Wikipedia

Talk:Greek genocide/Archive 4

< Talk:Greek genocide
Latest comment: 17 years ago by Awiseman in topic pov-title tag


Straw poll

Latest comment: 17 years ago113 comments17 people in discussion

This is not a vote, it is simply a poll to see where we are on the road to consensus. Note that it's not about outnumbering people, it's about compromise. With that said...here goes. I've gathered all the names suggested so far (feel free to add others). —Khoikhoi 04:48, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Support --WinHunter (talk) 16:57, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Pontic Greek genocide

Is capitalization an issue? —Khoikhoi 04:48, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Oppose --A.Garnet 08:40, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Baristarim 13:13, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Support •NikoSilver• 14:42, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Mitsos 14:55, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Aristovoul0s 17:06, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Support per [1]. I also hold to my other supported option. No I don't. See comments. --Michalis Famelis (talk) 17:26, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, legitimate title as it has an academic backing and recognition outside of Greece. Not to mention that it has a lot more recognition than other incidents on Wikipedia going under the title "genocide" even with a lower death toll, e.g. Assyrian genocide (also, everything everyone said above). --Tzekai 18:08, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Mukadderat 20:26, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Support with a small g --Awiseman 20:33, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Hectorian 02:33, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I'm not a Greek-hater, it's just that voting "support" would not get us what we want to accomplish, which is to remove the dispute tags. —Khoikhoi 02:36, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose no neutral sources I have come accross label these events as such. Rummel is not a reliable source. - Francis Tyers · 13:31, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Neutral Well, I found at least one reliable source that labels these events as genocide, so maybe this is the appropriate title. - Francis Tyers · 07:54, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Support xvvx 02:04, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Oppose --WinHunter (talk) 06:28, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Pontic Greek genocide allegations

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Oppose --WinHunter (talk) 10:27, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Pontic Greek massacres

  • Support but can also support Pontian Greek deportations or Pontian Greek genocide thesis as it has been propesed some time ago. Baristarim 13:13, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose: infrequent, pov, inconsistent with content. •NikoSilver• 14:44, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
It is not POV since everyone accepts that there were massacres, the issue here is if it was a genocide or not.. Baristarim 15:02, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
To my personal interpretation, 'pov' is something that is not described by its most frequent appellation. Others also claim that 'pov' is something which is not described by the 'self-identifying' term (I suspect nobody questions that Pontian victims do call it a 'genocide'). In both cases, 'Pontian Greek Genocide' is far superior to 'Pontic Greek massacres' as extensively proven above. •NikoSilver• 12:57, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Self-identification does not apply to events, only people and groups of people. See for example Native American genocide. - Francis Tyers · 13:34, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Aristovoul0s 17:07, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose, euphemism. --Tzekai 18:08, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Mukadderat 20:26, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Hectorian 02:34, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Support There were definitely massacres of Pontian Greeks. - Francis Tyers · 13:19, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
See also Talk:Greek_genocide/Archive_1#Suggestions. Rummel is a really bad source. - Francis Tyers · 13:28, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose--Hattusili 13:26, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was No concensus --WinHunter (talk) 16:56, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Pontian massacres

  • Support Rummel is a really bad source. - Francis Tyers · 13:28, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Mitsos 11:03, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Although not disagreeable that there were indeed massacres, the extent of these massacres (et.al.) more than justifies the 'genocide' title. However, without third-party references, that would be WP:NOR. Thankfully, there are third-party sources that state it was a 'genocide' (see #Genocide), so we have no other reason to demote the events, except maybe Turkish denialism. •NikoSilver• 11:25, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Supportno we only have one for and one against, that's not plural.. Asking for solid academic sources is not denialism dude, please stop this name-calling, i mean, do you get some sort of weird pleasure by insulting Turks?? :))) Extent of the massacres is not the issue, the issue is impartial academic sources referring to this as genocide and not as something else.. Baristarim 16:03, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  • No pleasure at all. It wasn't my "name-calling", just click on it. Oh, and if you do, you'll see that the sources are 'plural'. •NikoSilver• 22:00, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose, "Pontian" in itself is not a proper ethnic designator.--Tekleni 16:18, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, i have suggested this before. --A.Garnet 15:48, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose xvvx 02:06, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was No concensus (only 1 vote) --WinHunter (talk) 16:59, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Greek genocide (Pontos)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.


The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Oppose --WinHunter (talk) 06:28, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Pontic Greek genocidal massacres

  • Oppose. —Khoikhoi 04:48, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose: wordy, pleonasm. •NikoSilver• 14:45, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose wordy and sounds a bit weird.. Baristarim 15:02, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Aristovoul0s 17:07, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Neutral --Tzekai 18:08, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Mukadderat 20:26, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Hectorian 02:34, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was No concensus --WinHunter (talk) 16:59, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Hellenic Genocide

  • Support Aristovoul0s 13:29, 7 October 2006 (UTC) 234,000 results deserves a go [2]. The Hellenic nation is

one and Massacres, deportations were not solely aimed towards Pontian Greeks. (The Hellenes of Pontos were tortured and massacred exactly like the Hellenes from Ionia (where Smyrni is) and exactly like all other Hellenes under the Turks) For R.L. Chios for Instance. The Armenians are not the only subject people in Turkey which have suffered from this policy of making Turkey exclusively the country of the Turks. The story which I have told about the Armenians I could also tell with certain modifications about the Greeks and the Syrians. Indeed the Greeks were the first victims of this nationalizing idea. Ambassador Morgenthau's Story CHAPTER XXIV.

  • Strong oppose - seriously, I would really like that some people come to Istanbul and take a good visit, Istanbul has more functioning Orthodox churches (filled to the brim by approx half a million Eastern European immigrants that have come to Turkey after the Cold War) than Greece has mosques, and definitely much more than Athens has mosques, which has none by the way, and that since the end of Ottoman presence 170 years ago.. And what would be the sources for this article, may I ask? www.hellenicgenocide.com, www.greekmurderers.com? OTOH, a sourced article titled history of the end of hellenic presence in Turkey could be a very legitimate one, if it doesn't engage in sniping of course.. Baristarim 22:24, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Why should Athens have a mosque???? Why shall we make such a tribute to the Ottoman conquerors who massacred the Greeks?? Unfortunately, the ZOG is going to spend 15 million euros for building that mosque (which will be filled to the brim third-world muslim immigrants), despite the objections of the people of Athens. Mitsos 14:27, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Now Mitsos, you've even caused a fellow Greek to describe your comment as utter bullshit. All EU capitals have mosques, and Athens has a Roman Catholic Cathedral (St Denis) and other parishes, numerous Protestant denominations (including the Anglican St Paul's Chaplaincy), and two Jewish synagogues (the Sephardi Beth Shalom and the Romaniote Synagogue). If Greece (or any European country) is to be a worthy member of the EU, freedom of religion (which is guaranteed in Article 13 of the Greek constitution) must be respected. I'm glad a mosque is going to be built, and when it is, I'll even visit it. Also, I don't much like that anti-Semitic ZOG comment.--Tekleni 14:40, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
First of all, who is that fellow Greek who described my comment as "utter bullshit"? Secondly, you talk like the ultimate goal of our nation is to become "a worthy member of the EU" (which is what the media keep telling us). Who gives a shit about the EU!!!? You also said that "All EU capitals have mosques". Well, unfortunately, that's true and it can be corrected. "Also, I don't much like that anti-Semitic ZOG comment" I 'm sorry, next time I will ask you before I make such a comment. "I'm glad a mosque is going to be built, and when it is, I'll even visit it." I 'm sure you will, mr. "Tekleni". Mitsos 13:40, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
--Awiseman 17:00, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Oppose --WinHunter (talk) 16:54, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Pontic Greek deportations

  • Support --A.Garnet 08:40, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose: pov, inconsistent with article sources and content. •NikoSilver• 14:47, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Not POV for same reasons, everyone knows that there were deportations.. Less POV than genocide in any case.. Baristarim 15:02, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Support as I mentioned above Baristarim 15:02, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose Mitsos 15:12, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Aristovoul0s 17:08, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose, euphemism for the deaths of more than 300,000 people (the figure confirmed by neutral sources cited earlier). --Tzekai 18:08, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Mukadderat 20:26, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose, the article is not only about 'deportations'. Hectorian 02:35, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose ridiculous euphemism. - Francis Tyers · 13:30, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Support--Hattusili 13:34, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose xvvx 16:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Oppose --WinHunter (talk) 10:20, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Pontian Greek genocide thesis

  • Support Neutral, see comments. --Michalis Famelis (talk) 13:24, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose pleonasm, argumentative, pov, purified weasel, inconsistent with content and sources. •NikoSilver• 14:48, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Support as I mentioned above Baristarim 15:02, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Mitsos 15:13, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Aristovoul0s 17:09, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Neutral --Tzekai 18:08, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  • neutral Mukadderat 20:26, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose, very argumentative. Hectorian 02:36, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose controversial articles should not be labelled as such. - Francis Tyers · 13:30, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Oppose --WinHunter (talk) 10:25, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Pontic Greek genocide controversy

  • Support. —Khoikhoi 04:48, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Unidiomatic. (see all other controversial WP articles). •NikoSilver• 14:49, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Neutral Baristarim 15:02, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Aristovoul0s 17:09, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Neutral --Tzekai 18:08, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. The core of the article is about radically differing interpretations of the events which may or may not be of genocidal character. Mukadderat 20:24, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Hectorian 02:37, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Mitsos 11:57, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose controversial articles should not be labelled as such. - Francis Tyers · 13:30, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.


The result of the debate was speedy closing WP:POINT suggestion. --WinHunter (talk) 10:13, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Pontic Greek Genocide inexistence

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Comments

Pontic Greek Deportation = LMFAO! A. Garnet you're just too much. Miskin 09:48, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

There's no point to participate in a vote here, no wikipedia policy is violated. Credible, neutral sources such as Rummel make use of the term genocide therefore WP:CITE is satisfied. There's actually no source which claims that it was not a genocide, but something else, so it's not an NPOV issue. Again, if there's another particular WP:POLICY which puts restrictions on the term genocide, then bring it forth. If the arguments you've brought up so far was the best you can do, then please stop wasting your time and ours. Miskin 09:56, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

By the way, whatever the final compromise, I think we should change "pontian" to "pontic". See also Pontic Greeks --Michalis Famelis (talk) 13:25, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

...and Pontiac Trans Am!! •NikoSilver• 14:54, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed it so far, but this example won me over, reminding me an earlier proposal I'd made, that is having the article explain the term and then pointing to the relevant facts which should be better placed in an article such as History of Pontic Greeks. I mean come on people, if Abduction phenomenon is a valid WP article title, this one is too. --Michalis Famelis (talk) 17:35, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

The test here should be "what is the most common name for the events"? Pontian deportations, or Pontian genocide? Holocaust, or knitting class... --Tzekai 18:34, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but it has to be the most common name amongst academics outside of Greece also. --A.Garnet 19:36, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Wait wait wait... Only ufologist nuts call alien abductions a "phenomenon" as in Abduction phenomenon. The notion that these "phenomena" are indeed phenomena is clearly a minority position. I (want to) believe that all of us here would speak of "abduction theories" or "allegations" and so on. However, the term "Abduction phenomenon" is used by the said minority of ufologists. Hence it is an existing term, hence it warrants its own article. Now, the people who refer to our events as a genocide are obviously worldwide a minority. But a minority opinion is still an opinion and deserves its own article, since it is significant enough that one of the developed, first world, european countries has taken it in as true. --Michalis Famelis (talk) 20:41, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Oh come off it. Using the TRNC, Republic of Macedonia or Abduction phenomenon as examples to warrant this article title is complete bollocks. We are not talking about defacto entities (TRNC), commonly used names (Rep. Macedonia) or sci-fi concepts. This is history, it is open to interpretation and bias, so forgive me if i dont give a rats arse what Greece recognises, or what Turkey or anyone else says. All i want is this article to reflect not just what Greece or Greeks say, but what non-affiliated academics say. Now you know, all of you know, not one academic text has been devoted to this event outside of Greece under the current name. Therefore the title is simply not notable enough to be this articles title. It really is that simple. Anything beyond that is reflecting a nationalist pov. --A.Garnet 21:00, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Let me quote you: "This is history, it is open to interpretation and bias". Well, it is a wikipedian's job to present these interpretations and these biases in a neutral way. Again: "reflecting a nationalist pov". We can, and we should present these nationalist points of view in an NPOV way. What we do in Wikipedia is to write about things, events and ideas that exist. You may dispute if the events happened but you cannot dispute that there are people who believe that the events happened. You can dispute the existance of the event but you cannot dispute the existance of the idea. The internal betrayal of Germany in WWI is open to dispute. But the existance of the idea that Germany was betrayed cannot be disputed, it is a fact.
Apart from all that, on the case of notability. One thing is that if something is recognized by one sovereign state, put to a law and be designated for a national commemoration day, then it is notable enough to be on wikipedia. Hell we have an article on Towel Day, which was set up by common hobbyists and enthousiasts and we don't have space for something that is commemorated by a whole friggin country? Another thing is that it is awfully short sighted to dismiss a whole bunch of writers and researchers just because they are Greek. When did someone's nationality became the primary criterion for determining their credibility? That sir is outright racism, and I really am not into the whole personal attacks thing.
I'm really starting to think that the only way to get out of this deadlock is to procede with formal dispute resolution, RFC and if that doesn't work out, Mediation. --Michalis Famelis (talk) 21:25, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
(after edit conflict): I thought this article was about the term. The introduction says: The term Pontian Greek Genocide (...) refers to the alleged genocide by the Young Turk administration of the Ottoman Empire of Pontian Greek populations in the historical region of Pontus, the Black Sea provinces of the Ottoman Empire. Do you want it to say The term Pontian Greek deportations (...) refers to the alleged genocide by the Young Turk administration of the Ottoman Empire of Pontian Greek populations in the historical region of Pontus, the Black Sea provinces of the Ottoman Empire? The text dislaims the exact proportions of the term's acceptance. Ergo, renaming the article makes it a Turkish biased one. --Tzekai 21:36, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Look, the event in question concerns the deportation and killings of large number of Pontians. This is the event which the article should explain. Within that event there is a pov, that those said killing constituted a genocide, this pov is held by Greece and Greek researchers. My position has been that the events should be explained from a moderate and agreeable title i.e. Pontian deporations, massacres etc, something which most authors agreed happen, and within that include the Greek pov as well as any ther pov. What you and other Greek users have offered instead, is to explain the whole event within a Greek pov, using Greek authors, that is why i ask for non-affiliate sources, because the Greek pov has to be proven to be the majority pov, which it is not! I am trying to offer the most reasonable framwork from which to create the most credible article, but users here are more concerned with shouting genocide, despite the complete lack of sources (have you seen the 'background' section? Absoloutely none of the sources are even relevant to the time or place of the event). --A.Garnet 21:46, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
(To Tzekai) It is not just the term, the article needs a complete rewrite. --A.Garnet 21:49, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
To A.Garnet: the Pontian Greeks did not suffere only deportations. have u read the sources? a title having the word 'deportations' would descrease the article's quality and info, since events like 'burning of villages' and 'shootings' would be excluded. Hectorian 02:30, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

(Denial of) Pontian Greek genocide

Latest comment: 17 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion

Just musing that: Overwhelming evidence that Pontian Greek civilisation was wiped out + Denial that it existed = Denial of Pontian Greek genocide. Politis 14:47, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

You can feel sorry that Hellenism deosn't exist in turkey anymore, that's your POV, and you have a right to feel that way.. But please settle old scores somewhere else.. Baristarim 15:57, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I would like to ask to stop trolling and work towards compromise. If trolls cannot stop, please don't respond to their bites. Mukadderat 20:31, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

He didn't say he felt sorry for it. --Awiseman 20:32, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
?? It is not up to us, people who were born decades after these events to say that we are sorry or not.. Life is like that and many events happen, good or bad, feeling sorry is demagogic word, for anything.. My mother's father was born in Thessaloniki, and, apparently, we don't live there anymore.. I cannot feel sorry for that either, that's how life unfolded back then.. That's just how life is, you can say I wish that it didn't happened, if you think carefully in fine, it is not the same thing as being sorry.. But just for comfort, I wish that no-one had died during the Greco-Turkish conflicts after the First WW, happy? :)) I had said this before, it is in the archives.. As for trolling, I have posted pages and pages of posts, a quarter of the archives are my posts, they include many where i raise in fine a lot of questions regarding original research, reliability of sources etc.. In any case, I am on a break from this article for a while, it has health implications :))Baristarim 19:51, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Genocidisputitis? •NikoSilver• 20:15, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Proposal the gazillion-quel

Latest comment: 17 years ago11 comments8 people in discussion

Please, do consider this as part of the section above (i thought it would not be right to modify the section). Khoikhoi was kind and helpfull enough to summarize and present all the possible titles that have been proposed so far. However, i would like to propose rename and expansion of this article into Hellenic Genocide. and these are the reasons:

1. 'Hellenic Genocide' gives 15,500 google hits (i am using Google UK in order to avoid speculations about Google Hellas). (if i use the word 'greek' instead of 'hellenic' i get about 2,000 results, and since these words are synonyms, the 2 thousand results can be added). 'Pontian Greek Genocide' returns 1,420 results, still more than any of the titles mentioned above (even if they are counted all together).
2. 'Pontian Greek Genocide' was (according to all those first 17,500 results) a chapter of the 'Hellenic Genocide'. so 'PGG' can become a section.
3. 'Hellenic Genocide' also gives a total of 532 photos, for those who have asked for photos...
4. The articles of New York Times are not talking exclusively about Pontus.
5. About academic proof, and since the 'PGG' was part of the Hellenic Genocide (always according to those 15,500 sources), the same sources can be used, as well as sources about the 'Smyrni Catastrophe' and greek populated cities/towns/villages in the Aegean coast, Cappadocia, etc (everyone can find them on the net).
6. The only problem is that this title lacks official recognition (at least not entirely). but, obviously this is not a problem... since in this article the recognition of Greece and 6 US states (that have an "incredible greek majority" of 1-3%!) equals no recognition for some users who consider them biased. and since in wikipedia exist 'genocide' articles with no official recognision.
  • note: if i use the term Hellenic Holocaust (or Greek) google returns 7-8 thousands more results (some of them are about the Greek Jews during WWII). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hectorian (talk • contribs) 09:39, September 28, 2006
Just as a note, a Hellenic Genocide article was deleted by afd sometime ago... --A.Garnet 09:43, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Was it sourced? or just a floated with POV stub? i am asking in renaming and expanding this one. at least it has more potential than all the other proposals. Hectorian 09:46, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
I support this proposal. Should have been made earlier. It is more comprehensive and generally all sources speak about all those genocides without discrimination.•NikoSilver• 10:28, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Generally, I don't like seeing the word "Hellenic" used in English (I must prefer "Greek", a term which has been used in the west for centuries), but whatever. --Tzekai 12:23, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

The Hellenic Genocide existed, but it isn't recognised not even by Greece. So, I must oppose this proposal. Mitsos 12:47, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I fail to see what exactly would be talked about in this article.. You mentioned Greeks of WWII, so I am a bit confused.. I mean, what timeframe are we talking about? Baristarim 13:13, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
(To hectorian) The article was no stub, it was large and full of the usual nationalist sources. If i remember correctly the Greek nationalist editor got banned for trying to rig the afd...--A.Garnet 14:32, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

