honest inquiry was conducted into these issues - it was squelched during communism and now again during Putin. Westerners have all their biases but it just so happens that neither academia nor news media in the West has as part of its mission statement to serve national interest -- actually the theories of Western academia and the reports of Western news media often state things that tend to increase anti-Western sentiment (see also: postmodernism), while this is never true in Russia. This conversation has repeated over and over again all over Wikipedia and the result is always the same-- Soviet-derived Russian "alternative histories" get removed. Even the arguments you're using are also typical of the ones that Turkish troll IPs use to try to deny the Armenian Genocide ("it only portrays Russians/Turks in a negative light", "it ignores that Armenians/Circassians were a hostile fifth column for the evil foreign powers that wanted to divide us", etc etc ad nauseam). Now, about the lovely "scholarship" produced during communism, this has been debunked time and time again, especially the wonderfully imaginative claims like North Caucasus lowlands being "uninhabited" when Cossacks arrived and also the claims from that Russia didn't conquer lands but rather the natives begged Russia to annex them -- before they mysteriously turned agianst their new sovereign and ended up "provoking" her to massacring/deporting/starving/forcefully assimilating them at various points along the way. Actually the entire history very often has this suspicious theme of Russia getting huge because all the peoples from the Baltic to the Pacific "request" to join Russia -- before they either end up forcefully assimilated, deported or massacred. While Turkish scholarship produces dubious material mainly about three particular late Ottoman genocides in the specific region east of Anatolia (Assyrian, Armenian, Pontic Greek) thanks to the Soviet era there is stuff from Russia that promotes theories rejected elsewhere regarding a whole variety of time periods and regions covering multiple centuries and spanning from the Baltic to the Black Sea to the Pacific. Just today I discovered the gem that Russia is now re-investigating the possibility that the outrageous anti-Semitic theory that Tsar Nick was killed to make Passover charoset [[16]] was true -- it would be funny if weren't tragic. I'm sure Vecrumba can tell you all about Stalinist fairy tales regarding both this region and the Baltics, and how no one else buys them. As for Russians, no actually I don't have any problem with them as a people -- actually this page doesn't really portray Russians as bad people at all, only the government maybe -- you're quite jolly in real life and made great contributions to the world, but sadly tend to be their own worst enemies :). And as I said before, I'm not averse to incorporating sources to demonstrate the Russian point of view, but not in the manner you have tried. --Calthinus (talk) 03:41, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Dude, you really need to read up on history. From the 13th to 19th centuries, Russians were terrorized, massacred, and enslaved. By the Astrakhan, Kazan, and Crimean hordes, as well as Circassian bands.

You’re also not up to speed on historiography and I suggest you actually do research on the subject. The Soviet era scholars in regard to the Caucasian wars describe Russia as quite violent and brutal towards the local population. The Soviet Encyclopedia writes, “The Caucasian War brought Chechnia, Gornyi Dagestan, and the northwestern Caucasus definitively under Russian rule. The annexation was conducted with the violent military feudal methods typical of the colonial policy of tsarism. At the same time the incorporation of these peoples into Russia, which had started on the path of capitalism, was objectively progressive,since ultimately it promoted their economic, political, and cultural development. The Russian people and their vanguard, therevolutionary Russian proletariat, became these peoples’ protector and leader in the struggle for social and national liberation.” - we have Russian scholars self-criticizing their history as violent, brutal, feudal, and colonial, which plenty of other Russians with patriotic views would disagree with.

It was already established above that there is zero equivalence between the Russian-Caucasian wars and Turkey’s genocide against Armenians. The dispute deals with the fact that history is being misrepresented and distorted. I also question whether you, who has composed a large bulk of this article, are able to fairly represent the prevailing scholarship about this topic - you've basically decided that Russians can only be cited if they show Russia in a poor light. Hence, random Russian named Ivan Drozdov via Walter Richmond can be cited to support the view that Russians are evil but the world's leading expert about the Caucasus Zamera Kipkeyeva as well as the other sources I cited shouldn't be used because she's more nuanced. So which is it, man? Should Russians be cited with regard to this topic or should they not be? Why is it okay to cite Ivan Drozdov but not Russian "alternate histories" as you insultingly describe those sources? There is a glaring omission of Russian historiography and the fact that Russia was victimized by massacres, raids, and a slave trade at the hands of its neighbors, including Circassians and Crimeans. You have made your biases quite clear: championing this backwards nationalism in Adyghea, Chechnya and elsewhere and demonizing Russia as a bad country that does bad things.

Caltina, your insistence that certain sources cannot be used in this article is basically censorship. Which is ironic because earlier you accused Russia of practicing censorship over its media and academia and even seek to slander one of the world’s leading experts about the topic, Zamera Kapkeyeva, as some sort of propagandist. Can you name a single reliable expert on Russian history who said that Russian sources about Russian history are tainted and should not be used in research - it is an absolutely weird, crazy position to hold.

Walter Richmond’s reliability is flimsy at best. An expert on Slavic literature and languages is not qualified to study Russian history. But the way this article has it, Richmond is equivalent to the Bible in regard to the Caucasian wars.

Shenfield – who is he and what qualifications does he have? His description includes: “his works on Caucasian affairs are available on the sites circassianworld.com and abkhazworld.com. For several years he produced the Research and Analytical Supplement to Johnson’s Russia List (archive at cdi.org/russia/johnson/jrl-ras.cfm). He is currently an independent researcher and translator.”[17] – does not look like a reliable, scholarly source and his work was not published by an academic, peer-reviewed publisher. Yet he is presented in this article as some kind of expert. Laughable.

Are you setting up strawmen? Who claimed that the North Caucasus was uninhabited? It is true, however, that it was backwards and that Russia brought progress to it. Russia has produced beautiful architecture like Saint Basil's Cathedral, art, ballet, music like Shostakovich and scientists like Lomonosov. Moscow and Petersburg in 1864 were thriving, beautiful cities – what did the Circassians produce at the time? It was not till 1940 when Adyghe State University was established by those evil, hateful, genocidal Russians [sarcasm]76.168.99.248 (talk) 04:31, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Dude, see this is what I mean -- you're not even trying to have a respectful conversation. Literally no one in this conversation has ever called Russians as a people "evil, hateful, genocidal" etc. You however, did just call Circassians "backwards" -- which is unacceptable. The Soviet era had all sorts of twists and turns in its -- yes, alternative histories -- in that during some earlier periods characerized by Korenizatsiya there were works critical of "Russian chauvinism" produced, but later Soviet history writing swung very far to the other direction. Of course, history wasn't the only field with loads of weirdness, there was also the Japhetic theory and much other lovely "scholarship". Yes there were claims that the steppes just north of the North Caucasus were "uninhabited", in fact these claims were once on Wikipedia, I know you will jump all over me for saying this but I don't remember the source and I don't have time to dig it up at hte moment. Russian historiography has been criticized for mythologizing and focusing excessively on the supposedly widespread "enslavement" of Slavs by Muslim peoples to their south (primarily Crimeans, not Circassians, but even for the Crimeans the "mythologization" of the phenomenon has been criticized) -- while ignoring the progressive elements within those societies such as the Jadidist movement. I have made my stance quite clear-- I would be fine with creating a space on the page where Russian views can be represented, even if some of my attempts to do so were clumsy. We could talk forever but (a) I don't have time, (b) you seem much more interested in attacking me than improving the page, to be frank. Also, as you acknowledged in your post, I am a "dude" so there is no reason for you to call me "Caltina". But whatever. I can roll with that, I guess. -- <3 Caltina <3 ~~

To the IP, the issue of the events regarding Circassians being a Genocide relate to the factor of extermination. One of the qualifiers for a violent event of forced population movements and civilian casualties and so on being classified as Genocide is the intent to exterminate. Not only was the concept of cleansing used by the Russians in the 1860s for the Circassians (way before it entered the English in the 1990s via Serbian as Ethnic cleansing), but Russian generals and politicians of the age involved in these events where discussing extermination of the Circassians. Shenfeld who in the late 1990s was one of the first academics outside a post Soviet space and not coming from Russia discussed whether this event constitutes as Genocide [18] with his conclusion that it was. Also he published his work in a edited book that had oversight by other academics on Genocide, massacres etc meeting requirements of wp:reliable and wp:secondary - your attempt to discredit him does not suffice and is more wp:idontlikeit. Other academics from a non-Russian space are concluding this time and time again. The reason why i brought up the Armenian issue previously is because there are academics in Turkey who present a certain view that has been influenced by the state and also by local 'nationalism/patriotism' that opposes that event being classified as Genocide, though the scholarly community outside of Turkey disagrees. So in that respect in Russia where the state controls the media and has influence over academia, its sources are going to come under the same scrutiny. I should also say that the talkpage is wp:notaforum and deal with one issue at a time otherwise editors are just not going to waste time. Thankyou.Resnjari (talk) 13:51, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

There is a review of both Richmond and Epifantsev's books. [19] . Both books are treated equally by the reviewer. The reviewer says, "These two books are important contributions to that debate" and does not identify the Russian guy as comparable to a Holocaust denier or someone who denies genocides. The reviewer of the books does not say that one book is the honest scholarship and that the other one is dishonest propaganda. It demonstrates that Richmond's book which dominates this article does not in any way represent a consensus. It also flies in the face of the the nonsensical arguments above that Russian scholars' works about the Caucasus are equivalent to Turkish denial of the Armenian Genocide. This article heavily relies upon Richmond's book and the clique of editors watching this article seem determined to censor this article to make sure that sources that have different views from Richmond cannot be presented in this article. From the book review:

*"The book by Epifantsev offers an entirely different interpretation. It too describes the incorporation of Circassia into the Russian Empire but strongly objects to the idea that any of Russia’s actions can be characterised as genocide. On the contrary, Circassia’s fate was largely determined by its inability to adapt to a world that had changed. Russia radically reformed under Peter the Great and abolished serfdom in 1861. Circassia, on the other hand, remained largely unchanged for centuries. In Circassia (apart from agriculture and handicrafts) a major source of income derived from the slave trade...Richmond and Epifantsev disagree on a large number of historical facts. These concern in particular the offer to the Circassians (as an alternative to emigration to the Ottoman Empire) of resettlement in lowland Russia (the Kuban), the role of social divisions among them, the reasons for their preferring exile in the Ottoman Empire to resettlement in Russia, the fate of the Bjedukhs, the responsibility for the overcrowding on the shore in 1863 –1864, and the number of victims. According to Richmond, the lowland land offered to the Circassians was of poor quality. According to Epifantsev the offer to them of lowland land was very generous since it was substantially more per household than they had in the mountains or on the coast. Epifantsev also stresses the interests of the slave-owning Circassian nobility in not moving into the Russian lowlands where they would be deprived both of their slaves and the possibility of playing off the Russians against the Ottomans. On the other hand, for Richmond (p. 4) the Circassians were ‘in many ways a democratic and almost communistic society’. As for why so many preferred emigration (or staying put) to resettlement, whereas Richmond emphasises the brutality of the Russian army in the preceding decades, the unattractiveness of the land they were offered, and the natural attachment of the Circassians to their homeland, Epifantsev (p. 335) blames primarily the Circassian nobility and their wish to retain their slaves, but also hostile rumours, religious fanaticism (the Circassians were Muslim) and faith in the Ottomans. According to Epifantsev (p. 93) the Bjedukhs (a Circassian tribe) who submitted to Russia remained in their historic location. According to Richmond they were ethnically cleansed.

