Talk:Deportation of the Crimean Tatars

English titles

A comment from an outsider: Sürgün indeed has a wider definition and use in Turkic languages than implied in this article. See for reference http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sürgün_(Imperio_Otomano). 8 July 2009.

I suggest using English for article titles and rename this into Deportation of Crimean Tatars (1944). We can still mention Sürgün in the article's text of course. --Irpen 20:40, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't really know what we should name the article, but we do have Holodomor and not Ukrainian famine which redirects to the article.. I am for either one.. —dima/s-ko/ 01:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, I am not sure it should not be the other way around in Holodomor. Secondly, Holodomor is at least somewhat, however little, established name in English literature on the subject. Can we say the same about Surgun? --Irpen 02:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Well no, it's not very established. Doing a quick google check, Sürgün Crimea (so only English language links will popup) gives 718 ghits, and Deporation Crimean Tatars — 36,500. Even Google books search yields more results for Deporation Crimean Tatars (402) v.s. 12 on Sürgün.. So we should perhaps move the article (if no one else objects) since the title is not established in eng. lang. —dima/s-ko/ 02:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

However, official Crimean Tatar sources prefer to use Surgun or Sürgün. Moreover, I think even this term is rather modern, the Crimeans tend to use this term. The such situation could be observed at Paraimos. I think the title shouldn't be moved --Üñţïf̣ļëŗ (see also:ә? Ә!) 08:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

If the terms are used for articles' titles those should only be the ones that are established English names. In an absence of those, the descriptive name should be used. Deportation of Crimean Tatars (1944) would be a name that does not attempt to hide or white-wash anything but the reader is more likely to be able to get an idea of the article's topic from the title. Surgun is meaningless for those who don't know the Tatar language. --Irpen 17:33, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

As well as Holodomor, Porajmos, Holocaust, Urkun and other terms. Sürgün is not so widely used, but the mass-media tend to use it. --Üñţïf̣ļëŗ (see also:ә? Ә!) 18:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Holocaust is widely used. Holodomor is used as well. IMO, it is still better to rename it to Famine in Ukraine (1932-1933) but even as is it is still the term that can be found in English literature, unlike Surgun. I don't understand why you object and want to impose a non-English and an unknown term on the readers which would less likely to even click on the article under the titles that means nothing to them. Surgun can and will be me mentioned in the first line of the article. --Irpen 18:43, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

mmm... deportation itself means only deportation, whereas Sürgün includes not only deportation, but a life in exile too. Please, compare other events I'd listed, especially Urkun. User:Untifler

P.s. I'm not sure but sürgün is not Turkish fo r exile, Crimean only. User:Untifler

       It is both Turkish and Crimean for exile  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.104.50.40 (talk) 19:04, 31 May 2008 (UTC) 

Life in the exile is certainly a part of the deportation theme and can be covered in the article. I do not insist on my title. I just want something that sounds meaningful in English. If Surgun has any use, even as little as Holodomor I would have accepted it but it seems to me that for English it is a complete neologism. --Irpen 20:28, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

There is one more reason for the current name. Sürgün is a bit Turkified term. In standard Crimean Tatar the word sürgün means "someone who is exiled/deported", and the word for the "exile/deportation" is sürgünlik. Turks use term sürgün in both meanings. Don Alessandro (talk) 11:25, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Please provide citation for the statement that the alleged collaboration was a pretext. Personally, Stalin's very well documented paranoia sounds like a more plausible explanation to me. Andries (talk) 10:42, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

OMG, this is pure propaganda - 20 thousand Crimean Tatars served in Wehrmacht. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.74.230.177 (talk) 01:14, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

And I am in no way surprised they did. 197.228.26.63 (talk) 21:16, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I think you meant the Waffen-SS. Crimean Tatars were not in the Heer or the German navy nor the Luftwaffe.

Served is wrong as most were forced. 88.250.71.19 (talk) 15:52, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Population graph

What's the source of information on that newly added graph by User:Ahnoneemoos? SkywalkerPL (talk) 13:07, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

• Table at [1] —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 13:12, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

NPOV

"Tatar people suffered from the man-made famine of Holodomor"

Holy hell. so much wrong with that already. This isn't even npov related but out right cold war era propaganda attacks. This world is getting scarier.

-G — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.38.213 (talk • contribs)

I am by no means an expert in Soviet/Ukrainian/Crimean Tatar history, but that sentence comes from an academic paper presented at the Columbia University by historian Otto Pohl, and is confirmed by National Geographic. These are rather reliable sources, however, if you elaborate on what makes these resources, which were published some time after the Cold War, "propaganda attacks", and support your claim with evidence, it would be contribute to the article in a more constructive way IMHO. I have already changed the wording a bit. --GGT (talk) 19:00, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Otto Pohl does't have any published papers on Tatars history. NG is not a historical institution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nanoworld (talk • contribs) 00:19, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

National Geographic and a historian from Columbia University are both good WP:RS. Jeppiz (talk) 00:25, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Number of deported

The article says:

• (1) "A total of 238,500 people were deported"
• (2) "183,155 - 193,865 Crimean Tatars were deported"

I understand these numbers are estimates by different authors based on different sources, and it is OK. However wikipedia must present these data in a reconciled form. Whoever has access to the sources cited, please do so.Staszek Lem (talk) 16:40, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

crematoria on wheels

• The cars were called "crematoria on wheels" by Crimean Tatars.

I believe they were called so. But I also believe that it is an anachronism: AFAIK the general knowledge about crematoria in Nazi death camps was not commonly available until the end of the war. So I doubt that such an isolated place as Crimea had this term common enough to put it into a phraseology of the time. I would suggest to clarify the issue; e.g., I would expect something like: "In their memoirs, Crimean Tatars called these cars 'crematoria on wheels". Staszek Lem (talk) 16:56, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Sources for SS groups of Crimea Tatars

I cannot insert link to sources.