On another note, the 1914 article has the date May 14 as when "The Hellenic Holocaust begins in the Ottoman Empire". Also 1916 gives July 16 and November 30 as dates as well. This is all unsourced of course. —Khoikhoi 15:07, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I have to disagree with the proposal. You have so many hits for Hellenic Genocide because the term used indiscriminately to all bad what happened to Greeks in Turkey. Putting this sticker "genocide" onto everything is a way of stirring hatred, rather than to commemorate history. Jews do not propose to rename the "Pogrom" article into something like Russian Jews Genocide. "Henocide", "holocaust", etc. has become common swear words, like "Nazi", "racist", etc. Mukadderat 20:20, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I proposed an extremely compromise title Pontic Greek genocide controversy: it includes both the "G"-word and a hint that in is not so evident. What can be closer to the middle of oppositions? Mukadderat 20:33, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea if an article Hellenic Genocide could stand in Wikipedia. but have in mind that in this case the non-greek sources would be more. My proposal (which i forgot to sign since it took some time to edit it...) was to show that if the turkish-pov is about to prevail (with one of those 'deportations', 'massacres', 'allegations' etc next to the current title), there is also a greek-pov which can be used in the other way round: instead of decreasing the singlificance of this article (event, genocide, history), there is a way to increase it by renaming and including in it all what happened in Asia Minor the first quarter of the 20th century. official recognision was never a problem for those who dispute this article, so this would not be a problem... google hits (a way wikipedia uses to name articles) favours it a lot. To Khoikhoi: when did the Holocaust begin? in the respective article i see 2 dates: Early elements of the Holocaust include the Kristallnacht pogrom of the 8th and 9th November 1938 and Starting in 1933, the Nazis set up concentration camps.... there are events that took place in both the dates u mentioned above, but not all agree which is the starting point. To Mukadderat: the word 'genocide' is not a common swear word like 'racist'. it is defined perfectly when an event can be called genocide. I agree with Tzekai about the usage of the term 'hellenic' and i also have to note (for it was mentioned somewhere in this page before) that capitalisation of the word 'Genocide' does matter! To A.Garnet: if that editor filled the article with nationalistic sources, i understand why it was deleted and why the admins blocked him. but this is not the only way to create an article, u know... To Baristarim: i meant that the term 'Greek Holocaust' returns in google uk results that are talking about the Greek Jews during WWII who were exterminated by the nazis (so, i cannot say if the majority of the results are for the Asia Minor Greeks or for the Greek Jews-two unrelated cases). lastly, a title Hellenic Genocide justifies its existance more than any of the other titles proposed so far: it has all needed, apart from official recognision (but as said, this is not a reason for some). i am not gonna create or rename and expand this article later, though. not cause i am afraid i will be blocked (i would be very careful about the sources and the language i would use:)...), but cause i prefer to have an article that has all, which is the current one under its current title. Hectorian 02:27, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Interwiki

Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Request

Latest comment: 17 years ago18 comments9 people in discussion

I request the editors of this page to remove both of the tags from the article. The reasons have been explained by many users in the talk page. Mitsos 10:53, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

An alternative solution would be to vote about the subject. Mitsos 10:53, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I support this request, per talk with the admin User:Winhunter who protected this page, despite previous dispute resolution decision by admin User:El C ([3] and [4]). •NikoSilver• 11:01, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
  Done —Mets501 (talk) 13:27, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Dispute not resolved; tags resored. Please don't do such things without consensus of both sides of the conflict. `'mikka (t) 20:24, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

To NicoSilver: please cease jokes and sarcastic remarks. You are wasting other people's time and increasing hatred rather than leading to common solution. `'mikka (t) 20:26, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Three admins agreed in the removal of the tags: Mets501, User:El C before him and WinHunter who said he would remove the tags. seems, `'mikka (t), that u are abusing your admin powers... something can be done about this, i think... Hectorian 20:30, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
To Mikkalai: Increase your sense of humor. Increase your abiliy to spell my username correctly. Increase your criticism ability. Increase your ability to determine direction of trolling. Increase ability to determine which admin action will help in dispute resolution. Decrease personal comments on isolated laconic humorous comments. Decrease abuse of admin powers.
PS. We all suffer from Genocidisputitis here.•NikoSilver• 20:39, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Sorry for the name misspelling. I am not taking part in the dispute and don't know who is what here. It just happens that your blue signature catches the eye prominently in the talk page and what my eye caught first were your witticisms like "Pontiac Grand Am", etc. So I am just letting you know this and you decide for yourself, which reputation would you like to have: that of smart one or of smartass. `'mikka (t) 02:42, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Point taken. I'm just trying to tone down a hot trollish discussion which has gotten out of hand. Humor helps. A 'smartass' would only mock the other side. I usually am more of a fan of self-sarcasm (Pontiac Trans Am would mock Greeks if you haven't noticed, plus it is a valid example for dab). Finally, had you taken part in the dispute, you'd have realised that your action in removing the templates does not help in the dispute resolution, since it allows the Turkish users (disputing side) to just leave the article as is, while they have no citational or wp rules qualification for their dispute! See WP:AN#Admin edit-war! for a summary of the whole story. •NikoSilver• 12:28, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I mean, I have to say this again, is there really no dispute? Or have I been thinking about another article? There are such little sources that prove that this was a genocide.. The others, recognitions et al, prove that it was recognized as a genocide.. In that case, I can go to Iran article and add terrorist in the intro - Iran is a terrorist country that is located in.. depending on US recognition to that effect.. That's what I am saying, three web-sites that don't include practically any research and a paragraph in a book doesn't support this article's grave title.. Nobody is abusing anything Nikos, he is right, there is a serious dispute.. Baristarim 21:09, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

(after edit conflict with Tzekai below) The existance of a persistant dispute does not ratify violation of WP policies (especially WP:NAME). I don't expect Turkish users to ever stop disputing this article! Your example is inapplicable. You should have said renaming Iran to Iran terrorist country; but that, again, would not be the 'self-identifying term', nor would it be the 'most frequent appellation'.•NikoSilver• 21:32, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
*Yes there is*, it has been repeated time and time again. R. J. Rummel was one of the first sources cited (right at the beginning of Archive 1) and has been repeatedly ignored by everyone disputing the title. Side A has cited sources - when is side B (the anti-genocide faction) going to cite it's sources, because thus far, nothing has been cited. Where is the proof that the genocide thesis is disputed by third parties. We have third parties endorsing it, third parties not mentioning it, but no third parties dismissing the genocide thesis. As Hectorian said: "without sources, this article ain't gonna be renamed". --Tzekai 21:29, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
This is a shameless lie. There are plenty of references, and I quoted several of them in #Quotations about Trukey not recognizing genocide. Mukadderat 02:45, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Mukkaderat, your references are Turkish, not 'third party'. So (a) kindly tone down ('shameless lie' etc), and (b) please point to a 'third party' disputing source.•NikoSilver• 12:12, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
To Baristarim: I think u know fair well that this article cannot be kept hostage forever... even if an admin (cause it's just one) adds the tags back. u seem to always adopt minority's POV: u didn't say a word about the 3 admins who removed (or clearly stated that they were about to remove) the tags... I have been quite patient so far not to add 'name dispute' tags in other articles, cause simply it would be as unencyclopedic and stupid as the tags added here: for example, i would ask to rename TRNC into 'Turkish Occupied Northern Cyprus', or to rename Casualties of the Turkish-Kurdish conflict into 'Kurdish War of Independance'. I bet u know well, that there are minority (for PKK) or majority (for TRNC) sources that would allow me to ask a rename. The difference between what i just said and your dispute here, is that there is no sources to support your claim...! I have repeatedly asked to provide a source that Turkey recognises the events as 'massacres', or sources that nothing happened in Pontus that time, or sources that the term 'Pontian Greek Genocide' is not the most commonly used, or sources that what happened to the Pontians Greeks was not a Genocide. u failed to do so... What is being done here by specific users who express the turkish pov is that we should not 'fuel ethnic hatred by talking about history'... or that 'according to their opinion what happened was "not exactly" a genocide'.... or even childish ideas like 'well, yeah, they were deported and their villages were set on fire, but this does not mean someone wanted to kill them!'... And u always ask for more and more and more sources, in way that it is made clear that u will be disputing the article for no reason for ever... Please, live along with it... the article isn't going to be renamed... Hectorian 22:54, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm in the process of collecting more sources. --A.Garnet 23:24, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Looking forward to see them. Hectorian 23:27, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Dispute?

Latest comment: 17 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Since the main issue here is the article title, and WP:NAME says so, let's google it:

Please specify an alternative name with more hits.

It is absolutely irrelevant if the genocide happened or not. The sources say a lot of things that indicate such a thing happened, but that is beside the point. This is absolutely the most frequent term used for the events, and even Turkish sources that dispute it, they name it as such (i.e. Turkish media dispute the 'Pontian genocide'). The article is clear in illustrating the controversy, therefore the article title 'itself' does not in any case condemn past governments of Turkey (nor should it regard them as innocent).

Many articles in WP (see White supremacy, Black supremacy, UFO, Dolchstosslegende, Abduction phenomenon etc) which are proven (or mostly accepted as) fictional or biased or propagandistic, bear their article titles without any controversy or dispute or fallacy or bias illustrated in the article title. Why should a recognised, documented, cited article be the exception?

The issue now includes the Smyrna catastrophe etc. So Hectorian's proposal about Hellenic Genocide is valid. Kindly visit http://www.hellenicgenocide.org/ (Brazilian author) for more details and sources.

The Turkish side will never stop disputing this article. This is not a reason to go against WP rules (namely WP:NAME) and common sense. This is neither a reason to tag the article eternally (especially under protection). On the contrary, the Turkish side has to be pushed to include their position in the article, thus the tags have to be removed.•NikoSilver• 23:41, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we should search first if this Brazilian author is married to a Greek (sarcasm... lots of...). Hectorian 23:46, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
If you're staying up, Hector, I urge you to browse it for its numerous sources. Many that have not been included here. We probably never visited this site because we thought it was an obvious partisan source! Goodnight. •NikoSilver• 23:51, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
I will stay up for some time more... In fact, i am surprised by the number of sources, quotes and photos that this cite has. Just a first look in the index [5], and then all the "additional" info that has been requested is here! i think i run upon this site in the past, but never took a closer look, considering it a "partizan" one as u correctly said... But apparently, this is not at all... Goodnight. Hectorian 00:00, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Misleading googole count

Latest comment: 17 years ago10 comments4 people in discussion

Very nice goole counting you have in the previous section. Here is my count:

Meaning the term is aggressively pushed by several Greek revenge seekers, and not as widespread as someone wants to present.

In addition, the content of the article does not make to conclude it is genocide. "Labor batallions" and " forcing the weaker population, including women and children, to walk for hundreds of kilometres until they died" are ridiculous confirmations. It was war. Some people were put to work, other people were resettled. This happens during wars all the time. For example, muslims were moved out of Caucasus (see Muhajir (Caucasus) and in other places, see Muhajir), but no one calls it, eg., "Circassian Genocide" . After that follows a long list of reports. Not saying about clear anti-Turkish bias, every war has atrocities to report, nothing new. Concluding, I say it is a dubious recent neologism, and I am going to put this article for deletion. Mukadderat 03:14, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Good point. Maybe we should rename it to Pontian Genocide, which gets more hits [6]. --Tzekai 07:26, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, that sounds better. The State Senate of Pennsylvania [7] etc calls it the Pontian Genocide. The State senate of Illinois OTOH prefers to call it the Greek Pontian Genocide [8], which includes the former, so Pontian Genocide would do. It's odd how this "neologism" to refer to the deaths of more than 300,000 people by nationalists who wanted an ethnically pure Turkey (as confirmed by the third party sources above: Levent, Rummel, etc) has officially spread outside Greece. BTW, I'm still looking forward to an example of a third party source dismissing the genocide thesis (perhaps no such source exists). --Tzekai 07:34, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Also, Mukadderat, learn to count:
  • ["pontian genocide" -wikipedia -wikipedia.org]: 889 hits [9]
    • No, colleague, you learn to click the links provided (and count):
    • "pontian genocide": 217 unique google hits . Mukadderat 16:48, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
      • No it doesn't. What you just linked to says 943 hits. --Tzekai 17:01, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • ["pontian greek genocide" -wikipedia -wikipedia.org]: 492 [10]
  • ["pontic greek genocide" -wikipedia -wikipedia.org]: 180 hits [11]
--Tzekai 07:40, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Don't forget to add:

  • ["greek genocide" -wikipedia -wikipedia.org]: 500 hits [12]
  • ["hellenic genocide" -wikipedia -wikipedia.org], which is the one that makes a difference (that's why you ommited it maybe?) with 11,100 hits! [13]
    • It was omitted because it is a different topic. If you don't know the difference between "hellenic" and "pontian greek", then you have no say in this article. If you know the difference but choose to deliberately conflate the notions to boost your POV title, then you act unethically. Mukadderat 16:42, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Hellenic Genocide is the new proposed article title, if you haven't been following. For the last time: tone down or face the music. Your aggression does not help your side. •NikoSilver• 17:38, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Now why on earth do we have to exclude both "wikipedia" and "wikipedia.org" (which is a subset of "wikipedia") is something I really don't understand, but I left it exactly as you like it. (my hit count is always severely affected by my firewall in the office, so Greek users, kindly update the results, or I'll do it later tonight from my home pc.) •NikoSilver• 12:44, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Please keep in mind that google count is not the final say. If a term is clearly defined in a book which is in turn well-known, it will outweight any google count. `'mikka (t) 19:22, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

No german interwiki-link

Latest comment: 17 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Can an admin remove the german interwiki-link? The german article was deleted today... -- 62.178.231.146 11:31, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

  Done. --WinHunter (talk) 12:02, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Skandal of German Wiki

See you (2.3) The german article was deleted today... from Turkish ethnic nationalist. (Turkish black propaganda...!) --84.164.225.219 21:03, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah of course... 11 people (only three of them turks) was for the deleting and only two people was against... and the only one who makes all the time propaganda are you, Asteraki, Kamikazi, Jamaikaner, Pontier, IP: 84.164.xx.yy... so let it be, sockpuppet! -- 62.178.231.146 10:09, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Another request...

Latest comment: 17 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

I ask the protectors of this page to remove the tags from the article. The reasons are all over the talk page. I 've also talked with User:Mikkalai about that. Mitsos 13:57, 2 October 2006 (UTC) ...And I advised User:Mitsos to follow the policy Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. Unilateral actions of admins are not the way of resolving conflicts. `'mikka (t) 16:38, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Do not forget `'mikka (t), that it was u who re-added the tags, without taking into accont what other 3 admins said. for me, it just seems like an admin's pov-pushing... Hectorian 17:21, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
No, colleague. This is a reversal of admin's abuse or negligience. A blocked page with an ongoing heated discussion should have triggered a red flag or two. The recent deletion of this article from German wikipedia hints that I am not exactly wrong here. I have absolutely no knowledge on the issue and not going to waste my time on research about who is right or wrong in the article, but tag removal is an unacceptable way of dispute resolution. And personally for you, Hectorian, once more, please take a look into Wikipedia:Resolving disputes, the link I provided for your convenience, but you obviously ignored it and decided to attack me instead. `'mikka (t) 17:54, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
There was also a proposal for the other side to take the issue in WP:RM. but apparently u chose not to see that it was proposed 3 times [14]! as for my comments, i am sorry if u considered them as attacks to u personally... I commented on your acts, not on u. I am not sure if u want to waste your time time on research about who is right or wrong in the article... i will wait to see what will happen when the tags will be removed again. Regards Hectorian 18:05, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
It's easy from someone who hasn't followed the dispute. I urge you, 'mikka' to just read a little bit the contents of this page. Or better, just read the short article at hand and its sources. Please. •NikoSilver• 18:59, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
OK I will try to read a bit. `'mikka (t) 19:17, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

An example of handling a POV issue

Latest comment: 17 years ago22 comments8 people in discussion

The article Eisenhower and German POWs discusses a theory that Americans were doing the genocide of Germans. Please notice that the ditle is not called Geman genocide by Americans despite some Nazi revisionists would like to push thi POV. The same should be applicable here. A possible article title can be Controversy about the Fate of Pontic Greeks or simply The Fate of Pontic Greeks. Mukadderat 17:04, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Nazi extremists and the State Senate of Jersey are not quite the same thing. BTW I asked for an example of a third party source denying the genocide thesis (we have third party sources supporting it cited: Rummel, Levene, etc). Does such a source exist or are you going to be wasting our time for much longer. --Tzekai 17:07, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
It is you who are wasting our time: I provided sources in this talk page and twice repeated the reference. I am can only assume that you are a nasty troll and will not talk to you any more. Mukadderat 17:18, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Mukadderat, are you serious? I asked for a third party source, you cited Turkish sources (as NikoSilver was kind enough to point out to you above when you mentioned them the second time, but you conveniently ignored). Third party sources are sources which are neither Greek nor Turkish (like Rummel and Peterson). Either you are just playing dumb trying to wear people out (in which case you are the nasty troll) or you really are dumb. --Tzekai 18:24, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
What is wrong with Turkish sources? Obvously they are an interested side. But they are an admissible reference. as well `'mikka (t) 19:19, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
I provided Mazower and Midlarsky earlier. I have repeated the source about 4 times in this discussion. I'm in the process of collecting more. --A.Garnet 18:37, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Are mazower and Mildarsky deny or confoirm genocide? Do they use the term? `'mikka (t) 19:16, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
I can't find any Mazower quotes, but I did find this in the archives:
From Midlarsky's "The killing trap": "According to the Austrian colsuls at Amisos, Kwiatkowski, in his Novermber 30, 1916, report to the foreign minister Baron Burian: 'On 26 November Rafet Bey told me: we must finish off the Greeks as we did with the Armenians... on 28 November Rafet Bey told me: 'today I sent sqads to the interior to kill every Greek on sight.' I fear for the elimination of the entire Greek population and a repeat of what occurred last year'. Or according to a January 31, 1917, report by Chancellor Hollweb 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 taking measures of their survival by exposing them to deah, hunger, and illness. The abandoned homes are then looted and burnt or destroyed. Whatever was done to the Armenians is being repeated with the Greeks"
He does not really seem to be disputing the genocide thesis. --Tzekai 18:47, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Read the full page. --A.Garnet 18:57, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • "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
Here are the sources again. Both hold the position that while Greeks may have suffered, their treatment was not bad enough to be considered genocide. --A.Garnet 19:30, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

We have discussed about these before.

  • The first one, does not dispute the genocide, it just notes that another method (than white death by walking) could have been more popular.
  • The second one says it wasn't a viable option. It doesn't say the Turks didn't follow that non viable option. Everybody is aware of the European resentment to Christians being slaughtered. The source just highlights this. How else would you suppose that it closes by "Many however, were massacred by the Turks". And how 'many' were those 'many'? Were they e.g. half of the Armenians (i.e.350,000)?