Calthinus, again, your words about Russian historiography demonstrate absolute cluelessness. I recommend that you stop misrepresenting the facts and actually do research on the subject. You claim that Soviet history possessed some sort of Russian nationalism. I cited the Soviet Encyclopedia as an example of how Russian scholars in the 1960s and 70s thought, and what I cited characterized the Russian government's actions in the Caucasus wars as brutal, violent, and even colonial. The Polish uprisings against Russia, the 1848 events in Hungary, Russia's control of Finland - for all these events Soviet scholarship took a sympathetic position towards the Russian government's adversaries. There's no shortage of Russian scholarship taking a negative view towards the Russian government. You're just spitting nonsense at this point. And you have an ironic sense of humor - you demand civility but very early on in this discussion you called qualities about Russia "an effing joke" and accused Russians of having "fabricated crap". And then there was Resnjari who chose the verb "look" in the very first word of the very first sentence he wrote to me.

You refer to an obscure, esoteric "Japhetic theory" that hardly anyone on this planet has heard of. It's the product of a lone, not particularly well-known individual named Nikolay Marr, who spoke only for himself and not every single Russian. Your approach lacks consistency: Russians can be cited only when they present Russia in a bad light such as Ivan Drozdov's cherry-picked words but you characterize other Russians as unreliable and biased when they present Russia in either a positive or nuanced light. You accuse Russians of "mythologizing" their history which sounds like another way of saying that they're liars. At the same time, we have Russian scholars that characterize stuff like this Circassian genocide theory as the product of "a tendency not only to mythologize and idealize one's own history but also demonize the role of Russia, reducing it to "genocide" of the peoples of the North Caucasus...Historians should foresee possible distortions in these questions and to bear in mind the attempts of individual extremist groups to redraw the map of the North Caucasus, create a union of kindred peoples in damage to the interests of other peoples, claiming the role of a hegemon, etc" - different people have different perspectives, it seems like. There is no shortage of political analyses of historiography - you lot accuse Russians of lying about history and Russians show that in fact you lot are the ones who mythologize and make up history.

Resnjari, there is no scholarly consensus about a genocide against Circassians. Just because one random California scholar on Slavic languages thinks so does not mean that he's equivalent to the Bible. There was violence on both sides - the Circassians before they came under Russian jurisdiction had an economy and way of life that revolved raiding and plunder and they engaged in a slave trade in which they sold their own women to be slaves to Turks and Persians. Behind the Kuban fortification line, the Russians endured constant assault and raids by Circassians and Nogais. They murdered, enslaved and arguably committed genocide against Russians. By comparison, the Jews who suffered a Holocaust didn't carry out raids, massacres and a slave trade against German people and the Armenians who suffered a genocide did not carry out raids, massacres, and a slave trade against Turks:

• May 1807: Several thousand Circassian horseman under the leadership of Prince Sultan Girey attacked the Vorovskolesskaya village. It housed the headquarters of the Don regiment of F.M Persiyanov. A great battle unfolded..The mountaineers captured 136 men and 179 women, stole cattle and property. :::*November 1812 in the village of Kamennobrodskoye - about 5000 Zubrans from 9 tribes crossed the Kuban and attacked, they burned 35 hourses, killed 300 and captured 350 people and stole 5000 heads of cattle.76.168.99.248 (talk) 07:45, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Ellman refers to retrospectivity, that classifying an event as Genocide cannot be done so because the crime did not exist at that time and can only be applied to events from when the concept of Genocide existed thereafter as done within the strict bounds of the application of international criminal law. Now i don't know how much your aware of the concept of Genocide and its history, but Raphael Lemkin created the term after WW2 and applied it retrospectively to events which were known as the Armenian massacres (pre 1945) which now in the scholarly community (separate to those in Turkey) is refered to as Genocide. Lemkin in his works even applied it as far back to events where the British engaged in a war against Tasmanian Aboriginals (Black War), which has been subject to dispute abpout applying the term retrospectively. My point being Ellman is not in favour of Genocide being applied to events in a retrospective manner or outside a very strict judicial context, yet both Lemkin who coined the word used it in such a way, and as Ellman himself grudgingly notes that "Furthermore, if the standard of proof is relaxed, as some writers on Genocide propose, that would make it easier to characterise the Circassian deaths as genocide." Thing is those scholars who do state that such violent events pre 1945 constitute Genocide have applied it in that manner and yes there is a big dispute over that. In the end regarding these events, an intent by the Russian political and military elite existed to exterminate the Circassians. Apart from the "cleansing" which the then Russian elite used for these events, combined with intent to exterminate has resulted in scholars looking at these events as being Genocide. I am sorry if this does not sit well with you, but it is what it is.Resnjari (talk) 12:53, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

IP, are you just looking at sources you gathered for the sake of arguments, without understanding? You say of the Japhetic heory t hardly anyone on this planet has heard of. It's the product of a lone, not particularly well-known individual named Nikolay Marr, who spoke only for himself and not every single Russian. Um, no, the corruption of linguistics to serve "proletarian" interests was instituted by the Soviet state -- old Nikolay was the Vice-president of the Soviet Academy of Sciences, and he managed the National Library of Russia from 1926 -1930 and his "Japhetic Institute" within the Academy from 1921 until his death. That was how Soviet "science" worked for some fields -- state "proletarian" interests first, scientific inquiry only when it helps them. Nikolay Marr's theories tormented Soviet linguistics for multiple decades until it was finally realizeed that they were too obviously bullshit, at which point they were denounced and everyone had to forget that the Soviet state had ever sponsored the BS with the support (coerced or otherwise) of Soviet academia. You can't escape it.--Calthinus (talk) 20:05, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Have you ever met a Circassian person? Or heard the Circassian language? I haven't. I'm not sure if I support calling this genocide, but I can't thinking of anything better right now. Many of the comments in this discussion have been in poor taste. There are more foreign language sources for this and some of the sources for this topic remain hard to access.Seraphim System ^(talk) 18:45, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, and yes. And also this is a very suspicious comment from you, given that it was you who proposed moving it to genocide (with the support of ultimately like ten or so editors). Why the change of view when you were the primary proponent before? It is discussed even in Russian. Really Seraphim you contribute a lot to wikipedia like your new page Palatal harmony but behavior like this (backing up a nearly confirmed sockpuppet on an issue you strongly took the opposite side on previously) is really perturbing and makes me struggle to AGF :/. When ED and Khirurg accuse you of all sorts of things my first instinct is to feel bad for you without really knowing the situation, but behavior like this makes me think they might have a point. And yet, you are a productive editor. I want to AGF, I really do. Help me out, will you? Have a nice day, --Calthinus (talk) 18:54, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Either post evidence for those accusations or strike them. This is an article talk page, not a place for you to complain about editors.Seraphim System ^(talk) 19:13, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Oh you mean the sock you just reverted? I'm not backing him up — more importantly, why do you think I'm backing him up? I'm pretty perturbed by editors demonstrating this kind of poor comprehension of brief, simple comments in talk discussions, it makes me feel you didn't even bother to finish reading what I wrote. This would mean a lot more than a long statement about how you want to AGF tbh. You should really strike all of that, it's pretty obvious you didn't read my entire comment since I offer that I've found some additional foreign language sources and am still looking for harder to access sources at the end. Why would you think my looking for more WP:RS means I've changed my position? I will agree to a CHECKUSER right now to clear myself and put an end to whatever suspicion has crawled in your mind, otherwise please strike your flimsy accusations. Seraphim System ^(talk) 19:24, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Seraphim System relax, he is not your sock, I never accused you of socking. He is very likely Jacob Peters. WP:SPI coming soon.--Calthinus (talk) 19:54, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

@Seraphim System:, you may not personally support the title of the article having the term Genocide, but saying that having not met someone who is a Circassian or heard the language somehow invites a demotion of the word being applied to these events does not suffice. Other editors may view that in poor taste as well. What happened to the Circassians was a Genocide.Resnjari (talk) 20:13, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Oh, yeah I guess that wasn't clear — I proposed this move because I always understood this to be a genocide due to what I've read about the near complete cultural and linguistic extermination of the diverse Circassian tribes. But the move was more or less uncontested. Now editors are complaining the sourcing is not as strong as it is for the Armenian Genocide so it should move back. Why do editors think I make these comments based on what I personally support? It's based on WP:RS, of course. Even if I want a title, when an editor challenges something saying it is disputed in WP:RS, I wonder if the sourcing is strong enough, or if it could be imrpoved — I don't just respond based on my personal opinions, because I think its obnoxious to do that. But I've found Turkish language sources and Calthinus says there are Russian language sources, so that should be enough.Seraphim System ^(talk)

@Seraphim System:, the views of some IP peddling problematic academics from Russia are to be ignored. The move was correct. It was uncontested because in that discussion the scholarship was used to make the case after you just initiated the pagemove but did not participate in the discussion and the heavy lifting was left for others to do who have immersed themselves in the scholarship on this topic. Don't complicate things now. The move was done. That's it.Resnjari (talk) 20:37, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Apologies for being away. The Baltics, as they have been historically for well over a century, continue to be the touchstone, per Calthinus: "I'm sure Vecrumba can tell you all about Stalinist fairy tales regarding both this region and the Baltics, and how no one else buys them." Such fairy tales are, of course, completely true. Ergo, whatever historical conclusion Calthinus is peddling is a priori false. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 04:20, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't agree that Wikipedia should be censored to the exclusion of mainstream Russian scholarship and viewpoints. Russian history is not particularly well-known nor concentrated on by North American or British scholars, to say nothing about Circassians. In particular, there are multiple biographies published in Russian about Soviet leader Y.M. Sverdlov such as this one, but an analogous work does not exist in English. It's pretty obvious that there are higher quality sources available in Russian regarding Russian history than in English similar to how there is a higher volume of material available in Portuguese about Brazilian history than in Russian. I'm in favor of using all available scholarship and viewpoints.

