Wikipedia

Talk:Greek genocide/Archive 5

< Talk:Greek genocide
Latest comment: 17 years ago by N! in topic On context
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7→Archive 10

Request for Comment: Article name

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

This dispute is mainly regarding the use of the term genocide in the article's title, versus proposed variations with terms such as massacres, deportations, and ethnic cleansing. There was a recent mediation, a dispute resolution, and a straw poll, all coupled by a huge debate. The article is presently protected due to edit-warring regarding the {{POV-title}} tag. 01:57, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Statements by editors previously involved in dispute:

Statement by NikoSilver

  • The poll ended with consensus in one of the numerous options, namely Pontic Greek genocide. The other options were either opposed, or marked with no consensus.
  • The initial debate was that the "acts" defined in genocide were not sourced. At present the article has practically every sentence cited by independent, verifiable, reliable sources.
  • The debate later evolved as to if it is original research to assume that the facts to their extent provide adequate reason to name the article as such. A response was provided here. Academic sources explicitly or inexplicitly stating it was a genocide were also provided. Namely:
Academic quotes

Note: Only third party sources are included here. For all sources, check Pontic Greek Genocide#Academic views on the issue. For eyewitness quotes, check Pontic Greek Genocide#Eyewitness accounts and quotes. For recognition, check Pontic Greek Genocide#Recognition.

  • 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.[1]
  • democide against the Greeks...genocide...347,000 dead[2]
  • systematic extermination...annihilation...in a persistent campaign of massacre
    Note: Term "genocide" had not been coined yet.[3]
  • compared experience to the Holocaust[4]
  • series of massacres, pertinent to the Armenian Genocide[5]
  • ethnic cleansing[6]
  1. ^ Cohn Jatz, Colin Tatz (2003). With Intent to Destroy: Reflections on Genocide. Essex: Verso. ISBN 1859845509.
  2. ^ R. J. Rummel. "Statistics of Democide". Chapter 5, Statistics Of Turkey's Democide Estimates, Calculations, And Sources. Retrieved October 4, 2006.
  3. ^ Horton, George (1926). The Blight of Asia. Indianapolis: The Bobbs-Merrill Company.
  4. ^ 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)
  5. ^ 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
  6. ^ Norman M. Naimark, Fires of Hatred: Ethnic Cleansing in Twentieth-Century Europe, Cambridge and London: Harvard University Press, 2001.

Please read the article and decide for yourselves. For the reasons stated above, this summary supports that the title should include the term genocide.

NikoSilver 10:59, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Statement by A.Garnet

My position has been since the beginning that this article does not reflect academic opinion. It is recognised by Greece, written by Greek editors and supported by Greek editors. None of the sources are credible, none of the scholars notable, not one monograph can be found to its name, not one journal article, not one encylopedic article - in short it is the culmination of a few scraps of sentences in which a non-notable author has used the term Pontian greek "genocide" and original research whereby a number of quotes are being used to prove the genocide thesis.

You only have to look at the "Background" section, the section supposedly dealing with this genocide, to realise how poor the academic material in support of this article is. It is so poor that they rely on sources from a different location (Asia minor as opposed to Pontus) and from different people (Aegean Greeks and Turkish Jews as opposed to Pontian Greeks). So nowhere in this article do we have one ounce of explanation as to how these Pontian Greeks were supposodly exposed to genocide by Turks, simply becauase our Greek editors cannot find any research material on this beyond a few sentences which use the term Pontian Greek genocide.

Lets look at some of the arguments used to justify the title. Firstly, there was no consensus on the title whatsoever. Do not try and justify the collective votes of a number of Greek editors to mean a consensus, it is anything but. Consensus is achieved in reaching an agreement with disputing parties, not reaching an agreement with people who already agree! The fact is not only do all of the Turkish editors disagree, but a number of admins and third party editors have also raised questions and opposed the current title.

Another arugment used: "Apart from Turkey, no other country has explicitly expressed they dispute the genocide thesis." This is really quite a childish argument. It assumes non-recognition outside of Greece and Cyprus (i really do want to see a proper source that Cyprus recognises it) to somehow mean silent worldwide recognition. Well surely if recongition was so forthcoming you would be able to present me with one monograph from one notable historian. They ask for sources opposing a genocide of Pontians before they provide any credible or substantial sources which support it! This whole attitude is sheer nonsense and one employed to defend and indefensible position.

Also, as for the supposed recognition of American states, as another Greek editor proved, these resolutions are of little academic or political weight. Anybody can file a resolution, in fact one of "genocide" resolutions is mentioned next to happy birthday wishes for an old granny! They are, as Mackracis put, an embarassment to this article. Furthermore, on the topic of NGO's, the most notable of all NGO's dealing with genocide, the Association of Genocide Scholars, does not recognise this event as genocide, nor do any of the scholars associated with.

Let us also put those Google searches into perspective:

Now have a look at those 17,000 results, all it shows is that there a lot of Greeks on the internet like the editors here who are using the term Pontian greek "genocide". None of these superficial arguments count for anything Nikos, nothin detracts from the minority nature of this thesis and the complete lack of notable scholarly research, no matter how many straw polls you initiate or how many Greek editor revert the article.

Put simply, this article is a minority view. If the editors insist on defending it, then they will have to accept that the pov-title tag is here to stay until it is renamed and rewritten. Just to add i wont be here from Friday onwards, but i think i've made my argument pretty clear here.

Some sources:

  • Mazower (these deportations were on a relatively small scale and do not appear to have been designed to end in their victims' deaths.)
  • Midlarsky (Under these conditions, genocide of the Ottoman Greeks was simply not a viable option) Book review:
  • Valentino ("the Turks did not seek to exterminate the Greeks, as the previous regime had done to the Armenians") [p. 296 -- Final Solutions: Mass Killing and Genocide in the Twentieth Century]
  • Levene "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." — "... 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." — "Historians ... tend to avoid the term genocide to describe them." --A.Garnet 02:54, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Straw Poll

Latest comment: 17 years ago100 comments31 people in discussion

Users who support or oppose the inclusion of the word "genocide" in the title, should sign below with a brief comment in the respective section. Comments longer than one line belong to the #Comments section below. Only registered users with more than 50 edits prior to Dec 10, 2006 00:00 UTC are eligible to vote. Comments are welcome by anyone in the #Comments section.

Comments

Pending another post of a longer view I would like to propose that this article to be renamed to Pontic Greek exodus that will cover the fate of Pontic Greeks since the article has included, over the editwars, many references to the Pontic Greeks who went to Kazakhstan etc. Genocide thesis should be talked about in the article. The genocide thesis is recognized by only Cyprus and Greece, and this should raise a few red flags. The case here is similar to Population history of American indigenous peoples and Native American genocide, with the latter redirecting to the former that includes a section on the genocide controversy. Also remember that this article was deleted two months ago from German Wiki for being a hate page. I am not proposing deletion, since I respect content as a general rule. Therefore I propose that this article be renamed, and the genocide thesis mentioned in a seperate section with a mention of Cyprus and Greece recognizing a "Pontic Greek Genocide". Baristarim 12:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

And its recognition by six US states doesn't mean much either. Mississipi had a law until the 70s that said that it was OK to kill a Mormon. So, I don't understand why they are even mentioned. Baristarim 12:44, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

"Also remember that this article was deleted from German Wiki for being a hate page" These Germans and their hate laws... "Mississipi had a law until the 70s that said that it was OK to kill a Mormon." So what??? Mitsos 12:44, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

What is the point of another straw poll? I mean who are you trying to kid, we are here to build consensus, not demonstrate the voting power of Greek editors (demonstrated nicely by the afd on Kurdish genocide). --A.Garnet 13:47, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Look Garnet, by persistently adding {{POV-title}}, you have repeatedly violated consensus as it was already demonstrated three times already:
I refuse to accept your tag in this legitimate article that has been scrutinized by dozens of editors for the tinyest detail. You have a point though: Indeed, just "another straw poll" is probably not enough to combat your persistence...NikoSilver 14:08, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
I dont understand you Nikos, why do you lie and distort like this? You know damn well there was not an ounce of consensus for this title outside of the Greek editors who backed it. I do not recall one Turkish editor supporting this title, in fact i do not recall one third party editor bar Awiseman who explicity supported it. Where is this consensus you keep going on about? The only consensus i saw was your idea to place the pov-title tag until we agreed on the current name or a rename, none of which has happened. --A.Garnet 14:13, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
See: here, here, here and here (which Baris added) for replies. Also, I don't get it: Do you suggest that any view expressed in WP must have been consented by the Turkish side? I'm sorry, I don't follow... NikoSilver 14:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
So you accept the historical reality of the Armenian Genocide, then? ·ΚέκρωΨ· 14:17, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
I accept its academic notablity and scholarly support gives it a legitimate place on Wikipedia. Unlike this. --A.Garnet 14:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Another false distinction. Genocide was committed against the Christian population of the region as a whole; the Armenians bore the brunt. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 14:27, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Maybe then you could tell me why an eminent historian such as Mazower or Midlarsky deny any genocide of Greeks but support the Armenians? Are they Pontian genocide deniers? --A.Garnet 14:32, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Kekrops, avoid the straw man. Asking such questions are irrelevant. Mitsos, who has voted for support is a white supremacist, as admitted in his user page. Why don't you ask him if he thinks that blacks are inferior to whites for example? People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. So don't even try to attack others positions by making them look like some genocide-denying Nazi. You should be asking to Mitsos what he thinks of Jews, since you seems to adore asking other peoples' opinions on things that don't concern this article. Baristarim 14:40, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
What question? There is no doubt in my mind whatsoever that the events constituted genocide. I think you're the one who needs to avoid the strawman; you've just associated the opposing side of the debate with white supremacism. Speaking of user pages, your description of Chinese territory as "still Turkish" reads like an homage to pan-Turkism/Turanism, an equally dangerous ideology as far as I'm concerned. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 15:03, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Your question to A. Garnet. Eastern China is not the territory of Turkey my friend. However, it is also regularly called East Turkistan, and that's what I meant. Cut down on the paranoia. If you want to know why I can easily talk about East Turkistan, take a closer look at some of the articles listed in my user page. If you are going to be asking questions like that to A. Garnet, why don't you ask Mitsos what he thinks of the Jews for example? Again do not confuse your POV with that of the whole world. And Kekrops, exactly what I have been trying to explain all along: This article is the product of the POV of its creators. Baristarim 15:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
And yes, if you are not going to ask any questions about their ideologies to who vote for support, do not do it for others. If you are going to ask irrelevant questions, of course I will wonder why a white-nationalist is advocating support, and raise it here since the rule of not questioning the ideologies of editors was broken by your questions. I am an atheist + far-left, and you should know that people like that do not generally become pan-Turkists. Baristarim 15:35, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
I am not contradicting you but I am almost certain that they do not "deny" a genocide took place. Do you have a quote? Politis 14:36, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Bottom of my statement my friend. --A.Garnet 14:38, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for that; do you have the Mazower reference (book, article)? Politis 14:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Have an article: http://www.lrb.co.uk/v23/n03/mazo01_.html --A.Garnet 14:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Did someone suggest 'Exodus'??? Is this a Bob Marley song :-?. But seriously, we can just about apply the term 'exodus' to the population exchanges between Bulgaria, Greece, Turkey, etc. But in Pontus there was used to be an ancient and thriving Greek community; after 1915 and the 1920s it came to an end with many tens of thousands killed. Buildings, churches, archives, art works were burnt. For Greeks, this was nothing less than a genocide (not a tragic population exchange or the direct outcome of war). The perpetrators were mostly Ottoman troops and Kurdish irregulars. So at the very least we have a series of Massacres and pogroms. Politis 14:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Really? See the Population history of American indigenous peoples and Native American genocide.. Hmm.. That's interesting, they redirect to the same article under the first article. I can find sources that say that there was a genocide of Native Americans by the truckload. However, the article is still not named "genocide", since there is no academic and scholarly concensus. The case at hand is even worse: Not only that there aren't enough sources (a few books, couple of interpretations of second-hand eye witness accounts, and recognition by Greece and Cyprus (gees, GR and CYR, how can that happen? :))), but there is not at all an academic concensus. Baristarim 14:40, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

By the way, here is a secret how block editing can be generated: every User name has a 'User contributions' link; by clicking onto it, you can follow what a User with similar interests is editing; if you see something relevant, you add your own comment... Politis 14:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I know. I generately can find things of interest by myself however.. That might be true for someone who is new to Wikipedia, but it is nothing but desperation for an experienced editor.Baristarim 14:40, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

The Population history of American indigenous peoples and Native American genocide. They redirect to the same article under the first article, since there is no academic concensus. Plus, this article was deleted in the German Wiki for being a hate page. Nikos, concensus in a small straw poll dominated, unfortunately by Greek editors is not sufficient. It might interest you to know that many non-Greek and non-Turk editors, admins included, also oppose the title, however they are afraid to come in because of the block-lobby of some people (guess who? any AfDs anyone?) Nobody is saying this content to be deleted, however you also have to understand that you cannot impose a minority POV to the rest of Wikipedia. Baristarim 14:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

For Midlarsky, I prefer this review [3] (thanks Garnet). Nice quotes by his reviewer (Robert M. Spector-Worcester State College):
"deals with mass murders in the twentieth century that could have but did not evolve into the author's definition of genocide".
"In part three, having narrowed the meaning of genocide and identified the perpetrator's conditions for genocide, Midlarsky applies his analysis to Turkey..."
"It is regrettable that Midlarsky does not deal more with prevention of genocide, which is the ultimate purpose of studying the subject."
:-) NikoSilver 15:04, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Again why lie and distort? The full quote: "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." I dont see what is here that you would prefer, how explicit do you want it. --A.Garnet 15:13, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Read the whole of it Garnet. I bolded parts above. Avoid WP:ATTACKs. Take this as a warning. I've had enough of this! NikoSilver 15:18, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
You should probably report him, Niko. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 15:20, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Start arguing your case properly instead of your little gimmicky google counts, straw polls and what not. I dont have time to go round in circles like this. In fact juding by yours and others support for Kurdish genocide what i have said over the past 6 or 7 months has had absoloutely no effect on any of you. So now i'll hopefully wait for third party editors and see what happens. Good day. --A.Garnet 15:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok that does it. NikoSilver 15:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes Niko, that does it. It is clear as the sky what happened at the AfD of the Kurdish Genocide. Some editors came back from their inactivity of months to vote "delete per X". Baristarim 15:42, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
What exactly is clear Baris? Need I point out maybe how many Turks came out of nowhere in that AfD also? Even ...after it closed? In any case, your reaction and constant repetition of all this is just smoke in the eyes to evade the issue here and produce random accusations. Nobody notified or was notified to this AfD to my knowledge. Do you know something we don't? Where's the cabal? NikoSilver 15:54, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
[4]. This one for example. Kinda funny that Dirak said in his support vote "I am not going to change my opinion unless there are changes to the Assyrian Genocide article". Hmm kinda funny isn't it Nikos? Dirak created the article "Kurdish Genocide" four days ago, and it was deleted pretty much in a day. Coincidence? I don't think so.Baristarim 16:01, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
I've seen the particular editor around a lot, especially in controversial issues. I also see he doesn't have the e-mail feature. Weird... NikoSilver 16:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Baristarim. OK, so what you might be saying is that only for the 'Greek people', these events are perceived as a genocide - indeed, that is why the Greek state has a special day comemorating it. But international opinion does not recognise a genocide. My problem is that although I can see the case for calling it 'massacre' rather than 'genocide', a State (Greece) has officially recognised it as such, and this official status - even though limited - gives it the official (though contravertial) right to be included in wikipedia.
For instance, if Turkey had decreed a special day for 'Turkish Cypriot Genocide', I would argue that, yes, we would have to include it in wikipedia. And not because there was a genocide, but because the concept would have formed an official element in Turkey's official calendar.
So, in this current article, we could indicate from the very beginning that this is a Greek perception and part of the official Greek calendar. Then, that there is no international response and we can give a non-contravertial background to the story. For any further details, we could have a link to 'Pontian or Pontic massacre'. Politis 15:36, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
This is a common problem. The answers you seek are in Wikipedia:Content forking. The Greek perception is certainly notable enough to warrant significant mention in a "Pontian Greek massacre" article, and to warrant having redirects from titles such as these. We cannot, however, have articles that discuss only one side of the equation. The most common example is Creationism. The article does not say "OK, this is what they believe: 1) God made earth in 7 days etc...". One article should cover all opinions. yandman 15:52, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect yandman, check the sources, quotes, recognition, NGOs etc above (both sides). On the other hand I agree with your reasoning that minority POVs must not be reflected on titles. Check for example TRNC... NikoSilver 15:57, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

TRNC is not a mathematical or academic thesis. The comparison is baseless, it is an entity that exists! The case here is similar to Native American article I mentioned right under the Comments subsection. Also take a look at that Nikos. The genocide thesis is mentioned in a section in the article. Baristarim 16:04, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Genocide is a specific term reflecting spesific actions and is used for every demographic changing caused by brutal force in large scale -by any nation. --Kalogeropoulos 16:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
TRNC has less recognition; the existence of a state in northern Cyprus is nothing more than a (-n extremely small) POV. All that's a reality in Cyprus is the military occupation. How Turkish nationalists manage to equate that with a state is beyond me... //Dirak 16:15, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
You see why i lose my rag Yandman? How many bloody times - TRNC is not an academic thesis - it is a defacto self-declared entity! Its like hitting my head agaisnt a brick wall, the same worthless arguments again and again and again! --A.Garnet 16:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Blah, blah, blah... that is nothing more than your POV and you know it. //Dirak 16:35, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Can we lay off the TRNC or move the exchange to the relevant talk page? The article concern Pontic Greeks, not Turkish Cypriots and their state. Politis 16:38, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

"If you are going to ask irrelevant questions, of course I will wonder why a white-nationalist is advocating support" I cannot understand what is your problem. Did anyone accused you for being a leftist? Btw, you don't come from France as you say in your userpage, you come from Turkey. A. Garnet is right about TRNC. Mitsos 17:28, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Well Mitsos, there was not a template similar to the US one, happy? The problem is not at all your beliefs, it was another asking Alf about his opinions/ideology on something else. If such questioning is permitted, then there is no reason why it should work only one way..
Again, comments that are irrelevant. TRNC? It doesn't matter if you believe that if it were genocide. Wikipedia is not your personal blog. If you want, you can create your own website or forum and write anything you want. What I want to know is since when the overhelming academic concensus of this being a genocide was formed. Since Greece and Cyprus accepted this as such?! Is that it? Or since this page was deleted from German Wiki because it was considered a hate page?

Nobody is proposing the content to be deleted. There are no users here coming from months old sleeps and voting "delete. per above". There is no reason why this should be deleted, and I, again, propose a solution similar to the Native Americans page; an article that has been edited by thousands of editors over the years, and extensively at that since Wikipedia is anglophone. Meaning that it has developed a good encyclopedic and formal approach that should be adopted in such cases. Baristarim 18:35, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

A majority of the article also breaks WP:OR. Most of the sources are simple eye-witness accounts of some American ambassador 90 years ago. There are practically no serious sources or books cited about the "genocide" issue. This article is trying to use the witness accounts, recognition from Greece and Cyprus (?!) to persuade the reader that this was genocide. That is a clear violation of WP:OR. One of the associations cited, "Intl Association of Genocide blah blah" is co-chaired by an ethnic Greek etc. Turkish POV? This has Greek POV written all over it.. Baristarim 18:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

"Well Mitsos, there was not a template similar to the US one, happy?" Fair enough. Mitsos 18:46, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Harry Psomiades, Constantine Fotiades? And some people are complaining about the Turkish POV.. Half the sources that advocate "genocide" are Greeks, and the rest are non-notable historians. There has to be a clear academic concensus on such an issue. The defense "the research has just gotten started" doesn't hold either. European journalists, authors, historians write tens of books a year about even the smallest Kurdish related issue, you are saying that a probable genocide of so many people slipped their mind? Two of the historians cited also compare this with the aboriginal experience, however I can find no such article and, as I said, the Native American genocide redirects to something else, which means that they are out of the academic concensus generally. Baristarim 18:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

The article about aborigines says "Impact of European settlement" as section title. Well, if those two historians are considering the aboriginal experience to genocide, then I don't understand why they should not be considered on the fringes of academia.Baristarim 18:57, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

As for the recognitions. WHAT recognitions? Is this a joke? Greece and Cyprus? And six US states who also pass grandma birthday wishes at the same time? As for someone said about Turkey recognizing a TR Cyp genocide and its implication that that would warrant an article: false. Just because some country passed a resolution accusing its neighbor with whom it had a "not-so-friendly" relations for centuries, that doesn't mean we can create an article. It is notable, but only merits a statement of the fact: "X passed a resolution considering that the Y did a genocide on the nationals of X". That's it. It cannot have an article of its own. This is exactly the same reason the word "terrorist" is a word to avoid, since people blame each other for being as such on the slightest of excuses.Baristarim 18:57, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Having fun up there? :) Keep on going.. Just a quick question: will there be anymore users coming back from inactivity to vote here? Or will there be other articles created per WP:POINT as User:Dirak is insisting on doing even after the closure of the AfD? Has anyone seriously looked at the Native American article that I mentioned? All the keepers seemed to say the same thing: "I believe and know that there was a genocide". Sorry folks, that don't cut it.Baristarim 20:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Having fun down here? Do you seriously think that one can follow your rhetoric? Do you really think that flooding will get you anywhere? NikoSilver 22:35, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Nikos, have you even read my posts above? What rhetoric? Even you had said (way back when), that you were going to take a look at the article about the Native Americans. So what happened? My recent posts were definitely relevant, and I cannot see why some people don't understand that this is not a vote of some sorts. Dry votes are not going to cut it, if those who have voted are so interested, why don't they leave any comments here? Nobody seems to be engaging in a serious discussion about the fact that the Native American genocide is not titled as such, as well as the fact that this article has been deleted from German Wiki. I am sorry, but I stand behind what I said, most of the keepers say basically the same thing: "I believe and know that there was a genocide". Articles cannot be based on the beliefs of its creators. What kind of a discussion is this? There are no "aboriginal genocide" or "native american genocide" articles. The only that can be cited is the Assyrian Genocide. And another attempt was made to create another similar article to simply be able to point out to the existence of another similar article, but it didn't work. Even here, most keepers are not even contributing to the debate at all, just "keep - it is despicable how those barbaric Turks are such savages blah blah". All I am saying is that there should be an actual debate.Baristarim 22:55, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Baris, the quotes you included are fictional. My personal view (as can be seen here) is that people become better when they recognize their mistakes. I think you should be actually endorsing your fellow Turkish users to vote support. That way, you would indeed prove that "those Turks aren't such savages". There are many academic sources calling it a genocide, sources with the numbers of the dead, recognition by subnational entities, NGOs, eyewitness quotes etc etc. Really, how do you fail to see these? I remember your argument used to be that genocide is a legal term, and must be recognized by the UN (or something). Is this all that matters to you? Don't you feel the least of sorrow that these events happened in your parts? Don't you see that even R. J. Rummel that you mock, has tables full of citations by accredited third party historians for series of massacres? (check here and here -maximize these to see among others 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...) If you really wish to sanitize your society, the first thing to do is help it accept its mistakes. Like your author, Orhan Pamuk who was prosecuted for commenting on the Armenian Genocide and the Kurdish killings, and now is a nobelist. Hiding behind our fingers and trying to show night is day, won't help. NikoSilver 23:47, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) ::Whow whow... What is going on dude? I shouldn't even respond to this, but just cut down on things like "your parts" or "wish to sanitize your society". And drop Pamuk man, he won the Nobel for his books. Unlike some people here, I actually read his books, and they were mostly about 15th century ottomans or modern secularists-religious groups. Straw man at work again. "My" author? WTF is going on? This mentality is real not for the 21th century. There is no "my" author, nor "my" parts or something like that.. Stick to the issue at hand: Have you taken a look at Native American Genocide article or have you considered why this article was deleted in German Wiki? If you want this RfC to have any sort of credibility, the debate should cover all grounds. Nikos, read WP:OR one more time: We cannot sew together information to form a thesis. We cannot simply say, "there were eye witness accounts, therefore it must have been genocide". What recongnitions? Greece and Cyprus? That ain't worth shit I am afraid, in the same way a similar Turkish resolution about TR CYP gen would be as well. What NGOs? The one that is co-chaired by a Greek? As I said: what Turkish POV? This has Greek POV written all over it. Please cut down on "my"s and "your"s, however.. Nobody is asking for the deletion of this article. There have also been comments by non-Turk users about the title problem. Are they also my "peeps"? Baristarim 00:10, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Do not emotionalize the issue by saying "don't you feel sorry for what happened in your parts?" What is the point of this rhetorical question? I have told you so many times before that I wish that nobody had died during the World War. Check the archives. Why are you asking this except to emotionalize the issue? So drop it please.Baristarim 00:19, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
I haven't voted yet although I do have a strong opinion on this matter. I have to say that this is a systemic flaw in Wikipedia. Debate is practically useful only in establishing phrasing which does not offend anyone and accurately represents the facts and of course I'm all for this. But can we really debate on the facts themselves? Also Baris, since you have mentioned it so many times, I wonder what the Native American article title would be if there were more Native American editors in Wikipedia. It's like this article being written exclusively by Turkish people :-) --   Avg    23:55, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Pfff. Thousands of editors have passed over the Native Americans article, and it is the result of extensive debates and concensus. But your implication that Americans are all in together to hush-hush this issue is also misplaced. There are many Natives in America, and many Americans also believe that what happened was a genocide; however that is not the academic concensus. And the German wiki? There were a lot more German editors voting for deletion than Turkish ones. So where is the conspiracy. Look Avg, nobody is asking for the deletion of the content. As yandman pointed out above, this article looks like a fork at the moment: a better title must be found, many versions presented, and the genocide thesis talked about in the article.Baristarim 00:19, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Baris, the academic consensus here is that it was a genocide -period. Six third-party academics mentioning it directly or indirectly, dozens more mentioning isolated incidents (as you call them), six US states, 3 NGOs, and dozens of eyewitness accounts are enough for me. This discussion aims to see if they are enough for the rest of the editors. Now, can we please agree that we disagree in a noble way? Let's see what the rest have to say, and leave it at that. Let's not violate the (ingenious, actually) {{Round In Circles}} template anymore. Let the others speak and not be intimidated by a huge debate. Please! NikoSilver 00:39, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
I know, Round In Circles is a good one :)) I agree that we should let the other readers decide, however I would appreciate it if some people not from the Eastern Mediterranean would participate in this. In fact, sadly, Greek-Turkish issues do not bleep on the radar of the general global community, so at the end we will be stuck with this issue, again! I agree to disagree, but I wonder what it would take to oblige impartial editors to look at this. In the last RfC, there was only one person that actually came here via the RfC link. And he had also said that the title should be modified btw, cough cough. I can't be bothered to look for in the archives, but it is there. So let's hope that someone actually drops by. However, Nikos, a voting list filled either by Turks or Greeks can seriously be considered as "concensus" per simple common sense.Baristarim 01:01, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Baristarim and Garnet: It is more than obvious that both of you dispute that the events between 1916 and 1923 (which cost the lives of thousands of Pontian Greeks) constituted a genocide. However, if I am correct, both of you, or one of you, admit that massacres did take place (against the Greeks). Could you please give me an idea of what you know about these massacres. What is your understanding/knowledge of the cause/causes, the nature, the extent, the location, etc.. Did they involve only idividuals, or entire villages/communities? Did they involve only male adults? or did they involve women, children, and seniors? If you cannot, or do not want to bother, could you please refer me to your sources that cite specific events of massacres against the Greeks. I would appreciate it. Rizos01 02:58, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Since I see that there is no room for dialogue concerning the title of the article (the current poll indicates a clear majority of those supporting the present title), I think we should focus our interest in improving the content of the article, which could be much much better. And discussing in detail the content of the article and the material available, we might be able to find some common ground.--Yannismarou 08:57, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps the poll should be advertised some more? - Francis Tyers · 12:12, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
I added notes to: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject History, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Greece and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Turkey. - Francis Tyers · 12:22, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
You forgot Wikipedia talk:WikiProject History of Greece. I'll leave a note there. Does Wikipedia: WikiProject Greece really exist?! I did not even know that!!!--Yannismarou 16:48, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a gang nor a democracy. So saying that there is no room for dialogue simply because people are voting by saying: "those damn Turks, they should accept they are butchers; i know there was genocide, and that's it". It doesn't work that way, this article was deleted from the German Wiki, with most of the delete votes coming from Germans. I also would like more impartial editors to voice their opinions here please, if not u r condemning this article to be one of those "damn turco-greek" articles that nobody wants to approach with a thirty foot pole. This is not some sort of vote, it is an RfC. Yannismorou, if you are interested in becoming an admin, you should learn the difference. Votes like "keep. those damn turks" or "keep. per above" are not valid, you should know that. They cannot be considered as "concensus", if that were the case, what is stopping a Turkish user from emailing thirty of his friends to make them come for a vote here? Baristarim 16:58, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Why do you mix irrelevent things in your interventions? Believe me: those who read you lose the point. 1) What happens in the German or the Greek wiki is irrelevant here. 2) Consensus is needed so that the current title to be modified. Do you see any consensus in this direction, because I don't? And RfCs do not necessarily lead to a consensus or a compromise. I really think you should focus your attention on the content of the article and not the title.--Yannismarou 18:00, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Baristarim: Please, do not go there! Nowhere does the article state or imply "those damn Turks, they should accept they are butchers; i know there was genocide, and that's it". All the article is stating is that the then Turkish authorities committed a genocide against the Pontic Greeks. When it uses the word Turks it refers to the then Turkish authorities and those who participated in the genocide. I have said it before and I will say it again. I am almost certain that most of the Turkish people at the time not only were they not in favor of this policy, but quite the opposite, a lot of them helped save many Greeks. Case in point is my father's survival which most likely could not have been posible without the help of a Turkish lady, who knowing he was Greek, gave him work on her farm, until he left for Greece. Therefore, it is unfair to even attempt to imply that we consider all the Turkish people responsible for these events.---Rizos01 19:40, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
However, in the commentaries near certain votes, and some of the comments in this page, that's the only thing that is repeated. Really Rizos? I see your very valid point about the Turkish/Greek thing, but why is Nikos referring to things like "clean up "your" society" or to "things that happened in "your" parts? Nobody is asking for the article to be deleted, again, please see Native American genocide which redirects to something else.Baristarim 22:03, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

As I briefly stated in the straw poll, the term "genocide" should certainly be kept and the only change that should be made regarding the entry is that, instead of naming the it "Pontian Greek Genocide", it should be re-named to "Hellenic Genocide" (or "Greek Genocide") or "Genocide of Asia Minor Greeks" in order to better reflect the victims of the systematic extermination campaign.

Certain individuals are attempting to characterize the Hellenic Genocide as obscure based on search engine results (of all things) in order to minimize it or present it as a possible fabrication by Greeks. However, a major reason why the search results for the Hellenic Genocide aren't extremely high is because there are so many different terms used for it: Hellenic Genocide, Greek Genocide, Genocide of Asia Minor Greeks, Genocide of Asia Minor Hellenes, Pontian Genocide, Pontian Greek Genocide, Pontiac Genocide, Pontiac Greek Genocide, Pontic Genocide, and finally Pontic Greek Genocide. This needs to be clarified which is one of the reasons why, in recent years, genocide scholars and activists have preferred the use of Hellenic Genocide. The other reason is because the extermination campaign against the Greeks of Pontus was only a single aspect of the greater campaign of extermination of Asia Minor Greeks. Unfortunately, the current Wikipedia article only deals with the experience of Greeks from Pontus, something that should be remedied by expanding the article to include all aspects of the Hellenic Genocide.

It should also be pointed out that the Hellenic Genocide has been commemorated not only in Greece but also in Yerevan, Armenia[5] and in Belgrade, Serbia[6]. In addition, there exists a monument commemorating the Pontic Greeks in Canada. The plaque reads "For All The Pontians We Remember Their Time of Sorrow And Sacrifice" and below that it reads "19 of May" (which is the official day of commemoration for the Pontic Greek portion of the Hellenic Genocide) and "1914-1923" (which were the years in which the extermination efforts against the Greeks of northeast Asia Minor were taking place). Critias 21:00, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

But May I also remind you that all of those countries you've just listed are ethnically Greek? Many articles, including the Greek War of Independence refer to those nationalities as Greek casualties. More than that, they either were or still are bitter enemies to the Turks. And about that plaque, if a group of people really believes in something, such as believing God does not exist, then they will go on and believe that. It doesn't mean that we must fall for their beliefs or write "God (who may not exist)" whenever it is mentioned. If those Greeks in Canada really want to think like that, then let them. But we don't have to lie about Wikipedia's title because of them. -- WiiVolve 02:19, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Armenia and Serbia are not ethnically Greek. Armenians and Serbs have their own distinct languages, cultures, and ethno-national identities. Regarding the genocide memorial in Canada, it has a Canadian flag flying to its right as well as a Canadian flag on the monument's plaque. Also, I seriously doubt that such a memorial could have been erected without the Canadian government's permission or support. And there is far more evidence than this memorial, as has been demonstrated, that the Hellenic Genocide is not an unfounded belief held only by Greeks. Critias 19:18, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


The following is intended to express support for the use of the term Genocide in reference to the fate of the Greeks of Pontos and Asia Minor. It is an established fact that the Turkish governments of the Young Turks and their successor Mustafa Kemal (later Ataturk) desired the complete destruction of Greek populations that remained under Turkish rule. Paul Fregosi in his book "Jihad" attributes the following quote to Kemal, "It is a sign that Turkey is purged of the traitors, the Christians, and the foreigners, and that Turkey is for the Turks". Kemal made this remark in the aftermath of the burning of Smyrna in September 1922 by his forces.