Do you have any source that explicitly states the genocide did not happen? There are other sources/organisations/subnational entities that explicitly state it did. •NikoSilver• 19:40, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

My God, there really is no reasoning with you. What is the point, these two sources spell out in black and white for you that what happened to Greeks cannot be considered genocide, and you come back with these arguments which just about scrape the barell. Mazower doesnt dispute the genocide? He tells you a)the death count was too few b)it is not comparable to what happened to Armenians i.e. genocide. Midlarsky needs to be read in full, but it seems the page is no longer accesible. He tells you a)it was not a viable option b)the refugee figures to arrive in Greece were close enough to the Ottoman census showing that no genocide occured. I cant waste my time like this, infact i dont know why i even had to defend these sources again, you and your fellow editors in arms are simply not willing to move an inch from your pre-conceived nationalist views. --A.Garnet 20:01, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
No, the first one does not say the 'death count' was too few. It says 'deportations were on a relatively small scale' (i.e. white death by walking). The second one says it 'wasn't a viable option'. It doesn't say the 'non viable option wasn't followed'. Don't let me start inserting all those quotes from non-partisan http://www.hellenicgenocide.org/ to show you how weak those (only) two (very) vague citations of yours are. •NikoSilver• 20:12, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Just a comment: if Mazower really said that the refugee figures to arrive in Greece were close enough to the Ottoman census showing that no genocide occured, was probably out of his mind, or he did never have a look in the censi. the greek refugees in Greece were less than half of the Greeks of Anatolia recorded in the latest ottoman census. to be precice, there were recorded 1,221,000 additional people in Greece in 1928, compared to the previous census (1920, i think), without counting those who perished during the transfer, those who died of malaria, etc, without even counting the natural growth rate of the greeks in greece (very high at that time). and still this number is lower than the one in the ottoman census... draw your conclusions everyone... I think we have asked for a third party source clearly stating that there was not a genocide. if there are sources saying that deportations were not as many, or that white death was not the main way of extermination, they do not support the 'no genocide' claim, since as u see in the article (and in other similar articles) genocides did not occured only by deportations and massacres. to come to a point to call something 'genocide' it means that many people were exterminated (on purpose) regardless the means used. so, there are sources clearly stating that it was a genocide. are there sources clearly stating that it was not? that's the question. Hectorian 21:11, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Hector, you're just addressing "editors in arms who are simply not willing to move an inch from their pre-conceived nationalist views". We need third party editors opinions here. •NikoSilver• 21:38, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Hectorian, i dont really care for your analysis, or Nikos's. These are two unnafiliated historians, more credible than anything else which has been provided here, who are telling you what the Greeks suffered was not genocide. What you think of their conclusions means nothing, neither of you are historians to question them. --A.Garnet 21:52, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Keep trying to find sources then... Be sure that they must clearly state that it was not a genocide (in the same way that the existing sources hold that it was). Until then, i find no reason to dispute the article's title and/or content and/or sources... or whatever else. Hectorian 21:57, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Ummm, Garnet, you're making it sound like we analysed something, while in fact it is you who made the analysis according to your point of view in order to reach the conclusion that suits you. We just quote the contents of your citation. Further interpretation is only by you! •NikoSilver• 13:14, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
In the most complex case, we'll have conflict of sources. Que ferons-nous alors? --Tzekai 22:39, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

This denying of the genocide is stupid. from the sources given it overwhelmingly supports the distinction of genocide. Heraklios 22:46, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

?? There are such little sources that prove that this was a genocide.. The others, recognitions et al, prove that it was recognized as a genocide.. three web-sites that don't include practically any research and a paragraph in a book doesn't support this article's grave title.. What sources do you expect to prove that this was not a genocide when you have accepted that there are no third-party impartial academic studies that have proved that it was a genocide (a recognition by a state in itself is not an academic research, I hope that we can all agree on that one). You don't have any research to back this up in the first place.. Labour batallions? After what A. Garnet said, I checked more into it, and there is a huge discrepancy as to the timeframe and geography as he has been saying all along.. Seriously, this article is utter original research, I am not going to even talk about all that I have said over and over again about the definition of genocide and if there has been enough evidence to support its existence as laid by international law.. Turkish sources don't count eh??? Well that Aussie Institute of whatever that has been cited only has a Greek writer's name on the page that has been cited.. In the light of what has been said who purport that Turkish sources are not reliable as third-party sources, well, we should remove that one as well. In fact all Greek and Turkish sources should be removed from this article, period.. Then all that will be left is going to be an essay fit to be on www.turkishbutchers.com or www.greekmurderers.com. Good job with what happened in the German Wiki.. At least some people have their heads in the right place.. Baristarim 06:00, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Straw man, no one said Turkish sources don't count. What was said is that Turkish sources can't be used to challenge third party sources (such as R. J. Rummel, Levene). Just in the same way Greek sources can't be used to challenge third party sources. As for the Labor Battalions, that is linked to three footnotes, so it's probably oversourced. You can keep pleading original research and your pseudo-lawyerese (you're pretty transparent in that area), but the only original research around here would be to take A.Garnet's odd interpretation of sources. On whether third party sources dispute the genocide thesis is about as ambiguous as whether the following source endorses it: Samuel Totten and Steven Jacobs, Pioneers of Genocide Studies: "One begins with (attempted) comprehension of the motives, intent, scale, and operation of the Holocaust. To understand, it is necessary to look at similar phenomena, and so one attempts an unraveling of the Armenian, Pontian Greek, Rwandan, Burundian and Aboriginal experiences." Tell me something: are these guys saying that the "Pontian Greek experience" is a "similar phenomenon to the Holocaust". In other words, are they endorsing the genocide thesis? Pretty ambiguous... --Tzekai 09:10, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Rummel is a really bad source

Latest comment: 17 years ago25 comments6 people in discussion

R._J._Rummel#Criticisms - Francis Tyers · 13:39, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Essentially he calls almost everything Genocide. The majority of scholars do not agree with his typology, or his classification events as Genocide/Not Genocide. - Francis Tyers · 13:41, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Would Wikipedia policy allow a page on Polish democide of ethnic Germans ? - Francis Tyers · 13:45, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Actually, Rummel, is not a plain source. It is a 'set of sources'. Kindly read how he backs up his view on the issue here...•NikoSilver• 13:54, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Regardless. Have you read those sources? What do those scholars label this event/set of events as? You know, a lot of people can die and it not be a genocide. Seriously, set me up with some good neutral sources that describe this as genocide and I'll be right there. Rummel is out of the question though. - Francis Tyers · 13:59, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Basically, I couldn't care either way. If it really was a genocide (like that other one), then it should be fairly easy to find reliable, neutral sources -- and plenty of them! Right? - Francis Tyers · 14:02, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
More sources here and here. They include McCarthy, 83, 132-3, 139; Sachar 69, 309; Housepian 66, 30, 190, 201-4; Barton 30, 41, 63; Morgenthau 19, 324-5; Toynbee 22, 142-3, 151, 273-4; Sivard 85,10; Boyajian 72, 153-4, 156; Lang 81, 37; Gross 72, 47n6; Tashjian 82, 131. Do you have access to these authors? •NikoSilver• 14:24, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
You appear to be presenting a poorly produced table from Rummel. - Francis Tyers · 14:51, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Sorry I missed the last part. If you could provide full references, I will see if I have access to them. - Francis Tyers · 15:05, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Despite what criticism might exist on Rummel, there's no reason to assume that everything he said was a load of crap. Can you bring up a specific criticism on Rummel's attestation on the Greek and Armenian Genocides (which are btw treated together)? If you don't, then those criticisms are irrelevant. He is important enough to have his own wikipedia article, and it's not because he's been talking crap. Strangely you do accept the Armenian genocide eventhough it was treated by Rummel as well. Why not the Pontian? I'd like to hear some arguments as to what makes the Pontian genocide less of a genocide than the Armenian - that is from someone like Francis who accepts the Armenian, not from a Turkish editor. Miskin 15:03, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that Rummell is widely known to spout crap, and you have failed to come up with better sources. If this is a widely held opinion there should be a wide range of sources. Not just some nut job from the UoH. - Francis Tyers · 15:05, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

My question remains answered. Miskin 17:28, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

The Armenian Genocide isn't just accepted by Rummel, but accepted by a large number of other scholars. You have failed to present sources that show that this is the case for the Pontian Greek experience (hah, perhaps an alternative name?) - Francis Tyers · 15:07, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

How can you back up the serious accusation that Rummel is a crap-spouter? Since the Armenian genocide is commonly accepted, then a simple syllogism concludes that Rummel doesn't always spout crap, and you have failed to prove that his treatment of the Pontian genocide belongs to the crap. If what you assume is true then I'm sure that there's ought to be another scholar who explicitely states that "Rummel's claims on the Pontian genocide is a load of crap due to this and that...". I'm really curious to know the explanation myself. Until you do so, you have no case. Miskin 17:28, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

While I feel it is not a great way to assess notability, the following is revealing regarding the Greeks vs. Armenian question:
Google books
  • Books 1 - 10 with 9610 pages on "armenian genocide". (0.00 seconds)
  • Your search - "pontian greek genocide" - did not match any documents. Your search - "greek pontian genocide" - did not match any documents. Books 1 - 1 with 1 pages on "greek genocide". (0.00 seconds)
  1. Books 1 - 10 with 569 pages on "armenian massacre". (0.00 seconds)
  2. Books 1 - 10 with 39 pages on "greek massacres". (0.00 seconds)
Google scholar
  • Results 1 - 10 of about 1,230 for "armenian genocide". (0.10 seconds)
  • Your search - "pontian greek genocide" - did not match any articles. Your search - "greek pontian genocide" - did not match any articles. Results 1 - 3 of 3 for "greek genocide". (0.19 seconds)
  1. Results 1 - 10 of about 449 for "armenian massacres". (0.09 seconds)
  2. Results 1 - 7 of 7 for "greek massacres". (0.05 seconds)
- Francis Tyers · 15:10, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

We can interpret this as follows: In books and journals that Google indexes, more often the term "Greek massacres" is used than "Greek genocide". In fact, in Google books, the only person to use the term "Greek genocide" is Rummel. In books and journals that Google indexes, more often the term "Armenian genocide" is used than "Armenian massacres". - Francis Tyers · 15:15, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

This is of course not to say that all of these "Greek massacres" are the same one. - Francis Tyers · 15:18, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
BTW Francis, if you have access to these things (which means I'm not the only one around here), you should have access to this. In the table at the right of the page, go to Full Text (PDF) to get the full text. Do you think this is more reliable than Rummel? --Tzekai 15:44, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately my ATHENS access just ran out. I will see if I can get a friend to access it on my behalf. - Francis Tyers · 16:30, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
I got the paper. I'm reading it now, and he specifically deals with the Kurds. What is interesting to note is that while he uses the term "Armenian genocide" over 4-5 times, he never once mentions the term "Greek genocide". He is also very careful in referring to "series of massacres". He even notes that, "Unlike the Armenian case, in each of these other instances the scope, scale and intensity of the killings was limited, though this does not rule out comparison." — he also points out that, "Historians, perhaps concerned not to magnify these events by comparison with those of 1915-16, tend to avoid the term genocide to describe them". - Francis Tyers · 16:52, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Zekai, stop trying to argue your own POV, this is not the place, the issue at hand is if the title is the most commonly used name to define these events - there are zero serious and impartial academic books related to this subject.. You are arguing bits and pieces from a variety of sources to prove that it was a genocide, it is original research... This is exactly why it got deleted in German Wiki (dont say it is because of the Turks in Germany, that would also be racist and not fair on other German users). I am still waiting, after ninety years of the events, to see reliable and impartial books dedicated to this event and call it a genocide.. In this case it is very very illogical for some people to ask other users to bring in books that dispute the genocide thesis, since u dont have any that proves it was a genocide yourself!!! As for the article mentioned, it also mentions a Kurdish Genocide.. Zekai, please do everyone a favor and go to a law school to learn the what make a genocide and what doesn't.. Please, do this favor to everyone.. You might want to believe that it was a genocide, but it is not.. Sorry dude. Baristarim 16:29, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Just because people don't call it a genocide doesn't mean it wasn't genocidal. It doesn't matter much what the common name is if the article details the heinous crimes committed using reliable sources. - Francis Tyers · 16:45, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
...blah blah blah... I think I may just start an article called Kurdish Genocide; add it to your watchlists everyone! It'll be interesting to see the Turkish chauvinist outcry (and the sudden vandalism spurt). --Tzekai 16:58, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Bashi Bazouk! - Francis Tyers · 17:05, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Here is another source:

Seems self-explanatory to me. I tried looking for the Marrus book but could not find it, it seems it may have a few pages of info which could shed light on this event. --A.Garnet 17:16, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Some considerations

Latest comment: 17 years ago14 comments6 people in discussion

I've been keeping an eye on the discussion in the last week, and I feel there are some points I may as well leave here.

  • Civility: I have, honestly, some concerns here. The whole discussion is overheated, and some editors have occasionally indulged in overt personal attacks and utter uncivility. To make an example, phrases like "a bunch of bedouins with a lot of camels and a lot of oil", or calling a fellow editor a "nasty troll", may force me to consider imposing blocks if they are repeated. Everybody is free to have his opinions, but WP:CIV and WP:NPA are there to be sure that wikipedia doesn't become a chat.
  • Tags: It must be clear that the tags can't remain forever; they are only a temporary solution.
  • Title (and genocide): In my opinion, solutions like Pontic Greek genocide allegations, Pontian Greek genocide thesis and Pontic Greek genocide controversy are unacceptable; these titles would be OK if it was clear that the discussion only involves genocide/not genocide question, but its quite uncertain if the article is not interested in explaining the historical facts, and I immagine this latter tendency will progressively expand itself. It is correct to say that a genocide does not to have to be universally recognized to enter in the title; but it's true that the term isn't much used in non-Greek scholarship. There is a consensus that there were large-scale massacres of Pontian Greeks, while eminent historians like Mazower seem at least prudent, from what has been quoted. And Fran is right that Rummel is an author that should be treated with caution; I also have previously noted that he tends to use the word genocide too easily, as he selects easily in his works the highest numbers. While I'm not against keeping Pontian Greek Genocide, maybe Pontian Greek massacres would help reaching a compromise, with Pontian Greek Genocide maintained as alternative title. It could be, just an example, The Pontian Greek massacres, also known with the name of Pontian Greek Genocide, are the massacres ecc.. Obviously alleged would disappear: it can be discussed if there was a genocide, but not large-scale massacres.--Aldux 16:20, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Concur completely, what I have been trying to say all along.. Baristarim 16:33, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
I think User:Awiseman's suggestion of Pontian Greek genocide (with a small 'g') might do. --Tzekai 16:49, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I have to respectfully disagree that the current article must be called Pontian Greek massacres. Please look carefully into the article. It lumps together several things that have nothing to do with massacres.

  • "Labor batallions" were "labor batalions" not Nazi death camps. The article proudly writes that "young and healthy men were taken there" and does not even understand that this defeats the thesis of "genocide": of course in labor batallions you don't need old and cripples, like it was in Nazi extermination camps.
  • "forcing to walk hundreds of miles": this was resettlement. These kinds of "walking hundreds of miles" were all over the world, see "Muhajir", "Evacuation of East Prussia"
  • Greeks in Soviet Union: they were not massacred

The whole article is a collection of various things suppossedly to provide an impression of "genocide", but does it in a poor way. As such it cannot live. I said I am going to put it on vote for deletion. On the other hand, of course there were massacres. But these zealous defenders of "genocide" did not write a single word into this article to describe actual massacres. Only quotes from various europeans. Sorry, colleagues, only reputed scholars may make an evaluations to what extnent these quotes are blown out of proportion and hearsay by haters of Turkey. With shame and sorrow I am aware of numerous facts of massacres. But I am not going to provide them until this blatant political bludgeon of title sits here. Mukadderat 17:05, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

On the other hand, why didn't they write the article Pontian Greek massacres until now? With accurate descriptions of actual massacres based on investigations? I may only conclude taht history and remembrance is not the purpose of our Greek colleagues. Their purpose is quick and hard vengeance. Otherwise we would have already had dozens of articles similar to category:Nazi war crimes, with all remembrance Greek want. Mukadderat 17:11, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Mukadderat, please observe WP:AGF.--Aldux 17:28, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
There were massacres of Pontian Greeks, they should go in an article called "Pontian Greek massacres". If there are specific notable examples, e.g. similar to what happened at Smyrna, then those should have articles too. - Francis Tyers · 17:13, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
That's exactly what I have said. the discussed article does not give a single example of massacre, only an essay about an alleged genocide, so there cannot be any talk about renaming, only about deletion. Mukadderat 17:16, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Whatever is done here will have to be done to the Assyrian Genocide article. An event with a lower death toll and less recognition. --Tzekai 17:15, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
You can be in charge of compliancy work. - Francis Tyers · 17:21, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
We discuss one article in one place, another article in another place. Each case is unique and must be judged by its own merits. You are free to compare. Less recognition because Assyrians keep lower profile. I know several assyriand in the United States. they basically told me (personal opinion of course) that keeping low profile was a survival strategy of a small christian people in the middle of islamic world. Mukadderat 17:20, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I still haven't got an answer as to why we can't use the word genocide but we can use the word 'massacres'? What's the difference between those terms? I the latter better sourced than the former? No. Is there a specific wp:policy which restricts the use of the term "genocide"? No. Do we all know the linguistic definition of the term? Yes. Does any of us doubt the ethnic cleansing of 350,000 people? I mean what kind of arguments do you people have? Miskin 17:33, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

We use the most common name in English. The latter is better sourced, as can be noted from the above Google results that show "massacres" used more than "genocide". - Francis Tyers · 17:41, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Although looking at it, it appears that most of the results of "Greek massacre" appear to be Greeks doing the massacre-ing. - Francis Tyers · 17:45, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Levene

Latest comment: 17 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Copied from my talk page.

Hi, what do you think of the following quotes from the text:

  • In the last hundred years, four Eastern Anatolian groups—Armenians, Kurds, Assyrians, and Greeks—have fallen victim to state-sponsored attempts by the Ottoman authorities or their Turkish or Iraqi successors to eradicate them. Because of space limitations, I have concentrated here on the genocidal sequence affecting Armenians and Kurds only, though my approach would also be pertinent to the Pontic Greek and Assyrian cases.
  • By ridding themselves of the Armenians, Greeks, or any other group that stood in their way, Turkish nationalists were attempting to prove how they could clarify, purify, and ultimately unify a polity and society so that it could succeed on its own, albeit Western-orientated terms. This, of course, was the ultimate paradox: the CUP committed genocide in order to transform the residual empire into a streamlined, homogeneous nation-state on the European model.

Now I can't access that PDF easily now (it's a large file and I'm on a 44 kbit/sec connection at the moment), so if you want to say something to me, you'll have to quote it. I got the extracts above from the article's talkpage. --Tzekai 17:07, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

(copied from above) I got the paper. I'm reading it now, and he specifically deals with the Kurds. What is interesting to note is that while he uses the term "Armenian genocide" over 4-5 times, he never once mentions the term "Greek genocide". He is also very careful in referring to "series of massacres". He even notes that, "Unlike the Armenian case, in each of these other instances the scope, scale and intensity of the killings was limited, though this does not rule out comparison." — he also points out that, "Historians, perhaps concerned not to magnify these events by comparison with those of 1915-16, tend to avoid the term genocide to describe them". - Francis Tyers · 16:52, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Those quotes are interesting, but it is necessary to properly read them. "... I have concentrated here on the [genocidal sequence affecting Armenians and Kurds only], though my approach would be pertinent to the Pontic Greek and Assyrian cases." - Francis Tyers · 17:17, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
"The CUP committed genocide (on who?) in order ..." — this quote does not state that the actions and events which befell the Greeks were genocide, it just notes that the CUP committed genocide on one or more of the groups. - Francis Tyers · 17:19, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
It is also important to note that this is the research paper of one scholar. While it is a good paper, it is by no means authoritative. Besides, he doesn't once mention the "Greek genocide". - Francis Tyers · 17:19, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Further sources

Latest comment: 17 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Does anyone have access to:

  • JAMES J. REID ‘Genocide in the 20th Century’ THE CONCEPT OF WAR AND GENOCIDAL IMPULSES IN THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE, 1821–1918 in Holocaust and Genocide Studies 1989 4(2):175-191; doi:10.1093/hgs/4.2.175

- Francis Tyers · 17:51, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

One mention found:

"Turkey, still struggling to achieve its ninety-five-year-old dream of becoming the beacon of democracy in the Near East, does everything possible to deny its genocide of the Armenians, Assyrians and Pontian Greeks."
"... the great similarities between the Armenian and Jewish genocides; the fate of the Assyrians and the Pontian Greeks, especially in Smyrna in 1923; the issue of whether to define the events in East Timor as genocide"

With Intent to Destroy: Reflections on Genocide By Colin Tatz, Cohn Jatz

You can get it from Google books. - Francis Tyers · 18:01, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Anyone with access on that one yet? •NikoSilver• 09:49, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
What do you mean? It's this book, pages 13 and 130. --Tekleni 09:58, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Retiring from topic

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I am glad that at last some serious people came to this article who are not Turks or Greeks. Now I will go away. If you look into my contributions, you will see that usually I don't take part in politically heated articles, with the exception of this one.