From a book by Princeton University Press: "Soviet historians do not suffer from the same inaccessibility of sources as do western scholars, and literally hundreds of volumes on the Great October Socialist Revolution have been published in the Soviet Union; a good many of these have concentrated on the working class....The works of P.V. Volobuev, G.A. Trukan, A.Ia Grunt, V.Ia Selitskii, A.M. Lisetskii. Z.V Stepanov, and G.L Sobolev have enriched our own understanding of the complex processes of 1917." - Doesn't say that Soviet historians' works are garbage that shouldn't be used

From a book by Columbia University Press: "The interpretation of the Treaty of Periaslavv has been greatly debated. Ukrainian historians argue that the treaty did not entail Ukraine's submission to Russia's authority. Russian historians disagree." - doesn't say that Russian historians can't be trusted.

The title of the article and the endorsement of the genocide narrative need to be revised. The Caucasian War was brutal and resulted in loss of life, though opinion is divided as to conclusions and analyses of Russian policy. John Colarusso, Professor of Languages and Linguistics and Anthropology, Department of Anthropology, McMaster University writes[20]

"Whatever the actual numbers, the loss of life was devastating. Most scholars stop short of using ‘genocide’ for this catastrophe, but most note that Tsarist actions were new within Russian tradition. The Circassians have been galvanized into action. Sochi was a seat of their culture and 2014 marks the 150th anniversary of their expulsion. With wisdom and will this emerging crisis might be turned to mutual benefit. The Circassian’s must drop term ‘genocide.’ The Russian’s must tolerate peaceful opposition to the games. The Russians have the means to sustain Circassian language and culture. The Circassian Diaspora has the means to bring capital and business resources to the Caucasus. With such complementary strengths, Russia and the Diaspora should be able to build a strong, and long lasting relationship.Ymladdwr (talk) 05:28, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

That's farcical. It would be like saying we must cover all viewpoints for the Armenian genocide including in full, Turkish scholarship. Also on the Colarusso source you cite it is WP:SELFPUBLISHED on a PDF document without any footnotes on his website and it shows because he states his own personal opinion like The Circassian’s must drop term ‘genocide.’ Why must they drop the term? The only argument by Colarusso is that it is not in their best interests. Is it their interests or Russia's that's the actual concern? If an editor went to the Armenian genocide talkpage and used a similar source with a similar phrase, it would be ignored. Likewise it should be here. Additionally The Circassian Diaspora has the means to bring capital and business resources to the Caucasus. Is this even serious? The Circassian diaspora is mainly concentrated in Turkey, a country that does not lobby around the world for its interests or the recognition of the genocide (something itself has not done, due to its past with other peoples), especially now its become an ally of Russia. Its also a country that has sought to completely assimilate the Circassians for the past century. Other Circassian diasporas are in Arab countries. They are small and weak with no power whatsoever most of them and in some places are under existential threat due to events like the recent Iraqi and Syrian civil wars. The scholarship used here is RS and published in places where academics and universities are not under political pressure or control.Resnjari (talk) 07:22, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

I think your response regarding Colarusso boils down to, "I don't like what he said!!!" Look, if you want to go on a political rant, go get published in The Guardian or Newsweek and maybe you'll be taken seriously. Colarusso is a respected scholar and a leading expert about the Caucasus from the English-speaking world, and he explicitly states that most scholars do not classify the Caucasus War as genocide.

Regarding the Armenian genocide, it was not comparable with the Caucasus War: "Although the term genocide was not coined until 1944, most scholars agree that the mass murder of Armenians fits this definition"[21] . We have a totally opposite conclusion about Circassians described above: most scholars do not say that a genocide was committed against Circassians

Armenians were massacred by the Arabs in the 7th century and the Seljuk Turks in the 11th century, as well as the Ottoman Empire in the 1890s. But these events aren't classified as genocides in scholarship - the genocide against Armenians from 1915-1920s was a clearly distinct process

Every genocide is distinct. With Colarusso all it boils down to is that his commentary on the matter is self published on his website even offering a forceful directive to others that they "must" do something like not state that what happened to them was not a genocide. Really? Yuck. So i am not even going to bother with it. Regarding the Armenian genocide, the similar arguments that some academics and a large chunk of the Turkish political elite make about that event is very much reminiscent to the rhetoric coming out of Russia on this event. The "most scholars" that you point to argument mostly come from Russia. Scholars outside that milieu have come to different conclusions then that based in Russia.Resnjari (talk) 16:06, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

The "most scholars" that you point to argument mostly come from Russia. Scholars outside that milieu have come to different conclusions then that based in Russia. - Nope, absolutely not true. "Most scholars" is not limited to Russian historians, but to most historians based in North America and western Europe as well. Your claim isn't substantiated by scholarly historiography about the topic. Colarusso is a leading expert about the Caucasus and he specifically states that most scholars do not classify the Caucasus War as genocide.

"Every genocide is distinct" - you can't promiscuously label any and all violence from the past as genocide. The massacres of hundreds of thousands of Armenians in 1894-1895 by the Ottoman Empire was not a genocide, while the violence against Armenians from 1915-1920s was a genocide according to the majority of experts. In my opinion, if the 1890s violence towards Armenians was not a genocide, then there is no way Circassians experienced a genocide in the 19th century, and my opinion about the Circassians is substantiated by a scholarly consensus as reported by Colarusso.

"even offering a forceful directive to others that they "must" do something like not state that what happened to them was not a genocide" - so you disagree with him? That's cool. You're perfectly entitled to your opinion lol. Even your homeboy Walter Richmond writes in his book "The Circassian Genocide": "My heartfelt gratitude goes out to John Colarusso for his enthusiastic support of my work on the Circassians and for his expertise on the Circassian language." Colarusso and Richmond do not agree about the genocide conclusion.

"self published on his website" - we have one Kadir Natho whose book is cited in this article. His book was not published by a scholarly press, but is from Xlibris Corporation, which is described as "leading self publishing company that allow authors to write books and self publish books". How come such strict standards have to be set for pro-Russian or Colarusso's even-handed account of the conflict while anti-Russia and pro-Circassian nationalist points of view can have self-published works cited? Hmmmm

"Regarding the Armenian genocide" - The Caucasus war was not comparable to the Armenian Genocide. Not even the 1890s massacres of hundreds of thousands of Armenians by Ottoman Empire and their Kurdish and Circassian bands was a genocide, the violence against Armenians in the 1890s by the Ottoman Empire and 1915-1920s by the Ottoman Empire had completely different circumstanced and motives. If the 1890s massacres of Armenians by the Ottoman Empire wasn't genocide, then neither was Russia's war in the Caucasus. We have this from a leading expert about the Armenian Genocide:

Analysts must refrain from collapsing all forms of mass violence into a single type, usually titled genocide, a term that regrettably is being stretched to cover quite distinct forms of crimes against humanity. For analytical purposes different forms of violence ought to be distinguished...While to the victims and to moral observers the effects of violence are similar no matter what the intentions or motivations of the perpetrators, for social scientists and historians distinctions among cases of mass killing are made in order to understand their causes. Exemplary violence – deployed to terrorize people into submission and obedience – for example, should be distinguished from excisionary or exterminationist violence, which aims to eliminate special kinds of people, in the case of genocide a designated ethno-national, religious, or “racial” group, a “people.” These are different types of violence from residual violence, “collateral damage,” caused by policies or actions intended for other purposes than the actual killing of people, as in state-induced famines. The Hamidian massacres of Armenians and Assyrians in the mid-1890s would be an example primarily of exemplary violence, while the Armenian Genocide is an example of excisionary, exterminationist violence.

"rhetoric coming out of Russia on this event" - Nope, that ain't true. There is a butt load of nationalistic publicist works and commentary in Russia, beginning with Gorbachev and intensifying with Yeltsin, that celebrate nationalism and promote myths about heroes and tragedies: Cossack identity, Chechen nationalism, Tatar nationalism, and other types. We have this in particular: "Murat Berzegov, chairman of the Circassian Congress of the Adyghe Republican Movement: The head of the "Circassian Congress" Murat Berzegov commented on the situation with a number of Circassian (Adyghe) organizations appealing to recognize the Circassian people’s genocide. According to the signatories, the situation when more than 3 million descendants of the expelled indigenous people of the North-Western Caucasus - ethnic Circassians (Circassians) "is a consequence of the Russian state from the end of the 18th to the beginning of the 20th centuries. genocide of the Circassian (Adyghe) people."[22]76.168.122.183 (talk) 19:05, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

I outlined my comments to you regarding Colarusso. I have nothing against him as an academic, but what you cited was a personal view of his on a PDF document from his website. If he really wants to make it official, there are multiple places where he can publish orders and directives of "must" to people telling them what to do. Although in that instance, it may bring up other POV-ish issues for here. Regarding nationalism and the Soviet Union, Wikipedia is not a place to air grievances about the fall of the Soviet state or communism. You placed a source in the article about the late Soviet Union and various nationalisms of the time. Nonetheless there was nothing in there about nationalism and the Circassians, yet alone connecting those things this event. So definitely not applicable. True the Caucasus war as a whole was not a genocide and no scholar to date has stated this, just the same way World War One in its entirety cannot be called a genocide (regardless of the high toll and so on), but specific events within those large events were genocide, hence the Armenian genocide and likewise the Circassian genocide. I do agree that there is a lot of nationalistic content in Russia, especially now under the autocratic and oligarchic government of Vladimir Putin. Regarding your mention of Circassian organisations, i draw attention that recongition of the Armenian genocide and its events being placed in the global forefront, especially in the West, has been mainly the result of Armenian organisations and other diaspora bodies that want their historical experience of genocide recognised. Circassians are likewise doing the same for themselves and their experience of genocide which has deeply impacted their existence.Resnjari (talk) 08:42, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

The talk page has really gone nowhere and accomplished nothing. You and your clique continue to filibuster, ignore, set up straw men, toss in red herrings, and launch ad hominem attacks against sources that disagree with your agenda, and eliminate any content that does not correspond with this controversial genocide narrative. This kind of behavior is harmful to Wikipedia and inevitably results in editors giving up because dealing with this kind of nonsense is exhausting and a waste of time.

