Talk:Greek genocide

"Pontic genocide"

The so-called "Pontic genocide" is actually not recognized by any major international organization. It is built largely on lies and falsification, and is recognized by only a small minority of scholars. Most researchers do not mention this term at all in their works. Therefore, it should be removed from the preamble. Now about a much more important thing: the death toll. The article gives a number of 353,000 and an estimate of 350,000-360,000. However, modern research (including Greek) shows that these numbers are grossly overestimated. The most striking example is the Greek (!) Journalist Thassos Kostopoulos, who proved that Valvanis includes in 353,000 "deaths" a lot of exiled and survivors. Moreover, almost all sources claiming that the number of victims is 350,000-360,000 people refer to Valvanis, who himself was a Greek refugee and clearly overestimated the numbers. Kostopoulos also offered a somewhat overestimated, but much closer to the truth estimate - 100,000-150,000 killed. In this he is supported by Eric Sjöberg. There are sources with even smaller numbers. For example, Justin McCarthy estimates the population loss of the Pontic Greeks in 1914-1922 to be 65,000, including deaths from fighting and famine. Thus, the number of victims as a result of the repressions (not genocide) is even less than 65,000. Another Greek source (Η ‘’ανάκλησις’’ εις τους πρόσφυγας Έλληνας του Πόντου και αι επιπτώσεις αυτής δια την έρευνα της ποντιακής διαλέκτου, Αρχείον Πόντου, τόμ. 29, Αθήνα 1989, σελ. 3.) says that in total there were about 400,000 Pontic refugees in Greece. Let's add here about 200,000 more refugees from Pontus to the USSR. Considering that before 1914, the Pontic Greeks in the Ottoman Empire numbered about 700,000 people (according to Sotiriadis, even 450,000, which completely crosses out the number 353,000), the number of deaths clearly does not exceed 100,000, including victims of war, hunger, and so on. Now let's look at the number of deaths of all Greeks. The total number of Greeks in the Ottoman Empire before the outbreak of events was 1.8 million - the most real and generally accepted number, confirmed by the Ottoman census. The number of refugees settled in Greece is 1.2 million. About 200,000 Greeks (almost all of them Pontic) moved to the USSR. 100,000 Greeks stayed in Turkey (mainly in Istanbul). Thus, the total number of deaths does not exceed 300,000. Plus, if we subtract from this number of refugees in the United States and the assimilated, who died from hunger and hostilities, we get even less. This is more or less consistent with the estimates of Rummel, not a pro-Turkish scientist. That is, the total number of deaths (not 300,000-900,000, but 200,000-300,000) is less than 350,000. To sum up: it is necessary to remove the "Pontic genocide" from the preamble, and in the paragraph on the number of deaths in the Pontus region, the number 353,000, which have nothing to do with reality, should be replaced with much more realistic estimates, including those given by me. Demo66top (talk) 16:10, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

1) Kostopoulos is a communist journalist. Not a historian. I don't see how he is a WP:RS. 2) The Pontic Genocide has been officially recognized as a genocide by (at least) the Swedish Parliament [1]. 3) Justin McCarthy has been widely criticized for being a pro-Turkish genocide denier [2]. 4) “given by me”. Wikipedia isn't based on WP:OR, which seems to be what you're doing by making calculations to prove your point. And lastly 5) WP:SYNTH. Deji Olajide1999 (talk) 16:43, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Since when has the Swedish parliament become a reliable source in terms of genocide or not?Neither the International association of genocide researchers, nor the UN, and so on, recognized this "genocide." If it was recognized by only one or two countries, this only confirms its improbability. If Kostopoulos is not a historian, then how is it that he wrote tens of books on history (mostly Greek)? Plus, I think, Eric Sjöberg, who in his book prefers an estimate of 100,000-150,000 instead of 353,000, agreeing with Kostopulos, you will not be able to accuse unauthority. Yes, McCarthy is pro-Turkish, but this does not mean that his opinion cannot be shown in the article. For example, Rummel overestimates the number of victims at the hands of the communist and nationalist regimes of the 20th century and has been criticized more than once for this, but this does not interfere with his stay in the article. There is nothing unrealistic about 65,000. My mathematical calculations were only a reinforcement to the cited sources, which confirmed my opinion. Demo66top (talk) 19:17, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Here are 5 sources on the Pontic Genocide: [3] [4][5][6][7] (last one is included in this article). And yes, Sjöberg says that the Pontic Greeks that died were 100–150,000 but he also says this some lines later [8] (it's literally the 1st source in this page). Nevertheless, that still doesn't make Kostopoulos (or McCarthy) reliable here per WP:FRINGE. Also, the sources say 100–150.000 but your calculations say 65.000? Well, you need a reliable reference for the 65.000 which you probably won't find. Deji Olajide1999 (talk) 20:09, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Kostopoulos is WP:FRINGE, and while Sjoberg reports his view, he does not endorse them. The "mathematical calculations" (as opposed to "non-mathemetical"?) of wikipedia users are out of the question. Khirurg (talk) 21:27, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

As a matter of fact Dr Kostopoulos is both a journalist and a historian, as stated in scientific journals that publish his writings and refer to him mentioning both aspects of his work -- see e.g. here: "About the author - Tasos Kostopoulos - Historien et journaliste". He holds a PhD in History and is currently employed in one of Greece's leading research centres, as one can see in its his scientific/academic profile in the centre's website.

