Misplaced Pages

Talk:Greek genocide: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 02:27, 11 March 2009 editRizos01 (talk | contribs)156 edits Clear reasoning← Previous edit Latest revision as of 17:14, 8 December 2024 edit undoSpookyaki (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users5,562 edits Assessment: banner shell, Human rights (High) (Rater
(951 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{talkheaderlong}} {{talk header}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|vital=yes|1=
{{WPBS|
{{WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography|importance=Mid}}
{{WPGR
{{WikiProject Death|importance=High}}
|nested=yes
{{WikiProject Discrimination|importance=Mid}}
|class=B
|importance=high {{WikiProject Ethnic groups|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Former countries|Ottoman=yes|Ottoman-importance=Mid}}
|topic=history}}
{{WikiProject Greece |importance=High |topic=history}}
{{WPTR|nested=yes|class=B|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Human rights|importance=High}}
{{WPMILHIST
{{WikiProject Military history|class=Start|B-Class-1=no |B-Class-2=yes |B-Class-3=yes |B-Class-4=yes |B-Class-5=yes|Ottoman=yes |WWI=yes}}
|nested=yes
{{WikiProject Philosophy|importance=Low|ethics=yes}}
|class=start
{{WikiProject Turkey|importance=High}}
|B-Class-1=yes
{{WikiProject European history|importance=Mid}}
|B-Class-2=yes
|B-Class-3=yes
|B-Class-4=yes
|B-Class-5=yes
|Ottoman=yes|WWI=yes
}} }}
{{OnThisDay|date1=2011-05-19|oldid1=429898988|date2=2012-05-19|oldid2=493383700|date3=2013-05-19|oldid3=555790565|date4=2014-05-19|oldid4=609062599|date5=2015-05-19|oldid5=663133050|date6=2016-05-19|oldid6=721080926|date7=2018-05-19|oldid7=841865950|date8=2019-05-19|oldid8=897842329|date9=2020-05-19|oldid9=957246510}}
{{GR-TR}}
{{Round in circles}}
{{Archive box |auto=yes |search=yes |bot=Lowercase sigmabot III |age=3 |units=months |index=/Archive index |
*]
*]
*]
*]
}} }}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
{| class="messagebox {{#ifeq:{{{small|}}}|yes|small|standard}}-talk"
|archiveheader = {{aan}}
|-
|maxarchivesize = 100K
| ]
|counter = 14
| This article can be in the scope of ]. Please see the project page for more details, to request intervention on the ] or peruse ]'''''.
|minthreadsleft = 5
<includeonly>]</includeonly><noinclude>
|algo = old(90d)
|-
|archive = Talk:Greek genocide/Archive %(counter)d
]
}}
</noinclude>
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
|}
|target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes
{{Round In Circles}}

{{Archive box|auto=long|

*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
}} }}


== "Pontic genocide" ==
==Denialist rant==


The so-called "Pontic genocide" is actually not recognized by any major international organization. It is built largely on lies and falsification, and is recognized by only a small minority of scholars. Most researchers do not mention this term at all in their works. Therefore, it should be removed from the preamble. Now about a much more important thing: the death toll. The article gives a number of 353,000 and an estimate of 350,000-360,000. However, modern research (including Greek) shows that these numbers are grossly overestimated. The most striking example is the Greek (!) Journalist Thassos Kostopoulos, who proved that Valvanis includes in 353,000 "deaths" a lot of exiled and survivors. Moreover, almost all sources claiming that the number of victims is 350,000-360,000 people refer to Valvanis, who himself was a Greek refugee and clearly overestimated the numbers. Kostopoulos also offered a somewhat overestimated, but much closer to the truth estimate - 100,000-150,000 killed. In this he is supported by Eric Sjöberg. There are sources with even smaller numbers. For example, Justin McCarthy estimates the population loss of the Pontic Greeks in 1914-1922 to be 65,000, including deaths from fighting and famine. Thus, the number of victims as a result of the repressions (not genocide) is even less than 65,000. Another Greek source (Η ‘’ανάκλησις’’ εις τους πρόσφυγας Έλληνας του Πόντου και αι επιπτώσεις αυτής δια την έρευνα της ποντιακής διαλέκτου, Αρχείον Πόντου, τόμ. 29, Αθήνα 1989, σελ. 3.) says that in total there were about 400,000 Pontic refugees in Greece. Let's add here about 200,000 more refugees from Pontus to the USSR. Considering that before 1914, the Pontic Greeks in the Ottoman Empire numbered about 700,000 people (according to Sotiriadis, even 450,000, which completely crosses out the number 353,000), the number of deaths clearly does not exceed 100,000, including victims of war, hunger, and so on. Now let's look at the number of deaths of all Greeks. The total number of Greeks in the Ottoman Empire before the outbreak of events was 1.8 million - the most real and generally accepted number, confirmed by the Ottoman census. The number of refugees settled in Greece is 1.2 million. About 200,000 Greeks (almost all of them Pontic) moved to the USSR. 100,000 Greeks stayed in Turkey (mainly in Istanbul). Thus, the total number of deaths does not exceed 300,000. Plus, if we subtract from this number of refugees in the United States and the assimilated, who died from hunger and hostilities, we get even less. This is more or less consistent with the estimates of Rummel, not a pro-Turkish scientist. That is, the total number of deaths (not 300,000-900,000, but 200,000-300,000) is less than 350,000. To sum up: it is necessary to remove the "Pontic genocide" from the preamble, and in the paragraph on the number of deaths in the Pontus region, the number 353,000, which have nothing to do with reality, should be replaced with much more realistic estimates, including those given by me. ] (]) 16:10, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
okay we killed 1 armenians and they kill 2 turks for each armenian this is the phsiology of armenian brain that years when they are killin us and we were killing them.My mother and his family is from Trabzon and i really didn't know about this silly genocide.Because there is nothing happen.It is an emperialist lie:D:Dbecause really nothing happens only we defend our land against Russians when they invade Trabzon.ONLY.There is nothin abour greek-pontus because there wasn't any event you silly emperialists:D:D <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 20:20, 18 December 2008 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


:1) Kostopoulos is a communist journalist. Not a historian. I don't see how he is a ]. 2) The Pontic Genocide has been officially recognized as a genocide by (at least) the Swedish Parliament . 3) ] has been widely criticized for being a pro-Turkish genocide denier . 4) “given by me”. Misplaced Pages isn't based on ], which seems to be what you're doing by making calculations to prove your point. And lastly 5) ]. ] (]) 16:43, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
:I am tempted to remove this comment but on reflection I choose to leave it here so passers by can witness first hand the effects of Kemalist denialism. Perhaps a "Read at your own risk" tag would be needed though.--] (]) 12:11, 20 December 2008 (UTC)


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


:Here are 5 sources on the Pontic Genocide: (last one is included in this article). And yes, Sjöberg says that the Pontic Greeks that died were 100–150,000 but he also says this some lines later (it's literally the 1st source in this page). Nevertheless, that still doesn't make Kostopoulos (or McCarthy) reliable here per ]. Also, the sources say 100–150.000 but your calculations say 65.000? Well, you need a reliable reference for the 65.000 which you probably won't find. ] (]) 20:09, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
:''Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as (but not limited to) quotations, aphorisms, or persons (real or fictional). If you want to enter lists of quotations, put them into our sister project Wikiquote'' (See ]).
So I have removed the list of quotes: --] (]) 12:21, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
::They are not loosely associated but directly relevant to the article's subject.--] (]) 12:24, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
::If you want to remove the quotes you need to add them as references to the citations and add these citations.--] (]) 12:27, 20 December 2008 (UTC)


::Kostopoulos is ], and while Sjoberg reports his view, he does not endorse them. The "mathematical calculations" (as opposed to "non-mathemetical"?) of wikipedia users are out of the question. ] (]) 21:27, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
There is no reason for including list of quotes in an encyclopaedia article. This is a long standing agreement and the reason that ] was launched. It is acceptable to have the occasional quote to illustrate a point, but Misplaced Pages is not a quote farm. --] (]) 12:37, 20 December 2008 (UTC)


:::As a matter of fact Dr Kostopoulos is both a journalist and a historian, as stated in scientific journals that publish his writings and refer to him mentioning both aspects of his work -- see e.g. : "About the author - Tasos Kostopoulos - Historien et journaliste". He holds a PhD in History and is currently employed in one of Greece's leading research centres, as one can see in its .
:Removed quotes and linked to wikiquote.Left the most relevant quote from the Journal of genocide studies.--] (]) 13:12, 20 December 2008 (UTC)


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


:::Other than Dr Kostopoulos being a historian and a journalist and his view being endorsed by Sjoberg, it is widely known to all those familiar with contemporary Greek historical writing that the mainstream position among members of the community of Greek historians is that labelling the events dealt with in this article as a "genocide" is wrong from a historical point of view. This assessment of the field can be found in books, such as Sjoberg's ''Making of the Greek Genocide'' (2017), p. 4 (" despite the predictable Turkish efforts to discredit it, '''Greek mainstream historians''', educators and influential commentators oppose this claim as founded upon "ahistorical and anti-scientific opinion"."), or the abstract of a paper Sjoberg read in 2015 (see : "Though the Greek state recognizes two instances of genocide against Greeks of Ottoman Anatolia, the claim is mostly advanced by non-state actors, and has in the early 21st century become the object of fierce controversy in the "culture wars" of Greece, as mainstream historians and debaters dismiss it as a politically distorted memory.") or scholarly reviews in scientific historical journals (see Alexander Kitroeff reviewing ''The Genocide of the Ottoman Greeks'' in the ''Historical Review'' vol. 11 (2014), 201-2 :"those disputing the usefulness of the term genocide belon to to the mainstream of the historical profession in Greece"). To dismiss this mainstream historiographical position as supposed "WP:FRINGE" is actually an egregious case of ]. ] (]) 19:25, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
I wonder whether it would be more appropriate to have this page titled "Greek genocide". I raise this point for a number of reasons. Firstly, the majority of the content in this article refers to a more general campaign against the Ottoman Greeks. Secondly, this would ensure consistency with the international scholarly community, in particular the International Association of Genocide Scholars and academic journal articles. ] (]) 18:36, 21 December 2008 (UTC)


::::The only thing that Sjoberg says Kostopoulos has "demonstrated" on p. 47 is that Valavanis added 50,000 to the death total: {{tq|as the '''journalist''' Tasos Kostopoulos has demonstrated, Valavanis had reached this figure by simply adding a rough estimate of 500,000 "neo-martyrs" to the figure 303,238...}}, and '''not''' the figure of 100,000-150,000. Regarding the figure of 100,000-150,000 dead, all Sjoberg says is that this is Kostopoulos' own figure, and does not endorse it: {{tq|Kostopoulos' own estimate of dead is considerably lower; between 100,000 and 150,000}}. That is not an endorsement; Sjoberg is decidedly neutral. You surely also noticed the part where he described Kostopoulos as a "journalist" and not a "historian"? If he considered Kostopoulos a historian, he would have described him as such. Regarding Sjoberg's own views on the number of casualties, on page 234, he seems to endorse {{tq|the cautious assessments ranging between 300,000 to 700,000}}. ''Those'' seem to be the figures that Sjoberg is endorsing (given his description of these figures as "cautious"). As for Kostopoulos himself, having a Ph.D. does not automatically absolve one from ]. Kostopoulos' main activity seems to be a journalist for the fringe far left "Efymerida ton Syntakton" (https://www.efsyn.gr/), where he writes numerous fringe articles in which among other things, he compares the current center-right Greek government to the ] , describes the ] as "200 years of Orthodox Jihad" , or writes in support of the release of convicted far left terrorist ] . But this aside, what really makes Kostopoulos ] is that his figure of 100,000-150,000 dead ''is contradicted by all scholarship on the issue'', which is the very definition of ]. I do agree with you that we have a case of ], just not quite the way you imagine. We may also have ] or intellectual honesty issues, not sure which is worse. ] (]) 22:06, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
:I agree, certainly Zimmerer et al don't differentiate between the various Greek populations either. In fact if we want to be in line with current research we should merge the Armenian, Assyrian and Greek articles into one and include the Kurds as well. The Young Turks implemented a bloody policy of homogenization that targeted first the Christian but eventually all minorities.--] (]) 18:42, 21 December 2008 (UTC)


{{od}}
::I think such an extensive merge will not be digested well by other victim groups. Historically, however you are right but I think a note within the text will suffice to address that point of a shared history with other groups. Thank you your support on this issue. I agree, it is important to use terminology consistent with such genocide scholars. The title could be "Greek genocide" or "Ottoman Greek genocide". That would also go a long way in making the page title more representative of its content.] (]) 18:47, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
This has already been discussed numerous times. I agree with what ] and ] wrote. Furthermore, historians who specialize, and are renowned for their scholarship on genocide, such as ] and ], do call it a "genocide", and include it as an entry in their book (not currently cited in the article, but i am including it); they also support the 353,000 estimation of deaths, emphasizing that it is the Turkish governments which have systematically denied that a Pontic genocide ever occurred (in parallel with the ]). Also, Travis (2009), whose work is cited in the article four times (but only as a reference on the origin of Pontic Greeks), also calls it a genocide, and even adds that the widespread attacks by the successive governments of Turkey, on the homes, places of worship, and heritage of minority communities since the 1930s, constitute cultural genocide as well; from the "Conclusion" in his chapter "The Destruction of Indigenous Peoples' Cultural and Intellectual Property in Turkey and Iraq":


*{{tquote|The indigenous Assyrians, Greeks, and Armenians of Iraq and Turkey have had their communal integrity and intellectual heritage shattered by the genocide of World War I and its aftermath, and along with the Yezidis, Mandaeans, and Jews, by smaller-scale and sometimes more subtle but nevertheless destructive pogroms and assimilatory policies since then. The Ottoman and Kemalist Nationalist massacres of the Anatolian Armenians, Assyrians, Greeks, and Yezidis, as well as of the Mesopotamian Assyrians and Yezidis, constituted genocide under the initial definition and international criminal application of the term. The widespread attacks by successive governments of Iraq and Turkey on the homes, places of worship, and heritage of minority communities since the 1930s have amounted to cultural genocide, as defined by the framers of the Genocide Convention. Cultural genocide occurs when a government takes “ny action which has the aim or effect of depriving of their integrity as distinct peoples, or of their cultural values or ethnic identities,” or “ny form of assimilation or integration by other cultures or ways of life imposed on them by legislative, administrative, or other measures.” Although cultural genocide not accompanied by physical measures against group members was not made a separate crime by the Genocide Convention, Raphael Lemkin working as a consultant to the U.N. Secretary General on the drafting of the Genocide Convention urged that it include “systematically destroying historical or religious monuments.” The U.N. General Assembly voted against making cultural genocide a separate crime because its members believed that “culture was already covered to a large extent by the word ‘religious’” in the Genocide Convention. Thus, one U.S. court referred in 2006 to “cultural genocide” as a wrongful policy. Massacres, extrajudicial executions, assaults, and seizure without compensation and on ethnic or religious grounds of cities, villages, places of worship, schools, homes, businesses, and personal effects also constitute the crimes against humanity of murder, persecution, extermination, and looting.}}.
As there hasn't been any opposition to date (only support), I will move the page now. ] (]) 03:22, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


I am including him as well. Last, regarding the Greek mainstream historians, neither Sjöberg nor Kitroeff refer to all of them; if that was the case, which it isn't, it would be ] and would require many more reliable sources.
:Please put in a ] request for this move as the current name of the article was only settled on after a long debate. We should also consider other names that are used in reliable sources and try to pick one which is within Misplaced Pages policies guidelines. --] (]) 12:50, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


Sjöberg doesn't refer to all, but some. Unless you think that his reference to Greek educators (teachers) and influential commentators also pertains to all:
::What did you have in mind?--] (]) 12:55, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


*{{tquote|Meanwhile, despite the predictable Turkish efforts to discredit it, Greek mainstream historians, educators and influential commentators oppose this claim as founded upon "ahistorical and anti-scientific opinion".}}
::"Greek genocide" as opposed to "Greek Genocide" was proposed to avoid past issues cropping up again. A week later and there still hasn't been any objection so I think it's okay. I, for one, believe it's important to keep the name as "Greek genocide" to maintain consistency with western scholars and to reflect the contents of the article. ] (]) 16:52, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


Furthermore, i find it interesting that Sjöberg bases this claim on a 2001 article written by journalist ] (a famous ] in Greece) in the politically-left newspaper ], and even quotes him. Even though i haven't read the newspaper article, a personal view of a biased journalist from 2001, even if indeed valid, is not necessarily true for 2021 (regardless of the fact that it is being reproduced in Sjöberg's 2017 publication); just something to think about.
==Monuments/Memorials==
I have significantly cut down parts of this section because they do not contribute anything to this article. Firstly, there are several dozen monuments on the Greek genocide around the world. What is the particular significance of the monument in Canada and a small commemorative plaque in Australia above all other memorials? If there is a reason why these memorials should be mentioned as opposed to all others then this should be clearly stated. Secondly, phrases like "well attended, emotional ceremony" are not fitting to wikipedia. Moreover, the wording of the Australian plaque is erroneous and so including it undermines the objective of accuracy. I can explain more on this point if necessary. Please don't engage in an edit war but use this discussion page to resolve the issue. For the time being, I am reverting back to the original page. ] (]) 07:22, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


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


*{{tquote|There is also an institutional split, with those disputing the usefulness of the term genocide belonging to the mainstream of the historical profession in Greece.}}
It describes a fact. There are scholars who have called it a genocide. This is the fact that is reported. It doesn't say it was a genocide bur reports on the fact that it has been labelled such.--] (]) 12:59, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


Though, Kitroeff that was cited to support this claim, continues in the very following sentences with the following:
Plus I checked the ] page and nowhere does it say that writting so and so said this and that is weasel wording.--] (]) 13:20, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