You claim that Colarusso can't be cited because he has a "personal view" that there wasn't a genocide? The guy is a leading expert about the Caucasus. He states explicitly that most scholars do not consider this a genocide, but you cherrypick irrelevant content for which you attack him and get all bent out of shape that groups should drop the allegation that there was a genocide. Interesting that you attack him for offering suggestions to Circassian groups but you didn't attack him for doing the exact same to the Russian government. You're being arbitrary and imposing your personal views. Some random guy with an internet connection who uses a fake name on Wikipedia has more of a voice about this topic than a leading professor who works at a university. It's an absurd situation.

You also set up a straw man that it was claimed that the Caucasus War as a whole was not a genocide. I used the term "Caucasus War" to describe the 1850s and 1860s, actually. I never said that the Caucasus War as a whole was not genocide, but that this particular episode was not a genocide.

You tossed in a red herring about "autocratic and oligarchic government of Vladimir Putin" and it's clear that you have an antagonism towards Russia and are championing propaganda from certain nationalist groups among so-called "Circassians".

"Regarding nationalism and the Soviet Union, Wikipedia is not a place to air grievances about the fall of the Soviet state or communism. You placed a source in the article about the late Soviet Union and various nationalisms of the time. Nonetheless there was nothing in there about nationalism and the Circassians, yet alone connecting those things this event. So definitely not applicable." -- You've missed the point and set up a red herring again. A historiographical overview is not about "airing grievances". The cited source does not study all 100+ ethnic groups and nationalities in Russia, but establishes the fact that ethnically based intellectuals in general used the mass media to generate propaganda. It's pretty funny that while making the false connection between the Armenian Genocide and particular events during the Caucasus War, you simultaneously accuse me of making a false connection with this Circassian nationalist idea about a genocide against Circassians.

You're making your original observation by comparing this topic to the Armenian Genocide, and you ignored the fact that scholars distinguish between different types of violence. Certain types of violence, according to the scholarly source cited above that you've ignored, constitute genocide and certain types of violence do not constitute genocide. You also don't have any scholarly source to substantiate your claim that certain events during the Caucasus War amounted to genocide just like the violence towards Armenians during World War I was a genocide.76.168.122.183 (talk) 17:36, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

76.168.122.183 I bet your goals when you go complaining about the article is to promote denial of Circassian Genocide. So according from you, your nationalist rhetoric Russian sources are always the only truthful ones? Your statements and comments show your thuggish level of knowledge, you sought to abuse the history of Circassians by vilifying the Circassians in order to justify what the Russian Tsarist government did was right. Yes, Circassians had used to deal with Ottoman Empire, but for most of their history they were not Turkish subjects, nor even they became vassalage of the Ottoman Empire. Russian intention however was to equalizing the Circassians to the Turks so it could be justified. I am so surprised that a thuggish person like you can so proudly make lambasting statement and using Russian scholar sources, which have been done and practiced by censorship under Moscow making it nearly unreliable. It is like someone yelling that Armenian Genocide didn't exist, shame. Go learn your own real history before making comments with your hoaxes. ZaDoraemonzu (talk) 03:33, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Admission by Yeltsin

One quick comment. If I am not mistaken, Yeltsin administration actually admitted the Circassian genocide... My very best wishes (talk) 20:38, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

@My very best wishes: Technically speaking, he stopped short of admitting 'genocide' per se (here). That's the only article cited here. Do you have any non-English language sources reporting other nuances surrounding the interpretation? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:07, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Quickly looking, I can see this ("Boris Yeltsin published the address to the North Caucasian people (“Address to the Caucasian people”), where he recognized justice of struggle of Circassian people for freedom and independence in the XIX century. The document condemned the policy of genocide, held by Russian Empire, but this recognition did not entail the efficient steps from the Russian authorities to suppress the results of this crime; the question of repatriation of the displaced persons (Muhadjirs) to the homeland has not been raised on the state level."). That is what I thought. However, without having an original of the document by Yeltsin it's hard to tell which source was correct. So, let's keep current version. My very best wishes (talk) 17:30, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

False, biased statements

In Russia, a presidential commission has been set up to "counter the attempts to falsify history to the detriment of Russia" with respect to the events of the 1860s

The above sentence was inserted with the intent of discrediting Russian scholars' analyses about the Caucasus wars, that the war was a complex event, not a case of genocide against Circassians. Needless to say, this approach is biased.

The quoted sentence above is allegedly based on p.2 of Walter Richmond's book, but p.2 of the book absolutely does not say that Russia has set up a commission to counter history about Circassians or events during the 19th century. The endnote for p.2 of Richmond's book simply has "Predidential commission to counter falsification of history" but this commission emphasizes World War II/Great Patriotic War, not Circassians. The commission is kinda like laws in countries concerning Holocaust denial. Richmond tries to make a connection of this commission with the Caucasus War of the 19th century, but reporting and analyses of this commission conclude that the commission is a Russian response to certain revisionist stuff about World War II. And the editor who inserted the sentence quoted above stating that the commission concentrates on events of the 1860s is totally not factual.

Quote "such as tearing the bellies of pregnant women and removing the baby inside, then feeding the babies to dogs".

Is it scientific and neutral to use it as common statement? There are a lot of such moments in this article. It needs to be stylistically corrected. Dimura 1 (talk) 22:56, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Latest changes (May 2019)

76.168.122.183, the onus is on you to gain consensus for your changes, here, on the article talk page — not the other way around. Please stop edit warring and observe the bold, revert, discuss cycle. El_C 22:03, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Resnjari and Calthinus have pretty much engaged in a filibuster, obstructing any and all changes to the article under the guise of "discuss it on the Talk Page", "Seek Consensus", and unclear Wikipedia jargon. We have fundamental disagreements about this conflict and its interpretations and we're not going to change our minds, so the suggestion of "seek consensus" comes across as, "Don't argue and change your mind." All I did was add material to this article and they removed it, and despite substantiating the material with high-quality sources, they ignore and continue to remove the material. The fact that most scholars do not characterize these events as genocide have been removed. They've refused to accept the fact that this event was not comparable to the Armenian Genocide as summarized above. And they assail all sources that contradict their viewpoint, even stuff published by universities, as "censorship", "propaganda", and "fabricated crap". There's really nothing more to discuss because there is a refusal on their part to seek consensus and collaboration.76.168.122.183 (talk) 19:09, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

It's not merely jargon, it is how Wikipedia works. You are welcome to seek outside input, but arguments as to whether your addition represents due weight in the scholarship is an important matter to discuss. El_C 19:18, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Quote: "Russian generals such as Grigory Zass...allowed Russian soldiers to rape 7 years and older Circassian girls."

The links to the sources don't contain such quotes in russian. It's manipulation. Dimura 1 (talk) 22:10, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Antero Leitzinger

Socking will no longer be entertained. El_C 14:28, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