---

Official justification related with involvement about 20.000 Crimea Tatars in SS criminal actions of Waffen-Gebirgsjäger-Regiment der SS (tatarische), Waffen-Verbände der SS and "Schuma". Waffen SS soldiers from Crimea Tatars killed at least 15.000 civilians near "Krasny" village SS-Waffengruppe Krim of Osttürkischer Waffenverband der SS killed many people in Poland during Warsaw Uprising

Propaganda

Dear english speaking authors. This article turned to pure propaganda. A number of rumors and lie statements are cited from Pohl, Otto J. and so called International Committee For Crimea. This source is not per-reviewed scientific source and it can contain anything. Please fix this problem. My english knowledge does not allow me to do it myself — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nanoworld (talk • contribs) 15:24, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

There is nothing concrete in your comment, just a smear of a person you don't like. Future disruptive comments of that kind will be removed, as Wikipedia is not a forum. Jeppiz (talk) 00:28, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Historian Statiev says about Pohl Pohl relies solely on published documents and offers a synthesis of Russian and Western writings.

In another page Pohl, Statiev says that Pohl is confusing the Ukranian famine with the Tatars of Crimea. As they have with the North Caucasian ethnic groups, some historians writing about Tatars baselessly attribute unrelated episodes and aspects of Soviet policy to this shift. Otto Pohl claims that(..)

So the work of Pohl is heavily critised.

--Istoria1944 (talk) 12:10, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

The greatest proportion of nazi collaborator

As a source i used The Nature of Anti-Soviet Armed Resistance, 1942-44: The North Caucasus, the Kalmyk Autonomous Republic, and Crimea, Alexander Statiev Kritika: Explorations in Russian and Eurasian History, Volume 6, Number 2, Spring 2005 (New Series), pp. 285-318 (Article), page 315 ", but the proportion of Tatar collaborators was the greatest, about 10 percent of the population;

if any problem exists, please inform to fix it. Please do not revert my contribution without justification, cause i used a university and reliable source--Istoria1944 (talk) 11:47, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

English Wikipedia will do without your stupid propaganda. Don't worry. - Devlet Geray (talk) 18:54, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Misleading and false claim

"Even though the Volga Tatars actually participated in collaboration in far higher proportion than the Crimean Tatars, with 35,000–40,000 volunteers fighting with the Axis, they avoided any kind of collective punishment."

This is absolutely astonishing. Whoever wrote this is lacking basic knowledge about the Soviet Union and its population. Per the 1939 census, there were about 200,000 Crimean Tatars and about 3.5 million Tatars in the rest of of Russia and including the Tatar, Chuvash, Bashkir autonomous regions.

It's estimated here[2]that about 300,000 Russians fought in Vlasov's ranks and other pro-German units. There were 100 million Russians in 1940. So that would mean 0.3% of Russians collaborated with the Nazis. At the same time, the lowest estimate is that 10,000 Crimean Tatars fought in Nazi Germany's ranks, but this estimate gives us a figure of about 35,000 Crimean Tatars that collaborated with the Nazis in one form or another[3]. So between 5% to 15% of all Crimean Tatars collaborated with the Nazis. At the same time, the Nazis occupied Belarus and there were an estimated 70,000 Belarusian collaborators out of a Belarusian population of about 7 million i.e. 0.93% of Belarusians collaborated with the Nazis.

I don't understand why the Volga Tatars have been slandered in this article? This source[4] shows estimates of 10,000 Crimean Tatars and 12,000 Volga Tatars collaborating with the Germans. There were 200,000 Crimean Tatars and about 3.5 million Tatars in the Volga regions and elsewhere in Russia. Based on this, 5% of Crimean Tatars collaborated with the Germans and 0.3% of Volga Tatars collaborated with the Germans. It is totally unfair to slander and make falsehoods about the Volga Tatars, they served honorably in the war.

15,000–20,000 Crimean Tatars collaborated with the Axis powers. In comparison, 35,000–40,000 Volga Tatars collaborated with the Axis powers. 35,000 or 40,000 is more than 15,000 or 20,000. What is the problem here? I don't know what "topwar.ru" is, but inserting random, obscure websites is not the right way to build a good article. See the reliable sources policy on Wikipedia. Also, this is English Wikipedia, and is under no obligation to use Russian language sources, which might be biased or unreliable with regards to its national past. People who do not speak Russian cannot verify your claims. All the claims in the text are sourced from reliable sources by scholars and historians or international and NGO sources, whereas potentially nationalistic sources are avoided. --Seiya (talk) 08:54, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

You are saying all your claims are sourced from reliable sources, but I have found it is not so. Your claims appear to be entirely OR and giving credence to only one claimed reason by the Soviet Union rather than all the claimed reasons. The 15,000 to 20,000 collaborators you are claiming are self-defense units from what I've read Fisher's book used in the article. Some of them may have had some collaboration like hunting down Soviet Partisans who also attacked Tatar villages, but the sources don't call all of them collaborators. In fact, the source Brian Glyn Williams' book says their main task was always to protect Tatar villages and they also sided with the the partisans sometimes. You should have taken a look at the sources yourself. The BBC source used here called collaboration as an excuse, not that it did happen. It is unacceptable to distort what is claimed by sources. Please don't distort reliable, it's not good behavior. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 11:26, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

OK, then how would you define "collaboration"? Even the articles Schutzmannschaft (police battalions) and Selbstschutz state that the units were loyal to the German army. They may have been self-defense units, but they were still armed and followed instructions from the German army. I don't mind expanding the section, but there has to be a limit somewhere. --Seiya (talk) 15:19, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

"Your claims appear to be entirely OR and giving credence to only one claimed reason by the Soviet Union". Please, read the "Modern views and Legacy" section. You have been a rather superficial reader of this article.--Seiya (talk) 15:48, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Collaboration was not the real point, distortion of what sources said and removing reliably sourced edits of others was. All views should be presented. What other articles say or general claims is not what we have to base it on. What is collabaration: cooperation with an enemy. Saying no one collaborated is also wrong, but making general claims of all self-defense units as collaborators is also wrong especially when the scholarly source is saying something else. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 17:11, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

One of my main problems was also giving credence to only one thing and dismissing other views from some of the sections. We shouldn't overrule others anywhere wheter in lede or other sections of the article. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 10:04, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Genocide

Removing any accusations of genocide from the lede is a severe violation of NPOV and LEAD. Plumber (talk) 02:36, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with NPOV. Look at this template. It's just simply too huge to fit into the article, it distorts pictures and text. Actually, any article would have problems with this wall of text. My suggestion would be: a) either modify and shrink this template b) simply remove it, since there is no clear consensus that this event was genocide. It certainly was a huge crime, but it is not accepted universally to be included into the worst crime possible. c) use this template instead:--Seiya (talk) 08:39, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

source review tips

To check as many errors as possible in the references and/or notes, I recommend using User:Lingzhi/reviewsourcecheck in conjunction with two other scripts. You can install them as follows:

• First, copy/paste importScript('User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.js'); to Special:MyPage/common.js .
• On the same page and below that script add importScript('User:Lingzhi/reviewsourcecheck.js');. Save that page.
• Finally go to to Special:MyPage/common.css and add .citation-comment {display: inline !important;} /* show all Citation Style 1 error messages */.

