Talk:Greek genocide

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.

Denialist rant

okay we killed 1 armenians and they kill 2 turks for each armenian this is the phsiology of armenian brain that years when they are killin us and we were killing them.My mother and his family is from Trabzon and i really didn't know about this silly genocide.Because there is nothing happen.It is an emperialist lie:D:Dbecause really nothing happens only we defend our land against Russians when they invade Trabzon.ONLY.There is nothin abour greek-pontus because there wasn't any event you silly emperialists:D:D —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.103.124.180 (talk) 20:20, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I am tempted to remove this comment but on reflection I choose to leave it here so passers by can witness first hand the effects of Kemalist denialism. Perhaps a "Read at your own risk" tag would be needed though.--Xenovatis (talk) 12:11, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not

Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as (but not limited to) quotations, aphorisms, or persons (real or fictional). If you want to enter lists of quotations, put them into our sister project Wikiquote (See WP:NOTDIRECTORY).

So I have removed the list of quotes: --PBS (talk) 12:21, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

They are not loosely associated but directly relevant to the article's subject.--Xenovatis (talk) 12:24, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

If you want to remove the quotes you need to add them as references to the citations and add these citations.--Xenovatis (talk) 12:27, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

There is no reason for including list of quotes in an encyclopaedia article. This is a long standing agreement and the reason that Wikiquotes was launched. It is acceptable to have the occasional quote to illustrate a point, but Wikipedia is not a quote farm. --PBS (talk) 12:37, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Removed quotes and linked to wikiquote.Left the most relevant quote from the Journal of genocide studies.--Xenovatis (talk) 13:12, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposal

I wonder whether it would be more appropriate to have this page titled "Greek genocide". I raise this point for a number of reasons. Firstly, the majority of the content in this article refers to a more general campaign against the Ottoman Greeks. Secondly, this would ensure consistency with the international scholarly community, in particular the International Association of Genocide Scholars and academic journal articles. Bebek101 (talk) 18:36, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree, certainly Zimmerer et al don't differentiate between the various Greek populations either. In fact if we want to be in line with current research we should merge the Armenian, Assyrian and Greek articles into one and include the Kurds as well. The Young Turks implemented a bloody policy of homogenization that targeted first the Christian but eventually all minorities.--Xenovatis (talk) 18:42, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I think such an extensive merge will not be digested well by other victim groups. Historically, however you are right but I think a note within the text will suffice to address that point of a shared history with other groups. Thank you your support on this issue. I agree, it is important to use terminology consistent with such genocide scholars. The title could be "Greek genocide" or "Ottoman Greek genocide". That would also go a long way in making the page title more representative of its content.Bebek101 (talk) 18:47, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

As there hasn't been any opposition to date (only support), I will move the page now. Bebek101 (talk) 03:22, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Please put in a WP:RM request for this move as the current name of the article was only settled on after a long debate. We should also consider other names that are used in reliable sources and try to pick one which is within Wikipedia policies guidelines. --PBS (talk) 12:50, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

What did you have in mind?--Xenovatis (talk) 12:55, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

"Greek genocide" as opposed to "Greek Genocide" was proposed to avoid past issues cropping up again. A week later and there still hasn't been any objection so I think it's okay. I, for one, believe it's important to keep the name as "Greek genocide" to maintain consistency with western scholars and to reflect the contents of the article. Bebek101 (talk) 16:52, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Monuments/Memorials

I have significantly cut down parts of this section because they do not contribute anything to this article. Firstly, there are several dozen monuments on the Greek genocide around the world. What is the particular significance of the monument in Canada and a small commemorative plaque in Australia above all other memorials? If there is a reason why these memorials should be mentioned as opposed to all others then this should be clearly stated. Secondly, phrases like "well attended, emotional ceremony" are not fitting to wikipedia. Moreover, the wording of the Australian plaque is erroneous and so including it undermines the objective of accuracy. I can explain more on this point if necessary. Please don't engage in an edit war but use this discussion page to resolve the issue. For the time being, I am reverting back to the original page. Bebek101 (talk) 07:22, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

How is it weasel?