The lead paragraph contains: Antero Leitzinger asserts that these events constituted the largest genocide in the 19th century This article is of poor quality and it's because of the use excremental sources like this. Antero Leitzinger is a Finnish government employee and did his PhD on Finnish immigration history[23], he's not an expert about Russia or about the Caucasus War of the 19th century in particular. He's not a professor of anything and does not work at a prestigious university. He wrote a brief, 1100-word article that originally appeared in "Turkistan News" - what the heck is "Turkistan News"? The "Turkistan Islamic Party" by the way is recognized as a terrorist organizaton, and there's no such geographical entity on this planet called Turkistan, a name which I suspect is offensive to Asian countries like China, Iran, and Tajikistan. And Leitzinger is not even sure if a genocide was commmitted: "Was it a genocide? That depends on the definition."76.168.122.183 (talk) 19:40, 25 May 2019 (UTC) Regardless of your argument, please do not refer to a living person as an "excremental source" — that is totally unacceptable. I'm not sure about your position regarding Turkestan, but I suspect you are conflating various terms and designations here. El_C 19:47, 25 May 2019 (UTC) El_C this is likely the same forum-y soap-y user from LA (per IP address) from before on this page who among other things refers to Circassians as "backwards" (to use the more politically correct transgressions committed). I am rather busy but a lot of the text added falls foul of various policies and has been already discussed ad nauseam. I will be back here when I have more time -- perhaps Resnjari, Iryna Harpy or My very best wishes has something to add. For the time being I believe the best way forward is increased protection of the page.--Calthinus (talk) 19:52, 25 May 2019 (UTC)  Done. El_C 20:00, 25 May 2019 (UTC) El_C, Iryna Harpy, My very best wishes, Calthinus, a few days back i wasn't sure what to do with all the content [24] placed by a WP:SPA @Ymladdwr. The solution reached i am fine with. Whether the IP is connected to that account, not sure. But one thing on the part of SPA account, the username Ymladdwr translates [25] to the word "fighter" in Welsh. Considering that after those additions, this IP popped up from nowhere and edit warred, the accounts smack of WP:POVWARRIOR seeking redress via WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Maybe the article could get IP protection? Best.Resnjari (talk) 09:05, 26 May 2019 (UTC) Calthinus, your allegation that Circassians were called backwards is either a lie or a misunderstanding -- you've tossed in an absolute red herring in order to create a distraction from the main topic at hand and derail the discussion. Circassian people were not called backwards, as in 2019 there is no such nationality called Circassian, though the word Circassian was used once upon a time to group together Russia's distinct nationalities such as the Adyghes, Chechens, Avars, Ingush, Cherkessians, Kabardians, and others. 19th century Circassia was called backwards. And that's because 21st century scholarship as well as contemporary scholarship and written sources in the 19th century describe Circassia as warlike and primitive. Read Pushkin's "Prisoner of the Caucasus". And we have this from a book about leading scholars on the Mamluks: "Even in desolate, backward and impoverished Circassia with its illiterate kleptocracy, or robber-aristocracy, the noblemen rode about with guns slung over their back. p. 119" . 19th century North Caucasus and Circassia - yeah, Calthinus, not backwards at all: "Slave-trade was one of the main factors in the system of complicated and contradictory interactions between the peoples of the North Caucasus, Transcaucasia, and Russia. Everlasting inter-ethnic clashes and wars, political instability, great demand and high prices for 'human commodities' strongly promoted the growth of this business in Dagestan and in the North Caucasus in general. The feudal lords used to organise "commercial" campaigns, aimed at capturing people and getting ransom. For centuries, this cruel industry had remained one of the dominating elements in the economy of this multi-ethnic region." It's funny how you get so bent out of shape about the fact that the 19th century Caucasus were not very sophisticated - the Caucasus in the 19th century were without a doubt a trillion years behind the quality of life found in Moscow and St. Petersburg. At the same time, you pull no punches in regard to Russians. You said about Russia: "freedom of the press in Russia is an effing joke", "Russian "scholarship" on the Caucasus has been found to have simply fabricated crap". You wrote a significant chunk of this article, and you've demonstrated on the Talk Page that your views towards Russians are extraordinarily, extremely hostile, and that's why this article reads like propaganda from various "Circassian" extremist political groups.76.168.122.183 (talk) 00:25, 26 May 2019 (UTC) First the quote from Elena Inozemtseva about the slave trade relates to Dagestan. The events that this topic deals with regard Circassia. Two distinct and different areas of the Caucasus. Second, your quote about Circasians and "backwardness", if one looks, it is cited as footnote 7 at the end of that sentence on the same page which states that it comes from Gerogio Interiano from 1502. There is lots of colourful wordings from the time, even of Russia by Western Europeans. As for the rest, your comment (paragraph 1 and 4) shows that your a WP:POVWARRIOR seeking redress via WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS.Resnjari (talk) 08:54, 26 May 2019 (UTC) The IP is probably User:Jacob Peters. WP:DENY. My very best wishes (talk) 12:50, 26 May 2019 (UTC) But speaking about sources cited by the IP (such as this review on a book), what one can say? (1). The reviewed book is a good academic publication, and it does consider this a genocide. (2) Author of the review agrees with the author of the book that it was indeed a genocide according to any modern or official UN definition. He only argues that it would be wrong to convict General Evdokimov in a court of law, because such law did not exist in the Imperial Russia at the time of the crime. Yes, this is true, but that does not justify inclusion of the content this user wants to include [26], such as "by repopulating the coastal highlands with the right combination of geographically appropriate peoples, the administration hoped to create a prosperous new society." (that belongs to propaganda). My very best wishes (talk) 15:36, 26 May 2019 (UTC) Indeed our old "friend" Jakey Petrov likely doesn't even read his sources and we could write miles on issues with how he uses them (btw Circassian wasn't the typical misnomer for Dagestanis east of Khunzakh -- that would be "Lezgins" :) ). It's plain as day he's here to troll not contribute. I agree with Resnjari -- El_C could you lock this talk page too? Wikipedia should not be a forum for content of the sort of that hatemongering (and incorrect) rant above about how Circassians allegedly are not civilized (and/or don't exist). Also-- mvbw -- thanks for the link, this one thing will actually be of use for the article. --Calthinus (talk) 17:28, 26 May 2019 (UTC)  Done. El_C 18:31, 26 May 2019 (UTC) More splitting hairs, missing the point, and red herrings. Adyghean, Abkhazian, Chechen, Avars, etc are different categories of people, true, it was not asserted above that they are absolutely 100% identical and you set up and knocked down a straw man with your "Nuh uh, Dagestan and Circassia are completely different and have had nothing in common!!!!" At the same time, their history and culture over the last few hundred years are so similar that generalizations can and have been made about them e.g. the trafficking of slaves. In particular, slavery among those people was deep part of Dagestan, northwest Caucasus, and elsewhere in that relatively small part of the world. That's why a whole entire book called "The Tsar's Abolitionists: The Slave Trade in the Caucasus and its Suppression" has been written, which contains: [https://brill.com/view/book/9789004191969/Bej.9789004183445.i-208_001.xml "The slave trade constituted the economic foundation of the societies of the Caucasian north-west, it could not be eliminated even by the end of the Caucasian war. The only way for the Russian administration to stop it was to somehow "get rid of" the societies conducting it. This very purpose was achieved by the mass migration of the Circassians to the Ottoman Empire. The "problem" societies were moved in a body and took their social structure, economic base, and system of values with them. From that time on, they were no longer a Russian administration's concern. The Ottoman bureaucracy had to deal with them. Calthinus, again, no one said that Circassians are backwards or that they don't exist. There are completely different nationalities living in Russia today - Abkhazians, Cherkessians, Adygheans, and Kabardins who were collectively called Circassian a long time ago, but today in Russia at least, there is no such category of people called Circassian, but there are nationalities called Abkhazians, Cherkessians, Adygheans, and Kabardins. And absolutely no one on this talk page said that members of those nationalities are backwards in 2019. I get the sense that you're trying to shut down debate by putting scandalous words in others' mouths. My Very Best Wishes of the above completely misrepresented and falsely attributed views to Ellman. Ellman did not endorse or outright reject the idea of genocide. He was reviewing two books with two completely different conclusions and he proceeded to present and summarize the two different perspectives of those books. Ellman did not say that Richmond who endorses genocide is right or that Epifantsev who rejects genocide is wrong. 76.168.122.183 (talk) 03:47, 6 September 2019 (UTC) References to Antero Leitzinger are going to be removed because there has been a failure to establish his competence and reliability. He's not a professor at a university. And his history as an author consists of the following via a search on World Cat: Kuridstan, Ulkomaalaiset Suomessa 1812-1972 Antero Leitzinger, and a bunch of material that's completely unrelated to the Russian conflicts in the Caucasus in the 19th century. He wrote a book about "Caucasus and An Unholy Alliance", which is about "history and current political situation of Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Chechenia and their relations with the "unholy alliance" of Russia, Iran and the West." Leitzinger is, I'm sure, a good guy but does not have the expertise to comment on this topic76.168.122.183 (talk) 03:56, 6 September 2019 (UTC) You should have pinged My very best wishes if you actually want to accuse him of source falsification. Don't talk shit behind someone's back.--Calthinus (talk) 04:57, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

@El C: Jacob Peters is back again.--Calthinus (talk) 04:53, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm inclined towards collapsing this section and archiving it using one-click following the principle of WP:DENY. Cut out the canker, and any fresh attempts to resurrect the same old same old can be removed as the WP:SOAP it is the moment they attempt to introduce it. Frankly, this WP:HORSEMEAT is really, really, really getting tired. Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:07, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 14:28, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

On the topic of who were heavily affected

Hello @Calthinus:, I agree with the fact that Ingush were affected. But it is the claim that they were heavily affected which I find not so accurate. Ossetians form a significant 50,000 strong diaspora in Turkey because of these ethnic cleansings, thus were heavily affected. Chechens were evicted in huge numbers to the middle east, the Chechen diaspora in the middle east as of today numbers circa 150,000(Turkey, Jordan and Syria), thus they were also heavily affected. Other peoples of the Caucasus were evicted too like various Dagestani peoples and also Ingush, but they weren't heavily affected like the other mentioned ones. Best regards. --Sextus Caedicius (talk) 19:57, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

According to some estimates, the Ingush lost 80% of their numbers. Seems heavy to me.--Calthinus (talk) 14:16, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Where is this from, if I may inquire? On the contrary one of the reasons Ingush weren't as heavily affected as Chechens is because of an agreement six of the biggest Ingush clans made with the Russian Empire where they swore fealty. Ru-wiki has a page on this if you're interested, Акт_присяги_шести_ингушских_фамилий_России on ru-wiki. This was well before the forced expulsions of Caucasians began. Again all the other nations mentioned in the lead have diasporas numbering in the thousands in the middle east(Syria, Turkey and Jordan). Whilst Ingush have very few comparatively. Moreover the few Ingush in Jordan(from Ingush clans such as Evloy) see themselves as Chechen and use the surname Shishani in addition to their clan name. Ingush were affected, I agree, just not to the same degree as the other mentioned nations. --Sextus Caedicius (talk) 15:53, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Yeah -- I know re fealty. I did check the 80% figure nad the source for the source ... said "Chechens" [27]. Btw there is also Abu Ghosh in Israel -- similar story (locals have a vague idea of partial descent from either Ingush or Chechens or even "Circassians"...), but the arrival from the North Caucasus was centuries earlier. In any case, you can remove "Ingush".--Calthinus (talk) 18:43, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm glad we could reach a consensus Calthinus. I do think all the affected ones should be mentioned to a certain degree. What are your thoughts on my recent edit? Sextus Caedicius (talk) 20:49, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

It looks good! --Calthinus (talk) 02:45, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 October 2020

In the first paragraph, edit "at least %75 of the total population" to "at least 75% of the total population". The position of the % sign is likely a typo. GrapheneGolem (talk) 07:06, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

 Done -ink&fables «talk» 07:28, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 13 November 2020

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved Sceptre (talk) 23:04, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

---

Circassian genocide → Expulsion of the Circassians – Title is not NPOV or COMMONNAME; see below (t · c) buidhe 20:45, 13 November 2020 (UTC) —Relisting. — Wug·a·po·des​ 03:59, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

• Whether the expulsion constituted genocide continues to be debated; the term "genocide" is used primarily (though not exclusively) with relation to Circassian nationalist demands of recognition. Also:
• For commonname, searching Google Scholar for Circassian expulsion (7,000)[28] or even Circassian deportation (4,000)[29] results in many more hits than Circassian genocide (3,000)[30]
• I would also support "Deportation of the Circassians" if consistency with the Soviet deportations (Deportation of the Kalmyks, Deportation of the Chechens and Ingush, etc. is desired). (t · c) buidhe 20:45, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

References

Then why don't we go ahead and move this one as well? Same event. Different nations. Not to mention every wikipedia except for Russian and Turkish uses the term "genocide" or "ethnic cleansing", while Turkish wikipedia is debating to change the name as "genocide". ~𝓐𝓭𝓲𝓰𝓪𝓫𝓻𝓮𝓴 𝓽𝓱𝓮 𝓕𝓲𝓻𝓼𝓽~ ^{(Псалъэ)} 21:57, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Let's stay away from comparative victimization. The fact that (yes) the Armenian Genocide is (more) accepted is orthogonal. --Calthinus (talk) 04:13, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

But there is an academic consensus that the Armenian Genocide was a genocide. According to sources there is no such consensus for this event. (t · c) buidhe 23:13, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

• Comment re the results by Buidhe -- the numbers are a bit misleading, as you can see that the searches for "deportation" and "expulsion" include the sources asserting a genocide occurred. Buidhe's second search, which supposedly shows the common name weight of "Circassian deportation"[31]] actually has the first [32] and second [33] search results being those that explicitly support the label of genocide. Likewise, for his first search, we observe that the first result is none other than Walter Richmond's Circassian Genocide.