It is also false that "while Sjoberg reports his view, he does not endorse them". He clearly writes in p. 47 of his monograph The Making of the Greek Genocide that Dr Kostopoulos "has demostrated" that the figure of supposedly 350,000 deaths in the Pontus area is a forgery of Pontic Greek journalist Valavanis.

Other than Dr Kostopoulos being a historian and a journalist and his view being endorsed by Sjoberg, it is widely known to all those familiar with contemporary Greek historical writing that the mainstream position among members of the community of Greek historians is that labelling the events dealt with in this article as a "genocide" is wrong from a historical point of view. This assessment of the field can be found in books, such as Sjoberg's Making of the Greek Genocide (2017), p. 4 ("[...] despite the predictable Turkish efforts to discredit it, Greek mainstream historians, educators and influential commentators oppose this claim as founded upon "ahistorical and anti-scientific opinion"."), or the abstract of a paper Sjoberg read in 2015 (see here: "Though the Greek state recognizes two instances of genocide against Greeks of Ottoman Anatolia, the claim is mostly advanced by non-state actors, and has in the early 21st century become the object of fierce controversy in the "culture wars" of Greece, as mainstream historians and debaters dismiss it as a politically distorted memory.") or scholarly reviews in scientific historical journals (see here Alexander Kitroeff reviewing The Genocide of the Ottoman Greeks in the Historical Review vol. 11 (2014), 201-2 :"those disputing the usefulness of the term genocide belon[g] to to the mainstream of the historical profession in Greece"). To dismiss this mainstream historiographical position as supposed "WP:FRINGE" is actually an egregious case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Ashmedai 119 (talk) 19:25, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

The only thing that Sjoberg says Kostopoulos has "demonstrated" on p. 47 is that Valavanis added 50,000 to the death total: as the journalist Tasos Kostopoulos has demonstrated, Valavanis had reached this figure by simply adding a rough estimate of 500,000 "neo-martyrs" to the figure 303,238..., and not the figure of 100,000-150,000. Regarding the figure of 100,000-150,000 dead, all Sjoberg says is that this is Kostopoulos' own figure, and does not endorse it: Kostopoulos' own estimate of dead is considerably lower; between 100,000 and 150,000. That is not an endorsement; Sjoberg is decidedly neutral. You surely also noticed the part where he described Kostopoulos as a "journalist" and not a "historian"? If he considered Kostopoulos a historian, he would have described him as such. Regarding Sjoberg's own views on the number of casualties, on page 234, he seems to endorse the cautious assessments ranging between 300,000 to 700,000. Those seem to be the figures that Sjoberg is endorsing (given his description of these figures as "cautious"). As for Kostopoulos himself, having a Ph.D. does not automatically absolve one from WP:FRINGE. Kostopoulos' main activity seems to be a journalist for the fringe far left "Efymerida ton Syntakton" (https://www.efsyn.gr/), where he writes numerous fringe articles in which among other things, he compares the current center-right Greek government to the Greek Junta [9], describes the Greek War of Independence as "200 years of Orthodox Jihad" [10], or writes in support of the release of convicted far left terrorist Dimitris Koufontinas [11]. But this aside, what really makes Kostopoulos WP:FRINGE is that his figure of 100,000-150,000 dead is contradicted by all scholarship on the issue, which is the very definition of WP:FRINGE. I do agree with you that we have a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, just not quite the way you imagine. We may also have WP:CIR or intellectual honesty issues, not sure which is worse. Khirurg (talk) 22:06, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

This has already been discussed numerous times. I agree with what Deji Olajide1999 and Khirurg wrote. Furthermore, historians who specialize, and are renowned for their scholarship on genocide, such as Samuel Totten and Paul R. Bartrop, do call it a "genocide", and include it as an entry in their book "Dictionary of Genocide" (not currently cited in the article, but i am including it); they also support the 353,000 estimation of deaths, emphasizing that it is the Turkish governments which have systematically denied that a Pontic genocide ever occurred (in parallel with the Armenian genocide). Also, Travis (2009), whose work is cited in the article four times (but only as a reference on the origin of Pontic Greeks), also calls it a genocide, and even adds that the widespread attacks by the successive governments of Turkey, on the homes, places of worship, and heritage of minority communities since the 1930s, constitute cultural genocide as well; from the "Conclusion" in his chapter "The Destruction of Indigenous Peoples' Cultural and Intellectual Property in Turkey and Iraq":

• The indigenous Assyrians, Greeks, and Armenians of Iraq and Turkey have had their communal integrity and intellectual heritage shattered by the genocide of World War I and its aftermath, and along with the Yezidis, Mandaeans, and Jews, by smaller-scale and sometimes more subtle but nevertheless destructive pogroms and assimilatory policies since then. The Ottoman and Kemalist Nationalist massacres of the Anatolian Armenians, Assyrians, Greeks, and Yezidis, as well as of the Mesopotamian Assyrians and Yezidis, constituted genocide under the initial definition and international criminal application of the term. The widespread attacks by successive governments of Iraq and Turkey on the homes, places of worship, and heritage of minority communities since the 1930s have amounted to cultural genocide, as defined by the framers of the Genocide Convention. Cultural genocide occurs when a government takes “[a]ny action which has the aim or effect of depriving [indigenous peoples] of their integrity as distinct peoples, or of their cultural values or ethnic identities,” or “[a]ny form of assimilation or integration by other cultures or ways of life imposed on them by legislative, administrative, or other measures.” Although cultural genocide not accompanied by physical measures against group members was not made a separate crime by the Genocide Convention, Raphael Lemkin working as a consultant to the U.N. Secretary General on the drafting of the Genocide Convention urged that it include “systematically destroying historical or religious monuments.” The U.N. General Assembly voted against making cultural genocide a separate crime because its members believed that “culture was already covered to a large extent by the word ‘religious’” in the Genocide Convention. Thus, one U.S. court referred in 2006 to “cultural genocide” as a wrongful policy. Massacres, extrajudicial executions, assaults, and seizure without compensation and on ethnic or religious grounds of cities, villages, places of worship, schools, homes, businesses, and personal effects also constitute the crimes against humanity of murder, persecution, extermination, and looting..

