Talk:Greek genocide/Archive 2

For crying out loud!

To everyone removing the dispute tags: please stop. No one has a right to put words in someone else's mouth and determine whether they dispute this article or not. The tag will be removed once the problems outlined are resolved. Remember that just because you may not see anything wrong with this page, not everyone thinks that way. Thank you. —Khoikhoi 22:55, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Everything in this article is true. There are many sources that justify that. I don't care if someone disputes it. It's like disputing the fact that the sea is blue. Mitsos 12:52, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

From your point of view: yes, but not from everyone elses. Tell me Mitsos, if I created an article about the Turkish Cypriot Genocide, backed it up with sources, would you dispute it? What if I told you it was all true, and that there is no way you can dispute it? What if I kept removing the little dispute tag of yours because I have a right to think for others? —Khoikhoi 14:38, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, this article can't remain tagged forever... either the users who dispute something in it will talk/mention/ask citation for it, or the tags will be removed. if it was so easy, i would say 'i dispute' hundrends of articles and let them tagged forever! BTW, why such a redirect (Turkish Cypriot Genocide) exists? who calls these events genocide and by whom it is recognised as such? also, who could call a genocide the death of 200-250 people within 12 years?! (this way, each time an american/canadian schoolboy (in order to be up to date...) opens fire in a school, we should be talking about Genocides! shouldn't that redirect had been deleted long ago? Hectorian 16:11, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't know much about this Turkish Cypriot Genocide, but what I do know is that the Pontian Greek Genocide has more recognition than the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. So, when we move Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus to Turkish Occupied Cyprus, then we can also rename Pontian Greek Genocide. --Telex 16:26, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

...and imagine: there is not even a redirect for Turkish Occupied Cyprus... as if all the countries in the world (apart from Turkey) do not recognise it as such... Hectorian 17:06, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, the TRNC article exists because it is an entity, a reality, a de-facto state which is known to exist regardless of international recognition. You can physically walk into the TRNC if you dont believe me. The same goes for Taiwan, Nagorno-Karabagh etc. What your doing is comparing chalk and cheese, your proposing and academic thesis, based on zero academic sources, bar biased and political ones.

I wouldn't say zero sources. Miskin did cite R. J. Rummel at the bottom of this section where he purportedly has a table called:

Turkey's Armenian and Greek Genocide

• Armenians killed: 2,108,000

• By Young Turks: 1,487,000
• By nationalists: 1,404,000

• Greeks killed: 347,000

• By Young Turks: 84,000
• By nationalists: 264,000

• Total killed: 2,449,000

Of course, I've never seen this book, so if you want further details, we should contact Miskin. --Telex 08:59, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I dont know why you believe this is a relevant source. Firstly it talks of Greek genocide (whatever that is), and not Pontian Genocide. His casualtiy figures group those by nationalists, and those by the Young Turks (which is 84,000 here, and not 350,000 as the article states). He has basically grouped all Greeks killed during the war as "Greek genocide", a term which is irrelevant to this article. --A.Garnet 10:08, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

As for Turkish Cypriot Genocide, it is a pov held by some TC's that GC's planned to annihilate the TC community, that is their pov. There are infact authors such as Harry Scott Gibbons Genocide Files which support that view. But it would still be an entirely minority pov, and i accept that because i was one of the people who agreed to move Turkish Cypriot Genocide to Civilian casualties and displacements during the Cyprus conflict. --A.Garnet 08:46, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

It's a really odd POV considering that the perpetrators had more casualties (and more became refugees) than the victims. --Telex 09:11, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

No. TC's suffered much higher fatalaties in the violence of the 60's, something the GC government loves to gloss over. Backed by at least 10,000 mainland Greek soldiers, the Cypriot government (which became entirely Greek by that time), with the help of George Grivas, attacked TC villages, took hostages and generally made life hell for TC's. It was only after 1974 when those same Greek soldiers had to face the Turkish army did their casualty figures become higher. Also, lets not talk about mass graves filled with TC's by EOKA-B... --A.Garnet 10:08, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

The article Civilian casualties and displacements during the Cyprus conflict says that the Cypriot government became entirely greek that time, since the TCs abandoned the parliament and all other institutions and that to this day, the seats reserved for the Turks are still empty in the Assembly of Republic of Cyprus. and btw, the TCs had prior to that more power than their numerical strength (30% instead of 18%-it doesn't seem democratic, does it?). in addition, 191 Turkish Cypriots are known to have been killed in 1963 and 1964. 209 Turkish Cypriots were reported as missing, this is not a genocide... and, i repeat, if it is NPOV to have a redirect like Turkish Cypriot Genocide. as for EOKA B, they committed atrocities, but were are the mass graves filled with TC's? u said that TRNC is an entity, that's why it has this title in the article, although it is internationally unrecognised. i say that an entity were 1/5 of its population is made up by turkish army, can have a redirect like Turkish Occupied Cyprus. and back to the topic, if u see the link that Cretanforever provided in the article, from the New York Times[1], u will see how much the fate of the Greeks in Pontus and Asia Minor was discussed that time and the casualties reported by reporters, journalists, diplomats, charity organizations, etc... Hectorian 11:20, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Ahem... I just moved my comment below, because it may have been lost in the sea of rhetoric up there... •NikoSilver• 12:02, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I moved that one for RFD (here). •NikoSilver• 10:00, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Hectorian you are ranting now, there are TC's who did leave the running of government, but there are also those who were prevented from returning, be it by threats or failures to gurantee their security. As for EOKA-B mass graves, yes they were all Turkish Cypriots. Back to this article, it really is insignificant how many people died, or your interpretations of whether those figures are genocide. If you told me 10 people died, but found overwhelming academic opinion which called it genocide, then it would have to be genocide. You have provided neither verifiable sources for the death toll, or for claims that it is genocide. --A.Garnet 14:36, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I meant that i have not seen EOKA B mass graves that would justify a possible 'genocide'. in fact, the numbers quoted in the respective article about TCs and GCs victims has not been challenged. so, any reference to other possible mass graves is out of question (unless sources are provided). anyway, about this article, a number over 300,000 and less than 400,000 is what most sources say. as a matter of fact, the article has sources and footnotes, so, i have not understood what exactly are we debating for. Hectorian 14:53, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Garnet's comment, above, on the relevancy of R.J. Rummel as a source, please note the following. 1. The Pontian Greeks were Greeks first and Pontians second. 2. Sometimes the genocide of all the Greeks of Asia Minor is referred to as the Greek or Hellenic Genocide. 3. The number of Greek victims cited in this article is a very conservative esimate. If you read Henry Morgenthau, he is stating that hundreds of thousands of Greeks were involved in deportations, labor battalions, massacres, etc. 4. The majority of the Genocide victims of the Greek population of Asia Monor were Pontian Greeks. 75% or more. 5. The term Nationalists, used by Rummel, refers to Nationalist Turks. Those who came into power with Kemal. 6. If you add 84,000 killed by the Young Turks from 1914 to 1918, and 264,000 by the Nationalist Turks from 1919 to 1923, you get 348,000. That is pretty close to 350,000. 7. Rummel and Morgenthau had no reason to falsify history. They were not Greek, and one of them not even Cristian (he was a Jew). Rummel is an international authority on Democide (Genocide committed by Government). Morgenthau the ambassador of a neutral country (USA) at the time of these events.Rizos01 15:20, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

"if I created an article about the Turkish Cypriot Genocide, backed it up with sources, would you dispute it? What if I told you it was all true, and that there is no way you can dispute it? What if I kept removing the little dispute tag of yours because I have a right to think for others?" if it was sourced I would have removed the tag myself. Mitsos 19:00, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I doubt that. —Khoikhoi 22:43, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

For KhoiKhoi: I recently provided references for all the missing citations, added approx. 15 sources under Bibliography, approx. 5 references under Notes, added Eyewitness Accounts and Reports, etc. At what point would you agree to remove the disputed tags? How many more references do we have to provide? Do any of these people who dispute this article take the time to read these sources/references? A good number of those who wrote the various books, reports, etc., about these events, are non-Greek and were in Turkey at that time. How much more impartial and credible can they be?Rizos01 06:00, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not really the one who disputes the article. Personally, I could only say for certain what happened if had been there. There are, however, people who do dispute this article and have stated their reasons already. I suggest you talk to them. BTW, the only reason I've been reverting Mitsos et al is because my reasons stated above. —Khoikhoi 05:47, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

"I doubt that." well let me explain to you. If there was a very well sourced article called Turkish Cypriot Genocide still I wouldn't believe that such thing existed, but I would have stopped puting the disputed tag. I would put a POV-title tag because I don't thing that what happened in Cyprus was a genocide (what the Turks did to Greeks in Cyprus later was a genocide but that's another thing). I cannot understand why turkish people have such a big problem with their history. I don't say that EOKA's mass graves didn't existed. EOKA did killed a lot of turkish cypriots. Why can't they recognise that the Pontian Greek Genocide existed???? Mitsos 08:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

These questions I cannot answer (you have to step back for a moment and be in someone else's shoes). Getting back to the main point however, dispute tags should never be removed while a dispute is going on. Period. —Khoikhoi 08:29, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

BTW Mitsos, have you seen this? The whole article is copied from "GreekMurders.net", but I bet there's someone right now going, "why can't the Greeks recognize history?" —Khoikhoi 08:43, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Come on, this was pure propaganda. The one who wrote this must go visit a museum with delacroix's paintings. Of course greekmurderers isn't a serious source. Also you said you are not the one who disputes the article. Why don't you let those who do dispute it to put the tag and talk with me? If don't don't dispute the article stop putting the tag. Mitsos 09:14, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok Mitsos, you are 100% correct. This article is not disputed by anyone on this planet nor will it ever be. It is backed up by state-of-the-art references, and therefore no one has a right to say, "I think this article is a bit POV..." or "I think this is wrong". They can't possibly, can they? —Khoikhoi 09:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Tag removal