When you've added all those, go to an article to check for various messages in its notes and references. (You may need to clear your browser's cache first). The output of User:Lingzhi/reviewsourcecheck is not foolproof and can be verbose. Use common sense when interpreting output (especially with respect to sorting errors). Reading the explanatory page will help more than a little. The least urgent message of all is probably Missing archive link; archiving weblinks is good practice but lack of archiving will probably not be mentioned in any content review. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 03:47, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Name of this page

Crimean Tatar Genocide should be the name of this page. According to different sources up to half of Crimean Tatars were murdered while being "deported" due to horrible conditions imposed on them. These people were forced to be transported in extremely cramped up freight wagons. Thousands have died due to being unable to breathe, lack of water and food and cold. This is genocide not a "deportation" and if this isn't a genocide and just a "deportation" then Armenian Genocide was just a deportation too. But it's not. So for neutrality of wikipedia we should treat both of these horrific genocides equally. That's why the name of this page should be changed to Crimean Tatar Genocide. 31.223.26.187 (talk) 14:06, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Infobox fatality figure

I noticed the fatality counter on the infobox stated "30,000 to 45,000" deaths in exile. Perhaps this meant 40 to 45? Since all the figures in the article body states figures north of 40k. The infobox also doesn't mention timeframe, which is something that's easily forgotten but noteworthy when discussing deaths–they were only allowed to return in 1989 afterall. Some of the timeframe included in the article are 1948 and 1951. While the one that states "40,000 to 80,000" doesn't have a timespan limit but rather overall. DA1 (talk) 11:32, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

@Seiya: One of the numbers you've added to infobox do not factor in deaths during transit (8k), only deaths in destination in exile. The 34,000 figure is being misinterpreted, its only deaths 'after' transport while in exile ("deaths above expected mortality" rate). And even that source states 34,300 not "34,000". DA1 (talk) 11:44, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

For example: 34,300 (Ediev) 7,889 (NKVD's official est. of deaths during transport) = 42,189. Which coincides with the other figures. This is because it's only counting mortality rates while in exile, the entire page [5] is discussing that, and does not factor direct deaths from transport. You can read page 207 alone, or pages 204-207. It mentions "settlers" and "special settlements" several times because its exclusively discusses deaths within the settlements/settlers and not transit. DA1 (talk) 12:21, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Deportation of the Crimean Tatars montage.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:36, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

2019 recent changes

User:Devlet Geray added a lot of text, but I removed it due to its questionable content. It would be good if we can discuss its sources here before agreeing if they can be added or not.
Several Russian sources were added, but they are unnecessary. This is an English language Wikipedia and we have a lot of English language sources on this topic, which was fairly well covered by scholars and historians. They are unbiased, verifiable and objective. I would hesitate to mix them up with the sources Devlet Geray added.
For instance, one source says that the National movement of Crimean Tatars claimed there were actually 423,100 Tatars on Crimea during that time. Almost none of the interntional scholars or historians mention or corroborate this figure. It should thus be rejected.
The section "Falsification of the data" is odd. I am not sure what the text is saying. One sentences goes like this: "N. F. Bugai and his disciples (A. M. Gonov, A. S. Khunagov, and others) are trying to justify the deportation of the peoples in the USSR". Who says this? Who says that Bugai is justifiying the deportation? Another sentence:

Got acquainted with the materials on the behavior of the Balkars both during the offensive of the German fascist troops in the Caucasus and after their expulsion…

In fact, this telegram starts like this:

Due to the proposed eviction of the Balkars from the North Caucasus, I got acquainted with the materials on the behavior of the Balkars both during the offensive of the German fascist troops in the Caucasus and after their expulsion…

I don't understand what the sentence is question is saying. What is the difference, the major twist of it? Also, it is related to the Balkars, and is thus irrelevant for the Crimean Tatars in question.
The possible reasons for the deportation were also listed in the "Modern views and legacy" section.
I would urge you to try to find relevant, valid, verifiable English language sources on some of these recent claims, before adding some of the last ones.--Seiya (talk) 07:00, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

• @Seiya:

first, I would like to draw your attention to the fact that this article is NOT your own one, no matter how great or important your contributions to it were, that's why you cannot remove all the information added to the article you don't like.

second, as far as I know, there are no documents by National Movement of Crimean Tatars translated to English, thus I have to use their Russian version. Information of National Movement of Crimean Tatars can't be deleted due to the fact that this is the only source by Crimean Tatars, and I have given their position as one of several, not as the most truthful or sth

third, I would also like to emphasize that using sources in Russian is not forbidden on ENwiki

I don't understand what the sentence is question is saying. What is the difference, the major twist of it?. The main difference of these two is that in the second quote this part -Due to the proposed eviction of the Balkars from the North Caucasus - shows that Beria and NKVD got acquainted with the facts of collaboration ONLY AFTER proposal by Stalin of deportation them. This means that soviet authorities first of all decided which peoples had to be deported from their homeland and only then the facts of collaboration by were checked by NKVD. So, shortly, 1. They decide which peoples should be deported. 2. They check "the behavior" of the peoples during the Second world war. Is it clear? This also means that the collaboration was not the reason for deportations in the USSR. There were collaborators among each and every people of the USSR, but only some of them were proposed to the deportation

Taking into account everything mentioned above, I return my changes - Devlet Geray (talk) 08:14, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

I am glad if someone else improves and expands an article I wrote (or greatly helped to write). I wouldn't mind if it goes all the way to the FA. But these edits do not seem to be an improvement.