• Now regarding sources, I find Buidhe's characterization of the term as primarily related to nationalism to be misleading, while the source list is not representative. Completely unmentioned -- despite being the first search result in both of his google searches -- are Walter Richmond's 2013 Circassian Genocide, with 84 citations. Obviously, this is a work whose very thesis is that the events were a genocide. It does not stand alone; there plenty of others (Levene, Natho, Richmond...). A good and much more balanced summary of the literature on both sides of the issue can be found in Maja Catic's work, which is already cited and linked by Buidhe, but here's the link again [34] -- unlike Buidhe's characterization, she does not present the issue as merely wrapped up in nationalist politics, but instead a mechanism for strengthening Circassian national identity i.e. that of a vulnerable minority slowly losing its culture that lives primarily in diaspora, resulting from a fear of extinction that grows out of the experience of being a vulnerable, ethno-national group living with memories of massacres, deportations, exile and fragmentation. Henceforth begins a non-exhaustive list of sources in addition to Richmond that support the genocide claim:
• Shenfield's 1999 "The Circasssians: A Forgotten Genocide" (this link may work for some [35]), in Levene and Roberts' The Massacre in History.
• Carmichael 2013 [36]

Localized deportations of some peoplewereput into action, but in oneentirely more drastic case, that of the Circassians in 1865, led to a wholesale genocide, which as I also stated in a previous volume helped precipitate the destabil;ization of Ottoman Anatolia towards the Armenian genocide.

• As noted by Catic, Mark Levene himself deals with the topic in his 2005 Genocide in the Age of the Nation State, Vol 2: The Rise of the West and the Coming of Genocide. Here, Catic's summary of his take, already linked by Buidhe, suffices: Placing the genocidal campaign to subdue Circassia in the context of the imperial-colonialist project of a declining empire, levene emphasised the nexus of modernisation, geopolitics and grass-roots, clan-based rebellion as the most salient factor in accounting for genocide.
• John Colarusso argues the deportation was a "genocide in the second degree" [37].
• While one may argue that the Georgian government's decision to unanimously officially recognize the Circassian genocide was politically motivated, the fact also stands that it was done with reference to archival material and in consultation with historians.
• I probably don't need to go into Kadir Natho. But yes, him too.
• In discussion of the Armenian Genocide from Bloxham 2005 [[38]] , we see this support for the same label for the Circassian case: 5 The Circassians had notably been subjected in the 1860s to a programme of forced expulsion, deportation and massacre at the hands of the Russian government that was arguably genocidal
• Foxall [[39]] shows that the consideration of the event as a genocide has spread into the field of civic geography, here in the context of the Olympics (Foxall has published on the region elsewhere as well). While one may point out he at places puts genocide in quotes, he clearly cites Shenfield and Bullough as authoritative in stating it was the first modern genocide on European soil.
• As you can see above, Oliver Bullough also supports the label of genocide. The book here: [[40]].
• Geraci 2008 (direct link here if you want to read [41] -- it's a chapter in Moses' Empire, Colony, Genocide) is likewise noted by Catic as someone who supports the genocide label. Here are his own words: The clarity of intention and precision and thoroughness of execution that Holquist documents... are the same features one would stress in labeling the event an instance of genocide according to Lemkin's definition (page 349).

I think I will stop here. --Calthinus (talk) 04:13, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

• The question is whether Wikipedia should definitively label some events as genocide before scholars have settled the debate:

  As the question of Circassian removal and massacres receives more scholarly attention, the question is bound to be answered in different ways by different scholars, given that new definitions of genocide continue to be introduced. To the extent that many scholars, and even more activists, maintain that genocide is morally worse than other types of mass murder, the quest for authoritative labelling of the Circassian tragedy as genocide will remain alive. (Catic 2015)

  It is generally accepted that the removal of the Circassians from their homeland in 1863 – 1864 was a humanitarian disaster which led to a large number of deaths and much suffering. Whether it is more sensible to classify it as one of the many disasters for indigenous peoples resulting from European imperial expansion, or as one of the attempts to kill entire peoples, is evidently a controversial matter which is likely to be debated for a long time. (Ellman 2015)

• According to WP:POVNAME, part of the article titles policy, a POV title should only be used when "the subject of an article is referred to mainly by a single common name, as evidenced through usage in a significant majority of English-language sources". As stated above, "genocide" is not the common name. Therefore, the page should not be titled "genocide" before scholars have decided one way or the other whether that is the most appropriate label for these events. Anyone who considers the events genocidal probably also agrees that expulsion occurred, but the reverse is not true. (t · c) buidhe 13:54, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Buidhe this is a better point. I maintain that Ellman is a minority viewpoint if we exclude ex-Soviet scholarship (which includes Circassian and Georgian scholarship which favor the genocide label -- I say exclude all of them for their heavy emotions on both the Russian and Caucasian sides); Catic is pretty neutral, she cannot be used to support either side here. This is why I originally hesitated when it was first proposed to make the page Circassian genocide and instead supported the Ethnic cleansing scenario. The issue is a clash between WP:NPOV and WP:COMMONNAME -- "Ethnic cleansing of Circassians" is not the common name, yet it is the common denominator of what Western scholarship holds. No one seriously claims that Russian forces did not have a deliberate policy to dramatically demographically change the region, and it is also fringe to claim that the Russian state/forces did not exercise gross neglect and disregard for human life, but there remains a debate about whether it was genocide. "Deportation of" is sometimes the moniker for events that are acknowledged internationally as genocide, such as Chechevitsa, explicitly recognized as genocide by the European Parliament and the US Holocaust Memorial Museum, but in this case that title is dispreferred by scholars (who appear to be a majority) in the West (which, again, include genocide scholars like Levene) who consider it a genocide because it is used to conceal the demographic transformation motives at play is thus also a violation of NPOV. So right now I'm debating an "oppose" and a counterproposal to move it back to "Ethnic cleansing of...".--Calthinus (talk) 19:23, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

I wouldn't oppose "ethnic cleansing of...", but the issue with that label is that it's highly anachronistic, since "ethnic cleansing" was coined as a 1990s euphemism for Serb actions in Yugoslavia, and unlike genocide, has no legal definition. "Expulsion", which for me is a nineteenth-century synonym for what is meant by "ethnic cleansing", was used in contemporary sources (eg [42]). Still, I doubt there would be much disagreement that the Circassian expulsion was ethnic cleansing outside of those scholars who utterly deplore the label, eg. Gregory Stanton. (t · c) buidhe 19:52, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Lemkin's own use of "genocide" for the Armenian case is likewise "anachronistic", of course; the concepts at work are not intended to be restricted from retrospective application. --Calthinus (talk) 00:05, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. There are numerous historical instances of mass ethnic expulsions, ethnic cleansing, forced resettlements, population exchanges, etc. Those that have been described by some, if not all, historians as a genocide should remain under that description unless there is truly definitive proof of tendentious historicity on the part of non-objective historians who are the only ones describing the specific events as genocide. Obviously, the nation or the successor nation to the entity bearing the key responsibility for the event will deny the specifics leading to the use of the term. Possibly the sole nation whose government has fully accepted such a burden is Germany. Perhaps this should be also discussed in the wider view of entries under Category:Wikipedia categories named after genocides, Category:Genocides and Category:Genocide denial. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 22:55, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

  Roman Spinner, Unfortunately, this reply goes against the WP:Article titles policy. In many cases, "X genocide" *is* the title of the event used in "a significant majority of English-language sources". (For instance, Armenian Genocide, despite its denial by the Turkish and Azerbaijani governments; Rwandan genocide, despite denial by a lunatic fringe). But otherwise we should try common name or a descriptive title, because it's not for Wikipedia to decide whether an event is a genocide. According to your logic we would move Polish Operation of the NKVD to Genocide of Poles by the NKVD, as many scholars consider it a genocide, despite the fact that "Polish Operation" is the common name. The exact definition of "genocide" continues to be disputed (not all historians use the definition of the Genocide Convention) and in a great deal of cases historians do not agree whether an event is a genocide (ex. Holodomor genocide question, Massacres_of_Poles_in_Volhynia_and_Eastern_Galicia#Classification_of_genocide, 1804 Haiti massacre, and many, many others). In such cases, it's not right to speak of genocide denial, but a controversy on the labeling. See related discussion at Talk:Burundian genocide (1993). (t · c) buidhe 23:34, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

  I don't think this can't be considered as a genocide. The most important element is the fact many Circassian tribes throughout the war had offered peace with Russia and even sought to exchange sovereignty to loyalty with Tsarist Empire to avoid persecution and expulsion showed that the Circassians were aware that the Russians had no attention to keep them stay, and these diplomatic tacts, which failed, only confirmed that the Russian Empire had no doubt, desired to kill entire of Circassian people by force. I cite this as a reason why it should be stood as a genocide. Changing to "expulsion" cannot help solving the problems as Circassians would consider to be an insult to their history. ZaDoraemonzu (talk) 15:48, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

  This is WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. But the Polish Operation of the NKVD is explicitly called a genocide currently on Wikipedia; indeed much better analogs include the Trail of Tears, which is classified as a genocide here on Wikipedia.--Calthinus (talk) 00:05, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

  In common (ie. non-technical) english the word 'genocide' is used to refer to all crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing, that includes forced deportation. We cannot expect readers to be aware of Rome statute definitions when looking for articles, that said technical definitions should be explained in the article. blindlynx (talk) 16:26, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

• Upon consideration... Oppose move to "expulsion" or "deportation" for reasons described above. In short: upon review it appears most Western scholars acknowledge a deliberate policy of foundational demographic transformation; "deportation" and "expulsion" are dispreferred as they draw attention away from this fact. The google counts for deportation and expulsion are not useful as they include works asserting it was a genocide. The dominant trend in recent scholarship refers to the events as genocidal despite minority dissent. A discussion for whether ethnic cleansing may be best is a more interesting question, but I must oppose "deportation" or "expulsion" as titles as they fail to capture what is widely acknowledged as the essence of the event. --Calthinus (talk) 00:05, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Forced deportation and ethnic expulsion are only one part of what this article covers. Further, this was clearly ethnic cleansing per the rome statute and in plain english the word 'genocide' refers to both what is technically ethnic cleansing and genocide. The distinction between the two can be sused out in the article itself, as the most technically appropriate title 'Russian crimes against humanity in Circassia' is just bad. blindlynx (talk) 18:11, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
• Relisting comment Editor opinions on how to weigh WP:POVNAME and WP:COMMONNAME would be helpful in determining consensus. — Wug·a·po·des​ 03:59, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose The expulsion and starvation, deaths of so many Circassians which was deliberately done by the Russian Imperial authorities at the time qualified as a genocide. There is no reason to change the page. ZaDoraemonzu (talk) 15:32, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Apparently the name which is in main usage on the academic studies is "Circassian Genocide" rather than others, because that's the common name and used even in neutral sources. Ahmetlii (talk) 06:24, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Turkish "recognition"