I want to thank the disputing side, since their persistance motivated the supporting editors in making this article indisputable. It is backed up now with so many third-party sources, that the tags can be removed. Anyone with a different opinion, must provide equivalent third-party disputing sources. Again, thank you. •NikoSilver• 09:30, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

You dont understand do you Nikos, everything in this article is based on a Greek pov. That is why there is not one non-partisan text or source which uses the term Pontian Greek Genocide, that is why Greeks have written this article, why Greeks defend this article, why Greeks use Greek sources in this article, why only Greece recognises this event. No matter what you do here, under its current title, the article will always remain disputed and neutrality questioned. --A.Garnet 11:18, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Can u provide references from third party sources contradicting the current third party sources? Can u create a section, were u and other users will include the turkish POV? the article has more references and sources than most of related articles. it won't remain tagged forever. if will not be provided to support the disputed tags, i will assume they do not exist, and thus i will remove the tags. Hectorian 11:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

You people are like broken records. I have provided third party sources already. To save you searching here they are again:

• "It had already deported Greek civilians from the Anatolian shoreline into the interior (the Russians were doing much the same with Russian Jews in Tsarist Poland, the Habsburgs with their border Serbs). But these deportations were on a relatively small scale and do not appear to have been designed to end in their victims' deaths. What was to happen with the Armenians was of a different order." http://www.lrb.co.uk/v23/n03/mazo01_.html (by historian Mark Mazower)

• "Under these conditions, genocide of the Ottoman Greeks was simply not a viable option. Many however, were massacred by the Turks" Killing Trap

Let me make it clear, you have not provided any third party sources talking about Pontian Greek Genocide. You have taken bits of information here and there from various sources, and said "look this proves a Pontian Genocide happened". If you find me a third part academic source which says "yes Pontian Genocide happened", and prove it to be part of overwhelming academic opinion, then i will listen. But frankly this is never going to happen, so get used to the idea that is article has to be renamed. --A.Garnet 11:45, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

"everything in this article is based on a Greek pov" no, it's based on verifiable sources. "there is not one non-partisan text or source which uses the term Pontian Greek Genocide" wrong, have a look at the article's references, bibliography and links. "Greeks use Greek sources in this article" wrong again, there are many non-Greek sources. "only Greece recognises this event" South Carolina, New Jersey, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Florida and Massachusetts recognise the genocide. "No matter what you do here, under its current title, the article will always remain disputed and neutrality questioned." no, be sure it won't. Mitsos 11:49, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

For the time being, i'm simply too busy to take part in this nationalist merry-go-round, but when i have time i'm going to push for this article to be rewritten, and its title changed. --A.Garnet 11:56, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

...and we will be here to defend it. You can't keep the article hostage for ever. Adequate third-party sources have been provided, surely you have others that contradict it, but that doesn't mean that your incapability of illustrating the other side's arguments damns this article to title change or rewriting. Get used to it, or try to contribute in adding your info. Noone reverted you, or prevented you from adding it, and that's because it's already in, making the article well balanced. •NikoSilver• 12:34, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I assume if you are here to defend, then you perceive my contributions as an attack. This is the problem here, no one really cares about the quality of the article, only that you stake your claim that Turkey committed "yet another genocide", and defend it. It is because you defend such a minority and nationalist postition that this article will never approach anything near a worthy encylopedia article. It will always be a Greek 'cause', a nationalist article, created and defended by editors acting on nationalist impulses. --A.Garnet 12:53, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

It's not a minority and nationalist position it's a historical fact. The Pontian Genocide did happen and you 'll better admit it. Mitsos 13:01, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Just checked out your userpage, great, another "Greek white supremacist". --A.Garnet 13:29, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

A.Garnet: Mu. Your "contributions" are non existent. I only see article hostage by use of tags. Minority position? Please, check the refs! As per the "nationalistic" accusations, they could be reversed with "Turkophile", but that could be WP:NPA and I am not going to fall in your level! Your problem is that you ran out of sources for defending your minority (Personal attack removed) position, while you dispute the worthiness of the article because more of such sources are not included. Guess what: find them, and we'll include them; make your position that the article title is POV worthy, and you'll have a chance of tagging or renaming the article. Otherwise, please, spare us the (Personal attack removed) rant. •NikoSilver• 13:54, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

• A.Garnet, "Greek white supremacist" is totally out of line (!). I'm shocked and dissapointed to find you using such grossly infalamatory statements. For everyone else too: no more personal attacks, no more incivilities. You must conduct yourself professionally. I will take immediate —and severe— steps against the next person who I find breaching these policies. El_C 07:52, 17 September 2006 (UTC) With apologies to A.Garnet: Mitsos is a White Supremacist, my mistake, and he is editing disruptively I now notice. Tread lightly, User:Mitsos. El_C 07:58, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Avoid tag removal

Hello, everyone. Please do not remove the tags until the disputes are resolved, or this will be viewed as vandalism. Many thanks in advance. El_C 07:37, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

This article can't remain taged forever! There is no point if the visitors of Wikipedia read article whose neutrality and factual accurancy is disputed. Anyone who disputes the article can explain the reason on the talk page. A.Garnet doesn't disputes something specific, and even if we back the article up with state of the art references he is still going to dispute it. Maybe we should delete the article because A.Garnet disputes it???? Mitsos 08:31, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Really, guys, there is nothing more to dispute! The article is well sourced with lots of third party sources that support the genocidal nature of the incidents. The minority opinion of "no genocide" is clearly illustrated in the article. "Alleged incidents" in the intro? Where have you seen that weasel wording before? The minority opinion is supported so much in the text, that it is I who should be disputing the npov-ness of the article (wp:npov#undue weight). This article cannot be held hostage by use of tags eternally, and I am not going to allow pov placement of pov tags, while in fact I should be disputing the undue weight of the minority opinion!! •NikoSilver• 10:18, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Please follow the steps outline in dispute resolution. Again, at this stage, any further removal of the tags will be treated as vandalism. El_C 13:54, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Depends on who and what is disputed... so far, everything about which questions have arosen, has been cited and verified. first was the title, there are links for Greece, half a dozen US states, and an Australian one. then was the number, it was cited also. then was the 'White Death' also cited. If something else is clearly disputed (or if sources disputed the already info are presented here) the tags will remain. if not, i will remove them. Everyone must follow the rules, El_C... no matter the power he/she has in here. Hectorian 14:25, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Please spare me the innuendo. Obviously, if no concrete and specific issues are raised, the tags can be removed, but I'm willing to give it more time, and until then, you are prohibted from removing them. El_C 08:15, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I think blocking users who disagree with you isn't part of dispute resolution. Mitsos 18:50, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Mustafa Akalp has vandalised the article twice and wasn't blocked even once! Mitsos 18:57, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

If you continue to remove the tags, you will continue to be blocked from editing. El_C 23:14, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Dispute

Hi y'all. This article has become a battleground. Everyone should just calm down, have a nice cup of tea and then let's try to sort things out. The most crucial thing in the dispute as I see it is the presence of the tags. IMHO, the tags should be present if and only if the disputing side states here on the talk page what it is that they dispute (otherwise the tags are just plain FUD). And I'm not talking about general aphorisms like "it's just greek pov", I mean what it is exactly that you dispute. So, what will it be? Be specific and accurate don't go ranting or offtopic (eg the TRNC is not the issue here). Stay cool and avoid personal attacks.

On the flip side, should the disputing side raise its specific objections, those that want the tags gone should consider those objections. The tags don't mean that the content is disputed "in an objective way". They mean that some wikipedians have raised specific objections. And if they do, the tags should stay until the dispute is resolved. --Michalis Famelis (talk) 14:18, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Why the tags should stay

Write here what you dispute about the article.

Use of the word Genocide

I contest the word 'Genocide' and the inclusion of the latter in the title for the following reasons:

From the article genocide: "Genocide is defined by the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG) Article 2 as "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such: Killing members of the group; Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; and forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."

1- Title of an article speaks a lot for itself, inclusion of the word genocide in the title, implicitly states that the article will be able to provide enough proof of this claim.. And if it fails to do so, the word Genocide should only be included in the body of the article,

2- Claim of Genocide is an extremely serious allegation to make, one that needs to be backed up by serious and constant academic research and solid proofs.

3- And that there is a clear line seperating 'Genocide from 'Massacre', in that for a Genocide to have taken place, there has to be the proof that there was a clear commanding structure and a chain of command that expressly strived to commit the acts that would be described as 'Genocide' (see above)...

4- For more information regarding the line that seperates between Genocide from Massacre, pls see the Nuremberg trial transcripts. Holocaust and the Armenian Genocide have been defined as such not on the massacres themselves, but also by proving that there existed such a command structure that effectively and continously strived to commit the acts that constitute a Genocide... Extensive data is available on both of these events, and the legal framework for Genocide acceptance has been clearly established, as the minutes of ICJ trials show.

5- As such, I claim that the article fails to provide such credible proof. In other words, the article fails to deliver the sort of scientific, academic, universal and solid proof that would be neccessary to verify the claim of a Genocide.

6- Moreover, I hold that these claims are being used to only fuel ethnic-hatred:

6.1- The only sovereign country to have recognized this as Genocide is Greece itself, and that only 9 years ago, the choice of day to commemerate these events is also suspect: May 19th, a national holiday in Turkey since the 1920s.

6.2- Even Cyprus, a country that is extremely close to Greece politically as much it is far from Turkey has not recognized this as genocide.

7- In the article itself, there is not enough proof to substantiate any of these claims:

7.1- The article makes many serious allegations for which reliable citations have been missing for months.

7.2- An overwhelming majority (app. 95 percent) of articles on this subject found on the net have been written either by Greeks or published in Greek web-sites,

7.3- References cited in the article are either completely biased, have no-connection to the subject whatsoever, or have questionable backgrounds. Ex. International Association of Genocide Scholars, that is cited in the article has no link in its website whatsoever concerning this issue. The page devoted to this issue by the Australian Institute Of Holocaust and Genocide studies is highly-biased, it claims to have hundreds of photos in its possesion, but none are published, the tone of the writings are clearly racist and not-scientific, and most importantly, has no proof delivered that has been derived using the Scientific Method, none of the allegations are substantiated, no interviews with impartial researchers and the claims are only signed by a Greek author, Panayiotis Diamadis, and not by any other impartial researchers..

