Talk:Greek genocide/Archive 3

Killing by walking

The higly POV interpretation removed:

Another method used by the oppressors was to force the weaker population, including women and children, to walk for hundreds of kilometres until they died. This was known as the "White Death" .

Foreign Office Memorandum by Mr. G.W. Rendel on Turkish Massacres and Pesrsecutions of Minorities since the Armistice, March 20, 1922, Paragraph 24

It was not deliberate genocide; it was population transfer. People died, but to call it "method of genocide" is twisting POV. Such long walks happened everywhere all the time throughout human history. Mukadderat 17:20, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I have said it before for the Armenian Genocide, cause the same argument was used by specific users there as well: it was not just a population transfer! only if Turkey was ruled by 5-year-old children that time, they would not know that, when u force children, women and old people to walk in the desert endlessly, without food of water, they will die! common logic! noone has to be Einstein to see that! the ottomans and kemal knew exactly what they were doing... Hectorian 17:48, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

BTW, Mukadderat, u removed cited info, simply cause it did not fit your POV... this is not encyclopedic attitude u know... I would advice u to re-add it, and even if u don't, it will be re-added by someone else... Hectorian 17:51, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I do find validity in Hectorian's argument that when u expect people to walk so much people have a legitimate right to wonder what the real purpose is. That's one thing.. On the other hand, during the Ottoman reign such exile edicts have been used commonly by all Sultans (don't forget they were absolute divine (caliphs) monarchs), for example for the Bahaii in the 19th century. I am not saying I agree with this method of dealing with sociopolitical problems, see my first sentence. But one thing that I don't understand however, is when and where Kemal comes into this: he didn't have any real power in the Empire before 1920, and no concrete power before 1922.. I really can't imagine him finding any time, considering all the other problems in the Empire at the time, to single-handedly delve into this issue and dictating others to chase and kill Pontus Greeks.. I am not saying it is impossible, but it is highly improbable.. Power of Kemal during the first world war until 1923 is highly exaggerated even by Turks, in fact it took him until the mid-1920s before he dealt with dissent and confirmed himself as the prime power in Turkey... Even from your reasoning Hector, the prime guilty party in this is the Young Turk party and their collaborators (Ataturk was a Young Turk, but he was never in the decision-making organs of it during the said time).. Baristarim 18:43, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I feel like i touched a sensitive chord:)... (btw, i would be very very surprised if a modern turk would not support Kemal...). maybe he was not the only one making the decisions during the Sultan and Young Turks era, but he was among those, and later on he was the primary one. when i was talking about the 'White Death', perhaps Kemal had nothing to do with it, cause during the time he was in charge, 'civilian marches' were not common. but destruction of villages and labour camps were common. anyway, lets say that i never mentioned him concerning 'White Death', but i am still including him in those responsible for the event as a whole... PS: Baristarim, did u find anything about Topal Osman? Hectorian 19:08, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes you did :))) Baristarim 19:18, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

As for Topal Osman, funny that you mentioned :)) Lack of reliable academic sources.. I have made a considerable search but I am still clueless for two reasons: One, there is no real and reliable academic source that has dealt with the history and life of people like him, secondly, sites in Turkish that mention him are extremely vague at best, in the sense that in most biographies of him he is mentioned as a local independence hero and talk about how he helped suppress pro-Megali Idea Pontus Greek revolts around his native region.. As you can imagine, none of them are informative in the academic sense :)).. You will agree that both definitions in italics are extremely vague by nature.. It is sad.. They think that they are informing people but in fact they are not at all.. I am going to accept neither local independence hero nor butcher labels at face value, but I will try to find more about him in texts that mention the events of the time in a more global context.. It might take time :) Baristarim 19:38, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

As far as i am concerned, u have as much time as u want... But my question was different: what is written in the monument that Kemal's regime raised in his grave? what i know, is that it says: 'He helped a great deal in the extermination of the Pontian Greeks'. i am not asking whether his name will remain in history as a hero or as a butcher... I made a simply question, and though i found the answer in greek and english-language web pages, i cannot read the turkish ones... so, i am asking u if u can find and translate it. Hectorian 19:52, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I will have a look.. Baristarim 20:17, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Whatever you say, this is a big stretch that walking was a method of deliberate genocide. It is an allegation. Mukadderat 23:15, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Kindly read the sources first, and then make comments. There are sources linking this Pontian 'promenade' to the same method used in the Armenian genocide. •NikoSilver• 23:13, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Soviet, but applicable nevertheless... my cousin's husband was deported in a cattle car packed with men to Siberia. By the time the train reached Siberia, a third had died. By the time they were "walked" to their labor camp in Siberia, he was the only one left alive out of that entire cattle car packed full. Do a death walk once and only once, it's an aberation and a massacre. Do it more than once, that is repeatedly and systematically, it's genocide. I don't see how there's a lot of room for debate here.--Pēters J. Vecrumba 13:33, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Tags the sequel

It seems to me that some side here does not have what it takes to take this where applicable. The sources are compelling and the article is more than neutral. What is missing is the other side. Just go ahead and add it, or deal with this issue to establish consensus. As long as I don't find the argumentation convincing, I too am going to remove those tags at sight. •NikoSilver• 21:47, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

More than neutral?? Are you joking? In any case, neutrality of the article and neutrality of the title is not the same.. You are saying that you don't find the argumentation convincing, I respect your opinion, but that doesn't mean that there is no dispute.. I mean, is there really no dispute or have I been thinking about another article?? There are tons of arguments above.. Sources are compelling.. Right.. I really like the one that calls Turks baby-killers.. The tags are there because there are many people who think there is a problem with the title, not just Turks or Greeks.. The other side.. Don't worry I will add it as soon as the title is changed.. First things first.. Sources: Nowhere in the world the university or school textbooks that talk about the events of the First World War or Greek-Turkish conflicts refer to it as Pontian Greek Genocide, I am sorry I got no link for that Nikos, that ain't good enough?? :))) Baristarim 22:13, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Strange, I could have sworn that the General Assembly of the State of Pennsylvania in the USA, the 'Union against Genocide' and the 'Speaking with One Voice' organizations in Germany etc all see a genocide in those events. Anyway, you have yet to cite a source saying that no genocide took place. How are you going to convince everyone that those organizations are wrong? --Tzekai 22:30, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Mitsos, stop your sockpuppetry, vandalism and disruptive editing [1].. Gees, who the hell am I dealing with here???? Wikipedia#Criticism_and_controversy People, go push your agenda somewhere else, this is not some gang war...Baristarim 22:26, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Numerous anti-genocide organizations?? Well, you know, that Greek guy whose thesis appears in the link that is sourced (he is the only one that signed his name under those pages) was one of the founders of the Australian Institute of whatever among with five other people (one Armenian included).. That ain't impartial folks, I am not saying someone is not capable of producing good science because of his nationality, but that still doesn't make them impartial.. Well, maybe I should also create an organization called The Supreme Global Council of The Genocide, write a bunch of non-scientific arguments in one of its pages and cite it in this article?? Baristarim 22:29, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

No it's not good enough and Tzekai pointed out why above. The third sources that exist call it as such. Do you have a source that calls it otherwise? Also, I understand why you don't want to add the Turkish POV. It's simply moot, and ofcourse you wouldn't like that to be exposed, so that you can continue harrassing the article with these templates. Side note: edit conflicts (twice now) with you are impossible to avoid - kindly post your edits one by one as mostly everyone. There's a button called 'preview'. •NikoSilver• 22:31, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I got one, I am going to repeat it until it gets through: The school and university textbooks of the whole world that talk about the events of the First World War and Greek-Turkish conflicts.. Got no link for that one, I am afraid :)) I will add the Turkish side of the story as soon as the title issue is resolved, otherwise you are expecting me to go along with this minority agenda pushing when you ask me come on, contribute!!, ha ha, very funny - don't expect me to legitimize this article's title by asking me to add the Turkish POV.. We r both not stupid... Baristarim 23:15, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