It is being argued that only Greece and Greeks recognize the fate of the Greeks as "Genocide", and it is implied that historical sources attesting to the Genocide in everything but name (since the term had not been invented yet) are invalid. These are inaccurate assessments. In contrast to the official view that has been espoused by Turkey and its Western supporters for over eighty years, the sources used for the evidence of Genocide had no political or other motivations to lie, whereas the pro-Turkish sources were compromised by prejudices and political interests. Henceforth, the sources cited in support of the recognition of the Greek Genocide are without flaw. 

Among the countries that occupied the territory of the fallen Ottoman Empire, Greece alone had 
legitimate interests in the region. During the First World War, Prime Minister Eleutherios Venizelos
told the Greek Parliament, "I will be permitted to say that that man is blind who does not see now
what is going to happen if the Ottoman Empire emerges from this war unimpaired. There will be the
final and total extermination of Hellenism, which began in April 1914". (Greece in her true light Her
position in the World Wide War as expounded by Eleutherios K. Venizelos)

The Prime Minister of Greece submitted a Memorandum entitled "Greece before the Peace Congress
of 1919" in which he justified Greek claims in Asia Minor by asserting, "We must not furthermore,
forget that between 1914 and 1918, four hundred and fifty thousand Greeks have been expelled by 
the Turkish government and have had to take temporary refuge in Greece; that several other hundreds
of thousands have been deported from the east to the interior, where the greater part of them have died.
The mere reinstating of the survivors in their homes and on their confiscated lands presupposes
necessarily the abolition of Turkish sovereignty". 

The use of the term Genocide for the Greeks is based on news reports and historical documents from
individuals who had nothing to gain from supporting the Greeks considering the international climate
against Greece, while those espousing the Turkish denials had a great deal to gain by attaching 
themselves to the line of the Turkish government. Edward Hale Bierstadt of the United States 
Emergency Committee actively witnessed the events of the Genocide, as did Consul General
George Horton. In addition, a physician by the name Herbert Adam Gibbons who was present 
reported on the Turkish horrors in articles published by the Christian Science Monitor.

The denialist view is best represented by American Admiral Mark Bristol, High Commissioner at 
Constantinople. Bristol wrote that "the Greek is about the Worst race in the Near East". Bristol is 
notorious as an apologist for the Turks and his actions have been well publicized in Marjorie 
Housepian Dobkin's "Smyrna 1922". The American interests that Bristol represented were economic
and considering their interest in getting concessions from the Kemalist movement, there is a clear
conflict of interest that discredits the official American line toward the Genocide of the Greeks.

Bierstadt, Horton, and Gibbons had nothing to gain by fabricating Turkish atrocities, and in fact risked
measures of retaliation for not embracing the official line. As with the United States, Great Britain, 
France, and Italy had interests that made them hostile to the Greeks. The Italians coveted Smyrna
during the First World War, and were angry when Greek troops landed there in 1919. They subsequently
assisted the Kemalist movement with arms, and by allowing Kemalists to attack Greek forces from 
territory held by the Italians. The French likewise cut a deal with the Kemalist movement to secure 
their own perceived interests.

The Dobkin book which is well researched and contains numerous historical documents and interviews
with witnesses that were still living during the 1960's, exposes the deliberate undermining of the 
Greek Army in Asia Minor. She specifically cites incidents in which the Italians and British intervened
to protect Kemal and his forces from being destroyed by the Greek Army. The Dobkin book brilliantly
details the extent to which the Great Powers attempted to cover up the Genocide of the Greeks, and
the role of the Western Powers. Attempts to discredit Bierstadt's "The Great Betrayal" is specifically 
cited. 

As an individual familiar with media coverage of Greek-Turkish issues, and having thoroughly examined
the official views of Turkey and the Great Powers during my time at University, I have come to the 
conclusion that Turkey is guilty of Genocide against the Greeks. The pro-Turkish faction has 
ignored the evidence that is cited by the Greeks. The New York Times archives are full of 
documents specifying the details of Turkish atrocities. The truth of the Genocide is assisted not only
by the great deal of material pertaining to the aims of the Young Turks and Kemalists, but by the 
democratization of American society over the decades that has allowed for the relaxation of official
censorship that became policy following the Kemalist military victories of 1922. For example, 
during the 1930's, MGM was set to film "The Forty Days of Musa Dagh" about the Armenian 
Genocide, but under Turkish and American government pressure, the project was dropped attesting
to the reality of Turkish censorship in America. 

There are untapped sources of information for the Greek Genocide that Westerners have ignored. 
A perfect example are materials of the Greek Orthodox Clerics who worked in the midst of Turkish
atrocities. The activities of Metropolitan Chrysostom of Smyrna who fell into disfavor with both the
Young Turks and Kemalists are known. His opposition to Turkish Genocide led to his exile under
the Young Turks, and to his brutal murder under the order of the Kemalist General Noureddin Pasha.
The brutal death of Chrysostom is not disputed as can be seen by the fact that Kemal's biographer,
Andrew Mango mentions the atrocity in his work.

The murder of Chrysostom cannot be separated from the slaughter of the Greek and Armenian 
Christians at Smyrna. Chrysostom confirmed the Genocide at Smyrna in a letter sent to exiled 
Prime Minister Venizelos in London. Another important Greek Orthodox Cleric is Metropolitan 
Chrysanthos of Trebizond who was also an antagonist of the Turks. Chrysanthos extended all his
support and compassion toward Greeks and Armenians facing unrelenting persecution. Chrysanthos
attended the various peace conferences and met with Prime Minister Venizelos in which he 
emphasized the terrible plight of the Christians of Trebizond. The Ecumenical Patriarchate is 
also an excellent source of material such as the "Black Book" which recounts persecution by 
its various Dioceses in Asia Minor, specific statistics of Greek Orthodox Christians, and countless
examples of brutal killings

There is a great deal of work and material from various Christian missionaries attesting to the 
Genocide of the Greeks. The denial of the Greek Genocide attests to the politicization of history 
as a result of strategic and political interests. Only Greece in Asia Minor was preoccupied with
the well being of the native Christian populations in Asia Minor. The great powers were preoccupied
with their own imperialistic interests and concerns. In our day however, thanks to the growing body
of evidence that is being put forward by professional scholars and historians the historical truth is 
being discovered.

It is no longer possible for Turkish enablers to censor the historical realities. For decades, it was not
possible for the full truth to be known. The Great Powers assisted the regime of Mustafa Kemal with
the Treaty of Lausanne. This Treaty which ignored the Genocide of the Greeks, legitimized with the 
cover of international law, the ethnic cleansing of 1,000,000 Greeks from their ancestral homelands
where their ancestors had lived for 3,000 years. 

The official Turkish denials have been fueled by what Edward Hale Bierstadt referred to as "economic
imperialism". There is no substance behind the Turkish denials as can be attested to by the intimidation
of Turkish dissidents and efforts to bribe American Universities by the Turkish government. The movement
for the recognition of the Hellenic Genocide will continue to gain strength because their are too many
historical materials on record attesting to this reality. 


 Byzantion Byzantio 04:45, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Misunderstanding Wikipedia

Latest comment: 17 years ago21 comments11 people in discussion

Your discussion and this voting is based on a misunderstanding of what wikipedia is and what it is not. We do by no means decide whether something was or wasn't a genocide. The only thing we do, is give the most common name in English sources as a title (in this case genocide seems the prefered choice). Naturally you have to mention the different positions whether or not the title and its meaning is disputed. In The Holocaust article for example the denial of such events is mentioned and the same is neccessary here, so the reader gets informed about all POV. In case you report about a hoax like "First Washington Oktoberfest" you say: "According to Wandalstouring(1,1 - source) the so called First Washington Oktoberfest was a hoax just made up to demonstrate a hoax." but you need to source this and in case its only a POV you have to add clearly who pushes this opinion.Wandalstouring 13:53, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I concur.--Eupator 15:02, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
I concur also. -- Rizos01 15:27, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
I basically agree, and, that is why, I think the focus should be on the content.--Yannismarou 17:00, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
I think Wandalstouring has hit the nail on the head, so to speak. In this case, there seems to be no compelling reason to locate the article at a different name, as genocide seems to prevail in the literature. Clearly, space should be given to legitimate arguments to the contrary, but minority opinions should not generally influence the naming of an article. Carom 17:06, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree, the focus should be on the content, but first the tag must be removed. Mitsos 19:14, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I am aware of how Wikipedia works, however this doesn't explain why Native American Genocide article redirects to "Population history of Native Americans" as I pointed out before. + Keeping in mind that this article was deleted in the German Wiki with a majority of the delete votes coming from Germans. This is not some sort of lame naming dispute like Gdansk/Danzig. The title of the article is only supported by very few claims and the fact that Greece and Cyprus + 3 NGOs have passed resolutions to that effect. One of the authors cited, Rummel, refers to everything as genocide, South America, every single colonial war etc. There is definitely not a major reference in literature to this. Baristarim 21:58, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

But how was it established that this is the most common name in English sources? I’m not much familiar with this issue, so I checked a couple of books on the subject, and they don’t refer to the event as genocide. For example, the book by Bruce Clark uses the word genocide only once, and in the following context:

Page 242:

There is one particularly striking example of ties recently rediscovered; which promise to be subversive of Greek and Turkish ideology alike. That is the kinship between extended families from the Black Sea region who were divided during the chaotic and tragic sequence of mountain warfare, deportation and forced marches during the decade which preceded the population exchange. In part because of these half-suppressed blood ties, the Pontic Greek community (a significant lobby in Athenian affairs) is rather conflicted in its attitude to Turkey. On one hand, it urges politicians in Athens to take the hardest possible line in its dealings with the Turkish authorities, and to insist, however unrealistically, that Turkish politicians acknowledge the ‘genocide’ perpetrated by the Kemalist forces against the Black Sea Greeks in 1921.

Bruce Clark. Twice a Stranger: The Mass Expulsions that Forged Modern Greece and Turkey. ISBN-10: 0674023684

And then another book also does not use the term genocide:

Page 98

Ambassador Morgenthau, the most prominent critic of wartime Turkish persecution of civilians, estimated that between 200,000 and 1,000,000 Greeks were transported to the interior of Asia Minor, where they "suffered great privations, but they were not submitted to general massacre as were the Armenians." He attributed this difference in treatment to the existence of a Greek government, and to the concern of Turkey's ally Germany that Greece might enter the war.

Benjamin Lieberman. Terrible Fate: Ethnic Cleansing in the Making of Modern Europe. ISBN-10: 1566636469

Preferred terms in these books appear to be mass expulsion, forceful exchange of population, ethnic cleansing, etc. It appears that the process was going both ways, as there’s a description in Clark's book of a similar treatment of Turkish population in Greece, albeit in a lesser scale:

Page 161

In most cases, the fate of these (Muslim) migrants was not as terrible as that of the Anatolian Christians who fled either in the heat of war, or as a result of forced marches followed by forced embarkations on ships riddled with disease; but the Muslim exodus was bad enough.

In my opinion, the title of the article should be less controversial, and the article should provide for all viewpoints, including those that consider the event to be genocide and those that don’t. I’m not going to get involved in this issue, it’s just my 2 cents in response to RfC. Regards, Grandmaster 19:26, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

To Wandalstouring and Carom, as you will see from my statement, my argument has never been was it or was it not genocide, but rather the title does not reflect academic opinion. I do not see how you could judge that this title is well attested by literature when one cannot find a monograph to its name or even a journal article, or a notable scholar using such a name to describe the events. When a well known historian such as Mazower says Greeks did not suffer a genocide unlike Armenians, then i tend to take his view more seriously than the paltry use of the term Pontian greek genocide in a few sentences by lesser known scholars. Likewise i dont understand Croms statement than minority views should not determine titles when it is this title that is the minority view as shown by the lack of authorative sources and lack of international recognition outside of Greece and Greek Cyprus. --A.Garnet 22:04, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm willing to be swayed - my impression was formed by the results of a Lexis-Nexis search, as well as a few other journal articles and working papers, notably this, this, and this (apologies that one can only view the abstracts). I observed what appeared to be a consensus in favor of the term "genocide," (or at least, "ethnic cleansing") and my argument followed from that. If my impression was incorrect, then it was incorrect, but I would certainly contest the claim that "this title is the minority view as shown by the lack of authoritative sources." Carom 22:21, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
To Garnet: You have repeatedly stated your assertion that there is not sufficient academic opinion to support the genocide claim, but you then quote Mazower and take his only one sentence as gospel. Please point me to one specific book or research of his that deals with the Greek experience. Also, I think it is more appropriate to quote him accurately "But these deportations were on a relatively small scale and do not appear to have been designed to end in their victims' deaths." The key words here are "and do not appear to" which indicates that he is not certain of his assessment. For your information any credible historical research is based on first hand accounts, and the foreign ministry/diplomatic archives or news reports of the various countries that had diplomats/missions/correspondents in the region in question. Again please point me to one of his books that is based on this type of research. --Rizos01 23:03, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Carom, Levene is by no means a good source. Firstly he never uses the term Pontian greek genocide though he uses Armenian genocide without hesitation, and of the Pontian experience admits "Historians ... tend to avoid the term genocide to describe them." Of the second one i have no access, does he use the term genocide? Coming from a Greek author i would not be surprised, that does not mean i am dismissing this scholar on the basis of his ethnicity, only that we are trying to establish here whether the Greek pov is the majority pov, and for that we need authoratative third party sources. Of the third i believe it deals with ethnic cleansing. Of these three sources, i cannot see a consensus in favour of the term genocide, what i see is a tendency to avoid it, rather using massacres or ethnic cleansing.
To Rizo, eyewitness accounts are important, but we do not attach our own interpretations to them, that is original research. If we look at Midlarsky, he used some of the very same quotations in this article but concluded "there is a strong disjunction between intentions and actions" and that "Under these conditions, genocide of the Ottoman Greeks was simply not a viable option". Also Rizo, it is a bit rich asking me to provide you with a book dealing with the Greek experience when you have not been able to do the same. You know that there simply is no book or dedicated research on this subject, and that makes finding a correct title very difficult. --A.Garnet 02:11, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
I put "Pontic genocide" in Google: I have 12.200 hits. I put "Pontic massacre": I have 972 hits.
I then searched in "Google Book" and "Google Scholar" and I did encountered the term several times. Let's see:
"Not Even My Name: From a Death March in Turkey to a New Home in America, a Young Girl's True" by By Thea Halo (2001):"Although Turkey actively suppresses the truth about the murder of almost three million of its Christian minorities--Greek, Armenian, and Assyrian--during and after World War I, and the exile of millions of others, here is a first-hand account of the horrors of that genocide."
Mark Levene (Holocaust and Genocide Studies 1998):"The persistence of genocide or near-genocidal incidents from the 1890s through the 1990s, committed by Ottoman and successor Turkish and Iraqi states against Armenian, Kurdish, Assyrian, and Pontic Greek communities in Eastern Anatolia".
J Jackson Preece: Ethnic Cleansing as an Instrument of Nation-State Creation (Human Rights Quarterly, 1998):"politically suspect ethnic groups (eg, Chechens, Tatars, Pontic Greeks) cleansed" - I do not think that "ethnic cleansing" is very different from "genocide".
JO POHL - Stalin’s genocide against the “Repressed Peoples” - Journal of Genocide Research, 2000"Stalin’s genocide against the ... Ingush, Balkars, Crimean Tatars, Meskhetian Turks, Geor- gian Kurds, Khemshils (Muslim Armenians), and Pontic Greeks" - so the term is also referring to Stalin's wrongdoings (deportations and persecutions against Pontic Greeks) - not only the Turks.
The repetitive international conferences (all over the world and not only in Greece) concerning the "Pontic genocide are also of a certain importance. Check this one:"International Association of Genocide
Scholars (IAGS) - Conference: June 4-7 2005 - Florida Atlantic University - Boca Raton, FL - Papers presented: "The Exclusivity of Suffering: When Tribal concerns takes presidence over hisrorical accuracy" - "The Genocide of the Pontic Greeks and Assyrians: the hidden victims of the Armenian Genocide."
I must, nevertheless, admit that Google Book's bibliography concerning "Pontic Greek Genocide" is quite poor, although Charles King treats the whole issue ("The Black Sea: A History") without taking a clear positions (p.1: "Were these forced migrations and the deaths 9 [of the Pontic Greeks among other] they produced instances of genocide?".
King shrewdly points out: "The easy conceptual distinctions between genocide, ethnic cleansing, and forced migration are normally lost on the targets of state-organized violence". I hope these findings of my quick and mal-organized research help.--Yannismarou 09:56, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

It is clear that "genocide" predominates in the English literature at least. Of course the Armenian Genocide is better referenced due to the sheer scale of the Armenian losses, but it is disingenuous to suggest that the perpetrators made any sort of distinction between Armenians and Assyrians on the one hand and Greeks on the other. The Christians were slaughtered together. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 10:09, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I know I may become boring, but I insist that our focus should be on upgrading the quality of the article (which is hardly a B-Class now) and not on debating about the title. This particular debate leads nowhere. Wandalstouring said some thoughtful things previously. I think we should think a bit about them.--Yannismarou 10:29, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Yannis, "Pontian genocide" returns one hit in google books ("Pontic genocide" 0 hits) and that is by a Turkish author using the term "so called Pontian genocide". Likewise in google scholar 1 hit for "Pontian genocide", a study on female Greek immigrants and 0 hits for "Pontic genocide". Compare that to "Armenian genocide" which is 1,320 and you put into perspective the lack of verifiable sources for this title. As for your sources, again, i see no firm trend towards usage of the term genocide. Thea Halo is a fist hand account, but she is not academic, historian or researcher. We have already shown how Levene avoids the term Pontian genocide, and states most historians would not use that term to describe it. As for Jackson and ethnic cleansing, how can you say ehtnic cleansing and genocide are much the same, they are two completely different things. Ethnic cleansing can involve the displacement of people, not necesarrily their death. That is why the population exchange of 1923 is referred to as ethnic cleansing, as is the division of Greek and Turkish Cypriots. The IAGS paper looks interesting, but i would really like to read it before I made a judgement. --A.Garnet 12:35, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
I did not say the genocide and ethnic cleansing are the same thing, but according to international criminal law they are both serious crimes against humanity entailing the highest possible sentences (they are almost at the same scale of atrocity). Would you be happy if the article's name was "Pontic Greek ethnic cleansing"?--Yannismarou 12:43, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
If you have read my statement, there are other much more productive google tests. Don't forget that Pontians are not a separate ethnic group, they are Greeks (just like Anatolian Armenians -or whatever Armenians- are just Armenians). Now see "greek genocide -wikipedia" which has a whopping 1.1 million hits (compared e.g. to "armenian genocide -wikipedia" with 1.19 million hits). NikoSilver 16:45, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
WHAT UTTER NONSENSE IS THIS? "Greek Genocide -wikipedia" returns 1,450 hits [7]!!!!!! WHAT WHOPPING 1,1 MILLION HITS? Of course you will get so many hits if search any page that includes the words "genocide" and "greek". Do your research carefully please.. Baristarim 20:06, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Just proves my point though.. The whole sources, research and claims are so confused that this article should be used as an example in WP:OR page.. Baristarim 20:09, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Listen up, we solve this issue with good sourcing. I create a sources section here. In this section you insert who refers where to this incident with what words (preferably in form of a direct quote). For example: Wandalstouring, My first research, page1, natural publishing 111, ISBN 0-00000-000 www.wiki.wiki "I'm in front of a computer." Afterwards we verify that the listed sources exist and have that content. If this is solved we can simply count which term is used more in our selection of sources. Wandalstouring 14:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Native Americans vs Pontians

Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Baris requested I should check, as a parallel, the case of Native American genocide.

I have these differentiating remarks:

quotes from Native American genocide difference with Pontic Greek Genocide
Stannard's claim of 100 million deaths has been disputed because he does not cite any demographic data to support this number, and because he makes no distinction between death from violence and death from disease. Many sources use demographic data.
While no mainstream historian denies that death and suffering were unjustly inflicted by a number of Europeans upon a great many American natives, many argue that genocide, which is a crime of intent, was not the intent of European colonization. There are no historians "argueing it was not the intent".

The main difference can be summed up as follows:

While the majority of academics argue that Native Americans were not the victims of genocide, for the Pontic case, the majority of academics argue that it was a genocide. Most importantly: there is nobody who contests PGG explicitly (unlike Native Americans). NikoSilver 20:15, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

First of all, I was referring to the format and structure of the article. Meaning: different title so that the scope of the article is larger, which in turn means that many aspects are covered + the genocide thesis is talked about in the intro. That's the whole point: I was talking about the title, not neccessarily the contents. My position has always been that, as yandman said, this article is POVforking at the moment. The scope has to be enlarged so that it covers a greater area. The genocide thesis should be mentioned in the intro or in the sections. That will be the sane thing to do: Nobody will be deleting any data, and a greater analysis of the time period as well as the events and the genocide thesis will be fairer on the reader.
What "majority of academics" Nikos? Funny that I won't get any hits on google scholar if I actually wanted to read some serious research about this. The only "sources" are a bunch of paragraphs from books etc. What majority are you talking about? And the google search "greek genocide -wikipedia" returns only a whopping 1,450 hits, and not millions as you earlier claimed. So what "majority"? Baristarim 20:27, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Responded about scholar et.al. below. There are academics mentioning it, and none explicitly disputing it, unlike Nat.Ams. They largely ignore it. NikoSilver 21:09, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Poll notification

Latest comment: 17 years ago34 comments4 people in discussion

There is an RfC combined with a staw poll running in this page here. Your contribution is valuable both in the discussion and in the poll. Please study the case and express your opinion to achieve the widest possible consensus...

Just to add, i consider this poll irrelevant. --A.Garnet 17:32, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
How uncooperative you are! //Dirak 17:43, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
No, if you insist on reducing this rfc to signing your name under a support heading, then it is you who is being uncooperative. This is a request for comment i.e. a discussion, not a demonstration in block voting. --A.Garnet 17:49, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
This has been discussed - the poll demonstrates how unpopular your views/proposals are around here. You'll have to cede ground if you want some sort of compromise to be reached... //Dirak 17:57, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Unpopular among Greek editors yes. But that is to be expected. --A.Garnet 18:01, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Thus emerges your "uncooperativeness". //Dirak 18:07, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Garnet, the issue is clear. As Baris agreed above, we disagree on the following:

I and the rest of the supporters assess that...

  • 6 explicit or implicit independent academic sources
  • 6 US states
  • 3 NGOs
  • dozens of academic sources citing the "isolated facts" (as you call them)
  • millions of Google hits
  • prominent media of the era (such as The New York Times)
  • dozens of eyewitness accounts etc etc

...suffice for us to call the article "Pontic Greek genocide". They are obviously not enough, or not as significant, or not as important, for you to do so, but they are enough for me. Is there anything else we disagree about? NikoSilver 18:34, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

It seems that according to A.Garnet, Greek views are worthless. Turkish views OTOH are something akin to the word of Allah. //Dirak 18:37, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
That is a different story. Do we agree on what we disagree on? Garnet? NikoSilver 18:45, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Aha.. Dirak, may I ask you something? After the AfD on the article that you created six days ago "Kurdish Genocide (Turkey)" was practically deleted as speedy with many delete votes coming from non-Turks, you created another article "Kurdich Genocide" and made it a redirect to "Human Rights of Kurdish people in Turkey". May I ask why? Kurdish genocide can easily get redirected to "Human Rights in Iraq" and much more rightly so. I found it a bit curious to say the least. Freudian slip, I dare say? Cough cough. Please do not continue your disruption of Wikipedia.

Please do not emotionalize this issue. Greek views are of course important, but they are not impartial nor do they represent the global academic concensus. I am sure that there are thousands of Turkish sources out there about how Greeks committed a genocide against the Turks in Cyprus, but they cannot be included at face value since they are not impartial. Baristarim 18:49, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Wow, straw men flying all over the place! Refuting an argument never advanced - a common logical fallacy. Are the supporters of the genocide title relying on all Greek sources? No Do the majority of the non-Greek non-Turkish sources we have endorse the genocide thesis? Yes. Why are you still here? //Dirak 18:52, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

And Dirak.. Believe me there is nothing "unpopular" about the views of me or Garnet. Many editors and even admins are afraid to take part in this vote, even though they are not happy with this title, simply because they are afraid of the block vote of some people. Again, see the Native American article and the AfD of this article in German wiki. There is no academic concensus and the fact that it is only Greece and Cyprus that recognize it as such is definitely a red flag. This is not some lame naming dispute like Gdansk/Danzig, and you will need more than 6 "explicit or implicit" academic sources about this. This doesn't get any hits on Google scholar, which is better than a google search where most of the results are not from turkishbutchers.com or hellenicgenocide.com. This is not some sort of fan club. Google scholar gives no hits. Might as well be talking to a wall really..Baristarim 18:57, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

What majority of "non-Greek, non-Turkish sources"? Did you see WP:OR? First of all, all those witness accounts of some American ambassador ninety years ago are not important since they do not support the fundamemtal problem of the title. And the sources that directly address the title issue are divided, not to mention the fact that there are only a few who have looked into this in more than just in a paragraph or so. That's not extensive academic research. This doesn't return any hits on Google Scholar, so do you have a reliable, academic source who only researched this issue? No. That's all I am saying.Baristarim 19:02, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Look, nobody is trying to slight any suffering of anyone. I hope that you do not think this. I am more than willing to seriously work on this article and devote hours, not to "expose the Turkish POV", but to really make it a comprehensive and encyclopedic article about the situation of Pontic Greeks during the WWI and later. I really mean it, I will spend hours expanding this article if neccessary. But I will also be honest when I say I cannot simply do that if this title issue is not addressed since I cannot see it being more than a minority interpretation. So please don't think that there are some editors who are trying to disrespect someone or their past. This title is so disputed and represents a minority view among the already few reliable academic sources that actually do talk about them to begin with. Baristarim 19:20, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
That's what I consider the problem here. You keep repeating "genocide is a minority view" again and again, knowing it isn't true. I say sources, not eyewitness quotes... again you are setting up straw men. If you get all the sources we have on the topic and look at, them, the majority support the genocide thesis. Additionally, if we apply the tight screening process we use on the sources supporting the genocide thesis to the sources Garnet cites saying they oppose it, it seems that there are no independent sources denying it. Garnet is using a liberal method of interpretation in those cases, for example one source says that what happened to the Pontic Greeks was "different" to what happened to the Armenians - Garnet assumes this means that the scholar is saying that the Pontic Greeks did not suffer genocide. I don't see that! All I see is that the scholar says there is a difference. Well, even I agree there is a difference: the scale for one thing. The majority of Armenians living in the area died, whereas about half the Pontian Greeks managed to escape with their lives. Does this mean that it was not genocide? Not in itself. On the other hand, we do have independent sources that do say that yes, what happened to the Pontian Greeks was genocide. Why do you cover it up? Again, I repeat: out of all the sources we have on the issue the majority affirm genocide. Where is the minority view? //Dirak 19:34, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Ditto. My opinion is that the sources are more than enough, and that the counter-sources are selective bits and pieces gathered from here and there. We disagree. I requested before, and I request again that we don't flood this page anymore. NikoSilver 19:36, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Pff. Do not say things like "why do you cover it up?". Noone is trying to cover something here and such approach to the subject is really childish. I stated my position: Noone is asking for deletion, nor am I advocating the deletion of the genocide controversy from the article. I am talking about the title. What sources are you talking about Dirak? Rummel who claims that 200,000,000 people died in the last centuries because of genocide? Is this it? He considers every single colonial war as democide/genocide!! Not to mention the fact that he confuses the scholarly definition of genocide with the obscure term "cultural genocide" which is an extremely controversial terminology. I looked into the sources, and I am still saying that there needs to be more than couple of paragraphs in random books, preferably much more hits on google scholar (compared to the actual zero) and recognitions by the best friends of Turkey, Cyprus and Greece. Again, see the Native American genocide who redirects to something else and the AfD of this article in German Wiki in which a majority of the deleters were Germans, not Turks. Nikos, you said that you were going to take a look at the Native American article, what happened? Baristarim 19:44, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

My opinion is that the sources are more than enough, and that the counter-sources are selective bits and pieces gathered from here and there. We disagree. I requested before, and I request again that we don't flood this page anymore, ({{Round In Circles}}) and allow the #Starw Poll and third-party comments here to proceed smoothly. NikoSilver 19:36, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

(I didn't say anything about Nat.Americans, but now that you mention it I will look at it). NikoSilver 19:52, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

If Google Scholar and Google Books hits are everything, then WTF was my Kurdish Genocide article renamed for? Did you see my comment at the AFD? //Dirak 20:04, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
They are important to establish that the matter at hand is serious enough to be in the preoccupation of academia. Did you read my comment about the whopping EIGHT hits the kurdish genocide (turkey) had in Google scholar? Three of them were from the same site and two of them were directly from the only thesis (of the Spanish guy, who is definitely not a notable historian) that you included in the article. Are you joking? Are we going to create articles for the thesis of every pseudo-historian out there? Nearly all the hits that "Kurdish genocide" gets refer to Iraq. Did you read the "strong delete" votes that came from many non-Turks? Baristarim 20:16, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
I still don't get why different standards have to be applied at different pages to maintain the turkish POV. //Dirak 20:20, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
? What "different standards"? Eight hits is not enough, and zero is definitely not enough. What Turkish POV? Your article was AfDed by an Englishman, what are you talking about Dirak? Cut down on the paranoia. Many admins and non-Turks also voted for deletion of that article, I would read the AfD one more time if I were you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Baristarim (talk • contribs) 20:33, 23 December 2006 (UTC).
What "majority of sources"?? There are practically NONE. Pontic Genocide get ZERO hits on Google scholar [8], what "sources"? A crackpot who claims that nearly every colonial war was a genocide is not a "majority of sources", let alone "a source". Even a simple google search for "greek genocide -wikipedia" gets only 1,450 hits.Baristarim 20:41, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Web  Results 1 - 10 of about 1,100,000 for greek genocide -wikipedia. (0.04 seconds)

The link is here. Do you have some ...anti-Greek firewall or something? NikoSilver 21:01, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and I see 53 books here and 8,460 here. Any more questions? NikoSilver 21:04, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

How about this [9]? Stop tricking the system, did you use "the exact words" feature? like this: "greek genocide" -wikipedia? I stand corrected. Please change the misleading info you gave in your view above. Use the "exact words" feature please.Baristarim 21:23, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

"Results 1 - 20 of about 1,450 for "greek genocide" -wikipedia. (0.04 seconds)" [10]? And the funny thing is, some of those refer to the Greek genocide of Macedonians [11]. Zero hits on google scholar, 1,450 hits on google. Let alone a "majority of sources", there are simply "no sources". Baristarim 21:37, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Ummm, talk to A.Garnet who put Armenian genocide above without quotes. I sincerely clicked his link and then only replaced Armenian with Greek. And, also, why does it have to be exact quote? Your exact quote excludes Rummel in scholar... Weird logic... NikoSilver 21:41, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Re Baris! :-) Please stop spamming your comment also in my talk-page! I read you the first time! NikoSilver 21:45, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
I was not "spamming" :) Ok then, A. Garnet also should correct his google search. Exact quote is pretty much the concensus google search tradition. Otherwise things can get too complicated; even with "exact words" search, you can still hit snags like I pointed above with the macedonian example. So both Nikos and Alf should correct their figures, it is extremely confusing. We all know what kind of wacko results Google can give; therefore it should be the exact quotes version, no matter what you are arguing about. And this is also a note to everyone: pls bring in google searches that use that feature, and if need be try it with different similar spellings "mike's car", "car of mike" etc, then list them all - that will be only fair to the uninformed reader. I was way too confused when I saw such discrepancies in numbers. But no biggie Nikos, I know that it was an honest mistake. Alf should have also used that search version.Baristarim 22:08, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok man, no worries, I'll see what I can do. How about this vs that? It forces both words (and doesn't exclude Rummel/Levene etc either). NikoSilver 22:22, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Nikos didnt use quotes with the searches in his statement so i had to do the same for comparison. --A.Garnet 22:18, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
We have a problem with quotes. It removes legitimate hits. Equally forced terms, same results. Check above. NikoSilver 22:22, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

SpaceBalls

Latest comment: 17 years ago32 comments5 people in discussion
Note: I am moving here comment by User:SpaceBalls that was included in #Statement by A.Garnet. Comments should not be included within other users' statements. NikoSilver 14:52, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Garnet's fixation on the ethnic origin of editors and contributors or witnesses or academics cited is racist and ought not be given any consideration. Many writers and historians of the Jewish Holocaust may also happen to be Jewish as, naturally, would be many witnesses to this event, but to focus on the ethnic origin, nationality,religion , sexual orientation etc etc of a credible source of first hand information is not sound historiography, it follows the racist patterns of Holocaust Deniers. If we accept this point of racist hysteria,which Garnet seems to advance, then we would have to filter all contributors based on ethnic origin, nationality,religion , sexual orientation etc etc.