It describes a fact. There are scholars who have called it a genocide. This is the fact that is reported. It doesn't say it was a genocide bur reports on the fact that it has been labelled such.--Xenovatis (talk) 12:59, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Plus I checked the WP:Weasel_word page and nowhere does it say that writting so and so said this and that is weasel wording.--Xenovatis (talk) 13:20, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

It doesnt just say it has been described as genocide but actually lists a number of reliable sources that do in fact describe it as such.--Xenovatis (talk) 13:22, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

See {{who}}, WP:ASF paragraph that starts "It is not sufficient to discuss an opinion...", WP:SUBSTANTIATE (both from WP:NPOV) and the guideline Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words . As the next paragraph goes on to describe and attribute two interpretations of the events, there is no need to place an interpretation in the paragraph that is describing the events as it gives a bias to that paragraph. --PBS (talk) 13:26, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok then saying "which has been described as having..." covers the mass atribution issue, since it is a fact that it has been described= as such supported by the citations--Xenovatis (talk) 13:32, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Your change does not get around the problem of bias. One could replace the phrase with, "which several scholars have not described as having a genocidal character". There is no need to put in such a phrase in the first paragraph which covers the events as the opinions are covered in the second paragraph with attributions. The whole point of the lead is to reflect the article which is structured events and then opinions on the events. --PBS (talk) 13:36, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Moved it to second para. But first para still needs work since the mention of the pop exchange is misleading, most of the Greeks evicted (over a million) were ethnically cleansed before the Lausanne treaty was signed.--Xenovatis (talk) 13:37, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

It is unhelpfull to unilaterally remove something after I just accepted your pov and moved it to the second paragraph. It doesn't really help in establishing mutual good faith.--Xenovatis (talk) 13:43, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Wrt to what I said above about the population exchange most Greeks had allready been deported by the time the treaty was signed, so saying that most were exchanged as part of the treaty is not accurate.

I'll be adding more here.--Xenovatis (talk) 14:21, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Please don't it just clutters up the talk page. --PBS (talk) 14:33, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

See /Archive 9 User:Meowy does not agree with you (and )s)he uses a source to support that POV). But IMHO the way to develop this article is to add to the events section the details of the changes you want to make to the lead. Then and only then edit the lead to reflect the new content.

I am not debating this with meowy or any other feline. I am debating with you and expect to hear any arguments you have from you. If anyone else cares to join I am happy to discuss it with them as well. I agree with that.--Xenovatis (talk) 14:39, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry that you consider it important to score points ("I am not debating this with meowy or any other feline." rather than trying to reach on consensus on how to write a balanced article which is constructed within the three content policies (WP:V, WP:NOR and (most important for articles like these) WP:NPOV). If you have not read it before you might find Wikipedia:Writing for the enemy instructive, I know that I did when I was shown it a few years ago. --PBS (talk) 14:04, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

The events section is pitifully small and needs expanding.

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

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

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

I am of the view that the sentence "This campaign has been described by genocide scholars as having a genocidal character" is redundant and unnecessary, especially where it has currently been placed. Firstly, the phrase "having a genocidal character" is vague. Secondly, the message you are trying to convey is firmly and fully contained in the mention of genocide affirmation by the IAGS, i.e. that a whole group of scholars acknowledge the events as genocide -- and that's explicit and straightforward as it contains none of this nebulous "genocidal character" stuff. I suggest deleting the sentence "The campaign ... genocidal character" and working on the rest of the article to let the events speak more for themselves. Just my opinion.Bebek101 (talk) 16:45, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

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

Good job, Xenovatis. It's good to hear that. Thanks a lot. We need key information on massacres and deportations (as opposed to expulsions) of Greeks throughout Ottoman Turkey in the period 1914-1923; essentially a chronicle of all such events in a digestible form. As you know, the population exchange (which already has a wikipedia page) is a tragic chapter of both peoples (Greeks and Turks) but clearly cannot be considered part of the Genocide. Bebek101 (talk) 18:09, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