7.4- The other 'proofs' are accounts by a handful of foreign diplomats stationed in the Ottoman Empire. Half of them are considered as HEARSAY, accounts of the stories told by other people, and the accounts of the remaining two or three are not enough to substantiate the claim that 350,000 people were systematically killed.

7.5- Most importantly, there is no link, source, proof or whatsoever to substantiate the claim that the Ottoman and Turkish adminstrations had the will, the command structure and the continuity and generalization of acts to commit a Genocide against the Pontus Greeks.

8- Finally, after 90 years of alleged events taking place and the claim of such a high death-toll, there are absolutely NO photos, no mass-graves, not enough corroborated eye-witness stories that would have resulted from the massacre of such a great number of people, even though there are many for the Armenian Genocide that took place at approximately the same time in geographically close lands.

9- And thus, the 'Genocide' title cannot be substantiated because of a lack of sources, and as such it makes this article on Wikipedia 'original research', which is contrary to the policy of Wikipedia.

10- As such, I propose that the title of the article should be changed to 'Pontic Greek Massacres' to conform with the spirit and philosophy of Wikipedia, since, in my opinion, this article was given this name only with the purpose of igniting ethnic-hatred.

This was in the archive, mitsos.. I just pasted it.. And the discussion is not a formal attempt, so you cannot delete the tags by refering to it...Baristarim 20:04, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Why the tags should not stay

My first attempt to answer to all those statements of dispute:

Mine too, indented...

1. The term "Pontian Genocide" or "Pontian Greek Geonocide" gives thousands of results in a simple Google search. so, it is a term used. It is recognised by a sovereign state (Greece), 6 US states, and the issue has been raised in another 2 states of the USA and the Australian state of Victoria. so, it has much more recognition than other genocide articles (namely Bosnian genocide, Rwandan genocide, etc) and of the TRNC itself. not to mention that there is a redirect Turkish Cypriot Genocide for events that meet no criteria of genocide (this redirect is now considered for deletion, but "surprisingly" users who want to rename this article, want to keep that redirect...).

Also, see below

Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Be_precise_when_necessary: If all possible words have multiple meanings, go with the rule of thumb of naming guidelines and use the more popular term.

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (precision)#If both titles usually have a different meaning: general principle: When a reader enters this term and pushes "Go", what article would they realistically be expecting to view as a result?

Google: Pontian genocide: 25,500 vs Pontian massacre: 11,700

2. There are academic sources in the article, and not only by Greeks. i could just mention Jean De Murat, James L. Barton, etc. There are also eyewitnesses' accounts, quotes, diplomatic papers, etc.

Also see: "alleged" genocide in intro. WP:Weasel wording...

3. Labour Battalions and White Death can only have taken place under command. The New York Times' aricles from that time show that it was planned. Lastly, (and the Turkish users must know this) Kemal Ataturk himself said after the events had finished 'We have finally uprooted them!'. Having in mind that he was the chief of the Turkish forces during the last phraese of the genocide, the conclussions are clear.

I am sorry. I don't follow how exactly from reading "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy", you came to the conclusion that "there has to be the proof that there was a clear commanding structure"? In any case, however, I'll play along; read below...

4. The fact that for this case there was no 'Nuremberg-like' trial, does not mean that there was not a genocide. there was no trial for the Armenian Genocide, that Turkey also does not recognise.

Chain of command: Your side's (A.Garnet's) lovely source: Killing trap:

...report by Chancellor Hollweg of Austria:

The indications are that the Turks plan to eliminate the Greek element as enemies of the state, as they did earlier with the Armenians. The strategy implemented by the Turks is of displacing people to the interior without...

A.Garnet himself said above "there's a difference between intention and action", addmiting that there was intention.

5. The article has: 9 eyewitnesses' accounts and quotes (which also show that there was a command-i do not expect to find a command from Kemal himself-apropos, neither in the Nuremberg trial was proof for a command by Hitler himself), 25 notes, 18 books are mentioned in bibliography and further reading, 10 links are provided. I think that the article is more than 'just sourced'... If someone will be willing to look at all of these, he/she may not believe it, but will understand that there is no reason to rename the article.

Covered.

6. Acknowledging history is not an attempt to fuel ethnic-hatred:

6.1. At the moment (as of 2006), Greece is the only sovereign country that recognises this genocide. Recognised it 9 years ago: a quick revision of the events that occured can say the reason of the delay (Treaty of Lausanne, WWII, Greek Civil War, Cold War...). Armenian Genocide was also not recognised from the early beginning... May 19th (1919) is the Turkish national holiday because that date Ataturk landed in Samsun. That date is also the beginning of the end for the Pontian Greeks (whether someone considers the events genocide or 'just massacres', it was the landing of Ataturk in Samsun the starting point for these). PS: noone can monopolise a date!

6.2. Cyprus, with the ongoing dispute in the divided island, cannot force things with Turkey by recognising the genocide. i think that the case of the Cypriot not-yet-recognition is obvious.

Hectorian, sorry, but although I too was tempted to provide the above argumentation, I'll just suffice to say: Speculation, lawyering, WP:OR. Please cite your source claiming your quote above: "...these claims are being used to only fuel ethnic-hatred"

7. As said above, the article is more than 'just sourced':

7.1. The only missing citation now is this: Turkey maintains that this event was not of a genocidal nature, and the selection of the date of May 19, which is a national holiday in Turkey, is considered by some Turkish politicians to be a provocation .. Better someone provide it, or the sentence will be removed.

7.2. 95% is way too much... Even though the Greek authors and articles in greek websites make the majority, there are also 3rd party sources: Austrian, German, American, Jewish, Armenian, etc

7.3. I am not interested in anyone's POV to consider the Australian Institute Of Holocaust and Genocide studies as biased... It is an Institute in a country other than Greece, and even though the signing author is Greek, the Institute holds the same position in publishing it. The scientific methods and proofs of the institute may be a matter for that institutes article. here the institute is quoted since it consists a recognised and acceptable source.

Third party sources, I may add:

1. New York Times (thanks to Cretanforever)
2. Australian Institute for Holocaust and Genocide Studies: the genocide and its aftermath
3. South Carolina Recognition
4. New Jersey Recognition
5. Florida Recognition
6. Massachusetts Recognition
7. Pennsylvania Recognition
8. Illinois recognition
9. "Tagmata Ergasias" 1: Henry Morgentau, Sr., "I was sent to Athens", Garden City N. Y.: Doubleday, Doran & Co, 1929
10. "Tagmata Ergasias" 2: Foreign Office Memorandum by Mr. G.W. Rendel on Turkish Massacres and Pesrsecutions of Minorities since the Armistice, March 20, 1922, Paragraph 35
11. "White Death": Foreign Office Memorandum by Mr. G.W. Rendel on Turkish Massacres and Pesrsecutions of Minorities since the Armistice, March 20, 1922, Paragraph 24
12. German organization 1: "Verein der Völkermordgegner e.V" (i.e. "Union against Genocide")
13. German organization 2: "Mit einer Stimme sprechen" (i.e. "Speaking with One Voice")

95% are Greek? So you mean to say that there are some 300 more sources which are Greek in the article. Can you please point us to them?

7.4. Noone is in the position to claim that the foreign diplomats of that time were lying... What is important is that those diplomats (no matter their country of origin) say the same things. In law there is the motto 'one witness, no witness'. here we have more than one... About the number, 2 citations have been provided.

7.5. See all the above.

Also, Ambassador's Morgenthau story Garden City, N.Y.: Page & Company, 1918 Page 152:

The martyrdom of the Greeks, therefore, comprised two periods: that antedating the war, and that which began in the early part of 1915. The first affected chiefly the Greeks on the seacoast of Asia Minor. The second affected those living in Thrace and in the territories surrounding the Sea of Marmora, the Dardanelles, the Bosphorus, and the coast of the Black Sea. These latter, to the extent of several hundred thousand, were sent to the interior of Asia Minor. The Turks adopted almost identically the same procedure against the Greeks as that which they had adopted against the Armenians. They began by incorporating the Greeks into the Ottoman army and then transforming them into labour battalions, using them to build roads in the Caucasus and other scenes of action. These Greek soldiers, just like the Armenians, died by thousands from cold, hunger, and other privations. The same house-to-house searches for hidden weapons took place in the Greek villages, and Greek men and women were beaten and tortured just as were their fellow Armenians. The Greeks had to submit to the same forced requisitions, which amounted in their case, as in the case of the Armenians, merely to plundering on a wholesale scale. The Turks attempted to force the Greek subjects to become Mohammedans; Greek girls, just like Armenian girls, were stolen and taken to Turkish harems and Greek boys were kidnapped and placed in Moslem households.

Sounds quite 'systematic'...

8. Photos have been provided. Mass graves cannot be discovered at the moment (and we all know why), not enough corroborated eye-witness stories: how many would be enough?

Hey, eye-witness stories are 'hearsay'. Remember?

9. It is not original research, as it can be seen by the 62 sources, links, notes, etc

10. There is no reason for the article to be renamed. A historic event can be seen as an 'ethnic-hatred' attempt only by those who want to see it as such.