Some of the academic affirmations of the Pontic Greek Genocide comes from such world renown genocide scholars as R.J. Rummel , Taner Akcam, Dr. Israel Charny and Hilmar Kaiser and the list goes on and on, and to make a point which ought not have to morally be made, none of the aforementioned genocide scholars happen to be Greek. SpaceBalls 06:43, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Hear, hear. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 07:09, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Right. Rummel considers every single colonial war to be genocide/democide. He says that nearly 200,000,000 people have died in the last centuries because of genocide/democide. Nor does he make a proper distinction between the scholarly definition of genocide and "cultural genocide", a highly controversial term. Taner Akçam only refers to AG, not to this. Rummel is not a "world renown genocide scholar"; if he were, there would thirty more genocides. Hear that Kekrops? It is obvious who is emotionalizing this issue. As was pointed above, neither Turkish nor Greek sources can be considered impartial. This is basic common sense. Nobody has said that the Greek POV was unimportant, but it has the same value as the Turkish POV, not more, not less. That's all. There needs to be impartial sources. Cut down on the paranoia and accusations of racism. I wonder if the true racism doesn't lie with the mentality behind your comments - calling Turkish editors "those racist detractors here": those were your words.Baristarim 16:11, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

At the expense of sounding repetitive ,wikipedia should definitely avoid following the racist patterns of Holocaust Deniers by taking into consideration the ethnic origin, nationality,religion , sexual orientation etc etc of credible scholars as well as editors and contributors who concerned with the advancement of Genocide awareness. Much like it ought not matter what the ethnic origin, nationality,religion , sexual orientation etc etc of other editors and contributors are to Jewish Holocaust related wikipedia entries, it morally should be the same for any editor or contributor to Pontic Greek Genocide awareness.

Wrong. Just becuase Greece passed a resolution calling it a genocide ten years ago, it doesn't make it so. The comparisons with the Holocaust are childish, unacademic, and desperate cries for attention.Baristarim 16:11, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

The recent book by renown Genocide scholar and University of Minnessota Professor, Taner Akcam, titled [ http://www.popmatters.com/pm/books/reviews/8619/a-shameful-act-the-armenian-genocide-and-the-question-of-turkish-responsibi "A Shameful Act: The Armenian Genocide and the Question of Turkish Responsibility "] clearly documents the Turkish gov't's responsibility for this crime of Genocide. Israeli Genocide scholar and Hebrew University professor Dr. Israel Charny also documents the Pontic Greek Genocide in his landmark study [ http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=6641260 "Is The Holocaust Unique?"] For the information of the racist detractors here, neither of these Genocide scholars , are, as far as I know, and not that it would matter, neither of them are Greek.

Taner Akçam's book is about the Armenian genocide, not about the Pontic Greeks.Baristarim 16:11, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Well at least this has made you finally acknowledge the reality of the Armenian Genocide, rather than the "so-called Armenian Genocide/massacres/killings/[insert other euphemism here]". ·ΚέκρωΨ· 16:20, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
??? I am sorry, am I missing something here? Is this a personal blog or an online forum? A book is not going to change my views either way. This is not the debate club of a high school. I would really like it if you didn't a)put words in my mouth, b)turn this into an exposé of my views. You do not know my views, and they are not relevant in any case. That's the whole point: the whole discussion is dominated by people who treat Wikipedia as an online forum: "so what do you think about this, about that?" Baristarim 16:39, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

The very fact that the Genocide was cited by numerous non-Greek diplomats, [ http://members.fortunecity.com/fstav1/genocide/genocide.html humanitarians], and eyewitness reporters and goverment officials and documented by numerous newspapers of the day and is , even in recent years cited as Genocide in numerous scholarly books and newspapers is reason enough for it to remain, morally, cited as Pontic Greek Genocide , here on wikipedia. Please do not follow the pattern of a heavily censorhip driven regime in Turkey, which to this day outlaws public discussion of the Armenian Genocide as well as the Pontic Greek Genocide. Stand on the side of Genocide awareness and moral justice. Please do not allow the victims to be erased or deleted. SpaceBalls 07:20, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

SpaceBalls welcome. Please cite those additional sources properly (book title, author, year, page numbers, and if possible exact quotes). Thank you. NikoSilver 14:56, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Aha. And cut down on the paranoia of Turkish users being some sort of Turkish secret service agents. By the way, there is no "censorship-driven regime" in Turkey, whoever says so is completely talking out of his arse. Books about the Armenian Genocide are openly sold in Turkey, as well as many TV discussion programs to that effect. For people to keep things in perspective, remember that Turkey ranked higher than Italy for media freedom in 2005. Keep that in mind, and do not allow the emotionalization of this issue nor the paranoia to invade this discussion. Nobody is asking for deletion, the question is the title and the current status of this article as a povfork. Nikos, it might be actually nice if you said something to people who come in here and accuse people with blanket statements like "racist detractors here". Spaceballs, do not emotionalize this issue nor confuse this issue with the armenian genocide or something else. Taner Akcam's book only refers to the AG. So Nikos, is it ok for people to come in here and say "those racist detractors here"?. How about saying something more than "welcome"? Baristarim 15:59, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Oh please! You accused us of white supremacism just the other day, based on a single user's personal page, and were quite unapologetic about it. The pot calling the kettle black, yet again. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 16:10, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
And what's this about Turkey ranking higher than Italy in press freedom? Really? ·ΚέκρωΨ· 16:14, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
? I didn't accuse a group of people of white supremacism (what's the deal with the "us" thing?). I responded to this above, please have a look at it again. I explained my reasons why I mentioned the views of that particular user.Baristarim 16:24, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
As for the press freedom. This is irrelevant to the article, however I was talking about a specific report about the freedom of media. Italy did rank below Turkey because of the monopoly of news media in Italy. There are much more political views aired in the Turkish news media. Anyways, I will look for it.Baristarim 16:29, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Back to contributing, please. Let's start from here:

...So is the Turkish Consul General [alive and well], now complaining to the university administration that the Center of Comparative Genocide Studies, which I direct, has (unfairly?, unwisely?) allowed the Greek community to fund a research unit devoted to the genocide of the Pontian Greeks, by the Turks, after World War I. The Center, founded by me at the end of 1993, has its somewhat clumsy title because the senior professor above, the one who wanted "balance", was a little anxious at the University Council meeting, which has the power to establish Centers, that plain "Genocide Studies" would be a little unbalanced -"You know, a little too, ah, you know..." We know. There is of course, a very strong case for the visibility of "comparative": it allows us to develop a model of gradiations of genocide, to avoid the obvious trap of flattening all genocides, of allowing scholars to get away with blatant misuse of the term when they seek to highlight a wrong by reaching for the ultimate cannon in the armory.

Very nice ironic approach for all deniers. I suppose this old comment of mine is the solution to "gradiations"... I'm looking forward to see actual quotes by the rest... NikoSilver 16:33, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Just curious: aren't you guys doing anything for X-mas? :)) At least I am not Christian or anything.. Merry Christmas all the same. Baristarim 16:42, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Haha, actually I'm doing exactly what all of us should. I am home with my family. Check the Turkish Consul General's intervention above. Fits like a glove to your discussion about "freedom of media", doesn't it? :-) NikoSilver 16:46, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and FYI, regarding warnings for accusations etc, I'd expect better performance from a wikistalker like you! :-) Check both SpaceBalls' and Garnet's talks. :-) NikoSilver 16:50, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Pff. What stalking man? Baristarim 21:19, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Christmas? As if the Greek Wikipedian Chauvinist Cabal has time for such frivolities. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 17:07, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
I'd also like to know what these two are about: [12], [13]. Does anyone have access please? NikoSilver 17:24, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
And a nice one on labor battalions. NikoSilver 17:40, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

For informational purposes, I linked to some of the sources, and some of the books I will have to take some more time to find actual page numbers, meanwhile , I provide you with the [ http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/p_genoci.htm UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide] , Artil 2 states , and I quote: " Article 2

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;

(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group. "

Here is quote from The New York Times of NEW YORK, SATURDAY, DECEMBER 2, 1922 , by By EDWIN I. JAMES. "-- A black page of modern history was written here today. Ismet Pasha stood before the statesmen of the civilized world and admitted that the banishment from Turkish territory of nearly a million Christian Greeks, who were two million only a few short years ago had been decreed. The Turkish Government graciously allows two more weeks for the great exodus. The statesmen of the civilized powers accepted the Turkish dictum and set about ways to get those thousands of Greeks out of harm's way before they should meet the fate of 800,000 Armenians who were massacred in Anatolia in 1910 and 1917. "

The quote above is a clear violation of UN Article 2 (b)

Finally, to substantiate the point about censorship of this topic by the Turkish gov't , I cite a [ http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/europe/4527318.stm BBC news report] from 2005.

SpaceBalls 01:22, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Right.. Well, I know that convention from back to front, don't worry. Do not confuse concepts and understand that Wikipedia is not a forum. a) we cannot interpret the events and sources before we include them in the article: what's important is not our beliefs, but research that has been done to that effect beforehand. That's why such statements or eyewitness accounts are not important as far as the title is concerned: we cannot interpret them to prove a thesis. They are what they are: eye-witness accounts etc. b) people who just come in here pretending that they are some sort of master of jurisprudence should learn that: i) that convention is much more complicated than some people think it is, ii) it is very amateur to say "this happened, it is contrary to article this and that". Don't want to get into details about that convention, but just know that it is not our business to do so anyways: Wikipedia is not a courtroom. I am assuming you are new to wikipedia, so I don't want to be too hard on you.
And, the example of the population exchange that you gave has nothing do with this article's title: It concerns the Population exchange between Greece and Turkey, and it is excluded from the reach of that convention, not to mention the fact that the convention didn't even exist back then. + It might be nice if you didn't go down that road, since millions of Muslims also had to move out of the Balkans from 1910 onwards, so I can use the same logic to prove that there was a Muslim genocide in the Balkans 1910-1922. Besides, what's important is the jurisprudence, not what the text says per se. You should learn to read legal documents carefully: most words used in law do not carry the same meaning they have in ordinary language, and can refer to strictly defined concepts and notions that most people won't understand, unless they have made extensive legal research to understand the text beforehand. + Avoid anachronisms: Do not confuse eras, values, judgements, context and/or the prevailing psychology/sociology of different eras. I know that it is in the nature of men, because of the God complex, to always try to pretend that he possesses greater analytical capabilities then he actually does. That's why it doesn't surprise me that people engage in anachronisms all the time, but they should be avoided if possible all the same.

An example of this was a recent controvesy in France about Napoleon and slavery. It seems that he had reversed a revolutionary decree that banned slavery in ~1806, and some people were trying to equate him with black-hating, slaving KKKists. However, most people had forgotten that Napoleon was on very slippery ground, and that he needed the support of the French people and businesses of the French colonies who stood to lose nearly all their wealth because of that decree: Had he not renounced the decree, France would have most probably disintegrated and went bankrupt among all its revolutionary wars. I suppose this is kinda lost on Hampstead liberals of our era obviously who are convinced that the human civilization has been perfect from the get-go, and people who have strayed from "the path" along the way must have surely been possessed by the devil. Out!Baristarim 04:11, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

The Former UN Secretary of the United Nations Human Rights Committee, Dr. Alfred de Zayas,has published an in-depth analysis of how the [UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide applies to Armenian Genocide http://www.anca.org/press_releases/press_releases.php?prid=333] , thus the Pontic Greek Genocide is also not out of reach of the convention according to the highly qualified legal review of Dr. Alfred de Zayas. SpaceBalls 06:05, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Aha :) Let's put aside the convention for a moment. Can I explain the meaning of the word "relevancy"? Take it to the armenian genocide article pls. The fact that "PGG is also not out of reach of the convention according to .." is your own interpretation. As I said, this is not a courtroom: do not argument to convince others why X means/can mean/should mean Y. See original research. UN Convention doesn't apply to anything before its ratification, because of the principal of non-retroactivity of penal statutes by the way. But it is still not relevant - please do not reply to this. As I said, check WP:OR. Wikipedia is not a forum, we cannot interpret X to mean Y: Y should already be out there, you see what I mean? That's all. Baristarim 06:17, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Legalese and legalism is another attempt to confuse the issue and misrepresent the facts as reported by victim testimonies, and by eyewitness accounts of third parties. History is not written by lawyers but by historians. The historians who have done in depth research on the subject have come to the conclusion that the events were a genocide without any doubt. Those who are drawing conclusions by relying on others, or have done none or minimal research are the ones who are uncertain or not convinced. Dr. C. Fotiades, a professor of history in Greece, is probably the only historian that has done the most in depth and exhaustive research on the subject, as a result of which he authored a multivolume history on the PGG. The first three of the original volumes are a scientific (methodical, and critical) analysis of the events/sources. The remaining eleven volumes contain documents from the foreign ministry archives of of Europian countries, like, Britain, Russia, Germany, etc., as well as other sources. Unfortunately, they are written in Greek and have not been translated in English yet. We are hoping that this will take place soon so our non-Greek speaking friends can be able to access them. --Rizos01 20:42, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Hope so. Couple of things a) history is not written by lawyers, but historians do not have the right to manipulate legal concepts either. genocide is a legal term b)even that's not very important in any case. The main argument, as you have confirmed, is that: this article is Greek POV. I am sorry to say that, but I am sure that there are also Turkish historians who have made research and concluded that there was a genocide against the Turkish Cypriots. Their POV is as valuable as the Greek POV, not more, not less. You are admitting that most of the research is impartial!!! That's all I have been trying to say. I am not saying Greek POV is not important, but it carries the same weight as Turkish POV per common sense; ergo that's why there needs to be impartial sources. To this day, there are none. Rummel et al are simply fringe historians. If this article depends on a table drawn by a professor in University of Hawaii, then that's not good. Rizo, you are missing the point: we are not here to prove that X is Y: Y should already be out there. We cannot use the handful of eye-witness accounts to prove a thesis: it breaks WP:OR, that's all. People are confusing their beliefs with the amount of information out there. Baristarim 20:59, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
Y already is out there. It is simply your POV that it isn't. Your assertion that the multitude of sources provided here somehow represents "original research" is ridiculous. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 07:49, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
If Y = Rummel, then I = Santa Claus :) Baristarim 09:17, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Just coming in to mention another Genocide scholar who affirms Pontic Greek Genocide. The Armenian Studies professor , Dr. James Reid, presented a series of [ http://armenianstudies.csufresno.edu/hye_sharzhoom/vol27/may06/3_reid_lectures.html Genocide lectures at Fresno State University in California] earlier this year, "Dr. Reid's eloquent lecture discussed how the "Death World," which was created by the perpetrators of the war, influenced the mentality of the Armenian and Pontic Greek survivors. --The 'Death World' and its Influence on Victim Survivors," was given on Wednesday, March 22, 2006 Fresno State University ,California. SpaceBalls 21:40, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Rummell

Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

To repeat my earlier observations is about as reliable as a chocolate fireguard. - Francis Tyers · 22:05, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree (not explicitly discredited for this and very well backed up by third sources), but in any case, what do you think about the rest of the sources so far? Do they suffice for you? I refer interested users to the earlier discussion about sources here. There is a discussion about each and every one right below, titled by each source's name. NikoSilver 11:54, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
The other sources are reliable. - Francis Tyers · 12:17, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Sources for the title

Latest comment: 17 years ago11 comments5 people in discussion

Insert here verifiable sources and quote how they refer to this event. Keep it brief and easy to distinguish by using bullets(*). Here is NO place for a DISCUSSION of the sources. Open another thread for such a purpose. Wandalstouring 14:18, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the (fourth) attempt. Please check:

Third party academic sources supporting "Genocide"

  • 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.
    Cohn Jatz, Colin Tatz (2003).     With Intent to Destroy: Reflections on Genocide. Essex: Verso. ISBN 1859845509.
  • systematic extermination...annihilation...in a persistent campaign of massacre
    Note: Term "genocide" had not been coined yet.
    Horton, George (1926). The Blight of Asia. Indianapolis: The Bobbs-Merrill Company.
  • ...So is the Turkish Consul General [alive and well], now complaining to the university administration that the Center of Comparative Genocide Studies, which I direct, has (unfairly?, unwisely?) allowed the Greek community to fund a research unit devoted to the genocide of the Pontian Greeks, by the Turks, after World War I. The Center, founded by me at the end of 1993, has its somewhat clumsy title because the senior professor above, the one who wanted "balance", was a little anxious at the University Council meeting, which has the power to establish Centers, that plain "Genocide Studies" would be a little unbalanced -"You know, a little too, ah, you know..." We know. There is of course, a very strong case for the visibility of "comparative": it allows us to develop a model of gradiations of genocide, to avoid the obvious trap of flattening all genocides, of allowing scholars to get away with blatant misuse of the term when they seek to highlight a wrong by reaching for the ultimate cannon in the armory.
    Pioneers of Genocide Studies (Clt) By Steven L. Jacobs, Samuel Totten
  • ethnic cleansing
    Norman M. Naimark, Fires of Hatred: Ethnic Cleansing in Twentieth-Century Europe, Cambridge and London: Harvard University Press, 2001.

Other sources supporting "Genocide"

  • Greek recognition
  • Cyprus recognition
  • Numerous Greek academics
  • 6 US states recognition
  • 3 NGO's recognition

Check also Talk:Greek genocide/Archive 4#Genocide for a comparative analysis of the sources.

Also, these sources are limited to the ones that explicitly call it a genocide. The eyewitness quotes, the documented individual massacres and all other secondary sources are numerous.

Hate to repeat myself, but since you asked... Note: There are others that escape me right now, will add them probably later. Happy new year! NikoSilver 19:04, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Did I just see "Google" in there?? Was it a typo? Baristarim 05:02, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, per WP:NCON#Identification of common names using external references and the google tests in my statement. No debate please, it's under "other sources" anyway. NikoSilver 16:50, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  • The conclusion of the armistice with Turkey on the 30th October, 1918, seems to have brought about a temporary cessation of the persecutions of the minorities by the Turks which had gone on all through the war. In the course of those persecutions, it is generally agreed that about 1,500,000 Armenians perished in circumstances of extreme barbarity, and that over 500,000 Greeks were deported, of whom comparatively few survived. The ghastly Armenian persecutions of the early part of the war formed the subject of a British Blue Book as early as 1916, and the almost equally horrible Greek persecutions have been dealt with in several Greek publications (see particularly the proceedings of the third National Assembly in Athens in April 1921). Information regarding the persecutions of the other Christian bodies has not yet been collected. [...] As early as May 1919 reports of renewed persecutions of Armenians and Greeks all over Anatolia and Pontus began to come in.
    [...] Behind all these elements of disorder stands Mustapha kemal.
    Memorandum by Mr. Rendel on Turkish Massacres and Persecutions of Minorities since the Armistice (British Foreign Office Archives, FO 371/7876)

Critias 21:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Sir: I have the honor to transmit herwith copies of letters from Dr. Mark H. Ward and Mr. F. D. Yowell, members of the personnel of the Near East relief, describing the horrors and atrocities suffered by Greek deportees at the hands of the Turks in Asia Minor; also in reference to the treatment of the Armenian and other Christian elements in that territory, and especially the attitude of the officials of the Turkish Government towards Americans.
    [...] In the Vilayet of Marmouret-ul-Axuz all relief was given in opposition to the wishes of the Government, who did practically everything in its power to prevent any relief to the deportees.
    [...] We have been able to prepare some figures on the deportation of Greeks who were sent from Konia, Afion-Karahissar and the war front and from the entire Black Sea coast and hinterland which apply only after they had reached sivas. Of 30,000 who left Sivas, 5,000 died before reaching Harpoot (one American saw 1,500 bodies on the road between the two places); 3,000 died in Malatia during the winter; 2,000 now (March), remain in Malatia and 20,000 reached Harpoot.
    Of this remaining 20,000, 2000 died in Harpoot during the winter, 3,000 are now scattered in Harpoot Vilayer (Marmouret ul Aziz), as follows: 500 in Eghin, Arabkir and Baker-Maden, 500 Mezre and Harpoot, 1,200 in villages of Harpoot Plain and 500 in Palmoy villages. The trmaining 15,000 were sent on to Diarberkir, en route to Bitlis.
    Of this 15,000, 3,000 died on the way, 1,000 died in Diarbekir, 2,000 remained in Diarbekir and the remaining 9,000 were sent on toward Bitlis.
    [...]Of the entire number of Greeks deported, about two thirds of them were women and children and the main causes of death were, starvation, exposure, typhus, and dysentery. The Turkish authorities were frank in their statements that it was the intention to have all the Greeks die and all of their actions -- their failure to supply any food or clothing -- their strong opposition to relief by the N. E. R. -- their choice of routs, weather, etc. -- concentrations in unhealthful places, and last of all their deliberate choice of destination BITLIS, a place almost totally destroyedm, with no industry and located far up in the mountains, seems to fully bear this statement out.
    All along the route of the deportees, Moslems visit the various groups and take of the women and girls whomever they want for immoral purposes.
    If American aid be withdrawn from the deportees scattered along the places between Sivas and Diarbekir practically all of them will perish and for those who have been sent beyond Diarbekir we see no hope of life whatever.
    Along all the routes taken by the Greeks are strwen the bodies of the dead which are being consumed by dogs, wolves and vultures. The Turks make no effort to bury the Christian dogs, as they call them, and deportees who remain alive have not the strength to bury their dead, even if they were alowed to do so.
    The figures given have been carefully prepared from information gathered by Americans actually in charge of relief of the Greeks and we believe them to be under the number of actual deaths if they err at all.
    Treatment of Christians by Turks (U.S. Archives)

Critias 21:05, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


  • " According to official testimony, the Turks since 1914 have slaughtered in cold blood 1,500,000 Armenians, and 500,000 Greeks, men women and children, without the slightest provocation" (page 67) - "It is beyond all question or dispute that the expulsion of the Christian Minorities by Turkey constitutes one of the greatest and most hideous crimes in all history"(page 57) - Bierstadt, Edward Hale. The Great Betrayal; a Survey of the Near East Problem. New York: R. M. McBride & company, 1924.
  • " 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 can also tell with certain modifications about the Greeks and tha Syrians. Indeed the Greeks were the first victims of this nationalizing idea." Henry Morgenthau, Sr. "The Murder of a Nation". 1918, (New York: Armenian General Benevolent Union of America, 1974).
  • "In January, 1916, the Greek deportations from the Black Sea began.The Greeks came through the city of Marsovan by the thousands, walking for the most part the three days journey through the snow and mud and slush of the winter weather.. Thousands fell by the wayside from exhaustion...always under escort of Turkish gendarmes. Next morning these poor refugees were started on the road and destruction by this treatment was more radical than a straight massacre..." George Horton, "The Blight of Asia" , 1926, The Bobbs-Merill Company,(American Consul General of the United States in the Near East) ---Rizos01 02:33, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Doesn't matter if those accounts are true or not. The question is not the content, it is the title. You are interpreting the sources that you mention to justify the title. Such interpretation is forbidden per WP:OR. That's all. Baristarim 08:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
And what selective interpretation of history btw. Millions of Muslims were expelled from the Balkans between 1900 - 1923, then let's label it the Muslim Genocide (Balkans)? Stop interpreting history anachronistically and in a way that suits you.. Baristarim 08:20, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Please move your comments to a discussion section. If I am not mistaken this space is reserved only for accounts supporting The Genocide. --Rizos01 18:14, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Uh, no... This is the RfC. This the talk page for discussing improvements to the article. However, I am not going to post long messages, if that's what you are implying. Baristarim 19:59, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

You guys have no clue of what you are talking about

Latest comment: 17 years ago18 comments5 people in discussion

I have yet to see anyone here having written anything relevant which may suggest some deep knowledge of the Pontian tragedy. Dumping irrelevant materials of atrocities doesn't help the situation either. The Ittihadist decisions are one thing, the nationalists decision, the transition with the renagates to the Kemalistic regime, and the so-called population exchange are all different event.

The Pontian tragedy has little to do with the harsh condition of the minorities under the Ittihadist regimes, even less to do with the Armenian tragedy. This article, first has to be renamed like I have previously suggested and should only cover the Pontian tragedy, only this, other Greek tragedies could be mentioned, but should be treated in other relevant articles where they could fit. It is amasing that while the Smyrna fire, which has publications in the couple of douzens, is in a garbadge state, and seem no any Greek want to take the initiative to work on, and various people all are around this article, dumping stuff after the other on other events, but has yet to show knowing what exactly was the Pontian tragedy. Fad (ix) 06:50, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


It would be useful if you yourself first get familiar with the Pontian tragedy. FYI the Pontian tragedy consisted mainly of the Genocide (deportations, labor battalions, massacres,etc.), and the Population Exchange. This article is mainly about the Genocide, not the Population Exchange. Also, all of the above accounts and quotes are very relevant, as they are mainly about the Genocide, and are referring to the Pontian Greeks. Where you see the word Greeks it primarily refers to them. The Greeks, and particularly the Greeks of Pontos, just like the Armenians were co-victims of the same Turkish policy of Turkification, whether the masterminds and perpetrators were the Young Turks, or Nationalists/Kemalists. The Pontian Greeks got the brunt of the Turkish Government's brutality and suffered the most victims. Out of approximately 500,000 Greek deaths, aproximately 350,000 were Pontian Greeks. This Genocide took place in an area (Pontos) where no Greek army set foot before these events, and as result there was no reason or excuse for the Turkish government to resort to deportations, murders, and other attrocities. Smyrma was a slightly different issue. Even though there was no reason for the Turks to destroy the city and cause so many victims and suffering, they had an excuse because the Greek Army had landed and occupied the area, and there was a state of war. So, in the future, if you would like to contribute, please make an effort to provide informed and constructive comments. --Rizos01 08:05, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Read Halo’s work before throwing me stuff.
I will reiterate what I had said previously, both the Armenian and Greek cases were different. It would not be accurate to use the Armenian cases as a support to a Greek genocide.
The camps in the Arabic desert(generally set for the Armenians), irregulars and convicts released from prisons and dragged in the special organization were sent on them. There was a general policy against the Armenian subjects, there was no such policy against the Greeks for obvious reasons. Anatolia was considered by the Turks as their heartland, and Armenians were living there. The Armenians had no nation, where they could leave for to never return unlike the Greeks. The Armenians were the main obstacle of various modernisation plans imposed by the Young-Turks regime, such as the nationalisation of the economy.
There were two main policies against subjects, one against the Armenians, and one against none-Turks(even Turks labelled as anti-Turks) in particular the Christians. There were indeed many Christian communities which had the same fate as the Armenians, particularly the Assyrians, but this genocide part was a component of the Armenian genocide, much like the victimization of the Gypsies in WWII was a component of the Holocaust. In many regions with heavy Armenian population, the Assyrians and Greeks were evicted just like the Armenians, which forced the government to issue an order to not extend the measures taken against the Armenians to other Christians. Inevitably, at the end, after that the Ottoman was defeated in various of their positions, the policy became generalised against other subjects. I remember the memoirs of a Turkish military official anger for not having taken the same decision against the Greeks while they had the occasion. Oh and, the Winter 1916 decision, was not generalised still. Also, it wasn’t really before 1917, by which date the supposed Pontic Greek Republic has started existing maintained by Greek irregulars, that the Ottomans started to single out Greeks at Trabzon. While the Armenians were singled soon during the January 1915, after the Ottoman defeat in the Russian front.
Having said that, the Pontian cases is a particular event, and if this article should survive, it should stand by that event, which IS the Pontian tragedy, not on other crimes perpetrated against the Greeks, this tragedy is mostly the events related in Halo’s book. The range of victims from the official Ottoman statistics provided by Bayur, which includes a figure of Greeks killed during the deportation is presented as the measures taken against the Armenians, and those Greek victims were victims of the Armenian genocide, which does not limit only to the Armenians. For this reason, I proposed at the beginning, that the Assyrian massacres as well as the Greek massacres under the Ittihadists regime and measures should go in the Armenian Genocide article, much like the statistics of various other non-Jewish victims goes in the Holocaust article. Since this is how they are treated in the academia, you will hardly find any work which treats those events specifically; they are mostly and nearly always treated in works relating to the Armenian tragedy.
And then, the Pontus tragedy, is disconnected with those events, it was under another regime, and disconnected with the previous decisions against the Greeks under the Ittihadists. The tragedy of the Greeks under the nationalist forces is to not be merged with those under the Itiihadist forces. Much like the previous and later eviction of Muslims from the Balkans have to be treated in parallel
About the name of the article. I personally think that it should be renamed to 'Pontic Greek tragedy', and the intro continued with wording such as 'sometimes also called genocide.'
If you really want to know what the Pontic tragedy refers to, here I have found an article by Stavros Stavridis, http://www.antibaro.gr/national/stavridis_pontos.htm pay attention to the dates of the events. The same thing covered in Halo'S work. Fad (ix) 18:17, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


Really? Just because he didn't agree with you, you think that his comments were unconstructive? I thought that his comments were very constructive to actually make this article more encyclopedic. He also was able to make a good distinction between seemingly related events. Anyways, most of what you just said above is your interpretation. Have it published by someone like Cambridge University Press first, then we can use it as one of the references. Baristarim 08:17, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
We all know by now that some people's main concern is, unfortunately, Turkey's image, and not to help shed light onto the real facts, or history. All attempts are to digress and misrepresent the events in question. Under the vail of requesting a supposededly encyclopedic article, they are asking us to agree on renaming it. Their main objective, of course, is to achieve their goal of whitewashing an unfortunate part of Turkish history. It is quite clear that these individuals have no respect for the hundreds of thousands of innocent victims who suffered the worst, or lost their lifes, at no fault of their own. The awful experiences that our parents and grandparents went through are many and varied. Only my immediate family's victims (dead) were 5. My mother's father and uncle were hanged. My father's father died in the labor battalions. My father's two brothers and sister died or were killed during these events. Later on, my father's entire village was burned to the ground with over 300 some women, children, and older folks who were forced into a few homes and burned alive. Those who attempted to flee were shot or killed by various means. My father and another lady were the only survivors as they were out of town. --Rizos01 18:06, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
BS, I don't bother much of Turkey's image, I don't like people putting intentions on the reasons of my contributions. I have myself criticised Smyrna article, because the majority position is that Nureddedin Pasha ordered the burning of the Greek and Armenian quarter, supported by Turkish sources too, but it seems that Greeks in Wikipedia had found better way in wasting their time fighting over here while the Smyrna fire article is in ruin. The fact of the matter here is that, can you find sufficiant materials relating to 1921-1922 Pontos Greek tragedy, which name it genocide, as being the majority position? This is not about whatever or not it was a genocide, and please don't shout me the Genocide convention, it does fit, but fitting is one thing and the event being called that way is another. Fad (ix) 18:17, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
First, I would like to make clear that my last comment was not addressed to you. Second, I have read Thea Halo. Third, your seemingly knowledge of the facts is in my judgment your own interpretation of them. Fourth, the reason that the Pontian Greek Genocide does not have the recognition it deserves is because it was smaller than the Armenian in the number of victims. Also, it was because the Greek Government never made it an issue, for various reasons. Some of which are Greece's hasitation to add another issue to the already multiple disputes between the two countries, as well as obligations and commitments to NATO, and the US, etc. These are also the reasons why the international community did not get involved, and as a result not called it a genocide. If it were not for the Armenian Communities efforts, for many years, their genocide would have been unknown too. Fifth, Stavrides aticle is worth reading. Finally, since you are referring me to Thea Halo, here is the title of a recent lecture/speech of hers: "This was Genocide, but the Armeninians were not the only victims". And regarding the lack of reference to the Greek and Assyrian victims in Armenian Genocide books, websites, resolutions of recognition, etc., she said " These co-victims had inhabited the territory of what became Turkey for three millennia. One must ask which is worse: genocidal denial, or being invisible as if one never existed? At least with denial, there is the possibility of debate. The expropriation by a single group of such a monumental evil serves to strip the other, "nameless" victims of that same evil of their rightful place in history - thereby assuring that their genocide is complete". ---Rizos01 19:42, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
The main problem here is not if it constitute genocide, it probably does(my opinion). The main problem is if the title of this article represent the name given to the event. The American Indians were assimilated, killed, evicted, their lands stolen. But thanks to many American 'nationalist' historians, the events aren't called a genocide, even if it does fit the conventions definition for genocide. The admission of genocide is specific to the Holocaust, the Germans are the only people who accept the crimes of genocide perpetrated. While the Armenians were mostly victims under the Ittihadist regime, the Greeks were mostly victims of the nationalist forces. I reiterate that the Pontian Tragedy is mostly what happened in 1921 and the years following it, while the current article mixes various different events under different regimes, this is sure not accurate, since the Greek victims under the Ittihadist regime for the most part were victims of the Armenian genocide, much like the the Assyrians. The words Assyrian Genocide does not represent the Assyrian victims under the Ittihadist regime in the accademia, it represent the massacre and deportation of Assyrians in the 30's in Iraq, Raphael Lemkin who coined the term genocide refers to the Assyrian cases as genocide for the events of the 30's. What I always proposed is to open a section in the Armenian Genocide page, delete the Assyrian Genocide page, or rather change the subject(to relate to the Iraqi event), and in that section treating the Greek and Assyrian victims. The Pontian Tragedy page should only cover the event covered in the Accademia, which is the 20's tragedy of Pontos. This is what should be done ideally to represent the way those subjects are covered in the academia. Fad (ix) 20:23, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

@Fadix: Thanks for your comment that it probably constitutes a genocide in your opinion. I have the following comments:

  • For the American Indians parallel, please refer to #Native Americans vs Pontians and if you find that there are no significant differences, then let's discuss there please.
  • The academia generally dodges the issue (see Mark Levene "Historians ... tend to avoid the term genocide to describe them." (analytical discussion here).
  • Those who do not dodge it, call it a genocide. See my statement in this RfC and here for sources. NikoSilver 13:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Just as a pre-emptive measure, please let's try to keep our opinions out of the talk page. I know that I am guilty of also doing so in the past, it is this kind of arguments that are likely to draw others, particularly newcomers into unhelpful discussions.
Well, in reply to your second point, I would disagree since "tending to avoid the term genocide" is pretty much the same as saying "well, I don't think that it was a genocide, I could be wrong, but I don't think so as is". It is the same thing as saying it is not a genocide. If I am a bit overweight and someone says "well, most people would tend to avoid the term "fatass" to describe you" - then it is the same thing as saying that they don't think that I am a fatass. There might be a few bits here and there that don't make me slim, but just because I am not 100 percent on "slim" on a scale, that wouldn't make me a fatass either. Whatever particular dodgy elements there might be, that still won't make it a genocide. That's all. So you are basically saying that academia is generally hesitant to label it a genocide, well that just proves my point. And those who do not "dodge it" - call everything a genocide/democide. Rummel considers nearly every colonial war a genocide. Nor does he make a distinction between genocide proper and "cultural genocide", a highly controversial term. Moreover, he doesn't distinguish between wars and genocide either.
On a side note.. The Native American issue that Fadix mentioned. Look, the genocide convention is not a simple piece of ideological paper of the French Revolution - its jurisprudence is extremely complicated. One of the main reasons why Native American killings are not classified as genocide is because most of the Native Americans were killed because of economic reasons. Economic reasons (economic struggles, to be more formal) are specifically outside the genocide convention. It has nothing to do with nationalist American authors. There are as many European academics as Americans. However, you are still likely to see that the majority of the European academics won't consider Native American issue as a genocide, either. Please do not forget that international law is complicated and such historical analysis even more so. It is not academic to jump to conclusions based on some dubious info and confused data.
I find that, in Wikipedia, the areas where there is a great need of academic precision are always in utter despair because many people do not realize nor are able to admit that they do not have the capacity nor the academic background to pass judgments on the case at hand. This is not aimed at someone particular, but in my personal experience as a jurist, I remember people (not on this page) who presented me with the thesis of some law student (and other dubious law papers) as absolute proof that a particular point was true. When I pointed out the mistakes in that thesis and et al, that person simply said "well, it still makes sense" - well of course it does, since without sufficient training on the subject matter, it is too easy to be overwhelmed by a bunch of fancy words and co. Same goes for some silly arguments I see on science pages, particularly ones on evolution et al. Many people go to Google, type "XYZ", find the thesis of some student in Kansas, then come back and say "oh look, I just found the light!" :) Anyways... Baristarim 14:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I disagree, avoiding a term does not mean someone disagree, it can mean various things. It can mean that a person does not want to use a term which will leave him in a controversy, it can mean that that person believe that it is irrelevant. There are many factors which could leave someone to avoid a particular term. For instance, I have seen you taking the German resolution regarding the Armenian massacres as not accepting it as genocide, even though the resolution is more aggressive in its language than let say the Canadian resolution which uses the term genocide. For example, the resolution contains harsh words in its section Reasons for the Motion. ‘’ women, children and old people were sent on death marches through the Syrian desert. Those who had not died or been murdered on the way met this fate at the latest when they reached the inhuman camps in the desert near Deir ez Zôr. Massacres were also committed by units specially set up for this purpose.’’ Or words such as ‘’ planned and organized execution of the massacres and deportations.’’ Or such words as ‘’ denies that these atrocities had been well planned and organized and/or that the mass deaths during the resettlement treks and the massacres had been desired by the Ottoman government.’’ The resolution at the beginning tells that the Ottoman actions conducted to the ‘’ almost total annihilation of the Armenians in Anatolia.’’
While you claim the Germans refuse its occurrence as genocide, the words used not only adhere to the genocide convention definition, but also the restrictive definition, defined by some jurists.
Coming to the American Indians, economic motives are excluded, only when the cases could be explained by differences in classes, and not a precipitated action used by one classes against the other which could leave one of the two group to it partial or total destruction. The Sand Creek Massacre in 1864 is one such case, where Texas has actively participated in the destruction of a group. I don’t see the differences of these particular cases, if not of its extent, with the Khmer Rouge crime, which was motivated by classes and economic consideration. The Turkish historian Avioglu himself believe that the destruction of the Armenians was justified by economic considerations, but still uses the term genocide. The economic component has to be the reason of the destruction with other parameters mostly remaining passive for your argument to stick. And yes! I do believe that many historians do not use the term genocide in the American Indian cases with other motives than academic. Europeans were involved there too, so I don’t see how your analogy of the American position with European in terms of position fit here. Take Lewy for example, who refuse the qualification of genocide in the cases of the American Indians, can we claim his decision is academic and only academic? No, the man has justified and excused the crimes of the American Navy in Vietnam, he refuse the qualification of genocide for Rwanda.
Cases like the Sand Creek Massacre are abound, and while legally binding the term genocide could not be applied, because legally you can not sue someone for an act committed before the law. But the term genocide could still be applied for historic consideration. That American Indians legally speaking had fewer rights, much like the Black slave, still permit the current American Indian and Black population to use right charts which were invented after the crime.
Since you are a jurist, I still find surprising that you will see things as black and white. I may continue later, when I see fit. Fad (ix) 19:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Ummm, Levene does call you a "fatass"! More precisely the full quote says "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." — "... 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." — "Historians ... tend to avoid the term genocide to describe them." Please check that what he says about the Pontians, he also expands to the Assyrians (see non-disputed, non-tagged, Assyrian Genocide).
  • Furthermore, Fadix definitely thinks that probably you are a "fatass" ("it constitute genocide, it probably does(my opinion)").
  • Moreover, please stop discrediting or ignoring the rest of the sources on the false perception that since Rummel is included in them and he's supposed to be a genocide-slapper, then the rest are too.
  • Finally, please stop flooding the page at every chance you get in order to loose track of the actual talk; and let fresh users (addressed to) respond without having to read repetitive intermingled diatrebes. NikoSilver 14:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


I would like to point out a couple of things in response to one of Fadix's previous comments. First we appreciate his comment that the Pontian Greek experience, in his opinion, probably constitutes a Genocide. However, I disagree with his statement that the content of the article should be solely focused on the events after 1921, and that the massacres and deportations perpetrated on the Greeks prior to 1921 were a consequence of the Armenian Genocide, and therefore be a under the Armenian Genocide article. I disagree, and I base it on the following accounts of third parties who were in Turkey at the time and clearly refer to the events against the Armenians and Greeks prior to 1921 as being independent of each other.

  • " 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 can also tell with certain modifications about the Greeks and tha Syrians. Indeed the Greeks were the first victims of this nationalizing idea." Henry Morgenthau, Sr. "The Murder of a Nation". 1918.
  • "The conclusion of the armistice with Turkey on the 30th October, 1918, seems to have brought about a temporary cessation of the persecutions of the minorities by the Turks which had gone on all through the war. In the course of those persecutions, it is generally agreed that about 1,500,000 Armenians perished in circumstances of extreme barbarity, and that over 500,000 Greeks were deported, of whom comparatively few survived. The ghastly Armenian persecutions of the early part of the war formed the subject of a British Blue Book as early as 1916, and the almost equally horrible Greek persecutions have been dealt with in several Greek publications (see particularly the proceedings of the third National Assembly in Athens in April 1921). Information regarding the persecutions of the other Christian bodies has not yet been collected. [...] As early as May 1919 reports of renewed persecutions of Armenians and Greeks all over Anatolia and Pontus began to come in.
    [...] Behind all these elements of disorder stands Mustapha kemal.
    Memorandum by Mr. Rendel on Turkish Massacres and Persecutions of Minorities since the Armistice (British Foreign Office Archives, FO 371/7876).

Statistics of Demicide, by R. J. Rummel, is another source that deals with the period prior to 1919 as being part of the Greek Genocide - http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.CHAP5.HTM

Reagarding Stavrides article, which I read, in the intro the author clearly states that "This short article will outline the fate of the Pontian Greeks... in the period 1921-1922." In my judgement he chose to deal with this period because it was the worst since the start of the genocide in 1916. Just like the Armenian Genocide whose intensity varied but lasted from 1915 to 1923, with the worst in 1915, so was the Pontian Greek Genocide which lasted from 1916 to 1923, with the worst period after 1919. According to R. J. Rummel, approximately 84,000 perished under the Young Turks(prior to 1919), and 264,000 under the Nationalists/Kemalists (after 1919). --Rizos01 05:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Look Rizos, I think that you are a bit confused about the situation in Turkey between 1918-1923. It was chaos. You cannot simply say "X were killed by Y". I know that this is not relevant, but you seem to be exagerrating the control that Ataturk exercised until 1923.. You are going to say "so?". It is important because genocide is a crime, therefore there has to be clearly identified suspects. A heart attack is not a murder in a similar way. A gang of Y entering a X village and killing its inhabitants is not genocide of X. For it to be genocide, there has to be a command structure that led directly to a generalization of acts, and for a sustained period of time. I still have to see a source that will bring any evidence of such. Fadix, I will try to reply more to you later, however I will be blunt and say that I have the strong impression that you need to read the last paragraph of my last post one more time. Genocide convention is not some sort of cheap lofty declaration of the French Revolution (there were many back in the day). The native American experience was definitely economic, are you crazy? Poor immigrants of Germany et al needed land, where the hell on were they supposed to get it from? Economic comptetition and rules of survival of the fittest led to the Natives' downfall. Couple of measely massacres does not permit the experience of all Natives to be labelled as "genocide", no matter how some people like to style themselves as politically correct or try to show themselves as "cool" ("look, I am a rebel, I think that X was genocide".. "Oh wow, really? Damn you sure must be a know-it-all with a lot of balls to make such a strong statement" - "yeah babe, what did you think?") You can label particular instances, if criteria are met and there are no other factors, as "Castle X Genocide" or "Y Creek Genocide". This is what happens when people like Rummel style themselves as scholars: wars are nearly always economic in nature, and there is a clear difference between a war and a genocide. And no, the reason why the term genocide cannot be applied retroactively legally is because of a fundamental principle of law: "non-retroactivity of penal statutes", not because "you cannot sue them". There is a huge philosophical and social background to that principle. But again, anachronistic speech is a trait of human nature. You can believe any reason as to why scholars do not use the term "genocide" for natives, but I wouldn't be too paranoid and label them "non-academic". Has it occurred to you that maybe it wasn't the case? Human history is built upon wars, inter-group fighting and conquests.
Genocide is something specific + it is a state crime, ergo there needs to be a state who committed it. That is lacking for this case. The only example is one probable march of villagers, the rest are instances of vigilante gangs who raided villages. I am sorry, but same things happened vice versa. That fails one of the main genocide criteria right off the bat: a crime with no suspect out of the probable two (Ottomans and Ankara regime), ergo it must be something else. Sorry, if there ain't no state, there ain't no genocide. Massacres, maybe, genocide, no. You are following the very fringe definition of Rummel on this, if what you said was true, then I can name you thirty genocides that took place in Europe in the last five hundred years. Irish potato famine for example? Most academics do not like to use the word "genocide" retroactively since it can lead to all sorts of anachronisms and confusion of eras/meanings/values. They were killed by the "Kemalists", wtf? What Kemalists? Ataturk only controlled a small strip of land in 1920, and he didn't have full control of the country until late 20s. So fadix, do you have proof that the (X number of Pontic Greeks) were ordered by a state structure to be destroyed, and that insistently for a period of couple of years? If not, it is not genocide, simple... And I wonder how you came to the conclusion that it was as such: You must have access to rare hundred year old documents that nobody else does, or haven't taken a look at the last paragraph of my last post. Baristarim 07:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Your answer is done in a much disorganised fashion; I don’t see why I should read a text to find out that it contains an answer directed at me.
First of, I don’t like to be called crazy, I respected you, do the same. Second of, while you ask me to read the last section of your answer, I’ll ask you to read the genocide convention one more time. Genocide does not request a generalised massacre. It request the elements to be met, all of the 4 major points are met in the cases of the American Indians, when I say American Indians, I generalise, not to have to name every single groups, which obviously you know I am doing. So please stop pulling my legs. Also, please stop assuming on my intentions of labelling the American Indian experience as Genocide. It is not that I am screaming it on every given occasion. I don’t think any editor worried about his reputation would like to be labelled as a rebel. And once you have the time, do tell me how a rebel position is ‘politically correct.’
I will not forgo answering, maybe only this time around. But you are in the wrong, this is not only a matter of opinion, but of the same variables you like to toy with; Mr. X and Y. I may not be the international jurist you are, but as a scientist, I believe I have met with enough problems to resolve that my opinion should be given as much worth as yours, even if I wasn’t; what is interesting here on Wikipedia, maybe for the better or the worst, is that people can not hide behind their credentials, you are what you say, what you provide. As simple as that. So, when you bring economic into the play to dismiss genocide, you could be god for all matters, you should still support what you say. Economic is just one parameter, I can for example claim that the destruction of the European Jewry was economic competition and survival of the fittest, afteral, wasn’t the living space theory of NAZI ideologists such as Rosenberg not drafted on this same evolutionary theory of the fittest and the living space (aka ecological niche)?
Economy is a sausage; you seem to not distinguish economy while the other variables are passive, and economy, while other variables are into play to facilitate the fight of classes. Specifically what happened in the Khmer Rouge regime, exactly what happened in a various cases in America? This has nothing to do with being ‘cool.’ And in other occasions economy wasn’t even at play, like with the so-called Pequots cases. And please, while you discuss with me, don’t throw Rummel at my face. Have you seen me quoting him? What I am trying to say here, is that genocide is not something which happens without reason, it could be motivated by economy, it could be motivated by differences of classes. The prerequisite, in all those cases is a situation of power, and uses of this power and taking advantages of, to destroy in part or in full the other group. When this happens, the decision could have been taken for economic consideration it doesn’t matter much on the qualification of the event. Where economy could matter, is if one group is starving while the other is not, and this starvation led to the destruction in full or in part of the other group, when the other parameters beside economy are passive.
About the particular instances vs the bigger picture, as what you wanted to imply. True, I agree there, but in one cases or the other, there is no mistake in wording. I will not start citing various American Indian cases as genocides; I will simply say American Indian Genocide, which will include those American Indians. The wording is practical by nature, and isn’t wrong, unless you imply something which wasn’t my intention.
What is ironic, is that I wished you would not request explanations for my opinion on the Pontic cases, even if it is the subject of this article.
But, since you have asked, I will tell you why I believe it was genocide. First, the first massive evacuation of the Pontic Greeks happened 2 years before the population exchange. It was illegitimate, second, the Kemalists have decided to send a considerable portion of the population in the camps which were previously set by the Ittihadists to destroy the Armenians. While they knew that not much will survive during this evacuation from the past experience (the Armenians), they took no disposition in that evacuation knowing that most who will be sent in the camps of the Arabian Desert will perish. And this is what happened. Those victims were not victims of the population exchange, and when the decision was taken to evacuate them, the Kemalists knew that where they were sending them, most will perish. Now, your claim regarding a State should carry it out, Jurisprudence now, and I am sure as an international jurist you are aware of, not necessarily. Rwandan Genocide was carried out not by the government but two Hutu Militia Group, while the Kemalists have become as much official in 1921 as the Interhamwe were official controlling a state army in Rwanda. So indeed, the Kemalists could have committed genocide, Rwanda has set Jurisprudence. I will not go on to cover the issue of the criminal officials who were dragged in this to carry out the so-called evacuation order, when they were known previously for their ruthless decisions against the Armenians, recycled under the Kemalistic regime. And you will not find me neither starting to dump endless quotations. I have presented my opinion and said why I believe it was genocide. But my opinion does not matter much, since we are here to write an encyclopaedic article, and this is what really matters. Fad (ix) 18:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
So, I gather you hide behind your alleged malgovernance/revolution/whatever in that period to suggest what? That Greeks were killed by UFOs, or that they killed themselves, or that they were killed by others suffering (eg. Armenians), or that "we didn't have a solid government, so next time we wanna kill en masse, we'll just say it was eg. army generals gone wild"? There is evidence for both regime's intent and structure. You can't walk away with a genocide just because you happen to revolt at the same time! Regarding your "retroactive" comment, then I guess you mean that the Armenian Genocide (1915-1923), the Assyrian Genocide and the Holocaust were "experiences" too? The term "genocide" wasn't coined until 1943, and wasn't adopted into international law until 1951. Are you saying Hitler and his generals have immunity until 1943 or 1951 then? NikoSilver 12:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Heated political debates again? Well there is no reason to be ashamed or hide that a group if people gets killed for their ethnic/religious difference. Although it is cynical, one has to admit that it happens all the time and finds supporters in among nations. So let's get back to work and try to find out how these events leading to the death of so many people of Pontic Greek origin are called. Wandalstouring 18:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Fadix, I didn't call you crazy, it was a figure of speech. I said a "state structure", not a "internationally recognized state" (there can be a state without being internationally recognized :)) Yeah those evil Kemalists, eh? What intent? It is not even clear how many Pontic Greeks there were, and what happened to them in the first place. Fled somewhere else, converted and assimilated? There were also many Greek bands roaming and killing Turkish villagers as well.
And another reason why the Native American case cannot be classified as genocide is the absence of this state structure. Aside from the fact that we are committing some of the biggest possible anachronisms while discussing the case of the natives, let's still take a shot. To this day, there is no proof that neither the Crown of England, governors of England, President or Congress of the United States had the intent to wipe out the Native American race. That itself is enough. Genocide is a specific state crime (state is defined as: territory+people on that territory+an entity who disposes the right of "legitimate force" (as a legal term) and whose de-facto authority extends over that territory and people on that territory). Inter-ethnic strife is a different concept. All I am saying is native american case is very complicated, being over zealous to categorize is not a good thing. However, particular massacres can be classified as genocide I suppose if right conditions are met.
Nikos, what intent and structure? That is completely BS. Greece tried to invade Anatolia for the sake of its "big" idea and Turks fought back, what "intent"? Yeah, there was so much intent that for example that nothing happened to Greeks of Karaman, a city closer to Ankara than Trabzon. Interesting, eh? If Ataturk wanted to wipe out all the Greeks, he would have done so easily. There is still no evidence showing any intent.
As for Holocaust Nikos... Have you noticed why the Jewish people don't call it "Jewish Genocide" so much, and instead use Holocaust and Shoah? Because the word genocide has become degenerated, it is slapped on every damn war and inter-ethnic strife that happens. It has become a common category word that doesn't mean much any more. Thus my question some time ago if there was a specific word for this in Greek. If there was one, it could have been used, and the genocide angle discussed in the text. That was a good faith question to actually solve this issue once and for all.Baristarim 01:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Just debating

Latest comment: 17 years ago5 comments5 people in discussion

To our Turkish and other like-minded friends, how do we explain the total disappearance of the Pontic Greek civilisation that was well under way before 1922? I am not taking sides on the g-word, just trying to answer this question. Politis 19:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

And what happened to the Turkish population of Greece? I think some people don’t realize that this is not a discussion about whether the events described in the article constitute genocide or not, we cannot include our own judgment in the article, as it would be an original research. The title of the article should reflect the view of majority, and I don’t see that most sources use the term Pontic Greek Genocide. I already mentioned two books that described those events in much detail. I will provide more quotes to show how they describe it:
The contest for Anatolia was particularly cruel from mid-1921 onwards. The Greek army killed or put to flight Turkish civilians in the area south of Istanbul before embarking on a fresh march eastwards. Meanwhile in the Black Sea region, hundreds of thousands of Orthodox Christians – seen as actual or potential collaborators with the Greeks – were forced to leave their homes and trek over the mountains in conditions which only the hardiest and luckiest survived. The last few weeks before Turkey's final victory over Greece in September 1922 had horrific consequences for the people of western Anatolia. The Greek army, fleeing from central Turkey towards the sea, burned several medium-sized towns, leaving the survivors homeless and hungry. The Turkish victors slaked their thirst for revenge on local Greek Orthodox civilians with no regard for age or gender.
Bruce Clark. Twice a Stranger: The Mass Expulsions that Forged Modern Greece and Turkey. ISBN-10: 0674023684
With its defeat by the Turkish Nationalists, Greece again assumed a major role in modern European ethnic cleansing. In the nineteenth century the rise of Greece had served to initiate ethnic cleansing in a previously multiethnic region. Greek independence brought the flight of Turks from core regions of the new Greek nation-state. With the collapse of Greek power in Turkey in 1922, Greeks became the victims of a new type of ethnic cleansing, one generated not by the dissolution of an old multiethnic empire but by the yearning of a state to expand into a new kind of nationalist empire. Pushing Greek boundaries east into Anatolia, where Greeks made up only a minority, doomed the ancient Hellenic communities of Turkey. Instead of realizing the Megali idea of uniting Greeks through the expansion of the Greek state, Greek nationalists achieved quite the opposite: the union of Greeks through the expulsion and transfer of Greek communities on the eastern coast of the Aegean and the southern coast of the Black Sea. Building a nationalist empire in the age of nationalism ultimately endangered the very nation whose interests generals and political leaders claimed to represent.
Benjamin Lieberman. Terrible Fate: Ethnic Cleansing in the Making of Modern Europe. ISBN-10: 1566636469
Neither of the above sources uses the word “genocide” to describe the events. The second source refers to the event as “ethnic cleansing”, but it applies the same term to the expulsions and killings of Muslim population in Greece and Anatolia. Now if we base the title on our own interpretations, and equate “ethnic cleansing” with “genocide”, we might as well create an article called Morean Turk Genocide, to describe the following event, mentioned by Lieberman as one of the early 19th century examples of ethnic cleansing:
Bag and Baggage: Ethnic Cleansing Begins
Turks fled from the Morean countryside for towns with fortresses. But the fortresses soon became traps for Turkish forces, and Muslim and Jewish civilians there were besieged by Greek rebels. After taking the fortresses of Malvasia and Navarin, Greek forces massacred Turks. Reports of the killing at Navarin especially shocked British Vice Consul Green. When the massacre ended, Greeks left several hundred surviving Turks – “men, women, and children” – to die on a “small island in the middle of the harbour.”
The fall of the Turkish fortress of Tripolitsa in the central Morea on October 5, 1821, brought the single worst massacre of the war. Philhellenes, volunteers from Western Europe who had taken up the popular cause of Greek independence, witnessed the slaughter. A French volunteer described how the Greeks uttered a ululating cry, the “cry of the human tiger, of the man devouring man.” Thomas Gordon, an English Philhellene, reported that the victors, “mad with vindictive rage, spared neither age nor sex – the streets and houses were inundated with blood, and obstructed with heaps of dead bodies.” At least 8,000 Muslims and Jews died at Tripolitsa alone. Gordon was so horrified that he abandoned the Greek cause. Other slaughters of Turks gained less international attention, but massacres of Turks continued into 1822. Estimates of the total number of Muslims killed varied widely: the initial wave of massacres in April 1821 killed 15,000 of the Morea’s Muslims, and the war’s final death toll for Muslims may have exceeded 25,000.
Benjamin Lieberman. Terrible Fate: Ethnic Cleansing in the Making of Modern Europe. ISBN-10: 1566636469
As you can see, the events like this are open for personal interpretations, but we should keep our opinions to ourselves and stick to what the majority of sources say. From what I can see the term “genocide” is not generally used to describe the events to which the article is dedicated. Grandmaster 19:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
In my judgment the above two books are not the most appropriate to support the view that the PGG was not a gemocide, for the following reasons: 1. Publishers Weekly Book Review of "Terrible Fate" by B. Lieberman, states: While Lieberman, a professor of history at Fitchburg State College in Massachusetts, is to be commended for his knowledge of so many cases of ethnically driven violence, he is weaker at setting definitions: what distinguishes peacetime ethnic cleansing, pogroms, genocide and wartime flight? Still, this is a book that will have broad appeal among students of modern Europe and of genocide. 2. Bruce Clark's "Twice a Stranger" is an analysis of the Greek-Turkish population exchange and the effects(pain and trauma) on the people involved. It does not deal with the issue whether the PGG was a genocide or not. --Rizos01 04:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't think this is an issue we can solve at Wikipedia---people, some of them even academics--have wildly divergent views on the subject, so we can't really proclaim as Wikipedia "yes, it was a genocide" or "no, it wasn't". We can, however, report what everyone has to say, from contemporary chroniclers to modern academics on all sides, to modern governments on all sides. If the issue is instead the title of the article, I'd be open to alternative titles myself if any decent-sounding ones can be suggested. --Delirium 11:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Grandmaster, having read through all the archived discussions of this topic, I agree when you say that it's not the prevailing scholarly view to call these events genocide. This article is unlikely to obtain a neutral POV until the title of the article is changed. Perhaps to massacres, genocide allegations, deportations or exodus as others have suggested before. Lima6 12:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

www.hellenicgenocide.org

Latest comment: 17 years ago11 comments7 people in discussion

If you want to link to this website, then please also add a link to tallarmeniantale.com in the Armenian Genocide article. Khoikhoi 09:46, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

You are free to do so. I 'm not interested in the Armenian Genocide. Mitsos 09:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

There was a previous discussion about that site. The arguments that "saved" it last time were two: 1) that it is written/maintained by a third party (Brazilian Roberto Lopes), 2) it cites a number of academic sources, quotes, testimonies etc. I wouldn't compare it to any sort of other tendentious nationalistic sites (of either side), which is also evident from its modest non-flashy layout and design. The site is down a couple of days now, and I will re-post when it is up again. Please revisit it then and respond (not reverting yet). NikoSilver 12:00, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Where is that discussion? If you're talking about the website whose earlier version is now at [14], then no, that's the very epitomy of a non-reliable source. No way. And it's not third-party either; it's "© 2001-2003 HEC and Roberto Lopes", where HEC stands for "Hellenic Electronic Center", and it's a project of "Themis" ([15]), "an independent grass-roots project conceived by Hellenes of the Diaspora. [...] The objective of Themis is to protect the Hellenic history, culture and heritage. [...] Additionally, this international grass-roots endeavour also aims to sensitise elected representatives of relevant world legislatures, international organisations and non-governmental organisations on issues relevant to Hellenism and Greece." In other words, a Greek nationalist pressure-group, pure and simple. Again, no way. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:37, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Ummm, it's got nothing to do with the site you're linking to. When I had checked it, it was completely different from that, and the copyright mark said Roberto Lopes -period. Indeed, no way if it were that, but let's not jump into conclusions while it's anyway off the air, shall we? This Roberto Lopes is a Brazilian who became a philhellen on his own (or at least he says so). NikoSilver 13:34, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
IMO, Khoikhoi and FPS are correct, and we should not link to this website. I particularly agree with FPS words, in defining it the "the very epitomy of a non-reliable source". That the author is Greek or Brazilian is of hardly any importance, in my view.--Aldux 14:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Sure, but only if indeed it is the case. Probably we wouldn't have had this conversation in the first place if the website was up. Memory is not the best advisor in such things, so let's not speculate. In any case I would have no objection to describe the nature of the site as "Greek POV". I repeat that the site *seemed* to follow basic academic reasoning and layout. It may not be the case of course, but for now it doesn't matter anyway. I will check back when it is up again, and will request your advice (naturally). NikoSilver 14:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

IMO this site contains info and pictures that are not presented in the article, since most of the pictures have been removed. This could be interesting. maybe the site is considered biased by non-Greeks and i can understand that, but i suppose we could include it, even if we have to place a note informing the readers about possible POVish statements in it. Since that webpage is not made by a Greek, not is it a .gr page, i find it a bit hypocritic to remove it; this way we open a gate to remove pro-X webpages from the external links of other articles, even if these pages do not come from the X nation, simply because it does not fit our own POV. Hectorian 18:02, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

The site is on-air again. Please review. NikoSilver 19:17, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Yep, saw it too. I stand by my assessment: definitely unsuitable. No need to even go near sites like that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 00:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Cyprus> I am not sure that the Republic of Cyprus has officially recognised the Pontic genocide - to become official, it has to go through parliament, to be debated and then voted on. Perhaps a citation is needed...? Politis 17:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Discussion of article title based on the mentioned sources

Latest comment: 17 years ago10 comments4 people in discussion

As far as I can see there is no explicit use of the word genocide for these events. The sources provide information about the destruction of a culture, but not for the use of the word genocide. Destruction of the Pontic Greek culture maybe a possible title although I would suggest the before mentioned titel: "Pontic tragedy". Wandalstouring 19:21, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Huh? You get cultural destruction and tragedy from: democide against the Greeks...genocide...347,000 dead, systematic extermination...annihilation...in a persistent campaign of massacre, compared experience to the Holocaust, a research unit devoted to the genocide of the Pontian Greeks, series of massacres, pertinent to the Armenian Genocide and ethnic cleansing? How exactly do you do that? NikoSilver 19:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
All that you just said is practically your POV and interpretation. Compared experience to the Holocaust? Give me a break. Research unit? You mean the one that is chaired by an ethnic Greek? Right. Baristarim 15:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Pff, double standards. The "souces" Garnet says contradict the genocide position for here say things like "what happened to the Armenians was different". They don't say "it was no genocide". Taking the quote Garnet is citing, you don't arrive at his conclusion unless you really really want to. On the other hand we have indpendent sources saying that "Turkey is denying its genocide of the Pontic Greeks", but for some reason they are held to be no good, I don't get why... //Dirak 23:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Going around in circles, eh? Nikos, every third-party editor has expressed dislike with this title. So, I think it is clear where the concensus is going. Let's not forget about the "COI" argument, either :)) Baristarim 15:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The quotes that you dispute above were said by the ones cited below, and I cite them again because your derogatory comments for those that I highlighted are unfair (the least):

  • 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.[1]
  • democide against the Greeks...genocide...347,000 dead[2]
  • systematic extermination...annihilation...in a persistent campaign of massacre
    Note: Term "genocide" had not been coined yet.[3]
  • compared experience to the Holocaust[4]
  • series of massacres, pertinent to the Armenian Genocide[5]
  • ethnic cleansing[6]
  • ...So is the Turkish Consul General [alive and well], now complaining to the university administration that the Center of Comparative Genocide Studies, which I direct, has (unfairly?, unwisely?) allowed the Greek community to fund a research unit devoted to the genocide of the Pontian Greeks, by the Turks, after World War I. The Center, founded by me at the end of 1993, has its somewhat clumsy title because the senior professor above, the one who wanted "balance", was a little anxious at the University Council meeting, which has the power to establish Centers, that plain "Genocide Studies" would be a little unbalanced -"You know, a little too, ah, you know..." We know. There is of course, a very strong case for the visibility of "comparative": it allows us to develop a model of gradiations of genocide, to avoid the obvious trap of flattening all genocides, of allowing scholars to get away with blatant misuse of the term when they seek to highlight a wrong by reaching for the ultimate cannon in the armory.[7] (note: which HE directs has allowed, and also note how nice he puts it for all deniers)
[1] Cohn Jatz, Colin Tatz (2003). With Intent to Destroy: Reflections on Genocide. Essex: Verso. ISBN 1859845509.
[2] R. J. Rummel. "Statistics of Democide". Chapter 5, Statistics Of Turkey's Democide Estimates, Calculations, And Sources. Retrieved October 4, 2006.
[3] Horton, George (1926). The Blight of Asia. Indianapolis: The Bobbs-Merrill Company.
[4] 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)
[5] 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
[6] Norman M. Naimark, Fires of Hatred: Ethnic Cleansing in Twentieth-Century Europe, Cambridge and London: Harvard University Press, 2001.
[7] Pioneers of Genocide Studies (Clt) By Steven L. Jacobs, Samuel Totten

For the nth time, I also don't like your tone!

I'd appreciate if you could revise your rather unfortunate comments. Thank you. NikoSilver 18:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Nope. Rummel is not a good source. Which comment? You mean the one where I said that nearly every third-party editor expressed discontentment with the title? COI, right?
Most of the sources are still shaky - none of them are dedicated research. Please remember that the question is the title, not the content of the article. There is still no work that points out that the Turkish/Ottoman government had the intent to destroy the Greek population. Baristarim 22:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
What about the rest 6? Are they not good too? Describe "shaky". NikoSilver 22:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Take your eyes below to Talk:Pontic Greek Genocide#Source. There is a book title "Black Book: The Tragedy of Pontus, 1914-1922" printed in 1922 in Athens. That is close to the time of events and in Greece and it is detailed. So "Pontic tragedy" is an appropriate term. Any questions?

Remember: We don't discuss what happened, we only discuss how it is called in mainstream English media. Wandalstouring 23:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect W, English media discuss it as a genocide (cited 7 times above by academic sources), or they don't discuss it period. The book you quote is just one of several dozens. Please familiarize yourself with the case a little bit. NikoSilver 00:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Some comments

Latest comment: 17 years ago25 comments8 people in discussion

Having just read this article for the first time, I think it has some serious problems. In particular:

1) As others have noted, the title is highly POV. One side calls it a genocide, the other refutes this claim. We should not be in the business of taking sides - it's absolutely counter to what WP:NPOV requires. I suggest changing the title to "Expulsion of the Pontic Greeks" or "Pontic Greek expulsions". (Any other suggestions welcomed!)