AS for the US States, what a joke... Mississippi had a law that said it is ok to kill a Mormon until it was revoked in the 70s. Most of those states also have the death penalty, so much for democracy that I wonder how democratic they really r. I lived in the States, I know how f..-up agenda pushing can be in a state.. 6 out of 50.. Well, good luck.. I mean it is not even half :))).. In any case that is completely irrelevant since individual states don't determine foreign policy, they can pass anything they want - the only sovereign country that has recognized is Greece, not even Cyprus has recognized it (they are looking for a solution with Turkey to the Cyprus dispute, eh?? - funny that they recognize the Armenian Genocide, so much for looking for an improved dialogue) Baristarim 23:15, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Who do the hell are Union against Genocide and Speaking with One Voice anyways? There are millions of NGO out there.. Whatever.. Baristarim 23:18, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

These are still sources that recognise the event and call it 'Genocide'. We are not in the Hague or the UN here. Cite a source calling it otherwise, or disputing its existence. •NikoSilver• 23:22, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

There are many people who call God an asshole, Bush a terrorist, their girlfriends the most beautiful woman on earth etc.. That doesn't mean that they are serious and reliable academic research.. It is such a minority opinion held by some Greeks (and some loony non-Greeks) that what happened was a Genocide, that there are no anti-theses.. As for my sources: yeah I got one, I am going to repeat it until it gets through: The school and university textbooks of the whole world that talk about the events of the First World War and Greek-Turkish conflicts Baristarim 23:34, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

No there aren't as many, plus there is anti-thesis for those. As per your repetition, I thought you should have figured out already that most schools and universities have (a) libraries containing many of those sources (b) probably cite these incidents. So I suggest you find one that cites them and calls them eg. "Pontian Greek UFO abduction". •NikoSilver• 00:07, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

See Genocide/Massacre above (or in the archive at the moment), nobody said that they were abducted by a bunch of aliens.. The same goes for numbers, how did they come about? Baristarim 00:21, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

So, Baristarim, when are you going to cite your sources? You may sit back saying "your many sources are not good enough for me", but you still haven't cited any sources contradicting anything (even the alleged content of all schoolbooks (which was an unsourced claim) doesn't contradict anything in this article). I think Hectorian summed it up quite well: without sources, this article ain't gonna be renamed. So stop wasting people's time and cite some sources. --Tzekai 06:01, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, they contradict something very fundamental in this article: its title.. Please see the archive for Genocide/Massacre.. Unsourced claim? Is this a joke? All the textbooks of the world, is there something not clear about that? Cite it, yeah well, I cited it there you go: The school and university textbooks of the whole world that talk about the events of the First World War and Greek-Turkish conflicts, should I repeat it in case it hasn't gotten through? I am not going to go to a library and waste my time searching something so common sense.. This article is used as original research to prove that certain massacres 90 years ago was a Genocide.. Most secondary sources talk about massacres, not Genocide - please see Genocide/Massacre issue in the archives again.. I have raised many points about the reliability of the sources, claims of original research, nature of events and historical revisionism.. Nobody has a right to go back a century to dig up events and add them new definitions or meanings.. Even Greece recognized this as such only ten years ago because of lobbying of a bunch of politicians and lobby groups.. Sometimes recognition can come late, but people have a legitimate right to wonder what the purpose of this article is when, after 90 years of alleged events taking place, only country to recognize it is Greece and that for the last ten years.. Baristarim 07:08, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

How exactly do they contradict the title? Do they say the events which the definitely non-Greek State of Illinois with a population of 10,5 million alleges is a genocide is not a genocide. As I've told you numerous times, if a source doesn't address the issue on whether the events were a genocide or not, then it can't be used to prove either. Also, considering that "massacre" in reference to these events is as widely used as you say it is, it certainly has an inconsistent Google ranking. --Tzekai 07:21, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Google?? Since when is Google an academic resource? Hell, I can get more hits with God is an asshole (+7 Million) or My girlfriend is the most beautiful woman on earth (+3 Million) than most of the article titles on Wiki will.. And the non-Greek state of Illinois with a population of 10,5 million is not an academic resource either, (it is not a secondary source, to be more technical) see my post a bit above about the resolutions and laws of individual US states.. It can be cited in the section recognition of events as genocide, it cannot prove in itself that it was a genocide.. I get 385000 hits for Ottoman Greek massacres, how about that?? Nobody uses the term Pontic other than Greeks and some loony non-Greeks, they were most commonly known as Ottoman Greeks. Ottoman Greek Massacres get more hits than Ottoman Greek Genocide by the way FYI.. Baristarim 07:37, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Academic? Academic sources have been cited, including that one recently mentioned in the archives (R. J. Rummel). Does the following suffice: 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 (here, the main text is in the PDF). It includes the following quotes:

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

BTW you still haven't cited a source denying the genocide thesis. --Tzekai 09:57, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

You seem fail to see difference between politically charged name calling and proving things with facts. It does not matter how may times someone called something "genocide". This is a swear word. People call each other "nazis", "fascists", "murderers" all the time througout the history. There is an internationally recognized definition of genocide. Pontic Greek case was not recognized by international bodies as genocide. Meaning that convincing proofs were not presented. Period. Wikipedia editors have vastly inferior knowledge than, say, UN, and pushing this word here is nothing than political agenda. On the pther hand, I do agree that some people like to use this word, and there is no reason to hide this. Therefore my proposal is to rename the article into Pontian Greek genocide allegations, to discuss theories under these allegations in a neutral way. Mukadderat 16:46, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

It is the most common name for the events, it does have an academic backing and it does have some international recognition. OTOH, it has a lot more recognition than the Assyrian Genocide or the Burundi Genocide, yet no one is disputing those articles' titles (perhaps this is the Wikipedia way). Anyway, how about renaming it to Pontian Greek genocidal massacres. I know it has less results in a Google test, so it may seem rather irregular within the framework of Wikipedia's standard practices, however Pontian genocide allegations is the title of the article at the Turkish Wikipedia, where BTW Google is used as an academic resource, yet Baristarim is not complaining there. --Tzekai 17:09, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Wait a minute here. From what I gather so far, the term Genocide regarding this story does have a (limited) acceptance among third party scholars, such as R. J. Rummel, who at least seems rather detached and uncontroversial in the matters of genocide. There exists a controversy section at the article about him, but there is no mention of controversy regarding his stance on genocides. Therefore at least on this matter IMHO he can be considered a notable neutral researcher. So, the term has been used. No, there has been any major international acceptance (but to my best knowledge neither has Burundi genocide had any major international recognition). But as far as can tell, international acceptance (eg from the UN) is not the only factor that weighs in here. What is the most common way to refer to the events? As it seems the only people that care enough to name these events use the term genocide. So maybe it is acceptable as a compromise to agree on the lines of the following schema:

• use the current title
• at the lead section make perfectly clear that "genocide" is not a widespread term
• include a "Controversy" subsection(or something more descriptive, i don't know) at the "Recognition" section, with all the counter-arguments presented in this talk page, including the dispute about the legal basis of its use (Baristarim's "legalese").

What do you think? --Michalis Famelis (talk) 18:24, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

You should have already understood that there is no way any proposal you make will be commented on by the other side. The purpose of that is to go around our tails and keep the damn tags here forever...•NikoSilver• 22:44, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

POV intro

Yet another example of shameless POV pushing. A while ago I added the official stance of Turkey on the issue into the introduction: clearly Turkey has more say here than a Massachusetts. But it was wiped out. Deleted piece:

Turkey maintains that this event was not of genocidal nature, and the selection of the date of May 19, which is a national holiday in Turkey, is considered by some Turkish politicians to be a provocation.