In conclusion, a possible title 'Pontic Greek Massacres' does not justify the cited numbers, accounts, links, books, etc. The tags should not remain, cause everything (apart from one sentence, which will possibly be deleted) is cited. There was request to cite the number 350,000-it is cited twice. the was a request to cite "White Death"-it is also cited. there had been request to cite the recognition by the US states-all of them cited. The 'disputed tags' do not justify the article's content. this way, someone could dispute even featured articles for no other reason than POV. if something else is disputed in the article, i would be willing to work in order to cite it. Hectorian 22:51, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Intermingled some indented additions. (edit conflict). •NikoSilver• 23:09, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Comments

The term "genocide" has been used by various sources to refer to the events mentioned in the article. These sources could be biased as hell, but they exist whatsoever. Weather or not the events were indeed a genocide might be contested (imho though it was a genocide) but it is a real, solid, undisputable fact that the term has been used to describe to the events. Could we reach a compromise on the grounds that the article called "Pontian Greek Genocide" talks about the term and how it has been used, with the bulk of the events moved under a less thorny title such as "Modern history of Pontic Greeks"? --Michalis Famelis (talk) 23:17, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Twisting that proposal a little bit: How about we focus the intro on how the term has been used, and then have the sections about the events below that? •NikoSilver• 00:26, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

• There's obviously not insignificant forces which favour its recognition as a genocide, but how many countries have actually done so? El_C 23:25, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

• You know the response to this rhetorical question: One, Greece. •NikoSilver• 23:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

• No, I did not know, that's why I asked. El_C 23:55, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

• Sorry, I thought you were going somewhere with this; it's in the article. There are half a dozen US states too, if it makes a difference...•NikoSilver• 00:10, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

• Ah, but I am going somewhere with this. One country is not enough. El_C 00:26, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

• WP:BEANS is an understatement! Not enough for what? •NikoSilver• 00:30, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

• I really don't know what you're talking about. Not enough for having genocide in the title, of course. I recognize it as a genocide because there are casualty figures in the hundreds of thousands, but I am not nation-states. El_C 00:38, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
• That said, if the opposition does not come up with another title, then I'm not the one to call for it being re-named. El_C 02:21, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

?? There were many proposals for renaming El_C.. As for the figures, pls cease being politically correct.. Where do these numbers come from? The sources are not reliable.. Pls read my comments above that I had put for RfC.. Again there is a big difference between Genocide and Massacres/War Casualties.. Again read my comment on RfC above... It is not academically or scientifically correct to support the word Genocide just so as not to offend someone by being afraid of deemed 'politically incorrect'.. Baristarim 11:32, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I could not care less about political correctness (in the liberal-democratic sense), I care about what else it is called, and by whom. Please cite your sources so that we can verify them. I'm less interested in the historical detail as much as I am in the historiography, esp. outside Turkey/Greek, from unaffiliated sources. El_C 00:33, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Title aside

Besides the use of the word genocide in the title, what else is being disputed to warrant the {{npov}} tag? El_C 23:27, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

How about the word 'alleged' in the intro? •NikoSilver• 23:33, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I can't see the opposition objecting to that. El_C 23:55, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

The word 'alleged' is already in the intro. There is also a section titled '3.1 Turkey's stance', which could be expanded. So far i have seen no real reason to have the tags, and if there will not be sources and info favouring the opposite, i am going to remove them. does everyone agree? (if not, i would appreciate it, if i hear a reason). Hectorian 00:06, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

El C, you can call me "opposition" for this matter! I'd have posted the tag myself! •NikoSilver• 00:08, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

So it says "alleged genocide" in the body, but genocide per se. in the title? [that's a rhetorical question] Yikes. As mentioned, if there are no specific objections, you may remove the npov tag. El_C 00:26, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll leave it there some more, to give time for objections. •NikoSilver• 00:30, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

That's what i think as well. The tags will be removed if not serious objections will be presented within a reasonable ammount of time. Hectorian 00:38, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Not tags, tag. The title is still disputed, so {{pov-title}} stays, for now. El_C 00:43, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I could easily adopt a disrupting behavour to make a point, by placing {{pov-title}} in TRNC, Republic of Macedonia, etc, with many more arguments than those used in this case... but i won't... This article cannot remain hostage forever. so, either there will be presented sources contradicting the current title, or this tag will be removed as well. Hectorian 01:01, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure those examples are appllicable as those are governments and this is an historical event. Possibly, there is a consensus term for the event in political-diplomatic jargon, the question, indeed, is whether someone can cite it, or anything. El_C 02:21, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

There is no other term. How about my refactoring of Michali's proposal above? To quote him: "it is a real, solid, undisputable fact that the term has been used to describe to the events". •NikoSilver• 08:47, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

See, my point in the section above is that, since it was brought to the attention of governments, and they did not approve the genocide recognition so as to not harm realtions with Turkey (or for whichever other reason), they quite likely would have called it something (e.g. "mass killings," "massacre," etc.). It is also likely that this or a very similar interim (?) term was adopted by other governments placed in the same position (i.e. while they consider/reject it). In that sense, one country is not enough, and the state of political-diplomatic flux take precedence. But if the opposition cannot offer any such term/s, and if the most common scholarly term includes "genocide," then the current title seems logical. Therefore, I am removing all tags from the article. If anyone wishes to add any tags, they must specify the reason for it (in a section which includes the tag's title) in clear, concrete & specific terms. Thanks to (most of) everyone for your patience. El_C 09:14, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I went to sleep, I wake up and voila, fait accompli!!.. ??? .. You know you guys could have at least waited for a couple days for input, u too, El_C, I mean that would have been common sense, right? Most people have a real life out there... Look, El_C, no offense but I think that u didn't understand the depth of the argument or read the archive.. The issue over the reliability of the sources and one about original research has not been considered at all... I put a list of arguments, and in four hours the tags are gone.. That's not fair dispute resolution... Baristarim 11:23, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

As for the claim that Genocide is the word most commonly used, most of the sources that r used, particularly historical ones, refer to as massacres.. You are the ones using these to prove your theory that it was a genocide.. Again see the difference between Genocide and massacre..Baristarim 11:41, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Your post has been adequately responded. The article is about the 'Pontian Greek Genocide' term (see intro) which, undisputably, is the term used by third party scholars, US states, Greece, and int'l orgs to describe the events. The events are well-presented and well-cited, in an npov manner, that does not dictate the reader to think that they actually happened. The opposing views are also apparent in the article. If you feel that the opposing views need expansion, feel free to expand them.•NikoSilver• 11:50, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

What I can see is that there is an ongoing debate.. But it is common courtesy and fairness to wait a little bit to allow users to get some sleep and get on with their real life before coming back and continuing the debate.. I put my post and then couple of hours later some people decided that the debate was ready for conclusion.. That's not fair dispute resolution.. Have people no right to sleep? Pls don't have this authoritative attitude, there is a dispute.. It really is not cool for people to sidetrack the debate in this way by saying that this is the truth... I am really disappointed with all the users for what happened above when three people decided to bring this matter to a conlusion in the space of a couple of hours.. I have stuff to do this evening, so I won't be able to respond to what has been said; it is not fair to expect people to guard a 24 hour vigil on Wikipedia.. You see nothing wrong with the debate being closed in the space of a couple of hours in the middle of the night? Please people.. Baristarim 16:22, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

The debate has not been concluded, but it's been three days and you still haven't produced any sources. If no sources which directly dispute the Greek claims are brought forth, then what their sources say is all we got. So, I felt that it was time to remove the tags, since after three days, we still had no sources. Your pointed argument above is very persuasive, but it lacks any citational qualifications. As soon you add these to points 7.1. to 9, I will re-add the tags. I do think that, it is better to add/rm the tags every few days rather several times per day. No need to take their removal or insertion as a sign of great significance for this debate. El_C 00:33, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm still too busy to get involved here, but as for sources, i have provided two non-partisan ones earlier which somehow keep getting ignored:

• "It had already deported Greek civilians from the Anatolian shoreline into the interior (the Russians were doing much the same with Russian Jews in Tsarist Poland, the Habsburgs with their border Serbs). But these deportations were on a relatively small scale and do not appear to have been designed to end in their victims' deaths. What was to happen with the Armenians was of a different order." http://www.lrb.co.uk/v23/n03/mazo01_.html (by historian Mark Mazower)

• "Under these conditions, genocide of the Ottoman Greeks was simply not a viable option. Many however, were massacred by the Turks" Killing Trap

I wont be able to contribute for anotehr week or so, until then, i will leave these. Thanks,--A.Garnet 08:52, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Your sources don't keep getting ignored. They are just too few (compared to the dozens of others) and too speculative, plus self-contradictory. What exactly does it mean that "Many, however, were massacred by the Turks"? How "many" were these, and at what point does "massacres" become "genocide"? Also, the second one, below your quoted text, proves intention, which both Baristarim and your first source dispute. In any case, this is all off-topic, since the events are being clearly referred to as "genocide" by the majority of scholars, organizations and other sources provided, plus the article clearly refers to the term. •NikoSilver• 09:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, there is one more source [2], to show some variety: Rummel talks about 'civilian democide' (aka 'genocide'), and AIHGS places the number at 353,000. let aside Housepian and Horton who deal with another case... Hectorian 09:55, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

The problem is El_C, there simply is no commonly defined name for what the Pontians experienced, and there has certainly been no reliable academic research (or enough of it) to warrant this articles title. This article is based on the most extreme assumption, that held by Greeks, that what the Pontians experienced was genocide. They hold this view because they are politically and academically biased towards that view, and it is that bias that this article has been based on. That is why Greeks wrote this article, that is why 95% of Google results on this title are by Greeks, that is why Greek authors are cited, and it is why Greece is the only country to recognise it.

Can you find me this article in any other encylopedia? Or a third-party monograph? Or a journal article? They simply do not exist. This comes through by the fact that there is actually no discussion whatsoever on how this event is supposed to have happened. We have an obscure source talking about Labour Battalions and that is it. The rest of the article is more or less original research, interpreting quotations and events to prove a genocide thesis. For example one of the quotes is taken from the Midlarskys Killing Trap, despite the fact that on the very same page he says a genocide simply could not have happened due to the low casualty figures. Yet the authors here have included it to prove a genocide has happened.