I apologize before Tzekai for calling him troll. I didn't pay attention that in his repetitions he required third-party sources. My excuse is that because he did it repeatedly I didn't read carefully to the end of his phrase. I guess this is the problem of all political discussions: you don't listen your opponent carefully; you think you know what he is going to say and you already don't like it and don't want to see it. Mukadderat 17:26, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Copy of an Order

Latest comment: 17 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

Is there any one that can translate the writings on the picture?

 


Have found the picture |here and as translation i quote:

"To the Commander of the Central Corps. I call your attention to the following:Death to the Hellenes who lack honour. As soon as you are given the first sign, immediately destroy all. As for whatever regarding the women, don't hesitate. Don't consider neither honour nor friendship when comes the moment of revenge. The commander of the corps Mehmet Azit."

Aristovoul0s 18:40, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Who made the translation? Could we get that confirmed? - Francis Tyers · 10:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the image from the article. If someone actually looks up who "Mehmet Azit" was, they will find that he was a military commander in Smyrna. See Great Fire of Smyrna#Orders Issued at the Scene for more details. The section there also notes that Turkish records did not note down the existence of a commander of the corps named Mehmet Azit during the Greco-Turkish War (1919-1922), or neither before or after. —Khoikhoi 10:44, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks - Francis Tyers · 10:48, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, I didn't know. The picture is from http://www.hellenicgenocide.org , which deals with both events. I think the article should be exanded to contain those two very chronologically close events. After all, there is a whole third-party site that backs all this up, plus the links in google are in tens of thousands for the term hellenic genocide... We'll have to readd it when we sort this out.•NikoSilver• 10:58, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
I hardly think that this site is a reliable source. Can you not find any good sources on this? Like the one I found? You know, books, journal articles etc. Not just self-published stuff on the INTERNET! - Francis Tyers · 11:02, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

The intention?

Latest comment: 17 years ago12 comments4 people in discussion

After reading all the recent comments in this page, and since i am among those who got involved in this article, i came to a point to wonder what are the intentions of some users (though it is obvious...). Turkish users simply do not want this article to exist... The dispute of its title was just a pretext... Afterall, today, it has been clearly stated by some that this article should be deleted. Just a brief info on the article's history: when the article was created...

  • There were requests to justify the article title by 'Google search'->it was->they said it is not enough
  • There were requests for citations of official recognitions, apart from Greece->citations and info was added concerning recognitions of 6 US states...->they said that those states have a huge greek lobby (ammounting to about 1-2% of their population...!)
  • There were citations about photos->photos were added->suddenly photos were not something important for them...
  • There were citations about eyewitnesses accounts->they were provided->they were not "enough" for them
  • There were citations for proof that high ranked turkish officials ordered the extermination of the Pontians (thus clearly showing a genocide's intention)->proof for that was added->they did not even comment on that...!
  • There were citations for historical accounts->quotes from Austian, German and American diplomats were added->they said they were anti-turks (note that Austria and Germany were Ottoman allies during WWI!) and biased and hearsays and and...
  • There were requests for academic sources->provided again->they said that they are biased cause the one is Greek-Australian, the other Armenian, the other American Jew married to a Greek, etc etc...
  • There were requests for historians not having to do anything with the Greeks (no greek wife, etc)->Rummel was quoted->surprisingly he came do be considered unimportant!
To me it is obvious that, no matter what the admins who recently got involved in this article will say, these specific users will continue to dispute the very existance of this article, and will rest only if it will be deleted. The most strange is that those users have been accused of been 'pan-turkists' or have created and insisted that a redirect 'Turkish Cypriot Genocide' should not be deleted (saying that a TCG ever existed, would be incompatible with any source, article, definition, etc etc-but they still (!!!) opposed its deletion)... I even read that 'Labor Battalions' were somehow 'justified' or that 'deportations' were something that had to be done and tat they did not aim in the extermination of the population (note that deportations was also a mean to exterminate the Armenians...)-(perhaps, i had also said that before, turkey was ruled by 5-year-old children that time, who did not know that women and children in desert and mountains die without food and water...!). I find it unecessary to say what NikoSilver said above, about the existance of articles like UFOs (they do exist u know!) or about White Supremacy and other crap... If this article will be renamed or deleted, i am already seeing a RfD of Assyrian Genocide by the same users, or even a "rewrite" of the Armenian Genocide where 'labor battalions' and 'deportations' were the normal thing to be done, and btw, they did not aim to kill them... Regards to all and for those who recently begun to participate in the discussion, i advice them to read the archives as well. Hectorian 21:11, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
This was just the shortest possible summary of the history of the dispute here. I advise everyone who is bored to read the archives to just read these two paragraphs. Thank you for summing it all up Hectorian...•NikoSilver• 21:32, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

The "shortest possible summary" seems to omit the fact that comparing to Assyrian genocide and especiallyArmenian genocide the artice is extremely poor in factual material. Surely for event of such scope there should be more description of facts than a couple of quotations of ambassadors, which are hearsay however reputable these persons are. Even a small community of Assyrians managed to amass much more evidence than this article. `'mikka (t) 21:51, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Why is that part of the summary of this article's archives? Where is it mentioned and why is it true? •NikoSilver• 22:38, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
The articles has many more citations, links, official recognitions, quotes, pictures, etc than the Assyrian Genocide. Apropos, Mikkalai, the Armenian Genocide is much poorer than the Holocaust in factual material, so what's your point? Hectorian 21:58, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
My point is that your point would be stronger if you had more facts. ""Official recognitions" and "quotations" of general character are hearsay. "Herr Pallavicini, Ambassador of Austria-Hungary to Turkey, writes to Vienna, listing the villages in the region of Amissos that were being burnt to the ground, their inhabitants raped and either murdered or exile" Where is this list of villages? Where are the eyeitness reports about rapes? I have an impression that both sides are just having fun in accusing each other than writing actual content. `'mikka (t) 22:04, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
What i know and see (and u can see yourself, if u are willing to) is that the article is much more sourced than most of the similar articles: Eyewitness accounts and quotes, Bibliography, External links, bla bla bla. Soon more info will be provided, if u really want to know the names of the villages... What i did above, was a brief history of the article. i didn't lie at all, and u can see yourself in the achieves, if u do not believe me. so, i would appreciate a comment on that, instead of 'isolating' a quote to make a point... Hectorian 22:14, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
•NikoSilver•: A lot of sources have been provided and your comment mikka is both inaccurate and unfair. Inaccurate because this article has more sources than the examples you provided, and unfair because "both sides are just having fun in accusing each other than writing actual content" is a great overstatement for the particular side which has worked on the article from scratch. Fmore, since many sources have been dropped in the talk since protection (and are not included in the article) I suggest:
Nikos, please don't assume.. I had this discussion with Hectorian, I am not at all for deleting this article, believe it or not. I am also promising to really work to improve the article if the title was changed, by including a the name genocide in the intro f.e. most/many/some historians agree/think that if these events were to happen today, it would be considered a genocide and add in another section the arguments pro/con, and later describe the massacres known to be occurred.. Please don't say things like Turkish users want to get this article deleted, there are some, of course, but please put things in context.. Baristarim 23:05, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
I remember that discussion with u, Baristarim, and i had the impression that u did not have the nationalistic and unencyclopedical claim to have this article deleted. However, today i saw this... It is a comment u posted. Do not read it all... just the last 2 sentences: Good job with what happened in the German Wiki.. At least some people have their heads in the right place... What should i assume now? Hectorian 23:31, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
As Nikos said, the recent contributors should read the archives and the RfC, where I put a very detailed list about the unreliability of this article's sources, the difference between recognition of genocide and academic work proving a genocide, and many factual inconsistencies.. In the first archive you will also see an admission by the users who support the current title that there is no non-Greek impartial serious academic research to support this article's grave title - most sources cited are a reception of a letter by UN etc.. I am not saying that this title will never have its place in Wiki, but by Wiki standards this title lacks gravely the academic research needed to support it. As I have said, please don't assume that there is this big Turkish conspiracy going on, I have added many posts for a long time, if you say that there is such conspiracy to bring down all the articles that u mentioned (which are not relevant to this discussion btw, every article has its own merits, pros and cons, please don't engage in such character assasinations), people can also say the vice versa. As Nikos so rightly said, there have been many additions to the article to prove that it was a genocide, which makes it original research, three eye-witness statements in itself is not a proof of genocide, they can be used as support or enhancement to other academic sources that are needed to be cited.. As I have been saying all along, u r using bits and pieces of info from certain sources to prove that it was a genocide, there is no citations from academic impartial sources that have done that work already, as such what u r doing is pushing for original research to be published on Wiki. Baristarim 23:20, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Whatever. I had made a proposal below before you posted all that. Btw, I never said you (or anyone) wanted to delete it, but I'm glad that at least you don't want it deleted. I think Mukkaderat proposed for AfD, didn't he? Forget the intro/title for the moment (the tag is on), and work with us in the article. You cite the dispute/massacre/whatever thesis, and we cite the genocide thesis. After that, third users will be able to judge about the name of the article with more data. I think it's the only fair thing, since a lot of citation (from both sides) is lost in the lengthy talk. •NikoSilver• 23:21, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I replied to the proposal.. I have to reply to Hectorian for one thing: I think we have a miscommunication about the meaning of delete.. I dont know the specifics of what happened at the German Wiki, I have no clue, I dont know if it was renamed, deleted completely, merged or whatever.. I will correct myself then: I was referring to the title, since I really don't believe that in German Wiki they would have deleted a whole article if it had enough sources and had a reasonable POV - even if it had POV, they would have put a POV tag as long as the title was correct.. So there is confusion, if any AfD comes along about this article, I am giving u my word, I will vote keep but rename (we will still be battling for NPOV though, however that's a different story :)).. By delete I wanted to refer to the article with its current title.. Baristarim 00:19, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Proposal

Latest comment: 17 years ago23 comments9 people in discussion
  • Un-protect article
  • Leave title as is
  • Leave the {{pov-title}} until most users agree there is no reason to it or until we rename it
  • Let us add more refs
  • Urge Turkish users to add more refs for the disputing of the genocide

Agree? •NikoSilver• 22:29, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

IMO this is a reasonable proposal, since the article was protected exactly because of the pov-title tag revert war. But I have to repeat once more: adding more refs is OK provided you add more facts, rather than more babbling by politicians. Also, I noticed that our wikipedia article is called Pontic Greeks not "Pontian Greeks". We must maintain our own consistency, although the terms are 100% synonymous. `'mikka (t) 23:52, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I support this proposal as well. Mikkalai, there was a discussion (mainly among Greek users, for the obvious reason of 'language') to rename 'Pontian' to 'Pontic' in this article as well, but cause of its protection, this was not possible. Hectorian 23:59, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

There is a single word for 'ethnic cleansing' and that is 'genocide'. There used to be an ancient, indigenous and thriving Greek community, within a year it disappeared. If anyone denies the existance of that community, please state it. If you accept it, then you also accept its sudden demise during the years of the Ottoman state (which had nothing to do with population exchange). Politis 11:44, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I will agree.. per Mikkalai for the refs being facts. On the other hand, we should really try to resolve this dispute over the title above all.. In any case the page will have to be unprotected at one point.. Baristarim 00:09, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
I will agree to it being unlocked, but if the editors fail to provide any reputable sources then it has to be renamed and rewritten. Also, i ask that the factually disputed tag be re-inserted. I have already said the sources in the 'Background' section (the only section to deal with the event) are either outside of the timeframe, in a different location, or involve different people. --A.Garnet 00:41, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
While I strongly disagree with 3, because it leaves open the possibility to keep the tags forever, I will remove the block, as keeping it blocked now closes the possibility to better the article. In particular, I invite to work more on creating a linear history of the events; for a non-Greek the actual exposition of what happened, how it happenened, the context inwhich it happened is far from clear, and some quotes can't take the place of a linear historical exposition.
It's clear that if high-intensity edit-wars start again, we may have to readily reblock the article.--Aldux 00:57, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

To what should it be renamed, and what should be rewritten? I was reading it now, and I don't really see a problem. As far as I can tell, A.Garnet is claiming that a source describing an event which took place in 1919, but was published in 1922 is unreliable or something like that! If the article is to be renamed, any target title will have to be sourced. If genocide is not the mainstream for these events, then what is? --Tekleni 09:34, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Completely agree, although in order for it to be referred to as Genocide, sufficient sources should be present aswell. Currently we have one good source (the Tatz/Jatz book) and one good source against (Valentino). More would be greatly appreciated. Come on guys, it shouldn't be that hard! :) - Francis Tyers · 10:19, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
How about Ethnic cleansing of Pontos?--Tekleni 11:20, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Sounds very reasonable to me. - Francis Tyers · 11:27, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
We could even qualify that with the years we will be covering in parentheses (see Irish Potato Famine (1845–1849)). What say you? - Francis Tyers · 11:28, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

There is a single word for 'ethnic cleansing' and that is 'genocide'. There used to be an ancient, indigenous and thriving Greek community, within a year it disappeared. If anyone denies the existance of that community, please state it. If one accepts it, then one also accepts its sudden 'demise' during the years of the Ottoman state (which had nothing to do with population exchanges). To call for more sources, is to turn a blind eye to the sources (including media reports)provided in these pages. It would be useful to check the source and argue against those sources. Politis 11:44, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, if we look at Levene, it was either a genocide or a near-genocide. BTW, it took more than a year, and the fact that there are no Pontians there today is also due to the population exchanges. --Tekleni 11:49, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Genocide is not a synonym of ethnic cleansing. The events are described as "ethnic cleansing" in "Norman M. Naimark. Fires of Hatred: Ethnic Cleansing in Twentieth-Century Europe. Cambridge and London: Harvard University Press, 2001." apparently. - Francis Tyers · 11:56, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Actually 'genocide' is a superset of 'ethnic cleansing'. Although I had supported that title in the past, I think that it is too early to decide on the name. Let us continue adding sources in the next few days, and then we decide (as sugested in my #Proposal above). •NikoSilver• 12:02, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
No problem. I see you are still adding stuff referencing Rummel *sigh* - Francis Tyers · 12:04, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

That is true, Tekleni, and I respect your nuancing the phenomenon. Also, there are some Pontians left (very few), Greek-Pontic speakers of the Muslim faith. A Mega TV program was made on them and with the co-operation of the Turkish authrorities. Hopefully Greeks (Greek Orthodox) and Turks (Muslims) will increasingly accept and document each other's historical presence on their lands.

  • Also thanks for noticing that, 'ethnic cleansing' refers to a post 1990s phenomenon and not to the 1920s. So we are left with 'genocide'.
  • ps. On an entirely diffent note and with no reference to any one in particular: it concerns the tactic of repeatedly calling for sources - when enough have already been provided - in order to 'kill' an article or a statement. There should be a '3 warnings rule' and then the user concerned, especially if they are an administrator, blocked. We cannot have other bonafide users made to run around for new sources, while someone keeps repeating, 'more sources, we have no sources'. Politis 12:08, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
"Genocide" is a 1940s word for a 1920s event, although the same for the Armenian Genocide (but this is widely accepted and not on the same dubious ground). We are not "left with genocide", as it hasn't been accepted by both sides. If it was just the Turks you might have a case for leaving it as is, but both myself and Aldux also feel that this might not be the best name for the article.
Regarding your suggestion that "many sources" have been provided, actually two have been provided — one by myself! for the "genocide" argument, and one from Alf for the "massacres not genocide" argument. - Francis Tyers · 12:21, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Are you discounting the Mazower and Midlarsky sources i provided Francis, or have you not seen them (btw, it is good to see someone who knows where my name comes from ;))? --A.Garnet 12:27, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
It's just that they don't really say it was not a genocide. One of them (I can't remember which one) says for example that doing something was not a viable option. They don't say they did not pursue that viable option... Don't feel bad about it though, he also discounted my Totten and Jacobs source which says that the "Pontian Greek experience" was a similar phenomenon to the Holocaust.--Tekleni 12:46, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
The page is no longer available from Google books for some annoying reason. If you read it in full he is quite clear, he states a genocide of the Greeks was not viable, but that massacres did happen, and in any case the number of refugees to return Greece was clsoe enough to the Ottoman census which shows the limited rate of massacres. If someone can track down that page somewhere i would appreciate it. He notes that while there may have been an intention of large scale massacres, he specifically staes "there is a strong disjunction between intentions and actions". Imo it was a very well put and credible source. --A.Garnet 12:56, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
I can't access it either though (GoogleBooks has been like that since this morning).--Tekleni 13:01, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Suggested introduction

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Suggested introduction to the main article (by a non-expert) to clarify its status:

  • Note: the use of the term ‘genocide’ in this article refers to the Greek definition for the fate of Hellenism in the Pontic region. Between 1916 and 1923, the near entire population of Pontians disappeared from their historical homeland in (today’s) north eastern Turkey. The ultimate result was that a 2,500 year old Pontic Greek presence came to a sudden end. The Greek state commemorates that event as the ‘genocide of the Pontic Greeks’. Though no one doubts the presence of that population and its subsequent ‘disappearance’, its fate has not been recognised by the international community as a ‘genocide’ and the term is rejected in Turkey itself.
  • ps, the poster picture of the Armenians seems out of place in this article and seems to accuse by association.Politis 12:44, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Pardon my wikilawyering:

Latest comment: 17 years ago41 comments7 people in discussion

WP:NOR#Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position:



WP:NOR Analysis
(A)=(B)
Genocide definition 		(B)=(C)
Events cited 		(A)=(C)
Citations below
  • "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."
  • We have intent by various sources
  • We have series of massacres
  • We have large scale deportations
  • We have death marches etc
  • We know that these events constitute a genocide.
  • We can't say that it was a genocide unless a WP:RS states so.