Also I have no idea why fate of Greeks in Soviet Union must be detailed in the intro. It belongs to history (possibly some section below, about post-event lifes), but not to the intro on this very specific topic. Mukadderat 19:00, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

The USSR reference is an integral part of the extermination of Pontian Hellenism. There are several factors that contributed to their fate, not just Ottoman policies. Regarding the Turkish position, I appreciate that there is an official Turkish position and it refutes the genocide principle. However, we cannot include the views of 'some' politicians unless it is appropriate to the text - if we engaged in such 'inclusions' there would be no end to it. As for 19 May, it was not chosen out of disrespect to the modern Republic of Turkey, but for historical reasons. Politis 19:12, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

• Obnoxious POV-pushing bullshit. This is official position of Turkey, not of "some politician". It has equal rights as official position of Greece that it was genocide. If accused has no rights fer defence this is outrageous. By the way, what is Pontian Hellinism? is is a nation or religion or what? If you say it was exterminated, please write an article about what it was. I am curious, since google gives no hits. On the other hand, if it is simply about Greeks who live in Pontus, how big percentage of them ended in Soviet Union? And how "Pontian Hellenism" survived in other countries? Since I don't see about it in the internet, I guess United States successfully extermitated it as well... Mukadderat 21:38, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
• Well, you see, that is exactly the problem: this article is being used to settle old scores and caress wounds. People have a right to feel sorry that Hellenism doesn't exist in Asia Minor right now, but that's POV.. please settle old scores elsewhere. As for 19 May, very funny - ha ha.. no offense intended towards Turkey.. yeah whatever... Baristarim 20:07, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Please be WP:CIVIL. Also, please refrain from irrelevant talk. Talk like "Obnoxious POV-pushing bullshit" only brings unnecessary tension in the discussion. OTOH, if the Turkey position is cited, it deserves being in the intro. As per if 19 of May is indeed or not insulting we are not here to settle that. PS. 'Pontian Hellenism' is another word for 'Pontian Greek-ism' i.e. 'Pontian Greek people'. Read featured article Names of the Greeks. •NikoSilver• 22:39, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
    • My talk was absolutely relevant. Someone says that opinion of Turkey is of none minimal importance in comparison with opinion of Greece. And the rest sits here as if nothing happened. I commented on message: it is bullshit'. Do you think that opinion of Turkey is irrelevant? Why don't you comment on the message, not on me? It is nice to run around and police other people. Why don't you concentrate on topic instead? Mukadderat 23:35, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
      • It is not CITED. Welcome to this article: Citation had been requested for weeks, but your fellow editors think that by refusing to cite it they are not making the article 'legitimate'. Reasoning? Go figure...•NikoSilver• 23:50, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Now about Pontian Hellenism. Sorry, colleague, I am not an idiot. I even know what Hellenism is (at least what wikipedia writes about it). But I've never heard about Pontian Hellenism or Pontian Greek-ism. There were Greeks that happened to live in Pontus. There are Romanians that live in America. But I've never heard someone spoke about American Romanism or Russian Germanism, or whatever. So I understand the purpose of the introduction of this "-ism" word here is to increase the significance of the subject: it was not simply about Greeks who happen to live there: it is about "-ISM"! That I call propaganda tricks. Mukadderat 23:35, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
      • We are not colleagues unless you smuggle firearms too. :-) I don't understand your -ism reasoning, as you probably do not understand also that Hellenism refers to 3.500 years of civilization that happened to exist there too. •NikoSilver• 23:50, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
    • As per 19 insulting or not, I agree with you: we are not here to settle that: it already settled and clearly expressed in Turkey: IT IS INSULTING. Of course it is not insulting for Greeks, it is balsam to their heart. But if you think it is OK to disregard the feeling of Turkey, you have big attitude problems. Mukadderat 23:38, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Are you talking to me? As I said, it deserves to be in the intro. Just cite it, it mustn't be so difficult.•NikoSilver• 23:50, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
    • All that said, I promise I will not use uncivil words in this page any more. From your side please answer: true or false: Word of Turkey has the same weight in intro as word of Greece. Let's start from the very basics of NPOV: Yes or no? Mukadderat 23:45, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
      • I had already responded. Why do you ask again? •NikoSilver• 23:50, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
• Finally, people from all sides. COOL it! Geez! •NikoSilver• 23:50, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I think i deserve to post a comment, since it was me who removed the: :Turkey maintains that this event was not of genocidal nature, and the selection of the date of May 19, which is a national holiday in Turkey, is considered by some Turkish politicians to be a provocation.

So, as we have all understood, for several weeks there had been so much pressure for this article to be cited. after the article was filled with , most of it became sourced... apart from that important (?) statement that Mukadderat says he added (btw, i did not know who had added it till now). I requested a citation for this, but for several days noone provided one... so, i removed it. and will keep removing it again and again, if it will be re-added without source. lets get things straight people: when u request citations for virtually everything in an article, because it simply does not fit your POV, u must be ready to provide sources for your 'statements'. i do not know if that position is the official position of Turkey or of the Grey Wolves or of both or none... And if it is the official position of Turkey, of course it has to be mentioned along with the Greek one in the intro. but u've got to source it, if u want to include it.I think i was clear enough. Hectorian 00:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

If you look into my contributions, you will see taht unlike many of wikipedians, I don't sit by keyboard all day long deep in political struggles. I didn't look into this article for long time. And this fact of Turkey denying the "genocide" labelling was the root of all this racist campaign aimed at not letting Turkey into EU, so it was ridiculous for me that someone needs confirmation. But never mind. As soon as the article unlocked I will add a reference. Mukadderat 03:41, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

You could add it here and ask an admin do it. Why wait for unprotection? --Michalis Famelis (talk) 09:34, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Wait to add it yourself, Mukadderat, or provide a source here and ask an admin to do it for u, as Michalis suggested. honestly, i do not care...! if it is sourced, unlike other wikipedians, i won't touch it. as for the racist campaign aimed at not letting Turkey into EU, be sure that if Turkey won't enter it will be cause of its politicians and military attitude. EU is not only Greece... perhaps u should start thinking why the other countries do not want Turkey either, instead of watching the turkish media all day (and especially today). Hectorian 12:01, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Correction: Greece actually wants Turkey into the EU because Athens and Ankara, Thessaloniki and Istanbul, realise the importance of joint trading routes and energy pipe lines. Other EU member states do not. As for swearing in Wikipedia, users who indulge in such language should be banned for at least 24 hours. Politis 12:12, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Addition: Actually Greece is the most outspoken supporter of Turkey's EU candidacy. It is other countries such as France, Germany, Austria etc that either seem reluctant to the idea or outright oppose it. Its EU colleagues have already started criticizing Greece for being too supportive of Turkey's acceptance in the EU. But please, all this has nothing to do with the article... --Michalis Famelis (talk) 12:21, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Correction: The greek government is the most outspoken supporter of Turkey's EU candidacy, not the Greek people. Mitsos 13:39, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

That is partially correct, Mitsos; 94% of the Greek people voted for parties (pasok and ND) that back Turkish membership. Politis 13:43, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

That's right about Greek government. It wants to normalize relations. Do you remember it there was the whole hysteria about Greek government wanting to remove the word "genocide" from declaration. (By the way, this is not covered in this wikipedia article as well, and IMO it was during this campaign suddenly several US states said "genocide-genocide".) But some people simply want blood rather than live in peace. And it seems they found wikipedia a good place. Mukadderat 15:36, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. Do you have a source? •NikoSilver• 15:42, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, some members in government wanted to remove the term genocide and there was a debate; but I think this applied to the fate of the Asia Minor Greeks, not the Pontians (there was an article in Ta Nea, written at the time). But it is useful to try and understand the Greek psychology; those who favoured the term 'genocide' were definitely not after blood - absolutely no one called for revenge. Some of those who favoured the usage of the term were politicians who saw it as a political platform, but there were also those who felt they needed to commemorate the trauma they, if not their families, had gone through. Most Greeks who had to leave their native Anatolia and Turkey miss their homeland and their Turkish neighbours - even though they suffered so badly (and vice versa for Turks who had to leave Greece). Politis 16:07, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, some members of the government wanted indeed to remove the term 'genocide', but the majority and historic accuracy prevailed. cause, u know, Greece is democratic and people here can say freely whatever they want... We are not like others (?), where, when u mention the word 'genocide', even in a swiss magazine, u face trials for 'insulting the nation'(huh?!) and the danger to be imprisoned... Hectorian 16:48, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and some who use the word 'bullshit' "should be banned for at least 24 hours" in opinion some democratic Greeks. Mukadderat 17:25, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Every country has its own way and time to arrive to democracy. In democratic America people who protested against Vietnam War were beaten and imprisoned. You have to be patient and respect other people's speed. Calling names and holding historical grudges will not help. If someone needs to commemorate trauma, no one can argue, but to use the past as a political bludgeon is totally different. Mukadderat 17:36, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