Famelis said not to simply say it is a greek pov, but sorry, that is the very problem with this article, is entirely a Greek pov, that is why the tags have to stay until is rewritten and renamed. Readers have to be warned that the argument put forward in this article is naturally disputed by the fact that is lacks academic footing, scholarly debate and international recognition. --A.Garnet 15:01, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, let's suppose for a second that we all agree that it was not a genocide. Let's suppose we are all say Argentinians, ie people completely detached from the story. So, let's say my name Pedro Jimenez and while I surf the net I stumble upon a Greek website, let's even make that a Greek ultra-nationalist website, that rants about something called "Pontian Greek Genocide". I'm a curious Argentinian, so I will be inclined to check out what that thing is. So I check Wikipedia and finding that there exists no such article, I do my homework, I sit down and write this one. How would Pedro Jimenez write this article? IMHO, he'd say something along the lines of:

"Pontian Greek Genocide is a term used by this and that source, to describe the following events. Weather or not the events were actually a Genocide is not universally accepted and in fact only Greece and those US states have officially recognized it as such. The events that are characterized by Greece and this and that as genocide are: [events follow]"

My point is that it is perfectly sound to have an NPOV article about a POV issue. It is perfectly sound to have an NPOV article even for an issue whose very historicity is challenged. Hell, there is an article about Dolchstosslegende and it's NPOV. (Shit, I mentioned the Nazis, I lose! :-) ) Anyhow, even if it were just the Greek POV, I don't see why we can't have an article about the Greek POV.--Michalis Famelis (talk) 16:16, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I may be wrong, but i think that some people's aim is not to rename, but to have this article deleted... Some edits that have led me think of that is: there has certainly been no reliable academic research (or enough of it) to warrant this articles title (first there were citations for academic proof... now, these ciatations are simply "not enough"... really, how much is enough?). They hold this view because they are politically and academically biased towards that view: the other side of the Aegean may also be biased on this issue (think about it). Can you find me this article in any other encylopedia? Or a third-party monograph? Or a journal article? They simply do not exist: id est "no need for such an article in Wikipedia" (did i get the wrong meaning?). the very problem with this article, is entirely a Greek pov, that is why the tags have to stay until is rewritten and renamed: if u want to create a new article, go ahead-this one is too much sourced to be re-written. Readers have to be warned that the argument put forward in this article is naturally disputed by the fact that is lacks academic footing, scholarly debate and international recognition: so, what i understand is that the article is crap and it should not exist...

Why don't some users simply expand the Turkish thesis on the article? even if they think it is POV now, they can somehow neutralize it... Hectorian 16:48, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Some more info, that i'd like to present here, before i add them in the article: the case of the Pontian Genocide has been raised in the House of Commons in the UK by Stephen Pound (note he is not Greek), who links it with the armenian and assyrian case [3]. The Danish Institute for International Studies in cooperation with University of Southern Denmark says: Other victim groups of genocide and persecution in the Ottoman empire from 1914-1922, for instance the Greek and Assyrian minorities (note usage of the term 'genocide') [4]. From the USA Congress: the millions of Orthodox Christians who perished in the genocidal campaign in Asia Minor from 1894 to 1923 [5]. Lastly, a member of the Parliament of Sweden (note of pontian greek origin) asked for the recognition of the genocide [6] (for those who do not speak greek, further down on that page is in english). Hectorian 17:03, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

- To all those who dispute this article or it's title: From your arguments it is clear that no matter how many references, sources, academic or scholarly research we provide you will not acknowledge its validity. And we know why. It was a crime against humanity, and as such an awful page in the perpetrating nation's history. We do not hold today's citizens of the country in question accountable. We do hold accountable those who ordered it, implemented it, or excecuted it. The majority of the people at the time of these events had nothing to do with it. On the contrary, they helped many Greeks and other Christians, and saved them from certain death. We cannot thank them enough. My father, an orphan, with no one to turn to, would have not survived if it was not for a Turkish lady who called him Moustafa, kept his identity and ethnicity secret, and gave him a job, until he left for Greece. - Rizos01 01:16, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone know how the 353,000 figure was arrived at so as to be cited by the Australian Institute for Holocaust and Genocide Studies and elsewhere? El_C 02:14, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Without been 100% sure, i think this figure came in the same way figures of similar cases (Armenian Gen., Holocaust, etc): by the last sensus, minus those who made it and settled in Greece or elsewhere after 1923. id est, those who are missing are presumed dead. the number of the Asia Minor refugees in Greece (including Pontian Greeks), which in most of the sources stands on 1.2m comes from the greek census of 1928 minus the previous greek census of late 1920 (without taking into account the natural growth of the Greeks of Greece-which was rather high that time- or the refugees who died of diseases, cold, etc during the transfer). i had come across a figure saying that according to the 1906-7 census, there were 2.823.063 Greeks in Anatolia. Hectorian 07:12, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

- The 353,000 figure comes from the following book first published (in Greek) in 1925:

 "Contemporary General History of Pontus" , by George K. Valavanis

 Metropolises (Eccleciastical Provinces)
 of the Ecumenical Patriarchate
                                   Killed /Perished   
 Amasya	                                134,078
 Haldea - kerasus	                 64,582
 Noekesaria	                         27,216
 Trebizond or Trabezus	                 38,435
 Rodopolis	                         17,479
 Kolonia	                         21,448
 Total until 1922	                303,238
 From 1922 until spring 1924 	         50,000
 Total                                  353,238

 Rizos01 04:16, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmm? This is exactly the reason why I wrote going around in circles.. Look man, nobody is contesting that people died during World War I.. On the other hand, there is a HUGE difference between Massacres/Genocides... As an encyclpodia, the title of a Wikipedia article has to refer to its legal/academic definition.. Can you please read what I wrote below about the difference between Massacre and Genocide?

And one last thing, again, about the sources.. The above sources can be used as proof in a article about Pontian Greek Massacres, not the one about Pontian Greek Genocide.. Please try to read and understand what I wrote below, even if you are going to continue arguing the same POV, what is written below can be considered general culture... Baristarim 14:41, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Going around in circles

Ok, I will try to go a bit deeper in this issue.. It is much deeper and complex than what most people think.. Here's why:

1. First of all, the naming of these events as genocide.. It might be extremely easy for some people to label them as genocide, since they don't know the true definition and usage of the term. Let me explain: Most people say that because so many people died or because they were systematically killed, it has to be genocide.. Please follow me carefully here.. Genocide is not a common street term, it is in fact exclusively a legal term that is used to define a series of events that carry a specific nature.. The fact that so many people died mean nothing, there could have been ten million deaths, as well as hundred deaths.. That's not what it matters. IN FACT, even if they were meant to be killed it doesn't mean anything.. Are you reading on El_C?? WHAT MATTERS is the set of events leading to them.. I have the feeling that many people read extremely lightly what I have said in my pointed statement above; it was an extremely fine legal and academic document, and no, it has not been adequately responded BTW, r u kidding me? I said the framework of genocide acceptance has been clearly established, as the minutes of ICJ trials show. I said that for a specific reason. Please keep on following me, this is EXTREMELY important.

• What is IMPORTANT is the atmosphere surrounding these events, that is to say, in what larger conjenctural conditions they occurred. That's the difference between war casualties and genocide. Let me explain again: Why is there no such thing as the HIROSHIMA GENOCIDE?? or NAGASAKI GENOCIDE?? or DRESDEN GENOCIDE?? (I had a girlfriend from Dresden, I know what I am talking about :)) All these cities were bombed to the ground WITH THE INTENTION TO KILL and people who ordered these bombings KNEW that tens of thousands of civilians would be killed and ordered them anyways.. These would making them of genocidal nature, right?? WRONG If you said yes, you would get a zero at law school..

• AS SUCH, it is extremely important to prove that there was the will, the command structure and the continuity and generalization of acts to commit a Genocide, with the will to commit a Genocide being a PRIORITY.. That is to say an armed conflict must have been started with the main, or major, aim of committing a genocide.. That's why Saddam is on trial in Iraq at the moment. The prosecutors there are trying to establish the fact that the orders came from the top, and not from some gang, and that Saddam ordered those attacks with the sole aim of eliminating the Kurdish populations of those villages, and not to suppress an armed revolt. This is extremely important to tie the Genocide with its alleged perpetrators..

• And here is the big and sad news my friends: If there is no such proof, all civilian casualties are considered collateral damage, no matter how they happened. You have a right not to accept this, but pls think about what I said about Hiroshima and Nagasaki.. This is the LEGAL, ACADEMIC and SCIENTIFIC STANDARD.. As a lawyer, I am not happy with legal terms degenerating in meaning in common language, genocide being one of them.. Death of only 5000 people can be genocide whereas death of fifty million might not be.. As such, distorting events that has taken place in the past and adding new meanings to them or changing their definitions is considered historical revisionism, and that is exactly what Greece did when they recognized these events as genocide.. Again please keep reading, I am going somewhere with this...

2. There is no proof that the Ottoman Empire started the World War with the sole aim of exterminating the Christian population like the Nazis started the 2nd WW with the MAJOR aim of exterminating the Jewish population.. In any case there will never be such proof, because it didn't.. All the events that came afterwards were a RESULT of the war having started, not vice versa..

THAT WOULD BE ENOUGH LEGALLY TO TOSS OUT CLAIMS OF A GENOCIDE, but I will play along, because someone is going to say What about the Holocaust, eh? Were they also civilian casualties??.. No they weren't because of the nature of the war.. It is completely consistent, Nazis expressly strived to attack the countries with Jewish populations, they said their stated aim was to ethnically cleanse the surrounding areas to create living space for Germans.. Whereas before the start of the World War, there was no such thing in the Ottoman Empire, and there is absolutely no proof that it entered the war for committing genocide against the Pontus Greeks simply because of the fact that it didn't need to.. It could have stayed out of the war and still killed the Pontus Greeks living in its territory as it wished...

3. Now I am coming to the heart of the argument.. Again please follow till the end.. It is a note to my Greek friends and a word of advice to them.. I want to ask a question to you: Isn't it at all possible that the Genocide attribution to these events was made in Greece just to whip up nationalist sentiment and to get some votes?? Pls don't say no right away.. Please step back for a minute and think.. Why is it impossible?? Please keep in mind what I have said above about the nature of Genocide and its definition.. Genocide is an exclusively legal term that means something specific..