My problem: I don't speak Russian, and thus I cannot verify any of the new Russian sources. It makes sense to add non-English sources in an article if there are none in English. However, there are pleanty of English sources for this topic, and thus it should not be a problem to find ones for certain new claims. The figure of 423,100, for instance, it just cannot stand. I could not find any English scholars or historians who corroborate this figure. It seems to be just an inflation or an exaggeration. How can it then be used as credible? Based on what data?

Back to the Balkars case. It is still irrelevant for the Crimean Tatars. Even if we get to the consensus that Beria and NKVD got acquainted with their alleged collaboration after Stalin's proposed eviction, we cannot say that Stalin himself did not consider of the alleged collaboration first, before he proposed eviction. At any rate, one should take a different approach, the one in the text, with several scholars and historians poking holes at Stalin's pointless excuse for the deportation, regardless of what his circle was saying.

I again urge you to not hastily insert anything which might seem dubious or questioning NPOV. I honestly think these recent changes, and their wording, are highly problematic. Please, try to discuss any new Russian sources here on the talk page, and we shall try to get to a consensus on whether we can add them in the article, or in with what kind of wording.--Seiya (talk) 08:37, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

The figure of 423,100 is based on self-censuses conducted by Crimean Tatars. All the documents of this census are in the book I used, every one can look through it and find everything they need. Moreover, I gave this information as one of several, I didn't give it as the most important or truthful, again.

Note that there were collaborators among all the peoples of the USSR and everybody knew that. There were 1,000,000 - 2,000,000 of them among Russians, about 500,000 among Ukrainians and so on. But Stalin chose only 10 peoples who could be "unreliable". - Devlet Geray (talk) 08:50, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

The text already mentions this. It mentions Volga Tatars, Russians and Jews who were drafted by the Axis forces. Therefore, why linger on the issue any longer?--Seiya (talk) 09:13, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

@Seiya:

It was the answer to these your words we cannot say that Stalin himself did not consider of the alleged collaboration first, before he proposed eviction - Devlet Geray (talk) 09:20, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

so, I return the deleted data? - Devlet Geray (talk) 14:26, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

why are the sources in Russian not appropriate? what's the reason?? - Devlet Geray (talk) 14:39, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Personally, I think that the information about falsification of the data is very important - Devlet Geray (talk) 16:28, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

The problem is that I cannot verify these claims, since I don't speak Russian. I therefore invite you to try to find reliable English sources for any further claims, which are not already covered in the article. This claim of falsification is highly peculiar, really peculiar, and thus should undergo a review process. If no international scholars or historians seem to cover it, to corroborate it, then it may not pass the threshold of reliability.--Seiya (talk) 18:24, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

I know Russian, that's why I can verify that claims;) - Devlet Geray (talk) 22:02, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Are you Serbian? If so, you can understand basic information in other Slavic language. Even if you can't, you can also use a Google translator or sth -

No, but Serbian and Russian are not mutually compatible, anyway. A lot of local claims emerge throughout history in various nations, but only those which are accepted by international historians and scholars pass the test of reliability. For instance, a long time ago, some claimed that Tomislav of Croatia could have assembled an army of 100,000 infantrymen, 60,000 horsemen and a sizable fleet of 80 large ships and 100 smaller vessels by the year 925. But international scholars and historians do not corroborate that claim, and it can thus be considered an exaggeration. It thus cannot pass the review process. The same goes with this. Several local claims are brought up regarding this issue. But if they are not accepted by international scholars and historians, they cannot be considered reliable.

Again, back to the 423,100 figure. Nobody from international scholars or historians seems to accept this figure. How can it then be considered reliable? How can we verify it? It is not just that you can speak Russian, it is the fact that we have a lot of questions and cannot analyse this data in depth. What was the methodology used for the figure? Who made it? Who is he, name and last name? Based on what evidence was it compiled? Were there any irregularities while making the claim? There is a wealth of data about this event in the English language sources, scientific journals and books were written on this topic. Therefore, a more conservative approach should be taken towards it, and only claims which are accepted by several scholars should be accepted in the article.--Seiya (talk) 05:56, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

@Seiya: This figure is based on self-censuses conducted by National movement of Crimean Tatars in 70-s. To verify it we can just look through the book I've given a link to (and the page!). The methodology, as I said, are self-censuses. It was made by the scientist Yuri Osmanov and his father - Bekir. Based on self-censuses, again. - Devlet Geray (talk) 08:52, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

You have Google books and Google scholar. Feel free to find as many reliable English sources that confirm these claims as possible. If you have over a hundred English sources that cover the deportation of the Crimean Tatars, but the number of them that confirm the 423,100 figure is zero, then I think such (and similar) claims should not stand.

I know that the anniversary is up tomorrow, but that should not be an excuse to rush, ignore everything I wrote and re-insert everything that was questionable. The topic has been covered in great lengths in the article, with a wealth of English sources, and so I have to ask: what is missing? What is missing that has not been covered already in the books and publications that we already had in the article?--Seiya (talk) 17:49, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Selbstschutz (German for "self-protection") - is the name given to different iterations of ethnic-German self-protection units formed both after the First World War and in the lead-up to the Second World War. - Devlet Geray (talk) 17:55, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

here you are about the figure [6] - Devlet Geray (talk) 17:58, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

the one in English [7]

Here is the quote from the book by Columbia Univerity press[8]

"The surviving 54 percent amounted to 228,474, showing that 423,100 persons had lived in the Crimea even after loss of some 57,000 owing to the Nazi invasion of the Crimean peninsula". It's about Crimean Tatars the same figures = 423,100 were, 54 percent survived -> 46 percent died. That's enough? - Devlet Geray (talk) 18:24, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

do you find the figure of 180 000 correct? Just look, 150,000 were deported to Uzbekistan (according to official figures). Half of them died -> 75 000 left. But, as you wrote 260 000 returned to Crimea. And 90 - 150 000, according to the data, remain in Uzbekistan. From 75 000 in 1944-46 to at least 400 000 in 2000-s. How is this possible? Right, it's impossible - Devlet Geray (talk) 18:30, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

You write: "The Crimean Tatar exile resulted in the abandonment of 80,000 households and 360,000 acres of land". Doesn't the figure of 80,000 households seems to be too large for 180,000 people? I think that the typical Crimean Tatar family at that time was of about 5-6 people, not less (more, for sure, but let it be 5-6). 80,000 х 5 = 400,000 people. - Devlet Geray (talk) 18:44, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

The link for the book your provided (Tatars of the Crimea: Their Struggle for Survival) offers only a snippet view. I therefore cannot access the entire page and read what it says. Moreover, the 423,100 figure is not even visible in this snippet view. The alleged quote you are providing (because I cannot access that specific line) is: "The surviving 54 percent amounted to 228,474, showing that 423,100 persons had lived in the Crimea even after loss of some 57,000 owing to the Nazi invasion of the Crimean peninsula". From the sentence above, it is unclear if the figure refers to Crimean Tatars or to some specific Crimean area.