Therefore, let's list those reliable sources, that will give us the necessary excuse for stating (A)=(C):

•NikoSilver• 12:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments on rationale and sources

Greece and 6 Greece states are not synthesising your arguments. They are just political declarations, not research. For example you have Elias Venesiz and Leyla Neyzi (both imo which need to be removed) and from this you say = genocide. You need a credible academic source which argues Elias Venesiz + Leyla Neyzi = Pontian Greek genocide. --A.Garnet 12:51, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
I added yours too. Your above statement (also, "6 Greece(??) states") does not find me agreeable, but let the other third party users decide. OK? •NikoSilver• 13:00, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
We do have at least one (two if we count Rummel).--Tekleni 12:54, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
We have more than two. And we do count Rummel, until someone cites him as sufferin from "Genocidal obsession". After he is cited, we still include him because we also include that criticism. He is very thorough in compiling and citing other sources, plus he has made a great verifiable work in estimating the death toll. •NikoSilver• 13:20, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the most telling part about Levene is that he says that genocide or near-genocide was committed against Armenians, Assyrians, Greeks and Kurds (he doesn't say who got what though).--Tekleni 14:05, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Rummel

Interested parties might like to read: "Tito’s Slaughterhouse: A Critical Analysis of Rummel’s Work on Democide TOMISLAV DULIĆ Uppsala Programme for Holocaust and Genocide Studies, Uppsala University" - Francis Tyers · 14:12, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Is this a general discredit of Rummel, or does it focus on Tito? To put it otherwise: Do you have a source that directly discredits Rummel for either his entire work or for the Pontian case? (I don't have access.)•NikoSilver• 15:10, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Focuses on Yugoslavia, but generally discredits his methodology. - Francis Tyers · 15:18, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Discredits his methodology in the eyes of whom and where are the sources to back this up, especially that it has anything to do with his view on the Pontus events?--Tekleni 15:34, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Mind giving us a hint on how he does that and how it applies in the particular case? The link for Rummel is all over the page. His methodology is evidently verifiable for the particular case. Please read it.•NikoSilver• 15:29, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Levene

Since the scope was limited but does not rule out comparison, plus my approach would be pertinent to the Pontic Greek and Assyrian cases, why on earth do you keep adding Levene in those Against? I am removing it now.•NikoSilver• 15:07, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

See the quotes I added. I think these count against your proposal. Please don't delete it again. - Francis Tyers · 15:16, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

No I won't for now, but yes I will, unless you tell me your rationale which I don't understand. The guy says:

  • they are "comparison is not ruled out"
  • that he focuses on the others
  • that they may well be pertinent

What am I missing that makes this possibly against?? •NikoSilver• 15:26, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't really understand how he denies the genocide thesis in that passage. Also, see my comment in the first comment section.--Tekleni 15:29, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, here is my rationale:

  1. He never uses the term "*Greek*Genocide", although he mentions the Armenian Genocide many times.
    1. Ofcourse he doesn't. He focuses the entire book on that other!
      1. As I mention, he ever uses the term "*Greek*Genocide" Francis Tyers ·
  2. He states, "Unlike the Armenian case, in each of these other instances the scope, scale and intensity of the killings was limited".
    1. Limited as in half were killed. e.g. only 350,000 which indeed is extremely limited!
      1. Is this his estimate? Francis Tyers ·
  3. He says this does not rule out comparison, but then again, we can't rule out comparison between the Earth and the Moon. Both are bodies in the Solar System, but one is a planet and one is a satellite. The fact that he "does not rule out comparison", does not count towards or against including "genocide" in the title. You added it to "for", so I'm adding it to "against" (we can remove it from both if you like).
    1. There is nothing 'Against'. The best you could do is add that part (only) to 'Neutral' (if we had one) and the other part (immediately below) to 'For'.
      1. I have a splendid idea. Francis Tyers · 16:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  4. He says his approach would be suitable for the cases involving the Greeks and the Assyrians, but again, this does not mean that it was genocide.
    1. His approach for Armenians was 'genocide' + His approach for the Pontians would be suitable too => His approach for the Pontians is suitably 'genocide'. That is logic. No?
  5. He also states, "Historians, perhaps concerned not to magnify these events by comparison with those of 1915-16, tend to avoid the term genocide to describe them. In my formulation however, these events would constitute partial genocide". [footnote 13. "For instance, Robert F. Melson (name of book) carefully refrains from using the term here even though he offers a case for Ottoman state organization and responsibility for the massacres]
    1. Exactly. He states that others are 'Neutral', while he is 'suitably' 'for' 'genocide'

Seriously, I don't see the Levene paper as counting particularly for, or against, in fact he states that they would constitute "partial genocide", so he is pretty much "sitting on the fence" so to speak. If we are to include him in "for", we must also include him in "against". - Francis Tyers · 15:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I intermingled responses. Kindly reconsider.•NikoSilver• 16:26, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
What is said however, is that what was inflicted on the Greeks, Armenians etc was genocide or near-genocide (without saying who got what). Does this belong in the article, and how and where?--Tekleni 15:44, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Certainly it belongs in the article, just it shouldn't be used as an argument for the article naming dispute, unless it is also used as an argument against. - Francis Tyers · 15:52, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Did people read Levene on p.407? He states:
  • Fear of Greek retaliation against remaining Turkish populations on its own soil, or even direct military intervention on the side of the Allies, may in part explain why the CUP did not attempt to exterminate its Ottoman Greeks. But there is no evidence that they had ever considered it.
I dont see how this source could ever be used in this articles favour. --A.Garnet 18:43, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Are you sure he's talking about Pontus? What's the context (I can't access that now - slow connection)? --Tekleni 18:51, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't know, but even though it could be argued that there is a diff between ottoman greeks and pontus, i am sure that an academician who is writing a book on this subject would know this and choose his words carefully: ottoman greeks means all the greeks that lived under the OE flag, if this wasn't the case, he would have said greeks of W. Anatolia or something of that sort.. Baristarim 02:43, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Midlarsky

Here is a book review i found of Midlarsky "Part five of the book deals with mass murders in the twentieth century that could have but did not evolve into the author's definition of genocide: Jews in Bulgaria and Finland during World War II, Greeks in Turkey, and the Irish in the British Empire." --A.Garnet 13:21, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I guess we can cite his reviewer (Robert M. Spector-Worcester State College) as well: "deals with mass murders in the twentieth century that could have but did not evolve into the author's definition of genocide"). Also, the fact they did not evolve, does not mean the idea was rejected. •NikoSilver• 13:39, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

One more quote from the reviewer:
"In part three, having narrowed the meaning of genocide and identified the perpetrator's conditions for genocide, Midlarsky applies his analysis to Turkey..."
I guess that covers it...•NikoSilver• 13:46, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm not to fond of using book reviews as authoratitive sources, it was just to give an idea of what Midlarsky was saying until i can find his page again. --A.Garnet 13:43, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Thank you, however. In the mean-time, read this as well:
"It is regrettable that Midlarsky does not deal more with prevention of genocide, which is the ultimate purpose of studying the subject."
Btw, I did a little search on Spector. He seems very reliable...[19] Also, I thought that since we're into discrediting authors (like e.g.Rummel) like 'genocide obsessed' we might as well discredit others like Midlarsky who are 'genocide tolerant'. Don't you agree?•NikoSilver• 14:00, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Where did you get the idea that this guy is Genocide tolerant? - Francis Tyers · 14:13, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
I bought it from the same shop that sold you that Rummel is 'Genocide obsessed'! •NikoSilver• 14:59, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Pardon my humor. The review says that he narrowed the definition of genocide and that the events he describes about Pontians may well fall in that category.•NikoSilver• 15:22, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Mazower

What does this quote have to do with anything? He says they probably weren't designed to be killed like that and then. He doesn't say they weren't actually killed. He doesn't say there weren't other methods too! Please remove it. •NikoSilver• 16:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

No, he is relevant, he makes a point about the deporations and that is that. --A.Garnet 17:21, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Sure he's relevant for the article and says about the deportation and that is that. He doesn't claim no-genocide though...•NikoSilver• 17:30, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
I am baffled guys, what is the quote? If it is the article 'g-word', he does not seem to tackle the Greek issue in a quote worthy manner one way or the other. Politis 17:34, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

The New York Times

Does anybody have access? •NikoSilver• 00:17, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

A Relevant Book by a Turkish Author

The title of the book is "From Empire to Rebublic - Turkish Nationalism and the Armenian Genocide", by Taner Akcam - Although mainly about the Armenian Genocide it touches on the Turkish plans of eliminating the Greeks of Anatolia by various methods and means in pages 146 to 149. In pages 239 and 240, he refers to Kemal's association with and promotion/reward of Topal Osman to higher level posts ( this one is for one of the Talk/Discussion participants that has doubts about this). He also refers to Kemal's use in the war of idependence, and promotion of various individuals who were sought/arrested/accused for been involved in the Armenian Genocide. - Rizos01 03:43, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Sources for location

The following papers would make an interesting read if anyone could get access to them:

  • EFFIE VOUTIRA Pontic Greeks Today: Migrants or Refugees? Journal of Refugee Studies. 1991; 4: 400-420
  • JAMES J. REID ‘Genocide in the 20th Century’ THE CONCEPT OF WAR AND GENOCIDAL IMPULSES IN THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE, 1821–1918 in Holocaust and Genocide Studies 1989 4(2):175-191
  • PATRICIA FANN The Pontic Myth of Homeland: Cultural Expressions of Nationalism and Ethnicism in Pontos and Greece, 1870–1990 Journal of Refugee Studies 1991 4(4):340-356
I downloaded two of them (Reid and Fann). They are both irrelevant, mostly dealng with Pontic Greeks within modern Greece. The other (Voutira) is a Greek name (=Buttery). If you feel she's still a third opinion, I can find details, but the title sounds more like falling in the first category too.•NikoSilver• 14:10, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Does it not give any historical background? Could you paste the parts that cover the history? Or somehow otherwise allow me to view them? - Francis Tyers · 15:21, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, you're right. Here's a nice quote (J.Reid):

Irregulars perpetrated most of the massacres and other atrocities noted by various commentators in their observations of 19th-century wars in the Ottoman Empire. The many incidents in which irregulars slaughtered unarmed or disarmed peasants constituted the largest single category of atrocities, even in the First World War. Some of the most striking instances of slaughter included the massacres of the Greek Revolution,10 the offer of a bounty for Christian heads made by an army commander in eastern Anatolia during the Crimean War,[11]

I'll drop some more.•NikoSilver• 15:28, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually Reid is indeed on the subject (duh, I openned Fann twice!). I'll be back with more. Francis can easily find a copy too. •NikoSilver• 15:49, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


19 May

Latest comment: 17 years ago13 comments5 people in discussion

Must be explained why this date was picked. The page May 19#Events lists nothing special besides "Mustafa Kemal Atatürk moves to Samsun from Istanbul with a few followers". If there was nothing special indeed, then the choice is a clear insult. Mukadderat 19:52, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree, there is some intention (unintentionally - by assuming great good faith) to equate the Turkish War of Independence and the turkish republican revolution with this, as if the only thing that Turks did was just hunt down Greeks, rather than create a Republic, overthrow the sultan, abolish the caliphate, abolish Islamic Law and create a new country.. Baristarim 20:19, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
It can't be that bad. May 19 was also Pontus Genocide Remembrance Day in New York and Illinois.--Tekleni 21:08, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

It may or may not be an insult but we are not here to state so. Perhaps if there was an academic source stating it...•NikoSilver• 21:27, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

We can also state that 'X official of Turkey' or 'The Turkish govt claim that the choice of 19th of May is...' •NikoSilver• 21:32, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

It's none of our business why the Pontian lobby in Athens selected that date. The article currently says that some Turkish politicians consider it a provocation (which is likely true). All we need to add is why the think that (you don't need an academic source for that, a simple news website would be sufficient). It's not really relevant, but it is interesting trivia.--Tekleni 21:37, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
It is one of our businesses to report relevant facts. If someone seen a Greek explanation why Greeks selected it, then this explanation is directly relevant to this article. There must be some rationale under the choice. Even if Greeks did want to be nasty, I'd rather believe in some coincidence of events played by Greeks upon, rather than pure choice of Turkish date, for revenge alone. Mukadderat 22:39, 5 October 2006 (UTC) Mukadderat 22:35, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I too am curious. If you find anything, please add it. •NikoSilver• 22:58, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

From what i know, 19th May was chosen cause it was the beginning of the end for the Pontian Greeks in Pontus, or, if u prefer, the final stage of their extermination. With Kemal landing in Pontus, whose Greeks had enjoyed a brief time of no-persecution after the Ottoman defeat in WWI, this was a dead-end. that's why this date was chosen... If the Turks consider it as an "insult", to have the Genocide remebrance date on that date, how about the Pontian Greeks who see the Turks celebrating on that date? Do not think oneway, please... Hectorian 23:25, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Exactly, even though I agree with your comment about not thinking oneway, and I can see the logic behind, it really seems to be an affront to Turks to say that the day they consider as the beginning of their republican revolution and war of independence was the starting point for a genocide.. I mean, at least the Armeanians have picked a date when many Armenian notables were hanged in Istanbul as the commeration date, I am sure Ponti could have chosen another more consistent date; such as the date of one of the first massacres, killing of a prominent Pontus Greek etc.. That's why i said that I feel a whiff of direct affront to Turks.. Baristarim 23:42, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
I will try to find some sources, but since they consider this date to be the most important, i can't see why they shouldn't pick it up? The same way, i could ask why the Turks chose that date as national day? couldn't they had picked October 16 (Sivas Congress) or the date of a military victory? Thangs are simple: each side had to pick that date for different reasons. Hectorian 00:05, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
But that's also a confusion of events: the genocide is supposed to have been perpetrated by the Young Turk administration of the OE, and 19th May is the day when the republican movement has started. I mean, I fail to see why some people would consider Ataturk's landing as the beginning of the gen, since the original thesis supposes that it was done by the YT admin of OE.. I mean, 19th May is the day when Ataturk made a clean break with the sultanate and started a republican movement, I fail to see the connection between these two, on one hand he makes a clean break with the sultanate and at the same time that day is responsible for the beginning of a genocide purpatrated by the Empire??? I really do sense an animosity against Ataturk beneath all this, even though, contrary to what is thought in the ex-provinces of the OE, he really had a huge animosity against the empire and the sultanate above anything else..

Hectorian, u r still dodging the issue as to the real reasons why this was chosen. Seriously, I have a question: all of the diplomats' accounts date to the WW I, and even go back to 1907, so how the hell is the 19th May, 1919 considered the commeration day for the genocide???. I mean, in that case maybe we should remove all of the diplomats' accounts?? That would be logical since ALL of them refer to the period before 1919.. I have said this before, I will say it again, the validity of the genocide question not-withstanding, there is seriously an animosity against Ataturk and Turkey beneath all this - and most of the animosity against Ataturk comes from the 19-23 war and consequent linguistic unification and assimilation of the new republic.. And some people let out their anger via the genocide issue by smearing it with this.. I can understand the logic in the sense that the start of the Turkish War of Independence was one of the turning points along the road to wiping out of Greek influence on Anatolia, but I cannot agree that it is for the reasons u mentioned, what we are talking about is the genocide and not just the end of hellenic influence.. You see the difference? I still fail to see how it is related to former and not the latter.. If it is only related to the latter, what does pontic greek gen refer to exactly?? genocide proper, or end of any hellenic presence in turkey? They are not the same thing u know.. In any case, let's drop this, we have other issues to settle :)) Baristarim 03:13, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I am willing to drop this if u are too... If u consider Ataturk the best politician above all, this is just your own pov... For the Greeks (and especially for the Pontic Greeks) Ataturk is the equivelent of Hitler in the region, and whatever u may say, or no matter how much u may praise him, he will always be! I really cannot unterstand u people!!! u look at attaturk as if he was Mohamend, or the Christian equivelent, Jesus!!! well, start thinking of this: Ataturk was a mass murderer... we did ethnic cleansing in Anatolia, he was a nationalist racist Pan-turkist and nothing more...! He killed hundrend of thousand of Greeks, Armenians etc... and his succesors in the modern turkish deep state keep doing the same... (if u are gonna ask me how, i an ready to inform u about 10s of "laws" and persecution aiming the minorities... and give u thousands of links about his racism!). Do dare ask me, if u feel that the modern kemalist turkish state has no skeleton in her closet! Lastly, if i get a message in my talk page that blaming ataturk is "a personal attack" (huh?!), or anti-tuskism, i will immediately revert it, and i will tell to an admin that i am being under "harrashment"! (i had templates and posted many messanges against Bush, and no American ever though of imposing censoship on me! i will never tolerate it for the Turks, the Russians, the (?) or whoever!). Lastly, Baristarim, think about that: he did not even make peace on his own country! how can he been considered of wanting "peace in the world"? Hectorian 03:27, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

A scientific and academic take on the issue

Latest comment: 17 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

Based on the book "The Demon Haunted World: Science as a candle in the dark" published by Headline 1996.


1- The following are suggested as tools for testing arguments and detecting fallacious or fraudulent arguments:

  • 1 Wherever possible there must be independent confirmation of the facts
  • 2 Encourage substantive debate on the evidence by knowledgeable proponents of all points of view.
  • 3 Arguments from authority carry little weight (in science there are no "authorities").
  • 4 Spin more than one hypothesis - don't simply run with the first idea that caught your fancy.
  • 5 Try not to get overly attached to a hypothesis just because it's yours.
  • 6 Quantify, wherever possible.
  • 7 If there is a chain of argument every link in the chain must work.
  • 8 "Occam's razor" - if there are two hypothesis that explain the data equally well choose the simpler.
  • 9 Ask whether the hypothesis can, at least in principle, be falsified (shown to be false by some unambiguous test). In other words, it is testable? Can others duplicate the experiment and get the same result?

2- additional issues are

  • 1 Conduct control experiments - especially "double blind" experiments where the person taking measurements is not aware of the test and control subjects.
  • 2 Check for confounding factors - separate the variables.