As such, I find it extremely pathetic that some groups and politicians in Greece chose such a road.. I couldn't have put it better when A. Garnet said there has certainly been no reliable academic research (or enough of it) to warrant this articles title. This article is based on the most extreme assumption, that held by Greeks, that what the Pontians experienced was genocide. They hold this view because they are politically and academically biased towards that view, and it is that bias that this article has been based on. That is why Greeks wrote this article, that is why 95% of Google results on this title are by Greeks, that is why Greek authors are cited, and it is why Greece is the only country to recognise it.

It is extremely sad because what they did blocked a healthy debate from developing about these events and will silence all academic discussion in Greece because people will be afraid to be blamed unpatriotic or politically incorrect.. It will also not help the development of such debate between the Turkish and Greek academic community.. You might not agree with what I wrote, but think.. Baristarim 08:13, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Sources

Again, same problems.. People, if you have not mastered certain basic knowledge and logical skills, refrain from making certain comments.. OK class, let's go back to school to LOGIC 101: YOU CANNOT PROVE THAT SOMETHING DOESN'T EXIST.. How the hell am I supposed to prove that a genocide DIDN'T take place and with what sources??? Please don't ask me for sources to disprove the claim of genocide... No-one can prove that Santa Claus DOESN'T exist in the same way that no-one can prove that God DOESN'T exist... It has been scientifically and mathematically proven that you cannot prove the non-existence of something to 100 percent. Most I can do is something like above.. And BELIEVE ME, as an intl lawyer that has studied Genocide extensively, I am definitely more qualified as an academician than that racist guy from Australian Institute of whatever...

But even if I played along, you will see that none of the school textbooks in world, refer to these events as genocide, except Greece.. Don't ask me for source on that one, it is common sense, think about your youth and your school years, did you ever hear of a Pontus Greek Genocide (except Greeks)??

AND THE LAST, AND THE LEAST, to something that really pissed me off because it is very insulting to the intelligence of other editors.. The word game.. Oh the article is about the TERM, eh??? Oh well, how about that?? Really, Pontian Greek Genocide is the term used to refer to the reported Genocide.. What is this, a dictionary??? It is an encyclopedia.. It is clear as the sky that the article is about Pontian Greek Genocide, not the term.. This is not the Oxford dictionary.. How about we change all the articles in Wikipedia to incorporate this novel invention.. Greece is the term used to refer to the country.. Istanbul is the term used to refer to the city that.. Well how about that, maybe we should change the English language as well.. Maybe in the future I will introduce myself by saying I use the term Baris to refer to myself, instead of My name is Baris... End of that pointless discussion started by Nikos and Michaelis... This is not a merry go round..

I will continue to respond to other specific issues raised earlier, but in the light of what I just wrote, people should seriously step back and think... I am definitely proposing the renaming of this article El_C... There have been many proposals.. Baristarim 08:13, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

And one last thing, crime against humanity is not the same thing as Genocide.. A british soldier just confessed yesterday to crime against humanity, he DIDN'T confess to genocide.. Please people, if you have not studied the correct meanings of these expressions in a law or political sciences faculty, refrain from throwing these words around so easily.. If you want to learn get a legal dictionary and read the corresponding jurisprudence to grasp their meanings... genocide and crime against humanity are legal words, whereas, for example massacre is not, massacre is a layword not a legal one (reading on Rizo0s?)... The issue debated is a technical one, not an emotional one. You can have an article titled Pontian Greek Massacres, and in the intro you can include some/most/certain/many/few historians consider these events as genocide, that's my proposal... Baristarim 08:53, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

It is for this reason that I think the Greek people contributing to this article have two motivations: Bad faith or miseducation.. bad faith in the sense that, they know the correct definitions of these words and they keep on insisting on them, or miseducation: they don't know the true significations of the words genocide and crime against humanity.. And the Greek government and PASOK profited from the combination of these two to impose such legislation. I am SERIOUSLY convinced that there aren't many people in Greece who can give me the correct definition of Genocide WITH its corresponding jurisprudence... Nor are there many in Turkey, BTW, i wasn't sniping at Greece.. Turkey and Greece generally tend to have the same exact problems... Baristarim 09:13, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Have a look at the articles sources, bibliography, external links and images. That will convince you that what happened was a genocide. The Pontian Greek Genocide is also recognised by many countries except greece. SERGEI

I've tried to read all (!) Baristarim's edit... Seems like deliberate confussion... Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Dresden are not genocides, so why this one should be?(in this way of thinking, why the Armenian and the Holocaust are?). There was no top order for the extermination of the Pontian Greeks, but there was also no order from Hitler himself to exterminate the Jews, Roma, etc. Why don't some users who i guess know well, do not answer if Ataturk had said: We have finally uprooted them? (admit that this is true, i know it is!). Why in the grave of the top official of Kemal in Trabzon, Topal Osman, is written He took part in the extermination of the Pontians...?. U said It is completely consistent, Nazis expressly strived to attack the countries with Jewish populations, they said their stated aim was to ethnically cleanse the surrounding areas to create living space for Germans.. Whereas before the start of the World War, there was no such thing in the Ottoman Empire. do the motto Turkey for the Turks rings a bell to u? isn't it similar? (don't ask me who said this. u already know...). The French schoolchildren did not learn anything like 'Armenian Genocide' some years ago. but they do now (this, i think answers your question did you ever hear of a Pontus Greek Genocide (except Greeks)?. that racist guy from Australian Institute of whatever, i tend to believe that those who murdered the Greeks in Pontus were more racist than the guy who talks about it... (but, who knows, maybe someone may say that i am the one being wrong on that...). Lastly (this may sound sarcastic): NO, Turkey and Greece generally do not tend to have the same exact problems...! Hectorian 12:12, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

What I can see is that some people are trying to make this original research.. Whatever u might say, what I wrote is not deliberate confusion, but a structured argument.. And pls, don't compare this with the Holocaust or the Armenian Genocide and try to compare them every single time.. All of them are distinct events, bundling them this way categorizes them and degenerates the meaning of Genocide, it makes it sound like a common word.. Nothing you said ,Turkey for Turks, or anything else proves Genocide, it proves massacres.. I gave the examples of Hiroshima and Nagasaki to demonstrate the specific nature of 'Genocide'. That is an example given in law school, you can give a call to my ex-teachers if u like. I also talked about the need for the genocidal acts to be connected to a specific group by proof.. This article lacks such distinction, it is unclear who exactly committed these massacres (I mean, the Young Turks, Ottoman administration as a whole, Republic of Turkey etc, but that is a secondary point). You might take lightly what I have written above, but the point raised there is a very important one.. And Hectorian please don't say demagogic things like i tend to believe that those who murdered the Greeks in Pontus were more racist than the guy who talks about it. What is your point? FYI I definitely agree with you on that. On the other hand it doesn't imply that he is not racist either, even if he is less racist than the murderers.. Am I wrong? There is still no response to the point I have raised, that for an event to be called 'Genocide', certain specific criteria has to be met. As for others:

• You are still using proofs of certain massacres to substantiate the claim that it is a genocide, it is called original research.. I am sorry but, I have looked at all the sources and etc. Many of the websites have clear bias and, in any other article in Wikipedia, wouldn't be included.
• As for anyone having heard of the Pontus Greek Genocide.. I repeat that it is not the Armenian Genocide we are talking about.. I can see your point that sometimes recognition can come late, but there is also a limit. If after 90 years, the only country that refers to it as Genocide in its school and university textbooks is Greece, and that only for the last 10 years, people have a legitimate right to wonder what the basis of this article is. The day the events are considered as a Genocide by at least a considerable portion of the global academic community, this article is original research.. The day such a thing has happened it can be renamed 'Genocide'.. You were asking for sources, I am giving them to you: The school and university textbooks of the WHOLE WORLD, I am sorry I got no link for that :)). I don't think that it has gotten through to some people that until such a day, the view that it is a genocide is way too much in the minority and as such makes this article original research. If Turkey passed a law saying that Turks were the victims of a genocide before 1923, would that give me a right to create an article called Genocide of the Turks of Greece (I also know of horror stories Hector, my great-grandfather was born in Thessaloniki :)) and by adding such eye-witness stories?? I don't think so... It wouldn't be fair.. The moment I did u would come up and say that it is original research, come on, am I wrong :))?? Please consider these, especially the one about original research. This article is not able to stand on its feet, one day it can maybe, i can imagine it happening, but for the moment no.
• As for someone's above comment about sources, external links etc.. Well I hope that he was joking.. Yeah, I really liked the one that calls Turks baby-killers and butchers. Really impartial and scientific evidence that is... My response to that person: Please go to a library and make some research on the Scientific Method...
• I still stand behind my comments about Turkey and Greece having similar problems: hundreds of judges walking out of a swearing in ceremony to protest religious interference in state affairs?? Hmm, that sounds familiar. Hector, the day you realize that Turkey and Greece are practically identical (except religion, but not the role of religion in life), maybe your view will change.. I don't understand what was so offending about that comment.. Ask anyone who knows (really knows) both countries, they will all tell you that they are identical.. You don't have to believe me if you have to.
• Still waiting on the response that people haven't been able to make about the Genocide/Massacres distinction. Again as an encyclopedia, the 'genocide' in an article's title has to refer to its legal definition, not its definition in the street.. Baristarim 13:12, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Just see all that:

• United Nations document acknowledging receipt of a letter by the "International League for the Rights and Liberation of Peoples" titled "A people in continued exodus" (i.e. Pontian Greeks) and putting the letter into internal circulation (Dated 1998-02-24) (PDF file)
• Search United Nations documents, by typing "Pontian Genocide" (if above link doesn't work)
• German and Austrian Ambassadors reports of that time starting from 1909
• State of New Jersey proclamation on 19th of May
• State of South Carolina proclamations of recognition
• Information about the genocide on The Australian Institute for Holocaust and Genocide Studies