*{{tquote|As its title suggests, this volume falls clearly on the side of those who wish to affirm that genocide was committed against the Greeks of the Ottoman Empire between 1912 and 1922. The publisher, Aristide Caratzas, summarizes the purpose of this book in a prefatory note: “The efforts to eliminate the Greeks, the Armenians and the Assyrians, peoples whose biological presence in that geographic space goes back millennia before recorded history, are integral to the process that led to the creation of what became the modern Turkish Republic. The predatory methods used, and indeed what may be called a policy of effective physical elimination of populations, as well as of the cultural traces of their presence in areas they inhabited, bespeak of planning at the highest levels of government and its systematic implementation.” Further on he adds, “Greek scholars, with some significant exceptions, have been less active in researching the subject of the violent elimination of the Greek presence in Asia Minor and eastern Thrace, which spanned three millennia. The avoidance of the subject of the genocide by many mainline academics in Greece is a convergence of factors, which range from governmental reticence to criticize Turkey to spilling over into the academic world, to ideological currents promoting a diffuse internationalism cultivated by a network of NGOs, often supported by western governments and western interests.” Then he concludes: “This volume represents a kind of scholarly opening statement to an international audience on the subject of the extermination or expulsion of Ottoman Greeks, as part of the genocide of the Christians of Asia Minor.” (pp. ix-x) Thus, this book has a dual purpose, to present information that highlights the extent of the massacres suffered by the Greeks, and to argue that the massacres qualify as a genocide and, also, to implicitly criticize those who do not agree with this perspective.}}
It doesnt just say it has been described as genocide but actually lists a number of reliable sources that do in fact describe it as such.--] (]) 13:22, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


I am including this as well in the article. ] (]) 07:05, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
:See {{tl|who}}, ] paragraph that starts "It is not sufficient to discuss an opinion...", ] (both from ]) and the guideline ]. As the next paragraph goes on to describe and attribute two interpretations of the events, there is no need to place an interpretation in the paragraph that is describing the events as it gives a bias to that paragraph. --] (]) 13:26, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


::Ok then saying "which has been described as having..." covers the mass atribution issue, since it is a fact that it has been described= as such supported by the citations--] (]) 13:32, 28 December 2008 (UTC) ::I see that as i was editing the article, ] removed the claim pertaining to Greek mainstream historians. Personally i have no problem removing the claim until consensus is reached in the talk page. ] (]) 07:11, 18 September 2021 (UTC)


If you give me 5 or even 10 scholars who acknowledge the "Pontic genocide" out of hundreds or thousands of historians who have studied the subject, that does not mean that it is generally accepted. Again, most sources describing the Ottoman Empire's involvement in World War I and the Turkish War of Independence describe the Armenian (and Assyrian) genocide, but almost all do not mention the "Pontic genocide". Neither Patrick Kinross, Rudolf Rummel, Reynolds, Eugene Rogan, nor Taner Akcam even use this phrase in their works. Most authoritative sources describe the Greek/Pontic Greek exodus not as genocide, but as an population exchange. The handful of researchers who define it as "genocide" are not well known and constitute only a marginal minority in the academic discussion whose opinions you push into the article. Also, you have answered nothing to the fact that there is no serious international organization has recognized this "genocide". Stop baselessly trying to prove the so-called "Pontic genocide" by equating it with the Armenian genocide. The second is recognized by most scholars and several international organizations, is a big part of today's politics and diplomacy and is very popular, the first - I have already written about it before... ] (]) 08:35, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
:::Your change does not get around the problem of bias. One could replace the phrase with, "which several scholars have '''not''' described as having a genocidal character". There is no need to put in such a phrase in the first paragraph which covers the events as the opinions are covered in the second paragraph with attributions. The whole point of the lead is to reflect the article which is structured events and then opinions on the events. --] (]) 13:36, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


Now let's move on from the term "genocide" to the number 353,000. As far as I know, Tassos Kostopoulos has a history degree, plus he has written many books on Greek history that have been published by various publishers. We have at least 2 authoritative sources directly stating that the number 353,000 is inflated (Kostopoulos and Sjoberg), which is enough to at least add their opinion to the article, so as not to give the impression of "the only true number 353,000". One of them (Kostopoulos) gave his estimate of 100,000-150,000 and I would like to see it in the article too. Recently I found a Greek site (https://greekreporter.com/2021/05/19/greek-genocide-pontus-asia-minor/) suggesting 200,000 and saying that 350,000 IS SUPPORTED ONLY BY SOME HISTORIANS ("By the time of the Asia Minor Catastrophe of 1922, the number of Pontians who died had exceeded 200,000; some historians put the figure at 350,000"). Also you have never proved that McCarthy's opinion cannot be used in the article, so his 65,000 can be included too. It has never been commented that the Greek source gives the number of 400,000 Pontic refugees in Greece, and given the population of 700,000 before the events (according to Sotiriadis 450,000), the large number of refugees in the USSR, it is obvious that based on this source the number of deaths is clearly under 300,000, which clearly contradicts the number of 353,000. Also keep in mind that Rudolf Rummel gives a number of 347,000 for all Ottoman Greeks in 1914-1922, which contradicts the number of 353,000 for one Pontus. Thus, we have 2 authoritative sources directly pointing to the incorrectness of the number 353,000 and 2 indirectly. Add to all this McCarthy and the Greek site and you get an inconvenient truth. Again, most historians who give an estimate of 350,000-360,000 refer to either Valаvanis or other historians who refer to him. Moreover, it has been proven that its 353,000 is nothing more than a beautifully forged fake. ] (]) 09:14, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
::::Moved it to second para. But first para still needs work since the mention of the pop exchange is misleading, most of the Greeks evicted (over a million) were ethnically cleansed '''before''' the Lausanne treaty was signed.--] (]) 13:37, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


:{{tq|hundreds of thousands of historians who have studied the subject}}?? Give me a break. You're not doing your credibility favors with wild exaggerations like that. Rather, it shows someone with ], ], ], and ] issues.
:::::It is unhelpfull to unilaterally remove something after I just accepted your pov and moved it to the second paragraph. It doesn't ''really'' help in establishing mutual good faith.--] (]) 13:43, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
:{{tq| but almost all do not mention the "Pontic genocide"}}? Who is "almost all" How do you know they are "almost all"? This kind of statement needs to be sourced. Do you have a source that it's "almost all"? Incidentally, the views of Akcam and others that do not consider it a genocide are already in the article. If you are calling for the removal of the views that it was genocide, that is a complete non starter. And it seems you are dropping names without reading your sources, because Rummel for example does consider it genocide (see, he included the Greeks of Anatolia in a ''book about genocide''. See how that works?).
:::::Wrt to what I said above about the population exchange most Greeks had allready been deported by the time the treaty was signed, so saying that most were exchanged as part of the treaty is not accurate.
:{{tq|The handful of researchers who define it as "genocide" are not well known and constitute only a marginal minority}} More wild unsubstantiated exaggerations, possibly also violating ] (yes, ] applies to talkpages too).
:{{tq|Also, you have answered nothing to the fact that there is no serious international organization has recognized this "genocide"}} Perhaps you haven't heard of the ]? Perhaps you haven't read the article, since the IAGS is ''mentioned in the article?
:{{tq|Tassos Kostopoulos has a history degree}} that's not the issue, the issue is that this figure is contradicted by all other scholarship on the subject, even by those who do not necessarily consider these events a genocide. Kostopoulos' view is a fringe view, in fact the very definition of ].
:{{tq|We have at least 2 authoritative sources directly stating that the number 353,000 is inflated (Kostopoulos and Sjoberg)}}. Sjöberg does not say the figures are inlated, and does not endorse Kostpoulos' figures. In fact in his book he refers to "the cautious estimates of 300,000 to 700,000 dead" on p. 234. Again, it would help your credibility if you actually ''read'' the sources you mention, instead of wild rants on the talkpage.
:{{tq|suggesting 200,000 and saying that 350,000 IS SUPPORTED ONLY BY SOME HISTORIANS}} Shouting in ALLCAPS aside, it's pretty funny you took "some historians say 350,000" to mean "only ''some'' historians say 350,000". Nice try, but no dice. Greek Reporter is new website, and not a scholarly source anyway.
:{{tq|It has never been commented that the Greek source gives the number of 400,000 Pontic refugees in Greece, and given the population of 700,000 before the events (according to Sotiriadis 450,000), the large number of refugees in the USSR, it is obvious that based on this source the number of deaths is clearly under 300,000}} No ] "mathematical calculations" please. We've been over this.
:{{tq| Again, most historians who give an estimate of 350,000-360,000 refer to either Valаvanis or other historians who refer to him. }} More wild unsupported exaggerations.
:{{tq|Moreover, it has been proven that its 353,000 is nothing more than a beautifully forged fake. }} This has got to be the cherry on the cake. Using colorful language doesn't make wild unsupported exaggerations ''true''.
:You also ''completely ignored'' everything Demetrios wrote above, and all the sources he gave, in what amounts to a whopping case of ]. Unfortunately, all of the above seems to point to a strong case of ], ], ], ] and so forth. It is impossible to reach any kind of consensus with this type of behavior, and we already deep into ] as a result. ] (]) 13:43, 18 September 2021 (UTC)


I advise you to read your opponent's words more carefully during the discussion. This will not only facilitate discussion, but is also a show of respect. I did not write about hundreds OF thousands of historians, but about hundreds OR thousands of historians. This is the first and simplest case when you don't read my comment carefully. Further, in general, tin. We are talking about the "Pontic genocide", damn it, about PONTUS, and not about the entire territory of the empire where the Greeks lived. Rummel never even once mentioned the phrase "Pontic genocide" or analyzed it in any of his most famous books. Moreover, he gives an estimate of 347,000 for all Ottoman Greeks that you wanted to roll back, because this number is very uncomfortable for you, including because it completely contradicts the number 353,000 for the Pontic Greeks alone. "More wild unsubstantiated exaggerations, possibly also violating WP: BLP (yes, WP: BLP applies to talkpages too)." - please argue. In fact, what I wrote is true (maybe a little exaggerated, but still true), and you have not given any explanation for your conclusion about my words. Now about the International Association of Genocide Researchers. I am familiar with the article quite well, otherwise I would not have started the discussion. You misunderstand her conclusion. As far as I know, the association really came to the conclusion that there was a genocide of Armenians, Greeks and Assyrians. However, we are not talking about all Ottoman Greeks, but about Pontic ones. And then it turns out that the association did not recognize any "Pontic genocide". Now it will be even more interesting. You accuse me of not carefully reading the sources, but you are not reading carefully what I am writing. I did not say that Sjöberg agreed with Kostopoulos on the estimate of 100,000-150,000. But at least he supports him in the sense that the number 353,000 given by Valavanis is overstated: But Greek journalist Thassos Kostopoulos HAS DEMONSTRATED that... "Greek Reporter is new website, and not a scholarly source anyway." - okay, the only thing I agree with from what you've written. I didn't ignore what Demetrios wrote. I analyzed his sources and came to the conclusion that 2 of them talk about genocide, but do not talk about 353, 2 - on the contrary, and 1 - neither about one nor the other. But I gave 5 sources, of which 4 are indisputably authoritative and McCarthy, which contradict the number 353,000. And of the authoritative and neutral historians who studied the subject, the "Pontic genocide", I repeat, recognized up to 10, and the rest, who form the overwhelming majority, are completely silent about it. ] (]) 15:00, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
I'll be adding more here.--] (]) 14:21, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
:The International Association of Genocide Scholars explicitly stated the following ():
:*{{tquote|The resolution passed with the support of over eighty percent of IAGS members who voted. The resolution (full text below) declares that "it is the conviction of the International Association of Genocide Scholars that the Ottoman campaign against Christian minorities of the Empire between 1914 and 1923 constituted a '''genocide against''' Armenians, Assyrians, and '''Pontian and Anatolian Greeks'''." It "calls upon the government of Turkey to acknowledge the genocides against these populations, to issue a formal apology, and to take prompt and meaningful steps toward restitution."}}
:By the way, it isn't difficult to find additional sources. Also, note that the genocide of the Pontian Greeks, is just one branch of the broader Greek genocide, so it is natural that some sources won't address it directly as a Pontic genocide, but under the broader term Greek genocide; hence why we have the same article addressing the subject. ] (]) 07:06, 19 September 2021 (UTC)


The reference that you gave is not working. However, finding the conclusion of association independently, I have to agree that it confessed a genocide both: against Pontic and Anatolian Greeks. But most organizations "Pontic genocide" do not acknowledge. Neither the UN, nor Council of Europe, nor European parliament, nor Genocide Studies Program, nor Genocide Watch (despite all the delusional interpretation of events, namely about the 1 million lost Greeks and that Mustafa Kemal is one of main guilty - that is one-sided Greek propaganda, the "Greek", but not "Pontic" genocide acknowledges only), nor In Support of the Legal Determination of Genocide, nor Institute for the Study of Genocide do not recognize "Pontic genocide". Obviously, that one International Association of Genocide Scholars is simply nothing as compared to all of them. As well as about ten of historians confirmative him, against other hundreds that studied subjects and mentioned no "Pontic genocide" in their works. ] (]) 09:12, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
:Please don't it just clutters up the talk page. --] (]) 14:33, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


:{{tq|Neither the UN, nor Council of Europe, nor European parliament, nor Genocide Studies Program, nor Genocide Watch}}. So the Swedish Parliament isn't reliable but the European Parliament is? Nevertheless, the European Parliament HAS recognized the Pontic genocide . On the other hand, the rest of the entities that you mentioned haven't recognized the Greek genocide (as a whole) at all, so there's no point in having a discussion about them. See for countries that have recognized the genocide either as Pontic, Greek, Anatolian, etc etc. ] (]) 15:55, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
:See ] ] does not agree with you (and )s)he uses a source to support that POV). But IMHO the way to develop this article is to add to the events section the details of the changes you want to make to the lead. Then and only then edit the lead to reflect the new content.


::I've stayed out of this up till now, since I don't have access to the sources or know them as well as others but my understanding has always been that the Pontic genocide, was simply one aspect of the broader Greek genocide. Am I wrong? If I am not, then saying that some scholars/governments don't mention the Pontic genocide is like saying the Holocaust didn't happen in Holland because some scholars don't mention a distinct 'Netherlands genocide'. Not everyone breaks matters down in the same way. My understanding has also always been that some scholars treat all the anti-Christian genocides in Ottoman lands ''(inc Armenian, Assyrian and Greek)'' as one event. Am I wrong? What is actually being argued here? ] (]) 16:58, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
:: I am not debating this with meowy or any other feline. I am debating with you and expect to hear any arguments you have from you. If anyone else cares to join I am happy to discuss it with them as well. I agree with that.--] (]) 14:39, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

:::I am sorry that you consider it important to score points ("I am not debating this with meowy or any other feline." rather than trying to reach on consensus on how to write a balanced article which is constructed within the three content policies (], ] and (most important for articles like these) ]). If you have not read it before you might find ] instructive, I know that I did when I was shown it a few years ago. --] (]) 14:04, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

:The events section is pitifully small and needs expanding.

::I agree with that.--] (]) 14:39, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

:With regards to the lead section what additional information does the addition of the new sentence add to the lead? AFAICT all it does is to try to reinforce one POV with weasel wording. "This campaign has been described by genocide scholars as having a genocidal character." This implies all genocide scholars you do not have a source that says that and the same point is covered in a sentence that attributes the statement "More recently, the International Association of Genocide Scholars passed a resolution in 2007 affirming that the Ottoman campaign against Christian minorities of the Empire, including the Greeks, was genocide." So what additional information is added to the article with the additional weaselly worded sentence? --] (]) 14:33, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

::I used many but you didn't like it. Then I used some and you didn't like that either. Now I didn't use any qualifier and you still don't like it. So your issue is not with the qualifier but with mentioning that there are members of the academic community who have individaully described it as such and not one organization of academics.--] (]) 14:39, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I am of the view that the sentence "This campaign has been described by genocide scholars as having a genocidal character" is redundant and unnecessary, especially where it has currently been placed. Firstly, the phrase "having a genocidal character" is vague. Secondly, the message you are trying to convey is firmly and fully contained in the mention of genocide affirmation by the IAGS, i.e. that a whole group of scholars acknowledge the events as genocide -- and that's explicit and straightforward as it contains none of this nebulous "genocidal character" stuff. I suggest deleting the sentence "The campaign ... genocidal character" and working on the rest of the article to let the events speak more for themselves. Just my opinion.] (]) 16:45, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

:Fair enough. You are right, we do have more important things to work on in the article. I have begun compiling a list of sources for the 1914 expulsions and the population exchange in addition to the ones I had already collected for the main issue. Hopefully we will have enough soon to start filling in the events section. --] (]) 17:10, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

::Good job, Xenovatis. It's good to hear that. Thanks a lot. We need key information on massacres and deportations (as opposed to expulsions) of Greeks throughout Ottoman Turkey in the period 1914-1923; essentially a chronicle of all such events in a digestible form. As you know, the population exchange (which already has a wikipedia page) is a tragic chapter of both peoples (Greeks and Turks) but clearly cannot be considered part of the Genocide. ] (]) 18:09, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

:::Xenovatis, please try to use recent secondary sources rather than contemporary accounts as there is a danger that we will fall foul of ] and ] if we do. --] (]) 14:04, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

==Great job all==
I am very pleased to see the merge of the various topics on genocide has finally happened. Bravo to everyone who made it possible! [[User:Monsieurdl|<span style="color:#0000C8;font-family: vivaldi"><FONT SIZE=3>'''Monsieur<font color= "#DC143C
">dl'''</font></font></font></span>]] <sup>]-]
</sup> 17:35, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
::Why, as the content of the Pontic Greek Genocide article on wikipedia is seemingly "gone", which was definitely the purpose of the 'merger' proposed by certain Turks who deny these Greek Genocides, sadly enough.] (]) 16:57, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
:::Νot at all, the article on PGG was renamed as Greek Genocide to conform with the current scholarship and the IAGS recognition that speaks of a Greek genocide and not just about the Pontic Greeks in particular. The content is still there.--] (]) 17:31, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

== Genocide? ==

Is these events actually '''recognised''' as a true genocide? If not then the Turks might as well make there own article 'Turkish genocide'. ] (]) 16:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

:It has been recognized, please look at the relevant section in the main article and the IAGS recognition.--] (]) 17:03, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

== Can someone please revert? ==

Can someone please revert back to version by Philip Baird Shearer on 22:44, 23 January 2009. The last three edits by Smith2006 are not helpful at all. I don't want to go in to great detail but here is some brief justification: For example, "the government of the Ottoman Empire and Young Turk forces instigated". First of all, the Young Turk regime was the ruling party in the Ottoman Empire -- they were not a distinct entity as this wording implies. Secondly, referring to the Ottoman Empire as just the perpetrator (at least in the introduction) is more reasonable as it covers the entire period 1914-1923 while the Young Turks were only in power until 1918 and so is an incomplete statement. Also the Trebizond press article should not only be hidden but removed altogether. It does not specifically pertain to the Greeks while there a whole host of articles that do. I don't think "Turkish wikipedians" objected to its inclusion but a consensus was reached that it was the appropriate thing to do for a number of reasons -- see archive for more. Can someone at least hide it? Essentially can someone revert back to the last PBS edit? Thanks ] (]) 15:07, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
::You can do it by clicking on the date next to the edit you want to revert to and saving. I did it but would suggest discussing it with Smith since he has some good ideas and wants to help. --] (]) 17:36, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
::::Thanks for doing that. I'm sure his edits were well intentioned. Cheers. ] (]) 00:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

== Added more sources which highlight need for pov tag. ==

When I was last involved in this article it was called Pontic Greek genocide, despite the intense debate such a title caused. Now the article seems to have escalated in its use of pov terminology by stating that genocide is a word most commonly used to describe what ALL Greeks of the Ottoman Empire had apparently suffered. This is I believe a clear regression in the development of this information into a viable, neutral and factual article. I have added a number of credible sources which a)question the worthiness of the IAGS resolution as a credible source, the main argument for the new title, b)state specifically that what happened to Greeks was not a genocide and/or cannot be compared to the Armenian genocide and c)highlight that scholarly work on the treatment of Greeks is almost non-existent and therefore no major scholarly position can be claimed. For these reasons, and the fact that genocide is still being "pushed" as a way of describing the events, I have added the pov-title tag. --] (]) 00:30, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

::I'm afraid you were very selective in your edits. To this end, I have not deleted what you wrote but I have complimented your text by a series of facts and quotations that you neglected to include. The paragraph on the IAGS resolution now makes for ugly reading and is not digestible at all but I guess you were trying to make a point. ] (]) 01:16, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

:::I am disappointed that the cart yet again seems to be before the horse. A description of the events should be much much larger than a description of who and who does not think the events were a genocide (Let the facts speak for themselves).

