| Revision as of 01:57, 21 December 2006 editNikoSilver (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users13,519 edits →Comments: RfC← Previous edit | Revision as of 02:54, 21 December 2006 edit undoA.Garnet (talk | contribs)3,671 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 43: | Line 43: | ||
| *Apart from ], no other country has explicitly expressed they dispute the genocide thesis. | *Apart from ], no other country has explicitly expressed they dispute the genocide thesis. | ||
| ]] 01:57, 21 December 2006 (UTC) | ]] 01:57, 21 December 2006 (UTC) | ||
| ===Statement by A.Garnet=== | |||
| My position has been since the beginning that this article does not reflect academic opinion. It is recognised by Greece, written by Greek editors and supported by Greek editors. None of the sources are credible, none of the scholars notable, not one monograph can be found to its name, not one journal article, not one encylopedic article - in short it is the culmination of a few scraps of sentences in which a non-notable author has used the term Pontian greek "genocide" and original research whereby a number of quotes are being used to prove the genocide thesis. | |||
| You only have to look at the "Background" section, the section supposedly dealing with this genocide, to realise how poor the academic material in support of this article is. It is so poor that they rely on sources from a different location (Asia minor as opposed to Pontus) and from different people (Aegean Greeks and Turkish Jews as opposed to Pontian Greeks). So nowhere in this article do we have one ounce of explanation as to how these Pontian Greeks were supposodly exposed to genocide by Turks, simply becauase our Greek editors cannot find any research material on this beyond a few sentences which use the term Pontian Greek genocide. | |||
| Lets look at some of the arguments used to justify the title. Firstly, there was no consensus on the title whatsoever. Do not try and justify the collective votes of a number of Greek editors to mean a consensus, it is anything but. Consensus is achieved in reaching an agreement with disputing parties, not reaching an agreement with people who already agree! The fact is not only do all of the Turkish editors disagree, but a number of admins and third party editors have also raised questions and opposed the current title. | |||
| Another arugment used: ''"Apart from ], no other country has explicitly expressed they dispute the genocide thesis."'' This is really quite a childish argument. It assumes non-recognition outside of Greece and Cyprus (i really do want to see a proper source that Cyprus recognises it) to somehow mean silent worldwide recognition. Well surely if recongition was so forthcoming to you would be able to present me with '''one''' monograph from '''one''' notable historian. They ask for sources opposing a genocide of Pontians before they provide any credible or substantial sources which support it! This whole attitude is sheer nonsense and one employed to defend and indefensible position. | |||
| Also, as for the supposed recognition of American states, as another Greek editor proved, these resolutions are of little academic or political weight. Anybody can file a resolution, in fact on one of "genocide" resolution is mentioned next to happy birthday wishes for an old granny! They are, as Mackracis put, an embarassment to this article. Furthermore, on the topic of NGO's, the most notable of all NGO's dealing with genocide, the Association of Genocide Scholars, does not recognise this event as genocide, nor do any of the scholars associated with. | |||
| Put simply, this article is a minority view. If the editors insist on defending it, then they will have to accept that the pov-title tag is here to stay until it is renamed and rewritten. Just to add i wont be here from Friday onwards, but i think i've made my argument pretty clear here. | |||
| Some sources: | |||
| *Mazower (''these deportations were on a relatively small scale and do not appear to have been designed to end in their victims' deaths.'') | |||
| *Midlarsky (''Under these conditions, genocide of the Ottoman Greeks was simply not a viable option'') | |||
| *Valentino ("the Turks did not seek to exterminate the Greeks, as the previous regime had done to the Armenians") | |||
| *Levene "Unlike the Armenian case, in each of these other instances the scope, scale and intensity of the killings was limited, though this does not rule out comparison." — "... I have concentrated here on the , though my ''approach'' would be pertinent to the Pontic Greek and Assyrian cases." — "Historians ... tend to avoid the term genocide to describe them." --] 02:54, 21 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ===Comments=== | ===Comments=== | ||
Revision as of 02:54, 21 December 2006
 | Greece B‑class Top‑importance | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 |
This article can be in 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. |
 Archives |
Request for Comment: Article name
This dispute is mainly regarding the use of the term genocide in the article's title, versus proposed variations with terms such as massacres, deportations, and ethnic cleansing. There was a recent mediation, and a straw poll both coupled by a huge debate. The article is presently protected due to edit-warring regarding the {{POV-title}} tag. 01:57, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Statements by editors previously involved in dispute:
Statement by NikoSilver
- The poll ended with consensus in one of the numerous options, namely Pontic Greek genocide. The other options were either opposed, or marked with no consensus.
- The initial debate was that the "acts" defined in genocide were not sourced. At present the article has practically every sentence cited by independent, verifiable, reliable sources.
- The debate later evolved as to if it is original research to assume that the facts to their extent provide adequate reason to name the article as such. Academic sources explicitly or inexplicitly stating it was a genocide were provided. Namely:
- Turkey, still struggling to achieve its ninety-five-year-old dream of becoming the beacon of democracy in the Near East, does everything possible to deny its genocide of the Armenians, Assyrians, and Pontian Greeks.