It was a period in history of Turkey when the collapsing Ottoman Empire was surrounded by vultures tearing it apart, and Greece was among them. And now they want Turkey to apologize. Why don't all together stop involving this barbaric past into current life? Commemorate tragedies peacefully, but not make political capital on it. Mukadderat 17:42, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Without history there is no future. we can't erase the past, we just have to learn how to live with it. and since an event is documented, i can't see why we should be favouring the politicians for the sake of future. as for the 'democratic speed', i am free to judge it while respecting it! i am patient... i guess we should all be. (note that we are always talking about 'speed' forward democracy, not about stepping back...). Hectorian 18:12, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Btw, User:Mustafa Akalp got away with vandalising the article and still he isn't blocked, while I was blocked twice. Mitsos 19:50, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:RM

As I've stated already the other side of the dispute does not have what it takes to take this issue to WP:RM. You are using this fabricated 'dispute' over the title to keep the article hostage with your tags, because you know that no reasonable supporter can move for renaming the article! You also admit that you are not inserting citations for the Turkish side, so that you don't give any 'legitimacy' to the article. This is blackmail, so I'll spell it out for you: Take the tags off, or go and humiliate yourselves at WP:RM. •NikoSilver• 21:29, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Quotations about Trukey not recognizing genocide

About so-called "fabricated 'dispute' tag". What is it: genuine ignorance or deliberate provocation and disinformation? There are hundreds of quotations easily available: Turkey does not recognize the term "genocide".

• "Turkey is unhappy about a new monument in Thessaloniki marking the genocide of Pontic Greeks, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan told Greek Premier Costas Karamanlis during a meeting in Vienna on Friday as Ankara steps up pressure in its disputes with Athens." Greek News
• Namik Tan (foreign ministry spokesman): "So-called Pontic genocide lacks historical and scientific evidence." "We suggest that Greek authorities and scholars evaluate the historical events objectively instead of using such expressions that can damage relations between our two countries. We want to again reiterate that this step, which became a fodder for feeble arguments, isn’t in line with the spirit of the cooperation and dialogue we’re trying to develop." Cumhuriyet, mAy 11, 2006

• Turkish experts argue that the genocide claims are added by the Greek and Armenian lobbies to prevent Turkey's EU process. Dr. Sedat Laciner from USAK, Ankara-centred Turkish think tank told the JTW that there is no condition of recognition of any genocide claim: "Turkey has fulfilled all main conditions for EU membership. That's why the anti-Turkish groups add new condition to stop the process". Dr. Laciner also claims that the EP report is so biased and accuse only the Turks: "The Armenian claims are historical claims. The Armenians believe in that the 1915 Relocation Campaign was a genocide. It means the EP gives great importance to the events happened almost a century ago. Yet the same EP mention nothing about the Armenian occupation in Azerbaijani territories. Yerevan does not recognise the Kars Treaty. According to Armenians the Eastern parts of Turkey is Western Armenia. I mean EP should also see the Armenian irredentism.Similarly the Pontus and Assyrian genocide claims are baseless and not serious." The Journal of Turkish Weekly 09 September 2006

Enough? or you need more? I gave you both Turkish and Greek sources, just in case. Mukadderat 02:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Al-Qaeda's hand?

How about the following conspiracy theory: this pressure on Turkey about genocide is stirred by Al-Qaeda! Reason: with access of Turkey to EU blocked, it will inevitably turn to the rest of Muslim world. See what already happens: Turkish PM, Erdogan is a devoted Islamist... `'mikka (t) 03:09, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Nha ha ha.. Very funny. BTW, It was me who killed JFK, did u know :)) Baristarim 03:38, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

And to something implied that is WRONG: If Turkey turns towards the Muslim world, it will be other countries that will follow Turkey's example, not vice versa.. No offence to any Arabs or anything, but a nation with the legacy of an empire and a secular revolution is not going to follow in the footsteps of a bunch of bedouins with a lot of camels and a lot of oil. The country that abolished even the caliphate is not going to start developing nukes like some village-dwelling presidents of some countries are doing. The legacy of Turkey's secular revolution as a model for muslim-world development is mentioned as an example by all arab intellectuals to this day.. Baristarim 03:50, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

As for Erdogan, yeah well, we will see who will prevail: the new Primo General (supported by a majority of Turks) or him.. If I were a gambler, I would know on whom not to make a bet :)). Erdogan is not a hard-core Islamist in any case, he is moderate - i have seen worse :)) his rhetoric only goes as much trying to allow the hijab in schools etc. The hard-core islamist vote in turkey is around 7-10 percent, just fyi.. Baristarim 03:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

As a nerd, I find your comments about the Arabs and the Persians very offencive. In the names of Al-Khwarizmi, Ibn Sina, Ibn Rushd, Al-Karaji, Al-Razi, Al-Battani, Ibn al-Haitham, Al-Biruni and Omar Khayyám I demand that you apologize!! --Michalis Famelis (talk) 05:53, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Which slurs of all are you referring to? --Tzekai 06:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry that you took it that way.. I was just trying to make a point, and I just don't like being politically correct.. You know that the age of all those great thinkers and scientists has passed a thousand years ago, I was referring to our era.. A thousand years is a lot of time, you know. In any case, back then they didn't consider themselves as Arabs, concept of nation didn't exist back then. About Iran, if you read carefully, I was only referring to its President. OTOH, I can't be too sympathetic with a nation that has elected him with a 60 percent vote.. There were no slurs intended, I have LIVED for years in Saudi Arabia, that statement is exactly true.. You have not experienced the HELL that exists there, fortunately for you :)).. It might be POV, but it is the truth.. Did you know that they WHIP (20 lashes to be exact, with a whip 4 metres long) people there for drinking a beer?? I have seen people have their hands chopped off before my eyes for stealing. If you don't believe me, take a trip to Saudi Arabia :)) You will come back running and not utter a word about Ibni Sina again :) What I said was an understatement Baristarim 08:04, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Dude, that was slashdot-style flaimbait. You could have just ignored me. Anyway, it seems my sense of humor is seriously degrading after long studing hours... --Michalis Famelis (talk) 10:11, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry, i was tired too :)) Baristarim 16:01, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Again

I just wanted to reply to something specific that Hectorian said above: without history, there is no future..we have to learn to live with it.... You see, that's a very wrong way of looking at things.. There is no dispute as to the fact that there were huge ethnic strifes during the World War in the eastern Med (it was a world war :)), but to label everything that has happened a genocide is also historical revisionism.. I am sorry but, this habit of going back centuries and bringing out old ghosts out of the closet is extremely worrying, and not just here.. So Hectorian, we have to learn history, true, but we also shouldn't keep going back to events that happened a century ago, reheating them in the oven, changing their flavors (renaming to genocide in this case) and expecting others to eat it.. Every single time the argument gets hot, the debate shifts to completely irrelevant issues.. There are allegations that: massacre-denialist, hellenistic fascists, pan-turkist fascists (maybe not in those words, but the implications are clearly there) etc.. So I want to come back to the origin of the dispute: the title, in the sense that, why is what happened a genocide?? The fact that what happened to Ponti is a genocide is such a minority POV held by Greeks, certain milk-out-the-vote politicians in Greece and six US states (that pass thousands of non-sense resolutions every year, any american would know this) and, officially, Greece.. There is absolotuley no reference to this in the academic world, in ANY country.. I am giving it to everyone again: the textbooks of all the school and universities of the whole world, none of them refer to it as a genocide.. Baristarim 03:38, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