Back to the alleged "self-censuses": what is a "self-census"? When was it held? Who recorded it? Where is the documentation of these "self-censuses"? Did they survey the entire Crimea, or not, and how come nobody from the authorities caught them? So many questions that ultimately put this claim under serious doubt. Too much to stay in the article.

80,000 households could have had 3 people on average, which would give the number of 200,000. Maybe they also had two or three houeholds per family. The original 200,000 figure thus cannot be ruled out. In light of all this, I would not accept the 423,100 figure. It just does not seem to pass the threshold of reliability. I don't know what the other eidtors say about this, but I'm against all these half-researched claims. The only thing you could ultimately accomplish is that the article might lose its GA status.--Seiya (talk) 12:37, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Do you really think that an average Crimean Tatar family had only one child in 1940-s? Why deceive yourself? - Devlet Geray (talk) 17:07, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

• Hi @Seiya:, I'm sorry for my behaviour last year. If you think that some information I added is implausible, not related to the article, etc, you may delete it or I can do it myself Devlet Geray (talk) 14:26, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Cultural Genocide

I verified the citation and there's no mention of Crimean Tatars on the «Geopedagogy as battleground: The contribution of textbook sanitisation to the russification and cultural genocide of Ukraine» There's only four mentions of Stalinism itself,

«In the summer of 1941 the Ukrainians, believing that the invading Germans had come to liberate them from both Stalinist and Polish oppression, welcomed the armed interlopers with open arms. But this euphoria was short-lived. Caught between the Nazi anvil and the Stalinist hammer, Ukraine was once again to become a killing-field as two colossal military powers battled savagely for control of her natural treasures.»

In the «Major Phases of Ukrainian Depopulation», it goes from the purges of the 30s to WW2. This appears to be WP:OR BunnyyHop (^talk) 21:09, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

That source isn't a good one. But there are plenty of other sources (more than enough for an academic consensus to bring it up) that refer to the exile as a genocide citing the cumulative results (denial of correct denonym, forced assimilation, population drop, detatarization of Crimea, etc).--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 22:13, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

For instance, searching for Tatar genocide in Google Scholar returns only 10 results. Tatar deportation returns 68, deportation of crimean tatars 306, genocide of the crimean tatars 10, Deportation of Crimean Tatars 240 and Genocide of Crimean Tatars 5. Can you provide those sources?

These are excerpts from the Admins' noticeboard:

The Four Deuces's response «Possibly the reason for removal of the Deportation of the Crimean Tatars from "Genocide of Indigenous peoples" is that it doesn't meet the definition of genocide according to most experts. See for example ""Related Atrocities" in Genocide: Its Political Use in the Twentieth Century] (Leo Kuper, Yale University Press, 1981), which explains among other things why the deportation of the Crimean Tatars is not considered to be a genocide»

(me) «On the Tatar, one simply has to look at the source. The article is about Ukraine, yet there's not even a single mention of Tatar populations. And even then - cultural genocide is used only in the title and in «Western misperceptions of Ukraine in the past have had grave policy consequences by actually legitimating the repression, Russification, semanticide and cultural genocide of non-Russian peoples with an ensuing loss of millions of lives...». Apparently the OCR of the article is not the best, Tatars are mentioned twice - «In 1223,the Tatars attacked Russia» and «[...] waves of Celts, Huns, Goths, Arabs, Vikings and Tatars who created the political and cultural map of Europe. The year 988 AD marked the [...]». Furthermore, the Crimean peninsula was part of the Russian Empire since 1783, and when the USSR was founded it became an autonomous republic within the RSFSR. Only in 1954 it was given to the UkSSR» BunnyyHop (^talk) 09:41, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

• I have removed "cultural genocide" from the lede since it's not mentioned in the body of the article at all and it is not referenced. --MarioGom (talk) 09:49, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

TimothyBlue: Your recent edits, where you describe the issue as "the sky is blue", seem to contradict other academic sources used in the article such as Statiev (2010), as discussed in Deportation of the Crimean Tatars § Genocide question and recognition. There does not seem to be any academic consensus on the characterization of the mass deportation of Crimean Tatars as genocide. --MarioGom (talk) 13:44, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

• Reply: There is a clear academic and world consensus from across the ideological spectrum that the deportation of Crimean Tatars was genocide.   // Timothy :: talk  14:09, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

  TimothyBlue, clear academic [...] consensus, not really, see the reference I mentioned, where it discusses various positions and the usual disagreement between outcome-based and intent-based discussions. World consensus, not really either, there is no unanimous or widespread international recognition of these events as genocide. By the way, the outcomes vs intent discussion is recurrent in academia. That's why we don't label Bengal famine of 1943 as genocide, even when it was a direct consequence of British colonial policies and it caused 2.1–3 million deaths. MarioGom (talk) 14:26, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