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

Great job all

I am very pleased to see the merge of the various topics on genocide has finally happened. Bravo to everyone who made it possible! Monsieurdl ^{mon talk-mon contribs} 17:35, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Why, as the content of the Pontic Greek Genocide article on wikipedia is seemingly "gone", which was definitely the purpose of the 'merger' proposed by certain Turks who deny these Greek Genocides, sadly enough.Smith2006 (talk) 16:57, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Νot at all, the article on PGG was renamed as Greek Genocide to conform with the current scholarship and the IAGS recognition that speaks of a Greek genocide and not just about the Pontic Greeks in particular. The content is still there.--Xenovatis (talk) 17:31, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Genocide?

Is these events actually recognised as a true genocide? If not then the Turks might as well make there own article 'Turkish genocide'. Justinz84 (talk) 16:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

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

Can someone please revert?

Can someone please revert back to version by Philip Baird Shearer on 22:44, 23 January 2009. The last three edits by Smith2006 are not helpful at all. I don't want to go in to great detail but here is some brief justification: For example, "the government of the Ottoman Empire and Young Turk forces instigated". First of all, the Young Turk regime was the ruling party in the Ottoman Empire -- they were not a distinct entity as this wording implies. Secondly, referring to the Ottoman Empire as just the perpetrator (at least in the introduction) is more reasonable as it covers the entire period 1914-1923 while the Young Turks were only in power until 1918 and so is an incomplete statement. Also the Trebizond press article should not only be hidden but removed altogether. It does not specifically pertain to the Greeks while there a whole host of articles that do. I don't think "Turkish wikipedians" objected to its inclusion but a consensus was reached that it was the appropriate thing to do for a number of reasons -- see archive for more. Can someone at least hide it? Essentially can someone revert back to the last PBS edit? Thanks Bebek101 (talk) 15:07, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

You can do it by clicking on the date next to the edit you want to revert to and saving. I did it but would suggest discussing it with Smith since he has some good ideas and wants to help. --Xenovatis (talk) 17:36, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that. I'm sure his edits were well intentioned. Cheers. Bebek101 (talk) 00:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Added more sources which highlight need for pov tag.

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

I'm afraid you were very selective in your edits. To this end, I have not deleted what you wrote but I have complimented your text by a series of facts and quotations that you neglected to include. The paragraph on the IAGS resolution now makes for ugly reading and is not digestible at all but I guess you were trying to make a point. Bebek101 (talk) 01:16, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

The article refers to a specific group, namely the Ottoman Greeks, in a specific location, namely the Ottoman Empire, in a specific time frame, namely 1914-1923.

The article was previously titled "Pontic Greek Genocide" it is now titled "Greek genocide". Note the drop to a lower case for genocide. Note also, that unlike before, there is no attempt to define one particular term in the introduction to this page. As such the POV tag should be removed, unless of course certain facts in the article are disputed, in which case this issue should be raised.

Actually it had been moved to "Pontic Greek genocode" on 8 July 2008, it was not until 23 December 2008 that you move it to "Greek genocide". --PBS (talk) 21:47, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I distinctly recall at some point it was a PGG page but if I'm mistaken, my apologies. Bebek101 (talk) 17:59, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

The term "Greek Genocide" is a term used by the IAGS, it also happens to be more widely used in English language scholarship, e.g. more recently, the Journal for Genocide Studies and Prevention. Nevertheless, the title page is simply "Greek genocide" to more accurately reflect the approach to this period by historians.

At this moment the Academic section is in tatters. I could now come along an add, say, another dozen odd quotes of scholars who supported the resolution and endorse the term Greek Genocide. What would this achieve? Does it not suffice to make mention that some academics fail to endorse the GG just as quite a number of academics fail to endorse the Armenian Genocide. No?

We could also note that the resolution was passed overwhelming but not unanimously. Would this not resolve the problem?

The current text is very misleading and it also misleading to quote scholars who at other times and occasions have endorsed the application of the word genocide, and not make mention of this fact. For example, Robert Fisk refers to the events in 1922 but Garnet has used his comments out of context.