As such, the day a considerable portion of the academic world refers to it as a genocide, it can be renamed genocide (i am not ruling out that one day that will happen, maybe not in the near future, but in some future).. Until then, it is Original Research.. Bunch of web-sites with dodgy web designs, 'reception of a letter from some NGO, recognition of Greece, recognition of definitely non-Greek US state of Illinois with a population of 10.5 million (i am quoting Tzekai (or should I say miskin :)), hearsay from seven diplomats that died before our grandfathers were born is not enough to support this article's title.. That's all I am saying.. Baristarim 03:38, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Academic sources have been cited, despite your insistence on ignoring them, and no academic sources contradicting have been cited (who would have thought it!). This is the most common way of referring to these events, like it or not, and no Bozkurt-style form of genocide denial is likely to ever change that. BTW if you think I am Miskin, all you need do is ask an admin to perform an IP check, although I feel obliged to inform you that you're in for a disappointing rude awakening if you do. --Tzekai 06:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, well calling everyone that asks for proof to validate these events as a genocide a bozkurt won't get you anywhere Te Zekai Bey, FYI i am an atheist, and I am sure that an extremely educated man such as yourself would know that atheists don't become bozkurts, nor do the bozkurts want them to do so.. Second of all, I don't care that you are miskin, or anyone else for that matter :)).. And calling everyone a denialist won't get you nowhere, kahvede tavla oynamiyoruz canim benim.. Baristarim 06:38, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Evidence has been presented above and all over the article, sevgili. It's you who refuses to look at it, and doesn't cite any evidence proving otherwise. --Tzekai 07:47, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I looked at all the evidence sevgili t-az zeka-i bey, reception of a letter is what proves that it was genocide along with three websites with dodgy designs?? are you joking? You know, I don't know where your beef with Turks come from, but just take it out somewhere else please.. As I pointed out in Archive 2, I feel sorry that Greek politicians exploited this for votes.. As Politis was mentioning the end of Hellenism in Asia Minor (or something like that) somewhere above, that's an admittal of the real purpose of this article's title: caress the national wounds of Greece and feel better about the end of Hellenism in Anatolia by getting sympathy..I am sorry but, don't deny that the term genocide serves this purpose.. Now people have something to shift the blame from the failed policies of Greek politicians and army commanders of the time: the barbaric genocidal Turks.. Hey, we didn't lose the war because Kemal and Turks were better, we lost because they came with their horses like the Huns and butchered us, yeah whatever...Baristarim 08:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I understand why some people in greece love this word, it is a feel-good word, it just stops them from delving into their own past and finding the people responsable for their own fate, namely their inapt policies, too much dependance in Britain, too much self-confidence, utter bankruptcy of the Megali Idea.. megali idea was as racist as pan-turkism, maybe it was megali idea responsable, no?? If you attack a country and try to conquer even their capital with the stated aim of turning back the clock a thousand years and wiping away the Turkish presence in Anatolia, that's exactly what happens.. yeah, cling onto your silly title, I will cling onto my Istanbul, one of the most beautiful and oldest cities in the world.. A good trade I believe :)) Baristarim 08:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Same goes for the fire of Smyrna: yeah the Turks just walked into the city with nothing better to do on a fine Sunday morning and they suddenly said hey, let's some burn greek houses.. Whatever, if the Greek armies try to march to Ankara to turn back the clock a thousand years and wipe out the Turkish presence in Anatolia again and when the time of reckoning comes, I might do a bit more then just burn a couple of houses.. I am sure you would do the same if Turkish armies marched onto Athens to wipe out the Hellenic presence in Greece.. Common sense.. That's why it is called a war, and not a genocide - these are all side-effects and viciouc cycles that are caused by war.. A genocide is when ethnic cleansing and massacres happen with pre-meditation, go to a law school and learn the difference.. Baristarim 09:06, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

What does any of this have to do with the fact that the Turks conducted a mass murder campaign against the Christians well before the Greek self-defence in Asia Minor against Turkish extremists who disagreed with the Sevres Treaty (in a similar way that Hitler disagreed with the Versailles Treaty)? The bottom line here is that a large part of the indigenous Greek Christian population (as well as Armenians and Assyrians) of the Ottoman Empire (in Pontus, not Smyrna), not invading forces, vanished, so this has nothing to so with the Asia Minor Catastrophe or that war. The aim here was an ethnically pure Turkey, not self-defence. In the words of Mark Levene I cited above: By ridding themselves of the Armenians, Greeks, or any other group that stood in their way, Turkish nationalists were attempting to prove how they could clarify, purify, and ultimately unify a polity and society so that it could succeed on its own, albeit Western-orientated terms. This, of course, was the ultimate paradox: the CUP committed genocide in order to transform the residual empire into a streamlined, homogeneous nation-state on the European model. --Tzekai 09:38, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

yeah whatever.. As for Versailles treaty, it wasn't only Hitler that found it unfair, he just exploited popular feelings for his own ends, everyone knows this.. The communist party of germany (second biggest at the time) found it unfair, and so do all modern historians and politicians.. That is no comparision.. Extremist elements in Turkey?? You are joking right?? You mean the whole Turkish nation (along with Kurds at the time actually) disagreed.. Yeah, the Turks were just going to lay down, leave their homes and the world stage, and go back to Central Asia, right?? Whatever :))))))) your method of comparision shows how much anger you have battled up against the Turks, it is mind boggling.. Comparing the Turks who were fighting the Greek army that had marched 60km to their capital with the Nazis?? That's wishful thinking my boy, the blame of Greek defeat lies only with the inapt Greek commanders and politicians (in fact it lies with the fact that Kemal was better, but let's not go into that).. Greek self-defence in Asia Minor?? Smyrna was a Turkish city for a thousand years before the Greeks set foot in 1919 as pawns of the Brits.. And it has a lot do with that war, some people are just looking for a scapegoat for the failed ideal of Megali Idea, that's what this is about.. Neither can they accept (truly accept that is) that Megali Idea was racist as much the Nazi ideals.. My examples are much more valid than yours t-az zeka-i bey.. :)) Baristarim 09:56, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Baristarim, sorry, but u seem to express a very pan-turkist - kemalist point of view here... My comment, after which the discussion of this section evolved, was without history, there is no future..we have to learn to live with it. i did not ask to rewrite history.... According to what u are saying in these 40-50 lines, the kemalists had every right to do what they did, cause they were under attack and also that the turkish nationalists (young turks and kemal) did nothing! they did not kill the Pontians on purpose, they did not burnt Smyrni down, they did not have the sick ideal to ethnically purify Anatolia, they did not exterminate the christian population of Asia Minor simply cause their racism had already reached the limits of nazism... Neither did Kemal used the motto 'Turkey for the Turks', nor those who slaughtered the christian subjects were honoured by his regime with monuments to glorify their acts... btw, Ankara was not capital that time, Istanbul was (well, Constantinople was, since the city was renamed a decade later...) and the Greeks did not capture it. perhaps u should take a look in some history books and for once to judge kemal and his ideas, cause it seems that his ideas have poisoned the minds of modern Turks: they believe that their country is new, did nothing bad and as he had said 'Only a Turk can be a friend of Turk', and thus, those who are judging the country are just racists and ignorants... I would really like some Turkish users here (or some turkish politicians in world academic and politics arena) to express openly what kemalism teaches: isn't that right that in the turkish schools and unis and certain right-wing circles, kemal's ideas that the Sumerians, Lemnians, Etruscans, Celts (huh?!!!) were turks are widely believed? That's why Turkey has difficulties with the EU, cause its people have been brainwashed that kemal was the best human being ever and that everything that he had said is "sacred". that's where i believe your attitude and ideas come from: 'Kemals said nothing happened, so, he is right...'! Perhaps some people should just wake up and realise that only Turkey and North Korea in the whole world share a unique characteristic: they both worship dead leaders... I can find reasons why N. Korea does, but Turkey? come on people! kemal has been dead for 70 years! maybe u should really look at the future some time... As for this article, i have made myself clear enough: it is sourced, it meets all wikipedia criteria, it has photos (remember when u were asking for them?), accounts, links and references and bla bla bla. so, it won't be renamed, unless opposing sources of at least the same validity are presented. honestly, as far as i am concerned, i won't agree to rename this article in the name of one more rotten kemalistic ideology. Regards to all Hectorian 11:28, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I had no idea that the term academic had such a 'wider' usage; this is the first time I come across such a definition; I am aware of 'UN experts', rather than 'UN academics'. But I take your point. Politis 16:16, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:RM III