:::I suggest that interested editors agree to reduce the size of the section academic views to a couple of paragraphs than engaging in an arms race over who can find and list the most academic view to present one or another POVs. --] (])

I am dissapointed PBS, that during my absence, it seems no objections were raised towards renaming the article to Greek genocide, an even more pov proposition than the Pontic Greek genocide, which at least dealt with a specific group, in a specific location, in a specific timeframe. So forgive me for feeling the need to weigh in and highlight just ridicolously out of hand this has got. If you want to downsize the academic views, go ahead, I will help if you want, but so long as all the views are represented clearly I dont care. I am however going to re-add the pov-title tag, I think I have provided enough sources to warrant this. --] (]) 15:03, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

::The article refers to a specific group, namely the Ottoman Greeks, in a specific location, namely the Ottoman Empire, in a specific time frame, namely 1914-1923.
::The article was previously titled "Pontic Greek Genocide" it is now titled "Greek genocide". Note the drop to a lower case for genocide. Note also, that unlike before, there is no attempt to define one particular term in the introduction to this page. As such the POV tag should be removed, unless of course certain facts in the article are disputed, in which case this issue should be raised.
:::Actually it had been moved to "Pontic Greek genocode" on 8 July 2008, it was not until 23 December 2008 that you move it to "Greek genocide". --] (]) 21:47, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
::::::I distinctly recall at some point it was a PGG page but if I'm mistaken, my apologies. ] (]) 17:59, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
::The term "Greek Genocide" is a term used by the IAGS, it also happens to be more widely used in English language scholarship, e.g. more recently, the Journal for Genocide Studies and Prevention. Nevertheless, the title page is simply "Greek genocide" to more accurately reflect the approach to this period by historians.
::At this moment the Academic section is in tatters. I could now come along an add, say, another dozen odd quotes of scholars who supported the resolution and endorse the term Greek Genocide. What would this achieve? Does it not suffice to make mention that some academics fail to endorse the GG just as quite a number of academics fail to endorse the Armenian Genocide. No?
::We could also note that the resolution was passed overwhelming but not unanimously. Would this not resolve the problem?
::The current text is very misleading and it also misleading to quote scholars who at other times and occasions have endorsed the application of the word genocide, and not make mention of this fact. For example, Robert Fisk refers to the events in 1922 but Garnet has used his comments out of context.
::{{section|PROPOSAL}}'''PROPOSAL''': I suggest all edits made in recent days, including my own, are removed and we simply make mention that (a) the resolution was not passed unanimously but "overwhelmingly" and (b) that some scholars reject the application of the word "genocide" to describe these events. Is this not reasonable? And since the title is "Greek genocide" and no attempt has been made to define one particular term in the introduction, the POV tag should also be removed. Otherwise, if it takes just quotes from a number of academics to change an article's title, the a POV tag should be placed on the Armenian Genocide page too. Comments welcomed. ] (]) 15:54, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

:::You obviously haven't been sufficiently exposed to agarnet. Everyone else has agreed to this change and the article has been without a pov-tag for months. The "points" agarinet brought up have been discussed to death in previous talk pages and proven to be nothing more than tendentious reading on his part. There is nothing more to say. --] (]) 16:47, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

The only way to npov'ise this article: Rename it Ottoman Greek Casualties, create a narrative about the massacres, expulsions etc either by geographic location e.g. Pontus, Izmir, Istanbul or by year e.g. 1915-1918, 1919-1923 etc. Then you create a section entitled "Controversy", under this you mention the resolutions made by Greece and the IAGS and the controversy it has caused. That is the ONLY way to make this article npov. The focus remanins on a narrative of the events instead of pushing a genocide pov which, as I have shown, has not entered mainstream academia in the way the Armenian genocide has. That is my proposal. If people agree to this, I will help write it since it will be a valid, factual and encylopedic. As it is, it is too messy and if people want to keep it this way I certainly disagree to removing my additions which at least provide some context to academic "recognition" of this event. --] (]) 16:46, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

:Changing the title is not the only way to do it take a look at the ] article for an example. --] (]) 16:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

::Tell me PBS, why should we not change the title? I mean based on what rationale is keeping the title more favourable than changing it, in your opinion? --] (]) 18:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

:::As the title is only a descriptive one, I am more interested in the content the the title. I would consider using a less POV title, and you can probably make a case for that, but I am not sure you will get a local consensus to change it as many editors seem wedded to including genocide in the title. If you put it up for ] you may get a sympathetic brave admin who will close it in favour of the policies and guidelines (instead of just counting opinions), but if you fail then you make it more difficult to move it again. The recent change to ] (see the section "Purpose of consensus").

:::Rather than debating the name of the article, I suggest that we trim back the genocide debate -- including getting rid of the large IAGS quote -- and concentrate on the events. --] (]) 21:40, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

:::With reference to the ] above how about reverting to the version in the section ], and then agree changes to the article along the line that the PROPOSAL suggests? --] (]) 21:53, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

You know that genocide is more than just a descriptive term, it has implicit connotations relating to crime and murder. You cannot brush aside a title with genocide in it and hope the rest of the article will turn out neutral. Misplaced Pages is not a democracy, just because some groups of editors with an interest in a point of view can shout louder than others does not mean their views carry more weight or even carry and legitimacy at all. --] (]) 23:42, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

:::::PBS, your last post sounds like a reasonable and constructive approach to end this deadlock. :::::We can also address all of the issues A.Garnet raises -- in particular, that there are some scholars who reject the application of the term Genocide and that the IAGS resolution was not passed unanimously -- but this needs to be done concisely; i.e. without listing a set of quotations as it will only incite others to overload the page with a list of quotations by scholars in support of the term -- we don't want this page turning into a quote farm.
:::::At this moment in time, there are sufficiently many publications and scholarly affirmations to warrant the page being titled "Greek genocide", without a capital G and merely as a descriptive term without any attempt to define one particular term or phrase for the events in the page itself or insinuate that one particular phrase exists.
:::::I hope someone else can promptly revert back to the version suggested by PBS above because I don't have experience reverting anything but the last edit. If not, I'll give it a go myself. Once we've done that we can begin to draw attention to the issues in question.
:::::As PBS pointed out, this state of affairs only reemphasizes the need to develop the "events" section. Xenovatis, you mentioned a while ago that you were compiling relevant information. How is that going? Cheers. ] (]) 00:35, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
::::::"Teach a man to fish". All you do is go into the history select the version you want to see by clicking on the date. Select the edit tab in the usual way -- It will warn you that you are editing an old version -- save it with a suitable comment in the edit summary. --] (]) 10:14, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
::::::::::Thanks. Done. ] (]) 10:40, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::::Sorry no, I absoloutely dont accept the removal of the material I added. It has more right and carries more academic credibility than any of the material here. The views of Mark Mazower, Taner Akcam, Elefantis, Feinstein, Melson, Balakian etc as renowned scholars in their field are infinitely more noteworthy than the other sources here. If the article was not about portarying the event as a genocide, then I would of course not mind trimming down the section, but since it is the material I added is important to show readers how ridicolously a fringe view is being fleshed out here. --] (]) 12:15, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

:::::::::::To further add, if peoples idea of consensus here is "giving in" to what most Greek editors want then sorry its not going to happen. I am more interested in this article meeting wiki criteria of neutrality, verifiability and imporant policies such as undue weight and original research not being violated. There is no onus on me to compromise on these policies. --] (]) 12:15, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

::::::::::::In the next few days I will be editing the page to mention that point exactly; that there are a number of scholars who had their reservations about the resolution and that, in general, there are some who reject the application of the word "genocide" to the events.
::::::::::::Keep in mind, however, we are not grading academics and of those that you list it is questionable how much weight their view should carry. For example, Balakian, who is not a historian but an English professor and is best known for his poetry outside Armenian circles, has contradicted himself on a number of occasions regarding the Greeks and used the word "Genocide" for the Greeks both before and after the resolution. Then, Melson in his writings has spoken of the Armenians as the only Christian race in the Ottoman Empire thus indicating his lack of familiarity with even the existence of Greeks, Assyrians and others; and so on.
::::::::::::In any case, rather than plague the page with a series of quotations and counter-quotations, we will draw the reader's attention to this controversy concisely and accurately. This is the best way forward. Cheers. ] (]) 12:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

My friend, to say "in general, there are some who reject the application of the word "genocide"" is a gross understatement. If there really was such a scholarly consensus, then for heavens sake find me one published book by one reputable scholar and then you may gain enough credibility to mention a few sentences on the genocide controversy. To create an entire article based on a few flimsy statements, political resolutions and one contested academic resolution is simply lunatic. You say your going to rewrite to include scholars to oppose, why? Didnt I already do that but it seems some were only to happy to remove it and now rewrite it as they wish. --] (]) 12:30, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

:I have made some edits, to include the point that it was not unanimous see what you think.
:I think that there may be an interesting parallel to be drawn here between these events and those of the ] extinction. No one doubts that the extinction happened and many genocide scholars have in the past basing their conclusions on the published histories of the day drawn the conclusion that the extinction was a genocide. But in the 21st century Australian historians who are working in that area (beavering away with primary sources in the usual way that good historians do), are not convinced that it was. I have recently rewritten the section ] using articles by two authoritative Australian historians, it might be of interest to those editors here to read it. There is also a more detailed article called ] which has some problems because it assumes that historians like Keith Windschuttle and Henry Reynolds disagree on this point, although Reynolds more recent publications show that on Tasmania they broadly agree. --] (]) 12:52, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

::I have reverted to my last edit because, if all the facts were in then there could still be a dispute over interpretaion (more than one meaning of genocide), but AFAICT from the text that was deleted, all the facts are not in. The {{tl|fact}} template is needed because I have not produced citations for theses scholars' statements. --] (]) 14:59, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
:::Obviously you reverted some grammatical corrections that I made and you reinstated ] wording as well. Quote: "The IAGS resolution was passed with an "overwhelmingly" majority but not unanimously". Now I heard about "overwhelming" majorities. But "Overwhelmingly" majority? I corrected this but you reverted it. Secondly what is the purpose of telling the reader that something "passed with a majority" and then tell the reader that majority means "Not unanimity". That's a ] way of expressing things if I ever saw one and it also is not very complimentary to the level that we think the intelligence of the reader is at. ] <small>]</small> 18:04, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

The last edits by PBS have done a world of good. Thank you.
I have a slight worry that the text as it stands might lead many to believe that the six scholars listed are some of the IAGS members who opposed the resolution, which is of course not true (Elefantis and Mazower). Might it be better to name them in a separate sentence?
I'm also uneasy about listing Balakian as someone who raised concerns without also pointing to the fact that he himself has used the term frequently for the Ottoman Greeks. I wonder whether an alternative could be "a number of IAGS members and other academics have voiced concerns ..." or would this not be explicit enough?
I think it is clear "majority" implies a non-unanimous vote but perhaps it's better to keep what PBS wrote in order to be explicit. It's not a big deal either way really. ] (]) 18:47, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
:Hi Bebek. Nice talking to you after such a long time. Although I agree with you most of the time, this time allow me to disagree. We cannot be explicit about obvious and self evident facts. A majority of something automatically implies the existence of a minority, i.e. not unanimity. To overspecify this is insulting to the intelligence of the average reader. I tried to fix this yet again but if anyone reverts me so be it. I will not revert further but I will not be happy with the unnecessary redundancy which puts in question the intelligence of the reader and guides them as if they were IQ challenged. The question also arises: Why do we need the term "unanimity", in the presence of the word "majority"? Does it serve some particular purpose? Did anyone else use this phraseology or is this our invention? (Shades of WP:OR and WP:WEASEL, unfortunately). At least A. Garnet fixed this "overwhelmingly" I complained about. ] <small>]</small> 21:32, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

::::Hi, I don't disagree with you. Essentially I wanted us to end a deadlock and reach a compromise so that we could move forward. My personal preference is that it read "an overwhelmingly majority" but I knew others wanted to emphasize the point that it wasn't passed unanimously. Arguably the same thing but one sounds sweeter than the other. ] (]) 17:57, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

::I was not worried about up on the precise wording (I took what had been suggested in ]), although I though it important to get over the point that it a major objection was the lack of research on which to express an opinion. I am glad that ] has re-written it, as it is much clearer, and with that clarity there is no need for a mention of unanimity. --] (]) 10:33, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

:::'''Sorry no, I absoloutely dont accept the removal of the material I added. It..''' I suggest we alert the administrators about the tendentious and disruptive behaviour exhibited by user:agarnet.--] (]) 11:59, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

::::I have yet to make a single revert, let alone the 3 allowed by wiki policy, so alert as many administrators as you like. --] (]) 19:30, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

== POV in section headings ==

Renaming title sections such "Views on the genocide" and "Turkish denialism" carry a POV. The words assert that the genocide took place. I am reverting the first to "Genocide dispute", deleting the "Turkish denialism" and renaming "Academic" to "Academic debate" and "Political dispute" On the assumption that academics debate a point and the politicians dispute the same point. --] (]) 17:15, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

:Words like ''dispute'' and ''debate'' imply that one is going on. Turkish denialism aside a couple of sentences trawled from a website do not constitute a debate. Unless there are say articles on journals '''that dispute the use of the term genocide''' there can't really be considered to be a debate. At most the statements should be taken to represent a small minority opinion which should be represented but '''in proportion''' to its significance, as per wp rules.--] (]) 17:28, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
::See in ]. Xenovatis have you read the essay ]? --] (]) 17:40, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
:::This eight-year old article is only usefull for citing Elefantis who is incorrectly cited as an eminent historian when he was a marxist sociologist, which by the way is not the same thing. There are other factual errors as well, e.g. the referrence to a million turkish expelees (in fact it was half a million), the non-reference to the fact that most of the 1,5 million Greeks had allready been evicted etc. Philipp have you perchance read ], particularly the part about opinion pieces which states '''Opinion pieces are only reliable for statements as to the opinion of their authors, not for statements of fact'''?