I am including him as well. Last, regarding the Greek mainstream historians, neither Sjöberg nor Kitroeff refer to all of them; if that was the case, which it isn't, it would be WP:EXTRAORDINARY and would require many more reliable sources.

Sjöberg doesn't refer to all, but some. Unless you think that his reference to Greek educators (teachers) and influential commentators also pertains to all:

• Meanwhile, despite the predictable Turkish efforts to discredit it, Greek mainstream historians, educators and influential commentators oppose this claim as founded upon "ahistorical and anti-scientific opinion".

Furthermore, i find it interesting that Sjöberg bases this claim on a 2001 article written by journalist Nikos Filis (a famous genocide denier in Greece) in the politically-left newspaper I Avgi, and even quotes him. Even though i haven't read the newspaper article, a personal view of a biased journalist from 2001, even if indeed valid, is not necessarily true for 2021 (regardless of the fact that it is being reproduced in Sjöberg's 2017 publication); just something to think about.

Kitroeff speaks of an institutional split among Greek historians (not them as a whole); with the ones who dispute it belonging to (he means being counted among) the mainstream of the historical profession in Greece:

• There is also an institutional split, with those disputing the usefulness of the term genocide belonging to the mainstream of the historical profession in Greece.

Though, Kitroeff that was cited to support this claim, continues in the very following sentences with the following:

• As its title suggests, this volume falls clearly on the side of those who wish to affirm that genocide was committed against the Greeks of the Ottoman Empire between 1912 and 1922. The publisher, Aristide Caratzas, summarizes the purpose of this book in a prefatory note: “The efforts to eliminate the Greeks, the Armenians and the Assyrians, peoples whose biological presence in that geographic space goes back millennia before recorded history, are integral to the process that led to the creation of what became the modern Turkish Republic. The predatory methods used, and indeed what may be called a policy of effective physical elimination of populations, as well as of the cultural traces of their presence in areas they inhabited, bespeak of planning at the highest levels of government and its systematic implementation.” Further on he adds, “Greek scholars, with some significant exceptions, have been less active in researching the subject of the violent elimination of the Greek presence in Asia Minor and eastern Thrace, which spanned three millennia. The avoidance of the subject of the genocide by many mainline academics in Greece is a convergence of factors, which range from governmental reticence to criticize Turkey to spilling over into the academic world, to ideological currents promoting a diffuse internationalism cultivated by a network of NGOs, often supported by western governments and western interests.” Then he concludes: “This volume represents a kind of scholarly opening statement to an international audience on the subject of the extermination or expulsion of Ottoman Greeks, as part of the genocide of the Christians of Asia Minor.” (pp. ix-x) Thus, this book has a dual purpose, to present information that highlights the extent of the massacres suffered by the Greeks, and to argue that the massacres qualify as a genocide and, also, to implicitly criticize those who do not agree with this perspective.

I am including this as well in the article. Demetrios1993 (talk) 07:05, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

I see that as i was editing the article, Pincrete removed the claim pertaining to Greek mainstream historians. Personally i have no problem removing the claim until consensus is reached in the talk page. Demetrios1993 (talk) 07:11, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

If you give me 5 or even 10 scholars who acknowledge the "Pontic genocide" out of hundreds or thousands of historians who have studied the subject, that does not mean that it is generally accepted. Again, most sources describing the Ottoman Empire's involvement in World War I and the Turkish War of Independence describe the Armenian (and Assyrian) genocide, but almost all do not mention the "Pontic genocide". Neither Patrick Kinross, Rudolf Rummel, Reynolds, Eugene Rogan, nor Taner Akcam even use this phrase in their works. Most authoritative sources describe the Greek/Pontic Greek exodus not as genocide, but as an population exchange. The handful of researchers who define it as "genocide" are not well known and constitute only a marginal minority in the academic discussion whose opinions you push into the article. Also, you have answered nothing to the fact that there is no serious international organization has recognized this "genocide". Stop baselessly trying to prove the so-called "Pontic genocide" by equating it with the Armenian genocide. The second is recognized by most scholars and several international organizations, is a big part of today's politics and diplomacy and is very popular, the first - I have already written about it before... Demo66top (talk) 08:35, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Now let's move on from the term "genocide" to the number 353,000. As far as I know, Tassos Kostopoulos has a history degree, plus he has written many books on Greek history that have been published by various publishers. We have at least 2 authoritative sources directly stating that the number 353,000 is inflated (Kostopoulos and Sjoberg), which is enough to at least add their opinion to the article, so as not to give the impression of "the only true number 353,000". One of them (Kostopoulos) gave his estimate of 100,000-150,000 and I would like to see it in the article too. Recently I found a Greek site (https://greekreporter.com/2021/05/19/greek-genocide-pontus-asia-minor/) suggesting 200,000 and saying that 350,000 IS SUPPORTED ONLY BY SOME HISTORIANS ("By the time of the Asia Minor Catastrophe of 1922, the number of Pontians who died had exceeded 200,000; some historians put the figure at 350,000"). Also you have never proved that McCarthy's opinion cannot be used in the article, so his 65,000 can be included too. It has never been commented that the Greek source gives the number of 400,000 Pontic refugees in Greece, and given the population of 700,000 before the events (according to Sotiriadis 450,000), the large number of refugees in the USSR, it is obvious that based on this source the number of deaths is clearly under 300,000, which clearly contradicts the number of 353,000. Also keep in mind that Rudolf Rummel gives a number of 347,000 for all Ottoman Greeks in 1914-1922, which contradicts the number of 353,000 for one Pontus. Thus, we have 2 authoritative sources directly pointing to the incorrectness of the number 353,000 and 2 indirectly. Add to all this McCarthy and the Greek site and you get an inconvenient truth. Again, most historians who give an estimate of 350,000-360,000 refer to either Valаvanis or other historians who refer to him. Moreover, it has been proven that its 353,000 is nothing more than a beautifully forged fake. Demo66top (talk) 09:14, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