2) The article doesn't actually give much information about the events that occurred - where, when, why, who, how many? The quotes at the end are presented without any context. At least half of the article is dedicated to the question of who considers the episode to be genocide. The article as a whole seems to have been written as a guide to the political dispute, rather than a narrative of the actual historical events.

I'm not a partisan on this issue - I'm neither Greek nor Turkish - so hopefully I count as a neutral party here. I'll have a go at rewriting the article to fix the issues I've identified above. -- ChrisO 22:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

As a person who got quite much involved in this article, i would advise u to also read the talk page and archives; but since i acknowledge this would be quite of a task (too many kbs...), i will try to give u some answers in what u posted above, and hope u will take them into account, before an attempt to fix or "fix" by rewriting...
1) A possible title "Expulsion of the Pontic Greeks" is POV, since it expresses only the other side's position. None disputes that something happened to the Pontic Greeks. Turkey calls it "expulsion" and the death tool "natural due to circumstances". this is not a title that would "neutralize" the article. other titles have also been proposed, but were not accepted for similar (or identical) reasons.
2) U are quite right here... more info should be added, but without removing the quotes. Someone before (I guess it was Francis) asked about analytic population figures and list of villages and Greek casualties. I am ready to provide detailed information in English, French or Greek. Hectorian 23:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
But the current title also clearly expresses the POV of the "other side". I am sorry Hectorian, but every single time there is a new title proposed, it is always called POV and rejected by the same people. That is not correct either. Baristarim 15:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
The current title has a base to exist: official recognitions, bibliography and external links; and, as i have said, more detailed info exists. A possible side expressing the POV of the "other side" can exist? are there Turkish accounts calling what happened "extermination", "massacres", etc? or maybe the POV of the "other side" is that nothing ever happened? Hectorian 16:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
...in Pontos]]. Nice title, then we can place a {{contradict}} instead of the {{pov-title}}... NikoSilver 16:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Official recognitions by Greece and Cyprus.. Come on.. Eventually there will need to be a different title, with a section which talks about the genocide thesis and recognition as such by those countries. The newer title will have to have a bit larger scope so that it can place things in context. Baristarim 17:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Do not reduce the significance of the USA states... If a newer title is "intended" to be something that even denies that half of the Pontic Greeks were murdered, I am in the opposite side already... Hectorian 17:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Hectorian, please, you know that US states do not mean much - I would say the same thing for any article. This was already pointed out by many non-Turkish editors. Listen, we all know that the main problem is with the title, not the content. There is not an academic concensus that warrants such a title. Why can't we modify the title to expand its scope so that we can include the full history of Ottoman Greek casualties? Baristarim 17:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Ottoman Greek casualties? As part of an Ottoman Casualties of World War I series? Thats my two cents. --A.Garnet 17:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Or something like this is what u propose? but this article will not be deleted or moved, since this was not either. If u think that an article named Ottoman Greek casualties can exist, be sure that not only this will be included (but remain as separate article linked in the "See also" section), but also this and this and more... Hectorian 17:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Population exchange is not part of the "casualties", right? Baristarim 17:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
For the record: tens (or even hundreds) of thousands of Greek refugees died during the transfer; drown in the sea, died of diseases (especially malaria), or cause of bad weather conditions during their relocation, etc. Greece saw her population increased by 1/3 in a few months, at a time when the economy had collapsed, and even the cemeteries were not enough...! Not to mention the more than 1 million Greeks (according to Ottoman census-2 million according to Greek estimations of that time) of Asia Minor that are still unaccounted for... All these are "Ottoman Greek casualties", in the sense that the term "casualties" has to do with war and aftermath; the Pontic Greeks were not eliminated cause of any war, but cause the Young Turks wanted to get rid of non-Turkish populations of Anatolia, and thus their elimination started earlier; Greece entered the WWI in 1917, so any link between Greece vs Ottoman Empire during WWI, can be rejected, since at the time of the Pontic Genocide Greece was fighting herself. Hectorian 18:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes but this doesnt have the notability of any of those articles. One can find independent scholarly sources fully dedicated on all those events. This article has yet to produce any. --A.Garnet 17:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
... //Dirak 17:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
I tell you what Dirak, since i am obviously wrong and you feel my statement does not even warrant a reply, then i expect your next response to provide me with one dedicated impartial source under this articles present title. I expect that as your next reply, since i am so obviously wrong. --A.Garnet 17:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
See all the sources which have been cited since you first started disputing the title. See all the sources that were cited during both polls, see all sources which have been cited again and again but you have refused to even look at them... //Dirak 17:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Right, thank you, you dont have one. --A.Garnet 17:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Straw man. //Dirak 18:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
One dedicated piece of research, thats all i asked... --A.Garnet 18:06, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
They have been cited again and again. Perhaps we understand the concept "dedicated piece of research" differently, perhaps you have two measures; one for on other articles and one for here. Who knows... //Dirak 18:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Dedicated piece of research is quite self-explanatory to me. A piece of research dealing with this event, under this name and reaching the same conclusions in this article. I've seen a lot of cute empty remarks, a lot of rhetoric, but no sources! --A.Garnet 18:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
I repeat, source have been cited. They're on this very page! If a publication dealing exclusively with this is what you're after, then I must ask, how is that relevant by policy? As long as the article is sourced and complies with the majority of independent sources we have (and it does, which is not what can be said for the "TRNC" article) then WP:V is satisfied. Rewriting policies to support your views on each particulat page is the wrong way to go. //Dirak 18:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Alf's point is legitimate, there are no dedicated research that talk about these events from the angle that the title suggests. Baristarim 21:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes there are. We have repeatedly mentioned professor R.J. Rummel's "Statistics of Democide" in which he deals with the horrors perpetrated against the Greeks and calls them collectively as Genocide. Now if you would like another academic work devoted exclusively to the PPG, I refer you to Dr. C. Fotiades, a professor of history in Greece, who has done the most in depth and exhaustive research on the subject to date, as a result of which he authored a multivolume history on the PGG, titled "The Pontian Greek Genocide". The first three of the original volumes are a scientific (methodical, and critical) analysis of the events/sources. The remaining eleven volumes contain documents from the foreign ministry archives of of Europian countries, like, Britain, Russia, Germany, etc., as well as other sources. --Rizos01 06:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
It's been brought up by numerous editors that Rummel is not a credible source. See Francis Tyer's post further up this page regarding Rummel. Lima6 00:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Source

Latest comment: 17 years ago17 comments7 people in discussion

I had said above that I can provide a source about actual detailed numbers and villages, but none seemed to "care" enough to ask for... So, I am providing it myself. It was published in 1922 in Athens (some will have to take back the things they had said, implying that the Greeks "suddenly" began to care about the subject). It is called "Black Book: The Tragedy of Pontus, 1914-1922", it is downloadable, written in English and French and can be accessed from here... "Enjoy" Hectorian 19:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I will take a look at it. Thanks.. Baristarim 21:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Excellent work. Wandalstouring 23:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
There are dozens of sources written by Greeks (like the one above) and the use of the word Genocide is rather frequent. Not to mention, the book was written in '22, while the term genocide was coined in '44... NikoSilver 00:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Also, I really don't get it. Please let's not rush to adopt an earlier Greek source that has a convenient name, while ignoring the WP:INDY sources that say genocide... NikoSilver 00:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Wandalstouring, agree with your comments above. Pontic Tragedy or some variation of it sounds like a better title for this article. Lima6 00:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
I apologize that I have not read the majority of the discussion here thoroughly, but a brief skimming seems to indicate that this will be a good idea, and that, presumably, hopefully, most people can agree to it. LordAmeth 01:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
The word tragedy may mean a number of things. In Greek, it is used to either refer to ancient Greek tragedy or to an unfortunate event, something that bad for which no other word could be used. Renaming the article into "Pontic Tragedy" or a variation of this, will create several problems: the readers will not understand if it is about a series of events, or about a sub-section of ancient Greek tragedy; also, it implies that the extermination was not deliberate or even that it was not committed by human beings (compare phrases like "tsunami tragedy", "hurricane tragedy", "earthquake tragedy"). Hectorian 01:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
That appears to be the motivation behind the proposed name change, i.e. to suggest that the suffering of the Pontians was an unfortunate event for which the Turks bear no particular responsibility. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 03:25, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, many other titles have been suggested by editors besides Wandalstouring. As a number of editors have objected to the current title as not being appropriate, are there any other titles that you'd be willing to compromise for? Anything at all? Lima6 04:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, several. Pontian Genocide, Pontic Genocide, Hellenic Genocide, Genocide of Pontian Hellenism, etc. are all quite acceptable alternatives. But the word "genocide" itself is non-negotiable, as in the case of the Armenian Genocide and the Assyrian Genocide which were part of the same campaign of extermination. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 04:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
It is obviously the "genocide" part of the title that editors have been objecting to. Looks like this debate will keep going around and around in circles. Lima6 05:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
You're probably right, but it needn't. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 05:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, in order to keep in line with the terms used to refer to the Armenian Genocide, as Kekrops says, the term "genocide" should probably be included, particularly if it is a term used by a number of third-party sources. Has anyone looked at any general encyclopedias or general European/World History textbooks not written for a Greek or Turkish audience, or by Greek or Turkish scholars? Assuming people in other parts of the world learn about this event at all in, say, secondary school, what is it called? LordAmeth 08:48, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
There has been a huge amount of debate over this (4 archived discussion pages, a mediation and dispute resolution) all of which you understandably wouldn't have time to read through. Looking through the evidence presented on this site, there is a total of 2 third-party historical sources that explicitly use the term "genocide" in reference to Pontic Greek deaths. One of these two is R.J. Rummel, whose credibility has been strongly questioned. Greece (and perhaps Cyprus) is the only nation in the world that calls the deaths a "genocide" (and a few US states). As for other encyclopedias, none of them refer to the Pontic deaths as genocide. (Unlike the Armenian deaths, which encyclopedias will refer to as genocide or massacres or some variation) No one has mentioned any non-Greek textbooks that call it a genocide. Association of Genocide Scholars doesn’t call it a genocide. Basically, there's been little historical research published specifically on the Pontic deaths by third party sources, part of the reason why naming the article is so difficult. Look under #Request for Comment: Article name for a summary of the two sides' arguments. Lima6 12:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry, but Dirak's scorched-earth policy on redirects is very disruptive. He made sure that every single redirect has at least two edits so that further moves have become impossible without admin involvement. Really lame.. Just like he moved the other page to "1" last night. Baristarim 00:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Reply to LordAmeth (above): Both "sides" have exhaustingly searched for sources, and all of them are listed within the article. Generally, it's not referred to. But when it is, it is referred to as 'genocide'. Check #Sources for the title right above for a list. There are also 3 NGO's, 6 US states, and various commemorations (NY, AU), monuments etc. Disputed or not, it is indeed the most frequent appellation, and I think that WP is very clear in this dispute, from the fact that it is using the most frequent term to describe these events, while it illustrates more than adequately the dispute in the lead (for the term). NikoSilver 11:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

List of eyewitness accounts

Latest comment: 17 years ago11 comments5 people in discussion

I made a separate article for the List of eyewitness accounts related to the Pontic Greek Genocide and {{main}}ed out the contents, providing a summary in text. I also made a new article for the List of press headlines relevant to the Pontic Greek Genocide. I think the article at hand is greatly relieved from these removals, and the summary reflects the content adequately without sentimental details. NikoSilver 16:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this change. - Rizos01 16:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Rizo, feel free to expand those lists, and if new witnesses and descriptions emerge, we can expand the summary in this article accordingly. NikoSilver 16:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. I was just about to comment here to suggest that the number and length of quotes included in this article are a bit excessive, and only serve to promote a further bias view. The vast majority of the content of any article should be on what happened, its causes and significance, described in a distanced, academic, and objective manner. These sorts of quotes, using the type of elaborate language intended to promote a given view of the event, and to paint one side as villains, the other as victims, has little place here. The elimination or minimization of these types of quotes, I believe, is the first step towards making this article more appropriately encyclopedic, objective, and academic. Regardless of events, our goal at Wikipedia should be to educate and inform, not to accuse or denounce. LordAmeth 01:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Since the title is still disputed, the eyewitnes accounts and quotes are needed to bring out the events/facts/results of the systematic and deliberate genocide and ethnic cleansing. They provide solid evidence, and support the thesis that the events constituted a genocide. If not in the article itself, they should at least be referenced somewhere else. I am not sure how they "promote a further biased view". They are eyewitness accounts and quotes of neutral third parties. American, British, German, Austrian, etc. In fact the Germans and Austrians were allies of Turkey. Doesn't that tell you something? How can they be biased? What sources would you then consider unbiased? --Rizos01 02:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Take a look at the articles on the Holocaust, the Armenian genocide, the Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and the Nanking Massacre. None of these articles contain a lengthy list of quotes aimed solely at relating how horrible the event was. Doing so would be horribly biased. The purpose of any of these articles is to describe what happened, in an academic manner, and not to expound upon the evils of a particular country or administration. I by no means deny that Turkey was very much in the wrong here, but our purpose needs to relate directly to these events, and not to arguing or proving their villainy. To add this kind of content turns the entire article into a lament for the Pontian Greeks, a memorial even, and detracts from the academic discussion of the political and cultural forces at play, the events which led to this, the outcomes and consequences over the eighty years or so since. Imagine if the Hiroshima & Nagasaki article contained dozens of quotes of eyewitnesses describing how horrible the suffering was. Would that not detract from the rest of the article, the discussion of the events leading up to it, the context of the war, the lengthy debates that went on in Washington over whether or not it should be used...? History is not about naming villains and lamenting losses; it is about analysing trends and events, causes and effects, cultures and societies. LordAmeth 08:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
I got what u mean, LordAmeth. If I remember well, the quotes were added when some users objected not only the article's title, but even the fact that something happened in Pontus in the '10-'20s... For the same reason, I was ready to provide a full and lengthy list of all the villages and casualties; something that would make the article 4 times longer, but less readable (instead I gave a link for the book where I found that info). The examples u listed above are quite clear of what u mean, and I agree with u that lengthy lists of quotes would make these articles less academic and informative. However, I am 101% sure that the Japanese users, for example, would be ready and willing to make the Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki article 15MB long, filled with eyewitness accounts and quotes, if other users disputed that these bombings ever took place... Hectorian 10:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree, I have already voiced my concern in one of the articles discussion page. --A.Garnet 12:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
@A.Garnet: Your concerns have been addressed where you expressed them. NikoSilver 12:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
@LordAmeth, Rizos and Hectorian: Guys, you all agree. Ameth, user Rizos did not mean to re-add those quotes (he said he agrees). I presume he misinterpreted your comment, and thought you meant that not only they should be excluded from the article, but shouldn't have a separate list either. I'm sure you didn't mean that, since they are significant evidence, and since they are all sourced, and more importantly piled together by independent sources. They are not linked anywhere else, (and shouldn't be) and I feel that the compromise of separating them to relieve the article is more than fair. NikoSilver 12:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
You've understood me perfectly, Niko. Thank you. LordAmeth 14:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration commitee

Latest comment: 17 years ago45 comments12 people in discussion

There has been a request for ouside help because the article is currently in a deadlock regarding the title and the {{POV-title}}. The idea was to use a commitee of editors who aren't concerned with the topic to avoid any POV issues. This commitee reviews the material concerning the title and makes a decision according to wikipedia guidelines which is to be accepted. (See Arbitration Discussions)

It is suggested here to form a commitee with an uneven number of members, five in this case. The following editors were nominated LordAmeth (talk · contribs) (leading), ALR (talk · contribs), FayssalF (talk · contribs), Ksyrie (talk · contribs) and Beit Or (talk · contribs). If anyone objects anyone of the listed editors we will continue to search further editors until there are no objections.

Objections <Insert here>

So far any objections to the whole process? It is required that all editors involved in this dispute agree with the procedure. Wandalstouring 13:57, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Support - I believe this is the best way to solve the problem. Neither side is willing to compromise, therefore let us allow a neutral group of arbiters to decide. --A.Garnet 15:26, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The idea is that there should be a consensus and a consensus between the disputing parties cannot be achieved by excluding the disputing parties. Neither side is willing to compromise says Garnet. Not quite. It's not possible to compromise with Garnet, with him it's "either my version is going to be on or the tag is going to be on indefinitely". I had expressed assent to Pontian Greek Genocide allegations and Pontian Greek Genocide thesis in the past, but he rejected them wholeheartedly in favor of POVish self-invented titles such as Pontian Greek deportations (sic). Saying neither side is willing to compromise is wrong. The only one around here unwilling to compromise is Garnet. //Dirak 15:39, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
You didn't seem to get it. The disputing parties do present their points of view and discuss it with some people who have no intial POV. The aim is only to find out what is the most common English name for this event. While the problem of the whole argumentation here is that one side wants to declare it was a genocide and the other wants to declare it wasn't. However, that is no guideline in wikipedia to choose article titles. Blaming someone else for your own opposition to accept a solution looks a bit cowardly. If your point is that clear and there is only a single person who hinders all progress then any majority of a group of unbiased editors would have to agree with your opinion. So what are you afraid of? Wandalstouring 15:49, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
You don't seem to get it. The problem of the whole argumentation here is not that one side wants to declare it was a genocide and the other wants to declare it wasn't. What is my POV then? The articles currently doesn't say it was a genocide nor does it say it wasn't. Why am I happy with it? //Dirak 15:53, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
No one can decide whether it was a genocide, not even the supposedly neutral arbiters. That is not the dispute. Both sides agree it is an alleged genocide. The dispute is over which title is more appropriate taking into consideration everything. //Dirak 15:56, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Support the more impartial observers to look at this the better. Of course it won't be binding, but then what is? - Francis Tyers · 16:35, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. If I get it right, this is a commission with non-binding competence. Then, what is the reason to form it? To have an opinion? OK, but even if this 5-member committee gives us its view, I will still believe that the right title is "Pontic Greek Genocide", and I think that most editors from both sides will insist on their opinions. And something else: I think we had a poll with a 19-5 result; my friend, FutPer, decided to close it as no-consensus, but the 19-4 remains IMO a strong result, and, if I was the one who closed the poll (though I wouldn't), I would have definitely closed it as "keep" (I expressed my disagreement to FutPer). Now, if in any case that in Wikipedia we had a 19-4 result (more than 80% support of the current title!) of a poll, and then we formed a committee to settle the difference, I think that we wouldn't have enough users to staff the committees. Wandalstouring, I honestly laud your dedication in finding a solution here (I wish we had more dedicated users like you in the project); but I cannot support your initiative, because IMO the rightful solution is there, confirmed by a large majority of more than 80%.--Yannismarou 18:49, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
The idea is the major disputors give the committee a binding power, i.e. let them decide and we agree to whatever the outcome. Unless we do it this way, this article will remain as it is (which i'm sure is why Dirak would rather not risk seeing a result he does not like). I dont know why such a proposition should cause controversy, the major contributors in this article (Greek and Turk) had already agreed sometime ago that arbitration could be the final solution to this dispute (See here). --A.Garnet 19:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Personally, I hesitate to recognize to an adhoc committee such powers. And what if the ad hoc committee takes a 3-2 decision? Do you honestly believe that such a close decision will end the disputes here? Now, if you wish per the discussion you mention to go to the Mediation Committee or to ArbCom, it is your right to do it.--Yannismarou 19:14, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
In any case, I want to make clear that in case a consensus is reached here in favor of Wandalstouring's proposal, I do not intend to block the committee. Despite my reservations, I'll fully respect the consensus.--Yannismarou 19:37, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
We already had mediation by Francis and El_C. It was later found that the ArbCom does not rule on content. Therefore Wandalstouring came up with the idea to form a group of admins who could give a ruling on content based on our consent, and since we agreed to such a proposition before, i do not see why people should change their minds now. --A.Garnet 19:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
This is no group of admins.
In such a delicate matter democracy is no solution if we also have a systemic problem that one ethnic group has more editors than the other. Naturally it is possible to impose regulations, but basically the problem is here a showdown of ethnic membership. The proposal for the commitee implies that they make a decision on presented arguments and ask critically, so a fairly unbiased judgement on the presented material is done. This task so far seemed impossible for anyone involved here because the divison runs between Greek and Turks. Of course if there are objections to such an absolutistic approach as I suggested, we can also remodel it into just a commitee that makes a suggestion. The problem here is the continuing deadlock because otherwise it touches someone's holy cow. If the vote is somehow not 100% it leaves doubts, but in this case we can simply agree to the fact that it is not clear and accept that what the majority thinks besides the supported alternative titles. so far Pontic Greek Genocide is the favorite, but if it comes out that it is not the most common English name for this event then all of you should take a wikibreak and rethink that wikipedia is no place to push national POV. Look, for me as a ethnic German there is quite a lot to read that I think of as blatant nonsense or worse, but I also have to accept that these are sometimes widespread and sourceable opinions in another culture. For example the redirect from Prussian army to German army. Wandalstouring 20:53, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
See Category:User el vs Category:User tr (almost equal). It seems that most Turkish users have selected to not vote at all, so as not to be called either "deniers" or "traitors". NikoSilver 22:11, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Believe me, that has nothing do with the fear of being called deniers or traitors - most TR users do not want to waste time with this article considering that every single time all Greek users block-vote (I am not saying because there is a particular intention for disruption - I am not accusing people of bad faith since I suppose it is normal for people to "vote" for what title they think is the best. However, most of those users fail to understand that such polling practices are actually disrupting the article instead of legitimizing it. It gives the impression that this is some sort of Greek obsession - and that is definitely not helping it. Worse, it makes people think that as long as they show up in a group somewhere and block-vote, they can have their way - something which is not very healthy for other articles in the long run.) This has discouraged many non-Turks as well, fyi.. :)) That's why those polls do not serve anything at the end of the day you know - everyone knows this. I also find your insistence on organizing a poll for this RfC as circumventing the issue, particularly since certain users have said that it will not be helpful at all (for the reasons we all know). I cannot believe that you actually acted the opposite in the latest AfD - have a look above and the archives: you will see that a big majority of the impartial users that came along here voiced concerns over the title (including the only unrelated person who responded to the first RfC, btw). Baristarim 22:36, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: I agree with the need for ultimate resolution to this dispute, and I have seeked such resolution in the past myself in vain (four times already). The result was always the same: There was a consensus for the title to remain, and the tag to go; and then we had users unilaterally re-inserting that tag, with rationales that were already responded to.
    • I disagree, however, with the method of this dispute resolution, for the following reasons:
      • First off, we should agree in the definition of the dispute: IMO, the dispute is only over the word used to describe these events. Not on the name of the Pontic/Pontians/Greeks/Hellenes, nor on the false presumption that eg. Smyrnan Greeks do not qualify as victims because they may fall out of the purposely narrowed definition of Pontian (they are all Greeks after all).
      • Second we should describe what the process will be like. For example, are there going to be any third users commenting? Are there going to be "statements" like in the RfC? Which policies/guidelines apply? WP:NCON, WP:NAME, WP:NPOV, WP:OR...
      • Five users (admins or not) are an extremely small sample, which may have high deviation from the actual WP:CON proportions in WP. I would propose a commitee of at least 10 users, while I find that 20 would be more appropriate.
      • While I have no particular knowledge of the background of most of the proposed arbitrators, I find that their selection process is flawed. They should be selected by the two parties of the dispute on a 50-50 basis. (Their large number -above- reduces the necessity for an even number, which would either-way provide a marginal (non-)consensus). The commitee members, should have certain qualifications, which would guarantee their impartiality. Those qualifications would be prerequisites for their selection. For example, they should not be Greek or Turkish. Note that this comment does not mean to imply neither that Wandalstouring made a poor selection, nor that the users selected are not impartial, and nor that there may not be any impartial Greek or Turkish users to begin with. Moreover, the other side should be able to exclude a given amount (eg. half) of selected arbitrators.
    • After having said all that, I really can't see why all this should be necessary to begin with; given that it is more than apparent that the term "genocide" is the most usual English term for the events. Turkey itself disputes a "Pontic Genocide". She doesn't dispute neither a "Pontic Tragedy", nor a "Pontic ethnic-cleansing", nor some "Pontic massacres". Finally, I can't see why documented events that 100% match the definition of genocide, cannot be titled as such. Especially given that the (admittedly and quite shamefully) few secondary academic sources existing back-up this name. Moreover, I find all other terms WP:OR, and ambiguous. "Massacres" excludes Labor Battalions, rapes etc. "Ethnic-cleansing" does not necessary include massacres, Labor Battalions, rapes etc. "Tragedy" can be misinterpreted for applicable to Category:Drama. The only comprehensive term is "genocide": Events match its definition, scholars call it like that, NGO's and university classes address to it, and it has a (small) political recognition. Plus we're doing a very good job illustrating the dispute in the intro and throughout the article. NikoSilver 22:06, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
In all honesty, I dont understand this. I am willing to subject my pov to this committee, if they rule against it then so be it, I will at least know it was the result of discussion by a group of knowledgeable editors, and not the result of pov pushing. The question is, why wont anyone else support this? If you are confident in your argument above that it "is more than apparent that the term "genocide" is the most usual" then the committee will surely agree with this, and I will have to agree with them also. I am sure when you previously supported an arbitration attempt, you did not ask for 20 aribters (20!!), or that you should be entitled to select them. So what has changed now? We are both confident in our argument so let these people decide. --A.Garnet 22:36, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Support - Definitely an outside look is needed. I don't understand why someone would want to oppose this. I am in an extreme time crunch here (doing this over the weekend? :))) - But I will try to post more specific comments later on. Later! Baristarim 22:32, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Speak for yourself Baris, some of us have a dissertation to complete! --A.Garnet 22:40, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
:) Good luck! Baristarim 22:50, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Interesting pattern. So far all Greek editors objected and all Turkish supported.
We really would not need any arbitration if you guys could solve this issue. The Turkish editors just have to admit : yes, it is called the Pontic Greek Genocide in English mainstream literature and remove the title POV. So let's see it the other way, how can you Greek editors ever convince them?
So far they were willing to bow to an arbitration commitee. Naturally there are many ways to establish such a commitee. My suggestion were some editors who value well sourced work. The advantage is that if any of the Greeks/Turks here selects none of them is sure about a hidden POV, sockpuppets or hidden socks, etc..If someone really wanted to check the ones I suggested he could have done so via the contributionlist and userpage.
I don't care how you guys solve it, but do it. Such national pride games are not acceptable. Wandalstouring 23:06, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
So far there's been only one Greek vote opposing and several Greek comments asking questions mainly regarding the process. I find this really far from a "pattern" and this is a second assumption from your part that is out of place. This concerns me even more for the validity of this process. To remind other users, your comments that "there is no explicit use of the word genocide" ([16]), your earlier move to the comedian title "Pontic Tragedy"([[17]]), your false presumption that "one ethnic group has more editors than the other" ([18]), and now your noticing of a "Greek pattern" ([19]), do not exactly build confidence for the Greek editors. I am assuming all the WP:AGF in the world, and I'm waiting for the rest of the 5 editors selected to describe their rationales below before I decide in this. I haven't objected yet, and my comment was really far from objection, yet justified, especially given these circumstances noted above. I need to see some more objectivity, and some less unsubstantiated accusations, especially from those actively involved in this mediation. NikoSilver 16:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Dispite being an editor of Greek descent I support having a commitee solve this even though I think that the straw poll should have decided the dispute after all it was 19-5. I have not had any dealings with any of the commitee members before but after looking at what they have to say about themselves at their user pages I am convinced that they will show no bias and that they will be fair. I think that this naming arguement has gone on for too long and that the Greeks and the Turks should present their arguements to the commitee and let the commitee decided on what name is best suited for this article. So my opinion is that each side presents their case and that we let this commitee decided the best name so we can finally end this arguement. Αντίο, παιδιά. Kyriakos 23:50, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Support I find that anyway you put it, outside views should always be welcome, and really this dispute will otherwise become a never ending story. Fresh views are desperately needed, that are neither Greek or Turkish, or too long involved in the area (like is the case of myself, FPS and Fran).--Aldux 00:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, definitely. This dispute has gone on far too long; we need someone to resolve this. Khoikhoi 01:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: The result of the committee is supposed to be binding? And if this is the case, if the result will favor the "Genocide" title, do the Turkish users agree that they will never dispute it again? Or, to put it somehow else, if the result is not supposed to be binding, do the Greek users have the right to dispute a possible title that does not include the word "Genocide"? The result of the straw poll was overwhelmingly in favor of the current title, but the Turkish users pretend that such a poll never took place... I can't see how you can expect the Greek users to give ad hoc power to a committee, from the moment that it is them who have provided sources supporting their thesis. First, the Turkish users should do the same: provide sources that dispute the title, raise clear concerns about why the title is POV, and suggest a solution that covers the full text, all the events. Before I vote for conditional support, I want some things to be cleared up. PS: for those who claim that the Greek users are motivated primarily by their POV here and that they are unwilling to cooperate, I would advise them to see who tried to delete the Armenian Genocide twice [20][21]. Hectorian 02:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
I see much being made of this straw poll, and it does not surprise me, because I predicted it would be used as another superficial argument as to why this articles title is justified. There are 19 keeps, 17 of them Greek (2 Armenian) in an article with a genocide recognised only by Greece, written by Greeks and stubbornly defended by Greeks. This is not consensus, people are not stupid here, they can see this article has turned into something of a national cause. The straw poll represented no more than the ability of 17 Greek editors to type --~~~~. Only one of them, Niko, bothered to type a statement, some of the others had never even contributed to the article. You will notice out of protest that i also did not sign that straw poll because i knew its outcome. Greek editors know they have strength in numbers here and they are willing to portray it as some kind of consensus, i.e. consensus between Greeks and not the actual people who dispute the article.
Also Hectorian, perhaps if you look up to my statement, you will realise I provided sources. Lastly my reference to Greek editors is based on this articles straw poll, I do not see any of the Turkish editors who have contributed here in either of those afd's (including me), so unless you are trying to racially stereotype Turkish editors as people who go round asking for genocide articles to be delted (which no one has done here) then i'd ask you remove that insulting statement. --A.Garnet 12:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
If the insulting statements of the kind it gives the impression that this is some sort of Greek obsession, and stubbornly defended by Greeks, will be removed, I am also removing mine:). If u think that the Greek users just want to keep an article blaming the Turks, I can think that the Turkish users just want to delete or rename anything they do not want to remember. (we all can make generalizations). Btw, I am judging a way of thinking (acquired through education, not any sort of a racial characteristic). I am not in the position to say why the Turkish users had not voted in the straw poll... They could, couldn't they? If u did not sign because u knew the outcome (or because u wanted to be now in the position to dispute its outcome?), is still something that myself or anyone else is not to be blamed for. U could had voted, but u didn't. For me not been bothered to type a statement, it is obvious: I did not have to say anything knew, nor my position was unknown to all the rest.
To be completely honest, I want to see English sources naming these events as something else than "Genocide". Note: not one of these events as a "massacre" or "deportation", but how they call these events as a whole. If the article is to be renamed as "Pontic Greek massacres", we will have to create a new article "Pontic Greek deportations", and another one "Pontic Greek ethnic cleansing", plus another one "... atrocities" (to include other incidents), or maybe another one "Pontic Greek cultural genocide" (to include the destruction of cultural heritage); And if someone proposes to rename the article into "Pontic Greek Tragedy" (or anything similar), (apart from the danger to "bury" the article (cause of the Greek Tragedy), I will ask for a rename into "Hellenic tragedy", so as to include all what happened to the Greeks of Turkey, from late 19th to 1955-I will not be binded by chronological or geographic limitations, since this term is on its own open to interpretations; not to mention that a term "Hellenic Tragedy" as well as "Pontic Greek tragedy", are not used for these events but mostly for this... Lastly, Nikos provided here sources calling these events "Genocide". But, it seems that we will go around in circles again... no, this source is Greek, Rummel is not a good source, that one is Armenian, Horton's wife was Greek, Mr X was a philhellen, that guy is Greek-American or Australian, etc etc etc... Hectorian 15:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
I dont want to go off topic, but I did not use the term obsession, i said national cause, and it is indeed being stubbornly defended. For your information, I have never lived in Turkey, nor am i citizen of Turkey, or the TRNC for that matter, nor have i been subject to education from either, nor can I barely read Turkish. So once again, i would ask you remove your racist generalisations. --A.Garnet 15:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
The term "obsession" was used, but not by u. that's why i said if the insulting statements and not if your insulting statements. My generalization was not a racist one, and if u think that it does not apply to u, then it doesn't. Things can also been looked from a different angle, u know: this article has become a national cause for the Turkish users who stubbornly insist for it to be renamed... Hectorian 15:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Well it applies to either me or Baris, so which is it? According to you, our contribution is defined by the acts of other Turkish editors non-related to us, because our "way of thinking" is all the same, despite me never lived or studied in Turkey, and Baris living outside of Turkey. Its ok, leave your statements, I always say, better to let people judge for themselves the kind of people they are dealing with. --A.Garnet 15:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Since the "obsession" and "stubborness" of the Greek users has been generalized here as a Greek "national cause" (for which, as u said, the Greek users run to show their ability type --~~~~), I have the same right to generalize the "attempts to hide Turkey's past". People always judge for themselves the kind of people they are dealing with, be sure about that... Hectorian 15:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Hectorian. Both sides need to agree that if there is a commitee and if the commitee doesn't rule in their favour that they leave the article's title alone. Kyriakos 03:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Proposal: May I propose something? I don't know if my proposal is silly or not, but I now thought about it, and I want to know what everybody thinks about it. Can we have a paragraph, a few words by these potential members of the committee, explaining us the methodology and the principles that they will follow, in order to judge on the disputed issue here? I don't want them to go to the substance of the case, but I want them to explain me the way that they intend to act, in order to form their mind. And I also would like to pose them some questions. I think this would be helpful. At least, it would be helpful for me to decide. I know some of them from their work (e.g. Beit Or, who is a great editor), but I do not know them personally, and I think it would be a nice thing to get an idea about the way thy think and they intend to mediate here.--Yannismarou 11:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
I see nothing wrong with this. --A.Garnet 12:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • New way of solvingI cannt see the possibility of solving the naming problem by Arbitration commitee.The reason:there is fundamental disagreement between two parties.And this disagreement seems to be non-solvalbe.So even though the Arbitration commitee came to a decision which is inevitable in favor one party,the other party are conquered rather than convinced.So I came up a idea which may seem to be crazy.That is naming this article in Two different name,in the form of Greek one/Turkish one or Turkish one/Greek one.The order may be discussed further.--Ksyrie 16:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
It is non-solvable as long as it remains a Greco-Turkish dispute. But why should it? This article does not belong to us, we have merely reason to take an interest in it, and that has become detrimental to the article and Wikipedia as a whole. We are not asking these arbiters to decide whether a genocide happened or not, as far as i know they are not historians, we are simply asking whether the current title adheres to Wikipedias policy of reflecting academic consensus. Inevitably, Greek and Turkish editors differ on this view, we are ineherently bias, but why should that affect another more neutral editor imposing a ruling based on strictly defined policy. I am willing to be "conquered" if that is the outcome, as i have said, at least i will know it was the result of a group of knowledgeable editors, and not nationalistic pov pushing. --A.Garnet 16:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
You are right this article not belongs to us and what we do are just trying to give a more or less neutral view.But to some extent,you cann't be neutral,if someone said it is 1,other said it is 0,we may just make a compromised answer by mean value that is (1+0)/2=0.5.And in the article,may be there are some incompatible resources,we can all list them.But the title which appeared to be the center of artcile,we are inable to make compromise.We cann't do the mean value,so I choose to list the two name in parallel.--Ksyrie 16:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Ksyrie your proposal would mean that the article should be renamed to Pontic Greek Genocide - Pontic Greek Genocide. The Turkish side doesn't name these events, it doesn't recognize they ever took place, and it disputes what it calls the "Pontic Greek Genocide". If we call it "deportations", then automatically we can't include "massacres" within the article, and vice versa for all other claims. Compilation of these different incidents into one article would be WP:OR if the article didn't have a name that could encompass all of them. Maybe that is the motivation of the Turkish side: to disassociate these events. I think the article presently expresses whatever dispute there may be in a more than adequate way, both in the intro, and in the text. NikoSilver 17:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Maybe Pontic Greek Genocide-Pontic Tragedy,what's more,I didn't see the turkish denial of this happening,if they really want to deny this,they will just try to delete this whole article.As far as I can smell,the turkish side just cann't accept the name of genocide which they believed unfair.So in this way,we just give the two names fro both sides,and let the readers to judge the nature of this happening,not us.--Ksyrie 21:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Not true at all. These events clearly did take place, descriptions of the fate of Pontian Greeks can be found in many respectable historical sources. Like Hectorian, your attempt to generalise Turkish contributors as collectively denying any historical event is not welcome. What our bone of contention is that the majority of these sources do not apply the term genocide, that international recognition for the event under this name is not forthcoming outside of Greece, that scholars have not dedicated any research to this event, under this name, and reached the same conclusion here. As I have said from the beginning (read my statement again if you want) I do not believe this title reflects acadamic consensus, that is all. It may simply be, that there is no commonly defined name for this event, that it was in fact a series of deporations, massacres and exile, but that does not mean we pander to the most extreme view as held by the Greek government and label it genocide. --A.Garnet 18:11, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
So you say that we should rename the article as "Pontic Greek series of massacres, deportations, exile, rapes, forceful labor, ethnic-cleansing et al"? Can you provide me with a title that adequately encompasses all those actions into a sensible amount of words? NikoSilver 18:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
For your claim that I "attempt to generalise Turkish contributors as collectively denying any historical event (like Hectorian)", there is a number of diffs I can provide both from this talk and from the article history, that prove that such attempts took place indeed. To remind you, the "Labor Battalions", the "Pontian/Greek issue", the "Smyrna Catastrophe being irrelevant" etc etc. Of course, the generalization, is something I despise as well, especially if expressed explicitly ([22]). I suggest we both drop the ranting, because it does nothing more than flooding. NikoSilver 18:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I also would like to add that another potential that will need to be looked at will be a change of scope for the article rather than a simple genocide-no genocide solution. As I had said much earlier, there was an example at Native American genocide where the scope of the article differs somewhat than a simple photoshot of history. I am not saying that the scope be enlarged to centuries, but to something that talks about the history of Pontic Greeks from the beginning of the WWI until 1923 for example (dates can change). Or an eventual content scope change to include a larger proportion of the Greek population. In a way, that' one of the fundamental problems of this article: it is not neccessarily FORKing, but it seperates its content too much from the events of that time, including the generalized Greek and Turkish hostilities of the time (including the wars) - particularly since all that is intrinsically related with each other. You cannot have an article about the Pontic Greeks when it is somehow disconnected from all those other events. Baristarim 23:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Sure you can, if the topic is notable and the article can stand on its own supported with the adequate material. And in this article all these three prerequisites are fulfilled.--Yannismarou 07:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Personal statements