As I've stated twice already the other side of the dispute does not have what it takes to take this issue to WP:RM. You are using this fabricated 'dispute' over the title to keep the article hostage with your tags, because you know that no reasonable supporter can move for renaming the article! No response to this yet... •NikoSilver• 10:38, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Come on.. We are still trying to reach concensus, I think that we can reach an amiable agreement soon.. :)) Baristarim 11:27, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, no. You are not trying at all. Take it to WP:RM or consent with the present title. No other option is viable. •NikoSilver• 11:43, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

You know there is a problem with bringing sources, because there is next to nothing covering this issue other than Greek sources. I stated this to be a problem from the very beginning. How are we meant to argue this issue when there is simply no academic debate from which to argue it. All that exists is the Greek pov. Even the sources which have been brought forward here are vague and confusing. The Rummel source is simply a table stating 'Greek genocide', there is no text, we do not know if he means those Greeks killed in Izmir also for instance. If that is the case then he is confusing Asia Minor and Pontus. Likewise reference no.17 used to prove Labour battalions is used in the context of Asia minor Greeks, not Pontus Greeks. Elias Venezis was not only an Aegean Greek, but her account also covers the period after the 1920's, outside of this articles timeframe. And the same goes for Leyla Neyzis study, which talks of a Jew placed in labour batallion during the Greco-Turkish war, which has absoloutely nothing to do with a Pontian from the Black Sea in 1916. To me it is remarkable that the only paragraph dedicated to the event, is composed of sources which either happened outside of its timeframe, or in a completely different location, and by people who were not even Pontians!

Despite the complete lack of scholarly research and the use of confused and irrelevant sources, you and others have had the audacity to tell us to find sources which oppose the event, when you cannot even find any of worth to support your own. As i have said again and again and will say once more: Find me one non-partisan monograph, journal, or encylopedic article dedicated to this event. --A.Garnet 12:35, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I think being dedicated is a bit too high. We do however have sources which mention it. --Tzekai 12:43, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

So we are meant to create a well researched article which reflects the majority of academic opinion on the basis of sources which simply "mention it"...--A.Garnet 12:46, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Do i have to remind that sources claiming the opposite have not yet been provided? Hectorian 12:48, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes they have, earlier by myself. --A.Garnet 12:49, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Well in the interests of avoiding double standards, I also have serious doubts that equivalent sources exist for the Assyrian Genocide and the Burundi Genocide. --Tzekai 12:51, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, there can't be much academic opinion at all on these events, as not many sources deal with the ethnic cleansing of Pontus. That the genocide thesis is not a mainstream view is not yet demonstrated. In fact, out of the sources we have here, it seem most of them advocate that some kind of genocide took place. --Tzekai 13:19, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

And yet again, nobody has what it takes to take it to WP:RM... •NikoSilver• 14:16, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it's pretty obvious what would happen if they did... —Khoikhoi 14:30, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I think a compromise could be worked out, e.g. I give you the title of you give me A,B or C. --Tzekai 14:57, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean? Baristarim 15:08, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I cannot speculate on what would happen in the future.. I honestly don't know what the chances of success of such a move would be, not because I don't think it is not probable, but just because I have never witnessed a WP:RM.. there is a time for everything :)) On the other hand, it seems to me that u r using this WP:RM as blackmail, what is that supposed to be? As for other genocides, please avoid mangling them with this article, if someone has reservations about the validity of the Burundi Genocide, please take them to the relevant talk page. In that case, I can give the example of Srebrenica massacre, it is still titled as such, even though the specific events that took place there were described as genocide by a competent UN tribunal.. The fact that there is Bosnian Genocide article doesn't mean much as far as logic is concerned - the UN tribunal only described the Srebrenica events as genocide, not the rest.. Anyways.. Baristarim 15:07, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

As for what A. Garnet said, there is a huge point that has been overlooked: there are no secondary sources, most of the sources mentioned simply do that, mention it. They are not academic research. It is also true what Zekai said, that the genocide thesis has not yet been shown to be mainstream: it is such a minority POV, that nobody even bothered to write an anti-thesis. Again, as Zekai correctly stated, there is not much academic opinion on these events, which means that, as an encyclopedia article, this article depends on academic research that is non-existant, and as such is original research. I have told this many times: maybe in the future, there will be enough academic research that will permit this article to be named Pontian Greek Genocide, that is possible, but not today.. For the moment, the title used and the article imply what the sources mentioned imply what it isn't (that some people have mentioned it, there is absolutely no research or book dedicated to this subject), I am disappointed in some editors here for saying otherwise, if it were any other article, most of the sources would not be considered enough to warrant the inflammatory title of genocide. If, since ninety years, nobody has written a book in English about these events, I wonder what the basis of this article's title is.. That is extremely dubious, we are not talking about some obscure African tribe, we are talking about Greece, a EU member, there must be reason why since 90 years no academician (out of 20 billion people that has lived since then) has bothered to write a book in English dedicated to these events that has affected both Greece and Turkey and call it genocide; this was not some tribal gang war in the jungles of Africa. Baristarim 15:07, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

We can take it to WP:RM no problem, but as Tzekai says, if people are willing, a compromise can be reached. One suggestion which i believe has not been explored is Pontian Deportations. Nearly all the sources accept that some sort of deportation occured to the Pontians, even if they do not agree with the Greek pov that it was genocide. This could include deportations of Greeks from Pontus, and those from Izmir, and thus avoid the confusion between the two events which this article suffers from. A section could also be included such as "Genocide claims" in which we mention Greece recognises it as genocide. That is my suggestion to this problem. --A.Garnet 15:13, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Look, you keep disputing the validity of the sources. Greek-pov editors support the validity of these sources. We have a disagreement that can't be bridged, especially by getting (all of us) carried away with that blog attitude. We are not disputing anything; you are. Take it to WP:RM and let's hear what third people think. You can't keep the article hostage, protected, tagged and unsourced for ever. This is indeed a blackmail, but the other way around... •NikoSilver• 15:17, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd first like to see what people think to my above suggestion. --A.Garnet 15:21, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I would agree and suggest that in the intro we can mention some/few/most/many historians agree that if these events were to take place today, they would be considered as such. Greece has also recognized it as a genocide.... That's a much more historical and scientific approach.. It still leaves the door open for it to be considered a genocide. Look, whether you believe it or not, the article will sound much more sane like that.. In its current state, any reasonable person would know that there is something fishy going on and would definitely take what is written with a grain of salt (even without the tags) Baristarim 15:40, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. I think you know my response. •NikoSilver• 15:25, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Well what is the reason behind your response? --A.Garnet 15:29, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

That there are sources capable of backing up the title of this article, especially with this content.•NikoSilver• 16:01, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually a WP:RM is not a good idea. (Btw, Baristarim it is nothing extraordinary, so do not consider NikoSilver's proposal a blackmail). The requested moves pages is not the how disputes are solved. WP:RM is for a different purpose: it is for requesting the help of admins to make a move that is technically difficult. I believe Wikipedia:Requests for comment is what is needed here. That is if whe want to hear what third-party wikipedians think. --Michalis Famelis (talk) 15:30, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Whatever. You're right, RM says so in the intro. WP:DR should be followed for instructions.•NikoSilver• 16:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I know, i just said that because it was mentioned non-stop.. As for RfC :)) I think there have already been two RfC to this day, the second one I requested.. They are in the archives, first one I think.. Two outside users had responded, and they both said that the use of genocide with the state of this article should be avoided.. So at the end of the day, I am not trying to run away from RM, but there is no need to rush things.. We can always request another RfC.. Baristarim 15:40, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

How about, Pontian Deportations - and they all lived happily ever after :-). Also, the observation that, "there are no secondary sources, most of the sources mentioned simply do that, mention it. They are not academic research", implies that only academic research, i.e. after the event, can confirm that which has been witnessed. In this light, the Srebrenica massacre could only be labled as such, only if 'academia' deems it so. I find myself disagreeing with such perspectives but thank those who forward them. Politis 15:38, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

You disappoint me, the investigations of the prosecutor of the UN tribunal is also considered legal academic research, it is on the basis of these that it was deemed genocide - those papers have become academic research the day they were written, since they were written by a competent expert on the field of law that did hands-on research into the subject matter. Academicians are not only the people that work in universities, a UN Tribunal Prosecutor is also considered an academician in his field of specialty.. And yes, legal academic research is always needed to confirm a crime, genocide in this case..Baristarim 15:45, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

First there was a "proposal" to rename the article Pontian Greek massacres, now a proposal the name it Pontian Deportations... I guess the next step will be a proposal to name it Greek Pontian myth or maybe Greek Pontian fairy tale... and then... just delete it... To all those, my answer is simple: no. with no sources claiming anything opposing the current sources, the title remains as is. Hectorian 15:51, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I gave three sources that deny that it was "genoicide" in #Quotations about Trukey not recognizing genocide. One can easily find more. Mukadderat 16:34, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I will try to be constructive.. What kind of sources do you want? I mean, by whom and in what context? Do you mean a)research dedicated to what happened to Pontus Greeks after/during/shortly after the World War or b)research into civilian casualties shortly before/during/shortly after Greco-Turkish War? I will try to dig up some, but please also understand that there is an ambiguity with respects to what kind of sources that u and Nikos are asking for.. A. Garnet has mentioned two, but even if you claim that it is not enough, I am seriously at a loss as to what I am supposed to be searching.. Because there have been demands for sources that assert what happened to Pontian Greeks was not a genocide - I will have objections to that since that would be asking for an anti-thesis. Considering that, even by our common concensus, it has been agreed that there has not been any books in English dedicated to these events that refer to them as a genocide (the original thesis), it follows logically that there are less books dedicated to investigating to see if the genocide claims made by these non-existant books are true or not (the anti-thesis).. That's what you people are asking: Bring sources that dispute that this was a genocide whilst there are no books dedicated to this subject that assert that it was a genocide!! You see what I mean? That's not fair - you are asking for the anti-thesis of a thesis that doesn't exist (bookswise, recognitions don't count, if they were to count, I can also cite the non-recognition of Turkey as a source and it would cancel out Greece's recognition). I hope that you have been following me :)) So, what exactly do you mean by sources? Sources fulfilling the first two criteria should be enough.. Baristarim 16:15, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

U earlier proposed to rename it into 'Pontian Greek Massacres". start by bringing sources that Turkey recognises the massacres. (there are sources that Greece recognises the genocide). Hectorian 16:20, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Seriously, don't get me wrong, I am really trying to make an effort to connect with you people on this, so I will have to ask for more precision: that Turkey recognizes the events as massacres and not as a genocide (a statement saying, we know that massacres happened but that they didn't carry a genocidal nature (in other words a statement incorporating the refute of the appellation of genocide)), or that Turkey recognizes that massacres took place, period. the same thesis/anti-thesis argument.. Well, I have the impression that we will get bogged down further on this since Turkish school textbooks talk about certain massacres taking place, that can also be considered as something, anyways forget the last thing I said.. I had enough of this article for today :)), so I will see what I can do.. BTW what about what I mentioned in a) and b), the academic sources that can be brought in? I am still of the opinion that the current academic sources don't support the current title and stand behind everything I said above, just for the record :).. Baristarim 16:39, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Please allow me to repeat once more, in more detail. The article disusses a very notable Point of view. Regardless its correctness, it is a well represented point of view hence it is a fact of the world. This POV may be found in many sources hence the topic is encyclopedic. At the same time this point of view is denied by the second involved party (qoutations provided, in a section above) and was not yet accepted by international law, therefore this point of view is allegations. Therefore the title of the article in its current form should be Pontic Greek genocide allegations. Please explain me why this suggestion is inacceptable. Mukadderat 16:36, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

An uninvolved user, user:storkk, in response to the second RfC, had suggested Pontian Greek Genocide Thesis (since it is a bit better then saying allegations), just throwing it out there.. :) Baristarim 16:44, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

My problem with those kind of titles is that they make articles out of minority pov's. It is far better in my opinion to find the common ground, and include the minority pov within that. That is why i suggested Pontian deportations, non-affiliated authors agree Pontians were deported, even if they do not mention the word genocide. From within there we can include the Greek pov and Greek sources. --A.Garnet 16:59, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

A POV of a whole country is not a "minority POV". No one prevents you from writing an article Pontian deportations, since the discussed article does not say any meaningful word about this, and since it is so, you cannot rename it into "deportations". Mukadderat 17:43, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

The dictionary definition of genocide is the following:

The deliberate killing of a large group of people, esp those of a particular ethnic group or nation

Is there a wikipedia policy which specifies that the use of the term genocide is allowed only when the act is recognised by a specific organisation? If not, then WP:CITE applies and the article stays the way it is. Miskin 16:52, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I am not even going to get into this, I have talked about this so many times, check the archives.. Well, wp:cite also says that the sources cited must back up what is written.. The sources cited here only prove that it was recognized by certain groups and Greece, and the six very important US states. they can back up an article called Recognition of the Pontian Greek Genocide, not the article's title itself.. Well, we will see about the citations, citations only mention the name, none of them are academic researches done about the said events.. That's what makes it original research - and that's also WP miskin.. BTW, do you know what miskin means in old Turkish? it is also used in Arabic.. Well in any case welcome back to the debate miskin.. So you said in your user page that you created or rewrote the JonBenet_Ramsey article is that true?? So along with Pontian Greek Genocide that's also your area of interest? Cool, no disrespect.. :)) Baristarim 17:05, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

For those interested, Rummel also characterizes it a democide, so maybe we could move it to Pontian Greek Democide (0 Google hits, but this doesn't seem to be a problem for Baristarim et al). --Tzekai 17:07, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

BTW A.Garnet, you're speculating when you say that the genocide thesis is a minority POV. I'd like some proof, please... --Tzekai 17:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

See, that's the problem: the missing link: no matter what you say, you have not been able to prove that these massacres were organized and ordered by the government - this is also an integral part of Rummel's definition. There has been NO book, NO case of law, NO serious academic undertaking that has proven that these massacres were a organized by the government, and not by some lawless gangs.. Don't forget, back then, there were no telephones or etc.. So there must have been a very complicated command structure to have organized this: and there are no sources or academic research that show such connection. Hearsay from seven diplomats cannot prove that 350000 people were killed, it can prove 10000 maximum, if it can even do that, since it is hearsay.. What the hell were these diplomats doing? Travelling Anatolia non-stop with horse-carriages for years?? :) Baristarim 17:22, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, according to Rummel, 360,000 people died (I'm quoting that number from memory, I'll have to verify it, although he certainly gives a figure larger than 350,000 - go figure!). Anyway, what's wrong with hearsay - even CCTV Footage is technically hearsay, and it's invaluable evidence! Unfortunately no CCTV cameras existed then, so we're left with The Times' statement that "the entire Christian population of Trabzon was wiped out", other diplomatic quotations etc. --Tzekai 17:29, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with hearsay, as long as it is described as "hearsay", not "fact". Just the same, CCTV Footage is OK if its involvement clearly describes whether the reporter himself filmed the scene of massacre or listended to first-hand witness or interviewed an angry politician from Athens. If someone does not like the word "allegations" (indeed the word has a gist of something unbelievable, hence POV) another, more neutral version I suggest is Pontic Greek genocide accusations. Mukadderat 17:43, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Exactly my point about hearsay..Baristarim 19:06, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Another suggestion, I think as neutral as can get is Pontic Greek genocide controversy. Mukadderat 17:50, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Wrong, sorry, I'm mistaken. It was Merrill D. Peterson (in this book), who said 360,000 "Greeks from the Pontus" were killed. Rummel places the number of Greek dead at 347,000. --Tzekai 18:23, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, got the point :)) Baristarim 18:53, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Your theory that a term has to be an undisputable fact (or to be recognised) in order to constitute the article title is not applicable in WP. Let me show you why by means of examples:

Wrong Article titles in WP according to your logic: Article name Fact derived from article name White supremacy Whites are superior! Black supremacy Blacks too! Republic of Macedonia The country is uncontroversially called like that by everybody! TRNC That too! Plus, it's recognised by the UN! Dolchstosslegende The Germans were 'stabbed in the back' in WWI! UFOs They exist!

You see, according to WP the 'article title' is the most usual term to refer to the subject. Nobody pushes for Black supremacy allegations though...•NikoSilver• 21:09, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Very funny Niko! btw, out of all these, i believe the last one... the truth is out there, u know...:) Hectorian 01:21, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

In my humble fascist opinion, the 1st and the 5th fact are both true. Mitsos 12:42, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Genocide is

ANY of the following acts:

1. Killing members of the group;
2. Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
3. Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life,
4. Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
5. and forcibly transferring children of the group (janissaries Ottoman practice).

Colleague. We are not here to interpret laws. By your logic, every war is bilateral genocide: members of one group are laborously and diligently killing members of other group. Also I have never heard that devshirmeh was called "genocide". `'mikka (t) 22:29, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Interpeting laws would be the safest way to go i would think because if i give you my definition of Genocide that would totaly be POV. devshirmeh qualifies as one of the acts outlined give it some time, the world at large may not know devshirmeh ...

Colleague, by your logic what is genocide? Aristovoul0s 17:36, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

"The Turk is the only master in his country. Those who are not pure Turks have one right in this country: The right to be servants, the right to be slaves" Turkish Minister of Justice. Newspaper Milliet, September 30, 1930. Stating Number 2 and 3 is the right of those who are not "pure" Turks Minister of Justice????

To put another nation into slavery is not genocide. `'mikka (t) 22:29, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Turkey accessed the Convention on Jul 31st 1950 [2]. The words of the Minister of Justice shows an intent "to destroy in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such a) Deliberately inflicting (slavery) on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; and Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group (by forcing them to become slaves). I see potential :)) If i take your thought as fact then the article genocide should be edited and the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide should rethink the definition of Genocide. Aristovoul0s 17:36, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Now lets see the following:

From NEW YORK TIMES articles please have a look at the dates it shows deliberate acts and consistency.

• «Turks Deporting Greeks» August 21 1916 p.2 Number 2 and 3
• «1,000,000 Greeks Killed?» January 1 1918 p.15 Number 1, 2 and 3
• «Tells of Turkish Cruelty To Greeks» August 26 1918 p.9 (Einstein, L.) Number 2 and 3
• «Terrorize Greeks in Asia Minor» March 15 1919 p.24 Number 2 and 3
• «Turks Massacre Greeks» March 21 1919 p.3 number 1,2 and 3
• «Murders in Asia Minor» July 8 1919 p.6 number 1,2 and 3
• «Turks Parboiled 250,000» July 31 1919 p.2 Number 1,2 and 3
• «Turks Murdering Greeks» September 23 1919 p.19 Number 1,2 and 3
• «Turks Slay 21 Boy Scouts» August 15 1919 p.10 Number 1,2 and 3

In 1922 onwards

• «More Greeks Deported; Turkish Nationalists Now Expelling Them From Trebizond» January 4 1922 p.2 Number 2 and 3
• «300 Greeks Massacred» (Samsounta, Pontos) February 1 1922 p.3 Number 1,2 and 3
• «Turks Burn 24 Greek Villages; Many People Perish In Flames» (Pontos) March 30 1922 p.1 Number 1,2 and 3
• «Killing By Turks Has Been Renewed; American Says They Plan To Exterminate the Christians in Asia Minor; They Have Deported Major Yowell and Associate From Harpoot» May 6 1922 p.2 Number 1,2 and 3
• «Turkish Atrocities Stir Britain To Act; She Invites Us To Join In Investigating Massacres of Greeks» May 16 1922 p.3 Number 1,2 and 3
• «303,238 Massacred, Greek Minister Says» June 2 1922 p.3 Number 1,2 and 3
• «Predicts Greatest Massacre in History; Dr. Ward Says Turks Will Be Restrained Only By Power’s Concerted Action» June 4 1922 Section 2 p.1 Number 1,2,3
• Murray, T. «Turkish Barbarities» (Letter to the Editor) June 5 1922 p.12 Number 2 and 3
• «Says 22,000 Greeks Died on the March; Ward Declares Only Quick Action By Washington Can Stop Turkish Massacres; Christian Girls For Harem; Turks Forbade American Orphanages to Shelter Those Who Were More Than 15» June 7 1922 p.3 Number 2 and 3
• «Turks Massacre 15,000 More Greeks; Kemalist Troops Employed in Systematic Campaign of Murder and Starvation» June 14 1922 p.4 Number 1,2 and 3

Pontian Greek Genocide Should be the title

Comments appreciated. Aristovoul0s 20:12, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

That's not a genocide! It has to be recognised by the UN! It's just a series of coincidential unorganised massacres reported by the POV-est medium of the time: The New York Times! Seriously, guys, NO compromise. Proceed according to WP:DR or live with it. •NikoSilver• 20:31, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Ha! I just noticed why The NY Times got their first Pulitzer prize...•NikoSilver• 20:36, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I read that report.. I still have the impression that we are not connecting here about the difference between genocide/massacre.. In any case, by the concensus that was reached in this page it is clear that there aren't any books devoted to this subject.. You know, I have one question for you guys: Why on earth did you guys wait so much, maybe if you had acted a long time ago (ie before even the children of people who lived back then have died), maybe we wouldn't be having this discussion about the lack of academic research (not just news reports).. Seriously, that's the thing that beats my mind before anything.. I apologize if I am more than skeptical when I see this ghost coming out of the closet EIGTHY years later.. all the excuses given don't mean anything, there was a huge Greek diaspora in other countries, at least some academicians among them could have started investigating what happened EARLIER.. If we are having this debate right now, it is still the fault of Greeks who waited so long (for whatever reason) to take them out of the fridge and put them into the oven.. I mean, how would you have felt if Turkey had recognized a genocide committed by Greeks only ten years ago (just imagining folks) - even if the claims seemed to have some sources, you would still be skeptical, right?? That's all i am saying.. Others have a legitimate right to wonder what the hell is going on?? How am I supposed to be sure that this is not some old-fashioned nationalist rhetoric making a comeback with some sauce of historical revisionism?????? Baristarim 22:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Everyone was silent about the genocide because we were afraid of the Turkish reaction. After we joined the EU however, and Turkey applied to join, we gained confidence ;-) --Tzekai 22:17, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, we all know that it is still the fault of Greeks who waited so long... it was our fault first place (cause the Pontian Greeks were non-mislims non-turks), it is now (cause we are bringing the case into world)... so, meanwhile it was our fault too... it could not had happened somehow else, could it? (sarcasm) Hectorian 23:53, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

hmm :)) I crossed it out.. That was not what I had meant Baristarim 16:43, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Last time I checked neither Armenian nor Assyrian genocides were recognised by Turkey, hence I don't see what difference would it make if Greeks had made a greater deal about this matter. As I have posted for around 5 times in this article, Rummel _does_ use the term genocide (along democide) to refer to the massacre of the Pontian Greeks. WP:CITE is satisfied, and there's no wp:policy which forces the legal definition of 'geoncide'. I have yet to hear of a reasonable argument from the Turkish side. As a response to Baristarim comments: There's no Anglophone book on Cretan Turks either, but the article does exist. Let us avoid double standards here. Miskin 00:48, 28 September 2006 (UTC)