hundreds of thousands of historians who have studied the subject?? Give me a break. You're not doing your credibility favors with wild exaggerations like that. Rather, it shows someone with WP:TRUTH, WP:BATTLE, WP:AXE, and WP:TEND issues.

but almost all do not mention the "Pontic genocide"? Who is "almost all" How do you know they are "almost all"? This kind of statement needs to be sourced. Do you have a source that it's "almost all"? Incidentally, the views of Akcam and others that do not consider it a genocide are already in the article. If you are calling for the removal of the views that it was genocide, that is a complete non starter. And it seems you are dropping names without reading your sources, because Rummel for example does consider it genocide (see, he included the Greeks of Anatolia in a book about genocide. See how that works?).

The handful of researchers who define it as "genocide" are not well known and constitute only a marginal minority More wild unsubstantiated exaggerations, possibly also violating WP:BLP (yes, WP:BLP applies to talkpages too).

Also, you have answered nothing to the fact that there is no serious international organization has recognized this "genocide" Perhaps you haven't heard of the International Association of Genocide Scholars? Perhaps you haven't read the article, since the IAGS is mentioned in the article?

Tassos Kostopoulos has a history degree that's not the issue, the issue is that this figure is contradicted by all other scholarship on the subject, even by those who do not necessarily consider these events a genocide. Kostopoulos' view is a fringe view, in fact the very definition of WP:FRINGE.

We have at least 2 authoritative sources directly stating that the number 353,000 is inflated (Kostopoulos and Sjoberg). Sjöberg does not say the figures are inlated, and does not endorse Kostpoulos' figures. In fact in his book he refers to "the cautious estimates of 300,000 to 700,000 dead" on p. 234. Again, it would help your credibility if you actually read the sources you mention, instead of wild rants on the talkpage.

suggesting 200,000 and saying that 350,000 IS SUPPORTED ONLY BY SOME HISTORIANS Shouting in ALLCAPS aside, it's pretty funny you took "some historians say 350,000" to mean "only some historians say 350,000". Nice try, but no dice. Greek Reporter is new website, and not a scholarly source anyway.

It has never been commented that the Greek source gives the number of 400,000 Pontic refugees in Greece, and given the population of 700,000 before the events (according to Sotiriadis 450,000), the large number of refugees in the USSR, it is obvious that based on this source the number of deaths is clearly under 300,000 No WP:OR "mathematical calculations" please. We've been over this.

Again, most historians who give an estimate of 350,000-360,000 refer to either Valаvanis or other historians who refer to him. More wild unsupported exaggerations.

Moreover, it has been proven that its 353,000 is nothing more than a beautifully forged fake. This has got to be the cherry on the cake. Using colorful language doesn't make wild unsupported exaggerations true.

You also completely ignored everything Demetrios wrote above, and all the sources he gave, in what amounts to a whopping case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Unfortunately, all of the above seems to point to a strong case of WP:BATTLE, WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, WP:AXE, WP:TEND and so forth. It is impossible to reach any kind of consensus with this type of behavior, and we already deep into WP:DIS as a result. Khirurg (talk) 13:43, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