And especially this [7] [8] SERGEI

I have seen all that, the one that calls Turks babykillers was one of them. Thanks, but no thanks.. Have you checked up on the scientific method??Baristarim 13:30, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Reception of a letter by the UN is a source that is holding this article on its feet?? I can also write an article to the UN and get a reception confirmation.. Please.. Is this all that this article stands on? Baristarim 13:34, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

For Hectorian: Look, pls don't claim that people are trying to 'delete' the article. Personally that is not my opinion, nor wish. If the article was named Pontian Greek Massacres and in the intro it was some/most/certain/many/few historians consider these events as genocide while stating the reasons for such recognition, I would have no problem. And actually contribute to the article so that it is more encyclopedic. Seriously, no hidden agenda.. I am a blunt man, I am not hiding what I am unhappy about, and the only thing that I am unhappy about..Baristarim 13:34, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I was not talking about u. Hectorian 13:40, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I have shown you sources that prove that the pontian greek GENOCIDE existed. Btw, the turks were babykilers at the time. SERGEI 87.203.171.38 13:32, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Baristarim, i am not sure if i have to reply to all your comments again... I think i have done many times so far. What u said about your great-grandfather attracted my interest. i guess u know that during the population exchange, the muslims in Greece were simply gathered and deported (immoral act, but that was the case). whereas, the greeks in Turkey were killed and chased... And about the 'identical' Greece and Turkey: interferance of the Church in Greek political affairs is not exclusively our mistake... And, by the way, although there is no seperation of state-church as in other EU countries, there is no religious persecution in Greece... Unlike Turkey (and i do not only refer to the Ecumenical Patriarch and the Christians). Furthermore, Greece does not have civil strife and partizans in none of its provinces, has not been dragged in the European Court of Human Rights, nor occupies part of another state... Lastly, has not violated any treaty she signed... Problems are not the same, my friend... Hectorian 13:38, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

THANK YOU for your insight Sergei.. Funny thing is I remember my grandfather telling me how his family was forced out of his home in Thessaloniki by a group of nationalists.. It wasn't too rough apparently, so I cannot complain really.. So let's avoid generalizations.. I cannot and won't call Greeks babykillers because of that. It was a war and voilà.. So how is the scientific method going?? BTW, are there any other nations that were babykillers at the same time?? :))Baristarim 13:41, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it was not that rough, that's why u exist today:)and i am glad u do! i made an edit above, concerning the greek population in Anatolia prior and after 1923. Had no such nationalists existed, many more people would exist today, u know... U said nothing about Topal Osman, that i mentioned before. now, u are asking for scientific proof... why are u making it that hard? the article is sourced. it has 62 references, notes, bla bla bla. and now, u ask for more... it has been recognised by Greece, subnational entities and organisations... Honestly, what do u except to see in the article so as not to dispute its title? or this will never happen? Hectorian 13:50, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Look Hectorian, this is not a good way to look at things, why are you seeing the glass as half-empty? I have the impression that it offends you in some way to be compared to Turks.. Why? You are forcing me to give me an example, I hate this pissing race but there you go, there are many more churches in Istanbul than Athens has mosques, which has none.. Every country has been dragged in the ECHR (again it is not a pissing contest, I know TR has been dragged in much more than Greece but so as France, have a look if u want) and Cyprus issue is a unique and complicated issue.. It baffles me that u r not able to see the two countries and cultures as extremely similar.. The Mediterranean temper, the coffee house culture, the tax-evasion (it was in the Kathimerini english edition a while ago) etc. As for civil strife.. I considered a lot before writing this, but it is not cool that u r pushing this theory that Turks and Greeks are not similar, just know that I am not trying to offend anyone.. Where was Ocalan captured and three ministers forced to resign? It was not a Chinese embassy last time I checked. All I am saying is that with their ups and downs Turkey and Greece are much more similar to each other than they are to anybody else... U know, there are a lot of nationalists in Turkey that don't like people to say that? :) My whole argument is to Genocide/Massacre...Baristarim 14:00, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

There was an edit conflict.. Look, I completely agree with you that if there were no such nationalists, more people would exist today.. It is sad, I feel sorry for all the wars that happened.. Pff.. Anyways.. again genocide/massacre :))

As for Topal Osman, it can be true.. To tell you the truth, I have no idea, honestly... I will have a look at it though..

I just want to say, in defence of myself, that I came into this discussion in good faith, trying to set up an informal resolution process. I neither intended to start a word game nor to insult anyone's intelligence, I only thought it as a reasonable way to reach a compromise. I am sory if this caused you any frustration, Baristarim. You may have noted that I have not been engaged in writing, editing or edit warring with this article. I got myself involved under the same mentality that had lead me to try to start the (now defunct due to lack of time and interest) Gr-Tr board of cooperation.Anyway, I need not prove my good faith to anyone and since my proposal has been dismissed I don't see how I can contribute constructively to this discussion any more. I only hope you'll all be able to reach a compromise. --Michalis Famelis (talk) 14:12, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

To Baristarim: I did not say i am offended to be compared to the Turks! i am much aware of all the cultural similarities u mentioned and for thousands more! what could somehow offend me is to compare Greece (state) with Turkey (state), and this is what i commented on... I do not consider the turkish people responsible for what their military and government do... And in fact, i like all the turkish people i know, and i never had any problem with them. I know that in Istanbul there many greek orthodox churches, perhaps many more than in Athens... but there are no greek orthodox people anymore, that was my point... as for Ocalan, i'd rather not comment (not cause i can't). Search for Topal Osman (if it helps, his grave is on a hill, some meters above a greek church). Hectorian 14:23, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

- For the individual who claims that he is an international lawyer and that he is the only one who knows the correct meaning and usage of terms, etc., I provide below the definition of Genocide according to International Law: (And the following is from Wikipedia. Are you disputing this too?)

The Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (in article 2) defines genocide as "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Nothing is more clearer then the above. It does not mention anything about "command structure" and all the arguments you provided. Here we are debating whether this article should be called a genocide or not. Not to prove that someone who is accused of genocide has actually planned/ordered/committed a genocide or not.

Regarding Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Dresden, etc., the Allies bombed them as part of their effort to defeat the enemy and end the war, "not to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group..."

Regarding my previous use of the term Crimes Against Humanity for this genocide, I stand by it. The crimes committed against the Pontian Greeks meet both the criteria for Genocide as well for Crimes Against Humanity. The two terms are not mutually exclusive.

My family knows what Genocide is. My grandfather from my mother's side was deliberatly accused, tried, and hanged by the Kangaroo "Idependence Courts" in Amasya on September 21, 1921. My father's village, in the Samsun area, was burnt to the ground on May 30, 1917 with all of its 340 residents (men, women, and children) murdered or burnt alive by the likes of Topal Osman and his followers. My father and a lady, who were not in town, were the only survivors. The above are documented events. If necessary, I can provide the sources, and more testimonies of individuals with similar experiencies.

And lastly, I would refrain from calling myself an "expert", and labeling others as "racist", " in bad faith", "miseducated", etc. Use of these kinds of terms does not reflect positively on the individuals who use them. - Rizos01 16:11, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Genocide is a legal term, the fact that you repeat my parents know it, shows that, in fact you don't know.. Genocide is a specific crime.. On the other hand I agree with you that genocide and crime against humanity are not mutually exclusive.. It really hasn't gotten across to some people I think: Topal Osman is Topal Osman, his business is his business, his crime is his crime, unless you can bring ther proof that he got his orders from the National Assembly or Ataturk, or the Ottoman Sultan (yes, there has to be proof, crying that it has been so long, how can we bring it? is not a defense in law), you cannot mention they were killed by the Turks, or Turkish administration.. Oh yeah, as if pro-Megali Idea Greek gangs didn't kill any Turks, right... :)) Baristarim 16:37, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I have a problem when the standards of Wikipedia are dragged down by people who use terms that are not their area of expertise [9], as Wikipedia's own article on Wikipedia mentions, and rightly so.. Genocide is a legal term, not a layword. And Topal Osman was never in the administration, the day you prove that he got his orders from Ataturk or the national Assembly, his crimes cannot reflect on the Turkish nation, got it?? Don't say oh, but it has been so long, there is no proof; well, just unlucky, eh?? You get the proof, it doesn't matter it has been thousand years, if not it cannot be substantiated.. And as for what you have written above about genocide :)))))) Yeah whatever, I hope you don't write such stuff in Law School... Otherwise you might get a zero (well, maybe 20 percent).. If Turks, or the Turkish state (there is less difference than you think), had really wanted to wipe out the Pontus Greeks, there would not have been 1 million left to be exchanged in 1923. I am seriously and fastly losing my trust in the academic seriousity of Wikipedia, in the long term this is not helpful to Wikipedia that you are trying to push such a POV... Baristarim 16:37, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Another Genocide

I think that it is kinda funny that the title of the Srebrenica genocide article is still Srebrenica massacre, after a UN Tribunal passed a sentence calling it a genocide.. I am not saying there is any relation, but I find it a bit bizarre to say the least... In any case... Food for thought... Baristarim 14:12, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

It is part of the Bosnian Genocide. an event which is included in that genocide, that's why;) Hectorian 14:29, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok.. I see :) Baristarim 15:14, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Let's cut the crap folks

This has no relation to this subject, but pls think about it, Greeks, Turks everyone.. I put a post on the Talk:Greco-Turkish_relations... Pls have a look... THAT'S WHERE WE SHOULD START... Baristarim 23:45, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes we should. However, ostrichism for the past, usually fails to secure peace for the future... •NikoSilver• 00:22, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

"Ethnic cleansing" as a solution?