- democide against the Greeks...genocide...347,000 dead
- systematic extermination...annihilation...in a persistent campaign of massacre
Note: Term "genocide" had not been coined yet. - compared experience to the Holocaust
- series of massacres, pertinent to the Armenian Genocide
- ethnic cleansing
- Cohn Jatz, Colin Tatz (2003). With Intent to Destroy: Reflections on Genocide. Essex: Verso. ISBN 1859845509.
- "Statistics of Democide". Chapter 5, Statistics Of Turkey's Democide Estimates, Calculations, And Sources.
{{cite web}}: Unknown parameter|accessmonthday=ignored (help); Unknown parameter|accessyear=ignored (|access-date=suggested) (help) - Horton, George (1926). The Blight of Asia. Indianapolis: The Bobbs-Merrill Company.
- Steven L. Jacobs, Samuel Totten (2002). Pioneers of Genocide Studies (Clt). New Brunswick, New Jersey. p. 213. ISBN 0765801515.
{{cite book}}: Text "publisher: Transaction Publishers" ignored (help)CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link) - Creating a Modern "Zone of Genocide": The Impact of Nation- and State-Formation on Eastern Anatolia, 1878–1923, by Mark Levene, University of Warwick, © 1998 by United States Holocaust Memorial Museum
- Norman M. Naimark, Fires of Hatred: Ethnic Cleansing in Twentieth-Century Europe, Cambridge and London: Harvard University Press, 2001.
- Various NGOs recognize the events as a genocide.
- Apart from the (obvious) recognition by Greece and Cyprus, the events have been recognized by the states of South Carolina, New Jersey, Florida, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania and Illinois. New York State issued a proclamation designating May 19, 2002 as Pontian Greek Genocide Remembrance Day.
- Apart from Turkey, no other country has explicitly expressed they dispute the genocide thesis.
NikoSilver 01:57, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Statement by A.Garnet
My position has been since the beginning that this article does not reflect academic opinion. It is recognised by Greece, written by Greek editors and supported by Greek editors. None of the sources are credible, none of the scholars notable, not one monograph can be found to its name, not one journal article, not one encylopedic article - in short it is the culmination of a few scraps of sentences in which a non-notable author has used the term Pontian greek "genocide" and original research whereby a number of quotes are being used to prove the genocide thesis.
You only have to look at the "Background" section, the section supposedly dealing with this genocide, to realise how poor the academic material in support of this article is. It is so poor that they rely on sources from a different location (Asia minor as opposed to Pontus) and from different people (Aegean Greeks and Turkish Jews as opposed to Pontian Greeks). So nowhere in this article do we have one ounce of explanation as to how these Pontian Greeks were supposodly exposed to genocide by Turks, simply becauase our Greek editors cannot find any research material on this beyond a few sentences which use the term Pontian Greek genocide.
Lets look at some of the arguments used to justify the title. Firstly, there was no consensus on the title whatsoever. Do not try and justify the collective votes of a number of Greek editors to mean a consensus, it is anything but. Consensus is achieved in reaching an agreement with disputing parties, not reaching an agreement with people who already agree! The fact is not only do all of the Turkish editors disagree, but a number of admins and third party editors have also raised questions and opposed the current title.
Another arugment used: "Apart from Turkey, no other country has explicitly expressed they dispute the genocide thesis." This is really quite a childish argument. It assumes non-recognition outside of Greece and Cyprus (i really do want to see a proper source that Cyprus recognises it) to somehow mean silent worldwide recognition. Well surely if recongition was so forthcoming to you would be able to present me with one monograph from one notable historian. They ask for sources opposing a genocide of Pontians before they provide any credible or substantial sources which support it! This whole attitude is sheer nonsense and one employed to defend and indefensible position.
Also, as for the supposed recognition of American states, as another Greek editor proved, these resolutions are of little academic or political weight. Anybody can file a resolution, in fact on one of "genocide" resolution is mentioned next to happy birthday wishes for an old granny! They are, as Mackracis put, an embarassment to this article. Furthermore, on the topic of NGO's, the most notable of all NGO's dealing with genocide, the Association of Genocide Scholars, does not recognise this event as genocide, nor do any of the scholars associated with.
Put simply, this article is a minority view. If the editors insist on defending it, then they will have to accept that the pov-title tag is here to stay until it is renamed and rewritten. Just to add i wont be here from Friday onwards, but i think i've made my argument pretty clear here.
Some sources:
- Mazower (these deportations were on a relatively small scale and do not appear to have been designed to end in their victims' deaths.)
- Midlarsky (Under these conditions, genocide of the Ottoman Greeks was simply not a viable option) Book review:
- Valentino ("the Turks did not seek to exterminate the Greeks, as the previous regime had done to the Armenians")
- Levene "Unlike the Armenian case, in each of these other instances the scope, scale and intensity of the killings was limited, though this does not rule out comparison." — "... I have concentrated here on the , though my approach would be pertinent to the Pontic Greek and Assyrian cases." — "Historians ... tend to avoid the term genocide to describe them." --A.Garnet 02:54, 21 December 2006 (UTC)