Adigabrek I don't see anything indicating recognition as a genocide in either of those sources for Turkey. Sürgünü is "exile", not "genocide" (soykirim). Frankly those two links are less of a "recognition" than what Yeltsin said.--Calthinus (talk) 06:55, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

The second source for the supposed Jordanian recognition doesn't mention it either. It just talks about Prince Ali learning about Circassian culture etc etc... the closest thing I can find is this Çocukluk yıllarından beri Ürdün'deki Çerkes topluluğu aracılığıyla Çerkesleri tanıyan Prens, üniversiteye girdiğinden beri Çerkes kültürü ve tarihi ile ilgilenmektedir. 1864'de anayurtları Kafkasya'dan sürgün edilen Çerkeslerin tarih boyunca büyük haksızlıklara uğradıklarını ve acı çektiklerini gören Prens Ali, Çerkes insanına, kültürünü ve kimliğini koruma ve yaşatma çabalarında yardımcı olmayı bir görev olarak benimsemiştir. Çerkeslerin tarihini, kültürünü, dil ve davranışlarını öğrenmeye gayret eden Prens Ali, Çerkes kültürünün yaşamasının doğal bir hak olduğuna inanmakta, bu güzel kültürü tüm dünyaya tanıtmak için çalışmaktadır. Prens Ali'nin Çerkes tarihi üzerine Jordan Times dergisinde yayımlanan bir yazısına dergimizin bu sayısında yer veriyoruz.. But no soykirimi there. Just sürgün. --Calthinus (talk) 06:59, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Furthermore, there is no evidence of a statement by any Jordanian official whatsoever in the first source. The sentence "21 Mayıs" Kuzey Kafkasya halklarının sürüldüğü ve Çerkeslerin soykırıma uğratıldığı bir "Yas Günü" olarak her yıl anılmaktadır. is present but it's in the caption for a picture, not attributed to any public figure. --Calthinus (talk) 07:04, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

@Calthinus: They refer to the same event... But ok if we say sürgün and soykırım should be taken as two seperate things then I agree. About prince Ali, he is first person ever to promote Circassians returning to Circassia and recognition of the event, he came from Jordan and traveled every Circassian village until he reached to the russian occupied Circassian lands (Republic of Adygea), I can't comprehend right now how someone claims he doesn't recognise it because this is very alien to me as a Circassian we grew up with this knowledge, but wikipedia I guess, sadly in here we don't go after the true and neutral information but rather the published information. there could be a video tape of him saying "I recognise this event" but wikipedia would count that as original research and deny it. In any case, it's a small detail with no significance. I have no objections, please do as you like in accordance with wikipedia policies. peace. ~𝓐𝓭𝓲𝓰𝓪𝓫𝓻𝓮𝓴 𝓽𝓱𝓮 𝓕𝓲𝓻𝓼𝓽~^Contact 10:04, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Adigabrek I don't claim that Ali did not recognize it. I know him (not personally) well. I'm saying that we need sources. And personal recognition does not equal official stances, which have implications geopolitically. You can see in the history of this page very well -- I have been the one who has fought hardest against attempts to mitigate or ignore what international scholarship has converged on, that the Circassian genocide was a genocide. But part of that is observing the rules of Wikipedia. We have to have sources for everything we say. And regarding Turkey, frankly, I find Erdogan's statement to be a disgusting whitewash -- though not a surprising one. As I said, frankly, even the Russian statements are often more honest about what Russia did than what Erdogan says. --Calthinus (talk) 17:41, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. ~𝓐𝓭𝓲𝓰𝓪𝓫𝓻𝓮𝓴 𝓽𝓱𝓮 𝓕𝓲𝓻𝓼𝓽~^Contact 18:20, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Evaluation of tertiary sources

Beginning tomorrow, I will start listing tertiary sources—handbooks, textbooks, and encyclopedias—to detail how they describe our subject:

• The Oxford Handbook of Genocide Studies [cited by ~200 scholars] (p. 49) notes our subject to be a form of ethnic cleansing. It distinguishes between genocide and ethnic cleansing (p. 45), noting the former to be at the farther end of the spectrum.
• The Routledge History of Genocide do not mention our subject.
• The Blood and Soil : a World History of Genocide and Extermination from Sparta to Darfur [Ben Kiernan; Yale University Press; cited by ~900 scholars] do not mention our subject.
• The Genocide in the Age of the Nation-State (Vol. 2) [Mark Levene; I. B. Tauris; cited by ~335 scholars] stays clear of describing the event as a genocide, despite noting Shenfield's opinion. In the concluding paragraph, it describes the event as an ethnic cleansing-cum-extermination.
• The The Caucasus: An Introduction [Frederik Coene; Routledge; ~100 citations] notes, In the following years Russia carried out an operation of demographic warfare which in contemporary international law would be considered as genocide or ethnic cleansing. Interesting!
• The Caucasus: An Introduction [Thomas De Waal; Oxford University Press; ~400 citations] (p. 152) finds the event to be a forced deportation and mass expulsion.
• The Ghost of Freedom: A History of the Caucasus [Charles King; Oxford University Press; ~400 citations] finds the event to be a forced expulsion with en masse killings.

TrangaBellam (talk) 20:18, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Comments

• I will prefer a rename to Circassian Ethnic Cleansing - that, being the common minimum on which almost all sources agree. As is evident, many high-quality tertiary sources stay clear of describing the events as a genocide.

• A very recent secondary scholarship on the topic (From Conquest to Deportation: The North Caucasus under Russian Rule, Jeronim Perovic, Oxford University Press, 2018, p. 53) notes our subject to remain highly charged, both emotionally and politically, and [] being interpreted in varying ways even in the more recent historiography.

Of the eight citations which have been appended to the third word of our lead: [4] is a conference paper in Turkish. [5] is an advocacy-NGO. As is [7] - why it is claimed to be linked with an university confounds me. [6] is the book by Charles King - as I show above, he is being misrepresented. [8], [9] and [10] are political resolutions by three different republics of Russia. To borrow from Johnbod, 8 references on a line is almost always a sure sign of trouble and all of them need to be removed except for [3] which (at-least) fits the purpose. TrangaBellam (talk) 21:20, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Calthinus, I will appreciate your views. TrangaBellam (talk) 22:58, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi TrangaBellam, thanks for the ping -- I appreciate it. My view is that this page has had far too many disputes over its name; the content could use much expansion as the "epilogue" situation and the unfortunate events that occurred again in 1870s Bulgaria and Arab countries still is not yet covered, and deserves coverage somewhere on Wikipedia. Nevertheless... "Circassian ethnic cleansing" is sort of the compromise between the two views that exist, but sometimes a compromise satisfies neither side and is actually worse than both in terms of usage in WP:RS. "Circassian genocide" or variants thereof are preferred in notable works in genocide studies (see Levene etc) as well as of course Circassian (and perhaps also Georgian, etc) academics themselves; on the other hand that term is fiercely contested in Russia while being more subtly omitted in Turkey. In the latter two, names that involve something less than ethnic cleansing -- perhaps a "muhacirism", "pligrimage" or "migration" -- are preferred. Side A calls the side B whitewashing, side B calls side A defamation. The thing is, "Circassian ethnic cleansing" is kind of a superficial "neutral POV" that I don't see anyone defending in WP:RS scholarship. People who hold the view that this constituted serious crimes against humanity and was a precursor to the Armenian Genocide which will tend to use "Circassian genocide" -- I believe I gave a fairly long though non-exhaustive list of sources using that term or otherwise stating clearly that it is to be viewed as a genocide, some notable ones of which being in the field of genocide studies itself; within non-Russian scholarship this is increasingly the accepted view. On the other hand, those that view that it was not such a thing... also do not use the phrase ethnic cleansing. So "Circassian ethnic cleansing" is left with afaik marginal support if any at all (is there any at all??) at best within RS. Us using it would be a sort of NPOV at the expense of RS scenario. --Calthinus (talk) 23:19, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Now, a note on the sources. Non-mention is not a statement either way. It simply means it wasn't included. If I write a book on, for example, cat breeding in medieval societies, and I do not include X breed in Y country, it does not mean X breed did not emerge in Y country for the medieval period of interest, just that I didn't bother including it. Charles King is rather agnostic on the question; my guess would be that he'd like to stay that way. I should add that unfortunately I am rather caught up in real life affairs at the moment, but I will ping Resnjari who I know is also quite knowledgeable on this topic, with the hope that he might be able to contribute to our discussion here and help fix any problems of concern. --Calthinus (talk) 23:22, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Have you read my list of sources? I suspect, not. Or why I chose to use tertiary sources? Multiple secondary sources can describe the events to be a genocide for all I care.

King does not use the term genocide — I have mentioned the terms, he used. It is original research to assert that King is agnostic etc.

The Oxford Handbook of Genocide describes the event as an ethnic cleasing. So, there you have one source. Levine too.

Once again, please cite tertiary sources that describe the event as a genocide. I will add more sources to my list. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:41, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Why tertiary sources. That’s not the way we usually do it. Secondary sources are preferable for COMMONNAME and in fact tertiary sources are not preferred. There’s a limited role for tertiary sources if one were looking at issues of balance in an article - but this is different. DeCausa (talk) 23:45, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

As I noted, secondary sources disagree on characterization of the event. Unlike in the case of Armenian Genocide, there does not exist a majority in favor of genoide.

Even those secondary sources who are sympathetic to the cause—Catic (2014), Jerovic (2018) et al—agree with my characterization.

In such a case, it is usually the rule to consult authoritative tertiary sources and see how they are describing the events. TrangaBellam (talk) 07:10, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

No it’s not. Where have got that idea from? The usual approach is to analyse the secondary WP:RS to establish where the balance lies. That requires some effort and a detailed look at the sources and assess their relative quality. Tertiary sources rarely come into it. You’re approach is outside policy and not usual practice. DeCausa (talk) 07:28, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Here. WP:TERTIARY states, Reliable tertiary sources [...] may be helpful in evaluating due weight, especially when primary or secondary sources contradict each other.