Regardless of whether the events were genocide or not, the section refers to specific cases of their recognition as genocide. As such, giving the section the title "Genocide recognition" is not misleading nor does it carry POV. It simply accurately reflects the material.
I agree with Xenovatis, in so far as the Independent article contains a number of errors and it's flawed in logic because Robert Fisk seems to believe the Greek law pertains to the Smyrna massacre and nothing more. As we should all know by now, this article is not about the Smyrna massacre. Further, there is no evidence to suggest there is an ongoing debate or dispute apart from Turkey's longstanding denial of all atrocities, which is not news, right?
I've now updated the section title to read "Genocide recognition". ] (]) 21:37, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

:I believe I've made a legitgimate case, backed by credible authoratative sources, which highlights the neutrality issues of the title. To keep removing it as if there is no dispute over the title, or no potential for dispute, is not constructive. Whether people like it or not, the title IS a problem and NEEDS to be discussed, for that reason I am going to reapply the tag. As for the rest of the article, why are certain sourced statements simply being erased? For example that certain academics worry the IAGS resolution will harm the credibility is sourced and a notable point to add, please refrain from removing this. Furhtermore, to use the term "Political" in reference to recognition is a huge generalisation, there are two countries who specifically recognise this and that is Greece and the Republic of Cyprus both of whom are Greek speaking peoples, therefore for npov it would be wiser to state "Greek parliament resolution" which is far more specific. --] (]) 19:23, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The Greek parliament issued a law, not a resolution. Calling it "Greek parliament resolution" does not accurately reflect the contents of the section since it fails to encompass Cyprus' recognition and Turkey's political response. Recognition of the events as genocide by Greece and Cyprus are instances of political recognition whether you like it or not. The fact they are just two countries with Greek speaking peoples doesn't make the recognition any less political.
A.Garnet, you are responsible for the removal of sourced statements.
The title is merely descriptive and all facts are sourced so any POV-tag will be promptly removed.
] (]) 21:53, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

:If the tag is to be prompty removed it will be prompty reapplied when I have the opportunity, that is not me being stubborn, it is me upholding wiki policy on npov and undue weight. As for your reasoning that it is merely "descriptive", that is not good enough. As I said to PBS, genocide, big G or little g, has implicit pov connotations and consequences for the neutrality of the article. It is like seeing a rather plump woman and calling her a fat cow, when she is insulted, you tell her "I'm just being descriptive"!. Do you see what Im getting at? The anon edit was made by me btw. --] (]) 17:24, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

::WP specifically prohibits avoiding certain words just because some groups might take exception to them. If Turks are unhappy that their genocides are labelled as such they should have thought of this before commiting them. While it is iillegal in Turkey and occupied Cyprus to refer to any of the genocdes commited by the Turks this does not apply to the world at large. Agarnet '''cannot''' accept the fact that these events constitute a genocide since to do so would be '''illegal in his country of residence'''. The article is the result of several pages of arguments and satisfies a long-standing consensus. Agarnet you will '''not''' attempt to make any more changes before achieving consensus in talk.--] (]) 18:07, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

:::Excuse me, this is not about me. It is not about what I want or believe. It is not about what Turkey wants or believes (take note, I am neither a Turkish, nor TRNC citizen). It is the fact eminent scholars such as Mazower, Elefantis (yes, a Greek who called the government a idiot for passing the resolution!), Melson, Feinstein etc have basically ridiculed the whole notion of a Greek genocide, the fact that academically it has no representation. The fact that Levene says genocide is not the commonly used term, the fact Akcam says there is almost no scholarly work on Greeks in WW1. What I want is THEIR view to be represented here above the absurdly fringe view that Greeks suffered a genocide during WW1. I mean honestly, this a good candidate for deletion since it is now a pov fork of ], ] and ] among others. Luckily for you such a move wouldnt achieve anything since a flood of Keep votes by Greek editors will unfortunately render a no consensus. Nevertheless it is something I will think about. In the meantime I will insist on the pov-title tag and I want to remind you to comment on content and not the editor. --] (]) 19:37, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

There are a number of errors in the material you persist on posting. For one, and as I've already tried to communicate, the Greek Parliament did not issue a resolution but passed two laws. Similarly, for Cyprus. Also, there is no evidence to suggest that genocide affirmation by the Republic of Cyprus was in response to Greek recognition. It is also misleading to refer to two Greek parliamentary laws, recognition by Cyprus, and Turkey's dispute of the genocide as simply "Greek parliament resolution and reaction". It fails to accurately represent the contents of the subsection. Another problem pertains to the individuals you are quoting. Elefantis remarks indicate that his perception that the 1998 Greek law was claiming the Smyrna massacres were genocide -- the errors of Fisk's article have already been documented here. The word Smyrna is no where to be found in the law and the actual decree pertains to the period of 1914 to 1923 in "Asia Minor". To mention the likes of Elefantis is severely degrades the quality of the article. If you are going to make POV edits, which will be promptly reverted to uphold the integrity of wikipedia, then please try to keep edits factual and accurate without distortion. Thank you. ] (]) 00:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

==A.Garnet's edits and Weasel Words==

"Since there are few contemporary scholarly works on the Greeks of the Ottoman Empire during this period, there is no consistent term used to describe their fate."
This sentence was inserted by A.Garnet. First, the statement on there being no consistent term is not sourced. Second, relatively few works do not imply an absence of inconsistency of a particular term. ] (]) 18:28, 7 February 2009 (UTC)#

:It was sourced, but deleted in the endless reverts of my edits. The observation was made by Taner Akcam, if you care to look through the history you will see this. --] (]) 21:55, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

::No, what was sourced was the statement regarding there being few contemporary scholarly works. What was NOT sourced was "there is no consistent term used to describe their fate"; and one certainly doesn't imply the other. ] (]) 23:58, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

== Going back on a deal ==

I thought we had a deal as per ]. Noone from the regulars objected then. Now some of the regulars are objecting. Is this consensus by backsliding? New improved version of ] perhaps? Maybe we can add this to the policy. Seems the perfect way to unglue and undo countless of agreements all over the project. ] <small>]</small> 00:03, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I guess from now on, after each agreement leading to consensus, if the question is asked: ''Deal or No Deal?'' The answer should be: ''Yes''. Now I get it. ] <small>]</small> 00:18, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

:Following the fortuitous re-appearance of our resident turkish genocide denialist, who by the way was present during most of the discussion that lead to the article's stable form '''sans''' the pov-tag, the issue of the pov-tag has been re-introduced. Now before the IAGS recognition and the two articles in academic journals (Journal of Genocide Studies, Genocide Studies and Prevention) that are '''solely devoted on the genocide''' and '''explicitly refer to it as such''' one could grant that those who insisted on the pov-tag had half a leg to stand on. This quite clearly no longer applies. To insist on it given that the concensus, no longer a trend, in the academic community is to label these events a genocide is pov-pushing and counter to WP interests and guidelines of neutrality and reflecting current secondary source consensus.--] (]) 05:38, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

::Firstly, I have warned you before to stop make comments directed at me. Referring to me as "our resident turkish genocide denialist" is insulting. I have not throughout this whole discussion made any attempt to deride anyones character personally. To my knowledge, when I was last present, we were disputing the title Pontic Greek genocide, which still had a disputed title tag. Then, in my absence, a new title Greek genocide emerged and the tag dissapeared. The best reason I can come up with why it dissapeared is that editors are too intimiated to get involved, and I dont blame them. It has taken me over a week to get a simple tag up and every edit I have made has been reverted and I've been called a genocide denialist to top it all off. To reiterate the reasons why the tag is valid:

* The absence of a large body of scholarly work which shows genocide to be the majority held view
::::::::It is true that English language works on this issue are not particularly numerous in number, but of those published and focusing centrally on these events the majority employ the term genocide.] (]) 18:11, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
* The absence of even one published text which synthesises these events as a genocide in the way the article does.
::::::::Here are three for you: ,,; For more, see here: . ] (]) 17:54, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
* The fact this article is pov forking other articles such as the ], ], ]
* The fact the IAGS resolution was disputed by those scholars whose research specifically deals with the Ottoman Empire i.e. Balakian, Akcam, Feinstein, Melson. The fact sourced statements can be found by eminent scholars such as Mazower, who probably carries more academic weight that any of the others, who states explicitly genocide as a term cannot be used.
::::::::Yet, some of those you repeatedly cite as "disputing" the resolution, used and continue to use the word genocide in their own writings and talks for the Greeks.] (]) 17:54, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
::You cant brush all this aside by saying there is no dispute, revert edits that try to highlight these aspects or engage in personal attacks/intimidation of other editors. --] (]) 16:41, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

== The way forward ==

Since we are agreed that there is a dispute over the title, there has to be some discussion now of an alternative. Any title with genocide in it will never be neutral for the reasons outlined above. I did make a proposition earlier in the discussion which was for an article called "Ottoman Greek casualties" along the lines of ]. Within this there will be different subsections either by area or by year to explain the narrative. At the bottom will be a section called "Controversy" which will highlight the Greek parliaments and IAGS's view. What do people think of this proposal? --] (]) 18:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

::I vote against it.
::I think it is far more reasonable to employ terminology consistent with the IAGS, an organization of the world’s foremost experts on genocide, and the vast majority of its members, genocide scholars, historians and academics. I also think it is important to employ terminology consistent with contemporary English scholarly publications as they appear in academic journals. This would imply the appropriateness of the term "Greek Genocide". At least, in this case, we are employing a largely established term, unlike the proposed "Ottoman Greek casualties". However, the term could be used descriptively which would mean a lower case "g" genocide and no attempt to define any particular term in the introduction.
::There are far more 'scholars' who have argued that the term 'genocide' is an unfitting description for the fate of Ottoman Armenians, yet that page still stands. Thus, using the logic above, the ] page "will never be neutral" either. The same for the Holocaust page too.
::A page titled "Ottoman Greek casualties" should provide a quantitative perspective to the events, not a complete narrative of the persecutions and atrocities.
::A subsection "controversy", as suggested above, implies that recognition is controversial. It is only controversial in Turkey.
::I suggest the article title stays as it is. ] (]) 19:32, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

By the way, there is also an ] article. My question is on the usage of the term 'Ottoman'. Either Turkey is the inheritor of the Ottoman Empire, or, as I have argued in wikipedia ], it is the last state to emerge out of the empire. The article ] states in its first paragraph that “was succeeded by the Republic of Turkey”. The article ] also makes that succession clear. Also, while it existed, the empire was often referred to as 'Turkey'. So it seems curious that we filing articles such as ] and wishing to classify certain historical events as Ottoman and not as Turkish. ] (]) 19:38, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

::Politis, I fail to see your point. During the period in question, i.e. the genocide spanning the period 1914 to 1923, the Greeks of the Ottoman Empire were Ottoman subjects. The Republic of Turkey has little to do with this discussion. ] (]) 19:42, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

@A.Garnet: Please don't use euphemisms as section titles. You should have named this section "The way backward" as in "Going back on a deal". Thanks. ] <small>]</small> 19:51, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

:::The IAGS is not the final say on what to name a Misplaced Pages article. The organisation is not infallible, its word is not final, we have to consider a whole host of other aspects when naming articles besides the views of one organiastion. Is the notion of a genocide greek part of mainstream academia? Are discussions on it regularly published? Can we source a statement that most scholars do recognise this as genocide? The answer in all 3 cases is no, whereas in the case of the Armenian Genocide article the answer to all 3 is yes, that is the difference between the two and one resolution cannot change that. Also Politis, Turkish Armenian casualties or Turkish Greek casualties would not make much sense. Pre 1923 we are dealing with the Ottoman Empire, when Turkish nationalism was still in its infancy. As Bebek notes Turkey has little to do with this discussion. --] (]) 19:07, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

:::::The terminology employed by the IAGS -- to repeat, an organization of the world’s foremost experts on genocide -- does carry weight. No one is saying their resolution should act as the final say on the article title but given that "Greek Genocide" is also a term employed in contemporary western scholarship, especially in peer-reviewed academic journals, it does make for a fitting candidate. I think it is important that the article employs established and recognized terminology even if it is just in a descriptive way.
:::::To counter your other points, note that far less has been written and published on the ] than on the Greek Genocide, but that page title boldly features the term "Genocide" (with a capital G, unlike this page) and also in a definitive way (unlike this page, which has a descriptive title). It is true there are more statements affirming the Armenian Genocide, but there are also far more statements and works disputing it than in the case of the Ottoman Greeks. It's important to understand a coin has two sides.
:::::So far as your question, "Can we source a statement that most scholars do recognise this as genocide?" The IAGS resolution which was passed overwhelmingly by the majority of its scholars, hundreds of leading historians, academics and genocide specialists, is testimony to this fact. Even some of the scholars who raised concerns about the resolution, still use the word "genocide" for the Greeks today. ] (]) 00:59, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

:Bebek, "Greek genocide" is not, as you say, an "established and recognized terminology", far from it. The fact one cannot find a single monograph to its name, or which synthesises the material as this article does, show it is not established or recognised. If you could find perhaps one or two texts, then perhaps you have reason to include a few sentences on genocide accusations, the fact that you cannot find any gives more reason to delete the article as a pov fork. I have said before the IAGS resolution is not infallible, it is notable but it does not prove a large body of scholarly work which supports the thesis of a genocide against Greeks. The fact that those academics who opposed the resolution included those who studies deal specifically with the Ottoman Empire shows this.

:Regarding your statement that there are more people disputing the the Armenian Genocide than the "Greek genocide" misses the point completely. There are very few people who even support the notion of a genocide of Greeks, therefore you have very few people who publish articles to counter it. The point is there is hardly any "Genocide debate" or "Genocide controversy" surrounding these issues because it is more or less completely absent from mainstream academia, something Taner Akcam was trying to point out. Also please tell me which academics who opposed the resolution use the term genocide for Greeks?

:Now I want to make a point about the tag here. This article, and its predecessor, the "Pontic Greek Genocide" HAS been disputed not just by myself but other editors who have come and gone. No matter how many editors, be they Greek or other, turn up to remove the tag it does not change the fact that the title IS STILL DISPUTED, along with the subject of the article and is disputed with good reason. --] (]) 16:01, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

:::All these issues have already been addressed and I'm afraid you are repeatedly making the same false claims over and over again. Examples of works which meet the criteria you have specified and which you claim don't exist have already been cited (e.g. see the section above this). If you followed past discussions you would also know that I have already named an IAGS member who raised concerns about the resolution prior to the vote (there is no evidence that he 'opposed' the resolution as such) but continues to use the word genocide for the Greeks (and did so before the resolution too). ] (]) 02:38, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

==Just once...==
Hehe, I see old friends are back in this... Too bad they didn't follow my example and disappear permanently letting the third parties decide for this, as they alone originally did. Also, too bad the third parties tolerate the stance of ''one'' disputing user, after months of stability of the version they themselves wrote... Maybe I should be back? Naaah... I trust the WP community in sorting this out. I'll just go bold '''once''' and remove the silly and unjustified tag. I invite any third party to reinstate it with their own reasoning. Please, stuff like "we can agree it is disputed", or "pov-title tag is legitimate" without a justification in the talkpage are simply unsubstantiated. Give'em some academic substance, will you? (if you find any...) ]] 17:33, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

:I agree completely. I am finished playing this silly reverting game with edit warriors who do not appear to have a cause. I might add I find it uncouth for someone to keep putting the tag back, without ever discussing anything on the talk page. This is simply not the way to build WP:CONSENSUS or show respect to the other editors. ] <small>]</small> 17:40, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

::Keep the faith Dr. K. Just continue to backup the facts with reliable sources and documentation. That's all any of us can do. --] (]) 05:50, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

:::Thank you very much Kansas Bear for your nice and encouraging comments. It is always a pleasure seeing you. I agree completely. Take care. ] <small>]</small> 11:31, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

From the history of the page:
*22:52, 6 February 2009 Future Perfect at Sunrise (pov-title tag is legitimate.)
*10:26, 7 February 2009 Xenovatis (article has been stable and w/out pov title for months, take any issues to talk before engaging in such major revisions)
* 11:11, 7 February 2009 A.Garnet (There is a dispute over the title, it has been explained in the talk page.)
*12:06, 7 February 2009 Xenovatis (rv as per talk, need to establish consensus before major changes as per wp guidelines)
*16:25, 7 February 2009 Philip Baird Shearer (rv: "need to establish consensus before major changes as per wp guidelines" (a) this is not a major change, (b) where does it say that in the guidelines? and (c) we can agree it is disputed.)
*...
*21:37, 7 February 2009 Bebek101 (rv as title is merely descriptive and, in any case, is a fitting given its usage by the IAGS and its use in academic journals. The only dispute is coming from revisionists.)

I think there is some misunderstanding going on here:
* Xenovatis adding {{tl|pov-title}} to an article is not a major change: Ask at ] if you do not believe me. In my opinion it is misleading to put such comments into the history of an article, when there has not been a major change to large portions of the text, and is similar to adding the comment vandalism to a good faith edit.
* Bebek101 the tag is not used to indicate that there is a dispute among outside agencies, or people, it is used to describe a dispute among Misplaced Pages editors (the comment "''Please see the relevant discussion on the talk page.''" is an indicator of this. Further it is predominantly descriptive titles (which this is) that are likely to have NPOV issues (see ]).

Personally I do not think that the tag is necessary, but I do recognise that if some editors wish to discuss the title further then there is a dispute for which it is legitimate to include such a template at the start of the article (it is the old summation of Voltaire's POV "I may not agree with what you say but I will defend <s>to the death</s> your right to say it": although in this case A.Garnet, that statement (the death bit) is for me OTT :-)

However if "Greek genocide" is to be used as a NPOV title, then the section headers must remain neutral so show that the title of the article is NPOV. To do that we should go back to "Genocide debate" or "Genocide dispute" rather than "Genocide recognition", which when tied to the page name "Greek genocide->recognition" implies that there is no debate over this issue. --] (]) 10:01, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

:Thank you PBS for your comments. At least you are a user who has engaged in constructive and continuous dialogue and I really respect that. As far as your comments about the alleged debate, I would counter with ], given that only an insubstantial minority holds that view, but at least I respect your opinion. I also think that even if we implemented your suggestions, the tag would be reinserted because the objection of the inserting editor is not with the subsection headers but with the title of the article, even if downgraded at that. ] <small>]</small> 11:31, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

:PBS, in that case I propose that the "Genocide recognition" section is left as it stands and not renamed, because that title accurately reflects the contents of that subsection, i.e. particular instances of the events being recognized as genocide, BUT a new section or subsection titled "Genocide dispute" is inserted. In such a section we can draw attention to entities or, if necessary, certain individuals that have questioned or reject the application of the term "genocide" to the fate of Ottoman Greeks. Thank you also for the clarifications you offer. ] (]) 14:29, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

----
I see Mr. A.Garnet has added again the tag, for the reasons he alone supports. As evident from above, no other editor shares those reasons. Following that logic, we can all go ahead in whichever article and state whichever reason we think of, even totally unsupported by anybody else, slap a {{tl|POV-title}} tag on top, and force everybody else to accept it on the grounds of Voltaire's "defense for his right to disagree". Shall we start with ] maybe, to illustrate the ] better? Naaah, this is a privilege of Mr. A.Garnet alone. ]] 12:52, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

== Disputing this article. ==

I appeared on this article on January 27. I have since, both through discussion and edits, tried to highlight the fact that this article, in its present state, is a violation of several wiki policies relating to neutrality, undue weight and original research. The result has been that a number of editors (who ''appear'' to be Greek, lest I be accused of some sort ethnic attack) engaging in what I believe is an attempt to silence any editor who tries to challenge the ridicolous nationalist piece that this article is. Four editors in the past few weeks have tried to place a pov-title tag at the top of the article, which simply alerts readers that the title is being questioned by other Misplaced Pages editors. These include myself, Fut., PBS (though I acknowledge he thinks there is no need for it) and Aramgar. In response, other editors have appeared to remove the tag, providing token "reasons" such as "back to consensus", "revert to stable", "need to establish consesus for major changes" (since when was a tag a major change?) or "if you have issues take them to talk before" (I think I have arguing these issues for ... 3 years?). The point is I believe that a group of editors here are making it very difficult to change this article in a way which would conform with Wiki policy. Any edit which goes right to the core of what is wrong here i.e. disseminating fringe nationalist views as mainstream academia, is reverted straight away. That is why I am going to now re-apply the tag in the hope it will generate a proper discussion and if it is reverted I will seek an administrtors intervention to make sure it stays. --] (]) 20:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