I advise you to read your opponent's words more carefully during the discussion. This will not only facilitate discussion, but is also a show of respect. I did not write about hundreds OF thousands of historians, but about hundreds OR thousands of historians. This is the first and simplest case when you don't read my comment carefully. Further, in general, tin. We are talking about the "Pontic genocide", damn it, about PONTUS, and not about the entire territory of the empire where the Greeks lived. Rummel never even once mentioned the phrase "Pontic genocide" or analyzed it in any of his most famous books. Moreover, he gives an estimate of 347,000 for all Ottoman Greeks that you wanted to roll back, because this number is very uncomfortable for you, including because it completely contradicts the number 353,000 for the Pontic Greeks alone. "More wild unsubstantiated exaggerations, possibly also violating WP: BLP (yes, WP: BLP applies to talkpages too)." - please argue. In fact, what I wrote is true (maybe a little exaggerated, but still true), and you have not given any explanation for your conclusion about my words. Now about the International Association of Genocide Researchers. I am familiar with the article quite well, otherwise I would not have started the discussion. You misunderstand her conclusion. As far as I know, the association really came to the conclusion that there was a genocide of Armenians, Greeks and Assyrians. However, we are not talking about all Ottoman Greeks, but about Pontic ones. And then it turns out that the association did not recognize any "Pontic genocide". Now it will be even more interesting. You accuse me of not carefully reading the sources, but you are not reading carefully what I am writing. I did not say that Sjöberg agreed with Kostopoulos on the estimate of 100,000-150,000. But at least he supports him in the sense that the number 353,000 given by Valavanis is overstated: But Greek journalist Thassos Kostopoulos HAS DEMONSTRATED that... "Greek Reporter is new website, and not a scholarly source anyway." - okay, the only thing I agree with from what you've written. I didn't ignore what Demetrios wrote. I analyzed his sources and came to the conclusion that 2 of them talk about genocide, but do not talk about 353, 2 - on the contrary, and 1 - neither about one nor the other. But I gave 5 sources, of which 4 are indisputably authoritative and McCarthy, which contradict the number 353,000. And of the authoritative and neutral historians who studied the subject, the "Pontic genocide", I repeat, recognized up to 10, and the rest, who form the overwhelming majority, are completely silent about it. Demo66top (talk) 15:00, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

The International Association of Genocide Scholars explicitly stated the following (here is the rest):

• The resolution passed with the support of over eighty percent of IAGS members who voted. The resolution (full text below) declares that "it is the conviction of the International Association of Genocide Scholars that the Ottoman campaign against Christian minorities of the Empire between 1914 and 1923 constituted a genocide against Armenians, Assyrians, and Pontian and Anatolian Greeks." It "calls upon the government of Turkey to acknowledge the genocides against these populations, to issue a formal apology, and to take prompt and meaningful steps toward restitution."

By the way, it isn't difficult to find additional sources. Also, note that the genocide of the Pontian Greeks, is just one branch of the broader Greek genocide, so it is natural that some sources won't address it directly as a Pontic genocide, but under the broader term Greek genocide; hence why we have the same article addressing the subject. Demetrios1993 (talk) 07:06, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

The reference that you gave is not working. However, finding the conclusion of association independently, I have to agree that it confessed a genocide both: against Pontic and Anatolian Greeks. But most organizations "Pontic genocide" do not acknowledge. Neither the UN, nor Council of Europe, nor European parliament, nor Genocide Studies Program, nor Genocide Watch (despite all the delusional interpretation of events, namely about the 1 million lost Greeks and that Mustafa Kemal is one of main guilty - that is one-sided Greek propaganda, the "Greek", but not "Pontic" genocide acknowledges only), nor In Support of the Legal Determination of Genocide, nor Institute for the Study of Genocide do not recognize "Pontic genocide". Obviously, that one International Association of Genocide Scholars is simply nothing as compared to all of them. As well as about ten of historians confirmative him, against other hundreds that studied subjects and mentioned no "Pontic genocide" in their works. Demo66top (talk) 09:12, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Neither the UN, nor Council of Europe, nor European parliament, nor Genocide Studies Program, nor Genocide Watch. So the Swedish Parliament isn't reliable but the European Parliament is? Nevertheless, the European Parliament HAS recognized the Pontic genocide [12]. On the other hand, the rest of the entities that you mentioned haven't recognized the Greek genocide (as a whole) at all, so there's no point in having a discussion about them. See [13] for countries that have recognized the genocide either as Pontic, Greek, Anatolian, etc etc. Deji Olajide1999 (talk) 15:55, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

I've stayed out of this up till now, since I don't have access to the sources or know them as well as others but my understanding has always been that the Pontic genocide, was simply one aspect of the broader Greek genocide. Am I wrong? If I am not, then saying that some scholars/governments don't mention the Pontic genocide is like saying the Holocaust didn't happen in Holland because some scholars don't mention a distinct 'Netherlands genocide'. Not everyone breaks matters down in the same way. My understanding has also always been that some scholars treat all the anti-Christian genocides in Ottoman lands (inc Armenian, Assyrian and Greek) as one event. Am I wrong? What is actually being argued here? Pincrete (talk) 16:58, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

"On the other hand, the rest of the entities that you mentioned haven't recognized the Greek genocide (as a whole) at all, so there's no point in having a discussion about them" - why? If the organization recognized the "Pontic genocide", then it recognized it, if not, then no. And here it is no longer important whether she recognized the "Greek genocide" as a whole. By the way, you were wrong about the fact that none of them recognized the "Greek genocide". Genocide Watch, as I wrote, acknowledged. However, it did not recognize the "Pontic genocide". Demo66top (talk) 17:01, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Now I’ll answer the Pincrete member. Yes, the "Pontic genocide" is part of the "Greek genocide". But the recognition of the first does not mean the recognition of the second and vice versa, because there are two different things. If the preamble says "including Pontic genocide", then the "Pontic genocide" should be recognized by the world community as, for example, the Armenian genocide or the Holocaust. However, most historians and international organizations that have studied the subject do not recognize him. Therefore, at least it should not be in the preamble, so as not to create a false preference in the reader, giving the view of a small minority. Next is the dispute over the number 353,000. Demo66top (talk) 17:13, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