Latest comment: 17 years ago29 comments10 people in discussion

LordAmeth: I suppose I shall start off then. I put my name in bold at the front to distinguish it from any other comment, and so that later we can take at a quick glance whose "formal statement" is whose. I'd encourage the other four to do the same, though if anyone has a better suggestion, I'm open to that too. Now. I'm a postgrad student in Japanese studies, and have no ties to either Greece or Turkey, nor even really all that much to the politics of the time period. I've taken part in a number of similar debates regarding China/Korea/Japan issues, and so have some experience in the way these types of debates go, the goals and intentions of various sides or members of the debate, etc. I believe the current plan is to have a number of editors (everyone, presumably) provide short arguments for the comittee to review; that being that case I intend to read everyone's arguments, taking into account, in particular, issues of historical accuracy and the commonality of the usage of terms in English-language scholarship, and ignoring those arguments which stem from a nationalist or revisionist agenda. As I say, I have little bias towards one side or the other in approaching this subject, and hope that we can all put aside our nationalist attachments and work together towards a fair and balanced and most importantly historical accurate representation of this event. LordAmeth 14:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

My computer has just gone kaput entirely. I may be able to keep up with this and to remain involved via my school's computer labs, but I truly cannot promise to be as on top of this as I might have been otherwise. Thanks for your consideration; I am hoping to get my compy up and running again within a few weeks. LordAmeth 09:55, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Question to LordAmeth by Yannismarou: According to Ksyrie "even though the Arbitration commitee came to a decision which is inevitable in favor one party,the other party are conquered rather than convinced." What is your comment on that? Do you think that there can be a "balanced representation", when one side regards the inclusion of "genocide" as sine qua non for a fair solution, and the other side regards the non-inclusion of "genocide" as sine qua non for a fair solution?--Yannismarou 17:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
I think there can be a balanced representation when people stop placing their nationalist agendas behind them, and there stops being "sides". This should not be about choosing in favor of one "party" and conquering or convincing the other. There should be able to be some consensus in favor of historical accuracy. LordAmeth 09:55, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Question to LordAmeth by Okan (A grad student in Political Science in Turkey): Why are we necessarily sticking to this 'commonality' of terming, or 'how these and these are commonly referred to in English', etc.? Genocide is not something that is declared, accepted, promoted, rejected or whatever'd as a consequence of frequent naming or commonality. It is a legal category, which has certain definitions. (One sine qua non requirement is the intention on the part of the perpetuators, which is documented in this series of quotes [I mean, the article] solely and roughly as "German military attache heard Enver Pasha said that...") Something does not become something when it has a rough resemblance to something. Or because it compares to what is generally called something in daily speech or scholarship which cannot go beyond "somebody reportedly heard that somebody else said something", etc. -Okan 07:59, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
We are sticking to the commonality of English-language sources because that is Wikipedia policy (WP:Use English). Also, and this is just my own personal opinion, but I attach very little importance to legal definitions. Legal definitions do not always match general use meanings, or meanings as employed by the chief historians or scholars in any one subject, and law, like political science and economics, invents its own terms and its own definitions which are often not used outside the discipline. LordAmeth 09:55, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
That's precisely why we should not free-float among the concepts, that's why it is not a good idea to feel free to name anything in the way you like. Especially for such a concept like Genocide which has many many legal, sociopsychological, economic, historical, etc. implications, the need to care doubles itself. On the issue of 'common English', I think I could not make myself enoughly clear: Look at the arguments of people who argued above for keeping the title and article as it is currently. The argument is that what cooresponds to the situation of Pontic Greeks is the term 'Genocide' in English. Not because it befits to the definition of Genocide in international law, but because similar sufferings (death, deportations, tragedies, casualties, and the like) are observed in cases of Genocide and the closest term in English to the totality of those is Genocide. But G.s aren't identified this way. Nothing can be sorted out if we don't stick to established definitions. Best, Okan 10:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but we cannot act as an international court, and decide whether Pontic Genocide falls with the legal definition of genocide according to international law. I have no problem to try to legally define Pontic Genocide, but I'm afraid we'll get more confused. Wikipedia is not a court; it is an encyclopedia, and it works based on encyclopedic and not on legal terms.--Yannismarou 10:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Legal terms and encyclopedic ones are not mutually exclusive. And legal terms that I am referring to here are not merely boring convention articles. They do not apply exclusively to an isolated subfield of life (that is, international courts and international lawsuits), in the case of Genocides, it is these legal terms that provide an explanation and a definiton. It would be more correct to consider them as 'established definitions', as I said. There has to be an impartial explanation and rationale in terming a case Genocide other than "because I feel so", or "because we found out so". That is as well a requirement of WP:NPOV as something convenient to the international law. We are not competent to hear that case, but we are not competent to misuse concepts for the sake of out arguments as well -Okan 11:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
There's a difference between "mutually exclusive" and "identical". For example, check the Assyrian Genocide (which has not been recognized by any state), the Burundi genocide (where the "wrong version" has been recognized) etc etc. WP does not decide whether these events constitute a genocide or not. WP states the facts for the cases of these unrecognized or partially recognized genocides/whatever, and titles the incidents with the most usual term found in scholarship and in English usage for the sum of the alleged events. It also gives equally prominent position to the "other version" in the lead. If you check the leads of the two articles above vs the one at hand, you will see that here we use much stronger language, despite the fact that this genocide is more recognized. NikoSilver 12:03, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
And this is also the case of the Armenian Genocide. There is no judicial decision of international courts defining it as a genocide, but the term "genocide" is in this case internationally established. WP will not decide whether Armenian or Pontic Genocide fall with the legal definition of International Treaties. But it will decide whether the use of "genocide" falls within the internationally established encuclopedic term.--Yannismarou 12:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Question for Okan: We have this event and can write an article about it. How else should we find a title for it without conflicting with wikipedia guidelines? Wandalstouring 15:17, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Re Wandalstouring: If the justification of the title is something like "We have this event, we can write an article about it. We name it genocide since we couldn't find any other title but genocide within the framework of WP guidelines", the situation is worse than I thought initially. Firstly, what necessitates the usage of Genocide is not convenience to WP guidelines, but insistence of a number of users (what was that? 19-5, or something else?) to push their POV. But more importantly, genocide is not a generic name that you generate if you cannot find any other convenient title. Yet, alternatives have been presented by A.Garnet above. Instead of reviewing their convenience to the content and to 'established definitions', we saw that a user Googled different variations and reached to the conclusion that "Genocide" goes because of its cyber-popularity.
As for other comments, I found a brilliant post in the Talk:Srebrenica massacre. I'm sorry, it's a terribly long quotation, but I couldn't cut it any shorter. A Wikipedian once said: "... considerations regarding legal status apply to the fact of genocide in Srebrenica or Darfur. You seem determined not to concede that genocide is a concept defined authoritatively in international law. You certainly have expressed your view adequately, and do so again - "it's a "legal term" as far as the ICTY is concerned" but "the man on the street doesn't refer to the legal definition when he talks about genocide". In other words it is the man on the street's definition to which we should refer for the purposes of Wikipedia articles. I disagree. There are a lot of us men and women in the street disputing what the "man in the street's view" actually is, such as the man on the street in Khartoum who may choose to understand the term in the sense that Omar al-Bashir gives to it. Srebrenica is legally genocide. Darfur is not yet legally genocide (and nor for that matter is the "religious cleansing" taking place in parts of Iraq at the moment). Nevertheless I believe along with you that what is happening in Darfur is genocide and I hope that eventually charges will be brought and the perpetrators brought to justice. I'm disgusted by the failure of the UN to reach the political consensus that will allow it to act. It's an obscenity. But genocide in Darfur is still a matter of my personal judgment, not yet a proven crime." Please see the rest That's what I'm trying to tell here. This concept was not coined by "man on the street" or "man on the internet", this is why it is not his/her personal thoughts and feelings that account in its usage. (BTW, maybe you'd want to take a look at Bosnian Genocide among the other things. You may see how a genocide "qualifies". There are less futile ways of terming a 'totality' Genocide than Googling its popularity. I advise it, really).
The discussion is not going along productive lines, and I'm afraid I'm hindering the operation of the Arbitration Committee (am I?). I hope I managed to communicate the idea. If not, I will repeat the quotation that I cited above. -Okan 19:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
But in Bosnia we had an ad hoc international court. In Rwanda as well. For the Holocaust as well. But happens when you don't have a ruling of an international court? You are obliged to wait until one is formed and judges the case? But this may never happen?! Armenian genocide was never judged by an international court. But it is recognized as such by x states and parliaments? What is going to be your criterion in this case? Are you going to implement yourself international law, and, following the legal syllogism, chose a title for the article in dispute. I'm afraid this is the wrong way. In order to determine whether "genocide" falls within the encyclopedic criteria of Wikipedia for an article's title, IMO we must apply the following criteria: 1) notability of the term, 2) scientific acceptance of the term, 3) historical accuracy of the term. And, although I'm a jurist, IMO yes, in Wikipedia, Google hits are more important than a dubious effort to substitute a non-existing international court.--Yannismarou 20:32, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
An international court is never final; there are still people who doubt (deny) the Jewish Holocaust and the Bosnian Genocide. Even if there was an international court which found that the doings of the Ottoman authorities against the Armenians, Greeks, Bulgarians, Kurds etc were genocide, do you think that it would be fully accepted in Turkey? Thulium 20:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Yannismarou, I think the problem arises because we give different meanings, values, and weight to the term Genocide. For me, as I said repeatedly above, it is a particular concept of the international law. It is decided by international tribunals. If there has not been a court on a issue that I deem terribly brutal, I prefer not to term it as a Genocide. I certainly don't need to borrow this concept to illustrate my case in a more tragic way. Because it is pointless. Because this term has a meaning in this particular context of international politics and law. If I employ it in order to depict the situation harsher and more savage than, say, massacre, slaughter, etc. it means that I am decontextualizing it in an arbitrary way. Not terming Pontic Greek "X" as Genocide does not reduce the significance or value of this incident. Similarly, you should not call it Genocide only with the feeling that it appears more accurate this way. For example, can I say that the EU's decision to stop the accession negotiations with Turkey on a number of chapters constitutes a 'crime against humanity'? Seems smarter this way, doesn't it? But I can't do that, due to the very simple reason that crime against humanity, like genocide, is a particular concept.. I cannot use that for locating Tr. as the victim and the EU as the inhumane cruel, because CAH means smt beyond my emotional rhetoric. Please read again the quotation I made above. Do you think this user hesitates to use the term Genocide in the case of Darfur because he considers the sufferings to be lesser, inadequate, less important, or the Google output for Darfur insignificant? No, he hesitates because he is aware of what Genocide means and what implications it has. He feels that it is a Genocide, and condemns the international community for failing to name it, but he does not assume this role by himself. That makes absolutely no effect on the extent of inhumanity that took place in Darfur as far as he, me, and those who know what Genocide means are concerned. But it really means something. It is not the end of the world if an incident has not been ratified as Genocide. And Genocide is not a magic wand to make incidents mean more than what they are.
Your suggested criteria on how to determine a Genocide reveals the very basic reason for which this issue came up until the Arb.Comm. Many zillion different notabilities, zillion different histories, zillion truth claims, zillion acceptances and rejections competing stubbornly. If instead we (I mean, broader "we", people) give particular concepts their dues, we make an enormous global save of creative-energy. (Finally, on Thulium's comments: We cannot hypothesize on what will Turkey do if such an impartial and just court rules such a decision. One certainty is that such a decision would be really binding and further namings would be compeltely legitimate. Then the need to think about how those are received in Turkey also drops. Let them shout whatever they think then, like how we consider deniers of the Holocaust and Bosnian Genocide today.) -Okan 21:43, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
You write more than you read Okan. I had a very simple question on how to proceed. Wandalstouring 22:32, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
I didn't ignore that question. But the first step to take is evaluating concepts properly. Otherwise, any other title suggestion will be rejected with the same claim, "It's not an X, but it is a genocide because it is a genocide." (Sorry, I forgot to sign Okan 06:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC))

ALR: I'm a management consultant specialising in knowledge management, organisational development and programme management. I have no formal ties with either party in this debate although I have in the past worked with elements of the armed forces of both parties, through NATO commitments. In terms of approach I would normally advocate taking content dispute to a sub-page for development however noting that this discussion is around the article name my preferred approach would be similar to LordAmeth, inviting the presentation of a short argument. My main focus is on the validity of the various sources being used to support the argument in the various areas mentioned above, which reflects my involvement in Reliable Sources guidance.ALR 15:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Same question to ALR by Yannismarou: According to Ksyrie "even though the Arbitration commitee came to a decision which is inevitable in favor one party,the other party are conquered rather than convinced." What is your comment on that? Do you think that there can be a "balanced representation", when one side regards the inclusion of "genocide" as sine qua non for a fair solution, and the other side regards the non-inclusion of "genocide" as sine qua non for a fair solution?--Yannismarou 17:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
As I read that you're asking two different questions, I won't address the second as the inclusion or non-inclusion of specific wording is the point of the question that we're going to be asking you to provide evidence in support of, one way or the other. I would not wish to pre-judge what either party presents.
As to the former, we are seeking to enter into a process whereby each party agrees to present arguments and then embody an agreed solution. There is a risk that one or other party may decide to renege on that agreement after the process has reached a conclusion, in which case both parties are back to square one and my time, as well as the others involved, will have been wasted. I have no wish to enforce the maintenance of the agreement, coercion is rarely effective. I do note, in reviewing the debate thus far, the extensive use of exclusionary language by both parties and would hope that as part of this process that we can find forms of words which are more condusive to reasonable debate.
ALR 19:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Beit Or On Wikipedia, I mostly edit articles related to Jewish history and Varangians/Early East Slavs. Of all my contributions, the only article that has some relation to Greece and Turkey is Rhodes blood libel, which is a GA now. I do not disclose any information related to my real life; I just want to assure everyone that I have no affiliation with anything having to do with Turkey or Greece. I see our role as arbitrators as follows. Both sides will present their cases; we will then try to help them reach a commonly accepted solution, mostly by asking questions. What I hope will emerge from such questions and answers is that either side (or both) will see weaknesses in their arguments and a solution will be reached in the Wikipedia way, that is through discussion. Failing that, the arbitrators will then work out a consensus among themselves, and both sides will accept the resulting decision as binding. Naturally, we are not the ArbCom and have no way of enforcing our decision, except by relying on the goodwill of the disputants, but then the ArbCom does not accept content disputes. Beit Or 20:55, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Question to Beit Or by Yannismarou: What is your opinion about the way Okan approached the definition of genocide (emphasis on the legal aspect: Genocide "is a legal category, which has certain definitions")? Please see the above relevant discussion, the different opininons, and comment.
I'd rather say 'conceptual' or 'contextual' aspect of the term Genocide. Okan 17:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
While genocide is indeed a concept used in the international law, the word "genocide" has a wider meaning. Since the word was coined, the term genocide was applied to quite a few events that occured before, sometimes long before, World War II. For such events, the legal applicability of the charge of genocide is probably a moot point: the perpetrators will never be tried in a court of law. Whether something may be called a "genocide" on Wikipedia in a NPOV manner depends on the opinions of scholars, not all of whom must be authorities in matters of the international law. Beit Or 20:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

KsyrieI am a chinese college student in France.And for the relation of two parties,I knew not much of both sides.Maybe the turkish ones I am a little more familiar,due to Uyghur.For the naming dispute of this article,I made a new proposal which is incorporating the greek acceptable name and turkish acceptable name at the same time.I dont count on finding the final plan for this article which is too controversial,so two names may be a sound compromise --Ksyrie 22:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

FayssalF I am a Moroccan and work in management. I worked in different countries where i met many good Greek and Turkish friends. I've never edited any Greece or Turkey related articles except History of Greece where i mainly revert vandalism occasionally and Turkish Daily News which i created a couple of months ago.

My main concern here would be assessing sources and references according to WP:RS and WP:V. I see that we already got List of eyewitness accounts related to the Pontic Greek Genocide and List of press headlines relevant to the Pontic Greek Genocide but i'd have prefered we had Bibliography of Pontic Greek X as well (where X is the term to be agreed upon) as with Bibliography of the Darfur conflict of Bibliography of the Rwandan Genocide. That could have helped you better contain this article. -- Szvest - Wiki me up ® 11:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Same question to FayssalF by Yannismarou: What is your opinion about the way Okan approached the definition of genocide (emphasis on the legal aspect: Genocide "is a legal category, which has certain definitions")? Please see the above relevant discussion, the different opininons, and comment.
Same comment here: I'd rather say 'conceptual' or 'contextual' aspect of the term Genocide. Yet relates to law, yes. Okan 17:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment to comments: I think it's relevant to say here that according to the Oxford English Dictionary a genocide is [t]he deliberate and systematic extermination of an ethnic or national group. The OED's definitions are very highly thought of. Thulium 17:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Okan's approach is one among many other approaches. I've been reviewing an interesting book re to this point. The book is titled Genocide: conceptual and historical dimensions by George J. Andreopoulos published in 1997 (ISBN 0-8122-1616-4). The book is a compilation of debates by a few scholars on the subject. One of the purposes of the book (as stated in the preface) is the relevance of various definitions of genocide in law and social theory for the interpretation of a wide range of situations often generically labelled as genocide. The intervention of both Leo Kuper (Theoretical issues relating to Genocide: Uses and Abuses) and Israel W. Charny (Toward a generic definition of Genocide) are quite interesting to read. Note also that Raphael Lemkin, the man who coined the term was a jurist.
All in all, conceptual or contextual aspects put aside, it appears that the legal approach (the basis for CPPCG) is dominant but it is not the only existing one. Others are mainly historical and sociological approaches. So trying to reach an NPOV definition out from Okan's or anyone's comments would not help. I'd definitely never give a damn importance to the english usage (etymology) of the term and discuss that here for months because we are no experts guys and wikipedia is more about verifiability than any other thing. So, again, i'd go back to Bibliography of Pontic Greek X and review the material composing it. If the trend is for using the term genocide than i'd definitely use it. If not, than i'd not. Basing the article on selective sources and references is not the key. Compile the bibliography first and review it in a whole. That would give contributors an answer to whether it was a genocide, allegations of genocide or a conflict. Maybe it is a reason why articles about Rwanda and Darfur's cases got no tag on top of the article. -- Szvest - Wiki me up ® 18:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Further comments

Latest comment: 17 years ago19 comments7 people in discussion
From User:Politis: Is it possible to offer a dual solution? We keep 'Pontic Greek Genocide' as a short(!!) artile and present it strictly as a Greek national commemoration day that is especially remembered by the descendants of that tragedy. We also present, en passant, Greek views that argued against the term 'genocide' (though none doubt a tragic event occured). After all, it is an official day of an EU state. But we also create a longer article such as 'Pontic Greek massacres' (or whatever) where a comprehensive historical perspective is shown. Politis 19:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Everytime there is someone who does not agree with an article he can create his own stub? Wandalstouring 19:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
You mean it would be a WP:POVFORK? Thulium 20:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Hey! Dont use the 's' word ;-). But seriously, one article will be dealing with a national Greek day. The other article will be explaining how a 2,500 year old civilisation just about ceased to exist. Just an suggestion. Politis 20:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm a bit uncomfortable with the idea of creating a potential fork, but one thing is certain in my opinion, that is that the disute genocide/non genocide has created an ugly article, that seems to forget to tell what actually happened in a coheent narrative. I feel that for a non-greek this article is of little use, exactly because it doesn't narrate even the basic facts and circumstances.--Aldux 22:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
I think FayssalF's proposal regarding the Bibliography of Pontic Greek Genocide would me more than welcome in two aspects: First it would clear out the article from the repetitive quotes in the 'Academic views section' (like the wo lists above), and second it would allow for a compiled list with all references, both from local and third-party scholars. I'll try to help dealing with that in the next few days. NikoSilver 22:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
With all respect for those who have a different opinion, I am against the splitting of this article, whether or not povforks will be created. I honestly cannot understand why the Turkish users insist so much in renaming, partitioning or whatever-ing it. What if we rename it into "Pontic Greek massacres, rapes, ethnic cleansing"? what will be the positive effect of this? will anyone look better? trust me, none will. only, it could potentially serve as a precedent for some other articles (no examples will be given by me). Aldux made a point above, and I think he is right. I will try, when i will have the time to make it more informative and better narratively written. not sure if I can make it, but sources do exist, i have them, and everyone can find them as well. Hectorian 00:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
You could ask the same way: Why do the Greek editors make such a fuss against renaming it as it wouldn't alter the content of the article. See, you have presented a very onesided POV. Wandalstouring 00:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Not so... Cause this would not create a precedent (I was accused above for making generalizations, so, I am not gonna give examples again). After all, I am still waiting for sources naming collectively the article's content as "massacres" or whatever. My point is that Greek sources name the events "Genocide" and English sources as "Genocide" or "Tragedy". Turkish sources... hmmm... which Turkish sources? are there any? according to Turkey, nothing ever happened! (Someone would have a great time thinking of potential theories concerning what happened to the Pontic Greeks...). Whatever my POV might be, I have not seen not even one solid argument for the renaming of this article... Only the fact that some users do not like its title (not to mention that when the article was created, they "threatened" to list it for deletion). Hectorian 01:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Read again. Not all Greek sources call it genocide. But you seem to have missed the point that the tiny group of Turks has now a chance to provide their arguments on a fair basis. If they fail, they failed to prove and the dispute ends. Wandalstouring 17:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
"Not all Greek sources call it genocide"? Then I guess it must never have happened and it was just a dream. Those 300,000 people should be coming home any day now! Thulium 17:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I had said above that I can provide a source about actual detailed numbers and villages, but none seemed to "care" enough to ask for... So, I am providing it myself. It was published in 1922 in Athens (some will have to take back the things they had said, implying that the Greeks "suddenly" began to care about the subject). It is called "Black Book: The Tragedy of Pontus, 1914-1922", it is downloadable, written in English and French and can be accessed from here... "Enjoy" Hectorian 19:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The term genocide was not in use when the book appeared, no judgement on the current historiography. Furthermore you seem a bit confused. Searching the right name does not equal denial of the events as none here has expressed any opinion that doubts that these events took place. Wandalstouring 18:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Then what is the dispute about? Thulium 18:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
There is a German proverb: "Wer lesen kann ist klar im Vorteil"/Who can read has a clear advantage. It is about searching the right name. For example from a legal perspective the term genocide is clearly defined and the events happaneing to the Pontic Greeks have not yet been assessed whether they qualify as genocide, etc. So the dispute is about the correct title. Wandalstouring 18:10, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
I thought we were seeking for the most common name in English. Thulium 18:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

How about: Pontic Greek Genocide Day? Do we agree that Greece officially commemorates such a day on 19 May, as well as Pontians around the world? Well, no one denies that. Politis 17:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, I wouldn't oppose that idea. The problem is I suppose the people disputing (i.e. denying) the genocide would want it to be called "Pontic Greek Massacres Day" or something like that! Thulium 17:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
If you have enough to report about a Greek holiday you can make an article on this Greek holiday and naturally call this holiday just the way its name translates into English. None here ever argued against that and it is entirely off topic. Wandalstouring 17:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Come on Politis, I asked for people to make their position on arbitration clear, do you agree or not? As for your proposal, surely you can see it makes more sense to mention that Greece commemorates these events as genocide within an article based on the events itself, whether entitled genocide or not. For now however, all i want is for people to state whether they are willing to resolve this through arbitration or not. We are, the admins are, the only people who are still sitting on the fence are those who support the status quo. So lets clear this up please. --A.Garnet 17:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Are we in agreement to go ahead?

Latest comment: 17 years ago13 comments8 people in discussion

There has been a lot of talking, but I would ask the supporters of this articles current title to explicity state whether they agree to arbitration or not. We have 5 arbiters ready to look into this article, and i appreciate their efforts in trying to resolve this. I would ask anyone who is sitting on the fence (perhaps in case they get a result they dont like) to make their position clear so we can go ahead. --A.Garnet 17:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I guess i will kick start this then:

Support for arbitration so far:

Opposed to arbitration so far:


I suggest those who have made no firm commitment now do so. --A.Garnet 20:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Neutral. Garnet, I am puzzled by your interpretation of the poll, you indicated above that anyone sitting on the fence is doing so, "perhaps in case they get a result they dont like" (?!?!?). If the ultimate result is to keep the title, the article will need to be amended and reflect those who oppose the use of the term 'genocide'. If the result is to change, I hope we start a new article, 'Pontic Greek Genocice Day' (commemorated officially by parliamentary decree every 19 May)Politis 19:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

You can talk about the memorial day within the article, whatever the title, why do you require a separate article? In fact, why dont you go ahead and add it to this article now. Meanwhile, can you please tell me why exactly you are neutral to any arbitration attempt? We are all committed to a solution, so the more specific you are in what is troubling you about this process, the quicker it can get on road. Thanks, --A.Garnet 20:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
When I will get more info about the memorial day and upload a picture of the monument, maybe a separate article will need to be created about the 'Genocide Day'. We'll see... Hectorian 22:00, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Right. In the meantime, can you agree to the arbitration? This is really tiresome. For one bloody moment can we concentrate on this and get it started instead of talking about more genocide articles. Is it really that difficult?! --A.Garnet 22:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Support. Adding myself to the list above. I think this may be the only way this dispute has a chance of being resolved. Lima6 04:31, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Where are we actually going with this arbitration? To a solution or to a worse controversy?