PROPOSAL: I suggest all edits made in recent days, including my own, are removed and we simply make mention that (a) the resolution was not passed unanimously but "overwhelmingly" and (b) that some scholars reject the application of the word "genocide" to describe these events. Is this not reasonable? And since the title is "Greek genocide" and no attempt has been made to define one particular term in the introduction, the POV tag should also be removed. Otherwise, if it takes just quotes from a number of academics to change an article's title, the a POV tag should be placed on the Armenian Genocide page too. Comments welcomed. Bebek101 (talk) 15:54, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PBS, your last post sounds like a reasonable and constructive approach to end this deadlock. :::::We can also address all of the issues A.Garnet raises -- in particular, that there are some scholars who reject the application of the term Genocide and that the IAGS resolution was not passed unanimously -- but this needs to be done concisely; i.e. without listing a set of quotations as it will only incite others to overload the page with a list of quotations by scholars in support of the term -- we don't want this page turning into a quote farm.

At this moment in time, there are sufficiently many publications and scholarly affirmations to warrant the page being titled "Greek genocide", [but!] without a capital G and merely as a descriptive term without any attempt to define one particular term or phrase for the events in the page itself or insinuate that one particular phrase exists.

I hope someone else can promptly revert back to the version suggested by PBS above because I don't have experience reverting anything but the last edit. If not, I'll give it a go myself. Once we've done that we can begin to draw attention to the issues in question.

As PBS pointed out, this state of affairs only reemphasizes the need to develop the "events" section. Xenovatis, you mentioned a while ago that you were compiling relevant information. How is that going? Cheers. Bebek101 (talk) 00:35, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

"Teach a man to fish". All you do is go into the history select the version you want to see by clicking on the date. Select the edit tab in the usual way -- It will warn you that you are editing an old version -- save it with a suitable comment in the edit summary. --PBS (talk) 10:14, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Done. Bebek101 (talk) 10:40, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry no, I absoloutely dont accept the removal of the material I added. It has more right and carries more academic credibility than any of the material here. The views of Mark Mazower, Taner Akcam, Elefantis, Feinstein, Melson, Balakian etc as renowned scholars in their field are infinitely more noteworthy than the other sources here. If the article was not about portarying the event as a genocide, then I would of course not mind trimming down the section, but since it is the material I added is important to show readers how ridicolously a fringe view is being fleshed out here. --A.Garnet (talk) 12:15, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

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

In the next few days I will be editing the page to mention that point exactly; that there are a number of scholars who had their reservations about the resolution and that, in general, there are some who reject the application of the word "genocide" to the events.

Keep in mind, however, we are not grading academics and of those that you list it is questionable how much weight their view should carry. For example, Balakian, who is not a historian but an English professor and is best known for his poetry outside Armenian circles, has contradicted himself on a number of occasions regarding the Greeks and used the word "Genocide" for the Greeks both before and after the resolution. Then, Melson in his writings has spoken of the Armenians as the only Christian race in the Ottoman Empire thus indicating his lack of familiarity with even the existence of Greeks, Assyrians and others; and so on.

In any case, rather than plague the page with a series of quotations and counter-quotations, we will draw the reader's attention to this controversy concisely and accurately. This is the best way forward. Cheers. Bebek101 (talk) 12:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

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

I have made some edits, to include the point that it was not unanimous see what you think.

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

I have reverted to my last edit because, if all the facts were in then there could still be a dispute over interpretaion (more than one meaning of genocide), but AFAICT from the text that was deleted, all the facts are not in. The {{fact}} template is needed because I have not produced citations for theses scholars' statements. --PBS (talk) 14:59, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Obviously you reverted some grammatical corrections that I made and you reinstated WP:WEASEL wording as well. Quote: "The IAGS resolution was passed with an "overwhelmingly" majority but not unanimously". Now I heard about "overwhelming" majorities. But "Overwhelmingly" majority? I corrected this but you reverted it. Secondly what is the purpose of telling the reader that something "passed with a majority" and then tell the reader that majority means "Not unanimity". That's a WP:WEASEL way of expressing things if I ever saw one and it also is not very complimentary to the level that we think the intelligence of the reader is at. Dr.K. logos 18:04, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