It seems like there is quite a deliberate efforts on your (MarioGom and Bunnyhop) to not find look into this seriously. Concluding a lack of genocide solely from a cursory scan a small number of English google books results (not the most comprehensive language covering the topic at all) and a previously remove citation that didn't even refer to crimean tatars by name is hardly grounds for shrugging off a genocide question. Especially considering the strong evidence of genocidal intent on part of the government for various anti Crimean Tatar measures applied to no other people group in the Soviet Union - denying their existance as a distinct nation and suggesting "reunification" with a completely different distant people group (Kazan Tatars) based on unfortunate naming coincidence; the extent of "rooting" efforts in Uzbekistan (Nasriddinova demanding that CT people eat and bake Uzbek bread and assimilate more), not allowing any CT language publications until reluctantly allowing Lenin Bayragi in the 1950's (and even then, pretending it's the same as that of Kazan Tatars), offering an autonomy in Tatarstan to "return" to "where they actually came from" (BS), and all the other extreme manifestations of the Crimean-Tatars-are-everything-except-Crimean doctrine of Russian and Uzbek chauvanists that became national policy in much of the 20th century. It is utterly hilarious to deny genocidal intent on grounds of merely forcing assimilation, marginalization, delimination, and elimination of territorial identity of a people (and causing a sizable population bottleneck) simply because of a lack of traditional racial politics (with nationality considered to be inherited paternally and based on self-identification) rather than a more nazi-like approach of attempting to eliminate all fully assimilated people with marginal racial traces of said "undesirable" people. Fundamentally, if you go out of your way to end a national identity - be it by extermination or assimilation and forcing adoption of a another's identity - it's genocide. The endless "people of Tatar nationality that formerly lived in Crimea" (literal translation) instead of "Crimean Tatars" and other Crimean Tatar denialism and demands of assimilation into other peoples and rooting to other lands (Tatarstan and Mubarek zone) are proof of that. Forced assimilation (almost successfully) of a sociohistorical group with a shared consciousness on such grounds IS genocide.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 15:09, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

• Reply I have read the sources mentioned, and they do not support the change suggested. Since "The Soviet Counterinsurgency in the Western Borderlands" was mentioned, I found my copy, it does not support the change.   // Timothy :: talk  15:14, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

"The Soviet Counterinsurgency in the Western Borderlands" is not a good source for this issue. I reccomend reading documents by the Marxist NKDT about Soviet attempts to "fix" the "Crimean Tatar problem" (such as "Genocide-Israeli style") and the ones detailing (quite bad) meetings with Soviet leaders. They are all in Russian though, so you will have to use a machine translator.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 15:24, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Stalin deliberately deported Crimean Tatars. Soviet documents reveal that the Soviets attempted to "cleanse" Crimea of what they saw as a less people. Overall roughly 45% of the Crimean population would have been eradicated, killed or deported from the years 1945-1955. There is universal agreement onto this. Des Vallee (talk) 18:58, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

There's still no citation on the "cultural genocide", so far. BunnyyHop (^talk) 17:31, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

That was not just a "cultural" genocide. I am sure you could find such sources yourself (instead of asking others) because there are many. For example, Lithuanian parliament recognized 1944 Soviet Deportation Of Crimean Tatars As Genocide. My very best wishes (talk) 18:46, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

While some governments may have recognised it as such, there may be no agreement among scholars and, as noted here by Buidhe, "[p]olitical recognition or non-recognition is not relevant to whether an even meets the legal definition of genocide since governments can call any event genocide". The burden is not on me to find the sources. --BunnyyHop (^talk) 19:09, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

• The main issue here is that cultural genocide is not synonymous with genocide and "cultural genocide" does not seem to be one of the main ways of framing this event. I also note that there is dispute in reliable sources as to whether to classify as a genocide, crime against humanity, ethnic cleansing and/or something else. Consider that Wikipedia describes disputes, rather than taking sides; it is probably better to attribute the opinion that it was a genocide. (t · c) buidhe 19:15, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Buidhe Seems good. I propose to remove «cultural genocide», and attach it to the end of the lead, after «On 12 December 2015, the Ukrainian Parliament issued a resolution [...]» by simply stating what's currently in the sections «Modern views» and «Genocide question». «Modern interpretation by scholars and historicans sometimes classify this event as a crime against humanity, ethnic depopulation, an act of Stalinist repression or an "ethnocide", meaning a deliberate wiping out of an identity and culture of a nation. Some activists, scholars, countries and historians go even further and consider the deportation a crime of genocide or cultural genocide» (this last one needs to be verified - I just reviewed two of the sources (Brian 2002 and Greta 2015) and «cultural genocide» isn't mentioned. --BunnyyHop (^talk) 20:02, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

No you should not remove the content or the references. You do not have a consensus. Four editors have objected to this.   // Timothy :: talk  20:13, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Well, three editors have objected to this. Wikipedia is not a democracy, guidelines must be followed. Here, the opinion of some scholars are stated as fact - as if it was an academic consensus - when the body itself tells us it's not. BunnyyHop (^talk) 20:29, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

• Stop manipulating. There cannot be any consensus on such issues. For instance, there always be Turkish (or any other country) historians who would say that there were not the genocide of the Armenians, but the fact is that genocide took place etc Devlet Geray (talk) 20:35, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
• Now five editors have objected.   // Timothy :: talk  20:59, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

• In the case of the Armenian genocide I am able to find many scholarly sources which state that the view that it is a genocide is held by the vast majority of historians. Are there any sources which state what is the most common viewpoint on this event? It is easy to find sources disagreeing that Stalinist deportations were genocidal, see here for starters.[9] Regardless of how many editors are insisting that you relax the usual standards of verifiability and NPOV in this particular case, the core content policies ought to override any local consensus that does not take them into account. (t · c) buidhe 02:42, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

To be clear, the reason why Armenian Genocide denial is presented as a minority and WP:FRINGE view is because authoritative sources say the following (and more):

• Suny 2009, p. 935. "Overwhelmingly, since 2000, publications by non-Armenian academic historians, political scientists, and sociologists... have seen 1915 as one of the classic cases of ethnic cleansing and genocide. And, even more significantly, they have been joined by a number of scholars in Turkey or of Turkish ancestry..."
• Göçek 2015, p. 1. "The Western scholarly community is almost in full agreement that what happened to the forcefully deported Armenian subjects of the Ottoman Empire in 1915 was genocide, with approximately 800,000 to 1.5 million Armenians perishing."
• Gutman 2015, p. 177. "Recent developments including the publication of several studies in the Turkish language, however, suggest that such efforts to cast doubt on the genocidal dimensions of the destruction of the Ottoman Armenians are becoming increasingly untenable".
• Smith 2015, p. 5. "Virtually all American scholars recognize the [Armenian] genocide..."

If similar sources exist for this event then rejection of the view that it was a genocide should also be considered WP:FRINGE, however, the burden of proof is on those who are trying to make that contention.