I just noticed that the article Pontic Greeks pipelinks to this article through the term "ethnic cleansing". The article Ethnic cleansing also lists this article (by its current name) as an example. Would it be acceptable to all sides to move this article to a title with the word "genocide" replaced by "ethnic cleansing"? To preoccupy Baristarim's (imho) legalistic approach, I don't know if the term applies here in a legal sense (I'm just an engineering student). I'm just pointing out that the term "ethnic cleansing" has been used in other articles of wikipedia to refer to the events. Could this be a compromise? --Michalis Famelis (talk) 15:07, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Michali, i think that the term 'ethnic cleansing' would refer to the expulsion and immigration of the Pontians as well. so, this article is a part of ethnic cleansing (the other part being Exchange of populations between Greece and Turkey). Hectorian 15:51, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

@Tzekai and Hectorian:

69.134.220.50 ist not a sockpuppet from 62.178.231.146. There are'nt only greek nationalits at the wikipedia. What a fact ist: This genocide is only recognized by the Greeks. Why should this article be neutral? If I would write something, which was only recognized by the turks, it will became a scandal. The most of the notes and the weblinks are from Greece. Also there are'nt any serios links, or is a personal homepage from angelfire.com a serios link?

And another thing: You make propaganda to the club "Mit einer Stimme". Guys, thats the reason why many people does'nt like the Wikipedia.

PS: Sorry for my bad English, I'm not from here... -- 62.178.231.146 15:44, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

U said: If I would write something, which was only recognized by the turks, it will became a scandal. Guess what, TRNC is only recognised by Turkey and the whole rest of the world talks about it as 'Turkish Occupied Northern Cyprus' or as 'Turkish Puppet State', etc. Has this become a scandal? Apropos, there are many more sources in the article that are not Greek. Check the US states recognition and the link for the UK Parliament and the US Congress. Also the statements of German, Austrian and American diplomats of that time. In addition, there is also a page for the New York Times articles during that period. Perhaps, someone else is making propaganda, not me... PS:the article will be immediately reverted. 12:20, 24 September 2006 (UTC)Hectorian

Yes and the TRNC has also a POV-title. You say, the few people from Austria, Germany and America are diplomates? What a lough... and what is with the whole world who does'nt recognize the genocide? The chauvinism from some people are realy insufferable and the only people who reverts the article are from greece and I will not accept that, you can't blog me how much you want! -- 62.178.231.146 13:32, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Genocide title: + "allegations"

The argument to keep this title is that the term is used and may be found. It is not solid argument. You may find all kinds of name calling in newspapers, but not all of them make title. Since only Greece defines it as "genocide", the proper title would be something like Pontian Greek genocide allegations, if one really wants the G-word. (and at least "genocide" should not be capitalized in the title. Mukadderat 20:35, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Removal of the dispute tag before dispute settled is inadmissible. It does not matter how long it stays. A dipute is a dispute. Mukadderat 20:46, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

It seems that 'the reason of dispute is just to dispute...'. Your argument is not solid either... Apart from Greece, many US states have recognised it as genocide; the sources provided cover academic, media and other areas. unless sources claiming the opposite are provided, the article does not have to be renamed.

And for those who claim the article shall be renamed to 'Pontian Greek massacres': there are greek sources holding that Greece/Greeks recognise it as 'genocide'. are there sources holding that Turkey/Turks consider it 'massacres'? (i doubt...). Hectorian 20:50, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

And why do you don't answer to my argument? -- 62.178.231.146 21:48, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Looks like "Many US states" are those where there is a big Greek lobby. I doubt Anerican politicians care about Greeks. As for "dispute just for dispute", you are right here, colleague. The title is offensive and pushes a certain POV in opinions of many, and the dispute will continue until this offensive title replaced by a more neutral one. Mukadderat 15:56, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

“ Looks like "Many US states" are those where there is a big Greek lobby. ”

No sources, just plain guesses. --Tzekai 16:07, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Going around in circles, eh?? You asked for sources: The school and university textbooks of the whole world.. This article engages in historical revisionism.. It is such a minority point of view that there are no anti-theses.. None of the diplomat's mention a genocide, that's the problem: this is used as original research to prove that a genocide happened by using sources that mention massacres.. States' recognition and the reception of a letter by the UN or a a speech made by one of the 800 members of House of Lords, is this a joke??? None of them are research, they are news stories, none of them can cite in themselves the underlying research that proves that it was a genocide... Again, the tag Baristarim 16:37, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

No matter what you do people, please don't pretend that there is no dispute.. Baristarim 16:42, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

The school and university textbooks of the whole world do not say that it was not a genocide. the school and university textbooks of the whole world do not mention the issue cause of present lack of interest (u know, what was happening for the Armenians in the '70s and '80s...). the problem still remains what happened to the half of the Pontian Greek population... There are sources that Greece calls it a genocide. are there sources that Turkey calls it (a) massacre(s)? of course not! cause turkish memory has been erased for what has happened prior to 1923 (and these are not my words, but the words of a turkish novelist-historian...). and, yes, Baristarim, the thesis of one out of 800 members of the House of Lords is interesting... How many of the members of the same parliament recognise the TRNC? maybe... none? if that guy was a Greek Cypriot or simply of greek origins or if he had a greek wife, some users would be talking again about the 'evil and influencial' greek lobby! those diplomats back in 1910s-20s do not mention a genocide, but they do mention that to the greeks happened exactly what to the armenians... that's interesting u know... The usage of the word 'genocide' spread after WWII, but this does not mean that prior events cannot be called 'genocides'... Lastly, to make myself clear, the article is sourced, and no matter what some users might say, there are non-greek sources, resolutions, bla bla bla. i do not care if some think that 'the greek lobby has made a small miracle'. as long as there are no opposing sources, i will remove the tag again, and i will keep doing it, without, of course breaking the 3RR... Provide sources! turkish, german, american... whatever! Hectorian 17:14, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Do you have any sources which say that no, it wasn't a genocide; the people who say it was are bullshitting us! So far all we have are sources which say it was a genocide, and sources which don't address the issue of whether it was a genocide. You can't use those! --Tzekai 17:17, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Your logic is upside down: it is you have to prove that there was genocide. IF an existence of something is discussed, it is possible to prove that something exist, but to prove that something does not exist is possible only in mathematics. Mukadderat 17:22, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

As for sources, it is such a minority point of view that there are no anti-theses... Baristarim 19:05, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Sources have been cited; the article's full of them. The problem is that for some unexplained reason, you don't like them, say it wasn't a genocide and don't cite any sources saying it wasn't. --Tzekai 17:25, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Any POV-pushing minority may produce millions of sources. It does not mean that their POV is comonly accepted. The main issue is not do deny some fact, but provide neutral and fair description of them. "Genocide" is not an accurate description no matter how many times Geeks repeat it. Mukadderat 17:30, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

So how many sources do you want? If numerous anti-genocide organizations, numerous US states and the fact the "genocide" term in reference to these events has even slid into EU documents, is not good enough for you then what is? --Tzekai 18:11, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Numerous anti-genocide organizations?? Well, you know, that Greek guy whose thesis appears in the link that is sourced was one of the founders of the Australian Institute of whatever among with five other people (one Armenian included).. That ain't impartial folks, I am not saying someone is not capable of producing good science because of his nationality, but that still doesn't make them impartil.. Well, maybe I should also create an organization called The Supreme Global Council of The Genocide, write a bunch of non-scientific arguments in one of its pages and cite it in this article?? Baristarim 19:11, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

It's not just a POV pushing minority, we have got a huge non-greek bibliography and recognision of the genocide by half of US states. ""Genocide" is not an accurate description no matter how many times Geeks repeat it." that's according to your POV. Look, this article is based on verifiable sources and that's why the tags should be removed. Mitsos 18:15, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Half of US states? 6 out of 50 is not half, math mitsos.. And avoid weasel words like huge, what is your definition of huge? Response to Tzekai: none of the school and university textbooks in the WHOLE WORLD refer to what happened as Pontian Greek Genocide.. Is that good enough as a source for you?? The day a considerable portion of them refer to it as such, you can have your article Pontian Greek Genocide and I am not going to touch it.. Baristarim 18:48, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

This is exactly what you don't seem to get. They may not say it was a genocide, but they also don't say it wasn't. They just don't address the issue, in which case they are largely irrelevant on the nature of those events. Only sources that affirm or deny the genocide thesis are relevant. You seem to be forgetting that the "yes it was a genocide" thesis has got some international recognition. --Tzekai 19:53, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Something else you said is interesting Hectorian, the fact that the use of the word Genocide spread after WWII.. It is true that events before might have had a genocidal nature, but extreme precaution must be taken before labelling them as such.. You might blame me for speaking legalese, but because Genocide is a word use to describe a crime in a legal sense, and not an event, we should avoid anachronisms before convincting as guilty people who have been dead for decades and centuries.. Are these guilty parties alive to give their side of the story?? I am sorry but sometimes we have to say c'est la vie. If not, it gives away to a slippery slope, people can go back to a thousand years ago and say hugeunot genocide, protestant genocide, african genocide, crimean genocide, visigoth genocide, Egyptian Jew genocide, Babylonian Genocide, Inca Genocide, Aztec Genocide etc. It can be mentioned as this some/few/most historians agree that, if these events were to take place today, they would be considered a genocide, that would be the correct academic way of saying it... Baristarim 18:59, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

More guesswork... --Tzekai 19:53, 24 September 2006 (UTC) (perhaps the Armenian Genocide is also an anachronism)

Baristarim, check the etymology of the word 'genocide'... it can be applied to events prior to WWII (u know, genocides did not begin with the Jews)... if we were to talk about anachronisms, modern Turks should not be called Turks anyway... (i guess a "storm" is coming....). lstly to re-make myself clear, without sources, the article is not gonna be renamed! as for the US states, the population of those who recognise it as genocide, may not make up the half of the USA, but surely about the 1/3. so, saying taht it means nothing, is at least 'suspicious'... Hectorian 20:05, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I have to say that i guessed the same as Tzekai: these events cannot be called 'genocide', cause the word came in widespread use later... Official position of Turkish government... missing the point though... Hectorian 20:09, 24 September 2006 (UTC)