The last edits by PBS have done a world of good. Thank you. I have a slight worry that the text as it stands might lead many to believe that the six scholars listed are some of the IAGS members who opposed the resolution, which is of course not true (Elefantis and Mazower). Might it be better to name them in a separate sentence? I'm also uneasy about listing Balakian as someone who raised concerns without also pointing to the fact that he himself has used the term frequently for the Ottoman Greeks. I wonder whether an alternative could be "a number of IAGS members and other academics have voiced concerns ..." or would this not be explicit enough? I think it is clear "majority" implies a non-unanimous vote but perhaps it's better to keep what PBS wrote in order to be explicit. It's not a big deal either way really. Bebek101 (talk) 18:47, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Bebek. Nice talking to you after such a long time. Although I agree with you most of the time, this time allow me to disagree. We cannot be explicit about obvious and self evident facts. A majority of something automatically implies the existence of a minority, i.e. not unanimity. To overspecify this is insulting to the intelligence of the average reader. I tried to fix this yet again but if anyone reverts me so be it. I will not revert further but I will not be happy with the unnecessary redundancy which puts in question the intelligence of the reader and guides them as if they were IQ challenged. The question also arises: Why do we need the term "unanimity", in the presence of the word "majority"? Does it serve some particular purpose? Did anyone else use this phraseology or is this our invention? (Shades of WP:OR and WP:WEASEL, unfortunately). At least A. Garnet fixed this "overwhelmingly" I complained about. Dr.K. logos 21:32, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I don't disagree with you. Essentially I wanted us to end a deadlock and reach a compromise so that we could move forward. My personal preference is that it read "an overwhelmingly majority" but I knew others wanted to emphasize the point that it wasn't passed unanimously. Arguably the same thing but one sounds sweeter than the other. Bebek101 (talk) 17:57, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I was not worried about up on the precise wording (I took what had been suggested in PROPOSAL), although I though it important to get over the point that it a major objection was the lack of research on which to express an opinion. I am glad that User:A.Garnet has re-written it, as it is much clearer,[1] and with that clarity there is no need for a mention of unanimity.[2] --PBS (talk) 10:33, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

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

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

POV in section headings

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

Words like dispute and debate imply that one is going on. Turkish denialism aside a couple of sentences trawled from a website do not constitute a debate. Unless there are say articles on journals that dispute the use of the term genocide there can't really be considered to be a debate. At most the statements should be taken to represent a small minority opinion which should be represented but in proportion to its significance, as per wp rules.--Xenovatis (talk) 17:28, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

See this article in the Independent. Xenovatis have you read the essay WP:Writing for the enemy? --PBS (talk) 17:40, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

This eight-year old article is only usefull for citing Elefantis who is incorrectly cited as an eminent historian when he was a marxist sociologist, which by the way is not the same thing. There are other factual errors as well, e.g. the referrence to a million turkish expelees (in fact it was half a million), the non-reference to the fact that most of the 1,5 million Greeks had allready been evicted etc. Philipp have you perchance read Wikipedia:Rs#News_organizations, particularly the part about opinion pieces which states Opinion pieces are only reliable for statements as to the opinion of their authors, not for statements of fact?

Regardless of whether the events were genocide or not, the section refers to specific cases of their recognition as genocide. As such, giving the section the title "Genocide recognition" is not misleading nor does it carry POV. It simply accurately reflects the material. I agree with Xenovatis, in so far as the Independent article contains a number of errors and it's flawed in logic because Robert Fisk seems to believe the Greek law pertains to the Smyrna massacre and nothing more. As we should all know by now, this article is not about the Smyrna massacre. Further, there is no evidence to suggest there is an ongoing debate or dispute apart from Turkey's longstanding denial of all atrocities, which is not news, right? I've now updated the section title to read "Genocide recognition". Bebek101 (talk) 21:37, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