Another issue with the word "genocide" is that it has become a value-laden term ("genocide has become the yardstick, the gold standard for identifying and measuring political evil in our times. The label “genocide” confers moral distinction on its victims and indisputable condemnation on its perpetrators" [10]; the word genocide "contains an inherent value judgment, one that privileges the morality of the victims over the perpetrators"[11]) Per MOS:LABEL, we should be especially careful about using a value-laden term in wikivoice. (t · c) buidhe 09:06, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

• No one suggested to claim in WP voice that it was a genocide. Cited source is an RS, and it tells that three governments recognized the event as a genocide, not a "cultural genocide". This specific fact (of recognizing this event as a genocide by 3 governments) can and should be included to this page with appropriate references. There is nothing "fringe" with including well-sourced and relevant facts in WP. There are many other RS which cover specifically the question of genocide with relation to Deportation of the Crimean Tatars. They can also be used. As about genocides in general, this is an entirely different subject. Yes, this terminology was a matter of numerous disputes. Sure, there are many people, scholars and even governments who deny (or do not recognize) even Holocaust or Armenian genocide. My very best wishes (talk) 17:29, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
• Speaking more generally, Ethnic operations by NKVD have been described in many RS as genocides (for example in the book "Stalin's genocides" by Norman Naimark), and rightly so because they were directed against people of certain ethnicity. My very best wishes (talk) 17:45, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I never said that this discussion cannot be covered according to RS, the issue here is that the Wikipedia article already *does* describe this event as "cultural genocide" in wikivoice in the very first sentence, and the sourcing for that label is weak or nonexistent. (t · c) buidhe 18:21, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Well, the lead does not need any refs. It should only properly summarize the corresponding section of the page, that one. Does it summarize it properly? I am not sure because (a) this sections (and it is referenced!) tells directly only about genocide, rather than about cultural genocide (although the quotation can be interpreted this way), and (b) perhaps one should say "it has been described as a genocide" instead of saying "it was a cultural genocide". My very best wishes (talk) 18:36, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Speaking about this source, it provides an interesting citation of Anastas Mikoyan about it. I should say Mikoyan knew this subject much better than author of the article. Key fact: they targeted only people of certain ethnicity (some of which did not live in Crimea or other specific territories), not all people who lived in Crimea. These cleansings, antisemitic campaigns and ethnicity-based discrimination were actually the reason why the ethnicity was included in internal Soviet passport. My very best wishes (talk) 21:50, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

That's exactly the problem, it does not summarize the corresponding section of the page. My proposal effectively shows all differing viewpoints on the category of this historical event, staying faithful to the body. --BunnyyHop (^talk) 22:04, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

I already fixed this in the lead. As about summarizing viewpoint, this is apparently a viewpoint that it was either a genocide or at least an ethnic cleansing, based on sourcing currently on the page. My very best wishes (talk) 22:09, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Why did you remove a reliable source on the basis that «we do not have a page about this author»? diff It was published in a peer-reviewed journal, Journal of Genocide Research. BunnyyHop (^talk) 22:32, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

This article is entitled on top "Original articles". Hence this is a primary source. It still would be OK, if the author was a well known expert we have a page about. But he is not. Furthermore, Abstract tells: "This article ... explains why a policy aiming to assimilate certain minorities, inflicted so many deaths.". Author claims that Soviet ethnic cleanings of minorities (which resulted in hundreds thousands deaths) were "a policy aiming to assimilate certain minorities". This is WP:FRINGE view. Hence the removal. My very best wishes (talk) 00:39, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Further, what is the argument by author? "Had the Soviet government wanted to exterminate these minorities, it would have done so". Well, this is just like Putin: "if we wanted to poison Navalny, we would have done so". My very best wishes (talk) 01:28, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I have no objection to "it has been described as a genocide by some scholars" or similar, the sources cited definitely support that. (t · c) buidhe 23:55, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

The content is well sourced and is supported by content in the body. I will reluctantly accept "... described as a genocide by scholars; there is discussion regarding the whether this was an intentional act of genocide or an unitentional genocide that resulted from ethnic cleansing and intentionally brutal conditions at the deportation locations." if someone writes content for the body supporting this, and if there is a consensus among the other editors for this change.   // Timothy :: talk  00:20, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

The text about it's-not-genocide-it's-just-policy-of-assimilation-of-unwanted-nations (from the admission of a Russian professor) speaks for itself. That's not an argument that is WASN'T a genocide, that unintentionally supports the point that it WAS a genocide. Forcing assimilation and trying to rending an unwanted nation or identity non-existant - by any means - IS genocide. It just goes to show that the genocide deniers out there are aware that it qualifies as genocide by rational standards and how irrelevant the genocide debate actually is.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 02:50, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree with your comment and rephrased this slightly, but... using publications by genocide deniers is not something we would like to do here. My very best wishes (talk) 22:04, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Timothy: There is no such thing as an "unintentional genocide". Genocidal intent is required for something to be a genocide. (t · c) buidhe 13:05, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

The intent vs outcome debate is well established. Plenty of scholars agree that a genocidal outcome can happen without genocidal intent.   // Timothy :: talk  14:05, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Well, I checked our page Genocidal intent, and it tells (10 refs): "The International Criminal Tribunal for Yugoslavia, International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, and International Court of Justice have ruled that, in the absence of a confession, genocidal intent can be proven with circumstantial evidence, especially "the scale of atrocities committed, their general nature, in a region or a country, or furthermore, the fact of deliberately and systematically targeting victims on account of their membership of a particular group, while excluding the members of other groups.". This is 100% applicable to the Deportation of the Crimean Tatars and other similar NKVD operations, even if these events were not judged in the court. The intent is obvious when someone targets a specific ethnic minority. My very best wishes (talk) 23:57, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

My very best wishes why are you trying to remove the reliable academic sources who disagree with the categorization of the event of genocide? All this you're going through to discredit them (and hence remove them) is pure WP:OR. Wikipedia's content is determined by previously published information rather than by the personal beliefs or experiences of its editors. See WP:V. --BunnyyHop (^talk) 11:21, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Because these sources and discussion are not specifically on the subject of this page, but about Population transfer in the Soviet Union in general, so it belongs to another page. But it is already included to that another page here, someone just copy-pasted this content to numerous pages, even though it actually does not belong to other pages and such content forks are bad.My very best wishes (talk) 15:35, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

agree with this. It's information for the other article Devlet Geray (talk) 16:00, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Why does it need to specifically name the Tatars? Its obvious the Tatar ethnic cleansing is being referred to here.PailSimon (talk) 16:45, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

They do mention Crimean Tatars, but the publications are on a more general subject and this very text was included already on another page where it belongs. In particular, 3rd ref describes views in two first publications as a "gentrified racism" and authors as historical revisionists ("It would be hard for any member of the Soviet diaspora or deported peoples to see these revisionist writings as anything other than a cover for Soviet ethnic and racial bigotry.") and so on. But again, such debate belongs to a different page. My very best wishes (talk) 17:43, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

A general subject which includes the subject article and directly references it. I feel like this is just unnecessarily pedantic. As for the claim that they are historical revisionists (dubious), this does not mean they should be excluded. Historical revisionist is not a bad thing per se.PailSimon (talk) 19:57, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

This is a complex controversy, and it needs a lot more space to be properly described (including quotation above). I can do that, but then it will be definitely out of place here because the controversy is not really about Crimean Tatars, but about all Soviet "deportations of nations". Hence this must be done on proper page. My very best wishes (talk) 20:03, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

If its relevant to the Soviet deportations as a whole (and therefore the Tatar ones) then I do not see how it could be out of place.PailSimon (talk) 20:05, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I just explained why. I could illustrate it by adding more necessary content about this controversy to this page, but that would be probably WP:POINT. My very best wishes (talk) 20:12, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I know and that was my response to your response.PailSimon (talk) 20:53, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Irrelevant material

@Devlet Geray:

Regarding this edit

What exactly does modern-day Russian Federation attitudes and policy towards Crimea Tatars have to do with deportations which occurred 70 years prior? This seems to me to be completely beyond the purview of the article.PailSimon (talk) 22:25, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

• Reply: It is obvious why this is in the article. I object to its removal, there is not a consensus of editors to remove this sourced content.   // Timothy :: talk  22:31, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

You should explain why it's obvious that events which were not deportations (the article is called deportations after all) nor occurred in the designated timeframe are relevant. Perhaps you could explain why you think so which is what the talk page is intended for? As for "there is not a consensus of editors" - Well that's a premature claim to make do you not think? Regardless the point of a talk page is try and get a consensus.....PailSimon (talk)

Contemporary discussions about historical events are often included in articles. Five editors have objected to your POV edits and sources have been provided, you do not have a consensus for removing material related to genocide.   // Timothy :: talk  22:45, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Five editors have objected? I do not know what you are referring to here. I looked up above and there is no mention of the Russian Federation content that I think is irrelevant as far as I can see. It's true that contemporary discussions about historical events are often included however the current Russian Federation content does not at all make reference to the Soviet deportations, in fact the sources that are used to source the information do not even make mention of the Soviet deportations in the context of present Russian government policy so at best this appears to be WP:OR. So I'm still puzzled as to what exactly the present Russian Federation policies have to do with Soviet deportations.PailSimon (talk) 22:56, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

• First removed paragraph includes the following by the famous human rights activist: "As a result of the crime of 1944, I lost thousands upon thousands of my brothers and sisters. And this must be remembered!". 1944. So, yes, it is directly relevant to the subject and must stay on the page. Second removed para tells about "On the Measures for the Rehabilitation of Armenian, Bulgarian, Greek, Crimean Tatar and German Peoples and the State Support of Their Revival and Development". 3rd para tells about Dzemilev, central figure in the fight of Crimean Tatars for official rehabilitation. My very best wishes (talk) 00:25, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Ok fair enough.PailSimon (talk) 20:57, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Lead citations

The lead was flagged as needing citations, i added two in. But per MOS:LEADCITE we should figure out what citations are worth keeping in the lead—blindlynx (talk) 15:16, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

1 I just made the observation that the lead or introduction is still lacking in sources. This is especially pressing with the last paragraphs making multiple important claims without any stated source. This should be investigated 89.206.82.38 (talk) 11:50, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

what claims specifically?—blindlynx 15:08, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Academic Questions

It is the flagship journal of National Association of Scholars (NAS), an organization which opposes a perceived political correctness on college campuses and supports a return to mid-20th-century curricular and scholarship norms, and an increase in conservative representation in faculty. As Jonathan Rauch said,

Though written mainly by scholars, it is a missionary journal, not a scholarly one.

There is not a single reason to use articles from such non-academic journals on articles as controversial as these, especially to challenge views of acclaimed historians; there has not been a shortage of peer reviewed scholarship, published by academic presses, on the issue. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:10, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Fair it's a shit source. That said the inclusion of the Statiev paper seems undue as well, given that it that has revived little academic attention. Would you object to removing that whole paragraph?—blindlynx 20:37, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Forgot this. Give me a day to remember what was being debated! TrangaBellam (talk) 18:18, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Statiev is a qualified academic and Journal of Genocide Research is a journal of excellent repute. So, Statiev is DUE. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:25, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm not disputing that just that this particular article presents a viewpoint that's clearly in the minority (see WP:DUE)—blindlynx 01:19, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

I do feel that this is a minority view but this is far from fringe territory to attract DUEness concerns on such grounds. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:56, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

My concern is that because this particular paper hasn't had much of a reception so we can't point to other scholars objections to it. Would you be okay with adding a line in pointing out that it's a minority or not widely accepted view?—blindlynx 12:29, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

We cannot editorialize in wiki-voice. However, if you come across some tertiary source asserting that most scholars reject a Statiev-ian reading of the event (even without referring to Statiev or the particular article), I offer no opposition. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:20, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

That's why i'm hesitant to include it at all. No-one is engaging with the paper so we can't be critical of lines like He considers such deportations merely an example of Soviet assimilation of "unwanted nations. even thought any academic response to the a paper would take issue with them, but. Let's see if we can find a recent surveys on the topic rather than the current wiki made laundry list?—blindlynx 15:38, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

That's now how we decide on content inclusion. By imposing an additional measure of "engagement" despite being peer-reviewed scholarship at an very high quality journal. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:20, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

No more than we are required to include every piece of said scholarship. Are you okay with changing the first like of that paragarph to A minority of scholars disputed defining the event as genocide from Some otehrs disputed defining the event as genocide and leaving the rest as is?—blindlynx 17:39, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Sorry forgot to mention i took out the academic questions source because it was shit—blindlynx 17:41, 14 October 2022 (UTC)