Garnet asked me to take a final position, and vote a "yes" or "no" for this arbitration after the interim interviews. I'm afraid that my answer can't be a "yes" or "no" (at least, for the time being), and this has nothing to do with the committee itself or with the integrity and the quality of its members. Although I must point out that the fact that one of its potential members questions the effectiveness of this procedure ("I dont count on finding the final plan for this article which is too controversial") is an issue.
My main problem, however, as I expected from the first moment, is that we have more than one open issues in this article, coming to the surface all the time. Controversies, repetitive POV claims etc. I'm afraid that under this atmosphere (for which I do not hesitate to blame also some Greek users (e.g. some incomprehensible reverts in the lead of the article during the previous days) - all sides must be held responsible for their wrongdoings here) the arbitration committee will not be able to fulfil its role, and its work will be distracted and undermined by parallel controversies. But when all this POV controversy remains unresolved, when the editors of both sides cannot find a "modus vivendi", when trivia issues attract our attention all the time, what, on earth, can this arbitration committee contribute?
This article looks to me right now as a minefield, where initiatives like this arbitration procedure, started with good intentions but not gathering an outright consensus, are destined to perish. Under the present atmosphere and controversy, I'm honestly afraid that this initiative may entail the opposite results than those hoped by its inspirators: A fierce edit war that will break the communication channels between the two sides and will bury once for ever any efforts for the quality-improvement of this article, which is my main agony, and my main interest not only here, in a Greece-related article, but in Wikipedia as a whole.
For all these reasons, I decided to express once again my reservations for the possible outcome of the whole arbitration initiative, and to abstain from the poll, hesitating to offer my support. Because of my disappointment, I also intend to abstain from now on from all the discussions taking place here, until I see a better atmosphere between the various editors and between the editors and those attempting to mediate (which must have in mind that they must not become part of the problem; some dialogues here reveal this danger as well). I do not intend right now to support an initiative, which may lead to worse edit-waring rather than to prompt logic and collaboration.--Yannismarou 17:23, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you. Although I initiated the arbitration, I can't see that it would lead to any good as long as people are not willing to do so. The main problem about arbitration is that people tend to misunderstand it as a POV-maker while it would show people a way to discuss and solve issues. At least I'm reassured now that there are enough people contributing here who know better. Wandalstouring 17:40, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
We are currently going nowhere with this arbitration. It is evident for all to see why. Greek editors have their article with their genocide title, albeit with a pov title tag, why risk losing it when you can rely on bully tactics to keep it here? I thank Kyriakos for being the only Greek editor to spare us the bullshit and make his position clear. I thank also Dirak for not hiding his stubbornness behind vague replies to simple questions. I am going to see if i can secure more support for this process from other people who were once involved and we'll see how it goes from there. --A.Garnet 20:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
I just wanted to let everyone know that according to his talk page, Dirak has voluntarily retired from Wikipedia. Kyriakos 20:31, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Any decision made through arbitration will be rejected by half the editors here, so I can't see the point yet, I fear. yandman 16:13, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Well I already said I was prepared to accept their decision. It seems none of the Greek editors bar Kyriakos are willing to do the same... --A.Garnet 17:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

POV pushing by Yandman

Latest comment: 17 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

Why was my edit reverted?! There was no explanation, only an automatic edit comment and a baseless threat on my talk page. Thulium 18:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Thulium. Please calm down. We are trying to sort out the whole issue here and not only your edit. You have to respect the status quo for now as most people are discussing how we would proceed to resolve the issue. I am afraid i'd have to protect this article if edit warring persists. So please let the process follow its way. -- Szvest - Wiki me up ® 18:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Thulium, you made the same modification 4 times in the 17 hours between 20:41 GMT on the 29th and 13:10 GMT on the 30th, so you're already sailing very close to the wind, which is why I gave you a warning against breaking 3RR (or, for that matter, repeatedly gaming the system by narrowly avoiding 3 reversion per 24h), and I advise you to seek consensus on the talk page before making changes. yandman 18:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, there is no 3RR violation. This is not "gaming", my reverts reflect the fact that no one actually explained why I was being reverted. In fact, I still don't know why I was being reverted! Would anyone care to tell me? Thulium 18:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Addendum: Could you guys (everyone editing this article) refrain from editing controversial edits until we move forward? Could you also please concentrate on the process we are into and leave disputes out of this talkpage for now? Thanks. -- Szvest - Wiki me up ® 18:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Yandman did no POV-pushing here. I'm sorry but you are keeping the POV-pushing, although I had told you in your talk page not to! I suggest that you restrain yourself.--Yannismarou 21:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

This article has denialist POV

Latest comment: 17 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

Saying "it is a controversial term" in the first sentence is denialist POV. All genocide labels are controversial, the Armenian Genocide, the Assyrian Genocide and even The Holocaust are disputed by some people. Nothing has universal acceptance, I don't see why this article should be treated any differently. Thulium 18:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Your knowledge of English isn't very advanced? None argues that the events did not take place. The only problem is the right name. For example if someone turned Holocaust into Jewish Genocide there would be rightful objection. Wandalstouring 18:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Holocaust refers to the genocide of many ethnic groups, not just Jews, of course there would be rightful objection. Thulium 18:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
For gods' sake Thulium. Could you please have a break and relax? A dozen of people are concentrated on the issue as a whole. I am afraid the process is getting disturbed. Could you please refer to Are we in agreement to go ahead? and give your yes or nay? -- Szvest - Wiki me up ® 19:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree, this is getting tiresome, all we're seeking here is an agreement to commence arbitration. We will have plenty of time to discuss and argue over the events after that. --A.Garnet 20:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Procedure

Latest comment: 17 years ago23 comments5 people in discussion

I have actively and repeatedly been requesting for a mediation since the article was created:

Despite the enormous filibustering attempts, these requests resulted in several previous dispute resolutions, which were closed,

either as keep title:

or as no consensus:

I value all prospective mediators, and their positions above. A.Garnet asked me on my talk page to state whether I accept the arbitration or not. I cannot give a definitive answer right now because clarifications have been requested but no one answered them. What jurisdiction will this group of editors have, who precisely will its members be, will the result be binding or merely an opinion etc? In the case of that last question, if it's an opinion we are after, we might as well request an RFC and let all Wikipedians give their views. Bottom line is I will not block the process going ahead if the other Greek editors accept if I know what's involved; I will not accept something I know nothing about. NikoSilver 22:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Since I was also asked to state whether I accept the arbitration or not, I am leaving one more comment: I still have not received an answer to my question. Meanwhile, other issues have arisen (e.g. how we are going to decide who the members of the committee will be). Thus, at the moment, I am saying neither "yes" nor "no" to that. Hectorian 22:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes I want it to be binding. I have already said that I am willing to accept their decision as final, I want you to accept also. The arbiters have already been chosen above, and they are willing to do this. You have a chance to ask them a question now. But i'd like this to get on the way asap, neither of us have an advantage, if we are both confident in our arguments, then the committee will only confirm that. So i'd prefer if both of you make explicitly clear what you want to know or change before you agree. --A.Garnet 23:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
But Francis Tyers said it wouldn't be binding, so you can't say he is supporting the same thing as you. Thulium 23:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Something can only be binding so long as editors agree. I agree to make it binding and abide by their decision ONLY if a good number of people from the other side also agree. If we come to this agreement, then that will be binding in itself, a proper consensus. --A.Garnet 23:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Garnet my 11 persistant links above prove more than adequately that I want mediation much more than you. I remember last time you dazzled us all by posting this request, only to see your next comment after 6(!) days being this excuse. Now, I hate repeating myself, so please read my original comment. NikoSilver 23:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
These questions have already been answered Nikos. The members are those listed above, their jurisdiction is in deciding whether the current title is justified, the result is binding if you want it to be. Say yes and we'll start. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by A.Garnet (talk • contribs).
But Francis hasn't agreed to what you have in mind, he thinks it won't be binding. You didn't explain your plan properly to him. Thulium 23:40, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm concerned about their small number, and about their selection process, to which I haven't been informed yet. I have expressed my approval of the existing mediators based only on a few questions above, but I still feel that those two issues should be addressed to. NikoSilver 23:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Well how many arbiters does an official arbitration committee have? --A.Garnet 23:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
If it's an RFC, an unlimited number of people can give their views and vote. Thulium 23:49, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Its not an RfC, its an arbitration process. --A.Garnet 23:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
That is subject to you getting everyone (including Francis) to agree to a binding review. Thulium 23:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Don't say RfC Thulium, we may have yet another boycott. NikoSilver 00:00, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
I was all for the RfC Nikos, as evident by my statement. I was against the use of voting power to replace proper argument and consensus. You do not even know it, but by saying "I will not block the process going ahead if the other Greek editors accept" you have admitted this is an ethnically driven dispute, and as such, I would take the support of 17/19 votes in a straw poll by Greeks to be a poor case for Keep. --A.Garnet 00:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Ah, sorry, I was using your terminology. Ummm, and the poll was 8/4 with all other options flunked; and the RfC was 19/5. Where did you get the 19/17 from? NikoSilver 00:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Well my observations are correct arent they? Greek editors did create this article, they have written most of it, they are the ones who keep reverting it and vote in support of it. At least my use of the term is based on the contributions of editors within this article, and unlike Hectorian, not a racial jibe on your "way of thinking". 17/19 refers to 17 out of 19 editors in the straw poll being of Greek origin. --A.Garnet 00:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
I've explained that what u thought of as a racist comment, was not. My point for the generalization, was made clear, not to mention that it was u who started the whole issue. PS: the "way of thinking" is not something that has to do with race. better think again before u accuse me of "racist" remarks, cause this I can consider a personal attack. Hectorian 01:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Please, you had the audacity to attack my character on the basis of someone else's edits. And then you tar me with the same brush by saying my way of thinking is flawed due to the Turkish edudaction system, when i am not even a Turkish citizen! So dont tell me you are offended when i highlight what stupid and insulting statements these are. I've had enough of this discussion tonight. --A.Garnet 01:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I did not use your name, and my comment was not even under a comment of yours[34]! on the contrary, u immediately reacted as if i was referring to u... BTW, my "stupid and insulting statements" were not less stupid and insulting than yours (and again, YOU started it). I blame myself for keeping continuing it, though... Hectorian 01:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Just keep afk or write something useful. Accusations are not 'useful'. Wandalstouring 06:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Well you would wouldn't you? After all, you do oppose "keep". Thulium 00:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


Appeals

Is there going to be an appeal mechanism? We should agree on this if we are going to go into it beforehand. Thulium 23:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

No appeals. If you are not satisfied you can start your usual nasty pissing contest again. Wandalstouring 06:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

POV

Latest comment: 17 years ago15 comments6 people in discussion

This article has more POV. In the "Background" section it says the following:


That is a POV and WP:OR interpretation of the source in favour of the denialist POV. I suggest that this passage be changed. Thulium 23:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you should worry more about the fact that this article relies on the account of a Turkish Jew to explain an "obvious" genocide of the Pontians... --A.Garnet 23:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm, does the source say "in the battalions there were no acts of a genocidal nature"? NikoSilver 23:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
That's the problem with this article, the rampant denialist POV in this article is more than in similar articles with even less sources and recognition! Thulium 23:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
lol Nikos you really do have a funny logic. You want us to interpret sources on the basis of what they dont say, instead of what they do! If this is such a verifiable event, then scrap all the sources which make no reference to genocide and use only those which explcityl refer to it as such. Of course you cant do this because no verifiable sources have treated this event as a genocide, thus we rely on a Turkish jew in a source in which no genocide is mentioned to talk about Pontians in a genocide, which of course, is verified by the authors non-mention of it!! --A.Garnet 23:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
LOL, that's what you're doing. Independent sources affirming the genocide thesis have been cited. You on the other hand say "author X disputes the genocide because he doesn't mention it". WP:OR and WP:POV anyone? Thulium 23:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Apart from that, the specific source quoting Paker talks about the "battalions". The Pontian Greek Genocide, as well as the Armenian Genocide, were not only the result of battalions... Keep this in mind, A.Garnet. Hectorian 23:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I dont get what you mean Hectorian. --A.Garnet 23:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I mean that the genocide was the result of massacres, murders, persecutions, battalions, death marches, etc. If someone isolates an event and draws conclusions only from this one, then he/she certainly misses the point... For example, if I isolate the Kielce cemetery massacre from the Holocaust, can I claim that the Holocaust never happened? Hectorian 00:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Right, so you've only proved my point even further. We need sources which mention massacre, murder, persecution etc but make it explicit that these culminated in a genocide. We cannot get one source to deal with massacer, another with battalions and then go massacre + battalion = genocide. We need a source which actually makes this clear itself, without leaving it to us to draw conclusions. --A.Garnet 00:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
You really are something. I defer to this comment (which has been repeated many times in the past but you have always conveniently ignored). You can keep dreaming and "forgetting" things you wish weren't true, but it won't change reality. Thulium 00:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Each of the sources provided can be disputed for their authority, relevance and explicit support of genocide thesis. You will see this in my statement if and when the arbitration gets along. Please drop the perosnal remarks also. Look at what i'm saying instead of telling me i'm dreaming and forgetting. --A.Garnet 00:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I understand. Books by non-Greeks such as Reflecting on Genocide are terrible sources. I understand you though, I would want to exclude all prejudicial sources as well, it's human nature. Thulium 00:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
List your sources and wait until they are assessed. Things like 'you can stop daydreaming' are no useful contributions to the process. Wandalstouring 07:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Any text concerning history can be questioned as prejudicial because it depends on the point of view, and it can definetely be grilled on POV grounds. Its authority depends on consensus, which is not necessarily concomitant with factuality.
The question is, how can a reliable source testify to everyone's satisfaction that a 'genocide' took place? Who says so? In the Greek experience, there have been mentions of Greek holocausts since at least the 19th century (we have sources for "Smyrna holocaust", etc). These are based on witnessed testimonies and narratives by survivors and descendants. The testimonies of Pontic Greeks are evidenced by the elimination of those communities from their Pontic homeland and, especially, they were not negotiated exchanges or the outcome of civil wars. Something happened, the survivors, their host country and others call it genocide, others do not. But the facts remain - what do we call them? Politis 21:48, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Levene

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I have the full text, and I fail to understand how the bolded phrase below falls within the context of this particular article:

During the period 1894—96, Armenian communities across Eastern Anatolia were devastated in a series of massacres orchestrated by the Ottoman Sultan Abdul Hamid II. Quasi-irregular regiments, the Hamidiye (named after the Sultan and composed mostly of tribal Kurds) were the chief agents of these massacres, though they were often aided by gendarmerie, the regular army, and other elements of the local Moslem population. Though the entire Armenian community was not wiped out, estimates of the death toll range from 30,000 to 200,000, with some concentration around 80,000.[l2] Historians, perhaps concerned not to magnify these events by comparison with those of 1915-16, tend to avoid the term genocide to describe them.[13] In my formulation, however, these events would constitute partial genocide.

Check how POV-ingly (sic) this sentence appears in the article text:

Neither the United Nations, the European Parliament, the Council of Europe, nor any other country with the exception of Greece and the House of Representatives of the Republic of Cyprus recognise the events as genocide. The events are also not recognised as genocide by the International Association of Genocide Scholars. The historian Mark Levene notes that many historians would, "tend to avoid the term genocide to describe them".

I'm making the following changes:

  1. The blatant POV wording referring to the international organizations rephrased to "A, B, C, ..., have not made any relevant reference".
  2. Removing this particular Levene comment completely as a blatant selective quoting POV practice, because (a) he refers to particular Armenian (!) massacres 20 years before 1914(!!), (b) even so, he says: "In my formulation, however, these events would constitute partial genocide."

NikoSilver 15:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Tag

Latest comment: 17 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

I see the continuingg attitude of linking this article with TRNC has persisted. Unlike the TRNC article, we have an arbitration process waiting to start, if Dirak or whoever wants to resolve this dispute, let us agree to this arbitration and resolve it once and for all. I am still unsure what certain editors dispute about the process, so I will ask here that people make a concise bullit pointed list of how they want this arbitration arranged before we get started. Thanks, --A.Garnet 17:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Garnet. As I've said before, I refuse to agree to your set up arbitration. If you want to change the title, be my guest. Do you seriously believe this "arbitration" stuff is going to work? No, you don't, it's just an excuse (which incidentally has no backing in policy and there is little reason for anyone to pay attention to it) to keep the tag on. Dirak 18:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Set up?! It was not even my idea! And yes i believe it will work, because as i have said, i am willing to accept its decision. All that i care is that the decision is made by a group of respected editors, and not people who shout over, deride and bully others. If you are confident in your argument, then support it! What are you afraid of? I have as much to lose as you. Perhaps this unqualified backing of the arbitration by myself is worrying some of you, let me reiterate, I dont care what the outcome is, so long as I know it was arrived at in a fair manner, which given the current circumstances is not possible. --A.Garnet 18:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I defer to this comment. Dirak 18:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Dirak, yesterday you gave me a clear impression that you would follow my advise in discussing the tag removal on the talk page prior to going ahead and removing it. Because you failed to do this, and in order to prevent bood blood vis-à-vis my tag removal on the TRNC (which has been reverted — see my latest thoughts about its title on its talk page), I am invoking WP:IAR and restoring the tag to the protected page. Thanks. El_C 06:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Rummel + Levene

Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Why are these sources being used as if the authors confirm the usage of "Pontian Greek Genocide". Rummel refers to a "Greek genocide" which encompasses all Greeks of the Ottoman Empire, a completely different thesis to this article which states only Pontians suffered a genocide. Levene never uses this term either, he will refer to what the Armenians suffered as genocide, but you will not see him string Pontian and genocide together, and goes as far as to say historians tend to avoid such usage. Neither source is appropriate for the intro. --A.Garnet 23:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

First off, when you remove a reference that is used multiple times in the article, then at least have the decency of inserting it in the next appearance. That goes for both Levene and Rummel, where you left refs #41 and #42 completely blank, hence removed citation from 10 points instead of one. Check your version to see that.
Not to mention that your "goes as far as to say historians tend to avoid such usage" bit is quite insulting to be written just a bit below the #Levene section.
Your immediate third revert after being explicitly warned by me for this mistake, and your not reading here despite your participation, simply show that you don't read what people tell you, so I doubt it will make any difference that I will respond below: NikoSilver 00:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


  • Rummel refers to the Greeks of Pontus in multiple occasions. You are not suggesting that we should rename the article to "Greek Genocide" (as he calls it explicitly), are you? I think this argument is really lame from your part.
  • Levene, says:

The persistence of genocide or near-genocidal incidents from the 1890s through the 1990s, committed by Ottoman and successor Turkish and Iraqi states against Armenian, Kurdish, Assyrian, and Pontic Greek communities in Eastern Anatolia, is striking.

...

...divided the region at the expense of four ethnocultural groups: Armenians, Kurds, Pontic Greeks, and on a smaller scale, Assyrians.

(notice who he sorts out as "smaller scale")

By limiting our coverage to the core region of the 1915-16 Armenian genocide, while extending our chronological reach both forwards and backwards, we confront not the single, isolated Armenian phenomenon, but rather a series of genocidal and near-genocidal massacres encompassing three additional national groups. [Kurds, Pontic Greeks, Assyrians] It is this phenomenon which justifies our referring to Eastern Anatolia as a "zone of genocide."

...

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. When viewed together, these genocidal episodes represent a continuum of perpetrator responses from planned total extermination, through punitive annihilatory massacres designed to eliminate, disperse, or entirely remove all or part of a population via ethnic cleansing and mass deportation, to draconian "eliminatory" procedures, including forced resettlement and assimilation. Raphael Lemkin, originator of the term "genocide," would not have doubted that these actions all constituted forms of genocide. What is at stake here, then, is less a matter for juridical definition than of finding commonalties within a series of mass killings which link them into an overall pattern.

...

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.

...

Interestingly too, during the Balkan wars the CUP not only responded with an economic boycott of Greek businesses, but with a series of anti-Greek massacres and atrocities around Smyrna which seem to have been specifically designed not to kill all Greeks in these areas, but to "encourage" them to flee.

(oops, he too talks about non-Pontians here...)

At Lausanne, Allied promises to the Armenian "little Ally" were not simply set aside in order to make peace with the Kemalist state, but as Richard Hovannisian argues: "The absolute Turkish triumph was reflected in the fact that in the final version . . . neither the word Armenia, nor the word Armenian, was to be found. It was as if the Armenian Question or the Armenian people themselves had ceased to exist."[1ls] Armenian nation-state aspirations had been bloodily repressed, as had those of Pontic Greeks. With respect to the latter, some one hundred thousand were evacuated to Greece proper, itself already reeling and in near-collapse from its own catastrophic but Western-encouraged Anatolian adventure.

...

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. Once the CUP had started the process, the Kemalists, freed from any direct European pressure by the 1918 defeat and capitulation of Germany, went on to complete it, achieving what nobody believed possible: the reassertion of independence and sovereignty via an exterminatory war of national liberation.

...

Yet Kemal's mass murders, as those of his predecessors, were soon ignored, excused, or even justified. As early as 1926, Americans could write that Turkey "is now a homogeneous nation, but to achieve this homogeneity it was necessary for her to drive out the Armenians and the Greeks... . Whether it was right or wrong . . . peace now reigns within her borders."[123] At this very juncture, Turkey was reeling from its first major genocidal assault on the Kurds—the extirpation of the Shaikh Said revolt, which would later be characterized as "the forces of reaction" resisting "the progress of Westernization."[124]

(Do I read correctly, or did he just call American and Western authors biased? Should we consider their authors "partisan" in all Greko-Turkish issues?)

Anyway, feel free to disagree that Levene calls it a genocide after all that. Our opinions on interpretation differ. Oh, and don't expect me to reply immediately - it's late here in Athens and I'm not waiting up on my PC all night. NikoSilver 00:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Lead sentence refs

Latest comment: 17 years ago19 comments4 people in discussion

Sorry folks, I've taken part in the revert war and reverted the refs in the lead sentence to A.Garnet. That sentence is explicitly not about the event as such and what various authors "consider it" to be (as Domitius argued [[35]]). The wording of the lead sentence is very specifically about the question to what extent people use that "controversial term" for it. So, if it is indeed the case that those particular authors don't use it (as Domitius seems to agree), then those refs shouldn't be at that place. I'm sure the positions of those authors can be adequately covered elsewhere. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, just saw that about the technical problem. Will fix. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Fut.Perf. for your intervention, and thanks for fixing the refs too. I would tend to agree with this version that includes Rummel ("Greek Genocide") and excludes Levene on the grounds of "not being unambiguous enough". However, that depends on what you define that these citations should cite: In my opinion, those citations should cite the word "genocide" alone (in regard to the Greeks of course); not the phrase "Pontic Greek genocide". Don't forget that we are otherwise unable to indicate that a citation regards "PGG" rather than "GG" or "G" alone. I think that Levene is absolutely clear (given the quotes above) that what happened to the Greeks/Hellenes (Pontic/Pontians/Smyrniots/Anatolians or not) in Turkey, was indeed "genocide". I will not revert for now, but I would like an explicit answer: Do you think that with the quotes provided above there is any doubt as to what Levene says that happened to the Greeks ("genocide"); regardless of the full terminology used? NikoSilver 13:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I do. Levene speaks of "genocide" and "near-genocidal" events. The way I read it, this is evidently not a well-defined distinction into two different classes of events ("real" genocides and mere "near-genocides"). It's a hedging device. Whenever he lists the four ethnic groups together, it is in contexts where he has explicitly hedged the first term with the second. Which means we can't literally quote him as claiming that any particular one of the four cases falls on either the one or the other side of the boundary of what makes a "real" genocide. This vagueness is obviously intentional. He is deliberately dodging the issue. If he had wanted to say that the Greek case is a case of genocide, those very passages would have been the place to do it. He didn't, intentionally, and we ought to respect that. -- Apart from that, I of course agree that we shouldn't insist on the exact collocation with the words "Pontian Greek", that's a no-brainer. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I appreciate the intervetion also. But I would like to ask on what you based your decision to re-insert Rummel? His use of the term "Greek genocide" encompasses all Greeks of the Ottoman Empire, what some Greeks now call a "Hellenic Genocide", it is a completely different thesis and equally lacking in academic support. --A.Garnet 14:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
To quote Levene, "Raphael Lemkin, originator of the term "genocide," would not have doubted that these actions all constituted forms of genocide. What is at stake here, then, is less a matter for juridical definition than of finding commonalties within a series of mass killings which link them into an overall pattern."
I think he also clarifies where those "mere near-genocides" took place, when he himself sets aside the Assyrian case (see the quote I posted in the section above with the "smaller scale" comment). I'm sure he takes a stand in this, however, and he also proceeds into speaking for others (Lemkin). Note that the Assyrian Genocide is indisputably titled as such here in WP... NikoSilver 14:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
As for Garnet's persistence on the no-brainer issue, Levene also talks about non-Pontians if you haven't noticed, and all other authors speak in mixed terminology too. So I fail to see where you derive that "it is a completely different thesis and equally lacking in academic support". NikoSilver 14:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
To A.Garnet: The table in [36] explicitly has an entry for a "Greek genocide" specific to the years 1915/16, so it's not the vague "Hellenic genocide" thesis including 1923 and everything before and after. Yes, it does include the Smyrna area too. (The present article could certainly do a better job at clarifying to what extent the atrocities reported were specific to Pontus, or specific to Greeks, or specific to Greeks in those years.) - To Niko: One quote further down Levene explicitly hedges all three ethnic groups as "limited" in scale and intensity in comparison to the Armenian case. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Oooops! Please strike the word "comparison" above, since he explicitly says that "this does not rule out comparison" (and not the opposite). NikoSilver 15:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Huh? Is this supposed to be an "oops" I ought to say? I think my summary is correct. Levene says that "comparison" between these events is possible (meaning that they are not of so radically different domains so as to be incommensurable), but ability to be compared doesn't equal identity; and he is actually speaking of exactly the differences in that very sentence. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:50, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, Fut. but this is simply a really bad source to use. We have no way of knowing if he considers the death of Pontians, excluding Asia Minor Greeks, as genocide, as this article stipulates. If you go through that table the majority of references are to Asia Minor, Marmara, Smyrna and the Aegean, and the only reference to Black Sea is under 'deported', not killed, of which we dont know how many were from Marmara or from Pontians. So this reference cannot even be used to show Black Sea Greeks were killed, only deported. Furthermore, if you go towards the end of the table, you will see a section "Genocide by Greeks, by the Greek Army" citing the deaths of 15,000 Turks by the Greek army as genocide. This is the problem with using Rummel as a source, he calls everything genocide, and I believe even Francis strongly questioned its reliability as source in this article. --A.Garnet 15:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, you might have a point there. Of course, judging how "good" he is as a source isn't the point of the exercise, the inclusion of footnotes on those very first words should just be for the purpose of demonstrating that such a term has been used at all - so it shouldn't really matter too much to the Greek editors if that footnote were to go too. As I said, highest on the priority list for improving the article seems to me to disentangle what claims are specific to what.
Disclaimer: People who've repeatedly asked me to comment on this article will be disappointed, but I must hereby admit that I have up to now found it impossible to actually read through the whole article. The whole thing just reeks so much of POV writing (probably a result of POV pushing on both sides) that I've found dealing with it thoroughly unenjoyable. Sorry if my now jumping into the middle of it is making you rehash arguments that have been discussed all over before. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
It is a poor article, very poor, and what's worse, its made by people who are capable of making very good articles. I've seen Niko's macedonia terminology page, and the countless FA articles of Yannismarou, but when it comes to this article all standards go out the window in order to push the genocide pov. That is why none of them will support my arbitration attempt, they prefer to bully their way through by relying on numbers to revert edits by the likes of myself (I was reverted by 3 different people before you came and practically agreed to my edits). Arbitration is the only way to sort this article, I'll ask Niko once more to make his position clear since he says he agrees in principle, and settle this article once and for all. --A.Garnet 15:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliments. Yes, I do agree in principle, [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] I don't agree in the specific method. How clearer than that can I get? The article indeed focuses on the "was not - was too" (kindergarten) issue, but you can't exactly stick your tail out of this: The fact that there is a constant push for the article title, the fact that your fellow users have agreed to boycott the expansion of the Turkish side so as not to "legitimize its title" [48], the fact that you've further boycotted [49] any past resolution attempt so as to discourage third party participation, and the fact that you now still suddenly endorse a particular method that is to your liking despite the (rational IMO) reservations expressed, makes things more complicated. Why do we have to proceed in mediation with a selected number and content of mediators which will be imposed on us, and we can't proceed in the normal WP:DR way (which is an WP:RfC) due to the fact that Mr.Garnet threatens to boycott that too, still beats me! NikoSilver 16:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Lies, what lies! I dont know where you find the audacity to make such claims. I've boycotted resolution attempts? You mean me not putting my name down on a straw poll created to undermine a request for comment on which I FULLY participated and ENCOURAGED?? This is not the first time you twist and distort facts to make arguments aimed at discrediting me. And you have even further cheek to say I discourage third party participation, when in fact I spend all my bloody time trying to get third party editors to resolve this conflict! Honestly what utter bollocks. As for the arbitration, what exactly is there about this method which is to my liking? The fact that I want non-Greek and non-Turkish editors to resolve it? The fact that I have as much to lose as you do? The fact I have agreed to abide by their decision and you have not? And where have I treatened to boycott more requests for comments? Again, lies. We have already followed dispute resolution process, we have had mediation from countless admins, we have had straw polls, we have had request for comments, now the logical step is arbitration and the only people boycotting that are the Greek contributors. Honestly, I dont know how any sane person can spin these whole series of events into portraying me as boycotting or undermining resolution attempts. My contributions and efforts to resolve this dispute are evident from past discussion, just as the attempts to bully, intimidate, oppose and undermine anyone who suggests an alternative to the present title by the likes of yourself and other Greek editors is evident for all to see.--A.Garnet 17:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
A.Garnet, I suggest that you calm down a bit, and that you be a bit more careful with your language. Expressions like "where you find the audacity", and especially "by the likes of yourself" should be avoided. Nobody gives you the right to use depreciatory expressions for a whole group of editors.--Yannismarou 18:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Your quite right Yannis, it is not the kind of language I'd like to have aimed at myself. --A.Garnet 18:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

The personal anger and distrust on several sides seems to have taken pretty deep roots here. I have the impression this is the kind of situation where I'd normally ask a few people to just take a step back and give the article a rest for a few weeks. Problem is, if I asked all the people I have in mind and they actually did it, there'd be nobody left to actually work on the article... :-( --Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Why not you?!--Yannismarou 09:49, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Blind reverts

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

user:Hectorian, if you continue blind reverts like you did with my recent fixing the correct name, I will have to request to discuss your intolerant behavior incompatible with editing wikipedia. Mukadderat 06:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

How can the word "genocide" be used at this page? Then why it doesnt write Khojaly Genocide in Khojaly Massacre page? Neutrality of wikipedia is really becoming doubtful.


Listen and Listen Good

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Here is the United Nation's definition of genocide.

There's no doubt that the acts in question were committed with intent to destroy the Pontic ethnic group in Turkey, else so many Pontic Greeks would not have perished. There's no doubt that the acts occurred. No source in the world would say that the acts never happened or that they were committed without intent to destroy all or part of the Pontic Greek population in Turkey. So, why is there so much opposition to the title of "genocide?" This whole thing seems very black and white to me, and I personally see no reason for such a large debate over plain facts.

If you feel that "genocide" is "too strong a term," (number one, you're probably in the denialist point of view, but onwards we move) would you be more comfortable if we used the term like, oh, say, "ethnic cleansing?" Well, we might be able to use that. But this very website describes ethnic cleansing as "various policies or practices aimed at the displacement of an ethnic group from a particular territory." (Check it out here.) The article does state that such "policies or practices" may include killings, but cites displacement as the primary "goal," shall we say, of the act (in the very first sentence of the article), whereas in genocide, the primary "goal" is killing. Clearly, killing was most prevelant method of "displacement" in the acts of brutality against the Pontic Greeks.

Some of you continue to state that there are a lack of sources that label the events as genocide. Well, the event is not part of "popular history;" you simply can't expect there to be many sources on the topic at all. We aren't talking about something that people would write millions of books about, like the World Wars. There simply aren't many popular, available published sources to begin with. In essence, the event has never really been given a name by history, has it? Oh, and... what difference does the nationality or religion (or region of residence) of an author make in their work? I've read that some of you have a fixation on the nationalities or religions of the authors of the sources used in the research of this topic. But how can you just assume that an author has bias just by judging his nationality or religion? The truth is, you cannot. I hope you were joking (some joke you were out to make). Either that or you're being descriminatory, or you've read the sources personally and found evidence of bias. What is so wierd or suspicious about most sources on the issue being written by Greek authors when the event itself is directly tied to the Greeks?

Let us take it upon ourselves to give this time in history a name. We know what happened - historians have let us know that much, though they may not have agreed upon a name for the events. Those acts are defined as genocide even by the United Nations. As a result of the acts, hundreds of thousands of people died - I would say that that number constitutes an act of genocide moreso than a massacre. Furthermore, the eyewitness accounts page confirms that the Greeks were systematically eliminated as the Armenians were, and we all know that on a whole, both the Pontic and Armenian genocides were part of the larger apparent "Christian" genocide in Turkey. If one part of the "Christian genocide" is called a genocide itself, it is only proper for another smiliarly large-scale killing that was another part of this "Christian genocide" to also be called a genocide.

Thank you, and good night from Massachusetts, USA.

Thegreek431 03:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello from Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA. No one expects everything to be documented in "popular history". But it has to be documented somehow for Wikipedia to talk about it. Wikipedia is not in the business of "giving this time in history a name"; see WP:NOR. Instead of ranting, find some good, third-party sources and add them to the article; that will make the article much more convincing. Why third-party? So there isn't even the suspicion of bias, especially important for such highly-charged topics. --Macrakis 14:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Toynbee

Latest comment: 17 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Ashkani, are you aware youre deleting a properly sourced material written by a scholar who has no such a will to make propoganda or defend turks? Thats why i chose him to quote and youre reverting it..And at the same time there are quotations from people like Horton who are real propagandist in the article..You cant delete anything properly sourced. The place of the quotation may not be the proper location but there is not any place else to put such a quotation.--laertes d 07:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Concern addressed.[50] NikoSilver 08:43, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

That quote clearly doesnt belong to Background section Niko. Thats a particular information on the killings that took place during Turkish national movement, the section where you put it deals with the evetns of WWI..--laertes d 09:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

And if the intro would contain information accusing the Turkish national movement for the killings in the region, the fact that Greece invaded western anatolia and started the war and committed massacres against turkish civilian population has to be included in that part..--laertes d 10:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

It gives an opinion as to why the events were led to happen. Certainly this information does not belong in the intro. The "Background" section, from its name, should definitely deal with past. We can move some Soviet related parts in the "Aftermath" section, but I wouldn't want to touch it yet. Let's digest each edit one by one in this highly controversial article. I'm sure Toynbee has said other stuff as well, so we need an expert to summarize it all. NikoSilver 10:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Academic views on the issue

Latest comment: 17 years ago17 comments6 people in discussion

As seen as I have engaged with the usual suspects in the past few days, I may as well divert my attention back here. The above section is basically devoted entirely to a few sentences where refence is made to Greeks and genocides. This is undue weight. In the section just above under the title "reasons for limited recognition", we state the International Association of Genocide Scholars, that is the foremost academic authority on genocide, has made no declaration affirming this as genocide. So why on earth do we have large passages of quotes which focus on a minority pov when the most credible authority has made no "relative reference"?

In reflecting academic opinion, the article should state something like "The ASGS has made no declaration affirming the events as genocide, some academics such as Tatz and Jacobs make reference to the Pontian experiene as part of the greater Armenian genocide". That is the weight of academic position, yet this article has chosen to concentrate entirlely on a few sentences, some with no mention of genocide. I'm not even going to ask why the references I provided months go by credible authrors saying there was no genocide has been left out. My priority here is to first reflect academic opinion correctly.