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

The Greek parliament issued a law, not a resolution. Calling it "Greek parliament resolution" does not accurately reflect the contents of the section since it fails to encompass Cyprus' recognition and Turkey's political response. Recognition of the events as genocide by Greece and Cyprus are instances of political recognition whether you like it or not. The fact they are just two countries with Greek speaking peoples doesn't make the recognition any less political. A.Garnet, you are responsible for the removal of sourced statements. The title is merely descriptive and all facts are sourced so any POV-tag will be promptly removed. Bebek101 (talk) 21:53, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

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

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

Excuse me, this is not about me. It is not about what I want or believe. It is not about what Turkey wants or believes (take note, I am neither a Turkish, nor TRNC citizen). It is the fact eminent scholars such as Mazower, Elefantis (yes, a Greek who called the government a idiot for passing the resolution!), Melson, Feinstein etc have basically ridiculed the whole notion of a Greek genocide, the fact that academically it has no representation. The fact that Levene says genocide is not the commonly used term, the fact Akcam says there is almost no scholarly work on Greeks in WW1. What I want is THEIR view to be represented here above the absurdly fringe view that Greeks suffered a genocide during WW1. I mean honestly, this a good candidate for deletion since it is now a pov fork of Population exchange between Greece and Turkey, Great Fire of Smyrna and Greco-Turkish War (1919-1922) among others. Luckily for you such a move wouldnt achieve anything since a flood of Keep votes by Greek editors will unfortunately render a no consensus. Nevertheless it is something I will think about. In the meantime I will insist on the pov-title tag and I want to remind you to comment on content and not the editor. --A.Garnet (talk) 19:37, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

There are a number of errors in the material you persist on posting. For one, and as I've already tried to communicate, the Greek Parliament did not issue a resolution but passed two laws. Similarly, for Cyprus. Also, there is no evidence to suggest that genocide affirmation by the Republic of Cyprus was in response to Greek recognition. It is also misleading to refer to two Greek parliamentary laws, recognition by Cyprus, and Turkey's dispute of the genocide as simply "Greek parliament resolution and reaction". It fails to accurately represent the contents of the subsection. Another problem pertains to the individuals you are quoting. Elefantis remarks indicate that his perception that the 1998 Greek law was claiming the Smyrna massacres were genocide -- the errors of Fisk's article have already been documented here. The word Smyrna is no where to be found in the law and the actual decree pertains to the period of 1914 to 1923 in "Asia Minor". To mention the likes of Elefantis is severely degrades the quality of the article. If you are going to make POV edits, which will be promptly reverted to uphold the integrity of wikipedia, then please try to keep edits factual and accurate without distortion. Thank you. Bebek101 (talk) 00:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

A.Garnet's edits and Weasel Words

"Since there are few contemporary scholarly works on the Greeks of the Ottoman Empire during this period, there is no consistent term used to describe their fate." This sentence was inserted by A.Garnet. First, the statement on there being no consistent term is not sourced. Second, relatively few works do not imply an absence of inconsistency of a particular term. Bebek101 (talk) 18:28, 7 February 2009 (UTC)#

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

No, what was sourced was the statement regarding there being few contemporary scholarly works. What was NOT sourced was "there is no consistent term used to describe their fate"; and one certainly doesn't imply the other. Bebek101 (talk) 23:58, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Going back on a deal

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

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

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

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

• The absence of a large body of scholarly work which shows genocide to be the majority held view

It is true that English language works on this issue are not particularly numerous in number, but of those published and focusing centrally on these events the majority employ the term genocide.Bebek101 (talk) 18:11, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

• The absence of even one published text which synthesises these events as a genocide in the way the article does.

Here are three for you: [3],[4],[5]; For more, see here: [6]. Bebek101 (talk) 17:54, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

• The fact this article is pov forking other articles such as the Great Fire of Smyrna, Population exchange between Greece and Turkey, Greco-Turkish War (1919-1922)
• The fact the IAGS resolution was disputed by those scholars whose research specifically deals with the Ottoman Empire i.e. Balakian, Akcam, Feinstein, Melson. The fact sourced statements can be found by eminent scholars such as Mazower, who probably carries more academic weight that any of the others, who states explicitly genocide as a term cannot be used.