3- Common fallacies of logic and rhetoric

  • 1 Ad hominem - attacking the arguer and not the argument.
  • 2 Argument from "authority".
  • 3 Argument from adverse consequences (putting pressure on the decision maker by pointing out dire consequences of an "unfavourable" decision).
  • 4 Appeal to ignorance (absence of evidence is not evidence of absence).
  • 5 Special pleading (typically referring to god's will).
  • 6 Begging the question (assuming an answer in the way the question is phrased).
  • 7 Observational selection (counting the hits and forgetting the misses).
  • 8 Statistics of small numbers (such as drawing conclusions from inadequate sample sizes).
  • 9 Misunderstanding the nature of statistics (President Eisenhower expressing astonishment and alarm on discovering that fully half of all Americans have below average intelligence!)
  • 10 Inconsistency (e.g. military expenditures based on worst case scenarios but scientific projections on environmental dangers thriftily ignored because they are not "proved").
  • 11 Non sequitur - "it does not follow" - the logic falls down.
  • 12 Post hoc, ergo propter hoc - "it happened after so it was caused by" - confusion of cause and effect.
  • 13 Meaningless question ("what happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object?).
  • 14 Excluded middle - considering only the two extremes in a range of possibilities (making the "other side" look worse than it really is).
  • 15 Short-term v. long-term - a subset of excluded middle ("why pursue fundamental science when we have so huge a budget deficit?").
  • 16 Slippery slope - a subset of excluded middle - unwarranted extrapolation of the effects (give an inch and they will take a mile).
  • 17 Confusion of correlation and causation.
  • 18 Straw man - caricaturing (or stereotyping) a position to make it easier to attack..
  • 19 Suppressed evidence or half-truths.
  • 20 Weasel words - for example, use of euphemisms for war such as "police action" to get around limitations on Presidential powers. "An important art of politicians is to find new names for institutions which under old names have become odious to the public"

As such, my responses taking into account the scientific method presented above:

  • 1-1: No confirmation of events as genocide by outside and impartial sources.. Accounts of the diplomats (six-seven total) are hearsay and in no way, do they affirm the genocidal character of events, they simply affirm that there were massacres, and still, none of them are detailed observations, they are a few sentences ex turks are killing greeks
  • 1-2: Lacking
  • 1-3: Recognitions (turkey's, greece's, Us states, NGOs) mean jack shit - They can only be used to preove the thesis Greece has recognized the events as a genocide and not the thesis the events were a genocide - A + B doesn't mean C.
  • 1-4: These events dont neccessarily have to be genocide, there are many words that can describe what happened, with different degrees of meanings.. See diff between genocide/massacre/ethnic cleansing/deportation/war
  • 1-5: A note to all my Greek friends
  • 1-6: Six hearsay accounts, couple of uncorroborated eye-witness stories cannot prove the extent of the allegations put forth - ie - death of 350000.
  • 1-7: This is the most important: To prove a genocide, and link it to the Ottoman and Young Turk administrations (and eventually the Turkish army, there has to be proof that proves the link between the events and the administration, this is not the same as saying the genocide did/didn't take place - this is to prove who did the genocide, if there was one. Until now, there has been no proof that has been shown that proves such a link..
  • 1-8: There are other hypothesis that about the nature of these events, and they could be easily classified as the aftermath and side-effects of the World War as ethnic strife, since there is still NO PROOF that Ottoman Empire initiated the war and the following armed conflict with the aim of exterminating Pontus Greeks, there were many other events that had much more importance: Battle of Gallipoli can easily show that..
  • 1-9: The same analysis can be applied to nearly all the events of human history: ethnic tensions caused by a greater war, if we applied the arguments behind the genocide thesis, nearly all the wars of the last 1500 years can be proven to be genocide.
  • 2-1: We definitely need the continued involvement of non-Greeks and non-Turks
  • 2-2: People who are taking a look at the article should seperate the variables mentioned: Turkish War of Independence, population exchange, Pontic Greeks in the USSR, report of Horton about the good treatment of Turks in Greece at the same time, invasion of Constantinople by Allies - since none of them are about the genocide itself, and just distract the reader from the matter at hand..
  • 3-1: pan-turkist fascist, kemalist pig, nasty troll, greek megali idealist, genocide-denialist just to name a few of the implications that have been made recently
  • 3-2: Again, recognitions are out, big time
  • 3-3: Threat of labelling everyone who asks to prove the genocide thesis as a genocide-denialist or Turk-hater for vice versa.
  • 3-4: This is also important: There were so many Greeks, where did they go?? is not a valid argument, we are talking about hundred years ago, there were census figures that were reliable enough, but we also have to take into account other reasons: extremely high levels of diseases common to a century ago, compounded by war conditions (World War I), assimilations, eventual deportations to other countries without reliable census figures.. The number in question needs to be established using the scientific method, which, to this day, is still lacking.. Please see 1-8 above about the nature of conflicting theses.
  • 3-5: Not relevant in this case
  • 3-6: Again, similar to 3-4: there seems to be X numbers of Y missing, they must have been wiped out because of a genocide is also not a valid argument.
  • 3-7: Not enough attention paid to the number of remaining Greeks: a million Greeks were transferred per population exchange agreements, 300000 Greeks were still living in Istanbul as of 1923, the date by which the Genocide is supposed to have ended per genocide thesis supporters. Many Pontus Greeks became assimilated into the Turkish population through the policies of unification and turkification of the new Republic, most of the presumed-missing 350000 might have been too simply assimilated over the course of 90 years.. Again see the lack of reliable census figures argument mentioned above.. This goes to the heart of the argument about the will of the ottoman administration to wipe out the Greeks, at least for the Armenian Genocide, there is proof that many prominent Armenians were hanged in the heart of the capital, where as no such evidence exists in this case..
  • 3-8: This goes to heart of the quality of sources mentioned in the article: Hearsay accounts from six-seven diplomats and couple of eye-witness accounts are used to prove the thesis that 350000 people died, this is not acceptable in a scientific, and therefore academic, debate.
  • 3-9: Again, similar to 3-7..
  • 3-10: Inclusion of sources that don't have a relation with the subject matter and thesis proposed: Labor batallions; the account of a Jew in the labor batallions, during the First and Second W War, has no relation to this whatsoever. His account is the account of a pseudo soldier/worker during the War. Claim that non-Muslims were bundled together to prove the ill-intent of the Ottoman authorities w/o taking into account the millet system of the OE and similar policies of other European countries (Algerian Arab regiments of France that were fighting the Germans, African regiments of many countries, UK, France etc during the same time). Similarly any comparison with other events, Armenian Genocide, Holocaust etc are not relevant. This only distracts the reader from the matter at hand and resorts to a psychological Democles sword, see 3-3: u recognize Holocaust as a genocide, and this is similar, should we deduce from your doubts about this that u r a filthy Holocaust-denying Nazi??
  • 3-11: General logical inconsistencies mentioned above
  • 3-12: Turks were killing Armenians, who are christians, so they must have been killing other christians as well, such as Greeks; Turks bundled non-Muslims together, therefore they must have wanted to kill all of them through a genocide(see 3-10); Turkish Republic was proclaimed as a nation state (similar to every single country in Europe), therefore they must not have wanted other ethnic groups, and as such they must have wanted to kill all of them; TR pursued a policy of linguistic unity (similar to Italy and France that have resulted in the wiping out of all regional languages of all these countries), therefore they must have hated other ethnicities, and as such they must have have wanted to kill all of them.
  • 3-13: Not very relevant in this case
  • 3-14: Genocide or pure ethnic paradise: there could be a middle way you know..
  • 3-15: A similar tendency among quite a few editors: Why should we consider that this was not a genocide since Turks also butchered Armenians and have fought with the Greeks for centuries??
  • 3-16: A subset, but an important one: Turks have butchered the Armenians, therefore they are barbarians by nature, so they must have also committed a genocide against the Greeks, Assyrians, Bahai, Arabs, Kurds, Chinese, Laz, Turks (?!)..
  • 3-17: Extreme confusion of events implied by certain sources to make the reader think Turkish army was fighting the Greek army in the heartland of Anatolia, therefore they must have wanted to exterminate all the Greeks in Pontus just to get back at them
  • 3-18: Again, a common tendency certainly present in the mind of certain editors, similar to 3-15, 3-16.. those damn genocide-denying Armenian, Greek, Assyrian, Kurdish, Arab-butchering pan-turkist fascists are at it again: they have massacred all the world, and now they are denying this one too
  • 3-19: Similar to any argument raised above about not considering other probable hypotheses about the nature of events..
  • 3-20: A lot of weasel words (phrases) thrown out to influence the reader, intentionally or unintentionally, such as: "According to the International League for the Rights and Liberation of Peoples it was a genocide"; "one of the most inspiring and beautiful chapters in all that country’s history" - comparing the fate of Turks in Greece with that of the Pontic Greeks etc..

The article has gotten much better especially with the addition of some new sources and some nicer prose, but the title still pushes the reader to consider the events as genocide first, and discuss later.. I haven't taken a very close look at the new additions to the article, but I still think that the title needs to be changed and section(s) added discussing its recognition as genocide and a sentence in the intro saying some/most/many/few historians agree/think that if the events were to happen today, they would be considered a genocide.. Regards Baristarim 23:28, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Too long, didn't read all of it. What you should note is that no one rules out changing the title. The question is to what should it be changed? If it's something hypocritically weasely, e.g. Pontian deportations, then no way, amigo. In my case, you can see the ones I don't oppose in the straw poll above. BTW the people setting up straw men around here are the people who keep repeating genocide has no academic backing, genocide has no academic backing, repeating it again and again, hoping that it will change reality or at least make people think doesn't.--Tekleni 08:02, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
As for the reported death toll, it is quoted from independent academic sources, and the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth (see WP:V).--Tekleni 08:06, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I have an idea, what about the Pontic expulsion? I would prefer Genocide though. This is obviousely a Genocide. The facts dont deny that.Heraklios 22:14, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Pontian expulsion will never be accepted. Ethnic cleansing of Pontos (1900 - 1923) or Massacres of Greeks in Pontos (1900 - 1923) or Mass killings and expulsion of Greeks from Pontos (1900 - 1923) are reasonable alternatives . - Francis Tyers · 09:58, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Soviets

Latest comment: 17 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion

The following paragraph was removed from the article by Aldux (minor formatting by me):

Pontic Greeks in the then Soviet Union also suffered purges and heavy casualties under Stalin, they were forced to change their Greek surnames and were scattered across the country. Many were deported to Siberia.[1] Initial findings on their fate suggest much higher losses of life than previously thought.[2] In 1942, for example, thousands were deported to Kazakhstan (where, according to the 1999 Kazakh census, there were still 12,703 Greeks).[3] Many of the survivors, their children and grandchildren eventually found refuge in Greece after 1990.

I am not sure it should be inside the article, but it seems that the article is called 'Pontic Greek Genocide'. It is not called 'Pontic Greek Genocide by the Turks exclusively', nor is it called 'Genocide of Greeks in the Pontos area exclusively'. Should we include it back, maybe not in the intro, but somewhere? I mean, it speaks about symptoms of genocide (or general suffering) for these people, just in another place and by someone else. It also 'completes' the story for some of them. •NikoSilver• 23:29, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

?? It actually does say that PGG is a controversial term used to refer to the massacres and other sufferings during the expulsions and deportations by the Young Turk administration of the Ottoman Empire of Pontian Greek populations in the historical region of Pontus Seriously, can't u see the logical inconsistency?? Please man.. Baristarim 00:16, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
??? I suppose we should also remove that the rest were deported to Greece, because Greece is outside the Yung Turk administration too huh? All I can see is an obsessed inflamatory response in every single trivial or non trivial issue! •NikoSilver• 00:35, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Edit conflict - So one of them needs to be out, either the intro statement or the info about USSR Ponti. No there is no such inflammatory response Nikos, please keep calm and civil; you made a claim that this article was not exclusively about Greeks killed by Turks, or Greeks killed in Pontus, and I showed you, by using the intro statement that it was in fact so.. I don't see why u r getting so worked up about this - I have the impression that the only way u might not have been offended is if I pretended that your claim above was true while it is in fact not, the intro refutes that.. Please be calm, why all the rhetoric? I mean, what should have I said then? - Don't I have a right to verify a claim that has been proposed to all the contributors to this article and try to see if it has logical consistency? Baristarim 00:59, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

OTOH, if people took a good look at the article Native American genocide and see how it was structured, that might be a good place to give some imputus to the title discussion, in that article there are also academicians who claim that there were 100million deaths were caused by genocide.. Please have a full look at that article, I think it can really help us with understanding what other possibilities exist for us to have an article about the fate of the Pontic Greeks (taking into account what u have said above Nikos) while also including the genocide debate in it.. Baristarim 00:59, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

They weren't killed in Greece either, but we still mention they went there. It's just a paragraph for a small percentage of them who fled elsewhere. Please shorten your responses (this is a general goodwill comment). I'll check about the Native Americans tomorrow. •NikoSilver• 01:13, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
The point is: what does "Pontic Greeks" mean referring to the USSR? From the text, one understands that all Greeks in the USSR are "Pontic", and the use of the numbers strengthens this idea: which is quite confusing, as I don't think Odessa can be called the Pontus, and it's hard to treat it in the same article, since the events described mainly took place in the 1940s. A very nice article could be written on the fate of the Greeks in the USSR, but this should be done in a brand new article, not here.--Aldux 11:10, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree. Then the only thing we will have to add to this article is a sentence pointing to that other article. Like, Many were deported to the USSR, where they joined the fate of Greeks in the USSR... •NikoSilver• 14:42, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Photograph

Latest comment: 17 years ago16 comments3 people in discussion

Sorry to insert such an obvious change to the caption, but really, I do doubt the reliability and authenticity of low quality photographs from a site called "hellenicgenocide", furthermore I doubt that the owner of the site, Mr. Lopes is in fact the copyright holder and have a strong suspicion that this photograph may have been uploaded under false pretences. Of course, it is if of the time, it is probably public domain. But the license should show this. - Francis Tyers · 10:35, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Well you should find a more neutral way of saying it. The same photograph can be found elsewhere [20].--Tekleni 11:19, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Another (probably) Greek organisation. Did you see their front-page? Do you count them as a reliable source? Please, I'm not calling for the photograph to be deleted (yet), and I think it reasonable to include (even if it is just pointed out as a Greek propaganda shot), but don't make statements of fact without the sources to back it up (no we can't take "hellenicgenocide" at its word). - Francis Tyers · 12:49, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

And why is thatFrancis Tyers ? Aristovoul0s 14:59, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Why what? - Francis Tyers · 15:32, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

"Why" for your comment. Why can't we take "hellenicgenocide" at its word ? Aristovoul0s 15:41, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

The answer to your question may be found within Wikipedia:Reliable sources. He seems to be re-using stuff from "The Turkish Crime of Our Century", published by the (innocuously named) "Asia Minor Refugees Co-ordination Committee". - Francis Tyers · 16:18, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
In case you were wondering, the book "The Turkish Crime of Our Century" is, as far as I am aware a propaganda publication of the Greek government. I will quote some extracts below. - Francis Tyers · 16:23, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

This is my favourite:

On two previous occassions the Greek people contributed in civilising ther conquerors as was the case with the Romans and the ranks. One must possess a cultural identity to be able to absorb what is creative and good from other civilisations. Unfortunately, the conquering Turks lacked such an identity.

- Francis Tyers · 16:32, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Most of the images appear to be reprints from Horton's "The Blight of Asia". - Francis Tyers · 16:36, 7 October 2006 (UTC)


I don’t think so. Look at the sources and the quotes: 1

Pan Germanism The Treatment of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire

2

With our soldiers in France Face To Face With Kaiserism

3

American Women And The World War

Ambassador Morgenthau's Story In the Heart of German Intrigue Handbook of WAR Facts and Peace Problems

4

The Treaty of Sèvres, 1920 Italy And The World War

5

The 'Willy-Nicky' Letters: Letters From The Kaiser To The Czar

The Truth About The Treaty and many more (forgot to sign) Aristovoul0s 16:45, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

That didn't make any sense. Can you try again? - Francis Tyers · 18:23, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Francis, i asked "Why can't we take "hellenicgenocide" at its word?"
you replied: "The answer to your question may be found within Wikipedia:Reliable sources. He seems to be re-using stuff from "The Turkish Crime of Our Century", published by the (innocuously named) "Asia Minor Refugees Co-ordination Committee". - Francis Tyers · 16:18, 7 October 2006 (UTC)" However hellenicgenocide (the site) has quotes from many books and different authors. I provided links (numbered) directly from the sites quotes, and links to the actual references from a uni library cited on the hellenicgenocide site.
His site is not reliable, the University sources probably are. Savvy? - Francis Tyers · 11:55, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Not really Francis... Maybe you had skim through. Please have a closer look here Aristovoul0s 12:12, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Allow me to elucidate...

Self published sources should not be used as secondary sources. Hellenicgenocide.org is self-published.

You can use the University sources, as they are not self-published. But rather impartial reproductions of published material. Remember, "... it is preferable to cite the original source for an assertion, as well as important confirming sources. It is generally preferable to cite reliable sources over less reliable sources when given a choice." . - Francis Tyers · 15:59, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

'Background'

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I have raised the issue of innacuracy in the sources in this section before. Elias Venesiz is a Greek from Asia Minor, not a Pontian from Pontus. Leyla Neyzi uses the example of a Jew sent to a Labour battalion in the Greco-Turkish war. So nowhere in this article, are we yet to see a source actually referring to what happened to Pontians. I would suggest Both these sources be removed. --A.Garnet 15:03, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Is AIHGS also unreliable for you?--Tekleni 20:21, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Reality check

Latest comment: 17 years ago20 comments6 people in discussion

Or alternatively you could suggest like i would do the change of the title to Hellenic Genocide so that all the regions are included. Do you honestly support that Pontians as well as all other Greeks were asked to leave their homes nicely and they complied? I think it is evident that Turks had to use a considerable amount of force; and an extermination effort to force people out. Is it a coincidence that so many authors state unprecedented violence, massacres and looting at the same period. Pictures, articles, books and 3 ethnic peoples point out Genocide against them respectively for the same era. Aristovoul0s 15:31, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

So i take it, you agree that the current sources are out of place in this article? As for you suggestion: 1)Hellenic Genocide was deleted by afd some time ago. 2)Not even Greece recognises a Hellenic genocide. 3) Much like this article, it is backed by no impartial academic research. --A.Garnet 15:40, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Please dont put words in my mouth. Good thing this is not verbal. I just gave food for thought. Your opinion took you at a certain direction while it might as well have taken you the other direction. Aristovoul0s 15:43, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I ve been reading through the posts and i see an issue about numbers. That is a claim exists that "it is not a genocide unless a specific number of killings is reached"...Well, if an ethnic group (X)has ~300,000 people in a region (Y) and those ~300,000 get killed, deported and starved to death by (Y))'s intent to eliminate (X) will you not consider it a genocide and the grounds would be that it was not 10 million people? What is the definition of Genocide? Is the Armenian Genocide a Genocide or 1,000,000 people dont qualify? How many people must die for the events to be called a genocide? Because the definition of Genocide is not about numbers but as it states an ethnic group. The Ethnic group of Hellenes in Pontus, and Ionia has been killed, deported and starved to death and we have many sources stating so. Aristovoul0s 12:02, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

That is original research, your trying to prove your own argument. Your saying x number of people die therefore = genocide. What you should be doing is finding an academic source so you can say according to x, y number of deaths constitutes a genocide. --A.Garnet 12:59, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

ok, have you found any such academic source stating x number of deaths = genocide? Because i couldnt Aristovoul0s 13:39, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

lol - exactly! --A.Garnet 13:44, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
why are you laughing? which academic source states that a specific number of people must die for it to be a genocide? Aristovoul0s 17:50, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I am not saying it is genocide because an exact amount of people died, i am saying that by definition genocide; has nothing to do with numbers. Read it once moreAristovoul0s 17:55, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Thats one of the points I raised in the RfC in the first archive.. I for one dont dispute that the number has nothing to with the genocide, thank you for agreeing with me.. Some people said that i recognize this as genocide coz there were so many people killed, that was my response to them.. Genocide is an allegation that needs to be proven by sources, because it is an accusation. Massacre on the other hand is descriptive word, from a linguistics POV.. What I was trying to say was: X numbers of Y are missing, so therefore they must have been wiped out by a gen is not a valid argument..Baristarim 02:59, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
I am still waiting to see proof on who committed this genocide... As I had said before, there has to be a link to the perpetrators.. Germans didnt kill the jews, Nazis did, the fact that nazis were primarily german is not relevant.. Where did the orders come from and where are the proofs? Did it come from the top, the sultan, YG admin, regional military commanders, vigilante gangs, bandits, who? Even the pro-genocide sources cited dont contain this vital info, all we have is a letter written by a non-existant Turkish lieutenant in Smyrna, coming from hellenicgenocide.com. Baristarim 02:59, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
I can't read the arabic script, but i am sure the translation is not wrong [21], [22], and do not forget what i had mentioned about Topal Ozman... Have u found anything about it yet, Baris? Hectorian 03:09, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
For topal osman, no.. There arent many sources out there.. However, my question was not about the script being correct or not.. This guy didn't even exist, so what makes u so sure that it is not a forgery? I didn't doubt the translation, but a letter sent to a non-existent officer in Smyrna should raise couple of red flags.. In any case, still dodging the issue: who ordered this? This is extremely relevant since in the intro it says YG admin of OE.. I would like to point out that this is not the same thing as the genocide/non-genocide issue, blame should be appropriated to the correct people, groups, commanders etc.. I still see no proof on who ordered this.. going back to Topal, u see, that's exactly what I am saying, the existence of a vigilante bandit group who werent even soldiers doesnt back up the claim that this was organized by the Ottoman admin.. Baristarim 04:47, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Just one thing, what Ataturk told him or what monument was build is not relevant either.. We are talking about the genocide proper and who ordered it.. I am sure u wil agree from a logical POV that, even if Ataturk told him how great a job he did, it is one thing to say Kill the Greeks Topal before the events, and it is definitely different to say I see that u did good Topal, congratulations after the events.. That's all i am saying Baristarim 04:56, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
True, but the one does not exclude the other, right? anyway, i doubt if Ozman was just a bandit with no connections with kemal and/or his followers. are u asking about a paper signed by kemal ordering the extermination of the greeks? do i have to remind u that during the Nuremberg trial there was never presented a paper with Hitlers signature to exterminate the Jews? labour battalions could only had taken place under orders from the top. White Death as well. Hectorian 08:45, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
I create a special article labour battalion, to demonstrate that labour battalions were widespread in the world and they had nothing to do with genoicide: their purpose in many case was forced labour. Masive deaths during massive migrations is also nothing newe in hostory: a limilar fate was for Muslim that fled from Caucasus, see "Muhajir (Caucasus)" article I wrote, and I did not call the article Circassian Genocide, as other people do: [23]. May be I will do this, after all. Wikipedians seem to be obssessed with doing historical accusations and axe-grinding. Mukadderat 17:54, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Labour battalions and forced deportations are means of genocide, not always, but sometimes. If their purpose in Turkey were forced labour, they would also include muslims, not only Greeks and Armenians. Trying to reduce the importance of virtually everything (labour battalions, deportations, "white death", massacres, etc) by saying they were widespread and a normal thing to be done, doesn't help, u know... Hectorian 20:17, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Ding ding ding: logical fallacy detected: Labour battalions and forced deportations are means of genocide. You have to cite a secondary source that has analyzed this and thus claimed that it was a means for genocide against the PG, info that there were labor batallions in itself can only be used to prove the thesis labor batallions existed and not labor batallions were a means for genocide.. Baristarim 21:04, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
You never change your tune, do you?--Tekleni 21:13, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
? Really? well, if trying to keep a logical consistency and pointing out deliberate logical inconsistencies is something to be ashamed of, then let it be.. Please try to get involved academically, instead of engaging in sniping, you dont think so Tekleni? Baristarim 21:19, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