In any case, please venture ahead and analyze secondary sources. TrangaBellam (talk) 07:56, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

P.S: This review is interesting. TrangaBellam (talk) 08:13, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Just to be clear “due weight” is about WP:UNDUE not article name policy. And even then tertiary sources shouldn’t be the central focus. I haven’t looked at the secondary sources in detail yet, but I note the following:

1. there was a detailed discussion on this just a year ago with a no move outcome. I don’t think it’s appropriate to re-open so soon.
2. In the above discussions there seems to be some confusion/conflation over whether this was genocide and whether its WP:COMMONNAME is “Circassian genocide”. Although obviously related, it’s not the same thing. For example, the Nazi extermination of the Jews was obviously genocide but we call the articles The Holocaust and The Final Solution. So, the article can clearly state (with sourcing) that it was genocide without necessarily having the word in the article title.
3. Its important to look at the quality and focus of the RS when looking at the terminology used. For example, it’s clear that the leading English-language monograph on the subject (Richmond, Walter (2013). The Circassian Genocide. Rutgers University Press. ISBN 978-0-8135-6069-4.) uses the term “Circassian Genocide”. That should have extra weight compared to a more general source.

They’re my intial thoughts but will research the sources further and post back here in due course. DeCausa (talk) 09:59, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

I would not support a change to the name of this article (I have already made extensive comments above in the past using sources). Richmond is the main scholar who has bothered to extensively examine events regarding the Circassians from a NPOV position outside of the old Russophone or Soviet sphere. He has found that intent existed and come to the conclusion that what happened to the Circassians constituted genocide (this was discussed in previous threads). Other scholars of whom you cite in the west only give it scant attention. I don't like comparing the suffering of peoples as each have their own unique and depressing circumstances. But as things have been raised here, some words will be said. On the term Genocide, Raphael Lemkin coined it for the Holocaust with what happened to the Armenians in mind as no word existed previously to comprehend, describe or make sense of the magnitude of what occurred. Until the 1940s and Lemkin, the Armenian genocide was known as the Armenian massacres or to that effect with other similar terminology. Lemkin's word genocide was only applied after retrospectively. When Lemkin came up with the term genocide, he also considered other events as falling within its scope, like with what happened in my country Australia, in particular to the Aboriginals of Tasmania some 200 years ago. In Australia, the conservative political class and their media commentariat deny it was genocide (and other latter events pertaining to settler colonialism and Aboriginal Australians). I bring this up because Lemkin never meant the term to be restrictive to the Holocaust or Armenians or that it could not be applied retrospectively. Ellman says its not applicable for the Circassians as the genocide definition in how its outlined in international criminal law would not cover this event, time period, differences of barbarity of the past and modern period etc. But similar type arguments of the sort have been made by (nationalist and Kemalist) Turkish scholars ad nauseum over the decades for the Armenians. And basically the only other scholars who have given much attention to what happened to the Circassians are from Russia who overwhelmingly do not describe the events as constituting genocide. No surprise there, not to mention that some of the scholarship coming out of the country has issues of lack of independence or political interference. Richmond is the main scholar that has devoted much to examining the event outside of Russia. This is an important consideration for me, and as such would oppose any change to the name of this page.Resnjari (talk) 11:52, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

• Comment I think that the term "Circassian genocide" represents two concepts. The first has to do with how the uprooting and ethnic cleansing of the Circassians is discussed. The debate has been moving towards a more common use of "Circassian genocide" internationally [43] (outside Russia and Turkey - where narratives converge). The second has to do with the term "Circassian genocide" itself. The term and the narratives which surround it are themselves a subject of research independently of the historical events. Even in Russia or Turkey, authors who don't use the term Circassin genocide have to discuss about the Circassian genocide because it is how international bibliography - increasingly - discusses these historical events. In this respect, I think that the name should remain as is.--Maleschreiber (talk) 00:41, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

• Comment One can see that there has been way too many discussions on this. And each time it was decided by consensus to keep the page name as it is. Many sources refrain using "genocide", but many sources also refrain from using "genocide" when referring to the Armenian genocide, so I don't see how this is a proper argument. Richmond is the primary source on this subject, as he's had access to Russian & Georgian state archives and he mostly collects information from other sources in his book and rarely states his own "opinion". I think that moving this page would serve no purpose other than cheer genocide deniers up. A poor son of Adam (talk) 19:19, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Russia's use of "Мухаджирство"

This article claims that Russia doesn't recognise it as a genocide but recognised it as just a "migration". But this term isn't just used for migration. The Russian Wikipedia claims that it means

"is the mass and purposeful migration of Muslims to a Muslim country from non-Muslim countries where Muslims are a minority or most often become one as a result of hostilities (for example, the annexation of a Muslim territory by a Christian state) and do not want to put up with the position of a religious minority." (ru:Мухаджирство). It seems like it's still a term for ethnic cleansing or population transfer in any case, so maybe they don't recognise it as genocide but it doesn't mean they say it didn't happen or say it was just a volontary migration. So maybe we should add it to the page (which is protected)? 2A02:8440:8314:97E0:9CD2:2A4E:CAB7:25DC (talk) 08:04, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

The wikipedia definition fo the word does not matter, Russia uses it as a purposeful migration started by Circassians willingly due to hate towards Russia. A poor son of Adam (talk) 10:49, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Please see pages Muhacir and Mahajir (Pakistan). My very best wishes (talk) 03:59, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

@My very best wishes @My very best wishes Let's start with the problem that none of the cited refs even support the claim that Russians call this migration. My brief lit review suggests this claim is likely true, but this article needs major fixing with references (some ae missing page numbers, others don't support the claims being made...). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:32, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Circassian body parts sent to Berlin, Germany

Do we really need that large a section? It was added by SPA who also added some information which is presented in RS about myth-creation, but was told in the article as truth. Not sure if the narration of all the terrible details of a genocide which can be found in memoirs and which is retold by some RS is what this article need; the gore is impressive, but adds little to the article and is probably given WP:UNDUE weight of a whole section. Wikisaurus (talk) 20:22, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

• @Loafiewa: you deleted another piece by the user, could you please take a look here? Wikisaurus (talk) 20:31, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

I'd advocate just nuking the section. As with the edit the SPA made on wartime sexual violence, this section has some borderline comical overcite, to seemingly any source that they could find. 90% of the sources completely fail WP:V, either by not actually verifying what the article says they do, being self-published sources, or sites like TopWar that have just been flat out blacklisted, that they put in anyway. Maybe something can be said about the usage of body parts during the genocide, but I'd wager that this particular section doesn't contain anything salvageable. Loafiewa (talk) 21:44, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

It's probably too long but at least some of it appears to be reliably sourced [44] [45]. Volunteer Marek 02:53, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

I presume some of the "comical overcite" is due to the fact that others are trying to remove the info. Volunteer Marek 02:59, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

• The atrocities by Russian army during this war are well known. Consider book The Circassian Genocide by Walter Richmond, Rutgers University Press (e.g. page 54 and further), including literally collecting heads of Circassian people, etc. Yes, they boiled heads of murdered people to prepare them for some kind of a scientific study, according to the book. My very best wishes (talk) 03:51, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
• The rapes (which also appear in the book The Circassian Genocide by Walter Richmond) are apparently described during Russo-Turkish War (1877–1878), which is mostly a different subject. This is not Caucasus. But since all of that appears in the same book entitled The Circassian Genocide, having this on the same page is probably justifiable.My very best wishes (talk) 04:15, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Uncited claim about 'Holy day of conquest'

The claim in the 5th paragraph that Russian nationalists in the area celebrate may 21 as a holy day of conquest does not appear to be cited, and in my preliminary googling, I could not find anything in support of it (other than a celebration of the 50th anniversary of the conquests put on by Nicholas II), although I wouldn't necessarily expect to find all that much on the english internet. Just something I noticed while reading the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.200.48.174 (talk) 17:54, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

This article needs major work (references!)

A lot of the references are missing page numbers. Other minor problems include images, including in the infobox, which claim they show Circassian people, but descriptions just talk about people from the Caucasian region in general. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:31, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Going to echo the concerns shared by Piotr and practically everyone else here. This article is a mess. Its introduction is a mess. Its sections are a mess. In many instances, there is a lot of reaching going around. I get that many people think a country committing genocide is about the worst thing it can ever do, but we should be far more conservative with how we apply the term over here. Heinous, egregious acts can take place and yet they still may not meet the threshold of genocide (a term that is anyways fraught with many problems). Genocide is very much a concept that I think that is applied to the 20th century, whereas movements of peoples, removals and expulsions were part of the repertoire of all empires at the time. That's why I'm not sure why we're accepting Walter Richmond's characterization of the events as genocide at face value. Yes, there were many elements of forced migration and instances of brutal violence being employed, but historians who have studied the expulsions in good faith (that is, not with the aim of minimizing the suffering of the Circassians in the same way denialist Turks do in the case of the Armenians) have argued that there were economic and political push factors for many of those expelled, as well. David Cuthell's 2003 article is not cited here; nor Kemal Karpat's 1979 article in the Journal of the Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs. At the very least, we should be adding tags for POV neutrality. Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 14:08, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 June 2022

Request for addition to the “Native name” section. In Adyghe, “Circassian genocide” is Адыгэ лъэпкъгъэкӏод, there is no need to remove the Ubykh name, I just thought it would make sense to include the Adyghe name as well. Neqolen (talk) 22:53, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Do you have any sources using that name in that language? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:41, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I do not… «Адыгэ лъэпкъгъэкӀод» is just “Circassian genocide” in the Adyghe language. Адыгэ = Circassian, and лъэпкъгъэкӀод = genocide (лъэпкъ [ethnic group] + гъэкӀод [to make disappear]) Neqolen (talk) 06:25, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Inclusion of Cossacks as perpetrators?

The article explained at multiple points the efforts of Cossacks in settling the Kuban and participating in the genocide, with payment even being given per Circassian head. Given that this lead to settlement of the Kuban and a not so insignificant role held by them overall, should they be included in the perpetrators? Genabab (talk) 09:03, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Unsupported claim of recognition

The source provided for the "As of 2023, Georgia is the only country to recognize the Circassian genocide" claim merely says that George recognized it, not that it's the only country to recognize it. ~Dr Victor Vasconcelos de Souza (talk) 13:00, 13 July 2023 (UTC)