Also, as for the pictures of the texts, neither of them are so signficant that they deserve a picture. Seems like another rather poor attempt to give this whole pov more credibility than it deserves. --A.Garnet 18:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't really know what they are doing. I see that Domitius reverted again. Breaking the Wikipedia rules only damages the article's credibility (non fair use of images, primary sources, etc). That's what you are doing Domitius/Ploutarchos, Hectorian, and Aristovoulos. DenizTC 09:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Removed non-fair use book covers and primary sources I could spot. Removed unnecessary blockquotes. Also Morgenthau etc. are not academic. DenizTC 09:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Fair use covers the book covers because the article discusses them. As for the quotes, inclusion can't depend exclusively on what you consider academic. Feel free to add contradicting sources if you think that this is undue. NikoSilver 10:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Once again, this article is not about those books (it is just using one or two sentences from that book). Why do we keep primary sources? Removed ones are primary sources (not the 'non-academic' ones). I just removed the claim that some other people were academic, when they were not. See academic. DenizTC 10:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Proving non-existence of something is usually unnecessary, and quite hard, in fact the burden should be on the people that claim the existence. People died of course, many people died from many ethnicities. It does not mean there was a genocide. The authoritative sources don't mention such a thing, we should write the article accordingly. See WP:NPOV#Undue_weight. Again we should follow Wikipedia rules. In my opinion, you (Nikos, Domitius, Aristo, Hectorian (and maybe Garnet and me as well, sorry if that's the case)) are not doing that, and insisting on breaking the rules to the state of edit warring. DenizTC 10:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Sources have been cited proving the "existence" of it. Now the onus has shifted to those wanting to disprove it (or at least prove that it's "existence" is disputed and you haven't even managed to do that).--Ploutarchos 10:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Proving its existence is not the point, proving this is the most commonly used name by academics is the point. e.g. Srebrenica genocide = Srebrenica massacre, despite Serbia being found guilty of genocide. What you and others have failed to do is find enough credible sources which prove this the favoured name by academia. Instead, we are interpreting Hortons usage of the word massacre, or Rumme's usage of the term "Greek genocide" (lets ignore the fact that he also applies the term genocide to the Greek conduct in Anatolia in Greco-Turkish war). In reality, this whole article is being legitimised on the basis of a few sentences. It is completely undue weight. --A.Garnet 10:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
So what is the most common name? Pontian Greek Kindergarten Expedition? That's one of the problems, you dispute the name, but are there any alternative titles? What's the guarantee that if this article is renamed it won't go the same way as the Kurdish one, you trying to delete sourced text claiming it is "undue weight" without citing counter sources proving that it's actually disputed.--Ploutarchos 10:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
If I wanted to delete reference to these events (which is bad faith assumption) I would have initiated an afd in the year I have been disputing the title. The Kurdish "genocide" article, which you created as part of your games on Wikipedia, was decided by consensus to merged into the present Human rights article. Nowhere has there been a consensus to devote a section to more genocide pov pushing. In fact, the consensus I see emerging is that of Yanni's proposal that the section must be contextualised. --A.Garnet 11:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Hey, there was no consensus for that move. It was pulled overnight by someone while no one was looking and then CoolCat messed up the redirects (by adding CSD templates, so it may not have been deliberate scorched earth). And by "contextualized", I understand adding sourced material proving what "real" academics have to say about the "paradise" the Kurds are living in, not deleting sourced text.--11:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
I will rewrite it when I have time. Won't be for a couple of days though. --A.Garnet 10:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll remove the book covers, they do nothing here that would be covered by fair use (since the visual layout of the book cover is not an issue of discussion.) I tend to agree with Garnet about the big literal quotes too. If there's something in those books that is of relevance to the article, then by all means summarise it, cite it, integrate it into a normal coherent encyclopedic text. Whenever people start using big chunks of literal text, employing tricks to give those big chunks extra visibility in the article, etc., that's always a sure sign of POV-pushing going on. It means you are using a source not in order to report what the source has to contribute to the issue, but in order to employ it as a mouthpiece to express your opinion. Big literal quotes are almost always a sign of poor and tendentious writing, in my experience. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

And, for shame, Horton and Morgenthau were definitely not academic authors. They were politicians with an agenda. I mean, come on, that's obvious... --Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

NB: Deniz made a point earlier in this discussion that struck me as rather odd, he stated that he had: "Removed non-fair use book covers and primary sources I could spot. Removed unnecessary blockquotes. Also Morgenthau etc. are not academic." Refer to the last part - This strikes me as odd because it is a logical fallacy, it is called 'poisoning the well', in other words, attacking the source itself and not the content of the source, in my honest opinion Morgenthau is an invaluable source, particularly considering his status as Ambassador to the Ottoman Empire. But this in itself is rather moot at this point, the real issue is quite simple: If Deniz wishes to remove a source, he must successfully disprove or at the very, very least, call into dispute it's content. Simply stating something is 'not academic' is not justification in itself.--NeroDrusus 12:48, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Lol, twisting what I said (is that "poisoning my well"?). Like I mentioned above, "I just removed the claim that some other people were academic, when they were not" We have a sentence like "[Rummel] uses 14 third party academic sources" and Morgenthau et al are among these academic sources. He is not an academic. DenizTC 15:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Your opinion.--Ploutarchos 16:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Exactly, don't forget that this was a time when Government, and especially quasi-bureaucratic posts such as Ambassadors were filled by people who were members of a landed or commercial elite (like Morgenthau), sure, he's not 'academic' in the strictest sense of the word. I.e. Holding a phd in the earlier history of the Ottoman Empire, and that leads me on to another point. Morgenthau wrote his book in 1919, when there was no general scholarly field of study on the Pontic Greek or Armenian genocides.--NeroDrusus 22:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Strip article to basics

Latest comment: 17 years ago20 comments6 people in discussion

Considering the mess this article is in (not only my view) and its violations of unude weight, npov and OR, i've started to reduce the article to bare facts, hopefully we can rewrite it into a more acceptable article for Wikipedia in due time. --A.Garnet 21:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

You did nothing but blank sources and rm things you obviously don't like. I agree certain things have to be removed but this approach will just result in edit wars. What was removing who recognized it but leaving those who didn't in aid of?--Ploutarchos 21:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I disagree, I believe the only way to avoid edit wars to reduce the article to bare bones facts and start rewriting from there. As it is, every small edit will be reverted in a flash and we will get nowhere. It is better imo to have 1 good paragraph than a load of crap. As for those who recognise it, I do not consider non notable ngo's and US state resolutions (you know, the same ones wishing grannies happy birthday) to warrant shading the degree of recognition to Greek genocide claims. In time, we will hopefully sort out the title aswell, but for time being we should concentrate on rewriting from top to bottom, even if it does reduce the article to a few paragraphs. --A.Garnet 22:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
How do we agree on what the bare bones are? Those granny resolutions are (or were) paraded on the Greek foreign ministry's website, so they're hardly that irrelevant :) --Ploutarchos 22:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Well Greece officially calls these events genocide a lot of other people do not, that to me is a starting point. Furthermore, perhaps we could actually start by talking about the events ITSELF. We have a background and an aftermath, with no description of what this article is actually talking about. It's like a book with a prologue and epilogue and nothing in between! --A.Garnet 22:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Yannis, since you yourself have expressed your desire to improve this articles content irrespective of its title, then i'd ask that you help rewrite it. You know what makes a good article, the version you are reverting to certainly isnt one. --A.Garnet 11:26, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
I have yet to understand what apparent blanking vandalism has to do with improving the article. The deletions of such magnitude are unacceptable. Improve parts if you want to rewrite, or propose a specific layout of the article for discussion prior to massive deletions of sourced material. NikoSilver 11:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Mustafa and Garnet you are vandalising the article Aristovoul0s 11:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

What Mustafa and Garnet attempt to do here is totally unacceptable. Imagine that I go to the Turkey article, and start deleting parts of it, without first discussing the issue with you. What would be your reaction?! ANI at least I suppose!

Dear Yannismarou, I think Turkey is not a good example comparing to this article.Assume that a user created a new article like as Thracian Turks Genocide(I am sure that he may brings some sources also).What would be your reaction.Regards.Must.T C 13:48, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Dear Makalp, I am afraid I cannot comment on imaginary articles.--Yannismarou 13:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

If you are honestly interested in improving the article and upgrading its quality, express your proposals here, and see if there is an agreement.

Even better: do you intend to rewrite it? Then, create a sandbox page, rewrite the article as you imagine it, and present this improved and upgraded in terms of quality version of yours here. If you have indeed achieved an upgrading of its quality, I am sure that nobody will oppose your actions. But speaking about "quality", just deleting, and not yet improving anything ... mmmmm ... It does not work like that, folks.--Yannismarou 12:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

There is no point trying to discuss anymore Yannis, any rewrite which I propose or any editor propose which attempts to remove the POV, undue weight and OR will be immediately reverted and set upon. You know this, so does Niko. I believe 1 year of failed attempts is enough warrant a change of approach in fixing this article. What I ultimately consider unnaceptable is that you as an admin and a featured article contributor still continue to support this absoloute monstrosity initiated by your fellow Greek editors, so do not tell me what you consider unnaceptable. --A.Garnet 12:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
In what sense can it be considered an "improvement" if you delete parts like:
  • the recognition (and source) of the Republic of Cyprus
  • the fact that the Turkish government, rejects the term genocide for the events (and source)
  • all academic views, including:
    • Samuel Totten and Steven L. Jacobs
    • Mark Levene
    • Norman M. Naimark
    • ...
  • my summary of the news quotes (that was excelled by some third-party editors)
... among many others? How do you expect anyone to go along with this approach? NikoSilver 13:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Mainly as a FA editor, and secondly as an administrator, what I can definitely tell you A.Garnet is that the way you chose to improve the article is a guarantee of failure. My experience in writing articles in WP teaches me that in a highly disputed article extended removals of content without previous contensus (no matter if these removals are regarded by the person initiating them justified or not) have no chance to be accepted by the main editors of the article in question. IMO the approach you chose to act was destined to fail. And fail in the most resounding way. While things should work the other way around: After a resounding dialogue, where the other editors accept the sincere motives and intentions, and endorse the plans of the proposing editor, the changes come as smoothly as possible. It is your right to regard the article as a monstrosity, I also agree that it should be improved, but the means and the way of initiating such improvements is what matters. And in this case your choices were IMO definitely wrong. I don't intend to teach you what is unacceptable or not (after all, I am not entitled and I do not have the right to do something like that), but I do intend to "tell what I consider unnaceptable", because I still believe that at least in this encyclopedia we still have the right to speak.--Yannismarou 13:35, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
In response to Niko, I made clear that my approach was to strip the article to bare facts and rebuild from there. This does not mean all the sources will be permanently removed, only that for the timebeing we focus on describing the events in hand (which after one year is something all of you have failed to do), establish proper weight of academic opinion and remove all sources which confuse Asia Minor and Smyrnan Greeks with Pontus. Once these errors have been removed, then you will find this article is left with maybe 3 paragraphs, which imo would be a damn sight better than the absoloute tosh which you keep reverting to.
Yannis, you have your experience on WP, I have mine. I've been involved in this article for over a year and in that time i've seen no sincere attempt by those supporting the status quo to want to change anything. I've seen fruitless mediation and comment attempts because editors prefer to rely on organised reverting and pov pushing than any serious effort to create an article. I've seen editors, you included, obstruct a third party arbitration with generalities and vague statements, making unrealistic demands on the committee. In that arbitration request, myself, a few Turkish editors and third party editors all agreed to get a group of admins to make a decision on the article, the only people who refused are again those who prefer to rely on reverting and the status quo. That is my experience with this article. You may judge my attempt at being WP:Bold a resounding failure, but I have a years experience here to tell you that what you suggest has already failed, and the state of the article which you support proves that. --A.Garnet 14:38, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
A.Garnet, you are a smart guy and I recognize that to you, but this does not mean that you are entitled to interprete other editors' stance in the way you like. The fact that I do not agree with the way you attempt to improve (those who read us judge if your actions move towards the alleged improvement or not) the article, does not mean that I do not want its amelioration or that I am for no change here, supporting an "awful status quo ante". But this change should take place after at least the achievement of a "rough" consensus. For instance, I do not understand how quality is served by the removal of the fact that the Republic of Cyprus is one of the states recognizing the genocide. I am all ears to listen to your arguments justifying such a removal of material, but, please convince me (convince everybody) that your only motive here was quality! I may not have your years of experience in Wikipedia, but I do believe that the solution for the failure to initiate an arbitration (and I do not intend to share portions of responsibility for that here) or an agreement for some pending issues (despite the fact that a series of polls have resulted in certain overwhelming majorities), is not a not well-prepared, not well-justified, not well-executed, and not well-supported attempt to remove the material one does not feel comfortable with from the article in question.--Yannismarou 19:00, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Firstly, the source for Cypriot recognition "Cyprus Press Office, New York City", was not well established, I believe some other editors have asked for this to be clarified, it is these kinds of ambiguities that i wanted to remove for the time being. Secondly, your statement that "a series of polls have resulted in certain overwhelming majorities" shows exactly the kind of problem we have here Yannis. You ask me to engage in sincere dialogue and establish consensus with editors before altering the article, yet you want me and the few Turkish editors who edit here to accept organised vote stacking as the basis for valuing certain edits over others. How can I, or any third party editor who disagrees with the majority Greek presence here, ever attempt to change a thing when this is the attitude being employed?
As for justificaiton, just look at the article for heavens sake! Where is the narrative for the events? Is this not the the most basic requirement of an article, that you actually talk about the events which you refer to? We have a background and an aftermath with nothing in between. We have the complete absence of academic recognition being outweighed with the obsessive quoting of anything which mentions massacres, genocide or ethnic cleansing, irrespective of whether they refer to Asia Minor, Smyrnan or Pontian Greeks. You would never write an article like this, so why do you continue to support the status quo? --A.Garnet 20:17, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Even if you are right, I don't understand where deleting stuff becomes necessary.--Ploutarchos 22:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
As stated above: "I made clear that my approach was to strip the article to bare facts and rebuild from there. This does not mean all the sources will be permanently removed" --A.Garnet 00:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Sources

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Since no discussion is taking placing to resolve this I have reverted again. I would also like whoever provided the Rendel and Akcam source in the following paragraph to clarify whether the authors are referring to Pontians or Aegean Greeks.

"One of the alleged methods used in the systematic elimination of the Greek population was the Labour Battalions (Turkish: Amele Taburları, Greek: Τάγματα Εργασίας Tagmata Ergasias).[1][2] In them, mostly young and healthy people were forced to work by the Ottoman Administration during the First World War and the Turkish Government after the creation of the Turkish Republic.[2]" --A.Garnet 21:27, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, the Eyewitnesses sections states "German and Austro-Hungarian diplomats, as well as The Memorandum by Mr. G.W. Rendel on Turkish Massacres and Persecutions of Minorities since the Armistice, have provided evidence for series of systematic massacres of the Greeks in Asia Minor" - As I have said all along, this article is not about Asia Minor Greeks. If this article is as verifiable as its authors claim, why are we still referring to Asia Minor Greek and not the Pontians? Unless relavant quotes can be found in relation to Pontians this section should be removed. --A.Garnet 21:33, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference Rendel was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference Akcam was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

Reorganizing

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I took into consideration some of Garnet's concerns and reorganized the article. I mainly did the following modifications:

  • Kept the "Casualties" section and expanded it from other parts of the article. I moved there all relevant sources and figures, mainly from the "Academic sources" and "Background" sections.
  • Removed all detailed references regarding recognition from the lead and pasted their sources where applicable.
  • Added in their place a couple of summarizing sentences from the "Casualties" and "Recognition" sections.
  • Corrected a few glitches here and there.

Further development of the "Background" section may be necessary, especially related to the Greco-Turkish war and the Greek invasion. NikoSilver 23:58, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

My concerns have not been taken into account Niko. Where in this article is there a narrative for what the Pontians experienced? There is none, rather 90% of the article is concerned with pushing the genocide pov, that it is why only the most relevant material to Pontians must be kept and the rest scrapped. --A.Garnet 01:47, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Rationale

Latest comment: 17 years ago11 comments3 people in discussion

Niko has stated there is no rationale behind removing large chunks of this article. I'll go through it section by section.

  • Intro - The 3 sources used to justify the title are not valid. Firstly none of them use the term PGG as a common name for these events which would prove this title the most notable. They may use the word genocide, or may use the word genocide in a complete different context as is the case with Rummel, but does that not point to common usage. As an example, we do not have a Srebrenica Genocide article because the ICC deemed the events a genocide. The sources have to prove common usage.
  • The issue of the POV or non-POV of the article has been the issue of repetitive discussions and polls. Even if we accept that the title is POV this reason is not enough for the removal of sourced material.--Yannismarou 12:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Background - This is not a background to the problem, no explanation of who the Pontians are, where they lived, under whom they lived, what conflict precluded this event etc. Rather, we have a quote used to push the genocide pov and one from Toynbee to refute the genocide pov. Again, no content or narrative for the article, just an obsession with genocide pov.
  • This the background of why the Turkish forces acted in the way the article says that they acted. It gives the motives of their actions. I agree that more background about "who the Pontians are, where they lived, under whom they lived, what conflict precluded this event etc" is needed. But this is a reason for addition of material, and not of removal. And this is my main objection here to your arguments: This article needs expansion, in order to cover the handicaps you mention, then rewriting, and then possible use of WP:SS. The last thing it needs is the removal of useful material as if this material is useless, as if it is rubbish. Well, it is not, and it should remain as the basis of a much better article, which already has a dissent structure, and counts more than 55 citations. A rare achievement for most articles in Wikipedia.--Yannismarou 12:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Casualties - The genocide pov prevails again. Firstly, Rummel does not define these events as genocide, he defines what the entire Greek population of the Ottoman Empire suffered as a "Greek genocide", a different thesis to this article. Just like he also defines what the Greek army did in Anatolia as genocide. Secondly, the quote by Hannibal Travis is again referring to the entire Greek population of the Ottoman Empire, in fact he does not even mention the Pontians. So once more this article fails to provide information on the Pontians.
  • I agree about your remarks concerning Rummel, but I still think that the statistics he mentions are more than useful, despite the ambiguous way, in which he seems to concieve the term "genocide". I do, however, agree that we do not necessarily need the whole Travis quote, which could be trimmed to an one-sentence summary of what he says. Indeed, he does not specify his remarks, speaking generally about the Greek population in Asia Minor, but, since Pontians were a vivid part of this population, a reference to Travis still is usefull IMO.--Yannismarou 12:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Aftermath - "It is impossible to know exactly how many Greek inhabitants of Pontus, Smyrna and rest of Asia Minor died from 1916 to 1923, and how many ethnic Greeks of Anatolia were deported to Greece or fled to the Soviet Union"...Asia Minor, not Pontus...again. "Edward Hale Bierstadt states that " According to official testimony, the Turks since 1914 have slaughtered in cold blood 1,500,000 Armenians, and 500,000 Greeks, men women and children, without the slightest provocation"[22]. Based on the information provided by Manus I. Mildrasky, in his book "The Killing Trap", pages 342, and 377, it is estimated that approximately 480,000 Anatolian Greeks died during the aforementioned period." No reference to Pontians. Other than pushing the genocide pov, Horton and Morgenthau quotes do not add any information on the aftermath.
  • The section states "It is impossible to know exactly how many Greek inhabitants of Pontus, Smyrna and rest of Asia Minor died from 1916 to 1923, and how many ethnic Greeks of Anatolia were deported to Greece or fled to the Soviet Union." That is why to know the total numbers, because they give us an idea about partial numbers. I agree that we should look for possible repetitions in other sections, but again I fail to understand the overall deletion of the material in question.--Yannismarou 13:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Recognition + Academic views - This where the ugliest part of the pov pushing culminates. Quote after quote is provided to push the genocide pov. In making up for the complete absence of academic recognition, the editors have taken to exaggerating the support for their pov by copy and pasting large chunks of quotes. But the point is, an academic recognition section does not even have to be here, it is in my view a byproduct of the dispute going on this talkpage and the response of Greek editors to "win" this dispute by providing any obscure source which might support the genocide pov. Genocide shoul not be the focus of this article, what the Pontians endured should be the focus. The article completely fails in this.
  • I can show you FA articles where there are quotes after quotes "by copy and pasting large chunks of quotes", which the Wikipedia community did not find ugly. To the point: I believe that all the "Recognition" part is useful and should stay. It is basic for the article to know who recognizes and accepts the genocide claims and who does not. It is also important to know, if they do recognize them, why they do so, and, if they don't, why they don't. The mention of NGOs is also interesting, since NGOs are nowadays a very important "player" in civil society. Now, as far as the quotes of academic views are concerned, I repeat that the presence of large chunks is not a problem for me. To the opposite, it is interesting to have all the opinions of both sides exposed in details. Now, one or two quotes referring to the Greek population of Asia Minor are also useful, because they illustrate the fact that what (allegedly) happened to Pontus was a part of an overall military operation and conflict between Greece and Turkey. I would accept some summary in this particular quotes, but again after discussion and consensus.--Yannismarou 12:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

To clarify, this aricle is not about what the Pontians endured, it has become about pov pushing something that is not academically supported. That is why we are in the odd situation where we have an article about a certain event yet have no explanation of that event, have no narrative or context, all we have is the collective efforts of a few Greek editors to frame these events as genocide. Everything I have removed has attempted to refocus this article away from the genocide dispute and concentrate on what the Pontians actually experienced. --A.Garnet 01:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

  • But what the Pontiand actually experienced is the basis for the genocide claims. These two issues are inter-connected, and I do not see how they could be seperated. Again, I repeat what I said above: "This article needs expansion, in order to cover the handicaps you mention, then rewriting, and then possible use of WP:SS. The last thing it needs is the removal of useful material as if this material is useless, as if it is rubbish. Well, it is not, and it should remain as the basis of a much better article, which already has a dissent structure, and counts more than 55 citations. A rare achievement for most articles in Wikipedia." I agree that the article could be improved in terms of narrative and context, but this does not necessarily entails the removal of the current material. Most of it should stay and be "dressed" by new material, offering the narrative, such as what happened in Pontus before the events? What led to the ("alleged") genocide? How the relations between Turks and Greeks in the region evolved? All these and more should definitely be added, but by supporting what currently exists, and not necessarily by erasing it. I would be glad to see an editor willing to undertake this huge task of further promoting the quality of the article, but this editor should show that he has an overall plan concering the article's improvement; that he is not just interested in removing, but also in adding, and that he knows what he must add; that he is willing to collaborate witht the editors who created the article (and one of whom I am not!). The one thing I do know is that whenever I undertook the task to improve the article, I did removed material, but never before an extensive research about how I should replace and rewrite this material, and recreate the article. I am afraid that, in this case, the focus is on de-construction, and not on re-construction.--Yannismarou 12:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I'd prefer you did not break up my statement above since it was intended for all editors, never mind. Two things in particular I want to answer from your response "But what the Pontiand actually experienced is the basis for the genocide claims. These two issues are inter-connected, and I do not see how they could be seperated." - really? Inseparable for whom? The Greek government? The Greek diaspora? Because the absence of even one dedicated academic piece which frames these events as genocide would not suggest the level of inseparableness which you believe. There is no genocide debate for these events, there is a minority pov backed by the Greek government which refers to the events as genocide, but nowhere near enough to make the entire article about conveying this pov. Take a look at the Armenian genocide article, do you see every sentence reinforcing the genocide pov like this article, or rather an effort to create a proper narrative of the events? Secondly, your claim "which already has a dissent structure, and counts more than 55 citations. A rare achievement for most articles in Wikipedia." really does not do you any favours Yannis. A decent structure? We have a background and an aftermath, surely a seasoned FA editor will realise something goes in between the beginning and the end, this is a decent structure for you is it? As for citations, it is quality and relavance over quantity. The majority of these references are either irrelevant, intermingled with different events, or non-academic.
So, despite your earlier claims that you do not support the status quo, that you recognise the need for the article to change, all you have done is provide a series of poor excuses for the article to stay the way it is. --A.Garnet 13:28, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Yannis, and I also note that the "level of inseparableness" is not only because of the ...Greek government and diaspora alone! (lol) All academics (and all rational people of the entire planet) do not use such lame excuses as semantics to discriminate between Pontic Greeks/Anatolian Greeks/Greeks from Mars, when they discuss massive killings and genocide. Instead, academics are known for their practice of pragmatics.
Even if we talked with semantics, then from its definition, "genocide" is "genos-" (=ethnic group) plus "-cide" (killing, extermination). The "ethnic group" we are talking about is, of course, simply and plainly "Greeks". Not Thessaliots, nor Peloponnesians, nor Epirots, nor Macedonians, nor Cretans, nor exclusively Pontians. The fact that the killings were focused in Pontos, gives the additional element in the name, which is not meant as a... modifier (lol), but as a further accurate description of the majority of those who suffered. In all academic quotes there is no segregation between Greeks and ...Greeks. They all (yes, including the Greek govt) discuss the events in comprehensive respect, and moreover there is no accurate segregation between the killings of Greeks-this vs the killings of Greeks-that (<duh>because neither is an ethnic group on its own, so there wouldn't be any reason for it in the first place</duh>).
Therefore, only someone with an inherent pov for rendering all citations moot could argue for their deletion, since even if we argued that they are not 100% on the subject, they are at the very least highly relevant. NikoSilver 14:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
No sorry, you really do not have a clue here. You have claimed from the very beginning that this title, the thesis and claims being made are all academically verifiable. That means there is a full academic dicsussion on the fate of the Pontians and their alleged genocide. So based on these initial claims, it is semantics for me to ask that this article therefore focus on the Pontians based on these plentiful academic sources? You know this is not the case, you know there are nowhere near enough sources to create an aricle with such a pov, that is why you have widened your sources to encompass Asia Minor Greeks, and why at one point you wanted to rename the article to Hellenic "Genocide" (lol) (based on our Brazilian friends personal website (lol))so you could try and legitimise the (entirely original research) thesis being proposed. As it is, this is article is flawed from top to the bottom, no amount of reverting or smug remarks will change that and frankly those who defend it are making a mockery of themselves. --A.Garnet 15:14, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I have no clue? Heh! Thanks, I had no clue I have no clue! I'm copying below what I consider clueless from your last comment, emphasis mine:

  • That means [the fact that the title, the thesis and claims being made are all academically verifiable] there is a full academic dicsussion [sic] on the fate of the Pontians and their alleged genocide.
    • Really? So a) it has to be academic only, b) it has to be "full", and c) the title, the thesis and the claims do all that! Where did you read that in policy? Tell me, I'm clueless!
  • you know there are nowhere near enough sources to create an aricle [sic] with such a pov
    • Ah, that must refer to your version, right? No really, for me, one source is enough. Either we like it or not, there's one state out there cited as calling it Pontic Greek genocide, and Genocide of the Hellenes of the Asia Minor. Those terms definitely exist, and that's what the article is about: to explain what they are. You believe they are wrongly used? Well... go ahead and prove that, within the article, and then start it like: "PGG is a wrong term used for the Pontic Kindergarden Excursions, which reflects the provocative point of view of Greece." With the sources now in the article, though, I believe we have a worthy intro (save for "alleged").
  • that is why you have widened your sources to encompass Asia Minor Greeks,
    • As opposed to the other ethnic group being exterminated in the immediate vicinity, called Anatolian Greeks? Tell me... you mean the ones that spoke the different language (not dialect) called Pontian? The ones that believed in another religion? The ones that had different customs? So this was not a genocide! It was a regioncide! And there really must be a lot of academics dealing with separate regioncides out there...

And talking about regions, I was under the impression that Pontos is a subset of Anatolia. So if we have sources measuring the dead in Anatolia, according to your logic this is irrelevant? It must be because they were different, huh? Or because they were killed by someone else, eh? Or because it was far away, and the ones who perpetrated all this decided they should stop on the [imaginary then] line of Pontos borders, right? And then you expect us to find academics that measure lives differently from one side of the line or the other! Nice... NikoSilver 20:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

NYT articles

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Please have a look at the following: http://pontosforum.4.forumer.com/index.php?showtopic=12 --   Avg    22:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

On context

Latest comment: 17 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion

I'd like to make a statement addressed to A.Garnet and all others who would hack apart this article because it deals with matters not directly involving the Pontic Greek Genocide. One of the tricky things about writing articles is where to begin and where to end. Obviously, someone discussing the Fall of Constantinople in this article would be wrong to do so (and no one is proposing we trace this back to 1453). By the same token, though, events do not happen in a vacuum. Other massacres of Greeks were happening elsewhere in Anatolia at the same time. True, they weren't going on in Pontus, but given a)the scarcity of data on Pontus itself, and b)the fact that the atrocities bore strong similarities to each other, warrants inclusion of supplementary information. Indeed it would be foolish to remove such information for tendentious purposes, as appears to be happening. Biruitorul 21:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me my friend, but there is nothing tendetious about my purpose here. Scarcity of data on Pontus is not an excuse to introduce massacres which you personally judge to bear similarities (another instance of OR), especially when such supplementary material outweighs the subject of the article itself. This is the Pontian Greek "genocide" remember, if it is as academically verifiable and notable as its editors claim, then there should not even be any scarcity of data in the first place. Furthermore, none of this justifies the complete absence of a narrative of the events, the undue weight given to its academic and international recognition and the "poor and tendetious writing" (Fut.'s words, not mine). --A.Garnet 22:36, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Sorry - I apologise for impugning your motives. However (and the authors can correct me if I'm wrong), it's not people here who have drawn a connection to similar massacres, but those scholarly sources that have been used to construct the article (i.e., no OR). Could the scarcity of data be due to the relative obscurity of the event? Not all genocides are equally well documented, after all. I agree that the narrative is perhaps lacking, but I trust that shall improve with time. Let's work to improve that narrative, not cut away from it. Biruitorul 02:43, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Well perhaps you could point me to a source in this article which draws such parallels since you believe this to be the case? In fact, maybe you could point me to a source which discusses these events at all? Other than the casualty figures, we have nothing of worth which goes into depth about how and what the Pontians suffered without dipping into original research. As for your statement that not all genocides are equally documented, this is not really relevant, the purpose of the article is reflect academic research, if this is lacking this does not mean editors carry out their own research in its place. You want to improve the article, so do I, to do that means removing all the accumulated nonsense in the past year of pov pushing and starting from scratch. --A.Garnet 11:08, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Pontic Greeks were a [large] subset of Anatolian Greeks. Sources discussing Anatolian Greeks are therefore highly relevant, not to mention that the Greek government's newer thesis calls for a "genocide of the Hellenes of the Asia Minor" in general. What I observe is that most academics don't treat Pontians alone (because it doesn't make sense?), but they were the first to be expunged (and those mostly expunged). I oppose every removal of sourced material that discusses Anatolian Greeks without explicitly excluding Pontic Greeks. The article bears their name because this is the most frequent term, but a redirect should also exist from Genocide of Greeks in Asia Minor and Anatolian Greek Genocide. I don't know what it is you contest about, but deleting sourced material is not the right way to do it. I suggest you add material that backs up what you dispute, rather than deleting material backing up the other opinion. Biruitorul 04:05, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Most academics dont treat Pontians alone? That is generous, no academics treat Pontians alone, in fact, barely any academics treat the Pontians at all. Like it or not that is a fact. I have said it a hundred times, you will find not one monologue, not one journal article, not one encylopedic article dedicated to these events which makes the assertions being made here. You oppose any sourced material which does not explicity exclude Pontian Greeks? Well I oppose any material which does not explicitly mention Pontian Greeks. Since this article is supposedly academically verifiable, then my view point should be far easier to satisfy no? As for your title recommendations, please tell me, based on what academic sources have you established that genocide occured to Greeks in Asia Minor, so much so that it warrants a title and redirect? While you are looking, tell me based on what academic material the current title of this article is justified also, since you have decided it is the most frequent term. --A.Garnet 15:23, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Sources discuss Christians in Asia Minor, including Armenians and Greeks. Sources discuss Anatolian Greeks. Sources discuss Pontic Greeks. Primary sources call it names ("annihilation", "persistent campaign of massacres", "atrocities"...). Secondary sources call it a "genocide", "eradication", "ethnic cleansing"... And then we have a global thesis by a couple of countries, NGOs, and subnational entities that call for recognition of a "Pontic Greek Genocide". Your claim that there has to be a dedicated study for this title and incidents is rarely heard on Wikipedia. It has been cited numerous times that the death toll was about 360,000. This is the crux of the matter; I see the minutiae of the naming dispute as being of little importance in comparison. You have been deleting sourced material which I see as highly relevant for the article. Do tell: are your intentions for expansion sincere? What direction do you see this going in? If you do want to add something, please go ahead: there is absolutely no problem with that. But - first you add, then we see what and if it will be deleted. The point is we should be focusing on expansion rather than contraction at the moment, as we've got a good starting base to work with. Biruitorul 00:15, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Biruitorul. To add, there are dedicated sources for the events. See Harry Psomiades, and especially Constantine Fotiades (with his 16! volumes), as well as numerous other Greek authors. We only briefly mention these because we cannot base the article only on non-WP:INDY sources. Those could prove really helpful in expanding the requested narrative, especially if the events they cite are cross-referenced within their works. Anyone to take up the task? NikoSilver 14:24, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Greek_genocide/Archive_5&oldid=1169034369"