"Hellenic villagers from Kerasond"

Latest comment: 17 years ago7 comments5 people in discussion

The photo came from a dubious site, has no author, nor timeframe, no description of circumstances, in other words, non-verifiable. Not to say that Kerasond was a town, not a village. According to wikipedia:Verifiability, the photo is deleted. Mukadderat 20:17, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Either that, or you have just commited vandalism and POV pushing by way of blanking. I'm not going to guess which one it is...--Tekleni 20:21, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
And I will not try to guess what your purpose is: to write a neutral article or to have fun provoking people. Mukadderat 00:01, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

It has an author and a description of circumstances, (Personal attack removed). Mitsos 08:06, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Please do not make personal attacks on other contributors. Consider this a warning. —Khoikhoi 08:15, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, thje website mentioned does not have neither author not circumstances when it was taken. It does have a caption, but there is no reason to believe that this highly biased website will stick to truth: for example, once again, Kerasond (Giresun) is a town, so how did villagers appear there? Please provide a book or newspaper reference, and we shall talk. Such serious accusations must be 100% fool proof. Mukadderat 17:44, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
You're arguing against this because it says villagers and it's really a town? Those are basically synonyms. Would you be ok with it if it said "townspeople" instead of "villagers"? --Awiseman 16:17, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Foreign Office Memorandum by Mr. G.W. Rendel

Latest comment: 17 years ago9 comments3 people in discussion

Does anyone know where we can view this memorandum? I would like to see what he says. --A.Garnet 12:43, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


I have a copy. - Rizos01 15:12, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I also have a copy of some exerpts from Mark H. Ward's, "The Deportations in Asia Minor, 1921-1922". Both are not great copies but ledgible. The first is 8 pages. The second 20. - Rizos01 15:20, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Could you perhaps quote me the parts dealing with labour battalions and white death? Also is he referring to the Pontians or Asia Minor Greeks? Thanks, --A.Garnet 15:46, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

From what I recall, it mentions all four items. I will provide quotes as soon as I get a chance. - Rizos01 17:24, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


- Here is a quote regarding "labour batalions" from the last page of the memorandum: "Signor Tuozzi (an Italian in Ankara) stated that the deportations were continuous and that he saw numerous gangs of Christians formed into labour battalions going up into the interior. He regarded the outlokk for these gangs as utterly hopeless."

- Another quote regarding "white death or white massacres" from the fifth page of the memorandum: "All through 1921 atrocities of various kinds and so called "white massacres" ( i.e.,boycott, deportations, deaths by starvation in labour gangs, etc.) appear to have gone on."

- Finally a quote refering to the "Pontian Greeks" from the same page of the memorandum: " But the worst atrocities undoubtedly took place in the Pontine region against the Greek population of the coastal towns."

By the way, there are many more references to horrific attrocities committed against the Pontian Greeks in this document. - Rizos01 01:30, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Don't hold your breath Rizo, just go ahead and list those too. •NikoSilver• 12:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
OK, from what i see he provides evidence of labour battalions, and white death. But he doesnt claim either were used in systematic elimination of the Greek community, or as a genocide, as this article claims. This is original research, using A+B and making C. --A.Garnet 12:56, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


Please read carefully the following quote from the same memorandum. The last sentence clearly states what the purpose was of all these deportations, massacres, etc. Note that it is the least graphic account of all the other ones in the memorandum.

"On the 1st September, Mr. Hopkins of the same organization ( American Near East Relief) met 12,000 (women and children) being driven southwards between Harpoot and Malatia.....Mr. Hopkins saw "many corpses of Greeks lying by the roadside where they had died from exposure. Many of them were corpses of women and girls." About 1st October he and two other relief workers passed about 10,000 Greeks. He says: "I remember one group of about 2,000, being women alone, most of them with no shoes, many carrying babies...A driving cold rain was falling... they had no protection whatsoever and their only place to sleep was the wet ground." Mr. Hopkins continues: ... Greek vilages are deported entirely, the few Turkish and Armenian inhabitants are forced to leave and the villages are burned.. The purpose is unquestionably to destroy all Greeks in that territory and to leave Turkey for the Turks".

This is not original research. This is an independent/third party, non-Greek, eyewitness account/assessment. Therefore, A+B = C.

As you probably know, the term Genocide did not exist at the time. So please do not request that we provide any accounts refering to these events as genocide. - Rizos01 05:54, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Picture

Latest comment: 17 years ago11 comments7 people in discussion

I fail to see how the picture of NY Times entry on Armenians is relevant.. If it mentioned at all the Greeks or Pontic Greeks, then I could understand. In this case it only says christian population of Trebizond (Greeks? Armenians? Georgians? Russians? Assyrians?) way at the bottom of the headline... This could definitely be relevant in AG article, but here it only leads to a confusion of events.. I am sure that for an event of this magnitude there must have been seperate newspaper entries in the west. So please find one or i will remove this one.. (the claim all the christians were considered the same back then is not valid: the headline makes a clear reference to armenians, and not just christians, it could have done the same for Greeks.. Ergo there needs to be a specific picture of a NP entry about the Pontic Greeks)

In fact, the photo from NY Times says Entire christian population of Trebizond. Having my mind that the vast majority of the Christians of Trabzon that time were Greeks, it is perfectly relevant. Hectorian 08:36, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
No, that would be tweaking the corners.. NY Times is not a tabloid, they could have easily used the word 'Greek'.. Again, see above.. Bring the sources that say that the vast majority of the Christians of Trabzon that time were Greeks.. In any case, that bit about the Armenians is irrelevant, see what I wrote in the section a scientific and academic take on the issue, I will photoshop that picture so that only relevant pieces will remain, ie where it is mentioned the entire christian pop of Tbd - even then, somebody will have to bring in a source that proves that entire christian pop of tbd=a vast majority of Pontic Greeks Baristarim 19:14, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I suggest this picture stay to show the whole hypocricy of this article and its defenders. Not a single word in wikipedia is written about Trebizond massacres, because it requires serious work. Of course it is much easier to click "revert" button to restore a picture of questionable source than to write a serious article. Mukadderat 18:05, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Exactly, NY Times is not a tabloid, that's why it was granted the Pulitzer price for its work that exact historic period. Have a look at its other articles [24]. so, for such arguments, i can also add the January 1 1918, talking about as many as 1 million Greeks killed in Anatolia, Pontus included. and as such, i we can also expand it. Mukadderat, seriously, u think that by deleting or removing photos we are making a constructive job here? Hectorian 19:50, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Still dodging the question my friend :))): How are the armenians relevant? The entry clearly talks about the armenians, trebizond people are mentioned way at the bottom.. Exactly, NY Times is not a tabloid, it could have mentioned the Greeks and it chose not to do so.. Please get a relevant picture - i will edit it so that only christian people of trebizond remain, I can't see a reason why u would see that as a problem.. Still deliberate confusion: Pulitzer prize - that's not relevant with the picture being relevant, the parts that mention the armenians will be taken out..As for Greeks killed in Anatolia, the title is PGG.. There has to be clear reference to Pontus, in that case instead of Anatolia, we can use the words the world, the galaxy, the universe - since, by definition, they all cover the Pontus region :)).. Baristarim 20:57, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
You're right. We must minimize publicity of Ottoman atrocities against Armenians at all costs!!!--Tekleni 21:08, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Please don't go down that road.. i would like to remind that the title is PGG.. There are already articles that deal with the armenian genocide.. Such deliberate confusion and use of democles' swords is not respectful, nor are they academic.. People should not engage in such unacademic and blatantly disrespectful insults if they want to contribute positively. I wanted to ask how come the only picture in the article mentions only the armenians in its headline.. Baristarim 21:19, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Baris, (some pictures for you) you were presented with multiple sources stating repeated killings, death marches and starvations of primarily a religious group (christians) subdivided into three ethnic groups namely armenians syrians and greeks. The definition of genocide (yes i agree) does not state that numbers make a difference (being genocide or not), rather what makes a difference is if an ethnic group or religious group (no matter its numbers) has been a. killed [25] [26] [27] and/or suffered serious bodily mental harm [28][29], and/or inflicted its conditions of life 12 in an attempt to bring its destruction in whole or in part. "The Armenians are not the only subject people in Turkey which have suffered from this policy of making Turkey exclusively the country of the Turks. (intent)The story which I have told about the Armenians (genocide) I could also tell with certain modifications (fewer numbers) about the Greeks and the Syrians. Indeed the Greeks were the first victims of this nationalizing idea." Ambassador Morgenthau's Story CHAPTER XXIV Henry Morgenthau - 1918Aristovoul0s 22:08, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
What about the Georgians and Bulgarians who were also Christians? How about the Jews? I mean, kinda funny really, Turks, a Muslim nation, supposedly tried to wipe out non-muslims, but didnt touch the Jews?? Really interesting.. I never heard of Georgians, Bulgarians or Russians getting killed either.. Therefore, the issue at hand is not religious but ethnic, religion was a secondary consideration.. In the case of Armenians, even the most fervent supporters of Armenian Genocide agree with this.. ergo, in this case, Armenians are not relevant, the title is pontic Greek gen, you cannot just bundle everything as u wish in this case, for u to do that, u can try renaming the article Christian Genocide by the OE.. On the other hand, u r still missing the crucial issue.. You have to bring in sources that say Pontic Greeks were victims of a genocide and labor batallions and death marches were used as a means for genocide from outside sources.. The proof that there existed labor batallions can only prove that.. I had read your post before, Ambassador Morgenthau's Story, well 'nuff said.. This is not Canterbury Tales, u know (for those of u who read that book).. :)) Please try to avoid mentioning the Arm Gen every single time to give the title more credibility.. This is called credibility-jacking :)) Baristarim 19:54, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
The credibility-jacking is pretty sickening. It's almost as if everyone "wants their own genocide". Of course, I can't decide if it is more or less sickening than the continual Turkish government denial of the Arm Gen. - Francis Tyers · 07:45, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

- The picture is relevant because it also states that "the entire christian population was wiped out". For those who doubt that the majority of Trebizond's christian population at the beginning of the 20th century was Greek, here is the answer: 17,000 Greeks, 4,000 Armenians, and 600 Europeans. The rest Turks. Source: Ioannis Pavlides, "Pages of History, Pontos - Asia Minor", Salonica 1980. - Rizos01 03:24, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

"Dead inhabitants of Giresun"

Latest comment: 17 years ago12 comments7 people in discussion

Guys, this edit war over the caption at the pic is LAME! It is a crappy low-fi picture and you're making a huge fuss over it... I mean, come on guys!!! And yes the "Dead inhabitants of Giresun" is the most accurate thing to say. After all, why try to make a point with this picture when there are many text sources of better quality?? I mean look at the picture, it looks like Neil Armstrong's suvenir from the Apollo 11 mission... --Michalis Famelis (talk) 15:59, 10 October 2006 (UTC) Hell, Armstrong's pics from the friggin Moon were of better quality than this... --Michalis Famelis (talk) 16:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

The picture has to be verifiable Famelis, it could be a picture of dead people from anywhere, and not necessarily Pontians. We need sources for where this picture came from. If i remember a previous picture that was included was a well known one which Armenians used, so they have to be verified that they are indeed relevant to this article. --A.Garnet 16:09, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
The picture says it's from this website. But how do you determine if the website is right or not? It seems like a slippery slope to me. --Awiseman 16:12, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Precisely Awiseman, we have no idea where the creator of that site got this image from, it therefore makes the image unverifiable as such should not really be here. --A.Garnet 16:28, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
But what I mean by slippery slope is, how do you know any information about a photograph is right? I could put that photo on a website, say it was taken by John Doe in 1912, and how would you know that was wrong? --Awiseman 16:35, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
How do you know that information about any photograph is right? Even Armstrong's pictures have been questioned...--Tekleni 16:37, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Exactly! I think that at some point you have to assume a photograph is of what it says it is, unless there's evidence to the contrary. --Awiseman 16:39, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Of course we can never be 100%, but if image is taken from an academic source concerning this alleged genocide, then it is verifiable. www.hellenicgenocide.com is not an academic source. --A.Garnet 16:47, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
...Apollo Moon Landing hoax accusations...--Tekleni 16:48, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

There is no way provided to verify through reputable sources that the image is what it says. Unless the information is available about something about this photo (who took it or where it was published), it should be removed from the article. Such serious accusations inadmissible to base on such shaky evidence. Mukadderat 17:27, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

So far every source on this article has been disputed by the same users: diplomats' accounts as baseless, authors as pro-Greek (or having been married to a Greek!), other authors for been Armenians, NY Times articles and Australian Institutions as 'non-academic', now the photos... then what? And cause i think i have understoond what is going on here, let me say this: this article is not going to be renamed nor deleted nor slowly and steadily dismembered (as u do now with the photos). It is time to bring sources about what u dispute... Do find a source that it says the photo comes from somewhere else, otherwise, it remains. Hectorian 19:14, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Look, the photo could be of Pontic Greeks, but in science, when someone puts forward something, it is up to them to prove it.. In any case, the photo is way too low-fi to be identifiable, at least there has to be a statement from a historian and photography expert to say that this photo is dead Pontic Greek inhabitants of Giresun. Until now, we dont know who took it, when and where.. hellenicgenocide.com definitely didnt take the photo, coz they were not around back then.. In any case the photo will be deleted in two days by Wiki exactly because of this reason since it's copyright status is not clear (ie there are no sources to prove who took this picture, and therefore who holds the copyright to it). I was mostly concerned over the caption since i knew the copyright issue all along.. Baristarim 20:25, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

This is a lie, they are dumming you.

Yes i dont like people who believes what they hear... I like people who believe what they see and proved. --—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.100.225.60 (talk) .

Greek school book

Latest comment: 17 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Dear friends. This is a slightly abreviated translation of the text that appears in the standard Greek history text book for schools (2nd Lyceum year). The manual is intended as a suplement to the main text book and deals with the Diaspora, the Macedonian issue, Greek Turkish relations, Cyprus (the Cyprus section is both anti-Greek and anti-Turkish, while the Greek Cypriots emerge as the innocent victims).

START OF TRANSLATION Historical matters - 2nd Lyceum - Athens 2003 - pp.244-245

[sub-chapter]The systematic extermination (genocide) [sic] of the Pontic Greeks

The 1915 genocide of the Arminian people by the Young Turks is known, but the systtematic extermination of the Pontic Greeks, between 1916-1923 is not known, though proportionally it was comparable numerically and morally to the genocide of the Armenians.

Out of 697,000 Pontians who lived in 1913 in the Pontus, over 353,000, or over 50% had been put to death by 1923 by the Young Turks and the Kemalists in the towns and villages, in exile and in prisons, as well as in the work brigades, the so called 'amele tabourou'.

[...] The systematic percecution of the Pontic Greeks [...] shared may characteristics with the genocide of the Jews, but differed in two fundamental ways, according to P. Enepekides. There was no question concerning, genetic, eugenic and arian or semitic races founded on an ideological, cosmological or pseudo-genetic theory. It only served the specific political expediency of clearing Asia Minor of its Greek element. [...]

The situation in the wider area of the Pontus deteriorated when the Greek army occupied Smyrna on 15 May 1919 and some of the hinterland. On 19 May 1919, Kemal himself organised the second stage of the persecutions when he disembarked in Trabzon. [...]

The archives of the Foreign Ministries in Europe and America, as well as the reports of international organisations confirm the size and type of percecution suffered by the Greeks of the Pontus." END OF TRANSLATION AND OF QUOTE Politis 12:48, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I must say that when compared to the notorious propaganda-loaded Turkish schoolbooks, Greek schoolbooks are authoritative academic sources ;-) --Tekleni 12:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
LOL :-) Politis 13:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Gee guys, I hope you don't expect to put this on the article... I don't know about the Turkish schoolbooks but our own are highly prone to national and sometimes nationalistic propaganda. Well I guess the Turkish ones are quite the same, if not worse, judging by the semi-religious devotion to Ataturk that many Turks seem to hold. But again, I don't see the purpose of it being posted here as it adds practically nothing (apart from the name of Mr Epenekides perhaps?) to the article or the discussion about the article. --Michalis Famelis (talk) 14:19, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Sources II

Latest comment: 17 years ago10 comments3 people in discussion

From http://www.aihgs.com/PontEngFr.htm in case someone has access:

Seems like we have a lot of work to do... •NikoSilver• 22:49, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

That seems like an impressive list, but only one of them refers to a genocide of the Pontian Greeks, and thats the Hellenic Council of New South Wales...--A.Garnet 23:01, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

You've read them all? Take a look at some new terms here:
    • Pontos & Asia Minor Holocaust Research Unit
It seems that these scholars don't necessarily discriminate between Pontians and other Greeks. Smyrna and other places are included in all relevant entries in the AIHGS, despite the fact that you obviously aim to separate the two. With this logic, we'll end up having an article for every single village massacred, and those events if separated and isolated can hardly be considered genocide. Is this your goal? •NikoSilver• 23:18, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Its not me who separated it Nikos, whoever named this article Pontian Greek genocide separated it. --A.Garnet 23:25, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
You mean your approach actually aims to help in renaming it to Hellenic Genocide? Or would you then use the argument that since Hellenes are a superset of Pontians, and only the 'Pontian Genocide' is recognised, we could rename it to e.g. Hellenic deportations? Why don't you let add those facts in the article, as relative material (which it surely is) and if the scope extends significantly beyond the Pontians, we can discuss renaming it? •NikoSilver• 23:33, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
BTW, I didn't intend to impress with the sources. I just listed them here to select which of these may have been overseen.•NikoSilver• 23:37, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Look, we cant simply rename it Hellenic Genocide because your struggling to find sources to write about this alleged genocide. There has to be academic support, this is what it boils down to and something none of you seem to understand. Not even Greece recognsies a Hellenic Genocide. I saw this happening a mile off. I knew you would struggle to come up with a narrative for this event without confusing sources from Asia Minor, so now you want to merge it with what Asia Minor suffered under a all encompassing (completely original research) Hellenic Genocide term. There is no point discussing it, no one recognises such a thing, not even Greece. So let us concentrate on finding a solution to this article without creating new genocides. --A.Garnet 10:20, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Strange... After endless discussions in this page and archives, i had the impression that the Greek recognition of the 'Pontian Genocide' meant simply nothing... completely worthless... So, the no recognition by the Greek state of a 'Hellenic Genocide' can't be used as a reason against the creation of such an article... Hectorian 11:44, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Point taken, but there is recognition for such a genocide. Check the links below (which existed before A.Garnet's unfortunate hasty comment). •NikoSilver• 12:09, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I know Niko a long time now... I also checked them yesterday. Hectorian 12:22, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Greek recognition

Latest comment: 17 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

I see not only 'Pontians', but also 'Greeks' in these sources for Greek recognition.