:The tag has only been inserted by your own reasoning which is not shared by anybody else. Your reasoning ''appears'' to be Turkish (lest I be accused of some sort of ethnic discrimination). The other editors you mention:
:*First they modified the article ''themselves''.
:*Then they removed the tag ''themselves''
:*Since I removed your tag asking them to provide ''their own'' reasoning, they simply rejected ''your reasoning'' -or abstained from talk ''despite that they were notified in their talkpages by me''.
:*They ''never'' reinstated the tag themselves again -or abstained from editing the article.
:So basically you are on your own, and you happen to ''appear'' heavily biased. ]] 20:07, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

::What does "your reasoning appears to be Turkish" mean? Does such a sentence even make sense? I didnt know there was a Turkish mode of reasoning, if that is what you are suggesting here, please elaborate because that is indeed an ethnic attack. Relating to your other points, if any user really does think I am the only stubborn editor refusing to accept the "consensus" here, or rather "the consensus of notorious POV-pushers" as Fut. nicely put, then please take a long reader through the archives to see I was never alone in disputing these articles, if you can call them that. --] (]) 22:25, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

:::The official Turkish mode of reasoning is described perfectly in ]. If you find it ''different'', well, probably you are right, but it is you that said it, not me. Fut.Perf. or anybody else didn't make ''any'' supporting comment or ''any'' revert to reinstate your bogus tag which was originally removed by third parties, in an article which has totally been rewritten by third parties, even though they were notified in their talkpages. You are referring to a period ''before'' the article was rewritten, and ''before'' I went bold removing it ''once'' and asked any third party to reinstate it with their own reasoning. The only way for your tag to be justified is to revert the article to its condition prior to the third party rewriting... You are on your own, and you ''appear'' to be heavily biased. So let's make a (second) test: Let's remove it, and see if anyone else will come in support in the talkpage or in reinstating it. ]] 11:28, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

::::Sorry, but what on earth does aritcle 301 have to do with my argumentation here, or anything to do with me at all? All my arguments are based on the fact that I have a fairly good grasp of what constitutes a neutral article on an encylopedia, it has absoloutely nothing to do with "Turkish reasoning".
:::::Your arguments are based on ] selective sources to the point of absurdity. And they are still not shared by anyone else here. ]] 13:36, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

::::Regarding third party editors and tags, did Aramgar, Fut. or PBS not revert the tag also? Did Fut. not say it was legitimate and that regarding the problematic nature of the title, I was "simply right"? I know admins views carry no more weight than others here, but I take the views of experienced editors seriously. Now if you want to remove the tag I cant stop you, but it would be just another sign that you are not taking this issue seriosly, preferring instead to play a game of who can get the most supporting reverts. --] (]) 12:22, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
::::::No Garnet, NONE of them did ''after'' they were challenged to provide their own reasoning. And none of them will. Let's test that. ]] 13:36, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

:::::For my part I am really curious to see on which grounds is the article's title disputed and/or on which grounds is the article's content considered "pure Greek nationalism" by any editor. And I do not mean simple tag-inserting and quotes of the style "I have the right to dispute something". Clear reasoning here, in the talk page, before any possible tag addition.
:::::I also couldn't stop noticing that this article differs from the other two closely related ones (], ]), for the fact that "genocide" isn't written with a capital G. The article has way too many sources and references to justify its title, at least. ] (]) 12:43, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

:A. Garnet, regardless of the POV issues you perceive here, could you please refrain from tagging the article? One editor is not enough to enforce such an ugly and unnecessary tag in an article totally rewritten by third parties, especially an editor who is an involved party. - ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 04:17, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

::Thank you Biruitorul for your excellent comments. ] <small>]</small> 16:49, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

== Clear reasoning ==

Apologies for the delay in replying, engaging in Wiki disputes is often time consuming and I cannot stay consistently involved.

] has asked for clear reasoning as to why the articles title is disputed. My reasoning is as follows:

'''The Title'''

on descriptive names states the following: ''"Where articles have descriptive names, the given name must be neutrally worded and must not carry POV implications."'' Some editors have tried to dismiss the pov title tag on the grounds that it is simply "descriptive" since it uses a little 'g'. This is semantics. Genocide carries implicit connotations of crime and murder and must only be used where it is beyond doubt that its usage is part of mainstream academia.

Again, ''"Sometimes the article title itself may be a source of contention and polarization...A neutral article title is very important because it ensures that the article topic is placed in the proper context. Therefore, encyclopedic article titles are expected to exhibit the highest degree of neutrality...Neutral titles encourage multiple viewpoints and responsible article writing."''

I have stated before that unless that there is a neutral title, there can be no neutral article. This article does not encourage multiple viewpoints on a certain historical event nor promote responsible writing, its sole aim is to further a pov that the Ottoman Empire committed a genocide against Greeks, that is the articles intention and its not a neutral one. Could the same accusation not be covered say in Greco-Turkish War, Great Fire of Smyrna or Population exchange between Greece and Turkey? Is there sufficient academic material which allows this allegation to have an entire article of its own like it was a documented fact?

'''Undue Weight'''

This brings me on to what is the fundamental failure of this article: There exists no scholarly work dedicated to such claims. Those are not simply my words, those are the words of scholar Taner Akcam. If I can source such a statement then surely that is a good starting point over judging these allegations prevalence in mainstream academia. Again, another scholar, Mark Levene, states explicitly that most scholars do not use the term genocide. So we can source two statements by two scholars which give us an overall idea about how developed these claims are in academia: one states there is no academic work which covers Greeks in the Ottoman Empire, another states most scholars do not use the term genocide.

We can further confirm this by a Google Scholar search, "Greek Genocide" returns just 11 results. "Armenian Genocide" returns 3,240. "Rwandan Genocide" returns 5,410. "Holocaust" 229,000 results. Undue Weight states "In general, articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and will generally not include tiny-minority views at all...To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute."

The IAGS resolution has become the focal point for this article, it IS notable and deserves a mention, but is it enough to justify an ENTIRE article on? Its criticisms by scholars (which can be found above) range from either that it is not based on a scholarly process or that it will make the IAGS look like a joke.

'''Summary'''

Does the articles title reflect the "highest degree of neutrality" as required by Misplaced Pages? Is the subject an accurate representation of academic support for such claims? I have argued for over two years now that it fails on both these measures. My argument has nothing do with ridicolous responses such as I am using "Turkish reasoning", it is based on the fact that there is an obvious violation of basic wikipedia policies here and I dont believe the article should be allowed to continue in this state indefinitely. --] (]) 20:52, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

:I find myself largely in agreement with this statement. ] ] 22:19, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

:As a long-time ] of this discussion, I too can support A.Garnet's arguments, along with his efforts to ensure NPOV in this area. ] (]) 22:30, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

::I disagree with all of the above. As a long time participant to this discussion my clear reasons are in the archives. I find it useless to repeat myself. I would also like to add that lurking is really a behaviour and thus it cannot be used as an explanation as to why the tag should be imposed on this unfortunate article. But that just shows on what shallow grounds this tag keeps getting inserted. ] <small>]</small> 23:10, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

:::For every single statement in Garnet's rationale above there are clear counter arguments (which have been, and ''would'' be presented again below at a later date). I am tempted to judge the early commentators above, who rushed to opine without re-hearing the other side first (as they re-heard Garnet's position), but I will not indulge. I will wait for them to retract themselves their irresponsible !votes (because this is what they are) in anticipation of the other viewpoint, and then I will bother to post a counter-statement. If not, then so be it, do as you like (because your mind is already set, hence I need not bother attempting to change it in vein). ]] 00:26, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
:::: What I see is that the lead of the article was changed a few months ago, in a rather uncommon, non-Misplaced Pages-standard way, and now introduces the term "genocide" only at the very end of the lead, after almost 200 words of prior explanation. This was probably a good decision, exactly because it is an implicit acknowledgment that the term is problematic. If all the editors here in so many months of discussion have not found an acceptable way of packaging the term in a standard wiki-intro wording of ''"The Greek genocide was..."'', that's obviously because they realised it's not a universally accepted term. If it's too problematic to go into the lead sentence, if it requires 200 words of hedging before we can even in good conscience begin using it in the text, then it's also too problematic to go into the title. ] ] 07:05, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

:::::Sorry Future, but with all due respect this kind of unilateral wishful thinking goes against the principles of compromise and consensus that have built Misplaced Pages. Apparently you miss the point that some editors have compromised to accept this new title. It is you and the editors who agree with you that are relentlessly pursuing this "non-genocide" POV. By accepting this lower-case "genocide" term we did not acknowledge any problems with the use of the term. We simply tried to ]. Apparently you and your side are not willing to do the same. ] <small>]</small> 16:13, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
:::::: What, you mean the change from the big "G" to small "g" is supposed to be a big concession? Sorry, but with all respect, that's just ridiculous. To the normal reader, this typographical difference has precisely zero significance. This is not the kind of level I'm going to debate on. You haven't addressed my point. ] ] 17:07, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

:::::::(ec) To alleviate your surprise you have to read the archives where all of this is explained in detail. Unlike you, I think this change from capital "G" to lowercase "g" is a profound one. But then I was one of the participants of the original debate and I have the advantage of an insider. Since you were not, please consult the archives and maybe you can understand the reason why this change is so big. If, after reading the relevant sections, you still can't understand the reason, like you said, I am not interested in debating this at the level you want. ] <small>]</small> 17:50, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
:::::::: I'm honestly not particularly interested in what you "insiders" thought you were doing when you changed "G" to "g". I'm interested in what effect it has on the outside reader. That effect, I maintain, is negligible. Sometimes being an "insider" may in fact not be an advantage at all; if you get locked in such a conflict for too long it can make you not see the forest for the trees, and I think this has happened here. ] ] 18:01, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

::::::::::It depends on the IQ of the average reader and how low you think it is. Otherwise you may be surprised how a reader can catch such subtle nuances, if you just give 'em a fair chance. No insiders needed here. Just plain old IQ power. Thanks though. ] <small>]</small> 18:06, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
::::::::::: I usually tend to take my own spontaneous reactions as representative of those of a not-terribly-far-below-average-IQ-endowed reader. In this case my spontaneous reaction was that there isn't any significant difference. Now, on thinking a bit further about it and skimming over the archives, my IQ tells me more clearly: whatever you thought the nuance was, it isn't there. You were mistaken. The expression never was a proper name to begin with, so the old version wasn't very sensible, but whether we treat it as a proper name or not, it always remains ''also'' a descriptive phrase, in either spelling, and the factual claim made by that description is precisely the same in both cases. It makes no difference for the issue at hand, at all. ] ] 18:38, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

::::::::::::Please don't try to make it seem as if I am the single editor who thinks that this is a nuanced approach. This was not even my idea. It was PBS's. He conceived it and I accepted it as well as others. I still think it is a good compromise but if you are so bent on breaking consensus despite all the academic evidence and the comments of the other users here such as Bebek, Biruitorul and Kansas Bear then there is really nothing that I can or I am willing to add to help you change your mind. In short: If you think that this has not been established clearly as a genocide let's just end this discussion here because I am not willing to waste my time further. ] <small>]</small> 20:16, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

'''Please don't be fooled'''
What continues to be neglected are the errors in A.Garnet's fallacious arguments. There exist a number of scholarly works dealing with the Greek Genocide, some appearing in reputable peer reviewed academic journals such as 'Genocide Studies and Prevention' and others published as books. Examples of these have been listed above and explicitly discount A.Garnet and Akcam's claim that "there exists no scholarly work dedicated to such claims". Do I need to give such examples again? I did above and A.Garnet ignored my reply.
In any case, not only are there specific publications focused on these events but there are also a multitude of references in other academic works, such as Samuel Totten and Paul R. Bartrop's "Dictionary of Genocide" and Adam Jone's "Genocide: A Comprehensive Introduction" to name but two prominent publications. There are also many important statements supporting the application of the term genocide by world renowned pioneer genocide scholars such as Israel Charny and Gregory Stanton.
The reason why the IAGS resolution is important is because it indicates that the majority of the world's genocide scholars support the application of the term genocide to the fate of the Ottoman Greeks. Although A.Garnet has pointed to a few scholars who raised concerns about the resolution prior to the actual vote, some of those actually use the term genocide for the Greeks in their own writings which undermines his argument further. Again, I pointed to a case of this above but A.Garnet ignored my reply.
A.Garnet would have you believe that only a few scholars support the Greek Genocide thesis but, in fact, the contrary is true. If you like, we can compile a sourced list of those who support and reject the application of 'genocide' on this particular piece of history. Believe me, the minority view is held by A.Garnet and this can be easily demonstrated.
A.Garnet would have you believe that the Greek Genocide is some product of the Greco-Turkish War, Great Fire of Smyrna or Population exchange between Greece and Turkey despite the fact it is a completely distinct event which predates all of those.
Please don't be fooled. ] (]) 17:39, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

:I was under the impression that references/sources had to be published. ''....should use reliable, third-party, '''published sources'''. Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand.''
:Therefore, any statements by historians(or anyone for that matter) on a blog, is an '''unpublished source''' and should '''NOT''' be used to over-ride '''''reliable, third-party, published sources.''''' --] (]) 18:39, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

::In that case, the criticisms that A.Garnet has sourced off blogs (e.g. by Akcam) should be disregarded and the numerous affirmations of the Greek Genocide in published works should be given proper credit. The references and sources I was referring to are published. ] (]) 18:59, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

:::Regarding Kansas Bears comment, they are pefectly acceptable. Wiki polocy on Reliable sources "Weblog material written by well-known professional researchers writing within their field, or well-known professional journalists, may be acceptable, especially if hosted by a university, newspaper or employer". Since these are all well-known scholars in their field, especilly relating to Ottoman history, and the blog site is hosted on a reputable scholarly website, their comments do indeed carry weight.

:::To clarify however, I am not basing my arguments solely on these comments or those by scholars in published sources such as Mark Mazower, Midlarsky, Elefantis, Fisk or Valentino. No, my argument is based on the fact the degree of academic material on these claims is so small that one cannot reasonably ask an editor to provide counter sources since the number of sources even using the term "Greek genocide" are so sparse e.g. 11 Google Scholar results (look at the results, there is an interesting one on "nationalism on the internet"...). This is not the same as the Armenian Genocide dispute, that dispute has reams of published material, coverage in mainstream academia, coverage in mainstream journalism and a clear divide between scholars who support and oppose the claims. In that dispute we can make an observation on the large amount of material available as to which claims garner most support.

:::In this dispute however, we have a resolution, some statements which use the term genocide in different contexts (some for pontians, some for greeks as a whole) and sources which again refer to Greeks in different context (some for Asia Minor, some for Pontus, some for Smyrna). The subject simply lacks the academic foundation on which to build an article on, that is my argument here. --] (]) 20:27, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

::::Your listing of names like Mazower, Midlarsky, Elefantis, Fisk, etc should be given context, otherwise you are likely to mislead unfamiliar readers with such distorted and manipulated arguments. For example, in the case of Fisk and Elefantis you are referring to one article authored by Robert Fisk and published by The Independent in which Fisk reports on the passing of a decree by the Greek Parliament and cites Elefantis as a negative critic of the resolution. But both Fisk and Elefantis incorrectly interpreted the resolution as pertaining solely to the events in Smyrna in September 1922. However, clearing neither Fisk or Elefantis had even read the resolution because if they had they would have seen that it doesn't even mention Smyrna but refers to the genocide of Greeks in Asia Minor as a whole. A.Garnet, in your numerous attempt to marginalize this piece of history, you are repeatedly referring to blatantly incorrect sources of information.
::::You have a handful of names which you repeat time after time. In fact, if people go away and examine the original statements, they will see that few of these people actually explicitly reject the "Greek Genocide" and some of them, despite their various concerns or criticisms, use the term "genocide" for the Greeks.
::::The website "Google scholar" and its search term count is not an intelligent approach to this debate. The fact you chose to weight the Greek Genocide against the two most studied genocides in history indicates that you are not interested in approaching this fairly. If you 'google scholar' the term "Herero and Namaqua Genocide", the title of a wikipedia page, you will return zero results. And there are many other examples but this is just plain childish.
::::So far your last point, most of the important works or references to the Greek Genocide treat the Ottoman Greeks' fate as a whole. This is true with the IAGS resolution, passed by the overwhelmingly majority of genocide scholars, and this is true with scholarly works in genocide journals and other published accounts. Again, please don't mislead people with false claims.] (]) 21:03, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
:To Kansas Bear: about the reliability of sources, let's keep in mind that the debate about that resolution is not part of normal academic discourse. Neither the resolution nor the statements of concern about it are academic publications in the normal sense; they are essentially political statements. For such an issue, I would consider the web source in question an appropriate source, just as I would consider a politician's website a reliable source about that politician's opinions. ] ] 21:47, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

User:A.Garnet what would you suggest as an alternative name for the article? --] (]) 11:45, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

:You didn't ask me, but my own suggestion would be: ] (I'm open to changing "Turkey" for "Ottoman empire" or whatever else is preferred; I'd just personally opt for the shortest possible version in the title. To forestall an objection: No, "Turkey" is not historically incorrect or anachronistic. But that's a minor point anyway.) ] ] 11:53, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

'Persecution' can imply that the Greek indigenous population survived the 'persecution'. In fact, as many observers noticed, a 3,000 year old presence came to an abrupt end. With all due respect to our 'Turkish' friends whose reservations I respect, I suggest we leave the current title and keep looking for an agreed phrasing. Or perhaps, ]? ] (]) 12:41, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

:"]" does not imply that they survived (but neither does it imply they died). It is a term under international law see for example ] paragraph 1.h. (and also paragraph 2), so it may not be a better word than genocide unless there is general agreement that persecution took place. --] (]) 14:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
:: I don't think there'd be factual objections against "persecution". ] ] 15:20, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
::::I'd imagine there would be serious objections to the appropriateness of the term.] (]) 17:35, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
::::: From those who think nothing below "genocide" is strong enough, or from some other quarter? If the first, well, of course, I was taking that for granted. ] ] 17:37, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

:::::::::It's not as simple as you suggest. For example, atrocities against Ottoman Greeks carried out by the CUP between 1908 and 1913 are usually thought of as the "persecution" era so by applying the same term to a later period may result in some confusion and ambiguous terminology. PBS has also pointed to the fact that the term is defined under international law. In any case, there is far more literature employing or addressing the application of 'genocide' to these events than any other term. As a descriptive title, it makes sense to leave it as it stands.] (]) 18:15, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

:::::::Food for thought: a commentary piece by Caroline Tosh in London (TU No 491, 2-Mar-07) on the ]:
{{quotation|
::::::...
:::::: is concerned that too much focus is placed on the crime of genocide, which is often erroneously held up by victims, the media - and even ad hoc tribunal judges - as the crime of crimes.