Yet, some of those you repeatedly cite as "disputing" the resolution, used and continue to use the word genocide in their own writings and talks for the Greeks.Bebek101 (talk) 17:54, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

You cant brush all this aside by saying there is no dispute, revert edits that try to highlight these aspects or engage in personal attacks/intimidation of other editors. --A.Garnet (talk) 16:41, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

The way forward

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

I vote against it.

I think it is far more reasonable to employ terminology consistent with the IAGS, an organization of the world’s foremost experts on genocide, and the vast majority of its members, genocide scholars, historians and academics. I also think it is important to employ terminology consistent with contemporary English scholarly publications as they appear in academic journals. This would imply the appropriateness of the term "Greek Genocide". At least, in this case, we are employing a largely established term, unlike the proposed "Ottoman Greek casualties". However, the term could be used descriptively which would mean a lower case "g" genocide and no attempt to define any particular term in the introduction.

There are far more 'scholars' who have argued that the term 'genocide' is an unfitting description for the fate of Ottoman Armenians, yet that page still stands. Thus, using the logic above, the Armenian Genocide page "will never be neutral" either. The same for the Holocaust page too.

A page titled "Ottoman Greek casualties" should provide a quantitative perspective to the events, not a complete narrative of the persecutions and atrocities.

A subsection "controversy", as suggested above, implies that recognition is controversial. It is only controversial in Turkey.

I suggest the article title stays as it is. Bebek101 (talk) 19:32, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

By the way, there is also an Armenian Genocide article. My question is on the usage of the term 'Ottoman'. Either Turkey is the inheritor of the Ottoman Empire, or, as I have argued in wikipedia [[7]], it is the last state to emerge out of the empire. The article Ottoman Empire states in its first paragraph that “was succeeded by the Republic of Turkey”. The article Turkey also makes that succession clear. Also, while it existed, the empire was often referred to as 'Turkey'. So it seems curious that we filing articles such as Ottoman Armenian casualties and wishing to classify certain historical events as Ottoman and not as Turkish. Politis (talk) 19:38, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Politis, I fail to see your point. During the period in question, i.e. the genocide spanning the period 1914 to 1923, the Greeks of the Ottoman Empire were Ottoman subjects. The Republic of Turkey has little to do with this discussion. Bebek101 (talk) 19:42, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The terminology employed by the IAGS -- to repeat, an organization of the world’s foremost experts on genocide -- does carry weight. No one is saying their resolution should act as the final say on the article title but given that "Greek Genocide" is also a term employed in contemporary western scholarship, especially in peer-reviewed academic journals, it does make for a fitting candidate. I think it is important that the article employs established and recognized terminology even if it is just in a descriptive way.

To counter your other points, note that far less has been written and published on the Herero and Namaqua Genocide than on the Greek Genocide, but that page title boldly features the term "Genocide" (with a capital G, unlike this page) and also in a definitive way (unlike this page, which has a descriptive title). It is true there are more statements affirming the Armenian Genocide, but there are also far more statements and works disputing it than in the case of the Ottoman Greeks. It's important to understand a coin has two sides.

So far as your question, "Can we source a statement that most scholars do recognise this as genocide?" The IAGS resolution which was passed overwhelmingly by the majority of its scholars, hundreds of leading historians, academics and genocide specialists, is testimony to this fact. Even some of the scholars who raised concerns about the resolution, still use the word "genocide" for the Greeks today. Bebek101 (talk) 00:59, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

Just once...

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

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

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

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

From the history of the page:

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

I think there is some misunderstanding going on here:

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

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

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

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

PBS, in that case I propose that the "Genocide recognition" section is left as it stands and not renamed, because that title accurately reflects the contents of that subsection, i.e. particular instances of the events being recognized as genocide, BUT a new section or subsection titled "Genocide dispute" is inserted. In such a section we can draw attention to entities or, if necessary, certain individuals that have questioned or reject the application of the term "genocide" to the fate of Ottoman Greeks. Thank you also for the clarifications you offer. Bebek101 (talk) 14:29, 13 February 2009 (UTC)