But the Armenian genocide is not part of the holocaust! So of course they need seperate recognition, the Pontic genocide IS part of the Gk genocide. The equivalent argument is saying that no Holocaust happened in Poland, because some, but not all sources treat the subject as a distinct sub-event of the broader Holocaust. It's purely semantic argument frankly. I cannot even see its relevance to the article, since we treat the Pontic events as being part of the bigger Gk event. Are you really arguing that some national and international bodies have recognised something that YOU say didn't happen, despite your acknowledging that it is part of the Gk genocide?Pincrete (talk) 17:41, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Again, the "Pontic genocide" is a reference to the subevents of the broader "Greek genocide", which occurred in Pontus or in relation to Pontic Greeks. Having it in the lede in the form of The Greek genocide (...), including the Pontic genocide, was the ... is nothing out of the ordinary, considering that a number of authors make the distinction; even the International Association of Genocide Scholars cited above, does. But i believe a slight rewording would be ideal, namely to change the "including" to "which includes". By the way, the reason the link didn't work for you, is probably due to your internet connection, which might also be the reason that each time you post in the talk page, a number of duplicate comments are being published; you should have a look at that. As for the number of ~350,000 deaths, there is not really any notable dispute. We have one author who disputes the estimate, and since this subject is highly charged and politicized, more reliable sources endorsing this isolated view, would be required for its inclusion in my opinion, per WP:UNDUE and WP:VNOT. This very subject has already been discussed in the past and consensus wasn't reached; it's not something new. Demetrios1993 (talk) 05:08, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

And I didn’t claim that the Armenian genocide was part of the Holocaust! I wrote that in order for this phrase to be used in the preamble, it is necessary that most historians recognize the "Pontic genocide" (just as most historians recognized the Armenian genocide and the Holocaust). We are arguing about the degree of recognition of the "Pontic genocide" and, accordingly, whether it should be used in the preamble. "Are you really arguing that some national and international bodies have recognized something that YOU say didn't happen, despite your acknowledging that it is part of the Gk genocide?" - you yourself said why I do it. Only SOME national and international organizations recognized him as well as SOME historians who are an overwhelming minority. By the way, I do not deny that deportations and persecutions took place on Pontus. But I do not recognize this as genocide and will never recognize it, like most of the historical society. I am strongly opposed to overstating the numbers (the 353,000 dispute) and the manipulation of terms (the genocide dispute). Demo66top (talk) 05:48, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

"We have one author who disputes the estimate, ..." - are you serious? Can't you count? Or just inattentively reading? Kostopoulos, Sjöberg, Rummel and McCarthy are by no means one author. Demo66top (talk) 05:59, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

I found a Greek source that preferred the number 200,000: An Introduction to Pontic Greek History by Sam Topalidis (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333667150_An_Introduction_to_Pontic_Greek_History), page 1 ("Pontic Greek associations have been lobbying governments worldwide to have the deaths of over 200,000 Pontic Greeks (Note 1.3) in the Ottoman empire in the early 20th century, recognized as genocide."). Demo66top (talk) 08:43, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

I meant to write "one author who strongly disputes". Anyway, in my very first comment above i wrote that i agree with what Deji Olajide1999 and Khirurg wrote, which included their criticism on WP:OR (especially WP:SYNTH) from your part. We are repeating ourselves. Kostopoulos is the one i referred to, in terms of strongly disputing the conventional estimation of deaths in Pontus. Sjöberg doesn't adopt Kostopoulos' view of 100,000-150,000 deaths, as you originally wrote in the first and second comment, and then you retracted (per Khirurg's observation) by saying that Sjöberg agreed with Valavanis' figure simply being overstated, because he added an additional 50,000 "neo-martyrs" per the data he had in his hands. So no, Sjöberg doesn't adopt Kostopoulos' position in terms of estimates; if anything he seems to agree with Valavanis' 303,238 figure (namely prior of the addition of 50,000 "neo-martyrs"). This position is already included in the article, since it says:

• According to various sources the Greek death toll in the Pontus region of Anatolia ranges from 300,000 to 360,000.

So please, don't cite Sjöberg again in order to reinforce Kostopoulos' 100,000-150,000 figure.

What about Rudolph Rummel? You falsified him as well, when you wrote in regards to the total number of casualties for the Greek genocide:

• This is more or less consistent with the estimates of Rummel, not a pro-Turkish scientist. That is, the total number of deaths (not 300,000-900,000, but 200,000-300,000) is less than 350,000.
• Also keep in mind that Rudolf Rummel gives a number of 347,000 for all Ottoman Greeks in 1914-1922

In reality, Rummel estimates that 384,000 Greeks were exterminated by the Ottomans during the period 1914-1918, while an additional 264,000 Greeks by the Turkish nationalists during 1920-1922; no estimate for 1918-1920 (source; last three lines). This gives us an estimate of at least 648,000 for the total number of casualties. Does he give any estimate of Pontian casualties exclusively? If not, you cannot say he disputes the 300,000-350,000 figure, because it clearly fits within his broader estimate. In fact, the only quote of Rummel i am aware of, in relation to Pontus, is this following:

• In Trebizond (or Trabzond) province, the Pontic Greeks were "savagely persecuted ... until the community was virtually wiped out."⁷¹ (source)

Now it would be extremely interesting if reference 71 pertained to Valavanis, but unfortunately i don't have access to the full book.

As for Justin McCarthy, i haven't checked what exactly he writes, but then again, there is probably a reason he isn't cited anywhere in the article, and might have something to do with what his respective article says (something that was also addressed above by Deji Olajide1999):

• McCarthy's work has faced harsh criticism by many scholars who have characterized McCarthy's views defending Turkish atrocities against Armenians as genocide denial.^[6][7][8][9] Hans-Lukas Kieser considers that McCarthy has "an indefensible bias toward the Turkish official position".^[10]

Now, on your new source. I don't know what kind of credentials Sam Topalidis has and whether he has received any recognition, in order for him to be considered a reliable source, but on page 9 he says the following:

During 1916–23 at least 200,000 Pontic Greeks died in the genocide. ... We will never know the real number of Pontic Greeks who fell victim to the genocide during 1916–23.

Doesn't look like much of a dispute to me. Also, take note that this estimate doesn't account for the years 1914, 1915, and 1924, which are included in Valavanis' ~303,000-353,000 estimation. Demetrios1993 (talk) 11:01, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

"if anything he seems to agree with Valavanis' 303,238 figure (namely prior of the addition of 50,000" neo-martyrs ")." - you are wrong. Sjöberg does not support 303,000 (until May 1922) Valvanis as well as 100,000-150,000 Kostopoulos. He personally does not comment on either assessment in any way. The only thing he maintains is that 353,000 is overpriced. Now about Rummel. 648,000 is a gross falsification. I proved my point in the discussion and rightly removed it. Rudolph gives the number 347,000 in his book, which can be seen both in the text and in the tables. If you still disagree with this, head over to the talk page discussing Rummel's assessment and write your arguments. I don't know where Rummel got his nonsense about Trabzon. In fact, more than 100,000 Greeks from the Trabzon region moved to Greece through a population exchange in 1923 (source: Baum, Wilhelm (2006). The Christian minorities in Turkey. Kitab. P. 162. ISBN 978-3-902005-62), which in no way matches the words "virtually wiped out". About McCarthy - I agree that he is pro-Turkish, but so what? This does not mean that it cannot be used in the article. For example, the pro-democratic Rummel, who very often overestimates the number of deaths from nationalist and communist governments and has been criticized more than once for this, is used in the article. Just from 1916, the Young Turks began organized repressions against the Pontians. Of course, some killings took place in 1914-1915 (as, for example, 7 thousand Armenians killed in 1914 before the genocide of 1915), but they suffered a very low number of people (less than Armenians, that is, less than 7 thousand). All Pontic Greeks were evicted in 1923, so how could they have been killed in 1924? And over 200,000 is 205,000, 212,000, 220,000, but not 300,000 or 350,000. Demo66top (talk) 14:00, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Sure, Sjöberg doesn't explicitly adopt any estimation, but he indirectly kind of does, when prior of mentioning Kostopoulos' reference to a 50,000 ovestimation by Valavanis, he wrote the following:

In 1925, a total of 353,000 Greek casualties in Pontos was established by the refugee scholar Georgios Valavanis.

The only criticism on this number he seems to agree with, is the addition of 50,000 "neo-martyrs" (out of which some surely must have died, it just wasn't ultimately verified according to Kostopoulos).

I don't care what your own opinion of Rummel's estimation is. This is what the sources say, that you initially misunderstood; his real estimates are at least (not including 1918-1920) 648,000 for the total number of Greek civilian casualties.

You write the following:

(source: Baum, Wilhelm (2006). The Christian minorities in Turkey. Kitab. P. 162. ISBN 978-3-902005-62), which in no way matches the words "virtually wiped out".

Are you claiming that the aforementioned reference 71 in Rummel's text, is Baum (2006)? Because if you do, that is another mistake from your part. Rummel's "Death by Government" was published in 1994; years prior of Baum (2006), and 2006 is the original publication year. Thus it cannot be him as reference 71.

McCarthy has been harshly criticized by other scholars, not just as having a bias towards Turkey (we all have our biases after all), but as someone with "an indefensible bias toward the Turkish official position", and a genocide denier; more specifically he seems to fall under what the article describes as an illegitimate revisionist who tries to rewrite history in order to support a political agenda (read the Reactions section) using rhetorical fallacies to obtain his results. A controversial person such as him has no place in this article, until consensus is reached. Personally i disagree with his inclusion, and obviously a number of other editors do as well.

You try to explain the deaths of 1914, 1915, and 1924, but this falls, again, under WP:OR. You also, disregarded that Topalidis wrote "at least 200,000" (during 1916-23), and "We will never know the real number of Pontic Greeks who fell victim to the genocide during 1916–23.". In another book of his he cites Valavanis' 353,000 estimate as well.

You write:

All Pontic Greeks were evicted in 1923, so how could they have been killed in 1924?

Just because the population exchange between Greece and Turkey was signed in 1923, it doesn't mean that they were all instantly transported/exchanged; broadly speaking (not just pertaining to Pontic Greeks) it wasn't completed until approximately 1927. Demetrios1993 (talk) 06:50, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Included or involved the Pontic genocide?

Deji Olajide1999, during the above discussion, you changed 'include' to 'involve' in the lead sentence i.e. The Greek genocide … which includes/involved the Pontic genocide,. I meant to query this change at the time, but missed the chance to do so. I openly admit that I know very little about the topic and only 'watch' the article as a result of coming for an RfC a few years ago, BUT, I have to say that whilst I understand the use of 'include' - meaning that the Pontic genocide was a big part of, but not the whole story of the Greek genocide - I don't even really understand what 'involve' means in this context. I wonder if it is the right term. Pincrete (talk) 05:36, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

I do remember this change, since it came after i had reworded this part myself (diff). Indeed, "which involved the Pontic genocide" makes it look as if the "Greek genocide" was a chapter of the "Pontic genocide", while the opposite is true; the latter was a chapter of the former. Demetrios1993 (talk) 15:39, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

I honestly don't remember why I changed it. I think it sounded better to me when I made the edit, however I've changed my mind since then. My bad, I'm sorry. Deji Olajide1999 (talk) 16:08, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

" Justin McCarthy has been widely criticized for being a pro-Turkish genocide denier [14]. 4) “given by me”. Wikipedia isn't based on WP:OR,"

Please provide some reliable sources on this. Is he pro-Turkish? Why would he be? Is he Turkish? Who is "Genocide Denier"? Who is responsible to define events as "Genocide"? Please check https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perin%C3%A7ek_v._Switzerland

Please check court verdict:

"The Grand Chamber also made clear that the court was not required to determine whether the massacres and mass deportations suffered by the Armenian people at the hands of the Ottoman Empire from 1915 onwards can be characterised as genocide within the meaning of that term under international law"

There is no international law on this matter.

Finally, is it all about "anti-turkism"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.123.129.20 (talk) 09:36, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 December 2021

The article specifically names Atatürk as a perpetrator. However, historically and factually, the Turks were fighting a war of independence against the Greeks and other European opportunists from 1919-1923. I suggest removing his name considering he is the one who ended the genocide with the population exchange. The Greek Genocide was an Ottoman nationalist regime, not Turkish Republic. 2600:100F:B02A:21CE:8DD3:7FD1:A387:D8A7 (talk) 15:28, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:12, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Table figures

The current table figures are fine and representative about Anatolia, however the figures from Eastern Thrace & Istanbul should be added in order to provide a full picture.Alexikoua (talk) 21:00, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Edit Request 2023

The academic discussion section contains the following statement: "These horrendous acts were committed by three entirely different regimes:"

Now, I get it, mass murder is immoral and I would not argue against this, but I think describing these events as "horrendous" violates Wikipedia's objectivity policy. I propose removing the word "horrendous" but not changing anything about the rest of the sentence. Arhanman (talk) 18:23, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Arhanman, it's actually a quote, so we can't alter it. BUT, it's an overlong quote and so should probably be paraphrased and pruned down to a reasonable length. Apart from anything else, an overlong quote risks violating the authors' copyright. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pincrete (talk • contribs) 06:44, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Seeing that the sentence I proposed to change is a quote but an overly long one, I propose removing the parts: "It's deeper because it isn't just about World War I, but about a series of homicidal ethno-religious cleansings that took place from the late 1890s to the 1920s and beyond. It is wider because" and "of starvation and sickness, and millions of others were deported and lost everything. In addition, tens of thousands of Christians were forced to convert, and many thousands of girls and women were raped by their Muslim neighbors and the security forces. The Turks even set up markets where Christian girls were sold as sex slaves." for the sake of brevity. The first part goes on to explain why the situation is "deeper than the Armenian genocide" (which I think is unneccessary to include) and the second part goes on to detail about the "horrendous acts" that were committed by the Ottomans and probably also should not be included. Arhanman (talk) 20:10, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Arhanman any neutral, factual paraphrasing of that long quote - even retaining some short quotes if helpful, and some comparisons if useful, - would fix the problem. Have a go. There's nothing inherently wrong with 'graphic' language in moderation, as long as it is clear that it is the source - not us - that has used it.Pincrete (talk) 07:30, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

This is not part of the original quote, but a translation of a Hebrew text, by whoever added the content. I went ahead and replaced it with the respective text from the English version of the Hebrew article, which was published about a week later; it uses "atrocities" instead of "horrendous acts". Demetrios1993 (talk) 03:47, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Another page based on hatred and political propaganda?

"It was perpetrated by the government of the Ottoman Empire led by the Three Pashas and by the Government of the Grand National Assembly led by Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, against the indigenous Greek population of the Empire. " so your only source is one greek source to involve Ataturk into this? resentful national feelings towards outcome of the Turkish-Greek war during Turkish liberation? I know that writing history objectively is very difficult. However whenever i come across this type of hate propaganda or any other form of political religious agenda which divides nations and people even more i get seriously disappointed into Wikipedia. 2A01:E0A:C19:D150:E598:3B76:A591:F6F6 (talk) 16:59, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

@2A01:E0A:C19:D150:E598:3B76:A591:F6F6 Turkey is isolated country and many Turcs are brainwashed by the government with Turkish nationalism like Greeks are brainwashed by their own government with Greek nationalism. Only reason you are not having serious problems in this page is that Turcs cannot speak English. It is shameful to feed on two nation's pain in close history and hatred. Ataturk was a great leader with modern ideas, vision and world peace, equality in mind. You don't only trick the world to take your subjective point of view when you write things like that, you also divide people even more and contribute into continuation of this quarrel. I felt like i should have elaborated what i meant by hatred and political agendas. 2A01:E0A:C19:D150:E598:3B76:A591:F6F6 (talk) 17:12, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of Kitroeff's views

The historian, Alexander Kitroeff, is cited as supporting the contention that the events in question constituted genocide ("The historians Samuel Totten and Paul R. Bartrop, who specialize on the history of genocides, also call it a genocide; so is Alexander Kitroeff.") The footnote appears to quote him. But in fact it quotes a historian he is quoting in his extremely balanced and nuanced book review, in which he concludes that "Beyond what it achieves, this volume does not neutralize the concerns raised by those who believe the term genocide is not appropriate." 134.173.80.215 (talk) 23:18, 3 April 2024 (UTC)