::::::"Genocide and crimes against humanity are of equal gravity, yet everyone feels that genocide is worse and carries an extra stigma," she said.
::::::...
}}
::::::--] (]) 17:52, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


"On the other hand, the rest of the entities that you mentioned haven't recognized the Greek genocide (as a whole) at all, so there's no point in having a discussion about them" - why? If the organization recognized the "Pontic genocide", then it recognized it, if not, then no. And here it is no longer important whether she recognized the "Greek genocide" as a whole. By the way, you were wrong about the fact that none of them recognized the "Greek genocide". Genocide Watch, as I wrote, acknowledged. However, it did not recognize the "Pontic genocide". ] (]) 17:01, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
:It is not just genocide that removes a population. Also consider population exchange, ethnic cleansing and refugees fleeing before an advancing army. (eg the clearance of ] involved both flight and expulsion, while the Gaza refugees were predominantly flight). --] (]) 14:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


Now I’ll answer the Pincrete member. Yes, the "Pontic genocide" is part of the "Greek genocide". But the recognition of the first does not mean the recognition of the second and vice versa, because there are two different things. If the preamble says "including Pontic genocide", then the "Pontic genocide" should be recognized by the world community as, for example, the Armenian genocide or the Holocaust. However, most historians and international organizations that have studied the subject do not recognize him. Therefore, at least it should not be in the preamble, so as not to create a false preference in the reader, giving the view of a small minority. Next is the dispute over the number 353,000. ] (]) 17:13, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
:But the Armenian genocide is not part of the holocaust! So of course they need seperate recognition, the Pontic genocide IS part of the Gk genocide. The equivalent argument is saying that no Holocaust happened in Poland, because some, but not all sources treat the subject as a distinct sub-event of the broader Holocaust. It's purely semantic argument frankly. I cannot even see its relevance to the article, since we treat the Pontic events as being part of the bigger Gk event. Are you really arguing that some national and international bodies have recognised something that YOU say didn't happen, despite your acknowledging that it is part of the Gk genocide?] (]) 17:41, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
::Again, the "Pontic genocide" is a reference to the subevents of the broader "Greek genocide", which occurred in Pontus or in relation to Pontic Greeks. Having it in the lede in the form of {{tquote|The Greek genocide (...), '''including''' the Pontic genocide, was the ...}} is nothing out of the ordinary, considering that a number of authors make the distinction; even the International Association of Genocide Scholars cited above, does. But i believe a slight rewording would be ideal, namely to change the "including" to "which includes". By the way, the reason the link didn't work for you, is probably due to your internet connection, which might also be the reason that each time you post in the talk page, a number of duplicate comments are being published; you should have a look at that. As for the number of ~350,000 deaths, there is not really any notable dispute. We have one author who disputes the estimate, and since this subject is highly charged and politicized, more reliable sources endorsing this isolated view, would be required for its inclusion in my opinion, per ] and ]. This very subject has already been discussed in the past and consensus wasn't reached; it's not something new. ] (]) 05:08, 20 September 2021 (UTC)


And I didn’t claim that the Armenian genocide was part of the Holocaust! I wrote that in order for this phrase to be used in the preamble, it is necessary that most historians recognize the "Pontic genocide" (just as most historians recognized the Armenian genocide and the Holocaust). We are arguing about the degree of recognition of the "Pontic genocide" and, accordingly, whether it should be used in the preamble.
::If the title is changed to "persecution", would it be fair and appropriate to the memory of my maternal grandfather, a business owner in the town of Fatsa, who was arrested and executed in Amasia on Sept. 21, 1921 on unfounded allegations? Would it be also appropriate to the memory of all the residents of my father's entire village, called Ada, near Samsun, of over 300 people, and those from surrounfding villages, who found refuge there, and were all killed or burned alive, on May 15, 1919? ] (]) 17:06, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
"Are you really arguing that some national and international bodies have recognized something that YOU say didn't happen, despite your acknowledging that it is part of the Gk genocide?" - you yourself said why I do it. Only SOME national and international organizations recognized him as well as SOME historians who are an overwhelming minority. By the way, I do not deny that deportations and persecutions took place on Pontus. But I do not recognize this as genocide and will never recognize it, like most of the historical society. I am strongly opposed to overstating the numbers (the 353,000 dispute) and the manipulation of terms (the genocide dispute). ] (]) 05:48, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
:::: Yes, indeed, I don't see why it wouldn't. ] ] 18:40, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


"We have one author who disputes the estimate, ..." - are you serious? Can't you count? Or just inattentively reading? Kostopoulos, Sjöberg, Rummel and McCarthy are by no means one author. ] (]) 05:59, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
:::PBS asked what I think would be a good title. I have suggested ] as per ] before, I believe that is a neutral title which frees editors to write a descriptive narrative of Greek casualties without restricting oneself to a genocide pov. --] (]) 23:04, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


I found a Greek source that preferred the number 200,000: An Introduction to Pontic Greek History by Sam Topalidis (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333667150_An_Introduction_to_Pontic_Greek_History), page 1 ("Pontic Greek associations have been lobbying
::::Yes. It's so "neutral" that one might think that a few Ottoman era Greeks had a bunch of accidents and had a few casualties. This new suggestion does not pass any objective test including the smell test. ] <small>]</small> 00:52, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
governments worldwide to have the deaths of over 200,000 Pontic Greeks (Note 1.3) in the Ottoman empire in the early 20th century, recognized as genocide."). ] (]) 08:43, 20 September 2021 (UTC)


:I meant to write "one author who strongly disputes". Anyway, in my very first comment above i wrote that i agree with what Deji Olajide1999 and Khirurg wrote, which included their criticism on ] (especially ]) from your part. We are repeating ourselves. Kostopoulos is the one i referred to, in terms of strongly disputing the conventional estimation of deaths in Pontus. Sjöberg doesn't adopt Kostopoulos' view of 100,000-150,000 deaths, as you originally wrote in the first and second comment, and then you retracted (per Khirurg's observation) by saying that Sjöberg agreed with Valavanis' figure simply being overstated, because he added an additional 50,000 "neo-martyrs" per the data he had in his hands. So no, Sjöberg doesn't adopt Kostopoulos' position in terms of estimates; if anything he seems to agree with Valavanis' 303,238 figure (namely prior of the addition of 50,000 "neo-martyrs"). This position is already included in the article, since it says:
::::Like in the case of the Armenians, a page titled "Ottoman Greek casualties" could provide a quantitative perspective to the events (i.e. various stats on death toll), but not a complete narrative of the genocide.] (]) 11:26, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
:*{{tquote|According to various sources the Greek death toll in the Pontus region of Anatolia ranges from 300,000 to 360,000.}}
::::: On this one, I find myself agreeing with Bebek: "Casualties" is typically used for mere quantitative accounts, such as statistics. ] ] 18:40, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
:So please, don't cite Sjöberg again in order to reinforce Kostopoulos' 100,000-150,000 figure.
:What about ]? You falsified him as well, when you wrote in regards to the total number of casualties for the Greek genocide:
:*{{tquote|This is more or less consistent with the estimates of Rummel, not a pro-Turkish scientist. That is, the total number of deaths (not 300,000-900,000, but 200,000-300,000) is less than 350,000.}}
:*{{tquote|Also keep in mind that Rudolf Rummel gives a number of 347,000 for all Ottoman Greeks in 1914-1922}}
:In reality, Rummel estimates that 384,000 Greeks were exterminated by the Ottomans during the period 1914-1918, while an additional 264,000 Greeks by the ] during 1920-1922; no estimate for 1918-1920 (). This gives us an estimate of '''at least''' 648,000 for the total number of casualties. Does he give any estimate of Pontian casualties exclusively? If not, you cannot say he disputes the 300,000-350,000 figure, because it clearly fits within his broader estimate. In fact, the only quote of Rummel i am aware of, in relation to Pontus, is this following:
:*{{tquote|In Trebizond (or Trabzond) province, the Pontic Greeks were "savagely persecuted ... until the community was virtually wiped out."<sup>71</sup>}} ()
:Now it would be extremely interesting if reference 71 pertained to Valavanis, but unfortunately i don't have access to the full book.
:As for ], i haven't checked what exactly he writes, but then again, there is probably a reason he isn't cited anywhere in the article, and might have something to do with what his respective article says (something that was also addressed above by Deji Olajide1999):
:*{{tquote|McCarthy's work has faced harsh criticism by many scholars who have characterized McCarthy's views defending Turkish atrocities against Armenians as genocide denial.<sup></sup> Hans-Lukas Kieser considers that McCarthy has "an indefensible bias toward the Turkish official position".<sup></sup>}}
:Now, on your new source. I don't know what kind of credentials Sam Topalidis has and whether he has received any recognition, in order for him to be considered a reliable source, but on page 9 he says the following:
:{{tquote|'''During 1916–23 at least''' 200,000 Pontic Greeks died in the genocide. ... '''We will never know the real number''' of Pontic Greeks who fell victim to the genocide during 1916–23.}}
:Doesn't look like much of a dispute to me. Also, take note that this estimate doesn't account for the years 1914, 1915, and 1924, which are included in Valavanis' ~303,000-353,000 estimation. ] (]) 11:01, 20 September 2021 (UTC)


"if anything he seems to agree with Valavanis' 303,238 figure (namely prior of the addition of 50,000" neo-martyrs ")." - you are wrong. Sjöberg does not support 303,000 (until May 1922) Valvanis as well as 100,000-150,000 Kostopoulos. He personally does not comment on either assessment in any way. The only thing he maintains is that 353,000 is overpriced. Now about Rummel. 648,000 is a gross falsification. I proved my point in the discussion and rightly removed it. Rudolph gives the number 347,000 in his book, which can be seen both in the text and in the tables. If you still disagree with this, head over to the talk page discussing Rummel's assessment and write your arguments. I don't know where Rummel got his nonsense about Trabzon. In fact, more than 100,000 Greeks from the Trabzon region moved to Greece through a population exchange in 1923 (source: Baum, Wilhelm (2006). The Christian minorities in Turkey. Kitab. P. 162. ISBN 978-3-902005-62), which in no way matches the words "virtually wiped out". About McCarthy - I agree that he is pro-Turkish, but so what? This does not mean that it cannot be used in the article. For example, the pro-democratic Rummel, who very often overestimates the number of deaths from nationalist and communist governments and has been criticized more than once for this, is used in the article. Just from 1916, the Young Turks began organized repressions against the Pontians. Of course, some killings took place in 1914-1915 (as, for example, 7 thousand Armenians killed in 1914 before the genocide of 1915), but they suffered a very low number of people (less than Armenians, that is, less than 7 thousand). All Pontic Greeks were evicted in 1923, so how could they have been killed in 1924? And over 200,000 is 205,000, 212,000, 220,000, but not 300,000 or 350,000. ] (]) 14:00, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
I am not fully aware of this matter, but wouldn`t it be NPOV to have a title "Expulsion of Greeks by the Ottoman Empire", which includes deportations, ethnic cleansing and even massacres, but is NPOV?] (]) 18:52, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


:Sure, Sjöberg doesn't explicitly adopt any estimation, but he indirectly kind of does, when prior of mentioning Kostopoulos' reference to a 50,000 ovestimation by Valavanis, he wrote the following:
::I am afraid you are very mistaken if you think the verb 'expel' is an umbrella term for deportation, ethnic cleansing and massacre. ] (]) 19:47, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
:{{tquote|In 1925, a total of 353,000 Greek casualties in Pontos '''was established''' by the refugee scholar Georgios Valavanis.}}
:The only criticism on this number he seems to agree with, is the addition of 50,000 "neo-martyrs" (out of which some surely must have died, it just wasn't ultimately verified according to Kostopoulos).
:I don't care what your own opinion of Rummel's estimation is. This is what the sources say, that you initially misunderstood; his real estimates are at least (not including 1918-1920) 648,000 for the total number of Greek civilian casualties.
:You write the following:
:{{tquote|(source: Baum, Wilhelm (2006). The Christian minorities in Turkey. Kitab. P. 162. ISBN 978-3-902005-62), which in no way matches the words "virtually wiped out".}}
:Are you claiming that the aforementioned reference 71 in Rummel's text, is Baum (2006)? Because if you do, that is another mistake from your part. Rummel's "Death by Government" was published in 1994; years prior of Baum (2006), and 2006 is the original publication year. Thus it cannot be him as reference 71.
:McCarthy has been harshly criticized by other scholars, not just as having a bias towards Turkey (we all have our biases after all), but as someone with "an indefensible bias toward the Turkish official position", and a ]; more specifically he seems to fall under what the article describes as an ] who tries to rewrite history in order to support a political agenda (read the ] section) using rhetorical fallacies to obtain his results. A controversial person such as him has no place in this article, until consensus is reached. Personally i disagree with his inclusion, and obviously a number of other editors do as well.
:You try to explain the deaths of 1914, 1915, and 1924, but this falls, again, under ]. You also, disregarded that Topalidis wrote "at least 200,000" (during 1916-23), and "We will never know the real number of Pontic Greeks who fell victim to the genocide during 1916–23.". In another book of his he cites Valavanis' 353,000 estimate as well.
:You write:
:{{tquote|All Pontic Greeks were evicted in 1923, so how could they have been killed in 1924?}}
:Just because the population exchange between Greece and Turkey was signed in 1923, it doesn't mean that they were all instantly transported/exchanged; broadly speaking (not just pertaining to Pontic Greeks) it wasn't completed until approximately 1927. ] (]) 06:50, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
=== Included or involved the Pontic genocide? ===
], during the above discussion, in the lead sentence i.e. {{tq|The Greek genocide … which includes/involved the Pontic genocide,}}. I meant to query this change at the time, but missed the chance to do so. I openly admit that I know very little about the topic and only 'watch' the article as a result of coming for an RfC a few years ago, BUT, I have to say that whilst I understand the use of 'include' - meaning that the Pontic genocide was a big part of, but not the whole story of the Greek genocide - I don't even really understand what 'involve' means in this context. I wonder if it is the right term. ] (]) 05:36, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
:I do remember this change, since it came after i had reworded this part myself (). Indeed, "''which involved the Pontic genocide''" makes it look as if the "Greek genocide" was a chapter of the "Pontic genocide", while the opposite is true; the latter was a chapter of the former. ] (]) 15:39, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
::I honestly don't remember why I changed it. I think it sounded better to me when I made the edit, however I've changed my mind since then. My bad, I'm sorry. ] (]) 16:08, 15 October 2021 (UTC)


::::::I am just a bit confused on this one. At least with the Pontic Greek article it was about a specific groups suffering in the war. It was a distinct and quantifiable article, the reason it was never expanded was because they tried to expand within the borders of genocide accusations, which they simply could not find in academia and therefore could not expand.


" ] has been widely criticized for being a pro-Turkish genocide denier . 4) “given by me”. Misplaced Pages isn't based on ],"
::::::The result is now this article to suggest every Greek in every part of the Ottoman Empire in every stage of World War I and after were subject to a genocide. The subject is so broad, so tainted by original research, that it is almost impossible to find a "term" for it.