Does anyone know, if by 'Pontians', certain sources may mean all Anatolian Greeks? •NikoSilver• 00:27, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

So despite the existence of such documents [32], people continue to call this poorly treated subject original research? Miskin 16:44, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Maybe people who do not like what they see and push their opinions as fact Miskin Aristovoul0s 18:56, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Original Research would mean that this title was invented by us editors. Let's have a look:

Then the result: a European Parliament report that establishes, for the first time, the recognition of the Armenian genocide as a precondition to Turkish accession to the European Union. It adds two other "genocides" -- that of Pontic Greeks and Syriacs to the bill.[33]

Is anyone silly enough to insist that this title falls under OR, i.e. that the term "Pontic Genocide" was invented by myself, Nikosilver and Hectorian? I hope not. I would advise the people who are wasting their time trying to rename the article, to save their energy for the article's content. Miskin 19:35, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


Turkish Novelist Wins Nobel Prize Last year, Pamuk was charged by Turkish authorities with the "public denigrating of Turkish identity" after he spoke to a Swiss newspaper about official silence surrounding the massacre of more than a million Armenians by Turks in 1915 and the death of tens of thousands of southeast Turkey's Kurdish minority in more recent conflicts with Turkish forces. In the early 20th century, Finkel explained, the Turkish drive for westernization involved a deliberate denial of the country's Ottoman past. ...Pamuk has been "willing to defy those who would silence free speech." What can you expect? Aristovoul0s 20:02, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

That's normal, Greek nationalism had also needed at some point to defocus itself from its Byzantine past. The problem is that the 3 alleged Turkish genocides were all committed primary by the "Turkish nationalists" and secondarily by the Kemalists. The Ottomans had little or nothing to do with it. Miskin 20:32, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

A + B = C

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

For those who dispute/deny that this was a Genocide, I am repeating below what I have already provided above under "Foreign Office Memorandum by Mr. G.W. Rendel"

The last sentence clearly states what the purpose was of all these deportations, massacres, etc. Note that this exerpt is the least graphic account of all the other eyewitness accounts in the memorandum.

"On the 1st September, Mr. Hopkins of the same organization ( American Near East Relief) met 12,000 (women and children) being driven southwards between Harpoot and Malatia.....Mr. Hopkins saw "many corpses of Greeks lying by the roadside where they had died from exposure. Many of them were corpses of women and girls." About 1st October he and two other relief workers passed about 10,000 Greeks. He says: "I remember one group of about 2,000, being women alone, most of them with no shoes, many carrying babies...A driving cold rain was falling... they had no protection whatsoever and their only place to sleep was the wet ground." Mr. Hopkins continues: ... Greek vilages are deported entirely, the few Turkish and Armenian inhabitants are forced to leave and the villages are burned.. The purpose is unquestionably to destroy all Greeks in that territory and to leave Turkey for the Turks".

This is definately not original research. This is independent/third party, non-Greek, eyewitness account/assessment. Therefore, A+B = C.

Note: The term Genocide did not exist at the time. Please do not look/request for accounts referring to these events as genocide. There are similar statements/admissions from other third parties of Turkish plans to eliminate/destroy the Greeks in Anatolia. - Rizos01 16:41, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Take article to mediation.

Latest comment: 17 years ago17 comments9 people in discussion

Do users agree? We have brought in impartial users, we have conducted straw polls, but the article (mainly from its title) is still in dispute. I see mediation, and if that fails, arbitration, as the only way of solving this dispute. I need to know if editors agree so i can initiate it. --A.Garnet 16:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

It's about time. Go for it. --Michalis Famelis (talk) 16:56, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, it needs it. So do most Greek-Turkish issues, really. --Awiseman 18:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
A comment here: It may be true that there are many such articles that could use some serious cooling down, but I wouldn't say that most greco-turkish related articles fit in that category. Take a look at the (imho very good) Greco-Turkish relations or even the (imho "risky" in terms of potential pov-pushing) Istanbul Pogrom for example. I may sound a bit idealistic here, but I've seen it work: whenever cool minded wikipedians from both sides try to stick to the rules they cooperate magnificiently. --Michalis Famelis (talk) 13:51, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

It was about time someone from the Turkish side accepted my repeated requests. Yes I agree. •NikoSilver• 11:41, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I also agree. Hectorian 15:23, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm going to rally support from various Greek forums if it goes to a vote. 14/88 --DigenisAkritas 12:48, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

That would definitely help in getting you perma-banned, and declare those votes moot. Kindly retract your unfortunate comment, which is contrary to wikipedia policies (WP:SPAM). I would also suggest you link that 14/88 in your sig, so that others can understand where you're coming from. •NikoSilver• 13:51, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Where he's coming from? Check "GreekWarrior" arbitration. He already is permabanned. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:03, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
It would possibly help to inform the 14/88 guy that wikipedia is not a democracy and that decisions are not made by voting. Voting is a tool to help determine concencus, nothing more. Decisions are made per consencus and policy. He can meatpuppet all he likes, that won't change anything. --Michalis Famelis (talk) 14:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

The best thing to do with such edits is to ignore them, as nothing good can be said of them. Returning to the question of mediation, I too find it a great idea, and invite to proceed with the proposal.--Aldux 15:01, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry people but i have simply been too busy to make any worthwhile contribution to Wikipedia and will most likely be more busy in recent weeks. If anyone else wants to initiate the mediation go ahead, and i will argue my position as best i can, otherwise it will take some time before i can get it going. Thanks, --A.Garnet 15:30, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Alf, you can't expect the supporters of the current status quo to initiate mediation. It is the disputing side that has to build up its arguments against something. Otherwise, the supporting side does not know what to defend! Either some of the disputors asks for mediation, or I am afraid we can't keep the article hostage with tags. Please find time, or ask someone from your side to do it. •NikoSilver• 19:46, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

First of all, the article must be unprotected. It's time, don't you think? Mitsos 10:36, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Mitso it is unprotected for registered editors. The lock is for unregistered or newly registered IP's. •NikoSilver• 11:00, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I 'm saying that it must not be locked for unregistered or newly registered IP's. This is wikipedia the free encyclopedia, right? Mitsos 15:40, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, that's a legitimate request. I thought you didn't know, since I myself frequently confuse those two very similar lock templates. •NikoSilver• 16:07, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

State resolutions

Latest comment: 17 years ago11 comments6 people in discussion

Resolutions of state legislatures have no legal force (see the article resolution (law) which I wikilinked) and can be passed for almost anyone as long as there is not organized opposition. Just take a look at the Massachusetts resolutions passed at the same time as the Pontian genocide resolution:

  • a resolution congratulating Alice Grennell on the occasion of her ninetieth birthday;
  • a resolution on the two hundredth anniversary of the First Baptist Church of Hanover;
  • a resolution congratulating John E. A. Schoeck on receiving the Eagle Award of the Boy Scouts of America

This should give you a sense of the weight that legislatures attach to these resolutions. It is pathetic and embarrassing to cite these as evidence that the Pontian genocide is 'recognized' by various U.S. states. That is why I tightened up the language and put the list in a note. --Macrakis 00:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Since when does it have to have legal force for it to constitute recognition? The article already has that irrelevant bit about individual states not promoting their own foreign policies. As I said in my edit summary, until I see similar changes at Armenian Genocide and everywhere else where such resolutions have been passed and are called recognition, I'll oppose double standards here.--Euthymios 09:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Sorry Macrakis, but i find your comparison of resolutions as an unlucky one... It is like comparing the Danish law that granted autonomy to the Faeroe Islands, to the also Danish (and much older) law, that says it is "illegal" to start the engine of your car if someone is sleeping under it! btw, the article clearly states that it is about recognitions, not about penalising the denial of... So, i can't see what legal effects u would expect a recognition to have. Hectorian 11:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Huh? The point here is that state legislative resolutions are a joke. A few solid citations from reputable scholars are worth all the legislative resolutions in the world. YouWe are only making Greeks look ridiculous and pathetic by mentioning these resolutions in this article. I am embarrassed. --Macrakis 16:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Your feelings about the legislative branches of any state (sovereign or not) in the world, is certainly beyond my interests. These resolutions consist political acts, and thus should be mentioned. Btw, many laws are indeed jokes, but it is not up to us to decide whether to include them or not! we, simply, have to. PS: Start feeling embarrassed by things youself do... Hectorian 16:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
The point Hectorian, is that the academic weight of those resolutions is about the same as congratulating a boy scout! --A.Garnet 16:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
A.Garnet, are u sure u want to begin "measuring" the academic weight of many resolutions/laws/theories in existing articles? Hectorian 16:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

So basically Makraki, ti thelis (or should I say ne istiyorsun)? Do you want to not mention the resolutions at all? Should we say it never happened? Should we say no one died? I'm willing to accept Francis's whatever that was intended to be (compromise proposal?) [34], but it's all up to you.--Euthymios 17:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Amazing, there was actually no debate here for 6 weeks from Oct 28 till Dec 5? That shows you what a hangover many people had from the earlier discussions :)) Baristarim 17:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Thymio, my proposal is expressed in my edit, which is only about the presentation of the resolutions in the article. Please reread my edit and my comments, as your questions seem to indicate that you are confusing my edits with someone else's. My edit had nothing to do with the reality of the events, only the use of US State legislatures' resolutions in the discussion. You will note that my edit does not remove the reference to the resolutions, or the links to them. All it does is move them to a footnote, which is where I believe they belong. These legislative resolutions are just not that meaningful or important, as shown by the other resolutions passed at the same time, and no doubt with equal amounts of debate (zero). They tell you a little bit about U.S. domestic politics, but not much else. --Macrakis 17:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm with Macrakis on this one, his version is the best, but if we must have a "compromise", then mine will do... I suppose... - Francis Tyers · 17:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

pov-title tag

Latest comment: 17 years ago18 comments7 people in discussion

Same applies here as on the TRNC page: The tag makes sense only if there is an active discussion about the title that has a realistic perspective of actually leading to a consensus for a move. This title has been discussed ad nauseam, decisions have been made, there seems very little likelihood a consensus for a different title will be found in the near future. I can understand why people may still be unhappy with the title, but that's no grounds for keeping the article hostage with the tag forever. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:19, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Mitsos 08:24, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Fut, we have made no decision on this articles title, the only consensus we reached was to add a pov-title until a rename is found or we agree to this one, neither of which has occurred. The important thing is we reached the decision to add a pov-title tag by consensus, which is why i reverted Diraks removal of it yesterday and why he made a WP:point by adding one to TRNC.
We have suggested serious alternatives, especially Pontian massacres (which i believe Francis and Khoikoi both supported), but it was rejected by the Greek editors. So in all honesty i have no clue what to do. --A.Garnet 15:38, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
I removed it. Your suggestions were either opposed or have no consensus. NikoSilver 15:41, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

1. Wikipedia is not a democracy 2. What are you talking about no consensus. It was YOUR idea to place a pov-title until we found a suitable title. 3. Stop confusing academic recognition of a historical interpretation with legal recognition of a defacto state, they are two different things. --A.Garnet 16:26, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

1.Straw man. "Greek Junta" can safely remove it then. 2.Straw man my comment was before the poll. 3. Straw man see Pontic_Greek_Genocide#Academic_views_on_the_issue. NikoSilver 16:38, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't see how. If this article has no reasonable chance of being renamed, and if it is not even being discussed I don't see why it should be treated any differently to any other article which is being discussed (unless Turkish POV is overriding in all cases). //Dirak 16:34, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The reason why the debate stalled here was because we simply kept going in circles until everybody had a huge hangover. However, I feel that round 2 is going to come soon unfortunately so that we will be able to slug each other out senselessly until everyone will be ready to take a long pause. :)) I know that there has not been a debate for sometime... Well, so what do people think of "Pontic deportations" and "Pontic massacres"? We can mention in the intro that Greece and Cyprus have recognized the events as genocide and mention in another section how certain US states have passed resolutions to that effect. I don't favor simply deleting the article since the article has potential to cover certain events. For example if it were at "Pontic deportations", the Pontic exodus could also be covered. Btw, is there a special Greek name for this? Or is it simply called "Pontic Greek Genocide"? If there were, we could use that directly. So how did the cabal junta meeting go? Anything we should know about? :))Baristarim 16:49, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
LOL :) I don't know, I wasn't invited. It's a shame we can't include scare quotes in the title "Pontian Greek Genocide" (also "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus"). //Dirak 16:53, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Really Nikos, do you understand how poor the academic recognition is for this event? There is not even a monograph to its name, no journal articles, no reputable scholars or historians, no recognition from important NGO's such as the Association of Genocide scholars, no encylopedic entries etc etc...If you think a few sentences using the words Pontian genocide is enough then you are sorely mistaken. I'm sure you will try and equate this with non-recognition of the TRNC, but the TRNC is not an academic thesis it is a defacto state regardless of legal or academic opinion - Do you/will you understand this difference? --A.Garnet 21:07, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
The difference only exists in your head... you have presented all these explanations time and time again, before and during the poll (in which you yourself participated); all the "criteria for the title to include the word genocide" which don't appear in any Wikipedia policy which you are citing were tailor made for this purpose by you. If you think that including the infobox or having the title "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus" for the TRNC article does not imply acceptance, then I don't see why that need not be done here. All these distinctions you are citing (undue weight doesn't apply to X, but only applies to Y and Z...) mean nothing. Independent academic sources do exist (as you won't accept Greek ones), and if one's status being undisputed is essential for the maintenance of a title, then not only TRNC should be renamed, but also Armenian Genocide and Assyrian Genocide (the latter of which has even less recognition than this - another example of raging double standards). Finally, I do not see how the current title of the article even implies acceptance. The article as you can tell is about the term and all opposing views are fully represented, so how you can say this page is POV, especially considering your performance on other pages, is beyond me. //Dirak 21:42, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
I have asked El_C to see if undue weight applies to TRNC, so lets wait for his opinion on that. As for my "performance" on other pages", please enlighten me. --A.Garnet 22:45, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

So let me get this straight Garnet. Let's just forget for a second that there was a #Straw poll and a huge debate that lead to this. You say:

  • We don't tag TRNC because it is a fact
    • While we don't care that nobody recognizes it like that.
  • We tag PGG despite it being a fact [4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14]
    • While we don't care that some call it like that.

Can you please explain your reasoning? I smell double standards... NikoSilver 01:32, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Refs

  1. ^ Ascherson, Neal, "Black Sea" page 188
  2. ^ Pontic Greeks under Stalin (in Greek)
  3. ^ Japan External Trade Organization: Institute of Developing Economies: Ethnodemographic situation in Kazakhstan
  4. ^ Per genocide definition and per sources that mention it directly:
  5. ^ Cohn Jatz, Colin Tatz (2003). With Intent to Destroy: Reflections on Genocide. Essex: Verso. ISBN 1859845509.
  6. ^ "Statistics of Democide". Chapter 5, Statistics Of Turkey's Democide Estimates, Calculations, And Sources. Retrieved October 4, 2006.
  7. ^ ...or calling it systematic extermination ... annihilation ... in a persistent campaign of massacre
  8. ^ Horton, George (1926). The Blight of Asia. Indianapolis: The Bobbs-Merrill Company.
  9. ^ ...or compared experience to the Holocaust
  10. ^ Steven L. Jacobs, Samuel Totten (2002). Pioneers of Genocide Studies (Clt). New Brunswick, New Jersey. p. 213. ISBN 0765801515. {{cite book}}: Text "publisher: Transaction Publishers" ignored (help)CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
  11. ^ ...or series of massacres, pertinent to the Armenian Genocide
  12. ^ Creating a Modern "Zone of Genocide": The Impact of Nation- and State-Formation on Eastern Anatolia, 1878–1923, by Mark Levene, University of Warwick, © 1998 by United States Holocaust Memorial Museum
  13. ^ ...or ethnic cleansing
  14. ^ Norman M. Naimark, Fires of Hatred: Ethnic Cleansing in Twentieth-Century Europe, Cambridge and London: Harvard University Press, 2001.
What debate led to this? I saw no debate, only us making suggestions and a number of Greek editors refusing all of them. Yes we do not tag the TRNC because it is a fact. Do you deny that there is a self-declared entity called the TRNC in the north of Cyprus? You cannot have different views on something that exists right now. Its existence does not rest on the recognition of others, legal or academic, and to prove it, i suggest you go to Cyprus and keep walking north, there you will see this self-declared entity and perhaps will go to Wikipedia to find out more about it!
As for Pontian Greek "genocide" - genocide is a view, it is an interpretation which rests on legal and academic opinion, the complete opposite of a defacto state. Without recognition of a genocide, we simply have many deaths or a massacre. Genocide is a point of view about a certain event and without providing reputable scholarly research, it simply becomes a minority view. And look at the sources you provide, they are scraps of sentences using a combination of genocide, massacres and ethnic cleansing. Nowhere do we have one reputable historian or scholar with an ounce of research on the subject. Do you realise i can find you a third party monograph about a genocide of Turkish Cypriots? Can you even do this? --A.Garnet 12:57, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
You mean I should keep walking north in Cyprus like him or like him? Hah, no thanks! Your state and its puppet really know how to prove they're not violent every day!
And you really have to throw in an incoherent Turkish POV blurb everytime before readding a tag for a title that is the only one supported in a poll, huh? Despite the fact that you are also obviously wrong about it (because the genocide happenned per all), despite the fact that you apply double standards at your convenience... NikoSilver 15:19, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
I have no interest in replying to sarcastic remarks, needless to say thousands of people now cross the border between north and south Cyprus everday. As i've said Wikipedia is not a democracy, the straw poll highlighted one thing: The majority of Greek editors want this title, the majority of Turkish editors and third party editors are not pleased with it. So whether its 1 Greek or 100 Greeks who voted for this title, it is still 1 pov against the other. I dont know where you get this confidence that "the genocide happened per all" and that i am "obviously wrong about it", in fact it is almost laughable in the face of so much non-recognition both academically and legally. --A.Garnet 15:34, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Really? LOL! //Dirak 10:36, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Maybe this is a case for the cooperation committee --AW 18:41, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Greek_genocide/Archive_4&oldid=1169033431"