Please provide some reliable sources on this. Is he pro-Turkish? Why would he be? Is he Turkish? Who is "Genocide Denier"? Who is responsible to define events as "Genocide"? Please check https://en.wikipedia.org/Perin%C3%A7ek_v._Switzerland
::::::We may have to simply accept that grouping all these events into one article is not the best way to present them. For example an article can be created to highlight the suffering of Pontic Greeks, which from sources I have come across seems to be a distinct event. Other material can be expanded in Population exchange between Greece and Turkey, Greco-Turkish War, Great Fire of Smyrna, Turkish War of Independence etc. This is something else for editors to think about. --] (]) 19:13, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


Please check court verdict:
:::::::::This article is about a specific group, namely the Ottoman Greek minority population. It is a distinct and quantifiable subject with much scholarship and literature affirming it as such. The genocide was carried out by the Ottoman Empire against its minority populations. It did not favor Greeks in one province over Greeks in another. There is ample literature to support this and I am happy to provide numerous references in spite of the fact you continue to ignore my replies to your posts.
:::::::::It seems to me you are making every attempt to marginalize this subject. First it was your attempt to have the application of 'genocide' erased and now it's about breaking this history down piecemeal. What next? ] (]) 19:54, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


"The Grand Chamber also made clear that the court was not required to determine whether the massacres and mass deportations suffered by the Armenian people at the hands of the Ottoman Empire from 1915 onwards can be characterised as genocide within the meaning of that term under international law"
:::::::::Let me add that the 'Population exchange between Greece and Turkey', the 'Greco-Turkish War', the 'Great Fire of Smyrna', and 'Turkish War of Independence' are all events post-1919, some even post-genocide. The extermination against Ottoman Greeks that commenced in 1914 cannot be merged with such distinct and anachronistic subjects at the attempts of certain editors to minimize and marginalize this subject to the point of non-existence.] (]) 20:04, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


There is no international law on this matter.
Bebek, I will make a simple request of you. Produce a statement by a third party scholar which states something along the lines that MOST scholars do recognise this as a genocide? Surely if it is a "distinct and quantifiable subject with much scholarship and literature affirming it as such" this should not be a difficult task. I dont want to hear this from you, or hear you tell me how prestigious and authoratative the IAGS is, that is the rhetoric of a Misplaced Pages editor, I want to hear it from a third party, neutral and authoratataive source. Can you do this? --] (]) 20:42, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


Finally, is it all about "anti-turkism"? <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 09:36, 12 October 2023 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
::I am not aware of such a statement but that is not what I claimed so please don't construct deceptive implications about statements I've made. This request is indicative of your contributions to this discussion: you avoid the arguments at hand and divert the debate when it suits you. In the past you have made a number of similar requests or claims, many of which I have met and all of which you have ignored. For example, you claimed there wasn't a single scholarly work which synthesizes the material as this article does and although examples were provided you chose to ignore them and repeated the claim over and over again.
::Nevertheless and regardless of the criterion you impose, I'm afraid that the IAGS and the overwhelmingly majority of its scholars affirming the application of the word "genocide" to these events (not a subsection of them) does go some way in providing an answer to whether "most scholars do recognize this as a genocide". Likewise, the fact that leading western genocide scholars such as Gregory Stanton, Israel Charny, Rudolph Rummel, Herbert Hirsch, Adam Jones, Tessa Hofmann, Dominik J. Schaller, Jurgen Zimmerer, Samuel Totten, Paul R. Bartrop, Henry R. Huttenbach, Colin Tatz, etc etc have all made explicit and sourced statements affirming the Greek Genocide further supports this argument. Can I ask you to prove that most scholars explicitly dispute the Greek Genocide? I have challenged you before to compile a sourced list of scholars who explicitly reject the genocide thesis against those who accept it. Why don't you take me up on this offer? How many can you cite saying "it was not genocide"? Even a number out of those few names that you repeat time and time again in support of your position have used the term. Time for a new tactic perhaps? ] (]) 21:34, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
::] is THE most authoritative source, and that is beyond question when it comprises of all gurus of genocide scholarship (dat's why it's called International Association of Genocide Scholars -duh). Levene would have never said that historians seldomly use the term "genocide" if the IAGS resolution predated him. The numerous other authors Bebek lists above are additional sources which are supporting the "genocide" view over and above any other. And actually, there is no other: Every other term that has been introduced is simply a joke ("persecution", ..."casualties", how about "traffic accidents"?), and appears in zero to next-to-zero academic sources. I am simply appalled. Oh, and I'm removing the idiotic tag. ]] 19:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
::: Judging from the background information we got from the internal discussions on the IAGS website itself, I doubt whether this organisation, ''qua'' organisation, is such a surpassing source. It's a professional organisation, sure, but like with other similar academic organisations its membership is self-selecting – basically, anybody can become a member if they pay the membership fees, and once you have made yourself a member, you have equal voting rights with the real experts. And the fact that its members can become the target of systematic political lobbying from people who are themselves most certainly ''not'' experts of any particular academic standing (the initiator, Mrs Halo, is apparently a member of the society but herself only an amateur historian), leads me to doubt. Do we know how many members there are? Do we know how many of them voted? Do we know how many of those who voted were among the actual experts? Judging from the comments on the website, the academic standing of the dissenting voices was a good deal higher than that of the defenders of the resolution. Are those voices representative of the voting body? – The fact remains that political resolutions of this type are ''not'' what actually counts in scholarship. Only actual academic publications produce real academic consensus. ] ] 20:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


== Edit Request 2023 ==
:::::::There are numerous errors in the above. To begin with Ms. (not Mrs) Halo was not the initiator of the resolution nor is she a historian, amateur or otherwise. Most members are active reputable scholars. But so you know, genocide scholar Prof. Adam Jones proposed the resolution.
:::::::The comments on the IAGS blog are by a small handful of members and cannot be used to construct such encompassing implications as you have; the overwhelmingly support the resolution received at the vote says all there needs to be said on that front. In any case, most criticisms did not pertain to whether the events constituted genocide but addressed other issues; like the appropriateness of the IAGS passing resolutions on past genocides and on the amount of contemporary English language scholarship available. Further, people like Balakian who raised concerns on the blog used and continue to use the term 'genocide' for the Greeks. Your arguments are very misleading.
:::::::As for the credentials and academic standing of scholars supporting the Greek Genocide thesis, I provided a fairly comprehensive list of scholars above. Many of those listed are world renowned pioneer genocide scholars. With names like Gregory Stanton, Israel Charny, Herbert Hirsch, Samuel Totten, et al, I can't think of a finer set of specialists.] (]) 22:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
:::::::: My point stands: we know of "overwhelming" support only in terms of sheer number of voters in the ballot, not in terms of the academic standing of those who voted, and those who chose not to vote. We also know that the resolution was the result of an aggressive political campaign, conducted in a style that led to serious objections within the society, and by people who were not themselves academic experts. I still maintain that this resolution, and the role of the association that produced it, seems overrated to me. Academic consensus is constituted by academic publications; if such consensus exists where it really counts, you should base the article on that. – As for the idea that people who objected to the resolution nevertheless support the claim themselves, I've seen you saying this several times, but I could never find the "above" you vaguely alluded to where you said it was documented; could you point me to something more concrete please? – By the way, I would also say that for a documentation of academic consensus, we should not concentrate exclusively on the narrow set of scholars who explicitly define their field as "genocide studies"; focussing exceedingly on such work may well tend towards a kind of selection bias, as such work must obviously be interested in labelling things genocide in order to bring them under its own purview in the first place. What counts ultimately is the consensus of general mainstream historical scholarship dealing with the period in question. So, how are the events treated by historians who do ''not'' happen to publish in journals like ''Journal of Genocide Research''? ] ] 00:26, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


The academic discussion section contains the following statement: "These horrendous acts were committed by three entirely different regimes:"
::::Those are ill-perceived questions to create doubts for the authority/credibility/academic standing of the most prominent international organization in the field. Membership "fees"? "Political"? "Representative" voices? Jesus! It passed with 85+ percent! Leading scholars such as Adam Jones were the ones who most enthusiastically endorsed it! We've got a dozen scholars more who call it such! What the hell is the alternative? What other name is there for the events? And who is "counting" votes or academic standing when it comes to the apparently most frequent name in English scholarship for the events? When even the disputers call it "genocide"? Who can impose an idiotic name tag for a named event by a dozen scholars and international organizations without providing a sourced alternative? ]] 22:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
::::: Sorry, but if you want to be taken seriously you will need to change your tone. ] ] 22:07, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
::::::Well, I don't take you seriously either. And it's not only your tone. Try answering the questions above, for instance. ]] 22:10, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
::::::: You seem to have gone so far now that you are claiming not only that "genocide" is a commonly accepted term for the events, but that in fact it is the ''only'' possible term these events could ever be described by. As if no historian on earth had ever talked about them using any other term. Seriously, in all those decades before your famous resolution, were historians mute? I see no reason to argue with you as long as you are operating on this level of cheap fanatic polemics. ] ] 22:18, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
::::::::Where did you see cheap polemics man? I made half a dozen questions up there, and you reply only either selectively or with ad hominem remarks. Ok. How were they called by the non-mute ones? Do you have ''any'' sourced term which is used more frequently? And, please, do answer the other questions as well... ]] 22:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


Now, I get it, mass murder is immoral and I would not argue against this, but I think describing these events as "horrendous" violates Misplaced Pages's objectivity policy. I propose removing the word "horrendous" but not changing anything about the rest of the sentence. ] (]) 18:23, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
:], it's actually a quote, so we can't alter it. BUT, it's an overlong quote and so should probably be paraphrased and pruned down to a reasonable length. Apart from anything else, an overlong quote risks violating the authors' copyright. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 06:44, 17 November 2023 (UTC)</small>


::Seeing that the sentence I proposed to change is a quote but an overly long one, I propose removing the parts: "It's deeper because it isn't just about World War I, but about a series of homicidal ethno-religious cleansings that took place from the late 1890s to the 1920s and beyond. It is wider because" and "of starvation and sickness, and millions of others were deported and lost everything. In addition, tens of thousands of Christians were forced to convert, and many thousands of girls and women were raped by their Muslim neighbors and the security forces. The Turks even set up markets where Christian girls were sold as sex slaves." for the sake of brevity. The first part goes on to explain why the situation is "deeper than the Armenian genocide" (which I think is unneccessary to include) and the second part goes on to detail about the "horrendous acts" that were committed by the Ottomans and probably also should not be included. ] (]) 20:10, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
To those who would like to rename the current title, and use the word "casualties" instead of genocide, I am providing below Webster's definiton of "casualty"
:::] any neutral, factual paraphrasing of that long quote - even retaining some short quotes if helpful, and some comparisons if useful, - would fix the problem. Have a go. There's nothing inherently wrong with 'graphic' language in moderation, as long as it is clear that it is the source - not us - that has used it.] (]) 07:30, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
::::This is not part of the original quote, but a translation of a Hebrew text, by whoever added the content. I went ahead and replaced it with the respective text from the English version of the Hebrew article, which was published about a week later; it uses "atrocities" instead of "horrendous acts". ] (]) 03:47, 19 November 2023 (UTC)


== Another page based on hatred and political propaganda? ==
1. an accident, especially a fatal one 2. a) a member of the armed forces who is lost in active service through been killed, wounded, captured, interened, sick or missing b) losses of personnel resulting from death, injury, etc 3. anyone hurt or killed in an accident 4. anything lost, destroyed, or made useless by some unfortunate or unforseen happening


"It was perpetrated by the government of the Ottoman Empire led by the Three Pashas and by the Government of the Grand National Assembly led by Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, against the indigenous Greek population of the Empire. " so your only source is one greek source to involve Ataturk into this? resentful national feelings towards outcome of the Turkish-Greek war during Turkish liberation? I know that writing history objectively is very difficult. However whenever i come across this type of hate propaganda or any other form of political religious agenda which divides nations and people even more i get seriously disappointed into Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 16:59, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
It is obvious that the term does not even remotely reflect or do justice to the events. The thousands of Ottoman Greek deaths, from 1914-1923, were not an accident or accidents, or the result of some unforseen or unfortunate event, but the result of premeditated and deliberate actions by the Ottomans. To name a few of the actions/methods: labor battalions, deportations, death marches, hangings, outright killings, etc. And, by the way, they were not members of the armed forces, but unarmed men, women, and children.


:@] Turkey is isolated country and many Turcs are brainwashed by the government with Turkish nationalism like Greeks are brainwashed by their own government with Greek nationalism. Only reason you are not having serious problems in this page is that Turcs cannot speak English. It is shameful to feed on two nation's pain in close history and hatred. Ataturk was a great leader with modern ideas, vision and world peace, equality in mind. You don't only trick the world to take your subjective point of view when you write things like that, you also divide people even more and contribute into continuation of this quarrel. I felt like i should have elaborated what i meant by hatred and political agendas. ] (]) 17:12, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
Gentlemen, it is clear form your arguments that you are willing to say anything, and go to any length to deny that the events in question constituted a genocide. ] (]) 02:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


== Misrepresentation of Kitroeff's views ==
== Terminology ==


The historian, Alexander Kitroeff, is cited as supporting the contention that the events in question constituted genocide ("The historians Samuel Totten and Paul R. Bartrop, who specialize on the history of genocides, also call it a genocide; so is Alexander Kitroeff.") The footnote appears to quote him. But in fact it quotes a historian he is quoting in his extremely balanced and nuanced book review, in which he concludes that "Beyond what it achieves, this volume does not neutralize the concerns raised by those who believe the term genocide is not appropriate." ] (]) 23:18, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
I don't know who wrote this: "If the members of the United Nations pass appropriate legislation such incidents as the pogroms of Czarish Russia and the massacres of Armenians and Greeks by Turkey would be punishable as genocid". But they were not very well versed in international law, I can't think of a case where such treaties are retrospective. To present such an opinion from a newspaper, when it is clearly a minority POV is unbalanced.


== Semi-protected edit request on 27 July 2024 ==
Also as far as I know Raphael Lemkin, who was not a professional historian, and he based his analysis on secondary sources written before or during World War II. -- I know this because I recently came across a chapter on the extinction of the Tasmanian Aborigines, in which ] cites "H. Fein,''Genocide;A Sociological Perspective' (London 1990) p. 13" stating that "Many of them have named Tasmania in their list of legitimate case studies, although their usual slight grasp of island history might of counseled caution." (A. Dirk Moses, ''Genocide and Settler Society: Frontier Violence and Stolen Indigenous Children in Australian History'', Berghahn Books, 2004 ISBN 1571814108, 9781571814104. Chapter by Henry Reynolds "Genocide in Tasmania?" ).


{{edit semi-protected|Greek genocide|answered=yes}}
With a controversial subject such as this, it is not a good idea to base a section on sources 60 years old presenting one point of view (that it was a genocide and a criminal act). -- ] (]) 23:13, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Below the table "Total population figures for the Ottoman Greeks of Anatolia" in the Section labelled "Balkan Wars to World War I", there is a "clarification needed" tag in the second sentence of the paragraph.


For clarification, change the sentence to:
::Hi PBS. Thank you. I don't think you read the quote correctly. The NYT author only said "such incidents" like blah blah would be punishable as genocide; not that the convention would be applied retrospectively. My introduction to the quote was misleading, I apologize and will correct that now. Also, this is not a unique article. There is another NYT article from 1946 which makes a similar point. I agree with where you moved the section. ] (]) 23:26, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


"The Ottoman government adopted a "dual-track mechanism" whereby official government acts were accomanied by unofficial
:::The quote says: "If the members of the United Nations pass appropriate legislation such incidents as the pogroms of Czarish Russia and the massacres of Armenians and Greeks by Turkey would be punishable as genocide" the word "as" (in "incidents as" would have to be replaced with "like" to be read as you read it. --] (]) 11:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
"covert, extralegal but state-sponserd acts of terror under the protective umbrella provided by the official state policies" (Akçam 2012, p. 30.), thereby allowing the Ottoman government to deny responsibility for and prior knowledge of this campaign of intimidation, emptying Christian villages."


"" was altered from "were committed" for clarity. ] (]) 18:22, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
:::If you are going to mention the CPPCG then an explanation needs to be given that not everyone who uses the term genocide means the CPPCG definition or we taint any other mention of the word genocide after that, that does not mention the definition that they are using. --] (]) 11:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
:::: I agree, although I wouldn't necessarily want a disclaimer as wordy as the one you put in. ] ] 11:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


:{{done}} ] (]) 17:38, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
::::PBS, thanks for your feedback. I agree so far as we can surely mention there are other definitions of genocide beyond the CPPCG legislation but it shouldn't be as extensive as the text you inserted, interesting as it was.
::::Both quotes are particular important and I don't think the one you take issue with is as misleading as you suggest especially in light of the introduction to the quotation (... "that future cases similar to"...). The quote says if action A happens then "such incidents as" "would be punishable as genocide". I think it is obvious that such legislation could not be applied retrospectively to cases that occurred several decades ago and the article is merely citing examples to add context. ] (]) 16:01, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 17:14, 8 December 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Greek genocide article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14Auto-archiving period: 3 months 
This  level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconCrime and Criminal Biography Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconDeath High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconDiscrimination Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
WikiProject iconEthnic groups Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ethnic groupsWikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groupsTemplate:WikiProject Ethnic groupsEthnic groups
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Ethnic groups open tasks:

Here are some open WikiProject Ethnic groups tasks:

Feel free to edit this list or discuss these tasks.

WikiProject iconFormer countries: Ottoman Empire
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesformer country
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Ottoman Empire (assessed as Mid-importance).
WikiProject iconGreece High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Greece, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greek history on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GreeceWikipedia:WikiProject GreeceTemplate:WikiProject GreeceGreek
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconHuman rights High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconMilitary history: Ottoman / World War I C‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history
CThis article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale.
B checklist
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
  1. Referencing and citation: criterion not met
  2. Coverage and accuracy: criterion met
  3. Structure: criterion met
  4. Grammar and style: criterion met
  5. Supporting materials: criterion met
Associated task forces:
Taskforce icon
Ottoman military history task force
Taskforce icon
World War I task force
WikiProject iconPhilosophy: Ethics Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Misplaced Pages.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Associated task forces:
Taskforce icon
Ethics
WikiProject iconTurkey High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Turkey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Turkey and related topics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TurkeyWikipedia:WikiProject TurkeyTemplate:WikiProject TurkeyTurkey
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconEuropean history Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject European history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of Europe on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European historyWikipedia:WikiProject European historyTemplate:WikiProject European historyEuropean history
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on May 19, 2011, May 19, 2012, May 19, 2013, May 19, 2014, May 19, 2015, May 19, 2016, May 19, 2018, May 19, 2019, and May 19, 2020.
This article may be within the scope of Greek and Turkish wikipedians cooperation board. Please see the project page for more details, to request intervention on the notification board or peruse other tasks.
Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments and look in the archives before commenting.
Archiving icon
Archives
Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14


This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.


"Pontic genocide"

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

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

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

Here are 5 sources on the Pontic Genocide: (last one is included in this article). And yes, Sjöberg says that the Pontic Greeks that died were 100–150,000 but he also says this some lines later (it's literally the 1st source in this page). Nevertheless, that still doesn't make Kostopoulos (or McCarthy) reliable here per WP:FRINGE. Also, the sources say 100–150.000 but your calculations say 65.000? Well, you need a reliable reference for the 65.000 which you probably won't find. Deji Olajide1999 (talk) 20:09, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
Kostopoulos is WP:FRINGE, and while Sjoberg reports his view, he does not endorse them. The "mathematical calculations" (as opposed to "non-mathemetical"?) of wikipedia users are out of the question. Khirurg (talk) 21:27, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
As a matter of fact Dr Kostopoulos is both a journalist and a historian, as stated in scientific journals that publish his writings and refer to him mentioning both aspects of his work -- see e.g. here: "About the author - Tasos Kostopoulos - Historien et journaliste". He holds a PhD in History and is currently employed in one of Greece's leading research centres, as one can see in its his scientific/academic profile in the centre's website.
It is also false that "while Sjoberg reports his view, he does not endorse them". He clearly writes in p. 47 of his monograph The Making of the Greek Genocide that Dr Kostopoulos "has demostrated" that the figure of supposedly 350,000 deaths in the Pontus area is a forgery of Pontic Greek journalist Valavanis.
Other than Dr Kostopoulos being a historian and a journalist and his view being endorsed by Sjoberg, it is widely known to all those familiar with contemporary Greek historical writing that the mainstream position among members of the community of Greek historians is that labelling the events dealt with in this article as a "genocide" is wrong from a historical point of view. This assessment of the field can be found in books, such as Sjoberg's Making of the Greek Genocide (2017), p. 4 (" despite the predictable Turkish efforts to discredit it, Greek mainstream historians, educators and influential commentators oppose this claim as founded upon "ahistorical and anti-scientific opinion"."), or the abstract of a paper Sjoberg read in 2015 (see here: "Though the Greek state recognizes two instances of genocide against Greeks of Ottoman Anatolia, the claim is mostly advanced by non-state actors, and has in the early 21st century become the object of fierce controversy in the "culture wars" of Greece, as mainstream historians and debaters dismiss it as a politically distorted memory.") or scholarly reviews in scientific historical journals (see here Alexander Kitroeff reviewing The Genocide of the Ottoman Greeks in the Historical Review vol. 11 (2014), 201-2 :"those disputing the usefulness of the term genocide belon to to the mainstream of the historical profession in Greece"). To dismiss this mainstream historiographical position as supposed "WP:FRINGE" is actually an egregious case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Ashmedai 119 (talk) 19:25, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
The only thing that Sjoberg says Kostopoulos has "demonstrated" on p. 47 is that Valavanis added 50,000 to the death total: as the journalist Tasos Kostopoulos has demonstrated, Valavanis had reached this figure by simply adding a rough estimate of 500,000 "neo-martyrs" to the figure 303,238..., and not the figure of 100,000-150,000. Regarding the figure of 100,000-150,000 dead, all Sjoberg says is that this is Kostopoulos' own figure, and does not endorse it: Kostopoulos' own estimate of dead is considerably lower; between 100,000 and 150,000. That is not an endorsement; Sjoberg is decidedly neutral. You surely also noticed the part where he described Kostopoulos as a "journalist" and not a "historian"? If he considered Kostopoulos a historian, he would have described him as such. Regarding Sjoberg's own views on the number of casualties, on page 234, he seems to endorse the cautious assessments ranging between 300,000 to 700,000. Those seem to be the figures that Sjoberg is endorsing (given his description of these figures as "cautious"). As for Kostopoulos himself, having a Ph.D. does not automatically absolve one from WP:FRINGE. Kostopoulos' main activity seems to be a journalist for the fringe far left "Efymerida ton Syntakton" (https://www.efsyn.gr/), where he writes numerous fringe articles in which among other things, he compares the current center-right Greek government to the Greek Junta , describes the Greek War of Independence as "200 years of Orthodox Jihad" , or writes in support of the release of convicted far left terrorist Dimitris Koufontinas . But this aside, what really makes Kostopoulos WP:FRINGE is that his figure of 100,000-150,000 dead is contradicted by all scholarship on the issue, which is the very definition of WP:FRINGE. I do agree with you that we have a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, just not quite the way you imagine. We may also have WP:CIR or intellectual honesty issues, not sure which is worse. Khirurg (talk) 22:06, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

hundreds of thousands of historians who have studied the subject?? Give me a break. You're not doing your credibility favors with wild exaggerations like that. Rather, it shows someone with WP:TRUTH, WP:BATTLE, WP:AXE, and WP:TEND issues.
but almost all do not mention the "Pontic genocide"? Who is "almost all" How do you know they are "almost all"? This kind of statement needs to be sourced. Do you have a source that it's "almost all"? Incidentally, the views of Akcam and others that do not consider it a genocide are already in the article. If you are calling for the removal of the views that it was genocide, that is a complete non starter. And it seems you are dropping names without reading your sources, because Rummel for example does consider it genocide (see, he included the Greeks of Anatolia in a book about genocide. See how that works?).
The handful of researchers who define it as "genocide" are not well known and constitute only a marginal minority More wild unsubstantiated exaggerations, possibly also violating WP:BLP (yes, WP:BLP applies to talkpages too).
Also, you have answered nothing to the fact that there is no serious international organization has recognized this "genocide" Perhaps you haven't heard of the International Association of Genocide Scholars? Perhaps you haven't read the article, since the IAGS is mentioned in the article?
Tassos Kostopoulos has a history degree that's not the issue, the issue is that this figure is contradicted by all other scholarship on the subject, even by those who do not necessarily consider these events a genocide. Kostopoulos' view is a fringe view, in fact the very definition of WP:FRINGE.
We have at least 2 authoritative sources directly stating that the number 353,000 is inflated (Kostopoulos and Sjoberg). Sjöberg does not say the figures are inlated, and does not endorse Kostpoulos' figures. In fact in his book he refers to "the cautious estimates of 300,000 to 700,000 dead" on p. 234. Again, it would help your credibility if you actually read the sources you mention, instead of wild rants on the talkpage.
suggesting 200,000 and saying that 350,000 IS SUPPORTED ONLY BY SOME HISTORIANS Shouting in ALLCAPS aside, it's pretty funny you took "some historians say 350,000" to mean "only some historians say 350,000". Nice try, but no dice. Greek Reporter is new website, and not a scholarly source anyway.
It has never been commented that the Greek source gives the number of 400,000 Pontic refugees in Greece, and given the population of 700,000 before the events (according to Sotiriadis 450,000), the large number of refugees in the USSR, it is obvious that based on this source the number of deaths is clearly under 300,000 No WP:OR "mathematical calculations" please. We've been over this.
Again, most historians who give an estimate of 350,000-360,000 refer to either Valаvanis or other historians who refer to him. More wild unsupported exaggerations.
Moreover, it has been proven that its 353,000 is nothing more than a beautifully forged fake. This has got to be the cherry on the cake. Using colorful language doesn't make wild unsupported exaggerations true.
You also completely ignored everything Demetrios wrote above, and all the sources he gave, in what amounts to a whopping case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Unfortunately, all of the above seems to point to a strong case of WP:BATTLE, WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, WP:AXE, WP:TEND and so forth. It is impossible to reach any kind of consensus with this type of behavior, and we already deep into WP:DIS as a result. Khirurg (talk) 13:43, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

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

The International Association of Genocide Scholars explicitly stated the following (here is the rest):
  • The resolution passed with the support of over eighty percent of IAGS members who voted. The resolution (full text below) declares that "it is the conviction of the International Association of Genocide Scholars that the Ottoman campaign against Christian minorities of the Empire between 1914 and 1923 constituted a genocide against Armenians, Assyrians, and Pontian and Anatolian Greeks." It "calls upon the government of Turkey to acknowledge the genocides against these populations, to issue a formal apology, and to take prompt and meaningful steps toward restitution."
By the way, it isn't difficult to find additional sources. Also, note that the genocide of the Pontian Greeks, is just one branch of the broader Greek genocide, so it is natural that some sources won't address it directly as a Pontic genocide, but under the broader term Greek genocide; hence why we have the same article addressing the subject. Demetrios1993 (talk) 07:06, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

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

Neither the UN, nor Council of Europe, nor European parliament, nor Genocide Studies Program, nor Genocide Watch. So the Swedish Parliament isn't reliable but the European Parliament is? Nevertheless, the European Parliament HAS recognized the Pontic genocide . On the other hand, the rest of the entities that you mentioned haven't recognized the Greek genocide (as a whole) at all, so there's no point in having a discussion about them. See for countries that have recognized the genocide either as Pontic, Greek, Anatolian, etc etc. Deji Olajide1999 (talk) 15:55, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
I've stayed out of this up till now, since I don't have access to the sources or know them as well as others but my understanding has always been that the Pontic genocide, was simply one aspect of the broader Greek genocide. Am I wrong? If I am not, then saying that some scholars/governments don't mention the Pontic genocide is like saying the Holocaust didn't happen in Holland because some scholars don't mention a distinct 'Netherlands genocide'. Not everyone breaks matters down in the same way. My understanding has also always been that some scholars treat all the anti-Christian genocides in Ottoman lands (inc Armenian, Assyrian and Greek) as one event. Am I wrong? What is actually being argued here? Pincrete (talk) 16:58, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

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

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

But the Armenian genocide is not part of the holocaust! So of course they need seperate recognition, the Pontic genocide IS part of the Gk genocide. The equivalent argument is saying that no Holocaust happened in Poland, because some, but not all sources treat the subject as a distinct sub-event of the broader Holocaust. It's purely semantic argument frankly. I cannot even see its relevance to the article, since we treat the Pontic events as being part of the bigger Gk event. Are you really arguing that some national and international bodies have recognised something that YOU say didn't happen, despite your acknowledging that it is part of the Gk genocide?Pincrete (talk) 17:41, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
Again, the "Pontic genocide" is a reference to the subevents of the broader "Greek genocide", which occurred in Pontus or in relation to Pontic Greeks. Having it in the lede in the form of The Greek genocide (...), including the Pontic genocide, was the ... is nothing out of the ordinary, considering that a number of authors make the distinction; even the International Association of Genocide Scholars cited above, does. But i believe a slight rewording would be ideal, namely to change the "including" to "which includes". By the way, the reason the link didn't work for you, is probably due to your internet connection, which might also be the reason that each time you post in the talk page, a number of duplicate comments are being published; you should have a look at that. As for the number of ~350,000 deaths, there is not really any notable dispute. We have one author who disputes the estimate, and since this subject is highly charged and politicized, more reliable sources endorsing this isolated view, would be required for its inclusion in my opinion, per WP:UNDUE and WP:VNOT. This very subject has already been discussed in the past and consensus wasn't reached; it's not something new. Demetrios1993 (talk) 05:08, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

I meant to write "one author who strongly disputes". Anyway, in my very first comment above i wrote that i agree with what Deji Olajide1999 and Khirurg wrote, which included their criticism on WP:OR (especially WP:SYNTH) from your part. We are repeating ourselves. Kostopoulos is the one i referred to, in terms of strongly disputing the conventional estimation of deaths in Pontus. Sjöberg doesn't adopt Kostopoulos' view of 100,000-150,000 deaths, as you originally wrote in the first and second comment, and then you retracted (per Khirurg's observation) by saying that Sjöberg agreed with Valavanis' figure simply being overstated, because he added an additional 50,000 "neo-martyrs" per the data he had in his hands. So no, Sjöberg doesn't adopt Kostopoulos' position in terms of estimates; if anything he seems to agree with Valavanis' 303,238 figure (namely prior of the addition of 50,000 "neo-martyrs"). This position is already included in the article, since it says:
  • According to various sources the Greek death toll in the Pontus region of Anatolia ranges from 300,000 to 360,000.
So please, don't cite Sjöberg again in order to reinforce Kostopoulos' 100,000-150,000 figure.
What about Rudolph Rummel? You falsified him as well, when you wrote in regards to the total number of casualties for the Greek genocide:
  • This is more or less consistent with the estimates of Rummel, not a pro-Turkish scientist. That is, the total number of deaths (not 300,000-900,000, but 200,000-300,000) is less than 350,000.
  • Also keep in mind that Rudolf Rummel gives a number of 347,000 for all Ottoman Greeks in 1914-1922
In reality, Rummel estimates that 384,000 Greeks were exterminated by the Ottomans during the period 1914-1918, while an additional 264,000 Greeks by the Turkish nationalists during 1920-1922; no estimate for 1918-1920 (source; last three lines). This gives us an estimate of at least 648,000 for the total number of casualties. Does he give any estimate of Pontian casualties exclusively? If not, you cannot say he disputes the 300,000-350,000 figure, because it clearly fits within his broader estimate. In fact, the only quote of Rummel i am aware of, in relation to Pontus, is this following:
  • In Trebizond (or Trabzond) province, the Pontic Greeks were "savagely persecuted ... until the community was virtually wiped out." (source)
Now it would be extremely interesting if reference 71 pertained to Valavanis, but unfortunately i don't have access to the full book.
As for Justin McCarthy, i haven't checked what exactly he writes, but then again, there is probably a reason he isn't cited anywhere in the article, and might have something to do with what his respective article says (something that was also addressed above by Deji Olajide1999):
  • McCarthy's work has faced harsh criticism by many scholars who have characterized McCarthy's views defending Turkish atrocities against Armenians as genocide denial. Hans-Lukas Kieser considers that McCarthy has "an indefensible bias toward the Turkish official position".
Now, on your new source. I don't know what kind of credentials Sam Topalidis has and whether he has received any recognition, in order for him to be considered a reliable source, but on page 9 he says the following:
During 1916–23 at least 200,000 Pontic Greeks died in the genocide. ... We will never know the real number of Pontic Greeks who fell victim to the genocide during 1916–23.
Doesn't look like much of a dispute to me. Also, take note that this estimate doesn't account for the years 1914, 1915, and 1924, which are included in Valavanis' ~303,000-353,000 estimation. Demetrios1993 (talk) 11:01, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

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

Sure, Sjöberg doesn't explicitly adopt any estimation, but he indirectly kind of does, when prior of mentioning Kostopoulos' reference to a 50,000 ovestimation by Valavanis, he wrote the following:
In 1925, a total of 353,000 Greek casualties in Pontos was established by the refugee scholar Georgios Valavanis.
The only criticism on this number he seems to agree with, is the addition of 50,000 "neo-martyrs" (out of which some surely must have died, it just wasn't ultimately verified according to Kostopoulos).
I don't care what your own opinion of Rummel's estimation is. This is what the sources say, that you initially misunderstood; his real estimates are at least (not including 1918-1920) 648,000 for the total number of Greek civilian casualties.
You write the following:
(source: Baum, Wilhelm (2006). The Christian minorities in Turkey. Kitab. P. 162. ISBN 978-3-902005-62), which in no way matches the words "virtually wiped out".
Are you claiming that the aforementioned reference 71 in Rummel's text, is Baum (2006)? Because if you do, that is another mistake from your part. Rummel's "Death by Government" was published in 1994; years prior of Baum (2006), and 2006 is the original publication year. Thus it cannot be him as reference 71.
McCarthy has been harshly criticized by other scholars, not just as having a bias towards Turkey (we all have our biases after all), but as someone with "an indefensible bias toward the Turkish official position", and a genocide denier; more specifically he seems to fall under what the article describes as an illegitimate revisionist who tries to rewrite history in order to support a political agenda (read the Reactions section) using rhetorical fallacies to obtain his results. A controversial person such as him has no place in this article, until consensus is reached. Personally i disagree with his inclusion, and obviously a number of other editors do as well.
You try to explain the deaths of 1914, 1915, and 1924, but this falls, again, under WP:OR. You also, disregarded that Topalidis wrote "at least 200,000" (during 1916-23), and "We will never know the real number of Pontic Greeks who fell victim to the genocide during 1916–23.". In another book of his he cites Valavanis' 353,000 estimate as well.
You write:
All Pontic Greeks were evicted in 1923, so how could they have been killed in 1924?
Just because the population exchange between Greece and Turkey was signed in 1923, it doesn't mean that they were all instantly transported/exchanged; broadly speaking (not just pertaining to Pontic Greeks) it wasn't completed until approximately 1927. Demetrios1993 (talk) 06:50, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Included or involved the Pontic genocide?

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

I do remember this change, since it came after i had reworded this part myself (diff). Indeed, "which involved the Pontic genocide" makes it look as if the "Greek genocide" was a chapter of the "Pontic genocide", while the opposite is true; the latter was a chapter of the former. Demetrios1993 (talk) 15:39, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
I honestly don't remember why I changed it. I think it sounded better to me when I made the edit, however I've changed my mind since then. My bad, I'm sorry. Deji Olajide1999 (talk) 16:08, 15 October 2021 (UTC)


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

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

Please check court verdict:

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

There is no international law on this matter.

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

Edit Request 2023

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

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

Arhanman, it's actually a quote, so we can't alter it. BUT, it's an overlong quote and so should probably be paraphrased and pruned down to a reasonable length. Apart from anything else, an overlong quote risks violating the authors' copyright. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pincrete (talkcontribs) 06:44, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
Seeing that the sentence I proposed to change is a quote but an overly long one, I propose removing the parts: "It's deeper because it isn't just about World War I, but about a series of homicidal ethno-religious cleansings that took place from the late 1890s to the 1920s and beyond. It is wider because" and "of starvation and sickness, and millions of others were deported and lost everything. In addition, tens of thousands of Christians were forced to convert, and many thousands of girls and women were raped by their Muslim neighbors and the security forces. The Turks even set up markets where Christian girls were sold as sex slaves." for the sake of brevity. The first part goes on to explain why the situation is "deeper than the Armenian genocide" (which I think is unneccessary to include) and the second part goes on to detail about the "horrendous acts" that were committed by the Ottomans and probably also should not be included. Arhanman (talk) 20:10, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
Arhanman any neutral, factual paraphrasing of that long quote - even retaining some short quotes if helpful, and some comparisons if useful, - would fix the problem. Have a go. There's nothing inherently wrong with 'graphic' language in moderation, as long as it is clear that it is the source - not us - that has used it.Pincrete (talk) 07:30, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
This is not part of the original quote, but a translation of a Hebrew text, by whoever added the content. I went ahead and replaced it with the respective text from the English version of the Hebrew article, which was published about a week later; it uses "atrocities" instead of "horrendous acts". Demetrios1993 (talk) 03:47, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Another page based on hatred and political propaganda?

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

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

Misrepresentation of Kitroeff's views

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

Semi-protected edit request on 27 July 2024

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Below the table "Total population figures for the Ottoman Greeks of Anatolia" in the Section labelled "Balkan Wars to World War I", there is a "clarification needed" tag in the second sentence of the paragraph.

For clarification, change the sentence to:

"The Ottoman government adopted a "dual-track mechanism" whereby official government acts were accomanied by unofficial "covert, extralegal but state-sponserd acts of terror under the protective umbrella provided by the official state policies" (Akçam 2012, p. 30.), thereby allowing the Ottoman government to deny responsibility for and prior knowledge of this campaign of intimidation, emptying Christian villages."

"" was altered from "were committed" for clarity. FSchoeppner (talk) 18:22, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

 Done Demetrios1993 (talk) 17:38, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
Categories: